this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
383 points (95.9% liked)
Greentext
4365 readers
2333 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So you're shitting on them for doing the right thing? Or am I misinterpreting
The last temptation is the greatest treason / to do the right deed, for the wrong reason
Personally I don't give a shit why somebody does the right thing
For real. Just do the right thing
His reasoning for not sleeping with her was that she had a boyfriend, so it, "wouldn't be right." But that girl was so drunk that sleeping with her would have been rape. He did the right thing, but his reasoning was clearly wrong, and implies that if she didn't have a boyfriend he would have slept with her, even though she could not consent.
He's describing what he said, not his thoughts or motivations.
Yeah, and I'm going to assume that what he said are his thoughts and motivations, since there is literally no evidence to assume otherwise.
Assume... No evidence...
You're saying the right words, but coming to the wrong conclusions
LOL, no, you're coming to the conclusion you want to without evidence. This person said twice in their story that it wouldn't be right to sleep with this girl because she had a boyfriend. He said zero times that it wouldn't be right to sleep with her because she was too drunk to consent to sex. Why would I come to the conclusion that he was choosing not to sleep with her because she was drunk instead of the reason he stated twice? What evidence is there for your interpretation?
I just mean that there's no reason to assume anything. Take the story at its literal face value, because that is the only evidence that exists. It is absolutely telling that they fail to list the most salient reason to say no, but there are so many reasons why that might be the case that it's useless to speculate.
Yes. He said, to her. I swear to god, some people are so intent on outrage. Have you ever been laid? More than once or twice by pure dumb luck? Jesus, please don't tell us about it or I'll get non-consensualy drunk just to gag it down.
I can see what you're saying, but you are making some assumptions and that's entirely due to OP being an unreliable narrator.
Throwing up usually purges a lot of the alcohol from your system. OP makes no mention of throwing up themselves, and I'm assuming they were drinking too. That means there's a solid chance there's more alcohol in OPs system than hers. You do understand that consent works both ways, yes?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC543875/
So unless the girl threw up within an hour (give or take) after drinkinging, throwing up won’t do much.
Great, so they were both still drunk. Do you or do you not accept that consent works both ways?
Holy shit, I was going to respond that the first sentence about how there's no reason to think that OP's thoughts are different than his words, but GOD DAMN do we need to address the second half of this comment.
So, first of foremost, vomiting will not purge alcohol from your system. If you are drinking so heavily that you've thrown up, you are already experiencing alcohol poisoning. Your body is purging your stomach to prevent you from metabolizing any more of the poison, but it's not removing any of the alcohol that's already in your bloodstream. Eating bread won't absorb alcohol, drinking black coffee won't sober you up; there is only one thing in the world that will remove alcohol from your system, and that is time.
Secondly, you are right, consent works both ways. If the OP had been the one that was throwing up, and the girl had taken advantage of him, then that also would have been rape. But that wasn't what happened; one person was so drunk she was throwing up, had to be put to bed, and clearly couldn't consent. The other person was not throwing up, was capable enough to caretake this person, and could get himself home safely. There is zero chance the poster was drunker than the girl.
I tended bar for over ten years, so please take this advice; if you see someone is noticeably drunk, do not sleep with them. If you find yourself in a position where you think, "This person seems drunk, but I'm a little drunk too, so it's probably OK," you are already showing reasoning and logic (and therefore ability to consent), and the other person may not be able to do the same.
There is a line between two adults who are attracted to each other using alcohol as a social lubricant and someone who is too drunk to know what they're doing coming on to you, and I know that line can be blurry when you're younger. I promise you, as you get older, you'll have more experience, better instincts, the people around you will stop drinking to excess, and that line will get less blurry. Until then, err on the side of caution, and if there is even the slightest question as to whether someone is too drunk to consent, do not sleep with them.
Do you accept that they were both drunk and that consent works both ways?
Jesus christ, imagine bloviating this much about a drunk person not thinking exactly what you want them to think. I cannot imagine having my head so firmly shoved up my ass.
Edit: actually, it's worse - you're attempting to completely gloss over her sexual assault of him. I'd actually argue that just makes you a bad fucking person.
Well, I'm really sorry if I done something to give you the impression I give a fuck what you think. That definitely wasn't my intention.
Great, glad we're on the same page. Have a nice go fuck yourself.
Will do! Thanks for dropping in on a week old thread to let me know what a dipshit you are!
What was that? I can't hear you over the moral high ground.
Remember, the one defending the sexual predator is you.
LOL, yeah, definitely didn't say that, but that's about the level of comprehension I'd expect from a dude who thinks someone who's drinking til they puke is more sober than everyone else.
No, you big thumbed dipstick, I'm taking the information into account as it's given - not reading into it like you because I've got a hard on for hating men.
Pregaming is something that happens immediately before going to do something else. You don't pregame for 2 hours you pregame for like 30 minutes, it is something you do and then you do something else. Presumably more drinking, which would have to happen pretty quickly if you're going to keep the ball rolling.
This all likely took place over the course of an hour, actually if they're doing shots then this easily could have taken place over the course of a half hour. We don't know enough, but we sure as shit know what you think considering how fucking vehemently you've defended your position based on incomplete information.
She SA'd him, you're a troglodyte. Fin.
"Fin." said the guy who spent a week trying to get the last comment. Fucking clown.
I ignored you and stumbled upon your comment again. I will go back to not knowing who you are very soon.
LOL, you said that 4 hours ago. If that's really true then get the fuck out if my notifications already.