Thread Manager
Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 1
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]536109[/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.I think you're kind of dodging Erz's question. Just to give you an example of what he's talking about, one time my girlfriend was at a wedding that I was not invited to. She got drunk, and when my girlfriend gets drunk one thing she does is crave sex. This rarely happens because she doesn't drink very much but she did on this very occasion. So the whole time for the rest of night she was being very touchy-feely and trying to initiate something with me for hours. In this example, he is saying that I should not be held accountable if something happens. This is of course assuming she doesn't wake up in the morning regretting the decision or anything like that. But the example provided stated this. I think this scenario is what Erz wants you to address. Not the hypothetical regret next morning provided. Simply put, should this be considered rape?
For the record, I did not end up doing anything with her that night, but that was because she went to sleep about 20 minutes after we got home. Had she not fell asleep, I am sure she would have kept trying to get me to succumb. I am not passing judgement on your opinion, either. I just want to get a better understanding of your definition.
Lol of course he won't
Serious question. How do you know if you are lucid if you are drunk, even slightly? How do you know your partner is?
Well Colbert just grilled Franco, man.
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.
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.
Well Colbert just grilled Franco, man.
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.
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.
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 it.
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.
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.
No. What I am doing applying the law and asking if the law says there is a problem, why is there not a problem? Because's one's own judgment says it is okay?
Also who said anything about no alcohol?
(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:
(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.
(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.