King Ghidorah
El Dandy
On Probation for Charges of two counts of Saxual Music.
How Absurd
Posts: 8,330
|
Post by King Ghidorah on Oct 17, 2013 2:50:13 GMT -5
|
|
King Ghidorah
El Dandy
On Probation for Charges of two counts of Saxual Music.
How Absurd
Posts: 8,330
|
Post by King Ghidorah on Oct 17, 2013 2:51:22 GMT -5
Here's one of the comments
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Oct 17, 2013 4:36:58 GMT -5
Hum, I'll try and tread as carefully as possible, but I'm getting the impression this article is awfully quick to take the woman's word for it that it was a sexual assault. I mean, from the way even they describe it, it doesn't appear she was forced into doing it. Of course, the big problem is to find out how intoxicated she was at the time and assuming she was, if she was drugged / made to drink by the guy to get her to agree to do it. I'm not saying she must be lying, but there's definitely enough reasons to doubt her claims that waving fingers at people is just as stupid as the slut-shaming comments that just assume she was "asking for it" (hint: by definition, you can't ask for rape) or that she's trying to scam the guys.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Oct 17, 2013 6:19:54 GMT -5
Hum, I'll try and tread as carefully as possible, but I'm getting the impression this article is awfully quick to take the woman's word for it that it was a sexual assault. I mean, from the way even they describe it, it doesn't appear she was forced into doing it. Of course, the big problem is to find out how intoxicated she was at the time and assuming she was, if she was drugged / made to drink by the guy to get her to agree to do it. I'm not saying she must be lying, but there's definitely enough reasons to doubt her claims that waving fingers at people is just as stupid as the slut-shaming comments that just assume she was "asking for it" (hint: by definition, you can't ask for rape) or that she's trying to scam the guys. What in the article gives us reason to doubt? Obviously if the guy is caught he should be innocent-until-proven-guilty while in court, but if she was drunk then that's it, no consent was given.
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Oct 17, 2013 6:32:22 GMT -5
Hum, I'll try and tread as carefully as possible, but I'm getting the impression this article is awfully quick to take the woman's word for it that it was a sexual assault. I mean, from the way even they describe it, it doesn't appear she was forced into doing it. Of course, the big problem is to find out how intoxicated she was at the time and assuming she was, if she was drugged / made to drink by the guy to get her to agree to do it. I'm not saying she must be lying, but there's definitely enough reasons to doubt her claims that waving fingers at people is just as stupid as the slut-shaming comments that just assume she was "asking for it" (hint: by definition, you can't ask for rape) or that she's trying to scam the guys. What in the article gives us reason to doubt? Obviously if the guy is caught he should be innocent-until-proven-guilty while in court, but if she was drunk then that's it, no consent was given. I'm talking about the facts, not this blatantly biased article. There is, so far, no evidence of a sexual assault other than the woman's claims. If you add to that that, according to this article "the dark-haired young woman is awake and not noticeably resisting", I don't think it is wise to take the plaintiff's word for it when no evidence has been brought up. As a result, news outlets throwing accusations and pointing fingers when it hasn't even been established that a crime was committed is both immoral and dangerous. Rape is a horrifying crime and isn't to be taken lightly, and neither is accusing people of committing or supporting it.
|
|
|
Post by Display Name on Oct 17, 2013 11:37:45 GMT -5
I'm with you Ssnakebite.I'll wait until the whole story comes out.Rape is a f***in' horrible thing,but there's unfortunately been too many cases lately of women crying rape,only to find out they did it out of embarrassment,to scam a guy,etc.
|
|
Toxik916
Hank Scorpio
Sacramento Proud
Posts: 6,207
|
Post by Toxik916 on Oct 17, 2013 12:01:08 GMT -5
I'm still not understanding not having consent if a person was drunk. Just because someone is drunk doesn't mean they can't consent to sex, now if the person is drunkenly passed out and unable to defend themselves that is rape. If you drunkenly hook up with someone you shouldn't be able to cry rape if you regret it in the morning. judgybitch.com/2013/08/21/drunk-sex-is-not-rape/I read this blog yesterday and I pretty much agree with all of it.
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Oct 17, 2013 12:07:03 GMT -5
I'm still not understanding not having consent if the girl was drunk. Just because someone is drunk doesn't mean they can't give consent to sex,onow if the person is drunkenly passed out and unable to defend themselves that is rape, but if you drunkenly hook up with someone you shouldn't be able to cry rape if you regret it in the morning. judgybitch.com/2013/08/21/drunk-sex-is-not-rape/I read this blog yesterday and I pretty much agree with all of it. I'm not sure I understand it correctly so don't quote me on this but from what I'm getting, if you're making the other person drink with the intent of making them drunk enough to agree to have sex with you, that's when it's criminal. If both or either of you are inebriated and you just happen to want to get it on, then it's legal. I mean, if all it takes for it to be rape is that someone is drunk, then if both partners are drunk, then are they somehow raping one another? That kind of goes against the concept of rape, and that's not even going into the legal definition of "drunk".
|
|
|
Post by mcmahonfan85 on Oct 17, 2013 12:15:16 GMT -5
I'm still not understanding not having consent if a person was drunk. Just because someone is drunk doesn't mean they can't consent to sex, now if the person is drunkenly passed out and unable to defend themselves that is rape. If you drunkenly hook up with someone you shouldn't be able to cry rape if you regret it in the morning. judgybitch.com/2013/08/21/drunk-sex-is-not-rape/I read this blog yesterday and I pretty much agree with all of it. its because if they are drunk then they are not of sound mind
|
|
Toxik916
Hank Scorpio
Sacramento Proud
Posts: 6,207
|
Post by Toxik916 on Oct 17, 2013 12:23:44 GMT -5
I'm still not understanding not having consent if the girl was drunk. Just because someone is drunk doesn't mean they can't give consent to sex,onow if the person is drunkenly passed out and unable to defend themselves that is rape, but if you drunkenly hook up with someone you shouldn't be able to cry rape if you regret it in the morning. judgybitch.com/2013/08/21/drunk-sex-is-not-rape/I read this blog yesterday and I pretty much agree with all of it. I'm not sure I understand it correctly so don't quote me on this but from what I'm getting, if you're making the other person drink with the intent of making them drunk enough to agree to have sex with you, that's when it's criminal. If both or either of you are inebriated and you just happen to want to get it on, then it's legal. I mean, if all it takes for it to be rape is that someone is drunk, then if both partners are drunk, then are they somehow raping one another? That kind of goes against the concept of rape, and that's not even going into the legal definition of "drunk". The second part is where I'm confused the most. I've been blacked out drunk and had sex with someone else that was also the same level of drunk as I was and we didn't even realize we had sex until the next day. So could I have been charged with rape or could I have charged her with rape? The girl in that story is my friend and we laugh about it occasionally, but that would have ruined my life if it was reported as a rape. I guess a lot of people that party really hard understand that they are at risk of doing questionable things while drunk and most people that drunkenly hook up with someone consider sex they might regret part of that lifestyle.
|
|
|
Post by Bootista on Oct 17, 2013 12:27:55 GMT -5
I'm still not understanding not having consent if a person was drunk. Just because someone is drunk doesn't mean they can't consent to sex, now if the person is drunkenly passed out and unable to defend themselves that is rape. If you drunkenly hook up with someone you shouldn't be able to cry rape if you regret it in the morning. judgybitch.com/2013/08/21/drunk-sex-is-not-rape/I read this blog yesterday and I pretty much agree with all of it. a Drunk passed out woman cannot give consent. it is rape.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Oct 17, 2013 12:48:04 GMT -5
I'm still not understanding not having consent if a person was drunk. Just because someone is drunk doesn't mean they can't consent to sex, now if the person is drunkenly passed out and unable to defend themselves that is rape. If you drunkenly hook up with someone you shouldn't be able to cry rape if you regret it in the morning. judgybitch.com/2013/08/21/drunk-sex-is-not-rape/I read this blog yesterday and I pretty much agree with all of it. its because if they are drunk then they are not of sound mind Basically. The logic behind being intoxicated = unable to give consent is that you aren't in your normal mental state and thus can make decisions you'd normally wouldn't make. In other words for example say someone is normally opposed to having sex, but once they get liquored up they are a sex fiend.
|
|
Toxik916
Hank Scorpio
Sacramento Proud
Posts: 6,207
|
Post by Toxik916 on Oct 17, 2013 13:04:40 GMT -5
its because if they are drunk then they are not of sound mind Basically. The logic behind being intoxicated = unable to give consent is that you aren't in your normal mental state and thus can make decisions you'd normally wouldn't make. In other words for example say someone is normally opposed to having sex, but once they get liquored up they are a sex fiend. By that logic people that drink and drive shouldn't be held accountable for decisions they made while drunk. Being drunk does not excuse a person from the consequences of their actions so just being drunk is not a good enough reason to claim rape. There is a huge difference between being violated while being passed out drunk and drunkenley hooking up with someone and regretting it later. The latter should have no legal recourse unless they were truly raped(held down against their will, passed out, said no, etc).
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Oct 17, 2013 13:06:08 GMT -5
Basically. The logic behind being intoxicated = unable to give consent is that you aren't in your normal mental state and thus can make decisions you'd normally wouldn't make. In other words for example say someone is normally opposed to having sex, but once they get liquored up they are a sex fiend. By that logic people that drink and drive shouldn't be held accountable for decisions they made while drunk. Being drunk does not excuse a person from the consequences of their actions so being drunk is not a good reason to claim rape. There is a huge difference between being violated while being passed out drunk and drunkenley hooking up with someone and regretting it later. The latter should have no legal recourse unless they were truly raped(held down against their will, passed out, said no, etc). Yes but still that's the law.
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Oct 17, 2013 13:09:07 GMT -5
Haven't investigated much of this, but from what I saw of the article, all pics were of him going down on her. Was there more to it?
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Oct 17, 2013 13:12:40 GMT -5
As far as the passerby's were concerned, they weren't witnessing a rape. Kind of pisses me off that people are calling them heartless. They just thought they were seeing some dirty dirty people doing dirty things in public. I probably would've snapped a pic too.
And if being drunk means you can't consent to sex, why doesn't being drunk keep you from being held accountable for other things? What if the rapist was drunk?
Sounds to me like this woman MAY have just been ashamed of herself the next day. Part of me feels like if the pictures never surfaced, there wouldn't be rape charges.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 10,992
|
Post by Sparkybob on Oct 17, 2013 13:18:34 GMT -5
By that logic people that drink and drive shouldn't be held accountable for decisions they made while drunk. Being drunk does not excuse a person from the consequences of their actions so being drunk is not a good reason to claim rape. There is a huge difference between being violated while being passed out drunk and drunkenley hooking up with someone and regretting it later. The latter should have no legal recourse unless they were truly raped(held down against their will, passed out, said no, etc). Yes but still that's the law. So, and correct me if I'm wrong, You wouldn't be opposed if drunk driving wasn't made illegal?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2013 13:27:14 GMT -5
Basically. The logic behind being intoxicated = unable to give consent is that you aren't in your normal mental state and thus can make decisions you'd normally wouldn't make. In other words for example say someone is normally opposed to having sex, but once they get liquored up they are a sex fiend. By that logic people that drink and drive shouldn't be held accountable for decisions they made while drunk. Being drunk does not excuse a person from the consequences of their actions so just being drunk is not a good enough reason to claim rape. There is a huge difference between being violated while being passed out drunk and drunkenley hooking up with someone and regretting it later. The latter should have no legal recourse unless they were truly raped(held down against their will, passed out, said no, etc).Ehhhh... "But they didn't visibly resist!" is used way too much as a defense for me not to feel squicky reading that. I mean, how often are rape charges filed because a person regrets a hook-up? I know from the way it's reported and from the way it riles up a whole bunch of us menfolk, it seems like a clear and real danger. And honestly for some of us in a few instances, it really is (though I never see these same menfolk address that issue with any fervor). But for the vast majority? Is it really a thing that happens, because I'm not convinced it is.
|
|
Sektor
Unicron
The OTHER Big Red Machine.
Posts: 2,808
|
Post by Sektor on Oct 17, 2013 13:29:32 GMT -5
Basically. The logic behind being intoxicated = unable to give consent is that you aren't in your normal mental state and thus can make decisions you'd normally wouldn't make. In other words for example say someone is normally opposed to having sex, but once they get liquored up they are a sex fiend. By that logic people that drink and drive shouldn't be held accountable for decisions they made while drunk. Being drunk does not excuse a person from the consequences of their actions so just being drunk is not a good enough reason to claim rape. There is a huge difference between being violated while being passed out drunk and drunkenly hooking up with someone and regretting it later. The latter should have no legal recourse unless they were truly raped(held down against their will, passed out, said no, etc). If 100% of drunken rape claims were just a woman regretting it, you'd be right. But I think we both know that's not true. There's been plenty of times where a woman is pressured into drinking too much by horny guys trying to get in her pants, but I don't know that I've ever heard of someone getting pressured into drinking a ton so that they can go joyriding. That's the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Oct 17, 2013 13:30:13 GMT -5
Yes but still that's the law. So, and correct me if I'm wrong, You wouldn't be opposed if drunk driving wasn't made illegal? No I would be opposed to it. People should take reslonsibility for what they do regardless of being sober or intoxicated. You drink and drive, your ass goes to the slammer if you get caught. However that being said I think laws regarding criminal acts done while intoxicated should all be handled the same way. In other words if you drink and drive you tend to only be in serious trouble if you are over a .08 level. Since that was deemed to be the level where driving is bad, there needs to be set levels for other intoxicated criminal acts. For example with drunken sex it currently seems to be an all or nothing thing. You're drunk, you can't give consent at all. That's crap.
|
|