I once raped my wife, then. She was drunk, came back home drunk and wanted to fuck me hard. I told her I didn’t feel like it was right to have sex with her in such condition, but she just didn’t want to hear about my decent comments and told me to get off my high horses and just fuck her. So I did. Should I be ashamed of myself? Because, I’m not, it’s not like its something easy to forget, but in a good way.
The point here is that any intoxication is bad - negative is its characteristic. Doubling that negativity doesnt make it any better than if it was just one person intoxicated.
So now you’re declaring a moral judgement on drinking? That’s got nothing to do with this discussion. At question here is about culpability for rape when a victim is inebriated. The counter question is whether two equally drunk people having sex are raping each other. I think we can agree that being drunk doesn’t excuse one from raping. And being drunk to the point of passing out or nearly so means a person cannot give consent so anyone having sex with them is raping them. If both parties involved are in such a state, they probably won’t have sex anyway since they’ll just both pass out. So the interesting case is where both parties are just drunk enough to lower their inhibitions without becoming incoherent, and have sex with each other. Due to the symmetry of the situation, it’s hard to conclude that a crime has been committed since it would mean both parties have committed crimes against each other (unless you apply some sexist-based logic). And that finding (which you seemingly are attempting to avoid) leads to the question of case with one party being in that state, but the other not drunk, or less drunk and doing exactly the same thing. In that case the drunker person is doing and has done to them the exact same thing, so how can they in one case be a victim, and one case not?
So now you’re declaring a moral judgement on drinking?
Not what is said.
since it would mean both parties have committed crimes against each other
And that would be true. Let me rephrase it: intoxication inhibits your ability to consent - meaning all intoxicated participants are unable to consent.
This isn’t about drinking morality, its about involving sexual acts while being intoxicated. There is a clear difference.
But to say, it looks like youre declaring the rape culture an insignificant thing - as long as everyone is drunk equally it somehow becomes OK to have sex with everyone?
As long as everyone is equally a bit drunk and having fun, then yes I think it’s fine to have sex. Many people routinely go to bars to drink, hook up and go home and have sex. That’s hardly rape culture. If you think having a drink and then having sex is a big bad rapey thing, you are really out of touch.
So if two intoxicated people have sex, they’re always raping each other?
If only one person is intoxicated is it always rape?
The answer is yes, because intoxication is involved.
I once raped my wife, then. She was drunk, came back home drunk and wanted to fuck me hard. I told her I didn’t feel like it was right to have sex with her in such condition, but she just didn’t want to hear about my decent comments and told me to get off my high horses and just fuck her. So I did. Should I be ashamed of myself? Because, I’m not, it’s not like its something easy to forget, but in a good way.
Not what I asked.
The point here is that any intoxication is bad - negative is its characteristic. Doubling that negativity doesnt make it any better than if it was just one person intoxicated.
So now you’re declaring a moral judgement on drinking? That’s got nothing to do with this discussion. At question here is about culpability for rape when a victim is inebriated. The counter question is whether two equally drunk people having sex are raping each other. I think we can agree that being drunk doesn’t excuse one from raping. And being drunk to the point of passing out or nearly so means a person cannot give consent so anyone having sex with them is raping them. If both parties involved are in such a state, they probably won’t have sex anyway since they’ll just both pass out. So the interesting case is where both parties are just drunk enough to lower their inhibitions without becoming incoherent, and have sex with each other. Due to the symmetry of the situation, it’s hard to conclude that a crime has been committed since it would mean both parties have committed crimes against each other (unless you apply some sexist-based logic). And that finding (which you seemingly are attempting to avoid) leads to the question of case with one party being in that state, but the other not drunk, or less drunk and doing exactly the same thing. In that case the drunker person is doing and has done to them the exact same thing, so how can they in one case be a victim, and one case not?
Not what is said.
And that would be true. Let me rephrase it: intoxication inhibits your ability to consent - meaning all intoxicated participants are unable to consent.
This isn’t about drinking morality, its about involving sexual acts while being intoxicated. There is a clear difference.
But to say, it looks like youre declaring the rape culture an insignificant thing - as long as everyone is drunk equally it somehow becomes OK to have sex with everyone?
As long as everyone is equally a bit drunk and having fun, then yes I think it’s fine to have sex. Many people routinely go to bars to drink, hook up and go home and have sex. That’s hardly rape culture. If you think having a drink and then having sex is a big bad rapey thing, you are really out of touch.