In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...

[Pyrtolin]

I'm not sure the risk of crashing into a third party is equivalent to someone walking by an open door or window and seeing two drunkards going at it.  Some times there just aren't any good analogies.

Who said anything about witnesses. I mean, there is a risk that someone who is drunk might assault someone who is sober, btu that's even more of an argument for pushing the notion that if you've been drinking you should assume that your ability to make decisions about actions that might hurt others is impaired.

But were talking here about people who take end up taking actions that they aren't actually comfortable with and then come out with some form of PTSD related to it afterwards, not people who are subjected to a direct physical assault in this context.

[Fenring]

But were talking here about people who take end up taking actions that they aren't actually comfortable with and then come out with some form of PTSD related to it afterwards, not people who are subjected to a direct physical assault in this context.

It's funny, I was just chatting with a psychiatrist about PTSD, and he unequivocally described it as an error in thinking. In other words, it's the perception by the mind that there is danger or a current stressor when in fact there is none, and part of the treatment is to get the patient to realize there is, in fact, no present problem any more. The problem is in the false perception of a problem. Which sort of ties back into my comments on your analogy. When a car is crashed and the drivers sustain injuries, there is no question of perception or opinion. There is mechanical damage, period. It's just a terrible analogy when comparing that to people who arguably feel bad, or guilty, or conflicted, or confused, or not sure what they feel, or maybe later have someone suggest to them they were raped, or maybe liked it but they're not sure, etc etc. Even some kind of PTSD is not at all evidence that the PTSD was caused by the other person, even though its inception was coincident to the event of tipsy sex. It may have been triggered by interaction with the other person, but you want to try to draw a line of guilt or responsibility and I see no legitimate way of  you doing so under these circumstances.

[D.W.]

While I consider myself to never be one to "blame the victim" I have an amazingly hard time feeling sorry for anyone who doesn't care for the results of voluntary imbibing of alcohol or drugs.  The idea that if I drink, others are suddenly MORE responsible for making sure I do not harm myself or others is beyond repellent to me.

And that's said as someone who has far more experience than I would ever want caring for and protecting (often from themselves) acquaintances who are drunk and/or high.

There are no take backs.  YOU decide to get wasted, YOU deal with the fallout.  If you are lucky, and around people who care about you, they will likely protect you.  This is probably one of the most selfish acts you can take as an adult and even in "good company" is a gamble.  Some people are *censored*ty enough that even stone cold sober they will take advantage of you.  Intentionally choosing to disadvantage yourself and lower what defenses you have against "bad people" then blaming the world for not protecting you is pathetic.

There's PTSD related to being a true victim and then there is dealing with the sudden reality shattering realization that you are a grown up and your actions have consequences.

[NobleHunter]

But were talking here about people who take end up taking actions that they aren't actually comfortable with and then come out with some form of PTSD related to it afterwards, not people who are subjected to a direct physical assault in this context.

It's funny, I was just chatting with a psychiatrist about PTSD, and he unequivocally described it as an error in thinking. In other words, it's the perception by the mind that there is danger or a current stressor when in fact there is none, and part of the treatment is to get the patient to realize there is, in fact, no present problem any more. The problem is in the false perception of a problem. Which sort of ties back into my comments on your analogy. When a car is crashed and the drivers sustain injuries, there is no question of perception or opinion. There is mechanical damage, period. It's just a terrible analogy when comparing that to people who arguably feel bad, or guilty, or conflicted, or confused, or not sure what they feel, or maybe later have someone suggest to them they were raped, or maybe liked it but they're not sure, etc etc. Even some kind of PTSD is not at all evidence that the PTSD was caused by the other person, even though its inception was coincident to the event of tipsy sex. It may have been triggered by interaction with the other person, but you want to try to draw a line of guilt or responsibility and I see no legitimate way of  you doing so under these circumstances.

Anxiety and depression are also associated with cognitive errors, though in some cases it's a matter of error of process rather than fact.

While I consider myself to never be one to "blame the victim" I have an amazingly hard time feeling sorry for anyone who doesn't care for the results of voluntary imbibing of alcohol or drugs.  The idea that if I drink, others are suddenly MORE responsible for making sure I do not harm myself or others is beyond repellent to me.

One, I question how voluntary the decision to get really trashed is. When sober, I may chose to have 2 or 3 three drinks only to decide to drink more after my judgement is impaired (but I have alcholic tendencies, so I don't know if it applies to a lot of other people).

Two, does one not have a duty to protect and care for people who are vulnerable? Though I think it's important to avoid the construction that such a duty is something imposed on an individual by the vulnerable person.

[D.W.]

Your point 2 is obviously true for many.  Assuming ALL those around you feel that way is, well demonstrably false and dangerous.

I stand by my point however that it is an imposition.  Hell, I've even drank on some evenings for the express purpose of advertising I was NOT their babysitter and a reliable safety net for their actions.  Not that I can say it had any significant effect other than avoiding driving to restock provisions or chauffeur people about...

Your point 1 is a good one as it obviously changes a lot from person to person.  I've intentionally gotten drunk to the point where the room was spinning, have done so to the point of vomiting one or more times and have even decided to make my bed for the evening a front porch couch on a rather chilly fall evening after a party.  All of those times I've never felt out of control mentally, physically impaired most defiantly... But I've never personally blacked out.  Been told I did things by someone and not remember having done it.  I HAVE acted like a damn fool, because everyone around was doing so and we were (or at least I was) giving ourselves permission to do so.

My brother however has on multiple occasions told me he has no memory at all of things he did while wasted.  I have friends who have used dresser drawers or closets as toilets and the like.  Obviously, it's not the same for everyone.  Maybe I'm overly cautious with myself because an addictive personality runs in my family?  In a lot of ways (most of the time) I judge others through my personal standards.  I'm a damn far cry from perfect and without vice, but when I see someone acting totally irresponsibly, I cannot help (not just a turn of phrase) but to believe they are using the situation, booze or drugs as an excuse to do so.

[Pyrtolin]

It's funny, I was just chatting with a psychiatrist about PTSD, and he unequivocally described it as an error in thinking.

Such errors in thinking are mental damage. They don't fix themselves, they require therapy to correct. I mean, we could call a stroke an "error in blood circulation through the brain"; that doesn't make it any less a serious medical issue that requires treatment.

It seems like you're trying to use the wording used to try to describe the issue as a tool to minimize or handwave away the damage.

In other words, it's the perception by the mind that there is danger or a current stressor when in fact there is none, and part of the treatment is to get the patient to realize there is, in fact, no present problem any more.

Indeed. A prior exposure to damage creates an ongoing fear that the damage will recurr, even if there isn't a rational reason to perceive danger in a given situation. That's part of why consent violations are a big deal- they lead to the future belief that one's consent in any given situation isn't relevant and thus eat a way at a person's sense of self worth. They trigger a form of PTSD where a person lives and acts in fear of future violations.

The problem is in the false perception of a problem.

Sure, which is caused by a prior problem that repeats itself over and over. Now you seen to be mistaking the ongoing fear of recurrence of misconduct toward a person who has experienced past misconduct with a suggesting that the past misconduct that triggered the ongoing fear is the thing that didn't happen.

Which sort of ties back into my comments on your analogy. When a car is crashed and the drivers sustain injuries, there is no question of perception or opinion. There is mechanical damage, period.

ANd when someone is the victim of misconduct, there is mental and emotional damage, period, as evidenced by the resultant errors in thinking that project fears on future misconduct on otherwise non-threatening situations in their life.

It's just a terrible analogy when comparing that to people who arguably feel bad, or guilty, or conflicted, or confused, or not sure what they feel, or maybe later have someone suggest to them they were raped, or maybe liked it but they're not sure, etc etc.

Well then good thing no one is trying to create a false narrative of minimization that tries to dishonestly suggest that a person suffering from PTSD after an incident is just feeling regret or guilt. Oh wait, that's exactly the kind of _wonderous_ combination of minimization, victim blaming, and gas lighting that you're applying here. Telling people they aren't feeling what they're feeling because you know better than them what they're feeling, so if they don't bow down to you're superior knowledge of their mental state, they must be being dishonest with themselves and everyone around them. Nice touch taht you polish it off by casting shade on medical professionals who help people taht don't understand that what they're feeling is PTSD sort out what it is that they're experiencing and what may have triggered it by asserting that you know better than them as well what the real problem is.

Here's a hint- if it were just regret taht they were feeling, they'd know what it was pretty clearly; there would be no confusion, and the issue of misconduct would not come up in the first place. It's specifically because they're feeling more than regret over a poor choice that they find themselves in a state where they often need professional help or an external perspective to sort out what's going on.

Even some kind of PTSD is not at all evidence that the PTSD was caused by the other person, even though its inception was coincident to the event of tipsy sex. It may have been triggered by interaction with the other person, but you want to try to draw a line of guilt or responsibility and I see no legitimate way of  you doing so under these circumstances.

Who else are you suggesting caused the violation of their trust that triggered the response? It's possible that it was caused by accident rather than intent (in fact highly likely in most cases) but the fact taht someone accidentally hurt someone else does not mean that they didn't hurt someone else, it just means that they wren't aware or did not intend the consequences their action caused. It suggests that better education and more mindfulness are important factors in preventing future occurrences, but it doesn't magically fix the damage done or need to address it honestly as damage rather than through minimization and blame cast on the person that was hurt.

[Pyrtolin]

The idea that if I drink, others are suddenly MORE responsible for making sure I do not harm myself or others is beyond repellent to me.

That's fair. But that's also why I'm advocating for the position that it's _your_ responsibility to make sure you don't accidentally hurt others. That "I was too drunk to tell that they wren't in a good state to offer consent" is no excuse, because you should be the one that's saying "I've been drinking, and thus not in a good position to make such calls" just like you should be the one that says the same about getting into a car in such a state. It's a community good that we watch out for others and try to help prevent such mistakes from happening, in my opinion- but my point here all along is that everyone should be more mindful of their own behavior and the unintentional harm that it can cause, particularly if they're impaired.

There are no take backs.  YOU decide to get wasted, YOU deal with the fallout.

Dealing with the fallout include honestly assessing and getting help for injuries that you sustain, not pretending that they're not injuries just because yo got them while drunk. It's perfectly fair for a person to come away saying "I should not take that risk again", but it's absurd to say "I should ignore my injuries" as well.

  If you are lucky, and around people who care about you, they will likely protect you.  This is probably one of the most selfish acts you can take as an adult and even in "good company" is a gamble.

Being able to trust others is not selfish, its a societal ideal. The degree to which we have to carry mistrust around as a shield is harm to ourselves and self perpetuating harm to our society, and the only way to fight back against it is to advocate for behavior standards that allow for more trust and thus healthier relationships and interactions instead of continuing to explicitly or even tacitly approve behavior that requires others to have to always be defensive.

It may not be possible to achieve, to be sure, but that's no reason to give up completely and stop pushing toward it.

  Some people are *censored*ty enough that even stone cold sober they will take advantage of you.  Intentionally choosing to disadvantage yourself and lower what defenses you have against "bad people" then blaming the world for not protecting you is pathetic.

Sure. But that's not what's happening here. What's happening is acknowledging that misconduct does harm to others and trying to teach people how to avoid accidentally engaging in it, so that they have more power to choose to avoid it, and thus we can more clearly isolate those taht mean to do harm from those that make mistakes. I mean, even if we got to the point where the response to the average consent violation was a heartfelt apology and an earnest attempt to understand what went wrong and how to avoid it in the future, instead of justifying it as normal behavior and telling the person who was hurt to suck it up, we've be on much better ground and most of the danger would fade pretty quickly. IT's only when we keep telling the people that get hurt that they really weren't hurt or that they're the ones trying to hurt people when they express the harm done to them that we maintain the culture that compounds the damage and destroys trust instead of enough racing peopel to take responsibility for it and builds toward more ability to extend trust to others.

There's PTSD related to being a true victim and then there is dealing with the sudden reality shattering realization that you are a grown up and your actions have consequences.

Absolutely. And ignoring someone's capacity to consent or denying their will has very real and damaging consequences. The way we invalidated consent may differ between men and women in our social constructs, but such invalidation is damaging regardless and contributes to pain and mistrust across the board.

[D.W.]

And ignoring someone's capacity to consent or denying their will has very real and damaging consequences. The way we invalidated consent may differ between men and women in our social constructs, but such invalidation is damaging regardless and contributes to pain and mistrust across the board.

Eroding the validity of peoples affirmative consent also has very real and damaging consequences.

Waving this particular magic wand in an attempt to stop rape may result in equally corrosive effects on society.  There MUST be a better path to eliminate date rape than abolishment of personal responsibility.

Your position strikes me as alarmingly sexists (though statistically relevant) but it’s the infantilizing of adults (even young adults) that concerns me most.

[Pyrtolin]

And ignoring someone's capacity to consent or denying their will has very real and damaging consequences. The way we invalidated consent may differ between men and women in our social constructs, but such invalidation is damaging regardless and contributes to pain and mistrust across the board.

Eroding the validity of peoples affirmative consent also has very real and damaging consequences.

Which is why violations of it need to be taken seriously.

Waving this particular magic wand in an attempt to stop rape may result in equally corrosive effects on society.  There MUST be a better path to eliminate date rape than abolishment of personal responsibility.

Indeed- that's why I push a solution that's specifically about personal responsibility instead of one taht lets people misbehave and then says "It can't be misbehavior since they were too drunk to know better"

Your position strikes me as alarmingly sexists (though statistically relevant) but it’s the infantilizing of adults (even young adults) that concerns me most.

how is it infantilizing to assert that people should be held responsible for damage/harm cause even if they're compromised when they do it? Seems to me that the position that tries to deny that there was any damage done and shelter peopel taht have done harm from facing the consequences of their mistakes in regards to the treatment of others is the one that allows the long established harmful cycle to continue.

[Fenring]

Who else are you suggesting caused the violation of their trust that triggered the response? It's possible that it was caused by accident rather than intent (in fact highly likely in most cases) but the fact taht someone accidentally hurt someone else does not mean that they didn't hurt someone else, it just means that they wren't aware or did not intend the consequences their action caused.

For every deed there is not a doer. Haven't your read your Nietzsche, man? There is simply no need on all occasions to track down someone as the cause of each bad thing in life that happens.

As for the rest of your points, although I always learn from discussing things from you it never ceases to be an annoyance when you dress your replies in such a way that you paint opposing opinions to yours as gaslighting or victimizing people, while your side is given the virtue of being on the side of victims. It's a manipulative rhetorical method (and yes, it is a purely rhetorical rather than dialectical technique) and hampered the quality of conversations with you. Any implication that 'your side' of the argument is more concerned with the general welfare of people than the other side should probably be discarded out of hand. I think it has no place in debate where both sides are supposedly respectful of each other.

[D.W.]

how is it infantilizing to assert that people should be held responsible for damage/harm cause even if they're compromised when they do it? Seems to me that the position that tries to deny that there was any damage done and shelter peopel taht have done harm from facing the consequences of their mistakes in regards to the treatment of others is the one that allows the long established harmful cycle to continue

The infantilizing part is assuming the harm done is caused by the other person because they are there without acknowledging the fact that the harm may be self inflicted. 


Fenring:  I find it more expedient to just put on the monster mask and carry on with the conversation.

[Pyrtolin]

For every deed there is not a doer. Haven't your read your Nietzsche, man? There is simply no need on all occasions to track down someone as the cause of each bad thing in life that happens.

Sure. But we're not talking about every deed, we're talking about a specific deed- in particular one where damage was done due to improper respect for consent. There plenty of situations where the above applies, this is not one of them.

As for the rest of your points, although I always learn from discussing things from you it never ceases to be an annoyance when you dress your replies in such a way that you paint opposing opinions to yours as gaslighting or victimizing people, while your side is given the virtue of being on the side of victims.

So I should accept false and demanding accusations in arguments because its bad form to point out when someone is making false accusations?

It's a manipulative rhetorical method (and yes, it is a purely rhetorical rather than dialectical technique) and hampered the quality of conversations with you.

And dismissing and trivializing the concerns of victims of harm isn't a rhetorical technique? Dismissing the trauma of being subject to misconduct as simply being confused and regretful isn't an attempt to erase the reported experience of others and replace it with your assertions?

Sure they're both rhetorical devices, but there's a difference- mine actually shows respect for people's reported experiences, while yours dismisses that testimony and replaced with your personal assertions of what you think they're feeling.

 

Any implication that 'your side' of the argument is more concerned with the general welfare of people than the other side should probably be discarded out of hand. I think it has no place in debate where both sides are supposedly respectful of each other.

If you were being respectful and not dismissive then I wouldn't find myself needing to point out where you are being dismissive. If you want a respectful discussion, then show respect in the arguments you make instead of being disrespectful and dismissive of others such taht it becomes necessary to point out that disrespect to counter misrepresentations inherent in it.

[D.W.]

Sure. But we're not talking about every deed, we're talking about a specific deed- in particular one where damage was done due to improper respect for consent. There plenty of situations where the above applies, this is not one of them.

Actually we ARE talking about every deed.  Your world view, should accommodate all options.  Your problem (or at least my problem with the way you post) is you speak in absolutes.

Of course nobody can disagree with this position, it's unassailable!
And it usually is.  However myself and others point out the, "what if" or "what about this ramification of taking that line of thought to it's natural conclusion?"  We DO talk about every deed.  Or at least we talk about how a particular notion or world view or thought should accommodate other possibilities.  Some of those possibilities contradict the point made or view expressed. 

Rather than adjust or moderate or clarify, you double down. 

[Fenring]

Fenring:  I find it more expedient to just put on the monster mask and carry on with the conversation.

Ok I'll try it out:

And dismissing and trivializing the concerns of victims of harm isn't a rhetorical technique? Dismissing the trauma of being subject to misconduct as simply being confused and regretful isn't an attempt to erase the reported experience of others and replace it with your assertions?

Sure they're both rhetorical devices, but there's a difference- mine actually shows respect for people's reported experiences, while yours dismisses that testimony and replaced with your personal assertions of what you think they're feeling.

Blargh!

[Pyrtolin]

how is it infantilizing to assert that people should be held responsible for damage/harm cause even if they're compromised when they do it? Seems to me that the position that tries to deny that there was any damage done and shelter peopel taht have done harm from facing the consequences of their mistakes in regards to the treatment of others is the one that allows the long established harmful cycle to continue

The infantilizing part is assuming the harm done is caused by the other person because they are there without acknowledging the fact that the harm may be self inflicted. 

How can one violate one's own trust and validity of consent in this case? I mean there are things people can do to create self-doubt in their own capabilities, to be sure, but that's not the kind of harm hat's in question here, but rather very specifically the kind of harm that arises from others acting toward you in ways that one would not consent to if you were properly able to express it.

You seen to be suggesting taht you cannot both acknowledge taht you were responsible for being in a compromised situation and also acknowledge that someone else hurt you while you were in that situation. The two are not mutually exclusive; one does not negate the other. Making a bad call does not justify harm done to you even if you would have been better able to defend yourself if you hadn't made that call. Hurting someone is wrong regardless of whether that person has put them selves into a position where it's easy to hurt them; in fact being in that position makes it _more_ incumbent o others to be careful not to accidentally hurt them.

If you trip and fall while crossing the street, that doesn't make it okay for me to run you over;' just the opposite, it means that I need take care to stop and give you more time to get out of the way than you would have needed if you had kept your balance. If you were doing something- maybe reading FAcebook on your phone while you crossed the street, and that caused you to miss your footing and fall, that is definitely a mistake on your part, but even taht wouldn't absolve me from culpability if I did not make an effort to avoid hitting you.

[D.W.]

How can one violate one's own trust and validity of consent in this case?

  Your use of “in this case” torpedoes this question before I even have a chance to answer it.  You have a VERY specific scenario in your mind.  You are asking me to apply my broad statement of one possible situation to the one in your mind.  You miss (intentionally or not) the whole point of my statement.

How can one EVER violate one’s own trust and decide that if sober you would never have chosen to make the same choices?  If that is your question, I am placed in the awkward position of trying to phrase “Duh, how can you not see that?” into a well mannered rebuttal. 

[Pyrtolin]

How can one violate one's own trust and validity of consent in this case?

  Your use of “in this case” torpedoes this question before I even have a chance to answer it.  You have a VERY specific scenario in your mind.  You are asking me to apply my broad statement of one possible situation to the one in your mind.  You miss (intentionally or not) the whole point of my statement.

I though I was the one being overly broad in your complaint above? You can't have it both ways here- either take me at my word that I'm talking about a specific issue (violations of consent, specifically in regard to sexual activity) or that I'm talking in absolutes about everything. So far as I'm concerned the effect of being drunk on ones judgement is not really relevant here in as much as it's being put forward as an example of something that can affect one's ability to offer consent to sex. The fact that it might lead one to do other foolish or self-harmful things doesn't really have much bearing on the actual topic issue, and certainly doesn't obviate the harm that can arise from obtaining consent from someone in a compromised state.

If you stepped on my toe by accident, it doesn't really matter that I could also have hurt my toe by stubbing it on something and thus, because it was an accident, I must be the one at fault because you didn't mean to step on it. The scenario is still one where you stepped on my toe, not one where I acted alone and hit something with my foot.

[D.W.]

I’ll just spell this out.
1.  I believe that being drunk yourself does not make one blameless for, or excuse, taking advantage of someone in a drunk state.
2.  I believe that someone who regrets having had sex while drunk, having chosen to become drunk, is not automatically a victim.
3.  I believe that it is entirely plausible, possibly even most likely, that two drunk individuals engaging in sex together involves no exploitation, manipulation or act of harm.  In such a situation, any “harm” is likely better labeled remorse for one’s own actions.  That doesn’t make the harm any less real or serious, but it makes it exclusively the problem of the “harmed” individual.

Your statements seem to indicate that #3 is not plausible.  I was only attempting to get you to acknowledge it is.

If it is your suggestion that being drunk makes it impossible to consent.  To me at least, this logically leads to it being the responsibility of anyone else to evaluate if a potential partner is drunk.  OK, I’m still with you this far.  But how drunk is drunk?  I do not carry a breathalyzer.  Should I?  Does any drinking at all negate the ability to consent?  If you are suggesting all sex while under the influence should be illegal is wrong, just say that.  I don’t agree, but your position would be clear. 

As to intoxication not being the issue, I’m lost.  Unless you mean to say we are going back to the original topic of this thread?  The suggestion that affirmative consent is not legitimate consent was what I was focusing on.  It only seems a topic worth discussing as it relates to mental impairment either through physical trauma, illness or intoxication.

If you stepped on my toe by accident, it doesn't really matter that I could also have hurt my toe by stubbing it on something and thus, because it was an accident, I must be the one at fault because you didn't mean to step on it. The scenario is still one where you stepped on my toe, not one where I acted alone and hit something with my foot.

I would suggest we look at two people with heads down staring at their phones blundering right into each other on the side walk.  They share equal fault.  Suddenly one shouts that the other walked into them and they are the victim.  We as a society see the results of the collision, hear one person claiming victim-hood and our natural reaction is to console, comfort or help the person claiming to have been wronged and to condemn, punish or at least scowl disapprovingly at the other stunned party.  If the accused claims they were both at fault, it will reliably have little result to improve the situation for them or reduce sympathy towards the other person claiming to have been the victim. 

We are often held hostage by our own empathy.  Knowing this, I am hesitant to support a system which allows others to easily exploit that fact.  At the same time, you are attempting to address a serious issue for which I don't have a silver bullet solution for.

[Fenring]

If you stepped on my toe by accident, it doesn't really matter that I could also have hurt my toe by stubbing it on something and thus, because it was an accident, I must be the one at fault because you didn't mean to step on it. The scenario is still one where you stepped on my toe, not one where I acted alone and hit something with my foot.

You will never adequately address human interaction if you remain obsessed with someone necessarily being at fault when a bad thing happens. Incidentally this is also the reason why your comments lends themselves to legal interpretations, since the desire to establish fault is largely a legal concern rather than a social one. Even if you're not speaking about the law the legal aspect ends up being implied whether or not you intend to. Establishing guilt in social interactions (rather than 'were you kind/nice') seems to me generally reserved for religious pronouncements rather than ethical guidelines.

[D.W.]

Just to be clear, in your scenario the toe stepper is at fault and I am not suggesting they aren't.  I'm not suggesting that any failure to protect your toes against anyone who may accidentally or intentionally try to step on them leaves you to blame.  Choosing a drunk dance partner while you yourself are drinking then complaining about sore toes the next day IS a little suspect though.

[Pyrtolin]

1.  I believe that being drunk yourself does not make one blameless for, or excuse, taking advantage of someone in a drunk state.

That is the point

2.  I believe that someone who regrets having had sex while drunk, having chosen to become drunk, is not automatically a victim.

Absolutely. That's also irrelevant because regret is not the same as the kind of trauma in question and it's dishonest to accuse someone that has suffered harm of acting badly because of regret.

3.  I believe that it is entirely plausible, possibly even most likely, that two drunk individuals engaging in sex together involves no exploitation, manipulation or act of harm.

Absolutely. Again, no one has contested this. It's also possible to drive home while drunk and not get into an accident. That might even happen the majority of times people do it. The issue at had is ths greatly increased risk over baseline that the safe scenario doesn't play out.

  In such a situation, any “harm” is likely better labeled remorse for one’s own actions.  That doesn’t make the harm any less real or serious, but it makes it exclusively the problem of the “harmed” individual.

This is where you cross over into minimizing, because remorse is not harm. Recasting remorse at harm is disrespectful of those that have been harmed, because you're actively denying their experience and, at best, inserting your own narrative in place of their own testimony of what they experienced. At words you're accusing them of duplicity and trying to do harm to the person that hurt them.

If you are suggesting all sex while under the influence should be is wrong, just say that.  I don’t agree, but your position would be clear. 

It's not necessarily wrong. It simply bears a much greater risk of doing harm, and one should both acknowledge taht risk and be prepared to react accordingly if harm is done, rather than attempting to blame the other person for the harm that they suffered. It's even possible that mutual harm can be done, in which case both parties should seek to rectify the situation rather than attempting to minimize and dismiss the hurt of the other by denying their experiences.

I would suggest we look at two people with heads down staring at their phones blundering right into each other on the side walk.  They share equal fault.

Equal fault? Sure. Equal harm? No necessarily. And it's actively disrespectful and compounds the harm to try to pretend that no harm was done just because they were equally at fault. They still did harm to each other and still should react in proportion to the harm done, not attempt to absolve themselves of their role in hurting the other person simply because the other person was also distracted.

Suddenly one shouts that the other walked into them and they are the victim.

No. Suddenly one shouts "I think I broke my arm"while the other begins to insist taht it's impossible that they have a broken arm any they're lying just to get attention and get the person not so badly injured in trouble. Despite the fact taht the more hurt person's arm is, indeed, broken. Now the person with the broken are may be okay with taking care of the injury on their own terms, but for the other person to use that as an excuse to lay the blame on the hurt person and refuse to even apologize for their role because it's possible that the injured person might have walked into a wall and suffered the same injury? That's very much what's been happening in the arguments above. "Well the victim really wasn't hurt, but if they were, then it's entirely their own fault for getting hurt" both assertions are not only wrong, but perniciously so.

  If the accused claims they were both at fault, it will reliably have little result to improve the situation for them or reduce sympathy towards the other person claiming to have been the victim. 

It's not the uncontested notion that both were at fault that's at issue, though. It's the attempt the one party to deny that harm was done and often then proceeded to put full responsibility for the harm on the other person who was hurt instead of sharing culpability and, at the bare minimum apologizing for their error.

[Pyrtolin]

You will never adequately address human interaction if you remain obsessed with someone necessarily being at fault when a bad thing happens.

HEy, you can keep making completely false accusations, then step back and talk about respect too, and taht won't get us anywhere either.

We're not talking about any bad thing, we're talking about a specific bad thing, one where one person has hurt another, or two people have hurt each other, even if accidentally

There are plenty of situations where no one is at fault, but we're not talking about those situations and it's dishonest hand waving to point to those as if they were relevant.

Establishing guilt in social interactions (rather than 'were you kind/nice') seems to me generally reserved for religious pronouncements rather than ethical guidelines.

Then stop injecting guilt into what I'm saying. If I want to talk about guilt I'll bring it up. The fact taht you may want me to be talking about guilt when I haven't brought it up doesn't mean that you should try to jam it in wherever you feel like you want to, then pretend you're addressing what I've actually said.

[Gaoics79]

No. Suddenly one shouts "I think I broke my arm"while the other begins to insist taht it's impossible that they have a broken arm any they're lying just to get attention and get the person not so badly injured in trouble. Despite the fact taht the more hurt person's arm is, indeed, broken. Now the person with the broken are may be okay with taking care of the injury on their own terms, but for the other person to use that as an excuse to lay the blame on the hurt person and refuse to even apologize for their role because it's possible that the injured person might have walked into a wall and suffered the same injury? That's very much what's been happening in the arguments above. "Well the victim really wasn't hurt, but if they were, then it's entirely their own fault for getting hurt" both assertions are not only wrong, but perniciously so.

Pyr, your comment got me to recalling a fun case that my old firm acted on:

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/4637/index.do

In Mustapha v. Culligan water, Mr. Mustapha, the plaintiff, purchased one of those jugs of water you put in dispensers for his household. Culligan Water prided itself on its reputation for purity, which formed a significant part of its marketing.

One day, Mr. Mustapha noted a dead fly in his bottle. The bottle was unopened. He did not drink the water with the fly in it as the bottle remained unopened. His sole contact with the fly was seeing it floating in the bottle.

Following this event, Mr. Mustapha deteriorated psychologically. He could not get the image of the fly out of his head. He was unable to shower due to the association between water and the fly. His life deteriorated. His hair salon business suffered.

He sued Culligan Water for his pain and suffering and various other heads of damage, etc...

Now Culligan was plainly at fault, and based on the medical and psychiatric evidence, their negligence caused Mr. Mustapha's condition, which was real and not fabricated or malingered.

So was Culligan Water legally responsible?

I do see some parallels here between Pyr's reasoning and cases like Mustapha. At what point does someone's subjective reaction to an injury become so extreme, so outrageous, that a person, however guilty of the underlying cause, cannot be held responsible?

[Fenring]

We're not talking about any bad thing, we're talking about a specific bad thing, one where one person has hurt another, or two people have hurt each other, even if accidentally

Actually no, you're the one insisting that we're talking about that. In fact *we* are trying to establish whether or not it can credibly be stated that one person hurt the other or directly caused hurt to occur to the other, and your objection to this line of inquiry is that we're dodging the issue of the fact that one person has hurt another. Do you see the disconnect? You are asserting the conclusion of your argument as a premise and requiring us to assert it along with you in determining how to assess what is going on when two tipsy people have sex.

Establishing guilt in social interactions (rather than 'were you kind/nice') seems to me generally reserved for religious pronouncements rather than ethical guidelines.

Then stop injecting guilt into what I'm saying. If I want to talk about guilt I'll bring it up.

You are playing a very tenuous word game when you want to speak of one person having done something wrong, and in so doing having directly caused harm to another, and yet insist this isn't about finding guilt. You even employ the word "victim" and seek to find out who is "at fault." If you can use these terms and yet claim to not be speaking of guilt, perhaps I should specify that I was using guilt in the sense of 'the guilty party', meaning the person who is at fault. I know you have a hangup about suggesting that anyone should feel guilt about anything, and so I hope this clarifies.

[Pyrtolin]

At what point does someone's subjective reaction to an injury become so extreme, so outrageous, that a person, however guilty of the underlying cause, cannot be held responsible?

I'm not sure how it matters, because so long as the company admits that it made an error, apologizes, and takes future action to better ensure that such errors are prevented, we're already at the basically acceptable point that I'm talking about here, particularly where no legal claim has been filed. Should the issue be taken up in court, there are existing methods for figuring how just how the costs of the damage should be apportioned or if there is any criminal liability, but that's way out of context here.

The company didn't claim that he was at fault for the fly in the water because he was the one that bought the bottle. It admitted that the fly was its error, and hopefully attempted to rectify the error on reasonable terms. The arguments above amount to claiming that the man was at fault for buying a bottle of water with a fly in it, and that the shock it caused him was merely "regret" for making a poor choice of water bottles to buy.

But note, also, that we're talking about a level of damage seems like it's above and beyond what the average person might suffer given that they found a fly in a water bottle, but even that's an armchair analysis, not one informed by professional experience. On the other hand, the kind of PTSD in question from the consent related misconduct in the drunk/date rape scenario is exactly in line with the kind of damage that such situations cause, and similar damage exists in the completely sober scenarios posited in the two articles that have been referred to so far in this thread.

[Gaoics79]

I'm not sure how it matters, because so long as the company admits that it made an error, apologizes, and takes future action to better ensure that such errors are prevented, we're already at the basically acceptable point that I'm talking about here, particularly where no legal claim has been filed. Should the issue be taken up in court, there are existing methods for figuring how just how the costs of the damage should be apportioned or if there is any criminal liability, but that's way out of context here.

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. They didn't take responsibility for Mr. Mustapha's bizarre over the top reaction to this event. And while the trial judge held the company liable for his damages, the appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, did not.

The company didn't claim that he was at fault for the fly in the water because he was the one that bought the bottle. It admitted that the fly was its error, and hopefully attempted to rectify the error on reasonable terms. The arguments above amount to claiming that the man was at fault for buying a bottle of water with a fly in it, and that the shock it caused him was merely "regret" for making a poor choice of water bottles to buy

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. That would be insane. Note, I don't call it impossible. I simply say that no one should be held responsible (criminally, civilly or otherwise) for such a bizarre, outlandish response.

But note, also, that we're talking about a level of damage seems like it's above and beyond what the average person might suffer given that they found a fly in a water bottle, but even that's an armchair analysis, not one informed by professional experience. On the other hand, the kind of PTSD in question from the consent related misconduct in the drunk/date rape scenario is exactly in line with the kind of damage that such situations cause, and similar damage exists in the completely sober scenarios posited in the two articles that have been referred to so far in this thread.

Ahhh, here we go.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a mental illness. It involves exposure to trauma involving death or the threat of death, serious injury, or sexual violence.

Note the word violence . You don't get PTSD from having "tipsy sex" and then regretting it the next day. 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". And don't tell me I've insufficient expertise to speak to this. You are the one making the claim, so you defend it. I've spoken with enough psychiatric experts about PTSD to have a general idea of what causes it. Having "tipsy sex" is not a usual cause.

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.

[Pyrtolin]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

I don't know why you're dancing around your real view on this and refusing to just come out and say what you think. Your position is clearly that sex while either party has even had one drink is wrong and should never happen. Your attempt to specify that being drunk doesn't mean that a consent violation will happen is mere doublespeak when you are quite clear that being drunk makes you incapable of consent. You've suggested particular cases where there is a pre-established standing rule (such as in a relationship) where sex will be accepted and that therefore consent is not required in a given instance. But not only is this exception totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but is it probably specious in the first place. I know of no legal or moral precedent to suggest that consent isn't needed in a given session of sex within a relationship. In each and every instance of sex there is consent, even if it comes in the form of reciprocating, nodding, smiling, or whatever else. If you are arguing that being intoxicated renders a person incompetent to consent then this MUST apply in all cases across the board. You cannot sign away in advance your right to not consent in the event you are intoxicated in the future.

So why not just admit that you are against sex if a single drop of alcohol has been consumed? It would be a consistent position, even if extraordinarily puritanical. But right now it doesn't seem like you're being entirely honest about your position, dancing around definitions of words to avoid making it clear what you really think.

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.

You don't get to tell us what we are trying to argue. It doesn't work like that, sorry. You made some statements regarding consent and what counts as rape, and we are presently (some of us are) contesting your claims about whether or not there was consent. That is the issue. You can't say it isn't because it's the issue we brought up. It is also not coherent to say that this only applies to cases where claims of rape are alleged, because if you're right that consent doesn't exist after one drop of alcohol then all cases of sex under such conditions ought to count as non-consensual sex, whether or not anyone felt violated or infringed upon afterward. As others have mentioned, the idea that someone's feelings after the fact can retroactively affect whether or not there was consent not only defies logic but is also a reprehensible notion. Since I, at least, reject that this can be the case the possible lack of consent must have occurred right at the moment sex began, and prior to any harm that may have been incurred. The harm is what you're concerned about, but the harm itself is immaterial in establishing whether or not there was consent.

[D.W.]

Pyr, you are discussing the proper response to consent violation.
We are discussing how to establish if consent violation occurred.

The answer cannot be (in my opinion), “It happened because one party said it happened.”  That is far too easily abused.

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.

I actually agree with this.  I just KNOW it is an extremely unorthodox position.  While I try to hold myself to this standard, I feel it borders on ridiculous to hold others to it.  As I see this as an untenable solution, I attempted to shift the discussion away from, “What is the response when it happens.”, to instead, “What is a reasonable way to improve public safety that we have a chance of achieving without attempting to institute prohibition 2.0?”

[Gary238]

I think that part of the problem here is that drunken, consentual, but regretted sex can be very traumatic and harmful. Consent and harm aren't mutually exclusive.

I agree with you-all that getting into an impaired state and having sex, particularly with someone else who is impaired, is a bad idea. I'm not sure I think it's morally wrong, and I definitely don't believe it would be practical to make it illegal.

[Pyrtolin]

So why not just admit that you are against sex if a single drop of alcohol has been consumed?

Driving when it's raining is more dangerous than driving when the whether is good. If I say that you should be more careful when it's raining because you're still responsible for any accident you cause if you lose control in the rain, that's not saying that I want it to be illegal to drive in the rain. You can argue up and down that if I want to hold people responsible for causing accidents in t he rain instead of just saying that whoever got hit should be considered at fault because they also chose to be out in the rain and knew there was greater danger of someone driving irresponsibly, it doesn't make that the position that I'm taking. It just makes it seem like you want a legal blessing to drive however you want to when it's raining without having to take responsibility for any damage you may cause.

I'm not going to cop to your dishonest straw man just because it would make you feel like you were right. The law doesn't define right and wrong, or even what constitutes harm- it's a tool to give formal recourse to those that have been harmed in ways that our society has promised to protect them from.

It's not impossible to offer consent when drunk- it's impossible for another party to know for certain if consent was actually offered if someone is drunk. Familiarity and past agreements, cues, and the like can help in that situation, but only the person nominally offering knows for sure, and then only upon sober reflection on the matter.

Law is a tool to protect people who get hurt, not a tool to help justify acting in ways that hurt others, so from a legal standpoint, is should presume that someone who has been harmed by lack of consent was unable to properly communicate their lack of consent if they were drunk, not try to erase that harm by blaming them for anything that happened to them because they were drunk.

But the important thing is that the law defines the actual harmful act as illegal, not circumstances completely incidental to the harm. BEing drunk is completely incidental to whether consent was actually offered or not. IF can contribute to a confusing signal, but it's the responsibility of the person receiving that signal to sort taht out, not of the law to preemptively declare or deny that harm was done because of that confusion.

Drunken sex isn't the problem, consent violations are the problem. Being drunk isn't an excuse that magically makes a consent violation disappear, and victim blaming- trying to make the violation the fault of the person whose consent was violated, rather than the person who violated it compounds the harm.

Your attempt to specify that being drunk doesn't mean that a consent violation will happen is mere doublespeak when you are quite clear that being drunk makes you incapable of consent.

It _compromises_ one's ability to offer meaningful consent. That doesn't have a direct relationship to whether you actually consent, just whether you can properly express whether or not you consent.

You can't say it isn't because it's the issue we brought up. It is also not coherent to say that this only applies to cases where claims of rape are alleged, because if you're right that consent doesn't exist after one drop of alcohol then all cases of sex under such conditions ought to count as non-consensual sex, whether or not anyone felt violated or infringed upon afterward.

Right in a conversation about the harms of consent violations, you brought up accusations that people are being dishonest about whether their consent was violated and tried to inject justification of victim blaming into the mix by saying that some consent violations aren't really consent violations because you can effectively put aside personal responsibility to avoid hurting people if the person that gets hurt is drunk, then tried to use the fact that a given scenario can happen without a consent violation as a way to assert that consent violations can't happen under those circumstances.

[Pyrtolin]

Pyr, you are discussing the proper response to consent violation.
We are discussing how to establish if consent violation occurred.

The answer cannot be (in my opinion), “It happened because one party said it happened.”  That is far too easily abused.

That's the only valid answer, unless you have evidence to prove that they're being dishonest. Put a price on abusing it if you want to prevent abuse, but anything short of that compounds the harm and legitimizes violating the consent of others.

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.

I actually agree with this.  I just KNOW it is an extremely unorthodox position.  While I try to hold myself to this standard, I feel it borders on ridiculous to hold others to it.  As I see this as an untenable solution, I attempted to shift the discussion away from, “What is the response when it happens.”, to instead, “What is a reasonable way to improve public safety that we have a chance of achieving without attempting to institute prohibition 2.0?”

It's not unreasonable to hold others to it, or help others observe it at all, any more than it's unreasonable to hold others to the expectation that they'll use the same baseline reasoning for not driving while drunk. The only reason that it seems unreasonable is because of cultural pressure to continue justifying misconduct instead of discouraging it. And the only way to change that is through advocacy and education- getting people to understand the risks and damage so that they help set and maintain a new standard. You don't need prohibition, just a better understand of what responsible behavior is and encouragement to support it.

[Pyrtolin]

I think that part of the problem here is that drunken, consentual, but regretted sex can be very traumatic and harmful.

There are many ways that people can get hurt, to be sure, but those aren't the kinds of harm that come from consent violations. And telling people that they're experiencing the former when they're experiencing the latter is like treating someone's left hand for a burn when when they've broken their right leg and insisting that you know better than they do what's wrong with them.

[Fenring]

Right in a conversation about the harms of consent violations, you brought up accusations that people are being dishonest about whether their consent was violated and tried to inject justification of victim blaming into the mix by saying that some consent violations aren't really consent violations because you can effectively put aside personal responsibility to avoid hurting people if the person that gets hurt is drunk, then tried to use the fact that a given scenario can happen without a consent violation as a way to assert that consent violations can't happen under those circumstances.

If you're not going to reply honestly to questions asked you will just end up making your position look ridiculous. Your views tend to be light years away from my own and yet I always attempt to plumb your reasoning as far as it will go to see how you construct your ideas and to see the other perspective. But when you're not honest about what questions have actually been posed and instead insist on replying to issues that have not been brought up by anyone other than you, the discussion has effectively ended. We could go round and round arguing over what it is we're arguing over, but I'll cut my losses on this one and bow out.

[D.W.]

That's the only valid answer, unless you have evidence to prove that they're being dishonest.

For consent violation (the manslaughter version of murder when it comes to the rape scale?) You advocate guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion, law or both?

The only reason that it seems unreasonable is because of cultural pressure to continue justifying misconduct instead of discouraging it. And the only way to change that is through advocacy and education- getting people to understand the risks and damage so that they help set and maintain a new standard. You don't need prohibition, just a better understand of what responsible behavior is and encouragement to support it.

To make such a statement suggests our cultures are either incredibly different, or you have chosen to focus on an ideal utopia, so far down the hypothetical road that we need literal magic to bridge the gap between where we are now and where your points are relevant.  Yet any discussion about the steps between are brushed off as meaningless.

Your noble attempt to reduce the amount of harm being done invites chaos and gross injustice in the hopes that it is just a brief regrettable but necessary step in reaching an ideal.

[Pyrtolin]

That's the only valid answer, unless you have evidence to prove that they're being dishonest.

For consent violation (the manslaughter version of murder when it comes to the rape scale?) You advocate guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion, law or both?

Neither. I advocate respect and taking people at heir word in terms of interpersonal relationships. Such matters only become legal issues when interpersonal resolution fails.

IF it does go to court then I do absolutely support innocent until proven guilty- but that means that the person hurt needs to show that the person they say violated their consent did, in fact do that thing. (Imagine a parallel for a theft case- if person A wants to accuse person B of theft, they have to prove that person B has or at least took the thing. If person B wants to claim that they had permission to take it, it's incumbent upon person B to prove that. They cannot claim that they had permission then force person B to prove that they did not grant permission)

The claim that the person is lying about having consented is a positive claim that the other person has to prove, or else the innocent until proven guilty standard is violated, otherwise the only valid testimony as to whether it was given can come from the only person who actually knows if they gave it or not.

The only reason that it seems unreasonable is because of cultural pressure to continue justifying misconduct instead of discouraging it. And the only way to change that is through advocacy and education- getting people to understand the risks and damage so that they help set and maintain a new standard. You don't need prohibition, just a better understand of what responsible behavior is and encouragement to support it.

To make such a statement suggests our cultures are either incredibly different, or you have chosen to focus on an ideal utopia, so far down the hypothetical road that we need literal magic to bridge the gap between where we are now and where your points are relevant. 

It's only in an ideal utopia that people can understand that drinking and driving is unsafe and make the basic social standard one that recognizes that fact and actively encourages people to act with that in mind? The facts of the world disagree with that- just the opposite, once we made a point of acknowledging and educating people as to that fact, it seems to have caught on pretty well, even if people still do make mistakes. It's absurd to say that pushing for the same respect for others in regards to sexual consent can't similarly be pushed for.

Your noble attempt to reduce the amount of harm being done invites chaos and gross injustice in the hopes that it is just a brief regrettable but necessary step in reaching an ideal.

How is expecting people to behave in a responsible and respectful manner inviting chaos? Accountability is about as far from chaos as you can get.

[D.W.]

IF it does go to court then I do absolutely support innocent until proven guilty- but that means that the person hurt needs to show that the person they say violated their consent did, in fact do that thing. (Imagine a parallel for a theft case- if person A wants to accuse person B of theft, they have to prove that person B has or at least took the thing. If person B wants to claim that they had permission to take it, it's incumbent upon person B to prove that. They cannot claim that they had permission then force person B to prove that they did not grant permission)

This is where I find fault for the whole idea.  We treat sex as an object or a goal.  One person is attempting to obtain it or “score” and the other person is attempting to retain it or “defend”.  While we on rare occasion break this out of traditional gender roles, it does not allow for the concept of sex as a mutual act that two adults can just enjoy with each other.  It seems to suggest that at best they can use each other and be OK with being used a little in return. 

If someone came to me and said, “We had WAY too much to drink last night, I think you took advantage of me.”  After an “Haha <wink>… Oh *censored*!  You are being serious?” the next step is calling your lawyer.  Not sitting down having a good long conversation about how you can be more respectful to each other as individuals moving forward.

How is expecting people to behave in a responsible and respectful manner inviting chaos? Accountability is about as far from chaos as you can get.

OK… if you don’t see chaos, I’m not sure how I could convince you.  How about extinction level event? 

You are making an interesting argument against legal intoxicants.  The idea behind restricting drunk driving is that you are a danger to more than just yourself when intoxicated.  We have given people the right to impair themselves but not the right to put others at risk while doing so.  That is the line we chose to draw. 

You are suggesting that we redraw that line.  Not only should the law protect innocent bystanders from the intoxicated but the law should protect the intoxicated from themselves.  The most simple (and only logical) way to do this is to prohibit them from becoming intoxicated in the first place.

[Pyrtolin]

This is where I find fault for the whole idea.  We treat sex as an object or a goal.  One person is attempting to obtain it or “score” and the other person is attempting to retain it or “defend”.  While we on rare occasion break this out of traditional gender roles, it does not allow for the concept of sex as a mutual act that two adults can just enjoy with each other.  It seems to suggest that at best they can use each other and be OK with being used a little in return. 

Indeed- which is exactly what comes of a culture that encourages people to try to cast blame on the the victims of consent violations on the person that was hurt. Instead of being able to trust that other people are doing their best to behave responsibly and can counted on to respect and acknowledge harm if they accidentally cause it, we have to constantly be on our guard not only from harm from others, but from people who will accuse us of being at fault if we get hurt.

That attitude is part and parcel of what people are trying to fix when they talk about trying to end rape culture. To not only end the bad effects of being under threat, but also the bad effects of constantly having to be on the defense.

If someone came to me and said, “We had WAY too much to drink last night, I think you took advantage of me.”  After an “Haha <wink>… Oh *censored*!  You are being serious?” the next step is calling your lawyer.  Not sitting down having a good long conversation about how you can be more respectful to each other as individuals moving forward.

And, of the two options, do you believe that's was better? Wouldn't it be better to apologize up front, talk about where things when wrong and how to avoid similar mistakes in the future, then move on with a better understanding of where each of your boundaries lie without having to involve the legal system at all?

OK… if you don’t see chaos, I’m not sure how I could convince you.  How about extinction level event? 

I've heard many, many abused reactions to suggesting that people should show each other respect and take responsibility for their actions, but usually it;'s the opposite that people claim will lead to extinction. I don't get at all how responsibility and civility lead to chaos and extinction.

[Pyrtolin]

The idea behind restricting drunk driving is that you are a danger to more than just yourself when intoxicated.

You're confusing the reason for restricting drunk driving and the reason for legal penalties for drunk driving.

We _socailly_ restrict drunk driving to protect people themselves and others from harm. If I see you're too drunk to drive, I stop you from doing it as much for you as for anyone else on the road.

Our legal penalties are focused specifically on external damage and harm, because teh _law_ really doesn't have much business telling you what you can do to yourself (with all kinds of exceptions, many of which really shouldn't be laws, to be sure). BUt I'm not talking about law here, no matter how much people keep trying to change the subject to what should or shouldn't be _legal_. Just about proper an improper interpersonal behavior. The law only becomes a factor when you have interpersonal harm that people cannot equitably resolve between themselves on their own terms.

[D.W.]

Instead of being able to trust that other people are doing their best to behave responsibly and can counted on to respect and …

That attitude is part and parcel of what people are trying to fix when they talk about trying to end rape culture. To not only end the bad effects of being under threat, but also the bad effects of constantly having to be on the defense.

You are a very goal-centric conversationalist.  I am trying to get us from A (reality) to B (proposals) to C (more ideal situation) and I might end up somewhere at a finish line which resembles where you have started the conversation. 
 

And, of the two options, do you believe that's was better? Wouldn't it be better to apologize up front, talk about where things when wrong and how to avoid similar mistakes in the future, then move on with a better understanding of where each of your boundaries lie without having to involve the legal system at all?

Let’s play this out.
1:  We drank too much and you took advantage of me last night.
2:  Wait, we both agreed to have sex.  Didn’t we?
1:  I was drunk!  That I never suggested we have sex while sober doesn’t tell you anything?
2:  I assumed you wanted to, and were drinking to overcome your shyness…
1:  That’s ridiculous.  I can’t believe this happened!
2:  I’m sorry, I understand if you don’t want to have a physical relationship.

You suggest that by apologizing you are offering comfort and attempting to heal harm inflicted (even if it wasn’t intentional).  Instead, you are accepting the responsibility for a mutual act.  You aren’t mitigating harm, you are absolving the other party of guilt.  Now, in some situations being the bigger person and just taking on that burden for the benefit of the person who is ill equipped to handle responsibility for their own actions and habits is just a golly-gee nifty thing to do for someone!  In this case however, making that offer (one I find as condescending and innately harmful to start with) to the person also has another effect.

They have, intentionally or not threatened you.  Instead of defending yourself, you suggest the best course is to bear your neck and hope for mercy.  They threatened you with potential legal harm.  They threatened you with potential societal harm.  They threatened you with emotional blackmail.

So out of the two options.  Putting on your cloths, not saying a word and calling your lawyer is the FAR better solution to the un-envious problem of realizing you just had sex with a crazy person.

You do not solve a problem as serious as date rape by telling women that, if they drank, they are raped by default; unless they decide they are cool with the sex; oh, and they can change their answer at any time.  You have over-corrected and the result is ugly.  Not as ugly as ACTUAL rape, which is the only reason I cut you any slack and continue this discussion.

The extinction crack was you were making it so risky to have sex that people may opt out.  At least for heterosexual men anyway.

[Pyrtolin]

You suggest that by apologizing you are offering comfort and attempting to heal harm inflicted (even if it wasn’t intentional).  Instead, you are accepting the responsibility for a mutual act.  You aren’t mitigating harm, you are absolving the other party of guilt.

What guilt are you absolving them of? Are you suggesting that they intentionally did something wrong to you in the process such that they have something that they should be considered guilty of?

I mean, if you're saying that you also feel that you did not offer proper consent on your part and are also feeling similar harm, the it wouldn't be out of line to respond with that and mutually apologize for the damage. But otherwise it's not clear what harm to you you suggest that you're absolving them of by apologizing for your error.

(It's also absurd, in general, to suggest that apologizing for your own mistakes excuses anyone else of the mistakes they have made. That's a rationalization that people use to deflect responsibility, not earnestly taking responsibility for ones own actions.)

[Pyrtolin]

You do not solve a problem as serious as date rape by telling women that, if they drank, they are raped by default; unless they decide they are cool with the sex; oh, and they can change their answer at any time.  You have over-corrected and the result is ugly.  Not as ugly as ACTUAL rape, which is the only reason I cut you any slack and continue this discussion.

It's a good thing that that's an imaginary argument that no one is making, then.

[D.W.]

People have second thoughts all the time.  People change their minds.  Some things you can take back and undo, some things you can't.  Sex you can't "take back". 

I'm not saying that anyone SHOULD feel guilty about their sexual activity.  I'm saying people often DO feel guilty. 

Maybe my observation of people is unique.  Maybe I hang with lots of damaged people.  I don't know.  It's possible but statistically unlikely as I'm not that much of a hermit so the set of variables is high.

Many, trending towards most drinkers I know, which amounts to say 90% or more of the adults I know, have at some point or another drank in part as a social cue to everyone around, that they were going to behave in an uncharacteristic way and expected everyone to note the drink(s) they were imbibing so that they judge their subsequent actions by a different standard.  Many I know make a habit of this.  Though they obviously also drink for the pleasant physical sensation (or chemical dependence...)

That act, an act which requires consensus approval or acceptance to function, is inherently irresponsible and selfish.  That is something we are taught early on is worth feeling guilty of after the fact.  If they did anything "wrong" it was this.  But as that is so "normal" an act in society, we don't tend to address it head on.  We are a culture that paradoxically allows adults to (temporarily) shelf that which makes them worthy of the responsibility that grants them adult status.  Occasionally (shockingly I know) bad things result.

[Pyrtolin]

People have second thoughts all the time.  People change their minds.  Some things you can take back and undo, some things you can't.  Sex you can't "take back". 

I'm not saying that anyone SHOULD feel guilty about their sexual activity.  I'm saying people often DO feel guilty. 

Sure, but that's a completely different issue. And it's exceptionally harmful to accuse someone whose feeling like they didn't properly agree to it in the first place of just regretting having done it afterwards. It compounds the damage done by improper consent. People who feel guilty for their own actions react much differently than those who feel like they were violated They say "I shouldn't have done that" not "I wouldn't have done that if I'd been able to choose properly."

That act, an act which requires consensus approval or acceptance to function, is inherently irresponsible and selfish.

It can be, if they're doing it out of line with the situation that they're in; selfishness requires indulgence at the _expense_ of others, not simply sharing in a mutual enjoyable experience, but more often it's an expression of trust in the community that they've chosen to be part of. It's up to the community to validate that trust by helping to mutually ensure each other's safety, and when we fail to do that, damage occurs.

[D.W.]

Sure, but that's a completely different issue.

There are two (or more) possible scenarios.  You cannot effectively address one by ignoring the other exists.

Your solution creates another problem.  If you feel that the risk of unfair accusations or projecting one's guilt onto another for your own benefit is acceptable given the harm such a standard aims to prevent; that is at least a rational opinion.  I happen to disagree with it, but I understand it.

Refusing to accept we are talking about two things that are inseparable is not rational.

[D.W.]

but more often it's an expression of trust in the community that they've chosen to be part of.

I see this sentiment as a breeding ground for harm.  I know I'm pretty far out there on the "personal responsibility as an ideal" end of the scale compared to your "a society where there are no threats as an ideal".  It makes it hard for me to see your point some times.

Being too naive, as opposed to just a positive person, is hazardous to your health.  We have a hard enough time as a society protecting people who act sensibly and responsibly.  Teaching people it is OK to be trustful of those around you and lower your inhibitions and defenses is like letting children play with firearms.

[Pyrtolin]

Sure, but that's a completely different issue.

There are two (or more) possible scenarios.  You cannot effectively address one by ignoring the other exists.

Not talking about something that's not relevant to a given situation isn't ignoring the fact that it exists, it's just staying on topic. If you need new brake pads on your car and a new turn signal bulb and are asking questions about what kind of bulb to get for the turn signal, someone trying to interrupt with the prices of brake pads, it's not ignoring the problem with your brakes to ask them to stay on topic or wait till you're actually ready to discuss the brakes. Even more so when they start insisting that the turn signal bulb isn't really a problem and that you shouldn't be talking about it at all because your brake pads are the only thing that matters.

Both problems can exist at the same time, but it's derailment to try to turn a discussion of one problem into a discussion of the other, and it's much worse to try to deny the existence of one problem and assert that the other is really the issue in both cases.

Your solution creates another problem.  If you feel that the risk of unfair accusations or projecting one's guilt onto another for your own benefit is acceptable given the harm such a standard aims to prevent; that is at least a rational opinion.  I happen to disagree with it, but I understand it.

Someone projecting guilt on you is an accusation that you should back up with proo if you're going to make it. IF you don't actually have direct evidence that it's happening, then it's an unfair accusation to make; in fact- making that accusation without any proof is an active act of projection your own guilt onto others instead of taking responsibility for what actions you were responsible for. Personal responsibility means that you take responsibility for what you did do, regardless of what you may suspect others are doing. If they actually are projecting their own guilt on you, that's none of your business, to be honest. That's their problem for them to work out on their own time and no skin off your teeth.

Now if you offer a non-confrontational apology and a good faith effort to help ensure that the situation doesn't come again, and they start trying to use the promise of forgiveness as tool to manipulate or punish you, we've moved into bad behavior on their part, but at that point you actually have evidence that they're looking for more than just an acknowledgement of the error and a path to rebuilding trust.

Refusing to accept we are talking about two things that are inseparable is not rational.

They can overlap, but they're two different things, especially in that one is direct testimony of a person's experience that should be taken at face value unless there is evidence to cast doubt on it, and the other is an accusation and speculation of motive that requires evidence to substantiate.

[D.W.]

If they actually are projecting their own guilt on you, that's none of your business, to be honest. That's their problem for them to work out on their own time and no skin off your teeth.

If this was true, I never would have interrupted your soapbox presentation.

[Pyrtolin]

but more often it's an expression of trust in the community that they've chosen to be part of.

I see this sentiment as a breeding ground for harm.  I know I'm pretty far out there on the "personal responsibility as an ideal" end of the scale compared to your "a society where there are no threats as an ideal".  It makes it hard for me to see your point some times.

How are the two any different- they naturally follow from each other. If people take responsibility for managing their behavior, then there are no threats of anything but accidental harm or rare breakdown cases. It's only when we justify offloading responsibility for our actions on others- make it their responsibility to be on the defense rather than our responsibility to make every possible effort to not do harm, that we create a situation where people have to constantly defend themselves for others that are unwilling to act responsibly.

Being too naive, as opposed to just a positive person, is hazardous to your health.  We have a hard enough time as a society protecting people who act sensibly and responsibly.  Teaching people it is OK to be trustful of those around you and lower your inhibitions and defenses is like letting children play with firearms.

It's not "Ok", it's essential to healthy human relationships.  People need to be able to trust each other to stay mentally and emotionally healthy, never mind for society to function properly. Without trust everything eventually breaks down. And while a certain amount of wariness is pragmatic in public at our current level of standards, when you're talking about a party situation, you're talking about an environment that specifically markets it as one where the hosts have made an effort to see to the comfort and safety of their guests so that they can relax and relate to each other on a more direct and healthy level. That's exactly behavior in those situations that makes people feel less safe causes so much damage, particularly when people who know that alcohol lowers the defenses of others insist that they should not be responsible for making sure that they act in ways that are proportionally less dangerous.

It's about teaching kids gun safety and proper handling so that, when they grow up they know how to handle firearms without being a dangers to anyone, rather than just tossing them a gun and saying that they're not responsible if anyone fails to get out of the way when they try to use it.

[Pyrtolin]

If they actually are projecting their own guilt on you, that's none of your business, to be honest. That's their problem for them to work out on their own time and no skin off your teeth.

If this was true, I never would have interrupted your soapbox presentation.

You can only be responsible for your own actions and your own feelings, in context. You cannot control those of others. You can offer to help people that are willing to trust you sort our their demons, but trying to force them to feel how you want them to feel is going to fail miserably. And more to the pint, any dysfunction that they're suffering from does not absolve you from taking responsibility for your own actions and reactions.