If you apply the notion that a person under the influence of alcohol can't consent while drunk - meaning they should not be held responsible for their actions while under the influence because they were incapable of consenting - then it follows that a person cannot consent to drive while under the influence either. I can't imagine anyone seriously defending a person who killed someone while driving under the influence as being immune to prosecution because they were unable to consent to the act of driving. Yet, I've seen people on this sub calling it rape even when a man who is drunk has consensual sex with a woman who may or may not be intoxicated.
My opinion on the matter is that the act of drinking is an act of consenting to an altered state of mind where a person might consent to do things they may not normally consent to or agree to doing. My view seems to be consistent with our DUI laws throughout the United States. Does anyone else agree, or can anyone change my view?
[–]WWLadyDeadpool 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]unklestinky 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]whitey_sorkin 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BlindPelican 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MRSPArchiver 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RobinZWebster 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link