@bradstevens different between bad actor and victim. I think rape is just general intent and intoxication isn’t really a defense to rape.
@bradstevens only rule I know is you can’t do it again. So if you get permission and you’re having a threesome at midnight and you all go to bed you’re not allowed to get that girl again when you wake up. So I’m told ….
Once the threesome was over, everything beyond that was terrible and despicable. They knew better and did it anyway. Of course, so did she. So here we are.Were some of them partying with her? Just as fucked up? I don’t know the facts in detail.@bar-down I'm sure. According to the article, that's how it happened in Minnesota - a high profile conviction was overturned by the courts, and the law was changed.
If you think about it, it makes sense. If someone is genuinely so intoxicated that they are no longer capable of meaningful consent, then it really doesn't matter how they got to that state. I mean, we don't draw that distinction with other mental states. You rape an unconscious girl, no one asks if you knocked her out, or if she voluntarily went to sleep on her own. It's still rape, either way. You don't get to say, "Well, she was talking in her sleep, and she said yes." We draw a bright line - if you're unconscious, you can't consent, no matter how you got that way.
Was she unconscious?
She was taken advantage of by terrible, despicable people who deserve some punishment. But is it rape? Maybe?
I know I wouldn't put myself in that situation b/c i'm 51 and was never in that situation. Which is actually not true. I left and locked the door on my way out a couple times.
If she can’t consent b/c of intoxication, is it consistent or fair to say the intoxicated boys had the mental state needed to commit rape and be labeled terrible, despicable people (yes, I know there are laws/precedent on this for the legal question)?
Lot more moral complexity in these cases than many want to admit.
The initial threesome was also despicable.
Prudish conservative notions about sex avoid this mess. One partner, preferably in the context of marriage.
I can’t fathom why the one guy was eager to get other guys involved. They might just be gay.
Weirdo, Ivey league dorks. This wouldn’t fly on North Jordan. A “free pussy” text would get your ass beat and kicked out of the house.
@carramrod with every passing month I’m glad my kids won’t be going to ivies
Viagra and just don’t stop.So if you get permission and you’re having a threesome at midnight and you all go to bed you’re not allowed to get that girl again when you wake up.
I was unaware of The End of Threesome Rule.Once the threesome was over, everything beyond that was terrible and despicable. They knew better and did it anyway. Of course, so did she. So here we are.Were some of them partying with her? Just as fucked up? I don’t know the facts in detail.@bar-down I'm sure. According to the article, that's how it happened in Minnesota - a high profile conviction was overturned by the courts, and the law was changed.
If you think about it, it makes sense. If someone is genuinely so intoxicated that they are no longer capable of meaningful consent, then it really doesn't matter how they got to that state. I mean, we don't draw that distinction with other mental states. You rape an unconscious girl, no one asks if you knocked her out, or if she voluntarily went to sleep on her own. It's still rape, either way. You don't get to say, "Well, she was talking in her sleep, and she said yes." We draw a bright line - if you're unconscious, you can't consent, no matter how you got that way.
Was she unconscious?
She was taken advantage of by terrible, despicable people who deserve some punishment. But is it rape? Maybe?
I know I wouldn't put myself in that situation b/c i'm 51 and was never in that situation. Which is actually not true. I left and locked the door on my way out a couple times.
If she can’t consent b/c of intoxication, is it consistent or fair to say the intoxicated boys had the mental state needed to commit rape and be labeled terrible, despicable people (yes, I know there are laws/precedent on this for the legal question)?
Lot more moral complexity in these cases than many want to admit.
I’ve lived a sheltered life.
Threesome Rule 17.a.13 (add'l end of coupling rule)
He who finishes first cleans up.
Also, continuation rules 69.a.10-13 are covered separately and elsewhere. You understand of course.
Most bad shit happens after dark. Go out at your own risk.
Letitia James is, I think, a nutjob. Her public comment was inappropriate. It hardly means, though, that these guys would be deprived of a fair trial if the case ever went that far. It could easily be fleshed out and managed during the voir dire.
Mamdani's comment ("deeply disturbing") was perfectly appropriate.
3 words that do belong in the same sentence
mamdani/deeply/disturbing
The initial threesome was also despicable.
Assuming that the 3-way in question was a Devil's 3-way, I will allow the OP's objection.
A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying "that was f***ing awesome"
This wouldn’t fly on North Jordan. A “free pussy” text would get your ass beat and kicked out of the house.
LOL
https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/03/us/cornell-rape-case-timeline-hnk?shem=aimgspe,
This case is getting a lot of press. Are opinions breaking along political lines?
(anyone know how to get try links that don’t say share.google?).
I'll wrap this up for you Brad. If any of the guys committed crimes they should be convicted and enjoy sleeping next to Bubba in prison. The girl should be slut shamed (as should more women).
If she consented to a couple guys, who then sent out messages to other guys, could it be argued that the guys that were invited weren't consented to by her?
I haven't been paying attention to this all that much, but I've seen where one kid sent out messages or texts to others.