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

[JoeB131]

Well, sorry Joe, I just can’t agree with that.

You don't have to agree with it.. The law is what the law is. If you don't like it, lobby for another law. But just beware of unintended consequences when someone falsely accused you.

Either partner can at any time leading up to and during the act state that they want to stop. If the other partner does not honor that statement, it's assault and rape. That's the law. We know you don't like women very much, but in this case it's pretty clear, she can blow the whistle ending the game at any time she wants. Same for him. It doesn't matter if she agreed to go into a bedroom with him, or if he took her to a movie and bought her dinner. She doesn't owe him sex and he doesn't owe it to her. I notice that you don't don't say it's "Kind of her own damned fault" if she gets pregnant from having sex and wants to kill the baby.

I 100% support her right to end a pregnancy if she wants to. I 100% support her keeping the pregnancy if she wants to.

Of course, there's no evidence that she asked him to stop... He friend was in the room with her and said that she saw them fall asleep together on the same couch.

The law is very clear in this case. If you get yourself drunk, you can't claim rape when you sober up the next morning.

 

[Leo123]

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

Actually having sexual intercourse with an unconsious person is rape according to Merriam Webster:


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, unconsciousness, or deception"

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

 

[Grumblenuts]

The law is very clear in this case.

The OP link made clear that aspects of the law in this case have long been recognized as outdated so are currently undergoing a serious review process to make it much harder for such perps to simply walk away Scott-free or with a minor misdemeanor. To ignore all that in this supposed political forum "discussion" is simply being an ass. Blues Man has provided a nice link summarizing all the pertinent existing law GH could possibly desire, yet he drones on like a true psychopath. Anyone already here can certainly read law and expert interpretation thereof. Lawyers, legislators, and jurors have to. Here we get to discuss a far more important thing. What makes sense and should be. Sorry if that deflates some people's misguided dinghies, but it is and shall always remain what's actually interesting. The rest is tedious dreck by comparison.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Of course, there's no evidence that she asked him to stop...

Her own testimony is not "evidence"?

 

[hadit]

Well, sorry Joe, I just can’t agree with that.

You don't have to agree with it.. The law is what the law is. If you don't like it, lobby for another law. But just beware of unintended consequences when someone falsely accused you.

Either partner can at any time leading up to and during the act state that they want to stop. If the other partner does not honor that statement, it's assault and rape. That's the law. We know you don't like women very much, but in this case it's pretty clear, she can blow the whistle ending the game at any time she wants. Same for him. It doesn't matter if she agreed to go into a bedroom with him, or if he took her to a movie and bought her dinner. She doesn't owe him sex and he doesn't owe it to her. I notice that you don't don't say it's "Kind of her own damned fault" if she gets pregnant from having sex and wants to kill the baby.

I 100% support her right to end a pregnancy if she wants to. I 100% support her keeping the pregnancy if she wants to.

Of course, there's no evidence that she asked him to stop... He friend was in the room with her and said that she saw them fall asleep together on the same couch.

The law is very clear in this case. If you get yourself drunk, you can't claim rape when you sober up the next morning.

But is it "Kind of her own damned fault" if she gets pregnant from having sex?

 

[JoeB131]

OK so, the guy's name is Khalil. A Muslim name. In that religion women are often abused as a matter of course and even have their genitals mangled so they don't enjoy sex. A falling-down drunk woman would be perfect for such a guy.

His first name was François, which is a French name.. Maybe he's just use to horny drunk women.

 

[JoeB131]

But is it "Kind of her own damned fault" if she gets pregnant from having sex?

Uh, yeah, it's usually your own fault when you get pregnant, especially when you get falling down drunk and go home with a complete stranger.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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

Actually having sexual intercourse with an unconsious person is rape according to Merriam Webster:


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, unconsciousness, or deception"

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

Lookie here chump....what determines what is rape and what is not is determined by the law......not by a dictionary, not by what some believe or do not believe but by the law.

Each state determines what is rape in that state....whether or not it conforms to the latest politically correct bullshit is irrelevant.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Of course, there's no evidence that she asked him to stop...

Her own testimony is not "evidence"?

Of course it is 'evidence' as well as what the accused has to say.

Evidence is simply things that are presented to a jury....and the jury decides whether or not they believe it.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

The law is very clear in this case.

The OP link made clear that aspects of the law in this case have long been recognized as outdated so are currently undergoing a serious review process to make it much harder for such perps to simply walk away Scott-free or with a minor misdemeanor. To ignore all that in this supposed political forum "discussion" is simply being an ass. Blues Man has provided a nice link summarizing all the pertinent existing law GH could possibly desire, yet he drones on like a true psychopath. Anyone already here can certainly read law and expert interpretation thereof. Lawyers, legislators, and jurors have to. Here we get to discuss a far more important thing. What makes sense and should be. Sorry if that deflates some people's misguided dinghies, but it is and shall always remain what's actually interesting. The rest is tedious dreck by comparison.

First of all the op misstated the law and thus destroyed any credibility he might have had....anyone that cannot understand that very simple law is severely lacking in mental acuity.

 

[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.

Excellent

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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

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

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

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

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

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

.


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

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

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

What Science Says About Arousal During Rape

Yes, orgasms can happen to rape victims.

www.popsci.com

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

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

First of all it is well known that women perhaps not all.......have very intense orgasms during rape and statistics show that women are more likely to get pregnant from a rape than from normal intercourse.....all you have to do is google it....very well documented.

How do you know that no woman wants to be raped? If they fantasize about it...they must at some level want it.....and the way so many of them put themselves into situations where getting raped is a very real possibility like this woman in minnosata did and it is not a uncommon thing....which indicates they are either just stupid or have no concern about getting raped or perhaps subconsciously they want to get raped.

In some cultures rape is just considered part of courtship.

Bottom line .....life is not like Mr. Rogers neighborhood.....human beings are flawed.....strong sexual desires cause problems....like the old master Sgt. said.....a hard dick aint got no conscience.

Anyhow there is rape and there is brutal animalistic rape where the rapist will beat up and perhaps even torture his victim....all those who want to change the law should take that into consideration....all rape is not the same.

Not even to mention women lie ...perhaps not all women, perhaps not all the time but it is undeniable some women claim they were raped when they were not, that there are men in jail right now as we speak who were sentenced to many years in jail because some woman lied. That is reality my friend.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Definition of psychopath

: a mentally unstable person especially : a person having an egocentric and antisocial personality marked by a lack of remorse for one's actions, an absence of empathy for others, and often criminal tendencies

 

[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 equal treatment under law is an ideal that rarely happens because of several factors.....the ability or lack of ability to hire a good lawyer, getting an intelligent and fair jury or unfortunately getting a stupid biased jury, having a prosecutor that is very able versus a prosecutor who is inept......all factors that insure equal treatment under law remains elusive if not impossible but it is a worthy goal.

If you research it you will find that homosexual rape.....is a term that was not used historically....a man raping another man was referred to as sodomizing another man....and the punishment for that was often no more than a misdemeanor.....the rape of women has always been a very serious offense....but now that the homosexual crowd has accumulated political power things are changing.

Have you ever even known of a case in modern times where a man was taken to trial for raping another man....I am sure it must happen but I think also it must be rare and even today I wonder whether it still falls under the anti-sodomy laws?

Anyhow I do not claim to be that knowledgable on the subject matter....and I am really not interested in it...but if someone is then they should research it and enlighten this board on the matter.

As far as putting oneself into a situation where he may be accused of rape....that is more easily done than perhaps you realize....if you pick up the wrong woman it could easily happen.

Lots of guys are always on the prowl for pussy and many will pickup whatever is available...now of course that is not wise and you may be right they deserve what they get...However.....I disagree with that---I do not think any man deserves to go to jail just because of what some woman claims....yet it happens.

This law in Minnesota under discussion is a good law designed to protect innocent men.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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

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

Your title is in error....all the minnesota law you refer to says is that if a woman is willingly drinking before the incident the man cannot be charged with rape....big difference in that and saying rape is not rape.

Key woids........'cannot be charged with rape'......now I have seen a lot of talk about how what happened was rape....and even I would not claim it was not rape ....it may have been or it may not have been.....I have seen no conclusive evidence that it was however.

My point though is this.......there needs to be some discussion on why that law was passed...what motivated it.

I think because there was a history of women getting drunk....passing out etc. having no clear memory of what happened yet screaming rape becuse something pissed her off.

In other words drunk irrational women were getting innocent men sent to jail.

Thus I say as I said before....I think it is a good law.

 

[ClaireH]

GH: "First of all it is well known that women perhaps not all.......have very intense orgasms during rape and statistics show that women are more likely to get pregnant from a rape than from normal intercourse.....all you havto do is google it....very well documented ....

Response: post your valid links. I found pop psych articles and the only valid study I found that stated that the orgasm was NOT due to act of being raped but was due to the female resisting the rape and the physical consequence she herself had on the g-spot. It is nothing that many women can't do while alone...but if you know as much as you claim with the your knowledge on these studies you would know that. There were other reasons given on those psy pop culture studies, like the woman who said she forced herself to check out mentally during the rape because there was no option to attack, but with resisting her body physically reacted as it would from basic stimulation. You do know that for many women, all it takes is a rush of water right...without any type of sex going on whatsoever.

From your words, I suspect you've raped women who were passed out drunk. As you said, the ol general...... Right. You have an issue with women...did it start as a boy or did you acquire the hate over time? As emotional states repeat over and over it heightens that said emotion.....perhaps rejection by a few good looking women while out and about over the years did it to you? This is the typical reaction for men who develop an inner hatred about women. Your words....my, my my. You should have joined the Women Haters Club with Spankey! Hating all women would indeed lead to a most lonely life unless you are gay. I understand more and I am sorry about telling you to "read up"...I have little doubt that was exactly what you expected from one of us sneaky, untrustworthy types....all women lol

How do you know that no woman wants to be raped? I never claimed that, I said no sensible women wants to actually be raped. Again, the vast difference between what a person fantazies about is not the same as wanting the scenario in real life to play out. There are many things people, men and women, entertain in their minds and have no desire to go set themselves up for it to actually happen.

Now this is a most telling part...on your part: If they fantasize about it...they must at some level want it.....and the way so many of them put themselves into situations where getting raped is a very real possibility like this woman in minnosata did and it is not a uncommon thing....which indicates they are either just stupid or have no concern about getting raped or perhaps subconsciously they want to get raped.
Whoa. Nowadays, sexual crimes committed decades ago are being uncovered due to the 23 & Me (about 30 million who taken the DNA test). That should make you take pause with your posturing if you've committed a sexual crime in your past that hasn't bit you yet. No women, even drunk women, deserve to be raped. You can keep your misogynstic views and share them with your fellow rapists down at your local tavern.

In some cultures rape is just considered part of courtship. That is the only part of your info that's actually informative, but considering everything else you've written, I will make sure this is from a valid source. I can believe it considering the tribalism is alive and well in various parts of the globe.

Bottom line .....life is not like Mr. Rogers neighborhood.....human beings are flawed.....strong sexual desires cause problems....like the old master Sgt. said.....a hard dick aint got no conscience. Regardless of our human flaws and frailities, rape is a choice...always by the perp, even a drunk perp with a passed out date he barely knows and takes advantage of the situation. Only losers do this bub, and there are many unfortunately who've raped before without consequence and will do it again.

I want to add that when a women claims a man raped her when she knows he didn't, and only wants to ruin him (as we've seen over the years with a few well known people) is a lowly person without conscience. Pretty much how I view a man who chooses to have sex with a woman he picked up when she is passed out drunk. Plain wrong.

Anyhow there is rape and there is brutal animalistic rape where the rapist will beat up and perhaps even torture his victim....all those who want to change the law should take that into consideration....all rape is not the same. Of course there are legal distinctions with severity of rape, planned rape, gang bang etc. Do you consider it just "being a male" to participate in a gang bang? From the gist of it I'm thinking you do or you think it's male bonding. omg. I can only judge you, as I am for sure here, by what your posts contain. At this point, I was right to assume things that I did.

Last...but not least....we have the real issue...the bottom line for you. In your mind, you view women as...hold on, how rude of me to put words in your mouth, as you stated "Not even to mention women lie ...perhaps not all women, perhaps not all the time but it is undeniable some women claim they were raped when they were not, that there are men in jail right now as we speak who were sentenced to many years in jail because some woman lied.

The highlighted words attracted my attention...you imply more than you've written "my friend". You've justified your actions because you think women are deceptive by nature, by sexual design perhaps. Honestly, to lose my anger over your comments for a minute and look objectively at your words....you are a man who possibly feels inferior. Why that is of course I have no clue. You blame women. Maybe a domineering mom, ex-wife if you had one...hard to know. Something created your anomosity.

That is reality my friend.
[/QUOTE]

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, on to the topic at hand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Yes I noted you still won't answer the question

 

[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.

Yes I noted you still won't answer the question

I just want to make sure the morons here who say that it's OK to rape a drunk woman think it's OK for a drunk man to get raped.

I abhor double standards

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Her own testimony is not "evidence"?

How is her testimony evidence?
By her own testimony she doesn't remember what happened. She says she woke up at ne point and he was having sex and she said stop... and he reportedly said "your so hot" and kept going.
BUT - she also states she was so drunk she passed out for about 6 hours.

How is that good evidence.
AGAIN - are you willing to put a man to prison for years...years... because a woman claims rape when she was so drunk she can't remember what happened... but vaguely remembers something.
Seriously?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, on to the topic at hand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Yes I noted you still won't answer the question

I just want to make sure the morons here who say that it's OK to rape a drunk woman think it's OK for a drunk man to get raped.

I abhor double standards

Ahh... yet you engage in one with every post.
Your double standard - Women never lie, even when they are so drunk they can't remember clearly what happened. And all men lie, whether drunk or not if a woman says differently.
You are willing to put someone in prison for many years based on that double standard