There was this great study in the UK that found out that of 75 women who came to the ER crying date rape, 75/75 had just drank too much and had blacked out. And unless the fellow they yelled RAPE at was making a malicious effort to get them drunk to take advantage of them, welp, lesson learned, lady.
Dude, that's still rape.
Just because a girl got too drunk to remember doesn't make it okay to rape her.
actually, no. It's not. I'm a guy who's had sex blacked out. Did I get raped? nope. What if two blacked out people have sex together? mutual rape?
this reminds me of a "educational rape video" we got shown at freshman orientation. Girl goes to a party at this guys house, gets too drunk and doesnt remember banging, wakes up and the guy was gone (had to go somewhere in the morning) so she decides to cry rape. Pretty much every student student first laughed at it, and then asked what the hell was wrong with the people that made the video.
You drink too much, stupid shit happens. Dont drink too much. I know americans hate having to be responsible for their actions, but thats life.
Having sex with a girl who drank a lot is automatic rape only in the eyes of idiots.
Just because somebody says "Fuck me, it's okay" doesn't make it okay unless they're in control of their faculties and are capable of making rational decisions. Very drunk people can't give consent any more than a child or a retarded person can. It doesn't matter how many times they say "yes" or how emphatically, you can't treat it as "yes" unless you know it's coming from a rational place.
If somebody is really drunk and you know that they would have given consent anyway (ie, you're in a happy relationship) then it's not rape.
If they're really drunk, and you don't know that they would have given consent anyway, you're toeing a moral line that is really dangerous. If she's not sober enough to give you her phone number so you can meet up for coffee the next day; then you shouldn't have sex with her. If she doesn't remember you from the night before as that cute guy she wanted to fuck; then it's a really good thing you didn't.
And if I'm drinking and also drunk? You're not addressing the actual issue I'm having with this ridiculous absolute statement.
I did a lot of drinking in college. I had a bunch of one night stands while drunk, with drunk girls. I guarantee you I never raped anybody.
There was this great study in the UK that found out that of 75 women who came to the ER crying date rape, 75/75 had just drank too much and had blacked out. And unless the fellow they yelled RAPE at was making a malicious effort to get them drunk to take advantage of them, welp, lesson learned, lady.
Dude, that's still rape.
Just because a girl got too drunk to remember doesn't make it okay to rape her.
actually, no. It's not. I'm a guy who's had sex blacked out. Did I get raped? nope. What if two blacked out people have sex together? mutual rape?
this reminds me of a "educational rape video" we got shown at freshman orientation. Girl goes to a party at this guys house, gets too drunk and doesnt remember banging, wakes up and the guy was gone (had to go somewhere in the morning) so she decides to cry rape. Pretty much every student student first laughed at it, and then asked what the hell was wrong with the people that made the video.
You drink too much, stupid shit happens. Dont drink too much. I know americans hate having to be responsible for their actions, but thats life.
Having sex with a girl who drank a lot is automatic rape only in the eyes of idiots.
Just because somebody says "Fuck me, it's okay" doesn't make it okay unless they're in control of their faculties and are capable of making rational decisions. Very drunk people can't give consent any more than a child or a retarded person can.
If somebody is really drunk and you know that they would have given consent anyway (ie, you're in a happy relationship) then it's not rape.
If they're really drunk, and you don't know that they would have given consent anyway, you're toeing a moral line that is really dangerous. If she's not sober enough to give you her phone number so you can meet up for coffee the next day; then you shouldn't have sex with her. If she doesn't remember you from the night before as that cute guy she wanted to fuck; then it's a really good thing you didn't.
If she's capable of stringing sentences together in order to seduce you then she's capable of giving you her phone number, and capable of consent. Assuming we're not talkin about some chick who can barely stand just grinding up against you.
No, Robman, people get upset about PUA when it crosses over into misogyny and power games. Things like "negging" are predatory and manipulative social strategies. Seeing women as a sort of boss monster to be overcome and fucking a woman as having 'won' in the eyes of your bros is exactly the kind of creepitude Tycho is talking about.
it's creepy. it's not rape.
let's not cheapen actually bad things by comparing them to weirdos weiring fedoras and trying to engage the interest of girls well above their pay grade.
No, Robman, people get upset about PUA when it crosses over into misogyny and power games. Things like "negging" are predatory and manipulative social strategies. Seeing women as a sort of boss monster to be overcome and fucking a woman as having 'won' in the eyes of your bros is exactly the kind of creepitude Tycho is talking about.
it's creepy. it's not rape.
let's not cheapen actually bad things by comparing them to weirdos weiring fedoras and trying to engage the interest of girls well above their pay grade.
Please tell me this is an actual feature of the "Game" sub-culture. :P
No, Robman, people get upset about PUA when it crosses over into misogyny and power games. Things like "negging" are predatory and manipulative social strategies. Seeing women as a sort of boss monster to be overcome and fucking a woman as having 'won' in the eyes of your bros is exactly the kind of creepitude Tycho is talking about.
it's creepy. it's not rape.
let's not cheapen actually bad things by comparing them to weirdos weiring fedoras and trying to engage the interest of girls well above their pay grade.
Please tell me this is an actual feature of the "Game" sub-culture. :P
heh, no. peacocking is, which that could fall under. and at a party we had at my place one I did in fact see a pick up artist talking to two girl friends of mine, and wearing a fedora. It was pretty hilarious.
No, Robman, people get upset about PUA when it crosses over into misogyny and power games. Things like "negging" are predatory and manipulative social strategies. Seeing women as a sort of boss monster to be overcome and fucking a woman as having 'won' in the eyes of your bros is exactly the kind of creepitude Tycho is talking about.
it's creepy. it's not rape.
let's not cheapen actually bad things by comparing them to weirdos weiring fedoras and trying to engage the interest of girls well above their pay grade.
I'm not saying that PUA = rape, I'm saying that if pick-up artists are getting off on having power over women (similar to rapists, even if expressed differently), it's clearly not a healthy thing.
See this whole "drunk girls can't say yes" argument is funny to come from feminists, because it's rooted in misogyny. Men should know better, obviously. If a woman is wet and willing and tearing off your clothing, welp, you got the cock, you should know better. Even if you're even more drunk then she is, you're the dude.
Dudes always remain in perfect control.
And yes, I realize I need to throw in a qualifier that if a woman is very drunk and a dude is stone cold sober, then it's horribly wrong for him to pick her up. The same applies in reverse when a fugbo whale picks up a hot dude. It happens both ways. It's bad. But saying that "women can't consent while drunk" is trying to remove personal responsibility entirely from women and makes the dude they're getting drunk with their de facto guardian for the night. Is that really what you're trying to say?
No, Robman, people get upset about PUA when it crosses over into misogyny and power games. Things like "negging" are predatory and manipulative social strategies. Seeing women as a sort of boss monster to be overcome and fucking a woman as having 'won' in the eyes of your bros is exactly the kind of creepitude Tycho is talking about.
it's creepy. it's not rape.
let's not cheapen actually bad things by comparing them to weirdos weiring fedoras and trying to engage the interest of girls well above their pay grade.
I'm not saying that PUA = rape, I'm saying that if pick-up artists are getting off on having power over women (similar to rapists, even if expressed differently), it's clearly not a healthy thing.
Well you were all "what the fuck what the fuck" as if PUAs are on the same level of rapists or something. That's how I read it. Sorry.
You keep using the word "risk". Risk = hazard x probability. There is a hazard you will be raped. The risk is incredbily low. And if you got 'groped' at the club, well, the dude might have thought touching was OK when you ground your ass on his crotch for five minutes.
Here's a debating tip: when you have to completely make shit up to raise a counterargument, you probably don't have a very good counterargument.
But you're being an excellent example of exactly the problem I was discussing with Feral: the guy who immediately assumes that if something bad happens to a woman, unless it was done by a complete stranger who jumped out of the bushes, she has to have done something to invite it and is 100% to blame for it. You can't even conceive of a woman being groped in a club unless she dry-humped the groper first.
Yep I'm just a regular rapist woman hating skull fucking ingrate, I consider a day a failure if I haven't left at least seven women with permanent psychological scars. Fuck you.
Not even with a rental pussy, thanks. You're the one who said that if some guy has sex with a woman when she's drunk into unconsciousness, it's not rape and she learned a lesson. "Fuck you" is not a synonym for "that's not what I sad, and my point was actually X." It is, however, a pretty good sign that you're angry because you don't have anything useful to say.
Where do gay people mix into this? Is a top supposed to pick up a bottom? Are lesbians supposed to scan brainwaves to find an interested partner?
Gay men actually have a great system called 'cruising'. You're interested in a guy? You cruise him. If he's interested, he cruises back. If he's not, he doesn't reciprocate, and you go on to somebody else. Efficient, clear, and no game-playing. Jokes about lesbians/bi women all being afraid to ask each other out are rife in the lesbian community, I'm afraid. It's the "I don't want to be that guy" combined with a lifetime of learning dating strategies tailored to being hit on by straight men.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
See this whole "drunk girls can't say yes" argument is funny to come from feminists, because it's rooted in misogyny. Men should know better, obviously. If a woman is wet and willing and tearing off your clothing, welp, you got the cock, you should know better. Even if you're even more drunk then she is, you're the dude.
Dudes always remain in perfect control.
Who said this? So far everyone has said if both are drunk no one is at fault.
And I like how you specify ugly women raping guys rather than just women in general.
There was this great study in the UK that found out that of 75 women who came to the ER crying date rape, 75/75 had just drank too much and had blacked out. And unless the fellow they yelled RAPE at was making a malicious effort to get them drunk to take advantage of them, welp, lesson learned, lady.
Dude, that's still rape.
Just because a girl got too drunk to remember doesn't make it okay to rape her.
actually, no. It's not. I'm a guy who's had sex blacked out. Did I get raped? nope. What if two blacked out people have sex together? mutual rape?
this reminds me of a "educational rape video" we got shown at freshman orientation. Girl goes to a party at this guys house, gets too drunk and doesnt remember banging, wakes up and the guy was gone (had to go somewhere in the morning) so she decides to cry rape. Pretty much every student student first laughed at it, and then asked what the hell was wrong with the people that made the video.
You drink too much, stupid shit happens. Dont drink too much. I know americans hate having to be responsible for their actions, but thats life.
Having sex with a girl who drank a lot is automatic rape only in the eyes of idiots.
Just because somebody says "Fuck me, it's okay" doesn't make it okay unless they're in control of their faculties and are capable of making rational decisions. Very drunk people can't give consent any more than a child or a retarded person can. It doesn't matter how many times they say "yes" or how emphatically, you can't treat it as "yes" unless you know it's coming from a rational place.
If somebody is really drunk and you know that they would have given consent anyway (ie, you're in a happy relationship) then it's not rape.
If they're really drunk, and you don't know that they would have given consent anyway, you're toeing a moral line that is really dangerous. If she's not sober enough to give you her phone number so you can meet up for coffee the next day; then you shouldn't have sex with her. If she doesn't remember you from the night before as that cute guy she wanted to fuck; then it's a really good thing you didn't.
But if a rational adult "rationally" chooses to become so drunk that he or she is no longer rational? Then what?
I don't want to defend any sexual act anyone not consenting has been subjected to. I just hate people who get themselves that drunk.
See this whole "drunk girls can't say yes" argument is funny to come from feminists, because it's rooted in misogyny. Men should know better, obviously. If a woman is wet and willing and tearing off your clothing, welp, you got the cock, you should know better. Even if you're even more drunk then she is, you're the dude.
Dudes always remain in perfect control.
Who said this? So far everyone has said if both are drunk no one is at fault.
And I like how you specify ugly women raping guys rather than just women in general.
No, Robman, people get upset about PUA when it crosses over into misogyny and power games. Things like "negging" are predatory and manipulative social strategies. Seeing women as a sort of boss monster to be overcome and fucking a woman as having 'won' in the eyes of your bros is exactly the kind of creepitude Tycho is talking about.
it's creepy. it's not rape.
let's not cheapen actually bad things by comparing them to weirdos weiring fedoras and trying to engage the interest of girls well above their pay grade.
I'm not saying that PUA = rape, I'm saying that if pick-up artists are getting off on having power over women (similar to rapists, even if expressed differently), it's clearly not a healthy thing.
Well you were all "what the fuck what the fuck" as if PUAs are on the same level of rapists or something. That's how I read it. Sorry.
I was all "what the fuck" because he was saying "oh rapists want power over women, well.... so do PUAs, but rapists are just quitters!" I mean, seriously. o_O
There was this great study in the UK that found out that of 75 women who came to the ER crying date rape, 75/75 had just drank too much and had blacked out. And unless the fellow they yelled RAPE at was making a malicious effort to get them drunk to take advantage of them, welp, lesson learned, lady.
Dude, that's still rape.
Just because a girl got too drunk to remember doesn't make it okay to rape her.
actually, no. It's not. I'm a guy who's had sex blacked out. Did I get raped? nope. What if two blacked out people have sex together? mutual rape?
this reminds me of a "educational rape video" we got shown at freshman orientation. Girl goes to a party at this guys house, gets too drunk and doesnt remember banging, wakes up and the guy was gone (had to go somewhere in the morning) so she decides to cry rape. Pretty much every student student first laughed at it, and then asked what the hell was wrong with the people that made the video.
You drink too much, stupid shit happens. Dont drink too much. I know americans hate having to be responsible for their actions, but thats life.
Having sex with a girl who drank a lot is automatic rape only in the eyes of idiots.
Just because somebody says "Fuck me, it's okay" doesn't make it okay unless they're in control of their faculties and are capable of making rational decisions. Very drunk people can't give consent any more than a child or a retarded person can. It doesn't matter how many times they say "yes" or how emphatically, you can't treat it as "yes" unless you know it's coming from a rational place.
If somebody is really drunk and you know that they would have given consent anyway (ie, you're in a happy relationship) then it's not rape.
If they're really drunk, and you don't know that they would have given consent anyway, you're toeing a moral line that is really dangerous. If she's not sober enough to give you her phone number so you can meet up for coffee the next day; then you shouldn't have sex with her. If she doesn't remember you from the night before as that cute guy she wanted to fuck; then it's a really good thing you didn't.
I disagree. I think it is completely insane to erase all responsibility from someone because they are drunk. If I get drunk and kill someone is it not my fault? I mean I wasn't in control of myself so obviously nothing I did was my fault. I think consent is consent no matter what you've done to yourself.
That doesn't mean the instigator isn't blameless. It's still creepy as shit for a guy to stay sober and continually feed drinks to a girl to get in her pants. Also if the girl is so drunk that she doesn't give consent (i.e. is passed out or is to drunk to know what is happening) then that is rape. No consent=rape. But if a girl gets drunk and decides she wants to go home with a guy and have sex, it doesn't matter if the guy is shit faced or stone cold sober. She wanted to get drunk, she wanted to have sex, that's consent.
I agree that there is a moral line that your flirting with. But as long as the girl actually gives consent ('well she didn't say no' is not a valid argument), without being forced to agree, without being coerced, then i don't see how that can be rape.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
See this whole "drunk girls can't say yes" argument is funny to come from feminists, because it's rooted in misogyny. Men should know better, obviously. If a woman is wet and willing and tearing off your clothing, welp, you got the cock, you should know better. Even if you're even more drunk then she is, you're the dude.
Dudes always remain in perfect control.
Who said this? So far everyone has said if both are drunk no one is at fault.
And I like how you specify ugly women raping guys rather than just women in general.
dude, hot chicks can rape me anytime they want.
Whereas I would be monstrously pissed if I got drunk, passed out, and found out some other woman decided to fuck me.
See this whole "drunk girls can't say yes" argument is funny to come from feminists, because it's rooted in misogyny. Men should know better, obviously. If a woman is wet and willing and tearing off your clothing, welp, you got the cock, you should know better. Even if you're even more drunk then she is, you're the dude.
Dudes always remain in perfect control.
And yes, I realize I need to throw in a qualifier that if a woman is very drunk and a dude is stone cold sober, then it's horribly wrong for him to pick her up. The same applies in reverse when a fugbo whale picks up a hot dude. It happens both ways. It's bad. But saying that "women can't consent while drunk" is trying to remove personal responsibility entirely from women and makes the dude they're getting drunk with their de facto guardian for the night. Is that really what you're trying to say?
Having sex with an utterly drunk person is rape. It doesn't matter which way around the genders are, so don't try to obsfucate the issue.
And yes, of course the sober person ends up being the drunkard's guardian. Or do you just leave your drunk friends in the street? Or fuck them?
let's not cheapen actually bad things by comparing them to weirdos weiring fedoras and trying to engage the interest of girls well above their pay grade.
Who said it was rape? It's a predatory, manipulative kind of social behavior.
I mentioned rape because it is one of the things (along with harassment, stalking, groping, and just plain won't-go-awayness) that women have to be aware of in dealing with potential romantic encounters. That doesn't mean everything a PUA does is rape, or that creepy behavior = rape. But to ignore that risk, and assume that the only thing women can or should care about is a guy shooting off at the mouth, is incorrect.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
See this whole "drunk girls can't say yes" argument is funny to come from feminists, because it's rooted in misogyny. Men should know better, obviously. If a woman is wet and willing and tearing off your clothing, welp, you got the cock, you should know better. Even if you're even more drunk then she is, you're the dude.
Dudes always remain in perfect control.
And yes, I realize I need to throw in a qualifier that if a woman is very drunk and a dude is stone cold sober, then it's horribly wrong for him to pick her up. The same applies in reverse when a fugbo whale picks up a hot dude. It happens both ways. It's bad. But saying that "women can't consent while drunk" is trying to remove personal responsibility entirely from women and makes the dude they're getting drunk with their de facto guardian for the night. Is that really what you're trying to say?
Having sex with an utterly drunk person is rape. It doesn't matter which way around the genders are, so don't try to obsfucate the issue.
And yes, of course the sober person ends up being the drunkard's guardian. Or do you just leave your drunk friends in the street? Or fuck them?
So you agree that both parties are raping each other when theyre both drunk? mutual rape, if you will.
I mean, you're not disagreeing with any point he's making. He calls it a qualifier for a reason, ie it does not apply to his previous argument. That being that if two drunk people have sex, why would the guy get blamed? thats misogyny.
Having sex with an utterly drunk person is rape. It doesn't matter which way around the genders are, so don't try to obsfucate the issue.
Seriously, dude.
There's a reason you never hear people make these arguments about, say, anesthesia. Have you ever heard anyone, even the biggest creep you've ever met, say something to the effect that it would be OK if you fucked some girl you'd agreed to give a ride home after she got her wisdom teeth cut out?
Hell no. But when it's a bar it's different, apparently because bars are toxic places to morality and if a girl makes a decision to get shitfaced there, well, she was asking for it. If she wasn't a slut/whore she wouldn't have been in that bar, and being there drinking alcohol makes her fair game for whoever wants to go for it. Or so these people seem to think.
So it's OK if a hot chick beats you up, fucks you up the ass with an unlubricated 12" dildo, and then gives you a permanent STD? I mean, since we're talking about real rape, and not 'hot BDSM fantasy'.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I disagree. I think it is completely insane to erase all responsibility from someone because they are drunk. If I get drunk and kill someone is it not my fault? I mean I wasn't in control of myself so obviously nothing I did was my fault.
Legally it's a much more slippery question. If I get drunk and get in a car accident I'm guilty of DWI along with whatever traffic violations I performed. If I get drunk and rob a liquor store, I'm still guilty of robbery. But if I get drunk and have sex...the other person is guilty? It's not morally right, but I'm not sure it should be legally wrong.
Neither a car nor a gun are other parties in those events that can decide they don't want to participate.
And if you were to get drunk and rape someone who was sober you would most definitely not be considered the victim.
The drunk-rape scenario requires an unharmed sober person. They're the one at fault.
There's no "consent" involved in drunken crimes - why would there be? That's a sexual concept.
Amusing / scarily enough, intoxication is a legal defence in Japan. Drunk-drivers plead the fact that they were drunk when they killed pedestrians and courts give them a lighter sentence accordingly.
If she's capable of stringing sentences together in order to seduce you then she's capable of giving you her phone number, and capable of consent.
Exactly my point. Then get her phone number, and make sure she was in the right frame of mind the next day by calling her up and talking to her.
To argue otherwise is to put your own opportunistic sexual desire ahead of the well-being of your potential sexual partners. It's basically saying, "Well, she might not be okay with this tomorrow, but I really need to get my rocks off right now!"
Putting your own momentary sexual desire ahead of the long-term well-being of another person... well, there are words for that, and one of them happens to be a four-letter word starting with "r."
So it's OK if a hot chick beats you up, fucks you up the ass with an unlubricated 12" dildo, and then gives you a permanent STD? I mean, since we're talking about real rape, and not 'hot BDSM fantasy'.
Well, since it was off of a comment about a fat girl taking advantage of a drunk guy, and not anally raping him with a dildo, that does not apply.
plus, it was in jest. Some of you fucking people are just so weird.
See this whole "drunk girls can't say yes" argument is funny to come from feminists, because it's rooted in misogyny. Men should know better, obviously. If a woman is wet and willing and tearing off your clothing, welp, you got the cock, you should know better. Even if you're even more drunk then she is, you're the dude.
Dudes always remain in perfect control.
And yes, I realize I need to throw in a qualifier that if a woman is very drunk and a dude is stone cold sober, then it's horribly wrong for him to pick her up. The same applies in reverse when a fugbo whale picks up a hot dude. It happens both ways. It's bad. But saying that "women can't consent while drunk" is trying to remove personal responsibility entirely from women and makes the dude they're getting drunk with their de facto guardian for the night. Is that really what you're trying to say?
Having sex with an utterly drunk person is rape. It doesn't matter which way around the genders are, so don't try to obsfucate the issue.
And yes, of course the sober person ends up being the drunkard's guardian. Or do you just leave your drunk friends in the street? Or fuck them?
So you agree that both parties are raping each other when theyre both drunk? mutual rape, if you will.
I mean, you're not disagreeing with any point he's making. He calls it a qualifier for a reason, ie it does not apply to his previous argument. That being that if two drunk people have sex, why would the guy get blamed? thats misogyny.
I do actually believe it's mutual rape, which I think most people don't. Obviously there's no point criminalising it, though.
And I am disagreeing with his points. He thinks it's okay to rape a drunken girl; I don't.
I did, multiple times. People, yourself included, keep raising this scenario of drunk girl and sober guy, which just does not happen in my world. I'm sure it does, but everyone I know at a bar or at a party is drinking - not being sober so they can later rape some drunk chick.
On the 'consent' issue - briefly, in the US, the law looks at different kinds of consent differently. The mental capacity you need to decide to perform a criminal act is a legally different thing than the kind of mental capacity you need to consent meaningfully to sex. If this sounds weird, consider that we might hold a 10-year-old criminally responsible (albeit as a juvenile) for stealing a bicycle, but we don't therefore agree that 10-year-old to be capable of consenting to sex with a 50-year-old.
I would hope that everyone would agree that a person who has drunk so much as to be actually unconscious has not consented to sex.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I did, multiple times. People, yourself included, keep raising this scenario of drunk girl and sober guy, which just does not happen in my world. I'm sure it does, but everyone I know at a bar or at a party is drinking - not being sober so they can later rape some drunk chick.
Yes, but who said the guy should be blamed and not the girl..?
If she's capable of stringing sentences together in order to seduce you then she's capable of giving you her phone number, and capable of consent.
Exactly my point. Then get her phone number, and make sure she was in the right frame of mind the next day by calling her up and talking to her.
To argue otherwise is to put your own opportunistic sexual desire ahead of the well-being of your potential sexual partners. It's basically saying, "Well, she might not be okay with this tomorrow, but I really need to get my rocks off right now!"
Putting your own momentary sexual desire ahead of the long-term well-being of another person... well, there are words for that, and one of them happens to be a four-letter word starting with "r."
Assuming we're not talkin about some chick who can barely stand just grinding up against you.
Actually, we're already in that territory, because we've already established that we're discussing blackout-level drunkenness.
Are we? I thought geck, hamilton et al and I were arguing about whether it's ethical to sleep with a girl who's drunk. The girl-who-blacks-out issue was more to do with robman's original post.
re: the bolded part of your post - frankly you have a disturbingly vague definition of rape.
You know, that's a pretty well phrased pile of shit mythago. I'll give you props. But when you say:
You're the one who said that if some guy has sex with a woman when she's drunk into unconsciousness, it's not rape and she learned a lesson.
It entirely falls apart. Here's a basic lesson on intoxication. There's a whole spectrum of being shitfaced from "oh hey I'm going to say crazy shit" to "I'm going to do stuff without inhibitions and not remember it" to "olol unconsious, pork me plox". Bolded is the part I was specifically referring to. Interesting that you identify me as the raping type though, that's how you win friends and influence people.
And yes, it is a lesson learned. If you drink enough that you don't remember the events, that doesn't mean you weren't tearing an equally drunk fellow's (or lady's!) clothing off the night before. This is hard to imagine, but sometimes people get drunk and have sex. This is the foundation of the entire clubbing scene. If you don't want it to happen again, don't drink that much in the future. Don't blame the dude who could barely unclasp your bra the night before.
I mean come on, at some point you're either saying that women have fundamentally worse judgement then men, and that men are the sole holders of good judgement during a 3 am tryst, or you're going to have to concede the point that the women who have (for lack of a better term) buyer's remorse are hurting real rape victims everywhere.
Legally it's a much more slippery question. If I get drunk and get in a car accident I'm guilty of DWI along with whatever traffic violations I performed. If I get drunk and rob a liquor store, I'm still guilty of robbery. But if I get drunk and have sex...the other person is guilty? It's not morally right, but I'm not sure it should be legally wrong.
Neither a car nor a gun are other parties in those events that can decide they don't want to participate.
And if you were to get drunk and rape someone who was sober you would most definitely not be considered the victim.
The drunk-rape scenario requires an unharmed sober person. They're the one at fault.
There's no "consent" involved in drunken crimes - why would there be? That's a sexual concept.
Amusing / scarily enough, intoxication is a legal defence in Japan. Drunk-drivers plead the fact that they were drunk when they killed pedestrians and courts give them a lighter sentence accordingly.[/QUOTE]
I was using the word consent loosely, obviously it is a sexual concept. The point is, that for the most part, everyone agrees that if you are drunk and you do something criminal, you are still responsible. Maybe not as responsible as if you were sober, but still responsible. So why should the same not apply to sexual interactions.
I agree that it may not be the best idea if you are sober to sleep with someone that is shit faced. Probably it is not going to lead to a nice friendly relationship. You could even argue that it's kind of a dick move on the sober persons part. But to make the leap to saying that the sober person forcibly violated the drunk person just doesn't jive.
Is it morally the right thing to do? probably not. But it sure as shit isn't rape. Rape is when someone is forced, against there will, to engage in sexual activity.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I mean come on, at some point you're either saying that women have fundamentally worse judgement then men, and that men are the sole holders of good judgement during a 3 am tryst, or you're going to have to concede the point that the women who have (for lack of a better term) buyer's remorse are hurting real rape victims everywhere.
Stop doing this. You know no-one is saying that the reversed gender situation isn't just as bad.
I did, multiple times. People, yourself included, keep raising this scenario of drunk girl and sober guy, which just does not happen in my world. I'm sure it does, but everyone I know at a bar or at a party is drinking - not being sober so they can later rape some drunk chick.
You've never been to a bar or party where people are drinking different things, at different rates, and are at different levels of drunk? You've never been in a crowd where most people are drinking like grown-ups and staying buzzed but functional, except for the one person who overdoes it and spends a lot of the night with their head in the toilet?
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
And protip people: you can still be completely functional and lucid-seeming while not remembering a god damn thing.
Where did anyone raise the redded scenario..?
The general feeling being that a woman is being raped if she's drunk.
Welp on advice of this thread, I'm going to carry a breathalyzer everywhere to test my girlfriend and myself after a night out, if either of us blows over 0.08 I'm going to sleep on the couch to avoid a domestic rape scenario.
If she's capable of stringing sentences together in order to seduce you then she's capable of giving you her phone number, and capable of consent.
Exactly my point. Then get her phone number, and make sure she was in the right frame of mind the next day by calling her up and talking to her.
To argue otherwise is to put your own opportunistic sexual desire ahead of the well-being of your potential sexual partners. It's basically saying, "Well, she might not be okay with this tomorrow, but I really need to get my rocks off right now!"
Putting your own momentary sexual desire ahead of the long-term well-being of another person... well, there are words for that, and one of them happens to be a four-letter word starting with "r."
Assuming we're not talkin about some chick who can barely stand just grinding up against you.
Actually, we're already in that territory, because we've already established that we're discussing blackout-level drunkenness.
Are we? I thought geck, hamilton et al and I were arguing about whether it's ethical to sleep with a girl who's drunk. The girl-who-blacks-out issue was more to do with robman's original post.
re: the bolded part of your post - frankly you have a disturbingly vague definition of rape.
Yeah, I'm not in any way condoning it. I'm saying that I'm not convinced it should be legally rape because I have logical problems with the concept of discerning 'drunken consent' from 'sober consent'. That's what my examples were about. The law holds a drunk person culpable for their actions when they commit a crime, but the suggestion is that when a drunk person gives consent they are not culpable for that action.
If the person in question was so far gone that they could not give consent at all (eg: were unconscious or at least no longer lucid) then it's certainly rape in every sense. Proving that your state of rationality was below some minimum threshold seems completely impossible without witnesses, though, which makes the idea of writing it into law kind of frightening. Either the burden of proof falls on the accuser, which is impossible because how do you prove you were too drunk to say yes, or it fall on the accused, in which case how do you prove that they weren't? In a perfect world it wouldn't matter, but (and I am not in any way attempting to lessen the horror or reality of rape) people do cry rape because they're angry or upset.
I did, multiple times. People, yourself included, keep raising this scenario of drunk girl and sober guy, which just does not happen in my world. I'm sure it does, but everyone I know at a bar or at a party is drinking - not being sober so they can later rape some drunk chick.
You've never been to a bar or party where people are drinking different things, at different rates, and are at different levels of drunk? You've never been in a crowd where most people are drinking like grown-ups and staying buzzed but functional, except for the one person who overdoes it and spends a lot of the night with their head in the toilet?
My grown up party experience is drinking with people in their 50s. They dont have sex.
The first thing though? of course. Whats your point? That drunk guy x is a little more drunk then drunk girl y so when they later fuck he got raped?
Posts
Probably the same place he got some sort of strange rant about bra-burning out of one of my posts.
And if I'm drinking and also drunk? You're not addressing the actual issue I'm having with this ridiculous absolute statement.
I did a lot of drinking in college. I had a bunch of one night stands while drunk, with drunk girls. I guarantee you I never raped anybody.
If she's capable of stringing sentences together in order to seduce you then she's capable of giving you her phone number, and capable of consent. Assuming we're not talkin about some chick who can barely stand just grinding up against you.
And yes I am aware I'm defending Robman
it's creepy. it's not rape.
let's not cheapen actually bad things by comparing them to weirdos weiring fedoras and trying to engage the interest of girls well above their pay grade.
Please tell me this is an actual feature of the "Game" sub-culture. :P
heh, no. peacocking is, which that could fall under. and at a party we had at my place one I did in fact see a pick up artist talking to two girl friends of mine, and wearing a fedora. It was pretty hilarious.
I'm not saying that PUA = rape, I'm saying that if pick-up artists are getting off on having power over women (similar to rapists, even if expressed differently), it's clearly not a healthy thing.
Dudes always remain in perfect control.
And yes, I realize I need to throw in a qualifier that if a woman is very drunk and a dude is stone cold sober, then it's horribly wrong for him to pick her up. The same applies in reverse when a fugbo whale picks up a hot dude. It happens both ways. It's bad. But saying that "women can't consent while drunk" is trying to remove personal responsibility entirely from women and makes the dude they're getting drunk with their de facto guardian for the night. Is that really what you're trying to say?
Well you were all "what the fuck what the fuck" as if PUAs are on the same level of rapists or something. That's how I read it. Sorry.
Here's a debating tip: when you have to completely make shit up to raise a counterargument, you probably don't have a very good counterargument.
But you're being an excellent example of exactly the problem I was discussing with Feral: the guy who immediately assumes that if something bad happens to a woman, unless it was done by a complete stranger who jumped out of the bushes, she has to have done something to invite it and is 100% to blame for it. You can't even conceive of a woman being groped in a club unless she dry-humped the groper first.
Not even with a rental pussy, thanks. You're the one who said that if some guy has sex with a woman when she's drunk into unconsciousness, it's not rape and she learned a lesson. "Fuck you" is not a synonym for "that's not what I sad, and my point was actually X." It is, however, a pretty good sign that you're angry because you don't have anything useful to say.
Gay men actually have a great system called 'cruising'. You're interested in a guy? You cruise him. If he's interested, he cruises back. If he's not, he doesn't reciprocate, and you go on to somebody else. Efficient, clear, and no game-playing. Jokes about lesbians/bi women all being afraid to ask each other out are rife in the lesbian community, I'm afraid. It's the "I don't want to be that guy" combined with a lifetime of learning dating strategies tailored to being hit on by straight men.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
And I like how you specify ugly women raping guys rather than just women in general.
But if a rational adult "rationally" chooses to become so drunk that he or she is no longer rational? Then what?
I don't want to defend any sexual act anyone not consenting has been subjected to. I just hate people who get themselves that drunk.
dude, hot chicks can rape me anytime they want.
I disagree. I think it is completely insane to erase all responsibility from someone because they are drunk. If I get drunk and kill someone is it not my fault? I mean I wasn't in control of myself so obviously nothing I did was my fault. I think consent is consent no matter what you've done to yourself.
That doesn't mean the instigator isn't blameless. It's still creepy as shit for a guy to stay sober and continually feed drinks to a girl to get in her pants. Also if the girl is so drunk that she doesn't give consent (i.e. is passed out or is to drunk to know what is happening) then that is rape. No consent=rape. But if a girl gets drunk and decides she wants to go home with a guy and have sex, it doesn't matter if the guy is shit faced or stone cold sober. She wanted to get drunk, she wanted to have sex, that's consent.
I agree that there is a moral line that your flirting with. But as long as the girl actually gives consent ('well she didn't say no' is not a valid argument), without being forced to agree, without being coerced, then i don't see how that can be rape.
Having sex with an utterly drunk person is rape. It doesn't matter which way around the genders are, so don't try to obsfucate the issue.
And yes, of course the sober person ends up being the drunkard's guardian. Or do you just leave your drunk friends in the street? Or fuck them?
Who said it was rape? It's a predatory, manipulative kind of social behavior.
I mentioned rape because it is one of the things (along with harassment, stalking, groping, and just plain won't-go-awayness) that women have to be aware of in dealing with potential romantic encounters. That doesn't mean everything a PUA does is rape, or that creepy behavior = rape. But to ignore that risk, and assume that the only thing women can or should care about is a guy shooting off at the mouth, is incorrect.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
So you agree that both parties are raping each other when theyre both drunk? mutual rape, if you will.
I mean, you're not disagreeing with any point he's making. He calls it a qualifier for a reason, ie it does not apply to his previous argument. That being that if two drunk people have sex, why would the guy get blamed? thats misogyny.
There's a reason you never hear people make these arguments about, say, anesthesia. Have you ever heard anyone, even the biggest creep you've ever met, say something to the effect that it would be OK if you fucked some girl you'd agreed to give a ride home after she got her wisdom teeth cut out?
Hell no. But when it's a bar it's different, apparently because bars are toxic places to morality and if a girl makes a decision to get shitfaced there, well, she was asking for it. If she wasn't a slut/whore she wouldn't have been in that bar, and being there drinking alcohol makes her fair game for whoever wants to go for it. Or so these people seem to think.
So it's OK if a hot chick beats you up, fucks you up the ass with an unlubricated 12" dildo, and then gives you a permanent STD? I mean, since we're talking about real rape, and not 'hot BDSM fantasy'.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
The drunk-rape scenario requires an unharmed sober person. They're the one at fault.
There's no "consent" involved in drunken crimes - why would there be? That's a sexual concept.
Amusing / scarily enough, intoxication is a legal defence in Japan. Drunk-drivers plead the fact that they were drunk when they killed pedestrians and courts give them a lighter sentence accordingly.
Exactly my point. Then get her phone number, and make sure she was in the right frame of mind the next day by calling her up and talking to her.
To argue otherwise is to put your own opportunistic sexual desire ahead of the well-being of your potential sexual partners. It's basically saying, "Well, she might not be okay with this tomorrow, but I really need to get my rocks off right now!"
Putting your own momentary sexual desire ahead of the long-term well-being of another person... well, there are words for that, and one of them happens to be a four-letter word starting with "r."
Actually, we're already in that territory, because we've already established that we're discussing blackout-level drunkenness.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well, since it was off of a comment about a fat girl taking advantage of a drunk guy, and not anally raping him with a dildo, that does not apply.
plus, it was in jest. Some of you fucking people are just so weird.
I do actually believe it's mutual rape, which I think most people don't. Obviously there's no point criminalising it, though.
And I am disagreeing with his points. He thinks it's okay to rape a drunken girl; I don't.
Where did anyone raise the redded scenario..?
I did, multiple times. People, yourself included, keep raising this scenario of drunk girl and sober guy, which just does not happen in my world. I'm sure it does, but everyone I know at a bar or at a party is drinking - not being sober so they can later rape some drunk chick.
I would hope that everyone would agree that a person who has drunk so much as to be actually unconscious has not consented to sex.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Yes, but who said the guy should be blamed and not the girl..?
Are we? I thought geck, hamilton et al and I were arguing about whether it's ethical to sleep with a girl who's drunk. The girl-who-blacks-out issue was more to do with robman's original post.
re: the bolded part of your post - frankly you have a disturbingly vague definition of rape.
It entirely falls apart. Here's a basic lesson on intoxication. There's a whole spectrum of being shitfaced from "oh hey I'm going to say crazy shit" to "I'm going to do stuff without inhibitions and not remember it" to "olol unconsious, pork me plox". Bolded is the part I was specifically referring to. Interesting that you identify me as the raping type though, that's how you win friends and influence people.
And yes, it is a lesson learned. If you drink enough that you don't remember the events, that doesn't mean you weren't tearing an equally drunk fellow's (or lady's!) clothing off the night before. This is hard to imagine, but sometimes people get drunk and have sex. This is the foundation of the entire clubbing scene. If you don't want it to happen again, don't drink that much in the future. Don't blame the dude who could barely unclasp your bra the night before.
I mean come on, at some point you're either saying that women have fundamentally worse judgement then men, and that men are the sole holders of good judgement during a 3 am tryst, or you're going to have to concede the point that the women who have (for lack of a better term) buyer's remorse are hurting real rape victims everywhere.
The drunk-rape scenario requires an unharmed sober person. They're the one at fault.
There's no "consent" involved in drunken crimes - why would there be? That's a sexual concept.
Amusing / scarily enough, intoxication is a legal defence in Japan. Drunk-drivers plead the fact that they were drunk when they killed pedestrians and courts give them a lighter sentence accordingly.[/QUOTE]
I was using the word consent loosely, obviously it is a sexual concept. The point is, that for the most part, everyone agrees that if you are drunk and you do something criminal, you are still responsible. Maybe not as responsible as if you were sober, but still responsible. So why should the same not apply to sexual interactions.
I agree that it may not be the best idea if you are sober to sleep with someone that is shit faced. Probably it is not going to lead to a nice friendly relationship. You could even argue that it's kind of a dick move on the sober persons part. But to make the leap to saying that the sober person forcibly violated the drunk person just doesn't jive.
Is it morally the right thing to do? probably not. But it sure as shit isn't rape. Rape is when someone is forced, against there will, to engage in sexual activity.
Seriously. What the fuck feral?
Stop doing this. You know no-one is saying that the reversed gender situation isn't just as bad.
Seriously? You think adding "that'll learn her!" to your pro-rape postings is a good idea?
You've never been to a bar or party where people are drinking different things, at different rates, and are at different levels of drunk? You've never been in a crowd where most people are drinking like grown-ups and staying buzzed but functional, except for the one person who overdoes it and spends a lot of the night with their head in the toilet?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
The general feeling being that a woman is being raped if she's drunk.
Welp on advice of this thread, I'm going to carry a breathalyzer everywhere to test my girlfriend and myself after a night out, if either of us blows over 0.08 I'm going to sleep on the couch to avoid a domestic rape scenario.
Yeah, I'm not in any way condoning it. I'm saying that I'm not convinced it should be legally rape because I have logical problems with the concept of discerning 'drunken consent' from 'sober consent'. That's what my examples were about. The law holds a drunk person culpable for their actions when they commit a crime, but the suggestion is that when a drunk person gives consent they are not culpable for that action.
If the person in question was so far gone that they could not give consent at all (eg: were unconscious or at least no longer lucid) then it's certainly rape in every sense. Proving that your state of rationality was below some minimum threshold seems completely impossible without witnesses, though, which makes the idea of writing it into law kind of frightening. Either the burden of proof falls on the accuser, which is impossible because how do you prove you were too drunk to say yes, or it fall on the accused, in which case how do you prove that they weren't? In a perfect world it wouldn't matter, but (and I am not in any way attempting to lessen the horror or reality of rape) people do cry rape because they're angry or upset.
My grown up party experience is drinking with people in their 50s. They dont have sex.
The first thing though? of course. Whats your point? That drunk guy x is a little more drunk then drunk girl y so when they later fuck he got raped?