'Jane Doe' Solidarity posts

9

u/_-4twenty-_ 9h ago

According to New York State law, if someone is voluntarily drunk, it’s okay to rape them.

I bet a lawyer from Cornell penned that paragraph.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/EDN/6441

5

u/shadystealertactics 6h ago

Here we have the bus driver from Billy Madison.

The law says- Well it might as well say- Well can you imagine if it did?

3

u/MischiefAforethought 5h ago

The fact that even hours after being called out, you still haven't taken this lie down or even edited it, tells us exactly who and what you are.

7

u/skate1243 9h ago

umm that’s not what the law says and you know it

-1

u/_-4twenty-_ 9h ago

Ummm

It might as well say it.

Inebriated people cannot consent. They are incapable of giving consent.

Except for in New York.

If you’re inebriated and someone rapes you, good luck proving it wasn’t consensual.

10

u/skate1243 9h ago

That’s not even close to true.

Under NY law, if you drink and someone rapes you, it is still rape.

Under NY law, if you drink to the point of passing out or becoming physically incapacitated, and someone has sex with you, it is still rape.

The only distinction is that if you voluntarily consume and remain conscious and aware and consent to sex, you cannot claim that you couldn’t consent due to your impaired state.

To argue that this is an unjust law would be to argue that anyone who has sex with a drunk person is a rapist. Do you believe this to be true? People have drunk sex all the time… if 2 people are drunk, are they both rapists? Or perhaps, are you a misogynist who thinks men are more capable than women in making decisions?

The reason this is the law is that 1. if you voluntarily consume a substance and commit a crime, you are responsible for your actions, and 2. if you voluntarily consume AND consent to sex, you can’t change your mind about the consent after the fact

2

u/Aladriana 7h ago

Which is wrong of the law. You can remove consent at any time for any reason.

6

u/MischiefAforethought 7h ago

No one is suggesting and no law states you cannot withdraw consent, don't be ridiculous. Just read the statute.

0

u/Aladriana 7h ago

Many people say at though. They make up a "point of no return" or some other nonsense to justify not stopping.

3

u/DepthOk166 5h ago

Those people are idiots. A woman can agree to a gangbang with 8 men. If a 9th one walks in and says can I join in and she says no but he goes ahead and has sex with her it's rape.

3

u/MischiefAforethought 7h ago

I mean, I guess you can find people lurking in dark corners of the internet with any kind of braindead/ridiculous/evil take, but outside of edgy teens and incels on twitter, no serious person, much less any legislator or attorney who might have some input on the law, is saying anything like that.

0

u/Aladriana 4h ago

Politicians have said some pretty stupid things about rape. Like "If it's legitimate rape, women has a way to shut these things down" (taking specifically about rape and unwanted pregnancy) was said this century with no hint of humor.

1

u/MischiefAforethought 2h ago

Oof. Big oof. That was Todd Akin, my home state's former pos US Rep. Ignorant, evil, inexcusable. But, here's the thing. After he said that (in 2012) his senate campaign plummetted; he went from a very comfortable lead to losing 39-53% to Claire McCaskill (the best MO senator of the last 50 years). His comments were so toxic they dragged down other candidates associated with him and anyone who defended or excused them.

I hope and believe things have/are getting better between the genders, these wedge culture wars/midterms stories notwithstanding. Politicians whose name isn't Trump can't say ridiculous/evil stuff like that and survive it most places. Are there shitty men/women with terrible opinions/positions? Of course. Are they being held to account for them more than they were 5, 10, 20 years ago? I think so. I guess we'll know more in a month or so.

6

u/skate1243 7h ago

You can remove consent at any time during sex. This is 100% in line with the law. You cannot remove consent after the fact… meaning the next day, for example

-1

u/Aladriana 7h ago

And no one is doing that.

6

u/skate1243 7h ago

We’re only talking about the law and how it’s written / why it’s written the way it is. Law’s need to be precise and applied equally. For a crime as serious as rape, it’s important to define what qualifies as rape, which NY state law does.

1

u/Strange-Term-4168 4h ago

Not wrong. The law says that. Why do you make things up?

3

u/Discussion-is-good 7h ago

To argue that this is an unjust law would be to argue that anyone who has sex with a drunk person is a rapist. Do you believe this to be true? People have drunk sex all the time… if 2 people are drunk, are they both rapists? Or

Technically, yes.

People usually agree to have drunk sex before being drunk.

Or perhaps, are you a misogynist who thinks men are more capable than women in making decisions?

WILD reach.

. if you voluntarily consume AND consent to sex, you can’t change your mind about the consent after the fact

Which makes any rape where someone is intoxicated harder to prosecute as the perp can just claim there was consent.

Just like the person youre responding to said.

5

u/DepthOk166 5h ago

What world do you live in? I have known lots of people that got drunk and then had sex.

-1

u/Discussion-is-good 5h ago

This one.

Drunken consent is always questionable at best.

6

u/DepthOk166 5h ago

If we start throwing people in prison that give consent when they are drunk we are going to have to build a lot more prisons, for men and women.

0

u/Discussion-is-good 5h ago

I mean youre not wrong, but there's a reason most of those dont turn into an allegation.

If it becomes one, it stands to reason something crossed some line at some point.

4

u/DepthOk166 5h ago

It could just as easily be that someone regretted their actions. A study I read on why women make false rape allegations said the top three reasons were-

1)To avoid responsibility

2)To get sympathy

3)to get revenge

2

u/shadystealertactics 6h ago

They could claim there was consent if the victim was sober too. That's why we have investigations and trials.

2

u/Discussion-is-good 6h ago

Any testimony would be taken less seriously due to the presence of intoxication.

8

u/DweebLSD 9h ago

“d. Consent cannot be given when a person is incapacitated, which
occurs when an individual lacks the ability to knowingly choose to
participate in sexual activity. Incapacitation may be caused by the lack
of consciousness or being asleep, being involuntarily restrained, or if
an individual otherwise cannot consent. Depending on the degree of
intoxication, someone who is under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or
other intoxicants may be incapacitated and therefore unable to consent”

did you even read the fucking page that you shared?

2

u/Aladriana 8h ago

Which is so awful.

3

u/MischiefAforethought 7h ago

No, 4twenty is lying to you to scare you.

1

u/Aladriana 7h ago

What's trying to scare me?

5

u/MischiefAforethought 7h ago

4twenty, the commenter you responded to. They lied about what the law says. It doesn't say anything remotely like that, and it would be insane to think any state has a statute that says "if you get drunk other people can legally assault you".

1

u/Aladriana 7h ago

Oh, I understand that it doesn't day that.

2

u/MischiefAforethought 6h ago

Oh, kk, carry on.

I really hate when people misstate (or in their case, just lie) about the law to others. This is a serious issue and a really problematic case, and its being pushed like crazy to keep us at each other's throats with culture wars just ahead of midterms. Tricking people into thinking the law says something crazy just feeds into that distraction and division. Glad that I misread what you were saying.

2

u/Strange-Term-4168 4h ago

Not true. Genuinely what do you think happens when both people are inebriated. In this scenario, the guys were more inebriated.

0

u/_-4twenty-_ 4h ago

The initial comment was satire because New York law says if you are inebriated, you can consent.

Which is ridiculous.

2

u/DareDaDerrida 2h ago

Your idea of satire is, apparently, just outright stating misinformation.

Also, one very much can consent whilst inebriated. I have, on multiple occasions.

1

u/MischiefAforethought 2h ago

It wasn't satire. You are a liar and trying to stoke gender wars misinformation before the midterms. You havent even deleted or edited your original lie.

1

u/Strange-Term-4168 3h ago

How is that ridiculous? If two people are inebriated, does that mean they raped each other? Or does the law only apply to men?

0

u/_-4twenty-_ 3h ago

If someone is inebriated, they cannot give consent.

Point blank. The end.

If you come across someone who is inebriated, don’t try to have sex with them. Easy.

1

u/MischiefAforethought 2h ago

You either don't understand or don't care about the law. You continue to blatantly lie about it.

If someone is inebriated, they can still consent to sex, to entering a contract, etc. UNLESS they are so inebriated they are incapacitated or unconscious. Inebriation doesn't automatically mean blackout. You know how after a few beers, you are still considered culpable for drunk driving? Ya, similar rationale. Unless you were drugged or just ridiculously inebriated, the law typically considers voluntary intoxication to not remove your capacity for consent automatically.

Please stop doing what you are doing. You are spreading misinformation, stoking division, and harming victims and society in general with your lies.

1

u/Strange-Term-4168 3h ago

Got it. So Jane Doe raped those four guys. They were extremely inebriated to the point of passing out and getting sick. Meanwhile she was taking care of them and up for hours longer…

1

u/_-4twenty-_ 3h ago

No way the women in your life trust you to watch their drinks.

1

u/MischiefAforethought 2h ago

Ah, ad hominem attacks, the last refuge of a failure. Maybe you're a right wing shill, maybe not. All I'm certain of is that you are a genuinely bad person.

When you spew your bs, you are harming victims and giving ammo to rape apologists. Let me explain as simply as I possibly can.

You lie about something crazy and easily disprovable - "NY law says you can rape anyone who's had more than two beers!" Well, now rape apologists and defenders come out of the woodwork because you have given them an easy target. "Oh, then I guess she raped those drunk frat guys, they should file charges against her!" Or even more simply, "wait, I clicked on your link but that's not what the law says at all. See, I knew women just lie to serve themselves or avoid accountability"

And the damage you are doing, it gets worse. Because even reasonable people on the right side of this get fatigue. Honorable men who just think you sound ridiculous (because you do) chime in. "That can't be true", or "I've consented while drunk, wtf are you talking about?" And now at best you have derailed the entire conversation, away from what the Cornell 7 did or didn't do, and into a wholly irrelevant sidebar and/or culture war skirmish. At worst you have given ample ammunition to bad faith agitators who want to excuse rape. You are making this so much worse.

0

u/_-4twenty-_ 3h ago

How many times did she say no?

2

u/Odd-Outcome-3191 3h ago

If so then my wife has raped me like a hundred times. Chances are both of your parents have had drunk sex. Both of your parents are therefore rapists

3

u/yourpastoratemycock 9h ago

Inebriated people can and do consent to sex lol. What are you on about?

2

u/Aladriana 7h ago edited 7h ago

If one person is inebriated and the other isn't, the drunk one can not consent to sex. You can't sign legal forms drunk either, for the same reason.

Bottom line, unless it's clear, sober, and enthusiastic consent, it's not.

If you're both drunk, it's more complicated. But a no, at anytime, should be treated at a no for that night.

3

u/Discussion-is-good 7h ago edited 7h ago

Sad we're regressing so much that this is a hot take again.

3

u/yourpastoratemycock 7h ago

That's precisely the point I'm making. There's nuance. It isn't as simple as "inebriated people can never consent to sex". There are a plethora of situations where they can and do.

3

u/shadystealertactics 6h ago

I came home drunk a few weeks ago and had sex with my presumably sober wife. Should I have made sure she was drunk first to level the playing field?

2

u/DepthOk166 5h ago

That is not true. If you are drunk but still cognizant of the situation you can consent to sex. That is pretty much every state.

1

u/Parking-Front-4729 4h ago

Only if intoxicated to the point you can't understand what you are agreeing to or what is happening. Mild alchol intoxication does no remove someones capacity to consent broadly, you actually can sign legal documents when drunk it will still be legally binding. If a drunk person turns up to the ER with a broken arm they can still consent to treatment if they are still with enought to understand the procedure and the consequences. This is also true for sex if someone is still with enought to understand what is happening and the consequences they have still consented it's kind of infantalizing tp assume otherwise.

When someone is really drunk and they have no idea what is happening they can't consent. There is no clearly defined line and I prefer relationships to be on equal footing so I don't think you should have sex with some one drunk but legally probley not rape or SA.

7

u/MischiefAforethought 7h ago

This is an incredibly bad-faith comment/lie.

The law is not unique to NY, and most certainly says nothing remotely like what you are pretending.

The actual law says an intoxicated person is CAPABLE of consenting to sex, provided that the intoxication was voluntary, and they are not so intoxicated that they are unconscious or incapacitated. Not that they automatically give it, just that they are not presumed to be incapable of giving it unless those circumstances are met.

That is not remotely the same as you saying if you are drunk you have automatically given consent to anyone to do anything to you. That would be insane. Intoxication/inebriation are a spectrum. You can be a little or a lot. You have some level of Intoxication from a single sip of beer. That is the whole point of that portion of the statute, to identify the level of intoxication that precludes consent from being possible to be given.

No one is saying or suggesting if you get drunk you consent to anything. The questions relevant to the case are: 1., did she ever consent to any of the acts; 2., if so, did she withdraw consent (and if so, did the perpetrators continue); and 3., was she so intoxicated at any point (or was she involuntarily intoxicated, etc.) that she was not capable of giving consent. THAT'S the question - was she so intoxicated she could not legally give consent under NY law, because the law most definitely does not grant auto-consent when you're drunk.

Pretending there is some weird quirk of the law like there's a legal loophole for rape is disingenuous and harmful to everyone. This issue/case is difficult enough without you spreading culture wars misinformation.

-6

u/_-4twenty-_ 7h ago

Someone hasn’t heard of satire.

8

u/DareDaDerrida 7h ago

What, precisely, were you satirizing by lying about the law?

5

u/MischiefAforethought 7h ago

Oh look, you're being disingenuous again. You pretended that's what the law said, and included a link to the statute that doesn't say anything remotely like what you lied that it said, (knowing most people see a link and assume it supports your point and that you're not lying to them like you very much were), then when someone else pointed out that you're full of it, you pivoted to "ummm, iT mIgHt aS wElL sAy tHaT"

You are either very, very bad at satire, or so good at it that you're the only one on earth who can tell youre being satirical.

Or you're just a liar making up culture wars bs before the midterms.

1

u/Strange-Term-4168 4h ago

Not even close to true.

3

u/QwertyIGuess 2h ago

Everyone was intoxicated by that logic she also raped them.

1

u/yogfthagen 1h ago

She raped seven guys by not moving?

Yeah.

Keep saying that out loud.

Let EVERYONE know your stupidity

4

u/MennionSaysSo 10h ago

Are you saying if you have any alcohol or even alcohol that say you could drive, but then even if you do verbally consent to sex and actively participate it is rape?

Or are you saying if you are drunk and passed out and thus unable to consent it is rape?

4

u/Miserable_Pin2518 The Timeline Sucks 10h ago

Coersive rape when someone is intoxicated is if that person hadnt expressed consent prior to being intoxicated. If youre not in a steady relationship with someone, best not to have drunk sex with them honestly.

2

u/catsarecutiepies 7h ago

That isn't what coercion means. Coercion is when somebody "consents" when they don't want to because they are afraid of the consequences if they say no.

5

u/MennionSaysSo 9h ago

And if both parties are drunk?

3

u/Miserable_Pin2518 The Timeline Sucks 9h ago

Theres a whole lot of nuance to it but the big picture is: IF YOURE NOT SURE THE PERSON YOURE WITH WOULD CONSENT IF THEY WERENT DRUNK JUST DONT DO IT

90% of the time when we are talking about coersive rape and alcohol is involved, one party is much more sober than the other.

This post is about how there shouldnt be protections against reporting rape if the woman was drunk.

2

u/HolaDrNick 9h ago

This answer doesn't make any sense. What does me being sure have anything to do with obtaining their explicit consent?

-1

u/Miserable_Pin2518 The Timeline Sucks 9h ago

Intoxicated consent isnt consent, so the only way its consent is if the consent was acquired prior to the intoxication. If there is any shadow of a doubt, then just dont? Like whats so hard there,

4

u/skate1243 9h ago

You do realize people meet at bars, clubs, and parties and have sex practically every single day in every single city on the planet. Do you think everybody is just raping each other on a daily basis?

4

u/Miserable_Pin2518 The Timeline Sucks 9h ago

People arent getting shitfaced drunk and going home with mildly intoxicated nice guys. If youre taking someone home from the bar or a club and you can drive and they cant see straight, and yall didnt go there together with the intention of going home together, then yeah youre a predator. Thats actually not a normal way to meet someone.

People who meet people at bars do so off a beer or two and get their number.

Im not going to continue this conversation. If you cant get a sober person to fuck you thats horribly sad and you should work on yourself.

5

u/skate1243 9h ago

You said “intoxicated consent” isn’t consent.

Then you state the most extreme example you can come up with as justification. How about 2 people who are too drunk to drive, but still perfectly capacitated, just a bit drunk. What’s the problem?

Or if you want to use a more extreme example, 2 people who both can’t walk straight. Who raped who?

You can’t advocate for a change in law if you can’t justify the unintended consequences of such a change in law

1

u/Miserable_Pin2518 The Timeline Sucks 9h ago

Im not advocating for anything.

Rape is rape, the law is irrelevant to whether or not something is rape.

Now, when a guy says "LEGALLY, LEGALLY THATS NOT RAPE!!!!" That is NOT a safe man.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/HolaDrNick 8h ago

Your comment states, if you aren't sure they would consent when they were sober. You did not say there is no consent when intoxicated. You understand the difference between those two statements?

1

u/DepthOk166 5h ago

Wrong. Most state laws draw a difference between being intoxicated and being incapacitated. In other words if you are drunk and can still speak well, process information, etc. you can still consent.

-1

u/epiphanyWednesday 5h ago

Then dont have sex.

If the nuances confuse you and youre looking for loopholes, then yes, you are someone who should not be making decisions about sex when drunk.

If you think a drunk girl who consents is ‘free pussy’ then you are not good person. Easy peasy.

Im sorry if this is upsetting, but yes, you have a responsibility to ensure you dont put your dick some place unwanted. Because you know the consequences could be major for yourself snd someone else.

If she wouldn’t say yes while she was sober, it is not a real yes. And decent people know this. And non-decent people know this but use a drunk yes to take advantage of vulnerable people.

1

u/HolaDrNick 9h ago

Under this definition, why would it matter if you're in a steady relationship with them or not?

1

u/Miserable_Pin2518 The Timeline Sucks 9h ago

The being in a relationship with them thing is just a good personal boundary, its not the defining characteristic. Like, if you know someone and are with them for a while and they're drunk af and trying to take your clothes off is way different than if its someone you dont know and wouldnt know the sober intentions of.

-1

u/HolaDrNick 3h ago

The being in a relationship with them thing is just a good personal boundary, its not the defining characteristic.

What does it being a good personal boundary have to do with consent though? Why would what constitutes consent, in your mind, vary if someone had a relationship versus being a stranger?

Like, if you know someone and are with them for a while and they're drunk af and trying to take your clothes off is way different than if its someone you dont know and wouldnt know the sober intentions of.

That doesn't seem extremely consistent with what you've been saying. Like, if they're trying to take your clothes off but you're intoxicated, how would that not qualify as rape even if you know them? Don't most people who are raped actually know their rapists anyway?

1

u/Miserable_Pin2518 The Timeline Sucks 3h ago

"What does that have to do with consent" I say this genuinely, youre a bad person

-1

u/HolaDrNick 3h ago edited 3h ago

"What does that have to do with consent" I say this genuinely, youre a bad person

I apologize the possibility of someone being raped by a person they know offends you, but I think it's a valid consideration. As I said before, most victims know their rapist.

Edit:

https://rainn.org/get-the-facts-about-sexual-assault-rape/?hl=en-US

But FBI crime data shows that 76% of reported rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim already knew.

Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Crime Data Explorer, National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), “Crime > Rape, January 2021–December 2025”

3

u/Strange-Term-4168 4h ago

I’m confused how you think her being intoxicated makes it rape. The guys were more intoxicated. So didn’t she rape them? Do you think women should not be held to the same laws?

2

u/ContentVictory6767 5h ago

So you’re saying she raped Ingalls? I agree

Lock her up

1

u/ObsceneOnes 1h ago

If you give consent by word or action you have the capacity to give consent. End of story. That is the law.

Intoxication is only relevant when it takes that ability away from you. It doesn't protect you from making poor or regretful decisions in which Intoxication played a roll.

The only exception is if you were drugged without your knowledge.

1

u/epiphanyWednesday 5h ago

Many dudes reveal they wouldnt have sex unless their partner is somewhat incapacitated.

Knowing that generally is one thing. Seeing all these comments who act like this is some tremendous burden placed on men is different and pretty gross.

At least the bear is honest enough in its intentions.

2

u/Sux2Suck2026 2h ago

I would love to see a study that supports that claim. The men I know will have sex when its on the table pretty much period. Most men know that intoxication to the point of incapacitation is a nogo for sex.

You are trying to demonize an entire gender.

-8

u/UsualPilot1420 9h ago

If I get drunk then start buying drinks for another person, or just give them $50, did they steal $50 from me?

4

u/Miserable_Pin2518 The Timeline Sucks 9h ago

Did they get you drunk with the intention of taking $50 from you? Did they see that you were drunk and handing out $5s and come fleece you for $500?

-6

u/UsualPilot1420 9h ago

So those women that asked me for drinks when I was drunk are all thieves! If you see a drunk rich guy giving out $20s, and you take a $20, that makes you a thief?

See how you have to put on a bunch of "what ifs" and addendums. Where did that energy all the sudden come from?

4

u/MennionSaysSo 9h ago

It depends on why you gave them the $50. If they lied and set they were a charity collecting for orphans.....yes the stole it.

-1

u/UsualPilot1420 9h ago

Where was all this 'it depends" energy before?

-3

u/MrBlonde1984 6h ago

I knew a guy who was visiting friends in Beijing. His friends didnt wanna go out on night so he went alone . Met a random group of guys who kept buying him drinks . Eventually he blacked out and when he woke up one of the group was raping him . He tried to fight but they beat the hell outta him and stole what money he had .

He should have never put himself in that situation and he agrees.

5

u/ThotHugger2005 6h ago

As true as this may be, he was still raped and not at all at fault for what happened.

When someone steals a car, the fault is the thief. The context only matters for understanding the situation, not in determining who committed the moral failure.

1

u/[deleted] 6h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Whatisittou Fairy Dust 🧚🏾‍♂️ ✨ 🧚🏿‍♀️ 5h ago

you blaming your friend for been raped?? good lord 😳

0

u/MrBlonde1984 5h ago

Thats EXACTLY what i said .

/s

1

u/Man_under_Bridge420 5h ago

You literally did

1

u/ChiefMuppetWrangler 5h ago

Except when I take my car to a high theft area, and leave it unlocked with a Gucci bag in the front seat I am at (partial) fault - and Insurance companies recognise this!

Of course the thief is still charged because they had an intent to deprive you of your property.

But we do judge people for their actions in other crimes.

Get drunk and lippy to someone else in town and cop a hiding? He was asking for it.

Leave your house unlocked? Dumbass.

I think we’re nuanced enough to understand that perhaps people do need to use their judgement when drinking or doing drugs - don’t do it in excess with people you don’t know.

0

u/ThotHugger2005 43m ago

What an insurance company does should never be the standard of morality. They can also discriminate on age and gender, something we have no control over. Insurance companies are the predators in your scenario, along with the thieves.

2

u/ChiefMuppetWrangler 32m ago

I think it’s fairly moral to assume that humans above a certain age, say 18, are mature and responsible enough to take some due care and use their brains to assess if the things they are about to undertake are high risk or low risk.

Spill The Tea 🫟 'Jane Doe' Solidarity posts

You are about to leave Redlib