NationStates Jolt Archive

If a person upon reaching the age of consent who had a sexual encounter with an adult as a child says that knowing what they do now they would have still consented to the sexual encounter they had with the adult as a child would should that be enough to pardon the adult of a crime of statutary rape or other sexual conduct with minor type crimes?

Is delayed consent given by a person after reaching the age of consent good enough for a pardon when it comes to sexual encounters with minors? Should delayed consent get people out of Jail, off of pedophile registeries, maybe even compensation for false imprisonment?

Of course not. Children are brainless chattel incapable of making their own decisions, until they reach the age of consent, at which point they become magically mature enough to handle sex.

Of course not. Children are brainless chattel incapable of making their own decisions, until they reach the age of consent, at which point they become magically mature enough to handle sex.

That was the question. If. after magically becoming mature enough, they still state that they would have consented anyway back then and don't regret it, should that be enough to pardon the pedophile.

That was the question. If. after magically becoming mature enough, they still state that they would have consented anyway back then and don't regret it, should that be enough to pardon the pedophile.

WoW that was plain. Thanks Cabra West

what if the parents/legal guardian consent for the minor?

No, they shouldn't. If you're attracted to minors, change. People change sexual habits and preferences wildly through their life - There are hundreds of groups and resources on the subject.

As for the youth, is it really that hard to keep it in your pants for a few more years? No, it's not. Horny-toads.

No, they shouldn't. If you're attracted to minors, change. People change sexual habits and preferences wildly through their life - There are hundreds of groups and resources on the subject.

As for the youth, is it really that hard to keep it in your pants for a few more years? No, it's not. Horny-toads.

Equally and or more silly response.

The issue here is informed consent. Not whether everyone does it or whether you are repulsed by it.

Try answering the question without the flaming.

what if the parents/legal guardian consent for the minor?

I don't think they have the right to do that. While they are entitled and obligated to make many decisions for their children, there are limits as to what they legally can decide. They can't, for example, give consent on the child's behalf to marry at the age of 5, they can't give consent to prostitute the child, in most Western countries they can't decide to take the child out of school before it completed the required amount of years, they can't give consent for the child to work full-time before it is a certain age, etc.

No, and here's why-

The idea is that child is not able to give consent and the offender is entering into an act where the person cannot give consent. You can't allow them to "bank" on informed consent later on. You are punishing the person for breaking a law in the hope that they do not break that law again. They still broke a law in that the child could not give consent at the time of the offense.

what if the parents/legal guardian consent for the minor?No.
Parents ot Legal Guardians can only decide about their own sex life..

If a person upon reaching the age of consent who had a sexual encounter with an adult as a child says that knowing what they do now they would have still consented to the sexual encounter they had with the adult as a child would should that be enough to pardon the adult of a crime of statutary rape or other sexual conduct with minor type crimes?

Is delayed consent given by a person after reaching the age of consent good enough for a pardon when it comes to sexual encounters with minors? Should delayed consent get people out of Jail, off of pedophile registeries, maybe even compensation for false imprisonment?

No, because the issue really isn't consent - it's that children aren't seen as haviing the ability to understand the ramifications of their decisions, meaning they cannot consent.

If you want to reform these type of laws, the more logical reform is to lower the age of consent to something that reasonably reflects mental and sexual development in humans, something around 14-15. Anything below that should be considered exploitive and be punished by law, because it's highly unlikely that an 8 or 10 year old truly comprehends what he or she is getting into.

If a person upon reaching the age of consent who had a sexual encounter with an adult as a child says that knowing what they do now they would have still consented to the sexual encounter they had with the adult as a child would should that be enough to pardon the adult of a crime of statutary rape or other sexual conduct with minor type crimes?

Nope. If retroactive consent worked like that, then a rapist could compel psychologically or forcibly his victim to "consent" after the fact. Many victims of abuse grow up to become abusers themselves; it follows that they will perhaps say in retrospect, it was all OK. That doesn't change the violation, the crime, at the TIME.

It's sort of like saying, if I kill someone, but some miraculous technology brings them back from the dead after twenty years, I shouldn't be charged with murder. Dead is dead, rape is rape, and that is that.


Is delayed consent given by a person after reaching the age of consent good enough for a pardon when it comes to sexual encounters with minors? Should delayed consent get people out of Jail, off of pedophile registeries, maybe even compensation for false imprisonment?

No, no, no and no, respectively.

I honestly detest these posts made every so often about how pedophilia isn't really that bad and how children of any age should be allowed to fuck. Not to ad hominem - I've already made my argument you see - but I would guess these posts are made by minors who are themselves bitter that they can't legally have sex with some older person. If these posters had children of their own I would guess - or at least hope - they would see things a bit differently.

If a person upon reaching the age of consent who had a sexual encounter with an adult as a child says that knowing what they do now they would have still consented to the sexual encounter they had with the adult as a child would should that be enough to pardon the adult of a crime of statutary rape or other sexual conduct with minor type crimes?

Is delayed consent given by a person after reaching the age of consent good enough for a pardon when it comes to sexual encounters with minors? Should delayed consent get people out of Jail, off of pedophile registeries, maybe even compensation for false imprisonment?
Simple No fucking way

what if the parents/legal guardian consent for the minor?
Absolutely not ... they are in charge of making the BEST decisions for their minor ... that does not mean they are inflatable

Seeing a guardian make this decision would Absolutely prove they are unfit to be a guardian and custody should be taken away.

punishments put on pedofiles are meant to keep them from acting again. so no.

the more logical reform is to lower the age of consent to something that reasonably reflects mental and sexual development in humansi agree, alternatively you could schedule a trip to mexico. south of the border age of consent is 12.

In the US I belive 16 is still the age.

Maturity levels vary that is a decent age.

You might be able to argue 14 and 15 depending on the teens experience. For exampe a 14 year old who has had multiple partners vs a virgin.

When you get to 13 and under then thats a different story.

Besides what exactly(to the thread starter) do you define an "informed concent"

No, a crime is a crime. If the victim forgives the perp that's nice, but does not change the fact that s/he committed a crime.

Pope John Paul II was Christian enough to forgive the man who tried to kill him, but that didn't translate into Italy being willing to forgo punshing him for attempted murder.

To all

Still informed consent is informed consent is it not. A sexual transgression against a child is only a sexual transgression against the child if the child wouldn't have consented even if they had "informed consent" capability. I don't think informed consent is about protecting the child at all. I think "informed consent" protects the parents and the communities ability to say no for the child.

I think the idea of protection is a facade in order to protect I religious ideology at least from the transgression of minors with adults.

I think those who promote the consept of informed consent lie. In they don't care about informed consent as much as they care about keeping children sexually pure.

To all

Still informed consent is informed consent is it not. A sexual transgression against a child is only a sexual transgression against the child if the child wouldn't have consented even if they had "informed consent" capability. I don't think informed consent is about protecting the child at all. I think "informed consent" protects the parents and the communities ability to say no for the child.

I think the idea of protection is a facade in order to protect I religious ideology at least from the transgression of minors with adults.

I think those who promote the consept of informed consent lie. In they don't care about informed consent as much as they care about keeping children sexually pure.
Bullshit have you ever gone though sexual molestation? Have you ever been raped? It changes your WHOLE FUCKING LIFE

A kid is NEVER in the position to consent ... and at the time they ARE in the position to consent they have already been changed on so many levels by the attack they have no fucking clue what is right sometimes.

This is not about purity this is about protecting them from harm while they are growing up
Make no mistake being molested DOES harm the child

A sexual transgression against a child is only a sexual transgression against the child if the child wouldn't have consented even if they had "informed consent" capability.

Er, no, a sexual transgression against a child is always a sexual transgression against the child. There are no conditionals here.


I think those who promote the consept of informed consent lie. In they don't care about informed consent as much as they care about keeping children sexually pure.

OMG! Keeping children sexually pure!? How EVIL. :rolleyes:

So what is your point here anyway? Personally I think you're a kid and want to have sex illegally. Or you're an adult and you want to a fuck a child. Which is it?

If a person upon reaching the age of consent who had a sexual encounter with an adult as a child says that knowing what they do now they would have still consented to the sexual encounter they had with the adult as a child would should that be enough to pardon the adult of a crime of statutary rape or other sexual conduct with minor type crimes?

Is delayed consent given by a person after reaching the age of consent good enough for a pardon when it comes to sexual encounters with minors? Should delayed consent get people out of Jail, off of pedophile registeries, maybe even compensation for false imprisonment?

No, because the pedo still broke the law, and he still must serve his time.

No, they shouldn't. If you're attracted to minors, change. People change sexual habits and preferences wildly through their life - There are hundreds of groups and resources on the subject.

As for the youth, is it really that hard to keep it in your pants for a few more years? No, it's not. Horny-toads.

Wow, not into the whole "educating ones self" are you. I'm just gonna make a guess here, Dr. Phil fan?

Attraction isn't a choice we make. If we CHOSE who we're attracted to, EVERYONES lives would be SO much easier.

Pedophiles will ALWAYS have some at least minor psychological disorders if you dig deep enough. Its not a decision they make one day.

Pedophiles will ALWAYS have some at least minor psychological disorders if you dig deep enough. Its not a decision they make one day.

We all have minor psychological disorders.

A man is responsible for his actions. A woman is responsible for hers.

FULL STOP.

Otherwise, why do we even bother having a trial, at all?

A man is responsible for his actions. A woman is responsible for hers.


They are? Then what are obsesvie compulsives?

I'm going to assume that you're one of the two paying members of the Man-Boy Love Association.

To all

Still informed consent is informed consent is it not.

Yes... assuming that informed consent could be given.

A sexual transgression against a child is only a sexual transgression against the child if the child wouldn't have consented even if they had "informed consent" capability.

To date, no child has consented to being sexually molested, under any grounds other than "Daddy told me not to tell! I don't want him to go to jail!"

I don't think informed consent is about protecting the child at all.

See above.

I think "informed consent" protects the parents and the communities ability to say no for the child.

The government is there to protect a person's right to say, "No." Minors cannot legally consent. Pre-pubesent children don't know what's happening, except that they're being hurt. The community says no to that, the parents can say no to that (obviously, they don't do so as often as they should).

I think the idea of protection is a facade in order to protect I religious ideology at least from the transgression of minors with adults.

You can also think that the moon is made out of green cheese, the earth is flat, and that the moon landings were faked. Doesn't make any of it true, mind you.

I think those who promote the consept of informed consent lie.

Good thing I'm not pushing that about pedophilia.

In they don't care about informed consent as much as they care about keeping children sexually pure.

I don't give a rat's ass about the 'sexual purity' of a child. They could grow up to be kinkier than Marylin Manson and with more videos of them having actual sex out there than Paris Hilton.

What I do care about whether or not the child is being harmed by the behavior of an allegedly responsible adult. Which pedophiles are (allegedly responsible adults) and do (harm children).

My religious beliefs? They don't even enter into this.

They are? Then what are obsesvie compulsives?

People who have an excessively difficult time controlling themselves.

People who have an excessively difficult time controlling themselves.
I am a strong believer in do for yourself but excessively is an understatement

There ARE some things a human can just not do

We have to recognize that

I am a strong believer in do for yourself but excessively is an understatement

There ARE some things a human can just not do

We have to recognize that

It's been my expirience that when a person who suffers from OC realizes that they're doing something due to it, they usually manage to stop themselves. It takes a while, but once they're aware of it, they can fight it. And they do. And eventually, they win (at least against that one bout). Or they concede slightly.

Last time I checked, though, no person suffering from OC committed a crime because OC 'made' them do it.

But, yes, I am aware that there are somethings a human cannot do, although I think that's mostly because we haven't figured out how.

I'm going to assume that you're one of the two paying members of the Man-Boy Love Association.

Not needed.

The term "Pedophilia" implies an unnatural and unhealthy sexual attraction to pre-pubescent minors. Consent should never even be considered for pre-pubescent children in my opinion.

Minors who go through puberty on the other hand? That's the kind of stuff that would be covered by the murky territory of Statutory Rape laws. If they've gone through puberty and a Sex Ed class, then they pretty much have the ability to consent to a sexual liaison.

Not needed.

Oh, yes it was! It made me feel better.

As in it gave me a modicum of understanding why anyone would post something like that. I can't imagine anyone else posting something like that.

Except maybe George W Bush, but there's no need to turn this into another Bush-burner.

The term "Pedophilia" implies an unnatural and unhealthy sexual attraction to pre-pubescent minors. Consent should never even be considered for pre-pubescent children in my opinion.

Minors who go through puberty on the other hand? That's the kind of stuff that would be covered by the murky territory of Statutory Rape laws. If they've gone through puberty and a Sex Ed class, then they pretty much have the ability to consent to a sexual liaison.
Kids know a lot of information ... it does not mean they can make an informed decision as to how it actually will impact them.

Kids know a lot of information ... it does not mean they can make an informed decision as to how it actually will impact them.

That's kind of hard to gauge accurately in a modern information society methinks, like judging who may or may not be a competent driver on appearance alone.

That's kind of hard to gauge accurately in a modern information society methinks, like judging who may or may not be a competent driver on appearance alone.
Agreed but its something that we have to try and get a handle on

Why are there people who want us to pity and pardon pedos?

Kids know a lot of information ... it does not mean they can make an informed decision as to how it actually will impact them.

If we required people to know as much information about every decision that people make as you think kids should have before they can have sex, then....

We'd either be living in a society where people waste away their entire lives studying the consequences of not showing up for class in Elementary School.

Or, we'd have one helluvan efficient government.

Why are there people who want us to pity and pardon pedos?

Pity? Yes, since that abnormal desire is often hardwired into their mind much like psychosis or any other mental illness.

Pardon? Not if they committed a crime.

That's kind of hard to gauge accurately in a modern information society methinks, like judging who may or may not be a competent driver on appearance alone.
I'd say it's impossible to judge, but the way our system of law works, we need bright lines when it comes to issues like consent, because there's no way to ensure equal treatment before the law otherwise.

And even with bright lines, we have varying laws from state to state on consent--are 14 year olds more ready to have sex in one state than they are in another? Not likely. Hell, I've known people who weren't ready for a sexual relationship when they were in their early twenties, but legally, they'd been okay for some time. We use the same sort of system for voting, for drinking, for entering into contracts. It doesn't take individual circumstances into account because there's no way to do that and have the law apply in any consistent way.

Pity? Yes, since that abnormal desire is often hardwired into their mind much like psychosis or any other mental illness.

Prove it.

If we required people to know as much information about every decision that people make as you think kids should have before they can have sex, then....

We'd either be living in a society where people waste away their entire lives studying the consequences of not showing up for class in Elementary School.

Or, we'd have one helluvan efficient government.
Um my statement was not about their lack of informaton it was about a lack of UNDERSTANDING how it effects them personally

There is a difference

Prove it.
prove pitty exists

I do not advicate intercourse "informed consent" in truth. I do advocate a variant which considers potential risks of pregnancy, disease, and social harm. There are real physical risks even when condomns are used.

The intense long lasting truama do to sexual interaction with an adult as a child for every child idea is a fabrication. No more real than Jesus. Mary K Leuternou and her young lover prove that.

In truth cuase I doubt you are intelegent enough to know.

Age of consent laws only cover intercourse. There needs to be some assorted penatratration for the law to be violated.

Other laws which involve sexuality and a child's involvment are. moral corruption of a minor. endangering the welfare of a child. sexual harassment of a child, etc.

There are many laws which leave out the intire consept of consent. There are a lot of sexual things you can do with a child that are not against age of consent laws but are kinda covered by other laws.

Prove it.

Pedophilia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia)

I do not advicate intercourse "informed consent" in truth. I do advocate a variant which considers potential risks of pregnancy, disease, and social harm. There are real physical risks even when condomns are used.

There are real physical risks to going to sleep at night, too.

The intense long lasting truama do to sexual interaction with an adult as a child for every child idea is a fabrication. No more real than Jesus. Mary K Leuternou and her young lover prove that.

There's quite a bit of difference between a thirteen year old boy whose testes have dropped and a six year old boy who "gets touched down there by Daddy". Your comparison is so full of holes that if it were filled with beer, it would draw every hick from a hundred and fifty miles.

And Jesus was pretty damned real. Jesus Christ is another matter entirely.

In truth cuase I doubt you are intelegent enough to know.

Next time you say that, smile so I know we're still friends.

Age of consent laws only cover intercourse. There needs to be some assorted penatratration for the law to be violated.

Penetration is not required for rape to occur. Sorry.

Other laws which involve sexuality and a child's involvment are. moral corruption of a minor. endangering the welfare of a child. sexual harassment of a child, etc.

That pretty squarely falls under the category of endangering the welfare of a child.

There are many laws which leave out the intire consept of consent. There are a lot of sexual things you can do with a child that are not against age of consent laws but are kinda covered by other laws.

Most things aren't crimes with out consent. But a lot are. Murder is. Theft is (if the consent is part of a scheme to get insurance money).

Pedophilia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia)
While I agree that some pedeophila is hardwired, Wiki does not proof make.

While I agree that some pedeophila is hardwired, Wiki does not proof make.

Wiki may not be a solid authority, but I was hoping people would pay attention to the sources cited as well.

Wiki may not be a solid authority, but I was hoping people would pay attention to the sources cited as well.
Wiki citied one source for this, and the orginal paper isn't included in the links.

Hmm, maybe I'll do some digging later.

That's kind of hard to gauge accurately in a modern information society methinks, like judging who may or may not be a competent driver on appearance alone.

Well you usually don't have to judge the emotional level of a driver and his competency on driving.

Apples and oranges that is....

Prove it.

Quick and dirty:
Do YOU have complete concious control of whom you are attracted to and who not ? If not, why do you expect others to ? If so - can you share your secret ? Knowing how not to fall in love with bitches would be ... useful.

Quick and dirty:
Do YOU have complete concious control of whom you are attracted to and who not ? If not, why do you expect others to ? If so - can you share your secret ? Knowing how not to fall in love with bitches would be ... useful.

I don't know. Off all the girls I have dated/loved the only constant traits they all shared was they were alive, human, and female. ;)

Different shapes, heights and personalites......

No.
Parents ot Legal Guardians can only decide about their own sex life..


Not true.

In many states, there is an actual age of consent, and an age that will allow the act if the parents or guardians give thier consent.
Usually, its 16, with 17 being legal age of consent.

If a person upon reaching the age of consent who had a sexual encounter with an adult as a child says that knowing what they do now they would have still consented to the sexual encounter they had with the adult as a child would should that be enough to pardon the adult of a crime of statutary rape or other sexual conduct with minor type crimes?

Is delayed consent given by a person after reaching the age of consent good enough for a pardon when it comes to sexual encounters with minors? Should delayed consent get people out of Jail, off of pedophile registeries, maybe even compensation for false imprisonment?

They still did the sexual act with someone who is not able to "consent", according to law. What I mean is, it doesn't matter if the child consents or not, they are still underage. Therefore the act is still illegal even if they reach the age of consent. I dunno though.
Probably not a good idea.

Blah. I don't think that makes sense. Can't get what I'm thinking onto the screen :\

There are real physical risks to going to sleep at night, too.

There's quite a bit of difference between a thirteen year old boy whose testes have dropped and a six year old boy who "gets touched down there by Daddy". Your comparison is so full of holes that if it were filled with beer, it would draw every hick from a hundred and fifty miles.

And Jesus was pretty damned real. Jesus Christ is another matter entirely.



Next time you say that, smile so I know we're still friends.



Penetration is not required for rape to occur. Sorry.



That pretty squarely falls under the category of endangering the welfare of a child.



Most things aren't crimes with out consent. But a lot are. Murder is. Theft is (if the consent is part of a scheme to get insurance money).

There's quite a bit of difference between a thirteen year old boy whose testes have dropped and a six year old boy who "gets touched down there by Daddy". Your comparison is so full of holes that if it were filled with beer, it would draw every hick from a hundred and fifty miles.

And this difference would be? No one wants this issue examined. Maybe you should just let my word rest without responding to it. ;) Any ways I think the difference you are refering to is the size of the breach of that which is taboo. I could also argue that eating cow could sentence you to very bad karma.

And Jesus was pretty damned real. Jesus Christ is another matter entirely.

Jesus as he is featured in the Bible is just plain to big to be real. Rather on the scale of mythical heros not great historical figures.

Penetration is not required for rape to occur. Sorry.

Actually I found out. It depends on who you ask.

This guy seems to believe penatration is required.

http://www.gottrouble.com/legal/criminal/criminal_law/rape.html
This guy also
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/rape.html
This guy also
http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/2003dig/IIIA5.htm

The only guy who I've found so far that has suggested no penetration is needed for a charge of rape is you and the Wikipedia guy.

The only guy who I've found so far that has suggested no penetration is needed for a charge of rape is you and the Wikipedia guy.

So according to you a woman would not be able to rape another woman without a dildo or other penetrating tool ?

So according to you a woman would not be able to rape another woman without a dildo or other penetrating tool ?

If I said penetration is required for rape than kinda. Although a finger may very well count.