A question to the grown adult men of the Escapist

[Kae]

I think that's disgusting and that guy's a pig I would never do that, but then again I'm to shy to even talk to a girl so I don't think I would even go near her, and I don't drink, and I guess I'm too much of a socially awkward geek to do that.

 

[nothingspringstomind]

Taking advantage of a drunk girl because she is drunk is terrible.

I've come close to it before myself but i couldn't ever bring myself to do it simply because i knew how wrong the act is.

 

[duchaked]

if I was to go at this from a personal level...as in she was my girlfriend or someone close to me...absolutely aldfjalkdfjda of course

but from a more detached viewpoint...ehh keep seeing these scenarios popping up and honestly I dunno what to say. not necessarily bad people, but bad ideas and bad situations....def not ideal

 

[Chefodeath]

Yes, actually you can. They are aiding someone in doing something dishonest. They have no legal obligation, but they have an ethical one. It doesn't have to be an issue of property to refuse to deal with people who treat others badly and dishonestly.

Oh bollocks. This isn't the same as supplying a murderer a gun. The reason why cheating is wrong isn't because of any physical reprecussion. Its not so much that two persons happened to exchange fluids, its that a person has decided to breach their partner's trust. The person has essentially already made the ethical breach by trying to do it, by willing it. Whether or not you reciprocate only matters to cement this person's act and provide evidence of it for posterity.

Again, if we follow your logic where you ignore a person's desires for sex out of obligation to their partner, then we are relegating that person to secondary status and the chattel of his/her lover. "Your desires are of no consequence as you belong to your mate." Practically speaking, I think its a rather trashy thing to do sleeping with a cheater, but I don't see any ethical obligation not to.

It isn't the same as aiding a murderer, duh. I said nothing of physical repercussions either. Is your argument so weak you have to attack things I didn't say?

You seem to lack logic and the ability to follow mine. I gave a reason for why you shouldn't associate with them. Was it that they were chattel? Oh wait, I'll grab a 7 year old to come read my post for me. It says "refuse to deal with people who treat others badly and dishonestly". And it's all the worse when you're participating in the action that they essentially promised not to do. Let's see... where's ownership there? Oh wait, it's not there.

Someone does something wrong? You don't go and say "Oh well, you betrayed them by asking already, even if what you're doing is wrong I guess I'll go along with it." You just sound self-serving.

Allllright. I could point out that you were implying a sort of accomplice relationship when you said "Aiding someone in doing something dishonest", like giving a murderer gun but I won't. I could point out that speaking of obligation to a third party implies them having some kind of ownership over the immediate thing or object of contention, but I won't do that either. I just want to ask you one question.

Is there a difference between a moral obligation and a prudent choice? I certainly believe so. If I pay back a loan to the bank, im fulfilling an ethical and legal obligation. The moral right demands I do so. Its still a good and prudent decision if I just decide to deposit some money there, but I'm certainly not obligated to.

We aren't talking about whether sleeping with a cheater is a prudent decision or not. As I've already stated, I don't think it is. We are talking about whether one has an ETHICAL OBLIGATION not to. I have laid out my case why its not. Please kindly respond to said case or don't respond at all.

 

[Slayer_2]

Not saying it never happens. But on the grand scale of things, what do you think the percentage is? Maybe 0.01% of the times shit like that happens, it's the girl who initiates it.

Happened to me all the time when I was in my 20s.


GODDAMN I MISS BEING IN MY 20s... so much crazytime.

You had girls coming on to you like in the OP? Jesus, you lucky bastard

 

[Uszi]

I know scales suck, please explain yourself if you reply. On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is 'extremely sweet and respectful towards women' and 10 is 'this guy would have fucked her if she was passed out', how bad and/or normal is this guys mindset?

I obviously don't understand male sexuality at all and in my eyes this is extremely disgusting. Like, devastatingly disgusting. I have been in a situation where a girl was naked and begging for it and i left. She was so drunk and horny she was actually pissed at me at the time. But I couldn't have lived with myself the next day, I knew she would never have been there if she wasn't beyond capacity hammered.

What do you think?

To cut straight to the question:

As a dude, I find it completely abhorrent. On your scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is good and 10 is bad, this is a 10, or worse, depending on how far your scale slides. But this is disgusting behavior on his part.

I've drank to the point of blacking out on multiple occasions, but I've never felt completely out of control. Your inhibition is impaired, but you still aren't going to do something you would never do, even if you are completely wasted. People just use that shit as an excuse.

One other thing:

A girl is very drunk. An 8-9 on the 1-10 scale of sober to passed out drooling...

Edit: She didn't come on to him, he came on to her and she didn't stop it or say no specifically...

...she is absolutely disgusted with herself and can't stop crying...

This sounds suspiciously like rape to me. I'm obviously not privy to all of the details, nor would I want to be, but if someone is too incapacitated to resist or decline sex, and someone has sex with that person anyway -- that's rape.

 

[Chefodeath]

Yes, actually you can. They are aiding someone in doing something dishonest. They have no legal obligation, but they have an ethical one. It doesn't have to be an issue of property to refuse to deal with people who treat others badly and dishonestly.

Oh bollocks. This isn't the same as supplying a murderer a gun. The reason why cheating is wrong isn't because of any physical reprecussion. Its not so much that two persons happened to exchange fluids, its that a person has decided to breach their partner's trust. The person has essentially already made the ethical breach by trying to do it, by willing it. Whether or not you reciprocate only matters to cement this person's act and provide evidence of it for posterity.

Again, if we follow your logic where you ignore a person's desires for sex out of obligation to their partner, then we are relegating that person to secondary status and the chattel of his/her lover. "Your desires are of no consequence as you belong to your mate." Practically speaking, I think its a rather trashy thing to do sleeping with a cheater, but I don't see any ethical obligation not to.

It isn't the same as aiding a murderer, duh. I said nothing of physical repercussions either. Is your argument so weak you have to attack things I didn't say?

You seem to lack logic and the ability to follow mine. I gave a reason for why you shouldn't associate with them. Was it that they were chattel? Oh wait, I'll grab a 7 year old to come read my post for me. It says "refuse to deal with people who treat others badly and dishonestly". And it's all the worse when you're participating in the action that they essentially promised not to do. Let's see... where's ownership there? Oh wait, it's not there.

Someone does something wrong? You don't go and say "Oh well, you betrayed them by asking already, even if what you're doing is wrong I guess I'll go along with it." You just sound self-serving.

Allllright. I could point out that you were implying a sort of accomplice relationship when you said "Aiding someone in doing something dishonest", like giving a murderer gun but I won't. I could point out that speaking of obligation to a third party implies them having some kind of ownership over a thing or object, but I won't do that either. I just want to ask you one question.

Is there a difference between a moral obligation and a prudent choice? I certainly believe so. If I pay back a loan to the bank, im fulfilling an ethical and legal obligation. The moral right demands I do so. Its still a good and prudent decision if I just decide to deposit some money there, but I'm certainly not obligated to.

We aren't talking about whether sleeping with a cheater is a prudent decision or not. As I've already stated, I don't think it is. We are talking about whether one has an ETHICAL OBLIGATION not to. I have laid out my case why its not. Please kindly respond to said case or don't respond at all.

And it is a kind of accomplice relationship. It isn't the same as a giving a murderer a gun, no violence is committed. But it still helps someone do something wrong. Ethical argument. Did it fly over your head or did you somehow think that has to do with a prudent choice?

Blah blah blah prudent choice blah blah blah. I didn't say anything about a prudent choice. You brought that up.

Quit whining about me not replying to your case when you're busy being dishonest trying to pretend I was talking about a prudent choice. I said nothing of prudent choices, that's a red herring you brought up. If this was about prudent choices then I'd bring up personal risk. I didn't. Maybe that isn't something a 7 year old would get like the last thing, but maybe a 12 year old.

*Flame levels approaching critical*

Alright this arguments done. I don't think you actually understand what I'm trying to say, I don't think you even understand what you're trying to say, so I don't see any point in continuing.

 

[INF1NIT3 D00M]

snip

I did clarify in the next sentence that those would be my actions if I were the OP, and I did go on to say that she could try to forgive her girlfriend.

I don't expect people to be inhumanly loyal. I know that human beings are fallible. That's exactly why my girlfriend and I have agreed to avoid situations where our (already human) judgement is impaired further.

You did indeed, but it was less of a clarification and more of an afterthought.

Fair enough, I guess. A lot of people wouldn't make the commitment to never drink or even think to make that commitment. I wasn't trying to convince you that what you would do in the situation was wrong, I just thought that you sounded rather aggressive.

I still feel that being forgiving is usually the better choice as offhandedly dumping someone is only going to stir up long-term feelings of resentment. Asking for a 'break' with the relationship might be a good middle-ground instead.

I understand what you're saying, and I think that looking at it from your perspective has shed some light on the subject. I'm going to bed, but I will definitely mull over your words. In regards to being overly aggressive, I acknowledge that and I'm working on being less confrontational. Mixed success, but practice will eventually improve my posts.

 

[b3nn3tt]

short answer: that guy is scum. if she was obviously wasted and especially if she had a boyfriend, he is a complete bastard for taking advantage of her.

if the guy is also drunk then things get a little murky. in general, i would say the person with the most control over their actions (ie, the person who is less drunk) would bear the responsibility. since the girl in your story seems to pretty much be too drunk to move im gonna put the blame on the guy. in any case, i see this guy as a 10 and a rapist

Quick question for you. What if the guy was an 8 on the scale of drunkenness? That would make him more sober than the girl, but far from sober, would you still consider him 'responsible'?

From the OP I think it sounded like the guy had also been drinking, so I think it's unfair to label him a rapist.

Also, do you think being drunk absolves people of responsibility? Genuine question, I'm curious about your view on that.

 

[Angry Camel]

9, 9 and a half. The girl was at fault here; she should have never gotten that drunk in the first place. However, he saw an opportunity and took it. That is just wrong. For the girl, I'd give a 7 or 8. Making yourself vulnerable and complaining about what it causes later flys in the face of common sense.

 

[Von Strimmer]

Yes, actually you can. They are aiding someone in doing something dishonest. They have no legal obligation, but they have an ethical one. It doesn't have to be an issue of property to refuse to deal with people who treat others badly and dishonestly.

Oh bollocks. This isn't the same as supplying a murderer a gun. The reason why cheating is wrong isn't because of any physical reprecussion. Its not so much that two persons happened to exchange fluids, its that a person has decided to breach their partner's trust. The person has essentially already made the ethical breach by trying to do it, by willing it. Whether or not you reciprocate only matters to cement this person's act and provide evidence of it for posterity.

Again, if we follow your logic where you ignore a person's desires for sex out of obligation to their partner, then we are relegating that person to secondary status and the chattel of his/her lover. "Your desires are of no consequence as you belong to your mate." Practically speaking, I think its a rather trashy thing to do sleeping with a cheater, but I don't see any ethical obligation not to.

It isn't the same as aiding a murderer, duh. I said nothing of physical repercussions either. Is your argument so weak you have to attack things I didn't say?

You seem to lack logic and the ability to follow mine. I gave a reason for why you shouldn't associate with them. Was it that they were chattel? Oh wait, I'll grab a 7 year old to come read my post for me. It says "refuse to deal with people who treat others badly and dishonestly". And it's all the worse when you're participating in the action that they essentially promised not to do. Let's see... where's ownership there? Oh wait, it's not there.

Someone does something wrong? You don't go and say "Oh well, you betrayed them by asking already, even if what you're doing is wrong I guess I'll go along with it." You just sound self-serving.

Allllright. I could point out that you were implying a sort of accomplice relationship when you said "Aiding someone in doing something dishonest", like giving a murderer gun but I won't. I could point out that speaking of obligation to a third party implies them having some kind of ownership over a thing or object, but I won't do that either. I just want to ask you one question.

Is there a difference between a moral obligation and a prudent choice? I certainly believe so. If I pay back a loan to the bank, im fulfilling an ethical and legal obligation. The moral right demands I do so. Its still a good and prudent decision if I just decide to deposit some money there, but I'm certainly not obligated to.

We aren't talking about whether sleeping with a cheater is a prudent decision or not. As I've already stated, I don't think it is. We are talking about whether one has an ETHICAL OBLIGATION not to. I have laid out my case why its not. Please kindly respond to said case or don't respond at all.

And it is a kind of accomplice relationship. It isn't the same as a giving a murderer a gun, no violence is committed. But it still helps someone do something wrong. Ethical argument. Did it fly over your head or did you somehow think that has to do with a prudent choice?

Blah blah blah prudent choice blah blah blah. I didn't say anything about a prudent choice. You brought that up.

Quit whining about me not replying to your case when you're busy being dishonest trying to pretend I was talking about a prudent choice. I said nothing of prudent choices, that's a red herring you brought up. If this was about prudent choices then I'd bring up personal risk. I didn't. Maybe that isn't something a 7 year old would get like the last thing, but maybe a 12 year old.

*Flame levels approaching critical*

Alright this arguments done. I don't think you actually understand what I'm trying to say, I don't think you even understand what you're trying to say, so I don't see any point in continuing.

That would probably be because apparently you don't even bother to read my posts. What with bringing up nonsense like prudent choices, when I said nothing of prudence.

I feel this is appropriate


Seriously though why cant this entire thread die already? Why must everyone have their 0.02c thrown in (myself included). It is now up to the OP to figure out what she wants to do next.

 

[wetnap]

Here is the situation. First of all, notice that I am female so this is most definitely not me we are talking about and the situation didn't happen to me, but never the less affects me deeply. Anyway here is the scenario:

A girl is very drunk. An 8-9 on the 1-10 scale of sober to passed out drooling. You know her, you know she has a serious partner and would never entertain you sober. You come on to her asking if you can touch her. she agrees. she seems into it. She asks you several times if you have a condom and you say no, but have sex with her anyway. She doesn't stop you.

I know scales suck, please explain yourself if you reply. On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is 'extremely sweet and respectful towards women' and 10 is 'this guy would have fucked her if she was passed out', how bad and/or normal is this guys mindset?

I obviously don't understand male sexuality at all and in my eyes this is extremely disgusting. Like, devastatingly disgusting. I have been in a situation where a girl was naked and begging for it and i left. She was so drunk and horny she was actually pissed at me at the time. But I couldn't have lived with myself the next day, I knew she would never have been there if she wasn't beyond capacity hammered.

What do you think?

Edit: She didn't come on to him, he came on to her and she didn't stop it or say no specifically. I hope that clears that up.

Edit 2: Yes he had also been drinking, but I am of the type that believes, like some posters that being drunk doesn't excuse behavior. In the example I gave of myself in the same situation, I was not only wasted, i was also (for better or worse) super high on coke (it was a long time ago). This means that, yes, she has some blame here for her own actions. She knows that and hates herself, but putting that aside, it's the guys side of this i'm interested in really just now.

Edit 3: I really wanted to try and keep it very impersonal so as to respect the situation and the fact that i have turned to the internet to understand it. I am the 'bloke' she 'cheated' on, so i am very much involved. It is an awkward situation and i love her very much, we have been together for four years and just moved in together. I wish to respect her here - she is absolutely disgusted with herself and can't stop crying. She knows she is wrong as well and neither of us are unclear about that fact, I'm just very curious about men's thoughts about this. Understand I'm not trying to hate on men. My experience with them sexually is limited I just wanted a gauge of your thoughts.

Edit 4: Setting is important here it seems. This was a work party at a farm out of town. She had worked there for the summer and this was the last night party. She was already hammered and stuck there having planned to stay before he arrived. He was the bosses wife's brother. He apparently came on to her after she had gone to the farmhouse to bed.

It isn't pc but the truth is people can recast events to put themselves in a better light, to to shed responsibility for their actions.

This happens more often than you think, and for women, the thing no one wants to say is that in these situations sometimes, the events are recast so they are the victim because it is convenient, instead of simply screwing you over by cheating on you, she becomes the hard done by party.

You've seen this in the recent bristol palin revelation where she recast her sexual history with her babys father as "he tricked me into sex" to recast the event as victimhood rather than one of simple regret for poor decision making.

 

[wetnap]

I think that's disgusting and that guy's a pig I would never do that, but then again I'm to shy to even talk to a girl so I don't think I would even go near her, and I don't drink, and I guess I'm too much of a socially awkward geek to do that.

Which is a nice white knight sentiment, but it is like judgement from ugly republican politicians against bill clinton on cheating, it is easy to stay faithful if no one else would want to f*** you as they say.

There is nothing rational about sex, and when emotional/carnal desires are put into play in that kind of a situation things are bound to happen if both parties are drunk and inhibitions are lowered. The idea that one party has less responsibility than the other is problematic. Either women are adults, or they aren't.

 

[Thaluikhain]

you ask how? this is one potential way

handcuffs.
drunk ppl may be willing to try new, kinky things.
man goes into situation expecting to experience vaginal intercourse after the forplay.
man gets handcuffed to the bed.
woman produces an alarming number of bdsm "toys"
many of the toys go up his ass despite his repeated objections
man has been raped.

Again, I've never denied that men can be raped. I've never said that gender was the sole determining factor in rape. However as one gender is overwhelmingly the rapist and another is overwhelmingly the victim, it's still a pretty important factor, even if it's not the only one, and shouldn't be dismissed.

 

[giggetygooo]

wait im confused..are you a guy or a girl?

 

[00slash00]

short answer: that guy is scum. if she was obviously wasted and especially if she had a boyfriend, he is a complete bastard for taking advantage of her.

if the guy is also drunk then things get a little murky. in general, i would say the person with the most control over their actions (ie, the person who is less drunk) would bear the responsibility. since the girl in your story seems to pretty much be too drunk to move im gonna put the blame on the guy. in any case, i see this guy as a 10 and a rapist

Quick question for you. What if the guy was an 8 on the scale of drunkenness? That would make him more sober than the girl, but far from sober, would you still consider him 'responsible'?

From the OP I think it sounded like the guy had also been drinking, so I think it's unfair to label him a rapist.

Also, do you think being drunk absolves people of responsibility? Genuine question, I'm curious about your view on that.

as i said, it gets significantly more complicated when both people are drunk but the person who is the least drunk is the one i would place most of the blame on. no, i dont think being drunk means you arent responsible for your actions. that is why i blame the guy even if he was drunk. the fact that the dude seems to have known she was in a relationship, was less drunk than her, and initiated things, leads me to the conclusion that she is the victim in this situation. she definitely deserves some of the blame for getting so wasted but i would still place the vast majority of it upon his shoulders

 

[Dascylus]

There are alot of people who proudly state here that they would never do such a thing... By which we mean "Take a shot with the hot drunk girl" but to quote that old game, I cry "Bullshit!!".

I have been to too many parties and seen this behaviour too many times.
When you are all sober I can believe that you would think twice, and even when drunk you'll weigh up the situation. But alcohol tips the scales in favour of the immediate and I promise that more than one person here has gone down a similar path.

As for rape? Come on... I mean... Come... On.