So that would mean that if you feel guilty about it the day after then you can not withdraw consent.
Once again, this is not something I ever said or advocatedPeople take advantage of this all the time.But yea, that totally isn't advocating that these are predatorsfinding someone who is barely of consenting age, getting them blackout drunk and then claiming afterwards that they totally consented.
Look at the things i quoted you on just above this.Again, I never said it wasn't (boy you REALLY like misquoting and twisting what people say).
I never said anything about people who do not drink. How do you keep on missing this point? Drinking and having sex with someone is fine, provided you have some basis upon which to assume that consent would still be valid. This basis has to be founded on events that happened before drunkenness ensued.It is the premise you keep bringing up..100% correct. Now, consider this: It takes 2 people to have sex. The second person is still responsible for the actions they choose to take with said drunk person.
What you have tried is to lay all the blame at the person who (magically) somehow isn't drunk or if they are both drunk then it is still his fault.I have never tried to argue that every case of drunken sex = rape. Compared to the number of legitimate incidence of drunken sex, I would say it's quite likely that the incidence of drunken rape is relatively infrequent. But that doesn't mean it's not a problem.
Yes that would mean that they can not be drunk, or should not be allowed to drink, or should be under chaperone of a responsible family member at all times. Again, your argument fails because just because she is drunk doesn't mean that she can not consent. You can not absolve someone from something just because they where drunk. And what this all comes down to is revoking consent the next day, as i have pointed out to you numerous times now.But remember what my argument is: consent obtained while drunk should not be assumed to be sufficient. It's really, really simple. If your only basis for claiming consent is what someone said after 12 shots of tequilla, then you have a problem.
.That doesn't mean that if you and your sexual partner go out and one of you gets drunk that you can't have sex. The default assumption by any reasonable person is that sex is still consensual.
Where it is important is when you're dealing with someone with whom you have never bothered to establish sexual boundaries
And that is a big assumption to make, if you do not know this person you have no idea how they are sober and if they would be in for it then too. Point is, they still got drunk and that is all on them, shifting blame to others because they got drunk is just immature.
I can not understand it because it is a big load of nonsense. This has nothing to do with right or wrong, that is all some weird notion in your head that you need to white knight the situation. If you are drunk that is on you, you are responsible for that and you are also responsible for consenting to things you did while drunk.Someone who is drunk is not necessarily capable of consent. This is what you seem to have trouble understanding - and it seems to stem your lack of ability to understand the fundamental difference between what is right and what is wrong.
So again, you are plainly forgetting that the other person is drunk too. If these people can not consent because they are drunk then how in the hell are those other drunk people supposed to consent and make a sound judgment? How is someone else supposed to know how you feel the next morning? Are they mind readers now?? See, there is so much wrong with that statement of yours its not even funny anymore.As an adult human being of consenting age, you are required to apply sound judgement when deciding whether or not to have sex with someone. If they appear to be drunk then you need to take that into account. If you cannot say with confidence that they're not going to be upset about it in the morning then why on earth would you believe it's ok? And if you're confident that they will be fine about it in the morning, then why would you be worried about a rape accusation?
And you think people can mind read have a good judge of character while drunk and always do what is best, you are completely removed from any form of reality here.Your defence simply doesn't care about how the other person would feel about it the next day. Pretty callous if you ask me.
And as i have explained to you what this comes down to is being able to withdraw consent the next day, so it is void of any reason what so ever.I have empathy for both parties. I have often said in these debates that each case is context dependent.
Which is why my argument is based on principles which need to be applied to the specifics of a case to draw any conclusions. The principle which I am advocating here is simply this: "Consent" obtained from people who are intoxicated should not be considered sufficient.
aaand here you go with the abuse again, you do want to find that malicious little bastard, don't you.. Its all in your head..That does not mean that all drunken sex = rape. On the contrary, it is basis for differentiating between consensual drunken sex and rape.
Your position on the other hand simply advocates that as long as consent is obtained, then it's all ok. While your solution is wonderful in terms of its unambiguity, it utterly fails at being just. It is very open to abuse by malicious and/or selfish people, and results in a great deal of harm to many people. And your solution: "Well then don't get drunk" is puerile. Sure, getting drunk isn't a wise thing to do, but it should never become a licence for someone else to take advantage of you.
The fact that you try to use emotions to further your argument only shows that your arguments are nonexistent and that you try to get your way with "feels". If we all go and do what feels good and base our laws according to that then there will be no justice/A few points here:
Firstly my reasoning is significantly more substantial than yours, on pretty much every front. The fact that I include consideration for the emotions of the people affected by this issue is not made at the expense of logic and reason. I use empathy to supplement those arguments. It's called taking a holistic view.
Your arguments are non-arguments. They're pretty much just raw statements, with little or no substantion, repeated ad nauseum.
So no, I am not arguing that we should base our rules of law on feelings. But to argue that feelings and the emotional responses of people should not be considered is pretty asinine, especially when you consider an issue like rape in which the real damage done to people is emotional.
This is a debate about the fundamental difference between right and wrong. Which is actually the basis of many of our laws anyway. The fact that you seem to have trouble understanding the difference is why, it seems to me, you cannot put together a cogent argument on this topic.
The reason that i need to repeat myself is because you keep coming with baseless emotional claims that have no place in this discussion.
This isn't about right or wrong, this is about consent and when it is given. If you do not like that you can't withdraw consent after the fact then you should not get shitfaced drunk and consent to have sex with someone.
Make it illegal for women to drink until they are 40... problem solved.
"Every country has the government it deserves."
Joseph de Maistre (1753 – 1821)
If a drunk guy has sex with a sober girl and regrets it the next day is it also rape?
Moral of the story, if you drink so much that you get drunk, you deserve whatever happens to you, whether that be getting pregnant or getting someone else pregnant and having to live with the consequences of your actions. Rule of thumb, don't be an idiot and have common sense about your actions.
What happened was very predictable and it is just stupid to drink excessively alcohol in such circumstances. She choose to drink and nobody obliged that "Maddie" to drink alcohol.
Now, if any drunken woman can deny being conscious after one (or more) person(s) had sex with her after she drank alcohol, and if the issue for rape/non rape rely on her exclusive statement, this is a wide open door to injustice. This gives to the possible victim (I write "victim" because a woman could also be a victim in the same circumstances) the legal possibility to pressure the other person(s) involved in this sex story and to extort money out from these other person(s), even when it wasn't rape but consented sex.
"Maddie said, “If there’s no consequences, then the education is meaningless.” : education has a far larger and different field from criminal law.
It's funny how you're accountable to all of your actions when you're drunk, except for sex.
Drive drunk? Accountable.
Commit murder while drunk? Accountable.
Rob a liquor store while drunk? Accountable.
Post stupid shit on forums while drunk? Accountable.
Have sex while drunk? Not your fault.
--- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.
I retire from women, The justice system does nothing but cater to them. Never does it saying anything about a man being drunk too, How could he have consented to sex too? Fuck this shit, Im investing in a VR sex dungeon.
oh look, 14 pages of the same fucking arguments being made over and over ad nauseam.
Oh that person made a really good argument against mine, lets completely ignore it and make personal attacks or vague generalizations about something else!
Technically, the girl cold have drunk more after the intercourse and that could have been why she lost her memory of the events.
It is not only events after getting drunk that can get affected by the memory loss, also things a little while before.
So technically, the boy could have been more drunk than the girl when they had sex and it could still have turned out this way.
Exactly. With the text he made after the fact, was enough evidence as a min to investigate it more by interrogating him. There are different degrees of intoxication. Some, you are buzzed good , but can still walk ok and even have a decent conversation. Other times, you may be plastered so much, you can not stand or walk or have a conversation. Then in some cases you will pass out and not remember anything.
This this and this.
The actual events will never be known. This should not be a case of rape. At some point women need to take responsibility. Dont go to a party and get shit faced, something is going to happen. And most women go to clubs and parties to hook up with someone. Screaming rape afterwards is just messing up someone elses life.
Too much gray area in the "Rape Definition"
You dont go into the woods carrying a 10lb bag of fresh meat...you know a bear may kill your ass for it.