~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
icorrectotherpeople
[–]CaptainnT 598 points599 points600 points 9 years ago (89 children) | Copy Link
Man is drunk
Woman is drunk
Man and woman have sex
Woman regrets it
Man is told he's a rapist because she was too drunk, man's intoxication doesn't matter.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]jonnytechno 46 points47 points48 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link
I belive so :
http://www.fosters.com/news/20161106/dover-woman-sues-inn-over-dwi-crash
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2080037/Woman-sues-bar-carding-got-drunk-driving-car-crash-left-paralyzed.html
[–]dougj182 65 points66 points67 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
the daily mail story is incredible. she illegally got drunk, drove, crashed, was injured badly. All from her own choices and she's still trying to blame someone else and make them pay?
[–]thunderbox666 37 points38 points39 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
This reminds me of those criminals who tried to sue because they got injured while robbing a place
[–]loki-things 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Those people should be put in real life saw movies.
[–]nforne 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
I once had the misfortune once of meeting a scummy group of burglars who were friends of a friend's brother. They spent the evening telling stories about their scummy exploits.
One was on crutches, having smashed his legs up jumping from a window in a bid to escape the police. He was expecting a big compensation payout, and eagerly looking forward to a life on disability benefits. His scummy friends were clearly jealous of his good fortune.
[–]Apexbreed 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
These stories are becoming more and more common. At this rate, cops soon won't be allowed to physically enforce laws and society will circle the drain even faster. I 100% support this happening though. Despite my naive ideals about a perfect utopia, I am an anarchist at heart and look forward to the day cops become completely depowered. I'll survive just fine when it happens.
[–]Cardplay3r 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I'll survive just fine when it happens.
To hell with everyone that's too weak and frail to do the same right?
[–]Apexbreed 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
That's what the population wants. The people should get what they want. My perfect world isn't anarchy at all. My morals and decency push the anarchist in me down because I know it's wrong. But since society wants to push the anti-cop narrative into every aspect of our lives, then they will get what's coming. The anti-cop people tend to be the weakest human beings around IME, so it's kind of ironic too... So I say "fuck the police" and I will be around to rebuild from the rubble.
[–]Cardplay3r 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
I don't believe that is what the population wants, that's a pretty extraordinary statement that requires pretty strong evidence to believe. Perhaps you live in an anarchist bubble or something.
Also a just world is not one where the majority gets every wish fulfilled. Human rights of all superseed that, otherwise "all gays and atheists should be killed!" would have become a reality in the west not too long ago and would become one now in many places. Slavery in Southern US can be another example, the majority wanted it so why not have it?
Places where such things are reality like ISIS or Phillipines are not exactly poster boys for happy, healthy societies.
[–]xplosm 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I believe they won and the owner of the place they robbed had to pay some sort of alimony... The world makes no sense...
[–]JoJoRumbles 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Just because they sue doesn't mean they'll win. Anyone can sue anyone in this country, it's the winning part that often eludes fraudulent claims.
[–]thunderbox666 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"tried" to sue...... never said they won, although im sure somewhere, someone has won for something stupid like that
[–]TheGrammarBazi 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This is actually not so frivolous as it sounds. There are many cases where such a lawsuit would be perfectly valid.
For example, cases involving booby traps are usually won by the burglars. There was a famous one in the US back in 1990, where the guy even went to prison. If you create any kind of trap with the intent to gravely injure a would-be criminal, you may be liable.
[–]thunderbox666 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's slightly different as it goes into intent... But if you rob a place a break a leg because you tripped over a toddlers toy in the dark, you shouldn't have any legal leg to stand on (pun intended)
[–]sayshey 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I am not saying that this a good thing, but this is the law in Canada. If you serve someone to the point of intoxication you are partially responsible for everything they do. They don't even have to drive, they could just get in a fight or some similar action. I think the rationale is that some people may not be aware of how much alcohol they are consuming and at every server in Ontario has to take mandatory training about how much people can drink, how to cut them off, etc.
The interesting part is that no bar or restaurant ever cut off a customer before they were intoxicated, but they all have to take training saying they will.
[–]dougj182 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This story was in South Carolina. Why can't the laws makes people accountable for their own actions instead of forcing somebody else to be accountable? Punish the drunk bitch before the bar tender. Please somebody convince me why this Canadian law is a good idea, on the surface it seems ridiculous.
[–]sayshey 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I agree with you completely.
As devil's advocate I would say that obviously some people can't help themselves, and public intoxication of any kind generally being considered illegal, you bear some responsibility.
Just as someone who has epilepsy or a psychotic disorder should expect that during a time when they have some sort of episode that people around them should intervene.
The disconnect is that some people feel that caring for others, to the point of making the rules we all live by, gives them moral authority. While others feel we should live and die by our individual strengths and weaknesses.
I guess
[–]Skydiver860 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Oh come on this is a bit of a stretch here. men have done this exact same thing. People suing bars or clubs for them getting too drunk is not unique to women. Men do it too.
www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest.../man_sues_bar_for_26_million_fo.html
http://nypost.com/2017/05/08/drunk-driver-sues-the-bars-that-served-him/
http://thebullamarillo.com/texas-man-sues-bar-for-letting-him-drive-drunk/
quick edit: for the record i agree with this post about women not being held responsible for their actions while drunk but to make it seem like women are the only ones who have sued bars and clubs for letting them get drunk is just misleading and wrong.
[–]jonnytechno 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Stop with the straw man, no one is saying only women do it, u/iridethedirt simply asked if the "I wasn't responsible I was drunk" had been used as a defence for drunk driving and I said "I believe so" with a few examples
How about you wait for some actual injustice and direct your bias that way
[–]Skydiver860 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No they asked if women specifically had used it as a defense and you posted links of women doing it. I may have worded my response wrong but I simply wanted to point out that the defense wasn't unique to women. I certainly wasn't trying to have any bias. I was more trying to just point out that that defense wasn't unique to women. Sorry if I came off that way.
[–]murpdog 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Show me where I blamed women, liar.
[–]xRisingSunx 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sharia law for all!!
[–]Plasmabat 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
And I mean fuck, I'd be fine with the double responsibility if it meant I had double the rights and benefits, but I don't, so society needs to fucking choose. Which do men get? Less responsibility or more rights and benefits?
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'll stick to equal rights and responsibilities, as well as equal application and protections of the law.
[–]Smaskifa 84 points85 points86 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Man is drunk.
Man drives car and gets in wreck.
Man gets charged with DUI.
Woman is drunk.
Woman drives car and gets in wreck.
"That's ok, dear, you aren't responsible for your decisions while drunk".
It doesn't work like this for DUI, why does it work like this for sex?
[–]aggr1103 36 points37 points38 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It doesn't work like this for DUI
You're right - women are charged with DUI, but they are treated differently on the back end.
This woman was stoned out of her mind on I-95 and hit a parked trooper, she was released to her father after being charged. A man would've been put in jail with a ridiculous bond (or more likely no bond at all).
[–]Impossterble 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Man should counter argue with he was drunk and he regrets it too, can claim the same things she says. If each person rapes the other does that cancels each other out, or are they both guilty of raping each other?
Also if the girl is getting so drunk she can't recollect the night shouldn't that be on her? She is so irresponsible she can't even take care of herself. If she was to get in a car crash then it would be her fault for being so intoxicated and committing the action. I'm not saying rape is justified but rape and being intoxicated and having sex with someone is not the same.
[–]EvrythingISayIsRight 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Man is told that he should have just "kept it in his pants", regardless of the circumstances that unfolded.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yep, that's pretty much it.
[–]Shanguerrilla 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Everybody laugh.
Roll on snare drum.
Curtains.
[–]Misterduster01 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"This city's afraid of me."
[+]ValAichi -37 points-36 points-35 points 9 years ago* (51 children) | Copy Link
It doesn't work like this.
In this case, the initiating party - male or female - is held to be responsible.
If only one party is drunk, then whoever is sober is at fault, regardless of gender or who initiated, is at fault.
And there are a reason for these laws; they're not to allow people 'revenge' for their regretted 'decisions', they are to prevent anyone - male or female - from taking advantage of someone with reduced capability for rational decision.
Is a contract signed when drunk valid? Of course not. There is no reason to expect consenting to sex when drunk to be valid either.
/edit Oh dear, I told some truths that contradict some people's view of reality. I am soooo sorry.
[–]sayshey 42 points43 points44 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Your problem is here:
the initiating party
Much like men being the ones who get arrested in any kind of domestic dispute unless there is direct evidence to contrary, it is always assumed men are the initiating party.
I'm sure you've seen the many many headlines people post here, that include things like 'Man passes out and woman gives him a blowjob, woman charges him with rape the next day'. link
no reason to expect consenting to sex when drunk to be valid either.
I'm sorry to inform you of this, but people have been getting drunk and having sex for a very long time. Many many many people go to these things called bars, they make sure they look their best, they order more drinks then they need to stay hydrated, and they frequently hook up with each other. To make it into the legal minefield they have is absolutely ridiculous. You have some responsibility just by putting yourself in that place. You have more responsibility by purposely lowering your inhibitions and your ability to make judgments. No one is allowed to rape anyone. Regret is not rape.
I'm sorry about all the downvotes. I don't agree with you but how are you supposed to hash this all out if the comments that create discussion are all buried, but I guess that's how reddit works.
[–]retronot 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
when was the last time you had drunk sex? have you ever had regrets? It can also be a really fun time when everyone is into it obviously.
[–]sayshey 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Those are very personal questions.
[–]retronot 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sorry. I have broad personal boundaries. You likely live within much more confined personal boundaries that I do.
[+]ValAichi -15 points-14 points-13 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
True, kindof, but it still needs to be proven in a court of law. You won't see a man convicted of raping a women while they are both drunk when the only evidence is she claiming he initiated.
Nope, don't normally visit here, just wandering by on all.
But that's irrelevant. Being accused of rape (or even charged) is not the same thing as being convicted. It's horrible thing to falsely accuse someone, but that's not really relevant to the topic I feel.
You have some responsibility just by putting yourself in that place. You have more responsibility by purposely lowering your inhibitions and your ability to make judgments.
At the same time, we don't want to restrict people going out, by telling them that if they get drunk, and if in their state of reduced inhibitions and decision making capacity, they are pushed into a position that sober them would never willingly get into, they have no recourse.
That's why the law is like it is; it is to prevent a sober person taking advantage of a drunk person, and to try to work out the confusing situation of two drunk people.
I personally have been come onto by drunk friends, who I've turned down because they're drunk, and they've thanked me the next day for it. To me and you, that is just basic morality, but unfortunately some people don't see it that way, and that is what the law is there to enforce.
I don't really care about the downvotes, but thank you all the same.
[–]SchalaZeal01 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You won't see a man convicted of raping a women while they are both drunk when the only evidence is she claiming he initiated.
Men who didn't even have sex with the alleged victim have been convicted before.
[–]sayshey 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
I won't give you more links since you didn't manage to follow the last one. You are currently ignorant of how the world works in any capacity. I thought maybe you were being a reasonable voice of opposition but you just haven't experienced or bothered to check on the millions of accounts of men being incarcerated or otherwise punished by society solely on an accusation. False accusations which are rarely punished in any way at all.
The entire rest of your reply is just coloured by your ignorance. Men experience systematic and institutional sexism in several areas of society. I'm sorry if you don't believe that, but you don't start any conversation with dismissal and total ignorance.
[+]ValAichi -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
A link to a google search, which in turn referenced a bunch of forums and reddit itself.
I'm sorry, but that really doesn't prove anything; they're not reliable sources, and to be honest I'm not interested in going through them till I find one that is, if I find one that is.
False accusations which are rarely punished in any way at all.
It's a hard balance to strike. Go to far and you'll dissuade real reports of rape by people already scared to come forward.
Perhaps the current balance isn't right, but that is an entire debate on itself.
[–]sayshey 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The top of the first 'forum' referenced the nypost. I'm sorry I didn't do enough work to properly refute your completely unsourced, personal, and subjective opinion. False accusations are a major problem.
That makes you disingenous, uninformed, and arrogant. So we're getting to the point where no one gives a shit what you think cause you are ignorant.
By your own argument, no one could ever be convicted of a crime they didn't commit. If you are proven by a court to have falsely accused someone then you should suffer the same sentence as the crime you tried to falsely pin on someone, at the least. There is no 'hard balance'. Nice double standard.
Debate works when both sides are informed. You aren't, and you have no desire to be. I'm dismissing you as a troll at this point.
[–]DennistheDutchie 39 points40 points41 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Is this true? If you are drunk, and the holder of the contract doesn't know/care, how would a jury see the difference? Is your drunk signature somehow different from your normal one? If you sign up for a subscription to netflix (at the urging of a netflix email) while drunk, does that suddenly become invalid?
No. The guy is right. You are responsible for your decisions. If you are drunk, and someone tells you to go kill someone, that doesn't automatically absolve you of any responsibility.
[–]Terrh 34 points35 points36 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah didn't you know that?
If you are drunk you can't legally buy anything. So go back to the bar and get your money back for all the rounds you bought when you were drunk!
/s
[+]ValAichi -23 points-22 points-21 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
The difference is you might have made a decision you would not when sober, and someone took advantage of you through that.
And no, it doesn't absolve you of responsibility, but it can reduce it.
It's obviously can't be an excuse to get away with a crime, because otherwise people would use it to get away with crimes they decided to commit when sober, but that's irrelevant when it comes to matters like sex or contracts.
Is it not better to make sure all parties agree to something when they are fully capable of agreeing, rather than allow a party to be taken advantage of?
What benefit would there be to society if you allowed contracts signed when drunk to be enforceable?
As for your netflix example, yes, but you would find it difficult to prove you were drunk, though I suspect if you emailed netflix the next day and asked for a refund, stating you were drunk, they would give it to you.
[–]bufedad 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Being drunk when you sign a contract doesn't invalidate it.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Not in every instance. In some in might.
[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Being unable to know what you are signing would.
Yep
[–]ValAichi 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=36845
[–]gmano 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
You're missing the point... you can't just take sex back, there's no one month free trial on a drunken encounter after which you can end it without consequences.
Women are smart, strong, capable people and they have the power and the right to have their decisions be taken seriously.
If we continue to treat them like children who have no responsibility - like second class citizens whose choices are not their own - then feminism has failed.
There is no equality until this "hypoagency" bullshit is gone.
[–]ValAichi 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It's not just women, it's men as well.
And we are taking both genders decisions seriously, we are just recognizing when their decision making capabilities are impaired.
If someone wants to have sex, good for them, but the law is there to ensure that they, male or female, are not being taken advantage of due to reduced capability.
Personally, I don't see the issue there.
[–]besaolli 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I applaud your tenacity and your link to the legal website was informative and enlightening, but you're missing the point.
It's not just women, but it is overwhelmingly women.
You should probably spend more time here on this sub before making such strong assertions.
It's overwhelmingly women because the overwhelming number of rapes are by men, even excluding rapes where the reason it is rape in inability to consent.
It's an unfortunate fact, but it is a fact.
That doesn't mean everything is peachy; for instance, men do report rapes at an even lower rate than women do, but women are still raped at far higher rates than men.
[–]bufedad 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Nope. Not even once.
We've just had a guy convicted of rape, because the woman on top said stop, and he didn't (somehow) get out of her (she was on top) within 30 seconds.
[–]Jjhockey01 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Link?
[–]bufedad 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2017/123.html
Trial is still ongoing.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]CaptainnT 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
People are rarely in situations where one person is drunk and the other is not.
Typically places where people drink (bars / parties) and hook up afterwards, both parties are drunk.
But that being said, what if the guy was drunk..girl was sober...girl initiates...regrets it...calls rape.
Guy is now in trouble, girl is a'okay?
[–]TibortheChechen 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
God, you are an idiot.
[–]ValAichi 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
For posting on a subreddit like this and expecting any other response?
You're probably right.
[–]sayshey 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Go to r/feminism and disagree about something. You won't get any discussion, you'll be banned. A subreddit 'like this', where you can come and be a totally dismissive troll and you still not get banned? What a bunch of unreasonable, out of touch, man baby, crazies we all are, you're so superior. Teach us.
[–]ValAichi 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
So you're Russia, not Saudi Arabia.
Good to know.
[–]sayshey 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
The funny thing about vilifying people you don't agree with is it makes you into what you hate. It's pretty obvious at this point you're very young. You have a lot to learn. I imagine you'll be ashamed of what you're saying now at some point in the future. Then again some people go to their grave being hateful their whole lives.
[–]ValAichi 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
So I'm the one being hateful, not the one calling people disagreeing with them idiots?
(And, to be frank, my position is the position held by most nations and, probably, most individuals in the world. If I'm an idiots for holding these positions...)
In any case, I'm pretty curious how I'm vilifying anyone, but I'm also pretty sure I'm getting tired of conversing on this subreddit.
[–]sayshey 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
So I'm the one being hateful
Ok, this is one of your comments:
the overwhelming number of rapes are by men, even excluding rapes where the reason it is rape in inability to consent.
Ok, so that's your belief. It informs the rest of what you think.
So here are two articles by reasonably journalistic sources The Atlantic and Slate. They both state that females are greatly under reported as rapists. They go into nuanced discussion about what would keep men from reporting, about how laws were not even around that protected men, and how female on male rape wasn't even a legal thing, among other issues.
So in a discussion about how when two people are drunk and have sex it's always the man who is at fault is biased sexist thinking and that is an issue for anyone who thinks that people are individuals and deserve equal treatment in the eyes of the law. You are hateful, because you will willingly codify discrimination. It's not cool. Women aren't on one end of a spectrum and men on the other, we're all spread out, all along the spectrum of behaviour. You are hateful because you came here, and instead of engaging you took something you admittedly know nothing about and talked out your ass and then acted all high and mighty.
I'm also pretty sure I'm getting tired of conversing on this subreddit.
Why would you come here? To tell us we'll have to go to jail more often because girls are awesome and boys are rapists? People are quite rightly pointing out you aren't half as smart as you think.
[–]ValAichi -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
And even those articles agreed that the overwhelming number of rapes are by men.
Furthermore, hardly justifies calling me a hateful idiot, given that the majority of evidence supports that the rate is even more disproportionate than in those reports.
Hardly. I'm saying that it is rape if you have sex with someone who is drunk, which you guys seem to disagree with.
[–]blueXcat 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Nope; you didn't tell a truth. That's bullshit
You don't get to chose if I like to have fun when drunk
[–]ValAichi -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
You see 'fun', I see potential rape.
Just because you might make the same decisions when sober or drunk doesn't mean everyone does. Alcohol has a proven ability to reduce one's intelligence and decision making capability, and that means that someone is in a position where they can be taken advantage of by other people.
The law is there to protect them, to allow them to have fun and get drunk, without having to fear being taken advantage, and I for one have no problem with that.
If you want to have 'fun' when drunk, you just need to establish ahead of time that this is a decision you would make when sober, and you need to hope that your counterpart, if they are drunk, has done the same thing.
If not, just wait till the next day and give them a call. After all, if you're not taking advantage of them, they'll still be happy to say yes, won't they?
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I want to get drunk but I don't want any to take responsibility for my intoxicated actions!
[–]blueXcat 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
It's not other people problem.
If you take your car drunk you'll be held responsible.
Same thing.
If you can't control yourself while drunk, don't drunk. Don't punish other people
[–]ValAichi -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Lets not pretend those are the same things.
One, the drink driving, is you impacting others; you taking the risk of taking the rights to life and body away from others.
The other, sexual encounters without the ability to consent, is others taking rights to body away from you.
And how are you punishing others? By not letting them take advantage of drunk people?
Sounds like punishing people by not letting them rape people, which, to be very frank, is a 'punishment' I am in full support of.
[–]blueXcat 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
They are both drunk decision. If you are responsible to take one, you're responsible to take other decisions
You punish others by saying people having sex with us would be raping us
Don't drink if you can't handle yourself
So you're saying others are unable to realize "Oh, they're drunk. Lets just get their number and not have sex with them"?
Being more susceptible to pressure isn't the same thing as being unable to handle yourself.
Seriously, what is so difficult with waiting till someone is sober before you have sex with them? Isn't it best to make sure that everyone is a willing and eager participant?
[–]blueXcat 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
-no. I want to have sex that night. You don't decide how I live, my libido or my sex life -that's still not other people problems
-again, you don't get to decide our libido our sex life
I'm sorry your libido is so low
[–]ValAichi 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Then perhaps find someone to have sex with that is able to consent.
I'm sorry that you find it so hard to find someone willing to have sex with you.
[–]FxAxTxPxIxGxS 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
But it doesn't work like that. When roles are revesered and it's a women initiating, she gets off almost scott free because " men can't be raped". Where as if you're a man and you initiate you get the damn book thrown at you, serve a longer sentence, have a higher bail amount, and get labeled as a sex offender for the rest of your life. This is why we have a problem with the law, because it's stacked against us.
[–]ValAichi 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And thus application of the law needs to be changed, not the law itself.
This law protects people from being taken advantage of, from being raped, while drunk, through their reduced decision making ability, and that should not change, even if the application of the law is currently flawed.
[–]MagicTampon 195 points196 points197 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
Correct. Self-intoxication is not like other forms of disability. Self-intoxication is a state brought about by the intentional consumption of alcoholic beverages by an adult who knows what the consequences of drinking will be.
A person who self intoxicates assumes responsibility for their self-intoxicated actions.
Only a completely morally defective jerk self-intoxicates, then holds other people responsible for their own drunken actions. Ditto for any state that allows for incarceration on that basis.
There are those who make comparisons between civil contracts and criminal law to try to support the incarceration of counter-parties to conscious, but drunken sex. This is morally defective.
Being self-intoxicated is little excuse for much of anything of significance, because being self-intoxicated is a state induced by one's own choice and actions, for which one is ultimately accountable. This is true in virtually all areas of law.
A car salesman for example is acting in a professional capacity and has obligations that are far over and above what either party has when two people transacting as equals in a casual / non-business situation. Two people consensually fucking are just that -- two people with no one having more of an obligation than the other. If one is acting like a self-intoxicated drunken idiot, the other may be just as idiotic, for whatever reason, drunken or otherwise.
As much as feminists may whine otherwise, sex is not at all the equivalent purchasing shoes from a shoe salesman, where you get to return the shoes to the salesman the day afterwards if you later discover that you are unsatisfied.
And also note, in the case of the car dealer, the drunk consumer may be entitled to a return of the car (which they may even get if they weren't drunk when they bought the car). But note, it's not considered theft of the drunk person's money, and the car salesman does not go to prison under any circumstance for theft or for any other crime. It's simply the unwinding of a fiduciary / civil contract (if possible), which is the most that might (or might not) occur.
If it's possible, the salesman might simply be required to give your your money back in exchange for the car. Then again, he might not be. And of course, if you ruined or trashed the car in the interim and the car is not returnable, the drunk person would be entitled to exactly jack shit.
Consider it a form of restricted clemency for self-intoxicated people -- if the courts as a civil matter can unwind a transaction entered into while a person is self-intoxicated, and if the courts can unwind the transaction with a minimal of harm to the counter party, the court may choose to do so as an act of clemency. But causing significant harm to the counter party to a self-intoxicated action, or imprisoning a counter party, is not a form of clemency for a self-intoxicated person, and is something that the court should never do.
So, in summary, a self-intoxicated person who chooses to have sex may be entitled to politely ask for their "fuck" back, but since that's completely impossible, they are shit out of luck. Under no circumstances does anyone go to prison. Because it's a tall order to send someone else to prison just because you self-intoxicated / jacked your own shit up and wound up choosing to do something you later regretted. That's just completely retarded.
Another illustrative example is when a 40 year-old ridiculously self-intoxicates himself / herself in the presence of a 15 year old. If the 15 year-old and the self-intoxicated 40 year old then both chose to have sex with one another, guess who is going to go to jail? Not the 15 year-old -- even if the 15 year-old were a hundred times more clear-headed than the adult had been at the time. The person going to jail is the self-intoxicated 40 year-old. Why? Because choosing to self-intoxicate is not much of an excuse for anything. You are largely responsible for anything that you do while self-intoxicated. If you can't be held accountable, your only choice is to not drink.
[–]Rumpadunk 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
Good comment
I'll add this
People do not go out to a bar or club to get drunk and to buy a car
They do, however, set put go out to get drunk and have sex (and if at a casino, also gamble)
[–]Apexbreed 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You're comment turned a light bulb in my head. If people can't consent while drunk, then casinos should have to reimburse every dime they collect off of drunk players. And meanwhile, all alcoholic males (and females, but I'm making a point) need to be contacted by police to make a list of every woman they have slept with so they can all be arrested. An alcoholic (that isn't high-functioning) is never sober so they can only be raped if they can never consent.
[–]fourthwallcrisis 96 points97 points98 points 9 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link
A small point of order on this; there's different kinds of drunkeness and that can change things.
The most common by far is when we black out, but still make choices. This happens because our brain stops forming memories, it doesn't stop us making informed choices at the time. So it follows that the majority of "can't remember rapes" were actually consensual encounters (the alternative is they were forced rapes, which is difficult to believe).
The other kind of drunk is black out, falling over, puking into your own pints kinda drunk. And then it's always wrong to do anything with someone in that position, no argument there.
[–]Sparrow8907 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I was over at a friend's who lived on Broad St, in Philadelphia, for the New Years Mummers parade. They were playing this "game" to see who could get the most Mummers to come inside & take a shot, and the big girl was playing to win.
Well as the other homos and I are walking to the club, I see one of the guys that was at the party "walking" somewhere with the big girl. And by "walking" I mean it looks like this average size dude is bearing half her weight as they sluggishly lumbered forward, so I asked if he's taking her home.... No, he was taking her back to his place. Well...do you know her? No, we just met at the party. Oh...so you don't know where she lives? Nope.
At this point he'd put the bitch down and she was just passed out on the sidewalk, drooling. It seemed pretty obvious to me that she had alcohol poisoning, probably, so one of the other homos called 911 while I move her hair outta her drool and made sure she was breathing...the guy who'd been carrying her back to his place split.
We waited till we heard&saw the ambulance sirens, and then slipped away b/c we didn't want to get held up with paramedics & the club was calling.
So yeah, pretty sure I saved that girl from getting raped, because all the other homos told me they hadn't planned on saying anything. So it DOES happen, sadly.
[–]bufedad 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
No one's claiming it doesn't happen.
What's being claimed is, two drunk people having sex isn't the man raping the woman.
[–]Sparrow8907 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I didn't mean to imply that anyone was claiming that. Just a poorly worded end to my comment.
[–]fourthwallcrisis 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No doubt it happens, never said it didn't.
[–]VikingDom 48 points49 points50 points 9 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link
it doesn't stop us making informed choices at the time
It actually does.
This is why you can go to jail if you have an obviously drunk person sign a legal document.
This is why you can go to jail if you rent a car to an obviously drunk person.
This is why you can be penalized for serving alcohol to an overly drunk person.
This will always be a hard gray area to navigate. We can't outlaw sex with drunk people, but we can set limits where we say: Beyond this point is DEFINITELY illegal, and inside these limits is DEFINITELY legal.
Let's all agree to stay away from the gray area between those limits as much as possible.
[–]handklap 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link
A better example would be how tattoo parlors are not allowed to give tattoos to intoxicated people. Except... what if two tattoo artists (one male, one female) were both drunk and they gave each other a tattoo, then... the male artist alone was charged with something. That is the reality of where we're at now.
A drunk man could be lying on his bed barely awake, drunk women comes out of the bathroom, performs oral sex on him, climbs on top of him.... and he alone would be guilty if she decides the next morning she wasn't sober enough.
[–]ValAichi -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link
Nope, that's not the case.
The initiating party is held as being guilty in those cases, regardless of gender.
[–]skelth 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago* (39 children) | Copy Link
Well, if the drunk woman is already claiming being raped, what's to stop her to also claim she didn't initiated it? How would the guy prove it.
Edit: a skipped word
[+]ValAichi -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link
Doesn't need to. She would need to prove that he initiated; that's what presumption of innocence means.
[–]Banane9 24 points25 points26 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Not if they're American college students
[–]ValAichi -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Assuming you're discussing the policies of various universities in regards to accusations of sexual assault or rape, I have little knowledge on the topic and thus cannot dispute or agree with you, but I'm not sure how it is relevant here given the topic of discussion, and equating it to actual laws is disingenuous.
[–]Banane9 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Universities there have been made to adopt a preponderance of evidence as standard for their hearings (as opposed to proof beyond a reasonable doubt) and their "yes means yes" rules mean guilty until proven innocent.
As for how it's relevant: It's clear that this is what they're aiming for in actual law too
[–]ValAichi 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Source?
Furthermore, 'they' (whoever the hell they are) haven't managed this yet, and implying that they have is ridiculous.
[–]scyth3s 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Affirmative consent means she doesn't need to prove it. It effectively reverses the burden of evidence to the accused to prove consent did happen, thus proving his innocence.
No.
She needs to prove she didn't give it.
Which could be as simply as him being stupid enough to admit to a cop that she didn't say yes, but usually it's a lot more complicated than that.
[–]scyth3s 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Which could be as simply as him being stupid
When no men are convicted on the accusers word alone, this will be true.
[–]EricAllonde 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Affirmative consent also means that if a woman decides during sex that she'd like to stop, the man has to stop even if she doesn't communicate her decision to him.
The man is responsible for continuously asking the woman, "Do you want to continue? Do you want to continue? Do you want to continue? Do you want to continue? Do you want to continue?" the whole time that sex is taking place, and as soon as the woman fails to respond with an enthusiastic "Yes!" then he must stop, otherwise he's guilty of rape.
So there's no longer any obligation on the woman to communicate her wishes to the man, instead he's responsible for essentially reading her mind to know what she wants at each point in time.
It's another example of further relieving women of responsibility for their actions and loading that responsibility onto men instead.
[–]bufedad 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Oh, good, then no one ever has gotten convicted on the word of their accuser alone /s
Hell, we have people who've never even had sex with their accuser getting convicted of rape and spending years in jail.
[–]Lagkiller 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link
That would be nice if that is how the legal system worked. In reality, it does not.
[–]ValAichi -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link
You won't ever see a man convicted of rape when the only evidence is her claim that he initiated while they were both drunk.
There needs to be far more evidence than this.
[–]SchalaZeal01 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Lots of people have been convicted, when it was proven later that their DNA wasn't even there. Therefore on the word alone.
[–]ValAichi 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Not only word, but on other evidence that turned out to be misleading or wrong or whatever.
[–]Lagkiller 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865683051/Logan-man-charged-with-raping-fellow-USU-student.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/can-you-get-convicted-of-rape-if-you-were-drunk-2013-11
You can, and do.
[–]SodaPalooza 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
convicted
That's the thing about rape accusations, conviction isn't really needed to fuck up the accused's life.
[–]ValAichi 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
That, while an issue, isn't relevant to the topic at hand.
[–]EricAllonde 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You won't ever see a man convicted of rape when the only evidence is her claim that he initiated while they were both drunk. There needs to be far more evidence than this.
Hahahaha!
There are countless examples of exactly this.
For example, there was the guy who did 27 years because a woman dreamed that he raped her! That one really takes the cake in my book: absolutely zero evidence and a completely implausible sequence of events that was claimed to take place.
[–]Istalriblaka 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Great in theory, disconnected from reality. In particular with regards to how society treats alleged rapists. My go to example is Paul Nungesser, who was proven innocent in even a university kangaroo court, yet to most people he's seen as a rapist who got away with it. (For anyone who doesn't know that's mattress girl's accused.)
[–]scyth3s 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
In theory, theory and practice are the same. But in practice, they are different.
You just started how the law is supposed to work, but it rarely turns out that way. Especially in college rape kangaroo courts.
[–]bsandberg 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
http://www.barstoolsports.com/barstoolu/amhert-college-kid-has-blowjob-given-to-him-while-blacked-out-gets-expelled-for-sexual-assault/
[–]EricAllonde 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Of course there was that famous case from a college kangaroo court where a somewhat drunk woman took a totally hammered man back to her room where he passed out on her bed. While he was unconscious she gave him a blowjob, then left him there asleep while she sent texts and organised to go to another male student's room and fuck him. (Presumably she was unsatisfied because she her blowjob wasn't enough to wake him up for sex, he was too drunk for that).
Unfortunately the guy was the boyfriend of her friend, so when news got out she accused him of rape. The university accepted that he was unconscious during the blowjob, but determined that, since she was somewhat drunk, she couldn't consent to the blowjob. He was found responsible and expelled.
Now, of course you're going to say, "Well, that's not a criminal case, so it doesn't matter. It's just a university being asshole-ish by denying legal rights to their male students". Sure, that's right. But universities often set precedents which are adopted by the wider community. They are at the leading edge of these things.
Once feminists have consolidated the rule that men are always 100% responsible for any sexual misadventure a women experiences on campuses, they will push the same thing out into regular courts across the country.
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Except that's not how the law works.
[–]VikingDom -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
If not: My comment argues against the point
The most common by far is when we black out, but still make choices. This happens because our brain stops forming memories, it doesn't stop us making informed choices at the time.
My comment exemplifies that we in various situations legally view being visibly drunk as not being able to make informed choices.
I did not make any statement as to how the legal system today treats intoxication and rape. I hope this clears it up.
[–]SodaPalooza 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
There is no gray area. Sexual consent is agreeing to sex when the option to decline was available. Alcohol doesn't change that definition.
[–]VikingDom 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I obviously agree there is NO gray area when it comes to give consent. My point is that there IS a Gray area between where consent is clearly valid and where it's clearly not valid.
[–]Yndrd1984 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is why you can go to jail...
If they're clearly drunk. Unfortunately there's a fairly common state where humans are drunk enough that they don't form long-term memories, but can seem fairly competent and make decisions that seem quite rational - that's what fourthwallcrisis was talking about.
To the people we're arguing against that statement makes you either a victim-blamer (if that were directed at women, because you suggest that they do something) or a rape apologist (if it was directed toward men, because you want suggest rather than force) because you're holding them to the same, reasonable standard. It's almost as if our go-to narrative is 'man takes advantage of blameless woman', and our brains will try to fit any real-world scenario into that mold.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Nope..False
Nope....might be sued by a third party if the drunk crashes into someone for negligent entrustment...but not going to jail.
Nope. Many states have specific laws absolving bartenders from liability for overserving.
Yeah...the dividing line is....is the person conscious and capable of making a decision----albeit a bad one they might regret. Or are they unable to function. THAT is the line.
[–]Rumpadunk 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
People go out with the intent of getting drunk and having sex, people do not go out with the intent of getting drunk and buying a car
[–]xixoxixa 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And yet people are held accountable for getting drunk and then driving.
[–]theothermod[M] 71 points72 points73 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
The title of your post does not say anything about its subject. This forces people to click and read before they can decide whether they are interested.
If everyone did this, the subreddit would become unusable.
So please don't do it. Take the time to describe your link, and save the time of hundreds of other people.
In future, such posts may be removed.
[–]originalSpacePirate 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Support you fully mate. This title is clickbait for sure
[–]glassuser 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Please do this in the future.
[–]Icecoldsomethingelse 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Good point
[–]amatera5 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Anecdotal I know but my girl got blackout drunk one night and didn't remember us having sex. She does however remember herself insisting we have sex right before we did.
She was telling her coworkers soon after (she rarely blacks out and thought it was funny how insistent she was) and a couple of her female coworkers put in their best concerned faces and told her I raped her. Completely serious. This is with the girl herself admitting she remembers insisting she wanted to fuck.
Some fucking people man..
[–]Everyone_Staflos 43 points44 points45 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Take it from a guy who was raped by a woman when he was drunk, it's rape. I was not cognizant when I was manipulated and used for sex while drunk. I was in a committed relationship and this woman used me to get back at an ex-bf that was at the wedding because the guy and I had beef.
I got an STD from her, I had constant anxiety for months because no one told me why my dick burned. I had to come to my girlfriend of 5 years and tell her to get tested when I connected the dots of the night.
I don't know how she got me alone and why my brain let me get in that situation but I was drunk and I was raped.
Unfortunately, I can't prosecute or confront my rapist. It's too much for me, the only comfort I have is the STD will eventually cause sterility from pelvic inflammatory disease. She doesn't deserve children.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]prodiver 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
if you were so inebriated that the next day you don't remember if you consented or not... what are you supposed to do but believe that you were raped?
Not jump to conclusions with absolutely no evidence.
"I don't remember, so it must be rape" is some of the worst logical reasoning ever.
[–]SodaPalooza 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
But if you were so inebriated that the next day you don't remember if you consented or not, all you know is that someone had sex with you, what are you supposed to do but believe that you were raped?
Why would you jump to the conclusion that someone is a heinous criminal rather than jumping to the conclusion that you consented to something you now regret?
[–]Singulaire 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Because one of these options externalises the blame.
[–]Thorpolice 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I honestly don't think anyone hear is condoning having sex with someone who is blackout drunk. The point of the conversation is that it is unfair to say a drunk woman can't give consent because she can't understand the situation she's in while simultaneously expecting the man who is also blackout drunk to suddenly sober up, understand everything, and then take appropriate action.
If you are too drunk to consent, and the person with you is too drunk to recongnize the difference between drunk consent and sober consent, who is responsible?
[–]Everyone_Staflos 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is my point, I had to put things together from that night. Not only would I not have consented but I was exploited for her gain. Not to get into the details but it wasn't regret I felt, it was anxiety, shame, and loss of self.
The real fact is if a man does this to a woman she can prosecute and fight back. As a man I am stuck, there is nothing to do because no one takes it seriously, that first response was a prime example of not taking the victim seriously.
[–]TruthTellerBot -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Ok. Let us assume that you, yourself, is making yourself inebriated. No drink spiking, no alcohol disguised as non-alcohol. Just something you, yourself, do. We aren't talking about a scenario where you're passed-out/unconscious, but one where you're up and about and end up fucking some man or woman.
Who is responsible for what you did? You are.
Don't give me this bollocks about "taking advantage of". YES, you can be taken advantage of when you're drunk, and it is MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE, but if you do stupid shit when you're under the influence, that is YOUR OWN FAULT.
[–]Everyone_Staflos 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
No one gives consent to be taken advantage of...
[–]SodaPalooza 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Bullshit. People consent to sex every day with people that they know are just taking advantage of them.
[–]TruthTellerBot 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Haha, good story, my son.
[–]Rumpadunk 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Giving STDs are a different crime than rape
People go to bars and parties and clubs to get drunk and hookup, but not to get STDs, nor buy cars for that matter. You could prosecute under existing laws, or slightly modify exiting laws for criminal transmission of STDs. For example, not having your partner informed of your STD would be criminal transmission of STD in my state if the other party contracts a virus due to the conduct being wanton, that is they were not showing care to the safety of the other. I'm not sure how it's currently prosecuted here, but it could be done that having sex with someone who doesn't understand they can get an STD is wanton conduct
[–]Alliewh33lz 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This scenario happened on the TV show switched at birth and the entire time you're supposed to feel sorry for the woman. All I could think of was poor Tank. She basically ruined his life because she got so drunk she didn't remember sleeping with him. Ended up ruining his life forever. He was one of my favorite characters and she fucked him over. A real nice guy. Not a "nice guy" but a genuine nice guy. I don't understand how she isn't held to the same standards. He was also too drunk to remember much. Just that they were together. Why didn't she get expelled? It's bullshit.
[–]mrwhibbley 88 points89 points90 points 9 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link
I disagree with some of this. Intentionally taking advantage of someone in an altered state (regardless of the gender of the victim or "perpetrator") is wrong. I have refused to have sex with women that were drunk. The only exception being my wife when we were out at a casino or vacation. Some might argue she didn't Consent but she wasn't unconscious and rarely refuses advances when she is sober unless she is very tired or ill. However, I 100% agree that people should take responsibility for their actions and monitor their intake of drugs and alcohol, and be aware of who they are with and where they are going. Regret is not rape.
[–]deville05 46 points47 points48 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link
Umm except that the feminist consent is that you raped your wife all the times she was drunk. You say you didn't but can you prove it if tomorrow she denies consenting? Its your word against hers and your words are lies cuz you have a penis.
Feminists are literally drunk with power
[–]Wollff 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
Umm except that the feminist consent is that you raped your wife all the times she was drunk.
This is the first time I came about that argument. Source?
[–]crimsonkodiak 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
When I was a freshman at university (this is decades ago so it wasn't a product of current SJW culture on campus - I can only imagine it's worse now), every male on my dorm floor was forced to attend a "rape awareness" seminar, where we were told about the official position of our large state school - that a female who had had one drink was incapable of consenting to sex and that any male who had sex with such a female was subject to university discipline (up to expulsion).
Couple this with the pretty standard positions that (i) previous consent to sex does not imply future consent and (ii) a relationship, even up to a marriage, does not imply consent, and I don't know how you can come up with a position other than that you raped your wife every time she had a drink and you had sex.
And again, this wasn't a fringe ideology. This was the stated policy of a large state school decades ago. I can't imagine what it's like now.
[–]Wollff -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Anecdote.
I appreciate that you told me about your experiences, but you know... that isn't what I was thinking about when I say that I would love a source.
Which mainstream feminist authors support that point of view? Which arguments do they make to support it?
Or, if it is enshrined in policy: Where is that written down? Links? You know... sources?
I'm from Europe. If you tell me that you have bigfoot wandering your university campuses, I will react just the same way I am reacting now. I will remain mildly skeptical, until I see a good source for that.
Other than that, I totally agree with you: If it was that bad decades ago, it's probably worse today. So: Someone should easily be able to link me to one of those policies, if they are that common. Right?
It should be easy to get me a source. A written document by either a mainstream feminist who give their reasoning on why they advocate such a policy, or a policy in a respected institution which expresses this point of view.
If it is like you depict it, pretty much every single university student around here should be able to link me somewhere that would help me.
[–]crimsonkodiak 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, I'm not going to be your gopher. Call it an anecdote if you want, but this was a mainstream view many years ago. If you do 5 minutes of digging I have no doubt you'll find many people who hold the view. I mean, it's cool that you're from Europe bro (although I don't know why you feel the need to offer that up - congrats I guess?), but I'm pretty sure they still have Google there.
[–]Wollff -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, I'm not going to be your gopher.
So you do not have a source. Which is fine too.
Call it an anecdote if you want
You sound critical. What else should I call it? I call it an anecdote, because it is one.
Or, maybe it is a strawman: A pseudoargument that is brought up by opponents in order to discredit the other side. "University policies say that women can't consent even after a single drink", is what you claim. I ask for a source (because, if you come form Europe that sounds simply unbelievable). You don't give one.
And that's that. Thank you for this "discussion".
[–]crimsonkodiak 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That's not what a strawman is. A strawman is a reframing of an opponent's argument in an absurd or exaggerated way that makes it easy to knock down (hence the name).
And my story is a source. It's not a third party source and it's certainly not the writing of an activist, but it's a source nonetheless. You can choose to believe it or not. I don't care. If you want to not believe it, that's fine. I don't spend time reading feminist "scholars" so I can't cite a third party source off the top of my head and it's not worth my time to dig one up.
You keep using big words you don't understand to try and diminish what I've said for some reason ("strawman", "anecdote", etc.). You don't have to believe what I've said (I'm just a random guy on the internet), but you don't need to bend over backwards to make yourself believe I'm full of it. Nobody besides you and me cares about our discussion (note, no scare quotes).
[–]Wollff 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
A strawman is a reframing of an opponent's argument in an absurd or exaggerated way that makes it easy to knock down (hence the name).
And that isn't what is happening here? "It's mainstream feminist policy to declare women unable to consent when drunk", is the statement we are arguing about.
Do feminists actually say that? Or is that part of a strawman argument, where one side attributes stupid stances to the other side in order to easily burn them down? At first glance it seems to be like that to me. Because I don't know any feminists which hold that stance.
But maybe I am wrong. Maybe there are feminists who say that. That's why I am asking for sources. So who actually says that? Where are those policies? Is there any evidence for that actually being a mainstream view? That's what I wanted to know!
And the best I got so far was your anecdote, about how you were herded into an orientation in an unnamed university tens of years ago where an unnamed someone told you something of that kind.
As mentioned, I do appreciate that you told me about your experience. But is it so hard to understand why I am a little unhappy with that kind of source to support that other statement?
And my story is a source. It's not a third party source and it's certainly not the writing of an activist, but it's a source nonetheless.
And at the same time it's an anecdote. It's a single experience first person story. You seem to be unhappy with my use of the word, and I really don't understand why. What's your definition of an anecdote?
Even if all you say is literally and objectively true, it only supports that someone in an orientation in some university said those things to you. And that on its own does not say very much about "feminist consensus" as OP puts it.
I don't spend time reading feminist "scholars" so I can't cite a third party source off the top of my head and it's not worth my time to dig one up.
So you also don't know any "mainstream feminists" which say what you claim they say. Okay, then we indeed have a problem of lacking reliable sources which actually hold the position we are trying to oppose. I know that I have that problem. That's why I asked :)
You keep using big words you don't understand to try and diminish what I've said for some reason ("strawman", "anecdote", etc.).
I really don't want to do that. What you said might very well be true. But even if it is, I still have a hard time to regard it as "mainstream feminist policy" because you got that explained to you as university policy in an introduction tens of years ago.
[–]Pandamonius84 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
So type in "Anti rape awareness College video" on YouTube. I'm sure you'll get plenty of videos where girl goes out to bar, gets drunk, guy sees drunk girl, takes her back to his or her place, takes advantage of her. This is what US college campuses show freshman when they first enter college life as what they view rape/consent as.
When I was a freshman I also had to watch/get the same talk just like /u/crimsonkodiak did about the campus policy of consent. Only difference was that the girls weren't forced to leave the lecture hall where the discussion was being held. Yet still it showed a male taking advantage of a woman, not the other way around.
[–]naemtaken 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
You've not encountered the argument that if a woman is drunk she can't consent, and therefore she is being raped?
[–]Wollff 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Yes, I have encountered that argument. But I have never encountered that argument actually being made by a feminist.
That's why I am wondering if this really is a stance of "mainstream feminism", and would love a source that can provide clarity on that question.
[–]dungone 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
So you never heard of every feminist "1 in 5/4/3/2" rape studies that all count drunk sex as rape?
[–]Wollff 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
No. Which study makes that specific claim?
[–]dungone 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Look up Mary P Koss. She's far from the only feminist who cooks statistics, but she was the leading pioneer of rape surveys that don't ask women if they had actually been raped; instead they ask if they had sex after a guy gave them a drink, which is then interpreted as rape by the reseaechers. That is part of how the "1 in 5" rape statistics got started. This has been a mainstay of feminist-driven rape studies ever since.
I see that you have been making rounds on this sub asking people for links for all sorts of common topics. If you are serious about learning about men's issues and know absolutely nothing about it yourself, why don't you start off by reading through the sidebar? You will find many well-sourced articles. If you can't find what you need in there, come back and ask me afterwards. Don't expect that people will bend over backwards for you if you're just lazy.
[–]deville05 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Well the people who propagate this sentiment/rule/thought do it because its a women's issue and I'm sure they call themselves feminists.. I don't also know of mainstream feminists who are against this notion either
[–]Stripes1974 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Wollff: A source is not difficult to find. Go look it up. Asking someone to prove something to you, just because you don't want to go expend the energy to do it yourself, doesn't win you brownie points. And if they decide that they do want to look it up, it just makes you look a bit....lacking in intellect.
Instead of trying to make someone prove something to you, why don't you go get sources and proof to refute that person, that you're trying to refute? Not having any sources to contradict them, yourself, is just as bad as your statement of "hmm- no source", and assuming that means no proof.
But I'll be nice to you.
Here's some sources of examples of "so-called" feminists, and how they contend that a woman claiming rape is as good as proof for them:
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/10/30/carry-the-weight-protestors-ask-for-mandatory-expulsion-in-sexual-assault-cases/new-103014-carrytheweight_gallery-6/
http://www.cotwa.info/2016/01/my-favorite-quote-of-2015-if-we-use.html
http://www.everyjoe.com/2016/01/14/lifestyle/sexual-consent-yes-means-yes-until-she-regrets-it/#1
http://www.cotwa.info/2016/03/affirmative-consent-laws-sweep-nation.html
http://www.cotwa.info/2016/03/boy-and-girl-both-16-have-consensual.html
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27302/
http://www.cotwa.info/2015/03/university-of-wisconsin-panel.html
And specifically, for you, "feminist (pretty much say) that you raped your wife all the times she was drunk":
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3108406/Courts-assume-women-t-consent-sex-drunk-Rape-report-s-controversial-proposal.html#ixzz3c0rL844X
[–]Wollff 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
A source is not difficult to find. Go look it up
But that's not my job. Someone here said something that I doubt. So I asked where they were getting their information from. And I got an answer from the OP. I am happy.
Asking someone to prove something to you, just because you don't want to go expend the energy to do it yourself, doesn't win you brownie points.
I'm not in it for brownie points. I just wanted to know where OP was taking their information from. That's why you ask for sources, so you can form an opinion about how accurate an opinion is.
And if they decide that they do want to look it up, it just makes you look a bit....lacking in intellect.
That's... a pretty retarded way to look at it. When I ask someone where they take their information from, then that is neither any indication of my intellect, nor is it an attack against anyone.
Instead of trying to make someone prove something to you, why don't you go get sources and proof to refute that person, that you're trying to refute?
But I am not trying to refute anything. Someone says that mainline feminist thinking is that consent can't be given under the influence of alcohol. My first thought in response to that is simply: BULLSHIT
So I ask for OP to explain where they got that from. And I put that in one word: Source? OP answered. And I have now formed my opinion based on that answer. I am happy.
Not having any sources to contradict them, yourself, is just as bad as your statement of "hmm- no source", and assuming that means no proof.
Not really. After all OP is making a positive claim of the type: "Most feminists say...", and obviously, when in doubt, I have to ask: "Who exactly? Where?"
I see. You are a nice guy, aren't you?
Anyway, thank you for the source you provided specifically for me! It is not saying that any amount of alcohol eliminates the ability to consent, but that Scotland considers to put a specific limit into law (which is not given in the article) where consent becomes impossible. Depending on the specific limit that is being considered, that can either be pretty reasonable, or downright insane.
After all that kind of regulation works both ways: If a woman is below that alcohol limit, it becomes difficult (if not even impossible) for her to claim that she couldn't consent because of alcohol. Currently that is wobbly and unclear business. Regulation would make it more clear cut. And that's not necessarily bad, if the limit is reasonably high.
Also thank you for the other articles. I took a sweep, and those statements are indeed... disturbing.
[–]Dyloneus 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Wow, what a fucking generalization
Look at the state of family court, college kangaroo courts, domestic violence arrest statistics...
[–]originalSpacePirate 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I'd actually like to challenge your statement about feminists. I'd argue they aren't hungry for power but rather forcing an industry and putting some purpose out of their useless Gender and Equality studies. It is literally an industry that is reliant on demonizing men and being offended 100% of the time. Christina hoff summers mentions this a few times in her talk that any woman involved in gender studies that dont "bend the knee" are immediately outcasted and discredites because it puts these professional feminists careers into serious jeopardy. Anita Sarkeesian is a classic example of this, looking at her latest comments about the Dr.Who controversy. A women is finally casted, that should a point of celebration for feminism no? Of course not, their whole movement just became even more pointless and discredited and that is their primary source of income. Feminism is all about $$$. Edit: this also became quite ranty and might seem like im picking a fight or targetting you but that wasnt my intent my dude, just curious to hear your opinion if anything.
[–]MikeyMike01 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Feminism: not even once
[–]deville05 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I agree. Its a business, a marketing scam and advertising tool. But what all you described is literally being "drunk on power". Power to influence culture and mould minds and its corrupted feminism because as much as they would like to think otherwise, they are people and as bad and good as the men. A world run by the opposite of a patriarchy would be just as bad but in different ways. Men would be 2nd class citizen and its already becoming true is many when it comes to family laws, rape laws etc so yeah.
[–]Mens-Advocate 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You missed the many comments here pointing out a person may be drunk without appearing so.
[–]MagicTampon 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
What you are talking about is a minor party foul.
What's really wrong is trying to penalize or imprison someone because you SELF intoxicated, then chose to do something in your predictably self-intoxicated state, then regretted it afterwards.
[–]thefreeman419 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
If someone convinced you to sign off on an investment and scammed you out of money when you were very drunk, you'd say they took advantage of you. The same is true of sex
[–]MagicTampon 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Well, was the investment intentionally misrepresented in a manner that would rise to the level of fraud irregardless of whether or not I was drunk?
Fraud is already possibly misconduct, irregardless of whether I was drunk. Completely different matter.
Other than that, the best I expect I would be able to do, is to take it to civil court and request clemency and attempt to attempt to unwind the transaction / have my signature on the document voided.
Also, is this the type of investment that requires a license to be able to sell? Was the person who proposed the investment to me acting in a professional capacity? Or just some random yokel who happened to have been blessed with a bad idea? Professionals have all manner of obligations that normally situated people do not.
I guess, you might suggest an example of a drunk guy walking into a legalized brothel and having sex with a prostitute who is acting in a professional capacity. But normally that's not the case, and at any rate, the worse that probably happens, is that the prostitute loses her license to act as a licensed sex worker. It's still not a crime.
On the other hand, consider that I happen to be at a bar drinking with an acquaintance, who then tells me that he is selling his classic car that is out in the parking lot. He asks me if I want to see it, so we go out to the parking lot, I take a look, say hell yeah I want to buy that, give him $1000. The next day I wake up and think, what the hell did I do? Again, the most I can hope for is to be able to return the car and get my money back. Again, it's not a crime.
Try going into a casino while self-intoxicated and gambling away a bunch of your money, then reporting it to the police afterwards. You'll get laughed out the door. Sure, you could try to sue the casino in court, ask for clemency for your SELF-intoxicated state, and attempt to unwind your gambling transactions to get your money back. You'll also probably be laughed out the door. But ask a prosecutor to charge a Casino operator with a crime because you got drunk and chose to gamble your money away?
There is nothing fraudulent about accepting someone's sexual advances while drunk at a bar. In fact, that's why a lot of people get drunk at bars.
What you are saying is a bit like saying that a drunk person was a victim of forcible rape. Yes forcible rape is a crime, even if the person is drunk. But that's not what we are talking about here.
Sure, if a drunk person who has sex can prove level of misrepresentation that rises to the level of fraud, then there might be a case for fraud. But drunk person decides they want to have sex with a person? That may be a party foul and a very awkward scenario in the morning, but it's not a crime.
Except that in that situation, one party clearly holds the cards-- they know it's a scam, they have the knowledge, and they rely on fooling you deliberately. It is a scam, and probably illegal whether you were drunk or not. It is not two equal parties agreeing to a temporary act with no lasting repercussions (unless dishonesty about STDs is present...), and it is not similar to sex. Can I buy a bunch of food at a grocery store while drunk, eat it, then return the empty boxes because I was taken advantage of? What if the cashier was drunk? Can they demand the products or reimbursement back? That is a much better analogy because there is no inherently dishonest conduct to muddy the waters and detract from the point. Surely you can see how being drunk isn't a way to simply shirk your decisions.
To a certain level of drunkenness, people can consent to sex, and regretting it does not make it rape.
[–]Stripes1974 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Your argument only applies if, regarding sex, the woman was coerced into having sex. That lines up with your "convinced...to sign off...and scammed you..." comment. And if the woman was coerced into sex, and that could be proven, then your statement would be correctly applied.
But, if, to use your scenario, someone simply said, "I have an investment opportunity to share with you, are you interested?" and you said "Yes! I don't need to hear about it; sign me up!" while you were drunk, they have not taken advantage of you, because they did not coerce or enforce you in any way to make that decision to sign off on the investment opportunity and scam you out of your money. Now, yes, that is relatively despicable, but you still made that choice to take part in that investment "scam".
And to continue to use your example, if it were as common as "It's a Rape Culture!!" feminists would like us to believe, that when you went out to get drunk that it was likely that you would be asked or coerced into signing off on an investment "scam", then I imagine that you would make sure that you didn't get drunk, or that you had someone along with you to make sure that you didn't end up being the victim of having signed off on an investment "scam". Your statement is an allusion to saying that it is the responsibility of the other person, to not "take advantage of you". That is not true. It may be immoral for them to do so, and it might even be illegal for them to do so, but it is not their responsibility to watch out for the safety of your finances.
Likewise, it is NOT the responsibility of the 'man' in this scenario, to watch out for the safety of a woman's decision making abilities when she is drunk; it is the responsibility of the woman in this scenario, to be SELF concerned about her drinking, so that she is not likely to be "taken advantage of".
Again- whether or not it is "illegal" for him to "take advantage of her" is not what I'm discussing, just to make that clear; I'm discussing the fact that it is the WOMAN who is responsible for making sure that no one takes advantage of her. NOT other people.
[–]TosserMcthrowaway314 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If you're drunk and I hustle you at pool, it isn't a robbery. Because you're responsible for the bet you made, even thought you were drunk.
[–]scyth3s 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
If you don't want to do things you'll did when your drunk, don't get drunk. It's that simple. Women just aren't allowed to be held accountable in the same way as men.
[–]mrwhibbley 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I think if someone is black out drunk and doesn't concisely then that's rape. But if they consent while drunk they can't recant. I just never took advantage of uninhibited women when I was younger. As for my wife, I know her well enough to know she won't regret it in the morning even if she was under the influence.
[–]scyth3s 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I think if someone is black out drunk and doesn't concisely then that's rape.
Of course. But there are certainly levels of drunkenness that do not preclude making decisions or ability to consent.
I just never took advantage of uninhibited women when I was younger.
It's not taking advantage unless they're drunk past a reasonable point. Even men get drunk to reduce inhibition, hence the term "liquid courage." Why do you think of sex as taking advantage of someone? That's a strange way to look at it. If they consent, there not being taken advantage of.
[–]mrwhibbley 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
What I am saying is that although it is the responsibility of the person drinking to monitor their behavior, it is also responsible and respectful to not take advantage of the opportunity presented just because it is there. It isn't rape, but it is low class.
[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It isn't rape, but it is low class.
It isn't, though. Being drunk does not inherently make it so. What is low class is a culture that sex shames so much that people need to reduce inhibition to not care about it!
if they consent while drunk they can't recant
That's all anyone here is saying: Consent is all that matters. Alcohol is irrelevant.
[–]Throwawayingaccount 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I also agree that it's wrong to take advantage of people in such a state.
However, that's not rape.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'd say it's wrong if you are sober, but if you're drunk as well, then what's the issue?
Why should it matter if one isn't drunk? That's a pretty retarded gate keep right there. If a drunk person wants to have sex with a sober one, so be it.
The issue is raw drunkenness-- are they inebriated or unconscious? No go. If they still have their faculties, it doesn't matter if the other party is drunk.
[–]chamaelleon 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Allegedly taking advantage of. And the allegation is coming from someone how can't remember what happened. But it's very telling that you think everyone so accused did take advantage.
You're only correct when it's demonstrable that one party intended to take advantage. And the word of a person with drunken amnesia shouldn't be enough to determine that.
[–]mrwhibbley 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I said INTENTIONALLY. (Emphasized not shouting) as in what Bill Cosby is accused of.
[–]themerinator12 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You seemingly disagree with OP's point of view but you are adding the element of one party taking advantage of the other party. Why? That's not part of the original discussion at all.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
What about in situations where both parties are drunk?
[–]Stripes1974 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
As things currently stand right now, if both parties are drunk, technically speaking, the "man" has committed rape. (Not the woman, technically speaking.)
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So we're fucked either way. Lovely.
[–]Stripes1974 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well, you could do what I do. A) Don't drink. B) Don't fuck around with women who drink. I know that's not something that works for a number of folks, but for me, it keeps me from having to worry about this kind of shit. Well, so long as I am never in the vicinity of a drunk woman, who might later claim I raped her.....
[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So you like to take advantage of your wife when she's drunk? Or is it only taking advantage when other people do it?
[–]mrwhibbley 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No one should be taking advantage of my wife when she is drunk. Lol. But I wasn't taking advantage of her. We go on vacation. We drink. We drink too much. We have sex. It is understood and she is ok with it. She enjoys it. She wants it when she is sober and tells me that she enjoys drunk vacation sex. So I have consent.
[–]ColonelVirus 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Gonna invent a consent app... solve all these problems! /s
[–]jonstoppable 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
have it record video from both parties, digital signatures as well as a breathalyser add-on (optional) and a 3rd party witness ( online)
to the top of the app charts we go ! /s
[–]ausertoremember 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
To make a point using an example from my life: in college a friend videotaped bits and pieces of a party and there was footage of me 1 canvassing the group to order pizza 2 drunkenly hitting on several girls 3 making out with a girl on the dance floor
The embarrassing parts that I was in I either don't remember or only remembered after seeing the video. I brought dance floor girl home that night and my memory is very hazy, I remember grabbing condoms and bits and pieces of the 'event'. I woke and did not remember how I got home, who was beside me, or what we did. It took time for the night to come together.
I was able to do all of those things, make all of those choices, walk, talk, and most of all, consent despite my lack of memory and visible drunkenness. My impairment does not absolve me of that ability, and that is what we have to remember for everyone. Regret cannot equal rape.
[–]PoppyOP 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
If I got you to sign a contract while you were in that state would you expect it to be legally binding?
[–]Yndrd1984 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Maybe not (especially a long term one), but if I stopped at a gyro stand in that state I don't think I should be able to get my money back. And the legal system agrees - you don't need a signature to buy from a vending machine, but you do to get a mortgage.
So is sex an everyday kind of interaction, or are you suggesting that all individuals need legal teams, paperwork and signatures, witnesses, a notary public, and to file with the state?
[–]SodaPalooza 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm sorry this happened to you. It isn't your fault. There are good resources available at raiin.org. /s
[–]RancidFruit 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
I'm on board for the most part but why in the case of the man being the only witness should his word be looked at as truth? He could easily be lying.
[–]mikesteane 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Because he is the defendant. You do not have to prove innocence.
Unfortunately, these days, a man does have to prove he's innocent. Haven't you been reading and listening to the news?
[–]RancidFruit 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Right, but that doesn't mean what he says it's fact.
[–]mikesteane 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Until there is overwhelming evidence that he is lying, he must be assumed to be innocent. You may not believe him, but that is neither here nor there. He should neither be convicted nor named.
[–]RancidFruit 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Of course, we don't disagree there. I'm saying that we cannot accept everything he says as truth. What if the girl was drunk but said no to sex and he raped her but in court he lies and says that she consented. We can take his words into account but by no means is word of mouth from the defendant 100% truthful just because they are the defendant.
[–]Rumpadunk 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Truth often means not-necessarily-false, not as in the statement is certifiably correct, when talking about logic or the law.
Not just that but other things too, if you aren't convicted it just means you are not-necessarily-guilty (guilty meaning you did the accused crime), and although some may call you innocent it doesn't mean you didn't do it. (I don't believe they say innocent in court though, I believe they say the less-misleading not-guilty.)
[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Evidence for the defense: X happened.
Evidence for the prosecution: I don't remember what happened.
I don't remember is not proof that X didn't happen. Even if X didn't happen. Even if he held her down and raped her, you need evidence that proves that happened.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Exactly, and if you destroy your own ability to testify because you choose to inhibit your ability to think via chemicals your testimony shouldn't be taken very seriously.
Because there is no counter evidence.
He could easily be lying. But there is no way to prove that without other evidence.
[–]Stripes1974 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
And why should we assume that he isn't telling the truth? I mean- isn't that the point of an investigation? to determine the likelihood of what is true and what isn't? I mean, are we supposed to think that all men will do heinous things to a woman when she's drunk?
[–]RancidFruit 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I'm not saying that we should assume he isn't telling the truth. I'm simply saying that we cannot assume that his word is true nor false. Someone's word means little in terms of proof.
[–]Stripes1974 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
And likewise, we cannot assume that "his words" are not false. That's what an investigation is for. But what another person said is that, "In the absence of any other evidence, even in the absence of a rebuttal, then what evidence you have is that he is telling the truth." That doesn't mean that an investigation isn't still relevant. What it does mean is that, unless there is other proof that either refutes "his" words, or proves that he is lying, then his "evidence" should then, therefore, be taken as truth.
[–]RancidFruit 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I know what they said and I'm saying that that is wrong. One has no grounds to believe the defendant IMO. Admittedly, I do not know how it would go in court but I don't think it should go as described in your comment.
[–]Apremium 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago* (61 children) | Copy Link
Alot of people don't realize that you can be "black out drunk" and still highly functional. People have literally woken up in other countries after getting drunk. No one even realized they were intoxicated. Alcoholics: back me up here ;)
Women can enthusiastically consent to sex, not appear overly intoxicated, and have no memory of what transpired. This is where the myth of "date rape" and drink spiking comes from.
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Date rape and drink spiking are not myths. There are actual people who do it and they are the scum of society. Do not act like they don't happen or that ruins your entire argument.
[–]voltron818 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Exactly. I don't know why people can't differentiate between buzzed and black out drunk. It makes me question how many people ITT have actually been around alcohol, or are just going off of TV.
[–]ihvmapes 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Spend enough time drinking, and you can be 100% functional (like do your taxes, play sports, pass a midterm, etc.) and not remember anything.
Your judgment isn't necessarily compromised, but formation of long-term memories is. Black out drunk is not a dividing line between able to consent and not.
[–]SodaPalooza 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
can't differentiate between buzzed and black out drunk.
I'm not particularly proud of this, but when I was in high school 30 years ago, I could go out drinking and drive my parent's car home 50 miles without a scratch on it.... and then not remember driving home when I woke up the next morning.
There were several times that I would rush to the window to verify the car was in the driveway... then go to check it out for dents and scratches. Are you suggesting that even though I was capable of driving an automobile 50 miles without incident, I wasn't capable to choosing to have sex?
[–]voltron818 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Well first off, you probably weren't doing a great job driving, especially if the only bar is "I didn't wreck."
Secondly, I'm not arguing about physical part of sex, people can be capable of physical acts while drunk. The question is if they had the mental capacity to measure the situation and give meaningful consideration, and blacking out is good evidence that's not the case.
[–]Stripes1974 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
The problem with that 'argument' is that you don't know that someone is "black out drunk" if they are capable of speaking and functioning, until the next day. And by then, one way or the other, it's too late.
[–]voltron818 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Honestly, not really. Typically you can tell when someone's mentally impaired by alcohol. The cases we're questioning are in such a small minority of instances that it's really just better not to sleep with girls who are clearly drunk.
Honestly, really.
What you mean is stereotypically, you can tell when someone's mentally impaired by alcohol. In reality, you cannot always reliably tell when someone is mentally impaired due to either alcohol, drugs, legitimate medication, or perhaps psychological issues. You can find out if someone is mentally impaired for one of those reasons, but you cannot "typically tell".
Perhaps, what you really should want to say is that "Typically you can tell the difference between a person who is not mentally impaired, and someone who is mentally impaired".
But once someone is "mentally impaired", you cannot always, "typically" tell what their level of impairment is. Some folks get drunk from drinking a single wine cooler; some folks seem quite fine in most ways until they pass out. You cannot "typically tell" when a person has gone from "mentally impaired due to a buzz from some drinks" to "mentally impaired and will wake up without the ability to remember what they did last night".
And that is what I mean by saying that it was a problem with your 'argument'. By the time you know if someone is not going to remember what they did the night before, it is the next day. And, as I said, by then it is too late.
[–]voltron818 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Then the solution is simply not to sleep with girls who are impaired, because why risk putting someone else through the hardship of being raped if you don't have to?
Also it's a real argument, you don't have to keep using air quotes.
Date rape and drink spiking are not myths.
They aren't myths, but they don't happen near as often as some would have you believe.
[–][deleted] 28 points29 points30 points 9 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link
I agree with most of this statement, but date rape and drink spiking are very, very common occurrences and can't be blamed on intoxication. Using rohypnol or similar isn't just "getting them drunk".
[–]Apremium 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link
Drink spiking a myth: Australian study.
Drink spiking an 'urban lengend': British study..
Not saying it has never happened, but odds are better you'll win the lottery.
[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link
Well I personally know two people who had drinks testers show up positive, so you can sign me up for the Euromillions.
[–]Apremium 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link
That's incredible. Seriously. Like knowing someone who got hit by lightening twice.
[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link
Or maybe it isn't, which is what I'm saying. Also, a 200 person study from one university? That simply isn't representative. I've been in areas where one teenage pregnancy will be the scandal of the year, and also areas where you can't go a week without a murder of some kind. Criminal activity varies massively.
[–]Apremium 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
The only studies done on the subject show it to be mostly a myth. Studies in multiple countries. Again, not saying it has never happened. It's just EXTREMELY rare. Ironically the only recent case involving roofies was two women drugging rich men at bars and stealing their wallets.
[–]EFIW1560 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Just because they are the only studies does not mean they provide conclusive scientific results.
[–]bufedad 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It does mean that it provides more conclusive scientific proof than the opposition.
[–]EFIW1560 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Not necessarily. If its bad science it provides nothing. A great example is the one study that showed autism was caused by vaccines. The study has since been debunked as a fraud. Yet people still tout it as scientific proof that vaccines cause autism.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Well, agree to disagree I guess.
[–]afternoondelight99 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted...
You were right when you said those two studies were hardly conclusive of the entire population. 300 people over two studies does not equate to millions of people who go out every night and have the chance of being roofied.
This sub is kinda crazy in that it has a problem with admitting that women can be being honest, yes I think feminism takes it too far a lot of the time but that doesn't mean women can't be drugged and raped. It's kinda messed up how much the people in this sub refuse to believe that and almost deny it completely.
[–]lesbefriendly 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Probably because his comment equates to "no, you're wrong".
Even though the studies provided may not be large enough to predict a population of millions, it is still more evidence than what has been provided by the objector (detractor?). Claim with little evidence > claim with no evidence.
[–]agreenway 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Yes. I've come here to learn after being a pretty diehard feminist most of my life. I wanted to see both sides of things and instead I just keep seeing posts that tbh equate to the male version of all the same shit you see being posted in hardcore feminist subs/forums. I understand that the most angry, extreme people are generally the loudest but damn. People are shitty to both genders, can we just stop pretending that only ONE gender is being treated badly? It's not all or nothing people.
[–]originalSpacePirate 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
A legitimate study hosted by a university has far more credibility than "i know a person it happened to"
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Well, no it doesn't. Because the study suggests that the chances of that being true are exceedingly small, while I know personally people who it has happened to and know of quite a few more, meaning that in my experience it is commonplace.
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Anticdotal evidence is not evedince when compared to emperical studies and evidence.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
The empirical data is just as biased as mine is, 200 people lol.
[–]EFIW1560 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Those studies are far from imperial evidence.
[–]EFIW1560 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is exactly what I came to say. The Australian "study" was 100 people. That is a very small test group, and they said the patients claimed they had been drugged within the past 12 hours. Barbituates (the class of drugs in which rohypnol and ghb reside) don't tend to hang around in the system very long and it is possible these individuals were drugged but enough of the drug had left their system by the time of testing that it didn't pop on a test. The other issue is they state that the presence of other substances such as marijuana made it difficult to even accurately test for barbituates in their system. This is not a scientific study and should not be cited as such.
As for the British "study" look at the demographic of the patients they used as subjects. College students. College students are the most well known demographic of people to allegedly get drunk and regret having sex, and later make a false rape claim. I say allegedly because I don't have any source to back that up, but I know that whenever we hear of false rape claims, many of us immediately picture a young college girl, because people party too hard and make dumb decisions in college. The setting is ripe for that type of thing to happen. Again, the British "study" used only 200 patients, which is far too small a pool for any real scientific conclusion to be drawn. They also did not use a diverse enough pool of people, but instead targeted a specific demographic which means the "results" cannot be translated as relavent when talking about instances of alleged drugging and date rape outside that demographic.
[–]abaxeron 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I live in a country where it is a common practice among prostitutes to put Clonidine into their client's alcohol for the purpose of robbery. This mix is so highly potent that many victims of poisoning don't survive.
For some reason, it didn't result in a nationwide campaign encouraging and forcing women to learn about consent under intoxication.
You're in the place where your expectation that if you assume the vast majority of criminals are male, you'll be instantly believed, doesn't work. We know exactly how often women happen to be bad, how much they happen to be bad, and to what greater comparative extent they get away with it. At this point, we don't need any additional measures to put even more men in prisons for the sake of letting women FEEEEEEL safer - m/f incarceration gap worldwide is currently somewhere between 14:1 and 19:1.
[–]lightningvlightening 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Are you sure you didn't mean lightning? If you are talking about electrostatic discharge or Apple's connector, you mean "lightning".
lightning:
noun:
adjective:
lighten:
verb:
to make lighter in weight. "I am lightening the load on my truck"
to become lighter or less dark; brighten. "The sky is lightening now that the storm has passed"
P.S. I'm only a bot, but I'm trying to learn. I can now actually check to see if you've misused the word "lightening" using spell checking APIs. If I have replied to you, it is now likely that you have made a mistake. Please reply if you think I'm wrong!
[–]Apremium 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Fuck off spelling bot nazi.
Edit: I now recognize the genius of lightningvlightening bot.
I have fully embraced the bot known as lightningvlightening.
[–]86413518473465 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Either that or the drink test strips had false positives. Mixed drinks can have all kinds of ingredients.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
How the fuck are you mixing your drinks? Splash of JD, some coke and oh yeah add some barbiturates in there for good measure.
[–]86413518473465 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Who the fuck knows what the test strips even were. It's not like they sent the drink to a lab. It was some over the counter bs.
Well, as I said higher in the thread, I went with them both on separate occasions to the police. The police tested them and confirmed that there were large quantities of barbiturates in them, the chances of there being two false positives with law enforcement grade equipment are absolutely minute.
[–]frustratinbubble 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
sounds more likely that the tester kit has a high false positive rate.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
As I've said lower down, they went to the police where it was tested with proper equipment and confirmed. Don't want to imagine what would have happened had they not have had the testers.
[–]frustratinbubble 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
wow. that's terrible
[–]POO_IN_A_LOO 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think this video illustrates the prevalent attitudes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-57-i1S95Kk
[–]TibortheChechen 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Men Can't Win Under Feminism
If a man catches a glimpse of a woman changing her clothes, she's the victim of a Peeping Tom.
If a woman catches a glimpse of a man changing his clothes, she's the victim of an exhibitionist.
[–]fireandbass 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
Even shorter:
Every time you see a conversation about this, incapacitated should be your go to keyword. It doesn't matter if you were drunk or what you were on, it matters if you were incapacitated or not.
[–]SodaPalooza 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The first question when somebody accuses rape because there were drunk should always be: 'Were you incapacitated?'
I would go with "did you consent" as the first question, because (assuming you actually had sex), consent is really all that matters and what differentiates sex from rape.
[–]fireandbass 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Agree, edited.
[–]SilverGryphon 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Don't fuck drunk women, it's not worth the risk. I wouldn't feel good about it as deep down I would know that she only allowed me to fuck her because she was out of her senses and not because she found me attractive. That kinda kills the boner. This is why I can never bang hookers. I could tell they don't really like me and that kills the mood.
The best sex you can ever have is with a woman who is bat shit crazy about you as she'll do anything in bed to keep you around.
[–]SodaPalooza 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Don't fuck drunk women, it's not worth the risk.
FTFY
a woman who is bat shit crazy about you as she'll do anything in bed to keep you around.
Even...say.... get drunk and have sex with you?
[–]SilverGryphon 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Why shouldn't I fuck a fully sober woman if she is into me and I'm into her? I'm sure she won't have any regrets. Don't let the feminists stop you from fucking women that want to have sex with you.
I'm sure she won't have any regrets.
Russian roulette, my friend.
[–]iiooiooi 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I've always questioned this duality. If it's not possible to consent to sex while intoxicated then why do we hold dunk drivers accountable for their actions? By that logic drunk drivers didn't know enough not to get behind the wheel, therefore they can't be blamed for driving drunk. Of course we blame drunk drivers for what they do. No one bats an eye, and they shouldn't. But once sex is involved alcohol becomes the great eraser.
It doesn't make sense.
[–]SHOW_ME_SEXY_TATS 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So, this is both right and wrong.
In most situations then no, just because you are drunk doesn't mean that you can claim that you were raped if you consented.
However, in the case where you are so drunk that you can't make decisions AND the guy knew (or should have known) that you couldn't make those decisions then you probably were raped.
There is a grey area there where it is down to a judgement call.
In the case that both parties were that drunk, well, it is arguable that either both or neither party committed a crime.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If regret is rape, millions of men paying child support are rape survivors.
[–]TheMacPhisto 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Seems like this is going on a whole bunch as of late... Special interest groups changing definitions of strong words to fit their own agenda.
Regret is Rape, Difference of Opinion is Racism or Sexism, Commercial Media Outlets claiming to be pure journalism...
It's a shame all these groups feel the need to attack language because their arguments hold no merit on their own.
[–]GlobTwo 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I dunno about that whole paragraph about "what usually happens..." It surely does happen, but I have trouble believing that's the most common consequence of drunk sex.
And while the rest is reasonable enough, if you're sober and they're drunk... Best to leave it for another night.
[–]SergePower 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If a drunk woman drives a car, gambles, punches, eats, or destroys something she is reponsible.
If she does something naughty she is not.
Perhaps the SJW argument is that women should not have autonomy over their own body.
[–]Captain_Yid 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The only part I disagree with is his assertion that "with zero proof the entire jury just believes her." I've dealt with my fair share of juries in my life time and most of the time, they seem to take the burden of proof very seriously. If a prosecutor had the gall to take that sort of case to the jury (and most prosecutors wouldn't), it would be very difficult (albeit not impossible) to find 12 people to unanimously vote to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt.
[–]Icecoldsomethingelse 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
In case you're wondering where this idea came from, why it feels like someone is waging a war on men; it's a weapon of war developed by the Soviet Union.
I know, I know, I sound like a total crackpot. But hear me out.
When the USSR and the USA realized they could not fight each other militarily because of the nuclear bomb a new strategy had to be invented to destroy the enemy.
The USA opted for economic destruction of the soviet union, as the economy was always their weakness. And the soviet union opted for cultural demoralization of the USA as freedom of speech was their perceived weakness.
The Soviets planted, on purpose, starting in the 1960, intellectuals and ideas to promote the concept of "social justice" whereas one isn't only due justice on an individual basis but on a group basis.
That is the core idea behind Marxism.
That strategy wasn't an overnight thing, the attack had to convert one or two generations of students, via their teachers, to the ideas of social justice in order to get any results, in fact, 80% of the KGB budget was dedicated to this only task, demoralizing the USA. Spying was a very secondary activity for the KGB.
This man explains it much better than I ever could since he set it up, definitely worth a look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ2fMeer5Mw
So yeah the current madness is the Soviet empire reaching out from the grave to destroy america. No shit.
[–]Flail_of_the_Lord 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
I feel like you'd be the guy signing up for the national guard after Kent Stage so you could shoot protestors.
[–]Icecoldsomethingelse 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I wasn't born, but if there's a program I can sign up for to shoot feminazi cunts, sign me up.
[–]Flail_of_the_Lord 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
It was a reference to the film Thank You For Smoking but thanks for the point proving anyway brotendo + 1
[–]Icecoldsomethingelse 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
call me slow but: what's the point ?
[–]Flail_of_the_Lord 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
You violent and right bruh
[–]Icecoldsomethingelse 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Nah, I'm actually mostly calm. More of a keyboard warrior.
[–]Flail_of_the_Lord 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Good; I hope you realize most of the sjw's getting grilled on here, KIA and TIA are doing the same thing.
[–]Icecoldsomethingelse 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
yah yah, if the real world was as bad as Reddit there would be blood in the streets.
[–]IfJohnWasJohnson 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
I don't agree completely, sure that when people drink it's their choice to do so. But under different circumstances they probably would change their decision based on how clear their thinking is. I definitely don't think its rape if a drunk girl consents to sex with a sober guy, but the guy definitely has a responsibility in that situation to make the right choice. He could take advantage of her, not necessarily rape, but still bad. I believe the same goes for vice versa, if we are going to hold one sex to a standard then we should hold the other to the same principles.
[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
But under different circumstances they probably would change their decision based on how clear their thinking is.
But that's the point isn't it? You don't get to alter your state and then complain about the decision you made in that altered state.
[–]viper12a1a 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Actually I would be fine with a woman reporting a rape to police if she didn't remember IF. IF. IF. IF. IF. IF. IF it wasn't made public record and all names were withheld and all identities protected until any evidence was gathered and some sort of proof could be presented.
I actually agree with this 100%.
If she doesn't remember, she should be able to have that investigated.
On the other hand, a man's life shouldn't be ruined because she didn't remember tying him up and having her way with him.
[–]cappiebara 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Also, I have had make friends drunk and a desperate woman continually trying to take advantage of him. He kept passing out and she kept crawling into his bed groping him... He eventually had to really yell at her after the 5th attempt and lock the door.
The next day she turns the story around saying he was being a jerk etc.
What the what?! She was fucking crazy...
[–]mtbguy1981 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I've made this argument so many times... A women gets drunk , get in her car and runs someone over. She is held fully responsibility. However, if she gets drunk and has sex, it was out of her control.
[–]atlastic1 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Woman gets drunk and burns down a building -> She is responsible for her own behaviour, jail.
Woman gets drunk and punches someone breaking their nose -> She is responsible for her own behaviour, jail.
Woman gets drunk and sleeps with a man -> Can't be considered consent! Man goes to jail.
If we could all just get drunk before doing stupid shit in order to be absolved of responsibility, the world would already be ashes and wreckage.
Ultimately, if you consent to getting off your face falling down drunk, you consent to everything you will do while intoxicated, until you are actually unconscious.
I get downvoted like crazy if I say it in any other sub, but you are the only person responsible for your decisions if you compromise your own ability to think.
And it is not "blaming the victim" to say that you can foolishly increase your chances of becoming a victim by doing dumb things like ingesting chemicals. If I don't want my car broken into I won't park it in compton with an ipad on the drivers seat.
[–]slightly_dull 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I've had sex several times before whilst I've been blackout drunk and I do consider it rape. I would not have given consent if I had been in the right sense of mind. Consent given whilst drunk is not consent. I'm a guy btw, not that that should change anything.
[–]condorama 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Sorry you feel badly about what happened between you and those people. I've been black out drunk and had sex with a sober women and don't believe they raped me. Although I do believe they took advantage of me. I don't think that reaches the level of rape and think calling it by that name does a disservice to victims of violent rape.
[–]slightly_dull 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
I believe violent rape and rape do deserve different distinctions, but if I am struggling to stand up and someone sleeps with me it's not right. If they took advantage of you then what is it? lts a matter of how you define rape and consent. How do you define them? Just because it doesn't upset you (it doesn't upset me) I don't think it means it's not rape. What do you think?
[–]TheGrammarBazi 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
While I generally agree with your notion, you are misrepresenting the original argument. The real reason people argue that drunk sex could be rape is not about recollection or regret. It's about the legal concept of capacity.
Here's, for example, the guideline from some random college. Notice how it doesn't mention anything about memory loss or number of witnesses. By the way, as a general rule, you should know that one witness is no witness. No court would blindly take the word of one single witness, especially when that witness is also the alleged perpetrator of the criminal act. That's just stupid.
Anyway, if we were to consider sexual consent as a form of contract, then the validity of the contract may depend on the agreeing parties' capacity to give consent. In some cases, for example, if you sign a contract while drunk, you can later argue that you had diminished capacity while signing and therefore there wasn't a meeting of the minds. In other words, you're saying that you wouldn't have signed the contract if you hadn't been drunk, therefore the contract should be void.
This is where the rape thing comes. The argument goes: "If this person hadn't been drunk, they wouldn't have consented to sex. Therefore, the consent given was invalid." So, the argument has nothing to do with regret or changing one's mind, because, according to the argument, there was no changing of mind. That person, the argument says, never wanted to have sex and only did so because they were drunk. (This, of course, is a very hard thing to prove in a court, but that's what the argument says.)
Here's where it gets murky. Simply being drunk is not sufficient to successfully argue incapacity. Let's say, for example, that you want to murder someone. However, you can't bring yourself to do that. Every time you point your gun at them, you can't pull the trigger. So, you decide to get drunk first. When drunk, it's easier to pull the trigger and you manage to kill the person. In this case, you can't use your drunkenness as a mitigating factor (which you could in the case of a drunken bar fight), because you purposefully got yourself drunk in order to commit the act. So, if we transfer this concept to drunken sex, getting yourself drunk in order to have lowered inhibitions and have sex with a stranger can't be used to argue diminished capacity, because you did that for the very purpose of having sex.
Now, if the other person successfully got you drunk in order to put out, then you may have a case, as you would if a salesman purposefully got you drunk in order to sign the contract more easily. But, it would have to be argued reasonably. Any adult knows that alcohol lowers inhibitions, so you can't really argue that it's not your fault, unless you manage to prove some sort of deception. (For example, the person told me that the wine was watered down, but it wasn't. But still, the other side could argue that only an alcoholic wouldn't be able to detect the alcohol content of a drink.)
Another case where incapacity can be successfully argued is when one person is so drunk that they have passed out. If you're unconscious, you can't give consent.
As for the whole "but they were both drunk" argument, it's actually very silly. Being drunk is a very general concept. People at different levels of alcohol intoxication can have different levels of mental impairment. In other words, you can have two drunk people where one can consent and the other can't, simply because of their differences in tolerance. If both parties were equally incapacitated, then obviously no one was raped.
[–]Azukus 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
i just hate how we're held accountable for our actions and they arent
[–]Mens-Advocate 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Let's not miss the forest for the trees. Regret is not rape. Drunken sex should not be rape.
But such absurdities are only one pretext among others for
[–]beastlyjesus 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I agree with some of this, a lot of rape accusations are fucked up. Most guys here are missing a huge point though: Young girls who get too drunk largely because of inexperience and then pass out, a guy then has his way with her no consent given. I personally have 3 friends who have been a victim of this. Its not regret, they never had a choice, on all 3 occasions they were simply looking for someone to take of them because they were too drunk and these assholes took advantage.
[–]bufedad 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Young girls who get too drunk largely because of inexperience and then pass out, a guy then has his way with her no consent given. I personally have 3 friends who have been a victim of this.
Let me guess, you were there to witness every single one of these. Right? You didn't help them out or anything, but you witnessed each and can testify to their actually having happened in court.
[–]Hornet402 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Can I upvote this more than once?
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago* (51 children) | Copy Link
Gonna get y'all fuckers drunk as shit, to the point where you can't remember what the hell you did. Then i'm gonna whip out my contract stating you give all your money and land to me. Might tell you it's a contract to give you a few more beers. Maybe i'll say it's a contract to get someone to take you home safely. Yaaknow, just a waiver to say that if you puke in my car it's not my fault. Then when you sign it, i'm going to grab my lawyer and argue the same shit you are here.
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Kindly fuck right off with that bullshit.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It's cool man. Hillary didn't rape you. You were just blackout drunk while she fucked you. That's not rape right?
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Nice troll account you've got there. If you're going to play this game atleast bring a few points with you and make a rational argument instead of throwing mud.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
|Kindly fuck right off with that bullshit.
That's a good rational argument you make. I really appreciate the time you spent forming your argument. Actually the validity of your argument is just so great that I can't help but not give a shit about you.
Again, solid argument.
Top notch.
[–][deleted] 29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link
Sooo by your logic if you get drunk and decide to drive and end up killing a kid it's totally not your fault because you couldn't make decisions right?
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link
Nah man, i'm saying that when you sign that contract i own everything you have. You're responsible for all your actions in entirety. You being drunk doesn't matter, you agreed to the terms of the contract. Actually I might add a clause saying I own you as a person. It doesn't matter that you signed when you were drunk because, you agreed. I want to emphasise that everything you agree to while your drunk is a binding contract. That includes drunk driving. If I drive drive and kill a kid, that's my fault. No doubt. Just like when you sign my contract while drunk, I own you.
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
You fail to see the fact that what I said already is the law. If you are drunk, drive and kill a kid them you will go to jail because you made those decisions... so if you are drunk and give consent to see then that decision should also be valid.
Barring something predatory like intentionally taking advantage of an obviously drunk person (like you are describing with the ridiculous contract example) there should be no legal ramifications.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
My intention with that comment was to point out the stupidity of taking all drunk decisions as binding. Yea if you drive drunk and kill someone, you're at fault.
|You fail to see the fact that what I said already is the law
You cannot be held to a contract you sign while drunk. This is law. Possibly not the case in America though (assuming you're America)
In any case, having sexual relations with someone who is to drunk to consent is rape. By law. Gender irrelevant.
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Most people I know have been blackout drunk at ao.e point and time and looked completely fine but have zero recollection of their actions the next day. Hell it happened to me like two days ago. If my wife had had a few drinks and I went to her and we had sex but I didn't remember is that rape?
And what is the limit on too drunk is it one beer or five? What's the rape limit on drinks these days?
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
If you had a 'few drinks' you're not black out drunk. You're not brown out drunk. You're not even really drunk. You have had a few drinks. That's what people do when they go to the pub, not when they're binge drinking.
You and your wife are a different story from random people. You've known each other long enough to have established rules about what you guys are cool with.
It's pretty obvious the discussion here is not abut married people who have been together a long time.
If you want to equate you and your wife fucking while drunk, to people getting shitfaced in the pub and fucking. Go hard. If you can't really see the difference, I imagine you'd be cool with your wife getting way too fucked up and some guy fucking her. It's her choice to get drunk after all. Isn't it?
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
How can you not see the irony in your argument? No I wouldn't be ok with it because she made the decision
I guess you have never been drunk. Props to you for that. Keep doing what you are doing.
Some other people have had some different experiences. But that's cool too
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yep I sure have and when I made poor decisions when I was I didn't blame other people. I was held responsible for my own actions.
[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
If you had a 'few drinks' you're not black out drunk.
Actually, you can be black out drunk with as little as one drink.
Black outs occur more because of drinking quickly than drinking a lot.
Educate yourself before you start talking.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
That's fucking stupid and you know it
[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
What? Science is stupid?
Black out drunk has nothing to do with the overall level of inebriation... if you are ignorant of the causes of black outs, then that's on you man.
[–]SjayL 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Or maybe you're too fucking stupid to tell the difference between fucking, and a legal contract.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Or maybe you're too fucking stupid to see the similarities between consent and a legal contract. I'm not too fussed though, the time you spend raping sheep and trying to fuck woman is none of my business.
[–]TruthTellerBot 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Indeed. There is no similarity.
[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Or maybe you're too fucking stupid to see the similarities between consent and a legal contract.
So, every girl that's had sex with a black out drunk guy is a rapist. Right? Because that's a whole lot of women.
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Nah man, it's context dependant. But at the end of the day if you want to rape drunk woman that's on you
And apparently, the context is...
if the woman is drunk = rape
if the man is drunk = not rape.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'm not really sure where I said that women are exempt. Can you point that out?
So, the majority of women should be in jail as rapists... got it.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Or possibly actions taken by a person are not singular with actions takes by another person. Maybe I don't drunk drive, and stay on a couch. Then while i'm on the couch someone pressures me into sex. No doubt that being pressured into sex, and driving drunk are almost exactly the same. No doubt. There are no differences really.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
The being pressured part is the key difference just because you don't remember taking off you too and saying fuck me and not remembering the next day didn't make the dude a rapist
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
That's cool man. This one time I told this girl I was sober. I totally wasn't but she got in my car like a sucker. I crashed and she broke her back. Now she's a paraplegic. It doesn't make me a dickhead though, she had a choice to get in my car.
This other time time I told a chick I was really into her. I spent the whole night telling her how keen I was on her. Haha, she actually believed me. Banged and left. Shit was cash money.
You do realize this argues against your point... right?
You were drinking, she was sober in regards to driving (compared to she was drinking and you were sober to have sex).
If she's (the sober one) is not responsible for the injuries inflicted on her by your drunk self, why would you (the sober one) be responsible for her decision to have sex while she's drunk....
It seems more like you want to argue, but can't put together a cogent point to do so.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And those were all your decisions so you are still the one in the wrong... How can you not understand you are proving my point?
[–]Fattybatman3456 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sorry, sir. I don't drink. Because when you drink, you do regrettable decisions.
[–]Cannon1 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Gonna get y'all fuckers drunk as shit, to the point where you can't remember what the hell you did.
You can't force me to drink. I am responsible for moderating my own rate of consumption, as well as any other actions I may partake in.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I totally can't.
| I am responsible for ... any other actions I may partake in.
Congrats, you get that you are responsible for taking advantage of people who cannot consent.
I know that the idea that you might be responsible for others actions is kinda a fuck-job. It's pretty easy to get if you think of a time you've been drunk beyond normal.
From the responses here i'm almost keen to imply there are a lot of people to young to get it here, but I will. whatever
Are you really claiming that every woman who had sex with a black out drunk guy was a rapist? Because that's claiming that a lot of women are rapists.
[–]Kai_ 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Bad argument, which is a shame because there are some decent rebuttals that you've just tarnished by association.
Make them then.
[–]Kai_ 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Nah I'm too busy to help
Good thing you mentioned you have better rebuttals then, otherwise people might think you don't care.
[–]crimsonkodiak 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Gonna get y'all fuckers drunk as shit, to the point where you can't remember what the hell you did. Then i'm gonna whip out my contract stating you give all your money and land to me. Might tell you it's a contract to give you a few more beers. Maybe i'll say it's a contract to get someone to take you home safely. Yaaknow, just a waiver to say that if you puke in my car it's not my fault.
Have you ever had a drink before? Being drunk doesn't magically make people do random things or do whatever other people tell them to do. I've been drunk hundreds of times and I've never raped a woman. I've never punched a cop's horse or taken a dump on the sidewalk either. And no, I've never signed a random contract put forth by a scamming teetotaler who doesn't understand how drunkenness works. There isn't a cottage industry of scammers going to bars and making people sign contracts. That's not a thing.
So, I wouldn't sign it, no matter how drunk I was. Being drunk doesn't impair my ability to read or make me trust random strangers.
Assuming I would take your word for it, the contract would be unenforceable, as I was fraudulently induced into signing it. Of course, if I didn't remember, I would have an evidentiary problem, but you would still have to perjure yourself in open court to enforce the agreement.
|So, I wouldn't sign it, no matter how drunk I was. Being drunk doesn't impair my ability to read or make me trust random strangers.
hahahahahahha, spot the dickhead who's never had way too much to drunk.
[–]Rolten 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think in the Netherlands you are allowed to cancel a proper contract if people saw you drinking a certain amount beforehand. Probably falls under the argument that you can't read or think well enough.
However, the beauty of a contract is that you can cancel it. If I agreed to enter military service through a contract while drunk I can be like ' fuck no ', get it cancelled (hopefully), and there's no harm done to anyone!
I believe the reason why this doesn't work for things done while drunk such as sex/theft/drunk driving is because there's already a victim or it has already occurred. It isn't cancellable. And not just that: sex doesn't become very weird for a person to understand, not like a lot of lawyer mumbo jumbo in tiny little letters on a piece of paper.
Now I'm not sure what the exact lawful reasoning is for this difference, but I do find it too make a lot of sense.
[–]Rumpadunk 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
People do not go out to bars and clubs to get drunk and giveaway all their possessions. They do, however, go out to get drunk and have sex.
Even then for contracts there is unconscionability and other things, but I was drunk isn't a very good defense anyway
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
You're going to drug me? Because I don't let myself get "drunk as shit".
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Sound like a fucking boring dude to go to the pub with
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Oh... that's your concern? That if I don't allow myself to be rapable, then I'm boring to go to the pub with?
Yea, you sound like a fuck.
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You gotta love it when feminist trolls want the majority of women thrown in jail as rapists...
"You shouldn't rape woman"
"Haha, what a fucking troll"
Reddit.jpg
being ridden by a drunk woman = raping her...
-reddit troll.
[–]SaturnisVictor 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is such a western world problem
[–]heijutsu 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Except if both parties are intoxicated it is still rape and the man is still the responsible party.
Yeah. I'm going to need you to sign this consent and waiver form before we get jiggy with it.
[–]SrsSteel 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Here's a concept. If a woman does get raped and it's he said she said, then what
[–]Dutch5-1 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It doesn't make sense to me that somebody who is to drive drunk and murder a family with no recollection of it is at fault (as they should be) yet if that same person were to get drunk, consent to sex, have no recollection of it the next day, and then regret it and cry rape there is suddenly no responsibility to be held by them.
[–]shydude92 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's not just being drunk, I'm pretty sure there's already been a case where a man has been convicted of, or at least charged with rape because the woman had literally 1-2 drinks, and then claimed that despite appearing completely sober, she wasn't capable of giving consent.
And if there hasn't been a case like that yet, it's only a matter of time, because these days the police and courts are willing to believe anything lest they be accused of "condoning sexual violence" or "blaming the victim"
[–]theundeadturtle 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Fuck yeah, preach bruva
You guys remember the shitstorm over David Brock? Man, this picture completely explains what happened there, but it was completely normal on reddit to wish him dead, even on tame sub reddits like politics or something.
[–]AgentSkidMarks 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is so important. I bet our fine friends over at r/feminism wouldn't agree in the slightest
[–]condorama 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Another way to frame this in a conversation: why do you think women don't have the right to get really drunk and have sex?
[–]Rethgil 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
'Regret is not rape'?
But you forget one thing...
...Feminism is not Finking.
[–]ShiverinMaTimbers 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Seems like we just shouldn't let women drink at all. Would avoid 99.9% of these issues.
/r/againsthatesubreddits declares this post "pro-rape" lol
[–]agreenway 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Agreed, for sure. That's why I'm still here :) there are some really intelligent people here and their opinions are the ones I dig through all these posts to see!
I think if it doesn't upset you then you weren't raped, yes. Technicalities that exist today take away from the nature of crimes. The nature of things Has given way to the technicality of things because of a perceived necessity by the justice system, and to a lesser extent society.
I could get into the philosophy of you choosing your actions when taking the first drink, but I suck at philosophy.
[–]wwwhistler 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
i never could understand that idea....if she drinks a single drink she is incapable of giving consent or controlling her actions....but the man is assumed to remain sober and functioning and in full control of himself and the situation....no matter how much he has had to drink.
[–]McFeely_Smackup 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's ironic, a 20 year old woman can go to a bar and use a fake ID to get drunk, then smash a glass in someone's face, get in her car and drive away hitting a pedestrian, go to her ex boyfriends house and break a window to get inside, then climb in bed with him and initiate sex...she has committed at least 5 felonies for which she is held 100% responsible, and was also raped for which she is a victim.
[–]Flippent_Arrow 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This kind of thing right here is why I don't drink, and I wont date someone who drinks. Don't need this kinda drama.
[–]meenamjah 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
AMEN
[–]MoonBlueMilkshake 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Finally. I've always been sick of people throwing this around. You say "yes = yes, no = no", but if she's drunk and says yes, it's now "drunk yes = no". Yes means yes, no means no, whether she was druk or not, she says yes, she gave consent.
[–]UDT22 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Morale of the story, is to stay far away from women that are drinking, period
[–]guntermench43 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If we hold people accountable for deciding to drive drunk we should hold them accountable for deciding to fuck drunk.
[–]Kai_ -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
ITT woefully and defiantly uninformed opinions about contract law.
[–]Eumemicist 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
However, there still an obvious threshold of conscious awareness beyond which someone can't consent to sex. If someone doesn't have a firm grip on reality or is going in and out of sleep, initiating sex with her is arguably a sexual crime. A noble person will make sure the basic faculties are online before sex. And it is wise to err on the side of no sex with someone new who is drunk.
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
If someone doesn't have a firm grip on reality or is going in and out of sleep, initiating sex with her is arguably a sexual crime
Absolutely.
Let me change a word so that it's not a sex crime
If someone doesn't have a firm grip on reality or is going in and out of sleep, initiating sex with her him is arguably not a sexual crime
[–]Eumemicist -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Still is a crime. Though much easier to prosecute if he was penetrated or someone put their mouth on his dick. With male victims I think you'd disproportionately see same-sex situations. I think a guy would also be much less likely to call the police too.
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Female sexual crimes are as common (slightly more so) than male sexual crimes
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/07/11/sexual-offending-by-women-is-surprisingly-common-claims-us-study/
Sorry to burst your bubble there, but women are just as prone to sexually assault men as men are to sexually assault women.
[–]Eumemicist 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I agree. So no bubble bursted.
[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Don't really understand people here talking about how being sober and having sex with a drunk individual isn't rape. You're taking advantage of someone in an altered state without their sober consent. People who get drunk consent to intoxication, not sex.
[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
You're taking advantage of someone in an altered state without their sober consent.
Being sober is not required for consent.
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Yes it is, any form of influence by drugs inhibits your ability to consent. The root of the problem is thinking this way.
Yes it is, any form of influence by drugs inhibits your ability to consent.
Are you claiming that every woman who had sex with a guy who was high, or drunk... is a rapist and should be in jail?
Generalizations get you nowhere in arguments
What generalization.
You stated that any form of influence by drugs inhibits your ability to consent.
Therefore, any man who was high or drunk had his ability to consent inhibited, and the woman is therefore a rapist. That isn't a generalization, but the natural conclusion of your logic.
[–]SodaPalooza 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What else inhibits your ability to consent:
Being emotionally down from a recent breakup?
Being euphoric over getting admitted to your preferred college?
Being depressed and suicidal?
Being "intoxicated" by a person's good looks or money?
Being horny after seeing someone dressed sexily?
What state of mind is the "baseline" state of mind? And is any deviation from that state of mind a variation that inhibits ones ability to consent to sex?
If your partner isn't typically horny and only consents to sex when they are horny, is that consent really valid? Because, c'mon now, you know they wouldn't have consented in a different state of mind! Rapist!
[–]Grizzly_treats 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
They are talking about both parties being intoxicated, both parties consenting to the act, and then one party (the female) feels bad for herself and how she might be viewed by the general public turning around and accusing her partner of raping her in hopes that the stigma of being labeled "easy, slut, whore, etc" will be washed away because suddenly she's a victim.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
There are people here talking about one party being drunk and another being sober is completely acceptable, which is where my argument is involved. Having both parties intoxicated is another story completely.
[–]Grizzly_treats 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I haven't read all 200+ comments. But yes, one party being intoxicated and taken advantage off is wrong and should be punishable to he fullest extent of the law.
There are people here talking about one party being drunk and another being sober is completely acceptable
All that matters is whether both parties consented when the option to decline was available. If so, then the sex was completely acceptable. If not, then someone is a rapist. Alcohol doesn't matter, consent matters.
People who get drunk consent to intoxication, not sex.
What? I've been drunk and consented to sex. Guess I'm a fucking unicorn!
[+]bleck05 -19 points-18 points-17 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
what the fuck is this bullshit? If someone is drunk then they are no longer able to make choices for themselves and therefore cannot make the choice to give consent. If both parties are drunk then I agree that it is not rape but if a sober individual has sex with someone who consented under the influence of alcohol then that is rape.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
So if you get drunk, decide to drive and kill a five year old it's not your fault because you couldn't make decisions?
[–]bleck05 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
actually i'm pretty sure that you would get a reduced sentence. like manslaughter instead of murder.
It depends on the state and the severity of the incident. They also factor in if you leave the scene of the accident, try to hide the crime. It can range from manslaughter to vehicular homicide.
My point though is you are still held responsible for your decisions.
[–]AloysiusC 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If both parties are drunk then I agree that it is not rape but if a sober individual has sex with someone who consented under the influence of alcohol then that is rape.
So somebody who is unable to consent, magically becomes fully able as long as the other person is also unable? Do you not see how absurd that is?
And think of the implications: An actual rapist only has to have a few drinks and suddenly it's not rape. Better also get tested right after so the alcohol level is on record and the other person has only their word.
Of course feminists aren't intending for this which is why both being drunk still is the man raping the woman as far as they're concerned.
[–]ausertoremember 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Their ability to consent is not nullified if they are 'under the influence' of alcohol. That is the point, 'consent' is 'consent', the state of the other party does not matter. If they are unable to consent then it is rape, ie inebriated beyond a point at which they are able to lawfully consent, which Is up to the courts to determine, but the standard is much higher than under the influence of alcohol.
[+]bleck05 -8 points-7 points-6 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
If she can't remember the night then I am pretty sure that is under the influence enough. And of course I was talking about seriously under the influence, to the point where she can't make proper decisions.
[–]ausertoremember 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Black and brown out drunk does not in any way imply that they person was not able to consent. My current partner never appears too drunk and is highly functional yet has brownouts very often. That is simply not a good test for someone to use to determine ability to consent.
[–]Krissam 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
f she can't remember the night then I am pretty sure that is under the influence enough.
I blacked out a night where my friend told me I didn't even seem that drunk, meanwhile I can give you a minute by minute recall of the night I ended up crawling home because I was too drunk to stand on two legs.
[–]AloysiusC 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If she can't remember the night then I am pretty sure that is under the influence enough.
No. Not remembering doesn't in the least imply that you weren't fully conscious at the time. You also probably can't remember what you did in a specific 5 minute period 3 years ago.
Don't confuse blacking out with passing out. Nobody is saying somebody who is unconscious or barely conscious is able to consent.
Do we need to administer a breathalyzer prior to any form of sexual contact? You know, to be sure our partnet can consent.
What's the legal blood alcohol level for consent? Is it 0.08 like with driving or do we set it at 0.2 or 0.3?
Why the silly questions? Because if you're going to make it illegal to do a thing under certain conditions you have to have a means of objectively and consistently determining those conditions (drunkenness) and then a means of measuring the determinant (blood-alcohol level).
Just how much do you want government to interfere with normal human social activities?
Memory can be highly selective. Her ability to remember the night is not an unbiased or objective measure of her state of mind or ability to consent.
You can enter a black out state (where memories are not being created) with as little as one drink.
Being black out drunk has nothing to do with the overall level of inebriation, but with the sudden spike in alcohol levels in your blood stream.
if a sober individual has sex with someone who consented
You can stop your sentence right there. If consent was granted, and the opportunity to deny consent was available, there was no crime.
[+]shadowguyver -11 points-10 points-9 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
If the woman is drunk and the man is not it is rape. Same if it is reversed. If both parties are drunk then no it's not rape because neither is in full cognitive functionality. Tipsy not rape, regret not rape, one passed out and the other still going forth with sex yes that is rape.
[–]ausertoremember 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
No, the other party does not matter, legally. If they are able to consent, then it is not rape. Morally it is wrong, and I think we should strive for a better standard, but criminally that's the way it is.
[–]skinnyguy699 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It seems there is a lot of grey area here. Eg. How drunk is too drunk to consent? A couple drinks and tipsy? What about a high functioning alcoholic who appears sober even though they're highly intoxicated? Or is any alcohol in the system grounds for inability to consent?
[–]myrodia 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If you're able to participate and do so willingly at the time, then it's not rape. No matter how drunk you are.
[–]Rolten 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Tipsy not rape, regret not rape, one passed out and the other still going forth with sex yes that is rape.
I agree completely. It's about consent. However, if I'm very drunk I can still consent. I can still take of my clothes and stick my dick somewhere. However, if someone is at the point where you have to undress them and they just lie there and don't respond, yeah fuck that's rape.
If being drunk = rape then I've been raped A LOT of times, then fucking everyone I know is a rapist or a rape victim. That's not how it works. You can't have drunk sex be ok 99.9% of the time and not the last 0.1% because in that case the victim might have regretted it.
No consent? Rape. Consent? Not rape. Now there's a few buts that we should add to that but I think it works very well for just the drunk scenario.
[–]shadowguyver -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Being drunk negates consent because you are not in full capacity of your faculties. You are more likely to do things when drunk because your inhibitions are lowered which shows the lack of cognitive prowess.
If you get drunk and commit a crime you are still responsible for that crime even if it is something you would not have done sober.
[–]Rolten 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
So you are still responsible for what you do when you're drunk?
If you can be held accountable for your criminal actions while drunk, why can't you be held accountable for choosing to have sex while drunk?
[–]shadowguyver 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Okay I can see the confusion. If you are drunk and you kill someone it's more manslaughter than murder, do you agree. If both of you are drunk and do something stupid that ends in the other person dying and it is very clear you were both drunk, do you think it should be counted as manslaughter or an accident?
It's manslaughter because it was an accident, the drunk bit is irrelevant. Of course it depends on the specifics and I'm not totally sure how manslaughter works, but I don't think the drinking plays a role.
If I'm drunk and I go to my boss' house and shoot him in the face it's still murder though.
[–]ausertoremember 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think what you're thinking of is factors that affect sentencing and not culpability.
Being drunk negates consent because you are not in full capacity of your faculties.
No, it doesn't. Being drunk doesn't remove responsibility for your actions, just like killing someone while drunk driving is still your responsibility, even if you aren't in full control of your faculties.
[–]shadowguyver 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Ok if you're drunk and you kill someone that should be seen as manslaughter, but if both of you are drunk and fucking around and the other ends up getting killed then it should be handled as an accident.
Ok if you're drunk and you kill someone that should be seen as manslaughter
Actually, that's murder. Murder 2, I believe.
but if both of you are drunk and fucking around and the other ends up getting killed then it should be handled as an accident.
That is generally manslaughter.
I don't get drunk specifically so I don't do things drunk that I will regret.
[–]Angrygrape1337Reborn -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
ITT neckbeards who can't get laid.
[+]SaturnisVictor -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Look at all the butthurt people down voting you
[–]Getoutabed -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There is so much grey here that it's not such a good example of using "drunk sex" when alcohol is everything from an actual rape drug to just an excuse from a liar accuser.
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Posting this in response to the comparison to criminal actions:
Comparing criminal actions to a woman having sex with someone while intoxicated compares their actions to those of criminals. Additionally, nobody else can force you or manipulate you into robbing a store or shooting someone while the same can't be same for consent. Robbing a store while intoxicated is your decision alone; giving consent is something that can be easily manipulated by someone else, especially under the influence of alcohol, which is why it isn't a good example.
The issue lies with what consent is, because if we define it as something you can give while intoxicated, there would be a number of problems there with sober individuals. If we say that two drunk individuals can't be convicted of rape, then person A can have sex with person B against their will because they were both drunk. It's a complicated issue with a lot of gray area.
[+]aczr -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
If you have a few and then someone steals your wallet out of your pocket does that make you partially responsible for the theft??? This statement captures no real circumstance and is merely generalized conjecture. A drinking woman should always be able to say no, a drunk person does not get a pass for any crime why should rape be an exception?
A drinking woman should always be able to say no
No one's arguing otherwise.
What is being argued is that a drinking woman who says yes doesn't get changed to no because she's been drinking.
[+]ThanklessAmputation -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
See here's the problem. The whole I got high and robbed a gas station thing is much more of a false equivalency. It's closer to I got drunk and lost my wallet. As a recovering alcoholic, let me tell you, sometimes you'll lose your wallet or your car keys or what have you, but if someone maxes out your credit cards, takes your car, or spends all your cash youre still going to be pissed. At a certain level of intoxication, it's not really fair to say someone can consent. Get her number and call her in the morning for a hung over breakfast or some shit. If you can't get ass when she's sober, you shouldn't use alcohol as a trick to get into her pants.
[+]Flail_of_the_Lord -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
ITT: People who get drunk and can still function but never had something shoved inside them while they were unable to move.
[+]DemiDualism -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Stop comparing it to DUI. That doesn't make any sense and you are literally objectifying someone in order to do it.
If both parties are drunk I agree there needs to be no bias towards either gender.
However, if one party is sober - there is definitely some additional due diligence that needs to be done other than consent. That due diligence needs to satisfy reasonable responsibility to verify the consent.
Suicidal people consent to killing themselves, and that isn't considered valid consent. Likewise we all need to accept that some people are not capable of giving consent while drunk.
You have an option not to try and figure out who by not having sex with anyone who is drunk. If you are confident in your ability to defend yourself against accusations then go for it.
If the court system was reasonable then you should be able to demonstrate that you had no reason to believe the person was an irresponsible drunk.
Because if they actually are an irresponsible drunk and you have sex with them and that goes against anything their sober def would agree to then you are opening yourself up to the judgement of the courts and the public.
It will be hard for you to say it should be okay.. Because no one actually gives a shit about dumbasses who want to feign ignorance about the current state of alcohol and sexual aggression.
It's a political warzone and you are effectively complaining about not being able to walk through it as a bystander without getting shot. Even though you're fully aware of the dangers.
STOP HAVING SEX WITH DRUNK GIRLS.
Maybe when they realize they have to be sober all night in order to get laid, they'll start helping out to change the bias in the court system so we can all be happy.
[–]DemiDualism -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes gender equality is important
[+]Chxo -10 points-9 points-8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
If she was really too drunk to remember it, yes it's fucking rape and you're a shitty person if you believe otherwise.
At the same time I used to get fucked up a lot, and spent plenty of nights worshipping at the porcelain throne because I binged too hard. I can count on one hand the number of times I got so piss drunk I lost time, or recollection of how I got somewhere, or what I did the night before. I'll pass out before I forget what I did, and wake up the next morning regretting plenty of things. I'd wager most of the time a woman says she can't remember she does. Of course that's not to say that being unable to remember should be the cut off for rape either.
There's a huge range between being drunk ( technically .08 by most legal standards) and being too drunk to consent or resist.
[–]DavidByron2 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You're being down voted because you're an asshole and a bigot. And if you really believed being drunk means you can't consent the woman would be a rapist too, bit of course nobody ever says that do they?
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]CaptainnT 598 points599 points600 points (89 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (28 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]jonnytechno 46 points47 points48 points (24 children) | Copy Link
[–]dougj182 65 points66 points67 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]thunderbox666 37 points38 points39 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]loki-things 21 points22 points23 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nforne 11 points12 points13 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Apexbreed 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Cardplay3r 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Apexbreed 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Cardplay3r 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]xplosm 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]JoJoRumbles 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]thunderbox666 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheGrammarBazi 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]thunderbox666 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sayshey 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]dougj182 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]sayshey 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Skydiver860 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]jonnytechno 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Skydiver860 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]murpdog 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xRisingSunx 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Plasmabat 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Smaskifa 84 points85 points86 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]aggr1103 36 points37 points38 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Impossterble 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]EvrythingISayIsRight 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Shanguerrilla 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Misterduster01 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]ValAichi -37 points-36 points-35 points (51 children) | Copy Link
[–]sayshey 42 points43 points44 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]retronot 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]sayshey 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]retronot 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]ValAichi -15 points-14 points-13 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]SchalaZeal01 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sayshey 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+]ValAichi -7 points-6 points-5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]sayshey 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DennistheDutchie 39 points40 points41 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]Terrh 34 points35 points36 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]ValAichi -23 points-22 points-21 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 13 points14 points15 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ValAichi 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]gmano 10 points11 points12 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ValAichi 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]besaolli 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ValAichi 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 10 points11 points12 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jjhockey01 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]CaptainnT 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TibortheChechen 3 points4 points5 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]ValAichi 0 points1 point2 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]sayshey 4 points5 points6 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]ValAichi 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]sayshey 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]ValAichi 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]sayshey 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ValAichi -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]blueXcat 2 points3 points4 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]ValAichi -4 points-3 points-2 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]blueXcat 2 points3 points4 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]ValAichi -1 points0 points1 point (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]blueXcat 3 points4 points5 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]ValAichi 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]blueXcat 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ValAichi 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]FxAxTxPxIxGxS 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ValAichi 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MagicTampon 195 points196 points197 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rumpadunk 25 points26 points27 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Apexbreed 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fourthwallcrisis 96 points97 points98 points (59 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sparrow8907 20 points21 points22 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Sparrow8907 -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fourthwallcrisis 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]VikingDom 48 points49 points50 points (54 children) | Copy Link
[–]handklap 19 points20 points21 points (47 children) | Copy Link
[–]ValAichi -5 points-4 points-3 points (45 children) | Copy Link
[–]skelth 19 points20 points21 points (39 children) | Copy Link
[+]ValAichi -6 points-5 points-4 points (38 children) | Copy Link
[–]Banane9 24 points25 points26 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]ValAichi -3 points-2 points-1 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Banane9 9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ValAichi 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]scyth3s 8 points9 points10 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ValAichi 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]scyth3s 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]EricAllonde 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lagkiller 6 points7 points8 points (26 children) | Copy Link
[–]ValAichi -1 points0 points1 point (25 children) | Copy Link
[–]SchalaZeal01 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ValAichi 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Lagkiller 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SodaPalooza 1 point2 points3 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]ValAichi 1 point2 points3 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]EricAllonde 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Istalriblaka 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]scyth3s 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bsandberg 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]EricAllonde 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]VikingDom -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SodaPalooza 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]VikingDom 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Yndrd1984 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rumpadunk 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xixoxixa 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]theothermod[M] 71 points72 points73 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]originalSpacePirate 14 points15 points16 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]glassuser 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Icecoldsomethingelse 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]amatera5 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Everyone_Staflos 43 points44 points45 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (11 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+][deleted] (10 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]prodiver 15 points16 points17 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SodaPalooza 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Singulaire 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Thorpolice 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Everyone_Staflos 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TruthTellerBot -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Everyone_Staflos 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]SodaPalooza 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TruthTellerBot 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rumpadunk 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alliewh33lz 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mrwhibbley 88 points89 points90 points (51 children) | Copy Link
[–]deville05 46 points47 points48 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wollff 9 points10 points11 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]crimsonkodiak 12 points13 points14 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wollff -1 points0 points1 point (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]crimsonkodiak 3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wollff -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]crimsonkodiak 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Wollff 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pandamonius84 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]naemtaken 4 points5 points6 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wollff 6 points7 points8 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]dungone 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wollff 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]dungone 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]deville05 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Stripes1974 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Wollff 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dyloneus 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]scyth3s 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]originalSpacePirate 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]MikeyMike01 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]deville05 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Mens-Advocate 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MagicTampon 12 points13 points14 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]thefreeman419 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]MagicTampon 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]scyth3s 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Stripes1974 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TosserMcthrowaway314 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]scyth3s 6 points7 points8 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]mrwhibbley 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]scyth3s 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]mrwhibbley 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SodaPalooza 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Throwawayingaccount 8 points9 points10 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]chamaelleon 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mrwhibbley 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]themerinator12 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Stripes1974 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Stripes1974 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mrwhibbley 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ColonelVirus 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]jonstoppable 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ausertoremember 16 points17 points18 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]PoppyOP 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Yndrd1984 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SodaPalooza 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RancidFruit 15 points16 points17 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]mikesteane 22 points23 points24 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Stripes1974 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RancidFruit 4 points5 points6 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]mikesteane 19 points20 points21 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]RancidFruit 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rumpadunk 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Stripes1974 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]RancidFruit 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Stripes1974 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]RancidFruit 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Apremium 31 points32 points33 points (61 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]voltron818 3 points4 points5 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]ihvmapes 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SodaPalooza 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]voltron818 -2 points-1 points0 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Stripes1974 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]voltron818 -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Stripes1974 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]voltron818 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 28 points29 points30 points (50 children) | Copy Link
[–]Apremium 23 points24 points25 points (48 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points (47 children) | Copy Link
[–]Apremium 6 points7 points8 points (43 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points (36 children) | Copy Link
[–]Apremium 12 points13 points14 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]EFIW1560 3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]EFIW1560 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]afternoondelight99 10 points11 points12 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]lesbefriendly 4 points5 points6 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]agreenway 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]originalSpacePirate 10 points11 points12 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]EFIW1560 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]EFIW1560 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]abaxeron 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lightningvlightening 23 points24 points25 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Apremium 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]86413518473465 -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]86413518473465 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]frustratinbubble 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]frustratinbubble 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]POO_IN_A_LOO 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TibortheChechen 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fireandbass 8 points9 points10 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]SodaPalooza 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]fireandbass 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SilverGryphon 4 points5 points6 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]SodaPalooza 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]SilverGryphon 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SodaPalooza 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iiooiooi 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SHOW_ME_SEXY_TATS 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheMacPhisto 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]GlobTwo 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SergePower 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Captain_Yid 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Icecoldsomethingelse 3 points4 points5 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Flail_of_the_Lord 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Icecoldsomethingelse 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Flail_of_the_Lord 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Icecoldsomethingelse 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Flail_of_the_Lord 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Icecoldsomethingelse 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Flail_of_the_Lord 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Icecoldsomethingelse 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]IfJohnWasJohnson 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]viper12a1a 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]cappiebara 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mtbguy1981 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]atlastic1 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]slightly_dull 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]condorama 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]slightly_dull 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheGrammarBazi 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Azukus 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Mens-Advocate 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]beastlyjesus 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hornet402 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (51 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 29 points30 points31 points (27 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (21 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]SjayL 11 points12 points13 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]TruthTellerBot 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Fattybatman3456 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Cannon1 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kai_ 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kai_ 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]crimsonkodiak 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rolten 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rumpadunk 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SaturnisVictor 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]heijutsu 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SrsSteel 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Dutch5-1 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]shydude92 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]theundeadturtle 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AgentSkidMarks 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]condorama 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rethgil 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ShiverinMaTimbers 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]agreenway 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]condorama 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]wwwhistler 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]McFeely_Smackup 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Flippent_Arrow 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]meenamjah 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MoonBlueMilkshake 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]UDT22 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]guntermench43 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kai_ -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Eumemicist 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Eumemicist -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Eumemicist 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SodaPalooza 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Grizzly_treats 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Grizzly_treats 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SodaPalooza 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SodaPalooza 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]bleck05 -19 points-18 points-17 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]bleck05 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AloysiusC 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ausertoremember 13 points14 points15 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+]bleck05 -8 points-7 points-6 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]ausertoremember 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Krissam 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AloysiusC 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SodaPalooza 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]shadowguyver -11 points-10 points-9 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]ausertoremember 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]skinnyguy699 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]myrodia 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rolten 1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]shadowguyver -1 points0 points1 point (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rolten 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]shadowguyver 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rolten 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ausertoremember 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]shadowguyver 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Angrygrape1337Reborn -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+]SaturnisVictor -6 points-5 points-4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Getoutabed -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]aczr -7 points-6 points-5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]ThanklessAmputation -6 points-5 points-4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Flail_of_the_Lord -7 points-6 points-5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]DemiDualism -7 points-6 points-5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]DemiDualism -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Chxo -10 points-9 points-8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DavidByron2 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link