Cheating on her boyfriend with you will end in cheating on you with a new guy.
He dd the right thing, no regrets. It sucks a lot tho, and it’s hard.
And he didnt rape her which is more important than the cheating.
how would he be raping her anyway? she was the one trying to force him to have sex with her even after he made it clear he didn’t want to
Drunk people and consent is a moral and legal gray area - it doesn’t matter if they initiate
well if someone gets really drunk (not being drugged by others, but doing it because they want to) and commits a crime, thats still a crime they commited
if im wrong please explain
You’re wrong, drunk drivers never get fined when they run over someone.
/s
legal gray area - it doesn’t matter if they initiate
is there a legal basis for this statement? There very well could be, i don’t do a lot of raping so i wouldn’t know anything about this lmao
I’m going to give a longer explanation than was already given.
So, imagine yourself at a hospital. You’re about to have a minor surgery, and get knocked out. While you’re under, some nurse comes in and fucks you in the ass.
Is that rape?
Switch things up. You’re at a bar, having a good time, someone slips something in your drink. While you’re under the influence of that hit of whatever, they take you into the bathroom and fuck you in the ass, and you agreed to that, you may even like it.
Is that rape?
On a fundamental level, if someone is visibly drunk, or even olfactorily drunk (meaning your can smell the booze on them), they are in a state of mind that is the same as being drugged. It doesn’t matter if they are initiating contact, they are unable to give meaningful consent.
Now, if you want to argue we need another term instead of rape, I’m okay with that. We can call it whatever. But we have statutory rape already, which exists because we recognize that even when someone is the initiator, there are states of mind and being that simply can’t make a choice to have sex in a meaningful way. So using the term rape for violating meaningful consent is fine, even when it’s an adult, and even when they initiate.
I am also aware that there are edge cases where consenting before consuming a substance could/should count as meaningful consent. And I’m aware that there is a range of inebriation where meaningful consent is still possible. However it is nearly impossible to tell without testing what a person’s blood alcohol level is, so we’re limited. That in turn means that the standard for (at least colloquial usage) what is and isn’t inebriated rape has to be broader than it would be if we had reliable testing on the fly.
I also agree with your point that she was ignoring consent, and being an absolutely horrible person, and if she had persisted by force or coercion and he had given in, I wouldn’t accept her being drunk as a defense against any charges brought.
But there’s a fundamental inability to consent when drunk. How drunk? That’s something that would need to be addressed by medical science and then legislated. What’s the maximum BAC someone can give meaningful consent for other things? But that fact is there, that alcohol serves to break down the ability to consent, and sex without consent is considered rape, on at least a colloquial level, if not always on a legal level everywhere.
I think you argued that if the night ended in sex, they both would have raped each other?
Is it rape because she would have gotten him to go against his morals for a short time?
The story seemed to imply she wasnt physically capable of forcing sex, she was trying to appeal to his sexual urges.
I do understand drunk people commiting crimes is a thing and they should be responsible for that, but this specific case, I don’t know it was possible for her to be the raper.
I don’t disagree with you but its hard to reconcile that being drunk makes someone both not responsible and responsible for their actions at the same time.
No, that is not what I argued. I said that if she used force or coercion, she would have raped him.
Coercion is the use of social, emotional, or other non physical means to cause a person to act against their will.
Rape is not always an act of physical force. You didn’t say that it was, I’m just repeating it for general purpose.
The night ending in sex would have meant that she sobered up, expressed her consent and intent, then he agreed to sex.
It is kinda possible for two people to rape each other, but there’s a shit-ton of stretching of the term, plus very unlikely situations to make it so. Even then, there would be a ton of argument about it from anyone not involved.
I think you either misunderstood, I phrased things badly, or my dyslexia + poor proofreading via tts screwed something up. I can’t find any errors, so I have to assume the first two.
There are a ton of ways to use non physical force on someone, and most of them can not only be done while drunk, but the inhibition being depressed via alcohol could make someone more likely to use them.
That is not the same thing as attempting to convince someone to have sex with you by using your physical appearance, the offer of sex (or specific sex acts), or even just by being an asshole and not leaving them alone. As shitty as nagging at someone for sex is, it hasn’t the same thing as rape, so long as the person being the target is capable of consent and has freedom to leave.
Yet another factor is the power dynamic between a sober person and someone under the influence.
Did she not try to sway his emotions through coercion? She didnt take no for an answer initially.
If there are no consequences to saying no, it isn’t coercive. It’s the difference between begging and saying “if you don’t, I’ll threat”
The threat can be minor, something like “I’ll tell everyone you’re a lousy lay” all the way up to “I’ll tell everyone you raped me” or less direct like “I’ll stop paying the car payment”, or “I’ll evict you”.
But, as nasty as not taking no and backing off immediately is, it isn’t the same as coercion or force. Even being very pushy about it, even using physical contact isn’t coercion, though whether or not such behavior should be illegal is an interesting possibility. The difference is whether or not the target of the “seduction” can walk away freely.
If they can, if they can enforce their no and leave, even if they don’t exert that ability, or isn’t coercive, just douchey.
Now, there is another issue in there. Some people may not believe they can freely and safely exit. That’s part of why when someone says no, everything stops, period. Other people may freeze up and be unable to exit, despite having the freedom to, which is another reason we have to make sure that we not only exhibit good sexual behaviors, but teach those ethics whenever needed.
But as far as something being rape or not, that is the ultimate determinant, the freedom of the person to say no, and exit the situation. Legally, it may well not matter if the person nagging the other for sex is aware of the target wanting to exit, but having internal barriers preventing it. That’s something laws and juries have to deal with. But for the purpose of discussion like this, that’s the line.
but this specific case, I don’t know it was possible for her to be the raper.
In my mind, even if you lack the means to commit a crime, you still wanted to commit that crime and you tried to commit that crime.
So, imagine yourself at a hospital. You’re about to have a minor surgery, and get knocked out. While you’re under, some nurse comes in and fucks you in the ass.
yes, but now let’s say they need to insert a catheter in your to prevent you from pissing yourself, is this also rape? Or was this previously consented to (obviously it was, just a primer here)
Switch things up. You’re at a bar, having a good time, someone slips something in your drink. While you’re under the influence of that hit of whatever, they take you into the bathroom and fuck you in the ass, and you agreed to that, you may even like it.
this would be rape on pretext, similar to robbing someone at gunpoint.
On a fundamental level, if someone is visibly drunk, or even olfactorily drunk (meaning your can smell the booze on them), they are in a state of mind that is the same as being drugged. It doesn’t matter if they are initiating contact, they are unable to give meaningful consent.
i’m inclined to agree here, however there is a small problem here, they intentionally, and knowingly got themselves to that point of intoxication. If i do way too much street fent, nearly die, and wake up in an alley somewhere, am i responsible for what happened to me in between those points? Or not? It’s not like i stopped existing as a person. Physically, i am fully responsible for what happened in that state, psychologically, i am to some degree at the very least tangentially responsible. (there is a reason why you cant drink and drive)
the rest of the comment is good, thorough coverage of most important things.
Quoting so it’s easier to see for me as I write.
i do way too much street fent, nearly die, and wake up in an alley somewhere, am i responsible for what happened to me in between those points? Or not? It’s not like i stopped existing as a person. Physically, i am fully responsible for what happened in that state, psychologically, i am to some degree at the very least tangentially responsible. (there is a reason why you cant drink and drive)
In terms of consent based events, no. If someone else takes advantage of your state, even the voluntary intake of substances doesn’t remove the obligation to obtain meaningful consent from the inebriated person by any other party.
It also depends on the substance. Some stuff, you have way less ability to function consciously. Others, you’re changed so little as to be kinda irrelevant outside of determining the exact consequences in a complicated situation. As an example, if someone slams too much caffeine and punches somebody, that’s 100% on them in any normal circumstances. Something like weed, you run into edge cases where it might be a mitigation, but not as much since there’s less inhibition of the conscious mind compared to something like fentanyl. A pothead robs a store with their buddy, I’m not going to believe they couldn’t have refused because of the weed (under normal circumstances). If they’re barely functional from opiates, I might buy that they didn’t really know what was going on, and got swept up in things.
That last one is a real thing I’ve run across a few times. Dudes thieving while high and claiming to only have been dragged along, and then having something shoved in their hands and be told to run. It’s believable with some drugs, less so with others.
Like anything about human behavior and social rules, the more specific things get, the easier it is to throw down a definite yes/no regarding culpability. The more general it stays, the more you have to deal in a degree of “usually, but”.
That is separate (in my opinion as well as in law in some places) from the inebriated person committing bad or illegal acts themselves.
There’s also a middle ground where a person that’s inebriated may have some degree of exculpatory claim if someone used their altered state to get them to commit a bad or illegal act. They’d still be responsible, but any judgements on their acts should take it into account (socially and legally).
Edit: also, I apologize for taking so long to respond, but I was having trouble reading for some reason, and I couldn’t use tts when I first got the notification. Dyslexia is fucking weird sometimes. I don’t usually have this much trouble lol.
good comment, thanks for the response.
Edit: also, I apologize for taking so long to respond, but I was having trouble reading for some reason, and I couldn’t use tts when I first got the notification. Dyslexia is fucking weird sometimes. I don’t usually have this much trouble lol.
you responded within 24 hours, that’s pretty quick as far as internet responses go for my books. You probably struggled a bit due to my slightly nonsensical writing style lol.
i agree with most of that but if someone is really drunk and tries to have sex with someone else who may or may not be drunk, who is also explicitly saying they dont consent, isnt that person in the wrong, kind of like a really drunk person whos going to drive is in the wrong?
what i mean is: commiting a crime while drunk is still commiting that crime. if im wrong please explain
Yikes…
thats not really helpful, could you explain to me where i was wrong?
i dont mean to sound like “i know im right” or something. i actually just want to know
Extremely drunk people are not in the state of mind to consent
but if they got drunk knowing what they were drinking (like not being drugged or something similar) and commit a crime, they can still be liable, right?
How is that relevant?
anon, knows that drunk people can’t consent 👍
Anon is a good person
Anon doesn’t care she’s drunk, only that she “belongs” to someone else. Good Anon would have told her to try this again while sober and preferably single.
Unfortunately they don’t actually state their reasoning. They just state what they told her while trying to reason with them to go to sleep.
You are probably right, but its just an assumption. In their position I would also be attempting to reason with them by reminding them of their existing relationship instead of “No, I don’t want to rape you. You cannot consent.”
He earned extra tendies.
My dumb ass was expecting her to pass out and anon grilling everything in the fridge.
Me too! I was so excited to hear what random things he was gonna grill. 0.5/10, much disappointment.
Ya did the right thing, anon. Your mama raised you right, and would be proud.
ITT: The top regarded minds of Lemmy argue their shitty opinions on consent and rape
Abandon all hope ye who enter
First comment I see, thank you for the warning brother I’ll take a hike on this one!
I didn’t see a single awful take. Some I disagreed with but none that were awful.
if looking for awful takes, abandon all hope ye who enter here
The alternative is rape charges… so… yeah.
Edit: If she’s vomiting drunk do you think she’s going to remember consenting in the morning? Or wake up, remember nothing, and think you raped her? She might remember, she might not. It’s a roll of the dice, but there’s no way I’m rolling those dice. You go argue in court how “she really wanted you” all you want.
Not really. The alternative is raping someone, but charges are extremely unlikely, hardly many rapes are actually prosecuted.
There are many ways this could go wrong morally or legally. Without being there, no one can know. (Which makes it dangerous legally).
Just because she vomited doesn’t mean much. Especially, since they were “pre gaming”. Idiots in college would often slam shots or beers in drinking games, throwing up before they had a chance to really absorb much alcohol.
Morally, it depends on the power dynamic. How drunk was he compared to her? In this case, it sounds like the OP wasn’t drunk and made the safe decision. Even if he would be morally/legally right, the situation with the bf would probably involve a ton of unneeded drama.
Good guy anon hope he lives life well
I really thought there will be a plotwist at the end that somehow this is all about grilling.
“It wouldn’t be right to rape you, you have a boyfriend,” is about what I expect from a 4Channer.
EDIT: Holy fuck Lemmy, this comment section is a dumpster fire. First, to all the people saying he did reject her because she was drunk, not because she has a boyfriend, there’s no evidence of that; he stated twice that it was wrong because she had a boyfriend, and zero times that it was wrong because she was drunk. But whatever, if you want to believe that, whatever, I’m done arguing over your fan fiction.
But here are some things that are 100% facts that some of you need to understand:
- If someone is throwing up, they are too drunk to consent to sex.
- If you are not throwing up, you are almost certainly not as drunk as someone who is throwing up. The person vomiting has alcohol poisoning, and unless you also have symptoms of alcohol poisoning, you are more sober than them.
- Vomiting does not remove alcohol from your system. Intoxication occurs when alcohol enters your bloodstream. Vomiting will prevent further alcohol from entering your bloodstream, but it will not remove any alcohol from your bloodstream, and you’ll be just as drunk as you were before you vomited.
- If the OP had sex with the girl in this story, it would have been rape. She was far too drunk to give consent, and based on his telling, he was not. Clearly, some of you feel differently, but your shitty opinions on consent don’t change the fact that legally, it would have been rape.
If you were in that situation, would you say “no, I would be raping you”? The boyfriend excuse is a much more tactful way to get yourself out of the situation (as well as a good enough reason in its own right).
No it’s not. “Hey, I really like you, but you’ve had too much to drink and this wouldn’t be right. If you feel this way tomorrow, let me know,” is a perfectly acceptable answer. Hell, I’ve given that answer before. It’s certainly not less tactful than, “You have a boyfriend and what you’re doing is wrong.” And yeah, cheating on your boyfriend is bad, but not as bad as rape, which this would have been.
Keep in mind, you’re telling this to a blackout horny drunk person. In honesty, it doesn’t matter what you actually say.
OK, so if it doesn’t matter what he said, why lie? You’re kinda invalidating your initial point here.
Well, okay, the drunk person will still react to what you say; they just won’t remember. Having a gracious exit to the situation is preferable to, say, “OH MY GOD THERE’S AN AXE MURDERER BEHIND YOU” and running away when they turn around.
I began with ‘have some tact’ after all.
So you’re shitting on them for doing the right thing? Or am I misinterpreting
The last temptation is the greatest treason / to do the right deed, for the wrong reason
Personally I don’t give a shit why somebody does the right thing
For real. Just do the right thing
His reasoning for not sleeping with her was that she had a boyfriend, so it, “wouldn’t be right.” But that girl was so drunk that sleeping with her would have been rape. He did the right thing, but his reasoning was clearly wrong, and implies that if she didn’t have a boyfriend he would have slept with her, even though she could not consent.
He’s describing what he said, not his thoughts or motivations.
Yeah, and I’m going to assume that what he said are his thoughts and motivations, since there is literally no evidence to assume otherwise.
Assume… No evidence…
You’re saying the right words, but coming to the wrong conclusions
LOL, no, you’re coming to the conclusion you want to without evidence. This person said twice in their story that it wouldn’t be right to sleep with this girl because she had a boyfriend. He said zero times that it wouldn’t be right to sleep with her because she was too drunk to consent to sex. Why would I come to the conclusion that he was choosing not to sleep with her because she was drunk instead of the reason he stated twice? What evidence is there for your interpretation?
I just mean that there’s no reason to assume anything. Take the story at its literal face value, because that is the only evidence that exists. It is absolutely telling that they fail to list the most salient reason to say no, but there are so many reasons why that might be the case that it’s useless to speculate.
Yes. He said, to her. I swear to god, some people are so intent on outrage. Have you ever been laid? More than once or twice by pure dumb luck? Jesus, please don’t tell us about it or I’ll get non-consensualy drunk just to gag it down.
Or maybe what he expected was most likely to let a drunk girl let him go?
That’s a fair expectation, but it doesn’t change the fact that he only didn’t sleep with her because she had a boyfriend, not because she was so drunk sleeping with her would have been rape.
Wrong as fuck she is not too drunk to consent what the fuck lol
LOL, exactly the shit I’m talking about. Imagine thinking it’s OK to have sex with a girl who just drank so much she puked. I thought thinking like this died out in the 80s, but i guess the kids are back on date rape.
or I’m an adult I’ve drank and live in the real world not the Internet like this fuckin opinion. Throwing up from drinking doesn’t indicate intoxication level, they pregamed she drank too fast and then tried to have sex with him.
Her trying to have sex with him says she’s not too drunk. Like what the fuck? I’ve thrown up from a single shot of tequila because it doesn’t sit well with me, if I mix too much sugar and alcohol I’ll puke. Am I too drunk to consent off one shot of tequila? Grow up
LOL, you’re not an adult. Adults don’t throw up from drinking.
Are you 12?
Buddy, I’m 100% older than you. That’s why I don’t say shit like, “pre-game,” or throw up because I drank a shot when I had too much sugar in my tummy. I’m going to give you two pieces of advice, as someone who’s probably tended bar longer than you’ve been allowed to drink: 1) Learn to hold your liquor before your 30, because this shit stops being cute real quick and 2) don’t have sex with anyone that’s thrown up, because they’re too drunk to consent (except on the very rare occasion that they drank too much sugar and upset their wittle tum-tum).
This is the most arrogant and out of touch comment ever holy fuck lol
Get a life kid
deleted by creator
where’s the fake and gay comments
I thought anon was talking about grilling :c
Wouldn’t be lemmy if we don’t accuse this person of rape, AHH… Classic
Based
deleted by creator
