Men's Rights Movement

[Rukentuts]

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

US department of justice:

The DOJ doesn't prosecute state crimes.

Link me a source of state statutes.

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.

Blah blah blah it's the victim's fault.

[Elegiac]

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.

Have I had sex before....lol. Sorry, the notion is just so hilarious that I can't keep a straight face.

What's even funnier is that you repeatedly demonstrate a failure to understand the definition of informed consent in a legal context.

[Velaniz]

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.

This argument flies out the window because it has no regard for the other person's state of inebriation, and also no regard for the fact that it can easily be the one of was more drunk that was more "active" during intercourse, and "piloted" the whole thing, so to speak, much as they would a car.

[Snipercartman]

Equality comes from both sides, and certainly there's one side that needed a lot more attention with our changing way of life. That doesn't preclude work being done on the other side of things, nor mean male and female rights are opposite. Honestly, this is all too often turned into two opposing sides, while both are working towards equality, and are thus two sides of the same coin. I say, let's focus on that, not turn this into some sort of enflaming hotbed of hostility that gets nothing done because both sides are working to oppose each other, rather than work on the issues.

That's just my two cents.

Starting a new campaign today, Caerule for President 20-now!!!

People would rather rag on one another than deal with the issues. Don't believe me turn on the tv, just look at congress....

[Rukentuts]

This argument flies out the window because it has no regard for the other person's state of inebriation, and also no regard for the fact that it can easily be the one of was more drunk that was more "active" during intercourse, and "piloted" the whole thing, so to speak, much as they would a car.

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publicatio...25-1/43-51.htm

[Velaniz]

Have I had sex before....lol. Sorry, the notion is just so hilarious that I can't keep a straight face.

What's even funnier is that you repeatedly demonstrate a failure to understand the definition of informed consent in a legal context.

I know what informed consent is. Thanks for casting doubt on my intellectual capabilities. What my point is, and this whole time has been, is the fact that I don't think it ought to be applicable when it comes to sex, unless one party is completely passed out.

Yeah, when you talk of sex like it's entirely a one-sided thing, I'm going to have to call into question your experience with it.

[Elegiac]

I know what informed consent is. Thanks for casting doubt on my intellectual capabilities. What my point is, and this whole time has been, is the fact that I don't think it ought to be applicable when it comes to sex, unless one party is completely passed out.

Yeah, when you talk of sex like it's entirely a one-sided thing, I'm going to have to call into question your experience with it.

When one party is inebriated, from a legal perspective it's one-sided.

[Endus]

How do you how alcohol affects everyone?

I don't need to, because the question isn't answered by "you can have X number of drinks", it's based on your coherency.

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.

Oh, it obviously affects inhibitions. The difference is, that does not matter in the question of whether it was rape. You're arguing that, if a woman's had, say, 6 drinks and is drunk as a skunk, if she says "take me to pound town, baby", she hasn't consented to sex. And if that's your argument, you are wrong. She has.

For example, this case; http://canlii.ca/en/ab/abca/doc/2012...12abca147.html

They were both completely drunk, met after the bar closed, had sex, she didn't remember any of it the next morning, freaked out, accused him of rape because she'd been drunk and didn't remember.

The relevant part of the appeal decision is here;

"The question was whether she was able to make a voluntary and informed choice to consent, not whether she made the best choice or would have made the same choice if sober or subsequently regretted her choice. Notwithstanding her inebriation, the complainant was able to make choices and act on them during the journey by taxi."

It doesn't matter if she was drunk, or if she made a smart choice, or made a different choice than she would have if sober. Just that she was capable of making a conscious choice. Which the court ruled she had.

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

See above. You are not correct on this. If you were, whenever any bar closed, it would lead to hundreds of "rapes" occurring, as drunk people are taken advantage of by other drunk people, who are in turn being victimized by their own victims. It's a nonsense argument.

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

Not even a little bit comparable.

[nextormento]

you repeatedly demonstrate a failure to understand the definition of informed consent in a legal context.

If you are linking informed consent to sexual activities, it's you the one failing to understand the meaning of it in and out of any context.

[Rukentuts]

"The question was whether she was able to make a voluntary and informed choice to consent, not whether she made the best choice or would have made the same choice if sober or subsequently regretted her choice. Notwithstanding her inebriation, the complainant was able to make choices and act on them during the journey by taxi."

i.e. they just ruled that the evidence in her case didn't support a compromise to informed consent.

If you are linking informed consent to sexual activities, it's you the one failing to understand the meaning of it in and out of any context.

So what would you call a severely mentally disabled person that says they want to fuck but isn't able to understand what they're saying?

[Piid]

Still waiting for someone to rebuke the sleeping rapist hypothesis

[DisposableHero]

The DOJ doesn't prosecute state crimes.

Link me a source of state statutes.

From that source:

This change will give law enforcement the ability to report more complete rape offense data, as the new definition reflects the vast majority of state rape statutes.

[Rukentuts]

From that source:

I don't see how that is sexist:

"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.”

Seems to cover any instance of sexual assault i.e. rape.

[Deadraline]

Personally I think we just have a people rights problem vs. men and women rights. Seems like no matter how you slice it both sides have issues they want fixed. It's hard to ever fix these issues when you have 2 different groups constantly going at each others throats. What we really need is a solid group, made up of both men and women, that can discuss what rights people should have despite how one gender feels about it. It's called compromising. Giving some and getting some. There are standards that are too hard on males just as much as there are standards too hard on females. It's a shame we can't have all men spend a year in a womans shoes and all women spend a day in a mans shoes just to see how the other side really feels and what the other side really deals with. If that could happen, then there may be less fighting about gender specific rights and more time deciding how men can make things better for women and how women can make things better for men.

But the fact is, that probably just isn't going to happen since no one can swallow their pride long enough to admit, yea there are things my gender does to the opposite gender we probably shouldn't do. And the people that happen to not be too full of pride and know how to make things good for the other gender? Well, most of them are probably in successful relationships, probably never get complaints from members of the opposite sex, and probably lead pretty good lives because they are focused on making life not only good for them, but everyone around them. And they believe in communicating their feelings vs. bashing the other side simply because of the gender they represent. Not all men are pigs and not all women are gold diggers. Once our world can start accepting these facts only then can we move on and actually start progressing...vs. having the same exact conversations over the same topics and nothing ever changing because we can't accept there are good men/women out there that really do try to make things comfortable for members of the opposite sex without taking advantage of them.

[Velaniz]

When one party is inebriated, from a legal perspective it's one-sided.

That legal perspective is a flawed one. That is my contention, which you (as well as everyone on your side) fail to grasp, and continuously attribute all my posts to a lack of understanding of what the fuck "informed consent" is, possibly so you can pass it off as the inane ramblings of a lunatic, and not something you have to dissect from a logical standpoint and consequently give a reasoned and thought-out reply to.

Give me one fucking response that isn't a link to some articles detailing how much laws suck, or something along the lines of "victim-blamer", "slut-shamer", "mra scum", etc.

[DisposableHero]

i.e. that source proves my claim that most states do not have penetration requirements?

It states that the DoJ changed its definition to the quoted because it reflects the vast majority of state laws, which was exactly my claim, the vast majority of state laws require penetration. The DoJ changed their definition of rape to be exclusively about penetration in 2012 to reflect what was already the definition in the vast majority of state laws. Would it have been so hard to read two paragraphs from that link?

[Endus]

Blah blah blah it's the victim's fault.

Nobody's arguing "it's the victim's fault". We're pointing out there is no victim. Getting drunk and doing something stupid does not mean you're a "victim" of anything but your own inebriated choices.

Guys get drunk and have sex with women they'd never have sex with while sober all the time. The difference is, for men, it's considered a joking matter. It's a subject of much ridicule in TV shows and movies.

Hell, it was a scene on Big Bang Theory. The guys are at a bar, getting blitzed, Raj is seen snogging a heavy-set girl, then shown waking up the next morning, freaks out, tries to get out of bed slowly, she grabs him and pulls him close, and he settles in, and it's all a laughing matter.

You're claiming that if the genders were reversed, it would be rape. I'm saying no, it's just drunk sex. People make stupid decisions when they're drunk. That doesn't mean someone else forced them into anything.

[Rukentuts]

That legal perspective is a flawed one.

By your subjective opinion and not any measurable context.

- - - Updated - - -

It states that the DoJ changed its definition to the quoted because it reflects the vast majority of state laws, which was exactly my claim, the vast majority of state laws require penetration. The DoJ changed their definition of rape to be exclusively about penetration in 2012 to reflect what was already the definition in the vast majority of state laws. Would it have been so hard to read two paragraphs from that link?

How is it sexist?

How is the penetration of any anus or vagina by any object or body part sexist against men?

[DisposableHero]

I don't see how that is sexist:

"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.”

Seems to cover any instance of sexual assault i.e. rape.

I have quoted what this post said originally so you'll never erase your ignorance here. I didn't say it was sexist. I said it required penetration.

[Xarkan]

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

It is unrelated but there could be potential circumstances were allowing a person to testify despite being shitfaced might be necessary. If, say, the person in question never showed up in court sober. In theory anyhow