Woman charged with raping boy, 14

[LiveUninhibited]

Here's a solution I've been able to hold on to for a very long time.

Not have sex. I've never had sex, nor do I plan to, and it's really not that important to me. Cause frankly I got better things to do with my time. Now here's the million dollar question... does that make me weird, or the only sensible island in the ocean?

Sex, to me, is an instinct. It is, coming from a God-believer, a gift that lets people actually enjoy their married lives. In its most natural form, sex is about absolutely nothing except reproduction. The pleasure we get from it ensures that we want to reproduce as much as possible, as fast as possible, because ultimately that is the one thing every living being in the universe wants: more of itself.

So, ultimately, my opinion is that the more we enjoy sex purely for the carnal pleasure it brings, the closer we get to being animals, and I enjoy being a human kthnx. A 14 year old who doesn't feel guilty about having wanton sex is because he's giving in to base urges and impulses and is losing sense of human rationality. I mean, quite frankly, just read the book "Brave New World." A future of uninhibited (no offense live) people is not a joyful, expansive one, but one of inward, selfish people who learn to be so callous that no amount of horror can get through.

That is why sex should be a controlled, thoughtful process instead of the "Hey I'm hot wanna bang me" mentality that lets cases like teacher sex happen.

"You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel." -Bloodhound Gang Soma feelies sound good to me.

If it works for you that's great. I feel happier and healthier with lots of sex with my girl. Sex definitely can be dangerous and destructive though. It's something with great rewards and great responsibility. As much as people would like to withold that from the young (14-17), that's not realistic. Better solution would be to educate them on consequences instead of keeping them in a nunnery - leaving them ill-equipped to face the real world.

 

[KittenKoder]

Here's a solution I've been able to hold on to for a very long time.

Not have sex. I've never had sex, nor do I plan to, and it's really not that important to me. Cause frankly I got better things to do with my time. Now here's the million dollar question... does that make me weird, or the only sensible island in the ocean?

Sex, to me, is an instinct. It is, coming from a God-believer, a gift that lets people actually enjoy their married lives. In its most natural form, sex is about absolutely nothing except reproduction. The pleasure we get from it ensures that we want to reproduce as much as possible, as fast as possible, because ultimately that is the one thing every living being in the universe wants: more of itself.

So, ultimately, my opinion is that the more we enjoy sex purely for the carnal pleasure it brings, the closer we get to being animals, and I enjoy being a human kthnx. A 14 year old who doesn't feel guilty about having wanton sex is because he's giving in to base urges and impulses and is losing sense of human rationality. I mean, quite frankly, just read the book "Brave New World." A future of uninhibited (no offense live) people is not a joyful, expansive one, but one of inward, selfish people who learn to be so callous that no amount of horror can get through.

That is why sex should be a controlled, thoughtful process instead of the "Hey I'm hot wanna bang me" mentality that lets cases like teacher sex happen.

As much as I hate having sex ... your response it just plain wrong. One part of being human is our ability to be unique and to make choices without others telling us what's right and wrong. Your solution makes no sens because it goes not only against nature, but also against humanity. As a species we have survived for only two reasons: our ability to eat and our ability to fuck, as it is with any species. If everyone just stopped fucking we would vanish very quickly. Responsibility in when you procreate would be nice (since many do not consider the impact of this act) but stopping it ... that's even worse. Sex for pleasure isn't even a bad thing, otherwise it wouldn't be pleasurable to most by nature (the nerve endings and chemicals released betray that it's suppose to be pleasurable), some of us are just different from others and either because f nerve damage of differing physiology we don't find it as pleasurable (probably a result of over population or perhaps environmental). The mentality you mentioned actually turns off most possible mates, and many like that are unable to procreate (thank the gods for that) so it's better that they behave that way if they are so inclined. If your post wasn't at least partially a joke, then you have more issues than even I do ... that's bad.

 

[KittenKoder]

Live .. one of the few pop songs I like ...

 

[Shogun]

I hate to tell you this but boys are different from girls. i know it's not PC to say that but really a 14 year old boy having sex with an older woman is NOT the same as a 14 year old girl with an older man.

I actually agree with this statement.

Here in FL we've had several teachers arrested for sex with underage boys, the most infamous being Debra LaFave.

is anyone really going to claim that some 14 or 15 year old boy was tramutized by having sex with her? I don't think so.

Would you be so quick to say no if your son were given Herpes or a child by one of these sick bitches? Aids?

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Would you be so quick to say no if your son were given Herpes or a child by one of these sick bitches? Aids?

Knowingly giving anybody Aids without them having knowledge of the risks is what should be the crime there. Informed consent would require that if you know you have an STD you tell any partner beforehand.

That being said, I don't think one would need to be a naive teenaged boy to get seduced by the teacher in the example. Most men, legal adult or not, would follow the old Nike slogan there.

 

[Cecilie1200]

rape of an adult is considered an act of VIOLENCE.

rape of an underage, consenting teen is not an act of violence...so it is hard for people to get a grip around it, as well as they can for the Rape of an adult...a violent act using force.

Statutory Rape is a mental game that ends with the physical rape, the adult using their experience to entice a teen in to consenting, or in to thinking that this is all A-ok....with the teen lacking in full capabilities and development of reasoning until they are in their later teens to 20 years of age.

Two young teens, within the same age range, both under age, having sex is not considered statutory rape because both children are lacking in full reasoning skills developed later on....

Statutory rape with a consenting teen is not good for either male or female imo.

One thing to remember that probably goes unreported though is that at 18 you're considered an adult. I know of father's that have had their daughter's boyfriends convicted of statutory rape because the boyfriend was 18 and the girlfriend was seventeen. You can debate what age is a responsibile age to have sex, but being convicted of rape based on nothing but a difference in age I think is a little harsh.

Fortunately, many states have adopted statutory rape laws that take into account not just the arbitrary ages of the people involved, but also the difference in months between them, so that a boy who turns 18 six months before his girlfriend doesn't become vulnerable to statutory rape charges from her angry parents, who should really learn better ways of dealing with teenaged rebellion than wasting the justice system's time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So people really think a 14-year-old is a "child"... That doesn't seem realistic. Granted some 14-year-olds act/look more mature than others. 14-year-olds were young adults in most ancient societies. Mary when she had Jesus, Romeo and Juliet, most people when they got married, at around that age or slightly younger.

Yes, people really think a 14-year-old is a child . . . probably because a 14-year-old IS a child. And are you seriously going to use Romeo and Juliet as examples of how 14-year-olds are mature adults? They both killed themselves! Hello!

 

[Cecilie1200]

I sense a generational shift, I don't get that. Really, I don't.

Has anyone got a flashlight? My cave is very dark and I need to do some cave painting....can't go outside, the dinosaurs are roaming around

What do you mean? Did men not ask girls out to coffee or directly to their place when Fred Flintstone was your neighbor?

When I was in high school there was this trend of people dating only within their circle of friends. That whole "friends first" BS. I thought it was only in my experience but I read about it in a sociology class in college a few years later. I'm non-traditional to be sure, but if a girl had to get to know me first I suspected she was not physically attracted to me to the extent I'd require. More in line with the topic my first crush was on my 3rd grade teacher while I was in 3rd grade. I must admit I'm not surprised nothing ever happened, but I would have been thrilled if it had.

Yes, well, when I was 13 I wanted to leave my home, live in the hills (in the winter) "off the land". When I was much younger, I was convinced I levitated at night. I'm thankful I didn't put that theory to the test and attempt to fly.

What kids want and what is good for them, or even legal, are two different things. One of the most difficult aspects of child molestation is the guilt children feel over their willing participation and enjoyment of it.

That doesn't mean it's not a crime. It is, and it should be.

As I've mentioned on other threads, my 13-year-old son would be perfectly happy to live on nothing but potato chips and chocolate, if I would let him. Note that last, all-important phrase: IF I LET HIM. There's a reason why children perceive their parents' role as taking all the fun out of their lives. It's because at that age, they're too damned dumb to know what's good for them, and nature and the law recognize that, even if some horny old men on this board who don't remember their own adolescent fantasies of jumping the Grand Canyon on a skateboard don't recognize it.

I don't know how many ways I can say this: "Any 14-year-old would love it" is NOT a good standard to base decisions on.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

So people really think a 14-year-old is a "child"... That doesn't seem realistic. Granted some 14-year-olds act/look more mature than others. 14-year-olds were young adults in most ancient societies. Mary when she had Jesus, Romeo and Juliet, most people when they got married, at around that age or slightly younger.

Yes, people really think a 14-year-old is a child . . . probably because a 14-year-old IS a child. And are you seriously going to use Romeo and Juliet as examples of how 14-year-olds are mature adults? They both killed themselves! Hello!

Mostly using familiar examples to show what the norms were formerly. People around that age begin acting as adults in all capacities. So clearly they are capable of acting as adults in respect to things like marriage and sex. Society has changed because in the view of many the responsibilities of adulthood in the modern world require more training, not because 14 year olds are biologically incapable of adulthood.

Calling 14-year-olds children is misleading. There is a world of difference between somebody having sex with the average 14-year-old and the average 5-year-old. I am not willing to call biological adults, as many 14-year-olds are, children. It would be more accurate to call them young adults, teenagers, or some other words that distinguish them from actual children.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

rape of an adult is considered an act of VIOLENCE.

rape of an underage, consenting teen is not an act of violence...so it is hard for people to get a grip around it, as well as they can for the Rape of an adult...a violent act using force.

Statutory Rape is a mental game that ends with the physical rape, the adult using their experience to entice a teen in to consenting, or in to thinking that this is all A-ok....with the teen lacking in full capabilities and development of reasoning until they are in their later teens to 20 years of age.

Two young teens, within the same age range, both under age, having sex is not considered statutory rape because both children are lacking in full reasoning skills developed later on....

Statutory rape with a consenting teen is not good for either male or female imo.

One thing to remember that probably goes unreported though is that at 18 you're considered an adult. I know of father's that have had their daughter's boyfriends convicted of statutory rape because the boyfriend was 18 and the girlfriend was seventeen. You can debate what age is a responsibile age to have sex, but being convicted of rape based on nothing but a difference in age I think is a little harsh.

Fortunately, many states have adopted statutory rape laws that take into account not just the arbitrary ages of the people involved, but also the difference in months between them, so that a boy who turns 18 six months before his girlfriend doesn't become vulnerable to statutory rape charges from her angry parents, who should really learn better ways of dealing with teenaged rebellion than wasting the justice system's time.

Often referred to as Romeo and Juliet clauses, in fact. That's definitely an improvement, but most of them don't even span the years people could be in school together. For example in Oregon I think it's 3 years, so a senior in high school who has sex with a freshman is still "raping" them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, well, when I was 13 I wanted to leave my home, live in the hills (in the winter) "off the land". When I was much younger, I was convinced I levitated at night. I'm thankful I didn't put that theory to the test and attempt to fly.

What kids want and what is good for them, or even legal, are two different things. One of the most difficult aspects of child molestation is the guilt children feel over their willing participation and enjoyment of it.

That doesn't mean it's not a crime. It is, and it should be.

I'm a bit weary of government making people do what's good for them instead of letting them make their own mistakes. I think informed consent is a very useful standard here. One could easily argue that lying and manipulating somebody into sex is not informed consent and age is not the factor except in establishing reasonable suspicion of abuse.

In practice it means that instead of checking somebody's fake ID before having sex with them, you converse with them enough to know their actual maturity and mental status. Then you can be brought to court on suspicion (probable cause) of abuse if you have sex with somebody of suspect age but convicted only based upon violation of informed consent.

You thought irrational things when you were 13. Well some adults think irrational things all the time. When I was 13 I was slightly more selfish and slightly more reckless but I knew very well the potential consequences of sex. Not all 13 year olds do. Not all 13 year olds are the same. So it might be okay for an 18 year old to have sex with one 13-year old but not another, just as it might be okay for them to have sex with a normal 21 year old but not a retarded 21 year old.

People feeling guilt over somebody taking advantage of them or having sex is mostly indicative of a society with irrational norms. I'd take a pretty firm guess that most 14 year old "boys" would not feel ashamed after having sex with an adult female, but most 14 year old girls would. The difference is cultural, though.

So what are you saying? That you want the government to stop enforcing laws against child molestation? Are there any other sex offender laws on the books that you just find too oppressive for words and an overreaching of the meddlesome Nanny Government? Should we also stop enforcing the law against a man forcing himself on a woman who's too drunk to give consent?

Or are you suggesting that, rather than setting a base, universal legal standard for punishing child molestation, the goverment should get into the business of making arbitrary, case-by-case decisions of which children were mature enough to decide to fuck their junior high teachers and which ones just didn't grasp the full ramifications? It's always fun to go through life, not being sure if what you're doing is illegal or not until after you've done it and some judge has ruled on it.

Hey, I know. We could just leave the case-by-case decision on whether or not a child is mature enough to choose to have sex up to people who actually know the child well, rather than some judge who's never laid eyes on him before. How about we let his parents tell us if he really understands the choice he's making, and leave the punishment for child molestation up to them, too. I'm sure most of us parents would be glad to foot the expense for the bullets, and relieve the justice system of the cost of trying and imprisoning these people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So people really think a 14-year-old is a "child"... That doesn't seem realistic. Granted some 14-year-olds act/look more mature than others. 14-year-olds were young adults in most ancient societies. Mary when she had Jesus, Romeo and Juliet, most people when they got married, at around that age or slightly younger.

Yes, people really think a 14-year-old is a child . . . probably because a 14-year-old IS a child. And are you seriously going to use Romeo and Juliet as examples of how 14-year-olds are mature adults? They both killed themselves! Hello!

Mostly using familiar examples to show what the norms were formerly. People around that age begin acting as adults in all capacities. So clearly they are capable of acting as adults in respect to things like marriage and sex. Society has changed because in the view of many the responsibilities of adulthood in the modern world require more training, not because 14 year olds are biologically incapable of adulthood.

Calling 14-year-olds children is misleading. There is a world of difference between somebody having sex with the average 14-year-old and the average 5-year-old. I am not willing to call biological adults, as many 14-year-olds are, children. It would be more accurate to call them young adults, teenagers, or some other words that distinguish them from actual children.

My grandmother got married at 12. That was the norm in turn-of-the-century rural Tennessee. Do you know what else was the norm at that time, in that place? Dying in your early thirties. Societal norms from centuries ago, created as a response to conditions that no longer apply, are about as relevant to modern-day America as the idea that bathing too much is unhealthy (Hey, that was the norm once upon a time, and I don't see you advocating a return to THAT). Besides, I thought the entire point of becoming wealthier and more civilized and developing greater technology was to free us from the grueling, horrific realities of more primitive times.

The fact that there's a difference between 14-year-olds and 5-year-olds is already reflected in the typical punishments meted out to the offenders in both cases. It doesn't require us to dispense with their childhoods and make them open, unprotected targets for sickos as soon as they hit puberty.

You don't have to tell me, but I would be curious to know how many children you have, and how many actual pubescent kids you are personally acquainted with. It's always been striking to me how clearly divided this debate always is between people who are working either from a theoretical idea of 14-year-olds or the memory of being that age themselves, and people who actually have a child that age in their lives. I have yet to see anyone, male or female, who has a 14-year-old and says, "Well, I think my son/daughter is plenty mature enough to decide to have sex with his/her teacher, and I hope it's a really good experience for them both."

 

[Cecilie1200]

One thing to remember that probably goes unreported though is that at 18 you're considered an adult. I know of father's that have had their daughter's boyfriends convicted of statutory rape because the boyfriend was 18 and the girlfriend was seventeen. You can debate what age is a responsibile age to have sex, but being convicted of rape based on nothing but a difference in age I think is a little harsh.

Fortunately, many states have adopted statutory rape laws that take into account not just the arbitrary ages of the people involved, but also the difference in months between them, so that a boy who turns 18 six months before his girlfriend doesn't become vulnerable to statutory rape charges from her angry parents, who should really learn better ways of dealing with teenaged rebellion than wasting the justice system's time.

Often referred to as Romeo and Juliet clauses, in fact. That's definitely an improvement, but most of them don't even span the years people could be in school together. For example in Oregon I think it's 3 years, so a senior in high school who has sex with a freshman is still "raping" them.

You should ask yourself why Oregon decided to set their limit where they did, and why many other states do the same. Or for that matter, why many parents will balk at allowing their 9th-graders to date seniors. Unlike with adults, a year makes an enormous difference in the life of someone that young, and four years is a serious gap in their relative development levels. This means that a sexual relationship between a senior and a freshman stands a good chance of having a predatory aspect to it.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Yes, well, when I was 13 I wanted to leave my home, live in the hills (in the winter) "off the land". When I was much younger, I was convinced I levitated at night. I'm thankful I didn't put that theory to the test and attempt to fly.

What kids want and what is good for them, or even legal, are two different things. One of the most difficult aspects of child molestation is the guilt children feel over their willing participation and enjoyment of it.

That doesn't mean it's not a crime. It is, and it should be.

I'm a bit weary of government making people do what's good for them instead of letting them make their own mistakes. I think informed consent is a very useful standard here. One could easily argue that lying and manipulating somebody into sex is not informed consent and age is not the factor except in establishing reasonable suspicion of abuse.

In practice it means that instead of checking somebody's fake ID before having sex with them, you converse with them enough to know their actual maturity and mental status. Then you can be brought to court on suspicion (probable cause) of abuse if you have sex with somebody of suspect age but convicted only based upon violation of informed consent.

You thought irrational things when you were 13. Well some adults think irrational things all the time. When I was 13 I was slightly more selfish and slightly more reckless but I knew very well the potential consequences of sex. Not all 13 year olds do. Not all 13 year olds are the same. So it might be okay for an 18 year old to have sex with one 13-year old but not another, just as it might be okay for them to have sex with a normal 21 year old but not a retarded 21 year old.

People feeling guilt over somebody taking advantage of them or having sex is mostly indicative of a society with irrational norms. I'd take a pretty firm guess that most 14 year old "boys" would not feel ashamed after having sex with an adult female, but most 14 year old girls would. The difference is cultural, though.

So what are you saying? That you want the government to stop enforcing laws against child molestation? Are there any other sex offender laws on the books that you just find too oppressive for words and an overreaching of the meddlesome Nanny Government? Should we also stop enforcing the law against a man forcing himself on a woman who's too drunk to give consent?

That doesn't even resemble what I said so I guess I'll say it another way. Statutory rape laws are not necessary because children are already protected in the same way mentally disabled people are. Taking advantage of an old person with severe dementia is no more right than taking advantage of the average 5-year-old. Statutory rape laws should be repealed because guilt should not be based upon a difference in age alone, but rather giving informed consent. The ability to give informed consent would still be roughly correlated with age, but not perfectly enough to warrant incarcerating everybody who is over 20 and has sex with, say, a 17 year old or even a 14 year old. There is no appropriate concrete age, though one could say it would usually be okay with a 17 year old and usually not okay with a 12 year old. Thus somebody having sex with a 12 year old combined with interviewing the victim and seeing her mental status is not extraordinary would still constitute probable cause for arrest.

As for forcing oneself on a severely drunk girl, that has nothing to do with age and would violate informed consent.

Or are you suggesting that, rather than setting a base, universal legal standard for punishing child molestation, the goverment should get into the business of making arbitrary, case-by-case decisions of which children were mature enough to decide to fuck their junior high teachers and which ones just didn't grasp the full ramifications? It's always fun to go through life, not being sure if what you're doing is illegal or not until after you've done it and some judge has ruled on it.

It's mostly to control for special cases rather than telling a jury they must convict on age. I don't see the value of a base, universal standard when it is arbitrary. 14-year-olds are not a uniform group. So the prosecution could bring in expert witnesses such as psychiatrists and the defense could bring their own to establish the mental capacity of the alleged victim as seen by the jury. Bringing the case in the first place would not require any extra work than before, though.

Hey, I know. We could just leave the case-by-case decision on whether or not a child is mature enough to choose to have sex up to people who actually know the child well, rather than some judge who's never laid eyes on him before. How about we let his parents tell us if he really understands the choice he's making, and leave the punishment for child molestation up to them, too. I'm sure most of us parents would be glad to foot the expense for the bullets, and relieve the justice system of the cost of trying and imprisoning these people.

Every legal case is a case-by-case decision and anything that undermines that undermines real justice. The judge is the one who sets the rules, not makes the decisions, for such serious cases. Arguments on mental status would come from experts.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Fortunately, many states have adopted statutory rape laws that take into account not just the arbitrary ages of the people involved, but also the difference in months between them, so that a boy who turns 18 six months before his girlfriend doesn't become vulnerable to statutory rape charges from her angry parents, who should really learn better ways of dealing with teenaged rebellion than wasting the justice system's time.

Often referred to as Romeo and Juliet clauses, in fact. That's definitely an improvement, but most of them don't even span the years people could be in school together. For example in Oregon I think it's 3 years, so a senior in high school who has sex with a freshman is still "raping" them.

You should ask yourself why Oregon decided to set their limit where they did, and why many other states do the same. Or for that matter, why many parents will balk at allowing their 9th-graders to date seniors. Unlike with adults, a year makes an enormous difference in the life of someone that young, and four years is a serious gap in their relative development levels. This means that a sexual relationship between a senior and a freshman stands a good chance of having a predatory aspect to it.

Every relationship has a "good chance" of having a predatory aspect to it if a predatory person is involved. Women who exploit men's obsession with sex. Men who lie to women to get sex. This has nothing to do with age per se. Somebody just decided to make an arbitrary standard because they're an overprotective parent no more rational than the father who threatens every boyfriend by cleaning his gun in front of him.

My grandmother got married at 12. That was the norm in turn-of-the-century rural Tennessee. Do you know what else was the norm at that time, in that place? Dying in your early thirties. Societal norms from centuries ago, created as a response to conditions that no longer apply, are about as relevant to modern-day America as the idea that bathing too much is unhealthy (Hey, that was the norm once upon a time, and I don't see you advocating a return to THAT). Besides, I thought the entire point of becoming wealthier and more civilized and developing greater technology was to free us from the grueling, horrific realities of more primitive times.

The fact that there's a difference between 14-year-olds and 5-year-olds is already reflected in the typical punishments meted out to the offenders in both cases. It doesn't require us to dispense with their childhoods and make them open, unprotected targets for sickos as soon as they hit puberty.

Oh geez, the glorification of childhood. Childhood sucks and the earlier they can put it behind them the better and safer their lives will be. Acting like naivety is some kind of ideal, safe state.

I'm not trying to appeal to tradition in my example, though. It just illustrates how ridiculous it is to treat 14-year-olds as children when they are obviously capable of acting as adults.

You don't have to tell me, but I would be curious to know how many children you have, and how many actual pubescent kids you are personally acquainted with. It's always been striking to me how clearly divided this debate always is between people who are working either from a theoretical idea of 14-year-olds or the memory of being that age themselves, and people who actually have a child that age in their lives. I have yet to see anyone, male or female, who has a 14-year-old and says, "Well, I think my son/daughter is plenty mature enough to decide to have sex with his/her teacher, and I hope it's a really good experience for them both."

It doesn't require one to be an expert on teen behavior to see that my system would be more sane. If there's even a single 14-year-old out there who would be compatible with a single 20-year-old out there, the law based upon age alone is ridiculous.

I probably shouldn't disclose who I am but I will. I am 25-years-old and have a fiancee who is almost done with pharmacy school, but I'm not certain if I'll ever actually get married or have kids. (getting married would be a long-term economic disadvantage for us). I am working on getting into medical school and I recently graduated with BS in Biochemistry/Biophysics and Sociology.

I have felt this way about youth rights since I was 15 and first got involved with speech/debate. People told me my views would change as I got older, but they so far have not on that issue. Hopefully becoming a parent will not deprive me of rationality. Most parents do not have a realistic idea of what their teens are doing, let alone capable of and we shouldn't base policy on their emotional responses to their offspring's sexuality.

 

[AllieBaba]

Here's a solution I've been able to hold on to for a very long time.

Not have sex. I've never had sex, nor do I plan to, and it's really not that important to me. Cause frankly I got better things to do with my time. Now here's the million dollar question... does that make me weird, or the only sensible island in the ocean?

Sex, to me, is an instinct. It is, coming from a God-believer, a gift that lets people actually enjoy their married lives. In its most natural form, sex is about absolutely nothing except reproduction. The pleasure we get from it ensures that we want to reproduce as much as possible, as fast as possible, because ultimately that is the one thing every living being in the universe wants: more of itself.

So, ultimately, my opinion is that the more we enjoy sex purely for the carnal pleasure it brings, the closer we get to being animals, and I enjoy being a human kthnx. A 14 year old who doesn't feel guilty about having wanton sex is because he's giving in to base urges and impulses and is losing sense of human rationality. I mean, quite frankly, just read the book "Brave New World." A future of uninhibited (no offense live) people is not a joyful, expansive one, but one of inward, selfish people who learn to be so callous that no amount of horror can get through.

That is why sex should be a controlled, thoughtful process instead of the "Hey I'm hot wanna bang me" mentality that lets cases like teacher sex happen.

As much as I hate having sex ... your response it just plain wrong. One part of being human is our ability to be unique and to make choices without others telling us what's right and wrong. Your solution makes no sens because it goes not only against nature, but also against humanity. As a species we have survived for only two reasons: our ability to eat and our ability to fuck, as it is with any species. If everyone just stopped fucking we would vanish very quickly. Responsibility in when you procreate would be nice (since many do not consider the impact of this act) but stopping it ... that's even worse. Sex for pleasure isn't even a bad thing, otherwise it wouldn't be pleasurable to most by nature (the nerve endings and chemicals released betray that it's suppose to be pleasurable), some of us are just different from others and either because f nerve damage of differing physiology we don't find it as pleasurable (probably a result of over population or perhaps environmental). The mentality you mentioned actually turns off most possible mates, and many like that are unable to procreate (thank the gods for that) so it's better that they behave that way if they are so inclined. If your post wasn't at least partially a joke, then you have more issues than even I do ... that's bad.

No, no, we no longer need to fuck to reproduce.

And while eating plays into our superior status as world animals, it was the ability to walk upright, which freed our hands to carry things which really distinguished us from the crowd. If you can carry things, you are no longer have to roam continually, you can stockpile. Stockpiling allows for more time to be devoted to other things...like the creation of civilization.....and so on and so forth.

At least that's what they taught me in school.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm a bit weary of government making people do what's good for them instead of letting them make their own mistakes. I think informed consent is a very useful standard here. One could easily argue that lying and manipulating somebody into sex is not informed consent and age is not the factor except in establishing reasonable suspicion of abuse.

In practice it means that instead of checking somebody's fake ID before having sex with them, you converse with them enough to know their actual maturity and mental status. Then you can be brought to court on suspicion (probable cause) of abuse if you have sex with somebody of suspect age but convicted only based upon violation of informed consent.

You thought irrational things when you were 13. Well some adults think irrational things all the time. When I was 13 I was slightly more selfish and slightly more reckless but I knew very well the potential consequences of sex. Not all 13 year olds do. Not all 13 year olds are the same. So it might be okay for an 18 year old to have sex with one 13-year old but not another, just as it might be okay for them to have sex with a normal 21 year old but not a retarded 21 year old.

People feeling guilt over somebody taking advantage of them or having sex is mostly indicative of a society with irrational norms. I'd take a pretty firm guess that most 14 year old "boys" would not feel ashamed after having sex with an adult female, but most 14 year old girls would. The difference is cultural, though.

So what are you saying? That you want the government to stop enforcing laws against child molestation? Are there any other sex offender laws on the books that you just find too oppressive for words and an overreaching of the meddlesome Nanny Government? Should we also stop enforcing the law against a man forcing himself on a woman who's too drunk to give consent?

That doesn't even resemble what I said so I guess I'll say it another way. Statutory rape laws are not necessary because children are already protected in the same way mentally disabled people are.

You're right. Both groups are protected the same way . . . by laws making it illegal to have sex with them.

Taking advantage of an old person with severe dementia is no more right than taking advantage of the average 5-year-old. Statutory rape laws should be repealed because guilt should not be based upon a difference in age alone, but rather giving informed consent.

Guilt is based on age because the ability to give informed consent is based on age. I can't believe you weren't able to follow through this one very simple step of logic.

The ability to give informed consent would still be roughly correlated with age, but not perfectly enough to warrant incarcerating everybody who is over 20 and has sex with, say, a 17 year old or even a 14 year old. There is no appropriate concrete age, though one could say it would usually be okay with a 17 year old and usually not okay with a 12 year old. Thus somebody having sex with a 12 year old combined with interviewing the victim and seeing her mental status is not extraordinary would still constitute probable cause for arrest.

There's no appropriate concrete age according to whom? You? And you acquired your child psychology degree where?

The law sets arbitrary blanket limits based on probability because it doesn't have the ability to finetune on a case-by-case basis. Usually when it tries, it creates a colossal mess. Beyond a certain point, the minute, case-by-case judgement of whether or not a crime has happened has to be left to the people filing the criminal complaint or not. But that doesn't mean that the law shouldn't view adolescents as vulnerable and potential victims needing protection. As you so eloquently but erroneously pointed out, physical maturity doesn't equal mental and emotional maturity.

As for forcing oneself on a severely drunk girl, that has nothing to do with age and would violate informed consent.

When did I ever say it had anything to do with age? I was commenting on your odd notion that sex crime laws are somehow the result of oppressive government that should mind its own business. You want to make the argument that "some 13-year-olds are mature enough to agree to have sex with me, and the law shouldn't stop me from taking them up on it", and frat boys want to argue that just because she was staggering and puking on their shoes doesn't mean she wasn't capable of agreeing to bang every guy in the house. Same argument from where I sit.

Or are you suggesting that, rather than setting a base, universal legal standard for punishing child molestation, the goverment should get into the business of making arbitrary, case-by-case decisions of which children were mature enough to decide to fuck their junior high teachers and which ones just didn't grasp the full ramifications? It's always fun to go through life, not being sure if what you're doing is illegal or not until after you've done it and some judge has ruled on it.

It's mostly to control for special cases rather than telling a jury they must convict on age.

No one "tells juries they must convict on age", or must convict on anything at all. You do realize that whole concept invalidates the purpose of having a jury, which is to decide whether or not they WANT to convict. Look at OJ, for crying out loud. You can tell a jury all day what the law says and what they ought to do on that basis, and they'll still convict or not convict based entirely on whether or not they WANT to. Your problem here is that your average jury thinks adults preying on 14-year-olds is as repulsive as I think it is, because you're a lone voice in the wilderness, preaching the doctrine of "Pubescent kids are adults. No, really."

I don't see the value of a base, universal standard when it is arbitrary.

Then you must have a hard time playing any sort of organized game, if the concept of set rules foxes you this badly.

14-year-olds are not a uniform group.

In terms of being immature and unable to make life decisions as an adult would, they are.

So the prosecution could bring in expert witnesses such as psychiatrists and the defense could bring their own to establish the mental capacity of the alleged victim as seen by the jury. Bringing the case in the first place would not require any extra work than before, though.

Would you care to name me any reputable expert witness anywhere that would be able to convince a jury that a 14-year-old is capable of giving informed consent to sex with an adult?

Hey, I know. We could just leave the case-by-case decision on whether or not a child is mature enough to choose to have sex up to people who actually know the child well, rather than some judge who's never laid eyes on him before. How about we let his parents tell us if he really understands the choice he's making, and leave the punishment for child molestation up to them, too. I'm sure most of us parents would be glad to foot the expense for the bullets, and relieve the justice system of the cost of trying and imprisoning these people.

Every legal case is a case-by-case decision and anything that undermines that undermines real justice. The judge is the one who sets the rules, not makes the decisions, for such serious cases. Arguments on mental status would come from experts.

Nice try, but no. While the application of the law is done on a case-by-case basis -within very specific guidelines - the law itself is not and cannot be. The law serves the same purpose for society that Hoyle's serves for card games: everyone playing has to know the rules beforehand, and by definition, they have to be blanket and generalized.

And the judge doesn't make the rules. The legislature does. The judge is in charge of applying and enforcing those rules in his courtroom.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

You're right. Both groups are protected the same way . . . by laws making it illegal to have sex with them.

To be more clear, what I should have said was that they can be protected under the same law and statutory rape is problematic in that it is redundant and reaches beyond those who victimize others.

Guilt is based on age because the ability to give informed consent is based on age. I can't believe you weren't able to follow through this one very simple step of logic.

That's the legal status quo with an ad hominem implication, not an argument. I'm saying the law should be changed on how to establish consent.

There's no appropriate concrete age according to whom? You? And you acquired your child psychology degree where?

It's extremely obvious, actually. No two 14-year-olds are exactly alike and a small number of them are more mature than the average 18-year old.

The law sets arbitrary blanket limits based on probability because it doesn't have the ability to finetune on a case-by-case basis.

What makes you think it lacks that ability? Isn't that what judges and juries combined with expert witnesses are for?

Usually when it tries, it creates a colossal mess.

Example please.

Beyond a certain point, the minute, case-by-case judgement of whether or not a crime has happened has to be left to the people filing the criminal complaint or not. But that doesn't mean that the law shouldn't view adolescents as vulnerable and potential victims needing protection. As you so eloquently but erroneously pointed out, physical maturity doesn't equal mental and emotional maturity.

I appreciate the partial compliment here, but the people filing are extremely biased. A daughter can protest her parents trying to destroy the life of the fiend who "stole their daughters childhood," (which they are unaware had already passed). But even if she did consent and fully understood her actions - if she's not 18 it's irrelevant. Even if she's 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes old, her opinion wouldn't matter until a minute later.

When did I ever say it had anything to do with age? I was commenting on your odd notion that sex crime laws are somehow the result of oppressive government that should mind its own business.

Um, no. I'm saying the laws are dysfunctional and cast too wide of a net. I'd rather not punish people who didn't hurt anybody.

You want to make the argument that "some 13-year-olds are mature enough to agree to have sex with me, and the law shouldn't stop me from taking them up on it", and frat boys want to argue that just because she was staggering and puking on their shoes doesn't mean she wasn't capable of agreeing to bang every guy in the house. Same argument from where I sit.

That's ad hominem. I have no personal interest in 13-year-olds. Similarly I think all drugs should be legalized but the only drug I'm personally interested in is caffeine. People should indeed be careful about having sex with drunk people because consent, under both the legal status quo and what I propose, would not be present.

No one "tells juries they must convict on age", or must convict on anything at all. You do realize that whole concept invalidates the purpose of having a jury, which is to decide whether or not they WANT to convict.

Juries are given instructions to follow the word of the law. Some take that seriously. Some don't. I sure as hell wouldn't. There is such a thing as jury nullification, but to tell somebody they are basing their verdict on age is skewing the outcome towards injustice since informed consent is still possible.

Your problem here is that your average jury thinks adults preying on 14-year-olds is as repulsive as I think it is, because you're a lone voice in the wilderness, preaching the doctrine of "Pubescent kids are adults. No, really."

Then you shouldn't feel threatened by my proposal if the jury would cause it to make no difference in most cases. However, there is the occassional case, most commonly between a high school senior and a freshman, where they are of the same maturity level and no abuse occurred.

Then you must have a hard time playing any sort of organized game, if the concept of set rules foxes you this badly.

I love games. I have no idea what your point is. Arbitrary rules that ruin lives are bad just as people who prey on children are bad.

In terms of being immature and unable to make life decisions as an adult would, they are.

Not always.

Would you care to name me any reputable expert witness anywhere that would be able to convince a jury that a 14-year-old is capable of giving informed consent to sex with an adult?

If the defense can't find one then they'll lose, obviously.

Nice try, but no. While the application of the law is done on a case-by-case basis -within very specific guidelines - the law itself is not and cannot be. The law serves the same purpose for society that Hoyle's serves for card games: everyone playing has to know the rules beforehand, and by definition, they have to be blanket and generalized.

Oh please. Find a lawyer that is familiar with every law, let alone your everyday person. Instead of memorizing arbitrary laws, maybe it'd be easier if people could stick to the rule of not taking advantage of people and still be safe. With statutory rape laws, they can't assume safety if the person they love happens to be under 18.

 

[Agnapostate]

Yes, well, when I was 13 I wanted to leave my home, live in the hills (in the winter) "off the land". When I was much younger, I was convinced I levitated at night. I'm thankful I didn't put that theory to the test and attempt to fly.

What kids want and what is good for them, or even legal, are two different things. One of the most difficult aspects of child molestation is the guilt children feel over their willing participation and enjoyment of it.

That doesn't mean it's not a crime. It is, and it should be.

Given your current level of mental development, I don't doubt that those desires were among your agenda when you were 13. But some of us certainly matured more quickly than you do, and it's likely that the majority of persons undergo such development. To the extent that they don't, I'm willing to wager that it's due to the infantilization of youth that has crept upon modern society.

Yes, people really think a 14-year-old is a child . . . probably because a 14-year-old IS a child. And are you seriously going to use Romeo and Juliet as examples of how 14-year-olds are mature adults? They both killed themselves! Hello!

He's referring to an era in which "adolescence" was essentially nonexistent and youth as a whole were treated as adults in every capacity. Not only have I also referred to such historical settings, I have provided an abundance of empirical evidence that indicates that adolescents are capable of making rational and informed decisions about their own lives and futures. You have simply chosen to ignore this, instead citing the lone example of your own son (who is likely infantilized by you), or not providing any response whatsoever.

My grandmother got married at 12. That was the norm in turn-ofthe-century rural Tennessee. Do you know what else was the norm at that time, in that place? Dying in your early thirties. Societal norms from centuries ago, created as a response to conditions that no longer apply, are about as relevant to modern-day America as the idea that bathing too much is unhealthy (Hey, that was the norm once upon a time, and I don't see you advocating a return to THAT).

I hear this cited rather frequently, but it begets another inquiry. If the average human lifespan were extended to the age of 150 through the utilization of scientific advancements, would you then support an age

Besides, I thought the entire point of becoming wealthier and more civilized and developing greater technology was to free us from the grueling, horrific realities of more primitive times.

What you fail to realize here is that the grueling and horrific realities of those more primitive times were not limited or restricted to the age group now known as "adolescents." Their own conditions were roughly parallel to those of their elders. Now that a century of class struggle is behind us and the conditions of workers are considerably improved thanks to widespread unionization and such, it is likely that the conditions of adolescents would be similarly parallel to those of older people today. Hence, citing the prevention of chimney sweeping through child labor laws, for instance, is a fallacious argument.

You don't have to tell me, but I would be curious to know how many children you have, and how many actual pubescent kids you are personally acquainted with. It's always been striking to me how clearly divided this debate always is between people who are working either from a theoretical idea of 14-year-olds or the memory of being that age themselves, and people who actually have a child that age in their lives. I have yet to see anyone, male or female, who has a 14-year-old and says, "Well, I think my son/daughter is plenty mature enough to decide to have sex with his/her teacher, and I hope it's a really good experience for them both."

This borders on committing the ad hominem fallacy. But regardless, people who respect the informed choices of their adolescent offspring do exist, and they typically acknowledge that youth as a whole should possess more control over their own lives. For instance, one of the most eloquent advocates of the abolition of age restrictions is an 82 year old psychologist with numerous children and grandchildren, a former member of the U.S. Navy, and the current president of the Western Behavioral Science Institute. Please do not use ad hominem arguments in the future.

 

[Said1]

I have felt this way about youth rights since I was 15 and first got involved with speech/debate. People told me my views would change as I got older, but they so far have not on that issue. Hopefully becoming a parent will not deprive me of rationality. Most parents do not have a realistic idea of what their teens are doing, let alone capable of and we shouldn't base policy on their emotional responses to their offspring's sexuality.

Your views WILL change when you have a child or when you get older. I used share your views and can attest to that fact that I had lots in common with my immature, controlling and abusive 25 year old boyfriend, when I was 16. We like me to wear the same clothes, we liked me to have certain hair styles. we both didn't like his friends or any other men talking or looking at me and most importantly, we liked to buy me booze and get me REALLY wasted.