Responsibility

[andrewducker]

This is inspired by the comment here, where ladysysiphus says "If you have consumed enough alcohol to impair your judgement, I believe you then have to take at least some responsibility for putting yourself in a position where something like this might happen."

[Poll #619684]

Comments

[marrog.livejournal.com]

You seem to think that men not being allowed to assume all women are sexually available until they prove otherwise is a bad, dangerous thing.

Not at all. Let me clarify exactly what I think:

1. If a woman gets incredibly drunk and takes home a person (note: gender non-specific) who she otherwise wouldn't sleep with, and shags that person, and the next morning thinks: "What the fuck was I thinking?" then it's her own fault for getting so drunk that her judgement was impaired. I've been on both sides of this one, and I think neither party was guilty of any crime because stupidity and horniness are not crimes.

2. If a woman gets incredibly drunk, a person offers to walk her home, then makes a pass at her, then they shag, and she doesn't resist along any step of the way, and the next morning she thinks: "What the fuck was I thinking? I totally didn't want to do that!" then the companion is a twat, and she's had a bad thing happen to her, but it's not rape. It's a bad person doing a bad thing to someone, in the same way that she might have fallen asleep in the pub and had someone write stuff on her face. Yes it should be discouraged. But not through charging said opportunistic bastard with rape.

3. If a woman gets incredibly drunk, and someone walks her home, makes a pass at her, she resists, and is then forced into sex, then it's rape.

I don't think anyone should assume sexual availability on anyone else's part, ever. I would point out, also, that many people, of both sexes (and with reference to either sex) assume sexual availability on the other person's part; this belief and attitude is by no means exclusive to men re: women.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

I don't think anyone should assume sexual availability on anyone else's part, ever

If you argue that "she didn't resist" is the same as "she consented", you are, in fact, arguing that it's okay to assume sexual availability. (Scenario two in your own argument.) And that makes me feel extremely uncomfortable.

I would point out, also, that many people, of both sexes (and with reference to either sex) assume sexual availability on the other person's part; this belief and attitude is by no means exclusive to men re: women.

No: I've just discovered that, in fact, I need to avoid getting drunk with you, too, if you take it as read that someone who doesn't resist has consented to sex. The number of people on my friends-list I am never getting drunk with is rising by a much higher rate than I'm happy with. (Not that I'm saying you would force sex on me when I was too drunk to resist: just that I evidently couldn't trust you to be backup or witness if I did get too drunk for my own safety, if your feeling is that a woman too drunk to resist has consented by default.)

[marrog.livejournal.com]

PS:

I evidently couldn't trust you to be backup or witness if I did get too drunk for my own safety

I must say I actually take things further than that: that is to say, if you're someone who would, unchecked, allow themself to become so drunk that they wouldn't think straight, rather than look out for you once you were slaughtered I'd just make sure you didn't get that drunk. I'd far rather pull you away from the bar while you were still only half-cut than pull you away from (or give evidence later for) a would-be molestation.