women are always victims?

i was lissioing to an interview on ABC adelaide this morning with the Attorney General Michael Attkinson. They were interviewing him because of a case currently in the district court where a man has pleaded guilty to rape because after starting consentual sex the women passed out and he continued (no idea how long for or any other details). The judge said in his remarks that this crime was so low down the scale that it would be unduly harsh to even give a suspended sentance in this case.

Now the AG pointed to this as being a shining example of the courts showing common sense however he apears to lack this quality himself. He was asked a very specific question by Mat, "what would happen in the common situation where both parties were drunk?"

now the AG's responce was "our goverment has rightly removed the drunks deffence so that in this case you would expect to see the man plead guilty and then (with no manditory sentancing for rape, his comment but not in order) a light sentance from the judge"

Now this just left me thinking HUH!!!

aparently going by his comments it is ALWAYS a man's fault that sex is illegal.
"Huh" indeed!

What he actually did mean is that if the man was drunk and he had sex with a woman who lost consciousness, it would still be rape and yes, it would still be his fault if he was the perpetrator (ie, had sex with someone who was unconscious). Just as being sober and having sex with someone who is unconscious is classified as rape, regardless of your sex.

He then goes on to talk about how sex while alseep is illegal as well and putting the 2 together with a definition of what consitutes rape (i mean the physical side rather than the consent side of rape), this means that if the 2 of you fall asleep together and the penis is still inside the women when she falls asleep thats AUTOMATICALLY rape commited by the man

Ermm no. It would be rape if someone starts having sex with someone while they are asleep and unaware of what was going on or able to consent to it. (Emphasis added because it is important in this case)...
 
What he actually did mean is that if the man was drunk and he had sex with a woman who lost consciousness, it would still be rape and yes, it would still be his fault if he was the perpetrator (ie, had sex with someone who was unconscious). ....

Ah, not if he didn't know she was unconscious, Bells! If he was drunk, he might well have not even known that she was or wasn't conscious (...some women are like that during sex!). And the man was just plowing away, perfectly happy to be having sex with something other than his hand!

Baron Max
 
Ah, not if he didn't know she was unconscious, Bells! If he was drunk, he might well have not even known that she was or wasn't conscious (...some women are like that during sex!). And the man was just plowing away, perfectly happy to be having sex with something other than his hand!

Baron Max

but getting stupor drunk is irresponsible in the first place. you don't have control of all your faculties and could do anything including drunk driving.

you may not intentionally have meant to kill but drinking til your almost unconscious or incomprehending is socially irresponsible just as the woman who drinks to unconsciousness. it doesn't excuse her or him. they are both wrong by negligence.

alcoholism is one of the worst vices to the mind and the health.
 
"Huh" indeed!

What he actually did mean is that if the man was drunk and he had sex with a woman who lost consciousness, it would still be rape and yes, it would still be his fault if he was the perpetrator (ie, had sex with someone who was unconscious). Just as being sober and having sex with someone who is unconscious is classified as rape, regardless of your sex.



Ermm no. It would be rape if someone starts having sex with someone while they are asleep and unaware of what was going on or able to consent to it. (Emphasis added because it is important in this case)...

umm bells that wasnt the question he was answering though
 
Asguard, its called responsibility.
You can't drive and use alcohol as your excuse.
You cant get into a physical altercation and use alcohol as an excuse.
And you can't fuck an unconscious person and use alcohol as an excuse.

I really wonder why you are continually worried about who you can and can't rape.
 
reponcability?
what responcability does a women have for fucking a drunk man?
aparently none based on the AG comments.
 
...so no cupability for a women who takes advantage of a drunk man, its always a man taking advantage of a drunk women. What century are we living in? the 18th?

How many men here have been taken advantage of while drunk? And was it a crime in the 18th century to take advantage of a drunk man?
 
reponcability?
what responcability does a women have for fucking a drunk man?
aparently none based on the AG comments.

He didn't get into trouble for having sex while drunk. The guy got into trouble for having sex with an unconscious person.

If its a huge worry for you, quit having sex while drunk.
 
However just because your drunk, unconcious or even DEAD doesnt negate an errection.

Drunk and unconscious do. Also when you first fall asleep does. I assure you, no one will hassle you in any noticable way if you rape some one while dead.

Lots of men (myself included) get errections during there sleep

And this is why you rape people?

how do you justify your comment that of 2 drunk people fucking the "The active party" would automatically be the man?

Actually it is: if one person is fucking and the other is passed out, its a man. Men go limp when passed out on booze.
 
notice you twisted my words, i find that highly amusing. Anyway goodbye, there is no point talking to someone who refuses good faith
 
or maybe he was raping her

The sex began as consensual so the important question is did he notice her unconsciousness before it was over? In their drunk state I doubt she was being particularly vocal or active anyways so how would he notice?

Did she actually become unconscious or can she just not remember it happening?
 
The reason the man is responsible is because the man is the one who is thrusting himself on the woman, usually. The woman in this case just lied there asleep... while the guy humped her.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyhow, the reason the man is responsible is because the man is the one who is thrusting himself on the woman, usually. The woman in this case just lied there asleep... while the guy humped her.

Hmm, is it illegal for a woman to fall asleep while a man is fuckin' her?

Hell, most of the women I knew in my younger life did that all the time! Wait 'til I tell 'em that it was illegal. ...LOL!

Baron Max
 
Why was it, we are putting up with this guy's ridiculous spelling and grammar again?

I won't get into why he is a mod, that's just a whole onother topik.

Seriously, he can't even spell check his fucking title?

Can't you show some damn tolerance?

His posts are quite intelligible.

I don't expect him to go to the trouble of writing all his posts up in a word processing program first then spell check and cut and paste here.
 
Can't you show some damn tolerance?

Tolerance? ...LOL! VI, I've seen yuou rip someone up one side and down the other, threatening to rip out their testicles through their throat, for a lot less infraction than poor spelling and grammar!

What the hell, VI, you gettin' soft in your old age? :D

Baron Max
 
Actually it is: if one person is fucking and the other is passed out, its a man. Men go limp when passed out on booze.

Some rare men do, most men are still perfectly hard after losing conciousness and most men attain erection while sleeping,
 
Back
Top