= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
David_Gerard comments on LW Women Submissions: On Misogyny - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (472)
This implies that the ability to walk doesn't imply a reliably good grade of consent.
As I said, there is some gray area. Some people can do things they later regret during alcoholic blackouts, but it doesn't mean that they are completely incapable to exercise judgement in these circumstances. In fact, in most cases they would be still considered legally responsable for their actions.
Yep. Kill somebody, you're still held wholly responsible. Consent to sex, on the other hand, is far too serious a matter.
My general rule of thumb is thus: If you inebriate yourself, you're responsible for everything you do under the influence of alcohol, including consent. Your responsibility for your actions precludes actions intended to deny your own responsibility.
Which is not to say that sex with an unconscious person isn't rape; I limit myself strictly to those cases where the person does in fact give consent.
Who could ever have doubted that?
V_V says:
Yes, my point was that walking on your own has at least one well-known exception, and so of course no one would say that walking is any more than a fallible piece of evidence, a heuristic, a relatively reliable guide, a rule of thumb. You rephrasing it implied skepticism that it was ever fallible, so I brought up the exception (and particularly appropriate, note the mention of sex in the lede of the link).