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

[bodecea]

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

Wow.

So how many women have you raped for their pleasure?

I was wondering the same thing.

 

[Correll]

at a later time

My point is made, thank you.

no, it's really not.


You can assume every man you ever talk to, has been told "no" and then had sex with the woman that said "no".


Your pretense otherwise, makes you look stupid or dishonest.

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.

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?

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.

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

The evidence resulted in a guilty verdict until it was brought up that Minnesota law allows for rape.

And I addressed that. Now I am asking a question about what actually happened.

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

The evidence showed rape. I was not there. I know what the evidence showed.

You can say that you don't know. The article was not clear on it. I'm not the type of asshole who plays gotcha games.

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

The article was indeed clear that the man was found guilty. He is even still in prison.

You are stone walling because you know that there is a good chance that the facts of the case do not support your position.

He was found guilty.

Coward.


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

 

[Grumblenuts]

So quick topical hypothetical:
Guy walks into a bar.
Bartender says "Why the long face?"
G: "Wife left me. Made me sell the house. Took the kids half the time. Now I even gotta pay alimony just to see them 'cause she never worked a damned day in her life."
B: "Well have a beer.. No, no, put that away. It's on the house!"
G: (quickly downs the beer and drops the mug down a bit too heavily on the bar)
B: "Goddammit, you just chipped my glass bar cover!" (then she grabs a shotgun and blows the guy away).
Later: B pleads not guilty (of murder) due to slightly tipsy disposition of G.

 

[Canon Shooter]

She was raped. The court said this type of rape was legal in Minnesota. Go rant elsewhere.

Nope.... She made the decision to go home with him. Kind of her own damned fault.

A guy shouldn't get charged with a crime because she suffered a case of "Beer Goggles".

You probably believe rape is justifiable if a girl is wearing a shorter than normal skirt, just because "she was askin' for it", right?

You're such a scumbag...

 

[j-mac]

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....

 

[Correll]

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.


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


The article is unclear what actually happened in this case.


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.

 

[whitehall]

Granted it takes a depraved man to play this game but if the woman consented to sexual intercourse because she was drunk and under the effects of drugs she can't claim rape when she sobers up. If you are going to take the woman's word for it every time you need to indict the governor of NY.

 

[j-mac]

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....

 

[Weatherman2020]

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

What’s wrong with Minnesota?
They vote Democrat.

 

[Correll]

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. "

To my mind, the question is, was she unconscious or just not remembering?


Under current law, any drunkenness puts the man at risk for arrest, no matter how willing the woman was at the time.


That is obviously what the law in question was written to deal with.


Did she really "wake up"? Or just start remembering?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Then just make sure to get drunk yourself and file counter rape charges against the woman.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

So, what about people who are sedated in hospitals after consenting to treatment? Cool for the orderlies to have their way with them?

 

[JoeB131]

You probably believe rape is justifiable if a girl is wearing a shorter than normal skirt, just because "she was askin' for it", right?

You're such a scumbag...

Except they determined this wasn't legally rape... so there's that.

Getting drunk off your ass and having a drunken hookup isn't rape. It's stupid, I wouldn't recommend it for anyone, Captain Needy, but it ain't rape.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This ruling makes sense. If you are drinking and get drunk. Then get in your car voluntarily. Then hit someone in a traffic accident, drinking voluntarily is a consensual act and murder.

If a man should get sloppy drunk and have unprotected sex with a strange woman his drunkenness is no defense to paying child support for the result. The act of drinking is consent to the result.

Women have to learn that they are responsible for themselves. They can no longer depend on the chivalry of men. The judge draws a difference between those drugged against their will and those voluntarily drunk, as he should.

 

[JoeB131]

So, what about people who are sedated in hospitals after consenting to treatment? Cool for the orderlies to have their way with them?

Dumb analogy.

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

If you want to rewrite the law to absolve anyone of any responsibility when intoxication is involved, that's fine, but I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[j-mac]

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. "

To my mind, the question is, was she unconscious or just not remembering?


Under current law, any drunkenness puts the man at risk for arrest, no matter how willing the woman was at the time.


That is obviously what the law in question was written to deal with.


Did she really "wake up"? Or just start remembering?

Doesn't matter. The only question is weather she had the capacity to consent, and if she was blacked out, the answer is no.

 

[Correll]

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. "

To my mind, the question is, was she unconscious or just not remembering?


Under current law, any drunkenness puts the man at risk for arrest, no matter how willing the woman was at the time.


That is obviously what the law in question was written to deal with.


Did she really "wake up"? Or just start remembering?

Doesn't matter. The only question is weather she had the capacity to consent, and if she was blacked out, the answer is no.

Bullshit. Drinking together followed by consensual sex is part of the normal mating rituals in our society.


Criminalizing normal behavior, is just an avenue for tyranny and oppression.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Except they determined this wasn't legally rape... so there's that.

Nice to see you standing in support of the rapist.

You twisted fuck...

Getting drunk off your ass and having a drunken hookup isn't rape.

Being drunk is one thing. Being blacked out is another.

And I'd imagine that you're pretty well acquainted with both...

 

[pknopp]

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

So, what about people who are sedated in hospitals after consenting to treatment? Cool for the orderlies to have their way with them?

Wow. Go over that cliff on your own.

 

[j-mac]

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. "

To my mind, the question is, was she unconscious or just not remembering?


Under current law, any drunkenness puts the man at risk for arrest, no matter how willing the woman was at the time.


That is obviously what the law in question was written to deal with.


Did she really "wake up"? Or just start remembering?

Doesn't matter. The only question is weather she had the capacity to consent, and if she was blacked out, the answer is no.

Bullshit. Drinking together followed by consensual sex is part of the normal mating rituals in our society.


Criminalizing normal behavior, is just an avenue for tyranny and oppression.

I thought we covered this. They weren't "drinking together"... According to the article the girls were outside the bar, who illegally served minors, and the guy drove up and invited them to a non existent party...