22 year old guy, 16 year old girls

[edocsil]

So if you get raped at a party, tough shit...you shouldn't have been there?

Only because you define any sex while drunk as rape. As I am a moderately decent human being I see non consensual sex a a bad thing. Put when both parties are consenting? That I do not understand. If you sign a will or any other legal document while impaired it still (generally) counts, so why do other equally important decisions in your life change so radically while drunk?

[bedub1]

So if you get raped at a party, tough shit...you shouldn't have been there?

Only because you define any sex while drunk as rape. As I am a moderately decent human being I see non consensual sex a a bad thing. Put when both parties are consenting? That I do not understand. If you sign a will or any other legal document while impaired it still (generally) counts, so why do other equally important decisions in your life change so radically while drunk?

You've got that backwards.

A totally drunk person also lacks the ability to consent to a contract and has the option of voiding a contract signed while intoxicated, providing it is done at the earliest opportunity upon sobriety.

[jonesthecurl]

I think the moral question relates to intent,
In much of the world persons of 16 are considered old enough to have sex if they want to,
I don't know of anywhere that drinking at 16 is legal.
A 22 year old having sex with a 16 year old would not raise an eyebrow most places.
However, getting a girl drunk deliberately so that he can screw her, especially if the female is unused to drinking, is utterly immoral, even if the girl is of a legal drinking and screwing age.
Getting a guy so drunk that his moral inhibitors are turned off will probably just lead to a certain song by the "Dead Kennedies".

[edocsil]

So if you get raped at a party, tough shit...you shouldn't have been there?

Only because you define any sex while drunk as rape. As I am a moderately decent human being I see non consensual sex a a bad thing. Put when both parties are consenting? That I do not understand. If you sign a will or any other legal document while impaired it still (generally) counts, so why do other equally important decisions in your life change so radically while drunk?

You've got that backwards.

A totally drunk person also lacks the ability to consent to a contract and has the option of voiding a contract signed while intoxicated, providing it is done at the earliest opportunity upon sobriety.

I figured that was the case, which was why I used the word impaired and not drunk. Although for the quote to be in effect it sounds like "totally drunk" needs to include a significant amount of alcohol. The rape laws apply after a single drink.

[Woodruff]

So if you get raped at a party, tough shit...you shouldn't have been there?

Only because you define any sex while drunk as rape.

I don't define that, but our legal system seems to. You seem to be confusing my recognition of the law as my opinion, though I have attempted to be careful about that distinction and at least once stated so outright.

No, with that question I am speaking of incontrovertible rape. You stated that "If you drink at a party shit can happen, if you don't know that going into the party you don't belong there to begin with. It's a conscious choice to go to a party, and if you are unwilling to live with the consequences you should show yourself the door. Naive to think otherwise." Based on that statement, you clearly believe that if you are drinking and get raped at a party, tough shit. After all, it was your conscious choice to go to the party, so live with the consequences, bitch.

As I am a moderately decent human being I see non consensual sex a a bad thing. Put when both parties are consenting? That I do not understand. If you sign a will or any other legal document while impaired it still (generally) counts, so why do other equally important decisions in your life change so radically while drunk?

Actually, wills are quite often contested and overturned due to the "willer" being impaired in some manner, typically from a psychological standpoint.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think the moral question relates to intent,
In much of the world persons of 16 are considered old enough to have sex if they want to,
I don't know of anywhere that drinking at 16 is legal.
A 22 year old having sex with a 16 year old would not raise an eyebrow most places.
However, getting a girl drunk deliberately so that he can screw her, especially if the female is unused to drinking, is utterly immoral, even if the girl is of a legal drinking and screwing age.
Getting a guy so drunk that his moral inhibitors are turned off will probably just lead to a certain song by the "Dead Kennedies".

CALIFORNIA!! UBER ALLES!! CALIFORNIA--UBER ALLES!!!!

[mviola]

I think the moral question relates to intent,
In much of the world persons of 16 are considered old enough to have sex if they want to,
I don't know of anywhere that drinking at 16 is legal.
A 22 year old having sex with a 16 year old would not raise an eyebrow most places.
However, getting a girl drunk deliberately so that he can screw her, especially if the female is unused to drinking, is utterly immoral, even if the girl is of a legal drinking and screwing age.
Getting a guy so drunk that his moral inhibitors are turned off will probably just lead to a certain song by the "Dead Kennedies".

CALIFORNIA!! UBER ALLES!! CALIFORNIA--UBER ALLES!!!!

Everyone knows it's Holiday in Cambodia. Duh.

[Army of GOD]

Moral relativity





/thread

[john9blue]

Moral relativity





/thread

dude. people are not open minded enough to be moral relativists. i could tell them that the 16 year old got raped and gave birth to the man who cured cancer, and they would say that rape is always wrong.

morals and laws are human guidelines, they don't define what is good. people think they do, because they have a strong desire to know exactly what is good, even though they can't.

[mgconstruction]

The problem with this is the "Getting her drunk" part. First she is 16 & getting her drunk is supplying alcohol to a minor. If you have to get a girl or woman drunk of any age to have sex with you go kill yourself now.

I personally agree with minimum age laws for consent to have sex. However I think they should have maybe a acceptable 2 year age difference within them. Another words I think its ridiculous to convict 18 yr old HS kid for dating a 16 yr old HS kid and have him on a sex offenders list for the rest of his life.

[Woodruff]

dude. people are not open minded enough to be moral relativists. i could tell them that the 16 year old got raped and gave birth to the man who cured cancer, and they would say that rape is always wrong.

That wouldn't be moral relativity, because the end result doesn't change the goodness/badness of the initial action. Moral relativity would have more to do with situations such as both individuals being willing to consent before the alcohol was involved. Moral relativity has to do with the 19-year-old and the 17-year-old having consensual sex.

[Woodruff]

The problem with this is the "Getting her drunk" part. First she is 16 & getting her drunk is supplying alcohol to a minor. If you have to get a girl or woman drunk of any age to have sex with you go kill yourself now.

I personally agree with minimum age laws for consent to have sex. However I think they should have maybe a acceptable 2 year age difference within them. Another words I think its ridiculous to convict 18 yr old HS kid for dating a 16 yr old HS kid and have him on a sex offenders list for the rest of his life.

Agreed.

[freezie]

Hey, if you made the choice to drink you better be willing to live with the consequences. Pisses me off to no end that they call that rape. Hell, sometimes its hard to tell at a party if someones been drinking, and if you happen to head upstairs and then all they have to do is tell someone about it and the guy is SCREWED. No matter what, the guy loses in that. How come it is rape if both parties have been drinking?
Yeah, this one always kinda pisses me off.

I have to agree to this..somewhat. If both parties were drinking, assuming the girl is in age to make her own judgement ( and the guy aswell, mind you ) then nobody is to blame.

Woodruff, you CANNOT moraly say that the girl was a victim if she CHOOSE to drink with many others around. Unless of course a random guy came and took advatange of the situation, but that's a whole other story. If a girl and a guy both got the party and end up sleeping together, due to alchool or not, and one of them isn't happy about it, then stay sober.

A guy getting a girl drunk, whatever the age, with the intention of abusing her, then throw in him jail for the rest of his pathetic life. Period.

However girls that choose to drink in company of other guys that aren't abusing of her, choose to take responsability for their actions. Same applies to guy.

Would you call me a victim, and blame a bunch of hungry lions if I threw myself voluntarly in a cage full of those? granted it's not exactly a nice exemple, but it comes down to the same thing. You sign contracts that you know you can be injured and take responsability for it when you go jump off with a parachute. Alchool isn't a lot safer.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff, you CANNOT moraly say that the girl was a victim if she CHOOSE to drink with many others around. Unless of course a random guy came and took advatange of the situation, but that's a whole other story. If a girl and a guy both got the party and end up sleeping together, due to alchool or not, and one of them isn't happy about it, then stay sober.

You seem to be laboring under the same misunderstanding as edocsil. It doesn't MATTER what I think, but it DOES matter what the law is.

[demonfork]

I think the moral question relates to intent,
In much of the world persons of 16 are considered old enough to have sex if they want to,
I don't know of anywhere that drinking at 16 is legal.
A 22 year old having sex with a 16 year old would not raise an eyebrow most places.
However, getting a girl drunk deliberately so that he can screw her, especially if the female is unused to drinking, is utterly immoral, even if the girl is of a legal drinking and screwing age.
Getting a guy so drunk that his moral inhibitors are turned off will probably just lead to a certain song by the "Dead Kennedies".

"Too Drunk to f*ck"...been there.

[freezie]

Woodruff, you CANNOT moraly say that the girl was a victim if she CHOOSE to drink with many others around. Unless of course a random guy came and took advatange of the situation, but that's a whole other story. If a girl and a guy both got the party and end up sleeping together, due to alchool or not, and one of them isn't happy about it, then stay sober.

You seem to be laboring under the same misunderstanding as edocsil. It doesn't MATTER what I think, but it DOES matter what the law is.

I am canadian. American's law isn't any of my business, hence why I said MORALLY. I never said what could be legally done or not. Any oppinions about the law on forums is useless, anyway. Laws aren't the same from one place to another. I do agree with you, though, if the law say something, and you go against the law..you're faulty. Whatever the case, time, date, whatever.