Oh wow, something from Belgium showed up here. Obviously most reactions are the same here. But I would urge everyone to read more details about this. As there much more uncomfortable nuance here. One of those being that the dude is also in agreement he did something wrong. He also gave a relatively accurate description of the events of that evening that got proven with phone records and CCTV at different locations. Making his account of what happened at the least somewhat reliable.

Obviously the woman could not consent because she was drunk as fuck. And she’s allowed to get drunk as fuck without being taken advantage off. CCTV showed them kissing at the bar they met. Phone records show he tried to call her friend she was supposed to go home with. CCTV shows them going to that friend’s dorm and not getting in and waiting there for half an hour. Then they walk back to his place while kissing on the way there. The morning after his messages to her indicate he wants to continue seeing her. (m.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20250402_95297572?journeyb… but it’s in Dutch)

Again, she could not consent, and he as the least drunk of both of them bears the responsibility of this. I do think he should have had some form of punishment above of what he got and for the woman’s feeling of safety a restraining order like she asked. And something that would have made mandatory counselling and follow-up possible. Not to mention that although justice in Belgium isn’t supposed to be revenge, it should also cause some sort of satisfaction for the victim.

This situation just shows that the definition of rape over the decades has become more complex and nuanced, but unfortunately the tools to deal with this have not. This dude definitely did something wrong, but he’s not just a vicious predator.

If they were both drunk, could either of them consent?

There are different levels of being drunk. She was so drunk she blacked out and had trouble walking. He As drunk but can supply a recollection of what happened. There’s nuance like I said, but someone who can recollect events and relies on his rational actions where he called her friends can logically be considered to be more responsible for not taking into consideration she was too drunk to be able to consent.

Alcohol impairment can be very messy. I know someone who had 1 and a half drinks, had no speech slurring or obvious signs of being black-out drunk, but did not remember a third of the night the next day because she’s a lightweight that’s drank a single-digit number of times in her life (she’d also eaten very little that day and had some recent sleep debt). I would not have guessed she was blackout drunk, she was just talking about her problems and was articulate the entire time I saw her. If I didn’t know she had been drinking, I can’t think of how I would’ve known short of some kind of specific motor function test that’s made to suss that out/harder than just sitting around, talking, and occasionally going to the restroom. She just looked a little tired. When we spoke later, she didn’t remember basically anything after a certain point (a couple of hours’ worth) and wondered if some vague flashes of memories had been dreams. It was rather surprising to me.