|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:28 am
I have no idea where you live, and, as such, I have no idea which laws you are subject to. Here are some laws reguarding sexual conduct here in Minnesota. Criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree, the second to least heinous criminal sexual offense, allows for anyone under the age of sixteen, but at least thirteen years of age, to engage in sexual intercourse with someone no more than forty-eight months older than they are -- anyone older will suffer penalties under the law. I feel that this is more than flexible enough to allow for young people to enjoy sexual release. I see no reason to allow anyone older to engage in intercourse with such young people -- this is especially true because those older are typically in a position of power/dominance.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:58 am
Ooh, this debate is fun. And I actually find myself falling on the idiot teeny-boppers side of the fence (no offense luv, I've considered most teens morons since I was 8 ) heiwa90 i do think that there are somethings that are JUST PLAIN WRONG- example 40 year old with a 14 year old...stuff like that...There's no reason that the 40year old couldn't wait the 4 years til it'd be legal...>.< Why is it plain wrong? What makes it such a terrible thing? And what about 40 year old woman and 14 yera old boy? This is all in your own opinion. [I am teh Haruka] Just because you are does not mean that everyone who is thirteen is ready. Odd, you say that you are not ready for the emotional tidal wave that follows sex, yet you think that other people your age are (w/e your age is). Obviously they should be allowed to have sex if they think they are ready, oh, except if they are under the legal age of consent... PhaedraMcSpiffy I think that if they're a few years apart, it's not a big deal. But when one is signifigantly more developed than the other and one of them is being victimized or taken advantage of, that's wrong. What if one of them is 20 and the other 50? Does that count as wrong? Why woulld age difference make someone a victim? Youd o realize that there are 13 year old girl out there who are sexual predators? Aiko_Kaida No, lowering the age of consent to 13 means that an adult who manipulates and coerces a 13 year old child into having sex that she isn't ready for and doesn't really want is not going to be punished for their crime. Age of consent laws are intended to protect children from being manipulated into having sex by adults who have more life experience and more critical thinking skills. You are right that these laws do not stop young teens from having sex. No one thinks that they do. What these laws do is allow us to punish adults who take advantage of their power and harm children. Why not work harder at preventing rape, in all it's forms? I see a lot of closed minds here, and a lot of people assuming that only older men want to have sex with younger girls... it can't possibly be the other way round... I ahve to go to work... I'm gonna be late... so sorry if my post comes across as gibberish and stupid... not had time to think my post over...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:44 pm
Shard Aerliss [I am teh Haruka] Just because you are does not mean that everyone who is thirteen is ready. Odd, you say that you are not ready for the emotional tidal wave that follows sex, yet you think that other people your age are (w/e your age is). Obviously they should be allowed to have sex if they think they are ready, oh, except if they are under the legal age of consent... I, personally am not ready yet. I also just don't want to get involved in that sort of thing right now. Other people my age might think they're ready, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:43 pm
Shard Aerliss Ooh, this debate is fun. And I actually find myself falling on the idiot teeny-boppers side of the fence (no offense luv, I've consider most teens morons since I was cool heiwa90 i do think that there are somethings that are JUST PLAIN WRONG- example 40 year old with a 14 year old...stuff like that...There's no reason that the 40year old couldn't wait the 4 years til it'd be legal...>.< Why is it plain wrong? What makes it such a terrible thing? And what about 40 year old woman and 14 yera old boy? This is all in your own opinion.
This is however all case sensative and I guess I don't think that it should be brought into laws...I just think about the fact that if they lower the age to 13 all the 12 year olds will be like "Why can't we have sex?!" so they lower it...and it becomes a cycle until you have 50 year old people screwing 2 year olds...Basically apply common sense as much as possible-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:48 pm
[I am teh Haruka] I, personally am not ready yet. I also just don't want to get involved in that sort of thing right now. Other people my age might think they're ready, though. Sorry, my post made no sense. What I was trying to say is this; you are telling people that they are not ready to have sex because of thier age. How can you know they are not ready? The only person who can say if someone is ready for sex or not is that person. Some people may get the decision wrong, but it should be thier decision. I was 20 before I had sex, and that was a good time for me. Yet I know people who lost thier virginity at 14, and they were ready, it had no ill effects. They chose it. I know one girl who, at 16 started going out with a man close to 40 and married. Eight years later she is still with him and they have a child. I know of a 12 year old girl and a 13 year old boy who experimented while her mother was in hospital. The girl became pregnant. They are both now *counts* 18 and he is supporting her and his child. heiwa90 You're right this is my opinion...but i didn't put gender in there actually... Sorry, my bad. Quote: I feel that if a 40 year old cared about the person they were with they'd wait for it to be legal whereas if they just wanted sex they would coerce them into sex... And yet some marriages don't last that long. Have you ever been in love or in lust? Waiting four years is a long time, a very long time, to wait to have sex, especially when both partners want it. Sex is a vital part of many healthy relationships (not all, I'll grant). Is that not a point that many of us have banged on about in the Abortion Debate Thread? Quote: This is however all case sensative and I guess I don't think that it should be brought into laws...I just think about the fact that if they lower the age to 13 all the 12 year olds will be like "Why can't we have sex?!" so they lower it...and it becomes a cycle until you have 50 year old people screwing 2 year olds...Basically apply common sense as much as possible- I'd like to point out that some countries have a legal age limit of 13 (Spain)... Also, few 11 year olds want sex. The lowest I have read about that was totally consentual was 12 on the girls part, most of the article gave her point of view. I do tend to read extensively about this; I have a strange fascination with teen sex and rape. People that many of us think of as innocent children are sexually awakened very early; I know a girl who was masturbating at 8 years old... she had not been molested before anyone suggests that. She was just very sexually active, the most sexually active virgin I ever met ((Christians can be very, very crazy)). Remember that for some girls' menstruation, a time when our BODIES are ready for sex, can begin as early as 5 years old (the age of the youngest mother, last I checked anyway, it may have been proven to be a hoax since I read about it in Fortean Times... or was it Bizarre?), though the majority begin between 12 and 15. Yes, I know I shouldn't use personal experience in debate... I'm very tired and my google abilities are failing me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:53 pm
The only way that we could do this is on a case by case basis. Otherwise we need a general "blanket age" which I don't like, because who gets to choose it?
Ok. So, we scrap the law. Anybody can have sex with anybody. Then we add the stipulation that they require "informed consent."
Then, if it gets brought to court, they'd need to prove that the individual in question was not mature enough to understand what they were doing.
Case by case basis. It would have to be something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:57 pm
SterileNeedles Aiko_Kaida No, lowering the age of consent to 13 means that an adult who manipulates and coerces a 13 year old child into having sex that she isn't ready for and doesn't really want is not going to be punished for their crime. Age of consent laws are intended to protect children from being manipulated into having sex by adults who have more life experience and more critical thinking skills. You are right that these laws do not stop young teens from having sex. No one thinks that they do. What these laws do is allow us to punish adults who take advantage of their power and harm children. The sad thing about those laws though is that it also meant that when I was having sex with my bf, who was 18 at the time and I was 17 if my parents had found out about it they could have charged him with statutory rape. (Not that they're insane enought to do that) and the crazy thing is that we were both still in high school too. It's not like I was having sex with someone 30 years apart from my age, just my boyfriend from high school. That's the only thing that really bugs me about that law is that if you are 17 or 16 dating an 18 year old or 19 year old, that really isn't very far from your age. It's like 1 or 2 years, and once we are both 18 and 19 suddenly no one cares anymore that we're screwing each other? :/ wtf? Aiko_Kaida Who told you that it was illegal for the government to violate your "right to privacy". You have no right to privacy as far as the government is concerned. Privacy is more of a privileged. People who are not suspected of being criminals are generally allowed to have a reasonable amount of privacy. People who are suspected of being criminals pretty much loose privacy all together. Privacy is a privilege, especially when you are under age. Apparently it was Lord Setar who told me that we have a right to privacy (it was said in the 'Think Abstinence only is bad? This is worse." thread as implied in the 4th ammendment and 9th ammendment. My bf told me that it is also found somewhere in the 14th ammendment. Actually you're the first person in this guild who has told me that we do not have a right to privacy but a priveledge to it. Lord Setar SterileNeedles What part of the consitution would this law clash with if it existed if you don't mind my asking? Right to privacy that is implied in the rights against unreasonable search and seizure onder the Fourth Amendment. Ninth Amendment would also count. See that's a real common misconception about the age of consent laws. In most states (like mine) there are lots of exceptions to the age of consent. In my state the age of consent is 16 if the other partner is within 5 years of the younger partners age. So you and your boyfriend would be fine. If the age difference is greater than five years then the youngest party must be over the age of 18. Many states have their laws set up this way, and many states have the age of consent set at 16 period. If you are in a state where an 18 year old can go to jail for having sex with a 17 year old then why don't you try to get the laws changed to make exceptions rather than lowering the age of consent to the point where children can be taken advantage of and abused by adults. As for the "right to privacy", some may interpret the constitution to grant us the right to privacy, but because of our governments behavior its clear that the courts do not interpret things that way. Now don't get me wrong, I"m not necessarily saying that privacy should be a privilege rather than a right, I'm just saying that thats the way things are. The government is reading our e-mails, watching wear we surf, tapping our phone lines etc. We really have no privacy. And even if you do interpret the constitution to say that we have the right to privacy, that "right" goes out the window the minute they have probable cause that you have committed a crime. So what I said stands before, you only have the privilege of privacy as long as you are not suspected of having committed a crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:13 pm
Shard Aerliss Aiko_Kaida No, lowering the age of consent to 13 means that an adult who manipulates and coerces a 13 year old child into having sex that she isn't ready for and doesn't really want is not going to be punished for their crime. Age of consent laws are intended to protect children from being manipulated into having sex by adults who have more life experience and more critical thinking skills. You are right that these laws do not stop young teens from having sex. No one thinks that they do. What these laws do is allow us to punish adults who take advantage of their power and harm children. Why not work harder at preventing rape, in all it's forms? I see a lot of closed minds here, and a lot of people assuming that only older men want to have sex with younger girls... it can't possibly be the other way round... I ahve to go to work... I'm gonna be late... so sorry if my post comes across as gibberish and stupid... not had time to think my post over... Educated mind, not closed mind. I do work hard at preventing rape, in all it's forms. I've worked with the YWCA and Psi Chi to host a series of seminars in my area educating people about the issues of rape and consent. Rather than doing the classic "how to keep yourself from getting raped" thing, I convinced out local chapter to go beyond that and educate men about consent. It seems that a lot of people don't even understand that what they are doing is rape. I've also volunteered for Perverted Justice (the group that works with dateline). You wouldn't believe the things I have seen and learned while doing that. I'm not naive enough to believe that there aren't young girls who want to have sex with older men. I'm very aware of that reality and also aware of the psychological reasons behind it. Girls who seek out sex from older men have serious psychological issues. There are mental illnesses that cause that kind of acting out as well. It's usually issues of low self esteem, absent fathers etc. It is very easy for a 13 year old who feels bad about herself and has no real father figure to become infatuated with an adult who knows how to say all the right things. The world is crawling with men who know how to find these girls and know exactly what to say to them to make them "fall in love". They take advantage of the fact that these girls are lonely, have low self esteem, and are craving male attention. Whenever a relationship involves a child and an adult it involves a serious imbalance of power, and an imbalance of power in a relationship is downright dangerous. In a child/adult relationship it is the adult who has the access to money, transportation, etc. Even an adult who doesn't intend to harm or manipulate the child may end up doing so. A child who is showered with expensive gifts by an adult lover (the kind of gift a teen boyfriend could never give her) may feel that because she is being given adult gifts she is obligated to return with adult levels of affection. They may feel that they must compete for this mans affection or risk having him leave her for another adult. The relationship may seem one sided with the adult being the one shelling out more, which puts pressure on the child to compensate with sex. Relationships are extremely complicated. Adding an imbalance of power just makes things 100 times worse. I'm really baffled that so many people here don't see the problems with child/adult relationships. Most here are liberal, and it seems that most consider themselves feminists on at least some level. How can someone who believes in equality for women believe that it's ok for young girls to be in relationships that are inherently imbalanced? How can people accept that it is ok for girls to be used in that way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:16 pm
Aiko_Kaida As for the "right to privacy", some may interpret the constitution to grant us the right to privacy, but because of our governments behavior its clear that the courts do not interpret things that way. Now don't get me wrong, I"m not necessarily saying that privacy should be a privilege rather than a right, I'm just saying that thats the way things are. The government is reading our e-mails, watching wear we surf, tapping our phone lines etc. We really have no privacy. And even if you do interpret the constitution to say that we have the right to privacy, that "right" goes out the window the minute they have probable cause that you have committed a crime. So what I said stands before, you only have the privilege of privacy as long as you are not suspected of having committed a crime. Well, yes. That is the premise of the fourth amendment. "Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:06 pm
Aiko_Kaida SterileNeedles Aiko_Kaida No, lowering the age of consent to 13 means that an adult who manipulates and coerces a 13 year old child into having sex that she isn't ready for and doesn't really want is not going to be punished for their crime. Age of consent laws are intended to protect children from being manipulated into having sex by adults who have more life experience and more critical thinking skills. You are right that these laws do not stop young teens from having sex. No one thinks that they do. What these laws do is allow us to punish adults who take advantage of their power and harm children. The sad thing about those laws though is that it also meant that when I was having sex with my bf, who was 18 at the time and I was 17 if my parents had found out about it they could have charged him with statutory rape. (Not that they're insane enought to do that) and the crazy thing is that we were both still in high school too. It's not like I was having sex with someone 30 years apart from my age, just my boyfriend from high school. That's the only thing that really bugs me about that law is that if you are 17 or 16 dating an 18 year old or 19 year old, that really isn't very far from your age. It's like 1 or 2 years, and once we are both 18 and 19 suddenly no one cares anymore that we're screwing each other? :/ wtf? Aiko_Kaida Who told you that it was illegal for the government to violate your "right to privacy". You have no right to privacy as far as the government is concerned. Privacy is more of a privileged. People who are not suspected of being criminals are generally allowed to have a reasonable amount of privacy. People who are suspected of being criminals pretty much loose privacy all together. Privacy is a privilege, especially when you are under age. Apparently it was Lord Setar who told me that we have a right to privacy (it was said in the 'Think Abstinence only is bad? This is worse." thread as implied in the 4th ammendment and 9th ammendment. My bf told me that it is also found somewhere in the 14th ammendment. Actually you're the first person in this guild who has told me that we do not have a right to privacy but a priveledge to it. Lord Setar SterileNeedles What part of the consitution would this law clash with if it existed if you don't mind my asking? Right to privacy that is implied in the rights against unreasonable search and seizure onder the Fourth Amendment. Ninth Amendment would also count. See that's a real common misconception about the age of consent laws. In most states (like mine) there are lots of exceptions to the age of consent. In my state the age of consent is 16 if the other partner is within 5 years of the younger partners age. So you and your boyfriend would be fine. If the age difference is greater than five years then the youngest party must be over the age of 18. Many states have their laws set up this way, and many states have the age of consent set at 16 period. If you are in a state where an 18 year old can go to jail for having sex with a 17 year old then why don't you try to get the laws changed to make exceptions rather than lowering the age of consent to the point where children can be taken advantage of and abused by adults. As for the "right to privacy", some may interpret the constitution to grant us the right to privacy, but because of our governments behavior its clear that the courts do not interpret things that way. Now don't get me wrong, I"m not necessarily saying that privacy should be a privilege rather than a right, I'm just saying that thats the way things are. The government is reading our e-mails, watching wear we surf, tapping our phone lines etc. We really have no privacy. And even if you do interpret the constitution to say that we have the right to privacy, that "right" goes out the window the minute they have probable cause that you have committed a crime. So what I said stands before, you only have the privilege of privacy as long as you are not suspected of having committed a crime. If there is reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime, it is supported by the Fourth Amendment. Otherwise, the government has no right to infringe on your privacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:45 pm
Aiko_Kaida You wouldn't believe the things I have seen and learned while doing that. I would. The sad thing is I've probably learnt about them already. Many horrible things go on in this world that people turn a blind eye to. Quote: They take advantage of the fact that these girls are lonely, have low self esteem, and are craving male attention. And the adults that are taken advantage of? Yes, more often than not a girl who is under 15 and in a relationship with an older man has been taken advantage of. But it is not always the case. Time and again men and women get taken to court because they were having relations with a minor, despite the first, second and third steps being taken by said minor. I've seen 15 year old girls wrap adult men around thier little fingers and I've seen 16 and 17 year old girls hold adult men under the thumb. I've seen 13 year olds that held more maturity in thier big toes than I've seen in my fellow university students. Quote: Whenever a relationship involves a child and an adult it involves a serious imbalance of power, Does it always? Do many adult relations not involve an imbalance of power? Again you're acting as if young teens have no mind, have no understanding, but, many do. Quote: In a child/adult relationship it is the adult who has the access to money, transportation, etc. Not that I want to make this a feminist debate but in many adult relationships it is the man who has the access to money and transportation. Quote: Even an adult who doesn't intend to harm or manipulate the child may end up doing so. Granted. Again, the same can be said for many adult relationships. Quote: A child who is showered with expensive gifts by an adult lover (the kind of gift a teen boyfriend could never give her) may feel that because she is being given adult gifts she is obligated to return with adult levels of affection. As do many adult women. Quote: They may feel that they must compete for this mans affection or risk having him leave her for another adult. As do many women, especially those over 18 who have yet to lose thier virginity. Quote: Adding an imbalance of power just makes things 100 times worse. More often than not any adult relationship will involve an imbalance of power. Few relationship are truley egalitarean. Quote: How can someone who believes in equality for women believe that it's ok for young girls to be in relationships that are inherently imbalanced? Again you are jumping to the conclusion that only men sleep with younger girls, not that women sleep with younger boys. Or that women attract younger girls or men attract younger boys. Quote: How can people accept that it is ok for girls to be used in that way? And the predators? Not all have emotional or psychological problems... even if the world sees it that way. Some have simply reached physical maturity earlier than the majority. Preventing these people from exploring thier sexuality is the same as telling people over the age of consent that they cannot have sex with someone they care for or even someone they don't. As has been said, each should be taken case by case. People should be educated about sex from an earlier age than they already are, taught what constitutes an invasion of thier bodily privacy. If the only reason for preventing teens from having sexual relationships with older people is that there is an imbalance of power then we may as well stop all people from having sexual relationships. Even I'm not naive enough to assume my relationship with my partner is egalitarean, as much as we try. Again, there should be education. People should be given the knowledge they need to make these decisions. For the most part none will use this information until they are 15 or 16, but those that find themselves wanting to explore thier bodies and the potential that they hold should be given the right to do so and not told; "Wait a few more years, pet, you'll be ready then."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:20 pm
Shard Aerliss [I am teh Haruka] I, personally am not ready yet. I also just don't want to get involved in that sort of thing right now. Other people my age might think they're ready, though. Sorry, my post made no sense. What I was trying to say is this; you are telling people that they are not ready to have sex because of thier age. How can you know they are not ready? The only person who can say if someone is ready for sex or not is that person. Some people may get the decision wrong, but it should be thier decision. I was 20 before I had sex, and that was a good time for me. Yet I know people who lost thier virginity at 14, and they were ready, it had no ill effects. They chose it. I know one girl who, at 16 started going out with a man close to 40 and married. Eight years later she is still with him and they have a child. I know of a 12 year old girl and a 13 year old boy who experimented while her mother was in hospital. The girl became pregnant. They are both now *counts* 18 and he is supporting her and his child. Actually, I was arguing why the age of consent shouldn't be lowered down. It's to protect a child (or teenager) from being exploited by adults. If someone wants to have sex and they think they're ready, then they can do if they want to. However, putting the age of consent down to thirteen is ridiculous. I don't think that many teenager's minds are even close to an adult's mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:21 pm
This is an interesting debate. Aiko_Kaida SterileNeedles [I am teh Haruka] [gossamer!smile. Quote: No one ever said that all fourteen year olds are not mentally mature because some are and I know quite a few who are. Quote: It's just that, most aren't. Proof? And what makes someone ready for sex? I say as long as they know how to use protection, know about abortion and pregnancy, then they are ready. Quote: And not all adults are mature either. Generally, most will be.From the way you're acting, seems pretty much obvious that the older you are, the more wiser/intelligent/mature most will be. I know about abortion, protection, and pregnancy. Knowing about it does not mean that I'm completely ready for sex. I'm not ready for that emotional bond yet. Just because you are does not mean that everyone who is thirteen is ready. Sorry to butt in but I was thinking ( I tend to do that a lot) and I thought that maybe while the government changed the legal age to allow sex at 13 and while many people do not think that every teenager is ready to have sex at that age, changing the legal age down to 13 does not force 13 year olds to go out and have sex. It just means that 13 years olds who want to have sex at that age with whomever can legally do so. And those that don't feel they are ready don't have to have sex. (Also if the gov changed it to that outrageously young age it might just force them to start really teaching kids/teens about sex education.) It's like the law is now at 18. Just because you turn 18 doesn't automatically mean you should go out and ******** someone to lose your virginity, if you still do not feel ready for sex at 18 you do not have to have sex. And anyways I really don't think the laws have stopped young teens from having sex anyways so it doesn't seem too matter much. Also If it's illegal for the government to violate one's right to privacy then wouldn't it be illegal to violate a minor's right to privacy? While they are a minor they are also still a person as well with the same rights as other people. (Or maybe not, maybe you are really only endowed rights once you are 1 cool . xP Well that was my 10 cents. Also as a note I really don't have a stand point on this particular topic yet. I'm still getting all of the facts about it by observing the debates about it here. No, lowering the age of consent to 13 means that an adult who manipulates and coerces a 13 year old child into having sex that she isn't ready for and doesn't really want is not going to be punished for their crime. Age of consent laws are intended to protect children from being manipulated into having sex by adults who have more life experience and more critical thinking skills. You are right that these laws do not stop young teens from having sex. No one thinks that they do. What these laws do is allow us to punish adults who take advantage of their power and harm children. Who told you that it was illegal for the government to violate your "right to privacy". You have no right to privacy as far as the government is concerned. Privacy is more of a privileged. People who are not suspected of being criminals are generally allowed to have a reasonable amount of privacy. People who are suspected of being criminals pretty much loose privacy all together. Privacy is a privilege, especially when you are under age. I understand the importance of keeping much-older adults from taking advantage of kids and teens. But when the people are close in age and consenting without coercion, and making responsible decisions, it's nobody's business but theirs. And privacy is a right. You can lose it by violating certain laws, just as someone can lose their freedom. (By going to jail, etc.) But it is still a right. Sterile Needles The sad thing about those laws though is that it also meant that when I was having sex with my bf, who was 18 at the time and I was 17 if my parents had found out about it they could have charged him with statutory rape. (Not that they're insane enought to do that) and the crazy thing is that we were both still in high school too. It's not like I was having sex with someone 30 years apart from my age, just my boyfriend from high school. That's the only thing that really bugs me about that law is that if you are 17 or 16 dating an 18 year old or 19 year old, that really isn't very far from your age. It's like 1 or 2 years, and once we are both 18 and 19 suddenly no one cares anymore that we're screwing each other? :/ wtf? That's my problem with this issue, too. If my boyfriend and I were to have sex, we'd have to stop soon for the seven months between my birthday and his. I could be punished for having sex with him just because I was a few months older. Not just punished, but accused of rape, one of the most disgusting, cruel, and (justly)highly stigmatized crimes there is. Even if he consents. Asexual-Slut~Enya I have no idea where you live, and, as such, I have no idea which laws you are subject to. Here are some laws reguarding sexual conduct here in Minnesota. Criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree, the second to least heinous criminal sexual offense, allows for anyone under the age of sixteen, but at least thirteen years of age, to engage in sexual intercourse with someone no more than forty-eight months older than they are -- anyone older will suffer penalties under the law. I feel that this is more than flexible enough to allow for young people to enjoy sexual release. I see no reason to allow anyone older to engage in intercourse with such young people -- this is especially true because those older are typically in a position of power/dominance. I think my state has similar rules, but I've been told otherwise. Aiko_Kaida I'm really baffled that so many people here don't see the problems with child/adult relationships. Most here are liberal, and it seems that most consider themselves feminists on at least some level. How can someone who believes in equality for women believe that it's ok for young girls to be in relationships that are inherently imbalanced? How can people accept that it is ok for girls to be used in that way? Feminism isn't just about women, it's about gender/sexual equality. Young men/boys are taken advantage of, too, and we ought to protect them as well. (I'm sure you know that. I just thought I'd bring it up.) I don't see it acceptable for there to be an imbalance of power in a relationship, either way. Age can be one, but so can money, social class, etc. However, I do see your point. A child who doesn't know better should be protected from abuse by adults. And so should teens. But I think that teens aren't given enough credit, and are more informed and emotionally mature than we give them credit for. So... I guess the age of consent laws make sense the way they're set up now. But that's only because they have those rules about how far apart in age you can be.... in fact... "statutory" means... some kind of a statute* on age, right? Like a certain distance in ages? Gah, help me out here! *Am I spelling that correctly? It looks off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:11 am
[gossamer]!smile. MipsyKitten "Well, you say we shouldn't be able to run in front of a car to kill ourselves, beause it's our own choice. You're not pro-choice!" Not at all, and I KNEW you'd say that. Here's why, By jumping in front of a car, you are involving the people in the car. You are potentially making that person guilty of vehicular manslaughter. It is no longer 'your body, your choice'. You've made it, 'your body, your choice, everyone else in the car has to live with seeing your guts flying all over their windshield, and mommy goes to jail for killing someone, while living with the grief and guilt'. If you want to kill yourself, do so by not involving ANYONE else, unless you have no other choice (ie. assisted suicide). THAT is why you are too immature to see the extent of your actions, and WHY people your age should NOT be ******** adults. [gossamer]!smile. Quote: By doing something that is harmful to another human being, and can hurt their future, you are not making your own choice. You are in control of that other person's life.
O:
Wow. Maybe this is why Mickey said such things...
good think I can think this through and not be a ******** and rant on like that kitty girl"
- My friend Andrew, just like...three seconds ago. I could give three shits as to what your little teenage friend says. Come back to me what you can pay for the internet you're using. Fetus =/= person as defined by law, so my statement makes perfect sense. You just can't see beyond your teenage ignorance. Little Sally get's pregnant. Little Sally is neither mentally, financially, physically or emotionally capable of handling a pregnancy, let alone giving birth. It doesn't matter how she conceived. It doesn't matter if she had sex with her 45 year old teacher. The fact is, she's pregnant and she doens't want to be. If you can't see the difference between that, and teenagers wanting to ******** adults, then I pity you even more than I did. [gossamer]!smile. Quote: And just because that person said adults having sex with children is wrong, doesn't mean they don't enjoy sex, which is what you insinuated. Obviously, because I don't like quail, I have something against all poultry, and have never had a good drumstick, correct? Gods that's ******** moronic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:56 pm
MipsyKitten [gossamer]!smile. MipsyKitten "Well, you say we shouldn't be able to run in front of a car to kill ourselves, beause it's our own choice. You're not pro-choice!" Not at all, and I KNEW you'd say that. Here's why, By jumping in front of a car, you are involving the people in the car. You are potentially making that person guilty of vehicular manslaughter. It is no longer 'your body, your choice'. You've made it, 'your body, your choice, everyone else in the car has to live with seeing your guts flying all over their windshield, and mommy goes to jail for killing someone, while living with the grief and guilt'. If you want to kill yourself, do so by not involving ANYONE else, unless you have no other choice (ie. assisted suicide). THAT is why you are too immature to see the extent of your actions, and WHY people your age should NOT be ******** adults. [gossamer]!smile. Quote: By doing something that is harmful to another human being, and can hurt their future, you are not making your own choice. You are in control of that other person's life.
O:
Wow. Maybe this is why Mickey said such things...
good think I can think this through and not be a ******** and rant on like that kitty girl"
- My friend Andrew, just like...three seconds ago. I could give three shits as to what your little teenage friend says. Come back to me what you can pay for the internet you're using. Fetus =/= person as defined by law, so my statement makes perfect sense. You just can't see beyond your teenage ignorance. Little Sally get's pregnant. Little Sally is neither mentally, financially, physically or emotionally capable of handling a pregnancy, let alone giving birth. It doesn't matter how she conceived. It doesn't matter if she had sex with her 45 year old teacher. The fact is, she's pregnant and she doens't want to be. If you can't see the difference between that, and teenagers wanting to ******** adults, then I pity you even more than I did. [gossamer]!smile. Quote: And just because that person said adults having sex with children is wrong, doesn't mean they don't enjoy sex, which is what you insinuated. Obviously, because I don't like quail, I have something against all poultry, and have never had a good drumstick, correct? Gods that's ******** moronic. Thank you for that wonderfully intelligent post. I was getting tired of trying to explain all that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
![CAPTAIN Plixy[Stix]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/9c/d6/38b5ddfa1d69c_flip.png?t=1246326560_6.00_11)
