Sometimes you see a thread title and know who the OP before you click the link. Congrats, dalej42. You have graduated to being a ‘wow, this guy hates women’ one trick pony. A gift exchange is traditional, I believe. blindboyard will mail you a neckbeard if you mail him a Florida State jersey. You pick the message on the back. ‘The bitch asked for it’ is apropos but “Gold Digger” will be cheaper and it’s kind of become your catchphrase.
Nobody should fuck him in anything.
That’s not what a rape shield is. A rape shield law prevents the defence counsel from bring up irrelevant bits of the victim’s sexual history in court to try and discredit her or pain her as a slut in the jury’s mind. At least in the US there’s no law preventing media outlets from reporting the alleged victim’s name. Also in the American legal system the victim isn’t actually a party to the criminal case, nor to they get to make a decision whether to prosecute or not.
Right. Media outlets do that out of a sense of responsibility - not something I think the OP is familiar with. dalej42 doesn’t really give a shit about anything except making sure his favorite jocks get to play football.
I take that back; it’s not just about making sure the players don’t get suspended. It’s about making sure women know these men are superior to them. They’d better not protest or refuse to give these men anything they want. You can see where this has nothing to do with dalej42’s limp dicked feelings of inferiority.
nvm.
Does anyone care to explain what this law actually changes? Or is this just a beat-up-on-dalej42 thread? If the latter, carry on.
See below.
Personal story. I was dating a woman in college who was in her mind a virgin as a penis had never been in her vagina. Plenty of other fun activities had gone on though. (She had a religious upbringing and had a hard time reconciling what felt good and what she was “allowed” to do.) We go out to a party and both drink quite a bit. With loosened inhibitions we came back to her dorm room. She initiated foreplay and things advanced to the point where she literally begged for sex. I mean several minutes of actual cock-grabbing, “put that thing in here” begging.
Thankfully, though I had had at least as much to drink as she did, I had the wherewithal to know she would regret it and stayed with the activities I knew she was OK with to bring her to orgasm and we passed out for the night. Next morning she lets me know in no uncertain terms that if we had had sex the night before she would have brought rape charges. Based on later relationships this woman had, I am quite certain she was telling the truth.
So, I did the right thing, but I honestly do not think most men would have the self control in that situation to do the same. I also don’t think they should be expected to. If a man and woman are both drunk and the woman initiates, or even just agrees, why is there an inherent assumption it would be the man who was the rapist if one or both of them regret it later? If neither person was legally able to give consent, how can one be charged with a crime for not getting (sober) consent?
As to why a woman might press rape charges over regretted sex, perhaps she has her self image tied up with a certain set of behaviors and cannot reconcile that with her actions. Therefore, to still be able to think of herself as the good girl she envisions, she needs to blame someone else for what happened. That seems to be what was going on with my ex.
Note I am not saying this is in any way common, just that I am certain that it does occasionally happen.
Yeah, what a draconian law, messing with my freedom to have sex with sleeping and incapacitated chicks. Fucking fascists.
Yeah, this situation just sucks. On one hand, I think these laws are, in theory, bogus. Facing rape charges because I had sex with a girl who clearly wanted it, consented, and maybe even initiated the encounter, because she was drunk? “I was drunk” doesn’t get you out of the responsibility for virtually anything else you do. Hell, even contractual obligations aren’t generally voided unless you can show that you were so drunk as to be completely incapable of understanding the nature of the contract. It really sucks for anyone who has sex with a woman who consents, then later claims she was intoxicated. I feel very little sympathy for women who made choices while drunk that they wouldn’t have made sober (not to be confused with what I’m talking about in the second paragraph), and a lot of sympathy for those who suffer due to laws like this.
That said… That group is tiny, and date rape is a very real thing. It’s like when it comes to prosecuting rape/molestation and taking the woman’s/child’s word for it - false accusations of rape/molestation are statistically negligible (they happen, just so rarely that when they do, it tends to make the news); meanwhile, rape is only prosecuted in something like 4% of all cases. Yeah, these kinds of laws can lead to some very unfair cases. But the current standard is even more unfair. And as much as this type of “unfair” sex-based treatment busts my chaps, at some point you have to face reality - when the disparity between “unprosecuted rape cases” and “false allegations of rape” is this severe, this kind of law, sexist as it may be, is absolutely warranted.
(On a side note, this is why I always keep a tape recorder on my bedside for one-night stands. Not that this has been relevant for around 2 years, but just sayin’.)
I’m not sure how often accusations of false rape happens but it does happen.
Look, if a girl consents to sex while drunk, she has to own up to that. If a person is held culpable for driving while drunk, then a person should also be held culpable for sex while drunk.
And for the record: I don’t believe passed out drunk equals consent.
I agree, even sven. Sonsabitches, what is this world coming to?!? 
I may never have any progeny now.
So wait a minute… if a man has regrets, he better not bring it to the fore-front due to tarnishing his image? But if a woman does it, it’s potential rape?
I don’t know what “The Brick” award is.
BTW, I think the OP is a jerk.
I think what sometimes happens is that a woman might have a boyfriend and although she actually did want sex the night before when she was out at that party, the next morning in the sober light of day she has major regrets because she cheated.
I know I’ve once had a married woman I met take me to bed at an out of town conference. She didn’t share the fact that she was married and seduced me. Then the next day she felt like shit. As did I, for being part of making her feel like shit.
Why would you feel like shit for her? She DIDN’T TELL YOU. If you should feel like shit, it should be for her SO and not her. I was once in a similar situation, but we didn’t have sex. I threatened to tell her SO myself if she didn’t leave me alone. I DID feel like shit, but not for her. I’m NOT a cheater and I don’t want to be a part of someone else cheating on their SO.
I’d say that rather than “regrets” -
It’s errors of judgement on both parts, things that wouldn’t normally have been done that then turn into rape.
The only thing I notice is that you being drunk is no excuse for not being able to tell that the other person was too drunk to consent.
I also note that a lack of response cannot be considered consent, but I think that was the case already.
I don’t know why everyone else is going on about drunk responsibility, when that hasn’t changed for the victim. It’s still “is she intoxicated enough that she can’t understand what’s going on?” That’s just as vague as before.
I’m also not sure why people are talking about contracts, as they would be unenforceable. The law says you must have continual consent. Any point where consent is taken way, it’s over.
The whole thing just seems to be a law that says that colleges have to now have rape policies that agree with the law, and are affirmative consent based, which just means you can’t assume consent from lack of response.
I actually am curious why people think this is a bad law.
As someone pointed out, this sort of law makes a theoretical and legal difference, but does it make a practical difference?
It’s still going to come down to one person’s word against another person’s word, isn’t it? One person will claim the other person said “yes.” The other person will claim they did not say “yes.” Isn’t the prosecution, in a certain sense, still back to Square One?
I don’t think it’s a bad law. So far as I can tell, it’s mostly the OP who does.
It doesn’t take two people to drive a car. It does only take one person to take advantage of a bollocksed drunk other person (though sometimes more than one do…)
The text of the law states :
Note B. That’s not just “she had a few”. It’s not “made a rash, drunken decision” either. It’s “could hardly form a coherent thought”.
So I seriously don’t understand the opposition to the law. It’s pretty simple : don’t fuck dead people. Don’t fuck passed out people. Don’t fuck dead drunk people. You only get to fuck people who actually *want *to fuck you right back. And say so.
Dura lex, sed lex. Also how you should behave without there even needing to be a law in the first place, you fukken animals !
But who will speak for the poor horny guys who like to have sex with drunk girls? What about them?!? Without inebriated girls, who are these guys supposed to penetrate?