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.
Sex offenders are singled out for "special attention" because this country was founded by Puritans and still has not come to grips with the essential neutrality of sexuality. When consensual, sexuality is neither good nor bad - it simply is.
This terrifies most Americans, who often take their cues for what is right/wrong, moral/immoral from the mainstream media, which tends towards demonization or hysterical reporting of crimes, especially sexual crimes.
This results in excessive, irrational responses that often have very negative and unintended consequences.
For example, by severely stigmatizing sex-offenders, who may have done nothing more than expose themselves, they create an incentive for more serious criminals to kill their victims, rather than freeing them. What parent in their right mind would not rather see their child returned, though molested, than never to see their child again?
Similarly, strict legislation surrounding "child pornography" has led some teenagers, who do naturally stupid things, to be labelled "sex offenders" for life simply by posting vulgar pictures on social media sites.
And who can forget the trauma, damage, and injustice perpetrated in the horrific McMarten childcare case, where children were led to "reveal" acts of molestation that never ocurred by well-intentioned social workers and child psychologists?
It is time for this nation to grow up and take a more reasoned and thoughtful approach to sex laws, as well as other laws that prohibit acts that have no victims.
The problem is people often legislate to prevent the worst of the worst from getting light sentences, since many people before decided the crime wasn't bad or fought so hard they got off light to just do it so many times that it was necessary to enforce very tough standards. So anyone who might be considered under the criminal statute will be pushed in the same group.
The unfortunate part is there is no way to legislate common sense, where one may have a crime that falls in a general category is not always the same level of crime. Since people who did things that were really no no's got off lightly, people decided to close it off for everyone.
Assault is another big one, where it can range from violating some one's personal space to threating people to slapping some one (I knew some one who was drunk and accidentally tripped and shoved some one, even after apologizing profusely). Big variation in terms, all require similar punishment buy defining regions (robbery, officer, aggravated, weapon).
I was surprised - even shocked - to find that in the US you seem to have 200 different sex crimes classed as felonies. Puts me in mind of a mistake we made here in the Old Country some 200 years ago. More and more crimes became capital offences until the list ranged from the gravest offences by any standard to such petty crimes like stealing a pocket handkerchief and scrawling graffiti on Westminster Bridge. In short, at one point we had as many as 223 capital crimes on the statute book. Then juries started refusing to convict - no way were they going to send a fellow-creature to the gallows for what they considered a trifling offence. Parliament got the message, and reduced to the number of capital offences drastically; murder, high treason, arson in a naval dockyard, forging a Bank of England note, and rape. The last ceased to be capital in 1861. What recognised sex crimes do we have in the UK? Well, there is rape, along with incest, sodomy(or buggery as we call it) with anyone under 16 and heterosexual sex with anyone under 16(18 if the other is an authority figure in relation to the other). Under 13 - that's a felony. 13-15 - that's a misdemeanour. There used to be a range of penalties, depending on the relative ages of the two. About same age(underage teens) - probation, with sending to reform school if non-compliant; 17-21 - a term in 'Borstal', as it was called; over 21 - gaol for up to 2 years, up to life if she was under 13.
This started with 'The Kinsey Report' it has indirectly brought down the whole nation. Whay happend in that 'research' was pure evil. Starting with infants as young as 2 months old.Mostly orphans were taken to experiment on by some of the most evil people on earth.
This was in 1946-49.Read or google 'Kinsey Report,Crimes and Consequinces' by judith Reisman.Prepare to be shocked about what happend to these children. All for the agendas that are realized today through certain groups and lobbies.
There's a way to protect children from pedophiles while not unjustly punishing teens and (very) young adults who have sex with minors who are close to their own age. It's called a "close in age exception". Basically, if one or both of the people having sex are under the age of consent (where I live, it's 18), if they're both within, say, four years of one another's age then it's not a crime. It's an ingenious idea that should be adopted everywhere, and four years strikes a great balance between protecting minors and not criminalizing consensual peer-to-peer sex.
Age of consent laws exist for a reason, that's to protect minors from sexual advances from adults. Like it or not, many teens are going to have sex, and that shouldn't be criminalized if it's consensual sex with their own peers. The OP's example of a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old falls firmly within the "close in age" category.
There's a way to protect children from pedophiles while not unjustly punishing teens and (very) young adults who have sex with minors who are close to their own age. It's called a "close in age exception". Basically, if one or both of the people having sex are under the age of consent (where I live, it's 18), if they're both within, say, four years of one another's age then it's not a crime. It's an ingenious idea that should be adopted everywhere, and four years strikes a great balance between protecting minors and not criminalizing consensual peer-to-peer sex.
Age of consent laws exist for a reason, that's to protect minors from sexual advances from adults. Like it or not, many teens are going to have sex, and that shouldn't be criminalized if it's consensual sex with their own peers. The OP's example of a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old falls firmly within the "close in age" category.
There was a case like that near me at a prep school. Owen Labrie was 18 when he had sex with a 15 year old girl at his school. He will spend the rest of his life registered as a tier II sex offender. But the girl and her mother have gone on the news and complained about rape culture. How can a politician oppose the sex offender registry when some sweet innocent looking young girl and her mother are going on about rape culture?
Here's a really good article in Huff Post: Sex Offender Registries Don’t Keep Kids Safe, But Politicians Keep Expanding Them Anyway
Lawmakers are using “stranger danger” myths to keep almost a million Americans out of work and on the verge of homelessness.
The registry now includes more than 900,000 people, a population slightly greater than Vermont’s. At least 12 states require sex offender registration for public urination; five apply it to people charged with offenses related to sex work; 29 require it for consensual sex between teenagers. According to Human Rights Watch, people have been forced to spend decades on the registry for crimes they committed as young as 10 years old. ..
What explains these relentlessly tightening restrictions, Levenson said, is the domino effect that happens every time a city or state strengthens their registration laws. Politicians in neighboring jurisdictions, fearing an influx of offenders, feel they have no choice but to tighten their own. In April, Tennessee passed a new law restricting sex offenders from being alone with their own children, a direct response to a similar provision in Alabama....
These laws are passed with good intentions,” Levenson said, “but they’re based on myths about sex offenses and they don’t keep people from reoffending. Community safety is important, but we need evidence-based policies that allow offenders to reintegrate into society. All we’re doing now is putting people in a position where they have nothing to lose.”...
Researchers consistently find that sex offenders are in fact less likely to reoffend than other criminals. A study of nearly 1,800 sex offenders across four states found that only 10% reoffended in the decade after their release from prison — far lower than the 83% recidivism rate for parolees convicted of other crimes.
In order for sexual activity to be considered "consensual" both (or all) parties need to meet or exceed the age of consent....right?
All these posters claiming that a 15 year old girl should be entitled to engaging in sexual intercourse with 40 year old men (the majority of these posters are probably males), most likely do not or have not had a 15 year old daughter.
'Grooming', anyone? Talking about how much better a 40 year old man would treat a teen girl he is sexually exploiting brings the taste of vomit into my mouth.
I did not have a 15 year old daughter, but I was one, once.
My unpopular opinion on this subject comes of my own experiences. And I think that part of the issue is that people don't really understand the problem. One would imagine that an older guy might "prey on" a younger gal by seducing her, using her sexually, probably leaving her all sad and abandoned after, moving on to find new prey... Not really, in fact. I was very sexually active as a teenager, and the thing was, I was able to consent to sex, I was able to (with parental support and guidance) go get tested frequently, take my birth control meticulously, and use protection responsibly. What I was NOT ready to consent to, was a serious committed relationship. And that was the one and only area where it became problematic for me to engage with older guys, which I did at times though they were a minority of my sex partners at the time. The other high school kids were also not ready for commitment back then. So we could have flash in the pan falling in and out of love and bed, and get on with our lives in short order with or without a dose of teen angst and melodrama on the side. But no one was really expecting to lock down a husband or wife at that point, we were all still kids! Not really so for the older guys. They thought of it as a ~Relationship~ in the making. So when I was ready for them to buzz off, it was at times more difficult to get them to go away and accept that this was not supposed to last. What was the absolute worst is that at 18 I was set up with a job (that wasn't enough to really support me) and an apartment and cut loose from all family guidance or support. Which left me extremely vulnerable to those kinds of men, and it was precisely that sort, a 29 year old who had been married twice before and was flying more red flags than a Chinese parade, who came into my life and WOULD. NOT. LEAVE. It took me 18 years, and two kids later, to finally be able to get away from him.
In recent years, I watched the movie "Lolita." It illustrates rather well the issue I'm talking about. If Jeremy Irons' character had merely had a brief fling with the girl and then vamoosed out of her life, she could have grown up relatively un-traumatized by the experience, she was already sexually active anyhow. Any feelings of angst or heartbreak would have healed pretty quick. But he didn't. He plotted and schemed and weaseled his way into a position of authority over her, and wound up essentially kidnapping her and taking her on the road, and all of the wreck and ruin they both suffered flowed from that.
It isn't necessarily that a post-pubescent but underage girl is not ready for sex or that sex, specifically with an older man versus a younger one, is the problem...it's the other stuff, the relationship dynamic, and especially any possible pregnancy, that stands to be a disaster and a hijack of her life.
But no, I didn't have a daughter. I had sons. And it annoys me that only daughters are taught to guard their sexuality, or that they can be harmed by sex being a thing done to them by males. Despite the fact that I believe that false sexual assault accusations are rare, and real sexual assaults under-prosecuted, under-reported, and vastly under-punished in the real world...I told my sons that they needed to wait to have sex with someone that they can TRUST. No, you don't have to be married, but you do need to know your partner well enough to trust her. If she says she's on birth control, is she telling you the truth? Is she going to accuse you of things, try to destroy your reputation to everyone you know? Will she bring anguish and destruction to your life? Some people do. You have to be careful. Boys need to protect themselves, too.
And honestly I think that is a big reason that older guys should not mess with younger girls...not because they are necessarily traumatizing them with sex, but because you cannot trust a child to make sound choices, you cannot trust a child not to lie to create drama, and a child will likely not be ready for any level of emotional investment you might come to feel for her. I mean someone who is mentally a child--a teenager. It is at least as much a matter of an older man protecting himself from getting mixed up in a lot of mess and trouble of one kind and another, even if it wasn't a crime. Even if it were not criminal...it's stupid!
In recent years, I watched the movie "Lolita." It illustrates rather well the issue I'm talking about. If Jeremy Irons' character had merely had a brief fling with the girl and then vamoosed out of her life, she could have grown up relatively un-traumatized by the experience, she was already sexually active anyhow. Any feelings of angst or heartbreak would have healed pretty quick. But he didn't. He plotted and schemed and weaseled his way into a position of authority over her, and wound up essentially kidnapping her and taking her on the road, and all of the wreck and ruin they both suffered flowed from that.
Couldn't a man do that to any women who is of a lower socioeconomic status than him? Ban millionaires fro dating waitresses? Or unemployed woman?
Couldn't a man do that to any women who is of a lower socioeconomic status than him? Ban millionaires fro dating waitresses? Or unemployed woman?
What? No. A man who is a legal guardian of a minor, or in some authoritative position where the minor cannot get away from them, is not the same as a billionaire trying to date a waitress. The waitress can say no. She is also an adult, with (presumably, depending on her age) a more mature and fully developed brain that is able to assess and commit to longterm decisions.
The only way in which your analogy even makes sense is this:
"Will I have a relationship with this man?" (Billionaire or not) <-- That is a life choice. Once you live together and begin entangling your lives, it can be harder to simply walk away. One should be a competent adult, as it's the equivalent of getting into a contract, if the commitment is steep enough.
Whereas having sex...so long as it is protected sex and doesn't result in disease or pregnancy... That's more like the waitress accepting just a rather generous tip from said billionaire, for good service, rather than being asked to sign her life away. So long as he's giving and she's receiving consensually, that's not necessarily such a big deal. (despite my distaste with that comparison, I could not resist loading it with puns...sorry not sorry...)
Point being, minors do not have the capacity to be held liable to contracts. This is a statement to their brain development, and a statement of the law. I don't see sex as necessarily having the gravity of a contract...but I definitely see a serious, committed relationship, particularly when at least one party is trying to make it LIFE LONG, as such.
What? No. A man who is a legal guardian of a minor, or in some authoritative position where the minor cannot get away from them, is not the same as a billionaire trying to date a waitress. The waitress can say no. She is also an adult, with (presumably, depending on her age) a more mature and fully developed brain that is able to assess and commit to longterm decisions.
The only way in which your analogy even makes sense is this:
"Will I have a relationship with this man?" (Billionaire or not) <-- That is a life choice. Once you live together and begin entangling your lives, it can be harder to simply walk away. One should be a competent adult, as it's the equivalent of getting into a contract, if the commitment is steep enough.
Whereas having sex...so long as it is protected sex and doesn't result in disease or pregnancy... That's more like the waitress accepting just a rather generous tip from said billionaire, for good service, rather than being asked to sign her life away. So long as he's giving and she's receiving consensually, that's not necessarily such a big deal. (despite my distaste with that comparison, I could not resist loading it with puns...sorry not sorry...)
Point being, minors do not have the capacity to be held liable to contracts. This is a statement to their brain development, and a statement of the law. I don't see sex as necessarily having the gravity of a contract...but I definitely see a serious, committed relationship, particularly when at least one party is trying to make it LIFE LONG, as such.
In the Kubrick version of Lolita the man - James Mason- is just in a relationship with Lolita's mother. He's a not a stepfather or legal guardian. That's the one I know. Someone under 18 is not an adult but that reasoning bans an 18 year old from having sex with a 16 year old, which most people think is unfair and leads to lots of people clogging up sex offender registries. And the brain doesn't fully develop until 25 so using brain development would mean that the age of consent should be 25 which is pretty ridiculous. Teens are better educated than they were decades ago and they go through puberty at younger ages yet we keep raising the age of consent. It's a recipe to create a massive sex crisis.
I know older guys having sex with women younger that the 1/2+ 7 limit is icky, but it's ridiculous to make it illegal. It's happening because women want it that way and women are by far the majority of voters in the US.
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.
A transatlantic view
