Sidechat logo
Download TikTok Instagram X
Sidechat icon
Join communities on Sidechat Download
US Politics icon
🃏
US Politics 21h

___joker__

 This an extremely delicate topic, but I think this is stated way too categorically. There is a meaningful distinction between being under the influence and being incapacitated. Be careful on taking a legitimate principle and expanding that retroactively.
US Politics icon
US Politics 21h
I’m seeing a disturbing amount of people (not necessarily in this group) who seem to believe that consent to sex while under the influence of drugs or alcohol is valid and meaningful consent. It is not.
comment

12
upvote 6 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 21h

I disagree, I think being under the influence means you cannot give consent as a hard rule

upvote 11 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 20h

Yeah it definitely depends but in this case mixing ketamine and alcohol is pretty incapacitating from what I understand and she also alleged being unconscious at one point which is obviously incapacitating no matter the cause

upvote 6 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 21h

By definition, being “under the influence” means your judgment and behavior are impaired

upvote 5 downvote
🍺
Anonymous 21h

The day I agree with joker and orangutan on a complicated nuanced subject. Hell has frozen over

upvote 0 downvote
🃏
Anonymous replying to -> #2 21h

This doesn’t mean capacity to consent is absent. Impairment is a matter of degree, not an absolute. The relevant distinction is whether someone who is impaired to the point that they can’t understand, choose, or communicate consent. This is about spectrum of impairment and whether or not it should be a categorical rule.

upvote 1 downvote
🦧
Anonymous replying to -> #2 21h

y’all will be under the influence of caffeine, nicotine, sugar, etc. and still drive a car or operate heavy machinery. being under the influence of a substance does not mean one is incapacitated by it. i think we’re being a bit reductive in our thought processes ngl

upvote 0 downvote
🦧
Anonymous replying to -> _orangutan 21h

there’s a reason BAC has to surpass a threshold before you’re issued a dui

upvote -1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #1 21h

Now, if you and the other individual COMMUNICATE consent in those situations beforehand, there’s wiggle room. But for someone I know nothing/very little about? I’m always going for the safest option for both of us

upvote 15 downvote
🃏
Anonymous replying to -> #1 21h

I think that distinction is basically my point. “I personally won’t have sex with someone I don’t know if they’re intoxicated because I’d rather be cautious” is completely reasonable. However, that’s different from saying intoxication categorically makes consent invalid. Once you acknowledge context, degree of impairment, communication, etc., it isn’t really a hard rule anymore.

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> ___joker__ 21h

I personally think (respectfully, not saying anything about you) that most of what you’re saying should be common sense added to this hard rule. It’s like saying “don’t touch a live explosive” is a hard rule, when obviously there are factors where it’s necessary Currently in society we still have problems defining consent, and as such I’d prefer we focus more so on making sure consent is gained correctly than arguing when/where the proper moment a person is too intoxicated to consent

upvote 1 downvote
🃏
Anonymous replying to -> #5 20h

I hadn’t realized this was about a specific person/case?

upvote 0 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> _orangutan 20h

As I just said, your judgment and behavior have to be impaired in order to be considered “under the influence”. It is not informed consent if your ability to make decisions and judge risk is impaired. Also, there is very little evidence that caffeine, nicotine, or sugar can meaningfully affect judgment ability.

upvote 1 downvote