Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive -- World Affairs/Debate: The Sordid Affair of Genarlow Wilson

~~(Link to AcmlmWiki)~~ Offline: thank ||bass

Register \| Login
Views: 13,040,846	Main \| Memberlist \| Active users \| Calendar \| Chat \| Online users Ranks \| FAQ \| ACS \| Stats \| Color Chart \| Search \| Photo album	04-28-24 10:19 PM

0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate.

Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - The Sordid Affair of Genarlow Wilson

New poll |

Pages: 1 2

Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread

User

Post

Jomb

Deddorokku

Since: 12-03-05
From: purgatory

Last post: 6281 days
Last view: 6281 days

Posted on 02-06-07 03:20 AM

Link | Quote

"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

SamuraiX