NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is my opinion on Alcohol as stated at: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=comfog

Anyway, I might as well start with something. Alcohol. If you make the bad decision of drinking irresponsibly, you clearly are not excused from the bad decisions that you make while influenced by the alcohol, are you? I mean, drunk drivers are punished often even though they didn't really have a lot of control over their mind and body, and I don't disagree with this. Here is something interesting to note though, according to Arkansas law (at least I'm pretty sure about this law), it is considered rape to have sex with a female who is drunk (the law may even said a female who has even had any alcohol recently). Now, this law I don't really understand. If a drunk driver is to be held responsible for the bad decision of getting drunk then driving then why is a drunk female not held responsible for the bad decision of getting drunk then having sex with another person? I mean, she did put herself in the situation to not be able to decide for herself whether or not she wanted to have sex with the other person (don't email me saying "But Comfog, sometimes the man gets the woman drunk," because this isn't the situation I'm talking about...). If an adult chooses to drink irresponsibly, she should be held personally accountable for basically anything that happens to her while she is drunk as she did put herself in that situation. Now, if she got murdered, that's kind of different because murder is illegal, but sex isn't illegal unless it was denied, therefore making it rape. Anyway, yea, feedback?
Feel free to visit the site and email me a reply, but I'm also willing to discuss it here. I might just drop out of the argument if the personal attacks start running rampant like they tend to do...
Also on the site is an email reply to the issue I posted as well as my response to the email, so once again, feel free to check it out.
http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=comfog

I'm with you on that. If a chick gets drunk and has sex, it's her own fault. No one shoved the bottle down her mouth.

unless it's drugged

unless it's drugged
Right, which isn't what I'm talking about. If the chick was drugged, it wasn't her fault. And I think I mention that, or something close to that in my post. But if she wouldn't have been drinking in the first place her chances of getting drugged would be heavily reduced, but still, it isn't the situation I'm talking about.

I don't care if it's drugged or not, the chick knows what she's doing before she decides to drink.

uh
there is drunk and there is drunk there is rape and there is rape (legally speaking)
millions of sex acts occur every year where a woman has had more to drink than she should have and then consents to sex. her being tipsy doesnt make it rape

if she is passed out and someone has sex with her unconsious body, thats rape
if she is so drunk that she is unable to consent, it may well be rape.

lets suppose a woman is very drunk and incapable of fighting off a determined man who would not otherwise engage in rape but he is used to pressing the issue until a woman forces him to stop so he has sex with her while she is unwilling. she cant fight him off because of her inebriation. thats rape

if he asks her for money, opens her purse, takes out her wallet and she is unable to force him to put her money back. thats theft. even if he convinces himself that she didnt REALLY object to him taking her money or she would have gotten the purse away from him. its still theft/

if she, in her drunken state says GO AHEAD TAKE SOME MONEY, then regrets it the next day, its not theft, its stupid behavior.

if she, in her drunken state decides to have sex with whatever man will have her, then regrets it the next day, thats not rape, thats stupid behavior.

to suppose that a woman is not responsible for her own actions is just wrong. a man is not a womans guardian. he is not a more moral agent than she is. if she wants to get drunk then have irresponsible sex, thats HER problem not his.

I don't care if it's drugged or not, the chick knows what she's doing before she decides to drink.
No.

I'll tell you why. (I personally don't drink at all...but...) You can be a drinker and not be an alcoholic. You can have a drink of alcohol and not be drunk. If you aren't drunk, you'll still be able to make pretty good decisions and stuff. By your logic, if you ate a pizza with rat poison in it, it's your fault that you die as a consequence of eating the poisoned pizza.

Just a comment on the drunk driving: since drunk driving in and of itself is against the law in many places, drunk drivers are not only punished for causing accidents when they are drunk (which I support), they are also punished for crimes which they may or may not commit (which I do not support), since many drunk drivers get home quite safely. I say, why punish someone just because there is a possibility they might cause an accident?

I don't care if it's drugged or not, the chick knows what she's doing before she decides to drink.
If it's drugged without her knowledge, she doesn't know what she's doing, now does she?

Just a comment on the drunk driving: since drunk driving in and of itself is against the law in many places, drunk drivers are not only punished for causing accidents when they are drunk (which I support), they are also punished for crimes which they may or may not commit (which I do not support), since many drunk drivers get home quite safely. I say, why punish someone just because there is a possibility they might cause an accident?

Why punish someone for firing a gun into a crowd if no one gets hurt?

I don't care if it's drugged or not, the chick knows what she's doing before she decides to drink.

drinking is NOT consenting to sex

would it be OK for someone to steal all your money after drugging your drink?

woudl it be OK for them to beat you to death?

you are the one who took the drink you knew what you were doing?

an attitude like yours could end you up in the state pen for 20 to life

You didn't read my entire post. I was saying that a new Arkansas law defines having sex with a drunk women, no matter whether or not she consented, so long as she has a certain BAC level, it was rape. Making the "offender" suffer jail time and requiring him to register himself as a "sex offender," which makes it much harder for him to get a job.

You didn't read my entire post. I was saying that a new Arkansas law defines having sex with a drunk women, no matter whether or not she consented, so long as she has a certain BAC level, it was rape. Making the "offender" suffer jail time and requiring him to register himself as a "sex offender," which makes it much harder for him to get a job.

a very wrong headed law
it patronizes women as being incapable of moral decisions and,
as you say, makes sex offenders out of men who were engaging in consensual activity

If it's drugged without her knowledge, she doesn't know what she's doing, now does she?

She knows damn well that she wants to drink and get drunk. She should also know that if she starts drinking that the drink may be drugged. That's why I quit drinking (also because it's stupid (I'm under age btw)).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

About the whole pizza thing: Yes, it's your fault that you're dead because of eating a poisoned pizza. You could've made a sandwhich instead (in which you know the ingrediants). If you accept something from someone you should understand that you're taking a risk in that drink, pizza, etc. maybe be poisoned, druged, etc.

Why punish someone for firing a gun into a crowd if no one gets hurt?

Good question. My answer: we shouldn't.

Just a comment on the drunk driving: since drunk driving in and of itself is against the law in many places, drunk drivers are not only punished for causing accidents when they are drunk (which I support), they are also punished for crimes which they may or may not commit (which I do not support), since many drunk drivers get home quite safely. I say, why punish someone just because there is a possibility they might cause an accident?
Drunk driving is just wrong. Driving a car while intoxicated is like carrying a loaded gun with the safety off. A 2 or 3 thousand pound vehicle can become a lethal weapon in the hands of a drunken idiot. I say idiot, because many times I drove drunk and I thank God that I did NOT have an accident and kill anyone. If you are drunk and get caught driving, you should go to jail period!!

drinking is NOT consenting to sex

would it be OK for someone to steal all your money after drugging your drink?

woudl it be OK for them to beat you to death?

you are the one who took the drink you knew what you were doing?

an attitude like yours could end you up in the state pen for 20 to life


I know all these things, but the women needs to know that there are risks in drinking. I know that in the world we live in there are many men that don't have morals and just want to bust a quick nut. They don't care who or what they screw, as long as it has a vagina. If a woman starts drinking she should know that the world isn't perfect and there maybe a chance she'll get rapped or robbed. That's just the way things are. Damn, does anyone else think I'm repeating myself?

Drunk driving is just wrong. Driving a car while intoxicated is like carrying a loaded gun with the safety off. A 2 or 3 thousand pound vehicle can become a lethal weapon in the hands of a drunken idiot. I say idiot, because many times I drove drunk and I thank God that I did NOT have an accident and kill anyone. If you are drunk and get caught driving, you should go to jail period!!

I assume that you have turned yourself into the police and no longer drive, then. You really shouldn't have bothered. As you pointed out (praise be to God), you cause absolutely no damage, no harm to anyone, and as far as awful consequences go, what you did was drive absolutely sober. A two- or three-thousand vehicle can become a lethal weapon in the hands of any idiot, drunk or sober, so I understand that even if you had never driven drunk, you would have imposed a no-driving rule upon yourself. My only regret is that, since a computer can also become a lethal weapon in the hands of anyone, drunk or sober, you will have destroyed your computer before finishing reading this, and will be unable to respond.

I know all these things, but the women needs to know that there are risks in drinking. I know that in the world we live in there are many men that don't have morals and just want to bust a quick nut. They don't care who or what they screw, as long as it has a vagina. If a woman starts drinking she should know that the world isn't perfect and there maybe a chance she'll get rapped or robbed. That's just the way things are. Damn, does anyone else think I'm repeating myself?

of course there are risks in drinking. there are risks walking out your front door in the morning. that doesnt mean she deserves whatever happens to her or that the man involved isnt going to go to jail. same as if he had stolen from her, it doesnt matter what SHE did, its what HE did that makes it a crime.

so every man is a rapist and a woman can trust no one?

She knows damn well that she wants to drink and get drunk. She should also know that if she starts drinking that the drink may be drugged. That's why I quit drinking (also because it's stupid (I'm under age btw)).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

About the whole pizza thing: Yes, it's your fault that you're dead because of eating a poisoned pizza. You could've made a sandwhich instead (in which you know the ingrediants). If you accept something from someone you should understand that you're taking a risk in that drink, pizza, etc. maybe be poisoned, druged, etc.

She should also know that if she drinks a Pepsi it may be drugged. If somebody slips a roofie into her Pepsi and then takes advantage of her, is it her fault AT ALL???

Good question. My answer: we shouldn't.

OK. My response: you're a flaming idiot.

I assume that you have turned yourself into the police and no longer drive, then. You really shouldn't have bothered. As you pointed out (praise be to God), you cause absolutely no damage, no harm to anyone, and as far as awful consequences go, what you did was drive absolutely sober. A two- or three-thousand vehicle can become a lethal weapon in the hands of any idiot, drunk or sober, so I understand that even if you had never driven drunk, you would have imposed a no-driving rule upon yourself. My only regret is that, since a computer can also become a lethal weapon in the hands of anyone, drunk or sober, you will have destroyed your computer before finishing reading this, and will be unable to respond.
No I won't turn myself in, but I no longer drink and drive. It is much easier to drive defensively when NOT under the influence of alcohol. You want me to destroy my computer because I am not telling you what you want to hear?

Be smart, don't drink and drive. I would hate to think that you might find out the hard way, the disadvantages of doing so.

Peace.

I assume that you have turned yourself into the police and no longer drive, then. You really shouldn't have bothered. As you pointed out (praise be to God), you cause absolutely no damage, no harm to anyone, and as far as awful consequences go, what you did was drive absolutely sober. A two- or three-thousand vehicle can become a lethal weapon in the hands of any idiot, drunk or sober, so I understand that even if you had never driven drunk, you would have imposed a no-driving rule upon yourself. My only regret is that, since a computer can also become a lethal weapon in the hands of anyone, drunk or sober, you will have destroyed your computer before finishing reading this, and will be unable to respond.

Lay off. He knows he did wrong and admits it. Thats better than the millions who have done it and deny it. I suppose you think you're a paragon of perfection?

The answer to this question is incredibly simple, and I can't believe it hasn't been posted yet.

Rape is the act of sex without consent. You cannot consent while drunk.

On the other hand, laws against drunk driving are in no way based on consent - they are based on the endangerment of other human lives. Therefore you are responsible if you drive while drunk.

Under no circumstances is it ever legal to have sex without consent. The woman could be drunk, unconscious, in a coma, doesn't matter; if they cannot give consent, any sexual act is rape.

This is the same reason for statutory rape crimes. A teenage girl may 'consent' to sex, however the law does not accept that she can give consent. It's irrelevant if she tries to stop the man, or if she goes in completely willing. A child cannot give consent, period. A drunk woman cannot give consent either.

The answer to this question is incredibly simple, and I can't believe it hasn't been posted yet.

Rape is the act of sex without consent. You cannot consent while drunk.

On the other hand, laws against drunk driving are in no way based on consent - they are based on the endangerment of other human lives. Therefore you are responsible if you drive while drunk.

Under no circumstances is it ever legal to have sex without consent. The woman could be drunk, unconscious, in a coma, doesn't matter; if they cannot give consent, any sexual act is rape.

This is the same reason for statutory rape crimes. A teenage girl may 'consent' to sex, however the law does not accept that she can give consent. It's irrelevant if she tries to stop the man, or if she goes in completely willing. A child cannot give consent, period. A drunk woman cannot give consent either.

So technically, a drunk man cannot give consent either, so considering that if both partners are drunk, there's no issue of consent at all.

The answer to this question is incredibly simple, and I can't believe it hasn't been posted yet.

Rape is the act of sex without consent. You cannot consent while drunk.

Although, if the male does not know the female is drunk and she 'consents' to have sex with the man, then the man is still punished. I don't think that is right and I don't see how you can say it is right for the man to be punished in that situation. However, if the female was not drunk in the first place, she wouldn't have to worry about whether or not she could give consent, and therefore, it is her responsibility. By your argument, drunkards are absolved from responsibility.

This is the same reason for statutory rape crimes. A teenage girl may 'consent' to sex, however the law does not accept that she can give consent. It's irrelevant if she tries to stop the man, or if she goes in completely willing. A child cannot give consent, period. A drunk woman cannot give consent either.
I don't consider a 16 year old a child and I do not agree with this law.

So technically, a drunk man cannot give consent either, so considering that if both partners are drunk, there's no issue of consent at all.

Possibly.

However, the man is instigating the incident. The woman is not raping him, as she is not acting to bring about a sexual act without consent. The man however is attempting to initiate a sexual act without consent.

Let's put it this way. If a drunk man has sex with a woman in a coma, who raped who? The man is drunk and hence cannot consent, but the woman didn't do anything to bring about the act. In this event, the woman is still the victim as the man is the instigator of sex without consent.

Likewise, the man could charge the woman with rape if she were the instigator. The courts wouldn't take it seriously though, due to the double standards.

Just my two cents.

-Edit-

I don't consider a 16 year old a child and I do not agree with this law.

That's your perrogative, but disagreeing with the basis of a law doesn't invalidate it. I'm not defending the laws, merely explaining as best I can the differences.

That's your perrogative, but disagreeing with the basis of a law doesn't invalidate it. I'm not defending the laws, merely explaining as best I can the differences.
But you are defending the laws. We're not asking whether or not the laws are right or wrong. The law was just the inspiration for the thought. We're asking about whether or not it is rape for a man to have sex with a drunk women (who was not drugged) and consented to have sex.
If she is not capable of consenting, then it was still her that put herself in the position to not be able to consent, knowing full and well that she could have been taken advantage of. And if you think that the man should be punished for her mistake of getting drunk, which influenced her mind to consent to have sex with him, then you believe people should not be held responsible for their choices, most especially, their choice to drink irresponsibly.

Likewise, the man could charge the woman with rape if she were the instigator. The courts wouldn't take it seriously though, due to the double standards.


Yeah, that was exactly the point I was going to make. Not that most would complain, but a lot of very religious people for example certainly would and it would be unfair on them if the woman instigated it against their will while they are both intoxicated, the woman cries rape and he is the one punished.

if you say that people can give legal consent while drunk, you can expect an immediate increase in the number of bastard bosses that will take you out drinking in order to get you to agree to work for longer hours with less pay. and credit card companies with terrible interest rates will start hanging out in bars waiting to prey on the impaired. hell, i'm feeling slightly tempted to try to sell drunk people timeshares on the moon, for the low monthly cost of $37.95 (contract for 30 years, with a $100,000 early termination fee, price increases every two years, etc. etc.)

if you say that people can give legal consent while drunk, you can expect an immediate increase in the number of bastard bosses that will take you out drinking in order to get you to agree to work for longer hours with less pay. and credit card companies with terrible interest rates will start hanging out in bars waiting to prey on the impaired. hell, i'm feeling slightly tempted to try to sell drunk people timeshares on the moon, for the low monthly cost of $37.95 (contract for 30 years, with a $100,000 early termination fee, price increases every two years, etc. etc.)
And I wouldn't be bothered by any of this because I'm also against drinking altogether because of the bad situations it puts you in and the bad decisions it forces you to make.

And I wouldn't be bothered by any of this because I'm also against drinking altogether because of the bad situations it puts you in and the bad decisions it forces you to make.
But this isn't something I'm willing to impose on anyone else. It can be done responsibly without negative consequences.

But you are defending the laws. We're not asking whether or not the laws are right or wrong. The law was just the inspiration for the thought. We're asking about whether or not it is rape for a man to have sex with a drunk women (who was not drugged) and consented to have sex.
If she is not capable of consenting, then it was still her that put herself in the position to not be able to consent, knowing full and well that she could have been taken advantage of. And if you think that the man should be punished for her mistake of getting drunk, which influenced her mind to consent to have sex with him, then you believe people should not be held responsible for their choices, most especially, their choice to drink irresponsibly.

You've used this argument before, and I've seen how well received it has been. I don't really understand why you are still trying to use it.

If I am travelling, and I leave my luggage unattended for a moment, that's making it insanely easy to steal. I have made it easy to steal my luggage. However, theft is illegal. Period. It will always be illegal, no matter how easy I make it to commit that crime. It's legality is not based on how easy the crime is to commit. It's based on ideals of right and wrong.

Rape is illegal. Period. It doesn't matter how easy the woman makes it to rape her. You have no given right to force sex upon anyone, under any circumstances.

In comparison, she does have the right not to be raped, I have the right not to be stolen from. That cannot be negated. No negligence on anyone's behalf will ever justify those crimes.

Furthermore, the man is not being punished for her being drunk. He is being punished for taking advantage of her being drunk, and for breaking the law. Alcohol did not convince her to consent, she cannot consent while drunk.

You're free to disagree on a moral level, but really you were free to do that before this debate ever came up. From a legal standpoint, your case holds no water. Rape is not outlawed "unless the woman makes it easy". It is illegal, period.

You've used this argument before, and I've seen how well received it has been. I don't really understand why you are still trying to use it.

If I am travelling, and I leave my luggage unattended for a moment, that's making it insanely easy to steal. I have made it easy to steal my luggage. However, theft is illegal. Period. It will always be illegal, no matter how easy I make it to commit that crime. It's legality is not based on how easy the crime is to commit. It's based on ideals of right and wrong.

Rape is illegal. Period. It doesn't matter how easy the woman makes it to rape her. You have no given right to force sex upon anyone, under any circumstances.

In comparison, she does have the right not to be raped, I have the right not to be stolen from. That cannot be negated. No negligence on anyone's behalf will ever justify those crimes.

Furthermore, the man is not being punished for her being drunk. He is being punished for taking advantage of her being drunk, and for breaking the law. Alcohol did not convince her to consent, she cannot consent while drunk.

You're free to disagree on a moral level, but really you were free to do that before this debate ever came up. From a legal standpoint, your case holds no water. Rape is not outlawed "unless the woman makes it easy". It is illegal, period.

We're not even talking about legality here...we're talking about what should or should not be a definition for rape...the only reason that you're so adamantly against this is because some law somewhere tells you that this is rape. Guess what, I just passed a law telling you that it is rape to have sex with your spouse. Now what? People!! Seriously...

We're not even talking about legality here...we're talking about what should or should not be a definition for rape...the only reason that you're so adamantly against this is because some law somewhere tells you that this is rape. Guess what, I just passed a law telling you that it is rape to have sex with your spouse. Now what? People!! Seriously...

No. Just... no.

I'm respecting your right to hold an opinion. I don't have to agree with it, but it is not my place to tell you what to think.

Humans have an inherent right to be protected from harm. These rights are protected by laws. By debating their right to protection, you are debating the laws that protect them.

Rape is never acceptable, legal or not. You have no right to force sex upon another person. They do have the right not to have sex forced upon them. Making it easy for you to force sex upon them does not make it acceptable to do so.

A person cannot give consent while drunk. Therefore a man who has sex with a drunk woman has commited rape.

I've simplified that as much as is possible. I can't really break it down any further.

of course there are risks in drinking. there are risks walking out your front door in the morning. that doesnt mean she deserves whatever happens to her or that the man involved isnt going to go to jail. same as if he had stolen from her, it doesnt matter what SHE did, its what HE did that makes it a crime.

so every man is a rapist and a woman can trust no one?

She doesn't deserve whatever happens to her hell! If you're going to drink you should be prepared to face the consequences. No one has forced her to drink, she's doing it out of her own free will; and if you do drink at least be smart about it. Drink from a container that you yourself have opened. That cuts down on the chances of mishaps happenening (although it doesn't eliminate them). Yes, the man's act is what's illegal. But the woman is to blame as well.

Rape is never acceptable, legal or not. You have no right to force sex upon another person. They do have the right not to have sex forced upon them. Making it easy for you to force sex upon them does not make it acceptable to do so.

A person cannot give consent while drunk. Therefore a man who has sex with a drunk woman has commited rape.

1) I never said in this argument that rape was acceptable. In fact, I've never said that.
2) Why would anyone have that right? That's the definition of rape.
3) Right...
4) The only person who made it easier to have sex forced on anyone was the female who got herself drunk. GOT HERSELF DRUNK.
5) It is your opinion that a person cannot give consent while drunk, please express your opinion as an opinion, not as a fact.
6) See 5.

1) I never said in this argument that rape was acceptable. In fact, I've never said that.
2) Why would anyone have that right? That's the definition of rape.
3) Right...
4) The only person who made it easier to have sex forced on anyone was the female who got herself drunk. GOT HERSELF DRUNK.
5) It is your opinion that a person cannot give consent while drunk, please express your opinion as an opinion, not as a fact.
6) See 5.

1 and 2 don't really need to be addressed, 3 doesn't say enough for me to understand what it's in relation to. 4 is confusing as hell, since you're just repeating what I said. The woman made it easier to be raped, but that is irrelevant. The minute you said rape was wrong, you destroyed your own argument.

There isn't such a thing as acceptable rape. A woman making it easier for herself to be raped in no way impacts her right not to be raped.

And no, I'm sorry, but my statement is not an opinion. A person must have a certain level of mental ability and awareness to give consent. It's the same reason children cannot consent. If you are drunk, you do not have that level of awareness. Unless you're planning to debate the effects of alcohol on the mind and body, which science has well documented, you'll know it impairs judgement.

Part of consent is to be of sound judgement.

Alcohol = impaired judgement != sound judgement

You cannot give consent while drunk, or under any other circumstances in which your mental state degrades to the point of unsound judgement.

Part of consent is to be of sound judgement.

Alcohol = impaired judgement != sound judgement

You cannot give consent while drunk, or under any other circumstances in which your mental state degrades to the point of unsound judgement.
Okay...then I'll argue from a different viewpoint...
Is theft EVER acceptable?

From a moral or legal standpoint? I may have compassion towards someone who is destitute and steals, and if they stole from me, I may choose not to press charges. However I would never support a legal standpoint that after you reach a certain level of poverty, it's legal to steal, or that someone who is stolen from is forced not to press charges due to the financial status of the thief.

In short, stealing is never ok. I might personally forgive or even overlook theft from me in some cases, out of sympathy for their circumstances however.

From a moral or legal standpoint? I may have compassion towards someone who is destitute and steals, and if they stole from me, I may choose not to press charges. However I would never support a legal standpoint that after you reach a certain level of poverty, it's legal to steal, or that someone who is stolen from is forced not to press charges due to the financial status of the thief.

In short, stealing is never ok. I might personally forgive or even overlook theft from me in some cases, out of sympathy for their circumstances however.
Then, in short, you feel that a person who is drunk and unable to make sound decisions for his or herself should be punished for theivery, thus, being held accountable for the bad decision of drinking?

EDIT: That is to say, a drunk person who does not fit into the certain level of poverty that you mention.

You didn't read my entire post. I was saying that a new Arkansas law defines having sex with a drunk women, no matter whether or not she consented, so long as she has a certain BAC level, it was rape. Making the "offender" suffer jail time and requiring him to register himself as a "sex offender," which makes it much harder for him to get a job.I don't like the law myself, although I understand the impetus behind it. The only real comfort to take is that it's almost never invoked. I was a grad student/teacher at the U of A for four years, and saw a number of rape cases investigated on campus, most of them involving alcohol, and that law was never never used. Three cases were dropped (one particularly nasty one involved a fraternity and a girl who left the state after trying to kill herself), and the one that was pursued never brought up the alcohol issue. It's just too hard to make the case. Juries are loathe to convict just on that issue alone--there has to be evidence of force and trauma and even then it's difficult.

Then, in short, you feel that a person who is drunk and unable to make sound decisions for his or herself should be punished for theivery, thus, being held accountable for the bad decision of drinking?

That was an incredible leap, and no. I stated that if I personally felt sympathy for someone who wronged me, I would consider not pressing charges. That is not a blanket statement that you are automatically granted some legal immunity. It is me turning the other cheek, despite the fact that you have wronged me.

And unfortunately, unsound judgement applies differently to consent than to other actions. You may be too drunk to understand the full moral, physical, and emotional ramifications of sex - which is incredibly complicated and confusing even when sober - but not too drunk to know stealing is wrong.

Moreover, a human being has a right not to be raped. Asking men not to rape women who cannot consent is not an infringement upon any inherent right of mens.

I have the right not to be stolen from. Asking that you not steal from me does not interfere with any of your inherent rights.

Asking that a man should be permitted to rape women who make it easier to be raped is an infringement on the woman's rights.

Ok?

Ok?
No. If you don't see it, or if anyone else doesn't see it, you hold a double standard. When the committer of the wrong-doing is the drunk one, you feel they are to be held responsible, but if the victim (who became the victim as a result of the alcohol which was of her own choosing) is the drunk one, they are not to be held responsible. That's all I'm hearing from you and I guess I'm just going to have to respect your opinion and leave it at that, I just hope you know what your saying.

No. If you don't see it, or if anyone else doesn't see it, you hold a double standard. When the committer of the wrong-doing is the drunk one, you feel they are to be held responsible, but if the victim (who became the victim as a result of the alcohol which was of her own choosing) is the drunk one, they are not to be held responsible. That's all I'm hearing from you and I guess I'm just going to have to respect your opinion and leave it at that, I just hope you know what your saying.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

A man has no implicit right to have sex with a woman. In fact, unless consent is given by them, a man has no right to have sex with any woman.

When a woman is drunk, she cannot give consent. Assuming that because a drunk woman doesn't say no you have the green flag isn't correct. You need her to give you permission. She cannot give that permission while drunk, and hence you can't have sex with her.

You do not have the right to steal from me. If I have a bike parked in my driveway, with no sign saying "DON'T STEAL ME", you can't assume it's ok to take my property because I've failed to say otherwise. I have an inherent right to the property, and you may only have it if I grant consent.

You being drunk does not negate my right not to be stolen from. The women being drunk does not negate her right not to be raped.

I stay with the same logic all the way through, the logic of implicit rights.

I'm talking about a hypothetical situation in which a drunk girl says "Yes, you may have sex with me."

In fact, according to the law I'm talking about, even if the girl had said yes while sober, got drunk, said yes again, then after the fact changed her mind, she could press charges against the man for rape if she was in fact drunk while they had sex.

If you still say it's rape, I'm not wasting my time with you anymore.

Doesn't matter. She's drunk, and cannot give consent while drunk. Consent requires a sound mind. A child can no more give consent than a drunk woman can.

Stealing, on the other hand, requires me to give consent to you. In the first example, the drunk person needs to give consent. In the second example, the drunk person needs to get my consent. You can't give consent while drunk, but you can receive it.

In both cases, the perpetrator fails to receive consent.

--Edit--

Ha ha, not wasting time. Cute. I'll take that as your white flag and admission of being wrong. Nice debating with you.

In fact, according to the law I'm talking about, even if the girl had said yes while sober, got drunk, said yes again, then after the fact changed her mind, she could press charges against the man for rape if she was in fact drunk while they had sex.
She could try, but like I said in my earlier post, she'd never be successful in getting it prosecuted, not unless her daddy was rich and connected and the boy was, oh, black. This is Arkansas we're talking about, after all, and parts of it are definitely still unReconstructed.

I think the woman in question, if she felt she had been raped or taken advantage of while drunk, would report it, and if she didn't feel this had been the case, she wouldn't.

There's a difference between a woman acting under the influence of beer goggles and bad taste, and a woman who has passed out and has someone on top of her while she's in this state. There's a BIG difference.

Of course, there are always women who abuse rape laws, report someone just to get them back for something unrelated, but they're the minority. It's a casualty of the system, unfortunately, that these women must be taken seriously in order that the woman who finds herself pregnant after passing out one night, and can't remember consenting to have sex with anyone may be given protection under the law.

As for excuses, they're like assholes. Everyone has one.

I just think it's silly that people can say, "I'm an alcoholic, and it's genetic, so I'm not responsible for my alcoholism, it was in me from birth. That means that nothing I do when I'm drunk is my fault either. It's all just bad luck genetically."

To me, that's a total cop-out.

Stealing, on the other hand, requires me to give consent to you. In the first example, the drunk person needs to give consent. In the second example, the drunk person needs to get my consent. You can't give consent while drunk, but you can receive it.

--Edit--

Ha ha, not wasting time. Cute. I'll take that as your white flag and admission of being wrong. Nice debating with you.

Uh...
First, I'm not talking about him violating your rights. His attempt to steal from you obviously only came about because he was not in a sound enough mental state to know that it was wrong just as you argue that a female is not in a sound enough mental state, while drunk, to know whether or not she wants to have sex.
And it is not my admission of being wrong, it's my admission of being frustrated at hard-headness. If I admitted I was wrong, I'd have changed my mind.

She could try, but like I said in my earlier post, she'd never be successful in getting it prosecuted, not unless her daddy was rich and connected and the boy was, oh, black. This is Arkansas we're talking about, after all, and parts of it are definitely still unReconstructed.
Do you live in Arkansas?

Uh...
First, I'm not talking about him violating your rights. His attempt to steal from you obviously only came about because he was not in a sound enough mental state to know that it was wrong just as you argue that a female is not in a sound enough mental state, while drunk, to know whether or not she wants to have sex.
And it is not my admission of being wrong, it's my admission of being frustrated at hard-headness. If I admitted I was wrong, I'd have changed my mind.

Nope, sorry. Consent requires a different level of mental awareness than morality. Stealing is wrong, and even children know and understand this. Consent is something much more complicated, and cannot be handled by children or the drunk.

Being drunk will impair your ability to give consent, but not your ability to understand right from wrong.

But if you wish to stop the argument, by all means, that's your choice.

Do you live in Arkansas?
I did--4 years in Fayetteville as a grad student/teacher at the U of A, but I traveled throughout the state as part of the WITS program, everywhere from Grady to Blytheville to West Memphis to Mountain Home to Jonesboro.

Nope, sorry. Consent requires a different level of mental awareness than morality. Stealing is wrong, and even children know and understand this. Consent is something much more complicated, and cannot be handled by children or the drunk.

Being drunk will impair your ability to give consent, but not your ability to understand right from wrong.

But if you wish to stop the argument, by all means, that's your choice.
Except I know people who've stolen stuff from a store while they were drunk and then regretted doing it the next day...so, yea...if he would've been caught, I'm sure being drunk wouldn't've been an acceptable excuse.

I did--4 years in Fayetteville as a grad student/teacher at the U of A, but I traveled throughout the state as part of the WITS program, everywhere from Grady to Blytheville to West Memphis to Mountain Home to Jonesboro.
When?

Except I know people who've stolen stuff from a store while they were drunk and then regretted doing it the next day...so, yea...if he would've been caught, I'm sure being drunk wouldn't've been an acceptable excuse.

I know people who shoplift while sober and regret it an hour later. What's your point?

When?I moved to San Francisco last June when I won a fellowship from Stanford University. I lived in Fayetteville from August 1999 til June 2003. I had an office in Kimpel Hall--room 238--right down the hall from the office where Dr. Locke was shot. I was there that day, was the last person to see the murderer alive.

I moved to San Francisco last June when I won a fellowship from Stanford University. I lived in Fayetteville from August 1999 til June 2003. I had an office in Kimpel Hall--room 238--right down the hall from the office where Dr. Locke was shot. I was there that day, was the last person to see the murderer alive.
...how does that work? Did you kill the murderer? Or did you just cuff him, put him in a body bag and take him to the blind executioner?

...how does that work? Did you kill the murderer? Or did you just cuff him, put him in a body bag and take him to the blind executioner?
No--he was in Dr. Locke's office. I walked past him and he slammed the door. A cop showed up and started talking to him through the door and the guy shot himself. It was one seriously fucked up day.

No--he was in Dr. Locke's office. I walked past him and he slammed the door. A cop showed up and started talking to him through the door and the guy shot himself. It was one seriously fucked up day.
Oh...wait...now I remember, didn't he also shoot 2 students?

Oh...wait...now I remember, didn't he also shoot 2 students?
Nope--just Dr. Locke and himself. It was the first day of classes, fall term 2000. The only good thing that came out of that day was spending some time commiserating with the woman who would eventually become my girlfriend--we got together in October of that year and have been together ever since.

Nope--just Dr. Locke and himself. It was the first day of classes, fall term 2000. The only good thing that came out of that day was spending some time commiserating with the woman who would eventually become my girlfriend--we got together in October of that year and have been together ever since.
Oh...hmm. Anyway, we're terribly off topic...so to tie it in...that guy was probably drunk...

He wasn't. but I certainly was that night, and for a good bit of the next couple of months.

Edit: and on that note, it's time to break out the Bushmill's, I think.

i love alchohol. its the drink of life! and, ironically, death!

Well, the word whisky comes from the Gaelic word for "water of life"--you're pretty right on there Kisarazu.

thats cool, i didnt know that. ever had korean ginsing whisky? i guess its supposed to make the male member healthy. its not bad, but its not that good either.

anybody ever had absinthe?

Can't say as have. I tend to stick with the whiskies made by the people who invented them--Scotch and Irish, with the occasional American bourbon thrown in.

I've had absinthe. Urgh. I wish I hadn't. It'll get you comatose in two shots. Actually, it's the third one that lays you out like a rug. Of course, I HATE the taste of licorice, so it makes me hurl anyway. It's not psychedelic, although my ex told me that it gave him the same feeling as he got when he was coming on in an acid trip.

Me, I like bourbon. If a mix calls for whisky, (or whiskey, either one), I add bourbon instead.

Me, I like bourbon. If a mix calls for whisky, (or whiskey, either one), I add bourbon instead.That's funny--if my impression of you is correct, you're from somewhere in the British Isles, but you like whisky originally from the American south, while I'm from the American south and prefer Scotch and Irish whiskies.

Nope, not from the British Isles. I lived there for 5 years. I married one of their men. I wish to god now that I hadn't, but done is done.

I also used to work in a bar and in a liquor store. We had to sample the merchandise, you know? ;)

(I remember nights in the bar when we'd invent drinks, add a bit of this, taste it, add something else, pass the glass around again..."does this taste alright to you? Ok, add some more Archer's..." Many and hairy are my stories from those days. Gin, by the way, goes well with anything. Looks good on a pair of shoes too. ;)

I was a bartender as well while I was an undergrad, and did much the same thing with shots, only with a slightly different purpose. We constantly had these aggravating bastards who wanted something free and they never tipped. On ocasion we would concoct something with the express purpose of getting them physically ill.

Here's my recipe for "Jimmy's Drawers" (Jimmy was a 300 lb. bouncer who didn't bathe all that often.)

a splash of 190 proof everclear
a splash of mescal (cheap shit)
a touch of Jagermeister
top it off with Campari

watch subject run for the toilet.

Great fun.

actually, (mind you, it's years since I got stoned, for official purposes, understand...) it's much more fun to get someone drunk and then offer them a hit. Instant spins. As long as it's not my place and not my floor. Also fun is to do the same, and then stage-whisper, "SHHHHHH! What is that? Is that a police siren?"

Oh, and dropping an alka-seltzer into someone's beer gives you enough time to get across the room and look innocent when it kicks in.

I broke an ex-lax gel cap into an extra strong bourbon and coke one night--that was fun--but my favorite for the people who really pissed me off, was to, well, I wore loose shorts and went commando a lot at work, and I teabagged a couple of guys' drinks one time. Bourbon and coke is cold, let me tell you.

Oh, I believe it. With or without ice. God, but there were people I hated. I worked in a pool club, and I couldn't stand the folks who sat on the cushions of the pool tables, the ones who set their drinks on the baize...then spilled them all over it...or worse, potato chips...or put out their cigarettes in their glasses...urgh.

I don't really miss it. Well, I do, because we had a lot of fun there after hours, or when it was slow, and we got to play whatever we wanted for music when the aging, deaf owner left. (He kissed me when I worked my last day there. One of my co-workers nearly wet herself laughing as soon as he was safely out the door.)

I have days I miss it too--not so many anymore--but it was perfect when I was in school. I made enough cash money in a weekend to cover my bills and didn't have to sweat a regular job to pay for everything.

I should have finished college. As they say, there's a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. I ended up working, and the job took priority. This is my own fault, because I didn't go to college when I was 18, and didn't have any bills that couldn't wait.

Ah well. Youth is wasted on the young.

There's always time to go back. I didn't start my undergraduate career until I was 26--I'm 35 now and in post-grad work and plan to milk this puppy as long as I can. :D

No dice. I've just bought a house, humble mobile home that it is, in a year and a half it will be MINE, free and clear...but I talked about it with the people who hold my college loan from before, and to get another one, I'd have to have somebody co-sign. I'm not in a position to ask anyone I know to do that, having already gotten some help with the house. Adulthood sets in with a vengeance. Nobody knows what "circumstances" really means until they've got debts and obligations to deal with.

Perhaps not right away, but if you really want to go back, then just tell yourself that you will go back eventually and work toward that goal.

Oh yeah, I plan to, but for now, it's just not on the cards. I'll have to have the house paid off, and I'm getting married, and since he's going to come in on a fiance visa, I'll be supporting him for the first three months. Money's tight for now. When I can finally resume the education thing, I plan to go in for medical transcription. Once I've completed a bachelor's in that, I can get a job telecommuting. THAT is my ultimate goal, at the moment.

Wow! You all have exelent plans and i hope they all work. I hope that one day alchol will not touch lives of teens (such as myself).

How did a conversation about sexual consent devolve into some guy teabagging things left and right at his work?

There's always time to go back. I didn't start my undergraduate career until I was 26--I'm 35 now and in post-grad work and plan to milk this puppy as long as I can. :D
My mom is working on her masters right now. I'll be starting work on my bachelors next month...

I have no problem with alcohol at all. And here is my recommendation for a drink that you all must try:

It's called the Union Jack and consists of:

1 shot of red aftershock.
1 shot of blue aftershock.
1 shot of vodka.

Put them all together and voila.

How did a conversation about sexual consent devolve into some guy teabagging things left and right at his work?Thread drift at its most disgusting. :D

You didn't read my entire post. I was saying that a new Arkansas law defines having sex with a drunk women, no matter whether or not she consented, so long as she has a certain BAC level, it was rape. Making the "offender" suffer jail time and requiring him to register himself as a "sex offender," which makes it much harder for him to get a job.

well, it would only get reported if it was rape.
if i engage in consentual drunken sex with my bf while in arkansas, i'm not going to call the cops and say i was raped. i'm not going to do anything about it because it happened and chances are i had fun. how would the police know if a guy has sex with a girl who's drunk unless one of them reports it?

Guess what, I just passed a law telling you that it is rape to have sex with your spouse.

actually, if your spouse doesn't consent and you have sex with them, then it's rape.