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
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
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 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
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.
We can pretty safely assume OP is also drunk
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.
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.
but this specific case, I don’t know it was possible for her to be the raper.
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?
Anon is a good person
He earned extra tendies.
My dumb ass was expecting her to pass out and anon grilling everything in the fridge.
Me too! I was so excited to hear what random things he was gonna grill. 0.5/10, much disappointment.
“It wouldn’t be right to rape you, you have a boyfriend,” is about what I expect from a 4Channer.
EDIT: Holy fuck Lemmy, this comment section is a dumpster fire. First, to all the people saying he did reject her because she was drunk, not because she has a boyfriend, there’s no evidence of that; he stated twice that it was wrong because she had a boyfriend, and zero times that it was wrong because she was drunk. But whatever, if you want to believe that, whatever, I’m done arguing over your fan fiction.
But here are some things that are 100% facts that some of you need to understand:
- If someone is throwing up, they are too drunk to consent to sex.
- If you are not throwing up, you are almost certainly not as drunk as someone who is throwing up. The person vomiting has alcohol poisoning, and unless you also have symptoms of alcohol poisoning, you are more sober than them.
- Vomiting does not remove alcohol from your system. Intoxication occurs when alcohol enters your bloodstream. Vomiting will prevent further alcohol from entering your bloodstream, but it will not remove any alcohol from your bloodstream, and you’ll be just as drunk as you were before you vomited.
- If the OP had sex with the girl in this story, it would have been rape. She was far too drunk to give consent, and based on his telling, he was not. Clearly, some of you feel differently, but your shitty opinions on consent don’t change the fact that legally, it would have been rape.
If you were in that situation, would you say “no, I would be raping you”? The boyfriend excuse is a much more tactful way to get yourself out of the situation (as well as a good enough reason in its own right).
No it’s not. “Hey, I really like you, but you’ve had too much to drink and this wouldn’t be right. If you feel this way tomorrow, let me know,” is a perfectly acceptable answer. Hell, I’ve given that answer before. It’s certainly not less tactful than, “You have a boyfriend and what you’re doing is wrong.” And yeah, cheating on your boyfriend is bad, but not as bad as rape, which this would have been.
Keep in mind, you’re telling this to a blackout horny drunk person. In honesty, it doesn’t matter what you actually say.
OK, so if it doesn’t matter what he said, why lie? You’re kinda invalidating your initial point here.
Well, okay, the drunk person will still react to what you say; they just won’t remember. Having a gracious exit to the situation is preferable to, say, “OH MY GOD THERE’S AN AXE MURDERER BEHIND YOU” and running away when they turn around.
I began with ‘have some tact’ after all.
So you’re shitting on them for doing the right thing? Or am I misinterpreting
His reasoning for not sleeping with her was that she had a boyfriend, so it, “wouldn’t be right.” But that girl was so drunk that sleeping with her would have been rape. He did the right thing, but his reasoning was clearly wrong, and implies that if she didn’t have a boyfriend he would have slept with her, even though she could not consent.
He’s describing what he said, not his thoughts or motivations.
Yeah, and I’m going to assume that what he said are his thoughts and motivations, since there is literally no evidence to assume otherwise.
Assume… No evidence…
You’re saying the right words, but coming to the wrong conclusions
LOL, no, you’re coming to the conclusion you want to without evidence. This person said twice in their story that it wouldn’t be right to sleep with this girl because she had a boyfriend. He said zero times that it wouldn’t be right to sleep with her because she was too drunk to consent to sex. Why would I come to the conclusion that he was choosing not to sleep with her because she was drunk instead of the reason he stated twice? What evidence is there for your interpretation?
I just mean that there’s no reason to assume anything. Take the story at its literal face value, because that is the only evidence that exists. It is absolutely telling that they fail to list the most salient reason to say no, but there are so many reasons why that might be the case that it’s useless to speculate.
Yes. He said, to her. I swear to god, some people are so intent on outrage. Have you ever been laid? More than once or twice by pure dumb luck? Jesus, please don’t tell us about it or I’ll get non-consensualy drunk just to gag it down.
I can see what you’re saying, but you are making some assumptions and that’s entirely due to OP being an unreliable narrator.
Throwing up usually purges a lot of the alcohol from your system. OP makes no mention of throwing up themselves, and I’m assuming they were drinking too. That means there’s a solid chance there’s more alcohol in OPs system than hers. You do understand that consent works both ways, yes?
Holy shit, I was going to respond that the first sentence about how there’s no reason to think that OP’s thoughts are different than his words, but GOD DAMN do we need to address the second half of this comment.
So, first of foremost, vomiting will not purge alcohol from your system. If you are drinking so heavily that you’ve thrown up, you are already experiencing alcohol poisoning. Your body is purging your stomach to prevent you from metabolizing any more of the poison, but it’s not removing any of the alcohol that’s already in your bloodstream. Eating bread won’t absorb alcohol, drinking black coffee won’t sober you up; there is only one thing in the world that will remove alcohol from your system, and that is time.
Secondly, you are right, consent works both ways. If the OP had been the one that was throwing up, and the girl had taken advantage of him, then that also would have been rape. But that wasn’t what happened; one person was so drunk she was throwing up, had to be put to bed, and clearly couldn’t consent. The other person was not throwing up, was capable enough to caretake this person, and could get himself home safely. There is zero chance the poster was drunker than the girl.
I tended bar for over ten years, so please take this advice; if you see someone is noticeably drunk, do not sleep with them. If you find yourself in a position where you think, “This person seems drunk, but I’m a little drunk too, so it’s probably OK,” you are already showing reasoning and logic (and therefore ability to consent), and the other person may not be able to do the same.
There is a line between two adults who are attracted to each other using alcohol as a social lubricant and someone who is too drunk to know what they’re doing coming on to you, and I know that line can be blurry when you’re younger. I promise you, as you get older, you’ll have more experience, better instincts, the people around you will stop drinking to excess, and that line will get less blurry. Until then, err on the side of caution, and if there is even the slightest question as to whether someone is too drunk to consent, do not sleep with them.
Do you accept that they were both drunk and that consent works both ways?
Jesus christ, imagine bloviating this much about a drunk person not thinking exactly what you want them to think. I cannot imagine having my head so firmly shoved up my ass.
Edit: actually, it’s worse - you’re attempting to completely gloss over her sexual assault of him. I’d actually argue that just makes you a bad fucking person.
Well, I’m really sorry if I done something to give you the impression I give a fuck what you think. That definitely wasn’t my intention.
Great, glad we’re on the same page. Have a nice go fuck yourself.
deleted by creator
I thought anon was talking about grilling :c
deleted by creator
