Do feminists honestly believe they are free from responsibility while drunk?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

In my opinion, if you blame your mistakes mistakes on alcohol you still need to grow up a little. Whenever you get yourself drunk is see it as you clouding your judgement knowing FULL WELL what the consequences are. You are promptly agreeing that you will take full responsibility for your actions and you know that you may do something incredibly stupid.
This is one reason why I don't drink, it clouds my judgement and I will not blame any stupid actions I take on a mentally degrading liquid that I willingly ingested.

If I were to know a guy that had sex with a drunk girl while he was sober I'd call him a dick and an asshole, sure, but not a rapist. Unless you're completely ignorant as to what alcohol does to your body you DO know what you're getting into when you get drunk and deserve to take all the responsibility for it.

Legally everyone are fully accountable for their actions when they're drunk. If you're having sex and wake up thinking that was a mistake then you did a drunken mistake. If I get drunk and rape a sober girl then I am a rapist. Being drunk changes nothing. Having sex without someone who's literally falling down drunk is date rape though since they can't offer their consent in their state.

Morally things are more complicated. It's not wise to have sex when you're drunk. Some people have impaired ability to judge and wont act wise. This goes for both parties, guys may feel violated after drunken encounters too, even though this is rare. Being sober and hitting on someone drunk is shady, but as far as I know it's not illegal.

We all need to be responsible for our actions when we are drunk. We can be convicted of drunk driving. We should not treat drunken one night stands as rape. If you know you're likely to end up having sex after getting drunk then the solution is not to drink. You should be treated with respect even if you're drunk, but when you consent then you are as responsible as when you are sober. My mom always say that if you're allergic to peanuts, don't eat them (this is actually something she says as an analogy to alcohol).

Here's my thoughts.

People getting drunk should be accountable for their actions.

That said, a woman getting absolutely stupid, blackout drunk and a (relatively or completely) sober man taking advantage of that without her knowledge or full consent, yeah that's rape.

Two people who are both drunk, and both sloppily agree to exchange bodily fluids. Well, that's two adults giving consent, it doesn't matter if one is more drunk than the other. Someone made that decision to get drunk, knowing that their judgement and inhibitions would be lowered, but if they're still very much conscious and giving consent, then it's not rape. Also, it's creepy. Who would want to have sex with someone who's passed out? And passed out from being drunk no less, you're liable to get vomited on and that would just kill the mood.

Heather Woytowich:

I'm sorry ladies, but if you can't take care of yourself when you drink and party, you deserve to be taken advantage of. The guys around you weren't born to take care of you, and if there's sketchy guys around, why drink in the first place? Ladies, please prove that you're worth more than your vagina. There's a brain in there. Use it.

I agree completely. It seems to me that a lot of the arguments over this case (in general not in this thread specifically) seem to assume that women are easily manipulated and after ingesting even the smallest amount of booze, they should be guarded and protected against any and all who would try to warp their fragile minds and pressure them into sex. Because obviously a woman never wants to get drunk and have sex, and if she says she does, it's probably just the booze talking.

I have it on good authority that most women are stronger willed than that, and many of them are still capable of making completely rational decisions even while drunk.

Regnes:
This has been addressed in the past, but it really seems like the feminist activism has really taken off again the past little while.

Actual rape is obviously a very bad thing, but it really seems as if feminists in general believe they can define just about any sexual encounter as rape. This is most evident with the date rape scenario, where unless a woman explicitly says yes to an encounter, she can later turn around and say it was rape.

This silly for two reasons. Firstly, sex is almost never a question, how many people do you know go around asking, "would you like to have sex?" at parties or in any social scenario at all? Secondly, with that thought in mind, what even is consent? Since sex is incidental in general, the consent would have to be implied more than it is verbally spoken. The initiator is of course saying yes, but don't you think the other party should as a mature adult have the responsibility of making her/his stance clear?

I'm not saying that it's ok if a girl doesn't say no but visibly attempts to force him back, that's not ok because she has implied the answer is "no". It's also most certainly not ok to have sex with an unconscious person or otherwise muted person since they're obviously not mentally aware. But if you let a guy walk all over you, that's your fault. Do feminists really want to portray themselves like this, that they're too weak to make decisions under pressure?

Think about it this way. You've been to a party and you're quite intoxicated, a few people don't have cab money and you're the only one with a car. So you decide to drive them home. A cop pulls you over and quickly determines that you're completely shit-faced. He tries to arrest you, but then you tell him that you don't deserve to be arrested since you weren't of sound mind to make the decision of whether to drive or not, but you were under pressure because of social factors, your friends needed a ride.

Do you think that logic is going to convince anybody? If you said that to a cop he would probably laugh and then consider pulling out his taser. There's countless precedents that determine you must be fully responsible for your actions while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, there is no crime you can commit that you would be able to weasel out of by claiming you were drunk. There are no exceptions, and this is because of social factors as well, we don't feel sympathetic to the cause, we don't believe you're not responsible for taking care of yourself under the influence. But if some girl goes saying she was raped at a party, that's just despicable, she was under the influence, she wasn't capable of making any decisions for herself.

image

Context is everything. If two drunk people who aren't of sound mind to make responsible decisions have sex, that's not rape. If a sober person has sex with a highly intoxicated person; that's where the line becomes blurred. Taking your drunk driving analogy; if I'm sober and I let my drunk friend get behind the wheel, knowing that he is drunk, am I not somewhat responsible for the outcome? Same can be apply to sober-drunk hook up. If I know that the other person is drunk and there's a chance they might greatly regret the sex later; is it not my responsibility to prevent it? I'm not saying that drunk-sober sex is rape per say, but it certainly falls into a moral grey area. Now if the person is black out drunk, as in they CLEARLY have no concept of what is happening (I've been there let me tell you), and you have sex with them, I would say that's rape.

I think there needs to be a new word for this. Its like rape but far far less extreme than assaulting a woman and tearing her clothes off and having sex with her while she begs you to stop.

But that doesnt mean its honourable to take a girl or guy who has obviously had too much to drink home. But Its a tempting thing when the drunk person is attractive and I wouldnt want to call the man or woman who did it a rapist, since that is such a horrible word.

AlouiciousKF:
Why yes I do think rape is a black and white matter. If you are sober and the girl is drunk and you have sex with her CONGRATULATIONS you're a rapist, duder.

You've landed a half a dozen of my friends and pretty much all of the party scene revelers in prison.

And before people start howling about how I befriend rapists, no. When you're the designated driver and a not-collapsing-drunk girl comes on to you, I refuse to believe that's rape.

It's hard to believe that something can simply be black and white when such a massive population is in the black.

I mean, come on. Religious people take a ton of flak for that exact reason.

Can we at least admit that while some men who are accused of rape probably didn't do anything terribly wrong, far far FAR more women who are legitimately raped will have their claims dismissed in court?

The fact that true rape claims are discredited far more than false rape claims are made doesn't mean either is okay, but I'm sick of this "Man us guys have it so hard when it comes to rape." Stop moping around and realize that for every man who gets a rape claim for taking advantage of a drunk woman, there are about a dozen women who will have their lives torn to pieces and then watch the attacker walk away free. Get some perspective.

Fieldy409:
I think there needs to be a new word for this. Its like rape but far far less extreme than assaulting a woman and tearing her clothes off and having sex with her while she begs you to stop.

Replace "rape" with "murder" and "having sex with her while she begs you to stop" with "stabbing someone while she begs you to stop" and you'll see how ridiculous that claim is. Rape is rape regardless of how "bad" it is, just like murder is murder no matter how painful it is. Torturing someone to death is just as much murder as poisoning them in their sleep, and raping someone while they're passed out drunk is just as much rape as getting them in a back alley. One might be more heinous than the other but it's the same act.

ivansnick:
In Australia there is no such thing as rape.
Instead what we have is 'sexual asault.'
Which means any penetration of the sexual organs or forcing someone to give oral sex without consent.
This includes fingering etc as well...
The term is 14 years prison so... it's good to know.
There is no implying of yes or no. There is only Yes or no. If she doens't say yes then it's a no. No exceptions.

There is also a charge for touching the sexual organs without consent and that carries a term of 7 years Gaol. Again no exceptions.

If the person wants to charge. She/he can charge. There is no limit on time to make the claim. If s/he is drunk and has sex with someone and claims she was drunk and s/he as an excuse for the boy/grilfriend and the police are informed. Then the police will charge her/him for wasting police time.
This is all that can be said on it for Australia. Don't know about anywhere else...

EDIT:
Forgot to add that If the person "forces" (threatens blackmails etc) the Victim to say yes then it is still a sexual assult.

To be honest, this is coming from a country I have very little respect for in terms of law. This is the same country where pornography featuring A-Cup breasted women is illegal under the reasoning that they look too much like children.

Regnes:
This has been addressed in the past, but it really seems like the feminist activism has really taken off again the past little while.

Actual rape is obviously a very bad thing, but it really seems as if feminists in general believe they can define just about any sexual encounter as rape. This is most evident with the date rape scenario, where unless a woman explicitly says yes to an encounter, she can later turn around and say it was rape.

This silly for two reasons. Firstly, sex is almost never a question, how many people do you know go around asking, "would you like to have sex?" at parties or in any social scenario at all? Secondly, with that thought in mind, what even is consent? Since sex is incidental in general, the consent would have to be implied more than it is verbally spoken. The initiator is of course saying yes, but don't you think the other party should as a mature adult have the responsibility of making her/his stance clear?

I'm not saying that it's ok if a girl doesn't say no but visibly attempts to force him back, that's not ok because she has implied the answer is "no". It's also most certainly not ok to have sex with an unconscious person or otherwise muted person since they're obviously not mentally aware. But if you let a guy walk all over you, that's your fault. Do feminists really want to portray themselves like this, that they're too weak to make decisions under pressure?

Think about it this way. You've been to a party and you're quite intoxicated, a few people don't have cab money and you're the only one with a car. So you decide to drive them home. A cop pulls you over and quickly determines that you're completely shit-faced. He tries to arrest you, but then you tell him that you don't deserve to be arrested since you weren't of sound mind to make the decision of whether to drive or not, but you were under pressure because of social factors, your friends needed a ride.

Do you think that logic is going to convince anybody? If you said that to a cop he would probably laugh and then consider pulling out his taser. There's countless precedents that determine you must be fully responsible for your actions while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, there is no crime you can commit that you would be able to weasel out of by claiming you were drunk. There are no exceptions, and this is because of social factors as well, we don't feel sympathetic to the cause, we don't believe you're not responsible for taking care of yourself under the influence. But if some girl goes saying she was raped at a party, that's just despicable, she was under the influence, she wasn't capable of making any decisions for herself.

image

I think it's a MASSIVE grey area and a real problem for the legal system. I don't see how any incident with this kind of context can be properly resolved for either party. It's basically one person's word against another.

Myself, I personally prefer to leave it at least a day before I sleep someone that I've just met. Not saying I wouldn't sleep with a girl on the first date, or when I've just met them, or whatever. Just saying that I would respect them more, and I'd rather have waited a day or two, or till the second date, or whatever. I don't really respect girls that give it up straight away. Of course, having the willpower to do that (as a guy) is something else =p

Regnes:

ivansnick:
In Australia there is no such thing as rape.
Instead what we have is 'sexual asault.'
Which means any penetration of the sexual organs or forcing someone to give oral sex without consent.
This includes fingering etc as well...
The term is 14 years prison so... it's good to know.
There is no implying of yes or no. There is only Yes or no. If she doens't say yes then it's a no. No exceptions.

There is also a charge for touching the sexual organs without consent and that carries a term of 7 years Gaol. Again no exceptions.

If the person wants to charge. She/he can charge. There is no limit on time to make the claim. If s/he is drunk and has sex with someone and claims she was drunk and s/he as an excuse for the boy/grilfriend and the police are informed. Then the police will charge her/him for wasting police time.
This is all that can be said on it for Australia. Don't know about anywhere else...

EDIT:
Forgot to add that If the person "forces" (threatens blackmails etc) the Victim to say yes then it is still a sexual assult.

To be honest, this is coming from a country I have very little respect for in terms of law. This is the same country where pornography featuring A-Cup breasted women is illegal under the reasoning that they look too much like children.

I think somone told me thats not entirly true

peruvianskys:
Can we at least admit that while some men who are accused of rape probably didn't do anything terribly wrong, far far FAR more women who are legitimately raped will have their claims dismissed in court?

The fact that true rape claims are discredited far more than false rape claims are made doesn't mean either is okay, but I'm sick of this "Man us guys have it so hard when it comes to rape." Stop moping around and realize that for every man who gets a rape claim for taking advantage of a drunk woman, there are about a dozen women who will have their lives torn to pieces and then watch the attacker walk away free. Get some perspective.

Fieldy409:
I think there needs to be a new word for this. Its like rape but far far less extreme than assaulting a woman and tearing her clothes off and having sex with her while she begs you to stop.

Replace "rape" with "murder" and "having sex with her while she begs you to stop" with "stabbing someone while she begs you to stop" and you'll see how ridiculous that claim is. Rape is rape regardless of how "bad" it is, just like murder is murder no matter how painful it is. Torturing someone to death is just as much murder as poisoning them in their sleep, and raping someone while they're passed out drunk is just as much rape as getting them in a back alley. One might be more heinous than the other but it's the same act.

I think he is meaning how there is a difference between manslaughter and murder.

I have been drunk to the point of vomitting all over myself, but I still remembered everything I did. If someone wakes up next to someone and they can't recall what happened, it's rape. I refuse to believe that someone can be so drunk as to have no memory of an incident, but still appear to be sober and capable of making a sound decision. So for me to consider it rape, the 'rapee' must be extremely inebriated ('falling down' drunk, near unconsciousness), and the 'rapist' must be of relatively sound mind (which they would have to be or they wouldn't be able to perform the act). But yes, while drunken sex is not always rape (as both parties would agree), there are definitely situations where it can be considered rape; where saying 'you got drunk, deal with it' is a gross and unacceptable attitude to have.

You should have higher standards for what constitutes consent when deciding to sleep with someone than "they appear to be conscious" and "they're not resisting".

Vault101:

Regnes:

ivansnick:
In Australia there is no such thing as rape.
Instead what we have is 'sexual asault.'
Which means any penetration of the sexual organs or forcing someone to give oral sex without consent.
This includes fingering etc as well...
The term is 14 years prison so... it's good to know.
There is no implying of yes or no. There is only Yes or no. If she doens't say yes then it's a no. No exceptions.

There is also a charge for touching the sexual organs without consent and that carries a term of 7 years Gaol. Again no exceptions.

If the person wants to charge. She/he can charge. There is no limit on time to make the claim. If s/he is drunk and has sex with someone and claims she was drunk and s/he as an excuse for the boy/grilfriend and the police are informed. Then the police will charge her/him for wasting police time.
This is all that can be said on it for Australia. Don't know about anywhere else...

EDIT:
Forgot to add that If the person "forces" (threatens blackmails etc) the Victim to say yes then it is still a sexual assult.

To be honest, this is coming from a country I have very little respect for in terms of law. This is the same country where pornography featuring A-Cup breasted women is illegal under the reasoning that they look too much like children.

I think somone told me thats not entirly true

I didn't believe it either until I looked it up

http://stevenclark.com.au/2010/01/31/australian-law-a-cup-pornography-the-big-o/

manic_depressive13:
I have been drunk to the point of vomitting all over myself, but I still remembered everything I did. If someone wakes up next to someone and they can't recall what happened, it's rape. I refuse to believe that someone can be so drunk as to have no memory of an incident, but still appear to be sober and capable of making a sound decision. So for me to consider it rape, the 'rapee' must be extremely inebriated ('falling down' drunk, near unconsciousness), and the 'rapist' must be of relatively sound mind (which they would have to be or they wouldn't be able to perform the act). But yes, while drunken sex is not always rape (as both parties would agree), there are definitely situations where it can be considered rape; where saying 'you got drunk, deal with it' is a gross and unacceptable attitude to have.

You should have higher standards for what constitutes consent when deciding to sleep with someone than "they appear to be conscious" and "they're not resisting".

Alcohol is an interesting drug in that regard.

You would classify people wrongly for rape then, because you can drink a lot and not be as effected, decide to do something and as the alcohol gets into your system it effects you more heavily.

Especially while doing something physically intensive. So while she could be fairly coherent after a number of shots and say yes to a guy she likes, once they start going at it the alcohol is worked into her blood at an accelerated rate and in the morning she wouldn't remember what the hell happened the night before.

Alcohol isnt an exacting drug, you dont put it directly into your blood, it takes varying times for it to take effect.

While people who are intoxicated are responsible for the harm they cause to others, that does not make them responsible for harm other people inflict on them. And I think that includes rape by inability to provide consent. You can't stab a guy just because he's drunk, either. The sharp split on this issue is caused by both sides fearing unjust consequences from a situation where guilt is extremely difficult to determine. And I honestly don't see a good solution to that problem. Too often, there is no way to determine the truth of the case.

Regnes:
feminists in general believe they can define just about any sexual encounter as rape.

And this is where I stopped reading.

Daystar Clarion:
snip

This is exactly why I don't go to bars. If I get drunk and hook up with a women, then im the bad guy.
Its not like there is such a thing as mutual bad decision, its only that men are evil and can only do evil things with bad intent.

Shit what happens if I wake up and we both don't remember anything? Am I still the bad guy?

Regnes:

ivansnick:
In Australia there is no such thing as rape.
Instead what we have is 'sexual asault.'
Which means any penetration of the sexual organs or forcing someone to give oral sex without consent.
This includes fingering etc as well...
The term is 14 years prison so... it's good to know.
There is no implying of yes or no. There is only Yes or no. If she doens't say yes then it's a no. No exceptions.

There is also a charge for touching the sexual organs without consent and that carries a term of 7 years Gaol. Again no exceptions.

If the person wants to charge. She/he can charge. There is no limit on time to make the claim. If s/he is drunk and has sex with someone and claims she was drunk and s/he as an excuse for the boy/grilfriend and the police are informed. Then the police will charge her/him for wasting police time.
This is all that can be said on it for Australia. Don't know about anywhere else...

EDIT:
Forgot to add that If the person "forces" (threatens blackmails etc) the Victim to say yes then it is still a sexual assult.

To be honest, this is coming from a country I have very little respect for in terms of law. This is the same country where pornography featuring A-Cup breasted women is illegal under the reasoning that they look too much like children.

Oh really and why do you have no respect? Where do you get your information from sunshine? Back up your claims on what you say or be prepared to get called out on it. The pornography thing is BS. It was a law, but then it was scrapped. Also you judge an entire country on one stupid law? Australia is better off for not having you IMO.

On topic: Why is this even being debated? If you attempt to court a person who is sufficiently intoxicated then be prepared for consequences.

Daystar Clarion:

A very small minority of women would ever cry rape after waking up next to a guy they never remember sleeping with, and even then, those cases would hardly ever make it to the courts.

Pretty much this. I haven't had many one night stands and when I have they have mostly been with guys I had known as friends but what you mostly think is 'lol' and then you both get on with your lives.

If someone is raped while they are stone cold drunk like being pounced upon in a club bathroom or alley it's really not their fault. Women should be able to get drunk and be safe as much as men. Yeah they were stupid to get so drunk or get split form their friends or fall asleep in a club bathroom but no one man or woman deserves to be murdered or raped because they made a poor decision. I'm pretty sure women curse themselves enough for their poor safety choices after being molested without people joining in.

It's the rapist you should be angry at, not the victim.

I really do think the OP is opposing an argument which any sane feminist and indeed, mature woman, wouldn't believe in.

You managed to turn the word "feminist" into a synonym for "asshole". Those two are not related. If she slept with you, then later regrets it and claims you raped her to avoid confronting her friends with it (instead of just saying "I was drunk, moving on"), she's not a feminist. She's just the worst kind of bitchy dirtbag.

And really, if the girl is too wasted to realize what's going on, then no, you shouldn't have sex with her unless she explicitly initiates it.

Aetheora:

Spartan1362:

Aetheora:

Either way, that's not the type of thing you should ever say, sarcastic or not.

Well if it is sarcastic, then it is designed to show the stupidity of that side of the argument, so it should be said.
Though if it was sarcasm it should have been clearer.

*nod* Fair enough, heh.

It was still a pathetic post, because it showed what he truly thought of all the people here. Basically, he believed that anyone who didn't agree with him was a rapist.

AlouiciousKF:
SNIP

Hello there, ive quoted you because you seem pretty... entheusiastic about arguing these points. And thats awesome. Gotta love debate. However it kinda lowers the tone when you send accusations and name calling into the discussion i mean seriously, do you actually think anyone here honestly, and i mean honestly, thinks women deserve the horrible crime of rape? Of course not. If you were intellectually honest youd appreciate that this whole arguement is based not on the clear cut scumbag-asshole situation of sober guy taking advantage of drunk girl (which also happens the other way around and is equally as scummy) but about a womens responsibilities to act safely when drunk. Not about who thinks rape is right or wrong and who is a rapist. This topic might make you angry but for the sake of putting forward clear and convincing points dont resort to name calling. Even if they might deserve it :/ It lowers the tone.

An important thing here is the idea of both consent and "fault". It is NEVER a womans fault she is raped. Ever. However its never my "fault" if im robbed, i never deserved it, but there are steps i can take to ensure im safe. If a women fails to take these spectacularly she made it easier for something bad to happen to her. This doesnt make it her fault but its her responsibility to be aware of her saftey and take these precautions. I never walk down the road i was once mugged on. Sure it sucks but sometimes thats what you gotta do.

I thought your point before on "power" footing and balence was good but the phrasing id use would be "ability to consent/think cearly". I imagine the majority of these cases are when a guy had NO malicious intention of raping a girl. He made a mistake. She was drunk, he misread signals and neither of them remember what happened. I imagine mistakes were made on both sides to get here without it being abundantly obvious she wasnt consenting.

Im for, and everyone pretty much is, the vilification of people who prey on drunk women but at a party scene thats a very small minority. Everyones hammered and cant really account for themselves. And heres where it isnt cut and dried. The woman might feel as if shes been wronged. And thats fair enough. But the man had no idea this would happen and is probably apologetic about the whole thing, never wishing to maliciously hurt another person. Who do we punish here? Its hard to say. We cant blame the victim entirely. But we cant blame the man entirely either. I know friends whove slept with friends and wished they hadnt in the morning. Like REALLY wish they hadnt. Its far more common from my experience than any one sided affair.

No one really supports rape. Not really. And accusing people of wanting to willingly defile a woman in such a horrific way doesnt do you any favors. If you honestly believe these people would do that... i dont really know what to say.

FelixG:

peruvianskys:
Can we at least admit that while some men who are accused of rape probably didn't do anything terribly wrong, far far FAR more women who are legitimately raped will have their claims dismissed in court?

The fact that true rape claims are discredited far more than false rape claims are made doesn't mean either is okay, but I'm sick of this "Man us guys have it so hard when it comes to rape." Stop moping around and realize that for every man who gets a rape claim for taking advantage of a drunk woman, there are about a dozen women who will have their lives torn to pieces and then watch the attacker walk away free. Get some perspective.

Fieldy409:
I think there needs to be a new word for this. Its like rape but far far less extreme than assaulting a woman and tearing her clothes off and having sex with her while she begs you to stop.

Replace "rape" with "murder" and "having sex with her while she begs you to stop" with "stabbing someone while she begs you to stop" and you'll see how ridiculous that claim is. Rape is rape regardless of how "bad" it is, just like murder is murder no matter how painful it is. Torturing someone to death is just as much murder as poisoning them in their sleep, and raping someone while they're passed out drunk is just as much rape as getting them in a back alley. One might be more heinous than the other but it's the same act.

I think he is meaning how there is a difference between manslaughter and murder.

Yeah exactly what that guy said. Besides comparing rape to murder is stupid, they are two vastly different crimes.

By calling men who sleep with drunk girls rapists, your basically saying guys who even get a handjob in the bathroom from a drunken girl are the same as and just as bad as people like Mr Fritzl, who locked his daughter underneath his house and raped her for years and years since she was a little girl.

That is what you are saying if you call this all rape.

Oh and while we are at it? By this logic If your a guy and your wife or lover does something like give you a blowjob while under the influence of alchohol and would normally never put her mouth near your dick you are raping her.

I had no idea that feminists possessed some sort of hive-mind.

You know rape is not something that gets "Thrown Around." Frequently it is generally speaking one of the least reported crimes and the one where the criminal is more likely to get away (because of stigmatization and humiliation of the victim), that is why most rapists or sexual harasers when they get called out suddenly have dozens of claims against them instead of one.

Regnes:

To be honest, this is coming from a country I have very little respect for in terms of law. This is the same country where pornography featuring A-Cup breasted women is illegal under the reasoning that they look too much like children.

It's not actually illegal. They wanted to include it in their Internet Censoring Firewall that was a big thing a while ago. But yeah, as an Australian, I'm rather amused that it's taking us this much effort to get an R rating for games, and wondering how our government seems to like being, well, terrible.

this topic AGAIN? discussion value about this is 0, always leads to flaming you will never convince anyone who has taken a stand either way to change their minds which these topics have shown over and over and in the end it all boils down to a few guys who were very close to actual rape (and i am not saying anyone in this topic has crossed that line) to get other people to tell them that it was all ok.

but to quote the OP "It's also most certainly not ok to have sex with an unconscious person or otherwise muted person since they're obviously not mentally aware" almost certainly? ... really?

Ive never thought about all this during all the time ive gone out cause i never imagined doing this, i meet a girl at a party, ask number, chat later, go out and go from there. if you are getting yourself in situations like this were you actually have to think hmmmmmmm is this rape? then youre already making a big mistake, in my honest oppinion...

Of course, the old `feminists as strawmen` argument.
I was unaware that all of us believed the EXACT SAME THING.

If you are having sex with someone who is unable to consent, through drink or anything else, then yeah, you are a rapist.

But really, it doesn't matter what any level-headed, normal feminist chooses to say, guys will still wheel out this old strawman. Honestly, I'm sick of it.

I, for one, have acquired a certain distaste towards the way the word 'rape' is used more and more often. We've gone from forcible violent entry to "she was too drunk to consent".

Phasmal:
Of course, the old `feminists as strawmen` argument.
I was unaware that all of us believed the EXACT SAME THING.

If you are having sex with someone who is unable to consent, through drink or anything else, then yeah, you are a rapist.

But really, it doesn't matter what any level-headed, normal feminist chooses to say, guys will still wheel out this old strawman. Honestly, I'm sick of it.

It shouldn't be really too surprising on this site.

Just look at anything involving an american, you get all the "herpa derp, only in america derp derp derp" posts coming out of the woodwork.

One or two crazy folk can ruin things for everyone.

FelixG:

Phasmal:
Of course, the old `feminists as strawmen` argument.
I was unaware that all of us believed the EXACT SAME THING.

If you are having sex with someone who is unable to consent, through drink or anything else, then yeah, you are a rapist.

But really, it doesn't matter what any level-headed, normal feminist chooses to say, guys will still wheel out this old strawman. Honestly, I'm sick of it.

It shouldn't be really too surprising on this site.

Just look at anything involving an american, you get all the "herpa derp, only in america derp derp derp" posts coming out of the woodwork.

One or two crazy folk can ruin things for everyone.

Sadly, its not at all surprising on this site.
They might as well put up a sign `No ladies, please` :P
And before someone quotes me on that, its just frustration from all these stupid `F*cking women/feminists how do they work` threads.

Phasmal:

FelixG:

Phasmal:
Of course, the old `feminists as strawmen` argument.
I was unaware that all of us believed the EXACT SAME THING.

If you are having sex with someone who is unable to consent, through drink or anything else, then yeah, you are a rapist.

But really, it doesn't matter what any level-headed, normal feminist chooses to say, guys will still wheel out this old strawman. Honestly, I'm sick of it.

It shouldn't be really too surprising on this site.

Just look at anything involving an american, you get all the "herpa derp, only in america derp derp derp" posts coming out of the woodwork.

One or two crazy folk can ruin things for everyone.

Sadly, its not at all surprising on this site.
They might as well put up a sign `No ladies, please` :P
And before someone quotes me on that, its just frustration from all these stupid `F*cking women/feminists how do they work` threads.

You made me smile, I am reminded of the little rascals club house :3

AlouiciousKF:

Daystar Clarion:

AlouiciousKF:

If you are seriously drawing equivalence between drunk driving and a sober person having sex with a drunk person in good faith you are either incredibly ignorant or your head is so far up your own ass you can taste liver.

I can see you're gonna last long here...

My point is, being drunk does not give a person an infallible defence.

What if both people participating in the sexual act are drunk? By your logic, the drunk man is a rapist, despite being in the same situation as the woman.

It's not a black & white scenario, there are so many factors involved that every avenue must be explored.

Tubez:

AlouiciousKF:
Why yes I do think rape is a black and white matter. If you are sober and the girl is drunk and you have sex with her CONGRATULATIONS you're a rapist, duder.

I assume that you also think that a girl would be a rapist if she was sober and had sex with a drunk man?

And I also assume that both parties are rapists if two drunks has sex or?

A.) Yes, a sober woman having sex with a drunk man would be rape.

B.) Everyone who pulls out the "Well what if they're both drunk? What then? image" always thinks they're the cleverest person in the room and it's really goddamn stupid. If they're both drunk they're obviously not raping each other. If they are in a mutual state of inebriation, then they are on even footing.

What most people don't get about rape is what makes it rape is the differential of power. If one participant has more power in the act than the other, it is rape. It's really pretty simple but no, somehow so many people fuck it up and spout dumb bullshit all over the internet.

The other big part of rape has to do with consent. That's a pretty fucking big point, as most relationships have an imbalance of power yet are completely rape free (Hell, I've been blind drunk and slept with my ex girlfriend when she was sober many times, to say that she raped me because I wasn't of sound mind is beyond stupid). How do you decide what makes an imbalance of power? As men are generally more physically strong than women, surely you would consider two equally inebriated people as imbalanced due to the potential for (possibly unintentional) intimidation? Where do you draw the line?

Not too long ago there was a rugby team that was charged with "gang rape" because they had consensual sex with a sober girl who it turns out was "severely depressed" and later decided she regretted it. Criminal charges were pressed against the men involved even though there had been consent at the time.

I don't think the point of this thread is to argue that it's fair game to stick your bits in a comatose peer, but it's absurd to blame one party for the decisions made by the other. If there is consent, then it is not rape, if you remove that certainty then rape is in no way black and white, and it's insulting to victims of actual rape to group them in with people who simply make bad decisions and come to regret it (which, obviously, getting raped is not).

Phasmal:
Of course, the old `feminists as strawmen` argument.
I was unaware that all of us believed the EXACT SAME THING.

But really, it doesn't matter what any level-headed, normal feminist chooses to say, guys will still wheel out this old strawman. Honestly, I'm sick of it.

Didn't they tell you at the last Evil Feminist Alliance For the Destruction of Men meeting? We're the cause of all of the world's problems, they're finally on to us.

OP: I actually don't understand why you used the word feminist here, surely the word woman would have sufficed. It wouldn't have made the argument any better but it would have at least given your thread some credibility for discussion.

I'm going abstain from engaging in the actual discussion because, well...

Regnes:
it really seems as if feminists in general believe they can define just about any sexual encounter as rape.

Lulz.

Colour-Scientist:

Phasmal:
Of course, the old `feminists as strawmen` argument.
I was unaware that all of us believed the EXACT SAME THING.

But really, it doesn't matter what any level-headed, normal feminist chooses to say, guys will still wheel out this old strawman. Honestly, I'm sick of it.

Didn't they tell you at the last Evil Feminist Alliance For the Destruction of Men meeting? We're the cause of all of the world's problems, they're finally on to us.

I must be losing connection to the Mighty Hive Mind.
I shall sacrifice a male at the next full moon.

Oh, nothing... just lady talk... move along.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked