Locksley wrote: There is much I could say about how so-called 'overreacting' is actually a really good thing.
It almost never is. The thing about
overreacting is that
over part. It's a reaction that is above and beyond the amount that is logically called for; it means that you have chosen a path of excess because you're unable to reign in your emotions long enough to make a logical, coherent decision about how a topic should be handled. Emotions impair our judgement as much as intoxicants, and an overreaction (however good-hearted it may seem) is allowing them to rule your conscious mind rather than taking control of yourself. Overreaction is a sin of ignorance, excess, and a lack of control.
The issue is this: If you have had any intoxicants in your system, you are not fit to make clear and cogent decisions, even (hah, especially), when you think that you actually are.
Some of us might disagree with you. Everyone is different. Everyone handles intoxicants differently. Everyone makes decisions differently. Everyone bases those decisions in different logical paths of reasoning. I'm here to tell you that I've gotten blackout drunk a few times in my life, and of all the things I've been told or remember about those occasions (rare as I'd like them to be, because I hate that state), I've not done or said anything I wouldn't have done or said sober, given the appropriate stimulus. Granted, I am not most people, and everyone (as said before) works differently, but I know that until I get to the point where I cannot stand, I'm coherent enough to make big boy decisions. Even if they're bad ones. And I have made some very, very bad ones. That would not stop calling me.
If you take advantage of someone who is intoxicated, that's rape. It's not their fault because they got drunk. It's your fault for raping them. They could be naked, passed out, and the hottest person you've ever seen, and they could be next to a sign that says "rape me" and, you know what, it's still rape.
This greatly depends on the definition of rape we're choosing to use.
Despite the questionable nature of some of these definitions (and the outright lunacy of the last two), the modern age has seen a consistent redefining of what constitutes rape, but the major commonality is (obviously) consent.
So the question becomes what consent is valid? Is my consent valid if:
- I am intoxicated, but still capable of making decisions?
- I am sober, but having a rough emotional period that renders me incapable of making good choices?
- I agree wholeheartedly, but feel bad afterward?
- My mental illness is cockblocking me, no matter how much I'd enjoy the act?
- Have willingly put myself, intentionally, into a position where my mind won't get in its own way when trying to find a partner?
That last one gets touchy. I know people who honestly can't flirt their way into a Kroger unless they've had a couple of shots. I know a lot of people that drink for "liquid courage" to ask out that guy or girl on the dance floor they've been eyeing all night. I know a lot of people who have been so brainwashed by religion and conservative moral values that they really, really
want a nice, wild, one-night stand more than anything, but can't bring themselves to do so sober because their culturally-ingrained shame is just too great.
I was told I live in a "barbaric" area about a decade ago. A woman from out-of-town said she'd heard of a lot of drunked trysts that ended with sober women saying, essentially, "well, I deserved that." Her mainline stance was that any intoxication rendered one incapable of valid consent. The truth is, around here, everybody's been drinking since they were old enough to reach the liquor cabinet. I don't know anybody who doesn't have a Bacon Number of 3 or less to a moonshiner. We know what we're like when we drink. We know how much we can drink before we start making bad decisions, and we know it's still a few shots of PGA away from making bad decisions we'll actually regret. If I'm drinking in a public space, my level of intoxication and my toehold on sobriety are solely my concerns. If I ignore those concerns, it is willing. If I drink enough that I become an asshole, or I become a Casanova, or I become a pool shark or the lead singer in a Journey cover band, it's on purpose. Because, otherwise, I'd call Jimmy Dale down the road and have him deliver me some mason jars and drink the eff at home.
It's not like that everywhere. White people can't hold their liquor in big cities, I'm told. That's fine. In general, intoxicated people shouldn't be making decisions. But then again, in general, people shouldn't be intoxicated around strangers who might not respect their decisions, either.
If someone has sex with you without your consent, that's rape.
If someone has sex with you and you withdraw consent during the act, and they continue, that's rape.
I just have a very, very hard time believing that if you consent to having your ability to consent impaired, consent to doing so in a public space, and then give consent for sex while intoxicated, that none of the responsibility for that is on your shoulders at all.
