Pyr, you seem to be missing the point. They took responsibility for allowing a fly to get into their water bottle, which means they apologized and offered to give him a replacement bottle free of charge.
Exactly the point. And if you accidentally violate someone's consent because they were too drunk to properly consent, you should similarly be prepared to apologize for the mistake and make restitution, not deny that you messed up and blame them for the damage.
No the argument is that while we can take responsibility for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of our actions, we cannot take responsibility for consequences outlandish and extreme totally disproportionate to the underlying event. You, for instance, had earlier been speaking to PTSD like symptoms as a consequence of tipsy sex.
No, I spoke of PTSD as a result of a _consent violation_. The fact taht being tipsy facilitated that violation is completely incidental. What you're claiming I said here directly contradicts what I've repeated my position to be many times over in response to repeated attempts to distort it.
Being drunk does not mean that a consent violation will happen. But it does not excuse a consent violation either. The problem is the consent violation, not the completely incidental state of being drunk. Following from that, if you see that someone is drunk, you should assume that their ability to properly offer consent is compromised and understand the risk that you're taking of doing harm if you go ahead anyway. And, what's more, if you have been drinking and thus know that you cannot trust your own judgement as to whether or not another person is sober enough to consent, you should treat that no differently than if you've been drinking and thus cannot trust your own judgment as to whether you're sober enough to drive.
The baseline should always be, "It's my responsibility to play it safe if I'm compromised" rather than "If they get hurt because they're compromised, it's their own fault" most accidental harm that currently happens can be mitigated, in the same way that that shift in attitude about drunk driving has significantly mitigated accidents.
Note the word violence .
A consent violation is a form of mental/emotional violence for the purposes of that definition (designed to give the general gist of the term and even remotely not be fully inclusive). Accidental harm done by one person to another is still a form of violence, because it's the harm, not the intent taht causes the damage.
You don't get PTSD from having "tipsy sex" and then regretting it the next day.
No, you don't. Which is why it's disingenuous to try to inject those completely irrelevant situations into the conversation, and very hurtful accusation to slander people with who have been hurt. IF you have clear evidence that someone is being dishonest in a given case, it's fine to present that. But to categorically accuse people who have been harmed of dishonesty by making a blanket assertion that harm from consent violations amounts to "regret" is an active contributor to the harm done in such incidents. At that point you've gone past accidentally providing a bottle of water with a fly in it to attacking the person who got the bottle for putting a fly in it and trying to blame it on you.
That is not a normal or common reaction. If you get PTSD from having "tipsy sex", then that would be a bizarre, extreme reaction not typical or "in line with the kind of damage that such situations cause".
Sure, but we're not talking about tipsy sex, we're talking about a consent violation (or even a mutual violation) that happened because one or both were tipsy. If there was not violation, there's no problem, and this situation is out of context. The problem cases are those where a violation occurred, not those were neither party feels like what happened was against their will.
I do notice of course your insertion of the words "date rape" into your statement. The very thing that is at issue is whether or not "tipsy sex" could ever be characterized fairly as "date rape" in the first place. The use of the "R" word to describe sex between mutually intoxicated individuals who otherwise appear to consent (perhaps even enthusiastically) is the very matter in issue.
Non, the issue is the subset of those situations that are otherwise characterized as date rape, not those where no violation occurred. And more to the point, the issue is attempting to trivialize cases of date rape and related misconduct as just fine or the fault of the victim by giving the person who did harm a free pass because the person that was hurt happened to be intoxicated, in this case.
There's a huge difference between "I wouldn't have approved of that if I'd been capable of making decisions properly" and "I approved of that, but now I know that I probably shouldn't have". The former is a consent violation, something that causes harm, and part of what's in context here, the latter is regret and serves as a learning experience, but does not amount to a consent violation, so is completely irrelevant except in that it's very common to slander and do further harm people in the first scenario by accusing them of actually being in the second scenario but looking to hurt others because of it.
Misconduct on its own wouldn't be as big an issue if people that engage in it would own their mistake, apologize for it, and attempt to make reasonable restitution and a good faith effort to prevent future instances, as per the water company, even in cases of mutual misconduct. What drives the response though is the violence inherent in blaming those who were hurt for getting hurt and trying to duck responsibility for causing harm- that social game afterwards is what really damages and undermines trust, and compounds the issue for other people hurt in the same way based on the expectation that they will be mistreated in the same way that they've seen other injured parties be mistreated.
If the guy with the water bottle had the expectation that the water company would have tried to sue him for defamation if he reported or returned the bottle with a fly in it, and perhaps even black listed him with other stores and companies that he needed to do business with because of the fly, then his reaction to finding the fly would be pretty understandable, as his issue would not just be that he got a fly in his water, but the way his life would be destroyed by demonization for having that happen to him.
And the issue is that that's exactly what we do to peopel who've suffered from misconduct that violated their consent- what's even happened here in this thread where people have tried to recast the damage done as, as best, their own fault, if not active malice stemming from regret on their part. This is core to what the point of the more recent article that I posted was. That these violations do real damage to people- both men and women, and we need to take more responsibility for not only recognizing them and trying to avoid them, but also how our dismissive reactions to them contribute to the harm they do and encourage further acceptance of doing such harm to others.
Show Posts
