# 20%



## Jolly

According to WaPo, 1 in 5 college women said they were sexually violated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2015/06/12/1-in-5-women-say-they-were-violated/?hpid=z6

I find that a bit hard to believe...


----------



## Jolly

And speaking of college women who said they were violated, an update on Mattress Girl:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/08/mattress-girls-mom-plugs-her-porno-performance-piece-on-facebook/


----------



## Evons hubby

I have never been bitten by a snake.... but then I dont hang out in snake dens.


----------



## Irish Pixie

I don't think it's correct either. I think it's higher like the article indicates, "In all, the poll found, 25 percent of young women and 7 percent of young men say they suffered unwanted sexual incidents in college."


----------



## Tricky Grama

You have to look at the drinking parties. Been goin' on forever but wrongfully, some get into situations where neither can remember what they did. Many discover they've 'had sexual intercourse w/o consent'. 
I'm not quoting from this article, but from many others I've read. 
Wrongwrongwrong to force a woman, and just as wrong to take advantage when she's 'incapacitated'. I'd imagine, tho, there's males who have no recollection of what they did either.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> You have to look at the drinking parties. Been goin' on forever but wrongfully, some get into situations where neither can remember what they did. Many discover they've 'had sexual intercourse w/o consent'.
> I'm not quoting from this article, but from many others I've read.
> Wrongwrongwrong to force a woman, and just as wrong to take advantage when she's 'incapacitated'. *I'd imagine, tho, there's males who have no recollection of what they did either.*


I am sure there are..... but I am going to take the fifth on that. :angel:


----------



## Fennick

Jolly said:


> According to WaPo, 1 in 5 college women said they were sexually violated.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2015/06/12/1-in-5-women-say-they-were-violated/?hpid=z6
> 
> I find that a bit hard to believe...


Why do you find it hard to believe? Because you think it's more or less?

They're way off. It's much higher, more like 3 out of 5. Maybe more, like 5 out of 5, depending on the regions. Most women are too ashamed or threatened to admit that they've been violated and many have been so conditioned to it from girlhood onwards they don't recognize when they've been violated.


----------



## Oxankle

Young men have no control over their actions when driven by hormones and alcohol. Women, too, let down their guard when they've had enough alcohol to make them drunk and stupid. Put those two together and what the hell do you expect?/???

Any woman should know this by the time she's thirteen, and certainly by college age. This is nothing new; it was going on in my grandfather's time. A co-worker, a bit older than I, told me once that during a prohibition-era river party where moonshine was being passed around a woman threw herself backward over a fender and shouted "Sombody .... Me!" Stupidly I asked "What happened then?" and my friend said "Somebody did".


----------



## Irish Pixie

Oxankle said:


> Young men have no control over their actions when driven by hormones and alcohol. Women, too, let down their guard when they've had enough alcohol to make them drunk and stupid. Put those two together and what the hell do you expect?/???
> 
> Any woman should know this by the time she's thirteen, and certainly by college age.


Are you saying that men have so little control around women that rape is fine and dandy when they're driven by hormones and alcohol? So what is a women to do- stay home and make sure she doesn't walk by a drunken rapist accidentally? 

Rapists cause rape. Woman have the right to drink, go out, wear what they want, and not be raped.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Fennick said:


> Why do you find it hard to believe? Because you think it's more or less?
> 
> They're way off. It's much higher, more like 3 out of 5. Maybe more, like 5 out of 5, depending on the regions. Most women are too ashamed or threatened to admit that they've been violated and many have been so conditioned to it from girlhood onwards they don't recognize when they've been violated.


Thank you. If I had posted this it would have been pushed off as "angry/hysterical woman" but it's true.


----------



## My2butterflies

Those are very low numbers. Most everyone I know or have met has a story to tell. Not all in collage, but at some point in their life. It's sad, very, very sad.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying that men have so little control around women that rape is fine and dandy when they're driven by hormones and alcohol? So what is a women to do- stay home and make sure she doesn't walk by a drunken rapist accidentally?
> 
> Rapists cause rape. Woman have the right to drink, go out, wear what they want, and not be raped.


I agree with you whole heartedly that rape is NOT fine and dandy. I do however think its unrealistic to dance in a snakepit and expect to not get bitten. I know I dont go out looking for snakes and avoid those areas where they are known to hang out.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I agree with you whole heartedly that rape is NOT fine and dandy. I do however think its unrealistic to dance in a snakepit and expect to not get bitten. I know I dont go out looking for snakes and avoid those areas where they are known to hang out.


Because men are incapable of controlling themselves? Like animals?


----------



## Ozarks Tom

I'm calling BS.

_The original 20 percent number was suspect from the start. The 2007 survey used an exceedingly generous definition of sexual assault and its response rate was relatively low. A more comprehensive and rigorous Bureau of Justice Statistics survey subsequently put the rate at 6.1 per 1,000, and found that sexual assault was 1.2 times more frequent for nonstudents than students and had &#8212; in fact &#8212; been declining since the 1990s. When confronted with the BJS survey, even Senator Gillibrand removed the one in five number from her website.
_
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419716/posts-new-poll-campus-sexual-assault-bogus-david-french

All it takes is a little examination, and the whole thing falls apart.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Ozarks Tom said:


> I'm calling BS.
> 
> _The original 20 percent number was suspect from the start. The 2007 survey used an exceedingly generous definition of sexual assault and its response rate was relatively low. A more comprehensive and rigorous Bureau of Justice Statistics survey subsequently put the rate at 6.1 per 1,000, and found that sexual assault was 1.2 times more frequent for nonstudents than students and had &#8212; in fact &#8212; been declining since the 1990s. When confronted with the BJS survey, even Senator Gillibrand removed the one in five number from her website.
> _
> Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419716/posts-new-poll-campus-sexual-assault-bogus-david-french
> 
> All it takes is a little examination, and the whole thing falls apart.


BS on the article or the fact that at least 25% (in reality it's much much higher) of women are sexually assaulted?

Oh, I see you're quibbling about what is considered sexual assault... it's unwanted forced touching in a sexual manner. If I say no and you touch me in a private area, that's sexual assault.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Because men are incapable of controlling themselves? Like animals?


Some men do have control issues, it might be in a ladies best interest to avoid places they are known to congregate. And yes, some men are like animals, as are some women. Thats how it is, and always has been, I thought most people knew this already.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Some men do have control issues, it might be in a ladies best interest to avoid places they are known to congregate. And yes, some men are like animals, as are some women. Thats how it is, and always has been, I thought most people knew this already.


Some people know it all too well. :flame:


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> BS on the article or the fact that at least 25% (in reality it's much much higher) of women are sexually assaulted?
> 
> Oh, I see you're quibbling about what is considered sexual assault... it's unwanted forced touching in a sexual manner. *If I say no *and you touch me in a private area, that's sexual assault.


And therein lies a lot of the problem.... when your body language and your eyes say one thing and your lips say another.... it can get confusing for some men.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Some people know it all too well. :flame:


Agreed, but not all of us allow such things to make us "victims". Some of us learn from experience and avoid such people in the future.


----------



## kasilofhome

Sorry, just because you call yourself a lady doesn't mean they can't start , lead or ask for it sorry... xx chromosome often want sex... not just xy'ers. But just like domestic violence against men men don't come forward. Now, that is an under reported reality.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Sorry, just because you call yourself a lady doesn't mean they can't start , lead or ask for it sorry... xx chromosome often want sex... not just xy'ers. But just like domestic violence against men men don't come forward. Now, that is an under reported reality.


We try not to be whiners.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Agreed, *but* not all of us allow such things to make us "victims". Some of us learn from experience and avoid such people in the future.


As soon as you add that "but" you become part of the problem. Rape is never justified, no ifs, ands, or buts. Not even if a naked woman walks through a room full of drunks. 

Ever been sexually assaulted? I don't suggest it. And it until it happens to you, you cannot conceive of the total and complete violation of your soul. I hope that no woman close to you ever has to learn from the experience, suffer it's effect, and become as you say "victims". 

If having something done to do you (collective you) that you have absolutely no control over makes you (again, collective you) a victim than so be it.


----------



## mrsgcpete

Yvonne's hubby said:


> We try not to be whiners.


so clarify for me, are the women who are being sexually assaulted whiners or the ones that are having the crap beat out of them


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Sorry, just because you call yourself a lady doesn't mean they can't start , lead or ask for it sorry... xx chromosome often want sex... not just xy'ers. But just like domestic violence against men men don't come forward. Now, that is an under reported reality.


Are you honestly saying that women asked to be raped? If so, that is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read on here, and that's saying something. 

Men can be sexually and domestically assaulted, who said they couldn't?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And therein lies a lot of the problem.... when your body language and your eyes say one thing and your lips say another.... it can get confusing for some men.


So that's a justification for rape? Good to know that's how you feel. It says a bunch about your character.


----------



## kasilofhome

Ever see a cougar in action. Men can and due face sexual assault by women. They are pushed, threatened and used stop being sexist.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Ever see a cougar in action. Men can and due face sexual assault by women. They are pushed, threatened and used stop being sexist.


Exactly where did I say they couldn't be? Please point it out. In fact, I said this, "Men can be sexually and domestically assaulted, who said they couldn't?"


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Putting a pat on the fanny, or a clumsy grope in the same category as rape is ridiculous, and when a person reads that's been done, it diminishes the whole subject. Similar to the military counting "casualties", which can be a grazing wound or a bullet between the eyes, the term "sexual assault" covers way too many possibilities to be taken seriously in data form.


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't think it's correct either. I think it's higher like the article indicates, "In all, the poll found, 25 percent of young women and 7 percent of young men say they suffered unwanted sexual incidents in college."



I must admit I think they ran into a bunch of liars or trashy people. 
Read carefully what is being said "unwanted" , who hasn't had unwanted attention ? That's not even bad just not desired .


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Because men are incapable of controlling themselves? Like animals?


Evidently some are, and because of that, they think others must be also


----------



## RichNC

Ozarks Tom said:


> Putting a pat on the fanny, or a clumsy grope in the same category as rape is ridiculous, and when a person reads that's been done, it diminishes the whole subject. Similar to the military counting "casualties", which can be a grazing wound or a bullet between the eyes, the term "sexual assault" covers way too many possibilities to be taken seriously in data form.


If you had patted my wife on the fanny or pretended a clumsy grope, I would have had you arrested!


----------



## Irish Pixie

Ozarks Tom said:


> Putting a pat on the fanny, or a clumsy grope in the same category as rape is ridiculous, and when a person reads that's been done, it diminishes the whole subject. Similar to the military counting "casualties", which can be a grazing wound or a bullet between the eyes, the term "sexual assault" covers way too many possibilities to be taken seriously in data form.


So, you think it's OK to grope women because you don't consider it sexual assault? What if she does? Is it serious then?


----------



## Irish Pixie

AmericanStand said:


> I must admit I think they ran into a bunch of liars or trashy people.
> Read carefully what is being said "unwanted" , who hasn't had unwanted attention ? That's not even bad just not desired .


Unwanted is unwanted. I don't like it when men say crude things to me on the street either. Would you? What if they touched you? What if they grabbed you? That still OK, it's just unwanted attention, right? Just ignore them, right? Some people take that as a challenge and become more aggressive. Still OK?

To those of you with daughters and granddaughters, still OK with a little groping and unwanted attention?


----------



## painterswife

I understand now why young men or women think it is all right to touch someone that does not want to be touched. Their elders think it is okay.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> I understand now why young men or women think it is all right to touch someone that does not want to be touched. Their elders think it is okay.


It's all up to what is taught, isn't it?


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> I understand now why young men or women think it is all right to touch someone that does not want to be touched. Their elders think it is okay.


No......assumption.... reality it's not rape. Big difference.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> No......assumption.... reality it's not rape. Big difference.


How did you get from touch to rape from my post. I will have to assume assumption.


----------



## kasilofhome

Ozarks Tom said:


> Putting a pat on the fanny, or a clumsy grope in the same category as rape is ridiculous, and when a person reads that's been done, it diminishes the whole subject. Similar to the military counting "casualties", which can be a grazing wound or a bullet between the eyes, the term "sexual assault" covers way too many possibilities to be taken seriously in data form.



Cause of just how sexual assault IS equated to rape when the numbers for stats is calculated..


----------



## wr

While I agree that there is no justification for sexual assault or unwanted sexual advances, I do see quite a few younger women who put themselves in positions that I wouldn't because it has always been my belief that my personal safety has been my responsibility. 

In my college days, I made very sure that I brought and drank only beverages that I knew had not been touched by others, I did not drink until I passed out and I was mindful of exits, in case things did get out of hand. 

I've walked hundreds of miles in inner city neighborhoods and bike paths in Calgary but I am always mindful of my surroundings, which is much harder when wearing a set of earbuds. 

I have certainly been on the receiving end of unwanted sexual advances, including a time spent working in an office environment and I certainly didn't appreciate a pat on the bum or an arm across my breasts when showing me something but oddly enough, guys seem less inclined when you have your hand on their testicles when you serve warning about repeat performances. 

Nobody should be subjected to unwanted sexual contact but in the day and age of date rape drugs and some lethal street drugs there is an element of danger that wasn't there when we were younger and that's not even taking into consideration the social media aspect.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Ozarks Tom said:


> Putting a pat on the fanny, or a clumsy grope in the same category as rape is ridiculous, and when a person reads that's been done, it diminishes the whole subject. Similar to the military counting "casualties", which can be a grazing wound or a bullet between the eyes, the term "sexual assault" covers way too many possibilities to be taken seriously in data form.


Tricky Grama, I noticed you liked this post. You have granddaughters, right? You OK with them getting a pat on the fanny or a clumsy grope? How about unwanted attention, is that OK? At what point is it NOT OK?


----------



## painterswife

wr said:


> While I agree that there is no justification for sexual assault or unwanted sexual advances, I do see quite a few younger women who put themselves in positions that I wouldn't because it has always been my belief that my personal safety has been my responsibility.
> 
> In my college days, I made very sure that I brought and drank only beverages that I knew had not been touched by others, I did not drink until I passed out and I was mindful of exits, in case things did get out of hand.
> 
> I've walked hundreds of miles in inner city neighborhoods and bike paths in Calgary but I am always mindful of my surroundings, which is much harder when wearing a set of earbuds.
> 
> I have certainly been on the receiving end of unwanted sexual advances, including a time spent working in an office environment and I certainly didn't appreciate a pat on the bum or an arm across my breasts when showing me something but oddly enough, guys seem less inclined when you have your hand on their testicles when you serve warning about repeat performances.
> 
> Nobody should be subjected to unwanted sexual contact but in the day and age of date rape drugs and some lethal street drugs there is an element of danger that wasn't there when we were younger and that's not even taking into consideration the social media aspect.


I agree everyone should work at being safe but those saying boys will be boys feed the idea that it is not so bad. Wrong, wrong, wrong and a big part of today's youth sexual assult problems.


----------



## Marshloft

Irish Pixie said:


> As soon as you add that "but" you become part of the problem. Rape is never justified, no ifs, ands, or buts.* Not even if a naked woman walks through a room full of drunks.
> *
> If having something done to do you (collective you) that you have absolutely no control over makes you (again, collective you) a victim than so be it.


 I'm pretty sure she's asking for it. How can that be construed as rape?


----------



## tarbe

Irish Pixie said:


> Tricky Grama, I noticed you liked this post. You have granddaughters, right? You OK with them getting a pat on the fanny or a clumsy grope? How about unwanted attention, is that OK? At what point is it NOT OK?



Wow, this is twisted.

Tom never said the fanny pat or grope was ok.

He said putting those things in the same category as rape diminishes the act of rape.

I think...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Marshloft said:


> I'm pretty sure she's asking for it. How can that be construed as rape?


Sigh. If you realized that rape is alwasy immoral and wrong perhaps it would make more sense to you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

tarbe said:


> Wow, this is twisted.
> 
> Tom never said the fanny pat or grope was ok.
> 
> He said putting those things in the same category as rape diminishes the act of rape.
> 
> I think...


It isn't in the same category as rape... so it's OK. Like a grazing rather than a flesh wound. 

It's not in the same category as rape, but that doesn't make it OK.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> I agree everyone should work at being safe but those saying boys will be boys feed the idea that it is not so bad. Wrong, wrong, wrong and a big part of today's youth sexual assult problems.


Yes. The whole, "No doesn't mean no because her eyes said yes" thing.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> I agree everyone should work at being safe but those saying boys will be boys feed the idea that it is not so bad. Wrong, wrong, wrong and a big part of today's youth sexual assult problems.


Point to the post that stated that. Or even supported that.


----------



## Patchouli

It just keeps getting lower and lower around here......


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Just to be clear, I've never said touching someone uninvited was acceptable. My post was very clear, in that lumping a touch with rape in statistics warps the data to the point where it's useless.

If you'd read my previous link, you'd see the studies quoted were written with a very certain agenda in mind, and aren't factual. Just as many people here would rather focus on unwanted advances, rather than the subject of the thread, the authors of the 20% study would have us believe rapists are lurking around every corner.

RichinNJ, don't worry, I wouldn't touch your wife, and please don't take my comments out of context.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Ozarks Tom said:


> Just to be clear, I've never said touching someone uninvited was acceptable. My post was very clear, in that lumping a touch with rape in statistics warps the data to the point where it's useless.
> 
> If you'd read my previous link, you'd see the studies quoted were written with a very certain agenda in mind, and aren't factual. Just as many people here would rather focus on unwanted advances, rather than the subject of the thread, the authors of the 20% study would have us believe rapists are lurking around every corner.
> 
> RichinNJ, don't worry, I wouldn't touch your wife, and please don't take my comments out of context.


That's not what the study said. It said, "Twenty percent of young women who attended college during the past four years say they were sexually assaulted, according to a Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll. But the circle of victims on the nationâs campuses is probably even larger."

I say that the percentage is even higher.


----------



## tarbe

Irish Pixie said:


> It isn't in the same category as rape... so it's OK. Like a grazing rather than a flesh wound.
> 
> It's not in the same category as rape, but that doesn't make it OK.


Ok, you want to just make stuff up.

Stop projecting, and we can discuss.


----------



## wr

The poll topic is almost too broad which is why some are having problems accepting the numbers. 

Unwanted sexual advances covers an awful lot of ground but most men wouldn't dream of fondling a waitress or patting the office manager's bum, holler filth at an office worker, or invite a young professional woman out to his Beemer for a bit of oral sex so it truly is hard for them to comprehend that others will. 


These and more happen every day to women and I'd sure like to see it end because it is degrading but it is very hard for gentleman to realize that not all men are as well raised and women are not flattered by that kind of behaviour.


----------



## plowjockey

If an extremely drunk boy, forcably tries to kiss an extremely drunk girl, who does not want to be kissed (at least by him), counts as a sexual assault, then one can imagine the numbers being pretty high.

I don't even know what to say about this.



> A 25-year-old woman recalled a date in her freshman year with a classmate at the University of Pittsburgh. They went to a friend&#8217;s house. He handed her a drink. It might have been a juiced vodka. A very strong one.
> 
> 
> &#8220;I woke up the next morning without any pants on,&#8221; the woman said, &#8220;and without any recollection.&#8221; A few weeks later, she said, the man &#8220;made a comment about wanting to see me again and do what he did before. It led me to believe we had some sort of sexual contact.&#8221;





> If so, the woman said, it was without her consent; she was incapacitated.
> &#8220;I was in no state of mind&#8221; to say yes to sex, she said. &#8220;The memory is so, so foggy.&#8221;


She didn't even know if she said "OK' or "no", or if she had additional drinks.

Is personal responsibly a factor in these issues? 

should it be?


----------



## Irish Pixie

plowjockey said:


> If an extremely drunk boy, forcably tries to kiss an extremely drunk girl, who does not want to be kissed (at least by him), counts as a sexual assault, then one can imagine the numbers being pretty high.
> 
> I don't even know what to say about this.
> 
> She didn't even know if she said "OK' or "no", or if she has additional drinks.
> 
> Is personal responsibly a factor in these issues?
> 
> should it be?


The point was that she was in no condition to consent to sex. No consent = rape. If alcohol is OK are roofies (Rohypnol) too? She won't remember much then either...

And no, I don't consider forcible kissing, as long as that is as far as it went, sexual assault.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Irish Pixie said:


> And no, I don't consider forcible kissing, as long as that is as far as it went, sexual assault*.*


Ah, but that's what the study you're so bent on defending does, plus many things most sensible people wouldn't consider assault.

It's a very flawed study, written with a conclusion already in mind, and based on broad definitions.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Ozarks Tom said:


> Ah, but that's what the study you're so bent on defending does, plus many things most sensible people wouldn't consider assault.
> 
> It's a very flawed study, written with a conclusion already in mind, and based on broad definitions.


According to you, and you see nothing wrong with things that are abhorrent to me. And that's my opinion, another woman may feel that forcible kissing IS sexual assault. 

You can mock that study all you want, sexual assault is real and it happens to a lot of women. The study percentage is too low.


----------



## wr

plowjockey said:


> If an extremely drunk boy, forcably tries to kiss an extremely drunk girl, who does not want to be kissed (at least by him), counts as a sexual assault, then one can imagine the numbers being pretty high.
> 
> I don't even know what to say about this.
> 
> She didn't even know if she said "OK' or "no", or if she had additional drinks.
> 
> Is personal responsibly a factor in these issues?
> 
> should it be?



My daughter bartends at a very popular nightclub and part of nightclub staff job description is to watch for 'extras' put in drinks and for patrons that may have received ecstasy or any one of the date rape drugs. 

A couple young men helping a seemingly inebriated gal out of the club isn't always as innocent as it seems.


----------



## kasilofhome

plowjockey said:


> If an extremely drunk boy, forcably tries to kiss an extremely drunk girl, who does not want to be kissed (at least by him), counts as a sexual assault, then one can imagine the numbers being pretty high.
> 
> I don't even know what to say about this.
> 
> She didn't even know if she said "OK' or "no", or if she had additional drinks.
> 
> Is personal responsibly a factor in these issues?
> 
> should it be?




Things of that nature is why I personally find is biased. I also know of a male being threatened with sexual assault charge. At school. During a drama play. For intermission a dance and singing group was to do one show and they never came to any practices.... day of their one performance ..... where as the drama kids had done the show for two week already and had every cue mesmerized.

The choirs director had his girls changing on stage but between one of the rows of curtains. There was a costume change for the drama and they were choreographed to cross thru that passage to pick up costumes.. no teach or adult to prevent an accident where unknowingly to the male that lead the group to the other side from running into the girls....

But it was the boy because he was a male who caught discipline with a threat of sexual assault..... for honesty just being in a play....

Often times I think it is far too easy just to defame men. 

Why the girls were instructed to change there and not the dress room for females.....the impact of changing in front of girls two years older......not wise.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Things of that nature is why I personally find is biased. I also know of a male being threatened with sexual assault charge. At school. During a drama play. For intermission a dance and singing group was to do one show and they never came to any practices.... day of their one performance ..... where as the drama kids had done the show for two week already and had every cue mesmerized.
> 
> The choirs director had his girls changing on stage but between one of the rows of curtains. There was a costume change for the drama and they were choreographed to cross thru that passage to pick up costumes.. no teach or adult to prevent an accident where unknowingly to the male that lead the group to the other side from running into the girls....
> 
> But it was the boy because he was a male who caught discipline with a threat of sexual assault..... for honesty just being in a play....
> 
> Often times I think it is far too easy just to defame men.
> 
> Why the girls were instructed to change there and not the dress room for females.....the impact of changing in front of girls two years older......not wise.


If I'm translating this correctly, the boy saw the girls undressing? How is being threatened with sexual assault? Did he touch any of them inappropriately?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Marshloft said:


> I'm pretty sure she's asking for it. How can that be construed as rape?


Seriously?
I'm sure a judge could explain it to you


----------



## plowjockey

Irish Pixie said:


> The point was that she was in no condition to consent to sex. No consent = rape. If alcohol is OK are roofies (Rohypnol) too? She won't remember much then either...
> 
> And no, I don't consider forcible kissing, as long as that is as far as it went, sexual assault.


So, the drunk college boy, is supposed to be sober enough, to determine if the drunk girl is sober enough, to have consensual sex, even though they indeed have sex?

Seems a bit presumptuous, that the boy has all the responsibility for his behavior, but girl has no responsibility, for hers, whatsoever.

No one rational, thinks that roofies are ok, but let be honest, when kids drink they tend to get drunk and do foolish things, sometimes things they might not normally do.

_Girls gone wild_, anyone?


----------



## Irish Pixie

plowjockey said:


> So, the drunk college boy, is supposed to be sober enough, to determine if the drunk girl is sober enough, to have consensual sex, even though they indeed have sex?
> 
> Seems a bit presumptuous, that the boy has all the responsibility for his behavior, but girl has no responsibility, for hers, whatsoever.
> 
> No one rational, thinks that roofies are ok, *but* let be honest, when kids drink they tend to get drunk and do foolish things, sometimes things they might not normally do.
> 
> _Girls gone wild_, anyone?


He's not the one being assaulted, is he? Or doesn't that matter?

There's that *but* again, no ifs, ands, or buts, rape is always wrong. And it makes me sick to my stomach to have to keep repeating that...


----------



## Irish Pixie

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFegsTGofN0[/ame]


----------



## plowjockey

wr said:


> My daughter bartends at a very popular nightclub and part of nightclub staff job description is to watch for 'extras' put in drinks and for patrons that may have received ecstasy or any one of the date rape drugs.
> 
> A couple young men helping a seemingly inebriated gal out of the club isn't always as innocent as it seems.


True and that behavior is unacceptable, but let's be honest.

Women are fully capable of getting drunk, just by drinking and in many cases, they enjoy sexual activity, just like men.

Maybe they said "yes", when they might normally say "no", because they are drunk.

Someone please explain why this is the responsibility of the male to measure a girls sobriety, where "yes" really means "yes", when they have been drinking themselves.


----------



## Irish Pixie

plowjockey said:


> True and that behavior is unacceptable, but let's be honest.
> 
> Women are fully capable of getting drunk, just by drinking and in many cases, they enjoy sexual activity, just like men.
> 
> Maybe they said "yes", when they might normally say "no", because they are drunk.
> 
> Someone please explain why this is the responsibility of the male to measure a girls sobriety, where "yes" really means "yes", when they have been drinking themselves.


Exactly. The woman said yes. And yes, the guy needs to measure a girl's sobriety.


----------



## plowjockey

Irish Pixie said:


> He's not the one being assaulted, is he? Or doesn't that matter?
> 
> There's that *but* again, no ifs, ands, or buts, rape is always wrong. And it makes me sick to my stomach to have to keep repeating that...


They meet up, are stinking drunk and end up engaging in sexual activity. They don't remember what all happened, but they go for a nice coffee in the morning, maybe plan a second date.

It's all cool.

But if the exact same thing happens, but the girl feels it was not what she wanted, then it's sexual assault.

Makes sense on some planet, but not this one.


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> He's not the one being assaulted, is he? Or doesn't that matter?
> 
> There's that *but* again, no ifs, ands, or buts, rape is always wrong. And it makes me sick to my stomach to have to keep repeating that...



Well actually he is. 

That's the point of some here. If he isn't sober then he isn't in the position to agree to sex either. So she has assaulted him every bit as much as he has her. 

Wouldn't it take some sort of equality bias to claim of two equally drunk people one sex is responsible and one isn't ?


----------



## kasilofhome

AmericanStand said:


> Well actually he is.
> 
> That's the point of some here. If he isn't sober then he isn't in the position to agree to sex either. So she has assaulted him every bit as much as he has her.
> 
> Wouldn't it take some sort of equality bias to claim of two equally drunk people one sex is responsible and one isn't ?


Amen.


----------



## plowjockey

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. The woman said yes. And yes, the guy needs to measure a girl's sobriety.


It's pretty sad women are not capable of taking personal responsibility, for their actions.

Part of the nation of victim-hood.


----------



## Irish Pixie

plowjockey said:


> It's pretty sad women are not capable of taking personal responsibility, for their actions.
> 
> Part of the nation of victim-hood.


That doesn't excuse men of rape. Moral men realize that rape is wrong. Period. I'm sorry you don't see that.


----------



## Irish Pixie

AmericanStand said:


> Well actually he is.
> 
> That's the point of some here. If he isn't sober then he isn't in the position to agree to sex either. So she has assaulted him every bit as much as he has her.
> 
> Wouldn't it take some sort of equality bias to claim of two equally drunk people one sex is responsible and one isn't ?


If he's that drunk wouldn't he have a problem performing? Think about it...


----------



## plowjockey

Irish Pixie said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFegsTGofN0


In the real world, a fairly sober young man and a passed out drunk girl, are not the same as two consenting adults, engaging in sexual activity.


----------



## plowjockey

Irish Pixie said:


> That doesn't excuse men of rape. Moral men realize that rape is wrong. Period. I'm sorry you don't see that.


I was not referring to rape - at all, because rape is a crime and it is not a crime - anywhere, for two _consenting adults_ to have sex, no matter how stinking drunk, they are.

Nowhere.


----------



## RichNC

Ozarks Tom said:


> RichinNJ, don't worry, I wouldn't touch your wife, and please don't take my comments out of context.


Don't worry you can't, she is dead, cancer.


----------



## plowjockey

Irish Pixie said:


> If he's that drunk wouldn't he have a problem performing? Think about it...


LOL

Know any 20 year old men?


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> Unwanted is unwanted. I don't like it when men say crude things to me on the street either. Would you? What if they touched you? What if they grabbed you? That still OK, it's just unwanted attention, right?



Lol that's funny and it shows your gender bias. 
You see men endure way more than this all the time. No big deal we are expected suck it up and deal. 

Using the term unwanted as a standard throws things into the real of random feelings.
You don't want that random guy to notice you walking down the sidewalk but you sure want him to see you in the crosswalk. 
You don't want him to notice your legs UNLESS it's your favorite rockstar or actor. 
See that's where the problem is women are broadcasting when they really want to make a private phone call. 
It is getting naked on a TV commercial and thinking that only the one guy you want to see it will be interested in the goods you are selling.


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> If he's that drunk wouldn't he have a problem performing? Think about it...



Um nope not even a little. 

Again your bias is showing. What about all that groping and kissing and stuff ?


----------



## kasilofhome

Really, you personally known a drunken male who could preform sex and was not past out?.... Really....my friends include males and yes in college we went out in a mob... Some of the males want to avoid a mistake of a two bagger accident.... you know having sex will a willing girl in desperate search of a boyfriend and had a rep for seducing men, having sex and then just about sending out invites to the wedding from a one night stand. Yep, there are some women out there going for the gold ....out for a Mrs. degree. Not all females are ladies.


----------



## kasilofhome

Most of those girl were vicious to men. Just like there are crummy men there are crummy women but it is not something that men are political correct to say. So, they suck it up face to face when around them and warn friends about them to protect each other. Giving passes based on gender is sexist.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

RichNC said:


> Don't worry you can't, she is dead, cancer.


Truly sorry for your loss.

Just curious, why would you inject her into this thread? Specifically in a personal manner instead of saying generally "if someone groped my wife I'd have him arrested".


----------



## kasilofhome

Yet, what do you really feel about bill Clinton. His actions seem that he would not be someone you could support.... or his wife for her part in it to.


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> Yet, what do you really feel about bill Clinton. His actions seem that he would not be someone you could support.... or his wife for her part in it to.


Is there any thread that you can't somehow drag the Clintons into? Good grief. :bdh:


----------



## Patchouli

This is directly from the OP's article and I think it is what Plowjockey is asking about:



> A 24-year-old woman who recently graduated from a private university in the Northeast said there were times as a student when she was so drunk that she was unable to consent to sex. She would wake up in bed with someone the next day and say to herself: âWhat? This is not okay. I didnât agree to this.â
> 
> But she said the men involved might also have been too drunk. âWhether the other person had the capacity to consent either is something to take into account,â she said. âSo itâs like weâre both raping each other.â


I think that we would all agree in a situation like this no one is at fault correct? And if you don't know if you said yes or no in the morning it's pretty much moot and you need to just move on.


----------



## Fennick

Marshloft said:


> I'm pretty sure she's asking for it. How can that be construed as rape?


Nobody ever asks to be raped. Never. There is never any justification for rape under any circumstances. Never.

Using the same example that you replied that to, if that naked woman walked through a room full of drunks (which no woman in her right mind would do) how would you know that she's not mentally ill? Or drugged, and not competent? If she was mentally ill or drugged do you still think that she would be asking for it? 

By you saying you're pretty sure a naked woman is asking to be raped and you question how that rape can be construed as rape, you are confessing to being a rapist or a would be rapist under those same circumstances and you see no harm in it. Because that's how rapists think. They think "I'm pretty sure she's asking for it." That is their justification to their own selves for any kind of assault on a woman.


----------



## kasilofhome

Fennick said:


> Nobody ever asks to be raped. Never. There is never any justification for rape under any circumstances. Never.
> 
> Using the same example that you replied that to, if that naked woman walked through a room full of drunks (which no woman in her right mind would do) how would you know that she's not mentally ill? Or drugged, and not competent? If she was mentally ill or drugged do you still think that she would be asking for it?
> 
> By you saying you're pretty sure a naked woman is asking to be raped and you question how that rape can be construed as rape, you are confessing to being a rapist or a would be rapist under those same circumstances and you see no harm in it. Because that's how rapists think. They think "She's asking for it." That is their justification for any kind of assault on a woman.


No, I did not take it that way... the female maybe looking for sex... happens so if she wants it and another person is willing well she might not be drugged, or incompetent or even drunk. Sorry but many a dumped female takes a breakup bad and has done this very thing.


----------



## kuriakos

Patchouli said:


> This is directly from the OP's article and I think it is what Plowjockey is asking about:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that we would all agree in a situation like this no one is at fault correct? And if you don't know if you said yes or no in the morning it's pretty much moot and you need to just move on.


I don't think we all would agree on that. I mostly agree with you, but some women's advocates take it too far and basically the man is presumed to be a rapist if there is any question as to whether there was consent.

From the legal perspective, this is a a big gray area. There are many sexual situations that may not be morally acceptable, but we're certainly not going to prosecute both parties for raping each other. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a case out there where a prosecutor tried it, but I would be shocked if they were successful.

There are so many blurry lines in this type of sexual interaction where one or both parties are unsure of what happened or who said or didn't say what, that it is not reasonable to put it in the absolute terms many women's advocates would like to. We cannot default to "When in doubt, the man is at fault" although that is kind of an unwritten rule that has influenced some of the actual written rules.


----------



## Fennick

kasilofhome said:


> ...... Sorry but many *a dumped female takes a breakup bad* and has done this very thing.


What? Walk around naked in front of a group of drunks because she's feeling bad about being dumped?

Then she's in a desperate state, she's not in her right mind. If you think the same way as Marshloft does, that the desperate naked woman is asking to be raped, then you aren't in your right mind either because nobody ever asks to be raped. 

I sure hope you aren't saying that you respect and approve of the actions of a rapist who takes advantage of a desperate person.


----------



## farmerDale

Bottom line is, we as a society have to start NOW. We need to show kids that alcohol and whooping it up are not cool. If you remove the alcohol (ism, ic) factor in this society, imagine the way things would be? 

We need to teach our kids better, and so much crap could be avoided.

Once again, thank you to my mom and my dear dad, for raising me in a loving home, one that explained and showed that alcohol and whooping it up, partying and drinking, carousing and carrying on, was not in my best interest.

Thank you mom, for loving me, for sending me off with dad in the forest to hunt moose, while my peers screwed up their lives partying. 

Thank you dad, for showing me how to trap mink, while my peers were having orgies and drunk fests, and thank you for ensuring I never even knew these things were going on, for removing any chance at temptation, at falling into the trap that is peer pressure and alcohol.

Thank you mom and dad. Dad, I just wish you were here so I could tell you this and how it saved my life. Mom, I will be phoning in the morning to tell you thank you.

And my dear four kids. Please be sane. Please. Please, hunt with me, trap with me. You will thank me later.

What a disturbing society we live in...


----------



## TxHorseMom

Here is how my DH explained it to DS when he was a teenager. "It doesn't matter if you're both on a bed naked, if at the last second she changes her mind, that means NO.". This was one of many talks we had with our children when they were teenagers. We tried to discuss many potential scenarios with them to give them the skills needed BEFORE situations arose so they would know what to do when we weren't around.


----------



## kasilofhome

Fennick said:


> What? Walk around naked in front of a group of drunks because she's feeling bad about being dumped?
> 
> Then she's in a desperate state, she's not in her right mind. If you think the same way as Marshloft does, that the desperate naked woman is asking to be raped, then you aren't in your right mind either because nobody ever asks to be raped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure hope you aren't saying that you respect and approve of the actions of a rapist who takes advantage of a desperate person.[/QUOT
> 
> 
> 
> Regretting having mutual sex is not rape... it is potentially the result of low morality, bad home life, low self-esteem, poor choice maker,...so many stupid and shamefully embarrassing reason but why add lying and blame someone else.rape is not mutual....it is a violent violation totally different.
> 
> Tawana Brawley any one... or duke university come on false claims. That harm and destroy men.
> 
> Sorry but now men are to be mental health professionals... you call it rape not me if a female is willing to have sex and does so willingly it is grossly unfair fair to claim rape or assault to blame her regret for her conduct on her sex partner.
> 
> Reality too many females place the blame on men because in a political correct world they can avoid personal responcabilties and lie, not every divorce is due soly due to a man. Man have just as much harm done to them by women.


----------



## AmericanStand

Fennick said:


> Nobody ever asks to be raped. Never.



Ummm nope. To make such a blanket statement about everyone indicates a willingness to present ideas as facts without research and verification. 

If you would like I can direct you to websites hosting adds from women seeking to be raped.


----------



## Fennick

AmericanStand said:


> Ummm nope. To make such a blanket statement about everyone indicates a willingness to present ideas as facts without research and verification.
> 
> If you would like I can direct you to websites hosting adds from women seeking to be raped.


Rape is assault and it is harmful. People who seek to be assaulted and harmed have a mental illness. 

As I said before, nobody in their right mind asks to be raped and nobody in their right mind approves of or finds justification for rape.

I'm not interested in the websites you recommend. I won't say here what I think of people who host those kinds of websites or of the kinds of people who patronize them.


----------



## Irish Pixie

RichNC said:


> Don't worry you can't, she is dead, cancer.


Rich, I'm sorry for your loss.


----------



## Irish Pixie

plowjockey said:


> LOL
> 
> Know any 20 year old men?


I haven't slept with a 20 year old man in over 33 years. 

If he can, and does perform without her consent, that's rape. If she's so drunk she can't consent, that's rape too. If he can still perform and she hasn't consented, that's rape. No matter how drunk either of them are. 

Rape is wrong. Period. That this has to be explained, ad nauseum, is scary and depressing. You (collective you) are all screaming about the moral decay of America because of "the gay agenda" and don't know that rape and sexual assault are wrong. WTH?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Fennick said:


> Rape is assault and it is harmful. People who seek to be assaulted and harmed have a mental illness.
> 
> As I said before, nobody in their right mind asks to be raped and nobody in their right mind approves of or finds justification for rape.
> 
> I'm not interested in the websites you recommend. I won't say here what I think of people who host those kinds of websites or of the kinds of people who patronize them.


I'm not either, and feel that same way about people that patronize them.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Ever been sexually assaulted? I don't suggest it. And it until it happens to you, you cannot conceive of the total and complete violation of your soul.


Yes, and you dont need to explain to me the extent of violation. btdt



mrsgcpete said:


> so clarify for me, are the women who are being sexually assaulted whiners or the ones that are having the crap beat out of them


Women who whine are the whiners, just as the men who whine are whiners.... some of us try not to be whiners. 


Irish Pixie said:


> Are you honestly saying that women asked to be raped? If so, that is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read on here, and that's saying something.


I may be ignorant.... but I have had several women point blank ask me to rape them. Lots of people in this world and there seems to be a lot of variations when it comes to sexual desires depending upon the person. 



Irish Pixie said:


> So that's a justification for rape? Good to know that's how you feel. It says a bunch about your character.


Nope, actual rape is really impossible to justify.... I was merely pointing out that its rather easy for some to become confused.... mixed signals and like that.


----------



## Evons hubby

Fennick said:


> Nobody ever asks to be raped. Never.


:umno: This is just plain wrong.... I know that simply because I have been asked to do so point blank by several women over the years.


----------



## FeralFemale

plowjockey said:


> They meet up, are stinking drunk and end up engaging in sexual activity. They don't remember what all happened, but they go for a nice coffee in the morning, maybe plan a second date.
> 
> It's all cool.
> 
> But if the exact same thing happens, but the girl feels it was not what she wanted, then it's sexual assault.
> 
> Makes sense on some planet, but not this one.


Sure it makes sense. It's like how it's a baby if it is wanted and a fetus if it is not.


----------



## painterswife

Yvonne's hubby said:


> :umno: This is just plain wrong.... I know that simply because I have been asked to do so point blank by several women over the years.


It is not rape if they want it. It is game playing.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I may be ignorant.... but I have had several women point blank ask me to rape them.


:snip a bunch of "buts"..:

If they asked you how is it rape? By asking you for sex they are consenting.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> It is not rape if they want it. It is game playing.


Or a fantasy rape, maybe rough sex. Definitely not rape.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> :umno: This is just plain wrong.... I know that simply because I have been asked to do so point blank by several women over the years.


Do you understand what "consent" means?


----------



## Irish Pixie

FeralFemale said:


> Sure it makes sense. It's like how it's a baby if it is wanted and a fetus if it is not.


Using the abortion card? What's your opinion on rape and sexual assault?


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> :snip a bunch of "buts"..:
> 
> If they asked you how is it rape? By asking you for sex they are consenting.


Even if they are intoxicated.... or underage? I was addressing the post stating that "no one asks to be raped" which is simply not true.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Even if they are intoxicated.... or underage? I was addressing the post stating that "no one asks to be raped" which is simply not true.


If they are *asking* you for sex they are consenting to sex. If you chose to is not the issue. Except in the case of an underage girl, that can be rape all by itself.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you understand what "consent" means?


Apparently there is some confusion as to the definition of consent. I know what it means in my world. You may have an entirely different notion, and thats ok too.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Apparently there is some confusion as to the definition of consent. I know what it means in my world. You may have an entirely different notion, and thats ok too.


LOL. Consent means "yes". I agree, I concur, etc...


----------



## kasilofhome

Dale.... spoke wise words about this subject... Remember all the people demonizing men.... that includes your sons. Got news there are some messed up evil bitter folks out there with a chip so deep, holding on to anger as a family heirloom.

There are rejected gold diggers. Controlling ladies, and women with a laundry list on ex's and every ex is seen as the problem..... 

Raise your kids better and make a better society starting in your own family.

Men and women have the same responsibilities when it comes to sex. It equal right that was caught on won.... so women are equally to blame for a one night stand they regret. Calling it rape out of embarrassment is wrong. It takes away from those who are truly raped. Truly victims of a violent crime


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> LOL. Consent means "yes". I agree, I concur, etc...


So if a woman agrees to having sex tonite, and regrets that decision tomorrow (or a couple months down the road when she discovers she is pregnant) she can withdraw her consent and whine about how she was raped?


----------



## FeralFemale

Irish Pixie said:


> Using the abortion card? What's your opinion on rape and sexual assault?


That isn't an abortion card. That's just me using a very apt analogy to be a big ole smarty pants.

My opinion on rape and sexual assault? Uh, that it's bad. 

I also believe that it happens way more than people think. If someone told me the real statistic was close to 90%, my reaction would be 'is that all?' But that is based off my own anecdotal evidence. 

See, girls talk a lot. Eventually we get very personal. Sometime and a few beers after we talk about our menstrual cycles we talk about our rapes, sexual assaults and abuse. I've only ever met a few women that it hasn't happened to. I've heard of attacks ranging from being violently raped with her throat slit to one poor girl who lost her virginity to a 'friend' after passing out at a dorm party her freshman year. 

So, yeah. Rape and sexual assault is bad.


----------



## wr

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So if a woman agrees to having sex tonite, and regrets that decision tomorrow (or a couple months down the road when she discovers she is pregnant) she can withdraw her consent and whine about how she was raped?



I don't feel that consent can or should be withdrawn at a later date. I think that's called buyers remorse.


----------



## kasilofhome

Look, I have warned men to avoid certain women for a reason. Just advised one of my son male friends to talk to his parents because... the girl he fines available is an all out drama queen, toying with him and another.... claiming abuse by the other... Jake asked me for advice... I listened and told him to talk with his parents and to tell the girl that she claims the boyfriend she claims she wants to end things is blackmailing her not break up with...to come clean with her parents....her next text to him was



If my parents knew the would ship me out of state to my real dad... because if what I did ....so I can't talk to them...she asks that Jake beats up the current boyfriend..

I told Jake she is manipulative, messed up, trouble, tell your parents save the text..walk away and block her... he felt bad... I told you a gave her advice she has to grow up. And. Deal with her past caused she will turn on you more than.likely.


----------



## FeralFemale

kasilofhome said:


> Look, I have warned men to avoid certain women for a reason. Just advised one of my son male friends to talk to his parents because... the girl he fines available is an all out drama queen, toying with him and another.... claiming abuse by the other... Jake asked me for advice... I listened and told him to talk with his parents and to tell the girl that she claims the boyfriend she claims she wants to end things is blackmailing her not break up with...to come clean with her parents....her next text to him was
> 
> 
> 
> If my parents knew the would ship me out of state to my real dad... because if what I did ....so I can't talk to them...she asks that Jake beats up the current boyfriend..
> 
> I told Jake she is manipulative, messed up, trouble, tell your parents save the text..walk away and block her... he felt bad... I told you a gave her advice she has to grow up. And. Deal with her past caused she will turn on you more than.likely.


There's going to be those girls. I was once on a jury that acquitted a young man on rape charges. The girl lied about his raping her because he was a cad that wanted a good time and not a relationship.


----------



## Evons hubby

wr said:


> I don't feel that consent can or should be withdrawn at a later date. I think that's called buyers remorse.


I agree with you on that one.... but we all know it happens. As I pointed out earlier in this thread... things can get confusing sometimes. This is particularly so when the two groups speak an entirely different language. (That Mars/Venus thing), toss in some drugs and or alcohol and who can really say who wants what!


----------



## kasilofhome

Too many women claim assault.... to restore their honor after a night of fun. Pretending that that never happens is too be blindfolded.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Too many women claim assault.... to restore their honor after a night of fun. Pretending that that never happens is too be blindfolded.


I am reminded of a case I read about years ago... A young lady accused two guys of raping her during a party. It came out in court that the first two fellas that she was with that evening were for love.... the next seven were for fun... and the last two raped her. If I recall correctly those fellers were acquitted.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying that men have so little control around women that rape is fine and dandy when they're driven by hormones and alcohol? So what is a women to do- stay home and make sure she doesn't walk by a drunken rapist accidentally?
> 
> Rapists cause rape. Woman have the right to drink, go out, wear what they want, and not be raped.


This is something else where I have too much experience dealing with young people.

First there is rape and then there is RAPE and both are wrong. RAPE has next to nothing to do with sex, its about power. Its about being able to control another and do what you wish to them. Force, violence and instilling fear is as, if not more, important as the sexual act. This is not what we are talking about here. Rape in these situations is almost all about sex. 

In the first cases other than being able to defend herself against what is most likely going to be a larger and stronger attacker there's not much a woman can do to prevent it. Her actions nor looks really don't matter. 

In the second case that is not true. The actions a woman takes can increase or decrease her chances of it happening.
If your neighbor told you he left a wad of $100 bills sitting on the dash of his unlocked car while you went in to get his hair cut and told you it was stolen just what would you say to him? "Well that's just wrong you have the right to leave your money laying around anywhere you wish." Or might you say "Seriously you thought that it would be safe?"

What if you saw him with two broken arms and a few missing teeth and told you he went into the local 'biker bar' that the Hell's Angels hang out wearing Bandidos leathers. What would you say to him? "Well that's just wrong, you should be able to wear whatever you want and go into any bar you want wearing it." Or would you say "You are lucky you got out with a few missing teeth and your arms broken. Are you stupid or were you trying to get yourself killed?"

Might you think, maybe just a little, that those two bear some responsibility for what happened to them due to the actions they took? 

But if a girl wears a sexually protective outfit which she wears because she knows it shows off her body, goes to a place where there are going to be a lot of guys drinking and drinks herself you think she bears no responsibility if something bad happens? 

I find it strange that people will say that she was raped because she was too drunk to know what she was doing when she said yes but say that she should be held responsible for killing that mom and 4 kids in the minivan she hit because she was driving drunk. I'd love to see the court case when someone points out that you can't have two standards under the law. If you can legally say you were too drunk to say yes to sex then why can't you say you were too drunk to know you shouldn't be driving?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am reminded of a case I read about years ago... A young lady accused two guys of raping her during a party. It came out in court that the first two fellas that she was with that evening were for love.... the next seven were for fun... and the last two raped her. If I recall correctly those fellers were acquitted.


Wow. S l u t shaming too. You're right, Patchouli it can't get any lower.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So if a woman agrees to having sex tonite, and regrets that decision tomorrow (or a couple months down the road when she discovers she is pregnant) she can withdraw her consent and whine about how she was raped?



No. She consented to sex.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Because men are incapable of controlling themselves? Like animals?


Not all snakes are venomous. Would you be willing to walk blindfolded through a room full of them knowing that there were at least some in there which were?

Not all men are thieves. Would you leave your valuables and keys in your unlocked car parked in the mall lot while Christmas shopping?


----------



## no really

Irish Pixie said:


> Wow. ---- shaming too. You're right, Patchouli it can't get any lower.


Read and reread the post you are quoting, what shaming are you indicating?


----------



## kasilofhome

equal rights.... equality..

Remember women can do anything a man can do. 

Now, you want special treatment of responsibility.... special interpreting of laws.

Sorry what part of equality do you not get.


----------



## Irish Pixie

no really said:


> Read and reread the post you are quoting, what shaming are you indicating?


I did. I read it twice because I couldn't believe it.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Wow. S l u t shaming too. You're right, Patchouli it can't get any lower.


What part of relaying an event qualifies as "shaming" anyone? Facts is facts, no more, no less.


----------



## no really

Irish Pixie said:


> I did. I read it twice because I couldn't believe it.


What are you talking about?


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> Not all snakes are venomous. Would you be willing to walk blindfolded through a room full of them knowing that there were at least some in there which were?
> 
> Not all men are thieves. Would you leave your valuables and keys in your unlocked car parked in the mall lot while Christmas shopping?


Are you really trying to say that all men don't know that rape is wrong? 

No. I do not recommend that a woman get highly intoxicated, walk naked through a room of drunk men, or put herself in danger. That's not the point, the point is that rape, for any reason, is wrong. For. Any. Reason. 

Moral men know this conclusively.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> What part of relaying an event qualifies as "shaming" anyone? Facts is facts, no more, no less.


If a woman has more than one sex partner she's a s l u t, if a man does he's a stud. Your post dripped of it. 

I question your story as fact, but that's just me. What's the current expression? "It doesn't pass the smell test."


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> The point was that she was in no condition to consent to sex. No consent = rape. If alcohol is OK are roofies (Rohypnol) too? She won't remember much then either...


Here's the rub. Our young woman who is "in no condition to consent to sex" leaves the party with her virtue intact, gets in her car and runs over someone and kills them. She should go free because if she is "in no condition to consent to sex" surely she's in no condition to be able to "consent to" drive right? If she is so mentally disabled by alcohol that she can not take responsibility for making an informed decision about having sex how can you not say she is so mentally disabled by alcohol that she can not take responsibility for making an informed decision about driving?


----------



## kuriakos

Of course all men know rape is wrong. And it still happens. That's how we know the "teaching men not to rape" approach won't eliminate rapes. The men already know they shouldn't do it, yet some do anyway. It's also important to teach women to protect themselves.


----------



## kasilofhome

I hear all these stories that women are not treated equal on jobs... I never faced that equal mean equal to me.


Hypersensitive women and man haters are always mistreated... it might be due to just how they treat men.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. The woman said yes. And yes, the guy needs to measure a girl's sobriety.


Again you are showing a double standard. If she's to drunk to say yes just what makes you think he sober enough to know she's too drunk?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> That doesn't excuse men of rape. Moral men realize that rape is wrong. Period. I'm sorry you don't see that.


And you expect most men, and women for that matter, to be moral? You might want to read a bit more history


----------



## gibbsgirl

Watcher, you nailed it.

Some rapes are criminally wrong.

But, honestly, a whole lot of rapes/sexual assaults are not at all the same. They may be traumatic. But, honestly, if people care so much about stopping it, they should care about teaching young people to behave with certain moral standards with how they dress, how they conduct themselves, and where they go.

I'm sick of society just being interested in decrying who the villains and victims are and saying I fe's not fair.

And, by the way, the reality is that men and women are different so there are differences in what they should each do.

I've got four boys and a girl, and I thank God for that. Girls are more vulnerable than boys.

Our boys have been raised to know they should never put themselves in a situation where what happened could be a he said she said scenario. They've also been taught that no matter what, they protect their sister.

My girl has been taught to not act trashy. Her clothing rules are fairly simple. Nothing with trash talk on it. And, she needs to wear decent underwear, and her clothes need to always cover the underwear. She's developed a little more conservative habits than that on her own.

And, she knows not to be in a situation where he said she said co ld be a problem. She also knows that her brothers will do whatever they can to protect her, but that she had better not run her mouth or put herself in a situation on purpose where she likely would need to them.

Life's not fair. Unfair and foolish and stupid sexual assaults, rapes, fill in the blank etc aren't going to ever stop. It's stupid to pretend that they will stop and plan accordingly.

You want to fix all this? Assume there are dangers out there and plan accordingly. Then, a lot of these problems would resolve themselves. Then, the real rapists and criminals could be tracked down instead of the foolish people with regrets.

Most young people don't have enough adults holding them to a high enough expectation or level of accountability. You can't live an off the rails life and expect you won't go off the rails.


----------



## kasilofhome

kuriakos said:


> Of course all men know rape is wrong. And it still happens. That's how we know the "teaching men not to rape" approach won't eliminate rapes. The men already know they shouldn't do it, yet some do anyway. It's also important to teach women to protect themselves.


That teaching needs to include the women role in choices.. drinking, drugging, and behavior. Bring you own money and pay for your own drinks.... Bring your own money for cab fare. Mom taught me that in the mid seventies. Take equal responsibility.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> If a woman has more than one sex partner she's a s l u t, if a man does he's a stud. You're post dripped of it.


 Interesting interpretation to say the least. Certainly not what I was trying to convey. 



Irish Pixie said:


> I question your story as fact, but that's just me. What's the current expression? "It doesn't pass the smell test."


Ever spend much time partying with "old school" bikers? It might change your view of the authenticity of such a story. While I was not present during this particular event, and cannot verify its authenticity, I have partied with outlaw bikers and yeah, they can get a bit smelly!


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> If he's that drunk wouldn't he have a problem performing? Think about it...


Ah. . .you might want to talk to a few guys who were big drinkers in their prime and maybe a few doctors. It takes a lot of booze to put the breaks on a young man's performance


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Ah. . .you might want to talk to a few guys who were big drinkers in their prime and maybe a few doctors. It takes a lot of booze to put the breaks on a young man's performance


I guess I must still be a young man. I have yet to find that much booze!


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> I haven't slept with a 20 year old man in over 33 years.
> 
> If he can, and does perform without her consent, that's rape. If she's so drunk she can't consent, that's rape too. If he can still perform and she hasn't consented, that's rape. No matter how drunk either of them are.
> 
> Rape is wrong. Period. That this has to be explained, ad nauseum, is scary and depressing. You (collective you) are all screaming about the moral decay of America because of "the gay agenda" and don't know that rape and sexual assault are wrong. WTH?


One thing here, just what is consent and how is it expressed? Does a guy and gal need to have a signed notarized document before they have sex? Does it have to be verbal consent? Do you have to word the question in a specific way and receive a specific answer?

FYI, I have never drank. I grew up around alcoholics and told myself I'd never do that. But back in the day I have seen really drunk couples at parties going at it. She'd be saying "We shouldn't" while working to get his fly down. Is the fact she's saying "We shouldn't" be considered non-consent or does the fact she's trying to get his pants off show consent?


----------



## kasilofhome

I have witness two times such events as yvonne has posted with out the rape. And the highest number was six guys.. 

I stayed because I was the driver and the girls were people I know, one I still call a friend... she has over ten years sobriety now but she was wild and I worried that some day she would get over her head... never happened... 

Once she felt had as things like the promise of a trip to New Orleans never happened ... I was able to confirm that she really had no right to be po'd over that cause she assumed her hinting that she could join him was not him saying he would take her. 

Weeks later she agreed. Hey, just being xxx chromosome does not make you honest, nice, or non aggressive in sex, or a saint.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> If they are *asking* you for sex they are consenting to sex. If you chose to is not the issue. Except in the case of an underage girl, that can be rape all by itself.


TIME OUT!!!!!!!!!! I thought you said even if she asked it was rape if she was drunk. Have the rules changed?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you really trying to say that all men don't know that rape is wrong?
> 
> No. I do not recommend that a woman get highly intoxicated, walk naked through a room of drunk men, or put herself in danger. That's not the point, the point is that rape, for any reason, is wrong. For. Any. Reason.
> 
> Moral men know this conclusively.


First off go back and read what I wrote again. Maybe a little more slowly. Men know its wrong to take money from another person's car but there are plenty of them out that will still do it. This makes you a fool if you leave $1,000 in cash sitting on the dash of your unlocked car in a public parking lot. You being a fool doesn't make the man to took it any less of a thief but you can't ignore the responsibility for your actions. And screaming about how horrible it was that your money was stolen all the while not accepting the fact it would not have been stolen if you hadn't played the fool is WRONG.

Rape is wrong but putting yourself in a situation and painting a bullseye on yourself is foolish. Wearing a loose top and no bra over short skirt and no underwear (or maybe you'll wear a thong so it only looks like you have none on) to a party where you are PLANNING on getting drunk and KNOW that there are going to be drunk men is stupid as well as foolish. If you get raped you were a victim of a crime but screaming about w/o accepting the fact if you had not played the fool is just as wrong as above.

There might be cases but I have never heard of a collage girl being raped at a church operated party where there is no booze and a dress code is enforced. Is that because the the lack of booze and the dress code or is it the fact that people who go to such events have higher morals? I'm willing to bet its a combo of both.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> There might be cases but I have never heard of a collage girl being raped at a church operated party where there is no booze and a dress code is enforced.


I was going to say I knew of a case but then upon reflection I realized she wasnt a college girl (we were both still in high school) and she was more than willing...... but hey, thanks for kicking up that memory!


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> Rape is wrong .


 See, its pretty simple. No excuses, no 'but, but she tempted me', its pretty simple. Taking a woman against her will is rape, a crime, and in the olden days, I hear there was a jealous god that would have commanded execution for that crime.


----------



## kasilofhome

Cry rape when it's not is wrong. Real simple.


----------



## Evons hubby

Well, its been fun but "American Ride" just came on. Time for my afternoon history lesson!


----------



## mnn2501

Irish Pixie said:


> Because men are incapable of controlling themselves? Like animals?


As are many women in situations like this


----------



## Michael W. Smith

Irish Pixie said:


> Woman have the right to drink, go out, wear what they want, and not be raped.


Agreed. But they shouldn't get so drunk that they either don't know what they are doing, pass out, say "NO!" or can't fight back.

I have the "right" to go down a dark alley in the wrong part of town at night too, but I'm not going to do it! Knowing it's a dark alley in the wrong part of town, I'm not going to put myself at risk.

As for the "wear what they want", just understand that woman CAN wear what they want, but doing so can cause you to be at risk for being noticed. If you want to be noticed, then do so, but also understand there is a risk with it.


----------



## Patchouli

Fennick said:


> Rape is assault and it is harmful. People who seek to be assaulted and harmed have a mental illness.
> 
> As I said before, nobody in their right mind asks to be raped and nobody in their right mind approves of or finds justification for rape.
> 
> I'm not interested in the websites you recommend. I won't say here what I think of people who host those kinds of websites or of the kinds of people who patronize them.


I don't want to muddy the waters here but I don't want anyone judging me for my sexual preferences and I won't dump on anyone else's either. If it's between 2 consenting adults and they are both into it that is purely up to them. I do understand the line between the two though. I guess we need a better term for the consenting type.


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> Dale.... spoke wise words about this subject... Remember all the people demonizing men.... that includes your sons. Got news there are some messed up evil bitter folks out there with a chip so deep, holding on to anger as a family heirloom.
> 
> There are rejected gold diggers. Controlling ladies, and women with a laundry list on ex's and every ex is seen as the problem.....
> 
> Raise your kids better and make a better society starting in your own family.
> 
> Men and women have the same responsibilities when it comes to sex. It equal right that was caught on won.... so women are equally to blame for a one night stand they regret. Calling it rape out of embarrassment is wrong. It takes away from those who are truly raped. Truly victims of a violent crime


I have to say after reading your posts for years now I would be scared to death to live in Alaska. You seem to have a large population of deeply disturbing people up there.


----------



## Evons hubby

Patchouli said:


> I have to say after reading your posts for years now I would be scared to death to live in Alaska. You seem to have a large population of deeply disturbing people up there.


After reading posts in HT for years, I have found quite a number of deeply disturbing folks in the lower 48 as well. There seems to be meddlers everywhere!


----------



## Patchouli

Yvonne's hubby said:


> After reading posts in HT for years, I have found quite a number of deeply disturbing folks in the lower 48 as well. There seems to be meddlers everywhere!


I can't disagree on the disturbing part that's for sure! :runforhills:


----------



## wr

watcher said:


> This is something else where I have too much experience dealing with young people.
> 
> First there is rape and then there is RAPE and both are wrong. RAPE has next to nothing to do with sex, its about power. Its about being able to control another and do what you wish to them. Force, violence and instilling fear is as, if not more, important as the sexual act. This is not what we are talking about here. Rape in these situations is almost all about sex.
> 
> In the first cases other than being able to defend herself against what is most likely going to be a larger and stronger attacker there's not much a woman can do to prevent it. Her actions nor looks really don't matter.
> 
> In the second case that is not true. The actions a woman takes can increase or decrease her chances of it happening.
> If your neighbor told you he left a wad of $100 bills sitting on the dash of his unlocked car while you went in to get his hair cut and told you it was stolen just what would you say to him? "Well that's just wrong you have the right to leave your money laying around anywhere you wish." Or might you say "Seriously you thought that it would be safe?"
> 
> What if you saw him with two broken arms and a few missing teeth and told you he went into the local 'biker bar' that the Hell's Angels hang out wearing Bandidos leathers. What would you say to him? "Well that's just wrong, you should be able to wear whatever you want and go into any bar you want wearing it." Or would you say "You are lucky you got out with a few missing teeth and your arms broken. Are you stupid or were you trying to get yourself killed?"
> 
> Might you think, maybe just a little, that those two bear some responsibility for what happened to them due to the actions they took?
> 
> But if a girl wears a sexually protective outfit which she wears because she knows it shows off her body, goes to a place where there are going to be a lot of guys drinking and drinks herself you think she bears no responsibility if something bad happens?
> 
> I find it strange that people will say that she was raped because she was too drunk to know what she was doing when she said yes but say that she should be held responsible for killing that mom and 4 kids in the minivan she hit because she was driving drunk. I'd love to see the court case when someone points out that you can't have two standards under the law. If you can legally say you were too drunk to say yes to sex then why can't you say you were too drunk to know you shouldn't be driving?


Rape isn't entirely a sexual crime and not always does it relate to poor clothing choices or alcohol. Young women have been raped at bus stops in the dead of winter while wearing snowsuits and I've read of several cases (one in Calgary) were very elderly women were raped and I'm pretty sure they weren't wearing a skirt slit up to here and shirt open down to there. 

Rape is technically considered a crime of power, not a crime of passion but that's likely a topic that warrants it's own thread.


----------



## kasilofhome

Simply consider the source... when considering the value of the comment.


----------



## Evons hubby

wr said:


> Rape isn't entirely a sexual crime and not always does it relate to poor clothing choices or alcohol. Young women have been raped at bus stops in the dead of winter while wearing snowsuits and I've read of several cases (one in Calgary) were very elderly women were raped and I'm pretty sure they weren't wearing a skirt slit up to here and shirt open down to there.
> 
> Rape is technically considered a crime of power, not a crime of passion but that's likely a topic that warrants it's own thread.


I think you are correct... There are many cases where the rapist doesnt know the victim and forces a woman.... The article that kicked off this thread while including those obvious cases of violent, forcible rape against a woman's will also entertains a lot of cases that fall into a rather grey area.


----------



## AmericanStand

A woman puts on a outfit. She tells her friends it's "attractive". 
It works a man is attracted and rapes her. 
She must have given consent because the outfit had exactly the intended result.


----------



## no really

AmericanStand said:


> A woman puts on a outfit. She tells her friends it's "attractive".
> It works a man is attracted and rapes her.
> She must have given consent because the outfit had exactly the intended result.


This is the conclusion you reached after reading this thread? Or are you simply projecting?


----------



## haypoint

I think we all agree that when a man grabs a woman and forces sex on her that is rape. 
Most guys don't know what it is like living your life planning around not being alone somewhere that would allow a bad person to get you. Many women do.

I'm 100% in favor of harsh punishment for rape. Most of the time, when rape is claimed, it was rape. I don't buy into the "she was asking for it", either.

But, I'd like everyone to agree, that when a drunk 20 year old girl goes to the room of a 20 year old drunk guy, she gets naked in bed, that her expectation that this drunken guy will protect her virtue if she says no, places a degree of blame on the woman. If she says no, then it is no. He has no right or expectation of sex. But, as someone said earlier, don't visit a snake pit if you don't want bitten. 
Scorn is another powerful emotion. The courts, the public and myself, want to protect women that come forward. But there are times ,following a willing sex act, that there is remorse. Sometimes guys see sex as recreation, while sometimes women see sex as a bond, a commitment, an emotional connection. When the noon sun shines down on the previous night's history, it might be retold with a slant. How do we protect women that claim rape, without unjustly convicting a consensual sexual partner? 

A hotel cleaning lady and a multi-millionaire sports star. Seemed willing at the time, but when tempted with a million dollar "Shut-Up" payment, maybe it was rape.

But one thing we can all learn from this thread is that men and women have vastly different experiences and face the world in a different way. I once was a distance runner. Takes a lot of determination. At one time when I'd see someone jogging, I'd honk the horn and wave, intended as encouragement. I was wrong, women see this as scary or threatening. Guys often don't realize. 

The concentration of young adults in college leads to more physical contact. Everyone is on their own and learning about boundaries. Sometimes, both men and women, engage in sex that they latter regret. Is that an unwanted sexual advance? Maybe.

I think when guys think of rape or unwanted sexual advances, we think of grabbing a woman, throwing her into a van and driving off to our cave in the woods. Women see it as that extreme example all the way down to slapping a guy's hands for unbuttoning her blouse in the car's back seat. It is still a violation of your personal space and unwanted sexual touching.

Unwanted touching, less than intercourse, isn't seen as threatening to guys, most who have never experienced it.


----------



## mreynolds

When I was 14 my parents left me at the house for the weekend. Later that night my mom's friend came over acting real strange. She was 32. She brought a bottle of whiskey and made me a drink and she was drinking too. I had never drank before so I got drunk. She was drunk. 

We did have sex. My first time. But what I am hearing here I am a rapist because she was drunk. I should have known better me being male and all that. 

I resent the implication that women are not bright enough to not make better choices.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Simply consider the source... when considering the value of the comment.


I'm quite sure we all do that.


----------



## oneraddad

kasilofhome said:


> Raise your kids better and make a better society starting in your own family.




Bingo !


----------



## Patchouli

mreynolds said:


> When I was 14 my parents left me at the house for the weekend. Later that night my mom's friend came over acting real strange. She was 32. She brought a bottle of whiskey and made me a drink and she was drinking too. I had never drank before so I got drunk. She was drunk.
> 
> We did have sex. My first time. But what I am hearing here I am a rapist because she was drunk. I should have known better me being male and all that.
> 
> I resent the implication that women are not bright enough to not make better choices.


I think everyone would agree you were the victim there.


----------



## mreynolds

Patchouli said:


> I think everyone would agree you were the victim there.


Some would think so but I felt like I had a pretty good handle on adulthood at that time. I had a mans job that paid more than min wage and had been working on the farm most all my life. We were both wrong and had "buyers remorse". I do believe that was the reason she came over but I couldn't prove that. 

Of course everyone thinks they know everything at that age. I realized how dumb I was in my twenties like most do.


----------



## where I want to

I'm not going to read all this but I suspect that it is a pretty accurate figure. Rapes with violence where pretty common in my university almost 50 years ago. And being sober, careful and circumspect does not stop it. Remember 'take back the night' and male students volunteering as escorts?
A surprising number of creeps go to campuses because they feel it is a convenient shopping place for young women. A few professors use their power to corner someone, and if the someone complained, who would believe them til recently. Unless the woman was beaten severely, the campus police just ignored complaints.
Then there are frat parties- laughed at those movies,did you? 
All these together and it is actually probably more than 20%.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Tricky Grama, I noticed you liked this post. You have granddaughters, right? You OK with them getting a pat on the fanny or a clumsy grope? How about unwanted attention, is that OK? At what point is it NOT OK?


I'm going to respectively ask you to refrain from snarky snipes toward me in this thread. My Daughter was raped at gunpoint 31 years ago and it seems more like last month, the pain is unbearable.

I'm also going to respectively ask you to refrain from equating fanny pats, clumsy gropes, bum pinches, those type of actions, to rape. Rape. There is in no way any comparison. The utter crassness as well as ignorance of that type of comparison is unforgivable when you know what rape is.


----------



## kasilofhome

Sorry, and you are right.


----------



## watcher

wr said:


> Rape isn't entirely a sexual crime and not always does it relate to poor clothing choices or alcohol. Young women have been raped at bus stops in the dead of winter while wearing snowsuits and I've read of several cases (one in Calgary) were very elderly women were raped and I'm pretty sure they weren't wearing a skirt slit up to here and shirt open down to there.
> 
> Rape is technically considered a crime of power, not a crime of passion but that's likely a topic that warrants it's own thread.


In this case we are not talking about 'classic rape' but more 'date rape'. In classic rape it is almost totally about power. The control and fear is the important part. Its hard to exert control and instill fear into someone who is so drunk they can barely stand.

Most cases of the types of rape we are talking about here sex is the big thing. A drunk guy isn't worried about controlling anyone he just wants to get his jollies. 

In classic rape cases the victim can be a 70 y.o. grandmother wearing your snowsuit. In these cases the guy picks someone he thinks he has a good chance with. Given the choice of a girl w/o make up in baggy jeans and a ratty sweatshirt and one who has spend time to 'do her face' (do they even call it that now?) and puts on a thin shirt and a short skirt and ONLY those which is he most likely to zero in on?


----------



## wr

haypoint said:


> I think we all agree that when a man grabs a woman and forces sex on her that is rape.
> Most guys don't know what it is like living your life planning around not being alone somewhere that would allow a bad person to get you. Many women do.
> 
> I'm 100% in favor of harsh punishment for rape. Most of the time, when rape is claimed, it was rape. I don't buy into the "she was asking for it", either.
> 
> But, I'd like everyone to agree, that when a drunk 20 year old girl goes to the room of a 20 year old drunk guy, she gets naked in bed, that her expectation that this drunken guy will protect her virtue if she says no, places a degree of blame on the woman. If she says no, then it is no. He has no right or expectation of sex. But, as someone said earlier, don't visit a snake pit if you don't want bitten.
> Scorn is another powerful emotion. The courts, the public and myself, want to protect women that come forward. But there are times ,following a willing sex act, that there is remorse. Sometimes guys see sex as recreation, while sometimes women see sex as a bond, a commitment, an emotional connection. When the noon sun shines down on the previous night's history, it might be retold with a slant. How do we protect women that claim rape, without unjustly convicting a consensual sexual partner?
> 
> A hotel cleaning lady and a multi-millionaire sports star. Seemed willing at the time, but when tempted with a million dollar "Shut-Up" payment, maybe it was rape.
> 
> But one thing we can all learn from this thread is that men and women have vastly different experiences and face the world in a different way. I once was a distance runner. Takes a lot of determination. At one time when I'd see someone jogging, I'd honk the horn and wave, intended as encouragement. I was wrong, women see this as scary or threatening. Guys often don't realize.
> 
> The concentration of young adults in college leads to more physical contact. Everyone is on their own and learning about boundaries. Sometimes, both men and women, engage in sex that they latter regret. Is that an unwanted sexual advance? Maybe.
> 
> I think when guys think of rape or unwanted sexual advances, we think of grabbing a woman, throwing her into a van and driving off to our cave in the woods. Women see it as that extreme example all the way down to slapping a guy's hands for unbuttoning her blouse in the car's back seat. It is still a violation of your personal space and unwanted sexual touching.
> 
> Unwanted touching, less than intercourse, isn't seen as threatening to guys, most who have never experienced it.



I think you pretty much summed it up. My daughter is 4'10" and guys seem to think it's funny to pick her up with her arms restrained at her side. 

She's skilled in self defence but you can't beat the crap out of every drunk that picks her up.


----------



## TxHorseMom

Yvonne's hubby said:


> :umno: This is just plain wrong.... I know that simply because I have been asked to do so point blank by several women over the years.


Sorry, that's not rape. Some call it role playing, or fantasy playing. There are others that are "into" S&M That is also not rape. If you "ask" to have that done to you it is not rape. That is consenting to an act Rape by definition is:


*RAPE: The RINJ Foundation has, after two years of global rape research,* adopted the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of "rape" (which in somewhat different terms is also the Unted States' federal meaning of rape) as _the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, *without the consent of the victim*_*.*​


For further definition: https://rinj.org/rape/rape.rape?gclid=CLTCuJ6zk8YCFQUGaQodAaUAuA


----------



## kasilofhome

Well then per the who
Brushing up is NOT rape
Asking to go further is NOT rape
Saying anything is NOT rape
BEING looked at is NOT rape

RAPE IS A CRIME..... it's NOT voluntarily having sex EVEN IF YOU REGRET IT LATER.
note since we have been dealing with legal age person...I am not talking about minors.


----------



## TxHorseMom

kasilofhome said:


> Well then per the who
> Brushing up is NOT rape
> Asking to go further is NOT rape
> Saying anything is NOT rape
> BEING looked at is NOT rape
> 
> RAPE IS A CRIME..... it's NOT voluntarily having sex EVEN IF YOU REGRET IT LATER.
> note since we have been dealing with legal age person...I am not talking about minors.


I am not disagreeing with you.


----------



## kasilofhome

TxHorseMom said:


> I am not disagreeing with you.


Yes....you and I agree...that stupid original site...when read in its entirety was very loose as to just what was sexual assault and rape.

Such a serious subject yet ...there are some


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm going to respectively ask you to refrain from snarky snipes toward me in this thread. My Daughter was raped at gunpoint 31 years ago and it seems more like last month, the pain is unbearable.
> 
> I'm also going to respectively ask you to refrain from equating fanny pats, clumsy gropes, bum pinches, those type of actions, to rape. Rape. There is in no way any comparison. The utter crassness as well as ignorance of that type of comparison is unforgivable when you know what rape is.


I was raped too, at 12. Which is why I think that *all* sexual assault is serious. 

I absolutely know first hand, not second, how heinous rape is. I never told a soul for years because the prevailing thought was that girls that were raped were "asking for it" or "had done something to provoke it". I hadn't went through puberty yet, and was cutting across a field next to the middle school. I remember I was thinking about a horse show I had coming up that weekend. 

I'm not going to contribute much, if at all, to this thread from now on. I had deluded myself into thinking that people had evolved about sexual assault but in some ways it's worse than it was back then. I don't want sympathy, at all, I want people to have just a bit of empathy.


----------



## rambler

Are we measuring regret, or are we measuring actual assault? Is it easier, after the fact, to say something I regret happened is someone else's fault, than to just say oops something shouldn't have happened that I was a part of?

Hum.............

Serious issue, and not taking away from real deal. But if we say 100% or something..........

Paul


----------



## gibbsgirl

With the statistics being believed to be so high, I would hope you would realize that likely multiple people on this thread have personal experience with rape or sexual assault. Some that don't likely have a close friend or relative who does.

Your post seems to assume that if someone hasn't walked in your shoes, they ar less qualified to have their opinions be valid. I hope you realize it's possible to have just as much first hand or second hand experience or more than another person and come to conclusions that disagree.


----------



## Tiempo

wr said:


> Rape isn't entirely a sexual crime and not always does it relate to poor clothing choices or alcohol. Young women have been raped at bus stops in the dead of winter while wearing snowsuits and I've read of several cases (one in Calgary) were very elderly women were raped and I'm pretty sure they weren't wearing a skirt slit up to here and shirt open down to there.
> 
> Rape is technically considered a crime of power, not a crime of passion but that's likely a topic that warrants it's own thread.


Indeed. My elderly great Aunt was abducted outside of a grocery store by several men in their 20's (with the help of a female accomplice) and driven to the woods where they gang raped her and tortured her (burned her nipples off with cigarettes)


----------



## greg273

Just saw this on Facebook this morning, what a coincidence...


----------



## AmericanStand

Patchouli said:


> I think everyone would agree you were the victim there.



I think you are mistaken when you use the word "everyone". 
I don't think he thinks he was a victim.


----------



## watcher

Here's a some thing to think about.

Say we have a 21 y.o. female. One weekend she goes out to a party and gets drunk, really drunk. While she is drunk she agrees to have sex with 15 guys and does. 

After her little romp with all those guys she decides to drive to the beach and go swimming. On the way there she runs down a bicyclist, drives over a child being pushed in a stroller and hits a van carrying 10 nuns and kills them all. 

Now do we charge all the guys with rape and let her go for killing 12 people or do we let the guys go and charge her for the killings?

You can't have it both ways. 

The only way you can charge the guys with rape is by claiming that due to her state of intoxication she was not legally mentally capable to make the decision to have sex. If that's true then you can not then say she was legally mentally capable to make a decision to drive.

If you say that even though she was intoxicated she had the legal mental capability to know that she should not drive you have to say that she was legal mental capability to make the decision to have sex.


----------



## kasilofhome

Watcher.. I am with you 100 %
Being drunk is the fault of the drinker ...

Their choice... oh but but but... they were tricked..in to drinking.... unless it was forced down their throats... it was a choice... one sip is the first clue.

Binge drinking... a college girls issue... way more than boys.

1 in 8 college girls have a problem per CDC ....with binge drinking


----------



## greg273

You can get drunk all you want, just don't rape girls, no matter how drunk they, or you are. No excuses.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tiempo said:


> Indeed. My elderly great Aunt was abducted outside of a grocery store by several men in their 20's (with the help of a female accomplice) and driven to the woods where they gang raped her and tortured her (burned her nipples off with cigarettes)


I can't stop thinking about this... I'm so sorry for your great aunt, your whole family, Tiempo.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> Now do we charge all the guys with rape and let her go for killing 12 people or do we let the guys go and charge her for the killings?
> .



In the first sentence, you said the woman AGREED to have sex. So no crime was committed there. 
Now had the sex been forced on her, it doesn't matter how many nuns or babies or orphans she killed, it doesn't negate the crime of rape.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> You can get drunk all you want, just don't rape girls, no matter how drunk they, or you are. No excuses.


Are you saying that men have more mental capacity than women? After all you seem to think a drunk man has the ability to make legally sound and binding choices while drunk but a woman doesn't have that ability.

IOW, if a guy is drunk how can you hold him legally responsible for his sexual actions while at the same not hold a drunk woman responsible for hers?


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> In the first sentence, you said the woman AGREED to have sex. So no crime was committed there.
> Now had the sex been forced on her, it doesn't matter how many nuns or babies or orphans she killed, it doesn't negate the crime of rape.


Incorrect according to many here. They claim that having sex with a drunk woman is rape because she can not legally consent to having sex due to limited mental capacity. Its the same logic that any sex with an underage girl is rape.


----------



## Patchouli

AmericanStand said:


> I think you are mistaken when you use the word "everyone".
> I don't think he thinks he was a victim.


He was concerned that these days he might be considered the rapist. I was just assuring him no one would think that; a 14 yo with an adult woman would always be the victim not the rapist.


----------



## BlackFeather

In case you missed it....
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/more-college-rape-hype-time-washington-post_972536.html


> But like many other advocacy polls on sexual assault, the Post-Kaiser poll misleads readers&#8212;most of whom surely will assume that &#8220;sexual assault&#8221; means criminal sexual assault&#8212;by using that criminally charged phrase for shock value in the articles while deliberately avoiding it in the survey questions. As detailed below, those questions are so broad as to invite survey respondents to complain about virtually any encounter that they later regretted, including many that were not sexual assault or rape as defined by law.
> 
> According to the Post&#8217;s accompanying articles, the &#8220;survivors&#8221; of these sexual encounters experienced enormous pain and suffering. But it&#8217;s not entirely clear how the Post determined that the students with whom the paper spoke are in fact &#8220;survivors&#8221; of sexual assault, although some clearly were. Virtually none of these students went to the police, nor did most report any incident to their colleges, whose adjudication procedures are all but designed to find the accused student guilty. Instead, the Post reporters simply assumed the truth of most of their sources&#8217; claims and thus the guilt of the accused.





> Details from the few subjects who did report matters to police reflect badly on the Post&#8217;s credibility. Take, for instance, the student with whom one of the Post&#8217;s front-pagers leads, Rachel Sienkowski. Reporters Emma Brown, Nick Anderson, Susan Svrluga, and Steve Hendrix say in their second paragraph that a few weeks after arriving on the Michigan State campus, Sienkowski &#8220;had become a survivor&#8221; after an afternoon of tailgating ended with a man she didn&#8217;t know in her bed. She went to the police, the Post reported, because she awoke not only having been violated, but with her head bloodied. But the end of the article lets slip that in fact this, the paper&#8217;s lead example of a campus sexual assault, seems instead to have been a regretful, but not atypical, drunken hookup that neither party remembers well. The scary bleeding was apparently self-inflicted when Sienkowski fell out of her loft bed onto the floor, while the male was asleep. The person she brought back to her room wasn&#8217;t a Michigan State student (and might not have been a college student at all). And, the Post disclosed in the last 120 words of a 2,870-word article, even Sienkowski conceded that &#8220;she doesn&#8217;t know for sure whether she had wanted sex in the moment.&#8221; She said this after seeing the police report, including photographs of the hickeys that the accused said her lips had branded on his neck as evidence that she &#8220;was very into everything that was happening.&#8221;





> the Post tells readers that &#8220;in recent years the number of reports of forcible sexual offenses on campus has surged.&#8221; But in fact the number of campus sexual assaults per capita plunged by half between 1997 and 2013, according to the 2014 report of the Bureau of Justice Statistics&#8217; National Crime Victimization Survey, which has long been the most respected and reliable source of crime statistics.


 There is more but I thought since the article in question is being refuted here I'd post it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> *Are you saying that men have more mental capacity than women? *
> 
> After all you seem to think a drunk man has the ability to make legally sound and binding choices while drunk but a woman doesn't have that ability.
> 
> IOW, if a guy is drunk how can you hold him legally responsible for his sexual actions while at the same not hold a drunk woman responsible for hers?


Not judging by some of the posts on this thread


----------



## plowjockey

Irish Pixie said:


> I haven't slept with a 20 year old man in over 33 years.
> 
> If he can, and does perform without her consent, that's rape. If she's so drunk she can't consent, that's rape too. If he can still perform and she hasn't consented, that's rape. No matter how drunk either of them are.
> 
> Rape is wrong. Period. That this has to be explained, ad nauseum, is scary and depressing. You (collective you) are all screaming about the moral decay of America because of "the gay agenda" and don't know that rape and sexual assault are wrong. WTH?


I don't think you understand the whole point of drinking - to lower one's inhibitions.

Did she "consent" or not? Who knows, she can't remember, because she was too drunk.

Sorry, and yes, we all agree "no" means no, but saying "yes" (Or not saying no) under the influence, does not mean that a rape occurred. Look at any law.

Some females get extra sexually excited, when they lower their inhabitants due to alcohol consumption - just like men. Making it all about the responisbilioty of the male, is ludicrous and makes women look like ignorant, weak fools, IMO.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Some will disagree with me, but here goes.

For the entire history of mankind every culture has had rather similar assigned gender roles.

We've thrown the baby out with the bathwater, by pursuing this endless androgynistic femenist societal revolution for the last 100 years or so in western society.

And, saying it was so backwards, and devaluing people who see the benefits of that tried and true historical societal structure is so far beyond irrational, I don't usually even waste time debating it with people, because they're blinded by all the pc propaganda bunk.

It was a functional system before, in m opinion, more so than what we've been pursuing from the last century in the western world.

Women were very capable, productive members of their families before we decided to tell little girls that they had to prove to the world that men were unneeded, and that unless they were paid or compensated in a monetary way for their life's work, whatever they were doing was essentially valueless.

And, simultaneously, we've basically stripped boys of the right to grow up feeling that their masculine urges should be channeled into use in a productive way that paired nicely with the complimentary things women would bring to their life path.

Don't get me wrong, rape and injustice also happened all throughout history. But not as rampantly as now, I think. Previously, you had young ones being raised up and taught what their expected roles as adults would entail. And, part of that had to do with women understanding virtue and the limits of their abilities to get out of any situation safely. You knew the world could be a dangerous place. And, men understood that the women in their family really were reliant on them for protection from those dangers.

It seems to me the vast majority of non-stranger rapes, assaults etc happen by young people interacting under circumstances that just traditionally were not part of large scale "everyone goes through this phase" stages in life. 

It's not to say "we have to live in the dark ages". But, the push to raise our children into a free for all environment is creating too many opportunities for all this. And, rather than empowering kids to become competent stable adults, we're raising broken, unprepared drifters who lead lives with frustrating experiences and often stumble repetitively. 

It's just created a vacuum that" s been filled with all kinds of destructive consequences.


----------



## kuriakos

Patchouli said:


> He was concerned that these days he might be considered the rapist. I was just assuring him no one would think that; *a 14 yo with an adult woman would always be the victim not the rapist.*


I know you were referring to that specific situation and didn't mean this the way I am using it in this reply, but I am quoting your post to demonstrate that there are many gray areas when it comes to this issue and absolute words like "always" are often not correct. I am sure you meant in a consensual sexual encounter, but it is obviously quite possible for a 14 year old to rape an adult woman.


----------



## gibbsgirl

I don't think it is appropriate for children to engage in sexual activities. To be honest, I think it's a bad idea to do before marriage at any age.

But, part of the problem with society continually being pushed to "extend childhood" and parental dependence, is that it simply flies in the face of the developmental realities of the human bodies that God designed.

I'm absolutely encouraging my kids to wait until marriage and I hope they choose to. But, that in no way means that they aren't being continually educated in more and more about the birds and bees and physical and mental changes that are occurring in them.

Once girls and boys hit puberty, they have after all entered the life stage where they are technically of reproductive and therefore sexually active age. Pretending that is manageable by declaring it inappropriate isn't practical. 

Focusing their energy on working to the path towards adult independence helps them I think. It teaches them that if you want to enjoy the pleasures of adult activities, you better be prepared to do it in a safe, emotionally stable way, and be attempting to be prepared to deal with the purposeful results of sex which is procreation.


----------



## mreynolds

kuriakos said:


> I know you were referring to that specific situation and didn't mean this the way I am using it in this reply, but I am quoting your post to demonstrate that there are many gray areas when it comes to this issue and absolute words like "always" are often not correct. I am sure you meant in a consensual sexual encounter, but it is obviously quite possible for a 14 year old to rape an adult woman.


And now we come full circle. In a round about way this was my the other part of my point. So in todays world if it was found out that happened to me back then I wonder how many people would put _all_ the blame on me because she was drunk. 

The truth is the we share equal blame. I was raised better than that so I cant blame my parents. I cant blame the alcohol as it didn't asked to be drank. (not much anyway) So the only ones left to blame is _she and I_ . No one else. 

I met a woman once that is part of that.... for lack of a better term....cult that believes that any man that is not a virgin is a rapist and any woman that is not a virgin has been raped. No matter the circumstance. I didn't know this even existed especially in my little part of the world. 

I am totally against rape. It wouldn't do for me to be a police officer as they may not make it to that jail intact. As an Volunteer EMT though I have seen it after the fact and it makes me sick. Doesn't mean that every act of drunken sex is rape though. Many are yes but lets not minimize rape that way. Sometimes its (drunken sex that is) just a mistake that's regretted later and we need someone to blame for it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Society evolves for a reason, I don't want to go back to a time when I was the property of my husband, had to sign over everything I owned to a man simply because I was married to him, couldn't vote on the issues that affected me, had far fewer rights than a man, and was basically a domestic servant to my spouse. Nope, not ever. My husband is my partner in all things and it's worked well for almost 33 years. You can't pick and choose bits from the past... that's just fantasy. 

We taught our daughters that they can do anything they set their minds to do, and they have. They aren't limited to a set of jobs (nurse, teacher, secretary, etc..) and that being a stay at home mom is a job and not an easy one. They know their individual worth, not the value of being a man's property. The are partners as well.

It's never appropriate for children to engage in sexual activity. Ever. Young adults are anther matter entirely. It's proven that there are more unplanned pregnancies when young adult are taught abstinence only. Young adults need to be taught birth control, in my opinion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> With the statistics being believed to be so high, I would hope you would realize that likely multiple people on this thread have personal experience with rape or sexual assault. Some that don't likely have a close friend or relative who does.
> 
> Your post seems to assume that if someone hasn't walked in your shoes, they ar less qualified to have their opinions be valid. I hope you realize it's possible to have just as much first hand or second hand experience or more than another person and come to conclusions that disagree.


I've been thinking about this since I read it yesterday morning. I have to vehemently disagree with your statement, "Your post seems to assume that if someone hasn't walked in your shoes, they ar less qualified to have their opinions be valid. I hope you realize it's possible to have just as much first hand or second hand experience or more than another person and come to conclusions that disagree." 

I agree in that someone with second hand experience can truly feel for the person that was raped, but they do not know the fear, violation, and hopelessness of *being* raped. They didn't have the replay of the rape for years and don't have the flashbacks (40+ years later) and can't know the helplessness.


----------



## haypoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Society evolves for a reason, I don't want to go back to a time when I was the property of my husband, had to sign over everything I owned to a man simply because I was married to him, couldn't vote on the issues that affected me, had far fewer rights than a man, and was basically a domestic servant to my spouse. Nope, not ever. My husband is my partner in all things and it's worked well for almost 33 years. You can't pick and choose bits from the past... that's just fantasy.
> 
> We taught our daughters that they can do anything they set their minds to do, and they have. They aren't limited to a set of jobs (nurse, teacher, secretary, etc..) and that being a stay at home mom is a job and not an easy one. They know their individual worth, not the value of being a man's property. The are partners as well.
> 
> It's never appropriate for children to engage in sexual activity. Ever. Young adults are anther matter entirely. It's proven that there are more unplanned pregnancies when young adult are taught abstinence only. Young adults need to be taught birth control, in my opinion.


I agree with everything you said. Plus, I think all women have been in situations where they felt instinctively that they were in danger of being sexually assaulted. Few men have experienced that. Most women have experienced an unwelcome touch. That can be anything from a pat on the shoulder to a butt cheek squeeze and everything in between. Few guys have experienced that.
Mostly, we all agree what criminal rape is and generally believe that a hand shake, whistle or boob stare is inappropriate but not rape. It is this vast gray area where we each draw our own line.

Often in a relationship, it is the woman that decides when the relationship has evolved to the sexual level. Most men know that no means no. I a private "make-out" session, romantic hugging and kissing can turn to foreplay. Each partner has both the right and obligation to set and respect each other's boundaries. Often those boundaries are fluid, change from day to day. If a touch was welcome yesterday, but unwelcome today, we should respect those feelings. If we mutually engaged in fondling yesterday and I progress to fondling today, but it is unwelcome, most normal men stop. But, in reality, she experienced unwanted touching. Is that also rape?

Must we sign a contract outlining what our limits are, while sane, sober and in the daylight sun and everything beyond that signed agreement is rape? Do we defend our actions with excuses of: I was drinking, it was the powerful hormones, I succumb to my emotions? Who hasn't resolved ahead of time not to have sex, but changed your mind? Along that same line, who hasn't regretted something done in the heat of the moment?

I want women to have the same opportunities, protections and responsibilities as everyone else. We, as a society have failed in the past and recently have made strides to correct and resolve inequities. If affirmative action gives a woman a job that I wanted, I accept this social adjustment as a part of the process in leveling the jobs market. We, as a society have failed to recognized and deal with issues of sexism. Through ongoing education we continue to progress. But, I fear that in our zeal to protect women from unwanted touching and near automatic acceptance of a woman's claim, innocent people will be wrongfully convicted of serious crimes.

After any relationship break up, we can look back and point out bad things the other person said and did. I don't want to be judged and convicted over vindictive things my ex-wife made up. Yet, I don't want any person to experience unwanted touching without my full support. So, I'm not sure there is a way to reach justice each time.


----------



## FutureFarm

Will someone answer Watcher's question? I want to know what other people think. I hadn't considered that double standard, and am interested to hear what other people think.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Jolly said:


> According to WaPo, 1 in 5 college women said they were sexually violated.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2015/06/12/1-in-5-women-say-they-were-violated/?hpid=z6
> 
> I find that a bit hard to believe...


Big Deep Breath.

1. I would like to see the original survey, so that I can see the actual questions they asked and how they came to the numbers they are displaying.

2. IMHO you can thank the gross lack of morals, the media, and the socially acceptable over sexualization of women from a young age.......

EXAMPLE: Ever walk into a Hooters, and see "whole" teams of 12 year old boys and their dads??? 
Men teaching their young sons to objectify women as 'sex objects'. 
And shame on you moms for letting it happen.

Women think the 'more they put out' the 'more guys will like them'......that's age old behavior, and it's wrong, and no one's teaching any different.

So here's my math for today

1 Female + 1 Male + Alcohol/Drugs x poor self worth/control2 x instant gratification = someone's getting violated.

I think that number is low.

It is NEVER ok to violate anyone. Ever. For any reason, period.

But we are reaping what we have sown......

*ETA: Answering Watcher's Question*
Whoever breaks the law, is responsible. Period.
If a drunk woman, forces a man to have sex with her.......she is guilty of rape and should be charged. 
I don't care how much he 'teased her' or if they were naked in the bed and at the last second he said "you know what, this is a bad idea....no".
If she forced him to have sex with her it's RAPE. And she should be charged.
Period.
And vice verse.

I don't care how cute she looks, or how hoe-ish she acts.......if she says NO, then no means no.
Walk away, run away, crawl away.......or don't be a dumb donkey and put yourself in the situation in the first place.


----------



## AmericanStand

Rape or not ?
Men tend to view obtaining sex as a negotiation. 
Did my good looks get me laid ?
No ? Here let's each have a beer do I look good enough yet ?
Still no ? Let me throw in some witty funny conversation. 
Humm still no ?
Perhaps another beer ?
Still no but you aRe interested in some light petting ? 
Great let me throw in some compliments about your body and technique oh and let's have another beer! 
Still no ? 
Let's try some arousal technique oh and another beer ?
YES ! 
Great closed the deal !


----------



## haypoint

While Laura's example was men and boys Hooters, not meant to be all inclusive. I can't help but think the over sexualization of young girls, pre-teens is another wrong message. Jon Bene't Ramsey


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> Society evolves for a reason, I don't want to go back to a time when I was the property of my husband, had to sign over everything I owned to a man simply because I was married to him, couldn't vote on the issues that affected me, had far fewer rights than a man, and was basically a domestic servant to my spouse. Nope, not ever. My husband is my partner in all things and it's worked well for almost 33 years. You can't pick and choose bits from the past... that's just fantasy.
> 
> We taught our daughters that they can do anything they set their minds to do, and they have. They aren't limited to a set of jobs (nurse, teacher, secretary, etc..) and that being a stay at home mom is a job and not an easy one. They know their individual worth, not the value of being a man's property. The are partners as well.
> 
> It's never appropriate for children to engage in sexual activity. Ever. Young adults are anther matter entirely. It's proven that there are more unplanned pregnancies when young adult are taught abstinence only. Young adults need to be taught birth control, in my opinion.


Differing roles identifies strengths and weaknesses that men and women bring to life. It doesn't mean anyone is another person's property or ultimately powerless.

But, advocating a double standard where men are culpable for the result of situations that women and men put themselves in, while a woman is not, is giving women a pass they haven't rightly earned.

If you want a man to be expected to be held accountable as the final decision maker in many sexual assaults, then it's unreasonable to say that women are not submitting to their authority.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> Differing roles identifies strengths and weaknesses that men and women bring to life. It doesn't mean anyone is another person's property or ultimately powerless.
> 
> But, advocating a double standard where men are culpable for the result of situations that women and men put themselves in, while a woman is not, is giving women a pass they haven't rightly earned.
> 
> If you want a man to be expected to be held accountable as the final decision maker in many sexual assaults, then it's unreasonable to say that women are not submitting to their authority.


I don't understand what you're trying to say in the last paragraph.

Prior to the 1848 a woman was required to turn any real or personal property to her husband upon marriage. Even after that "proper" women turned over their property at marriage. They were, in effect, property of their father prior to marriage and their husband after. 

Women didn't even get the right to vote until 1919. 

To me, this signifies that women were second class citizens, and were subordinate to men, for most of the history of the US. I don't ever want to go back to this and find it mind boggling that any woman would.


----------



## watcher

Laura Zone 5 said:


> *ETA: Answering Watcher's Question*
> Whoever breaks the law, is responsible. Period.
> If a drunk woman, forces a man to have sex with her.......she is guilty of rape and should be charged.
> I don't care how much he 'teased her' or if they were naked in the bed and at the last second he said "you know what, this is a bad idea....no".
> If she forced him to have sex with her it's RAPE. And she should be charged.
> Period.
> And vice verse.
> 
> I don't care how cute she looks, or how hoe-ish she acts.......if she says NO, then no means no.
> Walk away, run away, crawl away.......or don't be a dumb donkey and put yourself in the situation in the first place.


This is NOT an answer to my question. Please reread it and answer it. You will notice there is no mention of force, both actions, the sex and driving, were willingly done.


----------



## Evons hubby

I think theres a pretty good chance that by accepting that third drink many men take it as a yes, or at least a very strong maybe. This same theory applies when a lady orders the lobster at dinner.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> I've been thinking about this since I read it yesterday morning. I have to vehemently disagree with your statement, "Your post seems to assume that if someone hasn't walked in your shoes, they ar less qualified to have their opinions be valid. I hope you realize it's possible to have just as much first hand or second hand experience or more than another person and come to conclusions that disagree."
> 
> I agree in that someone with second hand experience can truly feel for the person that was raped, but they do not know the fear, violation, and hopelessness of *being* raped. They didn't have the replay of the rape for years and don't have the flashbacks (40+ years later) and can't know the helplessness.


That's really minimizing the trauma that loved ones go through when they experience the rage of hate against a person's attacker. It's also minimizing the anxiety, fear and guilt that can been tremendous and long lasting they experience about not prevent past incidents and attempting to prevent future incidents.

BTW, I didn't want to minimize the obviously painful experiences that you and others have gone through in the past. Life is painful and personal and everyone's experiences have legitimate long lasting effects.

My point was to make light of the idea that sometimes people get so wrapped up in their personal experiences, they shut themselves off from other people's words, cause they figure "so and so just doesn't get it".

I certainly gav no interest in sharing my past paibs online. But, if you want to play the who had it worse game on the his thread, I win against anything that's thus far been posted. But, guess what? I bet there's a bunch of people who haven't shared stuff on here that would beat me. Maybe even n people who gave shared some already.

When, I was in college, I fell into the stuff on TV and be in spouted on campus about giving victims a voice, blah blah blah. One day, a lady at chu chu who was like a mom to me said, look so what, everyone has there problems, focusing on them and expecting the solution is to fix things by saying how unfair it is, and we just have to evolve and change society fixes nothing. Bad things happen. Deal with your issues when you have to. But move on and just focus on your family actively avoiding situations that invite bad incidents. You have v to live your life. Move on. Be careful. But quit expecting everyone else to help make life utopia. You'll miss you enjoying the good stuff with all the disappointment that outlook results in."

I was so mad. I didn't get what she meant. But over the years, I figured it out. And, my last fe got better when I changed my attitude and thoughts and just lived my life but did it in a way where we try and stay safe.

The lady was not just some outsider who had no experience either.

My thoughts may disagree with you or others. But, if you only are going to see others words through the lens of "well so and so is like me so they get it, and so and so disagrees, so obviously they have had a charned life and are wrong", then you're really just cheating yourself from the possible peace and empowerment that can come for om being willing to see if another person's perspective might bring some positive changes to you things you struggle with.

Peace and blessings to you and everyone.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't understand what you're trying to say in the last paragraph.
> 
> Prior to the 1848 a woman was required to turn any real or personal property to her husband upon marriage. Even after that "proper" women turned over their property at marriage. They were, in effect, property of their father prior to marriage and their husband after.
> 
> Women didn't even get the right to vote until 1919.
> 
> To me, this signifies that women were second class citizens, and were subordinate to men, for most of the history of the US. I don't ever want to go back to this and find it mind boggling that any woman would.


I think you're trying to see it through legal history, which I find highly flawed in all societies in history, and usually applied not in a uniform way anyway.

I'm talking about social and familial gender roles in everyday life. Cultural norms for women and men.

But, I still stand by my thoughts that legally, I see a lot of irony in saying that a woman has the right to cry foul irregardless if her role and men are held to the higher standard of being culpable for a crime, while simultaneously insisting that women and men are totally equal.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Prior to the 1848 a woman was required to turn any real or personal property to her husband upon marriage. Even after that "proper" women turned over their property at marriage. They were, in effect, property of their father prior to marriage and their husband after.


Ahhhh yes, the good old days. Today it is the men who hand over half of everything at the marriage ceremony, and the other half in divorce court. BTDT


----------



## kasilofhome

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Big Deep Breath.
> 
> 1. I would like to see the original survey, so that I can see the actual questions they asked and how they came to the numbers they are displaying.
> 
> 2. IMHO you can thank the gross lack of morals, the media, and the socially acceptable over sexualization of women from a young age.......
> 
> EXAMPLE: Ever walk into a Hooters, and see "whole" teams of 12 year old boys and their dads???
> Men teaching their young sons to objectify women as 'sex objects'.
> And shame on you moms for letting it happen.
> 
> Women think the 'more they put out' the 'more guys will like them'......that's age old behavior, and it's wrong, and no one's teaching any different.
> 
> So here's my math for today
> 
> 1 Female + 1 Male + Alcohol/Drugs x poor self worth/control2 x instant gratification = someone's getting violated.
> 
> I think that number is low.
> 
> It is NEVER ok to violate anyone. Ever. For any reason, period.
> 
> But we are reaping what we have sown......
> 
> *ETA: Answering Watcher's Question*
> Whoever breaks the law, is responsible. Period.
> If a drunk woman, forces a man to have sex with her.......she is guilty of rape and should be charged.
> I don't care how much he 'teased her' or if they were naked in the bed and at the last second he said "you know what, this is a bad idea....no".
> If she forced him to have sex with her it's RAPE. And she should be charged.
> Period.
> And vice verse.
> 
> I don't care how cute she looks, or how hoe-ish she acts.......if she says NO, then no means no.
> Walk away, run away, crawl away.......or don't be a dumb donkey and put yourself in the situation in the first place.


The questions are there if you open it up and read the links. In doing so I gained my position that the question and finding were slotted and this was another attack against men. I find that in a way political correctness has trapped men and if they speak out they are scads or brutes. Men hating women are rampeted


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> That's really minimizing the trauma that loved ones go through when they experience the rage of hate against a person's attacker. It's also minimizing the anxiety, fear and guilt that can been tremendous and long lasting they experience about not prevent past incidents and attempting to prevent future incidents.
> 
> BTW, I didn't want to minimize the obviously painful experiences that you and others have gone through in the past. Life is painful and personal and everyone's experiences have legitimate long lasting effects.
> 
> My point was to make light of the idea that sometimes people get so wrapped up in their personal experiences, they shut themselves off from other people's words, cause they figure "so and so just doesn't get it".
> 
> I certainly gav no interest in sharing my past paibs online. But, if you want to play the who had it worse game on the his thread, I win against anything that's thus far been posted. But, guess what? I bet there's a bunch of people who haven't shared stuff on here that would beat me. Maybe even n people who gave shared some already.
> 
> When, I was in college, I fell into the stuff on TV and be in spouted on campus about giving victims a voice, blah blah blah. One day, a lady at chu chu who was like a mom to me said, look so what, everyone has there problems, focusing on them and expecting the solution is to fix things by saying how unfair it is, and we just have to evolve and change society fixes nothing. Bad things happen. Deal with your issues when you have to. But move on and just focus on your family actively avoiding situations that invite bad incidents. You have v to live your life. Move on. Be careful. But quit expecting everyone else to help make life utopia. You'll miss you enjoying the good stuff with all the disappointment that outlook results in."
> 
> I was so mad. I didn't get what she meant. But over the years, I figured it out. And, my last fe got better when I changed my attitude and thoughts and just lived my life but did it in a way where we try and stay safe.
> 
> The lady was not just some outsider who had no experience either.
> 
> My thoughts may disagree with you or others. But, if you only are going to see others words through the lens of "well so and so is like me so they get it, and so and so disagrees, so obviously they have had a charned life and are wrong", then you're really just cheating yourself from the possible peace and empowerment that can come for om being willing to see if another person's perspective might bring some positive changes to you things you struggle with.
> 
> Peace and blessings to you and everyone.


I gave my personal history because I wanted to, it was my _choice_ to release it, not because I wanted to get in a spitting match with anyone or felt that my situation was unique. 

I did nothing wrong, and I refuse to hide it any longer. What you do is up to you. 

As far as not having empathy for others, I do. What I don't need is an amateur psychoanalyst/life coach. And I won't be responding to you again.


----------



## gibbsgirl

The elephant in the room to me is that something like 90% of communication is supposedly non-verbal.

That leads threads like this to probably lots of miscommunication from and by all of us.

It also means that if we judge people based only on words that lead to regretful, harmful sexual encounters then we're being foolish.

If you want to say that ultimately it all comes down to words, that's being unrealistic. Clothes, behavior, people's anticipation of the expected goings on at different types of social gatherings is clearly a much bigger factors than simply the words people say.

Men and women don't gather in places where drinking and drugs and wild behavior are expected to take place expecting the thrill of the event to be something other than shocking and beyond the bounds of a more safe and sober activity.


----------



## where I want to

kasilofhome said:


> The questions are there if you open it up and read the links. In doing so I gained my position that the question and finding were slotted and this was another attack against men. I find that in a way political correctness has trapped men and if they speak out they are scads or brutes. Men hating women are rampeted


If it an attack on men, it is because by far the attacks come from men. But I have no problem applying the same standards. However that does not mean if a woman is too drunk to say "no", the man is free to do what he wants. That is part of changing the assumptions that lead to sexual assault.
Used to be if a woman wore a short skirt, then she was asking for it- and short skirt definition changed from ankles showing to calves showing to knees, etc. Being out in public without male protection is asking for it. Being alone was asking for it.

There was an operating premise with a lot of men that no meant yes and yes meant yes and maybe meant yes. And in the end why even ask. It's going to be a bumpy road finding the correct balance. I wonder if men will have to get a written permission slip before sex in the end.


----------



## where I want to

gibbsgirl said:


> The elephant in the room to me is that something like 90% of communication is supposedly non-verbal.
> 
> That leads threads like this to probably lots of miscommunication from and by all of us.
> 
> It also means that if we judge people based only on words that lead to regretful, harmful sexual encounters then we're being foolish.
> 
> If you want to say that ultimately it all comes down to words, that's being unrealistic. Clothes, behavior, people's anticipation of the expected goings on at different types of social gatherings is clearly a much bigger factors than simply the words people say.
> 
> Men and women don't gather in places where drinking and drugs and wild behavior are expected to take place expecting the thrill of the event to be something other than shocking and beyond the bounds of a more safe and sober activity.


Someone was talking about that. The leader of the discussion asked how long it would take being unsure of what body language was saying to decide to make an advance. The guy replied that it would be hours probably. So the lead said "how long do you think it would take if you simply asked?" Sometimes people can't find the simpliest answer because they just won't ask.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yh...

Most of my life I have had more males as friends than women. We were friends thru business or interests ....theater, church, stage, horses,politics, building stuff. I was taught not to send out mixed signals...simply not leading men on. 

Simply things... "guys, I got this round put your money away.. seriously if you buy all my drinks your wife (or girlfriend)is not going to be a happy camper and then there will be friction ....cause it will just look bad...And I can see this thru the eyes of a woman. I don't want Mary to feel threatened over nothing....So shut up and let me pay.

Some women might only think affirmation only comes from being desired sexually thought they say they want to be treated equal the truly do not treat men equal. They string men along... play them flirt with out flirting. I am not keen with those kind of women and they also don't like me. That's fine. the drama in such women's lives takes up too much time. Men if treated like equals are great friends.


----------



## Patchouli

plowjockey said:


> I don't think you understand the whole point of drinking - to lower one's inhibitions.
> 
> Did she "consent" or not? Who knows, she can't remember, because she was too drunk.
> 
> Sorry, and yes, we all agree "no" means no, but saying "yes" (Or not saying no) under the influence, does not mean that a rape occurred. Look at any law.
> 
> *Some females get extra sexually excited, when they lower their inhabitants due to alcohol consumption - just like men*. Making it all about the responisbilioty of the male, is ludicrous and makes women look like ignorant, weak fools, IMO.


Are we talking demons or multiple personalities here? :grin: Sorry that just made me laugh.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> I think you're trying to see it through legal history, which I find highly flawed in all societies in history, and usually applied not in a uniform way anyway.
> 
> I'm talking about social and familial gender roles in everyday life. Cultural norms for women and men.
> 
> But, I still stand by my thoughts that legally, I see a lot of irony in saying that a woman has the right to cry foul irregardless if her role and men are held to the higher standard of being culpable for a crime, while simultaneously insisting that women and men are totally equal.


Of course I'm using legal history to view the subservience of women. It is a concrete view into the history of the day. The laws that governed tell the cultural history of that area and time very accurately. 

If you use the "how-to" "household" and "self-help" books of the day it's impossible not to conclude that man and women were not equal. Just reading/viewing mass media advertising- which I think gives a very detailed look into day to day life- the man was everything. Even in the supposedly enlightened 21st century there are men that think that women are not their equal. And we are still paid less for equal work. 

Again, why would any woman want to go back to that?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> As far as not having empathy for others, I do. What I don't need is an amateur psychoanalyst/life coach. And I won't be responding to you again.


I'm afraid I'm gonna have to take your advice here and remember you used your words here, directed at me, and "no means no".


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, why would any woman want to go back to that?


So, I would be disrespecting your right to tell me no and shouldn't interact with you anymore by responding to this question, right?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Or wait, does that not apply to me cause I'm not a man and we're not going to interract sexually?

Gosh, darn it, life is confusing and communication can be imperfect i guess, huh.........


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> So, I would be disrespecting your right to let me we shouldn't interact anymore by responding to this question, right?


I was referring to the other subject, sorry if I wasn't clear. You don't have to answer me at all... I can't force you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> Or wait, does that night t apply to me cause I'm not a man and we're not going to interract sexually?
> 
> Gosh, darn it, life is confusing and communication can be imperfect u guess, huh.........


I'm not mocking you, why do you feel the need to mock me?


----------



## gibbsgirl

I'm not trying to attack you. You seem really angry about this stuff and it seems very touchy subject for you. Reminds me a lot of my thoughts years ago. 

Lots of people don't like this stuff and want to do something to help fight it. But no one can control another. Life feels less out of control when you let go of what you can do nothing about and focus on what you can so something about. Sex crimes of all kinds will never stop happening or stop being redefined for that matter. 

The world is less exhausting when you try and stop controlling others and just work to curb the dangers you personally are facing.

My last snarky posts were to again try and show the futility of solving this without being willing to let go of the idea that most of the old gender roles were bad and most of the new gender roles are good.

Life is messy and imperfect and people get trampled on. Doesn't mean you wallow in it forever without being willing to find practical solutions.

You happen to be replying to me and I to you. But, I'm not trying to be your life coach and force you to change. I'm telling you things that it helped me to hear and process and test out over the years. Maybe it's not for you, but maybe someone else reading it will find it rings true to them.


----------



## kasilofhome

Advertising things that sexulize one's self is flirtatious. 

Kiss slowly .... that ad sends mix signals and is a public message that seems important to one to announce.

No means no.... by why do women do that and complain if it is confusing to others about their free choice to tell the would with out any discernment as to who learns that message.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> I'm not trying to attack you. You seem really angry about this stuff and it seems very touchy subject for you. Reminds me a lot of my thoughts years ago.
> 
> Lots of people don't like this stuff and want to do something to help fight it. But no one can control another. Life feels less out of control when you let go of what you can do nothing about and focus on what you can so something about. Sex crimes of all kinds will never stop happening or stop being redefined for that matter.
> 
> The world is less exhausting when you try and stop controlling others and just work to curb the dangers you personally are facing.
> 
> My last snarky posts were to again try and show the futility of solving this without being willing to let go of the idea that most of the old gender roles were bad and most of the new gender roles are good.
> 
> Life is messy and imperfect and people get trampled on. Doesn't mean you wallow in it forever without being willing to find practical solutions.
> 
> You happen to be replying to me and I to you. But, I'm not trying to be your life coach and force you to change. I'm telling you things that it helped me to hear and process and test out over the years. Maybe it's not for you, but maybe someone else reading it will find it rings true to them.


Please stop trying to psychoanalyze me, I don't want or appreciate it. I do not wish to discuss rape or sexual assault with you but anything else is fine. 

OK? ETA: If not, that's OK too.


----------



## kasilofhome

Solution walk away.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Advertising things that sexulize one's self is flirtatious.
> 
> Kiss slowly .... that ad sends mix signals and is a public message that seems important to one to announce.
> 
> No means no.... by why do women do that and complain if it is confusing to others about their free choice to tell the would with out any discernment as to who learns that message.


Yes or No is all that counts. Does not matter how I act or what you think any other words imply. Yes or no is all that matters.


----------



## kasilofhome

We agree no means no... but what start flirtatious Why send mix messages... Why broadcast your sexuality if your do not want that attention


----------



## kasilofhome

When I am out with men I am not one of the guys. I am just one of the persons there all of us are equal.

No mixed messages... no drama... we just deal with the event or mission.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> We agree no means no... but what start flirtatious Why send mix messages... Why broadcast your sexuality if your do not want that attention


Sexual assult is not wanted attention. Nothing wrong with flirting or broadcasting your sexuality .


----------



## kasilofhome

Still no means no..

And still.... Why send mixed messages


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> When I am out with men I am not one of the guys. I am just one of the persons there all of us are equal.
> 
> No mixed messages... no drama... we just deal with the event or mission.


As it should be. So why should it matter how you dress or if you flirt.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> Please stop trying to psychoanalyze me, I don't want or appreciate it. I do not wish to discuss rape or sexual assault with you but anything else is fine.
> 
> OK? ETA: If not, that's OK too.


Then stop talking to me on this particular thread that is entirely focused on rape and sexual assaults. Acting like you're being victimized again by me isn't gonna buy you any street cred in my book. There, is that less psychoanalytic for you if I shift to trailer park ghetto slang? 

I'm not trying to psychoanalyze you. I'm reading people's posts with their thoughts and sharing my thoughts.

Don't be so narsiccistic about us talking. I bet you're an awesome person, and I don't intend to tell you to not post your thoughts. Everyone one of us comes here with the same set of parameters to work within.

Share thoughts, experiences, successes, failures, and take the good stuff you get and let go of the rest.

If you have a thing against me, just put me on block. I've used it before.

I hope you have a good day. Don't let me wreck it, or even this thread for you.


----------



## kasilofhome

Sexual assault includes being asked out repeatedly... is that really assault....I don't think so.. Simply be clear , firm and don't send mixed messages....u


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Still no means no..
> 
> And still.... Why send mixed messages


No mixed messages. Just idiots who don't know the difference between yes and no.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> Then stop talking to me on this particular thread that is entirely focused on rape and sexual assaults. Acting like you're being victimized again by me isn't gonna buy you any street cred in my book. There, is that less psychoanalytic for you if I shift to trailer park ghetto slang?
> 
> I'm not trying to psychoanalyze you. I'm reading people's posts with their thoughts and sharing my thoughts.
> 
> Don't be so narsiccistic about us talking. I bet you're an awesome person, and I don't intend to tell you to not post your thoughts. Everyone one of us comes here with the same set of parameters to work within.
> 
> Share thoughts, experiences, successes, failures, and take the good stuff you get and let go of the rest.
> 
> If you have a thing against me, just put me on block. I've used it before.
> 
> I hope you have a good day. Don't let me wreck it, it even this thread for you.


There was absolutely nothing in my post (#214) about rape or sexual assault, correct? I was trying to continue a discussion about women's rights. If you weren't interested why didn't you just ignore the question? 

I thought, perhaps, that we had gotten off on the wrong foot. I was most definitely wrong.


----------



## kasilofhome

Saying no.... while unbuttoning your blouse.....mixed
Saying no and then grinding away on a dance floor and becoming enraged that that same man asks you out again... mixed

Accepting a drink and adding ...I really shouldn't cause I get really..... when I drink ...but you are cute..... mixed message.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> There was absolutely nothing in my post (#214) about rape or sexual assault, correct? I was trying to continue a discussion about women's rights. If you weren't interested why didn't you just ignore the question?
> 
> I thought, perhaps, that we had gotten off on the wrong foot. I was most definitely wrong.


They aren't clean cut separate issues. Why would women be interested in pursuing their rights if not to be able to pursue sexual autonomy and financial independence both?

I get why the politicians pushed it. They were courting an entirely new voting demographic.

Why do you think women's rights became a movement?


----------



## kasilofhome

Everyone is here voluntarily... if you don't want to par take stop sending mixed message.. walk away.. say no to yourself first thus when you do say no it really comes across a a no.


----------



## painterswife

I see from the posts here that a lot of young men and women are being raised with a morality that okays "just tell them you were recieving mixed messages" because it was the victim's fault because they wore something or said something that someone else thinks was a mixed message.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> I see from the posts here that a lot of young men and women are being raised with a morality that okays "just tell them you were recieving mixed messages" because it was the victim's fault because they wore something or said something that someone else thinks was a mixed message.


If you choose to you can twist it that way if it appeased you to demonize men.
My son knows and dumps and avoids women who chose to dress trashy, send mixed signals. As he's been taught just avoid drama queens with a list of men who were brutes.... cause they need to get their carp together before they are mature enough to be in any relationship. Their past problems and issues needn't become your future.

That's what taught him.


----------



## painterswife

Trashy is in the eye of the beholder and says nothing about the character of the person.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> I see from the posts here that a lot of young men and women are being raised with a morality that okays "just tell them you were recieving mixed messages" because it was the victim's fault because they wore something or said something that someone else thinks was a mixed message.


My own opinion is that it's not okay. But, regardless of whether a person believes God or nature is responsible for the development of human nature, most agree we are hardwired to actively pursue food, shelter and procreation.

Since we are a species capable of higher thought and understanding, I believe we are living in denial if we don't accept that sexual attraction will happen, and our actions and decisions, not just words play a real role in how that plays out for good and bad.

Most problem cases stem from known assailants, some are crimes of opportunity. I believe their is a lot that can be prevented by actively avoiding certain situations. But, as o society, we seem to be bent on telling our young you can do anything and the consequences you don't like aren't your fault. I think that does everyone a great disservice.


----------



## painterswife

You are telling our youth in every post about mixed signals that it is not about yes and no.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> Trashy is in the eye of the beholder and says nothing about the character of the person.


 He is free to personally define it for himself and reject those he defines to be trashy. Why would a fine person of good character choose to display themselves as trashy...

Shirts where nipples have periodically be tucked back in....here's your sign... trashy.

Grind away on the dance floor.... here's your sign your trashy

Just asked.. him... yep that's trashy..on his turn and walk away.... no needing a no from her... it's a no way get a way so education for him.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> You are telling our youth in every post about mixed signals that it is not about yes and no.


Where did you see anyone stating that... calling hyperbole..


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> Trashy is in the eye of the beholder and says nothing about the character of the person.


There's truth in that, but when you are getting a response you don't want or didn't intend from others you are communicating with, the thing you can do to change that is change how you are sending the messages they are receiving.

It's basic communication skills in real life. And, that is something that recent generations are losing the skill set of rapidly because they rely so heavily on virtual communication. It will make these problems worse not better, too.


----------



## haypoint

What one person intends as a complement can be viewed as a threat. A few months ago, someone did a video of a good looking woman in full length tight pants and a pretty blouse, walking down the streets of New York. In about 8 blocks, she had about 10 strangers make comments to her. Mostly is was just simple stuff, " Hey, you are looking fine, today." or " You look nice." and the seedy, "Baby, you are really hot!". For the most part, I think the guys were trying to be nice or start a conversation. But to a woman that feels all those sets of eyes are upon her and perhaps, if given the opportunity, one might rape her, that all seems creepy and threatening. So, even with verbal communication, the messages are lost.

I come from a fairly small touristy town. The tourist area is a few city blocks of tee shirts and such junk. During the tourist season, the sidewalks are busy. Sometimes I go there because it has the only ice cream shop in town. While walking down the sidewalk, if I were to see a woman with a baby carriage, looking into a crowded store, I could figure out that she wants to shop, but can't get in there with the baby and carriage. Because I see this in a totally different perspective, I might think I could do a good deed and offer to watch her baby and stroller while she steps just inside the open front store. But while my naÃ¯ve heart is in the right place, such an offer would be viewed totally different by the woman. I might end up talking to the police. It might not occur to me that people steal babies, but to a mother that thought is ever present.

This is also true of intimate moments. A simple hug can be all sorts of things. Putting her lady parts near my man parts and applying a bear hug is unwanted sexual advances, unwanted touching. But it also could be a simple show of friendship. 

Some might strictly define rape as an unwanted action that you could get you pregnant, anything else is physical assault. At the other end, some might define rape as any unwanted verbal comment, a glance at her lady parts or the implied dominance over women by paying for dinner.

It is hard for guys to understand what it is like for women, because we don't experience it. Women have difficulty understanding how guys can not see it and better understand it. If you tell a woman that 20% of women experience inappropriate touching in college, they'd tell you that's too low. Tell guys that 20% of women feel physically violated while in college, many would be surprised, having never seen such activity or engaged in it. 

I've never raped a woman, so information that it is widespread is hard for me to understand. But, I'd never deny that it happens. Just we have vastly different life experiences.

But I do know women that did a bunch of crazy things, later regret it and try to deflect responsibility by claiming she was taken advantage of and raped. That is a slap in the face to men that understand "no means no" and to women that have endured the humiliation of an actual rape.


----------



## painterswife

So if the rapists kink is covered head to toe, what will you say to that victim? Any type of clothing can do it for the twisted. Don't keep giving them more excuses.


----------



## kasilofhome

Hay.. took the time to write a straight post very much like what the men in my life say..

Rape is wrong and women are confusing. 

Men are not evil any more than women are.. putting down men does not shout out that you want equality.

I am a tiny person many women are much stronger that I. Just as my warning system has cautioned me about men who maybe great guys but a bit too aggressive for me to give them a chance.... the same warning system has flared up around nasty drunk or aggressive women...

I have seen studies that a large percentage of lesbians have issues with men... I believe that to be true.


----------



## watcher

kasilofhome said:


> We agree no means no... but what start flirtatious Why send mix messages... Why broadcast your sexuality if your do not want that attention


Its like when a woman wears skin tight short shorts and then gets upset when you stare at her butt.


----------



## watcher

I find it interesting that no one in the "its rape if she's drunk" crowd has not answered my questions.


----------



## where I want to

watcher said:


> I find it interesting that no one in the "its rape if she's drunk" crowd has not answered my questions.


I think what you mean is that it is not rape if he is drunk too.

My answer is post #210. It is not yet settled what the definition is. Forever woman have been assigned the responsibility for rape as, unless battery also occurred, it was assumed that if a man was able to rape a woman, she deserved it by putting herself in that place. That was hardly a fair stance but it was what happened.
Which meant plying a woman with drinks so that she couldn't object was not uncommon . Then some women said that was still rape. In essence drugging her. Just as if a roofie was added to her drink. 
So colleges, which is where the question is mostly raised, started applying the standard that too drunk to say 'yes' means consent is not given.
Then, like most rules that seem simple, almost immediately along came the question of both parties being too drunk to be responsible. OK- why is her being too drunk to be responsible one thing and for her another? I personally don't think it is but I can see the reluctance of TPTB to accept it as it turns a simple rule that only 'yes' means 'yes' into 'yes' means 'yes' unless. 
You can see what this sorting of thinking leads to- we're back to the woman being responsible because she put herself there. And it is immediately clear that it will go back to a drunk woman if ok to rape, if not in law then at least in reality, because then TPTB have to deal with a he said she said and proving level of responsibility in a drunk is hard. We end up back at it being her fault for being near an incapacitated male.
I think the people advocating for a hard and fast rule picture a woman being preyed on and you picture a man being unfairly accused. It is actually a hard thing to figure out as if a drunk hits another drunk in a crosswalk, then the drunk driving the car is guilty. So, if having sex with an incapacitated female is always wrong, then how do you get it through people's heads that it is wrong when you start adding exceptions. 
For instance you see the posts that said it is basically the woman's fault because she was drunk- so back to the good ol' days. 
I think the end result will be that getting drunk enough to be irresponsible when both people are in that state will be that both people are responsible. In other words it will not be a case of one guilty but both guilty. This is the only way to keep the idea that sex with an essentually unconscious woman is wrong in all cases. However silly it sounds. 

BTW this is writing off the cuff as I have spent little time working it out.


----------



## kasilofhome

That's what his question was.. 

Or why do some women who claim to want equality think men who are drunk and have sex with a drunk woman who said yes ....

Believe men are not also not impaired in their decision making..
Equality means equal.

Lots of men wake up and have plenty of regret as to who's laying next to them.


----------



## gibbsgirl

One more thought about post #214. I absolutely love using source materials from older eras to gain perspective on how people thought and how things were done or how society works.

But, I try to be very careful to take it all with a grain of salt, sometimes more.
.after all, if I were to walk into a bookstore or Google a topic online for the writings of contemporary authors, I might find books, articles, news stories etc whose telling of a topic might seem very far into the fringe of the realities of everyday life as I have encountered it. So, why should I assume such writings of the past were not also at least occasionally filled with gross inaccuracies as to the way things really played out vs the authors message.


----------



## watcher

where I want to said:


> I think what you mean is that it is not rape if he is drunk too.


Read the post. People done care if he's stone cold sober or if he's one shot from passing out. If she's drunk and he has sex with her, even if she agrees, he has just raped her because is doesn't have the mental capacity to legally agree to have sex. 

What's your answer to my post (#178) about it?


----------



## gibbsgirl

I think you're raising a very valid question in post 178. And, I don't think your logic is wrong.

It all comes back to our society deciding that taking personal responsibility seriously is an undesirable option.

I don't think my family leads a life where we have closed off ourselves from interacting with others to such a degree that we're hermits at all.

But, we are in comparison to many other people, I guess, very aware of our social surroundings and any possible risks we want to avoid. It's second nature to us, but I get the impression that others would say our actions are over the top and should be unnecessary because those around us are obligated to o not take advantage of a crime of opportunity.

Some examples would be, I don't go out after dark alone ever. Always have dad or husband or teenage son. The men avoid it too. Too many drunks and chances of trouble compared to daytime hours.

Our kids are never allowed to be alone inside or outside with the opposite sex. Safety in numbers is a saying for a reason.

The window latch on my truck she'll is busted. But, anytime we're in public, I put the key on and turn to open as if the lock worked. Don't need to alert anyone to the easy access of the truck bed until the replacement part gets there.

A few weeks ago, we were offered some older farm equipment from a member here. I told my husband and let him make the personal contact with the man and arrangements. He was perfectly nice, but a stranger to us and my husband was better suited in my opinion to deciding and overseeing the safety of meeting in real life with a person we had not known personally.

In my experience women are frequently more social and the planners in the family. I usually am the one contacted by friends, coaches, church vestry, etc to receive invitations or requests for our time, money, etc. Sometimes, it feels like we're being strong armed into something we really aren't interested in and other times it's just something we don't feel is a "using your brain" ac ivity. My husband has great skills at running interference on that for me and letting people know he's the shotcaller of the house and it gets people to stop hounding me on a regular basis.

We work with the ACH other on all this, not against each other. But, I get the impression from some of the posts I'd be seen as some backwards, paranoid, kept woman. I'm not. We just work within the roles we are best suited to and take a lot of personal responsibility for what happens to us because of our decisions.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

kasilofhome said:


> We agree no means no... but what start flirtatious Why send mix messages... Why broadcast your sexuality if your do not want that attention





kasilofhome said:


> If you choose to you can twist it that way if it appeased you to demonize men.
> *My son knows and dumps and avoids women who chose to dress trashy, send mixed signals.* As he's been taught just avoid drama queens with a list of men who were brutes.... cause they need to get their carp together before they are mature enough to be in any relationship. Their past problems and issues needn't become your future.
> 
> That's what taught him.


HOLD THE PHONE JAMONE

If I want to wear a black cocktail dress with a low cut back, and is mid-calf length, in stiletto heels because my body is in amazing great shape and I like the way it looks; WHO are YOU to call me 'trashy'?
Further more, just because I look smokin' good in my cocktail dress and stiletto heels DOES NOT give ANYONE the 'free pass' to sexually assault / rape me.
I am NOT dressing for anyone but ME!
If Patty Pentecostal thinks I'm going to hell......so what. I'm not, and I not only don't care what she thinks, she can keep her opinion to herself.
I didn't dress for HER.
If Pappy Pervert thinks "I'm sweet on him" because HE likes what HE sees and thinks "GREEN LIGHT".....um IT'S NOT, and he can buzz off, and keep his hands to himself.
I didn't dress for him either.

IF you would like to look at this from a Biblical perspective; 
The MAN has infinite more responsibility. 
HE was Created first, and HE was spoken to first by God AND HE was given CLEAR instructions on what his responsibilities are.
Let's talk about Joseph, and Potifers wife.......he ran away from that horny old goat so fast he ran out of his coat. 
He feared dishonoring God, and Potifer his boss, and Potifers wife; because she was Potifers wife......

IF you would like to look at this in a 2015 in our screwed up world perspective; well, men still have the brunt of the responsibility.

How many women in burka's.......are raped. 
YOU CAN'T EVEN see their EYES they are totally completely covered......so "no mixed signals" there, and yet rape, still happens.

No, means NO.......and I don't care if you are both butt naked after 25 min of making out......if HE says no, if SHE says no, and the other (male or female) doesn't stop......IT IS RAPE and the person who continued without consent NO MATTER WHAT happened leading up to the act.......when NO is spoken, NO is the answer.

Every. Single. Time. Period.


----------



## kasilofhome

You defined what trashy was...to you.
Patty Pentecostal have the same right to her opinions and to vocalize those opinions.
Like Joseph.. he's running away too

Now think about cooling those stilettos.

We agree I hope ...that no means no.
Now think... do you think for one moment that the attire you look smoking hot in is out of place .... in high school, on the beach fishing, attending soccer and playing, attending bible study, going four wheeling, working at the hospital.

In as much as a swimsuit is fine for the pool, beach, boating.... it tends to become a focal point seeking to attract sexual attention when worn groceries at Fred Meyers Or going to the bank to apply for a loan.

Now, your outfit would not stand out in a nice restaurant, nice event, a wedding etc.


I stand firm that if all a female thinks she has to draw attention to herself is sexuality think twice sex doesn't make for a friendship.


I totally disagree... in 2015 the responsibility is equal... chivalry died at the hands of political correctness for many a man.

Opening a door... their wrong 
Say woman looks nice... their a pig
Sorry... but we've come a wrong way baby.

If men can avoid the enticement of drama queens they can enjoy life with out the crazy.

Trashy is wear a top were you have to constantly tuck in a nipple and your not breast feeding the baby. Think some of the red carpet outfits.

Somehow I don't think that's you but that outfit you mention works great at a high end classy establishment of fine food and spirt...location location location and events.

Men can dump and avoid and say no too.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

kasilofhome said:


> You defined what trashy was...to you.
> Patty Pentecostal have the same right to her opinions and to vocalize those opinions.


Patty has a right to her opinion until vocalizing it takes away from someone else's rights.



> Like Joseph.. he's running away too
> 
> Now think about cooling those stilettos.
> 
> We agree I hope ...that no means no.


Excellent.
No means No.
Every single time.
Period.
The End.



> Now think... do you think for one moment that the attire you look smoking hot in is out of place .... in high school, on the beach fishing, attending soccer and playing, attending bible study, going four wheeling, working at the hospital.
> 
> In as much as a swimsuit is fine for the pool, beach, boating.... it tends to become a focal point seeking to attract sexual attention when worn groceries at Fred Meyers Or going to the bank to apply for a loan.


I agree wearing a swimsuit to the grocery store is a bit silly.
It's pretty obvious someone is craving attention.
However, like the 6 year old in isle 3 that is screaming his guts out having a fit because he's not getting his way; and as MUCH as I would like to 'shine that kids backside' for behaving like an animal in public, I do not. 
I shake my head, and walk away.

So no matter WHAT a woman is wearing, and where she's wearing it, men and women have to exersize self control, period.



> Now, your outfit would not stand out in a nice restaurant, nice event, a wedding etc.
> I stand firm that if all a female thinks she has to draw attention to herself is sexuality think twice sex doesn't make for a friendship.


I find it sad that a female thinks her only worth is on her chest and between her legs.
I find it irritating that woman use their sexuality to advance themselves.
It's not the 1940's for God's sake......we don't need to 'put out' to survive.
I find it disgusting that 'dating' today means having sex the second or third time you go out with someone, and if you don't, no one is interested in going out with you.
Yeah, I'm frustrated too.
But this exists in the world, and I have to deal with it.
Not exploit it to my advantage and claim "well she turned me on".




> I totally disagree... in 2015 the responsibility is equal... chivalry died at the hands of political correctness for many a man.
> 
> Opening a door... their wrong
> Say woman looks nice... their a pig
> Sorry... but we've come a wrong way baby.
> 
> If men can avoid the enticement of drama queens they can enjoy life with out the crazy.


God's Word doesn't change, and I don't care WHAT this world is doing, men still bear the brunt of the responsibility. Period.
My son will open doors, NOT because someone appreciates it, but because it's the right thing to do.
My son was taught when it is appropriate to compliment a woman, and how to do so in a respectful manner. If she takes it the wrong way, that's her problem.

And if women avoided men who were liars and fakes they could enjoy life without the deceit. 
IT STILL DOES NOT give men the green light to have sex with someone (male or female) AFTER the words NO have been spoken.



> Trashy is wear a top were you have to constantly tuck in a nipple and your not breast feeding the baby. Think some of the red carpet outfits.
> 
> Somehow I don't think that's you but that outfit you mention works great at a high end classy establishment of fine food and spirt...location location location and events.
> 
> Men can dump and avoid and say no too.


But if I forgot something, and had to swing into a store in that outfit, that still doesn't give someone the right to put their hands on me.

Men and Women are 100% responsible for themselves.
If a man see's a woman, no matter how she's dressed, that he wants to bed down, and he ACTS on that impulse even after she has said no; is rape.
If a man and woman are drunk and making out on the couch and she stops and says "you know what this is a bad idea" and tries to walk away and he won't allow her to leave and continues to try to 'change her mind; that is sexual assault.
I don't care, if she is butt naked. No means no.

It doesn't matter.
No one has the right, no matter the situation, to have sex / sexual contact with another human being when they have said no.
Period. Ever.


----------



## Jolly

At the end of the day, I think two widely different sources got it right, pertaining to rape...

1. An old adage of the U.S. Army was that no woman ever got raped in a top bunk.

2. Ruth Westheimer said that if a woman takes her clothes off and gets into be with a naked man, it isn't rape.

Simple statements, but somewhat alike, and eminently practical.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Jolly, I agree; Don't PUT yourself in a situation that could go from bad to worse.
I have 2 daughters.

If girls are gonna go out drinkin' and dancing; great! Do so in groups. Do not get separated, and do not get so wasted you can't think. 
NEVER set your drink down, and NEVER accept a drink from someone unless you watched it get poured.

If boys are gonna go out drinkin' and dancing; great. Do so in groups. Do not get separated and do not get so wasted you can't think. 
NEVER set your drink down and NEVER accept a drink from someone unless you watched it get poured. 
Use your brain. If a 'ready to go' female looks a little young.......walk away. 
No matter how smokin' hot she is or how old she says she is.......walk away.

Men, don't allow your sex drive to be in the drivers seat.
Woman, don't disrespect yourself by being easy.

Seems simple to me.


----------



## FutureFarm

Still no answers to Watcher's question. Here's a story though. Last night some of my friends and I went out to celebrate a promotion. My wife drove. I had enough to drink that I shouldn't drive. When we got back to the house we engaged in sexual activity. Was I raped? Many people here have said that if one of the people is too drunk to drive they are too drunk to consent to sex. Do I need to call the police? If I don't won't all of you be guilty of obstruction?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

FutureFarm said:


> Still no answers to Watcher's question. Here's a story though. Last night some of my friends and I went out to celebrate a promotion. My wife drove. I had enough to drink that I shouldn't drive. When we got back to the house we engaged in sexual activity. Was I raped? Many people here have said that if one of the people is too drunk to drive they are too drunk to consent to sex. Do I need to call the police? If I don't won't all of you be guilty of obstruction?


What EXACTLY is his question, please


----------



## Laura Zone 5

watcher said:


> Are you saying that men have more mental capacity than women? After all you seem to think a drunk man has the ability to make legally sound and binding choices while drunk but a woman doesn't have that ability.
> 
> IOW, if a guy is drunk how can you hold him legally responsible for his sexual actions while at the same not hold a drunk woman responsible for hers?





watcher said:


> Incorrect according to many here. They claim that having sex with a drunk woman is rape because she can not legally consent to having sex due to limited mental capacity. Its the same logic that any sex with an underage girl is rape.



Is the 'question' in here?


----------



## FutureFarm

The question I'm interested in is post #178.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

watcher said:


> Here's a some thing to think about.
> 
> Say we have a 21 y.o. female. One weekend she goes out to a party and gets drunk, really drunk. While she is drunk she agrees to have sex with 15 guys and does.


ok, the guys are disgusting, and the female is disgusting.
Pretty equal so far.



> After her little romp with all those guys she decides to drive to the beach and go swimming. On the way there she runs down a bicyclist, drives over a child being pushed in a stroller and hits a van carrying 10 nuns and kills them all.
> 
> *Now do we charge all the guys with rape and let her go for killing 12 people or do we let the guys go and charge her for the killings?*


I am assuming she is still 'drunk'......
You charge the female with drunk driving, vehicular manslaughter / murder.
I'm sure there are oodles of other charges that would apply.
She's driving.
She's responsible.
If she agreed to have sex w / 15 guys and never said no once, then how can you charge them with rape? She was of age, and gave consent.....she never said no......so it's not a crime to be 'easy' or 'gross'. 



> You can't have it both ways.


Rape, drunk driving, and manslaughter have one thing in common.
They are all against the law.
I just don't know how this makes sense???



> The only way you can charge the guys with rape is by claiming that due to her state of intoxication she was not legally mentally capable to make the decision to have sex. If that's true then you can not then say she was legally mentally capable to make a decision to drive.
> 
> If you say that even though she was intoxicated she had the legal mental capability to know that she should not drive you have to say that she was legal mental capability to make the decision to have sex.


Um.........
I hope I answered the only question I could find.


----------



## FutureFarm

But if she's drunk she can't give consent. So even if she said yes to all 15 guys, she couldn't legally give consent and all 15 guys are now rapists.


----------



## Irish Pixie

FutureFarm said:


> But if she's drunk she can't give consent. So even if she said yes to all 15 guys, she couldn't legally give consent and all 15 guys are now rapists.


If she's passed out drunk/can't respond drunk she can't consent. Correct?... She was not passed out/can't respond drunk so she can consent. All hypothetical, of course. 

I hope that clears up the nagging question for you.  ETA: Apparently not. I suggest you talk to an attorney for your answer.


----------



## FutureFarm

I think everyone agrees that sex with someone who is asleep, unconscious, or passed out drunk is wrong, illegal, and heinous. The question lies in whether or not someone who has had too much drink is capable of giving consent. According to the state of Illinois as reported by the Student Counseling Services webpage of Illinois State University:
"In the state of Illinois "sexual assault" or rape, is a felony and could result in an individual being sentenced to time in prison. It is defined as penetration (could be oral, anal, or vaginal), by force or threat of force, or when the victim is unable to give knowing consent. If an individual is "incapacitated from drugs or alcohol" (i.e. drunk) they cannot give consent. Having sex with someone who is drunk, is by definition, a crime."
In just a few minutes I found some sites claiming that consent cannot be given while drunk. I know most conservatives will dismiss Huffington Post as liberal propaganda, but it notes that a drunk woman cannot give consent. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-r-marsh/why-college-drunk-sex-rap_b_5352121.html
So a the drunk woman in post #178 who willingly had sex with 15 guys at a party could not legally give consent because she was drunk. Fifteen men are now convicted of rape, even though she "consented." She continues to go on a drunk driving spree and is then convicted of DUI. In the eyes of the law she was responsible for her decision to drive while drunk, but not responsible for her decision to have sex while drunk. This situation is obviously not doing justice by the 15 males.
These situations are messy because being drunk is more likely to make someone a victim of sexual assault/rape, but being drunk is also more likely to make someone more likely to be the perpetrator of sexual assault/rape and DUI. Where do you think the lines should be? I can't come up with an answer.


----------



## mmoetc

FutureFarm said:


> I think everyone agrees that sex with someone who is asleep, unconscious, or passed out drunk is wrong, illegal, and heinous. The question lies in whether or not someone who has had too much drink is capable of giving consent. According to the state of Illinois as reported by the Student Counseling Services webpage of Illinois State University:
> "In the state of Illinois "sexual assault" or rape, is a felony and could result in an individual being sentenced to time in prison. It is defined as penetration (could be oral, anal, or vaginal), by force or threat of force, or when the victim is unable to give knowing consent. If an individual is "incapacitated from drugs or alcohol" (i.e. drunk) they cannot give consent. Having sex with someone who is drunk, is by definition, a crime."
> In just a few minutes I found some sites claiming that consent cannot be given while drunk. I know most conservatives will dismiss Huffington Post as liberal propaganda, but it notes that a drunk woman cannot give consent. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-r-marsh/why-college-drunk-sex-rap_b_5352121.html
> So a the drunk woman in post #178 who willingly had sex with 15 guys at a party could not legally give consent because she was drunk. Fifteen men are now convicted of rape, even though she "consented." She continues to go on a drunk driving spree and is then convicted of DUI. In the eyes of the law she was responsible for her decision to drive while drunk, but not responsible for her decision to have sex while drunk. This situation is obviously not doing justice by the 15 males.
> These situations are messy because being drunk is more likely to make someone a victim of sexual assault/rape, but being drunk is also more likely to make someone more likely to be the perpetrator of sexual assault/rape and DUI. Where do you think the lines should be? I can't come up with an answer.


The line is actually simple. In the case of the fifteen men she may have been unable to consent to the acts done to/with her. Those were acts that involved another. But unless she later complains the question is largely moot. There is no question of consent in driving the car unless the implication is that someone else required, demanded or somehow forced her to drive the car. Absent that she didn't consent to drive the car, she decided to.


----------



## FutureFarm

Go back and read post 178. It says she agrees to sex with all 15. The problem is that the law says she can't be held responsible for that decision but can be he'd responsible for the decision to drive. Regardless of whether or not she filed a police report, according to the State of Illinois all 15 men are now criminals.


----------



## gibbsgirl

That is why relying on the law is flawed and futile, and you're seeing it in trying to sort out this scenario and where then lines should be drawn.

It comes back to personal responsibility being the best tool to use, not the law. The locations of the lines being crossed will never be definitive because there will never be consensus amongst society about how to define morals.

The only solution that gives you a realistic shot at control the outcome is being willing to accept what the risks are and deciding if you're okay with chancing it. It doesn't mean rape or sexual assault is okay. It just means, people many times aren't willing to acknowledge that reality and cry foul and place blame when they result in undesirable outcomes.


----------



## where I want to

watcher said:


> Read the post. People done care if he's stone cold sober or if he's one shot from passing out. If she's drunk and he has sex with her, even if she agrees, he has just raped her because is doesn't have the mental capacity to legally agree to have sex.
> 
> What's your answer to my post (#178) about it?


Whoops accidently edited previous post rather than made a new one. But am too lazy to go back and fix it .


----------



## where I want to

gibbsgirl said:


> That is why relying on the law is flawed and futile, and you're seeing it in trying to sort out this scenario and where then lines should be drawn.
> 
> It comes back to personal responsibility being the best tool to use, not the law. The locations of the lines being crossed will never be definitive because there will never be consensus amongst society about how to define morals.
> 
> The only solution that gives you a realistic shot at control the outcome is being willing to accept what the risks are and deciding if you're okay with chancing it. It doesn't mean rape or sexual assault is okay. It just means, people many times aren't willing to acknowledge that reality and cry foul and place blame when they result in undesirable outcomes.


All what you say is true but then you are also letting men who see a drunk woman as a freeby off the hook by saying it is her fault.


----------



## gibbsgirl

where I want to said:


> All what you say is true but then you are also letting men who see a drunk woman as a freeby off the hook by saying it is her fault.


I don't agree. I'm saying people should quit acting like their choices can't actively put them in the line of fire.

It's similar to people generally understanding that making murder illegal, hasn't stopped it, so act accordingly to ensure you avoid fairly risky situations.

Where it is different though is that sex itself is not illegal. Therefore, the only way to reasonably minimize the risk of a person having a sexual encounter that makes them feel violated, is for that person to take responsibility for avoiding scenarios that may put them at undue risk.


----------



## AmericanStand

where I want to said:


> All what you say is true but then you are also letting men who see a drunk woman as a freeby off the hook by saying it is her fault.


The consistency is in the choice. SHE chose to get drunk and knew at the time it would diminish her mental abilities so she should be responsible for everything that comes later.


----------



## mmoetc

FutureFarm said:


> Go back and read post 178. It says she agrees to sex with all 15. The problem is that the law says she can't be held responsible for that decision but can be he'd responsible for the decision to drive. Regardless of whether or not she filed a police report, according to the State of Illinois all 15 men are now criminals.


No one's a criminal until a crime has been alledged. Unless and until she files a report or the state chooses to prosecute what is the crime they committed. They will only become convicted criminals if she and the prosecution can convince a judge or jury. Are you a criminal each time your foot gets a little heavy?

The difference still remains. She didn't consent to drive drunk. She decided to drive drunk. That decision may have been affected by her drinking but it was a decision. It can be argued that her consent with the men was a&#322;so a decision and affected by alcohol. Whether that was a mitigating factor is best left to the courts, not the court of public opinion.


----------



## where I want to

AmericanStand said:


> The consistency is in the choice. SHE chose to get drunk and knew at the time it would diminish her mental abilities so she should be responsible for everything that comes later.


Really? Did the women who under went anesthesia only to be raped by a male nurse while unconscious in recovery make poor choices too? Didn't the man have any responsibility or is every woman who got herself into the wrong place a freeby?


----------



## where I want to

gibbsgirl said:


> I don't agree. I'm saying people should quit acting like their choices can't actively put them in the line of fire.
> 
> It's similar to people generally understanding that making murder illegal, hasn't stopped it, so act accordingly to ensure you avoid fairly risky situations.
> 
> Where it is different though is that sex itself is not illegal. Therefore, the only way to reasonably minimize the risk of a person having a sexual encounter that makes them feel violated, is for that person to take responsibility for avoiding scenarios that may put them at undue risk.


Driving is not illegal. But deliberately driving over a drunk is still not ok. 
It would be nice to be able to avoid bad situations- it's a wise precaution. But, if taken to it's logical conclusion, you end up with a Saudi Arabian woman, only going outside under a mobile tent in the company of a male relative to segregated facilities. And I bet they still have rapes.
It is a tricky thing to figure out how to actually make it work to say having sex with a incapacitated person is wrong. But it needs doing. As long as we're living in a culture that actually romanticises drunkeness.


----------



## FutureFarm

No one disagrees that sex with someone who is unconscious is rape, wrong, and a heinous crime. The point is that under the current law someone can be the same amount of drunk and either be responsible for their decisions and outcomes of their decisions, or not responsible for their decisions and outcomes based on the event that occurred. In my mind you're either too incapacitated to be responsible for your actions or not. In the eyes of the law I can be too incapacitated to decided to engage in sex, and therefore not responsible for my actions. Then at the same time not be too incapacitated to be held responsible for my decision to drink and drive.


----------



## AmericanStand

where I want to said:


> Really? Did the women who under went anesthesia only to be raped by a male nurse while unconscious in recovery make poor choices too? Didn't the man have any responsibility or is every woman who got herself into the wrong place a freeby?


In retrospect yes it was a poor choice ,but it was not a choice like the others. She was fully entitled to expect those with a duty to protect her to do that. Far different than throwing yourself to the random mercy of the wolves.


----------



## where I want to

AmericanStand said:


> In retrospect yes it was a poor choice ,but it was not a choice like the others. She was fully entitled to expect those with a duty to protect her to do that. Far different than throwing yourself to the random mercy of the wolves.


But where's the line? A teen age girl going out with her friends and gets caught up out of inexperience? Or one who goes out on a date and finds herself drinking with her boyfriend she trusts but shouldn't have? Or goes to a party with her girlfriends and things went farther than she expected?
What we are talking about redefining what has always been an easy blaming of women to a responsibility of men too. And how to do that is a question. So, instead of simply saying the woman got drunk and therefore deserves getting raped, where is the point at which it becomes a crime to have sex with her? 
If simply getting drunk is the crime, why should getting drunk not be a crime for the man too rather than an excuse? 
This is a whole lot more difficult than saying woman drunk- she got what she was asking for. Where is that line to be?


----------



## mmoetc

Being drunk does not absolve one of responsibility else the drunk 28 year old would be guilty of nothing if he has sex with a 12 year old. When getting consent one must always be aware whether the person giving it legally can. Just as a 12 year old can't consent neither can, in many cases, someone who is legally drunk. If you choose to have sex with someone who could be legally impaired it is your choice and also your risk. Being drunk yourself doesn't give you a free pass to not use proper judgement. Just as it doesn't give you a pass to drive drunk.


----------



## FutureFarm

I have seen this situation used the other way too. Girlfriend and boyfriend go on a date. Boyfriend, being a gentleman, drives. He is polite and honorable the entire time. After dinner and dancing, the couple go back to girlfriend's house and have a few more drinks. She is by all legal definitions drunk, but still capable of taking off her and boyfriend's clothes. She tells him she wants to have sex. They do. 
A few months later they go through a rough patch and break up. It's not pretty at all. Girlfriend ends up accusing boyfriend of rape because she was drunk and therefore could not consent. Boyfriend is convicted, goes to jail, is on a sex offenders list, and will likely never be able to hold a decent job. 
Ignorance of the law is not a defense for breaking the law, but it is easy to see how a "reasonably prudent" person could find themselves in a situation similar to boyfriend. 
Actually I bet almost all of us married people could be in the same situation. If You have ever had sex with a person who is drunk, according to the law, you raped them.


----------



## gibbsgirl

where I want to said:


> Driving is not illegal. But deliberately driving over a drunk is still not ok.
> It would be nice to be able to avoid bad situations- it's a wise precaution. But, if taken to it's logical conclusion, you end up with a Saudi Arabian woman, only going outside under a mobile tent in the company of a male relative to segregated facilities. And I bet they still have rapes.
> It is a tricky thing to figure out how to actually make it work to say having sex with a incapacitated person is wrong. But it needs doing. As long as we're living in a culture that actually romanticises drunkeness.


The romanticisizing of all kinds of behavior in our society is a problem, because people want it both ways. They want to be influenced by what they call immoral behavior in all kinds of entertainment media, but decry it actually taking place in real life.

I don't think it leads to a life lived under sharia law either, if you can accept that both men and women play a role in personal responsibility. You teach people how you want to be treated is a true statement.

If young men are mentored in using their physical strength advantage in a positive way to take responsibility for the well being of those in their company that goes a long way. If young women are mentored in a way to understand how mixed up the signals can be to men sexually so they aren't as easily misunderstood, that goes a long way.

But, that train of thought is unsexy and unappealing, so unpopular 

It won't solve all the problems, or crimes. But, it would go a long way to filtering out some tragic, but self perpetuated problems from some of the truly predatory and life threatening ones. And, that would free up all kinds of resources to pursue the men who are going to hunt down n women and rape them.

There is an important difference between crimes of power with rape, and men who are opportunists hoping for a chance to find a girl that will let them hook up.

I've met plenty of men who will peer pressure other men to hold themselves to the higher standard. But, I've met plenty of women who don't understand that their actions are undoing the motivation for men to be the chivalrous guys they're hoping to find.


----------



## where I want to

The case that I read that made me think that a simple too-drunk-to-consent ruke was not going to be a nice easy solution was on in with a college studentbparty was going on and both parties were too drunk to control themselves. The female student was escorted to her own apartment, returned several times, literally threw herself on the male student several times and eventually they both ended up in bed together. 
A school councilor to the the woman it constituted rape as she was too drunk to consent. The male student alone was expelled because it was the rule.
The example shows it is not at all as simple as people have it. To me, her behavior should actually be considered consent, no matter what state of drunkeness she was in. This was not a case of abuse but of self abuse. This was not being in the wrong place or simply a man not taking no for an answer. She seemed to have actually been the aggressor.
So I ask again, so where does justice lay? No pun intended. Me-i think at least she should have been expelled too but shoukd he have been?


----------



## where I want to

gibbsgirl said:


> The romanticisizing of all kinds of behavior in our society is a problem, because people want it both ways. They want to be influenced by what they call immoral behavior in all kinds of entertainment media, but decry it actually taking place in real life.
> 
> I don't think it leads to a life lived under sharia law either, if you can accept that both men and women play a role in personal responsibility. You teach people how you want to be treated is a true statement.
> 
> If young men are mentored in using their physical strength advantage in a positive way to take responsibility for the well being of those in their company that goes a long way. If young women are mentored in a way to understand how mixed up the signals can be to men sexually so they aren't as easily misunderstood, that goes a long way.
> 
> But, that train of thought is unsexy and unappealing, so unpopular
> 
> It won't solve all the problems, or crimes. But, it would go a long way to filtering out some tragic, but self perpetuated problems from some of the truly predatory and life threatening ones. And, that would free up all kinds of resources to pursue the men who are going to hunt down n women and rape them.
> 
> There is an important difference between crimes of power with rape, and men who are opportunists hoping for a chance to find a girl that will let them hook up.
> 
> I've met plenty of men who will peer pressure other men to hold themselves to the higher standard. But, I've met plenty of women who don't understand that their actions are undoing the motivation for men to be the chivalrous guys they're hoping to find.


I agree with everything you said. But I still say that it does not resolve the issue when it happens. If young people were so easily guided, or if society supported stricter parenting, it would reduce the problems but, at the moment, there is a societal orgie of self-guidance going on. And far more pressures toward sex than consideration of consequences.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> The case that I read that made me think that a simple too-drunk-to-consent ruke was not going to be a nice easy solution was on in with a college studentbparty was going on and both parties were too drunk to control themselves. The female student was escorted to her own apartment, returned several times, literally threw herself on the male student several times and eventually they both ended up in bed together.
> A school councilor to the the woman it constituted rape as she was too drunk to consent. The male student alone was expelled because it was the rule.
> The example shows it is not at all as simple as people have it. To me, her behavior should actually be considered consent, no matter what state of drunkeness she was in. This was not a case of abuse but of self abuse. This was not being in the wrong place or simply a man not taking no for an answer. She seemed to have actually been the aggressor.
> So I ask again, so where does justice lay? No pun intended. Me-i think at least she should have been expelled too but shoukd he have been?


Do you have a link to this story? I always like to verify the details before I comment.


----------



## where I want to

http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...struggling_to_determine_when_intoxicated.html




painterswife said:


> Do you have a link to this story? I always like to verify the details before I comment.


I am happy to provide links to stories if I can.


----------



## kasilofhome

Laura...
Patty has yet to violate any of your rights... including your right to be offended.

No, all men are out to get laid. In talking about sex with male youth.. with the open consent from the parents, down to the parents are allow to be present.
We, have open talks some our with mix sex youth and some our the same theme but due to question and answer time.. it varies each time.

Bothered are told that they are one hundred percent responsible for avoiding sex prior to marriage. Note rape is a crime not a sex. That is covered too.

Trashy to you is just one thing clothing... Trashy in our discussions... are how a person displays themselves as a person not just clothing. Are they drinking underage, when of age do the plan on drinking too exess, are they diligently make choices that are for self centered immediate gratification, how do the treat their parents, family, school, authorities.

In short... are they making choices that are beneficial to let bing a good life.

If not... avoid being emotionally and physically personally involved...toxic..

Many adults here have severed relationships with parents and family members due to atomic relationships..we educate the youth while youth of toxic relationships. 

No person ....and it's not just females... should have to ever put out to pet a job or promotion. In teaching youths boundaries that they might consider for themselves as youth they are in a better position to make a choice and not a reaction.

No means no.

Ones character is a package deal not one facets only..


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...struggling_to_determine_when_intoxicated.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy to provide links to stories if I can.


After reading the story. I think the young man has a case against the school. The school created the rules. He broke the rules. However the girl broke the rules as well. They both should have been expelled. Not because anyone was raped but because they had sex after they were intoxicated which is against the school rules.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

FutureFarm said:


> But if she's drunk she can't give consent. So even if she said yes to all 15 guys, she couldn't legally give consent and all 15 guys are now rapists.


IN watchers 'question' he said that SHE GAVE CONSENT.
Watcher did not say "force her, her body said yes but her iips said no, she was passed out, etc"

He said SHE gave consent. Period.


----------



## where I want to

painterswife said:


> After reading the story. I think the young man has a case against the school. The school created the rules. He broke the rules. However the girl broke the rules as well. They both should have been expelled. Not because anyone was raped but because they had sex after they were intoxicated which is against the school rules.


I'm shocked to say this but I totally agree. But it does not answer with the schools rules that incapability to give consent means rape in all cases.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> I'm shocked to say this but I totally agree. But it does not answer with the schools rules that incapability to give consent means rape in all cases.


School rules are that way because of the proof required to prove a case one way or another. They are being proactive so that they don't get in the middle.

Do you expect them to go through what we are going through in this thread every time there is a sexual assault on campus? They don't want to so therefore they made rules.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

I sure hope "Patty" doesn't accept Jury Duty in a trial where a woman is raped, and "Patty" in all her holy purity thinks because of the way the woman was dressed, she was asking for it........

We are not talking about 'sex'.

We are talking about rape / sexual assault.
Rape, is a violent crime where one person forces another person against their wishes or will to engage in sexual activity.
Sexual assault is also a crime, that can be violent, or passive...... where one person TRIES to force another person against their wishes or will to engage in sexual activity.

I don't care what you are wearing or not wearing.
If a man or woman says NO, then no means no.
NO EXCUSES.

Be a man / woman; stand up, walk away, the end.


----------



## FutureFarm

Laura Zone 5 said:


> IN watchers 'question' he said that SHE GAVE CONSENT.
> Watcher did not say "force her, her body said yes but her iips said no, she was passed out, etc"
> 
> He said SHE gave consent. Period.



In the eyes of Thelma's she can't give consent because she was drunk. So who do you think should get charged? With what?


----------



## FutureFarm

Hat should say "in the eyes of the law". Autocorrect changes everything. I don't even know anyone named Thelma.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

FutureFarm said:


> In the eyes of Thelma's she can't give consent because she was drunk. So who do you think should get charged? With what?


Wait........what state has laws on the books that say when a person's blood alcohol level is .08 or higher she / he can no longer make decisions, and if she has sex it's rape......


----------



## where I want to

painterswife said:


> School rules are that way because of the proof required to prove a case one way or another. They are being proactive so that they don't get in the middle.
> 
> Do you expect them to go through what we are going through in this thread every time there is a sexual assault on campus? They don't want to so therefore they made rules.


Yes because it is a seeking of justice. Rape is a crime. To say a person has committed a crime is the first step in getting justice. That would be like saying most crimes occcur between 11pm amd 2 am, therefore anyone out between those times is going to be convicted of a crime. It just can't be done as a kneejerk response.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> Yes because it is a seeking of justice. Rape is a crime. To say a person has committed a crime is the first step in getting justice. That would be like saying most crimes occcur between 11pm amd 2 am, therefore anyone out between those times is going to be convicted of a crime. It just can't be done as a kneejerk respinse.


If there was a rape it would have gone to the police. This was students breaking the school rules.


----------



## where I want to

Who's Patty? Who's Thelma? What have I missed?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Patty showed up in post 255
Poor Thelma was a typo!!


----------



## FutureFarm

According to state of Illinois law, a person who is drunk cannot give consent. Therefore any sexual encounters that the drunk person engages in, whether the drunk person imitates or not, are rape. Anyone who has sex with a drunk person in the State of Illinois has committed a crime.


----------



## where I want to

painterswife said:


> If there was a rape it would have gone to the police. This was students breaking the school rules.


If the college considered that to be the issue, both would have been dismissed. But it didn't- it called it sexual assault and dismissed only the male student. 
And that is the whole issue being discussed- whether it is sexual assault and when if it is.
Making such blanket rules will result in an accumulation of injustices that will case the ending of attempts to address sexual assault on campuses so it behooves the colleges to do a better job of coming up with rules, even if they are more burdensome.


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> According to state of Illinois law, a person who is drunk cannot give consent. Therefore any sexual encounters that the drunk person engages in, whether the drunk person imitates or not, are rape. Anyone who has sex with a drunk person in the State of Illinois has committed a crime.


Then everyone in Illinois should know they are breaking the law and there are possible consequences. Just like driving with out a seat belt. If you get caught or reported you might face legal action. At least they have it written down in the law and you are forewarned.


----------



## where I want to

FutureFarm said:


> According to state of Illinois law, a person who is drunk cannot give consent. Therefore any sexual encounters that the drunk person engages in, whether the drunk person imitates or not, are rape. Anyone who has sex with a drunk person in the State of Illinois has committed a crime.


That may be what the law says but it can not be applied so simply as to create injustice.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> If the college considered that to be the issue, both would have been dismissed. But it didn't- it called it sexual assault and dismissed only the male student.
> And that is the whole issue being discussed- whether it is sexual assault and when if it is.
> Making such blanket rules will result in an accumulation of injustices that will case the ending of attempts to address sexual assault on campuses so it behooves the colleges to do a better job of coming up with rules, even if they are more burdensome.


It is sexual assault under their rules.


----------



## where I want to

painterswife said:


> It is sexual assault under their rules.


Maybe the rules are simply wrong. But I also can't believe, that while stated so simply, that any such rule would be passed without a whole lot more being part of it.


----------



## where I want to

I have to go to work- back later to see where this has gone.


----------



## FutureFarm

The state of Illinois probably throws off all the data in the original post then. Since every drunk college sexual encounter is rape.


----------



## kasilofhome

Patty would look at all the facts..
Patty might demand to to have her questions presented to any witness or defendent as patty felt she needed to seek out justice.

Patty understands non means no and sex is consented between two or more parties.
Patty understands that people have a right to do things that patty will not do herself.
Patty understands she has a right to her opinions and that everyone is to have justice on the facts and not emotional or religious bias.

Patty is capable of being a juror.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> Maybe the rules are simply wrong. But I also can't believe, that while stated so simply, that any such rule would be passed without a whole lot more being part of it.


Lots of rules are wrong. However those are the school rules. You agree to them before you pay your fees.


----------



## gibbsgirl

I have issues with schools attempting to administer punishments for issues that would not be considered a crime outside of their campus.

The convoluted list of policies laid out by then is just another layer to the growing onion, that makes us all techincalyy felons everyday that could be prosecuted for all kinds of stupid non-issues. But, it's very convenient for those in authority to have the ability to trump up charges against people whenever it suits their needs.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> I have issues with schools attempting to administer punishments for issues that would not be considered a crime outside of their campus.
> 
> The convoluted list of policies laid out by then is just another layer to the growing onion, that makes us all techincalyy felons everyday that could be prosecuted for all kinds of stupid non-issues. But, it's very convenient for those in authority to have the ability to trump up charges against people whenever it suits their needs.


You make the rules in your home, they make the rules in theirs.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> School rules are that way because of the proof required to prove a case one way or another. They are being proactive so that they don't get in the middle.
> 
> Do you expect them to go through what we are going through in this thread every time there is a sexual assault on campus? They don't want to so therefore they made rules.


It sounds like a zero tolerance rule. You're right in that the student had to sign that they understood as well.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Honestly, I don't agree with the laws that are on the books with regard to prohibition of use of drugs and alcohol, or with the age restrictions on it either.

I do find it comical how sex is the issue here, and they've conveniently glossed over the fact that both student, as first year kids at oc, were likely to young to legally have or consume alcohol.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> Honestly, I don't agree with the laws that are on the books with regard to prohibition of use of drugs and alcohol, or with the age restrictions on it either.
> 
> I do find it comical how sex is the issue here, and they've conveniently glossed over the fact that both student, as first year kids at oc, were likely to young to legally have or consume alcohol.


*Actually the thread is about sexual assault.* Alcohol is just the one of the things that lowers inhibitions and therefore contributes. Maybe all alcohol consumption on campuses should be a expellable offence regardless of age. That way those who need to have alcohol to have sex will be eliminated and sexual assault will go way down. Then we know that the person has to say yes or it is a crime.


----------



## gibbsgirl

The complaint and list of exhibits that is linked with n the article is very eye-opening, and confirming to me why it's so important to take personal responsibility for both men and women to avoid these shenanigans in the first place 

I'm gonna see if I can sbag a laptop from the kids today, cause I'd love to copy and paste some if the more interesting text within the actual court filings 

She and he were both stupid for putting themselves in a position for all this backlash to play out. It's a complete waste of our tax money and resources. And, likely both these students and their lived ones are now facing a disruption to their lives that will stunt their abilities to pursue other positive pursuits in their lives.

I don't begrudge either of them for feeling what went down was a traumatic incident, but this is all perpetuating it further, and doing nothing to guide either of them to how to get their lives on track and move forward and not repeat these mistakes.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> *Actually the thread is about sexual assault.* Alcohol is just the one of the things that lowers inhibitions and therefore contributes. Maybe all alcohol consumption on campuses should be a expellable offence regardless of age. That way those who need to have alcohol to have sex will be eliminated and sexual assault will go way down. Then we know that the person has to say yes or it is a crime.


That's cute that you thought I needed that clarified.

My point was, if you wanted to deal with expulsion based on rule/law breaking, the clean cut "you broke the law, you're out" play would have been to expel them both for consuming and possessing alcohol when under 21 years old 

One of the issues cited in the complaint gas to do with occ. Coll. Needing to beef up it's statistics on taking action against sex crimes on it's campus, to maintain eligibility for funding.

If you're into "reviewing the source material" you wanted the other person to give you in that link, you might try perusing the link in the article that let's you read the actual court filings.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> That's cute that you thought I needed that clarified.
> 
> My point was, if you wanted to deal with expulsion based on rule/law breaking, the clean cut "you broke the law, you're out" play would have been to expel them both for consuming and possessing alcohol when under 21 years old
> 
> One of the issues cited in the complaint gas to do with occ. Coll. Needing to beef up it's statistics on taking action against sex crimes on it's campus, to maintain eligibility for funding.
> 
> If you're into "reviewing the source material" you wanted the other person to give you in that link, you might try perusing the link in the article that let's you read the actual court filings.


I think I already said they should have both been expelled.

I did read the source links but I am trying to keep on topic instead of continually throwing in things that are not on point to the question I am answering. Thank-you though for assuming you think you know what I do or do not do.


----------



## gibbsgirl

for you "link loving people"

here are some more for you regarding this specific case. Gloria Allred was involved, so that just speaks volumes right there.....

https://www.thefire.org/cases/occid...-after-incapacitation-standard-is-misapplied/

https://www.thefire.org/title-ix-complaint-john-doe-occidental-college/

https://www.thefire.org/letter-from-mark-j-werksman-to-fire-regarding-investigative-documents/

https://www.thefire.org/letter-from-jonathan-brenner-to-fire-regarding-hearing-documents/

https://www.thefire.org/sexual-assault-injustice-at-occidental-college-railroads-accused-student/

https://www.thefire.org/reply-from-occidental-college-attorneys-to-fire/

https://www.thefire.org/fire-letter-to-occidental-college-president-jonathan-veitch/

https://www.thefire.org/complaint-i...geles-county-superior-court-february-13-2014/

https://www.thefire.org/john-does-c...finding-by-occidental-college-january-6-2014/

https://www.thefire.org/decision-of...mirkovich-in-sexual-assault-case-of-john-doe/

https://www.thefire.org/investigation-report-from-public-interest-investigations-inc/

https://www.thefire.org/statement-from-accuser-regarding-professor-dirks/

https://www.thefire.org/charge-evaluation-worksheet-from-los-angeles-district-attorney/

https://www.thefire.org/text-messages-between-john-doe-and-accuser/

https://www.thefire.org/occidental-college-sexual-assault-policies/


----------



## kasilofhome

Lots to read thanks for the links


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> I think I already said they should have both been expelled.
> 
> I did read the source links but I am trying to keep on topic instead of continually throwing in things that are not on point to the question I am answering. Thank-you though for assuming you think you know what I do or do not do.


Maybe you could give me a mission statement on what's considered on topic, so I can play nicely along with your rules for the thread?

okay, to be fair, I probably won't restrict myself to writing only what you find relevant. (I don't think you should restrict yourself to only what I find relevant either).

but, I admit a morbid curiosity of what's on topic in your point of view.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> Maybe you could give me a mission statement on what's considered on topic, so I can play nicely along with your rules for the thread?
> 
> okay, to be fair, I probably won't restrict myself to writing only what you find relevant. (I don't think you should restrict yourself to only what I find relevant either).
> 
> but, I admit a morbid curiosity of what's on topic in your point of view.


No mission statement for the thread. I am only responsible for my actual posts. Therefore when I answer a question and then someone tries to bring in something else that I did not answer, it is off topic for me and not germane to my posted response. Trying to then tell me I should read links that pertain to the added material with regards to my post is no longer my problem. It seems to be a constant tactic but I don't feel like playing that game.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> It is sexual assault under their rules.


I'm reading the links. Lots of info there. But, still haven't found the part that shows "it is sexual assault under their rules". Just curious, If you'd mind, backing up your statement with a quote or link.

it is possible I missed that, so many pages. but, it really seems like the issues are that it's very difficult to clearly define the line even with the lengthy policies, and even using those it's very difficult to show how this case violated them.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> No mission statement for the thread. I am only responsible for my actual posts. Therefore when I answer a question and then someone tries to bring in something else that I did not answer, it is off topic for me and not germane to my posted response. Trying to then tell me I should read links that pertain to the added material with regards to my post is no longer my problem. It seems to be a constant tactic but I don't feel like playing that game.


I'm not doing it to play a game. it's a matter of taking a holistic view of things.

you can't patently dismiss other possibly relevant factors and expect to fully understand something. it's like wearing blinders and expecting to see all the hazards.

I understand how it's tempting to do it though, it certainly makes it easier to reassure yourself that you've got something all settled and figured out.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> I'm reading the links. Lots of info there. But, still haven't found the part that shows "it is sexual assault under their rules". Just curious, If you'd mind, backing up your statement with a quote or link.
> 
> it is possible I missed that, so many pages. but, it really seems like the issues are that it's very difficult to clearly define the line even with the lengthy policies, and even using those it's very difficult to show how this case violated them.


Now you want to argue about whether it is sexual assault or sexual misconduct or rape or just against the rules? What would the point of that be? How about this. It is behaviour against the rules or what ever you want to call it with regards to the school.

My comment about sexual assault as a topic was about the entire thread. Satisfied now or would you like to nitpick in some way so that you can come out on top of what ever point you are making?


----------



## gibbsgirl

gibbsgirl said:


> Honestly, I don't agree with the laws that are on the books with regard to prohibition of use of drugs and alcohol, or with the age restrictions on it either.
> 
> I do find it comical how sex is the issue here, and they've conveniently glossed over the fact that both student, as first year kids at oc, were likely to young to legally have or consume alcohol.


Too funny, yep they were both under 21 according to the police report. She was just under 18 and the boy was 4 months difference in age (older I think it's saying).


----------



## watcher

Laura Zone 5 said:


> What EXACTLY is his question, please


Read post #178


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> Now you want to argue about whether it is sexual assault or sexual misconduct or rape or just against the rules? What would the point of that be? How about this. It is behaviour against the rules or what ever you want to call it with regards to the school.
> 
> My comment about sexual assault as a topic was about the entire thread. Satisfied now or would you like to nitpick in some way so that you can come out on top of what ever point you are making?


This whole thread has been about the discussion of what constitutes sexual assault.

You made the comment that on the specific case we're discussing, it was sexual assault. I'm reviewing the source materials for it. I haven't found it yet where they've definitively shown it was. So, I asked you if you had. I may have missed it. There are several hundred pages there.

That was the point of asking. It was relevant to the entire thought process of everyone trying to discuss "where's the line". Here we had a real world example someone brought to our attention to see how it was playing out.

And, even with all the lawyers and person's involved in this specific case, it's a hot mess. it's a perfect example of how many of these types of sexual assaults are messy and convoluted, not clear cut.

I'm not nit picking. I'm responding with my thoughts and following along with others. if you feel this is a "someone's got to come out on top and be the winner" type of atmosphere, I don't know how to help you. this place isn't a competitive sport, it's a chatting on-line forum for pete's sake.


----------



## watcher

Laura Zone 5 said:


> ok, the guys are disgusting, and the female is disgusting.
> Pretty equal so far.
> 
> I am assuming she is still 'drunk'......
> You charge the female with drunk driving, vehicular manslaughter / murder.
> I'm sure there are oodles of other charges that would apply.
> She's driving.
> She's responsible.
> If she agreed to have sex w / 15 guys and never said no once, then how can you charge them with rape? She was of age, and gave consent.....she never said no......so it's not a crime to be 'easy' or 'gross'.
> 
> Rape, drunk driving, and manslaughter have one thing in common.
> They are all against the law.
> I just don't know how this makes sense???
> 
> 
> Um.........
> I hope I answered the only question I could find.


So to make sure its clear you think a drunk has the ability to make sound legal decisions and should be held responsible for the actions resulting in those decisions. IOW, it doesn't matter how drunk the woman is as long as the man can get her to say yes to sex it ain't rape. Do I understand your POV correctly?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> If she's passed out drunk/can't respond drunk she can't consent. Correct?... She was not passed out/can't respond drunk so she can consent. All hypothetical, of course.
> 
> I hope that clears up the nagging question for you.  ETA: Apparently not. I suggest you talk to an attorney for your answer.


Sorry but it is NOT ALL hypothetical. Men have been convicted of rape because the woman was considered too drunk to have the mental capability to consent. And we all know that women have been convicted of DUI. My point is how can both be possible?


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> The line is actually simple. In the case of the fifteen men she may have been unable to consent to the acts done to/with her. Those were acts that involved another. But unless she later complains the question is largely moot. There is no question of consent in driving the car unless the implication is that someone else required, demanded or somehow forced her to drive the car. Absent that she didn't consent to drive the car, she decided to.


Did you read the post. I pointed out that both actions, the sex and the driving, were done on her own free will. 

Saying if she doesn't complain latter doesn't make the question moot. Just because someone doesn't report a rape doesn't mean a crime didn't occur. If a drunk manages to drive home w/o being caught he still was DUI.


----------



## watcher

where I want to said:


> All what you say is true but then you are also letting men who see a drunk woman as a freeby off the hook by saying it is her fault.


Ahh. . .if she willing gets drunk and offers to have sex with anyone who's fault is it?


----------



## watcher

where I want to said:


> But where's the line? A teen age girl going out with her friends and gets caught up out of inexperience? Or one who goes out on a date and finds herself drinking with her boyfriend she trusts but shouldn't have? Or goes to a party with her girlfriends and things went farther than she expected?
> What we are talking about redefining what has always been an easy blaming of women to a responsibility of men too. And how to do that is a question. So, instead of simply saying the woman got drunk and therefore deserves getting raped, where is the point at which it becomes a crime to have sex with her?
> If simply getting drunk is the crime, why should getting drunk not be a crime for the man too rather than an excuse?
> This is a whole lot more difficult than saying woman drunk- she got what she was asking for. Where is that line to be?


Switch it around. Change it to a guy who has several hundred dollars in cash on him. If he gets drunk and flashes the cash around and winds up robbed would not say he must shoulder some of the responsibility? 

Only a fool doesn't know what the consumption of alcohol does to a human. Therefore trying to say that someone who knowingly drinks shouldn't be expected to be held responsible for what happens to them is ridiculous.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> It sounds like a zero tolerance rule. You're right in that the student had to sign that they understood as well.


It's so ironic that under this post, the first eightn words of your tagline say "life is short break the rules forgive quickly."

All of us constantly have to consent to policies written for the benefit of an entity, and not for our own benefit. At banks, schools, websites, etc. It's a poor argument to assume that just because someone is forced to consent to a policy, that they read it all, could understand it all, or could reasonably be expected to comply with it all.


----------



## watcher

Laura Zone 5 said:


> IN watchers 'question' he said that SHE GAVE CONSENT.
> Watcher did not say "force her, her body said yes but her iips said no, she was passed out, etc"
> 
> He said SHE gave consent. Period.


But according to some states and some people here she did not have the mental capability to knowingly give that consent. Switch it. Say she was drunk and in that state you had her agree to and even sign a contract saying she would sell you her 1964 mint condition Mustang convertible for $10. Do you think any court in the nation would uphold that contract?


----------



## watcher

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I sure hope "Patty" doesn't accept Jury Duty in a trial where a woman is raped, and "Patty" in all her holy purity thinks because of the way the woman was dressed, she was asking for it........
> 
> We are not talking about 'sex'.
> 
> We are talking about rape / sexual assault.
> Rape, is a violent crime where one person forces another person against their wishes or will to engage in sexual activity.
> Sexual assault is also a crime, that can be violent, or passive...... where one person TRIES to force another person against their wishes or will to engage in sexual activity.
> 
> I don't care what you are wearing or not wearing.
> If a man or woman says NO, then no means no.
> NO EXCUSES.
> 
> Be a man / woman; stand up, walk away, the end.


Aye, but there's the rub. . . We are talking about rape but rape comes in many forms. Not all have violence involved. A very caring 21 y.o. who truly loves and has plans to marry a 16 y.o. who truly loves and has plans to marry said 21 y.o. commits rape if they have sex. Because even if they says yes the courts have ruled they not wise enough to understand what they've agreeing to. They don't have the mental capacity to understand what the full results of their actions might be.

Now if having sex a willing 16 y.o. who says yes because of their lack of mental capacity is rape can it not be said that having sex with a 30 y.o. who is drunk is also rape due to their reduced mental capacity?


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> It's so ironic that under this post, the first eightn words of your tagline say "life is short break the rules forgive quickly."
> 
> All of us constantly have to consent to policies written for the benefit of an entity, and not for our own benefit. At banks, schools, websites, etc. It's a poor argument to assume that just because someone is forced to consent to a policy, that they read it all, could understand it all, or could reasonably be expected to comply with it all.


So now it is not their fault because there are too many rules? Now we are going with the " I did not understand defence"

PS her tagline says forgive. It says nothing about not paying the consequences.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Then everyone in Illinois should know they are breaking the law and there are possible consequences. Just like driving with out a seat belt. If you get caught or reported you might face legal action. At least they have it written down in the law and you are forewarned.


But you therein lies the problem. How can you have two laws which say completely opposite things? You can't be held responsible for having sex while drunk because you can't make a legal decision while under the influence. Yet you CAN be held responsible for driving drunk because you CAN make the legal decision to drive under the influence.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> But you therein lies the problem. How can you have two laws which say completely opposite things? You can't be held responsible for having sex while drunk because you can't make a legal decision while under the influence. Yet you CAN be held responsible for driving drunk because you CAN make the legal decision to drive under the influence.


It is a conundrum. Neither easily solved. It does break down easiest to who is the victim. You can easily choose before you drink to make sure you don't drive by taking precautions.

You can take precautions to not get raped by not getting drunk or to drunk that you cross the line of responsibility. You however cannot eliminate the [possibility of getting raped whether you are drunk or sober.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> So now it is not their fault because there are too many rules? Now we are going with the " I did not understand defence"
> 
> PS her tagline says forgive. It says nothing about not paying the consequences.


As soon as you can copy and paste for me the irrefutable, bullet proof statements in those school policies or California or federal law that show me that there was a sex crime in this particular case, you and I can have a discussion about "understanding or not understanding the rules".

also, just for reference, since you wanted to bring up the notion of forgiveness. it is defined as....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forgive


verb (used with object), forgave, forgiven, forgiving. 


1. to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve. 


2. to give up all claim on account of; remit (a debt, obligation, etc.). 


3. to grant pardon to (a person). 


4. to cease to feel resentment against: 
to forgive one's enemies.


5. to cancel an indebtedness or liability of: 
to forgive the interest owed on a loan.


verb (used without object), forgave, forgiven, forgiving. 


6. to pardon an offense or an offender. 

forgiveness actually is all about not having to "pay the consequences" you might have otherwise faced.


----------



## haypoint

Where is your line?

While even President Clinton wanted to parse the meaning of sex, we seem to be stuck on what rape is.

If rape is a guy hiding in a woman's vehicle back seat, holding a knife to her throat and forcing intercourse, then the 20% number is way too high, IMHO.

If rape is any unwelcome touch in any situation, then the number is too low, IMHO.

Once we establish where the line is that constitutes rape, then we have two other figures to balance. Even in an anonymous poll, there will be people that were raped, but never reported it and won't admit it. Then, there are the few that were not raped, actually willingly engaged in sex, but for a variety of reasons, made the claim that she was an unwilling participant. 

I could create a list of actions from holding a door for a woman to bound and gagged, with 20 or 30 progressive degrees in between. Each of us could draw their lines as to where creepy starts, where physical assault starts, where sexual assault starts and where rape starts. Perhaps the line will be different among us. Perhaps there would be common lines that separate us by our sex. 

I hope this thread has been insightful. I'm sure some women were surprised (disgusted?) by many men's blindness to the fears and concerns women face. Hopefully, some men will reflect and see how different life is for women. But also, that even within each group, there isn't any great consensus. 

It would be great if there were some check list on when it is alright to have sex with a person that was drinking. But from the easy to determine, he/she had one drink ,and the easy to determine, passed out drunk, at the other end, there are many situational degrees in between.

Then, there are the vastly different social/sexual differences. In this thread, I've read about how awful it is for a guy to have sex with a woman who is too drunk to make a reasonable choice. As I reflect back to my drinking days, I am easily able to see that I was the victim of numerous rapes. Waking up with women I barely know, surely constitutes rape. No way in my drunken state could I have consented and if I did, clearly I was too intoxicated to have my consent considered reliable. Once word got around that I had a job and a car, they passed be around like this morning's newspaper. Eventually, I had to give up drinking to break this cycle of abuse. Guys will read this and laugh. perhaps a few women will laugh. But mostly, rape is far to serious to dismiss so lightly for most women. I'll apologize in advance and try to explain that I was simply trying to make a point about how differently we view these issues.


----------



## AmericanStand

Let me stir just a bit more mud into the water. 


watcher said:


> If a drunk manages to drive home w/o being caught he still was DUI.



DUI is a fake made up crime. 
It in no way affects anyone else if you drive drunk. 
It's only a crime in that politicians wanted to appease a vocal group. 
We all know that the problem with drunk driving isn't the being drunk and driving it's that a tragedy MIGHT happen. 
So in order to make life easier for cops and reduce the likly hood of tragedy we have created a precrime. 
Humm sorta like sex with a drunk I suppose.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> As soon as you can copy and paste for me the irrefutable, bullet proof statements in those school policies or California or federal law that show me that there was a sex crime in this particular case, you and I can have a discussion about "understanding or not understanding the rules".
> 
> also, just for reference, since you wanted to bring up the notion of forgiveness. it is defined as....
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forgive
> 
> 
> verb (used with object), forgave, forgiven, forgiving.
> 
> 
> 1. to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve.
> 
> 
> 2. to give up all claim on account of; remit (a debt, obligation, etc.).
> 
> 
> 3. to grant pardon to (a person).
> 
> 
> 4. to cease to feel resentment against:
> to forgive one's enemies.
> 
> 
> 5. to cancel an indebtedness or liability of:
> to forgive the interest owed on a loan.
> 
> 
> verb (used without object), forgave, forgiven, forgiving.
> 
> 
> 6. to pardon an offense or an offender.
> 
> forgiveness actually is all about not having to "pay the consequences" you might have otherwise faced.


Good luck with your demands or requirements.


----------



## haypoint

watcher said:


> Aye, but there's the rub. . . We are talking about rape but rape comes in many forms. Not all have violence involved. A very caring 21 y.o. who truly loves and has plans to marry a 16 y.o. who truly loves and has plans to marry said 21 y.o. commits rape if they have sex. Because even if they says yes the courts have ruled they not wise enough to understand what they've agreeing to. They don't have the mental capacity to understand what the full results of their actions might be.
> 
> Now if having sex a willing 16 y.o. who says yes because of their lack of mental capacity is rape can it not be said that having sex with a 30 y.o. who is drunk is also rape due to their reduced mental capacity?


15 year old girl invited three classmates to her house for sex. They agree. As is common among that generation, their cell phone cameras were included. But, the guys were 17. Those that have been around a lot of teens might argue that a 15 year old girl has more common sense than most 17 year old boys, but that doesn't matter. They are legally adults and she is too young to consent.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...photo-twitter-chesterfield-township/21353407/


----------



## gibbsgirl

Haypoint, I guess a partial answer from me, would be that as soon as a person chooses to take action that puts themselves at risk, I resent the obligation that is put against my tax dollars and time to deal with the consequences.

That includes risky behavior involving sex, drinking, drugs, gambling, and lots of other things.

There's just such a low level of expected support from so many people who don't acknowledge the level of personal responsibility they have to accept before they burden others. Deal with your own messes.

Sex crimes don't really get "special consideration" from me the majority of the time. There definitely are some that do. But, not the majority as they are identified today.

I feel the same way about natural disasters. I think it's horrible when the federal govt jumps in to rescue a place that has set themselves up for failure by building in a bad places. Let local people be in control of their choices and the consequences.

I'm sick of our society promoting "being an enabler" on so many levels, not just sex stuff.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> Good luck with your demands or requirements.


Sorry, I thought that by saying the "I didn't understand the rules" defense was invalid, you were implying that somehow you actually did understand the "rules" that all the players in this court case had somehow missed.

Since, I too have been unable to find where this kid clearly was in violation of something either, I was merely inviting you to enlighten me and the other readers here.

No demands. 

But, if you don't want your bluff called. Don't bluff.

That's why the puffed up bumper sticker chamts of " no means no" etc, always fall like a house of cards. No one has been able to come up with a way to clearly make that work.

Prevention is the only way to minimize it, and even that isn't a 100% cure.

But, feel free to disregard what others and I are bringing up here. Don't be shocked when you are misunderstood. Deflecting in a discussion does not strengthen your message to others.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> Sorry, I thought that by saying the "I didn't understand the rules" defense was invalid, you were implying that somehow you actually did understand the "rules" that all the players in this court case had somehow missed.
> 
> Since, I too have been unable to find where this kid clearly was in violation of something either, I was merely inviting you to enlighten me and the other readers here.
> 
> No demands.
> 
> But, if you don't want your bluff called. Don't bluff.
> 
> That's why the puffed up bumper sticker chamts of " no means no" etc, always fall like a house of cards. No one has been able to come up with a way to clearly make that work.
> 
> Prevention is the only way to minimize it, and even that isn't a 100% cure.
> 
> But, feel free to disregard what others and I are bringing up here. Don't be shocked when your life continues to be frustrating and you are misunderstood. Deflecting in a discussion does not strengthen your message to others.


Please keep it on point. My life is not a topic that you are allowed to discuss as per the rules of this forum. No ad hominem attacks.


----------



## gibbsgirl

No prob. Thanks for showing me you can explain rules. Now would you mind explaining the rules that were broken in the court case we were discussing?


----------



## haypoint

City of Detroit has over a thousand rape test kits waiting to go to the Lab, but no money. Some are several years old. I guess people resent the obligation that is put against their tax dollars.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> No prob. Thanks for showing me you can explain rules. Now would you mind explaining the rules that were broken in the court case we were discussing?


Do I mind? No not really Not here to play a game of tit for tat. If you believe you have won some kind of game or that I have to prove you wrong over and over, guess what I don't. You can have the last word and believe you are right. I am not bothered with that.


----------



## gibbsgirl

PS. I try and stay ahead of my autocorrect on this phone, but it doesn't always work. I deleted part of my post before. I was attempting to write that your line of thougth will continue to be frustrating and you will be misunderstood. Sorry I messed it up when I was trying to delete and retypethings before. Screens tiny on this phone. That's why lots of my posts end up saying edited. I miss autocorrect stuff until it's actually posted and I can zoom in and see the words. I'm sure your life is absolutely fine.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> Do I mind? No not really Not here to play a game of tit for tat. If you believe you have won some kind of game or that I have to prove you wrong over and over, guess what I don't. You can have the last word and believe you are right. I am not bothered with that.


Not trying to play tit for tat. This case was brought up as a real life messy situation to ponder and discuss. It's not a very interesting discussion, IMO, if we aren't willing to hash out the details and share with each other our thoughts about where "the line" is. I felt after trying to dig through the sourc material, it wasn't becoming very obvious that a line has crossed was there to see. You disagreed, and it would further the discussion if you were willing to bring up where the lines were defined in this case 

I don't think any of us are doing ourselves any favors when we just pass judgment or firm opinions based on a sound bites worth of information.

If you want to let it lie and not show me something I missed in the links we've been looking at that's fine. But, accusing me if trying to have the last word isn't the same as you forfeiting.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> PS. I try and stay ahead of my autocorrect on this phone, but it doesn't always work. I deleted part of my post before. I was attempting to write that your line of thougth will continue to be frustrating and you will be misunderstood. Sorry I messed it up when I was trying to delete and retypethings before. Screens tiny on this phone. That's why lots of my posts end up saying edited. I miss autocorrect stuff until it's actually posted and I can zoom in and see the words. I'm sure your life is absolutely fine.


Bull. You crossed the line and are backtracking. I would respect you more if you owned your mistakes..


----------



## gibbsgirl

I'm not backtracking. I'm a big enough person to look at what I messed up in that message and realize that it wasn't just a typo, it reads real lousy against you. And, I have no problem putting the apology for it up here for all to see. 

Your deflecting again by the way. If you really doubt my sincerity and don't want to actually talk about the topic anymore, feel free to look up other posts I've put up on threads in the last month or so since I got this phone. I've apologized before for sounding incoherent from the autocorrect and tiny keyboard screen I have.


----------



## where I want to

watcher said:


> Ahh. . .if she willing gets drunk and offers to have sex with anyone who's fault is it?


Both? Neither? No one had a problem? Yes? No? If the man continues after she said "let me alone?" If she takes a flying leap onto the guy? If the guy can clearly see she is so pied that she doesn't know where she is or what she's saying or who she's saying it to? She says it in a foreign language the guy decides mean yes?
There are circumstances where it could go either way and to insist there aren't, is to put all the burden on the woman when there are two at play.


----------



## AmericanStand

gibbsgirl said:


> Haypoint, I guess a partial answer from me, would be that as soon as a person chooses to take action that puts themselves at risk, I resent the obligation that is put against my tax dollars and time to deal with the consequences.


Do you include things like mountain climbing ,driving a car and skiing?


----------



## where I want to

AmericanStand said:


> Let me stir just a bit more mud into the water.
> 
> 
> 
> DUI is a fake made up crime.
> It in no way affects anyone else if you drive drunk.
> It's only a crime in that politicians wanted to appease a vocal group.
> We all know that the problem with drunk driving isn't the being drunk and driving it's that a tragedy MIGHT happen.
> So in order to make life easier for cops and reduce the likly hood of tragedy we have created a precrime.
> Humm sorta like sex with a drunk I suppose.


Right- like shooting a gun into a crowd is only a crime if you hit someone.


----------



## AmericanStand

I thought being drunk reduced inhibitions? Wouldnt that mean that when a drunk agrees to sex thats what they REALLY want?


----------



## where I want to

AmericanStand said:


> I thought being drunk reduced inhibitions? Wouldnt that mean that when a drunk agrees to sex thats what they REALLY want?


That is something I have heard from a few men. Only it went "yeah- I could tell she really wanted it." Inhibitions are the things that keep me from putting it more honestly.


----------



## gibbsgirl

AmericanStand said:


> Do you include things like mountain climbing ,driving a car and skiing?


I do not have any interest in further restricting people from mountain climbing, driving a car or skiing. I think the legal restrictions on people engaging in all those activities is too excessive in many instances anyway.

But, I do think that if a person mountain climbs or skis or drives a car, they should be willing to accept and shoulder more of the consequences when things go wrong.

Driving a car probably has more things that I think are out of whack with all the road rules, licensing and insurance requirements, and backwards funding practices for road maintenance.

mountain climbing and skiing certainly could be burdensome to local areas that have to expend resources on rescue services.

there's just to much "we're too big to fail" tax dollars being spent to rescue people and businesses on a large scale. the govt can't solve everything and when people more vigilant about managing their problems themselves whenever possible, real progress will be made.

someone mentioned earlier about a backlog of rape kits in Detroit I think? so, how many of those were cases where it was a he said she said case, or a drunk young one case, or a case of teenagers and one was over 18 and one under? 

now, what about the ones where it was a home invasion or woman out jogging or carjacked in a parking lot by a total stranger, so they really need that dna link to establish a suspects presence at the scene of a crime? how many were related to a child that was younger than puberty age that may have had an encounter?

how to you think processing those kits is being prioritized? It's probably by date of being admitted to evidence. and, it sounds like the whole process has ground to a halt.

apparently, the reality is, Detroit just doesn't have the resources to keep up with the backlog of work right? so, decisions need to be made. but, now maybe options are limited because of a lot of the kits that were already paid to be processed were for the former type of cases I mentioned.

do you think we're handling it right as a society? I don't. I'd say, they should have backlogged or not logged a whole bunch of the first cases if necessary, so they could be sure they were processing as many of the rape kits for the latter type of cases I mentioned.

to me that is a better use of resources, and yes it likely would involve govt/legal assistance being scaled back, and personal responsibility filling that vacuum, so that the truly heinous crimes could be given the attention they deserve.


----------



## haypoint

gibbsgirl said:


> I do not have any interest in further restricting people from mountain climbing, driving a car or skiing. I think the legal restrictions on people engaging in all those activities is too excessive in many instances anyway.
> 
> But, I do think that if a person mountain climbs or skis or drives a car, they should be willing to accept and shoulder more of the consequences when things go wrong.
> 
> Driving a car probably has more things that I think are out of whack with all the road rules, licensing and insurance requirements, and backwards funding practices for road maintenance.
> 
> mountain climbing and skiing certainly could be burdensome to local areas that have to expend resources on rescue services.
> 
> there's just to much "we're too big to fail" tax dollars being spent to rescue people and businesses on a large scale. the govt can't solve everything and when people more vigilant about managing their problems themselves whenever possible, real progress will be made.
> 
> someone mentioned earlier about a backlog of rape kits in Detroit I think? so, how many of those were cases where it was a he said she said case, or a drunk young one case, or a case of teenagers and one was over 18 and one under?
> 
> now, what about the ones where it was a home invasion or woman out jogging or carjacked in a parking lot by a total stranger, so they really need that dna link to establish a suspects presence at the scene of a crime? how many were related to a child that was younger than puberty age that may have had an encounter?
> 
> how to you think processing those kits is being prioritized? It's probably by date of being admitted to evidence. and, it sounds like the whole process has ground to a halt.
> 
> apparently, the reality is, Detroit just doesn't have the resources to keep up with the backlog of work right? so, decisions need to be made. but, now maybe options are limited because of a lot of the kits that were already paid to be processed were for the former type of cases I mentioned.
> 
> do you think we're handling it right as a society? I don't. I'd say, they should have backlogged or not logged a whole bunch of the first cases if necessary, so they could be sure they were processing as many of the rape kits for the latter type of cases I mentioned.
> 
> to me that is a better use of resources, and yes it likely would involve govt/legal assistance being scaled back, and personal responsibility filling that vacuum, so that the truly heinous crimes could be given the attention they deserve.


Perhaps we could get someone from Nationalized Health Care Death Panel to look over Detroit's thousand rape kits and pick those worthy of testing?


----------



## watcher

where I want to said:


> Both? Neither? No one had a problem? Yes? No? If the man continues after she said "let me alone?" If she takes a flying leap onto the guy? If the guy can clearly see she is so pied that she doesn't know where she is or what she's saying or who she's saying it to? She says it in a foreign language the guy decides mean yes?
> There are circumstances where it could go either way and to insist there aren't, is to put all the burden on the woman when there are two at play.


Never said all the burden but there is some to be carried on her shoulders do you not agree?


----------



## Evons hubby

where I want to said:


> Right- like shooting a gun into a crowd is only a crime if you hit someone.


No, there is a big difference, and I am pretty sure you know that. Shooting into crowd almost guarantees hitting someone, dui only increases the risk of hitting someone by a small margin if at all.


----------



## haypoint

Punctuation is important. "Don't, stop!" is vastly different from, "Don't stop!"

Engaging in sex with a drunk woman is not only immoral, but putting panty hose back on her without punching your thumb through the material is time consuming.

Please excuse the feeble attempt at humor on a touchy subject. Just seems after 19 pages we've covered this subject, all I could add was to start talking about the weather or make a joke.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

1. 16 is the age of consent in my state.

2. If the 'law' says a drunk cannot give consent, then don't get the hornies for someone when they are drunk.

3. If you don't know the difference between 'rape and sex' you got some learnin' to do.

4. I don't trust Patty as much as Patty thinks I dress trashy.

I am blown away.......simply blown away at some of the responses to this thread.
Clearly there are those who have lived such an amazing, charmed life, that they can sit in their arm chair and sneer a nose at the world.
That....is SO dangerous.
Seems like the Lord seeks those types out, and humility becomes a very painful lesson.
Ask me how I know.......
Just, wow.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Did you read the post. I pointed out that both actions, the sex and the driving, were done on her own free will.
> 
> Saying if she doesn't complain latter doesn't make the question moot. Just because someone doesn't report a rape doesn't mean a crime didn't occur. If a drunk manages to drive home w/o being caught he still was DUI.


Sure I did. There is a difference between offering consent and making a decision. It's perfectly rational to hold peop&#322;e responsible for their decisions, even bad ones like driving, even if they are drunk. The results of such decisions may impact others adversly and none of those hit by a drunk driver consented to that action. Decisions involve only the person deciding. 

Consent, by its nature, involves two or more people. It defines an interaction between those people that both find mutually agreeable or beneficial. In order for consent to be legally given both parties must meet some conditions. These conditions include age, mental capacity and state of intoxication. Any of these can disqualify one from being able to give legal consent. Before one accepts that consent it is incumbent on that person to ensure that the other is legally able to give that consent. Being drunk yourself doesn't absolve you of this responsibility. It may make you prone to make a bad judgement and a bad decision but that is part of the risk you take in getting drunk. Part of society's role is to ensure that drunks don't make bad decisions that affect otgers( driving) while ensuring that they are protected from the actions of others.

In your scenario any or all of the men involved could just as easily have claimed the woman violated them if they had also been drunk. 

The bottom line ,for me, is that the most attractive woman in the world should be able to walk naked and drunk through a roomful of men and only be offered a coat to cover, a cup of coffee to sober and a safe ride home.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

mmoetc said:


> The bottom line ,for me, is that the most attractive woman in the world should be able to walk naked and drunk through a roomful of men and only be offered a coat to cover, a cup of coffee to sober and a safe ride home.



Brilliant!!!:rock:


----------



## gibbsgirl

mmoetc said:


> Sure I did. There is a difference between offering consent and making a decision. It's perfectly rational to hold peop&#322;e responsible for their decisions, even bad ones like driving, even if they are drunk. The results of such decisions may impact others adversly and none of those hit by a drunk driver consented to that action. Decisions involve only the person deciding.
> 
> Consent, by its nature, involves two or more people. It defines an interaction between those people that both find mutually agreeable or beneficial. In order for consent to be legally given both parties must meet some conditions. These conditions include age, mental capacity and state of intoxication. Any of these can disqualify one from being able to give legal consent. Before one accepts that consent it is incumbent on that person to ensure that the other is legally able to give that consent. Being drunk yourself doesn't absolve you of this responsibility. It may make you prone to make a bad judgement and a bad decision but that is part of the risk you take in getting drunk. Part of society's role is to ensure that drunks don't make bad decisions that affect otgers( driving) while ensuring that they are protected from the actions of others.
> 
> In your scenario any or all of the men involved could just as easily have claimed the woman violated them if they had also been drunk.
> 
> The bottom line ,for me, is that the most attractive woman in the world should be able to walk naked and drunk through a roomful of men and only be offered a coat to cover, a cup of coffee to sober and a safe ride home.


I am think you're trying to make some points for really good reasons here, but....societies role is not to protect people from bad decisisions and others from their consequences. It's a really positive thought, but not very accurate.

Also, the driving example is a weak one. No one who drives in the he USA can rationally say they are unaware that our roads are filled with drivers who may be endangering themselves, us and others on a regular basis. Said drivers may be drunk, on drugs, texting or otherwise distracted, exhausted from driving too long. Other very young, very elderly, or foreign or unlicensed drivers (who we all know are on the roads) potentially could be endangering any or all of us. Other times, people jus drove dangerously.

Since, litsxand lots of us choose to hit the roads everyday in our vehicles, we are accepting thay those dangers are there and we are consenting to exposing ourselves to the potential for risk. We may think it"?'s unfair, not like it, etc. But, we are all consenting to share the road with them by know ing they are all out there too and continuing to hit the road with them.


----------



## mmoetc

gibbsgirl said:


> I am think you're trying to make some points for really good reasons here, but....societies role is not to protect people from bad decisisions and others from their consequences. It's a really positive thought, but not very accurate.
> 
> Also, the driving example is a weak one. No one who drives in the he USA can rationally say they are unaware that our roads are filled with drivers who may be endangering themselves, us and others on a regular basis. Said drivers may be drunk, on drugs, texting or otherwise distracted, exhausted from driving too long. Other very young, very elderly, or foreign or unlicensed drivers (who we all know are on the roads) potentially could be endangering any or all of us. Other times, people jus drove dangerously.
> 
> Since, litsxand lots of us choose to hit the roads everyday in our vehicles, we are accepting thay those dangers are there and we are consenting to exposing ourselves to the potential for risk. We may think it"?'s unfair, not like it, etc. But, we are all consenting to share the road with them by know ing they are all out there too and continuing to hit the road with them.


By enacting and enforcing laws against things like drunk driving, cell phone use while driving, texting while driving and distracted driving we are expicitly withdrawing our consent to be on the road with people who decide to engage in these acts. We are saying if you decide to do any of these things you don't have others consent to interact with them on the roadway and are subject to criminal and civil penalties based on such lack of consent. If a drunk driver hits a drunk driver they can both be convicted of driving drunk. Being drunk doesn't allow another to consent to them driving drunk.


----------



## mmoetc

gibbsgirl said:


> I am think you're trying to make some points for really good reasons here, but....societies role is not to protect people from bad decisisions and others from their consequences. It's a really positive thought, but not very accurate.
> 
> Also, the driving example is a weak one. No one who drives in the he USA can rationally say they are unaware that our roads are filled with drivers who may be endangering themselves, us and others on a regular basis. Said drivers may be drunk, on drugs, texting or otherwise distracted, exhausted from driving too long. Other very young, very elderly, or foreign or unlicensed drivers (who we all know are on the roads) potentially could be endangering any or all of us. Other times, people jus drove dangerously.
> 
> Since, litsxand lots of us choose to hit the roads everyday in our vehicles, we are accepting thay those dangers are there and we are consenting to exposing ourselves to the potential for risk. We may think it"?'s unfair, not like it, etc. But, we are all consenting to share the road with them by know ing they are all out there too and continuing to hit the road with them.


I didn't say it was society's job to protect one from their own bad decision. Society does have a role in protecting one from bad decisions by others. In the case being discussed the bad decision is disregarding the state of intoxication of the person you're accepting consent from. Make the proper decision and you can do her no harm. You're both protected.


----------



## gibbsgirl

This whole conversation has confirmed to me how much some people are committed to the idea that the solution to problems clearly lies in just assigning blame to others, absolving oneself from a large level of accountability, and expecting the govt to just handle the bad guys. Too bad it's so difficult for some people to see they are being turned into criminals themselves, losing their rights and generally watching this method prove that often it actually doesn't solve or sometimes even lower the "crimes" the legislation was designed to eradicate; while it simultaneously is bankrupting ouf current and future citizens.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

gibbsgirl said:


> This whole conversation has confirmed to me how much some people are committed to the idea that the solution to problems clearly lies in just assigning blame to others, absolving oneself from a large level of accountability, and expecting the govt to just handle the bad guys.


Interesting.
I see this as people need to take personal responsibility.
1. if it's against the law, don't do it, or there will be consequences.
2. if it has potential to be illegal, don't do it, or there will be consequences.
3. You have no one to blame but yourself if you do something illegal.



> Too bad it's so difficult for some people to see they are being turned into criminals themselves, losing their rights and generally watching this method prove that often it actually doesn't solve or sometimes even lower the "crimes" the legislation was designed to eradicate; while it simultaneously is bankrupting ouf current and future citizens.


When people think "Morals are paintings on a wall" that's when they start blurring lines.
When people use excuses "her body said yes, but her mouth said no, I was confused, so I did what *I* wanted to do and hoped for the best"
When people say "oh I was drunk, I had no control".
When people say "Oh she/he was drunk, and they said it was ok" WHEN THEY KNOW in their heart of hearts, it is wrong......

Yeah, you're right.....for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Do the courts 'get it wrong' sometimes?
Yep, every single day.
Prisons are FULL of innocent people. Just ask them.


----------



## mmoetc

gibbsgirl said:


> This whole conversation has confirmed to me how much some people are committed to the idea that the solution to problems clearly lies in just assigning blame to others, absolving oneself from a large level of accountability, and expecting the govt to just handle the bad guys. Too bad it's so difficult for some people to see they are being turned into criminals themselves, losing their rights and generally watching this method prove that often it actually doesn't solve or sometimes even lower the "crimes" the legislation was designed to eradicate; while it simultaneously is bankrupting ouf current and future citizens.


It's quite simple. Men and women should take take the personal responsibilty not to get incapacitated and engage in sex. Both parties should take the personal responsibilty to ensure the other party is truly consenting and capable of such consent. Two little things could solve so many problems.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Interesting.
> I see this as people need to take personal responsibility.
> 1. if it's against the law, don't do it, or there will be consequences.
> 2. if it has potential to be illegal, don't do it, or there will be consequences.
> 3. You have no one to blame but yourself if you do something illegal.n.
> 
> Do the courts 'get it wrong' sometimes?
> Yep, every single day.
> Prisons are FULL of innocent people. Just ask them.


So would I be misunderstanding you then if I said, it seems as though you're very satisfied with the bulk of the laws on the books? With the method of prosecution? And with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of all levels of governments effective execution of their duties?

Cause I am not; therefore, it's difficult for me to see how we have a system where people are able to effectively take personal responsibilty.

I still think we all should rely on personal responsibility heavily. But, feels those trying to do so, are struggling against the structure of our current government, not being encouraged to do so by the government.


----------



## haypoint

While we mostly agree that women are not "asking for it" if dressed in a short skirt or low cut blouse and that no means no, we seem divided on impaired agreement. In an environment with drugs or alcohol, as a women's moral compass starts spinning, a man's ability to judge between a "yes because I've always wanted to get you in bed" and a "yes, because I'm out of my mind and I'll regret this later", is effected by his blood alcohol level.

But, I have quite a few feminist friends that see rape in another context. Mostly in this discussion we have defined rape as intercourse against our will or intercourse without a verbal consent.

But in a hot bed of liberal thinkers, like every college in the country, looking is rape. So if that is the standard, a suggestive remark is a sexual assault. Holding the door or buying a drink is a form of oppression. A good night kiss at the end of a date must first be verbally agreed to. 
So, with all of these standards being taught, bunch up a few thousand teens that are on their own for the first time in their lives, in co-ed dorms and weekly drinking parties and there is going to be some unwanted touching. "Hey, get your hand off my butt." might be the end of it, but you can still say you were the victim of a sexual assault while in college. Pose the question right and you'll find 20% were raped. 

Be on guard for situations that could get out of control. Be prepared in the event of an attempted rape. Report all rape. 

If the guy you slept with last week because he said he loved you, is sleeping with your dorm mate this week, that doesn't mean you were raped last week. Don't report a rape that wasn't. Sure you want revenge, but not that way. Just tell him you think you are pregnant and let him stew on that for a few weeks.


----------



## gibbsgirl

mmoetc said:


> By enacting and enforcing laws against things like drunk driving, cell phone use while driving, texting while driving and distracted driving we are expicitly withdrawing our consent to be on the road with people who decide to engage in these acts. We are saying if you decide to do any of these things you don't have others consent to interact with them on the roadway and are subject to criminal and civil penalties based on such lack of consent. If a drunk driver hits a drunk driver they can both be convicted of driving drunk. Being drunk doesn't allow another to consent to them driving drunk.


Does that "I don't consent" logic lead to the problems being fixed or even minimized significantly?

We've created a culture of criminals, so if that was the goal, then I guess success!

But, what's the goal? To Identify criminals and punishment, or to solve/eliminate or even just successfully identify a problem, or to agree on a best way for people to spare each other as much grief as possible from the actions of others?


----------



## gibbsgirl

You're hilarious haypoint!

And, I could believe what you're saying. What a great path we're on, headed straight for the thought police next. I'm sure that will come in the form of some Google implant!


----------



## Laura Zone 5

gibbsgirl said:


> So would I be misunderstanding you then if I said, it seems as though you're very satisfied with the bulk of the laws on the books?


Yes, you would be misunderstanding me.



> With the method of prosecution? And with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of all levels of governments effective execution of their duties?


Our laws, leaders, courts, and systems are corrupt, and broken.
As is our morals.
Anyone who thinks it's "ok" or a "good idea" to have sex with someone so wasted, you have to turn her head while you are doing it because you might get puked on?? 
THEY HAVE BIGGER ISSUES; and they are a zit on the backside of society.
Common sense, when used, would free up the courts and expose their corruption.



> Cause I am not; therefore, it's difficult for me to see how we have a system where people are able to effectively take personal responsibilty.


It's simple common sense.
Right from wrong should be taught by mommies and daddies from the moment little jonny or jane can comprehend right from wrong.

Do I know it's illegal to speed, Yes.
Do I speed sometimes, Yes
Do I know it's wrong, Yes.
Do I know that there are consequences to wrong choices, Yes.
IF I DON'T GET CAUGHT IS IT STILL WRONG??? YES YES YES.

If a human being can not deduce simple right from wrong, or execute simple common sense, then maybe they should all go live in the desert with each other and let Darwin have his way.........

Oy Vey.



> I still think we all should rely on personal responsibility heavily. But, feels those trying to do so, are struggling against the structure of our current government, not being encouraged to do so by the government.


SO I don't get drunk at a frat party.
My part of personal responsibility.
I don't have sex with a drunk frat boy.
My part of personal responsibility.
I don't force a sober frat boy to have sex with me.
My part of personal responsibility.

If someone tries to force me, against my word and will to engage in sexual activity?
My 2nd Amendment Rights will help him take personal responsibility for his poor choices. The End.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Laura, I don't get why then you think people who choose to go drink, do drugs, or even attend those type s of parties should be encouraged to so freely make use of law enforcement where they feel sexually assaulted at them, since school policies and govt are trying to criminalize the exact behavior the people attending those are frequently engaging in?

Getting burned by the experience but being told it was someone else's fault, so ultimately you're not doing anything wrong, doesn't discourage the behavior in my opinion.


To me it's like failing to point out the distinction between someone contracting an STD because of a blood transfusion vs sexual contact or drug use.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

gibbsgirl said:


> Laura, I don't get why then you think people who choose to go drink, do drugs, or even attend those type s of parties should be encouraged to so freely make use of law enforcement where they feel sexually assaulted at them, since school policies and govt are trying to criminalize the exact behavior the people attending those are frequently engaging in?


Because no matter if I am drunk, dressed like a street walker, naked, on drugs, having a psychotic break, or minding my own business:
NEVER EVER EVER is someone EVER allowed to put their hands on me when I SAY NO NO NO NO NO. Period, ever.
And those laws are in place to protect me from predators, dirt bags and horny drunks.



> Getting burned by the experience but being told it was someone else's fault, so ultimately you're not doing anything wrong, doesn't discourage the behavior in my opinion.


No, drunken hoeish behavior is an outward reflection of that persons inward self image. And it's sad. SO buyer beware.
If a female is 'white girl wasted' or 'blitzed out of her head on drugs'......men, keep it zipped up, walk away, heck run if you must.
If men didn't put THEMSELVES in that situation, then the females would have no one to say 'they were raped'.
So there you have it.
A personal responsibility solution.



> To me it's like failing to point out the distinction between someone contracting an STD because of a blood transfusion vs sexual contact or drug use.


No comparison.
Stay on point.


----------



## where I want to

The point to such ideas is to convey to non thinking people that getting a person into a condition where they are too mentally impaired to make effective protest is not the same thing as having consent- IE it is wrong. 
Unfortunately for some people to get that idea, it has to be a law saying this is wrong as the cultural message of the moment is that it is all part of having fun and thus no big deal. For the people that either think only of what they want at the moment or don't think at all, the societal restrictions have been loosened enough that they simply know that they don't have to worry that there will be consequences for behavior that they would have known would result in critcism a couple of decades ago. So, instead of self regulation, organizational regulation become required.
Used to be that it was always a burden to the woman to keep herself safe. She restricted her activity pretty substantially. Now it has become a social more that she not be restricted and men can't count on what used to be physical seperation women used to enforce to keep them from rape. "Good girls" are now at the raunchy party too. 
Rules obviously needed to be formulated and that's the process going on now.


----------



## gibbsgirl

That's a double standard, because the reality is that frequently neither party is making sober decisions or understanding what's going on.

They're both wrong in my opinion, but it's not always so neatly cut and dry.

This is a pretty heavy handed strict standard that some people are freely applying I think because it's a very emotional topic.

Instead of asking if the situation were reversed, how would you feel? I'd like to ask this.

Let's say that we can all agree that most people feel they have an obligation to not neglect the needs of their children. We have laws about this. Heck, we've even set up a tax payer funded system that provides for the educational needs of our children, right? So, when a kid doesn't graduate, do you think the parent should automatically face investigation and possibly prosecution because the child or school decides to cry foul and place blame on the parent for being criminally negligent of the needs of the child? Or is it possible that it's frequently just a little more complicated and involved to insist parents accept that as a risk just because they chose to have kids, since sometimes the oaths our children end up on lead to failing to complete school even though that was not our goal when we began our families?


----------



## AmericanStand

The elephant in the room is indecision. 
Some posters have touched on the subject discussing the girl that changes her mind afterwards. 
Lots of us have seen the Facebook post ;
No means no except when it means yes. 
Or maybe. 
Or I want more time. 
Or I really want to but you don't meet my friends standards so I want to be able to claim nonresponsibility. 
What man hasn't had the experience of dating a girl starting something being told no stopping. Only to find out later she really wanted him but he failed to show enough interest?
So what it boils down to is no means I reserve the right to put you in jail later.


----------



## where I want to

Yup- tricky, isn't it......
But at least having a rule that being drunk means 'no' eliminates all those complications. Just don't go there. Drummed into the head.


----------



## gibbsgirl

where I want to said:


> Yup- tricky, isn't it......
> But at least having a rule that being drunk means 'no' eliminates all those complications. Just don't go there. Drummed into the head.


After this many pages of us all not convincing each other of much, I'm almost hesitant to even restate this.

If drunk = no because it means we've decided a drunk person cannot exercise good judgment to the degree they can't be relied upon to mean whatever they say or don't say, then how can another drunk person be more responsible for having to maintain the sound judgment we're saying the first person lacks?

This is why the comparison to too drunk for sex decisions but not too drunk to know not to drive example works.


----------



## gibbsgirl

It's prejudicial to want to have it both ways.


----------



## kasilofhome

Laura Zone 5 said:


> 1. 16 is the age of consent in my state.
> 
> 2. If the 'law' says a drunk cannot give consent, then don't get the hornies for someone when they are drunk.
> 
> THE WOMEN SHOULD DRINK ALONE... BECAUSE THE CAN'T MAKE UP THEIR MIND PLUS MEN FAIL TO RESCUE THEM AND BE THEIR KNIGHT IN SHINNIG ARMOR.
> 3. If you don't know the difference between 'rape and sex' you got some learnin' to do.
> 
> SEX VOLUNTARILY ...RAPE IS BEING DRAFTED
> 
> 4. I don't trust Patty as much as Patty thinks I dress trashy.
> YOU THINK YOU DRESS TRASHY... PATTY NEVER HAS SEEN YOU AT ANY VENUE...YOU JUST MIGHT BE A GODDESS. Dress for success wether hunting or fishing.
> 
> I am blown away.......simply blown away at some of the responses to this thread.
> Clearly there are those who have lived such an amazing, charmed life, that they can sit in their arm chair and sneer a nose at the world.
> That....is SO dangerous.
> Seems like the Lord seeks those types out, and humility becomes a very painful lesson.
> Ask me how I know.......
> Just, wow.


life's tough... it's hard. Not one of us gets out of here alive. Rape is a CRIMINAL act.. it can be violent or intimidating..but it is not a choice. But just like if you fail to lock your house or die without your seatbelt ...your free choices to do so also has you legal take some of the responcabilties.... look at insurance policies.

There is a reduction in the pay if your personal neglect increased the event.


----------



## where I want to

gibbsgirl said:


> It's prejudicial to want to have it both ways.


Yes, it is except if both are so drunk that they can't be responsible, both could be charged with sexual assault if they choose to go there. And it will not be long until some man's lawyer chooses to go there. That woman will get a surprise. But you're right that sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.


----------



## gibbsgirl

where I want to said:


> Yes, it is except if both are so drunk that they can't be responsible, both could be charged with sexual assault if they choose to go there. And it will not be long until some man's lawyer chooses to go there. That woman will get a surprise. But you're right that sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.


Maybe. And, I do think some cases should be handled that way. If nothing else it might do a lot to stem false accusations 

But, then again I could easily see how it might easily not go that way, even with pressure from a defense lawyer. The courts could decide it was not in the best interest to allow that for the same reasons they decided to not allow women to just drop domestic abuse charges after they got a temporary intervention from law enforcement.


----------



## plowjockey

where I want to said:


> Yup- tricky, isn't it......
> But at least having a rule that being drunk means 'no' eliminates all those complications. Just don't go there. Drummed into the head.


Anyone who have ever imbibed, more than a drink or two, knows full well, that the line between _drinking_ and _drunk_, is a pretty thin line.

Whose responsibility is it, to monitor that line?


----------



## Evons hubby

plowjockey said:


> Anyone who have ever imbibed, more than a drink or two, knows full well, that the line between _drinking_ and _drunk_, is a pretty thin line.
> 
> Whose responsibility is it, to monitor that line?


Who ever owns the throat thats doing the swallowing.


----------



## plowjockey

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Who ever owns the throat thats doing the swallowing.


Not according to some in this thread.

No matter what happens, drunk=no, which is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

Perhaps "_kinda buzzed_"="_maybe_".


----------



## watcher

Laura Zone 5 said:


> 1. 16 is the age of consent in my state.
> 
> 2. If the 'law' says a drunk cannot give consent, then don't get the hornies for someone when they are drunk.


So if the "law" says a drunk can not give legal consent to have sex then you think a drunk driver should go free, right? After all if you can't legally hold someone responsible for some of their actions while drunk you must not be able to hold them legally responsible for all their actions.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Sure I did. There is a difference between offering consent and making a decision. It's perfectly rational to hold peop&#322;e responsible for their decisions, even bad ones like driving, even if they are drunk. The results of such decisions may impact others adversly and none of those hit by a drunk driver consented to that action. Decisions involve only the person deciding.


You have to make a decision to have sex, either before or after the consent, correct? As many have pointed she could change that decision from 'yes' to 'no' at anytime. 



mmoetc said:


> Consent, by its nature, involves two or more people.


We are only talking about one of those people. After all AFAIK, you can't charge both parties in a sex act with rape.




mmoetc said:


> The bottom line ,for me, is that the most attractive woman in the world should be able to walk naked and drunk through a roomful of men and only be offered a coat to cover, a cup of coffee to sober and a safe ride home.


And you should be able to leave the keys in your car when you go into the mall and find it still there when you come out. You should be able leave your door unlocked when you go on vacation and come back to find all you stuff still there. You should be able to walk anywhere you want with $10,000 worth of gold chains around you neck and expect to arrive back home with them.

But you'd be a fool if you thought any or all of those would happen in the real world. And you'd be a double fool if you actually did them.


----------



## watcher

gibbsgirl said:


> This whole conversation has confirmed to me how much some people are committed to the idea that the solution to problems clearly lies in just assigning blame to others, absolving oneself from a large level of accountability, and expecting the govt to just handle the bad guys. Too bad it's so difficult for some people to see they are being turned into criminals themselves, losing their rights and generally watching this method prove that often it actually doesn't solve or sometimes even lower the "crimes" the legislation was designed to eradicate; while it simultaneously is bankrupting ouf current and future citizens.


In most cases in the real world not all the blame belongs on only one party. 

If you leave your keys in the car in the parking lot for 4 hours while you are in the mall and its stolen is the car thief 100% to blame? Some would say yes but the vast majority of people would say no. Maybe a better example would be if you had a swimming pool in your yard w/o no fence. If someone, kid or adult, gets in when you are not home and drowns you can be held partly responsible.


----------



## Marshloft

mmoetc said:


> The bottom line ,for me, is that the most attractive woman in the world should be able to walk naked and drunk through a roomful of men and only be offered a coat to cover, a cup of coffee to sober and a safe ride home.


 Do you think for one minute that 99 percent of the men on HT wouldn't do exactly this?
But that's not the point, if it were, this thread wouldn't have lasted as long as it has.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Marshloft said:


> Do you think for one minute that 99 percent of the men on HT wouldn't do exactly this?
> But that's not the point, if it were, this thread wouldn't have lasted as long as it has.


To be blunt, yes, I'm beginning to think just that... There are some here that don't think it's wrong to have sex with a woman (person) too drunk to consent. There are some that think a very young girl (boy) is OK if she looks old enough. 

But what I find seriously messed up is the amount of _women_ that think both situations are just fine and dandy. 

I just can't understand the mindset of men, never less women, that can condone either action.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> To be blunt, yes, I'm beginning to think just that... There are some here that don't think it's wrong to have sex with a woman (person) too drunk to consent. There are some that think a very young girl (boy) is OK if she looks old enough.
> 
> But what I find seriously messed up is the amount of _women_ that think both situations are just fine and dandy.
> 
> I just can't understand the mindset of men, never less women, that can condone either action.


Really, I coukdn't tell. The only thing women who are bigoted against men don't like more than men themselves is women who refuse to be part of their sisterhood it seems.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> Really, I coukdn't tell. The only thing women who are bigoted against men don't like more than men themselves is women who refuse to be part of their sisterhood it seems.


I think she just called you bigoted against men and women, Pixie.


----------



## AmericanStand

watcher said:


> And you should be able to leave the keys in your car when you go into the mall and find it still there when you come out. You should be able leave your door unlocked when you go on vacation and come back to find all you stuff still there. You should be able to walk anywhere you want with $10,000 worth of gold chains around you neck and expect to arrive back home with them.
> 
> 
> 
> But you'd be a fool if you thought any or all of those would happen in the real world. And you'd be a double fool if you actually did them.



I do those all the time. 
Personally I think you would be foolish to be where you can't.


----------



## kasilofhome

I as a female..... and genetically female also. Who is a oddity in that I have never been sexually discriminated,on any job, school, financial institution. I say oddity in that during the war on women I was told of the opportunities I must have missed out on or reduced pay vs men etc... I have never seen these battles.


But I never saw that I had a right to walk naked thru an event drunk as skunk and even consider that a man must accept responsibility to give me their coat and drive me home.....I envision some thing else... humiliation and men and women distancing them self from me and calling 911 to report me for being indecently exposed, charge as such along with drunk and disorderly conduct. 

I do not expect a knight in shining armor to my rescue and take home .... 

To me... that's not equality...do some women still secretly hold a flame at being a damsel in distress being rescued.....sounds like it to me.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> I think she just called you bigoted against men and women, Pixie.


There has been an awful lot of bigotry and hate speech spewed on here. Not just by one person only either.


----------



## Marshloft

Irish Pixie said:


> To be blunt, yes, I'm beginning to think just that... There are some here that don't think it's wrong to have sex with a woman (person) too drunk to consent. There are some that think a very young girl (boy) is OK if she looks old enough.
> 
> But what I find seriously messed up is the amount of _women_ that think both situations are just fine and dandy.
> 
> I just can't understand the mindset of men, never less women, that can condone either action.


 I don't know what to tell you. Per your previous post's, I can see you have a very legitimate reason for feeling the way you do about rape. But that being said, I also believe that has clouded your insight to exactly why some have the opinions they have. 
One thing I refuse to do, is argue for the sake of arguing.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> To be blunt, yes, I'm beginning to think just that... There are some here that don't think it's wrong to have sex with a woman (person) too drunk to consent. There are some that think a very young girl (boy) is OK if she looks old enough.
> 
> But what I find seriously messed up is the amount of _women_ that think both situations are just fine and dandy.
> 
> I just can't understand the mindset of men, never less women, that can condone either action.


It could be wrong are in my comprehension of other peoples post. I don't think anyone thinks its ok to have sex with a women that is drunk and they (the man) are sober. But on who is to blame if they both are drunk and not totally aware. I believe most everyone on here believes no means no but in some drunken parties the word no is never uttered until the hangover.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> Really, I coukdn't tell. The only thing women who are bigoted against men don't like more than men themselves is women who refuse to be part of their sisterhood it seems.


I'm not a bigot, and personal attacks are not nice.

ETA: How do you presume to know what I feel? I don't hate anyone, and calling me bigoted is ridiculous.


----------



## gibbsgirl

You may not be a bigot. But, to tell people you actually believe there are people on here who would take advantage of a woman and women who would stand by and endorse it is pretty harsh on a different level.

I don't know how else you expected people to interpret that.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Marshloft said:


> I don't know what to tell you. Per your previous post's, I can see you have a very legitimate reason for feeling the way you do about rape. But that being said, I also believe that has clouded your insight to exactly why some have the opinions they have.
> One thing I refuse to do, is argue for the sake of arguing.


I was responding to your question.. with my opinion. Rape and sexual assault are wrong, and I gave examples of what I've read. 

I don't want to argue either but I do have the right to post my opinion, correct?


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> It could be wrong are in my comprehension of other peoples post. I don't think anyone thinks its ok to have sex with a women that is drunk and they (the man) are sober. But on who is to blame if they both are drunk and not totally aware. I believe most everyone on here believes no means no but in some drunken parties the word no is never uttered until the hangover.


When both people are drunk it is hard to determine, I agree with that.


----------



## plowjockey

Irish Pixie said:


> To be blunt, yes, I'm beginning to think just that... There are some here that don't think it's wrong to have sex with a woman (person) too drunk to consent. There are some that think a very young girl (boy) is OK if she looks old enough.
> 
> But what I find seriously messed up is the amount of _women_ that think both situations are just fine and dandy.
> 
> I just can't understand the mindset of men, never less women, that can condone either action.


Maybe you can get people to agree with you, by explaining exactly what "too drunk to consent" even means and IMO and you are simply trolling, by insinuating anyone here condones sex with children. 

what is "too drunk"?

2 1/2 drinks? walking a bit wobbly? Excessive giggling?

How are the participants supposed to know, him and her?

What happens if a couple drinks some alcohol, "hooks up" and the the girl goes to another party, downs a bunch of _Jungle juice_, then blacks out, forgetting most everything in the morning, except for the fact she had sex with someone?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Well, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to let a few of these threads continue on there merry way without me.

The last straw was when a couple of my kids (basically everyone in the house has been follows along mist threads with me) started laughing and said I should qui wasting my time talking circles on here about stuff that doesn't really add anything to our homesteading.

Truth from the mouths of babes.

I wish you all well with it. I'm sure there's still lots to be said. But, I'm gonna have to take my exit and follow my 9 and 12 year old advice.


----------



## kasilofhome

Some bars offer blow test... maybe if a girl says yes in a bar.. record her taking a blow test then record asking if sex is with the specific male is agreeable to her should it happen in the next... give a performance deadline for completion or consent exspires if she say yes..


----------



## painterswife

Blow test. I think the boys just might like that.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> Blow test. I think the boys just might like that.


Why the sexism.....


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Why the sexism.....


It was a joke. A play on words. Not your cup of tea. I guess you are not going to my comedy show then.


----------



## kasilofhome

No. Quite the opposite...I got the humor... took it as humor. I love comedy and have many old friends who are comedians..


----------



## Jolly

Whatever happened to the old standard, that if somebody dresses like a lady and acts likes a lady, she should treated like a lady?


----------



## kasilofhome

Bruce Jenner


----------



## BlackFeather

Leaving a bar with Bruce Jenner, now that is way too drunk.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

gibbsgirl said:


> Really, I coukdn't tell. The only thing women who are bigoted against men don't like more than men themselves is women who refuse to be part of their sisterhood it seems.


I LOVE MEN!!!
I LOVE LOVE LOVE MEN!!
THEY ARE MY FAVORITE FLAVOR!!
I have a son......he's a pretty awesome young MAN.

Growing up, I had 1 girl friend, and oodles of guy friends. 
I hung out with the boys, went mudding w/ them, partied with them.

I hope one day to have a deep lasting connection with a man.

I am not bigoted against men.
I am against A HUMAN being who forces another HUMAN BEING to have sex with them against their will or words, or by drugging them or they are rendered unconscience.


----------



## Evons hubby

Marshloft said:


> Do you think for one minute that 99 percent of the men on HT wouldn't do exactly this?
> But that's not the point, if it were, this thread wouldn't have lasted as long as it has.


Put me in that ninety nine percent group. I have given my coat more than once to ladies who for various reasons found themselves lacking in "appropriate" attire.


----------



## kasilofhome

Laura.. your sign to the choir...gender as an issue or a qualifier needs to be removed.

Think about.

Lesbians... also have abuse within their ranks.. but limiting it the the big bad man ....not right.


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> Whatever happened to the old standard, that if somebody dresses like a lady and acts likes a lady, she should treated like a lady?


Yeppers, and ladies didn't dance with snakes to further avoid getting snakebit.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Whatever happened to the old standard, that if somebody dresses like a lady and acts likes a lady, she should treated like a lady?


And what happened to the old standard of a man that acted like a gentleman, respected women, and was taught rape/sexual assault of _any_ type is wrong?

If men followed that conduct there would be no sexual assault against women.


----------



## Irish Pixie

plowjockey said:


> Maybe you can get people to agree with you, by explaining exactly what "too drunk to consent" even means and IMO and you are simply trolling, by insinuating anyone here condones sex with children.
> 
> what is "too drunk"?
> 
> 2 1/2 drinks? walking a bit wobbly? Excessive giggling?
> 
> How are the participants supposed to know, him and her?
> 
> What happens if a couple drinks some alcohol, "hooks up" and the the girl goes to another party, downs a bunch of _Jungle juice_, then blacks out, forgetting most everything in the morning, except for the fact she had sex with someone?


To be flippant, I think it is like Alan Novak said of pornography, "Mr. Justice, you will know it when you see it.â


----------



## Laura Zone 5

plowjockey said:


> Maybe you can get people to agree with you, by explaining exactly what "too drunk to consent" even means and IMO and you are simply trolling, by insinuating anyone here condones sex with children.
> *
> what is "too drunk"?*
> 
> 2 1/2 drinks? walking a bit wobbly? Excessive giggling?
> 
> How are the participants supposed to know, him and her?
> 
> What happens if a couple drinks some alcohol, "hooks up" and the the girl goes to another party, downs a bunch of _Jungle juice_, then blacks out, forgetting most everything in the morning, except for the fact she had sex with someone?


.08 is the legal limit in the state of Indiana. 
If you are .08, you are impaired, and you are not allowed to drive or be OUT in public.
So, .08 is too drunk.


----------



## plowjockey

Irish Pixie said:


> To be flippant, I think it is like Alan Novak said of pornography, "Mr. Justice, you will know it when you see it.â


We're discussing the possibility, of sending young men to prison, plus spending the rest of their lives, as registered sex offenders.

Maybe "flippant" is part of the problem in all this, if a woman "thinks" she was sexually assaulted, or is not even sure, because she was so drunk, she does not remember everything.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I LOVE MEN!!!
> I LOVE LOVE LOVE MEN!!
> THEY ARE MY FAVORITE FLAVOR!!
> I have a son......he's a pretty awesome young MAN.
> 
> Growing up, I had 1 girl friend, and oodles of guy friends.
> I hung out with the boys, went mudding w/ them, partied with them.
> 
> I hope one day to have a deep lasting connection with a man.
> 
> *I am not bigoted against men.
> I am against A HUMAN being who forces another HUMAN BEING to have sex with them against their will or words, or by drugging them or they are rendered unconscience.*





kasilofhome said:


> Laura.. your sign to the choir...gender as an issue or a qualifier needs to be removed.
> 
> Think about.
> 
> Lesbians... also have abuse within their ranks.. but limiting it the the big bad man ....not right.


Pretty sure I made my point as clear as glass and as 'gender neutral' as possible????


----------



## Laura Zone 5

plowjockey said:


> We're discussing the possibility, of sending young men to prison, plus spending the rest of their lives, as registered sex offenders.
> 
> Maybe "flippant" is part of the problem in all this, if a woman "thinks" she was sexually assaulted, or is not even sure, because she was so drunk, she does not remember everything.


Correct.

In a perfect world, females would not get drunk and act like harlets, and males would not get drunk and act like dogs. That would eliminate a HUGE chunk of issues.

She cannot claim "I was drunk" when the rape kit clearly shows that it was consentual sex ANY MORE than he can claim "I was drunk" when he pins a girl down and rapes her.

Being drunk, does not give a human a free pass to sexually violate another human being.
Being drunk does not give a human being a free pass to "blame" another human being because they "regret" what they did.

So men, let that be a warning. 
Teach your sons.....do NOT engage in ANY sexual activity with ANYONE who is drunk, on drugs, or intoxicated on ANYTHING. 
Teach them self restraint, how to walk away, respect for other human beings.
Being with a drunk human could give you more than an STD.....it could give you a record for life.

So women, let that be a warning. 
Teach your daughters.....Do not become drunk, wacked out on drugs, or intoxicated with ANYTHING and put your self in a position where you can be sexually assaulted and unable to defend yourself. 
Teach them self respect, that their bodies are not toys to be shared.

The courts should hear all witnesses, allow attorneys to dig up information and evidence to support it's case (either way) to prove to a judge / jury that a rape did OR did not occur. Unless our court system has fallen into total corruption.......if ONE HUMAN had consentual sex with another HUMAN, then later claims 'rape'......it's up to the attorneys to prove, who's lying and who's not.


----------



## Jolly

plowjockey said:


> We're discussing the possibility, of sending young men to prison, plus spending the rest of their lives, as registered sex offenders.
> 
> Maybe "flippant" is part of the problem in all this, if a woman "thinks" she was sexually assaulted, or is not even sure, because she was so drunk, she does not remember everything.


This.

Among all this debate, this is the actual crux of the matter. At the end of the day, there must be actual PROOF that a rape has occurred. We should not put innocent people in jail. We should not ruin the rest of their non-incarcerated lives by labeling people sex offenders when they may not be.

He said/she said isn't proof.

And if there is no proof or witnesses, we'll have to do what we've done for many years - innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## plowjockey

Laura Zone 5 said:


> .08 is the legal limit in the state of Indiana.
> If you are .08, you are impaired, and you are not allowed to drive or be OUT in public.
> So, .08 is too drunk.


It appears then, that millions of sexual assaults occur in the U.S. every Friday and Saturday night, since very state has similar drunk driving laws and it take about two drinks for woman to be legally drunk.

Not sure how your post helped. 

Should the government mandate continuous breathalyzers and field sobriety tests, at college mixers?


----------



## Irish Pixie

plowjockey said:


> We're discussing the possibility, of sending young men to prison, plus spending the rest of their lives, as registered sex offenders.
> 
> Maybe "flippant" is part of the problem in all this, if a woman "thinks" she was sexually assaulted, or is not even sure, because she was so drunk, she does not remember everything.


This has been discussed/bashed with personal attacks, nasty comments (from both sides) so much that there isn't much left to say. I'm the last one to mock sexual assault (and rational people realize that from my ehem, enthusiastic responses), and my "flippant" comment reflects that. Laura's .08 works as well as any other for indicating alcohol legal limit. Unwad your panties.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

plowjockey said:


> It appears then, that millions of sexual assaults occur in the U.S. every Friday and Saturday night, since very state has similar drunk driving laws and it take about two drinks for woman to be legally drunk.
> 
> Not sure how your post helped.
> 
> Should the government mandate continuous breathalyzers and field sobriety tests, at college mixers?


Your question was "what is too drunk" so I provided you with the "letter of the law" in Indiana, which is .08.

The human liver can fully process 1 oz of alcohol per hour. 
Cold showers, coffee and food....going for a walk, running on a tredmill does NOT sober you up.
Time, and the liver doing it's job, is what sobers you up.

This takes us back to personal responsibility.
If you are going to have a frat party, lock all the bedroom doors, have your party in the main room of the house where no one can do anything 'unseen'.
Or ban drinking all together.
For God's sake, college is expensive, and you are there to learn, not dress up in a bedsheet and drink until you vomit in someones mouth......

Personal Responsibility.
And when you cannot exercise it, for any reason, The Law will clear up any 'grey' area's for you.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Jolly said:


> This.
> 
> Among all this debate, this is the actual crux of the matter. At the end of the day, there must be actual PROOF that a rape has occurred. We should not put innocent people in jail. We should not ruin the rest of their non-incarcerated lives by labeling people sex offenders when they may not be.
> 
> *He said/she said isn't proof.*
> 
> And if there is no proof or witnesses, we'll have to do what we've done for many years - innocent until proven guilty.





Laura Zone 5 said:


> *Correct.*
> 
> 
> *The courts should hear all witnesses, allow attorneys to dig up information and evidence to support it's case (either way) to prove to a judge / jury that a rape did OR did not occur. Unless our court system has fallen into total corruption.......if ONE HUMAN had consentual sex with another HUMAN, then later claims 'rape'......it's up to the attorneys to prove, who's lying and who's not*.


Simple solution..........

Teach your sons.....do NOT engage in ANY sexual activity with ANYONE who is drunk, on drugs, or intoxicated on ANYTHING. 
Teach them self restraint, how to walk away, respect for other human beings.
Being with a drunk human could give you more than an STD.....it could give you a record for life.

Teach your daughters.....Do not become drunk, wacked out on drugs, or intoxicated with ANYTHING and put your self in a position where you can be sexually assaulted and unable to defend yourself. 
Teach them self respect, that their bodies are not toys to be shared.


----------



## Evons hubby

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Simple solution..........
> 
> Teach your sons.....do NOT engage in ANY sexual activity with ANYONE who is drunk, on drugs, or intoxicated on ANYTHING.
> Teach them self restraint, how to walk away, respect for other human beings.
> Being with a drunk human could give you more than an STD.....it could give you a record for life.
> 
> Teach your daughters.....Do not become drunk, wacked out on drugs, or intoxicated with ANYTHING and put your self in a position where you can be sexually assaulted and unable to defend yourself.
> Teach them self respect, that their bodies are not toys to be shared.


I can see that party going downhill rather quickly. It kinda reminds me of "have fun and behave yourself".


----------



## no really

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Your question was "what is too drunk" so I provided you with the "letter of the law" in Indiana, which is .08.
> 
> The human liver can fully process 1 oz of alcohol per hour.
> Cold showers, coffee and food....going for a walk, running on a tredmill does NOT sober you up.
> Time, and the liver doing it's job, is what sobers you up.
> 
> This takes us back to personal responsibility.
> If you are going to have a frat party, lock all the bedroom doors, have your party in the main room of the house where no one can do anything 'unseen'.
> Or ban drinking all together.
> For God's sake, college is expensive, and you are there to learn, not dress up in a bedsheet and drink until you vomit in someones mouth......
> 
> Personal Responsibility.
> And when you cannot exercise it, for any reason, The Law will clear up any 'grey' area's for you.



The first thing I learned when I went to college was never attend the parties. They were mainly groups of people getting drunk as fast as possible, men and women. Most of those young people still needed keepers. Now don't get me wrong I liked to party but not to wake up hugging some strangers toilet. Second year there were 2 alcohol poisoning deaths in one dorm, one male one female.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I can see that party going downhill rather quickly.


Yeah, if all your looking for is an easy piece of action.....which makes it all the more important for men to tell their daughters what some men only 'think' about.....and some men 'act' on those thoughts......


----------



## no really

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Yeah, if all your looking for is an easy piece of action.....which makes it all the more important for men to tell their daughters what some men only 'think' about.....and some men 'act' on those thoughts......


There are a lot of those looking for that easy piece, men and women. It's equal opportunity now. Hooking up is the new norm, for both genders.


----------



## Evons hubby

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Yeah, if all your looking for is an easy piece of action.....which makes it all the more important for men to tell their daughters what some men only 'think' about.....and some men 'act' on those thoughts......


And some women like it when men act on those thoughts.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And some women like it when men act on those thoughts.


Yep. 
Women who have no self respect or were abused in their childhood.
Women who use their sexuality to 'get ahead' in the world.
Women who try to get pregnant and trap a man......
Yep, there sure are some messed up females out there....

Unfortunately, 'those women' give Good Women a bad name.....
"Those women" set the standard, and 'men' think ALL women 'like it'.
And we don't.

Too bad 'those men' are lead by their passions and hormones.......it's usually the same men that whine when she takes him to the cleaners in the divorce.
I guess that's what you get when you think with the wrong body part.


----------



## Evons hubby

no really said:


> There are a lot of those looking for that easy piece, men and women. It's equal opportunity now. Hooking up is the new norm, for both genders.


I dont think there is anything "new" about it. Its been going on since history has been recorded... most likely long before that.


----------



## Irish Pixie

I don't agree with the thought that all women that enjoy casual (or not so casual) sex are trashy, hoes, no self respect, etc... Most women enjoy sex as much (if not more) than men. 

If everyone consents I see no problem with hook ups, casual or otherwise.


----------



## Evons hubby

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Yep.
> Women who have no self respect or were abused in their childhood.
> Women who use their sexuality to 'get ahead' in the world.
> Women who try to get pregnant and trap a man......
> Yep, there sure are some messed up females out there....
> 
> Unfortunately, 'those women' give Good Women a bad name.....
> "Those women" set the standard, and 'men' think ALL women 'like it'.
> And we don't.
> 
> Too bad 'those men' are lead by their passions and hormones.......it's usually the same men that whine when she takes him to the cleaners in the divorce.
> I guess that's what you get when you think with the wrong body part.


I find it interesting that you believe only "messed up" women enjoy sex. That may very well be true but it sure isnt the way I see the world.


----------



## no really

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I dont think there is anything "new" about it. Its been going on since history has been recorded... most likely long before that.


Yeah, but there are apps now for hooking up, kinda spreads the net wider. Friend of mine used to go to hook up parties, she liked not messing with a relationship.


----------



## Jolly

no really said:


> Yeah, but there are apps now for hooking up, kinda spreads the net wider. Friend of mine used to go to hook up parties, she liked not messing with a relationship.


I'll take it a bit further....

At one Louisiana University, I know of a secret deal made between one fraternity and one sorority. Participating members (one doesn't have to participate, but the peer pressure is on) put their names on strips of paper into fish bowls, one at the frat, one at the sorority.

Towards the end of the week, representatives of the fraternity and sorority meet, and one name at a time is pulled from each fish bowl. The two names are matched, and each female participant is informed Friday afternoon, who her "date" is for Friday night. The young man does not know who his date is.

Men are to leave their door unlocked or leave the key under an outside mat. No bedroom lights are allowed. The man must be already in bed. There must be a ready supply of condoms. The woman will show up after dark, will proceed to the bedroom, remove her clothes and have sex with the man. He, or she, do not have to speak unless they want to. Neither has to identify themselves to the other partner. The woman can leave after having sex once, or she can stay. She can stipulate whether the lights can be turned on, if names can be exchanged, if she'd like to go out or ask if her partner is up for another sexual act, now or later.

Things may change, but at least that's how they did it last semester...


----------



## no really

Jolly said:


> I'll take it a bit further....
> 
> At one Louisiana University, I know of a secret deal made between one fraternity and one sorority. Participating members (one doesn't have to participate, but the peer pressure is on) put their names on strips of paper into fish bowls, one at the frat, one at the sorority.
> 
> Towards the end of the week, representatives of the fraternity and sorority meet, and one name at a time is pulled from each fish bowl. The two names are matched, and each female participant is informed Friday afternoon, who her "date" is for Friday night. The young man does not know who his date is.
> 
> Men are to leave their door unlocked or leave the key under an outside mat. No bedroom lights are allowed. The man must be already in bed. There must be a ready supply of condoms. The woman will show up after dark, will proceed to the bedroom, remove her clothes and have sex with the man. He, or she, do not have to speak unless they want to. Neither has to identify themselves to the other partner. The woman can leave after having sex once, or she can stay. She can stipulate whether the lights can be turned on, if names can be exchanged, if she'd like to go out or ask if her partner is up for another sexual act, now or later.
> 
> Things may change, but at least that's how they did it last semester...


Yeah, not really a surprise. Weird to me, guess I'm just not that trusting.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> To be blunt, yes, I'm beginning to think just that... There are some here that don't think it's wrong to have sex with a woman (person) too drunk to consent. There are some that think a very young girl (boy) is OK if she looks old enough.


How drunk is that? Should we require men to carry breathalyzers and make sure their date doesn't registrar more than 0.08 before carrying on? 

What's your standard and I ask again if she too drunk to be held responsible for her sexual actions do you think she's too drunk to be held for her driving actions? Or do you have a double standard for drunks?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> When both people are drunk it is hard to determine, I agree with that.


You still have a major legal problem. Diminished mental capacity is diminished mental capacity. You can't allow it in one circumstance and ignore it in another.

You are either too drunk to be able to legally make the decision to have sex or drive and therefore can not be held legally responsible for that action.

Or no matter how drunk you are you are still legally able to make the decision to have sex or to drive and therefore can be held legally responsible for that action.

If you are sitting in a chair you can either stay sitting or stand up. You can't have both.


----------



## AmericanStand

Nolo Contender is a legal concept meaning I'm not going to argue. 
Getting drunk is a physical action that has the same effect. 
And so why isn't a girl who voluntarily got drunk considered to be in a status of Nolo contender ?


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> If you are sitting in a chair you can either stay sitting or stand up. You can't have both.


If you are drunk you can fall off sideways too.... I know coz I have seen it done!


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If you are drunk you can fall off sideways too.... I know coz I have seen it done!


But the you are not standing nor sitting... humans can only being in one physical position at a time... not for picky person noting human does not negate any other life for or objects from conforming to that reality.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I find it interesting that you believe only "messed up" women enjoy sex. That may very well be true but it sure isnt the way I see the world.


Well, you're a guy so.......:grin:

No, not only 'messed up' women enjoy sex.
But statistically speaking, women who 'use sex' or 'engage in' sex with multiple partners (the majority, not all of them....) have 'reasons' why they behave this way.

I really try to avoid the 'all or nothing' kind of language....I don't recall saying ONLY messed up women enjoy sex.


----------



## Irish Pixie

AmericanStand said:


> Nolo Contender is a legal concept meaning I'm not going to argue.
> Getting drunk is a physical action that has the same effect.
> And so why isn't a girl who voluntarily got drunk considered to be in a status of Nolo contender ?


By definition: Nolo contendere is a legal term that comes from the Latin for "I do not wish to contend." It is also referred to as a plea of no contest.

By definition: No contest. In criminal trials in certain U.S. jurisdictions, it is a plea where the defendant neither admits nor disputes a charge, serving as an alternative to a pleading of guilty or not guilty.

Both definitions are from Google.

I'm confused and don't see how it applies in your scenario.


----------



## AmericanStand

Meaning The point of her getting drunk is have decisions made with out her input.


----------



## Irish Pixie

AmericanStand said:


> Meaning The point of her getting drunk is have decisions made with out her input.


The point of her getting drunk is to get raped? I hope that's not what you're saying. I'm still confused...


----------



## highlands

haypoint said:


> While we mostly agree that women are not "asking for it" if dressed in a short skirt or low cut blouse and that no means no, we seem divided on impaired agreement.


It doesn't matter if we agree or not. We aren't the problem. The people who are the problem don't agree and see provocative clothing and behavior as bait. If you don't want to attract the attention of sharks, don't chum the water. If you don't want coyotes coming around, don't leave out deadstock. If you don't want...

This is reality. Deal with it.


----------



## kasilofhome

You said rape.. some want to hold on to an excuse... on face it does not end with Prince charming falling deeply in love and taking her to the castle to live life happily ever after.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> You said rape.. some want to hold on to an excuse... on face it does not end with Prince charming falling deeply in love and taking her to the castle to live life happily ever after.


Neither does sober, consensual sex in the majority of cases.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Neither does sober, consensual sex in the majority of cases.


No, it doesn't. No one I know believes in fairy tales anyway. There is no handsome prince on a white horse just waiting to make you a princess.


----------



## kasilofhome

Ok then why demand... or count on walking naked, drunk and rather than a trip to jail and or sent for a mental health evaluation...a man is to give you a coat and drive you home... why?


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Ok then why demand... or count on walking naked, drunk and rather than a trip to jail and or sent for a mental health evaluation...a man is to give you a coat and drive you home... why?


Is this what you're talking about, "Rape is never justified, no ifs, ands, or buts. Not even if a naked woman walks through a room full of drunks." 

It's what _should_ happen, you thought I'd really suggest that it was OK to walk naked through a room full of drunks? Seriously? Oh, my. No, not at all. I know I said as much in a subsequent post.


----------



## kasilofhome

the female should be dealt with the same as a drunken naked male walking into a bar..I do not want the man rape in that case any more than a female.... but indecent exposure is a legal offense which might be a sexual predator or a sign of a mental health issue.

How loving and kind is it to hide ....cover up and prevent persons from getting the care they truly need... keep driving the home with a coat and the true issue is never addressed.

Unless double standards are justice or sexism is equality.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> the female should be dealt with the same as a drunken naked male walking into a bar..I do not want the man rape in that case any more than a female.... but indecent exposure is a legal offense which might be a sexual predator or a sign of a mental health issue.
> 
> How loving and kind is it to hide ....cover up and prevent persons from getting the care they truly need... keep driving the home with a coat and the true issue is never addressed.
> 
> Unless double standards are justice or sexism is equality.


OK. You feel that women and men should be treated equaled in areas of sexual assault? I agree. Indecent exposure isn't even viable because my scenario was fictional. It never existed, I made it up to make a point. So, it isn't a sign of a mental health issue nor could it entice a sexual predator. 

The second paragraph of the post is incomprehensible to me. 

Again, I agree that there should be no double standards.


----------



## kasilofhome

It may be that you have not walked naked in a bar drunk or even seen that ever happen but it has happened... but more importantly that was a situation in this discussion that I stand by my words... even the ones you don't comprehend.


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> The point of her getting drunk is to get raped? I hope that's not what you're saying. I'm still confused...



No sometimes the point in getting drunk is to have nonresponceable consensual sex. 
Remember our discussion on women who want raped and how it was pointed out that was consent ?


----------



## Irish Pixie

AmericanStand said:


> No sometimes the point in getting drunk is to have nonresponceable consensual sex.
> Remember our discussion on women who want raped and how it was pointed out that was consent ?


No. It was not pointed out that it was consensual sex. If a woman asks you to "rape" her, she's consenting to sex. She probably wants rough sex or BDSM but she does not want to be raped if she asks for sex. 

Dang. Is asking, consenting, etc... really so hard to understand?


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> It may be that you have not walked naked in a bar drunk or even seen that ever happen but it has happened... but more importantly that was a situation in this discussion that I stand by my words... even the ones you don't comprehend.


I have no clue how you can "stand by your words" when they are based on something I never said. But, OK. If that's the way you want it...


----------



## kasilofhome

Easy... if a naked person walks into or strips while in a bar... I'm calling 911..

I pretty much accept that the naked person has a problems that might better be addressed by an evaluation or time in a jail and a chance to meet a judge... 

I am a problem solving goal.... enabling does not work often enough.

So, I stand by my words...


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> The point of her getting drunk is to get raped? I hope that's not what you're saying. I'm still confused...


The point is she knew her decision to get drunk would placing herself in a state of lower mental capacity and should accept that in such a state she could make decisions which could place her in danger. Those decisions could include getting in her car and driving, thinking it would be fun to punch a large bounce who is trying to escort her out of the bar in the face or stripping nude and dancing on the pool table then offering to have sex with anyone and everyone before a group of men with equally lowered mental capacity due to them being intoxicated.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> No, it doesn't. No one I know believes in fairy tales anyway. There is no handsome prince on a white horse just waiting to make you a princess.


One thing I told my son. Do you know what you get when you rescue a damsel in distress? A distressed damsel. And the odds are you will have to keep rescuing her over and over and over again. IOW, pick a strong woman.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Dang. Is asking, consenting, etc... really so hard to understand?


But can a drunk person have the mental capacity to consent to such things? According to the courts they can because you can't use the fact you were to drunk to know better as a defense for DUI. Therefore you shouldn't be able to use I was to drunk to know better when it comes to sex being rape, right?


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> The point is she knew her decision to get drunk would placing herself in a state of lower mental capacity and should accept that in such a state she could make decisions which could place her in danger. Those decisions could include getting in her car and driving, thinking it would be fun to punch a large bounce who is trying to escort her out of the bar in the face or stripping nude and dancing on the pool table then offering to have sex with anyone and everyone before a group of men with equally lowered mental capacity due to them being intoxicated.


I'm not going to argue with you, and I'm not a lawyer so I'm not addressing drunk driving, punching a bouncer, stripping nude, etc... at all. 

I will say that a women has the right (not that she should) to get drunk and not get raped. Do we agree on that?


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> But can a drunk person have the mental capacity to consent to such things? According to the courts they can because you can't use the fact you were to drunk to know better as a defense for DUI. Therefore you shouldn't be able to use I was to drunk to know better when it comes to sex being rape, right?


I don't know. I'm not a lawyer, I have no idea statute law governing it (and it's probably state law at that) and I don't think you do either. At least not conclusively.


----------



## kasilofhome

sorry but that is illegal it is lewd and indecent.. she earns a chance to meet a judge.


----------



## kasilofhome

No means no
And yes means yes.

Saying yes and after claiming I meant no.... even when vote you mess up on your ballot and turn it in.... it is what it is.

Do not get drunk... agree to be the driver. Must one get crap faced to have fun?

I am tired of female privilege.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

I'm so lost.

 *RAPE*
Examples

1.  unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.
2.  statutory rape. 
3.  an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
4.  Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force. 

verb (used with object), raped, raping.  
5.  to commit the crime of rape on (a person). 
6.  to plunder (a place); despoil: The logging operation raped a wide tract of forest without regard for the environmental impact of their harvesting practices.
7. to seize, take, or carry off by force.

Can we all agree, that based upon this definition, that if "rape" as defined above, happens, that it is a crime?
No where in the definition does it say "well unless she is drunk; not wearing a burka; or if she acts like she wants it".

Can we all agree that rape is a violent crime, that is never right, under any circumstances?


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> No means no
> And yes means yes.
> 
> Saying yes and after claiming I meant no.... even when vote you mess up on your ballot and turn it in.... it is what it is.
> 
> Do not get drunk... agree to be the driver. Must one get crap faced to have fun?
> 
> I am tired of female privilege.


Female privilege? Men don't get drunk? Huh. If only men are allowed to get drunk it would be male privilege, wouldn't it? Men can be the DD too. 

Where did I say anything about "crap faced" I believe I said drunk. Does tipsy suit you better? How about lit? Better?  

All you want to do is nit pick my posts... go ahead, have a ball. You don't like my life philosophy, my politics, my non-religious view, my support of gay marriage and the gay agenda, my women's rights stance, blah blah blah. I get it, that's fine. I just won't be playing any longer.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I'm so lost.
> 
> *RAPE*
> Examples
> 
> 1.  unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.
> 2.  statutory rape.
> 3.  an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
> 4.  Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
> 
> verb (used with object), raped, raping.
> 5.  to commit the crime of rape on (a person).
> 6.  to plunder (a place); despoil: The logging operation raped a wide tract of forest without regard for the environmental impact of their harvesting practices.
> 7. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
> 
> Can we all agree, that based upon this definition, that if "rape" as defined above, happens, that it is a crime?
> No where in the definition does it say "well unless she is drunk; not wearing a burka; or if she acts like she wants it".
> 
> Can we all agree that rape is a violent crime, that is never right, under any circumstances?


Exactly. I just don't understand why it's so hard for some people to understand...


----------



## Laura Zone 5

I thought we defined 'legally drunk' pages ago.
For my state, Indiana, it is .08.
This is either nation wide, or the majority of the states.

At .08, you are considered by law, intoxicated to the point where if you are in public, you can be arrested. If you are driving, you can be arrested. So you are legally drunk at .08.

It only takes a few drinks / beers / shots to get to .08.
At .08 you are legally drunk.
Not schwasted, but you are by law, drunk.


----------



## AmericanStand

kasilofhome said:


> Easy... if a naked person walks into or strips while in a bar... I'm calling 911..
> 
> I pretty much accept that the naked person has a problems that might better be addressed by an evaluation or time in a jail and a chance to meet a judge...
> 
> I am a problem solving goal.... enabling does not work often enough.
> 
> So, I stand by my words...



Don't expect to be voted the most popular patron.


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> I will say that a women has the right (not that she should) to get drunk and not get raped. Do we agree on that?


I will say that a woman also has the right to get drunk and have sex. 
And the partner in sex has the right not to be punished for making her happy. 
Do we agree on that ?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

AmericanStand said:


> I will say that a woman also has the right to get drunk and have sex.
> And the partner in sex has the right not to be punished for making her happy.
> Do we agree on that ?


Yes, a woman has a right to be legally intoxicated AND have consentual sex.
Just because he's lousy in bed doesn't give her the right to change her mind in the morning, once she has given consent.
If that were the case, we might need to build more court rooms....


----------



## wr

AmericanStand said:


> Don't expect to be voted the most popular patron.


I've been waiting 5 pages for somebody to catch that one.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not going to argue with you, and I'm not a lawyer so I'm not addressing drunk driving, punching a bouncer, stripping nude, etc... at all.
> 
> I will say that a women has the right (not that she should) to get drunk and not get raped. Do we agree on that?


Yes but most of the thread is about the legal gray area of just what and when is it rape.


----------



## watcher

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I'm so lost.
> 
> *RAPE*
> Examples
> 
> 1.  unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.
> 2.  statutory rape.
> 3.  an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
> 4.  Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
> 
> verb (used with object), raped, raping.
> 5.  to commit the crime of rape on (a person).
> 6.  to plunder (a place); despoil: The logging operation raped a wide tract of forest without regard for the environmental impact of their harvesting practices.
> 7. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
> 
> Can we all agree, that based upon this definition, that if "rape" as defined above, happens, that it is a crime?
> No where in the definition does it say "well unless she is drunk; not wearing a burka; or if she acts like she wants it".
> 
> Can we all agree that rape is a violent crime, that is never right, under any circumstances?


Problem.

Because of that little word "consent" and being able to legally give it. Using that definition having sex with a 10 y.o. would be legal as long as she consented. And if you get into the the fact a 10 y.o. does not have the mental capacity to consent you get back into that stickiness of does a drunk 25 y.o. have the mental capacity to consent.


----------



## oneraddad

Is there a winner yet ?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

watcher said:


> Problem.
> 
> Because of that little word "consent" and being able to legally give it. Using that definition having sex with a 10 y.o. would be legal as long as she consented. And if you get into the the fact a 10 y.o. does not have the mental capacity to consent you get back into that stickiness of does a drunk 25 y.o. have the mental capacity to consent.


Apple, meet orange.

Sex w/ a minor, consent or no consent is illegal, period. Done.

A drunk 25 yo can most certainly give consent.
A PASSED OUT 25 yo cannot.
A DRUGGED 25 yo cannot.
A 25 yo that is WAY BEYOND the legal limit (.08) like in the .2 or higher range is easy to tell she is way beyond waster...so saying NO should clear up any accusations.........so buyer beware. Common sense yo.
If there's a chance she's going to puke in your mouth, puke while you are having sex, or pass out.......probably a good idea to 'pass' on her.

THE RIGHT THING that a real man would do, is to get her home / to a safe place, make sure she doesn't pass out on her back and aspirate her vomit and die, and alert someone that she is WAY too drunk to be in public.

BUT OH MY GOSH that would mean common sense, chivalry, and God forbid, doing the right thing........oh the horror.


----------



## AmericanStand

Laura Zone 5 said:


> THE RIGHT THING that a real man would do, is to get her home / to a safe place, make sure she doesn't pass out on her back and aspirate her vomit and die, and alert someone that she is WAY too drunk to be in public.
> 
> BUT OH MY GOSH that would mean common sense, chivalry, and God forbid, doing the right thing........oh the horror.



If said real man was more responce able than said drunk woman but what if he is equally as drunk as her ? How can there be two equally drunk people but only the male be the responce able one ?


----------



## kasilofhome

AmericanStand said:


> If said real man was more responce able than said drunk woman but what if he is equally as drunk as her ? How can there be two equally drunk people but only the male be the responce able one ?


There in lies the damsel syndrome. It truly is a double standard for men. I am about to wonder if damsels and not all female face inequality on the job because the need a man to take care of them.... to me it is belatedly clear that some female expect men to do what they wish to avoid..... responsibility.

If one demands equality it must be a total package.


----------



## Irish Pixie

AmericanStand said:


> I will say that a woman also has the right to get drunk and have sex.
> And the partner in sex has the right not to be punished for making her happy.
> Do we agree on that ?


Yup. As long as she's consented to sex it's all good.


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> Problem.
> 
> Because of that little word "consent" and being able to legally give it. Using that definition having sex with a 10 y.o. would be legal as long as she consented. And if you get into the the fact a 10 y.o. does not have the mental capacity to consent you get back into that stickiness of does a drunk 25 y.o. have the mental capacity to consent.


That dog don't hunt- an underage person can't consent that's why it's always rape.


----------



## mmoetc

Let's take sex out of the equation. A drunk girl gets in her car on a dark, moonless night. She knows she's drunk and drives 5 miles under the limit and obeys all traffic laws, except for being drunk. She's in the middle of town where visibility down cross streets is limited when another drunk driver driving a black car with no lights on comes barreling out of one of those cross streets at 4 or 5 times over the legal speed limit broadsiding her vehicle and killing her. The other driver survives. What is he guilty of besides DUI? After all, by driving drunk she had it coming, right?


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> Let's take sex out of the equation. A drunk girl gets in her car on a dark, moonless night. She knows she's drunk and drives 5 miles under the limit and obeys all traffic laws, except for being drunk. She's in the middle of town where visibility down cross streets is limited when another drunk driver driving a black car with no lights on comes barreling out of one of those cross streets at 4 or 5 times over the legal speed limit broadsiding her vehicle and killing her. The other driver survives. What is he guilty of besides DUI? After all, by driving drunk she had it coming, right?


The other driver could also be guilty of vehicular homicide (manslaughter). There could be other charges as well. Even tho she was drunk the other driver caused the accident, plus she's dead.


----------



## FutureFarm

So you're saying you're fine with holding drunk people to the consequences of their drunken decisions? So you believe consent should be able to be given while drunk?


----------



## mmoetc

FutureFarm said:


> So you're saying you're fine with holding drunk people to the consequences of their drunken decisions? So you believe consent should be able to be given while drunk?


Nope, I'm saying there's a difference between consenting and deciding. Two different words, two different actions, possibly two different sets of consequences.


----------



## FutureFarm

How you want it then?
Drunk + yes consent + sex = rape 
This is how I think it should be:
Drunk + yes consent + sex = sex
Drunk + no consent + sex = rape
Yes consent + sex = sex
No consent + sex = rape

Consent is a decision. You can either choose to give it or choose to withhold it. What you shouldn't be able to do is withdraw it after the sex occurs. If you gave consent and weren't being harmed or threatened with harm, you gave consent. Just like if you decided to drive while drunk.


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup. As long as she's consented to sex it's all good.


So she isn't entitled to chose Nolo Contender ?


----------



## Irish Pixie

AmericanStand said:


> So she isn't entitled to chose Nolo Contender ?


No. It's not applicable.


----------



## Irish Pixie

FutureFarm said:


> How you want it then?
> Drunk + yes consent + sex = rape
> This is how I think it should be:
> Drunk + yes consent + sex = sex
> Drunk + no consent + sex = rape
> Yes consent + sex = sex
> No consent + sex = rape
> 
> Consent is a decision. You can either choose to give it or choose to withhold it. What you shouldn't be able to do is withdraw it after the sex occurs. If you gave consent and weren't being harmed or threatened with harm, you gave consent. Just like if you decided to drive while drunk.


So you're saying that just by getting drunk a woman is deciding to get raped? Just like she would decide to drive a car while drunk? 

If you have to ask if rape is wrong (in any case) you will never ever understand.


----------



## FutureFarm

Please answer the last four math equations. I'm interested to know what others think.


----------



## FutureFarm

I'm saying that a giving consent results in sex in nearly all circumstances. I can't imagine a situation where one partner asks for consent, is granted consent, and then does not act on it. I never mentioned women at all. Men can and do get raped too. This isn't a woman only issue. Equality and all.


----------



## FutureFarm

I'm saying that if a drunk woman decides to give consent it shouldn't be rape.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

AmericanStand said:


> If said real man was more responce able than said drunk woman but what if he is equally as drunk as her ? How can there be two equally drunk people but only the male be the responce able one ?


If the male is as drunk as the female, then they should hope that someone, anyone, would step up to the plate and be responsible and get them somewhere safe.

Then when the man and or woman are sober, real friends, men and women, should sit down with said drunken fool, and explain to them that their inability to exercise self control while drinking, may need to be addressed with AA or another program; but if they continue to behave in this manner, they are putting themselves in a position where they are extremely vunerable and could easily become a victim of a sexual or violent crime.

Men can be raped / sexually assaulted by other men and women.
Women can be raped / sexually assaulted by other women, and men.


See this is the part about the 'feminist movement' that really wizzes me off.
Men, were created first, and given certain responsibilities BY GOD, over women (and they were good, not abusive or restrictive, etc)
However, these got twisted and women said 'we don't want or need them' and men pulled an Adam and said "ok" then point their finger when something goes wrong and says "seee seee seeee it's the woman's fault".
Uh, no, sorry bro. God don't see it that way.
Oy Vey.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

FutureFarm said:


> How you want it then?
> Drunk + yes consent + sex = rape
> 
> This is how I think it should be:
> Drunk + yes consent + sex = sex
> Drunk + no consent + sex = rape
> Yes consent + sex = sex
> No consent + sex = rape
> 
> Consent is a decision. You can either choose to give it or choose to withhold it. What you shouldn't be able to do is withdraw it after the sex occurs. If you gave consent and weren't being harmed or threatened with harm, you gave consent. Just like if you decided to drive while drunk.


Drunk, but not unconscience or on the verge of becoming unconscience + consent (yes, I know we are about to have sex, and yes, I want to have sex with you now) = 2 adults engaging in casual sex.

Drunk, on drugs, being roofied or mollied, + the inability TO GIVE consent (passed out-so messed up they cannot form a complete sentence ect) = RAPE.

Drunk, on drugs + the ability TO GIVE consent, and consent is given = 2 adults having casual sex.

THE WORD NO, no matter what he/she is or is not wearing, no matter his/her level of intoxication (drugs, booze, or other), no matter if he/she has given mixed signals THE WORD NO + sex = RAPE EVERY SINGLE TIME.


Really to solve this problem is to teach our children to have more respect for themselves and their bodies by showing them we adults respect OURselves and OUR bodies. 
Men, stay away from loose drunk men/women and you won't be accused of rape.
Women, stay sober and alert.
Women, stay away from loose drunk men/women and you won't be accused of rape.
Men, stay sober and alert.

And that solves the problem of "how drunk is too drunk".
Viola


----------



## mmoetc

FutureFarm said:


> How you want it then?
> Drunk + yes consent + sex = rape
> This is how I think it should be:
> Drunk + yes consent + sex = sex
> Drunk + no consent + sex = rape
> Yes consent + sex = sex
> No consent + sex = rape
> 
> Consent is a decision. You can either choose to give it or choose to withhold it. What you shouldn't be able to do is withdraw it after the sex occurs. If you gave consent and weren't being harmed or threatened with harm, you gave consent. Just like if you decided to drive while drunk.


The first is as the law stands and I'm fine with that as well as with 3, 4 and 5. If we say that intoxicated people can give legal consent contract law must change. Even Vegas casinos aren't, by law, supposed to let intoxicated people gamble.

Giving consent is a decision. Consent is not. It is a tangible thing. It can only legally be given under certain circumstances. Being drunk isn't one of those circumstances.

Here's more food for thought. I own a fruit stand. A guy walks by on Monday and grabs an apple off my display and walks away. He does the same on Tuesday , Wednesday and Thursday. I say nothing. On Friday he does the same and I'm tired of feeding him. I tell the cop on the corner to arrest him for stealing my apple. The guy looks at the cop and says "he didn't say nothing when I took the other four apples." I tell the cop to charge him with stealing five apples. Just because he thought he had my consent doesn't mean he did. Just because you think you have the drunk girl's consent doesn't mean you do.


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> :snip a bunch of "buts"..:
> 
> If they asked you how is it rape? By asking you for sex they are consenting.





Irish Pixie said:


> Or a fantasy rape, maybe rough sex. *Definitely not rape*.


Remember these?
Do you think every girl who wants rape sex ("sex without responsibility")is brave enough to admit in front of her friends? Each takes out a add on a sleazy website?
OR do you suppose they embrace the idea of Nolo Contender and put themselves in a situation where its obvious they will not object or even be able to object?


----------



## watcher

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Apple, meet orange.


Sex w/ a minor, consent or no consent is illegal, period. Done.

Apple meet apple. The point is WHY its illegal. Its because the law considers them not mentally capable of giving consent. Why do you consider drunk sex as rape? Because you consider her mentally capable of giving consent.




Laura Zone 5 said:


> A drunk 25 yo can most certainly give consent.
> A PASSED OUT 25 yo cannot.
> A DRUGGED 25 yo cannot.
> A 25 yo that is WAY BEYOND the legal limit (.08) like in the .2 or higher range is easy to tell she is way beyond waster...so saying NO should clear up any accusations.........so buyer beware. Common sense yo.
> If there's a chance she's going to puke in your mouth, puke while you are having sex, or pass out.......probably a good idea to 'pass' on her.


Ok so having sex with someone who is "WAY BEYOND the legal limit" can not be charged if they get in their car and run over someone. After all if she's too drunk to be able to legally make the decision to have sex surely she is too drunk to be able to legally make the decision to drive. Right? Now do you see the problem? As I posted how can you have someone in one court room claiming she was raped because she was so drunk she was mentally incapable to make the decision to have sex while in the court room down the hall she's being charge with DUI because even though she was drunk she was mentally capable to decide to drive. 



Laura Zone 5 said:


> THE RIGHT THING that a real man would do, is to get her home / to a safe place, make sure she doesn't pass out on her back and aspirate her vomit and die, and alert someone that she is WAY too drunk to be in public.


Ok what's the BAC for SUI, Screwing Under the Influence?




Laura Zone 5 said:


> BUT OH MY GOSH that would mean common sense, chivalry, and God forbid, doing the right thing........oh the horror.


In the world of today you expect these to be common?


----------



## AmericanStand

mmoetc said:


> Here's more food for thought. I own a fruit stand. A guy walks by on Monday and grabs an apple off my display and walks away. He does the same on Tuesday , Wednesday and Thursday. I say nothing. On Friday he does the same and I'm tired of feeding him. I tell the cop on the corner to arrest him for stealing my apple. The guy looks at the cop and says "he didn't say nothing when I took the other four apples." I tell the cop to charge him with stealing five apples. Just because he thought he had my consent doesn't mean he did. Just because you think you have the drunk girl's consent doesn't mean you do.


Guess what in the case you quoted I think you would find you had just gave away 5 apples.


----------



## FutureFarm

I agree that not saying no does not equal consent. 
You bring up contract law... That's something I hadn't thought of either. So if a drunk can't be responsible for making a good decision about a contract, gambling bet, or a new tattoo should they be responsible for the decision to engage in petty theft while drunk? In the contract, casino, and tattoo example the law seems to support that drunk people shouldn't be held liable for their decisions. When it comes to DUI suddenly the drunk is responsible for the outcome of their decisions.


----------



## FutureFarm

I think we found the exception to the, "You can't have it both ways" rule.


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> No. It's not applicable.


Really? A woman isn't entitled to go with the flow and see what happens ? She isn't entitled to let someone else make choices for her?


Sex by its very nature *IS* giving up control of her body. That is part of its appeal.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> That dog don't hunt- an underage person can't consent that's why it's always rape.


Again the point is why is it? Its because the law ALWAYS says that someone at that age is mentally incapable of giving consent. They can't consent to sex, that can't consent to signing a contract to buy a house, etc.

So if you say that a drunk is mentally incapable of deciding to have sex and therefore can not be held responsible for their own actions then you must also say that they are mental incapable of deciding to drive a car and therefore can not be held responsible for their own actions.

See the problem with that thinking?


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Nope, I'm saying there's a difference between consenting and deciding. Two different words, two different actions, possibly two different sets of consequences.


You have to decide to have sex BEFORE you give consent therefore they are equivalent. If someone ask to borrow your car you are going to decided if you want them to drive it before you consent correct?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> So you're saying that just by getting drunk a woman is deciding to get raped? Just like she would decide to drive a car while drunk?
> 
> If you have to ask if rape is wrong (in any case) you will never ever understand.


The problem is the gray area of what is rape and what isn't when booze in involved. Can someone with a BAC of .05 legally capable of deciding to have sex? How about 0.08? 0.10? What's the limit? What if both parties are over the limit, do they both get charged with rape?


----------



## Irish Pixie

AmericanStand said:


> Remember these?
> Do you think every girl who wants rape sex ("sex without responsibility")is brave enough to admit in front of her friends? Each takes out a add on a sleazy website?
> OR do you suppose they embrace the idea of Nolo Contender and put themselves in a situation where its obvious they will not object or even be able to object?


I suggest you find a site that details what rape is (a legal site, perhaps) and read it until you understand the information it contains. 

Have a wonderful day.


----------



## Irish Pixie

FutureFarm said:


> I agree that not saying no does not equal consent.
> You bring up contract law... That's something I hadn't thought of either. So if a drunk can't be responsible for making a good decision about a contract, gambling bet, or a new tattoo should they be responsible for the decision to engage in petty theft while drunk? In the contract, casino, and tattoo example the law seems to support that drunk people shouldn't be held liable for their decisions. When it comes to DUI suddenly the drunk is responsible for the outcome of their decisions.


I suggest you find a site that details what rape is (a legal site, perhaps) and read it until you understand the information it contains. 

Have a wonderful day.


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> I suggest you find a site that details what rape is (a legal site, perhaps) and read it until you understand the information it contains.
> 
> Have a wonderful day.


I think most of Us know the legal definitions .
But we were discussing its failures. 

Do you care to answer the questions?


----------



## Jolly

One thing I think being overlooked, is how many of these allegations will be viewed by a grand jury or by a trial jury.

Too much grey, and a prosecutor is not even gonna waste his time, no matter what the woman may think.

It's one thing for a college board or officer to kick a kid out of school on sexual misconduct charges. It's a whole 'nuther world if it goes to the legal system. I think that's why we will eventually pile up enough lawsuits that college rules will be changed...You kick a person out of a selective school such as Harvard, and there are provable, punitive damages which arise from that action. Not only is that not fair if the person is actually innocent, I don't think it's legal, either.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Again the point is why is it? Its because the law ALWAYS says that someone at that age is mentally incapable of giving consent. They can't consent to sex, that can't consent to signing a contract to buy a house, etc.
> 
> So if you say that a drunk is mentally incapable of deciding to have sex and therefore can not be held responsible for their own actions then you must also say that they are mental incapable of deciding to drive a car and therefore can not be held responsible for their own actions.
> 
> See the problem with that thinking?


And they can't consent to drive but they can decide to do so and be liable for the results of that decision. Consent requires the involvement of at least two parties. Decide can involve only one. I can consent to allow another to do something to me but the decision whether to do it it is theirs.


----------



## mmoetc

AmericanStand said:


> Guess what in the case you quoted I think you would find you had just gave away 5 apples.


Not according to watcher. If, as he contended earlier, DUI is always a crime whether it is witnessed or prosecuted or not, so is the taking of the apples theft whether I choose to prosecute or not. Just as every drunken sexual encounter may be rape but only truly is when one party decides to pursue it. Do t want be accused of rape, don't have sex with drunk girls. You decide


----------



## FutureFarm

You're right in saying that the man stole five of your apples. But if on the first four you said, "Go ahead and help yourself to some apple" then the man only stole the fifth. You would have consented to him taking an apple, or decided that it was ok for him to take an apple. Then on the fifth instance the man did not ask for consent. Therefore he took without consent which everyone acknowledges as a crime.


----------



## mmoetc

FutureFarm said:


> You're right in saying that the man stole five of your apples. But if on the first four you said, "Go ahead and help yourself to some apple" then the man only stole the fifth. You would have consented to him taking an apple, or decided that it was ok for him to take an apple. Then on the fifth instance the man did not ask for consent. Therefore he took without consent which everyone acknowledges as a crime.


But I didn't say that, did I? Now what of the girl you used to have consual sex with. If you meet her another time drunk in a bar is future consent implied?


----------



## FutureFarm

Nope. Consent needs to be granted each time.


----------



## kasilofhome

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Yes, a woman has a right to be legally intoxicated AND have consentual sex.
> Just because he's lousy in bed doesn't give her the right to change her mind in the morning, once she has given consent.
> If that were the case, we might need to build more court rooms....


Change her mind in the morning...
Wrong in my mind...she says yes and the CHANGE HER MIND... too bad suck it up you can't call that rape...yes means yes. No means no.... 

STOP is the word that the female needed to use timely.... men are not mind readers.

I MISS READ IT OVER AND OVER PUBLICLY APOLOGIZE TO LAURA... FOR MISREADING 
I OVER LOOKED THE IMPORTANT WORD..... DOESN'T. SORRY LAURA


----------



## highlands

FutureFarm said:


> Drunk + yes consent + sex = sex
> Drunk + no consent + sex = rape
> Yes consent + sex = sex
> No consent + sex = rape


This series of equations can have "Drunk" removed as it solves to zero. Drunk is not part of the equation. The law holds people responsible for their actions even if they are drunk. Thus this reduces merely to:



FutureFarm said:


> Yes consent + sex = sex
> No consent + sex = rape


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> I suggest you find a site that details what rape is (a legal site, perhaps) and read it until you understand the information it contains.
> 
> Have a wonderful day.


You gave the definition and the key word is "consent". We have already you can have a rape even if the person gives consent because under the law they are not considered to have the mental capacity to give it due to age.

Now the question becomes who has mentally capable to give consent. If you go to a party and drink until your BAC is 0.08 and meet a guy who also has a 0.08 BAC can ya'll legally have sex? Or could both of you be arrested for rape if you did? After all if the law views 0.08 as the limit for your ability to make good judgments about driving should that not apply to being able to make judgement calls about sex? And since both of you are over the limit neither of you are legally able to consent so there was no legal consent. And sex w/o consent is the definition of rape. Therefore its clear that you were raped by him and he was raped by you.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> And they can't consent to drive but they can decide to do so and be liable for the results of that decision. Consent requires the involvement of at least two parties. Decide can involve only one. I can consent to allow another to do something to me but the decision whether to do it it is theirs.


But again you can not consent without a decision being made first. If someone ask you if you want to have sex you must first DECIDE if you want to have sex, then you have to DECIDE if you want to have sex with them. Only after you have made that decision will you give or withhold consent. If you say yes you made a decision to have sex just as if you made the decision to get in your car and drive. As long as there was no intimidation, the involvement of a second party has nothing to do with the fact you made the decision to do or not do that act of your own free will.


----------



## watcher

highlands said:


> This series of equations can have "Drunk" removed as it solves to zero. Drunk is not part of the equation. The law holds people responsible for their actions even if they are drunk. Thus this reduces merely to:


Not quite. If I find you drunk and get you to sign a contract selling me your house for $1 would the courts hold you responsible for that action and allow me to take possession? Or do you thing the court would rule that at the time you signed the contract you did not have the mental capacity to enter into it and rule it void?


----------



## AmericanStand

FutureFarm said:


> You're right in saying that the man stole five of your apples. But if on the first four you said, "Go ahead and help yourself to some apple" then the man only stole the fifth. You would have consented to him taking an apple, or decided that it was ok for him to take an apple. Then on the fifth instance the man did not ask for consent. Therefore he took without consent which everyone acknowledges as a crime.



There was no theft , he never requested payment.


----------



## Irish Pixie

AmericanStand said:


> There was no theft , he never requested payment.


The hypothetical was that he owns a fruit stand, therefore he sells apples, he doesn't give them away.


----------



## highlands

watcher said:


> Not quite. If I find you drunk and get you to sign a contract selling me your house for $1 would the courts hold you responsible for that action and allow me to take possession? Or do you thing the court would rule that at the time you signed the contract you did not have the mental capacity to enter into it and rule it void?


An excellent counter example. So the question is who's doing damage.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

watcher said:


> You gave the definition and the key word is "consent". We have already you can have a rape even if the person gives consent because under the law they are not considered to have the mental capacity to give it due to age.
> 
> Now the question becomes who has mentally capable to give consent. If you go to a party and drink until your BAC is 0.08 and meet a guy who also has a 0.08 BAC can ya'll legally have sex?


If both parties are willing participants, both saying "yes" then Yes.



> Or could both of you be arrested for rape if you did?


No, if both gave consent, then no.... there is no rape.
It's just sloppy sex.



> After all if the law views 0.08 as the limit for your ability to make good judgments about driving should that not apply to being able to make judgement calls about sex?


When you drive at .08 the law says you are drunk.
And driving drunk, is against the law.
And you will be held responsible for your choice to drink and drive.



> And since both of you are over the limit neither of you are legally able to consent so there was no legal consent. And sex w/o consent is the definition of rape. Therefore its clear that you were raped by him and he was raped by you.


OMG Becky.
Both parties are .08. 
They are NOT passed out. 
They are not ON THEIR WAY to passing out in the next 4 min. 
They can still think and speak. 
Their judgement is impaired, but they are not unconscience.

At .08 I can still get in a car and drive.
I am impaired, but I can still make decisions.
At .22 I am wasted.....but I can still drive. I am VERY impaired, but I can still drive....I can still, however slurred, speak, and I can still walk.
I am not unconscience. 

Again. One more time for you know who you are.........the law is clear.
The definition is clear.
If things get 'muddied' get a good lawyer, and keep it in your pants next time.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

watcher said:


> Not quite. If I find you drunk and get you to sign a contract selling me your house for $1 *would the courts hold you responsible for that action and allow me to take possession?* Or do you thing the court would rule that at the time you signed the contract you did not have the mental capacity to enter into it and rule it void?


Depends on the Judge and the evidence brought to court.
But you already knew that.


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> The hypothetical was that he owns a fruit stand, therefore he sells apples, he doesn't give them away.



Makes no difference at all you must request payment. Wanna guess how I know ?


----------



## haypoint

Wow, 27 pages to debate:
When a woman says no, it means no.
When a drunk woman says yes, it means no.

All that seems clear.

In Court, there are different kinds of rape. First, second and third degree sexual misconduct. There are feminists that consider all sex is rape. Others see unwanted ogling is a form of rape. At the other end of the scale, some believe that without penetration, there was no rape. Just unwanted touching.

Where is your line? When a guy holds the door for you and stares at your chest, is that rape? If he pinches your butt cheek during a slow dance, rape? You allow him to undress you, but never say yes or no. Rape?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> But again you can not consent without a decision being made first. If someone ask you if you want to have sex you must first DECIDE if you want to have sex, then you have to DECIDE if you want to have sex with them. Only after you have made that decision will you give or withhold consent. If you say yes you made a decision to have sex just as if you made the decision to get in your car and drive. As long as there was no intimidation, the involvement of a second party has nothing to do with the fact you made the decision to do or not do that act of your own free will.


But it is the involvement of the second party which is key. You can decide to have sex with yourself. You cannot give consent to have sex with yourself. You can decide to to have sex with another. But unless they give consent to have sex with you an illegal act may occur. Another may decide to have sex with you. But unless you give consent to have sex with them an illegal act may occur. You continue to use decide and consent interchangeably but legally they are two separate things with different definitions and consequences. Your conflating them is the only way your premise works. But since it is built on a false foundation it is false itself.

As to your question of finding a drunk and buying his house for $1.00. There are many variables just as there are in the case of drunken sex. The man might wake up the next day and decide since the house was built on a toxic dump sight and required a million dollars of remediation that he made a good deal. He might awaken and feel he was taken advantage of, petition the courts for recompense, go throught the process and get it. He may even be able to show that you plied him with alcohol until he was in a state agreeable to sign the paper work. This would strengthen his case and weaken yours. 

The biggest difference is the courts obligation. In contract law it is the court's responsibilty to make the wronged party whole. To return circumstances to that which existed before. A sale can be undone. Sex cannot. If you wish a sale to be valid have celebratory drinks afterward. If you never wish to be accused of sexual assault, don't get her drunk beforehand.

You talk a lot about being responsible for drunken decisions. The young lady will be responsible for the possible STD, pregnancy and emotional fallout from that drunken decision and the decision of another to ignore that she couldn't legally give consent.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

haypoint said:


> Wow, 27 pages to debate:
> When a woman says no, it means no.
> When a drunk woman says yes, it means no.
> 
> All that seems clear.
> 
> In Court, there are different kinds of rape. First, second and third degree sexual misconduct. There are feminists that consider all sex is rape. Others see unwanted ogling is a form of rape. At the other end of the scale, some believe that without penetration, there was no rape. Just unwanted touching.
> *
> Where is your line?* When a guy holds the door for you and stares at your chest, is that rape? If he pinches your butt cheek during a slow dance, rape? You allow him to undress you, but never say yes or no. Rape?



It doesn't matter where _*your line*_ is.
Post 475 is the definition of 'rape'.
If a guy is so preoccupied with sex, so much so he can't wait to get his hands on a wasted female, then maybe he should read up on the law in his state, before he has sex with someone who is not 100% sober.

A guy who holds the door for you and stares at your chest is just showing you what he thinks of you: you're a piece of meat.
A guy who pinches you on the butt during a slow dance, is showing you just how romantic a cave man can be.
And if you never say yes or no, good chances are you are unconscience or incapacitate and UNABLE to give consent, thereby making it rape.
Oy Oy Oy.

This is not directed to you specifically haypoint........

There are a lot of arguments that (to me) seem obvious, but they keep "looking for that loop hole" which makes me wonder if they have been in a situation where THEY made a really bad choice, and they faced consequences for their bad choice, and now try to 'justify' that because they feel like they have been wronged.

TRUST ME.......I have 2 girls and 1 boy.
I don't think all woman are evil and our to get men, and I don't think all men are pigs and out to get women.
BUT I do know human nature, and I have (hopefully) taught the kids well; that they respect themselves, and respect others as they would like to be respected.

Oh and know the law.
That helps.


----------



## AmericanStand

Has no one here ever said that's ok you decide ? 
Has none of the women here ever said " IF YOU LOVE ME you would know what I WANT !"


----------



## Laura Zone 5

AmericanStand said:


> Has no one here ever said that's ok you decide ?
> Has none of the women here ever said " IF YOU LOVE ME you would know what I WANT !"



What?
Are you saying that women look at men and say "you decide if we should have sex or not?"

Who in their right mind would have sex with someone this messed up in the head???

And no......my worth does not reside inbetween my legs and on my chest.
THEREFORE I have infinitely more respect for myself than to say "if you love me you know what I want".

I'd say based upon the two above phrases, society has watched 1 porn flick too many.

How gross.


----------



## Irish Pixie

AmericanStand said:


> Has no one here ever said that's ok you decide ?
> Has none of the women here ever said " IF YOU LOVE ME you would know what I WANT !"


Nope. *I* decide if I want sex, *we* decide what that sex entails...


----------



## oneraddad

Don't talk to my sheep, they lie.


----------



## watcher

highlands said:


> An excellent counter example. So the question is who's doing damage.


The question really is: Do we think that alcohol removes a person's mental capacity to the point they are not responsible for their actions?

If you answer yes that a drunk person can not be held legally responsible if they agree to sell his house nor have sex. But you also have to say that that same drunk can not be held legally responsible if he drives his car.

If you answer no that a drunk can be held legally responsible for his actions then you can arrest him for driving while drunk but you must also allow him to sell his house for $1 and sex with a drunk can not be considered rape.

As our friends across the pond would say, its a bit of a sticky wicket.


----------



## watcher

Laura Zone 5 said:


> If both parties are willing participants, both saying "yes" then Yes.


Problem is if you are drunk can you legally give consent. Again if one was 14 and the other was 18 would it be OK of both said "yes"? Why, legally, not?




Laura Zone 5 said:


> When you drive at .08 the law says you are drunk.
> And driving drunk, is against the law.
> And you will be held responsible for your choice to drink and drive.


But if you are drunk and sign a contract to sell your house for $1 will you be held responsible for drinking and selling your house?


----------



## watcher

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Depends on the Judge and the evidence brought to court.
> But you already knew that.


You REALLY think there's a court in the US which would uphold a contract signed by a drunk?


----------



## watcher

haypoint said:


> Wow, 27 pages to debate:
> When a woman says no, it means no.
> When a drunk woman says yes, it means no.
> w dance, rape? You allow him to undress you, but never say yes or no. Rape?


So a drunk woman should not be charged with DUI because she clearly can not make a legally binding decision while drunk.


----------



## kasilofhome

watcher said:


> You REALLY think there's a court in the US which would uphold a contract signed by a person in the state of inebriation... (drunks have times when they are sober)


Needs to be corrected...


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. *I* decide if I want sex, *we* decide what that sex entails...



Nice to know that everything is all about you in your relationship. 
But that's not the question I asked and you quoted.


----------



## AmericanStand

Laura Zone 5 said:


> What?
> Are you saying that women look at men and say "you decide if we should have sex or not?"
> 
> Who in their right mind would have sex with someone this messed up in the head???
> 
> And no......my worth does not reside inbetween my legs and on my chest.
> THEREFORE I have infinitely more respect for myself than to say "if you love me you know what I want".
> 
> I'd say based upon the two above phrases, society has watched 1 porn flick too many.
> 
> How gross.



I asked two simple questions don't try to make them something else.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> So a drunk woman should not be charged with DUI because she clearly can not make a legally binding decision while drunk.


No one ever went to jail because they decided to drive drunk. Many have because they drove drunk.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> You REALLY think there's a court in the US which would uphold a contract signed by a drunk?


Yes I do. From the reading I've done it's extremely difficult to convince a court that drunkenness alone is enough to have a contract voided. There are cases of it happening but all the ones I've seen include someone getting the other party drunk to deliberately impair their judgement.


----------



## haypoint

watcher said:


> So a drunk woman should not be charged with DUI because she clearly can not make a legally binding decision while drunk.


When a woman says no, that means no and when a drunk woman says yes, that means no. To use your analogy, when a woman wants to drive her car, she drives her car. But when a drunk woman wants to drive her car, you don't help her find her keys.

You can rationalize it however suits your conscience. IMHO, a man isn't going to grease the skids with alcohol, just to get laid and expect the jury to sympathize with you.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

AmericanStand said:


> Has no one here ever said that's ok you decide ?


NO, I have never said this. 
I have more respect for myself than to be treated like an emptied headed piece of meat.



> Has none of the women here ever said " IF YOU LOVE ME you would know what I WANT !"


NO I have NEVER said, "If you love me you would know what I want", especially when it comes to sex.
I know the REAL definition of Love, and there is NOTHING in it about 'sex'.



AmericanStand said:


> I asked two simple questions don't try to make them something else.


Two simple answers
And I still think people watch too much porn, and loose / easy women give women who have morals and self respect a bad name.
YMMV


----------



## Irish Pixie

AmericanStand said:


> Nice to know that everything is all about you in your relationship.
> But that's not the question I asked and you quoted.


It's not, and you need to work on your snide put downs. 

My relationship has been a loving one that is going on it's 33rd year. How about yours?

I answered your question, it may not have been what you wanted but that's irrelevant.


----------



## Jolly

I'm surprised nobody drug out this old chestnut:

*Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker.*

You're welcome. :cowboy:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> I'm surprised nobody drug out this old chestnut:
> 
> *Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker.*
> 
> You're welcome. :cowboy:


Nothing like giving the pot a bit of stir, eh? 

The moral character of a bunch of people is shining like a beacon. It's a good thing to know.


----------



## haypoint

This lengthy thread has shown how divisive this issue is. As was pointed out such open communications revel a person's character. 

Some see sex under the influence is rape, while others see that as an open opportunity. Others see drunk sex as merely an excuse for regrettable behavior. 

Historically, women have paid a higher price for poor choices involving sex than men. Perhaps this creates a culture of men openly pursuing and women controlling when and if. Add something that impairs judgment for both and problems are assured. 

In a confidential questionnaire, men will admit to an extramarital affair three times as often as women. But when questioned further, most married men have affairs with married women. So, either women refuse to admit their actions, even anonymously, or there are a scant few married women out there doing everyone's husband.

Here's where it gets difficult. We always want to protect the rape victim. 
Societal evolution makes women (the pursued) the common target of rape. So, in most cases, we protect the women, create a blind trust that no woman would come forward unless it were true. Blind trust is always subject to manipulation.

I don't want anyone raped. But I also don't want to be wrongly convicted of a rape. Throughout our laws, there is a standard that must be met for a conviction. The job of a juror is not to find the accused guilty or innocent. It is to find the accused guilty or not guilty. In all he said/she said cases, lacking other evidence, a not guilty verdict must be found. That often ends up being unfair.

If 20% of female college students check the box that they have been raped and they have learned that all unwanted touching is rape and during their four years they can recall a butt slap, a butt pinch or a hug that lasted an uncomfortable extra second or two, then we as a society aren't doing so bad. 

But if 20% of female college students were pulled into an alley and forced into a sex act, then we, as a society have a long way to go.


----------



## AmericanStand

haypoint said:


> In all he said/she said cases, lacking other evidence, a not guilty verdict must be found.
> 
> go.



Not in the state I live in. You see in Illinois guilty and a conviction may be and often is encouraged to be based on the testimony of one person. That person may be the victim Ora family member or anyone else. They also have 18 years from the event or the victims 18th birthday to report it. 
Anybody else see a problem ?


----------



## haypoint

Here is a newspaper report about the study that started this discussion. The attached comments are interesting, too.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...sity-michigan-sexual-assault-survey/29221447/


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Nothing like giving the pot a bit of stir, eh?
> 
> The moral character of a bunch of people is shining like a beacon. It's a good thing to know.


I don't think it says anything about morality. I think it's reality, to put it mildly.

A young man tends to think of just a few things. Breeding is very high on that list. If buying a young woman a few drinks increases his chances, what do you think the average guy is going to do?

Bottoms up! :buds:


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Jolly said:


> I don't think it says anything about morality. I think it's reality, to put it mildly.
> 
> A young man tends to think of just a few things. Breeding is very high on that list. *If buying a young woman a few drinks increases his chances, what do you think the average guy is going to do?*
> 
> Bottoms up! :buds:


I hate it when 'men' are painted with such a broad brush.
Not all men, are pigs.

Breeding, and just having sex for self gratification are two totally different things.....and while I understand that men think about sex, a lot, not all men allow it to 'drive them' to break the law.

There is no way, the 'average' man thinks like this.
The man who was taught no respect for women? Sure.
The man who was trained to treat women like an object? Sure.
The man who was taught/trained that porn is pretty cool stuff? Absolutely.
But your average man? No way. Not buying it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> I don't think it says anything about morality. I think it's reality, to put it mildly.
> 
> A young man tends to think of just a few things. Breeding is very high on that list. If buying a young woman a few drinks increases his chances, what do you think the average guy is going to do?
> 
> Bottoms up! :buds:


You wouldn't, would you?


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> You wouldn't, would you?


Buy a girl a drink? 

Yep. And pretty much every guy I've ever known has done the same, from the doctors to the ditch diggers.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Jolly said:


> Buy a girl a drink?
> 
> Yep. And pretty much every guy *I've ever known* has done the same, from the doctors to the ditch diggers.


Hmmm, sounds like a sleezy crowd to hang out with.
Too bad that men like this, make it difficult for Real Men because women with broad brushes paint them all to be 'pigs only looking to get laid'

Oh life, it's bigger.......
_REM Losing My Religion_


----------



## no really

I don't see buying someone a drink as sleazy, guess I just got labeled a sleaze. I have bought drinks for men and have had men buy them for me. If I have had my limit I don't drink them plain and simple.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Jolly said:


> I don't think it says anything about morality. I think it's reality, to put it mildly.
> 
> *A young man tends to think of just a few things.
> Breeding is very high on that list.
> If buying a young woman a few drinks increases his chances, what do you think the average guy is going to do?*
> 
> Bottoms up! :buds:


I hope this clears things up no really....


----------



## no really

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I hope this clears things up no really....


Thing is, it's up to the women to drink or not. I have had drinks bought for me which I didn't drink if I was at my limit or was designated driver.


----------



## kuriakos

There's a not-so-subtle distinction between increasing a man's chances and trying to make a woman a sure thing. Buying women drinks with the expectation of getting laid or the attitude of being owed something in return is sleazy. Buying drinks with no strings attached is just being nice and might help the women be a little more friendly toward the man. There is no obligation for either party. When one party assumes an obligation, then it can become a problem.


----------



## haypoint

kuriakos said:


> There's a not-so-subtle distinction between increasing a man's chances and trying to make a woman a sure thing. Buying women drinks with the expectation of getting laid or the attitude of being owed something in return is sleazy. Buying drinks with no strings attached is just being nice and might help the women be a little more friendly toward the man. There is no obligation for either party. When one party assumes an obligation, then it can become a problem.


Saying no is clear. There are also indications of a no message. Saying yes is as clear as it is uncommon. An unspoken yes allows a woman to change her mind if the foreplay doesn't go well.
For some, if a first date orders a salad and house wine, that's a clear no. But if a first date orders the Lobster and a couple $20 glasses of wine, obligations and assumptions abound.


----------



## Evons hubby

haypoint said:


> Saying no is clear. There are also indications of a no message. Saying yes is as clear as it is uncommon. An unspoken yes allows a woman to change her mind if the foreplay doesn't go well.
> For some, if a first date orders a salad and house wine, that's a clear no. But if a first date orders the Lobster and a couple $20 glasses of wine, obligations and assumptions abound.


I think in some states ordering the lobster is considered a legal binding contact.:walk:


----------



## Jolly

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Hmmm, sounds like a sleezy crowd to hang out with.
> Too bad that men like this, make it difficult for Real Men because women with broad brushes paint them all to be 'pigs only looking to get laid'
> 
> Oh life, it's bigger.......
> _REM Losing My Religion_


Oh, please, do tell what a Real Man is? :shrug:


----------



## no really

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think in some states ordering the lobster is considered a legal binding contact.:walk:


My first dates I prefer going Dutch, OK guys what's that mean?:lonergr:


----------



## Jolly

no really said:


> My first dates I prefer going Dutch, OK guys what's that mean?:lonergr:


I never let a date go Dutch in my life.


----------



## no really

Jolly said:


> I never let a date go Dutch in my life.


The only time I let them buy is if we know each other fairly well. I know quite a few men and women in my age group that do that. After dating a few times we trade off who pays.


----------



## Jolly

no really said:


> The only time I let them buy is if we know each other fairly well. I know quite a few men and women in my age group that do that. After dating a few times we trade off who pays.


Nah, too old school...


----------



## no really

Jolly said:


> Nah, too old school...


Old school is great just not that many running loose anymore


----------



## kasilofhome

Well, if I ever get to Louisiana...I'll look you up... chivalry and southern charm is greatly appreciated.


----------



## kasilofhome

no really said:


> I don't see buying someone a drink as sleazy, guess I just got labeled a sleaze. I have bought drinks for men and have had men buy them for me. If I have had my limit I don't drink them plain and simple.


Now remember if you walk naked in a bar drunk.... you are sleazy, trashy or loose. Just acceptance of a drink from a male with the clue that that make is creating a polite opening to communicate some level of approval that may or may not be sexual intention...surprise men have brains too. A lot of men are great people to spend time with.


----------



## no really

kasilofhome said:


> Now remember if you walk naked in a bar drunk.... you are unreleased, trashy or loose. Just acceptance of a drink from a male with the clue that that make is creating a polite opening to communicate some level of approval that may or may not be sexual intention...surprise men have brains too. A lot of men are great people to spend time with.


Yep, guess I'm bad I like men, I work and have worked in male dominant careers. I like talking to them , yeah there intelligent hard working guys out there.


----------



## Wanda

AmericanStand said:


> Not in the state I live in. You see in Illinois guilty and a conviction may be and often is encouraged to be based on the testimony of one person. That person may be the victim Ora family member or anyone else. They also have 18 years from the event or the victims 18th birthday to report it.
> Anybody else see a problem ?


 I also live in Ill. Please read the article on the front page of the Champaign paper and tell the state police involved in the rape case investigation that they are incorrect!


----------



## Laura Zone 5

kuriakos said:


> There's a not-so-subtle distinction between increasing a man's chances and trying to make a woman a sure thing. *Buying women drinks with the expectation of getting laid or the attitude of being owed something in return is sleazy.* Buying drinks with no strings attached is just being nice and might help the women be a little more friendly toward the man. There is no obligation for either party. When one party assumes an obligation, then it can become a problem.


That was my point.......

I LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE men.
Love 'em
All shapes, sizes, flavors, etc.
Love me some men.

I can't tell you the last time I paid for my own drink when I went to a bar to have a beer or a cocktail.......

My point was about 4 pages ago, and kurikaos nailed it in one sentence!!

I think this thread is so far down the rabbit hole, even the rabbit can't find where it started!!


----------



## Jolly

wiscto said:


> At first I thought some of you were just upset because the Confederate Flag is near and dear to your hearts. After reading this thread I have learned that most of you are just extremely ugly people inside.


I'm sure you're right.

So why would an intelligent person such as yourself soil your brains debating the hoi polloi who stagger around here?


----------



## watcher

kasilofhome said:


> Needs to be corrected...


Read again. I didn't say a drunk/alcoholic I said someone in a state of inebriation.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Yes I do. From the reading I've done it's extremely difficult to convince a court that drunkenness alone is enough to have a contract voided. There are cases of it happening but all the ones I've seen include someone getting the other party drunk to deliberately impair their judgement.


Splitting hairs. In a case where it is proven beyond a doubt that when the person signed the contract they were legally drunk would a court uphold the contract?


----------



## wiscto

Jolly said:


> I'm sure you're right.
> 
> So why would an intelligent person such as yourself soil your brains debating the hoi polloi who stagger around here?


Why do you respond to _my_ posts? Uh oh, table done turned back the other direction.


----------



## watcher

haypoint said:


> When a woman says no, that means no and when a drunk woman says yes, that means no. To use your analogy, when a woman wants to drive her car, she drives her car. But when a drunk woman wants to drive her car, you don't help her find her keys.


Ok. Let me see if I get what you are saying. A drunk woman does not have the ability to make a sound, rational and legally binding decision to have sex because she is drunk. Therefore, using your logic, if she has found her keys all by herself and takes off driving you are saying that she should not be arrested for DUI because, according to what you say, a drunk woman can not make a sound, rational, legally binding decision because she's drunk.




haypoint said:


> You can rationalize it however suits your conscience. IMHO, a man isn't going to grease the skids with alcohol, just to get laid and expect the jury to sympathize with you.


Ah, I think I see now. You think women are lesser than men. When a woman gets drunk she becomes a mindless creature which can in no way be held responsible for her actions while the greater being the MAN has the full ability to keep full control of his mental ability no matter how much alcohol he has in his system.

To me if you need to get drunk to have fun you already have shown you have problems. Blaming being drunk for screwing up is just a cop out. If you get drunk and get arrested for DUI or for having sex with a horse on main street don't blame the booze.


----------



## watcher

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I hate it when 'men' are painted with such a broad brush.
> Not all men, are pigs.


Most are. You don't have to teach a kid to lie you have to teach him not to. You don't have to teach men to be pigs, you have to teach the not to be. For generations they have been kept from wallowing in the mud by social norms. Those norms are now changing so that such wallowing is just fine.




Laura Zone 5 said:


> Breeding, and just having sex for self gratification are two totally different things.....and while I understand that men think about sex, a lot, not all men allow it to 'drive them' to break the law.
> 
> There is no way, the 'average' man thinks like this.
> The man who was taught no respect for women? Sure.
> The man who was trained to treat women like an object? Sure.
> The man who was taught/trained that porn is pretty cool stuff? Absolutely.
> But your average man? No way. Not buying it.


I suggest you spend more time with a wider section of young people of today. You'll probably be shocked. Young men of today see the young women of today as. . .well a chance to have a good time. And more and more the young women of today not only advertise themselves this way but look at the young men of today the same way. Like it or not men have always viewed sex much differently than women. For men its mostly physical, for women its mostly mental/emotional. 

I just got back from a trip to the beach. I saw women of many different ages wearing swimsuits which. . .well let us say didn't leave much to the imagination. Now do you think these women were wearing these suits because they are comfortable? Or do you think they are wearing them to attract the attention of men?


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Splitting hairs. In a case where it is proven beyond a doubt that when the person signed the contract they were legally drunk would a court uphold the contract?


In many cases yes, they have.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Splitting hairs. In a case where it is proven beyond a doubt that when the person signed the contract they were legally drunk would a court uphold the contract?


What the legal system is best at is splitting hairs. I can't vouch for the credentials of these people but this site, and others I've looked at, all give the same answers. It depends and maybe. http://m.lawqa.com/qa/is-contract-still-valid-if-it-was-signed-under-influence-of-alcohol. If you can find something that shows it is an absolute I'd be interested to see it.

But since you're so sure that intoxication absolutely voids a contract why doesn't it absolutely void consent?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Ok. Let me see if I get what you are saying. A drunk woman does not have the ability to make a sound, rational and legally binding decision to have sex because she is drunk. Therefore, using your logic, if she has found her keys all by herself and takes off driving you are saying that she should not be arrested for DUI because, according to what you say, a drunk woman can not make a sound, rational, legally binding decision because she's drunk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I think I see now. You think women are lesser than men. When a woman gets drunk she becomes a mindless creature which can in no way be held responsible for her actions while the greater being the MAN has the full ability to keep full control of his mental ability no matter how much alcohol he has in his system.
> 
> To me if you need to get drunk to have fun you already have shown you have problems. Blaming being drunk for screwing up is just a cop out. If you get drunk and get arrested for DUI or for having sex with a horse on main street don't blame the booze.


What he's saying is that a decision is not the same as an act. It's one of those legal hairs you don't like splitting. Just as signing a contract is different and has different consequences than actions that fulfill that contract, deciding to drive is different than actually driving. Conspiring to rob a bank has different consequences than robbing a bank. Deciding to engage in sex has different consequences than engaging in sex. Your premise that decision equals act is false making your entire argument false.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

watcher said:


> Most are. You don't have to teach a kid to lie you have to teach him not to. You don't have to teach men to be pigs, you have to teach the not to be. For generations they have been kept from wallowing in the mud by social norms. Those norms are now changing so that such wallowing is just fine.


Correct man (human kind) has a sin problem. This I know.



> I suggest you spend more time with a wider section of young people of today. You'll probably be shocked. Young men of today see the young women of today as. . .well a chance to have a good time. And more and more the young women of today not only advertise themselves this way but look at the young men of today the same way. Like it or not men have always viewed sex much differently than women. For men its mostly physical, for women its mostly mental/emotional.


Again, totally correct.
The women of the 70's tried to 'gain rights' for women, to make us more 'equal' and a lot of women show ZERO respect for the sacrifice by gaining what they want thru sexual prowess anyway. Such a shame.

It's not a new thing women sleeping their way to the top, sleeping their way into a rich husband, sleeping their way to good grades in college, etc.
And it's a darn shame they reduce themselves to that......

But she can be a big fat hoebag and still say NO; and no one has the right to take what she freely gives away to anyone that can benefit her.
No, means. No. I don't care what she is or is not wearing.
I don't care if she has slept with everyone BUT YOU in the office.
If she says no. Then no is no.
If she is unconscience on her way to being unconscience, then it's a NO without words.



> I just got back from a trip to the beach. I saw women of many different ages wearing swimsuits which. . .well let us say didn't leave much to the imagination. Now do you think these women were wearing these suits because they are comfortable? Or do you think they are wearing them to attract the attention of men?


A zipline up the back crack is NOT comfortable, I can assure of that....
And I have always said "If I could have Beyonce's body for a day, I'd run around 1/2 naked in the streets, just shakin' it'. 
Not for everyone eles's pleasure, but because I think she has a smokin' hot body, and I would show it off.

Yeah, I am sure 80% of the suits show how attractive their bodies are.
I don't know what beach you were at, but the one's I have been to in Southern Florida? Um, yikes.
There are a few gals, whose bodies definitely look good in their 2 piece suits.
THE MAJORITY? 
Just Yikes. Like, hey, check a mirror before you head out scary lady.

And the men?
You can tell who the tourist are.
Local men are fit.
Tourist have these 'huge tool sheds' and they are not afraid to let it all hang out......butt crack and all.
Just ewwwww


----------



## Jolly

wiscto said:


> Why do you respond to _my_ posts? Uh oh, table done turned back the other direction.


Because I don't mind wasting the time.


----------



## wiscto

Jolly said:


> Because I don't mind wasting the time.


Congratulations, you're just like me.


----------



## AmericanStand

Wanda said:


> I also live in Ill. Please read the article on the front page of the Champaign paper and tell the state police involved in the rape case investigation that they are incorrect!



Can you give us a hint ?


----------



## AmericanStand

watcher said:


> Blaming being drunk for screwing up is just a cop out. If you get drunk and get arrested for DUI or for having sex with a horse on main street don't blame the booze.



Get with it watcher it's obviously not the boozes fault. 
It's the horses. 


Or at least his pattooie.


----------



## AmericanStand

Laura Zone 5 said:


> And the men?
> You can tell who the tourist are.
> Local men are fit.
> Tourist have these 'huge tool sheds' and they are not afraid to let it all hang out......butt crack and all.
> Just ewwwww



There are no fat men from FL or you just don't let them on the beach ?


----------



## AmericanStand

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Correct man (human kind) has a sin problem. This I know.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, totally correct.
> The women of the 70's tried to 'gain rights' for women, to make us more 'equal' and a lot of women show ZERO respect for the sacrifice by gaining what they want thru sexual prowess anyway. Such a shame.
> 
> It's not a new thing women sleeping their way to the top, sleeping their way into a rich husband, sleeping their way to good grades in college, etc.
> And it's a darn shame they reduce themselves to that......



Why do you seem to hate these women for the way the use their freedom ?
Why do you expect them to respect something that's against their beliefs ?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

AmericanStand said:


> Why do you seem to hate these women for the way the use their freedom ?
> Why do you expect them to respect something that's against their beliefs ?


Hate?
Negative ghost rider, I hate no human.

I think it's a shame that women of the 70's busted their a doubles to get 'equality' and recognition that females were not 'property' or 'lesser'.......and some women still insist on climbing into bed to advance themselves.
I think it's a shame.


> But she can be a big fat hoebag and still say NO; and no one has the right to take what she freely gives away to anyone that can benefit her.
> *No, means. No. I don't care what she is or is not wearing.*
> I don't care if she has slept with everyone BUT YOU in the office.
> If she says no. Then no is no.
> If she is unconscience on her way to being unconscience, then it's a NO without words.


If you read closely, you will see, I defend "her" saying no matter WHAT she willingly does with her body, NO ONE has the right to violate it, ever.
Period.

And you second point??
It's against their belief to have self respect? Huh?
Ok, well I didn't realize self respect was a religion?
I know QUITE a few religion-less folks that have PLENTY of self respect??


----------



## AmericanStand

There you go insulting a lady because she doesn't hold your irrational beliefs. 
Today's women seem to have plenty of self respect unlike the bra burners of the 70s who wanted to disgrace themselves to achieve it. 
It's a shame that women of the 70s busted themselves for rights.

Why did you throw religion into your reply ? Must every belief be part of a religion ?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

AmericanStand said:


> There you go insulting a lady because she doesn't hold your irrational beliefs.
> Today's women seem to have plenty of self respect unlike the bra burners of the 70s who wanted to disgrace themselves to achieve it.
> It's a shame that women of the 70s busted themselves for rights.


This collection of statements? They make NO sense what so ever.


----------



## AmericanStand

I'm sorry ,I used the smallest words I could.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

AmericanStand said:


> I'm sorry ,I used the smallest words I could.


Well bless your heart sugar.......


----------



## Wanda

AmericanStand said:


> Can you give us a hint ?




A third victim in a case involving rape of college students by a police officer could not bring charges because over THREE years had elapsed!


----------



## highlands

watcher said:


> The question really is: Do we think that alcohol removes a person's mental capacity to the point they are not responsible for their actions?


The scientific fact is drinking impairs mental capacity and reduces inhibitions. There is an old joke about Superman being a mean drunk. Normally he keeps all that nastiness bottled up. I suspect that if you remove my inhibitions I would be a very mean drunk. I would rather not test that theory so I simply don't drink. Other people make other choices and mistakes. The law varies on how responsible they are when drunk. The point of law is the real issue and that varies state by state to some degree.

Ref: http://www.funny.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Funny.woa/wa/funny?fn=CAAP


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> What he's saying is that a decision is not the same as an act. It's one of those legal hairs you don't like splitting. Just as signing a contract is different and has different consequences than actions that fulfill that contract, deciding to drive is different than actually driving. Conspiring to rob a bank has different consequences than robbing a bank. Deciding to engage in sex has different consequences than engaging in sex. Your premise that decision equals act is false making your entire argument false.


But if someone consents and doesn't follow through then there is no act, legal or otherwise. 

I can consent to coming to your house and burning it down. But unless I actually do it, it doesn't matter if I was high or stone cold sober. 

If you are drunk and think about driving home you can't be charged with DUI. If you are drunk and don't have sex with 25 other people no one can be charged with rape.

But if you are drunk and actually drive they you can be charged and if you are drunk and have sex with 25 people then, in some places, people can be charged with rape.

So change consent to deciding. 

Do you think a woman who has a BAC of 0.12 is too drunk to make a sound, rational and legally binding decision to have sex?

If so then how can you say that same woman with that same BAC can make a sound, rational and legally binding to drive a car?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> But if someone consents and doesn't follow through then there is no act, legal or otherwise.
> 
> I can consent to coming to your house and burning it down. But unless I actually do it, it doesn't matter if I was high or stone cold sober.
> 
> If you are drunk and think about driving home you can't be charged with DUI. If you are drunk and don't have sex with 25 other people no one can be charged with rape.
> 
> But if you are drunk and actually drive they you can be charged and if you are drunk and have sex with 25 people then, in some places, people can be charged with rape.
> 
> So change consent to deciding.
> 
> Do you think a woman who has a BAC of 0.12 is too drunk to make a sound, rational and legally binding decision to have sex?
> 
> If so then how can you say that same woman with that same BAC can make a sound, rational and legally binding to drive a car?


The answer is the same in both cases, but only one involves another person acting on that bad decision. If she gets in the car and drives away the entire fault lies with her. If another person acts on her bad decision by having sex with her the fault with that bad decision lies, at least, partly with them.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> The answer is the same in both cases, but only one involves another person acting on that bad decision. If she gets in the car and drives away the entire fault lies with her. If another person acts on her bad decision by having sex with her the fault with that bad decision lies, at least, partly with them.


Ok since the answer for each is the same you are saying that sex with drunk woman is not rape because she is responsible for her action just like she's responsible for her action of driving. Is that your final answer?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Ok since the answer for each is the same you are saying that sex with drunk woman is not rape because she is responsible for her action just like she's responsible for her action of driving. Is that your final answer?


My final answer is the same as my first. Being drunk doesn't immunize one from the consequences of bad decisions. Deciding to drive drunk may get you charged with drunk driving. Deciding to have drunken sex may get you raped. Deciding to engage in sex with an obviously drunk partner may get you charged with rape.


----------



## AmericanStand

Wanda said:


> A third victim in a case involving rape of college students by a police officer could not bring charges because over THREE years had elapsed!



Sounds very fishy


----------



## kuriakos

Watcher, I have been trying to figure out through this entire discussion what it is you are arguing for. Do you want to sleep with drunk women or do you want them to be allowed to drive drunk? Both? Something else?


----------



## where I want to

kuriakos said:


> Watcher, I have been trying to figure out through this entire discussion what it is you are arguing for. Do you want to sleep with drunk women or do you want them to be allowed to drive drunk? Both? Something else?


I think it is a valid issue to point out that there is a real double standard to say a woman who is too drunk to give consent bears no responsibility for what happens while a man, equally drunk, is totally responsible. This is not what some are trying to make it out to be - that an arch villian male gets the innocent woman drunk in order to take advantage of her. That would be a totally seperate issue and the assumption of no consent would apply if he does it in cold blood.
Frankly, there will be a balance found once the reality if this PC idea is taken to court, that sex is sonething the man needs to consent to equally with the woman. Therefore, if a woman is claimed to be raped because she was incapable due to into intoxication, has sex with a male equally drunk, she is equally guilty of rape. And I have no idea what the courts will make of that.


----------



## kuriakos

> I think it is a valid issue to point out that there is a real double standard to say a woman who is too drunk to give consent bears no responsibility for what happens while a man, equally drunk, is totally responsible.


I agree. I am simply lost by the twists and turns in Watcher's posts. I can understand he's trying to make a point but I can't pin down precisely what that point is. If it's simply that there's a double standard, then I agree with the point but not the absurdity used to attempt to convey the point.


----------



## mreynolds

Watcher

I really love your tag line. My forefather John Purdy reynolds fought alongside Crockett at the Alamo. They went there together. I can only imagine the conversations they had. He was a Dr I am told and never fired a shot but died thereally nonetheless. 

Of course I had people that fought with Santa Anna too so it wasn't a good time for kin folk during that time.


----------



## watcher

kuriakos said:


> Watcher, I have been trying to figure out through this entire discussion what it is you are arguing for. Do you want to sleep with drunk women or do you want them to be allowed to drive drunk? Both? Something else?


What I want is for the law to be equally applied and to make people who are hypocritical to see it. If you are one who thinks sex with a drunk woman is rape even if she says yes then you can not, without being a hypocrite, say that that same woman should be arrested for DUI. You can't have both.

This discussion could also be about how people want to call a fetus a human if someone causes a pregnant woman to miscarry but want to call it a mass of cells when the woman wants an abortion. 

I also want to put the responsibility where it belongs. In this case a huge part of it is on the woman. She is the one who decides to drink. She's the one who decides how much she drinks. She is the one who knows that once she is drunk she may make decisions she would not make sober. That maybe to have sex on the pool table with every man in the bar or it maybe to drive while drunk. She is the one who is control of the situation. 

As I have said before if you decide to leave $1,000 in cash sitting on the dash of your unlocked car in a high crime neighborhood while you go in for a hair cut would you say you are not partly responsible when its stolen? 

As for me. I don't drink and never have. I grew up with alcoholics around me and knew I never wanted to be like that. I also was raised Southern, i.e. to be an honorable gentleman. As such protecting the virtue of a lady is ingrained in me but I do not suffer fools lightly. But as everyone knows not all women are ladies. If a woman is dressed just enough to not be arrested for indecent exposure, is drinking and rubbing herself over every guy she can I'm not going to step in and "rescue" her when she decides to get in the back seat of a car. If she goes out and tries to get in her car I will stop her, not as much to protect her but to protect those she would endanger.


----------



## kasilofhome

I think watcher... has do a great job in exposing faulty logic that binder women and their supporters claim that women are not treated equal. Many women want a double standard... if they pick a choose the issue.

Clearly some do not understand true equality.

Even the judicial and legislative branch have failed to see women as equal by supporting a Damsel policy view of of the roles.


----------



## kuriakos

watcher said:


> What I want is for the law to be equally applied and to make people who are hypocritical to see it. If you are one who thinks sex with a drunk woman is rape even if she says yes then you can not, without being a hypocrite, say that that same woman should be arrested for DUI. You can't have both.
> 
> This discussion could also be about how people want to call a fetus a human if someone causes a pregnant woman to miscarry but want to call it a mass of cells when the woman wants an abortion.
> 
> I also want to put the responsibility where it belongs. In this case a huge part of it is on the woman. She is the one who decides to drink. She's the one who decides how much she drinks. She is the one who knows that once she is drunk she may make decisions she would not make sober. That maybe to have sex on the pool table with every man in the bar or it maybe to drive while drunk. She is the one who is control of the situation.
> 
> As I have said before if you decide to leave $1,000 in cash sitting on the dash of your unlocked car in a high crime neighborhood while you go in for a hair cut would you say you are not partly responsible when its stolen?
> 
> As for me. I don't drink and never have. I grew up with alcoholics around me and knew I never wanted to be like that. I also was raised Southern, i.e. to be an honorable gentleman. As such protecting the virtue of a lady is ingrained in me but I do not suffer fools lightly. But as everyone knows not all women are ladies. If a woman is dressed just enough to not be arrested for indecent exposure, is drinking and rubbing herself over every guy she can I'm not going to step in and "rescue" her when she decides to get in the back seat of a car. If she goes out and tries to get in her car I will stop her, not as much to protect her but to protect those she would endanger.


Ok, thanks for the explanation. There's a lot there I can agree with. I absolutely believe a drunk woman should be responsible for her actions just the same as a drunk man. In reality, that's how it usually shakes out simply because of the difficulty in knowing who said what and who did what. Memory is quite shaky under the best circumstances, but it becomes very unreliable when intoxicants are involved.

There is a certain segment of the population that does not like the presumption of innocence when it comes to alleged crimes of men against women. I am certainly not one of those people and from reading this thread, most here are not either. You make some valid points, but I don't think there's anyone here willing to take the counterpoint to debate it with you. I see someone has been trying, but it's been a roundabout debate that doesn't really get at the underlying issues, but only the laws as the exist now.


----------



## kasilofhome

laws that exist today stay laws until action is taken.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> What I want is for the law to be equally applied and to make people who are hypocritical to see it. If you are one who thinks sex with a drunk woman is rape even if she says yes then you can not, without being a hypocrite, say that that same woman should be arrested for DUI. You can't have both.
> 
> This discussion could also be about how people want to call a fetus a human if someone causes a pregnant woman to miscarry but want to call it a mass of cells when the woman wants an abortion.
> 
> I also want to put the responsibility where it belongs. In this case a huge part of it is on the woman. She is the one who decides to drink. She's the one who decides how much she drinks. She is the one who knows that once she is drunk she may make decisions she would not make sober. That maybe to have sex on the pool table with every man in the bar or it maybe to drive while drunk. She is the one who is control of the situation.
> 
> As I have said before if you decide to leave $1,000 in cash sitting on the dash of your unlocked car in a high crime neighborhood while you go in for a hair cut would you say you are not partly responsible when its stolen?
> 
> As for me. I don't drink and never have. I grew up with alcoholics around me and knew I never wanted to be like that. I also was raised Southern, i.e. to be an honorable gentleman. As such protecting the virtue of a lady is ingrained in me but I do not suffer fools lightly. But as everyone knows not all women are ladies. If a woman is dressed just enough to not be arrested for indecent exposure, is drinking and rubbing herself over every guy she can I'm not going to step in and "rescue" her when she decides to get in the back seat of a car. If she goes out and tries to get in her car I will stop her, not as much to protect her but to protect those she would endanger.


I guess I'll just have to live with your hypocrite label. I won't lose any sleep over it. I'm one of those who think sex with a drunk woman may be rape, even if she says yes. Note the careful use of may. Like a contract may be invalid if signed by a drunk person. It's what we have legal processes to decide. There are few absolutes in life.

One of those absolutes is that I'm walking away from this thread. Since you don't really seem to wish to engage in discourse and address the fundamental fallacy that laws governing interaction between two people are and must be different than laws governing the action of one or almost any other question I've posted there is no need for me to continue.

Long ago I tended bar. I took keys from drunks not just to protect others but because I remembered a high school friend who wrapped his car around an oak tree while driving drunk on a deserted road at 3am. I wish someone had protected him from himself. I sometimes arranged safe transportation home for drunk girls rather than letting them fend for themselves. Not one ever came back and chastised me for not letting them go off and, potentially, have drunken sex.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

watcher said:


> What I want is for the law to be equally applied and to make *people who are hypocritical *to see it. If you are one who thinks sex with a drunk woman is rape even if she says yes then you can not, without being *a hypocrite,* say that that same woman should be arrested for DUI. You can't have both.


Two drunk people having sex is ok.
One person who is sober, or slightly intoxicated, having sex with someone who is UNCONSCIOUS or on their way to UNCONSCIOUS; 
having sex with someone who is SO drunk they cannot answer, 
having sex with someone who is on the verge of puking because their liver is so alcohol saturated, 
*having sex with someone who would NEVER say yes to you sober*.

Dude, that's rape.
If you cannot clearly see that that is rape, then that is scary.



> This discussion could also be about how people want to call a fetus a human if someone causes a pregnant woman to miscarry but want to call it a mass of cells when the woman wants an abortion.


For me personally? Life begins at conception. The End.



> I also want to put the responsibility where it belongs. In this case a huge part of it is on the woman. She is the one who decides to drink. She's the one who decides how much she drinks. She is the one who knows that once she is drunk she may make decisions she would not make sober. That maybe to have sex on the pool table with every man in the bar or it maybe to drive while drunk. She is the one who is control of the situation.


Wow.
I have worked in bars / restaurants all my life.
And I have seen that 'wolf pack' mentality......where a female is 'partying' have a good time, then they start buying shots for her; 
and the next thing you know they are 'hunting her' with a 'pack mentality'........
then claim "she wanted it, she's the one that said ok to all the shots"......
when deep in their dirty disgusting mind, they knew what they were doing and what they were trying to achieve.
Back to my initial comments some pages ago.
Real men would step up, and make sure that she get somewhere safe, and NOT take advantage of her poor choice.
Two wrongs, never make a right.



> As I have said before if you decide to leave $1,000 in cash sitting on the dash of your unlocked car in a high crime neighborhood while you go in for a hair cut would you say you are not partly responsible when its stolen?


NO NO NO NO NO.
THE PERSON COMMITTING THE CRIME IS 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR CHOOSING TO COMMIT A CRIME!!!! PERIOD THE END 
Let some fool waltz up in front of a judge and say "well that little girl wearing pigtails turned me on, so, me molesting her is her fault for turning me on" and see what you get.
Roll up into court and say "well, that polyester Burger King uniform is what I fantasize about every night while looking at porn; and she walked by in the uniform and it was a sign that she wanted me to have sex with her, just like in the porn, so it was her fault for wearing that uniform".

I hope you never get called to jury duty......



> As for me. I don't drink and never have. I grew up with alcoholics around me and knew I never wanted to be like that.


Good. Your holiness it completely in tact. 



> *I also was raised Southern, i.e. to be an honorable gentleman.* As such protecting the virtue of a lady is ingrained in me but I do not suffer fools lightly. But as everyone knows not all women are ladies. *If a woman is dressed just enough to not be arrested for indecent exposure, is drinking and rubbing herself over every guy she can I'm not going to step in and "rescue" her *when she decides to get in the back seat of a car. If she goes out and tries to get in her car I will stop her, not as much to protect her but to protect those she would endanger.


WOW. Just wow. Just, wow......



mmoetc said:


> I guess I'll just have to live with your hypocrite label. I won't lose any sleep over it. I'm one of those who think sex with a drunk woman may be rape, even if she says yes. Note the careful use of may. Like a contract may be invalid if signed by a drunk person. It's what we have legal processes to decide. There are few absolutes in life.
> 
> One of those absolutes is that I'm walking away from this thread. Since you don't really seem to wish to engage in discourse and address the fundamental fallacy that laws governing interaction between two people are and must be different than laws governing the action of one or almost any other question I've posted there is no need for me to continue.
> 
> Long ago I tended bar. I took keys from drunks not just to protect others but because I remembered a high school friend who wrapped his car around an oak tree while driving drunk on a deserted road at 3am. I wish someone had protected him from himself. I sometimes arranged safe transportation home for drunk girls rather than letting them fend for themselves. Not one ever came back and chastised me for not letting them go off and, potentially, have drunken sex.


I am a bartender, and I have been in the bar / restaurant business for 30+ years. I have seen, quite a bit......and I agree with you.

*people who are hypocritical/ * *a hypocrite,
*
*I also was raised Southern, i.e. to be an honorable gentleman.
**If a woman is dressed just enough to not be arrested for indecent exposure, is drinking and rubbing herself over every guy she can I'm not going to step in and "rescue" her* 

(SO you "judge" who is worthy and who is not? Hypocritical much?)

And I am done with this thread.....I think I just puked a little in my mouth....


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> What I want is for the law to be equally applied and to make people who are hypocritical to see it. If you are one who thinks sex with a drunk woman is rape even if she says yes then you can not, without being a hypocrite, say that that same woman should be arrested for DUI. You can't have both.
> 
> This discussion could also be about how people want to call a fetus a human if someone causes a pregnant woman to miscarry but want to call it a mass of cells when the woman wants an abortion.
> 
> I also want to put the responsibility where it belongs. In this case a huge part of it is on the woman. She is the one who decides to drink. She's the one who decides how much she drinks. She is the one who knows that once she is drunk she may make decisions she would not make sober. That maybe to have sex on the pool table with every man in the bar or it maybe to drive while drunk. She is the one who is control of the situation.
> 
> As I have said before if you decide to leave $1,000 in cash sitting on the dash of your unlocked car in a high crime neighborhood while you go in for a hair cut would you say you are not partly responsible when its stolen?
> 
> As for me. I don't drink and never have. I grew up with alcoholics around me and knew I never wanted to be like that. * I also was raised Southern, i.e. to be an honorable gentleman. As such protecting the virtue of a lady is ingrained in me but I do not suffer fools lightly. But as everyone knows not all women are ladies. If a woman is dressed just enough to not be arrested for indecent exposure, is drinking and rubbing herself over every guy she can I'm not going to step in and "rescue" her when she decides to get in the back seat of a car. * If she goes out and tries to get in her car I will stop her, not as much to protect her but to protect those she would endanger.


Men like that are not gentleman, they're just another feminine hygiene product. My husband, who really is honorable, indicated that he'd watch over _any_ woman that drank too much and could be taken advantage of simply because it's the right thing to do.


----------



## kuriakos

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Two drunk people having sex is ok.
> One person who is sober, or slightly intoxicated, having sex with someone who is UNCONSCIOUS or on their way to UNCONSCIOUS;
> having sex with someone who is SO drunk they cannot answer,
> having sex with someone who is on the verge of puking because their liver is so alcohol saturated,
> *having sex with someone who would NEVER say yes to you sober*.
> 
> Dude, that's rape.
> If you cannot clearly see that that is rape, then that is scary.


I can't speak for Watcher since I've been confounded by many of his posts myself, but I think your examples are all pretty black and white, except possibly the last one depending on circumstances. Rape is rape, but there are gray areas where an encounter may or may not be rape. That's where most of the disagreement has been in this thread. There is such a thing as drunk but not anywhere near unconscious or unable to speak. The law is complicated about these things because laws are black and white and real life has gray areas.



Laura Zone 5 said:


> Real men would step up, and make sure that she get somewhere safe, and NOT take advantage of her poor choice.


Absolutely true, but unchivalrous does not equal criminal. Taking advantage of the poor decisions of others is certainly not laudable behavior, but it is not necessarily rape.


----------



## kuriakos

watcher said:


> As for me. I don't drink and never have. I grew up with alcoholics around me and knew I never wanted to be like that. I also was raised Southern, i.e. to be an honorable gentleman. As such protecting the virtue of a lady is ingrained in me but I do not suffer fools lightly. But as everyone knows not all women are ladies. If a woman is dressed just enough to not be arrested for indecent exposure, is drinking and rubbing herself over every guy she can I'm not going to step in and "rescue" her when she decides to get in the back seat of a car. If she goes out and tries to get in her car I will stop her, not as much to protect her but to protect those she would endanger.


I had to go back and quote this again after seeing it emphasized in the other replies, since I only read the first sentence before. I want to make clear that I do not in any way agree with this part of the post.


----------



## kuriakos

mmoetc said:


> I guess I'll just have to live with your hypocrite label. I won't lose any sleep over it. I'm one of those who think sex with a drunk woman may be rape, even if she says yes. Note the careful use of may. Like a contract may be invalid if signed by a drunk person. It's what we have legal processes to decide. There are few absolutes in life.


This I DO agree with 100%. That is part of what causes the issues in this debate, however. The law is full of absolutes, and that leads to some people being prosecuted for things that aren't necessarily wrong, or that may be morally objectionable but should not rise to the level of criminal. Thankfully, the law is enforced by humans, and some of them are even quite reasonable.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

kuriakos said:


> I can't speak for Watcher since I've been confounded by many of his posts myself, but I think your examples are all pretty black and white, except possibly the last one depending on circumstances. Rape is rape, but there are gray areas where an encounter may or may not be rape. That's where most of the disagreement has been in this thread. There is such a thing as drunk but not anywhere near unconscious or unable to speak. The law is complicated about these things because laws are black and white and real life has gray areas.


If a woman, who CLEARLY says YES to sex, but 'changes' her mind in the morning? Um that's a big NO. Sorry she has 'regrets'. It's not rape.

AT THE END of the day, a decent man will NOT put himself in a situation that could land him in jail. The right thing to do is just walk away.
Just walk away.
If she's an 'easy mark', just walk away......
If he's an "easy mark" just walk away.......
15 min of sloppy sex is not worth it.

It's like going to The Indianapolis 500 and deciding "hey, if I pee outside in the bushes, and get busted EVEN THOUGH NO ONE CAN SEE ME, I will end up on a sex offenders list for exposing myself in public" Hmmmm what do I do? Hold it and find a port a potty, or hope that I don't get busted and end up with a record???
The cop, and the courts don't care that you were drunk. You made a choice to expose yourself in public.........when you could have just kept walking until you found a port-o-potty.

Do you see my point?





> Absolutely true, but unchivalrous does not equal criminal. Taking advantage of the poor decisions of others is certainly not laudable behavior, but it is not necessarily rape.


Correct, unchivalours does not equal criminal.
Walking away (if you chose not to help) is an option.
Removing yourself FAR from the situation that could land you in jail is an option.
Taking advantage of a drunk man / woman shows ones gross lack of character at the least, and a busted moral compass, for sure.


----------



## kuriakos

Laura Zone 5 said:


> If a woman, who CLEARLY says YES to sex, but 'changes' her mind in the morning? Um that's a big NO. Sorry she has 'regrets'. It's not rape.


Absolutely. I think we all agree on that.



> AT THE END of the day, a decent man will NOT put himself in a situation that could land him in jail. The right thing to do is just walk away.
> Just walk away.
> If she's an 'easy mark', just walk away......
> If he's an "easy mark" just walk away.......
> 15 min of sloppy sex is not worth it.


On those situations you listed, I agree. But I believe there are other situations where decent men could end up in jail. The more decent the man is, the lower the odds, but being a decent man and doing nothing wrong is no guarantee.



> It's like going to The Indianapolis 500 and deciding "hey, if I pee outside in the bushes, and get busted EVEN THOUGH NO ONE CAN SEE ME, I will end up on a sex offenders list for exposing myself in public" Hmmmm what do I do? Hold it and find a port a potty, or hope that I don't get busted and end up with a record???
> The cop, and the courts don't care that you were drunk. You made a choice to expose yourself in public.........when you could have just kept walking until you found a port-o-potty.
> 
> Do you see my point?


I have to admit I don't on this one.



> Correct, unchivalours does not equal criminal.
> Walking away (if you chose not to help) is an option.
> Removing yourself FAR from the situation that could land you in jail is an option.


Sure thing. Ironically, helping is one of the things that can put a man at risk of false claims. Staying far away from drunk women is a man's best option to avoid any of that potential. As a general rule, it's worked well for me. But I also step up if there is someone who looks like they could use a gentleman's help. Of course I try to minimize the risk to myself by not being alone with the person, but sometimes there is no choice and I'm not going to abandon someone in need just to cover my butt.



> Taking advantage of a drunk man / woman shows ones gross lack of character at the least, and a busted moral compass, for sure.


Couldn't agree more.


----------



## watcher

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Two drunk people having sex is ok.
> One person who is sober, or slightly intoxicated, having sex with someone who is UNCONSCIOUS or on their way to UNCONSCIOUS;
> having sex with someone who is SO drunk they cannot answer,
> having sex with someone who is on the verge of puking because their liver is so alcohol saturated,
> *having sex with someone who would NEVER say yes to you sober*.
> 
> Dude, that's rape.
> If you cannot clearly see that that is rape, then that is scary.


No one is saying that if someone can not make the decision to have sex then its not rape. The problem is that lady in question was sober enough to say "Yes" and to follow through. Then there is the problem of what if both are drunk. 




Laura Zone 5 said:


> For me personally? Life begins at conception. The End.


The problem is in the law. If a woman on her way to an abortion clinic and is violently mugged and has a miscarriage as a result of the attack in most (all?) states the mugger can be charged with what amounts to murder. Yet if she walks into the clinic and the doctor induces a miscarriage, aka saline abortion, he has, in the eyes of the law, not taken a life.

How can you logically say some think is alive in one case but just a mass of tissue in the other?




Laura Zone 5 said:


> Wow.
> I have worked in bars / restaurants all my life.
> And I have seen that 'wolf pack' mentality......where a female is 'partying' have a good time, then they start buying shots for her;
> and the next thing you know they are 'hunting her' with a 'pack mentality'........
> then claim "she wanted it, she's the one that said ok to all the shots"......
> when deep in their dirty disgusting mind, they knew what they were doing and what they were trying to achieve.
> Back to my initial comments some pages ago.
> Real men would step up, and make sure that she get somewhere safe, and NOT take advantage of her poor choice.
> Two wrongs, never make a right.


Aye, there's the rub. There are a lot more animals than gentlemen out there.




Laura Zone 5 said:


> NO NO NO NO NO.
> THE PERSON COMMITTING THE CRIME IS 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR CHOOSING TO COMMIT A CRIME!!!! PERIOD THE END


So if you loaned your friend your car and he called you to say it was stolen when he left it running while he went in to the store would you say he's not responsible for its loss?




Laura Zone 5 said:


> I hope you never get called to jury duty......


Been called several times and for some reason I'm almost always picked. The last time I lucked out because it was a federal trial and I really didn't want to have to drive all the way to the federal court house for the three weeks they were thinking the trial would take.




Laura Zone 5 said:


> Good. Your holiness it completely in tact.


What does holiness have to do with it? IMO, only a fool or mentally ill person needs to get drunk to have a good time.




Laura Zone 5 said:


> WOW. Just wow. Just, wow......


Its called freedom and you can't have it without responsibility. If you want to go out, get drunk and do something stupid that's not going to harm you or others what right do I have to stop you? Its your life to live as you wish, is it not?




Laura Zone 5 said:


> *people who are hypocritical/ * *a hypocrite,
> *
> *I also was raised Southern, i.e. to be an honorable gentleman.
> **If a woman is dressed just enough to not be arrested for indecent exposure, is drinking and rubbing herself over every guy she can I'm not going to step in and "rescue" her*
> 
> (SO you "judge" who is worthy and who is not? Hypocritical much?)


Yep. I judge it based on what they say. If they say one thing about one incident and say the opposite in another then I judge them hypocritical. 

My beliefs are consistent. As long as what you are doing does not endanger you or others you are free to do it. I will advise you not to do some stupid things but I do not have the right to interfere with your freedom. I will advise you not to drink and if you do to not drink enough to get drunk. The choice to do so is yours to make. Would you rather when I see you trying to take a drink I physically restrain you or have the government forbid you to do so?

To me a drunk should be held responsible for all his/her actions for the simple reason they made the decision to drink.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Men like that are not gentleman, they're just another feminine hygiene product. My husband, who really is honorable, indicated that he'd watch over _any_ woman that drank too much and could be taken advantage of simply because it's the right thing to do.


I disagree. What right do you have to interfere in their life? As long as someone isn't placing themselves or others in danger, that is.

I've seen too many women like I described and the few I have dealt with later, i.e. sober, all have said what happened was EXACTLY what they expected and wanted. To put it bluntly, they went out to get drunk and get laid. If you were to 'watch over' them and prevent them from being "taken advantage" of you would be stopping them from living the life they want.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

http://www.upworthy.com/how-7-thing...ctly-illustrate-the-concept-of-consent?c=ufb1


----------



## Irish Pixie

Laura Zone 5 said:


> http://www.upworthy.com/how-7-thing...ctly-illustrate-the-concept-of-consent?c=ufb1


The only comment I have is that this should be required reading. 

Thank you for posting it.


----------



## no really

Laura Zone 5 said:


> http://www.upworthy.com/how-7-thing...ctly-illustrate-the-concept-of-consent?c=ufb1


Read the blog. IMHO what I see is a segment of younger people that have not been taught personal boundaries. Not having experienced unequivocal no, they lack the ability to understand. And I'm talking about my generation, some when they get to college or that first job are shocked and angered by having boundaries set.

That being said my SIL was raped in college, walking across campus from working on an assignment. It was brutal, she spent quite some time in hospital and 3 or 4 reconstructive surgeries on her face. She was married to my brother, the attack impacted our family greatly. She is an incredibly strong person, we all love her and did whatever it took to support her, I only wish I had her resilience. I asked her permission before posting this.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

no really said:


> Read the blog. IMHO what I see is a segment of younger people that have not been taught personal boundaries. Not having experienced unequivocal no, they lack the ability to understand. And I'm talking about my generation, some when they get to college or that first job are shocked and angered by having boundaries set.


I work with a lot of 19-28 year old's.
MOST of them have zero common sense, little to no work ethic, entitlement issues, and just a general disconcern for anyone but themselves.
Now, maybe when everyone gets to my age, they say that about the 19-28 years old regarless; OR maybe just maybe this younger generation is not the best.
My oldest child (who is smack dab in the middle of this generation) says her generation is worthless, and the one behind her is worse.

SO SHAME on MY generation for not teaching the kids right from wrong.
SHAME on MY generation for dropping the ball and letting day care workers and teachers "raise" our kids.
AND SHAME SHAME all over MY generation for giving them every thing they wanted the second they wanted it.
SHAME on MY generation for caving to 'peer pressure and political correctness".

BUT at the end of the day; you do the crime, you need to do the time.



> That being said my SIL was raped in college, walking across campus from working on an assignment. It was brutal, she spent quite some time in hospital and 3 or 4 reconstructive surgeries on her face. She was married to my brother, the attack impacted our family greatly. She is an incredibly strong person, we all love her and did whatever it took to support her, I only wish I had her resilience. I asked her permission before posting this.


I am so sorry about your SIL.


----------



## oneraddad

Most of the 18-28 y/o that I know are either in school or buying a house and starting a family. A couple friends have kids in the military that seem to be thriving also. Life is what you make it.


----------



## watcher

Laura Zone 5 said:


> http://www.upworthy.com/how-7-thing...ctly-illustrate-the-concept-of-consent?c=ufb1


That's nice and all but it has exactly zero to do with what I'm talking about.

Let's make it short and sweet:

A woman gets drunk. She is asked if she wants to have sex. She says yes. She has sex.

1) At no point did she say no.
2) The sex was not days or hour later.
3) She was not unconscious at any point.
4) At the time she was asked and agreed to have sex she was wearing this:











Was she raped or not?


----------



## watcher

oneraddad said:


> Most of the 18-28 y/o that I know are either in school or buying a house and starting a family. A couple friends have kids in the military that seem to be thriving also. Life is what you make it.


It all depends on where you look. I know plenty of people in that age range (and even older) in both categories.

I know some that have good jobs and have started families. I know others who live at home and if they work at all they blow every dime they make. I know still others who are firmly attached to the government teat and are sucking it for all they can and will probably do so for the rest of their lives.

I deal with a lot of young people and I can tell you that a large percentage of them have no idea about responsibility and real life. Such things used to be taught at home but kids are no longer raised at home. They are put in kiddie prisons at 6 weeks (the soonest most places will take them), and raised by a rotation of strangers until they are old enough to be sent to pre-school. There they are raised by another rotation of strangers unto they are old enough to go to pre-K and finally onto be raised by the teachers in the government ran education centers where they are taught WHAT to think not how to think.


----------



## oneraddad

I don't know anybody over 20 that isn't out on their own, period. Maybe it's who I surround myself with ?

That age group is around my kids and my friends kids age so that's where I get my view from.


----------



## oneraddad

watcher said:


> It all depends on where you look. I know plenty of people in that age range (and even older) in both categories.
> 
> I know some that have good jobs and have started families. I know others who live at home and if they work at all they blow every dime they make. I know still others who are firmly attached to the government teat and are sucking it for all they can and will probably do so for the rest of their lives.
> 
> I deal with a lot of young people and I can tell you that a large percentage of them have no idea about responsibility and real life. Such things used to be taught at home but kids are no longer raised at home. They are put in kiddie prisons at 6 weeks (the soonest most places will take them), and raised by a rotation of strangers until they are old enough to be sent to pre-school. There they are raised by another rotation of strangers unto they are old enough to go to pre-K and finally onto be raised by the teachers in the government ran education centers where they are taught WHAT to think not how to think.



You generalize too much, I don't see any of that.


----------



## watcher

oneraddad said:


> I don't know anybody over 20 that isn't out on their own, period. Maybe it's who I surround myself with ?
> 
> That age group is around my kids and my friends kids age so that's where I get my view from.


Sounds like you have a good crowd. But I am, by choice, involved with people who are not, by choice or circumstances, in such good places. And I can tell you that there are a lot more 20+ people stilling living at home than most people realize.


----------



## watcher

oneraddad said:


> You generalize too much, I don't see any of that.


Are you telling me:

You don't believe that parents allow their kids to live at home well into their 20s

You have don't believe there are people who live their entire lives on the government dole.

And no one you know has their kid in daycare.

That last one I find next to impossible to believe.


----------



## oneraddad

I read about it, but don't know anybody receiving hand outs. Maybe you watch too much TV or live in a bad area ? Here's what a thriving 30 y/o couple in my neighborhood looks like. They not only are buying their second house but have rented out their first. They have kids in private school that play sports and are living the American dream.


----------



## wr

oneraddad said:


> I don't know anybody over 20 that isn't out on their own, period. Maybe it's who I surround myself with ?
> 
> That age group is around my kids and my friends kids age so that's where I get my view from.


It's much the same here and as a matter of fact, the only 20 something I know that's living at home is a friend of my son who moved back in with his mother because she has MS and she's starting to need a bit of help. 

I do have a friend in his 40's who lives with his mother but they are Japanese and they just believe that momma should never be moved into a home and she will remain on the farm until they day she dies.


----------



## painterswife

The only twenty somethings I know living at home are attending school. My 50 year old brother and family is living in the family home but he pays his fair share and my mom is not lonely. Another Japanese family tradition.


----------



## watcher

oneraddad said:


> I read about it, but don't know anybody receiving hand outs. Maybe you watch too much TV or live in a bad area ? Here's what a thriving 30 y/o couple in my neighborhood looks like. They not only are buying their second house but have rented out their first. They have kids in private school that play sports and are living the American dream.


Don't have TV, haven't for years and I can (and often do) leave the keys in my car in the drive and don't lock my house door when I leave so my area isn't bad by any means.

You need to get out more. One of the reasons I know people who are taking handouts is because I spend a lot of my time trying to help them become makers rather than takers. I know a lot of them because various agencies I work with know that and put me into contact with people who need help. 

I do have to wonder if this "thriving 30 y/o couple" managed to have one of them stay at home and raise their kids. Or if the babysitter/nanny/prison guard saw their kid's first step, potty trained them, taught them their colors and letters and all the rest of the stuff parents used to do for their children. Or maybe, just maybe, they let others raise their kids while they worked to buy the kids stuff.

Oh, BTW you might just be surprised who you know that is getting government handouts. In some cases its almost as shocking as when you find out that no nonsense straight laced guy at work was busted for making and distributing meth.


----------



## watcher

Ya'll must have a very limited group of people you deal with. You all sound like a guy I went to school with. He grew up in a fairly 'rich' area, went to private schools then to a top 10 university. Nice guy but he had a big shock when he graduated and went to work in a place which had people from all cultures and, as they say, socio-economic groups. He couldn't believe that in the US there were still illiterate people until he had to deal with one.


----------



## oneraddad

The parents don't share days off, so Dad watches them Wednesday and Thursday, Mom is Saturday and Sunday, Grandma is Monday and I do Tuesday and Friday. This has been going on for over ten years and is working excellent.

Maybe prison guards raised your kids but that's not how my friends and family do things.


----------



## Jolly

oneraddad said:


> I don't know anybody over 20 that isn't out on their own, period. Maybe it's who I surround myself with ?
> 
> That age group is around my kids and my friends kids age so that's where I get my view from.


Around here, I would say 70% of twenty year-olds are still at home.


----------



## AmericanStand

oneraddad said:


> I read about it, but don't know anybody receiving hand outs. Maybe you watch too much TV or live in a bad area ? Here's what a thriving 30 y/o couple in my neighborhood looks like. They not only are buying their second house but have rented out their first. They have kids in private school that play sports and are living the American dream.
> 
> ]



I guess the American dream doesn't include raising your own kids ?


----------



## oneraddad

AmericanStand said:


> I guess the American dream doesn't include raising your own kids ?



Huh ? 




oneraddad said:


> The parents don't share days off, so Dad watches them Wednesday and Thursday, Mom is Saturday and Sunday, Grandma is Monday and I do Tuesday and Friday. This has been going on for over ten years and is working excellent.


You raise your family your way and I'll do the same. My Grandparents helped raise me, and my kids had help from their Grandparents and never saw a day care, just as my Grand kids will never see one.


----------



## watcher

oneraddad said:


> The parents don't share days off, so Dad watches them Wednesday and Thursday, Mom is Saturday and Sunday, Grandma is Monday and I do Tuesday and Friday. This has been going on for over ten years and is working excellent.
> 
> Maybe prison guards raised your kids but that's not how my friends and family do things.


Good for you! 

We raised our kids. Took a change of life style just before the first was born but they had a parent at home 24/7. We discovered that was very unusual for kids, more so today.


----------



## oneraddad

watcher said:


> Good for you!
> 
> We raised our kids. Took a change of life style just before the first was born but they had a parent at home 24/7. We discovered that was very unusual for kids, more so today.


Thank you

I was a full time single Dad raising 2 boys and a girl and most found that unusual, I thought it felt right.

But.... I owe a lot of my kids success to my ex mother in-law. It's hard to beat loving experience when raising kids and why I take my duty as Papa serious.


----------



## watcher

oneraddad said:


> Thank you
> 
> I was a full time single Dad raising 2 boys and a girl and most found that unusual, I thought it felt right.
> 
> But.... I owe a lot of my kids success to my ex mother in-law. It's hard to beat loving experience when raising kids and why I take my duty as Papa serious.


Circumstances twisted it so that I became a Mr Mom. Before we married we agreed when we decided to have kids they would have a stay at home parent. Well the first one surprised us and at the time the wife had the better job and was committed to work it for at least three more years. It worked out because it was the spark which started us changing our life style from working and killing ourselves in order to get stuff to working less and enjoying life.


----------



## AmericanStand

So the American dream is for grandma and grandpa to raise your kids? If grandma and grandpa want to raise kids why don't they just make some of their own?


----------



## oneraddad

AmericanStand said:


> So the American dream is for grandma and grandpa to raise your kids? If grandma and grandpa want to raise kids why don't they just make some of their own?


Raise ? Where did you get that from ? 

I did, I had 4 before I got snipped.


----------

