[Spoilers] Non-Season 10 Show Discussion

[Tensor]

 

52 minutes ago, BigBang15 said:

There's no under the law stuff here. No law was broken.
Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk
 

You're entitled to that opinion.  I disagree.  The law, in California is quite clear, it's the man's responsibility.  So a law was broken.   Now, for any kind of arrest and trial, there has to be a report, which didn't happen.  

 

52 minutes ago, BigBang15 said:

As far as we know penny instigated and at minimum assisted

Do you any concrete support for this statement?  Or is this just your opinion?  

 

[3ku11]

I don't think their was any suggestion Penny or Raj instigated it as far as we know. So saying Penny instigated it without clarity. Is just pure conjecture. All we know is they drank ALOT. Penny blacked out. Raj diddnt. Their was attempts. Like putting the Condom on Raj. Raj prematurely you know what. And that was that. The whole thing was very messy. As is all drunken hazes. Leonard and Penny in 3.23 was not under any false pre tenses. Penny knew exactly what she was doing when she was drunk.

Should of Leonard told Penny no? Sure. But he diddnt. Penny had no intention of sleeping with Raj. She even told Raj we're friends. So theirs a big difference their. Look their is and always was tons of gray areas with this Raj Penny hook up. Show should of never gone their in the first place. To me it was crossing major boundaries. But that's just my opinion. The fact we're still discussing such a controversial storyline 6-7 years later. Well I guess they got the appropriate response.

Edited February 28, 2017 by 3ku11

[serenaded214]

 
That's a possibility also. If you wish to think this, I have no problem with it.  I just happen to believe that being black out drunk, indicates a level of intoxication higher than one who can remember what happened.   Blackouts start happening when a BAC is above a 0.20 BAC.  That's about 2.5 times the legal limit.  
Like I said, it COULD have happened the way you described it.   I take the blackout Penny experienced as an indication that she was over the legal limit, and unable to legally give consent.  You may see it differently.   But, California law puts the onus on men.  If both are drunk, the woman can't give consent,  and it's up to the man to realize what is happening.  This doesn't mean it's fair (I don't think it is), but that is the law.   
 

I agree that being blackout drunk means she definitely could not consent. What I'm saying is that just because Raj was not black out drunk does not mean he was able to consent. If the roles were reversed and Penny was the one who remembered, but raj got blackout drunk, would people be accusing Penny of raping raj? I highly doubt it. I think because he's the man and she's the woman, people automatically think that he took advantage of her and it's ridulous. They were both drinking. Being blackout drunk is not the line where inability to consent is drawn.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

[BigBang15]

7 hours ago, 3ku11 said:

I don't think their was any suggestion Penny or Raj instigated it as far as we know. So saying Penny instigated it without clarity. Is just pure conjecture. All we know is they drank ALOT. Penny blacked out. Raj diddnt.

No where is it shown that Penny "blacked out". She just didn't remember in the morning. That's a BIG difference. Since she "helped"Raj with the condom, she was NOT blacked out. So up to that point, the point of helping put on the condom, she was awake. Penny is the kind of drunk that forgets in the morning. Some do, some don't.

 

[SRAM]

10 hours ago, 3ku11 said:

I don't think their was any suggestion Penny or Raj instigated it as far as we know. So saying Penny instigated it without clarity. Is just pure conjecture. All we know is they drank ALOT. Penny blacked out. Raj diddnt. Their was attempts. Like putting the Condom on Raj. Raj prematurely you know what. And that was that. The whole thing was very messy. As is all drunken hazes. Leonard and Penny in 3.23 was not under any false pre tenses. Penny knew exactly what she was doing when she was drunk.

Should of Leonard told Penny no? Sure. But he diddnt. Penny had no intention of sleeping with Raj. She even told Raj we're friends. So theirs a big difference their. Look their is and always was tons of gray areas with this Raj Penny hook up. Show should of never gone their in the first place. To me it was crossing major boundaries. But that's just my opinion. The fact we're still discussing such a controversial storyline 6-7 years later. Well I guess they got the appropriate response.

I think the big thing about these two occurrences was when Penny came to Leonard we knew she was repressing feelings for Leonard, all the alcohol did was take away those walls she set up and let her true feelings out, she wanted to be with Leonard not Zack or anyone else.  Her telling him it was a mistake was her putting those walls back up, she was noting but apologetic to him for it happening, except for of course when he insisted they have drunk sex again, this time him being drunk, and she threw him out. 

The Raj/Penny night was obviously done for shock value, just like us finding out Leonard kissed a girl on his North Sea trip, but also it was a little like the episode when Penny made out with Stuart and in the heat of passion said "Leonard".  That night, as the alcohol loosened her up, Penny confessed to Raj her feelings about Leonard, I think it is safe to say Leonard was the only man romantically on her mind that night.  I think Raj was just there, just like Stuart before, but to Penny she was with Leonard, that being supported by the next morning, during the first second or two, she seemed to be okay when she found she was in Leonard's room, it wasn't till she saw Raj's arm that she panicked.

Concerning the legal aspects, I can't imagine Penny saying anything about rape to anyone with Raj or especially Leonard because it both cases she blamed herself for what happened, not them.

[Etienne]

4 hours ago, BigBang15 said:

No where is it shown that Penny "blacked out". She just didn't remember in the morning. That's a BIG difference. Since she "helped"Raj with the condom, she was NOT blacked out. So up to that point, the point of helping put on the condom, she was awake. Penny is the kind of drunk that forgets in the morning. Some do, some don't.

 

The fact that Penny did not have a memory of the prior evening's actions is the definition of a blackout.  Blackout does not mean passed out or unconscious.  People are able to do complicated tasks, such as driving a motor vehicle, while not forming any short term memories of the act.  There is some evidence that the rate that the BAC increases plays more of a role that simply the total BAC reached.  Females can be more susceptible to experiencing blackouts due to there body size,  and generally lower levels of body fluids to dilute the alcohol.  

[Chrismo]

38 minutes ago, Etienne said:

The fact that Penny did not have a memory of the prior evening's actions is the definition of a blackout.  Blackout does not mean passed out or unconscious.  People are able to do complicated tasks, such as driving a motor vehicle, while not forming any short term memories of the act.  There is some evidence that the rate that the BAC increases plays more of a role that simply the total BAC reached.  Females can be more susceptible to experiencing blackouts due to there body size,  and generally lower levels of body fluids to dilute the alcohol.  

But wouldn't it be also true that there would be no way of Raj knowing that she wouldn't remember what happened?

[Etienne]

1 hour ago, Chrismo said:

But wouldn't it be also true that there would be no way of Raj knowing that she wouldn't remember what happened?

Accomplishing a task and accomplishing a task proficiently are two different things.  Consider a sober individual walking upstairs and unlocking their front door, contrasted with an inebriated (past the .08 legal level) individual doing the same, most people would be able to pick out the drunk.  From what I remember of the scene, Penny was already more intoxicated than Raj (comedy TV loves a sloppy drunk). It is unknown how much more drinking would have gone on; if Penny stopped with that last glass we saw her take, her BAC level would have continued to rise.

[Chrismo]

44 minutes ago, Etienne said:

Accomplishing a task and accomplishing a task proficiently are two different things.  Consider a sober individual walking upstairs and unlocking their front door, contrasted with an inebriated (past the .08 legal level) individual doing the same, most people would be able to pick out the drunk.  From what I remember of the scene, Penny was already more intoxicated than Raj (comedy TV loves a sloppy drunk). It is unknown how much more drinking would have gone on; if Penny stopped with that last glass we saw her take, her BAC level would have continued to rise.

But Raj had been drinking too. From someone who was sober or had little to drink IMO it would of been obvious. But since we did not see how drunk Raj was there his judgment may have been affected. Maybe not enough for him to forget what happened but to realize how drunk Penny was.

[3ku11]

Raj has show a past pattern of even borderline socio pathological behaviour. He has shown past behaviour of selfish, even asinine behaviour. So if one tries to support Raj was in the wrong here? They can support it with evidence.

 So if the shoe fits. Of course all of this is just our own assumptions. We never saw Raj and Penny actually hook up on screen. Thank god. But going off the information given to us. Seeing studies show woman physically black out more then men. Imo a woman who is so intoxicated she has no memory of events that occurred hours before hand. Is not full consent. A man who says we technically had sex. And has to actually tell Penny the whole story?

That's called taking advantage of a situation. Knowing in normal circumstances would never happen. Does this make Raj evil? Imo no. Is Penny innocent in all of this? Of course not. She has a past behaviour of making poor decisions under the influence of alcohol.  But imo Raj made poor judgement. He should of used his head. Instead of the other head..

Edited March 6, 2017 by 3ku11

[Stephen Hawking]

On 2/27/2017 at 4:32 AM, 3ku11 said:

And withholding information about Priya's departure as early as 5.01 too.

It's not for Raj to tell Leonard, about his sister's plans.

10 hours ago, 3ku11 said:

A man who says we technically had sex.

He didn't say that.

On 2/27/2017 at 5:39 AM, 3ku11 said:

Leonard and Penny had a former consenting relationship.

So it would be OK for me to get one of my ex's drunk, and have sex with her?

[Stephen Hawking]

On 2/27/2017 at 3:40 PM, Tensor said:

Actually, in the next episode, Leonard asks Raj why he didn't tell him, and Raj doesn't protest that he didn't know.

He didn't get a chance to protest anything.

Howard jumped straight in, about him writing poems about Bernadette.

[Tensor]

15 minutes ago, Stephen Hawking said:

It's not for Raj to tell Leonard, about his sister's plans.

If they Leonard and Raj are swapping living arrangements, it would.  It was definitely something he should have told Penny. 

 

15 minutes ago, Stephen Hawking said:

So it would be OK for me to get one of my ex's drunk, and have sex with her?

Leonard didn't get Penny drunk.  Aside from that correction, Leonard should have refused, as he had done before. 

2 minutes ago, Stephen Hawking said:

He didn't get a chance to protest anything.

Howard jumped straight in, about him writing poems about Bernadette.

So? The fact remains, he didn't protest he didn't know when he spoke.  He did protest the characterization of his metaphors as clumsy, but was suspiciously silent on Leonard's question. 

[Stephen Hawking]

3 minutes ago, Tensor said:

If they Leonard and Raj are swapping living arrangements, it would.

Should he also have told his parents, about the change in living arrangements?

[Tensor]

Just now, Stephen Hawking said:

Should he also have told his parents, about the change in living arrangements?

Moot, they already knew. 

 

[Stephen Hawking]

7 minutes ago, Tensor said:

Moot, they already knew.

Not until Priya was about to move back to India, they didn't.

[Tensor]

20 minutes ago, Stephen Hawking said:

Not until Priya was about to move back to India, they didn't.

 Leonard found out because of the parent's  comment.   So it's a moot point about Raj telling them.  Besides, Raj and Leonard changing living arrangements, has nothing to do with them. 

[djsurrey]

On 27/02/2017 at 9:48 PM, Tensor said:

You're entitled to that opinion.  I disagree.  The law, in California is quite clear, it's the man's responsibility.  So a law was broken.   Now, for any kind of arrest and trial, there has to be a report, which didn't happen.  

Except as far as we know all that happened is that she put a condom on him. In that act she is the actor and he is being acted on. 

[Tensor]

6 hours ago, djsurrey said:

Except as far as we know all that happened is that she put a condom on him. In that act she is the actor and he is being acted on. 

Doesn't matter. By law, that act still falls under unable to give consent.  As I said, by statute, a law was broken.   it just wasn't reported. 

[djsurrey]

2 hours ago, Tensor said:

Doesn't matter. By law, that act still falls under unable to give consent.  As I said, by statute, a law was broken.   it just wasn't reported. 

I believe you are missing the point. Penny was the one doing something. Raj was just there so far as we know.

[Tensor]

35 minutes ago, djsurrey said:

I believe you are missing the point. Penny was the one doing something. Raj was just there so far as we know.

No, you're missing the point.  Under California law, if a woman is legally unable to give consent, she is unable to legally be a willing participant, and it's up to the male to stop it.  By not stoping it, a law was broken, but without a report, there wasn't a crime, which requires arrest,  trial, and possible punishment.  

[Stephen Hawking]

21 hours ago, Tensor said:

Besides, Raj and Leonard changing living arrangements, has nothing to do with them. 

It does when it involves their daughter living with a man, she is having a secret physical relationship with.

30 minutes ago, Tensor said:

Under California law, if a woman is legally unable to give consent, she is unable to legally be a willing participant.

Does the same apply, in reverse, if the man is unable to give consent?

[Tensor]

9 minutes ago, Stephen Hawking said:

It does when it involves their daughter living with a man, she is having a secret physical relationship with.

How does it affect their living arrangements? 

9 minutes ago, Stephen Hawking said:

Does the same apply, in reverse, if the man is unable to give consent?

Not by statute.  That's why I said it wasn't really fair earlier.  

*Actually an edit.  At the time (season four), the statute only applied to men, as far as consent.  As of 2015, the law was changed to include a sober woman with a male unable to consent.  However, if the female is unable to consent, the state of the male, isn't considered.  

[djsurrey]

11 hours ago, Tensor said:

No, you're missing the point.  Under California law, if a woman is legally unable to give consent, she is unable to legally be a willing participant, and it's up to the male to stop it.  By not stoping it, a law was broken, but without a report, there wasn't a crime, which requires arrest,  trial, and possible punishment.  

I could be completely wrong but since the only Penny parts involved were her hands under her control this is a case where she would need to seek Raj's consent. What does gender have to do with who's consent is required? They were not having intercourse.

[Tensor]

7 minutes ago, djsurrey said:

I could be completely wrong but since the only Penny parts involved were her hands under her control this is a case where she would need to seek Raj's consent. What does gender have to do with who's consent is required? They were not having intercourse.

 

Even if it's just hands, Penny would still have to give consent. You would think that her using her hands on him would indicate consent.  But that's not so as she wasn't able to give consent due to being intoxicated.  At the time of the incident, the law was written in such a way that the male had to get consent, but if the woman were drunk, she couldn't legally give consent. Yeah, a bit of a catch-22.

And before anyone brings up Leonard and drunk Penny, yes, he also needed to get consent she might not have been able to legally give.  The difference is that we know she blacked out, indicating a BAC of over 0.20 at some point, with Raj.  It's not quite so clear in the previous case with Leonard.  Although since he questioned her as to being drunk, that should have been a clue she was possibly too drunk to give consent. 

That law has been changed, to both have to have consent. But, in cases where both are drunk, it's usually the male who has to be aware, as  it is still difficult to get prosecution for women, even if they are the sober one.  The normal operating assumption seems to be that males want sex drunk or sober. Women can feel differently depending on how drunk they are, so they can't give consent if intoxicated. 

 Before you all jump on me, I don't agree with the use of assumptions, as each person can have different reactions at different times. I'm just trying to explain the statutes and the way case law has gone.  I will mention that a small number of cases, either way, have gone against the Majority of case law, but I wouldn't want to try to get past it.