Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Alright so what do people think about the fact that legally, a drunk person can't give consent for sex. Personally, I think it's a hypocritical and generally messed up standard. Don't get me wrong, if someone is so drunk that they actually pass out and someone has sex with them while they're unconscious, that should totally be rape. By the same token, if someone is intentionally limiting their drinking to levels they know they can tolerate and some bastard spikes their drink, that's rape. But shouldn't a person assume responsibility for their actions when they voluntarily consent to becoming so intoxicated that their inhibitions are lowered? I mean we don't let drunk drivers off with a free pass just because their judgment was too impaired to know they shouldn't be driving do we? Why are people still considered to be legally responsible for all their actions EXCEPT sex when they get a few drinks in them?

What's more, if you have sex with someone who's drunk while you're sober, it's rape. But if you do it while you're drunk too, it's not rape for either of you. But if you're drunk and actually rape someone who's sober... it's rape.

Seriously, how stupid is this system!?

About as stupid as someone who does not understand the relationship between impairment, responsibility, and harm.

If one is impaired, and his actions while impaired cause harm to others, he is responsible.

If one is impaired, however, it is not an invitation for others to cause harm to him.

Others are not suddenly unaccountable for their actions toward someone because that someone is impaired.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
About as stupid as someone who does not understand the relationship between impairment, responsibility, and harm.

If one is impaired, and his actions while impaired cause harm to others, he is responsible.

If one is impaired, however, it is not an invitation for others to cause harm to him.

Others are not suddenly unaccountable for their actions toward someone because that someone is impaired.
Did you miss the part where I pointed out that 2 drunk people having sex isn't considered rape for either of them? If the impairment makes the sex "harm" but impairment isn't an invitation to cause harm, then both people should be considered guilty of rape. Basically, it should be illegal for drunk people to have sex even if we go strictly by your logic.

Originally posted by darthgoober
But if you're drunk and actually rape someone who's sober... it's rape. Bruh

Originally posted by One Big Mob
Bruh
Hey I'm not saying drunk people should be allowed to rape, but you have to look at the picture as a whole to see how the hypocrisy plays out. It's rape to have sex with someone who's drunk unless you're drunk too, but if you're drunk you're still not allowed to rape. I'm not advocating more lenient sentences for drunk rapists, I'm saying that being drunk shouldn't remove your legal ability to consent to sex and make someone who accepts an invitation for sex into a rapist.

I'm not saying being drunk automatically means it's rape, or should be I guess. Obviously there are levels involved. Unless they're like blackout drunk or sleeping, it's dumb to classify it as auto rape.

That being said, there's a big difference between even a sober guy having sex with a "coherant" drunk girl, and a drunk person straight up raping a sober person. That last one implies full on struggling, and every negative associated with the word "rape". Even passed out drunk girl sex isn't as bad as the implication of drunk on sober rape.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
I'm not saying being drunk automatically means it's rape, or should be I guess. Obviously there are levels involved. Unless they're like blackout drunk or sleeping, it's dumb to classify it as auto rape.

That being said, there's a big difference between even a sober guy having sex with a "coherant" drunk girl, and a drunk person straight up raping a sober person. That last one implies full on struggling, and every negative associated with the word "rape". Even passed out drunk girl sex isn't as bad as the implication of drunk on sober rape.
But in the minds of many people, just being drunk IS enough to make it rape and in most states the standard for "too drunk" is pretty freaking subjective. That's why I have such an issue with it.

See I understand part of where we got our wires crossed there. While I acknowledge the different circumstances of each, I don't honestly differentiate between violent rape and sex with someone who's totally unconscious insofar as which is "worse". To me, both qualify as full on rape, as does rape by fraud. When I said "actual rape" I simply meant unquestionable rape, though I can see how you immediately pictured what you did.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Alright so what do people think about the fact that legally, a drunk person can't give consent for sex. Personally, I think it's a hypocritical and generally messed up standard. Don't get me wrong, if someone is so drunk that they actually pass out and someone has sex with them while they're unconscious, that should totally be rape. By the same token, if someone is intentionally limiting their drinking to levels they know they can tolerate and some bastard spikes their drink, that's rape. But shouldn't a person assume responsibility for their actions when they voluntarily consent to becoming so intoxicated that their inhibitions are lowered? I mean we don't let drunk drivers off with a free pass just because their judgment was too impaired to know they shouldn't be driving do we? Why are people still considered to be legally responsible for all their actions EXCEPT sex when they get a few drinks in them?

What's more, if you have sex with someone who's drunk while you're sober, it's rape. But if you do it while you're drunk too, it's not rape for either of you. But if you're drunk and actually rape someone who's sober... it's rape.

Seriously, how stupid is this system!?


If both are drunk, it could totally be rape. It depends on the judge.

The same way one judge claimed an older female teacher having sex with a minor isn't comparable to an older male, because biology dictates for a boy to perform, they need to be willing.



Yes, a judge actually said this.

Sex laws are such a rabbit hole.. I've spent some time looking into the issue, and have come to one conclusion:

The only thing the state cares about, is making sure they don't have to pay for someone elses kid.

It doesn't matter if you're literally in a coma, and the woman milks your seed. It doesn't matter if she fish's a used condom out of the trash. It doesn't matter if you were doing a favor for a lesbian couple, who had buyers remorse. If it's between the state paying, or you being dragged into it, you WILL pay.


And I believe stupid laws like "drunken consent" are in place to help facilitate this. You take advantage of a drunken girl, take the risk of knocking her up...? Well screw you! You're gonna pay.

The girls parents will want you to pay. The judge who thinks little boys aren't worth protecting like little girls are from grown adults will want you to pay. Of course, the feminist advocacy groups trained to believe they're victims of an oppressive patriarchy will want you to pay.

And for everyone else, file it under "not my problem". For most people, it simply isn't an issue (Drunken flings happen all the time, and nothing comes of it, which is why you don't get pressure to change the laws.)

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
About as stupid as someone who does not understand the relationship between impairment, responsibility, and harm.

If one is impaired, and his actions while impaired cause harm to others, he is responsible.

If one is impaired, however, it is not an invitation for others to cause harm to him.

Others are not suddenly unaccountable for their actions toward someone because that someone is impaired.


The issue, is the states definition of impairment and harm.


If a woman had one too many, but not so many she's clearly impaired, decides to have a fling that night, then has buyers remorse the next day and cries foul... If the state determines she was impaired, the guy is pretty much screwed.


The same way a girl who totally looks 25, but is really 15 with a fake ID, could get a guy put away for 10 years plus, as has happened.


Nothing fair about it, but that's how the laws are set up.

What bugs me more is that if both a guy and girl are drunk a lot of people put the onus on the GUY to stop things.

And no I'm not talking about situations where a girl is blacked out from drinking, just two people who are drunk and bang. Some feminists would say the girl can't consent, but somehow the guy(who is also drunk) can.,

Btw, that famous study feminists love to cite about 1 in 4 women getting sexually assaulted? Included "drunken sex" as a form of sexual assault, and again: not blackout drunk. Ha but it's no big deal it's not like important people like the president repeated the lie. Oh shit...

Who did you rape drunk goober?

Donald say, "call me baby", "baby dick".

It sucks when hookers go public.

This happened to Ched Evans

Long Story Short

A young woman working in a hotel finished work had drinks at the hotel bar got home had some vodka got dressed went out alone - clubbing met a guy at a late nite pizza place got a taxi to a motel checked in at the desk - had a good time - Ched was invited to take part in a 3-way - Hotel Security listened in - ear to the door to check if everything was on the level in there - the woman asked Ched to eat her out - they had an audience out-side their window - Next day the woman wakes up in the hotel room claims complete amnesia - The police acting on their own authority arrest the two men for gang rape - raping a drunk woman - the woman claims she blacked out - The guy who was seen at the pizza place with her in the taxi with her and on camera signing in at the motel with her and speaking to the staff at reception with her was cleared of raping a drunken person - the guy who only had hotel security to confirm the woman was a willing and active participant - and the audience outside the window = He got jail

It turns out the girl's girlfriends had a text message on their cellphones sent after the two men had been registere on camera leaving the grounds of the motel boasting: 'When I score, I score big'

A toxicology report which was not made available to the defendants revealed there were traces of cocaine in the girls bloodstream - She had taken cocaine the day before she went out to party - Her friends - they came forward - and confirmed the girl did have a history of blacking out (perhaps related to the high cocain usage and high level of alchohol abuse) - but the two guys who hooked up with her couldn't have known her medical history

An appeal court headed by a female judge reviewed the guys case while he was in prison and requested the guy have a retrial with all the evidence made available to the defense

A second court headed by another female judge cleared him off all charges

The court found some interesting things.
Too much to mention here.

Ched Evans had been cheating on his girlfriend, but she stood by him through all of it, and her father who paid his legal fees

The woman who claimed to have blacked out - There are a lot of stories like this - The girl who claimed the indian taxi driver who drove her home raped her to explain why she came home late and why she had been drinking (the guy explained he had a daughter just like her, the same age and he was worried, she'd asked to be dropped off somewhere not safe and he insisted on driving her all the way to her house - with the meter off to see her home safe - Lucky for the guy his cars on board computer and his meter and all the times and the road cameras showed he could not have been driving his taxi while he was in the back compartment of the taxi raping the drunk girl

Every Rape Case Has Got To Thoroghly Investigated.

Toxicology, Cameras, Wittnesses, Friends, Medical History, Phone Records, Cash, Bank Records. Every Angle.

If you've got a bit of life experience you will know (a lot) of people schedule/organise/plan to have drunk and or drug fueled sex.

On Valentines day (and on Anniversaries and Birthdays) there are a lot of rapists
"Your Honor, On February The 14th My Client Was Plied With Alchohol!"


Musicians, Entertainers, SAG-AFRA

If you said today the law is if you have sex with someone who is Drunk or Under The Influence Of Some Substance = You're getting jail time.

Every Major Television, Film and Music Company would be out of business.

(they obviously couldn't knowingly support content contributed by rapists)

There is inconsistency and a high level of hypocrisy in the law re: drinking / substance abuse / personal responsibility / rape

The laws which are in force for these things in most cases are out-dated.

You could be on prescription medicine which has undesirable effects when it interacts with even a tiny amount of alchohol.

Crazy how this is still a thing of contention, but we do live in a rape culture; just look who was elected as President, a guy with decades of sexual misconduct accusations, nearly 20 women coming forward and then openly bragging about how his fame/wealth allowed him to sexually molest and get away with it and his Cult simply did not care; like at all.

pZwvrxVavnQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQ

So you see, it's actually very easy to not be a rapist or sexual predator. In fact, it takes more effort to be one than not be one.

Who names their kid Ched?

Originally posted by darthgoober
But shouldn't a person assume responsibility for their actions when they voluntarily consent to becoming so intoxicated that their inhibitions are lowered?IMO, the final responsibility for any person's choices and actions rests with that person. This means the drinker is responsible for his/her actions, and the advantage-taker is responsible for his/hers.

One opened the door to trouble, but trouble still had to choose to walk through.

Originally posted by Mindship
IMO, the final responsibility for any person's choices and actions rests with that person. This means the drinker is responsible for his/her actions, and the advantage-taker is responsible for his/hers.

One opened the door to trouble, but trouble still had to choose to walk through.
But aren't you absolving the person who voluntarily got "too drunk" to give legal consent of their responsibility for their actions? If they chose to get that drunk, and while that drunk they choose to have sex... shouldn't they bear responsibility for their choices? I'm not talking about people who got so drunk they passed out and some random person took advantage of their unconscious form, I'm talking about some who said "yes" to drinking and then "yes" to sex.

I've always avoided sex with someone who is beyond piss drunk, to the point she can hardly walk. I mean, if they can't even muster enough mental cognition and motor-function to walk, can they give proper consent?

Originally posted by darthgoober
But aren't you absolving the person who voluntarily got "too drunk" to give legal consent of their responsibility for their actions? If they chose to get that drunk, and while that drunk they choose to have sex... shouldn't they bear responsibility for their choices? Yes, they should (sorry, I thought I implied that in my general response).

Originally posted by Robtard
I've always avoided sex with someone who is beyond piss drunk, to the point she can hardly walk. I mean, if they can't even muster enough mental cognition and motor-function to walk, can they give proper consent? For me it stems from what they chose to do that put them in that state in the first place. But it also doesn't mean the other person has to follow up. Some of us make better choices.

Originally posted by Robtard
I've always avoided sex with someone who is beyond piss drunk, to the point she can hardly walk. I mean, if they can't even muster enough mental cognition and motor-function to walk, can they give proper consent?
I would say in most of those cases that yes, it's obvious enough. But the system doesn't bank on that level of obviousness.

Originally posted by Mindship
Yes, they should (sorry, I thought I implied that in my general response).
No worries. I just interpreted it that way because both of your examples were specifically the accused and didn't touch on the accuser. That's why it seemed odd.

OP wants to be able to rape drunk chicks.

Originally posted by Mindship

For me it stems from what they chose to do that put them in that state in the first place. But it also doesn't mean the other person has to follow up. Some of us make better choices.

I'm not absolving drunk people of all responsibility across the board, eg I don't buy the "but they were drunk and didn't know" excuse for a drunk driver who gets into an accident and maims or kills another. Bullshit, they knew well before they drank that day that driving drunk is very dangerous.

But in the situation of the piss-drunk person and sober person regarding sex. I see it as the sober person is the functioning adult there; it's up to them to act that way.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not absolving drunk people of all responsibility across the board, eg I don't buy the "but they were drunk and didn't know" excuse for a drunk driver who gets into an accident and maims or kills another. Bullshit, they knew well before they drank that day that driving drunk is very dangerous.

But in the situation of the piss-drunk person and sober person regarding sex. I see it as the sober person is the functioning adult there; it's up to them to act that way. Bingo.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Who did you rape drunk goober?

His left hand?

Righty says she wanted it.

Originally posted by darthgoober
But aren't you absolving the person who voluntarily got "too drunk" to give legal consent of their responsibility for their actions? If they chose to get that drunk, and while that drunk they choose to have sex... shouldn't they bear responsibility for their choices? I'm not talking about people who got so drunk they passed out and some random person took advantage of their unconscious form, I'm talking about some who said "yes" to drinking and then "yes" to sex.

Yep.

You're totally absolving someone of getting blindingly drunk, to the point of making a bad decision.

Remember, the people who make these laws, and enforce them, are human beings, with their own biases. I can point out examples within the last ten years of DA's and judges claiming, on the record, that "Yes, how we treat older men with younger girls, compared to older women with younger boys, is a double standard.

And I think there SHOULD be a double standard."


Those types don't give a hoot about what SJW's believe. And unlike joe neo-nazi the white trash klansmen, they have real power over us all.

*Edit*

Misunderstood what you were saying lol

I think a lot of younger girls (late teens - early 20's) use alcohol as a way to absolve the 'shame' that society puts on girls for enjoying/wanting sex. I imagine for a girl it's a lot easier to have a few drinks and then have sex and the next morning be like, 'Well I was drunk, so I'm not really a whore.' So I can see the merit of rules like this if it leads to fewer women being ****-shamed just because the idea of having sex with someone excites them.

I just think girls like getting drunk.

Same as everyone else.

The "consent" issue pops up when they realize "What if I'm pregnant? Oh, shit, what do I tell my parents?"

And then the parents press charges.

Originally posted by cdtm
I just think girls like getting drunk


I don't doubt that for a second. I do think that a portion of women use alcohol as a crutch of sorts to give them greater license to be sexual in the same way that a portion of men use alcohol to allow them to be more violent. Both sexes can say 'Hey, I was drunk, don't judge me.'

This thread is ****ing rape.