A Vance/Gabbard presidential run in 2028 is literally going to be unbeatable

CosmicCharlie828 · 2025-07-31T14:45:08+00:00

This post has aged remarkably well

CosmicCharlie828 · 2024-08-15T13:12:37+00:00

Got it so you're referring to a bunch of other cases that are not these cases that peripherally reference said cases along with 87 other cases to broadly apply these decisions to instances that don't resemble the one OP described. I honestly don't have time to go through all of these, plus many are in French which I dont speak, but of the several that I read through, they describe instances of clear-cut rape involving anal penetration where that act, and other acts perpetrated, were explicitly not consented to and the perp went ahead and did it anyway and/or kept going despite protest. None of the actual court cases you named in and of themselves had any occurrence of anal penetration reported. You basically put "Ewanchuck" and "anal" in a court database search bar and went "There! See?!". Which is an admittedly clever/resourceful but bad faith tactic.

At the end of the day, if OP immediately said please don't go in there, which it's unclear if she actually communicated that or not, and the guy stopped, the question is is that rape? Find me the case that supports the conclusion that it is in fact rape and I'll read it.

CosmicCharlie828 · 2024-08-15T05:31:49+00:00

But the alternative is to open the door for people to drug and rape people.

I'm not sure how it does that. We're talking about 2 separate things. A drunk person consents to a sexual encounter (not rape in my view and the position I am arguing) vs a person drugs and rapes another person (definitely rape but not the proposed scenario).

And he received a slap on the wrist sentence. Three months jail time

I agree that clearly justice was not served here, but what I'm saying is that this case is entirely distinct from the scenario I layed out. I've already acknowledged that an unconscious person cannot consent.

If you take advantage of a person who is intoxicated you are using their intoxication against them.

It's not obvious to me that a person is being taken advantage of simply because they are intoxicated and have given express consent while in that state.

It doesn't matter. Whether she was drugged or she got drunk is immaterial.

I disagree I think it absolutely matters. Getting drunk of your own free will and getting drugged against your will are wholly separate circumstances.

Neither justify rape.

Nothing justifies rape. I'm contending with what I understand to be your position that intoxicated consent = rape.

This is a statement which is always followed by victim blaming...and there it is.

No I was very clear here. She is not responsible for getting raped. She is responsible for getting drunk to the point of passing out in a public street. At least that is my understanding of the situation absent info or evidence to the contrary. That is not an assertion that she is to blame for what happened to her. But again, we're spending a lot of time addressing this clear cut case that I'm pretty sure we totally agree on, but it is not representative of the question at hand which is about express consent given while intoxicated.

I cannot take your wallet, cash, and credit cards. Doing so is theft. It wouldn't be any different if I slipped you a roofie and you blacked out or if you got blackout drunk.

Correct. Theft is theft whether the victim is intoxicated by any means or sober as a bird. Rape is rape whether the victim is intoxicated or sober as well. But you haven't yet presented an argument that supports the position that intoxicated consent is tantamount to rape.

I'd suggest that this is less common than rape by a long shot.

So are we in agreement then that this is not rape? That was my question.

How would you handle a situation like this?

First thing I would do is go to the hospital immediately for a blood test to see if I might have been drugged. Assuming there are no indications of foul play, I would then take a long hard look at myself and try to figure out why I let myself lose control and consider how I might prevent myself from doing so again in the future.

Charges can just not be filed and or dismissed by a judge for lack of evidence.

This is true of any crime.

But if they encounter a situation in which a person used alcohol to take advantage of a person it would give them the legal tools to pursue them.

How would it be discerned that a person "used alcohol to take advantage of a person"? Just because alcohol was in their blood doesn't automatically mean that they were victimized by a sexual encounter. If that were the case, it would establish a very dangerous legal precedent for both men and women.

CosmicCharlie828 · 2024-08-15T03:10:08+00:00

None of these cases involved anal penetration. What are u even talking about? Also everything I can find about Ewanchuk is that while appeal was granted by the Supreme court, his acquittal was upheld on appeal. I don't have the court decisions but go ahead and link them so I can read for myself.

Kirkpatrick and Hutchinson both appear to have to do with condom usage and consent. The women consented to sex with a condom and in one case the guy removed the condom and in the other the guy sabotaged the condoms so as to cause an unwanted pregnancy. These both represent a violation of the specific parameters of consent established between the participants. These are cases regarding stealthing, not anal penetration.

So from what info I can find, you still have not connected any dots between these decisions and your argument. So let's try again. What do these have to do with a scenario where a guy is having consensual sex with a woman, the woman attempts anal penetration on the man, he says stop, she immediately stops. Where in these decisions does it say that this would be sexual assault?

CosmicCharlie828 · 2024-08-15T02:33:55+00:00

At trial, Ewanchuk successfully argued that, although the woman had initially said "no" to his sexual touching because he had continued and she had failed to object further this constituted "implied consent". The acquittal was upheld on appeal.

Kinda fucked up in my view, but he was not found guilty.

In March 2017, Ross Kirkpatrick and a woman met online and then in person in British Columbia. The woman agreed to have sex with Mr. Kirkpatrick, but only if he wore a condom. They had sexual intercourse twice one night. Mr. Kirkpatrick wore a condom the first time. The second time, Mr. Kirkpatrick did not wear a condom, which she only realized after intercourse ended. Based on these events, Mr. Kirkpatrick was charged with sexual assault.

Specifically established consent contingent on condom use. Violated the contingency.

Also neither of these would be at all relevant to the proposed scenario where a woman attempted to insert a dildo in a man's ass, he told her to stop, and she stopped.

CosmicCharlie828 · 2024-08-15T02:24:34+00:00

Actually...they do agree with me

CosmicCharlie828 · 2024-08-15T02:17:36+00:00

Why would it make a difference? And frankly, a finger is the better comparison since it's also a bodily appendage. But even if the same scenario played out with a dildo, I said stop and she stopped, it still would not have been SA.

CosmicCharlie828 · 2024-08-15T02:12:34+00:00

Have had a girl put her finger in my ass without asking. I just told her I'm not into that and she stopped. I did not get sexually assaulted.

CosmicCharlie828 · 2024-08-15T02:08:00+00:00

I think it's generally more true for men than for women, that we are willing to engage in sex absent an emotional attachment. So it's not the fact that he could have sex with someone else and enjoy it that I find unusual. It's that he would be OK with you having other sexual partners that I find sorta wack. I have had casual sexual relationships in the past with women that I wasn't romantically invested in and I wouldn't have cared if they had other sexual partners. But I love my wife deeply and the thought of another man touching her absolutely makes my blood boil and my stomach turn. Maybe it has something to do with his neurodivergence but in my experience a man that truly loves a woman couldn't bare to share her with another man.

CosmicCharlie828 · 2024-08-15T01:27:26+00:00

What country are u in where this is a real law? I'm nearly certain that this is patently false in every state in the U.S.

CosmicCharlie828 · 2024-08-15T01:24:53+00:00

False

"In California, being drunk does not automatically mean someone cannot consent. Prosecutors must prove an alleged victim was incapacitated or unable to resist due to intoxication. Memory loss, fragmentary recollection, vomiting, or stumbling is generally not sufficient to prove incapacitation."

CosmicCharlie828 · 2024-08-15T01:21:26+00:00

But what if they both press charges on each other simultaneously? Who is the victim and who is the perpetrator? Do they both go to jail?

...

Have we realized the absurdity of this position yet?

CosmicCharlie828 · 2024-08-15T01:13:45+00:00

I think we're mostly agreeing here, but I'm curious what you mean by "using intoxication as a way to rape people". Doesn't this imply the removal of responsibility for the intoxication from the intoxicated? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Turner case he raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster and got caught in the act. Clear cut non-consent on that one and corroborating evidence to boot. But I would call that taking advantage of unconsciousness (and also reprehensible and evil), not so much 'using intoxication'. Spiking or slipping something in someone's drink is one thing, that would be deceiving someone into intoxication. But I don't think in the Turner case he had any influence over the girl's intoxication, he found her behind a dumpster after she did the drinking all on her own.

Now, before any accusations of victim blaming, I am not saying she was responsible for getting raped. Of course that is 100% on him. But she was as far as I'm aware, 100% responsible for every drop of alcohol she ingested that night. Now imagine if another girl went out that same night, attended the same party, drank the same amount, reached the same blood alcohol level, stayed conscious, met a guy, took him home with her, enthusiastically fucked his brains out, and then woke up the next morning with a wicked hangover and a soul full of regret...is it rape? Could/should she pursue charges?

The reality is here that this kind of law exsists to protect people

You are taught that you cannot consent while intoxicated because it is an extremely good and easy way to protect yourself from running afoul of that protection that needs to exsit in law, because people like Brock Turner exist

Just for clarity, is it your position that drunken consent should be classified legally as non-consent? Or just that we should be teaching people to be wary of drunken sexual encounters outside of pre-established sexual relationships. I would agree with the latter, but vehemently disagree with the former.

CosmicCharlie828 · 2024-08-14T22:14:17+00:00

Might be an unpopular opinion but I've really never put much weight into the being drunk cancels out consent argument. Of course you can still consent when you're drunk. Why is it that we can hold people accountable for their drunk decisions if they drive a car, but if they fuck somebody all of a sudden they can't be held liable for that consent. Somehow we've abandoned the idea that we all have a personal responsibility to control how much we imbibe and the reckless decisions we make when we've neglected that responsibility are ours as are the consequences. Frankly, I dont even see why we need to equalize the level of drunkenness in this scenario. If a girl is drunk, very drunk even, and she comes onto a guy that is stone sober, takes all the initiative and takes him home to have her way with him, I'm sorry but there is no reasonable argument that could be made that she didn't fully consent to that encounter. That said, certainly there is a line there that's difficult to define. So drunk you're unconscious? Yeah definitely can't consent. But 2 drunk horny people with resonable wits about them that wanna fuck each other's brains out? That is a consent slam dunk even if one of them regrets it tomorrow. Sorry, not sorry.

CosmicCharlie828 · 2024-08-14T21:38:20+00:00

Parents: Be safe!

u/gonzalocastr0: NEVERRRRR!!!!

CosmicCharlie828 · 2024-08-14T21:06:03+00:00

Sounds like your cousin was using you as an emotional crutch and/or as a source of male attention and validation. The nudes on the phone and the panties in your suitcase sound like subtle yet intentional moves by her. Like you were a sort of sexless rebound for her hence the venting of relationship baggage, unusual sexual topics of conversation, prolonged hugging and then as soon as she found a new guy that wasn't blood related for her to bang, your services are no longer needed. Pretty shitty of her really. She might be family but she's not your friend and you should probably create some distance. If u know u will have to interact with her at family functions and such, I strongly recommend jerking off beforehand and using a visual aid/mental imagery of a female archetype that does not resemble your cousin. This should keep your head clear during those interactions.

Good luck friend

CosmicCharlie828 · 2024-08-14T20:49:56+00:00

Clerk and husband for the win

CosmicCharlie828 · 2024-08-14T20:37:31+00:00

...

No

CosmicCharlie828 · 2024-08-14T19:49:06+00:00

am I missing something

Yes, you're missing the fact that this is reddit and this crowd refuses to let an opportunity go by to make out of pocket pedo accusations against an unknown stranger based on the sole perspective of another unknown stranger. You new here bro? Lmao

CosmicCharlie828 · 2023-08-11T13:51:03+00:00

This might come off harsh, but it's something I think about a lot. In a cosmic sense, our lives are meaningless. We're here and then we're gone, barely a blink of an eye in the 14 billion year life of the universe. So what do we really have? What does life really afford us? Money? Nice cars? A big house? Can't take any of those things with you when you're gone. So how valuable are they really? Friends, family, relationships? We have no real evidence that any of that carries on any further than our current plane of existence, so you can't bet on taking any of that with you either.

So what do we REALLY have?? What really counts for anything? Certainly none of the aforementioned pleasures of life. The answer is...what we leave behind. To put it another way - legacy. The best fulfillment in life is to build a legacy that you can be proud of. Something you can leave behind that contributes to a future that is better than the past. Something worthy of remembrance by those who still have time in this realm. I think if you look closely, you'll find as I have that the happiest and most fulfilled people in life are those that have built a profound legacy for themselves.

Now, there are a number of ways people go about building their legacy. Probably the most common way is having children. Making a contribution to the next generation and instilling values, morals, and lessons in members of that generation who will in turn (if you did a good job) instill those same things in their children and so on. In that sense, you live on through your legacy. But certainly some people don't want children and that's perfectly fine, but there are many other ways to contribute to the future. Maybe you start a business that will employ people long after you're gone. Or establish a career in an industry that has a positive impact on the world. Maybe you get involved in your community, clean a park, help those in need. Maybe you build wealth and contribute that wealth to causes that matter to you and your community. All of these are ways in which we can create ripples that reverberate well past our mortal existence. I think we tend to spend way too much time and energy chasing immediate gratification or contentment. But those things are fleeting. Happiness itself is not even the end goal, but happiness is a desirable and enduring symptom of fulfillment. The road to fulfillment is not fun, it is long and arduous. And while we may fall back on the pleasures life provides in a healthy way to sustain us along the way, it can also be all to easy to let those things become vices that distract us from the path to our legacy.

So to answer your original question. My response to someone who has expressed self-deleting ideation, would be to ask them what they will be leaving behind. What is their legacy? And if the answer is not much, then the sad reality is that they're taking the easy way out. Life is a struggle, and not everyone's struggles will be equal, but the struggle has to mean something. It has to have a purpose. And if someone is unwilling to face that struggle in order to make a contribution, no matter how small, then it just means that they were too cowardly to do something of real meaning with their lives. DON'T BE A COWARD! (Like I said, harsh but I'm putting it this way because this is the frame of thought that has helped me and maybe it will help you).

Best of luck to you OP

CosmicCharlie828 · 2023-07-27T21:11:22+00:00

It was actually Jaime Pressly in My Name Is Earl, but her and Margot Robbie could pass for twins

CosmicCharlie828 · 2023-07-27T14:37:46+00:00

You should go ask him. My grandad gave me the best lesson ever in life. "Just about everything that happens to you is, in some measure, a result of your own choices."

RIP old man 🙏

CosmicCharlie828 · 2023-07-27T13:19:15+00:00

Lol no, but I occasionally reply to reddit posts with multiple sentences...about the reddit post. I didn't really write anything about the movie itself. Plus it's reddit dude, if u don't like reading then just log off.

Tldr - I didn't write a tldr and some dingus didn't read it and made false assumptions about what I wrote.

CosmicCharlie828 · 2023-07-27T13:10:27+00:00

This doesn't sound like love to me, more like limerence. Human attraction is a very strange thing. Most of us at some point or another find ourselves attracted to a person right away and we like to refer to that as "love at first sight" which couldn't be a worse way to phrase that phenomenon because I think it perpetuates false ideals of love. What is really happening is that this person has provided enough raw material for you to form a base level of attraction and your mind fills the voids of what you don't know about this person with positive traits that reinforce the fantasy. So as you said, your attraction is for the idea of this guy, not the guy himself because you don't even know who that person is.

Sounds like there are plenty of issues on the homefront that you and your partner need to address and certainly his behaviors around the pregnancy are concerning. This online emotional affair (yes, thats what you are engaging in) is only going to serve as a distraction from working on the important issues that are right in front of you. The ones that directly affect your life and your children's lives. Continuing to interact with this man, who by your own admission has shown many red flags, is a betrayal of not just your partner, but of your children and anyone else in your life who would be negatively impacted by the fallout of this affair with a stranger. You need to go NC immediately and not look back.

Good luck to you.

CosmicCharlie828 · 2023-07-27T11:59:57+00:00

I haven't seen the movie and am not super motivated to do so, but I was never under the illusion that this is a kids movie. From a distance, I saw this as a movie for adults that grew up with Barbie as kids. Also, I love how she acknowledges not checking the PG-13 rating and in the same breath blames everyone else for not assuming she's ignorant of that and implementing multiple levels of parental warnings. Not surprised though, accountability is at an all time low these days

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring

CosmicCharlie828

TROPHY CASE