What exactly does this *mean*? She wasn't binge drinking; she was on a prescription drug that probably had a multiplier effect on her drink. Does this mean any women taking medication shouldn't drink in public at all just in case?
You're getting guff for being unnecessarily judgmental in your word choice instead of clarifying your statement. Don't leave yourself vulnerable if you can take reasonable safety precautions is good advice for everyone; don't drink because men are scum is victim-blaming. Don't harm your body by ingesting toxins till you lose consciousness is great advice; telling people bad things happened to them because they earned it with their stupidity is unnecessarily harsh. Your unpopular thought wouldn't be so unpopular if you chose to phrase it in a less victim-blaming manner.
So, if they can rape an unconscious woman does that mean that they can also steal an unconscious person's purse/wallet? I mean, the unconscious person is not saying no to that.
Of course money is far more important than women's bodies.
No, my unpopular view is unpopular because it says women have to take some responsibility for their own safety. It is absolutely the rapist's fault if he chooses to rape, but if a woman is incapable of saying no OR defending herself through her own choices, she is not helping herself. Regarding all or most men as potential dangers is not a fun way to go through life, but being aware of the dangers of combining Rx meds and alcohol is not rocket science.
However, as another wonker puts it, she ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT CHANGE HER BEHAVIOR BECAUSE MEN RAPE, which is of course her choice.
Khalil is absolutely to blame in this case. He was found guilty. The poor wording of the statute is the issue here. The victim is not to blame, the MN legislature is. It must be my Republican father showing through though, because I also believe in personal responsibility in certain situations.
I know it's usually used in a snarky way, but I was just being literal when I said "I'm not a lawyer, but I know you are." Because I figured you had more information to work from than I did.
Fuck that noise. If someone shot you and you were drunk, that person could still be prosecuted for shooting you, regardless of whether your drinking was reckless or not. If you are in charge of your own behavior, surely someone who would rape an incapacitated person is in charge of theirs.
Please don't do that. It's victim-blaming and it's bullshit.
That is horrific, Robyn.
But if you were related to Khalil and didn't despise him, even if he confessed to you, you wouldn't turn him in to the police. Am I right?
What exactly does this *mean*? She wasn't binge drinking; she was on a prescription drug that probably had a multiplier effect on her drink. Does this mean any women taking medication shouldn't drink in public at all just in case?
You're getting guff for being unnecessarily judgmental in your word choice instead of clarifying your statement. Don't leave yourself vulnerable if you can take reasonable safety precautions is good advice for everyone; don't drink because men are scum is victim-blaming. Don't harm your body by ingesting toxins till you lose consciousness is great advice; telling people bad things happened to them because they earned it with their stupidity is unnecessarily harsh. Your unpopular thought wouldn't be so unpopular if you chose to phrase it in a less victim-blaming manner.
I mean, it seems to me that the law should simply be "unable to grant or deny consent for any reason". The HOW seems irrelevant to me.
Is there any way to recall these judges? If not, Minnesotans should vote them out.
So, in Minnesota, unconsciousness is now, de jure, the same thing as consent?
What the ever living Fuck?
So, if they can rape an unconscious woman does that mean that they can also steal an unconscious person's purse/wallet? I mean, the unconscious person is not saying no to that.
Of course money is far more important than women's bodies.
No, my unpopular view is unpopular because it says women have to take some responsibility for their own safety. It is absolutely the rapist's fault if he chooses to rape, but if a woman is incapable of saying no OR defending herself through her own choices, she is not helping herself. Regarding all or most men as potential dangers is not a fun way to go through life, but being aware of the dangers of combining Rx meds and alcohol is not rocket science.
However, as another wonker puts it, she ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT CHANGE HER BEHAVIOR BECAUSE MEN RAPE, which is of course her choice.
Khalil is absolutely to blame in this case. He was found guilty. The poor wording of the statute is the issue here. The victim is not to blame, the MN legislature is. It must be my Republican father showing through though, because I also believe in personal responsibility in certain situations.
Because clearly that drunken whore deserved it.</sarcasm>
Judges should have to have some basic common sense. Not so common, it seems. And a sense of decency also, too.
No.
I'll take this seriously *if* they manage to change this.
Plus: not a "knee-jerk" reaction. Right-whingers have spent decades ensuring that "the law is poorly written" in all kinds of situations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
The real demonstration of whether Minnesota or Texas qualify as "civilized", is whether they change shit like this, or not.
Just sayin'.
ok.
Obviously the Minnesota statute is crap. However, I'd prefer lawyers like Jamie or Liz to write articles about courts and crime.
I know it's usually used in a snarky way, but I was just being literal when I said "I'm not a lawyer, but I know you are." Because I figured you had more information to work from than I did.
Fuck that noise. If someone shot you and you were drunk, that person could still be prosecuted for shooting you, regardless of whether your drinking was reckless or not. If you are in charge of your own behavior, surely someone who would rape an incapacitated person is in charge of theirs.
Please don't do that. It's victim-blaming and it's bullshit.
Nobody's fucking surprised. We're angry. Don't pull that don't be surprised bullshit. You've built a strawman and you're poking at that.