Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Intoxicated sexual intercourse moral?

AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:17:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is it morally acceptable to have sexual intercourse with someone who is intoxicated? Should it be allowed under law? And to what extent?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:21:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Interesting question.

The argument that pulls me to the position that it is moral would be the fact that the decision to become intoxicated was made consciously. Therefor, the person is responsible for taking actions they wouldn't normally take in an altered state.

The argument that pulls me to the position that it is immoral is simply the fact that the person couldn't necessarily predict the consequences of their altered state.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:24:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I lean towards the position that it is moral, though. If a person consciously takes meth and commits a crime, they are still guilty. One should evaluate and take responsibility for any action they take.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:30:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd say it's immoral and should be illegal if the person is so intoxicated that they are incapacitated, but not less so.

BTW this is in the situation of two otherwise consenting adults.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:33:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:24:57 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
I lean towards the position that it is moral, though. If a person consciously takes meth and commits a crime, they are still guilty. One should evaluate and take responsibility for any action they take.

I don't mean that it's a moral action, of course. I mean that it's not immoral.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:35:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:17:20 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Is it morally acceptable to have sexual intercourse with someone who is intoxicated? Should it be allowed under law? And to what extent?

If the person is too intoxicated to use good judgement, if they would not have intercourse were they not intoxicated, then yeah, I think you are taking advantage and it is immoral.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 1:35:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:21:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
You're slowly winning my heart.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 2:42:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Taking advantage of a drunk person is rape. Having drunken sex with no element of coercion is not, even if they regret it the morning after. Outlawing the latter is absurd, as it would basically criminalise one-night-stands.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 2:46:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 2:42:28 PM, APB wrote:
Taking advantage of a drunk person is rape. Having drunken sex with no element of coercion is not, even if they regret it the morning after. Outlawing the latter is absurd, as it would basically criminalise one-night-stands.

The extent of the intoxication's effect on the person's mental capabilities needs to be known before it can be called or not called 'rape.'
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 2:50:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 2:46:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:42:28 PM, APB wrote:
Taking advantage of a drunk person is rape. Having drunken sex with no element of coercion is not, even if they regret it the morning after. Outlawing the latter is absurd, as it would basically criminalise one-night-stands.

The extent of the intoxication's effect on the person's mental capabilities needs to be known before it can be called or not called 'rape.'

It's not a black and white issue without the scenario being comprehensively outlined, is what I'm trying to say. If a person has totally passed out, then it would be rape for someone to take advantage of them and the offender should be punished.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 2:56:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:17:20 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Is it morally acceptable to have sexual intercourse with someone who is intoxicated? Should it be allowed under law? And to what extent?

To the extent that they consent, yes. Should it be allowed under the law? Yes. To what extent? To the extent that they consent. Consent, though, is a tricky cookie to crumble and varies according to sociocultural expectations/norms of both gender and context.

So, the only 'right' thing to do is NOT to make it a law that "the drunk cannot consent," and if issues or questions arise, address them on a case by case basis. There is no principle that governs consent other than an understanding of the meaning of the concept.
Tsar of DDO
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 3:23:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 2:50:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:46:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:42:28 PM, APB wrote:
Taking advantage of a drunk person is rape. Having drunken sex with no element of coercion is not, even if they regret it the morning after. Outlawing the latter is absurd, as it would basically criminalise one-night-stands.

The extent of the intoxication's effect on the person's mental capabilities needs to be known before it can be called or not called 'rape.'

It's not a black and white issue without the scenario being comprehensively outlined, is what I'm trying to say. If a person has totally passed out, then it would be rape for someone to take advantage of them and the offender should be punished.

Exactly. It would also be rape if they were basically incoherently drunk. If they're tipsy, not so much, though it would be extremely immoral to get them drunk to have sex with them.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 3:30:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If sex with drunk chicks became illegal, we'd have to bail out the night-club industry.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 3:49:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 3:30:32 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
If sex with drunk chicks became illegal, we'd have to bail out the night-club industry.

Isn't that the law in California?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
toolpot462
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 7:37:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 3:23:35 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:50:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:46:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:42:28 PM, APB wrote:
Taking advantage of a drunk person is rape. Having drunken sex with no element of coercion is not, even if they regret it the morning after. Outlawing the latter is absurd, as it would basically criminalise one-night-stands.

The extent of the intoxication's effect on the person's mental capabilities needs to be known before it can be called or not called 'rape.'

It's not a black and white issue without the scenario being comprehensively outlined, is what I'm trying to say. If a person has totally passed out, then it would be rape for someone to take advantage of them and the offender should be punished.

Exactly. It would also be rape if they were basically incoherently drunk. If they're tipsy, not so much, though it would be extremely immoral to get them drunk to have sex with them.

This rests on whether or not the drunk person got themselves drunk or were somehow forced to be drunk or otherwise drugged. Buying someone drink after drink is not forcing anyone to get drunk, and, though it is immoral to take advantage of someone like that, it should by no means be illegal.

If they're passed out, however, it doesn't really matter if they did it themselves. Having sex with a non-consenting person is rape, and someone who's passed out is non-consenting.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices, son.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:26:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 7:37:25 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 3:23:35 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:50:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:46:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:42:28 PM, APB wrote:
Taking advantage of a drunk person is rape. Having drunken sex with no element of coercion is not, even if they regret it the morning after. Outlawing the latter is absurd, as it would basically criminalise one-night-stands.

The extent of the intoxication's effect on the person's mental capabilities needs to be known before it can be called or not called 'rape.'

It's not a black and white issue without the scenario being comprehensively outlined, is what I'm trying to say. If a person has totally passed out, then it would be rape for someone to take advantage of them and the offender should be punished.

Exactly. It would also be rape if they were basically incoherently drunk. If they're tipsy, not so much, though it would be extremely immoral to get them drunk to have sex with them.

This rests on whether or not the drunk person got themselves drunk or were somehow forced to be drunk or otherwise drugged. Buying someone drink after drink is not forcing anyone to get drunk, and, though it is immoral to take advantage of someone like that, it should by no means be illegal.

If they're passed out, however, it doesn't really matter if they did it themselves. Having sex with a non-consenting person is rape, and someone who's passed out is non-consenting.

"Take advantage" is the part that defines it as rape. If the two of you get wasted and wake up together the next morning, it was just an unfortunate (or not) series of events. If one party exploits the other, the other party can claim rape.
toolpot462
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:42:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:26:02 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/4/2013 7:37:25 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 3:23:35 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:50:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:46:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:42:28 PM, APB wrote:
Taking advantage of a drunk person is rape. Having drunken sex with no element of coercion is not, even if they regret it the morning after. Outlawing the latter is absurd, as it would basically criminalise one-night-stands.

The extent of the intoxication's effect on the person's mental capabilities needs to be known before it can be called or not called 'rape.'

It's not a black and white issue without the scenario being comprehensively outlined, is what I'm trying to say. If a person has totally passed out, then it would be rape for someone to take advantage of them and the offender should be punished.

Exactly. It would also be rape if they were basically incoherently drunk. If they're tipsy, not so much, though it would be extremely immoral to get them drunk to have sex with them.

This rests on whether or not the drunk person got themselves drunk or were somehow forced to be drunk or otherwise drugged. Buying someone drink after drink is not forcing anyone to get drunk, and, though it is immoral to take advantage of someone like that, it should by no means be illegal.

If they're passed out, however, it doesn't really matter if they did it themselves. Having sex with a non-consenting person is rape, and someone who's passed out is non-consenting.

"Take advantage" is the part that defines it as rape. If the two of you get wasted and wake up together the next morning, it was just an unfortunate (or not) series of events. If one party exploits the other, the other party can claim rape.

But then the actions of one person (taking a bunch of drinks that someone buys them) could lead to someone else (the person taking advantage of the drinking) being charged for rape. This isn't fair of itself, and that's not to mention the fact that someone could just lie about it.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices, son.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:12:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is completely immoral, because as a Catholic, I am taught that genitals are the root of all evil.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:20:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:30:43 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I'd say it's immoral and should be illegal if the person is so intoxicated that they are incapacitated, but not less so.

BTW this is in the situation of two otherwise consenting adults.

You can't still content to things when you're drunk. You're not completely gone usually. Unless you're about passed out.

I feel like myself when I'm drunk, I'm just a little weak on the judgement side. That doesn't mean I'm not myself and my decisions when I'm drunk should be protected under law. We're not children.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:23:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:42:58 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:26:02 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/4/2013 7:37:25 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 3:23:35 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:50:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:46:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:42:28 PM, APB wrote:
Taking advantage of a drunk person is rape. Having drunken sex with no element of coercion is not, even if they regret it the morning after. Outlawing the latter is absurd, as it would basically criminalise one-night-stands.

The extent of the intoxication's effect on the person's mental capabilities needs to be known before it can be called or not called 'rape.'

It's not a black and white issue without the scenario being comprehensively outlined, is what I'm trying to say. If a person has totally passed out, then it would be rape for someone to take advantage of them and the offender should be punished.

Exactly. It would also be rape if they were basically incoherently drunk. If they're tipsy, not so much, though it would be extremely immoral to get them drunk to have sex with them.

This rests on whether or not the drunk person got themselves drunk or were somehow forced to be drunk or otherwise drugged. Buying someone drink after drink is not forcing anyone to get drunk, and, though it is immoral to take advantage of someone like that, it should by no means be illegal.

If they're passed out, however, it doesn't really matter if they did it themselves. Having sex with a non-consenting person is rape, and someone who's passed out is non-consenting.

"Take advantage" is the part that defines it as rape. If the two of you get wasted and wake up together the next morning, it was just an unfortunate (or not) series of events. If one party exploits the other, the other party can claim rape.

But then the actions of one person (taking a bunch of drinks that someone buys them) could lead to someone else (the person taking advantage of the drinking) being charged for rape. This isn't fair of itself, and that's not to mention the fact that someone could just lie about it.

That is correct, if somebody takes advantage of somebody else's intoxicated state in order to have sexual relations with them, that person can be charged with rape. I fail to understand why you have a problem with this.

As I said earlier, taking advantage is not the same as two drunk people deciding to bone and then regretting it later. One person must have deliberately exploited the other's drunkenness.

Lying about rape is a separate issue, and is not relevant to the discussion.
toolpot462
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 4:12:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:23:06 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:42:58 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:26:02 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/4/2013 7:37:25 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 3:23:35 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:50:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:46:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:42:28 PM, APB wrote:
Taking advantage of a drunk person is rape. Having drunken sex with no element of coercion is not, even if they regret it the morning after. Outlawing the latter is absurd, as it would basically criminalise one-night-stands.

The extent of the intoxication's effect on the person's mental capabilities needs to be known before it can be called or not called 'rape.'

It's not a black and white issue without the scenario being comprehensively outlined, is what I'm trying to say. If a person has totally passed out, then it would be rape for someone to take advantage of them and the offender should be punished.

Exactly. It would also be rape if they were basically incoherently drunk. If they're tipsy, not so much, though it would be extremely immoral to get them drunk to have sex with them.

This rests on whether or not the drunk person got themselves drunk or were somehow forced to be drunk or otherwise drugged. Buying someone drink after drink is not forcing anyone to get drunk, and, though it is immoral to take advantage of someone like that, it should by no means be illegal.

If they're passed out, however, it doesn't really matter if they did it themselves. Having sex with a non-consenting person is rape, and someone who's passed out is non-consenting.

"Take advantage" is the part that defines it as rape. If the two of you get wasted and wake up together the next morning, it was just an unfortunate (or not) series of events. If one party exploits the other, the other party can claim rape.

But then the actions of one person (taking a bunch of drinks that someone buys them) could lead to someone else (the person taking advantage of the drinking) being charged for rape. This isn't fair of itself, and that's not to mention the fact that someone could just lie about it.

That is correct, if somebody takes advantage of somebody else's intoxicated state in order to have sexual relations with them, that person can be charged with rape. I fail to understand why you have a problem with this.

As I said earlier, taking advantage is not the same as two drunk people deciding to bone and then regretting it later. One person must have deliberately exploited the other's drunkenness.

Lying about rape is a separate issue, and is not relevant to the discussion.

It's not as separate as you think. I meant someone could lie about being taken advantage of with alcohol. Plus, what if someone just got smashed and stumbled upon someone who was sober and seemed to want to have sex. If whoever was drunk wakes up and regrets it, can they say the other person took advantage of them?
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices, son.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 4:33:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 4:12:49 AM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:23:06 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:42:58 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:26:02 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/4/2013 7:37:25 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 3:23:35 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:50:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:46:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 2:42:28 PM, APB wrote:
Taking advantage of a drunk person is rape. Having drunken sex with no element of coercion is not, even if they regret it the morning after. Outlawing the latter is absurd, as it would basically criminalise one-night-stands.

The extent of the intoxication's effect on the person's mental capabilities needs to be known before it can be called or not called 'rape.'

It's not a black and white issue without the scenario being comprehensively outlined, is what I'm trying to say. If a person has totally passed out, then it would be rape for someone to take advantage of them and the offender should be punished.

Exactly. It would also be rape if they were basically incoherently drunk. If they're tipsy, not so much, though it would be extremely immoral to get them drunk to have sex with them.

This rests on whether or not the drunk person got themselves drunk or were somehow forced to be drunk or otherwise drugged. Buying someone drink after drink is not forcing anyone to get drunk, and, though it is immoral to take advantage of someone like that, it should by no means be illegal.

If they're passed out, however, it doesn't really matter if they did it themselves. Having sex with a non-consenting person is rape, and someone who's passed out is non-consenting.

"Take advantage" is the part that defines it as rape. If the two of you get wasted and wake up together the next morning, it was just an unfortunate (or not) series of events. If one party exploits the other, the other party can claim rape.

But then the actions of one person (taking a bunch of drinks that someone buys them) could lead to someone else (the person taking advantage of the drinking) being charged for rape. This isn't fair of itself, and that's not to mention the fact that someone could just lie about it.

That is correct, if somebody takes advantage of somebody else's intoxicated state in order to have sexual relations with them, that person can be charged with rape. I fail to understand why you have a problem with this.

As I said earlier, taking advantage is not the same as two drunk people deciding to bone and then regretting it later. One person must have deliberately exploited the other's drunkenness.

Lying about rape is a separate issue, and is not relevant to the discussion.

It's not as separate as you think. I meant someone could lie about being taken advantage of with alcohol. Plus, what if someone just got smashed and stumbled upon someone who was sober and seemed to want to have sex. If whoever was drunk wakes up and regrets it, can they say the other person took advantage of them?

Possibly. It all comes down to whose lawyer is the biggest bullsh!tter (by which I mean I don't know).
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 11:58:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is a situation where context is everything.

If by Intoxicated you mean past out drunk then the answer is simple. It's always wrong.

If by Intoxicated you mean had a couple of drinks and is "buzzed". As long as that's the only condition of the sexual encounter then the answer is always no it's not wrong.

There is a lot of gray area between those, but they cover a lot of the Intoxicated arguments.

Take this situation. If my wife, and I go out, and have a nice dinner, and happen to have alcohol, then go home, and have sex, is that a moral issue? I would certainly hope not since that does describe a lot of weddings.
LibertarianWithAVoice
Posts: 76
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 2:48:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:17:20 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Is it morally acceptable to have sexual intercourse with someone who is intoxicated? Should it be allowed under law? And to what extent?

The way I see it you should be able to have sex as long as he/she has the ability to say yes to the act (even if alcohol effects their judgment.). If people are allowed to say " I was drunk and didn't have enough judgment to have sex" then why can't they say " I was drunk and my poor judgment lead to me drinking and driving". From a legal standpoint I believe it should be allowed but morally I believe it is wrong.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 1:48:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:17:20 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Is it morally acceptable to have sexual intercourse with someone who is intoxicated? Should it be allowed under law? And to what extent?

Lots of people like it best that way. Nothing wrong with it. None of the law's business unless there's an issue of consent.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 7:05:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 1:48:36 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:17:20 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Is it morally acceptable to have sexual intercourse with someone who is intoxicated? Should it be allowed under law? And to what extent?

Lots of people like it best that way. Nothing wrong with it. None of the law's business unless there's an issue of consent.

Aren't there a few states in the U.S that have made it illegal?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 10:50:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 7:05:31 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/9/2013 1:48:36 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:17:20 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Is it morally acceptable to have sexual intercourse with someone who is intoxicated? Should it be allowed under law? And to what extent?

Lots of people like it best that way. Nothing wrong with it. None of the law's business unless there's an issue of consent.

Aren't there a few states in the U.S that have made it illegal?

A minute ago, the topic was whether it should be legal.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 10:54:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I just want to say that I'm against rape.

I've been taken the wrong way before, more than once, and not always deliberately. My point is that if, for instance, a husband and wife want to climb into bed and do the dirty with each other while they are drunk, I've got no problem with that. I don't see why anyone should have a problem with that.

I am not at all saying that it's okay for someone to take advantage of a drunk who does not desire sex.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 11:06:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 10:50:28 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 4/9/2013 7:05:31 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/9/2013 1:48:36 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:17:20 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Is it morally acceptable to have sexual intercourse with someone who is intoxicated? Should it be allowed under law? And to what extent?

Lots of people like it best that way. Nothing wrong with it. None of the law's business unless there's an issue of consent.

Aren't there a few states in the U.S that have made it illegal?

A minute ago, the topic was whether it should be legal.

Yes, yes. Whether it should. I think it should, unless they're incapacitated. I was just questioning if you meant it shouldn't be the laws business. I wondered if some states made it their business, and you lived in one of them.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!