384
Anon pregames
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
384 points (95.9% liked)
Greentext
6699 readers
1371 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Cheating on her boyfriend with you will end in cheating on you with a new guy.
He dd the right thing, no regrets. It sucks a lot tho, and it's hard.
And he didnt rape her which is more important than the cheating.
how would he be raping her anyway? she was the one trying to force him to have sex with her even after he made it clear he didn't want to
Drunk people and consent is a moral and legal gray area - it doesn’t matter if they initiate
Depends how drunk
Yeah, sure. But since she already threw up, she's drunk enough to make it problematic.
It also depends on what is being consented to. We accept that drunk people can consent to commit crimes, but that they cannot consent to have sex.
If drunk people couldn't consent as a rule then like 80% of Finnish one night stands would be double rapes (since both are getting raped by the other party) lol
And the old "I cheated on you because I was drunk". It's not so heartwarming that people here are belittling rape with what would be considered negligent sexual assault at the worst.
I'm just pointing out a strange legal quandary. Obviously noone should fuck around with consent.
hm, yeah so if you can't consent when drunk, then you also can't cheat when drunk. Because it's non consensual in both cases. (at least intentionally, so it would be a valid excuse in this case)
well if someone gets really drunk (not being drugged by others, but doing it because they want to) and commits a crime, thats still a crime they commited
if im wrong please explain
You're wrong, drunk drivers never get fined when they run over someone.
/s
is there a legal basis for this statement? There very well could be, i don't do a lot of raping so i wouldn't know anything about this lmao
I'm going to give a longer explanation than was already given.
So, imagine yourself at a hospital. You're about to have a minor surgery, and get knocked out. While you're under, some nurse comes in and fucks you in the ass.
Is that rape?
Switch things up. You're at a bar, having a good time, someone slips something in your drink. While you're under the influence of that hit of whatever, they take you into the bathroom and fuck you in the ass, and you agreed to that, you may even like it.
Is that rape?
On a fundamental level, if someone is visibly drunk, or even olfactorily drunk (meaning your can smell the booze on them), they are in a state of mind that is the same as being drugged. It doesn't matter if they are initiating contact, they are unable to give meaningful consent.
Now, if you want to argue we need another term instead of rape, I'm okay with that. We can call it whatever. But we have statutory rape already, which exists because we recognize that even when someone is the initiator, there are states of mind and being that simply can't make a choice to have sex in a meaningful way. So using the term rape for violating meaningful consent is fine, even when it's an adult, and even when they initiate.
I am also aware that there are edge cases where consenting before consuming a substance could/should count as meaningful consent. And I'm aware that there is a range of inebriation where meaningful consent is still possible. However it is nearly impossible to tell without testing what a person's blood alcohol level is, so we're limited. That in turn means that the standard for (at least colloquial usage) what is and isn't inebriated rape has to be broader than it would be if we had reliable testing on the fly.
I also agree with your point that she was ignoring consent, and being an absolutely horrible person, and if she had persisted by force or coercion and he had given in, I wouldn't accept her being drunk as a defense against any charges brought.
But there's a fundamental inability to consent when drunk. How drunk? That's something that would need to be addressed by medical science and then legislated. What's the maximum BAC someone can give meaningful consent for other things? But that fact is there, that alcohol serves to break down the ability to consent, and sex without consent is considered rape, on at least a colloquial level, if not always on a legal level everywhere.
I want to point out two things
1: She threw up, assuming she doesn't have a pocket dimension in her throat she likely threw up most of the alcohol.
2: OP was almost certainly drinking. OP makes no mention of throwing up. We can pretty safely assume OP is also drunk, and likely has more alcohol still in his system than her.
Seems like a lot of people ITT think that consent is a one way street. He said no and was drunk, she pushed. We can at the very least admit that she sexually assaulted him, and if you think otherwise you need to rethink some things.
I already replied to your similar comment on my thread, but I'm going to repeat myself here to give this maximum visibility; vomiting does not remove alcohol from your system. You become intoxicated not when you swallow alcohol, but when the alcohol in your stomach is metabolized and enters your blood stream. If you are vomiting from alcohol, it means your body has metabolized so much alcohol that it has recognized that it is being poisoned. It is purging your stomach to prevent you from metabolizing any more poison, but it is not removing any alcohol from your system (AKA your bloodstream). Someone is just as drunk just before they threw as they were after they threw up. That person will only become sober once their liver has had time to filter the alcohol out of their system.
Since OP is not throwing up, but the girl in his story is, it is far, far more likely that she is much drunker than him. Unless he had other symptoms of alcohol poisoning (and it seems like he would have mentioned that), it is safe to assume that her BAC is much higher than his. More broadly, you should never think that someone vomiting up alcohol is a sign that they are sobering up.
To provide a source:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC543875/
Yes, and to be clear, a number of factors will affect how quickly alcohol enters your system: stomach contents, body weight (not including body fat), rate of consumption. But once alcohol is in your system, you can't just purge it by vomiting. Time is the only thing that will remove it.
On the contrary (same source):
This actually proves my point. "Very little alcohol enters fat because of fat's poor solubility." Meaning alcohol doesn't enter fat, so body fat doesn't lower the concentration of alcohol in the bloodstream. It's part of TIPS certification; a lot of bartenders are taught that body weight increases your ability to consume alcohol, so they see a heavy set guy and assume he can handle more alcohol, but fat doesn’t actually affect their tolerance. A 5'8" fat guy that weighs 250 is going to have a lower tolerance than a 6'2" lean guy that weighs 250.
How? Pre-gaming doesn't typically result in being drunk, it's something you do to cut the costs of getting drunk at a bar. It's usually something like 1-2 drinks, so you'd be a little buzzed, but not drunk. If he was drunk, I highly doubt he'd have the fortitude to refuse, because alcohol dramatically lowers your inhibitions. It could also be that OP doesn't drink, he just went because he likes the girl.
So no, I don't think we can safely assume OP is drunk. Also, you don't throw up alcohol until after you're already drunk, so throwing up most of the alcohol isn't going to sober her up.
Pre gaming at 22 definitely involves heavy drinking.
It can, but I've "pre-gamed" with people who are drinking without drinking myself. Designated drivers are certainly present if the bars aren't within walking distance. Generally speaking, people don't get drunk before going to the bar, because the bar won't let you order if you're visibly drunk, and why would they allow you to stay if you're not a paying customer?
I think you argued that if the night ended in sex, they both would have raped each other?
Is it rape because she would have gotten him to go against his morals for a short time?
The story seemed to imply she wasnt physically capable of forcing sex, she was trying to appeal to his sexual urges.
I do understand drunk people commiting crimes is a thing and they should be responsible for that, but this specific case, I don't know it was possible for her to be the raper.
I don't disagree with you but its hard to reconcile that being drunk makes someone both not responsible and responsible for their actions at the same time.
No, that is not what I argued. I said that if she used force or coercion, she would have raped him.
Coercion is the use of social, emotional, or other non physical means to cause a person to act against their will.
Rape is not always an act of physical force. You didn't say that it was, I'm just repeating it for general purpose.
The night ending in sex would have meant that she sobered up, expressed her consent and intent, then he agreed to sex.
It is kinda possible for two people to rape each other, but there's a shit-ton of stretching of the term, plus very unlikely situations to make it so. Even then, there would be a ton of argument about it from anyone not involved.
I think you either misunderstood, I phrased things badly, or my dyslexia + poor proofreading via tts screwed something up. I can't find any errors, so I have to assume the first two.
There are a ton of ways to use non physical force on someone, and most of them can not only be done while drunk, but the inhibition being depressed via alcohol could make someone more likely to use them.
That is not the same thing as attempting to convince someone to have sex with you by using your physical appearance, the offer of sex (or specific sex acts), or even just by being an asshole and not leaving them alone. As shitty as nagging at someone for sex is, it hasn't the same thing as rape, so long as the person being the target is capable of consent and has freedom to leave.
Yet another factor is the power dynamic between a sober person and someone under the influence.
Did she not try to sway his emotions through coercion? She didnt take no for an answer initially.
If there are no consequences to saying no, it isn't coercive. It's the difference between begging and saying "if you don't, I'll threat"
The threat can be minor, something like "I'll tell everyone you're a lousy lay" all the way up to "I'll tell everyone you raped me" or less direct like "I'll stop paying the car payment", or "I'll evict you".
But, as nasty as not taking no and backing off immediately is, it isn't the same as coercion or force. Even being very pushy about it, even using physical contact isn't coercion, though whether or not such behavior should be illegal is an interesting possibility. The difference is whether or not the target of the "seduction" can walk away freely.
If they can, if they can enforce their no and leave, even if they don't exert that ability, or isn't coercive, just douchey.
Now, there is another issue in there. Some people may not believe they can freely and safely exit. That's part of why when someone says no, everything stops, period. Other people may freeze up and be unable to exit, despite having the freedom to, which is another reason we have to make sure that we not only exhibit good sexual behaviors, but teach those ethics whenever needed.
But as far as something being rape or not, that is the ultimate determinant, the freedom of the person to say no, and exit the situation. Legally, it may well not matter if the person nagging the other for sex is aware of the target wanting to exit, but having internal barriers preventing it. That's something laws and juries have to deal with. But for the purpose of discussion like this, that's the line.
It really sounds like you are saying its only coercion if its successful. You also seem to be implying someone can't be raped if there was someway they could have escaped along the way. Its very similar to saying if they can't talk they can't say no.
Man, it really sounds like you can't read. I've explained it a couple different ways, and you simply aren't getting it. This one is on you.
Okay so a I try and kiss my friend who is a girl. She pushes me off and says no thank you, and so I wrap my legs around her and pull her tight to me and try again.
Not coercion? Its completely subjective whether the girl is free to leave or not, so which is it then?
Dude. Either you have some kind of compulsion to misread just to extend an exchange, or you're trying to troll me. There is no way you got that from what i wrote.
At this point, I'm finished. If you're really acting in good faith, go look up the definition pf coercion and pretend I said that.
In my mind, even if you lack the means to commit a crime, you still wanted to commit that crime and you tried to commit that crime.
I do agree but doesnt that then lead to the possibility that both people are assaulting each other and are also victims of each other?
What if they both wake up upset that it happened?
To find out who raped who we need an immediate BAC test of both parties, the one who is higher is the victim, the less drunk one goes to prison. We'll call it Rape Roulette and sell it to netflix for millions.
Next Squid Game let's go!
yes, but now let's say they need to insert a catheter in your to prevent you from pissing yourself, is this also rape? Or was this previously consented to (obviously it was, just a primer here)
this would be rape on pretext, similar to robbing someone at gunpoint.
i'm inclined to agree here, however there is a small problem here, they intentionally, and knowingly got themselves to that point of intoxication. If i do way too much street fent, nearly die, and wake up in an alley somewhere, am i responsible for what happened to me in between those points? Or not? It's not like i stopped existing as a person. Physically, i am fully responsible for what happened in that state, psychologically, i am to some degree at the very least tangentially responsible. (there is a reason why you cant drink and drive)
the rest of the comment is good, thorough coverage of most important things.
Quoting so it's easier to see for me as I write.
In terms of consent based events, no. If someone else takes advantage of your state, even the voluntary intake of substances doesn't remove the obligation to obtain meaningful consent from the inebriated person by any other party.
It also depends on the substance. Some stuff, you have way less ability to function consciously. Others, you're changed so little as to be kinda irrelevant outside of determining the exact consequences in a complicated situation. As an example, if someone slams too much caffeine and punches somebody, that's 100% on them in any normal circumstances. Something like weed, you run into edge cases where it might be a mitigation, but not as much since there's less inhibition of the conscious mind compared to something like fentanyl. A pothead robs a store with their buddy, I'm not going to believe they couldn't have refused because of the weed (under normal circumstances). If they're barely functional from opiates, I might buy that they didn't really know what was going on, and got swept up in things.
That last one is a real thing I've run across a few times. Dudes thieving while high and claiming to only have been dragged along, and then having something shoved in their hands and be told to run. It's believable with some drugs, less so with others.
Like anything about human behavior and social rules, the more specific things get, the easier it is to throw down a definite yes/no regarding culpability. The more general it stays, the more you have to deal in a degree of "usually, but".
That is separate (in my opinion as well as in law in some places) from the inebriated person committing bad or illegal acts themselves.
There's also a middle ground where a person that's inebriated may have some degree of exculpatory claim if someone used their altered state to get them to commit a bad or illegal act. They'd still be responsible, but any judgements on their acts should take it into account (socially and legally).
Edit: also, I apologize for taking so long to respond, but I was having trouble reading for some reason, and I couldn't use tts when I first got the notification. Dyslexia is fucking weird sometimes. I don't usually have this much trouble lol.
good comment, thanks for the response.
you responded within 24 hours, that's pretty quick as far as internet responses go for my books. You probably struggled a bit due to my slightly nonsensical writing style lol.
i agree with most of that but if someone is really drunk and tries to have sex with someone else who may or may not be drunk, who is also explicitly saying they dont consent, isnt that person in the wrong, kind of like a really drunk person whos going to drive is in the wrong?
what i mean is: commiting a crime while drunk is still commiting that crime. if im wrong please explain
thats not really helpful, could you explain to me where i was wrong?
i dont mean to sound like "i know im right" or something. i actually just want to know
but if they got drunk knowing what they were drinking (like not being drugged or something similar) and commit a crime, they can still be liable, right?
both things are crimes commited while drunk, and i believe in both instances the person is liable for commiting the crime.
i was talking about how she was sexually assaulting the guy