U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
20,383 posts, read 10,577,532 times
Reputation: 8029

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
It's more complicated than that.

I'm presuming she gave consent when she was conscious, and then passed out. Passing out can happen VERY quickly - in a matter of seconds - and wouldn't appear all that dramatic in the dark when a woman basically falls asleep on the ground during a sex act. She may have been asleep for 15 seconds, a half minute, whatever, and that wouldn't be all that noticeable to anyone until two strangers rode up on bikes and began shouting, and she didn't move. THAT would be noticeable, and unmistakable. That she was lying there, still, would not be that noticeable, especially to a man who was more than .17 BAL.

That's what's critical here.

Would he have known that she fell asleep after having given consent? I'd say, no. When you toss in the fact that he wasn't raping her, he was working on foreplay it seems quite obvious he didn't know.
Why are you presuming that she gave consent? Maybe she was leaving, maybe Brock offered to walk he home, maybe she was just outside to get some air, and she passed out.

Once unconscious consent is no longer on option even IF it was given before.

He is responsible for his actions, if he was driving and hit someone being drunk is no excuse, why shouly digitally penetrating someone while drunk be excused?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 09:29 AM
 
Location: In my skin
9,145 posts, read 14,422,006 times
Reputation: 8985
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
She is responsible for her action, which was getting drunk and passing out. That action didn't hurt another person.

He is responsible for his actions, which were getting drunk, and digitally penetrating a woman who was passed out. His action harmed another person.
You would have to prove he knew she was passed out and when she passed out. No one has established that. No one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:39 AM
 
Location: In my skin
9,145 posts, read 14,422,006 times
Reputation: 8985
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Why are you presuming that she gave consent? Maybe she was leaving, maybe Brock offered to walk he home, maybe she was just outside to get some air, and she passed out.

Once unconscious consent is no longer on option even IF it was given before.

He is responsible for his actions, if he was driving and hit someone being drunk is no excuse, why shouly digitally penetrating someone while drunk be excused?
Digitally penetrating someone while drunk happens every day. People willingly get drunk just to have sex. It is "excused".

The one element you folks are ignoring is that it doesn't just take a person being drunk/passed out to establish guilt. You also have to establish that the accused had reasonable knowledge of the accuser's condition. That has not been established.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:47 AM
 
Location: In my skin
9,145 posts, read 14,422,006 times
Reputation: 8985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giesela View Post
Well I'll take the first question on - why would someone have sex with an animal? Why would someone have sex with a dead person? Why would someone rape their wife? Why would someone........I mean the list goes on and on. That question doesn't even begin to apply. The rest sounds like cherry picked fake news to support your own beliefs that nothing will ever change.

Doubting that.
Here are some actual facts for you to cherry pick.

http://documents.latimes.com/stanford-brock-turner/

Brock Turner Appeal
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:51 AM
 
Location: SW Florida
10,790 posts, read 5,078,840 times
Reputation: 22536
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
I feel very ambivalent. I think we're on a VERY slippery slope when we make men criminally responsible for bad decisions women make. When one of the partners in a sex act passes out because he/she has knowingly gotten him/herself drunk, the other partner in the sex act should not suddenly become a felon. And that's what happened here, in my opinion.

Men also make horrible decisions they greatly regret when they are drunk. This is such a common story. A man goes into a strip bar (or a hotel bar, on a business trip), gets completely loaded and then later greatly regrets a sex act with a sex worker that he may or may not have had. He has vague memories of a possible sex act, and symptoms of an STD. And now he has to go home to his wife or girlfriend and he doesn't know what to do - tell her, or don't tell her? And in that case, no one - no one - has any empathy for the man's position although it's the exact same position, in mirror reverse, of this woman's position. Minus, of course, the two bicyclists riding by and witnessing what happened and rescuing her in the most humiliating position she's maybe ever been in.

In my opinion, what happened to her was a "teachable moment" as they say, and not a crime on anyone's part. She passed out during a sex act and he didn't notice. It was not a shining hour for either of them, how terribly vulgar, but we have decided to infanticize women and decide they can't consent to getting themselves drunk and consent to drunk sex.
I couldn't rep more than once so here you go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:10 AM
 
Location: SW Florida
10,790 posts, read 5,078,840 times
Reputation: 22536
What I'm not understanding here is how the woman is getting a pass because she was drunk but the guy is getting crucified even though he was drunk also. Is it because he didn't actually pass out? While I've never been raped I don't understand how this woman is so traumatized if she can't remember anything and there was no genital to genital contact. She gets all the sympathy, especially from women, while he is branded as a sex offender for life, etc. They both used poor judgment but it seems he is the only way paying for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:54 AM
 
Location: In my skin
9,145 posts, read 14,422,006 times
Reputation: 8985
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiluvr1228 View Post
What I'm not understanding here is how the woman is getting a pass because she was drunk but the guy is getting crucified even though he was drunk also. Is it because he didn't actually pass out?
It's really a wonder to behold. Alcohol incapacitates women while rendering men completely sober and aware.

Quote:
While I've never been raped I don't understand how this woman is so traumatized if she can't remember anything and there was no genital to genital contact. She gets all the sympathy, especially from women, while he is branded as a sex offender for life, etc. They both used poor judgment but it seems he is the only way paying for it.
Sexual assault is hard to prove because of its intimate nature. We need to be preparing women for the very real possibility that they may not get justice, even when there IS evidence. And where there is none, and no memory, they don't get to make up an ending. They get to learn to live with the uncertainty.

Also, I can't imagine why any reasonable person would - with no memory of what happened, with the reality of alcohol intoxication playing a role and with no history of violence on the part of the accused - choose the worst case scenario. Who does that? Why not choose to believe she WASN'T assaulted?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
20,383 posts, read 10,577,532 times
Reputation: 8029
Quote:
Originally Posted by PassTheChocolate View Post
Digitally penetrating someone while drunk happens every day. People willingly get drunk just to have sex. It is "excused".

The one element you folks are ignoring is that it doesn't just take a person being drunk/passed out to establish guilt. You also have to establish that the accused had reasonable knowledge of the accuser's condition. That has not been established.
Did he have consent? You seem to be missing that part. A passed out person can not consent. Even if a person consents then passes out the there is not continued consent. Being drunk is not consent, being passed out is not consent. Being drunk does not excuse you from breaking the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
20,383 posts, read 10,577,532 times
Reputation: 8029
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiluvr1228 View Post
What I'm not understanding here is how the woman is getting a pass because she was drunk but the guy is getting crucified even though he was drunk also. Is it because he didn't actually pass out? While I've never been raped I don't understand how this woman is so traumatized if she can't remember anything and there was no genital to genital contact. She gets all the sympathy, especially from women, while he is branded as a sex offender for life, etc. They both used poor judgment but it seems he is the only way paying for it.
Because she did not violate anyone while she was drunk, he did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:35 AM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
30,492 posts, read 16,907,832 times
Reputation: 22917
Quote:
Originally Posted by PassTheChocolate View Post
Colleges have failed miserably wrt sexual assault due to Title IX mandates. Their definitions of consent vary from one school to the next and are often excessive. Consent must be given while stone cold sober. Or it can't be given while under the influence. Neither take into consideration that drugs affect different people differently, as well as the reality that you can, in fact, consent to sex when you drink. People often do drugs to enhance the experience or ease anxiety. Married people are having drugged sex all the time.

Then there is the express affirmative consent requirement where each touch must be granted clear verbal permission, which is absolutely ludicrous. Micromanaging consensual sexual activity is an overreach. A clear "NO" would be far more appropriate, because "no means no", right? Anything short of that is open to interpretation.

The reason sexual assault appears to be so frequent on college campuses is because most sexual behavior there can be deemed illegal, which makes for a LOT of false allegations.



Easy to say when you're not under the influence of drugs.
It's actually quite clear. IF there is any doubt - don't have sex.

I've been under the influence of everything under the sun. At no time did I molest an unconscious stranger.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top