Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah Manchu beat that drum some more. She didn't deserve, she just shouldn't be surprised whenissue put herself in tha position with an obvious outcome. 20+ pages and your blinders are still firmly in place. At least you stick to your guns.

 Testify wrote:

Earlier in this thread you quite brazenly said that sex with anyone who was drunk or on drugs was rape. You can have your morality, I can have mine.

Just understand that your "Morality" could easily leave another human being feeling devastated, and land you in jail. It's well within your power to not feel violated and not enforce your right to only have sex when you're able to consent. However going forward and interacting with other people under the assumption that they can actually give consent, when they can't has a great potential to turn out horribly.

Stop equating drunken sex with rape. It makes me think you must have had some very confusing experiences at some point in your life.

No need to get personal, since it's against the rules.

Meanwhile: if you cannot consent, there is no consent; if there is no consent, then it is rape.

Pretty easy.

Rape-

noun
1. The unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. Any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.


There you go. So there's no confusion, we also have:

statutory rape

1. sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of consent, which age varies in different states.

There arent varying degrees of rape, there's rape and then there's not rape. Simple enough?

Fethed up sex isn't rape. *Maybe* if someone was rolling balls and they literally have no way to say no, but normally there's a big difference between "that girl had one wine cooler" and "she just got roofied." If no guy ever made a move when a girl was mildly inebriated no one would ever get laid, and that's the closest thing to evil I could imagine. Any person who gives up that much control while still retaining the ability to speak and stand up and pour themselves another drink just has poor judgment and foresight. Women want to be used sometimes, and that's not bad or something anyone who's a sexually mature adult should be afraid of. This harkens back to that awareness point I raised earlier, knowing a person and knowing how to read people to determine what's acceptable and what isn't.

 AustonT wrote:
Yeah Manchu beat that drum some more. She didn't deserve, she just shouldn't be surprised whenissue put herself in tha position with an obvious outcome. 20+ pages and your blinders are still firmly in place. At least you stick to your guns.

20+ pages and you still haven't figured out what's going on. OR maybe you have and you just really believe that women deserve to be sexually harassed but, since you know only a dirtbag would say that, you decided to hide behind a nonsequitur?

Whether or not Caruso was surprised about being sexually harassed has no bearing whatsoever on her feeling offended at having been sexually harassed nor does it have anything to do with her publicly talking about it.

Strangely, I have made this remark, and I'm sure you have read it, more than once. And yet you continue to fail to address it. You cannot explain what one thing has to do with the other -- aside from the obvious implication that "she shouldn't be surprised" actually means "it's her fault." You talk of me beating a drum but it is actually you who are going on and on and on about something which on its face has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

But, for those of you just tuning in, don't take my word for it. Here's what AustonT had to say on page 3:

 AustonT wrote:
I think chicks that go to comic cons dressed in skimpy outfits know what they are inviting, and shouldn't be surprised when they get it.

(my bolding) You see, it's not just that "she shouldn't be surprised." Why, in AustonT's opinion, shouldn't she be surprised? Because he thinks she invited that kind of behavior. She was asking for it, huh?

It occurred to me that maybe you meant something other than "it's her fault" by reiterating again and again and again that "she shouldn't be surprised." I guess I should have known that you have no trouble taking delusional positions before now -- especially after you accused me of white knighting someone who has basically no chance of ever seeing this discussion.

 Manchu wrote:
No need to get personal, since it's against the rules.

Meanwhile: if you cannot consent, there is no consent; if there is no consent, then it is rape.

Pretty easy.

Chongora said that sex while someone was drunk or on drugs was rape, regardless of consent. Presumably he thinks it's impossible to give consent in such a situation.

 Frankenberry wrote:
Simple enough?

I should hope so. Sex where all parties do not consent is rape.

 Frankenberry wrote:
Rape-

noun
1. The unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. Any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.


There you go. So there's no confusion, we also have:

statutory rape

1. sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of consent, which age varies in different states.

There arent varying degrees of rape, there's rape and then there's not rape. Simple enough?

Depends on the jurisidiction. IN many jurisidictions Manchu's statement above is a felony act. Its called different things but guess what - to ze klink mit you!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
No need to get personal, since it's against the rules.

Meanwhile: if you cannot consent, there is no consent; if there is no consent, then it is rape.

Pretty easy.

Chongora said that sex while someone was drunk or on drugs was rape, regardless of consent. Presumably he thinks it's impossible to give consent in such a situation.

So do courts actually. Its called "impairment. " COntracts signed while impaired can be void or voidable too.

KNowing is half the battle!

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Fethed up sex isn't rape. *Maybe* if someone was rolling balls and they literally have no way to say no, but normally there's a big difference between "that girl had one wine cooler" and "she just got roofied."

Yes, there is a big difference between those two things. However there are certainly states other than "was intentionally drugged" that count as being unable to give consent. Look someone who is tipsy after a few drinks, is feelin' it and getting a bit more outgoing than they usually are is fine to consent.

Someone who is stumbling around, can't form coherent sentences and insists that "I'm a monster I'm gonna eat you" in slurred almost unintelligible tone while tugging at your clothes and suggesting you have sex, while perhaps amusing to observe, isn't in a state of mind where they can have consent to having sex.

What if both parties are completely off the rocker?

 Chongara wrote:

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Fethed up sex isn't rape. *Maybe* if someone was rolling balls and they literally have no way to say no, but normally there's a big difference between "that girl had one wine cooler" and "she just got roofied."

Yes, there is a big difference between those two things. However there are certainly states other than "was intentionally drugged" that count as being unable to give consent. Look someone who is tipsy after a few drinks, is feelin' it and getting a bit more outgoing than they usually are is fine to consent.

Someone who is stumbling around, can't form coherent sentences and insists that "I'm a monster I'm gonna eat you" in slurred almost unintelligible tone while tugging at your clothes and suggesting you have sex, while perhaps amusing to observe, isn't in a state of mind where they can have consent to having sex.

...so no one should ever have sex with someone who is very inebriated?

I wasn't speaking from a legal standpoint, I was speaking from the absolute, definitive standpoint. Although, i do understand that the legal portions vary from place to place.

The definition of rape doesn't change depending on who you're talking to, it's forever the same thing. You just have people who want to justify evil disgusting gak because they are moral-less pieces of trash.

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
...so no one should ever have sex with someone who is very inebriated?

Let's rephrase: if you have the opportunity to have sex with someone who is totally inebriated be aware that if you do it what you're doing might be considered rape by a court.

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Fethed up sex isn't rape. *Maybe* if someone was rolling balls and they literally have no way to say no, but normally there's a big difference between "that girl had one wine cooler" and "she just got roofied."

Yes, there is a big difference between those two things. However there are certainly states other than "was intentionally drugged" that count as being unable to give consent. Look someone who is tipsy after a few drinks, is feelin' it and getting a bit more outgoing than they usually are is fine to consent.

Someone who is stumbling around, can't form coherent sentences and insists that "I'm a monster I'm gonna eat you" in slurred almost unintelligible tone while tugging at your clothes and suggesting you have sex, while perhaps amusing to observe, isn't in a state of mind where they can have consent to having sex.

...so no one should ever have sex with someone who is very inebriated?

Correct.

It should also be noted that I have never had sex with a drunk person. I have had sex. I also personally know people who have also had sex with not-drunk people, both in and out of relationships. The idea that the only time people "get laid" is when they and/or their partners are about to black out is plainly silly at best and dangerous at worst.

 Manchu wrote:

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
...so no one should ever have sex with someone who is very inebriated?

Let's rephrase: if you have the opportunity to have sex with someone who is totally inebriated be aware that if you do it what you're doing might be considered rape by a court.

Define totally inebriated.

Very very (very) drunk but clearly up for it? That's grand.

Passed out? Obviously, that's not cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:

It should also be noted that I have never had sex with a drunk person

Epic. Face. Palm.

I could smell the moral superiority a mile away (legal aspect I have no issue with). I can't continue this particular aspect of this conversation without breaking rule #1. Good day sir.

So anyway, back to how some girl getting web traffic is worse than her being made into a masturbatory fantasy.

 Testify wrote:

Define totally inebriated.

If they've lost the majority of their motor control, and can't seem to string together coherent thoughts: They probably can't string together coherent thoughts. If they can't string together coherent thoughts, they can't make informed decisions. Including the decision to have sex.

See the example in my post you face palmed at.

 Chongara wrote:

 Testify wrote:

Define totally inebriated.

If they've lost the majority of their motor control, and can't seem to string together coherent thoughts: They probably can't string together coherent thoughts. If they can't string together coherent thoughts, they can't make informed decisions. Including the decision to have sex.

See the example in my post you face palmed at.

Just be aware that you are in the extremely small minority on this one. 19 out of 20 men wouldn't think twice, mainly because they'd be bladdered as well.

Actually, that's a big part of it. I'd never take advantage of someone who was very drunk when I was sober, that'd just be wrong.

You only need worry about having sex with an intoxicated person if the morning after they accuse you of rape.

At that point, even if they had consented the night before, you are in trouble.

It's a judgement call if you ever find yourself in that situation.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You only need worry about having sex with an intoxicated person if the morning after they accuse you of rape.

At that point, even if they had consented the night before, you are in trouble.

It's a judgement call if you ever find yourself in that situation.

We both know it's virtually impossible to prove rape in that situation. 99 times out of 100 the girl will say nothing and simply get on with her life. The 1% of the time she does, there's no way it'd make it to court.

 Testify wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You only need worry about having sex with an intoxicated person if the morning after they accuse you of rape.

At that point, even if they had consented the night before, you are in trouble.

It's a judgement call if you ever find yourself in that situation.

We both know it's virtually impossible to prove rape in that situation. 99 times out of 100 the girl will say nothing and simply get on with her life. The 1% of the time she does, there's no way it'd make it to court.

But I thought that the courts all discriminated against white men because they're baddy bad-guise!

Take advantage of her because she'll either keep her mouth shut or no one will take her seriously? That's a rather sleazy outlook.

It was an observation on the human condition. I've only ever had sex with girls I was in a relationship with, or knew very very well. But I know girls that has happened to, and as horrible as it sounds, it's really not the end of the world. Life goes on, and unless she has a boyfriend there's not much to be done about it.

Even if she does have a boyfriend, or male friends, she'll often simply want to keep quiet and move on. Sure it sucks, but that's the world we live in.

 Testify wrote:
It was an observation on the human condition. I've only ever had sex with girls I was in a relationship with, or knew very very well. But I know girls that has happened to, and as horrible as it sounds, it's really not the end of the world. Life goes on, and unless she has a boyfriend there's not much to be done about it.

As with AustonT, I'll ask you: what does "life going on" have to do with whether something is right or not?

 Manchu wrote:
Take advantage of her because she'll either keep her mouth shut or no one will take her seriously? That's a rather sleazy outlook.

Understatement of the century. You'd think there'd be some merit in not wanting to traumatize someone.

 Chongara wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Take advantage of her because she'll either keep her mouth shut or no one will take her seriously? That's a rather sleazy outlook.

Understatement of the century. You'd think there'd be some merit in not wanting to traumatize someone.

C'est la vie, is apparently the counterargument?

daedalus wrote:
But I thought that the courts all discriminated against white men because they're baddy bad-guise!

I have a black friend who got arrested for "beating" his white girlfriend. The cops arrested him the moment they got there, but later in court the evidence revealed through photographs he had several large bruises, broken glass in his skin and ONLY his blood spilled on the floor, on top of the fact that he was trying to flee the scene by reaching for his motorcycle gear and only moving towards the door which she had prevented him from leaving through. The case was easily thrown out. I asked him about it later and he said if they had just gotten really drunk and had relations then the fight would have never happened. Ok, I made up the last part, but yeah, if you're a white guy in that kind of trouble you're really not as bad off as some others in our society

Edit: As a side note, not everyone thinks sex is traumatic. Some people kinda like it. Others REALLY like it. Some, eh- not so much. Not everyone is the same.

 Manchu wrote:

 Testify wrote:
It was an observation on the human condition. I've only ever had sex with girls I was in a relationship with, or knew very very well. But I know girls that has happened to, and as horrible as it sounds, it's really not the end of the world. Life goes on, and unless she has a boyfriend there's not much to be done about it.

As with AustonT, I'll ask you: what does "life going on" have to do with whether something is right or not?

Wait, we're discussing right and wrongs? Oh dear.