Government controlled sex (vs, kids, against, difference)

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by bUU

Now you're just making stuff up seemingly because you're frustrated that you cannot defend your perspective based on the information available. When you start making stuff up it is a clear sign that you really don't have anything legitimate to add to the discussion, and simply are trying to distract attention away from legitimate comments that you don't like.

Did you have something to say? Because if you did you should say it.

[FatBob96]

Originally Posted by bUU

In order for something to be "common" sense it needs to be common, rather than just a reflection of the confirmation bias that forms your perspectives. Here's an example of something that is actually "common" sense:

The problem is you're expecting kids who are often times lacking the common sense that maturity brings to use your definition of common sense when they are purposely mixing alcohol and hormones, a notoriously dangerous cocktail.
You, also seem to be placing all of the burden of cognitive responsibility on the man in these situations.

[GregW]

Men forcing sex on drunken and otherwise unwilling women is as good a definition of rape. The important part is the "forcing on the unwilling". Even taking advantage of a girl's inebriation is a form of force.

A long long time ago a female friend of mine told me that some guy had fed her more booze then she could handle and then raped her. She was afraid of going to the cops for several reasons including her family blaming her for the rape. Eventually her rapist was found in very bad shape behind a dumpster. He claimed he never knew what hit him. He was right. He never did.

[rogead]

Originally Posted by GregW

Men forcing sex on drunken and otherwise unwilling women is as good a definition of rape. The important part is the "forcing on the unwilling". Even taking advantage of a girl's inebriation is a form of force.

A long long time ago a female friend of mine told me that some guy had fed her more booze then she could handle and then raped her. She was afraid of going to the cops for several reasons including her family blaming her for the rape. Eventually her rapist was found in very bad shape behind a dumpster. He claimed he never knew what hit him. He was right. He never did.

I don't think anyone disagrees with your first two sentences. The problem arises with your third sentence.

Taking advantage of someone's intoxication may well be unethical, but it does not meet the legal definition of sexual assault. What if you're drunk, and I ask you for twenty dollars. I may well suspect that you wouldn't give me twenty dollars if you were sober, but you just might, given that your'e drunk. If you offer to give me the twenty dollars, and I actually accept it; I may be an ******* for taking it, but I haven't engaged in the legal definition of robbery or theft.

Far more importantly, the overwhelming number of these campus rape accusations arise out of circumstances in which both the accuser and the accused were intoxicated. This means that, at best (or worst), both parties have taken advantage of each other. More likely, it means that both parties were intoxicated to the degree of not even recognizing the intoxication level of their partner. Combine the loosened inhibitions brought on by alcohol intoxication, with the typical inability to accurately recall events which took place while intoxicated, and you have something which cannot possibly be sorted out by a group of college administrators. The reality is that, in such cases, it is always the male students who end up being punished for drunken heterosexual encounters in which the woman involved decides (sometimes, months later) that she was raped.

You state that your friend was fed "more booze then she could handle" What does that mean? Did a man physically constrain her, force her mouth open, and pour alcohol down her throat?--or, did a man offer her alcohol, which she willingly accepted and consumed? Legally, these are two diametrically opposed scenarios.

I can understand why a sexual assault victim may be reluctant to report the crime, but if the crime is not reported to law enforcement, there is no way to impartially and thoroughly determine whether or not a crime took place. When an investigation determines that a legally-defined sexual assault occurred, the perpetrator needs to be detained and arrested. If the available facts cannot determined that the legal definition of sexual assault has been met, no one has the right to extrapolate the guilt of the accused based on nothing more than the existence of the accusation itself.

[Leisesturm]

Originally Posted by diva360

And in any case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution in such matters, not the defense.

The burden of proof may be on the prosecution but the burden is squarely on the defense. The mere allegation of rape means immediate expulsion for a male on a campus, if not incarceration. It will be a minimum of two years before he gets his life back, if ever. Even if exonerated he has, if incarcerated, been subject to some life changing experiences, and just because some drunk chick who couldn't even describe her attacker managed to somehow implicate him in her "rape".

Men should be less quick to come to the defense of women in these situations. Men are all too often willing to risk their own lives to illegally restore the propriety of a wronged woman that they may know or be related to. Its a fools errand in many cases. Innocent men have been killed on some woman's say so, an impaired woman's say so. What, women are incapable of lying about how they came to be so drunk that they could not give consent?

Men wake up in Nevada motel rooms suddenly husbands without their knowledge. Is there sympathy for their plight? A college official was recently suspended for suggesting that female coeds be counseled on how to drink responsibly in public. I wouldn't be surprised if the Liquor Authority isn't behind all this tacit support for the continued public intoxication of women on American campuses. Obviously rape is an issue but lets put the burden of cleaning that up on the men that remain sober, because thirsty women are just too good for business.

H

[Leisesturm]

Originally Posted by rogead

I don't think anyone disagrees with your first two sentences. The problem arises with your third sentence.

Taking advantage of someone's intoxication may well be unethical, but it does not meet the legal definition of sexual assault. What if you're drunk, and I ask you for twenty dollars. I may well suspect that you wouldn't give me twenty dollars if you were sober, but you just might, given that your'e drunk. If you offer to give me the twenty dollars, and I actually accept it; I may be an ******* for taking it, but I haven't engaged in the legal definition of robbery or theft.

Exactly, and also why retribution usually has to come through the back door, because no court will touch a case like that and not leave a woman's reputation in even worse shape afterwards. Only in America do women find it necessary to seek legal redress for non-consensual sex. In all cases they are going after a monetary settlement with the college. They don't even care about the guy. He is just a means towards getting a nice fat settlement out of the bloated coffers of the college or university.

I suggest that "settlements" in cases like this should be in the form of punishment of the guilty. Not monetary awards to lawyers and "victims". When the only satisfaction that can be achieved is the castration and incarceration of her rapist we might actually get more accountability. I mean... you are essentially putting men away for life for the crime of rape. A fitting punishment. There should be no doubt of his guilt. The woman had better be sober and clear about events. If not. NO CASE. Horrors, a woman might actually get "raped" and be unable to get hundreds of thousands of dollars for herself and her lawyers for her ravishment. Welcome to the world of accountability.

Women are still free to get just as drunk as they want to in order to have a good time. That might, emphasis might, mean discovering that they had a little more fun than they bargained for. And? Typically American to get so riled about some sex. Typically American to cast something that takes place as frequently as drunk sex as some kind of depraved criminal act worthy of courts and legislation.

H

[bUU]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Did you have something to say? Because if you did you should say it.

Sorry; you must have missed it:

Originally Posted by bUU

Here's an example of something that is actually "common" sense:

Originally Posted by Dooleys1300

The problem is you're expecting kids who are often times lacking the common sense that maturity brings to use your definition of common sense when they are purposely mixing alcohol and hormones, a notoriously dangerous cocktail.

At what age should a "kid" become responsible for their own actions?

Originally Posted by Dooleys1300

You, also seem to be placing all of the burden of cognitive responsibility on the man in these situations.

That's a lie. I have been fastidious about remaining 100% gender-neutral in my comments in this thread because I know that apologists would tend to try to build rationalizations around such childish deflections. Furthermore, I even mentioned that earlier in the thread, to underscore the point. The fact that you feel the need to rely on a lie to foster your rebuttal seems to indicate that you recognize the lack of legitimacy in your own perspective.

[Erobrer]

Originally Posted by bUU

Yet you saw fit to add yet another pointless and vacuous bit of nonsense to the pile of your earlier pile of nonsense.

Yes I forgot, only your opinion is correct and anyone else that disagrees with you is wrong

Originally Posted by bUU

And now you're just making stuff up to argue against, stuff no one ever said. Can you attempt any more obvious deflection? Less so than the abuse that it seeks to address.

And you think that penalizing poor judgement that commonly happens is going to prevent criminal behavior? These regulations do not help victims at all but rather create more false positives. I, for one, don't believe that laws and regulations should be passed for the sake of passing them.

Originally Posted by bUU

Neither do I, but it wouldn't occur to you to actually direct your responses to what I wrote to what I actually wrote, now, would it?

So are you in support of the regulations or not? I'm confused here. If you truly thought legislating morality is bad then certainly you wouldn't support this at all. The points you made literally had nothing to do with the topic at hand.I'm not sure how to respond to your completely off topic rant so I'll try here. I literally fail to see how this is about right wingers hating women, minorities or the poor. The left and right wing working together back in the day is irrelevant. It really is irrelevant that you think right wingers are vindictive cartoon villains. Sexual predation is not going decline if people keep passing outdated sex laws. Actually, they will increase. Society will not progress with authoritarian standards.The weak being exploited still have nothing to do with the conversation. I'm not really sure why you mentioned television or video games and what you perceive to be a callous society. You really were going completely off topic.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by Erobrer

Yes I forgot, only your opinion is correct and anyone else that disagrees with you is wrong

Let's deal with this childish comment first: Do you think people post comments that they don't believe are true? If I'm posting something, then of course I believe it is true, and therefore if you post in contradiction to it, then I will believe - and say - that your comment is false.

If you post comments that you know are false only to admit that they're false when someone posts a contrary comment, then (with respect) you're an idiot.

Rolling back to the point in contention here:

Originally Posted by bUU

Exploiting excessive power over another person to commit rape is something new? Really?

You have yet to address the point I made. You just keep trying to dodge it.

Originally Posted by Erobrer

I'm confused here.

That much is certain.

Originally Posted by Erobrer

You really were going completely off topic.

Until you go back and read my comments with enough attention paid to them so you actually understand the references and analogies I've made, instead of complaining that I posted references and analogies, our discussion cannot move forward.

[Erobrer]

Originally Posted by bUU

Let's deal with this childish comment first: Do you think people post comments that they don't believe are true? If I'm posting something, then of course I believe it is true, and therefore if you post in contradiction to it, then I will believe - and say - that your comment is false.If you post comments that you know are false only to admit that they're false when someone posts a contrary comment, then (with respect) you're an idiot.

Or, you could simply state you are expressing an opinion and not a universal moral statement. And I have no problem admitting that I am simply posting a personal opinion and I am by no means trying to be the Dalai Lama.

Originally Posted by bUU

Rolling back to the point in contention here:You have yet to address the point I made.You just keep trying to dodge it.

See below

Originally Posted by bUU

" Exploiting excessive power over another person to commit rape is something new? Really? "

Criminals will exploit excessive power regardless of how many nonsense laws are passed. Criminal do not in any way, shape, or form care about following the law. Now in my opinion, watering down the definition of what makes a crime a crime is a waste of resources that could be used to find real long term fixes to reduce crime.