Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
http://entertainment.time.com/2013/08/22/dr-phils-disappearing-rape-tweet/ First you see it, now you don’t. Dr. Phil—or whoever manages the TV therapist’s Twitter account—quickly deleted a controversial tweet this week, which said “If a girl is drunk, is it okay to have sex with her? Reply yes or no to @drphil #teenaccused.”
The tweet was deleted after outrage Tuesday over what appeared to be a trivialization of date rape. Responses ranged from serious attacks on Dr. Phil’s credibility to jokes at his expense. Comedians and feminist bloggers had a field day.
Thinking of it from the other angle, since someone being drunk removes their ability to give consent is it advisable to have sex with someone who is drunk?
Obviously I'm not talking about paralytic drunk , but if someone is well under the weather, is it a wise choice considering you may leave yourself open to a rape charge ?
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
Depends if I'm drunk as well or not, and who approaches who. Would that even come into play in a court or does it just matter that the person making the complaint was intoxicated.
I think it's a pretty interesting question, don't know why everyone jumped all over Dr Phil.
Another side is that alcohol isn't the only thing that can influence a persons decision making, I wonder if the same rules apply to other chemicals that alter decision making/mood/perception. Like anti depressants, recreational drugs, medications etc.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/08/23 05:37:59
vossyvo wrote: Depends if I'm drunk as well or not. Would that even come into play in a court or does it just matter that the person making the complaint was intoxicated.
I think it's a pretty interesting question, don't know why everyone jumped all over Dr Phil.
Because "rational" and "militant feminism" never wind up in the same room together.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/23 06:09:32
vossyvo wrote: Depends if I'm drunk as well or not. Would that even come into play in a court or does it just matter that the person making the complaint was intoxicated.
I think it's a pretty interesting question, don't know why everyone jumped all over Dr Phil.
Because if "rational" and "militant feminism" never wind up in the same room together.
I'm of the opinion that sex while either party is drunk is a stupid idea.
I think the tweeted question may have given an interesting look at how many people think it's fine and dandy to have sex with a drunk person.
Then again it was an internet tweet so results would be hardly reliable.
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
I can see what they were trying to do with this - starting a conversation on the issue. But the way they went about it was hilariously clumsy.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: I can see what they were trying to do with this - starting a conversation on the issue. But the way they went about it was hilariously clumsy.
Nah, based on what his spokesperson said they were attempting to drum up Twitter responses to be used as fodder in the production of an upcoming show.
I mean, it isn't like Twitter is a forum for conversation.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote: I mean, it isn't like Twitter is a forum for conversation.
Twitter is just a giant circle jerk.
In regards to the question of the OP - I would say it is certainly wrong if someone plies someone else with drink in order to have sex with them, or if they go after someone who is clearly off their face in order to have sex with them. I would also suggest that any kind of one night stand has the potential to go horribly wrong regardless of the involvement of drink.
dogma wrote: Nah, based on what his spokesperson said they were attempting to drum up Twitter responses to be used as fodder in the production of an upcoming show.
I mean, it isn't like Twitter is a forum for conversation.
Sure, it's a gakky day time tv show, any 'conversation' created about the issue is just going to exist for the purposes of picking out a handful of the worst quotes to stun the housewives watching at home. But the point is the way they worded the question to start that process was really clumsy.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
If you are drunk your judgement is impaired.
If your judgement is impaired, you cannot give consent.
If you cannot give consent it's rape.
If the thought of something makes me giggle for longer than 15 seconds, I am to assume that I am not allowed to do it. item 87, skippys list
DC:70S+++G+++M+++B+++I++Pw40k86/f#-D+++++A++++/cWD86R+++++T(D)DM++
marv335 wrote: If you are drunk your judgement is impaired.
If your judgement is impaired, you cannot give consent.
If you cannot give consent it's rape.
My live-in girlfriend and I frequently have sex while drunk.
Are you saying we're raping each other every time we do?
marv335 wrote: If you are drunk your judgement is impaired.
If your judgement is impaired, you cannot give consent.
If you cannot give consent it's rape.
My live-in girlfriend and I frequently have sex while drunk.
Are you saying we're raping each other every time we do?
Did she say "we are not going to have sex" before she got drunk?
If so then yes, you are raping her.
Did you say "we are not going to have sex" before you got drunk?
If so then yes, she is raping you.
Were you both sober and decided "let's get drunk and feth"?
Its because ordinance is still a word.
However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.
Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.
Ordnance is high caliber explosives.
No 'I' in ordnance.
Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.
d-usa wrote: So if she said "not tonight" and then you got drunk and had sex, it's not rape?
Does her status as your live-in-girlfriend increase her ability to give consent when intoxicated?
We generally don't plan sexual encounters hours before we have them, believe it or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: No, I just love my wife and if she tells me "not tonight" before we drink then that is the end of the discussion.
And if she doesn't, and she gets drunk, she's incapable of giving consent, correct? So you raped her if she decided she wanted to have sex after getting drunk.
Rapist.
Edit: Jesus, I just spent a moment reflecting on the amount of times I decided to rail something AFTER I drank. I've been raped by many, many women. I'm going on a justice crusade, I think.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/08/23 10:35:10
d-usa wrote: So if she said "not tonight" and then you got drunk and had sex, it's not rape?
Does her status as your live-in-girlfriend increase her ability to give consent when intoxicated?
We generally don't plan sexual encounters hours before we have them, believe it or not.
We also don't plan sexual encounters hours before we have them. But sometimes one of us knows that we are just not in the mood that day, and we let each other know if that is the case. Maybe we just talk more than other couples, who knows. Maybe we both know that sometimes the pattern is "hey, lets have a drink and then a little something-something" and we are usually okay with that. So on a day where she might not be in a mood she lets me know "hey, I am drinking but not tonight honey" instead of thinking "I don't want to have sex tonight, but if I drink he will think that I want to have sex, I better not drink anything at all".
You can always answer the questions, since I gave a straight forward answer to yours:
So if she said "not tonight" and then you got drunk and had sex, it's not rape?
Does her status as your live-in-girlfriend increase her ability to give consent when intoxicated?
Unless you want your dancing around the subject to stand as your answer.
d-usa wrote: No, I just love my wife and if she tells me "not tonight" before we drink then that is the end of the discussion.
And if she doesn't, and she gets drunk, she's incapable of giving consent, correct? So you raped her if she decided she wanted to have sex after getting drunk.
Rapist.
This might be hard to wrap your head around, but if she let me know "I don't want to have sex tonight" then the fact that she might be drunk later doesn't change that and we don't have sex.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/23 10:38:01
I had to fend off one of my exes with a stick everytime she was drunk - she wouldn't leave me alone. Sometimes I relented and got it over with because I wanted some sleep Does that count as I raped her?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/08/23 10:40:19
Its because ordinance is still a word.
However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.
Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.
Ordnance is high caliber explosives.
No 'I' in ordnance.
Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.
d-usa wrote: We also don't plan sexual encounters hours before we have them. But sometimes one of us knows that we are just not in the mood that day, and we let each other know if that is the case. Maybe we just talk more than other couples, who knows. Maybe we both know that sometimes the pattern is "hey, lets have a drink and then a little something-something" and we are usually okay with that. So on a day where she might not be in a mood she lets me know "hey, I am drinking but not tonight honey" instead of thinking "I don't want to have sex tonight, but if I drink he will think that I want to have sex, I better not drink anything at all".
You can always answer the questions, since I gave a straight forward answer to yours:
You actually didn't. This one's the money one:
Seaward wrote: And if she doesn't, and she gets drunk, she's incapable of giving consent, correct? So you raped her if she decided she wanted to have sex after getting drunk.
So, let's hear it. You don't discuss whether or not you're going to have sex at all until after you're drunk. Rape?
Unless you want your dancing around the subject to stand as your answer.
Oh, I'm quite fine with saying straight-up that I don't think intoxication abrogates all responsibility for your decision-making. Curiously, we as a society don't think that, either, except in this one specific case. Nobody goes, "Well, he was driving drunk, but we shouldn't prosecute him because, as we said, he was drunk, and incapable of making decisions."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: This might be hard to wrap your head around, but if she let me know "I don't want to have sex tonight" then the fact that she might be drunk later doesn't change that and we don't have sex.
Am I using words that are too big or something? We are discussing a situation in which neither one of you has put it in your planner yet whether or not you're going to have sex. You have not discussed it at all, in fact, until after you are drunk.
Rape? It seems you think so, since consent cannot be given while intoxicated. If you're both drunk when you decide to have sex, you're raping each other!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/08/23 10:45:29
marv335 wrote: If you are drunk your judgement is impaired.
If your judgement is impaired, you cannot give consent.
If you cannot give consent it's rape.
My live-in girlfriend and I frequently have sex while drunk.
Are you saying we're raping each other every time we do?
Did she say "we are not going to have sex" before she got drunk?
If so then yes, you are raping her.
Did you say "we are not going to have sex" before you got drunk?
If so then yes, she is raping you.
Were you both sober and decided "let's get drunk and feth"?
If so then yes, this is a stupid question.
My question was:
So if she said "not tonight" and then you got drunk and had sex, it's not rape?
Does her status as your live-in-girlfriend increase her ability to give consent when intoxicated?
d-usa wrote: We also don't plan sexual encounters hours before we have them. But sometimes one of us knows that we are just not in the mood that day, and we let each other know if that is the case. Maybe we just talk more than other couples, who knows. Maybe we both know that sometimes the pattern is "hey, lets have a drink and then a little something-something" and we are usually okay with that. So on a day where she might not be in a mood she lets me know "hey, I am drinking but not tonight honey" instead of thinking "I don't want to have sex tonight, but if I drink he will think that I want to have sex, I better not drink anything at all".
You can always answer the questions, since I gave a straight forward answer to yours:
You actually didn't. This one's the money one:
Seaward wrote: And if she doesn't, and she gets drunk, she's incapable of giving consent, correct? So you raped her if she decided she wanted to have sex after getting drunk.
So, let's hear it. You don't discuss whether or not you're going to have sex at all until after you're drunk. Rape?
Unless you want your dancing around the subject to stand as your answer.
Oh, I'm quite fine with saying straight-up that I don't think intoxication abrogates all responsibility for your decision-making. Curiously, we as a society don't think that, either, except in this one specific case. Nobody goes, "Well, he was driving drunk, but we shouldn't prosecute him because, as we said, he was drunk, and incapable of making decisions."
Your inability to give a simple yes/no answer to that question doesn't make you look very good though.
Oh, I'm quite fine with saying straight-up that I don't think intoxication abrogates all responsibility for your decision-making. Curiously, we as a society don't think that, either, except in this one specific case. Nobody goes, "Well, he was driving drunk, but we shouldn't prosecute him because, as we said, he was drunk, and incapable of making decisions."
Now, for the third time:
Since you believe consent cannot be given while intoxicated, if you and your wife had not discussed sexual intercourse prior to getting drunk and having it, are you raping each other?
Oh, I'm quite fine with saying straight-up that I don't think intoxication abrogates all responsibility for your decision-making. Curiously, we as a society don't think that, either, except in this one specific case. Nobody goes, "Well, he was driving drunk, but we shouldn't prosecute him because, as we said, he was drunk, and incapable of making decisions."
Now, for the third time:
Since you believe consent cannot be given while intoxicated, if you and your wife had not discussed sexual intercourse prior to getting drunk and having it, are you raping each other?
No, because we both know that the usual pattern is "let's drink, and then hanky-panky". We have been married 9 years and 11 months, we know that is how we do things. If either of us says "no" prior to drinking, then wanting to have sex while drunk doesn't change the previously issued "no".
And that has been my answer to your question from the beginning. If either of you says no prior to drinking, then that is the answer that stands even after drinking. If you both know "let's drink and feth" then it's a non-issue.
And while your mini-speech is nice, it's still not a simple "yes/no" to the question: If your gf says no, and then gets drunk, do you think it's rape to sleep with her?
d-usa wrote: No, because we both know that the usual pattern is "let's drink, and then hanky-panky". We have been married 9 years and 11 months, we know that is how we do things.
Unfortunately, that doesn't jive with the notion that consent cannot be given while drunk. Unless you always decide to have sex prior to drinking, which is farcical, then you're simply dodging the issue.
And while your mini-speech is nice, it's still not a simple "yes/no" to the question: If your gf says no, and then gets drunk, do you think it's rape to sleep with her?
Not if she changes her mind, no. Do us both a favor and copy this response in with the question when you ask it another seven or eight times.
No, because we both know that the usual pattern is "let's drink, and then hanky-panky". We have been married 9 years and 11 months, we know that is how we do things. If either of us says "no" prior to drinking, then wanting to have sex while drunk doesn't change the previously issued "no".
And that has been my answer to your question from the beginning. If either of you says no prior to drinking, then that is the answer that stands even after drinking. If you both know "let's drink and feth" then it's a non-issue.
And while your mini-speech is nice, it's still not a simple "yes/no" to the question: If your gf says no, and then gets drunk, do you think it's rape to sleep with her?
Have you both ever changed your minds while you were drunk?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/23 11:26:58
Its because ordinance is still a word.
However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.
Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.
Ordnance is high caliber explosives.
No 'I' in ordnance.
Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.
If were were both toasted then its a green light. If I'm not an she is it depends on how drunk and who she is. If she's totally loaded and this was when I was single then no. If its my wife (since I know my wife) then yes. There's nothing worse then a cranky wife the next morning because I didn't give her any. Plus my wife wants attention, like I'm not going to comply, what are you nuts. I'm going to do my duty as a husband and enjoy every minute of it
Believe it or not most of us don't pre schedule our sexual incounters. Not counting the usual once a week rationing most of us husband's are on.
