This, of course, assumes that there is the possibility of genuine consent (whatever that is).

If it is assumed that alcohol (even a small amount) can prevent genuine consent, then the principle would seem to be that any factor that sways a person’s judgment would remove such consent. Of course, as Aeneas points out, judgment seems to be constantly impacted by all sorts of factors that would thus seem to prevent genuine consent.

If we were to take Dido’s standard, then it would seem that only rational beings who are unswayed by any factors that could impede their objectivity should have sex. In practical terms, this would mean nobody should have sex.

Since I drink a few glasses of wine every day, if I could not consent to sex after drinking, I would have no sex life. My woman companion generally drinks a beer with her nightly meal, so given the criterion of “if alcohol, no sex”, she would have to be chaste too. Actually, most of my sexual encounters have begun after drinking with someone, except for those (when I was younger) that began after smoking marijuana. However, since most social situations after age 16, in my experience, involve the use of alcohol or other recreational drugs, the criterion of “no alcohol, no sex” would certainly
keep the bedrooms of the world empty.

And maybe Amos can relate to this, but often I enjoy drinking before sex to increase my pleasure (although probably not hers). I agree with your opening statement that it’s all rather absurd.

Thanks.

Hmmmm. I’m not convinced that this issue is so easily dealt with.

For example, what about a situation where you strongly suspect that your sexual partner is only consenting because s/he has consumed alcohol? (In other words, you have good reason to suppose that in the morning s/he will regret the encounter.)

I think I’d argue in that situation the consent is… well I’m not sure: I guess it’s compromised by the alcohol.

It would depend on how much alcohol she had drank. However, I’m 63, and I’ve gotten more scrupulous about such things as my hormone levels have declined. When I was 22, “yes” was “yes”, no matter how much she had drank.

We assume in most of these cases that it is the woman who is the consenting party and whose consent is compromised by drink. I recall drinking with a colleague who was being looked at intently by a young lady nearby. The lady was not attractive to me (which was fortunate, so I was not jealous in any way). However the lady in question was not attractive to my drinking companion either. I thought that to be the end of the matter, however he began to make it clear, that he “wouldn’t mind”,(having sex with her). However this sexual encounter relied on his “aesthetic” (?) response being dulled to the extent that he would not know, not what he was doing, but that it was a distinct person he was “relating” to, and one he did not find physically attractive. He called her a “ten pint beauty”. He would only agree to having sex with her if he was in a situation where he would be (if it was the woman), unable to consent, but aware sufficiently to know what he was doing. I was somewhat disgusted by his attitude and fortunately the woman left before ten pints were imbibed.
We could not say that , if sexual intercourse had taken place, that non consensual sex had occurred. It would seem to be that they both wanted sex, but under different conditions. Or did they? Would the lady in question still have wanted the sexual encounter had she know that he was very drunk and his “aesthetic” judgement was impaired, but not his sexual appetite. Can she only consent if she has full access to the facts = he is drunk, and he doesnt like her? Can he only consent if he is not drun and he aesthetic sensibilities are not impaired?

Jonathan

That’s a very interesting variation on the problem.

I think we can say that the woman’s consent would not have been ‘informed’ had she not known that your colleague would not have gone ahead with the sexual encounter if he hadn’t been drunk.

(I realise sex didn’t actually occur, but it’s easier to write as if it had!)

I suspect that the key moral issue in the situation you describe will not be about consent, but rather whether it is right to treat a person purely instrumentally (so the thought here is that your colleague really just wanted a warm body that he could use for his own gratification).

Also, I should say that your colleague sounds like a right charmer!

Amos

When I was 22, “yes” was “yes”, no matter how much she had drank.

So were you behaving badly when you were 22?

I think you were (sorry!).

Two points: why is it wrong to use another person in an instrumental fashion if the other consents to it, explicitly or implicit? It’s hard to imagine that someone who consents to having sex with a stranger in a bar or at a party believes that the stranger is interested in his or her intellectual or spiritual development.

The sex drive is so strong in young people that I believe that rules about consent, etc., should be laxer for young people. Sex without consent is completely wrong at any age, but sex with drunken consent is less wrong at age 22 than at age 63. And even less wrong at age 15.

why is it wrong to use another person in an instrumental fashion if the other consents to it, explicitly or implicit?

I think that’s a complicated issue. Consider the following scenario.

Woman A is desperately in love with Man B.

Man B doesn’t love Woman A. He tells her he doesn’t love her; he tells her he just wants to use her for sex; he tells her that he’ll probably hang out with her for a week, then he’ll lose interest; he tells her that she’ll be very hurt by this; but he says that he’s happy to shag her so long as she consents, and her consent is informed.

She loves him, so she consents.

I don’t think he behaves morally if he goes ahead: partly because he konws in advance he’s going to hurt her; and partly because he’s treating her instrumentally when he knows that if she could choose she’d rather be treated non-instrumentally.

believes that the stranger is interested in his or her intellectual or spiritual development.

I think that’s setting the bar too high for non-instrumentality. If two people both *want* a purely sexual encounter, and know that’s what they’re getting, then although there is a sense in which they are both treating each other instrumentally, it’s also the case that neither is behaving in a way that abrogates the other’s desires, wishes, subjectivity, etc.

The sex drive is so strong in young people that I believe that rules about consent, etc., should be laxer for young people

So is a rapist with a really very powerful sex-drive less wrong in his behaviour than a rapist with only a moderate sex-drive?

I’ve been in the position of being totally in love with a woman who had very little interest in me, and she made that clear. I was so much in love that I was thankful for the rare occasions in which she deigned to have sex with me. Was she wrong to give me a fraction of what I wanted from her and which I was happy to receive?

I did state that sex without consent, that is, rape, is completely wrong. However, yes, it seems to me that a rapist who cannot control or has difficulty controling his sex urge is less wrong than one who can. I judge him less harshly.

If the instrumental desire is mutual then there is no sexual consent problem. I dont think that two people meeting in a bar should expect a mutual interest in spiritual development through sex. perhaps mutual respect might be expected, which i would say is part of the consensual issue. However when the other is an instrument that could be almost anyone (or no one)- then why not a blow up doll filled with warm water, - the person as an individual is irrelevant You wouldnt regard the dead lifeless doll as anything other than it is. There is no shared pleasure.

Was she wrong to give me a fraction of what I wanted from her and which I was happy to receive?

Possibly, yes. I think it would partly depend upon her intent, etc.

I judge him less harshly.

Fair enough. If you read my Testosterone Twins blog post (from a while ago now), you’ll discern that I probably agree with you.

The complication, though, is that it’s possible that the concept of a moral wrong is linked to the idea of culpability, in which case there’s a whole thing about what it means to say that something is completely morally wrong, if at the same time one holds that the person who does the moral wrong isn’t culpable (or is less culpable than someone else might have been).

You’re right that I contradicted myself. However, I recalled that in the only case of rape which I know well, because the victim told me about it, the rapist had trouble maintaining an erection, but forced the victim to have sex with him, as his friend watched, out of machismo or of a desire to humiliate the woman or of a need to prove his masculinity to his friend. That seems more evil to me than an uncontrollable sexual urge, if that exists. That incident was very very traumatic for the victim.

Right. I think the general view is that rape is often much more about power, humiliation, etc., than it is about sex.

Anyway, we both agree that non-consensual sex is wrong. The issue of culpability is just complicated. It’s always complicated.

Yikes, this is a minefield. Would it be shocking to say that in most cases, both myself and my ‘partner’ have usually been under the influence of something when having sex. Often I have drifted in and out of consciousness and forgotten, for a brief few seconds, who I am actually sharing my bed with.
I was wondering..if you can’t give consent when paralytic, can you propose? Isn’t it the other side of the same coin? I’m curious.

Rebecca

In the UK, if you’re paralytic, then legally you can’t consent (if I understand the law correctly). Though obviously this becomes hugely complicated by the fact that if you’re in an on-going relationship, then there could be assumed consent, etc.

We discussed this on here before (including the issue of whether or not a person can be expected to recognise absence of “proper” consent if they too are drunk):

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=875

I think if I was paralytic and I was raped I would be barely conscious of it, unless of course I sustained injuries, became pregnant or contracted a disease. Usually these things could be quickly resolved. The alcohol would act as an anaesthetic and I would hopefully be untraumatised. I think that ‘rape’ needs to be redefined as sexual assault as it can take so many different forms. Male to female vaginal penetration is often the most insignificant of affairs compared to say enforced oral or anal sex. Having a broken bottle or a fist in your face would be far far worse I should think than any of these.
I am amazed people still treat rape as the most heinous of crimes when in fact, it is the lesser of most assaults. Perhaps we should put it in perspective for once.

Rebecca: Rape, in the case that I know well, leaves a trauma that having a fist in your face or a knee in your groin do not. Rape seems to involve a violation of intimate psychological space, of the self, that ordinary physical violence does not.

Or: If we’re not concerned about our feelings going into the future, then we’re treating OURSELVES purely as tools for the gratification of our sexual desires.

Am I a different person when I’m drunk? If I’m a new person every time I get drunk, then it would be an immoral act against myself to get drunk and party and have sex all night long, and let “Dr.Jekyll” deal with the hangover, being late for work and feelings of guilt waking up next to an ogre and having to gnaw his arm off not to disturb her sleep as he makes his escape. I have never experienced such a Dr.Jekyll/Mr.Hyde relationship with myself. But If you use alcohol to render yourself less discriminating about sexual partners, only to end up being miserable about it the next day, you are guilty of an act of stupidity.

Hitblade

Hmmmm. There’s an interesting idea in there, but the difficulty with it is that your sober self is responsible for the initial decision to start drinking.

If the drunk version of yourself commits some horrible crime then I think there is a sense in which it is possible to say that a different person from your sober self is responsible for the crime. The trouble is though that your sober self is at least partly responsible for getting itself drunk in the first place. (Plus, of course, it’s also the case that your drunk self isn’t by any means entirely divorced in character from your sober self).

Yes, I see what you mean. Of course Dr.Jekyll is ultimately responsible for unleashing Hyde. If someone wants to do a horrible crime, then start drinking and end up committing the crime, then there is no escaping the guilt. But if they want to not commit a crime and get drunk and commit the crime anyway, they are responsible for unleashing a criminal version of themselves. I’m talking guilt as in feelings of guilt, not in a legal way. Of course, they are the same person and would be treated as such in a court of law, but that is a different topic. But like I said, in the second case, they are more stupid than evil. But then we can add another complication, addiction. What if they CAN’T be without alcohol, even though they know they will do bad things. Still responsible for their problems, if they understand that they are responsible for the whole mess, and they don’t want to drink, because they do bad things, but can’t stop, I’d say they are no longer stupid or evil. More miserable than anything.

and they don’t want to drink, because they do bad things, but can’t stop, I’d say they are no longer stupid or evil. More miserable than anything.

I think to make this thought experiment work properly their dependence on alchohol would have to have been induced by a third party.

So, for example, if a person was born with a heroin addiction as a result of their mother’s dependence, and this continued into their adulthood, and if as a result that person committed a series of crimes (in order to fuel their addiction), I think we’d certainly view them as being less culpable than if they had committed those crimes without the addiction.

But in my example, a person started to drink as an act of stupidity (if drinking leads to more problems than it solves), which leads to acts of evil when drunk. Their sober self is not directly responsible for the evil acts, because they are against those evils. Sort of struggling against themselves in a Dr.Jekyll/Mr.Hyde kinda way. They are however responsible for this Mr.Hyde problem, but not in an evil way, rather a stupid way. In your example, they would be guilt free, in mine they would only be less guilty.

You have one of the most obnoxious writing styles I have ever come across. On top of that, you haven’t raised any question beyond what comes up in your average high school discussion on consent. And can you really have Dido and Aeneas quote Kant? That was all for your stupid trojan joke. I feel nothing but scorn for this sort of “philosophy”.

LOL!

So what you’re saying John is that you’ll be rushing out to buy my book as soon as it is published!?

John: Could you explain how a writing style can be obnoxious? A writing style can be eloquent, confused, clear, not clear, precise, etc., but to say that a writing style is obnoxious seems like a category error. People are obnoxious. Jeremy may be obnoxious: I don’t know him personally, so I can’t say.

People certainly find me obnoxious, Amos, so perhaps my writing style - notwithstanding the category error thing - reflects my personality!

If you are obnoxious in your essence, I want to thank you for adopting the thoughtful and patient
online persona which generally is present in this blog.

Why thanks, Amos. And I’d like to say that your online self seems likes a jolly good fellow. :)

Amos: What? It is very common to use obnoxious with reference to things/non-people. Both “obnoxious ad” and “obnoxious tax” are common; “obnoxious smell” is less common but still used. These are not category errors and neither is “obnoxious writing style”. Please explain.

Still, John. Why Dido and Aeneas? Why do they show something about your question that other characters, who you could write better, wouldn’t? I dont get it. Also, I have since read some of your other writings and they are good. It is just this article/snippet.

John

Why Dido and Aeneas? Why do they show something about your question that other characters, who you could write better, wouldn’t? I dont get it.

It’s irony! The style is supposed to be a mix of (badly written) faux-Shakespeare, suburban shorthand (”yeah, right”, etc) and fairly straight philosophy.

Dido and Aeneas - it kinda makes sense in the context of the whole book, though to understand it properly you’d have had to have read Einstein’s Riddle, as well. (I don’t suppose you’ll be thrilled to hear that in ER, I illustrated the Sorites paradox using Samson and Delilah…)

I could say a lot more about all this, but I fear I might stray into the territory of being even more obnoxious than usual, so I’m keeping my mouth shut! :)

John: It’s very common to make category errors. Almost everyone, including myself, does it. A prose style can’t be obnoxious, but prose writers certainly can be so.

It is still an interesting question, John. Because people in high school will soon (if they aren’t already) be able to relate to the situation and understanding this problem is important. That is why it’s an important question, even after high school.

Dido and Aeneas study philosophy and can probably quote Kant.

John feels scorn for high school philosophy, and moral philosophy?

“People certainly find me obnoxious, Amos, so perhaps my writing style - notwithstanding the category error thing - reflects my personality!” Plato was right :D Once you see the light, people still in the dark will not “get” you.

So what is your book about, besides scorn-worthy drunk-philosophy? And when/where can I find it?

Yeah, I don’t really understand why John feels that this sort of issue of consent is only worthy of a high school discussion. It seems to me that there is potentially a lot of complexity here. Maybe he will explain…

The book is called “Would You Eat Your Cat?” - it’s 25 ethical dilemmas, written in this sort of lighthearted, ironic style (sorry John!), and it also includes a discussion of each dilemma (which I haven’t included here).

It’s not out yet.

It’s a follow-up to a book called “Eintein’s Riddle” (Bloomsbury).

sounds interesting, useful for dinners with my mother, it always turns into philosophical debates :D

Hitblade, a cave reference like that is very pompous. I do not think that your mother would be happy if she knew you were saying those sorts of things. I never said high school philosophy was a bad thing. It is an excellent thing and does not happen often enough. The only problem with Dido and Aeneas quoting Kant is that they lived ca 1100BC. And I still don’t understand why they were chosen, of all the lovers.. but I trust Jeremy that it makes sense in the book.

Amos, you explain nothing. I trust the writers for the NYT to know their usage. John Dewey also makes that category error - applying obnoxious to things. Please explain.

Jeremy, there was no question of what you wrote being “only worthy of a high school discussion.” Any question can be complex, I know. But the Kant “man should not be used as a means” is sooo common. Anyone with any philosophical curiosity has heard it.
I missed the irony. Completely.

The only problem with Dido and Aeneas quoting Kant is that they lived ca 1100BC.

Bad assumption. What makes you think that this Dido and Aeneas are the 1100BC Dido and Aeneas? And anyway, the fact that they’re citing Kant should have tipped you off about the irony!

Anyone with any philosophical curiosity has heard it.

Sorry John, but that’s just plain wrong. The vast majority of people with some philosophical *training* will have heard it. But there are numerous people who are philosophically curious who will not have heard it. Indeed, there are people who are philosophically curious who will not have heard of Kant.

And some of them will read my book (which is not aimed at Rutgers students, for example).

I missed the irony. Completely.

Well you’re American (I suspect). Americans don’t get irony. (<— more irony!)

John, by all means carry on arguing about category errors, etc., but… you should quit this part of the discussion while you’re behind. It’s not going well for you, and it won’t get any better if you pursue it.

I say that with all due respect and love, of course (even though you were pretty rude in your first post)! :)

John: This is a philosophy blog; the New York Times is a newspaper. I expect more rigorous use of language from philosophers, be they amateurs (aka finger-painters) or professionals, than I do from journalists. Here are two category errors which you are likely to find in the New York Times.
1. Discussions about the meaning of life. “Meaning” is a property of words or sentences: “meaning” is not the kind of thing that life can have or not have.
2. The phrase “free markets”. Markets cannot be “free”: they can be regulated or not regulated. “Freedom” is not a property that markets can have or not have. In this case, there is a clear ideological motive behind the category error: since freedom is a good thing, if markets are free, they are good.
If one speaks of markets without regulation, that doesn’t sound as good, does it?

I’ll just add one thing now: John, I meant high school philosophy is interesting even outside of high school.

Dido is using good judgment. Alcohol impairs, distorts reality. Aeneas wants immediate gratification. If they cannot consent pre-drinking, then they should not become as one. If one is taught to use logic and reasoning skills, then one is able to avoid shame, guilt, and remorse.
When young, it should be taught to LISTEN and VALUE your small voice instead of maturing into the desensitization we have in our society today.
I think that… I am a very small fish … which… out of water or in a huge pond???

The problem is complicated by the fact that some intoxicants can make one psychologically more sexual. So one can be an initiator while losing his or her capacity to exercise sound judgment.

Everyone here made reference to situations where one of the participants was at a disadvantage. I recently had a dilemma that directly applies: I’ve known this girl for a few months, we had class together this semester. We started as friends but she broke up with her boyfriend in october and almost immediately afterwards our relationship turned into something more flirty and the potential for sex was always there it seemed. It was clear, to me at least, that consensual sex could be achieved. So we go out, and have a few drinks, and end up having sex. Being in college, I went out two nights later, got drunk again and called the same girl up, who was also drunk, and we did it again. Now my dilemma: after the second encounter she began to act different towards me. She explained that she felt insanely guilty, felt like a “whore” and sternly insisted that I keep our little affair completely private. (I found out later that she may be kinda sorta involved with her ex again) So…with almost two months of flirting, insinuating, and build up, the vast majority occuring when we were sober, did I not have consent to pursue my sexual desires, even if alcohol were involved in the actual act? Would it have been that much different if alcohol played no part, and she still regretted it?