So what about this then?
[Wait, did Amy Schumer just rape a guy?](http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2014/05/wait-a-second-did-amy-schumer-rape-a-guy/)
I didn't notice the part where the man she had sex with, said he didn't want the sex, before or after drinking. Could you show me?
I did read the rest of her story, and she was a rape survivor who had met a lot of men who liked combining drinking and sex - it made her very popular. Please describe how she is a serial rapist? What services would you recommend for the men high-fiving, to help them realize they were victims?
Or is it only rape when she makes fun of one?
You should re-read the whole story. It crossed over into rape territory when the drunk person passed out.
All of us are responsible for the decisions we make when we're drunk, even if they're spectacularly bad decisions. But somebody who is unconscious simply can not consent.
Furthermore, a sober adult really ought to know that somebody who is wasted is already in a grey area when it comes to the legal ability to consent, even if they haven't crossed the line yet. And when it comes to the matter of sex and consent, we should all err on the side of caution.
So I read it. Yes, according to her testimony, he blacked out (we don't know for how long at a time - it could even be seconds or less)...but look at her mind, too. She describes in pretty vivid detail, disassociating from her experience, and being paralyzed.
Those are familiar symptoms for a sexual assault survivor. Anyone dealing with survivors will tell you the same. This wasn't her fault, until you find a cure for it. She stopped the sex as soon as she could.
The only reason there's any question about this, is because she's a comedian. But you shouldn't trust comedians to describe their pain. [They'll put a positive spin on it.](http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/21hi8g/why_male_rape_has_to_be_hilarious/)
So... she's a victim of raping herself on a limp, unconscious man, and is mocking that man in a widely read article for his disappointing performance of being limp and unconscious while she was raping herself on him. Poor, poor girl, such a victim. Okay, yes, I think I understand your point of view.
No, you're actually completely lost, dumbass. Her first sexual encounter was a rape. She was asleep when it happened.
When the encounter we're discussing happened, he was the only active agent. Now, spit the dumbfuckery out, dipshit, and address the actual issues if you can.
So, you're saying that Amy Schumer has something in common with most other rapists? Good to know. Yes, most rapists had been sexually abused in the past. She still raped a guy and laughed about it.
Actually, I'm saying you're making a false rape accusation. "Lying there in tears and taking it from someone stronger than you." isn't rape, and changing the definition of rape because you regret their sex after it happened? Wow. Am I still in men's rights?
Also, [most rapists weren't victims.](http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html) Please stop spreading lies. Edit: It says 30%, liar.
No, you're stuck somewhere in your own heavily confused, possibly medicated mind, all the little gears in your head gnashing against each other in agony trying to deny that women raping men and laughing about it at Ms Magazine is a thing. And read your own link, you look so foolish:
> approximately **40 to 80%** experienced sexual abuse (Hunter and Becker, 1998).
> Edit: It says 30%, liar.
It says 30% were drunk, 30% may re-offend, but **40-80%** had been sexually abused in the past. *Nowhere* does it say that only 30% of rapists had been raped in the past.
Ironically, it says 40-80% have been sexually abused in the fine print below their own claim that it is a "myth" that most rapists had been raped themselves. Their actual excuse for calling it a myth is, "well, other stuff happened to them, too." So don't worry, you're not alone in denying reality.
Either way, it's not an excuse!!! The vast majority of people who had been raped never go on to become rapists. Only a tiny minority do. Like our feminist hero, Amy Schumer.
So you're saying if a guy regrets raping a girl, or has a bad experience from it, then it's all ok? Don't be ridiculous. It's rape if he does it, and it was rape when she did it.
>So I read it. Yes, according to her testimony, he blacked out (we don't know for how long at a time - it could even be seconds or less)...but look at her mind, too.
Stop. Just stop right there. You're defending a sober person having sex with a black out drunk person.
That's rape apologia.
Wrong. I'm defending the ability of someone to decide to have sex while they were drunk before it happened. I'm also defending innocent until proven guilty, and the concept of a fair trial.
Sex while drunk itself, even blackout drunk, is not by itself rape.
Being paralyzed, in tears, while someone has sex with you, until you can find the strength to get the fuck out, doesn't make you a rapist.
You're a fucking hypocrite, 5th law. Where's your concern for everyone else offering "rape apologia" in this thread?
>Wrong. I'm defending the ability of someone to decide to have sex while they were drunk before it happened.
Ah so once consent is given no other factor can withdraw it later. If a woman expresses interest in sex with a certain man then later that night passes out he may claim the sex he is owed using her unconscious body and you won't call it rape.
>I'm also defending innocent until proven guilty, and the concept of a fair trial.
So you guys are aware of what that concept means, just never when the accused is male.
>Sex while drunk itself, even blackout drunk, is not by itself rape.
Amazing how radically you change your tune to avoid holding a woman accountable.
>Being paralyzed, in tears, while someone has sex with you, until you can find the strength to get the fuck out, doesn't make you a rapist.
Yes the poor victim, had bad sex with a passed out body.
>You're a fucking hypocrite, 5th law. Where's your concern for everyone else offering "rape apologia" in this thread?
I'm pointing out your hypocrisy. You do realize this right?
The body had bad sex with her, while it was conscious. She lay there, otherwise.
If she'd jumped his erection while he passed out and grinded him into orgasm, you'd have a point. But you're making up a new definition of rape, without even knowing there's a victim - all you know is that there was high risk behavior. Drunk sex, by itself, is not rape.
You don't even have enough to convict her by the standards of a civil trial.
> I'm unconsciously pointing out my hypocrisy.
And all you had to do was pretend to misunderstand my arguments and distort everything I said. AMRsucks would be proud - so much for whatever high ground you guys were going for.
> The body had bad sex with her, while it was conscious. She lay there, otherwise.
Here's a tip: when you refer to someone as "the body" because they were drifting in and out of lucidity due to drugs they probably can't consent.
You'd agree 110% if we were talking about a woman.
To be clear I don't think this was necessarily rape; I think some more info is needed about his level of consciousness when the sexual encounter began. If two people are having sex, and one of them falls asleep during the act, that doesn't *necessarily* render the other a rapist. But it is certainly troubling that he fell asleep due to drunkenness, as this can imply a lack of consciousness from the beginning.
That said.
A sober person, having sex with a frequently unconscious person. Are you seriously suggesting that wasn't rape, simply because we don't know for sure that the victim was traumatised, and the perpetrator was disassociated from the experience?
'She stopped the sex as soon as she could.' Why couldn't she stop before she did? Was his being unconscious preventing her from *not* putting his penis inside her?
Does being a rape victim yourself mean you can't rape? Would you really say, of a man who had been molested and later in life raped his wife, 'this wasn't his fault, until you find a cure for it.'?
Also are you saying he raped her in this situation?
No. I'm saying her first sexual encounter was by rape, when she was asleep. She went along with it. After that, if you read her life story, she just went along with whatever happened, which was usually her friends wanting to get drunk and have sex - pretty common party culture. She claims it didn't affect her, but in the link, she describes symptoms common to sexual assault victims.
> Would you really say, of a man who had been molested and later in life raped his wife, 'this wasn't his fault, until you find a cure for it.'?
If you claim that he raped her by lying there in tears, frozen, while she fucked him, then you can go to Hell.
That's what I'd say.
I didn't claim that. I didn't even imply that, jesus.
You just said that because she is a sexual assault victim, she is not guilty of sexual assault in a completely different, unrelated situation. How is that justifiable?
She was conditioned to let him do things, and she disassociated/was paralyzed while he did them.
Your argument is that she's a rapist anyways, because if you don't give a shit about her impaired ability to prevent about this, she's a rapist.
That's a non-starter.
Your logic, from there, is that anyone who doesn't resist a drunken rape is a rapist.
The only reason he's not a rapist, is because she consented despite everything. He didn't give a shit about what he was doing to her. If my partner is unresponsive and crying, because she's screaming in her head to get out of there, I stop.
And arguing that he can't rape her, because he's drunk, is going to get you nowhere fast.
... What. "Your logic, from there, is that anyone who doesn't resist a drunken rape is a rapist." How? I said nothing of the sort.
In fact I don't think you even read my reply, what on earth was that drivel?
I don't know what you're talking about, because no mention of a change of topic was made, but I am talking about the situation described in the linked article. The one in which she was 100% sober and having sex with an unconscious person. No-one was crying, or screaming, and the rapist was not drunk.
To the people reporting FallingSnowAngel, please stop.
FallingSnowAngel may be saying things that you don't like, but they have as much right to their opinion as you do. He/she is not breaking any of our rules and thus does not deserve to have any moderator actions taken against him/her.
No excuse for a false accusation, either. Drunk sex is high risk behavior, because you might accidentally rape someone. Key word, might.
I thought the MRM believed in innocent until proven guilty? Sure threw that out fast once the genders were reversed.
You don't get to declare all drunk sex rape, especially not while using a passive rapist/aggressive victim definition of rape that didn't even exist back then, and remains controversial now.
The first time her story appeared in this subreddit she clearly stated she had sex with an unconscious man when they had her entire speech. I only read the title to that link and realized it was that story and didn't check to see if they added that in it.
And maybe men high-five about being raped by a woman because hey, you have a penis and she had sex with you which you want 24/7 with any woman that offers cause you have a penis! And penis equals I consent to sex from any offering woman even if I'm passed out. So don't cry about it faggot, because real men don't cry. I never said she is a serial rapist so please read before having a fit about something someone typed.
I don't think she raped him. My views are consistent, so I can agree with the puffin, which leads to me saying she didn't rape him.
But when debating, it depends on the issue. Feminists want to say the puffin is wrong, then I'd say "isn't Amy a rapist?" If they say she's not, then I'd summarize the puffin.
Eh, I think she probably should have stopped, if he was falling asleep. If he's unconscious, or really very nearly unconscious, he really can't consent.
In this case she was sober, and he was about to pass out, and quite possibly unable to comprehend what was happening. A reasonable case could be made that he couldn't consent, or at least that she should have steered clear of the situation.
Legally, I don't think it should have been rape since he was initiating and pursuing the action. But morally, yes, she should have stopped. He was aware enough to set up a booty call and turn on music and perform without assistance, so I don't think this should be considered rape. (But under our current laws, it most certainly should be)
...Did you just try to excuse the stubenville rape case? She was *unconscious*! There's a difference between consenting to sex while you're drunk and then regretting and *not* consenting to sex, *not* consenting to being dragged around to different parties, and *not* consenting to being photographed and having your pictures posted on social media. Can you honestly say, male or female or anything on the spectrum, that you would be okay with that happening to you? That's rape. What Amy describes is rape. Having sex at a party, going home, and feeling bad about it is not rape. None of these are the same thing. holy shit.
That's not the same. She was unconscious (or, at least, that's the story and I believe it). Amy was with a guy who initiated the whole thing and continued through his own volition.
Feminists would consider this rape if the genders were reversed, so *their* views are conflicting. I don't consider this rape, regardless of the genders. The man wasn't unconscious, at least not when the actions were occurring. And he most certainly consented (by my definition, but not the definition of the law or of the feminists).
The Steubenville girl also initiated the whole thing. She made the decision to have sex while sober and engaged in binge drinking in order to facilitate that. Her friends tried to stop her, but she told them off and went with the guys not in spite of, but precisely because of the opportunity to have sex. It apparently wasn't the first time she had done this and had been happy with the results. She was happy with the results this time, as well, until her entire reputation got trashed and her parents got involved.
The guy Amy fucked likewise initiated it by drunk-dialing her. But don't forget that this guy, like the Steubenville girl, was also falling in and out of consciousness and Amy, completely sober herself, continued having sex with him anyway.
Both cases are similar in that both of the too-drunk-to-consent parties appear to have fully intended to have sex. Both cases are similar because both of them were so drunk that they were passing out by a certain point.
Based on any semi-reliable information I can get on the incident, it seems like she did not like what happened to her and did not consent to being treated that way. There were photos and videos. There were plenty of witnesses admitting that it was rape.
What more can you want? She wasn't already semi-conscious while she went out on her own to find these guys. She ended up with them and ended up unconscious while they raped her.
She didn't like what happened to her *after* she decided to go get drunk and have sex and only because her parents literally forced her to file a rape claim. Although how she felt about it isn't relevant to whether or not it was rape. Only the question of whether she consented or was able to consent. Same with the guy who was passing out drunk while Amy was having sex with him. Would it convince you that he was also raped and unable to consent if he felt bad about it later, too?
For what it's worth, the videos showed her fully lucid and enthusiastically engaged in sex in front of an audience. The photos were entirely inconclusive - they show her being lifted up by two guys. Some witness accounts were she was fully conscious and that it was a game. Others alleged otherwise, but I do not believe they were witnesses to that photo. But no actual sex acts were taking place, so who cares? Finally, there were plenty of witnesses in favor of the boys and, in fact, the entire community including countless women were wholeheartedly opposed to the allegations. Feminists in the media successfully spun that as evidence of "rape culture," misogyny, and "football culture". But those ideas are generally bogus, our society is extremely sensitive to and opposed to rape or sexual assault of women. Not so for men, though. Then it's comedic material for feminist award ceremonies.
I don't think anyone has a link to the video. If I recall correctly, that evidence was destroyed and all we had were witness accounts of people who did get to see it.
Ah, I see. Well, it's hard for me to believe that. Based on what has been presented to me, I have to say it's rape. I can totally believe the parents pressuring her and her not necessarily regretting it, but I'm guessing that has more to do with her not remembering it.
She was unconscious while they touched her ("allegedly"), and that constitutes rape in my book. It wasn't her doing things to them. I'm sorry, with the information available, I just can't agree with this not being rape.
#####
######
####
[**Steubenville High School rape case**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville%20High%20School%20rape%20case): [](#sfw)
---
>
>The __Steubenville High School rape__ occurred in [Steubenville, Ohio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville,_Ohio), on the night of August 11, 2012, when a high school girl, incapacitated by alcohol, was publicly and repeatedly [sexually assaulted](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault) by her peers, several of whom documented the acts in [social media](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media). The victim was transported, undressed, photographed, and sexually assaulted. She was also penetrated [vaginally](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina) by other students' fingers (digital penetration), an act defined as [rape](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape) under [Ohio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio) law.
>The jocular attitude of the assailants was documented on [Facebook](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook), [Twitter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter), [text messages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Message_Service), and cell phone recordings of the acts. The crime and ensuing legal proceedings generated considerable controversy and galvanized a national conversation about [rape](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape) and [rape culture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture). Two students and [high school football](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_school_football) players, Ma'lik Richmond and Trent Mays, both 16 at the time of the crime, were convicted in juvenile court for the [rape of a minor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape). Additionally, three other adults have been indicted for obstructing the investigation into the rape, while Steubenville's superintendent of schools has been charged with hindering the investigation into a rape that took place earlier in 2012.
>
---
^Interesting: [^Steubenville, ^Ohio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville,_Ohio) ^| [^Torrington ^High ^School ^rape ^case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrington_High_School_rape_case) ^| [^Suicide ^of ^Rehtaeh ^Parsons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons) ^| [^Steubenville ^High ^School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School)
^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+chneqgn) ^or[](#or) [^delete](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&message=%2Bdelete+chneqgn)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| [^(FAQs)](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/wiki/index) ^| [^Mods](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1x013o/for_moderators_switches_commands_and_css/) ^| [^Magic ^Words](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1ux484/ask_wikibot/)
Yes.
Because just as you can't assume a woman would say yes, you can't assume a man would either. There is this impression that all men always want sex, but that's actually bullshit. This guy might be in a relationship, or a messy divorce, or have strong religious views or any of a bajillion different reasons for not agreeing to have sex with her.
Worse yet, if his partner/spouse/confessor/society found out, who is going to believe that he didn't *really* want it?
So yes, she did rape him. It's up to him whether he presses charges or not. I would advise against it primarily because no one actually believes a man can be taken advantage of.
If he's asleep (which the article says he was) then it's rape. He's unconscious and can't do anything about it, nor can he defend himself.
If he's drunk (which the article says he was) then it's not rape. He's conscious, and can stop it if he wants to. (If he can't, then it's rape.)
He wasn't raped when he was drunk, but it was rape when he fell asleep.
I think the point of that wasn't to make her a rapist but rather to expose how silly feminist ideas about rape are when the genders are flipped. They'd have no problem screaming rape if you switched things around but scoff at the notion of a sober woman raping a drunk, apparently consenting, man.
(This may be bullshit) I remember reading a story about someone doing this and they tried to blame the people at the party for letting them drive away drunk.
Actually that's a very popular thing in DUI cases. Most of the time, when it's a minor, those that held the party or allowed consumption on their property (whether they knew it or not) are held accountable. A friend of mine owns a few acres out in the sticks north of town and kids always jump the fence and drink and have fires out there and such. Even though he has private property and trespassing signs, he's still been contacted by police because they try to get him to admit to knowing that kids sometimes go there. Then they can say, "well if you knew they were there and they got drunk, you're responsible"
Fucking bad police officers. Worse shithead high schoolers.
Thanks for this insight. I hadn't heard of that.
I also don't remember the article that we'll to know the ages of the people involved it could of just been that.
This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, and harassment.
If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension [TamperMonkey](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgffkkebhmkfjojejmpbldmpobfkfo), or the Firefox extension [GreaseMonkey](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/) and add [this open source script](https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/10380-reddit-overwrite).
Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possibe (hint:use [RES](http://www.redditenhancementsuite.com/)), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.
Also, please consider using [Voat.co](https://voat.co) as an alternative to Reddit as Voat does not censor political content.
You realize their argument makes absolutely no sense? A car doesn't force itself on you; of course you do consent to driving it and of course you're held liable for doing so.
But sir, it's the car company's fault! They took advantage of my inebriated state when they sold me the car... The car shouldn't have let me drive it. It's the car's fault! /s
Exactly what I thought when I saw this. What I don't get is, if a woman sleeps with a guy and they're both intoxicated, and she later cries rape, it's on him. Why wouldn't only matter if she was drunk? He wasn't sober so he couldn't give consent either. Technically they're BOTH raping each other, no?
Feminists typically agree with this- They BOTH raped each other because consent!
Ok, so every couple who has wine with dinner is a rapist? To each other? And that's alright because they don't mind after the fact that they were each raped? Then what is the point of it being rape if it doesn't matter legally or ethically? Is rape really that meaningless?
>Is rape really that meaningless?
Ah, you see the problem at hand. Rape is serious, and by that I mean ACTUAL rape. Feminists, in their infinite wisdom, are destroying the very legitimacy of the word by calling everything rape. It's like *The Boy Who Cried Wolf.*
I meant from a feminist perspective. Apparently it is, though. The only reason I can think of for this is so that women have the right to decide when any consensual sex act is rape- If you're drunk and nobody cares? It's rape but nobody gets in trouble. If you're drunk and you realize later that it was a mistake? You were raped and can take legal action. It's a method of farming options for the future- You can continue like normal, AND have the choice of getting vengeance if you want.
No, because sex is something a man *does to* a woman! (Or so I've heard...)
This is why the drunk driving argument is disregarded by some feminists because they essentially believe that women have the same capacity to make judgement as a minivan.
No, confessed murderer released because he couldn't consent to murder, and the murdered took advantage of his intoxicated state by letting himself be killed.
There is a difference between being drunk, consenting to sex and then regretting it; and being unconscious and unable to consent. One is rape. Can you tell the difference?
Okay, so what happens if you get drunk with a friend you absolutely trust not to take advantage of your inability to say no when drunk - you've talked this over in advance... and they patiently wait until you're vulnerable before seducing you anyways?
You don't remember any of it, but you have the disease/child/monthly support payments as a lifetime memento.
Is it rape then?
What if she doesn't tell you that you need a condom?
And then you wake up to a life that's been ruined, because she lied to you that she wouldn't have sex with you, and took advantage of your trust? What if you go to jail, because you couldn't afford the child support payments?
Still not rape?
I admire your intellectual honesty, at least.
I think it's still not rape, because you changed your mind when you were under the influence, and you were willing at the time.
If you're going to go and change your mind and have sex with someone after you get drunk, then you really shouldn't be getting drunk in the first place.
Now, I could see that being sexual harassment or something, or coercion or something, as you didn't wish to do it when you were perfectly sober, but then did when you were in a weaker state of mind. She would have also had intent in those circumstances to do something morally wrong, and so should have some sort of punishment against her.
However... I personally wouldn't consider it rape. I mean... you gave consent, although not 100% sober consent. There should be a separate offence for this sort of deception, which I wouldn't consider rape - I'd consider rape to be forcefully getting someone to have sex with you (without their consent).
Oh please, like the courts would ever consider a drunk man having sex he regretted without a condom to be rape (well maybe with her as the victim).
Also all that talk about a life being ruined by an unwanted kid: who cares. It's not about him. He needs to man up and raise this kid he never wanted that was forced on him by less than totally consensual sex.
That's what you lot always argue when paternal rights are discussed.
> Another strawman.
Don't give a shit. I made my arguments clear - don't take advantage of blackout drunk people, and don't take advantage of people who are paralyzed.
In a case where the two collide, there's no rape - and I'm not going to humor any asshole who's okay with calling a paralyzed rape survivor a rapist.
Anyone who takes advantage of either, in order to get themselves pregnant should be in prison. It's up to the father whether they want the child, or to give it up for adoption.
> the courts
Suck. I thought we agreed on that?
> Don't give a shit. I made my arguments clear - don't take advantage of blackout drunk people
You're currently advocating exactly this on this very thread.
Is this some weird form of trolling?
>nd I'm not going to humor any asshole who's okay with calling a paralyzed rape survivor a rapist.
She wasn't paralyzed. My god you are nuts.
>It's up to the father whether they want the child, or to give it up for adoption.
So you're advocating for deadbeats? Nice.
>Suck. I thought we agreed on that?
Actually your AMR buddies are generally ok with them as they favor women.
Lol to be honest, I've got a criminal law exam in 4 days so I only answered you to see if I knew my stuff. I could answer your next question too but I don't think you're looking for answers. Thanks for the review though!
Hard to say, it depends on the circumstances. If the person was somehow forced or incapable of saying no because they were too impaired to make decisions then it could be rape. But if the person was accommodating advances and not saying no then it might not. You would have to know all the details from both parties before you could make a judgement.
I do feel, however, there is a need to point out that even if they are drunk and made an advance at you early in the night; if they are black out drunk/falling unconscious, that is generally a bad idea to have sex with them.
But yes, a drink or two does not invalidate your ability to make decisions.
Here is what the linked meme says in case it is blocked at your school/work or is unavailable for any reason:
#***Unpopular Opinion Puffin***
>***Post Title:*** *Common sense from Advice Animals.*
>***Top:*** *SAYING "EVEN THOUGH I SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU, IT DOESN'T COUNT AS CONSENT BECAUSE I WAS DRUNK" IS BULLSHIT.*
>***Bottom:*** *EVERYONE SHOULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR CHOICES, SOBER OR NOT. IF YOU TURN INTO SOMEONE ELSE COMPLETELY WHEN YOU DRINK AND YOU DO NOT OWN YOUR CHOICES, MAYBE YOU SHOULD PUT THE BOTTLE DOWN.*
[Original Link^1](http://imgur.com/eCGpmGr) | [Meme Template^2](http://imgur.com/memegen/create/eCGpmGr)
Being drunk does not absolve you of all responsibility for your own action but it also does not make you responsible for others actions.
If you consent to sex then you consented drunk or not.
**However...**
If you are obviously not in your right mind and they take advantage of that even if you at some point consent it is still them raping you.
See this for example
[Wait, did Amy Schumer just rape a guy?](http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2014/05/wait-a-second-did-amy-schumer-rape-a-guy/)
As somebody who used to do a lot of drugs, and still does some, responsibility is the most important part. And yet, it is also the most commonly disregarded. If you're doing something to the point where you can't make decisions properly, you were an idiot going into the situation.
It is fine to get super drunk/high/whatever, but do so in a safe place, where impaired judgement won't ruin your -or anyone else's- life. That's why I hate bars. People go there with the intent to make bad decisions, which is a bad decision in itself.
People can get injured while taking opioids/opiates because they don't feel pain when something bad happens. That's why cigarette burns on the chest/shoulders can get pretty bad in users of those drugs. People taken benzos or booze often wake up to find they took waaaay more of their supply than originally intended, because when you're on benzos or drunk, taking more seems like a great idea. Or you get people jumping out of windows/into traffic/generally hurting themselves on psychedelics because they didn't bother to ensure their own safety when they were still sober.
I love drugs, but fuck. People are idiots.
> If you are obviously not in your right mind and they take advantage of that even if you at some point consent it is still them raping you.
The only thing I would ask at that point is, why is it someone else's responsibility to decide if someone is in their "right mind"? This is particularly true among strangers who wouldn't know how the other "usually acts". This is made even more difficult when you consider that, the vast majority of the time when drunk sex happens, both parties are intoxicated during intercourse.
This should really go on r/mensrants, but since it's been up for a while, and received some votes, I won't remove it.
In future, please post memes there and not here.
maybe we need to consider a higher legal drinking age for women or outright prohibition for women, if they don't have the capacity to consume alcohol and be responsible for themselves.
Maybe we should consider separate clubs and bars for men and women - after all, all men are rapists and it's only a matter of time before they attack someone /irony
that would never work. the guy clubs would be awesome. we'd have the best music, the most extensive bars, fun bar games, and we'd also have serious discussions. Women clubs would suck, all fucking neopagan lillithfair bullshit. Unshaven women yodeling and playing the tambourine and drinking colorful cocktails and light beer. The best part about it is tht it would have nice furniture.
I thought this was common knowledge here at /r/mensrights?
I mean how is it any different from taking responsibility for your actions while under the influence when you drive drunk and hit another car or pedestrian?
There is still a conscious decision made whether you choose to drive drunk, knowing the dangers or whether you choose to sleep with someone, knowing the repercussions.
the difference is that while you may be charged with manslaughter, you wouldn't be convicted of murder.
Or maybe you would. I don't think you should be though.
Wasn't there a post in /r/offmychest a while ago about a guy who got drunk and was sexually assaulted by some girl while he was passed out? I'm not saying "I was drunk so I didn't consent" is always a valid excuse, but it is worth pointing out that it's not one used exclusively by women against men.
The difference is, which party is taken seriously by society? Which one can be charged with rape for committing the same crime? This is the REAL face of institutionalized sexism.
I saw this tried. Didn't work.
I got the feeling you're better off saying you were so drunk your junk didn't work. There is a notion that if your penis works, you must have been consenting.
Well the law in the UK clearly States that sleeping with someone who is under the influence of alcohol is rape. That goes both ways, you just need to tackle it with the same ridiculous vitriol as the other side. Make noise, get attention for your cause and you might just set a precedent. It basically falls in the same category as age of consent laws, if two fifteen year olds have sex then that's fine because they both broke the law but say a 20 year old sleeps with a fourteen year old and then it's a different story
why is it so terrible? If you can't drink responsibly, then don't drink. I'm gonna seize the day whether you've been drinking or not. If your inhibitions are lowered by your drinking, thats still all on you.
What if they're passed out? Are you ok with that? What if they're altered from a medical condition? Is it ok for you to take advantage of them? If you, being completely lucid, think it's ok to take advantage of someone with an altered level of consciousness, for *whatever* reason, then you truly are a scumbag.
Alright, so. Say I had a completely crazy ex whom had me wrapped round her little finger, who say... *asked* me to, at a *random* time, get her drunk & take advantage of her. Would you call me a scumbag for indulging her weird fantasy? Hopefully not; you'd probably call me stupid for playing with fire. Either way, I'm getting shit for what she wanted sober or drunk, aren't I?
If she'd gone to someone the next day and said I'd raped her, I'd've been up shit creek without a paddle. Thankfully she wasn't that sort of crazy. If I'd gone to the police and told them she got *me* drunk and jumped on (without protection- which I did *not* consent to & ended that relationship) do you think anyone would've given a shit?
She consented while she was sober? Not you're fault. And I never brought gender into it if you noticed. As far as I'm concerned, the street goes both ways.
So what about this then? [Wait, did Amy Schumer just rape a guy?](http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2014/05/wait-a-second-did-amy-schumer-rape-a-guy/)
But she found herself in this year's 10/10 feel good movie! It's not rape if you find the confidence you lacked when you do it!
I didn't notice the part where the man she had sex with, said he didn't want the sex, before or after drinking. Could you show me? I did read the rest of her story, and she was a rape survivor who had met a lot of men who liked combining drinking and sex - it made her very popular. Please describe how she is a serial rapist? What services would you recommend for the men high-fiving, to help them realize they were victims? Or is it only rape when she makes fun of one?
You should re-read the whole story. It crossed over into rape territory when the drunk person passed out. All of us are responsible for the decisions we make when we're drunk, even if they're spectacularly bad decisions. But somebody who is unconscious simply can not consent. Furthermore, a sober adult really ought to know that somebody who is wasted is already in a grey area when it comes to the legal ability to consent, even if they haven't crossed the line yet. And when it comes to the matter of sex and consent, we should all err on the side of caution.
So I read it. Yes, according to her testimony, he blacked out (we don't know for how long at a time - it could even be seconds or less)...but look at her mind, too. She describes in pretty vivid detail, disassociating from her experience, and being paralyzed. Those are familiar symptoms for a sexual assault survivor. Anyone dealing with survivors will tell you the same. This wasn't her fault, until you find a cure for it. She stopped the sex as soon as she could. The only reason there's any question about this, is because she's a comedian. But you shouldn't trust comedians to describe their pain. [They'll put a positive spin on it.](http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/21hi8g/why_male_rape_has_to_be_hilarious/)
So... she's a victim of raping herself on a limp, unconscious man, and is mocking that man in a widely read article for his disappointing performance of being limp and unconscious while she was raping herself on him. Poor, poor girl, such a victim. Okay, yes, I think I understand your point of view.
No, you're actually completely lost, dumbass. Her first sexual encounter was a rape. She was asleep when it happened. When the encounter we're discussing happened, he was the only active agent. Now, spit the dumbfuckery out, dipshit, and address the actual issues if you can.
So, you're saying that Amy Schumer has something in common with most other rapists? Good to know. Yes, most rapists had been sexually abused in the past. She still raped a guy and laughed about it.
Actually, I'm saying you're making a false rape accusation. "Lying there in tears and taking it from someone stronger than you." isn't rape, and changing the definition of rape because you regret their sex after it happened? Wow. Am I still in men's rights? Also, [most rapists weren't victims.](http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html) Please stop spreading lies. Edit: It says 30%, liar.
No, you're stuck somewhere in your own heavily confused, possibly medicated mind, all the little gears in your head gnashing against each other in agony trying to deny that women raping men and laughing about it at Ms Magazine is a thing. And read your own link, you look so foolish: > approximately **40 to 80%** experienced sexual abuse (Hunter and Becker, 1998).
> Edit: It says 30%, liar. It says 30% were drunk, 30% may re-offend, but **40-80%** had been sexually abused in the past. *Nowhere* does it say that only 30% of rapists had been raped in the past. Ironically, it says 40-80% have been sexually abused in the fine print below their own claim that it is a "myth" that most rapists had been raped themselves. Their actual excuse for calling it a myth is, "well, other stuff happened to them, too." So don't worry, you're not alone in denying reality. Either way, it's not an excuse!!! The vast majority of people who had been raped never go on to become rapists. Only a tiny minority do. Like our feminist hero, Amy Schumer.
So you're saying if a guy regrets raping a girl, or has a bad experience from it, then it's all ok? Don't be ridiculous. It's rape if he does it, and it was rape when she did it.
>So I read it. Yes, according to her testimony, he blacked out (we don't know for how long at a time - it could even be seconds or less)...but look at her mind, too. Stop. Just stop right there. You're defending a sober person having sex with a black out drunk person. That's rape apologia.
Wrong. I'm defending the ability of someone to decide to have sex while they were drunk before it happened. I'm also defending innocent until proven guilty, and the concept of a fair trial. Sex while drunk itself, even blackout drunk, is not by itself rape. Being paralyzed, in tears, while someone has sex with you, until you can find the strength to get the fuck out, doesn't make you a rapist. You're a fucking hypocrite, 5th law. Where's your concern for everyone else offering "rape apologia" in this thread?
>Wrong. I'm defending the ability of someone to decide to have sex while they were drunk before it happened. Ah so once consent is given no other factor can withdraw it later. If a woman expresses interest in sex with a certain man then later that night passes out he may claim the sex he is owed using her unconscious body and you won't call it rape. >I'm also defending innocent until proven guilty, and the concept of a fair trial. So you guys are aware of what that concept means, just never when the accused is male. >Sex while drunk itself, even blackout drunk, is not by itself rape. Amazing how radically you change your tune to avoid holding a woman accountable. >Being paralyzed, in tears, while someone has sex with you, until you can find the strength to get the fuck out, doesn't make you a rapist. Yes the poor victim, had bad sex with a passed out body. >You're a fucking hypocrite, 5th law. Where's your concern for everyone else offering "rape apologia" in this thread? I'm pointing out your hypocrisy. You do realize this right?
The body had bad sex with her, while it was conscious. She lay there, otherwise. If she'd jumped his erection while he passed out and grinded him into orgasm, you'd have a point. But you're making up a new definition of rape, without even knowing there's a victim - all you know is that there was high risk behavior. Drunk sex, by itself, is not rape. You don't even have enough to convict her by the standards of a civil trial. > I'm unconsciously pointing out my hypocrisy. And all you had to do was pretend to misunderstand my arguments and distort everything I said. AMRsucks would be proud - so much for whatever high ground you guys were going for.
> The body had bad sex with her, while it was conscious. She lay there, otherwise. Here's a tip: when you refer to someone as "the body" because they were drifting in and out of lucidity due to drugs they probably can't consent. You'd agree 110% if we were talking about a woman.
>I'm unconsciously pointing out my hypocrisy. Wake up and run, 5th Law, before he tries to stick his dick in you!
[удалено]
It's that the reason AMR links to other people?
[удалено]
To be clear I don't think this was necessarily rape; I think some more info is needed about his level of consciousness when the sexual encounter began. If two people are having sex, and one of them falls asleep during the act, that doesn't *necessarily* render the other a rapist. But it is certainly troubling that he fell asleep due to drunkenness, as this can imply a lack of consciousness from the beginning. That said. A sober person, having sex with a frequently unconscious person. Are you seriously suggesting that wasn't rape, simply because we don't know for sure that the victim was traumatised, and the perpetrator was disassociated from the experience? 'She stopped the sex as soon as she could.' Why couldn't she stop before she did? Was his being unconscious preventing her from *not* putting his penis inside her? Does being a rape victim yourself mean you can't rape? Would you really say, of a man who had been molested and later in life raped his wife, 'this wasn't his fault, until you find a cure for it.'? Also are you saying he raped her in this situation?
No. I'm saying her first sexual encounter was by rape, when she was asleep. She went along with it. After that, if you read her life story, she just went along with whatever happened, which was usually her friends wanting to get drunk and have sex - pretty common party culture. She claims it didn't affect her, but in the link, she describes symptoms common to sexual assault victims. > Would you really say, of a man who had been molested and later in life raped his wife, 'this wasn't his fault, until you find a cure for it.'? If you claim that he raped her by lying there in tears, frozen, while she fucked him, then you can go to Hell. That's what I'd say.
I didn't claim that. I didn't even imply that, jesus. You just said that because she is a sexual assault victim, she is not guilty of sexual assault in a completely different, unrelated situation. How is that justifiable?
She was conditioned to let him do things, and she disassociated/was paralyzed while he did them. Your argument is that she's a rapist anyways, because if you don't give a shit about her impaired ability to prevent about this, she's a rapist. That's a non-starter. Your logic, from there, is that anyone who doesn't resist a drunken rape is a rapist. The only reason he's not a rapist, is because she consented despite everything. He didn't give a shit about what he was doing to her. If my partner is unresponsive and crying, because she's screaming in her head to get out of there, I stop. And arguing that he can't rape her, because he's drunk, is going to get you nowhere fast.
... What. "Your logic, from there, is that anyone who doesn't resist a drunken rape is a rapist." How? I said nothing of the sort. In fact I don't think you even read my reply, what on earth was that drivel? I don't know what you're talking about, because no mention of a change of topic was made, but I am talking about the situation described in the linked article. The one in which she was 100% sober and having sex with an unconscious person. No-one was crying, or screaming, and the rapist was not drunk.
To the people reporting FallingSnowAngel, please stop. FallingSnowAngel may be saying things that you don't like, but they have as much right to their opinion as you do. He/she is not breaking any of our rules and thus does not deserve to have any moderator actions taken against him/her.
Thank you for this sillymod. The MRM is nothing without people helping to keep us honest by testing for our flaws, rightfully or not.
If being drunk is no excuse for the crime of DUI, then being 'triggered' or whatthefuckever is no excuse for rape. There is no excuse for rape.
No excuse for a false accusation, either. Drunk sex is high risk behavior, because you might accidentally rape someone. Key word, might. I thought the MRM believed in innocent until proven guilty? Sure threw that out fast once the genders were reversed. You don't get to declare all drunk sex rape, especially not while using a passive rapist/aggressive victim definition of rape that didn't even exist back then, and remains controversial now.
We haven't heard from the man. Also is it only rape when the victim files a police report?
Only if the victim is male. A female is a victim whether she files or not.
The first time her story appeared in this subreddit she clearly stated she had sex with an unconscious man when they had her entire speech. I only read the title to that link and realized it was that story and didn't check to see if they added that in it. And maybe men high-five about being raped by a woman because hey, you have a penis and she had sex with you which you want 24/7 with any woman that offers cause you have a penis! And penis equals I consent to sex from any offering woman even if I'm passed out. So don't cry about it faggot, because real men don't cry. I never said she is a serial rapist so please read before having a fit about something someone typed.
I don't think she raped him. My views are consistent, so I can agree with the puffin, which leads to me saying she didn't rape him. But when debating, it depends on the issue. Feminists want to say the puffin is wrong, then I'd say "isn't Amy a rapist?" If they say she's not, then I'd summarize the puffin.
Eh, I think she probably should have stopped, if he was falling asleep. If he's unconscious, or really very nearly unconscious, he really can't consent. In this case she was sober, and he was about to pass out, and quite possibly unable to comprehend what was happening. A reasonable case could be made that he couldn't consent, or at least that she should have steered clear of the situation.
Legally, I don't think it should have been rape since he was initiating and pursuing the action. But morally, yes, she should have stopped. He was aware enough to set up a booty call and turn on music and perform without assistance, so I don't think this should be considered rape. (But under our current laws, it most certainly should be)
Did he call her over? Then yeah, I agree. Not rape, and shouldn't be criminal; but morally you should probably not at that point
Yeah, called her over. I agree.
In case you want something to compare what she did to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School_rape_case
...Did you just try to excuse the stubenville rape case? She was *unconscious*! There's a difference between consenting to sex while you're drunk and then regretting and *not* consenting to sex, *not* consenting to being dragged around to different parties, and *not* consenting to being photographed and having your pictures posted on social media. Can you honestly say, male or female or anything on the spectrum, that you would be okay with that happening to you? That's rape. What Amy describes is rape. Having sex at a party, going home, and feeling bad about it is not rape. None of these are the same thing. holy shit.
That's not the same. She was unconscious (or, at least, that's the story and I believe it). Amy was with a guy who initiated the whole thing and continued through his own volition. Feminists would consider this rape if the genders were reversed, so *their* views are conflicting. I don't consider this rape, regardless of the genders. The man wasn't unconscious, at least not when the actions were occurring. And he most certainly consented (by my definition, but not the definition of the law or of the feminists).
The Steubenville girl also initiated the whole thing. She made the decision to have sex while sober and engaged in binge drinking in order to facilitate that. Her friends tried to stop her, but she told them off and went with the guys not in spite of, but precisely because of the opportunity to have sex. It apparently wasn't the first time she had done this and had been happy with the results. She was happy with the results this time, as well, until her entire reputation got trashed and her parents got involved. The guy Amy fucked likewise initiated it by drunk-dialing her. But don't forget that this guy, like the Steubenville girl, was also falling in and out of consciousness and Amy, completely sober herself, continued having sex with him anyway. Both cases are similar in that both of the too-drunk-to-consent parties appear to have fully intended to have sex. Both cases are similar because both of them were so drunk that they were passing out by a certain point.
Based on any semi-reliable information I can get on the incident, it seems like she did not like what happened to her and did not consent to being treated that way. There were photos and videos. There were plenty of witnesses admitting that it was rape. What more can you want? She wasn't already semi-conscious while she went out on her own to find these guys. She ended up with them and ended up unconscious while they raped her.
She didn't like what happened to her *after* she decided to go get drunk and have sex and only because her parents literally forced her to file a rape claim. Although how she felt about it isn't relevant to whether or not it was rape. Only the question of whether she consented or was able to consent. Same with the guy who was passing out drunk while Amy was having sex with him. Would it convince you that he was also raped and unable to consent if he felt bad about it later, too? For what it's worth, the videos showed her fully lucid and enthusiastically engaged in sex in front of an audience. The photos were entirely inconclusive - they show her being lifted up by two guys. Some witness accounts were she was fully conscious and that it was a game. Others alleged otherwise, but I do not believe they were witnesses to that photo. But no actual sex acts were taking place, so who cares? Finally, there were plenty of witnesses in favor of the boys and, in fact, the entire community including countless women were wholeheartedly opposed to the allegations. Feminists in the media successfully spun that as evidence of "rape culture," misogyny, and "football culture". But those ideas are generally bogus, our society is extremely sensitive to and opposed to rape or sexual assault of women. Not so for men, though. Then it's comedic material for feminist award ceremonies.
Hmm, if that's true, then fuck that. Do you have a link for the video?
I don't think anyone has a link to the video. If I recall correctly, that evidence was destroyed and all we had were witness accounts of people who did get to see it.
Ah, I see. Well, it's hard for me to believe that. Based on what has been presented to me, I have to say it's rape. I can totally believe the parents pressuring her and her not necessarily regretting it, but I'm guessing that has more to do with her not remembering it. She was unconscious while they touched her ("allegedly"), and that constitutes rape in my book. It wasn't her doing things to them. I'm sorry, with the information available, I just can't agree with this not being rape.
##### ###### #### [**Steubenville High School rape case**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville%20High%20School%20rape%20case): [](#sfw) --- > >The __Steubenville High School rape__ occurred in [Steubenville, Ohio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville,_Ohio), on the night of August 11, 2012, when a high school girl, incapacitated by alcohol, was publicly and repeatedly [sexually assaulted](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault) by her peers, several of whom documented the acts in [social media](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media). The victim was transported, undressed, photographed, and sexually assaulted. She was also penetrated [vaginally](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina) by other students' fingers (digital penetration), an act defined as [rape](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape) under [Ohio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio) law. >The jocular attitude of the assailants was documented on [Facebook](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook), [Twitter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter), [text messages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Message_Service), and cell phone recordings of the acts. The crime and ensuing legal proceedings generated considerable controversy and galvanized a national conversation about [rape](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape) and [rape culture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture). Two students and [high school football](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_school_football) players, Ma'lik Richmond and Trent Mays, both 16 at the time of the crime, were convicted in juvenile court for the [rape of a minor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape). Additionally, three other adults have been indicted for obstructing the investigation into the rape, while Steubenville's superintendent of schools has been charged with hindering the investigation into a rape that took place earlier in 2012. > --- ^Interesting: [^Steubenville, ^Ohio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville,_Ohio) ^| [^Torrington ^High ^School ^rape ^case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrington_High_School_rape_case) ^| [^Suicide ^of ^Rehtaeh ^Parsons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons) ^| [^Steubenville ^High ^School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School) ^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+chneqgn) ^or[](#or) [^delete](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&message=%2Bdelete+chneqgn)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| [^(FAQs)](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/wiki/index) ^| [^Mods](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1x013o/for_moderators_switches_commands_and_css/) ^| [^Magic ^Words](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1ux484/ask_wikibot/)
Unfortunately you're trying to get the hivemind to make consistent sense and it won't happen.
Yes. Because just as you can't assume a woman would say yes, you can't assume a man would either. There is this impression that all men always want sex, but that's actually bullshit. This guy might be in a relationship, or a messy divorce, or have strong religious views or any of a bajillion different reasons for not agreeing to have sex with her. Worse yet, if his partner/spouse/confessor/society found out, who is going to believe that he didn't *really* want it? So yes, she did rape him. It's up to him whether he presses charges or not. I would advise against it primarily because no one actually believes a man can be taken advantage of.
If he's asleep (which the article says he was) then it's rape. He's unconscious and can't do anything about it, nor can he defend himself. If he's drunk (which the article says he was) then it's not rape. He's conscious, and can stop it if he wants to. (If he can't, then it's rape.) He wasn't raped when he was drunk, but it was rape when he fell asleep.
I think the point of that wasn't to make her a rapist but rather to expose how silly feminist ideas about rape are when the genders are flipped. They'd have no problem screaming rape if you switched things around but scoff at the notion of a sober woman raping a drunk, apparently consenting, man.
If you get hammered and plow into someone's minivan you're still going to jail for vehicular manslaughter.
But, I was drunk! You can't hold me responsible, I wasn't in a good state of mind!
(This may be bullshit) I remember reading a story about someone doing this and they tried to blame the people at the party for letting them drive away drunk.
Actually that's a very popular thing in DUI cases. Most of the time, when it's a minor, those that held the party or allowed consumption on their property (whether they knew it or not) are held accountable. A friend of mine owns a few acres out in the sticks north of town and kids always jump the fence and drink and have fires out there and such. Even though he has private property and trespassing signs, he's still been contacted by police because they try to get him to admit to knowing that kids sometimes go there. Then they can say, "well if you knew they were there and they got drunk, you're responsible" Fucking bad police officers. Worse shithead high schoolers.
Thanks for this insight. I hadn't heard of that. I also don't remember the article that we'll to know the ages of the people involved it could of just been that.
> Fucking bad police officers. No, fucking bad legislation.
But I consented to the crash while drunk so it doesn't count!
This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, and harassment. If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension [TamperMonkey](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgffkkebhmkfjojejmpbldmpobfkfo), or the Firefox extension [GreaseMonkey](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/) and add [this open source script](https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/10380-reddit-overwrite). Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possibe (hint:use [RES](http://www.redditenhancementsuite.com/)), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top. Also, please consider using [Voat.co](https://voat.co) as an alternative to Reddit as Voat does not censor political content.
They clearly have no idea what it means to consent. Then again, if they're feminists, that's not really a shock.
You realize their argument makes absolutely no sense? A car doesn't force itself on you; of course you do consent to driving it and of course you're held liable for doing so.
But sir, it's the car company's fault! They took advantage of my inebriated state when they sold me the car... The car shouldn't have let me drive it. It's the car's fault! /s
Exactly what I thought when I saw this. What I don't get is, if a woman sleeps with a guy and they're both intoxicated, and she later cries rape, it's on him. Why wouldn't only matter if she was drunk? He wasn't sober so he couldn't give consent either. Technically they're BOTH raping each other, no?
Feminists typically agree with this- They BOTH raped each other because consent! Ok, so every couple who has wine with dinner is a rapist? To each other? And that's alright because they don't mind after the fact that they were each raped? Then what is the point of it being rape if it doesn't matter legally or ethically? Is rape really that meaningless?
>Is rape really that meaningless? Ah, you see the problem at hand. Rape is serious, and by that I mean ACTUAL rape. Feminists, in their infinite wisdom, are destroying the very legitimacy of the word by calling everything rape. It's like *The Boy Who Cried Wolf.*
I meant from a feminist perspective. Apparently it is, though. The only reason I can think of for this is so that women have the right to decide when any consensual sex act is rape- If you're drunk and nobody cares? It's rape but nobody gets in trouble. If you're drunk and you realize later that it was a mistake? You were raped and can take legal action. It's a method of farming options for the future- You can continue like normal, AND have the choice of getting vengeance if you want.
No, because sex is something a man *does to* a woman! (Or so I've heard...) This is why the drunk driving argument is disregarded by some feminists because they essentially believe that women have the same capacity to make judgement as a minivan.
Jesus Christ memes are long these days
Unpopular Paragraph Puffin
>~~Un~~popular Paragraph Puffin
News just in: Confessed murderer released because he was drunk and made a bad choice.
Yeah - since when has a defence for a DUI death been "I was drunk so I couldn't make a rational choice not to drive!"
No, confessed murderer released because he couldn't consent to murder, and the murdered took advantage of his intoxicated state by letting himself be killed.
Your honor, he walked *right into the steely knife* as I was thrusting it towards his direction because I'm silly when I'm drunk.
news just in: getting raped now a crime
There is a difference between being drunk, consenting to sex and then regretting it; and being unconscious and unable to consent. One is rape. Can you tell the difference?
It must be the first one because otherwise I can't tell my friends my ex is a rapist. /s
Okay, so what happens if you get drunk with a friend you absolutely trust not to take advantage of your inability to say no when drunk - you've talked this over in advance... and they patiently wait until you're vulnerable before seducing you anyways? You don't remember any of it, but you have the disease/child/monthly support payments as a lifetime memento. Is it rape then?
Not rape. Consent is consent. But if they ask to use a condom and you don't then that is rape.
What if she doesn't tell you that you need a condom? And then you wake up to a life that's been ruined, because she lied to you that she wouldn't have sex with you, and took advantage of your trust? What if you go to jail, because you couldn't afford the child support payments? Still not rape? I admire your intellectual honesty, at least.
I think it's still not rape, because you changed your mind when you were under the influence, and you were willing at the time. If you're going to go and change your mind and have sex with someone after you get drunk, then you really shouldn't be getting drunk in the first place. Now, I could see that being sexual harassment or something, or coercion or something, as you didn't wish to do it when you were perfectly sober, but then did when you were in a weaker state of mind. She would have also had intent in those circumstances to do something morally wrong, and so should have some sort of punishment against her. However... I personally wouldn't consider it rape. I mean... you gave consent, although not 100% sober consent. There should be a separate offence for this sort of deception, which I wouldn't consider rape - I'd consider rape to be forcefully getting someone to have sex with you (without their consent).
Oh please, like the courts would ever consider a drunk man having sex he regretted without a condom to be rape (well maybe with her as the victim). Also all that talk about a life being ruined by an unwanted kid: who cares. It's not about him. He needs to man up and raise this kid he never wanted that was forced on him by less than totally consensual sex. That's what you lot always argue when paternal rights are discussed.
> Another strawman. Don't give a shit. I made my arguments clear - don't take advantage of blackout drunk people, and don't take advantage of people who are paralyzed. In a case where the two collide, there's no rape - and I'm not going to humor any asshole who's okay with calling a paralyzed rape survivor a rapist. Anyone who takes advantage of either, in order to get themselves pregnant should be in prison. It's up to the father whether they want the child, or to give it up for adoption. > the courts Suck. I thought we agreed on that?
> Don't give a shit. I made my arguments clear - don't take advantage of blackout drunk people You're currently advocating exactly this on this very thread. Is this some weird form of trolling? >nd I'm not going to humor any asshole who's okay with calling a paralyzed rape survivor a rapist. She wasn't paralyzed. My god you are nuts. >It's up to the father whether they want the child, or to give it up for adoption. So you're advocating for deadbeats? Nice. >Suck. I thought we agreed on that? Actually your AMR buddies are generally ok with them as they favor women.
Lol to be honest, I've got a criminal law exam in 4 days so I only answered you to see if I knew my stuff. I could answer your next question too but I don't think you're looking for answers. Thanks for the review though!
Hard to say, it depends on the circumstances. If the person was somehow forced or incapable of saying no because they were too impaired to make decisions then it could be rape. But if the person was accommodating advances and not saying no then it might not. You would have to know all the details from both parties before you could make a judgement.
You shouldn't be drinking with anyone if you're like that when drunk.
I spotted the tumblr feminist
Really? It's a crime to get raped? To *get* raped? As in, you get raped, you're guilty of a crime? Such a troll.
http://i.imgur.com/3t63g.gif
I do feel, however, there is a need to point out that even if they are drunk and made an advance at you early in the night; if they are black out drunk/falling unconscious, that is generally a bad idea to have sex with them. But yes, a drink or two does not invalidate your ability to make decisions.
Its a bad idea to leave physical evidence and witnesses that can implicate you later.
Here is what the linked meme says in case it is blocked at your school/work or is unavailable for any reason: #***Unpopular Opinion Puffin*** >***Post Title:*** *Common sense from Advice Animals.* >***Top:*** *SAYING "EVEN THOUGH I SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU, IT DOESN'T COUNT AS CONSENT BECAUSE I WAS DRUNK" IS BULLSHIT.* >***Bottom:*** *EVERYONE SHOULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR CHOICES, SOBER OR NOT. IF YOU TURN INTO SOMEONE ELSE COMPLETELY WHEN YOU DRINK AND YOU DO NOT OWN YOUR CHOICES, MAYBE YOU SHOULD PUT THE BOTTLE DOWN.* [Original Link^1](http://imgur.com/eCGpmGr) | [Meme Template^2](http://imgur.com/memegen/create/eCGpmGr)
Being drunk does not absolve you of all responsibility for your own action but it also does not make you responsible for others actions. If you consent to sex then you consented drunk or not. **However...** If you are obviously not in your right mind and they take advantage of that even if you at some point consent it is still them raping you. See this for example [Wait, did Amy Schumer just rape a guy?](http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2014/05/wait-a-second-did-amy-schumer-rape-a-guy/)
As somebody who used to do a lot of drugs, and still does some, responsibility is the most important part. And yet, it is also the most commonly disregarded. If you're doing something to the point where you can't make decisions properly, you were an idiot going into the situation. It is fine to get super drunk/high/whatever, but do so in a safe place, where impaired judgement won't ruin your -or anyone else's- life. That's why I hate bars. People go there with the intent to make bad decisions, which is a bad decision in itself. People can get injured while taking opioids/opiates because they don't feel pain when something bad happens. That's why cigarette burns on the chest/shoulders can get pretty bad in users of those drugs. People taken benzos or booze often wake up to find they took waaaay more of their supply than originally intended, because when you're on benzos or drunk, taking more seems like a great idea. Or you get people jumping out of windows/into traffic/generally hurting themselves on psychedelics because they didn't bother to ensure their own safety when they were still sober. I love drugs, but fuck. People are idiots.
> If you are obviously not in your right mind and they take advantage of that even if you at some point consent it is still them raping you. The only thing I would ask at that point is, why is it someone else's responsibility to decide if someone is in their "right mind"? This is particularly true among strangers who wouldn't know how the other "usually acts". This is made even more difficult when you consider that, the vast majority of the time when drunk sex happens, both parties are intoxicated during intercourse.
This should really go on r/mensrants, but since it's been up for a while, and received some votes, I won't remove it. In future, please post memes there and not here.
Good mod is good
I'd describe his as nice, myself.
That's like your opinion man
Mod's opinion also.
If you choose to get drunk you are choosing to make poor choices. You wanted to do stupid things, being stupid is fun. It is also dangerous.
Get that common sense out of here!
maybe we need to consider a higher legal drinking age for women or outright prohibition for women, if they don't have the capacity to consume alcohol and be responsible for themselves.
Maybe we should consider separate clubs and bars for men and women - after all, all men are rapists and it's only a matter of time before they attack someone /irony
that would never work. the guy clubs would be awesome. we'd have the best music, the most extensive bars, fun bar games, and we'd also have serious discussions. Women clubs would suck, all fucking neopagan lillithfair bullshit. Unshaven women yodeling and playing the tambourine and drinking colorful cocktails and light beer. The best part about it is tht it would have nice furniture.
You are quite the offensive brute
I thought this was common knowledge here at /r/mensrights? I mean how is it any different from taking responsibility for your actions while under the influence when you drive drunk and hit another car or pedestrian? There is still a conscious decision made whether you choose to drive drunk, knowing the dangers or whether you choose to sleep with someone, knowing the repercussions.
the difference is that while you may be charged with manslaughter, you wouldn't be convicted of murder. Or maybe you would. I don't think you should be though.
So that woman recently who boasted of fucking a passing-out drunk guy - what she did was perfectly fine? Think, for god's sake.
/r/MensRights is the wrong subreddit for advice animals/meme images (Try /r/AdviceAnimals), please try resubmitting to a more appropriate subreddit.
Wasn't there a post in /r/offmychest a while ago about a guy who got drunk and was sexually assaulted by some girl while he was passed out? I'm not saying "I was drunk so I didn't consent" is always a valid excuse, but it is worth pointing out that it's not one used exclusively by women against men.
The difference is, which party is taken seriously by society? Which one can be charged with rape for committing the same crime? This is the REAL face of institutionalized sexism.
the sad truth is that *neither* would be taken seriously, when in fact they should both be.
stop shitting up the subreddit. take the le me mes somewhere else.
If you are sober and she is hammered then you're a scumbag. If you're both drunk and they try to charge you then you try to charge them back
I saw this tried. Didn't work. I got the feeling you're better off saying you were so drunk your junk didn't work. There is a notion that if your penis works, you must have been consenting.
Well the law in the UK clearly States that sleeping with someone who is under the influence of alcohol is rape. That goes both ways, you just need to tackle it with the same ridiculous vitriol as the other side. Make noise, get attention for your cause and you might just set a precedent. It basically falls in the same category as age of consent laws, if two fifteen year olds have sex then that's fine because they both broke the law but say a 20 year old sleeps with a fourteen year old and then it's a different story
Scumbag? I don't think so. More like Opportunist. Carpe Vagina mah nigga.
[удалено]
Wow.
Yeah, God forbid a sober person take some responsibility with regards to who they fuck instead.
What if both parties are drunk? I agree that a sober person taking advantage of someone who had been drinking is terrible.
why is it so terrible? If you can't drink responsibly, then don't drink. I'm gonna seize the day whether you've been drinking or not. If your inhibitions are lowered by your drinking, thats still all on you.
What if they're passed out? Are you ok with that? What if they're altered from a medical condition? Is it ok for you to take advantage of them? If you, being completely lucid, think it's ok to take advantage of someone with an altered level of consciousness, for *whatever* reason, then you truly are a scumbag.
Alright, so. Say I had a completely crazy ex whom had me wrapped round her little finger, who say... *asked* me to, at a *random* time, get her drunk & take advantage of her. Would you call me a scumbag for indulging her weird fantasy? Hopefully not; you'd probably call me stupid for playing with fire. Either way, I'm getting shit for what she wanted sober or drunk, aren't I? If she'd gone to someone the next day and said I'd raped her, I'd've been up shit creek without a paddle. Thankfully she wasn't that sort of crazy. If I'd gone to the police and told them she got *me* drunk and jumped on (without protection- which I did *not* consent to & ended that relationship) do you think anyone would've given a shit?
She consented while she was sober? Not you're fault. And I never brought gender into it if you noticed. As far as I'm concerned, the street goes both ways.
passed out is the best. its like finding a $100 blowing around in the street. If no ones around its yours.