|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 24 2016 01:18 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 24 2016 01:04 biology]major wrote:On November 24 2016 01:00 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:24 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 23 2016 19:48 Velr wrote:
You get these absurd numbers easily.
A Supersayan-SJW' would simply argue:
"Victim" was Drunk/Stoned (not blackout drunk/stoned) --> therefore could not give consent --> therefore the sex was rape.
Therefore I was raped several times and i have raped several times (most of the times i did and experienced both at the same time!)... As have most grown ups. Most just suck it up instead of complaining after the fact that they got too drunk and did something they probably wouldn't have done sober.
As for sexual harassment, thats a diffrent story and i fully belief that women are subject to it way too often. Most rapes aren't reported. Most rape victims do "shut up about it" If you're response after waking up to something was "I shouldn't have done that, but I was drunk" then yes, you have been raped. You were intoxicated enough to get fucked and was not of sound mind to say no. It's about consent, it's about being of sound enough mind to be able to consent, to be able to say no, to be able to say yes. If you wake up the next day and would not have done anything with that person had you been sober--then you were literally drugged into having sex. If this was something you two would do and enjoy while being sober, and alcohol just made it more exciting, then that's recreational drug use. I disagree. I've done lots of things where I think afterwards "hey, that was really stupid". But it was totally in my power to not get drunk in the first place. If I didn't want to lose full control over my actions, I could choose to say no to that beer my buddy is offering me. Sometimes, you have to accept responsibility for your own actions, also as a girl, rather than crying rape. If you get drunk and think, "hey, that guy is cute (he isn't), lets fuck" and regret it the next morning, that isn't rape, that's stupidity and alcohol. That's not to say you can't get raped while drunk. You quite clearly can. Drink even more than in the above scenario and you reach that point where you can't speak (or stand) anymore. And that cannot possibly count as consent in any way, shape or form. Majority of girls don't cry rape. Even the ones actually victimized of rape. It's super under reported. Part of the reason you feel it's normal is because it's so under reported. Part of the reason a lot is at stake for you is because if it started getting accurately reported you and your friends would become redefined as rapists. Sorry, but no. The following scenario is NOT rape, no matter what you call it: Girl has had a few beers, and makes eye contact with a guy. He walks over and throws out some cheesy pickup line. She laughs. They chat a bit, then make out. The girl is clearly enjoying it. They go home together and have sex. The girl wakes up the next morning and sees the man next to her. She regrets having sex with him. She was drugged by her own lust  When it wears off and regrets what she did, she was raped. According to TM anyways. You guys don't get it. If you fuck a girl that's unconscious or near unconscious it's a rape. That's it. Whether she got there because she drunk eight bottles of vodka or because she is in a coma after falling off her bike is irrelevant. So, if someone is too drunk to say no, don't do it. It doesn't mean you can't have sex with a drunk girl or being drunk yourself. It's not that hard, I don't see what you people struggle with. And of course the line is extremely hard to find, and of course it's very hard to prove anything, and of course some crazy people will report a rape when nothing like that happened. It also happened a lot that a girl passes out and is fucked by some asshole. And that ain't ok. Nobody is arguing against that! TM is literally saying that if two people are drunk and have sex it is de facto rape because you cant consent while drunk. Still hasn't gotten back to anyone on whether that makes for 1 or 2 rapists tho. Literally everyone has agreed that what you outlined is rape. Edit damn thread is too fast :p
Consent is super easy to track back if both people were drunk at the time.
Who paid for the hotel room?
Who's apartment was unlocked?
Who's bedroom was used?
Who paid for the taxi?
Who paid for the uber?
At some point one person pays for the event to take place or takes the other person to their abode. Those are tangible actions of intent requesting for sex. So even though you were both of unsound mind, there is a physical trail of who was the one instigating for sex to occur and hence stopped becoming victims.
If she paid for the Uber home, and you stayed in her apartment, used her toys, fucked her roommates, and for some reason you regretted everything when you woke up--then you were taken advantage of. If those were split. One person paid for the ride to the other person's place, or both split the bill on the hotel, or one paid for the hotel and one paid for the ride, etc... Then you have a trail of evidence showing who was instigating the night's actions that required more than a yes/no. You had to spend your money on it, you had to unlock your door for it, you had to use your property, etc... It shows a physical and monetary communication between both parties that has to be (A) agreed to, and (B) executed in sync with each other's intent. "You pay for this, I pay for that, we use location A instead of location B, etc..."
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 24 2016 01:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:20 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:03 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 00:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:48 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 00:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:34 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 00:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:30 Kickstart wrote:
Taking advantage or forcing yourself onto someone who is intoxicated happens and is a form of sexual assault if it is unwanted, but I think it is quite a stretch to say that if two drunk people lose all their inhibitions and end up sleeping together that one of them was raped and that the other is a rapist. I think (hope?) that the later happens more than the former, that more often than not these things are due to everyone being drunk in social situations rather than a predator going to parties and waiting for an opportunity, but no one will argue that it doesn't happen at all. Being nitpicky about which drug removed inhibitions alcohol or ruffies is a special kind of cherry picking. That would surely be a case of a predator targeting people which I specifically said is assault would it not? I also took care to point out the difference between someone taking advantage of someone who is intoxicated and two people being drunk/high/whatever in a social setting. But if you are going to misrepresent everyone this hard I'll just not converse with you. You start your paragraph by saying alcohol can remove inhibitions and when it does, people can use it for sexual assault. You then say that if a room was full of intoxicated people, it's no longer an issue unless there was a predator in that crowd specifically hunting drunk victims down. Hence my comment that the specificity of the predator does not change the outcome of the drug itself. Ie, dropping ruffies in drinks to drag people to your hotel room is not needed to get people to fuck under the influence. I'm arguing that if two drunk people end up sleeping together that one isn't a rape victim and the other a rapist necessarily, not that someone who roofies someone and then drags them to a room isn't a rapist How drunk are we talking about? Because it's really about consent right? How much alcohol do you need to do something you wouldn't do sober? Does it have to be passed out drunk before you decide to do a non-sexual stupid thing you wouldn't do otherwise? Is it less than that? The reason it feels like a gray area is that alcohol is a drug we allow people to take en masse and along with it will come this weird line of how much alcohol is needed to remove consent. You are labeling one a rapist and one a rape victim based purely on which one wakes up and regrets it. That is silly. If they are both drunk and end up having sex, no one was raped. Or as someone pointed out above, they would both be rape victims in some scenarios. Your definition of rape is so broad you end up with scenarios as absurd as two people having sex and both of them being rape victims and rapists at the same time. I'm am arguing that culture that looks for consent from someone after they are drugged by alcohol is worse than a culture that emphasizes that consent be given before being drugged by alcohol. Yes, because going to a party and approaching everyone there with "Look, I plan on fucking tonight. If it happens to be with you is that going to be okay with you tomorrow morning?" is going to go over real well for people. What you are proposing won't happen. Welcome to rape culture where discussing about consent while of sound mind is taboo.
Can you please outline your idea for how to properly communicate your consent, or lack thereof, to a room full of people that you don't know, likely can't even hear you unless you are yelljng into their ears if at a club or some such, and then how to update said consent status as time passes, people come and go, and your mood changes for better or for worse?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 24 2016 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:18 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 24 2016 01:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 24 2016 01:04 biology]major wrote:On November 24 2016 01:00 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:24 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 23 2016 19:48 Velr wrote:
You get these absurd numbers easily.
A Supersayan-SJW' would simply argue:
"Victim" was Drunk/Stoned (not blackout drunk/stoned) --> therefore could not give consent --> therefore the sex was rape.
Therefore I was raped several times and i have raped several times (most of the times i did and experienced both at the same time!)... As have most grown ups. Most just suck it up instead of complaining after the fact that they got too drunk and did something they probably wouldn't have done sober.
As for sexual harassment, thats a diffrent story and i fully belief that women are subject to it way too often. Most rapes aren't reported. Most rape victims do "shut up about it" If you're response after waking up to something was "I shouldn't have done that, but I was drunk" then yes, you have been raped. You were intoxicated enough to get fucked and was not of sound mind to say no. It's about consent, it's about being of sound enough mind to be able to consent, to be able to say no, to be able to say yes. If you wake up the next day and would not have done anything with that person had you been sober--then you were literally drugged into having sex. If this was something you two would do and enjoy while being sober, and alcohol just made it more exciting, then that's recreational drug use. I disagree. I've done lots of things where I think afterwards "hey, that was really stupid". But it was totally in my power to not get drunk in the first place. If I didn't want to lose full control over my actions, I could choose to say no to that beer my buddy is offering me. Sometimes, you have to accept responsibility for your own actions, also as a girl, rather than crying rape. If you get drunk and think, "hey, that guy is cute (he isn't), lets fuck" and regret it the next morning, that isn't rape, that's stupidity and alcohol. That's not to say you can't get raped while drunk. You quite clearly can. Drink even more than in the above scenario and you reach that point where you can't speak (or stand) anymore. And that cannot possibly count as consent in any way, shape or form. Majority of girls don't cry rape. Even the ones actually victimized of rape. It's super under reported. Part of the reason you feel it's normal is because it's so under reported. Part of the reason a lot is at stake for you is because if it started getting accurately reported you and your friends would become redefined as rapists. Sorry, but no. The following scenario is NOT rape, no matter what you call it: Girl has had a few beers, and makes eye contact with a guy. He walks over and throws out some cheesy pickup line. She laughs. They chat a bit, then make out. The girl is clearly enjoying it. They go home together and have sex. The girl wakes up the next morning and sees the man next to her. She regrets having sex with him. She was drugged by her own lust When it wears off and regrets what she did, she was raped. According to TM anyways. You guys don't get it. If you fuck a girl that's unconscious or near unconscious it's a rape. That's it. Whether she got there because she drunk eight bottles of vodka or because she is in a coma after falling off her bike is irrelevant. So, if someone is too drunk to say no, don't do it. It doesn't mean you can't have sex with a drunk girl or being drunk yourself. It's not that hard, I don't see what you people struggle with. And of course the line is extremely hard to find, and of course it's very hard to prove anything, and of course some crazy people will report a rape when nothing like that happened. It also happened a lot that a girl passes out and is fucked by some asshole. And that ain't ok. Nobody is arguing against that! TM is literally saying that if two people are drunk and have sex it is de facto rape because you cant consent while drunk. Still hasn't gotten back to anyone on whether that makes for 1 or 2 rapists tho. Literally everyone has agreed that what you outlined is rape. Edit damn thread is too fast :p Consent is super easy to track back if both people were drunk at the time. Who paid for the hotel room? Who's apartment was unlocked? Who's bedroom was used? Who paid for the taxi? Who paid for the uber? At some point one person pays for the event to take place or takes the other person to their abode. Those are tangible actions of intent requesting for sex. So even though you were both of unsound mind, there is a physical trail of who was the one instigating for sex to occur and hence stopped becoming victims. If she paid for the Uber home, and you stayed in her apartment, used her toys, fucked her roommates, and for some reason you regretted everything when you woke up--then you were taken advantage of. If those were split. One person paid for the ride to the other person's place, or both split the bill on the hotel, or one paid for the hotel and one paid for the ride, etc... Then you have a trail of evidence showing who was instigating the night's actions that required more than a yes/no. You had to spend your money on it, you had to unlock your door for it, you had to use your property, etc... It shows a physical and monetary communication between both parties that has to be (A) agreed to, and (B) executed in sync with each other's intent. "You pay for this, I pay for that, we use location A instead of location B, etc..."
Because you cant consent while drunk but make financially rational decisions, that you can do.
Im willing it would be easier to convince drunk me to pay for a taxi than to have sex.
And all of those trails are, imo, irrelevant. What matters is the state of mind of both participants at the time of setting this whole thing in motion. I could easily be the more intoxicated party and we still go to my apartment because i live alone (i actually dont but hypothetically) and i pay for thr taxi because maybe i have more money etc.
|
On November 24 2016 01:42 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:20 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:03 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 00:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:48 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 00:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:34 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 00:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Being nitpicky about which drug removed inhibitions alcohol or ruffies is a special kind of cherry picking. That would surely be a case of a predator targeting people which I specifically said is assault would it not? I also took care to point out the difference between someone taking advantage of someone who is intoxicated and two people being drunk/high/whatever in a social setting. But if you are going to misrepresent everyone this hard I'll just not converse with you. You start your paragraph by saying alcohol can remove inhibitions and when it does, people can use it for sexual assault. You then say that if a room was full of intoxicated people, it's no longer an issue unless there was a predator in that crowd specifically hunting drunk victims down. Hence my comment that the specificity of the predator does not change the outcome of the drug itself. Ie, dropping ruffies in drinks to drag people to your hotel room is not needed to get people to fuck under the influence. I'm arguing that if two drunk people end up sleeping together that one isn't a rape victim and the other a rapist necessarily, not that someone who roofies someone and then drags them to a room isn't a rapist How drunk are we talking about? Because it's really about consent right? How much alcohol do you need to do something you wouldn't do sober? Does it have to be passed out drunk before you decide to do a non-sexual stupid thing you wouldn't do otherwise? Is it less than that? The reason it feels like a gray area is that alcohol is a drug we allow people to take en masse and along with it will come this weird line of how much alcohol is needed to remove consent. You are labeling one a rapist and one a rape victim based purely on which one wakes up and regrets it. That is silly. If they are both drunk and end up having sex, no one was raped. Or as someone pointed out above, they would both be rape victims in some scenarios. Your definition of rape is so broad you end up with scenarios as absurd as two people having sex and both of them being rape victims and rapists at the same time. I'm am arguing that culture that looks for consent from someone after they are drugged by alcohol is worse than a culture that emphasizes that consent be given before being drugged by alcohol. Yes, because going to a party and approaching everyone there with "Look, I plan on fucking tonight. If it happens to be with you is that going to be okay with you tomorrow morning?" is going to go over real well for people. What you are proposing won't happen. Welcome to rape culture where discussing about consent while of sound mind is taboo. Can you please outline your idea for how to properly communicate your consent, or lack thereof, to a room full of people that you don't know, likely can't even hear you unless you are yelljng into their ears if at a club or some such, and then how to update said consent status as time passes, people come and go, and your mood changes for better or for worse?
Step 1: If you really enjoyed time with that person when intoxicated, get their contact and talk to them again when sober.
Step 2: If they are uninterested in you when sober then they're probably not worth your time.
Step 3: .....
Step 4: Profit!
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 24 2016 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:42 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 24 2016 01:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:20 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:03 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 00:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:48 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 00:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:34 Kickstart wrote:
[quote]
That would surely be a case of a predator targeting people which I specifically said is assault would it not? I also took care to point out the difference between someone taking advantage of someone who is intoxicated and two people being drunk/high/whatever in a social setting. But if you are going to misrepresent everyone this hard I'll just not converse with you. You start your paragraph by saying alcohol can remove inhibitions and when it does, people can use it for sexual assault. You then say that if a room was full of intoxicated people, it's no longer an issue unless there was a predator in that crowd specifically hunting drunk victims down. Hence my comment that the specificity of the predator does not change the outcome of the drug itself. Ie, dropping ruffies in drinks to drag people to your hotel room is not needed to get people to fuck under the influence. I'm arguing that if two drunk people end up sleeping together that one isn't a rape victim and the other a rapist necessarily, not that someone who roofies someone and then drags them to a room isn't a rapist How drunk are we talking about? Because it's really about consent right? How much alcohol do you need to do something you wouldn't do sober? Does it have to be passed out drunk before you decide to do a non-sexual stupid thing you wouldn't do otherwise? Is it less than that? The reason it feels like a gray area is that alcohol is a drug we allow people to take en masse and along with it will come this weird line of how much alcohol is needed to remove consent. You are labeling one a rapist and one a rape victim based purely on which one wakes up and regrets it. That is silly. If they are both drunk and end up having sex, no one was raped. Or as someone pointed out above, they would both be rape victims in some scenarios. Your definition of rape is so broad you end up with scenarios as absurd as two people having sex and both of them being rape victims and rapists at the same time. I'm am arguing that culture that looks for consent from someone after they are drugged by alcohol is worse than a culture that emphasizes that consent be given before being drugged by alcohol. Yes, because going to a party and approaching everyone there with "Look, I plan on fucking tonight. If it happens to be with you is that going to be okay with you tomorrow morning?" is going to go over real well for people. What you are proposing won't happen. Welcome to rape culture where discussing about consent while of sound mind is taboo. Can you please outline your idea for how to properly communicate your consent, or lack thereof, to a room full of people that you don't know, likely can't even hear you unless you are yelljng into their ears if at a club or some such, and then how to update said consent status as time passes, people come and go, and your mood changes for better or for worse? Step 1: If you really enjoyed time with that person when intoxicated, get their contact and talk to them again when sober. Step 2: If they are uninterested in you when sober then they're probably not worth your time. Step 3: ..... Step 4: Profit!
Look, this is completely unrealistic... what about the people who explicitly are going out looking for someone to hook up with? Just because that is their goal doesn't mean consent dosent matter so you'd have to literally ban drinking + sex to deal with this...
It literally doesn't affect me at all being mostly a non drinker, but people make their own choices about what to put in their bodies. If you drink yourself into a state of poor judgement and sleep with someone you later wish you hadn't, that's on you as long as you weren't preyed upon.
Calling this rape is an absolute insult to actual rape victims. (Which includes people who got taken advantage of when black out drunk obv).
|
On November 24 2016 01:45 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:18 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 24 2016 01:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 24 2016 01:04 biology]major wrote:On November 24 2016 01:00 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:24 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 23 2016 19:48 Velr wrote:
You get these absurd numbers easily.
A Supersayan-SJW' would simply argue:
"Victim" was Drunk/Stoned (not blackout drunk/stoned) --> therefore could not give consent --> therefore the sex was rape.
Therefore I was raped several times and i have raped several times (most of the times i did and experienced both at the same time!)... As have most grown ups. Most just suck it up instead of complaining after the fact that they got too drunk and did something they probably wouldn't have done sober.
As for sexual harassment, thats a diffrent story and i fully belief that women are subject to it way too often. Most rapes aren't reported. Most rape victims do "shut up about it" If you're response after waking up to something was "I shouldn't have done that, but I was drunk" then yes, you have been raped. You were intoxicated enough to get fucked and was not of sound mind to say no. It's about consent, it's about being of sound enough mind to be able to consent, to be able to say no, to be able to say yes. If you wake up the next day and would not have done anything with that person had you been sober--then you were literally drugged into having sex. If this was something you two would do and enjoy while being sober, and alcohol just made it more exciting, then that's recreational drug use. I disagree. I've done lots of things where I think afterwards "hey, that was really stupid". But it was totally in my power to not get drunk in the first place. If I didn't want to lose full control over my actions, I could choose to say no to that beer my buddy is offering me. Sometimes, you have to accept responsibility for your own actions, also as a girl, rather than crying rape. If you get drunk and think, "hey, that guy is cute (he isn't), lets fuck" and regret it the next morning, that isn't rape, that's stupidity and alcohol. That's not to say you can't get raped while drunk. You quite clearly can. Drink even more than in the above scenario and you reach that point where you can't speak (or stand) anymore. And that cannot possibly count as consent in any way, shape or form. Majority of girls don't cry rape. Even the ones actually victimized of rape. It's super under reported. Part of the reason you feel it's normal is because it's so under reported. Part of the reason a lot is at stake for you is because if it started getting accurately reported you and your friends would become redefined as rapists. Sorry, but no. The following scenario is NOT rape, no matter what you call it: Girl has had a few beers, and makes eye contact with a guy. He walks over and throws out some cheesy pickup line. She laughs. They chat a bit, then make out. The girl is clearly enjoying it. They go home together and have sex. The girl wakes up the next morning and sees the man next to her. She regrets having sex with him. She was drugged by her own lust When it wears off and regrets what she did, she was raped. According to TM anyways. You guys don't get it. If you fuck a girl that's unconscious or near unconscious it's a rape. That's it. Whether she got there because she drunk eight bottles of vodka or because she is in a coma after falling off her bike is irrelevant. So, if someone is too drunk to say no, don't do it. It doesn't mean you can't have sex with a drunk girl or being drunk yourself. It's not that hard, I don't see what you people struggle with. And of course the line is extremely hard to find, and of course it's very hard to prove anything, and of course some crazy people will report a rape when nothing like that happened. It also happened a lot that a girl passes out and is fucked by some asshole. And that ain't ok. Nobody is arguing against that! TM is literally saying that if two people are drunk and have sex it is de facto rape because you cant consent while drunk. Still hasn't gotten back to anyone on whether that makes for 1 or 2 rapists tho. Literally everyone has agreed that what you outlined is rape. Edit damn thread is too fast :p Consent is super easy to track back if both people were drunk at the time. Who paid for the hotel room? Who's apartment was unlocked? Who's bedroom was used? Who paid for the taxi? Who paid for the uber? At some point one person pays for the event to take place or takes the other person to their abode. Those are tangible actions of intent requesting for sex. So even though you were both of unsound mind, there is a physical trail of who was the one instigating for sex to occur and hence stopped becoming victims. If she paid for the Uber home, and you stayed in her apartment, used her toys, fucked her roommates, and for some reason you regretted everything when you woke up--then you were taken advantage of. If those were split. One person paid for the ride to the other person's place, or both split the bill on the hotel, or one paid for the hotel and one paid for the ride, etc... Then you have a trail of evidence showing who was instigating the night's actions that required more than a yes/no. You had to spend your money on it, you had to unlock your door for it, you had to use your property, etc... It shows a physical and monetary communication between both parties that has to be (A) agreed to, and (B) executed in sync with each other's intent. "You pay for this, I pay for that, we use location A instead of location B, etc..." Because you cant consent while drunk but make financially rational decisions, that you can do. Im willing it would be easier to convince drunk me to pay for a taxi than to have sex.
It doesn't show rationality, it shows communication was made between parties and shows that neither was not one dragged into the situation by the other.
Person A is drunk. Wakes up in room with Person B. Person A did not place themselves there, does not know where "there" is, and regrets the decision made. Person A was taken advantage of by Person B until Person B can show proof that they discussed the details of the event at hand.
vs
Person A is drunk. Wakes up in their abode to Person B. Person A regrets decision made but there is now proof that it was Person A's idea to make Person B (also drunk and hence of unsound mind) sleep with them because it was Person A's room that got unlocked.
The thread can be expanded as needed depending on the investigation; but physical records is more convincing than he said/she said.
|
On November 24 2016 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:18 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 24 2016 01:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 24 2016 01:04 biology]major wrote:On November 24 2016 01:00 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:24 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 23 2016 19:48 Velr wrote:
You get these absurd numbers easily.
A Supersayan-SJW' would simply argue:
"Victim" was Drunk/Stoned (not blackout drunk/stoned) --> therefore could not give consent --> therefore the sex was rape.
Therefore I was raped several times and i have raped several times (most of the times i did and experienced both at the same time!)... As have most grown ups. Most just suck it up instead of complaining after the fact that they got too drunk and did something they probably wouldn't have done sober.
As for sexual harassment, thats a diffrent story and i fully belief that women are subject to it way too often. Most rapes aren't reported. Most rape victims do "shut up about it" If you're response after waking up to something was "I shouldn't have done that, but I was drunk" then yes, you have been raped. You were intoxicated enough to get fucked and was not of sound mind to say no. It's about consent, it's about being of sound enough mind to be able to consent, to be able to say no, to be able to say yes. If you wake up the next day and would not have done anything with that person had you been sober--then you were literally drugged into having sex. If this was something you two would do and enjoy while being sober, and alcohol just made it more exciting, then that's recreational drug use. I disagree. I've done lots of things where I think afterwards "hey, that was really stupid". But it was totally in my power to not get drunk in the first place. If I didn't want to lose full control over my actions, I could choose to say no to that beer my buddy is offering me. Sometimes, you have to accept responsibility for your own actions, also as a girl, rather than crying rape. If you get drunk and think, "hey, that guy is cute (he isn't), lets fuck" and regret it the next morning, that isn't rape, that's stupidity and alcohol. That's not to say you can't get raped while drunk. You quite clearly can. Drink even more than in the above scenario and you reach that point where you can't speak (or stand) anymore. And that cannot possibly count as consent in any way, shape or form. Majority of girls don't cry rape. Even the ones actually victimized of rape. It's super under reported. Part of the reason you feel it's normal is because it's so under reported. Part of the reason a lot is at stake for you is because if it started getting accurately reported you and your friends would become redefined as rapists. Sorry, but no. The following scenario is NOT rape, no matter what you call it: Girl has had a few beers, and makes eye contact with a guy. He walks over and throws out some cheesy pickup line. She laughs. They chat a bit, then make out. The girl is clearly enjoying it. They go home together and have sex. The girl wakes up the next morning and sees the man next to her. She regrets having sex with him. She was drugged by her own lust When it wears off and regrets what she did, she was raped. According to TM anyways. You guys don't get it. If you fuck a girl that's unconscious or near unconscious it's a rape. That's it. Whether she got there because she drunk eight bottles of vodka or because she is in a coma after falling off her bike is irrelevant. So, if someone is too drunk to say no, don't do it. It doesn't mean you can't have sex with a drunk girl or being drunk yourself. It's not that hard, I don't see what you people struggle with. And of course the line is extremely hard to find, and of course it's very hard to prove anything, and of course some crazy people will report a rape when nothing like that happened. It also happened a lot that a girl passes out and is fucked by some asshole. And that ain't ok. Nobody is arguing against that! TM is literally saying that if two people are drunk and have sex it is de facto rape because you cant consent while drunk. Still hasn't gotten back to anyone on whether that makes for 1 or 2 rapists tho. Literally everyone has agreed that what you outlined is rape. Edit damn thread is too fast :p Consent is super easy to track back if both people were drunk at the time. Who paid for the hotel room? Who's apartment was unlocked? Who's bedroom was used? Who paid for the taxi? Who paid for the uber? At some point one person pays for the event to take place or takes the other person to their abode. Those are tangible actions of intent requesting for sex. So even though you were both of unsound mind, there is a physical trail of who was the one instigating for sex to occur and hence stopped becoming victims. If she paid for the Uber home, and you stayed in her apartment, used her toys, fucked her roommates, and for some reason you regretted everything when you woke up--then you were taken advantage of. If those were split. One person paid for the ride to the other person's place, or both split the bill on the hotel, or one paid for the hotel and one paid for the ride, etc... Then you have a trail of evidence showing who was instigating the night's actions that required more than a yes/no. You had to spend your money on it, you had to unlock your door for it, you had to use your property, etc... It shows a physical and monetary communication between both parties that has to be (A) agreed to, and (B) executed in sync with each other's intent. "You pay for this, I pay for that, we use location A instead of location B, etc..."
Great, so now we have hard evidence that it's definitely not rape (spoiler: it really is) in the following situation:
Girl is blind drunk. Guy is dead sober. He tells the girl she should call an Uber, and gets in with her to go home. She passes out and barely notices him. They go inside and he has sex with her unconscious body in her room.
She clearly wasn't raped, because there is a paper trail showing that she instigated all of it. She payed for the uber and let him into her flat.
/facepalm.
|
On November 24 2016 01:52 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:42 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 24 2016 01:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:20 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:03 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 00:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:48 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 00:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
You start your paragraph by saying alcohol can remove inhibitions and when it does, people can use it for sexual assault.
You then say that if a room was full of intoxicated people, it's no longer an issue unless there was a predator in that crowd specifically hunting drunk victims down.
Hence my comment that the specificity of the predator does not change the outcome of the drug itself. Ie, dropping ruffies in drinks to drag people to your hotel room is not needed to get people to fuck under the influence. I'm arguing that if two drunk people end up sleeping together that one isn't a rape victim and the other a rapist necessarily, not that someone who roofies someone and then drags them to a room isn't a rapist How drunk are we talking about? Because it's really about consent right? How much alcohol do you need to do something you wouldn't do sober? Does it have to be passed out drunk before you decide to do a non-sexual stupid thing you wouldn't do otherwise? Is it less than that? The reason it feels like a gray area is that alcohol is a drug we allow people to take en masse and along with it will come this weird line of how much alcohol is needed to remove consent. You are labeling one a rapist and one a rape victim based purely on which one wakes up and regrets it. That is silly. If they are both drunk and end up having sex, no one was raped. Or as someone pointed out above, they would both be rape victims in some scenarios. Your definition of rape is so broad you end up with scenarios as absurd as two people having sex and both of them being rape victims and rapists at the same time. I'm am arguing that culture that looks for consent from someone after they are drugged by alcohol is worse than a culture that emphasizes that consent be given before being drugged by alcohol. Yes, because going to a party and approaching everyone there with "Look, I plan on fucking tonight. If it happens to be with you is that going to be okay with you tomorrow morning?" is going to go over real well for people. What you are proposing won't happen. Welcome to rape culture where discussing about consent while of sound mind is taboo. Can you please outline your idea for how to properly communicate your consent, or lack thereof, to a room full of people that you don't know, likely can't even hear you unless you are yelljng into their ears if at a club or some such, and then how to update said consent status as time passes, people come and go, and your mood changes for better or for worse? Step 1: If you really enjoyed time with that person when intoxicated, get their contact and talk to them again when sober. Step 2: If they are uninterested in you when sober then they're probably not worth your time. Step 3: ..... Step 4: Profit! Look, this is completely unrealistic... what about the people who explicitly are going out looking for someone to hook up with? Just because that is their goal doesn't mean consent dosent matter so you'd have to literally ban drinking + sex to deal with this...
If their goal is to hook up then what is the harm of making it explicit at the forefront? Some people go to hook up randomly, some people go to find people, some people go to just have a good time and dance--isn't it more important to make that clear early on which one you are? Or is deception a necessary part of the process?
|
Those are completely arbitrary as well. What if one person is filthy rich and always pays for everything? What if one person doesn't live alone while the other does? What if one is just being courteous and paying for things? Who pays for what is as arbitrary as who wakes up regretting it.
|
On November 24 2016 01:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:18 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 24 2016 01:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 24 2016 01:04 biology]major wrote:On November 24 2016 01:00 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:24 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 23 2016 19:48 Velr wrote:
You get these absurd numbers easily.
A Supersayan-SJW' would simply argue:
"Victim" was Drunk/Stoned (not blackout drunk/stoned) --> therefore could not give consent --> therefore the sex was rape.
Therefore I was raped several times and i have raped several times (most of the times i did and experienced both at the same time!)... As have most grown ups. Most just suck it up instead of complaining after the fact that they got too drunk and did something they probably wouldn't have done sober.
As for sexual harassment, thats a diffrent story and i fully belief that women are subject to it way too often. Most rapes aren't reported. Most rape victims do "shut up about it" If you're response after waking up to something was "I shouldn't have done that, but I was drunk" then yes, you have been raped. You were intoxicated enough to get fucked and was not of sound mind to say no. It's about consent, it's about being of sound enough mind to be able to consent, to be able to say no, to be able to say yes. If you wake up the next day and would not have done anything with that person had you been sober--then you were literally drugged into having sex. If this was something you two would do and enjoy while being sober, and alcohol just made it more exciting, then that's recreational drug use. I disagree. I've done lots of things where I think afterwards "hey, that was really stupid". But it was totally in my power to not get drunk in the first place. If I didn't want to lose full control over my actions, I could choose to say no to that beer my buddy is offering me. Sometimes, you have to accept responsibility for your own actions, also as a girl, rather than crying rape. If you get drunk and think, "hey, that guy is cute (he isn't), lets fuck" and regret it the next morning, that isn't rape, that's stupidity and alcohol. That's not to say you can't get raped while drunk. You quite clearly can. Drink even more than in the above scenario and you reach that point where you can't speak (or stand) anymore. And that cannot possibly count as consent in any way, shape or form. Majority of girls don't cry rape. Even the ones actually victimized of rape. It's super under reported. Part of the reason you feel it's normal is because it's so under reported. Part of the reason a lot is at stake for you is because if it started getting accurately reported you and your friends would become redefined as rapists. Sorry, but no. The following scenario is NOT rape, no matter what you call it: Girl has had a few beers, and makes eye contact with a guy. He walks over and throws out some cheesy pickup line. She laughs. They chat a bit, then make out. The girl is clearly enjoying it. They go home together and have sex. The girl wakes up the next morning and sees the man next to her. She regrets having sex with him. She was drugged by her own lust When it wears off and regrets what she did, she was raped. According to TM anyways. You guys don't get it. If you fuck a girl that's unconscious or near unconscious it's a rape. That's it. Whether she got there because she drunk eight bottles of vodka or because she is in a coma after falling off her bike is irrelevant. So, if someone is too drunk to say no, don't do it. It doesn't mean you can't have sex with a drunk girl or being drunk yourself. It's not that hard, I don't see what you people struggle with. And of course the line is extremely hard to find, and of course it's very hard to prove anything, and of course some crazy people will report a rape when nothing like that happened. It also happened a lot that a girl passes out and is fucked by some asshole. And that ain't ok. Nobody is arguing against that! TM is literally saying that if two people are drunk and have sex it is de facto rape because you cant consent while drunk. Still hasn't gotten back to anyone on whether that makes for 1 or 2 rapists tho. Literally everyone has agreed that what you outlined is rape. Edit damn thread is too fast :p Consent is super easy to track back if both people were drunk at the time. Who paid for the hotel room? Who's apartment was unlocked? Who's bedroom was used? Who paid for the taxi? Who paid for the uber? At some point one person pays for the event to take place or takes the other person to their abode. Those are tangible actions of intent requesting for sex. So even though you were both of unsound mind, there is a physical trail of who was the one instigating for sex to occur and hence stopped becoming victims. If she paid for the Uber home, and you stayed in her apartment, used her toys, fucked her roommates, and for some reason you regretted everything when you woke up--then you were taken advantage of. If those were split. One person paid for the ride to the other person's place, or both split the bill on the hotel, or one paid for the hotel and one paid for the ride, etc... Then you have a trail of evidence showing who was instigating the night's actions that required more than a yes/no. You had to spend your money on it, you had to unlock your door for it, you had to use your property, etc... It shows a physical and monetary communication between both parties that has to be (A) agreed to, and (B) executed in sync with each other's intent. "You pay for this, I pay for that, we use location A instead of location B, etc..." Great, so now we have hard evidence that it's definitely not rape (spoiler: it really is) in the following situation: Girl is blind drunk. Guy is dead sober. He tells the girl she should call an Uber, and gets in with her to go home. She passes out and barely notices him. They go inside and he has sex with her unconscious body in her room. She clearly wasn't raped, because there is a paper trail showing that she instigated all of it. She payed for the uber and let him into her flat. /facepalm.
If one was sober and one was drunk then its rape, as I have already said. Where you physically are would not matter when only one person is of sound mind.
|
On November 24 2016 01:54 Kickstart wrote:
Those are completely arbitrary as well. What if one person is filthy rich and always pays for everything? What if one person doesn't live alone while the other does? What if one is just being courteous and paying for things? Who pays for what is as arbitrary as who wakes up regretting it.
Wouldn't it be great if we lived in a culture where the consent was then made up front to remove these gray areas!
|
On November 24 2016 01:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:54 Kickstart wrote:
Those are completely arbitrary as well. What if one person is filthy rich and always pays for everything? What if one person doesn't live alone while the other does? What if one is just being courteous and paying for things? Who pays for what is as arbitrary as who wakes up regretting it. Wouldn't it be great if we lived in a culture where the consent was then made up front to remove these gray areas!
Some societies have marriage and sex through contracts only. I personally don't think it would be that great to be honest.
edit: a bit flippant and hasty and doesn't make sense (marriage is itself a contract) What I meant to say was that reducing the act of courtship and sex to a business contract wouldn't be that great. Is the idea of going to a brothel particularly romantic to you?
|
No one lives in such a culture and there, luckily, never will be.
|
On November 24 2016 01:57 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:54 Kickstart wrote:
Those are completely arbitrary as well. What if one person is filthy rich and always pays for everything? What if one person doesn't live alone while the other does? What if one is just being courteous and paying for things? Who pays for what is as arbitrary as who wakes up regretting it. Wouldn't it be great if we lived in a culture where the consent was then made up front to remove these gray areas! Some societies have marriage and sex through contracts only. I personally don't think it would be that great to be honest.
Marriages *are* contracts. At least in western societies.
|
On November 24 2016 01:57 Velr wrote:
No one lives in such a culture and there, luckily, never will be.
A culture that thinks consent is not important is rape culture.
|
No one was arguing against consent.
Your fighting windmills.
|
On November 24 2016 01:59 Velr wrote:
And no one was arguing against consent.
I had assumed you were responding to my statement: Wouldn't it be great if we lived in a culture where the consent was then made up front to remove these gray areas!
And saying that you would not want that world to come to pass. Is that true or false?
|
On November 24 2016 01:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:53 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:18 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 24 2016 01:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 24 2016 01:04 biology]major wrote:On November 24 2016 01:00 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:24 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Most rapes aren't reported. Most rape victims do "shut up about it"
If you're response after waking up to something was "I shouldn't have done that, but I was drunk" then yes, you have been raped. You were intoxicated enough to get fucked and was not of sound mind to say no.
It's about consent, it's about being of sound enough mind to be able to consent, to be able to say no, to be able to say yes. If you wake up the next day and would not have done anything with that person had you been sober--then you were literally drugged into having sex. If this was something you two would do and enjoy while being sober, and alcohol just made it more exciting, then that's recreational drug use. I disagree. I've done lots of things where I think afterwards "hey, that was really stupid". But it was totally in my power to not get drunk in the first place. If I didn't want to lose full control over my actions, I could choose to say no to that beer my buddy is offering me. Sometimes, you have to accept responsibility for your own actions, also as a girl, rather than crying rape. If you get drunk and think, "hey, that guy is cute (he isn't), lets fuck" and regret it the next morning, that isn't rape, that's stupidity and alcohol. That's not to say you can't get raped while drunk. You quite clearly can. Drink even more than in the above scenario and you reach that point where you can't speak (or stand) anymore. And that cannot possibly count as consent in any way, shape or form. Majority of girls don't cry rape. Even the ones actually victimized of rape. It's super under reported. Part of the reason you feel it's normal is because it's so under reported. Part of the reason a lot is at stake for you is because if it started getting accurately reported you and your friends would become redefined as rapists. Sorry, but no. The following scenario is NOT rape, no matter what you call it: Girl has had a few beers, and makes eye contact with a guy. He walks over and throws out some cheesy pickup line. She laughs. They chat a bit, then make out. The girl is clearly enjoying it. They go home together and have sex. The girl wakes up the next morning and sees the man next to her. She regrets having sex with him. She was drugged by her own lust When it wears off and regrets what she did, she was raped. According to TM anyways. You guys don't get it. If you fuck a girl that's unconscious or near unconscious it's a rape. That's it. Whether she got there because she drunk eight bottles of vodka or because she is in a coma after falling off her bike is irrelevant. So, if someone is too drunk to say no, don't do it. It doesn't mean you can't have sex with a drunk girl or being drunk yourself. It's not that hard, I don't see what you people struggle with. And of course the line is extremely hard to find, and of course it's very hard to prove anything, and of course some crazy people will report a rape when nothing like that happened. It also happened a lot that a girl passes out and is fucked by some asshole. And that ain't ok. Nobody is arguing against that! TM is literally saying that if two people are drunk and have sex it is de facto rape because you cant consent while drunk. Still hasn't gotten back to anyone on whether that makes for 1 or 2 rapists tho. Literally everyone has agreed that what you outlined is rape. Edit damn thread is too fast :p Consent is super easy to track back if both people were drunk at the time. Who paid for the hotel room? Who's apartment was unlocked? Who's bedroom was used? Who paid for the taxi? Who paid for the uber? At some point one person pays for the event to take place or takes the other person to their abode. Those are tangible actions of intent requesting for sex. So even though you were both of unsound mind, there is a physical trail of who was the one instigating for sex to occur and hence stopped becoming victims. If she paid for the Uber home, and you stayed in her apartment, used her toys, fucked her roommates, and for some reason you regretted everything when you woke up--then you were taken advantage of. If those were split. One person paid for the ride to the other person's place, or both split the bill on the hotel, or one paid for the hotel and one paid for the ride, etc... Then you have a trail of evidence showing who was instigating the night's actions that required more than a yes/no. You had to spend your money on it, you had to unlock your door for it, you had to use your property, etc... It shows a physical and monetary communication between both parties that has to be (A) agreed to, and (B) executed in sync with each other's intent. "You pay for this, I pay for that, we use location A instead of location B, etc..." Great, so now we have hard evidence that it's definitely not rape (spoiler: it really is) in the following situation: Girl is blind drunk. Guy is dead sober. He tells the girl she should call an Uber, and gets in with her to go home. She passes out and barely notices him. They go inside and he has sex with her unconscious body in her room. She clearly wasn't raped, because there is a paper trail showing that she instigated all of it. She payed for the uber and let him into her flat. /facepalm. If one was sober and one was drunk then its rape, as I have already said. Where you physically are would not matter when only one person is of sound mind.
That was an argument against your line of evidence. It was to show the utter arbitrariness of your "paper trail". But hey, circular reasoning for the win!
|
That has nothing to do with real human behaviour, but i'm starting to think you actually have no idea what humans behave like.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 24 2016 01:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:45 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 24 2016 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:18 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 24 2016 01:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 24 2016 01:04 biology]major wrote:On November 24 2016 01:00 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:24 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Most rapes aren't reported. Most rape victims do "shut up about it"
If you're response after waking up to something was "I shouldn't have done that, but I was drunk" then yes, you have been raped. You were intoxicated enough to get fucked and was not of sound mind to say no.
It's about consent, it's about being of sound enough mind to be able to consent, to be able to say no, to be able to say yes. If you wake up the next day and would not have done anything with that person had you been sober--then you were literally drugged into having sex. If this was something you two would do and enjoy while being sober, and alcohol just made it more exciting, then that's recreational drug use. I disagree. I've done lots of things where I think afterwards "hey, that was really stupid". But it was totally in my power to not get drunk in the first place. If I didn't want to lose full control over my actions, I could choose to say no to that beer my buddy is offering me. Sometimes, you have to accept responsibility for your own actions, also as a girl, rather than crying rape. If you get drunk and think, "hey, that guy is cute (he isn't), lets fuck" and regret it the next morning, that isn't rape, that's stupidity and alcohol. That's not to say you can't get raped while drunk. You quite clearly can. Drink even more than in the above scenario and you reach that point where you can't speak (or stand) anymore. And that cannot possibly count as consent in any way, shape or form. Majority of girls don't cry rape. Even the ones actually victimized of rape. It's super under reported. Part of the reason you feel it's normal is because it's so under reported. Part of the reason a lot is at stake for you is because if it started getting accurately reported you and your friends would become redefined as rapists. Sorry, but no. The following scenario is NOT rape, no matter what you call it: Girl has had a few beers, and makes eye contact with a guy. He walks over and throws out some cheesy pickup line. She laughs. They chat a bit, then make out. The girl is clearly enjoying it. They go home together and have sex. The girl wakes up the next morning and sees the man next to her. She regrets having sex with him. She was drugged by her own lust When it wears off and regrets what she did, she was raped. According to TM anyways. You guys don't get it. If you fuck a girl that's unconscious or near unconscious it's a rape. That's it. Whether she got there because she drunk eight bottles of vodka or because she is in a coma after falling off her bike is irrelevant. So, if someone is too drunk to say no, don't do it. It doesn't mean you can't have sex with a drunk girl or being drunk yourself. It's not that hard, I don't see what you people struggle with. And of course the line is extremely hard to find, and of course it's very hard to prove anything, and of course some crazy people will report a rape when nothing like that happened. It also happened a lot that a girl passes out and is fucked by some asshole. And that ain't ok. Nobody is arguing against that! TM is literally saying that if two people are drunk and have sex it is de facto rape because you cant consent while drunk. Still hasn't gotten back to anyone on whether that makes for 1 or 2 rapists tho. Literally everyone has agreed that what you outlined is rape. Edit damn thread is too fast :p Consent is super easy to track back if both people were drunk at the time. Who paid for the hotel room? Who's apartment was unlocked? Who's bedroom was used? Who paid for the taxi? Who paid for the uber? At some point one person pays for the event to take place or takes the other person to their abode. Those are tangible actions of intent requesting for sex. So even though you were both of unsound mind, there is a physical trail of who was the one instigating for sex to occur and hence stopped becoming victims. If she paid for the Uber home, and you stayed in her apartment, used her toys, fucked her roommates, and for some reason you regretted everything when you woke up--then you were taken advantage of. If those were split. One person paid for the ride to the other person's place, or both split the bill on the hotel, or one paid for the hotel and one paid for the ride, etc... Then you have a trail of evidence showing who was instigating the night's actions that required more than a yes/no. You had to spend your money on it, you had to unlock your door for it, you had to use your property, etc... It shows a physical and monetary communication between both parties that has to be (A) agreed to, and (B) executed in sync with each other's intent. "You pay for this, I pay for that, we use location A instead of location B, etc..." Because you cant consent while drunk but make financially rational decisions, that you can do. Im willing it would be easier to convince drunk me to pay for a taxi than to have sex. It doesn't show rationality, it shows communication was made between parties and shows that neither was not one dragged into the situation by the other. Person A is drunk. Wakes up in room with Person B. Person A did not place themselves there, does not know where "there" is, and regrets the decision made. Person A was taken advantage of by Person B until Person B can show proof that they discussed the details of the event at hand. vs Person A is drunk. Wakes up in their abode to Person B. Person A regrets decision made but there is now proof that it was Person A's idea to make Person B (also drunk and hence of unsound mind) sleep with them because it was Person A's room that got unlocked. The thread can be expanded as needed depending on the investigation; but physical records is more convincing than he said/she said.
So drunken sex is basically a rape/rapist coinflip.
I wake up in a strange place, Im a victim, I wake up at home, Im a rapist.
Show proof... what fucking proof would you show of a physicsl conversation? Until the day we start getting implants or wearables that record everything we do that seems impossible.
Here's another example.
Lets say we wake up in a hotel. Neither party paid for a taxi because this is korea and love motels exist everywhere.
The rapist is therefore whomever paid for the hotel? What if the other person talked them into paying?
It's seriously impossible to call someone a rapist based on something so flimsy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
