Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The War Room' started by alanb, May 15, 2018.
I did, but i worked at legal for a little while
I wasn't speaking about the facts of this case. I was speaking about @alanb 's call to arms afterwards, i.e. fighting back within the system. It works on the presumption that a lot of men are getting impermissibly punished for sex that the woman-accuser objectively wanted to have and therefore men should engage in sex that they want and then frivolously claim sexual assault even though they would have pursued the interaction regardless because their having had a tip of alcohol automatically breaks the consent. That's a ludicrous extension of the logic.
However, being drunk does not automatically destroy consent, particularly is you are making the affirmative decision to drink, and consensually engage in intercourse, just so that you can get revenge on someone for what you suspect could be abuse of consent guidelines.
While I agree that social norms and legal rules on consent are frustratingly blurry and hard to encode into black letter law without being absurdly overbroad or underinclusive, the way to "fight back" against the system isn't to knowingly file frivolous claims.
How is this fighting back exactly? This is just so-called men being bitch mades. It is the job of REAL MEN to get rid of this sissy ass leftist shit and not join up.
And never in the US military history has that rule been followed to a tee. Ive known plenty of military guys who fuck drunk slags while barely or not at all, being drunk themselves. Lets be honest. Rules are just shit written on paper by dudes in suits. They often don't pertain to the way the real world works and how people act in real life scenarios. Young, testosterone fuled men are gonna slang it if its thrown there way. Morals are either in them or not, Military Moral code not withstanding.
What I am saying is that historically if a man was drunk and a women came on to you you put up with it even if you were drunk.. I've been in that position myself. In the case of a women that has filed a complaint on your buddy for the exact same behavior she is engaged in with you then I say good enough for the gander good enough for the goose.
They should register complaints based simply on their Sunday morning buyer's remorse. She's a fatty taking advantage of beer goggles? → Rape. Smelly vagina? → Nasal assault. Put their pictures up on a shaming website. Maybe carry around carton of rotten fish as an answer to "mattress girl." I'm already settled down, so I'm just interested in the LOLs as a spectator.
Literally no one is surprised by that.
All I know is the dude is gay
If there is a rule saying you can't consent while drunk then the rule must be followed or done away with.
Even if somebody planned to give consent only to have it undermined by getting drunk, the rule applies. Somebody can either give consent when intoxicated or they can't. How then can a suit be frivolous?
I think this is the best way to fight it. They may see their craziness for what it is if you rub their nose in it.
lol chick got #meetoo'd
It's frivolous if he intentionally tried to get drunk with this chick just to have sex then claim he was raped....if he planned all of that then he was really consenting to it in a roundabout way if you really think about it.
If she really did file a suit like that against his friend.....then there's no way in hell a guy would try that with this chick knowing what she could do to him unless he wanted to get revenge on her.
Dude who was drunk and feels violated = Pussy phaggot
Girl who was drunk and feels violated = Rape victim
Not that I'm strongly disagreeing with the assessment that the dude complaining is being ridiculous, but this is what happens when laws and rules are created that are this fucking stupid.
Times like these make me glad that I'm not young and partying it up anymore.
If prime Bill Clinton had this weapon at his disposal, our great nation would have been spared the cost of a trial.
Not true. First of all he never gave the other participant consent when he was sober. Also a lot can change between that time and getting drunk.
It also doesn't change the fact that, according to the rules, you cannot consent while intoxicated.
If you upfront told somebody we are gonna have sex tonight and then get drunk and try to make a claim, then that'd be a little more like what you are suggesting.
Truer words were never spoken. Truer words they are verboten.
If you can’t consent to sex while drunk, then you cannot in anyway be blamed for driving while drunk. We must prosecute all relatives, spouses, friends and drink dispensers for allowing drunk driving.
Of course, I’m not saying passes out in the floor drunk, I’m saying “somewhat inebriated” drunk. Let’s call it two past the legal limit
Fucking is fun
Edit: Fucking used to be fun.