 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| User | Post |
| Jomb Posts: 447/448 |
nope  |
| SamuraiX Posts: 200/302 |
Am I the only one who thinks this has become a conversation between SS and Jomb? |
| Jomb Posts: 446/448 |
"First, I need to point out that "the majority of teenagers" - specifically, teenagers in the age range that we are most focusing on - are virgins. Most people younger than 14 have not lost their virginity. "
Perhaps we are focusing on different age ranges, I'm looking at the time period from about 14 to 17, with 13 being a grey area. You seem to be speaking of 9-12 year olds or even younger. The last statistics I saw were that about 40% of girls have lost their virginity by the age of 14. Age of consent in most states is 18, a few are 17, a few more are 16, and one is 14 (at least this is what they were 4 years ago, these laws are changing constantly). 40% is a huge number of girls, many millions of them infact. "But that's irrelevant, because whether a person is a virgin will not profoundly change the impact that this sort of act would have on them anyway. A person could handle a sexual relationship with someone of similar age quite ably, but such a relationship with a person generations older is a totally different scenario. " You could'nt be more wrong. Someone who had a bad experience is not going to willingly choose to go out and repeat that experience. Ergo, a 15 year old choosing to have sex multiple times must be enjoying it, or be coerced. Coercion is already illegal under Sexual Assault laws is not what I'm talking about anywhere in this debate. Sex is sex, your penis is not very different from a 45 year olds, or a 14 year olds. Further, if someone is not ready to have a sexual relationship, they are still not ready if the other partner is 19 or 39. Me personally, I was plenty ready at 14. I enjoyed it quit a bit and have suffered no ill effects. I would not have been ready to have children, but you dont have to have children to enjoy sex. "I disagree with your idea that a person who willingly has promiscuous sex with people of his own age is as harmful as, or more harmful than, that same person having a sexual relationship with a person who is much older. There is a fundamental difference between two similar-aged people having a consensual relationship, and one older person convincing a younger, more impressionable person into such a relationship." What is this fundamental difference you speak of? Explain it to me because I'm just not seeing how its different, other than that we find it distastetful. Love is still love whether you are 16 or 35. the basic concepts for why people get into a relationship apply the same at both ages. You can still get companionship, warmth, caring, sex, etc. even if an age difference exists. Common interests do sometimes still exist even with an age difference. You have to look past your "ick thats disgusting" reflex to see this. You are also assuming that the older partner is always in every case the aggressor with the silver tongue who can woo girls like he was Charles Manson or something. But there are absolutely cases where the older partner is reluctant and is talked into the relationship by an aggressive younger partner. Sometimes love can develop even if no one intended it to, and love can be a very powerful force and can overcome an awful lot of things. "Biology compels an animal to use violence when necessary to protect a personal interest. Fighting to resolve a dispute, rather than talking it out, is a far more natural response. When somebody gets you angry - really angry - is your visceral response to sit down with them and have a cultured discussion, or does your gut demand physical action? But, as I remarked earlier, if everyone were allowed to satisfy that urge, our society would be in shambles. Since we as humans have the capacity to check our natural urges in the interest of other, less selfish pursuits, our society demands that we do, in fact, make those sacrifices. Anything less and we would be a society of animals. We are not, and could not be, governed purely by what our biology dictates, because our biology is not conducive to a secure and well-formed civilization. " When violence is provoked, murder charges generally are not filed, usually manslaughter gets filed instead. This is in recognition that we are not superhuman and natural impulses are just that, natural. Similar exception needs to be made in these sorts of cases. Marriage is an important institution, right? Necessary for our society to function the way we want it to, right? But people cheat in their marriage sometimes, they get an urge and they follow it even though it is counter to what society expects of them. We dont label these people as rapists and give them the crimson "S" for life, because even though we dont like what they did, no one was physically harmed and the urge was natural, even though we dont like it. In those situations alot more harm can potentially be done to the children and to the cheated on spouse than can even be done by uncoerced consentual teen sex. We make an exception to excuse human nature for cheating spouses, but we do not for the teens, why is that? I'm not suggesting that we become governed solely by animal urges (though you are mistaken in what you think those urges actually are in the human animal). All I'm suggesting is that allowances be made for what is natural human behavior. This is not the same as an endorsement, it is just recognition that these things happen naturally and over-reacting to them causes more harm than good. "It's not about self-defense, but it's not about murder, either. Simple violence. Not necessarily deadly force, but the pure, undeniable urge to resort to violent actions in order to resolve a dispute. If you say you've never felt it, you've either never been very angry, or you're lying. " Go get a an Anthropology textbook, one that has lots of information about how primitive man lives in the primitive tribes that still exist today. Their crime rates are much lower than ours. They are far less violent than us "civilized" man. It seems like you get your information on early man from hollywood movies or something. Violence against other humans is almost unheard of amongst the Dobi-Kung Bushmen of Southern Africa, for example. They certainly are'nt attacking each other at the slightest provocation, or raping every woman that walks by as you seem to suggest they ought to be. "In any era and place in which people are expected to marry young, you can bet that society will prepare those people for the sort of relationships they are going to enter. In short, the 13-year-old of 1807 is not the 13-year-old of 2007. Psychological maturity occurs earlier when a person is explicitly being prepared to act as a parent before his or her 18th birthday. (However, you must also realize that not every child who was married in the past was exactly ready for it. You make the assumption that our ancestors were completely and totally ready to start families at such a young age, while I would suggest that they were not always ready but were instead simply reacting to the expectations placed upon them by a society that endorsed young marriage.) " Nature prepares the body to be a parent though, it has nothing to do with society. Once nature has stepped in so do the hormones and the sexual feelings. Society cannot turn back the clock on puberty as much as it would like to. A good parent will have instilled responsibility in their child by 14 or they probably never will. In those cases the only chance the person has to become responsible is to have responsibility thrust upon them. That may not work either though, which is why we have so many completely irresponsible adults mulling about in our society. There are some great thinkers who have suggested that our greatest problem in society today is that people are not really growing up and are instead remaining child-like even in adulthood. They blame it on the loss of rite of passage rituals. We traditionally had these around 13-14. "People who are in puberty are still kids. " A person age 14 has far more in common with the average 18 year old than the average 10 year old. Anyone who is capable of having children of their own is no longer in puberty, they are already out the other end of it. The purpose of puberty is to prepare the body to have children, once that objective is reached its pretty much done other than a few lingering cosmetic things which may go on into the late 20's or so. All civilizations in history and all primitive people I'm aware of understood this, somehow we dont. My money is that all the rest of humanity "get it" while we have lost touch with it. Even the Puritans understood this. Having our culture the way it is is fine, but we need to make allowances for the fact that a 14 year old is not the same as a 7 year old. I'm not saying we should be having classes in middle school encouraging kids to rush out and fuck their brains out as soon as they get through puberty, just that we have to accept that fact that teenagers will be having sex even if we dont want them to, and its not really the end of the world, or even that big of a deal. If we prepare them to act responsibly we'll be far better off then if we make the punishment absurdly harsh and pretend like thats going to prevent it from ever happening. "Virtually no 14-year-old knows what he wants. In the case of two people who eventually marry after first dating during early adolescence, I think the most likely explanation is that their relationship began as a fairly shallow bond but gradually developed into something legitimately serious. They weren't super-kids who were somehow overdeveloped to the point that they had adult goals and adult capabilities, they where just children who stayed together long enough to develop those goals and capabilities. " All relationships begin as a fairly shallow bond and strengthen over time if the compatibility is there. Few adults know what they want either, romantically. It usually takes many many tries to figure out who you should be with, if you ever do. Some people get lucky and meet the person they are meant to be with young. Not many, mind you, but some do for sure. Just because you are dating someone and possibly having sex with them does'nt mean you are locked into the decision to stay with that person forever. Starting to date while in high school is probably a good idea to further develop yourself socially and to gain some life experience which will help in your future dating escapades. You dont have to have everything micromanaged out to the exact way you want it or be superhuman to have a relationship. Love is a feeling which can be just as strong and real at 16 as it can be at 27. "I don't care what intentions a 50-year-old has when he enters into a relationship with a person a quarter of his age, he is in the wrong. He could earnestly desire that his relationship is based on love and devotion, but that desire is simply beyond reality because the emotional and developmental state of his partner is not yet adequate. It's not always about the older person having bad intentions (though it usually is), it's about the younger person not being able to decide what is best for him- or herself. Adolescents are notoriously short-sighted, and I don't think that weakness ends at their sexuality. " All I'm trying to get across is that a 50 year old who stumbled into it for the right reasons ought to be looked at differently than one who was trying to hussle up some pussy on the sly. Not that its something we should be endorsing, but at the same time its not warranting of 10 years in prison and a lifetime of living hell. But, with no coercion or force, most likely the younger partner will at some point decide this isn't for them. The actual harm done is minimal, and may be offset by learning the lesson that that sort of age difference may be too great for that particular person. All the things you mention could be just as true of an 18 year old dating a 50 year old. There are some people who just plain prefer to be with older partners. I may not understand it and you may not understand it, but its not our life to live. If it makes them happy then good for them. "Biology might be "real" and sociology "artificial" under your definitions, but that idea does not logically lead to the idea that the former should universally supersede the latter. Logic does not lead one to conclude that "real is greater than artificial." If you ask me, sociology should generally be considered more important than pure biology: the continued functioning of civilization rests upon the commitment of humans to rise above what they want - many of these wants motivated by biological impulses - and instead act to achieve what society at large needs. No doubt sociology is "artificial," but it is a hundred times more important than simple animalistic urges. " When shit happens like what happened to Mr. Wilson or to one of my best friends, or whats going on in (insert your favorite part of the world in turmoil), it makes me wonder what is so great about society anyway But the bottom line is this: society exists to facilitate human existance. Human existance is bound by human nature. Society ought not be ruining lives over human nature such as in this example, else what we have is a failed society which needs fixed. Society ought to be looking out for the common good, not acting as a legalized lynch mob at the whim of angry parents. The common good is not served by locking up Mr. Wilson and people in similar cirumstances as him then throwing away the key. Society is not served by placing a huge drain on itself over cases in which very little if any damage has been done and there was no intent to cause damage. Human nature is not the same as animalistic urges, we are not the brutish violent people you would have us be even when there is no civilization (see the Dobi-Kung Bushmen in my previous example). Society is very helpful for advancing the common good, but it has a huge capacity to be misused. The topic of this thread is a perfect example of a case in which our society has been twisted into something very ugly. Mr. Wilson is not a child molester. He is not a sex predator. It is barbaric in the extreme to treat him the way we have. It makes us look like a bunch of backwards rednecks who have such a strong knee-jerk reaction to anything sexual that we will willingly destroy our own people over the mere hint of even consentual teenage sex. Like a bunch of immature kids who cant stop being outraged long enough to examine the guts of the case and see it for what it is.
"You say yourself that a person who is following a natural impulse is having a "moment of weakness" - you acknowledge that the greater good requires for people to keep their biological urges in check. So why should this one case be different? The human urge to mate with any person who has achieved puberty was formed at the very beginning of the species, but why does it automatically remain valid in the modern day? Our world is vastly different from the world of our ancestors to whom that instinct would be useful, so why should our standards not be different as well? " It remains valid because its not a choice, its hard-wired into our brain chemistry. We can fight against the urge, but we are not perfect and there will be mistakes made sometimes even by otherwise good people. Our world is not "vastly different from the world of our ancestors" as far as sex is concerned, we have'nt out-dated sex with technology yet. The reasons people have sex today are the same as they were for our ancestors, nothing has changed with sex except that we now have birth control making it possible for us to have sex merely for pleasure if we so desire. But, even if we had moved past sex somehow, the instinct to have sex would still be there. Acting upon something natural is, well... natural. Locking someone up for 10 years over it is, well... unatural. If we want to make laws counter to nature thats is fine, but we have to understand that when they then get broken we are'nt dealing with seriel killers, we are just dealing with people who gave in to a natural impulse. Giving into a natural impulse is understandable and should be dealt with lighly and gracefully, not with the might of an atom bomb. "No, it is not an "obvious indication." You are taking this discussion in a tangential, irrelevant direction. I never objected to two people who are below the age of consent losing their virginity to once another. (I must disclaim, as usual, that I don't "approve" of such an act - I am against premarital sex, as I'm sure everyone knows. I make this remark only to soothe my own conscience .) Nor do I seek to prosecute two people of similar age, but who are not both on the same side of age of consent laws. I am not arguing to impose criminal penalties for such people, which is what you are implying. " In a great many states people can still get prosecuted if they are both below the age of consent, they just both get charged as juveniles and the punishment is rarely as outrageously severe as what we have here. All I'm implying is that sex is sex, the same act carries the same "consequences" to the "victim" rather they are both the same age or if they have an age difference. If I go out and seek to seduce a 15 year old girl for the sheer purpose of degrading her and then making fun of how loose she is to all my friends, that girl is just as used if I'm also 15 or if I'm 27. If I happen to meet a 15 year old girl and develop true feelings for her and the sex flows naturally out of those feelings, then she is equally not hurt if i'm also 15 or if I'm 27. The motive is the prime reason for sex later causing regret in people, not the age. "You are continually rebutting an argument that I have never made. The "common, ordinary, everyday behavior" of two young people having a sexual relationship with one another is not what I am objecting to. What I am objecting to is the behavior of two people of vastly different ages having such a relationship - because that is not, by any stretch of the words, a "common, ordinary, everyday behavior." " The girl being below the age of consent at the time of losing her virginity, and the man being above the age of consent at that time is very common. the man being 50 is not common at all, but the man being above 18 is not exactly super rare. The reason this is still valid, is because as far as I can tell you are debating that age of consent laws are necessary, and I'm pointing out that the laws as they are right now are broken by more than 50% of the people in the US, making it a common everyday thing for people to be involved in "child molestation" as its been put here. "So, we cannot simultaneously prosecute both crimes? Maybe we should stop pursuing legal action against people have attempted murder, because the idea that they are "real" criminals cheapens the foul deeds of people who have actually committed murder. " There is a key difference here.. the intent was to kill someone. People engaged in consentual non-coerced teen sex are not out to hurt anyone by definition, and even in the worst example i can think of to fit this description there was not harm intended even if there was a lack of thought for other people's feelings. Someone who has shallow sex isn't necessarily out to hurt their sex partner, they likely think that they are enjoying the sex to so no one is harmed. Additionally, we dont treat people who have attempted murder the same as people who have actually murdered. Generally the crime of attempted murder carries a considerably shorter prison term, and the perpetrator is not branded as a murderer for the rest of their life. Actually they are'nt branded as anything other than a felon. Mr. Wilson here will have to deal with officially being not only a felon, but the lowest thing someone can be in our society, the dreaded and evil "sex offender". Nothing he ever says or does will change that even if he lives to be 90 without so much as a speeding ticket from now till then. Almost all jobs will be closed to him on the basis of that alone. Most land-lords will not rent to him on the basis of that alone. He may end up living in a slum on welfare over this artifical and in his case dead-wrong label. "I agree that the penalties for this sort of crime might need to be reevaluated, but still wouldn't call a jail term for a child molester "ruining a life needlessly." If the penalty is such that it would "ruin your life," maybe you shouldn't have committed the crime in the first place." This is an argument which implies that we are all perfect and never make any mistakes. People ought to be able to learn from their rmistakes, especially when its something so ridiculous as consentual teen-sex. The punishment should fit the crime. He did'nt take this girl's life, so we have no right to take his. Also he is not a child molester by any clinical definition, only by this unjust legal definition. No one who can have a child is a child anymore, therefore he's not a child molestor. All he's guilty of is cheap sex. He should get lectured by his parents, not sent to prison as a child molester. The girl should also get lectured by her parents. the law simply should not be involved on this one. "And you speak about this "consensual, uncoerced sex" as if that's what it really is. It seems that, to you, it's only coercion if one person has a gun to the other's head. You fail to consider that, since a teenager really is quite impressionable, a wiser older person can make that teenager think that the act is "the right thing to do" without too much difficulty. The crux of the law is, a person of such a young age is not able to make an informed decision, because he or she is too easily led by a person who has immoral intentions" coercion is when their is some sort of leverage used to induce sex that one party does not really want. This does not technically include holding a gun to ones head, as that is covered by forcible rape laws as imminent danger. It would include such things as giving the teenager something such as drugs or alchohol in exchange for sex. Money in exchange for sex is also coercion. So is threatening to do something unpleasant, like threatening to tell on the teen for some other thing they dont want their parents to know about. For there to be coercion the coerced party must not really want the sex to happen but still be willing to go along with it because the other party has some form of non-violent leverage over them (violent leverage is still forcible rape). If I go to a bar and sweet talk a girl into having sex with me by making her think I'm just the greatest thing ever, I'm guilty of sexual assault by your definition because sexual assault still occurs in cases of coercion, and by your definition seduction is automatically coercion. The intentions are crucial, I think we both agree on that part. At the very least there ought to be a clause in age of consent laws that excludes people who had pure intentions and people who are less than 10 years apart. "Again, I agree with you on one count. That is, a girl could easily be traumatized if her boyfriend, who is of similar age but is unfortunate to be of the age of consent while she is not, is jailed for his relationship with her. But the same cannot be said when the guy is really a middle-aged man who is using her for sex instead of a teenage boyfriend who is in a legitimate relationship with her. " The girl is traumatized regardless of ages if she truly cared about the man. She may not be traumatized if it was also meaningless sex to her. Love is not about ages, love is about personalities and bonds. Bonds that are often strengthened by the sex act. Once again this comes down to intent, if there was an actual relationship the girl is likely to be traumatized by the man's life being ended, if there was no real relationship and just sex, then she may or may not be traumatized and may or may not feel that justice was done. But to punish one man for what others have done is just plain unjust. Therefore punishing some guy who finds himself truly in love with a teen girl the same as a seriel pre-teen child molester is unjust. "Of course they lose their father! A man who is of age to have children - assuming, in this example, that the man is of "traditional" age of 30 or so - should not be sexually involved with a girl so young. " No, he should'nt be. But at the same time, with the girl being past puberty, and no force being used, its not right to end his life over it. It is possible that he had the best of intentions and he should get at least one chance to prove it. Also, you have to consider that locking up an otherwise good man will punish his children as well, making them more likely to become criminals later. All these things need to be balanced carefully, and as it is, balance is not even attempted. It's just a mad witch-hunt to lynch anyone who violates age of consent as harshly as they can get away with. The battle right now is to take away even the judges discretion in these sorts of cases by imposing mandatory sentences. "A 40-year-old and 16-year-old are, in general, so emotionally and psychologically different from one another that they cannot be involved in a legitimate, healthy relationship. " In general, yes, but not absolutely. Generalizing things usually leads to problems, cases need to be taken individually. There will be cases where the 16 year old is somewhat ahead of most 16 year olds developmentally, while the 40 year old is somewhat behind most 40 year olds, developmentally. Or other cases where they have personalities which fit together anyway. The bottom line is that only they are qualified to say what they want in a relationship. A persons love life should be very personal and not really anyone elses business to the extent that no harm is being done. We can advise them that they are'nt right for each other, but to presume that we can live their love life for them is just plain arrogant. "The allure of doing something that is "forbidden." The idea that to be mature is to have a sexual relationship with a person older than yourself. The perception that a person who is much older than you can provide for you better. The way that a person so much older is generally wiser in the ways of the world, allowing him to simply wheedle his way into the mind of someone much younger and more inexperienced than himself. There are plenty of ways an older person can lure a younger person, and most of them rely on the simply fact that, in general, a teenager is stupid. That is not an insult or a disparagement, but a simple observation that most people of that age have no idea what is best for them" Most people are stupid, its not just teenagers
But, any teen wanting to do something "forbidden" is going to do it regardless, they will lie about their age if necessary. In my opinion, if they are dead set on doing it then just let them but try to make sure they are practicing safe sex. Trying to force them not to have sex when they want to is only going to add to the alure of it being "forbidden". Learning not to have sex with someone who is only trying to use you is once again one of those life lessons that a small minority of people will have to learn the hard way. On an unrelated note, I'm beginning to feel like we've had this conversation before, this may be an issue we will just have to agree to partially dis-agree on |
| Silvershield Posts: 582/587 |
Originally posted by JombFirst, I need to point out that "the majority of teenagers" - specifically, teenagers in the age range that we are most focusing on - are virgins. Most people younger than 14 have not lost their virginity. But that's irrelevant, because whether a person is a virgin will not profoundly change the impact that this sort of act would have on them anyway. A person could handle a sexual relationship with someone of similar age quite ably, but such a relationship with a person generations older is a totally different scenario. Originally posted by JombI disagree with your idea that a person who willingly has promiscuous sex with people of his own age is as harmful as, or more harmful than, that same person having a sexual relationship with a person who is much older. There is a fundamental difference between two similar-aged people having a consensual relationship, and one older person convincing a younger, more impressionable person into such a relationship. Originally posted by JombBiology compels an animal to use violence when necessary to protect a personal interest. Fighting to resolve a dispute, rather than talking it out, is a far more natural response. When somebody gets you angry - really angry - is your visceral response to sit down with them and have a cultured discussion, or does your gut demand physical action? But, as I remarked earlier, if everyone were allowed to satisfy that urge, our society would be in shambles. Since we as humans have the capacity to check our natural urges in the interest of other, less selfish pursuits, our society demands that we do, in fact, make those sacrifices. Anything less and we would be a society of animals. We are not, and could not be, governed purely by what our biology dictates, because our biology is not conducive to a secure and well-formed civilization. Originally posted by JombIt's not about self-defense, but it's not about murder, either. Simple violence. Not necessarily deadly force, but the pure, undeniable urge to resort to violent actions in order to resolve a dispute. If you say you've never felt it, you've either never been very angry, or you're lying. Originally posted by JombIn any era and place in which people are expected to marry young, you can bet that society will prepare those people for the sort of relationships they are going to enter. In short, the 13-year-old of 1807 is not the 13-year-old of 2007. Psychological maturity occurs earlier when a person is explicitly being prepared to act as a parent before his or her 18th birthday. (However, you must also realize that not every child who was married in the past was exactly ready for it. You make the assumption that our ancestors were completely and totally ready to start families at such a young age, while I would suggest that they were not always ready but were instead simply reacting to the expectations placed upon them by a society that endorsed young marriage.) Originally posted by JombI'm not speaking of "children" here either, at least not in the sense of a pre-pubescent child. People who are in puberty are still kids. A 14-year-old is, in most cases, still a kid. No 14-year-old I know is an adult, and I know I certainly wasn't, either. Originally posted by JombVirtually no 14-year-old knows what he wants. In the case of two people who eventually marry after first dating during early adolescence, I think the most likely explanation is that their relationship began as a fairly shallow bond but gradually developed into something legitimately serious. They weren't super-kids who were somehow overdeveloped to the point that they had adult goals and adult capabilities, they where just children who stayed together long enough to develop those goals and capabilities. I don't care what intentions a 50-year-old has when he enters into a relationship with a person a quarter of his age, he is in the wrong. He could earnestly desire that his relationship is based on love and devotion, but that desire is simply beyond reality because the emotional and developmental state of his partner is not yet adequate. It's not always about the older person having bad intentions (though it usually is), it's about the younger person not being able to decide what is best for him- or herself. Adolescents are notoriously short-sighted, and I don't think that weakness ends at their sexuality. Originally posted by JombBiology might be "real" and sociology "artificial" under your definitions, but that idea does not logically lead to the idea that the former should universally supersede the latter. Logic does not lead one to conclude that "real is greater than artificial." If you ask me, sociology should generally be considered more important than pure biology: the continued functioning of civilization rests upon the commitment of humans to rise above what they want - many of these wants motivated by biological impulses - and instead act to achieve what society at large needs. No doubt sociology is "artificial," but it is a hundred times more important than simple animalistic urges. You say yourself that a person who is following a natural impulse is having a "moment of weakness" - you acknowledge that the greater good requires for people to keep their biological urges in check. So why should this one case be different? The human urge to mate with any person who has achieved puberty was formed at the very beginning of the species, but why does it automatically remain valid in the modern day? Our world is vastly different from the world of our ancestors to whom that instinct would be useful, so why should our standards not be different as well? Originally posted by JombNo, it is not an "obvious indication." You are taking this discussion in a tangential, irrelevant direction. I never objected to two people who are below the age of consent losing their virginity to once another. (I must disclaim, as usual, that I don't "approve" of such an act - I am against premarital sex, as I'm sure everyone knows. I make this remark only to soothe my own conscience  .) Nor do I seek to prosecute two people of similar age, but who are not both on the same side of age of consent laws. I am not arguing to impose criminal penalties for such people, which is what you are implying.
Originally posted by JombYou are continually rebutting an argument that I have never made. The "common, ordinary, everyday behavior" of two young people having a sexual relationship with one another is not what I am objecting to. What I am objecting to is the behavior of two people of vastly different ages having such a relationship - because that is not, by any stretch of the words, a "common, ordinary, everyday behavior." Originally posted by JombSo, we cannot simultaneously prosecute both crimes? Maybe we should stop pursuing legal action against people have attempted murder, because the idea that they are "real" criminals cheapens the foul deeds of people who have actually committed murder. Originally posted by JombI agree that the penalties for this sort of crime might need to be reevaluated, but still wouldn't call a jail term for a child molester "ruining a life needlessly." If the penalty is such that it would "ruin your life," maybe you shouldn't have committed the crime in the first place. Originally posted by JombAnd you speak about this "consensual, uncoerced sex" as if that's what it really is. It seems that, to you, it's only coercion if one person has a gun to the other's head. You fail to consider that, since a teenager really is quite impressionable, a wiser older person can make that teenager think that the act is "the right thing to do" without too much difficulty. The crux of the law is, a person of such a young age is not able to make an informed decision, because he or she is too easily led by a person who has immoral intentions. Originally posted by JombAgain, I agree with you on one count. That is, a girl could easily be traumatized if her boyfriend, who is of similar age but is unfortunate to be of the age of consent while she is not, is jailed for his relationship with her. But the same cannot be said when the guy is really a middle-aged man who is using her for sex instead of a teenage boyfriend who is in a legitimate relationship with her. Originally posted by JombOf course they lose their father! A man who is of age to have children - assuming, in this example, that the man is of "traditional" age of 30 or so - should not be sexually involved with a girl so young. Originally posted by JombA 40-year-old and 16-year-old are, in general, so emotionally and psychologically different from one another that they cannot be involved in a legitimate, healthy relationship. Originally posted by JombThe allure of doing something that is "forbidden." The idea that to be mature is to have a sexual relationship with a person older than yourself. The perception that a person who is much older than you can provide for you better. The way that a person so much older is generally wiser in the ways of the world, allowing him to simply wheedle his way into the mind of someone much younger and more inexperienced than himself. There are plenty of ways an older person can lure a younger person, and most of them rely on the simply fact that, in general, a teenager is stupid. That is not an insult or a disparagement, but a simple observation that most people of that age have no idea what is best for them. |
| Jomb Posts: 444/448 |
"Having an attraction to pubescent girls is not deviant in a biological sense, but it's discouraged socially because it has legitimate psychological and developmental consequences for the victim. I think a person should be compelled to resist his biology in order to avoid injuring another person. That's an otherwise universal value, no? I might be evolutionarily motivated to use violence to protect my "territory" or my mate, but doing so would injure another person and so is discouraged by society - is the principle so different? "
Any "injury" in these sorts of cases is strictly in the mind's eye. If we can convince someone they are a victim, then encourage them to wallow in it, do we really have a victim? Likewise, if we take someone and try to convince them they have a problem, does that make the problem real? These developmental consequences you speak of are real when we talk about pre-pubescent children, but when we talk about teenagers, the majority of which are not virgins to begin with, you're on much shakier ground. Perhaps there may be rare examples of teenagers who later become very distressed over consentual sex acts they involved themselves in, but this is the exception, not the rule, and is most prevalent when we talk about promiscuous sex. Just because there is an age difference that does'nt always make the sex promiscuous, many of these types of relationships have a romantic element as well. And promiscuous sex would be equally promiscuous if both parties are 13 or one is 15 and one 25. Biology does not compel people to injure each other, except in cases of self-defense, or in cases of tribal territory disputes, but that would'nt come into play as we are all of the "American" tribe in my examples. And last i checked, self-defense is fully encouraged and the law accomodates that instinct rather well. If you are suggesting that there is an instinct to murder, you are mistaken, killing your own people is discouraged on the strongest terms throughout recorded history and among all primitive people that I'm aware of (with the rare exception of human sacrifice, which is another instance of culture being at odds with nature). But teenagers having sex has been universally expected and encouraged until very very recently (speaking historically), and is clearly a natural instinct. But what about our ancestors then? Were they all being abused when they got married young? Is there a long standing cycle of trauma amongst our ancestors for marrying in their teen years? And usually with an age difference? It was regarded as cause for celebration back then, not as some dire traumatic event they'd never recover from.... "When a child is coerced and "brainwashed," for lack of a better term, to the point that he or she believes that the act is not wrongful, that he or she wants it, or that he or she is somehow at fault and deserves it, it will no longer be perceived as wrongful by that victim and could very easily be kept from any trial. Under a law that would allow any two people of any age of have sex, all the older person needs to do is convince the impressionable younger person that it is alright or that he or she desires it. " I'm not speaking of children here (except in the most generic way that we're all somebodies child). It is unnatural to have sex with the pre-pubescent, no argument here. "Whether it's her own fault or not, society places responsibility on the mature adult to keep such an act from occurring. The teenager has no idea what is best for her, but the adult should know and, as such, is punished for defying that. " Some teens know exactly what they want.. many dont, but some do. There are numerous examples of people who met when one of both of them were teens who ended with a long and happy marriage. The worst examples should'nt be used to punish the people who really have good intentions, or who are young and foolish themselves. Even in the worst case that could exist legally without age of consent laws (which to me is a very old person sweet talking a young teen), I think 10 years in prison and a life time of sex offender registration is very harsh. That sort of thing should be reserved for when there are small children or violence involved. I'd not have any problem with making that particular scenario a misdemeanor though. "Why emphasize biology at the expense of sociology? Our society only functions as a cohesive, ordered unit because of "artificial" societal restraints. You cannot allow biological impulses to supersede the restrictions that society has endorsed, because that would lead to anarchy. " Because biology is real. Sociology is artificial. Both are necessary, but when there is a conflict between the to, biology should be given more credence. Someone who is acting on natural instinct is not a super-villain, they are more likely to be people who had a moment of weakness and followed their natural impulse. But sociology can be warped into some truly disturbing things (such as the human sacrifice from earlier). "Times have changed, and nobody can doubt that. But there's still a rift between the genders' exposure to and handling of sexuality. " The point which makes the most sense here, is the simple fact that the average age in which people lose their virginity is well below the age of consent in most states. This is an obvious indication that the law is out of touch with what is actually going on. People are having sex sooner and more frequently than in the past few decades, yet the age of consent has risen. Common, ordinary, everyday behavior should not be a felony. That sort of thing cheapens it when someone actually is raped for real, ontop of ruining lots of lifes needlessly. You speak alot about the "traumatized" teen girls who had consentual, un-coerced sex. What you may not realize is that alot of these girls are traumatized, but not in the way you think. Many of them were in love with the person they had uncoerced consentual sex with. When this person is locked away for years and otherwise severely penalized, the girl can be traumatized that that happened to someone they love and they feel responsible for it, because they were an equal partner. I've seen this lead to serious depression before, though I've yet to meet someone who was traumatized over consentual non-coerced teen sex. And what about if children are involved? They lose their father, and will have to deal with the shame of trying to explain to their friends later on that their father is a registered sex offender. many parents wont let their children associate with them because of something like that. On a whole these sorts of punishments for consentual non-coerced teen sex cause far more damage than anything they supposedly are preventing. "I'm not talking about a female seeking a man who is slightly older. A 16-year-old girl and a 19-year-old guy, a 40-year-old and a 55-year-old...there's no problem. But a 14-year-old girl with a guy who's 50 just ain't right. " I would'nt go for that sort of age difference either, but at the same time I dont see it as felony material just based on that. "Motivation is of great importance, and it is foremost, but it must be considered alongside the age difference. Age is of primary importance in cases where the gap is large, but is otherwise relatively irrelevant. You're ignoring the unavoidable truth that two people of such different ages will be at radically different points in their maturity and development, and that such a difference will lead to damage to the younger party. " This isn't always the case, there are numerous exceptions to this. It comes down to motivation once again, if that 40 year old truly loves and cares about that 16 year old, and vice versa, then damage is highly unlikely, except when one dies much sooner than the other, of course. For me it comes down to not being my place to order people around in what they want to do with their life. If thats what they both want, it is their life to live, not mine. This isn't a situation in which there is CERTAIN damage being done, it does sometimes work out for people, albeit not commonly. I would advise both parties against such a relationship, if I knew them, but I would never presume to have all the answers for whats right for any two individuals in their love life. "I don't think that force and drugs are so overwhelmingly common that age of consent laws immediately become superfluous. Hard figures would be very difficult to find because certainly any instance in which an older person coerces a younger person would not be reported to authorities and, as such, would go unrecorded." If you like locking up peoople like Mr. Wilson in this example, then age of consent laws are very necessary. If all these people are getting away with it, then the laws are not effective anyway. I mentioned drugs and alchohol because in many cases with an age difference and one shady partner in the relationship, the lure is that the older guy entices the young girl with alchohol or drugs which she cannot obtain easily on her own. What other lure would a very old man use to seduce a young teen girl? |
| Silvershield Posts: 576/587 |
Originally posted by JombHaving an attraction to pubescent girls is not deviant in a biological sense, but it's discouraged socially because it has legitimate psychological and developmental consequences for the victim. I think a person should be compelled to resist his biology in order to avoid injuring another person. That's an otherwise universal value, no? I might be evolutionarily motivated to use violence to protect my "territory" or my mate, but doing so would injure another person and so is discouraged by society - is the principle so different? Originally posted by JombWhen a child is coerced and "brainwashed," for lack of a better term, to the point that he or she believes that the act is not wrongful, that he or she wants it, or that he or she is somehow at fault and deserves it, it will no longer be perceived as wrongful by that victim and could very easily be kept from any trial. Under a law that would allow any two people of any age of have sex, all the older person needs to do is convince the impressionable younger person that it is alright or that he or she desires it. Originally posted by JombWhether it's her own fault or not, society places responsibility on the mature adult to keep such an act from occurring. The teenager has no idea what is best for her, but the adult should know and, as such, is punished for defying that. Originally posted by JombNo disagreement here. Originally posted by JombIt's a shame and an unfortunate consequence and, as I said, laws would ideally cover this sort of thing. Originally posted by JombWhy emphasize biology at the expense of sociology? Our society only functions as a cohesive, ordered unit because of "artificial" societal restraints. You cannot allow biological impulses to supersede the restrictions that society has endorsed, because that would lead to anarchy. Originally posted by JombWe agree that there should be no punishment for two consenting people who are near in age. We disagree that an enormously wide age gap should be legal. Originally posted by JombAgain, the ideal legislation would account for this. Originally posted by JombTimes have changed, and nobody can doubt that. But there's still a rift between the genders' exposure to and handling of sexuality. Originally posted by JombI'm not talking about a female seeking a man who is slightly older. A 16-year-old girl and a 19-year-old guy, a 40-year-old and a 55-year-old...there's no problem. But a 14-year-old girl with a guy who's 50 just ain't right. Originally posted by JombMotivation is of great importance, and it is foremost, but it must be considered alongside the age difference. Age is of primary importance in cases where the gap is large, but is otherwise relatively irrelevant. You're ignoring the unavoidable truth that two people of such different ages will be at radically different points in their maturity and development, and that such a difference will lead to damage to the younger party. Originally posted by JombI don't think that force and drugs are so overwhelmingly common that age of consent laws immediately become superfluous. Hard figures would be very difficult to find because certainly any instance in which an older person coerces a younger person would not be reported to authorities and, as such, would go unrecorded. |
| Arwon Posts: 590/631 |
Originally posted by Grey Oh my god. |
| Jomb Posts: 443/448 |
Though it would probably be a step in the right direction, I cant imagine such a thing happening in our culture. Sex ed is optional in many states as it is, and how many parents would allow their teenager to get such a license? You'd also get into the silliness of people being asked to show their license while things are getting hot and heavy ...there would probably be some people who'd just claim to have passed the test and have a license, but they "forget it in their other pair of pants". There would probably be some students claiming the testing was unfair and biased against them because they are poor or whatever other reason they could come up with.
I've often thought there ought to be a similar type of license required to be able to vote, to prevent people who are easily mislead or just plain ignorant, from voting, but that will never happen either |
| Schweiz oder etwas Posts: 2024/2046 |
Why not just have some kind of "License to have sex" when a teenager reaches, say, puberty or somesuch? It'd be pretty simple; If the child is mature enough to take responsibility for their actions, then they have to pass the test to prove their maturity. If they can't, then they're subject to the legalities of the situation.
Much like Driver's Ed, there would be Sex Ed classes as well, teaching proper forms of contraception, the importance of abstinence, protection, STDs, and all of that stuff. It could be performed in a small-group session as opposed to a large classroom to prevent students from not paying attention to the lessons, and a discussion of the social issues and implications of the matter would be present as well. If a student couldn't provide the proper feedback or demonstrate a standardized (really high standards, mind you) understanding of the concepts and ideas shown in class and in the discussions, they wouldn't make the grade, and they would not have legal permission to engage in sexual activities. The law would be every bit as ruthless to people without a license as it is to everyone right now, but people with licenses to have sex would be considered able to consent, since they've demonstrated a proper level of maturity to understand the implications of what they're doing. In that sense, we'd have couples who are licensed take responsibility for their own actions, while still maintaining the protection of the innocent. It's simply a matter of willingly giving up that protection, instead of automatically giving it up when you reach a certain age of consent. |
| Jomb Posts: 442/448 |
"So are you trying to tell me that social constructs are "fabrications"?"
Yes, that is right. Infact, you just said so yourself. To construct something is the same as to fabricate something, only fabricate has a slight negative association, which in this case is appropriate. "Whose definition are we using here? If you ask me, a full-grown man who is attracted to thirteen-year-old girls is deviant. " I'm going by my Abnormal Psychology textbook from college. For someone to have the disorder of pedophilia the object of their desire must meet 2 criteria, they must be pre-pubescent, and the age difference between the 2 must be greater than 6 years. The word pedophile is very commonly misused in the media. As for your other point, being attracted to any person who is past the onset of puberty is not, strictly speaking, deviant. It is perfectly natural, even says so in my psych books. To act on such an attraction may be socially inappropriate, but simply finding the person attractive is natural. The point of the sex from a biological point of view is to have children, thus it is natural to find attraction to anyone capable of having children. "How about coercion?" This is covered by forcible rape or sexual assault laws, you are still guilty of one of these crimes if you use threats or coercion to force sexual relations. Age of consent law is not necessary to cover this. "How about the idea that sleeping with an older man can come across as an act of rebellion? " True, and any teen girl with her heart set on it will find a way to do it by hook or by crook, age of consent laws wont stop her. All they end up doing is severely punishing the man she ends up seducing or lieing to about her age. Not to say that there are'nt older men who would love to be seduced by a teen girl, but its hard for me to see her as some poor distressed victim when she was out intentionally seeking an older man to seduce. "Or, not necessarily a "sleezeball," but at least a person with psychological problems." True, most people who commit real sex crimes (not these bullshit ones), have mental disorders which need to be addressed. Sadly for them our current system of locking them up and labeling them in a way that makes them social pariahs only makes their mental distress worse. "Then I would hope that such a consideration would ideally be covered within the law, and that due process would reveal the circumstances of a particular series of events so that an innocent man is not punished. " Some states have an exception for things like this, but an alarming number do not. In the state I used to work in, not only did it not make any difference from a legal standpoint if she lied about her age, but you could'nt question her in court because you are'nt allowed to ask her anything in court which might hurt her reputation due to their laws meant to protect minors. So as a consequence there were alot of registered sex offenders who were just some poor sap who picked up a woman at an over 21 bar for a one-night stand only to discover later that she was actually 14-17 years old and had snuck in the bar and misled him. "You just cut off half of the sentence, taking the quote phrase completely out of context. It's "just a biological function" when considered from a purely clinical point of view, but taking that perspective is unabashedly wrong. The societal associations with sexuality are absolutely necessary to consider. " I did'nt do that on purpose, I did it because the societal stuff is dwarfed by the natural stuff. When societal rules get out of touch with what is natural human behavior we get a mess like this. In respect for our society I'd go along happily with making this sort of a "crime", in which no one was harmed and everything which took place was perfectly natural, into a misdemeanor. That way the young man gets something to show disapproval, but yet can still recover and have a good and normal life later on. "Did you read my post at all? The very first thing I said is that there's no reason to punish two young people who happen to be on opposite sides of the age of consent. We're in agreement on this point - while I disapprove of sex at such a young age, I'm not going to support any sort of legal prevention of it. " *LOL* what a we debating about then? I guess we are just degenerate debaters
"And, again, the law ideally would not target people in that sort of situation" Age of consent laws dont care what the circumstances were, all they do is robotically lock up anyone who who violates them. I even once came across a case where a young married couple (very young, they were both 15, I think they were Mormons) moved into the state where I was at. In their own state they were legally married and had a child. When they moved over, the girl had another child. They locked both of them up for Statutory Rape and took away their children after the birth certificate was signed. "I disagree entirely. The impact of Western society prepares males to deal with sex more easily than females are able. I'm not about to get into this discussion now, except of course to remark that the promiscuous female is a "slut" while the promiscuous male is a "player" - a guy who had an early sexual experience will be lauded for it, while a female in the same situation will be shamed. " But the act is the same no matter what society thinks. I'm not sure males are actually able to deal with it better, because in Western society males are taught to hide their emotions and feelings more than females are. The male may brag about it and be a "player", but thats a very immature way to deal with it. The other thing to consider here is that our society is changing alot in this area, girls these days are not like they were when i was in high school. They act increasingly more like males used to. Female violence and crime is on a huge rise. So is promiscuity among female teens. Today many of them brag about their sexual conquests much like teen boys often do. This isn't the 50's anymore. I have a much younger sister, and I've been shocked several times by some of the girls she's brought around my parents house. "But that's beside the point. The point is, an illicit sexual relationship between a (much) older male and a (much) younger female is more common than the opposite. And that younger female will certainly have trouble coming to terms with the situation in the future. " True. In our Western Society, and actually in most societies world-wide, females commonly enter into relationships with males who are at least somewhat older. There is a biological explanation here as well, in that females mature slightly earlier than males do, so in olden times would marry slightly earlier than their male counter-parts. Many woman I've known have told me point-blank that they prefer to date men who are at least a couple years older than them. There will be cases of girls who later regret who they selected as a sexual partner. Many women origionally find themselves attracted to narcissistic men or men who beat them. Ideally they learn from the bad experience to avoid those types of men. the situation here is no different. A man who is trying to use a girl strictly for sex is just as wrong whether he's 40 or 17. The girl he slept with is just as used whether she is 14 or 35. Ideally she will realize she is being used and be less naive next time. If no force or coercion were involved then it's basically a life lesson akin to learning the hard way not to stick a fork in the light socket or drive like a race-car driver in the suberbs as you said earlier. Not everyone will need to learn these lessons the hard way. Most will realize these things on their own without actually trying them. "learning who is an appropriate sexual partner" is not so much about age anyway, it's about the individual. Just because there is an age difference in a relationship does not always mean that there are'nt real feelings there, and likewise, just because 2 people are the same age does'nt mean that they are automatically appropriate sexual pertners. What I'll be imparting on my children (when i finally get around to having them), is to assess the person more deeply than simply what their age is. Their motivation is of primary importance. "I never said anything about a large age gap being the more common of the two scenarios; I only said that the situation in which there is such a large gap is not as uncommon as you make it sound" It happens, absolutely. What i was saying was that generally (though once again not always), when there is such a huge age gap, there is also force, drugs or coercion. Meaning that age of consent laws were not necessry because other laws already cover those things. For example, if the older man enticed the young girl with alchohol, age of consent is not necessary because he is already guily of furnishing alcholol, corruption of minors, and Sexual Assault (in most states you can get Sexual Assault charges for having sex with someone who is intoxicated) |
| Silvershield Posts: 556/587 |
Originally posted by JombWhose definition are we using here? If you ask me, a full-grown man who is attracted to thirteen-year-old girls is deviant. Originally posted by JombHow about coercion? How about the misplaced allure of an older man in the eyes of a younger girl? How about the idea that sleeping with an older man can come across as an act of rebellion? You paint it as if every situation in which a thirteen-year-old girl would sleep with a 45-year-old man would be the result of pure, true love between the two parties. I think that's naive at best, and absolutely dangerous at worst - more often, I would suggest, it is because of one of those three reasons I just suggested, or because of a similarly negative reason. Originally posted by JombOr, not necessarily a "sleezeball," but at least a person with psychological problems. Originally posted by JombThen I would hope that such a consideration would ideally be covered within the law, and that due process would reveal the circumstances of a particular series of events so that an innocent man is not punished. Originally posted by JombYou just cut off half of the sentence, taking the quote phrase completely out of context. It's "just a biological function" when considered from a purely clinical point of view, but taking that perspective is unabashedly wrong. The societal associations with sexuality are absolutely necessary to consider. Originally posted by JombDid you read my post at all? The very first thing I said is that there's no reason to punish two young people who happen to be on opposite sides of the age of consent. We're in agreement on this point - while I disapprove of sex at such a young age, I'm not going to support any sort of legal prevention of it. Originally posted by JombAnd, again, the law ideally would not target people in that sort of situation. Originally posted by JombI disagree entirely. The impact of Western society prepares males to deal with sex more easily than females are able. I'm not about to get into this discussion now, except of course to remark that the promiscuous female is a "slut" while the promiscuous male is a "player" - a guy who had an early sexual experience will be lauded for it, while a female in the same situation will be shamed. But that's beside the point. The point is, an illicit sexual relationship between a (much) older male and a (much) younger female is more common than the opposite. And that younger female will certainly have trouble coming to terms with the situation in the future. Originally posted by JombIt was for the sake of the example. Substitute "speeding" with "vandalism" if you want - it has the same effect. But, no, "learning who is an appropriate sexual partner" is not the kind of thing a kid needs to learn through experience. Especially when that child needs to sleep with a man three times her age in order for the lesson to be learned. Originally posted by JombI never said anything about a large age gap being the more common of the two scenarios; I only said that the situation in which there is such a large gap is not as uncommon as you make it sound. |
| SamuraiX Posts: 130/302 |
Originally posted by Jomb So are you trying to tell me that social constructs are "fabrications"? |
| Jomb Posts: 441/448 |
"The thing is, you're attached to the notion that any person, upon entering puberty, is of appropriate psychological age that he or she can decide what is right for him- or herself. It is simply not so. A 45-year-old man sleeping with a 13-year-old girl, as per my example, is far more than "distasteful," as you've called it. It is an ethical crime, and should be enforced as a legal one as well. If there is a way to separate that sort of situation from a case in which a boy and girl of similar age are involved with one another, I'd be all for it. But I'm not willing to allow such a situation to become legal if it means I would also have to agree that the 45/13 situation is all well and good, too. I can see the merit in the former, but absolutely refuse to accept the latter. "
What is the man in your example then? He isn't a pedophile, by definition. He isn't a rapist in the traditional sense, with no violence or threats. Why is he a sex offender exactly? 10 years? Perhaps the crime of Corruption Of A Minor could be applied, that's a misdemeanor in most states. The situation you described could cover a wide range of actual events, from a man who is a complete sleezeball, to a girl who lies her about her age. The girl lieing about her age is not an acceptable defense in many states you know. "You talk about human sexuality as if it's just a natural biological function" Thats because it is. It a natural biological urge which occurs after the onset of puberty. All the things you attribute to sex are completely artificial fabrications society puts on this act. But what either of us thinks about it is irrelevant to the simple fact that it is happening, there is no way to stop it, all we can do is try to deal with it in a healthy way. All these incredibly strict laws have made no impact on teen sex, it is still happening very commonly. Infact, most people lose their virginity before the age of consent. This means that by law most of us have been involved in one way or another in a very grave felony carrying the harshest possible penalties. Realistically, the best way to deal with teen sex is to leave it up to the parents to punish or not punish their children over it, to teach them the proper morals for it as they see fit, and leave it at that. Consentual teen sex should never be something which can completely destroy lives and cause babies to lose their fathers. As for me being a special case... i dont think so. As I've mentioned before, a close personal friend of mine is sitting in prison right now over a situation not very different from Mr. Wilson's, except that he did'nt make headlines and no one is trying to help him. But his imprisonment caused alot of us left behind to talk about what happened. A good half of the men we knew were saying "damn, that could have been me.", and a good half of the women were saying "damn, that could have been my 1st boyfriend". Me being a male has nothing to do with anything. We men may like to protect women, and see it as our role, but we are'nt really more mature than them or smarter or better able to deal with sex. thats a double standard to believe that we are. Actually, biologically speaking, females actually mature FASTER than males do, hitting puberty earlier in most cases. "And I'm a little bit shocked that you would consider that sort of mistake to be just the sort of thing that a kid needs to screw up on their own so that they may learn the lesson firsthand. It's useful, maybe, for a child to get drunk so that he can see how sick he gets afterwards, or drive fast so that he can get pulled over by the cops, but I think this is one lesson that is best unlearned." So you believe that speeding is a good lesson to learn, where people's very lives can be on the line, but learning who is an appropriate sexual partner is not? "And the case of a grown adult taking advantage of a child, even without using any sort of explicit force, is not nearly as exceptional or rare as you seem to think. If it takes one law to cover both scenarios, I'll chalk that up as a necessary evil; it's better than having no law to cover either." I have worked in the treatment of sex offenders in the past. The majority of people supposedly in need of treatment in the county i was in were males who had consentual sex with a teen girl when they were between the ages of 17-21 themselves. By a wide margin. I know of at least 20 such cases just in that county at the time i was there. The other scenario usually involves drugs, violence or threats of violence, all of which are already covered by other laws rather than age of consent laws. I never suggested that we dont need child molestation or forcible rape laws, only that age of consent laws are insanely strict and rather un-natural to boot. At the very least we ought not be labeling these men as sex offenders, as it dillutes the very idea of what a sex offender is. That sort of labeling and life ruination should be reserved only for the very worst of the worst. |
| Silvershield Posts: 555/587 |
Jomb, I couldn't agree more with most of what you say. There's no sense in punishing someone who is involved in a relationship with another consenting person who is close to him in age. If the two are of reasonably similar maturity, then I can't even imagine how you could label one or the other person as a "victim."
Originally posted by JombThe thing is, you're attached to the notion that any person, upon entering puberty, is of appropriate psychological age that he or she can decide what is right for him- or herself. It is simply not so. A 45-year-old man sleeping with a 13-year-old girl, as per my example, is far more than "distasteful," as you've called it. It is an ethical crime, and should be enforced as a legal one as well. If there is a way to separate that sort of situation from a case in which a boy and girl of similar age are involved with one another, I'd be all for it. But I'm not willing to allow such a situation to become legal if it means I would also have to agree that the 45/13 situation is all well and good, too. I can see the merit in the former, but absolutely refuse to accept the latter. You talk about human sexuality as if it's just a natural biological function. That is certainly one of its primary descriptions, but is ultimately oversimple. For whatever reason - whether due to artificial causes or whatever else - sex carries with it any number of psychological, emotional, and societal effects. A 13-year-old child may be able to do many things with near-adult skill, but simply cannot make the fully informed decision to have sex. You're a special case, maybe, because you say that you're unaffected by an experience like that. (Of course, you're also male, so the experience is inherently dissimilar to the more common scenario of an older male and younger female.) But you can bet that it's not the best memory for many people. And I'm a little bit shocked that you would consider that sort of mistake to be just the sort of thing that a kid needs to screw up on their own so that they may learn the lesson firsthand. It's useful, maybe, for a child to get drunk so that he can see how sick he gets afterwards, or drive fast so that he can get pulled over by the cops, but I think this is one lesson that is best unlearned. Originally posted by JombAnd the case of a grown adult taking advantage of a child, even without using any sort of explicit force, is not nearly as exceptional or rare as you seem to think. If it takes one law to cover both scenarios, I'll chalk that up as a necessary evil; it's better than having no law to cover either. |
| Jomb Posts: 440/448 |
These sorts of laws vary wildly from state to state, what in one state may not even be a crime can get you life in prison in the next state. So obviously some states are more reasonable than others. But by and large the rule of thumb is that these sorts of laws are ridiculously over-the-top in the level of punishment they lay on the supposed "sex-offender", not to mention the anguish they oftentimes end up causing the "victim".
No one having sex with a teenager is a pedophile, by the clinical definition of "pedophile", the object of the desire must be pre-pubecent. No teenagers are pre-pubecent, all of them have hit puberty. I've seen this sort of bullshit going on numerous times in several different states. Some young man is caught having consentual sex with his teenager GF, then a swarm of prosecuting attorneys, irate parents, "therapists", etc. come in, insist the woman was raped, and haul the poor scmuck away. 10 years is on the high end of the sort of time he can expect to get, but isn't that far off. 4-8 years is pretty common, at the very least the guy will be labeled a sex-offender, effectively ending his life. You see, all those laws meant to apply to extremely violent rape-murderers of small children apply equally to all sex-offenders, even the ones like Mr. Wilson in this example who only had consentual teen sex. When speaking of laws getting harsher and harsher, I'm looking at such things as Jessica's law as proposed in many states, which would make mandatory sentences for all sex crimes (including this type of bullshit one), some of which are exceedingly high (35 years anyone?, tracking bracelets for life anyone?). Not to mention the sorts of laws which Mr. Walsh want to make federal and apply to all states which would make sex offender registration even stricter and harsher, and yes that would even apply to Mr. Wilson here. You see, the law has decided that all sex offenders are equal, and Mr. Wilson will be officially as dangerous as Mr. Cooey (sp?) or Mr. Devlin. I've never seen any sex crime law actually get loosened yet. if it happens here, that will be the 1st I'm aware of. Pretty much since Megan's Laws it's been a political move to make them harsher and harsher to make a statement. Prosecutors will never be able to differentiate between a legitimate case of child molestation and a mutually agreed-upon encounter, because as it stands all encounters involving teenagers in most states, are automatically non-consentual, by law. So it's their duty simply to prove an encounter took place, not to prove it was forced or manipulated. If age of consent laws were eliminated or reduced several years this would solve much of the problem, because then prosecution would have to prove force or manipulation took place, not simply that something happened. Right now what we usually see happening is a man signing a birth certificate thinking he can take responsibility for his child, then being hauled away for that, as an admission that sex took place, or angry parents confronting their teen daughter and having her admit that her and her boyfriend were experimenting, and that admission is all thats needed to ruin lives. "So, a child older than 12 years should be free to have sex with whomever she pleases? What if it's a 45-year-old man who is sleeping with her? A 13-year-old is not a child, you say, so when that man convinces her to have sex with him (and she ultimately does so of her own volition), he has not committed a crime? Even if, when she's grown and matured, she realizes what a dire mistake it was? (More likely, she won't even realize how much of a mistake it is, but will instead just be psychologically damaged for the rest of her life.) " If no force was involved, then it fits into the category of distasteful. 10 years would still be very excessive. Something like that being a misdemeaner I could go along with, but a felony is very excessive when we are talking about consentual relations in which the younger partner is past puberty and was not threatened, attacked, or coerced. People make mistakes, everyone is going to make mistakes. Thats what we do when we're growing up. Usually its a learning experience. The girl in your example would not be alone at all in having selected a sex partner she later regrets. psychologically damaged for the rest of ones life? how so? I had sex at that age, it did'nt scar me for life. Generally i see it as having been a learning experience. "Don't pull the "Europe is an enlightened Mecca and America is a bunch of Puritanical barbarians" thing. I hate that. You make a sweeping generalization when, in truth, the only people responsible for this injustice are a group of uninformed jurors and a jackass district attorney." You may hate it, but it sure looks true when we go around locking up kids for perfectly normal experimentation. This case is not nearly as exceptional or rare as you seem to think. The only thing unusual about this case is that it got this much publicity. |
| Sinfjotle Posts: 1691/1697 |
If you cared to read the link...
1) She didn't say she was raped, her mother did. 2) The rape charges were dropped. 3) The entire point is that an archaic law that made oral sex a felony when normal sex was not a felony was over turned, but not made retroactive. If he had normal sex, he wouldn't have gotten a jail term at all. |
| Silvershield Posts: 551/587 |
Originally posted by SamuraiXAn exception is only "necessary" because, in cases like this one, a prosecutor could easily refuse to acknowledge that the accused has violated the letter of the law without actually violating the spirit of it. And, of course, laws are meant for their spirits to be upheld, while their letters are the unfortunate but unavoidable byproduct of the way language works. Originally posted by SamuraiXI didn't call it arbitrary - I was responding to Jomb, who did. |
| SamuraiX Posts: 124/302 |
I don't think Jomb was trying to say that age of consent laws were bad, but that there should be a close in age exception to this case. He has a point, that even though the legal and socially-accepted definition of "child" vary, people think that a child molester is some adult raping kids. If nothing happens to change this precedent, eight years in the future, I can forsee a socially-alienated Wilson in the future.
To say that the age of consent is an "arbitrary threshold" marginalizes the the idea of an age of consent. A child isn't mature enough to grasp the reprecussions that sexual intercourse can have. Even more, a child can't really support another child. |
| Silvershield Posts: 549/587 |
Originally posted by JombIt is an anachronistic and anomalous law in a single specific state, not the age of consent laws in the nation as a whole, that is screwing Genarlow Wilson. Not to mention, age of consent laws are absolutely useful and, in most cases, absolutely valuable. But, in this case, the article outlines how the prosecutors and jury took the letter of a law that was designed to punish pedophiles, even while the law's spirit would see Wilson as a free man. Originally posted by JombAgain, the article points out that virtually everybody is fully aware that Wilson is no legitimate sex offender. Even the people that put him in jail in the first place. People aren't ignoring the problem because they think they'll be called "friendly to sex offenders," but because they either completely ignore the specifics of the case and insist that Wilson is actually, honestly guilty of a terrible crime, or out of sheer stubbornness or refusal to admit their mistakes in convicting him in the first place. Originally posted by JombWhere are you drawing this "prediction" from? If anything, the laws seem to be loosening, as evidenced by the changes to Georgia's legislation in light of this particular case. Originally posted by JombThe age of consent law, as I remarked earlier, is useful and essentially necessary as it stands now. For one thing, it's no more arbitrary than any other age would be; I mean, after all, you can pick any threshold, from 12 years to 14 years to 17.5 years, and it would be just as arbitrary. The problem isn't that the age is too high or that it's arbitrary, but instead that prosecutors refuse to differentiate between a legitimate case of child molestation and a mutually agreed-upon encounter. Originally posted by JombSo, a child older than 12 years should be free to have sex with whomever she pleases? What if it's a 45-year-old man who is sleeping with her? A 13-year-old is not a child, you say, so when that man convinces her to have sex with him (and she ultimately does so of her own volition), he has not committed a crime? Even if, when she's grown and matured, she realizes what a dire mistake it was? (More likely, she won't even realize how much of a mistake it is, but will instead just be psychologically damaged for the rest of her life.) Originally posted by JombAnd, after reading this article, I find that this DA seems to be about as unscrupulous as they come. After reading what he's said, I am totally disgusted. Originally posted by JombDon't pull the "Europe is an enlightened Mecca and America is a bunch of Puritanical barbarians" thing. I hate that. You make a sweeping generalization when, in truth, the only people responsible for this injustice are a group of uninformed jurors and a jackass district attorney. |
| Jomb Posts: 439/448 |
Truthfully I'm not surprised at all. This is the basic injustice in the way our age of consent in this country works. It's just plain wrong, but nobody will do anything to fix the problem for fear of being seen as someone who is "friendly to sex offenders". I predict that the law will continue to get harsher and harsher, as everytime there is some high profile child-rape/murder, there will be a huge pull to make the laws even stricter for all charges that even vaguely involve sex, even though the main focus should be on whether or not violence was involved rather than on something as ridiculous as claiming it was automatically forced and violent just because the girl was slightly below the arbitrary (and too high) age of consent. This is'nt as uncommon as you think either, I've met several people who were sitting in jail or prison over consentual sex with a girl 14-16 years old, who were themselves 17-21 years old at the time of the "crime".
For starters, this girl is not a child, so child molestation is a very misleading name for the charge, when i think child I'm thinking under 12. Also, 10 years is a very long time. I dont see how anyone deserves 10 years unless there was a death or serious injury. I'm surprised they did'nt hit him with child pornography charges because it had been video-taped, then raise it from 10 to 20 or 30 years, thats another move unscrupulous DAs like to pull. Europe appears to be so much more enlightened than us on these sorts of issues when you see just plain barbaric shit like this going on. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
