Should people be allowed to drink without supervision ?

[Deleted]

Sure. Unlike most posters here, I don't fight to the bitter end for a cause I know is overdrawn.

Here is my position:

If someone has sex with another person while they are unconscious, it's rape.

If someone has sex with another person who has the ability to verbally consent or revoke consent - even if they are very drunk - it is not automatically rape, but it can be rape if they do revoke consent.

- - - Updated - - -



Okay I'm done with you.

What if they are mid deed and she "revokes consent". Is the coitus already had considered rape?

[Machismo]

Sure. Unlike most posters here, I don't fight to the bitter end for a cause I know is overdrawn.

Here is my position:

If someone has sex with another person while they do not have the ability to give or revoke consent (for example, if they are unconscious), it's rape.

If someone has sex with another person who has the ability to verbally give or revoke consent - even if they are very drunk - it is not automatically rape, but it can be rape if they do revoke consent.

- - - Updated - - -



Okay I'm done with you.

You admitted you don't know the law, yet you want to complain about the law, and propose changes to the law you admitted you do not understand.

I don't know where you live, so I cannot do that for you.

[Underverse]

What if they are mid deed and she "revokes consent". Is the coitus already had considered rape?

No, that would be dumb. But if you don't stop after the revocation of consent, then it is rape.

[Xanjori]

Prove the opposite

That's like asking me to prove God doesn't exist. How can I prove something that I can't see doesn't exist? Stupidest shit ever lol.

[Underverse]

You admitted you don't know the law, yet you want to complain about the law, and propose changes to the law you admitted you do not understand.

I don't know where you live, so I cannot do that for you.

No, I made assumptions about the law while admitting that I don't know the details, and then proposed how I think the law should be written, regardless of how it is written now.

Now go back under your bridge.

[Deleted]

No, that would be dumb. But if you don't stop after the revocation of consent, then it is rape.

So what is your defense going to be when she says the whole deed was rape?
Seeing its your word vs hers and she did revoke consent half way through.
How will you proof she did consent at the start?

Keeping in mind that the outcome of this bit can mean you having a decent job or cutting tree's the rest of your life in some little shit hole because no on there knows you or reads news papers seeing your life as you know it is over after allegations are made.

[Machismo]

No, I made assumptions about the law while admitting that I don't know the details, and then proposed how I think the law should be written, regardless of how it is written now.

Now go back under your bridge.

Then how do you know the law in your state doesn't already cover your concerns? Why are you getting mad at me do your own admitted willful ignorance?

[Deleted]

We should outlaw alcohol entirely.

[Underverse]

Then how do you know the law in your state doesn't already cover to concerns? Why are you getting mad at me do your own admitted willful ignorance?

Sigh.

I'm not talking about my state. Do you really think that people in the US can't judge laws in Saudi Arabia, or that people in Maine can't judge laws in Vermont?

How far are you going to stretch this? Lol

[Deleted]

We should outlaw alcohol entirely.

Well. There goes my chances of ever preforming the deed again.

[Lady Dragonheart]

Sure. Unlike most posters here, I don't fight to the bitter end for a cause I know is overdrawn.

Here is my position:

If someone has sex with another person while they do not have the ability to give or revoke consent (for example, if they are unconscious), it's rape.

If someone has sex with another person who has the ability to verbally give or revoke consent - even if they are very drunk - it is not automatically rape, but it can be rape if they do revoke consent.

My question, if you are the victim, how do you prove something like that? Is it even possible?

[Underverse]

So what is your defense going to be when she says the whole deed was rape?
Seeing its your word vs hers and she did revoke consent half way through.
How will you proof she did consent at the start?

Keeping in mind that the outcome of this bit can mean you having a decent job or cutting tree's the rest of your life in some little shit hole because no on there knows you or reads news papers seeing your life as you know it is over after allegations are made.

He said/she said, burden of proof is on the accuser, not on the accused. I think that should take care of your concerns.

[Xanjori]

My question, if you are the victim, how do you prove something like that? Is it even possible?

If its word vs word, then unfortunately I think not. Which is a problem. I can see why its not fair on the victim, because you may have been raped but have no way to prove it, however I think it has to stay that way. Unless the accused fucks up with their story and it becomes obvious telling lies, then there is no real way to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it did happen.

[Dangg]

If someone, driving drunk, plows into a pedestrian and kills them, does it cease to be vehicular manslaughter if the pedestrian is also drunk?

Your comparison doesn't make any sense.
We are assuming there was some kind of consent and not rape with a clear aggressor going on.

[Deleted]

He said/she said, burden of proof is on the accuser, not on the accused. I think that should take care of your concerns.

But in this case it isn't. When the woman says she is raped the burden of proof is on the accused to proof that she wasn't which is a very difficult thing to proof.
Which is exactly why the tread was made, men don't have any rights in this situation. Its so fucking backwards.

[Underverse]

My question, if you are the victim, how do you prove something like that? Is it even possible?

Prove what exactly? That you revoked consent while drunk? Yeah, it's not easy. But it's not easy for rape under non-inebriated circumstances too, because unless you had bystanders or there was some physical damage caused, you don't have much evidence beyond your word. And in some ways, this is a good thing. Even with these considerations - or maybe because of them - it's relatively simple to manufacture a false accusation if you can rope a friend into it; courts, for lack of a good source of evidence, will place a ton of value on witness testimony.

The most compelling evidence, in my opinion, would be physical damage though.

- - - Updated - - -

But in this case it isn't. When the woman says she is raped the burden of proof is on the accused to proof that she wasn't which is a very difficult thing to proof.
Which is exactly why the tread was made, men don't have any rights in this situation. Its so fucking backwards.

Eh, I don't think this is true. Rape accusations do not often lead to convictions because the burden of proof on the accuser is so high. I think there are some cases of judiciary abuse where much more value is placed in the word of the accuser, but that's a broader problem.

[tankbug]

That's highly subjective, and you're trying to argue that women are more fragile creatures that need to be protected compared to men, which is essentially the complete opposite of what feminism has been trying to do for decades.

Not really. Treating women like equals shouldn't mean that we treat them like men. I'm not saying that we should all be gentlemen, giving a woman some unnecessary benefits because of their gender, but expecting them to fight for their lives when they regret taking a guy home, is just unreasonable. They have less physical ability than men, and they will suffer a lot of emotional damage. We should keep that in mind when going home with someone. It's fairly patronizing to consider that to be "protecting the fragile little creatures". Feminists, although claiming that women are equal to men, want more focus from society on stopping men from raping women, as in that women are powerless victims. Maybe that sounds like a contradiction, but they don't consider basic physical superiority to be something that makes us more valuable than women.

[Dequanacus]

Women need to be chained to a bed post and monitored 24/7. They are at far too much risk in any other situation

[Lady Dragonheart]

Prove what exactly? That you revoked consent while drunk? Yeah, it's not easy. But it's not easy for rape under non-inebriated circumstances too, because unless you had bystanders or there was some physical damage caused, you don't have much evidence beyond your word. And in some ways, this is a good thing. Even with these considerations - or maybe because of them - it's relatively simple to manufacture a false accusation if you can rope a friend into it; courts, for lack of a good source of evidence, will place a ton of value on witness testimony.

The most compelling evidence, in my opinion, would be physical damage though.

Which is still not enough to deliberate rape, to be honest. So, what you're saying is that a victim realistically has no option and no defense whatsoever?

[Deleted]

Prove what exactly? That you revoked consent while drunk? Yeah, it's not easy. But it's not easy for rape under non-inebriated circumstances too, because unless you had bystanders or there was some physical damage caused, you don't have much evidence beyond your word. And in some ways, this is a good thing. Even with these considerations - or maybe because of them - it's relatively simple to manufacture a false accusation if you can rope a friend into it; courts, for lack of a good source of evidence, will place a ton of value on witness testimony.

The most compelling evidence, in my opinion, would be physical damage though.

- - - Updated - - -



Eh, I don't think this is true. Rape accusations do not often lead to convictions because the burden of proof on the accuser is so high. I think there are some cases of judiciary abuse where much more value is placed in the word of the accuser, but that's a broader problem.

Guy in the article linked earlier served 2.5 years in jail for a crime he did not commit.
His good name was ruined, he was fired from him employment & he will probably never get a decent job again.
It was a He said, She said and they did not give a shit what he said.