Okay so what would you even call it if both parties are drunk so they both really aren't consenting?
Is mutual unconsentual sex considered consensual? Or did they accidentally rape each other?
Or is it all just one big mistake that should just be forgotten and pushed in the shadows of each others past creating awkward conversations and moments from there on out?
Maybe I thinking too deeply about this.
A mistake, a car crash where both parties are responsible, it's very obvious when someone gets a person drunk to the point of consent when the other wouldn't, but it's also obvious when niether party really knew what was going on. I don't pretend to be an expert, I hate alcohol in general, so I can't pretend to know why goes on in a drunk persons head.
Id say its different between each person but in my experience. I'm more open and live. As in.. I can still think for myself. I'm still cognitive but I'm also braver in things I do. I'm more social. My friend said this and I've heard it a couple other times and it's kinda true. Alcohol doesn't make you do things. It gets you to do things you already want to do but won't. And the reason why can vary but ultimately, it depend son the person. I can still think and realize what I'm doing I just say "fuck it" a little more often
I've said before and I'll say it again, logic like that that some feminists use is sexist against women in itself.
Theyre basically saying women are weaker than men as they cannot hold their alcohol as well, thus are unequal
Boom, logic ( I had a better speech prepared but I just got off work )
I'm not sure it's "can't hold their alcohol as well" so much as "are physically weaker/less likely to commit sexual violence" or something along those lines. I bet the theory behind this has something to do with the man being the penetrating agent, requiring erection etc and then woman being (potentially) the receptacle of violence.
Problem is, statistically it's accurate that men commit more rape than women - these stereotypes don't come from nowhere, right? The hard lurch to the right that this site has been taking the last couple of months certainly wants us to think so.
I don't agree. Alcohol can make you do things you don't necessarily want to or have any inclination to do, it's just that it isn't a viable excuse. If you make really piss poor decisions while drunk, probably shouldn't be getting black out inebriated.
The idea is that usually in these situations the woman is incapacitated and therefore is unable to stop the man from entering her, the man involved is usually the one performing the action of penetration, he chose to penetrate in this circumstance even if the woman was to drunk to stop him or communicate that she was uncomfortable
Maybe while they were both drunk, the guy was nearly about to pass out, and the girl hopped on him and started everything. So even if technically he was entering her, he wasn't actually doing anything and she was forcing him to enter and he was too drunk to stop her or communicate that he was uncomfortable. Just because the sex organs work a certain way does not mean that it has to happen where one person is doing such to the other person. I wouldn't try to convince everyone that it's a 50/50 split between those 2 situations, but it does happen.
ive said it before, if both parties are equally drunk you cannot say one raped the either. provided one is not blacked out or there are not extraneous circumstances, if two drunk people have sex that is consentual at the moment, one cannot be a rapist in the morning. i mean it can be different if theres some form of premeditation (i know she wont fuck me but ill get her drunk and then try it) but in your run of the mill, two drunk people going hot and heavy, theres just as much chance of the man regretting it, but we just think that's funny (like in movies when a guy wakes up to an ugly chick and regrets it... ) making women out to always be the victims perpetuates the weaker sex notion and does NOT promote feminism and its time that we started to level out our thinking on how we define rape as a crime when it involves two people who are both drunk. this is the same reason i think people can be rape victims without a rapist... if you wake up and feel raped, you still might need the
same assistance as a person who was raped, but the person you had drunk sex with the night before is not a rapist and may feel equally raped, however in this society if its a man he is expected to knuckle that down and act proud of the sex.
our definition of "equality" isnt equality. They were both drunk and although one of them might regret it, there wasnt any case of rape here. I want us girls to be equal to men, not above or below. we are all humans here, and we deserve to be treated like that.
You all are missing the point, it says Josie could NOT consent, meaning she was too drunk to say yes or no. The ad is claifying that being drunk isn't an excuse to not paying attention if the girl is incapable of saying no; unless the girl says YES, it's rape. A girl not saying no is NOT the same as her saying yes. It doesn't matter how drunk Jake was, consent could not be given but he took it as yes, therefore rape.
Agreed.
Because everyone's alcohol tolerance is different and an erection has to do with biology, not inebriation.
I know some guys who are very lightweight and some girls that can never get drunk.
And it says they were both drunk, not how much they drank, but that they were both drunk. So by guests logic, Jake wouldn't have been able to rape anyone because he was drunk, therefore couldn't get an erection.
So yes, guest is really fucking stupid.
Why would someone downvote me for that? I was pointing out a stupid law our society has created. Wasnt that the point of this post? I didnt mean i agree with the laws against men.
Is mutual unconsentual sex considered consensual? Or did they accidentally rape each other?
Or is it all just one big mistake that should just be forgotten and pushed in the shadows of each others past creating awkward conversations and moments from there on out?
Maybe I thinking too deeply about this.
Theyre basically saying women are weaker than men as they cannot hold their alcohol as well, thus are unequal
Boom, logic ( I had a better speech prepared but I just got off work )
Problem is, statistically it's accurate that men commit more rape than women - these stereotypes don't come from nowhere, right? The hard lurch to the right that this site has been taking the last couple of months certainly wants us to think so.
Because everyone's alcohol tolerance is different and an erection has to do with biology, not inebriation.
I know some guys who are very lightweight and some girls that can never get drunk.
And it says they were both drunk, not how much they drank, but that they were both drunk. So by guests logic, Jake wouldn't have been able to rape anyone because he was drunk, therefore couldn't get an erection.
So yes, guest is really fucking stupid.