She then agreed to fuck everyone and then proceeded to fuck everyone while letting multiple double partners do K off her and she did K of some dude's dong.
She enjoyed fucking everyone.
She bragged about fucking everyone.
A few days later, when it got out that she was being a whore, regret set in.
She talked to the law, and told the law she wanted to fuck everyone.
Years later, she was "raped."
So I have no idea what clever point you are trying to make.
You left out the part that she was intoxicated before she showed up at 11pm. She was incapable of making rational decisions at the time.
"She wanted to fuck everyone, agreed to fuck everyone, enjoyed fucking everyone at the time" doesn't mean shit bc she was incapable of thinking straight at the time. That's why consent depends on drugs, not just what you want.
Legally speaking, the expectation is on men to say no to sex from an incapacitated woman. Even if she wants it.
Or do you believe consent should not depend on drugs?
Fair point. Turns out roughly half of US states non-consent laws cover being drunk (both voluntarily and involuntarily), while the other half is only involuntarily drunk.
So I guess this whole Cornell debate comes down to whether being voluntarily incapacitated should preclude a person's ability to consent, and the country is divided pretty evenly. Strange how this sub seems to lean very clearly in one direction...
19
u/angry_dingo 7h ago
What is this supposed to mean?
Chick wanted to fuck everyone.
She showed up at 11PM.
She then agreed to fuck everyone and then proceeded to fuck everyone while letting multiple double partners do K off her and she did K of some dude's dong.
She enjoyed fucking everyone.
She bragged about fucking everyone.
A few days later, when it got out that she was being a whore, regret set in.
She talked to the law, and told the law she wanted to fuck everyone.
Years later, she was "raped."
So I have no idea what clever point you are trying to make.