TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Canadian Supreme Court affirms that sex while drunk is rape but only for males

ralphswanson

May 7, 2021
541 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scc-youth-sexual-assault-1.6017773
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Canadian Supreme Court affirms that sex while drunk is rape but only for males
Author

ralphswanson

Upvotes 541
Comments 96
Date May 7, 2021 4:49 PM UTC
(5 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/n7311g/canadian_supreme_court_affirms_that_sex_while/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/canadian-supreme-court-affirms-that-sex-while.829019
https://theredarchive.com/post/829019
Top posts by ralphswanson

Women are 55% of Government Employees in Canada, yet they still benefit from preferential hiring

898 upvotes
February 25, 2015
/r/MensRights

Three female guards at same prison jailed for affairs with inmates

380 upvotes
January 5, 2023
/r/MensRights

Feminists Complain that only 40% of US and Canadian Companies have Anti-Male Hiring Policies

308 upvotes
November 5, 2018
/r/MensRights

Multi-millionaire Olivia Colman promotes wage gap hoax

301 upvotes
March 25, 2024
/r/MensRights

Feminist Claims Her Paranoia of Assault 'Proves' That Women are Victims Despite Men Being Assaulted Three Times as Often. The press and academia love this non-sense.

147 upvotes
January 12, 2019
/r/MensRights

Biden admin announces next steps in overhauling Betsy DeVos' Title IX rules opening the door for false rape accusations

145 upvotes
April 6, 2021
/r/MensRights

"Asking men to stand at the back of a room so that women can take their place at the front isn't spitting in the face of equality" Another Aussie Feminist Justifies her Sexism

129 upvotes
May 28, 2015
/r/MensRights

California law requiring female directors could be unconstitutional

125 upvotes
March 8, 2019
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]SomethingRand00m998 156 points157 points158 points 5 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

What a shithole.

Stuff like this make me so angry but I feel like I'm the only one. Men won't protest this. This won't fight against this. Men need unity but they refuse to unify.

[–]Objective-Truth-4339 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If any men were to protest against the ruling, they would be deemed to be rapists by the media, women's groups and other men. The way things are right now, men, especially heterosexual caucasian men can't protest against anything except themselves. Sadly it is very common and popular for this group to join causes or at least support and work toward the detriment of themselves.

I can imagine how life will be in 20-30 years for this section of society if this type of activity continues on the same path.

[+]ObviousObservationz -151 points-150 points-149 points 5 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

There isn't much to protest. A judge ruled that this man was coherent enough that he should have known better than to have sex with someone that was clearly too drunk to consent.

Protesting a result without knowing any of the details of a case seems foolish. I think that's why most men won't be protesting.

What about this makes you angry?

[–]DanteLivra 25 points26 points27 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey there M. Concern troll, go back to your main account.

[+][deleted] 5 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]ObviousObservationz -31 points-30 points-29 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

None of those details were in the article. It's possible he was able to operate a motor vehicle and she was laying face down in her own puke. That's why there isn't enough for a decision here.

[–]Disklaimer 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

you're describing the conclusion to a civil court case. supreme court cases usually involve federal laws and policies, and setting precedents for the lower courts to follow. In the US, it would involve interpretation of the constitution.

This does not set a pretty precedent for men at all, as it directs legal responsibility to the man in cases where both parties are inebriated.

[–]Romanxxx313 47 points48 points49 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Okay typical feminist it's because women do it too and it's still rape, so why are men only getting punished for it?

[+]ObviousObservationz -68 points-67 points-66 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Right. Anyone sleeping with someone too drunk to consent should be punished. But there's nothing in the article to suggest the man was too drunk to consent.

In fact, the judge ruled that he was coherent enough that he should have known what he was doing was assault.

[–]Jsk17924 27 points28 points29 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2017/2017oncj277/2017oncj277.html

I agree the case is complicated and there are valid points to both sides.

The main issue I take is that the judge rules him to be to drunk to be credible and as reliable within a minute.

He couldn’t reliably say that she asked him for sex

Most notably he then enemies that directly after he sees his friends come down the hill

Then the judge chooses to not believe that he talked with his friends ( and says he is not reliable)

I have issues with how he becomes reliable and unreliable within such a short amount of time

The case also relies a a lot on a friend of the accused who also drank. Though the judge seems to believe her because she was a more coherent speaker in court.

My main issue is the timeline. It relies on drunk kids who admit they may have been wrong about the time.

I also think the defendant had terrible lawyers and advice. The accuser had the benefit of not being cross examined and had parents and friend of parents testify for her.

[–]ObviousObservationz 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

These are fair points. I will have a read later. Appreciate the leg work to find the judges decision.

[–]EverydayEverynight01 46 points47 points48 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course CBC disabled the comments

[+]thapussypatrol103 points 5 years ago [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

In the article they mention the male is 15 - how can it be rape if the age of consent is 16? how can you rape if you can't form the mental capacity to consent to sex? how can one be criminally liable for what they don't have the capacity to understand? that's what the age of consent is, right?

[–]MisfitAngel669 29 points30 points31 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The age of consent for sex with an adult is 16 unless the adult is in a position of trust or authority, the age of consent then becomes 18. 14 and 15 year olds can consent to someone no more than 5 years older, and if the person is 12 or 13 they can only consent to someone less than two years older.

[–]McFeely_Smackup 18 points19 points20 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What the fuck is this, sex trigonometry?

[+]thapussypatrol2 points 5 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

...is this actually enshrined in a statute somewhere? this sounds bogus

[–]Sebatron2 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not OP, and I can't find the specific statutes, but this FAQ from the Department of Justice does support the info provided.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The age of consent is more about protecting children from manipulative sexual relationships with adults rather than a statement of them not being able to consent to sex.

[–]luis-can-jump 21 points22 points23 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What? The perspective of age of consent is “children at that age can’t consent knowingly”

[–]Dembara 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yea, the problem is that if you make it like that you end up with the situation of "two 15 year olds committed mutual statutory rape" since both are capable of having the intent to commit crimes, but not consent to the sex. Indeed, by consenting to the sex, the minors would be committing rape. As such, they are liable to lie to avoid facing rape charges alongside their partner. As such, most places have an exception to statutory rape that minors cannot be charged with it if they are close in age to their partner.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes I know what the wording of it is, but it doesn’t change the fact that the actual usefulness of it is to protect children from manipulative adults.

Isn’t exactly a controversial opinion.

[–]luis-can-jump 11 points12 points13 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You insinuated that “not being able to consent” isn’t the point. But it IS the point

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Debateable.

[–]luis-can-jump 10 points11 points12 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well.. great? You mind, you know.. debating the debatable point of disagreements?

[–]thapussypatrol 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In that case, and maybe you agree, it shouldn't be called the 'age of consent' - it should be 'the legal sexing age' or something to that affect, to bring it in line with alcohol, driving, voting, pronography consumption (etc) restriction titles

[–]MisfitAngel669 16 points17 points18 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So does this mean they should both be guilty of rape?

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So much Rape-goating

[–]Skinnyguy202 11 points12 points13 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is stupid..

That’s all I have to say

[–]Mario6416 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why has Canada changed badly?

[–]dontpet 17 points18 points19 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Can you say more about the decision being gender related? Isn't enough detail in the article to clarify.

[–]Dembara 12 points13 points14 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

It isn't. As the article notes, it found that a rape occurred because "The trial judge found the girl was not capable of consenting to sex and that the boy, beyond a reasonable doubt, knew or was wilfully blind to this fact." I think the basis for that finding is extremely flimsy, but it was not gendered. The boy also did not claim to be as intoxicated as the girl (he remembers the event and claimed she originally propositioned him which he interpreted as valid consent, while she says she does not remember the encounter at all, owing to her intoxication at the time).

One imagines the ruling would likely have been different had the genders been flipped, but gender was not an explicit factor in any way.

[–]Jsk17924 13 points14 points15 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

My issue was if two teens are drunk and have sex, who is responsible.

It the boy he asked the girl and she said yes while drunk, it’s rape.

If she asks him and he goes through with it, it’s rape.

If I’m to drunk to consent and a drunk girl propositions me, who is raping who?

[–]Dembara 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yea, agreed there is a gendered bias in the charging and I doubt the judge would have found the same way if the genders were flipped. But the actual decision does not relate to gender. The judge found that she was unable to consent and also found beyond a reasonable doubt (in his mind) that the boy knew or was willfully blind to her inability to consent. His reasons for making those findings were flawed and almost certainly influenced by his gender biases, but are not gendered as a matter of law.

[–]Jsk17924 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That’s a fair analysis of it.

It was a female judge and personally I do think she shows some biased.

It’s not a prime men’s rights case by any means, but it does display some biases for sure.

[–]Dembara 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Agreed, I think it is relevant to the general attitude which predjudices people to percieve rape rape as a crime commented by a man upon a woman (rather than as a person on a person, which is how it ought to be viewed) and have a greater tendency to find men guilty.

Thank you for the clarification about the judge, I should have checked who it was.

Also, I went into more details of the decisionn in another thread. She is almost explicit in her bias, noting that for reasons she could not "articulate with precision" she felt he seemed to be lying at points of his testimony).

[–]Jsk17924 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Great points, thanks for the conversation. 👍

[–]Objective-Truth-4339 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately the case law and society says in all situations, the male is raping the female.

[–]rabel111 11 points12 points13 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So she sexually assaulted him, but because he didn't resist, he raped her. That's gendered.

In the judgment her intoxication is only considered as impacting consent. Her instigation of sex with an intoxicated child wasn't considered at all.

His intoxication was only considered as to whether it impacted his capacity to understand if what he was doing was wrong, his consent was not considered.

[–]Dembara 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That was a matter of prosecution. He was accused by the crown, she was not. The question before the court was did C.P. (the boy) rape R.D. (the girl)? The court only made a decision on that question. His consent only was mentioned tangentially in so far as it involved his mens rea. The court did judge he consented under that standard.

[–]rabel111 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That was the first sexist step. And it was all sexist pigs from there on. This poor kid never had a chance.

[–]BoatyMcBoatLaw 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The real crime is assuming 14 and 15 year old kids would perfectly understand those notions.

Like of course the boy would think he was in the clear! There's nothing obviously criminal about having sex with someone asking you for it.

Our system of "justice" is a joke. Just a bunch of thoughtless pencil pushers

[–]RockmanXX 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Canada: We are the most Radical Feminist Country on Earth, we enact Laws to punish men for having Sex with drunk women. And you have to pay Child Support even if the kids aren't yours!

France: That's cute, we don't even let men check the DNA of their own kids! We are the most radical feminist Nation on earth!

India: ARE YOU GUYS F*#@NG CHALLENGING ME!? GAME ON! We have Alimony for LIFE and refusal to marry a Woman IS RAPE!

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The boy should have identified as first nations, he would have got off

[–]ObviousObservationz 26 points27 points28 points 5 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

They ruled that the boy in question should have reasonably known that the woman was too drunk to consent. Are you saying he was too drunk to consent as well? Because that wasn't mentioned in the article.

If you have a few beers and have sex, that's not a problem.

If you have sex with someone that can't walk, that's rape.

This concept is unrelated to gender and that's exactly how the law should be enforced. Evenly among genders and determining how intoxicated everyone was to determine guilt if any.

Without more details from the story about how drunk everyone was, it's hard to tell if this was unjust.

[–]ralphswanson[S] 55 points56 points57 points 5 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

Yes. Both kids were drinking according to the judgment. In fact, the trail judge reject the accused testimony because she said he was too intoxicated to remember correctly.

I wasn't at this party, and I don't know these kids, but whenever a drunken couple have sex in Canada only men go to jail. No woman has ever been charged in Canada for sexual assault against a man. I know the courts in Canada, and they are very sexist against men. For example, if a man lies about birth control, the SCC says that that is rape. However, if a women lies about birth control then no crime is committed, even though a women can get a government-paid-for abortion should she want to avoid parenthood while a man has no options. The SCC says that this is an equal application of the law because only women can become pregnant. Equality is a very flexible word to Canadian courts.

[–]Laytheblameonluck 11 points12 points13 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

An impact of such laws is the gender difference in this idea or argument that sex is a relationship / sex isn't a relationship.

Essentially, under such laws, it is the woman who gets to decide whether sex is meaningless or was a representation of commitment.

Historically marriage laws played a role in this but not anymore. But why?

So, if a guy believes the sex was meaningless, he may find he is up for child support.

But if a woman believes the sex is meaningless, she can have an abortion. If the guy believed sex was an expression of commitment, it doesn't matter.

What's the impact of this?

I've been reading various forums on Reddit with high female participation, notably /r/deadbedrooms, and the argument of "sex is love vs sex isn't love" often comes up.

Ironically, it is men who argue that sex is love, and it is the women who argue that sex isn't love.

The women argue that they can have sex without commitment whereas men can't and they pride themselves on that point. Correspondingly, they also imply women can have commitment without sex, or have a relationship without sex, and men can't either.

So it's a strange impact how we change laws regarding sex presuming it is men who pressure to have sex without committing to the outcomes and now the tables have turned.

Historically, women saying sex was meaningless was absurd - the law didn't allow unmarried women the luxury of taking such risks.

So, I do wonder if the laws should change to push that paternal investment be consented, either through marriage or some other instrument or agreement.

An incentive for women to do this would help rebalance this inequality.

[–]Objective-Truth-4339 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What makes you think that women want equality?

[–]Dembara 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

fact, the trail judge reject the accused testimony because she said he was too intoxicated to remember correctly

That was not one of the reasons listed. The reasons the judge gave were appalling, imo, basically amounting to (paraphrasing) "a teenager was hesitant when talking about how intoxicated he was and when asked in cross-examination about the details of engaging in sex with a girl, that makes his testimony suspect and not enough to give reasonable doubt."

The judge also expressed that he believed it was not reasonable to think that an intoxicated girl would out of the blue say "fuck me." Again, I don't buy the judge's reasoning in the least, but it not what you described.

[–]Laytheblameonluck 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Holy cow! A drunk women can say "fuck me" and mean it.

[–]Dembara 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Whether she "meant it" is not the question. It is a matter of mens rea. Establishing she was too drunk to consent, is his story that she said "fuck me" which he thought was her consenting to (and initiating) sex a reasonable possibility? I would say yes, it is sufficient to create reasonable doubt. The judge, for some reason, said no--such an occurrence would be unreasonable to believe without stronger evidence.

[–]Laytheblameonluck 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Her drinking, my god, it's not implausible that she did consent to sex and was having a blackout.

It's very rare to have a blackout and not be a habitual drinker.

Alcoholics can drive across town during a blackout, the courts know this.

All the planning regarding sex was put to him. The court was implying it was his sole responsibility regarding contraception, initiation..etc

[–]Dembara 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

She didn't necessarily have a blackout. She claims she thinks she fell asleep prior to the sex but is not sure because her memory is iffy. The judge did not use her blackout as evidence of her drunkenness. Indeed, he rejected it as a basis for the reasons you say (which are also in precedent). Rather, witness testimonial of her having trouble walking after the sex occurred among other factors was his basis for stating she was incapable of consenting (he did not rule whether she was awake or not).

The court did not imply anything of the sort. So long as there was a reasonable doubt that he did not believe she didn't consent or did not willfully ignore her lack of consent, then it was not rape according to the court. What the judge found (which i find ridiculous) is that it is unreasonably to doubt that he knew she couldn't/didn't consent (or was willfully ignoring it).

[–]Laytheblameonluck 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

But her testimony is she says she blacked out? The judge rejected it because what she testifies as her drinking history that it never happened before?

[–]Dembara 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

He rejected her not remembering it as evidence of her being too drunk to consent. He did not reject that she did not remember the event. She did not actually give testimony. Rather, for her series of events they used the policy interviews with her where she noted she couldn't remember parts of the night, did not remember the intercourse and thought she had fallen asleep at some point before then but was rather uncertain about it.

[–]Laytheblameonluck 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

But why would it be that she didn't necessarily have a blackout when she states she had a blackout in her testimony?

Why was it beyond reason that she blacked out yet came across as sober and aware?

[–]Objective-Truth-4339 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The focus should be on the fact that the judge didn't except the boy's testimony because of his intoxication just as the girl's consent would not be excepted because she was intoxicated. Under this logic they should both have been charged with rape but charges tossed as neither boy's or girl's testimony would be excepted.

[–]Jsk17924 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m sorry to respond to your comments multiple times, your one of the only people here who actually read it, and have an understanding of it.

I do agree with your points 100%, her reasoning of why the accused was unreliable was appalling, and so it seemed like she was making some inferences.

I disagree with your first point. She does use his intoxication to invalidate the idea of her saying fuck me and also invalidating the idea that he talked to his friends after they came down the hill.

The judge makes him reliable for the timeline of when his friends arrive, but casts doubt in his reliability right afterwards when it comes to taking with his friends.

[–]rabel111 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Sexist pigs in wigs start with the presumption that when considering intoxication in rape or sexual assault cases, women are never considered aggressors, and men are always considered aggressors.

Therefore her intoxication is only considered as impacting her capacity to consent. Her instigation of sex with an intoxicated child, and her capacity to understand whether that was wrong wasn't considered at all; i.e. she is presumed to be a victim, not by law, but by sexist bias of the sexist pigs behind the bench.

His intoxication was only considered as to whether it impacted his capacity to understand if what he was doing was wrong, his capacity to consent was not considered, because the sexist pig in the wig presumed he was the agressor.

This case was decided not by fact or intent. The mens rea and actus reus were irrepairably biased by the sexist presumptions of responsibility and vulnerability.

[–]Powerful-Intern-8801 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I dont know why you're getting downvoted lol. No where in the article does the supreme court say anything about women not being able to rape

[–]mods_r_feminazis6 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He said he didn't remember either...so that means she should be charged with rape too

Fucking misandrist feminazi piece of shit simp

[–]BeastMcQueen 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The world is so frustrating.

[–]Lostmyvcardtoafish 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is ridiculous how this isn’t common sense that rape is rape even when women do it

[–]redFenning22 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The definition of rape is expanding into some crazy territory. Now "yes" is a "no" lol.

Taking advantage of someone is different from rape.

And what of they're both drunk, they both raped each other? Lmao. So fucking stupid

This is what happens when you allow leftists into politics and women to vote.

[–]douglasg14b -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is what happens when you allow leftists into politics and women to vote.

/u/redFenning22

This is what gives this subreddit a bad name.

Can we not with the blatant sexism & toxic politicalism backed by a lack of critical thought?

Seriously, how TF do you manage to mentally hoop yourself into such asinine conclusions...

[–]redFenning22 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Welcome to reality. Female politicians pushing this and women voting for it, I wonder how I came to this conclusion?

Women don't (generally) operate and build the world, they don't have the tools to consistently make high quality voting decisions.

Argue what you will, the truth is the truth.

[–]Protektor35 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

Sounds like a bullshit story to me. Because they don't mention the case, or names involved or anything. Nothing to let us research the case and see if the article is even correct. Often times newspapers do not get the total information on legal rulings and report them incorrectly.

I'm not buying this slant on this particular case. There are too many unknowns and a lot of lack of information to support it.

[–]Jsk17924 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2017/2017oncj277/2017oncj277.html

[–]Protektor35 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Yea reading that it is clear that they totally blamed the boy and gave the girl a total pass for her behavior. In other words it is typical court stuff protect the female at all costs and the male must be awful because he is male and should know better. This is whole reason for the MGTOW movement. Women create a hostile environment then don't be surprised when males want no part of that environment. Women bitch there are no good men left to marry. It's because they totally blew that up and created a completely hostile environment for men. When you blow up stuff don't complain that you don't have it any more.

I would love to see the court transcription but I bet they won't make that available because of how the case went. I would totally appeal if I were the boy.

[–]Jsk17924 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

It’s a complicated case

IMO the judge does some mental gymnastics when it comes to the reliability of the accused.

I could rationalize how the Supreme Court finds its reasonable, bit I disagree with them. There were some points missing in the timeline or weren’t provable.

He was very drunk but it was seen as not an excuse. Her drunkenness (which was worst than his) seems to make her prompting sex (if true) invalid.

[–]rabel111 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

This is the extreme sexist bias in our courts. Thats courts based on the Westminster system of justice or western culture.

Women are seen as vulnerable and impressionable, and are rarely prosecuted with the same energy as men. When convicted, women are given shorter sentences with less likelihood of prison. When a woman and a man are both involved in the commission of a crime, the woman will be considered to be acting under the influence of the man, and while be held less responsible, or seen as a victim of coersion. There is a long, long list of precedent cases that demonstrate this sexist bias.

This rape verdict only considered the womans intoxication as impacting her capacity to consent. Her instigation of sex with an intoxicated child wasn't considered at all, because of the sexist presumption that the male always instigates sex, and the woman can only consent or not consent.

His intoxication was only considered as to whether it impacted his capacity to understand if what he was doing was wrong, because as a male, he is presumed to be the one instigating sex. The impact of intoxication on his capacity to consent to her advances was not considered, because men's consent to sex is considered an oximoron, men always want sex.

That difference in approach to intoxication results in all alcohol rape cases only convict men, and never convict women. When two intoxicated people have sex, the male will always be the rapist under current sexist Canadian approach to intoxication, consent and responsibility. The poor kid will now be a rapist for the rest of his life, for a stupid drunken mistake that most likely, both intoxicated kids were responsible for. The femtrolls on this reddit will most likely support this decision.

[–]Jsk17924 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don’t disagree that the influence of alcohol was attributed differently in the court for the boy and girl.

Part of it might be that she initiated the case against him. It would be interesting to see if he had filed against her?

[–]Protektor35 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Was his drunkenness worse? How do you prove that? Not everyone who gets totally smashed blacks out and can't remember the night before. I out drank many friends in college and would be totally smashed and yet I remembered everything that happened. Friends who drank way less than me would have black outs. So no black outs is not a good indicator of who drank more or was more drunk.

[–]Jsk17924 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

If you read the case, there does seem to be enough evidence that hers was worst. Though the witnesses are mainly her friends. Her being more drunk wasn’t the part of the case that concerns me. It seemed they were kissing and drinking together.

[–]Protektor35 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Did they take a BAC? If not then it is purely conjecture about who was more drunk or who was less drunk. Opinion isn't fact about who was most drunk. Everyone handles being drunk different. Again I will point to the fact I could out drink friends by a large amount and be more legally drunk than them based on breathalyzer (BAC) but we behaved differently. Yes we did play around once testing that. Friends were surprised how much I could drink and how high my blood alcohol was compared to how others behaved. So again behavior isn't a clear indicator of how drunk someone is.

[–]Jsk17924 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

It’s complicated, you make some good points.

In this case the argument that she was kore intoxicated seem pretty strong to me(though a reasonable person can disagree).

She was taken to the hospital the next day for alcohol poisoning and threw up. Multiple witnesses have her unable to walk. The problem is a lot of witnesses are her friends. Reading the case, the argument that she was facing more effects was strong (though he was also quite drunk).

You have a good point that they may have drank the same amount but he handled it better.

I think the main point is that she was under greater duress that he was. Though there are other problems in the case as well.

[–]Protektor35 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Did someone hold a gun to her head to make her drink? She was the one who asked to have sex. She needs to own that. He was drunk too so how was he suppose to know that she would black out and remember nothing? She needs to be held responsible for her actions and choices. If you ask to have sex and someone takes you up on it you don't get to claim rape/assault/etc later because you regret it. That is bullshit!

[–]Jsk17924 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I don’t disagree with you on that.

If she did make the proposition then I would agree neither side is really at fault.

I was just trying to say there is evidence that she was more abbreviated.

[–]Dembara 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

This was the final appeal. The linked doc is the trial judge but it just went to the Supreme Court which upheld the trial decision (like in the US, the higher courts in Canada, as a rule, prefer maintaining decisions of fact on the part of the lower courts, which were really the only main issues since the law is pretty straightforward).

[–]Protektor35 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So basically a girl who wanted to have sex with him while drunk gets to ruin his life. That is complete garbage. If your dumb ass drinks so much you can't remember then everything that happens is your fault since you made such shitty choices. No one forced you at gun point to keep drinking until you blacked out. You did that, so own it.

[–]Dembara 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Tbf, we don't know how it came to the prosecutors as far as I know. From what was mentioned of her police interview, it did not actually sound like she was trying to accuse him of rape per say, but that might just be my reading of it.

Ultimately, I would say we just don't know what happened. It is possible what he did was rape (she indicated she might have fallen asleep before the incident but wasn't sure and her memory was spotty), but it is also entirely plausible that it wasn't. The judge ruling it beyond a reasonable doubt is absurd (imo), there is plenty of doubt considering there were only two witnesses to the incident one of whom has no direct recollection of it and the other of whom claims it was consensual. It is rather unreasonable to dismiss the only testimony of the actual occurrence as being unreasonable and not plausible because a boy seemed awkward and hesitant discussing his drinking and the intercourse during cross examination and because the judge "couldn't believe" an intoxicated girl might plausibly say "fuck me" "out of the blue."

[–]Protektor35 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Well the judge may not believe it but I have absolutely seen it in high school and college. I actually had a friend who was a basketball player in college, very tall and a huge penis, no joke came down to his knee. I actually saw a drunk girl beg him for it and was running her hands all over his crotch while on her knees. So being a college idiot he whips it out at the party in front of everyone and slaps her face with it while she was on her knees going "is this what you want?!?!" Yea she loved it and grabbed and started sucking right there in front of everyone. So yea drunk girls do stupid shit. Seen the same kind of thing in high school girls begging the popular jocks to go off an have sex with them at parties in high school when everyone had been drinking and everyone was clearly drunk. So yea I have seen it happen many times.

[–]Dembara 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Drunk teen does something stupid regarding sex" is not an unheard of occurrence.

[–]MydnightRose 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Clearly this court document frames it differently, she passed out. Thought those situations were considered rape decades ago.

[–]Jsk17924 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

She can’t remember the night. She does claim to age flashes of intercourse. It’s unclear whether she can’t remember or was passed out when it happened.

[–]MydnightRose -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The document stated at some point she passed out.

[–]Jsk17924 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s unclear if it was during the intercourse or not.

[–]Dembara -4 points-3 points-2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Cbc is legit, but read the actual article, the decision is not so radical as OP makes it out to be, gender was not a factor in the decision. Rather, "The trial judge found the girl was not capable of consenting to sex and that the boy, beyond a reasonable doubt, knew or was wilfully blind to this fact."

A lot of stuff is not released to the public because the case involves minors.

[–]Jsk17924 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It’s not as as straightforward as OP makes it, it’s complicated case. Though I found some of the nudges arguments troubling.

[–]Dembara 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yea, IMO, it was wrongly decided and there is reasonable doubt based on the accused testimony. But the decision was not gendered and more complicated than made out.

[–]Jsk17924 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think the gendered concern was if your drunk and a drunk girl proposes sex, is the onus on her for prompting sex, or on you for accepting it.

I think the gender issue is whether is is the responsibility goes to the drunk man for proposing sex to drunk women or accepting it from drunk women.

For example If the girl did say fuck me and he was to drunk to consent, was he raped as well?

[–]Protektor35 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Of course not. The courts would blame him for drinking so much, but they clearly won't blame the female for drinking that much and making shit choices. If you drink so much you black out then you make shit choices and should own it.

[–]Jsk17924 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think drinking a lot justifies being raped.

I think two drunk people having sex shouldn’t always be considered rape either.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The article doesn't really state how drunk the kid was. If the girl absolutely hammered while he was just buzzed, it's pretty much rape right there.

[–]darealc -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The girl in this case needed help walking, could barely speak, vomited and was blackout drunk. Having sex with a blackout drunk girl and you didn’t talk about sex before hand is rape. The judge made the right choice, even if the man drank there was no mention of his intoxication level so it was likely not very high.

[–]invinciblequill 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is rape if she cannot consent. You seem to be suggesting the same verdict wouldn't have been given if the genders were reversed, a claim for which I demand a citation.

[–]MydnightRose -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There are those in here stating that the case isn't as clear cut as this article is stating. This makes me want more info, if he was drinking but cognitive aware and her drunk level was at a 10 then it would constitute as rape.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter