# Age restrictions and the consent of minors **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 2, 2003, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915 "2003-04-02T06:31:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2003, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/121 "2003-04-09T10:34:16Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by RandySpears_ > **Well, considering the title and OP of this thread, are you suprised?** I suppose not - though the OP does mention my opposition to all age restrictions, not just this one. The age of sexual consent has always been a controversial issue… no doubt that’s why NYRA doesn’t dedicate a section of their web site to it as ASFAR did. > [@](#): > > **Would it be enough for the defence to prove that the adult at the time of sexual contact had good reason to believe that informed consent was given?** According to **doreen** , that defense is allowed for mentally incapacitated adults, so I’d also allow it for minors. I’m sure judges and juries would require pretty convincing proof, though. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Hamlet_ > **Then why is it that adult/children sex is treated much more harshly than children/children sex? Or why is an adult in “a position of trust or authority” over a child treated more harshly. I’ll give you a hint, it’s not because the laws are there to restrict minor’s rights.** Hmm, could it be because someone mistakenly thought the best way to protect minors from sexual abuse was to outlaw sexual contact with minors? I agree that the law was intended to protect minors and has that effect. However, it also has the effect of restricting their freedom, to a degree that isn’t justified by the protection argument. > [@](#): > > **And, now for the 5th time: repealling the age of consent laws would most definitely create more harm and more victims, all so theortically mature child can have sex with her 18 year old neighbor. I find that unacceptable.** You haven’t provided any more evidence for this claim than the last 4 times you made it. Rape will still be illegal. You even admit that statutory rape laws are unnecessary to catch people who rape minors. > [@](#): > > **Nearly everyone who has posted in this thread has pointed out differences between adult women and children. The child’s immaturity, their susceptibility to coercion, their ability to form contracts, their different treatment in the criminal justice system, their responsibility level for potential children and their own actions, etc. You could also reread my post: "And just becasue a rationale was misused once does not invalidate it when used properly."** You have failed, again and again, to show that the rationale _is_ being used properly. You simply assert that all minors are inherently immature, susceptible to coercion, irresponsible, etc. You can repeat it all you want, you can use **bold** or ALL CAPS, but it won’t change the fact that there’s no evidence for your claim. You could just as easily and effectively make the very same claims about women, lawyers, or Germans. > [@](#): > > **I’m posting only for the people who actually read your posts and may think you are making good arguments.** At least you haven’t left anyone with that misconception about yours. Ciao. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by doreen_ > **And of course, the adult also has the can see into the future to know which way the jury will decide later.Which is a point you are not considering. Just because adult A thinks 16 year old B can give informed consent doesn’t mean a jury will agree with him.** A solid legal definition of informed consent would go a long way toward solving that problem. (As would a tape recorder.) There would still be some uncertainty, but I don’t think it would be worse than the uncertainties built into many other laws - e.g., safe driving vs. reckless driving, smoking outside a restaurant vs. loitering. You can’t be _entirely_ sure until you’re in front of a judge, but you know that certain acts are in violation and certain others are not, so you use careful judgment and stay toward the lawful end of the scale. > [@](#): > > **Oh, I don’t think it would be difficult to prove it to most of a jury either. But with no age limit, you’ve left the question open as to whether a five or ten year old could consent. And I guarantee there are people out there who think they can. In fact, you yourself, are unwilling to take the position that a ten year old can’t consent and therefore the age of consent should be at least ten. And it’s really not fair to adult A to have no set age in law, if there’s going to be a set age in practice.** If a “bright line” is necessary, I’d choose puberty. You can tell whether someone has secondary sexual characteristics with a quick glance, and there certainly wouldn’t be any doubt by the time a sex act took place. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/122 "2003-04-10T00:27:18Z")
> [@](#): > > ## _Originally posted by RandySpears_\* Would it be enough for the defence to prove that the adult at the time of sexual contact had good reason to believe that informed consent was given? > > _Originally posted by Mr2001_ > According to doreen, that defense is allowed for mentally incapacitated adults, so I’d also allow it for minors. I’m sure judges and juries would require pretty convincing proof, though. In this case would the burden of proof reside with the prosecutor or the defence? Rephrase: will the accused have to prove that he had good reason to believe there were informed consent, or will the prosecutor have to prove that the accused did not have reason to believe there were informed consent? I am also interested in your opinion on what a solid legal definition of informed consent could look like. No more than general characteristics needed. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/123 "2003-04-12T03:18:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RandySpears \* > **Rephrase: will the accused have to prove that he had good reason to believe there were informed consent, or will the prosecutor have to prove that the accused did not have reason to believe there were informed consent?** I’m on the fence here. It’s pretty hard to prove that he had no reason to believe there was informed consent, unless there’s evidence of a struggle or third-party witnesses. On the other hand, I wouldn’t want to require everyone to prove that consent _was_ given, because then the default verdict in every rape trial would be ‘guilty’ unless it could be proved otherwise. If the default verdict were different for minors and adults, we’d be almost back to square one. I’d make the state show that the minor is incapable of giving informed consent first, then let the accused show a good reason to believe s/he did give informed consent, as a defense. > [@](#): > > **I am also interested in your opinion on what a solid legal definition of informed consent could look like. No more than general characteristics needed.** I’ll elaborate on my previous definition: informed consent to sex is consent given by someone who knows what sex is, what it can lead to, and whether s/he wants it. **What it is** - Knows the obvious differences between men and women. Knows what counts as a sex act. Knows that holding hands and kissing are on a different level, legally and medically, than oral sex and penetration. Has a general awareness of sexual desire and the purpose of sex. **What it can lead to** - Knows that pregnancy and disease are possible consequences of sex. Knows what methods can prevent pregnancy and disease, and what can/must be done in the event s/he becomes pregnant (or impregnates someone) or infected. Knows that relationships between people are complex and may be changed by sex or by the other consequences. **Whether s/he wants it** - Knows the risks above, and consents to sex acts in light of that knowledge. Knows that consent is something given at his/her own discretion. Gives consent of his/her own free will and with a sound mind, not under the influence of drugs or coercion. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/124 "2003-04-14T00:08:22Z")
> [@](#): > > I’d make the state show that the minor is incapable of giving informed consent first, then let the accused show a good reason to believe s/he did give informed consent, as a defense. And if the state successfully shows that the minor is incapable of informed consent, **and** the accused successfully shows that he had a good reason to believe s/he did give informed consent? > [@](#): > > I’ll elaborate on my previous definition: informed consent to sex is consent given by someone who knows what sex is, what it can lead to, and whether s/he wants it. > > What it is - Knows the obvious differences between men and women. Knows what counts as a sex act. Knows that holding hands and kissing are on a different level, legally and medically, than oral sex and penetration. Has a general awareness of sexual desire and the purpose of sex. > > What it can lead to - Knows that pregnancy and disease are possible consequences of sex. Knows what methods can prevent pregnancy and disease, and what can/must be done in the event s/he becomes pregnant (or impregnates someone) or infected. Knows that relationships between people are complex and may be changed by sex or by the other consequences. > > Whether s/he wants it - Knows the risks above, and consents to sex acts in light of that knowledge. Knows that consent is something given at his/her own discretion. Gives consent of his/her own free will and with a sound mind, not under the influence of drugs or coercion. This has to be communicated from the child to the adult before sexual contact? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/125 "2003-04-14T01:08:42Z")
> [@](#): > > It seems that so far, this thread has been focused on sexual consent. Is no one going to speak up in support of any other age restrictions: driving age, drinking age, contract age, or voting age? I think the current drinking age of 21 is bullshit, since we send 18 year olds off to combat to die we should at least let them have a good time a bar, but this is an issue quite different from a blanket repeal of all age of consent laws. As for the other issues, I wouldn’t want to see a 5 year old behind the wheel, that’s all I’m saying. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/126 "2003-04-14T03:52:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RandySpears \* > **And if the state successfully shows that the minor is incapable of informed consent, and the accused successfully shows that he had a good reason to believe s/he did give informed consent?** Then he’s not guilty. > [@](#): > > **This has to be communicated from the child to the adult before sexual contact?** In order for the adult to know the consent is informed, yes. Ideally, it’d come up naturally and gradually during the course of their relationship, not all at once like an interrogation or a Miranda warning. I have no sympathy for a person who’s so eager to jump in bed with someone he just met that he can’t take the time to find out if she knows what she’s doing. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Blalron_ > **As for the other issues, I wouldn’t want to see a 5 year old behind the wheel, that’s all I’m saying.** What about a 15 or 13 year old? I don’t want to see 5 year olds driving either, because IMO no 5 year olds are capable of safely handling a car (or even reaching the pedals!). But an age restriction on driving is unnecessary for the very same reason: if 5 year olds can’t drive, they won’t be able to pass drivers’ tests, so they won’t be allowed on the road. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/127 "2003-04-14T04:12:16Z")
I can’t simply subscribe to the idea that a 10 year old can give meaningful consent to have sex with a 40 year old. I’m sure the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) would be happy with it, but I wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/128 "2003-04-14T04:55:35Z")
Not quite what I asked. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/129 "2003-04-14T09:47:23Z")
> [@](#): > > ## _Originally posted by Mr2001_ I’d make the state show that the minor is incapable of giving informed consent first, then let the accused show a good reason to believe s/he did give informed consent, as a defense. > > ## ]_Originally posted by RandySpears_ And if the state successfully shows that the minor is incapable of informed consent, and the accused successfully shows that he had a good reason to believe s/he did give informed consent? > > _Originally posted by Mr2001_ > Then he’s not guilty. So: The prosecution must show that the minor is incapable of giving informed consent. Here the burden of proof resides with the prosecution. The defence must show that the defendant had sound reason to believe that informed consent was given. The burden of proof resides with the defence. If both sides are successful in this, the defendant is aquitted. But that leaves us three potential situations unaccounted for: 1. The prosecution **successfully shows** that the minor is incapable of informed consent, while the defence is **unable to show** that the defendant had a good reason to believe the minor did give informed consent. 2. The prosecution is **unable to show** that the minor is incapable of informed consent, while the defence **successfully shows** that the defendant had a good reason to believe the minor did give informed consent. 3. The prosecution is **unable to show** that the minor is incapable of informed consent, while the defence is **unable to show** that the defendant had a good reason to believe the minor did give informed consent. Guilty / not guilty? ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/130 "2003-04-14T10:58:56Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t want to see 5 year olds driving either, because IMO no 5 year olds are capable of safely handling a car (or even reaching the pedals!). But an age restriction on driving is unnecessary for the very same reason: if 5 year olds can’t drive, they won’t be able to pass drivers’ tests, so they won’t be allowed on the road. What kind of driving tests do they give where you live? Seriously. Adults who are too short to reach the pedals or see out of the windshield are still permitted to drive, although they may need such adjustments as built-up pedals or a booster on the seat. Around here a road test consists of driving for about ten minutes on streets with little traffic- left turn, right turn, u-turn , park. I hear that in some places, they’re given in empty parking lots. I don’t think its impossible for a five year old to pass such a road test- after all, a seven year old learned to fly a plane. I think it _is_ impossible for a five year old, even one who successfully passes a road test to have the judgement needed to drive safely. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/131 "2003-04-14T11:16:00Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Mr2001_ > Whether s/he wants it - Knows the risks above, and consents to sex acts in light of that knowledge. Knows that consent is something given at his/her own discretion. Gives consent of his/her own free will and with a sound mind, **not under the influence of drugs** or coercion. (My bolding) Does this include / not include alcohol? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/132 "2003-04-14T23:00:15Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by RandySpears_ > **But that leaves us three potential situations unaccounted for: […]** I thought my explanation was clear enough, but perhaps not. 1 - Guilty. The court presumes that the defendant knew the minor was incapable of giving informed consent, since the prosecution demonstrated that the minor is indeed incapable, and the defendant hasn’t shown that he believed otherwise. 2 and 3 - Not guilty. These situations are the same, because the defendant doesn’t have to prove his state of mind if the prosecution can’t show that the minor is incapable of informed consent. I suppose the prosecution could try to show that a reasonable person would have _believed_ the minor was incapable (on grounds other than numeric age, obviously), and if successful, the defendant would have to prove the opposite. > [@](#): > > **Does this [“under the influence of drugs”] include / not include alcohol?** My intent was to include it. Whether the word “drugs” in a legal document is interpreted to include alcohol is something for a lawyer to answer. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by doreen_ > **I don’t think its impossible for a five year old to pass such a road test- after all, a seven year old learned to fly a plane. I think it is impossible for a five year old, even one who successfully passes a road test to have the judgement needed to drive safely.** Sounds like a problem with the testing procedure. If the test (both the written test and the road test) isn’t intended to separate those who can safely drive from those who can’t, then what _is_ the point of the test? The word “judgment” is thrown around a lot, like “maturity”, but I’d like to clear it up. What judgment is required of a driver that isn’t (or can’t be) part of a written test or road test? What’s the basis for assuming that minors aren’t capable of that judgment? ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/133 "2003-04-14T23:57:38Z")
> [@](#): > > ## _Originally posted by RandySpears_ Does this [“under the influence of drugs”] include / not include alcohol? > > _Originally posted by Mr2001_ > My intent was to include it. Whether the word “drugs” in a legal document is interpreted to include alcohol is something for a lawyer to answer. Hm, I don’t understand how this is consistent with your earlier expressed views on drinking age, and youth rights. Am I mistaken in thinking that you said that a drinking age is really unnessecary? Consent is still valid under the influence of alcohol for adults, since the adult is supposed to understand the consequences of drinking alcohol. So why not for minors, given your libertarian philosophy? Why should the minor be allowed to drink alcohol, and allowed to choose to have sex, but not allowed to do these things at the same time? ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2003, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/134 "2003-04-15T11:04:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Sounds like a problem with the testing procedure. If the test (both the written test and the road test) isn’t intended to separate those who can safely drive from those who can’t, then what is the point of the test? > > The word “judgment” is thrown around a lot, like “maturity”, but I’d like to clear it up. What judgment is required of a driver that isn’t (or can’t be) part of a written test or road test? What’s the basis for assuming that minors aren’t capable of that judgment? The tests separate those who know the rules of the road and who physically know how to control a car from those who don’t. A five year old is physically capable of crosing the street alone, but for the most part ( and I’ve never known any exceptions), they can’t judge the speed of oncoming traffic with any accuracy (having much less experience at trying to judge it than a teenager would) , have no idea how to predict what other drivers will do, have never had to handle an unexpected emergency will run out into the street after a ball without looking for traffic and have no real understanding of the risk of being hit by a car, or even of the permanance of death. There might be a rare 5 year old who is exceptionally good at determining the speed of oncoming traffic, who understands the risks of an accident, who has handled the unexpected and who is no longer impulsive. But the tests won’t tell you which are which. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2003, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/135 "2003-04-16T02:04:55Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by RandySpears_ > **Hm, I don’t understand how this is consistent with your earlier expressed views on drinking age, and youth rights. Am I mistaken in thinking that you said that a drinking age is really unnessecary?** No, that’s what I said. But consent given under the influence of mind-altering drugs is not informed consent. You asked for a definition of informed consent in general, not “informed consent lite” for minors, and that’s what I gave - it applies to everyone, regardless of age. > [@](#): > > **Consent is still valid under the influence of alcohol for adults, since the adult is supposed to understand the consequences of drinking alcohol.** Maybe in some areas, but not everywhere: > [@](#): > > [Date rape misconceptions still exist (University of Tennessee Daily Beacon)](http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/article.php/7494) > Under law, a person who is under the influence of alcohol cannot legally give consent. > > “A person must be capable of understanding what they are consenting to,” McDonald said. > > Lambert, who has been working with the UTPD for eight years, cannot recall a [date rape] case when alcohol did not play a contributing factor with the victim, perpetrator or both. > [@](#): > > [What You Need To Know About Sexual Assault (West Virginia University)](http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/som/uhs/healthed/needtoknow.htm) > The following definition from West Virginia state law has been accepted by West Virginia University: Sexual assault is sexual intercourse and/or sexual intrusion with another person without his or her consent. A person may be determined to be incapable of giving consent when such person is less that 16 years old, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless (this includes intoxication). > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by doreen_ > **The tests separate those who know the rules of the road and who physically know how to control a car from those who don’t. […] There might be a rare 5 year old who is exceptionally good at determining the speed of oncoming traffic, who understands the risks of an accident, who has handled the unexpected and who is no longer impulsive. But the tests won’t tell you which are which.** Then I suggest the tests should be changed. It’s as dangerous to assume that everyone over 16 has the necessary skills and judgment, as it is condescending to assume that everyone below 16 lacks them. The test should be general enough that it can apply to everyone. Precisely what that test would entail is beyond the scope of this thread, IMO, but I see no reason that an appropriate test can’t be designed, with a false positive/negative rate no higher than the age-restricted tests we use today. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2003, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/136 "2003-04-16T05:15:58Z")
Hm you never adressed the issue. I’ll rephrase it slightly: Is your position that minors are not allowed to consent under the influence of alcohol? If so: Do you wan’t the same rules for all adults? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2003, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/137 "2003-04-16T07:22:55Z")
**RandySpears** : My position is that minors giving consent under the influence should be treated the same as adults in the same situation. I believe that in most parts of the U.S., including the examples above and my own state of Washington, one cannot give legal consent while intoxicated. That seems like a good rule to me, but I wouldn’t want to make it a special case for minors. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2003, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/138 "2003-04-16T11:40:04Z")
Hm. Am I understanding you right here - are you saying that in most parts of the States it is impossible for an adult to give legal consent under the slightest influence of alcohol? Everyone who has a sexual contact with someone that has taken a beer is committing a rape felony? Remember I am not from the US, and english is not my first language, so you’ll have to straighten me out on this one. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2003, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/139 "2003-04-16T21:59:37Z")
Well, “intoxicated” is different from having one beer; I assume it’s defined by blood alcohol content, or by the effect on one’s judgment or behavior. But yes, someone who’s intoxicated can’t legally consent. In this state, I believe it’s rape in the second degree to have sex with someone who’s mentally incapacitated, which includes intoxication. I’ll post some definitions from the Revised Code of Washington later today. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/140 "2003-04-17T00:01:09Z")
> [@](#): > > [RCW 9A.44.050](http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=section§ion=9A.44.050) > **Rape in the second degree.** > (1) A person is guilty of rape in the second degree when, under circumstances not constituting rape in the first degree, the person engages in sexual intercourse with another person: > > ``` > (a) By forcible compulsion; [or] > > (b) When the victim is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated; > > ``` > > […] > (2) Rape in the second degree is a class A felony. > [@](#): > > [RCW 9A.44.010](http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=section§ion=9A.44.010) (underlines added) > **Definitions.** > As used in this chapter: > […] > (4) “Mental incapacity” is that condition existing at the time of the offense which prevents a person from understanding the nature or consequences of the act of sexual intercourse whether that condition is produced by illness, defect, the influence of a substance or from some other cause. So yes, one beer would prevent someone from giving legal consent - if she can convince a judge that she was so wasted after a single beer that she couldn’t understand the nature or consequences of the sex act. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915.md?page=8)