From another forum I participate in, but quite apropos

markjs

markjs

Banned
This is an exact quote of something I read on this forum, but it definately made me think and I thought it might be interesting to hear your opinions. Oh by the way this is a forum dealing a lot with illicit drugs and the term "swim" or swiy" stand for someone who isn't me or someone who isn't you, and they are for the reason of avoiding self incrimination.

I know I'm going to get bad rep for this, but I'm p.o.'d enough to go ahead...

Suppose SWIM decides to get VERY drunk. He wisely decides to stay at home and not drive. However, at 2AM and deep into a blackout, he decides he just HAS to have a Denny's omelet. So he hops into his car, wrecks and kills somone. Granted he set out not to drive, and would never dream of doing such a thing sober...tough shit! He's (rightly) held accountable for actions he took while very drunk.

Suppose SWIher decides to get VERY drunk. She wisely decides not to sleep with any of the losers at the bar. However, at 2AM and deep into a blackout, she decides she just HAS to get laid. Granted, she set out not to have sex, and would never dream of doing such a thing sober...um, she got raped.

WTF?

How is this a heaping load of BS; let me count the ways.

1. I've only heard of this from the female view. Yet as males (at least in the U.S.--I lack an encyclopeadiac knowledge of the world) do disproportionately more drinking, it would seem they're the ones getting "raped" more often. (Remember, equal protection under the law). Why the discrepancy? Is it a. chivalry or b. "well, everyone knows guys ALWAYS wanna do it, so their theorertical right to withhold consent doesn't amount to a hill of beans."

2. SWIM's done his fair share of bar drinking, and bar hookups, and typically both parties have been drinking, and often neither one is legal to drive. Who raped who? Is "simultaneous rape" even possible? Does it change at all if we're talking about same-gender sex?

3. Hypothetical scenario: spot the rapist: Dick and Jane are sloshed and Dick/Jane suggests going to his/her house. Dick/Jane pays for the night's drinking. Suppose Dick is drunker (BAC) than Jane, BUT Dick is a physically dependent alcoholic with a sky-high tolerance and Jane is a noob.

4. The most absurd. Now Jane is the dependant alcoholic. Dick wants in her pants, but reads this from Brandeis U:
Quote:
Sexual Consent and Alcohol & Drugs
People under the influence of alcohol or drugs are absolutely incapable of giving sexual consent, no matter what. Even if the person says s/he willingly gives consent, it is still rape if that person has sex with another individual. If your partner seems to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, wait until the effects wear off until persuing any sexual activity

So, naturally, he doesn't want to be a rapist, so he passes when she's objectively loaded. The next day, she's at "baseline," but Dick insists on a BAC test and she blows 0.09. Finally, Jane runs into bad luck: no money/no booze for several days straight. She's a sweating, shaking mess, she feels as if she's about to puke and is worried about D.T.s. However, now she blows 0.00. So Dick (who is widely known to have a well-stocked bar at home) invites Jane back to his place for sex. Jane's response is almost certainly going to be influenced by her need for alcohol, but "wiser minds than mine" have determine this to be the ONLY scenario in which Dick DOESN'T rape Jane. This, however, would seem to be the most morally reprehensible way of going about this.

I've known quite a lot of heavy drinkers, and their response to this is always two-fold: 1.that's jsut silly and 2.I'm having trouble imagining how I can have an active sex life w/o being raped on at least a weekly basis.

(Note that I'm only talking about VOLUNTARY consumption of alcohol).

EXTRA CREDIT: Dick and Jane elect to engage in an orgy with Ernie and Bert. Dick's drunk, Jane's tripping on LSD, Ernie's tweaking, and Bert's on heroin. ID the rapist.
__________________
Autofelatio - It's only gay if you swallow.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting points ... but they all seem to gravitate around one central issue : people's inability to restrain themselves. Frankly, the lot of them are beneath my notice. If we had the choice, I'd find a nice isolated place and ship the lot of them off to it, a la Australia.
 
But I agree with his point. I f you are held accountable for making the decision to drive, than same should go for any dumbass drunken decision you make. If you don't know your own limits, how is that anyones fault but yours?
 
markjs said:
But I agree with his point. I f you are held accountable for making the decision to drive, than same should go for any dumbass drunken decision you make. If you don't know your own limits, how is that anyones fault but yours?
Click to expand...

One major, major difference.

You go get FUBARed and drive. You endanger every person you meet. You get FUBARed and go get laid. You have endangered yourself and your partner only. To my mind, that is why the lines are drawn where they are drawn. If I'm innocently driving home from a ball game and your decision to go get blasted results in my getting killed, paralyzed, vegetablized, whatever...then you have that blood on your hands. OTOH, I'm driving home from the same ball game and you got smashed and laid and end up with AIDS because of it, I'm not impacted. It's when your decisions have an impact on the general public's safety and well-being that a line has been crossed, and the penalties appropriately go way up.



*GENERIC YOU, NON-SPECIFIC*
 
S&P I think you are missing my point. I believe that being drunk is no excuse for any decision made when drunk. What I was saying is that if a woman gets shitfaced and has sex with some guy, she has no business turning around and crying rape after the fact. She put herself in the position by irresponsibly drinking and its on her. The guy who sleeps with her isn't doing anything she didn't consent to. The bottom line is that a person is responsible for their actions no matter how drunk they are.
 
It all centers around individual responsibility.

The drunk bitch got what she wanted & later recanted her willingness. He said, she said scenario where eveybody loses. She ought not get drunk.

OTOH,

The guy should see that the condition of his prey & he should have the sense to avoid that 'tang like the plague.

It's too bad we need a lawyer to get laid these days. Thank God for marriage.
 
Gonz said:
The guy should see that the condition of his prey & he should have the sense to avoid that 'tang like the plague.
Click to expand...


Now how many guys (especially guys who are doin' a little drinkin' themselves), have these kind of superpowers? Come on now, get real!

:sex: :rofl:
 
A great many that I know. Because we're animals doesn't mean we all act like one.
 
So if the woman is drunk and the guy is drunk and she consents and he goes for it, why is it her right to cry rape? Why can't they both cry rape and each get the other convicted? Seems fair to me.
 
Her crying rape, under these conditions, is why rape allegations tend to be suspect as horrible as that is.

I'm all for the death penalty for rapists. Falsely accusing another should also get death.

However, your actions are still under your control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top