Comment by eloff
4 years ago
> I don’t remember how much I drank. I don’t remember him drinking. But I remember feeling uncomfortable when he made advances on me. I felt being taken advantage of that he had unprotected sex with me when I was intoxicated. Nothing felt right. I remember panicking and crying.
I don't want to victim blame here because this guy sounds like a grade A creep and predator. But does a person not have some responsibility here to not get so intoxicated when alone with a member of the opposite sex in a private space? Because sometimes the person is consenting at the time and then regrets it later - and then proceeds to ruin the other person's life by accusing them of taking advantage of an intoxicated individual. I just find this whole area very slippery about when consent means consent and when it doesn't - especially the way sex, alcohol, and drugs are so intertwined in our society. I rightly or wrongly think you have to have some responsibility for putting yourself in such a vulnerable place where you are not in the right frame of mind to resist advances or make sensible decisions. Am I wrong about that?
I don't know if she gave consent, and again, I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt, based on her story, age, etc. I just want to discuss this whole business of consent while intoxicated on which I do not have a clear opinion.
Yes, you are victim blaming. Men aren’t wild bears, they’re human beings who should be held accountable for their actions. How drunk someone is around another human being has nothing to do with the perpetrator’s culpability.
I don't think that's what the parent meant.
If someone is intoxicated, I agree that it seems weird to disregard their consent when drugs+alcohols are the social lubricant of society (and very interwined with sex).
Also, of course you are responsible for your actions even when under the influence (drive and kill someone? no excuse because you were intoxicated - it's your fault). It's crazy to me that people call that "victim blaming". Although I understand how someone can take advantage of others, I don't think the distinction is intoxicated = taken advantage of.
Someone being assaulted when they’re intoxicated is not equivalent to someone knowingly driving a car when they’re drunk. The sexual predator consciously chooses to assault their victim; the car doesn’t choose to crash.
EDIT - a lot of you seem to think that this is equivalent to a DUI. It is not. If you are driving under the influence, then you are the perpetrator of the accident. If you are drunk and somebody else sexually assaults you, then the other person is the perpetrator.
1 reply →
If you get drunk downtown, does it make getting your pockets picked and your smartphone stolen your fault?
You’re stupid if you get drunk downtown with an expensive smartphone where it can be easily stolen. Still, does it mean that you have somehow to share jail time with your thief, or does it mean that the thief has to serve less time, or that your thief may go with your smartphone because it’s your fault to get drunk downtown in the first place?
Explain please.
4 replies →
> Yes, you are victim blaming. Men aren’t wild bears.
They're also not harmless. And I chose the word person for a reason - this could happen between a straight man and a gay man, or a woman could take advantage of a drunk man (although he's not likely to regret it, unless maybe he's married or something - or she gets pregnant)
The thing is I think you have some responsibility for your own decisions, drunk or not.
I don't think it's right to take advantage of someone who's drunk - but it's tough to prove that after the fact and many a young man has had their lives ruined by a woman who they thought consented and then later accused them of rape.
On the other hand I can really empathize with the woman's POV here, and think that it's terrible that there are men out there who take advantage of them when they're under the influence - and I'm sure that's more common.
This just doesn't seem cut and dried.
Victim blaming or not, I think most parents wisely caution their children about alcohol, intoxication, and making good decisions about their own personal safety, when they reach the appropriate age. What parent doesn’t have that conversation with their teenage kid?
I don't think eloff is Yifan's parent.
> I think most parents wisely caution their daughters about alcohol, intoxication, and making good decisions about their own personal safety
> What parent doesn’t have that conversation with their teenage daughter?
Sorry, α-reduced your comment. Force of habit. Also, the pattern matching checker complained your examples only apply to a subset of possible genders.
Without being too flippant, I'd like to point out that we do actually hold wild bears accountable for their actions. There was a news report last week about a bear shot somewhere in the US because it had attacked someone (it seemed to have been trying to guard a particularly valuable food stash).
The point is that many comments here are assuming that men lack the agency to keep themselves from assaulting people. That lets the men off the hook. To your example, if we blame the bear, we should blame the man, as well.
1 reply →
Some men decide to behave like wild bears, it seems. So while it indeed doesn't change anything about the responsibility, it is still a good idea to take steps that could prevent becoming a victim in the first place.
Speak up HN, don't let voices like this dominate and represent you. Of course what the OP said was not victim blaming. How ridiculous! Several times the commenter expressed doubt and kept asking if he/she is wrong and how would like to be corrected if that is the case.
You come in here with the high moral ground and make such wild indignant proclamation that "men are not bears." Please take this to another community.
> How drunk someone is around another human being has nothing to do with the perpetrator’s culpability.
This is just stupid on its face. DUI exists for a reason and DUI tests are given not because police assumes the drivers, of course would, "take responsibility" and not drink, but because the police exercises common sense if an idiot driver is unable to walk a straight line.
>I don't want to victim blame here because this guy sounds like a grade A creep and predator. But does a person not have some responsibility here to not get so intoxicated when alone with a member of the opposite sex in a private space?
No. The idea that being around a member of the opposite sex (and does this apply to members of the same sex? e.g. men raping men, and women raping women?) in a private space while being intoxicated levies some kind of 'responsibility' to be on the lookout for rape is absolutely victim blaming. It's insisting that her non-sexual actions of literally just being around someone confers a responsibility of any kind pertaining to a sexual act on her.
> No. The idea that being around a member of the opposite sex (and does this apply to members of the same sex? e.g. men raping men, and women raping women?)
I specifically used the word person because I think this could happen between any two people of any sex. I'm certain it even happens to men, by women. Just men are much less likely to regret it the next day.
> levies some kind of 'responsibility' to be on the lookout for rape is absolutely victim blaming
If you gave consent because you were drunk, that's not really rape, it could be poor judgment. The perpetrator might reasonably think you're sober enough to make your own decisions. Especially if they are also inebriated.
Just calling it victim blaming is missing that this is a pretty gray area.
> If you gave consent because you were drunk, that's not really rape, it could be poor judgment.
No, it's lack of judgement. Total inability to judge, in fact.
> The perpetrator might reasonably think you're sober enough to make your own decisions. Especially if they are also inebriated.
It doesn't matter what the perpetrator thinks. And especially? Is the perpetrator less guilty of rape depending on his blood alcohol level?
9 replies →
> I don't want to victim blame here ... but does the victim bear some responsibility?
The answer to your question is no. The victim bears no responsibility. The abuser took advantage of someone, who bears no fault for the result. There's no "well, both parties were in the wrong here". The abuser should not have abused the other party, no matter how vulnerable the other party made themselves.
You specifically said you didn't want to victim blame, then immediately blamed the victim.
And what if they were consenting - I'm not saying that's the case here, I don't know obviously, I'm asking in general, just like my comment is a musing about the vagaries of when is consent not consent.
It's not vague. Consent is an enthusiastic and unambiguous yes. Was there an enthusiastic and unambiguous yes? You have consent. Was there not an enthusiastic and unambiguous yes? You do not have consent.
7 replies →
Hello. A few answers...
>> But does a person not have some responsibility here to not get so intoxicated when alone with a member of the opposite sex in a private space?
No. You are shifting the blame to the victim here. You should not be assaulted/attacked/whatever whether you are sober, tipsy, drunk, unconscious.
It is... complicated, but if a sober person takes advantage of the apparent willingness of a very intoxicated person, they have done something wrong.
In general regardless of your state of mind, you should be deciding if somebody is actually capable of giving consent in their state of mind regardless of how they act.
A drop of alcohol does not remove all ability to give consent but there is a point where it is no longer possible and so you’re left with a situation where there isn’t right and wrong absolutely but a grey area of many degrees... which as a decent person you should always err on the side of caution.
Responsibility is the wrong word. There is a difference between good advice and victim blaming. Just because the victim was careless doesn't make them in any form responsible for the crime. Nevertheless, I would certainly advise my daughter against getting drunk in such a situation.
>> But does a person not have some responsibility here to not >> get so intoxicated when alone with a member of the opposite >> sex in a private space? > > Responsibility is the wrong word.
It's not a responsibility in ethical sense yet it is street smart behaviour.
A less amplified example: if you walk into a biker bar, insult that the regulars are assholes whose bikes you just kicked over outside, they have no moral justification to hurt you just as people are ethically bound to not sexually abuse intoxicated persons in our society. But there's some chance the guys in the biker bar won't just call the police and politely retain you until they arrive and, instead, you get beaten into some half-liquid state of matter.
The reason for that is because the regulars likely follow their own rules and not yours or the greater society's. Similarly, predator-type people don't follow the morals that we recognize. If all you can resort to is morals, you will lose with people who don't play by your rules. If someone doesn't see a moral problem in the sexual abuse of a passed out person it won't help to merely remind this person of just that: the abuser simply doesn't give a shit but plays a whole different game.
This is where the society could step in with its justice system and link the abusive behaviour to something the abuser does actually mind, like a harsh enough conviction to make the abusive behaviour less inviting. But society also has to be fair so as to not give harsh convictions to people who have not abused anyone despite being accused of doing that, and then the waters get muddy again. In many cases there's no objective verdict to be reached because no third party can ultimately tell what the heck happened, even if actual abuse did take place.
This leads to the bizarre but common pattern where the potential victims have to become proactive in taking measures to not actually become victims, and in doing so limit their choices and decisions of what to do, where to go and with whom. The onus somehow gets transferred to the person who shouldn't have to use time and energy to prevent these things from happening. The potential victims are the only party in the game who follow the society's rules and they have that losing stance because of that.
They shouldn't have to have -- and they don't have -- a moral responsibility to prepare for the worst: the moral responsibility single-handedly falls on the perpetrator -- the one who doesn't ever consider morals! So, the result is that the potential victims are imposed by purely practical concerns to limit their choices in order to secure themselves against wrongdoings, just in case. It's not right but it's also smart -- that's the big dilemma.
The front door of one's home always seemed a good analogy to me.
Is it good practice to lock your front door, on the assumption that some people are malicious and will take advantage and rob you if you don't? With particular caution suggested in some areas? Yes.
Is someone who is robbed when they did not lock their front door responsible for the crime in some sense? No, not really. A normal human failing to carry out a precaution that shouldn't be necessary in the first place, perhaps. I've forgotten to lock my front door once in a while, haven't you?
The analogy is shaky, because 'crime' notwithstanding, good luck with getting anything from your insurance if:
1. there was no breaking in;
2. you didn't take minimum precautions to protect your door (a 3-point lock is often required) and other openings.
> I don't want to victim blame here
And yet
A person that is in an incapacitated state is not able to consent, in that situation the burden is entirely on the other person. Just because someone is not able to say no doesn't meant they did consent.
I'm talking about close to blackout drunk, heavily incapacitated, not slightly tipsy.
So question then, what if the other person is equally incapacitated?
What if the other person believes the incapacitated person is not so far gone as to be unable to consent?
Is consent only consent if you give a breathalyzer test in front of a witness?
Would it be ok for the guy to get her drunk, then go to an ATM and talk her into emptying out a bank account?
Is it ok for bars to take advantage of drunk people so they spend frivolously (or alcoholics who throw away their paycheck every week?)
Strawman argument.