Is it OK to have sex with kids?
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-10-2011, 04:48 AM
RE: Is it OK to have sex with kids?
(16-10-2011 02:47 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  Can somebody please tell me how you plan to secure convictions for paedophiles?

Pedos are sexually aroused by prepubescents. The rest of us aren't.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
16-10-2011, 05:06 AM
 
RE: Is it OK to have sex with kids?
(16-10-2011 02:47 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  Everyone keeps saying that we should judge each case by its own merit. Can someone please tell me how this is going to work in a court of law? Can somebody please tell me how you plan to secure convictions for paedophiles?

Either you've all come up with a fantastic system for how this will work in the justice system or you have no understanding of how the courts work at all.

Hughsie, you are right about the problem we would have with the existing court system. The existing court system sucks: it is corrupt, inefficient, prone to huge mistakes and miscarriage of justice due to its nature: the SPIRIT of the adversarial attitude that is compulsory for both the defense and the prosecution (as I tried to show in the other thread) and, of course everything is driven by money, as Peterkin pointed out in the same thread.

Nobody here approves of extremes: sex with prepubescent children on one hand -- convicting an 18 year old for statutory rape for having sex with a fifteen-year old on the other hand. As we get farther away from the extremes, we have to use judgement in deciding what, if any, harm was done. We are not robots to apply laws automatically, rigidly. There is nothing wrong with using our heads.
16-10-2011, 06:26 AM (This post was last modified: 16-10-2011 08:58 AM by Peterkin.)
RE: Is it OK to have sex with kids?
(16-10-2011 02:47 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  Everyone keeps saying that we should judge each case by its own merit. Can someone please tell me how this is going to work in a court of law? Can somebody please tell me how you plan to secure convictions for paedophiles?

How does it work? Arrest, indict, investigate, prove guilt on evidence in a trial by jury, hear verdict, sentence. All criminal cases are tried and judged individually, on their own merit.
Where is the problem?

The OP question was not "What's the law on paedophilia in Philadelphia?" It was merely asking for opinion. Several people expressed their various opinions. Where is the problem?

After-thought-experiment:
You are accused of child-molesting. Would you like your trial conducted by 1. unrealistic me or 2. emotional armed fathers?

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
16-10-2011, 09:42 AM
RE: Is it OK to have sex with kids?
(16-10-2011 06:26 AM)Peterkin Wrote:  
(16-10-2011 02:47 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  Everyone keeps saying that we should judge each case by its own merit. Can someone please tell me how this is going to work in a court of law? Can somebody please tell me how you plan to secure convictions for paedophiles?

How does it work? Arrest, indict, investigate, prove guilt on evidence in a trial by jury, hear verdict, sentence. All criminal cases are tried and judged individually, on their own merit.
Where is the problem?

The OP question was not "What's the law on paedophilia in Philadelphia?" It was merely asking for opinion. Several people expressed their various opinions. Where is the problem?

After-thought-experiment:
You are accused of child-molesting. Would you like your trial conducted by 1. unrealistic me or 2. emotional armed fathers?

If I were a pedo, you, since I'd never get convicted (even if I were guilty). But I'm not. If it's all based on something so ill defined as emotional maturity, finding a loop hole or avoiding conviction would be a cakewalk. Trials would be useless. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, and 18 isn't a terrible place to draw it. Thee are already laws concerning borderline cases like a 19 year old and a 17 year old. If you're 25 and want to be with a 16 year old, that's pathetic. I have a suggestion: get out and interact with women your own age, they're more mature and won't get into as many petty, senseless arguments.

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Azaraith's post
16-10-2011, 09:59 AM
 
RE: Is it OK to have sex with kids?
(16-10-2011 09:42 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  If you're 25 and want to be with a 16 year old, that's pathetic.

I 'admire' people who are so sure about their exact numbers, regardless of any other consideration. Rolleyes
[+] 1 user Likes Zatamon's post
16-10-2011, 10:07 AM
RE: Is it OK to have sex with kids?
Quote:If it's all based on something so ill defined as emotional maturity, finding a loop hole or avoiding conviction would be a cakewalk. Trials would be useless.

Sums up my point perfectly.

I don't know enough about Zatamon's alternate legal system to comment but he is right that to judge cases on a case by case basis would require a COMPLETE OVERHAUL OF THE ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM.

Anyone who thinks we could judge it on a case by case basis under the current legal system doesn't have any understanding of how the legal system currently works.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
16-10-2011, 10:54 AM
RE: Is it OK to have sex with kids?
(16-10-2011 04:48 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Pedos are sexually aroused by prepubescents. The rest of us aren't.

This. The definition of a paedophile is someone who is sexually aroused by prepubescent children. There is a simple test that can be done to determine this, so if a paedophile is also a child molester, then it would be easy to secure a conviction.

However, a child molester could be doing this for other reasons (i.e. they aren't aroused by the child, but they might be doing this to hurt their spouse or the child's parent, etc.). Obviously, if the child is prepubescent, then the act is clearly not about the sexual act itself, but is about power/control/revenge, etc. I think that in this case, there should also be a conviction.

The slippery slope comes with adolescents - those who have gone through puberty, are hormonal and horny, and who want to explore their sexuality. I too knew a lot of girls in my high school who dated guys who were in their early 20s, and I can understand why. When guys and girls are teenagers, the guys are generally more immature, since their brains don't develop as quickly as girls' do. Likewise, a girl's libido is higher at a younger age than a guy's, so it makes sense why guys who are in their early 20s are dating 16-17 year old girls. I don't see the problem with this as long as both parties understand where the relationship stands and as long as they are being safe and using protection.

The harder question comes when we're dealing with 12-15 year old girls and much older males, and I am hesitant to say anything one way or another about this because there are just so many factors to consider. Like, why is the parent of a 12 year old allowing them to hang out with people so much older? Or, what is the 12 year old's perception of the relationship vs the adult's perception? Is there coercion, manipulation, or abuse involved? If so, how can this be proven? Etc. (Also note that these ages are pretty arbitrary and can be open to change.)


One last thing: on the points about adolescents having sex with each other, I say have at it as long as they've been properly educated and are using protection. I think that our societies should be a lot more open about teen sex so that teenagers feel like they can be open about asking adults questions, talking to each other about protection, and not being scared of going to a doctor for a STI test or a prescription for birth control.

"Remember, my friend, that knowledge is stronger than memory, and we should not trust the weaker." - Dr. Van Helsing, Dracula
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes SecularStudent's post
16-10-2011, 01:44 PM
RE: Is it OK to have sex with kids?
I finally see the point of misunderstanding. Legislature, law enforcement, court procedure, personal opinion, threat to children, loss of innocence, teenage lust. All different concepts thrown into one big hat.

(16-10-2011 09:42 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  If it's all based on something so ill defined as emotional maturity,

Where did you get this? What is the "it" that's "all" based on sexual maturity?
Laws already are pretty clear on the use of force, fraud, intimidation and any other form of coercion. Laws already are pretty clear on the definition of various sex crimes.

I tried and tried, but couldn't get a single definition of "child", "kid" or "adult" - just numbers.

Quote: finding a loop hole or avoiding conviction would be a cakewalk. Trials would be useless.

What loophole? Either there is proof that you committed a specific crime, or there is not. Your maturity is at issue only when the judge has to decide whether to send you to prison or mental institution.
A lynch mob isn't helpful in either case.

Quote:The line needs to be drawn somewhere,

It already is - just not the same line in every country and state.

Quote: and 18 isn't a terrible place to draw it.

One opinion. Undisputed.

Quote: Thee are already laws concerning borderline cases like a 19 year old and a 17 year old.

Fine. And my other examples?

Quote: If you're 25 and want to be with a 16 year old, that's pathetic.

Another opinion. Undisputed.
However, in my opinion, treating that person the same way that we would treat someone who raped a six-year-old would be wrong.
That's all.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Peterkin's post
16-10-2011, 07:13 PM
RE: Is it OK to have sex with kids?
The age of consent is, literally, all over the map. Many US states take into account the age difference between the participants. In Maryland, for example, the age of consent is 16 but an exception is made if the participants are less than 4 years apart in age.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
16-10-2011, 10:39 PM
RE: Is it OK to have sex with kids?
(16-10-2011 01:44 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  I finally see the point of misunderstanding. Legislature, law enforcement, court procedure, personal opinion, threat to children, loss of innocence, teenage lust. All different concepts thrown into one big hat.

(16-10-2011 09:42 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  If it's all based on something so ill defined as emotional maturity,

Where did you get this? What is the "it" that's "all" based on sexual maturity?
Laws already are pretty clear on the use of force, fraud, intimidation and any other form of coercion. Laws already are pretty clear on the definition of various sex crimes.

I tried and tried, but couldn't get a single definition of "child", "kid" or "adult" - just numbers.

The "it" is the basis of defining whether or not a crime has been committed when an older person has sex with a younger person. Coercion has many forms, not all explicit or even understood by the person doing the coercing. If the older person is in a place of authority or respect over the younger (even if they don't know their influence) that could significantly affect the younger person's decision to engage in sex with the older person. For example, a well-liked and handsome high school teacher could easily end up in a position to be involved with students. The kids could easily convince themselves that it's alright, or even do it in hopes of better grades (not without precedent).

If your looking for a non-scientific, immeasurable definition of "kidhood" and "adulthood" you're wasting your time. All you are going to get is numbers because that's the only real way to define things in a way that makes sense. On average, kids develop at a fairly predictable rate. Some may be more mature than others, but many think they are more mature than they are (ever meet a 6 year old boy?) and may be able to convince some people of that notion. Depends largely on personality, how effective they are as speakers and their confidence. Does that mean they can handle problems that may arise? Can they deal with all the different emotional hooks that sex generally leads to? Usually not, but they will say they can until they're blue in the face.

Imagine you're a judge. How would you determine whether a person was emotionally mature or not? What questions could you ask that would suss out a clear, definite measure of their maturity? Remember, you're dealing with trying to prove something without doubt. That is simply impossible in our court system.


Quote: finding a loop hole or avoiding conviction would be a cakewalk. Trials would be useless.

What loophole? Either there is proof that you committed a specific crime, or there is not. Your maturity is at issue only when the judge has to decide whether to send you to prison or mental institution.
A lynch mob isn't helpful in either case.

Loophole: "I'm 20 years older than the kid, but he seemed as mature to me as anyone else." How do you prove he knew the kid wasn't mature?

Quote:The line needs to be drawn somewhere,

It already is - just not the same line in every country and state.

Who cares if everyone comes to exactly the same conclusion. 16 or 18 is typically the case. On average, it's a little over 16 for the US.

Quote: and 18 isn't a terrible place to draw it.

One opinion. Undisputed.

Yes, one shared by many more than me, including several courts in many countries. Few share the nebulous "emotional maturity" argument you are making. A few countries legislate based on puberty, but just as many make it illegal outside of marriage (Iran for one). None have an emotional maturity clause that I've found

Quote: Thee are already laws concerning borderline cases like a 19 year old and a 17 year old.

Fine. And my other examples?

Most states allow intercourse between minors within 4 years of age or so. Name me one case where someone's charged and convicted of statutory rape when they're 18 and a day and the other is 17. One. The examples were ridiculous and didn't merit response.

Quote: If you're 25 and want to be with a 16 year old, that's pathetic.

Another opinion. Undisputed.

But again, agreed with by many others. The cultural rule of thumb I'm accustomed to with most of my peer group (the early to mid 20s crowd) is half your age plus 7. At 25, that would make 19 the youngest to not start to enter "robbing the cradle" territory. I'm 24. I would never feel comfortable having sex with a 15-16 year old, especially since they annoy me usually (omygod! those bracelets are so presh!).

To me and most people I know, the desire to do so borders on either pedophilia or simply not being able to get a girl your own age. Young girls sometimes find it "cool" to have an older boyfriend. Immaturity and an inability to provide or take care of themselves is less an issue with young kids as it is with adult women.



However, in my opinion, treating that person the same way that we would treat someone who raped a six-year-old would be wrong.
That's all.

They generally aren't. Sentencing is much more harsh for the more extreme pedophiles than the others.

5chars

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Azaraith's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: