What is it that you think happened in this case?

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

OK. Now what actually happened in this case?

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

I don't know for sure, and neither do you. But thanks for the Boilermaker Rick act. Keep asking until you get the proper answer.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

It's not like you can just go around dead horsing women.

Hold my beer!

It's more fun to be a victim

There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.

Except you have convinced yourself that you do know what happened.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

I don't think this ruling means what the writer appears to say it means.

It's not like you can just go around dead horsing women.

It's just that a person can't claim rape based on lack of consent due to impariment.

No still means no. It's just that yes means yes, even tomorrow if there is some regret.

come invasion

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

Because you are stupid, maybe read some books educate yourself.

We walk, talk, and won't shit our pants

I know that tucking behind your legs and saying you are fighting against the patriarchy is the only way someone that looks like you or has your ... "insights" has gotten laid but you don't have to keep up the act here. You can actually not be a castrated patriot here, and give an opinion if you are capable of it. Sorry, just disregard the rest.

As per Hennepin County prosecutors, on May 13, 2017, Khalil encountered a woman outside a Dinkytown bar who’d just consumed five shots of vodka and a prescription narcotic. Khalil invited her and a friend to a party. As per court documents, Khalil and two other men drove them to a house in Minneapolis, where there was no party. The woman, identified only by her initials “J.S.”, testified that she blacked out on the couch and later woke up to find Khalil raping her.

J.S., as per court documents, told Khalil, “No, I don’t want to.” Khalil replied, “But you’re so hot and you turn me on.” J.S. then lost consciousness again. At some point in the middle of the night, her friend, identified with the initials “S.L.” testified that she attempted to awaken J.S. so they could leave the house but that she was unable to awaken her.

At approximately 8 a.m., J.S. woke up, saw her shorts around her ankles, and immediately recalled the events of the evening. The two called for a ride and left the house. During the ride, J.S. told S.L. that she had been raped. Thereafter, J.S. reported the incident to the police. During his police interview, Khalil stated that he did not remember J.S. and never had sex with her.

the testimony of the woman in this case sounds like she was saying "no" even being as intoxicated as she was.



this woman definitely fucked herself over by doing so many shots while on prescription drugs, but according to her testimony, she was still telling the guy "no".

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

I don't think the point is the facts of this singular case. What it comes down to is, are women responsible for their behavior after they get fucked up? And if you think women and men are equal- let alone "the same"- how could it be that you are an arch criminal and attempted murderer for driving with a BAC of .08 yet a woman with the same BAC is not responsible for any decisions she makes regarding who she chooses to go to bed with?

Should it be legal to steal the purse of a woman who is passed out? It seems like the argument here is that you can't be the victim of an actual crime if you are too intoxicated to stop the crime from happening.

That's certainly one way to frame an argument.

As I said earlier, in the context of this law "incapacitated" doesn't mean "passed out". Anyway, you seem to have it backward. The question isn't whether one can be a victim while intoxicated, it's whether one has agency while intoxicated. And if not, we have a lot of laws that need to be addressed.

Should it be legal to steal the purse of a woman who is "incapacitated"? It seems like the argument here is that you can't be the victim of an actual crime if you are too "incapacitated" to stop the crime from happening.

Are you of the opinion that a woman with a BAC of .08 is incapable of consenting to sex? Because if you are, you've just accused many people- and quite possibly yourself- of rape.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

Read the statute that was addressed in this case. The scenario you describe is not a crime.

On the other hand, driving with a BAC over .08% is a crime because the statue makes driving a car with a BAC over .08% a crime.

I’ve never felt so morally superior than I have right now knowing I’ve never been drunk and most people on this board are rapists. I demand a revote in March Madness.

What is the BAC at which a woman's "yes" is rendered unacceptable?

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

Yeah Rick, that's the argument. You win.

I don't know. BAC isn't a great judge of whether or not someone is incapacitated.

Moller introduced legislation earlier this year to amend the third-degree sexual misconduct statutes to include language that says anyone who is intoxicated, for any reason, is unable to give consent.

"It makes it very clear that this issue needs to be fixed at the legislature," Lindsay Brice, the law and policy director of the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said of the state Supreme Court's Wednesday ruling.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.