Omorose Panya
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Posted: Fri, 01 May 2009 00:52:02 +0000
If persons are responsible for driving while drunk and killing someone, then they should also be responsible for having sex while drunk. Sure, their cognitive skillzzz are impaired as ********, but the law shouldn't be based on what they knew while they were drunk, but what they knew beforehand. Drunk persons should be responsible for everything they do (<--key words), because getting piss-a** drunk is a choice (unless forced), and you should know that you might do something stupid.
Both cases (sex and driving) are based on a lack of decent judgment. So why should we be responsible for one and not the other?
(And, no, this is not a blame the victim-type-deal. When someone is actually being forced into sexual play, I don't think the victim was asking for it. Nothing in this scenario, however, is about force.)
Note that we are not discussing either individually, but in relation to each other. Should we be responsible for both or neither, and why. This isn't exactly happening so whatever.
Some points:
And how is that coercion?
This is a valid point as well.
It's one of those tricky gray areas, but why should convincing someone to have sex with you be considered rape?
Phail, perhaps. Sleezy, perhaps. Insensitive, perhaps. But we can't be so hasty about labeling certain things so strongly.
For instance, there is a difference between:
"Want to have sex?"
"Not really."
"Why not?"
"I''ve been studying for an exam and I am kinda tired."
"Well, how about a quicky? It will probably make you feel better."
"Yeah, you're probably right. Okay."
and
"Hey, (name). There's an empty room down the hall. What do you say we find our way to it?"
"No."
"But you know you want it."
"I don't want to have sex with you right now."
"You want me. Don't deny it." *starts slowly backing her into the room*
"I don't want to have sex right now."
"You look a little down. It will make you feel better."
"Maybe in a little while."
"Why not right now?" *still slowly backing her into the room*
*this goes on until she finally says yes.*
Both are "no, no, no, yes," but they are clearly different. Why should they be treated in the same way?
And this "no always means no but yes doesn't always mean yes" seems to be reserved for women. Yes, we have the "I know that men don't always want sex" mantra goin' on, but in practical, fairly neutral "gray area" circumstances like this, how often is the woman going to be perceived as raping the man as compared to how often the man is going to be perceived as raping the woman?
[...]The first scenario would suggest that people cannot give consent when they are drunk because they might consent to sex that they wouldn't otherwise consent to.*
Even this is vague. How much does it matter that the person did not initially plan to have sex? I might go to a friend's house not planning to get drunk but do so anyway, but why should that be significant?
People change their minds all the time. That in itself should not be a criminalizing factor.
There are plenty that were not made by me but I have to find them.
1) We are debating drunk sex in comparison to drunk driving. I'm guessing I got you all with this one since you refuse to compare the two. If a person is drunk and s/he kills someone, and is responsible despite his/her impaired state, then why should th same person not be responsible for having sex while drunk?
2) We are talking about consent here, dearies. This OP says nothing about the person saying no, and the other proceeding. That will always be rape. This is about the individual being drunk, but still the expressing want for the sex.
3) We are not talking about someone who is basically passed out. In this case, s/he is completely unable to consent.
4) We are not necessarily debating the law. Someone accurately stated that the law is about ******** those who are basically dead. Of course that is rape because the person is unable to object. But many persons consider ******** drunk peepz rape. We're discussing that part.
5) Stop being asshats about others' spelling. If you don't have anything relevant to the discussion to contribute, then don't post anything.
Both cases (sex and driving) are based on a lack of decent judgment. So why should we be responsible for one and not the other?
(And, no, this is not a blame the victim-type-deal. When someone is actually being forced into sexual play, I don't think the victim was asking for it. Nothing in this scenario, however, is about force.)
Note that we are not discussing either individually, but in relation to each other. Should we be responsible for both or neither, and why. This isn't exactly happening so whatever.
Some points:
Omorose Panya
Herald of War
Nines19
I feel that it should be said that "No. No. No. NO. ...fine." does not mean "yes." It means "you coerced me into doing something I didn't actually want to".
This is a valid point as well.
It's one of those tricky gray areas, but why should convincing someone to have sex with you be considered rape?
Phail, perhaps. Sleezy, perhaps. Insensitive, perhaps. But we can't be so hasty about labeling certain things so strongly.
For instance, there is a difference between:
"Want to have sex?"
"Not really."
"Why not?"
"I''ve been studying for an exam and I am kinda tired."
"Well, how about a quicky? It will probably make you feel better."
"Yeah, you're probably right. Okay."
and
"Hey, (name). There's an empty room down the hall. What do you say we find our way to it?"
"No."
"But you know you want it."
"I don't want to have sex with you right now."
"You want me. Don't deny it." *starts slowly backing her into the room*
"I don't want to have sex right now."
"You look a little down. It will make you feel better."
"Maybe in a little while."
"Why not right now?" *still slowly backing her into the room*
*this goes on until she finally says yes.*
Both are "no, no, no, yes," but they are clearly different. Why should they be treated in the same way?
And this "no always means no but yes doesn't always mean yes" seems to be reserved for women. Yes, we have the "I know that men don't always want sex" mantra goin' on, but in practical, fairly neutral "gray area" circumstances like this, how often is the woman going to be perceived as raping the man as compared to how often the man is going to be perceived as raping the woman?
Omorose Panya
Ellema
SAMASzero
If you go into a situation where you know it's possible that someone may attempt to have sex with you, and deliberately impair your judgment at the same time, there is some measure of responsibility there.
Even this is vague. How much does it matter that the person did not initially plan to have sex? I might go to a friend's house not planning to get drunk but do so anyway, but why should that be significant?
People change their minds all the time. That in itself should not be a criminalizing factor.
There are plenty that were not made by me but I have to find them.
You guys aren't doing this right, so I will waste five minutes of my life in order to inform you that:
1) We are debating drunk sex in comparison to drunk driving. I'm guessing I got you all with this one since you refuse to compare the two. If a person is drunk and s/he kills someone, and is responsible despite his/her impaired state, then why should th same person not be responsible for having sex while drunk?
2) We are talking about consent here, dearies. This OP says nothing about the person saying no, and the other proceeding. That will always be rape. This is about the individual being drunk, but still the expressing want for the sex.
3) We are not talking about someone who is basically passed out. In this case, s/he is completely unable to consent.
4) We are not necessarily debating the law. Someone accurately stated that the law is about ******** those who are basically dead. Of course that is rape because the person is unable to object. But many persons consider ******** drunk peepz rape. We're discussing that part.
5) Stop being asshats about others' spelling. If you don't have anything relevant to the discussion to contribute, then don't post anything.
