Elliot Rodger

The law is slanted to do more to protect women. F A C T. Men have one fewer orifice than women do. It's simple mathematics then that men are more likely to be guilty of "penetration" than woman are, especially when that one extra orifice for penetration is the MAIN avenue for most sex in human society.

Your follow up to this is confused...you say it's a defence and then say it's not a defence if they were drunk...which is exactly what I was talking about.

I tell you what...please explain how there is justice in a law where...two equally drunk people do exactly the same thing, and:
A. is not incapable of making a decision, is not responsible for their actions, and doesn't commit a crime; while
B. is responsible for making a decision, is responsible for their actions, and does commit a crime.

If two different couples each have drunken consensual sex (and each have the same level of intoxication to their partners):
Couple A: the woman may go 'that was a great night'
Couple B: the woman may go 'ugh, now I hate myself...I will make a rape complaint'

Regardless of the legal status, society in large has looked the other way at her defiling of a child.
While men who do the same thing are publicly crucified as some sort of monsters.

You really are a nitwit.

The new federal definition of rape is
“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

There aren't many other reasons for a woman consenting to sex to make a rape complaint...other than regret.

because she might not even be fully aware of what she's doing.

You're also assuming anything was discussed in advance and agreed upon. Most of the campus situations involving sexual assaults don't occur between people involved in a relationship with each other, where things have been discussed and agreed to.

Non-consenting females get sexually assaulted/ raped all the time

Most rapes are done by a very small percentage of men, about 6-7% of all men, and most of those in that very small group of men, tend to be serial predators

And they "aren't both doing the same thing"--in normal intercourse, she's not the one performing the physical act of penetration the law defines as rape, when such penetration is done without consent.

If she penetrates his anus with an object, without his consent, he certainly could charge her with rape under that definition.

Bonus question: Why are schools becoming depopulated of male teachers?

Answer: it is made clear to them that they are not wanted.

Lets be very clear, our schools have become hostile towards males. Is it any wonder that they turn out so poorly after being subjected to all of those years of abuse?

I tell you what...please explain how there is justice in a law where...two equally drunk people do exactly the same thing together, and they both agree to do it together, and:
A. is not capable of making a decision, is not responsible for decisions & actions, and doesn't commit a crime; while
B. is capable of making a decision, is responsible for their decisions & actions, and does commit a crime.

If you can do that (rationally) without raising gender issues...then I will be very impressed.

Why are you assuming she consented?

His life was marked by jealousy and envy, of whatever he didn't have. He was never fully satisfied with what he did have--and he had plenty--and he was aware of that. He didn't have a great deal of insight, but he wasn't totally lacking in that department either.

The question doesn't ask about rape...but about justice.

Have a shot at trying to explain the justice of it.

You can't understand justice in the application of a law, unless you also know what the law says.

In reading his words of being lost in the woods and stating "eventually" the strangers led me back..

as of fifth grade he no longer felt so shy nor a dork.

By the way...the reason you can't explain the justice of it, and the reason you avoid answering the question, and the reason you revert to talking about rape (when no crime is stated)...is exactly the same reason.

In the example provided - there is a blatant injustice - as B is treated differently to A (held to a different standard); and B is punished while A is not.

Go to the rape thread--we've been discussing those issues for 4 years in that thread.

And I really would like to stick to the topic of this thread.

I frankly don't understand where your perception of injustice is coming from. I don't see it. If you see it, point it out more clearly.

Is there unfairness in the legal system? Yes. Poorer defendants can't afford high price defense attorneys, or the costs of expert witness testimony, on a par with the state, etc So the state often has a resource advantage, and wealthier defendants have an advantage over poorer ones . But that's the main unfairness I see. And, in the case of major crimes, the court-appointed attorneys are very experienced trial lawyers, so that unfairness diminishes considerably. But it's still better to be a wealthy defendant, a very wealthy one, than someone with limited assets.

However, if A claims that they weren't a willing participant in the crime, and that they were coerced, threatened, or forced, to participate by B, they might not be regarded as an equal willing participant in the crime, and B's charges, and punishment, might be harsher than A's, if A is even charged or punished at all.

If A & B both agree to commit an act <original - a crime> together, and they are equal participants in the act <original - crime>, both will be punished equally. A doesn't escape punishment by simply claiming to be drunk at the time.

That's it. I want to discuss the topic of this thread, and not everyone's irrelevant digressions.