"Blackout drunk" - that depends on how she was behaving at the time. And in fact, people who drink to excess can lose memory of evens that happened prior to the time they became intoxicated (or prior to the time that their alcohol induced deficit became severe enough to produce the blackout.)
I've been blackout drunk before. Friends were nice enough to take some photos at a party of me hitting on and trying to dance with a rather unattractive female who wasn't particularly into my advances. I had absolutely no memory of it, but based on the photos I was enjoying the shit out of every bit of it.
Being drunk can remove some inhibitions and result in you doing things you would otherwise not do. That's not exactly unknown. Hell, it's part of the reason people drink.
Being blackout drunk just means everyone else sees you as being drunk and you are no longer fully forming short term memories. Still conscious. Still making decisions, which are obviously affected by being drunk. A blackout drunk person is fully capable of initiating a sexual encounter and responding positively to a sexual encounter. An unconscious person is not. That's the difference.
Because, literally speaking, you made a decision. No figurative or philosophical arguments should be brought into play when you're talking about accusing someone of a crime.
Keep in mind that, aside from figurative "you" not recalling the decision:
Your body and mind in its current state made a decision.
The person you made a decision to do the nasty with observed and processed you making a decision. From their perspective, consent was given.
Any third party people in the area before, during, or immediately after doing the nasty would have observed you making a decision and probably got way too intimate of a view of that enthusiastic consent people talk about nowadays.
A recording of the encounter played back to a jury recall a tale of consent being given.
Going back to the whole philosophical thing: I've also had an experience in assisting a relative tho developed transient general amnesia. In non-technical terms, it means you lose all memory from the past several months and your short term memory resets like every 30 seconds. This amnesia lasts for like 12-24 hours before going away with no lasting effects. Aside from the initial fear of the person having permanent damage, it was an incredibly interesting experience. She was still absolutely herself. She just couldn't remember the recent past and every 30 seconds she'd walk through the same 5 questions with me. The next morning she woke up in the hospital with absolutely no memory of the previous day up to several hours before things started and, for the 500th and probably last time, she read the letter we left with her describing what's going on.
Taking alcohol out of the equation, a person with transient general amnesia is 100% themselves and is 100% capable of giving consent. They will also 100% not remember any of it. Failing to remember giving consent doesn't change that consent was given and consent was perceived.
Your stumbling block is that being blacked out is not like amnesia. Its like being asleep
That is incorrect. Just going straight into definitions, conscious is defined as aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake. Consciousness is very clearly defined and doesn't really have any wiggle room.
A person who is asleep is not aware of their surroundings and is not able to respond to their surroundings. Same with being in a coma. Same with general anesthesia. Those are clearly points where a person is not conscious.
A person with amnesia or a person who is blackout drunk is absolutely aware of their surroundings and is absolutely able to respond to those surroundings. As a reminder, the blackout part of being blackout drunk is not losing consciousness; it's in losing the ability to form short term memories. For all intents and purposes, it's a form of chemically induced amnesia. I'll yield that it is an altered state of consciousness, but consciousness is still there and a neutral observer would observe consent in those situations.
The only wiggle room is if someone is barely conscious or drifting in and out of consciousness. If someone recorded consent on film of someone in this state, a court would most definitely rule that they were incapable of giving consent as they were barely capable of moving or responding to external stimuli and it would be very visible.
As for the whole AI part, you're getting hung up on philosophical arguments again. I mentioned it before and I'll say it again: Philosophy/feelings and law need to be mutually exclusive in order to be impartial. When you're talking about criminal proceedings that can completely destroy a person, you can't go by feeling that a crime occurred because you don't recall consenting. In those instances, your feelings aren't what defines the law.
To answer the AI question just for fun: If you put an AI into a sex robot and that AI was designed to be able to see, hear, sense pressure, move, and speak. Yes, that AI is conscious in the basic definition of the word. My Google Home and desktop PC is conscious in terms of electronics/AI/robotics as well. It's able to receive and respond to external stimuli. Shutting off the power to the AI would make it not conscious. Should the government decide that sex robots have the same rights as people, having sex with an unpowered sexbot would be illegal as the sexbot was not conscious. If the sexbot decided to go hot tubbing and some water jiggered with its consent module, making it 8 times more likely to consent until dried out, it would not be illegal as the sexbot still chose to consent. Now, if I slip some water in the sexbot's motor oil beverage to cause the consent module to fry, or pour some water right on the consent module, things get more screwy and there's a high probability that the consent afterwards would be considered chemically coerced in some way.
[–]Dnile1000BC 23 points24 points25 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sasha_ 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aivias 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]orphancrippla 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ted8367 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hashtagme2 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]MagicTampon1 points [recovered] (21 children) | Copy Link
It's interesting how quickly some women will assume they've been raped.
Their view of the world must be pretty dismal, to simply assume someone assaulted them, when they have no way of knowing.
[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points (20 children) | Copy Link
[+]MagicTampon1 points [recovered] (19 children) | Copy Link
If she was unconscious, yes.
"Blackout drunk" - that depends on how she was behaving at the time. And in fact, people who drink to excess can lose memory of evens that happened prior to the time they became intoxicated (or prior to the time that their alcohol induced deficit became severe enough to produce the blackout.)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20049223
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21919584
[–]mwobuddy -4 points-3 points-2 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[+]krustyy1 points [recovered] (17 children) | Copy Link
I've been blackout drunk before. Friends were nice enough to take some photos at a party of me hitting on and trying to dance with a rather unattractive female who wasn't particularly into my advances. I had absolutely no memory of it, but based on the photos I was enjoying the shit out of every bit of it.
Being drunk can remove some inhibitions and result in you doing things you would otherwise not do. That's not exactly unknown. Hell, it's part of the reason people drink.
Being blackout drunk just means everyone else sees you as being drunk and you are no longer fully forming short term memories. Still conscious. Still making decisions, which are obviously affected by being drunk. A blackout drunk person is fully capable of initiating a sexual encounter and responding positively to a sexual encounter. An unconscious person is not. That's the difference.
[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[+]krustyy1 points [recovered] (15 children) | Copy Link
Because, literally speaking, you made a decision. No figurative or philosophical arguments should be brought into play when you're talking about accusing someone of a crime.
Keep in mind that, aside from figurative "you" not recalling the decision:
Going back to the whole philosophical thing: I've also had an experience in assisting a relative tho developed transient general amnesia. In non-technical terms, it means you lose all memory from the past several months and your short term memory resets like every 30 seconds. This amnesia lasts for like 12-24 hours before going away with no lasting effects. Aside from the initial fear of the person having permanent damage, it was an incredibly interesting experience. She was still absolutely herself. She just couldn't remember the recent past and every 30 seconds she'd walk through the same 5 questions with me. The next morning she woke up in the hospital with absolutely no memory of the previous day up to several hours before things started and, for the 500th and probably last time, she read the letter we left with her describing what's going on.
Taking alcohol out of the equation, a person with transient general amnesia is 100% themselves and is 100% capable of giving consent. They will also 100% not remember any of it. Failing to remember giving consent doesn't change that consent was given and consent was perceived.
[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[+]krustyy1 points [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link
That is incorrect. Just going straight into definitions, conscious is defined as aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake. Consciousness is very clearly defined and doesn't really have any wiggle room.
A person who is asleep is not aware of their surroundings and is not able to respond to their surroundings. Same with being in a coma. Same with general anesthesia. Those are clearly points where a person is not conscious.
A person with amnesia or a person who is blackout drunk is absolutely aware of their surroundings and is absolutely able to respond to those surroundings. As a reminder, the blackout part of being blackout drunk is not losing consciousness; it's in losing the ability to form short term memories. For all intents and purposes, it's a form of chemically induced amnesia. I'll yield that it is an altered state of consciousness, but consciousness is still there and a neutral observer would observe consent in those situations.
The only wiggle room is if someone is barely conscious or drifting in and out of consciousness. If someone recorded consent on film of someone in this state, a court would most definitely rule that they were incapable of giving consent as they were barely capable of moving or responding to external stimuli and it would be very visible.
As for the whole AI part, you're getting hung up on philosophical arguments again. I mentioned it before and I'll say it again: Philosophy/feelings and law need to be mutually exclusive in order to be impartial. When you're talking about criminal proceedings that can completely destroy a person, you can't go by feeling that a crime occurred because you don't recall consenting. In those instances, your feelings aren't what defines the law.
To answer the AI question just for fun: If you put an AI into a sex robot and that AI was designed to be able to see, hear, sense pressure, move, and speak. Yes, that AI is conscious in the basic definition of the word. My Google Home and desktop PC is conscious in terms of electronics/AI/robotics as well. It's able to receive and respond to external stimuli. Shutting off the power to the AI would make it not conscious. Should the government decide that sex robots have the same rights as people, having sex with an unpowered sexbot would be illegal as the sexbot was not conscious. If the sexbot decided to go hot tubbing and some water jiggered with its consent module, making it 8 times more likely to consent until dried out, it would not be illegal as the sexbot still chose to consent. Now, if I slip some water in the sexbot's motor oil beverage to cause the consent module to fry, or pour some water right on the consent module, things get more screwy and there's a high probability that the consent afterwards would be considered chemically coerced in some way.
[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]orphancrippla 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Mr_MRAnarchist 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link