# Voluntary Sex With Minors



## Kane (Jul 1, 2006)

I recently watched a show on MSNBC called "To Catch A Predator";

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12842511/

where the news crew lures adult men into thinking they are going to have consenting sex with minors. For more information read the article.

Anyways, I don't really agree with the shows unorthodox methods to lure these men on national TV in the first place, humiliate them, and then arrest them. One might say that "they deserve it" but is this really the case? In any case I'm okay if a certain news group wants to promote what they think is right and even expose them. It is there freedom of speech. What I disdain is the arrest than soon comes after. This leads me to the point of this thread. Should government criminalize any consenting behavior, between minors or not?

These men are called predators but is this a correct title? To me the word "predator", sexual or not, refers to force. In these cases there is no force. Both individuals (the minor and the adult) are consenting to have sex with each other. There is no force and the minor could have backed off when he or she felt like it. Therefore where is the abuse? Where is the victim? Most would reply "the child" because supposedly a child this old cannot make such decisions. Well I agree to a certain extent, but the people that are supposed to regulate a child are their parents, not the state. A parent should be the one who prevents their children from seeing people who they consider bad people by any means necessary (except abuse). Whether their parents don't want their kids to see an adult who wants to have sex with them, to real sexual predators, to just normal people who they just dislike, ect. this is the parent's responsibility, not the states. These types of laws not only threaten liberty but they also make parents irresponsible. It makes the parents lazy and too reliant on the government to be the parent. It is no wonder why parents are so irresponsible these days.

If we make laws against minors voluntarily engaging in sex with adults, why don't we just criminalize any type of consenting behavior between an adult and a child? Why only sex? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that a certain segment of society believes voluntary sex between a minor and an adult is immoral. But that is their opinion. Sex to me is not a big enough taboo to have special laws against it. Some parents may disagree with the laws and believe a minor of a certain age can handle having sex. In this case the parent should have the power to permit their minor to have sex but under the current system they do not. And this is not right.

Why can't the government just stay out of human relationships unless there is force? I can totally understand if these men raped the minor, in this case criminal action needs to be taken. But if it is just a voluntary act, it should be the parents duty to regulate the voluntary act regardless of what the voluntary act is (sexual or not).

That is my opinion on the matter. What do you think?


----------



## Adept (Jul 1, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> Should government criminalize any consenting behavior, between minors or not?
> 
> Why can't the government just stay out of human relationships unless there is force?



Because there are other ways to get what you want without forcing people, especially with regards to minors, that society has deemed to be immoral. It's why there are false advertising laws. I could concievably pay a modest sum of money to buy a child from a third world country, tell that child that he or she will be given ponies and candy and balloons, but he or she has to have sex with adults, and then set up my own pedophile brothel, with no force involved.

As a whole, most people think sex is a significant enough decision that a certain degree of maturity should be reached before it is made. Thats why, in this (and similar) country at this time the age of consent is 16.


----------



## Kane (Jul 2, 2006)

Adept said:
			
		

> Because there are other ways to get what you want without forcing people, especially with regards to minors, that society has deemed to be immoral. It's why there are false advertising laws. I could concievably pay a modest sum of money to buy a child from a third world country, tell that child that he or she will be given ponies and candy and balloons, but he or she has to have sex with adults, and then set up my own pedophile brothel, with no force involved.
> 
> As a whole, most people think sex is a significant enough decision that a certain degree of maturity should be reached before it is made. Thats why, in this (and similar) country at this time the age of consent is 16.



  False Advertising has nothing to do with this since false advertising is fraud. Murder, force, fraud, and theft are considered by nearly all people of all societies as immoral and should be banished from human relationship. Sex is a much more relative issue.

   However it is *your* opinion that sex is a significant enough decision that requires maturity. You should not be able to force this belief upon others. I agree with you that some maturity and knowledge needs to be known to engage in sex, as in anything in life. But this is the parent's responsibility, not the state's responsibility. This applies to all sectors of life including signing contracts, driving, ect. Sex is no different. And the idea that sex is something different has its roots in Judeo-Christian ideas that sex is "icky" and "immoral". It is no wonder that in the United States sex is in many ways considered worse than violence, even though there is no comparison. Sex is apart of life. Yes people need to be careful when they have sex and safe sex should be taught to everyone. However this is the parent's responsibility. And once the parent decides one is mature enough to have sex they should be allowed to permit the minor to do so. Even then they can regulate who they can have sex with (ie no old men if they choose).

   You talk about 16 being a consenting age but there are still many cases where adults are criminalized with sex with 17 year olds! Now that is silly!


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 2, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> These men are called predators but is this a correct title? To me the word "predator", sexual or not, refers to force. In these cases there is no force. Both individuals (the minor and the adult) are consenting to have sex with each other. There is no force and the minor could have backed off when he or she felt like it. Therefore where is the abuse? Where is the victim? Most would reply "the child" because supposedly a child this old cannot make such decisions.



Predators...* HUNT*! These guys have been shown seeking (via chat-logs)  and finding, then soliciting sex from the (supposed) minors and set up the meeting arrangement for the *sole purpose* of having sex. Knowing full well that the girl they're wanting is far under age (14 yrs. old). 
The perps were LOOKING for these girls. That to me says predatory behavior... particularly, especially specifically when it pertains to minors. 
By any definition... there is no such thing as "consenting" sex with a minor. 
As far as the "no force..." think about this... you got a highly stimulated sexually aroused male with the object of his desire... said desire decides to change her mind... this guy is used to having his way with these girls... you think he's going to say: "oh gee, umm, oh-kay, well I'll see ya later then huh?" 
The sex offenders that I worked with in the treatment center in no shape or form or thought or whatever allowed the minor to dictate how things will go. If they said no, the perp either had then applied force/threats/warning to tell/corcerced the minor to giving in. Not *CONSENT*, surrender. BIG difference. 
Where's the abuse? *IT'S A CHILD* for God's sake! 14 yrs. old! You think a girl/boy that age is going to KNOW the same things that an adult (you or I or anyone else on this board (over 18) is going to know? Absolutely correct that they are not informed/experienced enough to make the proper decision regarding sexual relations with an adult. The minor just does not have full awareness of the consenquences and ramifications and long term effect of sexual activity... particularly when they may (or may-not) be fully sexually mature. This would _include_ emotional and mental maturity as well as physical maturity. More so it is not the perp's place to "teach" the minor these things. As you've observed it is the place of the parent. 
Sadly yes there are parents who do not take that responsibility seriously enough to ensure their child is learning what they need to know to protect themselves. But even so... it is still not up to anyone who gets sexual satisfaction from having "consenting" sex with a minor to be the one to teach them. 
Think one more on this... why are these guys targeting these young pre-teens? What can a 14 yr. old girl give them that a healthy 24 yr. old girl can't? .... How about the inability to say NO! How about raising the odds considerably that the 14 yr. old *won't* reject them when a 24 yr. old knows enough to know that this guy is just another "horny henry" and doesn't care about a _real _relationship? 



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> I recently watched a show on MSNBC called "To Catch A Predator";
> 
> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12842511/
> 
> ...


I saw the show in question... thought it was hilarious at how stupid some of those guys were. My favorite was the guy who didn't cover his face until AFTER he found out some 10 minutes later that he was being filmed... it's like DUH, too late nimrod, we already know what you look like. The attempt to conceal identity also indicates guilt.

I don't care what methods they use to find and catch these guys. IMO...wait, in my STRONG opinion, they have NO PLACE WHAT-SO-EVER in our society.

I've run out of time here but I will be happy to discuss further later. :asian:


----------



## Kane (Jul 2, 2006)

MA-Caver said:
			
		

> Predators...* HUNT*! These guys have been shown seeking (via chat-logs) and finding, then soliciting sex from the (supposed) minors and set up the meeting arrangement for the *sole purpose* of having sex. Knowing full well that the girl they're wanting is far under age (14 yrs. old).
> The perps were LOOKING for these girls. That to me says predatory behavior... particularly, especially specifically when it pertains to minors.
> By any definition... there is no such thing as "consenting" sex with a minor.
> As far as the "no force..." think about this... you got a highly stimulated sexually aroused male with the object of his desire... said desire decides to change her mind... this guy is used to having his way with these girls... you think he's going to say: "oh gee, umm, oh-kay, well I'll see ya later then huh?"
> ...



Again though, it is your opinion that sex is something that has to be treated differently from other things. I agree that sex involves a certain degree of maturity. But so does many other things a child can legally do. Who are you or anyone else to say that sex is something so radically different that needs to be controlled?

I understand that many of these people that consent can become predators, but this is an overgeneralization. Who are you to say that some men wouldn't stop if the minor decides they don't want to have sex? That is like saying anyone that drinks alcohol will automatically abuse the drug.

Speaking of alcohol, many can argue that parents permitting their children to drinking, no matter what the reason, is immoral. Yet in many states this is legal. Should the government then ban parents from permitting their kids to drink, even under controlled conditions where they are present?

Again you may think parents permitting their children to drink and permitting them to have sex is different, but that is your opinion. We shouldn't force one world view over everyone else's. No matter how you look at it, in the end it is the parent's duty to keep their child from drugs, sex, and anything else they find immoral. The state shouldn't have a say, except maybe in protecting the parents right to raise their kids as they see fit.

I would say the same thing regarding children who want to work. We have laws against persons under 16 to work. But should there be any such laws? All of them are under the impression that parents will force their kids into labor. But it is really a cynical way to look at life. If a 12 year old kid wants to work and their parents permit it they should have the right. Similarly If a 14 year old wants to have sex and their parents permit it, it is their right. Children have rights too. Their only limit should be their parents.

By the way, 14 year olds are not considered pre-teens .



> I saw the show in question... thought it was hilarious at how stupid some of those guys were. My favorite was the guy who didn't cover his face until AFTER he found out some 10 minutes later that he was being filmed... it's like DUH, too late nimrod, we already know what you look like. The attempt to conceal identity also indicates guilt.
> 
> I don't care what methods they use to find and catch these guys. IMO...wait, in my STRONG opinion, they have NO PLACE WHAT-SO-EVER in our society.
> 
> I've run out of time here but I will be happy to discuss further later.



Yea, yea some of these dudes were hilarious. Especially the one that wanted the minor to have sex with a cat.:rofl: That was pretty disgusting as well.


----------



## modarnis (Jul 2, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> I recently watched a show on MSNBC called "To Catch A Predator";
> 
> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12842511/
> 
> ...


 
Your obvious ignorance of what the law considers force is frightening. People who prey on children more often than not do not use physical force.  They ply their trade by exploiting children's weaknesses.  They select victims who exhibit low self esteem, teen angst, or other signs that clue the offender that a target is succeptible.  

This grooming process involves building trust and gaining some power over the child.  Photos are a tool these guys use.  They will ask the child to send a pic or 2, then maybe a nude or 2.  They will threaten the child with exposure to school, peers, parents etc.  as a blackmail and control.  Coercion is equal to force.  

Most states have ages of consent where teens are able to give their consent for sexual activity.  If the child is below that age, no matter how many times they say yes, it is still a crime.

Having just returned from a week long course at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, I understand how the internet has created great opportunity for these cretins to ply there trade.  Rather than access to a dozen kids at the ballpark, they have access to millions of potential victims.  If you saw some of the video of these consenting 9, 10, 11  and 12 olds, you would likely have a very different opinion


----------



## Brother John (Jul 2, 2006)

KANE: 
I mean you no offense, just asking here..

From your posts here you seem to be advocating either some type of NAMBLA like agenda
OR
Extreme Libertarian agenda....

true or not?

Your Brother
John


----------



## Swordlady (Jul 2, 2006)

Tell me something, Kane...have you ever stopped to think for a moment about the possible consequences of young children having sex, period?

I've been a social worker for almost eight years, and have spent the majority of my career working with families and chidren.  I've worked with many single mothers (some who started having children when they were 12 years old!) who don't bat an eye if their young daughter becomes pregnant - because that is what they are used to.  Not surprisingly, many of these teen parents wind up dropping out of school and either collect welfare or work at some minimum wage job to make ends meet.  But with the cost of living being what it is today, a minimum wage job isn't nearly enough to take care of a family.

Where these child predators are concerned, do you really think that they are overly concerned about "protecting" their intended victim from the possible consequences of sex (i.e., pregnancy, STDs, etc)?  Why would a thirty-something year old man (statistically, most sexual predators are male) even want to solicit sex from a young child?  Perhaps it is because as MA-Caver also stated, a young child would be less likely to say "no" to the man's sexual advances than a woman his age (who may say "No" because they sense that something about this fellow ain't right).

Think about the whole furor revolving around Michael Jackson.  I'm sorry, but you have to be seriously naive to think that a grown man who admitted to having boys sleep on his bed had "pure" motives.  Mind you, I also fault the children's parents for continuing to send their children to Michael's ranch, even after the initial accusations of sexual abuse back in the early 90's.

Your argument about allowing very young children under the age of 14 to work also doesn't hold any water.  Are you familiar at all with the ugly American history of sweatshops - which had very young children working extremely long hours for mere pennies a day?  THAT was one of the main reasons why a minimum working age for children exists.

Ask yourself again if you really have the children's best interests of heart.  The laws are not just a matter of Judeo-Christian values.  They are there to help protect children from _exploitation_.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jul 2, 2006)

The simple fact of the matter is that children's brains are not developed to the point of making sound choices or processing things beyond their level of maturity. To have sex with an underage child causes long-lasting and deep emotional wounds to the child, whether it is *consensual* or not. Which, in my opinion, it is impossible for a child to have consensual sex at all because they are easily manipulated, and lacking in the cognitive processes necessary for such an adult decision. Their bodies are not fully developed yet and you expect their minds to be? Not only that, we mature physically much faster than we mature emotionally. Sex is for consenting ADULTS.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Jul 2, 2006)

There are numerous laws on the books, designed to protect children from harm.
These laws were drafted, writen, debated and passed after centuries of abuses.
In nations that do not have them, children are still used and abused.
In Thailand for example, you can travel there and enjoy a nive virginal 11 yr old, who is then taken out back and killed since the child is now "used". All for a fee. When you come back to the US, you stand a very good chance of being arrested and locked up as a result. Unless one is very rich or very connected, or in Congress. 

Children and many adults lack the ability to reason and think. Laws have been passed to protect them, from those who would abuse them. These people of course, insist that they are fully capable of making that decision, which is why rape, unwanted pregnancies and abortions are almost non-existant in American society.

Kane, if you are under 17, I can excuse you. If you are over 18, and advocating sex with children, then I will have to consider you a possible sexual preditor, and a danger to society.

The simple truth here is that American children and many adults are not equiped with the reasoning ability to maturely make the decision on sexual activity.


----------



## marlon (Jul 2, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> I recently watched a show on MSNBC called "To Catch A Predator";
> 
> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12842511/
> 
> ...


 
these perverts are an ofense to every child and parent and any such involvement with children is force with intent to damage and is detrimental to society as a whole.  I as a parent do all i can to protect my children and in such a matter will take all the help i can get.
Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 2, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> Anyways, I don't really agree with the shows unorthodox methods to lure these men on national TV in the first place, humiliate them, and then arrest them. One might say that "they deserve it" but is this really the case? In any case I'm okay if a certain news group wants to promote what they think is right and even expose them. It is there freedom of speech. What I disdain is the arrest than soon comes after. This leads me to the point of this thread. Should government criminalize any consenting behavior, between minors or not?



The only thing I might disagree with there is the news crew being involved.  Using Decoys to catch people is fine, probably the best way to do it, hopefully will make people think twice if there is a chance they are meeting a decoy instead of who they thought they where meeting too.

But law enforcement should handle it, news programs shouldn't be making a reality show out of it.

From the looks of things the decoys didn't make the offers in the chat rooms, they just waited until the "predators" did. If the decoys where going in there and asking older men to come and have sex with them, then I would agree that the method is wrong, but that's not what's happening by the looks of things.

But then it is a news agency making a reality show out of it, so I'd hope there is a bit of a investigation into there methods by law enforcement as part of this.

Putting them on TV?  That's perhaps not fair.  Not to them, but to there family's.  What happens after it airs and there kids go to school and classmates say, "Hey, I saw your dad on TV trying to shack up with a 14 year old!"

Whether or not age of consent laws are good or not is another topic I think, but in this context I think you will find very few people that think there isn't something wrong with someone asking a much younger teenager to get together for Sex...  on there first meeting no less...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 2, 2006)

Actually, public ridiculing is fine with me.  The fear of shaming their entire family might cause a few of these scumbags to keep it in their pants.


----------



## Kane (Jul 2, 2006)

All, please read this post carefully.

I guess my opinion here is a bit too extreme for people. However there is a fundamental problem with some of your opinions. You assume I am morally for, say, a 13 year old having sex with an adult. This can be no further from the truth. Maybe you do not understand where I am going with this.

Perhaps you should know something else. I am for the legalization of all drugs. Now are you going to assume that I think our society should be full of junkies that do nothing but drugs?

I am also very against any form of gun control. Does that mean I advocate people going around the country shooting everyone in sight?

I am also tolerant toward voluntary prostitution. Does that mean I advocate every single woman making a living this way?

NO! Of course not! So then I get crap like this;



> and advocating sex with children, then I will have to consider you a possible sexual preditor, and a danger to society.



NO! Look bud, I am a little uncomfortable with homosexual sex, but I think it should be legal. Why? Because; just because I think it is a little sick and a bit unnatural it doesn't mean I have the right to force my opinion upon other people. I think marriage is between a man and a woman, but this is my opinion. Government should NOT force a definition on something so relative.

Similarly, many people in Western countries assume any sexual behavior as evil and this is linked to Judeo-Christian values. In the old Puritan societies it was considered immoral to have sex unless it was for reproduction. As much as we deny it, we still have a very narrow attitude toward sex. What is sex after all? Why should it be treated differently than any other thing that parents would find unsuitable for children. Tell me would any of you consider a grown man teaching a child dangerous martial art lessons immoral? I know most of you would say that it is okay. Even though the grown man is teaching "violence". You tell me should a grown up be engaging in the act of teaching violence to kids when violence is just as bad as sex? Sure he maybe just teaching the child self defense moves but do you know that for sure? Some people get pleasure from beating up children. Perhaps it was an excuse to beat up the child. And you always have to worry about the child using the martial art moves on someone else.

Now you tell me, which is worse? An adult beating up a child or a adult raping a child? Or a child engaging in sex or a child that beats up people with his new martial art knowledge? Most would reply both are bad. Well if that is the case why don't we have special laws about adults training kids in deadly martial art moves? This right can be abused, so why stop with just sexual issues? Maybe it is because our society has an anti-sex bias. 

It is no wonder people think that nudity is equal to sex. People were enraged when Janet Jackson showed her breast in the Super Bowl Game. There were obviously children watching. Parents were upset on how they are going to explain this to their children. WTF!!!!!???? IT'S JUST A FREACKING BREAST! It is a part of the human body that is mainly used to feed young. THERE! Was that really so hard? Would that really be so hard to explain to your children? It is just a part of the body, no different from your hand or leg. I bet most Americans would say that parents walking around nude with their kids is immoral. But what is immoral about it? There are many cultures in the world that walk nude all the time. And there is probably less abuse in such tribal societies.

Please note I am not against grown people teaching martial arts to children nor am I a nudist (although if I am nudist I wouldn't be ashamed to admit it). I am just trying to show the hypocrisy we have for sex in this society. And yes it is linked to Judeo-Christian values. People are now starting to associate even sharing beds as evil sexual activities. For example;



> Think about the whole furor revolving around Michael Jackson. I'm sorry, but you have to be seriously naive to think that a grown man who admitted to having boys sleep on his bed had "pure" motives.



Well guess what? I used to "sleep" with my father in bed! So now I ask you, did my father molest me? Abraham Lincoln slept with a good friend of his. Does that mean he is homosexual? I sometimes still sleep with my mom, as a 21 year old. Tell me, am I having incestuous relationships with my mom?

If you still don't get it by now, I will spell it out for you. I shared a bed with my parents, not sex. Yet in this society you might be charged with child molestation if you do such a thing. In time it will probably be a crime to even kiss your children to bed before child protection services come in and take your child away.



> To have sex with an underage child causes long-lasting and deep emotional wounds to the child, whether it is *consensual* or not.



Really? Well guess what? I had sex for the first time when I was 16. Of course it was with a 15 year old girl, many children in America loose their virginity as young as Junior High (maybe even your kid, how do you know). Well guess what again? I had sex with a lady 24 years old when I was 17. I have no emotional scars and big wounds from the situation. If anything I cherished the those times. Sex is fun and is apart of life. Why would I feel damaged from it?

Which brings me to another point. Do you really think boys after puberty think they have been abused when they have sex? I think our society is forgetting that boys don't usually think of it as "abuse" unless they are pre-adolescent. Just look at the numerous cases between the boys who voluntarily had sex with their teachers. They have no scars whatsoever and if anything they cherish it.

Many people think girls are so much different but I think girls can handle it too as long as its CONSENUAL.



> Children and many adults lack the ability to reason and think.



Yes they do, I agree. Which is why nudity is such a big taboo in our society. People don't stop to think or reason that there is nothing immoral with nudity. Sex is still a negative part in our society. And people think sharing a bed = sex. Heck many adults can't even figure out that violence is worse than sex. Yes I would agree that there are many insanities in our society that cause children and adults to use faith, tradition, and dogma over their reason.



> Laws have been passed to protect them, from those who would abuse them.



And this type of attitude is what leads to the death of liberty and the rise of fascism and/or communism. If we start by the premise that so many laws need to be their to protect everyone from each other and themselves then why should liberty exist at all? You seem like such a big supporter of same sex marriage in other threads. Shouldn't we ban that too because it is a threat to the family? 

Are you of the opinion that all people are fundamentally bad? Well I disagree, and I have proof to back it up. Criminals (who do crimes with a victim, not victimless crime) make up the minority. If anything is making society into people that can't reason and think it is a government who tries to force one way of belief. People usually do what government tells them. And some people just want to rebel for the sake of rebeling (which is why the US has so much more crime than Europe even though laws are more relaxed in Europe in many cases) If the state did not legislate morality and provide welfare programs perhaps we would be living in a freethinking hardworking society. Alas this is not the case.



> Your argument about allowing very young children under the age of 14 to work also doesn't hold any water. Are you familiar at all with the ugly American history of sweatshops - which had very young children working extremely long hours for mere pennies a day? THAT was one of the main reasons why a minimum working age for children exists.
> 
> Ask yourself again if you really have the children's best interests of heart. The laws are not just a matter of Judeo-Christian values. They are there to help protect children from _exploitation_.



What about women? Back in the day it was considered that women were easily as exploitable as children. Should we make laws to restrict the freedom of women to "protect" them? 

Why do you assume that parents will force their kids into labor? It has happened in the past but I think most people today wouldn't do that to their children. I trust that most humans would send their kids to school or raise them in some positive fashion. In South Korea it isn't mandatory (in some regions) for kids to attend school and yet nearly all parent send their kids to school. And South Korea is considered a developed countries by most standards. It looks like your opinion that the government must force parents to do certain things to get a desired effect is not proven.

No offence, but perhaps some of you should think for yourself instead of a government thinking for you. You should also think about the rights you take away when you make laws against a certain segment of society (ie taking away the right of children to work if their parents permit it).



> From your posts here you seem to be advocating either some type of NAMBLA like agenda
> OR
> Extreme Libertarian agenda....



It's not that I'm advocating what NAMBLA wants. I personally think children shouldn't engage in sex until they are at least 15 years of age (by then I would have taught them safe sex). My politics lean toward libertarian and I guess my opinion on the matter is rather extreme for a Westerner. I know though that I have my beliefs and no government should enforce my belief or any other person's belief on someone else. For example my belief that the consenting age should be 15 should not be forced on people, any more than the idea that it should be 16, 18, 13, 14, or whatever.


----------



## Kane (Jul 2, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Actually, public ridiculing is fine with me. The fear of shaming their entire family might cause a few of these scumbags to keep it in their pants.



I'm okay with it too, whether I agree with it or not. But when the government steps in everything goes wrong.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 2, 2006)

Well the objections I would have had about the underage sex have pretty much been gone over  many times, and in far better writing than I'd put together, so I'll just focus on the other aspect of this that bothers me.


What deep seated mental cancer is wrong with Americans that we need these asinine "Reality Shows" to feel entertained anyway?(what they have to do with "reality" is beyond me to begin with).

Between that and the "Most Extreme" this and the "World's Deadliest" that, and the "craziest" other thing---can you imagine writing that letter to your favorite station?

"Dear Station---I'm bored. Please create shows that will shock and horrify me, or I will no longer support your station

Joe Muffinhead
Grab Butt, Idaho"



How's for a little truth in advertising here? Whay don't we call all reality shows "Save the Drama fo' yo' Mama" and all the most extreme deadliest whatevers should be plainly and simply renamed "Idiots Trying To Kill Themselves".

Aren't we starting to feel a bit like the later half of the Roman Empire a little? Regular gladiator games weren't enough, so they had to invent more horrific and bloody spectacles to keep them from , Heaven forbid--being BORED( GASP!!!)

And we know what happened to the Roman Empire now don't we.


----------



## Brother John (Jul 2, 2006)

Kane-
I agree with your sentiment that our society puts a big negative stamp on all things related to sex and sexuality.... and it's not necesary. It can even create some real mental/emotional problems that didn't have to be there and can cause some really strange societal problems that didn't need to be a problem either (as in your example of Janet whipping out her breast). 

But I can't agree with your suggestion, or at least what it seems you are saying, that it's ok for children to have sex with adults.  As many have said, it's far too easy for the hearts and minds of children to be swayed and sex IS mentally emotionally damaging in the wrong contexts.... it's one of the most emotionally powerful things in our lives (extreme intimacy, vulnerability to one another....a connectedness that's difficult to explain in words), and as with any such POWERFUL thing... it...in and of itself, is not Bad OR Good, it's in how it's expressed and used.  I cannot see any rational excuse for adolescents and young teens to be having sex, ESPECIALLY if they are having it with adults. 

........your arguments to make it seem Ok are really pretty shallow.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Swordlady (Jul 2, 2006)

You know what, Kane...your last post just makes it even more clear that you do NOT fully understand the implications of young children having sex.  So you lost your virginity at age 16.  What if that 15-year-old girl you slept with got pregnant?  Would you have been ready to be a father at age 16?  Or would you have been a total schmuck (like a LOT of teen fathers) and abandon the girl to care for her child by herself?  Honestly, you were REALLY damned lucky that you didn't father any children with your irresponsible behavior as a teenager - or at least I _hope_ you didn't father any children during your teen years.  How many teenagers do you know are ready to be parents at age 13?  14?  15?  16?  17?  18?  Shoot...there are MANY adults who aren't ready to be parents at age 30!

Your comparison of teaching a child martial arts to having sex with a child is weak.  (By the way, are you even studying a MA?  Your profile is blank.)  A *real* (emphasis on REAL) instructor would NOT teach a child MA to make him/her more violent.  Even if a child gets injured while training (hopefully, nothing beyond the norm in a dojo), the child would eventually recover for another day.

Having sex with a child (or anyone, period) comes with the VERY real possibility of bringing another life into the world - and once a baby is involved, that changes everything (even if both sides decide to abandon the baby or abort it).  Yes, it may "feel good", but are both parties willing to take total responsibility for their actions, if the female gets pregnant or if someone gets AIDS?  These are very real questions both parties need to think about if they are thinking about having sex.  And you could pretty much bet that your average child does not think that much about the possible consequences of their behavior.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 2, 2006)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> You know what, Kane...your last post just makes it even more clear that you do NOT fully understand the implications of young children having sex. So you lost your virginity at age 16. What if that 15-year-old girl you slept with got pregnant? Would you have been ready to be a father at age 16? Or would you have been a total schmuck (like a LOT of teen fathers) and abandon the girl to care for her child by herself? Honestly, you were REALLY damned lucky that you didn't father any children with your irresponsible behavior as a teenager - or at least I _hope_ you didn't father any children during your teen years. How many teenagers do you know are ready to be parents at age 13? 14? 15? 16? 17? 18? Shoot...there are MANY adults who aren't ready to be parents at age 30!



http://www.sexualityandu.ca/eng/teachers/YSH/intercourse.cfm

First stats I found, place average age for first time at 16.5.

I think there is an assumption there that teenagers can't be responsible about ex and use birth control, but I think that is a flawed assumption if it is there.

But I think this is an entirely different subject then the initial post (teens with teens / age of consent) then adults seeking out teenagers online


----------



## Kane (Jul 2, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Kane-
> I agree with your sentiment that our society puts a big negative stamp on all things related to sex and sexuality.... and it's not necesary. It can even create some real mental/emotional problems that didn't have to be there and can cause some really strange societal problems that didn't need to be a problem either (as in your example of Janet whipping out her breast).
> 
> But I can't agree with your suggestion, or at least what it seems you are saying, that it's ok for children to have sex with adults. As many have said, it's far too easy for the hearts and minds of children to be swayed and sex IS mentally emotionally damaging in the wrong contexts.... it's one of the most emotionally powerful things in our lives (extreme intimacy, vulnerability to one another....a connectedness that's difficult to explain in words), and as with any such POWERFUL thing... it...in and of itself, is not Bad OR Good, it's in how it's expressed and used. I cannot see any rational excuse for adolescents and young teens to be having sex, ESPECIALLY if they are having it with adults.
> ...



I agree with you but again, it is the parent's responsibility to regulate what their children do, not the state. That is the whole point of this thread. Until the crime has been committed (child rape) it should be in the parent's domain. We can't rely on the state to make parents more responsible, they need to be responsible themselves. That includes keeping children away from pedophiles. I understand sex is important to many different people but it doesn't mean it has to be treated specially. Ultimately it is the parent's responsibility and not the government's responsibility for anything, sex or not.



> You know what, Kane...your last post just makes it even more clear that you do NOT fully understand the implications of young children having sex. So you lost your virginity at age 16. What if that 15-year-old girl you slept with got pregnant? Would you have been ready to be a father at age 16? Or would you have been a total schmuck (like a LOT of teen fathers) and abandon the girl to care for her child by herself? Honestly, you were REALLY damned lucky that you didn't father any children with your irresponsible behavior as a teenager - or at least I _hope_ you didn't father any children during your teen years. How many teenagers do you know are ready to be parents at age 13? 14? 15? 16? 17? 18? Shoot...there are MANY adults who aren't ready to be parents at age 30!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Swordlady (Jul 2, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> http://www.sexualityandu.ca/eng/teachers/YSH/intercourse.cfm
> 
> First stats I found, place average age for first time at 16.5.
> 
> I think there is an assumption there that teenagers can't be responsible about ex and use birth control, but I think that is a flawed assumption if it is there.



I disagree.  Think about the average teen's mentality.  Heck, think about any teenager you happen to know right now.  How many of them would you say are COMPLETELY responsible for their actions ALL the time?

Want some more stats?  Take a gander at this website.  Says that teens in the US have the highest pregnancy rate _in the world._  I can believe it: http://www.coolnurse.com/teen_pregnancy_rates.htm



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> But I think this is an entirely different subject then the initial post (teens with teens / age of consent) then adults seeking out teenagers online



That is true.  But then again, a number of posters on this thread (including me) have stated time and again why teenagers aren't _responsible_ or _mature_ enough for sexual activity.


----------



## Kane (Jul 2, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> http://www.sexualityandu.ca/eng/teachers/YSH/intercourse.cfm
> 
> First stats I found, place average age for first time at 16.5.
> 
> ...



Good point. And your post is very much on the same subject as the initial post. If the state has laws regarding on whether teens can consent, they really think all teenagers are irresponsible. Furthermore the state also thinks parents are too irresponsible to watch their kids so they make such laws. Perhaps parents are irresponsible, but it may have to do with the whole "leave it up to the government" attitude.


----------



## Kane (Jul 2, 2006)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> I disagree. Think about the average teen's mentality. Heck, think about any teenager you happen to know right now. How many of them would you say are COMPLETELY responsible for their actions ALL the time?
> 
> Want some more stats?  Take a gander at this website.  Says that teens in the US have the highest pregnancy rate _in the world._  I can believe it: http://www.coolnurse.com/teen_pregnancy_rates.htm
> 
> ...



I think you over-generalize teens too much. You should meet my brother. You will be suprised how much more mature he is than many of my friends (who are in an Ivy league school!).

In any case, showing that teens in America have the highest pregnancy rates only proves the government legislation to prevent it is not working to control teen pregnancies in the first place.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 2, 2006)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> I disagree. Think about the average teen's mentality. Heck, think about any teenager you happen to know right now. How many of them would you say are COMPLETELY responsible for their actions ALL the time?
> 
> Want some more stats?  Take a gander at this website.  Says that teens in the US have the highest pregnancy rate _in the world._  I can believe it: http://www.coolnurse.com/teen_pregnancy_rates.htm
> 
> ...



**** Note: I am Not condoning sex with minors ****

Back in the late 80's some Sex education material that went around the univeristy stated countries like France that had education and it was not such a taboo subject, the children had a much higher virginity rate until 18 and or until marriage. They also had a much lower teen pregnancy and STD rate as compared to many other countries such as the USA. 

Education and lack of Taboo were what was credited as the reasons for this difference. 

*****************************************


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 2, 2006)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Think about the average teen's mentality.  Heck, think about any teenager you happen to know right now.  How many of them would you say are COMPLETELY responsible for their actions ALL the time?



I don't know any adults that are, so that's a odd thing to ask.

However I have met some rather irresponsible, yet married with children, adults.



> Want some more stats?  Take a gander at this website.  Says that teens in the US have the highest pregnancy rate _in the world._  I can believe it: http://www.coolnurse.com/teen_pregnancy_rates.htm



So the question there would be why?

You don't have sex younger there then in other places, yet higher rate of pregnancy.

The difference seems to be attitude, Some parts of the US are so much against it that they refuse to teach teens anything about it.  Places where birth control and safe sex are being taught, and the stigma of teenage sex isn't as bad don't seem to have the pregnancy problem as bad.

Teenagers ARE going to have sex, it's nature, those urges are there.



> That is true.  But then again, a number of posters on this thread (including me) have stated time and again why teenagers aren't _responsible_ or _mature_ enough for sexual activity.



Not sure about that, I get the impression that many believe teenagers aren't mature to have one night stands based off of interenet meetings with much older adults, but this is something very different.

It's also why many places have a close in age exception to the age of consent, for example: 

In Canada it's 14 as the age of consent, but it's moving (moved? ) to 16, unless within 5 years of each other, then it's 14.


----------



## Swordlady (Jul 2, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> I think you over-generalize teens too much.
> 
> In any case, showing that teens in America have the highest pregnancy rates only proves the government legislation to prevent it is not working to control teen pregnancies in the first place.



And I think that you are giving teens a *little* too much credit.

You are correct in saying that it should be the *parent's* responsibility to regulate their children's behavior.  But there also needs to be education from the outside - teaching _both_ parents and their children what constitutes responsible sexual behavior.  Not all parents are knowledgeable or responsible enough to pass on *proper* sexual behavior onto their children (again...consider who I _work_ with...)


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 2, 2006)

Like it's been pointed out by Rich, I think it's the "forbidden fruit" element that exists in the US that doesn't elsewhere.

What's the one thing you do to guarantee a kid will want something? Forbid it, or create a taboo around it to the point you aren't even supposed to educate or even TALK about it.

Same deal with Prohibition in the 20's and we all know how well THAT turned out.


----------



## Kane (Jul 2, 2006)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> And I think that you are giving teens a *little* too much credit.
> 
> You are correct in saying that it should be the *parent's* responsibility to regulate their children's behavior. But there also needs to be education from the outside - teaching _both_ parents and their children what constitutes responsible sexual behavior. Not all parents are knowledgeable or responsible enough to pass on *proper* sexual behavior onto their children (again...consider who I _work_ with...)



Still, the parent's have the school choice. I think in most schools sex education is taught. It is really futile to try to prevent children from having sex. In a free society education (whether from parents or the schools) is the only way.



> Like it's been pointed out by Rich, I think it's the "forbidden fruit" element that exists in the US that doesn't elsewhere.
> 
> What's the one thing you do to guarantee a kid will want something? Forbid it, or create a taboo around it.
> 
> Same deal with Prohibition in the 20's and we all know how well THAT turned out.



Agreed. Teens especially like to take risks. Sex with anyone being illegal to them will only drive them to do it. The same logic applies to everything else including drug prohibition. There is not much difference between sex and drug prohibition.


----------



## Swordlady (Jul 2, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> **** Note: I am Not condoning sex with minors ****
> 
> Back in the late 80's some Sex education material that went around the univeristy stated countries like France that had education and it was not such a taboo subject, the children had a much higher virginity rate until 18 and or until marriage. They also had a much lower teen pregnancy and STD rate as compared to many other countries such as the USA.
> 
> ...



Interesting.  But I don't know if the problem in the US is the lack of education.  Most every school I'm aware of has Sex Ed.  There are countless books on the subject, not to mention how easy it is to find that info on the Internet.  And how could sex be a taboo subject when it is plastered all over television, movies, music, videogames, etc?  I think one of the major problems is that sex has been _cheapened_ by popular culture.  It's no longer about a loving intimate act between two consenting *married* adults.  It's treated as another pastime, like knitting.  And the sad reality is that many _adults_ don't seem to have much of a clue about responsible sexual behavior (e.g., one-night stands, affairs, coerced sex, etc).  How much more do the teens?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 2, 2006)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> Interesting. But I don't know if the problem in the US is the lack of education. Most every school I'm aware of has Sex Ed. There are countless books on the subject, not to mention how easy it is to find that info on the Internet. And how could sex be a taboo subject when it is plastered all over television, movies, music, videogames, etc? I think one of the major problems is that sex has been _cheapened_ by popular culture.


 
No argument there.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 2, 2006)

Sorry I&#8217;m late to this.

Minor = not yet reached the age of consent. 

Therefore there is no such thing as a consenting minor.

Also if someone were not already predisposed to having sex with a minor then any amount of enticement would not work.

Also if a minor could consent then what about a child that is way to young to even understand the question?


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 2, 2006)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> And how could sex be a taboo subject when it is plastered all over television, movies, music, videogames, etc?



Sure it is, look at the Janet Jackson thing.  "KIDS COULD HAVE SEEN A BOOBIE!!!" seemed to be the theme for a while after that.

I'm also quite sure that there is enough "Abstenance Only", "Before marriage is evil" floating around in some places to outway whatever education is there.

Sex may be common in culture amongst adults, but when kids are involved there seems to be a very funny line in the sand that is not to be crossed.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 2, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Sure it is, look at the Janet Jackson thing. "KIDS COULD HAVE SEEN A BOOBIE!!!" seemed to be the theme for a while after that.
> 
> I'm also quite sure that there is enough "Abstenance Only", "Before marriage is evil" floating around in some places to outway whatever education is there.
> 
> Sex may be common in culture amongst adults, but when kids are involved there seems to be a very funny line in the sand that is not to be crossed.


 
Which gets even more fun when it isn't even clearly defined what and where that line IS.......


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 2, 2006)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> Interesting. But I don't know if the problem in the US is the lack of education. Most every school I'm aware of has Sex Ed. There are countless books on the subject, not to mention how easy it is to find that info on the Internet. And how could sex be a taboo subject when it is plastered all over television, movies, music, videogames, etc? I think one of the major problems is that sex has been _cheapened_ by popular culture. It's no longer about a loving intimate act between two consenting *married* adults. It's treated as another pastime, like knitting. And the sad reality is that many _adults_ don't seem to have much of a clue about responsible sexual behavior (e.g., one-night stands, affairs, coerced sex, etc). How much more do the teens?



Sex is put out there as something that sells, yet is not talked about at home. I had sex ed in Junior HS and also talked to those after me for years including those in High School or early college while I was in my 6th year of college and they still had no access to stats on STD's. They were laughed it by their friends if the asked a difficult question in school. Their parents also wanted them to ignore what they had in school. I knew some kids who got to go to study hall during the sex ed portion of the science class. Their parents did not sign the right paperwork so the kids did not get a chance to learn. The internet is all about having to click you are 18, which makes it a taboo. 

Look at alcohol it is all over here as well, but is forbidden until 21. It is in our stores and on the tv and such but is also forbidden. Many people do not talk about the issue of alcohol abuse. 

The same is true in my opinion about Sex. Sex Education is important as well as how the adults handle it. The way we hide it and make it a taboo but flaunt it as well makes it even more appealing to the children. 

I agree that random sex has a big issue on the subject for it seems like there is no consequence for the adults. If a parent cheats and gets caught they get a divorce and no real consequence. Just the children who see it learn from those experiences. 
]


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 2, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Sorry Im late to this.
> *
> Minor = not yet reached the age of consent.*
> 
> ...



AMEN!

Kane: If it were about minors having sex with minors... then that's one thing... What your topic and thread is implying/saying is that it's OK for an ADULT to have sex with a minor (for clarification see above definition of a minor). And we are saying that it is NOT OK! If you want to live in that type of society then Taiwan is a good start because *THERE* it is legal... *HERE* it is *NOT*. That's why these guys are being busted that's why they need to get help. Because morally & ethically it is just plain wrong in the opinions of the American people, who voted in *majority*, for this action to be against the law! 
On a lot of laws I don't agree with.. but on *THIS* one... I'm right behind it 100%. 

Those nimrods *are* breaking the law. And I think it's great that a news-program is helping build evidence against these morons, and the fact that they ran out to get away (from the "trap") suggest an element of guilt on their part which shows that they *KNOW* that what they were doing (solicting sex from a minor) was *WRONG!*


----------



## Ping898 (Jul 2, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Teenagers ARE going to have sex, it's nature, those urges are there.


 

Just as a side note, can we please avoid broad generalizations.  SOME teenagers are going to have sex.  Others of us have made it well into our twenties, having had plenty of opportunities, without giving into the...urges as you put it Andrew, and we have no intention of giving into them until a ceremony has been had and there is a ring found on our finger.  

I think it is naive to assume that if you give kids abstenance only education that seems to be the push of certain leaders that then no teenagers will have sex, that said, I hate it when people assume that just cause a kid/teen has had education about sex and condom that he or she will then go have sex the next day.

My opinion, sex between an adult and minor is never ok.  There can never truly be consent in my book.  Sexual predators seek out minors who are vulnerable, and exploit their weaknesses.  That isn't true consent to me.


----------



## Adept (Jul 2, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> However it is *your* opinion that sex is a significant enough decision that requires maturity.



My opinion, and that of the majority  of people where I live. Thats how democracies work. The majority of people get their way.



> You should not be able to force this belief upon others.



Why not? Society regulates it's own behaviour. In the western world, at this time, we don't want people under 16 having sex. You don't like it? Then mail your local member of parliament/senator/governor, whatever you have where you live, and ask to have the law changed.

I mean heck, it sounds like a great idea for the parents to decide when and who the kids get to have sex with. Then someone can have all their drinking buddies come over and have sex with his four year old son, which he'll gladly do if they promise him a puppy.

You see where this can go? Now sure, this might happen anyway. But at least those people can be punished for it. Under your proposal, the kid wasn't forced, the parent gave his consent, so no wrong has been done. Most people aren't cool with that.


----------



## Carol (Jul 2, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> I agree with you but again, it is the parent's responsibility to regulate what their children do, not the state. That is the whole point of this thread. Until the crime has been committed (child rape) it should be in the parent's domain. We can't rely on the state to make parents more responsible, they need to be responsible themselves. That includes keeping children away from pedophiles. I understand sex is important to many different people but it doesn't mean it has to be treated specially. Ultimately it is the parent's responsibility and not the government's responsibility for anything, sex or not.


 
Disagree.  Too many places in the world where parents are having their 7 and 8 year olds get married, or turning their children into political or financial pawns.  

Examples:

The UN feels that a minimum age of 18 is the best way to protect the human rights of children:

http://marriage.about.com/od/arrangedmarriages/a/childbride.htm


*INDORE, India* While India has been waging a campaign against the traditional practice of child marriage, many people here consider it a failed, half-hearted effort. The government's defeat has been symbolized by the image of Shakuntala Verma, a 48-year-old social worker who lies in a hospital, both arms crudely severed above the wrists. 

Verma believes her limbs were slashed by a local villager, angry at the work she was doing in rural Madhya Pradesh, a state in central India, to prevent about 20 child weddings from going ahead.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/01/news/india.php



> But regardless of your opinion, it is still your opinion. You or I shouldn't have the right to force my opinion on someone else through legislation.


 
I disagree.  I think Human Rights Laws are very important.

Some folks may get their rocks off by diddling girls and boys, and some parents could care less, especially when they are gettin' somethin' out of having their kids getting diddled.  Thats why laws are needed.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 2, 2006)

Kane, honestly I think probably the* best *way for you to understand why (some of)  are so adamantly *against* adult/child sex relations is for you to have your own children... then imagine them being diddled/fondled/sexualized by an adult of say... your father's age. Do this for every year that the child has a birthday... put the picture in your head... of YOUR child... it's easy to do it with someone else's... just make it *your* (for real not imagined) baby/toddler/child/pre-teen/teen-ager/young adult. 


Until then..


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 2, 2006)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> Just as a side note, can we please avoid broad generalizations.  SOME teenagers are going to have sex.  Others of us have made it well into our twenties, having had plenty of opportunities, without giving into the...urges as you put it Andrew, and we have no intention of giving into them until a ceremony has been had and there is a ring found on our finger.



Of course, that's not what I meant.  Some people go there whole lives without having sex.  Same as any other activity.  

But as a whole, a good chunk of the teenage population will.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jul 2, 2006)

I have no problems with their faces being placed on National Television, in fact I like the idea, will make them think twice before they solicit children.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jul 3, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Sex may be common in culture amongst adults, but when kids are involved there seems to be a very funny line in the sand that is not to be crossed.


 
Yes, there is, but I don't think it's a _funny _line, IMO. 

For those who think that this is simply a controversial topic where legitimate differences of opinion occur - would it change your opinion of ME if I bitched about the fact that the "intrusive government" wouldn't let me sleep with my fourteen year old neighbor? After all, she's pretty cute and those high school freshman are always great catches for middle-aged men (obviously not serious - I have no fourteen year old girl neighbor and would jump off of a cliff before I'd touch one, but you get the picture). Would you start to think of me as a possible sexual predator (not accusing the original poster of this, BTW) or simply write it off to cultural differences?

Also, the government legislates "morality" all the time - what about robbery, murder, fraud, etc? Personally, I don't think that adults having sex with fourteen-year olds is a "victimless" crime and I seen no reason for a "libertarian" attitude here. After all, the issue, as originally stated, was that of a fourteen year old and a legal adult. True, I admit to grey areas as to an eighteen year old and a seventeen year old - but not to a fourteen year old and a legal adult.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 3, 2006)

I seem to remember a certain rainforest tribe (I can't remember the name) that initiated a ceremony for girls when they reached their first menses.  The culminating act in the ceremony was a sexual act with an older man.  

According to their spiritual beliefs, this ceremony opened the child's way to womanhood and was very important for the family and the girl in question.

A similar, yet more low key ceremony occured for boys when they started getting interested in the opposite sex.  An older woman would take the young man under her wing and show him how to have sex and the kinds of things that women like.

In the little follow-up reading I've done on this, it seems as if ceremonies of this nature were fairly ubiquitous in the world's hunter/gatherer societies.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 3, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I seem to remember a certain rainforest tribe (I can't remember the name) that initiated a ceremony for girls when they reached their first menses. The culminating act in the ceremony was a sexual act with an older man.
> 
> According to their spiritual beliefs, this ceremony opened the child's way to womanhood and was very important for the family and the girl in question.
> 
> ...


 
There is also a tribe in I believe Borneo that worships airplanes. There are others that believe in scaring that borders mutilation and then of course the tribe that stretches the necks of women and if you go back to China, Pre-Mao it was just ducky to bind women's feet. And there is currently a minority in China that believes it is ok for a woman to have multiple intimate partners but it is not ok for men. However I would not suggest that any of these be practiced in the US or many Modern societies. 

We do not live in the rainforest, we are not a small tribe and we have an INCREDIBLY different society with a WHOLE different set of rules. 

As previously stated, there is no such thing as a consenting minor.

Sorry, the argument does not fly.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 3, 2006)

Most progressive nations have some sort of 'limit' on who can do what to whom when.  See http://www.ageofconsent.com/

Now, one point I will make is that for US Citizens, it's confusing as hell to understand the law, as each state, has different and often very confusing laws.  
The age of consent in some nations is as low as 12. BUT! If you are a US citizen in that country, you better stick to 18+, else risk 10 years jailtime when you return.


> (b) Travel With Intent To Engage in Sexual Act With a Juvenile. - A person who travels in interstate commerce, or conspires to do so, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, or conspires to do so, for the purpose of engaging in any sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age  that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.



Of course, one does not have to be 18 to get married either. In the US, with parental consent, you can marry as young as 14. So I, a 35 yr old, can marry a 14 yr old, as long as her parents agree.
But!  I can't consumate that marriage until she's a few years older and I can't take pictures of her nude until she's 18, else I risk arrest. (Both have happened in the US).

That part, I do think is stupid.

But I do believe that laws should be on the books, in a more streamlined manner, that will help defend those who lack the reasoning and ability to defend themselves against the predators who hunt them.


----------



## Kreth (Jul 3, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> That part, I do think is stupid.


No more stupid than the fact that you can die for your country before you can legally drink...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 3, 2006)

True.  Very true.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 3, 2006)

Going back to the laws.

There are laws on the books defining when kids may work.
There are laws on the books defining what kids may NOT do while working.
There are laws on the books defining how much kids may work.
This is there as employers would (as they did) use kids for dangerous tasks and work them til they dropped.

There are laws on the books that seek to define what and with whom, so as to try and protect kids from adults who will manipulate and abuse them.

If 2 14 yr olds experiment, that is 1 thing.  It's another for a 30 yr old to seek out a 14 yr old.

I have some problems with the laws. They are often confusing, and so varied as to be insane at times.

Hell, look at marriage laws: http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm

I at 35 can marry a 14 yr old in New Hampshire, as long as I get parental permission and a waiver.
I however can't consummate the relationship until she turns 16.
I can't take nude pictures until she turns 18.
Even though this would be my wife.
If she was 17, we don't need the parental ok to marry, and we can consummate the marriage, but I still couldn't take nude photos of her.
She also can't vote until shes 18, and cant drink until 21.
Which means if it's a church wedding, no wine for the bride.

That confusing mess is what bothers me.

But usually older guys who argue about these laws tend to be folks who don't necessarily want to remove crazy laws and the hand of government.
They simply want some young *** to play with.

And those folks...in my opinion....should be hung, drawn and quartered.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 3, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> There is also a tribe in I believe Borneo that worships airplanes. There are others that believe in scaring that borders mutilation and then of course the tribe that stretches the necks of women and if you go back to China, Pre-Mao it was just ducky to bind women's feet. And there is currently a minority in China that believes it is ok for a woman to have multiple intimate partners but it is not ok for men. However I would not suggest that any of these be practiced in the US or many Modern societies.
> 
> We do not live in the rainforest, we are not a small tribe and we have an INCREDIBLY different society with a WHOLE different set of rules.
> 
> ...


 
These girls and boys, *within the context of their society*, are giving consent to sex.  Trying to view these norms within the fishbowl of our society is not going to give you any moral direction in this matter.  The bottom line is that there is no such thing as something that is absolutely right and absolutely wrong.

upnorthkyosa

ps - It is a common reaction to redicule beliefs that are not understood within the context of one's societal norms.  This is usually fueled by ignorance that borders on bigotry.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 3, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> These girls and boys, *within the context of their society*, are giving consent to sex. Trying to view these norms within the fishbowl of our society is not going to give you any moral direction in this matter. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as something that is absolutely right and absolutely wrong.
> 
> upnorthkyosa
> 
> ps - It is a common reaction to redicule beliefs that are not understood within the context of one's societal norms. This is usually fueled by ignorance that borders on bigotry.


 
I am ridiculing nothing, if it is their belief fine. But the post is talking about in the USA and their beliefs you put forth do not apply to the situation nor are the applicable in the US. If you are using it as an example in response to the original post then my response is correct. My example were put forth in order to show you that they are equally as applicable, which is to say they do not apply at all. 

The belief system they have in the rainforest is their belief system and I do not nor will I ever ridicule another system of belief. However it does not apply to the belief systems of Western Society. 

PS - it is also common reaction to give a knee jerk response without actually reading the post one is responding to if one finds it contrary to what they are saying.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 3, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> I am ridiculing nothing, if it is their belief fine. But the post is talking about in the USA and their beliefs you put forth do not apply to the situation nor are the applicable in the US. If you are using it as an example in response to the original post then my response is correct. My example were put forth in order to show you that they are equally as applicable, which is to say they do not apply at all.
> 
> The belief system they have in the rainforest is their belief system and I do not nor will I ever ridicule another system of belief. However it does not apply to the belief systems of Western Society.
> 
> PS - it is also common reaction to give a knee jerk response without actually reading the post one is responding to if one finds it contrary to what they are saying.


 
My argument is simply this...if you claim that "No "Minors" Can Ever Give Consent," then you are wrong.  Absolute statements such as that apply to the entire world if no caveat is given that limits it to just our society.  Clearly, in some places on this Earth, minors do give consent for sex and it is perfectly acceptable for them to do so.

We have no moral arrow in our culture in which to judge this because the cultures in question are two different fishbowls.  This is just another example of the relative nature of morality.

Also, I would like to highlight the contradictions that *Bob Hubbard* pointed out _within our own society_ in regards to this matter.  Apparently, in some circumstances, minors are able to give consent and it is not absolutely wrong.

With that being said, the statement...



			
				Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> As previously stated, there is no such thing as a consenting minor.


 
...clearly has no basis in reality.  "Minors" in cultures across the world give consent for sex and in this country, there are legal pathways for them to do so.


----------



## Kreth (Jul 3, 2006)

Moderator Note. 
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Kreth/Jeff Velten
-MT Senior Moderator-


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 3, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> My argument is simply this...if you claim that "No "Minors" Can Ever Give Consent," then you are wrong. Absolute statements such as that apply to the entire world if no caveat is given that limits it to just our society. Clearly, in some places on this Earth, minors do give consent for sex and it is perfectly acceptable for them to do so.
> 
> We have no moral arrow in our culture in which to judge this because the cultures in question are two different fishbowls. This is just another example of the relative nature of morality.
> 
> ...


 
Interesting, but there is a major flaw in your argument here.

The article that originated this post is not about the Rainforest or Borneo or East Africa or Germany or Israel or Taiwan, It is about the USA. Therefore based on that the statement I made is true and strands. There is no such thing as a consenting minor.   

Therefore any argument to the contrary whether that be based on the rainforest or any other society does not apply. If the article was talking about police arresting natives in a Rainforest for this act then you would have a point, but it is not, it is talking about the USA as am I. 

This is like going to Court in NYC to defend a person that has had sex with a minor and saying your honor my client is innocent because minors can consent to have sex with an adult in the rainforest. I somehow do not think the Judge would be impressed.

Now as to your rainforest example, although I am not certain of this since I have never been there and do not know there laws, I seriously doubt the term Minor is even used. 

Minor, in western society is legal terminology and therefore minors cannot consent to sex.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 3, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Minor, in western society is legal terminology and therefore minors cannot consent to sex.


 
A 16 or 17 year old girl is considered a minor in most states.  If I were to marry her, in some states, she could consent to have sex with me.  Therefore, it *is* possible for a "minor" to give consent for sex.  

This is not a cut and dry issue.  

For example, let say the same girl gives consent to have sex with a 30 year old man.  Does her being married suddenly give her the moral authority to have control over her own sexuality?  

In both situations, this girl is still a minor, however, in one situation this girl can make decisions regarding her sexuality and in another, she cannot.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 3, 2006)

The 2 questions here are:
-Was the person in the rainforest when they had sex?
-Under what grounds/terms may a minor agree to sex legally?

Minor if defined as "Under 14" will usually, but not 100% turn up "never".
Its that 14-17 range thats sticky.

Of course, you need parental permission to marry in at least 5 US states if you are under 21.


----------



## Kreth (Jul 3, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Of course, you need parental permission to marry in at least 5 US states if you are under 21.


Especially if you intend to marry outside the family...
Do I hear banjos?




:uhyeah:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 3, 2006)

Naw.  I'm a Yankee.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 3, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> A 16 or 17 year old girl is considered a minor in most states. If I were to marry her, in some states, she could consent to have sex with me. Therefore, it *is* possible for a "minor" to give consent for sex.
> 
> This is not a cut and dry issue.
> 
> ...


 
Well at least we're out of the rainforest and back in the USA.


And it is still not possible for a minor to give consent to sexual intercourse.

If a person is considered a minor at 17 in Massachusetts and a person is considered a minor at 14 in Nevada (these are examples, I do not know the ages of consent in these states) it is not ok to have sex with a 15 year old in Massachusetts. A minor by definition, by state, cannot consent to sexual intercourse.

It's ok in another state is not a defense. 

Different states have different ages of consent. And in some states you could marry a minor with consent of her parent or guardian, once again not the (legal) consent of said minor. 

This is still not an unmarried minor, as the article is referring to, having sex with an adult. Marriage changes the scenario to something it is not in the article. Adult male not married to a minor looking for sex with said minor is a very different situation.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 3, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Especially if you intend to marry outside the family...
> Do I hear banjos?
> :uhyeah:


 
and are those banjos dueling


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 3, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The 2 questions here are:
> -Was the person in the rainforest when they had sex?
> -Under what grounds/terms may a minor agree to sex legally?
> 
> ...


 
agreed


----------



## Kreth (Jul 3, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> and are those banjos dueling


You shore got a purty mouth there, boy...



:uhyeah:


Random trivia in honor of my 1991st post: 1991 - Jay Leno succeeds Johnny Carson as host of The Tonight Show.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 3, 2006)

Now, here is the question.
I'm legal in my state.
She is legal in her state.
We are married.
Why is it illegal for me to bring my wife home and have relations with her, but not illegal in her state?


----------



## Kreth (Jul 3, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Now, here is the question.
> I'm legal in my state.
> She is legal in her state.
> We are married.
> Why is it illegal for me to bring my wife home and have relations with her, but not illegal in her state?


I believe that's covered under "Illegally Transporting Livestock Across State Borders For Nefarious Purposes."



pwn3d!



:uhyeah:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 3, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Well at least we're out of the rainforest and back in the USA.


 
Yet it remains an interesting comparison...



			
				Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> And it is still not possible for a minor to give consent to sexual intercourse.
> 
> If a person is considered a minor at 17 in Massachusetts and a person is considered a minor at 14 in Nevada (these are examples, I do not know the ages of consent in these states) it is not ok to have sex with a 15 year old in Massachusetts. A minor by definition, by state, cannot consent to sexual intercourse.
> 
> ...


 
Alright, I can accept your argument if you are doing nothing but following the letter of the law in different areas.  The term "minor" is still relative and so is the age at which they can consent to sex.  In order to illustrate this, I'm going to propose a hypothetical situation...

Suppose that a 30 year old man positions a bed right on Four Corners (a place in the US where four state borders intersect) and then proceeds to have consentual sex with a 17 year old girl.  Under whose definition of right or wrong will you hold the man?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 3, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> You shore got a purty mouth there, boy...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
So when does Burt Reynolds show up.

I could have gone for the obvious pig reference, but I won't.

Congrats on the 1991 post


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 3, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> I believe that's covered under "Illegally Transporting Livestock Across State Borders For Nefarious Purposes."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Eeeewwwwwwww.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 3, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yet it remains an interesting comparison...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Depends on which state their genitals were in?

I mean, other than aroused.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 3, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yet it remains an interesting comparison...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In the state(s) where it was legal there would be no problem. In a state(s) where it was illegal he would be charged. Also could add taking a minor across a state line, ..., .


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 3, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yet it remains an interesting comparison...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You are not serious are you????

But I'll bite... It depends on which corner of the bed they are in at any given time. 

However in reality they would both very likely get arrested for being naked in public and committing lewd acts. The best the guy could hope for is the arresting state did not consider her a minor. And he best hope she is not from one of those states and considered a minor and caught on the corner of the bed where she is not because he just took a minor across state lines for the purposes of having sex. Now did she have any alcohol, possibly she was not old enough on that corner of the bed so he would also get hit giving alcohol to a minor.

Now what if a car was traveling 60 miles an hour towards Huston from Michigan and a 30 year old and a 17 year old have sex in the back seat while going from state to state to state. And a Trooper is heading towards them at 75 miles per hour from another sate with New Mexico plate and illegal aliens in the back.... this is pointless... you are looking for justification where it does not exist and trying scenario after scenario until you get one that works... and they never will. The laws of the state are the laws of the state. Crossing state lines may bring in federal law, of that I am not sure.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jul 3, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yet it remains an interesting comparison...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You know the law has a lot of grey areas.  All 4 States could prob charge depending on their definition law.  Not to deviate too much from the topic, but you made me think about a lot of 22-24 yr old girls that I know that even at this age still dont know their head from their ***.  And a 30 yr old man with tell ya what an 18 yr old girl, is prob legal in most states due to the age of consent but let's be realistic the I am pretty sure that 30 yr old guy can give her a run for her money at that age.  Just a thought that came to mind didnt mean to troll.  BTW Happy 4th guys wont be able to post tomorrow.


----------



## matt.m (Jul 3, 2006)

There is no such thing as consent with a minor.  See I believe laws are set via legislation to protect others and themselves against the inappropriate.  Now I am not a prude of any kind.  However, a young girl doesn't have the mindset to decide if having sex is the ok thing to do.  

On the flip side a grown man should not, sorry, in his right mind want to have sex with a young minor.  Myself, I have never dated a girl younger than 2 yrs. younger than myself.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 3, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Depends on which state their genitals were in?
> 
> I mean, other than aroused.


 
Okay, for further clarification, the couple in question makes sure that phallus in question is driving right into the intersecting imaginary lines.  

artyon:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 3, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> You are not serious are you????


 
Kinda...



> But I'll bite... It depends on which corner of the bed they are in at any given time.


 
What if the offending genitals were directly over the intersecting state boundaries?



> However in reality they would both very likely get arrested for being naked in public and committing lewd acts. The best the guy could hope for is the arresting state did not consider her a minor. And he best hope she is not from one of those states and considered a minor and caught on the corner of the bed where she is not because he just took a minor across state lines for the purposes of having sex. Now did she have any alcohol, possibly she was not old enough on that corner of the bed so he would also get hit giving alcohol to a minor.


 
This is just a hypothetical situation, however, if you are going to use the letter of the law as your guide to the absolute statement "no minors may consent to have sex" this example surely illustrates the impossibility of that statement.  



> Now what if a car was traveling 60 miles an hour towards Huston from Michigan and a 30 year old and a 17 year old have sex in the back seat while going from state to state to state. And a Trooper is heading towards them at 75 miles per hour from another sate with New Mexico plate and illegal aliens in the back.... this is pointless... you are looking for justification where it does not exist and trying scenario after scenario until you get one that works... and they never will. The laws of the state are the laws of the state. Crossing state lines may bring in federal law, of that I am not sure.


 
This isn't pointless because what I am pointing out with my hypothetical scenarios is that even the letter of the law cannot justify the absolute statement that "no minors may consent to have sex."  If the laws are different from place to place and you commit an act that is technically in two places at once, then you can theoretically say that a minor gave legal and illegal consent for sex at the very same time.


----------



## Kreth (Jul 3, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Suppose that a 30 year old man positions a bed right on Four Corners (a place in the US where four state borders intersect) and then proceeds to have consentual sex with a 17 year old girl. Under whose definition of right or wrong will you hold the man?


Easy. Her father's... :uhyeah:


----------



## Brother John (Jul 3, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Okay, for further clarification, the couple in question makes sure that phallus in question is driving right into the intersecting imaginary lines.
> 
> artyon:


don't know about morality, but...
at the very least........

that's not sanitary!!!
:ladysman: 
:hammer: 

:uhohh: 

Your Brother
John


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 3, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Easy. Her father's... :uhyeah:


Point


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 3, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Point


Seriously though, maybe the definition of "Minor" is vague?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 3, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Easy. Her father's... :uhyeah:


 
Exactly.  This falls under the "I Choke You" jurisdiction...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 3, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is just a hypothetical situation, however, if you are going to use the letter of the law as your guide to the absolute statement "no minors may consent to have sex" this example surely illustrates the impossibility of that statement. .


 
No actually it doesn't, as stated minor is a legal term if a minor in one state is considered to be less than 14 then no person less that fourteen can give consent since they are in fact a minor. And if a state says a minor is anyone under 18 then no on in that state can grant consent if they are under 18. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This isn't pointless because what I am pointing out with my hypothetical scenarios is that even the letter of the law cannot justify the absolute statement that "no minors may consent to have sex." If the laws are different from place to place and you commit an act that is technically in two places at once, then you can theoretically say that a minor gave legal and illegal consent for sex at the very same time.


 
Nope, see previous comment, it is still pointless. 

Once again 

"Your honor it is perfectly legal in Texas so it must be legal in New York too and since were from Texas it must be ok in New York"

Is not a good defense, and I am betting the judge goes with the letter of the law on this one. 

It still stands and Minor cannot give consent. It doesn't matter what state you are in a minor cannot give consent. What does change from state to state is what is considered a minor. But still a minor in any given state cannot grant consent.

And here's one for you, in some states there are variations on the definition. Doing something with a 17 year old will get you in less trouble that a 14 year old. Different levels of a felony to be exact. Either way a minor cannot give consent for sex.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 3, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Easy. Her father's... :uhyeah:


 
point and match


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 3, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Seriously though, maybe the definition of "Minor" is vague?


 
Yes and no, the definition of a minor is basically "Being under legal age; not yet a legal adult." 

It is the age at which someone is considered a minor that varies from state to state.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 3, 2006)

So if I am dating a 16 yr old, and legally romping with her in my/her home state, but we visit friends in another state, are we still breaking the law? Remember, in both of our cases, under the laws of our home state, we're legally ok.
What if we're married?


(Mind you, I'm just tossing variations out here.)


----------



## Kreth (Jul 3, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> So if I am dating a 16 yr old, and legally romping with her in my/her home state, but we visit friends in another state, are we still breaking the law? Remember, in both of our cases, under the laws of our home state, we're legally ok.
> What if we're married?


It would according to the law where the act occurred. By way of comparison, let's say you drove after having a few beers, but were under the legal limit for DWI in your home state. If you cross the border to a state with a stricter tolerance, you would be guilty of DWI there.



And in honor of my 2000th post: 2000 - Future Martial Talk owner Bob Hubbard is released from Mt Arkham Asylum. Doctors are said to be "cautiously optimistic" about his rehabilitation.

:uhyeah:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 3, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> It still stands and Minor cannot give consent. It doesn't matter what state you are in a minor cannot give consent. *What does change from state to state is what is considered a minor*. But still a minor in any given state cannot grant consent.


 
And that is the crux of this debate.  What you fail to realize is that in the "Four Corners" example, the couple in question is in four places at once.  Four different sets of laws could apply.  Each of them could define "Minor" in a different way and it would be entirely possible for a 17 year old to give consent and not give consent at the very same time under four different definitions.  So, whose definition of what is right and wrong do we use?

Also, I believe that in some states a 17 year old is still consider a minor and it is also perfectly legal for her to consent to sex.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 3, 2006)

"2000 - Future Martial Talk owner Bob Hubbard is released from Mt Arkham Asylum. Doctors are said to be "cautiously optimistic" about his rehabilitation."

I miss the mashed potatoes they had.....


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 3, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> So if I am dating a 16 yr old, and legally romping with her in my/her home state, but we visit friends in another state, are we still breaking the law? Remember, in both of our cases, under the laws of our home state, we're legally ok.
> What if we're married?
> 
> 
> (Mind you, I'm just tossing variations out here.)


 
If married I am guessing your ok, carry you license. 

If not married, not ok. If it were imagine the motels in Border States and the business they would be getting. Now you may or may not be falling under a crossing state lines issue

I no longer pay attention to such things, I'm old and my kids are nowhere near old enough to drink little alone drive. But the drinking age in New York use to be 18 and Pennsylvania was 21. The bars in NY on the border had great business from the 18 to 21 age group. As did the places that sold beer. However if you were or were not from NY and you were caught in PA with beer or under the influence of alcohol you were charged as a minor in possession of or under the influence of alcohol. And Under age drinking, although a problem, is not taken as seriously as sex with a minor. 

But to be honest basically you have to be caught in the act or someone has to witness it and report it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 3, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> And that is the crux of this debate. What you fail to realize is that in the "Four Corners" example, the couple in question is in four places at once. Four different sets of laws could apply. Each of them could define "Minor" in a different way and it would be entirely possible for a 17 year old to give consent and not give consent at the very same time under four different definitions. So, whose definition of what is right and wrong do we use?.


 
Last time: It depends on which state they are caught in. You fail to realize that this is not subjective nor is it an arguable point the fact that sex may have started in a state where it is ok is irrelevant if it goes into a state it is not. 

So the police in State A and C do not care but the Police in states B and D do. You cross the line to either of those state, to quote Monty python,Youre nicked me beauty and off to jail you go. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Also, I believe that in some states a 17 year old is still consider a minor and it is also perfectly legal for her to consent to sex.


 
What states?

And 17 is a very sticky age. 

But once again this entire thing is going WAY of the point of the article. This is in one state, Florida, it was in that state (Florida) they followed the laws of that state (Florida) and it was in that state (Florida) they considered the age of the minor in question to be not of legal age to consent to sex. 

And we are talking about 12 to 15 year olds in Florida being solicited via computer by those from another state. And as much as you dont seem to want to face it, it is illegal. And there are no 4 corners of states involved and I feel perfectly comfortable saying a minor cannot consent to sex. 

You have presented nothing that makes me change my mind here.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 3, 2006)

_*Moderator Note:

Please return to the original topic of the thread.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Super Moderator*_


----------



## Ronin Moose (Jul 3, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> NO! Look bud, I am a little uncomfortable with homosexual sex, but I think it should be legal.


 
Well, you might become more comfortable with it if you ever end up in the slammer.

Yes, you are entltled to your opinions, as are everyone else.  My opinion about anyone who would take advantage of an innocent can be best summed up by quoting Brian Dennehey (as the corrupt sheriff) in _Silverado_, when he said "...well,  we're gonna give you a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging!"


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 4, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> So if I am dating a 16 yr old, and legally romping with her in my/her home state, but we visit friends in another state, are we still breaking the law? Remember, in both of our cases, under the laws of our home state, we're legally ok.
> What if we're married?
> 
> 
> (Mind you, I'm just tossing variations out here.)


 
You fall under the laws of that state. If you are married, the state you are visiting is obligated to honour your marriage licence.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jul 4, 2006)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> You fall under the laws of that state. If you are married, the state you are visiting is obligated to honour your marriage licence.


 
I dont think so, to my knowledge all states have different marriage requirements.  If one State chooses to recognize your marriage even if you are visiting is at their option.  I know technically the do recognize just about anyone who is visiting, for example you are registered in Rhode Island but are visiting Indiana, but I do not think they are required to recognize your marriage.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 5, 2006)

If you are married in New Mexico, you are still married if you visit Colorado


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jul 5, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> If you are married in New Mexico, you are still married if you visit Colorado


 
Yeah, I am not sure if they are required to recognize your marriage, to my understanding, it is typically recognized by different states because typically states give full faith and credit to the decisions of other states, but not because you have some sort of right for New Mexico to recognize your marriage.  Marriage is a state sovereignty issue.


----------



## JBrainard (Jul 5, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> One might say that "they deserve it" but is this really the case?...Should government criminalize any consenting behavior, between minors or not?...In these cases there is no force. Both individuals (the minor and the adult) are consenting to have sex with each other. There is no force and the minor could have backed off when he or she felt like it. ...but the people that are supposed to regulate a child are their parents, not the state. A parent should be the one who prevents their children from seeing people who they consider bad people by any means necessary (except abuse). Whether their parents don't want their kids to see an adult who wants to have sex with them, to real sexual predators, to just normal people who they just dislike, ect. this is the parent's responsibility, not the states. These types of laws not only threaten liberty but they also make parents irresponsible. It makes the parents lazy and too reliant on the government to be the parent. It is no wonder why parents are so irresponsible these days...Perhaps it has to do with the fact that a certain segment of society believes voluntary sex between a minor and an adult is immoral. But that is their opinion...What do you think?


 
I watched that show. Given that they were meeting up with who they thought was a 13 year old girl. Not woman mind you, a girl, I'd say yes, they deserve it. I guess I'm not to that stage of Buddhist understanding.

To answer the second question, the law has to step in sometime. Children (and to a lesser extent young adults) can't really process intense sexual experiences. And what is consent? Does a minor really understand what they are consenting to? Mentally, physically, emotionally? I would say that the vast majority DON'T.

Third point: you're living in a dream world, man. If the teen wouldn't give it up they'd get raped. Duh.

Fourth point: Look around. Parents ARE irresponsible. Parents ARE lazy.
Who is left to protect the child who born to dead-beat parents?

Fifth point: Our outlook on adult/minor sexual relations is mostly based on the general morality of our society. That really is a moot point, though. See my answer to the second question.

What do I think? That you are sadly idealistic.


----------



## JBrainard (Jul 5, 2006)

Oops.


----------



## JBrainard (Jul 5, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> Who are you to say that some men wouldn't stop if the minor decides they don't want to have sex?


 
Sorry to everyone in advance for insulting a poster, but... is this guy mental or something? I'm seeing thought processes that are very detatched from reallity.


----------



## JBrainard (Jul 5, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> Which brings me to another point. Do you really think boys after puberty think they have been abused when they have sex? I think our society is forgetting that boys don't usually think of it as "abuse" unless they are pre-adolescent. Just look at the numerous cases between the boys who voluntarily had sex with their teachers. They have no scars whatsoever and if anything they cherish it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 5, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> Which brings me to another point. Do you really think boys after puberty think they have been abused when they have sex? I think our society is forgetting that boys don't usually think of it as "abuse" unless they are pre-adolescent. Just look at the numerous cases between the boys who voluntarily had sex with their teachers. They have no scars whatsoever and if anything they cherish it.


 
Wow, how did I miss that statement?

And of course all the scandal that is and has been going on with the Catholic Church apparently didn't even enter into it when you asked this question.

The answer is in some cases YES they do believe they were abused, they do feel guilty and they sometimes suppress it because our society says men are tough. 

And I suggest you read this response again too (the one just before this one and quoted here). Assuming you are reading any of them at all.



			
				JBrainard said:
			
		

> You have no clue what kind of effect sex with an adult has on adolescent boy. Yes, some are fine. Some need years of therapy to get thier head strait. Others become so screwed up they kill themselves.
> How do I know this? Take a wild guess *******.


 
And more to the point of the post, an adult online, soliciting a child they KNOW to be younger than 16 is just plain WRONG and I have absolutely no problem saying that adult is a predator.


----------



## MJS (Jul 5, 2006)

*Moderator Note. *
*Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.*

*-Mike Slosek*
*-MT Super Moderator-*


----------



## JBrainard (Jul 6, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> *Moderator Note. *
> *Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.*
> 
> *-Mike Slosek*
> *-MT Super Moderator-*


 
I apologize for my use of explatives. Kane's ignorant statements touched an old wound.


----------



## Adept (Jul 6, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> If you are married in New Mexico, you are still married if you visit Colorado



But how would that work with say, a gay couple legally married in, I dunno, Holland or wherever it is legal?


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 6, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> And more to the point of the post, an adult online, soliciting a child they KNOW to be younger than 16 is just plain WRONG and I have absolutely no problem saying that adult is a predator.


 
Wow, this brings up a question too... while Im sure very very rare compared to the opposite, I can assume it COULD happen... what if a minor Solicits an Adult... or poses as an adult, develops an online relationship and then meets up and is a minor?

Is the adult at that point the Victim or the Predator?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Wow, this brings up a question too... while Im sure very very rare compared to the opposite, I can assume it COULD happen... what if a minor Solicits an Adult... or poses as an adult, develops an online relationship and then meets up and is a minor?
> 
> Is the adult at that point the Victim or the Predator?


 
Wow, It makes the child a minor and the adult an adult. 

That is assuming once the adult realizes this is a child they back off. If they take advantage of the minor at this point it makes the adult an idiot and very likely they will end up with the label of Child molester, if caught. But not a predator, they were not hunting for a minor online posing as something they are not in order to take advantage. 

And I still hold to no amount of solicitation by said minor would cause an adult to have sex with this minor unless the adult was predisposed to this type of act in the first place. But it is possible that the adult truly thought the child was 18 or older. However the fact of the matter is it can mean absolutely nothing in court in at least my state. I am not sure of the laws in all states, but I am guessing they are similar.

There was a similar situation that a friend of mine was involved in the investigation of. The girl was 14 or 15 the male was in his thirties or forties, married with children. The girl told him she was 18, he believed it. She had a diary that she wrote everything down in. Her parents found and read the diary. The guy was arrested and went to jail, not to mention lost his job and family. 

It does not matter if a minor tells you they are 18 when they are 14 the adult is still the one that is held responsible. Does that make the adult a victim, possibly? But it matters not to the prosecution or the court. As the statement came out in this case, "one would think the Menudo poster over the bed was a dead giveaway". Even though he never was at her house. And before someone jumps on the obvious, I have absolutely no idea where her parents were or why they had no control. (This case was a long time ago)

As for the 14 or 15-year-old girl, I have no idea what happened to her other than being grounded by her parents. But she certainly did not go to jail or loose her job and family. 

Scenario after scenario after scenario is pointless if the child is considered a minor that has not yet reached the age of consent.


----------



## tradrockrat (Jul 6, 2006)

I really can't afford - emotionally - to get into this debate, but I just have to post once, and then I will not be posting again.

Kane - your idealistic approach to you Libertarian beliefs is actually not a bad thing - but you are missing the fundamental truth of humanity- give an inch, and they will take a mile.

I work every day with the aftermath of rape, stautory and otherwise.  I have several students who have been through it.  In your zeal to acknowledge consent you neglect the reality that most victims are NOT emotionally, socially, or mentally adult enough to know what consent means.  When others mention this, you and others like you fall back to a specific age in your argument, like "Oh yeah?  So 16 isn't old enough?  It was for me!" etc, etc, etc.

Well the reality is if there were no statutory laws, then it wouldn't just be 16 and 17 year olds.  It'd be 13, 11, or even 7 years old,and even younger than that.

The ages set out in the law are based upon societal norms and usually take into account the fact that while SOME 16 year olds may be ready and willing - and we all know that they are out there - SOME are not.  So the law errs on the side of caution.

I'll sum it up with this:  

FACT: many people that are pedophiles aren't in it for the sex - they are in it for the control and the power that comes from dominating and brainwashing a young child into being a source of sexual gratification.  There is no love involved, informed consent is in fact exactly what they DO NOT want because it defeats the whole purpose.  

FACT: Many other pedophiles are former victims themselves - a fact that would tend to indicate that there is definitely damge caused by the trauma of statutory rape.

Kane - your idealism doesn't hold up under the scrutiny of reality.


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jul 9, 2006)

There is physical force, and psychological force. Both are very deadly. Most young girls are not wise to the mental games adults play, so its up to the parents to educate them and keep them safe. The law is there, but in most cases they show up after the damage has been done.


----------



## bignick (Jul 10, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> If you are married in New Mexico, you are still married if you visit Colorado



A note about this...states don't recognize marriages because they're nice...they are required by law to give full faith and credit towards things like marriage that has been recognized by another state.  This also raises a giant issue with DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) that was instituted so if one state allowed homosexual marriages, other states wouldn't have to recognize it...



> Section one of Article Four of the United States Constitution is known as the *Full Faith and Credit Clause*. It was primarily intended to provide for the continuity between states and enforcement across state lines of non-federal laws, civil claims and court rulings. Without this clause, enforcement of state-to-state extradition, portability of court orders, nationwide recognition of legal status, out-of-state taxation, spousal and child support, and the collection of fees and fines would all be impossible without separate federal action, or a similar action by the other states.


----------



## Ronin Moose (Jul 11, 2006)

Seems like *KANE* spun us like a top, then stepped back to watch the fireworks.  We haven't heard from him in several pages (not that I really want to).


----------



## JBrainard (Jul 11, 2006)

Ronin Moose said:
			
		

> Seems like *KANE* spun us like a top, then stepped back to watch the fireworks. We haven't heard from him in several pages (not that I really want to).


 
He's probably busy keeping up his strong denial of how his sexual history may have screwed his perceptions. I once knew I guy who talked just like Kane did. He was mollested when he was 8.


----------



## MJS (Jul 11, 2006)

This thread has pretty much run its course.  At this time, its being closed for discussion.

Mike Slosek

MT Supermod


----------

