fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2726 ]

[ SECRET POST #2726 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2726 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Naruto]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Transformers: Prime]

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05. http://i.imgur.com/dkPX9Ym.gif
[moving .gif, Steven Ogg, Grand Theft Auto V]

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07. [SPOILERS for Murder in the First]

__________________________________________________

08. [SPOILERS for Game of Thrones]

__________________________________________________

09. [WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________

10. [WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________

11. [WARNING for rape, abuse, etc]

__________________________________________________

12. [WARNING for rape, abuse, pedophilia, incest, ironically enough none of which OP warned for]

__________________________________________________

13. [WARNING for eating disorders]

__________________________________________________

14. [WARNING for suicide]

__________________________________________________

15. [WARNING for sexual abuse]

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #389.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - ships it ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Alcoholics are considered culpable for their actions while drunk. In fact, accepting responsibility for what they do while drunk is part of the "program."

Why are others not considered responsible for what they do while drunk?

SA

Okay, that comes across as being a little flippant. But this is really something I'm thinking about and that's bothering me.

So, if you get drunk and proceed to beat the crap out of people, then your drunkenness isn't considered an excuse. You are still responsible. It's all, "drink doesn't 'change' you; it just lowers your inhibitions. If you're violent while drunk, then that means that you're violent in truth." But if you get drunk and someone else proceeds to beat the crap out of you, then the fact that you were drunk somehow makes you more of a victim.

And, well, let's not beat around the bush: if you have sex while drunk, then it means that you were assaulted.

So explain it to me. Why is it that if I'm a violent drunk, then it's me, not the alcohol; but if I'm a promiscuous drunk, then it's the alcohol, and not me?

I think the simplest explanation is that with sex, the other person is able to consent or deny. If sex happens, it's assumed the second party consented to have sex with you while knowing you were drunk.

If you assault someone, it's assumed they did not consent to being physically assaulted.

ayrt

But why is the assumption that you couldn't really have wanted it simply because you were drunk? Why is it that if I hit you while drunk, then I'm assumed to have really wanted to hit you; but if I have sex with you, then I'm assumed to have not really wanted to have sex with you?

Yes, the victim of an assault doesn't consent to being assaulted. I don't question that. I also don't question the idea that someone who is confused, disoriented, or passed out can't consent. But I am bothered by the idea that being drunk doesn't absolve you of some actions, but completely absolves you of others.

I didn't say any of what you said in the first paragraph, I don't know where you're coming from.

If you're completely drunk, then maybe you do want the sex, maybe you don't. An outsider can't tell. And that's the point. You're not assumed to not have wanted it, they are assumed to not have been able to tell for sure. They couldn't know for sure whether you really wanted it and took the chance and did it anyway. What if you hadn't really wanted it? I mean, if you did want it, great! Everything worked out for you. But if you didn't...

Well, that makes the second person pretty careless and possibly abusive, if they ignore that risk and do whatever they want with you.

ayrt

It seemed like you were making a distinction between someone who is violent while drunk and someone who has sex while drunk. If you weren't, then I mistook you, and I apologize.

I can understand this idea that sometimes, another party might not know the difference. That's why I think that if someone is confused or disoriented, then there's a line to be drawn. But the thing that bothers me is that the ability to choose to assumed in someone who makes any number of careless decisions while drunk, but is not assumed in someone who has sex. Either you can't make decisions while drunk, or you can.

I said it downthread, but I'll say it again here: another reason why I'm bothered is because I don't like the idea that the mere fact of me drinking means that I am no longer capable of knowing my own mind and my own desires. I also don't like the idea that my partner is careless and abusive, when I am making a conscious choice.

I said it below, and I'll say it again:

It's about being responsible for the impact of your actions on others, not simply for your actions.

If someone is sober enough to consent to having sex with you, you don't hurt that person if they have sex with you.

If they don't consent, then you can absolutely sexually assault someone while drunk and be held responsible.

ayrt

I agree with you. My problem is with the idea that, if you've been drinking, then you can't consent.

Then you should have said that instead of comparing it to being a violent drunk because someone who is a violent drunk victimizes others. It's not at all comparable, not considered comparable, and not something you can use to argue your point.

As for your statement there, it's too broad to agree or disagree with. Drinking what, and how much? What state of intoxication are you in?

ayrt

The trouble is that I think the two cases are linked by agency: the violent drunk is considered to have agency; the drunk who has sex is considered not to have agency. There's a disconnect there that bothers me in a way that it seems I'm unable to describe.

But, drinking what and how much -- well, that depends on the person. I myself can usually have about four drinks of hard liquor before I've hit my limit. The state of intoxication where I see this disconnect does not involve confusion, disorientation, or unconsciousness.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-06-21 04:07 (UTC) - Expand

Your intent to commit assault or not is meaningless, just the fact that the victim has been assaulted. In this case, you are being punished to deter you from getting into a situation that will result in the assault of another person. ie. Don't get drunk, because you're dangerous when you're drunk, whether or not you intend to be.

What? Yes they are. People who are not alcoholics but get drunk and kill someone in an automobile accident are arrested.

ayrt

Okay, yes, you're right. But that kind of goes into what's bothering me.

If you take certain actions while drunk, then everyone will agree that you're still responsible. You haven't completely lost control of yourself to the point where you can't be held responsible. This is completely at odds with the idea that you can't make informed choices while drunk.

There's this weird, infantilizing compartmentalization going on that no one seems to think about because it's really uncomfortable to do so.

anon in first thread

It's about being responsible for the impact of your actions on others, not simply on your actions.

If someone is sober enough to consent to having sex with you, you don't hurt that person if they have sex with you.

If they don't consent, then you can absolutely sexually assault someone while drunk and be held responsible.

Unless they then go to prison because they thought you were consenting when in fact you were free from the responsibility of the choice you made while drunk.

I really feel like you're leading into a "sex while drunk isn't rape" conversation, here, and that's really not okay.

they're not really 'leading into it' at this point

ayrt

Except that I think it should be talked about, and this attitude ensures that it isn't.

And before you assume, part of the reason I think it should be talked about is because, according to most definitions, I've been raped. I've been raped over, and over, and over again. And I don't like that, and I don't think it's right, because I don't think I've been raped. I've consented every single time, but even though it's considered okay for me to drink, it's not considered okay that someone has sex with me after I've had something to drink (EVEN THOUGH I'M OKAY WITH IT). And those same people will turn around and say that someone who gets violent while drinking is still responsible for his or her actions.

Why? Why am I not responsible but they are? Why is it that having a few drinks and then choosing to have sex makes it so that I no longer know my own mind or my own desires, but if I were to have a few drinks and then choose to beat someone senseless, then I'd totally know my own mind and my own desires? Why is that considered okay?

DA

The majority of people make a distinction between intoxicated but aware and too intoxicated to consent.

ayrt

Maybe I've just come across too many people recently who don't.

Hey, are you...trying to get people to tell you you haven't been raped?

Have you maybe considered seeing someone? I mean, like professionally? Because it kind of sounds like you might have some stuff to work through.

Anon, you're not the one who gets to decided that, especially on such little data.

(reply from suspended user)

Anyone who tries to define your experience for you with regard to whether or not you were raped needs to mind their own business.

Sex and alcohol when the person drinking is still awake and lucid is a fuzzy situation, and whether or not rape occurs depends on a number of contextual factors. It's similar to the way people in established relationships don't necessarily need an explicit, verbal "yes" for every sexual encounter, because they know one another's nonverbal cues - which they have probably explicitly discussed ahead of time. Consensual, enthusiastic sex between two married partners who do not explicitly say, "Hey honey, feel like a quickie this morning?" is not the same as marital rape.

Similarly, a number of mitigating factors can push a drunken sexual encounter in "more consensual" or "less consensual" directions. Did the drunk person plan or agree to have sex with their partner before they started drinking? More consensual. Did the sexual partner pressure the drunk person to consume more alcohol than they were comfortable drinking in the hope of getting them to agree to sex? Less consensual.

Alcohol impairs judgment. That's simply one of the symptoms of alcohol intoxication. Having sex with someone whose judgment is impaired is questionable in terms of consent, which is why the "when in doubt, don't" philosophy is encouraged with regard to sex with drunk people. That doesn't mean that it's impossible for you or someone else to have consensual sex while drunk, just that it's important for your partner(s) to be a lot more careful about establishing consent.

Cheer up, anon. If your partners on these occasions were ALSO drinking, then (by the standards of a couple people in this thread) you're also a serial rapist! So maybe it cancels out?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only