I thought it was illegal for 11-year-olds to have sex...

[AllieBaba]

See the following:

Colorado:
18-3-402 (1) Any actor who knowingly inflicts sexual intrusion or sexual penetration on a victim commits sexual assault if: (d) At the time of the commission of the act, the victim is less than fifteen years of age and the actor is at least four years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim; or (e) At the time of the commission of the act, the victim is at least fifteen years of age but less than seventeen years of age and the actor is at least ten years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim;

Delaware:
Title 11 § 761. Definitions generally applicable to sexual offences. (j) A child who has not yet reached his or her sixteenth birthday is deemed unable to consent to a sexual act with a person more than 4 years older than said child. Children who have not yet reached their twelfth birthday are deemed unable to consent to a sexual act under any circumstances.

New Hampshire
The age of consent in New Hampshire is 16. However a close in age exception exists where a person may "engage in sexual penetration" with a person 13 years old or older and younger than 16 if their age difference is less than 3 years. However if the partner is acting "in loco parentis", e.g. as a teacher or a guardian, the minimum age is 18. NH Criminal code Section 632-A:3 and Section 632-A:2

Texas
§ 21.11. INDECENCY WITH A CHILD.
(a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years and not the person's spouse, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex, the person:
(1) engages in sexual contact with the child or causes the child to engage in sexual contact;
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor:
(1) was not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex;

I don't have the cites for these (I was just focused on finding them), but they should be easy to find and look up yourself.



Teaching sexual education is not mutually exclusive with attempting to prevent underage sexual activity. It merely recognizes the undeniable fact that many children will not heed advice regarding the abstention for underage sex.



It is a simple concept. Repeat it with me. Correlation does not prove causation.



Preventing child exploitation and preparing for the eventuality that kids will have sex with one another are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they aren't even close to being the same issue.



Teaching and encourage safe sexual activity is part and parcel of sex education. It isn't just a biology lesson.

Well there are 50 states, and you can see how many of them have zero tolerance for sex among minors or with minors. YOu can continue to argue about what the law is, but the fact is, there's pretty close to zero tolerance for it in most areas.

And read the USA Today article, which details the results of providing kids with explicit information about sex. The facts are the facts, and denying them doesn't make them go away.
"Teaching and encourage (sic) safe sexual activity..."

Hence the problem. You're encouraging it. While not addressing the huge, looming issue of why are you teaching kids to have safe sex with child molesters?

 

[ReillyT]

Here you go, you sick bastard:
The results of the National Survey of Adolescent Males published in the November 1993 issue of Public Health Reports show that young males who were taught about birth control were more likely to experiment with sex at an earlier age than if they had received no (formal) instruction.[26] ]

Once more, correlation does not prove causation.

Furthermore, explicit sex education can tear down the natural inhibitions and defenses of both young boys and girls, leaving them vulnerable to sexual predators. Indeed, pedophiles often use pornography to lure their young victims.[27]

You are citing the 1987 Attorney General Report on Pornography?

How about this? It is the abstract for 1993 World Health Organization International Conference on AIDs.

In response to policy maker's objection that sex or AIDS education may encourage sexual activity in young people, a review of studies on the effect of sex education in schools was carried out. Most of these studies are restricted to changes in students' knowledge or attitudes. Out of eighteen studies reviewed, only seven had evaluated sexual practices of students exposed to sex education. These seven studies, all from the USA, indicate a clear trend: In no study was there evidence of sex education leading to earlier or increased sexual activity in the young people who were exposed to it; In four studies sex education led to a delay in the onset of sexual activity; Two studies showed that access to counselling and contraceptive services did not encourage early sexual activity. Programmes which promoted both postponement and protected sex when sexually active, were more effective than those promoting abstinence alone. Sex education programmes were found to be more effective when given before young people become sexually active. There is an urgent need to determine if sex education has similar effects in different cultures.

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102206744.html

 

[ReillyT]

Well there are 50 states, and you can see how many of them have zero tolerance for sex among minors or with minors. YOu can continue to argue about what the law is, but the fact is, there's pretty close to zero tolerance for it in most areas.

Really? You analyzed all the laws of all the states did you? I didn't recognize the same consensus that you did.

The facts are the facts, and denying them doesn't make them go away.

That's right Allie. Denying facts (e.g., kids will have sex) will not make them go away.

Hence the problem. You're encouraging it. While not addressing the huge, looming issue of why are you teaching kids to have safe sex with child molesters?

Exactly. That is what we are all advocating. We are all just part of the big pro-molestation lobby. We just want to keep children... and child molestors safe... you fucking moron.

 

[AllieBaba]

Once more, correlation does not prove causation.



You are citing the 1987 Attorney General Report on Pornography?

How about this? It is the abstract for 1993 World Health Organization International Conference on AIDs.


http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102206744.html

I think the correlation in this case is pretty convincing.

And while your study, 6 years younger and completed by a liberal group, may or may not be an accurate representation, the point that I'm making is that you further victimize victims if you shower them with explicit sexual images and refuse to acknoweldge that they are victims, or do anything about their victimization. Further, in providing them with condoms instead of investigating the circumstances, you are sending the signal that it's okay for them to be victimized, and there's nothing anyone will do for them.

And the under-15 rate is still going up for unwed mothers.
http://209.217.72.34/VitalStats/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx
As it has been ever since abortion and sex education was labeled as the "fix everything" by the libs.
I think correlation or causation or no, perhaps it's time to evaluate the chant.

 

[ReillyT]

I think the correlation in this case is pretty convincing.

Not really.

And while your study, 6 years younger and completed by a liberal group, may or may not be an accurate representation, the point that I'm making is that you further victimize victims if you shower them with explicit sexual images and refuse to acknoweldge that they are victims, or do anything about their victimization. Further, in providing them with condoms instead of investigating the circumstances, you are sending the signal that it's okay for them to be victimized, and there's nothing anyone will do for them.

Oh... I see. Your study from the Attorney General was important. The seven studies cited by the World Health Organization (that wacky liberal thinktank) "may or may not be an accurate representation." It doesn't seem inconsequential to me. It seems to be at the very heart of what we have been discussing.

Explicit sexual images? What do you think sex ed consists of... a viewing of "Debbie does Dallas?"

P.S. If the studies are right and sex ed doesn't encourage sexual activity, then no "signals" are being sent at all.

 

[ReillyT]

I think the correlation in this case is pretty convincing.

Every time it rains, I see people with umbrellas. Does that convince you that the presence of umbrellas causes rain?

 

[Shogun]

It is state by state. Some states employ a "Romeo and Juliet" exception that removes the act from criminal liability for kids in close age proximity. Some states have a different approach. Congratulations on proving exactly what we have been saying and you have been denying.

Did you notice how she claimed to have evidence from the CDC about a rise in teen sex correlated with sex ed? and THEN whipped out this lame shit? Rummage around on her source for a bit and have a laugh at what amounts to a pro-gun blog at www.NRA.com.


hilarious.


Still waiting for that CDC evidence, Allie Mcstupid.

 

[AllieBaba]

Moron.
http://209.217.72.34/VitalStats/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx
You'll notice he didn't challenge the statement, which is a statement of fact and a well-known one. Teenage pregnancy rates have been dropping since peaking in the 1990s, after a huge boom in the 70 and 80s. Gee, I wonder why?
The rates have been dropping because we stopped feeding our children the pap that was fed to them in the 70s and into the 80s about sex being okay for them, and conservatives got a toe hold after being blown out of the water by Roe v. Wade. For 20 years, you never heard anything about accountablity, and after Reagan, suddenly it became okay again to say no, and voila....teen age prenancies started dropping.

But we still haven't recovered from our Roe v. Wade boom. You guys have a lot to be proud of. You must be especially proud of the astronomical numbers of abortions. Which also went up and up and up after they were legalized. So you managed to increase abortions AND increase unwanted babies. Quite a track record.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/teenpreg1990-2002/teenpreg1990-2002.htm

Overview

An estimated 757,000 pregnancies among teenagers 15-19 years ended in 2002, 9 percent fewer than in 2000 (834,000) and about one-fourth fewer than the peak number estimated for 1990, 1,017,000 (Table 1). The 2002 total included 425,000 live births and an estimated 215,000 induced abortions and 117,000 fetal losses. The estimate for 2002 represents a record low for the Nation, the fewest reported since this series of national pregnancy estimates began in 1976 (1,2). The most recent year for which these estimates can be prepared is 2002, because more current national estimates of abortions are not available.

Teenage pregnancy rates continued to decline since 2000 (the most recent year for which data were previously available), dropping 10 percent overall between 2000 and 2002. During the period 1990-2002, the rate fell 35 percent (Table 2). The estimated rate for 1990, 116.8 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15-19 years, was the highest ever reported over the period 1976-2002. By 2002, the rate fell to an estimated 76.4 per 1,000. Put another way, the 1990 rate of 116.8 means that 11.7 percent of U.S. teenagers were pregnant in 1990 compared with 7.6 percent in 2002. The pace of decline continued in recent years: For the 2000-2002 period, the rate dropped about 5 percent per year, compared with an average decline of about 3 percent per year during 1990-2000.

Despite the continuous declines, the U.S. teenage pregnancy rate is still among the highest among industrialized nations (3). The costs of teenage childbearing in the United States are substantial. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy recently estimated that $9.1 billion in public funding was expended on teenage childbearing in 2004 (4). These costs include public assistance, health care, child welfare, and other expenses.

This Health e-stat summarizes the overall trends in pregnancy for teenagers 15-19 years for the years 1990-2002, updating the most recent report of pregnancy estimates that included 1990-2000 (2). Estimates of numbers and rates are presented in Tables 1 and 2, and trends are illustrated in Figures 1-4. More detailed data on the changes and variations in pregnancies and pregnancy rates for all females 10-44 years of age will be presented in a forthcoming report.

 

[Shogun]

Every time it rains, I see people with umbrellas. Does that convince you that the presence of umbrellas causes rain?

don't you know? Showing kids how to dissect frogs in biology class also teaches them that it's OK to kick puppies!

 

[Shogun]

Moron.
http://209.217.72.34/VitalStats/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx
You'll notice he didn't challenge the statement, which is a statement of fact and a well-known one.

Say, that sure didn't make any retarded fucking correlations like YOU are...


geee.. I wonder why THAT is...


So, where on the CDC site does it even REMOTELY suggest that a rise in ANY demographic is the result of sex ed?



I'll wait..

 

[ReillyT]

Moron.
http://209.217.72.34/VitalStats/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx
You'll notice he didn't challenge the statement, which is a statement of fact and a well-known one.

I didn't challenge it because you added it after I responded to the post. But once again... correlation does not prove causation. It is a pretty fucking simple concept.

 

[Shogun]

CHILD PORN, a COMING THROUGH!

That fucking Shakespeare pervert just wants PREDATORS to victimize our KIDS!

Anyone who suggests otherwise is trying to protect PREDATORS!

this SMUT and sex ed are the reason teenagers think about sex!

You can't hide behind an alias, Francis Bacon!

 

[AllieBaba]

I didn't challenge it because you added it after I responded to the post. But once again... correlation does not prove causation. It is a pretty fucking simple concept.

Yeah, and it lets you all out of any accountability.

 

[Shogun]

Yeah, and it lets you all out of any accountability.

http://www.stat.tamu.edu/stat30x/notes/node42.html

http://www.stanford.edu/group/hopes/rltdsci/kickout/ko1_correlation.html

http://logicalfallacies.info/cumhoc.html


Take your pick, dummy. It's not accountability HE needs to circumvent since YOU were the one claiming stupid shit.


Show, throw down your cards and show us where the CDC blames ANY rise in ANY demographic on sex ed....


After all... YOU made the claim and YOU tried to name drop a source so SURELY you have it available!

right?

I mean, SURELY this isn't ANOTHER example of you name dropping a source that DOESN'T say AT ALL what you claim it does, eh? It's not like you've ever been busted doing that shit before, right Allie?

 

[AllieBaba]

Look you dumb assed bitch. I must assume that you were molested as a child or you wouldn't be thinking as you are. Now I have related the following before:

In 1954, while stationed at Parks AFB I was living in a place called Komidorski Village (San leandro, ca) there was a phone booth in the court yard, and one when I went to make a call, there were two children Girl and boy, about 7 years old, going at it in the bottom of the booth. I hadn't realized at the time it was possible. but apparently it was. now who told them how? and who was molesting who.? and can it -and DOES it happen? you bet your bottom dollar it does.

Girls have been known to get pregnant at the age of four, and boys "sometimes" can inpregnate at about the same age.

If you REALLY read reports. you likely have heard about such cases.

They're the exception, not the norm, as the information in this thread proves without a doubt.

And thank you for the nod in my direction with regards of my understanding of sexual molestation....which comes from working with the sexually molested, and those who molest them. You know an expert when you see one.

And Shogun, I proved my case. Over and over. I proved that although you and your gung-ho child sex buddies like to deny it, sex with a child, regardless of the age of the participants, is a crime. I proved that forcing sex education on children and providing them with sex information and tools does nothing so well as increase the likelihood they will be victimized, while at the same time encouraging them to explore sexuality when they are too young to cope with it. I've proved that IF AN 11 YEAR OLD IS HAVING SEX, THE HUGE MAJORITY AREN'T HAVING CONSENSUAL SEX. #1, because there's no such thing as consensual sex for an 11 year old, and I believe that is true in every fucking state of the United States; and #2, because 11 year olds are rarely having sex with other 11 year olds. And the younger a child is who is having sex, the more likely the partner is considerably older than the child.

I made my case. All you did was hysterically rave.

 

[ReillyT]

And Shogun, I proved my case. Over and over. I proved that although you and your gung-ho child sex buddies like to deny it, sex with a child, regardless of the age of the participants, is a crime.

I won't respond to the majority of your last post, because... well... you're stupid and no amount of arguing is going to change that fact.

I did find this little bit interesting though, as it was you yourself that, in fact, proved that sex between underage kids is not always illegal. You actually admitted in a subsequent post that you had, in fact, proved this. Just thought you should take credit where credit is due.

 

[Shogun]

nope.

sorry.


You haven't proved a goddamn thing.


But, by all means, whip out that CDC correlation between sex ed and teen pregnancy...


and using words like "most likely" doesn't indicate PROOF. It indicates you retarded opinion.


Don't blame me because you are so stupid. Go back to school an learn something. Your ignorance in this thread conveys exactly why sex ed is necessary. You have the functioning capacity of a lobotomized three toed sloth.


Calling me a name WONT make your opinion any more true than it already isn't.



But, go ahead and whip out that CDC evidence and prove me wrong...

 

[AllieBaba]

I won't respond to the majority of your last post, because... well... you're stupid and no amount of arguing is going to change that fact.

I did find this little bit interesting though, as it was you yourself that, in fact, proved that sex between underage kids is not always illegal. You actually admitted in a subsequent post that you had, in fact, proved this. Just thought you should take credit where credit is due.

Yeah, I'm stupid. Let's lay up my outside information against what you've provided. Which is nothing.

I never said sex between underaged kids was always illegal. I said sex with 11 year olds is illegal, as I believe it is in every state. I also said the assertion that sex between kids is a non-issue, thus making the fact that condoms are being distributed at schools is a non-issue, was faulty, based upon the premise that if an 11 year old kid is having sex, we shouldn't be giving them condoms, we should be investigating a crime.

And Shogun, the link and the information from the CDC is right here in this thread. Your carping that it isn't pretty much invalidates anything you have said or will ever say about me not proving anything. Again.

 

[ReillyT]

I proved that although you and your gung-ho child sex buddies like to deny it, sex with a child, regardless of the age of the participants, is a crime.

I never said sex between underaged kids was always illegal.

Interesting.

 

[AllieBaba]

Interesting.

The age which determines a child varies from state to state.

But every state has a law that states it's illegal to have sex with a child.
Moron.