(June 8, 2014 at 7:20 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: As with everything, it depends upon context, ranging from black/white scenarios to subtle shades of fuck-you grey.
Prosecutors and police both like to change the degree of how much they want to fuck over people between the same crimes but different perpetrators.
The two gray areas I can see are age and chemical impairment. I understand and support why laws restricting ability to give consent are on the books but it does conjure certain extreme scenarios that might be debatable.
I once heard about a Kansas boy aged 19 who had sex with his 17 year old boyfriend and was sentenced to jail for 20 years. Disclaimer: I have not seen the news article first hand, so that may be an urban legend, but it sounds plausible. Had his boyfriend been a girlfriend, perhaps nothing would have even been done. Regardless of gender and sexual orientation, I wonder if the law should have some caveat about when the age difference is only a few years?
Alcohol consumption can muddy these waters too. I fully support calling it "rape" when a woman is passed out drunk at a party or so drunk as to be oblivious. She can't give consent under such conditions. However, DC law is so strict that ANY alcohol in her system renders her unable to give consent. If she goes out on a date and consumes one glass of wine, she can legally drive her partner home but not have sex with him there.
Where the line is drawn regarding blood-alcohol levels and her ability to give consent may vary from state to state.
Back in my younger days when I drank at parties, people would tell me the next day they had no idea I was drunk. I'm a "quiet drunk", I guess, or able to maintain coordination enough to cover impairment. What if such a woman were to initiate sex. Women are known to not just be passive and offer "consent" but actually jump the guys from time to time. Is a man responsible for pushing her away and asking for a breathalyzer test? What if he's also drunk and unable to tell she is when she jumps his bones?
Again, I get why these distinctions are on the books and I support them remaining there but there are some gray areas. Perhaps a bit of nuance could be written into the laws for some of these extreme cases?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
