Latest Comments

Perhaps I was not clear enough. I was responding to the entirety of Dox’s position throughout this thread. In particular, specific statements like:

“If a woman is intoxicated, high, or impaired, then she cannot give consent.”

(This is specifically what I was referring to when I said his position was patronizing to women. If you do not believe this is patronizing to women, find the woman closest to you, and see what she thinks. Ask her if she believes she instantly loses all ability to make decisions for herself and her wellbeing when she’s had a few drinks. You all know what the answer should be. It is not “yes”.)

Rico Jones, the poster he was arguing with, asked a logical follow-up question to this statement, and it was:

“And what is the threshold for intoxicated, high and impaired? At what point does it begin? 1, 2 or 3 beers? If a woman is too intoxicated to drive does that mean she is too intoxicated to give consent?”

In my opinion, this is entirely relevant to the discussion, and specifically to Dox’s point. If you say “impairment”, you should define “impairment”. If you say “intoxicated”, it is reasonable that there be a standard for intoxication. To argue against this would get you laughed out of your debate club faster than defending Bill Cosby.

Now, in response to the above question, Dox replied:

“Well Rico, if you have any class at all, you simply avoid having sex with a woman that you just met who’s intoxicated. […] Never in my life have I taken advantage of a woman who is intoxicated. Not once, not ever. You just don’t do it. Period. I guess maybe I have self respect.”

So, Dox does not answer the direct question posed. Rather, he deflects the issue to discuss personal integrity. There are thinly-veiled jabs at Rico, particularly the comment about self-respect, but absolutely no discussion of the very question he was asked.

Throughout the remainder of the thread, Dox continues to argue his point, without giving us any standards by which he is judging intoxication or impairment, leading to the logical conclusions that either (1) there is no standard for these things, or (2) there is an absolute standard for these things. In the former scenario, it would involve matters of personal constitution and amount of intoxicant consumed, in some sort of chemical calculus that will never be sorted out. In the latter scenario, the standard is that when a person ingests an intoxicant, in any amount, they are thenceforth intoxicated.

By this ridiculous logic, when a woman (or man) drinks a beer, she (or he) cannot consent to sex. Dox has attempted to clear up that he is “talking about situations in which one party is intoxicated and the other isn’t”. This is a specious argument. If any mature, sound-of-mind individual consumes a beer, they are capable of knowing whether they want to have sex. If that same person consumes six beers, they may still be fully capable of knowing and knowingly consenting to whether they want to have sex. A person’s ability to consent is not determined by the relative intoxication of those around them.

Dox’s argument denies a person’s autonomy. It is patronizing and demeaning. It is a morally- and ethically-defensible position completely obliterated by its absurd results (see: reductio ad absurdam, and my prior post). It is the White Knight argument, and it is stupid.

Sorry for not accurately reflecting his words in your opinion. This ought to clear that right up.

In all honesty, Dox, this position seems incredibly naive. Alcohol isn’t some sort of dimension-altering super-chemical. You don’t necessarily have to drink a lot not to be capable of complex motor function, but that doesn’t also mean you don’t have to drink a lot to entirely lose the ability to think for yourself.

The notion that when a women sips a beverage she simply loses the ability to make choices for herself and her own sexuality is incredibly patronizing to women. There is absolutely nothing wrong with two or more mature, consenting individuals having a few drinks and knocking boots, or smoking a joint and doing the same. Woman on woman, woman on man, man on man, or any combination you can arrange.

To suggest that the moment a person has had a drink they are incapable of consenting to anything deprives that person of their own agency. It victimizes someone who is not a victim. It also sterilizes sex and makes it some sort of exalted practice that only the purest, most enlightened individuals can partake of. It ignores the reality that sex is primal, dynamic, organic, and most of all, really fucking fun.

To take your position would be to call every person – woman, man, or otherwise – who has engaged in any sexual encounter with another person who has had alcohol cross their lips at presumably any time before it could have entirely passed through their system, a rapist. That is absurd. Completely and totally absurd.

Think about it: you and your partner have a glass of wine, fool around, then have sex. RAPE. You and your partner watch the Super Bowl and drink beer with your chicken wings. Your team wins and you celebrate. Later you have gross, chicken wing-fuelled sex. RAPE. You and a not-yet partner are on the precipice of the “next step”. You’re both nervous and hang out, having a beer. You both know what’s coming, but you’re awkward as hell. Then it finally happens and it’s magical. NO IT WASN’T, IT WAS RAPE.

That’s what you’re saying. And it’s so, so very stupid.

Posted on Oct 24th
re: The Crap We Missed - Friday 10.24.14 (18 comments)

Remember everyone: that is a male theatre performer. He’s going to be in counselling for years after this.

Posted on Oct 24th
re: The Crap We Missed - Friday 10.24.14 (20 comments)

Where, pray tell, does one acquire carbon fibre stilettos?

Posted on Oct 24th
re: The Crap We Missed - Friday 10.24.14 (10 comments)

Sideboob and Spanx?

RIP, Joan Rivers.

Posted on Oct 24th
re: The Crap We Missed - Friday 10.24.14 (12 comments)

Don’t be fooled. The dress creates an optical illusion called “relevancy”.

Posted on Oct 24th
re: The Crap We Missed - Friday 10.24.14 (15 comments)

That belt had no idea what it was getting itself into.

Posted on Oct 24th
re: The Crap We Missed - Friday 10.24.14 (9 comments)

Would you like to hear a joke? A squirrel walks up to a tree and says, “Hi tree! I’m a squirrel, and I forgot to bury nuts so now I am dead.”

The joke is funny because the squirrel gets dead.

Posted on Oct 24th
re: The Crap We Missed - Friday 10.24.14 (12 comments)

Not pictured: Patient Zero.

Posted on Oct 24th
re: The Crap We Missed - Friday 10.24.14 (11 comments)

Is there anyone in the world you would want to party with more than Dennis Rodman? (A) He’s friends with the last great dictator of the modern world. (B) His wedding dress selection is tiiii-eeeeght. (C) He has no idea where he is, who he is, or even what he is, ever.