Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-15-2019, 05:01 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat View Post
You think that serving someone a drink that is much stronger than normal, mixed so it's hard for them to notice, in the hope that they will then be more likely to have sex with you, is "impressive"?

It was mainly an aside. The point is that stronger drinks generally taste stronger. The only exception I can think of is a Long Island iced tea, so if you manage to mix a drink that is not a LIIT and it is strong without tasting strong, that was an impressive invention. Because I promise you that if you put more than the normal amount of vodka in a screwdriver, for example, it won’t taste good to most people—and they will definitely know it has a lot of alcohol in it. In fact, most of the women I have known over the years will probably get drunk more slowly on such a drink, because they will sip it very slowly if they drink it at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Oh, we "have to have some things" to which consent doesn't apply, do we? And why is that?

Not what I said. What we have to have is an understanding that there is a wide moral range of human behavior that still all falls under the umbrella of nonviolent and legal, from saintly and generous, to decent, to acceptable, to tolerable, to boorish and even despicable. Not everything that is immoral is a crime or a violation of someone’s human rights. In fact, this would describe the majority of immoral actions.

This is a point that appears to be lost on the “enthusiastic consent” crusaders. If they simply held that up as the gold standard, I would agree with them. But they seem to want to criminalize everything outside enthusiastic consent, and I vehemently oppose that project. Sometimes a guy will use slimy and manipulative maneuvers to worm his way into having sex with a woman (a woman who may be much younger and thus naïvely susceptible to his “game” but not legally underage). And then he may talk a bunch of shit to his dudebros about his “conquest” of her afterwards or treat her as a discarded plaything. That makes him a despicable jerk, an asshole—but not a rapist. The appropriate penalty for which is that decent people may not want to be friends with you. Not prison, or being kicked out of college.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-15-2019 at 05:06 PM.
  #102  
Old 02-15-2019, 05:46 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
It was mainly an aside. The point is that stronger drinks generally taste stronger. The only exception I can think of is a Long Island iced tea, so if you manage to mix a drink that is not a LIIT and it is strong without tasting strong, that was an impressive invention. Because I promise you that if you put more than the normal amount of vodka in a screwdriver, for example, it won’t taste good to most people—and they will definitely know it has a lot of alcohol in it. In fact, most of the women I have known over the years will probably get drunk more slowly on such a drink, because they will sip it very slowly if they drink it at all
.
Maybe deceptively strong drinks was covered in the last semester of the Mixology program you dropped out of.
  #103  
Old 02-15-2019, 09:38 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,748
Lol, iswydt.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #104  
Old 02-16-2019, 03:13 AM
Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
It was mainly an aside. The point is that stronger drinks generally taste stronger.
Nope, that's not the point, and it's not an aside. One of the few interesting things about your posts is their regular insights into who you are. This is one of these moments. You said:

"I think if you manage to serve someone a drink that is really strong without it seeming strong...then very impressive.

...If it falls within the generally understood parameters of being an actual cocktail, with alcohol and mixer and no roofies, I don't think that's predatory."

As long as you've got the skills to blend it without the recipient noticing how strong it is, and as long as you're only using alcohol, then you reckon it's not predatory. Then we can add in your previous observation on predatory behaviour. You see nothing wrong with getting some drunk enough that "their non-debilitating buzz makes them more open to having sex when they might not have been into it stone cold sober". You think it's ok as long as you haven't got them to the point where they're "passed out, or so blitzed (even if still sort of conscious) that they don't have a clear idea of what's going on around them."

To summarise: you think it's ok to make people drink more than they realise to get them buzzed enough to have sex with you, as long as they're not passed out.
  #105  
Old 02-16-2019, 04:04 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,748
Gary, you used some carefully chosen ellipses there, and you ignored my subsequent clarification of what you quoted. And I don’t appreciate your quoting me without using the quote function so that people can go back and see the quoted post in context.

I would note that in case it wasn’t clear, I think someone can be predatory and act in a way that is immoral and which all decent people should denounce, without it being something they should be arrested for, kicked out of college for, or lose their job over. Being a sleazy and manipulative lothario is certainly not something we should encourage in our sons and brothers, but people have the right to be that kind of person, as long as they don’t cross the line to sexual assault.

And despite your attempt to misrepresent and therefore strawman me, I did not say that line was crossed only if passed out, but also if the woman is conscious but so blitzed she doesn’t really know what’s going on around her. In fact, you quoted me saying that, but then curiously left that part out of your “summary”.

You apparently would prefer a different line, although it seems you don’t want to be pinned down on where that line is. Is it when her inhibitions are lessened compared to what they would be if she were sober? If so, then that happens with the first drink. So you would necessarily further believe that an adult woman who has had a drink or two is not competent to decide she wants to have sex. Is that correct, or would you like to clarify?
  #106  
Old 02-16-2019, 05:04 AM
Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I did not say that line was crossed only if passed out, but also if the woman is conscious but so blitzed she doesn’t really know what’s going on around her.
I had actually already quoted that addition, but if it makes you feel better:

To summarise: you think it's ok to make people drink more than they realise to get them buzzed enough to have sex with you, as long as they're not passed out or so blitzed (even if still sort of conscious) that they don't have a clear idea of what's going on around them.
  #107  
Old 02-16-2019, 06:42 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat View Post
I had actually already quoted that addition, but if it makes you feel better:

To summarise: you think it's ok to make people drink more than they realise to get them buzzed enough to have sex with you, as long as they're not passed out or so blitzed (even if still sort of conscious) that they don't have a clear idea of what's going on around them.

I think it’s not a crime, or justification for being fired or expelled from college. That’s far from saying it’s “ok”. Are you unable to read the portions of my posts where I express moral disapproval of “sleazy” “lotharios”?

ETA: And I note that you continue to dodge my question. You want to question where I draw the line, but you won’t state your own for the record. Coward.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-16-2019 at 06:45 AM.
  #108  
Old 02-16-2019, 09:14 AM
Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I draw the line, but you won’t state your own for the record. Coward.
I draw the line pretty easily. I don't sleep with someone drunk if I don't believe they'd have slept with me when sober. It's a nice straightforward rule, and it means you don't excuse yourself for bullshit like "I'll get them drunk to improve my chances, but it's ok because I'm only using alcohol, and they're not passed out".
  #109  
Old 02-16-2019, 09:44 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,437
Let’s put aside the question of whether it should be a crime.

I’m comfortable with the idea that if you violate consent by tricking someone into drinking more alcohol than they expected then they should be able to write about it on a website and call you to account.
  #110  
Old 02-16-2019, 11:05 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,538
As a woman, I find the notion that I’m incapable of consent after having downed a couple of glasses of wine incredibly condescending and infantilizing.

No means no. But my yes also means yes. If I say yes and I regret it the next day, that’s on me. It was a learning experience and it will help me make better decisions next time.

These conversations have other overtones that I find disturbing, a carry-over from days I thought we were past. One of them is the idea that a woman’s virtue is her most precious possession. The other is that the default position is that sex is something that men want and women don’t. Because sex is so so icky for girls that the guy better be double-dog sure she wants it, because what sane woman would want to do THAT?
  #111  
Old 02-16-2019, 12:07 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,672
Fuck Louis CK. I have no use for him anymore.
  #112  
Old 02-16-2019, 07:05 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
As a woman, I find the notion that I’m incapable of consent after having downed a couple of glasses of wine incredibly condescending and infantilizing.

No means no. But my yes also means yes. If I say yes and I regret it the next day, that’s on me. It was a learning experience and it will help me make better decisions next time.

These conversations have other overtones that I find disturbing, a carry-over from days I thought we were past. One of them is the idea that a woman’s virtue is her most precious possession. The other is that the default position is that sex is something that men want and women don’t. Because sex is so so icky for girls that the guy better be double-dog sure she wants it, because what sane woman would want to do THAT?

So. Much. This. You dug into some underlying prejudices there that I hadn’t consciously perceived, but as soon as you laid them out, it was instantly clear you were speaking truth.
  #113  
Old 02-17-2019, 02:19 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
As a woman, I find the notion that I’m incapable of consent after having downed a couple of glasses of wine incredibly condescending and infantilizing.

No means no. But my yes also means yes. If I say yes and I regret it the next day, that’s on me. It was a learning experience and it will help me make better decisions next time.

These conversations have other overtones that I find disturbing, a carry-over from days I thought we were past. One of them is the idea that a woman’s virtue is her most precious possession. The other is that the default position is that sex is something that men want and women don’t. Because sex is so so icky for girls that the guy better be double-dog sure she wants it, because what sane woman would want to do THAT?
Am I missing something?

The context in this thread is that the woman has been given additional alcohol without her consent, and this leads her to having sex when she would not have chosen to do so sober.

That means she was drugged. That's not okay. It's not the same thing as her choosing to drink a little more alcohol. Alcohol is actually the most common date rape drug--easy to spike a drink with that.

Even without an actual rape, it's a consent violation. And it has nothing to do with the person's gender: it would be just as wrong with a man or someone else. If anyone ever snuck anything into a drink that I didn't want there, I would be quite traumatized.

As for when the person chooses how much they drink: different people have different comfort levels. Obviously not drunk is okay, and passed out is bad, and we all have to draw our lines in different places. Personally, I draw the line at disequlibrium--when they seem to have trouble walking. But I'd be willing to move the line either direction depending on what people tell me.
  #114  
Old 02-17-2019, 03:25 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,748
“Additional alcohol” violates her consent? That’s nonsense, unless he claimed to put a certain exact amount in and secretly put way more. Most people who aren’t bartenders don’t use jiggers: they just splash some liquor in the glass and fill the rest with mixer.

I agree with you about disequilibrium though.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-17-2019 at 03:26 AM.
  #115  
Old 02-26-2019, 05:31 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I agree with you about disequilibrium though.

In one of those funny coincidences, this had not been a live issue for me for some years--but then it became one again just this past Saturday night.

I was out at the bar, and a young woman took a shine to me, you might say. But although the woman in question was definitely tipsy (she was a bit unsteady when walking to the bathroom for instance), she was very much the aggressor, which added an interesting wrinkle. She kept offering to buy rounds of shots to drink with her (I accepted one), saying things like "you're the coolest guy I ever met" and "I love you". When I casually mentioned my wife, she flat out stated that I was making her jealous.

So where did this come from? It's not like my night usually involves what sounds like the opener to one of those classic Penthouse letters. The key element, I think, in combination with alcohol, was that she was mad at her boyfriend. I offered a sympathetic ear, and my usual gentlemanly charm, but we really had nothing in common from my perspective. She was very "basic", complaining for instance about her friend's boyfriend's "weird vegan food" and showing no sign of being into anything intellectual or culturally highbrow. She was also very vain, expressing outrage that some other person she met guessed her age at 28 when she is in fact 26. "Do I look 28?" I told her she did not look that old, that she appeared to have perfect skin without any smile lines or anything (and this was true). Boy did she eat that up with a spoon. (She will be a sad case when she hits her forties, I expect.)

She kept saying she wanted to "spend all night" with me, but she lived with the boyfriend she is mad at, and I of course live with my wife and two younger kids. But had she lived on her own and invited me over, I would have been sorely tempted. Because although as I say we really had nothing in common, she was objectively quite beautiful. I have been with some very attractive women, especially in my salad days, but I would have to say that even if her style wasn't as hip as most of theirs, just as a physical specimen of humanity she probably has them all beat: perfect "figure" as my mom would say, fit without being too skinny; and very pretty: a natural blonde, with looks in the ballpark of Paris Hilton or Mamie Gummer. She would have been out of my league in high school or in my twenties, so it was extra crazy at this age (although I did recently read a study of heterosexual people on dating sites that found men's attractiveness peaks at 50 and women's at 18, so I guess maybe I'm still on the upward climb?).

So although I did give her a ride home, I ignored her entreaties to go somewhere else (it would have had to be the uber-tacky move of getting a hotel room) and then metaphorically kicked myself after dropping her off. I thought about our discussion here, and how we would think about a case where a super attractive woman is the aggressor, buying the shots, pushing for a hookup. Would we really fault a guy for giving in to that temptation, when she is out of his league, even if she is a little unsteady on her feet and the guy strongly suspects she would regret the hookup the next day?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #116  
Old 02-26-2019, 05:50 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Would we really fault a guy for giving in to that temptation, when she is out of his league, even if she is a little unsteady on her feet and the guy strongly suspects she would regret the hookup the next day?
Dude, if you "strongly suspect she would regret the hookup the next day", then accepting the opportunity to hook up is knowingly setting her up for a situation that you have good reason to believe she won't be happy with. Why would any normal decent person do that?

Not just with sex, but with anything. For instance, if my lactose-intolerant friend gets shitfaced and begs me to buy them an icecream cone because they sooooooo muuuuch want some icecream, I'm not going to do that. I'm not necessarily going to physically prevent them from buying an icecream cone for themselves, but I'm not going to give them icecream when I know it's highly probable that they wouldn't be begging me for icecream if their judgement weren't impaired.

The fact that they voluntarily chose to drink enough to impair their own judgement doesn't absolve me from my responsibility, as a normal decent person, not to encourage them in doing things that I strongly suspect they will regret.
  #117  
Old 02-26-2019, 06:05 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,748
You make a good case, as usual (are you a trial lawyer, a lobbyist, something like that? Just curious). But your analogy has a key discrepancy from my situation: we don't have a deep, primal drive to watch our friends eat ice cream. We (straight men at least) do have a deep, primal drive to engage in coitus with exceptionally attractive, fertile women who are strongly coming on to us.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #118  
Old 02-26-2019, 06:14 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,338
People getting drunk together in bars then hooking up for a night they later regret is so common that it's a cliche'.

If the woman was falling down drunk, I would agree with you. If she's passed out drunk, touching her sexually in any way is assault, and sex is rape. No question. But if she's just tipsy and gregarious because she's had a couple, then that's on her. Women have agency, including the agency to have a few drinks to loosen themselves up if they are going out patrolling for someone. It is not a man's job to decide if a woman is making the right choices or doing something she might regret, so long as she is capable of making those choices for herself.

I agree with Ann Hedonia - our zeal to demonize men and protect women is leading us down an almost Victorian path which threatens to infantalize women and take away their agency. What's next, fainting couches? Or do we call those safe spaces today?

Last edited by Sam Stone; 02-26-2019 at 06:16 PM.
  #119  
Old 02-26-2019, 06:14 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
We (straight men at least) do have a deep, primal drive to engage in coitus with exceptionally attractive, fertile women who are strongly coming on to us.
And, so ...? Finish that thought.

"I have an instinctual desire for sex ... therefore, I should be excused when I disregard whether the other person has conveyed genuine, knowledgeable, non-incapacitated consent?"

The whole point of this cultural movement is to teach men that it's not okay to disregard those questions when your instinctive desire is urging you on.

That's indeed what the entire history of human civilization is about. Civilization is the curbing of unchecked instincts to act on one desires and to take into account the desires and well being of the people around you. The whole point of civilized behavior is the principle that "you don't always get to do what you want to do."

Last edited by Acsenray; 02-26-2019 at 06:15 PM.
  #120  
Old 02-26-2019, 06:20 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
our zeal to demonize men and protect women is leading us down an almost Victorian path which threatens to infantalize women and take away their agency. What's next, fainting couches? Or do we call those safe spaces today?
None of this is about a "zeal to demonize men and protect women." It's to stop any person A from violating the consent of any person B for any reason whatsoever. Foregoing a chance to have sex is not a tragedy or a taking of something valuable.

I'd rather that Ann Hedonia be mad at me for refusing her come on than to go for it when there's any question in my mind about her competence to consent. Neither she nor I have lost anything valuable if I forego it. And that works both ways, and it works regardless of the sex or gender or sexual preferences of the parties involved. It's how all humans should treat each other.
  #121  
Old 02-26-2019, 06:24 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,748
But there's a difference between having a personal code of conduct (I don't think anyone, even Ann, is disputing your right to have such) and insisting that anyone and everyone who deviates from your code is ipso facto a predator who should be arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned (or kicked out of school, or fired from their job for that matter).
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #122  
Old 02-26-2019, 06:41 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,338
Exactly. I personally have never hooked up with a woman in a bar. I've never had an interest in one night stands. And I've been in situations where drunk women came on to me at parties, and I've always been a 'gentleman'. I tend to be the person women come and talk to as a 'friend' after making a mistake with someone else. And some of them made choices like that over and over again, with alcohol being involved each time.

And believe it or not, some women do NOT regret one night stands and seek them out for the same reason some men do. Again, the assumption that a tipsy woman will absolutely regret a booty call seems to be an almost Victorian attitude. Why can't women enjoy having a few drinks or smoking a joint then getting their ashes hauled by a guy they picked up? Am I supposed to psychoanalyze the woman and make a decision for her as to whether this encounter will be something she's going to later regret? Am I supposed to be her protector?

Whether you engage in this kind of behavior is your choice, whether you are a woman or a man. I'm not going to make it for you. And I'm not going to judge you. I don't do this kind of thing, but if you want to, and the woman consents, I don't see anything wrong with it outside of what I see as the general wrongness of the hook up lifestyle in the first place. But again, that's my choice and not something I would dream of imposing on other people or using against them in any way.
  #123  
Old 02-26-2019, 08:26 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
We (straight men at least) do have a deep, primal drive to engage in coitus with exceptionally attractive, fertile women who are strongly coming on to us.
Which there's nothing wrong with in and of itself, but which does not excuse anyone, straight or male or otherwise, in knowingly taking advantage of another person's impaired judgement to encourage them into actions that you honestly believe they are likely to regret. That's just common human decency, no matter how straight and male you are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone
But if she's just tipsy and gregarious because she's had a couple, then that's on her. [...] And believe it or not, some women do NOT regret one night stands and seek them out for the same reason some men do.
Sure, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with voluntarily being tipsy and gregarious in and of itself, or with seeking out one-night stands, or with accepting invitations to one-night stands from someone who's a little tipsy and gregarious.

But SlackerInc's hypothetical included the information that "the guy strongly suspects she would regret the hookup the next day". If you strongly suspect, for whatever reason, that a person whose judgement is impaired will regret doing whatever it is that they're currently trying to do in their impaired state, then basic human decency requires that you not encourage them in doing it.

That doesn't change just because it was the other person's own choice to drink enough to impair their judgement. Callously saying "it's on her" that you deliberately ignored your conscientious scruples and encouraged her in behavior that you honestly believed she would probably regret once she sobered up is the act of an exploitative creep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone
Again, the assumption that a tipsy woman will absolutely regret a booty call seems to be an almost Victorian attitude.
Take it up with SlackerInc: he's the one who specified that the guy in this particular scenario "strongly suspects she would regret the hookup the next day". I agree that plenty of women, even tipsy women, don't regret having casual sex. But that doesn't absolve anybody from the ethical responsibility to steer clear of a would-be sex partner that they strongly suspect would regret having the sex that they're now drunkenly asking for.

Last edited by Kimstu; 02-26-2019 at 08:31 PM.
  #124  
Old 02-26-2019, 09:02 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,748
This ethical rule you are laying out strikes me as having so many implications for non-sexual issues that I wonder how you could ever drink with friends or acquaintances. If someone is drinking too much, should you just frown and tut-tut them instead of joking around with them and showing your amusement? Or what if your friend isn't ready to go home, but you know he has to get up for work early and is going to regret drinking so late when his alarm goes off? (I drive people for Uber all the time who report having to go to work ridiculously early given that they are in my car at 2 a.m.) Should you refuse to buy a round when its your turn, on the theory that the others will regret this night of debauchery? To me, as long as it isn't enabling drunk driving, that's taking this responsbility for other people's future regret too far.

And when I assume that woman at the bar would regret hooking up with me the next day, it's mainly because I'm not a 6'3" thirty year old with washboard abs and a high paying job. But again, if she had her own place and invited me in, I don't know how I could have resisted in the moment.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #125  
Old 02-26-2019, 10:25 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
This ethical rule you are laying out strikes me as having so many implications for non-sexual issues that I wonder how you could ever drink with friends or acquaintances.
Then I think you must not be understanding the rule correctly. The rule is simply that you shouldn't be actively encouraging other people to do things that you strongly suspect they're going to regret later. Not that you should be trying to control their behavior, except as it involves yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
If someone is drinking too much, should you just frown and tut-tut them
No. But if you seriously think they're going to regret drinking so much, then when they ask you to go halves on another bottle of wine with them, you shouldn't take them up on their offer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
Or what if your friend isn't ready to go home, but you know he has to get up for work early and is going to regret drinking so late when his alarm goes off?
It's not up to you to decide when he goes home, but if you seriously think he's going to regret being out so late, you shouldn't urge him to put off going home.

This is a simple ethical principle and it really isn't that difficult to implement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
And when I assume that woman at the bar would regret hooking up with me the next day, it's mainly because I'm not a 6'3" thirty year old with washboard abs and a high paying job. But again, if she had her own place and invited me in, I don't know how I could have resisted in the moment.
Your own private morality about the acceptability of having casual sex or cheating on your wife is your own business and none of mine. I'm just saying that if you honestly believe that another person who's asking you to supply them with casual sex (or icecream, or more wine, or whatever) will regret what they're doing, then ethically speaking, you shouldn't comply with their request. Whether or not you'd be too weak-willed "in the moment" to be able to "resist" complying with their request is a separate issue.

Last edited by Kimstu; 02-26-2019 at 10:28 PM.
  #126  
Old 02-26-2019, 11:09 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,764
In my younger days I’ve had tipsy women hit on me and I turned them down because I felt I’d be taking advantage of them. Not because I thought doing so made me a predator, or rapist, or criminal. I just thought doing so made me an asshole.

On a very related note, I also find inebriated women to be unattractive, even if they’re very attractive sober. I’m sure that factored in it as well.
  #127  
Old 02-26-2019, 11:34 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,045
This. Sexual encounters are not an adversarial game like a chess match, where the fundamental goal is for you to derive as much personal advantage as you can from the other person's choices. In that adversarial mindset, if the other person makes a choice that you strongly suspect they're going to regret, too bad, sweet to be you, sucks to be them. The goal is to get as much out of the encounter for yourself as you possibly can, irrespective of whether you think the other person's going to be happy with it, as long as you're not actually breaking official rules.

Sex, on the contrary, is supposed to be a cooperative endeavor shared by people who care about each other's happiness (at least for that one night). If you "strongly suspect" that they're not in fact going to be happy about having this sex, you don't just charge ahead with it anyway for the sake of your own pleasure.

Last edited by Kimstu; 02-26-2019 at 11:35 PM.
  #128  
Old 02-27-2019, 03:33 AM
Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Would we really fault a guy for giving in to that temptation, when she is out of his league, even if she is a little unsteady on her feet and the guy strongly suspects she would regret the hookup the next day?
Fucking right I would.

And on the repeated subject of your telling insights. "out of his league"? So if she was ugly, then you'd be ok faulting the guy, but if she's smoking then it's just human nature, amirite?
  #129  
Old 02-27-2019, 04:22 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,748
Yes, Gary, you are right--even if you don't think you are.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #130  
Old 02-27-2019, 07:11 AM
Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Yes, Gary, you are right--even if you don't think you are.
You know, I'm always happy to put some time and effort into an insult but honestly it's hard for me to think of something more insulting than the beliefs you'll admit to. You are happy to state that you'd fuck someone knowing they're only doing it because they're drunk, and that tomorrow they'll regret it. Words fail me. You are damaged.
  #131  
Old 02-27-2019, 07:52 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
... Shit, can't you just be a human, Aziz?
My "problem" was the opposite: I was so shy that when I was "dating," the woman would almost have to start undressing me before I would take Yes for an answer!

But when I read the victim's account in the Aziz matter
Quote:
... But the main thing was that he wouldn’t let her move away from him. She compared the path they cut across his apartment to a football play. “It was 30 minutes of me getting up and moving and him following and sticking his fingers down my throat again. It was really repetitive. It felt like a fucking game.” ...
Thirty minutes? Shouldn't she have said "Our expectations for this date are much too different" 29 minutes ago, and left already?

I am NOT suggesting that a woman doesn't have the right to say No whenever she wants. But the label "worst night of my life" seemed incongruous with the fact that she remained in his apartment for another 30 minutes after it went bad.
  #132  
Old 02-27-2019, 08:44 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
My "problem" was the opposite: I was so shy that when I was "dating," the woman would almost have to start undressing me before I would take Yes for an answer!
1. What you quoted was a response to Aziz’s complaint that just anyone can criticize you on social media, so I don’t know what that has to do with your comment.

2. Okay. So what?

Quote:
But when I read the victim's account in the Aziz matter
Thirty minutes? Shouldn't she have said "Our expectations for this date are much too different" 29 minutes ago, and left already?

I am NOT suggesting that a woman doesn't have the right to say No whenever she wants. But the label "worst night of my life" seemed incongruous with the fact that she remained in his apartment for another 30 minutes after it went bad.
And this means what? Do you think everyone always responds to unexpected situations in the absolutely most ideal and assertive manner?

We could certainly start offering all kinds of reasons to explain her decision timeline, but what’s the point of that exercise? What do you prove? The whole point is that she shouldn’t have had to go through that decision tree in the first place.
  #133  
Old 02-27-2019, 09:22 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
1. What you quoted was a response to Aziz’s complaint that just anyone can criticize you on social media, so I don’t know what that has to do with your comment.

2. Okay. So what?

And this means what? Do you think everyone always responds to unexpected situations in the absolutely most ideal and assertive manner?

We could certainly start offering all kinds of reasons to explain her decision timeline, but what’s the point of that exercise? What do you prove? The whole point is that she shouldn’t have had to go through that decision tree in the first place.
1. I have the bad habit of quoting snips and then segueing off in a different direction. (I should avoid this.) If my response was directed at you or your comment I might have made that clearer.

2. Most Dopers are INTJ. I am INTP. I was describing my Perception, not making a Judgment.

I wrote "I am NOT suggesting that a woman doesn't have the right to say No whenever she wants." and applied both the [ B ] and [ I ] tags. Do you think I was insincere? Next time should I also underline it and use a larger font?
  #134  
Old 02-27-2019, 10:47 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat View Post
So if she was ugly, then you'd be ok faulting the guy, but if she's smoking then it's just human nature, amirite?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
Yes, Gary, you are right--even if you don't think you are.
You know, I'm always happy to put some time and effort into an insult but honestly it's hard for me to think of something more insulting than the beliefs you'll admit to. You are happy to state that you'd fuck someone knowing they're only doing it because they're drunk, and that tomorrow they'll regret it.
Even if you don't "know" but only "strongly suspect" that tomorrow they'll regret it, as I said, the ethical thing to do is not to take them up on the offer. (Which, to be fair, is what SlackerInc by his own account appears to have done in the actual real-life situation.)

The other ethically dubious issue here is what appears to be SlackerInc's position that the morality of the situation depends on the "smokingness" of the drunken potential sex partner.

I understand that people are naturally more strongly tempted to bang people they find attractive than people they find ugly, but that doesn't mean that attractiveness makes it ethically acceptable to bang someone who you believe will later regret it. Moral courage involves being able to resist strong temptation for the sake of doing what's right, not merely being able to turn down something that doesn't really tempt you at all.
  #135  
Old 02-27-2019, 09:04 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,748
Gary, you do realize I didn't touch this woman, and conveyed her safely home? (Well, to be precise, I touched her on the elbow once or twice to steady her as she walked across the ice.) What a monster I am!

Kimstu, many people have a strong belief in the immorality of adultery. I'm not one of them, but most people are at least moderately opposed to it in principle.

The question that always comes to my mind about this belief: Is a married rock star or leading-man actor just as morally culpable if he gives in to the entreaties of the numerous "tens" who throw themselves at him day after day, as is an average schmoe who has to work at it to "step out", and even then probably would only find a potential mate of very mediocre attractiveness in ev-psych terms? Really?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #136  
Old 02-27-2019, 10:52 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Gary, you do realize I didn't touch this woman, and conveyed her safely home? (Well, to be precise, I touched her on the elbow once or twice to steady her as she walked across the ice.) What a monster I am!
Expressing the support of reprehensible behavior or excusing it is still shameful even if you don’t personally engage in the behavior.

Quote:
Kimstu, many people have a strong belief in the immorality of adultery. I'm not one of them, but most people are at least moderately opposed to it in principle.
I consider adultery to always be immoral, but I only consider it adultery if it is done without the knowledge and acceptance of the other partner. For example, there’s no adultery if you’re in an open marriage and sleep with someone else. Adultery involves betraying the trust of someone that should be closer to you than anyone in the world, to satisfy personal desires. How can anyone but a true sociopath see no problem with that?

Quote:
The question that always comes to my mind about this belief: Is a married rock star or leading-man actor just as morally culpable if he gives in to the entreaties of the numerous "tens" who throw themselves at him day after day, as is an average schmoe who has to work at it to "step out", and even then probably would only find a potential mate of very mediocre attractiveness in ev-psych terms? Really?
Yes they are both equally culpable. And I’m not sure if you’re aware that there is no true objective measure of sexual attractiveness. The “tens” you’re talking about don’t really exist. What’s a ten to you might seem too skinny or fake or annoying or self-absorbed to me. But regardless, having opportunity does not excuse guilt. It seems extremely immature to think it might.
  #137  
Old 02-27-2019, 11:21 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
The question that always comes to my mind about this belief: Is a married rock star or leading-man actor just as morally culpable if he gives in to the entreaties of the numerous "tens" who throw themselves at him day after day, as is an average schmoe who has to work at it to "step out", and even then probably would only find a potential mate of very mediocre attractiveness in ev-psych terms? Really?
Well, is a banker or investment broker to wealthy clients just as morally culpable if he succumbs to the temptation to filch some of the readily available massive riches right there at his fingertips day after day, as is an average schmoe who has to go to the trouble of holding up a convenience store or mugging a passerby, and even then probably would only obtain a very mediocre amount of loot? Really?

Of course he is. In both cases, a betrayal of trust is a betrayal of trust. You don't get a pass, ethically speaking, on betraying somebody's trust just because you were soooo tempted and the payoff was soooo irresistibly huge.

Mind you, I've got absolutely nothing against rock stars or actors (or anyone else) happily schtupping their way through mile-long queues of enthusiastically consenting sex partners if they're not betraying anybody's trust in so doing. Last time I checked, no rock star or actor was obligated to remain in an exclusively monogamous marriage against his will. If he decides that a monogamous commitment is not worth the sacrifice of all the one-night stands with hot babes that he could be having, then he needs to sack up and terminate or renegotiate said commitment so that he can start banging all the sexy strange without being a cowardly dishonest cheat.
  #138  
Old 02-28-2019, 02:55 AM
Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Gary, you do realize I didn't touch this woman, and conveyed her safely home? (Well, to be precise, I touched her on the elbow once or twice to steady her as she walked across the ice.)
You've not really got the hang of ethics, have you?

You've stated that you think it's perfectly acceptable to fuck a drunk woman, knowing that the next day she would regret it, if she's hot.

I'm grateful that on that one occasion you didn't go ahead with it, sure. But that doesn't change what your beliefs are.
  #139  
Old 02-28-2019, 03:15 AM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,532
Relevant Louis CK.
  #140  
Old 02-28-2019, 03:42 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,748
What you term “immature” I would characterize as simply being clear-eyed and realistic.
  #141  
Old 02-28-2019, 08:26 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
What you term “immature” I would characterize as simply being clear-eyed and realistic.
You certainly do have a high opinion of your judgment, that's for damn sure.

Which is a good thing. It'd suck if nobody had any faith in you.
  #142  
Old 02-28-2019, 08:35 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
What you term “immature” I would characterize as simply being clear-eyed and realistic.
Assholes usually think that way.
  #143  
Old 02-28-2019, 08:42 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
But had she lived on her own and invited me over, I would have been sorely tempted.
You have a wife and two younger kids, and some drunk chick at a bar tempted you that much? Strange.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
This ethical rule you are laying out strikes me as having so many implications for non-sexual issues that I wonder how you could ever drink with friends or acquaintances. If someone is drinking too much, should you just frown and tut-tut them instead of joking around with them and showing your amusement? Or what if your friend isn't ready to go home, but you know he has to get up for work early and is going to regret drinking so late when his alarm goes off? (I drive people for Uber all the time who report having to go to work ridiculously early given that they are in my car at 2 a.m.) Should you refuse to buy a round when its your turn, on the theory that the others will regret this night of debauchery? To me, as long as it isn't enabling drunk driving, that's taking this responsbility for other people's future regret too far.
I call this "being a friend" and "keeping friends out of trouble". Strange that you find that troubling.
  #144  
Old 02-28-2019, 10:09 AM
Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Assholes usually think that way.
"Just telling it like it is" is always such a telltale defence.
  #145  
Old 02-28-2019, 12:18 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
What you term “immature” I would characterize as simply being clear-eyed and realistic.
No, what's clear-eyed and realistic is acknowledging that men who are constantly getting propositioned by hotbabes have more opportunity and temptation to engage in casual sex than men who are not. Nobody here is denying that in any way.

Where you go off the rails, morally speaking, is in assuming that having lots of opportunity and temptation somehow absolves a person from the obligation to behave ethically. That's the part that you're getting so much pushback on.

By your "logic", it would be less morally objectionable for, say, a kindergarten principal in a big school district to molest little children than it would for, say, some unwashed derelict out in the boonies to put in weeks of effort to waylay and molest one of the very few little children in his neighborhood. Because look, the kindergarten principal is constantly surrounded by huge numbers of darling little kids and has tons of opportunities to abuse them! Surely he's less morally culpable than the loser schmoe who actually had to work at being a molester!

Yuck. No. Obviously, the perpetrator who has innumerable tempting opportunities is not less responsible for his vile behavior than the perpetrator who doesn't.

And the same goes for other sexual transgressions as well. If having casual sex involves betraying somebody's trust, or encouraging somebody who's drunk to do something that you believe they'll probably regret when sober, or violating any other ethical principle, then you are morally culpable for choosing to do that. Your moral culpability doesn't change depending on the hotness of the person you chose to have sex with.

(That's "you" in the abstract, by the way, because I'm not trying to criticize your own individual behavior in the RL incident you described. In that incident, by your own account, you did not accept the invitation to casual sex from a person who you suspected would later regret it. And presumably you and your wife are on the same wavelength concerning extramarital sex, as otherwise it would be unspeakably foolish of you to proclaim your willingness to commit adultery on a public messageboard under an alias that is identifiably connected, as other posters have previously noted, with your social-media presence.)
  #146  
Old 02-28-2019, 01:09 PM
Covfefe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: 100 miles N. of Chicago
Posts: 1,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
(That's "you" in the abstract, by the way, because I'm not trying to criticize your own individual behavior in the RL incident you described. In that incident, by your own account, you did not accept the invitation to casual sex from a person who you suspected would later regret it. And presumably you and your wife are on the same wavelength concerning extramarital sex, as otherwise it would be unspeakably foolish of you to proclaim your willingness to commit adultery on a public messageboard under an alias that is identifiably connected, as other posters have previously noted, with your social-media presence.)
I think, in spite of possibly nearing his crest of virility, Slacker might be losing his mind. Has anyone else noticed? It's like he is talking to people who aren't there.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...5#post21512015
  #147  
Old 02-28-2019, 02:15 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
1. I have the bad habit of quoting snips and then segueing off in a different direction. (I should avoid this.) If my response was directed at you or your comment I might have made that clearer.

2. Most Dopers are INTJ. I am INTP. I was describing my Perception, not making a Judgment.
How about you just use words to explain how your comments are meant to fit in to the various issues being discussed? I don't know about anyone else but knowing the purported classification of your personality isn't very enlightening to me.

Quote:
I wrote "I am NOT suggesting that a woman doesn't have the right to say No whenever she wants." and applied both the [ B ] and [ I ] tags. Do you think I was insincere? Next time should I also underline it and use a larger font?
Yes, I saw what you said you're NOT saying. I'm asking you to explain what you actually ARE saying. You made the point of detailing all the ways that "30 minutes" was astonishing to you. My question remains "so what?" "P not J" doesn't help me.
  #148  
Old 02-28-2019, 03:13 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Covfefe View Post
I think, in spite of possibly nearing his crest of virility, Slacker might be losing his mind. Has anyone else noticed? It's like he is talking to people who aren't there.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...5#post21512015
He legitimately believes that Ignorance is Strength, and that not knowing what the fuck he's talking about should present no impediment to issuing smug opinions about everything.

I'd think it was a satirical persona, but we're in the weirdest timeline.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 02-28-2019 at 03:14 PM.
  #149  
Old 02-28-2019, 07:41 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Most Dopers are INTJ. I am INTP.

Are they? Interesting! I'm an ENTP; my son is an INTP like you. Is there a thread on this?


ETA: I told my wife before we got married that I wanted a "don't ask, don't tell, be discreet" policy, and she agreed.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-28-2019 at 07:42 PM.
  #150  
Old 02-28-2019, 07:55 PM
Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,394
https://www.forbes.com/sites/toddess.../#49cc2f481c79

If you're going to spout shite pseudoscience could you at least be entertaining. Phrenology, maybe?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017