[ServiceColas]

Craptastic.

How many guys will get sued after a stupid **** wakes up in the morning and decides she made a mistake.

Dont drink and drive, I agree...
But dont drink and ****....Please...

Rape is someone that gets FORCED to do something. When the girl goes down on you, its her problem. If shes uncouncious, thats another matter.

Let in the gold diggers.

Spec.

[selayeffethy]

It does sound a bit off, but then to be fair:

"It's difficult to take the Bar Association seriously on this matter when, in their own submission, they concluded that just because a woman was asleep or unconscious (it) doesn't negate consent." I'd have to agree...

-Arrian

[itaspCatCriny]

Taking advantage of drunk women

[paulaglober]

Another reason not to have sex.

[Flikemommoilt]

The word "testicles" in the thread title is disturbing. Where's our prude moderator when we need him?

Surely "nuts" or "ballsack" is more acceptable?

[Obgrfbke]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Another reason not to get drunk. Shoot me now, please.

Spec.

[pfcwlkxav]

Originally posted by Lorizael
I will never end up in a situation where I...

end up ****ing something you never thought you would if you were sober. Yea, "something" is not the right word. "Someone" is more appropriate.

Like a girl that has a crush on you, but you dont feel that way about her....but when drunk, its different...and in your head you suddenly say: Why not?

The problem is, the next day, the hang-over is the least of your problems. :forwnnod:

But later on, you laugh at these situations.

Spec.

[Blelidupgerie]

How is 'drunk' defined? Two drinks? One drink?

I'm the first person to agree that 'No' should always mean 'No', whatever some rape-fantasists get off on. How, though, is someone supposed to know that 'Yes' also means 'No'?

Consent forms witnessed by a lawyer can't be far off...

[JosephNF]

Exactly the point in my first post.

Lori, stop bashing yourself, its getting redundant and serves no good what so ever.

Spec.

[Vitoethiche]

Originally posted by Spec


Sure, Mister Clubmyster.




Fixed.

Women take advantage of drunk men all the time, but not for sex, how is that different? When a women is drunk, she is more willing, and so is a man. Thats why sometimes you end up ****ing something you never thought you would if you were sober. Alcohol alters judgement, so where will they draw the line?

And dont even try to sound all nice, when you hit the clubs, and a lady you find cute is slightly drunk and wants some, you got for it. I know you do.

Spec. I do, and I don't see a problem with that. When someone is slightly drunk (i.e. not falling over herself), and makes it clear that she wants some from me in particular, hell yeah I'd go for it (if she's hot).

Teh is for teh kind of guy who goes to a club, stands around in teh corner until teh end of teh night, and then homes in on teh totally wasted chick who can barely stand. "Hey, are you doing alright there? Let me give you a ride. Want to stop by my place for a bit?

[Klavalala]

Wasn't there a Chappelle's Show skit where Dave had his date sign a bunch of presex agreement forms? He tried to slip an agreement form for anal, but she wouldn't sign that.

[masaredera]

this thread, and teh subliminal ideas that surround it, even the hint in the title to the power women actually posess in court...

...is the VERY reason why i do not trust any member of the human race.

[medprof]

I ain't going to Australia anytime soon then...

[Gakeincidoniac]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
@ Cort: Drunk in the law is typically defined as being over the legal BAC limit. Which IIRC is 0.05 in the land of Oz. Unless you breathalyse at teh time of teh act, that wouldn't be helpful.

[carfAball]

.

[Xlkl9SFd]

Originally posted by LordShiva
. I see your point, but I don't understand it.

[Ladbarbastirm]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
What a law is "going for" and how it actually gets applied are not the same thing, surely? How does it define 'drunk', as I asked above?

It's like introducing anti-terror laws that are "going for" terrorists but end up being used against all sorts of basically harmless people. Well,

It will also introduce an "objective fault test", meaning a man can no longer use the defence that he thought he had consent if the circumstances appear unreasonable.

I'm thinking that simply having sex with a woman who's had a few too many beers won't be seen by juries as unreasonable. However, preying on the women who are falling down drunk will.

Oz, being a common law country, will probably shape the law into defining unreasonableness as the seedy folk. So, I agree with the person in the article in the OP who says the bar association is really going nuts for no reason.

[sbrthrds]

I guessed as much. I don't think anybody here would try to defend that.

I hope

[JonatonM]

Originally posted by Winston


Ok, so now what the Hell am I gonna do?

Well, teh law says it's OK to take advantage of drunk men...

[indentKew]

I dont see what the fuss is about. Just make sure you always get written notarized consent prior to having sex. Preferably a judge should attest that the consent was valid prior to any sexual acts taking place.