Discussion in 'SHH Community Forum' started by Thread Manager, Jan 10, 2018.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]536109[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]535073[/split]
In this scenario, I believe you leave it in the hands of the other person to decide how they feel the next morning. I personally wouldn't do it at all. But if you decide to have sex with someone else who you know has been drinking and in this case we agree at least legally drunk, then there is a case to be made if they feel so the next day or even further down the road.
There is a lot of measuring how drunk someone else here is, and how that effects them. And I think that is why cases are starting to more and more not make allowances for simple interpretations imo. Or even using the idea you yourself were drunk as a defense. And no, I do not think someone being someone's significant other changes what is expected of them.
Well Colbert just grilled Franco, man.
I'd know if I was lucid because I'd be able to express myself clearly and thoughtfully and also if I could identify something as harmful and still have the forethought to avoid that harmful thing. Likewise, if my partner is able to hold any kind of in-depth conversation and make her thoughts known to me in a clear way then I can tell that she's lucid enough to make her own choices.
Communication is the thing, and if both parties are able to communicate what they want in a coherent way then they're fit to make decisions.
Good for him.
Okay, the drunk thing. When it comes to spouses and SOs, I think it's just a fun time between two people who are together. I've had plenty of drunk sex with my husband and I doubt there are too many instances of wives or girlfriends accusing their partners of rape after a night of drinking and sex. The law might state that it's not "consensual" but I think, for the most part, we can ignore it in these cases.
Now for drunk at a bar or frat party, you can get into very dangerous territory when you pick up a drunk chick (or a drunk guy). I've never had a one night stand or hooked up with someone I wasn't dating when I was drunk and I'm quite relieved it never happened. Some may enjoy it, some may regret it. But I think it's in everyone's best interest to steer clear of drunken hookups. And drunk being too intoxicated to speak properly. If she's slurring or tripping, just don't.
Franco with Colbert...
His accuser is imho totally discredited
On the Douglas issue.
Micheal Douglas was treated for sex addiction years ago. My guess is Douglas was probably pleasuring himself in his office and she walked in and saw him. Douglas let her go because his production company wasn't doing well, she couldn't get rehired and she believed the reason is because Douglas blackballed her from the industry.
Not sure if you're serious.
Neither if those tweets are in jest or serious.
I cannot agree in this scenario. It is one thing if you're using the situation for sex, but if the other person who is drunk is the one initiating the action hardcore, I think it would be wrong to consider this rape, at least as outlined in my scenario. I understand the law and why it is there, but in a grey area like my scenario, I think the law fails.
I remember the sex addiction story back in the day and I vaguely recall one of the tabloids alleging, along with tales of infidelity, that he was caught *********ing by someone who worked for him.
Personally I'm automatically believing the accusers because unfortunately all the names being dragged are guys who've been rumored to be major sleaze/*****ebags for years.
Hard to decipher your post. But someone tweeting they want to ruin someone's life etc. and admitting to lying doesn't have much credibility. This is the kind of a person who hurts the entire movement.
Yeah, that purposely wanting to ruin lives statement would be gobbled up by lawyers instantly.
Franco should sue. If he doesn't over something this damaging - last week of Oscar voting - and a target so easy - stupid enough not to delete these tweets - only then he will look guilty.
I stand corrected. Very surprised since all these late night shows have had many abusers or people willing to work with known abusers on their shows before and didn't ask a thing.
I wonder what Rogen will say. He's big on Twitter and calling out "injustice" and the like. Will he do it when it's his bff?
I agree with this. I never was one for bar hopping myself (heck, I don't really drink like ever...too many people I've known who have alcohol problems soured me on the prospect of being drunk). But, if you are that person and you put yourself out there like that, you're playing with fire. There is so much more to worry about that type of stuff now than there was even 10 years ago, so I would avoid this situation altogether.
Colbert didn't "grill" Franco. Let's speak in truth's. He gave him a chance to answer and I honestly think Franco did a great job. We'll see how this pans out but I believe Franco.
I mean that not everything written on twitter can be taken seriously or literally.
That said, I lack the context of those tweets, but probably so do you.
Even then, one person could indeed be not totally fine in their head, a proven liar and even have a sketchy past, but nonetheless telling the truth in a specific instance.
I'm saying that twitter history is neither an indictment or an absolution and your proposed line of thinking could be quite dangerous: what if Weinstein turns up similar instances for every one of his accusers?
Improbable, but we already know he tried, using ex Mossad to find dirt on them.
To be clear, I have no opinion on the reliability of the allegations on Franco, neither should I. But seeing his history, certainly I can not easily dismiss them.
So we should treat her tweet about Franco as a fact but her tweet where she admits lying for attention as a joke? Based on what?
Weinstein has multiple, credible accusers. Read some of this person's tweets. Does this sound like someone who is in Hollywood and ever had a relationship with Franco?
There is a big difference between being into 17+ girls and assaulting someone. This whole situation is frankly offensive to actual victims who have been through actual horrible things.
You could literally tweet Brad Pitt assaulted you 10 years ago and I can GUARANTEE some magazine would run with it. Just based on that tweet. Not even scrolling your feed to see what else is there.
I think we should neither believe or disbelieve her in this instance, give this episode some time to be cleared, Franco seems to not want to simply dismiss it.
I completely agree there's no doubt about Weinstein but let's not give a pass anyone when the accuser is lone. Not every sleaze bag is serial.
Again, I have no idea what is the truth and even agree that there is a big difference between creeping on a 17 year old and assault, just not the best of precedents.
A comment like that seriously hurts her credibility. You can't be "accept her claim as true" in one post then "that doesn't mean she is a liar" in the second when you see her literally saying she is a liar who enjoys hurting people's reputations the next.
Whatever the true case is with her and Franco, I can't accept splitting hairs like that. If someone wants proof why some of these claims against men are doubted, that woman just gave them a loaded gun.
That said, most of the other claims I have seen aren't tinged with a disreputable person behind them who seems to be out for something other than honesty.
Nowhere did I say we should believe it, only that the reasoning to disbelieve her categorically is flawed.
Again, the context of those tweets?
I concede it's reasonable to guess this person could be ill, seems even likely.
But we do not know. Yet.
You posted this:
If a SO is conscious and communicative then A & C don't apply. Then B would have to be proven is if the person is or isn't incapacitated because of alcohol. Incapacitated as in lacking sufficient understanding to make rational decisions or engage in responsible actions. And I think this is what's important, and not a black and white issue, what is irrational or irresponsible with engaging in intercourse with a long standing partner?
Because then why not just do everything then? If a couple is sleeping in the same bed after a sexual encounter, and one of them wakes up in the middle of the night for Round 2, and begins to initiate foreplay with their asleep partner, that's unprovoked touching without explicit consent regardless of what happened hours earlier which can be defined as sexual assault.