having sex with drunk girl rape or not ?

[x1000]

Just now, miscvoyeur said:

No. Like I said above, when the girl is drunk and is the aggressor, then there is literally no issue.

that is not completely true , alcohol means no obvious will. that is the law .

[zoifan]

1 minute ago, x1000 said:

sorry to tell you even if she drink by her self that is not excuse to take advantages of her drunk state!

all your quetions if that happened in closed room , no one can assures who telling the truth but if everything recorded , her state and actions telling everything , only one thing end the case if she said after that  by her complete   free will without any pressure that  she was agree to what happened to her .

there is no clearer than videos to revive the prosecutor's attention.

Not sure if you are considering all of my points.

 

Like I am telling this is a big stadium, and you are telling me the bathrooms are small as if you re disqualifying my valid point.

 

In regards to the video, it depends if prosecutor notices there is cheap incompetent layer is involved in the case. Otherwise he would not bet his time. They are paid by winning case and if make a few mistake like relying on a video and take it to court, he would loose his job. 

 

To be honest , it depends on the country too. In middle east, they probably behead both parties without any trial. Done. In china, both will go to jail and you won't hear from them ever again. In Russia whoever bribes higher wins. In Scandinavian, women are always win. In US,  it all depends on the social Facebook viral.

 

The best idea is to stay away from stupid people. Both a girl who doesn't know her limit and a stupid guy who even dare to get close to such stupid girl. That means stay out of trouble my friends.

  

[x1000]

Just now, zoifan said:

Not sure if you are considering all of my points. 

 

Like I am telling this is a big stadium, and you are telling me the bathrooms are small as if you re disqualifying my valid point.

 

In regards to the video, it depends if prosecutor notices there is cheap incompetent layer is involved in the case. Otherwise he would not bet his time. They are paid by winning case and if make a few mistake like relying on a video and take it to court, he would loose his job. 

 

To be honest , it depends on the country too. In middle east, they probably behead both parties without any trial. Done. In china, both will go to jail and you won't hear from them ever again. In Russia whoever bribes higher wins. In Scandinavian, women are always win. In US,  it all depends on the social Facebook viral.

 

The best idea is to stay away from stupid people. Both a girl who doesn't know her limit and a stupid guy who even dare to get close to such stupid girl. That means stay out of trouble my friends.

  

i understood what you want to say ,the prosecutor not the only authority who can take charge of the case there are many of Community organizations and social networking platforms who will be happy to take care of this cases to protect people the prosecutor can‘t protect .

[x1000]

Guiding  article

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/men-avoid-sex-women-drunk-any-alcohol-barrister-says-a7984791.html

[jabbath1987]

When she is drunk but playful and in good mood and not unconscious no problem. But when she is so drunk she is unconscious or no longer able to control her body not okay

[golfer06]

when i was young & times were different getting a girl drunk was thought to be a good way of loosening things up. we all drank & we all had hangups about sex such as "she should be a virgin" or "she won't do anything if she isn't drinking". sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. but screwing an uinconcious girl is & allways was wrong. i had a friend that pulled a cosby & gave his virgin girlfriend qualudes & then fucked her while she was passed out. that was clearly wrong. if i remember she was mad but didn't report it or break up with him. but my answer would be drunk ok, passed out not ok. and no does mean no. iof i had to stop & felt ike it was all a tease i ould be mad & not see her again.

[miscvoyeur]

15 hours ago, x1000 said:

that is not completely true , alcohol means no obvious will. that is the law .

Did you even bother reading the article you posted. It actually isn't the law. It's written clearly in the article:

"Legal commentators have complained that these types of cases are extremely difficult on both sides of the equation, and often do not fit within the neat legal definitions we have in our states’ criminal sex codes."

In the two state examples provided within the article:

"In North Dakota, our gross sexual imposition law punishes people that willfully engage in sexual acts with another person when the person or someone with that person’s knowledge has substantially impaired the victim’s power to appraise or control the victim’s conduct by administering without the victim’s knowledge intoxicants with the intent to prevent resistance.  Stated plainly, this provision punishes those who give others drugs or alcohol with the intent on rendering them unable to consent to sex without the victim knowing about it.  This is the “roofied drink” situation, which we don’t see all that often.  Our gross sexual imposition law also punishes those who know, or have reasonable cause to believe the victim is unaware that a sexual act is being committed upon them.  This provision is how North Dakota prosecutors often have to pursue these cases.  For the charges to stick, the defendant has to know the person is completely passed out and unconscious, or have “reasonable cause to believe” the victim is passed out to where they are unaware that sex act is being performed on them."

"Minnesota law also makes it clear that a person who is “mentally incapacitated or physically helpless” cannot consent to a sexual act.  It defines “mentally incapacitated” as situations where the person is under the influence of alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance, administered to the person without the person’s agreement lack the judgment to give reasoned consent to sexual contact or penetration.  “Physically helpless” victims under Minnesota law are those who are asleep, unconscious, unable to withhold consent or withdraw consent due to a physical condition, or are unable to communicate nonconsent and the condition is known or reasonably should have been known to the actor. "

And the very end of the article concludes what I said from the very beginning of this post:

"The outcome often depends on the facts and circumstances surrounding the encounter."

[x1000]

7 hours ago, miscvoyeur said:

Did you even bother reading the article you posted. It actually isn't the law. It's written clearly in the article:

"Legal commentators have complained that these types of cases are extremely difficult on both sides of the equation, and often do not fit within the neat legal definitions we have in our states’ criminal sex codes."

In the two state examples provided within the article:

"In North Dakota, our gross sexual imposition law punishes people that willfully engage in sexual acts with another person when the person or someone with that person’s knowledge has substantially impaired the victim’s power to appraise or control the victim’s conduct by administering without the victim’s knowledge intoxicants with the intent to prevent resistance.  Stated plainly, this provision punishes those who give others drugs or alcohol with the intent on rendering them unable to consent to sex without the victim knowing about it.  This is the “roofied drink” situation, which we don’t see all that often.  Our gross sexual imposition law also punishes those who know, or have reasonable cause to believe the victim is unaware that a sexual act is being committed upon them.  This provision is how North Dakota prosecutors often have to pursue these cases.  For the charges to stick, the defendant has to know the person is completely passed out and unconscious, or have “reasonable cause to believe” the victim is passed out to where they are unaware that sex act is being performed on them."

"Minnesota law also makes it clear that a person who is “mentally incapacitated or physically helpless” cannot consent to a sexual act.  It defines “mentally incapacitated” as situations where the person is under the influence of alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance, administered to the person without the person’s agreement lack the judgment to give reasoned consent to sexual contact or penetration.  “Physically helpless” victims under Minnesota law are those who are asleep, unconscious, unable to withhold consent or withdraw consent due to a physical condition, or are unable to communicate nonconsent and the condition is known or reasonably should have been known to the actor. "

And the very end of the article concludes what I said from the very beginning of this post:

"The outcome often depends on the facts and circumstances surrounding the encounter."

 i  did, and all the article depending on report from the victim, there is no evidence, there is no videos telling without any doubt what happened ,i know also that the legal handling is different and difficult ,if we didn't see it , we will can‘t believe just claiming may be true may be false but when you have evidence there is no need for talking or guessing or debut , talk against talk not our case , every case has its circumstances . noooooooooooooo drinking or taking any drugs  by the victim not permission to rape her !!!!!!!!!!!! no one can say that if you find drunk girl or man any where  you can do any thing to them if they get drunk by themselves !!  all our talking  can be fit if we cant know what really happened between two in closed room!!

[Guest]

I think what people are saying is probably the most acurate, that it is ok to have sex with another person who is drunk; up to a certain point and it is defintely not ok when the person is unconscious which are two completely different scenario's. But I will point out that everybody's interpretation on the level of a person being drunk will always be a debate unless if it has scientific data to back up the claim.

The other thing is that because this is a world forum every country has their own laws that will govern what is and isn't acceptable in their own society, so we should try to consider that our own beliefs aren't any more valid than that of another culture and certainly shouldn't use one countrys definitions as a basis for another country. And before anyone jumps in I'm not advocating that a humans worth is any more or less in this case, as any human suffering is wrong in my eye's but this is my own belief and not what everyone in the entire world would believe.

 

[golfer06]

not that long ago a driver could be found innocent in a car accident if they were drunk. they were considered to be not in their right mind. almost like tempporary insanity. that would indicate that they are not able to decide between right & wrong. now if you drive drunk you are guilty of that evenif nothing else happens. using that basis you would be considered to be in control of your mind. therefore if you were drunk & had sex you would be considered to have decided to have sex. however someone passed out would obviously not be in control of themselves.