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

[pknopp]

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

Except it is in most places.

 

[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.

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.

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

bwaaaaaaa are you really that stupid? If you want to know what the law is go to a legal dictionary dummie. hehheh

 

[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.

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.

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

bwaaaaaaa are you really that stupid? If you want to know what the law is go to a legal dictionary dummie. hehheh

Try blacks legal dictionary...if they have a online edition?

 

[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.

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

bwaaaaaaa are you really that stupid? If you want to know what the law is go to a legal dictionary dummie. hehheh

And yet you won't tell me the difference between homosexual and heterosexual rape.

Since you're the legal expert here after all.

An Updated Definition of Rape

www.justice.gov

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

so maybe now you will admit there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual rape and you can answer my question

 

[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.

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.

First of all no one on here as far as I know has said there is a difference between homosexual rape and heterosexual rape.

Why are you so reluctant to research what the law on homosexual rape is in the state under question?

If you were really interested in equal treatment under the law then you would look up the law on homosexual rape in that state and compare it with the law on heterosexual rape in that state.

Also....I am sure there is more law on heterosexual rape in that state than has been presented here.....all that has been presented here is that under that states law is that a man cannot be charged with rape if the woman in the case had been voluntarily drinking

 

[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.

First of all no one on here as far as I know has said there is a difference between homosexual rape and heterosexual rape.

Why are you so reluctant to research what the law on homosexual rape is in the state under question?

If you were really interested in equal treatment under the law then you would look up the law on homosexual rape in that state and compare it with the law on heterosexual rape in that state.

Also....I am sure there is more law on heterosexual rape in that state than has been presented here.....all that has been presented here is that under that states law is that a man cannot be charged with rape if the woman in the case had been voluntarily drinking

So you didn't make a distinction between homosexual and heterosexual rape when you said and I quote

I do not know what the law on homosexual rape is in that state. ?

Rape is rape no matter who the perpetrator or the victim is.

 

[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.

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.

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

bwaaaaaaa are you really that stupid? If you want to know what the law is go to a legal dictionary dummie. hehheh

And yet you won't tell me the difference between homosexual and heterosexual rape.

Since you're the legal expert here after all.

An Updated Definition of Rape

www.justice.gov

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

so maybe now you will admit there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual rape and you can answer my question

How many times has it been pointed out that different states have different laws...I did not say there was any difference between heterosexual rape and homosexual rape.....what I said was I think the laws are different regarding heterosexual rape and homosexual rape.

Again....different states have different laws....if you want to know whether the laws on hetero or homosexual rape are the same or are different then you need to find out what the law actually is in that particular state.

 

[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.

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

bwaaaaaaa are you really that stupid? If you want to know what the law is go to a legal dictionary dummie. hehheh

And yet you won't tell me the difference between homosexual and heterosexual rape.

Since you're the legal expert here after all.

An Updated Definition of Rape

www.justice.gov

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

so maybe now you will admit there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual rape and you can answer my question

How many times has it been pointed out that different states have different laws...I did not say there was any difference between heterosexual rape and homosexual rape.....what I said was I think the laws are different regarding heterosexual rape and homosexual rape.

Again....different states have different laws....if you want to know whether the laws on hetero or homosexual rape are the same or are different then you need to find out what the law actually is in that particular state.

So you just assume there was a difference?

there isn't

Minnesota Rape and Sexual Assault Laws

An overview of Minnesota's rape and sexual assault laws, including penalties.

statelaws.findlaw.com

 

[ESay]

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.

What I wanted to say I already said above. And I dont understand what is unclear there.

A man and a woman are sitting in the bar having some drinks. After a while, the man invites the woman to his home to watch some funny movies and she agrees. After getting to his home, they have some more drinks and sleep with each other.

The next day, the woman says she didn't give a consent for sex and that he raped her. The man says everything happened on mutual consent.

The judge decides in the woman's favor because in such cases the word of women tends to value more than the man's. And the man is being sent to jail only because of the woman's words.

This is wrong. The women's claims shouldn't outweigh the men's claims just because they are women. That is discrimination based on a biological sex and thus is unfair.

I hope I made my point more or less clear, even for you.

 

[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.

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.

First of all no one on here as far as I know has said there is a difference between homosexual rape and heterosexual rape.

Why are you so reluctant to research what the law on homosexual rape is in the state under question?

If you were really interested in equal treatment under the law then you would look up the law on homosexual rape in that state and compare it with the law on heterosexual rape in that state.

Also....I am sure there is more law on heterosexual rape in that state than has been presented here.....all that has been presented here is that under that states law is that a man cannot be charged with rape if the woman in the case had been voluntarily drinking

So you didn't make a distinction between homosexual and heterosexual rape when you said and I quote

I do not know what the law on homosexual rape is in that state. ?

Rape is rape no matter who the perpetrator or the victim is.

Again...just depends on which state you are talking about.....in the state under question....in this discussion no man can be charged with rape if the woman in the case had been voluntarily drinking prior to the incident.

So either look up the law or quit spamming the board with irrelevant comments.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

What I wanted to say I already said above. And I dont understand what is unclear there.

A man and a woman are sitting in the bar having some drinks. After a while, the man invites the woman to his home to watch some funny movies and she agrees. After getting to his home, they have some more drinks and sleep with each other.

The next day, the woman says she didn't give a consent for sex and that he raped her. The man says everything happened on mutual consent.

The judge decides in the woman's favor because in such cases the word of women tends to value more than the man's. And the man is being sent to jail only because of the woman's words.

This is wrong. The women's claims shouldn't outweigh the men's claims just because they are women. That is discrimination based on a biological sex and thus is unfair.

I hope I made my point more or less clear, even for you.

The only thing that matters is what you can prove in court.

Our justice system has never been about the truth or right and wrong

 

[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.

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.

First of all no one on here as far as I know has said there is a difference between homosexual rape and heterosexual rape.

Why are you so reluctant to research what the law on homosexual rape is in the state under question?

If you were really interested in equal treatment under the law then you would look up the law on homosexual rape in that state and compare it with the law on heterosexual rape in that state.

Also....I am sure there is more law on heterosexual rape in that state than has been presented here.....all that has been presented here is that under that states law is that a man cannot be charged with rape if the woman in the case had been voluntarily drinking

So you didn't make a distinction between homosexual and heterosexual rape when you said and I quote

I do not know what the law on homosexual rape is in that state. ?

Rape is rape no matter who the perpetrator or the victim is.

Unless the law on homosexual rape is presented....none of us discussing this topic will know if there is a difference under the law 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

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.

First of all no one on here as far as I know has said there is a difference between homosexual rape and heterosexual rape.

Why are you so reluctant to research what the law on homosexual rape is in the state under question?

If you were really interested in equal treatment under the law then you would look up the law on homosexual rape in that state and compare it with the law on heterosexual rape in that state.

Also....I am sure there is more law on heterosexual rape in that state than has been presented here.....all that has been presented here is that under that states law is that a man cannot be charged with rape if the woman in the case had been voluntarily drinking

So you didn't make a distinction between homosexual and heterosexual rape when you said and I quote

I do not know what the law on homosexual rape is in that state. ?

Rape is rape no matter who the perpetrator or the victim is.

Unless the law on homosexual rape is presented....none of us discussing this topic will know if there is a difference under the law or not.

There isn't in MN or the definition of rape would be different

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

What I wanted to say I already said above. And I dont understand what is unclear there.

A man and a woman are sitting in the bar having some drinks. After a while, the man invites the woman to his home to watch some funny movies and she agrees. After getting to his home, they have some more drinks and sleep with each other.

The next day, the woman says she didn't give a consent for sex and that he raped her. The man says everything happened on mutual consent.

The judge decides in the woman's favor because in such cases the word of women tends to value more than the man's. And the man is being sent to jail only because of the woman's words.

This is wrong. The women's claims shouldn't outweigh the men's claims just because they are women. That is discrimination based on a biological sex and thus is unfair.

I hope I made my point more or less clear, even for you.

The only thing that matters is what you can prove in court.

Our justice system has never been about the truth or right and wrong

Well....I would disagree with the last part....but of course what you can prove in court is very important.....but unfortunately many things have been proven in court but some juries simply go against what was actually and logically proven due to many factors one of which would be bias aka dislike of the defendant etc. Juries can be very cantankerous and lots of stupid jurors despite efforts by lawyers to weed them out...Anyhow no system of justice on this earth is perfect...but if ever charged with any crime I would still prefer the jury system to any other.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

What I wanted to say I already said above. And I dont understand what is unclear there.

A man and a woman are sitting in the bar having some drinks. After a while, the man invites the woman to his home to watch some funny movies and she agrees. After getting to his home, they have some more drinks and sleep with each other.

The next day, the woman says she didn't give a consent for sex and that he raped her. The man says everything happened on mutual consent.

The judge decides in the woman's favor because in such cases the word of women tends to value more than the man's. And the man is being sent to jail only because of the woman's words.

This is wrong. The women's claims shouldn't outweigh the men's claims just because they are women. That is discrimination based on a biological sex and thus is unfair.

I hope I made my point more or less clear, even for you.

The only thing that matters is what you can prove in court.

Our justice system has never been about the truth or right and wrong

Well....I would disagree with the last part....but of course what you can prove in court is very important.....but unfortunately many things have been proven in court but some juries simply go against what was actually and logically proven due to many factors one of which would be bias aka dislike of the defendant etc. Juries can be very cantankerous and lots of stupid jurors despite efforts by lawyers to weed them out...Anyhow no system of justice on this earth is perfect...but if ever charged with any crime I would still prefer the jury system to any other.

like I said our justice system isn't about the truth or right and wrong

 

[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.

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.

First of all no one on here as far as I know has said there is a difference between homosexual rape and heterosexual rape.

Why are you so reluctant to research what the law on homosexual rape is in the state under question?

If you were really interested in equal treatment under the law then you would look up the law on homosexual rape in that state and compare it with the law on heterosexual rape in that state.

Also....I am sure there is more law on heterosexual rape in that state than has been presented here.....all that has been presented here is that under that states law is that a man cannot be charged with rape if the woman in the case had been voluntarily drinking

So you didn't make a distinction between homosexual and heterosexual rape when you said and I quote

I do not know what the law on homosexual rape is in that state. ?

Rape is rape no matter who the perpetrator or the victim is.

Unless the law on homosexual rape is presented....none of us discussing this topic will know if there is a difference under the law or not.

There isn't in MN or the definition of rape would be different

I have yet to see the definition of rape in that state.

All we have seen is that in that state a man cannot be charged with rape if the woman has been voluntarily drinking before the incident.

Since you seem to know something about MN then can you tell us under what grounds a man can be charged with rape in that state?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

What I wanted to say I already said above. And I dont understand what is unclear there.

A man and a woman are sitting in the bar having some drinks. After a while, the man invites the woman to his home to watch some funny movies and she agrees. After getting to his home, they have some more drinks and sleep with each other.

The next day, the woman says she didn't give a consent for sex and that he raped her. The man says everything happened on mutual consent.

The judge decides in the woman's favor because in such cases the word of women tends to value more than the man's. And the man is being sent to jail only because of the woman's words.

This is wrong. The women's claims shouldn't outweigh the men's claims just because they are women. That is discrimination based on a biological sex and thus is unfair.

I hope I made my point more or less clear, even for you.

The only thing that matters is what you can prove in court.

Our justice system has never been about the truth or right and wrong

Well....I would disagree with the last part....but of course what you can prove in court is very important.....but unfortunately many things have been proven in court but some juries simply go against what was actually and logically proven due to many factors one of which would be bias aka dislike of the defendant etc. Juries can be very cantankerous and lots of stupid jurors despite efforts by lawyers to weed them out...Anyhow no system of justice on this earth is perfect...but if ever charged with any crime I would still prefer the jury system to any other.

like I said our justice system isn't about the truth or right and wrong

and of course you are entitled to your opinion recognizing of course that opinions are like assholes....everyone has one.

 

[ClaireH]

, member: 53993"]

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

Have you ever had sex with a drunk woman?
[/QUOTE]

Passed out? No.
[/QUOTE]


I asked a simple question, based on the example given. You dodged. We both know why.;


So, me too, by the way. Several times.


So, we both have done what this supposed "rapist" did. Indeed, I suspect that well over 90% of men have.


The current state of the law, that a man and a woman can get drunk together, have consensual sex and the man is at risk for being arrested for rape, if the woman chooses to press charges,


is unjust.


It NEEDS to be changed.


So this law say it is rape, but legal? An odd work around, but a possible answer.


If you disagree, do you plan to turn yourself in to the police?
[/QUOTE]

I said no, and you took it as a yes. No, I have not done what this person did. She didn't claim it as rape because she was drunk. She claimed it because she was passed out.
[/QUOTE]

Did she black out and not remember giving consent? Or was she unconscious?

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?

Oh, blacked out eh? Boy, that sounds like everyman's dream encounter...A lifeless woman, passed out on the bed....NOT....Look, I've been reading through this, and can't beleve it, but so far I am with Pknopp on this....Men have the responsibility to take care in terms of taking advantage of the women in question, to not only protect themselves from accusation, but making sure that is what the woman wants to partake in....

We've all made decisions when we were young, that we look back on today and regret. Is it rape? Maybe, maybe not, but like I did when I was raising my kids, was to impress that the act of sex was something special, and shouldn't be entered into lightly...It can turn into a path that may not be what was desired...

Now, in this day and age with contraceptive abortion at will being in the mix, I think it has developed into situations like these....Is the MN law insane? I think so....But, we only have ourselves to blame....

THe terminology in the article is unclear about what actually happened. Was she unconscious or was she just not remembering what happened.

"taking advantage of"? That is some old fashioned terminology there. Is it really applicable today?


Have you ever had sex with a drunk woman?

Oh, I think we can imagine what happened....She was drunk, and went with the guy on promise of attending a party. When they got to the destination, there was no party, just the guy's pad, and an end goal. She may not be remembering the details of every aspect, but that what I mean when I say at that point it is up to the guy to do the right thing and NOT take advantage of the situation...HE made the choice...

And, YES "taking advantage" is applicable, because that is IMHO, what went on....Think about it...Is having sex so important to you that you'd do the deed on a passed out, lifeless woman? Save yourself the trouble and visit Rosey....

Have I? sure when I was younger...But that was a different time....And you know what? It was always more satisfying when my partner was into it....I didn't have to get some woman knock out drunk to have sex...Maybe you do....

IMO, the dividing line should be, are we talking drunk and not remembering or passed out?

The law as it stands, right now, is that a man and a woman get drunk together and have consensual sex, the woman can after the fact decide it was rape, adn the man goes to prison.


That is an injustice.


If that is what happened here, the man is, imo, innocent of any wrong doing.

It was in the opening of the article in the OP....

" After a 20-year-old woman took five shots of vodka and a prescription pill, she said she was standing outside a Minneapolis bar in May 2017 when a man invited her and a friend to a party. She agreed but soon found out there was no gathering, she later testified."

Now, not withstanding that the girl was drinking underage, she did 5 shots of vodka, and took a prescription pill, now what was that pill? Because depending on the drug, on top of a fair amount of liquor, in a short amout of time, I would say she passed out....And clearly they didn't "get drunk together", as the article points out she was standing outside the bar, and this guy showed up to invite her to a party.....All kinds of red flags there....

IF the woman lost consciousness and the man had sex with her without her consent, that would be rape.

Again, let's go to the article;

" She “blacked out” instead, waking up on a couch and found that the man she had just met was allegedly sexually assaulting her, according to court records. "

So, I think it is pretty clear that she didn't have the capacity to consent to sex....

The article is unclear what actually happened in this case.

I disagree, the opening paragraphs outline a man that saw an easy mark at the bar, and took advantage of the situation....

The law being used, was obviously written to deal with the injustice of the first scenario.


If fit is being applied in the second, then it was poorly written and is being misused.

I think the acceptable socitial norms at this point are pretty clear....The woman in that situation is in charge of whether or not to have sex. If she lacked the capacity to consent, or was passed out, or "blacked out" she lacked that capacity....Therefore, the guy took advantage, and it was rape....The lower courts agreed, and only the Supreme Court didn't taking the law as written....The law is ridiculous, and needs to be redone....

So the way this reads is she blacked out before passing out, and as her friend gave witness to the fact that she fell asleep on the couch and if this witness was deemed credible. Go figure- 4 shots along with a drug. She was lucky to be alive the next day in some areas. I’ve been to a few bars where I’ve noticed how there were women getting loud drinking too much and the types of men they would attract. Good guys and guys with bad motives who look for those types of easy opportunities. Sorry to break it to you some of you who have said you were former rapists on here but those are not the good guys those are predators.

 

[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.

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.

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

bwaaaaaaa are you really that stupid? If you want to know what the law is go to a legal dictionary dummie. hehheh

And yet you won't tell me the difference between homosexual and heterosexual rape.

Since you're the legal expert here after all.

An Updated Definition of Rape

www.justice.gov

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

so maybe now you will admit there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual rape and you can answer my question

How many times has it been pointed out that different states have different laws...I did not say there was any difference between heterosexual rape and homosexual rape.....what I said was I think the laws are different regarding heterosexual rape and homosexual rape.

Again....different states have different laws....if you want to know whether the laws on hetero or homosexual rape are the same or are different then you need to find out what the law actually is in that particular state.

So you just assume there was a difference?

there isn't

Minnesota Rape and Sexual Assault Laws

An overview of Minnesota's rape and sexual assault laws, including penalties.

statelaws.findlaw.com

We are supposed to take your word for this?

Anyhow since you want to make yourself the authority on homosexual rape vs. heterosexual rape....where do the laws against sodomy come into play ?.....as in if a man rapes a man is that just prosecuted under the sodomy laws.

Can you in fact cite any case in Minnesota of a man being charged with the rape of another man?

You will find men charged with sodomizing other men ....historically speaking the rape of one man by another was not called rape....it was called sodomizing another man....thus if you want to see the difference between the rape of a woman and the sodomizing of a man under the law...I think you will find the rape of a woman by a man being a much more serious charge as in even the death penalty.....whereas many cases of sodomy were just dismissed as misdemeanors.

I

 

[TheGreenHornet]

, member: 53993"]

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

Have you ever had sex with a drunk woman?

Passed out? No.
[/QUOTE]


I asked a simple question, based on the example given. You dodged. We both know why.;


So, me too, by the way. Several times.


So, we both have done what this supposed "rapist" did. Indeed, I suspect that well over 90% of men have.


The current state of the law, that a man and a woman can get drunk together, have consensual sex and the man is at risk for being arrested for rape, if the woman chooses to press charges,


is unjust.


It NEEDS to be changed.


So this law say it is rape, but legal? An odd work around, but a possible answer.


If you disagree, do you plan to turn yourself in to the police?
[/QUOTE]

I said no, and you took it as a yes. No, I have not done what this person did. She didn't claim it as rape because she was drunk. She claimed it because she was passed out.
[/QUOTE]

Did she black out and not remember giving consent? Or was she unconscious?

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?

Oh, blacked out eh? Boy, that sounds like everyman's dream encounter...A lifeless woman, passed out on the bed....NOT....Look, I've been reading through this, and can't beleve it, but so far I am with Pknopp on this....Men have the responsibility to take care in terms of taking advantage of the women in question, to not only protect themselves from accusation, but making sure that is what the woman wants to partake in....

We've all made decisions when we were young, that we look back on today and regret. Is it rape? Maybe, maybe not, but like I did when I was raising my kids, was to impress that the act of sex was something special, and shouldn't be entered into lightly...It can turn into a path that may not be what was desired...

Now, in this day and age with contraceptive abortion at will being in the mix, I think it has developed into situations like these....Is the MN law insane? I think so....But, we only have ourselves to blame....

THe terminology in the article is unclear about what actually happened. Was she unconscious or was she just not remembering what happened.

"taking advantage of"? That is some old fashioned terminology there. Is it really applicable today?


Have you ever had sex with a drunk woman?

Oh, I think we can imagine what happened....She was drunk, and went with the guy on promise of attending a party. When they got to the destination, there was no party, just the guy's pad, and an end goal. She may not be remembering the details of every aspect, but that what I mean when I say at that point it is up to the guy to do the right thing and NOT take advantage of the situation...HE made the choice...

And, YES "taking advantage" is applicable, because that is IMHO, what went on....Think about it...Is having sex so important to you that you'd do the deed on a passed out, lifeless woman? Save yourself the trouble and visit Rosey....

Have I? sure when I was younger...But that was a different time....And you know what? It was always more satisfying when my partner was into it....I didn't have to get some woman knock out drunk to have sex...Maybe you do....

IMO, the dividing line should be, are we talking drunk and not remembering or passed out?

The law as it stands, right now, is that a man and a woman get drunk together and have consensual sex, the woman can after the fact decide it was rape, adn the man goes to prison.


That is an injustice.


If that is what happened here, the man is, imo, innocent of any wrong doing.

It was in the opening of the article in the OP....

" After a 20-year-old woman took five shots of vodka and a prescription pill, she said she was standing outside a Minneapolis bar in May 2017 when a man invited her and a friend to a party. She agreed but soon found out there was no gathering, she later testified."

Now, not withstanding that the girl was drinking underage, she did 5 shots of vodka, and took a prescription pill, now what was that pill? Because depending on the drug, on top of a fair amount of liquor, in a short amout of time, I would say she passed out....And clearly they didn't "get drunk together", as the article points out she was standing outside the bar, and this guy showed up to invite her to a party.....All kinds of red flags there....

IF the woman lost consciousness and the man had sex with her without her consent, that would be rape.

Again, let's go to the article;

" She “blacked out” instead, waking up on a couch and found that the man she had just met was allegedly sexually assaulting her, according to court records. "

So, I think it is pretty clear that she didn't have the capacity to consent to sex....

The article is unclear what actually happened in this case.

I disagree, the opening paragraphs outline a man that saw an easy mark at the bar, and took advantage of the situation....

The law being used, was obviously written to deal with the injustice of the first scenario.


If fit is being applied in the second, then it was poorly written and is being misused.

I think the acceptable socitial norms at this point are pretty clear....The woman in that situation is in charge of whether or not to have sex. If she lacked the capacity to consent, or was passed out, or "blacked out" she lacked that capacity....Therefore, the guy took advantage, and it was rape....The lower courts agreed, and only the Supreme Court didn't taking the law as written....The law is ridiculous, and needs to be redone....

So the way this reads is she blacked out before passing out, and as her friend gave witness to the fact that she fell asleep on the couch and if this witness was deemed credible. Go figure- 4 shots along with a drug. She was lucky to be alive the next day in some areas. I’ve been to a few bars where I’ve noticed how there were women getting loud drinking too much and the types of men they would attract. Good guys and guys with bad motives who look for those types of easy opportunities. Sorry to break it to you some of you who have said you were former rapists on here but those are not the good guys those are predators.
[/QUOTE]