On Consent

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
If you're drunk, too.



If she's drunk, too.

There! Answered your questions!

:)


thank you :)



obviously, none of this applies to a Christian marriage


my interest in consent has to do with the inevitable next wave of social acceptance of perversion, which i suspect will focus on pedophilia
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Have you had any action lately?

i was tarping the boathouse roof in the dark last night to cover some fresh shingles in anticipation of the rain we got overnite

that was pretty action filled



and i was inebriated! :banana:


but i dint consent to having sex up there :noid:
 
Last edited:

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
apparently it's ok to deny consent
Not by your words.

according to civil law, it's not ok to do anything while drunk
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.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
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.

apparently, it's ok to deny consent

and apparently it's not ok to consent (unless you are consenting to denial)
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
apparently



if only we had someone here who could pretend to be an expert on the law :chuckle:
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
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.

and apparently, you do not have consent to have sex while drunk, ever

Per civil law, it doesn't matter if you decide to have sex while drunk; you never had consent to do so.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
which means that all those times I had sex with my wife while i was drunk, she was raping me :chuckle:
 
Top