Post: #76

(06-07-2016 04:39 AM)Oilrig Wrote:  It's weird to me that leftist feminists encourage young women to get drunk and have sex with as many guys as possible to explore their bodies and sexualities. Yet, when young women take their advice and bang random strangers they're quick to cry rape and crucify the men as sexual predators. Can't have it both ways.

Is it weird? Or is it SO NORMAL YOU JUST BLEW YOU MIND!!!!!!!

I've said this on the board many time, but I'll repeat it. Why? Because if an older guy had told me what I am about to write (again) when I was 22, life would have made a lot more sense. And it would have been easier for me. And here it is:

Men live for tangible accomplishments while women live for relationships. To achieve the first, you have to have little drama. The second is fraught with drama. This is a crucial difference between men and women.

Men were meant to build civilizations. Hence their beards, which protect them from the outdoor elements. Women were built to deal with babies. Hence their breasts which were meant for nursing.

All of this is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS, but we were (mis)taught otherwise in school, so it's easy to miss what's right in front of our faces. You can dress us up and put us in colleges and offices, but you cannot change our basic nature.

There is no bigger drama than dealing with babies. There is no more important bond than the mother-child bond. (Again, we're told otherwise about this.)

So what happens when a girl becomes a woman but doesn't have a baby to fill that relationship space in her psyche? She invents drama!

And this is what is happening more and more because more and more women are barren. The cry of a baby (which is a pretty damned dramatic thing) has been replaced by the cries of men and women's parents in courtrooms since women have created drama to replace the real drama that should have been in their lives.

Once you start seeing life this way, the "wear miniskirt/get drunk/scream rape" paradigm makes perfect sense. It's a replacement for the crying of children.

It takes while for us to "get" what our grandfathers instinctively knew. Women are built different than men, so what seems insane to us is par the course for them. And vice-versa. Most women think a lot of obsessive male pursuits are insane, but that's what built everything around you! That refrigerator got there because someone was weird and spent a lot of time alone in a basement tinkering.

The next time anyone reflexively thinks "But men and women are alike!" ask yourself why you need to shave your face and they don't. Why did nature intend that and what does it signify in the larger sense?

Post: #77

I find it suspicious that the cyclists were already able to determine that the girl looked unconscious before they approached, if the couple was making out behind a dumpster.

Post: #78

Meh. Keep the fuck away from white bitches. Problem solved.

Post: #79

I've tried rape cases, even got real rapists off.

I wrote a post on defending against false rape charges: /thread-29563.html

This does not look like a false charge to me. It's on the border between drunken poor judgment and predation.

The witnesses intervening and chasing the guy, her state, plus whatever lacerations and contusions she had seem to be the key pieces of evidence.

Jury convicted after strong instructions on presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt. Hard to question verdict without hearing all evidence.

Prosecutor's argument that he was face of campus sexual assault may have been improper, could lead to reversal, but usually cured by judge's admonition.

Sentence was lenient, after 15 years comparing boys from elite colleges and townies in court, I have no doubt that a townie working at McD's would have been hammered with years in state prison, not months in county lock up.

Post: #80

Sp5,

How could the reasonable doubt standard have possibly been met in this case?

You've got two very drunk kids. They leave the party voluntarily, with obvious intentions. The girl is clearly conscious and able to consent at that point.

There is no "rape", there is no intercourse. He stuck a few fingers in her vagina. There is absolutely no reason to believe it was not consensual, no evidence. The girl then passes out from drunkenness, the guy himself is about to vomit.

The lacerations on elbows etc are obviously because they were stumbling drunk and falling down. What's so hard to understand about that?

Please read that full "victim statement". It is a disgusting and histrionic document full of the most obvious and shameless lies.

Finally, the idea that being registered as a sex offender for life and having your life ruined as a result of a sloppy drunken hookup that wasn't even a hookup is "lenient" is an absurd one. It may be true that someone else might have gotten an even longer sentence but that doesn't make this sentence, and the conviction itself, any more justified.

It's terrible, and one has to hope against hope that the conviction is reversed on appeal, although that's never likely.

Post: #81

1. Penetration of body orifice (except maybe ears or nostrils) by anything is rape, generally. Certainly digital penetration of vagina can be rape.

2. Intoxication is not a defense except in limited circumstance w specific intent crimes. If you can move your muscles, you have the general criminal intent necessary. Extreme intoxication on the border of unconsciousness makes consent impossible.

3. Her tone and literary style irrelevant to what happened that night.

Post: #82

(06-07-2016 09:06 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  2. Intoxication is not a defense except in limited circumstance w specific intent crimes. If you can move your muscles, you have the general criminal intent necessary. Extreme intoxication on the border of unconsciousness makes consent impossible.

If intoxication voids the "victim's" consent, why wouldn't it also void the "perpetrator's" guilt? And it's the intent of the alleged rapist that is in question here, not his act of penetration, since the act of penetration happens in every consensual sexual intercourse. The whole premise of this alleged rape is that the man should have recognized that the girl was intoxicated and that she was thereby unable to give consent.

So if intoxication is reason enough to consider the girl's explicit notice of consent null and void, why the fuck isn't intoxication also reason enough to consider the man not at fault for not being able to judge the validity of the explicit consent given to him by the girl? After all, it seems to me extremely clear that giving consent to sex requires much less analytical prowess and presence of mind than trying to figure out whether consent is "valid" under a given circumstance. After all, entire court cases lasting weeks revolve precisely around determining whether consent did and did not occur, so this is clearly not a trivial matter in the eyes of the justice system. If the justice system considers a girl unable to make a simple "yes let's fuck" decision due to being drunk, how can it by the same token punish a man for making that same exact decision when drunk?

If you insist the girl didn't actually make the decision to have sex because she was too drunk and thus her explicit verbal consent doesn't count, then sorry, the guy also didn't make the decision to have sex because he was too drunk and his fingering of the girl likewise doesn't count.

Post: #83

She wasn't merely intoxicated. She was unconscious. Unconscious people can't give consent.

Post: #84

I had more thoughts on the subject, but I now realize the court is right, the girl is right, all girls' claims of being abused are right.

I agree with all feminist opinions, etc.

I couldn't delete my post so I'm sanitizing it lolzll.

Post: #85

Sp5, if you were this guy's lawyer, what strategy would you use and what details would you focus on to get him acquitted?

Post: #86

Moral of story, stay away from very drunk women, it may be an easy fuck but it's also a way for you to get easily fucked.

Post: #87

I appreciate that the girl's witness statement is unreadable in its absurdity, but it is like most members commenting have not read the testimony and made a note of the accepted chronology. As I understand it:

Facts:

2 students, both rat arsed.

Things get a little gropey.

Go outside in amorous embrace, kissing and getting extra gropey.

They fall over and continue this tryst for the ages on the floor.

Cassanova literally asks whether he can insert one or more of his digits 'midst her pudenda.

GIRL LITERALLY FUCKING AGREES AT THAT POINT AND DOES NOT DISPUTE CONSENT GIVEN AT THAT POINT DURING TRIAL.

At some point after this girl passes out - perhaps not until after the bloke, so wasted himself, withdraws his digits and stumbles off to try to puke.

Passersby try to put this drunk 19 year old who is presumably still half chubbed into a headlock.

Not enjoying seemingly unprovoked headlocks from random members of the public (something I sympathise with), our protagonist tries to make a run for it.

The entire subsequent case hinges on the notion that there was digital penetration at some point after the chick passed out and before the bloke stumbles off to puke, that this vitiated consent, and that consequently he is an evil rapist whose entire life should be ruined.



It should be noted, and this is an important point highlighting the hypocrisy of the whole thing, that intoxication to the point of being blackout drunk does not act as an insanity/diminished responsibility defense within the criminal law (in English common law, and by extension presumably in US law). That means one can be so drunk as to not be able to remember anything, form a sentence, or whatever, yet still be found to have the full mens rea for 1st degree murder. Yet somehow the law, adding one more Dworkinian contusion to its previously glorious corpus, seeks to persuade us now that girls who get wasted lack the mental capacity to provide consent to sexual congress. If you can be black out drunk and have the mens rea for premeditated murder, then you can be blackout drunk and consent to a little light fingerblasting.

The inconsistency these social justice cases introduce to the law is sickening. Almost everyone I know from law school is now a top lawyer at world famous firms and chambers, and they have been the most vociferous in lauding this decision. We are in a sorry state indeed.

Post: #88

People on my FB feed are literally foaming at the mouth over this.

Its actually quite frightening to watch unfold.

Post: #89

There are several red-flags in her account, but I'd be inclined to go with Sp5's much more experienced view on this incident.

One thing I keep thinking over and over these last couple years is if I were a father of a male teenager in North America today, I would absolutely be telling him NOT to attend college or university.

Leaving aside from the verdict here, which may be justified, a heterosexual young male attending a college or university in the US or Canada might as well be walking around with the scarlet letter on his chest. It may look like a pussy paradise given the gender-ratio, but there are just too many ways his life can get screwed up. He's taught useless courses in social justice. He's indoctrinated into illiberal thought. He's told he's less worthy and indeed evil. Finally, if he at all gives in to his sexual cravings he could be putting his entire future at risk because the system is 100% set up against him.

Regret can now be rape. Drunkenness can now be rape. Cheating on a boyfriend can now be rape. It all seems to reside 100% in what kind of a person he ends up hooking up with. If she is of half a mind to ruin his life, ruined it will be. Period.

For not the last time, I'm glad I went to university when I did and wasn't faced with all this myself.

EDIT: Again I'm speaking in over all generalities, that exist notwithstanding whether this was a true case of sexual assault or not.

Post: #90

Being drunk doesn't benefit you in any way and this story illustrates what can happen to you. At the end of the day, this kid was still lucky he could have gotten years in prison.

Post: #91

I was going to write my own similar post, but I agree with everything Paracelsus said about this situation. So rather than repeating what he said I'd like to offer a response to some of the questions raised in this thread.

The main point of contention over whether this is a FRA or a sexual assault, is whether the woman was passed out or not. We have the accused testimony that she was not passed out, however that is not conclusive and the judge had to weigh the testimony of third parties as well as the established fact that the woman was unconscious when responders arrived to the scene.

These cases should not be tried in the media and that includes those who want to prosecute false accusers. We don't know if this case was an outrage or a fabrication, but the judicial system is the best approach we have to determine the facts. I'm not arguing against skepticism, but it should be well informed and not just a reaction to one point of evidence or a partial reading.

Edited to add: great discussion. I'm glad that we can disagree and bring up points that are unpopular here or elsewhere without resorting to painting each other as monsters.

Post: #92

Having said all that I definitely do not agree with the trial by media or the viral telling of this story. I'd like to point out a hypocrisy that I don't see acknowledged enough;

the liberal media and social justice crowds are both speaking out against mandatory minimums and the prison complex. And yet, in this case, you see them employing the "no tolerance" mindset that leads to those judicial reforms in the first place. I suspect that they justify this internally based on the face of the accused - it is convenient for the narrative that the accused is a white bread, preppy looking young man from an upper middle class background. However, if you follow their outrage fueled "no tolerance" to it's logical conclusion, it is not the middle class or the white who have the most to be anxious over. Tough sentencing guidelines will always impact racial minorities and low income individuals disproportionately for a number of reasons, some of them unavoidable.

The judge used his discretion, as he should be able to, to lower the sentence in this case probably for good reason. Without all the facts I can't defend that decision but I'll offer a few reasons he may have
- there was no penis in vagina penetration. Doesn't make it right, but it does make it less violent and less violating.
- the accused and the accuser were both incapacitated
- lack of malice or intent
- possibly as a subconscious way to acknowledge the weakness of evidence in the case

Post: #93

Paracelsus, excellent conceptual breakdown of this story.

+1

(06-06-2016 09:45 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Couple of thoughts here:

(1) I think jumping straight to the suggestion the jury got it wrong is disingenuous given the way we talk about how rape victims should be reporting to police and then leaving it up to a court to decide, that a court is the arbiter of fact. You have to remember courts are very familiar, back to fucking Blackstone in 1760, with the idea that the horror of a crime of rape is so great is can and sometimes does overwhelm juries' reasoning, and that therefore you have to guard against false accusations.

Do juries get it wrong on rape? Yes. Did they do so in this case? If you go only on the statistical occurrence of false rape accusations, ranging from the FBI's bullshit numbers to more objective surveys, there is a 50-90% chance that they did not get it wrong in this case. The same process that produced a knockout result against Gawker for Hulk Hogan -- trial by jury -- is the same process that produced a conviction on all counts against this kid for the charges as alleged.

You can't have it both ways. If you're going to push for rape victims to report to the police and present their accusations before a jury, you have to accept the idea that generally courts know what they're doing. And you have to accept the risk of a wrongful conviction and hope that the appeal process or subsequent investigation eventually vindicates those wrongly accused. Until the Illuminati produce mind-reading gear and universal CCTV surveillance everywhere, that position is not going to change.

(2) The media hysteria over this is in part manufactured, but I think the real target is the justice system itself. The du jour change.org petition isn't calling for the state to appeal the sentence, it's calling for the judge who sentenced the guy to 6 months to be sacked.

This is the aspect of the case you should all be fucking trembling in your boots over.

You should be hoping to high heaven some government official has sufficient guts to hold his ground and respect the independence of the judiciary, because it's the one real bulwark against the rule of the mob that you have in Western civilisation. A government that folds to this campaign and dismisses a sitting judge because he didn't make a decision that the mob liked is a government that will just as happily dismiss a sitting judge who applies the law against the government simply because it's the law.

(3) Six months is a short sentence for rape, but again, you have to have faith in the judge as well. He explicitly took into account the guy's prior good record and that the media attention on this case is going to be a significant punishment in and of itself. Sentences are open to appeal by the prosecution.
...

(edit: I already repped you, so...dap)

Post: #94

I don't get why it's such a crime to suggest that women not get blackout drunk when they go out somewhere. Any semblance of personal accountability is met with "teach men not to rape". If I were to knowingly walk through a bad neighborhood alone at night and get robbed, people would look at me funny if I said something like "we should teach these people not to steal"...

Post: #95

I've been seeing this story make it's way round the world. Rape culture was unheard of last year in Europe, now all the feminist cunts are bringing it.

I want to add to this. There is a second story here and it's called THIRST. I've had many chances with girls who were drunk off their ass and I've declined every time. If a girl slurs her speech, trips and falls more than once or can't remember your name, then I say thanks but no thanks and pass her off to friends.

THIRST among young men is dangerous, I remember it too, will get you into a lot of problems. Just don't try to fuck really drunk girls. I wish it was otherwise, but in this current situation it is simply too dangerous.

Post: #96

I've never really messed around with drunks unless I was almost blacked out - in fact it only happened a handful of times in my life.

Every time I've fucked a girl with booze involved, it's only a few drinks, I don't escalate in public at all, not even kissing, we hangout at my pad, we don't ever drink at my house, bang, she chills for awhile after we sober up, comfort game, follow "i didn't expect that and had a great time text".

When I was a teen on occasion I was that white knight taking care of a drunk girl but never making a move. Now I just feel sorry for girls who don't have a lack of self control.

Basic drunk bitches are the worst.

Post: #97

So if I'm fingering an enthusiastically consenting girl and she passes out I'm an instant felon rapist? Or do I have 10 seconds of grace period? 30? What if my head is laying on her stomach looking down at her pussy, as it might be given than I'm wasted and tired, I wouldn't notice the instant she passed out. Especially since I would be equally wasted as her.

And even putting that aside, it is still not established that the fingering continued after she passed out anyway.

It's insanity. There is no sexual assault here. There's a willing and enthusiastic drunk slut who may have passed out mid fingering which she consented to, and an equally drunk dude who might not have noticed the instant it happened. The way some are talking make it sound like this was a kid slamming the asshole of chick clearly unconscious for some time, when it's not even close to such a sinister situation.

The "lacerations and contusions" mentioned above as "evidence" are from the lustful and consenting couple slipping and falling, while still fully mutually consenting. That was already established. It's not an indicator of rape, such a conclusion is dishonest.

The only reason this is even a case is that two guys who didn't and couldn't know what was going on, nor what had happened previously, made an assumption and decided for the girl that she was raped. Without them, all we would have is a girl who would vaguely remember hooking up with a guy she was attracted to, laughing with her friends at Denny's the next morning. No harm, no foul, no problems for anyone. Instead, we have passerby activists convincing the girl she was raped, when she has no memory of a rape and only a last memory of consent. It's a full blown fuckin' joke. Except for the young mans life being ruined- that is no joke.

I've passed out while a girl was blowing me, more than once in fact. I'm going to track down those fucking rapists and pursue charges to the fullest extent of the law, as I don't think they stopped blowing me immediately. Those girls should have been looking up every 4-7 seconds to verify I hadn't fallen asleep, as per the Don't Be A Rapist Handbook available at your local Buzzfeed outlet.

For all I know they played with my balls for upwards of 2 minutes before they realized I had surreptitiously withdrawn my consent without notice due to passing out. They knew they were immediately yet-to-be-convicted felons, and escaped in to the night, leaving me there alone, unconscious. I even remember having to pick Red Bull soaked Doritos out of my hair in morning, sobbing in the bathroom. Disgusting animals. There were no Swedish cyclist fags to save me.

(06-07-2016 02:42 AM)_Cicero Wrote:  On the other hand, it's unlikely he asked if he could finger her. That didn't happen.

I'm reminded of something I heard Hitchens say-

“There you have it ladies and gentleman, there you have it. You see how far the termites have spread, and how long and well they’ve dined.”

Some of the statements are unreal. If even guys here can be so quick to hang a man based on the most flimsy and fallacious reasoning then you can only imagine the scary level of frothing delusion faced outside these walls of assumed clarity.

Post: #98

(06-07-2016 02:48 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  I've passed out while a girl was blowing me, more than once in fact. I'm going to track down those fucking rapists and pursue charges to the fullest extent of the law, as I don't think they stopped blowing me immediately.

They were very careful about how they worded the law.

Quote:Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration

Her sucking your dick isn't penetration on her part so there is no crime. If she walks in while you're passed out, starts blowing you, then passes out mid-BJ, you're guilty of rape.

The unwritten part of the law is that women are never guilty, they are sinless and men are evil.

I'll double down on my earlier points - I don't believe her story at all. And the more I read her self-serving letter, I think it was just attention whoring and lies.

Quote:You took away my worth

I'm glad she realizes that her only value in life is doling out sex. That boyfriend better watch his back, a bad breakup might cause him to go to jail next.

Post: #99

(06-07-2016 02:33 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  THIRST among young men is dangerous

I had a weird instance of fortuitous whiskey dick that stopped me from making any number of bad decisions / taking risks. Reflecting back on it, I was mad at myself for not being smart and putting myself in a situation where the upside was little at best compared to a tremendous downside in so many ways

Remember what nomad is saying

You could have done nothing wrong, but you have no idea what the response is gonna be, and in this day and age, that usually means all sorts of bad.

Post: #100

(06-07-2016 02:59 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 02:48 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  I've passed out while a girl was blowing me, more than once in fact. I'm going to track down those fucking rapists and pursue charges to the fullest extent of the law, as I don't think they stopped blowing me immediately.

They were very careful about how they worded the law.

Quote:Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration

Her sucking your dick isn't penetration on her part so there is no crime.

I'll throw in that she had a finger in my ass then, for good measure.