internet porn reduces rape

This post got me thinking about something and I'd like everyone's input on it. Suppose a female is so inebriated so as to not make rationale decisions. Suppose the male was banking on this opportunity, but she did consent. Now, she wakes up the next morning completely surprised to be in bed with this, (in her mind), total stranger. Lets say she throws a big stink and decides to press charges against him as she claims that he gave her a sedative.At what point does consent not really comply with consent? Can she file a legitimate motion against him or is it her responsibility not to get so smashed that she makes poor decisions?I have another scenario. Suppose two people meet at a bar or whatever, and they hit it off. They both consent to having sex and do so in the course of the night. Now, it was a one-night-stand and neither of them have spoken to other in a week. Suppose one of the gave the other AIDS. Was it the right of the person with AIDS to mention that information, or is it, so sorry, maybe you should take sex a little more seriously for this very reason? Can the person who contracted the disease file for damages? How do you think the courts would recognize this?Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

no, henry kissinger's presence itself constitutes rape.

---

You're contradicting yourself. Was she so inebriated as to not make rational decisions, or did she consent?It can't be both. When one's judgement is so impared as to make assertions of consent meaningless. Seems pretty simple to me. Ah, right. Sluts have to be punished, after all. Yes. Failure to disclose known AIDS status is a crime.

you're so sexy when you talk like that <3

having sex with someone when you know you have aids and you fail to inform them of this will incur a murder trial for the offender.if i eat food that you've chosen to dishonestly poison, does this mean it is my fault for not eating more seriously, or is this a case in which you committed a crime against me with your dishonesty?i love how your moral system claims that it's more important for me to not fuck than for anyone to be a decent human being. consent under the influence of alcohol or drugs is not consent. this does not mean she will charge you, but she can and she will win. i would suggest that a man take responsibility and try to obtain sex, you know, honestly. god fucking forbid.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

Thanks, I guess. But it's just ridiculous. I've lost track of how many guys ask things like this, looking for a safe legal loophole to rape a woman. It's gross.Look, if you have sex with a woman who didn't consent, you raped her. Period. When she comes to, and realizes how she's been violated, what? It's gonna be all better for her because you had some kind of letter-of-the-law rationalization?If you don't want to be a rapist, don't rape women. It's really that simple.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Quite.This was established by the War Crimes Tribunal in the Haight-Ashbury.I was there.

---

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799) Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

even consensual sex can be violating if the guy isn't concerned enough with your pleasure. i found this out the hard way, recently. it bothers me, but i'm not going to cause shit. i'm just going to be smarter.however, some women aren't so lucky and the lack of interest in pleasure magnifies to a lack of interest in consent.it's good to see some decency in the world. it's a nasty place out there for women who don't let their daddies sell them off to the highest bidder before puberty and actually have to make their own choices.

Ah, Crash--maybe only a little with himself? Still, I hear no other male voice here so ardently feminist--and ardent feminism is the only appropriate choice for a man strong enough to love a strong woman.Our best hope as a species is the rational acceptance of gender-free participation in all fields. Women ARE different--a patriarchal society is a distortion. Only the full synthesis will save us.I've been convinced of that for almost 40 years, and I've rarely met the man who can see it.I'd offer you a POTM, but I'd rather just tip my hat.Well done.

---

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799) Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Alright, perhaps I worded it wrong. What constitutes consent and what constitutes the inability to make rationale decisions. Obviously everyone handles alcohol differently, so using measurements won't work. Where, then, is the line drawn in the sand from a legal POV?

quote:

---

At what point does consent not really comply with consent?

---

How is that simple? A person stammering and stumbling over themselves would be a clear indication to me. But again, everyone handles alcohol differently. Also, is it impossible that both people are drunk and neither of them can make good decisions? What should happen to them? Do they cancel each other out?

quote:

---

Was it the right of the person with AIDS to mention that information, or is it, so sorry, maybe you should take sex a little more seriously for this very reason?

---

Punished by whom?

quote:

---

Can the person who contracted the disease file for damages?

---

I'm assuming that's all depending on the state, though I can't imagine a state that wouldn't have a similar law. Alright, what if it was a non-lethal STD? Let's say you ask your partner right before if they are clean and they tell you yes. If that person knows they do have an STD, can the other person file a motion against them?

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

Good point. If the person doesn;t know he has AIDS and gives it to his partner, can he go in for manslaughter? Excuse me? I asked a simple question that has NOTHING to do with my personal beliefs. Its a 'what if' scenario from a legal perspective. Aside from which, 'my moral system' says nothing about that.How did I get so lucky to get the two firebrands answering me and no one else?

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

Dunno; I'm not a lawyer.But it seems to me that if you're sitting there, wondering how how you have to game her drinking to get her in the sack without rendering consent meaningless, you're doing the wrong thing. Missing the point, as it were.

quote:

---

Still, I hear no other male voice here so ardently feminist--and ardent feminism is the only appropriate choice for a man strong enough to love a strong woman.

---

That's how come brenna and I think you and crash are so sexy.

From a moral point-of-view I find it rather reprehensible to try and get people drunk to sexually take advantage of them. But I was looking more at this scenario, wondering, if someone is for the most part a stand-up guy/gal and they both were trashed and neither of them could make good decisions. Do they cancel each other out?

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

The court would have to decide if a rape occured. But surely you have to recognize that, if a woman comes out of that experience victimized, surely more occured than simply two people fooling around. With the extent to which we re-victimize rape victims in our legal system, the idea that a woman would emerge from such an experience and think it was a good idea to fabricate a rape charge is mythical, ridiculous. The reason that only about 20% of rapes are reported - not to even mention how few are prosecuted - is that the victim gets raked over the coals, her life turned inside out for just the slightest hint that she's ever drank alcohol, or ever had sex except in the most chaste, mainstream way, or was dressed in anything but sackcloth.I don't know what you mean by "stand-up guy." I don't see what that has to do with rape. If you're under the mistaken impression that rape, being a monstrous crime, is something only a monster is capable of, you're quite wrong. The simple fact is that even "stand-up guys" rape women. Rapists have friends, jobs, spouses and girlfriends even. I'm sure you know a few rapists. Just think about that. Some of your closest friends are probably rapists. There's simply too many men raping women for that not to be true.Crimes don't get canceled out simply because the criminal is a "stand-up guy." Rape doesn't simply evaporate because you were too drunk to be in control of your actions. If a woman comes out of that victimized, the fact that you were drunk when you were raping her - the fact that you told yourself you had her consent - is irrelevant. Why on Earth would you expect that to matter?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.