Here is the crux of the situation right here:
Do some folks really believe that someone is going to be prosecuted if two intoxicated adults engage in sexual intercourse?
YES, someone can be if one of the people come forward months or years later and say they were raped. ALL THEY HAVE TO SAY is that they were drunk and that automatically makes it a rape.
Can you not see the unfairness in that? Any time a woman says she may have consented but she was drunk, then it will be automatically classified as a RAPE because the law says she cannot consent.
So I posted this case to show that it is NOT automatically seen as a rape---even if the victim is UNCONSCIOUs and incapacitated , people here are saying it is not rape, it is just drunk sex.
But if a male tries to use that excuse--it was just drunk consensual sex---the rape tribunals say there is NO SUCH THING---drunk girls cannot consent.
Am I the only one that sees that as problematic? Essentially, any time a girl comes back and decides it was non-consensual--it is automatically considered as such if she had been drinking.
I think it's not an analogous case and not definitive evidence of a double standard until Earl comes back and says it was nonconsensual and he wants Kim prosecuted. If he says he was sexually assaulted, by all means prosecute and try to make it stick, but if he doesn't feel like a victim of rape I'm not sure the legal system should try to force victimhood upon him. It's just the same with females I think. If they say they weren't sexually assaulted, ain't nothing that the police will do about it, even if they were drunk as skunks and clearly incapacitated.
BBM. The point is not, IMO, what the alleged possible rapist (male or female) says about the victim consenting but what the alleged potential victim (male or female) says about the victim consenting. If the drunk girl who may or may not have been raped says the male is right and she consented, it is probably the end of the matter. She was not raped or if she was, it is very unlikely that it will be prosecuted since she has decided not to complain.
Likewise,
Kim could say that Earl consented until the cows come home, and it might be just an excuse to cover up sexual assault, but if
Earl says that Earl consented, that's case closed as far as courts are concerned. It is quite hard to successfully prosecute a rape case in which the victim is not a minor and says that he or she consented to the sex. I think he should probably be allowed that much agency to decide if he wants it to be treated as consensual.
Or she, if it happened to be the female who passed out. I confess that I have fallen asleep in the middle of a consensual intercourse with a long time partner a couple of times and I would have been mighty upset if he got thrown in jail for anything that happened afterwards. I don't think I was raped in that instance, but it would feel quite different to find out that some college kids found me sleeping and decided to have their way with me.
If both parties agree that it was consensual, there's nothing more for the courts to do there IMO. That's the definition of consensual: both parties agree. The police primarily has a role to play in determining the facts when there is a disagreement and one party says it was consensual and another party says it wasn't.
However, if Earl consented to the public sex and isn't just lying to protect his girlfriend why was she the only one who got arrested?
But Kim and Earl both look like they need some serious rehab more than they need the sex offender registry I think.
