I’m in my 60’s and I grew up in the 1970’s where there was far more sexual activity and drinking than today. Even then a conversation like this was seen as troubling but it was not uncommon. A lot of men and women back then were not as open about being gay. You often encountered people who you had hooked up with that had complexities. More often than not I would just walk away. Nothing good led from staying. The 1970’s were the last great decade of sexual expression particularly for heterosexuals. It truly wasn’t hard to meet another less complicated partner in very little time
Under these conditions, you have a sexual Zeno's Paradox, I think. Poor Aeneas, poor Dido. I would suggest that she learn to want sex without alcohol, otherwise it's just never going to be a good idea, even if they're married. It also leaves out the possibility that either one, but especially Dido, are not acting in good faith.
This is awesome. I want a whole series of these on how Kant would use OnlyFans or whether Foucault would enjoy a night in an S&M club in New York City, or Nietzsche would debate Elon Musk on Twitter.
Intriguing story. I'm inclined to think drunk people should avoid sex, along with any number of other perilous activities, but I'm also not quick to say a crime happened if two intoxicated people did something that one, or both, of their sober selves normally wouldn't. The added wrinkle about Dido's, ahem, routine is edifying. I think an anecdote from a comedian puts it in context:
A guy and a girl go back to his place. They start heavy petting. He moves to initiate sexual intercourse. She gently pushes away. He stops, they don't go further, and politely end the night. Later on a day or so later, she says she was just being shy, and asks why he didn't try harder. Shocked, he tells her he's not gonna risk sexual assault on the off chance she's just playing hard to get.
If a woman puts herself in the position to have sex, but then also creates mixed signals or yellow flags as to consent, such as being drunk or subtly resisting the other party's advances, it's incumbent on that other party to stop. Dido is actually the morally suspect person here, if anything, since she's putting Aeneas in the position of having to "risk it."
In the US, there are similar statutes in most states, and the federal government has a few as well. The question of consent is interesting in ways other than you present here, although one-sided questions like this are both morally and legally fascinating in what they suggest about the nature of responsibility (e.g. What if Dido tells Aeneas that she only enjoys sex when she is completely blotto and cannot consent, and tells him she wants to get that way so that they can have sex? what if Aeneas has been going out with Dido for several years and already 'knows' that Dido feels this way; does she have to be explicit for it to be consensual or can he just go ahead since that's her kink?).
I have an alternative conundrum dealing with sex, which arises whenever I have to take my biennial sexual awareness/harassment/etc. course with HR at my University. If there can be no consent if a person is extremely intoxicated, what is the legal/moral status of the participants when both are extremely intoxicated? My HR instructors are never quite certain how to answer this question, though, as I point out to them, most of the random sexual encounters that undergraduates engage in take place in such conditions. Are both guilty of sexual assault? The HR response is usually something along the line of, 'Well, the male is responsible', but the law as it is written in my state doesn't mention biological sex or gender.
I have one more example of the inconsistent treatment of intoxication in the legal world (and perhaps the moral world). There are certain things that one can do which intoxication excuses, like sign contracts (again, a question of consent), while there are other things one can do which intoxication does not excuse or mitigate and is, in fact, an aspect of the crime itself (like driving while intoxicated or public intoxication). If a person cannot consent when extremely intoxicated, why does that lack of capacity excuse sexual activities or signing contracts, but has no effect on DUI or committing other sorts of crimes? Why is Dido not held responsible (and is even considered a victim) for having sex under the influence but is held responsible for driving an automobile under the influence (Dido doesn't consent to drive because she is incapable of consenting)?
If she says that she needs to get drunk to enjoy sex and then gets drunk and says "yes" to sex, I'd say go ahead. I would in Aeneas's case. I know I could get stoned in some quarters for saying this, but some people are overscrupulous about sexual consent these days. I grew up in the 60's when people were less scrupulous and I don't see that that harmed anyone seriously.
I’m in my 60’s and I grew up in the 1970’s where there was far more sexual activity and drinking than today. Even then a conversation like this was seen as troubling but it was not uncommon. A lot of men and women back then were not as open about being gay. You often encountered people who you had hooked up with that had complexities. More often than not I would just walk away. Nothing good led from staying. The 1970’s were the last great decade of sexual expression particularly for heterosexuals. It truly wasn’t hard to meet another less complicated partner in very little time
Even then we knew what consent meant
Under these conditions, you have a sexual Zeno's Paradox, I think. Poor Aeneas, poor Dido. I would suggest that she learn to want sex without alcohol, otherwise it's just never going to be a good idea, even if they're married. It also leaves out the possibility that either one, but especially Dido, are not acting in good faith.
This is awesome. I want a whole series of these on how Kant would use OnlyFans or whether Foucault would enjoy a night in an S&M club in New York City, or Nietzsche would debate Elon Musk on Twitter.
Intriguing story. I'm inclined to think drunk people should avoid sex, along with any number of other perilous activities, but I'm also not quick to say a crime happened if two intoxicated people did something that one, or both, of their sober selves normally wouldn't. The added wrinkle about Dido's, ahem, routine is edifying. I think an anecdote from a comedian puts it in context:
A guy and a girl go back to his place. They start heavy petting. He moves to initiate sexual intercourse. She gently pushes away. He stops, they don't go further, and politely end the night. Later on a day or so later, she says she was just being shy, and asks why he didn't try harder. Shocked, he tells her he's not gonna risk sexual assault on the off chance she's just playing hard to get.
If a woman puts herself in the position to have sex, but then also creates mixed signals or yellow flags as to consent, such as being drunk or subtly resisting the other party's advances, it's incumbent on that other party to stop. Dido is actually the morally suspect person here, if anything, since she's putting Aeneas in the position of having to "risk it."
In the US, there are similar statutes in most states, and the federal government has a few as well. The question of consent is interesting in ways other than you present here, although one-sided questions like this are both morally and legally fascinating in what they suggest about the nature of responsibility (e.g. What if Dido tells Aeneas that she only enjoys sex when she is completely blotto and cannot consent, and tells him she wants to get that way so that they can have sex? what if Aeneas has been going out with Dido for several years and already 'knows' that Dido feels this way; does she have to be explicit for it to be consensual or can he just go ahead since that's her kink?).
I have an alternative conundrum dealing with sex, which arises whenever I have to take my biennial sexual awareness/harassment/etc. course with HR at my University. If there can be no consent if a person is extremely intoxicated, what is the legal/moral status of the participants when both are extremely intoxicated? My HR instructors are never quite certain how to answer this question, though, as I point out to them, most of the random sexual encounters that undergraduates engage in take place in such conditions. Are both guilty of sexual assault? The HR response is usually something along the line of, 'Well, the male is responsible', but the law as it is written in my state doesn't mention biological sex or gender.
I have one more example of the inconsistent treatment of intoxication in the legal world (and perhaps the moral world). There are certain things that one can do which intoxication excuses, like sign contracts (again, a question of consent), while there are other things one can do which intoxication does not excuse or mitigate and is, in fact, an aspect of the crime itself (like driving while intoxicated or public intoxication). If a person cannot consent when extremely intoxicated, why does that lack of capacity excuse sexual activities or signing contracts, but has no effect on DUI or committing other sorts of crimes? Why is Dido not held responsible (and is even considered a victim) for having sex under the influence but is held responsible for driving an automobile under the influence (Dido doesn't consent to drive because she is incapable of consenting)?
If she says that she needs to get drunk to enjoy sex and then gets drunk and says "yes" to sex, I'd say go ahead. I would in Aeneas's case. I know I could get stoned in some quarters for saying this, but some people are overscrupulous about sexual consent these days. I grew up in the 60's when people were less scrupulous and I don't see that that harmed anyone seriously.