Thread: Rayong: Female German tourist alleges Xmas night rape

Originally Posted by thegent

her dripping pudenda

that'll be the pus after picking the scabs - steer clear next time

Originally Posted by nidhogg

a drunk woman, by definition - CANNOT consent to sex.

is a drunk man allowed to consent to sex ?

Originally Posted by baldrick

Originally Posted by nidhogg

a drunk woman, by definition - CANNOT consent to sex.

is a drunk man allowed to consent to sex ?

Put it this way, if he claimed rape afterwards, he would have a case for it.

The whole point is, "consent" requires a clear and lucid mind. Drunks don't have that (by definition).

Look, this does not affect me in the slightest. I don't shag around nowadays so its all academic to me, I am merely pointing out that, if someone shags a girl who is clearly blotto - even if she says yes then - you CAN be in the shite if she turns round and says "I did not agree to that" afterwards.

The woman in the case MAY have begged the guy to do her hard and fast while blotto (personally, I would go with the something in the drink theory, but that is a different matter) - but look - that does NOT get him off the hook. At the least he is in for some serious questioning, and at the most he wil be in for some jail time.

Shag extremely drunk girls at your peril. Thats all i am saying.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Originally Posted by Looper

Rape is forcing a girl to have sex against her will.

It is not a girl getting drunk, not remembering anything, being told she had sex and then getting annoyed about it.

It is a gross insult to real victims of traumatic rape like the Indian girl who is in hospital in Singapore for this drunk to try and blur the lines between hangover regret and rape.

If the complainant cannot even recall what happened and is relying on the account of the accused which was offered to her by him without duress how can they even bring a charge? I honestly cannot understand the legal process by which that would be possible.

You, and a great many other people (socal, pay attention) need to get a grip on what is a simple fact of life nowadays - a drunk woman, by definition - CANNOT consent to sex.

If a woman you do not know, or are not in a relationship with is so drunk that you think she will not remember anything the next day - don't fuck her. It is quite simple - if you do, it will be a matter of sheer luck that one day you are not hauled up on the same charge.

The notion that a woman needs to show bruises or external physical trauma to have been raped is simple bullshit.

Bluntly, consent needs to be explicit, it is never implicit.

I am not sure what the law says exactly and I am not sure what jurisdiction you are talking about.

There are a few problems is I see it with this concept.

You are suggesting that in the absence of explicit consent sex is rape?

How do you define explicit consent?

I have never in my life asked a girl if it is OK if we have sex now. It just happens and you take her lack of verbal or physical resistance as consent.

I would go along with the idea that if a girl expresses explicit lack of consent then sex is rape but if explicit consent is also required then the definition of consent needs to be made made very clear in legal terms.

Basically I don't think the idea of explicit consent being required is a very realistic idea given that girls are often coy and reluctant to talk about sex even if they want it to happen.

Therefor if a woman and a man are both drunk and they have sex, she can complain --she goes home and he goes to jail
It just shows what a screwed up world we are in--what ever happened to equality-both parties are equally responsible and equally to blame

Originally Posted by ChrisM

I was the kunt they complained about. The misogynist who didn't give a shit about them or their feelings. I shagged most of them. Although they became emotionally attached to me, they knew I wasn't long-term relationship material. That suited me. That still suits me.

Guys who feel compelled to boast about their sexual prowess/escapades on an anonymous Internet forum are invariably overweight virgins who still live with their parents.

You know, the type of social misfit that posts dumb misogynistic bollocks on forums because they're too scared and impotent to stand up to their overbearing and domineering mothers - the root source of their inability to have a relationship with an actual, real-life, woman. Repressed little man-children who still can't think of anything more 'witty' than calling others "gay".

Originally Posted by Looper

Basically I don't think the idea of explicit consent being required is a very realistic idea given that girls are often coy and reluctant to talk about sex even if they want it to happen.

Interpret it any way you want - its your freedom - not mine - that is at stake.

I merely suggest that you be very, very sure when shagging a drunk girl that she will be ok with it in the morning.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Guys who feel compelled to boast about their sexual prowess/escapades on an anonymous Internet forum are invariably overweight virgins who still live with their parents.

does that include shagging sheep ? and a whole flock at a time too !

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Repressed little man-children who still can't think of anything more 'witty' than calling others "gay".

Originally Posted by thegent

from the lower end or members of the former subject nations.

genticles is slagging off kiwis again - his equivalent of calling youse cnuts "gay"

genticles is forever calling others gay. Apparently the online thesaurus that he uses to generate his posts lets him down on that one.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by ChrisM

I was the kunt they complained about. The misogynist who didn't give a shit about them or their feelings. I shagged most of them. Although they became emotionally attached to me, they knew I wasn't long-term relationship material. That suited me. That still suits me.

Guys who feel compelled to boast about their sexual prowess/escapades on an anonymous Internet forum are invariably overweight virgins who still live with their parents.

You know, the type of social misfit that posts dumb misogynistic bollocks on forums because they're too scared and impotent to stand up to their overbearing and domineering mothers - the root source of their inability to have a relationship with an actual, real-life, woman. Repressed little man-children who still can't think of anything more 'witty' than calling others "gay".

Throw as many insults as you want but at the end of the day you still have ginger hair. A physical deformity that has prevented you from ever being normal and enjoying life like everyone else.

"Red hair was thought to be a mark of a beastly sexual desire and moral degeneration."

Source: Red hair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I rest my case.

And guys who simply repeat something as 'fact' on an Internet forum that some other moron(s) posted are idiots. Double-idiots, technically.

So you clearly lack wit and charm, no wonder you need to try to big yourself up with unsolicited fantasists of sexual escapades!

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Originally Posted by Looper

Basically I don't think the idea of explicit consent being required is a very realistic idea given that girls are often coy and reluctant to talk about sex even if they want it to happen.

Interpret it any way you want - its your freedom - not mine - that is at stake.

I merely suggest that you be very, very sure when shagging a drunk girl that she will be ok with it in the morning.

I agree that having sex with a literally comatose female is pretty revolting and should be a crime even if she got herself in that state voluntarily. I think it is a crime because she is physically incapable of communicating her non-consent. However it would be a difficult crime to prosecute without 3rd party evidence.

However, I cannot see how a law requiring explicit consent could be applied. The vast majority of acts of sexual intercourse do not involve a discussion beforehand so no consent is given and that is not going to change.

It sounds as if this law (if it exists) is aimed only at severely drunk but non-comatose females? But how drunk do they have to be before the law becomes enforceable and how do you define explicit consent?

Originally Posted by Koojo

Originally Posted by ChrisM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by ChrisM

I was the kunt they complained about. The misogynist who didn't give a shit about them or their feelings. I shagged most of them. Although they became emotionally attached to me, they knew I wasn't long-term relationship material. That suited me. That still suits me.

Guys who feel compelled to boast about their sexual prowess/escapades on an anonymous Internet forum are invariably overweight virgins who still live with their parents.

You know, the type of social misfit that posts dumb misogynistic bollocks on forums because they're too scared and impotent to stand up to their overbearing and domineering mothers - the root source of their inability to have a relationship with an actual, real-life, woman. Repressed little man-children who still can't think of anything more 'witty' than calling others "gay".

Throw as many insults as you want but at the end of the day you still have ginger hair. A physical deformity that has prevented you from ever being normal and enjoying life like everyone else.

"Red hair was thought to be a mark of a beastly sexual desire and moral degeneration."

Source: Red hair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I rest my case.

And a sad case it is.
Fancy a grown man insulting another grown man on the basis of his hair colour?
or are you a 12 year old pretending to be a grownup? Because how you come across.

Sometimes it feels like I'm back on Thaivisa.... but I'm not, so fok off.

A womans word, surely you know they never lie.

Many farang women seem to think that it's fine to dress in skimpy clothing and garner zero reaction from the local men. If only they knew what these men thought of them and wanted to do to them.

This woman clearly can't have it both ways. Gets drunk with him, fucks him then cries rape when she wakes up in some ramshackle shack

If she awoke in a penthouse overlooking the sea she'd call it a 'result'

Originally Posted by Sailing into trouble

Originally Posted by socal

Originally Posted by Sailing into trouble

Originally Posted by socal

Bullshit

She volenteered to drink the vodka. In date rape cases, they don't knowingly drink the date rape drug. (Ghb

7094 posts of drivel.

You certainly chose a stupid post to level that personal attack.

I made a factual point. SHE VOLENTEERED TO DRINK THE VODKA. HE WAS NOT FORCING IT IN HER LIKE DATE RAPERS DO WITH GHB.

POINT BEING, THIS IS NOT VIOLENT RAPE OR EVEN DATE RAPE

For the first time on this forum I agree with your first statement! I did choose a "stupid post" to attack the quality of your utterances on this forum. I also agree that victims of rape do not "knowingly" drink GHB.

Point being,

I wonder if it could be that she was unaware that the "vodka" she consumed would render her unconscious and that she would be raped?

Sorry if you thought my post was a personal attack. I was was merely stating that I think your 7094 posts where drivel. Opps Sorry 7124!

You see that case in India where the girl got gang raped and died of her ingeries this morning ?

That is rape.

Not this hippie kraut bullshit

do you mean died of her lingeries socal....strangled with her underwear perhaps?The reality is a woman can say mount up and give it to me hard and fast,and at anytime say STOP and if you dont...thats rape.

Originally Posted by shadow role

do you mean died of her lingeries socal....strangled with her underwear perhaps?The reality is a woman can say mount up and give it to me hard and fast,and at anytime say STOP and if you dont...thats rape.

I didn't see anything in her testimony about saying STOP.

Did you ?

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Originally Posted by Looper

Basically I don't think the idea of explicit consent being required is a very realistic idea given that girls are often coy and reluctant to talk about sex even if they want it to happen.

Interpret it any way you want - its your freedom - not mine - that is at stake.

I merely suggest that you be very, very sure when shagging a drunk girl that she will be ok with it in the morning.

I agree that having sex with a literally comatose female is pretty revolting and should be a crime even if she got herself in that state voluntarily. I think it is a crime because she is physically incapable of communicating her non-consent. However it would be a difficult crime to prosecute without 3rd party evidence.

However, I cannot see how a law requiring explicit consent could be applied. The vast majority of acts of sexual intercourse do not involve a discussion beforehand so no consent is given and that is not going to change.

It sounds as if this law (if it exists) is aimed only at severely drunk but non-comatose females? But how drunk do they have to be before the law becomes enforceable and how do you define explicit consent?

It sounds like he is saying we need to breath test and have consent forms signed and witnessed by an atturney before we can commence with penetration. By government decree...

Originally Posted by ChrisM

I rest my case.

You have to have a case to rest it, infantile attacks have nothing to do with the issue of rape, consent and your fantasy land dreams of all women wanting to have sex with you.

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Originally Posted by ChrisM

I rest my case.

You have to have a case to rest it, infantile attacks have nothing to do with the issue of rape, consent and your fantasy land dreams of all women wanting to have sex with you.

People who don't address the argument have clearly lost the argument.

Originally Posted by ChrisM

People who don't address the argument have clearly lost the argument.

People who trot out such hoary, trite, dribble when they never had an argument in the first place are just plain dumb.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by ChrisM

People who don't address the argument have clearly lost the argument.

People who trot out such hoary, trite, dribble when they never had an argument in the first place are just plain dumb.

People who resort to insults usually have rarely used small penises with red pubes.

Ahh, so your entire 'argument' is that someone you've never met is a ginga with a small penis... You'll be calling me "gay" next too, I expect.

All things considered calling you dumb isn't an insult, it's a perfectly apt description.