Confusion continues surrounding drunken consent

[Noradin]

That is completely nonsensical. Neither of them are "capable of consent." Two people are super drunk. How are you determining which of them "initiated insertion?"

By checking whom of the two has a penis, according to Vyuvarax.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes? I don't see what that has to do with my lack of trust in the justice system in regards to sex crimes and domestic violence.

You simply assume that all shortcomings of the justice system of your home country must apply to every country out there?

- - - Updated - - -

It's quite amazing how people attribute things I do not believe to me all the time.

Must be because of how you express yourself.

[Freighter]

Must be because of how you express yourself.

Nope, it's because you people are tilting at windmills.

[Findlyn]

It's quite amazing how people attribute things I do not believe to me all the time.

Here is the thing, if just about everyone else is saying that you sound like you are saying X, then maybe they aren't the ones wrong for putting those attributes on you?

Its like people that can never stay in a relationship and they are all bad. Usually if you ask the people that know them in honesty, its because of that person, not their partners.

[Freighter]

Here is the thing, if just about everyone else is saying that you sound like you are saying X, then maybe they aren't the ones wrong for putting those attributes on you?

Its like people that can never stay in a relationship and they are all bad. Usually if you ask the people that know them in honesty, its because of that person, not their partners.

It's not everyone else though. It's a few specific people who keep doing it in every thread to everyone that doesn't agree with them. Just like those who acted like I said all white people are racists when I said you face racism if you're not white in USA the other day.

[Noradin]

It's not everyone else though. It's a few specific people who keep doing it in every thread to everyone that doesn't agree with them. Just like those who acted like I said all white people are racists when I said you face racism if you're not white in USA the other day.

It is probalby because there are some that share your narrative and many who simply do not bother with you anymore.
You are endlessly repeating the same sexist post in this thread alone. You're probably on ignore with quite a few people.

[Freighter]

It is probalby because there are some that share your narrative and many who simply do not bother with you anymore.

Hah, no. You guys are doing it to other people in other threads, in other topics. Attributing things they do not believe to them or making shit up about what they've said. You think I don't remember the names and notice the pattern of attributing things to people in which they do not believe nor which they have said?

[Findlyn]

You can basically look at the first 5 pages, and last 5 pages of this, and think you are reading the same thing.

and when I say 'you' I mean that in a general sense of anyone reading this, not specifying anyone in this thread.

Basically same 2/3 people saying hes a rapist, and many others pointing out the fallacy in their arguments only for them to be ignored or waived off.

I am done with this thread cause it is 100% clear nothing is going to come of this, at this point I think it should be locked. No constructive discussion is to be had from this thread

[arel00]

I am done with this thread cause it is 100% clear nothing is going to come of this, at this point I think it should be locked. No constructive discussion is to be had from this thread

Pretty much the best summary of GenOT you can possibly write.

[Deleted]

Hah, no. You guys are doing it to other people in other threads, in other topics. Attributing things they do not believe to them or making shit up about what they've said. You think I don't remember the names and notice the pattern of attributing things to people in which they do not believe nor which they have said?

Your inability to read and communicate properly doesn't imply that others misrepresent you.

[Mistame]

Can't give consent while drunk. That's federal law.

No, it's not. You can't give consent if substantially impaired (which I've already explained) due to intoxication. "Drunk" is a generic term used to cover a few drinks to passed out.

I don't care what goes in your fucked up mind in that regard, you're going to prison if you engage in sexual acts with someone that is incapable of consenting legally.

And again, she was capable of consenting given that she was able to walk to her car and carrying on a conversation.

What matters in that case is which party instigates intercourse. Again, federal law and something I've patiently said previously. And by the accounts of both the male and female the instigating party was the male.

Instigation is only applicable or relevant when there's a lack of consent. There was no demonstrable lack of consent.

No court would view someone who blacked out two minutes after walking to her car as not being substantially impaired while walking.

No court, huh? So you're saying there's not a single court that understands what black-out drunk is? This has been explained ad nauseam and again, has neither a correlation nor relevance to one's cognitive abilities or the ability to consent.

Don't use retarded logic.

Irony?

He instigated the moment he stuck his penis in her while she was substantially impaired. That's all you have to prove in court.

No, you have to prove she was substantially impaired. The fact that she walked to her car proves that to not be the case.

Yeah, I did. You claimed that the people who rape someone are the ones being raped. I just applied that and you didn't like the result of what it actually leads to.

He was referring specifically to being drunk, not rape. That you insist on calling it "rape" when the girl is drunk is ignorant.

Him putting his penis inside her is proof he instigated intercourse.

No, it's not. Most guys do the insertion. If she'd have asked him to fuck her (which could be the case), he still would have been the one putting it in. Clearly you know about as much about sex as you do law. Which isn't much.

And yes, proof the defendant instigated is all you'd need in this case.

Wrong. You have prove that she was substantially impaired, which is not black-out drunk and even if it was, her claiming to not remember is not proof. Failing that, you have to prove consent was not given. And, as a reminder, the burden of proof lies on the accuser.

People have repeatedly told you and you've had multiple laws linked that say you can't consent while intoxicated.

Again, patently wrong.

You said both are rapists even though there can only be one instigator with rape when there are 2 people involved.

That's right. But if two people consent, it's not rape and thus both are "instigating" it. That's how that actually works.

If all nine consented while drunk and afterwards the men passed out while the woman had sex with them individually, she'd be guilty of rape.

She was not passed out. Your analogy is irrelevant.

[Freighter]

Your inability to read and communicate properly doesn't imply that others misrepresent you.

You most certainly do misrepresent me, tilt at windmills all the time and make shit up.

[Deleted]

You most certainly do misrepresent me, tilt at windmills all the time and make shit up.

Nope, you just are clueless on what you actually say, that isn't my fault.

[Raelbo]

I have a narrative rooted in law.

Yes, I have more or less figured that out. My assumption is that you're a lawyer or at least work in the legal profession.

some of your posts give more of the feeling of how you'd want things to be rather than how they are.

Well, yes. I think my objective was pretty clear when I entered this topic that I wanted to highlight the nature of the problem, not necessarily propose a legal solution. It was based entirely on how I think things should be, and I fully acknowedge that things aren't that way. For example I mentioned "rape culture" because that represents the way things are: We live in a society where people like @MeHMeH (and once again, I apologise profusely for ever confusing you with him) and @Mistame think that all is fine when someone elects to have sex with someone else when they have doubts about the veracity of the consent given (ie the only reason this person said yes to sex is because they're so drunk they don't really know what they're saying). That they cannot recognise what is wrong with that kind of attitude disturbs me.

I can accept that this makes it challenging to form a legal framework, but if people can't even recognise the problem, and go so far as to actually support the status quo, then I have to question their personal integrity. The way those guys express their opinions makes their viewpoints appear borderline sociopathic, and completely unsuitable for forming any kind of ethical framework for a civilised society.

At the end of the day, when I read the story in the OP what I see is a tragic failure of society to raise young people correctly and my response for a solution is not to seek some sort of legal retribution - it's to find a way to rehabilitate these kids and looking at the broader picture, how to construct a framework of what we should be teaching our kids. In this case it's the principle that you shouldn't take advantage of drunk people. If you want to have sex with someone you should apply your mind in assessing whether they're actually compis mentis enough to consent, not just take a "yes" (or approximation thereof) as license to take the benefit of the doubt.

For my opponents, I just get the sense they are interested only having sex, with little care given for how that might affect the person they're having sex with. If they see an opportunity they see it as their right to just take it, to hell with consequences for the other person or applying your mind to assess the situation. What's even more ridiculous is they want to dismiss any notion of bringing emotion into the picture under the guise of remaining rational. Considering that the biggest harm caused by rape is emotional, I have to argue that to ignore the emotional aspect of the event is completely irrational.

But that's not all of them. And even then, they wouldn't make much sense that way and they'd give bizarre results in investigation and trials on their heads on grounds of proof.

Fair enough. Obviously a legal framework would need to be constructed by experts in law (which I am not, also laws are different from country to country). However one of the objectives of the legal framework should still be to support the principle, to help to protect people who make bad decisions (like the girl in the OP who had too much to drink) from people who make irresponsible (or even outright malicious) decisions.

Except they aren't synonyms at all. Unless you think "empty" and "boring" are synonyms as well.

vap·id
ˈvapəd/
adjective
adjective: vapid

offering nothing that is stimulating or challenging.
"tuneful but vapid musical comedies"
synonyms: insipid, uninspired, colorless, uninteresting, feeble, flat, dull, boring, tedious, tired, unexciting, uninspiring, unimaginative, uninvolving, lifeless, tame, vacuous, bland, trite, jejune
"a tuneful but vapid musical comedy"
antonyms: lively, colorful

I should have used a better adjective, and had I thought out it bit more I would have (bear in mind that this is an internet debating forum, the writing is always going to be impromtu in nature rather than prepared). But I still think that "emotionally vapid" is applicable to describe his argument as being essentially devoid of any emotion, and I can't really see how he could have misconstrued it to mean that his argument was based on empathy or emotional understanding of the people involved.

[Deleted]

Drivel

All you have done so far is construct strawman.
Lets step back and have a look at what happened, did the guy even get charged with rape? No he wasn't charged with anything because of the simple reason that even after an investigation they could not find any worthy of charging him with anything.
What you want to happen is that, females in particular, can withdraw their concent after the fact, and as many have pointed out, your views are extremely sexist and could not possibly function in the real world. But in your mind, people who point out this simple fact are just rapist.

[Raelbo]

You most certainly do misrepresent me, tilt at windmills all the time and make shit up.

Don't worry, he does that to anyone who disagrees with him. I think it's the only way he knows how to argue.

- - - Updated - - -

All you have done so far is construct strawman.

Nice hypocrisy given the two that you that you employed in this very post.

Lets step back and have a look at what happened, did the guy even get charged with rape? No he wasn't charged with anything because of the simple reason that even after an investigation they could not find any worthy of charging him with anything.

He wasn't charged with anything because even though it's obvious that what happened was unacceptable, the legal system and the police simply don't know how to deal with it. You're arguing that because the law didn't punish him, what he did was ok. This rests on the flawed assumption that the law is infallible.

What you want to happen is that, females in particular, can withdraw their concent after the fact

Nope never said that. And I have refuted this point about 5 times in this thread already and explained how what I want is fundamentally different to the words you keep insisting on attributing to me. You're misrepresenting my argument as something it is not. I am not the only person to have this gripe with you.

your views are extremely sexist

Completely unsubstantiated (like all your assertions). My arguments are entirely gender neutral and I have never suggested that a female cannot be a rapist. My principles would apply equally to men being raped by women, women being raped by women and men being raped by men. Also ironic given your clear and consistent misogyny over many thread

and could not possibly function in the real world.

Well, not without some changes, some of which might be inconvient to some people who would, as a result, resist them. I don't consider the state of the real world to be a benchmark of what is ideal, nor is it something that should remain as is.

But in your mind, people who point out this simple fact are just rapist.

I've never called you a rapist. I have speculated about what could possibly motivate your perspective (on the assumption that what you are writing here is genuine and not simply an attempt to rile people up). My conclusion is that you're likely just a simple sociopath. It would certainly explain a LOT about the way you write and the opinions you express, the way you completely fail at empathy, the way you bully people etc.

At this point you're not convincing anyone (except for the small group of like-minded individuals who keep repeating the same things again and again), and it's clear from this thread that there is a far greater number of people who fundamentally agree you're full of it.

[Chrysia]

Correct, they are separate things unlike what you originally tried to claim. You've also abandoned your nonsensical position that intent is needed. That's nice.

Also, if you can't figure out how two people in a committed relationship agreeing that getting drunk and fucking while drunk is okay in their relationship is different from the case in question, then I don't know what to tell you about your anecdotal "evidence."

I never claimed they weren't separate. The jurisdictions in which rape has degrees just like murder do treat rape as a specific intent crime. Not all rapes are tried at the federal level.

There's zero evidence that these two weren't in a similar situation. Both drunk, both consenting to actions until the woman ceased having memory slippage. Being in a committed relationship is not a defense to rape.

[Deleted]

Don't worry, he does that to anyone who disagrees with him. I think it's the only way he knows how to argue.

- - - Updated - - -



Nice hypocrisy given the two that you that you employed in this very post.



He wasn't charged with anything because even though it's obvious that what happened was unacceptable, the legal system and the police simply don't know how to deal with it. You're arguing that because the law didn't punish him, what he did was ok. This rests on the flawed assumption that the law is infallible.



Nope never said that. And I have refuted this point about 5 times in this thread already and explained how what I want is fundamentally different to the words you keep insisting on attributing to me. You're misrepresenting my argument as something it is not. I am not the only person to have this gripe with you.



Completely unsubstantiated (like all your assertions). My arguments are entirely gender neutral and I have never suggested that a female cannot be a rapist. My principles would apply equally to men being raped by women, women being raped by women and men being raped by men. Also ironic given your clear and consistent misogyny over many thread



Well, not without some changes, some of which might be inconvient to some people who would, as a result, resist them. I don't consider the state of the real world to be a benchmark of what is ideal, nor is it something that should remain as is.



I've never called you a rapist. I have speculated about what could possibly motivate your perspective (on the assumption that what you are writing here is genuine and not simply an attempt to rile people up). My conclusion is that you're likely just a simple sociopath. It would certainly explain a LOT about the way you write and the opinions you express, the way you completely fail at empathy, the way you bully people etc.

At this point you're not convincing anyone (except for the small group of like-minded individuals who keep repeating the same things again and again), and it's clear from this thread that there is a far greater number of people who fundamentally agree you're full of it.

More drivel doesn't make you right, it only makes you type more stupid stuff.
There wasn't any crime, two people had sex while drunk, it happens millions of time every day. This has nothing to do with the justice system failing, this has to do with having to prove wrongdoing, innocent until proven guilty, but you are apparently against these things. Nothing like this happened so the police didn't do anything.

Oh, and you cant read.. I'm not saying that you called me a rapist, i said that in your mind im a rapist... But as always nuances are totally lost on you. And calling me a sociopath for the 1234th time isn't helping your argument either, its full of emotional bullshit, and that is all there is to your argument, as always.

Oh and fyi, having freighter on your side does say allot about your points and how valid they are, just look what other poster have to say about it..

[Noradin]

You most certainly do misrepresent me, tilt at windmills all the time and make shit up.

If you cannot express yourself properly and demonstrably do not understand the posts of others (cannot spot subjunctive mood for one) then that can certainly give you the illusion that others misrepresent you. In truth, however, it is more a case of you misrepresenting yourself and misunderstanding others.

[Vyuvarax]

That is completely nonsensical. Neither of them are "capable of consent." Two people are super drunk. How are you determining which of them "initiated insertion?"

Basically a question of who stuck in what. Being unable to consent themselves does not mean they can't commit crimes while intoxicated.

- - - Updated - - -

I never claimed they weren't separate. The jurisdictions in which rape has degrees just like murder do treat rape as a specific intent crime. Not all rapes are tried at the federal level.

There's zero evidence that these two weren't in a similar situation. Both drunk, both consenting to actions until the woman ceased having memory slippage. Being in a committed relationship is not a defense to rape.

You can have agreed upon conduct that you decide upon while sober in a relationship. In this case that wasn't possible as they never agreed to anything while sober. Your example is horribly inaccurate.

[Noradin]

Basically a question of who stuck in what. Being unable to consent themselves does not mean they can't commit crimes while intoxicated.

So your definition of rape is "the guy did it" because he is the one with a penis.