In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 22 2017 04:12 Liquid`Drone wrote: Likewise, if a girl actively consents (just to be really clear, I am by no means including 'didn't say no audibly enough because she was drunk, but I'm including the 'come on LETS FUCK'), which drunk girls totally do, then no way does it qualify as rape, even if the girl totally regrets it afterwards and would not normally have had sex with that particular guy. This also isn't victim blaming - I don't acknowledge the victimhood. ;p
What in the literal fuck eri.
Stop raping people and then saying that it's their fault for getting horny drunk.
You have a responsibility for your own involvement in sex beyond making sure you have an excuse and can get away with it in the morning. If you've obtained wasted consent but you're uncertain whether or not you would have been unable to get sober consent then the correct course of action is not "yeah, but nobody can prove whether or not I'd have had sober consent so technically it's her fault that we had this sex she didn't want to have".
Seriously. Rethink your moral framework.
That's fucked up.
Literally 0 of this applies to sex that I myself have had. You trying to think this is behavior I'm projecting because I've been in 'that guy's position' is completely misplaced. I've had drunk girls be hysterically angry at me for not having had sex with them though. Like honestly, fuck off, you making this assumption towards me is way, way out of line.
It still results from an incredibly fucked up moral framework.
I'm fine with "if you make a sober decision to get drunk knowing that you'll probably drive while drunk then you made a sober decision to take that risk". Likewise if you make a sober decision to get drunk then sure, there's accountability there.
Where you lose me is where you think it becomes morally okay for another person to take advantage of this because can use the above logic as an excuse to pin the blame for it on the victim.
If what you're doing is harming another individual, and let's be very clear here, if the girl wakes up with fragments of memories from the blackout and feels like she's been raped then there has been harm, and then saying "technically you caused all this when you decided to get drunk", you're a sociopath. If your standard for moral behavior is technically having an excuse about how it's really their fault that they got raped, you're a sociopath.
Apparently you don't do that, good for you. But you're fine with it. You defended it.
If the girl is drunkenly inviting you to have sex with her then yes, she has a responsibility for her choice to get drunk. But that does not absolve you of your responsibility to say "no".
You pull out one sentence of three posts I make and disregard every qualifier I made in that post and the other posts to justify calling me a rapist. I most certainly specified that being sober and looking for drunk girls is really scummy behavior. I am not morally absolving guys who do this. I am totally morally absolving guys who themselves are drunk, just 'slightly less drunk than the girl was', because I don't see how they deserve more blame for getting drunk than the girl did, when both of them wanted to have sex at the time. I also specified, at least twice, that I talk about active consent, not 'is obviously blackout drunk' - but being someone who has been really really drunk on many occasions (this is not a source of pride, but important for the discussion) I know that the line between 'I fully remember everything and feel amazingly in control of the situation' and 'I don't remember anything I did at all' is really easy to pass and often impossible for other people to understand whether you've crossed or not.
Okay, I'll try and explain this in simple terms.
Let's say you're a recovering meth addict. We're out together and you're pretty fucking drunk and I offer you meth, which you happily accept stating that you fucking love meth.
Sure, you consented. And sure, although you were drunk at the time you ought to have been aware that relapsing was a risk before you got drunk. Plenty of ways that we can pin this on the meth addict and say that they're not a victim and that really it's their fault.
That doesn't in any way change the fact that you only relapsed because I made a deliberate choice to cause it. That doesn't in any way reduce the moral accountability I have for the subsequent fallout. I might have an excuse that I can tell people for how it's totally not my fault, but it wouldn't have happened without me.
One person having a share of responsibility does not absolve all others. The victim having partial responsibility does not make them no longer a victim. Which is exactly what you argued it did when you said "This also isn't victim blaming - I don't acknowledge the victimhood. ;p" If the girl wakes up feeling like she got raped and deals with all the same trauma that other rape victims do then you denying her victim status is just a way of getting what you did to be okay with Jesus. It doesn't change shit about the impact your choice had on her. You've still made her a victim, all you're doing is pinning it on her to make yourself feel better.
Furthermore, it's totally victim blaming. You're shifting the burden of your own participation onto the other party, insisting that you couldn't possibly have known better than to participate if they drunkenly asked you to. The smiley was a particularly tasteless touch too.
Honestly, if you really believe with the argument you made about drunk girls not being victims you should feel pretty bad about the person you choose to be.
How is sex the same as meth, dude. Guys don't fucking go around thinking 'oh man, she'll totally regret having sex with me when she wakes up', they go 'oh man, awesome'. I'm not talking about girls who wake up being semi-raped, I'm saying that if a girl had drunken sex, this does not mean she was raped, even if she later on regrets it.
You seem to think that I'm talking about sober guys picking up blackout drunk guys and having sex with them despite me explicitly stating that this is not what I mean and that at least is kind of rape, and then you present me with your regular counter-that argument. I'm talking about the 'both guy and girl are drunk, club is closing, they both want to go home with someone because being drunk makes them both horny.' Sure the girl is slightly more drunk than the guy is, and she might not normally want to have sex with that particular guy, but you can't expect the drunk guy to go like 'hm, wait, this girl is somewhat out of my league of what I can ordinary get laid from, she must be too drunk to consent otherwise she wouldn't go home with me'. I don't think the girl is a victim in this case, even if she regrets it, just like I don't think the guy who dropped his cellphone in the toilet or told his boss that he's an idiot is a victim. I mean technically you can say they're all victims of alcohol abuse, but not sexual.
This is a problem of social attitudes toward men being taking advantage of, more than anything else.
Like, if you were drunk and a woman took advantage of you, and you woke up next morning to find that you cheated on your wife, I'm sure you would want to claim the legitimate position of "it's not my fault, someone took advantage of me while I was drunk off my ass".
The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse!
The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions.
So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible?
"your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart""
Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not.
On November 22 2017 04:12 Liquid`Drone wrote: Likewise, if a girl actively consents (just to be really clear, I am by no means including 'didn't say no audibly enough because she was drunk, but I'm including the 'come on LETS FUCK'), which drunk girls totally do, then no way does it qualify as rape, even if the girl totally regrets it afterwards and would not normally have had sex with that particular guy. This also isn't victim blaming - I don't acknowledge the victimhood. ;p
What in the literal fuck eri.
Stop raping people and then saying that it's their fault for getting horny drunk.
You have a responsibility for your own involvement in sex beyond making sure you have an excuse and can get away with it in the morning. If you've obtained wasted consent but you're uncertain whether or not you would have been unable to get sober consent then the correct course of action is not "yeah, but nobody can prove whether or not I'd have had sober consent so technically it's her fault that we had this sex she didn't want to have".
Seriously. Rethink your moral framework.
That's fucked up.
Literally 0 of this applies to sex that I myself have had. You trying to think this is behavior I'm projecting because I've been in 'that guy's position' is completely misplaced. I've had drunk girls be hysterically angry at me for not having had sex with them though. Like honestly, fuck off, you making this assumption towards me is way, way out of line.
It still results from an incredibly fucked up moral framework.
I'm fine with "if you make a sober decision to get drunk knowing that you'll probably drive while drunk then you made a sober decision to take that risk". Likewise if you make a sober decision to get drunk then sure, there's accountability there.
Where you lose me is where you think it becomes morally okay for another person to take advantage of this because can use the above logic as an excuse to pin the blame for it on the victim.
If what you're doing is harming another individual, and let's be very clear here, if the girl wakes up with fragments of memories from the blackout and feels like she's been raped then there has been harm, and then saying "technically you caused all this when you decided to get drunk", you're a sociopath. If your standard for moral behavior is technically having an excuse about how it's really their fault that they got raped, you're a sociopath.
Apparently you don't do that, good for you. But you're fine with it. You defended it.
If the girl is drunkenly inviting you to have sex with her then yes, she has a responsibility for her choice to get drunk. But that does not absolve you of your responsibility to say "no".
You pull out one sentence of three posts I make and disregard every qualifier I made in that post and the other posts to justify calling me a rapist. I most certainly specified that being sober and looking for drunk girls is really scummy behavior. I am not morally absolving guys who do this. I am totally morally absolving guys who themselves are drunk, just 'slightly less drunk than the girl was', because I don't see how they deserve more blame for getting drunk than the girl did, when both of them wanted to have sex at the time. I also specified, at least twice, that I talk about active consent, not 'is obviously blackout drunk' - but being someone who has been really really drunk on many occasions (this is not a source of pride, but important for the discussion) I know that the line between 'I fully remember everything and feel amazingly in control of the situation' and 'I don't remember anything I did at all' is really easy to pass and often impossible for other people to understand whether you've crossed or not.
Okay, I'll try and explain this in simple terms.
Let's say you're a recovering meth addict. We're out together and you're pretty fucking drunk and I offer you meth, which you happily accept stating that you fucking love meth.
Sure, you consented. And sure, although you were drunk at the time you ought to have been aware that relapsing was a risk before you got drunk. Plenty of ways that we can pin this on the meth addict and say that they're not a victim and that really it's their fault.
That doesn't in any way change the fact that you only relapsed because I made a deliberate choice to cause it. That doesn't in any way reduce the moral accountability I have for the subsequent fallout. I might have an excuse that I can tell people for how it's totally not my fault, but it wouldn't have happened without me.
One person having a share of responsibility does not absolve all others. The victim having partial responsibility does not make them no longer a victim. Which is exactly what you argued it did when you said "This also isn't victim blaming - I don't acknowledge the victimhood. ;p" If the girl wakes up feeling like she got raped and deals with all the same trauma that other rape victims do then you denying her victim status is just a way of getting what you did to be okay with Jesus. It doesn't change shit about the impact your choice had on her. You've still made her a victim, all you're doing is pinning it on her to make yourself feel better.
Furthermore, it's totally victim blaming. You're shifting the burden of your own participation onto the other party, insisting that you couldn't possibly have known better than to participate if they drunkenly asked you to. The smiley was a particularly tasteless touch too.
Honestly, if you really believe with the argument you made about drunk girls not being victims you should feel pretty bad about the person you choose to be.
How is sex the same as meth, dude. Guys don't fucking go around thinking 'oh man, she'll totally regret having sex with me when she wakes up', they go 'oh man, awesome'. I'm not talking about girls who wake up being semi-raped, I'm saying that if a girl had drunken sex, this does not mean she was raped, even if she later on regrets it.
You seem to think that I'm talking about sober guys picking up blackout drunk guys and having sex with them despite me explicitly stating that this is not what I mean and that at least is kind of rape, and then you present me with your regular counter-that argument. I'm talking about the 'both guy and girl are drunk, club is closing, they both want to go home with someone because being drunk makes them both horny.' Sure the girl is slightly more drunk than the guy is, and she might not normally want to have sex with that particular guy, but you can't expect the drunk guy to go like 'hm, wait, this girl is somewhat out of my league of what I can ordinary get laid from, she must be too drunk to consent otherwise she wouldn't go home with me'. I don't think the girl is a victim in this case, even if she regrets it, just like I don't think the guy who dropped his cellphone in the toilet or told his boss that he's an idiot is a victim. I mean technically you can say they're all victims of alcohol abuse, but not sexual.
This is a problem of social attitudes toward men being taking advantage of, more than anything else.
Like, if you were drunk and a woman took advantage of you, and you woke up next morning to find that you cheated on your wife, I'm sure you would want to claim the legitimate position of "it's not my fault, someone took advantage of me while I was drunk off my ass".
The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse!
The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions.
So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible?
I think you're drunk but I am still going to hold you responsible for this terrible post.
On November 22 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote: [quote] Straight up, I would be in some deep shit if I had sex with my wife if she came home super drunk and was trying to go to bed. I dont' understand why anyone would think that was ok.
What if she comes home and is like BLRAHARAHHRAGAA HAHA IM SO DRUNK AND HORNY FUCKING FUCK ME NOW? and then she gets naked and enters the lady side of some sex position and goes like WTF ARE YOU SO SLOW I SAID FUCK ME NOW?
Basically in this situation she's drunk as fuck and consenting as fuck. I personally think that is perfectly fair game , even if you are sober yourself. (Although if I'm completely sober I wouldn't find the behavior particularly attractive - still would prolly comply, though.) The thing is, that's often the case. Girls, just like guys, can get incredibly horny while incredibly drunk.
What the hell? That is soooooo not consent.
How is this not consent? If you're literally asking for someone to fuck you then you're clearly consenting to having sex with the person? What if you know for a fact that not having sex is gonna lead to an argument because your wife is gonna be really offended, and being drunk, she won't have any filter and everything she says is gonna come out insane?
The state of mind (sobriety) is what takes precedence when deciding consent. As soon as the premise is "She's drunk", the rest is moot. What if she's horny? Doesn't matter. What if she says yes? Doesn't matter. What if she- it can't be consent, period, full stop.
Not raping someone is more important than not arguing. That should be obvious. It sounds like the guy needs to have a serious conversation with her about this... when she's sober.
No, state of mind is a factor but not the only factor.
People have drunk sex all the time with neither party claiming rape afterward.
Sure, but not reporting something doesn't make it right or consensual.
The point was, there may be nothing to report... 'dear police I had sex last night :D just wanted to share!!'
The standard of drunk = rape, no exceptions, doesn't fit reality.
Explicit verbal consent or it’s rape. Gorsameth’s “technically yes” couples having sex regularly rape each other “but your spouse is unlike to mind.”
People that think the new affirmative consent rules are obvious need to wake the fuck up.
The thing is, "technically rape" is not a problem unless anyone actually feels like they have been raped. "Technically rape" only becomes a problem when someone goes to the police. So avoid it unless you are absolutely certain the other person is okay with it.
You have to distinguish between "legally rape" and "someone feels raped". You only have a problem with the law if you are in the intersection of both of these groups.
I’m still seeing a lot of weaseling between a useful definition of what is rape that covers couples consensual sex and saying everything changes based on feelings and if somebody shows up at the police station. Very concerning.
On November 22 2017 04:18 KwarK wrote: [quote] What in the literal fuck eri.
Stop raping people and then saying that it's their fault for getting horny drunk.
You have a responsibility for your own involvement in sex beyond making sure you have an excuse and can get away with it in the morning. If you've obtained wasted consent but you're uncertain whether or not you would have been unable to get sober consent then the correct course of action is not "yeah, but nobody can prove whether or not I'd have had sober consent so technically it's her fault that we had this sex she didn't want to have".
Seriously. Rethink your moral framework.
That's fucked up.
Literally 0 of this applies to sex that I myself have had. You trying to think this is behavior I'm projecting because I've been in 'that guy's position' is completely misplaced. I've had drunk girls be hysterically angry at me for not having had sex with them though. Like honestly, fuck off, you making this assumption towards me is way, way out of line.
It still results from an incredibly fucked up moral framework.
I'm fine with "if you make a sober decision to get drunk knowing that you'll probably drive while drunk then you made a sober decision to take that risk". Likewise if you make a sober decision to get drunk then sure, there's accountability there.
Where you lose me is where you think it becomes morally okay for another person to take advantage of this because can use the above logic as an excuse to pin the blame for it on the victim.
If what you're doing is harming another individual, and let's be very clear here, if the girl wakes up with fragments of memories from the blackout and feels like she's been raped then there has been harm, and then saying "technically you caused all this when you decided to get drunk", you're a sociopath. If your standard for moral behavior is technically having an excuse about how it's really their fault that they got raped, you're a sociopath.
Apparently you don't do that, good for you. But you're fine with it. You defended it.
If the girl is drunkenly inviting you to have sex with her then yes, she has a responsibility for her choice to get drunk. But that does not absolve you of your responsibility to say "no".
You pull out one sentence of three posts I make and disregard every qualifier I made in that post and the other posts to justify calling me a rapist. I most certainly specified that being sober and looking for drunk girls is really scummy behavior. I am not morally absolving guys who do this. I am totally morally absolving guys who themselves are drunk, just 'slightly less drunk than the girl was', because I don't see how they deserve more blame for getting drunk than the girl did, when both of them wanted to have sex at the time. I also specified, at least twice, that I talk about active consent, not 'is obviously blackout drunk' - but being someone who has been really really drunk on many occasions (this is not a source of pride, but important for the discussion) I know that the line between 'I fully remember everything and feel amazingly in control of the situation' and 'I don't remember anything I did at all' is really easy to pass and often impossible for other people to understand whether you've crossed or not.
Okay, I'll try and explain this in simple terms.
Let's say you're a recovering meth addict. We're out together and you're pretty fucking drunk and I offer you meth, which you happily accept stating that you fucking love meth.
Sure, you consented. And sure, although you were drunk at the time you ought to have been aware that relapsing was a risk before you got drunk. Plenty of ways that we can pin this on the meth addict and say that they're not a victim and that really it's their fault.
That doesn't in any way change the fact that you only relapsed because I made a deliberate choice to cause it. That doesn't in any way reduce the moral accountability I have for the subsequent fallout. I might have an excuse that I can tell people for how it's totally not my fault, but it wouldn't have happened without me.
One person having a share of responsibility does not absolve all others. The victim having partial responsibility does not make them no longer a victim. Which is exactly what you argued it did when you said "This also isn't victim blaming - I don't acknowledge the victimhood. ;p" If the girl wakes up feeling like she got raped and deals with all the same trauma that other rape victims do then you denying her victim status is just a way of getting what you did to be okay with Jesus. It doesn't change shit about the impact your choice had on her. You've still made her a victim, all you're doing is pinning it on her to make yourself feel better.
Furthermore, it's totally victim blaming. You're shifting the burden of your own participation onto the other party, insisting that you couldn't possibly have known better than to participate if they drunkenly asked you to. The smiley was a particularly tasteless touch too.
Honestly, if you really believe with the argument you made about drunk girls not being victims you should feel pretty bad about the person you choose to be.
How is sex the same as meth, dude. Guys don't fucking go around thinking 'oh man, she'll totally regret having sex with me when she wakes up', they go 'oh man, awesome'. I'm not talking about girls who wake up being semi-raped, I'm saying that if a girl had drunken sex, this does not mean she was raped, even if she later on regrets it.
You seem to think that I'm talking about sober guys picking up blackout drunk guys and having sex with them despite me explicitly stating that this is not what I mean and that at least is kind of rape, and then you present me with your regular counter-that argument. I'm talking about the 'both guy and girl are drunk, club is closing, they both want to go home with someone because being drunk makes them both horny.' Sure the girl is slightly more drunk than the guy is, and she might not normally want to have sex with that particular guy, but you can't expect the drunk guy to go like 'hm, wait, this girl is somewhat out of my league of what I can ordinary get laid from, she must be too drunk to consent otherwise she wouldn't go home with me'. I don't think the girl is a victim in this case, even if she regrets it, just like I don't think the guy who dropped his cellphone in the toilet or told his boss that he's an idiot is a victim. I mean technically you can say they're all victims of alcohol abuse, but not sexual.
This is a problem of social attitudes toward men being taking advantage of, more than anything else.
Like, if you were drunk and a woman took advantage of you, and you woke up next morning to find that you cheated on your wife, I'm sure you would want to claim the legitimate position of "it's not my fault, someone took advantage of me while I was drunk off my ass".
The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse!
The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions.
So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible?
"your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart""
Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not.
So you're drawing an arbitrary line here?
We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her?
Edit for clarity: Most people, and I'm assuming you too, would agree that a sober person taking advantage of a drunk one is wrong. So in effect you are saying being drunk shouldn't absolve you of responsibility unless you are having sex with someone who is drunk in which case it does. It's not consistent.
So we treat people as responsible for their actions when drunk, with a caveat that contracts and agreement (and consent) aren't valid if the other party knows you are impaired as a mechanism to prevent exploitation of law abiding impaired people. That's a pretty consistent view, but you're trying to add an exception that if you are drunk yourself then you can violate the "no making contracts/agreements/consent with people you know to be impaired" mechanism which is basically saying that drunk person isn't responsible for their own actions when everyone else is.
On November 22 2017 03:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: [quote]
What if she comes home and is like BLRAHARAHHRAGAA HAHA IM SO DRUNK AND HORNY FUCKING FUCK ME NOW? and then she gets naked and enters the lady side of some sex position and goes like WTF ARE YOU SO SLOW I SAID FUCK ME NOW?
Basically in this situation she's drunk as fuck and consenting as fuck. I personally think that is perfectly fair game , even if you are sober yourself. (Although if I'm completely sober I wouldn't find the behavior particularly attractive - still would prolly comply, though.) The thing is, that's often the case. Girls, just like guys, can get incredibly horny while incredibly drunk.
What the hell? That is soooooo not consent.
How is this not consent? If you're literally asking for someone to fuck you then you're clearly consenting to having sex with the person? What if you know for a fact that not having sex is gonna lead to an argument because your wife is gonna be really offended, and being drunk, she won't have any filter and everything she says is gonna come out insane?
The state of mind (sobriety) is what takes precedence when deciding consent. As soon as the premise is "She's drunk", the rest is moot. What if she's horny? Doesn't matter. What if she says yes? Doesn't matter. What if she- it can't be consent, period, full stop.
Not raping someone is more important than not arguing. That should be obvious. It sounds like the guy needs to have a serious conversation with her about this... when she's sober.
No, state of mind is a factor but not the only factor.
People have drunk sex all the time with neither party claiming rape afterward.
Sure, but not reporting something doesn't make it right or consensual.
The point was, there may be nothing to report... 'dear police I had sex last night :D just wanted to share!!'
The standard of drunk = rape, no exceptions, doesn't fit reality.
Explicit verbal consent or it’s rape. Gorsameth’s “technically yes” couples having sex regularly rape each other “but your spouse is unlike to mind.”
People that think the new affirmative consent rules are obvious need to wake the fuck up.
The thing is, "technically rape" is not a problem unless anyone actually feels like they have been raped. "Technically rape" only becomes a problem when someone goes to the police. So avoid it unless you are absolutely certain the other person is okay with it.
You have to distinguish between "legally rape" and "someone feels raped". You only have a problem with the law if you are in the intersection of both of these groups.
I’m still seeing a lot of weaseling between a useful definition of what is rape that covers couples consensual sex and saying everything changes based on feelings and if somebody shows up at the police station. Very concerning.
When two drunk people have sex, the first one that goes to the police to report the what-was-technically-rape wins!
On November 22 2017 04:22 Liquid`Drone wrote: [quote]
Literally 0 of this applies to sex that I myself have had. You trying to think this is behavior I'm projecting because I've been in 'that guy's position' is completely misplaced. I've had drunk girls be hysterically angry at me for not having had sex with them though. Like honestly, fuck off, you making this assumption towards me is way, way out of line.
It still results from an incredibly fucked up moral framework.
I'm fine with "if you make a sober decision to get drunk knowing that you'll probably drive while drunk then you made a sober decision to take that risk". Likewise if you make a sober decision to get drunk then sure, there's accountability there.
Where you lose me is where you think it becomes morally okay for another person to take advantage of this because can use the above logic as an excuse to pin the blame for it on the victim.
If what you're doing is harming another individual, and let's be very clear here, if the girl wakes up with fragments of memories from the blackout and feels like she's been raped then there has been harm, and then saying "technically you caused all this when you decided to get drunk", you're a sociopath. If your standard for moral behavior is technically having an excuse about how it's really their fault that they got raped, you're a sociopath.
Apparently you don't do that, good for you. But you're fine with it. You defended it.
If the girl is drunkenly inviting you to have sex with her then yes, she has a responsibility for her choice to get drunk. But that does not absolve you of your responsibility to say "no".
You pull out one sentence of three posts I make and disregard every qualifier I made in that post and the other posts to justify calling me a rapist. I most certainly specified that being sober and looking for drunk girls is really scummy behavior. I am not morally absolving guys who do this. I am totally morally absolving guys who themselves are drunk, just 'slightly less drunk than the girl was', because I don't see how they deserve more blame for getting drunk than the girl did, when both of them wanted to have sex at the time. I also specified, at least twice, that I talk about active consent, not 'is obviously blackout drunk' - but being someone who has been really really drunk on many occasions (this is not a source of pride, but important for the discussion) I know that the line between 'I fully remember everything and feel amazingly in control of the situation' and 'I don't remember anything I did at all' is really easy to pass and often impossible for other people to understand whether you've crossed or not.
Okay, I'll try and explain this in simple terms.
Let's say you're a recovering meth addict. We're out together and you're pretty fucking drunk and I offer you meth, which you happily accept stating that you fucking love meth.
Sure, you consented. And sure, although you were drunk at the time you ought to have been aware that relapsing was a risk before you got drunk. Plenty of ways that we can pin this on the meth addict and say that they're not a victim and that really it's their fault.
That doesn't in any way change the fact that you only relapsed because I made a deliberate choice to cause it. That doesn't in any way reduce the moral accountability I have for the subsequent fallout. I might have an excuse that I can tell people for how it's totally not my fault, but it wouldn't have happened without me.
One person having a share of responsibility does not absolve all others. The victim having partial responsibility does not make them no longer a victim. Which is exactly what you argued it did when you said "This also isn't victim blaming - I don't acknowledge the victimhood. ;p" If the girl wakes up feeling like she got raped and deals with all the same trauma that other rape victims do then you denying her victim status is just a way of getting what you did to be okay with Jesus. It doesn't change shit about the impact your choice had on her. You've still made her a victim, all you're doing is pinning it on her to make yourself feel better.
Furthermore, it's totally victim blaming. You're shifting the burden of your own participation onto the other party, insisting that you couldn't possibly have known better than to participate if they drunkenly asked you to. The smiley was a particularly tasteless touch too.
Honestly, if you really believe with the argument you made about drunk girls not being victims you should feel pretty bad about the person you choose to be.
How is sex the same as meth, dude. Guys don't fucking go around thinking 'oh man, she'll totally regret having sex with me when she wakes up', they go 'oh man, awesome'. I'm not talking about girls who wake up being semi-raped, I'm saying that if a girl had drunken sex, this does not mean she was raped, even if she later on regrets it.
You seem to think that I'm talking about sober guys picking up blackout drunk guys and having sex with them despite me explicitly stating that this is not what I mean and that at least is kind of rape, and then you present me with your regular counter-that argument. I'm talking about the 'both guy and girl are drunk, club is closing, they both want to go home with someone because being drunk makes them both horny.' Sure the girl is slightly more drunk than the guy is, and she might not normally want to have sex with that particular guy, but you can't expect the drunk guy to go like 'hm, wait, this girl is somewhat out of my league of what I can ordinary get laid from, she must be too drunk to consent otherwise she wouldn't go home with me'. I don't think the girl is a victim in this case, even if she regrets it, just like I don't think the guy who dropped his cellphone in the toilet or told his boss that he's an idiot is a victim. I mean technically you can say they're all victims of alcohol abuse, but not sexual.
This is a problem of social attitudes toward men being taking advantage of, more than anything else.
Like, if you were drunk and a woman took advantage of you, and you woke up next morning to find that you cheated on your wife, I'm sure you would want to claim the legitimate position of "it's not my fault, someone took advantage of me while I was drunk off my ass".
The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse!
The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions.
So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible?
"your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart""
Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not.
So you're drawing an arbitrary line here?
We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her?
You responded to a post that sets a premise in which both people are drunk, and then you change the premise to a situation where one person is drunk and more or less assert that the person you're responding to is blaming the victim of a crime for being subjected to that crime.
Do you not see how incredibly daft that is? If one person is drunk and another takes advantage of them, the sober one taking advantage is obviously in the wrong. But if both people are drunk, neither of them can technically (according to some laws) consent to sexual relations. And while you could then say they were both raped, that would be incredibly dumb to bring to a court of law and thus we should speak of people simply regretting their drunk actions rather than rape.
On November 22 2017 04:18 KwarK wrote: [quote] What in the literal fuck eri.
Stop raping people and then saying that it's their fault for getting horny drunk.
You have a responsibility for your own involvement in sex beyond making sure you have an excuse and can get away with it in the morning. If you've obtained wasted consent but you're uncertain whether or not you would have been unable to get sober consent then the correct course of action is not "yeah, but nobody can prove whether or not I'd have had sober consent so technically it's her fault that we had this sex she didn't want to have".
Seriously. Rethink your moral framework.
That's fucked up.
Literally 0 of this applies to sex that I myself have had. You trying to think this is behavior I'm projecting because I've been in 'that guy's position' is completely misplaced. I've had drunk girls be hysterically angry at me for not having had sex with them though. Like honestly, fuck off, you making this assumption towards me is way, way out of line.
It still results from an incredibly fucked up moral framework.
I'm fine with "if you make a sober decision to get drunk knowing that you'll probably drive while drunk then you made a sober decision to take that risk". Likewise if you make a sober decision to get drunk then sure, there's accountability there.
Where you lose me is where you think it becomes morally okay for another person to take advantage of this because can use the above logic as an excuse to pin the blame for it on the victim.
If what you're doing is harming another individual, and let's be very clear here, if the girl wakes up with fragments of memories from the blackout and feels like she's been raped then there has been harm, and then saying "technically you caused all this when you decided to get drunk", you're a sociopath. If your standard for moral behavior is technically having an excuse about how it's really their fault that they got raped, you're a sociopath.
Apparently you don't do that, good for you. But you're fine with it. You defended it.
If the girl is drunkenly inviting you to have sex with her then yes, she has a responsibility for her choice to get drunk. But that does not absolve you of your responsibility to say "no".
You pull out one sentence of three posts I make and disregard every qualifier I made in that post and the other posts to justify calling me a rapist. I most certainly specified that being sober and looking for drunk girls is really scummy behavior. I am not morally absolving guys who do this. I am totally morally absolving guys who themselves are drunk, just 'slightly less drunk than the girl was', because I don't see how they deserve more blame for getting drunk than the girl did, when both of them wanted to have sex at the time. I also specified, at least twice, that I talk about active consent, not 'is obviously blackout drunk' - but being someone who has been really really drunk on many occasions (this is not a source of pride, but important for the discussion) I know that the line between 'I fully remember everything and feel amazingly in control of the situation' and 'I don't remember anything I did at all' is really easy to pass and often impossible for other people to understand whether you've crossed or not.
Okay, I'll try and explain this in simple terms.
Let's say you're a recovering meth addict. We're out together and you're pretty fucking drunk and I offer you meth, which you happily accept stating that you fucking love meth.
Sure, you consented. And sure, although you were drunk at the time you ought to have been aware that relapsing was a risk before you got drunk. Plenty of ways that we can pin this on the meth addict and say that they're not a victim and that really it's their fault.
That doesn't in any way change the fact that you only relapsed because I made a deliberate choice to cause it. That doesn't in any way reduce the moral accountability I have for the subsequent fallout. I might have an excuse that I can tell people for how it's totally not my fault, but it wouldn't have happened without me.
One person having a share of responsibility does not absolve all others. The victim having partial responsibility does not make them no longer a victim. Which is exactly what you argued it did when you said "This also isn't victim blaming - I don't acknowledge the victimhood. ;p" If the girl wakes up feeling like she got raped and deals with all the same trauma that other rape victims do then you denying her victim status is just a way of getting what you did to be okay with Jesus. It doesn't change shit about the impact your choice had on her. You've still made her a victim, all you're doing is pinning it on her to make yourself feel better.
Furthermore, it's totally victim blaming. You're shifting the burden of your own participation onto the other party, insisting that you couldn't possibly have known better than to participate if they drunkenly asked you to. The smiley was a particularly tasteless touch too.
Honestly, if you really believe with the argument you made about drunk girls not being victims you should feel pretty bad about the person you choose to be.
How is sex the same as meth, dude. Guys don't fucking go around thinking 'oh man, she'll totally regret having sex with me when she wakes up', they go 'oh man, awesome'. I'm not talking about girls who wake up being semi-raped, I'm saying that if a girl had drunken sex, this does not mean she was raped, even if she later on regrets it.
You seem to think that I'm talking about sober guys picking up blackout drunk guys and having sex with them despite me explicitly stating that this is not what I mean and that at least is kind of rape, and then you present me with your regular counter-that argument. I'm talking about the 'both guy and girl are drunk, club is closing, they both want to go home with someone because being drunk makes them both horny.' Sure the girl is slightly more drunk than the guy is, and she might not normally want to have sex with that particular guy, but you can't expect the drunk guy to go like 'hm, wait, this girl is somewhat out of my league of what I can ordinary get laid from, she must be too drunk to consent otherwise she wouldn't go home with me'. I don't think the girl is a victim in this case, even if she regrets it, just like I don't think the guy who dropped his cellphone in the toilet or told his boss that he's an idiot is a victim. I mean technically you can say they're all victims of alcohol abuse, but not sexual.
This is a problem of social attitudes toward men being taking advantage of, more than anything else.
Like, if you were drunk and a woman took advantage of you, and you woke up next morning to find that you cheated on your wife, I'm sure you would want to claim the legitimate position of "it's not my fault, someone took advantage of me while I was drunk off my ass".
The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse!
The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions.
So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible?
"your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart""
Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not.
Surely you can tell that what separates your two points of view is that he has defined the woman in the situation as a victim and you have defined her as an actor, rather than an incapacity to understand the definition of "your", right?
On November 22 2017 05:50 doomdonker wrote: lol Trump essentially saying that Moore's accusers are shit right now. I mean, the Republican Party pretty much believes Moore's accusers because you don't get banned from a mall for being a creep if you aren't a creep.
Yeah, the whole mall thing is, as funny as it sounds, kinda the nail in the coffin. Especially given his position, the entire idea of finally being banned from a mall is pretty striking. What kinda trouble does someone need to go through to get that creep kicked out? This was clearly a very common occurrence.
The worst part is, you can totally tell he sees nothing wrong with it.
Trump admitted to walking in on young teen girls who were in the dressing rooms of his modeling competitions. Which is to say, Trump is a pedophile.
Since the first allegations of sexual misconduct with teenage girls came out against Alabama GOP Senate nominee Roy Moore came out, President Donald Trump has been largely silent on the matter. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has repeatedly said that the president finds the accusations “troubling,” she has deflected when pressed by reporters on whether Trump supports Moore. Meanwhile, Trump himself has ignored reporters’ questions on Moore when the press has pushed him in public.
That is until today. While speaking to the press outside the White House this afternoon, Trump seemed to openly endorse Moore, stating that “we don’t need a liberal Democrat in that seat.” He then went on to trash Democratic nominee Doug Jones as being soft on crime, immigration and the Second Amendment.
Also, the president left the door open that he may travel down to Alabama and campaign for Moore before next months election.
When grilled on whether he believes the allegations against Moore, the president said that Moore “totally denies” the allegations and that “40 years is a long time.” The president further noted that Moore had run a number of races in the past and this has “never come up.”
As far as the women who have come forward, POTUS said that “the women are Trump voters — most of them are Trump voters — all you can do is you have to do what you have to do.” He added that he was very happy that women are now coming forward with allegations, which seems to fly in the face of both his embrace of Moore’s denials and his own past history of calling all women that have accused him of sexual harassment and assault “liars.”
The president publicly offering support for Moore comes a day after White House counselor Kellyanne Conway indicated that the administration wanted a Republican to win the Senate race so they could pass tax reform.
On November 22 2017 04:22 Liquid`Drone wrote: [quote]
Literally 0 of this applies to sex that I myself have had. You trying to think this is behavior I'm projecting because I've been in 'that guy's position' is completely misplaced. I've had drunk girls be hysterically angry at me for not having had sex with them though. Like honestly, fuck off, you making this assumption towards me is way, way out of line.
It still results from an incredibly fucked up moral framework.
I'm fine with "if you make a sober decision to get drunk knowing that you'll probably drive while drunk then you made a sober decision to take that risk". Likewise if you make a sober decision to get drunk then sure, there's accountability there.
Where you lose me is where you think it becomes morally okay for another person to take advantage of this because can use the above logic as an excuse to pin the blame for it on the victim.
If what you're doing is harming another individual, and let's be very clear here, if the girl wakes up with fragments of memories from the blackout and feels like she's been raped then there has been harm, and then saying "technically you caused all this when you decided to get drunk", you're a sociopath. If your standard for moral behavior is technically having an excuse about how it's really their fault that they got raped, you're a sociopath.
Apparently you don't do that, good for you. But you're fine with it. You defended it.
If the girl is drunkenly inviting you to have sex with her then yes, she has a responsibility for her choice to get drunk. But that does not absolve you of your responsibility to say "no".
You pull out one sentence of three posts I make and disregard every qualifier I made in that post and the other posts to justify calling me a rapist. I most certainly specified that being sober and looking for drunk girls is really scummy behavior. I am not morally absolving guys who do this. I am totally morally absolving guys who themselves are drunk, just 'slightly less drunk than the girl was', because I don't see how they deserve more blame for getting drunk than the girl did, when both of them wanted to have sex at the time. I also specified, at least twice, that I talk about active consent, not 'is obviously blackout drunk' - but being someone who has been really really drunk on many occasions (this is not a source of pride, but important for the discussion) I know that the line between 'I fully remember everything and feel amazingly in control of the situation' and 'I don't remember anything I did at all' is really easy to pass and often impossible for other people to understand whether you've crossed or not.
Okay, I'll try and explain this in simple terms.
Let's say you're a recovering meth addict. We're out together and you're pretty fucking drunk and I offer you meth, which you happily accept stating that you fucking love meth.
Sure, you consented. And sure, although you were drunk at the time you ought to have been aware that relapsing was a risk before you got drunk. Plenty of ways that we can pin this on the meth addict and say that they're not a victim and that really it's their fault.
That doesn't in any way change the fact that you only relapsed because I made a deliberate choice to cause it. That doesn't in any way reduce the moral accountability I have for the subsequent fallout. I might have an excuse that I can tell people for how it's totally not my fault, but it wouldn't have happened without me.
One person having a share of responsibility does not absolve all others. The victim having partial responsibility does not make them no longer a victim. Which is exactly what you argued it did when you said "This also isn't victim blaming - I don't acknowledge the victimhood. ;p" If the girl wakes up feeling like she got raped and deals with all the same trauma that other rape victims do then you denying her victim status is just a way of getting what you did to be okay with Jesus. It doesn't change shit about the impact your choice had on her. You've still made her a victim, all you're doing is pinning it on her to make yourself feel better.
Furthermore, it's totally victim blaming. You're shifting the burden of your own participation onto the other party, insisting that you couldn't possibly have known better than to participate if they drunkenly asked you to. The smiley was a particularly tasteless touch too.
Honestly, if you really believe with the argument you made about drunk girls not being victims you should feel pretty bad about the person you choose to be.
How is sex the same as meth, dude. Guys don't fucking go around thinking 'oh man, she'll totally regret having sex with me when she wakes up', they go 'oh man, awesome'. I'm not talking about girls who wake up being semi-raped, I'm saying that if a girl had drunken sex, this does not mean she was raped, even if she later on regrets it.
You seem to think that I'm talking about sober guys picking up blackout drunk guys and having sex with them despite me explicitly stating that this is not what I mean and that at least is kind of rape, and then you present me with your regular counter-that argument. I'm talking about the 'both guy and girl are drunk, club is closing, they both want to go home with someone because being drunk makes them both horny.' Sure the girl is slightly more drunk than the guy is, and she might not normally want to have sex with that particular guy, but you can't expect the drunk guy to go like 'hm, wait, this girl is somewhat out of my league of what I can ordinary get laid from, she must be too drunk to consent otherwise she wouldn't go home with me'. I don't think the girl is a victim in this case, even if she regrets it, just like I don't think the guy who dropped his cellphone in the toilet or told his boss that he's an idiot is a victim. I mean technically you can say they're all victims of alcohol abuse, but not sexual.
This is a problem of social attitudes toward men being taking advantage of, more than anything else.
Like, if you were drunk and a woman took advantage of you, and you woke up next morning to find that you cheated on your wife, I'm sure you would want to claim the legitimate position of "it's not my fault, someone took advantage of me while I was drunk off my ass".
The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse!
The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions.
So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible?
"your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart""
Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not.
So you're drawing an arbitrary line here?
We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her?
The thing that really differs here is that you seem to equate a 'come on, have sex with me' statement leading to some guy having sex with you with a 'I'm holding on to my purse because I don't want to lose out on my belongings' attitude leading to someone taking your belongings from you. You're comparing active drunken consent with active drunken resistance. Nobody is saying that it's fine to drag home an unconscious girl to have sex with her, and even fewer than nobody is saying it's okay to have sex with a drunk girl who actively resists (or that she's to blame), the discussion (somehow) is about whether it's okay to have sex with a drunk girl who strongly expresses a desire to have sex with you.
As some people hold on to the position that 'if the girl is drunk, it's rape', other posters (myself included) want to challenge this notion through different scenarios. For example; 1) you're drunk yourself. 2) the girl really really really wants to have sex. 3) you've had sex hundreds of times before, where she's always consented, so you can assume that her current drunken stage doesn't constitute a significant difference in behavior. There's also 'how drunk is drunk' - which might just be the grayest area of all. In Norway one or two beers is considered too drunk for driving a car, certainly nobody thinks 1 or 2 beers is too drunk to consent to sex. And then tolerance varies immensely, and alcohol is a drug where the high is very inconsistent - you can continue getting drunker a good while after you had your last drink.
On November 22 2017 04:22 Liquid`Drone wrote: [quote]
Literally 0 of this applies to sex that I myself have had. You trying to think this is behavior I'm projecting because I've been in 'that guy's position' is completely misplaced. I've had drunk girls be hysterically angry at me for not having had sex with them though. Like honestly, fuck off, you making this assumption towards me is way, way out of line.
It still results from an incredibly fucked up moral framework.
I'm fine with "if you make a sober decision to get drunk knowing that you'll probably drive while drunk then you made a sober decision to take that risk". Likewise if you make a sober decision to get drunk then sure, there's accountability there.
Where you lose me is where you think it becomes morally okay for another person to take advantage of this because can use the above logic as an excuse to pin the blame for it on the victim.
If what you're doing is harming another individual, and let's be very clear here, if the girl wakes up with fragments of memories from the blackout and feels like she's been raped then there has been harm, and then saying "technically you caused all this when you decided to get drunk", you're a sociopath. If your standard for moral behavior is technically having an excuse about how it's really their fault that they got raped, you're a sociopath.
Apparently you don't do that, good for you. But you're fine with it. You defended it.
If the girl is drunkenly inviting you to have sex with her then yes, she has a responsibility for her choice to get drunk. But that does not absolve you of your responsibility to say "no".
You pull out one sentence of three posts I make and disregard every qualifier I made in that post and the other posts to justify calling me a rapist. I most certainly specified that being sober and looking for drunk girls is really scummy behavior. I am not morally absolving guys who do this. I am totally morally absolving guys who themselves are drunk, just 'slightly less drunk than the girl was', because I don't see how they deserve more blame for getting drunk than the girl did, when both of them wanted to have sex at the time. I also specified, at least twice, that I talk about active consent, not 'is obviously blackout drunk' - but being someone who has been really really drunk on many occasions (this is not a source of pride, but important for the discussion) I know that the line between 'I fully remember everything and feel amazingly in control of the situation' and 'I don't remember anything I did at all' is really easy to pass and often impossible for other people to understand whether you've crossed or not.
Okay, I'll try and explain this in simple terms.
Let's say you're a recovering meth addict. We're out together and you're pretty fucking drunk and I offer you meth, which you happily accept stating that you fucking love meth.
Sure, you consented. And sure, although you were drunk at the time you ought to have been aware that relapsing was a risk before you got drunk. Plenty of ways that we can pin this on the meth addict and say that they're not a victim and that really it's their fault.
That doesn't in any way change the fact that you only relapsed because I made a deliberate choice to cause it. That doesn't in any way reduce the moral accountability I have for the subsequent fallout. I might have an excuse that I can tell people for how it's totally not my fault, but it wouldn't have happened without me.
One person having a share of responsibility does not absolve all others. The victim having partial responsibility does not make them no longer a victim. Which is exactly what you argued it did when you said "This also isn't victim blaming - I don't acknowledge the victimhood. ;p" If the girl wakes up feeling like she got raped and deals with all the same trauma that other rape victims do then you denying her victim status is just a way of getting what you did to be okay with Jesus. It doesn't change shit about the impact your choice had on her. You've still made her a victim, all you're doing is pinning it on her to make yourself feel better.
Furthermore, it's totally victim blaming. You're shifting the burden of your own participation onto the other party, insisting that you couldn't possibly have known better than to participate if they drunkenly asked you to. The smiley was a particularly tasteless touch too.
Honestly, if you really believe with the argument you made about drunk girls not being victims you should feel pretty bad about the person you choose to be.
How is sex the same as meth, dude. Guys don't fucking go around thinking 'oh man, she'll totally regret having sex with me when she wakes up', they go 'oh man, awesome'. I'm not talking about girls who wake up being semi-raped, I'm saying that if a girl had drunken sex, this does not mean she was raped, even if she later on regrets it.
You seem to think that I'm talking about sober guys picking up blackout drunk guys and having sex with them despite me explicitly stating that this is not what I mean and that at least is kind of rape, and then you present me with your regular counter-that argument. I'm talking about the 'both guy and girl are drunk, club is closing, they both want to go home with someone because being drunk makes them both horny.' Sure the girl is slightly more drunk than the guy is, and she might not normally want to have sex with that particular guy, but you can't expect the drunk guy to go like 'hm, wait, this girl is somewhat out of my league of what I can ordinary get laid from, she must be too drunk to consent otherwise she wouldn't go home with me'. I don't think the girl is a victim in this case, even if she regrets it, just like I don't think the guy who dropped his cellphone in the toilet or told his boss that he's an idiot is a victim. I mean technically you can say they're all victims of alcohol abuse, but not sexual.
This is a problem of social attitudes toward men being taking advantage of, more than anything else.
Like, if you were drunk and a woman took advantage of you, and you woke up next morning to find that you cheated on your wife, I'm sure you would want to claim the legitimate position of "it's not my fault, someone took advantage of me while I was drunk off my ass".
The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse!
The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions.
So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible?
"your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart""
Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not.
So you're drawing an arbitrary line here?
We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her?
Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk.
On November 22 2017 04:28 KwarK wrote: [quote] It still results from an incredibly fucked up moral framework.
I'm fine with "if you make a sober decision to get drunk knowing that you'll probably drive while drunk then you made a sober decision to take that risk". Likewise if you make a sober decision to get drunk then sure, there's accountability there.
Where you lose me is where you think it becomes morally okay for another person to take advantage of this because can use the above logic as an excuse to pin the blame for it on the victim.
If what you're doing is harming another individual, and let's be very clear here, if the girl wakes up with fragments of memories from the blackout and feels like she's been raped then there has been harm, and then saying "technically you caused all this when you decided to get drunk", you're a sociopath. If your standard for moral behavior is technically having an excuse about how it's really their fault that they got raped, you're a sociopath.
Apparently you don't do that, good for you. But you're fine with it. You defended it.
If the girl is drunkenly inviting you to have sex with her then yes, she has a responsibility for her choice to get drunk. But that does not absolve you of your responsibility to say "no".
You pull out one sentence of three posts I make and disregard every qualifier I made in that post and the other posts to justify calling me a rapist. I most certainly specified that being sober and looking for drunk girls is really scummy behavior. I am not morally absolving guys who do this. I am totally morally absolving guys who themselves are drunk, just 'slightly less drunk than the girl was', because I don't see how they deserve more blame for getting drunk than the girl did, when both of them wanted to have sex at the time. I also specified, at least twice, that I talk about active consent, not 'is obviously blackout drunk' - but being someone who has been really really drunk on many occasions (this is not a source of pride, but important for the discussion) I know that the line between 'I fully remember everything and feel amazingly in control of the situation' and 'I don't remember anything I did at all' is really easy to pass and often impossible for other people to understand whether you've crossed or not.
Okay, I'll try and explain this in simple terms.
Let's say you're a recovering meth addict. We're out together and you're pretty fucking drunk and I offer you meth, which you happily accept stating that you fucking love meth.
Sure, you consented. And sure, although you were drunk at the time you ought to have been aware that relapsing was a risk before you got drunk. Plenty of ways that we can pin this on the meth addict and say that they're not a victim and that really it's their fault.
That doesn't in any way change the fact that you only relapsed because I made a deliberate choice to cause it. That doesn't in any way reduce the moral accountability I have for the subsequent fallout. I might have an excuse that I can tell people for how it's totally not my fault, but it wouldn't have happened without me.
One person having a share of responsibility does not absolve all others. The victim having partial responsibility does not make them no longer a victim. Which is exactly what you argued it did when you said "This also isn't victim blaming - I don't acknowledge the victimhood. ;p" If the girl wakes up feeling like she got raped and deals with all the same trauma that other rape victims do then you denying her victim status is just a way of getting what you did to be okay with Jesus. It doesn't change shit about the impact your choice had on her. You've still made her a victim, all you're doing is pinning it on her to make yourself feel better.
Furthermore, it's totally victim blaming. You're shifting the burden of your own participation onto the other party, insisting that you couldn't possibly have known better than to participate if they drunkenly asked you to. The smiley was a particularly tasteless touch too.
Honestly, if you really believe with the argument you made about drunk girls not being victims you should feel pretty bad about the person you choose to be.
How is sex the same as meth, dude. Guys don't fucking go around thinking 'oh man, she'll totally regret having sex with me when she wakes up', they go 'oh man, awesome'. I'm not talking about girls who wake up being semi-raped, I'm saying that if a girl had drunken sex, this does not mean she was raped, even if she later on regrets it.
You seem to think that I'm talking about sober guys picking up blackout drunk guys and having sex with them despite me explicitly stating that this is not what I mean and that at least is kind of rape, and then you present me with your regular counter-that argument. I'm talking about the 'both guy and girl are drunk, club is closing, they both want to go home with someone because being drunk makes them both horny.' Sure the girl is slightly more drunk than the guy is, and she might not normally want to have sex with that particular guy, but you can't expect the drunk guy to go like 'hm, wait, this girl is somewhat out of my league of what I can ordinary get laid from, she must be too drunk to consent otherwise she wouldn't go home with me'. I don't think the girl is a victim in this case, even if she regrets it, just like I don't think the guy who dropped his cellphone in the toilet or told his boss that he's an idiot is a victim. I mean technically you can say they're all victims of alcohol abuse, but not sexual.
This is a problem of social attitudes toward men being taking advantage of, more than anything else.
Like, if you were drunk and a woman took advantage of you, and you woke up next morning to find that you cheated on your wife, I'm sure you would want to claim the legitimate position of "it's not my fault, someone took advantage of me while I was drunk off my ass".
The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse!
The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions.
So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible?
"your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart""
Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not.
So you're drawing an arbitrary line here?
We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her?
Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk.
But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'.
On November 22 2017 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
What the hell? That is soooooo not consent.
How is this not consent? If you're literally asking for someone to fuck you then you're clearly consenting to having sex with the person? What if you know for a fact that not having sex is gonna lead to an argument because your wife is gonna be really offended, and being drunk, she won't have any filter and everything she says is gonna come out insane?
The state of mind (sobriety) is what takes precedence when deciding consent. As soon as the premise is "She's drunk", the rest is moot. What if she's horny? Doesn't matter. What if she says yes? Doesn't matter. What if she- it can't be consent, period, full stop.
Not raping someone is more important than not arguing. That should be obvious. It sounds like the guy needs to have a serious conversation with her about this... when she's sober.
No, state of mind is a factor but not the only factor.
People have drunk sex all the time with neither party claiming rape afterward.
Sure, but not reporting something doesn't make it right or consensual.
The point was, there may be nothing to report... 'dear police I had sex last night :D just wanted to share!!'
The standard of drunk = rape, no exceptions, doesn't fit reality.
Explicit verbal consent or it’s rape. Gorsameth’s “technically yes” couples having sex regularly rape each other “but your spouse is unlike to mind.”
People that think the new affirmative consent rules are obvious need to wake the fuck up.
The thing is, "technically rape" is not a problem unless anyone actually feels like they have been raped. "Technically rape" only becomes a problem when someone goes to the police. So avoid it unless you are absolutely certain the other person is okay with it.
You have to distinguish between "legally rape" and "someone feels raped". You only have a problem with the law if you are in the intersection of both of these groups.
I’m still seeing a lot of weaseling between a useful definition of what is rape that covers couples consensual sex and saying everything changes based on feelings and if somebody shows up at the police station. Very concerning.
When two drunk people have sex, the first one that goes to the police to report the what-was-technically-rape wins!
When two drunk people have sex, neither can consent. Then it comes down to if any additional facts show that one party created a situation that would prevent the other party from consenting(like party telling friends they intended to get the victim drunk so they could sleep with them).
For all the complaining about false claims of rape, people often forget that it is very hard to get a rape conviction from a jury, especially date rape. And even really crazy cased like our boy Brock end up with the rapist getting a couple months in jail because he was a good swimmer.
On November 22 2017 04:34 Liquid`Drone wrote: [quote]
You pull out one sentence of three posts I make and disregard every qualifier I made in that post and the other posts to justify calling me a rapist. I most certainly specified that being sober and looking for drunk girls is really scummy behavior. I am not morally absolving guys who do this. I am totally morally absolving guys who themselves are drunk, just 'slightly less drunk than the girl was', because I don't see how they deserve more blame for getting drunk than the girl did, when both of them wanted to have sex at the time. I also specified, at least twice, that I talk about active consent, not 'is obviously blackout drunk' - but being someone who has been really really drunk on many occasions (this is not a source of pride, but important for the discussion) I know that the line between 'I fully remember everything and feel amazingly in control of the situation' and 'I don't remember anything I did at all' is really easy to pass and often impossible for other people to understand whether you've crossed or not.
Okay, I'll try and explain this in simple terms.
Let's say you're a recovering meth addict. We're out together and you're pretty fucking drunk and I offer you meth, which you happily accept stating that you fucking love meth.
Sure, you consented. And sure, although you were drunk at the time you ought to have been aware that relapsing was a risk before you got drunk. Plenty of ways that we can pin this on the meth addict and say that they're not a victim and that really it's their fault.
That doesn't in any way change the fact that you only relapsed because I made a deliberate choice to cause it. That doesn't in any way reduce the moral accountability I have for the subsequent fallout. I might have an excuse that I can tell people for how it's totally not my fault, but it wouldn't have happened without me.
One person having a share of responsibility does not absolve all others. The victim having partial responsibility does not make them no longer a victim. Which is exactly what you argued it did when you said "This also isn't victim blaming - I don't acknowledge the victimhood. ;p" If the girl wakes up feeling like she got raped and deals with all the same trauma that other rape victims do then you denying her victim status is just a way of getting what you did to be okay with Jesus. It doesn't change shit about the impact your choice had on her. You've still made her a victim, all you're doing is pinning it on her to make yourself feel better.
Furthermore, it's totally victim blaming. You're shifting the burden of your own participation onto the other party, insisting that you couldn't possibly have known better than to participate if they drunkenly asked you to. The smiley was a particularly tasteless touch too.
Honestly, if you really believe with the argument you made about drunk girls not being victims you should feel pretty bad about the person you choose to be.
How is sex the same as meth, dude. Guys don't fucking go around thinking 'oh man, she'll totally regret having sex with me when she wakes up', they go 'oh man, awesome'. I'm not talking about girls who wake up being semi-raped, I'm saying that if a girl had drunken sex, this does not mean she was raped, even if she later on regrets it.
You seem to think that I'm talking about sober guys picking up blackout drunk guys and having sex with them despite me explicitly stating that this is not what I mean and that at least is kind of rape, and then you present me with your regular counter-that argument. I'm talking about the 'both guy and girl are drunk, club is closing, they both want to go home with someone because being drunk makes them both horny.' Sure the girl is slightly more drunk than the guy is, and she might not normally want to have sex with that particular guy, but you can't expect the drunk guy to go like 'hm, wait, this girl is somewhat out of my league of what I can ordinary get laid from, she must be too drunk to consent otherwise she wouldn't go home with me'. I don't think the girl is a victim in this case, even if she regrets it, just like I don't think the guy who dropped his cellphone in the toilet or told his boss that he's an idiot is a victim. I mean technically you can say they're all victims of alcohol abuse, but not sexual.
This is a problem of social attitudes toward men being taking advantage of, more than anything else.
Like, if you were drunk and a woman took advantage of you, and you woke up next morning to find that you cheated on your wife, I'm sure you would want to claim the legitimate position of "it's not my fault, someone took advantage of me while I was drunk off my ass".
The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse!
The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions.
So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible?
"your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart""
Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not.
So you're drawing an arbitrary line here?
We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her?
Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk.
But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'.
If both people are blackout drunk they're not going to be having sex.
If one person who is drunk but conscious and sees another unconscious drunk person and has sex with them, clearly the consciously drunk person would be in the wrong.
On November 22 2017 04:48 KwarK wrote: [quote] Okay, I'll try and explain this in simple terms.
Let's say you're a recovering meth addict. We're out together and you're pretty fucking drunk and I offer you meth, which you happily accept stating that you fucking love meth.
Sure, you consented. And sure, although you were drunk at the time you ought to have been aware that relapsing was a risk before you got drunk. Plenty of ways that we can pin this on the meth addict and say that they're not a victim and that really it's their fault.
That doesn't in any way change the fact that you only relapsed because I made a deliberate choice to cause it. That doesn't in any way reduce the moral accountability I have for the subsequent fallout. I might have an excuse that I can tell people for how it's totally not my fault, but it wouldn't have happened without me.
One person having a share of responsibility does not absolve all others. The victim having partial responsibility does not make them no longer a victim. Which is exactly what you argued it did when you said "This also isn't victim blaming - I don't acknowledge the victimhood. ;p" If the girl wakes up feeling like she got raped and deals with all the same trauma that other rape victims do then you denying her victim status is just a way of getting what you did to be okay with Jesus. It doesn't change shit about the impact your choice had on her. You've still made her a victim, all you're doing is pinning it on her to make yourself feel better.
Furthermore, it's totally victim blaming. You're shifting the burden of your own participation onto the other party, insisting that you couldn't possibly have known better than to participate if they drunkenly asked you to. The smiley was a particularly tasteless touch too.
Honestly, if you really believe with the argument you made about drunk girls not being victims you should feel pretty bad about the person you choose to be.
How is sex the same as meth, dude. Guys don't fucking go around thinking 'oh man, she'll totally regret having sex with me when she wakes up', they go 'oh man, awesome'. I'm not talking about girls who wake up being semi-raped, I'm saying that if a girl had drunken sex, this does not mean she was raped, even if she later on regrets it.
You seem to think that I'm talking about sober guys picking up blackout drunk guys and having sex with them despite me explicitly stating that this is not what I mean and that at least is kind of rape, and then you present me with your regular counter-that argument. I'm talking about the 'both guy and girl are drunk, club is closing, they both want to go home with someone because being drunk makes them both horny.' Sure the girl is slightly more drunk than the guy is, and she might not normally want to have sex with that particular guy, but you can't expect the drunk guy to go like 'hm, wait, this girl is somewhat out of my league of what I can ordinary get laid from, she must be too drunk to consent otherwise she wouldn't go home with me'. I don't think the girl is a victim in this case, even if she regrets it, just like I don't think the guy who dropped his cellphone in the toilet or told his boss that he's an idiot is a victim. I mean technically you can say they're all victims of alcohol abuse, but not sexual.
This is a problem of social attitudes toward men being taking advantage of, more than anything else.
Like, if you were drunk and a woman took advantage of you, and you woke up next morning to find that you cheated on your wife, I'm sure you would want to claim the legitimate position of "it's not my fault, someone took advantage of me while I was drunk off my ass".
The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse!
The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions.
So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible?
"your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart""
Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not.
So you're drawing an arbitrary line here?
We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her?
Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk.
But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'.
If both people are blackout drunk they're not going to be having sex.
If one person who is drunk but conscious and sees another unconscious drunk person and has sex with them, clearly the consciously drunk person would be in the wrong.
Why are you being so idiotic about this?
Wait is the only time someone who is sober can prey on a drunk person is when the drunk person is unconscious? What about a sober person coercing someone who is just really drunk (but conscious) into having sex?
On November 22 2017 04:34 Liquid`Drone wrote: [quote]
You pull out one sentence of three posts I make and disregard every qualifier I made in that post and the other posts to justify calling me a rapist. I most certainly specified that being sober and looking for drunk girls is really scummy behavior. I am not morally absolving guys who do this. I am totally morally absolving guys who themselves are drunk, just 'slightly less drunk than the girl was', because I don't see how they deserve more blame for getting drunk than the girl did, when both of them wanted to have sex at the time. I also specified, at least twice, that I talk about active consent, not 'is obviously blackout drunk' - but being someone who has been really really drunk on many occasions (this is not a source of pride, but important for the discussion) I know that the line between 'I fully remember everything and feel amazingly in control of the situation' and 'I don't remember anything I did at all' is really easy to pass and often impossible for other people to understand whether you've crossed or not.
Okay, I'll try and explain this in simple terms.
Let's say you're a recovering meth addict. We're out together and you're pretty fucking drunk and I offer you meth, which you happily accept stating that you fucking love meth.
Sure, you consented. And sure, although you were drunk at the time you ought to have been aware that relapsing was a risk before you got drunk. Plenty of ways that we can pin this on the meth addict and say that they're not a victim and that really it's their fault.
That doesn't in any way change the fact that you only relapsed because I made a deliberate choice to cause it. That doesn't in any way reduce the moral accountability I have for the subsequent fallout. I might have an excuse that I can tell people for how it's totally not my fault, but it wouldn't have happened without me.
One person having a share of responsibility does not absolve all others. The victim having partial responsibility does not make them no longer a victim. Which is exactly what you argued it did when you said "This also isn't victim blaming - I don't acknowledge the victimhood. ;p" If the girl wakes up feeling like she got raped and deals with all the same trauma that other rape victims do then you denying her victim status is just a way of getting what you did to be okay with Jesus. It doesn't change shit about the impact your choice had on her. You've still made her a victim, all you're doing is pinning it on her to make yourself feel better.
Furthermore, it's totally victim blaming. You're shifting the burden of your own participation onto the other party, insisting that you couldn't possibly have known better than to participate if they drunkenly asked you to. The smiley was a particularly tasteless touch too.
Honestly, if you really believe with the argument you made about drunk girls not being victims you should feel pretty bad about the person you choose to be.
How is sex the same as meth, dude. Guys don't fucking go around thinking 'oh man, she'll totally regret having sex with me when she wakes up', they go 'oh man, awesome'. I'm not talking about girls who wake up being semi-raped, I'm saying that if a girl had drunken sex, this does not mean she was raped, even if she later on regrets it.
You seem to think that I'm talking about sober guys picking up blackout drunk guys and having sex with them despite me explicitly stating that this is not what I mean and that at least is kind of rape, and then you present me with your regular counter-that argument. I'm talking about the 'both guy and girl are drunk, club is closing, they both want to go home with someone because being drunk makes them both horny.' Sure the girl is slightly more drunk than the guy is, and she might not normally want to have sex with that particular guy, but you can't expect the drunk guy to go like 'hm, wait, this girl is somewhat out of my league of what I can ordinary get laid from, she must be too drunk to consent otherwise she wouldn't go home with me'. I don't think the girl is a victim in this case, even if she regrets it, just like I don't think the guy who dropped his cellphone in the toilet or told his boss that he's an idiot is a victim. I mean technically you can say they're all victims of alcohol abuse, but not sexual.
This is a problem of social attitudes toward men being taking advantage of, more than anything else.
Like, if you were drunk and a woman took advantage of you, and you woke up next morning to find that you cheated on your wife, I'm sure you would want to claim the legitimate position of "it's not my fault, someone took advantage of me while I was drunk off my ass".
The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse!
The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions.
So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible?
"your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart""
Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not.
So you're drawing an arbitrary line here?
We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her?
Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk.
But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'.
You do know there are different levels of drunk, right? I'm willing to accept that you are not responsible for your actions if you are literally unconscious.
On November 22 2017 04:48 KwarK wrote: [quote] Okay, I'll try and explain this in simple terms.
Let's say you're a recovering meth addict. We're out together and you're pretty fucking drunk and I offer you meth, which you happily accept stating that you fucking love meth.
Sure, you consented. And sure, although you were drunk at the time you ought to have been aware that relapsing was a risk before you got drunk. Plenty of ways that we can pin this on the meth addict and say that they're not a victim and that really it's their fault.
That doesn't in any way change the fact that you only relapsed because I made a deliberate choice to cause it. That doesn't in any way reduce the moral accountability I have for the subsequent fallout. I might have an excuse that I can tell people for how it's totally not my fault, but it wouldn't have happened without me.
One person having a share of responsibility does not absolve all others. The victim having partial responsibility does not make them no longer a victim. Which is exactly what you argued it did when you said "This also isn't victim blaming - I don't acknowledge the victimhood. ;p" If the girl wakes up feeling like she got raped and deals with all the same trauma that other rape victims do then you denying her victim status is just a way of getting what you did to be okay with Jesus. It doesn't change shit about the impact your choice had on her. You've still made her a victim, all you're doing is pinning it on her to make yourself feel better.
Furthermore, it's totally victim blaming. You're shifting the burden of your own participation onto the other party, insisting that you couldn't possibly have known better than to participate if they drunkenly asked you to. The smiley was a particularly tasteless touch too.
Honestly, if you really believe with the argument you made about drunk girls not being victims you should feel pretty bad about the person you choose to be.
How is sex the same as meth, dude. Guys don't fucking go around thinking 'oh man, she'll totally regret having sex with me when she wakes up', they go 'oh man, awesome'. I'm not talking about girls who wake up being semi-raped, I'm saying that if a girl had drunken sex, this does not mean she was raped, even if she later on regrets it.
You seem to think that I'm talking about sober guys picking up blackout drunk guys and having sex with them despite me explicitly stating that this is not what I mean and that at least is kind of rape, and then you present me with your regular counter-that argument. I'm talking about the 'both guy and girl are drunk, club is closing, they both want to go home with someone because being drunk makes them both horny.' Sure the girl is slightly more drunk than the guy is, and she might not normally want to have sex with that particular guy, but you can't expect the drunk guy to go like 'hm, wait, this girl is somewhat out of my league of what I can ordinary get laid from, she must be too drunk to consent otherwise she wouldn't go home with me'. I don't think the girl is a victim in this case, even if she regrets it, just like I don't think the guy who dropped his cellphone in the toilet or told his boss that he's an idiot is a victim. I mean technically you can say they're all victims of alcohol abuse, but not sexual.
This is a problem of social attitudes toward men being taking advantage of, more than anything else.
Like, if you were drunk and a woman took advantage of you, and you woke up next morning to find that you cheated on your wife, I'm sure you would want to claim the legitimate position of "it's not my fault, someone took advantage of me while I was drunk off my ass".
The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse!
The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions.
So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible?
"your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart""
Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not.
So you're drawing an arbitrary line here?
We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her?
Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk.
But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'.
If both people are blackout drunk they're not going to be having sex.
If one person who is drunk but conscious and sees another unconscious drunk person and has sex with them, clearly the consciously drunk person would be in the wrong.
Why are you being so idiotic about this?
Because you don't need to be 'blackout drunk' to be unable to give legal consent.
On November 22 2017 05:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: [quote]
How is sex the same as meth, dude. Guys don't fucking go around thinking 'oh man, she'll totally regret having sex with me when she wakes up', they go 'oh man, awesome'. I'm not talking about girls who wake up being semi-raped, I'm saying that if a girl had drunken sex, this does not mean she was raped, even if she later on regrets it.
You seem to think that I'm talking about sober guys picking up blackout drunk guys and having sex with them despite me explicitly stating that this is not what I mean and that at least is kind of rape, and then you present me with your regular counter-that argument. I'm talking about the 'both guy and girl are drunk, club is closing, they both want to go home with someone because being drunk makes them both horny.' Sure the girl is slightly more drunk than the guy is, and she might not normally want to have sex with that particular guy, but you can't expect the drunk guy to go like 'hm, wait, this girl is somewhat out of my league of what I can ordinary get laid from, she must be too drunk to consent otherwise she wouldn't go home with me'. I don't think the girl is a victim in this case, even if she regrets it, just like I don't think the guy who dropped his cellphone in the toilet or told his boss that he's an idiot is a victim. I mean technically you can say they're all victims of alcohol abuse, but not sexual.
This is a problem of social attitudes toward men being taking advantage of, more than anything else.
Like, if you were drunk and a woman took advantage of you, and you woke up next morning to find that you cheated on your wife, I'm sure you would want to claim the legitimate position of "it's not my fault, someone took advantage of me while I was drunk off my ass".
The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse!
The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions.
So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible?
"your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart""
Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not.
So you're drawing an arbitrary line here?
We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her?
Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk.
But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'.
If both people are blackout drunk they're not going to be having sex.
If one person who is drunk but conscious and sees another unconscious drunk person and has sex with them, clearly the consciously drunk person would be in the wrong.
Why are you being so idiotic about this?
Wait is the only time someone who is sober can prey on a drunk person is when the drunk person is unconscious? What about a sober person coercing someone who is just really drunk (but conscious) into having sex?
It's a shitty thing to do but not rape. Sober people have sex with drunk people all the time. Hell I've done that (Of course I knew her very well at that point). Again, you can't just use the excuse that you're drunk so "obviously" you are not responsible for what happened. Try doing anything illegal while drunk and see how far that excuse gets you (legally, it means exactly zero)
On November 22 2017 05:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: [quote]
How is sex the same as meth, dude. Guys don't fucking go around thinking 'oh man, she'll totally regret having sex with me when she wakes up', they go 'oh man, awesome'. I'm not talking about girls who wake up being semi-raped, I'm saying that if a girl had drunken sex, this does not mean she was raped, even if she later on regrets it.
You seem to think that I'm talking about sober guys picking up blackout drunk guys and having sex with them despite me explicitly stating that this is not what I mean and that at least is kind of rape, and then you present me with your regular counter-that argument. I'm talking about the 'both guy and girl are drunk, club is closing, they both want to go home with someone because being drunk makes them both horny.' Sure the girl is slightly more drunk than the guy is, and she might not normally want to have sex with that particular guy, but you can't expect the drunk guy to go like 'hm, wait, this girl is somewhat out of my league of what I can ordinary get laid from, she must be too drunk to consent otherwise she wouldn't go home with me'. I don't think the girl is a victim in this case, even if she regrets it, just like I don't think the guy who dropped his cellphone in the toilet or told his boss that he's an idiot is a victim. I mean technically you can say they're all victims of alcohol abuse, but not sexual.
This is a problem of social attitudes toward men being taking advantage of, more than anything else.
Like, if you were drunk and a woman took advantage of you, and you woke up next morning to find that you cheated on your wife, I'm sure you would want to claim the legitimate position of "it's not my fault, someone took advantage of me while I was drunk off my ass".
The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse!
The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions.
So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible?
"your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart""
Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not.
So you're drawing an arbitrary line here?
We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her?
Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk.
But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'.
If both people are blackout drunk they're not going to be having sex.
If one person who is drunk but conscious and sees another unconscious drunk person and has sex with them, clearly the consciously drunk person would be in the wrong.
Why are you being so idiotic about this?
Because you don't need to be 'blackout drunk' to be unable to give legal consent.
On November 22 2017 05:56 WolfintheSheep wrote: [quote] This is a problem of social attitudes toward men being taking advantage of, more than anything else.
Like, if you were drunk and a woman took advantage of you, and you woke up next morning to find that you cheated on your wife, I'm sure you would want to claim the legitimate position of "it's not my fault, someone took advantage of me while I was drunk off my ass".
The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse!
The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions.
So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible?
"your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart""
Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not.
So you're drawing an arbitrary line here?
We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her?
Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk.
But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'.
If both people are blackout drunk they're not going to be having sex.
If one person who is drunk but conscious and sees another unconscious drunk person and has sex with them, clearly the consciously drunk person would be in the wrong.
Why are you being so idiotic about this?
Wait is the only time someone who is sober can prey on a drunk person is when the drunk person is unconscious? What about a sober person coercing someone who is just really drunk (but conscious) into having sex?
It's a shitty thing to do but not rape. Sober people have sex with drunk people all the time. Hell I've done that (Of course I knew her very well at that point). Again, you can't just use the excuse that you're drunk so "obviously" you are not responsible for what happened. Try doing anything illegal while drunk and see how far that excuse gets you (legally, it means exactly zero)
So there's no problem with knowingly getting someone drunk to have sex with them so long as they remain conscious?
Again the only act that anyone is doing while drunk that's not consistent with being responsible for your own actions that you've mentioned is "getting consent from someone who is impaired"
On November 22 2017 05:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: [quote]
How is sex the same as meth, dude. Guys don't fucking go around thinking 'oh man, she'll totally regret having sex with me when she wakes up', they go 'oh man, awesome'. I'm not talking about girls who wake up being semi-raped, I'm saying that if a girl had drunken sex, this does not mean she was raped, even if she later on regrets it.
You seem to think that I'm talking about sober guys picking up blackout drunk guys and having sex with them despite me explicitly stating that this is not what I mean and that at least is kind of rape, and then you present me with your regular counter-that argument. I'm talking about the 'both guy and girl are drunk, club is closing, they both want to go home with someone because being drunk makes them both horny.' Sure the girl is slightly more drunk than the guy is, and she might not normally want to have sex with that particular guy, but you can't expect the drunk guy to go like 'hm, wait, this girl is somewhat out of my league of what I can ordinary get laid from, she must be too drunk to consent otherwise she wouldn't go home with me'. I don't think the girl is a victim in this case, even if she regrets it, just like I don't think the guy who dropped his cellphone in the toilet or told his boss that he's an idiot is a victim. I mean technically you can say they're all victims of alcohol abuse, but not sexual.
This is a problem of social attitudes toward men being taking advantage of, more than anything else.
Like, if you were drunk and a woman took advantage of you, and you woke up next morning to find that you cheated on your wife, I'm sure you would want to claim the legitimate position of "it's not my fault, someone took advantage of me while I was drunk off my ass".
The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse!
The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions.
So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible?
"your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart""
Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not.
So you're drawing an arbitrary line here?
We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her?
Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk.
But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'.
If both people are blackout drunk they're not going to be having sex.
If one person who is drunk but conscious and sees another unconscious drunk person and has sex with them, clearly the consciously drunk person would be in the wrong.
Why are you being so idiotic about this?
Because you don't need to be 'blackout drunk' to be unable to give legal consent.
If you are unable to give consent you are past the point of just being drunk, and are well on your way to "blackout drunk". Why are we treating all "drunk" as equal here? If you are literally unable to give consent then that is widely different from just being drunk.
EPT
