|
Arakan posted:well i learned one thing, if me and my girl go out and get hosed up then have sex we are raping each other, so thanks for that If this sounds ridiculous, you know what else sounds ridiculous? "I bought her two drinks so she obviously wanted it, so please dismiss this rape case."
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
Brannock posted:Why is this the standard response in D&D? What the gently caress is wrong with you? i think it may be a joke
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Lessail posted:i think it may be a joke
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
I'm actually a little wary of the "if drunk, then rape" standard, mostly because both parties are often drunk at the time. And assuming that only men want sex while drunk sends the message that only men want sex, with all the problems which come with that. Also because my experiences with that situation are complicated and confusing. I don't like to feed the narrative of women having sex and then regretting it, but it has happened when the woman in question initiated the encounter with me while we were both drunk (literally pulling me off the couch into bed with her). Sex is kind of confusing for young people. I'm not sure that needs harsh legal penalties making it worse. Or maybe I'm just hypocritical and a rapist. I don't expect D&D to be kind. I've known many women to act in teams to prevent each other from having a one-night stand that they'll regret later (explicitly in those terms). Which makes me wonder if the problem is that they're afraid some guy will be too aggressive, or if it's the shame society imposes on a woman who *gasp* enjoys sex that is the problem. It's both. On the other hand, if that standard is widely publicized, it could really cut down on the rape culture that is closely associated with binge drinking on campuses, which is if anything a much larger problem than MRAs and whathaveyou. The practical takeaway for me is more that drinking isn't an excuse to rape someone- which is how it is often used.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:I'm actually a little wary of the "if drunk, then rape" standard, mostly because both parties are often drunk at the time. And assuming that only men want sex while drunk sends the message that only men want sex, with all the problems which come with that. Also because my experiences with that situation are complicated and confusing. I don't like to feed the narrative of women having sex and then regretting it, but it has happened when the woman in question initiated the encounter with me while we were both drunk (literally pulling me off the couch into bed with her). Sex is kind of confusing for young people. I'm not sure that needs harsh legal penalties making it worse. Or maybe I'm just hypocritical and a rapist. I don't expect D&D to be kind.  I do think there is a sort of toxic cultural detail where it becomes "okay" to experience sexual desire and act on it after you've drunk about twenty dollars worth of liquor, because "you're drunk" and that means you're not "bad," but the line between the effects of alcohol and its social and cultural assumptions is a hazy and blurry one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Well, that all sounds good. But someone explain to me how any this will stop people like Elliot Rodger? Maybe start pushing MRA style stuff from "respectable" parts of the internet like reddit into the dark corners of lovely providers and backwater sites? In general make it hard for them to congregate in a single place to gain self-worth from each other. I doubt you'd get a club of guys doing this kind of thing in real life much, because most people recognize it's hosed up and would cost them partners/jobs/friends/enjoyment in life. In the real world, when you see one of your buddies acting entitled about women (i.e. sexist comments, acting like a woman owes him sex, or less common straight up woman hating) call him out on it, just like you would on a racist or homophobic comment. You can be friendly and firm at the same time. If you see someone trying to swoop in on a drunk girl or trying to force someone to have sex with him, intercede. In many cases, it can be as simple as just finding a way to interject yourself into the scenario and get him away from her. I'd suggest looking at the Army's SHARP training video if you can find it out in the open-- it covers a lot of these scenarios better than I can. If you know someone who has mental problems and has or starts collecting a cache of weapons (guns certainly, but also other stuff like long knives), keep it in your mind as a warning sign. Talk to the cops or his doctor if you get worried. A little more effective police interdiction could have helped in the Elliot Rodger case, since he easily could have slipped up with any kind of pressure from them. Was this the kind of thing you were looking for?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Well, you have to think about the scenario seriously. A white woman falsely accuses a black man of rape. Already the system is stacked against him in a pretty drastic way. So what are the potential consequences of further empowering the state to prosecute him? You only need to look at the criminal justice system as it stands now, or look at the way it used to be during segregation and lynching when black men weren't really given the benefit of the doubt at all. Perhaps the solution to this lies elsewhere, immigration expert Omi-Polari. Perhaps it lies in substantive social change rather than change that actively discourages reporting a rape. Perhaps...
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Well if she pulled you off the couch to have sex with you it's arguable she's the rapist here. Rape is not exclusively male after all But if you're a woman, you have to experience "the walk of shame" afterwards. So you're only allowed to experience sexual desire while drunk if you're a woman; afterwards you still have to feel ashamed about it. So really, it's even more hosed up for women.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:I'm actually a little wary of the "if drunk, then rape" standard, mostly because both parties are often drunk at the time. And assuming that only men want sex while drunk sends the message that only men want sex, with all the problems which come with that. Also because my experiences with that situation are complicated and confusing. I don't like to feed the narrative of women having sex and then regretting it, but it has happened when the woman in question initiated the encounter with me while we were both drunk (literally pulling me off the couch into bed with her). Sex is kind of confusing for young people. I'm not sure that needs harsh legal penalties making it worse. Or maybe I'm just hypocritical and a rapist. I don't expect D&D to be kind. This is an issue because we do everything possible to not teach our young people about consent and sex. It's the perfect topic for sex ed, but because we're puritan losers it's abstinence only instead. The place I learned about this stuff specifically was in my 20s taking Army rape prevention training as a civilian. It should be taught to every 15 year old in school as a way to prevent a lot of problems for everyone involved. quote:I've known many women to act in teams to prevent each other from having a one-night stand that they'll regret later (explicitly in those terms). Which makes me wonder if the problem is that they're afraid some guy will be too aggressive, or if it's the shame society imposes on a woman who *gasp* enjoys sex that is the problem. It's both. Knowing many women who've done this, it's more to ward off predators. While most guys at the party aren't trying to screw a drunk girl before she realizes what's happened, that one guy might be at the party, and part of your job as a friend is to protect your friends from stupid poo poo happening to them. The girls I knew who did this were pretty liberated, so I doubt it's sex shaming. quote:On the other hand, if that standard is widely publicized, it could really cut down on the rape culture that is closely associated with binge drinking on campuses, which is if anything a much larger problem than MRAs and whathaveyou. The practical takeaway for me is more that drinking isn't an excuse to rape someone- which is how it is often used. Again, this is the kind of stuff that should be instilled in kids before they start drinking and having sex. I say 15, since that lines with high school sex ed, but you could go earlier if you think kids are doing either earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Oh really? Because I'm pretty sure I've had a few nights start with the suggestion "Let's get drunk and gently caress like bunnies." Same rkajdi posted:Guess what? You shouldn't have been doing that, and it's rape if your partner wanted to press the issue. This is poo poo they taught me in college, and in every annual SHARP class I've had to take. I guess I'm the only person who paid attention to that stuff, and took seriously the whole not taking advantage of a sex partner thing. Private consensual sexual activity generally isn't illegal no matter how much you want to make it so, sorry. The crazy-rear end policies your university might have is a different matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Private consensual sexual activity generally isn't illegal no matter how much you want to make it so, sorry. Again, under the influence means you can't consent-- don't gently caress drunk people. If they want to push the issue, the person you slept with can press charges and make a mess of stuff for you. And rightly so. The fact that you're siding with the now classic video The Blaze put out means you should probably rethink your position. I doubt you will because the chance of you getting rung up over it in our piece of poo poo justice system are next to nil, but try being a decent human being for once in your goddamn life. EDIT: SHARP training is from the military, but good try anyway. Why do you idiots think you need to liquor up someone before they'll sleep with you? That right there might be the crux of the problem for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
I have to say as a gay man that I find this all very confusing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:I have to say as a gay man that I find this all very confusing. Why? Nothing about gay sex makes sexual assault impossible or even hard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Again, under the influence means you can't consent-- don't gently caress drunk people. If they want to push the issue, the person you slept with can press charges and make a mess of stuff for you. And rightly so. I'm about as far from an MRA/PUA type as you can be, but you are way over simplifying a pretty complicated subject. It is possible for both parties to be drunk and horny. Also, there are different levels of intoxication. Having a couple of drinks isn't going to turn you into a hypnotist's play thing. Date rape and such are very real problems, especially on college campuses, but Jesus Christ man, women aren't also completely helpless when they have a sip of alcohol. Yes, you can take a personal, moral stance that you will never touch someone who has been drinking, and that is fine and noble and even admirable, but please don't try to pass that off as some kind of basic law of human interaction that everyone should know and follow. You aren't going to convince many people (women included, because women are people) of that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Why? Nothing about gay sex makes sexual assault impossible or even hard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Again, under the influence means you can't consent-- don't gently caress drunk people. If they want to push the issue, the person you slept with can press charges and make a mess of stuff for you. And rightly so. What part of "Let's ... gently caress like bunnies" do you think isn't consensual? quote:EDIT: SHARP training is from the military, but good try anyway. Why do you idiots think you need to liquor up someone before they'll sleep with you? That right there might be the crux of the problem for you. Assuming your description of the policies is accurate my point remains. And the only person I'm sleeping with is my boyfriend sooo
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Of course. But when I met the guy at the club, and we both got drunk and went home and hosed, did we ... what? Rape each other? The framework here is that you have lecherous men plying women with drinks to lower their inhibitions. Well, we were both pretty uninhibited. My framework is that being under the influence prevents consent. The fact that we as a society also brush away rape against men is part of the same problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:My framework is that being under the influence prevents consent. Except that this is an oversimplification of the subject that doesn't actually solve any problems or help anyone. You might as well take a prohibition stance and say "ban alcohol to prevent some rapes!" To which rational people will basically just start ignoring you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:I'm about as far from an MRA/PUA type as you can be, but you are way over simplifying a pretty complicated subject. It is possible for both parties to be drunk and horny. Also, there are different levels of intoxication. Having a couple of drinks isn't going to turn you into a hypnotist's play thing. Date rape and such are very real problems, especially on college campuses, but Jesus Christ man, women aren't also completely helpless when they have a sip of alcohol. Yes, you can take a personal, moral stance that you will never touch someone who has been drinking, and that is fine and noble and even admirable, but please don't try to pass that off as some kind of basic law of human interaction that everyone should know and follow. You aren't going to convince many people (women included, because women are people) of that. Under the influence means drunk, not having a drink or two (unless you have no tolerance) or being at a similar level from other substances. If you're too drunk/high to drive, you're too drunk/high to consent. Note this is the definition the federal government uses (getting someone under the influence to have sex they would not have had) which made Glenn Beck's mouthpiece on BlazeTV act like an idiot in the exact same way several people here have (aka "That means I might have done something bad, so it must be wrong!"). It's pretty loving sad so many people think this is okay behavior, and the fact that you're parroting a point from a right-wing shitheel should be enough to show you that you're in the wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Except that this is an oversimplification of the subject that doesn't actually solve any problems or help anyone. You might as well take a prohibition stance and say "ban alcohol to prevent some rapes!" To which rational people will basically just start ignoring you. It helps to get the predatory behavior out in the open, and then eliminate it either via shaming or legal action. I'd much prefer the former, since it involves no additional people getting assaulted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Under the influence means drunk, not having a drink or two (unless you have no tolerance) or being at a similar level from other substances. If you're too drunk/high to drive, you're too drunk/high to consent. Note this is the definition the federal government uses (getting someone under the influence to have sex they would not have had) which made Glenn Beck's mouthpiece on BlazeTV act like an idiot in the exact same way several people here have (aka "That means I might have done something bad, so it must be wrong!"). It's pretty loving sad so many people think this is okay behavior, and the fact that you're parroting a point from a right-wing shitheel should be enough to show you that you're in the wrong. You haven't adequately explained what happens in the situation where both people are drunk. No rational person would argue that when one person is drunk and the other isn't, that taking advantage of that drunk person isn't wrong. Date rape is wrong. But your wording goes beyond that and offers no exceptions, which is highly unrealistic and oversimplifying adult interaction. Again, what happens if both people are drunk? What happens when both people, while sober, consent to getting more intoxicated and having sex? What happens when, the next day, both parties are totally ok with what happened? If you are unable to answer these questions you should reconsider rewording your position.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:You haven't adequately explained what happens in the situation where both people are drunk. No rational person would argue that when one person is drunk and the other isn't, that taking advantage of that drunk person isn't wrong. Date rape is wrong. But your wording goes beyond that and offers no exceptions, which is highly unrealistic and oversimplifying adult interaction. 2. Seems fine to me, assuming consent is not withdrawn during the act 3. No problem The corrollary to these is the situation where someone regrets what they did later, but I have never gotten the impression that there is some epidemic of "wow, I regret that one night stand. Oh I know, I'll accuse him of rape!" and I'm not sure where this came from. There are by contrast numerous situations where people have plied others with liquor and other drugs in order to get ''consent'' which was not in their collective right minds, and then went "aha! You said it was OK after that sixteenth shooter!  "I guess I would personally note that I don't get the appeal of getting totally shitfaced in order to gently caress, but I guess we have this culture-wide fetish for that which is its own separate ball of wax.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Under the influence means drunk, not having a drink or two (unless you have no tolerance) or being at a similar level from other substances. If you're too drunk/high to drive, you're too drunk/high to consent. Note this is the definition the federal government uses (getting someone under the influence to have sex they would not have had) which made Glenn Beck's mouthpiece on BlazeTV act like an idiot in the exact same way several people here have (aka "That means I might have done something bad, so it must be wrong!"). It's pretty loving sad so many people think this is okay behavior, and the fact that you're parroting a point from a right-wing shitheel should be enough to show you that you're in the wrong. I think you're wrong about the law as it exists. [We've already had the Texas statute posted. You should post the statute from your jurisdiction] And I don't see why you'd think this standard would be reasonable or desirable. Impairment (in the context of driving) is a matter of delayed reactions or imprecise coordination. At 70MPH that's a real hazard. And 2 drinks could put a small person over that legal limit. But "slightly impaired reaction time" is irrelevant when we're talking about someone's ability to consent to stuff. It's legally unimportant; slow clumsy people can sign contracts. And it's morally unimportant for much the same reason. And I think 'drunk' or 'intoxicated' are horrible words to use in this context. They can mean anything from 0.02BAC (the limit for commercial pilots) to outright unconsciousness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:You haven't adequately explained what happens in the situation where both people are drunk. No rational person would argue that when one person is drunk and the other isn't, that taking advantage of that drunk person is wrong. But your wording goes beyond that and offers no exceptions, which is highly unrealistic and oversimplifying adult interaction. If everyone is okay with it, there's no reported crime to begin with. If someone's not, it becomes a big issue. So literally your partner not pushing the issue is the only thing keeping a charge from happening. And when both parties are drunk, the answer at least in the military is the first person to report is the victim. So it's really not in your best interest to have sex with a drunk person, regardless of your sobriety level. You can call it "oversimplifying adult interaction", but it seems seriously hosed to me to have sex with a drunk person. To the point where if your partner feels like pushing the issue, I have zero problem with Johnny Law throwing the book at you. Is the bar really so low that wanting not-drunk and non-coerced consent for sex is too much?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:And when both parties are drunk, the answer at least in the military is the first person to report is the victim. edit: Just saw my cool new red text. I'm pro-feminism, so I guess I'll keep it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
In a situation where both people are drunk, of age, and conscious, then no rape occurs as they were both equally incapacitated. That solves that intractable problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:If everyone is okay with it, there's no reported crime to begin with. If someone's not, it becomes a big issue. So literally your partner not pushing the issue is the only thing keeping a charge from happening. And when both parties are drunk, the answer at least in the military is the first person to report is the victim. So it's really not in your best interest to have sex with a drunk person, regardless of your sobriety level. All this started when you claimed that you only needed "objective" evidence such as physical evidence of sex and intoxication to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. Victim testimony doesn't get used in that case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:You can call it "oversimplifying adult interaction", but it seems seriously hosed to me to have sex with a drunk person. To the point where if your partner feels like pushing the issue, I have zero problem with Johnny Law throwing the book at you. Is the bar really so low that wanting not-drunk and non-coerced consent for sex is too much? In contrast, I think it's terrible that you're trivializing sexual assault. If you want to make an argument that it's unpleasant or gauche for two adults to have consensual sex at 0.08 BAC, you should do it. But tying that to shoehorn that into 'sexual assault' just dilutes the meaning of the term. It's good that we have powerful words for terrible events. You shouldn't cheapen that just because you're too lazy to advance an argument that stands on its own merits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Guess what? You shouldn't have been doing that, and it's rape if your partner wanted to press the issue. This is poo poo they taught me in college, and in every annual SHARP class I've had to take. I guess I'm the only person who paid attention to that stuff, and took seriously the whole not taking advantage of a sex partner thing. This is totally retarded, good luck making your nonsense ideology work in the real world. Brb off to ask my girlfriend if I raped her last week in the hotel Edit: she thinks you're a dweeb DiscoMouse fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:I think you're wrong about the law as it exists. [We've already had the Texas statute posted. You should post the statute from your jurisdiction] And I don't see why you'd think this standard would be reasonable or desirable. Again, keep on agreeing with Glen Beck-- that's worked out so well for people in the past. And I will say on the moral level regardless of what contortions you've done, if you're liquoring a girl up to sleep with them you're human filth. If you seriously did this, get help or better yet get help for the other people's lives you've hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
I also feel that this "drunk sex = rape" thing is a huge oversimplification. If you are both drunk and both are consenting to sex, there's nothing wrong with that. If you want to sit around on a Saturday night with your spouse and get silly and gently caress like bunnies, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The problem arises when a person uses intoxication to elicit a sex act that the other person would not consent to under normal circumstances. It's a coerced act done by removing that person's ability to consent. People can still enthusiastically consent to sex while inebriated. But if you're having sex with a person who is inebriated you'd better make drat sure they really want to have sex with you, which generally speaking is not something that rapists do. Which is why alcohol is used in so many rapes to disable a victim, which is where we get this myth of "girls crying rape because they're embarrassed about one night stands". Well, no. Usually it's because the rapist specifically used alcohol in a context to make her claim to non-consent seem more questionable. copper rose petal fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:All this started when you claimed that you only needed "objective" evidence such as physical evidence of sex and intoxication to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt. Victim testimony doesn't get used in that case. Objective is pretty easy with intoxication levels. The whole point of a red line is that everyone knows where they stand, instead of a constantly swirling level that goes up or down on the basis of a bunch of unwritten bias. The fact that I got a bunch of people to react with horror over it just shows how hosed our culture is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:If everyone is okay with it, there's no reported crime to begin with. If someone's not, it becomes a big issue. So literally your partner not pushing the issue is the only thing keeping a charge from happening. And when both parties are drunk, the answer at least in the military is the first person to report is the victim. So it's really not in your best interest to have sex with a drunk person, regardless of your sobriety level. The military has every reason to be overzealous about that sort of thing though. It makes sense that in an organization that is supposed to be highly disciplined, there would be rules and guidelines that are extremely strict when it comes to interacting with others, whether they be foreigners, fellow service people, or civilians. And it is totally fine if you want to apply those strict and necessary standards to your civilian life, but you have to understand or at least try to understand, why the rest of us would see that as quite extreme. rkajdi posted:Again, keep on agreeing with Glen Beck-- that's worked out so well for people in the past. Also bringing up the Glen Beck video isn't an automatic "I win" button. Nobody cares what he said because he is irrelevant. Address the arguments being made to you directly if you have a point you are trying to make.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Again, keep on agreeing with Glen Beck-- that's worked out so well for people in the past. The question would then be how to establish a legal standard which is able to define rape of the intoxicated as rape, without (presumably) also technically outlawing this drunken gently caress-party people seem to crave, even though it would seem as a practical matter that a consensual in-home drunken gently caress-party with your s.o. is effectively no issue, because neither party will press charges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Nessus posted:
In theory, if we had an actual healthy response to rape reports, women would feel comfortable enough with the accusation that a rare few would use it frivolously. In practice, 1) this would be a more than acceptable tradeoff, and 2) I would also like a flying unicorn that shits rainbows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:In theory, if we had an actual healthy response to rape reports, women would feel comfortable enough with the accusation that a rare few would use it frivolously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Of course. But when I met the guy at the club, and we both got drunk and went home and hosed, did we ... what? Rape each other? The framework here is that you have lecherous men plying women with drinks to lower their inhibitions. Well, we were both pretty uninhibited. It depends, are either of you black? You're both rapists by virtue of the inherent criminalness of being male, but if one of you is black then that is double-criminal and therefore double-rape, and so that person should be prosecuted harder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Objective is pretty easy with intoxication levels. The whole point of a red line is that everyone knows where they stand, instead of a constantly swirling level that goes up or down on the basis of a bunch of unwritten bias. The fact that I got a bunch of people to react with horror over it just shows how hosed our culture is. Uh huh, so people taking drugs and having sex is hosed. Congrats on your social conservatism. Nessus posted:The question would then be how to establish a legal standard which is able to define rape of the intoxicated as rape, without (presumably) also technically outlawing this drunken gently caress-party people seem to crave, even though it would seem as a practical matter that a consensual in-home drunken gently caress-party with your s.o. is effectively no issue, because neither party will press charges. Unless the cops come in for whatever reason, or someone talks about it to someone else and they call the cops, or they make amateur porn and Kiwi Ghost Chips fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Again, keep on agreeing with Glen Beck-- that's worked out so well for people in the past. This seems like a fully generic reply. It expresses outrage at some imagined position, without addressing any specific ideas that you quoted. (e.g. What do your state's statues say?). Instead, you just say that I'm out-group and bad (Glen Beck! Booga Booga!). Then you put in some random outrage so everyone can see that you're a Good, Caring Person (tm). ----- This pretty much encapsulates my problem with a lot of related discussions. Instead of focusing on ideas, people use outrage like an badge of in-group membership. There's endless fighting between people who're trying to set themselves up as a group's gatekeeper so they can control admissions and expulsions. I could understand the appeal more if there were some actual clubhouse. But we're all behind nicknames on the internet. Ideas are interesting. The approval of random strangers (or membership in some hypothetical club) is much less interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
Nessus posted:The question would then be how to establish a legal standard which is able to define rape of the intoxicated as rape, without (presumably) also technically outlawing this drunken gently caress-party people seem to crave, even though it would seem as a practical matter that a consensual in-home drunken gently caress-party with your s.o. is effectively no issue, because neither party will press charges. Is there a problem with the current statutes? The standard seems to be that the person has to understand and agree to what they're doing. And agreement doesn't count if it's obtained by trickery or force. That seems reasonable to me. (The way police implement things is another issue, but not one that hinges on the legal definition of 'impaired') The rest of the argument seems like a question of grammar. rkajdi could offer someone drinks. But that's not him getting the other person drunk unless he does something to strip the person of their agency. Absent trickery or force, the only reason we'd say "rkajdi got her drunk" (rather than, "she chose to get drunk with rkajdi") is because there's a misogynistic quirk in conversational English. People phrase things like women default into being 'direct objects' instead of the agent in the subject of the sentence. This makes a situation sound artificially ominous. But if we structured sentences the way we would for men, the situation-under-debate would be "She got drunk with rkajdi" or "Rkajdi and the woman got drunk together". Then the response is simply 'so what?'
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:34
|
|