I agree. If neither party could legally sign a contract then neither party should be able to be held legally responsible for violating its terms.
The idea is to see if people are going to be thinking about the myriad of factors, as it seems most have to this point, or if they are going to only consider a smaller set of circumstances as ttwtt did in post 13. For that matter, it will also show how people view the same act in different lights.
Perhaps, but that doesn't address my point. You seem to be wanting to play "gotcha", but asking a general question and then narrowing the focus to a question afterward. It's just not a good way to get people's opinions is all.
In the situation where the only facts we have is that poster, then I've long argued it is wrong and, quite frankly, unfair to charge the guy with rape in that situation. If one cannot legally give consent because of inebriation, then that standard should apply to both people.
Out of context, that seems to be a poorly constructed and written poster, though probably with good intentions. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t achieve some of its aims.
That isn’t true (and is a possible saving grace for the poster). Simply “being drunk” doesn’t automatically mean you’re incapable of consent. It would have to be established that the victim was too intoxicated to consent (which is typically not clearly defined). In practical terms, I’d suggest that two people who are both so intoxicated as to be clearly incapable of consent, they wouldn’t be capable of any significant sexual activity anyway and cases presented that way will generally involve some dishonesty (possible on both sides).
Perhaps, but that doesn't address my point. You seem to be wanting to play "gotcha", but asking a general question and then narrowing the focus to a question afterward. It's just not a good way to get people's opinions is all.
If you have a specific set of circumstance, ask about those and you'll get better responses. If you're just wanting to say "aha", then I wouldn't really consider this a very worthy thread. That's all I'm saying.
EDIT: I see after this post of yours, after I typed out all of my post, you revealed your specific circumstance (which I already kind of expected, as did at least one other poster if I remember correctly). However, I already typed out my post so I wasn't going to just delete it.
In the situation where the only facts we have is that poster, then I've long argued it is wrong and, quite frankly, unfair to charge the guy with rape in that situation. If one cannot legally give consent because of inebriation, then that standard should apply to both people.
Perhaps, but that doesn't address my point. You seem to be wanting to play "gotcha", but asking a general question and then narrowing the focus to a question afterward. It's just not a good way to get people's opinions is all.
If you have a specific set of circumstance, ask about those and you'll get better responses. If you're just wanting to say "aha", then I wouldn't really consider this a very worthy thread. That's all I'm saying.
EDIT: I see after this post of yours, after I typed out all of my post, you revealed your specific circumstance (which I already kind of expected, as did at least one other poster if I remember correctly). However, I already typed out my post so I wasn't going to just delete it.
In the situation where the only facts we have is that poster, then I've long argued it is wrong and, quite frankly, unfair to charge the guy with rape in that situation. If one cannot legally give consent because of inebriation, then that standard should apply to both people.
That's not what I'm saying.
But the issue, as shown in the poster, is that men are being warned that regardless of whether they are also drunk, they can be charged with rape if the girl is drunk.
