Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Sexual Assaults in the militaryFollow

#102 Jun 06 2013 at 12:08 PM Rating: Decent
******
43,937 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Any solution that doesn't treat both genders equally is doomed to fail as a long term solution.
Any solution that doesn't change that *** feels good is doomed to fail as a long term solution.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#103 Jun 06 2013 at 12:11 PM Rating: Excellent
lolgaxe wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Any solution that doesn't treat both genders equally is doomed to fail as a long term solution.
Any solution that doesn't change that *** feels good is doomed to fail as a long term solution.

Any solution that doesn't replace everyone with robots is doomed to fail as a long term solution.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#104 Jun 06 2013 at 12:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Any solution that doesn't treat both genders equally is doomed to fail as a long term solution.
Any solution that doesn't change that *** feels good is doomed to fail as a long term solution.

Any solution that doesn't replace everyone with robots is doomed to fail as a long term solution.

Doubtful.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#105 Jun 06 2013 at 12:21 PM Rating: Good
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
If he's at .08 and they're at .16? Then yeah, there's a very good chance he'd be convicted, because he's still conscious and his victim isn't.
Really?

Have you ever given a Breathalyzer to a drunk person? I do it all the time in my line of work and drunks are quite capable of walking talking and dinking around with their iPhones and whatnot while in excess if .24 BAC.

If a person is passed out drunk after a sixpack of light beer I think their greatest concern is seeing if their liver is functioning.




OK, back to your argument about date rape.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#106 Jun 06 2013 at 1:22 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,866 posts
You're right, that was a misrepresentation. I was using passing out incorrectly. That's the point where someone who isn't staying active might end up extremely tired, and fall asleep. That increases with tolerance, of course. As will all of these numbers.

That said, the effects of .08 are easily detected in anyone whose tolerance is anywhere close to normal. Because BAC doesn't have a linear relationship with your actual inebriation. Diminishing returns begin around .06, and rapidly increase by the time you reach .1. By the time you hit .14, you will be very obviously drunk. Loss of balance, light slurring to your words, etc.

Buzzed feelings start anywhere from .04-.06, depending on the person.

If you have a low tolerance, blackouts can begin as low as .16. But .2 is where they'll commonly begin. But anywhere .16 on is where you could have the cases where someone who isn't staying active can fall into deep sleeps, quickly. The "sudden" sort of passing out won't occur until later, though.

But still, many, MANY women have been raped by falling asleep, not passing out, at parties.

And the point is, it's not hard to tell when a woman is clearly past the limit. Yes, there's a borderline area where you would worry about someone having a high tolerance. But here's the thing: the legal limit in this scenario would be more a guide than anything. The point is that she needs to have her faculties impaired to be unable to consent. And a conviction would require that there was reason to believe that. Meaning, someone else would need to testify (or there's need to be something like audiovisual proof).

If she's coherent, walking normally, etc. You're good. If she isn't, she can't consent.

It's really not hard.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#107 Jun 06 2013 at 1:26 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,698 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
It's really not hard.
That depends on how much booze he's had.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#108 Jun 06 2013 at 1:27 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,866 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
It's really not hard.
That depends on how much booze he's had.


I debated removing that, but I decided to see where someone would go with it.

I am disappoint.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#109 Jun 06 2013 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
******
43,937 posts
You do have a habit of telling us how hard it is.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#110 Jun 06 2013 at 1:31 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,866 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
You do have a habit of telling us how hard it is.


I'm just trying to start a trend.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#111 Jun 06 2013 at 1:35 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I'd educate everyone that taking advantage of someone inebriated is rape. No need to make it about gender at all.


Except it inherently isn't rape. Having *** while being drunk doesn't automatically result in being raped. You are just as responsible for your actions drunk as you are sober.

Your "solution" is counterproductive to the problem. Focusing on reactive solutions do not prevent the incident from occurring. However, being proactive reduces the likelihood of that event from occurring.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#112 Jun 06 2013 at 1:37 PM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I said rape degrades human dignity - it violates it - not that they lose it.

And I never even inferred that rape was exclusively about men vs. women. I've made it clear that I think it's a two way street, and that both genders are capable of rape.
There was no inference. Throughout this entire thread you've used a female pronoun when talking about the 'victim'.

Quote:
But congrats, you're now using the same staw man as gbaji.
Aw la la la. When all else fails make a gbaji comparison.

Quote:
Yes. Women and men can both make bad decisions. That doesn't give sober men and women the right to capitalize on their inebriation and sexually assault them.

You're making a ton of assumptions with that statement.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#113 Jun 06 2013 at 1:46 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,866 posts
Almalieque wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I'd educate everyone that taking advantage of someone inebriated is rape. No need to make it about gender at all.


Except it inherently isn't rape. Having *** while being drunk doesn't automatically result in being raped. You are just as responsible for your actions drunk as you are sober.

Your "solution" is counterproductive to the problem. Focusing on reactive solutions do not prevent the incident from occurring. However, being proactive reduces the likelihood of that event from occurring.


You are only responsible for your actions where the repercussions of your actions are concerned. If you get pregnant, you need to face the same decisions any other pregnant woman needs to face. If you get someone else pregnant, you need to face the same decisions any other person in that situation. You may have to live with STIs.

You are NOT responsible for the repercussions of the other person in this interaction. The person who had *** with you while you were in a state where you were fundamentally unable to give consent. They are the one who committed a crime.

Because the definition of rape is extremely simple: it's *** without consent. If you cannot gain consent, then any sexual interaction is rape. It cannot be anything else. You are arguing that certain forms of rape should be acceptable.

And education is a preemptive solution. It seeks to change the culture, and reduce the rate of rapes, rather than be forced into a situation where you can only respond to rape.

Education of women alone does absolutely nothing to reduce the rate of rape, it only reduces the chance an individual woman is raped.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#114 Jun 06 2013 at 3:33 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Digg wrote:
You are NOT responsible for the repercussions of the other person in this interaction. The person who had *** with you while you were in a state where you were fundamentally unable to give consent. They are the one who committed a crime.


No one is denying that. You have the belief that being drunk is "fundamentally unable to give consent". There's a line between being drunk and knowledgeable vs unconscious/barely conscious lying on the floor. If you are sober enough to sexually advance someone, then you are sober enough to give consent to the sexual activity. Just because you wouldn't have done it fully sober, doesn't negate your actions. You can't claim rape just because you were drunk. It doesn't work in anything else in life and it doesn't work with ***.

Digg wrote:
Because the definition of rape is extremely simple: it's *** without consent. If you cannot gain consent, then any sexual interaction is rape. It cannot be anything else. You are arguing that certain forms of rape should be acceptable.


Read above. Drunk != no consent.

Digg wrote:
And education is a preemptive solution. It seeks to change the culture, and reduce the rate of rapes, rather than be forced into a situation where you can only respond to rape.

Education of women alone does absolutely nothing to reduce the rate of rape, it only reduces the chance an individual woman is raped.


Saying that all drunk *** is rape isn't educational nor does it reduce the rate of rape. It is reactive not proactive. Educating women not to get ***** drunk around people they don't trust is proactive and educational. Telling women that if a man have *** with her while she's drunk is rape, does nothing to help prevent the rape.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#115 Jun 06 2013 at 4:14 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,471 posts
Could you imagine the amount of sexual assaults if Gays were allowed to be open in the military!
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#116 Jun 06 2013 at 4:17 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,957 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
If she's coherent, walking normally, etc. You're good. If she isn't, she can't consent.

It's really not hard.


Isn't that what Ugly, Elinda, and I have all been saying this whole time? You were saying that if she was drunk at all she was off limits.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#117 Jun 06 2013 at 4:50 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,866 posts
If you are drunk, you are not walking or talking coherently. If you're buzzed, then sure. There are no outward signs of being buzzed. But being drunk is directly associated with a loss of higher mental function.

Ugly is arguing that consent from a drunk person should be treated the same way we treat drunk drivers - culpable.

Maybe in other places, drunk means something completely different than the usage than I've ever heard it before. The definition I'm familiar with is that being drunk is fundamentally about losing control of bodily and mental functions due to alcohol.

In legal terms, we use .08 and .1 because they're the point at which risk meets outward expressions of intoxication. People at .08 absolutely show signs of intoxication, and they're kidding themselves if they insist they're still only lightly buzzed. .08 is the equivalent of 2.5 oz of pure alcohol per hour for a 200 pound man. 1.5 oz for a 160 pound woman. That's not a small amount of alcohol.

Yes, some people who have an extremely high tolerance may still be outwardly fine at .08. But that's an abnormality, and it's the sort of case that no jury is going to feel confident prosecuting for. BAC only really becomes relevant in cases of date rape when the victim goes/is brought to the ER afterwards, and their BAC is recorded (and they may be issued a rape kit).

So it's not really an issue. When in doubt, err on the side of error.

Quote:
There was no inference. Throughout this entire thread you've used a female pronoun when talking about the 'victim'.


No, I've used the female pronoun whenever specifically replying to a post which was using women as the topic. Any post that was about the institution of rape in general, and not specific to women, I've attempted to remain gender neutral. I doubt I was perfectly successful, but that's partly due the fact that we don't have solid gender neutral pronouns in our language, and I'm not exactly used to speaking/writing without their use. I'm sure bias regarding the frequency of rape against each group was an influence as well. But if you'd like me to use gender-neutral pronouns from now on, I will.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes. Women and men can both make bad decisions. That doesn't give sober men and women the right to capitalize on their inebriation and sexually assault them.
You're making a ton of assumptions with that statement.


Actually, I wasn't. The only assumption made was that both men and women can make bad decisions. If you take issue with that, then I doubt there's any reason to continue talking. The next sentence was the argument of the post and, therefore, not an assumption at all.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#118 Jun 06 2013 at 5:07 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,957 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
If you are drunk, you are not walking or talking coherently. If you're buzzed, then sure. There are no outward signs of being buzzed. But being drunk is directly associated with a loss of higher mental function.


idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
My understanding is that the legal limit for being considered drunk, .08 or .1 depending on the state, is what is used to define consent vs. non-consent.


I'm curious... have you ever been "drunk" by legal driving standards? Do you not realize how low .08 actually is?

You seem to like saying "It's really not hard" but seem to not even be able to figure it out yourself...

Edited, Jun 6th 2013 7:17pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#119 Jun 06 2013 at 5:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You're right, that was a misrepresentation. I was using passing out incorrectly. That's the point where someone who isn't staying active might end up extremely tired, and fall asleep. That increases with tolerance, of course. As will all of these numbers.


So let's use "passing out" as the criteria for passing out and not make assumptions about BAC. Similarly, let's use "able to give consent" rather than an arbitrary BAC number as well. Seems far more workable to me.

Quote:
But still, many, MANY women have been raped by falling asleep, not passing out, at parties.


Sure. Which only highlights the problem with your proposal. It's not about how drunk someone is. It's about whether they give consent. Someone who is passed out isn't giving consent. Someone who is asleep isn't giving consent. Someone who can't speak or walk isn't giving consent. It's really really simple and can be taught to anyone. Trying to get people to adhere to a rather ridiculous BAC value is unworkable. I can look at someone and talk to them and tell if they're giving me consent (cause they do, or they don't). I can't tell what their BAC is.

There are lots of people (most people) who are more than capable of making a decision about having *** while having a BAC in excess of .08 or .1. And as you pointed out, there are people who have lower BAC but are sleeping (or had a higher BAC, fell asleep and now have a lower one). Your rule is overly strict (ridiculously so) in the first case, and doesn't apply in the second.

Let's teach people what consent is. Isn't that really what matters? Insisting that people are unable to give consent in situations in which frankly most people are more than capable of doing so is not going to work and is frankly demeaning to the people involved. I'll also restate what someone else said earlier: Making a poor choice is not the same as being unable to make one. You're arguing that at a given BAC someone is unable to choose to give consent. But the fact is that they can. They may make a poor choice in terms of that consent, but they are able to make that choice.


Just as someone is able to make the choice to get behind the wheel of a car when drunk. The fact that this is a poor choice does not legally remove them from the responsibility for making it and for the consequences of that choice which may result. You were correct that drunk driving is not the same as drunk ***. But you missed the difference a bit. We criminalize the act of drinking and driving because you are putting other people at risk. We don't (or shouldn't) criminalize the act of drinking and having *** because you are putting only yourself at risk. You're free to make bad choice. That's part of what freedom is.

Quote:
If she's coherent, walking normally, etc. You're good. If she isn't, she can't consent.


Great. So BAC doesn't matter. Let's just use this as the way of determining consent then.

Quote:
It's really not hard.


No. It's not. It does become needlessly complicated when someone tries to argue for legislating BAC levels though.

Edited, Jun 6th 2013 4:27pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#120 Jun 06 2013 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
In legal terms, we use .08 and .1 because they're the point at which risk meets outward expressions of intoxication.


Gonna second Tirith's question. That's not true at all. .08 to .1is the point at which your judgment and reflexes are sufficiently impaired that there's a greater possibility you might not react well enough to an event on the road and avoid an accident. Weaving and whatnot typically require a much higher BAC. Also we know that in many cases of accidents, there's a time delay between when the accident occurs and when a proper BAC can be determined, so we set it somewhat low.

Quote:
People at .08 absolutely show signs of intoxication, and they're kidding themselves if they insist they're still only lightly buzzed.


False. Demonstrably false. That is "lightly buzzed". But you should not be driving while "lightly buzzed". Again, not because you're going to veer off the road all by yourself, but because you wont react to changing conditions quickly enough to be considered safe to handle a vehicle on the road. You are certainly able to walk and talk and make decisions just fine at that level.


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yes. Women and men can both make bad decisions. That doesn't give sober men and women the right to capitalize on their inebriation and sexually assault them.
You're making a ton of assumptions with that statement.


Actually, I wasn't. The only assumption made was that both men and women can make bad decisions.


I think the point was that making a bad choice isn't equivalent to someone else assaulting you. You're assuming that if a sober person has *** with an intoxicated person that they are "capitalizing on their inebriation and sexually assaulting them". This derives from your assumption (which you've stated earlier) that an inebriated person can't give consent. But that's the point of contention here. I think most people believe that an inebriated person absolutely can give consent. Ignoring that disagreement and just moving on as though it doesn't exist isn't terribly helpful.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#121 Jun 06 2013 at 5:27 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,957 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yes. Women and men can both make bad decisions. That doesn't give sober men and women the right to capitalize on their inebriation and sexually assault them.
You're making a ton of assumptions with that statement.


Actually, I wasn't. The only assumption made was that both men and women can make bad decisions. If you take issue with that, then I doubt there's any reason to continue talking. The next sentence was the argument of the post and, therefore, not an assumption at all.


I think she was pointing out your bias by automatically saying that the person was sexually assaulting them because the other was drunk. You start at the conclusion that it is sexual assault, and then go back and say "what right do they have to sexually assault them! They shouldn't do that!" Rather than looking at the events that occurred.

Edit:
I was kind of surprised by idiggory's stance on this issue, but in another thread I see him being self described as "an introvert" and then it dawned on me why he may not realize the BAC of people who are out socially drinking and having a good, consensual time with friends (old and new, male and female).

Edited, Jun 6th 2013 8:21pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#122 Jun 06 2013 at 6:22 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,866 posts
.08 is low in that you can reach that point quickly if you're attempting to get drunk. It's also high enough that there are meaningful reductions in physical and mental faculties by this point.

Yes, I have been far past .08. I've spent parties hovering a fair slight under it. Or at it. I'm also not fool enough to try and use my own experiences at around .08 as a measuring stick, as I have hard data that says I'd have been too mentally and judgmentally impaired at that point.

I also really, REALLY don't understand why we keep coming back to BAC. What matters in nearly every rape trial will be the testimony from the accused, the victim, and witnesses. You'll almost never have BAC information of the two parties. It's all going to come down to what you can and can't prove.

So the rule of thumb: if you suspect your partner is impaired, don't have *** with them. Otherwise, you're almost certainly fine. If, in the unlikely chance you have a rape charge against you (and you were exercising proper caution), the burden of proof is going to be on the prosecution. Without witness testimony or actual BAC information, the chances of them succeeding are slim to none.

And if they DO have that information, chances are you were impaired as well, and should probably be calling witnesses to attest to your own inebriation.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

[EDIT]

Quote:
I was kind of surprised by idiggory's stance on this issue, but in another thread I see him being self described as "an introvert" and then it dawned on me why he may not realize the BAC of people who are out socially drinking and having a good, consensual time with friends (old and new, male and female).


Smiley: laugh

Introverts go out and drink. We just tend to prefer smaller groups and known people. I haven't gone drinking in the past few months, primarily because I've been trying to take care of myself, but that's about the start of when I started actively caring.

I also work at an alcohol research center, and I'm far more inclined to believe their studies than some anecdotal evidence from a stranger on the web. I don't expect you to accept this as evidence, of course. That would be absurd. I'm just pointing out that your chances of changing my position, short of providing me with academically rigorous, peer-reviewed articles are are actually zero.

If you'd prefer to drop the subject, so we don't spend the next 6 pages of the thread butting heads against each other, I'm game.


[EDIT2]

On that note, here's a relevant episode of mythbusters. Not particularly convincing about anything, but entertaining nonetheless.



Edited, Jun 6th 2013 8:30pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#123 Jun 06 2013 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,957 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
.08 is low in that you can reach that point quickly if you're attempting to get drunk.


No, it's low in that you can reach that point quickly even if you are not attempting to get "drunk". .08 is a buzz. That's why they made those "Buzzed driving is drunk driving" commercials.

idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I also really, REALLY don't understand why we keep coming back to BAC. What matters in nearly every rape trial will be the testimony from the accused, the victim, and witnesses. You'll almost never have BAC information of the two parties. It's all going to come down to what you can and can't prove.


Because you brought it up first, keep going back to it, and keep ignoring other people's attempts to move toward the visual cues of being intoxicated to the point of not being able to talk, walk, being physically sick, in varying states of consciousness, etc.

Quote:



See, just under that .08, and they appear overall normal, if a little unable to react in a timely manner to quickly changing stimuli. They couldn't up that to .08 because it'd still be against the law for them to operate that vehicle, even if for "science".

Edited, Jun 6th 2013 8:40pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#124 Jun 06 2013 at 6:47 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,866 posts
I only keep commenting on it because people keep bringing it up. I don't consider it a relevant point of discussion at all. I originally cited the numbers because someone asked what legal limits would be used in a rape trial. In most states, that's .08, in some it's .1, because that's what they use as the legal definition of "drunk."

In that sense, it's relevant. But it's far from the end-all, be-all of the discussion, because almost no cases will actually ever include this information. Unless someone checks into an ER with a level far above that, it's not likely to come into play.

Whether or not that matches the point of intoxication at which a jury would otherwise convict someone is another question entirely. And maybe that IS a discussion worth having. Maybe someone is sufficiently in control of their faculties at .08 that they can still give informed consent. I imagine that's a question for a government study into the issue.

And maybe it's the case that a legal definition of "drunk" needs to be uncoupled from DUI thresholds so the "drunk" label can be raised to a higher BAC without having to change the level for impairment relative to operating a vehicle. That's possible.

Either way, a victim being over the legal limit is likely going to be deemed unable to consent by a court.

And that's as far as it is relevant. ******** about how low that is isn't going to change that. If you disagree with it, fine. I don't - I've generally felt confident in my ability to gauge whether or not someone was at or past the limit. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're wrong, maybe you're both wrong, or maybe we're both right. I don't know, I don't care. Either way, that's the legal definition of "drunk" as it currently stands. If you don't like it, write your representative or something. IDK - do people still do that?

[EDIT]

Quote:
See, just under that .08, and they appear overall normal, if a little unable to react in a timely manner to quickly changing stimuli. They couldn't up that to .08 because it'd still be against the law for them to operate that vehicle, even if for "science".


And if we were talking about a 10 second interaction, then I might be swayed by that argument. Since I'm going to go ahead and assume someone will spend more time than that talking to their partner, and leaving a venue/heading to privacy with a partner, and removing certain articles of clothing with a partner, that they should be able to tell if their partner is inebriated.

All of them seemed clearly drunk to me. Maybe that's because I spend more time observing people and their habits than average, and shouldn't expect other people to be able to do that. It's fully possible. I spend more time at parties hanging out with friends on sofas and watching other people than roving through crowds.

Yeah, if someone's borderline you can't tell. The difference between .075 and .08 isn't going to be noticeable. My rule of thumb is to just not have *** with someone if I'm not confident they're sober enough to consent. If that rule doesn't sit well with you, don't use it.

Edited, Jun 6th 2013 8:54pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#125 Jun 06 2013 at 7:01 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,957 posts
You seem to be confusing issues here. I'm fairly certain it's not illegal to have *** with a drunk person. I don't have to write a representative about it, they'd probably think I was crazy. I imagine their reply would be something like:

"Dear concerned constituent,
I have no idea what laws you are referring to. Have a good day, vote for me in the next election!"

"Drunk" by legal definitions have to do with current legal laws, driving, being in public, etc. Varies by areas. And even those vary the allowed amounts.

You were asked by what legal definition it should be, and answered the same legal definition as what is currently used. Everyone else is saying that is a horrible idea, that there is plenty of mental ability left even after being above the legal limit for current laws. Everyone seems to want to rely on the visual and social ques on a person by person basis. You keep going back to that legal definition based on BAC because some people may appear fine at those lower legal levels but really they can't consent, like they need to be protected from bad decisions. If you don't want to use BAC, then stop using it, and stop arguing with people who seem to be agreeing with you about the visual ques.

And by the way, if Kari Byron approached me in the near .08 state she was in during that clip, I wouldn't feel bad about accepting her consent as true. Seemed to me like her mind was working just fine.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#126 Jun 06 2013 at 7:22 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,866 posts
Looking into it, I'm guessing you're right. I've only ever heard the legal definition being used. For all I know, that's because Rutgers errs on the safe side due to its size and popularity as a party school.

For the most part, it seems that an initiative to give some firm definition to the point at which consent no longer exists is still largely up for debate, and it falls to individual juries to make the decision. That's particularly problematic, because they don't have any definition to go off of - all I can find legally is circular reasoning. Someone is unable to give consent if they are intoxicated, and someone is intoxicated if they can give consent. That wording is atrocious, considering the same legal systems define intoxication as .08.

It SEEMS that the point at which juries start to have widespread agreement is probably somewhere around .15, where low-tolerance individuals will hit the blackout phase (high tolerance individuals will make it to .2, assuming they were going slowly and didn't vomit, before hitting the blackout phase).

So let's just say that consent is impossible somewhere in the .15-.2 range, give or take. Does that work?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#127 Jun 06 2013 at 7:30 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Idiggory wrote:
But being drunk is directly associated with a loss of higher mental function.

That doesn't negate the ability to give consent.

Idiggory wrote:
Ugly is arguing that consent from a drunk person should be treated the same way we treat drunk drivers


Why not? What's the difference? If you're sober enough to drive, then you're sober enough to be responsible for your actions. Likewise, if you're sober enough to willingly engage in sexual activities, then you're sober enough to be responsible for your actions.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#128 Jun 06 2013 at 7:32 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,957 posts
I don't agree on a numeric level, sorry. I will agree that at 0.15+ is when most people will be feeling physically ill, very noticeable compromised mental ability, unable to move around, unconsciousness, etc. But I know it affects different people different amounts, and wouldn't want to leave a person with a smaller tolerance at a disadvantage because "sorry, you weren't above the legal *** limit, so it wasn't rape".


Hmm, funny idea, chastity belts with breathalyzer locks...

Edited, Jun 6th 2013 9:33pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#129 Jun 06 2013 at 7:44 PM Rating: Good
Idiggory wrote:
Ugly is arguing that consent from a drunk person should be treated the same way we treat drunk drivers
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I think what Ugly was trying to get across is that there is a paradox:

On one hand, a woman is not responsible for her actions while intoxicated when it comes to consenting to ***, but is responsible for her action if she's caught driving drunk.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#130 Jun 06 2013 at 8:52 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,866 posts
Yeah, but my response is that it's not paradoxical, because our reasons and justification for the prosecution of drunk driving are generally unique to that specific crime compared to anything else I can think of.

And my other issue with the argument is that drunk driving is a fundamentally poor example, because it's an example of an act that becomes illegal because you have ingested a sufficient quantity of alcohol, where rape becomes illegal when someone else has consumed a sufficient amount (and you remain sufficiently sober to know better).

Because I'm tired, and it's just easier this way, I'll just resort to basic logic of analogies. Two situations are analogous only if their truth lines up within the realm of the relevant constraints.

Driving while Sober: Appropriately Legal Driving while intoxicated: Appropriately Illegal
*** while sober: Appropriately Legal *** while intoxicated: Appropriately Legal

I don't have to break down the *** while sober category into legal and illegal, because we already have sufficient reason to disregard the analogy. That is, if everyone is willing to accept that *** while intoxicated should be legal and that driving while intoxicated should be illegal. If you don't agree, this becomes more complicated and I don't really feel like breaking out a truth table that large for no reason.

I'm too tired and too used to arguments with philosophers to rephrase this in a different way right now. So I hope that suffices.

So if the question is "Why should we treat them differently?" my response would be "Because they're fundamentally different, and intoxication is the cause, so we cannot use intoxication as analogous between the two crimes." It means that the role it plays is fundamentally different. And that's important, because nothing about the argument I've used includes rape at all here. If you DO want the expanded version of a truth table, then here:


Driving a sober person while sober: legal Driving a sober person while drunk: illegal Driving a drunk person while sober: legal Driving a drunk person while drunk: illegal
*** w/ a sober person while sober: legal *** w/ a sober person while drunk: legal *** w/ a drunk person while sober: illegal *** w/ a drunk person while drunk: legal

They still don't match up. Even if you want to say it's not illegal to have *** with a drunk person while sober, the two situations aren't analogous.

If you want more than that, my answer is "I don't care." The argument is a false analogy fallacy. Drunk driving and consent just aren't similar enough to accept it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#131 Jun 06 2013 at 9:10 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,957 posts
I agree they are different situations. But I don't end up at the same conclusion as you.

Your conclusion seems to be "Driving and *** are different therefore any amount of alcohol or impaired judgement makes consent impossible".

My conclusion is "Driving and *** are different, therefore some reasonable amount of alcohol and impaired judgement that would make driving illegal still allows for consent when it comes to various social activities including sexual intercourse"
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#132 Jun 06 2013 at 11:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,999 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Elinda wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

It doesn't matter if the woman would have made the same decision while sober, because the crime is your dismissal of her right to give informed consent. It doesn't matter if you think that it should count, because inebriation is a violation of the fundamental concept of rational consent.

But it's not criteria that can be allowed when determining someone's liability or consequence. If a sober man asks you for a ten-spot when you're drunk and you give it to him, you can certainly claim he took advantage of you, but your blood-alcohol level doesn't make the exchange a crime.


Increase that sum to a level where it would be legal to sue them and it is considered theft, and you can be prosecuted for it.

And if it's an amount that exceeds the legal minimum, you can sue them for it.

Probably wouldn't bother for $20, but for $300 you certainly might take it to civilian court.


Some contracts have been annulled for this very reason.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#133 Jun 07 2013 at 3:00 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,698 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
.08 is low in that you can reach that point quickly if you're attempting to get drunk.
Uhm, .08 is low in that if you finish 1 drink in under 20 min while eating dinner, you will peak above .08 BAC. That would be why people are advised not to drive after even 1 drink.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#134 Jun 07 2013 at 6:31 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
.08 is low in that you can reach that point quickly if you're attempting to get drunk.
Uhm, .08 is low in that if you finish 1 drink in under 20 min while eating dinner, you will peak above .08 BAC. That would be why people are advised not to drive after even 1 drink.


Which is nothing more than a tangent anyway. Nothing has been provided on why sexual decisions should be treated any differently than any other decisions done while drunk.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#135 Jun 07 2013 at 7:36 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,866 posts
TirithRR wrote:
I agree they are different situations. But I don't end up at the same conclusion as you.

Your conclusion seems to be "Driving and *** are different therefore any amount of alcohol or impaired judgement makes consent impossible".

My conclusion is "Driving and *** are different, therefore some reasonable amount of alcohol and impaired judgement that would make driving illegal still allows for consent when it comes to various social activities including sexual intercourse"


That's not my argument at all. My response to the question is: They're not analogous situations, so I don't care about how drunk driving works when the topic of conversation is rape.

Now, I think a discussion of the two topics together might teach us something really interesting about intoxication (or at least, something really interesting to a philosopher). I just don't think it's relevant when the discussion is about rape and consent.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#136 Jun 07 2013 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
It's statements like these that are confusing people though (or at least confusing too people):

idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I originally cited the numbers because someone asked what legal limits would be used in a rape trial. In most states, that's .08, in some it's .1, because that's what they use as the legal definition of "drunk."


Quote:
Whether or not that matches the point of intoxication at which a jury would otherwise convict someone is another question entirely.


Quote:
Either way, a victim being over the legal limit is likely going to be deemed unable to consent by a court.


Quote:
Looking into it, I'm guessing you're right. I've only ever heard the legal definition being used.


You clearly seem to think that there's some common use of "drunk means you can't consent" in our legal system. But I (and I assume most of the other posters) have never heard of this anywhere. I'm not aware of a single jurisdiction anywhere in the US that uses whether someone is drunk, much less some legal BAC "limit" to determine if someone can legally consent to *** and thus whether the person was raped or not. You keep saying this (many more times than those I just quoted), but it's simply not true.

The legal limit for driving a car is .08. There is no limit for consenting to ***. At least not that I've ever heard of. So when you say something like "in most state it's (legal limits used in a rape trial) .08 or .1", you're saying something that's complete nonsense. And I think that's what people are reacting to with a "huh?" kind of response. At least I certainly have been.


Quote:
For the most part, it seems that an initiative to give some firm definition to the point at which consent no longer exists is still largely up for debate, and it falls to individual juries to make the decision. That's particularly problematic, because they don't have any definition to go off of - all I can find legally is circular reasoning. Someone is unable to give consent if they are intoxicated, and someone is intoxicated if they can give consent. That wording is atrocious, considering the same legal systems define intoxication as .08.


Again. Drop the assumption that people can't legally give consent to *** if they are drunk. That's where you keep getting into trouble.

Quote:
It SEEMS that the point at which juries start to have widespread agreement is probably somewhere around .15, where low-tolerance individuals will hit the blackout phase (high tolerance individuals will make it to .2, assuming they were going slowly and didn't vomit, before hitting the blackout phase).


No. Did you just make that up? There is no widespread agreement, among juries in rape cases or anywhere else. No one but you thinks that being drunk means someone can't consent to ***. Everyone else believes that being unable to consent to *** means you can't consent to ***. Whether that's because you are passed out from drinking, or are asleep, or in a coma, or mentally deficient, or paralyzed, etc doesn't matter. If you don't give consent and someone has *** with you anyway, they have raped you. It's really that simple.

Quote:
So let's just say that consent is impossible somewhere in the .15-.2 range, give or take. Does that work?



What works better is whether the person actually gives consent. You're trying to create rules that aren't needed. I can't tell by looking at someone what their BAC is. I can tell if that person is passed out and/or non-communicative. That's the standard we should use. What causes that is irrelevant. It's the lack of consent that matters.


It just feels like you're trying to create a case where someone can appear to give consent in every external way, but is somehow not responsible for having done so because they weren't in full control of their faculties. But as several people have said, this contradicts with how we deal with intoxication in other areas of our law. We don't allow you to drive while drunk, not because you aren't considered capable of making the decision to drive, or to be held responsible for that decision, but because you are physically incapable of driving safely. Now if the crime was having bad ***, you could argue for legal BAC limits. But the decision to have *** is still something you make and are responsible no matter how drunk you are, just as you are responsible for the decision to get behind the wheel of a car.


People who are drunk are responsible for their choices and actions. As long as they are making a choice and taking an action, it's on them. This absolutely should apply to *** as well. It should only be rape if the person didn't make a choice at all and didn't take an action (ie: passed out, incoherent, etc). Trying to create some zone of intoxication where people aren't responsible for their choices or actions is a really poor way to address the issue at hand IMO. It gives people a pass for their actions because "I'm too drunk". It pushes responsibility on everyone around them, and the result will likely be more victims, not fewer. We need to teach people to take responsibility for their actions and make their own decisions about what they do, not give them a great excuse for bad behavior.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#137 Jun 07 2013 at 5:40 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,866 posts
Rule regarding what consent is are a basic necessity for the comment of "What matters is whether or not someone gives consent" to have any meaning at all.

You're simply trying to argue for a different definition of consent than me, and are trying to cage that in different terms to distract from the actual issue.

I happen to believe that true consent is impossible to give if you aren't in a mental state that allows you to actually process the situation at hand. It's the same reason we don't accept drunk consent in legal matters, and require witnesses to approve major legal agreements like marriage. Their job is to bear witness that you are of sound mind, and making the decision of your own free will, without threat of violence or other egregious forms of coercion.

Quote:
Everyone else believes that being unable to consent to *** means you can't consent to ***. Whether that's because you are passed out from drinking, or are asleep, or in a coma, or mentally deficient, or paralyzed, etc doesn't matter. If you don't give consent and someone has *** with you anyway, they have raped you. It's really that simple.


You're 100% right here. Well, except for the "else" part. We all agree on the definition of rape. What we may or may not agree on is the definition of consent. And everyone else most certainly is not adopting the position that anything short of being passed out means consent is valid. Most of us have been arguing exactly what constitutes the definition of "drunk" with specific regards to when that would equate to losing the ability to give consent.

The only one I've actually noted as having the "if they're standing, I can **** 'em" stance is you and Alma. Not that I'm surprised.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#138 Jun 07 2013 at 5:52 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Gbaji wrote:
No one but you thinks that being drunk means someone can't consent to ***.


To be fair, the Army believes that nonsense as well.

Idiggory wrote:
The only one I've actually noted as having the "if they're standing, I can @#%^ 'em" stance is you and Alma. Not that I'm surprised.


Only if they give consent. Being drunk doesn't negate consent. It doesn't negate consent any other action, *** is no different. You have failed to provide a reason why *** should be treated any differently.

You either don't understand the stance being made and/or in denial. In either case, you're not presenting it accurately.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#139 Jun 07 2013 at 6:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Rule regarding what consent is are a basic necessity for the comment of "What matters is whether or not someone gives consent" to have any meaning at all.

You're simply trying to argue for a different definition of consent than me, and are trying to cage that in different terms to distract from the actual issue.


Um... I'm arguing that whether someone gives consent should be based on whether they give consent. Period. You're the one trying to inject some new criteria that you can give consent, but if you're drunk it doesn't really count somehow because... ??? You haven't really given a reason. You just keep arguing it.

The reason people keep bringing up drunk driving is because it supports the opposite position. Our laws hold you responsible for decisions you make while drunk. If you get drunk and rob a liquor store, you are still responsible for robbing the liquor store. If you get drunk and drive you are responsible for having put people in danger with your poor driving. In every case I can think of in our legal system, being drunk does not excuse you from being responsible for what you do while drunk.

So why are you arguing that this should be different with ***? That's the part I don't agree with and for which you're provided no supporting argument. Can you tell us why you think this should be the case? Cause I don't see it.

Quote:
I happen to believe that true consent is impossible to give if you aren't in a mental state that allows you to actually process the situation at hand.


And I disagree. More correctly, I disagree that this should be the criteria used in the case of rape. It's not just unworkable, but flies in the face of our other laws.

Quote:
It's the same reason we don't accept drunk consent in legal matters, and require witnesses to approve major legal agreements like marriage. Their job is to bear witness that you are of sound mind, and making the decision of your own free will, without threat of violence or other egregious forms of coercion.


You're confusing entering into legally binding contracts with agreeing to have ***. There's no contract involved here. No third party is involved in enforcing your decision to have ***. And let's not lose sight of the comparison here. No one's saying that you can't sign a contract, or that someone else has committed a crime if you enter into one while intoxicated. The contract is not considered enforceable by a third party is all. That's not the same thing.

Quote:
Quote:
Everyone else believes that being unable to consent to *** means you can't consent to ***. Whether that's because you are passed out from drinking, or are asleep, or in a coma, or mentally deficient, or paralyzed, etc doesn't matter. If you don't give consent and someone has *** with you anyway, they have raped you. It's really that simple.


You're 100% right here. Well, except for the "else" part. We all agree on the definition of rape. What we may or may not agree on is the definition of consent.


Um... Which is what I just talked about. Consent. So the "else" applies since "everyone else" thinks consent is based on whether the person gives consent, but you think that if you're drunk, that consent doesn't count. And yeah, based on other responses in this thread, it is pretty much "everyone else" who disagrees with you on this one.

Quote:
And everyone else most certainly is not adopting the position that anything short of being passed out means consent is valid. Most of us have been arguing exactly what constitutes the definition of "drunk" with specific regards to when that would equate to losing the ability to give consent.


No. You've been arguing that. Everyone else has been arguing that how drunk you are doesn't matter. What matters is whether you're able to give consent. If you verbally and physically consent to ***, you've consented to ***. Period. Doesn't matter if you're drunk. As long as you're not passed out, or incoherent, or otherwise incapable of clearly indicating your desire to have *** to your partner, then if you do clearly indicate that desire you have given consent. You're trying to massively over complicate things.

Quote:
The only one I've actually noted as having the "if they're standing, I can @#%^ 'em" stance is you and Alma. Not that I'm surprised.


No one has argued that. Standing is not consent. Consenting is consent. So saying "Let's have ***" is consent. Grabbing your partner and actively engaging in *** (do I need to get graphic here?) is consent. Lying motionless on a couch is not consent. Being propped up against a wall is not consent. I'm really not sure why you have such a hard time getting this. It's just not that hard.

Edited, Jun 7th 2013 5:15pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#140 Jun 07 2013 at 6:15 PM Rating: Default
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,957 posts
I really don't understand idiggory at all in this thread. He's making a very bad argument for his case. I don't know if he thinks that this is what drunk is, when there are plenty of levels between .00 and that, including levels like this. Better not down a couple of these at the bar if you are looking to have relations that night
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#141 Jun 07 2013 at 6:37 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,866 posts
And people say I'm the one that keeps bringing up BAC. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#142 Jun 07 2013 at 6:48 PM Rating: Default
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,957 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And people say I'm the one that keeps bringing up BAC. Smiley: rolleyes


Because every time someone goes to the visual ques of being too drunk, you go back to any amount of impaired. I said .00 to indicate not drinking. It would have been absolutely no different if I had said ".00 and that" or "not drinking and that".

So far you are the only one that keeps insisting on set levels of BAC for consent.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#143 Jun 07 2013 at 6:54 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,866 posts
Not really, you might want to take a look 15 or so posts ago when I said that I really didn't care about about BAC numbers, and only even brought them up in the first place because I misread a question someone was asking.

The suggestion that conversation move onto something actually worth discussing seems to be going well.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#144 Jun 07 2013 at 7:05 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,957 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
and only even brought them up in the first place because I misread a question someone was asking.


If that's what you want to call completely talking out of your *** about the legalities of drinking and sexing.

Like I said, you have not argued your case very well at all throughout this three page thread. Whether or not a person can consent seems to shift wildly even within the same post.

But, we're all wrong, you are right. If someone drinks a beer at the bar, they shouldn't be allowed to legally consent to sexual intercourse. Let's move on to something worth discussing, and just close this thread, right?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#145 Jun 07 2013 at 7:16 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,866 posts
My point has never been about BAC, nor has it been contingent on the success of a BAC-specific argument.

My point has been about drunkenness in general and the way it relates to consent. BAC language was useful to try and establish common ground to make it easier.

If that's not a viable option, whatever. I'm sure I wasn't successful there. But it's no different than with using BAC for DUIs. We use .08 because it's a statistically useful number, not because it's an objective threshold at which someone becomes intoxicated. It's just the legal definition of drunkenness.

I honestly though it was the point a government would use, if they actually had BAC information. I was wrong. Right now, juries decide consent without any regard to legal definitions of drunkenness. I don't care that I was wrong, because it's not something I ever cared about. And a lot of the confusion stemmed from the fact that I completely misunderstood what was asked in the first place, and was arguing my point in a completely different context than anyone else. That's obviously on me.

We don't need BAC to find common ground about whether or not drunkenness should be a factor in determining if consent is possible. If you want to further define drunkenness, I'm game. But frankly, the initial conversation of this thread with regards to rape culture was far more interesting.

If we can all (minus gbaji and alma) accept that drunkenness negates consent, and that drunkenness is somewhere between "tipsy" and "passed out," I think that's all that's necessary to further a discussion.

Quote:
But, we're all wrong, you are right. If someone drinks a beer at the bar, they shouldn't be allowed to legally consent to sexual intercourse. Let's move on to something worth discussing, and just close this thread, right?


By all means, resort to a straw man.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#146 Jun 07 2013 at 7:24 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,957 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
But, we're all wrong, you are right. If someone drinks a beer at the bar, they shouldn't be allowed to legally consent to sexual intercourse. Let's move on to something worth discussing, and just close this thread, right?


By all means, resort to a straw man.


Merely a response to your call to talk about something worth discussing.

How about that tropical storm in Florida? Wonder how can we fit that into a rape thread...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#147 Jun 07 2013 at 7:43 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,866 posts
Well, I saw four accidents on my drive home today. Maybe someone's going to go to prison and have to answer to some guy named Big Ed?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#148 Jun 07 2013 at 7:49 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,957 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Well, I saw four accidents on my drive home today. Maybe someone's going to go to prison and have to answer to some guy named Big Ed?


Or maybe like this
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#149 Jun 07 2013 at 7:59 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,866 posts
I stopped myself from making that exact same joke. Smiley: lol

I figured the prison rape scenario gave me a better position to bring Alma into it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#150 Jun 07 2013 at 8:02 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Idiggory wrote:
If we can all (minus gbaji and alma) accept that drunkenness negates consent, and that drunkenness is somewhere between "tipsy" and "passed out," I think that's all that's necessary to further a discussion.


Given that there is no law supporting your claim, obviously there are more people than myself and Gbaji who believe that simply being drunk (especially self intoxicated) doesn't negate your actions. Until you can explain why *** should be treated differently when drunk, you have no reason to support your claim.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#151 Jun 07 2013 at 8:06 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I stopped myself from making that exact same joke. Smiley: lol

I figured the prison rape scenario gave me a better position to bring Alma into it.


WTF is up with you and involving me with ***? I'm not interested. How ironic that a person who claims a self drunkard can't consent to *** is sexually harassing others.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 41 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (41)