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

[ESay]

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

That is the main point of the whole story. I dont understand why people here dont want to accept it.

Well the article is poorly written. It is does not address whether the woman gave consent or not.

I think that the woman didn't give the consent. But I will go so far that I will say that doesn't really matter in this story.

The law stands for the equality of the woman and man in the case of a trial in such matters. In these cases the woman's word shouldn't weigh more than the man's just because she is a woman. Otherwise, this can lead to injustice and exploiting of this preference.

I can admit that this guy was an asshole and he knew from the beginning what he wanted to do. But such assholes cant be the cause for some decent guys to be unable to defend themselves in such cases. Women want to put aside all responsibility for their actions and lay all the burden to men. That is not how the things work. It takes two to tango.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

He was found guilty based upon the evidence. The higher court ruled the law makes rape legal in this instance.

He was not found guilty.
He was ILLEGALLY found guilty. The higher court overturned the verdict because the original verdict was unlawful. As the judge stated "you cannot simply add your own elements to the law".
So he is not guilty.

And your assertion that a person can't be charged with rape if the victim is drunk is erroneous.
They cannot be charged with rape if the "victim" is voluntarily intoxicated to the point of making it impossible to provide/deny consent.
I have to say, there is an element of right in that.
Scenario: A woman is very intoxicated, she agrees to go with a man to his home. They start having sex, she passes out during the sex. She wakes up. Does not remember having sex, sees the man and is disgusted by him. Believes she was raped and calls the cops.
THIS IS NOT RAPE.
It is at least possible that is what happened here. You cannot put someone in prison for years, ruin their lives because someone gets sober and doesn't remember giving consent. There are absolutely women out there who will charge rape knowing damn well that it didn't happen... or no better, not sure what happened because they were so intoxicated.

 

[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.

Have you spieled against Trump on any issues in this direction? Trump was skewered for locker room talk for 4 years alone.

Get serious.....you want to compare locker room talk between two grown men with rape?

 

[pknopp]

He was found guilty based upon the evidence. The higher court ruled the law makes rape legal in this instance.

He was not found guilty.
He was ILLEGALLY found guilty. The higher court overturned the verdict because the original verdict was unlawful. As the judge stated "you cannot simply add your own elements to the law".
So he is not guilty.

And your assertion that a person can't be charged with rape if the victim is drunk is erroneous.
They cannot be charged with rape if the "victim" is voluntarily intoxicated to the point of making it impossible to provide/deny consent.
I have to say, there is an element of right in that.
Scenario: A woman is very intoxicated, she agrees to go with a man to his home. They start having sex, she passes out during the sex. She wakes up. Does not remember having sex, sees the man and is disgusted by him. Believes she was raped and calls the cops.
THIS IS NOT RAPE.
It is at least possible that is what happened here. You cannot put someone in prison for years, ruin their lives because someone gets sober and doesn't remember giving consent. There are absolutely women out there who will charge rape knowing damn well that it didn't happen... or no better, not sure what happened because they were so intoxicated.

When you have to make up a position for me to then argue against you are admitting you have no valid position to stand on.

 

[struth]

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

If you read the article...the Court ruled correctly according to the law...I am not sure if the law has changed since, but at the time of the accusations the law made it clear you weren't incapacitated if you were voluntary intoxicated.

Frankly, we have no idea if the male was also drinking, or what the young lady was saying or how she was acting from the article...but as far as the Court, they ruled correctly from what the law was.

 

[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

Wow.

So how many women have you raped for their pleasure?

None other than your mother ....you may call me daddy.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

some women mean yes when they say no.

Who told you that lie?

Anyone that has had much experience knows that some women when you make your move will say no,no, no. Asian women particuarly I have noticed....but when you get them hot the no's slow down....then stop and then its fuck me baby. hehheh

Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women's token resistance to sex - PubMed

We investigated whether women ever engage in token resistance to sex--saying no but meaning yes--and, if they do, what their reasons are for doing so. A questionnaire administered to 610 undergraduate women asked whether they had ever engaged in token resistance and, if so, asked them to rate...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[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?

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....

Perhaps....but the law is the law until it isn't.

I think it is a good law and that men are too often victimized by women who get angry about something and want revenge.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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...

That was stupid of her, but the intent was obviously there on her part, ie to go continuing getting fucked up, now with a guy involved.

She is lucky that some nigha killer didnt pick her up....like happened recently down here in Miami....2 blacks drugged a spring breaker, raped her and killed her.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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

That is the main point of the whole story. I dont understand why people here dont want to accept it.

Well the article is poorly written. It is does not address whether the woman gave consent or not.

I think that the woman didn't give the consent. But I will go so far that I will say that doesn't really matter in this story.

The law stands for the equality of the woman and man in the case of a trial in such matters. In these cases the woman's word shouldn't weigh more than the man's just because she is a woman. Otherwise, this can lead to injustice and exploiting of this preference.

I can admit that this guy was an asshole and he knew from the beginning what he wanted to do. But such assholes cant be the cause for some decent guys to be unable to defend themselves in such cases. Women want to put aside all responsibility for their actions and lay all the burden to men. That is not how the things work. It takes two to tango.

We cannot read the guys mind.....most likely you are correct...but we cannot go so far to say that he intended or wanted to rape her.....I think under the circumstances it is reasonable to believe he thought the woman was looking for some action and not the kind that would later complain about getting some.....as in any woman who gets intoxicated and agrees to go with a stranger with a muslim name .....well one cannot sympathize with her much if at all....I certainly do not.

And then.......to try to send a guy to jail for taking what she was flaunting is beyond the pale....maybe he fucked her too long and too hard and she got pissed and wanted revenge?

 

[ESay]

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

That is the main point of the whole story. I dont understand why people here dont want to accept it.

Well the article is poorly written. It is does not address whether the woman gave consent or not.

I think that the woman didn't give the consent. But I will go so far that I will say that doesn't really matter in this story.

The law stands for the equality of the woman and man in the case of a trial in such matters. In these cases the woman's word shouldn't weigh more than the man's just because she is a woman. Otherwise, this can lead to injustice and exploiting of this preference.

I can admit that this guy was an asshole and he knew from the beginning what he wanted to do. But such assholes cant be the cause for some decent guys to be unable to defend themselves in such cases. Women want to put aside all responsibility for their actions and lay all the burden to men. That is not how the things work. It takes two to tango.

We cannot read the guys mind.....most likely you are correct...but we cannot go so far to say that he intended or wanted to rape her.....I think under the circumstances it is reasonable to believe he thought the woman was looking for some action and not the kind that would later complain about getting some.....as in any woman who gets intoxicated and agrees to go with a stranger with a muslim name .....well one cannot sympathize with her much if at all....I certainly do not.

And then.......to try to send a guy to jail for taking what she was flaunting is beyond the pale....maybe he fucked her too long and too hard and she got pissed and wanted revenge?

I dont know what intentions of this guy initially were and what really happened in his house. I can only guess. Another main question which remained unanswered is where her friend was during all these events.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

He was found guilty based upon the evidence. The higher court ruled the law makes rape legal in this instance.

He was not found guilty.
He was ILLEGALLY found guilty. The higher court overturned the verdict because the original verdict was unlawful. As the judge stated "you cannot simply add your own elements to the law".
So he is not guilty.

And your assertion that a person can't be charged with rape if the victim is drunk is erroneous.
They cannot be charged with rape if the "victim" is voluntarily intoxicated to the point of making it impossible to provide/deny consent.
I have to say, there is an element of right in that.
Scenario: A woman is very intoxicated, she agrees to go with a man to his home. They start having sex, she passes out during the sex. She wakes up. Does not remember having sex, sees the man and is disgusted by him. Believes she was raped and calls the cops.
THIS IS NOT RAPE.
It is at least possible that is what happened here. You cannot put someone in prison for years, ruin their lives because someone gets sober and doesn't remember giving consent. There are absolutely women out there who will charge rape knowing damn well that it didn't happen... or no better, not sure what happened because they were so intoxicated.

When you have to make up a position for me to then argue against you are admitting you have no valid position to stand on.

Haha... I am very glad you are not involved in criminal law. Hello Salem, Mass.
You continue to errantly say he is guilty. When a verdict is overturned, the person is no longer guilty. There is no argument in that.
Any other position, such as yours, is a subjective argument based on bias.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What the OP is missing here is the difference between subjective and objective.
I tend to agree, as many states do, that if a woman voluntarily gets intoxicated to a point where consent is impossible to provide or deny... that declaring rape is also no longer possible.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What the OP is missing here is the difference between subjective and objective.
I tend to agree, as many states do, that if a woman voluntarily gets intoxicated to a point where consent is impossible to provide or deny... that declaring rape is also no longer possible.

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

You sure you wanna run with that?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What the OP is missing here is the difference between subjective and objective.
I tend to agree, as many states do, that if a woman voluntarily gets intoxicated to a point where consent is impossible to provide or deny... that declaring rape is also no longer possible.

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

You sure you wanna run with that?

What you describe is rape. Of course. No one is saying it isn't.
But you have to prove a crime in order to charge someone with it. You can't just go with the "she said" over the "he said" because you want to.
Again, if a woman VOLUNTARILY goes with a man to his home, or wherever to be alone with him. Gets so drunk she cannot remember what happened. She gets to claim rape if she can't remember whether she gave consent or not? You want to go with that?
You understand that in this case, the woman states "I woke up in the morning and my panties were down". She doesn't remember what happened. Who is to say wasn't cooperative because she was stone cold drunk, then gets sobered up and wants to press charges because she doesn't think she gave consent.
Rape is a very serious crime that carries a very serious penalty. Under the subjective pretense of the OP - basically any woman who wakes up with regrets - should be able to charge the man with rape. How would you prove he didn't?
That is why the law is written that way. You can't put someone in prison for a crime when the victim isn't sure it happened, just thinks it did.

 

[ESay]

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

You sure you wanna run with that

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

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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

You sure you wanna run with that

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

Imagine the precedent it would send if every woman who gets drunk, has to make the walk of shame - and any man she was with - she can charge him with rape and he has no legal recourse but to accept a prison term.
You know how many women would abuse such a situation?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The girl did not go to a friend's party

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

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

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

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

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

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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.

yeah cause that situation is exactly what happened