Sex While Intoxicated

[Strident]

Speaking as someone from the UK what staggers me is the loco-parentis attitude of the university rules.

In the UK, you go to university at 18 and are a full adult at 18. The age of legal drinking is 18.

Broadly speaking, if you are in good standing with the law, I doubt you would be kicked out of a UK university for something as obviously within the realms of legal action  as sexual assault.

Perhaps things are different in the states because you're not really fully an adult until 21 in some regards (i.e. Alcohol)

I'm a little Confused whether we are talking about the law of the land or the law of the university in some of these posts.

My view is that if the law of the land has not found someone guilty of sexual assault, but the college says they are, and acts on the basis that they are (i.e. Expulsion from the college)  then the accused has reasonable grounds to sue the college for defamation of character or libel.

[consortium11]

Speaking as someone from the UK what staggers me is the loco-parentis attitude of the university rules.

In the UK, you go to university at 18 and are a full adult at 18. The age of legal drinking is 18.

Broadly speaking, if you are in good standing with the law, I doubt you would be kicked out of a UK university for something as obviously within the realms of legal action  as sexual assault.

Happens quite frequently; legal action or discipline by the university isn't an either/or process. To give one recent example a St Andrews PHD student was expelled from the uni prior to his conviction for two sexual assaults.

Think of it as no different to the work environment. If I punch a co-worker in the office I may well be charged and convicted of some form of assault. I may well also be fired. One happening doesn't cancel out the other.

Where it gets somewhat tricky is due to the different levels required to prove guilt, generally no reasonable doubt in criminal law but only preponderance of evidence for a university. So one can be found not guilty by the courts but be held to be at fault by the university and thus punished (for a pure legal example think OJ Simpson being found not guilty at his criminal trial but liable at his civil trial). It becomes especially awkward where the police do a full investigation and conclude that it was consensual sex but the university go the other way.

[consortium11]

Now, to those who agree with that, should both be expelled or should neither be expelled, and what reasons would you give for that?

Neither should have been expelled.

It was drunken consensual sex. Sex they (both) regretted in the morning but regretting sex the morning after doesn't mean you've been sexually assaulted. Nor does alcohol lowering your inhibitions enough that you consent to something you wouldn't do when sober mean that you didn't consent... you still consented.

But that basically support what I said earlier: Ban the alcohol.

I'm almost certain they wouldn't turn a blind eye to someone using cocaine or cannabis those being some of the most common and 'fairly' non-dangerous recreational drugs around. (There is no real argument to be made for those to be considerably more dangerous than alcohol after all. Especially not cannabis.)

Alcohol is already banned for underage drinkers at the college in question. (the drug policy is on the same page):

Under Age Students: Students under the age of 21 may not possess or consume alcohol. A state of intoxication implies consumption.

Likewise it's not exactly a particular challenge to get or consume cocaine or cannabis while at college despite those substances not only being banned but also being illegal. Banning alcohol would make little difference... people would still drink and still drink to excess.

1.  John didn't file a complaint, so Jane cannot be expelled.  End of that discussion.

The college has, under their own rules, a sexual predator come to them and tell them that they had sexually assaulted somebody. They investigated it and discovered that the person in question had committed a sexual assault. We know that college views sexual predators as repeat offenders and we also know that the sexual predator in this case fits many of the profile points they have for a rapist.

But because the victim didn't complain they should just ignore it?

There is nowhere in the college's policies that say that something isn't a sexually assault just because no-one makes an official complaint about it. By the college's own viewpoint the Jane Doe sexually assaulted the John Doe. Their reasons for not expelling her are a mystery to everyone.

[Oniya]

Alcohol is already banned for underage drinkers at the college in question. (the drug policy is on the same page):

Likewise it's not exactly a particular challenge to get or consume cocaine or cannabis while at college despite those substances not only being banned but also being illegal. Banning alcohol would make little difference... people would still drink and still drink to excess.

The problem is the enforcement (or lack of enforcement) of these policies.  As I noted anecdotally above, these policies aren't rare, but obviously the students don't give a damn.  Apparently, either the risk of getting caught isn't seen as very high, or the consequences when caught aren't seen as prohibitive. 

[consortium11]

The problem is the enforcement (or lack of enforcement) of these policies.  As I noted anecdotally above, these policies aren't rare, but obviously the students don't give a damn.  Apparently, either the risk of getting caught isn't seen as very high, or the consequences when caught aren't seen as prohibitive.

That's one of the reasons I specifically bring up drug policies as well. Drug policies tend to be pretty damn punitive within colleges (even if we ignore the legal consequences) and yet does anyone think it's exactly difficult to either purchase or indulge in drugs within a standard college? Why do we think an alcohol policy would be any more effective then the drug policies?

[Sho]

What I find most troubling about all of this is that these laws, in an attempt to make women safe (because they are most often applied with the woman being the victim and the man being the perpetrator, as discussed earlier) have taken away a huge degree of their power. While men are still held responsible for their actions (at least in practice, if you look at the number of cases of men versus women being expelled), women are effectively being told that when they drink, they are incapable of making rational decisions. It doesn't feel all too different to me from saying that when women are on their period they are irrational and thus shouldn't be trusted.

This standard *should* be applied to men as well if it is applied at all, but in practice it does not seem to be (at least in the majority of cases). As a woman who does occasionally enjoy a drink or two, I loathe the idea that I am somehow considered incapable of making decisions for myself. I chose to drink, ergo, as when I drive if I am drunk, I am responsible for actions that I engage in consensually...even if those actions are something I am embarrassed about having committed when I wake up.

I think that we all agree that if a woman is blacked out or cannot write/speak, she is not capable of giving consent. I think that is a fairly clear line. I also think it is fairly clear that a sober man preying on a drunk woman is predatory behavior. I do think, however, that two drunk students engaging in sex where they texted back and forth to effectively agree that they were going to do so shouldn't be considered sexual assault; rather, it should be considered a sloppy mistake that they quietly try to forget about.

This is solely my opinion, but I think the girl should be ashamed of herself; she made a mistake that I believe she consented to and then regretted, and I do not think the boy raped her or forced her (and if she was not capable of giving consent, neither was he). I personally believe that she has done serious damage to this boy's life in an attempt to salvage a scrap of her reputation and that in filing this as assault, she is devaluing the claims of women who are genuinely assaulted on campus. Obviously the last part of that statement may seem somewhat inflammatory, so I'd like to try to explain: in my personal experience, and from what I have read, the more women who file consensual-but-regrettable sex as sexual assault makes students/administrators/onlookers less likely to believe women when they say that they were raped when they were genuinely incapable of giving consent.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I believe that if you are having second thoughts about doing something because it might be immoral or illegal you are just plain irresponsible to do it along with being criminal.  Splitting hairs to try and make something seem okay is wrong.

[Cycle]

The college has, under their own rules, a sexual predator come to them and tell them that they had sexually assaulted somebody. They investigated it and discovered that the person in question had committed a sexual assault. We know that college views sexual predators as repeat offenders and we also know that the sexual predator in this case fits many of the profile points they have for a rapist.

But because the victim didn't complain they should just ignore it?

There is nowhere in the college's policies that say that something isn't a sexually assault just because no-one makes an official complaint about it. By the college's own viewpoint the Jane Doe sexually assaulted the John Doe. Their reasons for not expelling her are a mystery to everyone.

The college's rules also spell out how a sexual assault complaint is initiated.  So if we want to apply the rules, then we need to apply the rules.  Someone needs to file a complaint against Jane.  Period.



That having been said, and because I was idle, I looked around some more.  My initial conclusion that John hadn't filed a complaint appears to be in error.  John claims--in his complaint against Occidental--that he also filed a sexual assault complaint against Jane.



So, taking this statement at face value, I would vote in favor of expelling both.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Yes but the original complaint was filed in September.  To be honest there would be few that did not believe he is filing a complaint to have retaliation and satisfy advice for a law suit.

[Sethala]

Are we really sure we want to say assault is only assault if there's a complaint filed?  That seems like a dangerous precedent considering how many statistics are quoted about women not filing complaints against an actual rapist for various reasons...

[kylie]

I want to apologize if I've given you the impression that I believe that, on a whole, men are more oppressed than women.  We live in an age saturated by various inequalities, and the best thing we can do is find all of them and work on stamping them out.

I've personally never liked the idea that we try to figure out which one has it worse and then only focus on that one.  It's always seemed to fly directly in the face of justice and equality for me.

I think there are actually many ways or dimensions where all sorts of people are oppressed (some might prefer manipulated), men included.  And I do think they are generally worth discussing thoughtfully.

    However, when you boil it all down to suggesting that men are being scrutinized too much or asked to behave too much and oh it's so traumatizing, but instead no one should be (or you say without having apparently checked much, even no one is ever!) legally culpable for any crime utilizing alcohol short of knockout doses... And a host of mostly unexplained conclusions you presume 'everyone here must agree' which I vehemently disagree with...  When you say all this in the face of a culture, particularly around college campuses, that often glamorizes getting women drunk expressly to circumvent questions of consent and often to impair functioning along the way and the wider society still often blames it on the woman anyway?

   Then, I don't think you are talking about pursuing general equality, I think you are imagining a single zero-sum axis where many of the current responses to sexual assault get read first as favoring women 'over' men. And I do not believe that oppression is all that simple, or that your generalizations here from this particular case were well thought.

     But hopefully meanwhile, more interesting parts have moved on?  Maybe.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

A complaint still has to be filed at some point.  Only in cases where the victim cannot file a complaint on their own behalf, such as the deceased or children, does a body of legal oversight issue its own complaint.  The numbers that show women who have not filed complaints of rape are not there to demonstrate that people should file on their behalf, but instead to show how many women are afraid the system will not protect them or help them with their problem.

[Cycle]

Are we really sure we want to say assault is only assault if there's a complaint filed? 

No, that's not what I am saying.  What I am saying is, if you want to apply a law (or rule), then you need to apply all of it. 

AndyZ said he wanted to stick to "legal" for this discussion.

I don't think we really want to get into the moral and ethical issues and should just stick to what we have legally for this one.  ...

There are substantive and there are procedural laws (and rules).  A substantive law would be:  X is assault.  A procedural law would be:  to prosecute someone for assault, you must start with Y action. 

Occidental's rules contain procedural and substantive components.  Both have to be followed, if we want to follow the rules.  So, sticking to legal, we need a complaint to expel Jane.

[AndyZ]

Speaking as someone from the UK what staggers me is the loco-parentis attitude of the university rules.

In the UK, you go to university at 18 and are a full adult at 18. The age of legal drinking is 18.

Broadly speaking, if you are in good standing with the law, I doubt you would be kicked out of a UK university for something as obviously within the realms of legal action  as sexual assault.

Perhaps things are different in the states because you're not really fully an adult until 21 in some regards (i.e. Alcohol)

I'm a little Confused whether we are talking about the law of the land or the law of the university in some of these posts.

My view is that if the law of the land has not found someone guilty of sexual assault, but the college says they are, and acts on the basis that they are (i.e. Expulsion from the college)  then the accused has reasonable grounds to sue the college for defamation of character or libel.

This goes into it a bit: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/uloop/underage-drinking-laws-on_b_3396974.html

What I find most troubling about all of this is that these laws, in an attempt to make women safe (because they are most often applied with the woman being the victim and the man being the perpetrator, as discussed earlier) have taken away a huge degree of their power. While men are still held responsible for their actions (at least in practice, if you look at the number of cases of men versus women being expelled), women are effectively being told that when they drink, they are incapable of making rational decisions. It doesn't feel all too different to me from saying that when women are on their period they are irrational and thus shouldn't be trusted.

This standard *should* be applied to men as well if it is applied at all, but in practice it does not seem to be (at least in the majority of cases). As a woman who does occasionally enjoy a drink or two, I loathe the idea that I am somehow considered incapable of making decisions for myself. I chose to drink, ergo, as when I drive if I am drunk, I am responsible for actions that I engage in consensually...even if those actions are something I am embarrassed about having committed when I wake up.

I think that we all agree that if a woman is blacked out or cannot write/speak, she is not capable of giving consent. I think that is a fairly clear line. I also think it is fairly clear that a sober man preying on a drunk woman is predatory behavior. I do think, however, that two drunk students engaging in sex where they texted back and forth to effectively agree that they were going to do so shouldn't be considered sexual assault; rather, it should be considered a sloppy mistake that they quietly try to forget about.

This is solely my opinion, but I think the girl should be ashamed of herself; she made a mistake that I believe she consented to and then regretted, and I do not think the boy raped her or forced her (and if she was not capable of giving consent, neither was he). I personally believe that she has done serious damage to this boy's life in an attempt to salvage a scrap of her reputation and that in filing this as assault, she is devaluing the claims of women who are genuinely assaulted on campus. Obviously the last part of that statement may seem somewhat inflammatory, so I'd like to try to explain: in my personal experience, and from what I have read, the more women who file consensual-but-regrettable sex as sexual assault makes students/administrators/onlookers less likely to believe women when they say that they were raped when they were genuinely incapable of giving consent.

The only issue that I have with anything here is that you can have a blackout and still remain conscious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_%28drug-related_amnesia%29

When you say blacked out, do you mean unconscious or do you just mean when you've had so much to drink that you're still moving around but won't remember anything the next day?  If the latter, I'd consider it exceptionally difficult for someone to judge that particular transitional period.

Since I have you here as someone who enjoys alcohol, I was curious: how would you feel about some sort of legal waiver signed while sober that says that you can still give consent while intoxicated, or something like that?  It's an idea I've been playing with while reading over this stuff, although I don't know how feasible it would be.

     I think there are actually many ways or dimensions where all sorts of people are oppressed (some might prefer manipulated), men included.  And I do think they are generally worth discussing thoughtfully.

    However, when you boil it all down to suggesting that men are being scrutinized too much or asked to behave too much and oh it's so traumatizing, but instead no one should be (or you say without having apparently checked much, even no one is ever!) legally culpable for any crime utilizing alcohol short of knockout doses... And a host of mostly unexplained conclusions you presume 'everyone here must agree' which I vehemently disagree with...  When you say all this in the face of a culture, particularly around college campuses, that often glamorizes getting women drunk expressly to circumvent questions of consent and often to impair functioning along the way and the wider society still often blames it on the woman anyway?

   Then, I don't think you are talking about pursuing general equality, I think you are imagining a single zero-sum axis where many of the current responses to sexual assault get read first as favoring women 'over' men. And I do not believe that oppression is all that simple, or that your generalizations here from this particular case were well thought.

     But hopefully meanwhile, more interesting parts have moved on?  Maybe.

Let me clarify that I absolutely don't believe that the rules should be different between people of any gender.

If people say that men should be more responsible about their drinking and that it's rape if he sleeps with someone who's drunk, it should be the same for women.

If people say that women should be able to go out, party, drink and have sex without consequences, it should be the same for men.

I apologize that I didn't expressly state it before.  To be honest, I considered it so obvious as to not require expression.

As far as that everyone must agree, hardly.  Right now I see three camps of thought: those who say punish both, those who say punish neither, and those who say punish the initiator.

I vehemently disagree with the idea of punishing the initiator if we say that whoever invites someone to their place is the initiator.  I disagree wholly with the idea that a person inviting someone to their place is an absolute and tacit invitation for sex, and I listed an earlier example as to why such an idea is inherently problematic.  People are free to disagree, and Cycle has said as much (though he's reconsidering as last I saw).

The other idea for initiating that I've seen tossed out, not here but on other websites, is whoever gets on top.  With missionary position, the man gets on top of the woman, and with cowgirl position, the woman gets on top of the man.  I'm not comfortable with this one either, but others are free to disagree.

If I see something that seems wrong to me, I usually try to bring up an example where it doesn't work, and sometimes people have a very good reason why it works even in that example that I hadn't even considered.  Lately, though, I've been confusing people's points, so I was trying to ask specific questions to make sure I understood their points.

This is apparently a common thing in debates.  People would state the points of their opponents and allow the opponent to agree or disagree, because it gets rid of the "you're just saying" X" straw man type deal that has become common of late.  This seems to be upsetting more people than it helps, though, so I'll just try to go back to directly posting and letting them correct me if I misunderstood.

Just because I want to debate a point doesn't mean others are forced to agree with me by any stretch.  I am perfectly aware that other people have more experiences or knowledge with various things than I do and that I can learn from them.

No, that's not what I am saying.  What I am saying is, if you want to apply a law (or rule), then you need to apply all of it. 

AndyZ said he wanted to stick to "legal" for this discussion.

There are substantive and there are procedural laws (and rules).  A substantive law would be:  X is assault.  A procedural law would be:  to prosecute someone for assault, you must start with Y action. 

Occidental's rules contain procedural and substantive components.  Both have to be followed, if we want to follow the rules.  So, sticking to legal, we need a complaint to expel Jane.

I don't think I was entirely clear here (maybe I was, maybe not) so I figured I'd go into detail.

I do consider an individual's organizational rules and procedures to be more "legal" than "moral."  However, I'm also good with the concept that we can argue whether or not there can be such laws.

Someone can certainly believe that cases involving sexual assault should not require a complaint in order to be prosecuted, in the same way that some people believe that we should punish both, neither or based on initiation.

By contrast, when I say "moral" in the comparison between moral and legal, that's when we talk about character values and things like that.  If someone wants to say that they're bad people for having sex out of wedlock, for example, or anything where the word "fornicator" or the phrase "going to Hell" would come up.

As an egregious example, there's a law in Russia banning transpeople from driving.  We can have the people of various religions go on and on about how they believe certain things, but it becomes pointless.  Ultimately, it's an idiotic law and should be abolished.

Whether or not we believe that John and Jane should have been fooling around is very different from whether they committed a crime and/or been expelled, in the same way that we can argue whether adultery is wrong and whether swingers and/or people who cheat on their spouses without the spouses' consent should be sent to jail.

In short, questioning how we apply laws, rules and the like is okay.  Questioning whether people who have sex while drunk are doing the right thing is far more nebulous.

After all, Occidental is only one college out there, so better to set a standard of what we believe should be followed instead of checking each and every one for how well it works against itself.

[Cycle]

I disagree wholly with the idea that a person inviting someone to their place is an absolute and tacit invitation for sex, and I listed an earlier example as to why such an idea is inherently problematic.  People are free to disagree, and Cycle has said as much (though he's reconsidering as last I saw).

Wrong.

Will you please stop trying to misconstrue my position.  This is the second time you've done it in this thread alone.

I was trying to explain to you what I think the result should be under the Occidental rules.  Remiel and consortium pointed out that they don't think a complaint is necessary to expel Jane under the rules.  I went back and looked at the rules and it does require a complaint.  But further investigation reveals that John did file a complaint.  So under the rules, they are both subject to expulsion.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to declare myself out. Andy, I can't help but feel like you're only reading what others are posting with one eyes open, and you're taking a lot of statements out of context, generalizing and deflecting valid questions pertaining to your own views. It's feels more like you're actively trying to defend your views on this rather than discuss it.

That will be my last involvement in this thread.

I agree with Nachtmahr.  I'm out too.

[AndyZ]

Quote from: Nachtmahr on Yesterday at 11:40:33 AM
But most of all I'd like to stick to my first point: 'Get the fuck back here' can not under any circumstances be considered 'initiating sexual contact'.



Obviously the university's adjudicator disagrees with you. 

And so do I.

Due to the way Elliquiy works, I had to copy Nach's quote straight back into the quote, but it's listed in the original.

[consortium11]

The college's rules also spell out how a sexual assault complaint is initiated.  So if we want to apply the rules, then we need to apply the rules.  Someone needs to file a complaint against Jane.  Period.

They don't need to file a complaint, someone needs to make a report (hence why the term "report" is used throughout).

What is the definition of making a report?

Making a report means telling someone in authority what happened -- in person, by telephone, in writing or by email.

The Jane Doe told someone in authority what happened. Hence she made a report. The fact that she was reporting her own behavior as a sexual predator in addition to someone else's is irrelevant; the only amnesty clauses relate to not being punished for consuming drugs or alcohol.

[Frozen Flame]

My brother is 22, about 10 years younger than me. I told him a few things that have helped me avoid this particular moral minefield and I'm glad they've helped him as well.

1) It's usually not a good idea to be drunk.
2) If you do get drunk, make sure you have at least one sober friend whom you trust to keep you in check no matter what. Someone you can trust to drive you home, punch you in the face if necessary, if you start acting like a jerk.
3) Do not get drunk without said friend if you are in the company of women

#3 probably seems a bit heavy-handed. But there's a reason. The usual scenario of a wolfish, entirely sober guy preying upon a vulnerable woman with compromised judgment, while a favorite of Lifetime specials and made-for-TV-movies, doesn't constitute the majority of such incidents. Yes, they make for good TV because they're so ethically clear-cut. But life, as usual is more complex and often it's a drunk guy with compromised judgment colliding with a drunk woman with compromised judgment.

Sure, a good upbringing and being a respectful guy can usually keep you from doing terrible things, even while drunk. But it's just not worth the risk.

[SweetSerenade]

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Here is a summary of Jane Doe's recollection of having sex.

Is it just me, of has everyone completely overlooked the fact that she was under the age of 18 when engaging in a sexual relationship? Depending on the age difference (I am not sure what John's age is), Jane is still under the age of 18 and thus a minor. Even though he did not know this at the time, which by the way - male or female, you should ALWAYS check the age of their sexual partners. There are a few factors here that really change my views on the case. I do not believe minors are truly capable of understanding the ramifications of their actions, and thus are not truly capable of consenting to sex. Even if she/he/minor in this instance is going "Give it to me now" - I do not believe that is a viable asset of consent and that the person in question, in instances where they know that someone is under age, that has sex with a minor is knowingly committing rape. Now, he didn't know her age, and that's his own fault because he just assumed she was legal because she was drinking (Big mistake), but they still participated in an act together. THOUGH she did give consent, given her status as a minor - legally that consent doesn't really account for anything in her alcohol induced state, and her present age. So as a result, he is likely going to be fully punished - but I believe she should be expelled as well because she was drinking underage. Oh and anyone that gave her liquor should be charged with 'contributing to the deliquency of a minor' as well as 'giving a minor illegal substances'.

Overall this entire case is full of he said, she said, and they both need to grow up.

Male or female, we all should be conscious of our decisions in sexual or alcoholic situations. No mattter how innebriated we are - if we reach a state where we don't even bother to check in with our intended partner and make sure that everything is still ok and make sure that they are of consentable age and state of mind... then it's our own damn fault and we should accept the responsibility of our actions.

((Edited for Spelling issues))

[Valthazar]

California just happens to be one of 12 states where 18 is the age of consent, with the majority of states having 16 as the age of consent.  So yes, it's true that because of California's "tough on crime" laws, John can be charged with a misdemeanor.  But most psychologists would probably agree that 17 year olds have reached sexual maturity, and are in control of their bodies.

[SweetSerenade]

California just happens to be one of 12 states where 18 is the age of consent, with the majority of states having 16 as the age of consent.  So yes, it's true that because of California's "tough on crime" laws, John can be charged with a misdemeanor.  But most psychologists would probably agree that 17 year olds have reached sexual maturity, and are in control of their bodies.

I'm not discounting what you are saying but I don't believe that to be the case. It's sort of touch and go at that age, based usually on personal profiling of the individual themselves. That is why some minors can be charged as an adult, when some cannot. It's a matter of that individuals mental maturity in comparison to their age/validity of the situation. Sorry if what I said came off harsh, I just find it silly that people don't check ages more often.

[Oniya]

I saw this article, and it pretty much explains everything.


http://www.theloop.ca/this-woman-just-explained-consent-with-the-most-perfect-metaphor/

If they are unconscious, don’t make them tea. Unconscious people don’t want tea and can’t answer the question, “Do you want tea?” because they are unconscious.

Okay, maybe they were conscious when you asked them if they wanted tea, and they said yes, but in the time it took you to boil that kettle, brew the tea and add the milk they are now unconscious. You should just put the tea down, make sure the unconscious person is safe, and — this is the important bit — don’t make them drink the tea.

If someone said yes to tea, started drinking it and then passed out before they’d finished it, don’t keep on pouring it down their throat. Take the tea away and make sure they are safe.  Because unconscious people don’t want tea. Trust me on this.

[SweetSerenade]

I saw this article, and it pretty much explains everything.


http://www.theloop.ca/this-woman-just-explained-consent-with-the-most-perfect-metaphor/

I saw that same article Oniya! I was actually looking for it, but couldn't find it!

[consortium11]

I saw this article, and it pretty much explains everything.


http://www.theloop.ca/this-woman-just-explained-consent-with-the-most-perfect-metaphor/

In this case it wouldn't be much help.

Attempting to apply the analogy to it; this is where one party offers the other a cup of tea, the other accepts and they have a lovely time. A little bit later the other party asks the first one if they'd like another cup of slightly stronger tea, they agree and come down to your room of their own accord. There they have a cup of tea and both spill a bit. Later the party who went to the room then goes off and finds someone else and asks them to make her a cup of tea, but her friends come along and stop her doing so.

The next day both remember they had a cup of tea even if they don't recall all the details and both regret it happening, wishing they'd had a cup of tea with someone more special. Neither think too much of it other than a bad decision they both made to have a cup of tea until the party who went to the room decides the other party isn't sufficiently upset about it and a third party in a position of power repeatedly tells her that she hadn't actually agreed to have a cup of tea despite doing so, telling others she was going to do so and managing to sneak our of her room and through the building to reach the other parties' room.

[SweetSerenade]

In this case it wouldn't be much help.

Attempting to apply the analogy to it; this is where one party offers the other a cup of tea, the other accepts and they have a lovely time. A little bit later the other party asks the first one if they'd like another cup of slightly stronger tea, they agree and come down to your room of their own accord. There they have a cup of tea and both spill a bit. Later the party who went to the room then goes off and finds someone else and asks them to make her a cup of tea, but her friends come along and stop her doing so.

The next day both remember they had a cup of tea even if they don't recall all the details and both regret it happening, wishing they'd had a cup of tea with someone more special. Neither think too much of it other than a bad decision they both made to have a cup of tea until the party who went to the room decides the other party isn't sufficiently upset about it and a third party in a position of power repeatedly tells her that she hadn't actually agreed to have a cup of tea despite doing so, telling others she was going to do so and managing to sneak our of her room and through the building to reach the other parties' room.

Yes, but in this instance neither party should of had a cup of tea because they were both too intoxicated to know WTF they were doing. Besides, was is Jasmine or Licorice?