Don't drink and fuck

[ChrisL]

So . . . she initiated the whole thing. Her friends saw her doing this. Then, later on, she went to his room where they had sex. According to witnesses both parties were very drunk. The next day or several days later, she decides she regrets it, and tries to press charges on him for rape??? The police refused to press charges on him, but he gets expelled for school and now has a reputation as a "rapist." To me, this woman is sick and a disgusting human being.

More and more schools are getting sued by men who were railroaded by campus "justice" systems.

They need to raise the drinking age or something. These kids are TOO irresponsible to handle their alcohol obviously.

 

[martybegan]

So . . . she initiated the whole thing. Her friends saw her doing this. Then, later on, she went to his room where they had sex. According to witnesses both parties were very drunk. The next day or several days later, she decides she regrets it, and tries to press charges on him for rape??? The police refused to press charges on him, but he gets expelled for school and now has a reputation as a "rapist." To me, this woman is sick and a disgusting human being.

More and more schools are getting sued by men who were railroaded by campus "justice" systems.

They need to raise the drinking age or something. These kids are TOO irresponsible to handle their alcohol obviously.

That wouldn't help, considering most of the people that are impacted by this are below age anyway.

 

[ChrisL]

So . . . she initiated the whole thing. Her friends saw her doing this. Then, later on, she went to his room where they had sex. According to witnesses both parties were very drunk. The next day or several days later, she decides she regrets it, and tries to press charges on him for rape??? The police refused to press charges on him, but he gets expelled for school and now has a reputation as a "rapist." To me, this woman is sick and a disgusting human being.

More and more schools are getting sued by men who were railroaded by campus "justice" systems.

They need to raise the drinking age or something. These kids are TOO irresponsible to handle their alcohol obviously.

That wouldn't help, considering most of the people that are impacted by this are below age anyway.

yeah, you have a point there. Lol.

I had a friend once that I was out with, and she got drunk and wanted to leave with these two men that she didn't even know. I wouldn't allow it. She was drunk and ornery and started fighting with me about it. What could I do at that point? Call the police? Physically fight with her? Thankfully, the two guys just ended up leaving by themselves. I found it to be quite a predicament though. Needless to say, I don't hang out with her anymore.

 

[martybegan]

So . . . she initiated the whole thing. Her friends saw her doing this. Then, later on, she went to his room where they had sex. According to witnesses both parties were very drunk. The next day or several days later, she decides she regrets it, and tries to press charges on him for rape??? The police refused to press charges on him, but he gets expelled for school and now has a reputation as a "rapist." To me, this woman is sick and a disgusting human being.

More and more schools are getting sued by men who were railroaded by campus "justice" systems.

They need to raise the drinking age or something. These kids are TOO irresponsible to handle their alcohol obviously.

That wouldn't help, considering most of the people that are impacted by this are below age anyway.

yeah, you have a point there. Lol.

I had a friend once that I was out with, and she got drunk and wanted to leave with these two men that she didn't even know. I wouldn't allow it. She was drunk and ornery and started fighting with me about it. What could I do at that point? Call the police? Physically fight with her? Thankfully, the two guys just ended up leaving by themselves. I found it to be quite a predicament though. Needless to say, I don't hang out with her anymore.

Best you can do at that point is stall until she passes out, or the two guys find something more interesting. Always helps to have a guy friend around who is at minimum, less creepy than the creepy average at the party.

 

[jillian]

IMO, a woman who would do that is a complete loser. Ruining a person's life because she "changed her mind." That's really shitty. What a crappy person that must be!!

During the act either party can change their mind. The question is when does this become criminal.

Trying to stop having sex can be like trying to stop peeing in midstream. It isn't always an easy thing to do.

To me the line is drawn by an intervening act by the party that wants it to stop. Saying no plus a good push or shove or knee then requires the other party to do some action other than continue what they were doing, and make a conscious decision to continue despite said action by the other party. If at that point they want to go after the offending party for rape or sexual assault, then hand me a pitchfork.

No means no. If you offer me dessert and I take a bite and decide I don't like it, do i have to smash it in your face in order to convince you I don't want anymore?

I am the last person in the world to defend fake cries of rape (I think those things make it harder for people who really are raped). But I don't understand the need to defend people who don't understand the words no or stop.

So how long does a guy have to actually stop? One thrust? Two? What counts as a firm direction to actually stop? What if the word stop and ejaculation happen simultaneously?

In your example once he tried to feed you cake again, you say no, and make a motion or swipe the fork away from your face, if I continue trying to feed you anyway then you have a case for assault by cake or fork.

You are again trying to codify something that defies methods of codifying, at least to the point you WANT it codified.

like I said....

no means no. stop means stop. if language is a barrier for a guy, then maybe she should stay home by himself.

 

[jillian]

IMO, a woman who would do that is a complete loser. Ruining a person's life because she "changed her mind." That's really shitty. What a crappy person that must be!!

During the act either party can change their mind. The question is when does this become criminal.

Trying to stop having sex can be like trying to stop peeing in midstream. It isn't always an easy thing to do.

To me the line is drawn by an intervening act by the party that wants it to stop. Saying no plus a good push or shove or knee then requires the other party to do some action other than continue what they were doing, and make a conscious decision to continue despite said action by the other party. If at that point they want to go after the offending party for rape or sexual assault, then hand me a pitchfork.

No means no. If you offer me dessert and I take a bite and decide I don't like it, do i have to smash it in your face in order to convince you I don't want anymore?

I am the last person in the world to defend fake cries of rape (I think those things make it harder for people who really are raped). But I don't understand the need to defend people who don't understand the words no or stop.

Well if he is drunk too??? The biggest problem here that I see is the drinking. Damn, if you can't be responsible for yourself and your actions then don't drink!

what if he is drunk?

your point?

should a drunk be unable to stop? should he force himself on someone?

nope.

next.....

 

[ChrisL]

During the act either party can change their mind. The question is when does this become criminal.

Trying to stop having sex can be like trying to stop peeing in midstream. It isn't always an easy thing to do.

To me the line is drawn by an intervening act by the party that wants it to stop. Saying no plus a good push or shove or knee then requires the other party to do some action other than continue what they were doing, and make a conscious decision to continue despite said action by the other party. If at that point they want to go after the offending party for rape or sexual assault, then hand me a pitchfork.

No means no. If you offer me dessert and I take a bite and decide I don't like it, do i have to smash it in your face in order to convince you I don't want anymore?

I am the last person in the world to defend fake cries of rape (I think those things make it harder for people who really are raped). But I don't understand the need to defend people who don't understand the words no or stop.

So how long does a guy have to actually stop? One thrust? Two? What counts as a firm direction to actually stop? What if the word stop and ejaculation happen simultaneously?

In your example once he tried to feed you cake again, you say no, and make a motion or swipe the fork away from your face, if I continue trying to feed you anyway then you have a case for assault by cake or fork.

You are again trying to codify something that defies methods of codifying, at least to the point you WANT it codified.

like I said....

no means no. stop means stop. if language is a barrier for a guy, then maybe she should stay home by himself.

Well, what about the story I provided here in this thread? As far as I'm aware, she never said "no" or "stop." She completed a sexual encounter with another drunk person, after she was clearly the aggressor, and then later on decided to press charges of rape. Although the police refused to press charges, the boy was expelled from his school and his reputation ruined.

 

[ChrisL]

During the act either party can change their mind. The question is when does this become criminal.

Trying to stop having sex can be like trying to stop peeing in midstream. It isn't always an easy thing to do.

To me the line is drawn by an intervening act by the party that wants it to stop. Saying no plus a good push or shove or knee then requires the other party to do some action other than continue what they were doing, and make a conscious decision to continue despite said action by the other party. If at that point they want to go after the offending party for rape or sexual assault, then hand me a pitchfork.

No means no. If you offer me dessert and I take a bite and decide I don't like it, do i have to smash it in your face in order to convince you I don't want anymore?

I am the last person in the world to defend fake cries of rape (I think those things make it harder for people who really are raped). But I don't understand the need to defend people who don't understand the words no or stop.

Well if he is drunk too??? The biggest problem here that I see is the drinking. Damn, if you can't be responsible for yourself and your actions then don't drink!

what if he is drunk?

your point?

should a drunk be unable to stop? should he force himself on someone?

nope.

next.....

No, the point is if two people have consensual sex and BOTH are drunk, is it okay for the girl to later claim that was a rape because she was drunk when he was also drunk? In the story I posted, both students were drunk. She initiated sexual contact. A few days later, she decided to press charges on him. There was no mention of her ever asking him to stop. She admits she doesn't even remember most of it. However, her friends do and admitted to the fact that she was the sexually aggressive one.

 

[jillian]

Wow...wow.
So this idiot says...

1) Kissing someone on a date, even when the date is going well and indications seem good...leaning over and kissing them is....wait for it....sexual assault.
2) While having sex, and engaging in foreplay...if you don't continuously look at the other persons face and body language to be sure they like what is happening...you..just might be a rapist.
3) If you have had sex with someone several times, and right now they don't want to - if try and talk them into it....you are engaging it a form of rape.
4) If you are with someone, and leading up to sex, and even if you are both naked...she has removed all of her clothing...if you don't ask AGAIN...you are a creepy rapist-like person.
5) Your having sex, and the girl isn't smiling...but you continue...you are a rapist.

And she goes on.....you can't make this shit up.

Well, I don't think she has to really worry. More people would rather slap her than rape her, I think.

rape is an act of violence... not sex.

are you sure you're female? or do you just hate the harlots?

 

[jillian]

Trying to stop having sex can be like trying to stop peeing in midstream. It isn't always an easy thing to do.

To me the line is drawn by an intervening act by the party that wants it to stop. Saying no plus a good push or shove or knee then requires the other party to do some action other than continue what they were doing, and make a conscious decision to continue despite said action by the other party. If at that point they want to go after the offending party for rape or sexual assault, then hand me a pitchfork.

No means no. If you offer me dessert and I take a bite and decide I don't like it, do i have to smash it in your face in order to convince you I don't want anymore?

I am the last person in the world to defend fake cries of rape (I think those things make it harder for people who really are raped). But I don't understand the need to defend people who don't understand the words no or stop.

Well if he is drunk too??? The biggest problem here that I see is the drinking. Damn, if you can't be responsible for yourself and your actions then don't drink!

what if he is drunk?

your point?

should a drunk be unable to stop? should he force himself on someone?

nope.

next.....

No, the point is if two people have consensual sex and BOTH are drunk, is it okay for the girl to later claim that was a rape because she was drunk when he was also drunk? In the story I posted, both students were drunk. She initiated sexual contact. A few days later, she decided to press charges on him. There was no mention of her ever asking him to stop. She admits she doesn't even remember most of it. However, her friends do and admitted to the fact that she was the sexually aggressive one.

and one person can change their mind.

you seem to be confused about what consent means.

we aren't talking about what you keep calling "drunk regretful sex".

do you not understand or are you being intentionally obtuse.

and as I said... are you sure you're female?

as for your purported "story". I didn't see any link and I can't be bothered searching back. if its from a legitimate source and not rightwingnut BS, sure, link it again and i'll have a look.

and yes, sometimes people lie... which has nothing whatsoever to do with a discussion about consent.

 

[ChrisL]

To me the line is drawn by an intervening act by the party that wants it to stop. Saying no plus a good push or shove or knee then requires the other party to do some action other than continue what they were doing, and make a conscious decision to continue despite said action by the other party. If at that point they want to go after the offending party for rape or sexual assault, then hand me a pitchfork.

No means no. If you offer me dessert and I take a bite and decide I don't like it, do i have to smash it in your face in order to convince you I don't want anymore?

I am the last person in the world to defend fake cries of rape (I think those things make it harder for people who really are raped). But I don't understand the need to defend people who don't understand the words no or stop.

Well if he is drunk too??? The biggest problem here that I see is the drinking. Damn, if you can't be responsible for yourself and your actions then don't drink!

what if he is drunk?

your point?

should a drunk be unable to stop? should he force himself on someone?

nope.

next.....

No, the point is if two people have consensual sex and BOTH are drunk, is it okay for the girl to later claim that was a rape because she was drunk when he was also drunk? In the story I posted, both students were drunk. She initiated sexual contact. A few days later, she decided to press charges on him. There was no mention of her ever asking him to stop. She admits she doesn't even remember most of it. However, her friends do and admitted to the fact that she was the sexually aggressive one.

and one person can change their mind.

you seem to be confused about what consent means.

we aren't talking about what you keep calling "drunk regretful sex".

do you not understand or are you being intentionally obtuse.

and as I said... are you sure you're female?

as for your purported "story". I didn't see any link and I can't be bothered searching back. if its from a legitimate source and not rightwingnut BS, sure, link it again and i'll have a look.

and yes, sometimes people lie... which has nothing whatsoever to do with a discussion about consent.

Sexual Assault Injustice at Occidental College Railroads Accused Student - FIRE

 

[ChrisL]

Wow...wow.
So this idiot says...

1) Kissing someone on a date, even when the date is going well and indications seem good...leaning over and kissing them is....wait for it....sexual assault.
2) While having sex, and engaging in foreplay...if you don't continuously look at the other persons face and body language to be sure they like what is happening...you..just might be a rapist.
3) If you have had sex with someone several times, and right now they don't want to - if try and talk them into it....you are engaging it a form of rape.
4) If you are with someone, and leading up to sex, and even if you are both naked...she has removed all of her clothing...if you don't ask AGAIN...you are a creepy rapist-like person.
5) Your having sex, and the girl isn't smiling...but you continue...you are a rapist.

And she goes on.....you can't make this shit up.

Well, I don't think she has to really worry. More people would rather slap her than rape her, I think.

rape is an act of violence... not sex.

are you sure you're female? or do you just hate the harlots?

The harlots? I don't even know what that is.

 

[ChrisL]

To me the line is drawn by an intervening act by the party that wants it to stop. Saying no plus a good push or shove or knee then requires the other party to do some action other than continue what they were doing, and make a conscious decision to continue despite said action by the other party. If at that point they want to go after the offending party for rape or sexual assault, then hand me a pitchfork.

No means no. If you offer me dessert and I take a bite and decide I don't like it, do i have to smash it in your face in order to convince you I don't want anymore?

I am the last person in the world to defend fake cries of rape (I think those things make it harder for people who really are raped). But I don't understand the need to defend people who don't understand the words no or stop.

Well if he is drunk too??? The biggest problem here that I see is the drinking. Damn, if you can't be responsible for yourself and your actions then don't drink!

what if he is drunk?

your point?

should a drunk be unable to stop? should he force himself on someone?

nope.

next.....

No, the point is if two people have consensual sex and BOTH are drunk, is it okay for the girl to later claim that was a rape because she was drunk when he was also drunk? In the story I posted, both students were drunk. She initiated sexual contact. A few days later, she decided to press charges on him. There was no mention of her ever asking him to stop. She admits she doesn't even remember most of it. However, her friends do and admitted to the fact that she was the sexually aggressive one.

and one person can change their mind.

you seem to be confused about what consent means.

we aren't talking about what you keep calling "drunk regretful sex".

do you not understand or are you being intentionally obtuse.

and as I said... are you sure you're female?

as for your purported "story". I didn't see any link and I can't be bothered searching back. if its from a legitimate source and not rightwingnut BS, sure, link it again and i'll have a look.

and yes, sometimes people lie... which has nothing whatsoever to do with a discussion about consent.

You are wrong. The discussion is about two drunk people who have consensual sex, then one blames the other because he or she was supposedly "too drunk to consent." But when BOTH parties are drunk, who is to say who took advantage of whom?

Yes, I'm sure I'm a female. Just because I don't agree with railroading men by some horrible women, like yourself, because you weren't pleased with the sex or regret your horrible decisions, does not mean I am not a female.

 

[ChrisL]

To me the line is drawn by an intervening act by the party that wants it to stop. Saying no plus a good push or shove or knee then requires the other party to do some action other than continue what they were doing, and make a conscious decision to continue despite said action by the other party. If at that point they want to go after the offending party for rape or sexual assault, then hand me a pitchfork.

No means no. If you offer me dessert and I take a bite and decide I don't like it, do i have to smash it in your face in order to convince you I don't want anymore?

I am the last person in the world to defend fake cries of rape (I think those things make it harder for people who really are raped). But I don't understand the need to defend people who don't understand the words no or stop.

Well if he is drunk too??? The biggest problem here that I see is the drinking. Damn, if you can't be responsible for yourself and your actions then don't drink!

what if he is drunk?

your point?

should a drunk be unable to stop? should he force himself on someone?

nope.

next.....

No, the point is if two people have consensual sex and BOTH are drunk, is it okay for the girl to later claim that was a rape because she was drunk when he was also drunk? In the story I posted, both students were drunk. She initiated sexual contact. A few days later, she decided to press charges on him. There was no mention of her ever asking him to stop. She admits she doesn't even remember most of it. However, her friends do and admitted to the fact that she was the sexually aggressive one.

and one person can change their mind.

you seem to be confused about what consent means.

we aren't talking about what you keep calling "drunk regretful sex".

do you not understand or are you being intentionally obtuse.

and as I said... are you sure you're female?

as for your purported "story". I didn't see any link and I can't be bothered searching back. if its from a legitimate source and not rightwingnut BS, sure, link it again and i'll have a look.

and yes, sometimes people lie... which has nothing whatsoever to do with a discussion about consent.

Another link with more details . . .

Occidental Expels Student for Rape Under Standard So Low That the Accuser Could Have Been Found Guilty Too - Hit Run Reason.com

The student, identified only as "John Doe," had sex with his accuser on September 8th, 2013, according to details of the case obtained by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Both Doe and his accuser had been drinking. By several accounts, the sex was consensual. The accuser sent Doe a text message beforehand asking him if he had a condom. She also texted a friend and clearly announced her intention to have sex with Doe.

After that night, the accuser spoke with several Occidental employees, including Danielle Dirks, an assistant professor of sociology. Dirks told the accuser that Doe "fit the profile of other rapists on campus in that he had a high GPA in high school, was his class valedictorian, was on [a sports team], and was 'from a good family.'"

A week later, the accuser filed a sexual assault report against Doe.

The Los Angeles Police Department determined that both parties had consented to sex and decided not to charge Doe:

"Witnesses were interviewed and agreed that the victim and suspect were both drunk, however, that they were both willing participants exercising bad judgment …. It would be reasonable for [Doe] to conclude based on their communications and [the accuser’s] actions that, even though she was intoxicated, she could still exercise reasonable judgment."

 

[ChrisL]

Oh, so a "harlot" is a promiscuous woman. Lol.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Progressives want to tell us when we can have sex. Drunk sex is now rape.

Numerous colleges now insist that it isn't possible to consent to sex if you're three sheets to the wind, which means that all sexual acts carried out under the influence are potential crimes. The University of Georgia warns students that sexual consent must be "voluntary, sober, imaginative, enthusiastic, creative, wanted, informed, mutual, honest." The most problematic is "sober." Apparently sex must always be booze-free.

The cultivation of the new crime of "sex without consent" completes the state's intervention into private life. It effectively makes the authorities into the arbiters of sex itself, the judges of when sex is okay and when it isn't, of whether a particular drunken romp is acceptable or rape. Don't drink and fack, or the state will fack you. With or without your consent

Drunk sex on campus Universities are struggling to determine when intoxicated sex becomes sexual assault.
Colleges Please Don t Criminalize Drinking Sex or Drunk Sex - Hit Run Reason.com

Only a loser needs to get a girl/women drunk, and only a criminal and sex offender has sexual relations with a girl or women who is drunk.

Lots of college people do this, and it is men and women. Both are drunk, so who is to blame? When the woman makes the first move, is grinding her hips against his groin area? Is he to blame for thinking she wants to have sex when he is also drunk? I think this stuff has gotten FAR out of control.

If you cannot control yourself or make good decisions for yourself, then don't drink. Alcohol is the biggest problem here, as far as I'm concerned. Instant idiots, just add alcohol.

A smart man in a one-night-stand situation, or when both are intoxicated, or only the women has been drinking/doing drugs, allows the women to take charge (she is on top); he also asks if she is on the pill (today, a smart man brings a condom, and allows his partner to put it on). Both allow the women to choose, and provide some assurance that the encounter is desired by both.

 

[ChrisL]

Progressives want to tell us when we can have sex. Drunk sex is now rape.

Numerous colleges now insist that it isn't possible to consent to sex if you're three sheets to the wind, which means that all sexual acts carried out under the influence are potential crimes. The University of Georgia warns students that sexual consent must be "voluntary, sober, imaginative, enthusiastic, creative, wanted, informed, mutual, honest." The most problematic is "sober." Apparently sex must always be booze-free.

The cultivation of the new crime of "sex without consent" completes the state's intervention into private life. It effectively makes the authorities into the arbiters of sex itself, the judges of when sex is okay and when it isn't, of whether a particular drunken romp is acceptable or rape. Don't drink and fack, or the state will fack you. With or without your consent

Drunk sex on campus Universities are struggling to determine when intoxicated sex becomes sexual assault.
Colleges Please Don t Criminalize Drinking Sex or Drunk Sex - Hit Run Reason.com

Only a loser needs to get a girl/women drunk, and only a criminal and sex offender has sexual relations with a girl or women who is drunk.

Lots of college people do this, and it is men and women. Both are drunk, so who is to blame? When the woman makes the first move, is grinding her hips against his groin area? Is he to blame for thinking she wants to have sex when he is also drunk? I think this stuff has gotten FAR out of control.

If you cannot control yourself or make good decisions for yourself, then don't drink. Alcohol is the biggest problem here, as far as I'm concerned. Instant idiots, just add alcohol.

A smart man in a one-night-stand situation, or when both are intoxicated, or only the women has been drinking/doing drugs, allows the women to take charge (she is on top); he also asks if she is on the pill (today, a smart man brings a condom, and allows his partner to put it on). Both allow the women to choose, and provide some assurance that the encounter is desired by both.

It doesn't specify their "positioning" or any other such details in my link.

From the link . . .

Meanwhile, Occidental pursued its own investigation by hiring the firm of Public Interest Investigations, which produced an 82-page report about the incident. Among other evidence, the report examined text messages between Doe and his accuser leading up to the sexual encounter. In the messages, the accuser asked Doe, “do you have a condom,” texted another friend “I’m going to have sex now” [sic], and, in an exchange spanning 24 minutes, coordinated with Doe to sneak out of her dorm and proceed to Doe’s dorm to have sex with him.

Following the investigation, Occidental hired attorney Marilou Mirkovich to serve as an “external adjudicator” empowered to issue a judgment in the case. After a hearing in which Doe was unable to meaningfully cross-examine his accuser, the adjudicator found that it was more likely than not that the accuser “engaged in conduct and made statements that would indicate she consented to sexual intercourse.” Yet the adjudicator also found that the accuser was “incapacitated” and therefore her consent was invalid.

 

[ChrisL]

The whole incident is based on the fact that SHE was drunk. However, HE was also drunk. She was sober enough to send him text messages (and text messages to her friends as well) and to plan sneaking out of her room to meet up with him in his room for the purpose of a sexual encounter. I'm sorry, but I do not consider this a "rape."

 

[martybegan]

During the act either party can change their mind. The question is when does this become criminal.

Trying to stop having sex can be like trying to stop peeing in midstream. It isn't always an easy thing to do.

To me the line is drawn by an intervening act by the party that wants it to stop. Saying no plus a good push or shove or knee then requires the other party to do some action other than continue what they were doing, and make a conscious decision to continue despite said action by the other party. If at that point they want to go after the offending party for rape or sexual assault, then hand me a pitchfork.

No means no. If you offer me dessert and I take a bite and decide I don't like it, do i have to smash it in your face in order to convince you I don't want anymore?

I am the last person in the world to defend fake cries of rape (I think those things make it harder for people who really are raped). But I don't understand the need to defend people who don't understand the words no or stop.

So how long does a guy have to actually stop? One thrust? Two? What counts as a firm direction to actually stop? What if the word stop and ejaculation happen simultaneously?

In your example once he tried to feed you cake again, you say no, and make a motion or swipe the fork away from your face, if I continue trying to feed you anyway then you have a case for assault by cake or fork.

You are again trying to codify something that defies methods of codifying, at least to the point you WANT it codified.

like I said....

no means no. stop means stop. if language is a barrier for a guy, then maybe she should stay home by himself.

You like saying it, but you don't feel the need to define it. And when it comes to your desire to criminalize it, you have to define it explicitly.

And your last statement can easily be turned around to "if a woman doesn't like the fact that she may decide 1/2 way through sex she doesn't want it, maybe she should stay home as well"

 

[martybegan]

Progressives want to tell us when we can have sex. Drunk sex is now rape.

Numerous colleges now insist that it isn't possible to consent to sex if you're three sheets to the wind, which means that all sexual acts carried out under the influence are potential crimes. The University of Georgia warns students that sexual consent must be "voluntary, sober, imaginative, enthusiastic, creative, wanted, informed, mutual, honest." The most problematic is "sober." Apparently sex must always be booze-free.

The cultivation of the new crime of "sex without consent" completes the state's intervention into private life. It effectively makes the authorities into the arbiters of sex itself, the judges of when sex is okay and when it isn't, of whether a particular drunken romp is acceptable or rape. Don't drink and fack, or the state will fack you. With or without your consent

Drunk sex on campus Universities are struggling to determine when intoxicated sex becomes sexual assault.
Colleges Please Don t Criminalize Drinking Sex or Drunk Sex - Hit Run Reason.com

Only a loser needs to get a girl/women drunk, and only a criminal and sex offender has sexual relations with a girl or women who is drunk.

Lots of college people do this, and it is men and women. Both are drunk, so who is to blame? When the woman makes the first move, is grinding her hips against his groin area? Is he to blame for thinking she wants to have sex when he is also drunk? I think this stuff has gotten FAR out of control.

If you cannot control yourself or make good decisions for yourself, then don't drink. Alcohol is the biggest problem here, as far as I'm concerned. Instant idiots, just add alcohol.

A smart man in a one-night-stand situation, or when both are intoxicated, or only the women has been drinking/doing drugs, allows the women to take charge (she is on top); he also asks if she is on the pill (today, a smart man brings a condom, and allows his partner to put it on). Both allow the women to choose, and provide some assurance that the encounter is desired by both.

I thought the sexual revolution was about getting government, judgement, and morality out of our bedrooms....