No, because it takes one of the people involved to use the others drunken state to take advantage of them, if both are drunk then there is no one taking advantage IMO.
What if a woman (who was sober) took advantage of a man's drunken state and had sex with him? Is she guilty of rape in a situation like that?
Yes she is, though there is a little problem of "brewers droop" brewers droop - State of male flacidity or temporary impotence due to the mass consumption of alcohol. I don't normally like using the UK paper the Daily Mail as a source but in this case it fits http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-31150/18-year-old-woman-convicted-rape.html This is also interesting - http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf Look at the tables on pages 18 & 19
None of these arguments work for me. If they do for every else, that's their deal, but as far as I'm concerned, this is just anther attempt to find every possible excuse to deny taking responsibilities for one's own actions. If you choose to get drunk, you choose to accept responsibility for whatever actions you take while drunk. No excuses please. If being drunk allows you to blame the man for getting pregnant, then logically getting drunk should allow the man to blame the women for smacking her around. Why do we lock people up for driving drunk? Why do we arrest people for assault when they are drunk? At what point do you finally say.... Hey you know why this happened to me? I choose to go drink myself into a stupor, and what happened is my own fault. When do we finally have that conversation?
If a man and woman are both 'drunk' it depends on how drunk the man is. The woman can still be penetrated by a penis and impregnated even if she is passed out. If a guy is that blasted, he ain't gonna be able to penetrate his own underwear. So...If both the man and woman have been drinking, and both have sex while still conscious, it will always be consensual unless the man performs a criminal assault rape.
I'm torn on this, and I don't think a one size fits all approach will work best. I tend to feel the way Pasithea does, in that each case has it's own unique aspects. That seems to be the most fair way to deal with the problem. I don't feel that men should be completely optionless, but I also don't feel they should have equal rights to the mother in the matter. Afterall, it's her body that bears the entire brunt, both physically and mentally with lasting effects, of the pregnancy. That cannot be ignored or glossed over. Perhaps the best way to handle this would be for the father to give legal notice while the mother is pregnant that he does not intend to be a part of it's upbringing. As early as possible. This would also put a bit of an onus on the mother to inform the father, as obviously the father could not give notice if he does not know the mother is pregnant. I think in those situations, early information would give the mother the ability to decide whether she wanted an abortion, to put it up for adoption, or to keep it, all while knowing the father would not be in the picture. After the child is born though, I don't think a man should be able to just walk out of the picture scott-free. I also don't think it's something that a man should be able to do limitlessly. Maybe one or two times. I think this way it still respects the fact that the mother is the one who exclusively handles the burdens of pregnancy, which should grant her more control than the father, but also respects that the father was part of the original act that created the pregnancy too and shouldn't be completely optionless. - - - Updated - - - Not really. This ad makes no distinction between a man and a woman. When men are getting pregnant too, then your picture will be relevant.
Apples and oranges. These would be more accurate comparisons. If a man isn't there for his kid then he's a deadbeat dad, if a woman isn't there for her kid then she's a deadbeat mom. If a man chooses to end his pregnancy then he is pro-choice, if a woman chooses to end her pregnancy then she is pro-choice. (Although arguably you can still be pro-choice even if you keep your pregnancy).
You're comparing apples and heating pads. The entire "deadbeat" label comes from not financially supporting the child you're legally responsible for. Both men and women can be deadbeat parents because both men and women can refuse to pay child support when they are required to. It really has nothing to do with abortion at all.
the entire "my body, my choice" argument is a fancy way for women to say "I don't want to take care of my choice" pro-choice only because I don't want to pay for a child
No, it's not. Choosing abortion is taking responsibility for your pregnancy just like giving birth or choosing adoption. Your disagreement with the way they choose doesn't mean they aren't handling it. Giving birth and then dumping the child in a dumpster to die is along the lines of what you describe. It's sad and pathetic when people who have no idea what a woman's reasons are think they can just make stuff up that sounds good and confirms their bias. Sad. And. Pathetic.
you 'choose' when you spread your legs, or don't use a condom. aborting, adopting, not paying child support is all ways to avoid dealing with your prior choices.
I'm 37 years old, sexually active, and yet, child free. I have no unplanned pregnancies in my life. Why? because birth control is available.... So, not including rape.... there is no reason a woman needs to be pro-choice. How about being "better-choice" rather than "pro-choice"
Here is a case I have in my head from the 6th Circuit, citing the SC. In its dismissal of the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit) stated that: "Dubay’s claim that a man’s right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a woman’s right to abortion rests upon a false analogy. In the case of a father seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child support obligations, the child is already in existence and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his or her support. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubay_v._Wells
I'm not saying dad's should get an option out. They are just as guilty of making stupid choices concerning sex as the woman who gets knocked up. I suggest being "better-choice" rather than pro-choice for everybody eqqually.
I believe there is case law that evn if a man is raped, by a violation of "age of consent" laws, he is still legally obligated to pay child support! - - - Updated - - - I did not mean to infer you took a certain position, just citing case law for all to read.
When you choose to have sex, you're not choosing to carry a child to term if you get pregnant. Those are separate decisions. - - - Updated - - - How about both. Promoting good decision making when it comes to sex and pregnancy is a great idea, but discouraging or prohibiting the other choices is wrong.
maybe you're not ready for sex... it's the same reason we don't want 13 y.o.'s to have sex. Not that they can't.... just that they aren't ready for the reality of it. start with good decisions, and noone needs to be pro-choice. Pro-choice = I don't want to take care of my choice to have unprotected sex
I don't think you understood what I said. Yes, pregnancy is a possibility that can result from sex that should not be ignored. No, having sex is not agreeing to carry a child to term. The only time nobody would need to be pro-choice were if all pregnancies were planned, every parent was able to support their child, no women ever got pregnant from rape, birth defects didn't exist, and pregnancies never endangered the mother's health. And, that's not even all the conditions, just the ones that came to mind immediately. This is a tired stupid argument. Knowing that you can get pregnant from sex is one thing. Thinking that makes you responsible for giving birth is quite another. I'm sorry, but this is no different than telling someone who just got into a car accident that they don't deserve medical treatment because they should have known driving a car could cause them to have an accident.
When a woman has unprotected sex she is signing a contract. There is a dishonourable and deadly way to get out of it, of course.
Nobody is signing any contracts when they have sex and the act of sex and the outcome are all things a person may choose to withdraw from. (STDs/pregnancy).
There is absolutely no reason to not use a condom . If your kid hits 13 you better go buy him/her a pack of rubbers and check that he/she learns to always carry it . For adult men there is always the choice of a vasectomy , very simple process and it will keep you and your girlfriend safe & happy.
