FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > A cup of tea
A cup of tea
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"In that analogy, is a cup of coffee the same a a wank? " As long as your hand is clearly consenting. | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Dunking biscuits perversions "Are they plain or chocolate? | |||
"I used this at work this morning. Evoked a very interesting reaction." I'd love to know what reaction it was. | |||
 | |||
"I really don't think you need Tea analogy to say that no means no in any circumstances and if someone is incapacitated through alcohol or other substances then no is always the default answer. Those who don't take no for answer or don't apply the default answer are committing a heinous crime. " And yet Ched Evans found it difficult. | |||
"It's sad that it's needed, but yes it's a great way of explaining things." Agreed!! Maybe I need to have a re-think! My line is usually 'If I get it hard - can I have it??'  | |||
"I really don't think you need Tea analogy to say that no means no in any circumstances and if someone is incapacitated through alcohol or other substances then no is always the default answer. Those who don't take no for answer or don't apply the default answer are committing a heinous crime. And yet Ched Evans found it difficult. " Rapists usually do. | |||
"I really don't think you need Tea analogy to say that no means no in any circumstances and if someone is incapacitated through alcohol or other substances then no is always the default answer. Those who don't take no for answer or don't apply the default answer are committing a heinous crime. And yet Ched Evans found it difficult. Rapists usually do." And his apologists. | |||
"I really don't think you need Tea analogy to say that no means no in any circumstances and if someone is incapacitated through alcohol or other substances then no is always the default answer. Those who don't take no for answer or don't apply the default answer are committing a heinous crime. And yet Ched Evans found it difficult. Rapists usually do. And his apologists. " Indeed but he was convicted by his peers on the evidence and was given the punishment laid down by the law of the land. Apologists will always turn and misrepresent the facts which from what I know of this case were very clear, consent was not given for sexual intercourse? | |||
| |||
"I really don't think you need Tea analogy to say that no means no in any circumstances and if someone is incapacitated through alcohol or other substances then no is always the default answer. Those who don't take no for answer or don't apply the default answer are committing a heinous crime. And yet Ched Evans found it difficult. Rapists usually do. And his apologists. Indeed but he was convicted by his peers on the evidence and was given the punishment laid down by the law of the land. Apologists will always turn and misrepresent the facts which from what I know of this case were very clear, consent was not given for sexual intercourse?" I agree. But the old she was d*unk and already consented to sex with his friend seemed to be used as a defence by some. | |||
"I really don't think you need Tea analogy to say that no means no in any circumstances and if someone is incapacitated through alcohol or other substances then no is always the default answer. Those who don't take no for answer or don't apply the default answer are committing a heinous crime. And yet Ched Evans found it difficult. Rapists usually do. And his apologists. Indeed but he was convicted by his peers on the evidence and was given the punishment laid down by the law of the land. Apologists will always turn and misrepresent the facts which from what I know of this case were very clear, consent was not given for sexual intercourse? I agree. But the old she was d*unk and already consented to sex with his friend seemed to be used as a defence by some. " Thankfully not with a Jury? | |||
"I really don't think you need Tea analogy to say that no means no in any circumstances and if someone is incapacitated through alcohol or other substances then no is always the default answer. Those who don't take no for answer or don't apply the default answer are committing a heinous crime. And yet Ched Evans found it difficult. Rapists usually do. And his apologists. Indeed but he was convicted by his peers on the evidence and was given the punishment laid down by the law of the land. Apologists will always turn and misrepresent the facts which from what I know of this case were very clear, consent was not given for sexual intercourse? I agree. But the old she was d*unk and already consented to sex with his friend seemed to be used as a defence by some. Thankfully not with a Jury?" I think it might have been the basis of his appeal. Not sure though. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"Dunking biscuits perversions
Are they plain or chocolate? "Smooth, dark chocolate that goes all creamy when it's hot if you dunk it in and out. Maybe even two. | |||
"I really don't think you need Tea analogy to say that no means no in any circumstances and if someone is incapacitated through alcohol or other substances then no is always the default answer. Those who don't take no for answer or don't apply the default answer are committing a heinous crime. And yet Ched Evans found it difficult. Rapists usually do. And his apologists. Indeed but he was convicted by his peers on the evidence and was given the punishment laid down by the law of the land. Apologists will always turn and misrepresent the facts which from what I know of this case were very clear, consent was not given for sexual intercourse? I agree. But the old she was d*unk and already consented to sex with his friend seemed to be used as a defence by some. Thankfully not with a Jury? I think it might have been the basis of his appeal. Not sure though. " Its his right to seek leave to appeal as we have a justice system that allows that procedure. His legal team will advise on the chances of that being successful. | |||
"I used this at work this morning. Evoked a very interesting reaction. I'd love to know what reaction it was." Tears. Anger. I'd love to be able to say remorse, but unfortunately not. | |||
| |||
" I agree. But the old she was d*unk and already consented to sex with his friend seemed to be used as a defence by some. " The verdict for Ched was completely illogical in my opinion. The question was whether she was too d*unk to consent. If his friend who had sex with her first was acquitted, then how could she have been too d*unk to consent 5 mins later when Ched joined in? With passage of time if anything she'd have been more sober with Ched, but he was the one convicted. Surely if she was too d*unk to consent, then both guys should have been convicted. I dont understand how she could have been sober enough to consent with Clayton who was acquitted, yet too d*unk to consent with Ched when he joined them 5 mins later? | |||
"I really don't think you need Tea analogy to say that no means no in any circumstances and if someone is incapacitated through alcohol or other substances then no is always the default answer. Those who don't take no for answer or don't apply the default answer are committing a heinous crime. And yet Ched Evans found it difficult. Rapists usually do." Mine didn't even bother asking, he just did it whilst I was asleep. He was never jailed | |||
| |||
" Can anyone clarify where one stands in the following scenario : Person A consents to a cup of tea. Person B makes and supplies a strong one. Person A goes oooh ahhhh (reminiscent of a PG Tips advert) that's lovely. But then immediately throws up, profecting the tea across your freshly washed duvet/sheets. Has Person A now withdrawn consent? " I'd suggest that they probably don't want to have tea anymore. | |||
" I agree. But the old she was d*unk and already consented to sex with his friend seemed to be used as a defence by some. The verdict for Ched was completely illogical in my opinion. The question was whether she was too d*unk to consent. If his friend who had sex with her first was acquitted, then how could she have been too d*unk to consent 5 mins later when Ched joined in? With passage of time if anything she'd have been more sober with Ched, but he was the one convicted. Surely if she was too d*unk to consent, then both guys should have been convicted. I dont understand how she could have been sober enough to consent with Clayton who was acquitted, yet too d*unk to consent with Ched when he joined them 5 mins later? " She consented to sex with one not the other. Simple. He was found guilty. Simple. | |||
" I agree. But the old she was d*unk and already consented to sex with his friend seemed to be used as a defence by some. The verdict for Ched was completely illogical in my opinion. The question was whether she was too d*unk to consent. If his friend who had sex with her first was acquitted, then how could she have been too d*unk to consent 5 mins later when Ched joined in? With passage of time if anything she'd have been more sober with Ched, but he was the one convicted. Surely if she was too d*unk to consent, then both guys should have been convicted. I dont understand how she could have been sober enough to consent with Clayton who was acquitted, yet too d*unk to consent with Ched when he joined them 5 mins later? She consented to sex with one not the other. Simple. He was found guilty. Simple. " But wasn't it fact, that the Judge gave Judgement that she was inacapable of giving consent through being paralytic not that she didn't herself give consent? If so, how can she have given consent to anyone. As has been said, Evan's Appeal was turned down (no surprises there) and yet there is something about the case where the relevant Legal Bodies are seriously reviewing the case. They must have a good reason for that. | |||
| |||
| |||
" I agree. But the old she was d*unk and already consented to sex with his friend seemed to be used as a defence by some. The verdict for Ched was completely illogical in my opinion. The question was whether she was too d*unk to consent. If his friend who had sex with her first was acquitted, then how could she have been too d*unk to consent 5 mins later when Ched joined in? With passage of time if anything she'd have been more sober with Ched, but he was the one convicted. Surely if she was too d*unk to consent, then both guys should have been convicted. I dont understand how she could have been sober enough to consent with Clayton who was acquitted, yet too d*unk to consent with Ched when he joined them 5 mins later? She consented to sex with one not the other. Simple. He was found guilty. Simple. But wasn't it fact, that the Judge gave Judgement that she was inacapable of giving consent through being paralytic not that she didn't herself give consent? If so, how can she have given consent to anyone. As has been said, Evan's Appeal was turned down (no surprises there) and yet there is something about the case where the relevant Legal Bodies are seriously reviewing the case. They must have a good reason for that. " Because he paid for legal team. Apparently he submitted "fresh evidence", fresh bullshit more like, he's been convicted, he's done only HALF the time (no surprise there  ) and he'll be on the violent and sex offenders register indefinitely | |||
" The Judge ruled that the person was totally incapable of receiving tea. Yet of the two who plied her with tea, one was found not guilty and one was found guilty. " So is the answer to let both of them off? Nope. | |||
" I agree. But the old she was d*unk and already consented to sex with his friend seemed to be used as a defence by some. The verdict for Ched was completely illogical in my opinion. The question was whether she was too d*unk to consent. If his friend who had sex with her first was acquitted, then how could she have been too d*unk to consent 5 mins later when Ched joined in? With passage of time if anything she'd have been more sober with Ched, but he was the one convicted. Surely if she was too d*unk to consent, then both guys should have been convicted. I dont understand how she could have been sober enough to consent with Clayton who was acquitted, yet too d*unk to consent with Ched when he joined them 5 mins later? She consented to sex with one not the other. Simple. He was found guilty. Simple. But wasn't it fact, that the Judge gave Judgement that she was inacapable of giving consent through being paralytic not that she didn't herself give consent? If so, how can she have given consent to anyone. As has been said, Evan's Appeal was turned down (no surprises there) and yet there is something about the case where the relevant Legal Bodies are seriously reviewing the case. They must have a good reason for that. Who are the relevant legal bodies to whom you refer? Has the case been referred to the court of appeal? In a relatively straight forward case as this if the those acting for the perpetrator of this crime thought that there was a chance of overturning the conviction then now is the time to seek leave to appeal? " | |||
| |||
" The Judge ruled that the person was totally incapable of receiving tea. Yet of the two who plied her with tea, one was found not guilty and one was found guilty. So is the answer to let both of them off? Nope." Nope. The only logical conclusion to the Judgement is that both tea providers were guilty. | |||
" The only logical conclusion to the Judgement is that both tea providers were guilty. " Somebody can want to drink tea with one person, but not ask for tea with the other. Just because you want to drink tea with one person, doesn't mean that you want to drink tea with their friend. | |||
" The Judge ruled that the person was totally incapable of receiving tea. Yet of the two who plied her with tea, one was found not guilty and one was found guilty. So is the answer to let both of them off? Nope. Nope. The only logical conclusion to the Judgement is that both tea providers were guilty. " Have you read the summing up by the judge? When you have then you can apply logic. | |||
"Why is this thread even discussing Fuckwit Evans?" Beacuse it's an open forum and it's relevant to tea? And not everyone has the blind faith in the course of "British justice" that some have. Fact : The Birmingham Six were proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be massive tea consumers. Until it was later shown, much later shown that they were in fact coffee drinkers. And oddly, i doubt that anyone who obtained such a fraudulent conviction suffered any adverse consequences. At all. | |||
| |||
" The only logical conclusion to the Judgement is that both tea providers were guilty. Somebody can want to drink tea with one person, but not ask for tea with the other. Just because you want to drink tea with one person, doesn't mean that you want to drink tea with their friend." As I said the whole tea analogy is somewhat unhelpful in the case of rape. Taking tea with someone is different to serious sexual assault. | |||
" The only logical conclusion to the Judgement is that both tea providers were guilty. Somebody can want to drink tea with one person, but not ask for tea with the other. Just because you want to drink tea with one person, doesn't mean that you want to drink tea with their friend." Absolutely you can. Whn you have control of your faculties to do so, of course. yabba yabba ad nauseum. | |||
" As I said the whole tea analogy is somewhat unhelpful in the case of rape. Taking tea with someone is different to serious sexual assault." I find it extraordinarily helpful actually. For explaining to people that just don't get it. | |||
"Why is this thread even discussing Fuckwit Evans? Beacuse it's an open forum and it's relevant to tea? And not everyone has the blind faith in the course of "British justice" that some have. Fact : The Birmingham Six were proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be massive tea consumers. Until it was later shown, much later shown that they were in fact coffee drinkers. And oddly, i doubt that anyone who obtained such a fraudulent conviction suffered any adverse consequences. At all." You make a very good point and each case in the judicial system is taken on its individual merit. There have been numerous cases of a miscarriage of justice. However bearing previous comments what is your opinion on capital punishment? | |||
| |||
" As I said the whole tea analogy is somewhat unhelpful in the case of rape. Taking tea with someone is different to serious sexual assault. I find it extraordinarily helpful actually. For explaining to people that just don't get it." If people need an analogy between a civilised act and that of animal then we have lost society? | |||
" I always make my tea in what i believe is the correct way. And always give it a stir before consuming. " But bearing in mind previous comments what is you view on capital punishment? | |||
"Why is this thread even discussing Fuckwit Evans? Beacuse it's an open forum and it's relevant to tea? And not everyone has the blind faith in the course of "British justice" that some have. Fact : The Birmingham Six were proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be massive tea consumers. Until it was later shown, much later shown that they were in fact coffee drinkers. And oddly, i doubt that anyone who obtained such a fraudulent conviction suffered any adverse consequences. At all.You make a very good point and each case in the judicial system is taken on its individual merit. There have been numerous cases of a miscarriage of justice. However bearing previous comments what is your opinion on capital punishment?" Starting with the war criminal Blair, i'd be all for it! 
The "system" is far too corrupt to either deal with that or generally bring in capital punishment.
| |||
"Why is this thread even discussing Fuckwit Evans? Beacuse it's an open forum and it's relevant to tea? And not everyone has the blind faith in the course of "British justice" that some have. Fact : The Birmingham Six were proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be massive tea consumers. Until it was later shown, much later shown that they were in fact coffee drinkers. And oddly, i doubt that anyone who obtained such a fraudulent conviction suffered any adverse consequences. At all.You make a very good point and each case in the judicial system is taken on its individual merit. There have been numerous cases of a miscarriage of justice. However bearing previous comments what is your opinion on capital punishment? Starting with the war criminal Blair, i'd be all for it!
The "system" is far too corrupt to either deal with that or generally bring in capital punishment.
"So on one hand you bemoan the justice system but are happy to accept the ultimate punishment for a crime? That is bearing in mind previous comments? | |||
"Why is this thread even discussing Fuckwit Evans? Beacuse it's an open forum and it's relevant to tea? And not everyone has the blind faith in the course of "British justice" that some have. Fact : The Birmingham Six were proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be massive tea consumers. Until it was later shown, much later shown that they were in fact coffee drinkers. And oddly, i doubt that anyone who obtained such a fraudulent conviction suffered any adverse consequences. At all.You make a very good point and each case in the judicial system is taken on its individual merit. There have been numerous cases of a miscarriage of justice. However bearing previous comments what is your opinion on capital punishment? Starting with the war criminal Blair, i'd be all for it!
The "system" is far too corrupt to either deal with that or generally bring in capital punishment.
So on one hand you bemoan the justice system but are happy to accept the ultimate punishment for a crime? That is bearing in mind previous comments?"Not at all, i've literally just said the system is too corrupt to bring in capital punishment. For Blair, i'd make an exception. After all, he had/has no qualms about doing so resulting in thouasands/millions of extrajudicial deaths. | |||
"Why is this thread even discussing Fuckwit Evans? Beacuse it's an open forum and it's relevant to tea? And not everyone has the blind faith in the course of "British justice" that some have. Fact : The Birmingham Six were proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be massive tea consumers. Until it was later shown, much later shown that they were in fact coffee drinkers. And oddly, i doubt that anyone who obtained such a fraudulent conviction suffered any adverse consequences. At all.You make a very good point and each case in the judicial system is taken on its individual merit. There have been numerous cases of a miscarriage of justice. However bearing previous comments what is your opinion on capital punishment? Starting with the war criminal Blair, i'd be all for it!
The "system" is far too corrupt to either deal with that or generally bring in capital punishment.
So on one hand you bemoan the justice system but are happy to accept the ultimate punishment for a crime? That is bearing in mind previous comments?
Not at all, i've literally just said the system is too corrupt to bring in capital punishment.
For Blair, i'd make an exception. After all, he had/has no qualms about doing so resulting in thouasands/millions of extrajudicial deaths. "OK but how does this all relate to the issue of determining consent for sex? | |||
| |||
"Found this interesting analogy about the issue of consenting to sex which some seem to think is a difficult or complex one. It's a bit long but makes total and complete sense: If you’re still struggling, just imagine instead of initiating sex, you’re making them a cup of tea. You say “hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they go “omg fuck yes, I would fucking LOVE a cup of tea! Thank you!*” then you know they want a cup of tea. If you say “hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they um and ahh and say, “I’m not really sure…” then you can make them a cup of tea or not, but be aware that they might not drink it, and if they don’t drink it then – this is the important bit – don’t make them drink it. You can’t blame them for you going to the effort of making the tea on the off-chance they wanted it; you just have to deal with them not drinking it. Just because you made it doesn’t mean you are entitled to watch them drink it. If they say “No thank you” then don’t make them tea. At all. Don’t make them tea, don’t make them drink tea, don’t get annoyed at them for not wanting tea. They just don’t want tea, ok? They might say “Yes please, that’s kind of you” and then when the tea arrives they actually don’t want the tea at all. Sure, that’s kind of annoying as you’ve gone to the effort of making the tea, but they remain under no obligation to drink the tea. They did want tea, now they don’t. Sometimes people change their mind in the time it takes to boil that kettle, brew the tea and add the milk. And it’s ok for people to change their mind, and you are still not entitled to watch them drink it even though you went to the trouble of making it. If they are unconscious, don’t make them tea. Unconscious people don’t want tea and can’t answer the question “do you want tea” because they are unconscious. Ok, maybe they were conscious when you asked them if they wanted tea, and they said yes, but in the time it took you to boil that kettle, brew the tea and add the milk they are now unconscious. You should just put the tea down, make sure the unconscious person is safe, and – this is the important bit – don’t make them drink the tea. They said yes then, sure, but unconscious people don’t want tea. If someone said yes to tea, started drinking it, and then passed out before they’d finished it, don’t keep on pouring it down their throat. Take the tea away and make sure they are safe. Because unconscious people don’t want tea. Trust me on this. If someone said “yes” to tea around your house last saturday, that doesn’t mean that they want you to make them tea all the time. They don’t want you to come around unexpectedly to their place and make them tea and force them to drink it going “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST WEEK”, or to wake up to find you pouring tea down their throat going “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST NIGHT”. Do you think this is a stupid analogy? Yes, you all know this already – of course you wouldn’t force feed someone tea because they said yes to a cup last week. Of COURSE you wouldn’t pour tea down the throat of an unconcious person because they said yes to tea 5 minutes ago when they were conscious. But if you can understand how completely ludicrous it is to force people to have tea when they don’t want tea, and you are able to understand when people don’t want tea, then how hard is it to understand when it comes to sex? Whether it’s tea or sex, Consent Is Everything." What happens if I only drink coffee?? | |||
"Found this interesting analogy about the issue of consenting to sex which some seem to think is a difficult or complex one. It's a bit long but makes total and complete sense: If you’re still struggling, just imagine instead of initiating sex, you’re making them a cup of tea. You say “hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they go “omg fuck yes, I would fucking LOVE a cup of tea! Thank you!*” then you know they want a cup of tea. If you say “hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they um and ahh and say, “I’m not really sure…” then you can make them a cup of tea or not, but be aware that they might not drink it, and if they don’t drink it then – this is the important bit – don’t make them drink it. You can’t blame them for you going to the effort of making the tea on the off-chance they wanted it; you just have to deal with them not drinking it. Just because you made it doesn’t mean you are entitled to watch them drink it. If they say “No thank you” then don’t make them tea. At all. Don’t make them tea, don’t make them drink tea, don’t get annoyed at them for not wanting tea. They just don’t want tea, ok? They might say “Yes please, that’s kind of you” and then when the tea arrives they actually don’t want the tea at all. Sure, that’s kind of annoying as you’ve gone to the effort of making the tea, but they remain under no obligation to drink the tea. They did want tea, now they don’t. Sometimes people change their mind in the time it takes to boil that kettle, brew the tea and add the milk. And it’s ok for people to change their mind, and you are still not entitled to watch them drink it even though you went to the trouble of making it. If they are unconscious, don’t make them tea. Unconscious people don’t want tea and can’t answer the question “do you want tea” because they are unconscious. Ok, maybe they were conscious when you asked them if they wanted tea, and they said yes, but in the time it took you to boil that kettle, brew the tea and add the milk they are now unconscious. You should just put the tea down, make sure the unconscious person is safe, and – this is the important bit – don’t make them drink the tea. They said yes then, sure, but unconscious people don’t want tea. If someone said yes to tea, started drinking it, and then passed out before they’d finished it, don’t keep on pouring it down their throat. Take the tea away and make sure they are safe. Because unconscious people don’t want tea. Trust me on this. If someone said “yes” to tea around your house last saturday, that doesn’t mean that they want you to make them tea all the time. They don’t want you to come around unexpectedly to their place and make them tea and force them to drink it going “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST WEEK”, or to wake up to find you pouring tea down their throat going “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST NIGHT”. Do you think this is a stupid analogy? Yes, you all know this already – of course you wouldn’t force feed someone tea because they said yes to a cup last week. Of COURSE you wouldn’t pour tea down the throat of an unconcious person because they said yes to tea 5 minutes ago when they were conscious. But if you can understand how completely ludicrous it is to force people to have tea when they don’t want tea, and you are able to understand when people don’t want tea, then how hard is it to understand when it comes to sex? Whether it’s tea or sex, Consent Is Everything. What happens if I only drink coffee??" Exchange the word tea for coffee. It still works.  | |||
| |||
"According to the testimony of Ched, he watched his friend having sex for a minute or two and then, after Clayton had moved away from the bed, he engaged in sexual activity himself with the woman on the basis that she had agreed to his participation by replying “yeah” to the request of whether or not he could join in. Ched stated that the complainant asked him to perform oral sex upon her by telling him to “lick me out”. He did so and then followed this act by having intercourse with her. This was all corroborated by Clayton. Both men stated in evidence that the complainant was verbally encouraging Ched to have more vigorous sex with her by calling out to him on numerous occasions to “F**k me harder”. Both men also said that she was in control of the situation and activity as she was changing the sexual positions herself. Clayton was acquitted, Ched was convicted. In what was effectively a threesome situation, the jury basically ruled that she was coherent enough to consent to sex with Clayton, but too d*unk for her to have been able to consent with Ched. Illogical. As another posted, if that was the case then both should have been convicted. Sorry that went a bit off tangent OP. I do agree with the cuppa tea analogy, its good. I just think its difficult for a guy who is say with a girl who has had a few to drink, she comes across as coherent, no more d*unk than he is, shes giving consent and all goes well....then the day after its a case of 'no I was too d*unk to really know what I was doing'. Tea regret." This is what the appeal court said about whether or not the verdicts were inconsistent: "It was open to the jury to consider, as it seems to us, that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his part in what happened -- the meeting in the street and so on -- McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her. These seem to us to be matters entirely open to the jury. There is no inconsistency." | |||
Sx | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"If I said I wanted tea and I'm passed out, now that you've made it, I may still want it. Wake me up and offer it. " It would be really unsatisfactory watching you drink the tea that I've made if you didn't even know what you were doing though. If you'd passed out I'd rather just put you in the recovery position and perhaps try and give you a bit of water if you came round. Maybe even think about taking you to A&E. The last thing I'd think about would be giving you tea. | |||
" Sorry that went a bit off tangent OP. I do agree with the cuppa tea analogy, its good. I just think its difficult for a guy who is say with a girl who has had a few to drink, she comes across as coherent, no more d*unk than he is, shes giving consent and all goes well....then the day after its a case of 'no I was too d*unk to really know what I was doing'. Tea regret." Anyone half decent would probably think 'does she really want tea? She's quite d*unk. Perhaps what she really wants is a glass of water and a bit of toast before I put her to bed. We can have a teaparty another day, if she fancies it.' | |||
 | |||
"I refer you to my original post. The cup of tea analogy. You wouldn't force a cup of tea down a d*unk person's throat so why force your penis into a d*unk woman's vagina?" Or force your vagina over a d*unk persons cock | |||
" Sorry that went a bit off tangent OP. I do agree with the cuppa tea analogy, its good. I just think its difficult for a guy who is say with a girl who has had a few to drink, she comes across as coherent, no more d*unk than he is, shes giving consent and all goes well....then the day after its a case of 'no I was too d*unk to really know what I was doing'. Tea regret. Anyone half decent would probably think 'does she really want tea? She's quite d*unk. Perhaps what she really wants is a glass of water and a bit of toast before I put her to bed. We can have a teaparty another day, if she fancies it.'" Absolutely | |||
| |||
"What if two people had had a bit to drink, and then felt like a cup of tea? Both people had a lovely cup of tea together. Then the next day, one got up and thought, 'actually, I didn't want a cup of tea last night'?" I would imagine it would highly depend on why that person thought they didn't want a cup of tea. I mean, thinking the tea-sharer is ugly is a different thing to feeling coerced. | |||
| |||
"What if two people had had a bit to drink, and then felt like a cup of tea? Both people had a lovely cup of tea together. Then the next day, one got up and thought, 'actually, I didn't want a cup of tea last night'?" Yes, that's the flaw in the analogy, some scenarios of the tea party have been conveniently overlooked to suit their own personal tea making agenda. Also, another scenario could be, "Lets make two big pots of leaf tea, hunny & I want to consume every last drop." But in the morning it was; "Oh no, what I wanted was my tea in a bag, - & now I might be carrying tea leaves & who will they resemble, I wonder, - Mr Tetley or that oh so strong Earl Grey? ......& what will I tell my partner? I know, I'll say that I was too intoxicated with tea to remember! | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"It is sad when all these examples are obvious to the majority of us, but some still don't quite get it. But in many of these examples a sober, predatory male is taking advantage of a woman who is incapacitated. But here's one: Two people go out, get d*unk and have consensual sex. The next day either one of them can change their mind and say they wouldn't have done it had they been sober. But under this scenario, the implication is that only the man would risk being found guilty of rape. My sisters were always told never to get so d*unk a man could take advantage of you, now advice appears to be it doesn't matter if the woman gets d*unk, the law will protect her, but if you're a young male teenager, you are expected to stay sober to avoid getting into trouble. This seems to be the first time ever that the law has actually become sexist in itself. The guidance implies that only the man has a responsibility for sober, considered judgement at all times, or risk the full force of the law. But I may just be reading the wrong newspapers. Mr ddc " It's just my experience with men - but if men are paralytically d*unk it's normally impossible to get an erection and thus manage to have sex. If a woman is paralytically d*unk you can still have sex with her. Tea. I mean tea. | |||
" It's just my experience with men - but if men are paralytically d*unk it's normally impossible to get an erection and thus manage to have sex. If a woman is paralytically d*unk you can still have sex with her. Tea. I mean tea." True, but consent seems to have moved on from paralytically d*unk to 'twice the legal drink-drive limit'. There's a heck of a lot of people having sex after three or four pints | |||
" It's just my experience with men - but if men are paralytically d*unk it's normally impossible to get an erection and thus manage to have sex. If a woman is paralytically d*unk you can still have sex with her. Tea. I mean tea. True, but consent seems to have moved on from paralytically d*unk to 'twice the legal drink-drive limit'. There's a heck of a lot of people having sex after three or four pints" I know that when I've d*unk twice the legal drink drive limit I can't really be trusted to make coherent or sensible decisions about my wellbeing. Many people think they can 'handle' more, but perhaps they should consider if everyone else around them can. And then make the judgement appropriately. Personally I don't find sex with d*unk people a turn on. I find enthusiastic consent from a sober mind a turn on. | |||
| |||
" I know that when I've d*unk twice the legal drink drive limit I can't really be trusted to make coherent or sensible decisions about my wellbeing. Many people think they can 'handle' more, but perhaps they should consider if everyone else around them can. And then make the judgement appropriately. Personally I don't find sex with d*unk people a turn on. I find enthusiastic consent from a sober mind a turn on." Me too, I'd just hate to be young right now, seems a hell of a minefield. But I do wonder if it's just the papers hyping it up, that in reality common sense is still being used. | |||
" I know that when I've d*unk twice the legal drink drive limit I can't really be trusted to make coherent or sensible decisions about my wellbeing. Many people think they can 'handle' more, but perhaps they should consider if everyone else around them can. And then make the judgement appropriately. Personally I don't find sex with d*unk people a turn on. I find enthusiastic consent from a sober mind a turn on. Me too, I'd just hate to be young right now, seems a hell of a minefield. But I do wonder if it's just the papers hyping it up, that in reality common sense is still being used." I don't think it's really a minefield to be honest. However I do hope that the over reporting and scare stories lead to people becoming keener to gain enthusiastic consent (note - not just consent) and perhaps reconsider if they want to have sex while plastered because there might be consequences. The more we, as a society, can do to make people think about the consequences of sex and alcohol (and both at the same time) the better off we'll be. You never know, it might even send a message that getting d*unk isn't actually quite all it's cracked up to be. | |||
"I saw this the other day. It's utterly brilliant." Conpletely agree these guidelines couldnt be clearer and hopefully it will help reduce the chance of future incidents. | |||
" However I do hope that the over reporting and scare stories lead to people becoming keener to gain enthusiastic consent (note - not just consent) and perhaps reconsider if they want to have sex while plastered because there might be consequences. The more we, as a society, can do to make people think about the consequences of sex and alcohol (and both at the same time) the better off we'll be. You never know, it might even send a message that getting d*unk isn't actually quite all it's cracked up to be." | |||
| |||
"I have to say that it is a very good analogy for those of us who really need it, - maybe it will do someone some good one day. Now all this tea drinking is making me want to pee tea. Proper tea, I mean! ""All proper tea is theft" Pierre-Joseph Proudhon | |||
"I have to say that it is a very good analogy for those of us who really need it, - maybe it will do someone some good one day. Now all this tea drinking is making me want to pee tea. Proper tea, I mean!
"All proper tea is theft"
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
"
Tonight I might dream of plantations in the Assam foothills ........now that'll be a positive reaction to this thread!! | |||
| |||
| |||
" I know that when I've d*unk twice the legal drink drive limit I can't really be trusted to make coherent or sensible decisions about my wellbeing. Many people think they can 'handle' more, but perhaps they should consider if everyone else around them can. And then make the judgement appropriately. Personally I don't find sex with d*unk people a turn on. I find enthusiastic consent from a sober mind a turn on. Me too, I'd just hate to be young right now, seems a hell of a minefield. But I do wonder if it's just the papers hyping it up, that in reality common sense is still being used. I don't think it's really a minefield to be honest. However I do hope that the over reporting and scare stories lead to people becoming keener to gain enthusiastic consent (note - not just consent) and perhaps reconsider if they want to have sex while plastered because there might be consequences. The more we, as a society, can do to make people think about the consequences of sex and alcohol (and both at the same time) the better off we'll be. You never know, it might even send a message that getting d*unk isn't actually quite all it's cracked up to be." I do agree with the point you're getting across. However you may choose not to drink, and prefer completely sober playmates...but the reality is that a lot of people do drink, and do want and enjoy sex after they've had a drink, so how is a person to know when that line has been crossed into 'too d*unk'. Do we all need to breathalyse each other? get signed written permission? Would you not consider 'yes f**k me harder' enthusiastic consent? There are obvious answers to this, being incoherent/slurring/unconscious etc that are a given...but other than never ever enjoying tea with anyone who's had a drink (in which case I shouldnt have had sex with any of our meets), then whats the line? thats why its a minefield. I have a family member, who after a night out had sex with his friends girlfriend, yep not the best idea in the world, yes they were both d*unk, and neither of them would have had sex if sober. The problem was when her boyfriend found out about it, the girl claimed rape, said she was too d*unk to know what she was doing. My family member was utterly horrified, upset, devastated...he regretted having sex with a friends girlfriend because it was a friends girlfriend, but in his eyes it was all consensual, he'd been d*unk too...does that mean he could say she raped him? After a roller coaster that affected the whole family, she admitted that it was in fact consensual, and that she only said it wasnt because she was worried about the consequences with her boyfriend. In my opinion it is women that cry rape when a bit of tea regret sets in that do make it harder for true rape victims to be taken seriously. | |||
| |||
" In my opinion it is women that cry rape when a bit of tea regret sets in that do make it harder for true rape victims to be taken seriously. " This is a serious minority. When something like only 5% of rape's even actually reported, "fake" rapes are just the tiniest percentage ever. And nowhere near the level of fake reports of other crimes (for example, violence). Every time someone says 'but what about the fact that some women cry rape!' a kitten dies and it becomes harder for another victim to speak out about their experience because they think they won't be believed. | |||
 | |||
"I dont claim to know statistics, just personal experience of being in a family when a false rape accusation has been made. Its devastating. Probably a bit of a sore spot "Perfectly understandable. It must have been a horrendous experience. Fortunately, it is a rare occurrence. Unfortunately, the media love such stories and tend to make the most of them. This has the effect of it appearing to be a major problem. However, individually, if it happens to you it is a major problem. | |||
