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

And I use Bill Cosby's name as an example of someone infamous for drugging and raping his victims...


If someone under the influence of a narcotic or alcohol can not give consent for sex, then doesn't this logically condemn literally every single hippie from the 1960's and 70's?


I mean, sex, drugs, and rock and roll? That's considered rape.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQ&t=166s

If somebody was drunk and wanted tea and gave them tea....in the morning, were they happy that they had tea last night?

But if they were drunk and wanted tea and you gave them tea...in the morning, were they not happy they had tea last night.

However, in Canada, intoxication is taken into consideration but is based on a threshold of intoxication. So...if the person was given drugs without them knowing, its rape. If the person consumed drugs voluntary, there is most likely a high threshold before somebody is incapable of giving consent...aka....they are shitfaced and can barely string a few words...that would be considered rape.

If they can navigate home without any issues but drunk enough to take an Uber...probably not rape...

I recall an infographic comparing icecube to Cosby. Icecube rapped about drugs and rape and donated to charity and played in a few films. Cosby was supposedly a children's role model and molested children. hm

How about Roman Polanski, he faced a shorter jail time and is now a free man. Is this fair?

Idk

Originally posted by cdtm
And I use Bill Cosby's name as an example of someone infamous for drugging and raping his victims...


If someone under the influence of a narcotic or alcohol can not give consent for sex, then doesn't this logically condemn literally every single hippie from the 1960's and 70's?


I mean, sex, drugs, and rock and roll? That's considered rape. Not every sexual encounter with someone who is intoxicated is rape. Especially if both parties are intoxicated. Or if they are not intoxicated to a degree that they can not consent. But if you can ascertain that the other person is unable to consent and you have sex with them anyways, or you put them into a position where they are so intoxicated that you can force yourself on them then that is rape.

A lot of what went on in "free love" hippie communes or at festival was rape and coercion however, that point is correct.

Bill Cosby actively searched out women to drug them (without their knowledge) to rape them (when they clearly did not want or consent to sex with him). He also did many more criminal things than just that, btw.

Yeah, if a person willingly takes the drugs, it's their own fault.

I'm not sure what you mean?

Are you saying if somebody takes drugs and is too intoxicated to make decisions then it's OK to rape them?

I always think of this old college poster when people bring this up:

https://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/CJpNx8RUYAAaAQp.jpg


Seems legit LOL.

A compelling article. Well worthy of recognition in the archives of the KMC Order.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I'm not sure what you mean?

Are you saying if somebody takes drugs and is too intoxicated to make decisions then it's OK to rape them? no, if she chose to be intoxicated she should share part of the blame. Obviously it's never okay to rape someone, but she should have been sensible enough not to be in such a vulnerable state.

I'm not sure what you would rather the law say? Being too intoxicated to give consent shouldn't make it rape? Im assuming the defendant in this case had the right to a jury trial and a jury decided he was guilty after being presented with all the facts?

Originally posted by cdtm
Personally, I blame overprotective parents.


I'm pretty sure these laws really exist because some WASP douche wanted a way to get that bastard that deflowers his precious little angel. Feminists would naturally support such laws, but I doubt they're the driving force behind them.


This is based on experience with overprotective parents. In one case, a father actually threatened to press kidnapping charges against a friend for simply giving his son a lift home from summer camp. Friend was 18 years and a day, son was 17 years and a few months until 18. Legally kidnapping.


What kind of overprotective @$$hole would even think about ruining an 18 year old kids life for a pretty innocuous act?

I don't think a jury would find that kid guilty. And if they did, you would have to review the court case to see if the judge was treating it like a biased case.

Originally posted by truejedi
I'm not sure what you would rather the law say? Being too intoxicated to give consent shouldn't make it rape? Im assuming the defendant in this case had the right to a jury trial and a jury decided he was guilty after being presented with all the facts? being willingly in a vulnerable state is irresponsible action... In a way, it's invitation. As a man, I wouldn't get so wasted that I'm in a position for some pervert to stretch my butthole 😑

Originally posted by Blakemore
being willingly in a vulnerable state is irresponsible action... In a way, it's invitation. As a man, I wouldn't get so wasted that I'm in a position for some pervert to stretch my butthole 😑


No, that's awful. That's right in line with "she was asking for it." Being passed out drunk isn't an invitation. That's flat out awful. Then trying to get girls drunk enough so they pass out becomes an actual horrible strategy for someone.

Tell me this: if a girl is passed out drunk, and her boyfriend sleeps with her without consent, would it then also be considered legal for him to call four friends to also come take a turn? If so, why not, in light of what you wrote above?

Originally posted by truejedi
I don't think a jury would find that kid guilty. And if they did, you would have to review the court case to see if the judge was treating it like a biased case.

You'd hope, but it's CT. Crazy people be here.

Originally posted by truejedi
No, that's awful. That's right in line with "she was asking for it." Being passed out drunk isn't an invitation. That's flat out awful. Then trying to get girls drunk enough so they pass out becomes an actual horrible strategy for someone.

Tell me this: if a girl is passed out drunk, and her boyfriend sleeps with her without consent, would it then also be considered legal for him to call four friends to also come take a turn? If so, why not, in light of what you wrote above? no, that would be wrong. I was thinking of a lady who got drunk and let a guy sex her, not a lady who was forcibly intoxicated and got gangraped. Wtf? No!

Originally posted by Blakemore
no, that would be wrong. I was thinking of a lady who got drunk and let a guy sex her, not a lady who was forcibly intoxicated and got gangraped. Wtf? No!

The problem is, how do you differentiate? The law is black and white so there isn't a lot of "he said/she said". She said she was passed out drunk and he had sex with her, he says they were both intoxicated, and they had sex. What does the law do with that?

Depends on her testimony, I guess. srug

If the woman is drunk, just don't have sex with them. It's simple!

If the woman is unconscious and you have sex with her...its rape. Doesn't matter if she got herself in that state.

Well I was assuming a woman who was consenting... Don't have sex with an unconscious woman ☹️

this topic is f*cking retarded.

also, thread title and op post is pure nonsensical cringelord vomit.

I'm with bash on this one 🤣😃

Originally posted by Blakemore
I'm with bash on this one 🤣😃

I am too. 🙀

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
this topic is f*cking retarded.

also, thread title and op post is pure nonsensical cringelord vomit.

Not my best post.

Talking with former hippies, a lot totally deserve prison by any standard.

Your friends sound bad

Originally posted by Blakemore
Your friends sound bad

I'm too young to have ever been a hippie.

Talking more about people who were 23 in 1960, well before I was born.

Some of the stories you hear suggest the "free love" thing was a lie, and it was just an extended frat party across the nation where naive people were taken advantage of.

I feel like the underlying point is that way more people got away with forcing non-consentual sex in the past. this would be true. the farther back in time you go, the more this applies. rape committed by invading armies was once considered a right of the conqueror. that changes because our attitudes evolve. still trying to figure out how bill cosby belongs in the topic, since he's a serial rapist of children

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I feel like the underlying point is that way more people got away with forcing non-consentual sex in the past. this would be true. the farther back in time you go, the more this applies. rape committed by invading armies was once considered a right of the conqueror. that changes because our attitudes evolve. still trying to figure out how bill cosby belongs in the topic, since he's a serial rapist of children

Oh, I'm not defending Cosby in any way, shape, or form. I totally believe he drugged up young girls and took advantage of them.

I made the post when I realized he was 23 in 1960, and got to wondering just how much an an anomaly he is. Wouldn't surprise me at all if a lot of the people in his generation pointing fingers at him weren't secretly thinking "Better him then me!"

I just mean that there really was no time in history where people would have been cool with the idea of an old man slipping drugs into a child's drink and raping them. I wasn't accusing you of supporting cosby, just saying he doesn't fit the topic at all

I'll be honest with you folks 😊 I like drinking alcohol and when I do, I usually stay in bed on my own; I can't understand how someone would molest a child. wtf? Seriously f'd up.