Is alcohol the key to hooking up with women?

[Queen Zenobia]

Wait, you don't think it's okay for the penis wielder to get jail time for rape if nonconsensual sex occured, but it's okay for the broomstick-wielder to get jail time for sexual assault?

 

No, I was merely speculating on the current laws, not advocating a particular law. If both parties are too drunk to consent and/or remember exactly what happened (barring any physical injuries) then I don't think a case should go to court.

[somedude81]

Ugh, this thread has degraded into complete nonsense.

 

It's basically as if nobody has ever hooked up after having a couple of drinks.

 

So much hypocrisy.

[jobaba]

Ugh, this thread has degraded into complete nonsense.

 

It's basically as if nobody has ever hooked up after having a couple of drinks.

 

So much hypocrisy.

 

Somedude,

 

There's going to be 2 sides to every coin. As a traditionally struggling man, I always say, if there's any chance that piece of advice (hitting on girls in public, PUA, online dating) is going to bring you closer to your goals, take it...

 

Don't listen to the naysayers. They are not in your position.

[blondike]

At school, people want to have other drinks because as women said before, girls want to gain courage to go after the same one percent, handsome guys in the classroom. LOL. Handsome men are very hard to talk to because somebody else is occupying their attention, damnit.

 

So, no, I don't think it will work for you, because she is just going to use your alcohol to go after a much more attractive man. Some of my friends use less attractive men so we won't be too obvious when we start chatting up their hot friend.

 

Anyway, I never thought a guy was more attractive when I started drinking if I didn't think he was attractive sober. If hormones are in place, then maybe, but we need to talk about how ugly the guy is.

[betterdeal]

Actually.. Clearly I have.. 24 years sober now though...

 

The issue BD is the woman is who has to give consent..

The one being penetrated...

Clearly you are not understanding that I'm not making things up.. can you not get it that making it okay to rape a woman just by both being drunk that it would open the door for women to be prayed on..

 

No it wouldn't because, contrary to the saying, most men are not rapists and, as someone who has downed a bottle of whiskey you will know preying is about the last thing after juggling on a unicycle that you can do in that state.

 

As for your definition of rape, that's simply not the one the law or ethics uses. Usually it's sexual intercourse (or penetrative sex if one wants to include buggery) without consent. I'll go by the definition everyone else apart from you uses.

 

For example, your lover blindfolds you. Then, for sh*ts and giggles, she deftly switches places with AIDS-ridden Mary from the brothel who then has sex with you. You did not consent to sex with Mary. That is rape, yet you did the penetrating.

 

Two very drunk people having sex goes on millions of times a year and yet half the male population are still at large, free to prey on their girlfriends who are also free to prey on them.

 

It's definitely an extremely grey area in ethics and law.

[Cypress25]

You'd rather lock up innocent people? Why not lock up ALL men and then there will be no rape of women? And lock up ALL women too, to prevent shop lifting.

 

There. Crime is solved!

 

No, I wouldn't rather lock up innocent people, but I don't think it's a lesser evil to have rapists go free. As it is, too many rapists go free because their victims are too scared to report the crime, or no one believes the victims when they do report the crime.

 

And this is why. There are actually very few false rape claims (claims that are intentionally false, I mean). Yet, people act like it happens all the time, as if it's commonplace for women to accuse innocent men of rape, just for the hell of it. In fact, that's very rare. What usually happens is a woman reports a real rape and no one believes her.

 

Ugh, this thread has degraded into complete nonsense.

 

It's basically as if nobody has ever hooked up after having a couple of drinks.

 

So much hypocrisy.

 

Somedude, people are just trying to point out the flaws in your plan. I'm sure plenty of people have hooked up after having a couple of drinks. Sometimes everything is fine after that, but sometimes sh*t hits the fan. If you want to try it, no one can stop you. But really, I don't think you'll get what you want this way.

 

Two very drunk people having sex goes on millions of times a year and yet half the male population are still at large, free to prey on their girlfriends who are also free to prey on them.

 

That's because no one presses charges. You can do whatever you want, as long as no one presses charges against you. It's only illegal if someone reports a crime.

 

And of course men can be victims of rape too. Usually they're raped by another man, but I suppose it could go the other way.

[aj22one]

No, I wouldn't rather lock up innocent people, but I don't think it's a lesser evil to have rapists go free. As it is, too many rapists go free because their victims are too scared to report the crime, or no one believes the victims when they do report the crime.

 

And this is why. There are actually very few false rape claims (claims that are intentionally false, I mean). Yet, people act like it happens all the time, as if it's commonplace for women to accuse innocent men of rape, just for the hell of it. In fact, that's very rare. What usually happens is a woman reports a real rape and no one believes her.

 

 

Care to clarify what you actually mean here? If you were given a choice which would you rather see: an innocent person in jail for rape, or a rapist going free?

 

There are very few people wrongfully convicted of murder too, but it still happens.

[dasein]

It's a well-established principle in our legal system that it's better that ten guilty people go unpunished than a single person be wrongfully punished. That is part of the reason that teh standard of proof in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

[betterdeal]

And this is why. There are actually very few false rape claims (claims that are intentionally false, I mean). Yet, people act like it happens all the time, as if it's commonplace for women to accuse innocent men of rape, just for the hell of it. In fact, that's very rare. What usually happens is a woman reports a real rape and no one believes her.

 

No one believes her (or him) beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you rather it was on the balance of probabilities, like a civil case? If your, say, son, was accused of rape you'd be happy with that?

 

Really?

[Cypress25]

No one believes her (or him) beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you rather it was on the balance of probabilities, like a civil case? If your, say, son, was accused of rape you'd be happy with that?

 

Really?

 

Of course I would be upset if my son raped someone. But if he did, I would want him to go to jail for it.

 

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" only applies in court. And it should. Of course a jury can't convict anyone without a reason. But when I say no one believes the victim, I'm not just talking about the jury. Quite often, her own family and friends don't believe her, the police assigned to her case don't believe her, her classmates don't believe her. People hear the gossip and decide that the victim must be lying. This is why so many people think false rape claims are common. And that's the #1 reason why many rape victims don't even report the crime. They're afraid no one will believe them. (The #2 reason is fear of the rapist, who has made threats to keep her quiet.)

 

If you were given a choice which would you rather see: an innocent person in jail for rape, or a rapist going free?

 

Why would I ever have to make such a choice? You make it sound like these scenarios are mutually exclusive. Are you suggesting that it's one or the other: either rapists go free or innocent men go to jail? Are those really the only options, and does one automatically prevent the other? They seem to be totally unrelated. There is no relationship between cause and effect.

 

I would rather see rapists convicted and sent to jail. I would rather have every rape victim believed. Truly, I think it's worse for a rapist to go free under any circumstances.

[dasein]

And this is why. There are actually very few false rape claims

 

The actual number is somewhere between 10 and 40% (FBI 8-10, Kanin/Airforce 40-50, feminist number of 2%? totally unsourced and debunked). Whether you think that's "very few" or not is up to you.

[Cypress25]

The actual number is somewhere between 10 and 40%

 

You're gonna have to source it for me. Especially since we already know that a lot of actual rapists are never convicted, so those are probably counted as false rape claims. I mean, if the jury thinks the guy is innocent, then he must be innocent, right? Because juries are never wrong.

[dasein]

I did, right there in the parenthesis.

[Cypress25]

I need a link to an outside source, my friend. Your own words in parentheses do not count.

[aj22one]

Of course I would be upset if my son raped someone. But if he did, I would want him to go to jail for it.

 

The question was if your son was "accused" of rape, would you want him to have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty? Or, would you rather it be a "balance of probabilities".

 

 

Why would I ever have to make such a choice? You make it sound like these scenarios are mutually exclusive. Are you suggesting that it's one or the other: either rapists go free or innocent men go to jail? Are those really the only options, and does one automatically prevent the other? They seem to be totally unrelated. There is no relationship between cause and effect.

 

While you probably won't ever have to make a choice like that directly, the laws we pass have that effect in practice. If you make a law broad enough to catch everyone who does bad things, you'll probably (almost certainly) end up catching and convicting people who aren't necessarily bad people.

 

I would rather see rapists convicted and sent to jail. I would rather have every rape victim believed. Truly, I think it's worse for a rapist to go free under any circumstances.

 

Ok. Personally, I'd rather see 10 rapists go free than one innocent person go to jail. Even if it meant that some rape victims weren't believed.

[dasein]

I need a link to an outside source, my friend. Your own words in parentheses do not count.

 

You make all sorts of inaccurate completely unsourced statments in your posts, then when someone does you the courtesy of naming the studies so you can google them up yourself, you demand MLA form? Sowwwy.

[somedude81]

Somedude, people are just trying to point out the flaws in your plan. I'm sure plenty of people have hooked up after having a couple of drinks. Sometimes everything is fine after that, but sometimes sh*t hits the fan. If you want to try it, no one can stop you. But really, I don't think you'll get what you want this way.

People are talking about rape and sexual assault with broomsticks....

 

All I was doing was looking for an easier way of getting somewhere with women because what I've been doing hasn't been working.

[Queen Zenobia]

Ok. Personally, I'd rather see 10 rapists go free than one innocent person go to jail. Even if it meant that some rape victims weren't believed.

 

You might get flak for this statement since you're a man, but I'm a woman and I agree with you. No one wants to see guilty people go free, but it's far worse for innocent people to be locked up. And this is a particularly troubling issue when it comes to rape since in many (if not most) cases it's simply he said she said. And in that case, the tie should go to the defendant.

 

 

You make all sorts of inaccurate completely unsourced statments in your posts, then when someone does you the courtesy of naming the studies so you can google them up yourself, you demand MLA form? Sowwwy.

 

Even if you were to cite any source material, it's likely to be accused of being "biased", as most studies involving rape statistics often are accused of being so. Suffice it to say however, that one person being wrongfully convicted of rape is far too many.

[Cypress25]

The question was if your son was "accused" of rape, would you want him to have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty? Or, would you rather it be a "balance of probabilities".

 

Well, that depends. Do I know the truth? If I knew he was guilty, then presumption of innocence be damned, he should go to jail. I'm not saying I expect a court of law to actually work that way, that's just how I feel. If I knew he was innocent, of course I would want him to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

But in all likelihood, I wouldn't know the truth. That's why our legal system works the way it does. Which is supposed to be a good thing (and sometimes it is) but in rape cases, it seems like the law is designed to protect the accused instead of the victim. Any rape victim will tell you that going through the investigation and legal proceedings is like being raped a second time. No one would put themselves through that just to falsely accuse an innocent man.

 

Ok. Personally, I'd rather see 10 rapists go free than one innocent person go to jail. Even if it meant that some rape victims weren't believed.

 

Wow. That means there would be a lot more rape victims in the world.

[Queen Zenobia]

But in all likelihood, I wouldn't know the truth. That's why our legal system works the way it does. Which is supposed to be a good thing (and sometimes it is) but in rape cases, it seems like the law is designed to protect the accused instead of the victim. Any rape victim will tell you that going through the investigation and legal proceedings is like being raped a second time. No one would put themselves through that just to falsely accuse an innocent man.

 

You're absolutely right, it does protect the accused, protecting the accused from being subject to a lynch mob or a stacked jury. That's exactly how it should be. It is certainly unfortunate to the victim, but until some better alternative comes around (not likely) that's the best we've got and it sure beats any available alternatives.

 

 

Wow. That means there would be a lot more rape victims in the world.

 

It's actually kind of scary that you think one innocent person for 10 guilty people is a fair trade.

[dasein]

Even if you were to cite any source material, it's likely to be accused of being "biased", as most studies involving rape statistics often are accused of being so. Suffice it to say however, that one person being wrongfully convicted of rape is far too many.

 

It's interesting, on a side note, the Kanin (kanen maybe) study was conducted by a well-established feminist. It isn't by any means a large, conclusive study, but that topic is anathema for large, well funded research anyway. In his study, the women recanting were told beforehand that if they recanted, they might be criminally prosecuted. They recanted anyway. He released the results of the study and was promptly booted from the feminist inner circle, subjected to numerous bomb and death threats as well. Among the numerous "debunkings" of his study, of course none of the above will be mentioned.

 

Then there is the standard feminist number of 2% false claims. It was utterly debunked in a law review article ten years ago as having no source whatsoever, with feminists cross citing each other from "talks" as opposed to academic research. The author of that law review article tracked down every possible source of the 2% figure to no avail. His article makes very amusing reading, and miraculously, despite having no source in any research whatsoever, the 2% number is still the feminist mainstay:

 

Google "Greer false rape article" and the pdf should load from a link on the first page.

[oaks]

It's basically as if nobody has ever hooked up after having a couple of drinks.

 

So much hypocrisy.

 

Well, you started out basically saying something about getting girls you know drunk for the purposes of having sex with them, which sounds pretty low. That's far removed from drunk hookups.

[Cypress25]

It's actually kind of scary that you think one innocent person for 10 guilty people is a fair trade.

 

I never suggested that such a trade should be made. Like I said, it's illogical. Sometimes innocent people go to jail and guilty people go free, but one has nothing to do with the other. You can't trade innocent people for guilty people, it doesn't work that way.

 

Besides, if you have 10 rapists walking the streets, how many victims would you have? 10? 20? 100? The longer those rapists are walking free, the more victims you'll have. So you're not even talking about trading one innocent person for 10 guilty people. You're talking about trading one innocent person for 10 guilty people and potentially hundreds of victims. You can't even compare. I would go to jail myself if it meant no one would ever be raped again.

[Els]

Well, you started out basically saying something about getting girls you know drunk for the purposes of having sex with them, which sounds pretty low. That's far removed from drunk hookups.

 

Yeah, pretty much agree with this.

[Queen Zenobia]

Besides, if you have 10 rapists walking the streets, how many victims would you have? 10? 20? 100? The longer those rapists are walking free, the more victims you'll have. So you're not even talking about trading one innocent person for 10 guilty people. You're talking about trading one innocent person for 10 guilty people and potentially hundreds of victims. You can't even compare. I would go to jail myself if it meant no one would ever be raped again.

 

It's still not a fair trade. It's like asking me if I'd torture one man to get information that could save 50,000 people. I still wouldn't do it, it's wrong.

 

No one is saying that you would ever have to make that trade, but it's the principal of the matter. Basically, which is more important: keeping everyone safe, or protecting personal freedom?