Yes, you are victim blaming. Men aren’t wild bears, they’re human beings who should be held accountable for their actions. How drunk someone is around another human being has nothing to do with the perpetrator’s culpability.
If someone is intoxicated, I agree that it seems weird to disregard their consent when drugs+alcohols are the social lubricant of society (and very interwined with sex).
Also, of course you are responsible for your actions even when under the influence (drive and kill someone? no excuse because you were intoxicated - it's your fault). It's crazy to me that people call that "victim blaming". Although I understand how someone can take advantage of others, I don't think the distinction is intoxicated = taken advantage of.
EDIT - a lot of you seem to think that this is equivalent to a DUI. It is not. If you are driving under the influence, then you are the perpetrator of the accident. If you are drunk and somebody else sexually assaults you, then the other person is the perpetrator.
There's a very big distinction to be made here between an assault and if the person gives consent - or sometimes could even be the initiator. Again, to be very clear, I'm not saying that was the case here.
You’re stupid if you get drunk downtown with an expensive smartphone where it can be easily stolen. Still, does it mean that you have somehow to share jail time with your thief, or does it mean that the thief has to serve less time, or that your thief may go with your smartphone because it’s your fault to get drunk downtown in the first place?
Explain please.
Even if you are not drunk those are still not your fault in the way its argued here. A better (similar) analogy would be: if you are drunk and someone downtown asks you for 60$ and you give them, but tomorrow realize your mistake, is it your fault?
They're also not harmless. And I chose the word person for a reason - this could happen between a straight man and a gay man, or a woman could take advantage of a drunk man (although he's not likely to regret it, unless maybe he's married or something - or she gets pregnant)
The thing is I think you have some responsibility for your own decisions, drunk or not.
I don't think it's right to take advantage of someone who's drunk - but it's tough to prove that after the fact and many a young man has had their lives ruined by a woman who they thought consented and then later accused them of rape.
On the other hand I can really empathize with the woman's POV here, and think that it's terrible that there are men out there who take advantage of them when they're under the influence - and I'm sure that's more common.
This just doesn't seem cut and dried.
You come in here with the high moral ground and make such wild indignant proclamation that "men are not bears." Please take this to another community.
> How drunk someone is around another human being has nothing to do with the perpetrator’s culpability.
This is just stupid on its face. DUI exists for a reason and DUI tests are given not because police assumes the drivers, of course would, "take responsibility" and not drink, but because the police exercises common sense if an idiot driver is unable to walk a straight line.