Moving on from the last post, and my argument begins.
I’ve discussed the situation in which a man must take blame one hundred percent in every single aspect, the sober coward that attacks a woman just because he’s a dirty piece of shit. But many girls are at a party, getting so drunk they can’t see what’s in front of them, so they say yes to anything.
Alcohol is the main perpetrator in rape cases; the victim can’t remember anything, the jury decides that she was too intoxicated to give consent and the rapist, with the same blood alcohol content, is imprisoned. Like this, the Stanford victim said she couldn’t remember a thing because she drank too much [her own mistake], and the rapist said they kissed and danced, which they probably did, and she gave the impression that she liked it. Ultimately, she cannot remember giving him consent – she may have done, she just can’t remember it. She obviously wasn’t sober enough to fight him off, like her sister had done, as she couldn’t handle her liquor. So, I’m not talking about the drunk women who are dragged away and forcibly raped. This is about the ones who are too drunk to ‘give proper consent’. Do you still not see the problem?
If an intoxicated woman gives consent where she would have usually not given it, why is that any different to an intoxicated man perceiving her concent as genuine, when, if sober, he would not have done it? Both are intoxicated, what makes ones actions worse than the other if NEITHER know what they were doing? If a drunk person, in a different state of mind, doesn’t stop the ‘rapist’ because they’re drunk and their drunk self allows it, what about the rapist who doesn’t stop BECAUSE they’re drunk and their drunk self allows it? Why is one person acting out of character more acceptable than the other? Shouldn’t both parties, brains soaked in alcohol by their own doing be blamed? If a drunk woman approaches the drunk man and initiates sex, is he still a rapist for ‘taking advantage’ even though he was drunk himself?
I am not excusing the rapist, because the rapist is always at fault, but people are failing to see the bigger picture in these cases. You want to outlaw all drugs because they are apparently bad for your health and ruin lives. But, even though the harmful effects of alcohol are always being seen, it remains widely available? You are literally banning drugs for the same things that alcohol does. Except alcohol actually does those things.
This side of the world, both society and government are fucked up. If you won’t ban alcohol because you’re making too much money from what many people enjoy, then you’re fuelling the problem. If you want to drink until you’re comatose and expect the world to look after you, you’re part of the problem. I don’t have the time to research for an authentic figure, but from what I gather, it is around 90% of rape cases that involve alcohol, yet instead of taking away the main instrument you will allow multiple lives to be ruined. I’ve never heard of weed causing rape or death, but alcohol?…..Ima just leave that there.
Warning, controversy: If you’re getting blackout drunk and using that as your line of prosecution, I will defend you in order to have the rapist punished, but without sympathy.
I am NOT defending the rapist, I’m outraged at this case and I believe he should receive a life sentence in order to maximise the number of prison rapes he is subject to. But there are so many women who say “I just wanted to have a good time”. Newsflash: there are other ways to have a good time without being out of your
fucking head!!!!! If you want to get so drunk that you don’t know what you’re doing then that’s!! Your!! Problem!! Maybe the drunk rapist doesn’t know what they’re doing!! Is rape any sexual encounter that you feel guilty about when you sober up?
This is an argument against rapists. This is an argument against women getting blackout drunk and expecting all men to be prince charmings. This was also an argument against white supremacy. But above all, this is an argument against alcohol.