|
We don't put kids in jail and give them a lifelong label of sex offender for smoking or signing contracts.
Not so true. The contract part, at least. It can be a close approximate or it can be literal if said contract involves sex crimes or child abuse. Rare, I understand, but signing a contract can be just as serious and also affect the individual with life-long consequences. That's why we restrict them by age as well.
The young adult might mentally know there are risks, or acknowledge the repercussions, but they don't really understand what it could mean long term. For example a contract to join the military. It's one thing to know it's dangerous, but another to fully understand that you might lose your arms and legs, or your eyesight, and have to live with that for the rest of your life.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
You say that like it's a bad/wrong thing. Which I'm not even sure is true.
Shockingly, I'm expressing an opinion!
The whole incident (and future similar incidents) can be cleared up with some good Romeo and Juliet laws that give teenagers the flexibility to experiment with their sexuality without being unfairly slapped with a sex offender record. I'm yet to see a reason why this sort of thing is a bad thing.
Honestly? I just really want good sex education in schools. Ones that teach not only the obvious (condom on the banana lessons for example), but also talk seriously about things like consent (and what is NOT consent - like being incredibly drunk), same-sex attraction (and for any same-sex attracted individuals, same-sex-targeted sexual health messages - you'd be surprised about how many lesbians don't know a thing about sexual health), treating your partners with respect, dealing with the consequences of your choices in sex and relationships, that pornography is practically a parody of real sex, etc. To treat teenagers seriously and answer their questions without belittling them or making them feel like they are "sinful" for feeling the same natural urges the vast majority of other people do.
Not able to press charges against high school students for consensual sex.While at the same time 100% legally liable for any of the issues that might come from it.
Are parents legally liable for the STDs their children contract? For their broken hearts?
|
You say that like it's a bad/wrong thing. Which I'm not even sure is true.Shockingly, I'm expressing an opinion!
The whole incident (and future similar incidents) can be cleared up with some good Romeo and Juliet laws that give teenagers the flexibility to experiment with their sexuality without being unfairly slapped with a sex offender record. I'm yet to see a reason why this sort of thing is a bad thing.
Honestly? I just really want good sex education in schools. Ones that teach not only the obvious (condom on the banana lessons for example), but also talk seriously about things like consent (and what is NOT consent - like being incredibly drunk), same-sex attraction (and for any same-sex attracted individuals, same-sex-targeted sexual health messages - you'd be surprised about how many lesbians don't know a thing about sexual health), treating your partners with respect, dealing with the consequences of your choices in sex and relationships, that pornography is practically a parody of real sex, etc. To treat teenagers seriously and answer their questions without belittling them or making them feel like they are "sinful" for feeling the same natural urges the vast majority of other people do.
I am so sorry I can favorite this post only once...
Because those are really the only two things that separate the case from the norm and to a point make it worthy of notice. It's what the conversation has kind of been about
Actually, the conversation, for the most part, has been about how prosecuting high school students, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, for boinking each other should be stopped.
I'm pretty sure almost everybody on the pro-Kate (at least on these messageboards) has said that. It's only devil's advocates like, well, Devil's Advocate and Citizen R. that keep bringing up the fact that she's female and gay.
With all the emphasis north american culture puts on sex, to then be prudish or act like we are NOT giving everyone the assumption everybody gets laid every day makes us hypocritical. We throw a huge percentage of out money in ads and television, net etc. materials that paint unrealistic pictures of sexuality, then act like those being made in our cultures images are the ones that are mixed up it insane. They always use capitalism and profit as an unquestionable justification, and in fact the questioner often stops right at that excuse given because they beleive it is valid too.
Are we just well dressed bonobos? Do green rectangles justify lies? What is a healthy narrative about sexuality for diverse people Sstraight, Gay, Asexual...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish I got laid every day...
Essentually your saying that you dont feel that they where in the wrong for breaking the law, or specifically the older one, and therefore should not be at risk of being punished for it. I dont personally necissarily disagree, but she did break the law. I also do not think that the fact that the older one being either gay or female should have any mention, as it should not matter. But, she did break the law, and for the most part, the reason that this is really even such a social issue is because shes gay and a female. Its fairly common occurence between male and females, often with the older one, usually male getting into a lot of trouble, and often once the case is raised, the state (the law) steps in and removes the potential for the parenta to not press charges, as is common with a lot of crimes that involve children and minors. My point is that this should be treated absolutely no different. I do not feel that the fact that the accused is female/gay should have any authority to remove the parent's rights to prosecute within...I don't understand your point about male/female, I haven't mentioned gender? Nor legal liability...?
As for age gaps, it depends entirely on the age of the youngest person. For example, a 5 year gap between a 30 and 35 year old is nothing. A 5 year gap between a 14 and a 19 year old is pretty significant. The age gap could in itself be evidence of exploitation. I certainly think there is a hard limit on when children should start having sex, too, namely because their bodies and minds are nowhere near developed enough to handle that. It's all about considering the circumstances of the relationship and being sure it's all consensual.
Basically: Teenagers are going to have sex with other teenagers no matter what the hell you do. They had sex 1000 years ago and will be having sex 1000 years into the future provided we haven't destroyed the Earth yet. The least we can do is educate them and make sure they're safe and not being used and abused.
You say its a common occurance with the older one getting into a lot of trouble. I say it is a common occurance that is almost never prossecuted compared to its frequency. After looking at the law for NY, I can think of at least a dozen relationships from when I was in HS that would have violated it with no prossecutions. Hell, one of them showed up at my 10 year reunion married. Thats not mentioning the couple guys I knew in college who were still dating people from their HS their junior years, who at some point would have had to been violating these types of laws.
The fact that both people are gay probably played a huge role in the likelyhood that this was prosecuted, which is wrong, but is not the issue we are talking about. The fact that they are gay played a huge role in it getting national attention, because the gay community has developed viral ways of spreading news to national attention and they care about laws being applied unevenly. Neither of those are issues that are being discussed, so I don't know why you keep bring it up.
Phoebe Prince was the young woman whose suicide led to the passage of anti-bullying laws here in Massachusetts. (Okay, okay, I live in NH, but I was born, work and have lived a little under half my life in that fair Commonwealth.)
I remembered one of the young men who had charges filed against him didn't participate in the bullying but had sex with her. This thread got me to look up whatever ended up happening to him:
Charges were dropped, thank goodness.
The other boy she boinked was prosecuted for his participation in the bullying (criminal harrassment, says the article) but not for the sex.
Sounds rather right on to me, although I am not sure about anti-bullying laws.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just really want good sex education in schools.
In what seems like a past life, before I'd saved enough $ for grad school and was still a high school teacher, the county switched from "sex ed" to "family life." The latter was an abstinance-based class where, I was led to believe, they gave out no information and just told the kids, basically, "Jesus wants you to wait." Needless to say, the unwanted pregnancy and STD rates among the students skyrocketed.
Because I was a science teacher, kids would come to me for information ("Um, you know about all that science-y stuff... can you, um, get pregnant from French kissing? Or what else?"). I wasn't allowed to tell the students anything straight-up because of the new "abstinence-only" policy, but I got pretty good at off-the-record hint-around-the-edges disclosure of basic reproductive facts.
I'm not necessarily in favor of kids having sex. I am very strongly in favor of them knowing what the hell it's all about, so that they can make informed decisions.
Reminds me of the scene in Kinsey where the married college-age couple go to their entomology professor because they heard that cunnilingus would negatively affect their chances of having children.
I'm not necessarily in favor of kids having sex.
When I was a kid, I was totally in favor of kids having sex. It seems kind of hypocritical to change my opinion now.
Goblins do it in the street!
I have decided, Sister Margatroid, to read Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by In America by Barbara Ehrenreich, which I found on your linked list, because:
a) I already own it;
b) I've already read parts of it from back when I was at the airport and I was working with this kid who was reading it in one of his classes;
c) it's by a socialist, albeit, not a revolutionary one;
d) her husband is a member of the same industrial union that I am;
and, finally, in order to get back to the Angelina Jolie controversy,
e) she is also a breast cancer survivor.
I figured I'd, you know, ease on in to the man-hate.
I've read it, and it's a pretty decent set of... I guess I'd call them 'travelogues.' Ehrenreich dabbles in living a lower-middle-class life--a variety of them, actually. But while she's exposed to some of the problems of the working class, her own setup always has a comfortable safety net, so she's never in any real danger of crisis or failure herself. This limits her empathy with those who are stuck in low-wage hell, and it shows in the writing.
And sadly, it reaches no compelling conclusions or solutions. It's well intentioned, but fairly flawed.
IIRC, the lifestyles she is dabbling with are well below lower middle-class.
I wish I got laid every day...
Goblins do it in the street (occasionally).
|
|
Shockingly, I'm expressing an opinion!
Um, I'm not attacking you? I was trying to have an intelligent conversation, which just might lead to me learning something I hadn't know or considered and changing my point of view. Not saying it will, but rather tossing the ball in other's court so at least it's a possibility.
The whole incident (and future similar incidents) can be cleared up with some good Romeo and Juliet laws that give teenagers the flexibility to experiment with their sexuality without being unfairly slapped with a sex offender record. I'm yet to see a reason why this sort of thing is a bad thing.
I agree. Never said I didn't. But there is also a big difference between just saying because the laws are based on principles you don't hold (with the implication that they are wrong and you are right) and this. Like I mentioned earlier, best case scenario is that , in my opinion, the individual in this case gets charged (or they work something out), and this causes the laws to change across the board, but in a realistic and beneficial way. If they simply slide it under the rug, (which will be either literally or perceived as because it's a she or because they are gay), then it is absolutely wrong, hypocritical, and basically opens a huge door to offer certain groups special treatment (vs others), which one would assume pretty much everyone aught to disagree with. So in essence we have the same end goal, or a very similar one, but disagree on the motivations for and how to actually achieve it.
Honestly? I just really want good sex education in schools. Ones that teach not only the obvious (condom on the banana lessons for example), but also talk seriously about things like consent (and what is NOT consent - like being incredibly drunk), same-sex attraction (and for any same-sex attracted individuals, same-sex-targeted sexual health messages - you'd be surprised about how many lesbians don't know a thing about sexual health), treating your partners with respect, dealing with the consequences of your choices in sex and relationships, that pornography is practically a parody of real sex, etc. To treat teenagers seriously and answer their questions without belittling them or making them feel like they are "sinful" for feeling the same natural urges the vast majority of other people do.
For the most part, what your describing that you want is already happening, and what you are describing as bad or in need of avoiding doesn't hasn't really existed in schools for a while. It's a little more well rounded, hitting on both abstinence and general sexual information, and includes specifics for males and females. The thing is, not everyone, and not the majority off people feel the same way on these issues as you do. For example with pornography, it is taught, at least for the males, much more to be in moderation, and used as a way to visually understand anatomy and how the whole process works, but not as an ideal form of sex, generalized "good tastes", which is at least partially subjective.
It also leads to a lot of issues which involve the teachers either being forced into very uncomfortable positions or being forced to teach something they either do not believe or being forced from explaining something they do know is important, which really defeats the point of having (sex) education. So, I do agree that this is both important, and has a lot of work needed to be more effective, but I don't agree that the focus should be to promote teens to want to experiment with it with a increased false sense of safety. In my opinion, at least as much effort should be put, in a serious sense, into understanding how to moderate those urges, and to understand them as it is that they are natural and ok.
|
|
You say its a common occurance with the older one getting into a lot of trouble. I say it is a common occurance that is almost never prossecuted compared to its frequency. After looking at the law for NY, I can think of at least a dozen relationships from when I was in HS that would have violated it with no prossecutions. Hell, one of them showed up at my 10 year reunion married. Thats not mentioning the couple guys I knew in college who were still dating people from their HS their junior years, who at some point would have had to been violating these types of laws.
The fact that both people are gay probably played a huge role in the likelyhood that this was prosecuted, which is wrong, but is not the issue we are talking about. The fact that they are gay played a huge role in it getting national attention, because the gay community has developed viral ways of spreading news to national attention and they care about laws being applied unevenly. Neither of those are issues that are being discussed, so I don't know why you keep bring it up.
I've heard this mentioned a few times, and I think the disconnect there is primarily that what I'm saying is that once they are caught, (more in an official sense), once the law gets involved, it's a very different story. What your suggesting is that it happens a lot and usually no one cares and it doesn't become a legal issue. I agree, but the difference is I'm talking about the times that they are caught and it does become a legal issue, and that most of those times the older one is slammed as a sex offender. That's related to the topic at hand, because the girls where caught and the law is being brought in.
I've heard this mentioned a few times, and I think the disconnect there is primarily that what I'm saying is that once they are caught, (more in an official sense), once the law gets involved, it's a very different story. What your suggesting is that it happens a lot and usually no one cares and it doesn't become a legal issue. I agree, but the difference is I'm talking about the times that they are caught and it does become a legal issue, and that most of those times the older one is slammed as a sex offender. That's related to the topic at hand, because the girls where caught and the law is being brought in.You say its a common occurance with the older one getting into a lot of trouble. I say it is a common occurance that is almost never prossecuted compared to its frequency. After looking at the law for NY, I can think of at least a dozen relationships from when I was in HS that would have violated it with no prossecutions. Hell, one of them showed up at my 10 year reunion married. Thats not mentioning the couple guys I knew in college who were still dating people from their HS their junior years, who at some point would have had to been violating these types of laws.
The fact that both people are gay probably played a huge role in the likelyhood that this was prosecuted, which is wrong, but is not the issue we are talking about. The fact that they are gay played a huge role in it getting national attention, because the gay community has developed viral ways of spreading news to national attention and they care about laws being applied unevenly. Neither of those are issues that are being discussed, so I don't know why you keep bring it up.
And I am saying that I don't think that is true. I believe prosecutors ignore edge cases like this all the time. Do you have any evidence of how many cases are reported vs plead or prosecuted? All I have is my experiences, but I doubt you have any evidence to counter them.
The Prosecutor has substantial leadway in determining which cases get prosecuted and what plea deals are offered. Many places would offer wrist slaps or decline to prosecute something like this, and if this were a man and a woman I do not think there would even have been any real investigation.
|
|
Mostly from the debates and corses I had in college and how often I hear about it in the press. I think its just more common than thought and sort of tooned out, but again Im agree it does happen a lot and never goes to trail, Im not saying that, I am saying of those that do, more oftwn than not the older one, usually still in school does get slammed. (Im not saying Ithink this is right).
Its also not uncommon in our bimonthly sexual harasment/assualt courses, to hear stories along these lines.
DA, I have no idea why you keep bringing up the fact that they're gay, I think it's utterly irrelevant. I'm talking about all teenagers regardless of gender or sexuality.Because those are really the only two things that separate the case from the norm and to a point make it worthy of notice. It's what the conversation has kind of been about.
In this thread, that concept has mostly been talked about by you. Once you remove your posts, there isn't a whole lot of conversation on the topic. It would disappear almost completely, but you keep bringing it up.
|
|
In this thread, that concept has mostly been talked about by you. Once you remove your posts, there isn't a whole lot of conversation on the topic. It would disappear almost completely, but you keep bringing it up.
So Kirth, Lazar X, thejeff, Mean DM, and Guy where not discussing it on the last page?
We don't put kids in jail and give them a lifelong label of sex offender for smoking or signing contracts.Not so true. The contract part, at least.
Show me an example of where we put kids in jail for signing a contract. You are really, really REAALLY reaching here. Your answer seems nonsensical.
The young adult might mentally know there are risks, or acknowledge the repercussions, but they don't really understand what it could mean long term. For example a contract to join the military. It's one thing to know it's dangerous, but another to fully understand that you might lose your arms and legs, or your eyesight, and have to live with that for the rest of your life.
This makes my point, not yours. If a minor signs a contract to join the military the contract is torn up, the minor goes home. They don't go to jail.
In this thread, that concept has mostly been talked about by you. Once you remove your posts, there isn't a whole lot of conversation on the topic. It would disappear almost completely, but you keep bringing it up.So Kirth, Lazar X, thejeff, Mean DM, and Guy where not discussing it on the last page?
One of those people didn't even post last page, they have a post on this page and it isn't about this aspect of the story.
I've heard this mentioned a few times, and I think the disconnect there is primarily that what I'm saying is that once they are caught, (more in an official sense), once the law gets involved, it's a very different story. What your suggesting is that it happens a lot and usually no one cares and it doesn't become a legal issue. I agree, but the difference is I'm talking about the times that they are caught and it does become a legal issue, and that most of those times the older one is slammed as a sex offender. That's related to the topic at hand, because the girls where caught and the law is being brought in.You say its a common occurance with the older one getting into a lot of trouble. I say it is a common occurance that is almost never prossecuted compared to its frequency. After looking at the law for NY, I can think of at least a dozen relationships from when I was in HS that would have violated it with no prossecutions. Hell, one of them showed up at my 10 year reunion married. Thats not mentioning the couple guys I knew in college who were still dating people from their HS their junior years, who at some point would have had to been violating these types of laws.
The fact that both people are gay probably played a huge role in the likelyhood that this was prosecuted, which is wrong, but is not the issue we are talking about. The fact that they are gay played a huge role in it getting national attention, because the gay community has developed viral ways of spreading news to national attention and they care about laws being applied unevenly. Neither of those are issues that are being discussed, so I don't know why you keep bring it up.
And I am saying that I don't think that is true. I believe prosecutors ignore edge cases like this all the time. Do you have any evidence of how many cases are reported vs plead or prosecuted? All I have is my experiences, but I doubt you have any evidence to counter them.
The Prosecutor has...
While it's annecdotal to the region I'm in (and therefore worth only ehat it's worth here) I can tell you as a criminal defense attorney for the last decade these corner cases are regularly prosecuted. They don't usually get media attention. Few prosecutors are willing to he seen as soft on sex crimes. It is, however, massively under-reported.
|
|
BNW, I have no idea what your talking about? I said that they are legally protcted to protct them from making deals they dont understand that can have life long affects. I used the military thing because yes, if you sign it and the run, it is a prison sentence for breaking a contract. Additionally they will also have the dishonorable discharge attached to their name which is kind of similar to the sex offender registration in that it makes it very hard to get a job or education afterwards. It also has the smear your name aspect, but I wouldnt say its as bad.
But aside from that, I was also meaning things like credit cards or buying a vehicle, which are notorious for targeting kids with hidden stuff in the contracts, and usually they do not have the life experience to know a good or bad deal, to ask the right questions, or that if they ruin their credit its extremely difficult to change that around AND takes a very long time. Thats why they are protected from being able to do that legally.
Your stance, as I read it is that we dont throw people in jail for breaking a contract (or smoking) and these re therefor different from an individual at a young age making a huge choice like sex that might affectvthem the rest of their life as well as their family's. Its also similar that @17 its not ok, but suddenly the day they turn 18, it magically changes.
|
|
@ Mean DM, a lot of the reason for that is that once its reported the state (that is child services) basically takes it over as prosecutor, and sort of removes it from whoever reported or initially pressed charges. At that point its pretty hard to change your mind and stop pressing charges (because essentually the law is handling it like suspected child abuse in which children will often lie and seek to return to parents even if they are the abusers. Its a method implimented to restrict that, and sort of carries over.
Your stance, as I read it is that we dont throw people in jail for breaking a contract (or smoking)
No. My point is that you don't throw minors in jail for smoking or for signing a contract (which is automatically broken because its not legal in the first place)but thats exactly what you want to do with minors for having sex. Does THAT make it clear enough for you?
OHWFA!
@ Mean DM, a lot of the reason for that is that once its reported the state (that is child services) basically takes it over as prosecutor, and sort of removes it from whoever reported or initially pressed charges. At that point its pretty hard to change your mind and stop pressing charges (because essentually the law is handling it like suspected child abuse in which children will often lie and seek to return to parents even if they are the abusers. Its a method implimented to restrict that, and sort of carries over.
It's rarely reported to "child services." It's most often reported to the police. The prosecutor having final determination of whether a crime is prosecuted rather than the victim is how all criminal prosecutions work.
@ Mean DM, a lot of the reason for that is that once its reported the state (that is child services) basically takes it over as prosecutor, and sort of removes it from whoever reported or initially pressed charges. At that point its pretty hard to change your mind and stop pressing charges (because essentually the law is handling it like suspected child abuse in which children will often lie and seek to return to parents even if they are the abusers. Its a method implimented to restrict that, and sort of carries over.It's rarely reported to "child services." It's most often reported to the police. The prosecutor having final determination of whether a crime is prosecuted rather than the victim is how all criminal prosecutions work.Although in these cases how much the parents want to push the issue is going to have an effect in both directions. Who has the most influence? Are they going to raise a public stink if I don't prosecute?
Many prosecutors are political animals.
Absolutely correct. That's true of most crimes, though. What the victim wants is usually important. The exception is domestic violence cases which many prosecutors attempt to prosecute regardless of the victim's stated desires.
I'd say "all or most" prosecutors are political animals, though. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, well, there was some HuffPo article I was glancing at that said something like 20 of the States have abstinence-only sex ed, so, you know...U! S! A! U! S! A!
I was trying to refind it after some of the exchanges between Sister Margatroid and Barrister Advocate above, but I couldn't find it. :(
|
I blame religion.
While I would have agreed when I was younger, but I really think that religion takes a lot of the blame for how it is interpreted by stupid hateful people. A lot of cultural baggage gets caught up in the 'expanded universe' of religious teachings, despite not technically being religious commandments, like women and headscarves in Moslem countries (more Moslem-dominated countries *forbid* that practice than require it, and more Moslem-dominated countries forbid the practice than non-Moslem countries. It's an Arab thing. Not a Moslem thing.).
IMO, most gender or sex-related 'religious' prohibitions are entirely about controlling people and keeping various populations (such as women) 'in their place,' and have jack squat to do with the actual proclamations of their various holy books and prophets.
If there was no organized religion, we'd still have people attempting to use other excuses, such as 'science' to keep women out of the military (too emotional!) or from holding political office (what happens when they have their period! They might flip out and start a war!) or from holding certain jobs (can't be firefighters, they aren't strong enough to carry fat people to safety!), or to forbid teenagers from having any say over their own lives (their brains aren't formed enough to vote the way I want them too!) with electroshocks and prefrontal lobotomies being the gold standard for 'exorcising' disobedient or disrespectful children in the enlightened fifties, since it was no longer acceptable to call in a priest to drown them in the bathtub until they 'are saved.'
A video on the shouting going on about boobs in games.
I'm liking this guy more and more as a gaming commentator.
A video on the shouting going on about boobs in games.
I'm liking this guy more and more as a gaming commentator.
He's pretty awesome. He just couldn't write good poetry if his life depended on it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My thoughts on the 'calm discussion' point that guy brings up (nice video, btw):
I'd love to have a calm discussion. Many people would. In fact, that's why a number of people Kickstarted the much-chagrined Anita Sarkeesian.
We've all seen how that turned out.
Someone please wake me when it's possible to actually have a discussion without it dissolving into "You are 100% wrong because <MRA bullocks here>" or "You're trying to ruin video games with PCness" or "All feminazis hate men so I hate feminism therefore you have no legitimate point" or "Why don't you just make your own games and leave ours alone" or "This isn't a problem IMO so shut up". Because that is literally the sum total of 90% of 'discussion' I've had with people over gender/sexuality in video games.
This blog article on Gamasutra was another interesting point on the Dragon's Crown affair too. This isn't just about boobs vs. no boobs after all - it's about alienating whole groups of people because of their identity or preferences.
To be fair there is a lot of that on both sides in those arguements.
Not trying to start a shouting argument or name calling here. One side of the argument is calling for an examination of some of the sexist elements in the gaming industry. What do you think the other side of the argument is? Not all their points and proof, but just a single sentence summation.
Side 1: There are some sexist things in gaming.
vs
Side 2: ????
|
|
Way I recall it, if we are talking about the same thing, is a few postulations that where not accepted as true or valid, being asked more than once to show or proove various povs, and a few more random people popping with statements like "your so wrong just because I just cant even read this thread anymore. Oh by the way, look at me as I take my ball and leave".
A lot of name calling and elitist etitlement, throwing out premises and demanded they be accepted, just because and leaving no room for discussion of counters or. personal experience to contradict or show the faults. On Easy Mode, anyone?