College Sophomore writes column about Rape and gets lambasted, now defending it

  • 148 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Vandalvideo
Vandalvideo

39655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#51 Vandalvideo
Member since 2003 • 39655 Posts
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Wow, he sounds like a complete dick. "Let's get this straight: any woman who heads to an EI party as an anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy's room with him is indicating that she wants sex, OK?" Or that she's drunk and doesn't understand entirely what she's doing. :|

People know the affects of alcohol and how it impairs judgement. If a person gets completely waisted and makes a dumb decision they have only themselves to blame. He is 100% correct, how can you blame the guy for her poor judgement. If I get completed waist and shoot someone or run them over while drunk driving I am the one at fault. I can't wake up in the morning sober and say, "It's not my fault, I was drunk at the time."

And why shouldn't we prosecute people for taking advantage of impaired women?
Avatar image for Diablo-B
Diablo-B

4063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#52 Diablo-B
Member since 2009 • 4063 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Wow, he sounds like a complete dick. "Let's get this straight: any woman who heads to an EI party as an anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy's room with him is indicating that she wants sex, OK?" Or that she's drunk and doesn't understand entirely what she's doing. :|

People know the affects of alcohol and how it impairs judgement. If a person gets completely waisted and makes a dumb decision they have only themselves to blame. He is 100% correct, how can you blame the guy for her poor judgement. If I get completed waist and shoot someone or run them over while drunk driving I am the one at fault. I can't wake up in the morning sober and say, "It's not my fault, I was drunk at the time."

The one who did the action should be at fault in both scenarios...and in many cases it wasn't the girl. They do pass out.....

100% true. However thats not the case that the columnist brought up. We are talking about a drunk person actively making a bad decision. If you make the conscience decision to consume large amounts of alcohol who is to blame for you not being able to make the best decisions? Only yourself.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180145 Posts
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"] People know the affects of alcohol and how it impairs judgement. If a person gets completely waisted and makes a dumb decision they have only themselves to blame. He is 100% correct, how can you blame the guy for her poor judgement. If I get completed waist and shoot someone or run them over while drunk driving I am the one at fault. I can't wake up in the morning sober and say, "It's not my fault, I was drunk at the time."

The one who did the action should be at fault in both scenarios...and in many cases it wasn't the girl. They do pass out.....

100% true. However thats not the case that the columnist brought up. We are talking about a drunk person actively making a bad decision. If you make the conscience decision to consume large amounts of alcohol who is to blame for you not being able to make the best decisions? Only yourself.

Legally one is not allowed to make a contract in a state of impairment. So don't expect that being with a drunk girl won't have consequences. In fact....the ethical thing to do is send them home. I feel no sympathy for anyone that preys on a drunk whether male or female.
Avatar image for Diablo-B
Diablo-B

4063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#54 Diablo-B
Member since 2009 • 4063 Posts
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] And why shouldn't we prosecute people for taking advantage of impaired women?

Were they forced against their will to become impaired or did they willfully decide to be drunk and impaired. They wouldn't have been impaired if they didn't decide. How can you blame a guy if he asks a girl and she says yes?
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#55 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180145 Posts
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] And why shouldn't we prosecute people for taking advantage of impaired women?

Were they forced against their will to become impaired or did they willfully decide to be drunk and impaired. They wouldn't have been impaired if they didn't decide. How can you blame a guy if he asks a girl and she says yes?

The fact that they were impaired does not mean that gives another the right to take advantage of them dude.:|
Avatar image for Vandalvideo
Vandalvideo

39655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#56 Vandalvideo
Member since 2003 • 39655 Posts
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] And why shouldn't we prosecute people for taking advantage of impaired women?

Were they forced against their will to become impaired or did they willfully decide to be drunk and impaired. They wouldn't have been impaired if they didn't decide. How can you blame a guy if he asks a girl and she says yes?

I honestly think you're missing the point. I agree, there is a degree of responsibility on the woman. But think of this hypo; Imagine a security guard at a museum. This security guard, who we will call Mr. Gump, likes to get drunk every saturday night. One night, he gets drunk and flips the locks on the door by accident. Since the doors are unlocked, a burglar comes in and steals all the paintings in the room. Are you contending that the burglar has absolutely no culpability in this instance merely because of the negligence of Mr. Gump? In the case of rape, while there may be a drunken woman to blame, is there no moral impetus on the man to not take advantage of the woman?
Avatar image for Diablo-B
Diablo-B

4063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#57 Diablo-B
Member since 2009 • 4063 Posts
Legally one is not allowed to make a contract in a state of impairment. So don't expect that being with a drunk girl won't have consequences. In fact....the ethical thing to do is send them home. I feel no sympathy for anyone that preys on a drunk whether male or female.LJS9502_basic
When a person agrees to sex they aren't agreeing to a legally binding arrangement that is enforceable by court. If that where the case people would be able to sue you if you agreed to sex, with a sober mind, and then turned them down.
Avatar image for markop2003
markop2003

29917

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#58 markop2003
Member since 2005 • 29917 Posts
He's largely right however he didn't touch on drink spiking which would have made the person lose their inhibitions unwillingly.
Avatar image for Diablo-B
Diablo-B

4063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#59 Diablo-B
Member since 2009 • 4063 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] And why shouldn't we prosecute people for taking advantage of impaired women?

Were they forced against their will to become impaired or did they willfully decide to be drunk and impaired. They wouldn't have been impaired if they didn't decide. How can you blame a guy if he asks a girl and she says yes?

The fact that they were impaired does not mean that gives another the right to take advantage of them dude.:|

True. The christian thing to do would be to leave her be. But that doesn't absolve her of responsibility. She is just as much at fault.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180145 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Legally one is not allowed to make a contract in a state of impairment. So don't expect that being with a drunk girl won't have consequences. In fact....the ethical thing to do is send them home. I feel no sympathy for anyone that preys on a drunk whether male or female.Diablo-B
When a person agrees to sex they aren't agreeing to a legally binding arrangement that is enforceable by court. If that where the case people would be able to sue you if you agreed to sex, with a sober mind, and then turned them down.

That's not the same thing at all. Impairment means one is NOT able for form the correct decision and as such is not liable for said decisions vis a vis a contract. It's the same principle with sex. They are impaired and may not be aware of what is going on. I think knowing the consequences should alter people to the fact that it shouldn't be done from a societal viewpoint. You don't get to take advantage of impaired individuals.
Avatar image for Diablo-B
Diablo-B

4063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#61 Diablo-B
Member since 2009 • 4063 Posts
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] And why shouldn't we prosecute people for taking advantage of impaired women?

Were they forced against their will to become impaired or did they willfully decide to be drunk and impaired. They wouldn't have been impaired if they didn't decide. How can you blame a guy if he asks a girl and she says yes?

I honestly think you're missing the point. I agree, there is a degree of responsibility on the woman. But think of this hypo; Imagine a security guard at a museum. This security guard, who we will call Mr. Gump, likes to get drunk every saturday night. One night, he gets drunk and flips the locks on the door by accident. Since the doors are unlocked, a burglar comes in and steals all the paintings in the room. Are you contending that the burglar has absolutely no culpability in this instance merely because of the negligence of Mr. Gump? In the case of rape, while there may be a drunken woman to blame, is there no moral impetus on the man to not take advantage of the woman?

They are both at fault. The guy is a douche and the woman is foolish. However just because the guy is a douche doesn't make him a rapist either. If she gave consent how can you call it rape?
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#62 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180145 Posts
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"] Were they forced against their will to become impaired or did they willfully decide to be drunk and impaired. They wouldn't have been impaired if they didn't decide. How can you blame a guy if he asks a girl and she says yes?

The fact that they were impaired does not mean that gives another the right to take advantage of them dude.:|

True. The christian thing to do would be to leave her be. But that doesn't absolve her of responsibility. She is just as much at fault.

At fault for what? Did she force the man? Or was she just not aware of the circumstances? That is not a fault....
Avatar image for Vandalvideo
Vandalvideo

39655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#63 Vandalvideo
Member since 2003 • 39655 Posts
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"] They are both at fault. The guy is a douche and the woman is foolish. However just because the guy is a douche doesn't make him a rapist either. If she gave consent how can you call it rape?

This is where something known as strict liability in the law comes into play. Think of the charge of statutory rape. While the minor may be agreeing to the sexual intercourse, the mere fact that she is of a certain class of persons creates a strict liability, regardless of consent, to not engage in the act. Why isn't drunkness not of this same type of impairement as age? Both are seen as impairing judgment.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180145 Posts
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"] Were they forced against their will to become impaired or did they willfully decide to be drunk and impaired. They wouldn't have been impaired if they didn't decide. How can you blame a guy if he asks a girl and she says yes?

I honestly think you're missing the point. I agree, there is a degree of responsibility on the woman. But think of this hypo; Imagine a security guard at a museum. This security guard, who we will call Mr. Gump, likes to get drunk every saturday night. One night, he gets drunk and flips the locks on the door by accident. Since the doors are unlocked, a burglar comes in and steals all the paintings in the room. Are you contending that the burglar has absolutely no culpability in this instance merely because of the negligence of Mr. Gump? In the case of rape, while there may be a drunken woman to blame, is there no moral impetus on the man to not take advantage of the woman?

They are both at fault. The guy is a douche and the woman is foolish. However just because the guy is a douche doesn't make him a rapist either. If she gave consent how can you call it rape?

Legally that can and is described as rape. Ever hear of statutory rape? That has nothing to do with consent. And everything to do with state of mind....which is similar to rape caused on by impairment actually.
Avatar image for Diablo-B
Diablo-B

4063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#65 Diablo-B
Member since 2009 • 4063 Posts
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"] They are both at fault. The guy is a douche and the woman is foolish. However just because the guy is a douche doesn't make him a rapist either. If she gave consent how can you call it rape?

This is where something known as strict liability in the law comes into play. Think of the charge of statutory rape. While the minor may be agreeing to the sexual intercourse, the mere fact that she is of a certain class of persons creates a strict liability, regardless of consent, to not engage in the act. Why isn't drunkness not of this same type of impairement as age? Both are seen as impairing judgment.

So your saying that once a person drinks they should no longer be held responsible for their actions?
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#66 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180145 Posts
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"] They are both at fault. The guy is a douche and the woman is foolish. However just because the guy is a douche doesn't make him a rapist either. If she gave consent how can you call it rape?

This is where something known as strict liability in the law comes into play. Think of the charge of statutory rape. While the minor may be agreeing to the sexual intercourse, the mere fact that she is of a certain class of persons creates a strict liability, regardless of consent, to not engage in the act. Why isn't drunkness not of this same type of impairement as age? Both are seen as impairing judgment.

So your saying that once a person drinks they should no longer be held responsible for their actions?

No he's saying that date rape is not a single individual decision and if one is taking advantage of an impaired individual they are guilty of that.
Avatar image for Vandalvideo
Vandalvideo

39655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#67 Vandalvideo
Member since 2003 • 39655 Posts
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"] So your saying that once a person drinks they should no longer be held responsible for their actions?

No one is saying that. In the law you can still charge a minor for murdering someone even though we see them as an impaired individual in the case of statutory rape. In the case of alcohol, it is equally the case that the person isn't completely absolved of the responsibility of any acts committed. This is the difference between exculpating defenses and mitigating defenses. A person who engaged in drinking prior to an act, heavy drinking, may receive a lesser charge than one of a sober mind. But this absolutely does not excuse the moral impetus of the second party to not act. Regardless of the state of mind of the first party, the second party has a strict liability to not act and can also be charged. Both parties; Drunken woman AND Mr. DR have responsibilities. But strict liability does not focus on state of mind or negligence. It is merely; you did X, you are in trouble buddy.
Avatar image for Diablo-B
Diablo-B

4063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#68 Diablo-B
Member since 2009 • 4063 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] This is where something known as strict liability in the law comes into play. Think of the charge of statutory rape. While the minor may be agreeing to the sexual intercourse, the mere fact that she is of a certain class of persons creates a strict liability, regardless of consent, to not engage in the act. Why isn't drunkness not of this same type of impairement as age? Both are seen as impairing judgment.

So your saying that once a person drinks they should no longer be held responsible for their actions?

No he's saying that date rape is not a single individual decision and if one is taking advantage of an impaired individual they are guilty of that.

Like I mentioned earlier, both are equally at fault. My issue is that the girl shouldn't then turn around and sue and try and get the guy thrown in jail for her carelessness.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#69 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180145 Posts
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"] So your saying that once a person drinks they should no longer be held responsible for their actions?

No he's saying that date rape is not a single individual decision and if one is taking advantage of an impaired individual they are guilty of that.

Like I mentioned earlier, both are equally at fault. My issue is that the girl shouldn't then turn around and sue and try and get the guy thrown in jail for her carelessness.

Did he not take advantage of her in a state of impairment? Yes...and there is consequences for that.
Avatar image for Vandalvideo
Vandalvideo

39655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#70 Vandalvideo
Member since 2003 • 39655 Posts
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"] Like I mentioned earlier, both are equally at fault. My issue is that the girl shouldn't then turn around and sue and try and get the guy thrown in jail for her carelessness.

Well considering this is a criminal action, the suit would be brought by the state, not the woman.
Avatar image for Diablo-B
Diablo-B

4063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#71 Diablo-B
Member since 2009 • 4063 Posts

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"] So your saying that once a person drinks they should no longer be held responsible for their actions?Vandalvideo
No one is saying that. In the law you can still charge a minor for murdering someone even though we see them as an impaired individual in the case of statutory rape. In the case of alcohol, it is equally the case that the person isn't completely absolved of the responsibility of any acts committed. This is the difference between exculpating defenses and mitigating defenses. A person who engaged in drinking prior to an act, heavy drinking, may receive a lesser charge than one of a sober mind. But this absolutely does not excuse the moral impetus of the second party to not act. Regardless of the state of mind of the first party, the second party has a strict liability to not act and can also be charged. Both parties; Drunken woman AND Mr. DR have responsibilities. But strict liability does not focus on state of mind or negligence. It is merely; you did X, you are in trouble buddy.

So Jack is at a party. Mary comes up to him and says, "I want you bad." He follows her and they have sex. Next week he gets a greeting from the police saying that he took advantage of a drunk person. Your saying Jack is a rapists and should go to jail?

Avatar image for Vandalvideo
Vandalvideo

39655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#72 Vandalvideo
Member since 2003 • 39655 Posts
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"] So a Jack is at a party. Mary comes up to him and says, "I want you bad." He follows her and they have sex. Next week he gets a greeting from the police saying that he took advantage of a drunk person. Your saying Jack is a rapists and should go to jail?

Yup, welcome to strict liability. As Lord Reid said in Haughton v. Smith; "The law may sometimes be an [rectum]".
Avatar image for Diablo-B
Diablo-B

4063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#73 Diablo-B
Member since 2009 • 4063 Posts

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"] So a Jack is at a party. Mary comes up to him and says, "I want you bad." He follows her and they have sex. Next week he gets a greeting from the police saying that he took advantage of a drunk person. Your saying Jack is a rapists and should go to jail?Vandalvideo
Yup, welcome to strict liability. As Lord Reid said in Haughton v. Smith; "The law may sometimes be an [rectum]".

So I guess people need to walk around with breathalyzers before they hook up with someone.

However we are off topic. The columnist didn't contend to whether its legal or not but that in reality its not rape if a situation like the one mentioned above takes place.

Avatar image for Vandalvideo
Vandalvideo

39655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#74 Vandalvideo
Member since 2003 • 39655 Posts
So I guess people need to walk around with breathalyzers before they hook up with someone.However we are off topic. The columnist didn't contend to whether its legal or not but that in reality its not rape if a situation like the one mentioned above takes place.Diablo-B
To gerrymander your logic, because this is what I do, let us apply this to the charge of statutory rape. Ought we to require pedophiles to walk around with carbondating machines to determine the ages of girls they are attracted to? Especially considering that many young girls nowadays look relatively mature due to the infusion of steroids and growth hormones in our food products.
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#75 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
.. I guess it doesn't bother him that many of these women are date raped.. And the reason why they are going back tot he boys room is because they have no idea whats going on.
Avatar image for Diablo-B
Diablo-B

4063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#76 Diablo-B
Member since 2009 • 4063 Posts
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"] So I guess people need to walk around with breathalyzers before they hook up with someone.However we are off topic. The columnist didn't contend to whether its legal or not but that in reality its not rape if a situation like the one mentioned above takes place.Vandalvideo
To gerrymander your logic, because this is what I do, let us apply this to the charge of statutory rape. Ought we to require pedophiles to walk around with carbondating machines to determine the ages of girls they are attracted to? Especially considering that many young girls nowadays look relatively mature due to the infusion of steroids and growth hormones in our food products.

I can see the point you wanted to make but let me discuss what you actually said. Pedophiles are people who are attracted to prepubescent kids. They aren't being tricked by boys/girls who look older they they are. They purposely search for "YOUNG" looking people. Thats the definition of a pedophile. Pedophiles aren't people that just happen to accidentally fall into a sticky situation.
Avatar image for Vandalvideo
Vandalvideo

39655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#77 Vandalvideo
Member since 2003 • 39655 Posts
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"] I can see the point you wanted to make but let me discuss what you actually said. Pedophiles are people who are attracted to prepubescent kids. They aren't being tricked by boys/girls who look older they they are. They purposely search for "YOUNG" looking people. Thats the definition of a pedophile. Pedophiles aren't people that just happen to accidentally fall into a sticky situation.

So are you saying that we should prosecute pedophiles for having sex with younger looking people more harshly than those who go for ones that are older looking? That seems awfully unfair to those older looking, yet equally young children who could also get taken advantage of.
Avatar image for Diablo-B
Diablo-B

4063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#78 Diablo-B
Member since 2009 • 4063 Posts

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"] I can see the point you wanted to make but let me discuss what you actually said. Pedophiles are people who are attracted to prepubescent kids. They aren't being tricked by boys/girls who look older they they are. They purposely search for "YOUNG" looking people. Thats the definition of a pedophile. Pedophiles aren't people that just happen to accidentally fall into a sticky situation.Vandalvideo
So are you saying that we should prosecute pedophiles for having sex with younger looking people more harshly than those who go for ones that are older looking? That seems awfully unfair to those older looking, yet equally young children who could also get taken advantage of.

Im not sure you fully understand what a pedophile is. A pedophile isn't a person who sleeps with a minor of 17 - 15 years of age. A pedophile is a person who targets kids before they hit puberty. You really can't mistake a person thats prepubescent for a post-pubecsent person.

Avatar image for Vandalvideo
Vandalvideo

39655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#79 Vandalvideo
Member since 2003 • 39655 Posts
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"] Im not sure you fully understand what a pedophile is. A pedophile isn't a person who sleeps with a minor of 17 - 15 years of age. A pedophile is a person who targets kids before they hit puberty. We really can't mistake a person thats prepubescent for a post-pubecsent person.

You must be bringing up imagined definitions, because according to Oxford a pedophile is merely one who has sex with children; regardless of puberty or not. Also, puberty can be delayed in a person and an older, legal person may still look young. The children distinction does not rest on puberty, but a number.
Avatar image for Diablo-B
Diablo-B

4063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#80 Diablo-B
Member since 2009 • 4063 Posts
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"] Im not sure you fully understand what a pedophile is. A pedophile isn't a person who sleeps with a minor of 17 - 15 years of age. A pedophile is a person who targets kids before they hit puberty. We really can't mistake a person thats prepubescent for a post-pubecsent person.

You must be bringing up imagined definitions, because according to Oxford a pedophile is merely one who has sex with children; regardless of puberty or not. Also, puberty can be delayed in a person and an older, legal person may still look young. The children distinction does not rest on puberty, but a number.

I was going by the wikipedia definition but your just getting caught up in semantics. Pedophiles are attracted to CHILDREN around the ages of 13 and under, pedophiles aren't attracted to adolescents (teenagers). And its teens that can be sometimes mistaken for being of legal age.
Avatar image for Vandalvideo
Vandalvideo

39655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#81 Vandalvideo
Member since 2003 • 39655 Posts
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"] I was going by the wikipedia definition but your just getting caught up in semantics. Pedophiles are attracted to CHILDREN around the ages of 13 and under, pedophiles aren't attracted to adolescents (teenagers). And its teens that can be sometimes mistaken for being of legal age.

Who to listen to; Oxford or Wikipedia? Not sure about that. Besides, why must the mere fact that a Pedophile be one attracted to children men that the attraction is based on the factor of puberty or how old they look? Why can't it merely be some intrinsic quality about children that these people can find regardless of how old they look or not? Also, prove that pedophiles are never attracted to teens.
Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#82 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"] So a Jack is at a party. Mary comes up to him and says, "I want you bad." He follows her and they have sex. Next week he gets a greeting from the police saying that he took advantage of a drunk person. Your saying Jack is a rapists and should go to jail?Diablo-B

Yup, welcome to strict liability. As Lord Reid said in Haughton v. Smith; "The law may sometimes be an rectum".

So I guess people need to walk around with breathalyzers before they hook up with someone.

However we are off topic. The columnist didn't contend to whether its legal or not but that in reality its not rape if a situation like the one mentioned above takes place.

Here's an easy rule, if the girl looks completely wasted, don't sleep with her, easy as that.

Avatar image for Diablo-B
Diablo-B

4063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#83 Diablo-B
Member since 2009 • 4063 Posts
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"] I was going by the wikipedia definition but your just getting caught up in semantics. Pedophiles are attracted to CHILDREN around the ages of 13 and under, pedophiles aren't attracted to adolescents (teenagers). And its teens that can be sometimes mistaken for being of legal age.

Who to listen to; Oxford or Wikipedia? Not sure about that. Besides, why must the mere fact that a Pedophile be one attracted to children men that the attraction is based on the factor of puberty or how old they look? Why can't it merely be some intrinsic quality about children that these people can find regardless of how old they look or not? Also, prove that pedophiles are never attracted to teens.

A pedophile may be attracted to kids for a number of reasons. I said, that you can't mistake a child of 10 y/o as an adult. Teens on the other hands are usually the victims when it comes to a guy thinking they are involved of someone of legal when they really aren't.

To your last point about pedophiles, I used the wrong word, "aren't", for the goal of quickness. Pedos can also be attracted to people their own age. They are pedophiles because they are ALSO attracted to children. The people who would need a carbon dating machine are hebaphiles and ephebophiles who are attracted to the kinds of people at the age that borders the legal age of consent.
Avatar image for xXBuffJeffXx
xXBuffJeffXx

5913

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#84 xXBuffJeffXx
Member since 2006 • 5913 Posts

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The one who did the action should be at fault in both scenarios...and in many cases it wasn't the girl. They do pass out.....LJS9502_basic
100% true. However thats not the case that the columnist brought up. We are talking about a drunk person actively making a bad decision. If you make the conscience decision to consume large amounts of alcohol who is to blame for you not being able to make the best decisions? Only yourself.

Legally one is not allowed to make a contract in a state of impairment. So don't expect that being with a drunk girl won't have consequences. In fact....the ethical thing to do is send them home. I feel no sympathy for anyone that preys on a drunk whether male or female.

What if both parties are impaired? Is it simultaneous rape then if neither can legally consent? I certainly agree that it is wrong for a sober man to prey on a drunken women, but if both parties are drunk and consent, how do you prosecute that?

Avatar image for Lockedge
Lockedge

16765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#86 Lockedge
Member since 2002 • 16765 Posts
The article definitely raises a point, however misguided. Yes, date-rape is vague in some cases. When two people are immensely drunk and go at it, is it rape since neither could consent? Or is it not since there was no sober party involved? Rape is an act of power and control, not sex, so I would lean towards two drunk people having sex being merely a disappointing encounter. No one should expect rape as a certain consequence of getting drunk, as if they get drunk at a social event, they should expect to be raped. People should be able to drink freely, but at the same time they should have the self control to limit their intake to a healthy degree. No one should expect negative consequences of getting drunk at a party, but things can happen, just like walking down an unlit alleyway in the middle of the night alone. Nothing should happen to you, but it's not a wise decision. Drunk or not, your responsibilities are your own, and if you make the sober decision to get so drunk that you can't discern what is a good idea and what is not, then....well, odds are eventually you'll end up in a bad situation if you go to such events often enough. Girls should be able to drink at parties as much as guys, and not have to worry. People should not take advantage of drunks because drunks are not in a position to think coherently. If you say no to having sex or stop while having sex, it should end, and that is that. If you're drunk and you say "let's ****" and you don't say no/stop at any point, well, that's something different. I have a few friends who have been incredibly drunk and have done some very stupid things and it's hard to feel sympathy if they're unwilling to learn from their mistakes.Everyone should feel safe at any social event they go to, but they must think logically and realize that intoxication is a gateway to a number of negative potential situations, and controlling their intake is for the best.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#87 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180145 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"] 100% true. However thats not the case that the columnist brought up. We are talking about a drunk person actively making a bad decision. If you make the conscience decision to consume large amounts of alcohol who is to blame for you not being able to make the best decisions? Only yourself.xXBuffJeffXx

Legally one is not allowed to make a contract in a state of impairment. So don't expect that being with a drunk girl won't have consequences. In fact....the ethical thing to do is send them home. I feel no sympathy for anyone that preys on a drunk whether male or female.

What if both parties are impaired? Is it simultaneous rape then if neither can legally consent? I certainly agree that it is wrong for a sober man to prey on a drunken women, but if both parties are drunk and consent, how do you prosecute that?

Same way I suppose you prosecute other crimes involving impairment. If the girl didn't consent or was too impaired to consent that doesn't let the guy off the hook if he was impaired from what I recall of the law.
Avatar image for Diablo-B
Diablo-B

4063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#88 Diablo-B
Member since 2009 • 4063 Posts
Here's an easy rule, if the girl looks completely wasted, don't sleep with her, easy as that.theone86
What about a person who only had 1 drink? or only 2? or only 3? or only....

Where is the cut off point when a person can say he/she is impaired and absolved of responsibility for their actions?
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#89 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180145 Posts

Rape is an act of power and control, not sex, Lockedge
That is not true of all legal definitions of rape.

Avatar image for SkylinePigeon
SkylinePigeon

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#90 SkylinePigeon
Member since 2005 • 2625 Posts
Clearly I think the guy's an idiot. Anyone who calls the Marquis de Sade "divine" isn't really worth listening to. Although he is right, I think--date rape can be really fuzzy sometimes. But that's only sometimes. Like he says, girls getting really drunk and putting themselves in bad situations is stupid. That said, drunkenness does not equal consent. Date rape happens in so many other contexts outside of that. Of course it exists, and of course it is a real problem. I feel like this is one of those cases where he's just saying something completely extreme to get a rise out of people. Extreme statements tend to be heard over more moderate ones, which leads to attention whores writing articles like this.
Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#91 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

What if both parties are impaired? Is it simultaneous rape then if neither can legally consent? I certainly agree that it is wrong for a sober man to prey on a drunken women, but if both parties are drunk and consent, how do you prosecute that?

xXBuffJeffXx

Here's the probvlem with that, the only person who can attest to the guy's drunkeness is the guy himself, what if he's just claiming to be drunk to get off the hook? I suppose there's some margin for error, but the primary purpose of the law is to prevent victims/potential victims, which is for the most part women. If you throw the entire date rape idea out the window because there might be a small percentage of situations where it's been abused then you'll be abadnoning all the women who were really taken advantadge of and do need the law.

[QUOTE="theone86"] Here's an easy rule, if the girl looks completely wasted, don't sleep with her, easy as that.Diablo-B
What about a person who only had 1 drink? or only 2? or only 3? or only....

Where is the cut off point when a person can say he/she is impaired and absolved of responsibility for their actions?

Like I said, you can usually tell when they're drunk. If you're really that worried, don't sleep with someone you met at a party, get a number and set up a real date.

Avatar image for Diablo-B
Diablo-B

4063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#92 Diablo-B
Member since 2009 • 4063 Posts
Here's the problem with that, the only person who can attest to the guy's drunkeness is the guy himself, what if he's just claiming to be drunk to get off the hook?...theone86
Well I would think that the same would apply to the girl as well. The guy may be the only one able to attest to the fact that he was drunk or there may be witnesses who can testify that he was drunk but the same is true for the girl.
Avatar image for GettingTired
GettingTired

5994

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#93 GettingTired
Member since 2006 • 5994 Posts
[QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Legally one is not allowed to make a contract in a state of impairment. So don't expect that being with a drunk girl won't have consequences. In fact....the ethical thing to do is send them home. I feel no sympathy for anyone that preys on a drunk whether male or female.LJS9502_basic

What if both parties are impaired? Is it simultaneous rape then if neither can legally consent? I certainly agree that it is wrong for a sober man to prey on a drunken women, but if both parties are drunk and consent, how do you prosecute that?

Same way I suppose you prosecute other crimes involving impairment. If the girl didn't consent or was too impaired to consent that doesn't let the guy off the hook if he was impaired from what I recall of the law.

Why is it the guys fault inherently?
Avatar image for Lockedge
Lockedge

16765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#94 Lockedge
Member since 2002 • 16765 Posts

[QUOTE="Lockedge"] Rape is an act of power and control, not sex, LJS9502_basic

That is not true of all legal definitions of rape.

I'm aware, however I tend to disagree with legal definitions. Rape involves a sexual encounter, but it's based on one person controlling the other, which can include anything from physical violence to drugging a drink to being sober and preying on intoxicated folk who don't have the capacity to oppose. The only situation I can currently think of that doesn't involve power/control and is purely sexual is the drunk on drunk sex where neither says no/stop, but I don't see that as rape. If both parties are drunk and initially consented to sex and one wants it to stop and the other partner continues on, they're using their will and self to control the situation to what they want while ignoring the other person's request...which is rape. Maybe it's because my definition of sex differs from the legal definition, although I'm not sure how that could be possible. :P
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#95 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180145 Posts
[QUOTE="theone86"]Here's the problem with that, the only person who can attest to the guy's drunkeness is the guy himself, what if he's just claiming to be drunk to get off the hook?...Diablo-B
Well I would think that the same would apply to the girl as well. The guy may be the only one able to attest to the fact that he was drunk or there may be witnesses who can testify that he was drunk but the same is true for the girl.

You are aware that investigating is done before a case is brought to trial and it isn't easy for girls to claim any type of sexual assault and remain unscathed by the trial?
Avatar image for Vandalvideo
Vandalvideo

39655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#96 Vandalvideo
Member since 2003 • 39655 Posts
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"] A pedophile may be attracted to kids for a number of reasons. I said, that you can't mistake a child of 10 y/o as an adult. Teens on the other hands are usually the victims when it comes to a guy thinking they are involved of someone of legal when they really aren't. To your last point about pedophiles, I used the wrong word, "aren't", for the goal of quickness. Pedos can also be attracted to people their own age. They are pedophiles because they are ALSO attracted to children. The people who would need a carbon dating machine are hebaphiles and ephebophiles who are attracted to the kinds of people at the age that borders the legal age of consent.

But the point is, you have failed to prove that pedophiles don't actively seek teens or that it is puberty that it is the driving factor.
Avatar image for jeremiah06
jeremiah06

7217

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#97 jeremiah06
Member since 2004 • 7217 Posts
I think at least the things he said in the interview are correct. As an adult woman she should know the risk. If I where flammable clothes and run through a fire I should expect to get burned.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#98 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180145 Posts

I think at least the things he said in the interview are correct. As an adult woman she should know the risk. If I where flammable clothes and run through a fire I should expect to get burned.jeremiah06
There is a risk to driving a car at 2 AM when the bars close. Does that mean if one is hit by a drunk driver they are the ones at fault because there was a risk?

Avatar image for jeremiah06
jeremiah06

7217

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#99 jeremiah06
Member since 2004 • 7217 Posts
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

Also, I dont care how drunk or sober you are, but it is not rape unless the woman says "no".

Unless she is drugged and/or unconscious.

Well, according to the law(at least in MI) it is not possible to consent to sex if your ability to make decisions is impaired. So, sex whether or not she said yes while drunk is rape.
Avatar image for FreezeBlast95
FreezeBlast95

1287

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#100 FreezeBlast95
Member since 2008 • 1287 Posts

Wow, he sounds like a complete dick. "Let's get this straight: any woman who heads to an EI party as an anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy's room with him is indicating that she wants sex, OK?" Or that she's drunk and doesn't understand entirely what she's doing. :| He really sounds like one of those "Women who dress xyz way really want it" people. In short, a rape apologist.Theokhoth



But then again couldn't the same be said about the guy?