Why are conscious drunk women physically engaging in sex considered "incapacitated", while a rowdy drunk guy stirring trouble isn't?

If a woman can claim lack of consent for having sex while drunk, despite physically engaging the activity with her motor functions, why can't a drunk that commits violence/vandalism claim being too incapacitated to be judged on his/her actions?


0|0
3|5

Most Helpful Guy

  • Indeed!

    What happens if a drunk man rapes a sober woman? I guess we can't label that decision of his rape anymore. On the contrary, she raped him!

    The feminists would be fuming, if only they had the intellectual capacity to see the self-destructive consequences of their own ideology.

    0|2
    0|0

What Girls Said 3

  • Well a woman who is to drunk to consent to sex is being persuaded by someone who isn't drunk. The rowdy drunk isn't being forced to do something they normally wouldn't do. However, a drunk can claim they weren't responsible for there actions but it doesn't fly.

    0|0
    0|2
    • So if I am drunk and run over children then why am I at fault

    • Show All
    • You're not very bright.

    • Says the one asking idiotic questions.

  • Because the world and law is very unfair and biased.

    0|0
    0|0
  • double standard!

    0|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 4

  • Interesting legal argument there.

    0|1
    0|0
  • They should BOTH be held accountable for all their actions

    0|1
    0|0
  • coz guys r those whi have the bad rep :p

    0|0
    0|0
  • They can but nobody buys it

    0|0
    0|0
Loading...