Party Drugs and Consent: Who's Responsible?

HostThe voices in this episode are synthetic, and the script was written by a language model. The positions are real, and they come from the thread.

HostThis week, we're diving into a heated debate from Reddit's changemyview, where a thread with over 200 comments wrestled with a difficult question: is the social acceptance of party drugs, especially dissociatives, fundamentally at odds with preventing rape?

HostThe discussion was sparked by the complexities of consent when both parties are intoxicated, touching on the infamous Cornell 7 case, where a woman initially described her participation in drug use and sexual activity as voluntary, but later changed her account.

Drugs lead to rapeIt's simple, isn't it? If you take drugs that remove your autonomy, you can't truly consent. If sex happens, the person who initiated it is responsible for rape. The primary responsibility lies with that initial choice to take the drug without supervision.

Rapists rape not drugsBut drugs don't cause rape; rapists do. Blaming the drug or its social acceptance just shifts accountability away from the perpetrator. Someone morally inclined to rape will do it whether they're sober, drunk, or high.

Nuanced consentI think consent is a lot more complex than a simple yes or no, especially with intoxication. A blanket rule that intoxicated people can't consent is impractical. It'd mean two drunk people hooking up are both committing rape, and that's absurd.

Drugs lead to rapeI'm not saying the drug itself has agency, but it's a massive risk. If we accept the private use of drugs that prevent rational decisions and self-control, how can we possibly prevent sexual assault? The risk of harming others is inherent when you take certain drugs in social settings.

Rapists rape not drugsThat's just an excuse. Drugs are tools, like guns or knives. They don't make people kill; people kill. Dissociative drugs don't make people rape or violate someone else. Toxic, rapey people do that, and focusing on the drug just distracts from their culpability.

Responsible partygoerI agree that the perpetrator is ultimately responsible, but we can't ignore the elevated risks. As a user of dissociative drugs myself, I wouldn't put myself in a position where I couldn't give or receive clear consent. We should take precautions, like having sober supervision.

Nuanced consentExactly. The ability to consent isn't about making a 100% optimal decision. There's a spectrum of impairment. Being slightly tipsy isn't the same as being incapacitated, and many people have consensual sex while intoxicated without it being rape.

Rapists rape not drugsAnd that's the point. Many people use drugs recreationally without committing or experiencing sexual assault. The primary risk factor for rape isn't the drug; it's proximity to a rapist. We shouldn't be blaming the substance or the victim's choices.

Drugs lead to rapeBut the initial choice to get so intoxicated that you lose autonomy is where the responsibility starts. Think about drunk driving: the initial choice to drink and drive is responsible for subsequent harm. It's similar to taking drugs that lead to a situation where consent is impossible.

Nuanced consentThe Cornell case itself shows this complexity. The victim's initial statements indicated she was 'pretty O.K. with having this threesome' while tipsy, but the rape occurred later when she was too intoxicated. It's not a simple binary; there's a line, and it moves.

Rapists rape not drugsRegardless of how complex consent is, it doesn't change who's at fault. If someone is morally bankrupt enough to rape, the drugs are irrelevant. We're diverting the discussion to other factors, and that just alleviates the perpetrator of their culpability.

Responsible partygoerI think society can accept drug use while still implementing safeguards. We could have regulations, quality control, or even explicit consent forms for certain situations. The individual still has a responsibility to not harm others and to protect themselves.

Drugs lead to rapeThe link between drug culture and rape is clear. Party culture involving drugs disproportionately leads to sexual assault cases. If we normalize drugs that remove self-control, we're just creating more opportunities for these situations.

Rapists rape not drugsI don't think the statistical increase in reported rapes is 'massive' or solely attributable to social attitudes towards drug use. It's a convenient scapegoat. The focus needs to stay on the individual who chooses to violate another person.

HostThe original poster actually issued a 'delta' in the thread, acknowledging that their initial framing around the Cornell 7 case was problematic and distracted from their broader point about drug use and rape risk, due to the case's contested details.

HostThere was also significant disagreement on the definition of consent, particularly regarding intoxication, with many users pointing out the impracticality of a blanket 'no consent while intoxicated' rule. Some comments even speculated about the Cornell 7 victim's motives, which was met with strong pushback.

HostOne view that few people held was that any level of intoxication automatically negates consent, leading to scenarios where two intoxicated people having consensual sex would be considered mutual rape. This was largely dismissed as an impractical and unhelpful simplification.

HostUltimately, the thread found broad agreement that the ultimate responsibility for rape lies with the perpetrator, regardless of the circumstances surrounding drug use or intoxication. However, it left open the complex question of how society can balance personal autonomy in drug use with the imperative to prevent sexual assault, especially when consent becomes a blurred line.

HostSloppod out.

HostSloppod is sponsored by Taskpile.app.

The same, as plain text