MrJonno wrote:Due to biology only men can truely innitiate sex so the burden of determining consent is on them
Oh, I agree, but the point is that when some hottie gets tanked at the bar, rubs herself all over you at the bar, consents to go home with you, consents to getting naked with you, consents to stroking your cock as you finger her pussy and then doesn't object to being fucked, that's consent. The point is that she's not allowed to wake up in the morning wondering where she is and who you are and claim "rape" just because she doesn't remember giving consent while she was voluntarily intoxicated.
This is a completely different scenario from being intoxicated, even vulnerable as consequence and being taken advantage of because you can't physically resist.
No, it it not just men who can initiate. What shit thinking gave rise to this idea?
Truly my ass.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
MrJonno wrote:Due to biology only men can truely innitiate sex so the burden of determining consent is on them
Oh, I agree, but the point is that when some hottie gets tanked at the bar, rubs herself all over you at the bar, consents to go home with you, consents to getting naked with you, consents to stroking your cock as you finger her pussy and then doesn't object to being fucked, that's consent. The point is that she's not allowed to wake up in the morning wondering where she is and who you are and claim "rape" just because she doesn't remember giving consent while she was voluntarily intoxicated.
It's fine if she wants to get shit-faced, but that shouldn't be an aggravating factor in a claim of "date rape" it should be a mitigating factor.
"Your honor, the alleged victim in this case voluntarily got herself drunk, voluntarily went with the defendant to his apartment, voluntarily undressed, voluntarily got into bed with him and voluntarily submitted to his sexual advances. The fact that she was drunk off her ass and doesn't remember any of it doesn't mean that consent was not duly given at the time. My client has a right to rely upon her representations of consent given at the time as permission for his sexual activities, notwithstanding the alleged victim's later, remorse-driven, after-the-fact claim that she was incompetent to give permission.
No one forced her to drink alcohol and no one forced her to have sex against any manifest and reasonably evident objection by her. She is responsible for herself and for revoking what can be reasonably construed to be consent to sexual intercourse given previously. If she fails to do so because she has rendered herself stuporous through a voluntary act, the burden is not on my client to determine her level of awareness under circumstances where her consent has been previously given or may be rationally inferred from the circumstances, as in this case.
Therefore, the defense asks for a directed verdict of not guilty based on the prosecution's failure to present a prima facie case of sexual intercourse against the will of the alleged victim."
Which is pretty much what happens as rape is usually one persons word against another and there is a presumption of innocence.
Not exactly. In some states there are laws against having sex with someone who is "incapacitated," whether by alcohol or drugs or merely because they are mentally defective. The mentally defective part is reasonable enough, it ought to be illegal to have sex with a girl who has the mental capacity of a three year old, but as for drugs or alcohol, or even SLEEP, I think it ought to be up to the girl to keep herself sober and out of such situations where her drunken consent might be reasonably mistaken as valid.
It's difficult tell if someone is "incapacitated" by alcohol or whether they are just tipsy, and the presumption should be that getting drunk isn't an excuse to claim you were raped.
No. the presumption should be that getting drunk isn't an excuse for having sex with someone who is passed out and can't give consent. Can't. Give. Consent.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
Pappa wrote:
You really are back pedalling Seth. Nowhere earlier did you suggest the woman may have forgotten she consented, you just said that "Voluntary intoxication on the part of the alleged victim should be an affirmative defense to a charge of rape in court."
Yup, because the woman's recollection of the events, and the permission, or lack of it for sexual intercourse is unreliable, and therefore the presumption must be that the defendant is innocent.
That would be assuming there was no other evidence at all. The scenario you just put forward is what happens in court anyway (in most jurisdictions).
Not quite. As I said, many jurisdictions make it a crime to have sex with someone who is either intoxicated to the point that they cannot make a rational judgment to consent, or is asleep. That means that in these jurisdictions, screwing your wife while she's asleep is a crime.
On that basis, all the prosecution has to do is convince the jury that the girl was too intoxicated to consent, which if the girl is levying the complaint she's certainly going to claim and support with testimony, even if it's false testimony, and the defendant can be convicted, even if she was not that intoxicated and is lying about it just to get revenge because the guy wasn't nice to her in the morning.
I would take voluntary intoxication out of the mix entirely by making it an affirmative defense, which means that if the woman claims rape and lack of consent, all the defendant has to do is show that the woman was voluntarily intoxicated and he's automatically not guilty.
This puts the burden where it belongs; on the woman, to not get intoxicated and place herself in the hands of someone else in a sexual situation where her consent may be implied by her actions, regardless of her level of intoxication.
No. The burden is justly placed on the man to not have sex with anyone, who for any reason, can not consent.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
rEvolutionist wrote:I actually went back and read what you said in your little dummy spit. It was quite a laugh. Furthermore, it also puts you firmly in the Seth/Gallstones 'everyone is out to get poor widdle me' conspiracy camp. How's your paranoia these days?
Fuck you again.
You have no just reason to bring me up in your tiff. Leave me out.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
Geez... I've just scanned this thread and will get around to reading it later, but I'm stunned at some of the crap here. A dickhead Toronto cop recently gave out 'advice' about not dressing like a slut as a point to avoid rape and that in turn initiated a protest held last month called "SlutWalk Toronto". Since then there have been SlutWalks announced or done in 70 cities (last I heard) around the world and I know Cunt's been posting info about them on Ratz Facebook. For now, I'll just post this one vid as a reasonable summary:
FFS: No means no; Yes means yes; Responsibility lies completely with the rapist... com-fuckin-pletely!
"It's just a fact: After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says W T F!"
Gallstones wrote:
No. the presumption should be that getting drunk isn't an excuse for having sex with someone who is passed out and can't give consent. Can't. Give. Consent.
Sure they can, right before they pass out. "Hey, baby, I'm really hammered and I'm about to pass out, but you can fuck me however you like because I really like you."
Sounds like consent to me.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
rEvolutionist wrote:I'm glad everyone around here is starting to get a proper picture of the true Seth. I can let you in on a secret - it's not the most disgusting thing I have ever heard him say.
Fuck you too rEv.
I love you too, G.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk. "The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007. "Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that.. "Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt. "I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
Gallstones wrote:How about when the drunk guy passes out I split his dick down the center? He didn't say I couldn't. He had to be giving consent by being intoxicated.
PordFrefect wrote:I've known Seth for a long time, I was the first person to get into it with him on RDF when he just joined up, and I think you might be selling him short. He often does this kind of thing - argues a point he doesn't believe to be true for reasons of his own. Most people just call him a troll or ignore him.
What was the thread, what was it about, that first one?
PordFrefect wrote:I've known Seth for a long time, I was the first person to get into it with him on RDF when he just joined up, and I think you might be selling him short. He often does this kind of thing - argues a point he doesn't believe to be true for reasons of his own. Most people just call him a troll or ignore him.
What was the thread, what was it about, that first one?
Hah! Ever the curious one you were Gallstones.
Ask me over a beer sometime
Yer on. I drink Whiskey.
And even if I end up intoxicated, just remember I'm not giving consent.
Well, I suppose we'd have to see how things went first anyway.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
rEvolutionist wrote:I'm glad everyone around here is starting to get a proper picture of the true Seth. I can let you in on a secret - it's not the most disgusting thing I have ever heard him say.
Fuck you too rEv.
I love you too, G.
Ours is a strange kind of love.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
Gallstones wrote:
No. the presumption should be that getting drunk isn't an excuse for having sex with someone who is passed out and can't give consent. Can't. Give. Consent.
Sure they can, right before they pass out. "Hey, baby, I'm really hammered and I'm about to pass out, but you can fuck me however you like because I really like you."
Sounds like consent to me.
People don't talk like that.
And I already said that this scenerio is different from the one where a person is just hanging out with another person, is intoxicated to the point of passing out--did not give consent prior--and is taken advantage of when unconscious. Doing that is low and indefensible.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
Women can want sex and man migfht not but a woman cannot physically force a man to have sex against his will in most normal circumstances. I suppose you knock a bloke out, inject him with drugs and screw him but this is hardly an ever day event
I'm not sure what the law says if the woman is using blackmail or other threats?. A woman can also be charged with the rape of another woman if she assists a man to do it (UK law).
A man is presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise, a women is assumed not to have given consent unless there is specific evidence to prove that she has. This can obviously be contradictory, but realistically if a woman is seen to go into a room voluntary with a man and there is no evidence of injury or sounds of a struggle the chances of a successful prosecution are zero. That doesnt mean there wasnt an attack but there is simply no way to proof it.
A rapist is infinitely more likely to get away with it , than an innocent man be convicted (far more than in other crimes). Accussing someone is a different matter the police just have to take accussations at least initially seriously
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!
