4 ms·
Given her (and the two other) accounts, this absolutely was sexual battery. A drunk, intimidated, or otherwise incapacitated victim does not give an attacker fr
by thomasmeeks 13y ago
Given her (and the two other) accounts, this absolutely was sexual battery. A drunk, intimidated, or otherwise incapacitated victim does not give an attacker free reign to do whatever they feel like doing. Drunkenness on the attacker's part is not a defense.
If you start touching someone like this, it is not their job to stop you. It is your job to be, beyond a shadow of a doubt, positive that the touch is welcomed. If you are a grabby drunk, don't get drunk.
This is common sense. It is also the law.
I cannot even fathom how he could possibly have a case for libel. We have three accounts, largely the same, as to the facts of the matter. Her account must be a lie (substantially, not in details) for libel to even be a possibility.
Nor can I understand the sentiment that his lost job is somehow recompense for the act. It is just a job, not jail time.
It is so terrible that this happened. To heap these sorts of reactions on top of it all is very deeply disappointing.
- general_failure 13y agoIf this is indeed the law, its scary. I for one take some Time to realize that someone is not into it. In fact I always put in extra effort to put someone in the mood if they are feeling frigid. I thought this is normal male behavior - a little bit of persistence. I see this in movies all the time. Maybe we need to mark most of the american movies as R.
- chris_wot 13y agoI strongly urge you to reconsider what you are doing! Not only are you putting yourself at risk of a rape claim, but you really could assault someone. What he says is true. It is the law - the onus is on the party who initiates the activity to gain clear consent. If that involves specifically asking, then so be it. I see you've been downvoted to oblivion, which I hope gives you some idea as to how dangerous what you are saying is and how dimly most people are viewing it.