Confusion continues surrounding drunken consent

[Shadowferal]

You Can Still Get Convicted Of Rape Even If You Were Too Bombed To Remember Your Crime

Alcohol is by far the most dangerous 'date rape drug'

[Vyuvarax]

You can't have it both ways, either you are responsible for your actions while drunk or you are not. You can't be responsible if you are a male and not responsible if you are a female because of alcohol, yet that is exactly what you are claiming.

One party committed a crime, the other did not. That's not having it both ways.

[Fugus]

Did not see where it said the level of intoxication of the man. If he was sober, then yeah, rape. If he was pure shitfaced as well......

[Vyuvarax]

Nothing in this opinion piece indicates that the woman wanted to have sex, that doesn't mean that she didn't want to have sex, that only means that they failed to put in the work and have both parties have their say.

Whether or not she gave consent is irrelevant to whether the defendant could be convicted. If she was as drunk as the article says and the defendant instigated intercourse then a judge would find the defendant guilty of rape. All the legal statutes and precedent support that outcome.

- - - Updated - - -

Did not see where it said the level of intoxication of the man. If he was sober, then yeah, rape. If he was pure shitfaced as well......

That is, legally speaking, incorrect. You can be convicted if you rape someone while drunk. That's the US legal precedent.

[Deleted]

One party committed a crime, the other did not. That's not having it both ways.

No party committed a crime, she consented to sex, if she is unable to consent then so is he.

- - - Updated - - -

Whether or not she gave consent is irrelevant to whether the defendant could be convicted. If she was as drunk as the article says and the defendant instigated intercourse then a judge would find the defendant guilty of rape. All the legal statutes and precedent support that outcome.

- - - Updated - - -



That is, legally speaking, incorrect. You can be convicted if you rape someone while drunk. That's the US legal precedent.

The article didn't mention that he instigated anything, the only thing it says is that he asked for consent multiple times. That doesn't meant that he instigated anything that means that he was unsure of her advances. This has been pointed out to you multiple times now, but you still keep ignoring it.

[Freighter]

No party committed a crime, she consented to sex, if she is unable to consent then so is he.

Newsflash: You're responsible for what you to do to others while you're drunk. You're not responsible for what others do to you while you're drunk. I don't know why this is so hard to understand for people like you.

[Deleted]

Newsflash: You're responsible for what you to do to others while you're drunk. You're not responsible for what others do to you while you're drunk. I don't know why this is so hard to understand for people like you.

You are responsible for your own actions, if you do not want to have drunken sex then you should not consent to drunken sex. I do not know why this is so hard for you to understand.

[Vyuvarax]

No party committed a crime, she consented to sex, if she is unable to consent then so is he.

- - - Updated - - -



The article didn't mention that he instigated anything, the only thing it says is that he asked for consent multiple times. That doesn't meant that he instigated anything that means that he was unsure of her advances. This has been pointed out to you multiple times now, but you still keep ignoring it.

And I point out over and over that there is evidence of "her advances." That's a very dishonest inference.

[Freighter]

You are responsible for you own actions, if you do not want to have drunken sex then you should not consent to drunken sex. I do not know why this is so hard for you to understand.

She was not legally capable of consenting to sex.

[Vyuvarax]

You are responsible for your own actions, if you do not want to have drunken sex then you should not consent to drunken sex. I do not know why this is so hard for you to understand.

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

[Deleted]

And I point out over and over that there is evidence of "her advances." That's a very dishonest inference.

There is just as much evidence for his advances as there are for hers, they where both drunk and both consented to have sex. If you do not want to be in that situation then you should not drink that much.

- - - Updated - - -

She was not legally capable of consenting to sex.

She was able to walk, talk and participate in sex, she was capable of consenting.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Then the guy could not have consented to have sex with her too so she raped him.

[Freighter]

Then the guy could not have consented to have sex with her too so she raped him.

That's fucking absurd. She didn't do anything to him, he did something to her. You can't claim she raped him when he's the one who acted.

- - - Updated - - -

She was able to walk, talk and participate in sex, she was capable of consenting.

Not legally. 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.

[Vyuvarax]

There is just as much evidence for his advances as there are for hers, they where both drunk and both consented to have sex. If you do not want to be in that situation then you should not drink that much.

- - - Updated - - -



She was able to walk, talk and participate in sex, she was capable of consenting.

- - - Updated - - -



Then the guy could not have consented to have sex with her too so she raped him.

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.

[Deleted]

That's fucking absurd. She didn't do anything to him, he did something to her. You can't claim she raped him when he's the one who acted.

- - - Updated - - -



Not legally. 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.

Now that is absurd, he didn't do anything to her, she did something to him. You do not know who acted, as it is not mentioned in the article.

Yes, being substantially impaired means that all of those things would be off the table. But she was able to do all of these things so that means that she could consent.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

And you do not know who instigated anything, so you have no reason what so ever to claim that he raped her and not the other way around. Asking for consent isn't instigating anything.

[Freighter]

Now that is absurd, he didn't do anything to her, she did something to him. You do not know who acted, as it is not mentioned in the article.

Yes, being substantially impaired means that all of those things would be off the table. But she was able to do all of these things so that means that she could consent.

Your honor, this girl raped all 8 of us when we took turns fucking her when she was drunk.

I imagine that's you if you ended up in court for a gang rape.

[Vyuvarax]

Now that is absurd, he didn't do anything to her, she did something to him. You do not know who acted, as it is not mentioned in the article.

Yes, being substantially impaired means that all of those things would be off the table. But she was able to do all of these things so that means that she could consent.

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

[Deleted]

Your honor, this girl raped all 8 of us when we took turns fucking her when she was drunk.

I imagine that's you if you ended up in court for a gang rape.

okay, reported..

[Freighter]

okay, reported..

Cry more. I just used your logic that the people who act are the ones being raped when they fuck someone.

Don't like it? Don't use retarded logic.

[Deleted]

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

As has been pointed out multiple times, blacking out isn't something that other can see about you nor is it something that indicated that you are substantially impaired.

[Vyuvarax]

And you do not know who instigated anything, so you have no reason what so ever to claim that he raped her and not the other way around. Asking for consent isn't instigating anything.

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