And the other way around?
It's only taking advantage if the guy knows the womans faculties have been incapacitated.
Well biologically the other is a little difficult, I think.
And the other way around?
It's only taking advantage if the guy knows the womans faculties have been incapacitated.
Well biologically the other is a little difficult, I think.
Well biologically the other is a little difficult, I think.
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.Again, you are placing the onus to not be raped on the victim if she/he is drunk?
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.As absurd as you being told you weren't raped if you go out and get drunk and wake up with a bleeding anus and a drunk guy sleeping next to you with your blood on his penis and a beer bottle he also used to jam up your backside, with no recollection of how you got there or how this could have even happened to you?
lol Are you serious? I don't think I believe you..Err yes.
What a strange question! What? Do you think issues of consent do not matter or apply in a marriage or relationship?
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.Do you think rape in marriage even exists?
In other words: completely unconscious or at least practically unconscious.I never get drunk to the point where I am unaware of my surroundings or what is happening around me. And if I did and he used that as an opportunity to have sex with me, knowing that I was falling down drunk, then yes, it would be rape.
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.
Interesting. So you think if someone gets drunk and they are then raped, they were being irresponsible for being drunk?That will never happen because I am responsible enough not to drink that much.
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?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.
In other words.. 'if you get drunk and someone rapes you, it's your own fault and not the rapist's fault'..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.
Are you being deliberately obtuse and, well, ridiculous in your attempts to justify rape?lol Are you serious? I don't think I believe you..
So it was never spontaneous?
Well at least you got something right..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.
If someone is so inebriated that they cannot legally consent to anything, including sex, then yes, it is rape.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.
Err.. isn't that impossible according to you?A large portion of people have sex while drunk and are not raped.
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.Interesting. So you think if someone gets drunk and they are then raped, they were being irresponsible for being drunk?
No.So again, you place the onus on the victim to not be raped instead of on the rapist to not rape.
No, they are not at fault for being raped. They are at fault "for being in that state in the first place."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?
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.In other words.. 'if you get drunk and someone rapes you, it's your own fault and not the rapist's fault'..
No.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:
Yes.a) You feel the victim was irresponsible for getting that drunk
Yes.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.
Excuse me? I'm not at all justifying rape. I'm just disagreeing with you that alcohol + sex is by definition rape.Are you being deliberately obtuse and, well, ridiculous in your attempts to justify rape?
A bit circular, isn't it?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.
When is that?If someone is so inebriated that they cannot legally consent to anything, including sex, then yes, it is rape.
Rape is lack of consent.
Yeah, but when is someone "too drunk to say no"? Assuming you don't mean that in a literal way..If someone is too drunk to say no or resist, then there is no consent and it is rape.
It really is that simple.
Enmos:
Yeah, but when is someone "too drunk to say no"? Assuming you don't mean that in a literal way..
Wow...he's never gotten so drunk he couldn't remember parts of what he did the next day!
:bugeye:
Yeah, you don't make too much sense when you're that far gone.
Huh? What do you mean?
You have never gotten so drunk you cannot remember what all you did while you were drunk.
Err.. isn't that impossible according to you?
As far as I can establish you claim: consumption of alcohol + sex = 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?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.
Really?
So they are not at fault for being raped, but they are at fault for being so drunk that they could not consent...No, they are not at fault for being raped. They are at fault "for being in that state in the first place."
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.Excuse me? I'm not at all justifying rape.
Who said it did?I'm just disagreeing with you that alcohol + sex is by definition 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?A bit circular, isn't it?
It was consensual because if it wasn't it would have been rape
How did you consent then?
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?When is that?
Again, should I carry a breathalyzer?
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?Yeah, but when is someone "too drunk to say no"? Assuming you don't mean that in a literal way..
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?
Nope. I can't imagine how much alcohol one would have to consume in order to achieve that..
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.Nope. I can't imagine how much alcohol one would have to consume in order to achieve that..
The problem is in establishing WHEN someone is "too incapacitated to consent". Is it after one beer? Two? Twenty?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.
I'm not sure if you're just reading stuff into what I wrote or that my English is a bit flawed here.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?
Wow..
So, this is you not justifying rape?
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.Really?
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.
See above.So they are not at fault for being raped, but they are at fault for being so drunk that they could not consent...
Righhtttt...
I'm not contradicting myself. You just keep seeing things in black and white.Unfortunately you keep contradicting yourself.. Because you answered "yes" to the two other questions..
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.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.
Try to have a bit more of a nuanced view.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.
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.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?
Nope.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?
Yep.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?
Literally?Well obviously when they are too drunk to say no.
Sure I can. No, not difficult.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?
The problem is in establishing WHEN someone is "too incapacitated to consent". Is it after one beer? Two? Twenty?
No. Then I read you correctly.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.
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?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 sorry, there is a gray area where someone forces another to have sex without consent?I'm not contradicting myself. You just keep seeing things in 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.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.
Does it matter?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?
How about you try and not blame the rape victim?Try to have a bit more of a nuanced view.
Really, what part of 'is too incapacitated to say no or resist' don't you quite understand, Enmos?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.
And I think your repeated requests about how I consent was rude and mildly perverse. So why don't you calm down?And I think you seem to be a bit too emotionally invested to be having this discussion. Calm down already.
Literally?
Really? Could have fooled me Enmos.:m:Sure I can. No, not difficult.