Community Chat

[Stelladorable]

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@Stelladorable wrote:

@Isobel Archer in either case in your example, the person is not in any state to make a rational decision. To drive. To consent to sex. If you drive drunk, your actions impact public safety. 

---

So then are you saying that in neither case, can you blame someone else for your actions?

---

The accountability comes in knowing drunk driving is against the law and doing it anyway and in doing so, compromising public safety. The person who is assaulted while drunk is not making a decision to commit a crime, nor are they jeopardizing public safety. They are having a crime perpetrated against them.

[RollTide2008]

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

It's interesting how we regard drunkeness.

On the one hand we say that if a woman is drunk, she cannot consent to sex because she doesn not have sufficient mental capacity at that point to make that decision.

Yet when someone is drunk and drives (who is in the same state as above), we hold them absolutely accountable - apparently on the assumption that the "decision" was made at the first drink - which apparently is NOT true for the above situation.

---

Because a drunk person minding their own business isn't causing anyone harm.  You don't get the right to violate someone because they're inebriated.

A drunk driver is causing someone else harm.

You can't be so daft that you don't understand the difference.

[occasionalrain]

@Laura14  So if a woman chooses to get drunk, she's responsible for whatever comes her way?

[Laura14]

@occasionalrain I think you mixed me up with another poster. I have never and would never post that.

[Isobel Archer]

---

@RollTide2008 wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

It's interesting how we regard drunkeness.

On the one hand we say that if a woman is drunk, she cannot consent to sex because she doesn not have sufficient mental capacity at that point to make that decision.

Yet when someone is drunk and drives (who is in the same state as above), we hold them absolutely accountable - apparently on the assumption that the "decision" was made at the first drink - which apparently is NOT true for the above situation.

---

Because a drunk person minding their own business isn't causing anyone harm.  You don't get the right to violate someone because they're inebriated.

A drunk driver is causing someone else harm.

You can't be so daft that you don't understand the difference.

---

I was talking about when the choice becomes one of accountability.  Neither the drunk driver - nor apparently the woman - is in a state to make a rational decision when drunk.

For that matter if a woman and man actively engaging in sex are both equally drunk - who is responsible then.  Apparently we have decided it's the man only - who can then be charged with and jailed for rape.  So much for not causing anyone else harm.

[hckynutjohn]

---

@occasionalrain wrote:

Alcoholism is a disease, or isn't it? Suppose a diabetic fails to manage his disease, passes out behind the wheel, smashes into a car and kills someone. Jail tearm for him? What about distracted drivers, I encounter more of them than those who are

above .08.

@occasionalrain 

As one in recovery, I have never considered it to be a disease. An addiction? Yes! Disease? No.

Went through this discussion with a couple of my co-workers years ago. They were both going to AA regularly, and they both believed it was a disease. I did not, and I do not consider it to be a disease like Cancer/MS or any others one cannot control.

Drinking alcohol, of any type, is by choice. If anyone knows an alcoholic that was bound/arms and legs/mouth propped open, and alcohol forced fed to them? Speak up, because I sure don't.

The control of any addiction is abstinence. In my opinion, there is no permanent cure for any addiction. With me, it is today/then tomorrow, and then the next day. I am always recovering, never believe I am cured.

As far as medically caused unconsciousness versus being over .08? I would like to believe a rational thinking human would know when they have "had too much". A medically caused death to me is not the same.

Results are the same, but the reasons vary greatly. One is self control, the other, not so much. It would be interesting to me to sit on a Jury Panel of 2 cases of the above.

That's it,

hckynut 🇺🇸

---

[occasionalrain]

---

@Laura14 wrote:

@Isobel Archer Everyone's accountable is my point.

I completely subscribe to alcoholism being a disease, but it's not a mitigating circumstance for criminal behavior and shouldn't be treated as a double standard or worse an excuse, in my opinion. 

You choose to get behind the wheel of a car as an alcoholic or one time drunk, it doesn't matter. You live with the consequences (criminal and otherwise) of whatever comes your way.  

---

I didn't mix you up with another poster. Your last sentence, "living with the consequences of whatever comes your way" indicates the person is responsible for the outcome.

[Stelladorable]

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@RollTide2008 wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

It's interesting how we regard drunkeness.

On the one hand we say that if a woman is drunk, she cannot consent to sex because she doesn not have sufficient mental capacity at that point to make that decision.

Yet when someone is drunk and drives (who is in the same state as above), we hold them absolutely accountable - apparently on the assumption that the "decision" was made at the first drink - which apparently is NOT true for the above situation.

---

Because a drunk person minding their own business isn't causing anyone harm.  You don't get the right to violate someone because they're inebriated.

A drunk driver is causing someone else harm.

You can't be so daft that you don't understand the difference.

---

I was talking about when the choice becomes one of accountability.  Neither the drunk driver - nor apparently the woman - is in a state to make a rational decision when drunk.

For that matter if a woman and man actively engaging in sex are both equally drunk - who is responsible then.  Apparently we have decided it's the man only - who can then be charged with and jailed for rape.  So much for not causing anyone else harm.

---

When you engage in sex while one or both are drunk and unable to give consent, you take the chance the other person may not be able to articulate NO until days after the act has been completed. So the lesson is, don't sexually touch anyone when you or they are too drunk to consent. Easy peasy.

[Teddixat]

9@KCDiva   I believe there is an new law on the books if you drive drunk you go to jail immediately.    I may be wrong but I'm going to do some research.   I know that's how it is in CA,    I presume other states have different laws

[Isobel Archer]

---

@Stelladorable wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@RollTide2008 wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

It's interesting how we regard drunkeness.

On the one hand we say that if a woman is drunk, she cannot consent to sex because she doesn not have sufficient mental capacity at that point to make that decision.

Yet when someone is drunk and drives (who is in the same state as above), we hold them absolutely accountable - apparently on the assumption that the "decision" was made at the first drink - which apparently is NOT true for the above situation.

---

Because a drunk person minding their own business isn't causing anyone harm.  You don't get the right to violate someone because they're inebriated.

A drunk driver is causing someone else harm.

You can't be so daft that you don't understand the difference.

---

I was talking about when the choice becomes one of accountability.  Neither the drunk driver - nor apparently the woman - is in a state to make a rational decision when drunk.

For that matter if a woman and man actively engaging in sex are both equally drunk - who is responsible then.  Apparently we have decided it's the man only - who can then be charged with and jailed for rape.  So much for not causing anyone else harm.

---

When you engage in sex while one or both are drunk and unable to give consent, you take the chance the other person may not be able to articulate NO until days after the act has been completed. So the lesson is, don't sexually touch anyone when you or they are too drunk to consent. Easy peasy.

---

OK I'll bite - how easy peasy is it to know when you are too drunk to consent?  And if one of the two (both of whom are too drunk to consent) can make this rational decision - to just say no -  why can't the other one?