How does that matter? A drunk person CAN'T consent. If he was drunk, he can't consent, regardless of whether he thinks he did or not. And that leaves there being something very wrong with holding one party more accountable. To me, it looks like people are saying, "women are weak and lose more of their decision making capabilities than men do when they're drunk," and that's misogynistic BS.
I'm sure ikes will be along shortly to remind you that drunk sex != rape.
I'm sure ikes will be along shortly to remind you that drunk sex != rape.
If both parties are drunk, it doesn't. If one party is drunk, it does. Is this really that hard to understand? How can you hold one party more responsible if they're both drunk?
Well, how can I possibly beat that airtight logic? I guess we're done. The real epidemic is the massive amount of college dudebros who are getting themselves raped without even knowing it.
Well, how can I possibly beat that airtight logic? I guess we're done. The real epidemic is the massive amount of college dudebros who are getting themselves raped without even knowing it.
No, we live in a rape culture and that's the real problem, but we're not talking about that, we're talking about one specific incident that doesn't seem to fit that problem.
As predicted, two people now who are falling over themselves to call my example rape. What a joke you guys have become.
fwiw I read all your posts as though they're spoken by that guy with the moustache in your avatar, so this development didn't shock me.
Where was she and what was she doing immediately prior to this? Where were you? Why would she describe this as passed-out? Do you consider someone who's mumbling and has some coarse motor control to be able to participate in sex, let alone consent to it?
Man, I can't believe I'm getting lectured on drunkenness by a wannabe-doctor who apparently believes someone goes from perfectly lucid at 12:45 am to incapacitated at 2:45 am with no witness testifying to any further alcohol consumption in that time frame. And of course, she MUST be lucid during the interim!
Oh, so this is the part where you pretend like you never argued the text messages where so far before the event they couldn't be used to establish if she was incapacitated.
Quote:
Immediately after the text messages, we have multiple instances of vomiting and testimony of severe difficulty walking. Literally the only thing that ikes has in his favor is that she managed to write something down and push send.
Immediately after the encounter, the girl was completely useless, but I'm sure she had her wits about her 30 minutes earlier!
And yet she made a plan to have sex, left her room to have sex, and had sex. You don't get to just ignore the facts that prove she was not incapacitated.
I've done my share being bombed and doing drunk texting (and posting on here for that matter) and for some reason I can still spell and write reasonably coherently even while damn near blackout. Maybe being able to write while bombed isn't such a tell.
Guess what, drunk or bombed does not equal incapacitated.
Drunk, maybe not, but bombed (at least the way the term is used up here) most certainly does. Bombed means blackout, or damn near close to full on blackout.
Alex, if you want to have a place at the adult's table, you need to start differentiating between drunk and incapacitated.
I'm just going by what people in this thread are saying. Don't blame me if they're not communicating correctly. If you're saying that he was drunk and she was unconscious, then that's an entirely different story than what people are communicating. But then, you guys are the ones failing to distinguish between drunk and incapacitated.
Drunk, maybe not, but bombed (at least the way the term is used up here) most certainly does. Bombed means blackout, or damn near close to full on blackout.
Being blacked out, aka not remembering, does not prove incapacitation either.
Oh, so this is the part where you pretend like you never argued the text messages where so far before the event they couldn't be used to establish if she was incapacitated.
And yet she made a plan to have sex, left her room to have sex, and had sex. You don't get to just ignore the facts that prove she was not incapacitated.
And she could do all of those things while not being able to consent to sex.
"That was rape."
"WELL I GUESS WE'RE ALL RAPISTS, THEN!"
"Uh, yes?"
* all threads.
And this is what this whole thread comes down to. Dudes don't want sleeping with drunk girls to be classified as rape. What kind of Margaret Atwood dystopia would we be living in if guys actually had to get to know girls and convince the girls of their character before getting laid.
Oh wow. I didn't know that was your take. Blackout is definitely incapacitated.
Not according to the law or school policy.
Although it does bring an interesting point. If blackout drunk is incapacitation, then you have another question to address. The boy was blackout as well, to the point where he claims to remember less than the girl. There's just as much supporting testimony he was blackout drunk. The girl went to his place, he didn't coerce her in any way. Under your standard, she raped him just as much as he raped him. That's a problem for your logic, because it's a preposterous result.
Although it does bring an interesting point. If blackout drunk is incapacitation, then you have another question to address. The boy was blackout as well, to the point where he claims to remember less than the girl. There's just as much supporting testimony he was blackout drunk. The girl went to his place, he didn't coerce her in any way. Under your standard, she raped him just as much as he raped him. That's a problem for your logic, because it's a preposterous result.
