[Zipperfish]

So drunk people cannot consent to sex? I might be in some trouble.

[andyt]

Nobody deserves to be sexually assaulted. And no means no. But my attempt at humor about signing an agreement is all the vagueness that exists in how people usually go about it. So was this woman passed out, and the other woman was just doing things to her, or was she responding, maybe even reciprocating but claiming she was too drunk to know what she was doing?

[raydan]

Guess we "might" know what really happened later, if the lawsuit goes through. One thing is sure, the police should NOT have watched what was going on, no better than sneeking around at night and looking through windows.... and NO, that wasn't me.

Either there WAS assault, but if both were drunk, who knows. Probably a lot of us here have done stuff drunk we would not have done sober... and NO, that wasn't me.

Maybe she just shamed of what she did and is trying to protect her "reputation", or what's left of it.

[Brenda]

I think the latter is probably true.
Still, the cops shouldn't have watched, shouldn't even have put them in the drunk tank together.

Andy made a good point tho. If she was too drunk to consent, the other one might have been to drunk to intent.

[Brenda]

raydan raydan:

Brenda Brenda:

Have you seen all his other posts? Either he has a fucked up sense of humour, or he is dead serious.
Both are reasons to be called on his shit

A lot of us here have a "fucked up sense of humour".

Maybe he's just off his meds.

Or drunk

[andyt]

Brenda Brenda:

I think the latter is probably true.
Still, the cops shouldn't have watched, shouldn't even have put them in the drunk tank together.

Andy made a good point tho. If she was too drunk to consent, the other one might have been to drunk to intent.

Diminished capacity is specifically excluded for men in sexual assault cases, tho it is available for defendants in murder cases. In fact I think one guy got off a drinking and driving charge because he was too drunk to realize he was drinking and driving. Go figure.

[billypilgrim]

Brenda Brenda:

raydan raydan:

Brenda Brenda:

Have you seen all his other posts? Either he has a fucked up sense of humour, or he is dead serious.
Both are reasons to be called on his shit

A lot of us here have a "fucked up sense of humour".

Maybe he's just off his meds.

Or drunk

ya, so don't mistake my disrobing as any sort of consent, brenda.


oh wait, if i this - and that- , my post will be above board.

[Brenda]

Consent to what?

[billypilgrim]

sarcasm aside (i've discovered you can't use sarcasm before you get a super duper status under your username), if she says she was too drunk to give consent, then she was too drunk to remember not giving consent. with that cancellation, the 'parting knees' and mutual engagement with the other woman certainly appears to squash any claim of sexual assault. (except for the non-disclosure vis a vis the hiv, which is another issue altogether.)

[Gunnair]

billypilgrim billypilgrim:

:roll:


sarcasm aside (i've discovered you can't use sarcasm before you get a super duper status under your username), if she says she was too drunk to give consent, then she was too drunk to remember not giving consent. with that cancellation, the 'parting knees' and mutual engagement with the other woman certainly appears to squash any claim of sexual assault. (except for the non-disclosure vis a vis the hiv, which is another issue altogether.)

Point - one that is often forgotten.

Me thinks she may not like the public attention she's getting for doing dumb things while drunk.

[Brenda]

Yeah, I already said that, in response to Raydan.

[RUEZ]

billypilgrim billypilgrim:

Brenda Brenda:

billypilgrim billypilgrim:

doesn't parting the knees imply consent?

No.

well what do you need, a bloody note from your parents?

The 1950's called, they want you back. If you even read the article you would note that the woman was too drunk to consent and she was not told the other woman was HIV positive. Think about that for awhile.

[Gunnair]

Brenda Brenda:

Yeah, I already said that, in response to Raydan.

You didn't. Your point was that the one female may have been too drunk to form intent. BillyPilgrim's point was that the victim might have been too drunk to remember giving consent.

Point is to the degree of culpability on both sides alcohol takes.

[Brenda]

$1:

Maybe she just shamed of what she did and is trying to protect her "reputation", or what's left of it.

That is what I agreed with, coming from Raydan.

$1:

Me thinks she may not like the public attention she's getting for doing dumb things while drunk.

That's the same as what you said, right?

Anyway, if "being too drunk to remember giving consent" would hold up in a court case, rapists only have to feed their victims booze till they are too drunk to remember anything (or use a little GHB) and they will never be held responsible. The victim would always be "too impaired" to remember if she gave consent or not. Slippery slope you are taking this...
And Billy whatshisface runs free with his bullshit "spreading your legs is giving consent".

[Gunnair]

Slippery slope? How so? Who's the victim? The first one to sober up and bitch? Both sides need to give consent. The only slippery slope is the sexist attitude that this only apllies to a woman. Do you think a guy might get laughed out of court if he charged that he was too drunk to have given consent to a woman?

I do.