Apparently disagreeing with that is no different to saying women who wore revealing clothes were "asking for it"
There is kind of a big difference. The natural concequence of getting smashed is drunken sex.
No. It really isn't by any means the natural consequence. Common =/= natural.
Rolan, how many times have you had sex with someone while drunk and not wanted to at the time?
I made my argument the way I did because they way you're arguing seems along the lines of 'if someone has sex and is drunk, it is automatically their choice and responsibility, and they automatically consented to it' as it's basis. If this is not what you are trying to argue, please clarify, because right now, while some of the points you are making is good, what it seems like now is that if someone had sex while drunk, and wasn't utterly hammered to the point of incoherency, it's their own fault, and they 'decided' to have sex. Which is pointing at people who feel violated and raped after scenarios in which they didn't actually want to have sex but did anyway for whatever reason, it really doesn't matter why, what matters is that they felt violated and raped for it to be rape in such a case. And a lot of times, there are people who take advantage of your poor decision making skills. If I were to go to a club and have some drinks, I'm pretty sure I would do it to hang out with friends and get buzzed, not to have sex, so if I ended up having sex with someone because I wasn't able to think through the consequences of it or have good decision making skills, I would feel violated. Wouldn't you? If someone purposefully took advantage of my drunken state so they could have sex with me, I would say that person was a rapist. I may or may not press charges depending on other circumstances(probably not since that can get expensive and unless they did something else that was really shitty, or I felt extremely violated and not just upset that it had happened), but that doesn't change the fact that they had sex with somebody who was unable to give, and this is important(and I just remembered the term for it),
informed consent. Consent when they fully understand and are in a state of mind to understand the consequences of said consent.
They chose to drink, yes. If I choose to drive, and someone crashes into me, you can't claim 'well you chose to drive'. If I choose to do something that is socially acceptable for entertainment purposes without the intent or desire to have sex, I should be able to not have sex. While drunk, I may not remember that I did not want to have sex. I may not have enough presence of mind to be able to refuse advances clearly, and not everyone, sadly, ascribes to the 'yes means yes', they ascribe more along the lines of 'no means no' or may not take no for an answer, and at a certain point a drunk person may find it easier to go with it and just give in. That's not consent, though. Certainly at no point was it informed consent. I should not have to refrain from drinking simply because I don't want to have sex. That's ludicrous.
The problem is not that we're misrepresenting each other's arguments. The problem is that we aren't even seeing them, I think. We're seeing each other's arguments as they pertain to being opposite our own position, not as they are, and are thus making arguments against each of our opposing positions. Rolan seems to think, from my perspective, that drunken sex is never/almost never rape if they drunkenly consented(so long as they were the ones to get themselves drunk). If that is the case, I will respond with the concept of informed consent, and people being allowed to expect not to have sex while sober, but are less able to make good decisions while drunk, should not be inherently punished for drinking as though it was a natural sequence of events that can't be avoided. If it's not, I'd like you to clarify.
As far as I can tell, from Rolan's perspective, he thinks I, at least, am arguing 'all drunken sex is rape'. Which is untrue. I'm stating that what you might think is consensual, and what is actually consensual, are not the same. I'd like to point out that who is harmed by drunk driving, which at least one person has talked about, isn't just yourself, while drunken sex that you didn't give informed consent to, is usually just you, unless STDs or everyone involved being way too hammered, or other specific circumstances that aren't what I'm referring to. Additionally, no one else tries to get you to drive the car. Someone else is usually trying to get you to have sex with them in the cases I'm talking about. So the responsibility, and the causer of harm, lies on the drunk driver. The responsibility, and the causer of harm, does not lie on the (god we need a specific word for this, since it's more general than rape victim but more specific than 'drunken sex person') person whom had sex while drunk without giving informed consent, though. To claim it does is a form of victim-blaming. This is simply true.
However, I do agree that no one should use some sort of textbook definition of rape for finding statistics, that's complete and utter bullshit. Analyzing how many women have been raped is entirely dependent on whether they feel it was rape or not. So those statistics people are just kinda dicks anyway. I'm with you on that, Rolan. But I also feel(emphasis on the word in the sense of 'as far as I can perceive') that you, effectively, telling drunk-rape victims that it was their own fault because they're the ones who chose to drink and then(important part is that they decided to after drinking, not before, because the whole informed consent thing) 'chose' to have sex.
Additionally, logical fallacies will be present, inevitably, in every argument. It is, in fact, a logical fallacy to try and use pointing out logical fallacies in place of legitimate argument. Note them, but respond anyway. Doing otherwise doesn't actually help anything, it just stalls and stagnates the discussion.
Author
Topic: Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games' (Read 303252 times)