As a bicyclist, I believe drunk people should always be held responsible for their actions. I drink, sometimes I drink a lot, often I do or say things I regret... But I don't try to blame the alcohol which I chose to drink.
Spiked drinks are entirely different... Once you've had one spiked drink, your judgement has been impaired without your consent. Even continuing to drink at that point isn't the victim's fault.
But people who willingly drink shouldn't then accuse others for what they drunkenly consented to. It's yet another way the word "rape" is getting devalued...
It's not about them drunkenly consenting to it. It's about the fact that it's easier to pressure, manipulate, or otherwise take advantage of people when they have impaired judgement. To say 'well they chose to do something that impairs judgement, therefore they deserve/effectively chose anything that happened once their judgement was impaired' is a pile of bullshit. Somehow, it's okay to take advantage of someone with impaired judgement as long as said impaired judgment was a result of their own choices? How does that make sense?
The person is willingly disrupting their ability to avoid bad decisions. They shouldn't blame others when they make bad decisions. No one is "taking advantage" of them if they give consent under the influence of substances they willingly took.
This is akin to blaming a bicyclist for getting hit by a drunk driver. The drunk driver was inhibited, so are they not responsible for their actions? In the same way, accepting advances from a willingly drunk person is in no way rape. And yet it's often labelled as such, making a mockery of what should be a repulsive word.
Now, when both parties are drunk, it's a harder issue, and it's already difficult. But basically, it's rape if one party took advantage of the other being in that state.
It's not that complicated... If one party didn't consent, or was drugged unknowingly or against their will, it's rape. Drugging with alcohol is drugging.
Getting someone drunk in order to have sex with them, for example(regardless of whether they chose to drink or not). The way you're talking, it seems a lot like victim-blaming.
Accusations of "Victim-blaming", how predictable! Would you care to back that up in any way whatsoever? Or is every drunken moron a blameless victim in your eyes?
I love the concept that two people can willingly share some drinks (with full knowledge of the contents), eagerly engage in consensual sex, but actually one is "taking advantage" of the other and it's RAPE. What exactly counts as "taking advantage"? Are men morally obligated to stop their weak-willed partners from ever drinking, lest they be RAPISTS? News flash: In actual relationships based on equality, one partner is not responsible for every action of the other! It can be a bad idea to sleep with a drunk person, but it is not morally required to shun them like lepers to avoid RAPE.
It boggles my mind how some people can be so concerned with sexual rights and feminism, and yet misuse that word to the point of uselessness.
The "Victim blaming" card doesn't surprise me at all, though. Cheap shots are cheap.
I understand that this is a very difficult issue to get around, because the line between actual consent and then regret(and being a dick about it rather than taking responsibility by claiming rape), and being taken advantage of at a party or something and being violated, is thin. Which is, in and of itself, pretty fucking terrifying. The fact that this is an issue we have to argue about is terrifying. It should be basic human decency not to take advantage of someone when they're drunk.
People make bad decisions and should learn from them. Good parenting involves educating kids to avoid the worst ones... Sometimes that even involves making lesser ones first. My parents offered me wine in high school, removing the mystery and allure.
Bad decisions aren't the fault of other people, though.
I still don't know what you mean by "take advantage" there, but wake up: A lot of people go to parties to get drunk, then fuck. If someone goes to a party to get drunk, but not fuck, but then fucks anyway because they can't control their inebriation level, then:
1) They shouldn't be drinking
2) It's their own damn fault
3) It's also kinda their parents' fault
4) It's not the fault of the other person who had no way of reading the person's mind.
And before you say "Well maybe he knew her from outside the party and she'd never fucked him sober", lots of people drink specifically to get over their social and sexual anxieties.
Basically, Rolan, yes, if they actually consented to it, and weren't pressured into it, then it's not rape.
Yes thank you.
But there's also a lot of cases where that's not what happens. And since we can't read people's minds and the like, it becomes very difficult to tell who's lying if one says 's/he agreed' and the other says 's/he made me'. And if we just assume that the person saying they agreed is right? Well, you get the rape-culture we have now, and shit is fucked up.
You're right, we can't read minds. So we shouldn't assume either party is telling the truth.