I asked this a day or two ago, and no one was able to answer the question. Why can you be too drunk to consent to a contract (like a cell phone contract), but not be too drunk to consent for sex? You could say "I want it" and it would be void for a contract, why wouldn't it be the same for sex?
(and yes it works for both sexes)
Other urls found in this thread:
Ahahahaha, the faggot really thinks it would be applied for both sexes!
Sage
I guess you have no argument against it though. I guess the truth hurts
I guess no one can answer this today either. I guess the feminists are right about this, because obviously there is no good argument against it. At least the other day people tried.
>both were drunk
>both were intoxicated and incapable of "signing a contract"
>both "sign a contract"
>man is charged with a crime despite being equally intoxicated
So what this is saying is that men have higher brain function and are more capable decision makers in all situations, even when intoxicated? Or are women just absolved of responsibility, like children, once they get intoxicated? I don't understand what makes the intoxicated male responsible for the intoxicated female agreeing to sex at the time then later considering it rape.
If being intoxicated invalidates your decisions it should count for both sexes and be a wash. The only situation where it can be considered rape is when she is literally a passed out, dead fish in a bed.
What if only the woman is drunk?
>If being intoxicated invalidates your decisions it should count for both sexes and be a wash.
This.
>Jake was drunk
I'm not talking about the poster.
why would a woman be drunk and out with no friends
It's still rape. Everything a man does is rape, whether or not it had anything to do with sex.
You can break a contract in court if you can testify that you were drunk beyond your ability to reasonably function if you do so in a reasonable time frame, it will render the contract null and void.
Because you can't revoke a night of sex but you can revoke a contract. If you order a house to be built while you're drunk, you can't expect not to pay once the house is built
Why would anyone? So, are you saying that it should be illegal to have sex with a woman unless you're drunk also?
So, why can't people do that about sex?
>Because you can't revoke a night of sex
Women do it all the time. Probably half or more of all rape accusations are because the woman regretted it later.
So then it would be rape, would it not?
It might depend on level of intoxication. Buzzed off a few beers isn't enough to justify your decision making process going to shit. Being blackout drunk and being carried out of the bar by a sober guy is clearly wrong.
With alcohol I think the best thing to do is educate 18 year olds in moderation, getting buzzed not wasted, since only problems arise when you binge to the point of blackout drunkenness. Rather than the abstinence model which does fuck all since media really pushes "drink too much" advertising for alcohol producers in shows/commercials.
>why would anyone
that's exactly my point
>it should be illegal to have sex with a woman unless you're drunk also
no, you shouldn't be wasting your time trying to pick up drunk women in the first place
Everything is rape, OP. No one cares because it's one of the most popular fantasies among women.
So you agree with me?
in the sense that pickup artists are retarded, yes
But any kind of intoxication past "buzzed" can void the contract since you legally can't give consent. Why wouldn't that work the same way with sex?
So why don't you agree with me it's rape then?
Why do you need a law for something you should be able to decide yourself?
If you decide to get drunk, so be it, but be responsible for what you say/do.
It's not like sex is a fucking crime, it's the most humane things humans can do, and you being the intoxicated idiot (both sexes) is not an excuse, and definitely not a reason to impose a law.
Do you want a law to tell you when to eat and what to eat?
Because eating too much sugar is not done with consent, your brain dopamine pathways and reward system is hijacked by sugar in the similar way alcohol does it. It's not needed in those quantities, and you regret it later, so let's impose a law against it so our police state can decide what's best for us.
You think men don't regret having some sex adventures? We do, but we're not children like women are, so we don't cry about it.
You're a human being, be responsible for your actions, be it drinking or (aftermath) having sex.
because the woman consented at her first drink :^)
So by this logic I shouldn't be able to get a DUI.
>Too drunk to consent to driving home. The car took advantage of me
That doesn't answer the question though. Why are you legally unable to give consent to a contract while drunk, but people don't treat it the same way for sex?
No, what i am trying to say is that during the time of sex there was consent(regardless of the reason of said consent) and retiring it after the action is finished shouldn't be legal and the other part shouldn' be punished for doing its part of the "contract"
I may have worded it wrong, it would be more accurate to say that you can't revoke a night of sex under a law that follows logic
>and retiring it after the action is finished shouldn't be legal
wut?
Are you trying to say "and returning it after the action is finished shouldn't be illegal?
The opposite
I don't understand what you're trying to say desu.
Because if the cell phone seller let you drunk-willingly signed a contract, then get his contract void by a court, it doesn't break his life and it's fair for both parts.
It's legally repressed only if he actually forced you to, because it's not being a seller then, just a crook.
Like it should be for sex. being rape only if you were forced to.
But since women don't want to be seen as sluts, they will mostly claim rape than assume their responsibilities over doing something stupid while being drunk. I guess in their mind, what they actually wanted is what they want later when not drunk and with people knowing about what they did, so it makes sense.
The difference is the life long jail sentence they require, only because they doesn't want other people thinking less about them. When a drunkenly signed contract or tattoo will just be a funny story to tell when they will be drunk again.
Any sex with a drunken partner should be considered rape and be punished as such. If both partners were drunk, both should be charged with rape.
You can't say no when it's finished
Being drunk shouldn't invalidate anything. If you're too retarded to be responsible, don't drink at all or deal with the consequences.
But it does invalidate contracts.
A contract is an agreement that outlines how things will take place. Sex is an act. You can't void something that's already taken place.
It's about the ability to consent. Not the ability to void something that has taken place... Meaning you legally CANT consent to a contract while drunk, so it would be only logical to say you legally CANT consent to sex while drunk.
...and what happens later when your drunk ass decides to consent to a contract anyway???
Because à contract has consequences. There are litterally no consequences for protected sex in our society
The contract gets voided, because I legally wasn't able to consent to it.
Here's the thing. Sex is a done deal. If you are too drunk to legally sign a contract, you take it up before a court and then you don't have to do whatever it is you agreed to do in the contract. With sex though, you're already done. Its finished, there's nothing to 'undo'. It'd be a moot point.
If you punish one party as a rapist because the other 'couldn't' consent then all it takes is the accused party to also say they were drunk, and now you have the dumbest he-said, she-said in history. For the 'victim' party's claim to be valid they would have to be too drunk to recognize the sobriety of the other person so they can't even be used as a witness.
It'd just be inane as all hell all around.
What you don't understand is that, in the Left's world, women ARE children. They don't have any will or agency of their own, and need to be coddled and protected by nanny gov'ment to guard them against the big scary world that they aren't smart or strong enough to handle on their own.
>in the Left's world, women ARE children
Nah they're even worse than children to these people. Children are taught to be responsible for their own safety and not to talk to strangers.
>Hey, man, you look a bit trashed. Ya hungry? I'm making flapjacks. Want some?
>Oh fuck yes I am so hungry hit me with the jacks.
>Sorry bro, you can't consent to flapjacks. You're drunk. It would be a crime to give you these delicious foods unless you were sober.
Because nobody ends their sobriety so they can get shitfaced and not get laid.
So it would be only logical for the sex to get voided, because you legally weren't able to consent to it.
Sex and a contract is a false equivalency.
If you don't give consent then it's rape, is it not?
>consent
youtube.com
How so? Both are talking about your mental capacity to be able to consent. If you're not able to consent to a contract, why would you be able to consent to sex?
Ban assault pancakes
Because a contract is a binding legal document. Sex is just an activity between two people.
I'd love to see the statistics of the following:
>Men convicted for "raping" a drunk girl. (both drunk)
and
>Women convicted for "raping" a drunk man. (both drunk)
A quick Google search gave me just a few related hits, and in one a woman RECORDED fucking the drunk man, but she still wasn't charged. A woman's word is enough to convict a man though.
What is too drunk? Does it matter if one is just a bit more drunk? Does it matter which gender the more drunk person has? Do you need a video confirmation and a signature to have sex while being drunk?
How would those stats change anyone's opinions on the matter? You are in fact deflecting the question.
Your premise is faulty, or at the very least misleading, OP.
While it is true that contracts can be voidable if a court determines that you were too drunk to consent, this rarely happens. The standard of proof is very high for the moving party to demonstrate that they were so drunk that they didn't know what they were doing. Buzzed or merely above the legal limit to drive won't cut it.
I see the similarities between assent to contract and consent to sex, but it's all very superficial in the real world, given the different evidentiary standards, burdens of proof, etc... between civil (contract) and criminal (rape) law.
It's kind of a nice little intellectual exercise that a layperson would come up with and present as fact of both their intellect and rhetorical sophistication, but no real attorney draws these cutesy little comparisons.
Because sex happens - without written or oral agreement. Two people don't halt in touching each other, take a step back and hand each other forms to sign. They don't shake hands and carry on.
There are formalities to go through with a contract. It's an official, lawful, binding agreement. Sex couldn't be further from that - it's about interpretations of body language and signals.
There is evidence in a contract, in black and white, of an agreement. There's nothing of the sort in sex.
First of all, agreeing to make sex is a real contract. It has to have a non-patrimonial nature, otherwise it is prostitution. Also restitutio in integrum is impossible, because execution is uno ictu and has irreversible effects. Voiding the contract for lack of consent doesn't give one party the right to pretend any money, as he honored his obligation expecting personal pleasure, not money.
When you void a contract of buying something, you get vack the same money you paid.
As for prejudices, you can't pretend any money for them when you got drunk by your own decision in both cases, cause nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans
Hmmm I like your answer.
So the opposing party with whom you signed the contract while drunk raped you. Got it.
Crashing this thread with no survivors.
Why is anyone replying to this obvious troll thread? All he does is ignore posts he can't respond to while going around in circles with the gullible idiots trying to argue, and then now he's started bringing up outright false points, not simply being obtuse on purpose but also a lying cheat.
That's not true. How is anything a false point, and where am I ignoring anyone other than people who have said something I already replied too.
I think it's pretty funny that I was in the thread that started this. In fact I was the one who found russell and gave him all his facts...
let me just pat myself on the back a little more.
The consequence is the slut getting shamed at school for sucking your noodle.
It's very important!
I think it's based on an archaic definition of rape where unwanted penetration was the main requirement.
From what I can see he's owning everyone here.
Thanks :)