NationStates Jolt Archive

Kids that dumb deserve what they get.

Kids that dumb deserve what they get.

:rolleyes:

Kids that dumb deserve what they get.

The underage consent laws exist explicitly because kids are not considered to be able to determine if their choice is "dumb" or "not dumb".

:rolleyes:

Is it really all that different than playing with a loaded gun or keeping some sort of dangerous un-domesticated pet?

"Shit, there was a bullet in the chamber? I never would have guessed!"

You can leave your hat on.

A little Joe Cocker from The Full Monty soundtrack. Excellent choice for this thread, I must say.

Emphasis mine. Nuff said. He clearly consented. The sex was clearly consentual. The police, and the rest of you, merely don't care what he thinks.

The law doesn't care what he thinks. What we think doesn't matter...unless we change the law.

Six is not thirteen.

The "consent" of a six-year-old is clearly meaningless... but you simply cannot say the same for the consent of at least a large number of thirteen-year-olds.

But you can say it about enough 13 year olds that the lowest US A-of-C is 14. The line had to be drawn somewhere. Why? Because no court system in the world needs to be clogged with case-by-case basis lawsuits and/or arrests trying to determine which 13-y-o is cogent, and which are not. Having been a substitute teacher at middle schools and high schools for two years, I can tell you it's a flat-out coin flip at 13. You can have kids who I'd be willing to teach drive on my own car, and you can have kids who I wouldn't trust to carry a box of air across a room without managing to somehow break the air in the box.

The fact that a 13-y-o boy is horny does not even remotely suggest informed consent is possible. I love my country, but the whole Puritan thing combined with the sex-sells thing is continuing to mess with the minds of successive generations. Anstinence-only sex-ed isn't helping -- the one time in their lives we need to be honest and open with kids, and we're doing the educational equivalent of sticking our fingers in our ears or telling kids that sex is radioactive and emboldens terrorists (which, in the right, or wrong, hands, I suppose could be true).

Emphasis mine. So what you are saying is that the Law agrees with you.

That said, the law was appealed to several time. "He cannot consent legally."

That said, the real question here is not, "What does the law say," but can a child make an informed decision?

So, here's my question: Can you prove that, in and of itself, a child cannot make an informed decision?

Rather, I disagree based on my own current disposition. I am 18. I am therefore at a legal age for sex. I am saying that, as an 18 year old, were I 13, I would have wanted to have such a thing happen to me, having 20/20 hindsight.

So as an 18 year old, I would have gladly fucked her either way.

So, clearly, there is at least some degree of consent in this case, at least for me.

So then where is the line? Again -- if you think the courts are slow now, try erasing A-of-C laws and see how things congest. Add in the possibility of enabling parents to consent for their kids, and the creepy factor goes up a notch or two as well.

So if I get too shitfaced to stand and stumble off with a stranger because it seemed like a good idea at the time have I implied consent?

Edit: Where do we draw the line between that and being just slightly over the limit when you meet someone attractive and decide to head back to their place?

Good question. I'd draw the line at the point where the booze has worn off to the point where he/she returns to looking like the troglodyte they were before you drank them sexy. But that's me.

Good question. I'd draw the line at the point where the booze has worn off to the point where he/she returns to looking like the troglodyte they were before you drank them sexy. But that's me.
Bartender: Whatcha looking at?
Patron: A picture of my wife.
Bartender: Miss her?
Patron: Nah, when she starts looking sexy, I know I had too much to drink.

Bartender: Whatcha looking at?
Patron: A picture of my wife.
Bartender: Miss her?
Patron: Nah, when she starts looking sexy, I know I had too much to drink.

Ah, the classics!

Thank you.

Linkage (http://news10now.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=113208)



Proof at last that there are female internet predators. But most shocking:


Your 13 year old son meets a 22 year old women on the internet and you let her stay with you? What are you smoking?

1. I don't need proof - most guys wouldn't report a female rapist due to the stigma attached (as I'm sure some of the comments, which I'm not going to bother looking at, show)

2. Apparently the mother was aware of some stuff. I don't give a shit if she's aware of nothing, you don't let a CHILD alone with an ADULT stranger!

...
the lowest US A-of-C is 14.I think the AoC in the US is 16

13-16 in EU.

Mexico, turkey and Iraq its 18 ... I think.

2. Apparently the mother was aware of some stuff. I don't give a shit if she's aware of nothing, you don't let a CHILD alone with an ADULT stranger!
in defense of the mother. it could be that she did know, and approved of the 22 yr old for her son. and mistakenly thought that her consent made it legal.

but that's speculation.

I think the AoC in the US is 16

13-16 in EU.

Mexico, turkey and Iraq its 18 ... I think.

Hawaii is 14
South Carolina is 14 with Parental Consent.
New Mexico has Female and Male Homosexual at 13

another site (http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html) has Idaho at 14 so don't know how up-to-date they are.

South Carolina is 14 with Parental Consent.

Do other states also have multiple ages of consent ? For instance children with other children being allowed sooner than a child with adult ?

I think the AoC in the US is 16

13-16 in EU.

Mexico, turkey and Iraq its 18 ... I think.

So the point is that the line is indeed drawn. It has to be.

Do other states also have multiple ages of consent ? For instance children with other children being allowed sooner than a child with adult ?

yep...
here (http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html)
and here (http://teenadvice.about.com/library/weekly/qanda/blageofconsentchart.htm)
and... oh heck... here's the google list (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=age+of+consent+state+).

yep...
here (http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html)
and here (http://teenadvice.about.com/library/weekly/qanda/blageofconsentchart.htm)
and... oh heck... here's the google list (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=age+of+consent+state+).I found this at one of your links

Utah Supreme Court justices acknowledged Tuesday that they were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old Ogden girl could be both an offender and a victim for the same act - in this case, having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend.

The girl was put in this odd position because she was found guilty of violating a state law that prohibits sex with someone under age 14. She also was the victim in the case against her boyfriend, who was found guilty of the same violation by engaging in sexual activity with her.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=28524
http://sadlynormal.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/ut-teen-both-a-perpetrator-and-victim-of-sex-offense-presents-legal-puzzle/

So the point is that the line is indeed drawn. It has to be.

To link that back to my question and the sites JuNii posted:
Why does it have to be a single line ?

:confused: Who the hell plays Runescape anymore?

I do. Lots, when I can. :p

But to go for a 13 years old is... just... sick... >_>

Plus the game's not a dating service anyway. :p

Plus the game's not a dating service anyway. :p

"Free cex plz" ?

"Free cex plz" ?

Report under #1 rule - offensive language. :p

Jagex recently had a crack-down (before this thing) on stuff like that. Even looking for a "bf/gf" is now reportable.

Report under #1 rule - offensive language. :p

Jagex recently had a crack-down (before this thing) on stuff like that. Even looking for a "bf/gf" is now reportable.

Which is silly. Roleplaying a nice marriage ceremony is fun.

Which is silly. Roleplaying a nice marriage ceremony is fun.

Which is a silly thing to do in an online game to begin with, but the point is "no soliticing in public chat" - what people do via private chat and in secluded places is their problem, of course, just like in real life.

Besides, if the boy was 13 when the woman got to her, he must have been under 13 when they met in RuneScape (if that's where they met - didn't read the original article), which makes him a rulebreaker anyway since under 13 can't play RuneScape (at least not without constant and thorough parental guidance.

So it comes a full circle: parents should be more aware of what their children do, online and offline. :p

Which is a silly thing to do in an online game to begin with

The roleplaying or the banning ?

Besides, if the boy was 13 when the woman got to her, he must have been under 13 when they met in RuneScape (if that's where they met - didn't read the original article), which makes him a rulebreaker anyway since under 13 can't play RuneScape (at least not without constant and thorough parental guidance.
So it comes a full circle: parents should be more aware of what their children do, online and offline. :p

The kids mom allowed the woman to stay at their place. It seems she did know ;)

I found this at one of your links

yep. one of those weird exceptions. but what's the solution? to let the crime go unpunished? or punish both as perpertrators...

yep. one of those weird exceptions. but what's the solution? to let the crime go unpunished? or punish both as perpertrators...

Punish the parents for letting two children have sex? ;)

The roleplaying or the banning?

The roleplaying. And don't start on the prayer book thing. :p

The kids mom allowed the woman to stay at their place. It seems she did know ;)

My point exactly - she's either pimping her kid or else just massively retarted.

The roleplaying. And don't start on the prayer book thing. :p


What is RuneScape?
RuneScape is a browser-based MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game).

Surely one should be able to roleplay in a role playing game ;) ?
Besides, how else will one get rid of cakes, pie, beer and wine ;)

but what's the solution? to let the crime go unpunished? or punish both as perpertrators... First of, it should net be defined as rape.

Second, in this case (Utah teens couple), I dont see a crime.
If the law defines this as a crime.. then the Law is wrong.

Surely one should be able to roleplay in a role playing game ;) ?

Within the game rules, unless one wishes to lose their game account, naturally. :p

actually... if you read some of those AoC...

I was too scared to, LOL.

"Loco Americano." :p

Punish the parents for letting two children have sex? ;)

actually... if you read some of those AoC...

FOOTNOTES:
[1]Age 16 if the man is 21 or older.
[2]If the female is over 12, the status applies only to virgins.

In Canada, consensual activity with those over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent according to national law, although provincial laws may vary.

so basically... the Age of Consent is ## but if [condition] then it's ## but only if [condition] then ##, however, if not indicated, then it's ##.

so no wonder people get confused and just assume 16! :p

First of, it is NOT rape.

Second, in this case (Utah), I dont see a crime. If a law defines this as a crime.. that Law is wrong.

So you are the ultimate judge of what is against the law and not?

boy will all those Lawyers and Judges be pissed that they are now out of a job. :p

and It appears that not only the judge, but the appeal board doesn't agree with you.

A juvenile court judge denied the motion by Z.C., who then admitted to the offense while preserving her right to appeal to a higher court.

The Utah Court of Appeals last December upheld the judge’s refusal to dismiss the allegation.

So you are the ultimate judge Yes I am,
Didn't you get the memo? ;)



..and It appears that not only the judge, but the appeal board doesn't agree with you.its me against the world again?

sweet... just the way I like it :cool:

I think it's because, legally, marriage is nothing more than a contract, which is something parents and guardians can sign (in most circumstances) for their children. But I see your point. I just think giving parents and guardians the power to consent to sex for their children is a really bad precedent to set.I suppose I just feel that way because I think these cases should be decided on a case by case basis, and the parent thinking the 13-year-old could consent to sex is evidence that he would be.

There are laws dealing with adults having sex with minors other that statutory rape laws? Really?

And obviously I mean in places that have statutory rape laws.There are things like "corrupting the morals of a minor", yes.

And some were thinking about young male teachers, or the captain of the foot ball team . . .Ah. <Swoon.>

So the point is that the line is indeed drawn. It has to be.Certainly. Draw the line somewhere, but leave everything between puberty and that line decided on a case by case basis.

I suppose I just feel that way because I think these cases should be decided on a case by case basis, and the parent thinking the 13-year-old could consent to sex is evidence that he would be.


You'll get no argument from me on it being case-by-case. As to parents, the parent believing their child is ready as evidence, sure, but actually being able to provide consent, no.

To link that back to my question and the sites JuNii posted:
Why does it have to be a single line ?

How would you propose drawing more than one? Who decides?

As arbitrary as one line/one age might seem, it's easy to interpret, easy to understand, and has no legal loopholes in it. Anything more complex is asking for a drag on the courts and a micromanagement of human behavior.

I think it's simple. If you are a parent and you have no problem with your underage son/daughter having sex (I would add "and if you've prepared them as full as possible for everything that entails), then you have only one thing to do, and it's an opt-out: don't report it. If your child's sexual partner is also underage, make damn sure their parents agree with you. If that's the case, then nobody calls the cops, nothing gets reported, the line/law works fine.

You needn't complicate matters with a law that has to tapdance if everyone would simply talk to one another about the whole mess. But the Puritan side of US society (in the combination of Puritan and Capitalist, that is "sex sells") will forever (it seems) make that next to impossible.

actually... if you read some of those AoC...





so basically... the Age of Consent is ## but if [condition] then it's ## but only if [condition] then ##, however, if not indicated, then it's ##.

so no wonder people get confused and just assume 16! :p

That's the "tapdancing" kinf of law I mentioned in post #285.

*snip*
Certainly. Draw the line somewhere, but leave everything between puberty and that line decided on a case by case basis.

Great in theory, impossible in practice.

How would you propose drawing more than one? Who decides?

Example - system of the Netherlands:
< 12 : all sexual intercourse is illegal
>= 12: sex within marriage and noncommercial sexual intercourse "deemed acceptable by society" are legal. Exact boundaries are not defined on purpose. Since getting a marriage license for such young people is very hard in the Netherlands, the first part primarily accomodates foreigners.
>= 16: Noncommercial sexual intercourse is legal regardless of agedifferences. An exception is made for dependency relations.
>= 18: Commercial sexual intercourse is legal.

If one dislikes the fuzziness of "deemed acceptable" one can always set a hard limit. It would just prevent the 16 year old boy making love to his 15 year old girlfriend being imprisoned for rape.

Great in theory, impossible in practice.

Practice seems to disagree.

How so? You can't consent when you're drunk, and if you have sex without consenting it's rape.
If both parties are equally drunk and equally unable to give consent though, how is it rape? Especially when one is in a relationship with the person they are having sex with in their inebriated state.

Short of forced sodomy, a female can't rape a male.

Short of forced sodomy, a female can't rape a male.

Only true if you consider forced penetration as a necessary condition of it being a rape.

Short of forced sodomy, a female can't rape a male.

Unless it has the word "statutory" before the word "rape"

Short of forced sodomy, a female can't rape a male.

So... it is impossible for a man to get an erection against his will ?

Short of forced sodomy, a female can't rape a male.

I was under the impression the case was to be tried in California.
Apparently, it's New York. So I'll take the risk of being wrong.

California defines Second Degree Rape as, among other things, "vaginal intercourse without consent"

Holy crap, it's so unfair. The drunken aussie guy actually read the 500-word article linked to in the OP.
And out of sheer impertinence, googled "second-degree rape"

What is the world coming to? Doesn't 8,000 posts mean anything any more ?

I'm well aware there are legal contrivances like statutory rape that cover this, but I don't think they should apply in a case like this, because I don't think a female can rape a male, short of forced sodomy.

I'm well aware there are legal contrivances like statutory rape that cover this, but I don't think they should apply in a case like this, because I don't think a female can rape a male, short of forced sodomy.

So once again, you consider forced penetration to be a necessary condition before it can be rape?

Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by sodomy.

I'm well aware there are legal contrivances like statutory rape that cover this, but I don't think they should apply in a case like this, because I don't think a female can rape a male, short of forced sodomy.

Why ? What do you call rape ?
It is certainly possible for a woman to have sex with a man against his will - surely you are not suffering from the delusion that men have full conscious control over their penis?

Why ? What do you call rape ?
It is certainly possible for a woman to have sex with a man against his will - surely you are not suffering from the delusion that men have full conscious control over their penis?

Can you provide a conviction like this?

So once again, you consider forced penetration to be a necessary condition before it can be rape?

Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by sodomy.

Correct, a forced penetration.

Can you provide a conviction like this?

Stop dodging the question. Feel free to also answer what you would call a man having sex with a woman for the sole reason she would have his son killed otherwise.

Correct, a forced penetration.

So then, if I tied a woman down and abused her sexually without penetration, it wouldn't be rape?

Can you provide a conviction like this?

Can you (i'm assuming you're male) force your penis to become erect, or to remain flacid, at will? and ,assuming you do so, does this always mean you are willing to have sex. Your logical mind can tell you that sex with the person is a bad idea and therefore you can choose not to have sex even when erect

I'm well aware there are legal contrivances like statutory rape that cover this, but I don't think they should apply in a case like this, because I don't think a female can rape a male, short of forced sodomy.

Statutory rape applies to consensual sex between two people and therefore can apply to either a male 'victim' or a female 'victim'. Whether they say they have consented or not does not matter as the law does not agree that they are able to give consent, hence statutory rape being applicable in both cases

Statutory rape applies to consensual sex between two people and therefore can apply to either a male 'victim' or a female 'victim'. Whether they say they have consented or not does not matter as the law does not agree that they are able to give consent, hence statutory rape being applicable in both cases

I'm well aware there are legal contrivances like statutory rape that cover this, but I don't think they should apply in a case like this, because I don't think a female can rape a male, short of forced sodomy.


See


Reading comprehension is fundamental.

So then, if I tied a woman down and abused her sexually without penetration, it wouldn't be rape?

Very grave assault, but not rape, in my opinion.

Stop dodging the question. Feel free to also answer what you would call a man having sex with a woman for the sole reason she would have his son killed otherwise.

Extortion, assault, &c, but not rape, in my opinion, since there is no forced penetration.

Very grave assault, but not rape, in my opinion.

At least you're consistent, though I'm not sure the law would agree with you.

At least you're consistent, though I'm not sure the law would agree with you.

As I've had to post twice in this thread already for another poster, I do not agree with the law.

See


Reading comprehension is fundamental.

Because males are always mature enough to give consent whereas females aren't?

Because males are always mature enough to give consent whereas females aren't?

If a male is penetrated while under the age of consent, the statutory rape law should apply equally.

Molestation and being indecently accosted is already covered under its own set of laws.

If a male is penetrated while under the age of consent, the statutory rape law should apply equally.

Molestation and being indecently accosted is already covered under its own set of laws.

What in the hell are you babbling about ?

EDIT: All those posts, repeatedly championing the same idea: "rape is forced penetration. Nothing else is rape."
You concede that there are other sexual crimes, 'very grave assault' etc. Presumably you would agree that in some cases, these should be punished as severly as rape, that there are degrees of rape (use of violence, humiliation, duration and some kind of measurement of the damage done being factors).

So what the hell does it matter ? How does the use of what you insist is the "correct" word for it make a damn bit of difference?

What in the hell are you babbling about ?

You have an obsession with penetration I think.

That some sort of pissant, ham-handed, faux-psychoanalytical personal attack? WTF? Get a grip.

In my opinion, a sex act or sodomy (penetration) has to occur for an assault to count as rape.

Molestation, stuff like that, which does not actually involve rape, is and should be treated differently, as far as I am concerned.

Not to say the latter should be taken lightly, but I think to call it "rape" is to misapply the word.

Someone who doesn't understand the implications of that position pointed out, to no one's education, that statutory rape is based on the age of consent.

I responded that there is no reason that statutory rape and age of consent statutes shouldn't apply to boys as well as to girls, so long as the criteria of rape are fulfilled to begin with.

If any of this is less than fully sensible and internally logical, please explain. If I am indeed babbling, this shouldn't be difficult.

Put up or shut up!

PS: Reading comprehension is fundamental!

That some sort of pissant, ham-handed, faux-psychoanalytical personal attack? WTF? Get a grip.

In my opinion, a sex act or sodomy (penetration) has to occur for an assault to count as rape.

I know. You have said it several times. What do you want, a chorus line of posters telling you you're right? The point has been made. Almost no-one agrees.

Molestation, stuff like that, which does not actually involve rape, is and should be treated differently, as far as I am concerned.

OK, now we're getting somewhere.
"Treated differently" HOW ? More severely, less?

Not to say the latter should be taken lightly, but I think to call it "rape" is to misapply the word.

Someone who doesn't understand the implications of that position pointed out, to no one's education, that statutory rape is based on the age of consent.

I responded that there is no reason that statutory rape and age of consent statutes shouldn't apply to boys as well as to girls, so long as the criteria of rape are fulfilled to begin with.

If any of this is less than fully sensible and internally logical, please explain. If I am indeed babbling, this shouldn't be difficult.

Put up or shut up!

PS: Reading comprehension is fundamental!

The bolded bit we agree on. But you could explain what action should be taken when YOUR criteria (not 'the criteria' as you sneakily suggest) of rape are not met ? Should it be the same for boys and girls (eg an adult performing oral sex on children of equal age) ?

Oh jeez, I'm sorry. Me and my pesky reading comprehension.

Half of this thread seems to be about the meaning of the word "rape."
I'm not inclined to blame the OP for mistitling the thread, since the word "raping" was taken right from the headline of the article which is the basis for discussion.
Nor am I inclined to blame the article's author for mistitling it. Of the few facts available, one that is beyond dispute is that the police have arrested a 22-y-o woman and charged her with rape.

In this context, the only meaning "rape" could possibly have is it's legal one under New York law:

Second Degree Rape 130.30
Defined as Sexual Intercourse, where the victim is incapable of consent by reason of being mentally disabled or mentally incapacitated, OR
Defendent is over 18 and the victim under 15.

Class D Felony
Maximum sentence 2.3-7years

MORE DETAILS OF THE CASE IN THIS ARTICLE (http://www.newswatch50.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=17248b97-9557-41de-b978-a5afa721249e)

I know. You have said it several times. What do you want, a chorus line of posters telling you you're right? The point has been made. Almost no-one agrees.



OK, now we're getting somewhere.
"Treated differently" HOW ? More severely, less?



The bolded bit we agree on. But you could explain what action should be taken when YOUR criteria (not 'the criteria' as you sneakily suggest) of rape are not met ? Should it be the same for boys and girls (eg an adult performing oral sex on children of equal age) ?

I don't speculate on which one should be punished more or less severely, I just don't think "rape" is the best term.

Whatever the punishment is for child molestation should apply equally to boys and girls.

I'm well aware what "rape" means under NY Law, I disagree with their definition for the reason's I've made very clear throughout the thread. A woman can molest a boy, but by having sex with him while he's under the age of consent, I don't think she can "rape" him in a significant sense, unless she sodomizes him.

You can post a hundred different laws which define rape in a way that I don't agree with, and I will still disagree for the reasons above.


Reading comprehension protip:

Disagreeing about how a word *ought* to be used does not imply that a person is mistaken when he reports the way a word *is* used, as with the title of the thread.

I don't speculate on which one should be punished more or less severely, I just don't think "rape" is the best term.

OK. I'll take the slight softening implied in "best term" as agreement to disagree on this.
"Rape" is a word with a lot of baggage, and fortunately it seems to be being phased out as a legal term.

Whatever the punishment is for child molestation should apply equally to boys and girls.

Good.

I'd like to get back to discussing the case and the implications of it.
But you don't have to play that game if you don't want.

Reading comprehension protip:

Disagreeing about how a word *ought* to be used does not imply that a person is mistaken when he reports the way a word *is* used, as with the title of the thread.

If you read that through carefully, it will become far more apparent to you why others seem to have reading comprehension problems. :p

Eew. Yucky. Bad person. Does yucky thing. Eeeew.

Proof at last that there are female internet predators.
Why should this even be necessary? I doubt anyone thinks female net predators don't exist.

Why should this even be necessary? I doubt anyone thinks female net predators don't exist.
I do...

Wasn't this some kind've "statutory" BS though? Going with an eager albieit underage guy is hardly the same as forcibly violating a woman you grab and force into an alleyway.

Wasn't this some kind've "statutory" BS though? Going with an eager albieit underage guy is hardly the same as forcibly violating a woman you grab and force into an alleyway.
Sure, you can say that the 13-year-old knew what he was getting into and it shouldn't be rape. But what's the logical extension of that? As long as a child says yes, it's okay? Either you can go through it on a case-by-case basis and assess whether or not the child involved was completely aware of what they were doing and the consequences, thus wasting huge amounts of time and money, or you can set an age bar.

which is why its statutory rape and why the mother is facing charges.

would you feel the same way if a 22 year old man was invited into the home for sex with a 13 year old girl?
I know I would. Girls are in fact more emotionally mature than boys of the same age, on average. The only unfortunate part is the social pressure on girls who'd be allowed to do so.

In my opinion, a sex act or sodomy (penetration) has to occur for an assault to count as rape.

Molestation, stuff like that, which does not actually involve rape, is and should be treated differently, as far as I am concerned.

Not to say the latter should be taken lightly, but I think to call it "rape" is to misapply the word. So then if someone you didn't want to have sex with hopped onto your morning wood while you were still asleep, they didn't rape you?

Sure, you can say that the 13-year-old knew what he was getting into and it shouldn't be rape. But what's the logical extension of that? As long as a child says yes, it's okay? Either you can go through it on a case-by-case basis and assess whether or not the child involved was completely aware of what they were doing and the consequences, thus wasting huge amounts of time and money, or you can set an age bar.I'm fine with doing it on a case by case basis. This law is meant to protect children from predators. If a particular child doesn't need protection, then the law is worthless (in that particular child's case).

So then if someone you didn't want to have sex with hopped onto your morning wood while you were still asleep, they didn't rape you?

I'm fine with doing it on a case by case basis. This law is meant to protect children from predators. If a particular child doesn't need protection, then the law is worthless (in that particular child's case).
Maybe you're right. I can't speak for anyone else, but in my own experience, I was glad just to have it sttled quickly. The last thing I needed at that time was some court-appointed beureaucrat quizzing me about how much I knew about sex when it started.

*snip*

MORE DETAILS OF THE CASE IN THIS ARTICLE (http://www.newswatch50.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=17248b97-9557-41de-b978-a5afa721249e)

Any chance of a link to this getting put in the OP, Iffrean ?

The article is no longer than the first one, but it gives more details as to the role of the mother and casts doubt on the interpretation that the 22-y-o lived for two weeks in the kid's house.

Those are important factors, as acknowledged in the last line of the OP.

It also claims that the 'tipoff' came from California. At least one poster speculated on that.

I've been a dick late in this thread, but I'm going for a few days now and I hope people will read this article as well as the first one.

Why ? What do you call rape ?depend what country are you on.

in the US it depends what state are you on.
If two 17 years old bf/gf are doing it inside a motorhome.. while traveling across a state border.. they can be a "raping" each other for half the intercourse.

or two 21 year olds drinking a lot of beer.

Why should this even be necessary? I doubt anyone thinks female net predators don't exist.
There are females on the internet?

or two 21 year olds drinking a lot of beer.
No, no, then it is the guy raping the girl.

I know I would. Girls are in fact more emotionally mature than boys of the same age, on average. The only unfortunate part is the social pressure on girls who'd be allowed to do so.
Girls are emotional crackpots until at least 19.

Someone should make this an issue. Seriously. I'd vote in favour of "Age of consent is 10(okay, maybe 12)+parental approval" for both sides. Now that's equality.

No, no, then it is the guy raping the girl.

I think your flamebait somehow got a bit wet.

Someone should make this an issue. Seriously. I'd vote in favour of "Age of consent is 10(okay, maybe 12)+parental approval" for both sides. Now that's equality.how about: 13 for males and 15 for females. ?
yes.. I am sexist that way.

I think your flamebait somehow got a bit wet.
What flame bait?

What flame bait?

Damn it's wet now. There's no way you'll get a hook in that.

Chuck it overboard, call it berley.

how about: 13 for males and 15 for females. ?
yes.. I am sexist that way.

Quoted for honesty.

Someone should make this an issue. Seriously. I'd vote in favour of "Age of consent is 10(okay, maybe 12)+parental approval" for both sides. Now that's equality.

Seriously?

No, really. If you want to argue that case, I'll listen and criticize constructively. I've read some of your posts, and you do seem serious. But I've been baited a few times in this very thread.

If you're serious, I'll stay up and discuss it.

depend what country are you on.

in the US it depends what state are you on.
If two 17 years old bf/gf are doing it inside a motorhome.. while traveling across a state border.. they can be a "raping" each other for half the intercourse.

or two 21 year olds drinking a lot of beer.
No, no, then it is the guy raping the girl.


Fixed.

Quoted for honesty.If your point is that I am Honest..
Then how -the hell- can I prove you wrong?

Maybe If I say: Yes I am honest.

does it work, does it makes sense?

how about: 13 for males and 15 for females. ?
yes.. I am sexist that way.

Why have different ages?

Why have different ages?To be honest.. I dont know where that gender differential comes from.. (it comes from me.. but I dont know what part of me)

Lets just say its my pure animal instinct.

To be honest.. I dont know where that gender differential comes from.. (it comes from me.. but I dont know what part of me)

Lets just say its my pure animal instinct.

Its instinct for people to want to spread and protect their religion by making it law as well yet we try not to let people make laws about that.

Unless their is a logical reason for it, it should not be law. Making laws based on "feelings" is ALWAYS a bad idea

Its instinct for people to want to..I think my instinct wants to protect more the females that the males.. a feeling I have that the girls are more at risk.


Making laws based on "feelings" is ALWAYS a bad ideaYou are probably right.

I "quoted for honesty" by taking out the white (presumably invisible without selecting) part of your post.

I use the whiting-out thing sometimes, for comic effect or to add a little something for those who are curious about my post.

You use it as "small print," as a pedantic trick to evade responsibility for saying what you think. The plaintext is what you think, the whited-out your "I was only joking" cop-out.its all good,
BTW I am sexist in some ways -and I am on the record- someone in this forum called me a sexist-according to her definition- and I did concede.

I would really rather not talk to you..just like 90% of the internet. :D
.

but I think it would be better for both of us if we didn't reply to each other?You are the master of your keyboard.. but beware, I am addictive.. like cocaine.


A couple of days back, I said I was done talking to you.They all say that.


Now I'm breaking my word.resistance is futile ;)


Can we make this THE LAST TIME ?...

See you soon my friend :fluffle:

So then, if I tied a woman down and abused her sexually without penetration, it wouldn't be rape? technically... yes it's not rape

At least you're consistent, though I'm not sure the law would agree with you. it would. the charge would most likely be Sexual Molestation, Sexual assault.

Oh jeez, I'm sorry. Me and my pesky reading comprehension.

Half of this thread seems to be about the meaning of the word "rape."
I'm not inclined to blame the OP for mistitling the thread, since the word "raping" was taken right from the headline of the article which is the basis for discussion.
Nor am I inclined to blame the article's author for mistitling it. Of the few facts available, one that is beyond dispute is that the police have arrested a 22-y-o woman and charged her with rape.

In this context, the only meaning "rape" could possibly have is it's legal one under New York law:

Second Degree Rape 130.30
Defined as Sexual Intercourse, where the victim is incapable of consent by reason of being mentally disabled or mentally incapacitated, OR
Defendent is over 18 and the victim under 15.

Class D Felony
Maximum sentence 2.3-7years

MORE DETAILS OF THE CASE IN THIS ARTICLE (http://www.newswatch50.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=17248b97-9557-41de-b978-a5afa721249e)

and being in New York, that's the law they're using. nice link btw.

technically... yes it's not rape

it would. the charge would most likely be Sexual Molestation, Sexual assault.


From what I could dig up after that exchange, I think Sexual Assault, though it varies from state to state. I think Molestation is applied usually only to minors.

I don't necessarily agree with that definition, but going into the hows and whys would be...very much less than pleasant for me.

Oh, fuck it. OD-3 can be quite charming sometimes.thx, same to you my friend.

Someone should make this an issue. Seriously. I'd vote in favour of "Age of consent is 10(okay, maybe 12)+parental approval" for both sides. Now that's equality.

In only one sense is it "equality." The sense of having one rule for both sexes.

By tossing "parental approval" into the mix you are actually making it less ... sorry, but "equitable" is the correct word, an urge towards equality ... equitable. Good parents will make careful and considered decisions on behalf of their children, but bad parents will make careless and cynical decisions, which harm their children.

That happens anyway, and it is grossly inequitable. It tends toward inequality. Give it the force of law? I think not.

Yet, I notice that 10 is the approximate age of puberty. A bell rings. You, AKKisia, have said a thing of sense there, and I encourage you to expand on it.

EDIT: And since I won't be back for several days, I will make these points which I cannot defend:
According to the mugshot, the 22-y-o woman is not ugly, nor fat. That is a healthy, good-looking woman who has been crying for days.
The mother almost certainly tried persuasion, but the lovers eloped, then she got in contact with friends of the 22-y-o, and they agreed to report the 'crime' so her son wouldn't feel so betrayed. Yep, total guess.
Every party is a victim here. But the law is the law, and there should be honour among thieves. If these three people make common cause, the charges will be dropped. There are two ways to break a law.
The law must be enforced. But people (judge, jury, defendent, prosecutor and witnesses) enforce it, and herein is justice ... it lives in the hearts of people. People informed by their own enquiry, and keenly aware of their responsibility in deciding the fate of others.
Minimum sentences are crap. Obviously, a party can be technically guilty of a crime (eg rape) yet deserve no punishment, or a very minimal punishment. The two drunk people who have sex, for instance.
Eloquence is the cruelest weapon. It robs others of their minds, even as it picks their pockets and seduces their sweethearts. But eloquence is born of honesty, and must eventually find fault in itself.

thx, same to you my friend.

Excuse me!

You replied point by point to my post. Terribly charmingly, I must say.

Then you replied to my deletion note, for the same message.

Listen carefully to the next thing I tell you.

Excuse me!

You replied point by point to my post. Terribly charmingly, I must say.

Then you replied to my deletion note, for the same message.

Listen carefully to the next thing I tell you.my previous post: "Thx, same to you my friend",

meaning "Thx, you too.. You too are quite charming sometimes".

-my english bad-

From what I could dig up after that exchange, I think Sexual Assault, though it varies from state to state. I think Molestation is applied usually only to minors.

I don't necessarily agree with that definition, but going into the hows and whys would be...very much less than pleasant for me.
yeah... let's leave the details out. :cool:

I won't mind a redefinition of Rape to make it more gender neutral tho.

nice link btw.

It was third from the top (IIRC) in google news for "Potsdam rape"

I'm kind of pissed that it was also quite short. Since it named the parties to the case, it surely relied on some kind of public record (FOI) so it should have linked to that.

Perhaps some other poster can do better. Now it really is beddy-byes for me.

yeah... let's leave the details out. :cool:

Thank you.

I won't mind a redefinition of Rape to make it more gender neutral tho.

I agree, but I don't think it's so much that term itself is gender biased, it's that it's commonly perceived to be that way. Many states still have laws that require penetration in order for it to be considered rape. This carries the implication that only men can rape (let's face it, not everyone commonly thinks of "object rape" at first). So when we hear about a male being raped (and he isn't a child), it becomes odd, especially when those gender roles kick in about men not being victims. It's not a pretty picture.

Which is pretty much my long-winded way of saying I think the problem lies in our perceptions.

So then if someone you didn't want to have sex with hopped onto your morning wood while you were still asleep, they didn't rape you?



That's correct. Molestation or something like that, but since there was no forcible sex act / sodomy done to me, no rape.

Hawaii is 14
South Carolina is 14 with Parental Consent.
New Mexico has Female and Male Homosexual at 13

another site (http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html) has Idaho at 14 so don't know how up-to-date they are.

IIRC it's 18 in california and in some other states. Also IIRC when looked up Age of consent laws after turning 18 (this was in '95) I found one state (it may have been Louisiana) where the AOC depended on if the girl was a virgen or not.

So... it is impossible for a man to get an erection against his will ?


See, I don't get the logistics of how she would get the erection inside her if he were resisting . . .

See, I don't get the logistics of how she would get the erection inside her if he were resisting . . .

it's all stimulation and blood flow. so yes, with the proper... handwork and stimulation, a male can get an erection while not wanting to have sex.

also you also have the whole battle of wills/overwhelming personality bit. the idea of a man, or in this case boy, being a weaker personality is not unheard of.

You hear stories of women being pressured to have sex by men, the same can be true for the reverse. Yet a woman pressured to have sex by a man can cry rape and be believed. a male being so pressured must want it since he had an erection...

it's all stimulation and blood flow. so yes, with the proper... handwork and stimulation, a male can get an erection while not wanting to have sex.

Hell, a full bladder can cause an erection.


also you also have the whole battle of wills/overwhelming personality bit. the idea of a man, or in this case boy, being a weaker personality is not unheard of.

Exactly, rape is about power. Though I won't speak for this situation (more and more it seems like two immature personalities).


You hear stories of women being pressured to have sex by men, the same can be true for the reverse. Yet a woman pressured to have sex by a man can cry rape and be believed. a male being so pressured must want it since he had an erection...

Sickening, isn't it? The idea that the woman must've subconsciously wanted it because she became lubricated during a rape is considered abhorrent, but reverse the situation...

See, I don't get the logistics of how she would get the erection inside her if he were resisting . . .

Most obvious: threats of imminent harm (i.e. a knife to your throat)

less obvious: unconscious or somehow restrained

Most obvious: threats of imminent harm (i.e. a knife to your throat)

less obvious: unconscious or somehow restrained

... dunno if threats will cause erections... but a woman with an overpowering sexual presence would.

also don't forget sleeping... ;)

... dunno if threats will cause erections... but a woman with an overpowering sexual presence would.

also don't forget sleeping... ;)

I meant that something like having a knife to your throat or a gun pointed at you would keep you from struggling, since Redwulf asked how a so-inclined woman could actually get the erection inside her.

Sleeping strikes me as a grey area: strictly interpreting you can't infer consent, therefore it's non-consensual and (by some definitions) therefore rape. Not so strictly speaking, you can't infer intent to rape.

A female can't rape a male, at least in a standard sexual way.

I was a little suspicious, but not enough to honestly vote #2. I thought: "is that even a story? Happens all the time."


Shucks, what bad luck. You could have groped her in the cinema, boasted about it at school, and visited her in jail.

I.e. you weren't competent to choose sex, because you didn't give a damn about the consequences.

EDIT: That wasn't meant to be personal, Peis. Your "damn" is small change compared to some of the salivating enthusiasm for child molestation earlier in the thread. Just the straw that breaks the camel's back I guess.

For me, when I was 14, having sex with an older women was a fantasy. Of course there was no thought about the consequences or my 'mental health'. I just wanted sex. It's pretty basic and I don't think much needs to be read in to it. Just a personal view on what I wanted at 14. I'm sure for many people, what they wanted when they were 14 was very different, and that's fine. It's not as if now as a seventeen year old I'm still wishing that I had had sex with an older woman back then.

But the Law is the Law. She should've kept it online until he was past the AoC. Use the time to get to know each other better. Then when he's legal, then go and celebrate his... manhood... legally and properly.

Err. So you're saying the sex part of it wasn't okay, but sending eachother the naked pictures and whatnot was fine? Hmm.

Err. So you're saying the sex part of it wasn't okay, but sending eachother the naked pictures and whatnot was fine? Hmm.
the pics were sent (according to the latest link) via cell phone which can be considered Not On-line. that post was done where the only indication other than the home visit was an online relationship within the game where there were NO indication nor mention of any naked pics being sent. I suggest you catch up first.

the pics were sent (according to the latest link) via cell phone which can be considered Not On-line. that post was done where the only indication other than the home visit was an online relationship within the game where there were NO indication nor mention of any naked pics being sent. I suggest you catch up first.

The 'online' relationship is inclusive of any other actions taken before perhaps visual/oral contact is made. I was under the impression that throughout the online relationship, pictures were being shared. Catch up? On what exactly.

Apologies. that post you quoted was early in the thread. though you were still reading it.

and an On-line relationship can include pics being sent, but it doesn't mean that Nudie Pics were sent. it was confirmed that they used cell phones she provided to send nudie pics of themselves back and forth in the second link.

All good. I was mainly a little suprised at what I thought to be double standarda on your part, but I see what you mean now. :fluffle:

The 'online' relationship is inclusive of any other actions taken before perhaps visual/oral contact is made. I was under the impression that throughout the online relationship, pictures were being shared. Catch up? On what exactly.
Apologies. that post you quoted was early in the thread. though you were still reading it.

and an On-line relationship can include pics being sent, but it doesn't mean that Nudie Pics were sent. it was confirmed that they used cell phones she provided to send nudie pics of themselves back and forth in the second link.

Seriously?

No, really. If you want to argue that case, I'll listen and criticize constructively. I've read some of your posts, and you do seem serious. But I've been baited a few times in this very thread.

If you're serious, I'll stay up and discuss it.

Well, I'm kind of serious about that. I know when I was in my teens, my mother would warn me "be careful with girls". Over here, the AoC is 16ish(at least, if the victim is under 14, it's "sex with a minor", if it's over 14 but under 16, it has to require marriage+parental consent, or something like that, otherwise, it's stat). Ironically, you cannot watch "R" unless you're 21(irritatingly, it was raised when I was 16, from the old age of 18. I had to watch Cruel Intentions outside of the theatres. Uncensored.)

Alright, where was my point?

Ahh yes. Basically, I think if the parties and parents can agree that they are capable of the responsibilities of pregnancies, and/or they are willing to fund birth-control, the law should stay out of anyone over 10 having sex with anyone else. Note, if you're under the "official" age of consent, you will still be required to get parental approval. Ie, if you're say, a 30-something person, and you want to sleep with someone below about 18, you will need their parents' approval(or the parents have to emancipate them, then they will be legally capable of giving consent). That's my take on it at least.

A female can't rape a male, at least in a standard sexual way.An erection is not consent.

An erection is not consent.

The meat is inconsistent! :eek: :p

*Flees*

The meat is inconsistent! :eek: :p

*Flees*

but will it stand up on it's own in court?
:D

but will it stand up on it's own in court?
:D

We can only hope that it'll rise to the occasion :)

We can only hope that it'll rise to the occasion :)

...and give rock-hard testimony :p

it's all stimulation and blood flow. so yes, with the proper... handwork and stimulation, a male can get an erection while not wanting to have sex.

This statement would make sense if I had said anything about him GETTING an erection, which I did not. What I said and will repeat is that I don't understand how if a man (or boy in this case) was attempting to not be fucked said erection would find it's way in.

This statement would make sense if I had said anything about him GETTING an erection, which I did not. What I said and will repeat is that I don't understand how if a man (or boy in this case) was attempting to not be fucked said erection would find it's way in.

Would you move too quickly if someone had a vice grip on your penis?

This statement would make sense if I had said anything about him GETTING an erection, which I did not. What I said and will repeat is that I don't understand how if a man (or boy in this case) was attempting to not be fucked said erection would find it's way in.and if you read on, I did mention that adults can have a sexual presence that could be close to a physical hold on a minor. And it's soo easy to convince a person that those feelings are infact love when it's just a biological reaction.

Would you move too quickly if someone had a vice grip on your penis?
or far? :D

of course not..

The Boy did say YES.. But -in Ifreann country- they assume he said NO, and charge the Girl with RAPE anyways.
Wrong. Since he's underage what he said has no bearing on who gets charged with what.

Oh, and 22=/=girl
WTF?
Are you out of your freaking mind???
what do you want? the end of the Human race?

If we had to "self-control".. If -we- males had to proof we are "mature" and capable of understanding all the potential consequences of sex.

then most of us would never get any.
Speak for yourself.

If both parties are equally drunk and equally unable to give consent though, how is it rape? Especially when one is in a relationship with the person they are having sex with in their inebriated state.
Like this: Boyfriend had sex with girlfriend. Girlfriend was too drunk to legally consent. Boyfriend raped Girlfriend.

Girlfriend had sex with boyfriend. Boyfriend was too drunk to legally consent. Girlfriend raped Boyfriend.

Simple.
Unless it has the word "statutory" before the word "rape"
Or "date".
Wasn't this some kind've "statutory" BS though? Going with an eager albieit underage guy is hardly the same as forcibly violating a woman you grab and force into an alleyway.
No, it's not the same. How fortunate that those are two different crimes.
Any chance of a link to this getting put in the OP, Iffrean ?

Sure.

Ifreann: No, it's not the same. How fortunate that those are two different crimes.



Hehehe...is statutory really that hard a word to comprehend?

No, it's not the same. How fortunate that those are two different crimes.

Actually, in many states, not necessarily. Some states differentiate between rape as sex with a consenting minor and rape as sex with an unconsenting individual, however many do not.

In a lot of states, having sex with a perfectly willing 12 year old girl and having sex with an unconsenting 20 year old woman struggling to get away while at gunpoint is exactly the same crime, they are both rape, without any distinction, legally, between the two.

The difference however is that while the first is rape, the second is rape, as well as aggrevated sexual assault, and assault with a deadly weapon, and those counts tend to add up.

Also what a lot of states do is draw a line at a lesser, but still criminal charge. For instance having sex with someone under 13 is rape, whereas someone 13-16 makes it illegal sexual conduct with a minor, which is a lesser charge (assuming of course, the 13-16 year old consents, otherwise...it's still rape)