Drunk

[Chiropteran]

If you are a female, and you are drunk, the other party is responsible for sex. If you decide after the fact that it was unwanted, it becomes rape.

Yet, in another context, the rules are essentially reversed.

If you are driving, and in an auto accident, even if you won't nominally be found at fault, you will be held responsible if any alcohol is detected in your system.

What gives? Why is it okay to victim-blame in the case of drunk driving, but not in the case of drunken sluttery?



This is not P&N material.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[MajinCry]

Yeah, uh...

 

[highland145]

Pics of the drunk slut that has you torqued....

 

[Chiropteran]

This is purely a hypothetical question.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm just going to post once in this obvious troll bait thread.

Because driving while drunk is a crime, laying down on a bed, sofa, floor, car, ground, floor, etcetera while drunk is not a crime.

 

[glenn1]

If you are a female, and you are drunk, the other party is responsible for sex. If you decide after the fact that it was unwanted, it becomes rape.

Yet, in another context, the rules are essentially reversed.

If you are driving, and in an auto accident, even if you won't nominally be found at fault, you will be held responsible if any alcohol is detected in your system.

What gives? Why is it okay to victim-blame in the case of drunk driving, but not in the case of drunken sluttery?

Because evidently chivalry and feminism demand that when women act irresponsibly and put themselves in harms way that it's being mean to point that fact out regardless of the accountability of others for criminally taking advantage of them getting into that state. Because any amount of irresponsibility can be hushed up by muttering "victim blaming."

 

[purbeast0]

I'm just going to post once in this obvious troll bait thread.

Because driving while drunk is a crime, laying down on a bed, sofa, floor, car, ground, floor, etcetera while drunk is not a crime.

His hypothetical doesn't mention drunk driving.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

His hypothetical doesn't mention drunk driving.

This is truely it.
Here is his post:

If you are driving, and in an auto accident, even if you won't nominally be found at fault, you will be held responsible if any alcohol is detected in your system.

if we're talking about a tiny amount of alcohol that's a State by State thing.

Just watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8&t=1m20s

 

[Moonbeam]

His hypothetical doesn't mention drunk driving.

What gives? Why is it okay to victim-blame in the case of drunk driving, but not in the case of drunken sluttery?

 

[Screech]

Because being drunk while ramming someone with your car is different from being drunk and getting "rammed" by someone's "car".

2/10 troll thread

 

[fskimospy]

If you are a female, and you are drunk, the other party is responsible for sex. If you decide after the fact that it was unwanted, it becomes rape.

Yet, in another context, the rules are essentially reversed.

If you are driving, and in an auto accident, even if you won't nominally be found at fault, you will be held responsible if any alcohol is detected in your system.

What gives? Why is it okay to victim-blame in the case of drunk driving, but not in the case of drunken sluttery?

As others have said the 'victim' in the drunk driving case is in the act of committing a crime. The victim in the drunk sex case is not. We have plenty of statutes where if you are in the act of committing a crime your liability for things happening around you goes up such as in the case of felony murder.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/felony-murder.htm

Does that clear things up for you?

 

[interchange]

It is wrong to engage sexually with someone who is incapable of providing consent.

And there are gender-informed ideas surrounding sexuality, power, aggression, rape, etc. which are entrenched in conflict that inform our responses to these events.

And in nearly every case there is a paucity of evidence that ensures only that we reinforce our conflicts with this topic.

Let's get real about sex though. It is a phenomenon that requires psychologic regression. It involves primal drives and the excitement of the unknown and crossing of boundaries and the subtle and sequential testing them through violation. The reason people don't announce "I'm going to touch your inner thigh now, is that OK?" is not because it is tedious to get explicit consent -- it's because it kills the mood by involving mental processes that just get in the way.

And this is not an argument to say that we cannot legislate or define rape and other sexual violations. It does let us be more realistic in that we can never do it perfectly. And it does not mean that an individual ought not be able to realistically identify and honor the boundary between consent and assault.

It does mean, though, that this is not achieved through cognitive education. The very nature of such a suggestion flies in the face of enjoying sex.

So I instead suggest that the answer lies in earlier development, wherein we learn to appreciate the needs of others unconsciously and learn to respect their non-verbal cues indicating their boundaries. And we do not heighten the desire to explore exploitative sex by highlighting precisely how dangerous and wrong it is.

After all, what kid does not want precisely what he is told he cannot have and is restricted from understanding why?

 

[purbeast0]

What gives? Why is it okay to victim-blame in the case of drunk driving, but not in the case of drunken sluttery?

Well because as Fanatical Meat mentioned, it's illegal to drive drunk, it's not illegal to be a drunken slut.

 

[1sikbITCH]

If you are a female, and you are drunk, the other party is responsible for sex. If you decide after the fact that it was unwanted, it becomes rape.

Yet, in another context, the rules are essentially reversed.

If you are driving, and in an auto accident, even if you won't nominally be found at fault, you will be held responsible if any alcohol is detected in your system.

What gives? Why is it okay to victim-blame in the case of drunk driving, but not in the case of drunken sluttery?

Rape is not an accident. My dick just fell in, couldn't be helped!

 

[jackstar7]

If you are a female, and you are drunk, the other party is responsible for sex. If you decide after the fact that it was unwanted, it becomes rape.

Yet, in another context, the rules are essentially reversed.

If you are driving, and in an auto accident, even if you won't nominally be found at fault, you will be held responsible if any alcohol is detected in your system.

What gives? Why is it okay to victim-blame in the case of drunk driving, but not in the case of drunken sluttery?

Go fuck yourself and let us know how it goes.

 

[jman19]

If you are a female, and you are drunk, the other party is responsible for sex. If you decide after the fact that it was unwanted, it becomes rape.

Yet, in another context, the rules are essentially reversed.

If you are driving, and in an auto accident, even if you won't nominally be found at fault, you will be held responsible if any alcohol is detected in your system.

What gives? Why is it okay to victim-blame in the case of drunk driving, but not in the case of drunken sluttery?

Think harder. This is a false analogy.

 

[master_shake_]

easy.

just get a consent form and have 3 witnesses and a lawyer present.

or.... get a hooker.

cheaper than a relationship and there is no bribery of food and drink beforehand.

you can't buy happiness, but you can rent love.

 

[Schmide]

Yeah, uh...

Shouldn't there be actual bait on the hook. Otherwise it should read this is hook?

 

[MajinCry]

Shouldn't there be actual bait on the hook. Otherwise it should read this is hook?

The recession hit the fishermen hard.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Shouldn't there be actual bait on the hook. Otherwise it should read this is hook?

The bait is the "smell" just like this thread

crap I posted in here again.