Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.
It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.
I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.
Support the archive
[+]TheDude41 [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
A person who consumes alcohol, in doing so, assumes the risk of their subsequent drunken actions.
In the real world, people have all sorts of problems that may lead them to engage in a sexual activity they might not if they were more rational about it. Being self-intoxicated is just another one of those possible reasons, and one that is not particularly deserving of sympathy, because self-intoxication is self-induced and generally entered into initially by a sober, rationally thinking individual. You drink, you competently assume the risk of what you do afterwards.
The idea that person B should be thrown in jail because person A knowingly self-intoxicates, then (as is quite expected for someone who is self intoxicated) makes decisions they would not have made while sober -- is a laughable idea if it were not taken seriously by some.
Sure, in some cases, a court may offer clemency to a drunken individual, to set aside a civil agreement they entered into while self-intoxicated. But setting aside a contract is not at all the same as causing harm to a counter-party by charging them with a crime for taking a self-intoxicated person's consent at face value. e.g. throwing person B in prison is not providing clemency for drunken person A.
Consider someone who makes a sale to a person who is self-intoxicated. If you are saying that drunken consent is not valid consent, what you are saying is that the sale is an act of theft (coming into possession of property without valid consent), and the person transacting with the drunk one would be jailed for theft. This is of course absurd. If it is still possible to do so, a court may (but probably will not) have clemency on the drunken person by attempting to unwind the transaction if this can be done without causing substantial harm to the counter-party. But this is never, and should never, be considered a crime.
[+]mlfactcheck -7 points-6 points-5 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[+]GTCtry_another [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
Where are you getting these interpretations of what is being said?
The question in its very broadest form is whether drunk sex is ever not rape; the question whether women should live in constant fear of rapists doesn't remotely fall into that discussion. But since you brought it up: Yes you watch your drink when you're at a bar. I don't care who you are, if you think leaving your drink unattended is acceptable you are a moron, and while I don't say you'd deserve whatever might come of that, I won't cry "victim blaming" if someone uses the consequences you suffer to teach their kids proper caution. And that's the thing: it's gotten to the point where even parents looking after their kids best interests are told it's a no-no to give practical advice. Usually the argument implies doing so is misogynistic, but now here you are saying it leads to misandry. Well that's novel, but not an improvement.
It's as though common sense is being completely purged from society.
Oh yeah and I'd be just fine if a woman never wanted to get drunk around me ever again. Nothing good has ever come of it. Men and women should get drunk separately from each other if at all. EDIT: There are countless reasons why that's the case other than rape. Mixing the sexes completely changes the dynamics of drunk socializing for the worse, even at gay bars.
[–]mlfactcheck -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]GTCtry_another2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TheDude411 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]denach644[S] 1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]mlfactcheck -4 points-3 points-2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]The_0bserver 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]mlfactcheck -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheDude411 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]The_0bserver -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]TheDude41 [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
No, women should be thinking about a million things they might do that they may later regret if they get drink.
That's the nature of drinking in relation to everything, really.
As should men.
Regret is not rape. Sorry. Anyone is free to disagree, but they are wrong.
[–]mlfactcheck -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TheDude412 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bassofkramer 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]TheDude41 [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
I don't care at all if a woman drinks, or not.
Be responsible. That's your issue, not mine.
[–]mlfactcheck -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TheDude410 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[+]TheDude41 [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
A person who consumes alcohol, in doing so, assumes the risk of their subsequent drunken actions.
In the real world, people have all sorts of problems that may lead them to engage in a sexual activity they might not if they were more rational about it. Being self-intoxicated is just another one of those possible reasons, and one that is not particularly deserving of sympathy, because self-intoxication is self-induced and generally entered into initially by a sober, rationally thinking individual. You drink, you competently assume the risk of what you do afterwards.
The idea that person B should be thrown in jail because person A knowingly self-intoxicates, then (as is quite expected for someone who is self intoxicated) makes decisions they would not have made while sober -- is a laughable idea if it were not taken seriously by some.
Sure, in some cases, a court may offer clemency to a drunken individual, to set aside a civil agreement they entered into while self-intoxicated. But setting aside a contract is not at all the same as causing harm to a counter-party by charging them with a crime for taking a self-intoxicated person's consent at face value. e.g. throwing person B in prison is not providing clemency clemency for drunken person A.
Consider someone who makes a sale to a person who is self-intoxicated. If you are saying that drunken consent is not valid consent, what you are saying is that the sale is an act of theft (coming into possession of property without valid consent), and the person transacting with the drunk one would be jailed for theft. This is of course absurd. If it is still possible to do so, a court may (but probably will not) have clemency on the drunken person by attempting to unwind the transaction if this can be done without causing substantial harm to the counter-party. But this is never, and should never, be considered a crime.
[–]mlfactcheck -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TheDude411 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link