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.

 LethalShade wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent

Ehm, no.

Ehm, Yes, if you are drunk, you cannot legally consent.

In the US, but maybe not in Germany. Only him can confirm that anyway.

This seems to be the case in the usa as I've heard similar with other countries. Honestly this is something I find sorta dumb as well depending on the situation. In some cases it's mostly in favor of the girl if a supposed rape happens (whether the girl is drunk or the guy is drunk even if both people wanted the sex) to my knowledge because the law is stupid.

That said this seems to be going off topic. Apparently STD's are. Do your part and spread it! The word about the increase and not increasing them yourselves hopefully.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Honestly this is something I find sorta dumb as well depending on the situation.

Could you clarify what exactly is so dumb about not considering "consent" granted when a person is too drunk to think clearly to be legitimate consent?

To jump back onto the STD, the diseases that seem to be spreading fastest are ones that can be cured. Smart thing to do if you're sexually active is get tested regularly, like women get mammograms and men get prostate exams. Especially if your someone who enjoys casual sex. People who prefer closer relationships should check themselves when they think it's about to get serious. Suggest the same to your partner. Get a discount at the same doctors office

 Peregrine wrote:
.......is too drunk to think clearly to be legitimate consent?

How drunk is too drunk? How it is quantified at some later date? What happens if 1 individual is 'slightly' drunk and the other is high?

Its a good idea in theory but in practice it has all kinds of issues.

As for evidence regarding abstinence sex education the stats speak for themselves.

Among the 48 states in this analysis (all U.S. states except North Dakota and Wyoming), 21 states stressed abstinence-only education in their 2005 state laws and/or policies (level 3), 7 states emphasized abstinence education (level 2), 11 states covered abstinence in the context of comprehensive sex education (level 1), and 9 states did not mention abstinence (level 0) in their state laws or policies (Figure 1). In 2005, level 0 states had an average (± standard error) teen pregnancy rate of 58.78 (±4.96), level 1 states averaged 56.36 (±3.94), level 2 states averaged 61.86 (±3.93), and level 3 states averaged 73.24 (±2.58) teen pregnancies per 1000 girls aged 14–19

Link

 Peregrine wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Honestly this is something I find sorta dumb as well depending on the situation.

Could you clarify what exactly is so dumb about not considering "consent" granted when a person is too drunk to think clearly to be legitimate consent?

Probably the part where if a woman has sex while she is drunk she can call the man who had sex with her a rapist even if he was equally drunk. Because standards.

Actually I was gonna say she may say she'll have sex with you if she's drunk first. Also I've known some girls that say they're most in the mood for sex when drunk. Man is that the biggest trap of all time. The idea that regardless of whose drunk equals a guy being guilty (for some people I've known at least) is horribly unfair. That said I'm usually not in that situation.

Me (crying hysterically): "At least I have my miniature wargames. They love me and talk to me *cries to self* ."

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
How drunk is too drunk? How it is quantified at some later date? What happens if 1 individual is 'slightly' drunk and the other is high?

Here's an idea: if there's any doubt then don't have sex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:
Probably the part where if a woman has sex while she is drunk she can call the man who had sex with her a rapist even if he was equally drunk. Because standards.

Being drunk as well does not mean that the other person's consent is legitimate. If both people are drunk then neither person's consent is valid. In this case the man is free to return the accusation against the woman, but it doesn't remove his guilt just like you can't say "but I was drunk!" if you hit someone with your car.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
How drunk is too drunk? How it is quantified at some later date? What happens if 1 individual is 'slightly' drunk and the other is high?

Here's an idea: if there's any doubt then don't have sex.

That would kill the sex life of way too many French students

 Peregrine wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Probably the part where if a woman has sex while she is drunk she can call the man who had sex with her a rapist even if he was equally drunk. Because standards.

Being drunk as well does not mean that the other person's consent is legitimate. If both people are drunk then neither person's consent is valid. In this case the man is free to return the accusation against the woman, but it doesn't remove his guilt just like you can't say "but I was drunk!" if you hit someone with your car.

Actually most people seem to think that the only rape scenario is "Man rapes woman". Guilty or not, the man is good for jail in most cases.

Yeah there's always your right hand (or whichever hand you use).

That said when it's already too late and you've done it you could always have people that weren't there judge you in court. Then again if they were there it might be more awkward. Some people do like an audience when they're doing it though. Some strange people.

Yeah when you think about it getting drunk does end in a lot of bad sexual decisions but they're not all considered rape so much as shameful life choices that caused trouble in their own life.

 LethalShade wrote:
Actually most people seem to think that the only rape scenario is "Man rapes woman".

Which is just plain stupid, and anyone who believes that needs to fix their problems. Men can be the victim of rape, even when the attacker is a woman.

 LethalShade wrote:


Actually most people seem to think that the only rape scenario is "Man rapes woman". Guilty or not, the man is good for jail in most cases.

I think it's been stated before by a friend. People often see women as the victim regardless of what something is. Supposedly it's a left over from the old days where men worked and women stayed at home. I suppose it was just hard for them to imagine somebody that was taken care of by their man to rape one.

Not saying I think the old ways were good in any sense but that's how they thought.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent

Ehm, no.

No what? If someone is drunk they cannot give consent, period.

To what degree? It's a US thing, but it's as vagues as you can get. To begin with, what is "drunk"? Technically, even after a single shot, you're intoxicated. A single /beer/ gets you intoxicated. Are you drunk then? Is it rape if you have sex with someone who had a single beer? If that's a yes for you, that's not making any sense. If someone is clearly drunk as in not being able to make proper decisions anymore, i.e. really wasted, then of course it's rape as you're taking advantage of someone who clearly doesn't have his mind together.

Another problem is that, assuming the former situation, both people had a few beers, are drunk, but still being able to make proper decisions. Both have consensual sex. Who's the rapist? Both? Are there cases where both get filed for rape? And who's the culprit then? Always the man? Congratulations, you're a sexist.

How would you even be able to /tell/ if someone was drunk? Assuming the same situation, let's say someone had two shots and is intoxicated. She approaches you and hooks you up without you knowing that she drank something. Is that a free "Hah, you're a rapist!" card? Are you supposed to make a blood alcohol test with her beforehand? How would you properly handle such a situation?

What if someone gets purposefully intoxicated to have sex, is that still rape? Can you sue someone for benefiting rape?

It's really confusing to me and get my head around this from a logical point of view. Everything assuming the former case, of course. I mean, come on.

I find the law and the U.S. government funny. If a few things were bad it wouldn't be such a big deal but left and right there seems to be a new way for things to just be insanely stupid.

Anyway off topic of the STD's so we might want to get back. This current topic is deserving of its own thread I'm sure.

Going back on STDs, the only thing people need is a bit of common sense, and whatever pieces of self-preservation instinct they can gather.

Unfortunately, despite years of knowledge on how to combat this scourge, the most financially ruinous of all STDs remains rampant.

Pregnancy.

I remember when my 7th(?) grade teacher showed us was can happen if you contract certain diseases. One showed a penis with black and white coloring, like a cows skin kinda.
That Scared living hell out of me and my classmates. I know I use condoms

"Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate."

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I remember when my 7th(?) grade teacher showed us was can happen if you contract certain diseases. One showed a penis with black and white coloring, like a cows skin kinda.
That Scared living hell out of me and my classmates. I know I use condoms

*shudders*

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I remember when my 7th(?) grade teacher showed us was can happen if you contract certain diseases. One showed a penis with black and white coloring, like a cows skin kinda.
That Scared living hell out of me and my classmates. I know I use condoms

Interestingly, though, a lot of studies have proven quite some time ago that this doesn't make youngsters care. It's wrong to teach it to begin with, though. Teaching your children to be scared of sex is wrong and while yes, it's important to show up the dangers of unprotected sex, it's better to focus on the positive aspects of protected sex. What's more interesting, though, is that despite condoms being as cheap as they have ever been (quality ones, on top of that!) and anonymously ordering them via online retailers is common practice, STDs are rising. There's a big elephant in the room and noone seems to be adressing it.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I remember when my 7th(?) grade teacher showed us was can happen if you contract certain diseases. One showed a penis with black and white coloring, like a cows skin kinda.
That Scared living hell out of me and my classmates. I know I use condoms

Honestly, most of those pictures are wildly exaggerated to make a point. Sure, it's a real photo, but they conveniently omit things like "patient had severe immune system problems and left the disease untreated for years". The reality is that most STDs, in normal people, are either easily treatable and/or not that severe. You certainly don't want to get any of them but it really doesn't help to blow the risks way out of proportion to scare people into not having sex.

 Sigvatr wrote:
To begin with, what is "drunk"?

Blood alcohol level .08. It's called legal intoxication (the point where the law starts to care how much you've been drinking). Someone that drunk? You'll almost certainly be able to smell it on their breath.

Are there cases where both get filed for rape?

The reality of such situations is that charges rarely if ever are filled because even if something untoward happened, there's no way to prove it unless another party was witness (and even then, at your typical keg party, who isn't drunk?). Such cases almost always fall to hearsay, which isn't legally convincing when people are sober let alone drunk. That's why we have this thing called police investigations. The figure that gak out.

Assuming the same situation, let's say someone had two shots and is intoxicated. She approaches you and hooks you up without you knowing that she drank something. Is that a free "Hah, you're a rapist!" card? Are you supposed to make a blood alcohol test with her beforehand? How would you properly handle such a situation?

When does a tasteful nude cease to be tasteful and become porn? When does pornography become obscenity? People are expected in most societies to exercise proper judgment. That includes knowing that a woman who can barely walk straight, probably isn't mentally capable of agreeing to anything just as much as it includes knowing that the random stranger with a hang over right next to you might have been as wasted as you were (in which case you just might have to live with it). For people who fail to exercise good judgement, well that's why we have laws saying legal intoxication prevents consent and filing false reports is criminal.

It's really confusing to me and get my head around this from a logical point of view.

It's almost like life is this giant cluster feth and we're all stuck living it

Thanks for ya post, seems like we understand each other

 LordofHats wrote:


It's almost like life is this giant cluster feth and we're all stuck living it

Life is a rollercoaster, just gotta riiiiiiide it!

What do you expect in a sex fueled society on the edge of decadence. Society allows TV and just about everything else to focus on sex and violence because it entertains, our society cares very little for real emotion and relationships.

Not a lot of places in this world were a 15 year boy is placed on a TV show for getting 5 girls pregnant. Not only does he get his 10 minutes of fame, no one truly condemns his acts, cause teens will be teens. At 15 how many more partners will he have and risk getting an STD, and then spread it to each new girl. He has no concept of relationship and probably has no clue how to be in one. Has no feelings of love or at the very least how to connect deeply with someone. He is good at putting Vagina on a pedestal and getting laid. He'd call me jealous and that doesn't matter.

The scariest thing is most people out there do not find anything wrong with what he does.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
What do you expect in a sex fueled society on the edge of decadence. Society allows TV and just about everything else to focus on sex and violence because it entertains, our society cares very little for real emotion and relationships.

Not a lot of places in this world were a 15 year boy is placed on a TV show for getting 5 girls pregnant. Not only does he get his 10 minutes of fame, no one truly condemns his acts, cause teens will be teens. At 15 how many more partners will he have and risk getting an STD, and then spread it to each new girl. He has no concept of relationship and probably has no clue how to be in one. Has no feelings of love or at the very least how to connect deeply with someone. He is good at putting Vagina on a pedestal and getting laid. He'd call me jealous and that doesn't matter.

The scariest thing is most people out there do not find anything wrong with what he does.

Well... Seems like this level of decadence is a purely 'Murican problem. You were the ones having those disgusting mini-miss contests, after all.


(Not saying that teenage pregnancy isn't an issue elsewhere, we have quite a lot of them in France too)

 Peregrine wrote:

Here's an idea: if there's any doubt then don't have sex.

Its impossible to legally quantify someones doubt. You can't convict someone for rape when all there is to go on is someones opinion.....

A really nasty instance I heard of from my ex was when she was working in the ER and a guy came in with a knife wound in his leg and they discovered he had a baggy wrapped around his penis to catch the drip from his STD.

 LethalShade wrote:
Going back on STDs, the only thing people need is a bit of common sense, and whatever pieces of self-preservation instinct they can gather.

Looking at history, I think it's safe to say Americans generally don't give a feth about this.... Even going so far back as WW1, when we finally decided to show up and save y'all (you're welcome), the French military offered up a portion of it's assigned "camp girls" (who were regularly tested and treated, etc) to the US forces. The Americans said, "nah bro, we got our Puritan ancestry, our boys are here to fight, not feth!"

We ended up having around 1700 new cases per month of various STDs

 LethalShade wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
At 15 how many more partners will he have and risk getting an STD, and then spread it to each new girl. He has no concept of relationship and probably has no clue how to be in one. Has no feelings of love or at the very least how to connect deeply with someone.

The scariest thing is most people out there do not find anything wrong with what he does.

Well... Seems like this level of decadence is a purely 'Murican problem. You were the ones having those disgusting mini-miss contests, after all.


(Not saying that teenage pregnancy isn't an issue elsewhere, we have quite a lot of them in France too)

Not disagreeing with you but I feel I need to clarify what I meant.

The pregnancy thing is only a secondary issue to the point. It only bothers me, that the majority are on welfare and unwanted by both parents.

The point I was trying to make and failed to was, at 15 he has had 5+ partners at his rate an STD will be in his future and so the question remains how many will he infect? Our Society has no stigma for this other than a slap on the wrist and a "shame on you". In fact many male role models will give him a high five for his conquests rather than to be more cautious.



As for the emotion/relationship thing:

I believe I 3 level of Sex (and this is just purely my belief not official definitions by any means)

Fething
Casual
Intimacy

fething: act of having sex where one or both partners doesn't care if the other person feels pleasure. Its all and only about them. They don't have to be hurting the person, its just only their pleasure they are worried about.

Casual: act of sex where both partners are actively trying to please each other, however no love or deep emotion is truly required.

Intimacy: act of sex where both partners are actively trying to please each other and share a emotional bond that tends to give greater pleasure by enhancing physical into mental.

What else do I need to say, our society tends to advertise sex as pure lust with no consideration of the other person, and tends to belittle anything else.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
What do you expect in a sex fueled society on the edge of decadence. Society allows TV and just about everything else to focus on sex and violence because it entertains, our society cares very little for real emotion and relationships.

Not a lot of places in this world were a 15 year boy is placed on a TV show for getting 5 girls pregnant. Not only does he get his 10 minutes of fame, no one truly condemns his acts, cause teens will be teens. At 15 how many more partners will he have and risk getting an STD, and then spread it to each new girl. He has no concept of relationship and probably has no clue how to be in one. Has no feelings of love or at the very least how to connect deeply with someone. He is good at putting Vagina on a pedestal and getting laid. He'd call me jealous and that doesn't matter.

The scariest thing is most people out there do not find anything wrong with what he does.

Perhaps because TV shows are going after excitement and ratings? Showing a real, functional relationship on TV would honestly be rather boring. I believe the problem here is not the promiscuity of your theoretical construct, but the fact that he (judging by the way you wrote that) has clearly no education on safe sex, as he has made 5 girls pregnant. Possibly mentally handicapped too, if he expects people to be jealous of the fact that his life is ruined.
And also the fact that he's 15, so how the everliving feth would he even manage that?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
.......is too drunk to think clearly to be legitimate consent?

How drunk is too drunk? How it is quantified at some later date? What happens if 1 individual is 'slightly' drunk and the other is high?

,
Somewhere between "Totally Sober" and "Unconscious". The latter is good model to start from as the reason consent is impossible is apparent because consent requires you decide "Yes this is a thing I want to do" and are able to communicate it somehow. Given that, the point at which you are "too drunk" is the point at which you can no longer do at least one of two things: Decide "Yes, this is a thing I want to do" or communicate that fact somehow. This means that your ability to give consent is compromised whenever your ability to make decisions is compromised or whenever your ability to communicate is compromised. This probably puts the line somewhere around when your ability to make decisions is compromised to the point where you would make decisions that you wouldn't if you weren't intoxicated. In other words when the intoxication has removed your capacity make informed decisions or when the state of intoxication has become the dominate factor in decision making. That line is going to be fuzzy and different for a lot of people, it may be that a given person at a particular moment during a particular spat of drunkenness may do nothing they wouldn't normally do on pure chance or because they just act with reckless abandon all the time anyway.This means that a universally accurate model or guideline won't be possible to establish. In that case we should establish a model or guideline that best works to protect people, one that finds a reasonable floor at which it is probable someone is making decisions they wouldn't if they weren't intoxicated.

Now I'm hardly an expert on alcohol and physiology, but my understanding is that reasoning starts to be noticeably effected at like 0.07 BAC (someone want to correct me on this?). So something around there might be a reasonable place to draw the line. This is not because everyone or any one individual might be "Too Drunk" at that point, rather simply because it's probable that someone would be.

 Verviedi wrote:
And also the fact that he's 15, so how the everliving feth would he even manage that?

Why couldn't he? I have worked with Inner city pre-teens and teens most were gang members and the gak they knew would blow some of the most sexually liberal minds. So, 5+ partners never wore a condom what do you think would eventually happen, perhaps he was with each for a short time over the year. I'm unsure that all 5 girls where partners when he turned 15. The article was very vague for all I know it could have been between 14-16. The article was a focus of the teen pregnancy problem not STD but I think it valid in the discussion of STD. High rate of one individual at a young age being encouraged by male role models to have as much sex as possible for nothing more than bragging rights. He's on a path to spread STD's at a high rate.



I agree with you TV sells sex for ratings, are they wrong? Well not if that's what society wants. Doesn't make it ok either.