Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC News)   Reporter goes undercover for story on sex with minors; has sex with minor to avoid blowing his cover   (abclocal.go.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

65339 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Mar 2005 at 11:10 AM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



422 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2005-03-09 03:44:48 PM  
jst3p: I realized you were a guy a few posts back, a bit late but I realized, I was more addressing the "congregation".

And your arguments are indeed highly fallacious in ways that Yellowbeard and others have articulated far better than I could ever hope to.

BTW, whether or not the brain is arousing to the sight is not the point I made - and you at least have to concede this whole line of argument all started with a point that I made. Call it traits, qualities - whatever. Women find some things "sexy" without having to have them swining in front of their faces. By contrast men are more visually stimulated.

Why is one dirty and gross and the other romantic/sensual? Because of patriarchy. Plain and simple.

/raised by a feminazi lesbian
//has serious issues with patriarchy and the routine MENTAL female circumcision it enforces
 
2005-03-09 03:47:50 PM  
OK, I'll just take that kind of clinical information SANS GRANO SALIS and admit that I humped the bed.
 
2005-03-09 03:48:44 PM  
jst3p

Once again, I am disagreeing with the statement, "age is the best we have to go on."

If that were truly the case, then the states would all be able to agree on an age.

There is some other factor, not solely dependent on age, that you want to be present.

Let's pretend that factor is "maturity" (your word).

One way to test "maturity" might be to show an explicit film and see who giggles and who does not. (I am not suggesting that this would be a "good" test.)

This is like pornography. It is not enough to say "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." That's a bullshiat answer. If you (or someone) can't define it, it's not an it.
You are offering no hypothesis to test.

So here's my point: If you are right, and there is nothing to test, then the law is not only arbitrary, it's pointless. If you are wrong, and there is some way to test this, then we should be able to measure it in some way other than by an arbitrary age test.
 
2005-03-09 03:51:48 PM  
jst3p

If there is no single standard that can be applied to every person, then I would say that the law is discriminatory and therefore invalid.

If you can't make a good law, don't legislate. (There are probably exceptions to this, but I don't think that this is one of them).
 
2005-03-09 03:56:57 PM  
So here's my point: If you are right, and there is nothing to test, then the law is not only arbitrary, it's pointless. If you are wrong, and there is some way to test this, then we should be able to measure it in some way other than by an arbitrary age test.

It is arbitrary, but it isn't pointless.

I think we all agree that most 20 year olds are physically, mentally and emotionally able to consent to sex.

I think we all agree that most 11 year olds are not.

So somewhere between 11 and 20 people "mature" to the point where they can consent to sex.

That age is different for each individual, nor is there a definable attrubite the obviously indicates that person has arrived.

Picking an age is arbitrary, but it is specific and written as law it can be easily interpreted.


If you have a better solution, feel free to suggest it. You keep saying there is a better way, but can't come up with one.


Age of consent may not be "perfect" but it is clear, specific and generally accurate (depending on the state).
 
2005-03-09 03:58:39 PM  
If there is no single standard that can be applied to every person, then I would say that the law is discriminatory and therefore invalid.

If you can't make a good law, don't legislate. (There are probably exceptions to this, but I don't think that this is one of them).


So a 30 year old should be able to fark a 12 year old because we cant find a test to define sexual maturity?
 
2005-03-09 04:02:55 PM  
jst3p: Wouldn't that be both child abuse and in 99% of cases rape anyway?

Personally, if you ask me, and I realize no one did, this is a reasonable framework:

Legal age of consent with a person between the ages of 14 and 16 should be 14. Legal age of consent with anyone should be 16. I believe it is already this way in many European countries, though I can't be arsed to check.
 
2005-03-09 04:04:25 PM  
jst3p

That age is different for each individual, nor is there a definable attrubite the obviously indicates that person has arrived.

If you can never tell on an individual basis whether or not someone is mature enough or not, how can you expect to tell on a massive scale?

Again, either there is a standard or there is not. You keep saying there is some "magic quality" (other than biology, which is almost completely non-arbitrary, but which you reject) that determines whether or not someone is capable of consenting to sex. You clearly don't think that the person knows whether or not they are capable or not.

Let me ask you this:

What qualities do most 20 year olds have that make them "consenting adults" that 11 year olds don't have? I suspect that if you can list them, your answer is in there somewhere.

Then, guess what? If you can list them, you can test to see whether or not they are present - and you have a standard.
 
2005-03-09 04:06:02 PM  
YIKES,

I guess the flaming began after my comments. Did not mean to piss so many people off, and did not direct any comments directly at anyone.

firstly, Frax, my email address, which was so nicely pointed out above, is because my last name is the first part, and I'm a momma. If you would like to see a picture of me, and judge for yourself, please email me at that address, and I will oblige. Or better yet, do a GIS for my first name with my last name, look for the pool player, also in a group shot with an orange shirt on, and judge for yourself. I'm no playboy model, but i'd give myself a high 7 low 8. The pics online aren't great, so if you don't feel that you can make an accurate judegment, go right ahead and email me...I will send later this evening. No jokes about the fat chick...that's not me. I'm the first two pics that come up.

To answer the question about a girl looking older, and to answer the fellow who said he dated a younger girl for awhile but never slept with her (ArcadianRefugee)....I think that it's totally different, maybe not by law standards, but by measuring intent. If you meet a girl, and she a. lies about her age and/or b. looks older or c. your intent was not to explicitly seek out younger women, I don't think that's all that bad. I realize that sometimes an older man can really fall for a "minor." My problem is not with you, sir, but with men who prey upon younger women.

morrisonsl Please see my original comment above (hoping that doesn't translate into my boobies, i'm enough of a target already) about the orthodontist.....he lives in my city, and has been caught doing this before. Targeting a 13 year old. I did not arbitrarily pick that number. I'm not putting men down for their natural tendencies...I'm talking about men who have an unhealthy obsession with things. Of course, what is or isn't unhealthy will be different to everyone, i understand this. I don't have a problem with a man either thinking or even complimenting me on my bum, or my breasts....of course the way it is said might make a difference, but just by his enjoying the view does not make him a pervert.

Egoy, I'm not that new to fark, and yes I understand the rarity of flame-free threads. I also know that I need to relax a bit. Just a bit of insight into my character...but it appears I'm not the only one around here.

And to everyone I apparently pissed off....i'm newly split from a freakazoid who tried to secretly film me undressing (after we split), and many other things that I consider gross and unhealthy. So, at this point, i'm sure that my opinion of men is tainted....hence the question..."are there any men who AREN'T obsessed with sex?" this is not the same question as "are there any men who don't LIKE sex?"

yowsers
 
2005-03-09 04:08:11 PM  
What qualities do most 20 year olds have that make them "consenting adults" that 11 year olds don't have? I suspect that if you can list them, your answer is in there somewhere.

Then, guess what? If you can list them, you can test to see whether or not they are present - and you have a standard.


You tell me. You are the one saying age of consent sucks. Then provide a better answer. If you can't you are just talking to hear yourself.

You tell me:

Why is it wrong for a 30 year old to have sex with a 12 year old? Both are physically mature enough.

My answer is simple "Because most 12 year olds are not mature enough to consent to sex, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 18, while not perfect, errrs on the side of protecting the children"

Whats your answer?
 
2005-03-09 04:08:31 PM  
jst3p

So a 30 year old should be able to fark a 12 year old because we cant find a test to define sexual maturity?

Point taken, but:

1. A sexually mature human should probably never be allowed to have sex with a pre-pubescent (I can think of no cases where it is a good idea to allow this).

2. I said above that we went with an arbitrary limit in the past because things were legislated poorly and legislators could not, at the time, come up with a better standard. What I am suggesting is that we work hard on defining what qualities are required for us to call someone a "consenting adult" and, in the interest of fairness, which I think is always a good trait in law, apply them.
 
2005-03-09 04:12:20 PM  
If I get yelled at again, i'm gonna cry.

/just a warning
//also just a joke
 
2005-03-09 04:13:05 PM  
1. A sexually mature human should probably never be allowed to have sex with a pre-pubescent (I can think of no cases where it is a good idea to allow this).

12 is no longer pre-pubescent. My 12 year old daughter has had her period for 2 years now and she is definately "pubescent".

But more to the point, why not? They are both physically mature enough.

What I am suggesting is that we work hard on defining what qualities are required for us to call someone a "consenting adult" and, in the interest of fairness, which I think is always a good trait in law, apply them.

Since you can't come up with that list, how do you expect a majority of the people to agree to a single set of traits?
 
2005-03-09 04:13:20 PM  
jst3p

Why is it wrong for a 30 year old to have sex with a 12 year old? Both are physically mature enough.

My answer is simple "Because most 12 year olds are not mature enough to consent to sex, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 18, while not perfect, errrs on the side of protecting the children"


This is the equivilant of saying,

There's that word "mature" again. You are the one who keeps using a word that you won't define. It's like you are saying "Because of magic."

Why should I be forced to define for you the terms you keep using in your argument?
 
2005-03-09 04:15:25 PM  
Fair enough, and actually I need to explain my earlier comments a bit further. I did NOT mean that it should be OK for men to tell women out of the blue that they have great asses or breasts - in a lot of circumstances I would classify that as sexual harassment.

What I object to is the overall notion that what arouses men is shallow by definition but what arouses women is somehow sensual and erotic. Guess who created these notions? MEN! Patriarchs, to be exact, the men that created almost all of the culture we live with today.

The men that used their influence and power to shape the very worldview of their wives and daughters - to extoll obedience and modesty as virtues in women while extravagant boldness and even lust was encouraged in their sons.

Women were supposed to be holy virgins who didn't like dirty things like sex, but submitted out of love and devotion to the strong masculine power that confronted them. It's all one huge farking power trip on the part of men - allowing them indulgence in their animalistic instincts while women are forced to be humble and embarrassed about such things to the point of rationalizing them with things like "nice eyes" or "funny jokes".

And it was a woman that finally convinved me of all this, a wonderfully liberated and educated woman whom I respect deeply. Neither she nor I would pretend it was possible to just realize this and turn it all off, if it were that simple it would not persist so in all facets of our culture.
 
2005-03-09 04:16:03 PM  
Oh, btw, that was largely aimed at Onthefence.
 
2005-03-09 04:16:24 PM  
Damn, there are a lot of stupid people on Fark today, and most of them are on this thread. It seems like most of them have posted in response to my previous comments, displaying their idiocy for all to see. These people take the simple and intelligent analysis I gave and put it in their own contexts, injected their own meanings, and built their own straw men out of it. In other words, everyone looked at what I wrote from their own unique point of view, thus losing the meaning of my words completely and acting like a truckload of asshats.

The fact that we all have our own unique points of view on right and wrong, justice and injustice, and good and evil is a wonderful thing. This is where the much celebrated (on this thread, at least) grey area comes from. Nietzsche would be rejoicing to hear you all. We are all our own juries in the courtrooms of our lives, rendering our own particular verdicts. The law is a codified example of this, it is just one point of view.

However, within an individual's mind, lines are drawn every day. People individually view the world in the context of the decisions they must make, and every decision made is another line drawn. Don't think of me as such an absolutist/dualist that I don't understand the relative nature of ethics and human morality, I actually hold to a very relativist philosophy. But, BUT, this relativism is USELESS in the context of my daily life. I would be the most lazy and unproductive person on earth if I did not use my judgement to make decisions. I would not be an ethical functioning member of society if I did not discern, in my own mind, the difference between right and wrong, and qualify actions and thoughts as good and bad.

Having sex with minors is wrong. In my mind, in the minds of the majority, and by the laws of most of our states. It is abhorrent to have sex with a prepubescent person who is not physically ready to have sex, that is easy to understand. The person whom the article refers to was not prepubescent, however. So why would our society frown on having sex with 'fully developed' minors? That is easy to answer. First, the social problems that occur with teen pregnancy and parenthood are plenty. Second, teenagers are more likely to consent to actions without thinking them through, in other words, they are more gullible. Finally, people's minds and bodies mature at different rates. Therefore, in order to prevent this social problem, sex with minors should be strongly discouraged. Having laws against it, ie statutory rape laws, is a step in discouragement.

That having been said, I voted for Kerry in the last election. Though I agree that individually we all must be absolutists to function efficiently, and I have extreme respect for the law (most of them, anyway), I acknowledge the relative nature of the REAL world that exists externally (outside of our minds). In reality, the world is one HUGE grey area where anyone can do whatever they want. The only valid argument against this that I know of uses religion as a premise, and since I don't hold to religions, I don't respond to such arguments. And bush sucks.
 
2005-03-09 04:17:01 PM  
Yellowbeard

Then answer the question.
 
2005-03-09 04:17:52 PM  
jst3p
12 is no longer pre-pubescent. My 12 year old daughter has had her period for 2 years now and she is definately "pubescent".


Just because your 12 year old is post-pubescent doesn't mean all 12 year olds are. The age at onset of menses varies quite a bit due to a number of factors including diet, genetics, and environmental factors. Further, there is a difference between "pubescent" and "post-pubescent."

But more to the point, why not? They are both physically mature enough.

I don't know. You tell me. You're the one who wants an arbitrary age limit. For my part, I have to admit that it is a gut reaction engrained in me by society for which I have no real method of backing up.

Since you can't come up with that list, how do you expect a majority of the people to agree to a single set of traits?

Just because I can't come up with a list (or am unwilling to, since I think it is your job, since this is your side of the argument) does not mean that such a list can not be conceived.
 
2005-03-09 04:18:57 PM  
Good thing he didn't go undercover for a story on, I dunno, killing people.

"Well, I don't want to blow my cover..."
 
2005-03-09 04:20:19 PM  
lexslamman

If your complaint is that you don't want people to take what you say the wrong way, then perhaps you should be more clear.
 
2005-03-09 04:20:39 PM  
jst3p:

Actually, child endangerment laws used to provide that standard. AOC laws are fairly new in the big scheme of things (but actually, just about all laws that have to do with age are new...for the first 150 years of this country, there really were no age restriction laws...common law has a built in system of testing maturity. Civil law countries may have had age restriction laws however, built into their system was a secondary ability to apply to a court and get emancipated if you can prove your maturity.)

I like to have this conversation with people incidentally. Someone says that they would not permit their x year old to date someone over 18 or some other arbitrary age.

I say, well look, if your 15 year old is dating another 15 year old, and the other minor encourages your minor to do something stupid, nothing can happen to them. But if they are dating someone over 18, they can be prosecuted for child endangerment. Therefore, there's a safety net built in for your child that is offered only when they are with an adult.

This argument always brings on a little bit of thoughtful pondering and silence.
 
2005-03-09 04:22:28 PM  
Yellowbeard: You've been reading that oft-linked page on logical fallacies haven't you? I don't think I've ever seen anyone on fark approach an argument in a manner as consistant with that particular document, which btw is an excellent one ;)

I think it was the "this is your job since this is your side of the argument" thing that finally made me just have to ask :D

/you debate good
 
2005-03-09 04:22:36 PM  
Well said, morrisonsl.
 
2005-03-09 04:23:18 PM  
Yellowbeard:
I don't care if her eggs are less likely to be mutated or that the man couldn't help his "biological desires". The fact is he is over 30 and she is a minor. I stress MINOR!
Unless you have a screw lose, common sense would tell you farking a little kid is wrong. Regardless of what your "desires" are its still wrong!

Your comment makes me think that you believe it's OK to be a child molester. Do you own a large van with an all carpet interior??
 
2005-03-09 04:23:50 PM  
jst3p

Then answer the question.

Sorry, I lost track - which question do you want me to answer?

If you want me to define maturity for you, I am going to have to refuse. You're the one who seems to think it's so important and keeps defending it.

While I might agree that there is some reason not to sleep with a minor who is none-the-less post-pubescent, I am also fully willing to admit that I don't have any reasons with which to back that up.
 
2005-03-09 04:24:40 PM  
lexslamman

You will obviously go to any length to ignore the veracity and multitude of comments directed at your childish statements, so I'll bid you good day and ask that you not waste your time with any more long-winded posts declaring how Right you are and how Wrong everyone-who-disagrees is...
 
2005-03-09 04:25:57 PM  
Just because your 12 year old is post-pubescent doesn't mean all 12 year olds are. The age at onset of menses varies quite a bit due to a number of factors including diet, genetics, and environmental factors. Further, there is a difference between "pubescent" and "post-pubescent."

But your response to my question was "no sexually mature adult should have sex with a pre-pubescent."

Should it be ok for a 30 year old man to have sex with a 12 year old pubescent?

A 12 year old post pubescent?

Define the end of pubesence?

I don't know. You tell me. You're the one who wants an arbitrary age limit. For my part, I have to admit that it is a gut reaction engrained in me by society for which I have no real method of backing up.

Then aside from the societies brain-washing, you really think it is appropriate for a 30 year old to have sex with a 12 year old?

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

"The arbitrary age of consent laws we have in this country generally protect teenagers from being exploited by adults sexually."
 
2005-03-09 04:26:20 PM  
morrisonsl

Take a look at my profile and I think you will see where I picked up my arguing habits. Thanks for the compliment.
 
2005-03-09 04:30:06 PM  
JewelsMC

First let me thank you for your ad hominem attacks. It let's me know that you are a troll and not a serious arguer.

Had you read my posts, you would see that I have not once condoned any of these actions.

Unless you have a screw lose, common sense would tell you farking a little kid is wrong. Regardless of what your "desires" are its still wrong!

This is an appeal to authority and I seriously doubt you have any way of backing it up.

Let's just test it, shall we?

I am 17 and my girlfriend is 17 and we live in a state where it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a child and adult is defined as "over 18." I am one day older than my girlfriend. We have been in a consenting sexual relationship for over a year. I turn 18 the day before she does. For my birthday, we have sex.

By your "common sense" since you "don't have a screw loose" I should be locked up for 5-20 years.

Wow - you're right - that makes so much sense.
 
2005-03-09 04:32:51 PM  
What if the state line divides your house from your girlfriends' house? It's legal at her place, but not at yours... People like lexslamman would rather outline the various legalities involved in keeping everything "by the book" than simply admit this is one situation that can't be crammed into a neat little package and labelled Good or Bad.
 
2005-03-09 04:35:49 PM  
Yellow,

Actually in texas (i'm pretty sure), it's not simply over 18 vs. under 18, but rather over 21 vs. under 18. 17 and 19 is okay, 17 and 20, but 17 and 21, not so much....

not saying that's my opinion, just thinking "out loud."

I sure wish i could speak as eloquently as the rest of you....
 
2005-03-09 04:35:50 PM  
Yellowbeard: Goddamn, I knew there was a reason I found your arguments so compelling ;)

/dabbling in many disciplines without having completed any major degrees as of yet
//pragmatic nihilist
 
2005-03-09 04:35:54 PM  
labelled? labeled? llabballedd???
 
2005-03-09 04:36:13 PM  
Yellowbeard

Upon reviewing my past posts, I see no problem with the content as far as clarity is concerned, but I believe that these concepts sail over the heads of many people who have not studied ethics and law. Also, perhaps my language was a bit too formal and sophisticated. It is difficult to avoid such things if you wish to have a comprehensive discussion on such issues. Surely you agree that things like teen pregnancy and child molestation/rape are a social problem in modern society. I am simply trying to provide perspective on these problems.

Here is a brief manifesto on the meta-ethics of this subject:

Internal compromise can only solve so many problems, just like external compromis. If we could avoid sitting on the fence on so many issues and just stand up for what we believed in instead of letting others make our decisions for us and tell us what to think, the decision process would be more democratic and more efficient. Yes, some minority viewpoints, like many of my own, would get drown out of debate, but it would enable functional discussion and debate with positive resolution, instead of simply an eternal argument. Objection is fine, but those who object should be vocal about their objection, and other debate participants should not only tolerate to their objection, but open to suggestion. That way, debate becomes useful and truely stimulating. What we are doing now equates to mental masturbation.

But, I suppose the rise of the digital medium means the death of the civil debate, asshat.
 
2005-03-09 04:37:44 PM  
lexslamman
Having sex with minors is wrong.

What's a 'minor?' Do you think ArcadianRefugee was wrong to have dated a 17 y/o? Or would you (in her parents' position) have driven him off because, "OMGHE'SAPERVERT!!one!!11!!one!!!" I'd be more concerned about the direction the boy seems to have, whether he seems to be interested in my daughter as opposed to what is between her legs or on her chest, and his general moral quality. But that's just me.

If the guy is a bit older, then there's the chance he is able to snow all of us -- my daughter, her mother and me -- over. But come on, any competent 15-17 year old boy should be able to put on a happy face for his girlfriend's parents. :)

One important factor would be to consider the age range of the girls the guy has dated. If the guy seems to be a Wooderson, that's a major red flag. If the guy's dated girls his own age, then you know what? Maybe, just maybe, there could be something there.

Laws fall into three categories:

(1) Some laws are so inherently wrong that it is a civil duty to disobey or otherwise 'tweak' them. The PATRIOT act might be one of these laws.
(2) Other laws are worth fighting to change, but not so heinous as to be worth breaking. I'd put age of consent laws, prostitution, drug/tobacco laws, etc.
(3) Other laws are inherently reasonable. I'd put murder, rape, theft, etc., in here.

Reasonable people can differ regarding changing the laws regarding age of consent without being somehow evil.

I don't see what harm would be done by lowering it to 16, or at least pressuring states to put in some sort of age gap provision (I don't think all states have it) so courts aren't potentially clogged with parents pressing charges on a daughter's boyfriend they don't like, or grandstanding DAs don't harass 18-20 year old men.

onthefence
Your initial post about "men who aren't obsessed with sex" came off as a 30something woman who views sex as something to be given grudgingly, if at all. I am not surprised at the attacks on you. You come off as much more reasonable in post #2. As for your ex, if he films you undressing after you break up, I'd see a lawyer (but I imagine you're doing so.)
 
2005-03-09 04:39:26 PM  
I am 17 and my girlfriend is 17 and we live in a state where it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a child and adult is defined as "over 18." I am one day older than my girlfriend. We have been in a consenting sexual relationship for over a year. I turn 18 the day before she does. For my birthday, we have sex.

In his defense he did say farking a little kid, so your example does not apply.

Also, age of consent laws in most places take this type of scenario into effect.

For example in many states if there is less than a 2 year difference (17 female and a 19 male) then the minor can claim statutory rape, while the parents/state no longer can.

They aren't (always) as black and white as you seem to think they are.
 
2005-03-09 04:40:32 PM  
JewelsMC
At what age does a woman stop being a "little kid?"
 
2005-03-09 04:41:40 PM  
jst3p

Before this round, by the way, I would like to really express my appreciation for you not resorting to personal attacks. Though I disagree with some of your logic (though not as much as I thought I did at first) I think that you are a very fair arguer - I don't mean to be condescending with that remark, but only to express appreciation.

But your response to my question was "no sexually mature adult should have sex with a pre-pubescent."

Should it be ok for a 30 year old man to have sex with a 12 year old pubescent?


Probably not. Let me say that it makes no biological sense for a post pubescent to be sexually interested in a pubescent or pre-pubescent because there is no possibility of procreation in that case. Because of this, I consider this a (relatively) potentially non-arbitrary way to determine whether or not someone is ready for sex (at least biologically).

A 12 year old post pubescent?


"Should (or "ought") is the loaded word here. Legally, right now, in this country, no, one ought not do so, if one wants to stay within the bounds of the law. Morally "ought" one to have sex with a 12 year old? Well, that ought really depends on a lot of factors, but, let's say that the 12 year old post-pubescent is as savvy as the 30 year old (they are on the same intellectual and emotional level) and one is not in a position of power over the other. In that case, I can't see how an arbitrary age limit would make this morally wrong. In other words, all other things being equal, age is not good enough to determine moral "rightness" or "wrongness."

Define the end of pubesence?


I dounbt this is exactly technically correct, but I am using it to mean "can bear children and breast feed them, etc."

Then aside from the societies brain-washing, you really think it is appropriate for a 30 year old to have sex with a 12 year old?

I never said society brain washed (that's very pejorative) but societal values are absolutely relative. Given the restrictions I described in cases described above, as I said, I don't think mere age is the proper determinant.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

"The arbitrary age of consent laws we have in this country generally protect teenagers from being exploited by adults sexually."

My answer: I don't have enough data to give you a considered answer to that question. However, even if that's the case, it doesn't necessarily make it the basis for a "good" law. Making alchohol illegal might generally protect people from cirrohsis. Making cigarettes illegal might generally protect people from being exploited by cigarette companies. Neither, however, would be a "good" law.
 
2005-03-09 04:43:06 PM  
morrisonsl:

I did NOT mean that it should be OK for men to tell women out of the blue that they have great asses or breasts

Oh, there's a good one for a man to hear:

"Hey, nice tits."

JewelsMC: The fact is he is over 30 and she is a minor. I stress MINOR! Unless you have a screw lose, common sense would tell you farking a little kid is wrong.

See, there people go again with the exaggerations. How do you go from "minor" loudly in the first sentence to "little kid" in the second? A 10yo is a "little kid". A 16 or 17yo is not.

/had enough work for one day
 
2005-03-09 04:44:04 PM  
lexslamman

Well, I do have a BA (cum laude) in philosophy in which I specialized in ethics as well as a BA and MA (this May) in Anthropology, but I suppose that those degrees in no way qualify me to consider myself somewhat of an authority on morality, society, or argument.
 
2005-03-09 04:45:48 PM  
OnTheFence

You are almost certainly correct about the Texas case. In fact, most laws vary quite a bit from state to state. I was just picking a simple possible situation (for which I am pretty sure there are actual examples) to illustrate a point.
 
2005-03-09 04:46:55 PM  
jst3p

You make a good point. The sovereignty of law still holds, yet the law is flexible enough to be considerate of a more reasonable situation.

The law is still black and white, however. In the case of the article, if the accusations end up being true, then the speaks clearly on this issue in every state, regardless of consent. The men are guilty of statutory rape.
 
2005-03-09 04:51:18 PM  
jst3p

In his defense he did say farking a little kid, so your example does not apply.

Also, age of consent laws in most places take this type of scenario into effect.

For example in many states if there is less than a 2 year difference (17 female and a 19 male) then the minor can claim statutory rape, while the parents/state no longer can.

They aren't (always) as black and white as you seem to think they are.


I do not pretend that they are black and white everywhere. I was just giving that example to illustrate a point. I understand that the laws vary quite wildly from state to state - that is part of my problem with them.

However:I don't care if her eggs are less likely to be mutated or that the man couldn't help his "biological desires". The fact is he is over 30 and she is a minor. I stress MINOR!

was what JewelsMC said. It was (she? - I assume?) who seemed to equate minor wiht little kid.
 
2005-03-09 04:53:11 PM  
yellow

You as well, I used to debate well, but that was a long time ago. Debating on fark has made me lazy because it usually takes little effort. Thus, you are kicking my ass around this thread. But like Rocky, I feel on the verge of a comeback!

Down, but not out!


Probably not. Let me say that it makes no biological sense for a post pubescent to be sexually interested in a pubescent or pre-pubescent because there is no possibility of procreation in that case. Because of this, I consider this a (relatively) potentially non-arbitrary way to determine whether or not someone is ready for sex (at least biologically).

Pubescents can procreate, and post pubescents are attracted to pubescents. So you are mistaken.


I dounbt this is exactly technically correct, but I am using it to mean "can bear children and breast feed them, etc."


I guess men are always pubescent then ;)

My daughter can bear children, but she is still in the midsts of puberty.

My answer: I don't have enough data to give you a considered answer to that question. However, even if that's the case, it doesn't necessarily make it the basis for a "good" law. Making alchohol illegal might generally protect people from cirrohsis. Making cigarettes illegal might generally protect people from being exploited by cigarette companies. Neither, however, would be a "good" law.

The difference here is that age of consent laws protect those we deem too inexperienced to make adult decisions. We already protect children from alcohol and cigarettes by arbitrary age laws (hmmmm, a pattern).

I would argue that protecting children from making choices when they don't have the requisite life experience to make an informed decision = good.

Protecting adults from themselves = bad.

These situations are not comprable.

"I don't have enough data" is a cop-out. I want your opinion.
 
2005-03-09 04:53:48 PM  
lexslamman

By the way - I did not mean to appeal to authority in that last post, but you certainly seemed to be calling into question my qualifications - I just wanted to clarify what they were.
 
2005-03-09 04:54:56 PM  
I do not pretend that they are black and white everywhere. I was just giving that example to illustrate a point. I understand that the laws vary quite wildly from state to state - that is part of my problem with them.

Thats a "states rights" issue. Topic for an entirely different debate ;)
 
2005-03-09 04:55:57 PM  
lexslamman: The men are guilty of statutory rape

Not (necessarily) true. I don't know the state in specific, but I do know that in Virginia "statutory rape" (ie., technical rape by virtue of the statutes) only applies to those under 13 (or maybe 13 and under). Sex with those older but less than 18 is "merely" (using the term loosely) "carnal knowledge of a minor" or somesuch.
 
2005-03-09 05:01:29 PM  
Yellowbeard

I read your profile. I have yet to see you prove your credentials. Not that I'm not sure you can, but it seems to me that you aren't using the knowledge you gained from your degrees, or, for that matter, using that knowledge to the level of a cum laude student. However, I am not interested in engaging you in an argument as to the veracity of your profile.

If you think your degrees and your grade level designate to you some kind of authority, especially on the fly-by-your-ants world of morality, then you don't even deserve your BA in philosophy. Clearly, you know something about debate, as your arguments are sound, but why do you tend toward the ad-hominum?

Look at it from an external perspective. You have not just disagreed with me, which is fine, but you have told me I was wrong. You made an absolutist decision on my statement without even presenting a decent argument for your position. You just called 'BS' and left it at that. Where's your evidence? Prove me wrong. Prove it, and I'll give you your credit.

When someone reaches a certain level of education/wisdom/ability (for all three are equivalent in usefulness), they must learn to shed that part of the ego that has people speaking from pulpits, lecterns, and ivory towers, and instead provoke and nurture thought in others. You need to learn the art of listening.
 
2005-03-09 05:03:05 PM  
Yellowbeard

I must apologize, I did not read your post before that one got fired off. Sorry.
 
Displayed 50 of 422 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report