“What is bad is that, following up from my post yesterday about rape statistics and whether or not women who were considered to be dressing provocatively or flirting and then raped were in part responsible for what had happened to them, [info]kixie makes mention of a recent Times article in which they talk about a recent rape case that made the papers. Apparently, women who are raped while drunk are losing the right to press charges — something about how “drunken consent is still consent”. One of the people commenting on [info]kixie’s comment asked if that applied to people whose drinks have been spiked, bringing up ‘roofies’ as an example. While rohypnol is a problem, I’d also bring up the possibility of simply spiking a woman’s drink with more alcohol; things like vodka don’t taste like much and it’s fairly easy to keep ordering doubles for the lady instead of singles. In short, there are some serious holes in this argument.”
This is an extremely grey area that I’d be interested in people’s opinions on. Obviously if a man spikes a woman’s drink with something like rohynol then there is no question of his evil inentions. However is it the same if he is doing it with alcohol in order to make just “make her more friendly”? As, alobear brings up – what if he’s doing it with her full knowledge? At what point does her responsibility for her own actions become his responsibility for “getting her into that state”. Surely while she is physically capable of expressing an opinion it’s her own responsibility for whatever choices she makes as her earlier choices got her into that mind-state.
There are a lot of shitty guys out there doing terrible things. I’m not making light of that or excuses for what they do – more that some people need to think ahead about what they imbibe and how it will make them think further down the line before later saying it’s not their fault when they made stupid decisions.