Just realized I missed a part:

then you have a curious case of a crime where both parties are equally victim and perpetrator, because by the same definition, the man was just as much raped as the woman.

What's "curious" about that? It's the exact same as with any other crime. If you attack an innocent person, you're charged with battery. If two people are fighting, however, and there's no "primary aggressor", you're "mutual combattants", and unless you're violating some other statute (for example, disorderly intoxication), the case is generally declared nolle prosequi.

Of course, your proposed scenario where two people are drunk to the point of unconsciousness is physically impossible, and if they're both drunk merely to the point of incoherence, you're going to have a lot of trouble having sex. As to what level of intoxication determines one's inability to grant legal consent (to sex, to signing a contract, to whatever) varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but let's not play dumb - if you see a person who's slurring their speech, can hardly stand up, and doesn't seem to understand where they are, don't act all dumb and say, "Oh, I thought she was perfectly cogent to make informed decisions!"

If you happen to find a jurisdiction where a 0,05 BAC is declared to be incapacitated, hey, you've got my support, that'd be an overly strict declaration. But that's not the general case, the case that all those evil Feminazis that you hate are complaining about.

ISP Network Engineer here,

You don't load-balance inbound data across multiple providers.

We peer with Netflix for precisely this reason. They were crushing a single of our upstreams at any point in time. Unfortunately, Netflix does *not* peer openly, unless they're doing it on a public IX. Once they started peering at SIX though, we jumped on the wagon quick.

That is to say- Internet connections are *not* resilient in the way you're using the word, or even designed to be so. In the case of failure, routing protocols are certainly designed to find alternate paths, but you simply don't get load balancing across multiple ASNs.

I'm sorry if you can't handle the truth

What I'm saying is backed up by the law. What you're saying is backed up by "I want to fuck sleeping and drunk girls without their permission, and anyone who says that's wrong is a feminazi".

The hard part (no pun intended) is that very few human beings begin a sexual activity by signing a clearly spelled-out contract

As I just headed you off, no court in the world asks for a written contract. They simply look for anything that a reasonable person would consider explicit, affirmative consent before the activity by a party legally capable of consenting. It doesn't even have to be spoken. But you don't even want to have to get a damned smile from your "partner" before sticking it in.

In addition, in some jurisdictions it is legally rape even if the women explicitly consented to sex and then changed her mind during or even after intercourse.

Once again, [[Citation needed]]. There is no such jurisdiction on Earth.

Your primitive try at statistics is laughable

That's how one compounds an annualized probability over a number of years, it's a very simple formula. And there are tons and tons of studies out there which have total accumulated likelyhood of rape over a woman's lifetime (about 30%), but you just keep hand-waving them away.

, you find gems like some studies classifying things as rape that even the women interviewed did not consider such.

The very study YOU cited, which I quoted, ASKED the subjects (men and women) whether they had been raped in the past year. Why are you complaining about me quoting YOUR preferred study?

And if you really think that being physically attacked and penetrated against your will falls even into the same category of things as having a beer too many and regretting going home with that guy the next day, then you need to have your head examined.

Glad to know that you'd think you'd simply "made a mistake" if you got drunk (or worse, if someone had slipped something in your drink) and woke up to some guy f***ing you without your consent. Hey, where do you usually party and when, I'd like to send a few guys your way who would be very interested in your "if I'm drunk to the point of incoherence / unconsciousness, I'm fine with whatever sexual activity occurs, and if I regret it it's my fault" approach.

Hey, let's take it even further. I'm *thrilled* to know that if you get drunk to the point that you're incoherent or unconscious, then that counts as consent to take your wallet. And if you get drunk, I'm sure I'm going to love getting to take your car. And burn down your house. I appreciate the fact that to you, being incapacitated is consent to whatever the people around you want to do. This is going to be lots of fun!

In general, having sex with a sleeping person is illegal**, almost everywhere in the world. The fact that you weren't charged because she happened to be into it doesn't make it not rape, any more than it wouldn't be rape if you happened to jump out of the bushes with a knife and rape a girl who happened to have a rape fantasy. If one night your girlfriend had gone to bed angry with you and woken up to you F*ing her without her consent, she would have had, and should have, every damned right in the world to charge you for it. You can never assume an unending right to F*** someone, even your girlfriend or spouse, and that's a damned good thing.

** In some jurisdictions, there are exceptions made for if consent was given shortly before the person went to sleep (considering that to be consent immediately before the sexual activity), while in others, there's a flat ban. In one noteworthy case in Canada for the extreme end of the spectrum, in R. v. J.A., the Canadian Supreme Court took on a case where a woman consented to be strangled during sex, she passed out, and while she was out her partier tied her up and shoved a dildo up her anus, she came to, he stopped, she recovered, and then they did other consensual sexual activities. The Supreme Court ruled that the activities that occurred during the three minutes that she was unconscious were rape. It doesn't matter that she was consenting to sexual activities before and after - you cannot assume consent from an unconscious person.

You claim there's blurry lines. There are no blurry lines. You want there to be blurry lines, holes carved out in the definition of rape so that you have the right to f*** girls without having to get their permission. It's a damned good reason that they're not. Because rape is enough of a problem as it is with people like you who think you have a right to F*** girls without getting their consent.

Thanks to feminist lobbying gone wild, we now have some jurisdictions where she can consent 100% to sex, and as soon as she says "no" during intercourse, the whole thing is rape, even if you stop immediately.

[[Citation needed]]. Point me to a single jurisdiction where it's considered rape if you stop immediately. However, if you don't stop immediately, YES, it's rape, and you better damned well believe it's rape..

Or where she can change her mind the next day and turn a fully consentual sex act into rape

If consent was given, it's not rape. If consent was not given, it's rape. If you're having a problem with women accusing you of rape, stop F*ing them without their consent.

And oh, that evil feminist lobby, wanting women to have a right to say no before sex - clearly they're just a bunch of Nazis!

they make it harder to fight the real problem.

You don't get it, do you? The real problem is you, and everyone like you who thinks they have a right to F* girls without getting their consent. That's RAPE.

And to head it off... no, consent does not have to be some sort of written contracts like MRAs try to play it out to be. It doesn't even have to be spoken. If she smiles, kisses you back, pulls you closer, etc, that's consent. But you CANNOT take silence as consent, you CANNOT take a previous yes as consent to a different event, you CANNOT take incapacitation as consent, and you CANNOT make consent irrevocable. You have to get affirmative, withdrawable consent, from someone who can legally consent, every time. I don't know why this is so hard for so many people.

Oh, please, cut it with the rape-apologism BS. "Rape is not clearly defined?" If you don't get an affirmative, withdrawable yes from someone who can legally consent, it's rape. What is so damned hard about that?

The only reason there's wikipedia fights is that all of the MRAs like you who want to be able to F*** girls so drunk they can't even walk or say it's not rape because "she didn't physically fight me", or "She came into my apartment, that's consent and she can't change her mind" want to try to dilute the very simple definition of rape. And FYI, using your own perferred source of statistics: 0,5% of women per year, average lifespan of 81 years, that's 1-(0.995^81) = 33% of women, using your "narrower definitions" survey. So here's a tip: the next time you want to cite statistics to support your MRA BS, try to find ones that don't argue precisely for the opposite of what you're trying to claim. And even that supposedly less "0,2%"? I'm sitting here looking at the 2010 National Crime Victimization Survey right here, and it says, "One percent, or approximately 1.3 million women, reported being raped by any perpetrator in the 12 months prior to taking the survey". The number "0.2%" does not exist in the document. And that 1% is only for rape - the number for "sexual violence victimization other than rape" is 5.6% of women in a 12 month period. And oh hey, you know your "statutory" excuse? "Complete interviews were obtained from 16,507 adults"

I'm sorry, go back to spewing your MRA rape-apologism BS, because god knows, the world needs more of THAT. Clearly you're the victim here - poor you having to listen to all those damned lying women saying they were raped, when you know so much better than them.

Verizon is in the wrong from the perspective of their Netflix customers, I agree.

https://www.netflix.com/openco...

Should I also be able to force Netflix to peer with me?
Should every company in my building with "eyes" (customers) be able to force Netflix to peer with them?

I can't defend Verizon's business choice to refuse to address the needs of some large portion of their customer base, but I, as Network Engineer for a smaller ISP, can say with absolute certainty that forcing peering arrangements is ridiculously bad. It's equivalent to forcing a gas station operator to have fittings for every possible form of vehicle gas receptacle, with nothing to standardize it. You *have* to let the market determine these sorts of things, otherwise, we need a new bill in the legislation for every network we feel is important enough to circumvent the freedoms of the market.

JWW couldn't have been more wrong.

No ISP promises the provisioned bandwidth to any network on the internet.

You're paying for a connection to the internet, and a certain amount of bandwidth from your home to the edges of your provider's network. If your providers peering arrangements suck, then you get a new provider. If you can't get a new provider, then you lobby for service provider de-monopolization.

OR, I suppose you could just try to force them to peer with everyone via legislative fiat. Because that will scale fantastically.

Come on, seriously?

Are they to guarantee to-home bandwidth to every network on the internet?

What *is* your bar for forcing a peering arrangement between two networks?

I refuse to criticize Verizon for standing up to content-provider extortionists.

No. They paid for a cross-connect and a router port at a specified bitrate. They got it, and it still wasn't enough.

But I know, we should regulate evil Verizon to force them into peering arrangements with third-parties.

Incredible.

Certainly you can see that such idiocy doesn't scale...

All these people complaiing about how "horribly corrupt" the US government are are just playing a huge round of "First World Problems". The US is #19 on the Transparency International list. That's not superb, but it's out of 177 countries... I mean, for crying out loud, Yanukovych in Ukraine had a personal zoo at his house - tens of billions of dolllars stolen from a country whose per-capita income is less than that of Mongolia's. And that sort of stuff is hardly unusual in the world. Have any of you complaining about evil "US corruption" ever lived in a country with *real* corruption, at all levels?

#FirstWorldProblems

Actually, for most rapes, there are no consequences - the rates of reporting of rape are very low, and the rate of conviction on reported rapes is extremely low. And as a consequence, rape is extremely common. About 30% are raped at least once during their lives, and in anonymous surveys of men asking what sexual activities they've done (some of which are rape), about 10% of young men confess to having raped at least once and about 3% confess to serial rape.

Appeal to authority, argumentum ad populum and poisoning the well. Classy. The science is actually more interesting than you believe:

"First, twenty-four rhesus macaques were infected with the Lyme bacteria in the laboratory. After four to six months, half the macaques received aggressive antibiotic therapy, which, in theory, should have cured them, but the bacteria persisted in some of the animals. Then the scientists used a method called xenodiagnosis to determine if treatment worked in three other monkeys. They planted ticks that had been reared in the lab under sterile conditions on macaques that had received antibiotics, and let them feed for four days. When the ticks were removed and examined, the scientists found small numbers of intact, functioning spirochetes in two of them, which could have come only from the blood of the macaques."
( http://www.newyorker.com/repor... )

It is a fact that a significant amount of people chronically suffer from symptoms that are perfectly in line with the symptoms of Lyme, after having definitely had Lyme. So, that is 'a thing'. Whether the cause is indeed recurring Lyme, a yeast infection or damage to the body doesn't really matter all that much to those with the symptoms. Being dismissed as 'kooky' or being told to 'get over it' by assholes as yourself does matter.

Fine, if you're afraid of the government in your lawyer's jurisdiction. What if you're afraid of a foreign intelligence service, or simply a local thug who's not above manhandling lawyer?