3 ms·
> She seems to be saying that she is not capable of giving consent, meaning that she is the legal equivalent of a child. What in this post could lead anyone t
by justifier 9y ago
> She seems to be saying that she is not capable of giving consent, meaning that she is the legal equivalent of a child.
What in this post could lead anyone to that conclusion?
The author established sexual boundaries
> When I became romantically involved with Jacob, I clearly told him that I wasn't interested in group sex, or having sex in front of other people. I told him this more than once, and clearly stated that if we were going to be intimate, I wanted it to be with him in a private setting.
And had those boundaries violated while intoxicated
- belorn 9y agoFrom a legal perspective, the level of intoxication needed is very high before a person is considered to no longer be able to give new consent. If you are legally drunk, consent for sex is still consent. We (people, citizens, HN community) might find that abhorrent, but it is not rape in the eyes of the legal system. We could change that and make the ability to give consent go away at the first drink, or at a specific percentage (like drunk driving). The benefits and drawbacks for doing so can be aired under constructive political debate. In this case however, prior established boundaries do not establish if consent can changed once intoxicated but still within the legal range where new consent can be given. The only avenue for prosecution would be to claim that Jacob intended to make her drunk in order to trick her into sex which she don't consent to. The qualifiers for that is very hard to prove.