This is interesting. I’ve not seen anyone really be fearful, angry, or prejudiced in this conversation. I’m sorry you’ve read this and came away with an impression we’ve been generalizing people with addictions. My stance has been that substance abuse only serves to bring out sides of a personality that had been suppressed by things like reason and upbringing, while Fragile Glass stance has been that substance abuse actually changes their personality and therefore you can’t predict who would or wouldn’t commit a sexual offence. In my mind we are very much talking about people and acknowledging differences in personality and response to various substances. I feel it is hard to generalize if the basis of the conversation is about how everyone is different.
Much like you are amazed that people in health care jobs would be detached (it’s a defense. At some point you can’t keep identifying with your patients and expect to function) I am amazed at the suggestion that a man would need to be able to ‘perform’ — in other words achieve and maintain an erection — in order to rape someone. Specially when the case that started the discussion is about a man penetrating a passed out female with things other than his penis. It’s been quite a struggle to get the notion that rape is only ‘penis in vagina or anus’ changed to reflect the many ways people can get raped. Because as long as only a penis can rape, we are still stuck on “women can not rape people” and that’s just plain incorrect. It might be rare, but it certainly happens.