Originally Posted by KSig RC
Jon -
At no point did I make an explicit or implicit comparison - I don't think there is any need for or point in comparing the actions of the deceased with the actions of the living. Besides this, I don't have any basis for such a comparison even if I wanted to make it - that's actually my main point, and where I think this thread gets awkward.
Additionally, I'm not blaming the victim here in any way - I think that's a completely useless exercise as well.
My point here is that, for example, you can throw around the term "rape" but we don't know whether they had any non-consensual sex (we don't even know a true intoxication level to use that definition of rape), and it seems pretty silly and worthless as a point of discussion . . . and many posters have made conjecture as to what 'happened,' on a lonely beach in Aruba where no one was actually present, without any real basis for this conjecture, and while ignoring the actions before any contact with the Aruban derelicts.
Maybe she was drugged - maybe she drugged herself. The two seem at least equally likely, and both really serve little point in this discussion.
I'm not sure why you posted this, but congrats on the great vacation!
I noted that it has been "used" as such in my post, Jon.
The overwhelming majority of GHB use is recreational, and acquaintance (or other) rapes do happen while a person is intoxicated on the drug (just like alcohol) - it can also be used for nefarious purposes, but has a much stronger history of recreational use than rohypnol or other drugs that are, quite literally, "date rape drugs" in that this is their primary use (this is what "strict sense" means). Media portrayals have given GHB and Ketamine, among others, this label, and it may or may not be fair, but it isn't really necessary to jump to this conclusion in this case, especially in relation to what I mentioned earlier about a total lack of connection with "rape" (and the fact that it was taken of their own volition). These drugs are dangerous in their own right, even above and beyond a risk of rape or sexual assault - it is borderline irresponsible to cast them in a specious light for that reason, at least in my mind.
Btw - remember the context of why GHB was included in the Clemens story? Well, Radomski sold it, too - one reason: weightlifters use it to help cycling on and off certain regimens, sometimes including steroids (supposedly it increases HGH production; it's never been proven, and the connection is tenuous at best). It's banned by WADA and the IOC for that reason.
Once again, its use is not consistent with calling it a "date rape drug" and doing so only clouds this discussion further with conjecture and useless pandering to the basest level.
|
Threaded Mode