Looking for any stories of lesbians hooking up with guys. The more realistic the better. For example, they were coerced or blackmailed, and are doing it because they feel they have to...but hate it.
Looking for any stories of lesbians hooking up with guys. The more realistic the better. For example, they were coerced or blackmailed, and are doing it because they feel they have to...but hate it.
Well, that very concept was part of a story I wrote a quite while back, but there was nothing coerced about it. I had originally written it as "Mary" about 20 years ago, but earlier this year I rewrote it and re-titled it "Unlikely Partners".
https://storiesonline.net/s/21646/unlikely-partners
My new novel isn't about that, but it occurs with two lesbians. One hates it while the other tolerates it as a medical procedure. Neither women enjoy the sex. I would think she'd have to be bisexual to enjoy it.
You know, it is not unheard of for a lesbian to trick an older guy into impregnating her (or at least imagining he is the one who did it) in order to get alimony, child support and social security benefits until the kid is 18.
Looking for any stories of lesbians hooking up with guys.
Which part of lesbian do you not understand..??
That's specifically why I mentioned coercion or blackmail. And that they hate it.
@Remus2 yes, also known as raped, that's fine. I'm not looking for them to be "woohoo finally I get some dick!" I think I made myself pretty clear.
Example: Bad man is holding a relative hostage. Forces her into sex.
If they're not lubricated, the guy's going to hate it too.
In 1882 the solution would have been bear fat or bacon grease. As the saying goes 'needs must.'
Looking for any stories of lesbians hooking up with guys.
"Hooking up" isn't a sane way to describe rape..!!
@Remus2 yes, also known as raped, that's fine. I'm not looking for them to be "woohoo finally I get some dick!" I think I made myself pretty clear.
No, no you didn't make yourself clear, but you have now. What you're actually looking for is a rape story. Utilizing weasel words and descriptions did a poor job of masking what you were looking for.
Utilizing weasel words? If I did such a poor job "masking what I was looking for", then how did I not make myself clear?
I stated very plainly what I was asking for. You didn't like the words, because it's content you don't like. Cool. Understandable even. But now you can move on. I'm not looking for a morality or sexual identity lecture.
Looking for any stories of lesbians hooking up with guys. The more realistic the better. For example, they were coerced or blackmailed, and are doing it because they feel they have to...but hate it.
First you ask for "Lesbians hooking up with guys" qualified by "The more realistic the better." Then you throw in the rape squirm tags coerced and blackmailed.
Clear as mud, not to mention a seriously disturbed conflation of hookups and rape.
If you wanted a rape story, grow a pair and ask for it.
Coercion and blackmail are types of rape. I prefer those less physically violent forms of rape in my smut than "beat em up hold em down" rape.
I don't care about my request fitting your definitions.
It is not my definitions, it the definitions of nearly, if not all, first world nations for rape. You should probably file a butthurt report somewhere.
You seem to be the one who's butthurt/ over the fact that the SOL rape tag is defined in a way that's narrower than the legal definition of rape.
You seem to be the one who's butthurt/ over the fact that the SOL rape tag is defined in a way that's narrower than the legal definition of rape.
Actually no. You should go back and read the thread again if that is your perception.
As far as how SOL defines it, that had nothing to do with my response. I don't think there is a website out there of this nature that is any different in that regards.
Again, read the thread/context.
If you wanted a rape story, grow a pair and ask for it.
I've brought this up countless times because I've had reader feedback blasting me for not having the rape tag.
There's a difference between rape in legal terms and rape in SOL terms. Consensual sex with a minor is legally rape. It could be the most loving story ever written and no one would call out the author. But it is legally rape. In fact, a reader looking for rape stories would be disappointed if the rape tag was included.
The SOL definition is a physical/knockdown act. Blackmail, coercion, drugged, etc. require the non-consent tag, but according to SOL definitions are not rape.
The SOL definition is a physical/knockdown act. Blackmail, coercion, drugged, etc. require the non-consent tag, but according to SOL definitions are not rape.
There are actually several classifications here specifically to signify that in a story.
Rape, NonConsensual, Blackmail, Drunk/Drugged, Mind Control, and more. All specifically to signify these differing levels.
To me, so long as you specify "Blackmail" or "Drunk" and that is applicable, nobody had any reason to cream you did not also include "Rape".
Myself, actual "rape" is something I rarely use (I have only used it twice). Generally I will put a warning in a preface at the start of a chapter that will include such an act, because I do not want people who enjoy those kinds of stories to find my stories and think that a one-off thing put in for story purposes is typical of my writing.
Of course, I also often have characters engage in sex while drunk, but almost always it is a couple that is already in a relationship who just happen to be drunk, not as any kind of coercion. It is not like if I wrote a story involving a married couple who happened to get blasted on their anniversary that the "Drunk" tag really applies.
Heck, we are already seeing how crazy that can be in the military and on college campus today. Guy and gal hook up at a party, both get drunk then get it on afterwards. If both are drunk, who raped who?
who raped who
Pretty sure the law and most people would think the guy is responsible. It is difficult for a female to rape a guy.
Pretty sure the law and most people would think the guy is responsible.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong on the law.
Pretty sure the law and most people would think the guy is responsible. It is difficult for a female to rape a guy.
Says who?
Fact, it is believed rapes against males may be as high as that against females. They simply rarely report it.
Get a guy drunk or drugged, and they are as susceptible as a female in being raped.
Also, in many institutions there have been reports of men being raped by women. A case a few years ago in the military made news because of that.
In short, guy and gal were both in the military, and when drunk got it on. The next day he was informed she had a history of filing "sexual assault" charges on the gut for "taking advantage of her", so he struck first. Made a complaint to the SHARP representative that she had raped her.
She went in the next day and tried to file one against him, only to find out she already had a case opened against her. A lot of people scream that the military does not do enough about "sexual assault", yet ironically in the majority of the investigations, the outcome is ultimately that both parties were drunk, and the ultimate evaluation is that neither could consent, and without force there is rarely a rape.
And ultimately, rape could be claimed by both parties.
Pretty sure the law and most people would think the guy is responsible. It is difficult for a female to rape a guy.
Funnily enough, yesterday I had an idea for a provocative story where a girl cures her gay older brother by raping him.
Since I'm busy working on a couple of other stories at the moment, an idea is probably all it will ever be.
AJ
It is difficult for a female to rape a guy.
I knew one guy who woke up with some chick he wasn't interested in riding his cock.
But yeah, except for statutory, women don't get arrested for rape unless they use a strapon or something to penetrate the guy.
I knew one guy who woke up with some chick he wasn't interested in riding his cock.
But yeah, except for statutory, women don't get arrested for rape unless they use a strapon or something to penetrate the guy.
How did that end? Did he scream and threw her off or...
How did that end? Did he scream and threw her off or...
Real men don't scream (allegedly) so he just bucked her off, repeatedly, for seven seconds...
:)
Real men don't scream (allegedly) so he just bucked her off, repeatedly, for seven seconds...
Probably longer. He just woke up so probably had a piss hard-on. That's gonna take a while longer.
Probably longer. He just woke up so probably had a piss hard-on. That's gonna take a while longer.
When a woman rapes a man, is her primary objective to get her own satisfaction or to make the man cum?
AJ
When a woman rapes a man, is her primary objective to get her own satisfaction or to make the man cum?
Unfortunately :D I will never know.
When a woman rapes a man, is her primary objective to get her own satisfaction or to make the man cum?
Why would that even be a question?? Rape is a selfish act, so the rapist (of either gender) is only interested in themselves. Anything offered in mitigation, from "she was asking for it dressed like that" to "that lezzie just needed a real man's cock to cure her" is complete and utter bullshit.
Why would that even be a question?
Supposedly the principal objective of rape is to demonstrate power over another person. What stronger and more shaming power is there than to make a victim's body betray their wishes and orgasm against the victim's conscious will?
Allegedly many victims of gay rape are too ashamed to report it because they orgasmed during their ordeal.
AJ
Supposedly the principal objective of rape is to demonstrate power over another person.
Uhuh. I've seen that touted elsewhere. Those that spout it never acknowledge that there are far easier ways to demonstrate power over another person, handcuffs, for example.
What stronger and more shaming power is there than to make a victim's body betray their wishes and orgasm against the victim's conscious will?
Ok, lets examine that.
First separate those whose bodies 'betray' them during the act from those whose rapist intentionally sets out to achieve that result.
Shame is a socially engineered concept whilst arousal is a natural and necessary reaction hard wired into us all to ensure the continuation of our species.
The reason I object to the claim (excuse) that rape is really about (fill in the blank) is because it aims to deflect attention away and introduce 'mitigation'. There are societies in which rape is seen as the fault of the woman REGARDLESS of circumstances, many of those cultures condone the concept of 'honour killing', which in plain language is male relatives murdering the victim for being raped.
It is not such a big step from that evil to "she dressed like a slut so she deserved it". Both choose to place blame on the victim, not the rapist.
Regardless of the genders, rape is rape, there are no excuses for it.
The flip side to that is that the victim can't (in my view) cry rape retrospectively. Rape is non-consensual, if you consent at the time, you don't get to change your mind later. If you are too drunk, drugged etc to consent then it is rape, because non-consent means there has to be consent, not just an absence of objection.
If you are too drunk, drugged etc to consent then it is rape
1. Short of being unconscious, what is too drunk to consent. If we are going to apply criminal penalties to this, I think we need an objective criteria for it.
2. What if both parties are too drunk?
3. Does it matter if the the party that's too drunk/drugged got there on their own vs having having their drinks spiked by the other party without their knowledge? Personally, I think the later case would be more culpable, not that there is no culpability in the former.
Short of being unconscious, what is too drunk to consent.
Ask a father; How drunk does your daughter need to be?
What if both parties are too drunk?
Too drunk to consent = no consent.
Personally, I think the later case would be more culpable, not that there is no culpability in the former.
Assuming we both agree that rape is non consensual penetration, then there is no degree of culpability. Or are you suggesting that it is possible to be partially raped?
Or are you suggesting that it is possible to be partially raped?
No, that's not what I'm suggesting. But that doesn't mean all rapes should be punished equally.
ETA: First degree murders is punished more harshly than second degree murder or manslaughter. The victim is just as dead in each case, but the perpetrators of first degree murder are considered more culpable than the perpetrators of second degree murder or manslaughter. It's how the law works.
But that doesn't mean all rapes should be punished equally.
Currently no crime is punished equally, why would you expect rape to be different? There are bound to be differences in sentencing, rape is often not the only offence committed on the victim. My point is that rape either occurred or it didn't, there is no such thing as partial rape.
My point is that rape either occurred or it didn't, there is no such thing as partial rape.
I wasn't suggesting other wise, but one might be deserving of greater punishment than the other.
Short of being unconscious, what is too drunk to consent.
Ask a father; How drunk does your daughter need to be?
Non-responsive and meaningless. It does nothing to address the question.
Non-responsive and meaningless.
Indeed. That state would mean an inability to consent.
What if both parties are too drunk?
Too drunk to consent = no consent.
So then if a man and a woman who are both too drunk to consent have sex with each other you think we should put both of them in prison for rape?
So then if a man and a woman who are both too drunk to consent have sex with each other you think we should put both of them in prison for rape?
In my experience, a guy that is too drunk to talk is too drunk to fuck.
Are you suggesting that both parties are so drunk they cannot consent, yet are capable of copulation?
In my experience, a guy that is too drunk to talk is too drunk to fuck.
Perhaps, but you haven't defined that as the point were too drunk to consent happens.
Are you suggesting that both parties are so drunk they cannot consent, yet are capable of copulation?
Until we have a solid definition for "too drunk to consent", yes that is a possibility. It may still be a possibility after you draw that line, depending on where exactly you draw it.
There are cases out there of women who, according to third party witnesses, were able to stand on their own and were speaking at least somewhat coherently claiming to have been too drunk to consent.
I have, in my past, been very, VERY drunk. And still was capable of fucking. So is your claim that the 'too drunk to consent' state would be reached at a higher BAC than I had on those occasions?
If not, are you suggesting that men should be held to a different standard when it comes to granting or receiving consent? That a man is capable (and culpable) with a BAC of .15 but a woman is too drunk to consent with a BAC of .05?
If not, are you suggesting that men should be held to a different standard when it comes to granting or receiving consent? That a man is capable (and culpable) with a BAC of .15 but a woman is too drunk to consent with a BAC of .05?
I made no such distinction. Male or Female. Neither did I suggest a BAC. I DID state that rape is non-consensual, which (should) mean that intercourse is either consensual or it is rape. I also stated that (to me) changing your mind after the fact isn't an option. If it were then every working girl would cry rape when the cheque bounced, cash was counterfeit, etc.
If it were then every working girl would cry rape when the cheque bounced, cash was counterfeit, etc.
Would that not actually be petty theft?
Would that not actually be petty theft?
I just knew someone would take that comment seriously...
Could be petty theft, yes. It could also be one or more of several other offences.
Of US states only California has a law to cover rape by fraud, and even then, it only covers identity fraud.
Could be petty theft, yes. It could also be one or more of several other offences.
Well, if he picked her up in a store, maybe shoplifting. Or if she worked out of her own place, defrauding an innkeeper.
Well, if he picked her up in a store, maybe shoplifting.
Picking her up would be assault (battery not included)
It takes a lot of specialist equipment to lift a shop, I doubt it could be achieved just by short changing a hooker. (Unless she was a sky-hooker?)
Picking her up would be assault (battery not included)
Actually that's backwards.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault_and_battery
Assault and battery exists in both the tort law context and the criminal law context.
Respectively, "assault" and "battery" are separate offenses. However, they often occur together, and that occurrence is referred to as "assault and battery."
In an act of physical violence by one person against another, "assault" is usually paired with battery. In an act of physical violence, assault refers to the act which causes the victim to apprehend imminent physical harm, while battery refers to the actual act causing the physical harm.
Actually that's backwards.
Nope.
Picking her up would be battery (assault not included) just isn't punny.
Picking her up would be battery (assault not included) just isn't punny.
My preferred pun around assault and battery is at the diner table. A salt and buttery. :)
I also once in a pet store to buy an electronic ultra sonic dog training device asked a store clerk where they kept the "bat treats"
That is almost as bad as putting a knife on a salt shaker and calling it "assault with a lethal weapon".
1. Short of being unconscious, what is too drunk to consent. If we are going to apply criminal penalties to this, I think we need an objective criteria for it.
2. What if both parties are too drunk?
3. Does it matter if the the party that's too drunk/drugged got there on their own vs having having their drinks spiked by the other party without their knowledge? Personally, I think the later case would be more culpable, not that there is no culpability in the former.
Most jurisdictions equate it to the legal limit for driving.
And if both parties had to much to drink, it actually most times comes down to who files a complaint first. And yes, there have been cases where the male filed a complaint, although quite often against a female that was discovered to have done that in the past (morning after remorse).
And there is a difference, if the drink is "spiked", that is automatically rape no matter what, as consent was taken away from them.
I have reviewed dozens of cases of this sort in the military. And it is one reason why I often shrug at the misrepresenting of "Rape Statistics" for those in the military. For one, the military does not actually publish "Rape Statistics", but "Sexual Assault" statistics. They are not the same thing.
In over half of the cases the victim themselves requests anonymity, so no legal process can be followed anyways. And in a large percentage of the remainder, alcohol is found to be a factor with both individuals, so unless force was used or the victim was unconscious they are largely dismissed with minimal (if any) repercussions.
Privates Jones and Smith go to a bar and get plastered together. Both make statements that they had both gotten drunk, and started "fooling around". That lead to sex, and neither of them objected at the time.
Then a day or so later one of them feels like they were taken advantage of, and files a non-restricted SHARP case.
So why should it be assumed one is a victim and one the aggressor? Because of the sex of the individuals? Notice, I gave no first names or sex, they could be male and female. Or 2 males, or 2 females. In most cases like the above, both get informal oral reprimands to not lose control of their drinking again with no other punishments.
The reason I object to the claim (excuse) that rape is really about (fill in the blank) is because it aims to deflect attention away and introduce 'mitigation'. There are societies in which rape is seen as the fault of the woman REGARDLESS of circumstances, many of those cultures condone the concept of 'honour killing', which in plain language is male relatives murdering the victim for being raped.
Wow! I'm not trying to present anything as mitigating circumstance for rape, which I consider unconscionable. I'm trying to understand why it happens.
In the hypothetical case of a woman raping a man, I think it would be the woman's fault.
AJ
In the hypothetical case of a woman raping a man, I think it would be the woman's fault.
Of course it would..!!
a piss hard-on
I'm not convinced that's an actual thing but a construct of 'erotic' fiction.
When a man sleeps his blood pressure falls, making it easier to have an erection from an erotic dream. When a man wakes up, he may well not remember the dream but he will notice how full his bladder is.
Evolution would have had to have been particularly perverse to give men erections when they need to urinate, considering how difficult that makes the process.
AJ
Evolution would have had to have been particularly perverse to give men erections when they need to urinate, considering how difficult that makes the process.
Not perverse, handy. Waking up with a hard on has prevented/made it easier to not piss your bed.
I'm not convinced that's an actual thing but a construct of 'erotic' fiction.
It is a 'thing' for you guys, try searching "nocturnal penile tumescence" (NPT)
I didn't realise women have the equivalent - 'nocturnal clitoral tumescence'. Do they also mislabel it as a piss hard-on?
Thinking about it, 'nocturnal' is probably incorrect too, or else night-shift workers would have to call it 'diurnal clitoral tumescence' etc.
AJ
I didn't realise women have the equivalent - 'nocturnal clitoral tumescence'. Do they also mislabel it as a piss hard-on?
Unlikely as they don't pee through their clits.
IIRC, he woke up right before he came. So I'm guessing there was that whole 'confused to be waking up in a situation other than expected' thing, followed by realizing what was going on at pretty much the same time as finishing.
I'm more a man 'ho than him, so I wasn't sure why he was upset when he mentioned it, although I believe it may have interfered with a relationship he wanted to start around that time?
I'm pretty sure that the friendship they'd had for a couple years ended very soon thereafter.
I'm more a man 'ho than him, so I wasn't sure why he was upset when he mentioned it, although I believe it may have interfered with a relationship he wanted to start around that time?
Imagine he got her pregnant and kept responsible for all costs...
Rape, NonConsensual, Blackmail, Drunk/Drugged, Mind Control, and more. All specifically to signify these differing levels.
Yeah, but I think you need the NonConsent tag with all those others.
coerced or blackmailed
Also known as raped. No actual true lesbian would willingly have sex with a man. If they are not willing, then it is rape. Maybe you're looking for a bisexual instead?
No actual true lesbian would willingly have sex with a man.
There is one in my new novel. The reason it is set in 1882 is because it needed to be before artificial insemination. As I said earlier, she saw it as a medical procedure. How was she able to tolerate it? Well, there's a bisexual female involved.
In fact, that event was supposed to be the short story the novel grew out of.
Not having read the story for context, I won't comment on it.
As for Lesbians being willing under those circumstances, I have my doubts. None I've ever met in the real world would, that I'm sure of.
None I've ever met in the real world would, that I'm sure of.
This is 1882 and the only way to have a child without adopting. The other woman plays an important role in the event. There is no attachment with the man. Or arousal or pleasure from him.
None I've ever met in the real world would, that I'm sure of.
I'm related to one. Confirmed lesbians can want to have a child, and if you can get it paid for along with a nice inheritance -- well, it isn't difficult to figure out a way to do that.
Confirmed lesbians can want to have a child, and if you can get it paid for along with a nice inheritance -- well, it isn't difficult to figure out a way to do that.
I don't understand. Can you elaborate?
Confirmed lesbians can want to have a child, and if you can get it paid for along with a nice inheritance -- well, it isn't difficult to figure out a way to do that.
I don't understand. Can you elaborate?
It hardly seems necessary, but here goes: If a woman (lesbian or otherwise) desires to have a child, all she needs is to find a willing male person. No artificial anything involved. Tab A, Slot B.
Now, raising a child is expensive, so it will help if you find an old guy who has money and social security and a pension. Old guys want sex too, you know, and know about tabs and slots. Then sue for child support. SS pays until the child reaches the age of 18. Even better if the old guy keels over dead pretty soon, so you get to share the inheritance.
Look at it this way: a hooker may hate having sex, but she'll do it for money to buy food or drugs.
A lesbian may hate having sex with a man, but if she wants a child to raise, that kid is a lot more important to her life than a just meal or a hit. Why wouldn't she?
If a woman (lesbian or otherwise) desires to have a child, all she needs is to find a willing male person. No artificial anything involved. Tab A, Slot B.
That's what happens.
No need for child support. The lesbian is very wealthy.
No need for child support. The lesbian is very wealthy.
Good. I'm just saying that in real life, it happens more often than you'd think. Not everybody is wealthy, a guaranteed income for years is an pretty good incentive.
I'm related to one.
So am I, my eldest sister to be exact. She had the procedure in the early eighties.
@Switch Blayde
You should look up the actual history of artificial insemination in humans. Mary Barton in the UK set up the first clinic in thirties, many more have come along since. It's been around since the 1920's in the US, but the history prior to 1950 is a bit muddled. The cleanest reference was for a study at the University of Iowa, I believe also in the 1920's.
My sister had told me all that many years ago, but she's just reminded me of it when I called and asked. You can bet anyone in that community will know, or know someone who does know that history. You may want to rethink the premise behind that bit of your story.
The story takes place in 1882.
My brain apparently wanted to insert a nine in there. My apologies, that is what you stated.
Also known as raped. No actual true lesbian would willingly have sex with a man. If they are not willing, then it is rape. Maybe you're looking for a bisexual instead?
I would disagree with that.
Do not confuse a single event with a lifelong desire. Just as a perfectly straight woman having sex 1 time with another gal does not make her "bisexual", having sex with a guy would not make a female "not gay".
I went to school with a guy who was gay. But that did not stop him on rare occasion from hooking up with a gal. But he never considered himself as "bisexual", it is simply that on occasion somebody tweaked his interest, but did not a damned thing to divert his entire sexual identity.
Sexuality is not an either/neither thing. And I always found it most strange however that those that are in the "alternate lifestyle" are often the most fanatical in their definitions of it. No "true Lesbian" will ever sleep with a man, bisexuals are all confused, and the like.
Heck, we even hear screams that "Bohemian Rhapsody" "straightwashes" Freddie Mercury. He was gay, and had a few relationships with women. it is not an either/or situation.
You Are Of Course Free to disagree with anything, as am I. My experience and life are what I base my statement on. We disagree, simple enough.
You Are Of Course Free to disagree with anything, as am I.
-- but you're so much better at it, having had so much practice.
-- but you're so much better at it, having had so much practice.
You seem to have a problem with me. That's not the first, nor even the tenth time you've come out of the blue to snipe at me. Let me explain something to you sunshine.
If this is some sad attempt at shaming me so that I shut up, or an attempt to anger me so that I fly off the handle, I've a lifetime of people better than you trying it to no avail. At this point, it's gotten humorous to me that you apparently can't do any better.
You impress me as someone who'd take part in cancel culture with glee, and probably have elsewhere. That's ok though. I'd have to actually care about anything you had to say to me, or about me, for it to have any effect on me. So please do keep trying, it's become comic relief every time you try now.
If you get off on cars, you are chromosexual.
No, getting off on cars would be Autoerotica
Why would someone have sex in a movie preview?
If you like to do it in the subway, you are a metrosexual.
If you like to do it in the subway, you are a metrosexual.
If it is on a London double-decker bus, you are Omnisexual
re: legal definition of rape.
Legally in the US if someone under the local "age of consent" has sex with someone older than that age legally the older person raped the younger one (exceptions are made in some locations for those 'close in age.'
Legally, an adult in a coma would be considered a rapist if someone under the age of consent de facto raped them. The under-aged individual would be treated as a rape victim instead of the one actually commiting the rape.
Legally, an adult in a coma would be considered a rapist if someone under the age of consent de facto raped them.
Nope. In fact because the patient in a coma was not capable of consent, the minor would be the rapist.
This is a very simple aspect of the law. Violating the law requires awareness, as well as being capable of breaking the law. This is why those of diminished mental abilities can be declared "not guilty", even if they did break the law.
This is a very simple aspect of the law. Violating the law requires awareness, as well as being capable of breaking the law.
This may not be the case for statutory rape.
Across all 50 US states, statutory rape laws are written as strict liability. There is explicitly no mens rea requirement for statutory rape.
Even if the defendant can produce absolute proof of age fraud on the part of the minor, it is no defense.
This may not be the case for statutory rape.
Diminished mental capacity is good for all charges. That includes people in a coma.
Somebody in a coma is not capable of consent. The same with those with diminished capabilities.
Quite literally, a minor that has sex with an adult in those circumstances would be the one facing rape charges.
At what point someone is too drunk to consent, is extremely subjective. Tying it to the ability to perform is a mistake. Tying it to the ability to make a coherent sentence is a mistake though more believable. Tying it to a specific blood alcohol content is a mistake.
Tying it to the ability to physically resist is probably the cleanest method, but again is somewhat subjective in rarer cases.
How to quantify and qualify the conditions in question will likely never be agreed upon. At the root of it is intent. How do law enforcement agencies prove intent beyond a doubt?
I don't have the answers, but I can see both sides to the arguments. Failure to recognize the subjective nature of the problem isn't moving the problem any closer to a solution.
Maybe it is God's will.
leave God out of this. He wants no part of what happens next.
Looking for any stories of lesbians hooking up with guys
Reminded of this one when I was looking for something for someone else: Jake's Dream Come True by BillyRay