This happened in California by the way.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...sexual-consent
This happened in California by the way.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...sexual-consent
Erm?(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances
(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
Basically, drunk consent is not consent, in legal language form.
Yeah, that's what i thought. Seems weird to call it "yes means yes", when it still doesn't always.
Youre saying that having sex with a drunk person is rape because that person is no longer of capable of making a rational decision due to the impairment of their judgement, right?
How come this doesnt extend forth towards the following:
Drunk person driving their car
Drunk person robbing a house
Drunk person doing anything illegal
If the belief that a drunk person's consent to sex (while not under duress or any threat) is invalid due to impaired judgement, then this impaired judgement should carry forth to all aspects of a drunken idiots potential wrong doings, and not just apply to a drunk (BUT COHERENT AKA NOT PASSED OUT AKA NOT NEEDING 3 PEOPLE TO KEEP HER STANDING) female and her vagina.