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 07:37 Sadist wrote: 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.
No. There is no framework for such decisions. There is no general framework for when to consider things (in)appropriate. There is ethics but no flow chart of any sort that will give you a specific answer above what p6 statet. it is circumstancial.
Whats so hard to understand here? Or is it rather acceptance that is hard? (not talking specifically about you, Sadist)
I think my partner would be angry even when I was so drunk I couldn't remember the day before committing adultery. Drugs are no excuse. That would be my stance as well.
On November 22 2017 07:37 Sadist wrote: 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.
No. There is no framework for such decisions. There is no general framework for when to consider things (in)appropriate. There is ethics but no flow chart of any sort that will give you a specific answer above what p6 statet. it is circumstancial.
Whats so hard to understand here? Or is it rather acceptance that is hard? (not talking specifically about you, Sadist)
I think my partner would be angry even when I was so drunk I couldn't remember the day before committing adultery. Drugs are no excuse. That would be my stance as well.
If your partner was raped would you be angry at them?
Listen this is all for discussion purposes. I just think its dishonest when we are 100% expected to believe the accuser every time now. Im not even accusing the accuser of lying, they could have a perception of events thats different than the accused, remember things differently, etc.
I think its important to take it on a case by case basis and avoid lumping everyone together. I see articles with Louis CK referenced next to Weinstein. What he did was dumb and inappropriate and he can be ridiculed but its nothing like Weinstein.
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.
Like I wrote in the previous post that you replied to ; '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'.'. Literally (and I think I'm using this the literal way) no drunk person ever who is about to hook up thinks about whether the other person is going to regret it the morning after. Some might think about whether they themselves will regret it - followed by then going through with it, because they were drunk.
You're essentially saying that drunk guys, also known as the dumbest guys on the planet, should go around evaluating whether they'd have a shot at the girl they're making out with if she were sober and factor this into the calculation of whether or not to take it one step further. It doesn't make sense and indicates to me that you've never been drunk. Which is not an attack - good for you if that's the case - but it seems like your approach of what a drunken person's thought process is like is completely off. The fact that you bring up this line of argument is basically either proof that you don't understand what drunkenness is like, or that you did in fact believe I was talking about sober guys.
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.
Like I wrote in the previous post that you replied to ; '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'.'. Literally (and I think I'm using this the literal way) no drunk person ever who is about to hook up thinks about whether the other person is going to regret it the morning after. Some might think about whether they themselves will regret it - followed by then going through with it, because they were drunk.
You're essentially saying that drunk guys, also known as the dumbest guys on the planet, should go around evaluating whether they'd have a shot at the girl they're making out with if she were sober and factor this into the calculation of whether or not to take it one step further. It doesn't make sense and indicates to me that you've never been drunk. Which is not an attack - good for you if that's the case - but it seems like your approach of what a drunken person's thought process is like is completely off. The fact that you bring up this line of argument is basically either proof that you don't understand what drunkenness is like, or that you did in fact believe I was talking about sober guys.
I've been drunk before. I got pretty buzzed last night. I don't lose all sense of morality when drunk. If you do, that's a you thing, not an alcohol thing.
i'm pretty sure net neutrality was mentioned in the thread; it just didn't become a todo. there's not much to say about it; trump admin does stupid thing cuz they're jerks. lots of things just get mentioned, and people breeze past it.
Masturbating in-front of women who don't want to see you masturbate is super gross. And having an agent that actively tries to suppress the stories is also super gross. My standard of approval is people who don't pull shit like that. I don't think he should go to jail, but I be damned if I engage with any of his comedy or movies. The dude was making a movie called "I love you Daddy" right up until fellow comics came forward and said he jacked off in front of them.
On November 22 2017 07:37 Sadist wrote: 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.
No. There is no framework for such decisions. There is no general framework for when to consider things (in)appropriate. There is ethics but no flow chart of any sort that will give you a specific answer above what p6 statet. it is circumstancial.
Whats so hard to understand here? Or is it rather acceptance that is hard? (not talking specifically about you, Sadist)
I think my partner would be angry even when I was so drunk I couldn't remember the day before committing adultery. Drugs are no excuse. That would be my stance as well.
If your partner was raped would you be angry at them?
Listen this is all for discussion purposes. I just think its dishonest when we are 100% expected to believe the accuser every time now. Im not even accusing the accuser of lying, they could have a perception of events thats different than the accused, remember things differently, etc.
I think its important to take it on a case by case basis and avoid lumping everyone together. I see articles with Louis CK referenced next to Weinstein. What he did was dumb and inappropriate and he can be ridiculed but its nothing like Weinstein.
I think I might have jumped the gun on your post as I completely blanked out the most important line. My bad. I'd be petrified if my partner was raped.
e: regarding Louis CK and Weinstein, it's perfectly fine to have them aggregated under a common denominator. In conjunction with everything else that is about sexual norms, discrimination, consent, toxic masculinity to name a few. The broad topic of how we treat one another and what has to change on that front.
People are to busy worrying about points brought up by a breitbart editorial and that they might be accused of rape in this brave new world where women don't put up with bullshit any more.
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.
Are you sure you didn't just confuse this with your 'everybody is racist, it's not an insult' argument because the words are similar or something? By this definition most people I know of both genders are rapists and many people, of both genders, habitually go out for some mutual rape.
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.
Are you sure you didn't just confuse this with your 'everybody is racist, it's not an insult' argument because the words are similar or something? By this definition most people I know of both genders are rapists and many people, of both genders, habitually go out for some mutual rape.
You didn't provide enough facts to your example. We don't know the relationship of the man and the woman. if they are a couple, it changes the facts. If they get trashed together and agree that they are going to have sex later, it changes the facts. But without additional facts, Kwark's point stands.
As I said before, everyone is so concerned with the amount of booze, rather than the important issue: relationship between the parties involved.
@KwarK Being drunk has stages and causes cognitive impairment. It means your decision making becomes complete shit. Depending on how drunk you are, your primal self will take over, thinking about social conveniences will be impossible, repressed, non-existent and all you'll want to do is get off. I firmly believe, like many more people, you have an affirmation bias that everyone is as cognitively present as you are, when the fact of the matter is that ~50% of the people on this planet that can read and that get drunk won't even be able to understand what you're saying due to the fact your argumentation is so convoluted. I'm not saying you're purposely trying to be smart, I'm saying you're that much smarter than so many other people and you overestimate your non-peers. People get drunk and want to fuck. It's a basic instinct. People get drunk and want to do other drugs.
Edit: there are absolutely people that want to have casual sex non stop and also get trashed in the process, are they then a self inflicting rape victim? I mean, come on people, you're making this so much more rapey than this needs to be.
People are to busy worrying about points brought up by a breitbart editorial and that they might be accused of rape in this brave new world where women don't put up with bullshit any more.
It's enough for me if people simply get the news: the new FCC head is being a twat, and they're playing with fire (also this thing called Democracy). I don't honestly expect any to disagree with how awful it is, when even internet companies are standing against the proposition in favor of net neutrality. Still a pretty big piece of news, and another pock on the face of the Trump administration.
On November 22 2017 07:37 Sadist wrote: 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.
No. There is no framework for such decisions. There is no general framework for when to consider things (in)appropriate. There is ethics but no flow chart of any sort that will give you a specific answer above what p6 statet. it is circumstancial.
Whats so hard to understand here? Or is it rather acceptance that is hard? (not talking specifically about you, Sadist)
I think my partner would be angry even when I was so drunk I couldn't remember the day before committing adultery. Drugs are no excuse. That would be my stance as well.
If your partner was raped would you be angry at them?
Listen this is all for discussion purposes. I just think its dishonest when we are 100% expected to believe the accuser every time now. Im not even accusing the accuser of lying, they could have a perception of events thats different than the accused, remember things differently, etc.
I think its important to take it on a case by case basis and avoid lumping everyone together. I see articles with Louis CK referenced next to Weinstein. What he did was dumb and inappropriate and he can be ridiculed but its nothing like Weinstein.
I think I might have jumped the gun on your post as I completely blanked out the most important line. My bad. I'd be petrified if my partner was raped.
e: regarding Louis CK and Weinstein, it's perfectly fine to have them aggregated under a common denominator. In conjunction with everything else that is about sexual norms, discrimination, consent, toxic masculinity to name a few. The broad topic of how we treat one another and what has to change on that front.
My point with the first point was that at some point cheating isnt their fault and SHOULD line up with the moral "consent" line.
If you believed you cant consent while on drugs and its rape if someone has sex with you why should your partner be mad at you for getting raped?
On November 22 2017 09:03 Uldridge wrote: @KwarK Being drunk has stages and causes cognitive impairment. It means your decision making becomes complete shit. Depending on how drunk you are, your primal self will take over, thinking about social conveniences will be impossible, repressed, non-existent and all you'll want to do is get off. I firmly believe, like many more people, you have an affirmation bias that everyone is as cognitively present as you are, when the fact of the matter is that ~50% of the people on this planet that can read and that get drunk won't even be able to understand what you're saying due to the fact your argumentation is so convoluted. I'm not saying you're purposely trying to be smart, I'm saying you're that much smarter than so many other people and you overestimate your non-peers. People get drunk and want to fuck. It's a basic instinct. People get drunk and want to do other drugs.
Ok, well just make sure that you don't break the law while you do that, because some people can't say "No" when they are drunk too.
On November 22 2017 09:05 Plansix wrote:Ok, well just make sure that you don't break the law while you do that, because some people can't say "No" when they are drunk too.
So why do they drink if they'll devolve into someone that can't even decide for themselves what's in their own best interest? It you're as impaired as the person that can't say no, you won't be able to judge if the person truly doesn't want to say no. Knowing thyself is less important than the ability to get drunk so you can potentially put down a rape claim because you couldn't say no whilst being drunk?
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.
Like I wrote in the previous post that you replied to ; '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'.'. Literally (and I think I'm using this the literal way) no drunk person ever who is about to hook up thinks about whether the other person is going to regret it the morning after. Some might think about whether they themselves will regret it - followed by then going through with it, because they were drunk.
You're essentially saying that drunk guys, also known as the dumbest guys on the planet, should go around evaluating whether they'd have a shot at the girl they're making out with if she were sober and factor this into the calculation of whether or not to take it one step further. It doesn't make sense and indicates to me that you've never been drunk. Which is not an attack - good for you if that's the case - but it seems like your approach of what a drunken person's thought process is like is completely off. The fact that you bring up this line of argument is basically either proof that you don't understand what drunkenness is like, or that you did in fact believe I was talking about sober guys.
I've been drunk before. I got pretty buzzed last night. I don't lose all sense of morality when drunk. If you do, that's a you thing, not an alcohol thing.
.. it's not a question of losing all (or any) sense of morality. It's about not suddenly getting hit by an overwhelming wave of self-doubt. In fact alcohol works the other way - it makes people more confident. There's no reason why I should assume that a girl who wants to have sex with me only wants to have sex with me because she's drunk, and that goes for when I'm sober.
I'm totally on board with logical common sense approaches like 'guys should not take advantage of girls who are way more drunk than they are', but saying that two drunk people who have sex raped each other or that drunk guys who are hit on by drunk girls should evaluate whether the girl would be equally into them if she was sober, wtf man. That's not how people work.
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.
Are you sure you didn't just confuse this with your 'everybody is racist, it's not an insult' argument because the words are similar or something? By this definition most people I know of both genders are rapists and many people, of both genders, habitually go out for some mutual rape.
I just disagree with what Kwark said. Maybe in legal terms you could say they raped me, but I didn't feel like I was raped when a girl had sex with me while I was drunk (she was considerably less drunk than me I think). And my feelings about things that happen to me are far more important than what the law might say happened to me. So indubitably calling it rape is just dumb from this guys perspective unless you're already at the point where you're in a court room and a lawyer is talking on behalf of their client. And considering this is not a court room, I think KwarK is just being dumb.
EPT
