Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Cad_sl said:

You're actually wildly mischaracterizing the law. Generally the contract would only be voidable if he was intoxicated to the point of not understanding the legal ramifications of entering into the contract - not "I had a few shots, now I want to return this car." Etc.

But I don't expect that to stop your idiocy, so carry on.

Click to expand...

Hey idiot, do you know why I keep using the contract example?
Try to remember this quote:

Findlaw_sl said:

Generally a court will only allow the contract to be avoided if the other party to the contract knew about the intoxication and took advantage of the intoxicated person, or if the person was somehow involuntarily intoxicated (e.g. someone spiked the punch).

Click to expand...

See how that's worded? Doesn't say fuck all about the contract-signer being incapacitated. Doesn't say anything at all about how much alcohol was consumed. One condition under which a contract can be voided is if the other partyKNEW ABOUT THE INTOXICATION AND TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE INTOXICATED PERSON.

Tell me again about howI'mthe one "wildly mischaracterizing".
Or repeat what you said about contracts being a special case, that somehow being taken advantage of to sign a paper needs more legal protection than being taken advantage of to get fucked.

AngryGerbil_sl said:

Dear girls: If you don't like having penises inside you, don't drink with boys. If you do like having penises inside you, you should drink with boys.
Dear boys: If you don't like having crazy girls ruin your life, don't put your penis inside them. If you do like having crazy people ruin your life, you should put your penis inside them.
Dear Tanoomba: I dated a girl like you once. It fucking sucked.

Click to expand...

Funny, we seem to have some things in common.

Tanoomba_sl said:

I repeat:
Girls, if you don't wanna get raped, don't drink around guys.
Guys, if you don't wanna be accused of rape, don't fuck drunk girls.

Click to expand...

Sounds pretty darned similar to your idea, don'cha think?

lendarios_sl said:

At least he made his position clear. He wants to eliminate a US constitutional provision because a drunk female cries rape.

Click to expand...

Now now, asshole, don't play the 'ole switcheroo on me. You're the ones trying to deny rights and freedoms here, not me. You're the ones saying if a girl gets raped when she's drunk she's shit out of luck. You're the ones saying knowledge of the effects of alcohol consumption = responsibility for anything anyone does to you while under the effects of alcohol. I never even implied that the constitution needs to be changed, or that any innocents should be treated as guilty. Eat shit.

lendarios_sl said:

words have meaning...
If a girl gets raped, it doesn't matter if she is drunk or not, charges should be filed.
If a girl gives consent to sex, it doesn't matter if she is drunk or not, charges should not be filed.

Click to expand...

See, what you're missing is that you can't give consent when drunk. The vast majority of the time people get away with it because they know what they're doing and both sides mutually benefit, but you can't actually give consent when drunk. This is why I keep coming back to the contract example. It's the same damned thing. If, legally, a contract can be voided because the other party knew the signing party was drunk and took advantage of that, then rape charges can be filed if someone took advantage of someone's drunken state to fuck them.

Again (again), I'm not saying any girl who regrets sleeping with someone should call "rape". Nobody is arguing that. That doesn't happen anyway, at least not in any statistically significant way. You're saying "yes means yes" even if it's said by a drunk person, and I'm saying it's not that simple. Not for a contract, and not for fucking.

lendarios_sl said:

Let me fix the quote so you can see the point.

Click to expand...

See? This is why you keep missing the point. Being taken advantage of meanshaving something done to you. Being coerced into something you wouldn't normally agree to by somebody well aware of your susceptible state meansthey are the ones doing something wrong.Otherwise, why ever void a contract at all? Why not just say "Dude, you were drunk, too bad for you, suck it up"? The reason is because, as a society, we don't like people to take advantage of others in a susceptible state, especially if it involves their finances, body or physical well-being. Plus, we like to be able to get a nice buzz going without having to worry about being targeted by opportunistic exploitative assholes.

Seems to me the only difference between our points of view is that you guys draw the line right after "contract", saying anything else someone convinces you to do when drunk is your own problem. I (and, from what I've seen, society at large), draw the line a little further down, including "putting parts of you inside parts of me" as something that's not OK to do when someone's decision-making capability has been compromised.

Again (again, again), most people can drink and fuck and have no problems. But I would venture that most people who fucked while drunk didn't end up feeling like they were "taken advantage of". If a guy knows a girl has no interest in him, but keeps buying her drinks and slowly building up the pressure until something gives, he is damn well risking rape charges, and with good reason. It isnot OKto use alcohol to push someone into doing something they wouldn't do. Itis OKto use alcohol as a social lubricant to bring about a conclusion both parties desire. If you can't tell which situation you're in, for fuck's sake ABANDON SHIP, spend a little more time learning about social interaction and members of the opposite sex, and try again later.

Arbitrary_sl said:

Cad already explained yesterday about contracts. In true message board fashion Tanoomba is just going to pretend Cad didn't dismantle him yesterday and go back to saying the same shit.

Click to expand...

Already acknowledged. Read again.