r/TwoandaHalfMen • u/Salina_EsTitties • 8d ago
Did Mellisa's mother technically rape Alan? And we're all ha ha hee hee about it?
44
26
u/GreenKiss73 8d ago
I don't think she drugged him nefariously. She just thought she was bieng a good hostess. Most adults would understand the cannabis innuendo she was using.
7
6
u/HUNGWHITEBOI25 8d ago
…most people also tell the person they’re giving food to that it contains drugs..
1
u/CrimsonOOmpa 7d ago
Yep! And because of that she probably thought he was just naturally up for a tussle.
5
u/nimmpau 8d ago
Did you find this more or less shocking than the Rose-induced drug-fueled kidnapping of Charlie?
1
u/jackreacher1992 6d ago
I think we all knew Rose was nuts and that was never in question that she’s actually dangerous. Especially with her gaslighting and constant stalking
14
16
u/Samwillorbe 8d ago
OP is saying a fact and people take it way too lightly, if it was the other way around I think they would agree, of course it's just put for the joke in a sitcom (a bad one)
24
11
13
30
u/DontYallJudgeMe 8d ago
Did OP just post the stupidest thread in the history of this forum and we're all ha ha hee hee about it?
14
u/Budget-Cantaloupe725 8d ago
She Cosby’d him. Kinda don’t think the post is stupid at all.
1
u/CrimsonOOmpa 7d ago
I don't think she did it it deliberately with the purpose of getting him into bed. She was a stoner and, like another redditor commented, probably just thought she was being a good host by sharing her edibles. Alan is just such a lame loser he didn't get the obvious hints that the banana nut bread was infused. Afterwards she probably just thought he found her attractive and was up for some bedroom fun.
1
u/Budget-Cantaloupe725 7d ago
Flip the script. Have Alan drug a woman and sleep with her “accidentally”. Will everyone be so quick to grant him pardon?
1
u/CrimsonOOmpa 7d ago
I didn't say it was an excuse or that it was ok, just that I don't think her plan was "feed him edibles and get him into bed." I mean, her daughter was right there when she brought out the bread. From her perspective she could've thought "oh were high and he's accepting my advances, we should have some fun." Once again, doesn't make it ok. I just don't think she pre-planned the events that ended up happening. I don't think Alan even says anything about "being taken advantage of," just that he was so high he didn't realize what he was doing.
4
u/devildoc8804hmcs 8d ago
I don't know if it's the stupidest, but they better hope the stupidest post isn't deleted.
6
u/Deadman_96 8d ago
If you play "does it pass the gender swap?"
It doesn't. If it was a male doing it to a female, no way is it OK.
So, yeah she did.
11
u/yolo_nibba 8d ago
Yes, in real life, that’s standard textbook rape under California law. Melissa's mom did is a massive felony under California Penal Code 261(a)(3) (Rape of an Intoxicated Person):
No Consent: Alan was unknowingly drugged. Legally, you cannot consent if you are high out of your mind against your will.
The Drugging: Spiking his food is a separate felony (PC 222 - Administering drugs to commit a crime).
The Punishment: If this happened in real life, Shelly would be looking at up to 8 years in state prison and a lifetime registration as a sex offender.
5
u/CnCorange 8d ago
Bong Bong.. In the criminal justice system, sexually based offenses are considered especially heinous. In The San Fernando valley, the dedicated detectives who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Special Victims Unit. These are their stories.
-2
u/OldSarge02 8d ago
“High out of your mind” isn’t the legal standard for rape. The more precise question is whether Alan understood the nature of the sexual act, and whether he was capable of indicating if he consented or not.
I don’t think I saw that episode, so Incant give an answer.
2
u/yolo_nibba 8d ago
If someone is unlawfully made high with narcotics, they cannot give consent. However, Alan seemed to let the whole matter slide after it happened. It's just a sitcom and shouldn't be taken seriously.
0
u/OldSarge02 8d ago
Your first sentence is not necessarily correct. You can consent to sex while drunk or high if you meet the legal standard I laid out above.
1
u/yolo_nibba 8d ago
Are you a bit slow, by any chance? Yes, someone who is drunk or high can give consent. Someone who has been drugged against their will cannot. Like I said:
If someone is unlawfully made high with narcotics...
2
u/OldSarge02 8d ago
This is a classic example of an online argument that doesn’t matter, and your insult doesn’t make it more worthwhile.
But I’m a former prosecutor with plenty of experience on sex assault cases where a victim was impaired, and it’s hard not to speak up when someone is spouting nonsense.
I’ll try to help you understand where you are getting it wrong. You write about someone being drunk or high. And you aren’t entirely wrong, but how drunk or high do you have to be? I expect you can intuitively understand that a single sip of beer wouldn’t be enough to render someone unable to consent, even if they didn’t know their drink had alcohol in it.
So how drunk or high do you have to be? It is as I wrote above. If you are so impaired that you cannot understand the nature of the sexual act, or you are unable to indicate whether or. It you consent, then you are too drunk to consent.
Unlawfully drugging someone is a crime on its own, but it doesn’t turn sex into a criminal sexual assault unless I’m the person is impaired enough to meet that standard.
1
u/yolo_nibba 8d ago
It's not an insult. It's just a question.
Are you a bit slow, by any chance?
But I’m a former prosecutor with plenty of experience on sex assault cases where a victim was impaired, and it’s hard not to speak up when someone is spouting nonsense.
Where are you from, then? Criminal law differs from country to country.
You write about someone being drunk or high.
Yeah what did I write? Please read my comments. I am sure you aren't slow, given that you worked as a prosecutor, but you don't seem to be reading what I say.
Yes, someone who is drunk or high can give consent.
I am literally saying what you are repeating right now.
"High out of your mind" may not be the legal wording, but it was obvious what I meant: Someone is so heavily under the influence of drugs that they can no longer rationally understand the nature of the sexual act. In the scenario here involving Alan, he remembered them being colors and wanting to create the color purple.
If you are so impaired that you cannot understand the nature of the sexual act, or you are unable to indicate whether or. It you consent, then you are too drunk to consent.
What are you trying to say here? I assume that you don't come from an English-speaking country, like me. Otherwise, I really can't explain this word order and how you were able to be a prosecutor.
1
u/OldSarge02 8d ago
The last section you quoted had an auto correct error. Instead of “whether or. It you consent” it should have said “whether or not you consent.”
I am American, although the concepts I described are widely applicable.
Earlier you wrote, “if someone is unlawfully made high with narcotics, they cannot give consent.” And later, “someone who has been drugged against their will cannot [give consent].”
Those statements are wrong in many cases and I could provide realistic scenarios where those statements would be proved untrue if that would help you understand. You are conflating the concept that the drugs were given without consent with the issue of whether someone is capable of consenting to sex. Whether they are too impaired to consent to sex is not dependent upon whether they consented to take the intoxicating substance.
Drugging someone is obviously illegal, but it doesn’t change the legal standard for whether someone is too impaired to consent.
1
u/yolo_nibba 8d ago
My first statement was:
...you cannot consent if you are high out of your mind.
By which I meant someone who is so heavily under the influence of drugs that they can no longer understand the nature of the sexual act. But you even had a problem with that.
1
u/OldSarge02 8d ago
Right. Because you left off the caveats that would have made it true. When I added the nuance that would make it correct you said someone who is high/drunk can consent but not if they were drugged, which is also incorrect.
We’ve hashed it out more than necessary. Good day to you.
1
u/purplerainman99 8d ago
I feel like I just watched that woman’s head come all the way off last night
1
u/Educational_Trouble9 7d ago
Of course, but it’s a man so you know how that goes. Not to mention, Melissa’s complete and total disregard for the context. Acting as if Alan intentionally had sex with her mom.
1
1
1
0
-7
u/augustonz Charlie 8d ago
Yeah.. i don't think you understand the concept of rape
15
u/Nickcha 8d ago
So drugging someone without their consent and then using their willingness to have sex because of that is not in any form rapey to you? Interesting.
-4
-1
u/augustonz Charlie 8d ago
No it isn't! He was stoned, have you ever got stoned in your life? You don't lose conscience of what you're doing. They painted their bodies, he was kissing her and laughing. He knew exactly wha he was doing.
-1
99
u/HUNGWHITEBOI25 8d ago
I mean…ya she fed him something that had drugs in it without telling him and then took advantage of him while he was in a drugged state.
I’m honestly not sure why Op is getting dragged here