Originally posted by you get thorns
First off I was a fully willing victim of this as a youth. The details are not important. At the time I thought nothing was wrong with it. Today I have a different opinion. I will ask the question a different way. If it was done to your son would it be wrong?If you say no then you are not even close to being mature enough to be a parent.
I can emphatically say "No" IFF my son is sexually mature and mentally mature.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Well no shit Blax. Obviously people don't mature at the exact same rate. I assumed that was so retardedly obvious that I didn't have to mention it. I also thought it was retardedly obvious that that doesn't matter. We cannot deal with every criminal case on an individual basis. The age of consent is the average age the country or state believes that a person is ready and mature enough to actually give consent. That is how the law works. We cannot say, 'well he is under the age of consent, but he's a really smart kid, so we'll just sweep this one under the rug, lol', or 'well she's techically underage, bt only by a few months, so whatevs!.' That would be [b]stupid. That is why legally it is classified as rape, and will always be classified as rape, regardless of whether you think it's 'fair' or not. Now obviously there is some leeway involved, as with any crime, which is why we have different senteces etc, but if that 20 year old guy slept with her knowing that she was underage then he willingly broke the law. He gets what he deserves. [/B]
HA!
Yes, they SHOULD do it on an individual basis.
Why leave it up to a blanket law this is WRONG to begin with. 🙂
If it weren't for "underage" baby-making, the human species WOULD NOT exist. 😉
The laws actually go against what our genes tell us to do...when it comes to females. Males, on the other hand, are almost the EXACT opposite. Mature, large, strong, males. That requires a mature male well past 18.
Granted, a sexually mature male or female, when put together well, is appealing, no matter the age. It's not WRONG to be attracted to and mate with that individual. It IS wrong, however, to do so to a human that is NOT fully sexually mature. In all instances, age be damned. The exceptions are those children that undergo spontaneous puberty at like 5 or something. Obviously, they should not be mated with.
Personally, I think all individuals should be reviewed by a licensed medical professional BEFORE they can even have sexual relations.
In cases of "statutory rape", there SHOULD be a professional that reviews the case to see if the "younger" person was taken advantage of. They could easily standardize into a set of psychological rules and use that standard as an evaluation. It would save a lot more time if an individual had to go to a licensed professional to see if they were ready for "adult" relationships. That would save us court time and there's already a large body of professionals out there.
What does this mean? Some are ready at 14, some are ready at 20, and some are never ready. Heck, some are aready at 8! It is very "individual."
But, I don't think the world is ready for fair laws, yet.
Originally posted by RE: BlaxicanDepends on the state, in GA it's 16. Also yea, your mind isn't radically different.
That entire statement is retarded as a blanket statement, A 17 year old girl having sex with a 20 year old man is considered rape. Anyone with a brain can realize that the mindset of a 17 year old girl and an 18 year old is not radically different. I would even argue that that applies to all people ranging from ages 16-20. It's not like there's some kind of "on" switch that mentally switches when you turn 18, making you responsible and smart.
Oh and for everyone, having an attraction with a prepubescent makes you a pedophile, a teenager would be an ephebophile. Big difference.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Depends on the state, in GA it's 16. Also yea, your mind isn't radically different.Oh and for everyone, having an attraction with a prepubescent makes you a pedophile, a teenager would be an ephebophile. Big difference.
Can be a big difference, can be a difference of a minute.
Originally posted by Nephthys
You didn't need to say it. The quotation marks you put around 'raped' told the whole story. Now if you didn't intend to imply that then all power to you, just learn to think before you type next time. 😉
😉
The quotation marks were there because I had no idea if it really happened (like that) or not, self-righteous ****.😉
Well that was unnecessary since you already specified that it was a rumour and that it had only 'supposedly' taken place. The qoutation marks therefore imply something completely different from what you intended. Again, think before you type.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Well that was unnecessary since you already specified that it was a rumour and that it had only 'supposedly' taken place. The qoutation marks therefore imply something completely different from what you intended. Again, think before you type.
No, if anything the quotation marks were a bit redundant. Again, you're being a self-righteous ****.
Edit: Looking back at my initial post, I didn't mention that it was rumour before I typed that. I was actually explaining the rumour in that sentence. So, really, nothing wrong with that post.
Originally posted by Nephthys
'Some are ready at 8?'Obvious troll is obvious.
Keyword before that is "psychological." Context is wonderful, isn't it?
Originally posted by Nephthys
You didn't need to say it. The quotation marks you put around 'raped' told the whole story. Now if you didn't intend to imply that then all power to you, just learn to think before you type next time. 😉
Quotes around a word do not mean that the person disagrees with it. It can also be used to distance yourself from the word or quote in question...which is exactly what Slay did.
well I know the story of Sarah Jane Salazar. (googled)
She was a 19 year old prostitute who had sex with a 16 year old boy. While she was working as a prostitute, she got infected with HIV and also infecting that 16 year old boy. She was charged for child sexual abuse. She also had a child with that 16 year old boy. Sarah Jane died in 2000 at age 25. her child/children have no HIV symptoms since Sarah Jane was on antivirals.
I would count this as female paedophile