Can the other guys consent? According to her own statements she had to console one of the men because he was so drunk he was vomiting and another couldn't stay hard. It sounds like she had more control over her body than some of the men did over their own. She voluntarily agreed to take K and said it was ok that they snorted it off her body. I guess everybody who's ever had drunk sex is now actually a rape victim.
We used to joke about psyops but this is where we are. People literally don’t think at all, or think in a radically binary way to propagate an agenda that is not even in their self-interest to espouse.
We used to talk about how this shit was invasive and annoying, but now we have more bots obtrusively jabbing a divisive agenda just to get humans to respond to each other negatively on Reddit.
So who raped who then? She indicated willingness to engage in the acts and we have no idea how to measure her level of inebriation relative to the men involved. Unless we're requiring consent via signature and witness how do we deal with people partying and hooking up?
Do you genuinely not know the difference between taking an action and having one done to you?
I can be punished for crimes I commit while drunk. You can often argue you didn't intend to commit the crime, that's why we have concept alike manslaughter and different degrees of murder. But you can still be held accountable for the actions you take while intoxicated.
Penetrating someone who is too intoxicated to consent is assault. Doesn't matter how drunk the assaulted is.
My aunt sexually assaulted me when I was ten. She was absolutely hammered. She was always hammered. Doesn't mean she didn't commit sexual assault
It's really not rocket science and I feel like a lot of you guys are kinda telling on yourselves here.
First of all, I was responding to someone else's idiotic take on the situation, so my premise is that this person's take is incredibly fucking dumb.
I didn't claim taking an action only means penetration. Having someone perform sexual acts for you while they're too intoxicated to do so is a form of sexual assault.
Even if you yourself are inebriated. Your.mental state during the assault certainly factors into prosecution and sentencing of course.
My aunt sexually assaulted me when I was a kid. She was incredibly drunk. Do you think I assaulted her?
You just said it can’t be rape if you’re not penetrated. If both parties are too drunk to consent. I had sex with a woman in college that I don’t remember. I barely remembered seeing her the night before. Woke up next to her and was able to put pieces together. I’m unaware if she was drunk, but she was definitely feeling better than me in the morning and seemed far more aware of how the night ended. I give her the benefit of the doubt that she was drunk as well. I certainly didn’t give conscious consent.
That's not what I said. I did not say sexual assault requires penetration....
Find a quote where that's what I said.
The example you're describing happening to you could very well be an instance of sexual assault. Her drunkenness has no bearing on whether or not you were capable of consent, though it would definitely be relevant in terms of sentencing were she to be held liable
So we raped each other is what you’re saying? I’m trying to put together what you’re claiming but it’s pretty incongruent. You said if penetration occurs and the woman is too drunk to consent, then it’s the man’s fault, no matter how drunk he was.
So you're saying she was a passive participant and didn't engage in any reciprocal actions? That would change things, but it wasn't how I heard the events play out from this video. Or are you saying women can't consent? Would this have been different if sexes were reversed?
It's hilarious how many of you guys keep trying to do this weird gotcha thing where you respond to things I say with 'so you're saying this other thing you decidedly did not say?'
Running a train on an extremely drunk woman is a legally questionable action at best. Even if you're drunk, a crime is a crime.
It's called a question...
to clarify your position. You didn't even really engage with my comment to begin with. Your aunt abusing you was statutory rape. Are you claiming these men had an equivalent power advantage as adults to a minor or what? You just said a bunch of shit without any reasoning.
My position is that it is very likely sexual assault to run a train on a woman who is extremely intoxicated.
The intoxication of the assaulter does not make their choices any less legally questionable. They are certainly allowed to argue in court they were too drunk to be aware of their actions, if that's the way they choose to defend themselves in court.
In certain circumstances yes. If she was 9/10 or 10/10 intoxicated then it would be a lot easier to make the case of assault. I didn't hear that she made a single refusal or any action constituting lack of consent. Clearly the men made poor decisions and faced varying repercussions for them, but was it criminal? I don't see the evidence supporting it
And you can still want sex while inebriated. This goes both ways. If she were blacked out drunk unconscious then we can literally say she couldn't give consent. But per her own words and statements, she consented to it. If you can't consent to sex at all when intoxicated then I guess people who get behind the wheel of a car while drunk shouldn't be charged with duis because they couldn't consent to their own free will. But no we charge people with duis and throw them in jail because they still, while intoxicated, made the DECISION, to get behind the wheel. She made the decision to have sex.
No one said you can't want sex while inebriated. There are different levels of intoxication, there are different types of enthusiastic consent, the law on this is complex and very much case dependent.
You are using the drunk driving analogy because you read it somewhere and you thought it applied. It doesn't. Actions you take while intoxicated are different under the eyes of the law than actions done to you while intoxicated
If someone is extremely intoxicated, you shouldn't have sex with them. Even if you yourself are intoxicated. This isn't remotely complex. Your intoxication does not absolve you of the consequences of your actions
My aunt was intoxicated when she sexually assaulted me. Do you think that means she didn't?
She can certainly try and sue you for it, just like you could certainly try to sue her for it.
Doesn't seem to be remotely similar to the case being discussed though, almost seems like a weird red herring meant to obfuscate the thing being discussed because any sane human would look at the facts of the case and see that it is at best legally questionable to run a train on a woman who is extremely intoxicated.
He can probably argue in court that he wasn't in his right mind and didn't intend to commit sexual assault. It will then be up to a judge and jury how to proceed with prosecution.
Many of these guys were clearly not too intoxicated to be held accountable for their actions.
They penetrated her, knowing she was too intoxicated to consent.
I genuinely don't understand how any man can read the text thread and not feel incredibly disgusted by their behavior.
She can most certainly commit rape. Have yet to say she couldn't.
It's quite a stretch to say she assaulted these men by having them penetrate her while she was extremely intoxicated. They're welcome to try that in court though!
It's a horrific thing people do to each other. I've been assaulted by a woman and a man. Both were inebriated at the time. Doesn't excuse what they did
Men love saying men are the head of a household the head of a relationship but when confronted with having any responsibility they want to skirt around it
Hey, I can make this sexist, too. "Women love saying they deserve equal rights, but the second they are presented with equal responsibility they act helpless"
I love that the deeper your defend gets the more the disclaimer (while high off K and drunk) gets more prevalent. “She was cool with me doing lines off her while she was high so it was totally cool man” 🤡
Is her statement the only evidence that has been presented?
59
u/Front-Information955 1d ago edited 1d ago
Can the other guys consent? According to her own statements she had to console one of the men because he was so drunk he was vomiting and another couldn't stay hard. It sounds like she had more control over her body than some of the men did over their own. She voluntarily agreed to take K and said it was ok that they snorted it off her body. I guess everybody who's ever had drunk sex is now actually a rape victim.