Utah can't into filters on porn searches

[POFP]

I'm not entirely sure, but I think maybe Pergamos thought you were asking if Pergamos was condoning rape, when you were asking if Pragu Donut Samson was the one condoning rape. Methinks Pergamos was rejecting the idea of himself condoning it, not PDS condoning it. Or did I misunderstand entirely? I could've.

[LMNO]

I was going to say this thread is dildoes, but that would be too accurate.


This thread is a dumpster fire.  A non-consenting dumpster fire.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

This thread forum is a dumpster fire.  A non-consenting dumpster fire.

Newsfeed.

[POFP]

 

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

Nope,  And I'm not saying sex with drunk people isn't rape either, just that having sex while drunk is a bad idea that is not as bad an idea as driving a car or lighting off fireworks while drunk.  Sober people shouldn't let drunk people do any of those things.

He is responding to the question of inebriation and its implications for consent, though. Those of us who agree with the law that a inebriated person cannot give consent, generally consider sex between a sober person and a drunk person rape.

When both people are drunk, those waters are muddy, but given the already fucked-up context of the conversation (whether children and animals can give consent) it seems that he is talking about one drunk person and one sober (or less-drunk) person. Which is rape.

But it lacks the key aspects that make rape terrible, those of traumatically being forced to do something against one's will. Why should it be declared to be rape without that key defining factor?

[trix]

It's a bad idea to be sure, but I take exception to the fact that people treat it as if it were a worse idea than driving a car or lighting off fireworks (or indulging someone else's desire to do so) in the same state of inebriation

Nobody said it was worse, or compared drunken consent directly to drunk driving, except you.

Nope,  And I'm not saying sex with drunk people isn't rape either, just that having sex while drunk is a bad idea that is not as bad an idea as driving a car or lighting off fireworks while drunk.  Sober people shouldn't let drunk people do any of those things.

He is responding to the question of inebriation and its implications for consent, though. Those of us who agree with the law that a inebriated person cannot give consent, generally consider sex between a sober person and a drunk person rape.

When both people are drunk, those waters are muddy, but given the already fucked-up context of the conversation (whether children and animals can give consent) it seems that he is talking about one drunk person and one sober (or less-drunk) person. Which is rape.

But it lacks the key aspects that make rape terrible, those of traumatically being forced to do something against one's will. Why should it be declared to be rape without that key defining factor?

The idea is when someone is drunk, their will is compromised.  Thus, anything you do to them that they may not have agreed to without compromising their will, is assumed to be AGAINST THEIR WILL.  Just in case.

Not every person will regret it, become traumatized, and consider it rape.  That doesn't mean you take the chance and just hope you didn't damage someone.  Sex is fun, yeah, but not worth the risk that the drunk person wakes up the next morning feeling raped.

[trix]

I was going to say this thread is dildoes, but that would be too accurate.


This thread is a dumpster fire.  A non-consenting dumpster fire.

If there are people here reading this that truly don't understand why having sex with a drunk person (or animal) is considered rape, it's a good thing that this thread exists and might convince them otherwise.

Or it might not, still worth the effort IMO

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

The idea is when someone is drunk, their will is compromised.  Thus, anything you do to them that they may not have agreed to without compromising their will, is assumed to be AGAINST THEIR WILL.  Just in case.

Only their will at the moment matters (and changes in will before or after don't), otherwise any sex that you later regret (or wouldn't have tried before) would be rape, regardless of sobriety. And to be clear, alcohol impairs reason, not will; if anything it makes a lot of people more willful.

[POFP]

The idea is when someone is drunk, their will is compromised.  Thus, anything you do to them that they may not have agreed to without compromising their will, is assumed to be AGAINST THEIR WILL.  Just in case.

Only their will at the moment matters (and changes in will before or after don't), otherwise any sex that you later regret (or wouldn't have tried before) would be rape, regardless of sobriety. And to be clear, alcohol impairs reason, not will; if anything it makes a lot of people more willful.

Will is made up of two parts - Awareness and choice, and alcohol removes one, and sometimes both of them, from the equation. This makes it against their Will at any moment they are under the influence.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

The idea is when someone is drunk, their will is compromised.  Thus, anything you do to them that they may not have agreed to without compromising their will, is assumed to be AGAINST THEIR WILL.  Just in case.

Only their will at the moment matters (and changes in will before or after don't), otherwise any sex that you later regret (or wouldn't have tried before) would be rape, regardless of sobriety. And to be clear, alcohol impairs reason, not will; if anything it makes a lot of people more willful.

Will is made up of two parts - Awareness and choice, and alcohol removes one, and sometimes both of them, from the equation. This makes it against their Will at any moment they are under the influence.

It can also remove the ability to communicate, depending on the level of drunkenness.

[POFP]

The idea is when someone is drunk, their will is compromised.  Thus, anything you do to them that they may not have agreed to without compromising their will, is assumed to be AGAINST THEIR WILL.  Just in case.

Only their will at the moment matters (and changes in will before or after don't), otherwise any sex that you later regret (or wouldn't have tried before) would be rape, regardless of sobriety. And to be clear, alcohol impairs reason, not will; if anything it makes a lot of people more willful.

Will is made up of two parts - Awareness and choice, and alcohol removes one, and sometimes both of them, from the equation. This makes it against their Will at any moment they are under the influence.

It can also remove the ability to communicate, depending on the level of drunkenness.

Exactly.

[Cain]

[Pergamos]

I'm not entirely sure, but I think maybe Pergamos thought you were asking if Pergamos was condoning rape, when you were asking if Pragu Donut Samson was the one condoning rape. Methinks Pergamos was rejecting the idea of himself condoning it, not PDS condoning it. Or did I misunderstand entirely? I could've.

Yep.  PDS is clearly condoning rape, he has been the whole thread.  Rape of animals and drunk chicks both.  I figured that was too clear to question which was why I assumed Nigel was addressing me  (that and the standard self enteredess that makes people always assume people are talking to or about them)

[Pergamos]

Nope,  And I'm not saying sex with drunk people isn't rape either, just that having sex while drunk is a bad idea that is not as bad an idea as driving a car or lighting off fireworks while drunk.  Sober people shouldn't let drunk people do any of those things.

He is responding to the question of inebriation and its implications for consent, though. Those of us who agree with the law that a inebriated person cannot give consent, generally consider sex between a sober person and a drunk person rape.

When both people are drunk, those waters are muddy, but given the already fucked-up context of the conversation (whether children and animals can give consent) it seems that he is talking about one drunk person and one sober (or less-drunk) person. Which is rape.

But it lacks the key aspects that make rape terrible, those of traumatically being forced to do something against one's will. Why should it be declared to be rape without that key defining factor?

Here we have the crux of rape culture.  If rape is defined as narrowly as possible, to include only forcible penetration, then all sorts of other things, from intoxicated sex to coerced sex to sex with a power imbalance where one party doesn't really have the option of withholding consent all become ok.  The problem with that, aside from them not being ok in the first place, is that sort of definition makes violent rape more likely too.  The key defining factor of rape isn't trauma, it's lack of consent.  To use a nice simple example sex with a sleeping stranger is very clearly rape.  It's not traumatic if the person doesn't find out about it but that doesn't make it ok.

[LMNO]

Perg is comin' with the heat. 

Yeah, the problem with a "Devil's Advocacy" gambit is that you open yourself up to being way too clever about being a dick.

Which then make you look like a dick, not clever.