GothicWizard wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 16:20:
Eirikrautha wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 12:50:
GothicWizard wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 10:56:Agreed. In fact, she admitted that he had been drinking heavily, too. Therefore, she is also guilty of inappropriate conduct with an intoxicated person. Right? Or does his intoxication not count? Are you suggesting that a man is responsible for his actions while drunk, but a woman is not? You're saying a woman is not capable of being as responsible as a man?
Even the IMPLICATION that because they were drinking that justifies it is WRONG. Period. So again, what the fuck is wrong with you for defending that?
What's wrong with you?
If she tried to take advantage of him, under the influence or otherwise, and the only reason she didn't was she couldn't get him hard (equivalent of him only stopping because he realized she was on her period), then yes she is 100% in the wrong to. And I'd be shouting in his defense. However she wasn't trying to take advantage of him. So false equivalency.
Not a false equivalency at all. If he was drunk, he was unable to consent to sex with her. That's the standard, right? Her charge against him is not that he raped her (in fact, she confirms there was no sex). Her charge is that he wanted
to have sex with her while she was drunk. Unless wanting to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you is sexual assault, the crime he committed was to attempt to have sex with a drunk person (because her drunkenness prevented her from being able to consent). Well, he wasn't able to consent, either, right? He was drunk, correct? I find it very interesting that you would hold him to a different standard than you do her. Must be misogyny... obviously she can't be held to the same standard because she is a woman, right?