• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Berlin refugees given sexual consent classes

What should be done to make refugees stop raping german girls?

  • We should ask them politely to stop

    Votes: 5 7.0%
  • We should give them sexual consent classes (as in the article)

    Votes: 7 9.9%
  • We should do nothing and let those traumatised poor refugees funnel overbunded energy

    Votes: 2 2.8%
  • We should choose handfull of young girls to volunteer be thiers sex slaves

    Votes: 9 12.7%
  • I don't know, maybe we should do somthing else?

    Votes: 48 67.6%

  • Total voters
    71

Dee Dah Dave

Member
Nov 24, 2013
5,625
836
485
England, UK
Islamic culture teaches that women should be covered up otherwise they are asking for the men’s minds to wander into deviant thoughts.

Fundamentalist Islamic practice needs to be clamped down on, in its entirety. The West only flourished when fundamentalist Christianity was kicked to the curb. Allowing an even more hardcore religion to flourish within the liberal West just isn’t going to work. Sorry ‘anti racists’, but this is something you are one day going to have to learn, the hard way it seems.
 

Stilton Disco

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2014
4,532
463
505
UK
Morality is highly contextual so I'm not surprised. The west relatively not long ago held similar believes. But the good thing is that culture can change and people adapt.
Islamic culture teaches that women should be covered up otherwise they are asking for the men’s minds to wander into deviant thoughts.

Fundamentalist Islamic practice needs to be clamped down on, in its entirety. The West only flourished when fundamentalist Christianity was kicked to the curb. Allowing an even more hardcore religion to flourish within the liberal West just isn’t going to work. Sorry ‘anti racists’, but this is something you are one day going to have to learn, the hard way it seems.
These two things combined are what worry me.

We live in a bubble of peaceful civility that only really functions because even the poorest members of society have it better than most of histories kings.

We forget in the west the real, genuine struggles, oppression and impossible to surmount poverty we had to overcome across multiple generations to get where we are today, and letting in scores of people that never had that experience, whose cultures and beliefs are still forged in horrific struggles that smother concepts like relative morality, rights and fairness, all while cheerfully allowing the poverty divide to become a chasm and the middle class to die off, is just asking for tragedy in the future, because the excess of resources, wealth and easy living simply cannot last.
 
Last edited:

danielberg

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,529
2,930
385
So instead of enforcing the law they're bending it to allow these poo poo wefugees to attend sex education classes?



It's times like these I'm glad we have an unrepentant bastard like Duterte as president. He would never let shit like this stand.
Some people just dont know how "far" some of the more idiotic open minded (to the point the brain falls out) countries are already in europe.
Just to give a taste in germany there are cases of allowed child marriage among the import because they are "used to it and its culture" and it would hurt the CHILD to seperate them.
Yes this in a western european rich country with leftwingers being responsible for this.
 
Last edited:

RiccochetJ

Member
Jan 5, 2010
12,370
697
975
Denver, USA
I think it's unfortunate that there has to be a class on how to treat women, but I also understand that there's some environments where men and women would be raised to expect a certain sort of treatment and they have to be taught how things are different.

It's really not that long ago around here that women were expected to be the homemakers and a little smack upside the head was the norm. A little further back, women weren't considered emotionally capable of voting. Are we even capable of comprehending that ideal nowadays? I sure hope not.

How do I say, "Give them a break while at the same time don't tolerate their long standing cultural norms." ?
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,063
1,471
435
Some people just dont know how "far" some of the more idiotic open minded (to the point the brain falls out) countries are already in europe.
Just to give a taste in germany there are cases of allowed child marriage among the import because they are "used to it and its culture" and it would hurt the CHILD to seperate them.
Yes this in a western european rich country with leftwingers being responsible for this.
In 2017 a law was passed that all child marriages are automatically declared null.

The case is more complex than that though. Here is a good summary.


BTW, this is clearly not a problem just in Germany or with refugees.


"In many cases, minors in the US may be married when they are under the age of sexual consent in their state (which ranges from 16 to 18).[6] In some states minors cannot legally divorce, leave their spouse, or enter a shelter to escape abuse.[7][8] In 2001 in Tennessee, three 10-year-old girls were married to men aged 24-31.[9] Meanwhile in Alabama, a 74-year-old man married a 14-year-old girl."
 
Last edited:
  • Triggered
Reactions: Tesseract

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,114
2,658
490
Moore Park Beach
The sooner we get Sharia Law the better.
Imagine not having to argue with the wife anymore on petty things and just use the just sharia way to right her on her wrongs,.
Sharia law 2020. It will be awesome.

(/s for people that are retarded and can't see this is satire)
 

danielberg

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,529
2,930
385
In 2017 a law was passed that all child marriages are automatically declared null.

The case is more complex than that though. Here is a good summary.

"declared null" LOL yes if you ignore the exceptions made in several cases where it was decided the child is "used" to the marriage and seperation would be more harmful to the child.. so yeah "declared null" except when it isnt.
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,063
1,471
435
"declared null" Only if ignore the exceptions made in several cases where it was decided the child is "used" to the marriage and seperation would be more harmful to the child.. so yeah "declared null" except when it isnt. And this is on the naive leftists and apologists.
Well in the US a republican governor refused to abolish child marriage because it interferes with religious customs.


"In May, the high-profile Republican governor for New Jersey declined to sign into law a measure that would have made his state the first to ban child marriage without exception. Chris Christie claimed it would conflict with religious customs. "

And like the wikipedia link I edited above shows, it appears these religious customs come many times from conservative contexts (Tennessee is extra creepy) so hardly are leftwingers or refugees responsible here.
 
Last edited:
  • Triggered
Reactions: Tesseract

pennythots

Member
May 14, 2019
611
935
415
We had a lot of those kinds of classes in the military as well. I'm not sure how effective they are but it was a bit surprising to hear people argue whether someone can consent or not if that person is drunk.
 

keraj37

Member
Dec 13, 2016
987
599
250
google.com
I cannot believe some of you try to reason this and defend. I hope your daughter or wife will never be raped and killed so you feel how naive and stupid you were.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
23,113
21,874
1,045
Your 1st and last question come off as deliberately being obtuse.
Maybe your're just projecting from the pedestal you have have yourself on since coming back from a long hiatus.

Every other comment seems to come from a place of mind reading insults and narcissism. I think you are reading things with how you feel in your own head.

All this "obtuse, dishonesty" talk from you is a tactic one uses to shut down discussion when they don't have a solid foundation to their arguments. Projection.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sakura Doritos

Riven326

Member
Mar 25, 2019
1,045
1,066
395
United States
Some people just dont know how "far" some of the more idiotic open minded (to the point the brain falls out) countries are already in europe.
Just to give a taste in germany there are cases of allowed child marriage among the import because they are "used to it and its culture" and it would hurt the CHILD to seperate them.
Yes this in a western european rich country with leftwingers being responsible for this.

I couldn't have said it better.
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
4,545
4,530
1,265
Well in the US a republican governor refused to abolish child marriage because it interferes with religious customs.


"In May, the high-profile Republican governor for New Jersey declined to sign into law a measure that would have made his state the first to ban child marriage without exception. Chris Christie claimed it would conflict with religious customs. "

And like the wikipedia link I edited above shows, it appears these religious customs come many times from conservative contexts (Tennessee is extra creepy) so hardly are leftwingers or refugees responsible here.
I'm literally from the most hick part of TN, and would never base what should be allowed on a rare incident amongst a bunch of degenerate Bible-thumping hillbillies. An incident whose rate of occurrence is almost negligible versus the rate with these rural uneducated Muslim immigrants at that.
 
Last edited:

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
533
552
310
People in general need consent classes, there was studies done that show that a significant percentage of Americans do not understand what consent it. Such as having sex with a drunk woman is not considered rape to a unsettling amount of men.
What is drunk? Do you use legal guidelines for driving? She wants to fuck while sober, has 1 beer, you fuck and it's rape? She had 1 mixed drink 3 hours ago and you hook up? Rape. Do men need breathalyzers at hand to determine whether or not a woman is able to make her own decisions? Do you think women don't have the agency to make their own decisions?

I'm being a bit sarcastic, but I think going down the road of "she was drunk/high/hungry/sleepy/depressed/whatever" qualifier Olympics and calling it rape just further degrades the power of the word. Rape is a terrible thing, and throwing the term around lightly in situations where it shouldn't be is not a good thing, in my eyes.

Someone thinking back and going "Wow I sure fuck a lot of 5's when I'm drunk, I normally only fuck 9's!" doesn't mean they were raped, either. It means they make shit decisions and probably shouldn't drink.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,598
63
370
What is drunk? Do you use legal guidelines for driving? She wants to fuck while sober, has 1 beer, you fuck and it's rape? She had 1 mixed drink 3 hours ago and you hook up? Rape. Do men need breathalyzers at hand to determine whether or not a woman is able to make her own decisions? Do you think women don't have the agency to make their own decisions?

I'm being a bit sarcastic, but I think going down the road of "she was drunk/high/hungry/sleepy/depressed/whatever" qualifier Olympics and calling it rape just further degrades the power of the word. Rape is a terrible thing, and throwing the term around lightly in situations where it shouldn't be is not a good thing, in my eyes.

Someone thinking back and going "Wow I sure fuck a lot of 5's when I'm drunk, I normally only fuck 9's!" doesn't mean they were raped, either. It means they make shit decisions and probably shouldn't drink.
Or a lot of people don't know what rape is, its usually depicted as forceful or giving a drug with intent on making someone sleep/unable to resist. Rape is about consent, if you don't have consent, then its rape. If a person can't give consent due to mental incapacitation, then one shouldn't have sex with them. Its not rocket science, but its also not simple, that is why we have courts.

Not all rape is some movie-style rape scene and it doesn't degrade the word to realize that.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,063
1,471
435
I'm literally from the most hick part of TN, and would never base what should be allowed on a rare incident amongst a bunch of degenerate Bible-thumping hillbillies. An incident whose rate of occurrence is almost negligible versus the rate with these rural uneducated Muslim immigrants at that.
I would need a source for that. According to Wikipedia there are 200.000 children married in the US, that's not exactly a negligible number. How many are by Christians? In Germany there were 1400 or something in 2016 but Germany is now cracking on the practice (even harder than the US apparently). Syria is not in the top ten countries for child marriage in the world and most immigrants in Germany come from that so it's not like everyone does it.
 

TGO

Member
Sep 5, 2007
8,121
1,380
1,210
UK
They should introduce the mini guillotine and teach them how it works.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
533
552
310
Or a lot of people don't know what rape is, its usually depicted as forceful or giving a drug with intent on making someone sleep/unable to resist. Rape is about consent, if you don't have consent, then its rape. If a person can't give consent due to mental incapacitation, then one shouldn't have sex with them. Its not rocket science, but its also not simple, that is why we have courts.

Not all rape is some movie-style rape scene and it doesn't degrade the word to realize that.
So, under your understanding, if a woman says "I consent", and she has sex with a man, but at the time she said it had a blood alcohol level of .081%, if the man has sex with her he is a rapist, whether he knows of her intoxication or not. Not only is he a rapist, but she can decide days, weeks, months, or years later that she was raped. Does that sound right?
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,598
63
370
So, under your understanding, if a woman says "I consent", and she has sex with a man, but at the time she said it had a blood alcohol level of .081%, if the man has sex with her he is a rapist, whether he knows of her intoxication or not. Not only is he a rapist, but she can decide days, weeks, months, or years later that she was raped. Does that sound right?
Its not just woman fyi.

If you can't tell if someone is intoxicated, then I would not suggest being around those who drink. Its not hard to spot, only in rare cases is someone completely drunk and able to play it off. Being naive in committing a crime or heinous act does not mean that, that crime or act did not happen. Also it has little to do with blood alcohol level because not everyone is carrying a breathalyzer. lol

One should use their head regarding these things and obviously, yes, one can decide years later that it was rape. Why do you think we have statute of limitations that extends out years regarding crimes? Because not everyone is able to report on a crime at the moment for variety of reasons, including their mental state and awareness that a crime even occurred. So the perpetrator does not have an easy out.
 
Last edited:

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
533
552
310
Its not just woman fyi.

If you can't tell if someone is intoxicated, then I would not suggest being around those who drink. Its not hard to spot, only in rare cases is someone completely drunk and able to play it off. Being naive in committing a crime or heinous act does not mean that, that crime or act did not happen. Also it has little to do with blood alcohol level because not everyone is carrying a breathalyzer. lol

One should use their head regarding these things and obviously, yes, one can decide years later that it was rape. Why do you think we have statute of limitations that extends out years regarding crimes? Because not everyone is able to report on a crime at the moment for variety of reasons, including their mental state and awareness that a crime even occurred. So the perpetrator does not have an easy out.
Rape requires penetration by definition, so the vast majority of the time it is going to be men charged with rape. I used a woman as the example, as man/woman is the most common sexual combination. If you take issue with that, that's fine.

Per the bolded: Do you not see the danger in using ambiguous language in determining a criminal case? I used the exact scenario that I presented for a reason. .08% is the legal limit for intoxication. At .08% most people do not appear drunk. So, a man having consensual sex with a woman at .081% BAC is, in fact considered a rapist, and could face years in prison. Is that just? I would say no.
 

GamingKaiju

Member
Oct 24, 2014
314
71
290
There is no option for locking the mother fuckers up and punishing them for their crime, fuck asking them politely just make an example out of those that commit crimes.
 
Last edited:

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,598
63
370
Rape requires penetration by definition, so the vast majority of the time it is going to be men charged with rape. I used a woman as the example, as man/woman is the most common sexual combination. If you take issue with that, that's fine.

Per the bolded: Do you not see the danger in using ambiguous language in determining a criminal case? I used the exact scenario that I presented for a reason. .08% is the legal limit for intoxication. At .08% most people do not appear drunk. So, a man having consensual sex with a woman at .081% BAC is, in fact considered a rapist, and could face years in prison. Is that just? I would say no.
No issue on it, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page that the standards should be the same for both men and women in regards with consent.

Isn't that just the legal limit regarding driving and public intoxication? They may not appear drunk, but their decision making will likely still be affected. When most people refer to someone as being drunk, they are talking about the behavior of the individual because as said, people won't have anything to prove someone is drunk or not other than how they behave. Remember, that 0.8% isn't going to matter in a case because by the time most go to the police to file a report, they would not be intoxicated. In the event that they are and go to the police, the courts should handle it.

I see no danger in it, but obviously I am not a law professional, language regarding it should be as well written as possible. Its not like the accuser has the advantage regarding rape/sexual assault cases because they have to prove they were raped/sexually assaulted and then prove the person they are accusing is the one that did it.
 

Helios

Member
Jun 13, 2018
2,503
4,328
680
Integration is a big part of what government should strive for when dealing with legal immigrants. I seriously doubt this is the right direction, though. Like @infinitys_7th said, the people that need to be taught these things are not the ones that you want in your country. The safety of your citizens should be your first priority after all.
 

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
1,022
2,837
560
Its not just woman fyi.

If you can't tell if someone is intoxicated, then I would not suggest being around those who drink. Its not hard to spot, only in rare cases is someone completely drunk and able to play it off. Being naive in committing a crime or heinous act does not mean that, that crime or act did not happen. Also it has little to do with blood alcohol level because not everyone is carrying a breathalyzer. lol

One should use their head regarding these things and obviously, yes, one can decide years later that it was rape. Why do you think we have statute of limitations that extends out years regarding crimes? Because not everyone is able to report on a crime at the moment for variety of reasons, including their mental state and awareness that a crime even occurred. So the perpetrator does not have an easy out.
Two incredibly (and equally) drunk people enthusiastically agree to sex, but regret it the morning after.

Did they rape each other?

Since neither one legally “consented”, do the rapes cancel each other out?

Does it become a race to be the first one to report it so that person can claim to be the victim?

You see how ridiculous this all becomes when you absolve a person who is the least bit intoxicated from any responsibility for their decisions, especially when there’s a 99% chance the other person is also going to be intoxicated.
 
  • Thoughtful
  • Like
Reactions: RSB and GreenAlien

Kamina

Golden Boy
Jun 2, 2013
4,366
1,545
750
33
Austria
Two incredibly (and equally) drunk people enthusiastically agree to sex, but regret it the morning after.

Did they rape each other?

Since neither one legally “consented”, do the rapes cancel each other out?

Does it become a race to be the first one to report it so that person can claim to be the victim?
Dont be silly, in that case it obviously is the guy who was the rapist, not the girl.
/s

It's a reflection of how dumb countries such as Germany have been in regard to immigration.
Not surprising though. They are still scared that they would be branded as nazis if they acted more drastically.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Breakage

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,598
63
370
Two incredibly (and equally) drunk people enthusiastically agree to sex, but regret it the morning after.

Did they rape each other?

Since neither one legally “consented”, do the rapes cancel each other out?

Does it become a race to be the first one to report it so that person can claim to be the victim?

You see how ridiculous this all becomes when you absolve a person who is the least bit intoxicated from any responsibility for their decisions, especially when there’s a 99% chance the other person is also going to be intoxicated.

No, you see how ridiculous all this talk becomes when everyone keep saying this in the bold and ignore everything I said regarding it.

Problem is, some of you try to come up with stupid hypothetical to dispute the issue that a person who is intoxicated legally cannot consent because they are mentally incapacitated. Just because a few people may mistake feelings of regret in that scenario for being raped does not mean there should be no standard to deal with the vast majority of cases. In your hypothetical, the vast majority of people will not go seeking a criminal case against the other. If they do, then let the courts hear their story and supporting evidence to see if it should be pursued or thrown out. There is a reason why a ton of rape/sexual assault cases aren't reported and that is because the burden of proving it is pretty damn high. I don't expect an increase in false accusations like some of you seem to be.

Laws aren't infallible, we all know this and that is why we have courts to determine who is in the wrong.
 
Last edited:
Dec 15, 2011
4,420
9,685
940
And, once again, you didn't answer the question - just deflected and attacked anyone that challenges your assertions.

Something something intellectual dishonesty.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,598
63
370
And, once again, you didn't answer the question - just deflected and attacked anyone that challenges your assertions.

Something something intellectual dishonesty.
Seriously? I answered his question here and before. Feelings of regret aren't the same as feeling of having been raped/taken advantage of.

The part of the post you are referring to addresses his question:

In your hypothetical, the vast majority of people will not go seeking a criminal case against the other. If they do, then let the courts hear their story and supporting evidence to see if it should be pursued or thrown out.
Also an important post I made in this thread.

It would all depend on how you feel based on what happened before, during, and after. When I say this, I mean genuine feel.
I am not a judge and that hypothetical is just that, a hypothetical with no context regarding it, which is a hell of an important thing you need to determine what is what. That is why I called it a stupid hypothetical. There is more to real life situations than "omg they are both drunk and had sex, so did they both rape one another!?"

Its not that simple, but its also not complex. Judges and jury do this all the time, they figure out what happened and determine if a law has been violated. Its not a perfect system, innocent people get caught and bad guys get away. That is just the nature of human beings being imperfect and situations not being a simple matter.
 
Dec 15, 2011
4,420
9,685
940
Yes I am serious (see, that's how you answer a question - even a disengenous one).

I am still awaiting an answer to mine from the pervious page.

Your lengthy diatribes where you merely repeat earlier diatribes, smears of those that dare to challenge you, and endorsements of others who do the same is a limited and redundant set of tactics in a civil forum. Others have already called you out on it and, even then, you demonstrated the behaviour being criticised by way of response.

The gulf you assume exists between your intelligence and the intelligence and motives of those who challenge you is all in your head.
 
Last edited:

Threeshotgamer

Gold Member
Dec 8, 2018
766
1,519
585
Kentucky
Two incredibly (and equally) drunk people enthusiastically agree to sex, but regret it the morning after.

Did they rape each other?

Since neither one legally “consented”, do the rapes cancel each other out?

Does it become a race to be the first one to report it so that person can claim to be the victim?

You see how ridiculous this all becomes when you absolve a person who is the least bit intoxicated from any responsibility for their decisions, especially when there’s a 99% chance the other person is also going to be intoxicated.
This poster comes to mind
 

Mohonky

Member
Jan 19, 2007
11,263
771
1,285
Useless really, the men know about rape but they also dont consider women who dress in regular tops or in skirts, tight jeans etc as requiring consent; they are just whores deserving of it.

Its literally the way they view the women that is the issue, not that they don't understand what rape is.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,598
63
370
Yes I am serious (see, that's how you answer a question - even a disengenous one).

I am still awaiting an answer to mine from the pervious page.

Your lengthy diatribes where you merely repeat earlier diatribes, smears of those that dare to challenge you, and endorsements of others who do the same is a limited and redundant set of tactics in a civil forum. Others have already called you out on it and, even then, you demonstrated the behaviour being criticised by way of response.

The gulf you assume exists between your intelligence and the intelligence and motives of those who challenge you is all in your head.
Previous page, this post?

Before, during and after?
How long after?

An hour? A day? A week?
30 years?
I purposely chose to ignore that post as we all know that the statute of limitations exist. Hell, it can even go beyond that, but legally can not be pursued in a criminal court. People do go into denial about things that happened to them as no one likes to think of themselves as a victim.

Asking questions that have an obvious answer is why I can't help but assume one is being dishonest/obtuse in discussions. Why does the time when one can accept if they were wronged or not matter to you to ask me such a question?
 
Dec 15, 2011
4,420
9,685
940
Boasts about (repeatedly) not answering direct questions, ends boast by presenting questions.

Aside from the hypocrisy, this exhibits a remarkably disingenuous train of thought: that to only acknowledge other's position not to engage with sincerety, merely to demean and deflect -and then repeat diatribes already under question.

Intellectual diahonesty.
Bad faith argumentation.
Zero integrity.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RSB and Whitesnake

Super Mario

Member
Nov 12, 2016
1,163
1,333
415
This poster comes to mind
Jake was guilty the moment he was a white man

You are all missing the point on this story. We now have more diversity, and it is beautiful. The world is a better place now that we added a bunch of cultures that won't assimilate. If you want to discuss rape facts, I can show you a white rapist that CNN thankfully informed us about. Now what?!
 

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
1,022
2,837
560
No, you see how ridiculous all this talk becomes when everyone keep saying this in the bold and ignore everything I said regarding it.

Problem is, some of you try to come up with stupid hypothetical to dispute the issue that a person who is intoxicated legally cannot consent because they are mentally incapacitated. Just because a few people may mistake feelings of regret in that scenario for being raped does not mean there should be no standard to deal with the vast majority of cases. In your hypothetical, the vast majority of people will not go seeking a criminal case against the other. If they do, then let the courts hear their story and supporting evidence to see if it should be pursued or thrown out. There is a reason why a ton of rape/sexual assault cases aren't reported and that is because the burden of proving it is pretty damn high. I don't expect an increase in false accusations like some of you seem to be.

Laws aren't infallible, we all know this and that is why we have courts to determine who is in the wrong.
You’re avoiding addressing the point. Saying “it’s unlikely” or “well the courts will handle it” doesn’t address what I was asking.

Two people are equally drunk and equally eager to have sex. They regret it, and 10 years later one party suddenly decides that they were raped. What is the ideal outcome, in your opinion, given only the information provided?

Do you think the other party, who by your definition was also raped, deserves to be imprisoned for the incident in which they were raped?
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,598
63
370
You’re avoiding addressing the point. Saying “it’s unlikely” or “well the courts will handle it” doesn’t address what I was asking.

Two people are equally drunk and equally eager to have sex. They regret it, and 10 years later one party suddenly decides that they were raped. What is the ideal outcome, in your opinion, given only the information provided?

Do you think the other party, who by your definition was also raped, deserves to be imprisoned for the incident in which they were raped?
There is no way that, that is the only information one would get. You are asking a question that statistically speaking, rarely happen.

You already rigged the whole scenario. "they were equally eager to have sex then 10 years later, one of them thinks it was rape!". The ideal scenario is that in that case, if they ever took it to criminal court, that details are found out and the case is thrown out, because you already written the other person as innocent.

I didn't avoid the point and this is me still clarifying it. I am not sure what you expect for an answer, but this is one.
 

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
1,022
2,837
560
There is no way that, that is the only information one would get. You are asking a question that statistically speaking, rarely happen.

You already rigged the whole scenario. "they were equally eager to have sex then 10 years later, one of them thinks it was rape!". The ideal scenario is that in that case, if they ever took it to criminal court, that details are found out and the case is thrown out, because you already written the other person as innocent.

I didn't avoid the point and this is me still clarifying it. I am not sure what you expect for an answer, but this is one.
Are they innocent? They knowingly had sex with an intoxicated person. So they’re a rapist in your view, right?
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,598
63
370
Are they innocent? They knowingly had sex with an intoxicated person. So they’re a rapist in your view, right?
They aren't necessarily a rapist based on that hypothetical, which as I have said, is skewed to make one innocent and the other is just lying or somehow misguided 10 years later. Its a very improbable scenario.
 

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
1,022
2,837
560
They aren't necessarily a rapist based on that hypothetical, which as I have said, is skewed to make one innocent and the other is just lying or somehow misguided 10 years later. Its a very improbable scenario.
It’s also improbable to be next to a trolley’s switch as it goes full-speed towards five people tied to the tracks. That doesn’t mean the trolley problem isn’t a worthwhile thought expirement.

Moreover, false rape accusations as well as people suddenly deciding consensua sex was rape are both absolutely things that have happened in the past and will happen again.

A drunk person cannot consent to sex. Sex without consent is rape.

You fully agree with those two statements, yes?

So in the hypothetical, you would have to believe that the "innocent" party is a rapist, and the "misguided" party is fully in the right and should pursue legal action.

When this thread started you acted as if you have these concrete views on consent that everyone should have or at least be educated on, but now that we’re getting into the minutia of real situations where those views don’t work, you’re tripping over your previously-stated views.

You said that having sex with a drunk woman is rape, and that the fact that many men don’t agree with that idea is “unsettling”. Yet you claim that this man who had sex with a drunk woman is not a rapist.

Which is it?

inb4 you try to deflect with “it’s unlikely” or “the courts will handle it”.
 
Last edited:

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,598
63
370
It’s also improbable to be next to a trolley’s switch as it goes full-speed towards five people tied to the tracks. That doesn’t mean the trolley problem isn’t a worthwhile thought expirement.

Moreover, false rape accusations as well as people suddenly deciding consensua sex was rape are both absolutely things that have happened in the past and will happen again.

A drunk person cannot consent to sex. Sex without consent is rape.

You fully agree with those two statements, yes?

So in the hypothetical, you would have to believe that the "innocent" party is a rapist, and the "misguided" party is fully in the right and should pursue legal action.

When this thread started you acted as if you have these concrete views on consent that everyone should have or at least be educated on, but now that we’re getting into the minutia of real situations where those views don’t work, you’re tripping over your previously-stated views.

You said that having sex with a drunk woman is rape, and that the fact that many men don’t agree with that idea is “unsettling”. Yet you claim that this man who had sex with a drunk woman is not a rapist.

Which is it?

inb4 you try to deflect with “it’s unlikely” or “the courts will handle it”.
I do agree with those statements. A drunk person can't consent. I constantly said that they should pursue court if they feel like they been raped.

As for the bold you mean real situations that rarely happen and would be determined by other information regarding the circumstance?

False accusations and such like you said do happen, but statistically speaking, its a very small amount. I will have to find it, but 2 articles I read on the subject says its 1% to 2% of accusations that are false. That is extremely small.

Also, I said, "not necessarily a rapist". These matters would 100% be determined by additional information not in your scenario, that is why I can't answer it confidently. You know its a stupid hypothetical, but you insist on pushing it. In your scenario 2 drunk people happily had sex (both of them could not consent legally speaking) and they were fine until 10 years after, one of them believe they were raped. You are basically setting it up as one being a liar (in which case it would be a false accusation), I used "misguided" because I am aware there are few that may for whatever reason believe it was rape and I like to be thorough when I post.

Its not a deflection to say "its unlikely" and "that is what the courts are for" because those are true statements. It is very unlikely for a drunk person who happily had sex with another drunk person to come back 10 years later with the thought that it was a rape unless something else is involved and it wasn't "happy drunk sex" in the first place. Even in the case of this, if they truly feel strongly that it was rape, then, I would support the idea of them pursuing court in which the details regarding it would be looked at by 3rd parties and decided on.
 

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
1,022
2,837
560
I do agree with those statements. A drunk person can't consent. I constantly said that they should pursue court if they feel like they been raped.

As for the bold you mean real situations that rarely happen and would be determined by other information regarding the circumstance?

False accusations and such like you said do happen, but statistically speaking, its a very small amount. I will have to find it, but 2 articles I read on the subject says its 1% to 2% of accusations that are false. That is extremely small.

Also, I said, "not necessarily a rapist". These matters would 100% be determined by additional information not in your scenario, that is why I can't answer it confidently. You know its a stupid hypothetical, but you insist on pushing it. In your scenario 2 drunk people happily had sex (both of them could not consent legally speaking) and they were fine until 10 years after, one of them believe they were raped. You are basically setting it up as one being a liar (in which case it would be a false accusation), I used "misguided" because I am aware there are few that may for whatever reason believe it was rape and I like to be thorough when I post.

Its not a deflection to say "its unlikely" and "that is what the courts are for" because those are true statements. It is very unlikely for a drunk person who happily had sex with another drunk person to come back 10 years later with the thought that it was a rape unless something else is involved and it wasn't "happy drunk sex" in the first place. Even in the case of this, if they truly feel strongly that it was rape, then, I would support the idea of them pursuing court in which the details regarding it would be looked at by 3rd parties and decided on.
What additional information would need to be present for you to make a judgement on whether or not he’s a rapist? Give me some examples, ones that would not fundamentally change the premise of the hypothetical.

Unlikeliness doesn’t matter, at all. It can and does happen, which is all that is necessary for it to be considered.
 
Last edited: