Confusion continues surrounding drunken consent

[Toogoodman]

If you have sex with someone who is seriously impaired by alcohol or otherwise, you are committing rape under federal law. All the other things you're trying to qualify as what is and isn't rape, such as how purposeful an assailant was, are not considered by a judge.

So what you're saying is, if a guy and a girl who are both drunk have sex, the guy is the rapist? okay, got it, thanks for letting your sexism be known to us.

[Shadowferal]

The irony is that it applies to some women as well. Not even making men drunk, but getting herself drunk to reduce their own inhibitions, which were put there by a society that preaches that sex is sacred, especial, forbidden. But if she needs to reduce inhibitions to have sex, that means she wouldn't accept to have sex sober, meaning she is (by the standard of some people) purposely putting herself in a position to be raped. She wants to be raped. If you give this woman the option of changing her mind when sober and in the process destroying a man's life, that is messed up. Your precious consent was given when she chose to be in a position to not give consent so she could have sex which she wouldn't accept when sober.

Always interesting to see an argument that blames the victim.

[Vicivia]

If you have sex with someone who is seriously impaired by alcohol or otherwise, you are committing rape under federal law. All the other things you're trying to qualify as what is and isn't rape, such as how purposeful an assailant was, are not considered by a judge.

Actually intent is one of the primary factors in determining guilt in modern day legal systems... That's the main reason that sexual assault/rape cases are so complicated.

[Vyuvarax]

So what you're saying is, if a guy and a girl who are both drunk have sex, the guy is the rapist? okay, got it, thanks for letting your sexism be known to us.

You're assuming that the woman is not instigsting intercourse. If she does instigate and the man says yes, she has committed rape. Nothing about that statement is sexist.

Your assumption is the only sexist part of this dialogue.

[Flarelaine]

She wants to be raped.

Thank you for letting me know I need not take you seriously or even consider you a human being ever again.

- - - Updated - - -

If you have sex with someone who is seriously impaired by alcohol or otherwise, you are committing rape under federal law. All the other things you're trying to qualify as what is and isn't rape, such as how purposeful an assailant was, are not considered by a judge.

So what you're saying is, if a guy and a girl who are both drunk have sex, the guy is the rapist? okay, got it, thanks for letting your sexism be known to us.

Where exactly have you found any indication of gender in the original quote?

[CheeseDoodlez]

If you can't consent to sex while drunk, does that also mean you can't consent to drunk driving?

[LMuhlen]

Always interesting to see an argument that blames the victim.

If the woman is by definition the victim, fine. But I don't see it that way.

In the scenario I described, I see the man as a victim, if he gets charged for rape. The woman wants sex, she drink s to lower inhibitions, she gets sex. She isn't a victim.

I see it as a thin line because in many cases women are indeed victims and the law needs to protect them. But I see this definition of rape being put in a place that is turning men into victims. And I see being falsely framed a raper much more serious than having drunk sex with someone you later regret.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you for letting me know I need not take you seriously or even consider you a human being ever again.

If you think so considering all the context I drew, so be it. If you want to see this completely out of context as you seem to be doing, your loss.

Context is, just to be clear, that having sex drunk is rape. If she gets drunk with the purpose of having sex, logic dictates what I said earlier and which you quoted.

[Toogoodman]

Thank you for letting me know I need not take you seriously or even consider you a human being ever again.

- - - Updated - - -





Where exactly have you found any indication of gender in the original quote?

In their response to my original statement, actually.

If both parties are drunk, neither can"consent", hence both must be rapists? The term rapist, is completely out of context here, if you've been actually raped, i think you would understand the difference between that and a drunken hookup. This is just society making everyone a victim of something, also, its basically impossible to prove many things in these case:

1) "who was the most drunk"
2) How drunk where they
3) Who instigated the encounter
4) Was it malicious

Things that can be proved with a rape kit

1) Was it forced
2) Was there a struggle
3) Was the person drugged (roofied or other wise)

[Vyuvarax]

Actually intent is one of the primary factors in determining guilt in modern day legal systems... That's the main reason that sexual assault/rape cases are so complicated.

In the case in question, the defendant is pretty open to intending to have sex with the plaintiff. Not sure what more intent you're looking for.

- - - Updated - - -

If you can't consent to sex while drunk, does that also mean you can't consent to drunk driving?

You don't need another party to give consent to drive while intoxicated.

[Toogoodman]

Thank you for letting me know I need not take you seriously or even consider you a human being ever again.

Did you even read what he wrote? he said, if you and a girl meet up sober, and she says "i wanna get drunk and then fuck you", and then turns around and says you raped her right afterwords, you're fucked.

[Vyuvarax]

Did you even read what he wrote? he said, if you and a girl meet up sober, and she says "i wanna get drunk and then fuck you", and then turns around and says you raped her right afterwords, you're fucked.

The original post said nothing about the woman giving consent while sober. You have a bad habit of reading one thing and claiming it says another. Rhetorically, it's a habit that makes you look foolish and uncredible.

[Toogoodman]

The original post said nothing about the woman giving consent while sober. You have a bad habit of reading one thing and claiming it says another. Rhetorically, it's a habit that makes you look foolish and uncredible.

Did you read his post? It literally said that.

You also claim that all men are rapists automatically, so i take anything you post with a grain of salt.

[Vyuvarax]

Did you read his post? It literally said that.

You also claim that all men are rapists automatically, so i take anything you post with a grain of salt.

I never claimed all men are rapists. You assumed my comments about how the law defines rape are directed at men, which speaks to your insecurities. Of course, you're welcome to quote where I said all men are rapists, but, if you can't, you should apologize to everyone in this forum for your naked dishonesty and remove yourself from any discussion in the future where you feel inclined to defame and lie about people.

[Toogoodman]

If you have sex with someone who is seriously impaired by alcohol or otherwise, you are committing rape under federal law. All the other things you're trying to qualify as what is and isn't rape, such as how purposeful an assailant was, are not considered by a judge.

The entire context of the threads you were replying to were about women being victimized, there are literally pages of this. Also, the entire thread is about a girl, claiming to have been raped by a guy, which the thread is literally based off of, which i am talking directly about, and know exactly what im talking about (girl being victimized by guy). Your response then is literally directed at the assailant (the young male) in this case, in which your claims, and the same with many other posters on this thread, that if a male and female are both drunk, it must be the fault of the male, even if the female is the one who is initiating the sexual behavior.

In this case, of the thread, and the OP, the female started kissing the male, the male asked 5 times if it was okay, they were both intoxicated, yet in this thread its the males fault. This leads me to believe that yourself, along with several other posters (yourself to a lesser degree) feel that women are the ones who are constantly victimized, even if both parties meet the standards of "unable to consent due to intoxication". This is called critical thinking, reviewing the facts, and reviewing posts by posters who feel the need to victims of something at all times.

[Vyuvarax]

The entire context of the threads you were replying to were about women being victimized, there are literally pages of this. Also, the entire thread is about a girl, claiming to have been raped by a guy, which the thread is literally based off of, which i am talking directly about, and know exactly what im talking about (girl being victimized by guy). Your response then is literally directed at the assailant (the young male) in this case, in which your claims, and the same with many other posters on this thread, that if a male and female are both drunk, it must be the fault of the male, even if the female is the one who is initiating the sexual behavior.

In this case, of the thread, and the OP, the female started kissing the male, the male asked 5 times if it was okay, they were both intoxicated, yet in this thread its the males fault. This leads me to believe that yourself, along with several other posters (yourself to a lesser degree) feel that women are the ones who are constantly victimized, even if both parties meet the standards of "unable to consent due to intoxication". This is called critical thinking, reviewing the facts, and reviewing posts by posters who feel the need to victims of something at all times.

Again, quote where I said all men are rapists, or retract your obviously dishonest claim, apologize, and refrain from embarrassing yourself with such dishonesty in the future.

[Toogoodman]

Again, quote where I said all men are rapists, or retract your obviously dishonest claim, apologize, and refrain from embarrassing yourself with such dishonesty in the future.

My explanation stands as fact, that is all

[Vyuvarax]

My explanation stands as fact, that is all

Nothing in your explanation leads to why you made false statements claiming I said all men are rapists. Your dishonesty prices you out of being treated as a good faith contributer to this and any dialogue.

[Toogoodman]

Nothing in your explanation leads to why you made false statements claiming I said all men are rapists. Your dishonesty prices you out of being treated as a good faith contributer to this and any dialogue.

I mean if you want to keep playing that straw man go for it. Saying i don't contribute, when I've had pages of coherent dialogue with people who just play the victim about absolutely everything is cute, but please, keep pushing your narrative.

Im done with this petty back and forth

[LMuhlen]

Nothing in your explanation leads to why you made false statements claiming I said all men are rapists. Your dishonesty prices you out of being treated as a good faith contributer to this and any dialogue.

Mr. "I quote phrases out of context" talking about honesty? Priceless.

[Vyuvarax]

Mr. "I quote phrases out of context" talking about honesty? Priceless.

What phrase did I quote out of context?

- - - Updated - - -

I mean if you want to keep playing that straw man go for it. Saying i don't contribute, when I've had pages of coherent dialogue with people who just play the victim about absolutely everything is cute, but please, keep pushing your narrative.

Im done with this petty back and forth

Not a back and forth really. I'm demanding you retract your lie and you deflect repeatedly from acknowledging that you made a dishonest claim.

Also, you should avoid using terminology you don't understand. Quoting you verbatim is far from a straw man.