(05-06-2016, 02:59 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Here's proof why your defintion of rape is too broad. There is no court case in the USA to ever convict someone of rape for having consensual sex with someone who's drunk, and then regrets it later.

(05-06-2016, 01:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: It is if one partner said no.

But then I find people "hooking up" one night completely wrong also.

I realize I am in the minority on that.

(05-06-2016, 06:00 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We agree here it's an erosion of family and society.   There is no shame anymore that's a problem.   

(05-06-2016, 06:08 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Yes.  Shame is the answer.  

(05-06-2016, 06:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yes it is....  It's keeps us from doing stupid things.   Like multiple and frequent sexual partners....  It's a health issue.... Not only for yourself but others as well.   

(05-06-2016, 05:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Where do you have that fact from? I'm just curious, given that in most states being intoxicated means, by the law, that they cannot give consent.

I should add a couple of things here. One, the reason for no convictions (if true) is likely due to the fact it would be very hard to get a conviction for such a thing. Two, it is my understanding from the way the laws are written it is also hard to convict because for a lot of them it focuses on using intoxication/mental incapacity in coercing the act to occur. That would be very hard to prove.

(05-06-2016, 06:12 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Shame.  Not education.  Shame.  

That should work well.  

(05-06-2016, 07:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: One in the same.   

(05-06-2016, 06:54 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: I could not find any law in any state that says intoxication cancels consent.

(05-06-2016, 07:14 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: How is it even remotely similar?

(05-06-2016, 07:21 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Don't both curb unwanted behavior?  

(05-06-2016, 07:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That is because it often doesn't specify it. However, it falls under the mental incapacitation category that exists in most laws, being temporarily incapable of consenting.

(05-06-2016, 07:26 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Being drunk isn't the same as being incapacitated though. If the person was passed out that would fall under incapacitation, which are too separate things.

(05-06-2016, 07:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Being unconscious falls under being helpless or physically incapacitated. This is separate from mentally incapacitated.

(05-06-2016, 07:31 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: And being unconscious isn't the same as being drunk and giving consent.

(05-06-2016, 02:49 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Obviously your definition of rape is far too broad, because if a woman has sex while drunk and consents to it isn't rape. Even if she regrets it later.

(05-06-2016, 07:59 PM)xxlt Wrote: Dude, sorry but you are wrong. You can't sign a contract (for something as trivial as) cellular if you are drunk, or if you have been under anesthesia w/in 24 hours. Why? You don't know what you are doing!

So, you clearly can't give consent for sex in those circumstances.

Now, I know some readers are thinking, "Well hell, I'd have never had sex to this day if I hadn't had it with drunk chicks!" And if this is the case, and you know who you are out there, yes Virginia you should have never had sex, you are guilty of rape, and are lucky if you were not charged and convicted.

Sorry for those of you who can only score with a drunk chick, but it isn't cool.

This thread has repeatedly contained posts that answered the threads question with an emphatic, "YES, we do live in a rape culture!" But then, I knew it would from the moment I saw the thread, and I could have predicted from whom a good many of them would come.

Is this country a few steps ahead of the rape culture in other parts of the world, as some pointed out? Yeah, you bet!

That is like saying, "I only beat my kids for pleasure on Tuesday, Joe is the real child abuser - he beats his kids four or five times a week for kicks." Or, "I only rob and kill old people with lots of money - hell, some guys just randomly rob and kill anybody."

(05-06-2016, 08:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hey you seem to have the answers; maybe you can answer my question; as no one else can:

If a transwoman and transman have drunken sex; which one could charge the other for rape if they both said they were too drunk for consent?

(05-06-2016, 07:59 PM)xxlt Wrote: Dude, sorry but you are wrong. You can't sign a contract (for something as trivial as) cellular if you are drunk, or if you have been under anesthesia w/in 24 hours. Why? You don't know what you are doing!

So, you clearly can't give consent for sex in those circumstances.

Now, I know some readers are thinking, "Well hell, I'd have never had sex to this day if I hadn't had it with drunk chicks!" And if this is the case, and you know who you are out there, yes Virginia you should have never had sex, you are guilty of rape, and are lucky if you were not charged and convicted.

Sorry for those of you who can only score with a drunk chick, but it isn't cool.

This thread has repeatedly contained posts that answered the threads question with an emphatic, "YES, we do live in a rape culture!" But then, I knew it would from the moment I saw the thread, and I could have predicted from whom a good many of them would come.

Is this country a few steps ahead of the rape culture in other parts of the world, as some pointed out? Yeah, you bet!

That is like saying, "I only beat my kids for pleasure on Tuesday, Joe is the real child abuser - he beats his kids four or five times a week for kicks." Or, "I only rob and kill old people with lots of money - hell, some guys just randomly rob and kill anybody."

(05-06-2016, 08:18 PM)xxlt Wrote: I'll begin with the obvious observation that this is a facetious and/or fatuous question, which is why others have ignored it. As to who could charge whom with rape in your hypothetical, it would come down to the statute governing the community where the crime happened. I suggest you look up a rape statute and then submit it to a judge or a criminal law professor, lay out a detailed hypothetical where you name the principals in the sexual encounter and exactly who did what to whom and who is what biological sex and gender and then ask who would be vulnerable to a criminal charge. This is why we have law schools - where would be lawyers learn to analyze such hypothetical situations, and courtrooms, where if they become reality a judge decides what the law says. The law may be ambiguous in some communities on this point, in fact it probably is. This is why law is dynamic and not static. Things (and people) change. Time was in America when a black person was only 3/5 of a person, by law. That law has changed, rendering black humans in America whole, from a legal perspective.




But we don't now, nor did we ever live in a racist culture. And we don't now, as we can see from other legal phenomena, nor did we ever live in a rape culture or a culture that in any way treated women as inferior to men.