An erection does not require enthusiasm. Involuntary erections can easily occur as a result of stimulation. Even just sitting on a vibrating vehicle can cause an erection, despite the fact that it’s humiliating to the erection’s owner.

I’m not positive how I feel about this. Does your right to autonomy and your right to make decisions about your own reproduction extend to when you’re deceased? My gut says yes, but I can’t think of a really solid logical reason why it should, since you’re dead and you literally dgaf anymore.

The first time Ginsburg met “Nino” he was giving a speech to the American Bar Association. She disagreed with the thesis but “thought he said it in an absolutely captivating way.” Scalia said of Ginsburg last Thursday: “What’s not to like — except her views on the law.”

Does Scalia own stock in ABC?

Obviously you’re not married.

Poor guy is just average height. He just has tall co-workers.

Have you been in a 10 plus year relationship? Had kids? This is simply not reflective of real life where sometimes you do things for the benefit of your partner. It's not always about you

Seems a mixed message.

At the time, I had no guidance in my life. I blame it on that.

There’s no such thing as a “decent apology” on Jezebel. He could commit sepuku and apologise to every woman on the planet and someone here would still think it wasn’t enough, that he didn’t really mean it and that he wasn’t taking responsibility. I don’t even know who this guy is but whatever, so he has a couple of…

What’s next a signed legal documet stating you meant to have sex at this moment? Some people will never be happy, and will never accept that men deserve certain protections against being called a rapist, espesically in public settings. Misunderstandings can happen and not be criminal.

Am I insane that I actually think that’s a decent apology?

What exactly are you trying to say here? That there’s essentially no such thing as consent?

I'm sure that in the next 10-20 years we'll see a SCOTUS case that will likely deal with these issues. Like you said, either intoxication removes consent/responsibility or it doesn't. You can't reasonably argue that a woman who is smashed drunk can't consent or isn't responsible for her actions, and then turn around…

I read that same article, and seriously fuck that woman. If both participants are equally intoxicated, then they either both raped eachother, or nobody raped anybody. You can’t just selectively apply the law like that.

Anybody can be raped, women are just statistically more likely to be victims. But they aren’t the only ones.

The problem isn’t that those two things can’t be true at the same time. Everyone should always be careful and people should still not have sex with someone who is unable to consent. The problem people have with these types of comments is this...

Rapists are estimated to be at least 5% of the US population, so this makes sense.

I remember reading a Slate article, I think by Amanda Hess, about a tricky case where essentially both parties (one man and one woman) were equally intoxicated, both verbally consented to sex, both engaged in acts that (sober) would realistically be read as non-verbal indications of consent, and both participated…

So, in other words, consent is whatever the female says it is. Now or later. Got it.