I've been indicted on multiple charges!

[korn469]

Imran

It is one thing to talk to your daughters about sex, but actually promote it? I wouldn't want to do that! Let them do it in secret... that would send the signal, at least, that you don't approve of her having sex at that age.

Well I'm not a parent yet, but I think it would be better to know what's going on in your child's life rather than being completely left out, and having them go around and do things in secret. Like Pekka said, it's one thing if they are in some kind of long term relationship with a person that seems to be good for them, rather than some random person.

Parents, who still have control of their kids, don't want you messing with them.

Here's the problem with that, with or without the 4 year rule (which some states have and some states don't) are there individuals who can legally mess with your kids and there is nothing you can do about it. If you have a 15 year old and there is the 4 year rule, then she could date a 19 year old and there is nothing that can be done as long as they don't get into any other trouble, no matter how much the parents disapprove. In fact in that situation an 18-19 year old trying to use the girl for sex would be completely legal, and a 20-21 year old trying to actually date this person would be a felony.

It is an exception to the law

christ saying he was the king of the jews was an exception to roman law...

jews owning businesses were an exception to nazi law...

blacks trying to use white facilities were an exception to Jim Crow laws in the US...

Iraqis trying to remove Saddam from power were going against pre-gulf war II Iraqi law...

Starting up a private business and trying to exercise free enterprise was an exception to USSR law...

laws aren't always beneficial, just, or even good

However, if the girl is 17 and the guy 25, then that's basically enforced all the time.

In some states, about half have an age of consent lower than 17.

If you are older than 4 years of age than your mate, and she, or her parents, decide to report it, you should get some punishment.

If the girl (or guy) ever has to report it to the police, then it isn't statutory rape, it's some type of actual rape. As far as the parents go, if they don't report it, then it seems like they should be tried as accessories to a felony. If they had a teenager selling crack out of their room and they knew about it and didn't report it because they approved of that behavior they'd be in trouble. I doubt any parents have went to prison for not reporting their daughters having sex with an older boyfriend. This seems to be a further perversion on justice, by actively letting the parents decide on when to apply the law or not.

Both genders can easily suffer psychological problems from being with a person who is sufficiently older, no matter the gender.

can, may, should, would, could...again i agree with you that there can be problems, but these problems system from relationships not the ages, and that just because it can happen doesn't mean it always does

if there is no harm done, then the police are called in and make things really hard on a person emotionally, then what can of crazy law is this? it'd be like if a person's neighbor saw that person almost get hit, so they call the cops and the cops come over and beat that person with a nightstick

Um.... where are you from? The police ALWAYS have discretion . If they don't think it's bad, they can always look the other way.

OTOH, when a parent calls, there is always the threat of some sort of violence between the parent and the guy, so the police have to show up. Whether they arrest the guy or not, is their own perogative.

Actually the cop who came and picked me up had implied that if I had of lived further away it would have been too much of a hassle for them to come and pick me up, so they wouldn't have bothered. Also while I was being booked, a person came in complaining their neighbor had shot at them. The officer asked if the neighbor had shot into the air, or if they had actually shot at them. The person said the neighbor had shot at them but was simply a bad shot. The police said they'd roll by and admonish the neighbor, but that the best way of taking care of things was to go kick the neighbor's ass.

Sikander

the last burst of brain development occurs (for most) during those years between, which turns girls into women in the mental as well as physical sense. For guys it usually happens 1 to 2 years later. Thus IMO girls of 16 are very rarely capable of exhibiting the sort of judgement we expect of adults, while women of 19 usually are at least capable of it, even if they don't always make the best choices either.

I understand this argument, and I've read things similar to it; however, I don't see how it backs up any other arguments, except that teenagers shouldn't engage in any type of serious relationships at all, because they lack the judgement needed to make those relationships work. Also I wonder about a few other things related to brain development: how does early puberty effects brain development? what percentage of brain development is needed for a person to be able to effectively participate in relationships? how much variation exists between individuals?

though i would rather rely on a system of cat scans than just some manditory age

I'm sure my mom seemed very mature in ways, she was used to playing an adult role to fill in the gaps of her own family. But in some very important ways she had merely postponed her own development, skipping whole developmental phases by necessity.

I can highly identify with this because of my own very chaotic upbringing, but i think it made me a better person instead of a worse one.

While I agree that the law should be a last resort, we can't rely entirely on the assumption that parents will do their jobs properly. Many parents (especially young single mothers who themselves were abused) will not only fail to protect their children from serial abusers, they will often encourage the relationship actively or passively.

i do agree with you on this because i've seen it happen, but i also want to point out that parents can also err on the otherside as well and say that healthy relationships are abusive, and sometimes they'll have the law on their side to back up their erroneous thinking

S. Kroeze

did their behaviour contribute in ANY way to the happiness of their daughter?

well seeing as she told the police it was a bunch of bs, and that she was my girlfriend and loved me, i think that would indicate it did not. plus if there was any doubt, she told me this was about the worst thing that ever happened to her. plus then her parents basically bragged about busting us, so everyone found out and she felt pretty humilated by them telling everyone.

And I have sufficient reason to believe that Korn is an intelligent, nice and sensitive human being.

thank you very much

che

I am not opposed to teens having sex. I just don't believe they should be having sex with adults. Teens should have sex with teens, adults should have sex with adults.

if you believe that teens having sex with each other is not detremental to the teen, then what factor would the adult bring into this that causes the harm? Also are there any circumstances that teens having sex is bad for the teen? How about any factors when the adults have sex? Should this be illegal as well?

It sounds like you are saying a 16 year old guy playing a girl is far better than what i did, because I had good intentions, and those good intentions worsen the situation! I may be wrong, but this is what it sounds like to me.

In the US, we put 25 year-old women having sex with minors in jail.

again only in some states

plus here is another failing of the age of consent laws, in the states where a 16 yo can consent and there is a 4 year limit, a 15 1/2 year old who has sex with a 20 year old boyfriend is a felony, while a 16 year old who gang bangs five 40 year olds is perfectly legal. To me that doesn't make sense at all.

Azazel

The consequences of a girl having sex and a boy having sex are indeed totally different in our society.

I assume by that you are inferring pregnancy. If you are, then here in the US there are child support laws, and if you have a child you gotta pay for it, or you can eventually goto jail. It's not perfect, my dad was a deadbeat dad, but if mom had of really wanted she could have sent him to jail, she just never did. So to me it seems like the consequences are not as great as what you'd make them out to be. Plus does that mean that there should be different rules for boys and girls?

AH

In the US, just about anyone who deviates from the norm is put in jail.

That's why I don't understand why you call it the land of free.

lol, i'm not sure how things work in aussieland, but i can personally agree with you that this land isn't nearly as free as we say it is

Oerdin

she was 16 at the time

pekka

i didn't quote what you said about parenting but i know what you were trying to imply, and i agree with your approach

anyways one last thought, imran you may know...

ok if a person under 18 leaves home without their parents permission they can be charged with being a runaway and the police can force them to go home

my question is, if the parents kick a teenager out of their house, can the teenager goto the police and get the police to force them to let them back in the house? (not that they would...in fact they'd be crazy to do it in this situation) if not, then once again all of the advantages are stacked in favor of the parents and the government (since it can charge anyone as an adult if it so wishes, so basically only the government can discern if a teenager is capable of adult decision making, and only when it is in the government's best interests)

[korn469]

i guess the thing is, i know beyond any doubts that i love her and she loves me, and one day i think we'll be together

i just don't think the government should be able to tell people who they can or cannot love, and it's as simple as that for me

[Japher]

Great Balls of Fire!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Here's the problem with that, with or without the 4 year rule (which some states have and some states don't) are there individuals who can legally mess with your kids and there is nothing you can do about it. If you have a 15 year old and there is the 4 year rule, then she could date a 19 year old and there is nothing that can be done

And that's an exception to the consent law itself. The legislature decided to let some leeway in.

laws aren't always beneficial, just, or even good

But they are the law... so, who cares?

If the girl (or guy) ever has to report it to the police, then it isn't statutory rape, it's some type of actual rape.

If the girl is underage or more than 4 years younger, the charge will usually be for rape AND statutory rape. If they can't get you on one, they'll try to get you on the other.

can, may, should, would, could...again i agree with you that there can be problems, but these problems system from relationships not the ages, and that just because it can happen doesn't mean it always does

What's your point? A shot at a person CAN kill them, but it doesn't always. Does that mean you want to throw out the concept of attempted murder?

though i would rather rely on a system of cat scans than just some manditory age

COME ON! You can't have a law for each seperate person!! I'm sure if we made cat scans manditory on every birthday, you'd be the first to complain.

plus here is another failing of the age of consent laws, in the states where a 16 yo can consent and there is a 4 year limit, a 15 1/2 year old who has sex with a 20 year old boyfriend is a felony, while a 16 year old who gang bangs five 40 year olds is perfectly legal. To me that doesn't make sense at all.

It's called states' rights. They decide their laws. You don't like it? Go to the legislature. It is all fine and well to ***** about the law, but it was made by democratically elected legislatures. Doesn't matter if you don't like it, a majority of the people around you do.

my question is, if the parents kick a teenager out of their house, can the teenager goto the police and get the police to force them to let them back in the house? (not that they would...in fact they'd be crazy to do it in this situation) if not, then once again all of the advantages are stacked in favor of the parents and the government

No... because the law is designed for the parents' benefit. And yes, MOST of the advantages are stacked in favor of the parents, because teenagers are not considered full legal people under the law. They are still under their parents care.

All of the advantages are not stacked for the parents' benefit though, because they are legally obligated to care for the child. They cannot skimp on this either. They must provide for the child food and shelter. That's a law that has a pretty damn big benefit for the child.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by korn469
che

if you believe that teens having sex with each other is not detremental to the teen, then what factor would the adult bring into this that causes the harm?

It is generally less detrimental that sex with an adult. The purpose of the law is to portect teens from adult preditors, who rely on youths' inexperience and naivety to trick them into sexual relationships a mature person wouldn't normally enter.

Also are there any circumstances that teens having sex is bad for the teen?

Frequently, but sex between teens is part of learning how to become adults. That doesn't mean that rape and exploitive sex, STDs and pregnancy don't happen. Rape is still a crime for teens, and even exploitive sex, if bad enough, can get the exploiter in serious trouble, as in those cases with the high school sex-clubs.

How about any factors when the adults have sex?

We do criminalize some sexual relations between adults. Rape is criminalized. There is a major difference between children and adults. That's why we don't let kids drink (a bad decision IMO), drive, join the military, enter binding contracts, choose not to go to shool, work more than 10 hours a week, etc. Adults are supposed to be equipped with the information and ability to deal with the world, and not need thier parents protection from it.

In some cases, people who cannot make these decisions, such as the mentally disabled or those in comas, or example, we have guardians who make such decisions for them. Even in temporary situations, adults can be presumed to be unable to be responsible for themselves, such as if they are passed out drunk, they cannot give assent to have sex, and therefore sexual intercourse with such a person is considered rape.

It sounds like you are saying a 16 year old guy playing a girl is far better than what i did, because I had good intentions, and those good intentions worsen the situation! I may be wrong, but this is what it sounds like to me.

It's not necessarily better, but it's the law, and a line has to be drawn somewhere. No law can cover 100% of the situations, and that's why the police and prosecution and judges have discretion to handle things (except in the case of mandatory sentencing laws, which are a travesty of justice). It's why you aren't in jail or have a sex crime record.

The only alternative to the way things are now is to not have a law, since CAT scans and test to determine adulthood would be prohibitvely expensive and probably discriminatory. Even then, those who are good at taking tests would be able to be legal adults before they are necessarily ready, while those who are bad test takers might never be able to be a legal adult. So you still have a problem. Furthermore, CAT scans would be open to interpretation, which would again lead to problems. The 18 or within four-years is a good enough rule.

[Arrian]

I agree with Che. Well said, commie.

-Arrian

[korn469]

Imran

But they are the law... so, who cares?

lol, I know you don't. I do though. It truly bothers me that I live in society that prides itself on a slavish devotion to procedures that go around pretending to be justice when they often in fact the opposite.

COME ON! You can't have a law for each separate person

I'm not suggesting an individual law for each person, though a large number of scenarios that cover every conceivable eventuality could really be nice. However, that won't happen, it would simply be too inconvenient for the police, prosecution, and legislature.

What's your point? A shot at a person CAN kill them, but it doesn't always. Does that mean you want to throw out the concept of attempted murder?

Sorry, I obviously didn't make the point I was trying to. What I was implying is this; the main basis of the current justification of statutory rape laws is that one of the possible outcomes of it is harm. There are other possible outcomes as well ranging from a lack of harm, to something beneficial. Also statutory doesn't require any criminal intent; in fact the intent could be the exact opposite. It's not like a circus knife thrower is charged with attempted murder every time they throw a knife at their assistant (even if they do hit them). With attempted murder, if everything goes as planned you will have successfully killed a person. At times (and certainly not all), if statutory rape does occur, and everything does go as planned, it would take place in the context of an ongoing relationship that would be beneficial to both people. That is a possible outcome, maybe not as possible as a negative outcome, maybe not as possible as a neutral outcome, but it is still possible. It seems like in many other instances, that "could" instead of will is enough to make something a felony.

One other thing, even killing people isn't ALWAYS wrong or illegal. If a dangerous escaped convict goes for a something in his pocket while shouting "I have a gun!" and a police officer shots the convict who later dies from those gunshot wounds, the cop won't face any charges even if the suspect didn't have a gun at all. There are many other example of taking a life that aren't illegal, and one could ascertain that even in some circumstances killing others has a positive outcome.

They decide their laws. You don't like it? Go to the legislature. It is all fine and well to ***** about the law, but it was made by democratically elected legislatures. Doesn't matter if you don't like it, a majority of the people around you do.

Unfortunately "democratically elected" in the US usually means somewhere between ten, possibly twenty percent of the total population voted for the representative, and the about half of the elected representatives vote for a law. So we're talking five or ten percent of total population has an indirect impact on the passage of the vast majority of laws. Then with all of the special influence groups buying clout, and a ratings hungry media that panders to a generation of sound bite politicians, I personally have no trust or faith in the government. That is the system we live under, and I'll know you'll above all others on Apolyton will defend it to the bitter end; however, I think we could come up with a vastly improved system. Also once a law takes effect, it is exceedingly rare for anyone to repeal it. The far majority of people I know speed, maybe not much but some, yet the legislature here isn't about to raise the speed limit. They've already struck that down that proposal a number of times. Moreover, even if a vast majority of people approve of a law that doesn't mean that it is beneficial to the ones it impacts. The majority of people in the south agreed with slavery before the civil war, yet certainly it wasn't good for blacks. You can develop a procedure, make sure it is consistent, and then follow it precisely, which is how our legal system works; but that doesn't mean that every outcome in that system is going to be a good outcome that represents justice. Sometimes it will, and some laws are good laws; my point is that just because something is legal doesn't make it good and because something is illegal doesn't make it bad. That is what I believe, and I've believed it for as long as I can remember. I know you believe the exact opposite, and I guess all we can do is agree to disagree.

Anyways, all you can do is complain and protest if the government decides to let you, because in the end it comes down to the guys carrying guns and the US government has far more than anyone else on Earth.

ps.

If the girl is underage or more than 4 years younger, the charge will usually be for rape AND statutory rape. If they can't get you on one, they'll try to get you on the other.

You had really better check this one. The types of defense and the kinds of evidence you can use at a forcible rape trial is completely different than what you could use at a statutory rape trial (statutory limits a number of things the defense can present to better protect the victim), and the definition of actual rape would hurt you one the person under the age of consent took the witness stand. I may be completely wrong, but I don't think that it is SOP to charge everyone with both rape and statutory rape in statutory cases.

pps

As posted in the other thread, happy birthday!

Che

I do agree with you on some of the things you said, in fact I'm in total agreement with you on protecting people from being victimized, but I'm in disagreement with you over the best way to ensure that. I certainly can see why you make your other points; however, in my particular case that this was not the best possible outcome, nor do I feel like justice was served. If the entire basis of this law is to protect her from harm it failed entirely. In the end I know the harm that came out of this came out of this process and not our relationship. You may be right that on average this is about as good as things can get with all things considered. You may feel otherwise with us, but all you have to go on is the ages involved, and possibly some notion of me from apolyton. I know myself, I know her, and (unfortunately lol) I know her parents as well. This hasn't helped anyone personally involved, nor have any of us gotten the outcome we desired (unfortunately for her mom this wasn't reason to put me in front of a firing squad). This was certainly a u-turn for her and I, and it may derail what we had, but I have faith it hasn't, and we'll get another chance (completely legal in every single respect this time around) before too long so we can find out. All I know is that she's completely special and I love her. You can think whatever, but that's the truth. I'd do anything to be with her, and right now that means waiting, so I'm going to wait.

Anyways, unless anyone else just wants to argue about generalities, that's all I have to say

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

...

Romeo and Juliet were 14 or 15.

Ehrrm, Romeo maybe, but Juliet was 11.

[Az]

I assume by that you are inferring pregnancy. If you are, then here in the US there are child support laws, and if you have a child you gotta pay for it, or you can eventually goto jail. It's not perfect, my dad was a deadbeat dad, but if mom had of really wanted she could have sent him to jail, she just never did. So to me it seems like the consequences are not as great as what you'd make them out to be. Plus does that mean that there should be different rules for boys and girls?

Actually, I was referring to the different standards applied to a girl or a boy having sex, in general. Compare reactions of a father to a daughter or a son having sex in a, ahem, liberal way.
"You go, stud" vs. "You dirty slut".

[Az]

Originally posted by Agathon


Here's an experiment that should be conducted.

Place a plain looking woman by the side of the road with a sign around her neck saying "Will have sex with any man."

In another location place a plain looking man by the side of the road with a sign saying "Will have sex with any woman".

I'm betting the woman will be picked up within about, say, three or four seconds.

The bloke will be there until the cows come home.

A result of a wrong social construct, mind you.

[Chemical Ollie]

I don't think any European would think there's anything wrong with Korn's "little affair". At least not legally. Go Korn, I'm on your side! She will soon be legal.

I can understand the girls dilemma though. If she's a "good girl" she will obey her parents, whom she probably love. On the other hand if she really loves you, she's probably going through a trauma right now. One thing you can hope for is that her hag of a mother will change her mind if she gets to know you better. One way could be to "bite the bitter apple" or "take the bull by the horns": call the mother and invite her for some open hearted chat in a neutral place, over a cup of coffe or so. I don't know her enough (or actually not at all ) to say if this is the right medicine in this case, but that's probably what I would have done. You and the girl will have a very tough time if she becomes your mother-in-law and still hates you.

I wish you well.

[SuperSneak]

Hmmmm....seems a bit of an overblown situation. Good luck with the Mother In Law...sounds like she'd like to have your balls for earrings if she could.

I do sense a bit of an emotional gap in your relationship (as you pointed out yourself, you are somewhat immature, which just makes you look bad and doesn't really justify why you can't play with others your own age) but as someone who "fell for" a girl who was 16 when I was 19 (thank god her parents had a very liberal mindset) and dated her for 3+ years, I can't judge.
Hell, my WIFE is over six years younger than I am!

He he...I certainly don't blame a guy for wanting some of that sweet, young thang!!!

Err...within reason, of course.

Just glad I have two sons...teenage daughters must be agony.


And AH! High five!!! We saw right through that crap, didn't we? Probably best that we live on different chunks of the planet...could be trouble if we actually hung out...but some day...some day...

[kittenOFchaos]

Originally posted by korn469
i'm 25, and i'll be 26 in a few weeks, and she's 17, so there is a fairly significant age difference, but we had a connection from the moment we first met. it's hard to describe, just except that i have never felt that way around any one else.

Well, that does put the case into some context You are a cradel snatcher and worst of all got caught

This all just re-inforces my stero-type of Americans...that part of the population that are sex maniacs (not to mention that America is the land of porn-production) and that part which are Puritan and the war between them.


If you had been in Britain I doubt there would have been any problems whatsoever. I would question the stance your g/f took in relation to this case if she allowed her family to hammer you and THEN hammer you with the Law Courts


Round 2: go and chop the Mother-in-Laws head off...




P.S Korn are you now a convicted rapist?

[TCO]

Euros why not at first menstruation? Or before, if consensual? We could eliminate babies or toddlers since they don't really reason yet. But the average 10 year old is pretty bright...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GP
Anyway, why not make it ok if the person who does it gets parental permission? That way you could do it with anyone? Or we could just make it bleeders. I don't really see reason for arguing about any limit between legal adulthood and puberty.

Because physical puberty doesn't necessarily equate to a mental ability to give consent to sex.

You want an analogy, look to the movies.

Say a 16 year old wants to see a 16+ movie, but his parents don't want him to. They may have the legal right to prevent him from seeing the movie, but they don't have grounds to sue the theater if it lets him view the movie. On the other hand if a 15 year-old wanted to see that same movie then the theater would be in **** for letting him in.

Comprende?