[tealBumblebee]

Hypothetical Situation:

After meeting that night (having seen each other before in passing only) - Person A (under the influence of alcohol/a drug) goes home with Person B (influence unknown). It was likely silently understood/expected/? that Person A and Person B would copulate.

Person A becomes very anxious about the situation (maybe enhanced by the influence or maybe sobering up).

Person B notices and gives Person A a prescription/recreational drug (and took one too). Person B waited until Person A was calm and led to the copulation.

Person A woke up (sobered up?) five hours later with no recollection of events after the added drug began to kick in.

Person C suggests Person B took disadvantage of Person A with the “extra” drugging. Person A disagrees because they were aware when they agreed to take the extra pill.

Both parties are adamant about and have personal history that could explain their position.

Is Person A, Person C, neither or both's logic correct?

[Trippin2.0]

idk if I voted accurately, its late and somehow the question doesn't seem to match the wording in the choices (in my brain atleast).

I think because Person A gave consent (If I read properly) there was no advantage being taken of Person A.

If Person A had a roofie slipped in their drink unbeknownst to them, that would be different, but in this scenario Person A, innebriated or not, accepted the "roofie" willingly in order to to lower their inhibitions.

[tealBumblebee]

Originally Posted by Trippin2.0

idk if I voted accurately, its late and somehow the question doesn't seem to match the wording in the choices (in my brain atleast).

I think because Person A gave consent (If I read properly) there was no advantage being taken of Person A.

If Person A had a roofie slipped in their drink unbeknownst to them, that would be different, but in this scenario Person A, innebriated or not, accepted the "roofie" willingly in order to to lower their inhibitions.

Thanks, I edited the original post. Your interpretation of the hypothetical situation was correct.

[healingme4me]

I chose person C, not because of the shared history with the recreational drug, but because if Person A became anxious about the situation, and Person B, offered that type of drug, then clearly there was a disadvantage. At least, in my impression. If person A hadn't become anxious, and was relaxed and chose to take it, then no disadvantage.

[SilverNeurotic]

Both are correct. Person B did consent, but there was definitely some dissinvantage with person b being under the influence.

I voted person A for these reasons:

Person A went to Person B's home willingly. Person A already experiments with substances and was already under a chemical influence (been around the block per say) Person B was (in my opinion) being a generous host by providing Person A with a complimentary recreation so to speak. Person A could have decided that the copulation was likely before taking the pill. Speculation only, motives are within the innermost confines of the chambers of our hearts, concealed. If person A expresses a level of adverse feelings about the encounter, then there is a problem. Person B should not feel guilty if all was consensual. Only if Person B pre-meditated taking advantage is there a fault. Person C sounds well meaning, but Person A and B are the main characters and this should be between them.