Community Chat

[CrazyDaisy]

@Stelladorable wrote:

@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.

‐--‐----------------------------------

Could it not be said that in both cases,  they both made poor decisions.  Decisions that have consequences.  

[Group 5 minus 1]

If someone is doing harm to another and is told stop that or I will beat you w/this stick and they can stop then they do have some control. 

[Isobel Archer]

It just seems to me that we are all over the map as to who is accountable for their actions.

Someone on drugs who attacks police - oh police shouldn't kill them, they weren't in their right mind.

13 year old girl kills uber driver in carjacking.  Oh she's just a child, her brain isn't developed.

Drunkenness clearly falls into the category of no longer being able to make rational decisions - but if a man is drunk he can still be a rapist - a drunk woman is NEVER responsible for actively consenting - if she later (when she is rational) changes her mind. 

And apparently she - unlike he - and unlike drnk drivers - is NOT responsible for making the decision not to get drunk BEFORE she loses her rational abilities because somehow that is not fair to her.

[Stelladorable]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

@Stelladorable wrote:

@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.

‐--‐----------------------------------

Could it not be said that in both cases,  they both made poor decisions.  Decisions that have consequences.  

---

No. People don't make a decision to be assaulted. 

[Stelladorable]

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@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?

---

If you have to ask the question or wonder about it, then you just shouldn't touch or you could be committing a crime. Bottom line. Most people have a modicum of self control, I think.

These days if you aren't teaching your kids this, you're putting them at risk.

[Isobel Archer]

---

@Stelladorable wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

@Stelladorable wrote:

@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.

‐--‐----------------------------------

Could it not be said that in both cases,  they both made poor decisions.  Decisions that have consequences.  

---

No. People don't make a decision to be assaulted. 

---

And drunk drivers don't make a decision to run into a tree - so what's your point?

[Stelladorable]

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@Stelladorable wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

@Stelladorable wrote:

@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.

‐--‐----------------------------------

Could it not be said that in both cases,  they both made poor decisions.  Decisions that have consequences.  

---

No. People don't make a decision to be assaulted. 

---

And drunk drivers don't make a decision to run into a tree - so what's your point?

---

Do you know the difference between perpetrating a crime and being the victim of one? 

What is your point? That it's okay to rape drunk people? 

[Greeneyedlady21]

How did this thread turn into being about sexual assault and men being "discriminated against"? Nevermind, I know.

[Stelladorable]

---

@Greeneyedlady21 wrote:
How did this thread turn into being about sexual assault and men being "discriminated against"? Nevermind, I know.

---

The question was asked about accountability. Why is a drunk person held responsible for drunk driving, but not responsible for their own assault? I guess some posters think that if drunk people get raped its their fault. 

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Some people are so completely devoid of human relationships, so completely isolated in 4 walls, that society has passed them by 20 years ago. They have no idea how stinking their thinking really is. Which could be the reason for the isolation in the first place.

[Isobel Archer]

---

@Stelladorable wrote:

---

@Greeneyedlady21 wrote:
How did this thread turn into being about sexual assault and men being "discriminated against"? Nevermind, I know.

---

The question was asked about accountability. Why is a drunk person held responsible for drunk driving, but not responsible for their own assault? I guess some posters think that if drunk people get raped its their fault. 

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Some people are so completely devoid of human relationships, so completely isolated in 4 walls, that society has passed them by 20 years ago. They have no idea how stinking their thinking really is. Which could be the reason for the isolation in the first place.

---

What I see is that there is a hierarchy of blame and apparently it depends on some sort of concept of victimhood.

Either some one is rational or he/she is not.  I don't think it's a male female thing.

If a man is drunk - you consider him a rapist if the drunk woman who actively participates iin the act later reconsiders - when she is rational.  In your mind she is totally blameless.

And yet this same woman could leave the bar and instead of actively engaging in sex gets behind the wheel and suddenly you consider her absolutely in control of choosing to drive and if she hits someone -she should go to jail.

So apparently if you are drunk and you put yourself in a situation with an equally drunk man, you are blameless, (but he is not) but if you hit someone with your car you are not.

Where, exactly is the logic in that?