no, because "borrowing change" doesn't translate to taking all your money. You don't say "can I feel your breast?" and then have sex with someone. You also have failed to properly equate the two situations. The proper example might be "hey can I have all your money?". Also, you're saying "IF" you're so drunk. That alone only serves to reinforce my point. Being drunk is a spectrum and not always a black and white "okay, they're clearly drunk right now and not in a good frame of mind". I never once said "this is okay". That wasn't the point of my comment (which clearly you were too busy trying to pick a fight to realize).minuialear said:So if you get really drunk and someone asks "Hey, can I borrow some change?" as she reaches for your wallet, then it's not stealing anymore? Or, if you're so drunk you can't even identify the person, and you happen to say yes simply because you don't understand what's going on, then if she takes your wallet, that's also not stealing, because you have provided (albeit obviously unintended) consent for her to do so? Also because if you get drunk, that means it's your fault if someone steals from you, as opposed to us faulting the one who stole from you (you know, because unlike getting drunk, stealing is actually a crime)?
Have you ever worked in a bar? It's NOT easy to figure out how wasted some people are at all. Believe me, they trained us specifically to spot people who hide their intoxication well and it's still easy to miss. Point is, if you're drunk and horny yourself, you're not always going to be able to figure it out. Sure, it's the responsible thing to do, but that doesn't reflect reality and to simply call someone scum for not realizing how drunk someone was isn't always fair. Again, it's not a black and white issue. There are variables involved and you can't always just point the finger at one person. Also, "pressure?" You assume pressuring was involved. Another variable which you're inserting on your own. Simply propositioning isn't pressuring by default. What's more, no one said only one party involved should be responsible for their behavior. Though, if both parties are significantly intoxicated, it does essentially negate any rape charges that can be brought if the sex is "consensual". It's one of the reasons it's so difficult to pin an actual rape charge in a scenario like this (involving one party being sober). Anyone can simply say they were drunk.minuialear said:Then he (or if the sexes are reversed, she) ought to figure that out BEFORE having sex. Also, if the person who later considers him/herself to be the victim is somehow liable for his/her actions because (s)he shouldn't have gotten drunk if (s)he didn't want sex, then shouldn't the person who is later considered the aggressor also be held liable for pressuring someone to have sex with him/her, even if (s)he's also drunk? Why argue that only one of the two parties involved should be expected to control his/her behavior?
That's completely idiotic. First of all, I never said there won't be consequences. You're putting words in my mouth again which instantly damages your credibility. My point is questioning how she's magically more damaged because he took advantage of her (and we're assuming this is a scenario where he DID take advantage of her). We're speaking of a sober guy approaching her in a bar and essentially propositioning her for sex without forcing(potentially not even realizing how drunk she is). How would she know!? He didn't announce he was sober. It's not like he's going to go up to her after and be like "oh babe, btw, I was sober when we fucked so I basically raped you, ttyl!" I wasn't arguing there WOULDN'T be any emotional consequences (she could find out, she could remember the sex or him being sober, he might have an STD, she might get preggers, etc. etc.). More to the point I was getting at: if she agrees to sex while under the influence (sex she potentially won't even remember) then said consequences most likely won't be nearly as severe as a dude ripping her clothes of, beating her into submission and then having penetrative sex with her all while she's screaming for him to stop. Arguing otherwise is basically saying "nope! Rape is rape! It's all the same shit!" Both actions are wrong (if he is indeed taking advantage) but it's not the same thing and the consequences can and most likely will be different. However, with taking someone's money, in that scenario their money all gets taken always. There are no variables in the consequences. They're left with an empty wallet. End of story.minuialear said:Because it means he took advantage of her when she was too drunk to say no to his advances. Arguing that there wouldn't be any emotional consequences to being taken advantage of while in a compromised state is frankly the most ridiculous thing I've seen so far in this discussion.
Most importantly, you're missing the point of my comment entirely. The point was: his example is shit and doesn't effectively express the potential complexities of the situation he was trying to represent. I explicitly stated that. You've done nothing to refute that point so you're completely wasting my time. I even explicitly stated how I wasn't sharing my personal views on the situation, but, again, it looks like you were too busy seeing red to care. Go pick fights with someone else.