Should people be allowed to drink without supervision ?

[Slybak]

A driver who has someone leap out into the road in front of their car isn't usually charged with vehicular manslaughter.

They are if they're going well above the posted speed limit, or behaving in any other way that constitutes reckless driving.

[Psilar]

In a recent thread, I learned that apparently women who are drinking/drunk can not legally give consent to sex, however, it doesn't seem there is a level in which males can't legally give consent. So I ask, should women be legally allowed to drink without a male/guardian?

Personally I believe if two drunk adults consent to sex, regardless of how drunk, no one should be held legally accountable the following day. Sadly, If we have reached a point in society where women can no longer decide what they can and can't do while drunk, maybe they shouldn't be allowed that freedom. I mean hell, if they run someone over they are responsible, why not consent ?

Basically if society continues the way it's going now where a woman can retroactively remove consent regardless of the inebriation of the male, assuming a drunk female, then our society is doomed. What you're basically saying is that people need to have personal responsibility. If one is drunk all responsibility should fade away equally between both members. This makes complete sense, but sadly our society thinks its appropriate to always believe a woman regardless of what's said by a man.

So what's going to happen is that our men are going to turn into huge pussies as the state continues to take care of our women. Our society will fade away as our children get poor education under government schooling and poor healthcare under government. Home ownership will continue to decline, men will continue to leave the labor force, and marriage rates will continue to decline.

To give you a tangential situation which is, fairly relevant.... My neighbor who is paralyzed, was just evicted from his house because his wife and neighbor decided years later to testify in court that he is some sort of sexual deviant and was sexually abusing her, which he claims is completely untrue. We gotta watch out for those guys in wheel chairs....they're sexual maniacs.

[jackofwind]

They are if they're going well above the posted speed limit, or behaving in any other way that constitutes reckless driving.

None of which were part of the original example.

Just because you're driving with alcohol in your blood doesn't mean you're driving recklessly.

[crewskater]

Something tells me you've never been in a bar and had a women reach into your lap, grab you genitals, and proceed to take you home and have sex with you.

You just abused a woman!!! How dare you!

[Slybak]

Just because you're driving with alcohol in your blood doesn't mean you're driving recklessly.

And if pigs had wings they would fly.

This is a pointless counterfactual. Baked into the discussion is inebriation to the point of loss of faculties. Someone not drunk enough to drive recklessly will not drive recklessly, and someone not drunk enough to ignore the lack of consent will not ignore the lack of consent.

[Lady Dragonheart]

Which was - if we're all being honest with ourselves - also just a big joke.

Was it? I'd like to see the documented proof of it since you seem to know it.

[Ghostpanther]

^
This is what happens to moderators when they stop being moderators.

Yep. Or they would have closed this thread a long time ago. Sexist threads are not suppose to be allowed on here. :P

[Deleted]

If people are held responsible for some of their actions while under the influence, then they should be held responsible for all of them. You can't be responsible for thinking you're OK to drive a car, if you're not responsible thinking you're OK to have sex.

Or, I mean, how come if I'm drunk, and someone draws me into an argument on a forum, and I get banned, I'm fully to blame, and fully responsible, but if I'm drunk, and someone draws me into having sex with them, I can just say "well, I didn't mean to have sex" the next day, and I'm absolved of all responsibility? Sense, it makes none.

[Deleted]

Imo, just ban alcohol completely.

It might be even worse than smoking.

[Deleted]

Imo, just ban alcohol completely.

It might be even worse than smoking.

Sounds like a great idea, I wonder why nobody has tried it before.

[Kathandira]

Sugar doesn't make you hyper. That's an old wives tale which has been disproven countless times

Well, Rum and Coke surely makes me more awake, and more energetic. Perhaps it is mostly the caffeine?

[Deleted]

None of which were part of the original example.

Just because you're driving with alcohol in your blood doesn't mean you're driving recklessly.

But it does increase the reaction times and negatively impact most people's reactions; which in fact means you are driving recklessly.

[Dug]

Well, Rum and Coke surely makes me more awake, and more energetic. Perhaps it is mostly the caffeine?

And fist full of sugar

[Kathandira]

And fist full of sugar

I dunno. I'm being told the Sugar has little to do with it.

[Dug]

I dunno. I'm being told the Sugar has little to do with it.

Helps with kids to get them bouncing off the walls but I don't quite understand the mechanism that enables sugar to do that if I'm being honest. Blood sugar levels I guess?

[Kathandira]

Helps with kids to get them bouncing off the walls but I don't quite understand the mechanism that enables sugar to do that if I'm being honest. Blood sugar levels I guess?

Apparently, sugar doesn't actually make one more energetic, so says @Lobosan and also the 2 quick articles I reviewed.

So i'm leaning more towards the caffeine that makes me hyper.

[Lady Dragonheart]

Two minutes worth of footage out of ten hours, much of which was her just walking and the occasional person - *gasp* - interacting with her. There were a couple creeps, but that's about it. Then they tried to claim that the full ten hours was just all nightmares and horror.

Yeah, a big joke.

So, you think that harassing catcalling is nothing but a big joke, then?

[Lady Dragonheart]

You have this habit of pretending to have a discussion with someone and then not actually paying attention to what's being said - that, or you just willfully ignore it and go your own way regardless.

So, sure, you think what you want. I just can't be bothered with you anymore.

You're the one stating these things, in all seriousness. Not me, you just don't like that I point out the issue.

[Kathandira]

So, you think that harassing catcalling is nothing but a big joke, then?

In all fairness, harassment requires repetition. Someone saying something once while you pass by isn't exactly harassment.

However, I do believe that the catcalling in large cities is an issue, and it would serve people better to not do it.

As someone who lives quite close to quite a few cities, but also has lived in suburbs and commercial towns, I have seen the differences between cultures in different environments. And large cities absolutely have more cat callers than small towns.

I believe this is due to the repercussions. In a small town, most people know each other, or run the risk of seeing each other again soon even just in passing. In a large city, the likely hood of running into the same person multiple times in a short period of time is lessened due to the sheer volume of people. My assumption is that people feel more free to cat call when they know this is the only time they will ever see you. But if they know they will be seeing this person a few times a week, they may not be so disrespectful since they may have to deal with the backlash if they do it repetitively.

I believe this backs up the claim that cat calling is a power play to put yourself in a position of (psychological) power above your target.

But as mentioned, these are my assumptions based on my observations. None of this is from any studies or articles. So I could very much be wrong if there is an actual study out there that discusses this on an intellectual level.

[Lady Dragonheart]

In all fairness, harassment requires repetition. Someone saying something once while you pass by isn't exactly harassment.

However, I do believe that the catcalling in large cities is an issue, and it would serve people better to not do it.

As someone who lives quite close to quite a few cities, but also has lived in suburbs and commercial towns, I have seen the differences between cultures in different environments. And large cities absolutely have more cat callers than small towns.

I believe this is due to the repercussions. In a small town, most people know each other, or run the risk of seeing each other again soon even just in passing. In a large city, the likely hood of running into the same person multiple times in a short period of time is lessened due to the sheer volume of people. My assumption is that people feel more free to cat call when they know this is the only time they will ever see you. But if they know they will be seeing this person a few times a week, they may not be so disrespectful since they may have to deal with the backlash if they do it repetitively.

I believe this backs up the claim that cat calling is a power play to put yourself in a position of (psychological) power above your target.

While, I agree, my condition for stating it as harassment is because of its frequency, not necessarily each person's repeated offense against each other person. Generally, people that catcall tend to catcall in a general sense. My notion is from the long-term instance that people that catcall do it regularly.

In cities, yes, I can understand it happening more frequently due to both the higher population as well as the greater chance of never seeing someone again (much alike to how toxicity in LFR/LFD happens in-game). However, it is still a form of harassment, it is just spread across several instances, catcalling different people. Or at least, that is how I see it.