Ethics, Morals, Drunkenness Oh My!!!
We were having an interesting discussion today about ethics, responsibility and drinking. Das shared an article with me about a female bar patron in Spain I believe who performed a sex act with 24 different men within the bar for the chance to win a holiday. Upon winning she was presented with a drink named holiday.
There has been some uproar about the morals of the woman involved, the ethics of the bar allowing the competition since the participants were known to have been drinking heavily for hours beforehand and some are even outright referring to it as rape. What I haven't seen explicitly question although it was alluded to is whether the bar sponsoring the competition is guilty of fraud.
Now I will say up front that I don't think it was a good idea to participate in this thing. In mind mind there are just too many things that could go wrong. That said I have no objection to willing adults participating in things that I wouldn't. public drinking and sex games included. So frankly I don't even think there is a "moral issue".
Ethics is a different thing, there are some ethical issues that at least need to be raised such as does drinking negate consent? If so for who and at what point? We need to examine how we approach personal responsibility for example drunk drivers who harm someone while under the influence aren't pardoned. The popular explanation being that the made a choice to get behind the wheel. Why then are we inconsistent when it comes to acknowledging the choice of sexual partners made when people are similarly impaired when we aren't discussing situations of coercion or force just drunkeness. When I used to go clubbing frequently I was mostly alone and I did a risk benefit analysis. The risk of something untoward happening and a situation getting out of control was higher if I was drinking and the benefit I got from drinking was so low that to me it was a no brainer to not drink when I went out. I've found that most people don't think it through that way. It could be that I'm just a wee bit more paranoid than the average bear.
Back to the story at hand... the ethics of the men involved are also in question. What kind of man performs sex acts with a drunk woman? Possibly a drunk man? Maybe a man who is not above pressing the advantage he has when a woman's inhibitions are lowered. In the latter case not necessarily a guy I'd want to be hanging with or think well of but not someone I personally would want to hold criminally liable. Which brings me to the idea someone brought up that the woman involved was raped. She isn't saying she was raped, I'd like to point that out. In fact as far as I've heard no one close to her has been quoted as saying it either. It's being put out there by someone who seems to have an agenda. There are highly likely creeps and sketchy as hell characters involved in this fiasco, that doesn't mean they are rapist. Calling everyone a rapist when a woman does something that another woman deems demeaning or unfathomable does nothing but confuse the issue of rape and actually refuses to acknowledge other women's sexual agency. How dare she make a decision "we" deem inappropriate.
Now what caught my attention about this story was the implication that the unnamed woman participated in the competition under a mistaken premise. I'm sure the bar was wily enough to not actually break the law in their wording but I have a sneaking suspicion that if the "reasonable person" standard was applied we would find that most of us would have assumed a holiday equaled a vacation not a drink. And if that is the case maybe the law needs a good going over. Which brings me to fraud. Whether or not it was within the bounds of the laws of fraud I find it interesting that no one is really dissecting that angle. Just because she had a price doesn't mean she was willing to go for any price. I think that might get to the root of the matter. There is the attitude that if women are willing to do X for or with Y then they should be willing to do X for or with everyone. They have forfeited the right to set their own price. We seriously need to start thinking.
There has been some uproar about the morals of the woman involved, the ethics of the bar allowing the competition since the participants were known to have been drinking heavily for hours beforehand and some are even outright referring to it as rape. What I haven't seen explicitly question although it was alluded to is whether the bar sponsoring the competition is guilty of fraud.
Now I will say up front that I don't think it was a good idea to participate in this thing. In mind mind there are just too many things that could go wrong. That said I have no objection to willing adults participating in things that I wouldn't. public drinking and sex games included. So frankly I don't even think there is a "moral issue".
Ethics is a different thing, there are some ethical issues that at least need to be raised such as does drinking negate consent? If so for who and at what point? We need to examine how we approach personal responsibility for example drunk drivers who harm someone while under the influence aren't pardoned. The popular explanation being that the made a choice to get behind the wheel. Why then are we inconsistent when it comes to acknowledging the choice of sexual partners made when people are similarly impaired when we aren't discussing situations of coercion or force just drunkeness. When I used to go clubbing frequently I was mostly alone and I did a risk benefit analysis. The risk of something untoward happening and a situation getting out of control was higher if I was drinking and the benefit I got from drinking was so low that to me it was a no brainer to not drink when I went out. I've found that most people don't think it through that way. It could be that I'm just a wee bit more paranoid than the average bear.
Back to the story at hand... the ethics of the men involved are also in question. What kind of man performs sex acts with a drunk woman? Possibly a drunk man? Maybe a man who is not above pressing the advantage he has when a woman's inhibitions are lowered. In the latter case not necessarily a guy I'd want to be hanging with or think well of but not someone I personally would want to hold criminally liable. Which brings me to the idea someone brought up that the woman involved was raped. She isn't saying she was raped, I'd like to point that out. In fact as far as I've heard no one close to her has been quoted as saying it either. It's being put out there by someone who seems to have an agenda. There are highly likely creeps and sketchy as hell characters involved in this fiasco, that doesn't mean they are rapist. Calling everyone a rapist when a woman does something that another woman deems demeaning or unfathomable does nothing but confuse the issue of rape and actually refuses to acknowledge other women's sexual agency. How dare she make a decision "we" deem inappropriate.
Now what caught my attention about this story was the implication that the unnamed woman participated in the competition under a mistaken premise. I'm sure the bar was wily enough to not actually break the law in their wording but I have a sneaking suspicion that if the "reasonable person" standard was applied we would find that most of us would have assumed a holiday equaled a vacation not a drink. And if that is the case maybe the law needs a good going over. Which brings me to fraud. Whether or not it was within the bounds of the laws of fraud I find it interesting that no one is really dissecting that angle. Just because she had a price doesn't mean she was willing to go for any price. I think that might get to the root of the matter. There is the attitude that if women are willing to do X for or with Y then they should be willing to do X for or with everyone. They have forfeited the right to set their own price. We seriously need to start thinking.
Comments
Post a Comment