Decades of Sexual Harassment Accusations Against Harvey Weinstein - Part 2

[DarthSkywalker]

I call serious BS on Stan Lee getting accused. The guy is 95, his wife of almost seven decades died last year and I doubt he'd be feeling too ****ing frisky after that.

A tabloid reports it without any other reputable agencies doing the same and I cast serious doubt. Along with the rest of the facts? Utter BS.

The Daily Mail is fantastic. I don't know what you mean.

 

[batdude]

I would like to see the Stan Lee story develop before having an opinion. Right now, it is he said/she said. If he did that stuff, regardless of age, shame on him and there is no excuse.

I don't belive these Stan allegations. The man is 95 for god's sake. come up with actual evidence.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I think most people here will agree that having sex with someone who's so incredibly intoxicated they can't speak or walk and if falling over or just unconscious is wrong.

I think what most people here are taking exception to is a girlfriend getting drunk with her friends, coming home and trying to initiate sex with their sober significant other and that constitutes rape by the sober party. Even if the girlfriend would only blow a 0.08 and had only a few drinks.

What if she blew a .11? .15? .21? What if the party can only talk in sounds?

Being intoxicated is not drunk. People are talking drunk here. If you can't operate a car, would that qualify?

 

[moviedoors]

I am talking about drunk, drunk. Loss of balance, trouble speaking, not entirely coherent. At risk of crashing a car and wouldn't pass a sobriety test. Incapable of remember what happened the next day.

That's the thing though, the legal limit for operating a car is not that high. It shouldn't be either. Alcohol slows response time significantly after just a few drinks. We're not talking minutes, but seconds, and fractions of a second. Those seconds and fractions of a second can make all the difference when you're careening down a freeway. The point where that happens to you, the point where the legal limit to operate a motor vehicle kicks in, happens waaaaaaay before you've had enough to black out, to literally not remember what you did. Getting black-out drunk puts you waaaaay over the legal limit. I don't say this to be condescending at all, but as someone that doesn't drink, it's not a surprise that you wouldn't know about that distinction or these gradients when we're talking about drinking.

Now this is why I reacted so sharply. I had sex where I was too drunk to drive a car, where my response time was dulled, but I was very very far away from a black-out, and I didn't have a hangover the next day either. I got moderately drunk, smoked a little weed, and then had a fantastic time with a beautiful woman and I don't regret one second of it. Consent 100% intact.

 

[Erzengel]

What if she blew a .11? .15? .21? What if the party can only talk in sounds?

Being intoxicated is not drunk. People are talking drunk here. If you can't operate a car, would that qualify?

Intoxicated and drunk seems to be the same thing to me.

Doing a 0.08 is still illegal to drive and would it make you impaired. Most people don't have breathalyzers at home. If a significant other came home and it appears that they have been drinking, but they are responsive, communicative, and participating and not just "laying there", I don't think that's rape.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Intoxicated and drunk seems to be the same thing to me.

Doing a 0.08 is still illegal to drive and would it make you impaired. Most people don't have breathalyzers at home. If a significant other came home and it appears that they have been drinking, but they are responsive, communicative, and participating and not just "laying there", I don't think that's rape.

And what if the significant other thinks it was?

 

[Erzengel]

And what if she doesn't? What if she said, that was some better sex than usual the day after.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That's the thing though, the legal limit for operating a car is not that high. It shouldn't be either. Alcohol slows response time significantly after just a few drinks. We're not talking minutes, but seconds, and fractions of a second. Those seconds and fractions of a second can make all the difference when you're careening down a freeway. The point where that happens to you, the point where the legal limit to operate a motor vehicle kicks in, happens waaaaaaay before you've had enough to black out, to literally not remember what you did. Getting black-out drunk puts you waaaaay over the legal limit.

Now this is why I reacted so sharply. I had sex where I was too drunk to drive a car, where my response time was dulled, but I was very very far away from a black-out, and I didn't have a hangover the next day either. I got moderately drunk, smoked a little weed, and then had a fantastic time with a beautiful woman and I don't regret one second of it. Consent 100% intact.

Alcohol impairs judgment. That is what is being avoided. Again what one thinks of themselves when intoxicated or drunk is very different then trying to perceive someone else.

 

[moviedoors]

And what if the significant other thinks it was?

Then that would be bad, but I don't think that's the discussion being had.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

And what if she doesn't? What if she said, that was some better sex than usual the day after.

Answering a question with a question is not an answer. What if she said she didn't want to after? Same scenario as you have laid out. Is that not rape because you don't think it is rape? Even if the law says so.

 

[moviedoors]

Alcohol impairs judgment. That is what is being avoided. Again what one thinks of themselves when intoxicated or drunk is very different then trying to perceive someone else.

I was never arguing otherwise.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

just to understand what you're trying to say, everytime my SO and I decide to have a drink or two before having sex we then rape each other?

 

[fancyarcher]

The daily mail is such a great source, right. Yeah it might be true, but I'm pretty sure that Lee stuff is fake. I guess we should see how it plays out though, if at all.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I was never arguing otherwise.

Well it is what I have been arguing. Let me try and explain it better.

If two people decide to get plastered and have sex, and they are perfectly fine with everything and don't go to the police, well fine. I think it is illogical , dumb and risky, but whatever.

What I am having a problem with here is assuming that will be the result when deciding you are going to have sex with someone drunk or only even legally intoxicated, significant other or not. Because using the logic presented here, if the other party felt differently afterwards, that wouldn't be rape. Even if the law said it was.

That logic is working under the assumption that you can perceive what the other person was truly thinking, even while impaired. And people here are arguing this idea by stating how they feel when they drink. That is no kind of standard to make such decisions on imo.

 

[Erzengel]

Answering a question with a question is not an answer. What if she said she didn't want to after? Same scenario as you have laid out. Is that not rape because you don't think it is rape? Even if the law says so.

Why are you allowed to change my scenario to fit your point of view?

If you think that drinking and sex is always a bad combination that's your perspective. I'd be lying if I said it never is. It's just difficult to put a blanket statement over the whole entirety of it because in my experience, no one has ever changed their mind afterwards. Nor do I hear it come up a lot and I'm not saying that someone isn't allowed to change their mind, just that it's usually no beforehand.

A lot of people in relationships, have sober and drunk sex. If they are in somewhat healthy and loving relationship, I'd be very surprised if one of them turned around to say they changed their mind after a drunken sexual escapade. Maybe that's naive of me.

I'm not saying there isn't a prevalent problem with rape and sexual assault especially by mostly males in our society or that people in relationships aren't immune to it either, but I do think that calling anyone a rapist or being raped because they had sex under the influence if they didn't regret it afterwards is a misnomer.

If you think the answer is just say no to sex when alcohol is involved, again, your prerogative, I rather put faith in my own judgment and hope that I'm with someone who I have enough of a connection and have enough communication with them to know when they don't want it and respect their wishes.

 

[chaseter]

I think some people or one people in here has forgotten what assault means.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Nothing more trust worthy then someone who is drunk to make sound decisions.

The argument that a lot of people do it, hasn't worked in the past. Doesn't now. Especially with something like rape. Which has been redefined for generations. As the concept of consent become more nuanced and defined, both though social change and actual science, so will what qualifies as rape. Like how being married no longer qualifies as consent.

What we are describing here is the ability to understand the intent of someone else who is impaired. Not you, another person. That they are making the decision fully aware while impaired. How is this any different then what Brock Tuner argued? How about the Stubbville kids? What about the rape at Vanderbilt, where the argument was made that because the men also drank, what they did was not rape?

The argument, "well I had drunk sex, it was fine". This is an assumption. One based on the idea that people impaired can even remember what actually happened while drunk. So tell me. How does one decide another is of sound mind to decide such things, when they are impaired? Drunk? What if they decide they weren't comfortable with what happened? Is it not rape because one can decide that while they are drunk, they are totally capable of giving consent so others can as well?

This is my view: if I've been drinking, my partner's been drinking, we're both lucid, we can both hold a conversation and we both agree we want to have sex, we do the deed, that's a consensual sex experience.

That is the thing, Darth, being drunk isn't as simple as being in water or being out of water. There are levels in that pool as to how drunk a person can be. If a person is incoherent, barely conscious and just in a general unwell state where it's clear that they shouldn't be out let alone having intercourse with someone then it's fairly clear that they're not capable of making that kind of decision.

But to actually say that if anyone who is even slightly drunk cannot have consenting, non-regrettable sex is a victim of rape....no sorry, I cannot agree with that.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Well it is what I have been arguing. Let me try and explain it better.

If two people decide to get plastered and have sex, and they are perfectly fine with everything and don't go to the police, well fine. I think it is illogical , dumb and risky, but whatever.

What I am having a problem with here is assuming that will be the result when deciding you are going to have sex with someone drunk or only even legally intoxicated, significant other or not. Because using the logic presented here, if the other party felt differently afterwards, that wouldn't be rape. Even if the law said it was.

That logic is working under the assumption that you can perceive what the other person was truly thinking, even while impaired. And people here are arguing this idea by stating how they feel when they drink. That is no kind of standard to make such decisions on imo.

I think you're kind of dodging Erz's question. Just to give you an example of what he's talking about, one time my girlfriend was at a wedding that I was not invited to. She got drunk, and when my girlfriend gets drunk one thing she does is crave sex. This rarely happens because she doesn't drink very much but she did on this very occasion. So the whole time for the rest of night she was being very touchy-feely and trying to initiate something with me for hours. In this example, he is saying that I should not be held accountable if something happens. This is of course assuming she doesn't wake up in the morning regretting the decision or anything like that. But the example provided stated this. I think this scenario is what Erz wants you to address. Not the hypothetical regret next morning provided. Simply put, should this be considered rape?

For the record, I did not end up doing anything with her that night, but that was because she went to sleep about 20 minutes after we got home. Had she not fell asleep, I am sure she would have kept trying to get me to succumb. I am not passing judgement on your opinion, either. I just want to get a better understanding of your definition.

 

[The Guard]

Still fuzzy on how someone could prove the supposed level of impairment in these scenarios...

 

[Jh7058622]

Did everyone hear about the James Franco allegations? Michael Douglas too?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Why are you allowed to change my scenario to fit your point of view?

If you think that drinking and sex is always a bad combination that's your perspective. I'd be lying if I said it never is. It's just difficult to put a blanket statement over the whole entirety of it because in my experience, no one has ever changed their mind afterwards. Nor do I hear it come up a lot and I'm not saying that someone isn't allowed to change their mind, just that it's usually no beforehand.

A lot of people in relationships, have sober and drunk sex. If they are in somewhat healthy and loving relationship, I'd be very surprised if one of them turned around to say they changed their mind after a drunken sexual escapade. Maybe that's naive of me.

I'm not saying there isn't a prevalent problem with rape and sexual assault especially by mostly males in our society or that people in relationships aren't immune to it either, but I do think that calling anyone a rapist or being raped because they had sex under the influence if they didn't regret it afterwards is a misnomer.

If you think the answer is just say no to sex when alcohol is involved, again, your prerogative, I rather put faith in my own judgment and hope that I'm with someone who I have enough of a connection and have enough communication with them to know when they don't want it and respect their wishes.

No. What I am doing applying the law and asking if the law says there is a problem, why is there not a problem? Because's one's own judgment says it is okay?

Also who said anything about no alcohol?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

This is my view: if I've been drinking, my partner's been drinking, we're both lucid, we can both hold a conversation and we both agree we want to have sex, we do the deed, that's a consensual sex experience.

That is the thing, Darth, being drunk isn't as simple as being in water or being out of water. There are levels in that pool as to how drunk a person can be. If a person is incoherent, barely conscious and just in a general unwell state where it's clear that they shouldn't be out let alone having intercourse with someone then it's fairly clear that they're not capable of making that kind of decision.

But to actually say that if anyone who is even slightly drunk cannot have consenting, non-regrettable sex is a victim of rape....no sorry, I cannot agree with that.

Serious question. How do you know if you are lucid if you are drunk, even slightly? How do you know your partner is?

 

[Black Narcissus]

Sorry Darth, but you have clearly not been in those type situations Ezrengel is talking about.

 

[jmc]

The reality is alcohol affects everybody differently, there's not one size fits all situation. The thing is though making bad judgements isn't the same as having no choice in the matter. Assault of any nature is pretty cut and dry, something happened to you unprovoked that you had no desire to participate in. But when it comes to choices made under the influence of drugs or alcohol, especially when you consider it affects all people in different ways, that's where you're stepping very grey territory.

 

[squeekness]

Did everyone hear about the James Franco allegations? Michael Douglas too?

Douglas is denying it, but who knows?