Only Six Months For Rape?

[oOh Nasty]

There's an infestation of white knights registering on the DJ Forums as of late.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Morale of the story, if you're caught fvcking a girl, or in the process, then don't run away.

Moral of the story is don't bang chicks that are half passed out. Doesn't matter if that's consensual or not, it's just asking for trouble. Certainly don't be an idiot and bang her behind a dumpster. He should get six months for the fondling, and six years for being a fvckign retard.

As for the girl? Getting hammered at a frat house of a school you're not a student of isn't exactly the smartest behavior. Lucky for her she "softened up" any jury by going online and talking about how her "innocence" was "stolen" from her.

Pro Tip:

If you want to keep your "innocence," don't get passed out drunk in frat house with a bunch of idiotic horny dudes.

Jesus Christ people are morons.

 

[Serenity]

Ok, so when the woman is too drunk to be aware, she is a victim....when the man is too drunk to be aware, he is still guilty?

Depends on who does what. If the swimmer was laying passively on the ground and the girl was actively doing something sexual to him, then she would be guilty. However, in this case it's opposite, he's active and she's passive. He's aware enough to perform sexual actions, she's not aware enough to resist, participate, give consent or know what's even happening.

So yes, he's guilty.

 

[oOh Nasty]

Two idiots getting what they deserve. Girls rarely blame themselves for deciding to keep drinking past the point of consciousness.

 

[Serenity]

In this case yes, but what if both were too drunk to be aware, but both awake?

The active and passive part still applies. If they're both actively participating, then there is nothing to make a case of and it's not rape. If one of them are active and the other passive (yet still awake, but without a clear sign of consent and didn't really want it) then the active participant have committed rape or sexual assault, given the passive participant did not want it but was too drunk to express it.

Obviously if both were passive nothing would happen at all. What makes it rape or sexual assault is the imbalance where one of them wants it and the other doesn't, that's what I consider to be the core point about what makes it wrong.

There is one other possibility which is very very common. That's when there's one active and one passive person, but the passive person have nothing against it when they do figure out what happened. Like you wake up, figure out you had sex last night, can't remember wanting it but decide it's fine. Meaning nothing more will come from it, because nobody has a problem with it.

 

[Serenity]

Two idiots getting what they deserve. Girls rarely blame themselves for deciding to keep drinking past the point of consciousness.

Incorrect, they often blame themselves a lot for what someone else did to them. They think "what if", like if they just didn't drink that much, if they just didn't go at all, if they just didn't talk to that guy. Is it right that they should restrict their lives because someone else will take advantage of it? Or is it right that other people shouldn't violate their lives so they can live freely and feel safe? What kind of society would you like to live in? One where people have to restrict their lives because we allow people to do whatever the fvck? Or one where we weed out those few so the rest of us can live with a higher degree of freedom and safety?

Have you ever been so drunk you can't remember what happened? If yes, how would you feel about waking up with a sore a55hole because someone fvcked you while you were unconscious? By what you're saying you would blame yourself for drinking too much, and not the idiot who didn't care about whether you actually wanted a d!ck in your a55 or not.

 

[LiveFreeX]

Incorrect, they often blame themselves a lot for what someone else did to them.

 

[Serenity]

@LiveFreeX Present some real arguments you fvcking idiot. Saying "everything that guy says is bullsh!t" is just a statement. It doesn't mean sh!t if you can't explain how it's bullsh!t.

If you cannot provide such explanation. I will assume you have no counter argument and are just raging like the fat, ugly pathetic f4ggot of a keyboard jockey you truly are. And it's of course true because I say so, obviously without doubt. Anyone who does not agree with me are fvcking idiots whose mothers should have had an abortion. Everything you have to say against the objectively true fact that you're a piece of sh!t is of course complete bullsh!t. Because I'm right, because I say so on an internet forum.

 

[LiveFreeX]

@LiveFreeX Present some real arguments you fvcking idiot. Saying "everything that guy says is bullsh!t" is just a statement. It doesn't mean sh!t if you can't explain how it's bullsh!t.

If you cannot provide such explanation. I will assume you have no counter argument and are just raging like the fat, ugly pathetic f4ggot of a keyboard jockey you truly are. And it's of course true because I say so, obviously without doubt. Anyone who does not agree with me are fvcking idiots whose mothers should have had an abortion. Everything you have to say against the objectively true fact that you're a piece of sh!t is of course complete bullsh!t. Because I'm right, because I say so on an internet forum.

Just hold tight Grewd, I've got some crayons and coloring books you can take with you to the....

 

[Serenity]

But if both are awake, drunkenly unaware, yet both consented, is there a guilty party? Does she have a right to claim rape the next day?

No.

 

[oOh Nasty]

Is it right that they should restrict their lives because someone else will take advantage of it? Or is it right that other people shouldn't violate their lives so they can live freely and feel safe?

You believe that deciding not to drink until you aren't conscious of your actions is "restricting?" We should all just get high and drunk as much as we want every single day without any consequences based on that logic.

What kind of society would you like to live in? One where people have to restrict their lives because we allow people to do whatever the fvck? Or one where we weed out those few so the rest of us can live with a higher degree of freedom and safety?

I would love to live in a society where everyone thinks well of and cares for one another's well being. Unfortunately, that's not how the world is. You have to be smart enough to protect yourself. You have to know that there will be consequences for drinking until you're blanked out.

Have you ever been so drunk you can't remember what happened? If yes, how would you feel about waking up with a sore a55hole because someone fvcked you while you were unconscious? By what you're saying you would blame yourself for drinking too much, and not the idiot who didn't care about whether you actually wanted a d!ck in your a55 or not.

If I became so drunk past the point of remembering what happened in a room full of gay people knowingly, then yes, i would blame myself for having that happened to me. If I were the one who chose to keep drinking, then yes it would be my fault. Did this girl really believe that all of the guys in this party were innocent angels who would not be horny after a few drinks? Did she think that 100% of these dudes would be honorable and escort her back to safety? This is a college party we're talking about. Young kids who want nothing but to f*ck f*ck f*ck. Can you blame the lion for eating you if you're the one who walked into his den?

 

[Serenity]

And if the next day she says she didn't consent, but he says she did?

Then one of them is lying, other evidence will be more important. If no such evidence exists then the charges should be dropped, that's the type of situation where innocent until proven guilty applies.

 

[Serenity]

@oOh Nasty The law applies to college students as well. So yes you can blame the lion, it's the law and that's a much bigger lion who doesn't care about being blamed. Don't fvck people over or the law will fvck you over.

It's not against the law to attend frat parties, it's not against the law to drink until you pass out. It is still against the law to commit actions that by law is defined as illegal and punishable, it doesn't make exceptions for alcohol consumption. It's not illegal to be raped, but it is illegal to rape.

Obviously there's consequences to drinking a lot, I know damn well how is. That doesn't mean I accept it and we should just let it be that way, to just stick our heads in the sand about how bad it is.

 

[Bokanovsky]

If she is too drunk to know what she was doing, then yes.

What if the guy is really hammered too? What if he's so drunk that he can't tell if his date knows what she's doing?

 

[dasein]

Caveat: My knowledge of this case is limited. Some observations.
1. It is not at all unusual for women to lay completely unmoving when having... and enjoying... sex, especially when mildly intoxicated. THEY AREN'T MEN. About half the women I have been with in life enjoy being passive to varying degrees. I find the "Swedes'" account of what was going on suspect. There are hordes of people out there who will take any opportunity to CB others who are getting it on.
2. There are also a disturbing % of women who will play "helpless little amnesiac girl" to gain very minor benefit with complete disregard for the very major consequences this may have for the victims of their dishonesty. We have many datapoints in the news for this and most mature men have hundreds of anecdotal datapoints of this disturbing female tendency. Acknowledging this is not "blaming the victim" any more than acknowledging the extreme male tendency to resort to violence in certain situations is.
3. I don't see that a prime facie case could have been made here, feel that a rational judge would have granted a motion to dismiss or set aside, but due to PC fears, didn't do that and instead gave a light sentence. I hope that people who "holler for the head" when emotionalized never have to look down the other side of that barrel when a case against them, their loved ones or friends is emotionalized in this way.
4. That victims are not to blame for crimes committed against them is a legal fiction in imperfect law we apply towards the abstraction of "seeking justice." In actuality, people are very much to blame, morally accountable, for their actions in aggravation or mitigation of things that happen to them, but we all know this already. The feminist left is very fond of purposefully conflating legal blame and moral blame for the purpose of excusing moral blame. If you go into a biker bar and spit in someone's face, well, you are not -legally- culpable when you get curbstomped (edit, you might actually be... but you get the point), but you are very much -morally- and rationally culpable. We have judges and juries in place instead of strict liability statutes to temper legal fictions. IMO, this case is an example of our flawed justice system working well as opposed to working poorly.