quote:I think the second is the larger problem. I don't think the first is a problem that should be dismissed either, though.
Here I definitely agree. I just dispute the...well, it's hard to say, but the tone of the posts reads, to me, as though this is a very serious, pressing problem that's almost on par or even on par with the second. If that's true, I disagree.
Well, you misread my tone, in that case. I am aware that the second is the more pressing issue. However, it is indicative of the common attitude, I think, that even pointing out that men are in danger of having their own freedoms trampled is touchy for some people. I think Rabbit's post, if I interpreted it correctly, was very strongly indicative of the "the woman is always the victim" mentality, even if itellectually The Rabbit is aware that this is not the case.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I don't like the idea of an act becoming acceptable because you're drunk.
Again, acceptable *because* you are drunk, and acceptable *while* you are drunk are not the same things. Do you have experience with alcohol? Do you know the difference between being too drunk to make decisions, and simply being "loosened up?" Because the sitcom situation of waking up in bed with someone whom you have no recollection of sleeping with, while entirely plausible, is not common.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It is a bit of a ridiculous question, asked in order to highlight something that's being taken as given when I'm not sure it is a given: namely that someone can consent when intoxicated. My answer is, "I'm really not sure-it's murky." I'm asking the question, "Can someone legally consent to things in general, and sex in particular, while drunk?"
That's an important question. Just because plenty of people make a habit of, y'know, having drunken consensual sex doesn't mean the question should be asked.
Alcohol increases people's libido, it is nearly designed for the purposes of increasing the likelihood that a person will have sex while consuming it. Yes, it alter people's decision making ability, that's the point of it, nobody drinks without the awareness that that will happen. It bothers me how willing people are to make a drunk person devoid of any responsibility to themselves. If a drunk person gets in a car and drives, we lay full blame on them, we don't say that they were drunk and unable to fully comprehend the implications of their actions. Why should sex become this holier-than-holy off-limits thing because a person is drunk?
Now, there are of course extreme cases of drunkenness, where it's important to protect women from men (ETA: Or men from other men). Everyone makes mistakes and gets far too drunk sometimes, and that's not a license to take advantage of them while they are unaware under a pretence that consent was given. It's categorically rape, but I think it's easier to define than just saying: "all drunken sex is rape." The argument instead should be about where the limit between being drunk and being too drunk to consent lies.
quote:Here I definitely agree. I just dispute the...well, it's hard to say, but the tone of the posts reads, to me, as though this is a very serious, pressing problem that's almost on par or even on par with the second. If that's true, I disagree.
Then to clarify I don't think it's on par. I just don't think anything is gained by taking the opinion that false rape accusations don't matter when dealing with decreasing the occurrences of rape. I don't think one needs to be ignored just because the other is more prevalent or more severe, I think both issues can and should be considered.
posted
Orincoro, You are reading an awful lot more into my comment than I said or intended. It was not my intent to accuse you of anything and I apologize that it came off that way. I should have found a better way to phrase it. It was intended as a general statement about a certain type of behavior and not aimed at you or anyone else in particular.
It was also not my intent to imply this applied only to men or only to sex. I find it equally unethical for a woman to seduce a guy who is drunk if she knows he would object were he sober. I see that as a general principle.
I think when one knows that another would object to doing something when they are sober, whether that something is sex, shaving their head or buying a life insurance policy, its unethical to persuade that person to do it when their drunk. I don't think whether or not the person doing the persuading is also drunk makes much difference. Like MPH, I don't like the idea of any act becoming acceptable because you're drunk.
[ June 01, 2011, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think when one knows that another would object to doing something when they are sober, whether that something is sex, shaving their head or buying a life insurance policy, its unethical to persuade that person to do it when their drunk. I don't think whether or not the person doing the persuading is also drunk makes much difference. Like MPH, I don't like the idea of any act becoming acceptable because you're drunk.
Is it unethical to convince someone to get up and dance because their inhibitions are loosened by alcohol? How unethical something like that is depends on the ultimate consequence of it. There are times I've regretted having sex with someone while drunk, I wasn't raped, and quickly got over it. I know girls who have regretted having sex with guys while they were drunk, they considered it a stupid mistake, but they moved on pretty easily from it.
Your own view on the sacredness of sex isn't shared by everyone, or most people, as far as I'm concerned.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
jebus makes a good point. Part of the reason that many people drink is to lower their inhibitions so that they do things that they wouldn't otherwise do. I don't think I've ever done a karaoke night without someone explicitly saying that they needed to get drunk enough to get up and sing.
On the other side of the coin, people make the decision to have sex with someone they later regret under the influence of a whole mess of other things besides alcohol. Would we ever even think of talking about rape if someone got dumped and, because of their emotional distress, ended up having sex with someone that they really regretted*? Diminished capacity comes in a whole range of flavors and strengths.
---
* I don't know how many people saw Mallrats, but this was basically the point of Ben Affleck's character, and yeah, he was a major jerk, but no one thought he was a rapist because of it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Part of the reason that many people drink is to lower their inhibitions so that they do things that they wouldn't otherwise do. I don't think I've ever done a karaoke night without someone explicitly saying that they needed to get drunk enough to get up and sing.
Yes, but there is a big difference between things you kind of want to do, but feel too self conscious to do unless you're drunk, and things you absolutely do not want to do but might be persuaded to do when sufficiently drunk.
quote:Would we ever even think of talking about rape if someone got dumped and, because of their emotional distress, ended up having sex with someone that they really regretted*?
I said it was unethical. I didn't say it was rape. I think its unethical to take advantage sexual advantage of someone who is emotionally distressed. It's not rape, but its still unethical.
quote:Your own view on the sacredness of sex isn't shared by everyone, or most people, as far as I'm concerned.
I haven't said anything about the sacredness of sex. You don't have to believe sex is sacred, to believe that having sex with someone is not comparable to dancing. Sex has potential long term impacts like pregnancy and STDs, dancing does not. There are reasons that you don't hear about people suffering from PTSD because they were coerced into dancing with someone they didn't like as a teen.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You were the one that brought in comparisons to sex and stated that convincing anybody to do anything that they wouldn't do sober was unethical. Yes, they aren't the same thing, neither is shaving your head the same as sex, the point is to demonstrate what you said was incorrect.
Also, equating drunken consent to coercion suggests you aren't too familiar with the effects of alcohol yourself. Feel free to correct me on that.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Apple: Using inebriation as a coercion tool is unethical.
I also think there's a distinction between using inebriation purposefully as a coercion tool, and convincing someone who is inebriated to do something.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't equate shaving your head with having sex.
When people are drunk, they can often be persuaded to do things they wouldn't normally do. "Wouldn't normally do" covers a whole lot more than I intended when I said "Would object to if they were sober".
Suppose you know a girl who has religious objections to dancing. She really believes dancing is a sin. You could probably convince her to dance if she's really drunk, would you think it was OK to try?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here you go m_p_h...Bob is horny, he goes to a local bar to try and get laid. He is unsuccessful for three and half hours at getting a ladies' attention, and drinks heavily during this time. Bob ends up sleeping with a woman who is older and by his standards unattractive, while drunk. In the morning he regrets the choice of his partner.
Later that month, Bob goes over to a friend's house for a party. While there he drinks quite a bit, and his friend offers to let him crash on his couch instead of risking driving home. After the party winds down Bob and his friend are still drinking, and Bob's friend is systematically getting Bob sloshed while not drinking as much, putting shows on tv that have half naked men in them, talking at length about how fickle and emotionally unstable women are and generally manipulating Bob into having gay sex, something Bob would never do if sober.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Part of the reason that many people drink is to lower their inhibitions so that they do things that they wouldn't otherwise do. I don't think I've ever done a karaoke night without someone explicitly saying that they needed to get drunk enough to get up and sing.
Yes, but there is a big difference between things you kind of want to do, but feel too self conscious to do unless you're drunk, and things you absolutely do not want to do but might be persuaded to do when sufficiently drunk.
There is a big difference between those things but it is a difference made up of lots of tiny differences. It isn't always easy to tell when that difference is crossed. And it is often even more difficult to tell when it has been crossed for someone else.
An example from personal experience: I used to spend a lot of time singing in Irish pubs, though I don't really drink. In a not uncommon scenario, a musician who has had a few but seems in control of his faculties - dances well, can hold an interesting conversation, can play his instrument - spends half the evening convincing me to go home with him. I do and he regrets it in the morning (beer goggles come off, Irish guilt sets in, he is worried about me assuming sex was a proposal of marriage, whatever.) I am certainly not a rapist. Nor do I think I have taken advantage of him. In fact, I am not a little annoyed at the suggestion. Not your suggestion. "Jaysus, I shouldn't have done that" is no the most charming phrase to hear in the morning after. In fact, though we became good friends, I took it upon myself to be sure he never did that with me again. Though he tried. Often.
If he did convince me a second time, would that have been unethical? Rape? What if he had been gentlemanly enough to keep his guilt (or whatever) to himself? What if our positions had been reversed and I had had a few and came on to him? How about times (more commonly) when the situation and level of inebriation was the same and there was no regret in the morning?
Lots of grey area here.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I didn't equate shaving your head with having sex.
When people are drunk, they can often be persuaded to do things they wouldn't normally do. "Wouldn't normally do" covers a whole lot more than I intended when I said "Would object to if they were sober".
Suppose you know a girl who has religious objections to dancing. She really believes dancing is a sin. You could probably convince her to dance if she's really drunk, would you think it was OK to try?
Yea, I probably would think it's OK. Hopefully she would see dancing isn't so bad, that her religion is arbitrarily choosing things to place restrictions on as a means of keeping the flock in line and obeisant.
It could be like my own personal version of Footloose.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't see what this post has to do with what I said.
My point is that if something is bad behavior when sober, it's still bad behavior when drunk.
The answer to your initial question...
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:acceptable *because* you are drunk, and acceptable *while* you are drunk are not the same things
I don't how they could be different, as long as that action isn't acceptable when you're not drunk.
...is "intent".
In my first example, Bob intends on having sex, before he ever touches a drink. In the second he is maneuvered into something he would never do through drink.
posted
I still don't know who or what you're responding to. Are you talking to me? If so, what initial question are you talking about? I haven't asked any questions in this thread.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm refusing nothing. I honestly do not know how SW's posts could be a response to what I've said.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I edited the post in question to hopefully remove all confusion. Please let me know if I failed and I will try again.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't think it makes any difference at all whether they intended to do it do it while sober or not. If it's bad behavior while sober, it's still bad behavior while drunk.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: My answer is, "I'm really not sure-it's murky." I'm asking the question, "Can someone legally consent to things in general, and sex in particular, while drunk?"
I think people should absolutely not get in the habit of having to figure out who it's okay to sex up at various levels of drunkenness, while already experiencing that drunkenness. This is something you and they have to have talked out beforehand and established as an acceptable condition of the relationship/casual hookup/whatever. Asking someone "It's okay if we do stuff after we've gotten drunk, right? " is a great way to not have to worry about if you're taking advantage of someone.
Of course, this also involves the personal willpower to, absent these conditions, turn down advances and tell someone "you're too drunk, let me get you a cab" so it really requires a strong sense of what's okay and what's not okay, well before you get into the ubiquitous drinking scene and have hormones flowing in the mix. Too bad most parents are a little too cagey or resistant to the idea of teaching and reinforcing protocol for these kinds of situations.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Asking someone "It's okay if we do stuff after we've gotten drunk, right? " is a great way to not have to worry about if you're taking advantage of someone.
It's always a great way to turn someone off you by being too forward who had every intention of having sex otherwise.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yea, I probably would think it's OK. Hopefully she would see dancing isn't so bad, that her religion is arbitrarily choosing things to place restrictions on as a means of keeping the flock in line and obeisant.
I think that would be very disrespectful to your friend. If you can't persuade her to reconsider her religious views when she is sober and able to think clearly, its very disrespectful to take advantage of her inebriated state to do so.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think it makes any difference at all whether they intended to do it do it while sober or not. If it's bad behavior while sober, it's still bad behavior while drunk.
Is having consensual sex bad behavior?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough, I think how disrespectful it is depends on the girl, what kind of person she is and how affected she would be by such a thing, but anyway I don't think all the blame lies on me. She was the person who chose to get drunk, and she did choose to dance, and despite what you might think, it's still quite hard to make a drunk person do what they would never normally want to do.
Usually when someone does something while drunk that they wouldn't do otherwise it's because they have a curiosity about it while sober, but for whatever reasons refuse to do it.
Like I said, I think it's silly to absolve a drunk person of all responsibility to themselves, I also think it's actually quite dangerous for the person in question.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: It's always a great way to turn someone off you by being too forward who had every intention of having sex otherwise.
If the situation makes it Too Forward to ask this kind of question at any point before you both get drunk, then you shouldn't be having sex with this person after getting drunk that day. I would assume "set your boundaries with a partner while you're both sober" would be an unquestionably sensible and straightforward idea.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: It's always a great way to turn someone off you by being too forward who had every intention of having sex otherwise.
If the situation makes it Too Forward to ask this kind of question at any point before you both get drunk, then you shouldn't be having sex with this person after getting drunk that day. I would assume "set your boundaries with a partner while you're both sober" would be an unquestionably sensible and straightforward idea.
I disagree. I think what's sensible is when with a person where your boundaries aren't familiar, a good idea is to not get too drunk, and move slowly, allowing the person plenty of time to make their own decisions and not pressure them into anything.
The idea that if on a date with someone you haven't had sex with yet, and you're not sure how they feel about it, you should start things off by asking: "can I have sex with you later?" is silly and is going to achieve little but make you out to be a sexual deviant. Just some advice for you.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a strange discussion going on here: that to suggest someone cannot legally consent while drunk is to say they are absolved of responsibility for what happens to them while drunk.
I don't think that's being said.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's been suggested more than once that if one person convinces a drunk person to have sex (even if the first person is also drunk), the first person is acting unethically. To me that's saying that the second person in the scenario isn't responsible for having sex themselves.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think it makes any difference at all whether they intended to do it do it while sober or not. If it's bad behavior while sober, it's still bad behavior while drunk.
Is having consensual sex bad behavior?
I don't know what you're looking for. Some people think that it never is. Others disagree. But it's utterly irrelevant to the point I was making.
If having sex with someone who is drunk is wrong when you're sober, it's still wrong when you're drunk yourself.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, I'm not sure anyone is making that suggestion, and if they are then I disagree. If we're going to grant that one's inhibitions and judgment are impaired due to intoxication (everyone is on board with that, it's a fact), then you cannot absolve one side completely of the ability to consent on that basis and also not give the other side some sort of mitigation if they, too, are intoxicated.
At least I don't think so, I don't think you can reasonably do that.
As to your second point, though, again 'cannot consent' =/ no responsibility for what happens while drunk. 'Responsibility' being a slippery word, and in this context apparently meaning 'blame' to many people.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: I disagree. I think what's sensible is when with a person where your boundaries aren't familiar, a good idea is to not get too drunk, and move slowly, allowing the person plenty of time to make their own decisions and not pressure them into anything.
I'd really, really like to know how someone can flat-out disagree, as you do, with the idea that it is sensible and appropriate setting boundaries with a partner while you're both sober, and offer something that can be written out as 'as long as you're not too drunk, you can allow the boundaries between you and your partner to evolve under the influence of alcohol.' as what is actually, in contrast, sensible.
How can that statement be construed as sensible in any way that denies that "set your boundaries with a partner while you're both sober" is also sensible — probably more?
quote:The idea that if on a date with someone you haven't had sex with yet, and you're not sure how they feel about it, you should start things off by asking: "can I have sex with you later?" is silly
You're right! That is pretty silly! Now, you can show me where I've said that you start things off by asking that kind of question, and that will make it at all relevant to my proposals.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps, jebus's point was that drinking is often occurring while (or even before) two people are both externally and internally making the decision to sleep with each other. "While still sober" implies the beginning of the encounter.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is one thing that I think people are forgetting...the decision to start drinking is done while not intoxicated.
In Rabbit's scenario, a girl's religion is against dancing, but apparently not against drinking to the point of inebriation. Unlikely. More likely, she is going against her religion already by drinking and if someone encourages her to try dancing they are pretty much blameless considering her decisions which lead to that circumstance.
As to m_p_h's assertion that if it's bad sober then it's bad drunk, there are circumstances when people choose to lower their inhibitions together or separately and sex is okay, and there are circumstances when people take advantage/create a situation to take advantage which sex is exploitative.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. I thought you were equating having sex with a drunk partner with taking advantage. But you obviously were not. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, I agree with you that there is all kinds of gray, but I think what I've said was unethical isn't in that gray area.
If you know (or even strongly suspect) that your partner is going to regret it in the morning and you have sex with them any way, your a jerk. If they are consenting during the act, it shouldn't be considered rape, but its still unethical.
I'm sure there are all kinds of situation where people don't know that their partner's going to regret in the morning. I'm sure that there are many cases where the person couldn't know and shouldn't be expected to know their partner would regret it as well as others where the person should have known, but didn't. I'm not talking about those cases since I think the details of each case would be important.
I was simply saying, that if you know your partner will (or is highly likely to) regret having sex in the morning, having sex with them is unethical.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can agree with it being unethical under those circumstances, Rabbit.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Perhaps, jebus's point was that drinking is often occurring while (or even before) two people are both externally and internally making the decision to sleep with each other. "While still sober" implies the beginning of the encounter.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Perhaps, jebus's point was that drinking is often occurring while (or even before) two people are both externally and internally making the decision to sleep with each other.
What I advocate is that it is better and more sensible to have figured out between you and your partner if you're at the level of comfort and connection to consent to getting significantly intimate before alcohol factors into the decisionmaking process. I find this to be preferable to being in the habit of letting these boundaries be malleable while undergoing intoxication. Even though the latter is pretty tempting and might get you more action in the moment, I'll take the former system's penchant for avoiding regrettable sexual encounters as well as showing that you respect open and mature communication as well as respect for boundaries. It's also well received in the much more open and communicative dating scene, where people are straightforward and mature about their expectations for a hookup, and usually both parties have communicated a lot well before meeting up to see if they click!
quote:"While still sober" implies the beginning of the encounter.
'while still sober' literally and straightforwardly is while still sober. It's fine to have dates that start with getting sauced, though I tend not to prefer them!
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Is Samp the only person left in this conversation who drinks?
I could invite parks to the conversation; he too is a sexual deviant with sinful weakness to the devil-water.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I drink occasionally. Usually, when I am likely (or hopeful) to have sex. We know how I get when I drink.
Rabbit, I agree but predicting what your partner is going to regret is often a lot tougher than it looks. To throw another wrench into things, I have far more often regretted passing up opportunities for sex than I have regretted grabbing them.
ETA: Clearly, I need to drink more.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: I think it's been suggested more than once that if one person convinces a drunk person to have sex (even if the first person is also drunk), the first person is acting unethically. To me that's saying that the second person in the scenario isn't responsible for having sex themselves.
I don't think it implies that at all. Its perfectly possible for both people to have behaved unethically.
Getting drunk is a choice (presuming no one has spiked the punch without telling you). If you know you make bad decisions when you are drunk and you choose to drink anyway, you are responsible for those bad decisions. Most people who drink, drink because they enjoy not just the sensation of being drunk but the things they do when they are drunk. They may consider that worth the risk of making some bad decisions. That's there prerogative, but they should not expect that being drunk should some how reduce their responsibility for those decisions.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree but predicting what your partner is going to regret is often a lot tougher than it looks.
I think I acknowledged that large gray area.
I'm the first to admit that the culture of casual sex is completely foreign to me. But a lot of this discussion sound like people think that its worth risking hurting someone to get some sexual gratification. I can imagine regretting having passed up an opportunity, but I can't imagine that regret being any where near as strong as the regret I'd feel for hurting someone.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
" is a great way to not have to worry about if you're taking advantage of someone.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
