I agree to a certain point but you're missing the point of my DUI comparison.
Yes dui is illegal so is rape. Drinking and or drugs in some cases are not. Agree!
However, my point was whether or not you remember getting in the car after drinking doesn't matter. Same in sexual cases, there are many cases initiated and investigated where a person consented or appears from club videos or eyewitness statements to be consenting and responding in kind. Just because you don't remember giving your consent does not make it rape.
Second, on the notion of saying (No) once, you are wrong, at least in every legal argument I been involved in.
Any contract can be amended and believe me, we use it all the time. "Females have a right to change our minds". That's actually is a very true statement and applies to everybody M or F.
Affirmations do not have to be verble, you can respond with numerous positive or negitive non-verble signs from a nod or shake of the head, hand shake, shove away, kiss, hugs, many other ways.
The point being if the person appears to be voluntarily accepting and even responding in an agreeable manor. Even if intoxicated, it can be interpreted as agreement.
Even if you said No at work the week before or even that same day before getting intoxicated.
This is one reason it is so hard to prove and prosecute date rape cases where drugs are used. Short of a toxicology test showing what drug and proof of them putting it in a drink or at least opportunity to do so. It can appear that the person is consenting and voluntary returning advances.
Again, I'm not contesting if a person says No or if they are so intoxicated they're passed out. Rape is rape and no is no. However, the OP implies, just because the person said no sober, that a person should never ask or try again. I disagree, alcohol does lower inhibitions, people do agree or consent to things they may not when sober.
I've actually had people come on to me that as sober denied being bi. The next day they want to blame it on alcohol and make sure their secret is safe.
So if you see a drunk person and try to drag them back to your car or start to try and make out with them because they can't fight it off its okay right? The fact they are drunk and can't push you away means they said yes right?
"I'm not talking again about the person that continues to show signs of resisting, is passed out, or obviously to drunk to stand. I'm talking about a person that goes out drinking and for what ever reason responds in an agreeable manor to advances. Can dance, hold a conversation, walk, talk and chew bubble gum. Then says that somebody took advantage of them while intoxicated."
That's a quote from the comment I made 10 or so days ago.
I think I understand the point you were trying to make with the DUI comparison, but that’s why many places rightfully have laws in place that say, at a certain point, a person severely under the influence of alcohol or drugs is unable to give consent, similar to how children are unable to give consent under any circumstances, and it doesn’t matter if they actually say yes or otherwise agree to it. If they’re too drunk to remember if they said yes or not, they were probably too drunk to consent in the first place. I go back to the point I made before that these people aren’t with inanimate objects. People can and should be expected to make sure the person they’re about to have sex with is of sound mind and body.
On the topic of saying no, I’m not sure which part you’re claiming that I’m wrong about. You said no is only good for that conversation and it has to be restated and I pointed out that that’s simply not true, because no doesn’t have to be stated in the first place. No is the default. If there is no indication that the answer is yes, then the answer is no. Anything in between yes and no, is no. Personal responsibility means making sure the person you’re about to have sex with actually wants to have sex with you.
If you’re only taking about the OP specifically, they didn’t even use the word rape. They said it’s not okay and it’s predatory. If you take advantage of a drunk person’s lower inhibitions to get them to do something they’ve told you they don’t want to do sober, that’s predatory and not okay, regardless of whether or not you think it should be considered rape.
I think you or we are getting hung up on semantics.
Answers can be verbal or implied. I agree once no is said or a yes is never given then the default is no. However, a yes or affirmative actions or reactions even when intoxicated can be considered agreement to continue.
The problem with " of sound mind or too drunk to remember" is it is subjective. Some people function relatively well even when fully intoxicated. Police can tell you they've seen people function really well that BA test shows they should be almost dead. The opposite is also true, we've all heard the saying they're drunk after smelling the cap. So everybody should carry a blood alcohol meter with them?
I'm not talking again about the person that continues to show signs of resisting, is passed out, or obviously to drunk to stand. I'm talking about a person that goes out drinking and for what ever reason responds in an agreeable manor to advances. Can dance, hold a conversation, walk, talk and chew bubble gum. Then says that somebody took advantage of them while intoxicated.
I don't know if you drink or not, but most of us have done things willingly and voluntarily while intoxicated that we would not have done sober, that embarrassed us, that we regret. However, that does not make the boss I told to go f-- himself, a predator or at fault for asking what I thought.
As far as the term rape. I use that along with the term sexual assault in my first comment because when you say someone in a sexual situation is a predator, wrong, not okay, wrongly took advantage of, then you are implying sexual assault and or rape.
Even if you are talking just morally wrong, then you might as well make alcohol illegal, close the bars, and clubs. They are all feeding grounds for people to prey on people while their inhibitions are down.
This includes sales people who take people out and buy them a drink or two. It's all meant to lower those inhibitors and get agreement. So all sales people that take a person out to eat and a few drinks are predators. (I might agree)!
Really we're back to square one. Where I said things are changing and the law is starting to agree, drinking is voluntary, has inherent dangers, and alcohol should be used with caution. The drinker/intoxicated person bares some responsibility.
Doesn't matter whether you and I agree or disagree, unless we get the laws changed to reflect an intoxicated person is/are not responsible for their actions. But that opens up a whole new bunch of problems.
To respond to the last part, that’s why I’m making a distinction between calling someone a predator or a rapist. I don’t care what the laws say, if a person gets another person drunk for the purpose of getting them to agree to do something they wouldn’t agree to do when sober - the situation described by the OP - they’re a predator.
It’s also worth noting that sex isn’t the only situation where a drunk person is protected by law. A contract that’s signed while intoxicated can be voided, for example. (Including marriages, which can be annulled.) And a person that intentionally gets a person drunk so they can make them sign a contract they would never agree to when sober could definitely be charged with a crime. (And, yes, that includes sales people, who are known to use many predatory tactics.)
I’ll make the point again that drunk people aren’t having sex(or signing contracts) with inanimate objects. The person or people they’re with are responsible for making sure that person is willing and able to participate in what they’re about to do to/with them. And the benefit of the doubt can and should always err on protecting the drunk person. Since it’s known that that’s what the law is, people should take that into consideration before they do something with a drunk person.
At this point I'll just say let's agree to disagree.
I've tried to say how much I agree with you if the person continues to show any form of resistance, or if the person "is too drunk" .
I've said that's a hard distinction unless you carry a breathalyzer.
You also just read something into the OP that leads me to believe maybe this is a personal subject for you, which means you'll never be able to see it differently or say the drunk individual has any responsibility here.
You've now added the person gets or intentionally gets the person intoxicated. In sex or sales or as you stated numerous situations that's a different situation.
Nothing indicates the actor had anything to do with getting the person intoxicated, except in my reference to sales, where I clearly stated a drink or two. Not a falling down drunk situation. Sales people know even a single drink can lower some inhibitions, but, a lot of that is an environmental factor. Take the person out of the office for a drink, lunch, even breakfast, they can be more inclined to make the sale. It really has little to do with the alcohol.
Either way I took the OP as you go out get intoxicated and a person you happen to know from work, the gym, wherever See's you there makes advances even though you've turned them down before.
Why wouldn't they people change their minds. Sober or drinking I've had people try 3 or 4 times. I admire their persistence.
I'll go with your proposed situation though. If you go out drinking with a person who you know wants you to do something that you don't want to do, and you expect them to make sure you don't get drunk and do it. They may be a predator but you have made a poor decision and may verge on stupid.
Thanks for the conversation, be careful and watch out for predators.
It’s interesting that you were so comfortable inferring OP was calling someone a rapist, but when I infer that in OP’s scenario the predator helped felicitate their target getting drunk I’ve crossed an unthinkable line that I can’t come back from and the conversation must end immediately. I suppose I could say that leads me to believe it’s a personal subject for you and you’ll never see it differently or acknowledge that predators should be held responsible for being predators, but I won’t do that.
But, sure, let’s go with the way you took OP. Why wouldn’t they, you ask? Because taking advantage of people who are drunk and thus have lower inhibitions is wrong. See? Simple. And that was OP’s point. People should be taught that it’s wrong to do that.
Making poor decisions and being stupid isn’t illegal. Getting drunk, in and of itself, isn’t illegal. Neither of those things even makes you a bad person in a vacuum. Taking advantage of stupid people who make poor decisions does make you a bad person and can be illegal, and taking advantage of drunk people is illegal. That’s the source of the problem, that’s where the responsibility lies.
Let’s put it this way. Sober people can be raped. People who dress modestly and don’t flirt with anybody and lock their doors and don’t go out alone at night can be raped. No matter how much responsibility you try to put on people who are raped, rape is still going to happen as long as rapists exist. That’s why rape happens. Because the rapist was a rapist, not because of anything their target did or didn’t do.
It’s a harder distinction to make if you’re trying to decide when the victim should or shouldn’t be blamed. It’s not as hard of a distinction if you simply place the blame where it always belongs, with the predator. I guess that’s where we agree to disagree…I think people should always be held responsible for their actions when they harm other people.
Should we make seminars on why you shouldn't violate drunks?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I agree to a certain point but you're missing the point of my DUI comparison.
Yes dui is illegal so is rape. Drinking and or drugs in some cases are not. Agree!
However, my point was whether or not you remember getting in the car after drinking doesn't matter. Same in sexual cases, there are many cases initiated and investigated where a person consented or appears from club videos or eyewitness statements to be consenting and responding in kind. Just because you don't remember giving your consent does not make it rape.
Second, on the notion of saying (No) once, you are wrong, at least in every legal argument I been involved in.
Any contract can be amended and believe me, we use it all the time. "Females have a right to change our minds". That's actually is a very true statement and applies to everybody M or F.
Affirmations do not have to be verble, you can respond with numerous positive or negitive non-verble signs from a nod or shake of the head, hand shake, shove away, kiss, hugs, many other ways.
The point being if the person appears to be voluntarily accepting and even responding in an agreeable manor. Even if intoxicated, it can be interpreted as agreement.
Even if you said No at work the week before or even that same day before getting intoxicated.
This is one reason it is so hard to prove and prosecute date rape cases where drugs are used. Short of a toxicology test showing what drug and proof of them putting it in a drink or at least opportunity to do so. It can appear that the person is consenting and voluntary returning advances.
Again, I'm not contesting if a person says No or if they are so intoxicated they're passed out. Rape is rape and no is no. However, the OP implies, just because the person said no sober, that a person should never ask or try again. I disagree, alcohol does lower inhibitions, people do agree or consent to things they may not when sober.
I've actually had people come on to me that as sober denied being bi. The next day they want to blame it on alcohol and make sure their secret is safe.
--
Anonymous Post Author
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Correction
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
So if you see a drunk person and try to drag them back to your car or start to try and make out with them because they can't fight it off its okay right? The fact they are drunk and can't push you away means they said yes right?
--
darefu
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You are not reading the comments
"I'm not talking again about the person that continues to show signs of resisting, is passed out, or obviously to drunk to stand. I'm talking about a person that goes out drinking and for what ever reason responds in an agreeable manor to advances. Can dance, hold a conversation, walk, talk and chew bubble gum. Then says that somebody took advantage of them while intoxicated."
That's a quote from the comment I made 10 or so days ago.
--
Anonymous Post Author
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
And that Cleary isn't who I am talking about.
I think I understand the point you were trying to make with the DUI comparison, but that’s why many places rightfully have laws in place that say, at a certain point, a person severely under the influence of alcohol or drugs is unable to give consent, similar to how children are unable to give consent under any circumstances, and it doesn’t matter if they actually say yes or otherwise agree to it. If they’re too drunk to remember if they said yes or not, they were probably too drunk to consent in the first place. I go back to the point I made before that these people aren’t with inanimate objects. People can and should be expected to make sure the person they’re about to have sex with is of sound mind and body.
On the topic of saying no, I’m not sure which part you’re claiming that I’m wrong about. You said no is only good for that conversation and it has to be restated and I pointed out that that’s simply not true, because no doesn’t have to be stated in the first place. No is the default. If there is no indication that the answer is yes, then the answer is no. Anything in between yes and no, is no. Personal responsibility means making sure the person you’re about to have sex with actually wants to have sex with you.
If you’re only taking about the OP specifically, they didn’t even use the word rape. They said it’s not okay and it’s predatory. If you take advantage of a drunk person’s lower inhibitions to get them to do something they’ve told you they don’t want to do sober, that’s predatory and not okay, regardless of whether or not you think it should be considered rape.
--
darefu
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I think you or we are getting hung up on semantics.
Answers can be verbal or implied. I agree once no is said or a yes is never given then the default is no. However, a yes or affirmative actions or reactions even when intoxicated can be considered agreement to continue.
The problem with " of sound mind or too drunk to remember" is it is subjective. Some people function relatively well even when fully intoxicated. Police can tell you they've seen people function really well that BA test shows they should be almost dead. The opposite is also true, we've all heard the saying they're drunk after smelling the cap. So everybody should carry a blood alcohol meter with them?
I'm not talking again about the person that continues to show signs of resisting, is passed out, or obviously to drunk to stand. I'm talking about a person that goes out drinking and for what ever reason responds in an agreeable manor to advances. Can dance, hold a conversation, walk, talk and chew bubble gum. Then says that somebody took advantage of them while intoxicated.
I don't know if you drink or not, but most of us have done things willingly and voluntarily while intoxicated that we would not have done sober, that embarrassed us, that we regret. However, that does not make the boss I told to go f-- himself, a predator or at fault for asking what I thought.
As far as the term rape. I use that along with the term sexual assault in my first comment because when you say someone in a sexual situation is a predator, wrong, not okay, wrongly took advantage of, then you are implying sexual assault and or rape.
Even if you are talking just morally wrong, then you might as well make alcohol illegal, close the bars, and clubs. They are all feeding grounds for people to prey on people while their inhibitions are down.
This includes sales people who take people out and buy them a drink or two. It's all meant to lower those inhibitors and get agreement. So all sales people that take a person out to eat and a few drinks are predators. (I might agree)!
Really we're back to square one. Where I said things are changing and the law is starting to agree, drinking is voluntary, has inherent dangers, and alcohol should be used with caution. The drinker/intoxicated person bares some responsibility.
Doesn't matter whether you and I agree or disagree, unless we get the laws changed to reflect an intoxicated person is/are not responsible for their actions. But that opens up a whole new bunch of problems.
--
Correction
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
To respond to the last part, that’s why I’m making a distinction between calling someone a predator or a rapist. I don’t care what the laws say, if a person gets another person drunk for the purpose of getting them to agree to do something they wouldn’t agree to do when sober - the situation described by the OP - they’re a predator.
It’s also worth noting that sex isn’t the only situation where a drunk person is protected by law. A contract that’s signed while intoxicated can be voided, for example. (Including marriages, which can be annulled.) And a person that intentionally gets a person drunk so they can make them sign a contract they would never agree to when sober could definitely be charged with a crime. (And, yes, that includes sales people, who are known to use many predatory tactics.)
I’ll make the point again that drunk people aren’t having sex(or signing contracts) with inanimate objects. The person or people they’re with are responsible for making sure that person is willing and able to participate in what they’re about to do to/with them. And the benefit of the doubt can and should always err on protecting the drunk person. Since it’s known that that’s what the law is, people should take that into consideration before they do something with a drunk person.
--
darefu
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
At this point I'll just say let's agree to disagree.
I've tried to say how much I agree with you if the person continues to show any form of resistance, or if the person "is too drunk" .
I've said that's a hard distinction unless you carry a breathalyzer.
You also just read something into the OP that leads me to believe maybe this is a personal subject for you, which means you'll never be able to see it differently or say the drunk individual has any responsibility here.
You've now added the person gets or intentionally gets the person intoxicated. In sex or sales or as you stated numerous situations that's a different situation.
Nothing indicates the actor had anything to do with getting the person intoxicated, except in my reference to sales, where I clearly stated a drink or two. Not a falling down drunk situation. Sales people know even a single drink can lower some inhibitions, but, a lot of that is an environmental factor. Take the person out of the office for a drink, lunch, even breakfast, they can be more inclined to make the sale. It really has little to do with the alcohol.
Either way I took the OP as you go out get intoxicated and a person you happen to know from work, the gym, wherever See's you there makes advances even though you've turned them down before.
Why wouldn't they people change their minds. Sober or drinking I've had people try 3 or 4 times. I admire their persistence.
I'll go with your proposed situation though. If you go out drinking with a person who you know wants you to do something that you don't want to do, and you expect them to make sure you don't get drunk and do it. They may be a predator but you have made a poor decision and may verge on stupid.
Thanks for the conversation, be careful and watch out for predators.
--
Correction
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
It’s interesting that you were so comfortable inferring OP was calling someone a rapist, but when I infer that in OP’s scenario the predator helped felicitate their target getting drunk I’ve crossed an unthinkable line that I can’t come back from and the conversation must end immediately. I suppose I could say that leads me to believe it’s a personal subject for you and you’ll never see it differently or acknowledge that predators should be held responsible for being predators, but I won’t do that.
But, sure, let’s go with the way you took OP. Why wouldn’t they, you ask? Because taking advantage of people who are drunk and thus have lower inhibitions is wrong. See? Simple. And that was OP’s point. People should be taught that it’s wrong to do that.
Making poor decisions and being stupid isn’t illegal. Getting drunk, in and of itself, isn’t illegal. Neither of those things even makes you a bad person in a vacuum. Taking advantage of stupid people who make poor decisions does make you a bad person and can be illegal, and taking advantage of drunk people is illegal. That’s the source of the problem, that’s where the responsibility lies.
Let’s put it this way. Sober people can be raped. People who dress modestly and don’t flirt with anybody and lock their doors and don’t go out alone at night can be raped. No matter how much responsibility you try to put on people who are raped, rape is still going to happen as long as rapists exist. That’s why rape happens. Because the rapist was a rapist, not because of anything their target did or didn’t do.
It’s a harder distinction to make if you’re trying to decide when the victim should or shouldn’t be blamed. It’s not as hard of a distinction if you simply place the blame where it always belongs, with the predator. I guess that’s where we agree to disagree…I think people should always be held responsible for their actions when they harm other people.