Roman Polanski free

@ossobuco,

I went back to check. I think the confusion came in when you used the reply button on Aidan's post. This indicates that you are referencing that poster. i.e. @Aidan. Perhaps, in these cases, it would be better to scroll down and use the 'reply to all posters' button. Just a suggestion.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

I think you misunderstood me too. Seems to be a lot of that going around. Laughing

I didn't say consent wasn't relevant. Of course I think it's relevant.

My objection was to the use of the term "informed consent" regarding a 13 year old minor. They are below the age of consent. They cannot consent legally.

When it comes to sexual relations, I personally don't like the term "informed consent". It might be technically legally correct, but I think it is poor descriptively. "Informed consent" sounds as though you have been supplied with a manual or a copy of the other person's health records--some sort of information given to you before you consent. That doesn't seem to fit a sexual situation. "Knowing consent" might be better, since that suggests a full awareness and understanding of what you are consenting to, meaning that you are alert, competent, and in possession of your faculties. The important word is definitely "consent".

I wasn't aware I was arguing with you. I must have missed something. Laughing

2 Replies

@Intrepid,

Ok, I certainly didn't mean to do that.

Yes, yes, I know about the reply all button. Mea culpa.

0 Replies

@firefly,

That is nearly the whole point about young people, that they can't give informed consent, for many reasons. I think you did say informed consent wasn't relevant but I don't want to chase the post. It is, since 13 year olds can't do that. Grrrrrrr.

But, I take it we agree, past all this.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Firely has always maintained that consent was relevant. IF there was any mention of anything not being relevant it would have had something to do with Hawkeye with whom she has had most discourse.

Firefly has argued the use of the terms but always in light of 13 year olds NOT being able to give consent. She has argued that it was rape in any case.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Oh, please, don't make me chase the post.

Ok, I will tomorrow. I maintain consent is relevant and that thirteen year olds can't do that, which I said back then. I could argue the whys on that, but I suppose most of us don't disagree.

I argue it was rape in any case too. Not least because of the matter of the law's take on consent.

Firefly straightened me and others out that consent was not relevant, when I think it is crucial that a thirteen year old cannot give such.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

I personally don't like the term "informed consent

I dont like the whole concept....it was much better back when consent was assumed unless one party voiced non consent. The state invalidating consent after the fact and thus turning the other person into a rapist has to go too. The feminist driven "improvements" have made a hash out of sex law, and now routinely abuses individuals.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
I personally don't like the term "informed consent
I dont like the whole concept....it was much better back when consent was assumed unless one party voiced non consent. The state invalidating consent after the fact and thus turning the other person into a rapist has to go too. The feminist driven "improvements" have made a hash out of sex law, and now routinely abuses individuals.

Why was it better? Because nobody could refuse you then? Do you feel abused by the law? What is your reason for this refusal to accept that no means no?

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Quote:

Why was it better?

Because it was clear, and not decided retroactively by the state, which has no business asserting itself into the sexual lives of its citizens unless asked in the first place.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Why was it better?
Because it was clear, and not decided retroactively by the state, which has no business asserting itself into the sexual lives of its citizens unless asked in the first place.

You mean clear in that there were no restrictions?

The state certainly has a right and obligation to insert itself in the well being of minor children. The government does not instill and maintain laws based on the whims of it's citizens. This is a good thing, otherwise those who are of the same mind as you would be able to do anything they want without fear of prosection.

What you call retroactive, some would call progress.

You are a little fish in a big pond.

0 Replies

@manored,

manored wrote:

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the conviction of an Edmonton man who lured a 13-year-old boy on the internet for sex.

I dont think Canada is a good example because they are a bit too neurotic over there. If I remember well, they forbade adults from speaking with children over the internet. I think thats too big an sacrifice for too little gain in security.

Not that I oppose the man's conviction. I just think thing's have gotten absurd on Canada.
[/quote]

you remember poorly, no such law or even suggestion was made, the basis of the ruling was that you can't use ignorance as an excuse, the 13 year old said many times that he was thirteen (even though his profile apparently said 18), and the adult ignored this information and kept pressing his agenda

i (a canadian) spent many years on gaming boards with teens (i was in my late 30's through early 40's), i was always upfront about my age and had no problems even when discussing non gaming topics, there were times i took my self out of conversations that were questionable

given the age difference, only once did a poster (a girl) think it was creepy that a "grown up dude" was hanging out with them, we conversed a bit but i respected her feelings and limited my interactions with her

0 Replies

@manored,

manored wrote:

Arella Mae wrote:

Ya know what? I'm not even going to bother.

Everyone has limits to their patience, but yours felt too short. We hadnt even entered a spiral of repetition yet, at, least, not as far as I could tell.

On the subject of spirals, the main segment of this thread has been spiraling for a while now, or at least it seens to me the same points are being throw back and forth with only anger added. That, will certainly lead nowhere.

I will agree I don't have much patience when it comes to people defending (in any way) a man that raped a child. I don't think anyone should have patience for that.

2 Replies

@Arella Mae,

Quote:

I will agree I don't have much patience when it comes to people defending (in any way) a man that raped a child. I don't think anyone should have patience for that.

What about men who supported, trained and encouraged proxies in the raping, the torture and the murder of children? What of those who stated that those who did these things were freedom fighters, they were the equivalent of the Founding Fathers?

How far does your patience extend in these cases, Arella Mae?

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
I will agree I don't have much patience when it comes to people defending (in any way) a man that raped a child. I don't think anyone should have patience for that.

What about men who supported, trained and encouraged proxies in the raping, the torture and the murder of children? What of those who stated that those who did these things were freedom fighters, they were the equivalent of the Founding Fathers?

How far does your patience extend in these cases, Arella Mae?

JTT,

I was sticking to the topic of this thread.

1 Reply

@Arella Mae,

Quote:

JTT,

I was sticking to the topic of this thread.

The topics developed in this thread address whether people who rape should be held accountable for their actions. It is right on topic to wonder if this applies to anyone and everyone.

So I ask you again,

What about men who supported, trained and encouraged proxies in the raping, the torture and the murder of children? What of those who stated that those who did these things were freedom fighters, they were the equivalent of the Founding Fathers?

How far does your patience extend in these cases, Arella Mae?

1 Reply

Arella if you want to save time so you can get on with other things, just cry out (in caps) Alright JTT! Ya got me! I am a lowdown hypocrite!! And start self flagellating and weeping and wearing sackcloth, too - that might help.

2 Replies

@JTT,

JTT,

I don't have much patience for any injustice in this world. I am wise enough to understand that I cannot "rally the cause" for every situation that happens in this world. You have your passions I am sure and so do I.

1 Reply

@snood,

That's not required in the least, Snood. Just being honest about what I've pointed out is what normal, responsible adults do, or should do.

Haven't we seen that in this thread, responsible adults wanting justice to be served?

0 Replies

@Arella Mae,

Quote:

I don't have much patience for any injustice in this world.

Then why would you remain silent about injustices that make this case look pretty insignificant. Why won't you directly address my question?

Quote:

I am wise enough to understand that I cannot "rally the cause" for every situation that happens in this world. You have your passions I am sure and so do I.

You don't have to rally any great cause. You just have to be honest and responsible enough, as the adult you portray in this thread, to condemn with at least as much fervor, these much much greater injustices.

1 Reply

@JTT,

This thread has a particular topic. I am trying to keep to topic.

1 Reply

Roman Polanski free

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know