[Zsych]

Seems the word with all of its connotations seems to have an ever expanding definition. If you were drunk and don't quite remember, then you didn't consent and so you've been raped. Then, they even want a gender equal definition, so a guy who was drunk and ended up having sex that he doesn't remember, should apparently also think that he was raped, and some overly liberal women would like to make you think that you should feel bad about it or like you've been victimized...

No really, short of STDs or unexpected pregnancies coming out of nowhere to bite us in the ass, we don't care. The fear mongering retards that seem to want to find yet more things to fear, need to go away, and at least leave men alone. We have no desire to think of ourselves as victims in need of emotional support, and especially not for things that don't matter.

[Phaze228]

It's like the expanding definition of racism, to mention color.
Both are absurd. bullshit

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The fear mongering retards that seem to want to find yet more things to fear, need to go away, and at least leave men alone. We have no desire to think of ourselves as victims in need of emotional support, and especially not for things that don't matter.

I have a friend who is living in terror of relapsing with colon cancer. He was raped while he was on tour in the middle east. He couldn't report it because it was "fearmongering" last decade, so didn't get proper treatment, but the doctors seem to think that something "left behind" from those foreign objects he was violated with which caused the cancer. He's short four feet of bowel and has PTSD for obvious reasons. I doubt that his therapists, oncologists, internists nor pharmacists are "fearmongering retards".

TL, DR : Giving victims the freedom to heal may not be your arena, Z, but it is thankfully available. Please chest-beat about your thus-far unaffected status with less vigor, it only underlines how priviledged your life has been.

[Phaze228]

Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have a friend who is living in terror of relapsing with colon cancer. He was raped while he was on tour in the middle east. He couldn't report it because it was "fearmongering" last decade, so didn't get proper treatment, but the doctors seem to think that something "left behind" from those foreign objects he was violated with which caused the cancer. He's short four feet of bowel and has PTSD for obvious reasons. I doubt that his therapists, oncologists, internists nor pharmacists are "fearmongering retards". TL, DR : Giving victims the freedom to heal may not be your arena, Z, but it is thankfully available. Please chest-beat about your thus-far unaffected status with less vigor, it only underlines how priviledged your life has been.

I smell context not being taken into account....

	so a guy who was drunk and ended up having sex that he doesn't remember, should apparently also think that he was raped, and some overly liberal women would like to make you think that you should feel bad about it or like you've been victimized...

[Distance]

How awful that people are being held to standards of consensual sex which includes not being under the influence of chemicals or alcohol. The nerve of fair play laws.

[Arcanist]

Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Seems the word with all of its connotations seems to have an ever expanding definition. If you were drunk and don't quite remember, then you didn't consent and so you've been raped. Then, they even want a gender equal definition, so a guy who was drunk and ended up having sex that he doesn't remember, should apparently also think that he was raped, and some overly liberal women would like to make you think that you should feel bad about it or like you've been victimized... No really, short of STDs or unexpected pregnancies coming out of nowhere to bite us in the ass, we don't care. The fear mongering retards that seem to want to find yet more things to fear, need to go away, and at least leave men alone. We have no desire to think of ourselves as victims in need of emotional support, and especially not for things that don't matter.

The Grievance Industry: It's on the up, up, UP! Predicted to boom to stratospheric heights by 2020!

Is life unfair? Poor judgement? Wrong color? Wrong gender? Historical grievance? Or just plain old butthurt? Well, we've got the solution for YOU!

Here at the Offices of Q and Q, the psychological comfort of our clients is our top priority! Our crack team of lawyers and influence mongers will find someone, ANYONE, and make them pay. All to ease your pain.

Now you may have heard this recent talk about life's lessons and personal growth? Friend, don't take it to heart. It's all just code for "THEY don't have to pay!". Nothing eases pain like cold, hard cash and if you join us today we'll make sure you get every penny you deserve.

Or perhaps you're the type who'd prefer to see the entire lives of your enemies destroyed over a single misstep? We've got you covered! Our team of influence mongers will get to work, passing exotic laws and regulations that even clairvoyants risk breaking! Each with their own outrageous penalties.

Well, I'm convinced! I'd sign up if I didn't run the damn place.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Phaze228]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How awful that people are being held to standards of consensual sex which includes not being under the influence of chemicals or alcohol. The nerve of fair play laws.

Actually it's not fair at all. Just because people have no prudence doesn't mean they should be able to cry victim.
1. Goes to place where legal substance is sold which may alter normal behavior, and where potential mates are.
2. ingests substance
3. meets mate under substance, he asks for sex, you're feeling a bit free, so you agree.
4. You wake up, looking at the mate, ashamed of yourself because you made a stupid choice and you want him to be punished for it? Because, you didn't REALLY say yes, you were under the influence of alcohol. Well fuck, he was under the influence of an erection, you raped him.

[joliet]

	Originally Posted by Phaze228 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	4. You wake up, looking at the mate, ashamed of yourself because you made a stupid choice and you want him to be punished for it? Because, you didn't REALLY say yes, you were under the influence of alcohol. Well fuck, he was under the influence of an erection, you raped him.

The vast majority of people are not that irresponsible. Most people will not report rape just because the person they slept with wasn't a prize. They will report rape when they had been intoxicated and debilitated enough that they didn't have conscious control over whether they could say yes or no.

So, example scenario:

A woman and a male are both drunk. They have sex. The woman has no idea what happened, and reports rape.

This case will LIKELY not go to trial, because both parties were drunk, unless someone had proof of physical assault. If one person could not give consent, neither could the other.


Another example scenario:

A male was drunk, and wakes up the next morning next to a woman. He only slightly remembers being coerced into bed, and did not remember giving consent because he was on the edge of a drunken stupor as he watched someone climb on top of him. He has the right to bring forth a rape charge, if he wishes to.

A woman was drunk, and wakes up the next morning next to a man. She only slightly remembers being coerced into bed, and did not remember giving consent because she was on the edge of a drunken stupor as she watched someone climb on top of her. She has the right to bring forth a rape charge, if she wishes to.

The above scenarios are what the law can cover. If you feel afraid that some female is going to fuck you over by bringing a rape case against you, well, don't have sex with her unless you get conscious consent. And, if you did get conscious consent, don't worry. There are laws protecting you as well.

Hey. Apparently there is research out there that shows that extreme and consistent exposure to casual objectification of the female body, rather than healthy interaction with real human females, will condition males to more likely respond in fluffy disagreement with the "rape due to lack of consent" law. You guys should get off the INTJf and socialize yourselves. It's for your own good, trust me. There are a ton of free Social Relationships 101 lessons for you to go through if you get out and play nice.

[thod]

I think the Julian Assange rape case illustrates this well. She does not dispute that she consented to penetration. She argues that he did not use a condom as was allegedly agreed. That somehow, it is was his responsibility to put on the condom himself. It was not for her to put it on him, or to check that he had done so.

For me, breaches of such conditional consents do not a rape make. A client refusing to pay a prostitute after sex is not a rape. It is only a breach of contract. This can be seen by considering when the rape occurred. They can finish, wipe up and dress yet there is still no rape. The rape would occur at the point he refused to hand over the cash. Yet this refusal has non of the attributes of forcible penetration.

[Zsych]

Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have a friend who is living in terror of relapsing with colon cancer. He was raped while he was on tour in the middle east. He couldn't report it because it was "fearmongering" last decade, so didn't get proper treatment, but the doctors seem to think that something "left behind" from those foreign objects he was violated with which caused the cancer. He's short four feet of bowel and has PTSD for obvious reasons. I doubt that his therapists, oncologists, internists nor pharmacists are "fearmongering retards". TL, DR : Giving victims the freedom to heal may not be your arena, Z, but it is thankfully available. Please chest-beat about your thus-far unaffected status with less vigor, it only underlines how priviledged your life has been.

You realize that has nothing to do with this, that is something reasonably extreme. And likely wasn't female on male. Also, not reporting it as a crime (where you would have some chance at justice / retribution) is different from not getting medical help - perhaps from an unaffiliated party.

So, as much as you'd prefer to not blame the victim for anything - there was personal responsibility that he should've taken for his situation, that he didn't, after if not before.

---------- Post added 08-13-2012 at 03:31 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How awful that people are being held to standards of consensual sex which includes not being under the influence of chemicals or alcohol. The nerve of fair play laws.

There's a vast difference between cases where there is some kind of negative result and where there isn't any. "A man was drunk with a sober girl and probably had fun, except that he can't remember". Something horrible must have happened because some definition of rape can be fitted to this scenario, and so he should really be upset (that or the person expressing the idea is utterly brainless)

This isn't about laws. Its just about the sentiments of some people. The whole "consensual sex" thing is complete nonsense also, since its used to justify all manner of indecency. Like if someone cheats on someone else and just plain doesn't even have the decency to be honest up front - using the consenting adults crap doesn't give it any legitimacy.

[zibber]

Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Seems the word with all of its connotations seems to have an ever expanding definition. If you were drunk and don't quite remember, then you didn't consent and so you've been raped. Then, they even want a gender equal definition, so a guy who was drunk and ended up having sex that he doesn't remember, should apparently also think that he was raped, and some overly liberal women would like to make you think that you should feel bad about it or like you've been victimized... No really, short of STDs or unexpected pregnancies coming out of nowhere to bite us in the ass, we don't care. The fear mongering retards that seem to want to find yet more things to fear, need to go away, and at least leave men alone. We have no desire to think of ourselves as victims in need of emotional support, and especially not for things that don't matter.

That's gotta be a royal we, because I don't know what the fuck this is all about.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by joliet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Most people will not report rape just because the person they slept with wasn't a prize.

That doesn't mean those who *do* want to should have the ability. It might be wrong to take advantage of someone who's drunk, but it shouldn't be on the legal level of rape if they consumed the sustance knowingly and willingly.

It's no small part of the problem here that people who want to turn rape accusations into a standard-issue weapon, however rare, are undermining the gravity of the claims of actual rape victims.

[AliceFoster]

Honestly a person needs to be hammered out of their f*cking mind to not be able to consent.
I think the gender thing is irrelevant. If you, who made the post, don't want to victimize yourself, good for you. But if a man is raped (by either a man or a woman) of course he can feel like a victim and do something about it.
I (who am a woman) have been in the drunken sex situation before and a 'no' was still a no even when we were both drunk. Had he gone on, yes, that would have been rape. Had I said 'yes' and later regretted it, because I was drunk I could have accused him of rape? No.

TL; DR: yes, you can rape a drunk person, but no, they are not unable to consent.

[Storm]

Is this actually a real problem, or are these just rumors you've been hearing? I'll await your evidence of the changes in rape laws that you've seen and/or the large amount of recent rape convictions based only on the testimony of a person claiming they were intoxicated and can't "quite" remember what happened. I assume you aren't including cases like people being drugged/completely blacked out and waking up to find they've been raped.

[joliet]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think the Julian Assange rape case illustrates this well. She does not dispute that she consented to penetration. She argues that he did not use a condom as was allegedly agreed. That somehow, it is was his responsibility to put on the condom himself. It was not for her to put it on him, or to check that he had done so. For me, breaches of such conditional consents do not a rape make. A client refusing to pay a prostitute after sex is not a rape. It is only a breach of contract. This can be seen by considering when the rape occurred. They can finish, wipe up and dress yet there is still no rape. The rape would occur at the point he refused to hand over the cash. Yet this refusal has non of the attributes of forcible penetration.

I agree with you that it was both his and her responsibility, but your analogy I do not agree with. The issue of wearing or not wearing a condom is a health issue, not a failed business transaction as you kind of tried to illustrate. If she had insisted that he wear a condom and he proceeded without one while she continued protesting, and if she had contracted a disease or unwanted condition from him breaching an agreement, then that's a valid concern. If she did not contract a disease or unwanted condition, then it's not so much of a concern as, after her consent to sex, her concern would be hypothetical and not an actuality.

I don't see how the right to bring what could be a valid concern to trial is an issue. If the claim was valid, then the court would find it so. If the claim was invalid, the issue would be whether or not the law protected Assange from an invalid claim. Did it? That would be the major issue.

---------- Post added 08-13-2012 at 10:26 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That doesn't mean those who *do* want to should have the ability. It might be wrong to take advantage of someone who's drunk, but it shouldn't be on the legal level of rape if they consumed the sustance knowingly and willingly. It's no small part of the problem here that people who want to turn rape accusations into a standard-issue weapon, however rare, are undermining the gravity of the claims of actual rape victims.

I agree that a rape case shouldn't be brought when there wasn't an actual rape. However, I disagree with the bolded part. Sex without gaining consent is assault. Someone cannot give consent if they are not fully conscious. That person would be protected when their BAC is at a certain level where their judgment is debilitated. Someone who is significantly intoxicated and did not give fully conscious consent prior to a sexual engagement is protected from sexual assault by this law.

Rape is assault. If you knowingly and willingly join a game of football, and someone tackles you and purposefully breaks your arm to prevent you from throwing the winning pass, you're protected from the assault even if you understood the risks behind football because assault is assault. If you're knowingly and willingly sedated with anesthesia, and your dentist engages you in sex while you're knocked out--even if you had given half-conscious consent that you don't remember giving--you are protected by law and have the opportunity to bring a case to court because you were not able to give full consent. I know it's not an exact metaphor, because there are other ethical and social reasons why a dentist probably wouldn't have sex with their patient, but I believe the idea behind these two scenarios makes sense: you were not conscious enough to give consent, and whether or not you thought this would put you in a risky situation, you are protected by law and have the right to protect yourself in court against assault.

This is of course if one person was found to be vulnerably drunk, and the defendant conscious enough to be responsible for his or her actions. If both parties were found vulnerable, the case would probably be dismissed.

[thod]

	If she had insisted that he wear a condom and he proceeded without one while she continued protesting

I concur that one of them can stay stop at any time. My understanding of the case is she only discovered the fact after he had ejaculated. Thus during the episode she was in consent. I personally have had condoms tear without either of us feeling it. A simple defence would be "I did not hear her say that", in which case you would prosecuting somebody for not paying attention to his girlfriend.

[AnnaMolly]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A simple defence would be "I did not hear her say that", in which case you would prosecuting somebody for not paying attention to his girlfriend.

Not that outrageous of an idea, is it? You can be sued for not paying attention to your girlfriend if she said "no, stop" and you didn't hear her say that.

Moral of the story: if you have sex with someone, better pay attention to them.