Utah can't into filters on porn searches

[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?

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. 

Several problems wih this. Firstly it's an insane slippery slope argument akin to saying that marijuana use will becoming a crackhead. Secondly, you've used sort of a fractured argument that basically boils down to a tautology of the form "if people don't define x as bad, then people won't define x as bad". Thirdly, nobody gets to choose how words are defined, not even lexicographers or legislators. What it means is how it's used and how its used is what it means. Regardless of consequences. You're not the Ministry of Truth and you're not Humpty Dumpty.

The key defining factor of rape isn't trauma, it's lack of consent.

Firstly, lack of consent is the key defining factor of many crimes that rape is universally considered to be worse than - Theft comes to mind - how then do you rationalize the difference in seriousness? The only explanation I can think of is that you're puritanically putting sex on a pedistal, that you believe it is somehow sacred rather than just a mildly dangerous recreational actility like smoking or extreme sports.

Secondly, I believe that you're position is unfair to the drunk person. That's who I've been concerned about this whole time. You don't really care what they want. You care about what you think they should want based solely on what would have been the more responsible action back in the ancient past before the invention of penicillin, latex, and birth control pills.

EDIT:

Rereading that last paragraph I just realized a major problem with both sides of this argument. We haven't made clear who's initiating. I've been assuming that it is initiated by the drunk person, whereas you all seem to be assuming that it is initiated by the sober person.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

The problem with this argument is you.

[LMNO]

PDS, if your Devil's Advocate position is becoming uncomfortable, please stop.  You're shifting (or have shifted) from "Have we considered this argument yet" to "I want to fuck girls that are blacked out drunk at parties and here's why it's OK to do that."

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

Ok, I'll stop now. This has probably gone far enough.

[LMNO]

Five pages ago, at least.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

OHHHHHH that makes sense. No, I definitely was not referring to Pergamos as the one appearing to condone rape! Sorry if that's what I sounded like I was saying!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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?

HOLY FUCKING HELL SHIT FUCK DAMN since when is it not traumatizing to have things done to your body when you were not with full faculties?? Do you also think it's "not rape" when a doctor or dentist has sex with an anesthetized patient?

What the actual fuck is wrong with you?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

I'm only responding to your completely moronic drivel to assure anyone else who reads this piece of shit post that you are completely wrong about this and have, very obviously, zero education in psychology, sociology, neuroscience, or any other field that deals with human cognition, motivation, and behavior. You should really just shut up.

Also you should never interact with other people at all. Ever.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

PDS, I just thought you were an idiot waste of time.

It turns out, actually, that you are a piece of shit idiot waste of time.

[trix]

PDS, I just thought you were an idiot waste of time.

It turns out, actually, that you are a piece of shit idiot waste of time.

Yeah.  I gave a real, honest try at seeing things from another perspective, but when I found myself halfway through a long post explaining why having sex with someone who is too drunk to know better is obviously immoral I realized my purpose in posting to this thread had been subverted and I've ended up on the majority side simply by virtue of a functioning moral compass.

So I decided, fuck this thread.  Since then my decision has only been reaffirmed for me.

[Pergamos]

I do think it is useful to refine arguements against this, since there are people who believe that sex with drunk people is just fine.  Quite a lot of people.