Really? Drunk enough to want desperately to be fucked by any reasonably attractive man with a hard cock is pretty drunk, but it’s not passed out drunk. You’re dialing down male rape into the territory of hooking up with drunk, horny females for opportunistic hookups when the bars close.
Doesn’t matter if it was or not all she has to do is say she was raped and if she goes to the cops with that, he’ll have to prove it wasn’t.
I figured this out in one go and detect no real grammatical issues in the OP. No diss, but perhaps the issue lies with you?
Yes, really. See links in post #13, written by a criminal lawyer with experience both prosecuting and defending.
God I hate this stupid argument. It completely absolves the drinker of any personal responsibility because they were drunk.
By this logic, we should stop prosecuting drunk drivers because their judgement was too impaired to make the rational decision not to drive.
Too drunk to know the difference is rape. Too drunk to care isn’t.
You beat me to it. Someone might be too drunk to care when they’re stone cold sober. Or if not, it might take them a few drinks, but hardly to the point where they’re “mentally incapacitated or physically helpless,” per Peter Morris’ link, to get to the point of saying “what the hell, I’ll do him/her if they’re willing.”
Yes, it was part of the OP, right here:
And I maintain that that’s bullshit.
Missed that, but I’ve read the OP three time and am still not sure I follow all the logic and events.
it would depend on how much “Joey” went out of his way to be deceptive.
The car doesn’t fucking grab you, pull you into the driver’s seat, force you to put the key in the ignition, and keep telling you to drive a little farther. The car is not a human being. As such, the drunk driver is the only person making a decision, and is not utterly subject to the actions being made by another person making rational decisions.
Hope that helps. Let me know if there’s any other stupid arguments your brain is too powerful to grasp.
What if he was too drunk to tell the difference or too drunk to care, was he raped?
They need a leg up on “rape culture” /s
You should take a gander what’s considered harassment now.
Thats my view. She had an affair, got caught, and is now claiming rape. Did anyone see Denise and Joey together in the light or were they in a dark room the whole time? I have a hard time believing she wouldn’t know she was with someone else.
It’s really simple:
- Woman sleeps with man who is not her husband
- Husband finds out
- Big scene
- Woman claims she thought it was her husband
You mean like morphing into an exact clone of her husband?
Right.
Do you get the impression that the lady in the OP was pinned down and held against her will? Because that’s the conversation we’re having here.
I don’t know what the fuck you’re on about.
You don’t know what the fuck you’re on about. Do you remember responding to Peter Morris? Do you remember what Peter Morris said?
Or did you move on to string theory so quickly that irrelevant details - like what the conversation you popped up in the midst of to call things stupid was even about - slipped your mind?
“If she was too drunk to tell the difference, that’s rape” is the “stupid argument.” I know it’s hard for you to slum it like this, but again I hope this helps.
She willingly fucked the guy. Even if I accept her story at face value, the fact that she was too drunk to tell the difference is on her. As long as she was coherent enough to reciprocate during sexual intercourse, she has to accept responsibility for her actions. The guy in the story is no saint either but he’s hardly guilty of a crime.
Should’ve just said that up front, then. If what you mean is “fuck her, I’ve decided what was in her mind and what happened and who we should all blame for what,” then at least people know what you mean now.
It seems like maybe you don’t understand the question the OP wanted an answer to, what Peter Morris said in response to that, what I said about that, or even really what you said in response to Peter Morris. But at least now it’s clear that what you’re trying to say is you know what happened, and it’s not important to you what the law actually is or what it does and doesn’t apply to, because you want to make sure she accepts “responsibility.”
Now we can all move on with our lives without these stupid arguments getting in the way.
No, again, I’m saying that even if I accept the girls story as true (which I don’t), the act of rape was not committed. That’s the answer the OP wanted the answer to.
And yes, I’m a big fan of personal responsibility. Too bad you aren’t.
Stepping past the recent tit-for-tat unpleasantness in the thread …
**Peter Morris **has helpfully provided a link to a general flowchart. Which may or may not correspond to Texas law. It certainly uses more generic colloquial language than any actual code law and case law precedents would.
If we follow the chart, we get to two (and a half) questions of fact. For which as far as I can tell, the OP hasn’t provided in any post the factual answer to the factual questions. We can each guess what he & she would say now was the factual case then. But we don’t know. And *knowing *is the basis for deciding if it was rape or not. I think a few folks upthread have decided they know. IMO they don’t really know.
The two and a half questions are (bolding in original):
“Were you mentally **unable **to agree to have sex? (unconscious, drugged, mentally disabled)”
“Was it obvious that you were in no state to agree to anything?” &
“Still, did the other person **know **you were out of it?”
And even though these questions seem pretty binary, they still require judgment calls: how far down from fully able through partially able is unable? How obvious is obvious enough? How knowing is knowing enough? How out of it is out of it enough?
This is where triers of fact make the big bucks.
tldr: This does not appear to me to be the open and shut case some people seem to think it is.