Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #441
That's going to be a while, he's got an argument whereas you don't
-
-
Our Argument:
- She consented at the time
- Being drunk does not absolve you from your actions, even if those actions are just consenting to sex
- The evidence in this case seems to be her word vs his
- If the man spiked her drink, then it would be a rape
- If he had sex with her when she was unconscious or unable to say no then it was a rape
- Having no recollection of consenting does not mean it didn't occur
Sanius' Argument:
- Nope
- She was drunk so she can't consent
- You damn victim blaming MRA asshole
- Stupid misogynist
- She can't remember consenting so that means it never happened
Edit:
"I'm hoodoo, I think anyone who disagrees with me is dumb"
-
An intoxicated person (by free will obviously) is not exempt from his/her own responsibilities, you can give consent while drunk where I live.
In the US and England this is not so, which I think is completely ridiculous, and I don't see why sanius is being such a bitch that he can't see that. Keeps accusing us of being MRa's and seeing women as objects.
-
What the hell is wrong with you Sanius.
Anytime someone makes a comparison to women being drunk and having sex and someone being drunk and doing something you automatically assume that they are comparing the women to the object.
Maybe you didn't think that they were comparing the person making the decision to the women.
-
"terrible person because he doesn't agree with my views" - sanius 2012
Seriously you are one of this forums worst misandrists who hide behind the label of feminism and try to paint anyone who thinks a woman might be wrong in a given situation as a misogynist. You're also one of the worst posters in general when it comes to forming a decent argument. I'm surprised it's hoodoo thats running around rating every single person boxes, because that used to be a habit of yours when you no longer had an argument (no matter how poorly constructed/thought out) to stand on.
Do you actually think that it's okay someone can be convicted when the only "evidence" is one person's word against another. Any other topic and people here would be frothing at the mouth about such a conviction.
-
Never said that, I just think she was definitely raped. 5 years in jail isn't going to do anything for anybody. Make him educate people on rape so we have less rape apologists on Facepunch, and in the world.
-
i think what your saying is "I hate women"
-
Can anyone bring up the relevant act where this is actually stated? I have yet to see proof of this and remember a case a few years ago in the UK where similar events occurred and the judge ruled that being drunk does not absolve you of your actions and so the defendant won the case.
I agree that there needs to be more education on rape and rape culture needs to die, but I'm not defending rape because to me this doesn't seem to be a legitimate case.
-
The only reason for this to be rape is because you have ridiculous laws making it so. She consented so it should not be rape.
-
Can't say I'm not surprised by some of the things people say on this forum. Such as "Well she got wasted and consented it's her fault". The amount of backwards individuals here doesn't surprise me anymore.
There was no consent, once you introduce alcohol into a situation the ability to legally consent goes out the window.
-
stupd WRA's
-
Lol okay. So pretty much everyone who has ever been to a club and hooked up is a rapist?
-
He drank alcohol too so does that mean he isn't consenting either?
-
So...
They raped eachother? Or is it just the woman who can no longer consent, the man is responsible for everything that happens??
-
That's where the whole sexual assault thing gets blurry. In most places alcohol makes you legally unable to do a lot of shit, consent is one thing. Doesn't matter if you're male or female, but a lot of sexual assault legislation is geared towards protecting women. Shits confusing.
TECHNICALLY since they both were under the influence, either one of them could be tried for sexual assault. Then again I'm from America, I don't know how they handle sexual assault elsewhere. It's probably more of the same I'm assuming.
-
Same. It doesn't matter what gender each person is. It could be a woman who's drunk, a man who's drunk, a woman who isn't, a guy who isn't, it doesn't matter.
If one person is extremely drunk, and the other isn't, it's rape.
You have a very broad definition of "same logic".
As in, wrong.
On to my main post:The court considered the fact that there wasn't any force involved.
They also found that she was too drunk to be able to consent.
Because of CCTV footage.
As in, there's more evidence than just "he said she said".
I like how he admits that he deceived someone.
[quote]Sohail Aslam, owner of the Godfather kebab shop in Rhyl, told Caernarfon Crown Court the alleged victim fell down two or three times in his shop.
Mr Aslam told the court: "She never used to be that drunk but she was very drunk that night."[quote]
She fell down multiple times. There's stumbling around, and then there's falling.
She feared her drinks were spiked because she usually drinks more than that, but didn't that night. And yet, she was more drunk than she had ever been, despite not drinking as much as usual. With witness reports from other people, not just her.
She was only tipsy at first, as she would be after drinking less than her usual amount, but then at some later point, before she got to the hotel, she got much worse. You can't really blame her for thinking her drinks were spiked.
Another witness, saying she was extremely drunk, stumbling, and slurring her words.
Even though Evans and McDonald said that she didn't stumble or slur.
Hmm. I wonder who's lying... the people getting charged, or several witnesses...
By their own testimony, the guys (or at least one of them) were only slightly buzzed and still in control.
So anybody saying "WELL IF YOU CAN'T CONSENT WHEN DRUNK THEN THE GUYS DIDN'T CONSENT EITHER" needs to shut the fuck up.
Edit: oh, hey, look, several people above me all making the argument that we should treat everybody who's drank any level of alcohol all the same, even though earlier arguments from the same people were about how people react differently to alcohol.
I guess this means you guys are fucking hypocrites who need to pay attention.
Ugh, I need to go, I'll be back in a bit.
-
I have to admit that the case seems quite odd.
Essentially the only way she could not give consent, would be if she was essentially unconscious from the drink and the man did not drink at all. Essentially just picking her up and sleeping with her.
But if she was just drunk to the point of not being able to remember the next morning she could very well have given consent. Likewise it's quite possible that the man was drunk as well. In this case both would potentially be in no shape to give consent.
I'd say it's actually only a rape case if the guy spiked her drink. Self inflicted inebriation is usually to the fault of the one who got drugged.
-
thank you last or first
-
we are saying all people who've drank any should be treated the same BECAUSE people react differently and judgement is too abstract/not outwardly knowable a concept to measure by how much they have drank/BAC
-
No one has said what you just said, and he wasn't stumbling and she was. It's obvious she was more intoxicated.
-
I'm fairly sure stumbling and balance has absolutely nothing to do with judgement/mental capacity.
-
are you serious
-
After reading through 12 pages of this, I'm sticking with my verdict of not guilty.
As has been previously said, consent WAS given. It was not forced or coerced out of her, it was freely admitted. She said yes (several times in fact), and was actually the one to approach the original guy in the first place. The "altered mind" defense (or in this case, prosecution) would be valid had someone else forced her to drink heavily or had spiked her drink, but no one had. She got wasted entirely of her own accord, and its entirely her own fault that her mind was as altered as it was.
This does NOT mean that getting drunk means you deserve to be raped, or that it would be your fault had you been raped. No one (or at least no one respectable) is saying that.
This particular case isn't rape though. Consent was explicitly given to the guy, and there was no trickery or deception on his part to gain it. It's a terrible situation for the girl, but what the guy did was NOT rape.
Note: just because I think the guy is innocent of rape doesn't automatically mean that I think the victim is guilty of it. There was willing, explicit consent, ergo there was no rape in the first place. Also, there's a huge difference between "saying yes means consent" and "wearing certain clothes means consent," so stop using that fucking analogy.
Bottom line is this: These kinds of situations are tragic for everyone involved, but unless it can be proved that the defendant had sex with another person without getting consent, or that they took actions to make the other party give consent, they should not be found guilty of rape and have their lives ruined forever.
-
...but it shows you that she's FAR more intoxicated, which means she's far too intoxicated to think correctly.
-
Yes, I am, judgement isn't related to balance.
They are both symptoms of alcohol use but they are unrelated, they are affected at differing rates, you could be stumbling drunk but retain judgement and vice/versa.
-
sorry you can't give consent when drunk, argument invalidated
beep boop
-
All it means, to someone looking from the outside, is that there's a higher chance of having impaired judgement, it's not like for every amount of balance you lose you lose an equal amount of judgement.
-
no... no you can't
-
-
He was drinking too so does that mean he isn't giving consent either?
-
I disagree. It should only be rape when the drunk person has absolutely no choice in the matter, they cannot possibly say no.
Lol it's the exact same logic.
Sanius said that consent never occurred if you do not remember consenting. Following that logic I said that if you don't remember paying for drinks, they took your money without your consent because consent never occurred if you don't remember it.
I haven't seen the footage, I'm just going by whats in the article.
Lying does not make you a rapist.
[QUOTE=Last or First;35679183]
[quote]Sohail Aslam, owner of the Godfather kebab shop in Rhyl, told Caernarfon Crown Court the alleged victim fell down two or three times in his shop.
Mr Aslam told the court: "She never used to be that drunk but she was very drunk that night."Even if she was stumbling, IMO if she was still able to say no to the sex then it was consensual if she said yes.
This still is not evidence her drinks were spiked, and is definitely not evidence that the guy sentenced was the one who spiked them. It's possible that because she was drunk she was less aware of how much she had drunk.
And what if they're lying because they don't want to go to jail for having a one night stand?
Even if she was stumbling and slurring her words as seems to be very likely, if she was still lucid enough to say no then it was consensual if she said yes.
Being slightly buzz still hinders your ability to make rational judgements.
Please read the entire thread carefully, and not just reading what you think I posted. I was replying to someone who said that anyone with alcohol in their system cannot give consent and said so that would mean the men would be victims as well. I never said that I believe that's the case.
fucking hell, learn to read.
He said that the man used no deceit to get consent out of her, not that the man didn't use deceit to get into the hotel.
-
so i'm guessing you're like 12 and have never been drunk and have probably never done any research about being drunk either
-
You do realize that lying to get a room key has nothing to do with getting consent, right?
Edit:
According to the article, his friend (the acquitted one) texted him saying that he had a girl, so Evans "deceived" the receptionist into giving him a room key so that he could go up and a) see who the girl was and b) tell McDonald that one of their friends had been arrested. He didn't "deceive" the girl into giving consent by any means.
Continuing with the story, when he got to the room, he saw them having sex and asked if he could join in, to which the girl looked at him explicitly said "yes", and continued to encourage him throughout.
Even playing along with the sentiment that drunken sex is the same exact thing as rape, Evans would have had no way of knowing how drunk the girl was anyway, as he had never seen her stumble or fall down earlier, and according to him, was "in control." He is hardly a rapist or deserving of this scale of punishment.
Also telling is the fact that McDonald, who was with her the whole time and actually saw her drunkenness, was acquitted.
-
What if they can say no, but are intimidated or threatened into saying yes? Not even necessarily verbal intimidation, but the person's size or authority? What if they're afraid that if they say no, the person will hit them, due to the person's stature / history / etc.?
What if they don't say no, but are clearly giving signs they don't want to be having sex, like crying and pushing the person away?
What if they can't say no because they're literally out of their minds?
He probably misworded his post. Or you didn't look into what he meant enough.
Possibly he meant it not for general cases, but rather as a statement to disagree with the person he quoted?
Even if their post was incredibly wrong, your logic is still wrong too.
Except she wasn't truly able to say no because she was out of her mind and not herself?
What about this do you not understand?
That was really mostly against the people saying "fuck that bitch, making up random shit about her drinks getting spiked" from the earlier pages.
You do know you're not supposed to lie in court, right?
right?
Except she wasn't lucid enough to say no because she wasn't in full control of herself, as seen by the fact that she could barely even control her balance and speech, let alone reasoning, WHAT ABOUT THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND
Slightly.
And being completely drunk out of your mind completely hinders your ability to make rational judgements.
Please read the entire thread carefully, and not just reading what you think we posted.
I know, I just felt the urge to be a smartass right there.
-
1. Not rape, unless the person specifically threatened them either physically or verbally. This is as long as she does actually say yes. If she doesn't actually say yes and he has sex with her it would be rape, even if she doesn't say no.
2. Rape, if she is pushing away then he will be physically forcing her to have sex.
3. Rape, because she cannot choose to say no.
It wasn't my logic. I know it was wrong, that's why I parodied it.
Thinking differently than you normally do because you're drunk does not mean you are unable to make decisions. Unless you are are so intoxicated that you cannot comprehend what is happening to you, so you cannot say yes or no it would be consensual IMO. From the article it seems that she was able to speak and walk, even though she was stumbling and slurring, the guys said she said yes and based on that evidence it seems she was lucid enough to understand what was happening.
And? That has absolutely no bearing on whether not they actually raped her.
Stumbling and slurred speech suggests you are drunk, it does not suggest you are completely unaware of what is transpiring around. You're right, it does hinder your ability to make rational judgements, but that doesn't mean that you don't have to take responsibility for the decisions you make.
I did read it and every post he has made in reply to anyone disagreeing with the verdict has been calling them sexist, telling them to go back to reddit, and saying they are an mra.
-
I can't speak for Hobo, but my personal feeling is that if a person proceeds to have sex with someone else with knowledge that the other person does not explicitly want it, then yes, that would be rape. If the other person never says yes in the first place, then yes, that would be rape.
What I don't think is rape is walking in on your friend having sex, getting definite approval to join in from both the friend and the woman, and then receiving encouragement from the woman throughout.
-
the fuck is wrong with your reasoning. she's responsible for her actions but he isn't responsible for his? do you really think being buzzed constitutes the ability to take advantage of others and being incredibly wasted gives you the reasoning to not be taken advantage of?
Edited:
wait, so you mean to say that if someone else, let's just say took advantage of a girl who was completely wasted, should have to pay consequences for his decisions?
-
I'm not claiming he isn't responsible for his actions, jesus christ. It was in reply to last or fist suggesting that being buzzed barely negates your ability to make rational decisions.
If she was completely oblivious to what was happening or she said no, then yes it would be rape. Being sober and going up to a drunk girl who is able to choose whether or not to have sex, and she does consent, is not an example of rape.
-
You both seem to be forgetting that the "buzzed" one who took the girl back to his hotel, McDonald, was acquitted. It was the dude who walked in later, Evans, who was found guilty.
Which seems ass-backwards IMO, although I don't think either one deserves nearly the sort of punishment that goes along with a rape verdict.
-
yeah I still don't get this
Disagree x 5
Zing x 4
Agree x 1
Funny x 1
Dumb x 7
Winner x 7
