NotCIAAgent wrote:Namely, I don't think that guy was sober enough to even remember it in the next morning.
I wasn't talking about just this case but drunken sex in general. What if someone did remember and had no regrets? Then, by definition they weren't too drunk to consent?
Tesseracts wrote:Aquila, if it's not rape, what is it? "Wrong" isn't specific enough.
I said it before, I don't know. It should have a qualifier, like "statutory rape".
Tesseracts wrote:Anyway, you said it's wrong but not harmful. If it's not harmful what's the basis for it being "wrong?"
There's potential harm. You can't know how they will feel about it once they sober up. And let me say this again, I don't condone having sex with drunk people. At all. Getting someone even somewhat drunk to make them more willing always sounded skeezy to me.
By the way, is Roosh a rapist? Because even after reading this:
One woman who repeatedly told him to leave while he was walking her home eventually let him inside her apartment to use the bathroom. Then Roosh says he kissed her (without saying whether she responded), and then:
"I went so fast in her bedroom. Clothes ripped off. Jam the dick inside. Barely any kissing. she was too drunk to produce much in the way of lubrication, so after five minutes we stopped having sex, if that’s what you want to call it. She fell asleep and started snoring. Then I got dressed and left while she slept."
you said: "The thing you posted sounds far more rapey than anything else I've read about him".
Just rapey? But not exactly rape?
As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being.
--Carl Jung