Minnesota: Rape is not rape if you have been drinking of your own free will.

[TheGreenHornet]

What the OP is missing here is the difference between subjective and objective.
I tend to agree, as many states do, that if a woman voluntarily gets intoxicated to a point where consent is impossible to provide or deny... that declaring rape is also no longer possible.

So when you get too drunk to say "no" or understand what is happening, it is fine for someone -- anyone -- to stick his penis in your butthole.

You sure you wanna run with that?

What you describe is rape. Of course. No one is saying it isn't.
But you have to prove a crime in order to charge someone with it. You can't just go with the "she said" over the "he said" because you want to.
Again, if a woman VOLUNTARILY goes with a man to his home, or wherever to be alone with him. Gets so drunk she cannot remember what happened. She gets to claim rape if she can't remember whether she gave consent or not? You want to go with that?
You understand that in this case, the woman states "I woke up in the morning and my panties were down". She doesn't remember what happened. Who is to say wasn't cooperative because she was stone cold drunk, then gets sobered up and wants to press charges because she doesn't think she gave consent.
Rape is a very serious crime that carries a very serious penalty. Under the subjective pretense of the OP - basically any woman who wakes up with regrets - should be able to charge the man with rape. How would you prove he didn't?
That is why the law is written that way. You can't put someone in prison for a crime when the victim isn't sure it happened, just thinks it did.

Ever heard of an exam, and rape kit?

Rape kits are only useful to prove intercourse occurred, and hopefully obtain evidence to prove the guy who said he didn't have sex with her - did.
Rape kits cannot distinguish between rape and consensual sex in many cases. People have "rough" consensual sex all the time. Fast pumping, deep thrusts... with the woman yelling "harder!"... if you haven't experienced that - than you are doing it wrong.

I can assure you that my wife of 33 years has no complaints...However, back to rape kits...They do far more than determine whether or not sex occured....It is not just collecting evidence, there is a head to toe examination involved as well, which can show certain injuries if the woman was not aroused during the act, such as vaginal tearing, and so forth...

So, unless we have access to the evidence provided the jury in this man's trial, we can't say what exactly the Medical professionals opinion was concerning consent...What we do know is what the OP provided, and based on that, the man took advantage of the girl being incompasitated.....

I disagree. We don't know that.
I side with the justice philosophy that it is better a guilty person go free, than an innocent person spend years in prison for something they did not do.
We have to allow guilt assessment also.
For instance... 2 scenarios:
1) A woman get's drunk, a man forces himself on her that is verifiable by other circumstances, or evidence.
2) A woman get's drunk, voluntarily goes to his residence or where ever to be alone, passes out.. wakes up and does not remember what happened. But believes this man had sex with her while being passed out, or can't remember.

You cannot treat both circumstances as the same. One is a woman who did NOT volunteer to go with a man somewhere, one did. One remembers being raped, one does not. This is two VERY different circumstances.

My opinion on the man in the case of the OP - he is probably a douchebag. He was not nearly as drunk as she was, and most likely took advantage of her inebriation to have sex. But it is also entirely possible she gave consent, but doesn't remember. And because of that a fair system has to take into account the woman placed herself in this place voluntarily. As well as voluntarily got herself beyond just drunk... but absolutely plastered to the point she past out.

If she doesn’t remember consenting, did she possess the capacity to consent in the first place?

I hate that we are talking about a man taking advantage of a circumstance where we boil it down to blaming a woman for something when we both agree the guy was scum.

Remember a jury convicted this man.

A jury UNLAWFULLY convicted him. It is the absolute responsibility of the judge to inform the jury of the law. And, therefore, the higher court admonished the lower court is saying "you cannot simply add elements to the law". The judge should have not allowed a rape charge to get to the jury.
I agree, in a perfect world nothing like this would ever happen. But it isn't perfect. And neither is the justice system.
The higher priority is protecting the innocent. And that includes protecting assholes from being convicted of a crime that doesn't apply.
Again, there has to be an element of personal responsibility. A woman cannot posses the power to do/act in any way she wants - to the extreme - and expect others to pay for her poor decisions.
I think this guy is a douchebag. But she is an irresponsible drunk who placed herself WILLINGLY in a position of great risk with no regards of it.

The WaPo is reporting that she gained consciousness mid way through and told him she didn’t want to do that, and he continued as she passed back out...

“Khalil drove the women to a house in northern Minneapolis, prosecutors allege. The friend later testified that the woman immediately lay down on the couch and fell asleep.
When the woman woke up and saw that Khalil was allegedly raping her, she told him she didn’t want to have sex, court records say.
“But you’re so hot and you turn me on,” he allegedly replied.
The woman then lost consciousness and woke up between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. with her shorts around her ankles, she testified. She and her friend left the house in a Lyft vehicle, and the woman went to a hospital to have a rape kit done later that day. She reported the case to Minneapolis police four days later, according to court records.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/03/26/minnesota-rape-alcohol/

That is the point of the law.
The law states that if a person VOLUNTARILY goes with the accused, and VOLUNTARILY gets so drunk that determining consent is impossible, rape cannot be the conviction.... UNLESS... physical evidence can determine rape took place.
And that is not here. She was not physically harmed. At least not from what I read.
This is a bad situation. I totally agree the guy is a dirt bag. But a rapist? That can't be determined. He said she was drunk, but consensual. So we are to believe her over him because why? She is a woman? #BelieveAllWomen?

No, please don’t lump me in with all that #BelieveallWomen nonsense.
First of all, you don’t know if she was physically harmed or not, unless you have a copy of the examination. Second, did you miss the testimony where she told him she didn’t want to have sex, and he continued anyway?

In any case I don’t think, from our conversation here, that we are going to agree.

I never agree with anyone that has no truth in what they say.

 

[j-mac]

What the OP is missing here is the difference between subjective and objective.
I tend to agree, as many states do, that if a woman voluntarily gets intoxicated to a point where consent is impossible to provide or deny... that declaring rape is also no longer possible.

So when you get too drunk to say "no" or understand what is happening, it is fine for someone -- anyone -- to stick his penis in your butthole.

You sure you wanna run with that?

What you describe is rape. Of course. No one is saying it isn't.
But you have to prove a crime in order to charge someone with it. You can't just go with the "she said" over the "he said" because you want to.
Again, if a woman VOLUNTARILY goes with a man to his home, or wherever to be alone with him. Gets so drunk she cannot remember what happened. She gets to claim rape if she can't remember whether she gave consent or not? You want to go with that?
You understand that in this case, the woman states "I woke up in the morning and my panties were down". She doesn't remember what happened. Who is to say wasn't cooperative because she was stone cold drunk, then gets sobered up and wants to press charges because she doesn't think she gave consent.
Rape is a very serious crime that carries a very serious penalty. Under the subjective pretense of the OP - basically any woman who wakes up with regrets - should be able to charge the man with rape. How would you prove he didn't?
That is why the law is written that way. You can't put someone in prison for a crime when the victim isn't sure it happened, just thinks it did.

Ever heard of an exam, and rape kit?

Rape kits are only useful to prove intercourse occurred, and hopefully obtain evidence to prove the guy who said he didn't have sex with her - did.
Rape kits cannot distinguish between rape and consensual sex in many cases. People have "rough" consensual sex all the time. Fast pumping, deep thrusts... with the woman yelling "harder!"... if you haven't experienced that - than you are doing it wrong.

I can assure you that my wife of 33 years has no complaints...However, back to rape kits...They do far more than determine whether or not sex occured....It is not just collecting evidence, there is a head to toe examination involved as well, which can show certain injuries if the woman was not aroused during the act, such as vaginal tearing, and so forth...

So, unless we have access to the evidence provided the jury in this man's trial, we can't say what exactly the Medical professionals opinion was concerning consent...What we do know is what the OP provided, and based on that, the man took advantage of the girl being incompasitated.....

I disagree. We don't know that.
I side with the justice philosophy that it is better a guilty person go free, than an innocent person spend years in prison for something they did not do.
We have to allow guilt assessment also.
For instance... 2 scenarios:
1) A woman get's drunk, a man forces himself on her that is verifiable by other circumstances, or evidence.
2) A woman get's drunk, voluntarily goes to his residence or where ever to be alone, passes out.. wakes up and does not remember what happened. But believes this man had sex with her while being passed out, or can't remember.

You cannot treat both circumstances as the same. One is a woman who did NOT volunteer to go with a man somewhere, one did. One remembers being raped, one does not. This is two VERY different circumstances.

My opinion on the man in the case of the OP - he is probably a douchebag. He was not nearly as drunk as she was, and most likely took advantage of her inebriation to have sex. But it is also entirely possible she gave consent, but doesn't remember. And because of that a fair system has to take into account the woman placed herself in this place voluntarily. As well as voluntarily got herself beyond just drunk... but absolutely plastered to the point she past out.

If she doesn’t remember consenting, did she possess the capacity to consent in the first place?

I hate that we are talking about a man taking advantage of a circumstance where we boil it down to blaming a woman for something when we both agree the guy was scum.

Remember a jury convicted this man.

A jury UNLAWFULLY convicted him. It is the absolute responsibility of the judge to inform the jury of the law. And, therefore, the higher court admonished the lower court is saying "you cannot simply add elements to the law". The judge should have not allowed a rape charge to get to the jury.
I agree, in a perfect world nothing like this would ever happen. But it isn't perfect. And neither is the justice system.
The higher priority is protecting the innocent. And that includes protecting assholes from being convicted of a crime that doesn't apply.
Again, there has to be an element of personal responsibility. A woman cannot posses the power to do/act in any way she wants - to the extreme - and expect others to pay for her poor decisions.
I think this guy is a douchebag. But she is an irresponsible drunk who placed herself WILLINGLY in a position of great risk with no regards of it.

The WaPo is reporting that she gained consciousness mid way through and told him she didn’t want to do that, and he continued as she passed back out...

“Khalil drove the women to a house in northern Minneapolis, prosecutors allege. The friend later testified that the woman immediately lay down on the couch and fell asleep.
When the woman woke up and saw that Khalil was allegedly raping her, she told him she didn’t want to have sex, court records say.
“But you’re so hot and you turn me on,” he allegedly replied.
The woman then lost consciousness and woke up between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. with her shorts around her ankles, she testified. She and her friend left the house in a Lyft vehicle, and the woman went to a hospital to have a rape kit done later that day. She reported the case to Minneapolis police four days later, according to court records.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/03/26/minnesota-rape-alcohol/

No one should be convicted of rape just because a woman screams rape......there must be physical evidence and even then too many innocent men go to jail cuz some whore lied.

Are all women whores?

 

[j-mac]

What the OP is missing here is the difference between subjective and objective.
I tend to agree, as many states do, that if a woman voluntarily gets intoxicated to a point where consent is impossible to provide or deny... that declaring rape is also no longer possible.

So when you get too drunk to say "no" or understand what is happening, it is fine for someone -- anyone -- to stick his penis in your butthole.

You sure you wanna run with that?

What you describe is rape. Of course. No one is saying it isn't.
But you have to prove a crime in order to charge someone with it. You can't just go with the "she said" over the "he said" because you want to.
Again, if a woman VOLUNTARILY goes with a man to his home, or wherever to be alone with him. Gets so drunk she cannot remember what happened. She gets to claim rape if she can't remember whether she gave consent or not? You want to go with that?
You understand that in this case, the woman states "I woke up in the morning and my panties were down". She doesn't remember what happened. Who is to say wasn't cooperative because she was stone cold drunk, then gets sobered up and wants to press charges because she doesn't think she gave consent.
Rape is a very serious crime that carries a very serious penalty. Under the subjective pretense of the OP - basically any woman who wakes up with regrets - should be able to charge the man with rape. How would you prove he didn't?
That is why the law is written that way. You can't put someone in prison for a crime when the victim isn't sure it happened, just thinks it did.

Ever heard of an exam, and rape kit?

Rape kits are only useful to prove intercourse occurred, and hopefully obtain evidence to prove the guy who said he didn't have sex with her - did.
Rape kits cannot distinguish between rape and consensual sex in many cases. People have "rough" consensual sex all the time. Fast pumping, deep thrusts... with the woman yelling "harder!"... if you haven't experienced that - than you are doing it wrong.

I can assure you that my wife of 33 years has no complaints...However, back to rape kits...They do far more than determine whether or not sex occured....It is not just collecting evidence, there is a head to toe examination involved as well, which can show certain injuries if the woman was not aroused during the act, such as vaginal tearing, and so forth...

So, unless we have access to the evidence provided the jury in this man's trial, we can't say what exactly the Medical professionals opinion was concerning consent...What we do know is what the OP provided, and based on that, the man took advantage of the girl being incompasitated.....

I disagree. We don't know that.
I side with the justice philosophy that it is better a guilty person go free, than an innocent person spend years in prison for something they did not do.
We have to allow guilt assessment also.
For instance... 2 scenarios:
1) A woman get's drunk, a man forces himself on her that is verifiable by other circumstances, or evidence.
2) A woman get's drunk, voluntarily goes to his residence or where ever to be alone, passes out.. wakes up and does not remember what happened. But believes this man had sex with her while being passed out, or can't remember.

You cannot treat both circumstances as the same. One is a woman who did NOT volunteer to go with a man somewhere, one did. One remembers being raped, one does not. This is two VERY different circumstances.

My opinion on the man in the case of the OP - he is probably a douchebag. He was not nearly as drunk as she was, and most likely took advantage of her inebriation to have sex. But it is also entirely possible she gave consent, but doesn't remember. And because of that a fair system has to take into account the woman placed herself in this place voluntarily. As well as voluntarily got herself beyond just drunk... but absolutely plastered to the point she past out.

If she doesn’t remember consenting, did she possess the capacity to consent in the first place?

I hate that we are talking about a man taking advantage of a circumstance where we boil it down to blaming a woman for something when we both agree the guy was scum.

Remember a jury convicted this man.

A jury UNLAWFULLY convicted him. It is the absolute responsibility of the judge to inform the jury of the law. And, therefore, the higher court admonished the lower court is saying "you cannot simply add elements to the law". The judge should have not allowed a rape charge to get to the jury.
I agree, in a perfect world nothing like this would ever happen. But it isn't perfect. And neither is the justice system.
The higher priority is protecting the innocent. And that includes protecting assholes from being convicted of a crime that doesn't apply.
Again, there has to be an element of personal responsibility. A woman cannot posses the power to do/act in any way she wants - to the extreme - and expect others to pay for her poor decisions.
I think this guy is a douchebag. But she is an irresponsible drunk who placed herself WILLINGLY in a position of great risk with no regards of it.

The WaPo is reporting that she gained consciousness mid way through and told him she didn’t want to do that, and he continued as she passed back out...

“Khalil drove the women to a house in northern Minneapolis, prosecutors allege. The friend later testified that the woman immediately lay down on the couch and fell asleep.
When the woman woke up and saw that Khalil was allegedly raping her, she told him she didn’t want to have sex, court records say.
“But you’re so hot and you turn me on,” he allegedly replied.
The woman then lost consciousness and woke up between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. with her shorts around her ankles, she testified. She and her friend left the house in a Lyft vehicle, and the woman went to a hospital to have a rape kit done later that day. She reported the case to Minneapolis police four days later, according to court records.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/03/26/minnesota-rape-alcohol/

That is the point of the law.
The law states that if a person VOLUNTARILY goes with the accused, and VOLUNTARILY gets so drunk that determining consent is impossible, rape cannot be the conviction.... UNLESS... physical evidence can determine rape took place.
And that is not here. She was not physically harmed. At least not from what I read.
This is a bad situation. I totally agree the guy is a dirt bag. But a rapist? That can't be determined. He said she was drunk, but consensual. So we are to believe her over him because why? She is a woman? #BelieveAllWomen?

No, please don’t lump me in with all that #BelieveallWomen nonsense.
First of all, you don’t know if she was physically harmed or not, unless you have a copy of the examination. Second, did you miss the testimony where she told him she didn’t want to have sex, and he continued anyway?

In any case I don’t think, from our conversation here, that we are going to agree.

I never agree with anyone that has no truth in what they say.

What have I said that is untrue here?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

What the OP is missing here is the difference between subjective and objective.
I tend to agree, as many states do, that if a woman voluntarily gets intoxicated to a point where consent is impossible to provide or deny... that declaring rape is also no longer possible.

So when you get too drunk to say "no" or understand what is happening, it is fine for someone -- anyone -- to stick his penis in your butthole.

You sure you wanna run with that?

What you describe is rape. Of course. No one is saying it isn't.
But you have to prove a crime in order to charge someone with it. You can't just go with the "she said" over the "he said" because you want to.
Again, if a woman VOLUNTARILY goes with a man to his home, or wherever to be alone with him. Gets so drunk she cannot remember what happened. She gets to claim rape if she can't remember whether she gave consent or not? You want to go with that?
You understand that in this case, the woman states "I woke up in the morning and my panties were down". She doesn't remember what happened. Who is to say wasn't cooperative because she was stone cold drunk, then gets sobered up and wants to press charges because she doesn't think she gave consent.
Rape is a very serious crime that carries a very serious penalty. Under the subjective pretense of the OP - basically any woman who wakes up with regrets - should be able to charge the man with rape. How would you prove he didn't?
That is why the law is written that way. You can't put someone in prison for a crime when the victim isn't sure it happened, just thinks it did.

Ever heard of an exam, and rape kit?

Rape kits are only useful to prove intercourse occurred, and hopefully obtain evidence to prove the guy who said he didn't have sex with her - did.
Rape kits cannot distinguish between rape and consensual sex in many cases. People have "rough" consensual sex all the time. Fast pumping, deep thrusts... with the woman yelling "harder!"... if you haven't experienced that - than you are doing it wrong.

I can assure you that my wife of 33 years has no complaints...However, back to rape kits...They do far more than determine whether or not sex occured....It is not just collecting evidence, there is a head to toe examination involved as well, which can show certain injuries if the woman was not aroused during the act, such as vaginal tearing, and so forth...

So, unless we have access to the evidence provided the jury in this man's trial, we can't say what exactly the Medical professionals opinion was concerning consent...What we do know is what the OP provided, and based on that, the man took advantage of the girl being incompasitated.....

I disagree. We don't know that.
I side with the justice philosophy that it is better a guilty person go free, than an innocent person spend years in prison for something they did not do.
We have to allow guilt assessment also.
For instance... 2 scenarios:
1) A woman get's drunk, a man forces himself on her that is verifiable by other circumstances, or evidence.
2) A woman get's drunk, voluntarily goes to his residence or where ever to be alone, passes out.. wakes up and does not remember what happened. But believes this man had sex with her while being passed out, or can't remember.

You cannot treat both circumstances as the same. One is a woman who did NOT volunteer to go with a man somewhere, one did. One remembers being raped, one does not. This is two VERY different circumstances.

My opinion on the man in the case of the OP - he is probably a douchebag. He was not nearly as drunk as she was, and most likely took advantage of her inebriation to have sex. But it is also entirely possible she gave consent, but doesn't remember. And because of that a fair system has to take into account the woman placed herself in this place voluntarily. As well as voluntarily got herself beyond just drunk... but absolutely plastered to the point she past out.

If she doesn’t remember consenting, did she possess the capacity to consent in the first place?

I hate that we are talking about a man taking advantage of a circumstance where we boil it down to blaming a woman for something when we both agree the guy was scum.

Remember a jury convicted this man.

A jury UNLAWFULLY convicted him. It is the absolute responsibility of the judge to inform the jury of the law. And, therefore, the higher court admonished the lower court is saying "you cannot simply add elements to the law". The judge should have not allowed a rape charge to get to the jury.
I agree, in a perfect world nothing like this would ever happen. But it isn't perfect. And neither is the justice system.
The higher priority is protecting the innocent. And that includes protecting assholes from being convicted of a crime that doesn't apply.
Again, there has to be an element of personal responsibility. A woman cannot posses the power to do/act in any way she wants - to the extreme - and expect others to pay for her poor decisions.
I think this guy is a douchebag. But she is an irresponsible drunk who placed herself WILLINGLY in a position of great risk with no regards of it.

The WaPo is reporting that she gained consciousness mid way through and told him she didn’t want to do that, and he continued as she passed back out...

“Khalil drove the women to a house in northern Minneapolis, prosecutors allege. The friend later testified that the woman immediately lay down on the couch and fell asleep.
When the woman woke up and saw that Khalil was allegedly raping her, she told him she didn’t want to have sex, court records say.
“But you’re so hot and you turn me on,” he allegedly replied.
The woman then lost consciousness and woke up between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. with her shorts around her ankles, she testified. She and her friend left the house in a Lyft vehicle, and the woman went to a hospital to have a rape kit done later that day. She reported the case to Minneapolis police four days later, according to court records.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/03/26/minnesota-rape-alcohol/

No one should be convicted of rape just because a woman screams rape......there must be physical evidence and even then too many innocent men go to jail cuz some whore lied.

Are all women whores?

Put it this way.....women are very sensual creatures......they actually want dick more than men want pussy. Yet they have been so brainwashed that they deny themselves the pleasures they deserve and need.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

What the OP is missing here is the difference between subjective and objective.
I tend to agree, as many states do, that if a woman voluntarily gets intoxicated to a point where consent is impossible to provide or deny... that declaring rape is also no longer possible.

So when you get too drunk to say "no" or understand what is happening, it is fine for someone -- anyone -- to stick his penis in your butthole.

You sure you wanna run with that?

What you describe is rape. Of course. No one is saying it isn't.
But you have to prove a crime in order to charge someone with it. You can't just go with the "she said" over the "he said" because you want to.
Again, if a woman VOLUNTARILY goes with a man to his home, or wherever to be alone with him. Gets so drunk she cannot remember what happened. She gets to claim rape if she can't remember whether she gave consent or not? You want to go with that?
You understand that in this case, the woman states "I woke up in the morning and my panties were down". She doesn't remember what happened. Who is to say wasn't cooperative because she was stone cold drunk, then gets sobered up and wants to press charges because she doesn't think she gave consent.
Rape is a very serious crime that carries a very serious penalty. Under the subjective pretense of the OP - basically any woman who wakes up with regrets - should be able to charge the man with rape. How would you prove he didn't?
That is why the law is written that way. You can't put someone in prison for a crime when the victim isn't sure it happened, just thinks it did.

Ever heard of an exam, and rape kit?

Rape kits are only useful to prove intercourse occurred, and hopefully obtain evidence to prove the guy who said he didn't have sex with her - did.
Rape kits cannot distinguish between rape and consensual sex in many cases. People have "rough" consensual sex all the time. Fast pumping, deep thrusts... with the woman yelling "harder!"... if you haven't experienced that - than you are doing it wrong.

I can assure you that my wife of 33 years has no complaints...However, back to rape kits...They do far more than determine whether or not sex occured....It is not just collecting evidence, there is a head to toe examination involved as well, which can show certain injuries if the woman was not aroused during the act, such as vaginal tearing, and so forth...

So, unless we have access to the evidence provided the jury in this man's trial, we can't say what exactly the Medical professionals opinion was concerning consent...What we do know is what the OP provided, and based on that, the man took advantage of the girl being incompasitated.....

I disagree. We don't know that.
I side with the justice philosophy that it is better a guilty person go free, than an innocent person spend years in prison for something they did not do.
We have to allow guilt assessment also.
For instance... 2 scenarios:
1) A woman get's drunk, a man forces himself on her that is verifiable by other circumstances, or evidence.
2) A woman get's drunk, voluntarily goes to his residence or where ever to be alone, passes out.. wakes up and does not remember what happened. But believes this man had sex with her while being passed out, or can't remember.

You cannot treat both circumstances as the same. One is a woman who did NOT volunteer to go with a man somewhere, one did. One remembers being raped, one does not. This is two VERY different circumstances.

My opinion on the man in the case of the OP - he is probably a douchebag. He was not nearly as drunk as she was, and most likely took advantage of her inebriation to have sex. But it is also entirely possible she gave consent, but doesn't remember. And because of that a fair system has to take into account the woman placed herself in this place voluntarily. As well as voluntarily got herself beyond just drunk... but absolutely plastered to the point she past out.

If she doesn’t remember consenting, did she possess the capacity to consent in the first place?

I hate that we are talking about a man taking advantage of a circumstance where we boil it down to blaming a woman for something when we both agree the guy was scum.

Remember a jury convicted this man.

A jury UNLAWFULLY convicted him. It is the absolute responsibility of the judge to inform the jury of the law. And, therefore, the higher court admonished the lower court is saying "you cannot simply add elements to the law". The judge should have not allowed a rape charge to get to the jury.
I agree, in a perfect world nothing like this would ever happen. But it isn't perfect. And neither is the justice system.
The higher priority is protecting the innocent. And that includes protecting assholes from being convicted of a crime that doesn't apply.
Again, there has to be an element of personal responsibility. A woman cannot posses the power to do/act in any way she wants - to the extreme - and expect others to pay for her poor decisions.
I think this guy is a douchebag. But she is an irresponsible drunk who placed herself WILLINGLY in a position of great risk with no regards of it.

The WaPo is reporting that she gained consciousness mid way through and told him she didn’t want to do that, and he continued as she passed back out...

“Khalil drove the women to a house in northern Minneapolis, prosecutors allege. The friend later testified that the woman immediately lay down on the couch and fell asleep.
When the woman woke up and saw that Khalil was allegedly raping her, she told him she didn’t want to have sex, court records say.
“But you’re so hot and you turn me on,” he allegedly replied.
The woman then lost consciousness and woke up between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. with her shorts around her ankles, she testified. She and her friend left the house in a Lyft vehicle, and the woman went to a hospital to have a rape kit done later that day. She reported the case to Minneapolis police four days later, according to court records.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/03/26/minnesota-rape-alcohol/

That is the point of the law.
The law states that if a person VOLUNTARILY goes with the accused, and VOLUNTARILY gets so drunk that determining consent is impossible, rape cannot be the conviction.... UNLESS... physical evidence can determine rape took place.
And that is not here. She was not physically harmed. At least not from what I read.
This is a bad situation. I totally agree the guy is a dirt bag. But a rapist? That can't be determined. He said she was drunk, but consensual. So we are to believe her over him because why? She is a woman? #BelieveAllWomen?

No, please don’t lump me in with all that #BelieveallWomen nonsense.
First of all, you don’t know if she was physically harmed or not, unless you have a copy of the examination. Second, did you miss the testimony where she told him she didn’t want to have sex, and he continued anyway?

In any case I don’t think, from our conversation here, that we are going to agree.

I never agree with anyone that has no truth in what they say.

What have I said that is untrue here?

I have not read your posts except for the last one where you said we would never agree.....anyone that does not agree with me has little or no truth in them.

 

[j-mac]

What the OP is missing here is the difference between subjective and objective.
I tend to agree, as many states do, that if a woman voluntarily gets intoxicated to a point where consent is impossible to provide or deny... that declaring rape is also no longer possible.

So when you get too drunk to say "no" or understand what is happening, it is fine for someone -- anyone -- to stick his penis in your butthole.

You sure you wanna run with that?

What you describe is rape. Of course. No one is saying it isn't.
But you have to prove a crime in order to charge someone with it. You can't just go with the "she said" over the "he said" because you want to.
Again, if a woman VOLUNTARILY goes with a man to his home, or wherever to be alone with him. Gets so drunk she cannot remember what happened. She gets to claim rape if she can't remember whether she gave consent or not? You want to go with that?
You understand that in this case, the woman states "I woke up in the morning and my panties were down". She doesn't remember what happened. Who is to say wasn't cooperative because she was stone cold drunk, then gets sobered up and wants to press charges because she doesn't think she gave consent.
Rape is a very serious crime that carries a very serious penalty. Under the subjective pretense of the OP - basically any woman who wakes up with regrets - should be able to charge the man with rape. How would you prove he didn't?
That is why the law is written that way. You can't put someone in prison for a crime when the victim isn't sure it happened, just thinks it did.

Ever heard of an exam, and rape kit?

Rape kits are only useful to prove intercourse occurred, and hopefully obtain evidence to prove the guy who said he didn't have sex with her - did.
Rape kits cannot distinguish between rape and consensual sex in many cases. People have "rough" consensual sex all the time. Fast pumping, deep thrusts... with the woman yelling "harder!"... if you haven't experienced that - than you are doing it wrong.

I can assure you that my wife of 33 years has no complaints...However, back to rape kits...They do far more than determine whether or not sex occured....It is not just collecting evidence, there is a head to toe examination involved as well, which can show certain injuries if the woman was not aroused during the act, such as vaginal tearing, and so forth...

So, unless we have access to the evidence provided the jury in this man's trial, we can't say what exactly the Medical professionals opinion was concerning consent...What we do know is what the OP provided, and based on that, the man took advantage of the girl being incompasitated.....

I disagree. We don't know that.
I side with the justice philosophy that it is better a guilty person go free, than an innocent person spend years in prison for something they did not do.
We have to allow guilt assessment also.
For instance... 2 scenarios:
1) A woman get's drunk, a man forces himself on her that is verifiable by other circumstances, or evidence.
2) A woman get's drunk, voluntarily goes to his residence or where ever to be alone, passes out.. wakes up and does not remember what happened. But believes this man had sex with her while being passed out, or can't remember.

You cannot treat both circumstances as the same. One is a woman who did NOT volunteer to go with a man somewhere, one did. One remembers being raped, one does not. This is two VERY different circumstances.

My opinion on the man in the case of the OP - he is probably a douchebag. He was not nearly as drunk as she was, and most likely took advantage of her inebriation to have sex. But it is also entirely possible she gave consent, but doesn't remember. And because of that a fair system has to take into account the woman placed herself in this place voluntarily. As well as voluntarily got herself beyond just drunk... but absolutely plastered to the point she past out.

If she doesn’t remember consenting, did she possess the capacity to consent in the first place?

I hate that we are talking about a man taking advantage of a circumstance where we boil it down to blaming a woman for something when we both agree the guy was scum.

Remember a jury convicted this man.

A jury UNLAWFULLY convicted him. It is the absolute responsibility of the judge to inform the jury of the law. And, therefore, the higher court admonished the lower court is saying "you cannot simply add elements to the law". The judge should have not allowed a rape charge to get to the jury.
I agree, in a perfect world nothing like this would ever happen. But it isn't perfect. And neither is the justice system.
The higher priority is protecting the innocent. And that includes protecting assholes from being convicted of a crime that doesn't apply.
Again, there has to be an element of personal responsibility. A woman cannot posses the power to do/act in any way she wants - to the extreme - and expect others to pay for her poor decisions.
I think this guy is a douchebag. But she is an irresponsible drunk who placed herself WILLINGLY in a position of great risk with no regards of it.

The WaPo is reporting that she gained consciousness mid way through and told him she didn’t want to do that, and he continued as she passed back out...

“Khalil drove the women to a house in northern Minneapolis, prosecutors allege. The friend later testified that the woman immediately lay down on the couch and fell asleep.
When the woman woke up and saw that Khalil was allegedly raping her, she told him she didn’t want to have sex, court records say.
“But you’re so hot and you turn me on,” he allegedly replied.
The woman then lost consciousness and woke up between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. with her shorts around her ankles, she testified. She and her friend left the house in a Lyft vehicle, and the woman went to a hospital to have a rape kit done later that day. She reported the case to Minneapolis police four days later, according to court records.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/03/26/minnesota-rape-alcohol/

No one should be convicted of rape just because a woman screams rape......there must be physical evidence and even then too many innocent men go to jail cuz some whore lied.

Are all women whores?

Put it this way.....women are very sensual creatures......they actually want dick more than men want pussy. Yet they have been so brainwashed that they deny themselves the pleasures they deserve and need.

Wow...if I were you, I’d quit while you’re behind...You sound like a real gem...

 

[TheGreenHornet]

What the OP is missing here is the difference between subjective and objective.
I tend to agree, as many states do, that if a woman voluntarily gets intoxicated to a point where consent is impossible to provide or deny... that declaring rape is also no longer possible.

So when you get too drunk to say "no" or understand what is happening, it is fine for someone -- anyone -- to stick his penis in your butthole.

You sure you wanna run with that?

What you describe is rape. Of course. No one is saying it isn't.
But you have to prove a crime in order to charge someone with it. You can't just go with the "she said" over the "he said" because you want to.
Again, if a woman VOLUNTARILY goes with a man to his home, or wherever to be alone with him. Gets so drunk she cannot remember what happened. She gets to claim rape if she can't remember whether she gave consent or not? You want to go with that?
You understand that in this case, the woman states "I woke up in the morning and my panties were down". She doesn't remember what happened. Who is to say wasn't cooperative because she was stone cold drunk, then gets sobered up and wants to press charges because she doesn't think she gave consent.
Rape is a very serious crime that carries a very serious penalty. Under the subjective pretense of the OP - basically any woman who wakes up with regrets - should be able to charge the man with rape. How would you prove he didn't?
That is why the law is written that way. You can't put someone in prison for a crime when the victim isn't sure it happened, just thinks it did.

Ever heard of an exam, and rape kit?

Rape kits are only useful to prove intercourse occurred, and hopefully obtain evidence to prove the guy who said he didn't have sex with her - did.
Rape kits cannot distinguish between rape and consensual sex in many cases. People have "rough" consensual sex all the time. Fast pumping, deep thrusts... with the woman yelling "harder!"... if you haven't experienced that - than you are doing it wrong.

I can assure you that my wife of 33 years has no complaints...However, back to rape kits...They do far more than determine whether or not sex occured....It is not just collecting evidence, there is a head to toe examination involved as well, which can show certain injuries if the woman was not aroused during the act, such as vaginal tearing, and so forth...

So, unless we have access to the evidence provided the jury in this man's trial, we can't say what exactly the Medical professionals opinion was concerning consent...What we do know is what the OP provided, and based on that, the man took advantage of the girl being incompasitated.....

I disagree. We don't know that.
I side with the justice philosophy that it is better a guilty person go free, than an innocent person spend years in prison for something they did not do.
We have to allow guilt assessment also.
For instance... 2 scenarios:
1) A woman get's drunk, a man forces himself on her that is verifiable by other circumstances, or evidence.
2) A woman get's drunk, voluntarily goes to his residence or where ever to be alone, passes out.. wakes up and does not remember what happened. But believes this man had sex with her while being passed out, or can't remember.

You cannot treat both circumstances as the same. One is a woman who did NOT volunteer to go with a man somewhere, one did. One remembers being raped, one does not. This is two VERY different circumstances.

My opinion on the man in the case of the OP - he is probably a douchebag. He was not nearly as drunk as she was, and most likely took advantage of her inebriation to have sex. But it is also entirely possible she gave consent, but doesn't remember. And because of that a fair system has to take into account the woman placed herself in this place voluntarily. As well as voluntarily got herself beyond just drunk... but absolutely plastered to the point she past out.

If she doesn’t remember consenting, did she possess the capacity to consent in the first place?

I hate that we are talking about a man taking advantage of a circumstance where we boil it down to blaming a woman for something when we both agree the guy was scum.

Remember a jury convicted this man.

A jury UNLAWFULLY convicted him. It is the absolute responsibility of the judge to inform the jury of the law. And, therefore, the higher court admonished the lower court is saying "you cannot simply add elements to the law". The judge should have not allowed a rape charge to get to the jury.
I agree, in a perfect world nothing like this would ever happen. But it isn't perfect. And neither is the justice system.
The higher priority is protecting the innocent. And that includes protecting assholes from being convicted of a crime that doesn't apply.
Again, there has to be an element of personal responsibility. A woman cannot posses the power to do/act in any way she wants - to the extreme - and expect others to pay for her poor decisions.
I think this guy is a douchebag. But she is an irresponsible drunk who placed herself WILLINGLY in a position of great risk with no regards of it.

The WaPo is reporting that she gained consciousness mid way through and told him she didn’t want to do that, and he continued as she passed back out...

“Khalil drove the women to a house in northern Minneapolis, prosecutors allege. The friend later testified that the woman immediately lay down on the couch and fell asleep.
When the woman woke up and saw that Khalil was allegedly raping her, she told him she didn’t want to have sex, court records say.
“But you’re so hot and you turn me on,” he allegedly replied.
The woman then lost consciousness and woke up between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. with her shorts around her ankles, she testified. She and her friend left the house in a Lyft vehicle, and the woman went to a hospital to have a rape kit done later that day. She reported the case to Minneapolis police four days later, according to court records.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/03/26/minnesota-rape-alcohol/

No one should be convicted of rape just because a woman screams rape......there must be physical evidence and even then too many innocent men go to jail cuz some whore lied.

Are all women whores?

Put it this way.....women are very sensual creatures......they actually want dick more than men want pussy. Yet they have been so brainwashed that they deny themselves the pleasures they deserve and need.

Wow...if I were you, I’d quit while you’re behind...You sound like a real gem...

Are you a woman? or just just some feminized little boy?

 

[j-mac]

What the OP is missing here is the difference between subjective and objective.
I tend to agree, as many states do, that if a woman voluntarily gets intoxicated to a point where consent is impossible to provide or deny... that declaring rape is also no longer possible.

So when you get too drunk to say "no" or understand what is happening, it is fine for someone -- anyone -- to stick his penis in your butthole.

You sure you wanna run with that?

What you describe is rape. Of course. No one is saying it isn't.
But you have to prove a crime in order to charge someone with it. You can't just go with the "she said" over the "he said" because you want to.
Again, if a woman VOLUNTARILY goes with a man to his home, or wherever to be alone with him. Gets so drunk she cannot remember what happened. She gets to claim rape if she can't remember whether she gave consent or not? You want to go with that?
You understand that in this case, the woman states "I woke up in the morning and my panties were down". She doesn't remember what happened. Who is to say wasn't cooperative because she was stone cold drunk, then gets sobered up and wants to press charges because she doesn't think she gave consent.
Rape is a very serious crime that carries a very serious penalty. Under the subjective pretense of the OP - basically any woman who wakes up with regrets - should be able to charge the man with rape. How would you prove he didn't?
That is why the law is written that way. You can't put someone in prison for a crime when the victim isn't sure it happened, just thinks it did.

Ever heard of an exam, and rape kit?

Rape kits are only useful to prove intercourse occurred, and hopefully obtain evidence to prove the guy who said he didn't have sex with her - did.
Rape kits cannot distinguish between rape and consensual sex in many cases. People have "rough" consensual sex all the time. Fast pumping, deep thrusts... with the woman yelling "harder!"... if you haven't experienced that - than you are doing it wrong.

I can assure you that my wife of 33 years has no complaints...However, back to rape kits...They do far more than determine whether or not sex occured....It is not just collecting evidence, there is a head to toe examination involved as well, which can show certain injuries if the woman was not aroused during the act, such as vaginal tearing, and so forth...

So, unless we have access to the evidence provided the jury in this man's trial, we can't say what exactly the Medical professionals opinion was concerning consent...What we do know is what the OP provided, and based on that, the man took advantage of the girl being incompasitated.....

I disagree. We don't know that.
I side with the justice philosophy that it is better a guilty person go free, than an innocent person spend years in prison for something they did not do.
We have to allow guilt assessment also.
For instance... 2 scenarios:
1) A woman get's drunk, a man forces himself on her that is verifiable by other circumstances, or evidence.
2) A woman get's drunk, voluntarily goes to his residence or where ever to be alone, passes out.. wakes up and does not remember what happened. But believes this man had sex with her while being passed out, or can't remember.

You cannot treat both circumstances as the same. One is a woman who did NOT volunteer to go with a man somewhere, one did. One remembers being raped, one does not. This is two VERY different circumstances.

My opinion on the man in the case of the OP - he is probably a douchebag. He was not nearly as drunk as she was, and most likely took advantage of her inebriation to have sex. But it is also entirely possible she gave consent, but doesn't remember. And because of that a fair system has to take into account the woman placed herself in this place voluntarily. As well as voluntarily got herself beyond just drunk... but absolutely plastered to the point she past out.

If she doesn’t remember consenting, did she possess the capacity to consent in the first place?

I hate that we are talking about a man taking advantage of a circumstance where we boil it down to blaming a woman for something when we both agree the guy was scum.

Remember a jury convicted this man.

A jury UNLAWFULLY convicted him. It is the absolute responsibility of the judge to inform the jury of the law. And, therefore, the higher court admonished the lower court is saying "you cannot simply add elements to the law". The judge should have not allowed a rape charge to get to the jury.
I agree, in a perfect world nothing like this would ever happen. But it isn't perfect. And neither is the justice system.
The higher priority is protecting the innocent. And that includes protecting assholes from being convicted of a crime that doesn't apply.
Again, there has to be an element of personal responsibility. A woman cannot posses the power to do/act in any way she wants - to the extreme - and expect others to pay for her poor decisions.
I think this guy is a douchebag. But she is an irresponsible drunk who placed herself WILLINGLY in a position of great risk with no regards of it.

The WaPo is reporting that she gained consciousness mid way through and told him she didn’t want to do that, and he continued as she passed back out...

“Khalil drove the women to a house in northern Minneapolis, prosecutors allege. The friend later testified that the woman immediately lay down on the couch and fell asleep.
When the woman woke up and saw that Khalil was allegedly raping her, she told him she didn’t want to have sex, court records say.
“But you’re so hot and you turn me on,” he allegedly replied.
The woman then lost consciousness and woke up between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. with her shorts around her ankles, she testified. She and her friend left the house in a Lyft vehicle, and the woman went to a hospital to have a rape kit done later that day. She reported the case to Minneapolis police four days later, according to court records.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/03/26/minnesota-rape-alcohol/

No one should be convicted of rape just because a woman screams rape......there must be physical evidence and even then too many innocent men go to jail cuz some whore lied.

Are all women whores?

Put it this way.....women are very sensual creatures......they actually want dick more than men want pussy. Yet they have been so brainwashed that they deny themselves the pleasures they deserve and need.

Wow...if I were you, I’d quit while you’re behind...You sound like a real gem...

Are you a woman? or just just some feminized little boy?

Nah, just a guy having to put up with dumbasses like you...

 

[TheGreenHornet]

What the OP is missing here is the difference between subjective and objective.
I tend to agree, as many states do, that if a woman voluntarily gets intoxicated to a point where consent is impossible to provide or deny... that declaring rape is also no longer possible.

So when you get too drunk to say "no" or understand what is happening, it is fine for someone -- anyone -- to stick his penis in your butthole.

You sure you wanna run with that?

What you describe is rape. Of course. No one is saying it isn't.
But you have to prove a crime in order to charge someone with it. You can't just go with the "she said" over the "he said" because you want to.
Again, if a woman VOLUNTARILY goes with a man to his home, or wherever to be alone with him. Gets so drunk she cannot remember what happened. She gets to claim rape if she can't remember whether she gave consent or not? You want to go with that?
You understand that in this case, the woman states "I woke up in the morning and my panties were down". She doesn't remember what happened. Who is to say wasn't cooperative because she was stone cold drunk, then gets sobered up and wants to press charges because she doesn't think she gave consent.
Rape is a very serious crime that carries a very serious penalty. Under the subjective pretense of the OP - basically any woman who wakes up with regrets - should be able to charge the man with rape. How would you prove he didn't?
That is why the law is written that way. You can't put someone in prison for a crime when the victim isn't sure it happened, just thinks it did.

Ever heard of an exam, and rape kit?

Rape kits are only useful to prove intercourse occurred, and hopefully obtain evidence to prove the guy who said he didn't have sex with her - did.
Rape kits cannot distinguish between rape and consensual sex in many cases. People have "rough" consensual sex all the time. Fast pumping, deep thrusts... with the woman yelling "harder!"... if you haven't experienced that - than you are doing it wrong.

I can assure you that my wife of 33 years has no complaints...However, back to rape kits...They do far more than determine whether or not sex occured....It is not just collecting evidence, there is a head to toe examination involved as well, which can show certain injuries if the woman was not aroused during the act, such as vaginal tearing, and so forth...

So, unless we have access to the evidence provided the jury in this man's trial, we can't say what exactly the Medical professionals opinion was concerning consent...What we do know is what the OP provided, and based on that, the man took advantage of the girl being incompasitated.....

I disagree. We don't know that.
I side with the justice philosophy that it is better a guilty person go free, than an innocent person spend years in prison for something they did not do.
We have to allow guilt assessment also.
For instance... 2 scenarios:
1) A woman get's drunk, a man forces himself on her that is verifiable by other circumstances, or evidence.
2) A woman get's drunk, voluntarily goes to his residence or where ever to be alone, passes out.. wakes up and does not remember what happened. But believes this man had sex with her while being passed out, or can't remember.

You cannot treat both circumstances as the same. One is a woman who did NOT volunteer to go with a man somewhere, one did. One remembers being raped, one does not. This is two VERY different circumstances.

My opinion on the man in the case of the OP - he is probably a douchebag. He was not nearly as drunk as she was, and most likely took advantage of her inebriation to have sex. But it is also entirely possible she gave consent, but doesn't remember. And because of that a fair system has to take into account the woman placed herself in this place voluntarily. As well as voluntarily got herself beyond just drunk... but absolutely plastered to the point she past out.

If she doesn’t remember consenting, did she possess the capacity to consent in the first place?

I hate that we are talking about a man taking advantage of a circumstance where we boil it down to blaming a woman for something when we both agree the guy was scum.

Remember a jury convicted this man.

A jury UNLAWFULLY convicted him. It is the absolute responsibility of the judge to inform the jury of the law. And, therefore, the higher court admonished the lower court is saying "you cannot simply add elements to the law". The judge should have not allowed a rape charge to get to the jury.
I agree, in a perfect world nothing like this would ever happen. But it isn't perfect. And neither is the justice system.
The higher priority is protecting the innocent. And that includes protecting assholes from being convicted of a crime that doesn't apply.
Again, there has to be an element of personal responsibility. A woman cannot posses the power to do/act in any way she wants - to the extreme - and expect others to pay for her poor decisions.
I think this guy is a douchebag. But she is an irresponsible drunk who placed herself WILLINGLY in a position of great risk with no regards of it.

The WaPo is reporting that she gained consciousness mid way through and told him she didn’t want to do that, and he continued as she passed back out...

“Khalil drove the women to a house in northern Minneapolis, prosecutors allege. The friend later testified that the woman immediately lay down on the couch and fell asleep.
When the woman woke up and saw that Khalil was allegedly raping her, she told him she didn’t want to have sex, court records say.
“But you’re so hot and you turn me on,” he allegedly replied.
The woman then lost consciousness and woke up between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. with her shorts around her ankles, she testified. She and her friend left the house in a Lyft vehicle, and the woman went to a hospital to have a rape kit done later that day. She reported the case to Minneapolis police four days later, according to court records.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/03/26/minnesota-rape-alcohol/

No one should be convicted of rape just because a woman screams rape......there must be physical evidence and even then too many innocent men go to jail cuz some whore lied.

Are all women whores?

Put it this way.....women are very sensual creatures......they actually want dick more than men want pussy. Yet they have been so brainwashed that they deny themselves the pleasures they deserve and need.

Wow...if I were you, I’d quit while you’re behind...You sound like a real gem...

Are you a woman? or just just some feminized little boy?

Nah, just a guy having to put up with dumbasses like you...

Have you had much experience with women or are you one of those lily white virgins who never had sex till you got married? And....since you got married you have no had sex with anyone other than your wife?

Now if you are like that....I will not critizize you....some guys are like that and that might be a good thing....to each his own.

 

[OldLady]

Rape is rape no matter the outside circumstances. You sound like Hillary condemning the women accusing Bill.

Naw, those women were all proven liars at the time. Then they dredged them up again 20 years later and we forgot they had all been proven as liars.

Paula Jones claimed that Clinton's dick had a "distinguishing characteristic". His medical records show otherwise. Paula Jones was a liar.

Juanita Brodderick signed two affidavits saying she never had sex with Clinton. Brodderick is a liar.

Kathleen Wiley claimed Clinton groped her... but then spent the next year sending letters to the White House begging for a job. Kathleen Wiley is a liar.

See how that works. You actually look at someone's story, and if you catch them LYING, then you call them liars.

Never called Monica Lewinsky a liar. She told a consistent story and had the cum-stained dress to prove it.

Now, on to the topic at hand...

A woman gets drunk at a bar, takes 5 shots AND some pills, and then she's complaining because she woke up at some dude's house and didn't know where she was?

Are we going to require men to give women field sobriety tests before they do the deed? I mean, that would be a mood killer.

She was passed out on the couch and the guy climbed a board and did the deed with an unconscious woman who couldn't give consent because she was Passed Out. Was she pretty damned stupid for going there to begin with? Sure, but she was drunk and wanted to party some more. She didn't want to pass out and be raped.

And the rapist--what's up with him? One step up from necrophilia, just not quite as cold. Sick.

This is just plain blaming the victim again, so men can continue to stick it where they want when they want. Is this country ever going to evolve?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Rape is rape no matter the outside circumstances. You sound like Hillary condemning the women accusing Bill.

Naw, those women were all proven liars at the time. Then they dredged them up again 20 years later and we forgot they had all been proven as liars.

Paula Jones claimed that Clinton's dick had a "distinguishing characteristic". His medical records show otherwise. Paula Jones was a liar.

Juanita Brodderick signed two affidavits saying she never had sex with Clinton. Brodderick is a liar.

Kathleen Wiley claimed Clinton groped her... but then spent the next year sending letters to the White House begging for a job. Kathleen Wiley is a liar.

See how that works. You actually look at someone's story, and if you catch them LYING, then you call them liars.

Never called Monica Lewinsky a liar. She told a consistent story and had the cum-stained dress to prove it.

Now, on to the topic at hand...

A woman gets drunk at a bar, takes 5 shots AND some pills, and then she's complaining because she woke up at some dude's house and didn't know where she was?

Are we going to require men to give women field sobriety tests before they do the deed? I mean, that would be a mood killer.

She was passed out on the couch and the guy climbed a board and did the deed with an unconscious woman who couldn't give consent because she was Passed Out. Was she pretty damned stupid for going there to begin with? Sure, but she was drunk and wanted to party some more. She didn't want to pass out and be raped.

And the rapist--what's up with him? One step up from necrophilia, just not quite as cold. Sick.

This is just plain blaming the victim again, so men can continue to stick it where they want when they want. Is this country ever going to evolve?

What nonsense you spout....first of all none of us know if she was passed out or not? There is no way she can prove that claim.

Behavior has consequences....if a woman is stupid enough to get drugged up and go home with a stranger...apparantly a muslim at that....she should have known better....I certainly dont think anyone should give her much credence.

And the guy ....apparantly a muslim grew up with a culture that is very different from ours......the people that let them in here should know that people from a different culture are more apt to keep the culture they grew up in.

In other words no one should expect a muslim to have the same moral standards as white folks.

 

[OldLady]

At a

You mean that he raped against their spoken wishes.

Crepitus. You can generally assume that every man you speak to, has at several times been told "no" and then had consensual sex with that woman at a later time, often very soon after.


Your pretense otherwise, only raises the question in the mind of men, as to whether you are lying or just incredibly inexperienced and ignorant.

The exceptions will be so rare, as to be insignificant.


Try to be less of an asshole.

The asshole is you, persisting over and over when a woman has told you no. I've given in to assholes like you, just because I was tired and didn't feel like wrestling over it anymore.

Some of you are just assholes.

 

[DGS49]

Look at this from the other side of the transaction.

A woman who intentionally gets herself AFU on alcohol and/or other substances, consents to having sex, or alternatively does not "Say NO(!)" THEN CLAIMS that even though she did not object, because she was AFU she was incapable of legally consenting to sexual activity, and claims she was raped.

Biologically speaking, people of my gender are impelled to copulate, and acting like it is completely normal.

 

[pknopp]

Look at this from the other side of the transaction.

A woman who intentionally gets herself AFU on alcohol and/or other substances, consents to having sex, or alternatively does not "Say NO(!)" THEN CLAIMS that even though she did not object, because she was AFU she was incapable of legally consenting to sexual activity, and claims she was raped.

Biologically speaking, people of my gender are impelled to copulate, and acting like it is completely normal.

The article notes that she did object. Did you not read it?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

At a

You mean that he raped against their spoken wishes.

Crepitus. You can generally assume that every man you speak to, has at several times been told "no" and then had consensual sex with that woman at a later time, often very soon after.


Your pretense otherwise, only raises the question in the mind of men, as to whether you are lying or just incredibly inexperienced and ignorant.

The exceptions will be so rare, as to be insignificant.


Try to be less of an asshole.

The asshole is you, persisting over and over when a woman has told you no. I've given in to assholes like you, just because I was tired and didn't feel like wrestling over it anymore.

Some of you are just assholes.

hehheh Well you are right and it is good to see you are honest.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Look at this from the other side of the transaction.

A woman who intentionally gets herself AFU on alcohol and/or other substances, consents to having sex, or alternatively does not "Say NO(!)" THEN CLAIMS that even though she did not object, because she was AFU she was incapable of legally consenting to sexual activity, and claims she was raped.

Biologically speaking, people of my gender are impelled to copulate, and acting like it is completely normal.

The article notes that she did object. Did you not read it?

He said...she said???

Anyhow women are fickle...on sec. no......next sec. yes.

The persisten and determined guy gets the pussy the nerdy pissant goes home with a hard on and jacks off.....and dat is da way it goes boyos!

 

[Crepitus]

At a

You mean that he raped against their spoken wishes.

Crepitus. You can generally assume that every man you speak to, has at several times been told "no" and then had consensual sex with that woman at a later time, often very soon after.


Your pretense otherwise, only raises the question in the mind of men, as to whether you are lying or just incredibly inexperienced and ignorant.

The exceptions will be so rare, as to be insignificant.


Try to be less of an asshole.

The asshole is you, persisting over and over when a woman has told you no. I've given in to assholes like you, just because I was tired and didn't feel like wrestling over it anymore.

Some of you are just assholes.

hehheh Well you are right and it is good to see you are honest.

Awesome. She's honest and you're a rapist.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

At a

You mean that he raped against their spoken wishes.

Crepitus. You can generally assume that every man you speak to, has at several times been told "no" and then had consensual sex with that woman at a later time, often very soon after.


Your pretense otherwise, only raises the question in the mind of men, as to whether you are lying or just incredibly inexperienced and ignorant.

The exceptions will be so rare, as to be insignificant.


Try to be less of an asshole.

The asshole is you, persisting over and over when a woman has told you no. I've given in to assholes like you, just because I was tired and didn't feel like wrestling over it anymore.

Some of you are just assholes.

hehheh Well you are right and it is good to see you are honest.

Awesome. She's honest and you're a rapist.

and you are the guy that went home with a hard on

 

[OldLady]

The law as it stands, right now, is that a man and a woman get drunk together and have consensual sex, the woman can after the fact decide it was rape, adn the man goes to prison.


That is an injustice

That is the main point of the whole story. I dont understand why people here dont want to accept it.

Well the article is poorly written. It is does not address whether the woman gave consent or not.

Yes, she told us she was raped, which means she didn't give consent, and all she remembers is being accosted and waking up with her panties around her ankles. Obviously, if she was onboard with it, she wouldn't have pressed charges.

 

[Crepitus]

At a

You mean that he raped against their spoken wishes.

Crepitus. You can generally assume that every man you speak to, has at several times been told "no" and then had consensual sex with that woman at a later time, often very soon after.


Your pretense otherwise, only raises the question in the mind of men, as to whether you are lying or just incredibly inexperienced and ignorant.

The exceptions will be so rare, as to be insignificant.


Try to be less of an asshole.

The asshole is you, persisting over and over when a woman has told you no. I've given in to assholes like you, just because I was tired and didn't feel like wrestling over it anymore.

Some of you are just assholes.

hehheh Well you are right and it is good to see you are honest.

Awesome. She's honest and you're a rapist.

and you are the guy that went home with a hard on

A. I don't have to force myself on women, they usually come to me.
B. On the rare occasion that something like that happens I can still look at myself in the mirror the next morning.
C. If I'm wrong and god is real that one thing I won't have to try to explain.