No one would argue that we should charge a guy with rape who has sex with a girl who was drunk, who regrets it the next morning.

Tim Burton on July 11, 2008 at 2:51 PM

Try reading a website like MensNewsDaily. You’ll find out how wrong you are. Prosecutors around the country are bringing charges on guys for just that – sometimes days later after her hangover is long gone, and she’s feeling ashamed of her actions. And she’ll get lots of help from “women’s organizations”, while the man gets roundly condemned from every side.

That’s what a lot of these comments here are like. Poor little girl, evil man (even if he’s a boy). And today, the “little girl” is just as likely to initiate sex as is the boy. Go to You Tube, you’ll see. We’ve raised a generation of sluts.

Some of the guys here mean well, but they are missing the biggest point – teenage girls may be called “girls”, but throughout 99% of human history, they were called “wives” (and mothers). And teenage boys had been called husbands (and fathers). And yet we don’t consider them adults today.

I understand. My comment was intended to be an acknowledgement of the futility of arguing with peacenprosperity (or anyone who immediately equates “homosexuals” with “pedophiles”.)

Farmer_Joe on July 11, 2008 at 4:45 PM

I also see a huge difference between two teens or one teen and one person over 18 having sex and a pre-pubescent child being molested by a pedophile.

Just look at the perv comments and implication in people’s posts that I want sex with teens.

Another odd twist is Nachman’s prominence in the nudist community: In the 1990s, when attending law school at the University of Pennsylvania, Nachman led several public demonstrations advocating nudity. Nachman now contends that he was targeted for investigation in part because of his well-known affinity for the nudist lifestyle.

Well, you know what I mean….

Tim Burton on July 11, 2008 at 3:08 PM

I understand. My comment was intended to be an acknowledgement of the futility of arguing with peacenprosperity (or anyone who immediately equates “homosexuals” with “pedophiles”.)

I have managed business’ where I employed 16 year old girls and have 5 nieces between the age of 14 and 24. 16 year old girls are just that, little girls. Just because 16 year old boys want to take advantage of them isn’t a reason to make them bait for adult men also.

You are a pervert, pal.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2008 at 7:13 AM

If you don’t think that at least some of those girls are having sex then you’d be a fool. I dare you to ask some of those girls to pull up their Myspace or Facebook picture galleries and take a look.

We have some religions in this country that defend that practice.
If you ask NAMBLA, they will say they are giving the young boys “love” that they are seeking.
There is always an excuse for sexual deviancy…the perpetrator is always “helping”, or always has a higher moral authority.

right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 12:13 PM

Except where I said that it is unjust to ruin someones life for two people freely consenting, I do not believe it is the moral choice to have random sex with a minor. I am saying we should not ruin someones life over it. We should not waste valuable law enforcement time shoving these people in jail, when there are real criminals truly harming people and private property.

Ah, okay. I see where you’re coming from. Never mind.

Farmer_Joe on July 11, 2008 at 9:21 AM

I, unlike NAMBLA, is not pushing for it lower than it is in most states, which is 16. I just do not think that an 18 year old should go to jail for having sex with a 17 year old.

Even then, I do not think we should criminalize two consenting people and have one’s life ruined.

For teachers, we have professional licenses, which would/should be revoked for having sex with someone attending their school as being unprofessional behavior.

We have some religions in this country that defend that practice.
If you ask NAMBLA, they will say they are giving the young boys “love” that they are seeking.
There is always an excuse for sexual deviancy…the perpetrator is always “helping”, or always has a higher moral authority.

right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 12:13 PM

We are not talking about NAMBLA. As I said in the “lost” post.

In Colorado the Age of Consent is 15 for boys and 17 for girls. Now, let me explain that to you. It is legal for a 15 year old boy to have anal sex with a 55 year old man, but it is against the law for a 16 year old girl to have sex with her 19 year old fiance.

We are talking about not ruining a guy’s live for having sex with a 16 year old or 17 year old who consents of free will.

You’ve gotta be kidding me. Advocating for a policy position does not make someone a pervert.

The problem with your construction is that 16 year old girls are NOT “little girls”. Nor are they adults. If you think a 16 year old girl isn’t capable of sexual machinations, you’re kidding yourself.

For the record, I don’t think a grown man having sex with a teenage girl is right. But I do think the law needs to be able to distinguish between that, and something like forcible rape, or the molestation of a pre-adolescent.

Farmer_Joe on July 11, 2008 at 7:51 AM

Bingo. And for the record the girl I am presently dating is older than me.

As I said earlier, in most states the Age of Consent is 16, but in a few it is 18. When someone has sex with a 17 year old, they end up on the sex offenders list for the rest of their lives. It literally ruin’s lives.

It not only ruins guys lives in their 20′s, but it ruins their lives in their teens.

My big post never got posted, but here is a case where a 16 year old had sex with a 13 year old who lied about her age and said she was 16. After dating for a few months, they had sex consensually. Where is the crime?

Here are the issues with having the Age of Consent being 18:

1. It is selectively enforced and punished. Women are less-likely to be charged and have tend to have a lower punishment than men who sleep with the same age differences.

2. For teens, both under-age, have sex it is generally the boy who is charged and not the girl, it is unjust.

3. If we can accept a teen driving at 16, with all the associated risks of killing people, then we should accept they can make the choice with all the associated risks of sex.

4. There is no reason for us to have a Nanny State (which in virtually any other “comfortable” case we would be decrying), when we should be having parents be responsible for who their child dates and what they are doing when they date.

5. The Age of Consent laws are not keeping teens from having sex, it is just making criminals out of meaningful relationships.

6. We should not be wasting limited law enforcement time and effort to punish something that is consensual. No one would argue that we should charge a guy with rape who has sex with a girl who was drunk, who regrets it the next morning. Why give that exception to a teen who actively chooses to have sex and then regrets it.

Homosexuals and pedophiles push for lower age of consent.

Ah, okay. I see where you’re coming from. Never mind.

I’ll submit the obligatory Sir Charles Napier quote:

Sir Charles Napier, a British general in India, when local Hindus complained of a prohibition on suttee. “You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”

trubble on July 10, 2008 at 9:09 PM

Beautiful,.. just beautiful..

How about the UN move a court room smack dab in the
congo

Dude! You’re thinking way too small. Move the UN lock stock and barrel into the Congo.

I’ll submit the obligatory Sir Charles Napier quote:
Sir Charles Napier, a British general in India, when local Hindus complained of a prohibition on suttee. “You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
trubble on July 10, 2008 at 9:09 PM

.
Now this is multi-culturalism that I can respect!
.
Hang the five Supreme Court justices who conspire with child rapists in the US, for good measure. If congress were sane, they would impeach the 5-member NAMBLA court.

If you think a 16 year old girl isn’t capable of sexual machinations, you’re kidding yourself.

What they are “capable” of is one thing, what someone else does with them is something totally different. I guess a guy who sleeps with a 15 year old girl isn’t totally responsible for his actions? There is no right and wrong anymore?

16 year olds are children no matter how they look. Homosexuals and pedophiles push for lower age of consent. Failed parents cry about misunderstood boys. Perverts claim young girls seduced them.

You are a pervert, pal.

You’ve gotta be kidding me. Advocating for a policy position does not make someone a pervert.

The problem with your construction is that 16 year old girls are NOT “little girls”. Nor are they adults. If you think a 16 year old girl isn’t capable of sexual machinations, you’re kidding yourself.

For the record, I don’t think a grown man having sex with a teenage girl is right. But I do think the law needs to be able to distinguish between that, and something like forcible rape, or the molestation of a pre-adolescent.

Tim Burton on July 10, 2008 at 11:41 PM

I have managed business’ where I employed 16 year old girls and have 5 nieces between the age of 14 and 24. 16 year old girls are just that, little girls. Just because 16 year old boys want to take advantage of them isn’t a reason to make them bait for adult men also.

You are a pervert, pal.

If you want, I can give examples of this exact circumstance. I did it, but lucky for me, at that time, it wasn’t considered criminal.

T.B Yes, we have different laws and enforcement for minors than adults. Some study of developmental psychology will lead you to the explanations for this.

snaggletoothie on July 11, 2008 at 1:01 AM

snaggle,

That is all fine and good, and don’t talk down on me.

I will repeat the point: Many states have laws that say the Age of Consent is 16, but others say it is 18. Why should we absolutely, totally, and thoroughly destroy a person’s life for something that legal in 31 states and DC?

If Age of Consent is so absolute, then why is it that literally 2/3 of the states have it placed at younger than 18 (meaning at 14, 15, 16 or 17; which is more reasonable knowing teenager’s behavior), why ruin a person’s life for that non-predatory act?

Why if we believe in equality do we have 12 states that have different Age of Consents for males and females. Literally it is legal for a 15 year old boy to have anal sex with a 55 year old man, but it is illegal for a 16 year old girl to have sex with a 19 year old. It is inconsistent.

No one has dared to answer the following questions:

1. Why is it is that Age of Consent laws over-whelmingly punish males? Here is an example. Ricky who was 16 had sex with a girl who claimed she was 16 also. She was 13, she had lied. You may say, “Well, he was older he should have known better.” It isn’t that simple, in CA it is illegal to have sex under the age of 18. So why was the guy charged with a crime as an adult, but the girl not? She was just as guilty.

2. How can someone be expected to be mature enough to know how to drive a car which can kill someone, but not be mature enough to know they are consenting to sex?

3. Why do we believe that the State needs to step in and hold the adult (or many times a male teen of the same age as the “victim”) responsible, when we do not have the parents held responsible? For so many who claim to be Conservatives and wanting people to take responsibility, we sure don’t require it of parents in seeing who their children are dating and their activities when they are dating.

4. We are charging guys (some in their late teens and early 20s) with possessing child pornography, for receiving a photo they did not request nor solicited. Yet the girls are not being charged with a crime. Here is a case where the girl took the photo herself, is not being charged with child porn, but the police are threatening anyone with the image a couple days later will be charged with possessing child porn. Why is the double standard acceptable between males and females?

5. Why should this guy’s life be ruined for 10 years? What about this guy, who was found not guilty of rape (at the age of 17), but was convicted of statutory rape and served 10 years. What his behavior immoral? Absolutely, but why should we punish him for consensual choice that the girl regretted later?

6. How can we justify spending tax dollars and limited court time on “sexual predators” that many times are seduced by the teenagers themselves, after all American Pie praised the fact that one of the high school teens seduced “Stifler’s Mom”, especially in light of major crime occuring?
.

T.B Yes, we have different laws and enforcement for minors than adults. Some study of developmental psychology will lead you to the explanations for this.

snaggletoothie on July 11, 2008 at 1:01 AM

snaggle,

That is all fine and good, and don’t talk down on me.

I will repeat the point: Many states have laws that say the Age of Consent is 16, but others say it is 18. Why should we absolutely, totally, and thoroughly destroy a person’s life for something that legal in 31 states and DC?

If Age of Consent is so absolute, then why is it that literally 2/3 of the states have it placed at younger than 18 (meaning at 14, 15, 16 or 17; which is more reasonable knowing teenager’s behavior), why ruin a person’s life for that non-predatory act?

Why if we believe in equality do we have 12 states that have different Age of Consents for males and females. Literally it is legal for a 15 year old boy to have anal sex with a 55 year old man, but it is illegal for a 16 year old girl to have sex with a 19 year old. It is inconsistent.

No one has dared to answer the following questions:

1. Why is it is that Age of Consent laws over-whelmingly punish males? Here is an example. Ricky who was 16 had sex with a girl who claimed she was 16 also. She was 13, she had lied. You may say, “Well, he was older he should have known better.” It isn’t that simple, in CA it is illegal to have sex under the age of 18. So why was the guy charged with a crime as an adult, but the girl not? She was just as guilty.

2. How can someone be expected to be mature enough to know how to drive a car which can kill someone, but not be mature enough to know they are consenting to sex?

3. Why do we believe that the State needs to step in and hold the adult (or many times a male teen of the same age as the “victim”) responsible, when we do not have the parents held responsible? For so many who claim to be Conservatives and wanting people to take responsibility, we sure don’t require it of parents in seeing who their children are dating and their activities when they are dating.

4. We are charging guys (some in their late teens and early 20s) with possessing child pornography, for receiving a photo they did not request nor solicited. Yet the girls are not being charged with a crime. Here is a case where the girl took the photo herself, is not being charged with child porn, but the police are threatening anyone with the image a couple days later will be charged with possessing child porn. Why is the double standard acceptable between males and females?

5. Why should this guy’s life be ruined for 10 years? What about this guy, who was found not guilty of rape (at the age of 17), but was convicted of statutory rape and served 10 years. What his behavior immoral? Absolutely, but why should we punish him for consensual choice that the girl regretted later?

6. How can we justify spending tax dollars and limited court time on “sexual predators” that many times are seduced by the teenagers themselves, after all American Pie praised the fact that one of the high school teens seduced “Stifler’s Mom”, especially in light of major crime occuring?

Let’s look at this from another angle, shall we?

While the consequences are different, a clerk in a store selling alcohol has an obligation to card-check anyone appearing to be anywhere close to underage. Is it your contention that there is less obligation to ensure legal age for sexual activity than to purchase a 6-pack of Bud? You know, kids lie about their age all the time to purchase alcohol, but no smart clerk will take their word for it.

cs89 on July 11, 2008 at 1:49 AM

Fair enough, but even then we do not ruin the clerks life by putting him in jail (it is normally just a fine) and then forcing him to go on a sexual predator list that haunts him every day of his life.

A responsible adult should know their partner(s) well enough to be sure that they are also adult before engaging in sexual activity.

And that’s even if we ignore the article’s ambiguity about age (14-17), child (teen) porn aspect, and abuse of his diplomatic privileges.

cs89 on July 11, 2008 at 12:26 AM

I agree, but let’s face it not everyone is responsible 100% of the time. While I am not advocating a social net to save everyone, I am saying it is wrong to make felons out of them.

About your 2nd paragraph, did you actually bother to read my post at 12:05? I said fire him, but he doesn’t deserve jail for it. He didn’t rape them, he acted unethical but that doesn’t mean he deserves to have his life destroyed over it. Presently, an alcoholic who kills a person driving drunk gets less years than he is up for.