Men's Rights Movement

[Endus]

Which is why it compromises it. It doesn't automatically void it for everyone.

It doesn't compromise it at all, with regards to sexual consent. That's the point.

It doesn't matter if you're three sheets to the wind. If you're still coherent enough to say "let's boogie down" and walk home with the guy, you're coherent enough to consent. The line is drawn when you're so intoxicated that you're incapable of coherently consenting; when you're only semi-conscious and the guy takes your groans for "moans of encouragement", say.

It's not like driving a car. You can be so totally blasted that you can't remember anything the next morning, and that does not compromise your ability to consent to sex.

Not exactly - informed consent matters if, eg, the other person has an STD and they lie about it.

That's a totally unrelated issue, since knowingly having unprotected (and possibly even protected) sex with someone, when you know you have an STD, is grounds for an assault charge. It's not rape, but it's not okay, for totally different and unrelated reasons.

That's why you could charge the person the exact same way if you were both stone-cold sober. It isn't about informed consent, it's about deliberately misleading the other person into a harmful situation.

[Velaniz]

You keep using this strawman over and over, as if you say it enough times it will magically work.

You are responsible for your own actions while drunk.
Others are responsible for their own actions.

When you get into a car it does not magically take off and get you into a wreck without your consent.

That was in direct response to another person who didn't say what you did.

You haven't even addressed one of the point I must've brought up something like ten pages ago. You claim you indeed are responsible for what you do, even in a state of inebriation. Guess what? Saying yes, going home with someone, leading them on throughout the night and sending every signal that you're interested, and then participating in whatever festivities succeed that are acts you yourself do.

Seual Intercourse is simply not an action that even remotely fits under your category of "action done by others to you" that is one of your qualifiers for "rape". For one thing, not only do you consent (and let's be honest, reduced inhibitions are why someone drinks alcohol. Unless you feel people shouldn't be responsible for that either), but you are also an equal participant in whatever goes on later. In no way is someone else merely "doing something to you" that you aren't letting that someone do, and that you aren't doing back. If someone passed out from drinking, and then someone else proceeded to make love to their lifeless body - only then in such a situation does your "not responsible for what someone else does to you" argument hold up.

[Deleted]

Not for about a decade at least.

99% of perpetrators are male.
90% of victims are female.

I guess the other 10% of victims must be... female raccoons? Wait even that doesn't work.

have i been magically transported into, 2022? or given the "at least" part 2027 ? oh w8 you are just misinformed.
January 06, 2012 the date of the memo´s release.
"the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will", the old definition.
by this very small and obscure thing called the "FBI", never heard of them i think....
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pre...nition-of-rape

so please link me more 100% of rapists are men thank you, or why don't you link the CDC one, they also uses this definition by the way (and a lot more crazy stuff)

PS.

There's very obvious levels of when someone is in control of their actions and when they are seriously impaired. "Do you wanna have sex?" "mrmgmfmrmrmgmrmgf" <- not consent "Heeeeeeeeey suuuuuuuuuure" <- consent

you aren't towing the party line m8, that's what we have been trying to say to Rukentuts for like 10-15 pages now

That's the legal reality, and you are taking a risk otherwise. Ignorance is no legal defense.

not true, morally maybe but not legaly

Considering alcohol has been proven to override inhibitions and thus compromise informed consent, yes.

informed consent is a binary state so compromise voids it by definition or it doesn't and then informed consent is there (and i dispute informed consents applicability here, its consent you are after)

so Decklan don't try to move the goal post your position is in fact our position, you either share our position or not but it is OUR position.

PS. oh this is just beautiful i found this gem after doing some rereading.

You are aware of what informed consent is? Or are we addressing this point from 10 pages ago because it's till been stone walled out of your mind?

your two positions are mutually irreconcilable m8 id link you rukentuts links of informed consent but you said you knew the definition...

[Rukentuts]

It doesn't compromise it at all, with regards to sexual consent. That's the point.

How do you how alcohol affects everyone?

You can be so totally blasted that you can't remember anything the next morning, and that does not compromise your ability to consent to sex.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Because you act like alcohol affecting inhibitions hasn't been documented at all.

[Elegiac]

It doesn't matter if you're three sheets to the wind. If you're still coherent enough to say "let's boogie down" and walk home with the guy, you're coherent enough to consent. The line is drawn when you're so intoxicated that you're incapable of coherently consenting; when you're only semi-conscious and the guy takes your groans for "moans of encouragement", say.

That's complete bullshit. If you are inebriated you are not in compos mentis and thus -incapable- of offering informed consent.

Or are you suggesting that perhaps we should let witnesses give testimony while shitfaced as long as they're "coherent enough"?

[Piid]

Let's say you are asleep and a drunk chick ties you up and begins to have sex with you. She is raping you because you are not awake and so cannot give consent. You wake up and say to her to gtfo but she ignores you. She is still raping you. You realize she is quite good at what she does and say to her that you consent to this sexual relation. You are now raping her with your hands tied.

I would like to know the error in this logic or how calling the guy a rapist makes sense

[derpkitteh]

idk, i kinda think men should suck it up and take what they get for a few million years, like women had to. then we can get to the equal stuff.

[DisposableHero]

Let's say you are asleep and a drunk chick ties you up and begins to have sex with you. She is raping you because you are not awake and so cannot give consent. You wake up and say to her to gtfo but she ignores you. She is still raping you. You realize she is quite good at what she does and say to her that you consent to this sexual relation. You are now raping her with your hands tied.

I would like to know the error in this logic or how calling the guy a rapist makes sense

She is never raping you because you are not being penetrated. She is sexually assaulting you (average prison term for a custodial sentence of 5.3 years). While you are unconscious you are raping her because she is unable to give informed consent and you are penetrating her (average prison term for a custodial sentence of 11.8 years).

[Elegiac]

She is never raping you because you are not being penetrated. She is sexually assaulting you (average prison term for a custodial sentence of 5.3 years). While you are unconscious you are raping her because she is unable to give informed consent and you are penetrating her (average prison term for a custodial sentence of 11.8 years).

Rape doesn't have to involve penetration.

[Deleted]

idk, i kinda think men should suck it up and take what they get for a few million years, like women had to. then we can get to the equal stuff.

Ha, haha.

Please, take a seat over there - and learn how perpetuating unfairness and inequality will never get us far in life.

But then again, you could be sarcastic - which doesn't translate well here.

(I'm hoping it's the latter)

[nextormento]

That's complete bullshit. If you are inebriated you are not in compos mentis and thus -incapable- of offering informed consent.

Again: 'informed consent' does not apply to sexual activities. The bar is much lower: consent for intercourse or other sexual activities, only needs -at most- to be unambiguous and voluntary.

Or are you suggesting that perhaps we should let witnesses give testimony while shitfaced as long as they're "coherent enough"?

Non sequitur.

[Rukentuts]

Rape doesn't have to involve penetration.

And in many jurisdictions there is no 'rape' charge anymore. It's all sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault.

[DisposableHero]

Rape doesn't have to involve penetration.

Legally it does in many US jurisdictions and the accompanying "made to penetrate" sexual assaults carry a significantly lesser sentencing both on the books and in practice

[Rukentuts]

Legally it does in virtually every US jurisdiction.

Link me a source.

[Deleted]

And in many jurisdictions there is no 'rape' charge anymore. It's all sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault.

\o/ Canada! Those guys and their awesomeness.

[Rukentuts]

\o/ Canada! Those guys and their awesomeness.

Even in the states. Minnesota has no rape charge.

[DisposableHero]

Link me a source.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/J...12-ag-018.html

US department of justice:

The new definition of rape is: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

[Elegiac]

Of course alcohol affects inhibitions. But unless someone physically forces drinks down your throat, you are making a choice to lower said inhibitions, and thus, if you later make a subsequent sexual choice during a period of lowered inhibitions which you may come to regret, you are also responsible for that choice as well. There's a reason we hold people liable for drunk driving (we can't just say, "but officer, the beer MADE me do it!") and likewise, individuals should be held responsible for their choices when granting sexual consent while under the influence of a chemical they deliberately chose to ingest. /end argument.

That argument flies out the window since in the former case there is -another- person involved who is reasonably expected to make the moral decision.

[Velaniz]

That's complete bullshit. If you are inebriated you are not in compos mentis and thus -incapable- of offering informed consent.

Or are you suggesting that perhaps we should let witnesses give testimony while shitfaced as long as they're "coherent enough"?

Have you had sex before? Typically a lot more than mere "consent" happens. Go on xhamster and see what it's like if you haven't. The antics performed aren't things that would be happening if both parties didn't completely want it.

[Deleted]

Have you had sex before? Typically a lot more than mere "consent" happens. Go on xhamster and see what it's like if you haven't. The antics performed aren't things that would be happening if both parties didn't completely want it.

Bodily reactions/ informed consent.

A person can orgasm/ derive sexual pleasure during rape, doesn't mean they gave informed consent while inebriated; hence impaired consent.

Edit, added a clarification to consent.