{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Jim the Admin:
1/25/2015 9:54:11 PM
42
Because neither party can consent when intoxicated.
If you do not have full control of your faculties, you [i]cannot[/i] consent to anything. You are not in your right mind. If you are on any sort of drugs, have been drinking, or are asleep consent cannot be given. Consent is never implied.
Edit: for everyone crying. Here is one [url=https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=243182 study]study[/url] for you. I have two others but they require such subscriptions to journals. Which you'll never read because you'll never actually be open-minded enough to legitimately research this stuff.
English
-
Edited by Xanarxses: 1/25/2015 9:57:34 PMOk you people pretty much throw the word "consent" everywhere like it solves every argument. So unless I ask my girlfriend (while we're both drunk and making out) "do you want to have sex"? I'm a rapist. That's -blam!-ing retarded. Consent is implied. First off that question is an automatic mood killer and one you'll get reprimanded for by your partner or the chick that was making out with you before you decided to freeze the situation right after the ice was broken. Second, it's the persons responsibility to take care of themselves and say no if they don't want to. You're not their caretaker, you should be considerate but you should also care for yourself. Be considerate but don't be their babysitter, it's their damn responsibility to take care of their own skin. Third, consent is either the person clearly responding positively to your sexual advances and openly repays the sentiment with activity, gestures but not necessarily words of approval. However consent is not asking a drunk chick that's half passed out on the floor if she wants to -blam!- and she mumbles a faint yes. While drunk people are still in control, there are limits. And being half passed out is one that has been crossed. Fourth, as I said in the beginning of my post, consent is implied. As a matter of fact, if you ask a bunch of people if they explicitly talk to each other and give clear, firm, sober and serious confirmation for intercourse, a lot of them will say no. Consent is implied, you can't tell me that when I'm making out with a chick, we're both drunk. We go back to my or her place. We keep making out and everything is going fine and we -blam!-. Not you or her have any right or ground to claim that it was R@pe. The day after you have no right OR ground to be like "oh man I kinda regret that, yknow... that was r@pe".
-
Your post is really long, but it could be much shorter, seeing as you repeat the same few lines over and over. Consent is never implied. That is the biggest lie. Consent does not have to be verbal, but it does have to an overt act that is easily interpreted by many people. If you are having sex with a woman, and you're both drunk, neither one of you can legally consent. But if you both have sex, and neither felt pressured, why are you worried about being accused of -blam!-. Even if you are, you took that responsibility when you got drunk, both members did. Should you be exempt from manslaughter if you run a man down in your car while intoxicated?
-
Yeah I know the post was long, but I wrote it over like 15 minutes because I kept getting distracted and couldn't keep the idea straight. And running someone over while drunk is COMPLETELY different from 2 drunk people having sex. Let's look at the definition of consent [quote]give permission for something to happen. [/quote] By your idea consent must be explicit. I cannot think of explicit consent as a nonverbal act therefore it is impossible to give it without words. Do you -blam!-ing nod violently or something? That's just nonsensical. Are you supposed to point at your crotch and then her crotch and then shrug with a face of doubt and if she nods then that's explicit non verbal consent? I don't understand what your notion of non verbal consent is. It can't be intense kissing because nothing is explicitly stated or allowed. You're just kissing. So what is this consent that isn't verbal? I still stand by the idea that consent is implied because when you're in an intense make out scene and it keeps going forward, that's implied consent.
-
Implied consent is when one person [i]infers[/i] that consent is granted based on the other's non-verbal or verbal reactions to their advances. That is not a type of consent that will hold up in the court of law. "But Judge, I thought she wanted to have sex." is significantly different than "Judge, she made moves right back at me." Overt consent is when they verbally state they want to have sex or they make clear advances upon you, and you make the decision, uninhibited by drugs or alcohol, to proceed to have sexual relations. Because you inferred that they wanted to have sex, and they never physically stopped you, you -blam!- them. If they are actively participating, and you don't pressure them into it, why are you worried about having -blam!- charges filed?
-
Then he should put her in jail for -blam!- to
-
So if neither party consents... Only the man is a rapist...
-
[quote]So if neither party consents... Only the man is a rapist...[/quote] If neither party consents, and one feels they were -blam!-, it's taken to court and the verdict is decided there.
-
-
But, if both parties are intoxicated and unable to give consent, why is the man charged with -blam!- and the woman is left as the victim?
-
[quote]But, if both parties are intoxicated and unable to give consent, why is the man charged with -blam!- and the woman is left as the victim?[/quote] I wasn't aware every single court case ended with the exact same verdict. Men being found guilty left and right. Maybe, just maybe, it's because men are the most common perpetrators of sexual assault. Could that be the answer? Of course not. [i]We[/i] are obviously the victims here. Each case is handled in a different court, so each verdict is based off different circumstances.
-
So, because I am male, I am automatically assumed to be the guilty party for no reason beyond my Y chromosome? Because men are the majority of perpetrators? That goes directly against the idea of impartial judgement for each case. "Oh, both of you were intoxicated and unable to give consent, but, because you have a cock stowed in your pants, you're going to jail because men are the primary perpetrators of sexual crimes".
-
Because your OP made it seem like men are getting framed left and right for -blam!-s they didn't commit. The reason men are getting charged with so many -blam!-s is because men are committing so many -blam!-s. Trust me when I say this law doesn't turn men into helpless victims. Lots of men really are just getting woman drunk to have sex with them. It empowers victims of either gender to be able to file -blam!- reports, really.
-
Yeah, I will agree with you. There are quite a few shitty guys who will stoop low to get a woman in bed with them. That doesn't mean that a court should automatically assume my (or anyone else's) guilt. I've known a few men that were -blam!-[i]d[/i] by women. It does happen and it shouldn't be dismissed because men usually commit these sorts of crimes.
-
Right but if you kill someone or even just get in a fight with someone while drunk you are held accountable for that. Being drunk doesn't give you a excuse to make dumb decisions then act like your innocent for cause you didn't know better. I've been drunk outta my mind quite a few times but always had most control over my actions. I might be a bit foolish but never ignorant.
-
[quote]I've been drunk outta my mind quite a few times but always had most control over my actions.[/quote]If only everyone could be the shining example of humanity that you are. We hold people accountable for what they do when they drink. That's why getting a woman/man drunk to have sex with them is considered -blam!- if they never verbally or obviously consent to it. It's why drunk drivers get punished for their actions. We don't blame the people the driver hit, telling them they should've known better than drive past 10 o'clock downtown. Everyone knows drunks are out at that time. Why didn't you just swerve to avoid the car? Because life doesn't -blam!-ing work like that. Blame the victims all day long, but how about we start holding the perpetrators just as accountable?
-
This would work if we also expected the drunk women to take responsibility for not -blam!-ing when drunk. Instead we absolve them of responsibility for their drunk actions and say they couldn't consent because the drink impaired their judgement so they are in no way responsible for anything. We expect drunk people to not drive but we are fine with them -blam!-ing then claiming they only did it because they were drunk so it was -blam!-.
-
You're implying that the vast majority of the cases filed using this law are just women filled with regret that they had sex and not people who were fed drinks by someone else and then legitimately -blam!- by them. I don't victim blame, it leaves a foul taste in my mouth.
-
Fed drinks? We're they held down and the drink forced down their throat or did they choose to let the drink pass their lips? I don't remove women's agency and assume they are helpless to say no, being sexist like that leaves a foul taste in my mouth almost as much as starting with the assumption that there is a victim in every instance.
-
Yeah, given drinks with the image of just having a good time. Coercing them into drinking once they've already had drinks. Then having sex with them when they're too incapacitated to say no. If that's not -blam!-, then I don't know what is. You act like people can't be pressured into something that appears harmless. You act like people aren't susceptible to charms. Like people can't be tricked. Like no one, primarily females, is getting -blam!-, primarily by males. This law stops a lot of people from getting away with -blam!-.
-
Firstly - No one is arguing that if someone is so passed out drunk that they are unable to speak and say no then its -blam!- to have sex with them. so lets stop obfuscating the issue with this shall we? Secondly I dont care how charming the person buying the drinks is or what image is given, the person pouring it down their throat is still responsible for controlling how drunk they do or dont get and for the actions they do in that state. If the woman gets drunk and then chooses to have sex with the man then that is her responsibility not his. She is a grown woman with her own agency not some clueless damsel that cant look after herself simply because she is female. Quite frankly I see no problem with a man charming a woman in to bed just like I see no problem with a woman charming a man in to bed. I expect people to take responsibility for their actions when they drink. I notice in your narratives you are always assuming that the male is setting out with the express intention of getting a woman drunk to get them in to bed. You seem to be refusing to allow for the man also getting drunk and not premeditating the whole thing (your sexism is showing here too).
-
No, I am not. The amount of falsely reported -blam!- cases is 5%-12%. That's depending on the country, province, state, or county you live in. Could be anywhere from 5%-12%. That means anywhere from 88%-95% of -blam!- cases hold up in the court of law. If you do not go out thinking I'm gonna -blam!- a woman after she gets drunk, yet you force yourself onto the woman after she is drunk, without any premeditation, you are still a rapist. A crime of passion is still a crime. A drunk driver is held responsible for his actions. A drunk rapist should be too. Regardless if it's male or female. This law enables that. I only aim it at woman in particular because they are overwhelmingly the victims of sexual assault. A great many cases of assault involve men as the victim too, and if you read many of my posts in this thread you'll see I try to use gender ambitious terms as often as possible. The majority of the responses I'm getting seem to focus around women, which hints at a greater underlying problem. There are steps you can take to mitigate being a victim, but if no one ever teaches you them, learning the hard is not your fault.
-
So you completely ignored my first point then?? Let me repeat - If the woman is so drunk she cant function then it is -blam!-, if you force yourself on a woman it is -blam!-. No one is fecking arguing these points for pity's sake! I am not saying a drunk man cant commit -blam!- I am saying that drunk sex does not by default equal -blam!-. If however the woman chooses to get drunk and then consents while drunk then her impaired judgement does not make it -blam!- and to say it does trivialises a terrible crime. I dont care how sweet or charming the man is the woman still has to choose to drink the alchohol and is then choosing to have sex and is to be held responsible for those choices. The next day she cant wake up sober and think well I would never have screwed that ugly git if I wasnt hammered so clearly he -blam!- me since I am not responsible for my drunken choices. In this instance she isnt a victim and thus victim blaming cant happen. It isn't victim blaming to expect all the facts to be looked at on a case by case basis and not instantly jump to the conclusion that a woman should be believed and seen as the victim from the off. As much as it is a terrible experience for a victim of any crime to have to relive it and be questioned about it to establish what happened we can't assume there is a victim before this step is taken. While -blam!- statistics are incredibly hard to gather accurately becase of the amount of unreported crimes and false accusations 5-12% is rather high to dismiss. that means on conservative numbers 1 in 20 are innocent of the crime they are being accused off and in some places as many as 1 in 10 are innocent. I am actually suprised and appaled the number is so high and that still many people push the line of assume the woman is telling the truth.
-
You cannot legally consent to anything while intoxicated. That's not a point anyone can argue against. It's law, and for good reason. That number varies greatly depending on the region. And that's 5%-12% of cases that are not prosecuted, because they are falsely reported. That is a good thing.
-
Oh god I better report all my exes then, how much money can I make from this?
-
[quote]Oh god I better report all my exes then, how much money can I make from this?[/quote] None, because I have this odd feeling your claim can't hold up in court. You can make fun all you want, but my post aligns with the DoD definition of -blam!-/sexual assault. Educate yourself.
