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.
I like the military interpretation of it. If she's drunk and she's not your wife, don't have sex with her. When you're drunk you have given up your ability to fully consent to intercourse, so drunk sex is a form of sexual assault and is taken very seriously in the military, it should be common law. Though it's less common, the same should go for men, if he's drunk don't have sex with him, not necessarily because the woman is taking advantage of him, which can happen, but because drunk people do crazy and absurd things, and some form of assault may happen anyways.
I agree with this and at times I'd be considered a liberal based on my views and what I say.
Just curious - what would happen if a woman got pregnant by having sex with a drunk guy, and the guy claimed rape because he didn't wanna take care of the kid?
So how do proponents of laws like CA's yes means yes determine consent while drunk? It's already against the law to have sex with someone against their will. I thought liberals didn't want government in their bedrooms? Please explain.
thats not what "Yes means yes" is
Quote:
Rather than using the refrain "no means no," the definition of consent under the bill requires "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision" by each party to engage in sexual activity.
The measure will apply to all colleges and universities accepting state financial aid.
The action came as the state legislature rushed toward scheduled adjournment, and as universities around the country are under pressure to improve handling of allegations of sexual assault. Some critics of the bill say the legislation is overreaching and sends universities into murky, unfamiliar legal waters.
The proposal requires all colleges taking student financial aid funding from the state to agree that in investigations of campus sexual assaults, silence or lack of resistance does not imply a green light for sex, and that drunkenness is not an acceptable defense.
People have been coping with the nightmares of having sex with an uggo for a LONG time......they cope by getting drunk first.
Two ghastly looking people can enter a fantasy world and sleep with a gorgeous partner....thanks to the invention of alcohol.
Leave it to crazies to make a law, a dumb law and worthless law!
The law simply states that being drunk( The attacker) is not a defense of the action, and that not yelling out in pain or fear( the victim) is not consent either.
I'm sorry, I saw your ridiculous post and just had to make fun of it.
You might want to think about who actually is making the ridiculous post because only one of us knows the difference between rape and drunken sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
thats not what "Yes means yes" is
If I'm not mistaken, technically it is, now that the state has determined what consent is in state funded colleges. For the record, I'm not saying being drunk automatically gives you the right to have sex with anyone. It doesn't.
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.
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.
