Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AngelicVampire
Indeed, however if someone "consents" to something while drunk they are still responsible for their actions. While not truly related imagine applying the "drunken consent != consent" rule to say drunk driving, a drunk is excused of the offense because they were drunk? No they are assumed to have sense and probably convicted of DUI and whatever else... Its your choice to drink yourself to that level (not including stuff like rohepynol here), if you don't want the loss of control don't drink. I think that if we open up "drunk excuses lack of awareness" then we start to open floodgates.
|
If a traveling salesman comes up to you when you're hammered and sells you a new car...do you honestly think a court is going to uphold that contract? The DUI example is just plain non-sense in this situation. A person who goes to a party does not expect to have to make legally binding choices (like driving a car). Nor do they expect that people will make choices for them, such as raping them.
Quote:
|
Yes it is silly, however I can see the scenario, good looking woman, scanty dress, you go over and try your luck, she lets you buy her a few drinks, you have some yourself... things look to be going well and you are setting up a great night then she says no, lets just go our separate ways. In some cases this is probably a lot like teasing a dog, they guy was buying rounds etc and being nice for 1 purpose (in his mind), she went along with the idea then turned around and said no... I can see where it comes from even if this does not excuse it.
|
You are excusing it. And that's despicable. Unless you're dating a whore, NOBODY has any right to expect sex in return for drinks, money, gifts, or any other form of compensation. Forcing sex with a "tease" isn't a contract dispute, it's rape.
Quote:
|
As for the underwear I could see it being relevant, if she suggested forced entry, attack etc however a fine pair of lace underwear or something is in perfect condition then something may be going on, again the particulars aren't included however it may be relevant and as the article says the courts don't want to get it wrong so allowing an appeal because that drags the woman through the whole situation again.
|
A story often told. A policeman/prosecutor, whatever told a woman he didn't believe that a woman could be raped if she fought back. He gave her a nightstick, and held a coffee cup out. Told her to place the stick in the cup. She tried to do so, and he moved the cup away. He says "See? If you'd really fought back, you wouldn't have gotten raped."
She slams the nightstick down on his hand, making him drop the cup. He cusses and whines in pain, and she takes the nightstick, and inserts it in to the dropped cup. She answers back: "See. It is that easy."
Rape isn't just the act of sex that's unwanted. It's the physical, chemical, or psychological coercion that takes place to remove a person's choice to consent to sex. The sex itself does not have to be violent to qualify as rape. Expecting fine lace underwear to "indicate" a rape or consensual sex is baloney.