Also I Think That Drunk People’s and Adolescents’ ability to consent to sex is a lot like their ability to consent to get a tattoo

It won’t turn out as an awful traumatic thing you regret for the rest of your life in every single case, sometimes you actually did want to get a full face tattoo of spiderman’s mask and you’ll be incredibly glad you did it, but we don’t let drunk people and teenagers get tattoos because there’s a great enough risk that their decision making is compromised (by alcohol or the power an adult has over a kid or whatever) that we make them wait until they’ve slept it off, or until they’re a little older to do the thing, because we just can’t tell if it’s the booze/awe/desire for adult approval talking or them, and it would be unethical to take the money and do the tattoo.  This is the same reason an adult who has sex with an adolescent, or a person who has sex with someone intoxicated is at best extremely irresponsible and unscrupulous, and at worst actively malicious and taking advantage of someone in a vulnerable position.

And so like even if Lori Maddox is completely psychologically unscathed and really enjoyed losing her virginity to Bowie, it was still utterly wrong and fucked up of him to have sex with her, similarly, no matter how much you still love the ink your cousin’s shady friend gave you when you were 14, he was still a bad dude.  She doesn’t have to be damaged for him to have done something really really bad by putting her wellbeing at risk like that.

I had sexual experiences as an adolescent with people older than me that I regard as consensual even now, like they didn’t damage me, I had fun, but it was still wrong for the people older than me to agree to do that with me.

Like sometimes drunk people and adolescents do give genuine consent, but the problem is there’s literally no way to tell the difference between legit consent and not-actually-consent, so you just shouldn’t go there.  You see what I mean?  And even if it turns out fine, and the person turns out fine, you were still putting them in danger and that’s still very fucked up.

Basically my point is: A: If consent is blurry, then it doesn’t count, even if it turns out later it was real consent and B: Even if a victim comes out unscathed the perpetrator still did something very wrong, like it doesn’t matter that she says she had fun, even if that’s true, even if she’s not covering up some damage done by the incident, it doesn’t make what happened ok

(Yes I also do know that alcohol is a blood thinner which result in problems with tattooing, but you see my point)