<p>She said robbery in reference to college students, which I was speaking about. Even if we weren’t speaking about college students, your example of insurance fraud doesn’t assist your case at all, since robbery is legally defined as taking one’s possession by using fear or intimidation. You’re thinking of theft.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Guy: Do you want to have sex?
Drunk girl: Yes
<em>they have sex</em>
-next morning-
Girl: OMG, I would never have had sex if I was sober, he raped me!
Guy: She said “yes”
Judge: She can’t say “yes” b/c she was drunk, enjoy your life in jail.</p>
<p>^^ I think we should all agree on a definition of “drunk”. Seems like ambiguity is on what it means to be “drunk”. I don’t like alcohol so I dunno what it means to be buzzed/drunk. If you are “buzzed” then you should have enough common sense and control to say NO/YES. I’m not sure what you mean by drunk–if you mean drunk as in you’re about to black out/puke, then I can understand that YES/NO response will not mean consent. Then again how is that line gonna be drawn? If you have only a drink, does that mean she/he can’t make rational decisions? (I, myself can think straight even after one drink). Or does that point only come when you are totally wasted–to the point of can’t walking straight/thinking clearly ? where is that line drawn, at what point do you consider a person incappable of making a rational decision!!! Drunk can mean different things depending on the person. Just my thoughts.</p>
<p>"Would you really call his bluff in that situation? It’s not as if he said “Hey, I have this knife in my trunk, and if you don’t get in my car and have sex with me, I’m going to get it out and kill you.” She actually saw the knife. If he’s irrational enough to drag a woman off the street and threaten to kill her if she doesn’t have sex with him, do you really believe that he’s going to be logical enough to make some elaborate scheme where he can force women to do what he wants under duress and not actually fulfill his threats since he knows the consequences of such egregious actions? </p>
<p>Even if we were to assume that he was just that rational, it’s very likely that if she said “I know you’re not going to kill me, so get off of me,” her response would have elicited some sort of violent torture by the assailant in order to get the victim to give in to his demands." </p>
<p>Most rapes occur between friends or acquintances. In those situations I doubt the male would be willing to kill the girl.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your post was a reply to another post which mentioned someone being raped at knife-point. You argued that the aggressor in that situation would not have killed the girl because he would not be dumb enough to face murder charges and he was just bluffing. Therefore, the argument which you’re now posing is impertinent. Then again, you may have meant “he” in a general sense, rather than using it to refer to the attacker in the anecdote.</p>
<p>Even if you meant your statement in a general sense, it is still probable that the attacker would inflict some sort of torturous pain upon the victim, like I said. Again, if a person is irrational enough to rape another, it is possible that they may take it to the next level. This may be irrelevant to this American argument, but in countries like South Africa (the country with the highest amount of rapes per capita) and Zimbabwe, the attacker most likely would kill the victim if they resist, even if they were close friends.</p>
<p>east89 (#143): My point is if a girl is that drunk, how will she be able to say yes? If a girl is able to say yes, why should it be rape? She should know that drinking might lead to this. Whatever happens should be her own problem.
If a girl claims that a guy raped her, even if he is cleared due to lack of evidence, his reputation will be destroyed.</p>
<p>“Judge: She can’t say “yes” b/c she was drunk, enjoy your life in jail.”</p>
<p>Haha wow straight guys are so out of fashion and everyone agrees.</p>
<p>"east89 (#143): My point is if a girl is that drunk, how will she be able to say yes? If a girl is able to say yes, why should it be rape? She should know that drinking might lead to this. Whatever happens should be her own problem.
If a girl claims that a guy raped her, even if he is cleared due to lack of evidence, his reputation will be destroyed. "</p>
<p>Well you should know that you shouldn’t go out after dark, or ever go to a city, because there is crime there and you might get robbed! I mean SURELY you know better than to leave your house after dusk. If you do, whatever happens to you is your problem.</p>
<p>I have never been raped or sexually assaulted but there is a trend in this thread that is strange to me. I have had a gun pulled on me at point blank range years ago in my home town (big city). I was never afraid to go out of my house after that, daytime or not. I can not and will not live the rest of my life in fear of what ifs and maybes. And other thing you don’t have to leave your house to be robbed. Ever hear of home invasions?</p>
<p>And the whole women should not dress this way or that because of what might happen yada yada yada, is bs. I don’t care if a woman walks down the street in a bra and panties (if that were legal) she does not deserve to be sexually assaulted or raped. Men and women should be able to dress however the heck they wish.</p>
<p>TwistedxKiss: I’m not sure, but you may have misunderstood me. I’m not saying a woman deserves to be raped if she is drunk. I am saying that if she is drunk and agrees to have sex with someone, it should not be rape.</p>
<p>You’re saying a woman should know better than to drink in public because she might be raped, and if so then she deserves it. It sounds a lot uglier when put that way, but that is clearly what you meant.</p>
<p>The problem is the definition of rape. I don’t consider a drunk woman who has sex is being raped. You do.
I don’t think that a woman should be raped, no matter how much she drinks, or what she wears or for any reason at all.</p>
<p>Or to put it another way, a person should always be responsible for their own actions, no matter how drunk they are.</p>
<p>Hmm. So let me see if I have this right now. If I feel that I have been raped, but legally I have not, I have not been raped and am just defaming some poor guy for nothing. HOWEVER, if I am drunk and someone has sex with me, regardless of the letter of the law, you do not consider that rape.</p>
<p>That’s awfully convenient!</p>
<p>I think you say that you said “no”, but he wouldn’t listen. To me this is a clear case of rape. Isn’t it rape legally as well? In fact, I would consider it rape even if you hadn’t said “no” as long as you hadn’t said “yes”. I said I believe that you are responsible for YOUR actions. In this case, you were clearly not at fault.
I would have held you responsible, if you had been drunk, agreed to have sex with him, but the next morning regretted it and then claimed that he raped you.</p>
<p>And I disagree with a law. So what?</p>
<p>I was speaking hypothetically, I am not talking about myself. I am talking about how you think you can manipulate the definition of the word to make women look just plain irresponsible, but if a woman does it then she’s trying to defame some poor innocent guy. That’s kind of a lose-lose situation you’re creating for women, don’t you think?</p>
<p>Sorry, I didn’t realize it was a hypothetical case.
But I think that my definition is fair: a woman is not responsible unless she consented. As rape is basically defined as non-consensual sex, what is wrong with this definition?</p>
<p>I don’t think this argument is really going anywhere and it is not really what this thread is supposed to be about, so I think I am going to stop now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, but if I knew that I was going to go on PCP and did it anyways, it would be my own fault if I cut my dick off. Likewise, if I drink a dozen beers and then decide to go out and drive through town, it would be my fault, not the alcohol’s. Alcohol makes you do things that you regret sometimes, including sleeping with people that you may not like. That’s a bad decision, not rape. It seems as if you agree with that. </p>
<p>Also, most drunken hookups involve both parties being inebriated. Not sure how you can expect a guy to think clearly and judge a set of criteria if he is as drunk as, or more drunk than, the girl he is hooking up with.</p>
<p>No one’s blaming the physical alcohol as “party at fault” Cuse - c’mon. It has to do with a person who is incapacitated in some way and another person who is taking advantage of/ manipulating that person (which happens in some cases, not all cases, where alcohol is involved).</p>
<p>For instance by your logic, a woman who decides to wear a ball gag out can get raped at will because “she can’t say no and she should have known that she wouldn’t be able to say no while gagged.” So really, she can’t be “raped” after all and anyone can have sex with her.</p>
<p>There’s a difference between “drunk” and “gone.”</p>
<p>There’s a difference between a drunk girl wanting to have sex with you, and you simply sticking your dick into some girl who doesn’t know where she is.</p>
<p>One is consent and one is the man taking advantage of a girl who can’t consent.</p>
<p>It’s the same logic as why a 10 year old girl can’t consent to have sex with an adult - she doesn’t know what the hell is going on. In a case where someone is heavily drugged, the room is spinning, and they can’t stand up - they may be tricked and manipulated into agreeing to something they don’t truly agree to or want to do - and the guy KNOWS this but doesn’t care because he figures he can beat the justice system anyway.</p>
<p>If you ever have sex with a girl who is just falling down drunk - well that’s just plain disgusting. You’re an opportunistic vulture, plain and simple.</p>