|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
After thinking about it some. If we want to try to set up a consent chart or line or whatever that defines how drunk is too drunk to consent i propose the initial line be when you would not be angry for your partner cheating on you.
For example, if your significant other is unconscious and someone has sex with them its clearly not their fault. However, i can say for most people they would still consider it cheating and be upset if their partner was at or slightly over the legal limit for alcohol and had sex with someone.
Somewhere in there is a line. Me personally i think its tough but its probably just above sloppy drunk and you kinda know it when you see it.. Theres more to it IE this situation is your partner and not a friend or stranger but its a start. I think its an exercise that really makes you think about where consent truly ends.
|
On November 22 2017 07:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 06:56 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 06:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 06:52 Gorsameth wrote:On November 22 2017 06:49 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 06:45 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:42 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:19 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:07 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:06 Logo wrote:
[quote]
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. This is fine, but how drunk do you have to be? The same amount of drunk where you can’t sign a contract, can’t stand trial and can’t drive a car. That's ridiculous. In Norway the BAC level for driving a car is 0.2. Most women are above that after one beer or one glass of wine. Unless you're arguing that the amount you can drink before you can consent to having sex varies from country to country?
Drinking limit may vary greatly, but I think the point about contracts and standing trial holds valid.
It's not just limited to sex. Tattoo artists can't accept a customer who's inebriated, marriage offices won't register someone (or people) who are drunk, etc.
|
I knew we were going to get to the request for the If/When flow chart to “How to avoid accidently committing sexual assault when booze is involved.”
Really folks, its pretty easy to see this stuff coming and avoid it when having encounters with non-hypothetical women.
|
On November 22 2017 07:20 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 07:15 kollin wrote:On November 22 2017 07:13 Mohdoo wrote:
P6 are you saying the man can't give consent either, meaning they are both raping each other? Or are you saying that for equal intoxication, the man is the one doing the raping and only the man? Them both raping each other isn't that absurd a legal standpoint I don't think. If two underage people have sex, they are legally both raping each other and if either party (or more usually either party's parents) tried to bring the case to court they would have to see their own child convicted too. I don't know the laws of your country for this, but in Norway (and I would presume every other civilized country tbh) having sex with a minor is firstly not considered rape (even if it's called statutory rape), and secondly you're exempt from that law if the person you are having sex with is equal age. IE: an 16 year old having sex with a 15 year old is not going to be tried. I'm unsure exactly where the line for equal age is drawn. edit: After googling, apparently a 17 year old has gone to prison for having oral sex with a 15 year old, so the line is very thin. edit2: cleaned up a bit for less mixing of countries and laws.
My point was that laws designed to protect people - for example, drunk people from rape - do not need to be diluted or declared invalid because there seems to situations in which both parties are willingly committing a crime against each other.
|
I value my capacity to have sex and not feel like a bad person a little less than I value a woman's capacity to wake up the next morning without feeling violated.
|
On November 22 2017 07:42 Plansix wrote:
I knew we were going to get to the request for the If/When flow chart to “How to avoid accidently committing sexual assault when booze is involved.”
Really folks, its pretty easy to see this stuff coming and avoid it when having encounters with non-hypothetical women.
I think the common case that is a bit more troublesome is this:
1. Man goes out to get trashed
2. Woman goes out to get trashed
3. These two totally trashed folks happen upon each other some time late at night and end up banging one out
4. Girl wakes up the next day, looks to her side and is like "omfg I was raped"
5. Dude wakes up and is like "lol hello, nice to meet you", him not remembering anything either
He had no intention of having sex with this woman prior to his 7th beer. Same with her. But after those final shots, they were slobbering all over each other and totally each digging it prior to banging it out. But she's super broken up about it the next day. She feels ashamed and whatnot. Did the dude do anything wrong?
|
United States43665 Posts
On November 22 2017 05:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 04:48 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 04:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 04:28 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 04:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 04:18 KwarK wrote: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.
If you have reason to believe the person is going to regret the thing you got them to do with you while they were drunk after they sober up, don't do the thing with them. Meth, sex, whatever. It's a pretty simple rule.
I don't think you're talking about sober guys, I haven't once said that, you keep insisting that I'm not understanding your argument when I am. If you're drunk and you think the other person is going to regret sex when they sober up, don't have sex with them.
If you're a moral individual you shouldn't want to be initiate experiences that other people regret and wish had never happened.
Dropping your phone in a toilet is an individual activity. Nobody else was involved. Sex isn't. The comparison doesn't make any kind of sense. It's a dumb comparison. A drunk person can drunkenly drop their phone in the toilet and be to blame for that. And a drunk person can drunkenly offer sex and be to blame for that. But in the offering sex example there is another individual who has to accept that offer for the sex to happen. That's why they're not comparable. A moral individual should decline to have sex with a wasted woman if he has any reason to suspect that the intoxication is connected to the offer of sex.
|
On November 22 2017 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 07:42 Plansix wrote:
I knew we were going to get to the request for the If/When flow chart to “How to avoid accidently committing sexual assault when booze is involved.”
Really folks, its pretty easy to see this stuff coming and avoid it when having encounters with non-hypothetical women.
I think the common case that is a bit more troublesome is this: 1. Man goes out to get trashed 2. Woman goes out to get trashed 3. These two totally trashed folks happen upon each other some time late at night and end up banging one out 4. Girl wakes up the next day, looks to her side and is like "omfg I was raped" 5. Dude wakes up and is like "lol hello, nice to meet you", him not remembering anything either He had no intention of having sex with this woman prior to his 7th beer. Same with her. But after those final shots, they were slobbering all over each other and totally each digging it prior to banging it out. But she's super broken up about it the next day. She feels ashamed and whatnot. Did the dude do anything wrong?
So the general idea (that several people put forward) is that people are responsible for their actions even while drunk. If that's true the guy being drunk is irrelevant to the story because he's responsible for his actions either way and it's wrong to take advantage of a drunk person.
If that's not true then whatever defense you use to say the dude didn't do anything wrong can't amount to, "the woman is responsible for her actions while drunk".
|
On November 22 2017 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 07:42 Plansix wrote:
I knew we were going to get to the request for the If/When flow chart to “How to avoid accidently committing sexual assault when booze is involved.”
Really folks, its pretty easy to see this stuff coming and avoid it when having encounters with non-hypothetical women.
I think the common case that is a bit more troublesome is this: 1. Man goes out to get trashed 2. Woman goes out to get trashed 3. These two totally trashed folks happen upon each other some time late at night and end up banging one out 4. Girl wakes up the next day, looks to her side and is like "omfg I was raped" 5. Dude wakes up and is like "lol hello, nice to meet you", him not remembering anything either He had no intention of having sex with this woman prior to his 7th beer. Same with her. But after those final shots, they were slobbering all over each other and totally each digging it prior to banging it out. But she's super broken up about it the next day. She feels ashamed and whatnot. Did the dude do anything wrong?
The answer to that is: maybe, it depends on the facts of the case. People don't take that 7th shot and then instantly get teleported to their bed mid fuck.
|
United States43665 Posts
On November 22 2017 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 07:42 Plansix wrote:
I knew we were going to get to the request for the If/When flow chart to “How to avoid accidently committing sexual assault when booze is involved.”
Really folks, its pretty easy to see this stuff coming and avoid it when having encounters with non-hypothetical women.
I think the common case that is a bit more troublesome is this: 1. Man goes out to get trashed 2. Woman goes out to get trashed 3. These two totally trashed folks happen upon each other some time late at night and end up banging one out 4. Girl wakes up the next day, looks to her side and is like "omfg I was raped" 5. Dude wakes up and is like "lol hello, nice to meet you", him not remembering anything either He had no intention of having sex with this woman prior to his 7th beer. Same with her. But after those final shots, they were slobbering all over each other and totally each digging it prior to banging it out. But she's super broken up about it the next day. She feels ashamed and whatnot. Did the dude do anything wrong?
Neither was in a position to consent to anything. Both should have taken a look at the state of the other one and not continued. They both failed to do that and both drunkenly raped the other.
|
On November 22 2017 07:42 Plansix wrote:
I knew we were going to get to the request for the If/When flow chart to “How to avoid accidently committing sexual assault when booze is involved.”
Really folks, its pretty easy to see this stuff coming and avoid it when having encounters with non-hypothetical women.
I think it isnt though. Look at the responses in the thread theres wide disagreement. I stand by what i said. At some point youd no longer be mad at your partner as youd feel they were responsible for their decisions good or bad. Not sure where that line is person to person but its relevant for the alcohol discussion.
|
On November 22 2017 08:04 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 07:42 Plansix wrote:
I knew we were going to get to the request for the If/When flow chart to “How to avoid accidently committing sexual assault when booze is involved.”
Really folks, its pretty easy to see this stuff coming and avoid it when having encounters with non-hypothetical women.
I think it isnt though. Look at the responses in the thread theres wide disagreement. I stand by what i said. At some point youd no longer be mad at your partner as youd feel they were responsible for their decisions good or bad. Not sure where that line is person to person but its relevant for the alcohol discussion.
Most people in this thread are proposing hypothetical devoid of facts beyond "They had this much booze and then had sex." The answer to that is always "Maybe?"
|
On November 22 2017 08:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 08:04 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 07:42 Plansix wrote:
I knew we were going to get to the request for the If/When flow chart to “How to avoid accidently committing sexual assault when booze is involved.”
Really folks, its pretty easy to see this stuff coming and avoid it when having encounters with non-hypothetical women.
I think it isnt though. Look at the responses in the thread theres wide disagreement. I stand by what i said. At some point youd no longer be mad at your partner as youd feel they were responsible for their decisions good or bad. Not sure where that line is person to person but its relevant for the alcohol discussion. Most people in this thread are proposing hypothetical devoid of facts beyond "They had this much booze and then had sex." The answer to that is always "Maybe?"
Would you agree that its significantly more than the legal limit before you wouldnt be angry? Because i think its telling on just what we mean by rape and drunken sex and what consent really means in drunken sex circumstances.
|
On November 22 2017 08:13 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 08:09 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 08:04 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 07:42 Plansix wrote:
I knew we were going to get to the request for the If/When flow chart to “How to avoid accidently committing sexual assault when booze is involved.”
Really folks, its pretty easy to see this stuff coming and avoid it when having encounters with non-hypothetical women.
I think it isnt though. Look at the responses in the thread theres wide disagreement. I stand by what i said. At some point youd no longer be mad at your partner as youd feel they were responsible for their decisions good or bad. Not sure where that line is person to person but its relevant for the alcohol discussion. Most people in this thread are proposing hypothetical devoid of facts beyond "They had this much booze and then had sex." The answer to that is always "Maybe?" Would you agree that its significantly more than the legal limit before you wouldnt be angry? Because i think its telling on just what we mean by rape and drunken sex and what consent really means in drunken sex circumstances.
It depends a lot of factors that have nothing to do with drinking and the legal limit, which varies by state.
|
Also maybe there needs to be different categories and nomenclature here. Everything falling under "rape" poisons the well. Maybe drunken consenting sex legally falls under some degree of sexual assault while coercive sex or date rape or something falls under a harsher category.
If you tell the country couples are raping each other while they "consent" in their minds i think you lose the audience.
|
On November 22 2017 06:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 06:19 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:07 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:06 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:00 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 05:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 22 2017 05:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 04:48 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 04:34 Liquid`Drone wrote: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? 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.
Exactly this but some derps want / have clear lines in the sand.
|
On November 22 2017 08:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 08:13 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 08:09 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 08:04 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 07:42 Plansix wrote:
I knew we were going to get to the request for the If/When flow chart to “How to avoid accidently committing sexual assault when booze is involved.”
Really folks, its pretty easy to see this stuff coming and avoid it when having encounters with non-hypothetical women.
I think it isnt though. Look at the responses in the thread theres wide disagreement. I stand by what i said. At some point youd no longer be mad at your partner as youd feel they were responsible for their decisions good or bad. Not sure where that line is person to person but its relevant for the alcohol discussion. Most people in this thread are proposing hypothetical devoid of facts beyond "They had this much booze and then had sex." The answer to that is always "Maybe?" Would you agree that its significantly more than the legal limit before you wouldnt be angry? Because i think its telling on just what we mean by rape and drunken sex and what consent really means in drunken sex circumstances. It depends a lot of factors that have nothing to do with drinking and the legal limit, which varies by state.
Exactly. Doesnt consent imply the person is responsible for his or her actions? If i am drunk and order a round of shots at the bar i cant claim the bar robbed me. However, if im visibly trashed and the bar serves me i think i might have a case. Especially if i drive home and hit someone.
|
On November 22 2017 08:20 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 08:15 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 08:13 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 08:09 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 08:04 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 07:42 Plansix wrote:
I knew we were going to get to the request for the If/When flow chart to “How to avoid accidently committing sexual assault when booze is involved.”
Really folks, its pretty easy to see this stuff coming and avoid it when having encounters with non-hypothetical women.
I think it isnt though. Look at the responses in the thread theres wide disagreement. I stand by what i said. At some point youd no longer be mad at your partner as youd feel they were responsible for their decisions good or bad. Not sure where that line is person to person but its relevant for the alcohol discussion. Most people in this thread are proposing hypothetical devoid of facts beyond "They had this much booze and then had sex." The answer to that is always "Maybe?" Would you agree that its significantly more than the legal limit before you wouldnt be angry? Because i think its telling on just what we mean by rape and drunken sex and what consent really means in drunken sex circumstances. It depends a lot of factors that have nothing to do with drinking and the legal limit, which varies by state. Exactly. Doesnt consent imply the person is responsible for his or her actions? If i am drunk and order a round of shots at the bar i cant claim the bar robbed me. However, if im visibly trashed and the bar serves me i think i might have a case. Especially if i drive home and hit someone.
Basically? I'm a little muddled on what you're saying, but yes, there is liability to bars who serve customers too many drinks (which is why most will cut you off at a certain point), and why most will stop you from driving home if it's obvious that you're going to.
There's a fairly common acceptance that people can and will become inebriated enough that their judgment is no longer trust worthy.
In completely unrelated news, it looks like Uber is doing its best to fill Yahoo's shoes: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-21/uber-concealed-cyberattack-that-exposed-57-million-people-s-data
|
On November 22 2017 08:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 08:20 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 08:15 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 08:13 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 08:09 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 08:04 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 07:42 Plansix wrote:
I knew we were going to get to the request for the If/When flow chart to “How to avoid accidently committing sexual assault when booze is involved.”
Really folks, its pretty easy to see this stuff coming and avoid it when having encounters with non-hypothetical women.
I think it isnt though. Look at the responses in the thread theres wide disagreement. I stand by what i said. At some point youd no longer be mad at your partner as youd feel they were responsible for their decisions good or bad. Not sure where that line is person to person but its relevant for the alcohol discussion. Most people in this thread are proposing hypothetical devoid of facts beyond "They had this much booze and then had sex." The answer to that is always "Maybe?" Would you agree that its significantly more than the legal limit before you wouldnt be angry? Because i think its telling on just what we mean by rape and drunken sex and what consent really means in drunken sex circumstances. It depends a lot of factors that have nothing to do with drinking and the legal limit, which varies by state. Exactly. Doesnt consent imply the person is responsible for his or her actions? If i am drunk and order a round of shots at the bar i cant claim the bar robbed me. However, if im visibly trashed and the bar serves me i think i might have a case. Especially if i drive home and hit someone. Basically? I'm a little muddled on what you're saying, but yes, there is liability to bars who serve customers too many drinks (which is why most will cut you off at a certain point), and why most will stop you from driving home if it's obvious that you're going to. There's a fairly common acceptance that people can and will become inebriated enough that their judgment is no longer trust worthy. In completely unrelated news, it looks like Uber is doing its best to fill Yahoo's shoes: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-21/uber-concealed-cyberattack-that-exposed-57-million-people-s-data
My point is calling someone, or both parties, a rapist for having sex while over the BAC is dumb and does us all a disservice. Where the line is drawn i dont know but it sure as hell isnt the BAC in Michigan. And if we want to call it a crime fine, just dont call it rape.
|
We don't really need to worry about it, since the reporting and conviction rate of rape is so low its barely a problem. This has bee a protracted discussion about cases that barely exist in reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
