@Robert Gentel,
Quote:Do you desire to have sex with minors?
Do you think that there should be no line?
Do you think the current lines are incorrectly placed? (if so where do you advocate putting the line?)
Minors do not appeal to me
There should be a line
it should be 15 years, though 16 could be justified based upon going the extra mile to protect those who are developmentally challenged and thus not ready to own their bodies.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:However, I agree that primitive societies have many sexual issues, independently of what they wear
Advanced societies have many sexual issues, that is for sure. I think that it is fair to say that in general primitive societies tend to have much less repression of natural sexuality than we would tolerate. Primitive societies tend to work out sexual problems more forthrightly than advanced societies, they don't let them build up into massive sexual dysfunction as we do.
A society with as much sexual abuse and sexual acting out as we have
is not in a position to feel superior over primitive societies.
The reason that we don 't go to reside there
is that we
DEFINITELY feel superior, much,
much, superior over primitive societies.
My
cars woud not run as well over their roads (do thay have roads?); my HDTVs woud not function as well there.
Do thay have cable?
David
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:There is no "likewise" here, these are not moral equivalents because in the first example the children can't give informed consent while in the second they can.
Great, so can I count you as being on board standing up against moves to rub out adults being in charge of themselves? I am speaking trend towards saying that informed consent did not take place even though both parties participated with out objection. This idea that sex is illegal if one person is drunk, if persuasion was employed, or if one party decides after the fact that they did not like what happened is nuts. We are removing rights and responsibilities from individuals, and for no good reason, which I will always oppose.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:Minors do not appeal to me
There should be a line
it should be 15 years, though 16 could be justified based upon going the extra mile to protect those who are developmentally challenged and thus not ready to own their bodies.
Fair enough. I have little qualm with that. The only change I would make would be to introduce an age discrepancy criteria for the minors (e.g. 15 can't consent to 70) as well as make it conditional on parental acceptance (e.g. while the kid is a minor and the parent is ultimately responsible the parent must be on board with the consent).
Are you deliberately vague to be polemic? I've long wondered if you actually were a pedophile yourself, and I think many others did as you allude to much less reasonable positions than this. Do you do that on purpose for the attention?
@hawkeye10,
I should add: I am into advanced sexuality, the idea that I would want some youngone who does not know anything about sex I always found funny. I think it was bill who decided that I like little girls, I just never attempted to correct him. He has never been interested in listening or learning anyways.
My objection to the age of consent is that over protection of individuals neither serves the best interests of the individual or the collective. It is wrong, it is a mistake, and we should knock it off. Children should not be denied the right to own their bodies till they are 18, the law needs to recognize that they will be sexually active before that age, often long before that age. Unless we are going to have parents choosing sex partners for their kids we need to be clear that the kids are running their own sex lives.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:Great, so can I count you as being on board standing up against moves to rub out adults being in charge of themselves?
Depends on what you are talking about. That can mean many things.
Quote: I am speaking trend towards saying that informed consent did not take place even though both parties participated with out objection.
Depends on the nature of the consent. I support informed consent. It's a pretty simple concept that gets complicated in practice.
Quote:This idea that sex is illegal if one person is drunk, if persuasion was employed, or if one party decides after the fact that they did not like what happened is nuts.
"Drunk" is vague. If the person is slipped a roofie I think that doesn't qualify as consent. If the person is unconscious I don't think it qualifies as consent.
However just because they are "drunk" doesn't mean I won't hold them responsible. If they are able to give reasonably clear consent then I have no qualm with the situation, but we need to be able to protect against the many cases where women never gave consent but became unconscious and were raped.
As to changing their mind later, that obviously should not be a situation where we punish someone for someone's second thoughts. But this isn't the case now either, this situation may occur but not by intention. Sexual crimes almost always come down to he said vs she said, which is why such things might occur. If the individual says that they consented and then changed their mind after the fact the other will not be punished. This situation might arise if the individual claims they never consented even if they did, but this is an inherent complexity to sex crimes that has nothing to do with society and everything to do with the fact that people don't tend to have sex in front of witnesses.
Quote:We are removing rights and responsibilities from individuals, and for no good reason, which I will always oppose.
This is a meaningless statement without specifics. Sex is a delicate subject and laws will not be perfect to address them. I think the US laws could use some tweaking but I think you greatly exaggerate the flaws in the current laws.
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:Are you deliberately vague to be polemic? I've long wondered if you actually were a pedophile yourself, and I think many others did as you allude to much less reasonable positions than this. Do you do that on purpose for the attention?
The mob action against me was irrational, not connected to the words in my posts. Past experience has taught me that irrational mobs will not be swayed by reason, nor by denials, nor by the one under attack being defensive. All such responses are considered more proof of the guilty charge.
I decided to bide my time, to wait till someone was interested in the truth.
@hawkeye10,
What pure bullshit. You have objected to age of consent laws, have claimed that "statutory rape" laws infringe the sexual freedom of minors (oh yeah, any number of 14 year-old girls are gonna want your hairy, greasy belly pounding them while you puff and moan), and that there is no such thing as marital rape. The piss-poor image you have around here is purely a product of the content of the tripe you have posted.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:I should add: I am into advanced sexuality, the idea that I would want some youngone who does not know anything about sex I always found funny. I think it was bill who decided that I like little girls, I just never attempted to correct him. He has never been interested in listening or learning anyways.
I objected to those claims back then, because I didn't think you were a "rapist" and such but that you never bothered to correct them made it seem like you cultivated the image. I personally always thought it had more to do with cultivating the negative attention than pedophilia but you made comments that made me wonder.
I think that if you really wanted to discuss things constructively you wouldn't play such games of innuendo. It can't be anything but deliberate.
Quote:My objection to the age of consent is that over protection of individuals neither serves the best interests of the individual or the collective. It is wrong, it is a mistake, and we should knock it off. Children should not be denied the right to own their bodies till they are 18, the law needs to recognize that they will be sexually active before that age, often long before that age. Unless we are going to have parents choosing sex partners for their kids we need to be clear that the kids are running their own sex lives.
They already can do so. They just need to emancipate themselves. But a long as the parents are financially and legally responsible for them they are simply not fully responsible for their actions.
Incidentally, you cite 18 a lot. You don't seem to be doing so based on actual laws. Here is a map, 18 is yellow (and obviously the exception, rather than the rule):
Most of the world has their lines right where you claim to want them.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:The mob action against me was irrational, not connected to the words in my posts. Past experience has taught me that irrational mobs will not be swayed by reason, nor by denials, nor by the one under attack being defensive. All such responses are considered more proof of the guilty charge.
I decided to bide my time, to wait till someone was interested in the truth.
That's not entirely true hawkeye. I defended you against the accusations initially and have seen many people give you the opportunity to clear the air.
The image you have cultivated was done with deliberate participation on your part. Just look at this thread, I had to nag you to come out and answer the simple questions.
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:The only change I would make would be to introduce an age discrepancy criteria for the minors (e.g. 15 can't consent to 70) as well as make it conditional on parental acceptance (e.g. while the kid is a minor and the parent is ultimately responsible the parent must be on board with the consent).
For sake of understanding, i will use the term "statutory rape," although it is almost never used in legislation any longer. Statutory rape laws in most states do recognize an age discrepancy of a kind--they have provisions which exempt minors from being charged for their sexual activity with other minors, and people who have reached their majority for sexual activity with minors if they are within a certain age of minor involved--usually it is three years, if i recall correctly.
I don't believe that any law considers parental consent to be an acceptable defense for a charge of sexual congress with a minor.
The reason i have become familiar with these provisions in law is precisely because of the imprecise and often just plain false nature of the things Rapist Boy posts in his crusade against age of consent laws and "statutory rape" laws.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:For sake of understanding, i will use the term "statutory rape," although it is almost never used in legislation any longer. Statutory rape laws in most states do recognize an age discrepancy of a kind--they have provisions which exempt minors from being charged for their sexual activity with other minors, and people who have reached their majority for sexual activity with minors if they are within a certain age of minor involved--usually it is three years, if i recall correctly.
I know this, but in the US there have been kids put on the sex offender list for having consensual sex with their girlfriends of only a year or two younger. So there are still high-profile failures in the laws and places that fail to do so.
Those are legitimate qualms with the current laws, but they are also hijacked by people who really want to eliminate the line entirely.
Quote:I don't believe that any law considers parental consent to be an acceptable defense for a charge of sexual congress with a minor.
I actually think this is quite prevalent. In many countries there are requirements that the parents bring the charges. In effect they are requiring parental consent.
Quote:The reason i have become familiar with these provisions in law is precisely because of the imprecise and often just plain false nature of the things Rapist Boy posts in his crusade against age of consent laws and "statutory rape" laws.
I don't think hawkeye is a rapist by the way, and I think he's deliberately trying to get people to overstate themselves against him to feel more rational than the "irrational" attacks. What he said above is that he basically wants the line where it pretty much currently is (despite all his innuendo to the contrary). I think he's guilty of deliberately trolling you guys more so than what you are accusing him of.
I am happy to oblige Rapist Boy by tarring him with the brush he invites. I don't know if he really has paedophilic tendencies, and don't really care. As long as he plays this game, i am more than happy to play it with him.
I should have qualified my statements by referring to laws in the United States. To my knowledge (and i don't claim it is an omnibus knowledge), parental consent is not an acceptable defense of a charge of illegal sexual activity with a minor, in the United States. What that may be in other countries doesn't interest me as much, because i am not a legal relativist. If i believe that a certain type of law conduces to a stable and just society, i don't alter my opinion based on a plea of a different culture.
*****************************************
On the general subject of minors and sex, it is irresponsible intellectually not to recognize what a powerful force sex can be between people, without regard to whether they are minors or not. When they are minors, society justifiably intervenes. In Toronto, on New Year's Day 2008, a young woman, aged 14, was repeatedly stabbed outside her home, and left to die in a snowbank. When the murderer was identified, and the case investigated, it was revealed that the murderer had once dated her, that his current girlfriend had conceived an irrational jealousy, and had told him "I want her dead." Since then, he has been convicted of first degree murder, and has been sentenced, as an adult, to life in prison. He was 17 at the time of the murder. His girlfriend has also been convicted of first degree murder, and sentenced as an adult to life in prison. In both trials, it was revealed, and the jury accepted the prosecution allegation, that the murderer was motivated by sexual blackmail--if he did not eliminate his girlfriend's "rival," she would cut him off sexually. The prosecution sustained this allegation with months' worth of text messages and MSN chat logs in which the then 15 year-old woman egged on her boyfriend to commit the murder. The convicted woman had never met or even seen the woman she purported to be her rival.
Sex is a very powerful force in people's lives, and society has as much right to control sexual conduct as it does to establish drinking ages, ages for driving licenses and the ages at which a person can legally sign a financially binding contract. Considering the power of sex to motivate people, i consider that it is more properly the subject of social scrutiny than many other activities.
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:
I don't have much to add to this other than to say that my very first child protection assignment was a report from a school nurse re a 12 yr old boy being sexually abused by his 35 yr old aunt, I determined it was 'founded" and took it to my female supervisor who laughed and said there was no such thing as sexual abuse by a female to a 12 yr old boy. In spite of my supervisor I presented the case to our D.A. for criminal prosecution, he indicated that I had a legitimate case but he would no prosecute because no jury would convict so, on my own, I presented the case in children's court. I asked the court for a restraint/no contact order against the aunt but the court instead ordered the boy be placed in foster care in a distant state thus punishing the lad (removal from family/home/school/peers) there was no sanction against the aunt.
I take it that the boy had complained to the nurse
about his aunt 's sexual interference with him; is that accurate, Dys ?
@Robert Gentel,
That isn't much of a defense. You're essentially saying he's a liar, and that your own instincts tell you that he probably isn't the piece of **** he acts like. I certainly haven't seen evidence sufficient to sentence him for anything, but I remain hopeful that he'll improve the gene pool by removing himself from it. Even if he's just a fantasizing apologist for demented misogynists, encouraging other sickos alone makes him well worthy of disdain.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:I am happy to oblige Rapist Boy by tarring him with the brush he invites. I don't know if he really has paedophilic tendencies, and don't really care. As long as he plays this game, i am more than happy to play it with him.
I think it plays into what he wants. It's a form of trolling and he becomes self-satisfied with what he sees as a sea of unreasonable attacks, making him feel oh-so-reasonable. But whatever floats your boat.
Quote:I should have qualified my statements by referring to laws in the United States. To my knowledge (and i don't claim it is an omnibus knowledge), parental consent is not an acceptable defense of a charge of illegal sexual activity with a minor, in the United States.
I think you are correct, but don't know as much as I'd need to as well. But we may be talking about slightly different things. I'm not saying that elsewhere there is an age of consent but parental consent invalidates it. I'm saying that elsewhere the age of consent often takes parental consent into consideration.
So there might be a bottom line age of consent of something like 14, that is a hard line that parental consent does not invalidate, then from 14 to 18 it is a matter of mutual responsibility between parents and the minor.
I like that kind of setup (I'd favor 16 though) because I think a 17-year old should be allowed to be sexually active if the parents are willing to shoulder their side of the responsibility.
@OCCOM BILL,
I have my serious objections to his methods, and I take a dim view of what I consider to be his deliberate trolling, but I do think that saying he should take himself out of the gene pool is over the top, and that it plays into his game very nicely. He gets to feel more reasonable in the face of these attacks.
In either case I really don't want to make this thread about this, I think the level of discourse is more edifying when we refrain from the personal attacks, they invariably generate a lot of noise that can obscure the issues at hand and I'm going to try not to contribute to it.
@OmSigDAVID,
correct david, in addition the school staff had noticed a marked increase in physical aggression by the boy towards female peers.
Steven Vizinczey is a Hungarian author who began in his native Budapest as a poet. In the 1960s, he published a work in English, entitled In Praise of Older Women. It basically tells Vizinczey's sexual history from his adolescence (when he is seduced by women in their thirties and forties), until he arrives in Canada in the late 1950s, in the wake of the failed Hungarian revolution. His exploits continue after leaving Hungary (the narrator is never definitely identified as Vizinczey, but who else could it have been?--of course, we can simply ascribe a good imagination to the author), when he becomes involved with an Italian woman, whom he describes as frigid (then whey did she initiate a sexual relationship with a boy still in his teens?), but whom he "thaws" out through the use of cunnilingus. Arriving in Canada, he continues his exploits with faculty wives.
Vizinczey's novel is significant in that there is nowhere a hint that there might have been anything wrong with a woman in her thirties or forties seducing a teen-aged boy. As i have noted, we don't know that it is actually autobiographical, and even if it were, Vizinczey might have been indulging braggadocio. But for me the point is that it was so well received. Some reviewers have gushed over it, because of Vizinczey's command of English--which i find only ordinary. I suspect a lower standard was being applied to a non-native speaker. Conrad and Nabokov wrote much finer prose (although one wonders why Slavs do so well when they decide to write novels in English). But there was none of the uproar which attached to Nabokov's Lolita when it was first published--one English reviewer called it the filthiest book he had ever read. In Praise of Older Women was much more explicit.
I think this is because there is indeed an operable double-standard with regard to sexual relationships with minors. If a man does this with a girl, it is anathema. If a woman does this with a boy, there are sly smiles, and "boys will be boys" comments, and little is made of it. I think that is wrong. The possibility of warping the sexual values of the minor are just as great with a boy as with a girl. And, of course, child sexual abuse of prepubescent boys should be condemned just as vigorously as it is in the case of girls--the psychological damage cannot be conveniently assumed to be less for a boy than it is for a girl.
