|
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 22 2017 06:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 06:52 Gorsameth wrote:On November 22 2017 06:49 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 06:45 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:42 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:19 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:07 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:06 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:00 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 05:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
This is a problem of social attitudes toward men being taking advantage of, more than anything else.
Like, if you were drunk and a woman took advantage of you, and you woke up next morning to find that you cheated on your wife, I'm sure you would want to claim the legitimate position of "it's not my fault, someone took advantage of me while I was drunk off my ass". The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse! The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions. So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible? "your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart"" Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not. So you're drawing an arbitrary line here? We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her? Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk. But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'. If both people are blackout drunk they're not going to be having sex. If one person who is drunk but conscious and sees another unconscious drunk person and has sex with them, clearly the consciously drunk person would be in the wrong. Why are you being so idiotic about this? Because you don't need to be 'blackout drunk' to be unable to give legal consent. This is fine, but how drunk do you have to be?
The same amount of drunk where you can’t sign a contract, can’t stand trial and can’t drive a car.
|
On November 22 2017 06:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 06:52 Gorsameth wrote:On November 22 2017 06:49 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 06:45 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:42 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:19 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:07 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:06 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:00 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 05:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
This is a problem of social attitudes toward men being taking advantage of, more than anything else.
Like, if you were drunk and a woman took advantage of you, and you woke up next morning to find that you cheated on your wife, I'm sure you would want to claim the legitimate position of "it's not my fault, someone took advantage of me while I was drunk off my ass". The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse! The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions. So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible? "your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart"" Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not. So you're drawing an arbitrary line here? We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her? Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk. But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'. If both people are blackout drunk they're not going to be having sex. If one person who is drunk but conscious and sees another unconscious drunk person and has sex with them, clearly the consciously drunk person would be in the wrong. Why are you being so idiotic about this? Because you don't need to be 'blackout drunk' to be unable to give legal consent. This is fine, but how drunk do you have to be?
| _______ |
|
On November 22 2017 06:55 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 06:54 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:51 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:49 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 06:45 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:42 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:19 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:07 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:06 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:00 Excludos wrote:
[quote]
The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse!
The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions. So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible? "your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart"" Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not. So you're drawing an arbitrary line here? We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her? Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk. But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'. If both people are blackout drunk they're not going to be having sex. If one person who is drunk but conscious and sees another unconscious drunk person and has sex with them, clearly the consciously drunk person would be in the wrong. Why are you being so idiotic about this? Wait is the only time someone who is sober can prey on a drunk person is when the drunk person is unconscious? What about a sober person coercing someone who is just really drunk (but conscious) into having sex? It's a shitty thing to do but not rape. Sober people have sex with drunk people all the time. Hell I've done that (Of course I knew her very well at that point). Again, you can't just use the excuse that you're drunk so "obviously" you are not responsible for what happened. Try doing anything illegal while drunk and see how far that excuse gets you (legally, it means exactly zero) So there's no problem with knowingly getting someone drunk to have sex with them so long as they remain conscious? Again the only act that anyone is doing while drunk that's not consistent with being responsible for your own actions that you've mentioned is "getting consent from someone who is impaired"
I refuse to answer straw man arguments. Especially one as stupid as this
|
On November 22 2017 06:56 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 06:55 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:54 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:51 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:49 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 06:45 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:42 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:19 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:07 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:06 Logo wrote:
[quote]
So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible?
"your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart"" Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not. So you're drawing an arbitrary line here? We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her? Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk. But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'. If both people are blackout drunk they're not going to be having sex. If one person who is drunk but conscious and sees another unconscious drunk person and has sex with them, clearly the consciously drunk person would be in the wrong. Why are you being so idiotic about this? Wait is the only time someone who is sober can prey on a drunk person is when the drunk person is unconscious? What about a sober person coercing someone who is just really drunk (but conscious) into having sex? It's a shitty thing to do but not rape. Sober people have sex with drunk people all the time. Hell I've done that (Of course I knew her very well at that point). Again, you can't just use the excuse that you're drunk so "obviously" you are not responsible for what happened. Try doing anything illegal while drunk and see how far that excuse gets you (legally, it means exactly zero) So there's no problem with knowingly getting someone drunk to have sex with them so long as they remain conscious? Again the only act that anyone is doing while drunk that's not consistent with being responsible for your own actions that you've mentioned is "getting consent from someone who is impaired" I refuse to answer straw man arguments
So... yes is your answer?
And it's not a strawman.
|
On November 22 2017 06:57 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 06:56 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:55 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:54 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:51 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:49 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 06:45 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:42 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:19 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:07 Excludos wrote:
[quote]
"your
jɔː,jʊə/Send
determiner
1.
belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
"what is your name?"
2.
belonging to or associated with any person in general.
"the sight is enough to break your heart""
Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not. So you're drawing an arbitrary line here? We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her? Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk. But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'. If both people are blackout drunk they're not going to be having sex. If one person who is drunk but conscious and sees another unconscious drunk person and has sex with them, clearly the consciously drunk person would be in the wrong. Why are you being so idiotic about this? Wait is the only time someone who is sober can prey on a drunk person is when the drunk person is unconscious? What about a sober person coercing someone who is just really drunk (but conscious) into having sex? It's a shitty thing to do but not rape. Sober people have sex with drunk people all the time. Hell I've done that (Of course I knew her very well at that point). Again, you can't just use the excuse that you're drunk so "obviously" you are not responsible for what happened. Try doing anything illegal while drunk and see how far that excuse gets you (legally, it means exactly zero) So there's no problem with knowingly getting someone drunk to have sex with them so long as they remain conscious? Again the only act that anyone is doing while drunk that's not consistent with being responsible for your own actions that you've mentioned is "getting consent from someone who is impaired" I refuse to answer straw man arguments So... yes is your answer? And it's not a strawman.
It's by definition strawman. You just took something I said and made it into an argument to something I didn't say. And my answer is still that I think what you just said is borderline retarded and I refuse to further continue this dialog with you in fear of ripping my hair out.
|
On November 22 2017 06:56 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 06:55 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:54 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:51 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:49 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 06:45 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:42 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:19 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:07 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:06 Logo wrote:
[quote]
So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible?
"your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart"" Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not. So you're drawing an arbitrary line here? We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her? Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk. But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'. If both people are blackout drunk they're not going to be having sex. If one person who is drunk but conscious and sees another unconscious drunk person and has sex with them, clearly the consciously drunk person would be in the wrong. Why are you being so idiotic about this? Wait is the only time someone who is sober can prey on a drunk person is when the drunk person is unconscious? What about a sober person coercing someone who is just really drunk (but conscious) into having sex? It's a shitty thing to do but not rape. Sober people have sex with drunk people all the time. Hell I've done that (Of course I knew her very well at that point). Again, you can't just use the excuse that you're drunk so "obviously" you are not responsible for what happened. Try doing anything illegal while drunk and see how far that excuse gets you (legally, it means exactly zero) So there's no problem with knowingly getting someone drunk to have sex with them so long as they remain conscious? Again the only act that anyone is doing while drunk that's not consistent with being responsible for your own actions that you've mentioned is "getting consent from someone who is impaired" I refuse to answer straw man arguments
Don't see how it's a strawman. You did use a few strawmen in the last page on the other hand.
|
On November 22 2017 06:59 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 06:57 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:56 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:55 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:54 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:51 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:49 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 06:45 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:42 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:19 Logo wrote:
[quote]
So you're drawing an arbitrary line here?
We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her? Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk. But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'. If both people are blackout drunk they're not going to be having sex. If one person who is drunk but conscious and sees another unconscious drunk person and has sex with them, clearly the consciously drunk person would be in the wrong. Why are you being so idiotic about this? Wait is the only time someone who is sober can prey on a drunk person is when the drunk person is unconscious? What about a sober person coercing someone who is just really drunk (but conscious) into having sex? It's a shitty thing to do but not rape. Sober people have sex with drunk people all the time. Hell I've done that (Of course I knew her very well at that point). Again, you can't just use the excuse that you're drunk so "obviously" you are not responsible for what happened. Try doing anything illegal while drunk and see how far that excuse gets you (legally, it means exactly zero) So there's no problem with knowingly getting someone drunk to have sex with them so long as they remain conscious? Again the only act that anyone is doing while drunk that's not consistent with being responsible for your own actions that you've mentioned is "getting consent from someone who is impaired" I refuse to answer straw man arguments So... yes is your answer? And it's not a strawman. It's by definition strawman. You just took something I said and made it into an argument to something I didn't say. And my answer is still that I think what you just said is borderline retarded and I refuse to further continue this dialog with you in fear of ripping my hair out.
I asked you an additional question because you revealed new information about where you view the lines as being. I didn't put any words in your mouth (until I presumed your answer was yes it's ok that is but that was after your strawman accusation).
|
On November 22 2017 07:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 06:56 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:55 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:54 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:51 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:49 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 06:45 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:42 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:19 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:07 Excludos wrote:
[quote]
"your
jɔː,jʊə/Send
determiner
1.
belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
"what is your name?"
2.
belonging to or associated with any person in general.
"the sight is enough to break your heart""
Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not. So you're drawing an arbitrary line here? We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her? Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk. But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'. If both people are blackout drunk they're not going to be having sex. If one person who is drunk but conscious and sees another unconscious drunk person and has sex with them, clearly the consciously drunk person would be in the wrong. Why are you being so idiotic about this? Wait is the only time someone who is sober can prey on a drunk person is when the drunk person is unconscious? What about a sober person coercing someone who is just really drunk (but conscious) into having sex? It's a shitty thing to do but not rape. Sober people have sex with drunk people all the time. Hell I've done that (Of course I knew her very well at that point). Again, you can't just use the excuse that you're drunk so "obviously" you are not responsible for what happened. Try doing anything illegal while drunk and see how far that excuse gets you (legally, it means exactly zero) So there's no problem with knowingly getting someone drunk to have sex with them so long as they remain conscious? Again the only act that anyone is doing while drunk that's not consistent with being responsible for your own actions that you've mentioned is "getting consent from someone who is impaired" I refuse to answer straw man arguments Don't see how it's a strawman. You did use a few strawmen in the last page on the other hand.
Please extrapolate
edit: don't. This thread has been tainted enough. This discussion has devolved into idiocy and has no further value to anyone including ourselves.
|
On November 22 2017 06:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 06:52 Gorsameth wrote:On November 22 2017 06:49 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 06:45 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:42 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:19 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:07 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:06 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:00 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 05:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
This is a problem of social attitudes toward men being taking advantage of, more than anything else.
Like, if you were drunk and a woman took advantage of you, and you woke up next morning to find that you cheated on your wife, I'm sure you would want to claim the legitimate position of "it's not my fault, someone took advantage of me while I was drunk off my ass". The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse! The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions. So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible? "your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart"" Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not. So you're drawing an arbitrary line here? We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her? Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk. But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'. If both people are blackout drunk they're not going to be having sex. If one person who is drunk but conscious and sees another unconscious drunk person and has sex with them, clearly the consciously drunk person would be in the wrong. Why are you being so idiotic about this? Because you don't need to be 'blackout drunk' to be unable to give legal consent. This is fine, but how drunk do you have to be?
As others said, whatever the legal limit for consent is (contracts ect). I don't know what that is but I don't find myself in such situations.
|
On November 22 2017 07:01 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 07:00 Nebuchad wrote:On November 22 2017 06:56 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:55 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:54 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:51 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:49 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 06:45 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:42 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:19 Logo wrote:
[quote]
So you're drawing an arbitrary line here?
We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her? Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk. But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'. If both people are blackout drunk they're not going to be having sex. If one person who is drunk but conscious and sees another unconscious drunk person and has sex with them, clearly the consciously drunk person would be in the wrong. Why are you being so idiotic about this? Wait is the only time someone who is sober can prey on a drunk person is when the drunk person is unconscious? What about a sober person coercing someone who is just really drunk (but conscious) into having sex? It's a shitty thing to do but not rape. Sober people have sex with drunk people all the time. Hell I've done that (Of course I knew her very well at that point). Again, you can't just use the excuse that you're drunk so "obviously" you are not responsible for what happened. Try doing anything illegal while drunk and see how far that excuse gets you (legally, it means exactly zero) So there's no problem with knowingly getting someone drunk to have sex with them so long as they remain conscious? Again the only act that anyone is doing while drunk that's not consistent with being responsible for your own actions that you've mentioned is "getting consent from someone who is impaired" I refuse to answer straw man arguments Don't see how it's a strawman. You did use a few strawmen in the last page on the other hand. Please expand
Your treatment of "near blackout drunk" wasn't quite honest.
|
On November 22 2017 06:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 06:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 06:52 Gorsameth wrote:On November 22 2017 06:49 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 06:45 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:42 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:19 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:07 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:06 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:00 Excludos wrote:
[quote]
The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse!
The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions. So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible? "your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart"" Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not. So you're drawing an arbitrary line here? We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her? Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk. But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'. If both people are blackout drunk they're not going to be having sex. If one person who is drunk but conscious and sees another unconscious drunk person and has sex with them, clearly the consciously drunk person would be in the wrong. Why are you being so idiotic about this? Because you don't need to be 'blackout drunk' to be unable to give legal consent. This is fine, but how drunk do you have to be? The same amount of drunk where you can’t sign a contract, can’t stand trial and can’t drive a car.
If i get drunk and have sex with someone can i claim i was raped and get my partners sympathy?
Edit: first question was clearly from male perspective.
The breathalizer in the bedroom sounds interesting
Its gotta be more than driving a car tolerance btw
|
Norway28706 Posts
On November 22 2017 06:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 06:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 06:52 Gorsameth wrote:On November 22 2017 06:49 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 06:45 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:42 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:19 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:07 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 06:06 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 06:00 Excludos wrote:
[quote]
The first thing we all learn about alcohol is that it does not exempt you from your actions. If you cheated on your wife while drunk, you cheated on your wife and have no excuses. It is not a legitimate excuse!
The same goes for girls who have sex with guys where both are drunk. It's not an excuse, and you are yourself responsible for your own actions. So if someone mugs you while you are drunk you're the one responsible? "your jɔː,jʊə/Send determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart"" Your actions, as in what you do. I'm pretty sure someone mugging you would make zero difference whether your drunk or not. So you're drawing an arbitrary line here? We say that you can't get consent from someone you know to be impaired. So why is it the woman's fault if someone violates her inability to given consent while impaired but not her fault if someone mugs her? Why are we discussing two different things? Being sober and going on someone who is near blackout drunk is obvious rape. Two drunk people having sex is not, and you are responsible for your actions even while drunk. But you said drunk people are responsible for their actions. Now you're now saying if someone is drunk they aren't responsible for 'going on someone who is near blackout drunk'. If both people are blackout drunk they're not going to be having sex. If one person who is drunk but conscious and sees another unconscious drunk person and has sex with them, clearly the consciously drunk person would be in the wrong. Why are you being so idiotic about this? Because you don't need to be 'blackout drunk' to be unable to give legal consent. This is fine, but how drunk do you have to be? The same amount of drunk where you can’t sign a contract, can’t stand trial and can’t drive a car.
That's ridiculous. In Norway the BAC level for driving a car is 0.2. Most women are above that after one beer or one glass of wine. Unless you're arguing that the amount you can drink before you can consent to having sex varies from country to country?
|
From a legal perspective, being drunk gives you no leniency. What does matter, however, is if you are unable to give concept of some sort. Where this is obviously differs widely from person to person, but generally the other part will know when this is (mainly, by the girl (or guy, let's be fair) not being able to say "yes"). So the only excuse you can legitimately make if you've been cheating on your partner is indeed if you have been so drunk you have technically been raped because you were literally unable to stop it.
It's a fairly good place to draw the line in my opinion.
|
P6 are you saying the man can't give consent either, meaning they are both raping each other? Or are you saying that for equal intoxication, the man is the one doing the raping and only the man?
|
On November 22 2017 07:13 Mohdoo wrote:
P6 are you saying the man can't give consent either, meaning they are both raping each other? Or are you saying that for equal intoxication, the man is the one doing the raping and only the man?
Them both raping each other isn't that absurd a legal standpoint I don't think. If two underage people have sex, they are legally both raping each other and if either party (or more usually either party's parents) tried to bring the case to court they would have to see their own child convicted too.
|
This discussion seems a mess to me because it looks like some people are arguing about a persons intoxication limit being interpreted by the courts, and others are arguing from their own moral assessment of what is appropriate.
|
On November 22 2017 07:15 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 07:13 Mohdoo wrote:
P6 are you saying the man can't give consent either, meaning they are both raping each other? Or are you saying that for equal intoxication, the man is the one doing the raping and only the man? Them both raping each other isn't that absurd a legal standpoint I don't think. If two underage people have sex, they are legally both raping each other and if either party (or more usually either party's parents) tried to bring the case to court they would have to see their own child convicted too.
I don't know the laws of your country for this, but in Norway (and I would presume every other civilized country tbh) having sex with a minor is firstly not considered rape (even if it's called statutory rape), and secondly you're exempt from that law if the person you are having sex with is equal age. IE: an 16 year old having sex with a 15 year old is not going to be tried. I'm unsure exactly where the line for equal age is drawn.
edit: After googling, apparently a 17 year old has gone to prison for having oral sex with a 15 year old, so the line is very thin.
edit2: cleaned up a bit for less mixing of countries and laws.
|
On November 22 2017 07:15 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 07:13 Mohdoo wrote:
P6 are you saying the man can't give consent either, meaning they are both raping each other? Or are you saying that for equal intoxication, the man is the one doing the raping and only the man? Them both raping each other isn't that absurd a legal standpoint I don't think. If two underage people have sex, they are legally both raping each other and if either party (or more usually either party's parents) tried to bring the case to court they would have to see their own child convicted too.
I've been approaching this from a purely ethical perspective because laws surrounding this issue are complete garbage. When a kid can become a registered sex offender by sending nude pictures of themselves to their significant other, the law loses a lot of its credibility.
|
On November 22 2017 07:13 Mohdoo wrote:
P6 are you saying the man can't give consent either, meaning they are both raping each other? Or are you saying that for equal intoxication, the man is the one doing the raping and only the man?
I think I was pretty clear that said neither party can consent and didn’t talk about gender at all. But then I pointed out that the facts leading up to how they got drunk and their relationship impact the case. Really, there are far more important than how drunk the people were.
You are not going to find two people who have never meet, are both equally intoxicated, happen to have sex with each other and then both decide to press charges.
|
On November 22 2017 07:18 Tachion wrote:
This discussion seems a mess to me because it looks like some people are arguing about a persons intoxication limit being interpreted by the courts, and others are arguing from their own moral assessment of what is appropriate.
Its because everyone wants a Yes or No answer, but all the answers are “Maybe, it depends on the facts.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
