What's next for Metoo#

I don’t think it’s that far off topic because I think I might see where you’re getting.

And in this case...no...he isn’t guilty because he didn’t really do anything wrong outside of driving a car he that he wasn’t covered on the insurance for.

Now...if a drunk woman consents to sex with a sober man...and then wakes up and decides she was raped or otherwise taken advantage of it’s a different story. Because we aren’t talking about a car...a lifeless object...we are talking about a living person.

I apologize in advance if that wasn’t where you were going with it, that’s just what popped in my head.

 

^ Actually that helped me to better understand the great wazoo's comment.

 

I don't understand your logic here BWW. A living person gave permission. The car didn't give permission.

 

The car can’t deny permission either. It’s a car.

The sober person in scenario A took advantage of a drunk person and drove their car. Provided he didn’t crash or hit anything...it’s a victimless crime. If it’s even a crime...which I don’t believe it is.

In scenario B a sober man takes advantage of an obviously drunk woman. You don’t think that’s different?

Now, do I think the woman is blameless? No. She made the decision to get drunk. I’m not even sure the man committed a crime in this instance because it’s technically not rape. But he should be smarter.

There’s a huge difference between the two though. That should be clear.

 

A victimless crime? Stealing a car is victimless? My point is, personal responsibility which appears to not be needed when speaking of certain scenarios. One person wakes up with a stolen car and feels violated. Another wakes up feeling violated.

 

But if a drunk person wants to have sex when they are drunk but doesn't remember what is it then? People can act totally different when they are drunk. There are a lot of things people will do when they are drunk that they wouldn't do when they were sober.

 

In your scenario the car wasn’t stolen...it was borrowed. By a drunk person that couldn’t remember.

I get your point. But borrowing your neighbors car is a lot different than using her vagina. Just my opinion.

 

The person doing the drinking has to be more responsible and has to assume responsibility after the fact for their actions.

The sober guy taking advantage of the drunk woman should be smarter though.

 

no. you may not remember him asking permission, but how did he get your car keys or access to your car ? and if he returned the car - he didn't steal it ?

 

Or ... because you're drunk and don't remember giving permission does that negate the permission given? How does your neighbour prove that you gave him permission? Unless you recorded the conversation or wrote it down he can't.

 

Then how did he get the keys or car code to open the door?? did he steal those too ? rationale or common sense has to come into this at some point. and he if returns the car unharmed, wouldn't his side of the story MAKE SENSE of him borrowing the car after asking permission for it first ??

 

He stole the keys and was pulled over by police while out running errands.

 

Your original premise started with you being drunk and giving him he keys.

 

You mean common sense like showing up to a man's hotel room at 2am and not expecting anything to happen? That kind of common sense?

 

Good points Cat. I didn't think about the angle ... he obviously either stole the keys or they were given to him. I'm not sure if wazoo said that the car was returned or not ...

 

If you don't know you gave him the keys. You assume he stole them? no?

 

Assumption isn’t reality, is it?

 

You were drunk... You don't remember... All you know is your door was unlocked and your car was gone. There are many ways he could have the keys.

 

How about common sense like believing a car is the same as a vagina?

 

Probably time to cut down on the drinking.