Ladies and gentlemans, here is a prime example of male privilege, ignorance, anti-feminism, and hatred:
Nope. Never implied that. I do think the majority of women are physically weaker than the majority of men, but I don't feel women are necessarily weaker in other aspects. Or dumber.
Please, make up more stuff out of your butt.
Oh, look, you did...
Don't be mad at me because you can't accept the fact that you legally raped a woman.We were both drunk and had sex which I later regret. Rape.
Women who use sex appeal to get ahead should not expect to be treated like they don't.
Oooh and Men should be able to handle boob crack. Well women should be able to handle half my package hanging out if I want to wear short shorts on a warm day.
Seriously your double standards and idiocy give all women a bad name and I hope you are mauled by bears.
Laci doesn't use her sex appeal to "get ahead." She wears normal shirts just like any other girl. Are you intoxicated right now?
I don't know why you are comparing your dick and balls to breasts. They're really quite different. One is used for sexual intercourse and the other is used to feed babies. Men are already allowed to be topless, but women aren't.
I'm not asking for women to be allowed to show vagina. I'm not even asking for women to be able to show full breast nudity on YouTube. I simply want people to stop mislabeling women because their boob cracks are bigger than other boob cracks.
But I mean, if you really wanted to have your dick and balls out, there are states/areas that allow public nudity.
Fortunately, you don't represent all of men, so I will not resort to ignorant comments such as "you make men look bad." You make yourself look bad.
I also don't hope you are mauled by bears, but I do hope you can let your closed-minded ignorance go one day and see the bigger picture.
- - - Updated - - -
The thing about the law is that it is never there, in the moment, when the criminal act is taking place. Therefore, in order to provide a service of safety and justice for people, it has to make some generalizations and conduct a trial.
I'll be honest, I'm not 100% knowledgeable about this particular law and if there are exceptions. All I know is that you're likely in shit if you engage in sexual relations by your own will with an intoxicated person, regardless if you are intoxicated as well. That is the law. I abide by it and I agree with it because there are understandable reasons why it exists.
Moreover, let's remember, you are only punished if the person files charges against you. This means, you and your girlfriend can get drunk and have sex, and there will be no consequences, as long as she doesn't press charges the next day. Let's also not pretend like that's the norm and happens all the time and unjustly. Most girlfriends/wives/frienefits will not do that unless they actually didn't want to have sex with you.
Let me ask you this, say you just had a huge dinner with family and you ate too much. You removed your seatbelt while driving because you felt it was making you sick. Unbeknownst to you, a cop sees you do this and pulls you over. He issues you a ticket.
Now, you know the law, yet you took your seatbelt off anyway and let the cop know that it was because you felt sick, but he didn't have any sympathy for you and ticketed you anyway.
Different variables, but same concept. You think it's acceptable for the law to make an exception for you because you wanted the benefit of your decision without consequences, because you feel you are justified to loophole out of the law that was created on just reasons.
Let me give you another example based on a true story.
There are two young kids who attended a party. They both got shit-faced. The girl passed out on a bed. Her friend she came to the party with removed her pants and started eating her out.
Now, they're both shit-faced, and he doesn't remember what happened the next day. Do you feel it's okay for this man to not be charged on the basis of "I was drunk, and I don't remember what happened," even though he committed an extremely sexual act that is considered rape?
"I mean, he was drunk. He shouldn't be held responsible for being drunk to the point of incoherence."
It doesn't work like that. Even if she's awake. Even if she said "yes" and claims it was rape the next day because her decision wasn't accurate. Intoxication strips people of the right to consent due to its effects. That's it.
The first time I was intoxicated, I literally got drunk off of 1.5 shots of vodka. Was I coherent? Enough to remember what happened and control most of what I was doing, but that doesn't mean I was all there and fully functional. The floor was ripply, and I couldn't walk well without swaying, but I remember what happened. I also felt an intense tiredness and limpness, and an inability to keep my eyes open at all times. At the time, I was about 150 lbs. and I am 5'1".
I didn't know how I would react to alcohol. I didn't know I would get so drunk just from a shot and a half. I also can't tell you if I would have been able to say "no" to someone if they tried to fvck me. I can say for sure, however, that if someone wanted to rape me, they could have and I wouldn't have been able to stop them.
You don't get to choose who is drunk or not drunk enough to consent. It's not subjective. It's complicated, and the law handles the complications to its best and most basic ability as it can.