(05-07-2016, 10:27 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You don't understand the law.

In order for there to be a rape there has to be an aggressor taking advantage of the other party.  If both are drunk to the point that they can not consent then there is no aggressor.

It is illegal to have sex with an 8 year old because an 8 year old is too young to give consent to have sex.  But if two 8 year olds have sex with each other you can't charge them both with rape.

(05-06-2016, 09:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure what variable was change a man and woman had sex and both later regretted it. I'm unsure what constitutes a real specific hypothetical. What makes it facetious? Also your suggestion that I should ask an expert instead of this forum goes against everything this forum stands for. 

Hey but I'll give you credit: Although you; like everyone else, couldn't answer the question; you at least acknowledged it. 

(05-07-2016, 11:30 AM)xxlt Wrote: https://share.cornell.edu/education-engagement/sex-alcohol-and-clear-consent/

For those who read the text at the above link, let me know where the book burning will be and if it will be BYOR for the hanging in effigy of Cornell's President.

http://www.businessinsider.com/can-you-get-convicted-of-rape-if-you-were-drunk-2013-11

We will need a big site for the burning, because as you can see from the link above, it isn't just the socialists and feminists - aka the enemies of freedom and the Constitution Jesus wrote - who are destroying America under the bogus premise of rape culture. It is also the men and women we thought were our heroes, tearing the foundation of America down brick by brick. Yes, the conservative capitalists over at Business Insider have jumped on the bandwagon. These could be the last days: prepare for the rapture.

Some low lights (as opposed to highlights) from the [i]Business Insider [i] piece, which was written in 2013:

In some cases, a drunken assailant could be convicted of a lesser degree of rape than a sober person, according to Fishman. (He stressed that it's difficult to generalize too much, since rape charges vary from state to state.) A rapist's mental state could certainly influence sentencing, he said. From an email Fishman sent me:

As a general rule, a defendant who knew the victim was not consenting is more morally culpable, and therefore deserves a harsher sentence, than a defendant who was too stupid or conceited or lust-crazed to realize the victim was unwilling. But that is an issue that would be decided by the judge (or, in some states, the jury) only if, and after, the defendant was found guilty.

A rapist's intoxication will almost never get him off completely, though.

There is one unlikely scenario that would enable an intoxication defense: if somebody slipped the rapist a drug that dramatically altered his perception of reality. However, usually drunk people are responsible for putting themselves in that state. And if a drunk person has sex with somebody who's clearly saying no or is completely passed out, then a jury would likely consider that rape.

The situation gets more complicated if both parties are conscious and drunk. Here is how the Justice Department defines rape:

The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

The law is currently evolving to determine whether a conscious woman who's incredibly drunk is capable of giving consent, Coughlin, the UVA professor, told me.

(05-07-2016, 11:35 AM)xxlt Wrote: "As many as six Joe Paterno assistants personally witnessed Jerry Sandusky abusing children, NBC News revealed today. That report comes on the heels of testimony given in Penn State’s lawsuit against its insurer revealed this week, alleging Paterno knew of Sandusky molesting children as early as 1976.
Sandusky is currently serving 30 to 60 years in prison after being convicted of molesting ten children, dating back to 1994. More alleged acts dating prior to those brought by the prosecution have emerged in the insurance lawsuit, and now sources tell NBC that a former Penn State assistant witnessed a Sandusky incident “in the late 1970s,” while three other coaches witnessed incidents in the 1990s."

The above text is the OP from the "WTF, Joe?" thread.

All I can say is, thank God we don't live in a rape culture!

(05-07-2016, 10:55 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Can you answer my question Fred? Because if drunk consent isn't consent I need to turn in a complaint and get this prosecutor disbarred immediately so she would stop letting rapist go back on the streets.

(05-07-2016, 11:48 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Are you talking about a situation where both parties are too drunk to consent?  If so there is no rape.

If you are talking about a situation where one person was an aggressor and took advantage of a situation where the other person was too drunk to consent then there was a rape.

There is no one simple answer.  It all depends on how drunk the person was, and many other factors.

Give me a link to the case you are talking about and I will look at it.

(05-07-2016, 11:36 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Ineresting articles. The most interesting part is how neither of them said that drunken consent isn't consent. Its almost like it's a straw man.

(05-07-2016, 12:51 PM)xxlt Wrote: Here's another straw man for you:

http://journalstar.com/news/local/911/man-convicted-of-raping-woman-in-lincoln-alley-gets-/article_c232802b-4865-5cc5-ad7c-dfb64e8eceb5.html

So, for the record, we have heard that the man was drunk also is a defense. I posted two links with legal opinions saying, no it is not.

We have heard there is not a court in America that would convict a guy for having sex with a drunk participant. The link above, which took about 3 seconds to find, shows there is a court that would and did, and I am quite sure there are others.

We have heard that a drunk woman can willingly consent. I posted a three year old link stating that "the law is evolving" on this point and that "it is difficult to generalize" because "rape laws are different from state to state."

So, all the foolish arguments presented to show how we don't live in a rape culture which screamed "I am the product of a rape culture, and if you don't believe me just listen to this," have been shown to be in error. He was drunk so he is innocent - wrong. No court would convict if she was drunk and conscious and you had sex with her - wrong. It is black and white and women have the upper hand - wrong: the laws vary from state to state. It is easy to answer questions in a rape case - wrong: it is difficult to generalize which means SPECIFIC FACTS in a case matter.

Perry Cox said it best. To those whose arguments and assumptions have been shown to be wrong, I say: wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong: you're wrong.

Call it a straw man, a red herring, a pink elephant, whatever Fonzie, just don't say I was wrrrrrr....

(05-07-2016, 12:51 PM)xxlt Wrote: Here's another straw man for you:

http://journalstar.com/news/local/911/man-convicted-of-raping-woman-in-lincoln-alley-gets-/article_c232802b-4865-5cc5-ad7c-dfb64e8eceb5.html

So, for the record, we have heard that the man was drunk also is a defense. I posted two links with legal opinions saying, no it is not.

We have heard there is not a court in America that would convict a guy for having sex with a drunk participant. The link above, which took about 3 seconds to find, shows there is a court that would and did, and I am quite sure there are others.

We have heard that a drunk woman can willingly consent. I posted a three year old link stating that "the law is evolving" on this point and that "it is difficult to generalize" because "rape laws are different from state to state."

So, all the foolish arguments presented to show how we don't live in a rape culture which screamed "I am the product of a rape culture, and if you don't believe me just listen to this," have been shown to be in error. He was drunk so he is innocent - wrong. No court would convict if she was drunk and conscious and you had sex with her - wrong. It is black and white and women have the upper hand - wrong: the laws vary from state to state. It is easy to answer questions in a rape case - wrong: it is difficult to generalize which means SPECIFIC FACTS in a case matter.

Perry Cox said it best. To those whose arguments and assumptions have been shown to be wrong, I say: wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong: you're wrong.

Call it a straw man, a red herring, a pink elephant, whatever Fonzie, just don't say I was wrrrrrr....

(05-07-2016, 12:51 PM)xxlt Wrote: Here's another straw man for you:

http://journalstar.com/news/local/911/man-convicted-of-raping-woman-in-lincoln-alley-gets-/article_c232802b-4865-5cc5-ad7c-dfb64e8eceb5.html

So, for the record, we have heard that the man was drunk also is a defense. I posted two links with legal opinions saying, no it is not.

We have heard there is not a court in America that would convict a guy for having sex with a drunk participant. The link above, which took about 3 seconds to find, shows there is a court that would and did, and I am quite sure there are others.

We have heard that a drunk woman can willingly consent. I posted a three year old link stating that "the law is evolving" on this point and that "it is difficult to generalize" because "rape laws are different from state to state."

So, all the foolish arguments presented to show how we don't live in a rape culture which screamed "I am the product of a rape culture, and if you don't believe me just listen to this," have been shown to be in error. He was drunk so he is innocent - wrong. No court would convict if she was drunk and conscious and you had sex with her - wrong. It is black and white and women have the upper hand - wrong: the laws vary from state to state. It is easy to answer questions in a rape case - wrong: it is difficult to generalize which means SPECIFIC FACTS in a case matter.

Perry Cox said it best. To those whose arguments and assumptions have been shown to be wrong, I say: wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong: you're wrong.

Call it a straw man, a red herring, a pink elephant, whatever Fonzie, just don't say I was wrrrrrr....

(05-07-2016, 04:52 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Seems the real problem here is alcohol. From the sounds of it. Sober people never get raped.

Drinking leads to bad decisions. Getting drunk and making a bad decision sounds like it is the start to the majority of rape stories.

(05-07-2016, 05:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: Do we live in a rape culture?

(05-07-2016, 06:57 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I guess i should have put the sarcasm symbol. Didnt think it was needed because it seemed so obvious considering the majority of this 7 page post is about drunken rape.

(05-07-2016, 05:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: Do we live in a rape culture?

(05-09-2016, 02:00 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Just shame rape victims then they won't get raped again.  Shame is the same as information without the benefit of group progress.  No need for progress, things are better for we white males as they are.   Oh, and no take backs.  That little ***** must have any baby that results from her shameful existence.

[no emoticon can satisfy the sheer disappointment I feel stating this sarcasticly.]

This, apparently, is/was the thought process of A child's PE 'educator.'  Amazing someone that fits that profile could be in charge of children's welfare for hours at a time.

(05-08-2016, 03:27 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: I think it was made pretty clear that we don't live in one.