~ archived since 2018 ~
~ archived since 2018 ~
| Upvotes | Title | Category | Author | Subreddit | Date (UTC) |
|---|
| Upvotes | Comment on | Subreddit | Date (UTC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Toronto aquatic centre doing it right.Separate but equal is not equal. | /r/MensRights | 20/01/13 03:41 AM |
| 12 | Am I way off base here? Or is she being sexist?Wait...did she actually say that the man who gets her pregnant should have a say in her reproductive rights? | /r/MensRights | 20/01/13 02:06 AM |
| 1 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?They don't cancel each other out- no rape was committed. If a drunk man has sex with an underage girl, would you say no rape was committed? | /r/MensRights | 20/01/13 12:58 AM |
| 2 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?Well, that's kind of the problem isn't it? Legally, those two people are raping each other. If they don't go to jail for it, then why should a sober person who has sex with an intoxicated person go to jail? If I were to have sex with an underage girl, do you think anyone would care if I was drunk when I did it? I am raping her, because she is too young to consent. But she is raping me because I am intoxicated. At most being drunk can show that I might not have committed some kind of premeditated… | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 10:59 PM |
| 1 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?When you have sex with someone who you know to be intoxicated; according the the legal definition of "intoxicated" for that purpose. The law doesn't care if you, yourself are drunk. You can be drunk and still know that someone else is legally "intoxicated". | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 10:42 PM |
| 1 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?you are assuming that it is a case of taking advantage of someone. What do you mean by "that"? Which particular thing? | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 09:48 PM |
| 10 | Its things like this that really Piss me off...If I get drunk and put my penis in a woman, I'm a rapist. If I get drunk and put my penis in a woman who wants it, SHE's a rapist. This sounds ridiculous, but for some reason when it's a woman who is drunk it makes sense. | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 08:22 PM |
| 4 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?I have had numerous drunk girls grope me, even when I didn't want them to. They committed a crime, did they not? They didn't know whether I wanted them to grope me or not. But if I were to have slept with them after that, then I would be a rapist? | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 07:58 PM |
| 1 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?I guess I'm saying if I get drunk, drive someone home, and fuck them - how is it possible that I can't claim that I was unable to make the decision to drive drunk, but I can claim that I was unable to make the decision to have sex? | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 07:52 PM |
| 0 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?sober people should know getting together with a drunk person is also wrong But drunk people might not know that? You are saying once people become drunk, they completely forget that it's wrong to take advantage of other drunk people? You must believe that, because you believe that two drunk people who have sex with each other can never result in a rape conviction. Why do you think drunk people only forget that taking advantage of other drunk people is wrong, and can't possibly forget that drivi… | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 07:27 PM |
| 2 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?It doesn't matter if it was an accident. People are still prosecuted for "reckless" transmission. What about a situation like buying illegal drugs? That requires a second, sentient party to give consent, to sell me the drugs. If I am drunk does that mean that I have not committed a crime? | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 07:10 PM |
| 1 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?How is it different? I am drunk. I have sex with someone. They are a rapist and I am a victim. I am drunk. I have sex with someone. I have HIV. I am the criminal and the other person is the victim? I was looking at casual drunk encounters, not serious deadly encounters. All casual drunk encounters are potentially seriously, deadly encounters. | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 07:02 PM |
| 0 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?But basically that would just mean instead of murder one would be charged with manslaughter right? If a "specific intent" in either sense is required and there is clear evidence that the accused was too intoxicated to form the element subjectively, this fact is recognised as a defense unless the loss of control was part of the plan. But this is of little value to defendants since there are almost always offenses of basic intent that can be charged and/or the basic intent offenses are usually les… | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 06:33 PM |
| 24 | Its things like this that really Piss me off...What bothers me most about it is that it is presented by the San Diego Police Department among others. The methods for prevention seem the same to me as the one in the OP's link, which is telling rapists that "rapists can prevent rape". How can one not get offended when they think the word "rapists" and "men" are interchangeable? | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 06:26 PM |
| 2 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?As of the end of 2008, 36 states in America had prosecuted HIV positive individuals for criminal transmission or HIV exposure, with many having laws specifically mentioning HIV. Failure to disclose one's HIV status to a partner is most often the only necessary basis for prosecution, rather than intent to infect someone else or actual transmission of HIV. http://www.avert.org/criminal-transmission.htm Of course it always "depends". We are talking about the places where it is the law, and the fact… | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 06:17 PM |
| 1 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?neither of them was able to really give consent with a sound mind, and no one is harmed as a result, so being drunk doesn't become an issue And if one of them contracts HIV? | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 05:30 PM |
| 2 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?Neither party took advantage of the lower-reasoning state of intoxication of another person If either party realized that the other party was drunk, and had sex with them anyway, then in the eyes of the law that is exactly the same. It is realizing someone is drunk, and having sex with them anyway. They clearly can't say, "well I knew they were drunk, and that they couldn't consent to sex, but I had sex with them anyway because I was drunk and I made a poor decision." "I was drunk and I made a p… | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 05:22 PM |
| 1 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?I would have to ask how much realization that the other party is drunk is a factor. I mean, both parties can say that they were drunk, and that they still realized the other person was also drunk, but had sex anyway, then didn't they both rape each other? | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 05:18 PM |
| 2 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?Really? I thought I would engage you a little more than taking the obvious route. So HIV is not harmful? | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 04:56 PM |
| 2 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?In the United States, laws vary from state to state. As of 2012, adultery remains a criminal offense in 23 states.In those states penalties vary from life sentence to a $10 fine to a Class B misdemeanor to a Class I felony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#United_States_2 Increasingly, HIV transmission is also becoming a crime. More than thirty states have prosecuted HIV positive individuals for exposing another person to HIV. A person diagnosed with HIV who infects their partner while enga… | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 04:52 PM |
| 23 | Its things like this that really Piss me off...I think you missed the point entirely. The point is that these messages are always directed towards men. It also implies that there are many men out there will simply decide not to rape because some poster said, "hey did you ever think of not doing that?" This poster shouldn't say "men can stop rape". What it's really saying is "rapists can stop rape", and by using the word men instead it is implying that all men are rapists. EDIT: or maybe that only men are rapists. Either way it's bad. | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 04:44 PM |
| 24 | Its things like this that really Piss me off...I see that and raise you: http://www.wastedsex.com/resources/quiz.html also see the FAQs | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 04:40 PM |
| 1 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?Unless you have HIV, syphilis, etc. | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 03:30 PM |
| 1 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?you are held responsible because you know that what you are engaging in is reckless behavior; which is why, often times, death by a drunk driver is charged as manslaughter. And if you give someone HIV and they die from it, you can be charged with manslaughter...unless you were drunk...? | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 03:28 PM |
| 2 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?And if that same mentally incapacitated person that says "yes, yes, yes" also forgets to disclose their positive HIV status, then I suppose they are not guilty of a crime? Why would that be the one exception where being drunk is a legitimate legal defense? | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 03:25 PM |
| 18 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?Sex is also very dangerous. http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/02/health/criminalizing-hiv/index.html What about a situation like this? No one is allowed to use being drunk as an excuse for committing a crime. So what if you are drunk and have sex with someone and they catch HIV? Are you simultaneously a victim of rape, and a criminal because you gave them HIV? If not, then why would being drunk excuse you from committing this crime, when it doesn't excuse any other criminal behavior? | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 03:18 PM |
| 1 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?What about adultery? | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 02:54 PM |
| -3 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?So if you're drunk and I ask you for a ride, then I am guilty of a crime and you are completely absolved of any responsibility? | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 02:50 PM |
| 4 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?If sex can't harm, then why does someone face 8 years in jail for having sex with a drunk person who wanted it? | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 01:55 PM |
| 5 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?Stop making sense. | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 01:43 PM |
| 2 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?Sex can harm. | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 01:33 PM |
| 3 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?It's quite simply really. In that scenario you are allowed to rape someone and use being drunk as an excuse. You can't use being drunk as an excuse to commit any other crime, but hey - that's just the way it is. | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 01:30 PM |
| 9 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?But the laws in many places are written such that the drunk person does not need to be passed out, in fact even if the drunk person is actively initiating or engaging in the sex it doesn't matter - they are considered unable to consent and still being raped. In my mind, laws that involve intoxication with matters like this have nothing to do with the situation you just described. If the person was passed out, then they in no way initiated to or agreed to the sex. Why do we even need to bring int… | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 01:26 PM |
| 6 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?But they didn't just sit around being drunk. They were drunk and possibly made sexual advances or actively responded to propositions of sex. That's like saying someone was just sitting around drunk one second, and the next they were in their car driving without taking any action on their own. That's not how it happened. The drunk person also played a part. They weren't just sitting around. If they were just sitting around, then their level of intoxication would have no relevance to anything - th… | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 01:12 PM |
| 0 | Why are people responsible for driving drunk, but not for having sexual relations while drunk?This makes no sense. If the car were sentient, we could blame the car, but also in that scenario, following your metaphor, the driver of the car would still accept no blame. Why is the drunk person not held accountable when the car enables them, but is held accountable if they take the exact same action but don't need the car to enable them, when the drunk person has made the exact same decision in both situations? | /r/MensRights | 19/01/13 01:02 PM |
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter