Guilty of rape if the woman is drunk?

[dnuggett]

one of the many reasons I carry a voice recorder with me anywhere I go

If this is true.... you probably won't be getting in any situations with a female. Or at least one that you won't want to saw your arm off to get away from.

 

[prvteye2003]

Originally posted by: Regs
It's another one of those laws that forces morals on a man. To please the feminist party. That's all. I don't engage in any sexually activity when the girl is drunk because I would think it was in-moral. Should it be a law and count as rape? Fawk no.

do you mean immoral?

 

[Lucky]

we had a kid in my college have shower sex in the dorms with a girl when they were both insanely drunk. illegal under ohio law. she claimed rape a couple days later, he was found innocent by jury but the university still expelled him (but not her). And the Head Nurse / Health Dept. worker at our school kept saying nasty things about this guy to the press so he sued the school and won a couple million bucks.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: cheapgoose
sex w/ drunk girl = rape

What about a woman having sex with a drunk guy?

He raped her. Yeah, that's about how the system works. Go double standards! :disgust:

- M4H

 

[rommelrommel]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: TommyVercetti
Let's say it's not a drunk girl, she is perfectly fine. She decides to be a b!tch and press charges because she hates the guy. She lies that she said no, but the guy didn't listen. How exactly is she going to prove that she actually said no?

Her word against his, if there are witnesses that say they went into the room, and so forth.

Link

And here we run into the flaw in that logic..

It would be interesting to see if there have been any rape convictions without any physical evidence or witnesses.

More than I care to think about.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: TommyVercetti
Let's say it's not a drunk girl, she is perfectly fine. She decides to be a b!tch and press charges because she hates the guy. She lies that she said no, but the guy didn't listen. How exactly is she going to prove that she actually said no?

Her word against his, if there are witnesses that say they went into the room, and so forth.

Link

And here we run into the flaw in that logic..

It would be interesting to see if there have been any rape convictions without any physical evidence or witnesses.

You're kidding, right? You honestly believe it's never happened?

- M4H

 

[Linflas]

I assume the theory behind this would be that a drunk woman is not in sufficient control of her faculties to make an informed decision. I can see all sorts of interesting defense strategies coming out of this type of thinking. Is a drunk male in sufficient control of his faculties to make an informed decision? If both are drunk then is there any violation? Is it a double standard where males are expected to be more in control of themselves while under the influence of an intoxicant while women are held to a different standard? I am sure a defense lawyer could come up with a lot more than just the ones I thought of off the top of my head.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Linflas
I assume the theory behind this would be that a drunk woman is not in sufficient control of her faculties to make an informed decision. I can see all sorts of interesting defense strategies coming out of this type of thinking. Is a drunk male in sufficient control of his faculties to make an informed decision? If both are drunk then is there any violation? Is it a double standard where males are expected to be more in control of themselves while under the influence of an intoxicant while women are held to a different standard? I am sure a defense lawyer could come up with a lot more than just the ones I thought of off the top of my head.

A drunk male, under current laws, would probably still be guilty, as I imagine the reasoning being that he decided to consume alcohol, putting himself in the current situation.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Linflas
I assume the theory behind this would be that a drunk woman is not in sufficient control of her faculties to make an informed decision. I can see all sorts of interesting defense strategies coming out of this type of thinking. Is a drunk male in sufficient control of his faculties to make an informed decision? If both are drunk then is there any violation? Is it a double standard where males are expected to be more in control of themselves while under the influence of an intoxicant while women are held to a different standard? I am sure a defense lawyer could come up with a lot more than just the ones I thought of off the top of my head.

A drunk male, under current laws, would probably still be guilty, as I imagine the reasoning being that he decided to consume alcohol, putting himself in the current situation.

But you no doubt see that can be argued by both sides.

 

[ViRGE]

Oh, I completely agree; it's the legal system that doesn't.

 

[goblue420]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
I think this is most definitely a valid concern; one of the many reasons I carry a voice recorder with me anywhere I go.

no way................hahahahahahahahahah imma start doin that

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

If a slut is dumb enough to get drunk and fizuck a guy, it's not rape.

If she doesn't say no, it's not rape. Even if he bought her a ton of drinks and smoothed her into it. She's the one that was dumb enough to fall for it.

 

[Francesca]

The sad thing is that the messed up legal system that puts away the innocent men also lets the guilty ones go. So much for justice.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
If a slut is dumb enough to get drunk and fizuck a guy, it's not rape.

If she doesn't say no, it's not rape. Even if he bought her a ton of drinks and smoothed her into it. She's the one that was dumb enough to fall for it.

You poor naive bastard.

- M4H

 

[Francesca]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
If a slut is dumb enough to get drunk and fizuck a guy, it's not rape.

If she doesn't say no, it's not rape. Even if he bought her a ton of drinks and smoothed her into it. She's the one that was dumb enough to fall for it.

You poor naive bastard.

- M4H

Hmmmmm. Much nicer comment to that then I was thinking......

 

[SithSolo1]

In GA men cannot be raped, only sodomized.

Women on the other hand can be raped, or have sex and call rape later, or just flat out call rape without sex. They usually win no matter what. ;(

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: goblue420

Originally posted by: Orsorum
I think this is most definitely a valid concern; one of the many reasons I carry a voice recorder with me anywhere I go.

no way................hahahahahahahahahah imma start doin that

Actually, in WA state it's illegal to do so unless both parties are informed that they're being recorded. So I really do use it for lectures only.

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: OrsorumI use it for recording lectures, .

I was gonna say, when was your last use of THAT little trinket? Lectures make more sense.

I think I just got pwned.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Linflas
I assume the theory behind this would be that a drunk woman is not in sufficient control of her faculties to make an informed decision. I can see all sorts of interesting defense strategies coming out of this type of thinking. Is a drunk male in sufficient control of his faculties to make an informed decision? If both are drunk then is there any violation? Is it a double standard where males are expected to be more in control of themselves while under the influence of an intoxicant while women are held to a different standard? I am sure a defense lawyer could come up with a lot more than just the ones I thought of off the top of my head.

A drunk male, under current laws, would probably still be guilty, as I imagine the reasoning being that he decided to consume alcohol, putting himself in the current situation.

that would be stupid. The woman would be guilty of exactly the same thing.

The reason there's a bias when it comes to physically violent rape is that it's assumed (with some accuracy) that men are generally more capable of forcing themselves on women, than women on men. However, this does not hold true when we're talking about inability to consent. This should be a completely level playing field.