Who wants to deal with an annoying drunk girl when you can enjoy the silence brought on by chloroform
Meh, where do you define the line between rape and having random drunk sex at a party. You can't accurately say that somebody was x amount of drunk thus couldn't make rational decisions. Of course, it could be 100% preventable by just not getting shitfaced, but you know people don't understand this and will still want to put all the blame on horny guys thinking with their dick (which will always end up fucking you over). Not saying the guys aren't any to blame, I'm just saying it's 100% preventable by the victim that's all. Also not everybody who drinks a lot makes stupid decisions. I act pretty dumb when I'm drunk but I still realize that: 1) I'm drunk 2) I can't drive 3) People around me are drunk, any situations that may arise will probably be awkward the next day, don't do it. Maybe I haven't gotten drunk enough... I don't know
The question is where is the line drawn. I mean there's the obvious way too fucked up, but if you're gonna say it's illegal or immoral, you gotta draw the line somewhere measurable. When is it just normal for me to get drunk at bar/club and take home drunk woman, and when is it "creepy" or "scummy". I think people gotta be responsible for their own actions unless they're really forced or are freaking unconscious.
Is there a difference between a sober guy screwing a drunk girl and a drunk guy doing it? She's screwed while drunk either way. Guys are assholes, get over it.
This is nice simple and won't get you in trouble if they wake up and freak out. So this easy. Stranger hell no, friend you know well go for it. They will realise at least "shit I drank too much lol"
Not entirely.. Under new Californian law her being taken advantage of while drunk is legal grounds for rape, at least on college and university campuses. Whether or not legal action is taken is done so at the discretion of the school's administration. Depending on how individual school policy is carried out, the accused may face serious disciplinary action or even criminal charges brought upon them. In any case, an endowed school would choose not to presume the guilt of the accused, let alone acknowledge the dispute in public. So what mighty remain after this new framework are several silent administrators milking their cash cow while a handful of liberal art students feverishly set up honey-traps in attempts to narrow their debt margin. In other words, not much difference.
Some of these responses are pretty hard to take. This is not an issue of personal choice. Sure it is not a good idea to be inebriated and make yourself vulnerable, but by no means does that make the actions of those men any better. It's one thing if it's two people at a party, both drunk who decide to hook up. A sober person who taking advantage of a drunk one is deplorable, no matter who it is or how much they drank. The only way to stop such behavior towards women is a societal shift, not by "educating" victims how to avoid such situations, or shaming them when they make mistakes. As anyone who drinks knows well, it is very easy to have just a little too much to drink and get more inebriated than you thought. Putting blame on a drunk girl is like saying that a girl who wore revealing clothing wanted to have sex, even if she said no. Defending the actions of the men in the video is just misogyny, so if that's how you feel it may be a good opportunity to reconsider how you view gender issues in general.
What seems biased in the vid ( not saying it is just seems so) I am willing to bet there were guys like me that would have noticed she was intoxicated and actually helped her to a cab and paid for it. No way every guy she walked near wanted to get her home. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
The yes means yes bill provides a legal framework for such a societal shift by the auspices of state law. This lowers the standard of proof needed by the victim, extends the litigation period to over a year, and places non-compliant institutions under scrutiny from Federal law. The law has shifted from one of potential leverage to a patently enforced dialogue in the name of "voluntary" consensus. Defending the actions of the accused under this bill will not be on the basis of ambiguity but rather in an indefeasible claim to affirmation. Instead of a settlement that could otherwise be done so amongst individuals in the private domain, every sexual advance now has the potential to be a public court case held by the jurisdiction of a school investigation. Those in California now have the opportunity to reorient their views on gender equality forced upon them.
I was not talking about over reaching legal actions to enact change, that is more of a systemic shift. Besides the government is full of self important morons who usually don't know what is best for people. I mean that people need to be able to make a change within themselves. It shouldn't take a law to make people rethink their decisions, and not just within the scope of gender relations. Besides, the issue of misogyny extends far beyond just the argument of consent and matters of alleged rape. It's in the way people talk, joke or just go about their daily lives.
hate it man i hate way in clubs drunk guys grind on drunk girls it just all creeps me out give me a chill girl to blaze with anyday fuck the drunk rape culture
drunk girls are gross. Fuck that. I'll be at the coffee house smoking a blunt outside drinking my Jamaican Black Coffee.
Calling grinding in the clubs a drunk rape culture, is like calling stoners drug addicts. Chill the fuck out and let people have their fun.
Well either of our critiques to these measures are rather irrelevant to how those self important officials conduct and orchestrate their lawmaking. It is the schools that actually have to enforce their policies at the threat of having funding reduced. Why else did the bill unanimously pass? States no longer have the resources to prosecute these cases anymore, so the burden is placed upon the institutions where much of the effected population reside. The lawmakers see the statistical risk asserted to the student demographic as well as the initial public outcry to the issue. Combine these together and it results in enacting reactionary bills such as this one. Like you said, the change resides amongst the people. However, the dialogue be it misogyny or otherwise, has the tendency to revert into the hands of the law. Instead of dealing with what are wholly personal matters, affected parties will see the need to bring an outside party into settling disputes. This bill brings the discussion into the realm of an authority figure, who have the power to decide on a perpetrator's future with repercussions that extend beyond "a bad hookup". As with any law, there is a potential for abuse and misinterpretation. This is what the system has conditioned its subjects to do. The state would rather divide, disparate, then vindicate on its terms. How we then interpret pejoratives such as misogyny have much to do with the legal consequence of associated behaviours, as opposed to a commonly found narrative shared between individuals.
A lot of people find smoking weed shady as well. Why everybody gotta be so judgmental? When girls/guys go into the club to get drunk, they know what they're in for.
im not being judgemental just saying i dont feel comfortable with it so i dont enjoy that aspect of normal clubbing stop tryna argue wunsennnn!
Under that new California law is a man being drunk a defense for screwing a drunk girl? And if so why couldn't a guy just say he was drunk too? Why is California now concerned with drunk people screwing? It's a dick in a vagina for god's sake, not a knife. And when is reporting a rape a school administrator's choice? Rape is rape. So the girl in the video wasn't at fault because she was drunk? How is that different than DUI? If a drunk girl has a wreck and hurts someone she is at fault, if she screws someone and claims rape she is hurting someone. Are women judged differently based on their gender? Comparing giving consent while drunk to rape is insane and using that reasoning means all men are rapist as we've all screwed drunk women. Maybe I've been raped too since I've been drunk and screwed by both sober and drunk women (idiots that they were). Are we to now carry around a breathalyzer and drug test kit just in case we get lucky? Should our inebriation levels match before it's legal?