If its forced, the attacker, if its consensual, as in she was drunk, and later decided she made a bad mistake, its the so called 'victim'.
English
-
This is the only case I say it's nuanced. If both are stone cold drunk, and hook up willingly while hammered, then I agree with Capiton. But only if BOTH parties are really intoxicated. But if one is sober and the other drunk, yes it's r4pe.
-
See that is fuqqed, if a girl im dating, who i have had relations with before, gets drunk, says she wants sex, it then is considered -blam!-? Fuq that
-
I'm sorry, but it is. Look, I'm not saying its a crime to do that inherently. Its not like the police will kick in your door and arrest you. But, if you are sober, and she isn't, and you have sex, it may not be consensual. Is it as bad as forcing yourself on a stranger? It could be, but its not as cut and dried. Its best to wait until she is sober, and then bang. Besides, drunk sex is really bad. No one has any coordination, can't follow direction, might pass out... Its better to just wait.
-
Edited by Capiton Render: 3/12/2014 4:59:05 PMSee im tired of this, its a double standard that only applies to men, and -blam!-. If that's the case, then committing a dui or murder while drunk shouldn't be a crime, because you were too drunk to make the 'correct decision'. If we want equality between sexes, than the double standard needs to be removed. Now i know that there are men out there that take advantage of women who are drunk, but this allows for soo much abuse by women, and only women, that it is retarded. And regarding stranger, i know tons of women, who got to the bar, with the intent of getting drunk and having a one night stand.
-
See my above post on this. But this happens to guys too. It's happened to me. Psycho ex-GF, drunken birthday party, woke up with a present I didn't want. I could and should have pressed charges. I didn't, but I do feel I was taken advantage of.
-
Edited by Capiton Render: 3/12/2014 5:04:11 PMIt happens to guys, BUT LEGALLY THE SAME DEFENSE CANNOT BE USED The law only applies to women. And way to address the rest the post.
-
I am saying if she is drunk, it can't be consensual. She may not regret it, and consent after the fact, but if you are sober, and she drunk, you did take advantage of her.
-
OK, so you remove moral responsibility for an action based on inebriation, what if she is sober, and a drunk man -blam!-s her, does that mean he cannot be held responsible for his actions?
-
I'm saying its nuanced when both are drunk. If a guy, in any condition, forces himself on another, that's pretty cut and dried. But if both are drunk, then its not so clear. Who took advantage of who?
-
Still avoiding my scenario, and the fact this is a one sided situation and law. But ill take your stance that a drunk man cannot be held responsible for forcing himself on a woman because he cannot be held responsible for his mental state.
-
That is not my stance. I am saying if it is a mutually drunken hookup, then there was no r4pe. If I sat in that jury I would never agree to that. If either side forces themselves, regardless of inebriation, they are at fault. If either side is more sober than the other they are at fault.
-
[quote] If either side is more sober than the other they are at fault.[/quote] See that is bullshit. It is removing the responsibility of the person who has been drinking, especially considering that can be said after .08 bhl, and legally, this case only applies to women. If this is used in court, than all legal responsibility can be removed for any crime, when legally drunk. Why dont people see the ramifications of justifying this. Im not saying that men dont get women drunk to take advantage, but women can use this stance to take advantage in that scenario, and use it just to get someone in trouble. Women, get drunk like men, and if they made a stupid decision, it was a stupid decision, they made while drunk, and they should learn from it. Now if a woman was legitimacy -blam!-, then yes, that is -blam!-. But the whole, a woman having sex while drunk cant give consent, until they are sober, is retarded.
-
Are you really equating drunk driving with getting r4ped? Seriously? IF THEY CAN'T CONSENT IT IS R4PE. You should be able to get drunk without fear of waking next to someone you would have told no. Like I said, this has happened to me. I didn't want another night with my Ex, yet she took advantage. I see that as r4pe. So, your argument has no basis. Taking advantage of a drunk is no different than drugging them. If you give a chick roofies, its to impair her judgement. Another way is to keep buying her shots.
-
Edited by Capiton Render: 3/12/2014 6:58:55 PMIm playing devils advocate on the fact that your are eschewing any responsibility for ones action based on gender and inebriation. And i have been shit faced before, and completely decided not to -blam!- a hog, because i knew i was shit faced, but if i did, by your -blam!-ing logic, i could charge the hog with -blam!-.
-
"And i have been shit faced before, and completely decided not to -blam!- a hog, because i knew i was shit faced, but if i did, by your -blam!-ing logic, i could charge the hog with -blam!-." If she planned to bang you while you were drunk, yes, that is r4pe.
-
Based on inebriation. Gender or Sex play no role whatsoever. Anyone who thinks that you even know what's going on beyond a certain level of drunkenness have clearly never been that drunk.
-
But based on law, you are drunk at .08 bhl but i know you are referring to closet to .8 bhl, see where this is going. And yes gender does play a huge role, considering the law is built for women to use.
-
While the application of the law is a problem, the law itself is gender blind. You want tougher laws on women who take advantage of drunken men? I will be the first person to sign it.
-
I think their needs be some way to provide truth of what happened, its one persons word against another. Its the equivalent of, nuh uh, uh huh.
-
Exactly.
-
Edited by ABotelho: 3/12/2014 3:43:51 PMPeople have the right to drink without being forced into sex. Seriously. Would it be right for someone to force someone into sex when they just came out of the hospital and are still drugged? NO.
-
So what about men who don't carry breathalyzers?
-
That is not what im talking about, ive never forced a woman who was drunk while i had been drunk into sex, it was consensual, but under the law, it becomes -blam!-, even if it wasnt forced in anyway.
-
Edited by RIP Tuna Man™: 3/12/2014 3:46:04 PMIt's not forced though. Also, it's their fault for being drunk not the "rapist's".
-
Edited by ABotelho: 3/12/2014 3:50:26 PMIt's not your "fault" for being drunk. People are allowed to drink and get intoxicated; it doesn't mean they have to expect to be used. You shouldn't have to assume sex is gonna happen every time you get drunk. If you're in a normal state of mind and you can see the other is intoxicated, you know they're not consenting. If you're both intoxicated, it's hard for either person to make the right decision.