Double standards among sexes

[Lindz928]

Originally posted by kddani
This is misinformation. You're only not responsible for your actions when you are INvoluntarily intoxicated- i.e. if someone drugged you without your knowledge. Voluntary intoxication may be used as a defense only for specific intent crimes, a category of which does NOT include any sexually related crimes.

Thanks for clarifying. I thought that sounded a tiny bit strange.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by kddani
This is misinformation. You're only not responsible for your actions when you are INvoluntarily intoxicated- i.e. if someone drugged you without your knowledge. Voluntary intoxication may be used as a defense only for specific intent crimes, a category of which does NOT include any sexually related crimes.

I'm pretty sure that you misinterpreted his point - he's not talking about using intoxication as a defense.

I think he's actually referring to the inability of a person to give legal consent while intoxicated, which I believe has been the precedent nationwide for some years now - especially with regard to sexual crimes. Generally, I'd guess that this is separate from your use of the phrase 'not responsible for your actions' but YMMV.

ETA: It's also important to note that this standard is NOT explicitly only for women, as it also applies to men - although I'm not aware of many (or any) cases where it's been invoked.

[kddani]

Originally posted by KSig RC
I'm pretty sure that you misinterpreted his point - he's not talking about using intoxication as a defense.

I think he's actually referring to the inability of a person to give legal consent while intoxicated, which I believe has been the precedent nationwide for some years now - especially with regard to sexual crimes. Generally, I'd guess that this is separate from your use of the phrase 'not responsible for your actions' but YMMV.

ETA: It's also important to note that this standard is NOT explicitly only for women, as it also applies to men - although I'm not aware of many (or any) cases where it's been invoked.

*shrugs* His post was very cloudy, I got from it what I did, especially in line with his other posts in this thread. It's a grey area, but as always folks, remember that NO means NO, no matter if drunk or sober.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by kddani
*shrugs* His post was very cloudy, I got from it what I did, especially in line with his other posts in this thread. It's a grey area, but as always folks, remember that NO means NO, no matter if drunk or sober.

Yeah, word, no worries - he very well may have meant what you responded to, but the other way makes more 'sense' (not that that has much to do with it).

Regardless, it's important to remember the "no" rules:

1 - No means No.
2 - Everything/anything means No, if the person is not able to actually say yes (as in, drunk/passed out/drugged/hypotized/under duress/mute and you can't read ASL but it's "probably yes, amirite?").

These could also be shortened to "don't be stupid."

[AOII_LB93]

Regardless of whether or not their age difference is not that big, she had sex with a child. Should it matter that he was a he and she was a she? As a teacher she is bound by law to report sexual abuse, not cause it herself.

Would it have been any different had it been a 14 year old girl and a 26 yo man even if the girl wanted to do it as some people have implied about the boy? People would be saying "he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law" if it was a man.

The point of the matter is that she should be in jail. House arrest is a bit mild for her...and using that "she is too pretty" to go to jail as her attorney did was LAME.

[PiKA2001]

Originally posted by AOII_LB93
Regardless of whether or not their age difference is not that big, she had sex with a child. Should it matter that he was a he and she was a she? As a teacher she is bound by law to report sexual abuse, not cause it herself.

Would it have been any different had it been a 14 year old girl and a 26 yo man even if the girl wanted to do it as some people have implied about the boy? People would be saying "he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law" if it was a man.

The point of the matter is that she should be in jail. House arrest is a bit mild for her...and using that "she is too pretty" to go to jail as her attorney did was LAME.

This pretty much sums it up perfect.