Not going down Thursts line of thought, but I must ask. What if both people are wasted? Wouldn’t they have technically raped each other?(since inebriation = no consent = rape)
I have yet to hear an intellectually substantive response to this from feminists.
Yeah, this is always a messy situation adn i never hear nothing but dumb shit about how it’s all on the dude.
it’s obviously the guy’s fault in that scenario since…penis bad?
Let’s say the case is a long standing committed relationship where both parties have an implied consent in most cases and have discussed cases of excessive inebriation? Well, clearly the answer is between the two that discussed it. However, in the case of “I just met this girl…” - just take the safe road and assume she is not interested in sexual contact, or (GASP), be the big man and say “No, I’m not going to have sex with someone I don’t know or has never given me consent.” (in your head if need be). This covers all situations in the most respectable way possible.
implied consent? sounds like a pretty slippery slope. if you ask a girl out to dinner/movie and drinks and she accepts, is that implied consent?
In the scenario that two people are both so shit-hammered that they don’t know what’s what, and they somehow end up having sex under the aegis of mutually unreliable consentuality, then no, it isn’t rape.
I’m sure there are bountiful recorded examples of this happening.
EDIT:
That said, just do what AngryLiberal says. When in doubt, leave her alone and jack off in the bathroom to a People magazine. If you’re so worried about being put in that position, then don’t put yourself in that position. And if you’re fat, stop eating so much and get some exercise. It isn’t rocket surgery.
K, so if I’m even slightly tipsy or shitfaced and a girl(dead sober) has sex with me and I’m either not sure I wanted to do it or end up regretting it later, can I take her to trial for rape? :>
*half trolling half serious as I’m looking for a certain type of response here, teehee.
edit: I really do love the big man option, I really do. Too bad when you suggest to women saying “No, I’m not going to have sex with someone I don’t know or has never given me consent.” to guys they meet at parties or just randomly, you are either condoning rape or controlling their bodies. : S
No.
On an unrelated note, I heard that if you drink an entire pint of this vodka I have, you get smarter and better-looking. You should see if it works. At my house.
That would be consent for dinner and a movie.
Oh? So the exact same standards women are able to get away with suddenly don’t apply to men? Also interesting that you and angryliberal are suggesting men “man up” and take responsibility for avoiding situations, yet we’re rape apologists for suggesting women do the same?
I’m just trying to see how you feminists demand equality for women, yet in the same breath demand men hold themselves to higher standards?
Tit for tat. I’ll countenance the assertion that giving safety tips to women isn’t the same as victim shaming, so I don’t think it’s particularly out of line to suggest that you keep your wits about you if you’re at a party and you’re unsure about putting your dick in something.
Find a specific thing I’ve said in this thread that wasn’t reasonably even-handed. Please note: I am goodm0urning and do not post under any other name. That anyone knows about.
After reading that article I find absolutely no evidence that there was a rape committed. And the prosecutor flat out says that there was no rape. I don’t get where you come up with rape when the damned prosecutor sees the evidence including the “confessions” and labels it as teenagers having consentual sex.
Everything about the article says its a fluff editorial designed to incite a particular response from lower iq readers:
“She was dropped off on her front lawn with clear markings indicating rape”
Because rapists drop their victims off rather than making them walk home… Thoughtful rapists, these ones.
Clear markings indicating rape is god knows what… To me it would be black eye and split lip ALONG WITH obvious vaginal tearing. But to others it would just be vaginal tearing even though that could just indicate a well endowed partner (these are older football players right?) or it could be a split lip and black eye on their own… But that also doesn’t indicate rape… That indicates assault. Which could be from any party including another female.
But it’s funny how the article allows us to use our imagination… Great fluff piece this one.
Then it goes on to say that the 13 year old was also forced to have non consentual sex
“Also”? Yeah great wording there, they’ve already convicted the football players in the second paragraph without any evidence and used the other girl as a victim by proxy example. This is color commentary, not evidence. The other victim was ALLEGEDLY forced to have non consentual sex as well, was how it should have been reported by anyone worth their salt… Especially a reporter… But then again I don’t get my news from a source called “gawker”
And so on and so forth. The article then goes on to try and establish a conspiracy theory without actually calling it a conspiracy, and also tells of how a mother and family were ostracized by an entire community which is messed up, but has as much to do with a young mans guilt or innocence as me writing this post, and has nothing to do with a little girls intentions when going to that party.
The ONE piece of actual evidence in the article is the prosecutor looking at all the accumulated evidence and deciding that all it points to was teenagers having consentual sex while drunk.
Literally everything else in the article is hearsay. But yes let’s assume that we can take a look at an obviously BIAS article and divine a young persons innocence based on that exclusively and NOT believe the city prosecutor that says there is no case… Yeah let’s do that.
Innocent until proven guilty anyone?
You were looking for evidence in the article? I guess instead of doing an investigation that told them a rape was committed, the police should have just read pieces about it on the internet. Way to go, guys.
The DA’s conclusion about the evidence for the claim equates to evidence of the opposite? What crime-based TV show did you learn this from?
so when you go on this date and presumably start drinking, there’s no way for either of you to consent to have sex? this sounds a bit silly and problematic considering a large number, if not majority (if not most) of first sexual encounters occur when one or both individuals are intoxicated to some degree.
Two pages in and the stupid is almost overwhelming.
I kinda want to make a bingo board for this, including squares where people post about how: women are apparently coddled in society, women are sending non-verbal invitations for sex by how they dress, men are somehow just as victimized despite being nowhere near as vicitimized, and a bunch of other crap.
But I started and the rage was too seething.
Why should we take the word of the damned prosecutor over the word of the damned doctors and the damned cops and the damned boys? Perhaps we can arbitrarily assume that they’re all lying. While we’re at it, we can assume that the 13 year old–who falls below the age of every consent law in Missouri and, by the boys’ admission, repeatedly said “no”–was actually 14 and that everybody just screwed up on that little detail. And we can assume that the prosecutor–who is up for county election soon and surely has his eye on his conviction rate–is to be trusted implicitly despite how oddly his decision gels with what other officials have said.
Arbitrary skepticism mixed with arbitrary credulity makes a stinky cake.
That said, the debate may be academic soon enough. Anonymous’s involvement has a way of casting light on things.
Sigh. This is why I need to start stabbing myself in the hand with a fork anytime I think about joining one of these discussions. Everybody keeps trotting out the same shit, I keep trotting out the same responses, and it’s all going to happen the same way next time.
The level of intoxication we’re talking about here involves impaired cognition and incapacitation. If I recall correctly, we had a lengthy discussion in the not-to-distant past that covered this subject in detail. So when you use the agonizingly broad term “intoxicated to some degree”, it makes me wonder if everybody here either has the memory of a fruit fly or isn’t actually interested in discussing this, so much as rationalizing away the need for discussion altogether.
I’d rather this case get sent to Nancy Grace. She’ll have the culprits judged, juried, and executed in no time.
And call them mean names on CNNHN.
Rape culture? Sounds like something that would grow in a petri dish…
Golf Clap
I don’t think SRK has the mental maturity, let alone the capacity, to talk about this subject in a serious manner. I’ve read through this entire thread and it backs up my claim.