Originally Posted by
A Squared
Not saying you're mistaken, but what is "drunk"? I think we can all agree that if you're passed out unconscious, then yes, you can't reasonably be considers to have consented to anything and any sexual activity would be rape, first degree sexual assault, or whatever applicable crime. (I'm not trying to equivocate here, the laws vary from place to place. Alaska, for example, no longer has the crime of "rape". What normally is considered "rape" would be first degree sexual assault in Alaska) The thing is, it's not a binary situation in when you're either passed out drunk or stone cold sober, there's a continuum of intoxication. (yeah, I know: thank you captain obvious. ) So at what point does it legally transition from "making poor choices" to ""not legally able to give consent" ? How do you determine that? What happens when a man and a woman at similar levels of intoxication have consensual sex? Did he rape her or did she rape (commit first degree sexual assault against, whatever) him?
Not saying those aren't perfectly valid questions, what I AM saying is that those laws are out there, leaving anyone engaged in that sort of activity at the mercy of the woman involved and the local prosecuting attorney who may want the publicity for his upcoming political career.
But there are also things like the Washington State Law about sexual harassment in the workplace, that attempts to put the same sort of constraints on people in supervisory positions playing around with subordinates that have been placed upon teacher/student and other unequal relationships, which happens to be the mechanism by which the FO is suing the company.
Legally, this has become somewhat of a minefield in many states and it's time everybody realized that the "coffee, tea, or me," days are long gone. Most people have worked too long and hard to get to where they are to want to risk putting themselves in this position. Well, most prudent people anyway.