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

[TheGreenHornet]

If a woman is raped she enjoyed it or is lying about it - right wingers

Many MANY rape victims orgasm during rape. It is a physical reaction that doesn't mean they enjoyed it. That is why the fact of orgasm is inadmissible evidence.

Well, I have heard there are such things as women having negative orgasms.....perhaps one of the girls on here can explain that.

Again the laws on rape vary from state to state....I doubt they all agree on whether orgasm is admissable or not...but they may. In fact I do not think it should be admissable....as in the woman really has no control over the orgasm....that depends on factors outside her control....how long she is fucked etc.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You need a mirror badly. Her complaint was not that she did not know where she was. No one is really denying she was raped. The argument is state law makes rape legal in this instance.

Um, actually, the guy who had sex with her was denying she was raped, and the courts agreed with him.

She was raped. The court said this type of rape was legal in Minnesota. Go rant elsewhere.

No...that is not what the law says. It says if a woman has been drinking of her own free will she cannot legally claim to be raped.

So if she gets drunk, he has the right to do whatever he wants to her? Drinking equals consent?

Give it a week, and we'll be right back to "She was asking for it by dressing that way."

 

[Cecilie1200]

If a woman is raped she enjoyed it or is lying about it - right wingers

Many MANY rape victims orgasm during rape. It is a physical reaction that doesn't mean they enjoyed it. That is why the fact of orgasm is inadmissible evidence.

Well, I have heard there are such things as women having negative orgasms.....perhaps one of the girls on here can explain that.

Again the laws on rape vary from state to state....I doubt they all agree on whether orgasm is admissable or not...but they may. In fact I do not think it should be admissable....as in the woman really has no control over the orgasm....that depends on factors outside her control....how long she is fucked etc.

Of course it shouldn't be admissable. Consent is a function of the mind; orgasm is a function of the body. If my mind has decided to say, "NO!" then it doesn't matter what my autonomic system does.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You need a mirror badly. Her complaint was not that she did not know where she was. No one is really denying she was raped. The argument is state law makes rape legal in this instance.

Because I supported Sanders you are going to defend rape. Man, it doesn't get much worse than that.

She blacked out. How does she know she did not give consent?

If she can't remember anything, she was clearly too drunk to give consent.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What is wrong in Minnesota? So many really bad stories out of Minnesota. George Floyd, Justine Damond, Philandro Castilo and now we have this. Minnesota law states that it's not rape if the person has voluntarily been drinking on their own. What kind of warped people pass such a law?

A Minnesota man can’t be charged with rape, because the woman chose to drink beforehand, court rules

I probably agree with the courts ruling.
A man should never be convicted of sexual assault based solely on one woman's word.... when she was intoxicated to the point of passing out and agreed to go with the guy.
The dude might have done it. But you cannot convict someone on "might have done it". Not when there are extenuating circumstances that greatly cause doubt.

Um, how many witnesses would you like to require to recognize a rape, given that rapes typically don't happen in public places with an audience?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wow women are second class citizens in that state. Unfortunately we women are second class citizens in too many states

You women should keep your head on your shoulders and use the brains as much as possible. If you voluntarily accept an invitation from a stranger to go to his home for a 'party', then there might be bad consequences. If you get drunk to the point you lose the conscience, then there might be bad consequences. It is as simple as that.

So I hear you saying, "I have a right to do whatever I want to you if you get drunk. You getting drunk gives me consent!"

How about, you men should keep YOUR head on your shoulders, use your brains as much as possible, and consider that "sloppy drunk" isn't a good choice for getting laid? If you follow your dick blindly, then there might be bad consequences.

If you wouldn't let her get behind the wheel of YOUR car and drive it, then she's too drunk for you to fuck.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This ruling makes sense. If you are drinking and get drunk. Then get in your car voluntarily. Then hit someone in a traffic accident, drinking voluntarily is a consensual act and murder.

If a man should get sloppy drunk and have unprotected sex with a strange woman his drunkenness is no defense to paying child support for the result. The act of drinking is consent to the result.

Women have to learn that they are responsible for themselves. They can no longer depend on the chivalry of men. The judge draws a difference between those drugged against their will and those voluntarily drunk, as he should.

I definitely agree that women should be more responsible . . . and frankly, more ladylike in general.

That being said, the correct analogy for this would be, If you get drunk then drive your car, and then SOMEONE ELSE runs a red light and hits you, does the fact that you were drunk negate the fact that he ran the red light? Because yes, she shouldn't have put herself into such a vulnerable position, but he's STILL wrong to have taken advantage of it.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

You need a mirror badly. Her complaint was not that she did not know where she was. No one is really denying she was raped. The argument is state law makes rape legal in this instance.

Because I supported Sanders you are going to defend rape. Man, it doesn't get much worse than that.

She blacked out. How does she know she did not give consent?

If she can't remember anything, she was clearly too drunk to give consent.

As in any other area of the law, the consent was given when she consented to becoming voluntarily drunk.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Now, not withstanding that the girl was drinking underage, she did 5 shots of vodka, and took a prescription pill, now what was that pill? Because depending on the drug, on top of a fair amount of liquor, in a short amout of time, I would say she passed out....And clearly they didn't "get drunk together", as the article points out she was standing outside the bar, and this guy showed up to invite her to a party.....All kinds of red flags there....

IF the woman lost consciousness and the man had sex with her without her consent, that would be rape.

Again, let's go to the article;

" She “blacked out” instead, waking up on a couch and found that the man she had just met was allegedly sexually assaulting her, according to court records. "

To my mind, the question is, was she unconscious or just not remembering?


Under current law, any drunkenness puts the man at risk for arrest, no matter how willing the woman was at the time.


That is obviously what the law in question was written to deal with.


Did she really "wake up"? Or just start remembering?

Doesn't matter. The only question is weather she had the capacity to consent, and if she was blacked out, the answer is no.

Bullshit. Drinking together followed by consensual sex is part of the normal mating rituals in our society.


Criminalizing normal behavior, is just an avenue for tyranny and oppression.

I thought we covered this. They weren't "drinking together"... According to the article the girls were outside the bar, who illegally served minors, and the guy drove up and invited them to a non existent party...

That was stupid of her, but the intent was obviously there on her part, ie to go continuing getting fucked up, now with a guy involved.

Yep, poor decision...doesn't give the guy a free pass.

Nope. But if she gave consent while appearing in control of herself, should.

Seriously, how much "in control of herself" do you honestly think she appeared?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Going to someone's house to party after you are already drunk already kind of implies consent.

Implies consent? Are you kidding? So if you go to a friend's party after being legally intoxicated at 0.08% BAC, you are implying consent for someone to stick their penis in your asshole?

The girl did not go to a friend's party. They went with a stranger who lied. To answer your question yes. Get voluntarily drunk and go off with a stranger is consent to put his penis in your asshole.

No, it really isn't. It's a piss-poor choice to make, but going somewhere with a stranger is only consent to go somewhere. It is not consent to anything else.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Um, how many witnesses would you like to require to recognize a rape, given that rapes typically don't happen in public places with an audience?

yeah... I did notice how you left out the part I said "when the person is so intoxicated they can't remember what happened".
Kind of a key point you so easily dismissed.

 

[Ben Thomson]

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.

You need a mirror badly. Her complaint was not that she did not know where she was. No one is really denying she was raped. The argument is state law makes rape legal in this instance.

Because I supported Sanders you are going to defend rape. Man, it doesn't get much worse than that.

She blacked out. How does she know she did not give consent?

If she can't remember anything, she was clearly too drunk to give consent.

As in any other area of the law, the consent was given when she consented to becoming voluntarily drunk.

Wonder if men would object to being 'corn holed' while passed out??

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Going to someone's house to party after you are already drunk already kind of implies consent.

Implies consent? Are you kidding? So if you go to a friend's party after being legally intoxicated at 0.08% BAC, you are implying consent for someone to stick their penis in your asshole?

The girl did not go to a friend's party. They went with a stranger who lied. To answer your question yes. Get voluntarily drunk and go off with a stranger is consent to put his penis in your asshole.

No, it really isn't. It's a piss-poor choice to make, but going somewhere with a stranger is only consent to go somewhere. It is not consent to anything else.

Once again, you are dismissing the fact that - in court - her testimony is that she woke up around 8am and noticed her panties were off.
Indicating she does not remember what happened.
THERE ARE TWO POSSIBILITIES HERE - not just one.
1) He is a dirt bag piece of shit, that indeed had sex with her while she was passed out. GUILTY
2) She was receptive to his advances, he took that as a yes, she never said no... and he fucked her. NOT GUILTY.

NOW - tell me how in the world are you supposed to know which is true?
Which is exactly why the law states a person who is so intoxicated that determining consent is impossible, you can't charge rape because there is no way for the person to know if they gave consent or not.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This ruling makes sense. If you are drinking and get drunk. Then get in your car voluntarily. Then hit someone in a traffic accident, drinking voluntarily is a consensual act and murder.

If a man should get sloppy drunk and have unprotected sex with a strange woman his drunkenness is no defense to paying child support for the result. The act of drinking is consent to the result.

Women have to learn that they are responsible for themselves. They can no longer depend on the chivalry of men. The judge draws a difference between those drugged against their will and those voluntarily drunk, as he should.

While I definitely agree that women should be more responsible . . . and frankly, more ladylike in general.

That being said, the correct analogy for this would be, If you get drunk then drive your car, and then SOMEONE ELSE runs a red light and hits you, does the fact that you were drunk negate the fact that he ran the red light? Because yes, she shouldn't have put herself into such a vulnerable position, but he's STILL wrong to have taken advantage of it.

In one case a person gets rip roaring drunk and hits another car killing driver and passenger.

In the instance you envision someone gets rip roaring drunk and drives their care normally and lawfully. Someone else driving erratically runs a red light and hits the drunk's car.

The sobriety of the victim did not contribute to the accident. You do see that? The accident would have happened whether or not the victim was drunk.

You should see that your analogy wasn't correct at all.

The man in this case was morally wrong. He should have been a gentleman and not taken advantage. But ungentlemanly men are always foreseeable. Unwanted sex is a foreseeable risk that women take when drink to blackout. If they voluntarily get that level of drunk they have assumed the risk of ungentlemanly men taking advantage of them. The judge was correct.

 

[Leo123]

OK so, the guy's name is Khalil. A Muslim name. In that religion women are often abused as a matter of course and even have their genitals mangled so they don't enjoy sex. A falling-down drunk woman would be perfect for such a guy.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

OK so, the guy's name is Khalil. A Muslim name. In that religion women are often abused as a matter of course and even have their genitals mangled so they don't enjoy sex. A falling-down drunk woman would be perfect for such a guy.

The irony of a person with "don't feed the trolls" as a signature. Posting this.

 

[Ben Thomson]

Going to someone's house to party after you are already drunk already kind of implies consent.

Implies consent? Are you kidding? So if you go to a friend's party after being legally intoxicated at 0.08% BAC, you are implying consent for someone to stick their penis in your asshole?

The girl did not go to a friend's party. They went with a stranger who lied. To answer your question yes. Get voluntarily drunk and go off with a stranger is consent to put his penis in your asshole.

No, it really isn't. It's a piss-poor choice to make, but going somewhere with a stranger is only consent to go somewhere. It is not consent to anything else.

Once again, you are dismissing the fact that - in court - her testimony is that she woke up around 8am and noticed her panties were off.
Indicating she does not remember what happened.
THERE ARE TWO POSSIBILITIES HERE - not just one.
1) He is a dirt bag piece of shit, that indeed had sex with her while she was passed out. GUILTY
2) She was receptive to his advances, he took that as a yes, she never said no... and he fucked her. NOT GUILTY.

NOW - tell me how in the world are you supposed to know which is true?
Which is exactly why the law states a person who is so intoxicated that determining consent is impossible, you can't charge rape because there is no way for the court to determine if consent was given or not, because they person cannot remember what happened.

In other words, if your a sexual predator with every intent of raping the woman your going out with, you have an excellent chance of getting away with rape if you can get her drunk?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

In other words, if your a sexual predator with every intent of raping the woman your going out with, you have an excellent chance of getting away with rape if you can get her drunk?

No.
In other words, if you are a woman who has no intention of having sex with this person. You don't go with them and voluntarily get so drunk you pass out and can't remember the night.
He did not give her any alcohol. Not one drop. She was already drunk.

I am not saying this dude is a good guy. He isn't it. He is a dirt bag. He absolutely was hoping she was drunk enough she would agree to sex. That makes him a piece of shit. But that doesn't make him a rapist.

- ANNND - yes I noticed how you didn;t answer the question

 

[Blues Man]

Going to someone's house to party after you are already drunk already kind of implies consent.

Implies consent? Are you kidding? So if you go to a friend's party after being legally intoxicated at 0.08% BAC, you are implying consent for someone to stick their penis in your asshole?

The girl did not go to a friend's party. They went with a stranger who lied. To answer your question yes. Get voluntarily drunk and go off with a stranger is consent to put his penis in your asshole.

No, it really isn't. It's a piss-poor choice to make, but going somewhere with a stranger is only consent to go somewhere. It is not consent to anything else.

Once again, you are dismissing the fact that - in court - her testimony is that she woke up around 8am and noticed her panties were off.
Indicating she does not remember what happened.
THERE ARE TWO POSSIBILITIES HERE - not just one.
1) He is a dirt bag piece of shit, that indeed had sex with her while she was passed out. GUILTY
2) She was receptive to his advances, he took that as a yes, she never said no... and he fucked her. NOT GUILTY.

NOW - tell me how in the world are you supposed to know which is true?
Which is exactly why the law states a person who is so intoxicated that determining consent is impossible, you can't charge rape because there is no way for the court to determine if consent was given or not, because they person cannot remember what happened.

In other words, if your a sexual predator with every intent of raping the woman your going out with, you have an excellent chance of getting away with rape if you can get her drunk?

exactly.

If a woman gets a man drunk then sodomizes him with household objects then it's not illegal right?

OR

If a homosexual gets as straight guy drunk then performs anal sex on him it's not illegal right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You need a mirror badly. Her complaint was not that she did not know where she was. No one is really denying she was raped. The argument is state law makes rape legal in this instance.

Because I supported Sanders you are going to defend rape. Man, it doesn't get much worse than that.

She blacked out. How does she know she did not give consent?

If she can't remember anything, she was clearly too drunk to give consent.

As in any other area of the law, the consent was given when she consented to becoming voluntarily drunk.

No, it wasn't. Getting drunk is NOT consent to anything except being drunk.

Let me put it this way. Let's say my car runs out of gas some night, and I'm walking from my car to the gas station. Guy pulls up next to me and offers to drive me to the gas station. I agree and get into the car (something I would never actually do, just so you know). He turns out to be a serial killer, and instead of taking me to the gas station, he takes me to his house and kills me, then cuts me up and buries me under his garage.

Now, I very clearly made a bad choice that put me in a vulnerable position and led to my death. Did I consent to being killed and dismembered, though? Does it mean that Mr. Serial Killer did nothing wrong by killing me and dismembering me, because I "consented" to it by getting into his car, and by letting my own car get that low on gas in the first place?