What if we’re both alcoholics that are always drunk?
Download Grindr
Dunno about that, friend. I see far more meth use on Grindr around here than I do alcohol use.
Like, I had to put in my profile “No tweakers. You aren’t hiding it, and I’ll be able to tell.”
no sex for you
If Josie killed someone while being drunk, would that mean she should get a lower sentence because she cannot be held responsible for her actions while intoxicated?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intoxication
It can be used as a defense to some extent in most places. Most places have multiple levels of “killing a person” crimes. Typically first degree murder is premeditated, second degree murder has some element of mental or emotional disability, and manslaughter is a step above an accident.
Mothers against drunk drivers has been lobbying to increase the penalties for drunken homicides.
Manslaughter. Literally the slaughter of a man! Yet it’s the most socially acceptable form of murder.
But it has “laughter” in it, so it surely can’t be that bad
So, you think we should change the name?
Is there one for accidental? I always thought second degree was accidental. Like if you’re cutting a tree down and someone who ignored warnings walked into the falling trees path.
It’s kind of a gray area. If you do something that kills someone and a reasonable person could not have foreseen the possibility of the death, then it’s just an accident. They don’t need a term for it because you won’t be prosecuted. This would be like if you gave someone a banana and they ate it and died and neither of you knew that they had a banana allergy.
Manslaughter is when you could have reasonably foreseen the death before you did the thing that caused the death. This would be like driving too fast on a wet road losing control and killing your passenger.
Third degree homicide is a step beyond that. You are doing something that you know is stupid at this point. This would be like driving with a blindfold on and crashing and killing your passenger.
Second degree is when you know that what you’re doing is very likely to kill someone. This would be like shooting a gun down a crowded street, aiming at a tree, but hitting a person and killing them instead.
First is when you kill somebody and you meant to kill them. Obvious.
All the examples I gave could arguably be in an adjacent category depending on the exact facts. It all has to do with the mental state of the person who is doing the dangerous thing. What did they mean to do? Could they have reasonably foreseen that what they are doing could result in a death? Factors like intoxication, mental illness, and emotional disturbance all affect a person’s mental state. There is nuance to that as well. If you know you become violent when you get drunk then you are less likely to successfully convince a jury that you didn’t know what you were doing. Some people get drunk or high to give themselves the nerve to commit a crime.
This was amazingly descriptive, easy to understand, and nuanced. Thank you for the time you took to write this 🙂
I’ve understood it as:
First degree murder is intended and premeditated.
Second degree murder is intended but not planned ahead.
Third degree murder is when harm was intended but not death.
Manslaughter is an accident but one you should have known better and avoided.
Not that I’m disagreeing that those standards could be applied in accidental cases depending on the stupidity and predictability of the accident.
Sorry you got downvoted, this is valid.
What I’ve described is the law school crash course version. (I was a public defender for 4 years)
What you described is the common lay person version.
I don’t like using the premeditation language because premeditation can be less than a second. The lay understanding is that premeditation needs to be actual planning, like a heist. That is not the case.
So first and second degree are better separated through analyzing how much intentionality there was in the murder. Mens Rea, or mental state, is an important concept in criminal law.
You are correct that third degree can be intent to harm but went too far and actually killed the person. I never saw that version of third degree because it’s nearly impossible to prove that you only meant to batter/assault someone when they are dead because you beat them. Of course you give the jury the option for it, but most people will just think you meant to kill them.
Manslaughter is more than a mere accident. It’s a reasonably foreseeable accident. It sounds like I’m splitting hairs, but it is nuanced. If you slip and fall into a person and they fall in front of a train and get splattered, that’s probably not manslaughter. If you playfully push a person and they slip and fall out a window to their death, that’s pretty likely to be manslaughter, maybe more.
As a disclaimer these things do vary by state and country. I’m just explaining some things that are typical of these categories.
Only if the other person was also drunk.
If she’s in a car, isn’t that exactly how it works?
Yeah, but how can she even consent to driving a car at that point if she is already drunk and not able to make decisions herself?
I hate how this also manages to objectify women.
“Hon, I had too much to drenk but I’m horny. Can you strahp me in?”
WTF ? Is this real ? Poor kid
It’s a joke in the same vein as Obviousplant. bonus
Wait, that’s actually a real poster? What. The. Fuck.
To be fair there aren’t many restrictions on what can be on a poster
On my new poster “RagingRobot. Pedophile or Saint you choose. Detach below.”
I mean, it is more than a bit sexist but… that is probably the demographic who need to understand this in a college environment.
Consent is incredibly important and a LOT of media for the past few decades shat on it. No, I don’t (just) mean how basically every movie in the 80s was about raping people. I mean even “Okay, what if we got you/her drunk?” and so forth. I want to say even Friends and Seinfeld played the idea of one of the guys getting their girlfriend drunk for laughs (well, I think Jerry used turkey?).
Reminding people “that is a crime and you can go to jail” is important… even if people rapidly learn that rich white guys never go to jail.
Yep, the Seinfeld episode, he fed her enough to make her fall asleep so he could play with her collectable toys
Seinfeld raped those toys because she ate turkey
BrandNewSentence
Yeah I don’t get the hate. Drunk people can’t consent. It is pretty simple.
Drunk people can’t consent, not just drunk women. That’s the point of contention.
Edit: it’s worth mentioning that there are definitely limits to this statement. If two people at the nightclub have had several drinks and decide to hook up, that’s probably okay. They’re two consenting adults, even though they’re legally drunk. The issue is when one of the people is significantly impaired, to the point where they can’t really think clearly and consent or object. Just having a few beers and fucking isn’t a crime, and anyone who thinks it is, is a fucking prude.
Edit: it’s worth mentioning that there are definitely limits to this statement. If two people at the nightclub have had several drinks and decide to hook up, that’s probably okay. They’re two consenting adults, even though they’re legally drunk. The issue is when one of the people is significantly impaired, to the point where they can’t really think clearly and consent or object. Just having a few beers and fucking isn’t a crime, and anyone who thinks it is, is a fucking prude.
Jesus fucking christ
No. Drunk people cannot consent. Doesn’t matter if both people are drunk. Whether that is a crime or not gets into a grey area. But if the only reason you care about consent is whether you can get in trouble for ignoring it…
Drunk people absolutely can consent. It depends on how drunk they are. That was the person who you replied to’s point
No. Drunk people cannot consent. Doesn’t matter if both people are drunk. Whether that is a crime or not gets into a grey area. But if the only reason you care about consent is whether you can get in trouble for ignoring it…
The grey area is literally the whole topic of discussion, though. A blanket statement like “drunk people can’t consent” fails an examination of even its first order implications. What actually has happened when two equally drunk adults have sex? Did they rape each other? What if both of them insist after the fact that they both gave consent? That wouldn’t matter right, since drunk people can’t give consent?
Why does this only apply to sex? If drunk can’t consent to anything then why is drunk driving a crime? Sure it endangers others but the drunk person didn’t consent to getting in the car in the first place because drunk people can’t consent. What else can drunk people do and bear no responsibility for?
You gloss over the grey area as if it doesn’t matter when it’s literally the whole issue. The grey area contains all the hard questions , but instead of even attempting answer any you gloss over it, whine about incels, and hide behind the obviously indefensibly broad statement that “drunk people can’t consent”.
You’ll note I did not dispute your “drunk people, not just drunk women” statement as I do agree with that (I even said as much above).
What I take immense issue with is you deciding that suddenly drunk people CAN consent so long as both parties take a few shots. Which is horrifying. And now you are using drunk driving as a way to further justify what I am increasingly certain are some REALLY fucked up things you have done.
Jesus fucking christ. Get help before you hurt more people.
replies to two separate people thinking they’re the same person > makes an unhinged claim that both these people (that you still think is one person) must be evil people > tells them to get help
don’t change lemmy
You’re avoiding the question.
Unintentionally I hope.
You haven’t realized that you’re talking to different people, and now you’re accusing all of them of having done horrible things because they recognize that there are degrees of competency when drinking. The law says you’re legally drunk at 0.08 ABL, yet there are millions of people who can function just fine at that level. Sure, their reactions are probably slow for the purpose of driving, yet they can still perform advanced mental functions such as debate, mathematics, artistic creation, or programming. Why is sex the magic thing they absolutely cannot do in your eyes?
You’ll note I did not dispute your “drunk people, not just drunk women” statement as I do agree with that (I even said as much above).
I’m not the same person. Perhaps you’re too drunk to consent to this conversation?
What I take immense issue with is you deciding that suddenly drunk people CAN consent so long as both parties take a few shots.
What you take issue is immaterial. Is it true, or not? Mutual rape doesnt make sense as a concept . Also, what defines “drunk”? A blackout drunk person obviously can’t consent to anything but then two blackout drunk people physically can’t have sex so that’s not really in the grey area at all. And yet surely one sip of beer doesn’t do it. Are you even going to address the very basic conversation of what constitutes drunk in terms of being able to consent to sex? Or is that another question to be glossed over?
Which is horrifying.
Why? Explain why. Why are you horrified that two consenting adults can go to a bar, have a few shots, then have sex? This happens millions of times every day - are you just always horrified? Who are you to tell those consenting adults that they actually didn’t give consent and were raped?
And now you are using drunk driving as a way to further justify what I am increasingly certain are some REALLY fucked up things you have done.
You’re certain of nothing. You’re an unserious person who craves moral highground even if it’s imagined.
Jesus fucking christ. Get help before you hurt more people.
Lol
It is nuanced for sure. A married couple can get drunk and have sex and it can be consensual, but it also could not be. And I purposefully didn’t mention gender at all.
It is a big problem and each instance has its own facts.
I mean, the “#NotAllMen” incels tend to come out of the woodwork any time they see something like this.
Yep. The irony is the average Lemmy user would think Reddit is horrible for it yet it’s seems to be common on Lemmy to.
The good news is that it is really nice to get a blocklist out of all the people who need to talk about how it is totally not rape if you document that you were drunk too.
Don’t agree with somebody? Automatic incel I guess. (Or ist, phobe, bigot etc)
Typical thought process on this platform.
Narrator note: “this platform” refers to “the entire internet”
No it’s just Lemmy lol
Go back to reddit then?
What, you’re a man who doesn’t want to be raped? Fucking incel
You’re right, drunk people can’t consent.
That is not what the poster says.
The poster states, in no unclear terms, that drunk WOMEN cannot consent. This is clearly evident by the scenario being laid out as the same for both parties, but one, the male, was accused of rape.
Then why wouldn’t she be charged with rape?
What legally constitutes rape varies by jurisdiction. Some places still define rape as “they put their penis inside someone who didn’t want it inside them”. This is a much more narrow definition than what is generally accepted by the public today, but legal definitions are often dated. Those jurisdictions usually have separate, wider definitions for sexual assault or other acts of harm, though, so it’s not a free for all.
They both went straight to prison. For the crime of being cool people that got laid while they were partying.
Yes, if she was the instigator.
That’s not what the poster sez.
Because rape means penetration of someone without consent. Assuming Josie probably doesn’t have a penis, it’d be incredibly hard to charge her with rape.
Not making someone penetrate you without their consent?
Listening not trying to get all Jordan Peterson “WHATS HAPPENING TO MEN” here, but if it doesn’t cut both ways what are we really doing?
I think for women, it’ll count as sexual assault. I think legally it can be as bad as rape, considering jail time and such. Both are felonies.
I know two males who were raped by women when unconscious in college, and neither of them were okay with it.
People always picture a huge unattractive woman when this gets brought up.
But one of my college roommates got raped by a girl who was at least “an 8”.
They had hooked when he was blackout and she was just tipsy. He wanted nothing to do with her tho, and told her that repeatedly. She was just hot, young, and had never been turned down before.
So like a week later we have a party he’s not at. She showed up early, had two beers, then went to “wait” in his bed. Even though everyone was telling her not to do that.
When he shows up, still wants nothing to do with her, so just gets blacked out at the party instead of kicking her out of his bed asap. I guess trying to wait her out and hoping she’d eventually give up.
By the time he finally goes to bed, he’s blacked out and she’s been in there line 6-8 hours and completely sober.
Next morning she teased him about how they had sex again but he kept falling asleep during it.
If he was a chick, no one would argue that the second time was rape. Hell, we’d have probably fought a guy if he kept insisting he was going to “wait” in a drunk girls bed who was clear she didn’t want anything to do with him.
But if he didn’t want to have sex he had no business drinking! He should have known she wanted to bone down, and his drinking is an implicit yes! I’m being sarcastic, yes, but I only think to post this because while reading your comment, I had a bit of a knee jerk “he shouldn’t do that” to him getting drunk again.
This is part of why this rhetoric is damaging. People who CAN reason past those immediate reactions even start to get tripped up. I can’t imagine being a teen and how confusing all of this mess must be.
Yes, it happens, and it can be very emotionally damaging for men too. One of the guys I was talking about was a virgin, and wanted to wait until he was married to have sex. He passed out in a bedroom at a party, and one of the women there stripped him naked, got him hard, and had sex with him. He was only vaguely conscious when this was happening. He had a very difficult time accepting that his years worth of discipline and sacrifice were stolen from him.
Yea, both were drunk but fuck Jake and his rights because he has the penis.
ah, yes.
a simpler time when one is EASILY identified either by penis OR vagina ONLY.
unlike today.
^/j
I can understand and appreciate the intentions, but there are few things worse than good intentions without intelligence, flexibility and nuance, as the statements below seem accurate and feel utterly screwed up:
He got drunk and had sex with a woman - HE goes to jail.
She got drunk and had sex with a man - HE goes to jail.It’s almost like what Public Enemy said in “Fear Of A Black Planet”:
Black man, black woman - black baby
White man, black woman - black baby
Black man, white woman - black babyI feel like there’s a saying, something about hell and intentions.
Rape charges don’t materialize from thin air. If she reported it then yes, fuck Jake not because of his penis, but because he did not obtain consent.
It’s heavily implied she consented while intoxicated, which is impossible according to the poster, and is therefore considered rape, even though both were under the influence
It’s not impossible because of the poster. It’s impossible because of the features of contract law.
Legal consent in criminal law and legal consent for contracts are two different things. It’s like you haven’t even read § 1-201 of the UCC…geeez! (/s on that last part if it wasn’t clear)
They both derive from the standard and have been interpreted differently given the different contexts and applications. For the purposes of this conversation about the poster, they’re similar enough to make the point. I’m not bringing suit, I’m trying to explain why legal consent and intoxication bear on one another in a court.
And? If either one of them felt as though they were taken advantage of, they should report the rape, no?
So charge the woman with rape charges as well. It’s either both were raped or neither were. He was drunk and she took advantage of him.
Did he wake up and think, “oh damn, I didn’t want to have sex last night”? If so, then yes, charge her. If not, then once again, he is in the wrong.
You’re fucking insane.
Nah, I empathize with victims of rape. I urge them to report it when it happens. If you think that’s insane, well, says more about you than it does me
This isn’t empathy it’s a weird bit you’re trying to pull that’s intentionally misunderstanding or misrepresenting made up scenarios in which drunk people had sex.
Did you ever to stop to think that you are sexist?
lol you’re sooo close to the point
No, not me, but you’re on the right track!
Are you really trying to say women can’t be trusted with their actions when drinking? You want men to make all their decisions for them? You can’t be a real person.
That’s not at all what I’m saying. Are you saying that intoxicated consent is valid consent?
Moving goalposts now? I’m tired of arguing with trolls like you. Enjoy the block.
Look. It’s pretty clear that you’ve had some trauma but that’s nobody’s fault here. We have a right to free discourse without having to suffer your issues. Wish you well.
What is the point of this comment? I have never been raped, if that is what you’re implying. I’m capable of empathizing with victims of rape
It’s the gross assumption that the man won’t regret his actions. Or that he wouldn’t be shamed and ridiculed just for trying to claim he didn’t want it.
You do better.
lol what? Literally what, a dozen times now? I’ve said if he was raped, he should report it. Stop putting words in my mouth lol
you do better, rape sympathizer.
This thread is full of prepubescent teen boys who seem to think “mens rights” are under attack and that rape is edgy. Y’all are absolutely insane, and I think it’s very telling that you continue to try to make me seem like the bad person here. Make no mistake: it’s y’all lol
I’ve said if he was raped, he should report it. Stop putting words in my mouth lol I think you should stop putting words in your own mouth. Either you’re intentionally trolling or a blatant misandrist.
He was drunk, therefore she didn’t get consent. So she did rape him. Period.
However, you and I both know if he tried to report it, it is a near certainty that it would go nowhere, and he’d be mocked and ridiculed for it not just enjoying how lucky he was to have had the attentions of a woman on him.
It’s a disgusting double standard and you’ve shown that you’re part of the problem.
The end all be all here is — don’t rape. Idk why you’ve got such a problem with that, most reasonable people don’t. If you can’t understand that then I don’t think you have any right to say who is a problem at all 😂
lol who is spouting the double standards?? “If he tried to report it it wouldn’t go anywhere” ummm not true? Kinda sounds like you’re speaking from experience lol
It’s okay one day your frontal lobe will be fully formed and you’ll understand the basics of how the world works.
Keep labeling me whatever you want, the only one who is in the wrong is you lol
Yes this actually was a thing for many years. They actually made women into children and men the only responsible party.
A lot of discussion in this thread, but this depends on many things. I already blacked out from drinking and would hate if somebody did something to me. But there are other levels of drunkenness, and you can also read the other person’s mood, their movement, their agreement towards getting physical, and judge who is the more sober of the two, and try to communicate these things.
Basically Michael Cera in Superbad.
God damnit Josie, put that pussycat away
Shame they made Margarita sex a crime.
Jake is the drunk driver and Josie is the drunk passenger. They get into a car crash. Now who do you assign the blame to?
Given this poster is over 15 years old and only a handful were printed, I’m gonna guess no.
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/anti-rape-poster-reddit-conversations/
No they don’t make them. Paul Rudd has gone onto bigger and better things
These are definitely real if you’re saying otherwise. I saw them posted all over the college I went to back in 2012 2013ish
You went to coastal carolina university in 2008, which is the when/where this poster was last made?
This is why consent agreements will become the norm for hooking up. They already exist.
Honestly I’m for it all. Killing all mood means less humans. anymous and hostility between the sexes means less humans, and the less humans the better for the Earth and all other life on it.
Can’t hold someone to a contract they signed drunk.
Waste of paper and ink.
I mean… having a discussion about what you are going to do, what your boundaries are, and what turns you on is a really mature and, honestly, sexy thing to do.
I’ve had a few hook ups over the years where we have definitely popped out our phones (generally after confirming we have a couple condoms and before we start getting undressed) to record the quick clip of “I, so and so, consent to having sex with this person”. Hell, an ex and I realized that the first picture we had together as a couple was her yelling “<BLANK> is gonna fuck my brains out tonight” and me saying “I’m gonna stick my pee-pee into <BLANK>'s vagina” into our phones while laughing.
But also? Once you get out of the novelty of “I’m having sex!” being the be all end all? The first time with a new partner REALLY sucks. Neither of you know what the other is into and you are figuring out the geometry of your bodies and what positions will be comfortable. Having that conversation about liking to have your hair pulled or your nipples being too sensitive or whatever not only ensures that neither party feels “dirty” afterward but also gives you a cheat sheet to make it feel good for all parties.
Man, that is one of the most depressing views of life I’ve ever seen. Most people go for either “hedonism is fine because life is hard and people suck” or “life is so great on its own that you should restrict the amount of pleasure seeking behavior you engage in”.
You’ve managed to take the shitty parts of both of those philosophies and combine them into a stew of cynicism and self loathing. That’s honestly pretty impressive from a psychological perspective.
My life has taught me from a very young age that if I expect the worst from my species based on experience, I’ll be correct 99 times out of a hundred and spare myself a lot of shock and disappointment. World history only reinforces this.
I made a deal with myself a long time ago, my core value is the pursuit of truth over blissful ignorance. And the truth is, we have very few positive traits, at least ones that our various societies bother to nurture in anything but empty rhetoric. Given that reality, I choose not to delude myself into rooting for the home team just because it’s the home team. Humanity is welcome to surprise and humble me in all of this, but it’s going the opposite direction.
Go touch grass
You’re not wrong in a lot of respects but the only thing you’re accomplishing by holding on to that attitude so tightly is making yourself bitter about the world. If you want to live that way that’s your choice to make but I don’t see the point.
Fair, but I don’t see people accomplishing much of anything other than enabling or rationalizing further rewarding the world’s most successful sociopaths at Earth’s ecosystem’s and the vast majority of other human’s expense, regardless of how they see the water in the glass.
All I would be doing by pretending otherwise is maybe be personally happier until the next daily reminder of who we are and what we stand for. To me, there are no good options, but I’d rather stare down the horror in judgment than embody just another all too common symptom that those most responsible, who benefit most from humanity’s greed and gluttony disease, encourage all their victims to indulge in: willful ignorance.
It’s hard to imagine how, in your pursuit of truth and knowledge, you’ve managed to ignore all the beautiful and unfathomable advancements humans have made in biology, mathematics, philosophy, music, art, literature, and any other topic you could possibly imagine. Instead, you’ve focused on the negative to excuse and reinforce your antisocial biases.
Because of those advances, we know that negative experiences are promoted for memory retention and recall. Overcoming that neurobiological bias can be very challenging to some people, whether because of significance of experience, timing, or having neurodivergent brains that need a bit of help.
Jake deserves prison for drinking cocktails
So according to this, every time a lady and I hook up after a few drinks it’s rape? The fuck?
Get outta here you rapist!
I’ll grape you in the mouth
C’mere kids! I’m gonna tie you to the radiator and grape you in the mouth!
I’ll grape your parents
I feel like we need some kind of gradient between “rape” and what you’re describing. Some kind of protection in place for inebriated people who later, sober, regret the decision, but doesn’t immediately result in such a heavy charge.
The truth is that both sides happen. Drunk people sometimes can consent, drunkenness is a broad spectrum. And drunk people also sometimes cannot consent. Right now the more morally correct stance, in my opinion, is to go full tilt into the “drunk people can’t consent” camp and charge both parties, but there almost has to be an intermediate we could apply, no?
To be clear, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t exactly know how these cases tend to be tried. I’m basing that on a bit of a layman’s understanding.
There definitely is, it’s called not being a shitty person. If the lady you’re with is clearly hammered, or you know they’ve had more than their normal amount, you don’t try anything. Anyone with a speck of decency or morality will know the difference.
So wait, let me get this straight. Are you saying that it’s the same thing to hold down and force someone, or coerce them with threats etc, as it is to get them drunk (not maliciously, just over the course of a natural evening together)and end up sleeping together? I don’t think you necessarily are, but I just want to make sure.
Assuming we’re on the same page there, then what I’m saying is that these two cases need a -legal- difference, since they’re clearly morally different. Both can end up being damaging to the other party, but one is clearly violating someone’s rights, and the other has a lot of nuance around it.
Technically yes I guess… hmm. I wonder if there was a lady rapist who went around and raped drunk men could she get them sent to jail too?
Only if you’re a misogynist.
I mean, many cases where girls straight up lied and ruined a man’s entire life, got them sent to prison, and only YEARS later they admitted to their lies, so really as far as the law is concerned they just want a quick trial (because asking them to do their fucking job is a lot apparently)
It is if you guessed wrong. The short answer is, don’t have sex with somebody unless you’re absolutely sure they would want to sober. At the end of the day you’re responsible for your own judgement and if you guess wrong, it doesn’t matter that you intended for there to be consent, you’re still responsible.
I’m impressed you were able to type out so many words without actually saying jack shit.
Only if you’re male.
If you enter into a binding contract with someone while they are intoxicated to the point of impairment, the contract can be invalidated on those grounds as long as impairment can be proven in a court.
You can’t give reasonable consent while impaired. If it can be further demonstrated that one party intentionally attempted to induce intoxication for the purposes of attaining contractual consent, they can be held criminally liable for that act.
Consent isn’t only about sex. It’s much murkier and dubious in cases of mutual intoxication and interpersonal relations. This poster is simply trying to make people aware of fairly basic laws regarding consent in the United States. And it’s worth knowing.
I am never buying a car sober again! “This one trick car dealers hate”
Trying buying a car with financing while demonstrably drunk and see how far you get. 😆
Men also drink more than women. I’ve seen way more drunk men than women.
This poster implies that women become mindless defenseless fuckdolls after a few drinks while men become sexual predators without any impairments. And that’s just stupid.
It does make it sound like drunk men are responsible for their decisions but drunk women are not responsible.
Curious what the organization’s thoughts would be if a sober woman and a drunk man had sex.
Clearly the drunk man would be guilty or rape because he wasn’t in a state to clearly assertain consent from the sober woman.
That’s fine and well, but the fundamental point of the poster is to help legally protect men. Feeling butthurt about it doesn’t change that fact.
Basic physiology dictates that nonconsensual sex is easier to accomplish with the aggressor possessing a tumescent penis, regardless of the other party’s wishes. And the significant and overwhelming statistics and cases regarding rape committed by men vs women bear on any case like this brought before a judge. 94% of rapists and sexual abusers are men.
The overwhelming amount of rapists are men. Men are raped at significant levels as well. Typically in prison. By other men. If you’d like to find out, be on the wrong end of one of these cases and find yourself in prison.
You’ll find that whether your dick is hard, you can and will be fucked by someone else with a hard dick and the desire to do so.
Perhaps it would be easier for you to think of it this way: if you’re a man, and you’re hanging out with another man, and he’s cool, and you’re bro-ing down, at some point he intimates he’s attracted to you, and you end up too drunk and things are getting blurry, and he wants to help you home, are you more or less worried than if it’s a woman offering you the same help? Why?
You know why. 99.9% of the time, it’s fine. But the other .1% of the time you wake up with a bloody asshole, confusion, fear, and shame. Don’t be obtuse.
And you just created a completely false argument by simply assuming that whatever is happening is rape to begin with.
You assume, that men in this situation can only be an aggressor and nothing else, and whatever they’re doing is automatically rape. And that’s just plain wrong.
You’re robbing both sides of their autonomy in the name of victimization.
Nah.
