Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about we mandate parental approval for what age and with whom that their kids are allowed to date and possibly have sex with.
Since the parents have to deal with the fall out; A mandated parental approval would help eliminate their kids from dating or sleeping with a user, knucklehead, abuser, etc. ...
Hey ... how about a written consent form?
It could read like this: "The undersigned is the legal parent of Miss Tiffany Quackenbush, 16 years of age and residing at 123 Morning Glory Lane, and authorizes Mr. Justin Kepple, age 17, to engage solely in the following types of sexual conduct: mutual masturbation and the male performing oral sex (cunnilingus) on the female. No other sexual activity is allowed. If the terms of this contract are violated, legal charges will be pressed against Mr. Kepple. Additional criminal charges will be leveled if any attempt by Mr. Kepple to engage in anal sex takes place."
So? How does changing the term for preying on teens make it less scandalous? They were priests, for heaven's sake! What's your point?
Where was it mentioned Juliet was 13? I recall comments that they both were around 15/16. Back in their day, it was rare for girls to have passed through puberty by 13. 15 was more typical.
It was indeed scandalous behavior on the part of the priests, who are supposed to be chaste and celibate. Not only that, it was inappropriate, criminal, and psychologically damaging to the young victims ... whether they were 8, 10, 12, 14 or 16 years of age. These crimes were heinous, and the cover-up in some cases was despicable. We are in agreement. The argument for using different terminology does not lessen the crime.
Shakespeare mention's Juliet's age in the play itself, Juliet is 13. Look it up.
Then you will have 40 year old guys saying that he thought the developed 14 year old was actually 16.
Pedophiles like to play dumb or coerce younger girls to say they lied about their age if they get caught. But consent at 18 makes it harder to act like the developed 14 year old looked 18.
Even if some do.
I don't think we're supposed to make laws based on this kind of logic. It's too narrow.
Also, pedophile is used too often as having sex with a minor. That's not what it is. It's the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. This is generally considered 13 and younger, but it's based more on development than age. An attraction to a 14 year old is hebephilia, which is similar, but not the same thing. Then there's ehebophlia, which is likely pretty damn common and even has a biological logic backing it, but is socially frowned upon, sometimes for very valid reasons. These words aren't used because they don't carry the same weight. Which is why there are sex offenders who have sex with 16/17 year olds that get called pedophiles.
I'll say this again, we don't need super black and white laws to protect children from sexual predators.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabba-Doo-84
I tend to waffle on this issue every 6 months or so.
I think it's mostly a political issue when most states require age of consent to be 18. After all, even in a very liberal state no Congressman is going to run a campaign asking to lower the age of consent so that teens can legally have sex with adults. That would be political suicide in any state or district.
However, we've all been horny teens at some point and fully understand the mechanics and emotional issues involved with sex by age 16. Does society really care if a 24 yr. old man has sex with a 16 yr. old girl if they are in love and care about each other? Remember, this was routine behavior before 1900 in the United States and the rest of the world. Also remember that any rational person should be a LOT more scared that a 16 yr. old is operating a 3000 lb. car on the roads at high speed, whereas doing the nasty in a bedroom doesn't threaten the public safety.
Personally, I think consent should never go below 14 yrs. old since I remember being that age and barely understanding what sex even was. However, I remember hearing a lot of dirty jokes and looking at Penthouse Magazine when I was 15 and probably could've handled having sex at that age (even though I didn't lose my virginity until 18) without any "psychological damage" that lawmakers seem to care so much about.
I really feel the law needs to be more concerned with consent than age. As I said earlier, we don't need an age of consent to know it's suspicious when a 45 year old man is touching a 12 year old boy. Surely people don't think that's wrong because it's illegal.
That's not even me saying a 12 year old couldn't be hormonal. At 12, I had a vague understanding of what sex was (though was pretty much wrong about all of it), and was certainly curious, but wasn't actually interested in being sexually active. At 15, I would happily of have sex with an older woman.
This logic that anyone under that age of consent (or 18 as most think that's what it is) are pure and innocent is pretty detached from reality. Be logical and reasonable. We really don't need a law saying when someone can consent, just that consent must be required (without manipulation) to a person who would reasonably agree. Sure, a child molester could argue that the 9 year old he touched agreed, but most of us are pretty much in agreement that that is nonsense. We don't need a consent law to reach that conclusion. Just the capacity to think.
Does society really care if a 24 yr. old man has sex with a 16 yr. old girl if they are in love and care about each other? Remember, this was routine behavior before 1900 in the United States and the rest of the world.
Before 1900, the woman's opinion/consent wasn't really factored in heavily.
Bad example.
Last edited by Jeo123; 08-11-2015 at 06:33 PM..
Reason: Merged Posts
There is a range associated with age and how it is termed. I was aware that they tweaked pedophilia into two groups but I had no idea there were the many different combinations in this article and beware, it can revolting: Definitions of some sexual terms relating to child sexual abuse
One of the thoughts I had since I posted earlier has to do with the law and mandated reporters or others that become aware that a child, say your 13 year old, is having a sexual relationship with a 25 year old. This is something that should be reported to Child Protective Services since the parents are being neglectful and the 25 year old is exploiting the 13 year old. Don't even tell me how much they love one another! So, you might not mind what your 13 year old does but the law might come a knockin' at your door.
I think some of the true pervs, much like people with other addictions, put themselves in a position to prove that they can resist, to prove they don't have a problem and just like those with other addictions, without proper medications/counseling, they give in. Others are just plain evil.
Let's face it, some parents are just too stupid for there not to be laws in place that protect their children. And, these young teachers that can't keep their hands off the students is a good reason to make a distinction in age differences when it comes to the law.
You have to draw the line somewhere. Personally, as a parent I would not want to draw up an contract and sign it for activities that were against the law.
Perhaps a couple of interesting examples to throw into the mixer.
My mother was 16 when she married my father who was 27. I was born before she was 18. She was also a sophomore in college where he was also a student. It did not work out great...but not bad. I suspect she was very difficult but I did not have a good viewing platform.
Good friend and coworker was 28 when he married a 13 year old Alabamian. He was a graduate engineer who stumbled upon a very aggressive southern sweet young thing and off they went into history. He did well by her for 35 years then got old and she is still returning the favor. At the end they will be about equal. v She actually had her first child at 15 on an LA Freeway stuck in traffic. She ended up a grandmother in her 20s and a great-grandmother before 45.
Shouild my father and my friend have been sent up the river and then forced to register forever?
Charlie Chaplin had sex with 13 and 14 year old girls, and that's why he ran away to Europe. Polanski did the nasty with a 13 year old, served time, and ran off to France, Errol Flynn had a 15 year old girlfriend, the list goes on and on...
Oh, and Jerry Lee Lewis married his 14 year old cousin!
Last edited by Jeo123; 08-12-2015 at 07:47 PM..
Reason: Merged Posts
Perhaps a couple of interesting examples to throw into the mixer.
My mother was 16 when she married my father who was 27. I was born before she was 18. She was also a sophomore in college where he was also a student. It did not work out great...but not bad. I suspect she was very difficult but I did not have a good viewing platform.
Good friend and coworker was 28 when he married a 13 year old Alabamian. He was a graduate engineer who stumbled upon a very aggressive southern sweet young thing and off they went into history. He did well by her for 35 years then got old and she is still returning the favor. At the end they will be about equal. v She actually had her first child at 15 on an LA Freeway stuck in traffic. She ended up a grandmother in her 20s and a great-grandmother before 45.
Shouild my father and my friend have been sent up the river and then forced to register forever?
I don't think anyone should be on a registry forever unless it was a serious or violent sex offense, or if it was done with a prepubescent child who has no idea what's going on.
1) Your mother was 16 marrying 27 y/o father: while it's not a very good idea by some people's definitions, it's not THAT bad, as in, bad enough to get the police involved. The age of consent is 16 in some states anyway. I mean, a 16 year old does have somewhat the mental capability to make decisions like that, but I'd say it's fine if the other person isn't older by more than 15 years or so.
2) The 28 year old and a 13 year old is kind of pushing it, that's still a little young.
The "age of consent" ... when two consenting and rational people can legally engage in sexual activity - what age should it be?
I honestly don't know. Can you give me your opinion, and perhaps give your reasons?
Everyone has heard of William Shakespeare's play "Romeo And Juliet" but not everyone is aware that Juliet's age was mentioned: she was 13. We are not sure exactly how old Romeo, but most scholars believe he was probably 16 to 18, maybe younger or maybe a little older.
Comedian Charlie Chaplin had a relationship with a 15 year old girl.
There was a scandal involving a auto body repair shop owner, Joey Buttafuoco, and the "Long Island Lolita" Amy Fisher. Joey was in his late thirties at the time and Amy was 16. Joey served 4 months in prison for "Statutory Rape."
I've heard the argument concerning the infamous world-wide scandal involving Roman Catholic priests that it wasn't fair to label all of them "pedophiles" and child molesters because in some cases the victims were teenagers past puberty and therefore some of these priests should be more properly called "ephebophiles."
What's your opinion?
This is true, but pedophilia is a term used in the mental health/psychiatry/psychology fields, not the same as the age of consent which is purely a legal and arbitrary designation.
One of the issues with having an age of consent like 13 is that age is often a judgment call, because few people say "Honey, May I please see your ID before we proceed?" and of course it is common to lie about one's age. So if the age of consent were lowered to 13, you'd be having 10-12 year olds who look a bit older and lying about their age to get into a relationship their partner may believe to be legal - and this is a serious problem because 10-12 year olds are still children in every sense and need to be kept out of it. So an argument can be made that due to lying about age and the inability to exactly determine age from appearance, perhaps we need the AOC to be 15 just to provide a "cushion" of sorts.
I agree that consent should be the focal issue of any law about sex with a minor. However, I think states just want a "quick and dirty" solution to potentially complex criminal cases that would require intense cross examination of a teenager by an aggressive defense attorney about "did you or did you not consent to having sex with the adult defendant?". It's already well-known that courts don't particularly enjoy dragging under-18 people into court to give sworn testimony since it's painful for everyone involved.
For better or worse, 18 is going to be the age of consent in the U.S. for a long time. Then again, I didn't think I'd ever see recreational marijuana use be legalized in any state but we see how that turned out. I personally wouldn't have a problem with age of consent being lowered to 16 since just about every kid that age is already sexting and looking at hardcore porn online, so we need to stop acting Puritanical about protecting their "innocence" since it's long gone by then.
Modern political discourse requires a reaction to something to have big change. Only things like this seem to change public opinion in a relatively short time. There's some talk about a 19 year old kid who slept with a 14 year old who told him she was 17, and how is treatment as a sex offender was unjust. This is one of those few instances where people talk of a sex offender as if they're a human and actually are critical of the system. But even that hasn't gotten too big.
As it is, I find the sex offender registry silly. It's too broad to be effective. And my thinking is that it's totally find to put dangerous predators on a public list, but if they're dangerous, why aren't they just in prison? And if they've been released, shouldn't we be confident that they're not longer dangerous, thus don't need to be on a list? But I'm thinking too big picture here.
Courts don't like dragging minors into cases, which is why I think the concept of 'statutory rape' needs to go. All that is is the government saying one of the two wasn't allowed to have sex because the government says so. It's not a rape at all. Rape should be viewed as rape; forced sex. We shouldn't expand that just to muddy up the system. When a minor, especially a child, is raped, it's horrifying and we should do something. But let's not have collateral damage to harmless people in our justifiable crusade against sexual predators.
I stand by my point; an age of consent sounds better than doing nothing, but it's not more or less effective. Realistically, child molesters aren't going to be more likely to get away with it if there isn't an age of consent or it's been lowered. Same goes for rapists.
And indeed, things like porn and sexting have made sexuality more accessible to younger people. We need to adapt to this world instead of using the logic from a non-digital age. It's obviously not so compatible. We should be talking about things like porn in a neutral way; it's neither good nor bad. I'd argue it can be good in terms of sexual exploration, but can also be bad in terms of things like porn addiction or detachment issues. We really need to think about how we teach sex education and accommodate for these societal changes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
