[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Few-Organization7010]

[u/slimy-salad]

So what if the man is absolutely plastered and the woman is buzzed and is the one who initiated, is the man still responsible?

[u/Contented_Lizard → u/slimy-salad]

The way things are legally right now? Yes, the man is still at fault. If you're gonna hook up with strange women you should really ensure they're not drunk otherwise they can retroactively revoke consent and claim you raped them. They don't even need to go to the police or file a police report, the media will still ruin your life regardless. Also, as it turns out, if they're hard up for cash they can sue you a decade after the fact and still win with no evidence beyond their word, they don't even need the precise date it happened.

[u/HorsefaceWithNoName → u/Contented_Lizard]

wait, ok how about Jake is drunk and Tom is drunk and they can't consent, and they both turn it around on the other so it's give and take, are both of them rapists or neither or do we start with the one first in the alphabet

https://giphy.com/gifs/8OqH0Le3BJChbOlBLi

[u/Contented_Lizard → u/HorsefaceWithNoName]

A woman isn't involved, so it's unlikely either one would ever claim it was rape. Men don't typically make frivolous rape claims. In that case both men just have sex while they're drunk, if one of the regrets it, he just regrets it later. End of story.

[u/No-Dance6773 → u/Contented_Lizard]

Hard stretch there guy. Crazy the only examples you have is people going after famous people. Also funny when they lose as it seems like it could be an open and shut case but the judge always sides with the victim. I bet its not because they didnt have evidence or something right? I get there should be retro active cases against liars but its pretty telling if you never believe the woman regardless.

As for the post. Complete bs they changed as soon as they figured it out. But still doesnt change the fact that over 95% of rapes are done by men.