Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by wynn, Nov 22, 2011.
Well biologically the other is a little difficult, I think.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
no, actually its not
No it actually isn't. A lot of men are raped by women and men that way..
I know one man who went out with friends and he got drunk and he came to in his car and he was flat on his back and a woman he never met before was, well.. lets just say he had just finished in a body cavity of hers... It was rape. He had been raped. He also caught a fairly nasty STD from her as well, which further added to his humiliation and pain. He is but one case I have handled in the past. There are quite a few hundred more that I know of.
Then the rules clearly apply both ways. Fin.
And you are making the a priory assumption that people that consumed alcohol (1) can't say no and (2) are raped when having sex.
People drink and have sex all the time. The overwhelming majority don't feel that they've been raped when they sober up. Even if they regret what happened.
That will never happen because I am responsible enough not to drink that much. In fact, nowadays, I don't drink at all, but that aside.
I've been drunk a couple of times when I was younger but never anywhere near the state you describe. I know what I want even when I'm drunk and I always remembered everything. There must be something wrong with you if you get so drunk that you do things you would never do otherwise.
If you drink, agree to sleep with someone and then regret it the next day it's your own stupid fault, unless the person that you slept with did so with malicious intent he/she is not a rapist.
lol Are you serious? I don't think I believe you..
So it was never spontaneous?
It certainly does. If one person makes it known that he or she doesn't want to have sex and the other person forces the first person to have sex anyway. That is rape. Married or not.
In other words: completely unconscious or at least practically unconscious.
Is that really what we are talking about here? If it is, I completely agree with you.
However, I don't see where you get that from. Seems to me we were talking about alcohol use in general i.e. mild to moderate impairment of judgment.
And you are attempting to approach this from the ridiculous standpoint that demeans rape in general. A large portion of people have sex while drunk and are not raped. But a large portion of people also have sex while terribly drunk and have been raped. One does not cancel out the other.
Interesting. So you think if someone gets drunk and they are then raped, they were being irresponsible for being drunk?
So again, you place the onus on the victim to not be raped instead of on the rapist to not rape.
So if someone gets that drunk and is raped or sexually abused or molested, they are somehow at fault or share the blame or have something wrong with them for being in that state in the first place?
In other words.. 'if you get drunk and someone rapes you, it's your own fault and not the rapist's fault'..
In other words, you believe rape victims share the blame or are responsible for their own rape if they are blind drunk when they are raped, because:
a) You feel the victim was irresponsible for getting that drunk
b) You feel that there is something wrong with them to get so drunk that others can get them to do something they would not normally do.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Are you being deliberately obtuse and, well, ridiculous in your attempts to justify rape?
When I had sex with my husband, whether it was spontaneous or not, it was consentual. If it was not consentual, then it would be rape.
Well at least you got something right..
If someone is so inebriated that they cannot legally consent to anything, including sex, then yes, it is rape.
Rape is lack of consent.
If someone is too drunk to say no or resist, then there is no consent and it is rape.
It really is that simple.
Err.. isn't that impossible according to you?
As far as I can establish you claim: consumption of alcohol + sex = rape.
Yes, they were being irresponsible. It's not their fault for being raped as such but they were at fault for putting themselves in a potentially hazardous situation.
No, they are not at fault for being raped. They are at fault "for being in that state in the first place."
It must be some kind of fallacy what you keep doing here. I am saying it is not always rape when someone has sex with a person that has consumed alcohol.
Excuse me? I'm not at all justifying rape. I'm just disagreeing with you that alcohol + sex is by definition rape.
A bit circular, isn't it?
It was consensual because if it wasn't it would have been rape Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How did you consent then?
When is that?
Again, should I carry a breathalyzer?
Yeah, but when is someone "too drunk to say no"? Assuming you don't mean that in a literal way..
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wow...he's never gotten so drunk he couldn't remember parts of what he did the next day!
Yeah, you don't make too much sense when you're that far gone. Or walk very well.
Huh? What do you mean?
You have never gotten so drunk you cannot remember what all you did while you were drunk.
Nope. I can't imagine how much alcohol one would have to consume in order to achieve that..
Where exactly did I say that?
What I said, and am asying it again, if someone is too incapacitated to consent, then yes, it is rape.
So it is not their fault they were raped, but it is their fault for putting themselves in a situation that possibly allowed or led to or facilitated the rape?
So, this is you not justifying rape?
So when you say there is something wrong with them if they get that drunk or that they are being irresponsible for being that drunk or when yo usay they are at fault for putting themselves in that what you deemed a "potentially hazardous situation", you are not placing the onus on the victim at all?
See, I am trying to understand how that works exactly, how that is not placing the onus on the victim and I have to admit, it's not working for me at all.
So they are not at fault for being raped, but they are at fault for being so drunk that they could not consent...
Unfortunately you keep contradicting yourself.. Because you answered "yes" to the two other questions..
Really? Could have fooled me! Thus far you have said that if a rape victim got that drunk that they could not consent, then you deemed them irresponsible and then said there was something wrong with them because it allowed them to be in that position.. That is justifying rape. That is saying that if someone is that drunk and they are raped, then it is partly their fault and that they share the blame.
Who said it did?
What has been said numerous times now is that if someone is too inebriated to consent, then it is rape.
By sucking on his penis voluntarily is one example.. Graphic enough for you? Or do you want more details of my sex life or more graphic examples of "consent"? I mean you seem fascinated by how exactly I consent. Tending to think you are a bit of a perve to be honest. Or do you want more details?
So if someone cannot stand up or even can't remember their name because they are so drunk, for example, you would have difficulty understanding that they aren't in their right mind? How about if they are semi passed out and not even coherent? Would that be a sufficient hint for you that they may not really be in the state of mind to consent?
Well obviously when they are too drunk to say no. Surely you can use the space between your ears to determine that if someone is puking in the street from the amount of alcohol she has consumed, or if she's off her rocker because she is so stoned or drunk, that she may not be in any position to consent to anything. Really, is it that difficult?
When in doubt, keep it in your pants.
Bells, just for interest sake what would you say about the responsibility of someone who got blotto and stumbled in front of a car? Accident or idiocy or something else?
I am more inclined to say accident. But there have been instances where one can be fined for walking into the path of oncoming traffic or causing accidents (ie if the cars swerve to avoid hitting the person stumbling on the road or even at times lying down on the road)..
Why? What does that have to do with someone raping someone while they are drunk?
After your recent comments I was just interested to see if you believed someone who was intoxicated held any responsibility for that state and the actions which are carried out there in. For instance recently intoxication has been removed as a legal defence in SA (and I believe also as a mitigating factor) except in cases of spiking. And it struck me that there is a double stranded in having legislation which states that intoxication removes an ability to consent, yet holds a person as competent if they happen to "commit a crime". In other words you could theoretically have a situation where both partners are charged with raping each other because they are too drunk to consent, yet there intoxication doesn't diminish criminal culpability.
i just have to say that people who have not been personally violated have no clue as to what is going on. this is a major problem in understanding which ironically favors the predator.
when one is molested/raped, it is as if they are stealing your very soul leaving you totally without personal tools that are natural to you. on top of that, they pour into you all their negativity and especially their own issues poisoning you. they are essentially parasites, especially on the emotional level. they leave you helpless for yourself taking your personal power for themself which is a hell that is indescribable besides them eating away at you for whatever good or personal attributes you have, down to the very subtle and personal. it is like destroying you and your life though it's not visible. it will be visible and ongoing over time. the result doesn't end with the violation itself. there really is no way to fully describe it.
now, the first problem is that people don't think that 'souls' exist to understand the full extent of this type of damage when that is the only correct term to use to convey it. well, you know what? it's like how we don't feel anything or aware of much until something makes us aware of it. imagine a finger burn and how painful even that is, all of a sudden you are aware of your skin whereas you weren't before. when you are okay, it tends to blind you to the nature of how things are.
the most crazy part of a deep violation is that people think the negative damage is just shallow pop psychology loss of self-esteem and some bad memories/fear. no, it's far more worse than that.
if you are violated, then you get to see exactly what type of exchange as well as what is actually the motive behind the act. it is not just for sex but that is also a part of it. the sexual act is the most personal to get into the person. that is why it's used as well as to degrade them.
this is because rapists are generally perverts. that said, i do have to point out that there are degrees. some are more malicious, perverted and twisted than others as well as their are degrees of violation. for some, it is just about sex and for others, it is far more sinister. they can be motivated by a deepseeded cowardness using brutality to gain power through another or to corrupt another to bring them down while feeding on them for power.
let me explain this 'cowardliness' before anyone assumes it's from fear of predation, which is funny in their case because it's not even close. a pervert's cowardness is from not wanting to do anything honestly or being even-handed with others because power and greed is more important to them. they don't give a crap about morals but only morals that serve them and their interests. if they wrong someone else, it's not important but if it's done to them, they will expect it to be righted. they are narcissists. this is why they are such horrible and hideous people. they are NOT to feel sorry for and do NOT deserve sympathy. this has been the biggest mistake. they are actually "morally" spoiled and that is why they are so perverted and act in perverted ways using others as objects with no sense of guilt.
some like to rape those they dislike or are prejudiced against to hurt them or degrade them. it is just frightening what these types of people are aware of and very much of underhandedness. it's like they are aware of everything that is not aboveboard so it is easier to take advantage of it.
people who molest and rape are hideous. especially the ones who do this with deep-seeded malicious intent against another.
Usually enough to black out.
There's also a difference between not remembering things the next morning, and not wanting to do something at the time.
It's amazing how often people "don't remember" things, even without alcohol. But I guess that's why rape can be so hard to prove. :shrug:
It used to be about 6 stiff ones, on the couple of occasions I've achieved that. I have low tolerance...maybe it's the smidge of Native American genetics in me-the rest is Scots-Irish and German...but I have little tolerance for alcohol.
Varies from person to person-a friend of mine can down a bottle of Jack and remember what he did...so when he told me he did not remember walking home one night...I thought:
"And HOW much did you drink???Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!"
I just thought everyone got to have one of those parties where people never let you hear the end of what you can't remember doing. Sort of a rite of passage.
The problem is in establishing WHEN someone is "too incapacitated to consent". Is it after one beer? Two? Twenty?
I'm not sure if you're just reading stuff into what I wrote or that my English is a bit flawed here.
What I meant to say was that it isn't the victims fault that they were raped (if they were raped) but it is the victims fault that they put themselves in a situation that renders them vulnerable.
Look, if I cross the road without looking and I get hit by a car of which the driver just can't avoid me anymore, I am the only one at fault.
If I cross the road without looking and some sick driver seizes the opportunity to run me over on purpose, I am at fault for putting myself in a hazardous situation and the driver is at fault for deliberately running me over.
I'm not contradicting myself. You just keep seeing things in black and white.
No, it's not justifying rape. See the car example. If I say that I was irresponsible for putting myself in a hazardous situation by not looking before crossing the road I am not at all justifying running people over on purpose.
So let me get this straight. You want to maintain that getting so drunk that you are practically unconscious is responsible behavior? It is not irresponsible to do so?
Try to have a bit more of a nuanced view.
Well, unless you took that "she couldn't say no"-stuff literally, as in being physically unable to pronounce the word 'no', I am of the opinion that you did.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And I think you seem to be a bit too emotionally invested to be having this discussion. Calm down already.
Sure I can. No, not difficult.
Depends on the individual. Some people have one glass of wine and are sloshed and others can drink 3 bottles and still be coherent.
Can you tell if someone is too drunk to consent?
I'll give you a hint, if they appear to be falling down drunk and incoherent, then they are probably too drunk to consent.
No. Then I read you correctly.
You are still placing the onus on the rape victim to not be raped. Ie. you are saying that it is up to the victim to not place themselves in any situation where they could be raped, in this instance, they should never be drunk or stoned just in case. Instead of saying that rapists should not rape people who are incapacitated, you are saying that it is the victim's fault if they put themselves in a position where the rapist can then rape them because they are incapacitated.
So you view a woman getting drunk in her family's and/or friend's presence and then having a family member or friend rape her is at fault for putting herself in the hazardous situation when she is raped and her rapist shares some of the blame for raping her when she is in that state?
Let me put it this way.. Lets say a woman you know (friend or family) is raped or sexually assaulted when she is out on a date with her long term partner, where she consumed several glasses of wines and is sloshed. He then rapes her. Would you tell her 'well it's your fault for being drunk in the first place'?
Would you think that is acceptable?
How can I put this simply...
Instead of saying that rapists should simply not rape, you are saying that people shouldn't drink so they do not get raped.
Do you see now how you are placing the responsibility on the victim?
I'm sorry, there is a gray area where someone forces another to have sex without consent?
Rape is black and white Enmos. Where there is no consent, there is rape. Yes, that is black and white.
What you are in effect saying is that if someone gets raped when they were drunk, then they were irresponsible for putting themselves in that situation when someone purposefully has sex with them when they are too incoherent or possibly even not conscious to consent. What you can't seem to grasp is that when someone has sex with another without their consent, it is on purpose. Not accidental.
You don't accidently stick your penis in a woman while she can barely speak because she is so drunk, as one would accidently run someone over if they stumble onto the road in front of a car. Can you tell the difference?
Does it matter?
Or does it matter more that someone sticks their sexual organs into her body when she is in that state and is unable to say no or resist?
Why do you blame the victim for being drunk? Why don't you blame the rapist for raping her when she is drunk?
How about you try and not blame the rape victim?
Really, what part of 'is too incapacitated to say no or resist' don't you quite understand, Enmos?
And I think your repeated requests about how I consent was rude and mildly perverse. So why don't you calm down?
I also think you blame the victim for her own rape. So why don't you stop?
Again, what part of 'is too incapacitated to say no or resist' is hard to grasp?
Really? Could have fooled me Enmos.:m:
Separate names with a comma.