Posted on 09/08/2014 4:44:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
In most states, I believe there's no "perhaps" about it.
Of course, expecting the young man, who is himself also sloshed, to be perfectly capable of making these decisions is itself illogical.
IOW, even an entirely ethical young man who intends to obey the law may make poor choices when drunk and horny.
I have never and will never understand the "meet in bars and go home with a stranger" routine.
The young women is stating, by her actions and in the most blatant way possible, that she utterly and completely trusts this guy she just met not to do her harm. Why? On what is that trust based?
They guy, OTOH, is equally trusting that she won't make a false accusation that will very likely ruin his life. Why does he trust her to this extent? What is the trust based on?
Worse yet is the double standard applied to the liability of the act. The woman, being drunk, is considered incapable of a rational decision to have sex or not, due to her diminished capacity. Yet the male, equally drunk and equally diminished, is held wholly liable and capable of forming criminal intent!
Not only is this morally indefensible — it still takes two to wango-tango — it is logically and legally unsupportable as well. But we all know that women are sexual victims and men are just pigs, so that trumps justice.
Which is why getting drunk and jiggy with strangers is so stupid.
You can wake up the next morning, and if accused of rape not even be able to say honestly that you are sure you didn't do it.
All you can say is that you don't believe you would do such a thing.
If a drunk man drives his car into another, I’m curious, what defense should he have for that?
If I take a shotgun into a mall, blindfold myself, and start randomly shooting in various directions, can I honestly say I didn't intend to hurt anyone? Surely, I did not purposely aim at anyone, and people in the mall could clearly see that I was incapacitated (blindfolded), so shouldn't they have hid or taken me out?
Discuss.
Excellent essay.
Many great lines, too, including this one:
Again, if you’re in college it probably should not be so hard to understand that guzzling Jose Cuervo until you are a stumbling, puking wreck and then heading off to a random dude’s dorm is likely to end up in the inept coupling that passes for erotic activity among 19-year olds.
I am reminded of an old British TV show, Doctor in the House.
At one point several of the young doctors do something stupid, I don’t remember what, and are trying to excuse themselves to their supervisor by explaining that they had been drunk at the time.
To which his response is, “Oh, you were drunk. Why didn’t you say so before? That’s all right then.” With, of course, magnificent sarcasm.
The difference, of course, as far as your question goes, is that it is illegal to drive while under the influence. It is not illegal to get drunk and have consensual sex with another person.
It is, however, really stupid. Especially when you have no reason at all to trust that person or believe he/she isn’t criminal or crazy.
I’ll concede your point arguendo. But shouldn’t that hold for BOTH parties, notjust the male?
If the woman penetrates the man or gives him a disease, I would say she has done harm, as well.
I’m not sure I understand the question.
Tell me what should be done with this:
A man gets drunk and sleeps with a sober woman who doesn’t use birth control. She gets pregnant from that man. Did he willfully become a father? Should he pay child support until that child is an adult?
By the standards being promoted by these folks, I guess if neither party is sufficiently sober to give full consent, neither party can be considered to have given it.
By this logic, both parties are guilty of rape.
Won’t be construed that way, of course, the default assumption being that the guy is guilty and she’s innocent.
An excellent point. The law will of course make him do so.
My response is that a man should avoid putting himself in a situation where such a thing is likely to happen. But that’s exactly the same advice, given the women, that the author of this article was attacked for giving.
Nobody will attack me for giving such advice to men, they’ll just think it’s stupid and unrealistic. Can’t expect men to keep it in their pants, you know.
I’ve been drunk enough at times, sadly, when such a thing could have happened to me, had I been with a different crowd. Had I impregnated a young lady, and it was provent to be so, I would have assumed as much responsibility for the child as she allowed. I’m responsible, even if I hadn’t planned on it happening.
Just as I’m responsible for killing somebody while driving under the influence, even though I had no such intention.
And if she merely destroys his reputation by alleging she was “raped?”
I’m getting a lot of mileage out of this quote today:
“The issue is never the issue. The issue is the revolution.”
—David Horowitz, quoting unnamed SDS leader.
He must countersue and drive that false accusation into the ground.
I would not accept such a lie, but then, I can’t say I’ve ever lost control of myself.
She wouldn’t have semen or pictures of merit with me. I would crush her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.