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

[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 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?

That is just fucking stupid.
Like a dude is going to consent to getting household items shoved in his ass. Got any other equally asinine questions?

If a straight man goes to a gay man's house, knowingly and willingly. Knows the man wants to fuck his ass, goes anyway. Gets passed out drunk to the point he doesn't even remember what happened.... then yes the situation is the same. The gay man cannot be convicted of rape because the straight dude VOLUNTARILY went with him and VOLUNTARILY got passed out drunk. Knowing the man wanted to fuck him. How could a court determine whether, just maybe he wanted to experiment a little?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

So you're telling me that women are now required to view all men as skeezy sexual predators, just penises with bodies attached, because men have no obligation whatsoever to act like anything BUT skeezy penises with bodies attached? Or is it only women who drink who forfeit any legal right to expect men to know right from wrong?

This is way too far down the "Slut had it coming" road for me to accept.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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?

Non Sequitur
Every one of you are flat out IGNORING the possibility she gave consent.
The core of your conviction is based 100% on no woman lies.
Also... that alcohol doesn't affect your judgement. Or ever prevents you from remembering exactly what happened at all times while you was drunk

 

[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?

That is just fucking stupid.
Like a dude is going to consent to getting household items shoved in his ass. Got any other equally asinine questions?

If a straight man goes to a gay man's house, knowingly and willingly. Knows the man wants to fuck his ass, goes anyway. Gets passed out drunk to the point he doesn't even remember what happened.... then yes the situation is the same. The gay man cannot be convicted of rape because the straight dude VOLUNTARILY went with him and VOLUNTARILY got passed out drunk. Knowing the man wanted to fuck him. How could a court determine whether, just maybe he wanted to experiment a little?

Hey if getting drunk is consent for any sexual act then a guy getting sodomized with a broom stick counts.

 

[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.

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?

That is just fucking stupid.
Like a dude is going to consent to getting household items shoved in his ass. Got any other equally asinine questions?

If a straight man goes to a gay man's house, knowingly and willingly. Knows the man wants to fuck his ass, goes anyway. Gets passed out drunk to the point he doesn't even remember what happened.... then yes the situation is the same. The gay man cannot be convicted of rape because the straight dude VOLUNTARILY went with him and VOLUNTARILY got passed out drunk. Knowing the man wanted to fuck him. How could a court determine whether, just maybe he wanted to experiment a little?

So again, there is no onus on men to make good judgements. They are given a pass on behaving like raging balls of hormones, with permission to do whatever they want to whomever they want, because that person consented by being there in the first place?

 

[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

So you're telling me that women are now required to view all men as skeezy sexual predators, just penises with bodies attached, because men have no obligation whatsoever to act like anything BUT skeezy penises with bodies attached? Or is it only women who drink who forfeit any legal right to expect men to know right from wrong?

This is way too far down the "Slut had it coming" road for me to accept.

And once again, your entire opinion is 100% based on the premise a woman never lies. And every man lies 100% of the time if a woman says differently.
PERIOD

 

[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 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?

That is just fucking stupid.
Like a dude is going to consent to getting household items shoved in his ass. Got any other equally asinine questions?

If a straight man goes to a gay man's house, knowingly and willingly. Knows the man wants to fuck his ass, goes anyway. Gets passed out drunk to the point he doesn't even remember what happened.... then yes the situation is the same. The gay man cannot be convicted of rape because the straight dude VOLUNTARILY went with him and VOLUNTARILY got passed out drunk. Knowing the man wanted to fuck him. How could a court determine whether, just maybe he wanted to experiment a little?

Hey if getting drunk is consent for any sexual act then a guy getting sodomized with a broom stick counts.

Sorry that the argument of the law is above your level of understanding.

 

[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 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?

That is just fucking stupid.
Like a dude is going to consent to getting household items shoved in his ass. Got any other equally asinine questions?

If a straight man goes to a gay man's house, knowingly and willingly. Knows the man wants to fuck his ass, goes anyway. Gets passed out drunk to the point he doesn't even remember what happened.... then yes the situation is the same. The gay man cannot be convicted of rape because the straight dude VOLUNTARILY went with him and VOLUNTARILY got passed out drunk. Knowing the man wanted to fuck him. How could a court determine whether, just maybe he wanted to experiment a little?

So again, there is no onus on men to make good judgements. They are given a pass on behaving like raging balls of hormones, with permission to do whatever they want to whomever they want, because that person consented by being there in the first place?

And for the 3rd time your entire belief is based on a woman never lies, and men always do.
How is a court supposed to determine if a person gave consent or not, when the person was so intoxicated they cannot remember what happend? ANSWER that.

 

[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?

That is just fucking stupid.
Like a dude is going to consent to getting household items shoved in his ass. Got any other equally asinine questions?

If a straight man goes to a gay man's house, knowingly and willingly. Knows the man wants to fuck his ass, goes anyway. Gets passed out drunk to the point he doesn't even remember what happened.... then yes the situation is the same. The gay man cannot be convicted of rape because the straight dude VOLUNTARILY went with him and VOLUNTARILY got passed out drunk. Knowing the man wanted to fuck him. How could a court determine whether, just maybe he wanted to experiment a little?

Hey if getting drunk is consent for any sexual act then a guy getting sodomized with a broom stick counts.

Sorry that the argument of the law is above your level of understanding.

If being drunk negates consent then anything goes.

you can't have it both ways

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You guys are either a bunch of low brow Neanderthals - or you are simply basing your opinion on #BelieveAllWomen
You understand the entire case is not based on whether they had sex. But whether consent was given or not.
Her own court testimony is she does not remember what happened - so how the fuck are you supposed to know whether she gave consent or not???

Still not one of you will answer this.

 

[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?

Non Sequitur
Every one of you are flat out IGNORING the possibility she gave consent.
The core of your conviction is based 100% on no woman lies.
Also... that alcohol doesn't affect your judgement. Or ever prevents you from remembering exactly what happened at all times while you was drunk

No, I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying valid consent isn't possible in that condition.

Nor am I saying "no woman lies". Please indicate to me any place where I so much as implied it, or apologize for trying to force the argument on me that you WISH I was making, and delete it herewith from the conversation.

Far from saying alcohol doesn't affect your judgement, my point is that it DOES affect your judgement, and that much alcohol affects it beyond the point where you can give valid consent. And I am extremely skeptical that she could have had as much to drink as the story indicates, and that man NOT know she was too drunk to give consent.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You are all willing to send a man to years in prison - KNOWING - she might have given consent because she can't remember.
Just "fuck it" - seems like a shitty dude - so yeah... he's guilty.

 

[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.

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?

That is just fucking stupid.
Like a dude is going to consent to getting household items shoved in his ass. Got any other equally asinine questions?

If a straight man goes to a gay man's house, knowingly and willingly. Knows the man wants to fuck his ass, goes anyway. Gets passed out drunk to the point he doesn't even remember what happened.... then yes the situation is the same. The gay man cannot be convicted of rape because the straight dude VOLUNTARILY went with him and VOLUNTARILY got passed out drunk. Knowing the man wanted to fuck him. How could a court determine whether, just maybe he wanted to experiment a little?

So again, there is no onus on men to make good judgements. They are given a pass on behaving like raging balls of hormones, with permission to do whatever they want to whomever they want, because that person consented by being there in the first place?

And for the 3rd time your entire belief is based on a woman never lies, and men always do.
How is a court supposed to determine if a person gave consent or not, when the person was so intoxicated they cannot remember what happend? ANSWER that.

Didn't see the second time you made this unfounded and dishonest accusation against me, but you will provide proof NOW of me saying that, or you will offer an abject apology for attempting to decide what argument you wanted me to make, and then trying to force it onto me.

You have nothing more to say until such time as you can say it without having to shoehorn lies about me into it to make a case.

Begone.

 

[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.

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?

Aside from being monumentally foolish it has been held over and over no one consents to their own murder. It's a matter of law.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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?

Non Sequitur
Every one of you are flat out IGNORING the possibility she gave consent.
The core of your conviction is based 100% on no woman lies.
Also... that alcohol doesn't affect your judgement. Or ever prevents you from remembering exactly what happened at all times while you was drunk

No, I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying valid consent isn't possible in that condition.

Nor am I saying "no woman lies". Please indicate to me any place where I so much as implied it, or apologize for trying to force the argument on me that you WISH I was making, and delete it herewith from the conversation.

Far from saying alcohol doesn't affect your judgement, my point is that it DOES affect your judgement, and that much alcohol affects it beyond the point where you can give valid consent. And I am extremely skeptical that she could have had as much to drink as the story indicates, and that man NOT know she was too drunk to give consent.

Your entire premise implies it.
So now your opinion is if a woman is drunk - and has sex - the guy is a rapist???
Really???
How fucking stupid.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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?

You need to understand that all the States have laws on rape....you do not get to decide what the law is or isn't the various state legislatures decide that.

Do you even know what the law on rape is in the state where you live?

Irregardless....we are a nation of laws and juries must follow the law in regards to whether they convict or find not guilty.

 

[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.

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?

Aside from being monumentally foolish it has been held over and over no one consents to their own murder. It's a matter of law.

You are talking apples and oranges to begin with but in your stupid story...who claimed or would claim the killer did nothing wrong??? Have you no logic? Much less.....do you even have any common sense? There are laws against murder in all our states.

 

[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.

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?

Non Sequitur
Every one of you are flat out IGNORING the possibility she gave consent.
The core of your conviction is based 100% on no woman lies.
Also... that alcohol doesn't affect your judgement. Or ever prevents you from remembering exactly what happened at all times while you was drunk

No, I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying valid consent isn't possible in that condition.

Nor am I saying "no woman lies". Please indicate to me any place where I so much as implied it, or apologize for trying to force the argument on me that you WISH I was making, and delete it herewith from the conversation.

Far from saying alcohol doesn't affect your judgement, my point is that it DOES affect your judgement, and that much alcohol affects it beyond the point where you can give valid consent. And I am extremely skeptical that she could have had as much to drink as the story indicates, and that man NOT know she was too drunk to give consent.

She was voluntarily drunk. That was her consent. Had the guy gotten her drunk or slipped her drugs she would not be assumed to have consented.

This is what the judge ruled. The judge was correct.

 

[Blues Man]

You guys are either a bunch of low brow Neanderthals - or you are simply basing your opinion on #BelieveAllWomen
You understand the entire case is not based on whether they had sex. But whether consent was given or not.
Her own court testimony is she does not remember what happened - so how the fuck are you supposed to know whether she gave consent or not???

Still not one of you will answer this.

Exactly.

So if a guy was so drunk he doesn't remember giving consent to be fucked up the ass with a baseball bat you have to assume he did because he was too drunk to remember

 

[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.

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?

Aside from being monumentally foolish it has been held over and over no one consents to their own murder. It's a matter of law.

You are talking apples and oranges to begin with but in your stupid story...who claimed or would claim the killer did nothing wrong??? Have you no logic? Much less.....do you even have any common sense? There are laws against murder in all our states.

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?

Did you just come(no pun intended)on here and start spouting nonsense without bothering to read what has been posted? Must be the case.....anyhow you may not like the various laws on rape and all states have laws regarding rape....but the various states are the ones that make their laws not you.

Also...it is quite obvious you do not even know what the law that is being discussed on here actually is. Some women have been convicted of raping a man...and it is illegal. Rape can be of a homosexual nature and it is also illegal.

Thus you are making no sense whatsoever. Perhaps you need to read the law on rape that is being discussed on here and then come back and try and make some coherent observation. I do not think anyone will be waiting with bated breath for that to happen......where are these morons coming from?