Darkwing Duck wrote: I just don't think I want that in the US. The idea of a 14 year old having sex with a 32 year old isn't something I find acceptable. I don't think a 14 year old is able to really conceive of the consequences of having a baby or getting an incurable (perhaps lethal) STD. I agree, though for slightly different reasons. In most of the US, 14 year olds can legally have sex, with each other or others close to their age depending on the state. By your argument, should we not simply outlaw any sex under a certain age and punish the children if they engage in it?
My concern is more about the age and power disparity. It is harder for young teenagers to avoid being talked into things they don't really want to do by more experienced adults. Adults are presumed to be on a level playing field, so even if one is manipulated into sex, the consent counts. Children are not, so consent does not.
That said, I still see a huge difference between sex with a willing, if not legally consenting, young teen and the rape of a young child, who cannot even understand what is being done.
thejeff wrote:
I agree, though for slightly different reasons. In most of the US, 14 year olds can legally have sex, with each other or others close to their age depending on the state. By your argument, should we not simply outlaw any sex under a certain age and punish the children if they engage in it?
Punish them for what? Something they aren't able to understand? That doesn't seem right to me.
thejeff wrote: That said, I still see a huge difference between sex with a willing, if not legally consenting, young teen and the rape of a young child, who cannot even understand what is being done. I question the existence of a willing and consenting young teen - specifically whether they are even able to give consent.
feytharn wrote: The point of my post was to explain the german concept of unacceptable porn. For which I thank you. I was just commenting on the cultural differences between the US and Germany wrt the age of consent.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
thejeff wrote: That said, I still see a huge difference between sex with a willing, if not legally consenting, young teen and the rape of a young child, who cannot even understand what is being done. I question the existence of a willing and consenting young teen - specifically whether they are even able to give consent.
Again I have to refer you to this
You say anyone who is 14 can't possibly have a concept of what sex means. I beg to differ, having actually been that age and understanding it just fine. If that same child killed someone I bet there would be a crowd moving to try him as an adult. I would counter that many 18, 21, 25, and 40 year olds still have the same problems with the concepts that define our society. But we release them into the wild nonetheless at 18. It's an arbitrary number. 16 is just as good.
Darkwing Duck wrote: thejeff wrote:
I agree, though for slightly different reasons. In most of the US, 14 year olds can legally have sex, with each other or others close to their age depending on the state. By your argument, should we not simply outlaw any sex under a certain age and punish the children if they engage in it?
Punish them for what? Something they aren't able to understand? That doesn't seem right to me. If the reason we should not allow 14 year olds to have sex is that they are not "able to really conceive of the consequences of having a baby or getting an incurable (perhaps lethal) STD", then that should apply equally whether they are with another teen or an adult. So make it illegal and punish them for breaking the law. They may not be capable of fully understanding the consequences of sex, but they can understand the consequences of breaking the law.
Note: I don't actually think this, because I disagree with the premise. As I said in the previous post, I think the need for statutory rape laws comes from age and power disparities.
thejeff wrote: That said, I still see a huge difference between sex with a willing, if not legally consenting, young teen and the rape of a young child, who cannot even understand what is being done. I question the existence of a willing and consenting young teen - specifically whether they are even able to give consent. As a legal matter, those below the local age of consent are not able to give consent, which is why I said, "willing, if not legally consenting".
Is that all you meant? Or do you question the existence of 14 and 15 year olds interested in having sex? That clashes strongly with my memories of that age and with studies of teen sex. Kids that age are having sex and they're mostly having it with each other, so someone is willing.
meatrace wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote:
thejeff wrote: That said, I still see a huge difference between sex with a willing, if not legally consenting, young teen and the rape of a young child, who cannot even understand what is being done. I question the existence of a willing and consenting young teen - specifically whether they are even able to give consent.
Again I have to refer you to this
You say anyone who is 14 can't possibly have a concept of what sex means. I beg to differ, having actually been that age and understanding it just fine. If that same child killed someone I bet there would be a crowd moving to try him as an adult. I would counter that many 18, 21, 25, and 40 year olds still have the same problems with the concepts that define our society. But we release them into the wild nonetheless at 18. It's an arbitrary number. 16 is just as good. Chapelle's gig is funny, but I don't factor in comedy gigs to my political views.
There have been enough neurological studies on the brains of teenagers which show that their brains are not fully developed yet. There is no worthwhile debate on this.
thejeff wrote:
If the reason we should not allow 14 year olds to have sex
The question isn't whether we should allow 14 year olds to have sex. The question is whether we should allow 32 year olds to have sex with 14 year olds.
thejeff wrote:
As a legal matter, those below the local age of consent are not able to give consent, which is why I said, "willing, if not legally consenting".
Is that all you meant? Or do you question the existence of 14 and 15 year olds interested in having sex? That clashes strongly with my memories of that age and with studies of teen sex. Kids that age are having sex and they're mostly having it with each other, so someone is willing.
Of course they are interested in having sex. Being interested in having sex is not the same as consenting to having sex. Consenting to have sex includes accepting responsibility for the consequences.
We know that as time passes, youths know more and understand more about their environment. Like it or not, kids are much younger than you think when they learn about sex - and they still typically wait for a debut around 15 to 20 years old. This has been going on for a very long time, it isn't the internet or even TV. Yet even so, many people now push to raise the age of consent. I have to ask... Why? When we even discuss lowering the age required to vote. When are we supposed to be grown up today?
Darkwing Duck wrote: thejeff wrote: If the reason we should not allow 14 year olds to have sex is that they are not "able to really conceive of the consequences of having a baby or getting an incurable (perhaps lethal) STD", then that should apply equally whether they are with another teen or an adult. The question isn't whether we should allow 14 year olds to have sex. The question is whether we should allow 32 year olds to have sex with 14 year olds. No. The question is whether your reasons for not allowing adults to have sex with teenage minors make any sense. To my knowledge, no one here and certainly not me, is claiming that they should. The closest I have come is claiming that it is a lesser crime than molesting a pre-pubescent child, which by the way is how it is treated in most jurisdictions.
So answer me this:
If the reason we should not allow 14 year olds to have sex with 32 year olds is that they are not "able to really conceive of the consequences of having a baby or getting an incurable (perhaps lethal) STD" does that not apply to 14 year olds having sex with each other as well?
Darkwing Duck wrote: thejeff wrote:
As a legal matter, those below the local age of consent are not able to give consent, which is why I said, "willing, if not legally consenting".
Is that all you meant? Or do you question the existence of 14 and 15 year olds interested in having sex? That clashes strongly with my memories of that age and with studies of teen sex. Kids that age are having sex and they're mostly having it with each other, so someone is willing.
Of course they are interested in having sex. Being interested in having sex is not the same as consenting to having sex. Consenting to have sex includes the accepting responsibility for the consequences. So you do not acknowledge any difference between a sexual relationship with a 32 year old man in which the 14 year old participant claims to be willing and one in which she protested and never claimed to be willing? Most laws do distinguish. One is statutory rape, the other is just rape. The penalties for the second are larger.
That is the only distinction I was trying to make, when I said "willing, if not legally consenting".
Again, I do not think minors should be having sex with adults. I do support there being a legal distinction between statutory rape and rape.
What shocks me about this thread so far is that some people here are arguing that having sex with a fourteen year old is the same as having sex with a six year old. Both are rapes, that's not something I'd even dispute, but how can people see them as the same level of violation? Supposing the fourteen year old thinks he or she is in love and believes they are consenting? It's still wrong for an adult to take advantage of them, again I'm not arguing this point, particularly if that adult is an authority figure, but that is a completely different ballpark from abusing a prepubescent child. The differences are far more then physical and mental. Obviously a prepubescent child isn't thinking of sex, isn't interested in sex, and like this kid in the OP might be interested in the opposite sex in a completely innocent and childlike way. Biologically they have no sex drive and so someone that prays on children have to groom them to earn their trust and then often have to lie or threaten them to keep them from telling others. When the word pedophile gets tossed out it's that sort of a creature I imagine, not some idiot that decides it's okay to have sex with one of their students. The difference being one is a true monster, the other is an individual lacking in morals and ethics that shouldn't be entrusted with young people.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Chapelle's gig is funny, but I don't factor in comedy gigs to my political views.
There have been enough neurological studies on the brains of teenagers which show that their brains are not fully developed yet. There is no worthwhile debate on this.
That's a shame. You're disregarding the argument because of the source, which is a logical fallacy. He brings up a great question. At what age do you really understand the consequences of your actions? Granted, it's not uniform between all people, but the state needs to set an arbitrary age as the distinction between childhood and adulthood. Is 18 really better than 21 or 16? I know people who were emancipated at 16. I know people who still live in their parents basements at 40. I think it's fair to say that sexually mature humans, whether recognized as adults by law or not, are going to have sexual impulses, whereas sexually immature humans are not. Therefore sex with someone sexually immature is rape, otherwise it's sex with a minor or just sex, depending on, as Thejeff said, the power and age disparity between the two.
Guy Humual wrote: What shocks me about this thread so far is that some people here are arguing that having sex with a fourteen year old is the same as having sex with a six year old. Both are rapes, that's not something I'd even dispute, but how can people see them as the same level of violation? So you say someone having sex with a 14 year old is rape. Even another 14 year old? What about a 15 year old? 16? 13? Which one is the rapist if they are both the same general age?
meatrace wrote:
So you say someone having sex with a 14 year old is rape. Even another 14 year old? What about a 15 year old? 16? 13? Which one is the rapist if they are both the same general age?
Neither can consent because they're both underage, meaning they're both victims, and unless one physically forced the other nether should be held criminally responsible because neither under the law should have known better. If an adult is involved things are different because they're expected to know better. In my mind two under age kids willingly having sex isn't something that needs to be brought to criminal court, their parents should probably have had better supervision of them, perhaps neither was given proper education about pregnancy or STDs (which is negligence in my mind), but if they're both the same age then they're both as much victims as the other.
meatrace wrote:
That's a shame. You're disregarding the argument because of the source, which is a logical fallacy. He brings up a great question. At what age do you really understand the consequences of your actions?
I'm disregarding his argument because its not a serious argument. Its meant to be a joke. He claims, for example, that black girls mature more quickly than white girls. That's not a serious statement. Its a joke.
thejeff wrote:
If the reason we should not allow 14 year olds to have sex with 32 year olds is that they are not "able to really conceive of the consequences of having a baby or getting an incurable (perhaps lethal) STD" does that not apply to 14 year olds having sex with each other as well?
I said that 14 year olds aren't able to understand the consequences of having sex. STDs and pregnancy are just some of those potential consequences. If a 14 year old isn't able to understand those consequences, then what would you have us punish them for - actions they don't understand?
thejeff wrote:
So you do not acknowledge any difference between a sexual relationship with a 32 year old man in which the 14 year old participant claims to be willing and one in which she protested and never claimed to be willing? Most laws do distinguish. One is statutory rape, the other is just rape.
No, they're both statutory rape.
Darkwing Duck wrote: thejeff wrote:
If the reason we should not allow 14 year olds to have sex with 32 year olds is that they are not "able to really conceive of the consequences of having a baby or getting an incurable (perhaps lethal) STD" does that not apply to 14 year olds having sex with each other as well?
I said that 14 year olds aren't able to understand the consequences of having sex. STDs and pregnancy are just some of those potential consequences. If a 14 year old isn't able to understand those consequences, then what would you have us punish them for - actions they don't understand? Skip the punish part then. You do believe that we should not allow 14 year olds to have sex. You just think that we shouldn't punish them when they do, since they don't understand.
It has nothing to do with abuse and predation by the adults. It's just that it's bad for young teens to have sex.
Is that correct?
thejeff wrote:
So you do not acknowledge any difference between a sexual relationship with a 32 year old man in which the 14 year old participant claims to be willing and one in which she protested and never claimed to be willing? Most laws do distinguish. One is statutory rape, the other is just rape.
No, they're both statutory rape. One would be statutory rape. The other would be both statutory rape and forcible rape. I think that would be worse. You apparently disagree.
The penalties for the second are harsher, as I said. I think that is appropriate. I can only assume you still disagree.
thejeff wrote:
Skip the punish part then. You do believe that we should not allow 14 year olds to have sex. You just think that we shouldn't punish them when they do, since they don't understand.
It has nothing to do with abuse and predation by the adults. It's just that it's bad for young teens to have sex.
Is that correct?
I think its a bad idea for two 14 year olds to have sex.
thejeff wrote:
One would be statutory rape. The other would be both statutory rape and forcible rape. I think that would be worse. You apparently disagree.
The penalties for the second are harsher, as I said. I think that is appropriate. I can only assume you still disagree.
"forcible rape"? What's that? I can find no legal definition of it. So, when you talk about the penalty for "forcible rape" being harsher than for "statutory rape", you need to provide evidence.
Darkwing Duck wrote: thejeff wrote:
Skip the punish part then. You do believe that we should not allow 14 year olds to have sex. You just think that we shouldn't punish them when they do, since they don't understand.
It has nothing to do with abuse and predation by the adults. It's just that it's bad for young teens to have sex.
Is that correct?
I think its a bad idea for two 14 year olds to have sex. So, it has nothing to do with abuse and predation by the adults, right?
thejeff wrote:
One would be statutory rape. The other would be both statutory rape and forcible rape. I think that would be worse. You apparently disagree.
The penalties for the second are harsher, as I said. I think that is appropriate. I can only assume you still disagree.
"forcible rape"? What's that? I can find no legal definition of it. So, when you talk about the penalty for "forcible rape" being harsher than for "statutory rape", you need to provide evidence. It's what we normally call "rape", without qualifiers. Neither it nor "statutory rape" are usually actual legal terms.
CT state code wrote: Sec. 53a-70. Sexual assault in the first degree: Class B or A felony. (a) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the first degree when such person (1) compels another person to engage in sexual intercourse by the use of force against such other person or a third person, or by the threat of use of force against such other person or against a third person which reasonably causes such person to fear physical injury to such person or a third person and CT state code wrote: Sec. 53a-71. Sexual assault in the second degree: Class C or B felony. (a) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the second degree when such person engages in sexual intercourse with another person and: (1) Such other person is thirteen years of age or older but under sixteen years of age and the actor is more than three years older than such other person; This is an example. The definitions differ between states and countries.
thejeff wrote:
So, it has nothing to do with abuse and predation by the adults, right?
Obviously, when two 14 years olds are choosing to have sex with each other, there is no predation by adults.
thejeff wrote:
The penalties for the second are harsher, as I said. I think that is appropriate. I can only assume you still disagree.
Are you simply asserting, here, that rape has a more severe penalty than statutory rape and that's how it should be?
Darkwing Duck wrote: thejeff wrote:
So, it has nothing to do with abuse and predation by the adults, right?
Obviously, when two 14 years olds are choosing to have sex with each other, there is no predation by adults.
thejeff wrote:
The penalties for the second are harsher, as I said. I think that is appropriate. I can only assume you still disagree.
Are you simply asserting, here, that rape has a more severe penalty than statutory rape and that's how it should be? Yes. I have been saying nothing else for half an hour.
I'm done.
Darkwing Duck wrote: meatrace wrote:
That's a shame. You're disregarding the argument because of the source, which is a logical fallacy. He brings up a great question. At what age do you really understand the consequences of your actions?
I'm disregarding his argument because its not a serious argument. Its meant to be a joke. He claims, for example, that black girls mature more quickly than white girls. That's not a serious statement. Its a joke.
*boggle*
He doesn't say ANYTHING of the sort. Ever. Certainly not in that clip.
The question he raises, which I'll have to patiently explain since it completely went over your head, is that 15 is pretty old. People have lives at 15, they have jobs, support their family, work hard at school, etc. People mature at different rates depending on genetics and family structure and social situations, but the law can't take all that into account. Either we decide that 15 is ALWAYS a child (which is absurd by the way) or it's always an adult. Can a 15 year old be reasonably expected to have an understanding of the consequences of his/her actions? If not, when can they?
As for your "statutory rape=normal rape" stuff, it's hogwash. They're nowhere near the same thing.
The whooooole point I'm trying to get at is this. If the law treats you as old enough to understand the consequences of sex, 16 in most states, why does the law treat you as oblivious to the consequences of having those acts filmed? Furthermore if you are involved in a sexual relationship with someone who, again, it is legal to be involved with, why is it illegal for that intimacy to be recorded? Why does the law make no distinction between a 17 year old girl sexting her 18 year old boyfriend and some sicko downloading genuine child pornography, i.e. with children under 13.
Furthermore, if sex with a minor (the crime detailed above between the 17 and 18 year old) is a misdemeanor, why isn't the corresponding pornographic offense also a misdemeanor? Also, why do misdemeanors require sex offender registry?
Why does it have to be a certain age? Is the law that simplistic? Lawmakers that stupid?
Sissyl wrote: Why does it have to be a certain age? Is the law that simplistic? Lawmakers that stupid? To whom/what laws are you addressing these questions?
meatrace wrote:
The whooooole point I'm trying to get at is this. If the law treats you as old enough to understand the consequences of sex, 16 in most states, why does the law treat you as oblivious to the consequences of having those acts filmed? Furthermore if you are involved in a sexual relationship with someone who, again, it is legal to be involved with, why is it illegal for that intimacy to be recorded? Why does the law make no distinction between a 17 year old girl sexting her 18 year old boyfriend and some sicko downloading genuine child pornography, i.e. with children under 13.
Furthermore, if sex with a minor (the crime detailed above between the 17 and 18 year old) is a misdemeanor, why isn't the corresponding pornographic offense also a misdemeanor? Also, why do...
Because the laws were written to deal with commercial exploitation of children for the porn industry and no one has been willing to risk the backlash from America's anti-sex Puritans and "think of the children" crusaders in order to carve out exemptions for personal photos.
We have huge public fights over basic sex education in this country, you can't expect us to handle anything related to children and sex sensibly.
What would happen if a 13-year old were to rape a 17-year old? 17-year old sentenced for rape and registered as a sex offender for life?
meatrace wrote: Sissyl wrote: Why does it have to be a certain age? Is the law that simplistic? Lawmakers that stupid? To whom/what laws are you addressing these questions? Laws everywhere use a specific age. Counterexamples are more than welcome.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Sissyl wrote: In the UK, a girl of 17 was put on a sex offender list due to having nude photos of HERSELF in the phone. HERSELF, for the love of human sanity!!! Damn it, we can't have our youth corrupted by exposure to their own naked bodies!
I pretty much agree with Kirth here, and I would like to point out that a trial or a felony conviction are not required to wind up registered as a sex offender.
Bitter Thorn wrote: I pretty much agree with Kirth here, and I would like to point out that a trial or a felony conviction are not required to wind up registered as a sex offender. Could you explain how it happens without a trial? You mean plea bargaining?
BigNorseWolf wrote: Bitter Thorn wrote: I pretty much agree with Kirth here, and I would like to point out that a trial or a felony conviction are not required to wind up registered as a sex offender. Could you explain how it happens without a trial? You mean plea bargaining? It has to do with the way that misdemeanors are prosecuted. Like a traffic ticket, most people just pay the fine and move on. Public urination is like this. Say you're inebriated at an outdoor rock concert and relieve yourself on a tree. Some narc gives you a citation for public urination- $100 fine. You drove out of state to go to this concert, so rather than return on your court date you just mail in a check for the amount of the fine, and effectively cop to the charge.
Then somehow you wind up having to register as a sex offender and are forced to move away from where you live because you're within half a mile of a school bus stop.
Kthulhu wrote: Sissyl wrote: In the UK, a girl of 17 was put on a sex offender list due to having nude photos of HERSELF in the phone. HERSELF, for the love of human sanity!!! Damn it, we can't have our youth corrupted by exposure to their own naked bodies! This kind of travesty of justice can't be allowed to slide!
This young girl must appeal!
To this end I'd like to volunteer myself as an objective third party to review this evidence and decide whether such a punishment was warranted.
meatrace wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Bitter Thorn wrote: I pretty much agree with Kirth here, and I would like to point out that a trial or a felony conviction are not required to wind up registered as a sex offender. Could you explain how it happens without a trial? You mean plea bargaining? It has to do with the way that misdemeanors are prosecuted. Like a traffic ticket, most people just pay the fine and move on. Public urination is like this. Say you're inebriated at an outdoor rock concert and relieve yourself on a tree. Some narc gives you a citation for public urination- $100 fine. You drove out of state to go to this concert, so rather than return on your court date you just mail in a check for the amount of the fine, and effectively cop to the charge.
Then somehow you wind up having to register as a sex offender and are forced to move away from where you live because you're within half a mile of a school bus stop. This.
Cops are well aware of this in my experience too, by now, so I doubt it's an accident when a cop decides to issue a citation for public indecency rather than public intoxication.
Most employers aren't terribly concerned about a drunk and disorderly ticket from college, but being a registered sex offender is far more of an obstacle.
meatrace wrote: Kthulhu wrote: Sissyl wrote: In the UK, a girl of 17 was put on a sex offender list due to having nude photos of HERSELF in the phone. HERSELF, for the love of human sanity!!! Damn it, we can't have our youth corrupted by exposure to their own naked bodies! This kind of travesty of justice can't be allowed to slide!
This young girl must appeal!
To this end I'd like to volunteer myself as an objective third party to review this evidence and decide whether such a punishment was warranted. It sucks when an 18 year old soldier in Afghanistan gets a racy pic from his 17 year old fiance in the states. Now he is an international trafficker. I wonder what the mandatory minimum is for that?
meatrace wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Bitter Thorn wrote: I pretty much agree with Kirth here, and I would like to point out that a trial or a felony conviction are not required to wind up registered as a sex offender. Could you explain how it happens without a trial? You mean plea bargaining? It has to do with the way that misdemeanors are prosecuted. Like a traffic ticket, most people just pay the fine and move on. Public urination is like this. Say you're inebriated at an outdoor rock concert and relieve yourself on a tree. Some narc gives you a citation for public urination- $100 fine. You drove out of state to go to this concert, so rather than return on your court date you just mail in a check for the amount of the fine, and effectively cop to the charge.
Then somehow you wind up having to register as a sex offender and are forced to move away from where you live because you're within half a mile of a school bus stop. Do you have a link of this ever happening? Public urination seems a bit odd to put on the list of sex offenders.
BigNorseWolf wrote: meatrace wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Bitter Thorn wrote: I pretty much agree with Kirth here, and I would like to point out that a trial or a felony conviction are not required to wind up registered as a sex offender. Could you explain how it happens without a trial? You mean plea bargaining? It has to do with the way that misdemeanors are prosecuted. Like a traffic ticket, most people just pay the fine and move on. Public urination is like this. Say you're inebriated at an outdoor rock concert and relieve yourself on a tree. Some narc gives you a citation for public urination- $100 fine. You drove out of state to go to this concert, so rather than return on your court date you just mail in a check for the amount of the fine, and effectively cop to the charge.
Then somehow you wind up having to register as a sex offender and are forced to move away from where you live because you're within half a mile of a school bus stop. Do you have a link of this ever happening? Public urination seems a bit odd to put on the list of sex offenders. Here ya go. sadly the original story it cites seems to have disappeared down the rabbit hole at msnbc. I'm sure I could dig it up given time but *shrug*.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions
|
