Court: Oral sex not rape if victim is intoxicated, unconscious (CNN, Clinton)
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.
Like I said, had all cases been tried in the liberal media rather than in courts, nothing like this would happen.
Now, the court DID NOT say "oral sex not rape if victim is intoxicated, unconscious." The liberal media said that. What the court said was that "we believe it's rape but the current law doesn't define that as rape. We, as the judicial branch, can't arbitrarily change the law."
My real question is, if the legislature does change the law, how do anybody determine "intoxicated?" Is there a test that we can do? If I went on a date and had sex, how would my date know I am not intoxicated?
Like I said, had all cases been tried in the liberal media rather than in courts, nothing like this would happen.
Now, the court DID NOT say "oral sex not rape if victim is intoxicated, unconscious." The liberal media said that. What the court said was that "we believe it's rape but the current law doesn't define that as rape. We, as the judicial branch, can't arbitrarily change the law."
My real question is, if the legislature does change the law, how do anybody determine "intoxicated?" Is there a test that we can do? If I went on a date and had sex, how would my date know I am not intoxicated?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,300 posts, read 54,222,946 times
Reputation: 40623
Well, according to the current law IT IS NOT rape, why not blame who's responsible for that, the legislators , instead of making just another baseless 'liberal this, liberal that' rant?
Like I said, had all cases been tried in the liberal media rather than in courts, nothing like this would happen.
Now, the court DID NOT say "oral sex not rape if victim is intoxicated, unconscious." The liberal media said that. What the court said was that "we believe it's rape but the current law doesn't define that as rape. We, as the judicial branch, can't arbitrarily change the law."
My real question is, if the legislature does change the law, how do anybody determine "intoxicated?" Is there a test that we can do? If I went on a date and had sex, how would my date know I am not intoxicated?
The court, though, was really parsing. The current law involves consent. Intoxication and unconsciousness would both be factors that would demonstrate a lack of consent.
My real question is, if the legislature does change the law, how do anybody determine "intoxicated?" Is there a test that we can do? If I went on a date and had sex, how would my date know I am not intoxicated?
Not intoxicated, incapacitated. Incapacitated people can't consent. Watch this.
Oh please this judge must be a Bill Clinton appointee ... oral sex isn't rape if victim is drunk give me a break.
Reminds me of a good joke I heard years ago but afraid to tell it because I will be moderated.xxx rated...
It wasn't really rape, er "forced oral sex". Just a transgender looking for a restroom. Or something like that.
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.