From: le@main.lekno.ws   
      
   Adam H. Kerman  wrote:   
   > Lenona  wrote:   
   >   
   >>And if anyone likes...   
   >   
   > I have no idea whom you are addressing but none of that stuff I didn't   
   > quote should be controversial on Usenet.   
   >   
   >>6. No, you can't assume that an unconscious or near-unconscious woman   
   >>got that way in the hope someone will have sex with her. (Not that that   
   >>doesn't happen, but still...)   
   >   
   > You appear to be conflating unconsciousness with an alcoholic blackout.   
   > Don't do that. During a blackout, one has a period of consciousness.   
   > One can still act on one's own free will while drunk. Drunken behavior   
   > removes inhibitions, not free will. The blackout is the period during   
   > which memory is adversely affected.   
   >   
   > If her sexual partner is every bit as drunk as she is and also in a   
   > blackout, please don't tell us that only one and not the other has   
   > responsibility for consensual sex.   
   >   
   > Was she drinking against her will like Cary Grant in North by Northwest?   
   > The only way one is NOT responsible for one's own behavior while not sober   
   > is if one was unknowingly dosed with a drug. If one has willingly taken   
   > the drug, then one is responsible for one's own behavior -- including   
   > the loss of sexual inhibition -- while conscious.   
   >   
   >>7. No, you can't assume that it won't be statutory rape if you know   
   >>she's just a few months younger than you BUT you don't know just what   
   >>the laws are in your state. So girls your age and older won't give you   
   >>the time of day? Too bad. There are sound reasons those laws exist.   
   >   
   > Bonk   
   >   
   > You didn't name any sound reason for such a law. You have no argument.   
   >   
   > These laws have nothing to do with older women not wanting to have sex   
   > with the potential perpetrator. That's absurd. Some will, yet the   
   > potential perpetrator may still wish to have sex with someone younger.   
   >   
   > The laws simply set the age of consent -- literally the age in state law in   
   > which a girl is seen as a woman and can marry without parental consent. The   
   > age is arbitrary. It's not based on any particular girl's maturity into   
   > womanhood nor median ages. Various state laws set adulthood at different   
   > ages. It's not logical and it's almost never based on a proper finding,   
   > but laws don't have to be.   
      
   Actually laws governing minimum ages for marriage and for sexual consent   
   can be distinct.   
      
   Here in New York there are certain ages close to each other where teenagers   
   are considered able to consent to sex with someone slightly older,and at 17   
   they are able to consent to sex with anyone of any age.   
      
   It used to be that they could,with court consent,marry younger than that.   
      
   Then they raised the minimum marriage age to 17 like the age of consent.   
      
   Then the grandstanding thug Andrew Cuomo raised the marriage age to 18,   
   calling it "Nala's Law",like he used "Matilda's Law" (after his mother)   
   when he came up with legislation basically forcing the elderly to remain   
   housebound for their own safety during the pandemic.   
   He saw political capital to be made by yielding to campaigners who go   
   from state to state whining that if any circumstance whatsoever can   
   exist whereby a 17-year-old is considered more eligible for marriage   
   than a 7-year-old,it's "CHILD MARRIAGE!!!!" and unspeakably horrific.   
      
   -=-=-   
   The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,   
   at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)