Confusion continues surrounding drunken consent

[Raelbo]

Yea that doesn't work that way at all, if you asked for consent and you got consent and you start making out and stuff then you do not assume anything. Yet according to you she is still in her right to withdraw consent after the fact, that is just plainly stupid.

How exactly is it stupid?

1) Drunk people want to have sex, because being drunk inhibits inhibition. This means drunken people will give consent more quickly,

Agreed.

this doesn't mean that others take advantage of this as these others are drunk too 999 of a 1000 times.

Bullshit. People take advantage of this all the time. Your made up numbers are BS as well.

This simply means that if you do not want to have sex like this then you should not get shitfaced. See this is all on you, if you do not want to do this then don't do it, but do go around blaming other people for what you do.

100% correct. Now, consider this: It takes 2 people to have sex. The second person is still responsible for the actions they choose to take with said drunk person. And we should, absolutely, be held accountable for what we choose to do with someone else who is in such a condition.

2) Because that is not how it works, you do not "establish consent" before you get drunk, this is just one of these things that happen. And immediately you go to "finding someone who is barely of consenting age,l getting them blackout drunk". That is all in your fucking mind, people choose to drink, and people should who choose to drink should accept the consequences of this.

Getting drunk is not, and never has been, a license for other people to take advantage of you. I agree that it is a risk you take when you get drunk that other unscrupulous people may do so, however that does not make it acceptable that they do, and they should be held accountable for it when they do.

It is not a hard concept, if you do something then you are responsible for it.

Oh, absolutely! Have sex with a drunken stranger who isn't compis mentis? You're responsible for committing rape if it turns out that they have a problem with it when they sober up. Very easy conc

If you do not want to bang someone drunk, then do not get that drunk. It is not rocket science, it is called "personal responsibility".

If you don't want to rape someone then don't have sex with them unless you're certain that when they're sober, they're going to be ok with what happened. It is called "personal responsibility"

[Lahis]

People should just keep at least 1 meter distance to other humans after they have ingested alcohol and we wouldn't constantly have these cases.

[Toxsins]

I'm still waiting to hear someone tell me a story of a time when alcohol helped them solve their problems and lead to overall good decision making.

So we universally recognize that drinking before driving is a terrible, no good, horrible bad idea, but then we turn around and say that drinking before hooking up is a great idea and should be the standard of behavior.

And then we expect good results from this.

Yes, people, I know it pains you greatly to hear this, but STOP FUCKING DRINKING IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE CONSEQUENCES. Jesus H. Christ.

[Raelbo]

Oh lol, are you really saying that it is okay for you to spout emotional garbage just after you accused me of doing that??

I never accused you of that. I accused you of the opposite: spouting emotionally void garbage.

TL;DR: Your arguments display a shocking lack of empathy (typical of a narcissistic sociopath - not saying you are one, just that your arguments are consisting with that mode of thinking)

[Flarelaine]

No his premise isn't wrong, you are just trying to change the premise to fit your agenda. The premise is "if both people are drunk do they rape each other"

The premise was

It takes 2 people to initiate sex.

Stop twisting shit. Especially when I need not even go back half the page for the original quote.

[Phlegethon]

One of the points which stands out is that the public needs to unlearn rape culture. The question is how to go about this.
Also, how does a friend walking someone to a car turn into this? What kind of friend is that...

http://www.timminspress.com/2017/07/...runken-consent

There is no such thing as "rape culture", aside maybe from female teachers raping boys and getting away with it.

REGRET IS NOT RAPE.

Drunken consent is bad judgement, but it's not rape. If you are ready to have sex, deal with your own mistakes.

Stop being a retard and own up to your own failures.

Have sex, do whatever the fuck you want, but don't try to pin your mistakes on others.

[Wilfire]

The premise was



Stop twisting shit. Especially when I need not even go back half the page for the original quote.

You can't initiate sex if there is only 1 person.

[Thrif]

If you don't want to have sex, it's probably a bad thing to get shitfaced and start kissing people who are likely to take it as sexual advancement.

Likewise, if you have to ask her 5 times to make sure she's willing, you probably shouldn't be fucking her.

Bad things happen to stupid people, more news at 11.

[Flarelaine]

I'm still waiting to hear someone tell me a story of a time when alcohol helped them solve their problems and lead to overall good decision making.

Well, there was this one time... No, alcohol did not help through decision making, but it did kinda solve the problem. I got roaring wasted drunk over one girl, so much that another started worrying about me. We hooked up in a few months. (Also I got an alcohol poisoning, I could not even bear the smell of it for years after.)

[Deleted]

How exactly is it stupid?

Are you really asking why withdrawing consent is stupid? Then everything can be considered rape and no one would have to be responsible for anything, that includes pregnancies. If you can claim rape after the fact then there is no justice to be held anywhere.

Bullshit. People take advantage of this all the time. Your made up numbers are BS as well.

Oh right, they are all predators, right Give me a break, people getting drunk and having sex happens all the time. People like getting drunk and they like having sex. It is not weird that these things will happen at the same time.

100% correct. Now, consider this: It takes 2 people to have sex. The second person is still responsible for the actions they choose to take with said drunk person. And we should, absolutely, be held accountable for what we choose to do with someone else who is in such a condition.

Who are all these people who do not drink? Saudi Arabia?? Clearly they are not here, you are just hellbent on finding some malicious act where none are to be found.

Getting drunk is not, and never has been, a license for other people to take advantage of you. I agree that it is a risk you take when you get drunk that other unscrupulous people may do so, however that does not make it acceptable that they do, and they should be held accountable for it when they do.

That is true, getting drunk doesn't give people the right to take advantage of you, but it does not in any way excuse you from making dumb decisions, even when you are so drunk that you can't remember clearly. And again, people that are drunk them selves will have the same problems as their "victims". To suggest that they are always sound of mind too is not an honest assumption, sure it can happen, but not nearly as much as two people getting drunk and having sex.

Oh, absolutely! Have sex with a drunken stranger who isn't compis mentis? You're responsible for committing rape if it turns out that they have a problem with it when they sober up. Very easy conc

Oh how funny and witty hahaha, no not really.. If they have a problem when sobering up then they should not have been drinking and consenting to sex. You can not withdraw consent after the act, you can do that before and during the act, but not after.

If you don't want to rape someone then don't have sex with them unless you're certain that when they're sober, they're going to be ok with what happened. It is called "personal responsibility"

You do not rape someone who consents, if they are drunk that is on them, not on the other person.

- - - Updated - - -

The premise was



Stop twisting shit. Especially when I need not even go back half the page for the original quote.

So he asked the question, if it takes two to initiate sex then do they rape each other when both are drunk. So the premise was changed by his question, the question that you fail to answer.

- - - Updated - - -

I never accused you of that. I accused you of the opposite: spouting emotionally void garbage.

TL;DR: Your arguments display a shocking lack of empathy (typical of a narcissistic sociopath - not saying you are one, just that your arguments are consisting with that mode of thinking)

For someone with soo much empathy you sure have little empathy for the other person who is drunk.
Well, debating something would mean that you come up with reasons as to why something is, emotional appeals like the ones that you have been making are utterly useless, as they are not reasons but rather feelings. We should not base our rules of law on feelings, if we where to do that then justice would be nowhere to be found.

[Flarelaine]

You can't initiate sex if there is only 1 person.

Oh, you mean the presence of two. I give you that.

[Deleted]

If both parties are drunk, it's not rape.

I don't know why this is hard for people to wrap there heads around.

[Lahis]

If both parties are drunk, it's not rape.

I don't know why this is hard for people to wrap there heads around.

Though it's easily turned into a rape once one of the people involved starts to regret it tomorrow with the hangover.

[Deleted]

Though it's easily turned into a rape once one of the people involved starts to regret it tomorrow with the hangover.

This is the whole thing with rape culture, regret doesn't turn it into rape.

Just because you woke up and realised you made a really shitty decision in sleeping with someone, doesn't mean they forced themselves on you.

We don't need to be teaching men "not to rape", we need to be teaching everyone to drink responsibly.

[Deleted]

Though it's easily turned into a rape once one of the people involved starts to regret it tomorrow with the hangover.

How is that rape?

[Lahis]

How is that rape?

It isn't.


Won't stop people trying to claim otherwise.

[Raelbo]

Are you really asking why withdrawing consent is stupid?

Yes I am, because it's a plainly nonsensical statement to make.

Then everything can be considered rape and no one would have to be responsible for anything, that includes pregnancies.

Explain?

If you can claim rape after the fact then there is no justice to be held anywhere.

Who said anything about claiming rape after the fact? Withdrawal of consent cannot happen after the fact. It happens during the act.

Oh right, they are all predators, right

Once again, this is not something I ever said or advocated

Give me a break, people getting drunk and having sex happens all the time. People like getting drunk and they like having sex. It is not weird that these things will happen at the same time.

Again, I never said it wasn't (boy you REALLY like misquoting and twisting what people say).

Who are all these people who do not drink? Saudi Arabia?? Clearly they are not here, you are just hellbent on finding some malicious act where none are to be found.

I never said anything about people who do not drink. How do you keep on missing this point? Drinking and having sex with someone is fine, provided you have some basis upon which to assume that consent would still be valid. This basis has to be founded on events that happened before drunkenness ensued.

That is true, getting drunk doesn't give people the right to take advantage of you, but it does not in any way excuse you from making dumb decisions, even when you are so drunk that you can't remember clearly. And again, people that are drunk them selves will have the same problems as their "victims". To suggest that they are always sound of mind too is not an honest assumption, sure it can happen, but not nearly as much as two people getting drunk and having sex.

I have never tried to argue that every case of drunken sex = rape. Compared to the number of legitimate incidence of drunken sex, I would say it's quite likely that the incidence of drunken rape is relatively infrequent. But that doesn't mean it's not a problem.

If they have a problem when sobering up then they should not have been drinking and consenting to sex. You can not withdraw consent after the act, you can do that before and during the act, but not after.

But remember what my argument is: consent obtained while drunk should not be assumed to be sufficient. It's really, really simple. If your only basis for claiming consent is what someone said after 12 shots of tequilla, then you have a problem.

That doesn't mean that if you and your sexual partner go out and one of you gets drunk that you can't have sex. The default assumption by any reasonable person is that sex is still consensual.

Where it is important is when you're dealing with someone with whom you have never bothered to establish sexual boundaries.

You do not rape someone who consents, if they are drunk that is on them, not on the other person.

Someone who is drunk is not necessarily capable of consent. This is what you seem to have trouble understanding - and it seems to stem your lack of ability to understand the fundamental difference between what is right and what is wrong.

As an adult human being of consenting age, you are required to apply sound judgement when deciding whether or not to have sex with someone. If they appear to be drunk then you need to take that into account. If you cannot say with confidence that they're not going to be upset about it in the morning then why on earth would you believe it's ok? And if you're confident that they will be fine about it in the morning, then why would you be worried about a rape accusation?

Your defence simply doesn't care about how the other person would feel about it the next day. Pretty callous if you ask me.

For someone with soo much empathy you sure have little empathy for the other person who is drunk.

I have empathy for both parties. I have often said in these debates that each case is context dependent.

Which is why my argument is based on principles which need to be applied to the specifics of a case to draw any conclusions. The principle which I am advocating here is simply this: "Consent" obtained from people who are intoxicated should not be considered sufficient.

That does not mean that all drunken sex = rape. On the contrary, it is basis for differentiating between consensual drunken sex and rape.

Your position on the other hand simply advocates that as long as consent is obtained, then it's all ok. While your solution is wonderful in terms of its unambiguity, it utterly fails at being just. It is very open to abuse by malicious and/or selfish people, and results in a great deal of harm to many people. And your solution: "Well then don't get drunk" is puerile. Sure, getting drunk isn't a wise thing to do, but it should never become a licence for someone else to take advantage of you.

Well, debating something would mean that you come up with reasons as to why something is, emotional appeals like the ones that you have been making are utterly useless, as they are not reasons but rather feelings. We should not base our rules of law on feelings, if we where to do that then justice would be nowhere to be found.

A few points here:

Firstly my reasoning is significantly more substantial than yours, on pretty much every front. The fact that I include consideration for the emotions of the people affected by this issue is not made at the expense of logic and reason. I use empathy to supplement those arguments. It's called taking a holistic view.

Your arguments are non-arguments. They're pretty much just raw statements, with little or no substantion, repeated ad nauseum.

So no, I am not arguing that we should base our rules of law on feelings. But to argue that feelings and the emotional responses of people should not be considered is pretty asinine, especially when you consider an issue like rape in which the real damage done to people is emotional.

This is a debate about the fundamental difference between right and wrong. Which is actually the basis of many of our laws anyway. The fact that you seem to have trouble understanding the difference is why, it seems to me, you cannot put together a cogent argument on this topic.

[Flarelaine]

So he asked the question, if it takes two to initiate sex then do they rape each other when both are drunk. So the premise was changed by his question, the question that you fail to answer.

Legally, they do.

[De Lupe]

What about "if they're impaired, no consent" is hard for people to understand.

[Devilyaki]

What is "rape culture"? O_0