Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#131 - rambomanthree
Reply -30
(10/01/2013) [-]
>Implying ******* a drunk chick who is willingly opening her legs to you is rape.
#207 to #131 - bladebites
Reply +1
(10/01/2013) [-]
Oh, and I should point out that it is rape regardless.
#205 to #131 - bladebites
Reply +3
(10/01/2013) [-]
No one said or implied rape.
It's presented as the wrong thing to do, which it is.
#164 to #131 - helenwheels
Reply +34
(10/01/2013) [-]
>Implying ******* someone who is ********* is morally upright.
#155 to #131 - exclamation
Reply 0
(10/01/2013) [-]
This is why we have hidden cameras at all parties with alcohol... even in the bedrooms.
#159 to #155 - exclamation
Reply 0
(10/01/2013) [-]
There's a greentext with a story similar to cameras and intercourse...
#149 to #131 - blastwave
Reply +15
(10/01/2013) [-]
But it is rape. Go ahead and try using that excuse in court.
When you're drunk your brain doesn't function properly, giving you the consent rights of a four year old.
#192 to #149 - ogloko
Reply -5
(10/01/2013) [-]
it was her decision to get drunk.
#233 to #192 - ilovehitler
Reply 0
(10/02/2013) [-]
but it was your decision to take advantage of the fact and have sex with her when she was not under stable mental conditions.
#242 to #233 - wimwam ONLINE
Reply 0
(10/02/2013) [-]
Question (not trying to antagonize or anything)- if the girl was drunk but you couldn't tell she was (say you were also a few beers down like the story or for whatever reason), is it still wrong? In this situation, from your perspective, she _was___in a position to make decisions.
#245 to #242 - ilovehitler
Reply 0
(10/02/2013) [-]
When both people have been drinking, it gets a bit more complicated. Legally, the guy is still at fault.
Personally, I think both parties just have to realize that neither was in an appropriate mind frame, and it was all just an unfortunate accident.
#252 to #245 - wimwam ONLINE
Reply 0
(10/02/2013) [-]
From my (a girl's) perspective, you are still yourself even if you are drinking. Alcohol does dis-inhibit you, but you wouldn't do things against your moral compass (all bets are off for harder drugs, but I believe this is true for alcohol). It doesn't seem fair to hold one person responsible just because they have a penis. This is why many misogynists don't take women seriously. We aren't held responsible for our actions by either sex.
#261 to #252 - ilovehitler
Reply 0
(10/02/2013) [-]
Interesting. Maybe it depends on the person, then.
For instance, when I've been drinking, I tend to lose any sort of mental capacity seen outside of an extremely young child.
Though, on the topic itself, I never really meant to argue that it was only rape if the woman was the drunk one; I personally believe that, no matter the gender, the sober one has to be the one in charge of things, and is responsible.
#382 to #261 - necrolepsey
Reply 0
(10/02/2013) [-]
I was so drunk once that I sat down on someones kitchen chair bare ass thinking it was their toilet. So yeah people definitely do things they wouldn't normally do while intoxicated.
#241 to #233 - ogloko
Reply +1
(10/02/2013) [-]
in the exact case mentioned i think i would be wrong to engage in sexual conduct. but if a girl is plastered and then says she wants to bang or initiates physically, it should be legal.

if you drink and drive and crash you are held accountable. if you drink and kill someone someone you are culpable. i dont see why it should be any different if you get drunk and have sex
#243 to #241 - ilovehitler
Reply 0
(10/02/2013) [-]
Thing is, when you're plastered, you don't have the mental capacity to do any of those things.
#246 to #243 - ogloko
Reply 0
(10/02/2013) [-]
inebriation is not a defense for murder or vehicular manslaughter though. catch my drift?
#249 to #246 - ilovehitler
Reply 0
(10/02/2013) [-]
Those are both pretty heavily more severe of things to happen, though.
With both of those, you're held accountable because you're the only one who was in a position of power.
When there's one drunk and one not drunk, the one who isn't drunk is the one in control. They're different situations.
#173 to #149 - mayormilkman
Reply 0
(10/01/2013) [-]
I just find this related to the above image.
#174 to #173 - blastwave
Reply +1
(10/01/2013) [-]
#175 to #174 - mayormilkman
Reply 0
(10/01/2013) [-]
#188 to #175 - yisumad ONLINE
Reply 0
(10/01/2013) [-]
That's horrifying.
#156 to #149 - rambomanthree
Reply 0
(10/01/2013) [-]
It depends..
if you are passed out yeah it's rape
#165 to #156 - blastwave
Reply +1
(10/01/2013) [-]
You might as well be passed out when you're piss drunk.
You might as well be passed out when you're piss drunk.
#194 to #165 - jazzytheferret
Reply 0
(10/01/2013) [-]
What if both people are drunk? Did they rape each other?
#224 to #194 - blastwave
Reply 0
(10/01/2013) [-]
I suppose not. But I guess it would have to do with who is more drunk.
#366 to #224 - pkrbarmoviea
Reply 0
(10/02/2013) [-]
You are just being idiotic right now. Do you even realize what you have written?
#367 to #366 - blastwave
Reply 0
(10/02/2013) [-]
Some people are able to handle being drunk more than others.
I was saying that it had to do with who had the more functioning brain at the moment.
#369 to #367 - pkrbarmoviea
Reply 0
(10/02/2013) [-]
But "who is more drunk" would never work in court. You can't measure drunkenness that way. Also, to be honest, if a girl gets ********* and raped, though I would feel very bad for her, I'd still say that it was mostly her fault. Not for drinking, but for drinking excessively, and also (mostly) because of these vague definitions of "rape" and "consent".
#227 to #224 - jazzytheferret
Reply +1
(10/02/2013) [-]
Another thought. Where is the emergency rape solver breathalyzer located at. I'd like to know so I can see if I am more drunk than them beforehand, absolving myself of all guilt.
#225 to #224 - jazzytheferret
Reply 0
(10/02/2013) [-]
Hmm...But if both are drunk, neither can give legal consent; wouldn't that make the "who was more drunk" argument invalid?
#228 to #225 - blastwave
Reply 0
(10/02/2013) [-]
It would just be considered consensual sex, I suppose. Unless one wakes up the next day and yells rape.
#135 to #131 - HorriblyCrazy
Reply 0
(10/01/2013) [-]
Someone who's drunk is not legally able to consent.
#141 to #135 - rambomanthree
Reply +1
(10/01/2013) [-]
women are like:
>go to party
>get smashed and horny
>**** some guy
>all crusty the next day
>regrets it
>"omg he raped me"
>guy is thrown almost imediatley in prison and his whole life is ruined and has to register as a sex offender over a chick simply regretting sleeping with him.

I mean don't get me wrong, rape is a ******* horrible thing that i would not wish on anyone. But if the man/women consents to it, it isn't rape.. regretted sex is not rape.
#198 to #141 - scootalooisyourgod
Reply +1
(10/01/2013) [-]
I love how you completely disregarded the comment you're replying to and said the exact opposite.

If you're passed out/stumbling/can barely say anything, then you cannot give consent.

"But she shouldn't have gotten drunk!" Well, it is a little irresponsible to get smashed in general, but the person who is raping them should be able to take a hint that this person is not able to make good judgments.
#264 to #198 - wimwam ONLINE
Reply 0
(10/02/2013) [-]
It's not as easy to "take the hint" when you yourself are drunk. Situations are rarely so clear-cut as to say one person is clearly drunk and the other is clearly of 100% sound mind.
#411 to #264 - scootalooisyourgod
Reply 0
(10/03/2013) [-]
In that case, if they are both intoxicated, I guess it's not rape. I'm not too sure on that kind of case.
#412 to #411 - scootalooisyourgod
Reply 0
(10/03/2013) [-]
Also he wasn't talking about if both of them were drunk, just one, in this particular case the woman.
#177 to #141 - HorriblyCrazy
Reply +6
(10/01/2013) [-]
Someone who is drunk, _ male or female_ , is not capable of making the decision to have sex.   
   
   
Circumstances in which a person, CANNOT, by law, give consent:   
(no matter what s/he might verbalize):   
   
-The person is severely intoxicated or unconscious as a result of alcohol or drugs   
-The person is physically or mentally disabled   
-Once a person says “no”. It does not matter if or what kind of sexual behavior has happened previously in the current event, early that day, or daily for the previous six months. It does not matter if it is a current long-term relationship, a broken relationship, or marriage. If one partner says, “NO,” and the other forces penetration it is rape.   
   
   
Don't **** someone who's drunk. It's that ******* simple.
Someone who is drunk, _ male or female_ , is not capable of making the decision to have sex.


Circumstances in which a person, CANNOT, by law, give consent:
(no matter what s/he might verbalize):

-The person is severely intoxicated or unconscious as a result of alcohol or drugs
-The person is physically or mentally disabled
-Once a person says “no”. It does not matter if or what kind of sexual behavior has happened previously in the current event, early that day, or daily for the previous six months. It does not matter if it is a current long-term relationship, a broken relationship, or marriage. If one partner says, “NO,” and the other forces penetration it is rape.


Don't **** someone who's drunk. It's that ******* simple.
#254 to #177 - everyziggy
Reply 0
(10/02/2013) [-]
I'm guessing that you don't drink, the legal definition of intoxicated is a BAC of .08. In most people that is about 2 weak beers in a hour. There is a vast difference between someone who is falling over incoherent and someone who is legally drunk.
#323 to #254 - HorriblyCrazy
Reply +1
(10/02/2013) [-]
Firstly,
"-The person is severely intoxicated or unconscious as a result of alcohol or drugs"

Second,
"No your honor, she was only a little bit drunk. I checked her BAC first, so it was only a little bit rapey."
#397 to #323 - everyziggy
Reply 0
(10/02/2013) [-]
I more so meant my comment for the last part where you said, "Don't **** someone who's drunk. It's that ******* simple." I was pointing out that they could be 2-3 beers in and completely coherent. I completely agree that you shouldn't have sex with someone who is too drunk to know what they are doing. However, if someone is buzzed drunk and wants to have sex with you and you tell them no because that would be rape they are probably going to think you're a huge weirdo.
#145 to #141 - kinginyellow
Reply +5
(10/01/2013) [-]
But someone completely wasted and unable to think clearly, and a man who isn't even buzzed taking her upstairs isn't right either. Some guys should have restraint and learn not to go after anything that moves.
#150 to #145 - rambomanthree
Reply +2
(10/01/2013) [-]
Yeah it may not be ok to take advantage of someone who is drunk.


But seriously, its not just with drunk chicks either. I mean i am not sexist. and i know i will be called oppressive or whatever and thumbed down for having an opinion. But so many women get away with saying men raped them simply because they regret having sex with them... when they were willing. even if they were not drunk.
#161 to #150 - kinginyellow
Reply 0
(10/01/2013) [-]
Well ya, but that doesn't make it ok for a guy to take advantage of a drunk girl. Just make guys look like assholes
#168 to #161 - rambomanthree
Reply +1
(10/01/2013) [-]
i know, and never anywhere did i say it is ok do to so. its awful..

also keep in mind that 1000's of men are also raped every year and are pretty much laughed out of court because "men can't be raped"
#172 to #168 - kinginyellow
Reply 0
(10/01/2013) [-]
Ya, but that means the court system has to be looked at and people need to be informed. It doesn't mean a guy taking advantage of her should be let off