Yes, very funny. Now, do you actually have something to say?
If you want to make a point you need to make it yourself instead of just saying "look yourself" in a rather snide way. Then I might be persuaded that I might actually be ignorant on something and that it adds to the discussion. If you want to make a point explain it yourself instead of saying "go and look it up," otherwise you'll get the reaction you've got from me. Give a quick summary and point at a reference for a fuller picture if you think it's useful or is too much to quickly summarise.
"She shouldn't have dressed like that" etc. is a separate issue.
If a person assents to sexual activity under any kind of duress (e.g., physical or emotional threats), they haven’t freely or willingly consented, and therefore the activity constitutes rape. Similarly, a person impaired by alcohol or drugs is necessarily incapable of fully and freely consenting (even if the impaired person says “yes” at some point). The mere absence of objection (i.e., silence) doesn’t mean consent has been given. For these reasons, some college campuses (in California, particularly) have been tightening up their codes of conduct as well as the language in their policies that pertain to consent, moving from a “No” means “No!” narrative to a narrative of “Yes” means “Yes” — only a clearly free and unequivocal granting of permission constitutes consent. All too often, raucous campus parties and off-campus bar gatherings have led to complaints of sexual activity that occurred under some level of coercion, as the result of deception, or despite expressions of dissent. (Perhaps there’s nothing as insidious in the consent debate as the longstanding popular notion that when a woman first says “no,” she’s really just trying to come across as a “good girl” and expects her pursuer to show genuine interest by persisting.) This makes college campuses one of higher risk venues for rape. (You can read about one of the more egregious examples of this reality in my article “Empathy in a Lock Box: The Steubenville Case”). So by making clearer statements about what constitutes consent and tightening policies and sanctions related to substance use and sexual activity, these schools hope to create a safer environment for their students.
Because reading an article on google is so freaking hard.
Because reading an article on google is so freaking hard.
Neither was a bit of cutting and pasting, and it gets a much less "sod you" attittude in response.
Anyway it doesn't appear to cover anything that hasn't already been mentioned. I think it's pretty obvious that I disagree that "a person impaired by alcohol or drugs is necessarily incapable of fully and freely consenting", at least on the alcohol side, so it's just repeating what's already been discussed. Either you're responsible for what you decide to say and do when drunk, in all cases, or you're not, and if you're not then "I was drunk" is an excuse for anything. Wish you hadn't bought that stuff when drunk? The shopkeeper robbed you!
Good chat. Hope none of the impaired consent laws cone back to bite you.Neither was a bit of cutting and pasting, and it gets a much less "sod you" attittude in response.
Anyway it doesn't appear to cover anything that hasn't already been mentioned. I think it's pretty obvious that I disagree that "a person impaired by alcohol or drugs is necessarily incapable of fully and freely consenting", at least on the alcohol side, so it's just repeating what's already been discussed. Either you're responsible for what you decide to say and do when drunk, in all cases, or you're not, and if you're not then "I was drunk" is an excuse for anything. Wish you hadn't bought that stuff when drunk? The shopkeeper robbed you!
Good chat. Hope none of the impaired consent laws cone back to bite you.
Because something's the law doesn't make it right or wrong and unjust laws should be challenged, not meekly accepted. Any actual counter-argument though?
edit: If you really can't see the difference between rape and exchanging money for goods then there's really no point in continuing.
So you don't see that although the size of the consequences are different the same general principle of self responsibility still applies? Where's the difference in anything but scale? Whether something is large or small scale doesn't make it right or wrong, just what it's worth bothering doing about it. Looking at examples of different scales is a way of testing your opinions on a subject. If you can't see that then yes, there's no point in continuing because it's pointless discussing someone with someone who won't put any thought into it. You're also stuck on the assumption that it is rape. Whether "Yes, I wanted it at the time but later changed my mind" is rape is the whole point of this discussion so doesn't work as a starting point for other debates.
Your whole argument seems to be "It's rape therefore you must be wrong," no further explanation needed. I hope you can see the flaw there.
Because something's the law doesn't make it right or wrong and unjust laws should be challenged, not meekly accepted. Any actual counter-argument though?
So you don't see that although the size of the consequences are different the same general principle of self responsibility still applies? Where's the difference in anything but scale? Whether something is large or small scale doesn't make it right or wrong, just what it's worth bothering doing about it. Looking at examples of different scales is a way of testing your opinions on a subject. If you can't see that then yes, there's no point in continuing because it's pointless discussing someone with someone who won't put any thought into it. You're also stuck on the assumption that it is rape. Whether "Yes, I wanted it at the time but later changed my mind" is rape is the whole point of this discussion so doesn't work as a starting point for other debates.
Your whole argument seems to be "It's rape therefore you must be wrong," no further explanation needed. I hope you can see the flaw there.
I feel like you missed out on the entire reason for this conversation. It's because Vega, while sober, told Shepard he didn't want to have sex with her. He admitted attraction, but that he didn't want to have sex. To be very clear, attraction does not equal consent. So what did our intrepid hero do? That's right. She pushed him to drink so that he would "forget who she was" so that she could have sex with him. Not only is that creepy, but that's actually rape.
Second, If you don't see the difference between a 2am Taco Bell run and sex, then I don't know what to say to that. And let's say it is different, and in my drunken stupor I go to Wal-Mart and buy eight pairs of pants. I can return the pants the next day. The sex act doesn't go away. You can't just return that.
Third, say your daughter gets rufied. Is it her fault for accepting the drunk from someone she (presumably) trusts? Is it her fault for taking a drink? Is it her fault that she can't say yes or no? Is it her fault that she's only kind of aware of what's happening? Would you say to her, "Too bad honey. You didn't say no." Because guess what? She's also impaired.
Fourth, my argument is "thank god this is a law because the 'he took advantage of her' and 'what did she expect' crap was getting out of hand." The other party does have responsibility in this. The other party has a responsibility to understand that the simple absence of a no is not consent.
Fifth, I don't disagree with the basic concept of personal responsibility. I'm responsible for paying my mortgage and bills on time. I'm responsible for getting to work and doing my job. I'm responsible for driving a car with care and respect for everyone else on the road. When it comes to sex though, there is, by necessity, a second party. That second party is also responsible for what happens. Any assumption that the lack of a no is equivalent to consent is inherently wrong if the first party is impaired past the point of saying no.
I think this discussion is bound to run in circles because we haven't seen the actual bed scene and nobody tells us what really happened, either. We just see the before and the after. To me, Shepard displays some serious predatory behaviour and, personally, it really creeps me out and it didn't make me feel at all good even just from watching it in a video. James looks very uncomfortable and doesn't exactly seem happy about this development, yet Shepard persists. He also looks rather freaked out when they wake up. But that's all we know. We have no idea whether he was just somewhat drunk and played along or really drunk and passed out or whatever. We don't know whether he woke up thinking, "Well, this is awkward," or "WTF happened and what did she do to me???" So, I'd say we don't know. We'd need James' input first and foremost for that which we do not have.
While I agree that being drunk doesn't mean that you're not responsible for your actions, it's a bit different when another person is involved, right? Could it be that somebody really drunk would be much more susceptible to suggestion and easier to take advantage of? I mean, if somebody is really drunk... let's take Tali, for example. I don't know what that girl's been drinking but she seems like she's tripping some serious balls in that bathroom. I don't believe she'd be able to do much of anything if somebody decided to take advantage of that. And in that state, heck, it might not even sound like a horrible idea to her, but would it really be something she'd want to do when sober? Would you risk it? Drunk people can do idiotic things and it's up to you whether you take advantage of that. Because you can just, you know, wait a bit and make sure that they really, absolutely, and 100% want to sleep with you.
I'm not trying to say anybody here's right or wrong here because, hell, I don't freaking know. I think I understand what both parties are getting at. The truth is that we lack James' input. Still doesn't seem like a good idea what Shepard is doing to him. I don't like the writing in the slightest. It creeps me the hell out. Similarly to that I wouldn't even think of trying to have a one-night stand with Tali in that pitiful state in which we find her in that bathroom. It just doesn't seem right.
It does go round in circles. No one here will convince the other party.
And I thought it was pretty obvious James didn't say Yes in the apartment, but also didn't say No. He just says nothing, and then that he would need to forget she's the Commander. Nowhere in there is a Yes or a No. "Would need" is a hypothetical look into the future what would need to happen if James were to actually give in. Not a No.
Like I said before, I'm thinking this is still a matter of interpretation and perception, and like Vanilka said, we don't know what happened in the bedroom. But I sure as hell won't believe that Bioware aimed at rape. And to me James doesn't look as freaked out in the morning, regret, yes, but not freaked out.
And while others are super drunk, James is still very normal. There's no slur in his speech, he doesn't come across as drunk as Tali. Or Grunt.
Anyway. Yeah, Shepard's behaviour might be considered as rapey by US law, but not for me, and not for other countries. Had he gone in the next morning and accused Shepard, or even reported it as rape, then we could be sure. But apparently he played along, not seeing it as rape as he still treats Shepard normal afterwards. It was a mistake and they will not mention it again, and that's it.
I'm still thinking this is a result of a party where pretty much everyone consumes a lot of drinks (including Shepard for... headcanon reasons), and while not-so-nice things can happen there of course, I'm sure James is also well aware of that. If Shepard doesn't pursue him and Ash is there, they also can go for it. It's just giving in to the party mood, and from what James said earlier he is no stranger to that.
Haha, I really should stop posting here, it's not leading to anything really.
If James was in ME1/2, what would his role be?
I think this discussion is bound to run in circles because we haven't seen the actual bed scene and nobody tells us what really happened, either. We just see the before and the after. To me, Shepard displays some serious predatory behaviour and, personally, it really creeps me out and it didn't make me feel at all good even just from watching it in a video. James looks very uncomfortable and doesn't exactly seem happy about this development, yet Shepard persists. He also looks rather freaked out when they wake up. But that's all we know. We have no idea whether he was just somewhat drunk and played along or really drunk and passed out or whatever. We don't know whether he woke up thinking, "Well, this is awkward," or "WTF happened and what did she do to me???" So, I'd say we don't know. We'd need James' input first and foremost for that which we do not have.
While I agree that being drunk doesn't mean that you're not responsible for your actions, it's a bit different when another person is involved, right? Could it be that somebody really drunk would be much more susceptible to suggestion and easier to take advantage of? I mean, if somebody is really drunk... let's take Tali, for example. I don't know what that girl's been drinking but she seems like she's tripping some serious balls in that bathroom. I don't believe she'd be able to do much of anything if somebody decided to take advantage of that. And in that state, heck, it might not even sound like a horrible idea to her, but would it really be something she'd want to do when sober? Would you risk it? Drunk people can do idiotic things and it's up to you whether you take advantage of that. Because you can just, you know, wait a bit and make sure that they really, absolutely, and 100% want to sleep with you.
I'm not trying to say anybody here's right or wrong here because, hell, I don't freaking know. I think I understand what both parties are getting at. The truth is that we lack James' input. Still doesn't seem like a good idea what Shepard is doing to him. I don't like the writing in the slightest. It creeps me the hell out. Similarly to that I wouldn't even think of trying to have a one-night stand with Tali in that pitiful state in which we find her in that bathroom. It just doesn't seem right.
Fair enough. I'm assuming that James wasn't unconcious - that would just be 100% plain wrong. All I'm saying is that being drunk isn't an excuse for doing something you wish you hadn't and that no-one who does such a thing is in any way a victim - how can you be a victim of one action you do when drunk but entirely guilty of another? I'm not saying that Shepard wasn't creepy and her behaviour entirely fine either, assuming that no other form of pressure was involved, such as "You do want to get on that N7 programme don't you?" - that would be stepping well over the line. In fact that's the one area which might well make me view the whole thing differently, if he was feeling somewhat intimidated by Shepard being his CO - there could well be a bit of unspoken pressure there.
Well even if you are drunk, when another person exploits it, that person is responsible for that action.
It seems that the people in this thread are debating with different scenarios in mind which range from two adults are drunk like rabbits and think it´s a good idea to bang like rabbits up to using roofies.
Well even if you are drunk, when another person exploits it, that person is responsible for that action.
One person is responsible for the exploitation but the other is responsible for going along with it. "I wouldn't have done that if I was sober" is never an acceptable excuse after all so I don't see why someone else's involvement suddenly makes it one.
Fair enough. I'm assuming that James wasn't unconcious - that would just be 100% plain wrong. All I'm saying is that being drunk isn't an excuse for doing something you wish you hadn't and that no-one who does such a thing is in any way a victim - how can you be a victim of one action you do when drunk but entirely guilty of another? I'm not saying that Shepard wasn't creepy and her behaviour entirely fine either, assuming that no other form of pressure was involved, such as "You do want to get on that N7 programme don't you?" - that would be stepping well over the line. In fact that's the one area which might well make me view the whole thing differently, if he was feeling somewhat intimidated by Shepard being his CO - there could well be a bit of unspoken pressure there.
Yes, I get your point and I agree. It's not like you can do something stupid and then excuse it by "Sorry, I was drunk, lol." I see where you're coming from. I'm not really sure how I'd even decide what's drunk enough for a person to not be able to reason. But I do believe that at certain point a person may be beyond being able to make responsible decisions for themselves or beyond being able to defend themselves against behaviour that e.g. Shepard displays in that unfortunate "romance", and it takes two people to have sex. I don't know much about law, I admit, but I guess that if I follow my own moral compass, I'd rather not crawl on the top of a person that's barely able to recognise me. Even if they got themselves that drunk. It would still be me taking advantage of that situation, imho. Of course, we don't know if that's James case. We're left guessing in this particular case. I'd like to believe they simply did something dumb together because otherwise it would be really just disturbing. (EDIT: I don't believe BW aimed for that, even though I hate the execution.)
Fair enough. I'm assuming that James wasn't unconcious - that would just be 100% plain wrong. All I'm saying is that being drunk isn't an excuse for doing something you wish you hadn't and that no-one who does such a thing is in any way a victim - how can you be a victim of one action you do when drunk but entirely guilty of another? I'm not saying that Shepard wasn't creepy and her behaviour entirely fine either, assuming that no other form of pressure was involved, such as "You do want to get on that N7 programme don't you?" - that would be stepping well over the line. In fact that's the one area which might well make me view the whole thing differently, if he was feeling somewhat intimidated by Shepard being his CO - there could well be a bit of unspoken pressure there.
I agree. And I don't really think the pressure thing was going on there.
There are several scenes in which James surely doesn't seem intimidated at all by Shepard. And while most of them are playful (like the Purgatory scene, or even the constant flirting), he can definitely be serious about that too. He's got guts when Shepard pulls rank on him before the sparring, or doesn't allow Lola. Also he's super pissed when Shepard doesn't talk to him at all, there are different stages of anger after Sur'Kesh, Tuchanka and the Citadel Coup. I find this very interesting because I think he's the only character that does greatly take to heart if Shepard ignores him, maybe even resulting in Shepard loosing James's respect for treating him like that.
He's got a strong personality and his own head. He has this huge respect for Shepard (it's great to see the differences in his behaviour during missions and back on-board the Normandy), but he is also clearly not afraid of her, or of voicing his opinion when he thinks she's wrong (I had him get really mad at my Shepard during Leviathan, that was really great!).
For the party, ultimately I think it's a mix of first of all the Alliance regs, then his shyness, respect for Shepard, and only maaaybe also a bit intimidation, but I don't believe that he would let himself pressure into it if he had absolutely not wanted it. I might be wrong, but this is how I see James. He would've said if he was definitely not interested. That he talks to Cortez shows that he is just so torn and conflicted about this whole thing.
Well even if you are drunk, when another person exploits it, that person is responsible for that action.
It seems that we are debating with different scenarios in mind which range from two adults are drunk like rabbits and think it´s a good idea to bang like rabbits up to using roofies.
I think the first example is out of the question. That is wrong. But it also depends on what happened before. And here we have James going for the drinks himself. He does that deliberately.
For the second, it does seem like that. Nowhere are we told how much everyone has actually consumed, so every player can basically make up their own mind (if they do that kind of stuff... I know I do, haha). A lot of stuff is unsaid, and we can fill the gaps ourselves.
If James was in ME1/2, what would his role be?
In ME1? Jenkins that actually lived to tell the tale! Maybe we could replace Jenkins with him entirely and keep him as a permanent squadmate. I mean, Jenkins' demise was just embarrassing for both Shepard and him. Poor sod. Lasted like one second on the battlefield. His character has no purpose beyond that small conversation at the beginning, which James could easily do as well, and maybe discovering the drone, which I think we can do without people dying stupidly in the process. James would still be a greenhorn and have Shepard as a mentor, perhaps?
In ME2? Hm, hmm, I can't see him with Cerberus, really. Maybe we could meet him on Horizon helping the Virmire Survivor? But I wouldn't have him and the Virmire Survivor reduced into damsels like it happens in the actual ME2. I'd like them to do something worthy of trained and experienced marines of that universe that they are. For example, Kaidan could stop the swarm with his biotic barriers and they could get pinned down by the Collectors somewhere. That's where Shepard would join them and they would fight the Collectors together. I'd like that, personally.
One person is responsible for the exploitation but the other is responsible for going along with it. "I wouldn't have done that if I was sober" is never an acceptable excuse after all so I don't see why someone else's involvement suddenly makes it one.
That's kind of the point. You can't "go along with" being exploited if you're impaired. That's what exploitation is.
We've still not got past why "impaired" means you should still held entirely responsible for some actions you chose to do in that state (e.g. driving) but not others (having sex with someone you later wish you hadn't).
If you're talking about being so drunk you can't even stand and are only one very small step from being unconcious then I agree with you.
Not really, no. I've never hated him. I'd never go so far as to say i like him. His voice actor did an admirable job delivering on something that doesn't really work for me.
We've still not got past why "impaired" means you should still held entirely responsible for some actions you chose to do in that state (e.g. driving) but not others (having sex with someone you later wish you hadn't).
According to various sources, impairment begins with the first drink. Then it depends and affects people differently.
Like here:
http://oade.nd.edu/e...s-intoxication/
I'm guessing James is at BAC = 0.04 to 0.06%.
According to various sources, impairment begins with the first drink. Then it depends and affects people differently.
Like here:
http://oade.nd.edu/e...s-intoxication/
I'm guessing James is at BAC = 0.04 to 0.06%.
I don't really see that as particularly relevent though. He was either capable of deciding to have sex, or he wasn't. If he wasn't then he wasn't capable of making any other decision either, and therefore shouldn't be held accountable for any other actions he may have committed in that state, whether it was one sip or getting wasted. The "impaired consent" argument appears to hold that that's only true for some actions but not others, i.e. it's arbitrary. To me that's a rather glaring inconsistency, and one that people appear to be avoiding trying to resolve.
Get drunk, "sleep with me" == victim, get drunk, "let's steal a car" == criminal? Why are you not being held responsible for going along with it in the first but are in the second, if in both cases your ability to reason is considered too impaired to make a decision? If your ability to consent is considered impaired in the first but not the second then why is it different? If it is considered equally impaired in both cases then it is inconsistent to call you a victim (implying not responsible for your decision) in one but a criminal in the other (implying responsible for your decision).
I don't really see that as particularly relevent though. He was either capable of deciding to have sex, or he wasn't. If he wasn't then he wasn't capable of making any other decision either, and therefore shouldn't be held accountable for any other actions he may have committed in that state, whether it was one sip or getting wasted. The "impaired consent" argument appears to hold that that's only true for some actions but not others, i.e. it's arbitrary. To me that's a rather glaring inconsistency, and one that people appear to be avoiding trying to resolve.
Get drunk, "sleep with me" == victim, get drunk, "let's steal a car" == criminal? Why are you not being held responsible for going along with it in the first but are in the second, if in both cases your ability to reason is considered too impaired to make a decision? If your ability to consent is considered impaired in the first but not the second then why is it different? If it is considered equally impaired in both cases then it is inconsistent to call you a victim (implying not responsible for your decision) in one but a criminal in the other (implying responsible for your decision).
Or, we could just handle it this way. If you're the pursuer and there's any question in your mind of whether the person you want to have sex with is actually consenting, then just don't have sex. At best, that's just being polite.
Or, we could just handle it this way. If you're the pursuer and there's any question in your mind of whether the person you want to have sex with is actually consenting, then just don't have sex. At best, that's just being polite.
And on that point we completely agree.
There was a time where we didn't like Vega...? Well, sh*t....
Mostly prior to the release of ME3. The character details and screenshots that were released didn't go over well.
I think that largely changed after release when a good number of people realized the character was very different from the impression they had of him before release. Of course like any character he still has a few detractors, but I get the impression more people now like the character than don't, unlike say...Jacob.
Actually Jacob is sort of the reverse of Vega. Prior to the release of ME2 people were excited for the character and he had even had a fan thread, but after release the reaction was mostly negative.
Retour en haut