Don't drink and fuck

[ChrisL]

So you have to physically overpower a larger and stronger man to not get raped?

Again, this is for a situation where the sex began consensually, drunk, sober, or popped up on E.

The woman doesn't have to overpower the guy, just respond in a way that is clear she want's nothing more to do with the situation. If the guy continues past this clear indication, then you got his ass for rape. Once he makes an additional act to continue the sexual encounter (which once she tries to force him to stop, implies force on his part) his intent is known, and is thus punishable.

You have an absolute right to say stop. It's not negotiable.

Yes you do, however if you want to prosecute someone for rape, and you started out consensually, you better have something more concrete than "I said stop"

Your Ideal Gas law position is noted.

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.

I'm sorry, but I think that is LAME reason to accuse someone of "rape" when you voluntarily went to bed with that person. What the hell kind of person does these things anyways. Changing your mind in the MIDDLE of the act, or even towards the end of the act? I'm sure every woman is aware (at least I am) that it would be very difficult for a man to just "stop." Is it really rape just because you changed your mind after you already gave consent and you are in the middle of sex?

And to bring charges against the person???

I can understand if the man got violent during the act or something like that occurred, but just changing your mind. Sounds like a lame reason to destroy another person's life to me.

 

[jillian]

Again, this is for a situation where the sex began consensually, drunk, sober, or popped up on E.

The woman doesn't have to overpower the guy, just respond in a way that is clear she want's nothing more to do with the situation. If the guy continues past this clear indication, then you got his ass for rape. Once he makes an additional act to continue the sexual encounter (which once she tries to force him to stop, implies force on his part) his intent is known, and is thus punishable.

You have an absolute right to say stop. It's not negotiable.

Yes you do, however if you want to prosecute someone for rape, and you started out consensually, you better have something more concrete than "I said stop"

Your Ideal Gas law position is noted.

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.

Not quite.

 

[martybegan]

Again, this is for a situation where the sex began consensually, drunk, sober, or popped up on E.

The woman doesn't have to overpower the guy, just respond in a way that is clear she want's nothing more to do with the situation. If the guy continues past this clear indication, then you got his ass for rape. Once he makes an additional act to continue the sexual encounter (which once she tries to force him to stop, implies force on his part) his intent is known, and is thus punishable.

You have an absolute right to say stop. It's not negotiable.

Yes you do, however if you want to prosecute someone for rape, and you started out consensually, you better have something more concrete than "I said stop"

Your Ideal Gas law position is noted.

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.

 

[jillian]

Again, this is for a situation where the sex began consensually, drunk, sober, or popped up on E.

The woman doesn't have to overpower the guy, just respond in a way that is clear she want's nothing more to do with the situation. If the guy continues past this clear indication, then you got his ass for rape. Once he makes an additional act to continue the sexual encounter (which once she tries to force him to stop, implies force on his part) his intent is known, and is thus punishable.

You have an absolute right to say stop. It's not negotiable.

Yes you do, however if you want to prosecute someone for rape, and you started out consensually, you better have something more concrete than "I said stop"

Your Ideal Gas law position is noted.

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.

I'm sorry, but I think that is LAME reason to accuse someone of "rape" when you voluntarily went to bed with that person. What the hell kind of person does these things anyways. Changing your mind in the MIDDLE of the act, or even towards the end of the act? I'm sure every woman is aware (at least I am) that it would be very difficult for a man to just "stop." Is it really rape just because you changed your mind after you already gave consent and you are in the middle of sex?

And to bring charges against the person???

I can understand if the man got violent during the act or something like that occurred, but just changing your mind. Sounds like a lame reason to destroy another person's life to me.

And good Christian women are supposed to submit to men, right?

Why so angry dearie?

 

[martybegan]

Again, this is for a situation where the sex began consensually, drunk, sober, or popped up on E.

The woman doesn't have to overpower the guy, just respond in a way that is clear she want's nothing more to do with the situation. If the guy continues past this clear indication, then you got his ass for rape. Once he makes an additional act to continue the sexual encounter (which once she tries to force him to stop, implies force on his part) his intent is known, and is thus punishable.

You have an absolute right to say stop. It's not negotiable.

Yes you do, however if you want to prosecute someone for rape, and you started out consensually, you better have something more concrete than "I said stop"

Your Ideal Gas law position is noted.

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.

I'm sorry, but I think that is LAME reason to accuse someone of "rape" when you voluntarily went to bed with that person. What the hell kind of person does these things anyways. Changing your mind in the MIDDLE of the act, or even towards the end of the act? I'm sure every woman is aware (at least I am) that it would be very difficult for a man to just "stop." Is it really rape just because you changed your mind after you already gave consent and you are in the middle of sex?

And to bring charges against the person???

I can understand if the man got violent during the act or something like that occurred, but just changing your mind. Sounds like a lame reason to destroy another person's life to me.

Which is why I consider an intervening act necessary for any charges to be considered. Even the densest guy in the middle of the act should be able to figure out "pushing me away means stop"

 

[ChrisL]

Again, this is for a situation where the sex began consensually, drunk, sober, or popped up on E.

The woman doesn't have to overpower the guy, just respond in a way that is clear she want's nothing more to do with the situation. If the guy continues past this clear indication, then you got his ass for rape. Once he makes an additional act to continue the sexual encounter (which once she tries to force him to stop, implies force on his part) his intent is known, and is thus punishable.

You have an absolute right to say stop. It's not negotiable.

Yes you do, however if you want to prosecute someone for rape, and you started out consensually, you better have something more concrete than "I said stop"

Your Ideal Gas law position is noted.

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.

That's what I was saying. People need to be responsible for their own actions. If you don't want to have sex, then don't give your consent to begin with, and if you lose control over yourself when you drink, then you should not be drinking at all. That's my opinion. I can't imagine that I would go and ruin a man's life because I "changed my mind" and feel that I was "raped" either. Of course, there ARE extenuating circumstances that may change my mind on these things, such as if the woman is passed out and the man is not drinking, but if both of them are drunk . . . .

 

[jillian]

You have an absolute right to say stop. It's not negotiable.

Yes you do, however if you want to prosecute someone for rape, and you started out consensually, you better have something more concrete than "I said stop"

Your Ideal Gas law position is noted.

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.

 

[ChrisL]

You have an absolute right to say stop. It's not negotiable.

Yes you do, however if you want to prosecute someone for rape, and you started out consensually, you better have something more concrete than "I said stop"

Your Ideal Gas law position is noted.

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.

I'm sorry, but I think that is LAME reason to accuse someone of "rape" when you voluntarily went to bed with that person. What the hell kind of person does these things anyways. Changing your mind in the MIDDLE of the act, or even towards the end of the act? I'm sure every woman is aware (at least I am) that it would be very difficult for a man to just "stop." Is it really rape just because you changed your mind after you already gave consent and you are in the middle of sex?

And to bring charges against the person???

I can understand if the man got violent during the act or something like that occurred, but just changing your mind. Sounds like a lame reason to destroy another person's life to me.

And good Christian women are supposed to submit to men, right?

Why so angry dearie?

Since I'm not a "Christian woman" I wouldn't know. I'm just thinking of "how good a reason is that to ruin a person's entire life?" Because you gave your consent initially and then changed your mind because he sucked in bed, as you stated earlier?

 

[ChrisL]

Yes you do, however if you want to prosecute someone for rape, and you started out consensually, you better have something more concrete than "I said stop"

Your Ideal Gas law position is noted.

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!

 

[martybegan]

Yes you do, however if you want to prosecute someone for rape, and you started out consensually, you better have something more concrete than "I said stop"

Your Ideal Gas law position is noted.

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.

 

[ChrisL]

You have an absolute right to say stop. It's not negotiable.

Yes you do, however if you want to prosecute someone for rape, and you started out consensually, you better have something more concrete than "I said stop"

Your Ideal Gas law position is noted.

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.

I'm sorry, but I think that is LAME reason to accuse someone of "rape" when you voluntarily went to bed with that person. What the hell kind of person does these things anyways. Changing your mind in the MIDDLE of the act, or even towards the end of the act? I'm sure every woman is aware (at least I am) that it would be very difficult for a man to just "stop." Is it really rape just because you changed your mind after you already gave consent and you are in the middle of sex?

And to bring charges against the person???

I can understand if the man got violent during the act or something like that occurred, but just changing your mind. Sounds like a lame reason to destroy another person's life to me.

Which is why I consider an intervening act necessary for any charges to be considered. Even the densest guy in the middle of the act should be able to figure out "pushing me away means stop"

That's true, but maybe not if he is SO drunk, just like she is? And I still think it's pretty shitty to give consent and then take it away in the middle of the act, unless things were getting violent and you were getting hurt. However, in the story I posted, that is not the case. The point in the case I mentioned . . . she went to his room, by sneaking out. She went to his room and gave him a blow job. They completed their sexual act. The next day or several days later, she regretted it apparently and went and filed charges against him.

 

[ChrisL]

Just because you regret the sex, that does not make it rape. Sorry. Also, according to the witnesses, this particular woman was the aggressor. She initiated the sexual encounter.

 

[martybegan]

Yes you do, however if you want to prosecute someone for rape, and you started out consensually, you better have something more concrete than "I said stop"

Your Ideal Gas law position is noted.

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.

I'm sorry, but I think that is LAME reason to accuse someone of "rape" when you voluntarily went to bed with that person. What the hell kind of person does these things anyways. Changing your mind in the MIDDLE of the act, or even towards the end of the act? I'm sure every woman is aware (at least I am) that it would be very difficult for a man to just "stop." Is it really rape just because you changed your mind after you already gave consent and you are in the middle of sex?

And to bring charges against the person???

I can understand if the man got violent during the act or something like that occurred, but just changing your mind. Sounds like a lame reason to destroy another person's life to me.

Which is why I consider an intervening act necessary for any charges to be considered. Even the densest guy in the middle of the act should be able to figure out "pushing me away means stop"

That's true, but maybe not if he is SO drunk, just like she is? And I still think it's pretty shitty to give consent and then take it away in the middle of the act, unless things were getting violent and you were getting hurt. However, in the story I posted, that is not the case. The point in the case I mentioned . . . she went to his room, by sneaking out. She went to his room and gave him a blow job. They completed their sexual act. The next day or several days later, she regretted it apparently and went and filed charges against him.

Oh, on "revoked consent after the fact" I am 100% in the side of "tough luck" on the purported aggrieved party.

As for intoxication, as long as it wasn't forced on the person, or the person wasn't nearly unconscious, the sobriety of the other person really shouldn't come into play. Slipping someone a mickey or having sex with a passed out person even if the offender is drunk does not mitigate their responsibility.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

I'm sorry, but I think that is LAME reason to accuse someone of "rape" when you voluntarily went to bed with that person. What the hell kind of person does these things anyways. Changing your mind in the MIDDLE of the act, or even towards the end of the act? I'm sure every woman is aware (at least I am) that it would be very difficult for a man to just "stop." Is it really rape just because you changed your mind after you already gave consent and you are in the middle of sex?

And to bring charges against the person???

I can understand if the man got violent during the act or something like that occurred, but just changing your mind. Sounds like a lame reason to destroy another person's life to me.

Which is why I consider an intervening act necessary for any charges to be considered. Even the densest guy in the middle of the act should be able to figure out "pushing me away means stop"

That's true, but maybe not if he is SO drunk, just like she is? And I still think it's pretty shitty to give consent and then take it away in the middle of the act, unless things were getting violent and you were getting hurt. However, in the story I posted, that is not the case. The point in the case I mentioned . . . she went to his room, by sneaking out. She went to his room and gave him a blow job. They completed their sexual act. The next day or several days later, she regretted it apparently and went and filed charges against him.

Oh, on "revoked consent after the fact" I am 100% in the side of "tough luck" on the purported aggrieved party.

As for intoxication, as long as it wasn't forced on the person, or the person wasn't nearly unconscious, the sobriety of the other person really shouldn't come into play. Slipping someone a mickey or having sex with a passed out person even if the offender is drunk does not mitigate their responsibility.

Well, my point is more like, if BOTH parties are drunk, and consent is given or implied, then who is raping whom? If a woman or a man is getting drunk and going around "consenting to sex" while drunk, then it seems to me like alcohol is the major issue.

I agree about giving consent and then taking it away in the middle of the act. Ahhh, it's a little late for that, unless the man is trying to hurt the woman or something like that. Now that would be an extenuating circumstance. If he is hurting her or doing things that she finds unpleasant, then I could understand the "removal of consent." But just because you happened to change your mind right in the middle. That just does not really qualify as "rape" to me.

 

[martybegan]

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

I'm sorry, but I think that is LAME reason to accuse someone of "rape" when you voluntarily went to bed with that person. What the hell kind of person does these things anyways. Changing your mind in the MIDDLE of the act, or even towards the end of the act? I'm sure every woman is aware (at least I am) that it would be very difficult for a man to just "stop." Is it really rape just because you changed your mind after you already gave consent and you are in the middle of sex?

And to bring charges against the person???

I can understand if the man got violent during the act or something like that occurred, but just changing your mind. Sounds like a lame reason to destroy another person's life to me.

Which is why I consider an intervening act necessary for any charges to be considered. Even the densest guy in the middle of the act should be able to figure out "pushing me away means stop"

That's true, but maybe not if he is SO drunk, just like she is? And I still think it's pretty shitty to give consent and then take it away in the middle of the act, unless things were getting violent and you were getting hurt. However, in the story I posted, that is not the case. The point in the case I mentioned . . . she went to his room, by sneaking out. She went to his room and gave him a blow job. They completed their sexual act. The next day or several days later, she regretted it apparently and went and filed charges against him.

Oh, on "revoked consent after the fact" I am 100% in the side of "tough luck" on the purported aggrieved party.

As for intoxication, as long as it wasn't forced on the person, or the person wasn't nearly unconscious, the sobriety of the other person really shouldn't come into play. Slipping someone a mickey or having sex with a passed out person even if the offender is drunk does not mitigate their responsibility.

Well, my point is more like, if BOTH parties are drunk, and consent is given or implied, then who is raping whom? If a woman or a man is getting drunk and going around "consenting to sex" while drunk, then it seems to me like alcohol is the major issue.

I agree about giving consent and then taking it away in the middle of the act. Ahhh, it's a little late for that, unless the man is trying to hurt the woman or something like that. Now that would be an extenuating circumstance. If he is hurting her or doing things that she finds unpleasant, then I could understand the "removal of consent." But just because you happened to change your mind right in the middle. That just does not really qualify as "rape" to me.

If both parties are drunk by choice, and the sex is drunken consensual, it isn't rape, assault, or anything else.

I agree the "removal on consent" debate is another topic, but related to this, as even drunken consent can be revoked, however the drunkeness of one or both parties obviously complicates things.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm sorry, but I think that is LAME reason to accuse someone of "rape" when you voluntarily went to bed with that person. What the hell kind of person does these things anyways. Changing your mind in the MIDDLE of the act, or even towards the end of the act? I'm sure every woman is aware (at least I am) that it would be very difficult for a man to just "stop." Is it really rape just because you changed your mind after you already gave consent and you are in the middle of sex?

And to bring charges against the person???

I can understand if the man got violent during the act or something like that occurred, but just changing your mind. Sounds like a lame reason to destroy another person's life to me.

Which is why I consider an intervening act necessary for any charges to be considered. Even the densest guy in the middle of the act should be able to figure out "pushing me away means stop"

That's true, but maybe not if he is SO drunk, just like she is? And I still think it's pretty shitty to give consent and then take it away in the middle of the act, unless things were getting violent and you were getting hurt. However, in the story I posted, that is not the case. The point in the case I mentioned . . . she went to his room, by sneaking out. She went to his room and gave him a blow job. They completed their sexual act. The next day or several days later, she regretted it apparently and went and filed charges against him.

Oh, on "revoked consent after the fact" I am 100% in the side of "tough luck" on the purported aggrieved party.

As for intoxication, as long as it wasn't forced on the person, or the person wasn't nearly unconscious, the sobriety of the other person really shouldn't come into play. Slipping someone a mickey or having sex with a passed out person even if the offender is drunk does not mitigate their responsibility.

Well, my point is more like, if BOTH parties are drunk, and consent is given or implied, then who is raping whom? If a woman or a man is getting drunk and going around "consenting to sex" while drunk, then it seems to me like alcohol is the major issue.

I agree about giving consent and then taking it away in the middle of the act. Ahhh, it's a little late for that, unless the man is trying to hurt the woman or something like that. Now that would be an extenuating circumstance. If he is hurting her or doing things that she finds unpleasant, then I could understand the "removal of consent." But just because you happened to change your mind right in the middle. That just does not really qualify as "rape" to me.

If both parties are drunk by choice, and the sex is drunken consensual, it isn't rape, assault, or anything else.

I agree the "removal on consent" debate is another topic, but related to this, as even drunken consent can be revoked, however the drunkeness of one or both parties obviously complicates things.

In the case I linked to earlier in this thread, it was SHE who was the aggressor in the sexual situation. That is according to eye witnesses at the party and her own friends. Then she sneaked out of her room and went to his room. Why isn't SHE being charged with raping him, since he was also just as drunk, again, according to witnesses.

 

[martybegan]

Which is why I consider an intervening act necessary for any charges to be considered. Even the densest guy in the middle of the act should be able to figure out "pushing me away means stop"

That's true, but maybe not if he is SO drunk, just like she is? And I still think it's pretty shitty to give consent and then take it away in the middle of the act, unless things were getting violent and you were getting hurt. However, in the story I posted, that is not the case. The point in the case I mentioned . . . she went to his room, by sneaking out. She went to his room and gave him a blow job. They completed their sexual act. The next day or several days later, she regretted it apparently and went and filed charges against him.

Oh, on "revoked consent after the fact" I am 100% in the side of "tough luck" on the purported aggrieved party.

As for intoxication, as long as it wasn't forced on the person, or the person wasn't nearly unconscious, the sobriety of the other person really shouldn't come into play. Slipping someone a mickey or having sex with a passed out person even if the offender is drunk does not mitigate their responsibility.

Well, my point is more like, if BOTH parties are drunk, and consent is given or implied, then who is raping whom? If a woman or a man is getting drunk and going around "consenting to sex" while drunk, then it seems to me like alcohol is the major issue.

I agree about giving consent and then taking it away in the middle of the act. Ahhh, it's a little late for that, unless the man is trying to hurt the woman or something like that. Now that would be an extenuating circumstance. If he is hurting her or doing things that she finds unpleasant, then I could understand the "removal of consent." But just because you happened to change your mind right in the middle. That just does not really qualify as "rape" to me.

If both parties are drunk by choice, and the sex is drunken consensual, it isn't rape, assault, or anything else.

I agree the "removal on consent" debate is another topic, but related to this, as even drunken consent can be revoked, however the drunkeness of one or both parties obviously complicates things.

In the case I linked to earlier in this thread, it was SHE who was the aggressor in the sexual situation. That is according to eye witnesses at the party and her own friends. Then she sneaked out of her room and went to his room. Why isn't SHE being charged with raping him, since he was also just as drunk, again, according to witnesses.

We all know why. 1) because she complained first, and 2) the bias in the organizations who rule over these things against anything with a (heterosexual) penis.

 

[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.

 

[ChrisL]

That's true, but maybe not if he is SO drunk, just like she is? And I still think it's pretty shitty to give consent and then take it away in the middle of the act, unless things were getting violent and you were getting hurt. However, in the story I posted, that is not the case. The point in the case I mentioned . . . she went to his room, by sneaking out. She went to his room and gave him a blow job. They completed their sexual act. The next day or several days later, she regretted it apparently and went and filed charges against him.

Oh, on "revoked consent after the fact" I am 100% in the side of "tough luck" on the purported aggrieved party.

As for intoxication, as long as it wasn't forced on the person, or the person wasn't nearly unconscious, the sobriety of the other person really shouldn't come into play. Slipping someone a mickey or having sex with a passed out person even if the offender is drunk does not mitigate their responsibility.

Well, my point is more like, if BOTH parties are drunk, and consent is given or implied, then who is raping whom? If a woman or a man is getting drunk and going around "consenting to sex" while drunk, then it seems to me like alcohol is the major issue.

I agree about giving consent and then taking it away in the middle of the act. Ahhh, it's a little late for that, unless the man is trying to hurt the woman or something like that. Now that would be an extenuating circumstance. If he is hurting her or doing things that she finds unpleasant, then I could understand the "removal of consent." But just because you happened to change your mind right in the middle. That just does not really qualify as "rape" to me.

If both parties are drunk by choice, and the sex is drunken consensual, it isn't rape, assault, or anything else.

I agree the "removal on consent" debate is another topic, but related to this, as even drunken consent can be revoked, however the drunkeness of one or both parties obviously complicates things.

In the case I linked to earlier in this thread, it was SHE who was the aggressor in the sexual situation. That is according to eye witnesses at the party and her own friends. Then she sneaked out of her room and went to his room. Why isn't SHE being charged with raping him, since he was also just as drunk, again, according to witnesses.

We all know why. 1) because she complained first, and 2) the bias in the organizations who rule over these things against anything with a (heterosexual) penis.

Yes, that is the ONLY reason. She is the one who pressed charges, and THAT is what she has on her side. That doesn't mean she's not a crappy person. To me, a person like that is a complete and utter loser.

 

[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.