What does civil law say?from the OP:
Guest on call-in show made claim that consent can't be given when inebriated
What does civil law say?from the OP:
Guest on call-in show made claim that consent can't be given when inebriated
so it's ok for her to continue forcing her unwanted attentions on me if she's drunk
is it ok for me to continue forcing unwanted attention on her if i'm drunk?
OK by civil law?
Is it against civil law to do so?
How long have you been married?
so it's ok for her to continue forcing her unwanted attentions on me if she's drunk
is it ok for me to continue forcing unwanted attention on her if i'm drunk?
Have you had any action lately?33 years
can you answer my question?
If you're drunk, too.
If she's drunk, too.
There! Answered your questions!
Have you had any action lately?
my interest is in the legal application of consent
I guess you have your answer.according to civil law, it's not ok to do anything while drunk
I guess you have your answer.
/thread
Maybe you should pay attention to your own words.then why hold responsible drunk drivers?
or drunk rapists?
why penalize them for the choices they make while drunk?
according to civil law, it's not ok to do anything while drunk
Maybe you should pay attention to your own words.
Not by your words.apparently it's ok to deny consent
According to your words a drunk can neither consent nor deny consent. Completely neutral and not even in the game.according to civil law, it's not ok to do anything while drunk
Not by your words.
According to your words a drunk can neither consent nor deny consent. Completely neutral and not even in the game.
You might try changing your mind about your own words.
Mainly because your statement is wrong.
There are many things in which civil law is neutral concerning what drunks can do.
Is that what civil law says?apparently, it's ok to deny consent
Is that what civil law says?and apparently it's not ok to consent (unless you are consenting to denial)
Here is what civil law says:looks like you're having difficulty following along
in the case of consent while inebriated, the law (as currently written) appears to be that consent cannot be given while inebriated
denial of consent (aka consenting to refusal) is ok
my interest is in discussion the disparity
it occurred to me earlier, as i was walking across campus to get a coffee, that this is a case of the state infantilizing women, by removing from their control aspects of their sexuality, in certain conditions
If the state can remove your right to make certain specific choices (the choice to consent) while inebriated then is it just/logical/reasonable that the state holds one responsible for other choices made while inebriated (for example, driving drunk)?
Here is what civil law says:
You do not have consent to drive while drunk, ever.
Per civil law, it doesn't matter if you decide to drive while drunk; you never had consent to do so.
Civil law does not say that.and apparently, you do not have consent to have sex while drunk, ever
Civil law does not say that.Per civil law, it doesn't matter if you decide to have sex while drunk; you never had consent to do so.