Technically, no. A man can really only be sodomized. The technical definition for rape is 'forced vaginal - penile entry', which doesn't even encompass everything that could be considered rape. Stupid definitions.
Printable View
Internet bravado? Check
Now all we need is for you to say your number is approaching 200 and we're set.
have you ever considered that what you consider "hot" is a 6 to someone else?
So, does this mean if I get drunk and bang my woman's hot ass cousin I can say "I was drunk, doesn't count" Now that's got potential.
Because you don't consider the consequences of your actions, doesn't mean you aren't ultimately responsible. I mean no judge in America respects the "I was drunk." defense when it comes to dodging responsibility. However, getting drunk does mean you're automatically consenting to everything done to you, ie rape. I mean if I stole your wallet while you were drunk, it doesn't mean you okayed the $3000 in charges.
Generally legal actions: you're gonna be held accountable for the consquences. Contracts made while drunk are generally binding, so are purchases unless the terms areo the wise unreasonable.
Illegal actions you are a victim of while drunk: not your fault, including crimes of consent. The law was probablly meant to tie up this loose end as its always cruel to force a rape victim to prove she's legit. If we don't hold people accountable we're basicly begging rapists to get women that otherwise wouldn't sleep with them drunk so they cannot object. The case law has been pretty much been saying, that she needs to consent volentarly and affirmatively (not by silence)
This thread needs more Iron Sheik IMO.
I think good points have been made on both sides though.
Have you read Justice Thomas' opinions lately? The man is one head injury away from Iron Sheik.
Word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick