|
>> If a man falls for this trap and is caught then it serves him right. Are you really saying that such men deserve having false allegations
of rape made against him, and
that they deserve to be incarcerated because of it? "No woman ever deserved to be raped, but some men deserve to be falsely
imprisoned on charges of rape". That morality is bizarre. >> Drunken "consent" is not consent. Let's reconsider the point made by Yobbo elsewhere in this thread:
- Alcohol removes your inhibitions.
- Everyone knows that alcohol removes their inhibitions.
- People take alcohol because it removes their inhibitions.
- One of the inhibitions it removes is the inhibition about having sex with
.. er .. 'newly formed acquaintances'.
- If someone gets drunk, and agrees to sex because of their lack of
inhibitions, why is it not consent?
Consider another tack:
- You are responsible for your actions.
- If you choose to get drunk you are responsible for you actions while
drunk.
- If you drive a car drunk, fall out of a tree drunk, or assault someone while
drunk, you are responsible for you actions. No-one else should take the blame.
- If you agree to sex while drunk, you are responsible for your
actions. No-one else should take the blame.
Either way someone who has sex with an agreeable drunken person** is not guilty
of rape. It becomes rape only when the person does not agree. Determining (after the event) whether there was agreement is the tricky bit here -
the principle is not. >> On the other hand the woman deserves no respect either.
>> Both are being really really stupid. Stupidity is their right. We are talking about whether anyone should be charged
with rape.
** I'm assuming here the minimum of context: that the person is not mentally
retarded or in some other way unable to understand what sex is.
| 
