Minnesota: Rape is not rape if you have been drinking of your own free will.

[ClaireH]

What is wrong in Minnesota? So many really bad stories out of Minnesota. George Floyd, Justine Damond, Philandro Castilo and now we have this. Minnesota law states that it's not rape if the person has voluntarily been drinking on their own. What kind of warped people pass such a law?

A Minnesota man can’t be charged with rape, because the woman chose to drink beforehand, court rules

Well, its not like no woman never hollered rape when there was no rape.

The nature of women's rape fantasies: an analysis of prevalence, frequency, and contents - PubMed

This study evaluated the rape fantasies of female undergraduates (N = 355) using a fantasy checklist that reflected the legal definition of rape and a sexual fantasy log that included systematic prompts and self-ratings. Results indicated that 62% of women have had a rape fantasy, which is...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

.


Also....well known....some women mean yes when they say no.

Also...well known that women have more intense orgasms whilst being raped and they are more likely to get pregnant when raped than when having normal intercourse.

The pleasure factor women get from being raped is one reason that so many of them feel intense guilt....and that is also a factor in why some men become rapists...they get an intense satisfaction watching a woman they are forcing to have sex get such pleasure from the act.

What Science Says About Arousal During Rape

Yes, orgasms can happen to rape victims.

www.popsci.com

I’m going to have to pick a beef with you Green Hornet. You’ve left me no other option, particularly with your statement about women getting pleasure out of a true rape . My God, you’re confusing women fantasizing about a rape as opposed to a an actual rape. You even went further to state that women have orgasms during these actual rapes ....are you freaking kidding me? Again, you are mixing up what you watch on porn and in fact with women the rape fantasy is a theme for many women... key word FANTASY. No sensible woman would actually want a true rape to ever happen. Your statements also show that you are referring to mind games played during the 70s or 80s by some women. Some couples role play rape and its not actual rape! Your comment “When a woman says no she means yes” was a blast to the past. Trust me on this, women aren’t playing those 1970-80 type of head games anymore.

Read up and educate yourself. You pretty much marred up your record there GH- I formerly liked reading your posts.

 

[Blues Man]

Rape is rape no matter the outside circumstances. You sound like Hillary condemning the women accusing Bill.

Naw, those women were all proven liars at the time. Then they dredged them up again 20 years later and we forgot they had all been proven as liars.

Paula Jones claimed that Clinton's dick had a "distinguishing characteristic". His medical records show otherwise. Paula Jones was a liar.

Juanita Brodderick signed two affidavits saying she never had sex with Clinton. Brodderick is a liar.

Kathleen Wiley claimed Clinton groped her... but then spent the next year sending letters to the White House begging for a job. Kathleen Wiley is a liar.

See how that works. You actually look at someone's story, and if you catch them LYING, then you call them liars.

Never called Monica Lewinsky a liar. She told a consistent story and had the cum-stained dress to prove it.

Now, on to the topic at hand...

A woman gets drunk at a bar, takes 5 shots AND some pills, and then she's complaining because she woke up at some dude's house and didn't know where she was?

Are we going to require men to give women field sobriety tests before they do the deed? I mean, that would be a mood killer.

You need a mirror badly. Her complaint was not that she did not know where she was. No one is really denying she was raped. The argument is state law makes rape legal in this instance.

Because I supported Sanders you are going to defend rape. Man, it doesn't get much worse than that.

She blacked out. How does she know she did not give consent?

If she can't remember anything, she was clearly too drunk to give consent.

As in any other area of the law, the consent was given when she consented to becoming voluntarily drunk.

No, it wasn't. Getting drunk is NOT consent to anything except being drunk.

Let me put it this way. Let's say my car runs out of gas some night, and I'm walking from my car to the gas station. Guy pulls up next to me and offers to drive me to the gas station. I agree and get into the car (something I would never actually do, just so you know). He turns out to be a serial killer, and instead of taking me to the gas station, he takes me to his house and kills me, then cuts me up and buries me under his garage.

Now, I very clearly made a bad choice that put me in a vulnerable position and led to my death. Did I consent to being killed and dismembered, though? Does it mean that Mr. Serial Killer did nothing wrong by killing me and dismembering me, because I "consented" to it by getting into his car, and by letting my own car get that low on gas in the first place?

Aside from being monumentally foolish it has been held over and over no one consents to their own murder. It's a matter of law.

You are talking apples and oranges to begin with but in your stupid story...who claimed or would claim the killer did nothing wrong??? Have you no logic? Much less.....do you even have any common sense? There are laws against murder in all our states.

Going to someone's house to party after you are already drunk already kind of implies consent.

Implies consent? Are you kidding? So if you go to a friend's party after being legally intoxicated at 0.08% BAC, you are implying consent for someone to stick their penis in your asshole?

The girl did not go to a friend's party. They went with a stranger who lied. To answer your question yes. Get voluntarily drunk and go off with a stranger is consent to put his penis in your asshole.

No, it really isn't. It's a piss-poor choice to make, but going somewhere with a stranger is only consent to go somewhere. It is not consent to anything else.

Once again, you are dismissing the fact that - in court - her testimony is that she woke up around 8am and noticed her panties were off.
Indicating she does not remember what happened.
THERE ARE TWO POSSIBILITIES HERE - not just one.
1) He is a dirt bag piece of shit, that indeed had sex with her while she was passed out. GUILTY
2) She was receptive to his advances, he took that as a yes, she never said no... and he fucked her. NOT GUILTY.

NOW - tell me how in the world are you supposed to know which is true?
Which is exactly why the law states a person who is so intoxicated that determining consent is impossible, you can't charge rape because there is no way for the court to determine if consent was given or not, because they person cannot remember what happened.

In other words, if your a sexual predator with every intent of raping the woman your going out with, you have an excellent chance of getting away with rape if you can get her drunk?

exactly.

If a woman gets a man drunk then sodomizes him with household objects then it's not illegal right?

OR

If a homosexual gets as straight guy drunk then performs anal sex on him it's not illegal right?

Did you just come(no pun intended)on here and start spouting nonsense without bothering to read what has been posted? Must be the case.....anyhow you may not like the various laws on rape and all states have laws regarding rape....but the various states are the ones that make their laws not you.

Also...it is quite obvious you do not even know what the law that is being discussed on here actually is. Some women have been convicted of raping a man...and it is illegal. Rape can be of a homosexual nature and it is also illegal.

Thus you are making no sense whatsoever. Perhaps you need to read the law on rape that is being discussed on here and then come back and try and make some coherent observation. I do not think anyone will be waiting with bated breath for that to happen......where are these morons coming from?

Then you should have no problem with my replies.

If a woman who got drunk to the point she can't remember giving consent and the rape case gets tossed then the same should go for a guy who gets too drunk to remember giving consent to get sodomized with a dildo should have his accusations against the woman tossed out too.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Rape is rape no matter the outside circumstances. You sound like Hillary condemning the women accusing Bill.

Naw, those women were all proven liars at the time. Then they dredged them up again 20 years later and we forgot they had all been proven as liars.

Paula Jones claimed that Clinton's dick had a "distinguishing characteristic". His medical records show otherwise. Paula Jones was a liar.

Juanita Brodderick signed two affidavits saying she never had sex with Clinton. Brodderick is a liar.

Kathleen Wiley claimed Clinton groped her... but then spent the next year sending letters to the White House begging for a job. Kathleen Wiley is a liar.

See how that works. You actually look at someone's story, and if you catch them LYING, then you call them liars.

Never called Monica Lewinsky a liar. She told a consistent story and had the cum-stained dress to prove it.

Now, on to the topic at hand...

A woman gets drunk at a bar, takes 5 shots AND some pills, and then she's complaining because she woke up at some dude's house and didn't know where she was?

Are we going to require men to give women field sobriety tests before they do the deed? I mean, that would be a mood killer.

You need a mirror badly. Her complaint was not that she did not know where she was. No one is really denying she was raped. The argument is state law makes rape legal in this instance.

Because I supported Sanders you are going to defend rape. Man, it doesn't get much worse than that.

She blacked out. How does she know she did not give consent?

If she can't remember anything, she was clearly too drunk to give consent.

As in any other area of the law, the consent was given when she consented to becoming voluntarily drunk.

No, it wasn't. Getting drunk is NOT consent to anything except being drunk.

Let me put it this way. Let's say my car runs out of gas some night, and I'm walking from my car to the gas station. Guy pulls up next to me and offers to drive me to the gas station. I agree and get into the car (something I would never actually do, just so you know). He turns out to be a serial killer, and instead of taking me to the gas station, he takes me to his house and kills me, then cuts me up and buries me under his garage.

Now, I very clearly made a bad choice that put me in a vulnerable position and led to my death. Did I consent to being killed and dismembered, though? Does it mean that Mr. Serial Killer did nothing wrong by killing me and dismembering me, because I "consented" to it by getting into his car, and by letting my own car get that low on gas in the first place?

Non Sequitur
Every one of you are flat out IGNORING the possibility she gave consent.
The core of your conviction is based 100% on no woman lies.
Also... that alcohol doesn't affect your judgement. Or ever prevents you from remembering exactly what happened at all times while you was drunk

No, I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying valid consent isn't possible in that condition.

Nor am I saying "no woman lies". Please indicate to me any place where I so much as implied it, or apologize for trying to force the argument on me that you WISH I was making, and delete it herewith from the conversation.

Far from saying alcohol doesn't affect your judgement, my point is that it DOES affect your judgement, and that much alcohol affects it beyond the point where you can give valid consent. And I am extremely skeptical that she could have had as much to drink as the story indicates, and that man NOT know she was too drunk to give consent.

She was voluntarily drunk. That was her consent. Had the guy gotten her drunk or slipped her drugs she would not be assumed to have consented.

This is what the judge ruled. The judge was correct.

I agree if he had slipped her drugs that would not have been consent for anything.

She was voluntarily drinking.....but that does not mean she consented to anything other than drinking.....however the state law that governs this case says if a woman is voluntarily drinking the guy cannot be charged with rape.....that does not mean she was not raped.....that means the man cannot be charged with rape....not rocket science but the dummies on here seem unable to wrap their feeble minds around it.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What is wrong in Minnesota? So many really bad stories out of Minnesota. George Floyd, Justine Damond, Philandro Castilo and now we have this. Minnesota law states that it's not rape if the person has voluntarily been drinking on their own. What kind of warped people pass such a law?

A Minnesota man can’t be charged with rape, because the woman chose to drink beforehand, court rules

I probably agree with the courts ruling.
A man should never be convicted of sexual assault based solely on one woman's word.... when she was intoxicated to the point of passing out and agreed to go with the guy.
The dude might have done it. But you cannot convict someone on "might have done it". Not when there are extenuating circumstances that greatly cause doubt.

Um, how many witnesses would you like to require to recognize a rape, given that rapes typically don't happen in public places with an audience?

You need to understand that all the States have laws on rape....you do not get to decide what the law is or isn't the various state legislatures decide that.

Do you even know what the law on rape is in the state where you live?

Irregardless....we are a nation of laws and juries must follow the law in regards to whether they convict or find not guilty.

yeah and the law, where this case is, is you cannot charge rape if you are so drunk you don't remember if you gave consent or not.

 

[Blues Man]

Rape is rape no matter the outside circumstances. You sound like Hillary condemning the women accusing Bill.

Naw, those women were all proven liars at the time. Then they dredged them up again 20 years later and we forgot they had all been proven as liars.

Paula Jones claimed that Clinton's dick had a "distinguishing characteristic". His medical records show otherwise. Paula Jones was a liar.

Juanita Brodderick signed two affidavits saying she never had sex with Clinton. Brodderick is a liar.

Kathleen Wiley claimed Clinton groped her... but then spent the next year sending letters to the White House begging for a job. Kathleen Wiley is a liar.

See how that works. You actually look at someone's story, and if you catch them LYING, then you call them liars.

Never called Monica Lewinsky a liar. She told a consistent story and had the cum-stained dress to prove it.

Now, on to the topic at hand...

A woman gets drunk at a bar, takes 5 shots AND some pills, and then she's complaining because she woke up at some dude's house and didn't know where she was?

Are we going to require men to give women field sobriety tests before they do the deed? I mean, that would be a mood killer.

You need a mirror badly. Her complaint was not that she did not know where she was. No one is really denying she was raped. The argument is state law makes rape legal in this instance.

Because I supported Sanders you are going to defend rape. Man, it doesn't get much worse than that.

She blacked out. How does she know she did not give consent?

If she can't remember anything, she was clearly too drunk to give consent.

As in any other area of the law, the consent was given when she consented to becoming voluntarily drunk.

No, it wasn't. Getting drunk is NOT consent to anything except being drunk.

Let me put it this way. Let's say my car runs out of gas some night, and I'm walking from my car to the gas station. Guy pulls up next to me and offers to drive me to the gas station. I agree and get into the car (something I would never actually do, just so you know). He turns out to be a serial killer, and instead of taking me to the gas station, he takes me to his house and kills me, then cuts me up and buries me under his garage.

Now, I very clearly made a bad choice that put me in a vulnerable position and led to my death. Did I consent to being killed and dismembered, though? Does it mean that Mr. Serial Killer did nothing wrong by killing me and dismembering me, because I "consented" to it by getting into his car, and by letting my own car get that low on gas in the first place?

Non Sequitur
Every one of you are flat out IGNORING the possibility she gave consent.
The core of your conviction is based 100% on no woman lies.
Also... that alcohol doesn't affect your judgement. Or ever prevents you from remembering exactly what happened at all times while you was drunk

No, I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying valid consent isn't possible in that condition.

Nor am I saying "no woman lies". Please indicate to me any place where I so much as implied it, or apologize for trying to force the argument on me that you WISH I was making, and delete it herewith from the conversation.

Far from saying alcohol doesn't affect your judgement, my point is that it DOES affect your judgement, and that much alcohol affects it beyond the point where you can give valid consent. And I am extremely skeptical that she could have had as much to drink as the story indicates, and that man NOT know she was too drunk to give consent.

She was voluntarily drunk. That was her consent. Had the guy gotten her drunk or slipped her drugs she would not be assumed to have consented.

This is what the judge ruled. The judge was correct.

I agree if he had slipped her drugs that would not have been consent for anything.

She was voluntarily drinking.....but that does not mean she consented to anything other than drinking.....however the state law that governs this case says if a woman is voluntarily drinking the guy cannot be charged with rape.....that does not mean she was not raped.....that means the man cannot be charged with rape....not rocket science but the dummies on here seem unable to wrap their feeble minds around it.

And again you should have no problem with my statements that a man who voluntarily gets so drunk as to not remember if he gave consent to be sodomized cannot accuse a woman or another man of rape

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Rape is rape no matter the outside circumstances. You sound like Hillary condemning the women accusing Bill.

Naw, those women were all proven liars at the time. Then they dredged them up again 20 years later and we forgot they had all been proven as liars.

Paula Jones claimed that Clinton's dick had a "distinguishing characteristic". His medical records show otherwise. Paula Jones was a liar.

Juanita Brodderick signed two affidavits saying she never had sex with Clinton. Brodderick is a liar.

Kathleen Wiley claimed Clinton groped her... but then spent the next year sending letters to the White House begging for a job. Kathleen Wiley is a liar.

See how that works. You actually look at someone's story, and if you catch them LYING, then you call them liars.

Never called Monica Lewinsky a liar. She told a consistent story and had the cum-stained dress to prove it.

Now, on to the topic at hand...

A woman gets drunk at a bar, takes 5 shots AND some pills, and then she's complaining because she woke up at some dude's house and didn't know where she was?

Are we going to require men to give women field sobriety tests before they do the deed? I mean, that would be a mood killer.

You need a mirror badly. Her complaint was not that she did not know where she was. No one is really denying she was raped. The argument is state law makes rape legal in this instance.

Because I supported Sanders you are going to defend rape. Man, it doesn't get much worse than that.

She blacked out. How does she know she did not give consent?

If she can't remember anything, she was clearly too drunk to give consent.

As in any other area of the law, the consent was given when she consented to becoming voluntarily drunk.

No, it wasn't. Getting drunk is NOT consent to anything except being drunk.

Let me put it this way. Let's say my car runs out of gas some night, and I'm walking from my car to the gas station. Guy pulls up next to me and offers to drive me to the gas station. I agree and get into the car (something I would never actually do, just so you know). He turns out to be a serial killer, and instead of taking me to the gas station, he takes me to his house and kills me, then cuts me up and buries me under his garage.

Now, I very clearly made a bad choice that put me in a vulnerable position and led to my death. Did I consent to being killed and dismembered, though? Does it mean that Mr. Serial Killer did nothing wrong by killing me and dismembering me, because I "consented" to it by getting into his car, and by letting my own car get that low on gas in the first place?

Aside from being monumentally foolish it has been held over and over no one consents to their own murder. It's a matter of law.

You are talking apples and oranges to begin with but in your stupid story...who claimed or would claim the killer did nothing wrong??? Have you no logic? Much less.....do you even have any common sense? There are laws against murder in all our states.

Going to someone's house to party after you are already drunk already kind of implies consent.

Implies consent? Are you kidding? So if you go to a friend's party after being legally intoxicated at 0.08% BAC, you are implying consent for someone to stick their penis in your asshole?

The girl did not go to a friend's party. They went with a stranger who lied. To answer your question yes. Get voluntarily drunk and go off with a stranger is consent to put his penis in your asshole.

No, it really isn't. It's a piss-poor choice to make, but going somewhere with a stranger is only consent to go somewhere. It is not consent to anything else.

Once again, you are dismissing the fact that - in court - her testimony is that she woke up around 8am and noticed her panties were off.
Indicating she does not remember what happened.
THERE ARE TWO POSSIBILITIES HERE - not just one.
1) He is a dirt bag piece of shit, that indeed had sex with her while she was passed out. GUILTY
2) She was receptive to his advances, he took that as a yes, she never said no... and he fucked her. NOT GUILTY.

NOW - tell me how in the world are you supposed to know which is true?
Which is exactly why the law states a person who is so intoxicated that determining consent is impossible, you can't charge rape because there is no way for the court to determine if consent was given or not, because they person cannot remember what happened.

In other words, if your a sexual predator with every intent of raping the woman your going out with, you have an excellent chance of getting away with rape if you can get her drunk?

exactly.

If a woman gets a man drunk then sodomizes him with household objects then it's not illegal right?

OR

If a homosexual gets as straight guy drunk then performs anal sex on him it's not illegal right?

Did you just come(no pun intended)on here and start spouting nonsense without bothering to read what has been posted? Must be the case.....anyhow you may not like the various laws on rape and all states have laws regarding rape....but the various states are the ones that make their laws not you.

Also...it is quite obvious you do not even know what the law that is being discussed on here actually is. Some women have been convicted of raping a man...and it is illegal. Rape can be of a homosexual nature and it is also illegal.

Thus you are making no sense whatsoever. Perhaps you need to read the law on rape that is being discussed on here and then come back and try and make some coherent observation. I do not think anyone will be waiting with bated breath for that to happen......where are these morons coming from?

Then you should have no problem with my replies.

If a woman who got drunk to the point she can't remember giving consent and the rape case gets tossed then the same should go for a guy who gets too drunk to remember giving consent to get sodomized with a dildo should have his accusations against the woman tossed out too.

The rape conviction was not tossed because the woman could not remember....the rape conviction was tossed because the woman was voluntarily drinking.....read the law...then come back if you dare.

I do not know what the law on homosexual rape is in that state....but I am sure there is one....if you want to discuss it(although it would be off topic)you need to find out what the law there is on homosexual rape and then come back and tell us what it is and then attempt to discuss it.

 

[Blues Man]

Rape is rape no matter the outside circumstances. You sound like Hillary condemning the women accusing Bill.

Naw, those women were all proven liars at the time. Then they dredged them up again 20 years later and we forgot they had all been proven as liars.

Paula Jones claimed that Clinton's dick had a "distinguishing characteristic". His medical records show otherwise. Paula Jones was a liar.

Juanita Brodderick signed two affidavits saying she never had sex with Clinton. Brodderick is a liar.

Kathleen Wiley claimed Clinton groped her... but then spent the next year sending letters to the White House begging for a job. Kathleen Wiley is a liar.

See how that works. You actually look at someone's story, and if you catch them LYING, then you call them liars.

Never called Monica Lewinsky a liar. She told a consistent story and had the cum-stained dress to prove it.

Now, on to the topic at hand...

A woman gets drunk at a bar, takes 5 shots AND some pills, and then she's complaining because she woke up at some dude's house and didn't know where she was?

Are we going to require men to give women field sobriety tests before they do the deed? I mean, that would be a mood killer.

You need a mirror badly. Her complaint was not that she did not know where she was. No one is really denying she was raped. The argument is state law makes rape legal in this instance.

Because I supported Sanders you are going to defend rape. Man, it doesn't get much worse than that.

She blacked out. How does she know she did not give consent?

If she can't remember anything, she was clearly too drunk to give consent.

As in any other area of the law, the consent was given when she consented to becoming voluntarily drunk.

No, it wasn't. Getting drunk is NOT consent to anything except being drunk.

Let me put it this way. Let's say my car runs out of gas some night, and I'm walking from my car to the gas station. Guy pulls up next to me and offers to drive me to the gas station. I agree and get into the car (something I would never actually do, just so you know). He turns out to be a serial killer, and instead of taking me to the gas station, he takes me to his house and kills me, then cuts me up and buries me under his garage.

Now, I very clearly made a bad choice that put me in a vulnerable position and led to my death. Did I consent to being killed and dismembered, though? Does it mean that Mr. Serial Killer did nothing wrong by killing me and dismembering me, because I "consented" to it by getting into his car, and by letting my own car get that low on gas in the first place?

Aside from being monumentally foolish it has been held over and over no one consents to their own murder. It's a matter of law.

You are talking apples and oranges to begin with but in your stupid story...who claimed or would claim the killer did nothing wrong??? Have you no logic? Much less.....do you even have any common sense? There are laws against murder in all our states.

Going to someone's house to party after you are already drunk already kind of implies consent.

Implies consent? Are you kidding? So if you go to a friend's party after being legally intoxicated at 0.08% BAC, you are implying consent for someone to stick their penis in your asshole?

The girl did not go to a friend's party. They went with a stranger who lied. To answer your question yes. Get voluntarily drunk and go off with a stranger is consent to put his penis in your asshole.

No, it really isn't. It's a piss-poor choice to make, but going somewhere with a stranger is only consent to go somewhere. It is not consent to anything else.

Once again, you are dismissing the fact that - in court - her testimony is that she woke up around 8am and noticed her panties were off.
Indicating she does not remember what happened.
THERE ARE TWO POSSIBILITIES HERE - not just one.
1) He is a dirt bag piece of shit, that indeed had sex with her while she was passed out. GUILTY
2) She was receptive to his advances, he took that as a yes, she never said no... and he fucked her. NOT GUILTY.

NOW - tell me how in the world are you supposed to know which is true?
Which is exactly why the law states a person who is so intoxicated that determining consent is impossible, you can't charge rape because there is no way for the court to determine if consent was given or not, because they person cannot remember what happened.

In other words, if your a sexual predator with every intent of raping the woman your going out with, you have an excellent chance of getting away with rape if you can get her drunk?

exactly.

If a woman gets a man drunk then sodomizes him with household objects then it's not illegal right?

OR

If a homosexual gets as straight guy drunk then performs anal sex on him it's not illegal right?

Did you just come(no pun intended)on here and start spouting nonsense without bothering to read what has been posted? Must be the case.....anyhow you may not like the various laws on rape and all states have laws regarding rape....but the various states are the ones that make their laws not you.

Also...it is quite obvious you do not even know what the law that is being discussed on here actually is. Some women have been convicted of raping a man...and it is illegal. Rape can be of a homosexual nature and it is also illegal.

Thus you are making no sense whatsoever. Perhaps you need to read the law on rape that is being discussed on here and then come back and try and make some coherent observation. I do not think anyone will be waiting with bated breath for that to happen......where are these morons coming from?

Then you should have no problem with my replies.

If a woman who got drunk to the point she can't remember giving consent and the rape case gets tossed then the same should go for a guy who gets too drunk to remember giving consent to get sodomized with a dildo should have his accusations against the woman tossed out too.

The rape conviction was not tossed because the woman could not remember....the rape conviction was tossed because the woman was voluntarily drinking.....read the law...then come back if you dare.

I do not know what the law on homosexual rape is in that state....but I am sure there is one....if you want to discuss it(although it would be off topic)you need to find out what the law there is on homosexual rape and then come back and tell us what it is and then attempt to discuss it.

How is homosexual rape different that heterosexual rape?



So once again If a man was voluntarily drinking and woke up on someone's couch with a broomstick up his ass then he cannot claim he was raped right?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

What is wrong in Minnesota? So many really bad stories out of Minnesota. George Floyd, Justine Damond, Philandro Castilo and now we have this. Minnesota law states that it's not rape if the person has voluntarily been drinking on their own. What kind of warped people pass such a law?

A Minnesota man can’t be charged with rape, because the woman chose to drink beforehand, court rules

I probably agree with the courts ruling.
A man should never be convicted of sexual assault based solely on one woman's word.... when she was intoxicated to the point of passing out and agreed to go with the guy.
The dude might have done it. But you cannot convict someone on "might have done it". Not when there are extenuating circumstances that greatly cause doubt.

Um, how many witnesses would you like to require to recognize a rape, given that rapes typically don't happen in public places with an audience?

You need to understand that all the States have laws on rape....you do not get to decide what the law is or isn't the various state legislatures decide that.

Do you even know what the law on rape is in the state where you live?

Irregardless....we are a nation of laws and juries must follow the law in regards to whether they convict or find not guilty.

yeah and the law, where this case is, is you cannot charge rape if you are so drunk you don't remember if you gave consent or not.

NO....you are mistating the law although it has been shown on here several times.

Again...the law in that state says that a man cannot be charged with rape if his alleged victim has been voluntarily drinking....do you get it? The woman does not even have to be drunk under the law....the mere fact that she was voluntarily drinking negates the state from bringing forth a charge of rape.

In the simplest way I know to define this law.....no man in that state can be charged for raping a woman who was voluntarily drinking prior to the incident of a sexual nature.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Rape is rape no matter the outside circumstances. You sound like Hillary condemning the women accusing Bill.

Naw, those women were all proven liars at the time. Then they dredged them up again 20 years later and we forgot they had all been proven as liars.

Paula Jones claimed that Clinton's dick had a "distinguishing characteristic". His medical records show otherwise. Paula Jones was a liar.

Juanita Brodderick signed two affidavits saying she never had sex with Clinton. Brodderick is a liar.

Kathleen Wiley claimed Clinton groped her... but then spent the next year sending letters to the White House begging for a job. Kathleen Wiley is a liar.

See how that works. You actually look at someone's story, and if you catch them LYING, then you call them liars.

Never called Monica Lewinsky a liar. She told a consistent story and had the cum-stained dress to prove it.

Now, on to the topic at hand...

A woman gets drunk at a bar, takes 5 shots AND some pills, and then she's complaining because she woke up at some dude's house and didn't know where she was?

Are we going to require men to give women field sobriety tests before they do the deed? I mean, that would be a mood killer.

You need a mirror badly. Her complaint was not that she did not know where she was. No one is really denying she was raped. The argument is state law makes rape legal in this instance.

Because I supported Sanders you are going to defend rape. Man, it doesn't get much worse than that.

She blacked out. How does she know she did not give consent?

If she can't remember anything, she was clearly too drunk to give consent.

As in any other area of the law, the consent was given when she consented to becoming voluntarily drunk.

No, it wasn't. Getting drunk is NOT consent to anything except being drunk.

Let me put it this way. Let's say my car runs out of gas some night, and I'm walking from my car to the gas station. Guy pulls up next to me and offers to drive me to the gas station. I agree and get into the car (something I would never actually do, just so you know). He turns out to be a serial killer, and instead of taking me to the gas station, he takes me to his house and kills me, then cuts me up and buries me under his garage.

Now, I very clearly made a bad choice that put me in a vulnerable position and led to my death. Did I consent to being killed and dismembered, though? Does it mean that Mr. Serial Killer did nothing wrong by killing me and dismembering me, because I "consented" to it by getting into his car, and by letting my own car get that low on gas in the first place?

Aside from being monumentally foolish it has been held over and over no one consents to their own murder. It's a matter of law.

You are talking apples and oranges to begin with but in your stupid story...who claimed or would claim the killer did nothing wrong??? Have you no logic? Much less.....do you even have any common sense? There are laws against murder in all our states.

Going to someone's house to party after you are already drunk already kind of implies consent.

Implies consent? Are you kidding? So if you go to a friend's party after being legally intoxicated at 0.08% BAC, you are implying consent for someone to stick their penis in your asshole?

The girl did not go to a friend's party. They went with a stranger who lied. To answer your question yes. Get voluntarily drunk and go off with a stranger is consent to put his penis in your asshole.

No, it really isn't. It's a piss-poor choice to make, but going somewhere with a stranger is only consent to go somewhere. It is not consent to anything else.

Once again, you are dismissing the fact that - in court - her testimony is that she woke up around 8am and noticed her panties were off.
Indicating she does not remember what happened.
THERE ARE TWO POSSIBILITIES HERE - not just one.
1) He is a dirt bag piece of shit, that indeed had sex with her while she was passed out. GUILTY
2) She was receptive to his advances, he took that as a yes, she never said no... and he fucked her. NOT GUILTY.

NOW - tell me how in the world are you supposed to know which is true?
Which is exactly why the law states a person who is so intoxicated that determining consent is impossible, you can't charge rape because there is no way for the court to determine if consent was given or not, because they person cannot remember what happened.

In other words, if your a sexual predator with every intent of raping the woman your going out with, you have an excellent chance of getting away with rape if you can get her drunk?

exactly.

If a woman gets a man drunk then sodomizes him with household objects then it's not illegal right?

OR

If a homosexual gets as straight guy drunk then performs anal sex on him it's not illegal right?

Did you just come(no pun intended)on here and start spouting nonsense without bothering to read what has been posted? Must be the case.....anyhow you may not like the various laws on rape and all states have laws regarding rape....but the various states are the ones that make their laws not you.

Also...it is quite obvious you do not even know what the law that is being discussed on here actually is. Some women have been convicted of raping a man...and it is illegal. Rape can be of a homosexual nature and it is also illegal.

Thus you are making no sense whatsoever. Perhaps you need to read the law on rape that is being discussed on here and then come back and try and make some coherent observation. I do not think anyone will be waiting with bated breath for that to happen......where are these morons coming from?

Then you should have no problem with my replies.

If a woman who got drunk to the point she can't remember giving consent and the rape case gets tossed then the same should go for a guy who gets too drunk to remember giving consent to get sodomized with a dildo should have his accusations against the woman tossed out too.

The rape conviction was not tossed because the woman could not remember....the rape conviction was tossed because the woman was voluntarily drinking.....read the law...then come back if you dare.

I do not know what the law on homosexual rape is in that state....but I am sure there is one....if you want to discuss it(although it would be off topic)you need to find out what the law there is on homosexual rape and then come back and tell us what it is and then attempt to discuss it.

How is homosexual rape different that heterosexual rape?



So once again If a man was voluntarily drinking and woke up on someone's couch with a broomstick up his ass then he cannot claim he was raped right?

Again....the laws on homosexual rape are different(at least I think so)than the laws on a woman getting raped....what they are in that state has not been reported during this discussion....If you are interested in what constitutes homosexual rape in that state research and then come back and tell everyone exactly what it is.

Though it is off topic....it might make for an interesting discussion if there are others on here interested in homosexual rape and how it may or may not differ from heterosexual rape.... under the law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So when you get too drunk to say "no" or understand what is happening, it is fine for someone -- anyone -- to stick his penis in your butthole.

You sure you wanna run with that

Maybe at first you should learn to control the level of your alcohol consumption. Or at least get to know that taking medicines with alcohol is a bad idea. Or at the very least, shouldn't accept a stranger's invitation to some party.

And maybe HE should learn that none of those things is the equivalent of "Get on me NOW!"

 

[Blues Man]

Rape is rape no matter the outside circumstances. You sound like Hillary condemning the women accusing Bill.

Naw, those women were all proven liars at the time. Then they dredged them up again 20 years later and we forgot they had all been proven as liars.

Paula Jones claimed that Clinton's dick had a "distinguishing characteristic". His medical records show otherwise. Paula Jones was a liar.

Juanita Brodderick signed two affidavits saying she never had sex with Clinton. Brodderick is a liar.

Kathleen Wiley claimed Clinton groped her... but then spent the next year sending letters to the White House begging for a job. Kathleen Wiley is a liar.

See how that works. You actually look at someone's story, and if you catch them LYING, then you call them liars.

Never called Monica Lewinsky a liar. She told a consistent story and had the cum-stained dress to prove it.

Now, on to the topic at hand...

A woman gets drunk at a bar, takes 5 shots AND some pills, and then she's complaining because she woke up at some dude's house and didn't know where she was?

Are we going to require men to give women field sobriety tests before they do the deed? I mean, that would be a mood killer.

You need a mirror badly. Her complaint was not that she did not know where she was. No one is really denying she was raped. The argument is state law makes rape legal in this instance.

Because I supported Sanders you are going to defend rape. Man, it doesn't get much worse than that.

She blacked out. How does she know she did not give consent?

If she can't remember anything, she was clearly too drunk to give consent.

As in any other area of the law, the consent was given when she consented to becoming voluntarily drunk.

No, it wasn't. Getting drunk is NOT consent to anything except being drunk.

Let me put it this way. Let's say my car runs out of gas some night, and I'm walking from my car to the gas station. Guy pulls up next to me and offers to drive me to the gas station. I agree and get into the car (something I would never actually do, just so you know). He turns out to be a serial killer, and instead of taking me to the gas station, he takes me to his house and kills me, then cuts me up and buries me under his garage.

Now, I very clearly made a bad choice that put me in a vulnerable position and led to my death. Did I consent to being killed and dismembered, though? Does it mean that Mr. Serial Killer did nothing wrong by killing me and dismembering me, because I "consented" to it by getting into his car, and by letting my own car get that low on gas in the first place?

Aside from being monumentally foolish it has been held over and over no one consents to their own murder. It's a matter of law.

You are talking apples and oranges to begin with but in your stupid story...who claimed or would claim the killer did nothing wrong??? Have you no logic? Much less.....do you even have any common sense? There are laws against murder in all our states.

Going to someone's house to party after you are already drunk already kind of implies consent.

Implies consent? Are you kidding? So if you go to a friend's party after being legally intoxicated at 0.08% BAC, you are implying consent for someone to stick their penis in your asshole?

The girl did not go to a friend's party. They went with a stranger who lied. To answer your question yes. Get voluntarily drunk and go off with a stranger is consent to put his penis in your asshole.

No, it really isn't. It's a piss-poor choice to make, but going somewhere with a stranger is only consent to go somewhere. It is not consent to anything else.

Once again, you are dismissing the fact that - in court - her testimony is that she woke up around 8am and noticed her panties were off.
Indicating she does not remember what happened.
THERE ARE TWO POSSIBILITIES HERE - not just one.
1) He is a dirt bag piece of shit, that indeed had sex with her while she was passed out. GUILTY
2) She was receptive to his advances, he took that as a yes, she never said no... and he fucked her. NOT GUILTY.

NOW - tell me how in the world are you supposed to know which is true?
Which is exactly why the law states a person who is so intoxicated that determining consent is impossible, you can't charge rape because there is no way for the court to determine if consent was given or not, because they person cannot remember what happened.

In other words, if your a sexual predator with every intent of raping the woman your going out with, you have an excellent chance of getting away with rape if you can get her drunk?

exactly.

If a woman gets a man drunk then sodomizes him with household objects then it's not illegal right?

OR

If a homosexual gets as straight guy drunk then performs anal sex on him it's not illegal right?

Did you just come(no pun intended)on here and start spouting nonsense without bothering to read what has been posted? Must be the case.....anyhow you may not like the various laws on rape and all states have laws regarding rape....but the various states are the ones that make their laws not you.

Also...it is quite obvious you do not even know what the law that is being discussed on here actually is. Some women have been convicted of raping a man...and it is illegal. Rape can be of a homosexual nature and it is also illegal.

Thus you are making no sense whatsoever. Perhaps you need to read the law on rape that is being discussed on here and then come back and try and make some coherent observation. I do not think anyone will be waiting with bated breath for that to happen......where are these morons coming from?

Then you should have no problem with my replies.

If a woman who got drunk to the point she can't remember giving consent and the rape case gets tossed then the same should go for a guy who gets too drunk to remember giving consent to get sodomized with a dildo should have his accusations against the woman tossed out too.

The rape conviction was not tossed because the woman could not remember....the rape conviction was tossed because the woman was voluntarily drinking.....read the law...then come back if you dare.

I do not know what the law on homosexual rape is in that state....but I am sure there is one....if you want to discuss it(although it would be off topic)you need to find out what the law there is on homosexual rape and then come back and tell us what it is and then attempt to discuss it.

How is homosexual rape different that heterosexual rape?



So once again If a man was voluntarily drinking and woke up on someone's couch with a broomstick up his ass then he cannot claim he was raped right?

Again....the laws on homosexual rape are different than the laws on a woman getting raped....what they are in that state has not been reported during this discussion....If you are interested in what constitutes homosexual rape in that state research and then come back and tell everyone exactly what it is.

What is the difference between homosexual rape and heterosexual rape? The dictionary doesn't distinguish.

Definition of RAPE

unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication,… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Cecilie1200]

The girl did not go to a friend's party

Irrelevant to my comment. I was responding to the comments of another poster. But i will remember that you having a BAC of 0.08% means you are telling the world it is okay to stick their organs in your orifices. Hey, whatever floats your boat. Put it on Facebook, you will get more action that way.

Not even close to true. The girl was way beyond a BAC of 0.08%. You have to be a communist to lie like that.

If a man is drunk to the point if mental incapacity and kills someone is he not guilty of murder? If a man in a drunken stupor has unprotected sex does he pay child support?

Everyone understands these laws that find culpability. Now they are being applied to women. Biggy boo hoo.

Women are no longer under the protection of men. They are equal. If drunkenness does not protect men OR women.

Actually, I don't know if a man intoxicated to that extent WOULD be charged with first-degree murder. I suppose it would depend on what he did. And neither that nor child support are remotely comparable to "You drank the booze, so that means you wanted the sex."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Rape is rape no matter the outside circumstances. You sound like Hillary condemning the women accusing Bill.

Naw, those women were all proven liars at the time. Then they dredged them up again 20 years later and we forgot they had all been proven as liars.

Paula Jones claimed that Clinton's dick had a "distinguishing characteristic". His medical records show otherwise. Paula Jones was a liar.

Juanita Brodderick signed two affidavits saying she never had sex with Clinton. Brodderick is a liar.

Kathleen Wiley claimed Clinton groped her... but then spent the next year sending letters to the White House begging for a job. Kathleen Wiley is a liar.

See how that works. You actually look at someone's story, and if you catch them LYING, then you call them liars.

Never called Monica Lewinsky a liar. She told a consistent story and had the cum-stained dress to prove it.

Now, on to the topic at hand...

A woman gets drunk at a bar, takes 5 shots AND some pills, and then she's complaining because she woke up at some dude's house and didn't know where she was?

Are we going to require men to give women field sobriety tests before they do the deed? I mean, that would be a mood killer.

You need a mirror badly. Her complaint was not that she did not know where she was. No one is really denying she was raped. The argument is state law makes rape legal in this instance.

Because I supported Sanders you are going to defend rape. Man, it doesn't get much worse than that.

She blacked out. How does she know she did not give consent?

If she can't remember anything, she was clearly too drunk to give consent.

As in any other area of the law, the consent was given when she consented to becoming voluntarily drunk.

No, it wasn't. Getting drunk is NOT consent to anything except being drunk.

Let me put it this way. Let's say my car runs out of gas some night, and I'm walking from my car to the gas station. Guy pulls up next to me and offers to drive me to the gas station. I agree and get into the car (something I would never actually do, just so you know). He turns out to be a serial killer, and instead of taking me to the gas station, he takes me to his house and kills me, then cuts me up and buries me under his garage.

Now, I very clearly made a bad choice that put me in a vulnerable position and led to my death. Did I consent to being killed and dismembered, though? Does it mean that Mr. Serial Killer did nothing wrong by killing me and dismembering me, because I "consented" to it by getting into his car, and by letting my own car get that low on gas in the first place?

Aside from being monumentally foolish it has been held over and over no one consents to their own murder. It's a matter of law.

You are talking apples and oranges to begin with but in your stupid story...who claimed or would claim the killer did nothing wrong??? Have you no logic? Much less.....do you even have any common sense? There are laws against murder in all our states.

Going to someone's house to party after you are already drunk already kind of implies consent.

Implies consent? Are you kidding? So if you go to a friend's party after being legally intoxicated at 0.08% BAC, you are implying consent for someone to stick their penis in your asshole?

The girl did not go to a friend's party. They went with a stranger who lied. To answer your question yes. Get voluntarily drunk and go off with a stranger is consent to put his penis in your asshole.

No, it really isn't. It's a piss-poor choice to make, but going somewhere with a stranger is only consent to go somewhere. It is not consent to anything else.

Once again, you are dismissing the fact that - in court - her testimony is that she woke up around 8am and noticed her panties were off.
Indicating she does not remember what happened.
THERE ARE TWO POSSIBILITIES HERE - not just one.
1) He is a dirt bag piece of shit, that indeed had sex with her while she was passed out. GUILTY
2) She was receptive to his advances, he took that as a yes, she never said no... and he fucked her. NOT GUILTY.

NOW - tell me how in the world are you supposed to know which is true?
Which is exactly why the law states a person who is so intoxicated that determining consent is impossible, you can't charge rape because there is no way for the court to determine if consent was given or not, because they person cannot remember what happened.

In other words, if your a sexual predator with every intent of raping the woman your going out with, you have an excellent chance of getting away with rape if you can get her drunk?

exactly.

If a woman gets a man drunk then sodomizes him with household objects then it's not illegal right?

OR

If a homosexual gets as straight guy drunk then performs anal sex on him it's not illegal right?

Did you just come(no pun intended)on here and start spouting nonsense without bothering to read what has been posted? Must be the case.....anyhow you may not like the various laws on rape and all states have laws regarding rape....but the various states are the ones that make their laws not you.

Also...it is quite obvious you do not even know what the law that is being discussed on here actually is. Some women have been convicted of raping a man...and it is illegal. Rape can be of a homosexual nature and it is also illegal.

Thus you are making no sense whatsoever. Perhaps you need to read the law on rape that is being discussed on here and then come back and try and make some coherent observation. I do not think anyone will be waiting with bated breath for that to happen......where are these morons coming from?

Then you should have no problem with my replies.

If a woman who got drunk to the point she can't remember giving consent and the rape case gets tossed then the same should go for a guy who gets too drunk to remember giving consent to get sodomized with a dildo should have his accusations against the woman tossed out too.

The rape conviction was not tossed because the woman could not remember....the rape conviction was tossed because the woman was voluntarily drinking.....read the law...then come back if you dare.

I do not know what the law on homosexual rape is in that state....but I am sure there is one....if you want to discuss it(although it would be off topic)you need to find out what the law there is on homosexual rape and then come back and tell us what it is and then attempt to discuss it.

How is homosexual rape different that heterosexual rape?



So once again If a man was voluntarily drinking and woke up on someone's couch with a broomstick up his ass then he cannot claim he was raped right?

Again....the laws on homosexual rape are different(at least I think so)than the laws on a woman getting raped....what they are in that state has not been reported during this discussion....If you are interested in what constitutes homosexual rape in that state research and then come back and tell everyone exactly what it is.

Though it is off topic....it might make for an interesting discussion if there are others on here interested in homosexual rape and how it may or may not differ from heterosexual rape.... under the law.

Well, that certainly brings up the question of WHY the laws are different for a man raping a man than a man raping a woman.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe at first you should learn to control the level of your alcohol consumption.

I see. So if you got too drunk to say no or understand what was happening (or to remember what happened), and someone stuck his penis in your butthole, you would blame yourself. Got it.

It's no one else's fault. Yours and yours alone. You aren't suggesting that men refuse to take Advantage of an out of control woman, are you. How quaint. How very old fashioned. Gentlemen are dead.

So you ARE saying that men have a right to behave like raging hormone balls.

 

[Leo123]

The irony of a person with "don't feed the trolls" as a signature. Posting this.

My post was stating facts about Islam that I have read many times in the news. It goes to explain why such a person would take advantage of a passed out woman and, IMO, brings into question the point of this discussion. You have nothing to add except denigrating a signature line. Methinks YOU are the troll here.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Rape is rape no matter the outside circumstances. You sound like Hillary condemning the women accusing Bill.

Naw, those women were all proven liars at the time. Then they dredged them up again 20 years later and we forgot they had all been proven as liars.

Paula Jones claimed that Clinton's dick had a "distinguishing characteristic". His medical records show otherwise. Paula Jones was a liar.

Juanita Brodderick signed two affidavits saying she never had sex with Clinton. Brodderick is a liar.

Kathleen Wiley claimed Clinton groped her... but then spent the next year sending letters to the White House begging for a job. Kathleen Wiley is a liar.

See how that works. You actually look at someone's story, and if you catch them LYING, then you call them liars.

Never called Monica Lewinsky a liar. She told a consistent story and had the cum-stained dress to prove it.

Now, on to the topic at hand...

A woman gets drunk at a bar, takes 5 shots AND some pills, and then she's complaining because she woke up at some dude's house and didn't know where she was?

Are we going to require men to give women field sobriety tests before they do the deed? I mean, that would be a mood killer.

You need a mirror badly. Her complaint was not that she did not know where she was. No one is really denying she was raped. The argument is state law makes rape legal in this instance.

Because I supported Sanders you are going to defend rape. Man, it doesn't get much worse than that.

She blacked out. How does she know she did not give consent?

If she can't remember anything, she was clearly too drunk to give consent.

As in any other area of the law, the consent was given when she consented to becoming voluntarily drunk.

No, it wasn't. Getting drunk is NOT consent to anything except being drunk.

Let me put it this way. Let's say my car runs out of gas some night, and I'm walking from my car to the gas station. Guy pulls up next to me and offers to drive me to the gas station. I agree and get into the car (something I would never actually do, just so you know). He turns out to be a serial killer, and instead of taking me to the gas station, he takes me to his house and kills me, then cuts me up and buries me under his garage.

Now, I very clearly made a bad choice that put me in a vulnerable position and led to my death. Did I consent to being killed and dismembered, though? Does it mean that Mr. Serial Killer did nothing wrong by killing me and dismembering me, because I "consented" to it by getting into his car, and by letting my own car get that low on gas in the first place?

Non Sequitur
Every one of you are flat out IGNORING the possibility she gave consent.
The core of your conviction is based 100% on no woman lies.
Also... that alcohol doesn't affect your judgement. Or ever prevents you from remembering exactly what happened at all times while you was drunk

No, I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying valid consent isn't possible in that condition.

Nor am I saying "no woman lies". Please indicate to me any place where I so much as implied it, or apologize for trying to force the argument on me that you WISH I was making, and delete it herewith from the conversation.

Far from saying alcohol doesn't affect your judgement, my point is that it DOES affect your judgement, and that much alcohol affects it beyond the point where you can give valid consent. And I am extremely skeptical that she could have had as much to drink as the story indicates, and that man NOT know she was too drunk to give consent.

She was voluntarily drunk. That was her consent. Had the guy gotten her drunk or slipped her drugs she would not be assumed to have consented.

This is what the judge ruled. The judge was correct.

I agree if he had slipped her drugs that would not have been consent for anything.

She was voluntarily drinking.....but that does not mean she consented to anything other than drinking.....however the state law that governs this case says if a woman is voluntarily drinking the guy cannot be charged with rape.....that does not mean she was not raped.....that means the man cannot be charged with rape....not rocket science but the dummies on here seem unable to wrap their feeble minds around it.

And again you should have no problem with my statements that a man who voluntarily gets so drunk as to not remember if he gave consent to be sodomized cannot accuse a woman or another man of rape

And again, you don't answer the question... Is it okay to convict a man of rape, sentence him to years in prison, when the woman cannot say if she gave him consent or not - when of course he says she did.?
Yes or no...try actually answering that. Yes or No?
You are willing to give the power to women to arbitrarily put any man in prison she wants. All she has to do is get drunk and have sex with him... and whalla - he is in jail for years.
You are providing Non Sequiturs and hyperbolic what if's.... I am asking a real, genuine question that happens on a regular basis.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

All those trying to argue the woman was raped are engaging in a useless argument....the state law on rape is the law and the law must be followed.

However it is legitmate to come on here and say it is a bad law for the following reasons etc.etc.etc.

 

[pknopp]

Rape is rape no matter the outside circumstances. You sound like Hillary condemning the women accusing Bill.

Naw, those women were all proven liars at the time. Then they dredged them up again 20 years later and we forgot they had all been proven as liars.

Paula Jones claimed that Clinton's dick had a "distinguishing characteristic". His medical records show otherwise. Paula Jones was a liar.

Juanita Brodderick signed two affidavits saying she never had sex with Clinton. Brodderick is a liar.

Kathleen Wiley claimed Clinton groped her... but then spent the next year sending letters to the White House begging for a job. Kathleen Wiley is a liar.

See how that works. You actually look at someone's story, and if you catch them LYING, then you call them liars.

Never called Monica Lewinsky a liar. She told a consistent story and had the cum-stained dress to prove it.

Now, on to the topic at hand...

A woman gets drunk at a bar, takes 5 shots AND some pills, and then she's complaining because she woke up at some dude's house and didn't know where she was?

Are we going to require men to give women field sobriety tests before they do the deed? I mean, that would be a mood killer.

You need a mirror badly. Her complaint was not that she did not know where she was. No one is really denying she was raped. The argument is state law makes rape legal in this instance.

Because I supported Sanders you are going to defend rape. Man, it doesn't get much worse than that.

She blacked out. How does she know she did not give consent?

If she can't remember anything, she was clearly too drunk to give consent.

As in any other area of the law, the consent was given when she consented to becoming voluntarily drunk.

No, it wasn't. Getting drunk is NOT consent to anything except being drunk.

Let me put it this way. Let's say my car runs out of gas some night, and I'm walking from my car to the gas station. Guy pulls up next to me and offers to drive me to the gas station. I agree and get into the car (something I would never actually do, just so you know). He turns out to be a serial killer, and instead of taking me to the gas station, he takes me to his house and kills me, then cuts me up and buries me under his garage.

Now, I very clearly made a bad choice that put me in a vulnerable position and led to my death. Did I consent to being killed and dismembered, though? Does it mean that Mr. Serial Killer did nothing wrong by killing me and dismembering me, because I "consented" to it by getting into his car, and by letting my own car get that low on gas in the first place?

Non Sequitur
Every one of you are flat out IGNORING the possibility she gave consent.
The core of your conviction is based 100% on no woman lies.
Also... that alcohol doesn't affect your judgement. Or ever prevents you from remembering exactly what happened at all times while you was drunk

There is a possibility that Elvis is still alive living on some remote island.

 

[Blues Man]

Rape is rape no matter the outside circumstances. You sound like Hillary condemning the women accusing Bill.

Naw, those women were all proven liars at the time. Then they dredged them up again 20 years later and we forgot they had all been proven as liars.

Paula Jones claimed that Clinton's dick had a "distinguishing characteristic". His medical records show otherwise. Paula Jones was a liar.

Juanita Brodderick signed two affidavits saying she never had sex with Clinton. Brodderick is a liar.

Kathleen Wiley claimed Clinton groped her... but then spent the next year sending letters to the White House begging for a job. Kathleen Wiley is a liar.

See how that works. You actually look at someone's story, and if you catch them LYING, then you call them liars.

Never called Monica Lewinsky a liar. She told a consistent story and had the cum-stained dress to prove it.

Now, on to the topic at hand...

A woman gets drunk at a bar, takes 5 shots AND some pills, and then she's complaining because she woke up at some dude's house and didn't know where she was?

Are we going to require men to give women field sobriety tests before they do the deed? I mean, that would be a mood killer.

You need a mirror badly. Her complaint was not that she did not know where she was. No one is really denying she was raped. The argument is state law makes rape legal in this instance.

Because I supported Sanders you are going to defend rape. Man, it doesn't get much worse than that.

She blacked out. How does she know she did not give consent?

If she can't remember anything, she was clearly too drunk to give consent.

As in any other area of the law, the consent was given when she consented to becoming voluntarily drunk.

No, it wasn't. Getting drunk is NOT consent to anything except being drunk.

Let me put it this way. Let's say my car runs out of gas some night, and I'm walking from my car to the gas station. Guy pulls up next to me and offers to drive me to the gas station. I agree and get into the car (something I would never actually do, just so you know). He turns out to be a serial killer, and instead of taking me to the gas station, he takes me to his house and kills me, then cuts me up and buries me under his garage.

Now, I very clearly made a bad choice that put me in a vulnerable position and led to my death. Did I consent to being killed and dismembered, though? Does it mean that Mr. Serial Killer did nothing wrong by killing me and dismembering me, because I "consented" to it by getting into his car, and by letting my own car get that low on gas in the first place?

Non Sequitur
Every one of you are flat out IGNORING the possibility she gave consent.
The core of your conviction is based 100% on no woman lies.
Also... that alcohol doesn't affect your judgement. Or ever prevents you from remembering exactly what happened at all times while you was drunk

No, I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying valid consent isn't possible in that condition.

Nor am I saying "no woman lies". Please indicate to me any place where I so much as implied it, or apologize for trying to force the argument on me that you WISH I was making, and delete it herewith from the conversation.

Far from saying alcohol doesn't affect your judgement, my point is that it DOES affect your judgement, and that much alcohol affects it beyond the point where you can give valid consent. And I am extremely skeptical that she could have had as much to drink as the story indicates, and that man NOT know she was too drunk to give consent.

She was voluntarily drunk. That was her consent. Had the guy gotten her drunk or slipped her drugs she would not be assumed to have consented.

This is what the judge ruled. The judge was correct.

I agree if he had slipped her drugs that would not have been consent for anything.

She was voluntarily drinking.....but that does not mean she consented to anything other than drinking.....however the state law that governs this case says if a woman is voluntarily drinking the guy cannot be charged with rape.....that does not mean she was not raped.....that means the man cannot be charged with rape....not rocket science but the dummies on here seem unable to wrap their feeble minds around it.

And again you should have no problem with my statements that a man who voluntarily gets so drunk as to not remember if he gave consent to be sodomized cannot accuse a woman or another man of rape

And again, you don't answer the question... Is it okay to convict a man of rape, sentence him to years in prison, when the woman cannot say if she gave him consent or not - when of course he says she did.?
Yes or no...try actually answering that. Yes or No?
You are willing to give the power to women to arbitrarily put any man in prison she wants. All she has to do is get drunk and have sex with him... and whalla - he is in jail for years.
You are providing Non Sequiturs and hyperbolic what if's.... I am asking a real, genuine question that happens on a regular basis.

My point is equal treatment under the law.

Or do you think drunk men have a more valid rape claim than drunk women?

You seem to think there is a difference between homosexual rape and heterosexual rape.

And personally I think if a man is stupid enough to put himself in a position where he can be accused of rape then it's his own fault.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Any man that would take advantage of an unconscious woman is a scoundrel and a cad. Neither of which is illegal.