|
Canada8991 Posts
On December 16 2016 08:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 07:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 07:16 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 06:49 JimmiC wrote:
If you right on this some one needs to arrest my wife she has raped me over 300 times! Depending on both your vows and your religiosity--a big part of marriage is sharing everything with each other. It can definitely be argued that there is an assumed level of consent between married couples. However, rape still happens even in these setups as majority of rapes actually happen between people who know each other or are friends/partners. So while you can joke about your wife raping you--most rapes actually happen between partners so its not actually that crazy of a statement. Its not at all a crazy statement based on your definition. She has because we have had sex tons of times while I've been very drunk. Basically with your definition all drunk sex is rape by one or both parties. We are going to need a lot more jails, police officers and so on to deal with it. My biggest frustration with your point of view is in some attempt at, well I'm not even sure what, you are devaluing all the actual situations (drunk and sober, married not married so on) where sex with consent actually happens and is horrible. I did not call it rape, I called it sex without consent. How you wish to see what that means is up to you. Or, think of it this way, lets say you were a shop owner and you saw a starving kid sit outside your store, you see him do that for months. One day he tries to take food from your store and you stop him. Do you send him to the police or do you realize the context of the situation is important? Do you talk him down, tell him what he did is wrong and let him go? Do you talk him down, let him know it was wrong and give him the food? Do you get the cops to show up and put him in jail? Lots of options available to you as the victim against the criminal doing something bad. The same is also true with your wife. And the same is also true for all the times you've fucked her while she was drunk. If you believe in a black and white world where people only do good things and only do bad things then I can see why you're having a hard time grasping what I'm saying. But I will repeat it. When you remove the ability for someone to make informed consent, then you are forcing them to do something without consent. The consequences of those actions are determined by the parties involved. If you don't trust the person you are sleeping with to not take advantage of what is happening, then you should protect yourself. if you trust them--then part of trusting them is being willing to cede power to them. I get why you would be condescending because you think you are very smart and therefore if some disagree's with you they must not "grasp what you are saying". But let me assure you it is the opposite I get your point I just think it is stupid and completely impractical. It is intellectual masturbation with little thought of real world consequences. If we work your thieving example backwards it means you do think it is rape, but basically that some rape is justifiable. I am glad you do not write our laws, can you imagine the average person trying to figure this out as juror? I think there is rape and not rape. Not some sliding scale. I don't take a rapist off the hook for raping a girl because he was drunk, any more than I take a girl(could be any gender) off the hook for getting drunk and then consenting for something they may not have done sober. Lets not forget basically the only reason to drink is to lower inhibitions, stop thinking so much and have a good time. If you wanted to taste something good you would have a milkshake or pop and if you need to hydrate booze is the worst. Even in your example of the poor starving kid, he wasn't some regular healthy person who made a informed decision to become poor and starving. You seem to be forgetting that people know what booze does to them, this is why they make you wait to be a adult to use it. Now if the discussion was about some one who was some how slipped a bunch of booze or tricked into it then your points are valid, but that is not what this is about. Edit: Also, if we are going to completely take way people responsibility of the choices they make once they have something to drink we should get rid of all those drunk driving laws since they couldn't possibly know what they doing when they get behind the wheel. We should also free every criminal no matter the charge if they were drunk, murder, no worries just sober up and we will let you out. Perhaps just a 12 step program.
It is your responsability to make sure the other person is willing to have a sexual relation, not the other person to give you their consent, and alcool never relive you of your obligation. So you can't say "I was drunk so it's normal if I didn't know the other person didn't want it", but you can say "I was too drunk to formulate my consent so it is a sexual assault" and by too drunk I don't mean like 2 drinks.
Sexual consent don't mean a direct conversation, it mean a situation where it would be clear for a third party observer to note sexual consent. (or at least to say without a reasonable doubt that there wasn't one). If someone have turn you down several time through the night and that at the end when she/he can barly stand up you "convince" that person to go home with you then it would be a sexual assaul, even if you are drunk yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
On December 16 2016 08:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 07:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 07:16 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 06:49 JimmiC wrote:
If you right on this some one needs to arrest my wife she has raped me over 300 times! Depending on both your vows and your religiosity--a big part of marriage is sharing everything with each other. It can definitely be argued that there is an assumed level of consent between married couples. However, rape still happens even in these setups as majority of rapes actually happen between people who know each other or are friends/partners. So while you can joke about your wife raping you--most rapes actually happen between partners so its not actually that crazy of a statement. Its not at all a crazy statement based on your definition. She has because we have had sex tons of times while I've been very drunk. Basically with your definition all drunk sex is rape by one or both parties. We are going to need a lot more jails, police officers and so on to deal with it. My biggest frustration with your point of view is in some attempt at, well I'm not even sure what, you are devaluing all the actual situations (drunk and sober, married not married so on) where sex with consent actually happens and is horrible. I did not call it rape, I called it sex without consent. How you wish to see what that means is up to you. Or, think of it this way, lets say you were a shop owner and you saw a starving kid sit outside your store, you see him do that for months. One day he tries to take food from your store and you stop him. Do you send him to the police or do you realize the context of the situation is important? Do you talk him down, tell him what he did is wrong and let him go? Do you talk him down, let him know it was wrong and give him the food? Do you get the cops to show up and put him in jail? Lots of options available to you as the victim against the criminal doing something bad. The same is also true with your wife. And the same is also true for all the times you've fucked her while she was drunk. If you believe in a black and white world where people only do good things and only do bad things then I can see why you're having a hard time grasping what I'm saying. But I will repeat it. When you remove the ability for someone to make informed consent, then you are forcing them to do something without consent. The consequences of those actions are determined by the parties involved. If you don't trust the person you are sleeping with to not take advantage of what is happening, then you should protect yourself. if you trust them--then part of trusting them is being willing to cede power to them. I get why you would be condescending because you think you are very smart and therefore if some disagree's with you they must not "grasp what you are saying". But let me assure you it is the opposite I get your point I just think it is stupid and completely impractical. It is intellectual masturbation with little thought of real world consequences. If we work your thieving example backwards it means you do think it is rape, but basically that some rape is justifiable. I am glad you do not write our laws, can you imagine the average person trying to figure this out as juror? I think there is rape and not rape. Not some sliding scale. I don't take a rapist off the hook for raping a girl because he was drunk, any more than I take a girl(could be any gender) off the hook for getting drunk and then consenting for something they may not have done sober. Lets not forget basically the only reason to drink is to lower inhibitions, stop thinking so much and have a good time. If you wanted to taste something good you would have a milkshake or pop and if you need to hydrate booze is the worst. Even in your example of the poor starving kid, he wasn't some regular healthy person who made a informed decision to become poor and starving. You seem to be forgetting that people know what booze does to them, this is why they make you wait to be a adult to use it. Now if the discussion was about some one who was some how slipped a bunch of booze or tricked into it then your points are valid, but that is not what this is about. Edit: Also, if we are going to completely take way people responsibility of the choices they make once they have something to drink we should get rid of all those drunk driving laws since they couldn't possibly know what they doing when they get behind the wheel. We should also free every criminal no matter the charge if they were drunk, murder, no worries just sober up and we will let you out. Perhaps just a 12 step program.
Drunk driving laws are safety laws, not personal responsibility laws. And murder without intent is called manslaughter--we already have that. It's for things like being too drunk and running into people. So we don't actually have to change anything since that's already accounted for and in the books.
It's really super simple for juries as well. Was there proof sex happened? Was there proof that consent was given? If the answer is that they had sex, and there's no proof of consent, then they know it was sex without consent. It's that simple.
You even agree that you can't let kids drink booze since it takes a sound mind to make the decision to imbibe. As a controlled substance, we know booze gets rid of our ability to make sound decisions. It's why we don't let doctors operate drunk for example: because we don't trust the decisions, opinions, and performance of drunk people.
There's no need for you to overcomplicate it.
|
Canada11355 Posts
5 people are trapped on a liferaft in the middle of the ocean (one of those big ones with a tent/covering) with no food but plenty of drinking water. One person is skinny with no muscle, almost emaciated looking and keeps to himself. One person is athletically muscular with hardly any fat and is very confrontational. One is very fat, smells terrible and is an expert sailor/navigator. One is a bodybuilder who competes in bodybuilding contests and is self absorbed. The last person is you, the reader of this question.
The sailor says your raft has drifted out of major shipping channels and will not strike land for at least two months. The only supplies are the clothes each person is wearing and the drinking water. You are in a temperate climate and your clothes are enough to keep hypothermia at bay but not to be comfortable at night.
What is the best course of action for you to survive?
|
On December 16 2016 09:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 09:09 Nakajin wrote:On December 16 2016 08:07 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 07:16 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 06:49 JimmiC wrote:
If you right on this some one needs to arrest my wife she has raped me over 300 times! Depending on both your vows and your religiosity--a big part of marriage is sharing everything with each other. It can definitely be argued that there is an assumed level of consent between married couples. However, rape still happens even in these setups as majority of rapes actually happen between people who know each other or are friends/partners. So while you can joke about your wife raping you--most rapes actually happen between partners so its not actually that crazy of a statement. Its not at all a crazy statement based on your definition. She has because we have had sex tons of times while I've been very drunk. Basically with your definition all drunk sex is rape by one or both parties. We are going to need a lot more jails, police officers and so on to deal with it. My biggest frustration with your point of view is in some attempt at, well I'm not even sure what, you are devaluing all the actual situations (drunk and sober, married not married so on) where sex with consent actually happens and is horrible. I did not call it rape, I called it sex without consent. How you wish to see what that means is up to you. Or, think of it this way, lets say you were a shop owner and you saw a starving kid sit outside your store, you see him do that for months. One day he tries to take food from your store and you stop him. Do you send him to the police or do you realize the context of the situation is important? Do you talk him down, tell him what he did is wrong and let him go? Do you talk him down, let him know it was wrong and give him the food? Do you get the cops to show up and put him in jail? Lots of options available to you as the victim against the criminal doing something bad. The same is also true with your wife. And the same is also true for all the times you've fucked her while she was drunk. If you believe in a black and white world where people only do good things and only do bad things then I can see why you're having a hard time grasping what I'm saying. But I will repeat it. When you remove the ability for someone to make informed consent, then you are forcing them to do something without consent. The consequences of those actions are determined by the parties involved. If you don't trust the person you are sleeping with to not take advantage of what is happening, then you should protect yourself. if you trust them--then part of trusting them is being willing to cede power to them. I get why you would be condescending because you think you are very smart and therefore if some disagree's with you they must not "grasp what you are saying". But let me assure you it is the opposite I get your point I just think it is stupid and completely impractical. It is intellectual masturbation with little thought of real world consequences. If we work your thieving example backwards it means you do think it is rape, but basically that some rape is justifiable. I am glad you do not write our laws, can you imagine the average person trying to figure this out as juror? I think there is rape and not rape. Not some sliding scale. I don't take a rapist off the hook for raping a girl because he was drunk, any more than I take a girl(could be any gender) off the hook for getting drunk and then consenting for something they may not have done sober. Lets not forget basically the only reason to drink is to lower inhibitions, stop thinking so much and have a good time. If you wanted to taste something good you would have a milkshake or pop and if you need to hydrate booze is the worst. Even in your example of the poor starving kid, he wasn't some regular healthy person who made a informed decision to become poor and starving. You seem to be forgetting that people know what booze does to them, this is why they make you wait to be a adult to use it. Now if the discussion was about some one who was some how slipped a bunch of booze or tricked into it then your points are valid, but that is not what this is about. Edit: Also, if we are going to completely take way people responsibility of the choices they make once they have something to drink we should get rid of all those drunk driving laws since they couldn't possibly know what they doing when they get behind the wheel. We should also free every criminal no matter the charge if they were drunk, murder, no worries just sober up and we will let you out. Perhaps just a 12 step program. It is your responsability to make sure the other person is willing to have a sexual relation, not the other person to give you their consent, and alcool never relive you of your obligation. So you can't say "I was drunk so it's normal if I didn't know the other person didn't want it", but you can say "I was too drunk to formulate my consent so it is a sexual assault" and by too drunk I don't mean like 2 drinks. Sexual consent don't mean a direct conversation, it mean a situation where it would be clear for a third party observer to note sexual consent. (or at least to say without a reasonable doubt that there wasn't one). If someone have turn you down several time through the night and that at the end when she/he can barly stand up you "convince" that person to go home with you then it would be a sexual assaul, even if you are drunk yourself. I agree, and you are agreeing with me. Thieving Magpie believes that one you are "drunk" and we are unsure if this means one drink or not, consent can not be given.
Don't put words in my mouth, I never specified an amount (that was you). I simply pointed out that we already have an amount of alcohol where we don't trust the judgement of drivers on a legal level. We also have amount of alcohol we trust for people like doctors, lawyers, and engineers. How much the legal amount of consent is very much up to discussion if you want it to be.
Consent simply needs to be provable. And it needs to be done before people are no longer of sound mind.
|
|
|
Canada8991 Posts
On December 16 2016 09:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 09:09 Nakajin wrote:On December 16 2016 08:07 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 07:16 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 06:49 JimmiC wrote:
If you right on this some one needs to arrest my wife she has raped me over 300 times! Depending on both your vows and your religiosity--a big part of marriage is sharing everything with each other. It can definitely be argued that there is an assumed level of consent between married couples. However, rape still happens even in these setups as majority of rapes actually happen between people who know each other or are friends/partners. So while you can joke about your wife raping you--most rapes actually happen between partners so its not actually that crazy of a statement. Its not at all a crazy statement based on your definition. She has because we have had sex tons of times while I've been very drunk. Basically with your definition all drunk sex is rape by one or both parties. We are going to need a lot more jails, police officers and so on to deal with it. My biggest frustration with your point of view is in some attempt at, well I'm not even sure what, you are devaluing all the actual situations (drunk and sober, married not married so on) where sex with consent actually happens and is horrible. I did not call it rape, I called it sex without consent. How you wish to see what that means is up to you. Or, think of it this way, lets say you were a shop owner and you saw a starving kid sit outside your store, you see him do that for months. One day he tries to take food from your store and you stop him. Do you send him to the police or do you realize the context of the situation is important? Do you talk him down, tell him what he did is wrong and let him go? Do you talk him down, let him know it was wrong and give him the food? Do you get the cops to show up and put him in jail? Lots of options available to you as the victim against the criminal doing something bad. The same is also true with your wife. And the same is also true for all the times you've fucked her while she was drunk. If you believe in a black and white world where people only do good things and only do bad things then I can see why you're having a hard time grasping what I'm saying. But I will repeat it. When you remove the ability for someone to make informed consent, then you are forcing them to do something without consent. The consequences of those actions are determined by the parties involved. If you don't trust the person you are sleeping with to not take advantage of what is happening, then you should protect yourself. if you trust them--then part of trusting them is being willing to cede power to them. I get why you would be condescending because you think you are very smart and therefore if some disagree's with you they must not "grasp what you are saying". But let me assure you it is the opposite I get your point I just think it is stupid and completely impractical. It is intellectual masturbation with little thought of real world consequences. If we work your thieving example backwards it means you do think it is rape, but basically that some rape is justifiable. I am glad you do not write our laws, can you imagine the average person trying to figure this out as juror? I think there is rape and not rape. Not some sliding scale. I don't take a rapist off the hook for raping a girl because he was drunk, any more than I take a girl(could be any gender) off the hook for getting drunk and then consenting for something they may not have done sober. Lets not forget basically the only reason to drink is to lower inhibitions, stop thinking so much and have a good time. If you wanted to taste something good you would have a milkshake or pop and if you need to hydrate booze is the worst. Even in your example of the poor starving kid, he wasn't some regular healthy person who made a informed decision to become poor and starving. You seem to be forgetting that people know what booze does to them, this is why they make you wait to be a adult to use it. Now if the discussion was about some one who was some how slipped a bunch of booze or tricked into it then your points are valid, but that is not what this is about. Edit: Also, if we are going to completely take way people responsibility of the choices they make once they have something to drink we should get rid of all those drunk driving laws since they couldn't possibly know what they doing when they get behind the wheel. We should also free every criminal no matter the charge if they were drunk, murder, no worries just sober up and we will let you out. Perhaps just a 12 step program. It is your responsability to make sure the other person is willing to have a sexual relation, not the other person to give you their consent, and alcool never relive you of your obligation. So you can't say "I was drunk so it's normal if I didn't know the other person didn't want it", but you can say "I was too drunk to formulate my consent so it is a sexual assault" and by too drunk I don't mean like 2 drinks. Sexual consent don't mean a direct conversation, it mean a situation where it would be clear for a third party observer to note sexual consent. (or at least to say without a reasonable doubt that there wasn't one). If someone have turn you down several time through the night and that at the end when she/he can barly stand up you "convince" that person to go home with you then it would be a sexual assaul, even if you are drunk yourself. I agree, and you are agreeing with me. Thieving Magpie believes that one you are "drunk" and we are unsure if this means one drink or not, consent can not be given.
Ok, but I just wanted to clarify the fact that if you give consent while drunk and it is clear that you are not in a state to give it then it dosen't count as consent. So you can say "I was not in a situation to give consent". I tough you were saying the opposite in your last post when you said that adults know what happen when they get drunk and they accept to do stupid thing. Of course I am not saying that if you were clearly ok with it last night while still beeing in control of your decision and regret it latter.
But thats in theory if someone give you half of a consent while beeing nearly pass out at the bar, you are still going to win in court 9 out of 10 times, since it is almost impossible to prouve without a reasonable doubt that the other persons was not in a situation to formulate a valuable consent.
|
|
|
|
|
Canada8991 Posts
On December 16 2016 09:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 08:07 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 07:16 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 06:49 JimmiC wrote:
If you right on this some one needs to arrest my wife she has raped me over 300 times! Depending on both your vows and your religiosity--a big part of marriage is sharing everything with each other. It can definitely be argued that there is an assumed level of consent between married couples. However, rape still happens even in these setups as majority of rapes actually happen between people who know each other or are friends/partners. So while you can joke about your wife raping you--most rapes actually happen between partners so its not actually that crazy of a statement. Its not at all a crazy statement based on your definition. She has because we have had sex tons of times while I've been very drunk. Basically with your definition all drunk sex is rape by one or both parties. We are going to need a lot more jails, police officers and so on to deal with it. My biggest frustration with your point of view is in some attempt at, well I'm not even sure what, you are devaluing all the actual situations (drunk and sober, married not married so on) where sex with consent actually happens and is horrible. I did not call it rape, I called it sex without consent. How you wish to see what that means is up to you. Or, think of it this way, lets say you were a shop owner and you saw a starving kid sit outside your store, you see him do that for months. One day he tries to take food from your store and you stop him. Do you send him to the police or do you realize the context of the situation is important? Do you talk him down, tell him what he did is wrong and let him go? Do you talk him down, let him know it was wrong and give him the food? Do you get the cops to show up and put him in jail? Lots of options available to you as the victim against the criminal doing something bad. The same is also true with your wife. And the same is also true for all the times you've fucked her while she was drunk. If you believe in a black and white world where people only do good things and only do bad things then I can see why you're having a hard time grasping what I'm saying. But I will repeat it. When you remove the ability for someone to make informed consent, then you are forcing them to do something without consent. The consequences of those actions are determined by the parties involved. If you don't trust the person you are sleeping with to not take advantage of what is happening, then you should protect yourself. if you trust them--then part of trusting them is being willing to cede power to them. I get why you would be condescending because you think you are very smart and therefore if some disagree's with you they must not "grasp what you are saying". But let me assure you it is the opposite I get your point I just think it is stupid and completely impractical. It is intellectual masturbation with little thought of real world consequences. If we work your thieving example backwards it means you do think it is rape, but basically that some rape is justifiable. I am glad you do not write our laws, can you imagine the average person trying to figure this out as juror? I think there is rape and not rape. Not some sliding scale. I don't take a rapist off the hook for raping a girl because he was drunk, any more than I take a girl(could be any gender) off the hook for getting drunk and then consenting for something they may not have done sober. Lets not forget basically the only reason to drink is to lower inhibitions, stop thinking so much and have a good time. If you wanted to taste something good you would have a milkshake or pop and if you need to hydrate booze is the worst. Even in your example of the poor starving kid, he wasn't some regular healthy person who made a informed decision to become poor and starving. You seem to be forgetting that people know what booze does to them, this is why they make you wait to be a adult to use it. Now if the discussion was about some one who was some how slipped a bunch of booze or tricked into it then your points are valid, but that is not what this is about. Edit: Also, if we are going to completely take way people responsibility of the choices they make once they have something to drink we should get rid of all those drunk driving laws since they couldn't possibly know what they doing when they get behind the wheel. We should also free every criminal no matter the charge if they were drunk, murder, no worries just sober up and we will let you out. Perhaps just a 12 step program. It's really super simple for juries as well. Was there proof sex happened? Was there proof that consent was given? If the answer is that they had sex, and there's no proof of consent, then they know it was sex without consent. It's that simple.
You don't have to prove consent was given, you have to prove it wasn't given, its the presomption of innocence. And that of course mean that sexual assault case are a pain of the ass and almost never amounth to anything, since usually one is going to say there was consent and the other that there was not and since it is a criminal accusation you have to prove without a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty so there need to be other proof.
It is pretty hard to solve that problem tbh, there are some people asking to make sexual assault case balance of probability like civil cases but it will probably not happen.
|
|
|
On December 16 2016 09:56 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 09:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 08:07 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 07:16 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 06:49 JimmiC wrote:
If you right on this some one needs to arrest my wife she has raped me over 300 times! Depending on both your vows and your religiosity--a big part of marriage is sharing everything with each other. It can definitely be argued that there is an assumed level of consent between married couples. However, rape still happens even in these setups as majority of rapes actually happen between people who know each other or are friends/partners. So while you can joke about your wife raping you--most rapes actually happen between partners so its not actually that crazy of a statement. Its not at all a crazy statement based on your definition. She has because we have had sex tons of times while I've been very drunk. Basically with your definition all drunk sex is rape by one or both parties. We are going to need a lot more jails, police officers and so on to deal with it. My biggest frustration with your point of view is in some attempt at, well I'm not even sure what, you are devaluing all the actual situations (drunk and sober, married not married so on) where sex with consent actually happens and is horrible. I did not call it rape, I called it sex without consent. How you wish to see what that means is up to you. Or, think of it this way, lets say you were a shop owner and you saw a starving kid sit outside your store, you see him do that for months. One day he tries to take food from your store and you stop him. Do you send him to the police or do you realize the context of the situation is important? Do you talk him down, tell him what he did is wrong and let him go? Do you talk him down, let him know it was wrong and give him the food? Do you get the cops to show up and put him in jail? Lots of options available to you as the victim against the criminal doing something bad. The same is also true with your wife. And the same is also true for all the times you've fucked her while she was drunk. If you believe in a black and white world where people only do good things and only do bad things then I can see why you're having a hard time grasping what I'm saying. But I will repeat it. When you remove the ability for someone to make informed consent, then you are forcing them to do something without consent. The consequences of those actions are determined by the parties involved. If you don't trust the person you are sleeping with to not take advantage of what is happening, then you should protect yourself. if you trust them--then part of trusting them is being willing to cede power to them. I get why you would be condescending because you think you are very smart and therefore if some disagree's with you they must not "grasp what you are saying". But let me assure you it is the opposite I get your point I just think it is stupid and completely impractical. It is intellectual masturbation with little thought of real world consequences. If we work your thieving example backwards it means you do think it is rape, but basically that some rape is justifiable. I am glad you do not write our laws, can you imagine the average person trying to figure this out as juror? I think there is rape and not rape. Not some sliding scale. I don't take a rapist off the hook for raping a girl because he was drunk, any more than I take a girl(could be any gender) off the hook for getting drunk and then consenting for something they may not have done sober. Lets not forget basically the only reason to drink is to lower inhibitions, stop thinking so much and have a good time. If you wanted to taste something good you would have a milkshake or pop and if you need to hydrate booze is the worst. Even in your example of the poor starving kid, he wasn't some regular healthy person who made a informed decision to become poor and starving. You seem to be forgetting that people know what booze does to them, this is why they make you wait to be a adult to use it. Now if the discussion was about some one who was some how slipped a bunch of booze or tricked into it then your points are valid, but that is not what this is about. Edit: Also, if we are going to completely take way people responsibility of the choices they make once they have something to drink we should get rid of all those drunk driving laws since they couldn't possibly know what they doing when they get behind the wheel. We should also free every criminal no matter the charge if they were drunk, murder, no worries just sober up and we will let you out. Perhaps just a 12 step program. It's really super simple for juries as well. Was there proof sex happened? Was there proof that consent was given? If the answer is that they had sex, and there's no proof of consent, then they know it was sex without consent. It's that simple. You don't have to prove consent was given, you have to prove it wasn't given, its the presomption of innocence. And that of course mean that sexual assault case are a pain of the ass and almost never amounth to anything, since usually one is going to say there was consent and the other that there was not and since it is a criminal accusation you have to prove without a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty so there need to be other proof. It is pretty hard to solve that problem tbh, there are some people asking to make sexual assault case balance of probability like civil cases but it will probably not happen.
Its only hard to solve because we live in a society that does not promote, encourage, nor has a practice of recorded consent. For example, in the old days where women were expected to be virgins until the man signed off on marriage it was easy to know it was rape because they weren't married. You needed documents and proof that you were allowed to have sex.
Now a days we don't emphasize consent primarily because of the fetish of domination and control of women inherent in western culture. But that's a different discussion altogether.
|
|
|
On December 16 2016 09:19 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 08:49 Thouhastmail wrote:
1. As a former seminarian who dropped out, here's my stupid answer; do not drink to the point of intoxication and keep your virginity until your marriage.
2. As a former writer who studied English literature, I'd recommed you guys to read Lolita - a story of disaster caused by unilateral desire.
3. As an investigator, do not have intercourse whilst intoxicated no matter what your genital says. Seriously, NEVER.
Probably better to just never have sex. We can make babies in Labs anyway. That way there is no risk. Also never drink, it is also best to never touch anyone to avoid transfer of germs or even be in the room with them. I would also suggest never leaving the house and eating a strict diet of of only the food that you need to healthy. No added sugar or salt.
I think you're being kinda extreme. Jokes aside,(first one ofc) what I tried to say was do not let your impulse overcome your reason.
Still, I'd say do not have intercourse whilst you are drunken. I've seen tons of rape cases caused by alcohol.
|
|
|
Canada8991 Posts
On December 16 2016 10:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 09:56 Nakajin wrote:On December 16 2016 09:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 08:07 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 07:16 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 06:49 JimmiC wrote:
If you right on this some one needs to arrest my wife she has raped me over 300 times! Depending on both your vows and your religiosity--a big part of marriage is sharing everything with each other. It can definitely be argued that there is an assumed level of consent between married couples. However, rape still happens even in these setups as majority of rapes actually happen between people who know each other or are friends/partners. So while you can joke about your wife raping you--most rapes actually happen between partners so its not actually that crazy of a statement. Its not at all a crazy statement based on your definition. She has because we have had sex tons of times while I've been very drunk. Basically with your definition all drunk sex is rape by one or both parties. We are going to need a lot more jails, police officers and so on to deal with it. My biggest frustration with your point of view is in some attempt at, well I'm not even sure what, you are devaluing all the actual situations (drunk and sober, married not married so on) where sex with consent actually happens and is horrible. I did not call it rape, I called it sex without consent. How you wish to see what that means is up to you. Or, think of it this way, lets say you were a shop owner and you saw a starving kid sit outside your store, you see him do that for months. One day he tries to take food from your store and you stop him. Do you send him to the police or do you realize the context of the situation is important? Do you talk him down, tell him what he did is wrong and let him go? Do you talk him down, let him know it was wrong and give him the food? Do you get the cops to show up and put him in jail? Lots of options available to you as the victim against the criminal doing something bad. The same is also true with your wife. And the same is also true for all the times you've fucked her while she was drunk. If you believe in a black and white world where people only do good things and only do bad things then I can see why you're having a hard time grasping what I'm saying. But I will repeat it. When you remove the ability for someone to make informed consent, then you are forcing them to do something without consent. The consequences of those actions are determined by the parties involved. If you don't trust the person you are sleeping with to not take advantage of what is happening, then you should protect yourself. if you trust them--then part of trusting them is being willing to cede power to them. I get why you would be condescending because you think you are very smart and therefore if some disagree's with you they must not "grasp what you are saying". But let me assure you it is the opposite I get your point I just think it is stupid and completely impractical. It is intellectual masturbation with little thought of real world consequences. If we work your thieving example backwards it means you do think it is rape, but basically that some rape is justifiable. I am glad you do not write our laws, can you imagine the average person trying to figure this out as juror? I think there is rape and not rape. Not some sliding scale. I don't take a rapist off the hook for raping a girl because he was drunk, any more than I take a girl(could be any gender) off the hook for getting drunk and then consenting for something they may not have done sober. Lets not forget basically the only reason to drink is to lower inhibitions, stop thinking so much and have a good time. If you wanted to taste something good you would have a milkshake or pop and if you need to hydrate booze is the worst. Even in your example of the poor starving kid, he wasn't some regular healthy person who made a informed decision to become poor and starving. You seem to be forgetting that people know what booze does to them, this is why they make you wait to be a adult to use it. Now if the discussion was about some one who was some how slipped a bunch of booze or tricked into it then your points are valid, but that is not what this is about. Edit: Also, if we are going to completely take way people responsibility of the choices they make once they have something to drink we should get rid of all those drunk driving laws since they couldn't possibly know what they doing when they get behind the wheel. We should also free every criminal no matter the charge if they were drunk, murder, no worries just sober up and we will let you out. Perhaps just a 12 step program. It's really super simple for juries as well. Was there proof sex happened? Was there proof that consent was given? If the answer is that they had sex, and there's no proof of consent, then they know it was sex without consent. It's that simple. You don't have to prove consent was given, you have to prove it wasn't given, its the presomption of innocence. And that of course mean that sexual assault case are a pain of the ass and almost never amounth to anything, since usually one is going to say there was consent and the other that there was not and since it is a criminal accusation you have to prove without a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty so there need to be other proof. It is pretty hard to solve that problem tbh, there are some people asking to make sexual assault case balance of probability like civil cases but it will probably not happen. Its only hard to solve because we live in a society that does not promote, encourage, nor has a practice of recorded consent. For example, in the old days where women were expected to be virgins until the man signed off on marriage it was easy to know it was rape because they weren't married. You needed documents and proof that you were allowed to have sex. Now a days we don't emphasize consent primarily because of the fetish of domination and control of women inherent in western culture. But that's a different discussion altogether.
No, no just no this is retarded. There were plenty of rape then, and it wasn't even a crime in most societies women could not even go to court by themselves, they needed to be represented by their husband of father (spoiler those are both of the most frequent rapist), and that also mean if you were not married saying someone rape you made sure you are never going to get married.
Plus all the victim shaming, the honour crime against the victim, the fact that it mean you can only have sexual relation with your husband, and like 99 other reason.
I mean you could sue the father of a girl who was rape after there was a promise of marriage because of breach of contract by the women.
|
On December 16 2016 11:31 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 10:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 09:56 Nakajin wrote:On December 16 2016 09:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 08:07 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 07:16 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 06:49 JimmiC wrote:
If you right on this some one needs to arrest my wife she has raped me over 300 times! Depending on both your vows and your religiosity--a big part of marriage is sharing everything with each other. It can definitely be argued that there is an assumed level of consent between married couples. However, rape still happens even in these setups as majority of rapes actually happen between people who know each other or are friends/partners. So while you can joke about your wife raping you--most rapes actually happen between partners so its not actually that crazy of a statement. Its not at all a crazy statement based on your definition. She has because we have had sex tons of times while I've been very drunk. Basically with your definition all drunk sex is rape by one or both parties. We are going to need a lot more jails, police officers and so on to deal with it. My biggest frustration with your point of view is in some attempt at, well I'm not even sure what, you are devaluing all the actual situations (drunk and sober, married not married so on) where sex with consent actually happens and is horrible. I did not call it rape, I called it sex without consent. How you wish to see what that means is up to you. Or, think of it this way, lets say you were a shop owner and you saw a starving kid sit outside your store, you see him do that for months. One day he tries to take food from your store and you stop him. Do you send him to the police or do you realize the context of the situation is important? Do you talk him down, tell him what he did is wrong and let him go? Do you talk him down, let him know it was wrong and give him the food? Do you get the cops to show up and put him in jail? Lots of options available to you as the victim against the criminal doing something bad. The same is also true with your wife. And the same is also true for all the times you've fucked her while she was drunk. If you believe in a black and white world where people only do good things and only do bad things then I can see why you're having a hard time grasping what I'm saying. But I will repeat it. When you remove the ability for someone to make informed consent, then you are forcing them to do something without consent. The consequences of those actions are determined by the parties involved. If you don't trust the person you are sleeping with to not take advantage of what is happening, then you should protect yourself. if you trust them--then part of trusting them is being willing to cede power to them. I get why you would be condescending because you think you are very smart and therefore if some disagree's with you they must not "grasp what you are saying". But let me assure you it is the opposite I get your point I just think it is stupid and completely impractical. It is intellectual masturbation with little thought of real world consequences. If we work your thieving example backwards it means you do think it is rape, but basically that some rape is justifiable. I am glad you do not write our laws, can you imagine the average person trying to figure this out as juror? I think there is rape and not rape. Not some sliding scale. I don't take a rapist off the hook for raping a girl because he was drunk, any more than I take a girl(could be any gender) off the hook for getting drunk and then consenting for something they may not have done sober. Lets not forget basically the only reason to drink is to lower inhibitions, stop thinking so much and have a good time. If you wanted to taste something good you would have a milkshake or pop and if you need to hydrate booze is the worst. Even in your example of the poor starving kid, he wasn't some regular healthy person who made a informed decision to become poor and starving. You seem to be forgetting that people know what booze does to them, this is why they make you wait to be a adult to use it. Now if the discussion was about some one who was some how slipped a bunch of booze or tricked into it then your points are valid, but that is not what this is about. Edit: Also, if we are going to completely take way people responsibility of the choices they make once they have something to drink we should get rid of all those drunk driving laws since they couldn't possibly know what they doing when they get behind the wheel. We should also free every criminal no matter the charge if they were drunk, murder, no worries just sober up and we will let you out. Perhaps just a 12 step program. It's really super simple for juries as well. Was there proof sex happened? Was there proof that consent was given? If the answer is that they had sex, and there's no proof of consent, then they know it was sex without consent. It's that simple. You don't have to prove consent was given, you have to prove it wasn't given, its the presomption of innocence. And that of course mean that sexual assault case are a pain of the ass and almost never amounth to anything, since usually one is going to say there was consent and the other that there was not and since it is a criminal accusation you have to prove without a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty so there need to be other proof. It is pretty hard to solve that problem tbh, there are some people asking to make sexual assault case balance of probability like civil cases but it will probably not happen. Its only hard to solve because we live in a society that does not promote, encourage, nor has a practice of recorded consent. For example, in the old days where women were expected to be virgins until the man signed off on marriage it was easy to know it was rape because they weren't married. You needed documents and proof that you were allowed to have sex. Now a days we don't emphasize consent primarily because of the fetish of domination and control of women inherent in western culture. But that's a different discussion altogether. No, no just no this is retarded. There were plenty of rape then, and it wasn't even a crime in most societies women could not even go to court by themselves, they needed to be represented by their husband of father (spoiler those are both of the most frequent rapist), and that also mean if you were not married saying someone rape you made sure you are never going to get married. Plus all the victim shaming, the honour crime against the victim, the fact that it mean you can only have sexual relation with your husband, and like 99 other reason. I mean you could sue the father of a girl who was rape after there was a promise of marriage because of breach of contract by the women.
Depends on the society. There's a fascinating bit in Genesis where a bunch of nomads stop by in a town. One of the daughters of their leader is raped by the son of the ruler of the town. The urban culture assumes that what happens now is she marries him, since they've had sex (the norm in ubanized society at the time).
They go to the nomads and say, let's get married! The nomads say, ok, but we've got this deal with our god that our menfolk all get circumcised... you want in, you get circumcised. The city folk are like fine, whatever.
Then, when they're still recovering from the pain of the circumcision and thus incapacitated, they are attacked. The brothers of the rape survivor were operating by the older, nomadic code: you rape our sister, we fuck you all up. And they slaughtered every man in the town and plundered it.
+ Show Spoiler +Then there's a debate over the ethics, which the Bible never really resolves. The patriarch Jacob is really mad that his sons did this act of violence, and they're like, you wanted to let him get away with raping our sister? And as a reader you're like, wow, there's no good answer. You can't punish a prince fairly for rape... your choices are to kill him by subterfuge or let him get away with it. Shitty situation all around.
|
On December 16 2016 09:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 08:07 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 07:16 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 06:49 JimmiC wrote:
If you right on this some one needs to arrest my wife she has raped me over 300 times! Depending on both your vows and your religiosity--a big part of marriage is sharing everything with each other. It can definitely be argued that there is an assumed level of consent between married couples. However, rape still happens even in these setups as majority of rapes actually happen between people who know each other or are friends/partners. So while you can joke about your wife raping you--most rapes actually happen between partners so its not actually that crazy of a statement. Its not at all a crazy statement based on your definition. She has because we have had sex tons of times while I've been very drunk. Basically with your definition all drunk sex is rape by one or both parties. We are going to need a lot more jails, police officers and so on to deal with it. My biggest frustration with your point of view is in some attempt at, well I'm not even sure what, you are devaluing all the actual situations (drunk and sober, married not married so on) where sex with consent actually happens and is horrible. I did not call it rape, I called it sex without consent. How you wish to see what that means is up to you. Or, think of it this way, lets say you were a shop owner and you saw a starving kid sit outside your store, you see him do that for months. One day he tries to take food from your store and you stop him. Do you send him to the police or do you realize the context of the situation is important? Do you talk him down, tell him what he did is wrong and let him go? Do you talk him down, let him know it was wrong and give him the food? Do you get the cops to show up and put him in jail? Lots of options available to you as the victim against the criminal doing something bad. The same is also true with your wife. And the same is also true for all the times you've fucked her while she was drunk. If you believe in a black and white world where people only do good things and only do bad things then I can see why you're having a hard time grasping what I'm saying. But I will repeat it. When you remove the ability for someone to make informed consent, then you are forcing them to do something without consent. The consequences of those actions are determined by the parties involved. If you don't trust the person you are sleeping with to not take advantage of what is happening, then you should protect yourself. if you trust them--then part of trusting them is being willing to cede power to them. I get why you would be condescending because you think you are very smart and therefore if some disagree's with you they must not "grasp what you are saying". But let me assure you it is the opposite I get your point I just think it is stupid and completely impractical. It is intellectual masturbation with little thought of real world consequences. If we work your thieving example backwards it means you do think it is rape, but basically that some rape is justifiable. I am glad you do not write our laws, can you imagine the average person trying to figure this out as juror? I think there is rape and not rape. Not some sliding scale. I don't take a rapist off the hook for raping a girl because he was drunk, any more than I take a girl(could be any gender) off the hook for getting drunk and then consenting for something they may not have done sober. Lets not forget basically the only reason to drink is to lower inhibitions, stop thinking so much and have a good time. If you wanted to taste something good you would have a milkshake or pop and if you need to hydrate booze is the worst. Even in your example of the poor starving kid, he wasn't some regular healthy person who made a informed decision to become poor and starving. You seem to be forgetting that people know what booze does to them, this is why they make you wait to be a adult to use it. Now if the discussion was about some one who was some how slipped a bunch of booze or tricked into it then your points are valid, but that is not what this is about. Edit: Also, if we are going to completely take way people responsibility of the choices they make once they have something to drink we should get rid of all those drunk driving laws since they couldn't possibly know what they doing when they get behind the wheel. We should also free every criminal no matter the charge if they were drunk, murder, no worries just sober up and we will let you out. Perhaps just a 12 step program. Drunk driving laws are safety laws, not personal responsibility laws. And murder without intent is called manslaughter--we already have that. It's for things like being too drunk and running into people. So we don't actually have to change anything since that's already accounted for and in the books. It's really super simple for juries as well. Was there proof sex happened? Was there proof that consent was given? If the answer is that they had sex, and there's no proof of consent, then they know it was sex without consent. It's that simple. You even agree that you can't let kids drink booze since it takes a sound mind to make the decision to imbibe. As a controlled substance, we know booze gets rid of our ability to make sound decisions. It's why we don't let doctors operate drunk for example: because we don't trust the decisions, opinions, and performance of drunk people. There's no need for you to overcomplicate it.
What if a drunk person comes on to you, asks to have sex, and you say yes. Did you rape them because they couldn't actually be accountable for their own actions?
On December 16 2016 09:33 Fecalfeast wrote:
5 people are trapped on a liferaft in the middle of the ocean (one of those big ones with a tent/covering) with no food but plenty of drinking water. One person is skinny with no muscle, almost emaciated looking and keeps to himself. One person is athletically muscular with hardly any fat and is very confrontational. One is very fat, smells terrible and is an expert sailor/navigator. One is a bodybuilder who competes in bodybuilding contests and is self absorbed. The last person is you, the reader of this question.
The sailor says your raft has drifted out of major shipping channels and will not strike land for at least two months. The only supplies are the clothes each person is wearing and the drinking water. You are in a temperate climate and your clothes are enough to keep hypothermia at bay but not to be comfortable at night.
What is the best course of action for you to survive?
Wait until the Athlete is confrontational to convince everyone else that he's going to attack everyone else at some point. Myself and the bodybuilder should be able to take this person. We've extended the time we have before dying of dehydration. I doubt we'll find any kind of tools to make fire, and even if we did killing someone to cook meat would be impossible, leaving the only possible food source as any fish we can potentially catch. If the fish can be baited with the dead athletic man, we might be able to catch fish by creating a makeshift net with our clothes. It will most likely be impossible, but best I can think of, extending time you die from starvation.
|
On December 16 2016 13:07 Dark_Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 09:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 08:07 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 07:16 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 06:49 JimmiC wrote:
If you right on this some one needs to arrest my wife she has raped me over 300 times! Depending on both your vows and your religiosity--a big part of marriage is sharing everything with each other. It can definitely be argued that there is an assumed level of consent between married couples. However, rape still happens even in these setups as majority of rapes actually happen between people who know each other or are friends/partners. So while you can joke about your wife raping you--most rapes actually happen between partners so its not actually that crazy of a statement. Its not at all a crazy statement based on your definition. She has because we have had sex tons of times while I've been very drunk. Basically with your definition all drunk sex is rape by one or both parties. We are going to need a lot more jails, police officers and so on to deal with it. My biggest frustration with your point of view is in some attempt at, well I'm not even sure what, you are devaluing all the actual situations (drunk and sober, married not married so on) where sex with consent actually happens and is horrible. I did not call it rape, I called it sex without consent. How you wish to see what that means is up to you. Or, think of it this way, lets say you were a shop owner and you saw a starving kid sit outside your store, you see him do that for months. One day he tries to take food from your store and you stop him. Do you send him to the police or do you realize the context of the situation is important? Do you talk him down, tell him what he did is wrong and let him go? Do you talk him down, let him know it was wrong and give him the food? Do you get the cops to show up and put him in jail? Lots of options available to you as the victim against the criminal doing something bad. The same is also true with your wife. And the same is also true for all the times you've fucked her while she was drunk. If you believe in a black and white world where people only do good things and only do bad things then I can see why you're having a hard time grasping what I'm saying. But I will repeat it. When you remove the ability for someone to make informed consent, then you are forcing them to do something without consent. The consequences of those actions are determined by the parties involved. If you don't trust the person you are sleeping with to not take advantage of what is happening, then you should protect yourself. if you trust them--then part of trusting them is being willing to cede power to them. I get why you would be condescending because you think you are very smart and therefore if some disagree's with you they must not "grasp what you are saying". But let me assure you it is the opposite I get your point I just think it is stupid and completely impractical. It is intellectual masturbation with little thought of real world consequences. If we work your thieving example backwards it means you do think it is rape, but basically that some rape is justifiable. I am glad you do not write our laws, can you imagine the average person trying to figure this out as juror? I think there is rape and not rape. Not some sliding scale. I don't take a rapist off the hook for raping a girl because he was drunk, any more than I take a girl(could be any gender) off the hook for getting drunk and then consenting for something they may not have done sober. Lets not forget basically the only reason to drink is to lower inhibitions, stop thinking so much and have a good time. If you wanted to taste something good you would have a milkshake or pop and if you need to hydrate booze is the worst. Even in your example of the poor starving kid, he wasn't some regular healthy person who made a informed decision to become poor and starving. You seem to be forgetting that people know what booze does to them, this is why they make you wait to be a adult to use it. Now if the discussion was about some one who was some how slipped a bunch of booze or tricked into it then your points are valid, but that is not what this is about. Edit: Also, if we are going to completely take way people responsibility of the choices they make once they have something to drink we should get rid of all those drunk driving laws since they couldn't possibly know what they doing when they get behind the wheel. We should also free every criminal no matter the charge if they were drunk, murder, no worries just sober up and we will let you out. Perhaps just a 12 step program. Drunk driving laws are safety laws, not personal responsibility laws. And murder without intent is called manslaughter--we already have that. It's for things like being too drunk and running into people. So we don't actually have to change anything since that's already accounted for and in the books. It's really super simple for juries as well. Was there proof sex happened? Was there proof that consent was given? If the answer is that they had sex, and there's no proof of consent, then they know it was sex without consent. It's that simple. You even agree that you can't let kids drink booze since it takes a sound mind to make the decision to imbibe. As a controlled substance, we know booze gets rid of our ability to make sound decisions. It's why we don't let doctors operate drunk for example: because we don't trust the decisions, opinions, and performance of drunk people. There's no need for you to overcomplicate it. What if a drunk person comes on to you, asks to have sex, and you say yes. Did you rape them because they couldn't actually be accountable for their own actions? Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 09:33 Fecalfeast wrote:
5 people are trapped on a liferaft in the middle of the ocean (one of those big ones with a tent/covering) with no food but plenty of drinking water. One person is skinny with no muscle, almost emaciated looking and keeps to himself. One person is athletically muscular with hardly any fat and is very confrontational. One is very fat, smells terrible and is an expert sailor/navigator. One is a bodybuilder who competes in bodybuilding contests and is self absorbed. The last person is you, the reader of this question.
The sailor says your raft has drifted out of major shipping channels and will not strike land for at least two months. The only supplies are the clothes each person is wearing and the drinking water. You are in a temperate climate and your clothes are enough to keep hypothermia at bay but not to be comfortable at night.
What is the best course of action for you to survive? Wait until the Athlete is confrontational to convince everyone else that he's going to attack everyone else at some point. Myself and the bodybuilder should be able to take this person. We've extended the time we have before dying of dehydration. I doubt we'll find any kind of tools to make fire, and even if we did killing someone to cook meat would be impossible, leaving the only possible food source as any fish we can potentially catch. If the fish can be baited with the dead athletic man, we might be able to catch fish by creating a makeshift net with our clothes. It will most likely be impossible, but best I can think of, extending time you die from starvation.
If a drunk person walks over and asks me to have sex with him I would treat it the same was as when a 12 year walks over and asks to have sex with me. "No, but let's talk when you're older/sober."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
