Republican Furry Underage Sex Scandal

[the4thpip]

You think I am joking?

I am not joking. (http://the4thpip.blogspot.com/2009/05/republican-perv-panda-of-pennsylvania.html)

[worstblogever]

You think I am joking?

I am not joking. (http://the4thpip.blogspot.com/2009/05/republican-perv-panda-of-pennsylvania.html)

Damn. If only he'd been elected to Senate, as opposed to PA State Senate. That would've made it like ten times as funny. In the middle of session, someone would get to say, "I would like to remind my esteemed colleague, there will be no yiffing or scritching here today, while we vote on the new budget."

I'd have watched C-Span for a month, waiting for that.

[friginator]

I'm a sad panda.....

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Fucking creep.

[Charles RB]

It's the fact his boss is tough on sex crimes bewilders me. What did he think would happen when she found out?

[the4thpip]

It's the fact his boss is tough on sex crimes bewilders me. What did he think would happen when she found out?

That she would get her raccoon costume out and join in the fun?

After all, Mark Foley was all about protecting our chillun on the interwebs.

[friginator]

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr286/Friginator369/pedopanda.jpg

[FeminineMystique]

WOW. Just wow. And there goes the last lingering shred of the Republican parties credibility

[Thadeus Thunderwinkle]

So sex solicitations over the internet are officially becoming part of the Republican Party's platform? They seemed to have left out that plank in their "Young Conservative Anthem" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8).

[Charles RB]

That she would get her raccoon costume out and join in the fun?

He must've been quite surprised when she fired him instead then.

[the4thpip]

WOW. Just wow. And there goes the last lingering shred of the Republican parties credibility

"We are not furry predators" was the last thing you believed about the GOP? :confused:

[Loren]

Damn. If only he'd been elected to Senate, as opposed to PA State Senate.

He wasn't elected to either. He was an aide.

[Corrina]

This guy is a total sleaze.

But saying all Republicans are like this is using a pretty broad brush.

[the4thpip]

This guy is a total sleaze.

But saying all Republicans are like this is using a pretty broad brush.

I don't think anybody did this.

(and by the way, that is a bit of a pet peeve of mine - it's certainly not intentional on Corrina's part, but a statement like that often attempts to discredit a discussion by attacking a point nobody made)

It does seem, however, that the majority of politicians who turn out to be sex predators in some way seem to have been Republicans in recent years.

[K-DoG7p7]

This thread made me finaly realize that i'm a fanboy..
I saw "sex" and "Scandal" in the topic and thought this had something to do with Scandal Savage..



but instead its a bout a goddamn yiffer

http://restorelampasas.com/imglib/YIFF_IN_HELL.jpg

[Corrina]

WOW. Just wow. And there goes the last lingering shred of the Republican parties credibility

I was talking about this, really, making a point that one aide to a state Senator does not necessarily shred the credibility of an entire party. True, there have been a lot of scandals with Republicans recently but the Democrats have had even more of their share.

For instance, the guy pushing health care who is Barack Obama's best ally in the Senate also killed a women while driving drunk and left the scene of the crime to try and cover up his involvement.

[Lester C.]

This may be the most racist ignorant thing I've ever typed and that is saying something. Has anyone ever noticed that most sexual predators have a certain look and build to them? I know logically I'm stereotyping here, but still I keep noticing the same person at different ages when a story like this breaks out.

[FalconX2000]

What may be just as embarassing is that 14 year old boy becoming known as a furry lover. Or adorable anyways. Or dangerous, to pet owners. :biggrin:

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/5866/cutefox.jpg (http://img198.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cutefox.jpg)

[Lester C.]

What may be just as embarassing is that 14 year old boy becoming known as a furry lover. Or adorable anyways. Or dangerous, to pet owners. :biggrin:

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/5866/cutefox.jpg (http://img198.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cutefox.jpg)

Isn't that the lady from the very old Sonic cartoon. Tails or something.

[40footwolf]

As long as Republicans are going to get into sex scandals, they might as well be totally fucking hilarious.

[Jeremi]

Isn't that the lady from the very old Sonic cartoon. Tails or something.

Tails is a boy. You're probably thinking of Princess Sally Acorn.

Also.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/1884/itsatrapou4.jpg

[Charles RB]

As long as Republicans are going to get into sex scandals, they might as well be totally fucking hilarious.

I'm not sure what's hilarious about statutory rape.

[40footwolf]

I'm not sure what's hilarious about statutory rape.
For real? Stautory rape can be pretty funny. Like in this instance. Or when Motorhead is doing a song about it. (http://www.imeem.com/artists/pznKQjJq/music/A6phdlQL/motrhead-jailbait/)

[Tetsuo_man]

I just read the full article and says that his personal ad said he was looking for someone 20-25. Do we know if the kid lied and said he was of age? Not saying this was OK but just playing devil's advocate and I might have missed something.

[the4thpip]

I just read the full article and says that his personal ad said he was looking for someone 20-25. Do we know if the kid lied and said he was of age? Not saying this was OK but just playing devil's advocate and I might have missed something.

I think the "when are your folks not home" line is unlikely to be uttered to someone 20-25.

[Tetsuo_man]

Ah I missed that. Yep no misleading involved. Guy deserves what he got.

[Damo]

I think the "when are your folks not home" line is unlikely to be uttered to someone 20-25.

We're talking about furries though.

I'm willing to bet large sums that there's plenty of 20-25 year old furries that live at home with their parents.

You're almost certainly right, but I'm just playing devil's advocate.

[Tetsuo_man]

We're talking about furries though.

I'm willing to bet large sums that there's plenty of 20-25 year old furries that live at home with their parents.

You're almost certainly right, but I'm just playing devil's advocate.

That's a good point too.

[Lester C.]

This guy is a total sleaze.

But saying all Republicans are like this is using a pretty broad brush.

It's a woman actually but yea has the same look many of them have. Even the women and yes I realize how horrible that sounds as I'm stereotyping.

[Tetsuo_man]

Since when is David Alan a woman's name or are you confusing the senator with the aide?

[Thadeus Thunderwinkle]

It's a woman actually but yea has the same look many of them have. Even the women and yes I realize how horrible that sounds as I'm stereotyping.

I believe the state senator is a woman, but the perpetrator is, in fact, a freaky looking dude.

[the4thpip]

Since when is David Alan a woman's name or are you confusing the senator with the aide?

Sincer Lester - as usual - only read every third word of the article linked to in the first post. :tongue:

[Michael P]

Sincer Lester - as usual - only read every third word of the article linked to in the first post. :tongue:

Reading only every third word in that news story doesn't like a bad idea.

[Arrogantcur]

I'm not sure what's hilarious about statutory rape.

I'm sure saying this is unwise, but whenever somebody talks about how bad having consensual sex with somebody underage is I flash back to when I was 14 and how I would have loved to have had sex with an older woman. One of my teachers in particular, who was extremely attractive.

If you have a confused kid and an adult persuades them to have sex, then that's wrong and the adult shouldn't get away with it. But if you have two parties, both past puberty, both interested in the other? As long as there's no coercion and as long as neither party regrets it afterwards, I don't see the problem.

Dave Chappelle got serious one time in the middle of a gig and talked about how it made absolutely no sense that a 14-year-old boy in Florida (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/topic/sns-tatecase,0,540257.story) could get convicted of murder but that if the same kid had consensual sex with somebody older than him the older person would get convicted of child molestation. How, he asked, could they say that a kid of that age knew what he was doing when he killed somebody but didn't know what he was doing when he had sex with somebody?

I realize that some people really do prey on teens or children and hurt them terribly in the process, and I agree 100% that those people must be stopped. But not everybody who has sex with an underage person fits that description.

[Michael P]

http://www.trainfortopdollar.com/trainfortopdollar/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/canofworms1.jpg

[SimplySalty]

http://www.trainfortopdollar.com/trainfortopdollar/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/canofworms1.jpg

Saved for future use.

Thank ye' kindly.

[Charles RB]

I'm sure saying this is unwise, but whenever somebody talks about how bad having consensual sex with somebody underage is I flash back to when I was 14 and how I would have loved to have had sex with an older woman.

When we were fourteen, we loved the idea of having sex with any teachers that were attractive. That doesn't mean we'd have actually liked it if it had happened., or that we'd have been able to handle it. Nor would most fourteen-year-olds be able to get out of a situation where someone older and in a position of authority wanted something from them. That's why they're not meant to do it.

[Arrogantcur]

When we were fourteen, we loved the idea of having sex with any teachers that were attractive. That doesn't mean we'd have actually liked it if it had happened., or that we'd have been able to handle it. Nor would most fourteen-year-olds be able to get out of a situation where someone older and in a position of authority wanted something from them. That's why they're not meant to do it.

By that logic, though, shouldn't we also make it illegal for employees to sleep with their bosses? Position of authority there. If somebody older is physically stronger and can keep on having sex with the younger person against their will after they say "stop!" then we should make it illegal for physically strong people to have sex with physically weak people.

Btw, here's the clip of Chappelle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__2uxE_mTJI&feature=related

[the4thpip]

I'm sure saying this is unwise, but whenever somebody talks about how bad having consensual sex with somebody underage is I flash back to when I was 14 and how I would have loved to have had sex with an older woman. One of my teachers in particular, who was extremely attractive.

If you have a confused kid and an adult persuades them to have sex, then that's wrong and the adult shouldn't get away with it. But if you have two parties, both past puberty, both interested in the other? As long as there's no coercion and as long as neither party regrets it afterwards, I don't see the problem.

Dave Chappelle got serious one time in the middle of a gig and talked about how it made absolutely no sense that a 14-year-old boy in Florida (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/topic/sns-tatecase,0,540257.story) could get convicted of murder but that if the same kid had consensual sex with somebody older than him the older person would get convicted of child molestation. How, he asked, could they say that a kid of that age knew what he was doing when he killed somebody but didn't know what he was doing when he had sex with somebody?

I realize that some people really do prey on teens or children and hurt them terribly in the process, and I agree 100% that those people must be stopped. But not everybody who has sex with an underage person fits that description.

The thing is though - would you still feel it was the right thing to do 10 years later?

The entire point of statutory rape is that we feel that kids who are underage are basically unable to judge what is consensual or good for their development. We put the burden of that decision on the adult in the situation.

Edit: And the whole "position of authority" bit is only a part of that equation, so your employee simile fails.

[Charles RB]

By that logic, though, shouldn't we also make it illegal for employees to sleep with their bosses? Position of authority there.

And bosses sleeping with their employees is frowned upon. If the boss has a boss, they won't be happy if they find out because of the potential legal issues.

Also, most of those employees will be adults, not schoolchildren with no understanding of sex.

EDIT: Also, let's be blunt here - the basis for your argument is the wank fantasies you had when you were in school. That's a crap basis. Fourteen year olds also fantasise about living on their own, not going to school, and being Jack Baeur and shooting people.

[Arrogantcur]

The thing is though - would you still feel it was the right thing to do 10 years later?

The entire point of statutory rape is that we feel that kids who are underage are basically unable to judge what is consensual or good for their development. We put the burden of that decision on the adult in the situation.

Edit: And the whole "position of authority" bit is only a part of that equation, so your employee simile fails.

When I was 19 years old I had a relationship with somebody that I'd regret later on. It was with somebody who didn't really care about me and emotionally blackmailed me. It wasn't good for my development. I wound up going through an emotional wringer. Looking back more than 10 years later, I don't think it was the right thing for me to do. I should've just stayed the hell away from that woman. Did being 19 years old instead of 14 years old mean I had good judgment? Not at all. Did it mean I had better judgment? I don't know, but I don't think it did.

[Arrogantcur]

And bosses sleeping with their employees is frowned upon. If the boss has a boss, they won't be happy if they find out because of the potential legal issues.

Yeah, but being "frowned upon" is not the same as it being illegal and something you can get imprisoned for.

Also, most of those employees will be adults, not schoolchildren with no understanding of sex.

Teenagers take sex ed. They have sex with one another. I don't think you give them enough credit. Plus, something that they learn long before they ever take their first sex ed class is to say no if somebody touches them in a way they don't like, to resist. Even if they didn't know all about sex, they would certainly know enough to put a stop to it if they weren't enjoying it.

[Charles RB]

Did being 19 years old instead of 14 years old mean I had good judgment? Not at all. Did it mean I had better judgment?

The only way you would not have better judgement at age 19 than age 14 is if either you had a mental illness that impaired your development or deliberately refused to learn things.

[Hurricane]

After seeing that guy's picture, I now understand why people get into the whole "furry" thing. It has nothing to do with role playing or being attracted to anthropomorphic animals. Some people are just so damn ugly they have to wear a costume just to get laid.

[the4thpip]

When I was 19 years old I had a relationship with somebody that I'd regret later on. It was with somebody who didn't really care about me and emotionally blackmailed me. It wasn't good for my development. I wound up going through an emotional wringer. Looking back more than 10 years later, I don't think it was the right thing for me to do. I should've just stayed the hell away from that woman. Did being 19 years old instead of 14 years old mean I had good judgment? Not at all. Did it mean I had better judgment? I don't know, but I don't think it did.

It's a question of likelihoods.

On average, our judgment improves with age. Yours may not have, that is your personal issue.

The German age of consent law was revised a few years ago to provide for the fact that somebody who is physically below legal age may have the maturity to be in a consensual relationship. But the case would still be taken to court and it would be judged by psychiatrists if the relationship was acceptable or not.

[Arrogantcur]

The only way you would not have better judgement at age 19 than age 14 is if either you had a mental illness that impaired your development or deliberately refused to learn things.

How do you know? Some teenagers have pretty good judgment. Some adults have extremely bad judgment. Judgment doesn't necessarily get better and better and better as you get older.

In my case, I went through high school not having any luck with girls at all, I left high school and started to have a little bit of luck with girls, and I made a big mistake when it came to who I hooked up with. I could've made the same mistake when I was back in high school, with the same consequences.

[the4thpip]

How do you know? Some teenagers have pretty good judgment. Some adults have extremely bad judgment. Judgment doesn't necessarily get better and better and better as you get older.

In my case, I went through high school not having any luck with girls at all, I left high school and started to have a little bit of luck with girls, and I made a big mistake when it came to who I hooked up with. I could've made the same mistake when I was back in high school, with the same consequences.

I am inclined to think that the consequences would have been different. You would probably doubt to this day whether you were the victim of some kind of child abuse or not had it happened at age 14. Now you can say "i had bad judgment" - you might be dealing with it as more of a trauma in the other scenario.

[Charles RB]

Teenagers take sex ed. They have sex with one another.

Which won't help them when having sex with much older adults that have power of them. Sex ed does not cover that. Teenagers who have sex are having sex with their peers, people at the same level of development and basic experience.

something that they learn long before they ever take their first sex ed class is to say no if somebody touches them in a way they don't like, to resist. Even if they didn't know all about sex, they would certainly know enough to put a stop to it if they weren't enjoying it.

I'm sorry, but that's incredibly ignorant. You should know this isn't the case from the fact that children, teenagers, and adults still manage to get raped and molested. This isn't counting the number of abusive relationships, too high to be attributed to people not having learnt the lesson.

For fuck's sake, Ireland brought out a report this month on the endemic abuse and rape of children in Catholic care homes and schools throughout the past century. Saying "no" did not help them.

This argument's on the same level as saying domestic abuse can't be a big deal because the women would just leave.

[Arrogantcur]

The German age of consent law was revised a few years ago to provide for the fact that somebody who is physically below legal age may have the maturity to be in a consensual relationship. But the case would still be taken to court and it would be judged by psychiatrists if the relationship was acceptable or not.

That makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you for sharing it. I think it'd be a great idea to look at these things on a case by case basis like that in America and Canada.

Getting back to judgment and talking to everybody now...like a lot of kids, I drank when I was underage. I drank to get drunk. Was it a good idea? No. Is it ever a good idea? No, it isn't, any more than smoking is a good idea. But you know what? I said to myself "It's my body, it's my liver and my brain cells, and if I want to get plastered and damage them in the process that's my choice. Fuck what the law says about it." It was my decision and I believe I was old enough to make it. If I had made a decision regarding sex instead of alcohol, I believe I would've been old enough to make that decision as well.

[the4thpip]

That makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you for sharing it. I think it'd be a great idea to look at these things on a case by case basis like that in America and Canada.

Getting back to judgment and talking to everybody now...like a lot of kids, I drank when I was underage. I drank to get drunk. Was it a good idea? No. Is it ever a good idea? No, it isn't, any more than smoking is a good idea. But you know what? I said to myself "It's my body, it's my liver and my brain cells, and if I want to get plastered and damage them in the process that's my choice. Fuck what the law says about it." It was my decision and I believe I was old enough to make it. If I had made a decision regarding sex instead of alcohol, I believe I would've been old enough to make that decision as well.

Even though, in this very thread, we see signs of the brain damage that drinking caused! :tongue:

[Arrogantcur]

I'm sorry, but that's incredibly ignorant. You should know this isn't the case from the fact that children, teenagers, and adults still manage to get raped and molested. This isn't counting the number of abusive relationships, too high to be attributed to people not having learnt the lesson.

For fuck's sake, Ireland brought out a report this month on the endemic abuse and rape of children in Catholic care homes and schools throughout the past century. Saying "no" did not help them.

This argument's on the same level as saying domestic abuse can't be a big deal because the women would just leave.

That's not what I mean. If somebody says no and the other person doesn't respect that, doesn't stop? THAT is rape. THAT is assault. That ought to be reported and there should be consequences.

But if you've got a "victim" who isn't in distress and is confused about why everybody is making such a big deal out of what was, in their view, a consensual act that they enjoyed? I'm sorry, I see that as quite different.

Even though, in this very thread, we see signs of the brain damage that drinking caused! :tongue:

Yeah, I set myself up for that one. :redface:

[Charles RB]

That's not what I mean. If somebody says no and the other person doesn't respect that, doesn't stop? THAT is rape. THAT is assault. That ought to be reported

What'll happen most of the time in statutory rape is the minor is unable to say "no" out of fear or confusion or because that's how power works when you haven't got any.

You're in your early thirties and you're trying to claim clear judgement for fourteen year olds. The problem here is you do not honestly remember being fourteen and most others that age were like. I'm a lot closer to that age and I've had to deal with kids that age, and you honestly are ignorant here, as you are with the mechanics of power in these situations.

Furthermore, "they know what they're doing" is the same argument paedophiles and ephebophiles use. They use that argument so they don't have to realise they've just abused someone and to try to shift the blame. It's not a good argument to copy.

[Arrogantcur]

What'll happen most of the time in statutory rape is the minor is unable to say "no" out of fear or confusion or because that's how power works when you haven't got any.

You're in your early thirties and you're trying to claim clear judgement for fourteen year olds. The problem here is you do not honestly remember being fourteen and most others that age were like. I'm a lot closer to that age and I've had to deal with kids that age, and you honestly are ignorant here, as you are with the mechanics of power in these situations.

I remember at that age I talked back to adults all the time. I wanted to be treated like an equal because I believed I was one. My thinking was that I had grown to my full height, my voice had gotten lower, my body now was that of an adult instead of a kid. Plus I was able to understand things that used to be too complicated for me when I was a little kid, and I understood conversations between adults perfectly, the kinds of conversations that I wouldn't have been able to understand when I was a little kid. So to my thinking at the time (and to this day), not only had my body gotten as adult as it was going to, but my intelligence had gotten as high as it was going to as well (and yes, I realize I'm setting myself up again, so go nuts :tongue: ).

I'll grant you that I can only speak for myself and that other people my age might've still seen themselves as children and would be reluctant to say no to an adult about anything. But me? I was different, and I doubt I was the only one.

EDIT: Come to think, aren't the teen years pretty much all about rebellion and defying authority? Again, I'm sure there are teenagers who would be reluctant to say no to an adult and could therefore be pushed into a non-consensual act, but I'm also sure that there are lots who would do the opposite, who wouldn't agree to do anything they didn't want to do and who would speak up if they changed their mind about it in the middle of the act.

[Charles RB]

I remember at that age I talked back to adults all the time. I wanted to be treated like an equal because I believed I was one.

This is true of them all.

But we weren't as tall, as smart, and as experienced as we thought we were. Situations we thought we could handle and seemed simple? We couldn't and they weren't.

If you honestly aren't any more intelligent than when you were fourteen, then yes, that's a bad thing. The alternative is you are and you don't actually remember being fourteen as well as you think you do. You can say you could've stood up to an adult but let's be blunt, most of the minors who were abused or raped thought that.

[Corrina]

Say you're 14 and there's this really cool adult that will buy you booze and totally commiserate with you on all the things you think should be different in your life. Then all they ask for this friendship is to have sex with you...and you're not sure you want but, damn, they're spoiling you and that's nice and....you don't really like the sex but now you're confused and upset but you don't want to tell because this is your cool secret friend. Of course, you cool secret friend is now still giving you stuff but demanding other things you're uncomfortable with....

...and then you feel like you can't tell anybody because then you'll have to reveal all the not allowed stuff you've been doing with your secret friend or your secret friend threatens to reveal all this but if you continue to play ball, they'll do some of the cool stuff with you......

And then imagine you come from a broken home where this is the first person ever who's paid much attention to you at all.....

Still say the 14-year-old has got the judgment to know they're being abused and manipulated in a big way?

ETA: Most predators LOOK for kids who aren't self-confident. They make good victims.

[Arrogantcur]

Say you're 14 and there's this really cool adult that will buy you booze and totally commiserate with you on all the things you think should be different in your life.

*nod*

Then all they ask for this friendship is to have sex with you...

Even though my self-esteem was not very high at that age I am positive I would've said "no way" to that particular arrangement. But...I don't know, if they sprung that little condition on me after I'd grown emotionally dependent on them? You know, I might just think that acquiescing would be better than losing my "friend." Thinking about that is disturbing, because I never considered that kind of scenario before either for myself or somebody else.

...and you're not sure you want but, damn, they're spoiling you and that's nice and....you don't really like the sex but now you're confused and upset but you don't want to tell because this is your cool secret friend. Of course, you cool secret friend is now still giving you stuff but demanding other things you're uncomfortable with....

This is where I'd probably have passed the point of no return. As much as you hear that rape victims should not be ashamed, in this case I would probably have been thinking "Well, I agreed to it when I didn't have to, and I AM ashamed of that and don't want anybody to find out."

Still say the 14-year-old has got the judgment to know they're being abused and manipulated in a big way?

ETA: Most predators LOOK for kids who aren't self-confident. They make good victims.

You've certainly given me something to think about, Corrina. A fourteen-year-old, or me at that age, could've easily fallen into that trap.

I'm afraid I still think that the law which the4thpip mentioned is the right way to handle it, though. I'll tell you why.

The woman I got involved with when I was 19 was the first person I ever went to bed with. That was a big deal to me. I loved her. She, as I said, didn't feel the same about me. We weren't together very long; a week, maybe two. Then she gave me a call and told me that she had decided hooking up with me was a mistake because she was already involved with somebody else (she never told me that before). So she broke up with me, and I was crushed but I didn't want to lose her so I wanted to stay friends and she agreed to that...

Long story short(er), she was not a good friend to me. There were several times during the period after she broke up with me and before I finally cut her out of my life for good where she would tell me basically that if I didn't do what she wanted that she'd never speak to me again. That particular threat always worked perfectly, because I was still in love with her. I didn't want her to hate me and I didn't want to lose somebody who--just like the teenager in your scenario--was one of the few friends I had in my life at the time.

This is obviously not the same thing as what a teenager being manipulated into sex by an adult would go through, but it makes me believe that anybody of any age can be controlled like that if they have low self-esteem, if the person manipulating them knows which buttons to push.

[Corrina]

Oh, I definitely agree that adults can be manipulated this way.

The thing is, adults do have options. They have jobs and presumably a place to live on their own.

14-year-olds are basically not independent. They don't have an outside source of income, they don't usually have a home of their own. If they've been manipulated into a bad situation and the manipulator can threaten either their home or the basics of existence (If I tell the awful things you did, your parents/guardian will throw you out...)

Again, many kids who are sexually abused in this situation have to deal with the abuser in their *own* home or a person in a position of trust where the abuser is more likely to be believed than they are. They're stuck.

Whereas a 19-year-old has some independence options. They can say "screw you, I"m outta here."

[Corrina]

*
This is where I'd probably have passed the point of no return. As much as you hear that rape victims should not be ashamed, in this case I would probably have been thinking "Well, I agreed to it when I didn't have to, and I AM ashamed of that and don't want anybody to find out."



And that's exactly where most abusers get their victims to stay silent and keep on either abusing them or moving onto the next victim. Because the victims don't want anyone to find out either.

The vast majority of sexual abuse happens this way, there's no physical force involved.

And I'm glad you're thinking. I wasn't trying to attack at all just pointing out the reasons why statutory rape laws exist.

And I'm sorry you had such a bad situation at 19. Rough age to handle it.

[Arrogantcur]

And that's exactly where most abusers get their victims to stay silent and keep on either abusing them or moving onto the next victim. Because the victims don't want anyone to find out either.

The vast majority of sexual abuse happens this way, there's no physical force involved.

And I'm glad you're thinking. I wasn't trying to attack at all just pointing out the reasons why statutory rape laws exist.

And I'm sorry you had such a bad situation at 19. Rough age to handle it.

Thank you.

[BnL]

I think 14-year-olds generally lack the emotional development to have sex. At that age, most kids have very little maturity, or knowledge of how mature relationships work. But that's actually not the larger issue. It's more about the adults than the kids, IMO. And any adult who thinks that a 14-year-old DOES have those qualities probably lacks that same emotional maturity themselves, because they never developed it. And any adult who would consider having sex with a 14-year-old is fucked up.

[the4thpip]

That's not what I mean. If somebody says no and the other person doesn't respect that, doesn't stop? THAT is rape. THAT is assault. That ought to be reported and there should be consequences.

But if you've got a "victim" who isn't in distress and is confused about why everybody is making such a big deal out of what was, in their view, a consensual act that they enjoyed? I'm sorry, I see that as quite different.



That is really, really scary NAMBLA territory of reasoning.

[FalconX2000]

When you're old enough to be employed, you're old enough to be held responsible for your own sex life.

[Arrogantcur]

That is really, really scary NAMBLA territory of reasoning.

I don't think that's fair, pip. The situation that Corrina described was a clear case of somebody who was suffering, who was trapped, etc. Am I really in NAMBLA territory when I say that we should make a distinction between cases like that and cases where you have two people (possibly only a few years removed in age, with one being legally an adult and one legally a minor) who are both together because both of them want to be together?

American prisons are crowded enough as it is. There are certainly people who are dangerous and need to be kept away from vulnerable teenagers whose lives they could ruin. But assuming the worst every single time and arresting every single person who's involved with somebody 14, or 15, or 16, or whatever (since the age of consent varies from state to state and country to country)? I'm sorry, I just cannot believe that in every single case the younger person is unhappy or traumatized.

[PatrickG]

I don't think that's fair, pip. The situation that Corrina described was a clear case of somebody who was suffering, who was trapped, etc. Am I really in NAMBLA territory when I say that we should make a distinction between cases like that and cases where you have two people (possibly only a few years removed in age, with one being legally an adult and one legally a minor) who are both together because both of them want to be together?

American prisons are crowded enough as it is. There are certainly people who are dangerous and need to be kept away from vulnerable teenagers whose lives they could ruin. But assuming the worst every single time and arresting every single person who's involved with somebody 14, or 15, or 16, or whatever (since the age of consent varies from state to state and country to country)? I'm sorry, I just cannot believe that in every single case the younger person is unhappy or traumatized.

Well, do you think rules should be governed by a best case scenario or a worst case scenario or the average scenario?

When it comes to human sexuality and belonging, people want it. People want it really bad.

And things that people want really bad, people are a lot more willing to compromise themselves and/or other people for, often without consciously meaning to or at least with a handy rose-colored set of rationalizations.

In that rare case where there is something meaningful and enduring, the potentially creepy old person can wait three or five years until the cookie dough of their paramour's being is a bit more thoroughly baked.

It isn't enough to say that the object of your affections CAN say "no". You really have to be at a point where they can definitely and even probably say "no" and make that "no" stick or the "yes" may not mean what you or they think it means and the whole thing is tainted with the humid stench of icky uncertainty.

And love...? That should have a heck of a lot of certainty behind it.

If a person is willing to settle for even 98% certainty that nobody is being a creep or a victim then it ain't love to begin with.

[GozertheGozarian]

When you're old enough to be employed, you're old enough to be held responsible for your own sex life.
Some states have permits that allow 14 year olds to work part time. Do you really consider that old enough?

[GozertheGozarian]

Am I really in NAMBLA territory when I say that we should make a distinction between cases like that and cases where you have two people (possibly only a few years removed in age, with one being legally an adult and one legally a minor) who are both together because both of them want to be together?

Yes, you're making one of the same arguments NAMBLA does to justify their actions.

[Arrogantcur]

Well, do you think rules should be governed by a best case scenario or a worst case scenario or the average scenario?

Well, look at it this way. If somebody might have committed a murder, but there's a chance he didn't, he is supposed to be found not guilty. Or not charged to begin with (which is better because then you don't have to worry about double jeopardy and you can wait until you find more evidence, if it's out there).

So to my thinking, if somebody might have abused another human being, but there's a chance they didn't, then that person shouldn't be imprisoned either. Not until you know for sure one way or the other. It's not perfect, and I realize that if the person did actually abuse somebody it might give them a chance to do it again even if you slap a restraining order on them to be on the safe side...but that's the way the justice system is supposed to work. People are supposed to be presumed innocent in the absence of evidence of their guilt.

And Gozer, you'll just have to take my word that I am not now, nor ever have been, a member of NAMBLA. *sigh*

[Solaris]

In the story, I read the part where he'd said in the ad he was looking for 20-25 year olds, and started wondering if maybe the kid had lied about his age... I know the guy was talking about meeting the kid in his parents' backyard and/or shed for sex. It's possible that he thought the kid was an adult (remember, lots of 20+ do still live with parents in this day and age).

In all honestly, I'd like to see if other sources bear out that the aide knew the kid's age, or if he thought the kid was a young adult (20+). In no way will I defend a child-predator... but there's just not enough in the article for me to be sure he knew the kid was a minor. Hopefully, the investigation will show that, including whether or not this site is supposed to be limited to adults (one with an 18+ warning). Part of the reason I'm having some reservations is that I think they may be misinterpreting the language of his posted ad:

"I'm a Daddyfur and Caretaker and I am looking for a babyfur to be my mate and my companion in a long-term committed relationship," the ad says. "I am a hopeless romantic and very affectionate, freely giving hugs, scritches, cuddles and kisses."

According to the ad, he wanted someone 20 to 25, who has a car and would call him Daddy


I'm not an expert on fetish language (especially furries), but I do know that some people have "Daddy/Baby" fetishes that involve roleplay, rather than one of the participants actually being underage. I've seen 45+ year old men running around in a diaper at a party, as well as a few 20-35 age individuals doing the same (mostly male, but a few females too). Proportionally they're not a large part of the fetish population... but their fetish is no less valid than any other.

People roleplay in some fetishes. A hetero male who has a secretary or librarian fetish will call their partner "Miss '______'" and their partner will call them "Mr. '_______'" or "Sir." Some people who roleplay dom and sub use the terms "Master" or "Mistress" and "Slave" or "Pet"---and the term "slave" has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of historical black slavery (rather, a "love slave" connotation, even if there's no sex involved). [Not all D/S's use these terms, btw---but many do.]

The point is, there are some terms involved in fetish roleplays of various types that are pretty clear to someone in the scene as having a specific meaning... but to an outsider, can be misinterpreted in many ways. My concern is that, if he *didn't* know the kid wasn't an adult, if the kid was posting on an adult-marked site and the aide had no reason to presume the kid wasn't a legal-aged young adult living with parents... the investigators may be interpreting the wording of his ad ("Daddy/Baby bear") to mean he was seeking child-sex, when instead he was roleplaying a fetish with what he thought was another adult. Part of what makes me wonder that too is that he has no prior records. That's not always indicative... but it also leaves the door open to the stuff I said above.

I'll keep reading in the thread, to see if anyone else has posted stories with more details as to whether or not he seemed to know this person was underage. Until they say he did, though, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[the4thpip]

I don't think that's fair, pip. The situation that Corrina described was a clear case of somebody who was suffering, who was trapped, etc. Am I really in NAMBLA territory when I say that we should make a distinction between cases like that and cases where you have two people (possibly only a few years removed in age, with one being legally an adult and one legally a minor) who are both together because both of them want to be together?


Yes, you are. You may not be aware of how NAMBLA argues, but that is pretty much it. They say that underage boys can fall in love with grown men and it should not be punished by the law when they have sex with each other.

I am really unable to distinguish the difference between NAMBLA's stance and yours, I'm sorry.

[Solaris]

This may be the most racist ignorant thing I've ever typed and that is saying something. Has anyone ever noticed that most sexual predators have a certain look and build to them? I know logically I'm stereotyping here, but still I keep noticing the same person at different ages when a story like this breaks out.

No, I haven't.

Go to one of the sites that posts images of your local sexual predators... while many may wear similar expressions for their mug shots (and so do other criminals), their physical appearance varies widely. So does the age, the crime, and even the gender (I've seen more than one pic of female sexual predators, in looking up that info on my hometown area).

I point this out because most sexual predators "look normal," and assuming that they all have some tell-tale look can be dangerous.

[Spackling Compound]

Dave Chappelle got serious one time in the middle of a gig and talked about how it made absolutely no sense that a 14-year-old boy in Florida (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/topic/sns-tatecase,0,540257.story) could get convicted of murder but that if the same kid had consensual sex with somebody older than him the older person would get convicted of child molestation. How, he asked, could they say that a kid of that age knew what he was doing when he killed somebody but didn't know what he was doing when he had sex with somebody?

I realize that some people really do prey on teens or children and hurt them terribly in the process, and I agree 100% that those people must be stopped. But not everybody who has sex with an underage person fits that description.


It's a falsehood. One ceases to be a child when one can decide what is right and wrong. Everyone, at any age, can be a victim of a predator.
However, the idea that a 14 year old and a 30 year old in a relationship that includes sex or even just sex is somewhat a social evil (if that word applies) is a falsehood given the light of what teenagers know and do today.

More teens are graduating early and entering some type of work force. Most are already sexually experienced by the time they reach middle school.

It's a falsehood but since it is illegal, no one wants to support intergenerational relationships because of the whole "To Catch a Predator" fear-mongering.

[Solaris]

I think the "when are your folks not home" line is unlikely to be uttered to someone 20-25.


Really, pip? How many of us who are adults here live at home with parents? And of those, how many would be really comfortable telling the 'rents, "Oh, me and and my online boyfriend are gonna go out back now to engage in some furry sex---so avoid the shed for a while, would ya?"

[the4thpip]

Really, pip? How many of us who are adults here live at home with parents? And of those, how many would be really comfortable telling the 'rents, "Oh, me and and my online boyfriend are gonna go out back now to engage in some furry sex---so avoid the shed for a while, would ya?"

Yeah, Really. Cause when an adult still lives at home, you ask "so where can we go instead" and not "when are your folks not home?"

Predators can meet their underage victims at home because the victims are often too insecure to meet somebody away from home.

[Spackling Compound]

Yes, you're making one of the same arguments NAMBLA does to justify their actions.

Ironically, your icon features the main actor in an interesting movie that had a perspective on this "problem (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796302/)".

I agree with arrogant's assumptions here. Sex doesn't change with the age of the partner. If we get into sex having any "meaning" or "emotional" impact then it stands in defiance of the libertarian view that supports the freedom to allow polyamory and multiple partners for play and recreation. Also discredits prostitution.

[Corrina]

I don't think that's fair, pip. The situation that Corrina described was a clear case of somebody who was suffering, who was trapped, etc. Am I really in NAMBLA territory when I say that we should make a distinction between cases like that and cases where you have two people (possibly only a few years removed in age, with one being legally an adult and one legally a minor) who are both together because both of them want to be together?


Most states do make a distinction with age differences. For instance, a 19 year-old with a 17-year old. Or a 17-year-old with a 15-year-old. Or 18/16 even. Some don't, and that has led to a few miscarriages of justice yes. But it's not the norm.

No one's putting Levi Johnson in jail for statutory rape, for instance.

I do remember reading one study years back about teenage pregnancy. What shocked me is that while the average age of the girls was about fifteen, the average age of the men were over 20. Teenage girls get a lot of flack for their decisions to have sex but the shock was that the men were so much older, on average, than they were.

There are a lot of studies on this one, AC, that pretty much prove that the average, most likely situation is not the one you're worried about, it's the destructive one that pip is talking about or the scenario that I outlined.

But I understand that might be difficult to comprehend if you've never encountered the situation before.

[Spackling Compound]

Yes, you are. You may not be aware of how NAMBLA argues, but that is pretty much it. They say that underage boys can fall in love with grown men and it should not be punished by the law when they have sex with each other.

I am really unable to distinguish the difference between NAMBLA's stance and yours, I'm sorry.

Because he's not supportive of NAMBLA. That's the difference. So what's the problem?

It's the same as some people like being beaten and tied up what's the difference between that and being abused? One isn't and the other is.

[Spackling Compound]

Most states do make a distinction with age differences. For instance, a 19 year-old with a 17-year old. Or a 17-year-old with a 15-year-old. Or 18/16 even. Some don't, and that has led to a few miscarriages of justice yes. But it's not the norm.

No one's putting Levi Johnson in jail for statutory rape, for instance.

I do remember reading one study years back about teenage pregnancy. What shocked me is that while the average age of the girls was about fifteen, the average age of the men were over 20. Teenage girls get a lot of flack for their decisions to have sex but the shock was that the men were so much older, on average, than they were.

There are a lot of studies on this one, AC, that pretty much prove that the average, most likely situation is not the one you're worried about, it's the destructive one that pip is talking about or the scenario that I outlined.

But I understand that might be difficult to comprehend if you've never encountered the situation before.


I think we would rather the idea of sex being positive rather than negative.

There are plenty of diverse sexual paths here and it seems to be the spirit of the board and the mods to allow and tolerate various expressions. This has helped people at least be civil to those who prefer to have sex with those of the same gender, or desire marriage in the same gender or even change gender. Also tolerate polyamory and bondage. Among other things.
So if someone defends the idea that teens and adults in a sexual relationship that also is responsible, why is this a taboo?
Because of the negative associated with it.
It wasn't too long ago that gays were seen as swishy and transgenders were seen as man-faced or people who had two or three lovers were seen as living a lie.
We've moved beyond because the good outweighs the bad. Tolerance also comes to play. To think that those who may/may not have relationships with those younger than 18 are frog-faced monsters who eat the dreams of children is sort of out of place here.

[Corrina]

All those topics involve CONSENTING ADULTS, Spackling.

If you cannot see the distinction, well.....

And you're doing yourself no good with equating those with different adult sexual habits or identity with those who want to abuse children.

I understood what AC was talking about, especially since he was extrapolating his personal experience into a general, which makes sense if you've never encountered or dealt with something completely different.

But, you, you're being either deliberately obtuse or just plain creepy.

And you're spouting NAMBLA word for word now, and since their propaganda has been brought up and linked in this thread before you posted, I can only assume it's not in ignorance.

[Joe Rice]

To think that those who may/may not have relationships with those younger than 18 are frog-faced monsters who eat the dreams of children is sort of out of place here.

Incorrect. Being gay or transgendered has no victim. Being a predator raping a teenager does.

[Michael P]

But, you, you're being either deliberately obtuse or just plain creepy.

What, it can't be both?

[Solaris]

I think 14-year-olds generally lack the emotional development to have sex. At that age, most kids have very little maturity, or knowledge of how mature relationships work. But that's actually not the larger issue. It's more about the adults than the kids, IMO. And any adult who thinks that a 14-year-old DOES have those qualities probably lacks that same emotional maturity themselves, because they never developed it. And any adult who would consider having sex with a 14-year-old is fucked up.


And, IMO, part of the reason for that is that we don't do a good job of teaching them. The "innocent and pristine" myth about children, especially your own, means that too many people, instead of answering and dealing honestly with a child's natural questions about sex and sexual topics, try to keep their children to a toddler's awareness of sex.

What you get with that is a teenager who's as ill-prepared to handle sexual situations as they are to drive the Indy 500.

We try to keep our children "Children" as long as possible---and nowhere does that show up more than in sexual matters, topics, understanding, and knowledge.

Granted, even a fifteen year old who's been well-taught is going to make mistakes---but if the topic has been dealt with openly and honestly with them through the years, they're much less likely to *make* so *many* mistakes. If you've paired knowledge with things that build self-esteem and the concept of "you own your own body and have the right to say 'no'" with all that, they're even less likely to make a plethora of mistakes.

We teach our children how to play sports, we give them years of training on stuff that will help them in their jobs and life (basics like reading and writing to advanced knowledge like physics). We teach them how to drive a car safely. If they're interested in hunting, we take them to hunter safety classes. We seem to want to teach them everything they need to know... except for matters relating to sex and the body. Then, far too many of us suddenly want to stop or turn back the clock, denying their need to learn about this stuff. And the result is poorly-equipped teens with raging hormones thrust into an environment where they have access to transportation and places far away from the parent's watchful eye... and no idea how to handle it responsibly.

You don't take a beginning swimmer and toss them into the English Channel and say, "Okay, now swim to the other side"---but in sexual issues, that's exactly what we do, overall. And far too many of us think that's how it's done, that's how it is, and that real, honest sex ed is somehow dirty or bad, whether it's in the school or when the eight-year-old kid asks "What's a blow job?" while you're driving in the car.

We have to do better by our kids. We need to give the same care and attention to teaching them about sex, and reinforcing their self-esteem and body-ownership, as we do to all the other things we teach them.

One very happy result of this would be far fewer children falling victim to sexual predators trying to seduce them, and/or more children being listened to when they speak up about someone abusing them. There are more benefits---but that's a big one.

[Stressfactor]

Getting back to the matter at hand....

I don't want to paint with a broad brush BUT I have noticed that gay sex scandals do seem to crop up in the Republican party more often than in the Democratic party (BOTH sides have heterosexual sex scandals) and I have to wonder if the Republican party isn't somehow causing all this from the start.

While there are miles and miles to go on equality you have to admit that (on a whole) the Democratic party seems to be more open and welcoming of their gay, lesbian, and bi-sexual constituents and politicians. On a Federal level, as far as I know, the ONLY congress people who are openly gay are members of the Democratic party.

I honestly am starting to think that the Republican party is HURTING it's gay, lesbian and bi-sexual members by basically FORCING them to stay in the closet. It says to them: We won't accept you, no matter how much you might identify with Republican ideals. It tells them that it isn't enough to be "fiscal conservatives" or to not believe in abortion or to hold to "limited government". They could follow every plank in the party platform and yet, if they're gay, it isn't enough. They treat the Log Cabin Republicans as an embarassment instead of embracing them. And ALL of that just seems to force these to live their lives underground and nothing deprived of the light can grow straight, true and healthy.

It really saddens me because, even though I'm NOT a Republican and I'm straight I hate seeing others having to fit themselves into a box just to be a part of something they believe in.

[PatrickG]

Well, look at it this way. If somebody might have committed a murder, but there's a chance he didn't, he is supposed to be found not guilty. Or not charged to begin with (which is better because then you don't have to worry about double jeopardy and you can wait until you find more evidence, if it's out there).

So to my thinking, if somebody might have abused another human being, but there's a chance they didn't, then that person shouldn't be imprisoned either. Not until you know for sure one way or the other. It's not perfect, and I realize that if the person did actually abuse somebody it might give them a chance to do it again even if you slap a restraining order on them to be on the safe side...but that's the way the justice system is supposed to work. People are supposed to be presumed innocent in the absence of evidence of their guilt.

And Gozer, you'll just have to take my word that I am not now, nor ever have been, a member of NAMBLA. *sigh*

Well, I think we're talking about a case here where somebody PROBABLY committed a murder, where it would be the exception if they didn't.

And I do have to ask, what was the person doing in a situation that even remotely looked that bad, even if it wasn't...?

[the4thpip]

I have Spack on ignore, but I am guessing he is just following the line of the Catholic Church here?

[PatrickG]

I have Spack on ignore, but I am guessing he is just following the line of the Catholic Church here?

You might want to disable ignore for this thread, pip.

It's the opposite in a lot of ways.

For your benefit:

It's a falsehood. One ceases to be a child when one can decide what is right and wrong. Everyone, at any age, can be a victim of a predator.
However, the idea that a 14 year old and a 30 year old in a relationship that includes sex or even just sex is somewhat a social evil (if that word applies) is a falsehood given the light of what teenagers know and do today.

More teens are graduating early and entering some type of work force. Most are already sexually experienced by the time they reach middle school.

It's a falsehood but since it is illegal, no one wants to support intergenerational relationships because of the whole "To Catch a Predator" fear-mongering.

I agree with arrogant's assumptions here. Sex doesn't change with the age of the partner. If we get into sex having any "meaning" or "emotional" impact then it stands in defiance of the libertarian view that supports the freedom to allow polyamory and multiple partners for play and recreation. Also discredits prostitution.

I think we would rather the idea of sex being positive rather than negative.

There are plenty of diverse sexual paths here and it seems to be the spirit of the board and the mods to allow and tolerate various expressions.

To think that those who may/may not have relationships with those younger than 18 are frog-faced monsters who eat the dreams of children is sort of out of place here.

[Solaris]

Yes, you are. You may not be aware of how NAMBLA argues, but that is pretty much it. They say that underage boys can fall in love with grown men and it should not be punished by the law when they have sex with each other.

I am really unable to distinguish the difference between NAMBLA's stance and yours, I'm sorry.

Pip, there are very few "all or nothing" rules in life. Yes, for 99.9 percent of teens out there, they aren't at the level of being able to make an informed and responsible choice in such matters (in part, see my post above about that). However, there are rare individuals who are---just as there are rare teens who get themselves declared legal adults because they do everything we expect of an adult: they hold down a job, support themselves, own or rent their own place to live, manage their bank accounts responsibly, etc. etc. There are those rare cases where a kid will "divorce their parents" and take on that legal status of adult, and meet all the standards and requirements of it.

Can most kids do this? Honestly, no. But there are a very few who do, and who are considered legal adults, even if they're only sixteen.

In light of that, I'm willing to consider that there *are* a very few teens out there who are very well-educated about sex, who have good self-esteem, who act responsibly and who have an emotional maturity beyond their physical years.

Those people are exceedingly rare---but I don't think it's fair or right to say that "No one can do this or be that mature," anymore than it's fair or right to say "No teen can ever function as an adult and be a legal adult."

Yes, NAMBLA uses this concept to push their own warped agenda---but many groups use a tiny seed of truth, or an extremely rare example, and try to inflate it to support their own agenda. As consumers of information, we still need to discern the difference and deal with facts---and the fact is, there *are* a few exceptions to the rule, rare though they may be. Another fact is that NAMBLA tries to use these exceptions to paint a broad brush and legalize predation on the majority who *aren't* ready for something like that.

Given what's been said here about that German law, I actually approve of it---because it takes into account that there *are* those very rare exceptions, and brings in experts to determine if the younger party is indeed one of those rare exceptions.

And to throw in a wry note of humor---I've met 35 years olds who shouldn't be having sex, based on their maturity level. :wink:

[Stressfactor]

And, IMO, part of the reason for that is that we don't do a good job of teaching them. The "innocent and pristine" myth about children, especially your own, means that too many people, instead of answering and dealing honestly with a child's natural questions about sex and sexual topics, try to keep their children to a toddler's awareness of sex.

What you get with that is a teenager who's as ill-prepared to handle sexual situations as they are to drive the Indy 500.

We try to keep our children "Children" as long as possible---and nowhere does that show up more than in sexual matters, topics, understanding, and knowledge.

Granted, even a fifteen year old who's been well-taught is going to make mistakes---but if the topic has been dealt with openly and honestly with them through the years, they're much less likely to *make* so *many* mistakes. If you've paired knowledge with things that build self-esteem and the concept of "you own your own body and have the right to say 'no'" with all that, they're even less likely to make a plethora of mistakes.

We teach our children how to play sports, we give them years of training on stuff that will help them in their jobs and life (basics like reading and writing to advanced knowledge like physics). We teach them how to drive a car safely. If they're interested in hunting, we take them to hunter safety classes. We seem to want to teach them everything they need to know... except for matters relating to sex and the body. Then, far too many of us suddenly want to stop or turn back the clock, denying their need to learn about this stuff. And the result is poorly-equipped teens with raging hormones thrust into an environment where they have access to transportation and places far away from the parent's watchful eye... and no idea how to handle it responsibly.

You don't take a beginning swimmer and toss them into the English Channel and say, "Okay, now swim to the other side"---but in sexual issues, that's exactly what we do, overall. And far too many of us think that's how it's done, that's how it is, and that real, honest sex ed is somehow dirty or bad, whether it's in the school or when the eight-year-old kid asks "What's a blow job?" while you're driving in the car.

We have to do better by our kids. We need to give the same care and attention to teaching them about sex, and reinforcing their self-esteem and body-ownership, as we do to all the other things we teach them.

One very happy result of this would be far fewer children falling victim to sexual predators trying to seduce them, and/or more children being listened to when they speak up about someone abusing them. There are more benefits---but that's a big one.While this is true I think a lot of people are also thinking about this in more terms than just "sex". There is a belief that, even if one is 'just having sex' there is more too it than just sex.

We equate sex with relationships -- whether those be "friends with benefits" or a long-term romance, etc. We tend to overlook the 'one night stands', the 'I just needed to scratch an itch and person X was available'.

When dealing with sex in relationship there is a feeling that in the case of an older person with a young teenager may be dealing with discordant impressions. i.e. the teenager thinks they're getting someone who *loves* them but the older person is *scratching an itch* an the young teenager, no matter how much straight talk a parent gives them, might be more suceptible to be taken in by that.

Teenagers are often in a rush to grow up -- to prove that they are adults -- and what better way to prove their adulthood than to have what they percieve as a relationship with an older, more experienced person.

Now, while it IS true that a lot of teenagers can be mature beyond their years they still generally lack the life experiences that two adults can share with one another. The commiseration of struggling to pay the bills, the headaches of dealing with office politics, the coming home from work and having someone who understands how crappy your day has been and who can tell you about their crappy day and have you understand. And this is why the relationship between adults and teens gives people the creeps -- it never quite seems like a relationship of equals, it always seems like one party is going to be getting more out of the equation than the other.

[the4thpip]

You might want to disable ignore for this thread, pip.

It's the opposite in a lot of ways.

For your benefit:

I am... kind of hoping Spack is posting drunk now.

[Arrogantcur]

But I understand that might be difficult to comprehend if you've never encountered the situation before.

It's true that I haven't. If I knew somebody who'd been through that I might have a different view. I can only guess what people who've met or worked with victims of those worst case scenarios might be thinking of me right now. To those people, I want to say that I'm sorry if what I've posted offends you or angers you, since that wasn't my intent. I was trying to make a point, not piss people off.

As it is, though, I'm reluctant to assume everybody who engages in a relationship with somebody who is legally a minor is a moustache-twirling predator who doesn't care whether their actions hurt other people. Those kinds of people exist, but unless all of the people engaged in relationships with those still considered minors fit that description I do not believe that all of them should be locked up for it.

Solaris mentioned BDSM relationships between adults a bit earlier. In some places, those are illegal for pretty much the same reason sex with a minor is illegal. I did some Googling and found this.... http://www.bearpair.com/slavemike/law.htm

In most places, "consent" is a defense to assault. However, you should be aware that consent is not always going to be available as a defense. For example, in the Spanner case, 16 gay men in England doing SM privately were arrested and charged with a number of crimes. Regarding assault charges, the defense of "consent" was raised, but denied by the court on the grounds of "public policy." Basically the court decided that the law should not allow someone to consent to be assaulted. Most interesting of the cases was that of John Atkinson, a bottom, who was convicted solely of having aided and abetted others in his own assault.

I don't think that is right either.

Well, I think we're talking about a case here where somebody PROBABLY committed a murder, where it would be the exception if they didn't.

If there can be exceptions, though, we shouldn't be locking them all up. The exceptions ought to stay out of prison.

Because he's not supportive of NAMBLA. That's the difference. So what's the problem?

It's the same as some people like being beaten and tied up what's the difference between that and being abused? One isn't and the other is.

Thanks, Spackling. I included my link before I saw your point, but I think that the example above illustrates it better.

[Charles RB]

I honestly am starting to think that the Republican party is HURTING it's gay, lesbian and bi-sexual members by basically FORCING them to stay in the closet.

That wouldn't be surprising.

[Solaris]

Yeah, Really. Cause when an adult still lives at home, you ask "so where can we go instead" and not "when are your folks not home?"

Predators can meet their underage victims at home because the victims are often too insecure to meet somebody away from home.


When Troy and I were dating (and he was still living with his parents), we had quite a lot of fun in their home when his parents were away on a trip---and both of us were over 21. Granted, he could've come home with me (and often did)---but the opportunity to have a place entirely to ourselves where we could be as noisy as we liked, or walk around naked all day if we wanted, a place that didn't cost us anything (we were in college and on a short budget) was a piece of heaven.

I'm not saying predators don't try to do exactly what you said; rather, that consenting adults, when one party or both parties live with their parents, *do* often speak in terms of "when will your parents be gone"---because it's normal and natural to do so.

[Stressfactor]

Pip, there are very few "all or nothing" rules in life. Yes, for 99.9 percent of teens out there, they aren't at the level of being able to make an informed and responsible choice in such matters (in part, see my post above about that). However, there are rare individuals who are---just as there are rare teens who get themselves declared legal adults because they do everything we expect of an adult: they hold down a job, support themselves, own or rent their own place to live, manage their bank accounts responsibly, etc. etc. There are those rare cases where a kid will "divorce their parents" and take on that legal status of adult, and meet all the standards and requirements of it.

Can most kids do this? Honestly, no. But there are a very few who do, and who are considered legal adults, even if they're only sixteen.

In light of that, I'm willing to consider that there *are* a very few teens out there who are very well-educated about sex, who have good self-esteem, who act responsibly and who have an emotional maturity beyond their physical years.

Those people are exceedingly rare---but I don't think it's fair or right to say that "No one can do this or be that mature," anymore than it's fair or right to say "No teen can ever function as an adult and be a legal adult."

Yes, NAMBLA uses this concept to push their own warped agenda---but many groups use a tiny seed of truth, or an extremely rare example, and try to inflate it to support their own agenda. As consumers of information, we still need to discern the difference and deal with facts---and the fact is, there *are* a few exceptions to the rule, rare though they may be. Another fact is that NAMBLA tries to use these exceptions to paint a broad brush and legalize predation on the majority who *aren't* ready for something like that.

Given what's been said here about that German law, I actually approve of it---because it takes into account that there *are* those very rare exceptions, and brings in experts to determine if the younger party is indeed one of those rare exceptions.

And to throw in a wry note of humor---I've met 35 years olds who shouldn't be having sex, based on their maturity level. :wink:True, but I've seen NAMBLA advocate for sex with boys as young as 13 to 14. At least 16 year olds have been approved for being mature enough to get behind the wheel of a car but 13 to 14?!

[Spackling Compound]

Can most kids do this? Honestly, no. But there are a very few who do, and who are considered legal adults, even if they're only sixteen.

In light of that, I'm willing to consider that there *are* a very few teens out there who are very well-educated about sex, who have good self-esteem, who act responsibly and who have an emotional maturity beyond their physical years.

Those people are exceedingly rare---but I don't think it's fair or right to say that "No one can do this or be that mature," anymore than it's fair or right to say "No teen can ever function as an adult and be a legal adult."

Yes, NAMBLA uses this concept to push their own warped agenda---but many groups use a tiny seed of truth, or an extremely rare example, and try to inflate it to support their own agenda. As consumers of information, we still need to discern the difference and deal with facts---and the fact is, there *are* a few exceptions to the rule, rare though they may be. Another fact is that NAMBLA tries to use these exceptions to paint a broad brush and legalize predation on the majority who *aren't* ready for something like that.

Given what's been said here about that German law, I actually approve of it---because it takes into account that there *are* those very rare exceptions, and brings in experts to determine if the younger party is indeed one of those rare exceptions.

And to throw in a wry note of humor---I've met 35 years olds who shouldn't be having sex, based on their maturity level. :wink:

I think that there should be some sort of IQ test for emotional maturity. And if a "child" has the capacity to make adult decisions, then he/she may participate in many of the activities "adults" can. That includes drinking, driving, carrying a gun and yes, sex with whomever they chose.

For some reason, there's a fear of the innocent child but history has borne out that sexuality and "children" is fluid. I'm not advocating preying on children at all. But if pip and the rest want to include me in NAMBLA, so be it. However, Sol's points above speak to what arrogant and myself have been saying. I venture to say that it is less and less rare to have those teens who can make decisions and more and more common to have 35 year olds who are debilitated in that respect.

[Charles RB]

I'm willing to consider that there *are* a very few teens out there who are very well-educated about sex, who have good self-esteem, who act responsibly and who have an emotional maturity beyond their physical years.

However, when writing legislation regarding statutory rape, we have to err on the side of the 99.9% if we intend to enforce it. The line has to be drawn somewhere to make a legal judgement.


As it is, though, I'm reluctant to assume everybody who engages in a relationship with somebody who is legally a minor is a moustache-twirling predator who doesn't care whether their actions hurt other people

I don't assume they're moustache-twirlers and deliberately out to hurt, I do assume they don't care if their actions hurt the minor or don't even bother thinking about it. They'd be extremely unlikely to be having those relationships if they actually cared or were bothered.

[FalconX2000]

Some states have permits that allow 14 year olds to work part time. Do you really consider that old enough?

Working part time at that age is like being paid a few dollars a day to mow your neighbour's lawn. No. At least not with an adult.

[Joe Rice]

If there's one teenager out of a thousand that can accurately and adult-style make that sort of decision, I have no problem still denying him or her that right in order to protect the 999 others that can't and would be preyed upon by sick, pathetic fucks.

[Arrogantcur]

However, when writing legislation regarding statutory rape, we have to err on the side of the 99.9% if we intend to enforce it. The line has to be drawn somewhere to make a legal judgement.

I'm of the mind that it's better for 10 guilty men to go free than a single innocent man to be incarcerated or put to death.

So I must disagree. I believe we have to err the other way...or better yet, do what pip told us Germany does and have the teenager examined by a shrink before deciding whether to prosecute or not.

I don't assume they're moustache-twirlers and deliberately out to hurt, I do assume they don't care if their actions hurt the minor or don't even bother thinking about it. They'd be extremely unlikely to be having those relationships if they actually cared or were bothered.

Why do you assume that, though? I don't see how it logically follows that because a person engages in a relationship with somebody of a certain post-pubescent age, they do not care about that person's well-being.

[Solaris]

While this is true I think a lot of people are also thinking about this in more terms than just "sex". There is a belief that, even if one is 'just having sex' there is more too it than just sex.

We equate sex with relationships -- whether those be "friends with benefits" or a long-term romance, etc. We tend to overlook the 'one night stands', the 'I just needed to scratch an itch and person X was available'.

When dealing with sex in relationship there is a feeling that in the case of an older person with a young teenager may be dealing with discordant impressions. i.e. the teenager thinks they're getting someone who *loves* them but the older person is *scratching an itch* an the young teenager, no matter how much straight talk a parent gives them, might be more suceptible to be taken in by that.

Teenagers are often in a rush to grow up -- to prove that they are adults -- and what better way to prove their adulthood than to have what they percieve as a relationship with an older, more experienced person.

Now, while it IS true that a lot of teenagers can be mature beyond their years they still generally lack the life experiences that two adults can share with one another. The commiseration of struggling to pay the bills, the headaches of dealing with office politics, the coming home from work and having someone who understands how crappy your day has been and who can tell you about their crappy day and have you understand. And this is why the relationship between adults and teens gives people the creeps -- it never quite seems like a relationship of equals, it always seems like one party is going to be getting more out of the equation than the other.


That's very true, and it's a lot of the problem. But I think part of the teen's "rush to be an adult" is because far too often, we don't seem them becoming adults as a *process*---but rather, something that happens overnight when the turn 18 or 21. Instead of handing them growing responsibility and independence, based on their growing knowledge and maturity and performance, far too many of us hold our kids back (not just in sex) and refuse to let their responsibilities and independence grow---so when they become "of age," far too many have no clue how to handle money, relationships, sex, and general life matters. We either spoil them rotten to think they can get away with anything, or we "strictify" them to death, giving them no responsibility and thus, no learning.

Maturation is a gradual, ongoing process. Sometimes it goes in fits and starts, but overall, children are always in the process of becoming adults. IMO, a good parents remembers this, and does their best to gauge how much new responsibility and independence a kid can handle. Growing up is supposed to be something where you *grow*... with the parents supervising it to balance freedom with restraint, as needed.

***

Moving on to the flip side of this---I think this *also* contributes to the "immature adult" situation. If we do better at maturing our kids, I think there will be a reduction of immature adults who seek out teenagers for sex and/or relationships.

[Spackling Compound]

All those topics involve CONSENTING ADULTS, Spackling.

If you cannot see the distinction, well.....

And you're doing yourself no good with equating those with different adult sexual habits or identity with those who want to abuse children.

I understood what AC was talking about, especially since he was extrapolating his personal experience into a general, which makes sense if you've never encountered or dealt with something completely different.

But, you, you're being either deliberately obtuse or just plain creepy.

And you're spouting NAMBLA word for word now, and since their propaganda has been brought up and linked in this thread before you posted, I can only assume it's not in ignorance.

And I'm speaking of consenting adults as well..or at least, people who have the rightful ability to express consent.

NAMBLA also spouts off pro-gay information that is validly shared by gay organizations. Just because they're wrong doesn't mean their arguments aren't valid.

The problem is that they can lead to abuse of children and they also have the ICK factor.

[Nick Soapdish]

I think that there should be some sort of IQ test for emotional maturity. And if a "child" has the capacity to make adult decisions, then he/she may participate in many of the activities "adults" can. That includes drinking, driving, carrying a gun and yes, sex with whomever they chose.

For some reason, there's a fear of the innocent child but history has borne out that sexuality and "children" is fluid. I'm not advocating preying on children at all. But if pip and the rest want to include me in NAMBLA, so be it. However, Sol's points above speak to what arrogant and myself have been saying. I venture to say that it is less and less rare to have those teens who can make decisions and more and more common to have 35 year olds who are debilitated in that respect.

If there is a test, then I think it should apply to everyone. Either people are considered "adult" at a certain age or they aren't and it's test-based. But that's a lot more intrusive than I want my government to be.

[Arrogantcur]

NAMBLA also spouts off pro-gay information that is validly shared by gay organizations. Just because they're wrong doesn't mean their arguments aren't valid.

I'll add to this by saying that Hitler was a vegetarian. I am also a vegetarian. Does that mean I am as bad as Hitler? Does that mean I'm remotely like him? Of course not.

If there is a test, then I think it should apply to everyone. Either people are considered "adult" at a certain age or they aren't and it's test-based. But that's a lot more intrusive than I want my government to be.

That reminded me of an episode of L.A. Law that I saw years ago, where a mentally retarded adult woman was tricked into having sex with a man. Which I am sure was based on real life incidents. Those kinds of cases seem to support the idea of tests.

[Solaris]

True, but I've seen NAMBLA advocate for sex with boys as young as 13 to 14. At least 16 year olds have been approved for being mature enough to get behind the wheel of a car but 13 to 14?!

Like I said, NAMBLA tries to take that very rare exception and use it to fuel their own desires... and that's sick.

You may have a 16 year old who's proven to be responsible enough to be declared a legal adult---but 13? You've got a much better chance of winning the lottery, getting struck by lightning twice, *and* picking the Kentucky Derby winner ten years straight without error, than of finding that particular 13 year old.

NAMBLA tries to use such a near-impossibility by projecting it onto "All kids", to further their agenda---and that's just plain WRONG.

[Arrogantcur]

If there is a test, then I think it should apply to everyone. Either people are considered "adult" at a certain age or they aren't and it's test-based. But that's a lot more intrusive than I want my government to be.

That reminded me of an episode of L.A. Law that I saw years ago, where a mentally retarded adult woman was tricked into having sex with a man. Which I am sure was based on real life incidents. Those kinds of cases seem to support the idea of tests.

[PatrickG]

If there's one teenager out of a thousand that can accurately and adult-style make that sort of decision, I have no problem still denying him or her that right in order to protect the 999 others that can't and would be preyed upon by sick, pathetic fucks.

This is pretty much where I stand except I don't see it as a denial. It's a delay, not a denial, and a prudent one.

At the heart of the "consenting adults" argument for the gay and transgendered and other less common sexual practices in our culture is that the majority's tolerance is warranted not only because their is no victim but that the desire will not change, at least not without harming/brainwashing the person who has the desire. Even if it isn't for you, personally, there's a kind of mandate to accept a victimless scenario which goes beyond simple choice and into what makes up the fabric of someone's being.

Whereas a 30 year old who loves/wants that hypothetical 14 year old who is wise enough to make that decision can wait 4 years because the circumstances will change if it's truly the person they love and not the thrill of poaching jailbait.

I turn 29 this month. I won't say that I'll never date someone 15 years younger than me someday but, personally, I think somebody has to be around 21 and have gone through some meaningful and healthy development before I'd even want to impose my blend of insanity on them. It's easy to think you have it together before 21 and even look like it but life has a way of sabotaging that in those years and I don't want someone unless they've had enough of a parallel journey to my own to build a relationship on.

So I'll be 36 before I'd even look at somebody 15 years younger than me.

I thought I had it together a lot more than I did until that point and I'd add that this seems to be true of everyone I've met -- whether they went to college or not, whether their parents are together or not, whether they are gay or straight, whether they are religious or not, whether they had sex by that point or not and even whether they were abused or molested or not.

It's one thing for two people to hook up who are on the same journey. But I can't imagine a 15 year old being at a point where they could appreciate and share my life experiences, even on a short-term or one-time-only basis, and I'd be worried about them and or myself if I found myself entertaining the idea that they could.

[PatrickG]

I'll add to this by saying that Hitler was a vegetarian. I am also a vegetarian. Does that mean I am as bad as Hitler? Does that mean I'm remotely like him? Of course not.



That reminded me of an episode of L.A. Law that I saw years ago, where a mentally retarded adult woman was tricked into having sex with a man. Which I am sure was based on real life incidents. Those kinds of cases seem to support the idea of tests.

From the perspective of a spinach plant, I bet you are. :biggrin:

[Joe Rice]

On the subject of tests, as a professional educator that's studied testing, there is no way that could happen. The tests we have don't even show what they're supposed to at this point . . .IQ tests are meaningless. EQ tests would be even more subjective and vague. The simple answer is: do not fuck children, even if they are teenagers with boobies or whatever.

[Spackling Compound]

Why do you assume that, though? I don't see how it logically follows that because a person engages in a relationship with somebody of a certain post-pubescent age, they do not care about that person's well-being.

Post-pubescent! Good term. That's what I'm speaking of as well. So all this fear-mongering about NAMBLA is ridiculous.

To the point, arrogant...
It seems that the sexual rules have shifted here. For most people, they want to have as good or bad relations as they chose and "caring" and "well-being" are not as important as "responsibility".

Some people chose to have sex without condoms. That's not caring but it's also a responsible choice for the persons of consent.

So to say that one has to "care" is to say one relationship has to be caring while all other responsible ones can/cannot involve interest in the other's well being.

[PatrickG]

Working part time at that age is like being paid a few dollars a day to mow your neighbour's lawn. No. At least not with an adult.

Do you think you could have come up with an analogous job MORE apt to setup a thoroughly awful joke? Maybe "being paid a few dollars an hour to lay carpet"?

[Charles RB]

I'm of the mind that it's better for 10 guilty men to go free than a single innocent man to be incarcerated or put to death.

But we're talking here about altering the law because of the fourteen-year-olds, not the predators. This is "it's better for ten regular minors to be victimised and have no respite, than a single abnormally mature minor be inconvenienced". (The real number of the former will be greater than ten though)

"Inconvenienced" because, as Patrick says, it's a delay, not an everlasting prohibition on their sex life.

Why do you assume that, though?

Because in the vast majority of cases, it hurts the child. And this is publicly known. The adults know.

So we have to assume they don't care or they think "okay, but this case is different", much like how hordes of rapists will say what they're doing isn't rape.

[Arrogantcur]

Post-pubescent! Good term. That's what I'm speaking of as well. So all this fear-mongering about NAMBLA is ridiculous.

Yes, and there are three reasons I say that. First, it isn't until puberty that human beings develop an interest in sex, so I really can't imagine somebody that young wanting to have sex with anybody. Second, from what I remember learning in high school health, the human body simply isn't ready for sex before puberty and penetration causes great pain and harm. There is no way anybody would want that.

Third...and this is more about me thinking "WTF?" like most of the rest here are than trying to analyze it completely logically as I believe I've been doing...if you look at a toddler or an eight-year-old and think "I'd like to hit that," something is very wrong with you. I can understand being attracted to somebody in their teens, because they look pretty much like adults after a certain point, their bodies are similar, etc. Below that, though? Ugh.

From the perspective of a spinach plant, I bet you are. :biggrin:

Screw 'em. :evilsmile:

[Spackling Compound]

Second, from what I remember learning in high school health, the human body simply isn't ready for sex before puberty and penetration causes great pain and harm. There is no way anybody would want that.
Oh, I'm sure there are a few who'd like a bit of that here!

Third...and this is more about me thinking "WTF?" like most of the rest here are than trying to analyze it completely logically as I believe I've been doing...if you look at a toddler or an eight-year-old and think "I'd like to hit that," something is very wrong with you.

And, even if...someone had an attraction for a child...Just as much as they would a fox-boy or horse-girl, that would be one thing. It may be "their thing", like being a man-baby or dress up in pinafores and play Bo Beep. However, to act on it, would be criminal, dangerous and worthy of all the suspicion and anger that has been expressed here previously.

[Solaris]

I think that there should be some sort of IQ test for emotional maturity. And if a "child" has the capacity to make adult decisions, then he/she may participate in many of the activities "adults" can. That includes drinking, driving, carrying a gun and yes, sex with whomever they chose.

For some reason, there's a fear of the innocent child but history has borne out that sexuality and "children" is fluid. I'm not advocating preying on children at all. But if pip and the rest want to include me in NAMBLA, so be it. However, Sol's points above speak to what arrogant and myself have been saying. I venture to say that it is less and less rare to have those teens who can make decisions and more and more common to have 35 year olds who are debilitated in that respect.


Now the interesting flip-side of that (maturity testing) is, there'd be more than a few adults who would be considered "legally immature" and thus off-limits. LOL.

[Solaris]

If there's one teenager out of a thousand that can accurately and adult-style make that sort of decision, I have no problem still denying him or her that right in order to protect the 999 others that can't and would be preyed upon by sick, pathetic fucks.


Why is this an "either/or", when that German law seems to quite appropriately address the situation *without* it being an "either/or"? The "999" are still being protected, with the situation of the "1" still being addressed.

[Spackling Compound]

Now the interesting flip-side of that (maturity testing) is, there'd be more than a few adults who would be considered "legally immature" and thus off-limits. LOL.

There's a term called "vulnerable adult". I don't know if it's legal or not but it pertains to certain adults who have emotional, mental or psychological problems that would mitigate the ability to make responsible and informed choices.

[Spackling Compound]

Why is this an "either/or", when that German law seems to quite appropriately address the situation *without* it being an "either/or"? The "999" are still being protected, with the situation of the "1" still being addressed.

Again, it seems that this is one area of society that people tend to lead with fear and intolerance rather than reason and tolerance. It's negative legal thinking to think that teens in sexual relations are somehow preyed on by old pervs with fangs and wolf calls.

There is an abundance of teens who are in relationships, sexual or otherwise with adults. Like the gay community who overcame the negative law by leading their lives, maybe it just takes time for this to wear down the negative associations.

[Arrogantcur]

But we're talking here about altering the law because of the fourteen-year-olds, not the predators. This is "it's better for ten regular minors to be victimised and have no respite, than a single abnormally mature minor be inconvenienced". (The real number of the former will be greater than ten though)

"Inconvenienced" because, as Patrick says, it's a delay, not an everlasting prohibition on their sex life.

Okay then, say you meet somebody. Say that you have common interests (which ain't entirely impossible when there's an age difference), and there is a mutual attraction. If one of you is 25 and the other is 35, would you like it if the law said you had to wait until both of you were over 30?

Another story for you. I very well may be shooting myself in the foot here, but it goes to your statement about how in the vast majority of cases it hurts the person and adults know that.

I met a girl when I was in my 20s. She was still in high school. I think she was sixteen, though I honestly forget. She was not bad-looking. I thought that to myself, but I didn't hit on her or anything in part because I was worried she'd think I was sick for thinking she was attractive and in part because I honestly had no idea what the age of consent was (it's sixteen here, as it turns out) and I was scared of getting imprisoned.

So we stayed friends for a while. Went to the movies and had coffee and so on. Eventually she moved away and we stayed in touch via e-mail. Sometimes she'd come back to Canada to see old friends. A couple years went by; not only did I know her quite well by now, but I knew for a fact that she was legal. (Her appearance was pretty much the same, by the way. Aging two years didn't make her look any more adult than she did back then, and for the record she did not look like a child either when I first met her or two years later.) So one day I asked if she would want to be more than friends. And you know what she told me? She told me not only that she would, but that she'd been attracted to me since she met me. At that moment, I was thinking two things. First, I was glad I hadn't been rejected. Second, I was thinking that if I had broached this subject shortly after I'd met her, I would have been viewed as some kind of monster by society. Even though she would have been happy and said yes, according to her. Even though the last thing I wanted to do was hurt this girl in any way. Even though I gave her a shoulder to cry on as a friend and was able to sympathize with her when she talked about her problems, having gone through many of the same things myself, because I felt sorry for her and was concerned for her well-being.

Now I'll brace myself for the onslaught of flames and people labeling me a sick pervert and shit.

[Spackling Compound]

Okay then, say you meet somebody. Say that you have common interests (which ain't entirely impossible when there's an age difference), and there is a mutual attraction. If one of you is 25 and the other is 35, would you like it if the law said you had to wait until both of you were over 30?

Another story for you. I very well may be shooting myself in the foot here, but it goes to your statement about how in the vast majority of cases it hurts the person and adults know that.

I met a girl when I was in my 20s. She was still in high school. I think she was sixteen, though I honestly forget. She was not bad-looking. I thought that to myself, but I didn't hit on her or anything in part because I was worried she'd think I was sick for thinking she was attractive and in part because I honestly had no idea what the age of consent was (it's sixteen here, as it turns out) and I was scared of getting imprisoned.

So we stayed friends for a while. Went to the movies and had coffee and so on. Eventually she moved away and we stayed in touch via e-mail. Sometimes she'd come back to Canada to see old friends. A couple years went by; not only did I know her quite well by now, but I knew for a fact that she was legal. (Her appearance was pretty much the same, by the way. Aging two years didn't make her look any more adult than she did back then, and for the record she did not look like a child either when I first met her or two years later.) So one day I asked if she would want to be more than friends. And you know what she told me? She told me not only that she would, but that she'd been attracted to me since she met me. At that moment, I was thinking two things. First, I was glad I hadn't been rejected. Second, I was thinking that if I had broached this subject shortly after I'd met her, I would have been viewed as some kind of monster by society. Even though she would have been happy and said yes, according to her. Even though the last thing I wanted to do was hurt this girl in any way. Even though I gave her a shoulder to cry on as a friend and was able to sympathize with her when she talked about her problems, having gone through many of the same things myself.

Now I'll brace myself for the onslaught of flames and people labeling me a sick pervert and shit.


Comics related, there was a great bit on this in Top 10 a few years back. It seemed that an old gay couple (superheroes) thought of what people would have thought of their relationship when they were teen-sidekick and superhero.

No one will attack you here. Because you didn't do anything. If you did, then you'd probably be seen as a teh pedofilezzz.

[Nick Soapdish]

Okay then, say you meet somebody. Say that you have common interests (which ain't entirely impossible when there's an age difference), and there is a mutual attraction. If one of you is 25 and the other is 35, would you like it if the law said you had to wait until both of you were over 30?


There's a big difference in how much the average person will mature between 25-30 and 15-20. Or even 20-25. I'd feel a bit weird hitting on a junior in college, even if she was 21 and fully legal. We're just at completely different places in life.

[Joe Rice]

Why is this an "either/or", when that German law seems to quite appropriately address the situation *without* it being an "either/or"? The "999" are still being protected, with the situation of the "1" still being addressed.

Honestly I think that 1 is bullshit. From someone who's studied child development and psychology I can see no instance where legalization of adults fucking children is OK. Those that carefully coach their pleas in the idea of freedom and tolerance are no less foul than those picking kids up off the playground. Are some teenagers amazingly emotionally mature? Sure. That still doesn't mean they are actually prepared for a romantic encounter with an actual adult. I find it repugnant, unresponsible, and weaselly. And this disgusting piece of human filth can act like he's a victim while being a proponent of the legalization of rape, but I'm not going to give a god damn shit.

[Corrina]

If there's one teenager out of a thousand that can accurately and adult-style make that sort of decision, I have no problem still denying him or her that right in order to protect the 999 others that can't and would be preyed upon by sick, pathetic fucks.

Pretty much where I stand.

It's the 'harm/no harm' likelihood.

It's very, very likely that in 999 of these cases, harm is done.

In the other case of the one, it's unlikely that harm is done by waiting until the younger person is older to have sex.

Mostly, it's not about denying that teenagers have sexual needs, clearly, as Solaris said, they do. It's about allowing them to work these needs out in a safe environment--and adults who want 14-year-olds aren't a safe environment.

And, as I said, predators aren't likely to be strangers or just over the legal age anyway. They're likely to be someone known and even respected by the younger person and their loved ones. The priests in Ireland are a classic example.

And Spackling, I hear your response on NAMBLA. But that doesn't explain why you then equated all sorts of activities with consenting adults to support your point.

[Arrogantcur]

And this disgusting piece of human filth can act like he's a victim while being a proponent of the legalization of rape, but I'm not going to give a god damn shit.

Which disgusting piece of human filth would that be?

[Joe Rice]

Cur, you did the right thing by waiting. It wouldn't have worked, as others have said, your places were too different. The age gap was not huge, but the life gap was. As time goes on that will lessen.

We'll not pretend that none of us have ever seen a particularly mature (physically or emotionally) teenager and felt attracted, but what keeps us from the goddam animals is saying, "Hey, that's not right. We're not equals here. Maybe one day we will be."

[Nick Soapdish]

Another story for you. I very well may be shooting myself in the foot here, but it goes to your statement about how in the vast majority of cases it hurts the person and adults know that.

I met a girl when I was in my 20s. She was still in high school. I think she was sixteen, though I honestly forget. She was not bad-looking. I thought that to myself, but I didn't hit on her or anything in part because I was worried she'd think I was sick for thinking she was attractive and in part because I honestly had no idea what the age of consent was (it's sixteen here, as it turns out) and I was scared of getting imprisoned.

So we stayed friends for a while. Went to the movies and had coffee and so on. Eventually she moved away and we stayed in touch via e-mail. Sometimes she'd come back to Canada to see old friends. A couple years went by; not only did I know her quite well by now, but I knew for a fact that she was legal. (Her appearance was pretty much the same, by the way. Aging two years didn't make her look any more adult than she did back then, and for the record she did not look like a child either when I first met her or two years later.) So one day I asked if she would want to be more than friends. And you know what she told me? She told me not only that she would, but that she'd been attracted to me since she met me. At that moment, I was thinking two things. First, I was glad I hadn't been rejected. Second, I was thinking that if I had broached this subject shortly after I'd met her, I would have been viewed as some kind of monster by society. Even though she would have been happy and said yes, according to her. Even though the last thing I wanted to do was hurt this girl in any way. Even though I gave her a shoulder to cry on as a friend and was able to sympathize with her when she talked about her problems, having gone through many of the same things myself, because I felt sorry for her and was concerned for her well-being.

Now I'll brace myself for the onslaught of flames and people labeling me a sick pervert and shit.

Like Spack said, you didn't do anything.

I think that there's more than an outside chance that she was more mature at 18 than she was at 16. And at age 16, it sounded like what she needed more was a shoulder to cry on. It doesn't necessarily mean that she was mature enough at 18 (or too immature at 16), but I believe that a line should be drawn somewhere and the current psychological evidence suggests that 18 is a pretty good spot (if perhaps a bit on the low side).

[Joe Rice]

Which disgusting piece of human filth would that be?

Not you, Arrogantcur.

[jesse_custer]

The simple answer is: do not fuck children, even if they are teenagers with boobies or whatever.

Best course of action is to accept this maxim and go on making fun of weird Republicans.

[Charles RB]

Second, I was thinking that if I had broached this subject shortly after I'd met her, I would have been viewed as some kind of monster by society. Even though she would have been happy and said yes, according to her. Even though the last thing I wanted to do was hurt this girl in any way.

To be brutally honest, if you had approached her, it most likely would have fucked up and it could have been harmful. As you said:

I gave her a shoulder to cry on as a friend and was able to sympathize with her when she talked about her problems, having gone through many of the same things myself

Start hitting on her from that position, you're coming in at a position where she's vulnerable and you've got a degree of emotional power, on top of an age gap.

You did the right thing by taking no action.

[Arrogantcur]

Like Spack said, you didn't do anything.

I think that there's more than an outside chance that she was more mature at 18 than she was at 16. And at age 16, it sounded like what she needed more was a shoulder to cry on. It doesn't necessarily mean that she was mature enough at 18 (or too immature at 16), but I believe that a line should be drawn somewhere and the current psychological evidence suggests that 18 is a pretty good spot (if perhaps a bit on the low side).

In her case what happened with her during those two years between 16 and 18 or 17 and 19 (it was one of thosee two, I'm sure) wasn't so much maturation--at least not that I could see--as much as it was her self-esteem getting better. Part of it was the move; she was having a shitty time at the school she went to (as I did when I went to school, which was partly why I felt so bad for her), but she made a lot of friends at the new place and began to feel better about herself because of positive reinforcement. It always seemed to me that she acted the same way from when I first met her on. I suppose it's possible that she matured mentally in ways I never noticed, I have no idea.

To play devil's advocate against my own position, though, I realize that we are talking about somebody who had been torn down and didn't feel good about herself back then. If I had asked her if she wanted to go out with me instead of just hanging out with me when she was 16 or 17, I wonder, would she have said yes out of desperation? Could her self-esteem have been bad enough that she might've been thinking "nobody could possibly love me and I don't really like this guy in that way but I'll say yes because it's better than being alone"? And if so, would that be like taking advantage of her, even unwittingly if such a thing is possible?

I don't know. But telling this story I noticed that there are similarities between it and the scenario Corrina described, even though I never did anything as scummy as putting conditions on my continued friendship with her. Even if Spackling is right about nobody attacking me (and despite our disagreements, Joe, thank you for not), that worries me a bit.

[Spackling Compound]

And Spackling, I hear your response on NAMBLA. But that doesn't explain why you then equated all sorts of activities with consenting adults to support your point.

I haven't read the points they made.

I'm not talking about pre-pubescent children. I'm talking about those who've reached puberty. Why can't they be consenting then? Some of them actually are in college at 16. Most are driving cars and working jobs (full-time even).

[Solaris]

Pretty much where I stand.

It's the 'harm/no harm' likelihood.

It's very, very likely that in 999 of these cases, harm is done.

In the other case of the one, it's unlikely that harm is done by waiting until the younger person is older to have sex.

Mostly, it's not about denying that teenagers have sexual needs, clearly, as Solaris said, they do. It's about allowing them to work these needs out in a safe environment--and adults who want 14-year-olds aren't a safe environment.

And, as I said, predators aren't likely to be strangers or just over the legal age anyway. They're likely to be someone known and even respected by the younger person and their loved ones. The priests in Ireland are a classic example.

And Spackling, I hear your response on NAMBLA. But that doesn't explain why you then equated all sorts of activities with consenting adults to support your point.


There is an actual dynamic that I think is involved here, and it's two-part:

Teenage girls, on average, tend to look to older boys (or in some case, 18+) for relationships.

Teenage boys may have the hots for girls their age or older, or even a bit younger---but their relationships tend to be "all over the map" in terms of age of the other party.

There's a lot of stuff out there about how "girls mature emotionally faster than boys, etc., and that's why they tend to look to older boys/young men for relationships". There's some truth to that---but I also think that at least part of the reason in all this is that we *raise* girls to look for emotional ties, and don't do the same with boys. Girls' hormones rage just as boys' do---so why the dichotomy? While some of it may indeed be biological, I think an awful lot of it is because we expect them to be that way, and we raise them with the gender difference in mind. I also think that this can have an affect on the biology: for instance, there are several different areas of child development where studies have shown that parts of the brain develop better if a child is exposed to and uses knowledge (foreign language study at an early age, for instance) where the brain forms more and stronger synaptic connections. Is it possible that difference in how we raise boys versus girls may account for some of the biological differences seen in their brains? While hormones do play a role, and genetics too---I think this aspect has been overlooked: behavioral feedback playing a role in physical development and structure of the brain and system.

I also think that if we do a better job of raising both boys and girls to be intelligent, aware, and responsible in the areas of relationships and sexual encounters/situations, we may actually see more girls and boys of same or very close age dating, and a drop in the ones who get involved with those much older than they are.

The *other* side of that coin is that, once those kids become adults, you're looking at a more mature and responsible *adult* population---which means that fewer of *them* will turn their eyes toward teens, rather than toward people closer to their own age. While there are some who are true pedophiles (and would be at any age), I think a lot of these people (mostly but not all guys) who are, say, 22 trying to date a 14 year old, have a lot of maturity issues, rather than being true pedophiles in the clinical sense of the word---and if we can raise mature kids who become mature adults, an awful lot of that problem will go away.

IMO, for a lot of the young guys who date much younger teenagers, it's about their own emotional immaturity and control issues---and that sort of thing, in most cases, can be fixed by society in future generations.

Likewise, raising girls who are knowledgeable, have good self-esteem and confidence in themselves, should help cut down on the number of girls who actively seek a much older partner for their relationships.

In the case of both boys and girls, if we learn to "grow them up" consistently and working with them as individuals, allowing them to gain freedoms and responsibilities as they grow and are ready for them, I think it can help cut down on the "in a hurry to become an adult" thing.

[Solaris]

In her case what happened with her during those two years between 16 and 18 or 17 and 19 (it was one of thosee two, I'm sure) wasn't so much maturation--at least not that I could see--as much as it was her self-esteem getting better. Part of it was the move; she was having a shitty time at the school she went to (as I did when I went to school, which was partly why I felt so bad for her), but she made a lot of friends at the new place and began to feel better about herself because of positive reinforcement. It always seemed to me that she acted the same way from when I first met her on. I suppose it's possible that she matured mentally in ways I never noticed, I have no idea.

To play devil's advocate against my own position, though, I realize that we are talking about somebody who had been torn down and didn't feel good about herself back then. If I had asked her if she wanted to go out with me instead of just hanging out with me when she was 16 or 17, I wonder, would she have said yes out of desperation? Could her self-esteem have been bad enough that she might've been thinking "nobody could possibly love me and I don't really like this guy in that way but I'll say yes because it's better than being alone"? And if so, would that be like taking advantage of her, even unwittingly if such a thing is possible?

I don't know. But telling this story I noticed that there are similarities between it and the scenario Corrina described, even though I never did anything as scummy as putting conditions on my continued friendship with her. Even if Spackling is right about nobody attacking me (and despite our disagreements, Joe, thank you for not), that worries me a bit.


I think you did the right thing too---and exactly for the things you've pointed out.

When I met Troy, I was 30 and he was 21. We became friends, then began dating. I told him more than once that, had he been under 21, I would've waited for him to reach that age---because I just wasn't comfortable with me being my age, and dating someone younger than that. We also went over, several times, the idea of "Do you feel you've dated around enough and gotten enough life experience?"---because that was of concern to me: I didn't want to hamper his growth and development.

We also had differences in the generation gap, few of which were negative, many of which were positive---but still, it was something we chewed over a long time.

Frankly, when we met, I had much more life experience than he did, and knew myself better. To put it bluntly, it put me in that "much stronger emotional position" that's been discussed here. We were both aware of that, and talked about it openly and honestly---and I was always ready to let him go, if he felt he needed to "range" or "branch out his interests"... because I didn't want to stunt his growth somehow.

In the end, he was right: he *was* ready for our relationship, and for it to become serious, then marriage---but in the early days I kept it very much in mind that he might *think* he was ready but not be, and I tried to keep an eye out for signs that that was the case.

Some might say I was being overcautious with someone who's legally an adult---but I think I did the right thing, because I kept in mind that maturity level and longterm relationship ability don't always equate to an age number... and, that we don't always know ourselves as well as we think we do. He might have *thought* he wanted our relationship, only to find after getting into it that he wasn't ready, after all. I tried to keep that door open in my mind, for a long time... and I think I did the right thing with that.
:smile:

As we've aged, and grown together over the years, the age difference between us has become less and less noticeable... at this point, about the only time we think of it is when we're joking around about it with friends.

[Spackling Compound]

I agree with taking no action. This should apply to most sexual relationships in my personal opinion. Mature the friendship before there is a sexual engagement.

However, sex recreationally doesn't need the same maturing because it doesnt' seek the same goal..a partner for life.

This does apply to many teens and adults. They would be happy with sex without commitment rather than finding that one person.

It's just purifying that motive and knowing what each is in it for that's key. If that's established, then it's up to each partner to practice responsibility and caution.

[Arrogantcur]

I think you did the right thing too---and exactly for the things you've pointed out.

When I met Troy, I was 30 and he was 21. We became friends, then began dating. I told him more than once that, had he been under 21, I would've waited for him to reach that age---because I just wasn't comfortable with me being my age, and dating someone younger than that. We also went over, several times, the idea of "Do you feel you've dated around enough and gotten enough life experience?"---because that was of concern to me: I didn't want to hamper his growth and development.

We also had differences in the generation gap, few of which were negative, many of which were positive---but still, it was something we chewed over a long time.

Frankly, when we met, I had much more life experience than he did, and knew myself better. To put it bluntly, it put me in that "much stronger emotional position" that's been discussed here. We were both aware of that, and talked about it openly and honestly---and I was always ready to let him go, if he felt he needed to "range" or "branch out his interests"... because I didn't want to stunt his growth somehow.

In the end, he was right: he *was* ready for our relationship, and for it to become serious, then marriage---but in the early days I kept it very much in mind that he might *think* he was ready but not be, and I tried to keep an eye out for signs that that was the case.

Some might say I was being overcautious with someone who's legally an adult---but I think I did the right thing, because I kept in mind that maturity level and longterm relationship ability don't always equate to an age number... and, that we don't always know ourselves as well as we think we do. He might have *thought* he wanted our relationship, only to find after getting into it that he wasn't ready, after all. I tried to keep that door open in my mind, for a long time... and I think I did the right thing with that.
:smile:

As we've aged, and grown together over the years, the age difference between us has become less and less noticeable... at this point, about the only time we think of it is when we're joking around about it with friends.

Thanks, Solaris. I guess it never hurts to be careful, as you did. I'm glad things turned out so well for you guys.

I agree with taking no action. This should apply to most sexual relationships in my personal opinion. Mature the friendship before there is a sexual engagement.

Me and my friend moved fairly slow even after we decided to take things to the next step. I think it was the right decision.

[Stressfactor]

I think, though, it's important to note that, with girls, I honestly believe that no matter HOW much "right training" they get they WILL go through a phase in which they have low self-esteem. It's simply a matter of body change.

During that in-between phase, when everything is gangly and strange, and unsettled no matter how much support a girl gets she's going to feel like a stranger in a strange land.

The trick is that those feelings don't have to LAST. With proper support, as their bodies start to settle and they come to feel comfortable in themselves then they can move forward with confidence. But during those couple of years when everything is in flux it's hard to feel comfortable when it seems like the rules change daily.

And also, no matter HOW supportive the parents are it won't do a DAMN bit of good if their PEERS undermine it.

I'm a classic example. My parents gave me IMMENSE amounts of trust -- I NEVER had a curfew because I handled myself responsibly and proved I didn't need one. My mom was ALWAYS honest about the way I looked -- trying to instill a sense of beauty in me.

And every day I went to high school and I had guys my own age telling me:

"Titty sucking bitch."
"Nah man, I saw down her shirt, she ain't got no tits."

"Hairy monkey" (for the record, I'm white so this wasn't a racial slur)

A 'kick me' sign taped to the back of my jacket

"Ugly bitch" written on the inside of my denim jacket as, during class, I had had my jacket draped over the back of my chair.

And one time drawing a picture of a goon-like monster on the chalkboard before the teacher arrived in class and then writing my name next to it with an arrow pointing at it.

Those guys did more damage to me than my parents could EVER fix.

Sticks and stones may break bones but names leave scars on your soul.

I didn't have any decent self-esteem until I learned to be confident in my own mind. Once I believed in my mind I found I was able to be confident about the shell that went around it -- i.e. my body.

[Spackling Compound]

I think, though, it's important to note that, with girls, I honestly believe that no matter HOW much "right training" they get they WILL go through a phase in which they have low self-esteem. It's simply a matter of body change.

During that in-between phase, when everything is gangly and strange, and unsettled no matter how much support a girl gets she's going to feel like a stranger in a strange land.

The trick is that those feelings don't have to LAST. With proper support, as their bodies start to settle and they come to feel comfortable in themselves then they can move forward with confidence. But during those couple of years when everything is in flux it's hard to feel comfortable when it seems like the rules change daily.

And also, no matter HOW supportive the parents are it won't do a DAMN bit of good if their PEERS undermine it.

I'm a classic example. My parents gave me IMMENSE amounts of trust -- I NEVER had a curfew because I handled myself responsibly and proved I didn't need one. My mom was ALWAYS honest about the way I looked -- trying to instill a sense of beauty in me.

And every day I went to high school and I had guys my own age telling me:

"Titty sucking bitch."
"Nah man, I saw down her shirt, she ain't got no tits."

"Hairy monkey" (for the record, I'm white so this wasn't a racial slur)

A 'kick me' sign taped to the back of my jacket

"Ugly bitch" written on the inside of my denim jacket as, during class, I had had my jacket draped over the back of my chair.

And one time drawing a picture of a goon-like monster on the chalkboard before the teacher arrived in class and then writing my name next to it with an arrow pointing at it.

Those guys did more damage to me than my parents could EVER fix.

Sticks and stones may break bones but names leave scars on your soul.

I didn't have any decent self-esteem until I learned to be confident in my own mind. Once I believed in my mind I found I was able to be confident about the shell that went around it -- i.e. my body.

And these are the guys who most likely will have sex with others their own age. Somehow this is better?


And that was pretty tough stuff, stress. I was both persecutor and persecuted in high school. When I was called "hobbit", I turned around and called the innocent girl in a body cast, "turtle girl".
Vicious and sad.

[Nick Soapdish]

I haven't read the points they made.

I'm not talking about pre-pubescent children. I'm talking about those who've reached puberty. Why can't they be consenting then? Some of them actually are in college at 16. Most are driving cars and working jobs (full-time even).

Most?

When I was in high school, most of us did drive cars from 16 on up. But if most of us had jobs, we were keeping it on the down low. And I think that there's a dramatic difference in the maturity needed to flip a burger and manage a sexual relationship.

[Nick Soapdish]

And these are the guys who most likely will have sex with others their own age. Somehow this is better?


And that was pretty tough stuff, stress. I was both persecutor and persecuted in high school. When I was called "hobbit", I turned around and called the innocent girl in a body cast, "turtle girl".
Vicious and sad.

Yes, and these are also the people that you are arguing are mature enough for a consenting relationship with somebody older than them.

[Spackling Compound]

Yes, and these are also the people that you are arguing are mature enough for a consenting relationship with somebody older than them.

Not of that ilk. I believe I said something about maturity and responsibility.

I think anyone that cruel, at any age, shouldn't even have sex with themselves.

[Spackling Compound]

Most?

When I was in high school, most of us did drive cars from 16 on up. But if most of us had jobs, we were keeping it on the down low. And I think that there's a dramatic difference in the maturity needed to flip a burger and manage a sexual relationship.

Welcome to 2009, Rip Van!

Now kids are entering the workforce earlier and seeking GED's rather than graduating in traditional ways. They also are sometimes part-bread winner as they are in single parent homes.

Maturity is not needed to flip a burger but the reason why they have to? That's maturity.

[PatrickG]

Welcome to 2009, Rip Van!

Now kids are entering the workforce earlier and seeking GED's rather than graduating in traditional ways. They also are sometimes part-bread winner as they are in single parent homes.

Maturity is not needed to flip a burger but the reason why they have to? That's maturity.

Uh...

Bullshit.

Do some people do what you describe? Sure. The same people who come from families that were doing that ten or fifteen years ago.

There's nothing "2009" about that and it doesn't leave these kids in a position to be very effective breadwinners either

The common reasons why most kids still flip a burger haven't changed: get a car, pay a cellphone bill, buy music, go to concerts or to pay for an unplanned pregnancy. None of those really suggest a major change and in today's job market, LESS kids are worker as more unemployed adults compete with them for introductory level jobs.

[Paul McEnery]

This guy is a total sleaze.

But saying all Republicans are like this is using a pretty broad brush.

Indeed. Most Republicans are not furries.












They are lizard people.


I now feel sure I owe someone a coke.

[Spackling Compound]

Uh...

Bullshit.

Do some people do what you describe? Sure. The same people who come from families that were doing that ten or fifteen years ago.

There's nothing "2009" about that and it doesn't leave these kids in a position to be very effective breadwinners either

The common reasons why most kids still flip a burger haven't changed: get a car, pay a cellphone bill, buy music, go to concerts or to pay for an unplanned pregnancy. None of those really suggest a major change and in today's job market, LESS kids are worker as more unemployed adults compete with them for introductory level jobs.

Those are changed reasons, honey.

Get a car? Maybe a timeless reason.
Pay a cellphone bill? A later reason.
Go to concerts? Really, they have those still?
Pay for an unplanned pregnancy? If they're aborting, then maybe but that's not something kids always got jobs for. Not even in the Family Feud top 10. If they're expecting on raising a child, then that makes them a breadwinner.

And in today's job market, kids are opting to get jobs early as well. And they are more employable because they have less needs and will work the shifts no one else will. I'm not talking as bank CEO here. I'm talking the nefarious "burger flipper".

[Nick Soapdish]

Not of that ilk. I believe I said something about maturity and responsibility.

I think anyone that cruel, at any age, shouldn't even have sex with themselves.

Sorry, I forgot about the IQ test to have sex, but I wasn't sure whether to take that as a serious suggestion or not. (I've been flip-flopping.)

I have difficulty imagining a less workable solution.

Welcome to 2009, Rip Van!

Now kids are entering the workforce earlier and seeking GED's rather than graduating in traditional ways. They also are sometimes part-bread winner as they are in single parent homes.

Maturity is not needed to flip a burger but the reason why they have to? That's maturity.

There were kids like that back in my day, too. But based on what I know about high school kids and college students (which isn't a whole lot of direct knowledge), they haven't matured much in the interim. Got any stats to back that up?

Five years ago (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/teens-face-grim-job-market-tips-on-how-to-cope?archive=true&siteid=mktw&dist=ArchiveSplash&returnURL=%2Fnews%2Fstory.asp%3Fguid%3D{FED39FB2-A50F-4F53-8943-F5A8E537693A}%26siteid%3Dmktw%26dist%3D%26archive% 3Dtrue%26param%3Darchive%26garden%3D%26minisite%3D ), the number of teens in the job market (either employed or looking for it) was at its lowest level since 1948.

[Corrina]

Those are changed reasons, honey.

Get a car? Maybe a timeless reason.
Pay a cellphone bill? A later reason.
Go to concerts? Really, they have those still?
Pay for an unplanned pregnancy? If they're aborting, then maybe but that's not something kids always got jobs for. Not even in the Family Feud top 10. If they're expecting on raising a child, then that makes them a breadwinner.

And in today's job market, kids are opting to get jobs early as well. And they are more employable because they have less needs and will work the shifts no one else will. I'm not talking as bank CEO here. I'm talking the nefarious "burger flipper".

You have statistics to back up these assertions?

Because the last stats I saw on teenage employment said the unemployment rate had gone up.

[Spackling Compound]

You have statistics to back up these assertions?

Because the last stats I saw on teenage employment said the unemployment rate had gone up.

This past two years, especially. However, by and large, more teens are inclined to pursue work rather than high school diplomas than before. I'll have to dig that up somewhere.

[the4thpip]

Is it me or is the only time Spacko ever asks for tolerance when it's about fucking minors? :confused:

[Nick Soapdish]

This past two years, especially. However, by and large, more teens are inclined to pursue work rather than high school diplomas than before. I'll have to dig that up somewhere.

Well, the summer employment rate for teenagers was pretty bad in 2006 (http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/biz_press_teaches_teens_to_hee.php?page=1) - 37.4%. Which was only slightly better than the summer employment rate in 2005 - 36.8%. My previous post was noting that 2003 was the all time low. So it's been bad for at least 6 years (and the problems started with the 2001 recession so probably longer).

But this is just looking at teenagers as a whole and specifically only for the summer months. It's still possible that the number of teenagers that are dropping out of school and working full time has increased. Still, the number of teenagers in school and looking for even part time work has dropped.

[Crowforge]

I'm sure saying this is unwise, but whenever somebody talks about how bad having consensual sex with somebody underage is I flash back to when I was 14 and how I would have loved to have had sex with an older woman. One of my teachers in particular, who was extremely attractive.

I remember not wanting to be touched.

[Spackling Compound]

Is it me or is the only time Spacko ever asks for tolerance when it's about fucking minors? :confused:

Baby, if you ignored me I think it best you keep your opinions about me either to yourself or come into the pool and address me yourself.

Danke.

[Spackling Compound]

Well, the summer employment rate for teenagers was pretty bad in 2006 (http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/biz_press_teaches_teens_to_hee.php?page=1) - 37.4%. Which was only slightly better than the summer employment rate in 2005 - 36.8%. My previous post was noting that 2003 was the all time low. So it's been bad for at least 6 years (and the problems started with the 2001 recession so probably longer).

But this is just looking at teenagers as a whole and specifically only for the summer months. It's still possible that the number of teenagers that are dropping out of school and working full time has increased. Still, the number of teenagers in school and looking for even part time work has dropped.

I suppose that I'm looking at it from the perspective of the Southeast USA. Poverty and single, teen mothers are pretty strong here in Mississippi.
Nationally, the situation may smooth over and show a different picture.

I do know that the GED is pursued more than ever but where teens go with it, is still out in discussion.

[Joe Rice]

Is it me or is the only time Spacko ever asks for tolerance when it's about fucking minors? :confused:

Funny, that. I've noticed as well.

Baby, if you ignored me I think it best you keep your opinions about me either to yourself or come into the pool and address me yourself.

Danke.

Stop calling people "baby" or "honey." You don't know them that well, it's condescending, and they're clearly too old for you.

[Nick Soapdish]

I suppose that I'm looking at it from the perspective of the Southeast USA. Poverty and single, teen mothers are pretty strong here in Mississippi.
Nationally, the situation may smooth over and show a different picture.

I do know that the GED is pursued more than ever but where teens go with it, is still out in discussion.

My unscientific information is also in the southeast US - north Florida and western North Carolina.

In my opinion (although I don't know if it's backed up by anything), people that are forced to mature faster (through economic hardship or whatever) can mature faster, but I don't know if that economic hardship has been increasing (other than the last few years) to force teenagers to mature. So I'll agree with you there with qualifications.

Another one of those qualifications is that maturation isn't uniform. Maturing enough to handle a job and be breadwinner isn't the same as being mature enough for a sexual relationship. In my junior and senior years of high school, I was pretty much stuck raising myself and my two younger sisters. Not financially, although I did have a job to pay for the car insurance and a bit more. But my parents were divorced. One had moved away and the other had to travel and was around only on weekends. And it would have been ridiculously easy for an older woman to manipulate me into doing stupid things.

[Solaris]

Uh...

Bullshit.

Do some people do what you describe? Sure. The same people who come from families that were doing that ten or fifteen years ago.

There's nothing "2009" about that and it doesn't leave these kids in a position to be very effective breadwinners either

The common reasons why most kids still flip a burger haven't changed: get a car, pay a cellphone bill, buy music, go to concerts or to pay for an unplanned pregnancy. None of those really suggest a major change and in today's job market, LESS kids are worker as more unemployed adults compete with them for introductory level jobs.

My daughters' cousin has done a lot to help support his family. He's an only child, and both his parents have had a slew of medical problems (some *very* serious--liver, heart, etc.), on and off with jobs because of this, etc. From the time he was legal age to work, he started working to help pay the bills and keep a roof over their head. He delayed going to college for this, too. He's a great kid.

[Crowforge]

If kids want to grow up fast, which is different from sex but fine, that's how life works out sometimes, that doesn't make you not a pedo. That is what this conversation is still about right?

[PatrickG]

My daughters' cousin has done a lot to help support his family. He's an only child, and both his parents have had a slew of medical problems (some *very* serious--liver, heart, etc.), on and off with jobs because of this, etc. From the time he was legal age to work, he started working to help pay the bills and keep a roof over their head. He delayed going to college for this, too. He's a great kid.

And I'm just saying that there's nothing "2009" about kids like that. It isn't some modern trend that represents how kids, in general, are changing.

I'd wager on average that kids like the one you describe would have done pretty much the same thing when I was 15 or when Jim MacQuarrie was 15 or when John McCain was 15.

[Spackling Compound]

And I'm just saying that there's nothing "2009" about kids like that. It isn't some modern trend that represents how kids, in general, are changing.

I'd wager on average that kids like the one you describe would have done pretty much the same thing when I was 15 or when Jim MacQuarrie was 15 or when John McCain was 15.

And they were marrying earlier. And in some agrarian communities, marrying intergenerationally.

[Crowforge]

I peeked.^
I saw a documentary about child brides having kids too soon and becoming incontinent and being abandoned by their husbands and families. Gee let's follow that example.

[Spackling Compound]

Another one of those qualifications is that maturation isn't uniform. Maturing enough to handle a job and be breadwinner isn't the same as being mature enough for a sexual relationship. In my junior and senior years of high school, I was pretty much stuck raising myself and my two younger sisters. Not financially, although I did have a job to pay for the car insurance and a bit more. But my parents were divorced. One had moved away and the other had to travel and was around only on weekends. And it would have been ridiculously easy for an older woman to manipulate me into doing stupid things.

I am not sure how turning 18 makes someone sexually responsible or even able to carry a gun into a battle on foreign soil but again it's "legal" to do so when someone is 18.

Not to make light of your story (admirable..the things you find out here), but there are chief surgeons, law professors and chairmen of Fortune 500 companies who still are manipulated into doing stupid things! Sometimes it's the younger ones who manipulate the older ones and across gender lines...which can go straight back to the first post I suppose.

[Nick Soapdish]

I am not sure how turning 18 makes someone sexually responsible or even able to carry a gun into a battle on foreign soil but again it's "legal" to do so when someone is 18.


If we're going to have laws about this, we need some sort of determining factor - whether it's a test or an age limit. While the age limits were somewhat arbitrarily chosen, current psychological evidence does suggest that between 18-21 is a pretty good limit. While people will be continuing to get life experience to help continue maturing and there's no magical time when somebody is suddenly mature enough, they should have the tools to have more than a fighting chance to handle what life throws at them by then.


Not to make light of your story (admirable..the things you find out here), but there are chief surgeons, law professors and chairmen of Fortune 500 companies who still are manipulated into doing stupid things! Sometimes it's the younger ones who manipulate the older ones and across gender lines...which can go straight back to the first post I suppose.

It's a bit less admirable when you learn about how I screwed around for my first year of college. My maturity had an embarrassingly narrow scope.

[Michael P]

I'm just curious, Spack: Do you listen to a lot of Gary Puckett and the Union Gap?

[Paul McEnery]

Surely it's time to remind everyone of Little Jimmy Osmond's Puppy Love.

[Spackling Compound]

I'm just curious, Spack: Do you listen to a lot of Gary Puckett and the Union Gap?

Maybe more the Howlin' Wolf "Hello, Little Schoolgirl" or "The Ocean Song" by Led Zepplin.

The godfersaken wretches..won't they think of the children????

[Gumbo Maximillian]

Basically what happened to my brother; at around 18 (a few months younger really but close to it) he got into a relationship w/an older woman who was 29.

He dropped out of high school, ran away from home (yeah I know at that age it barely counts but still) and got into a relationship w/her.

Considering the events that played out after that, severe drug issues, ending up homeless and other things....and in a lot of ways he is still paying the consequences of that relationship w/her.

To be fair; my brother is some emotionally retarded (not actual IQ, he's techniqually "gifted" in that area) and I'm not sure he's more mature now than he was then but he's learned a couple life lessons at least.

In a lot of ways it could be argued that it permamently damaged his life.

Now; she wasn't exactly a regular person either, her own set of personal and emotional issues as well.

And it could be argued her life was even more aversely affected than his ultimately.

So yeah I was going somewhere with this.....

Maturity's an iffy issue; people often say girls mature faster than boys but if so how much faster? A year, two? Or are they refuring to some undefinable aspect of maturity?

And if so; should there be legal reprecussions for girls that have relationships w/boys who are not a year or two older than them?

IE if Girls are more mature than a 16 yr old girl having a relationship w/a 15 yr old boy might be like an 18 yr old boy having relations w/a 14 yr old girl?

And should it be illegal for guys to have sex until their twenties since they mature more slowly?

And what about the disparity between age and maturity in the opposite direction? Older people who are still idiots? We've all known a few people in their twenties who are still immature and the occasional friend who doesn't ever seem to mature.

But generally speaking don't have issues w/them being in relationships even if they are crash courses in disasters that go down flaming every time due to their stupidity.




My unscientific information is also in the southeast US - north Florida and western North Carolina.

In my opinion (although I don't know if it's backed up by anything), people that are forced to mature faster (through economic hardship or whatever) can mature faster, but I don't know if that economic hardship has been increasing (other than the last few years) to force teenagers to mature. So I'll agree with you there with qualifications.

Another one of those qualifications is that maturation isn't uniform. Maturing enough to handle a job and be breadwinner isn't the same as being mature enough for a sexual relationship. In my junior and senior years of high school, I was pretty much stuck raising myself and my two younger sisters. Not financially, although I did have a job to pay for the car insurance and a bit more. But my parents were divorced. One had moved away and the other had to travel and was around only on weekends. And it would have been ridiculously easy for an older woman to manipulate me into doing stupid things.

[Charles RB]

Because the last stats I saw on teenage employment said the unemployment rate had gone up.

Not surprising with the credit crunch and resulting recession. I'm not sure why Spack thinks teenagers will be more employable in today's market - right now if you can employ someone, you've got a vast amount of unemployed people with experience who will be coming to you.

The teenager's are actually buggered, I'd have thought. Why employ a teen when you can employ a more experienced graduate who's desperate for work?

Having written that, I've now scrolled down to see Nick say this has been going on in the states for several years before the recession. It must be HORRIFIC now...


I'd wager on average that kids like the one you describe would have done pretty much the same thing when I was 15 or when Jim MacQuarrie was 15 or when John McCain was 15.

Hell, when Queen Victoria was 15. Increasing number of kids staying in full-time education and getting degrees, that's a "2009" development.

[BnL]

While this is true I think a lot of people are also thinking about this in more terms than just "sex". There is a belief that, even if one is 'just having sex' there is more too it than just sex.

We equate sex with relationships -- whether those be "friends with benefits" or a long-term romance, etc. We tend to overlook the 'one night stands', the 'I just needed to scratch an itch and person X was available'.

When dealing with sex in relationship there is a feeling that in the case of an older person with a young teenager may be dealing with discordant impressions. i.e. the teenager thinks they're getting someone who *loves* them but the older person is *scratching an itch* an the young teenager, no matter how much straight talk a parent gives them, might be more suceptible to be taken in by that.

Teenagers are often in a rush to grow up -- to prove that they are adults -- and what better way to prove their adulthood than to have what they percieve as a relationship with an older, more experienced person.

Now, while it IS true that a lot of teenagers can be mature beyond their years they still generally lack the life experiences that two adults can share with one another. The commiseration of struggling to pay the bills, the headaches of dealing with office politics, the coming home from work and having someone who understands how crappy your day has been and who can tell you about their crappy day and have you understand. And this is why the relationship between adults and teens gives people the creeps -- it never quite seems like a relationship of equals, it always seems like one party is going to be getting more out of the equation than the other.

Thank you, Stressfactor. This is exactly what I was trying to say. Whether a 14-year-old has been educated about sex or not, they're still in a stage of life where they are not biologically mature. Not only do they lack life experience, but their brains are just not fully developed, and their reasoning ability and emotional maturity are just not there. And that's without even factoring in the raging hormones. Hell, at age 14, you haven't even really developed a whole, complete personality or identity yet!

[BnL]

Yes, and there are three reasons I say that. First, it isn't until puberty that human beings develop an interest in sex, so I really can't imagine somebody that young wanting to have sex with anybody. Second, from what I remember learning in high school health, the human body simply isn't ready for sex before puberty and penetration causes great pain and harm. There is no way anybody would want that.

Isn't "post-pubescent" a bit of a misnomer? Most people don't complete puberty until their late teens, or even early 20's, by which point they're already adults, so there's no issue. A more accurate term would be simply "pubescent," since most people are still developing all throughout their teen years.

[FalconX2000]

Thank you, Stressfactor. This is exactly what I was trying to say. Whether a 14-year-old has been educated about sex or not, they're still in a stage of life where they are not biologically mature. Not only do they lack life experience, but their brains are just not fully developed, and their reasoning ability and emotional maturity are just not there. And that's without even factoring in the raging hormones. Hell, at age 14, you haven't even really developed a whole, complete personality or identity yet!

While it slows down after the teenage years, I should point out that I believe a person should never be 'complete', never stop evolving with experience.



Working part time at that age is like being paid a few dollars a day to mow your neighbour's lawn. No. At least not with an adult.

Do you think you could have come up with an analogous job MORE apt to setup a thoroughly awful joke? Maybe "being paid a few dollars an hour to lay carpet"?

Well that gave me a good laugh.:biggrin:



Let me think, hmm...paint a fence post?

Wash a couple of tires?

Deliver the milk?

[Arrogantcur]

Isn't "post-pubescent" a bit of a misnomer? Most people don't complete puberty until their late teens, or even early 20's, by which point they're already adults, so there's no issue. A more accurate term would be simply "pubescent," since most people are still developing all throughout their teen years.

Fair point.

Thank you, Stressfactor. This is exactly what I was trying to say. Whether a 14-year-old has been educated about sex or not, they're still in a stage of life where they are not biologically mature. Not only do they lack life experience, but their brains are just not fully developed, and their reasoning ability and emotional maturity are just not there. And that's without even factoring in the raging hormones. Hell, at age 14, you haven't even really developed a whole, complete personality or identity yet!

I remember being told by a lot of adults that I was pretty mature throughout my teenage years. While I may not be able to be entirely objective when analyzing myself, my view is that while my opinions on certain things have changed during the years between my 16th birthday and my 32nd, my temperament has remained about the same. If so, perhaps I'm the exception rather than the rule, but that proves that there can be exceptions, right?

I wasn't so good emotionally, but I always chalked that up to the fact that I was in a place where people were nasty as fuck to me day after day. Would anybody be in a very good emotional state under those circumstances?

As for reasoning ability, I think that it was pretty good. In the ninth grade, I remember the class staging a mock debate; all of us had to use the reasoning skills we had to get our points across, and most of us did pretty well. I remember being reckless at that age, but I didn't actually start acting like a careful adult until I'd made some mistakes (like crashing the car, for instance) that made it clear to me I wasn't immortal or anything.

But anyway, if kids that age are so ill-equipped to make decisions, then isn't that an argument against them having sex with anybody? How much harm, how many unwanted pregnancies, how much heartbreak, has resulted from teens having sex with one another? Should we not make a law against sex between minors, then, in order to protect them? Or should we allow them to make their own decisions?

I think, though, it's important to note that, with girls, I honestly believe that no matter HOW much "right training" they get they WILL go through a phase in which they have low self-esteem. It's simply a matter of body change.

During that in-between phase, when everything is gangly and strange, and unsettled no matter how much support a girl gets she's going to feel like a stranger in a strange land.

The trick is that those feelings don't have to LAST. With proper support, as their bodies start to settle and they come to feel comfortable in themselves then they can move forward with confidence. But during those couple of years when everything is in flux it's hard to feel comfortable when it seems like the rules change daily.

And also, no matter HOW supportive the parents are it won't do a DAMN bit of good if their PEERS undermine it.

I'm a classic example. My parents gave me IMMENSE amounts of trust -- I NEVER had a curfew because I handled myself responsibly and proved I didn't need one. My mom was ALWAYS honest about the way I looked -- trying to instill a sense of beauty in me.

And every day I went to high school and I had guys my own age telling me:

"Titty sucking bitch."
"Nah man, I saw down her shirt, she ain't got no tits."

"Hairy monkey" (for the record, I'm white so this wasn't a racial slur)

A 'kick me' sign taped to the back of my jacket

"Ugly bitch" written on the inside of my denim jacket as, during class, I had had my jacket draped over the back of my chair.

And one time drawing a picture of a goon-like monster on the chalkboard before the teacher arrived in class and then writing my name next to it with an arrow pointing at it.

Those guys did more damage to me than my parents could EVER fix.

Sticks and stones may break bones but names leave scars on your soul.

I didn't have any decent self-esteem until I learned to be confident in my own mind. Once I believed in my mind I found I was able to be confident about the shell that went around it -- i.e. my body.

That takes me back, Stressfactor, and I'm sorry you had to go through that. Similarly, my parents were pretty good to me and my mother in particular tried to build up my self-image, but it's different because I didn't see her or my father as objective. They had to love me no matter what, right? So I'd go to school where I had lots of different people calling me ugly, stupid, a faggot, laughing at things I said or the way I looked, putting gum in my hair one time, etc. And I was too chickenshit to fight any of them, which might've gained me a little bit of respect...not because I was afraid of most of those people but because I didn't want to get suspended (which I now realize was a stupid reason, although I think any environment where you've got to physically fight in order to be treated with basic respect has got something extremely wrong with it).

One day I did grab this kid who'd grabbed my pencil and was smirking at me while refusing to give it back. I grabbed him by the wrist and I punched him in the face. I hadn't ever really been in a real fight before and based on all the TV shows I'd seen, I expected one punch to knock him down or hurt him. Well, it may have hurt him, but he didn't show it. He was just staring at me, surprised. I was just as surprised that my punch hadn't done anything I could see, so I hit him again. Still nothing. I hit him a third time. No apparent effect. Then the teacher told me to stop. In retrospect, I wish that I'd gone berserk and that I'd really wailed on him, hit him 10 times, 20, whatever it would take to draw blood or to bruise him or to take him down, to send a message to everybody. I'd seen it work with other guys who got picked on, who didn't get picked on anywhere near as much afterwards. But I didn't do that. I stopped. I let him go. I went to the principal's office, got sent home for the afternoon. And the next day everybody was mocking me, making jokes about how nobody'd better mess with me or I'd kick their ass.

To this day I will still have a nightmare, every so often, of somebody doing something bad to me and me hitting them...and nothing happening. Even though in my later years I started lifting weights and taking martial arts and that today I *know* I can hit hard, I still have these nightmares and I still feel so goddamn powerless when I have them, and it's always a relief to wake up.

As bad as it was for me, though, I am SO glad I'm not going to high school today now that people can use the internet as a tool to torment their classmates.

The good that came out of my situation, the silver lining, was that I realized just how badly one human being could hurt another. If you've read the Dragonlance books, Raistlin Majere was tormented like that as a kid and one of his redeeming qualities as an adult was his sympathy and kindness towards other downtrodden people. I'm the same way in that respect, for the same reason.

[BnL]

I remember being told by a lot of adults that I was pretty mature throughout my teenage years. While I may not be able to be entirely objective when analyzing myself, my view is that while my opinions on certain things have changed during the years between my 16th birthday and my 32nd, my temperament has remained about the same. If so, perhaps I'm the exception rather than the rule, but that proves that there can be exceptions, right?

No, that doesn't prove an exception. I, too, was told that I was very mature by adults when I was a teenager, that I was an "old soul," etc. And yet, looking back, I can still recognize that, as mature as I was, I still didn't know shit. Even though my general temperament has remained the same, I know full well that I have grown leaps and bounds since I was 14.

But anyway, if kids that age are so ill-equipped to make decisions, then isn't that an argument against them having sex with anybody?

Yes, I was kind of hinting at that point. No, I don't think there should be a law against young teenagers having sex with each other. At least they're at comparable levels of development, and on much more equal footing than if they were to have sex with an adult. Still, my personal belief is that, at age 14, you're still much too young to be having sex, period.

[Spackling Compound]

Yes, I was kind of hinting at that point. No, I don't think there should be a law against young teenagers having sex with each other. At least they're at comparable levels of development, and on much more equal footing than if they were to have sex with an adult. Still, my personal belief is that, at age 14, you're still much too young to be having sex, period.

Criminalizing anything between kids is tough to defend. Unless such kids had the knowledge that what they were doing was a crime or wrong. And I think the idea is that they don't until they're 18 and one day old.

But...so the sexual act somehow changes? So if you're having sex at 14 with a kid who double-dog dared you or you'd be called "hairy monkey" if you didn't, then that kind of sex is somehow better than the same act with an older person who may actually care about you? The sex act somehow becomes a different thing?

It's simple biology. I think that's been a long standing argument here. But then when it suits someone, it's an act of love. So going with the more popular idea: biological act, age really shouldn't be that serious a factor unless one would concede it has to do with love.

[Corrina]

But...so the sexual act somehow changes? So if you're having sex at 14 with a kid who double-dog dared you or you'd be called "hairy monkey" if you didn't, then that kind of sex is somehow better than the same act with an older person who may actually care about you? The sex act somehow becomes a different thing?

It's simple biology.

To answer the second question, yes, it's a different thing.

And sex is never just 'simple biology.'

[the4thpip]

To answer the second question, yes, it's a different thing.

And sex is never just 'simple biology.'

Exactly. Especially sex between an adult and a minor is usually more a question of theology.

[Arrogantcur]

To answer the second question, yes, it's a different thing.

The way I see it, whether it's different depends on the person. Having sex with somebody who doesn't care about you, regardless of that person's age, isn't going to end well. Being pressured into sex isn't acceptable at any age, although I certainly acknowledge that an adult can apply more pressure and than a teenager. If you have a situation where nobody wants to exploit or hurt anybody, however (leaving out our opinions on how frequent or likely that occurrence is for the moment), I cannot see the problem.

[Nick Soapdish]

The way I see it, whether it's different depends on the person. Having sex with somebody who doesn't care about you, regardless of that person's age, isn't going to end well. Being pressured into sex isn't acceptable at any age, although I certainly acknowledge that an adult can apply more pressure and than a teenager. If you have a situation where nobody wants to exploit or hurt anybody, however (leaving out our opinions on how frequent or likely that occurrence is for the moment), I cannot see the problem.

Except that that situation where nobody wants to exploit or hurt anybody can still result in exactly that if they use poor judgment. A lot of it comes down to the expectation that a teenager isn't going to use good judgment and since almost always that situation is because the adult is using poor judgment.

I don't know how we can leave out the part about how frequent or likely that is. It's central to the debate. If you believe that most teenagers are emotionally mature enough to handle adult situations, then it's presumably hunky-dory. If you don't, then it means that most adults are playing upon that immaturity - either deliberately or unconsciously.

I was also told that I was a very mature teenager. But as I related to Spack, I immediately went to college and completely blew it. My temperament and personality is basically the same (except I'm more outgoing now), but when I look back at my teenage years and some of my behavior, I cringe at how immature it was.

[BnL]

But...so the sexual act somehow changes? So if you're having sex at 14 with a kid who double-dog dared you or you'd be called "hairy monkey" if you didn't, then that kind of sex is somehow better than the same act with an older person who may actually care about you? The sex act somehow becomes a different thing?

As I said before, I disapprove of ANY situation in which a 14 year old is having sex. But yes, it's a different situation when a 14 year old's sexual partner is 10 years older than them. There's no way in which that is NOT a grown up taking advantage of a child. I don't expect much from kids, so if they do something stupid like hop in the sack with their teenage sweetheart, I roll my eyes. I hold adults to a higher standard.

It's simple biology. I think that's been a long standing argument here. But then when it suits someone, it's an act of love. So going with the more popular idea: biological act, age really shouldn't be that serious a factor unless one would concede it has to do with love.

I'm tired, so I'm not exactly sure I get your point, but I'll wing it.

A 14 year old is biologically capable of performing sexually. They are also biologically underdeveloped emotionally in ways that generally make them unprepared for sex, whether they're "in love" (what do most 14 year olds really know about love anyway?) or not.

[BnL]

If you have a situation where nobody wants to exploit or hurt anybody

I don't think most adults who have sex with teens are out to hurt anyone intentionally. But it's pretty much a given that they are exploiting them. I mean, aren't all relationships and/or sexual encounters at least a little exploitative? Only, in the case of an adult getting together with a kid, the exploitation is highlighted even more.

[Arrogantcur]

Except that that situation where nobody wants to exploit or hurt anybody can still result in exactly that if they use poor judgment. A lot of it comes down to the expectation that a teenager isn't going to use good judgment and since almost always that situation is because the adult is using poor judgment.

True. But there is always a risk of that, isn't there? I'm afraid I don't believe that teenagers always use poor judgment either. I made mistakes when I was that age, like I said, but I made the right calls sometimes as well.

I don't know how we can leave out the part about how frequent or likely that is. It's central to the debate. If you believe that most teenagers are emotionally mature enough to handle adult situations, then it's presumably hunky-dory. If you don't, then it means that most adults are playing upon that immaturity - either deliberately or unconsciously.

I wasn't suggesting not talking about it at all, just not taking it into account for the moment while focusing on something else. In this case, that something else is whether there would always be a problem every time you had a situation where the adult had only the best of intentions as opposed to merely wanting to get his rocks off at somebody else's expense.

I was also told that I was a very mature teenager. But as I related to Spack, I immediately went to college and completely blew it. My temperament and personality is basically the same (except I'm more outgoing now), but when I look back at my teenage years and some of my behavior, I cringe at how immature it was.

I fucked up in a lot of ways when I was younger. Sometimes I fucked up big, in ways that make me cringe now. And some of my beliefs back then are totally the opposite of my beliefs now. But I would not go so far as to say that I was completely incompetent to make decisions about my life, and while I understand that nobody else has said "teenagers are completely incompetent to make decisions about their lives", I believe that if teenagers are capable of making the right decisions some of the time--as opposed to very rarely or never--they should be allowed to make decisions about who they sleep with. As long as it truly is their decision, of course.

[BnL]

As long as it truly is their decision, of course.

Well, that's the crux of the whole issue. Are 14 year olds truly mature enough to give informed consent? When it comes to sex, I don't think they are.

[Arrogantcur]

I don't think most adults who have sex with teens are out to hurt anyone intentionally.

Okay, I'm glad we agree on that.

But it's pretty much a given that they are exploiting them. I mean, aren't all relationships and/or sexual encounters at least a little exploitative? Only, in the case of an adult getting together with a kid, the exploitation is highlighted even more.

I'm afraid I don't agree with that 100%. It is true that when somebody enters into a relationship, they hope to get something out of it. But when I refer to exploitation, I am talking about a situation such as the one Corrina described, involving a conscious effort to manipulate, or a total disregard for the other person's feelings, or both. Basically thinking "I don't really care about this person, I just want to use them."

Well, that's the crux of the whole issue. Are 14 year olds truly mature enough to give informed consent? When it comes to sex, I don't think they are.

Okay. I tend to give them more credit, but I could be wrong.

[Nick Soapdish]

True. But there is always a risk of that, isn't there? I'm afraid I don't believe that teenagers always use poor judgment either. I made mistakes when I was that age, like I said, but I made the right calls sometimes as well.

I wasn't suggesting not talking about it at all, just not taking it into account for the moment while focusing on something else. In this case, that something else is whether there would always be a problem every time you had a situation where the adult had only the best of intentions as opposed to merely wanting to get his rocks off at somebody else's expense.

I fucked up in a lot of ways when I was younger. Sometimes I fucked up big, in ways that make me cringe now. And some of my beliefs back then are totally the opposite of my beliefs now. But I would not go so far as to say that I was completely incompetent to make decisions about my life, and while I understand that nobody else has said "teenagers are completely incompetent to make decisions about their lives", I believe that if teenagers are capable of making the right decisions some of the time--as opposed to very rarely or never--they should be allowed to make decisions about who they sleep with. As long as it truly is their decision, of course.

You seem kind of focused on whether teenagers are going to always make the wrong call. I don't believe that to be the case and I don't think that anybody here has been arguing that point. However, I do believe that they are less mature than they will be in a few years and are a lot more likely to make mistakes.

If I didn't think that was the case, I'd be fine with setting the driving age to 12 and same with the drinking age.

And maybe you missed it, but part of the problem that I was trying to address is where adults do have the best of intentions, but are also making mistakes.

[Arrogantcur]

You seem kind of focused on whether teenagers are going to always make the wrong call. I don't believe that to be the case and I don't think that anybody here has been arguing that point. However, I do believe that they are less mature than they will be in a few years and are a lot more likely to make mistakes.

If I didn't think that was the case, I'd be fine with setting the driving age to 12 and same with the drinking age.

And maybe you missed it, but part of the problem that I was trying to address is where adults do have the best of intentions, but are also making mistakes.

Hmm, okay. I am sorry if I've misunderstood some of what's been said (sure wouldn't be the first time :redface: ).

So are we all pretty much in agreement, then, that it is a question of whether it is worth taking the risk of allowing teenagers to be responsible for these things, when they will sometimes be wrong? We may answer that question differently, but is it accurate to say that it is the main question?

[Nick Soapdish]

Hmm, okay. I am sorry if I've misunderstood some of what's been said (sure wouldn't be the first time :redface: ).

So are we all pretty much in agreement, then, that it is a question of whether it is worth taking the risk of allowing teenagers to be responsible for these things, when they will sometimes be wrong? We may answer that question differently, but is it accurate to say that it is the main question?

I'd say that's half of it. The other half is about the adults that are interested in relationships with teenagers.

[Spackling Compound]

I'd say that's half of it. The other half is about the adults that are interested in relationships with teenagers.

Specifically and exclusively interested in teenagers is perhaps an issue. Just as much as someone would be specifically interested in just children sexually.
There are some ethical issues here and maybe, as pip said, theological issues, for those who subscribe to a theology. Psychological issues may be even more salient.

But if someone is "normal" and has sexual interests that are agreed upon as healthy, then that's another case.

Again, sex/love is one sticking point. If someone is a swinger, then can they be said to "love" the multiple partners they choose, especially the one-time wonders? Probably not. But are they unhealthy? Again, I think the judgement is suspended.
Same for those who choose to be what was once called promiscuous. If they enjoy varied sexual experiences for themselves, is "Love" that important? And is that unhealhty? I suppose the same applies.

Again, much against some of the charges here, I am not nor is Arrogant supporting "pedophilia" in it's sense of encouraging predatory adults who soley prey on children sexually. But we are saying that some "children" (post-pubescent to use that arguable term) have many rights and responsibilites already and are performing the sexual act with the same finesse as many adults. This opens the door for society to rethink criminalizing or stigmatizing "sexual predators" who may not be doing such a thing.

[Charles RB]

Again, sex/love is one sticking point. If someone is a swinger, then can they be said to "love" the multiple partners they choose, especially the one-time wonders? Probably not. But are they unhealthy? Again, I think the judgement is suspended.
Same for those who choose to be what was once called promiscuous. If they enjoy varied sexual experiences for themselves, is "Love" that important? And is that unhealhty? I suppose the same applies.

I'm curious, is this whole thing just a way for you to passive-aggressively bash people who swing or have sex a lot? Because when you keep bringing them up in the context of statutory rapists, I do wonder.

[Corrina]

I'm curious, is this whole thing just a way for you to passive-aggressively bash people who swing or have sex a lot? Because when you keep bringing them up in the context of statutory rapists, I do wonder.

I wonder too, Charles.

[Spackling Compound]

I'm curious, is this whole thing just a way for you to passive-aggressively bash people who swing or have sex a lot? Because when you keep bringing them up in the context of statutory rapists, I do wonder.
I wonder too, Charles.

Good questions.

At one time, they were called adulterers. Perhaps we should change the term from "statutory rapists" to something else, shall we?

I'm just speaking from the point of view of criminal acts that are no longer criminal.

Adultery, polygamy, homosexuality (sodomy) were all at one time criminal. Statutory rape (or sex with a minor..who is not a child) is another that behavior is clearly against the law but a behavior that has some sort of social acceptance or tolerance.

[Joe Rice]

Good questions.

At one time, they were called adulterers. Perhaps we should change the term from "statutory rapists" to something else, shall we?

I'm just speaking from the point of view of criminal acts that are no longer criminal.

Adultery, polygamy, homosexuality (sodomy) were all at one time criminal. Statutory rape (or sex with a minor..who is not a child) is another that behavior is clearly against the law but a behavior that has some sort of social acceptance or tolerance.

You still think fucking a child is a victimless activity like being gay?

FUCK YOU YOU NASTY PIECE OF SHIT. GO FUCKING AWAY.

[the4thpip]

I'm curious, is this whole thing just a way for you to passive-aggressively bash people who swing or have sex a lot? Because when you keep bringing them up in the context of statutory rapists, I do wonder.

I still think it's all about the altar boys for him.

[Spackling Compound]

You still think fucking a child is a victimless activity like being gay?

FUCK YOU YOU NASTY PIECE OF SHIT. GO FUCKING AWAY.

If you took the time to read the above comments, I am not talking about children...under the age of consent....I am talking about teens.

And yes, I think consentual sex is a victimless activity.

[Spackling Compound]

I still think it's all about the altar boys for him.

Pip, honey...will you please come out to play? If you have me banned, then there's no way for us to engage in dialogue. And your passive remarks about faith are lost on me, dear.

[Michael P]

Young girl, get outta my mind
My love for you is way outta line
Better run, girl
You're much too young, girl...

[Joe Rice]

If you took the time to read the above comments, I am not talking about children...under the age of consent....I am talking about teens.

And yes, I think consentual sex is a victimless activity.

I took the time. You think fucking teenagers is a great activity for grown people. So as an educator, as someone who works with teenagers, take your sick piece of shit self elsewhere.

[Joe Rice]

Pip, honey...will you please come out to play? If you have me banned, then there's no way for us to engage in dialogue. And your passive remarks about faith are lost on me, dear.

How about your homophobic "honey" bullshit? Fuck off.

[Spackling Compound]

I took the time. You think fucking teenagers is a great activity for grown people. So as an educator, as someone who works with teenagers, take your sick piece of shit self elsewhere.

It's not like golf or raquetball. You're making this into something totally creepy and perhaps, yours.

[Spackling Compound]

Young girl, get outta my mind
My love for you is way outta line
Better run, girl
You're much too young, girl...

And that explains a bit of the point...

For years, musicians and writers have been pointing out the nebulous quality of intergenerational romance, sex and love.
It's been something that's been at the edges of the psyche and finds itself hard to codify universally in legal terms.

There even has been some levity on this discussion here. Double entendres and the sort. If it's so funny or at least ironic, then why the outrage and the anger?

Because there's a phobia that anyone who says "Hey, a teen has enough sense to choose a sexual partner and an adult who has sex with a teen isn't a creep" is a member of NAMBLA.

It's the same schizoid thinking that makes people exalt Alan Moore's LOST GIRLS as a courageous exploration of sexuality among children, if a bit unconventional and at the same time call someone a "SICK FUCK" because the issue is broached on a board.

[the4thpip]

I had plenty good reasons to put SC on ignore YEARS ago. None of those have changed.

[Joe Rice]

It's not like golf or raquetball. You're making this into something totally creepy and perhaps, yours.

That doesn't even make sense. You either a) are so homophobic that you want to compare gays to kidfuckers or b) really want to fuck teenagers or c) both.

No matter the answer, you're a piece of shit that shouldn't even be on this board. Fuck right off.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

Basically he's going with the "me lady methinketh though protesteth too much" defense.

And his thing with homosexuals, swingers and the like is basically using things that used to be thought of as unhealthy, immoral and/or were illegal to the current debate.

That doesn't even make sense. You either a) are so homophobic that you want to compare gays to kidfuckers or b) really want to fuck teenagers or c) both.

No matter the answer, you're a piece of shit that shouldn't even be on this board. Fuck right off.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

Not surprising with the credit crunch and resulting recession. I'm not sure why Spack thinks teenagers will be more employable in today's market - right now if you can employ someone, you've got a vast amount of unemployed people with experience who will be coming to you.

The teenager's are actually buggered, I'd have thought. Why employ a teen when you can employ a more experienced graduate who's desperate for work?

Having written that, I've now scrolled down to see Nick say this has been going on in the states for several years before the recession. It must be HORRIFIC now...



Hell, when Queen Victoria was 15. Increasing number of kids staying in full-time education and getting degrees, that's a "2009" development.

Thats what I was thinking; back in the 90's I remember it was an all-time high for kids being in the work force or something but lately people have been staying in education for longer periods of time and being more apt to get college degree's than they used or at least I thought.

This whole "child bride/child worker" thing is a more old school line of thinking.

Like the jewish your a man at thirteen thing thats more of a tradition now than an actuality, far as I know anyways.

If I remember it wasn't until what the late 1800's that people realized that kids had a different psychology and weren't just littler and stupider adults?

[Nick Soapdish]

Specifically and exclusively interested in teenagers is perhaps an issue. Just as much as someone would be specifically interested in just children sexually.
There are some ethical issues here and maybe, as pip said, theological issues, for those who subscribe to a theology. Psychological issues may be even more salient.

But if someone is "normal" and has sexual interests that are agreed upon as healthy, then that's another case.


No, I think that it's an issue for anybody that is interested in a relationship with a teenager. It doesn't mean that they're sick perverts, but they have to be very mature because they have to recognize that their potential partner is adolescent and not sharing a similar level of life experiences and cognizant of what the implications of that might be.

I haven't ever heard of an example like that. Instead, the best of the examples that I've heard of is merely oblivious to the idea that physical maturity doesn't equal to emotional maturity.

I don't see a problem with somebody being sexually attracted to somebody that is physically mature. I do see problems with somebody that is willing to act on that with somebody that is still underage. Are you still advocating a test for teenagers to have sex?


Again, much against some of the charges here, I am not nor is Arrogant supporting "pedophilia" in it's sense of encouraging predatory adults who soley prey on children sexually. But we are saying that some "children" (post-pubescent to use that arguable term) have many rights and responsibilites already and are performing the sexual act with the same finesse as many adults. This opens the door for society to rethink criminalizing or stigmatizing "sexual predators" who may not be doing such a thing.

Those rights don't include voting or drinking (and depending on where you're drawing the line, driving). If we don't trust them with any of those, why do you think that they'd be emotionally mature enough to handle an adult relationship?

It's not post-pubescent. Teenagers are pubescent because they're still undergoing puberty.

[Spackling Compound]

Those rights don't include voting or drinking (and depending on where you're drawing the line, driving). If we don't trust them with any of those, why do you think that they'd be emotionally mature enough to handle an adult relationship?

It's not post-pubescent. Teenagers are pubescent because they're still undergoing puberty.

Thanks for the civility, Nick.

The discussion on rights is a good one. Drinking ages used to be down to 18 at one point and now have been brought back up for debate.
Voting is another issue and may have more to do with the idea of someone being "old" enough to handle the affairs of an office.

Emotional maturity has nothing to do with any of that, however. I don't know if emotions ever mature (wasn't I just cussed out by an adult school teacher and goaded by a counselor from Germany?). Behaviors adapt and one of the situations I see..without proof in a link to the internet..is the one of teens being in adult environments more and more. When I was a teen, "Catcher in the Rye" was taboo in school. Now they can see more profanity and sexuality on afternoon television. Parents are also dating more instead of in "traditional" marriages. So there's the openess of sexual and romantic exploration being done by a parent and hopefully, shared responsibly.
These can provide the atmosphere to make one more mature and responsible. Just as much as a family who values reading and discussion over television and silence will make a child more well-versed and well-rounded.

[Corrina]

And, btw, Spackling, stop speaking for arrogantcur.

And your viewpoint on this? Is more than a little bit creepy. It's a lot creepy.

Adolescents might very well want to have sex with anything that has a pulse because of hormones.

Which is why adults should avoid them, even if they look of age, and I would think that any reasonable adult would know this and thus avoid a sexual relationship until the appropriate time. AC's story was a great example of this.

Of course, adults are going to recognize physical attraction in adolescents. But, being adults, they have to recognize the emotional/adolescent issues at the same time.

Your insistence that these kids are fair game so long as the adult doesn't intend to harm them is, yes, creepy. Because any adult would realize that such a move could cause serious harm.

[Charles RB]

Adultery, polygamy, homosexuality (sodomy) were all at one time criminal. Statutory rape (or sex with a minor..who is not a child) is another that behavior is clearly against the law but a behavior that has some sort of social acceptance or tolerance.

Except it doesn't have that acceptance and tolerance, except among small minorities. There's also far too many examples of it being destructive to compare it to homosexuality and polyamory.

Let's be honest here, you are using this as a form of passive-aggressive attack. Again.

[Spackling Compound]

Except it doesn't have that acceptance and tolerance, except among small minorities. There's also far too many examples of it being destructive to compare it to homosexuality and polyamory.

Let's be honest here, you are using this as a form of passive-aggressive attack. Again.

And the ones it hasn't been destructive to don't speak up because of the castigation from the public.

[Spackling Compound]

Your insistence that these kids are fair game so long as the adult doesn't intend to harm them is, yes, creepy. Because any adult would realize that such a move could cause serious harm.

Fair game? I'm not talking anything of gaming nor hunting.
I am speaking of letting intelligent, mature people being allowed to do whatever they know to be right without being chastised for it.

[Nick Soapdish]

Fair game? I'm not talking anything of gaming nor hunting.
I am speaking of letting intelligent, mature people being allowed to do whatever they know to be right without being chastised for it.

Based on the assumption that they (both the adult and the teenager) are both intelligent and mature. And that the adult is moral.

Psychology isn't backing you up on this one about the teenagers.

[Spackling Compound]

Based on the assumption that they (both the adult and the teenager) are both intelligent and mature. And that the adult is moral.

Psychology isn't backing you up on this one about the teenagers.

So be it.

Although psychology and morality are fluid and temporal.

I'll just let it stand then.

[Charles RB]

Fair game? I'm not talking anything of gaming nor hunting.
I am speaking of letting intelligent, mature people being allowed to do whatever they know to be right without being chastised for it.

There's that passive-aggressiveness...

[Spackling Compound]

There's that passive-aggressiveness...

Well, judge as you will. It's your perogative.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

The reference to germany brings up a question; in Germany isn't the legal age 16 for drinking and don't they have "less" issues with alcoholism and drunk driving accidents, despite also having higher speeding limits?


Thanks for the civility, Nick.

The discussion on rights is a good one. Drinking ages used to be down to 18 at one point and now have been brought back up for debate.
Voting is another issue and may have more to do with the idea of someone being "old" enough to handle the affairs of an office.

Emotional maturity has nothing to do with any of that, however. I don't know if emotions ever mature (wasn't I just cussed out by an adult school teacher and goaded by a counselor from Germany?). Behaviors adapt and one of the situations I see..without proof in a link to the internet..is the one of teens being in adult environments more and more. When I was a teen, "Catcher in the Rye" was taboo in school. Now they can see more profanity and sexuality on afternoon television. Parents are also dating more instead of in "traditional" marriages. So there's the openess of sexual and romantic exploration being done by a parent and hopefully, shared responsibly.
These can provide the atmosphere to make one more mature and responsible. Just as much as a family who values reading and discussion over television and silence will make a child more well-versed and well-rounded.

[the4thpip]

The reference to germany brings up a question; in Germany isn't the legal age 16 for drinking and don't they have "less" issues with alcoholism and drunk driving accidents, despite also having higher speeding limits?

Beer and wine is legal at 16. Driving at 18 (or 17 if you are willing to have a parent in the passenger seat until you turn 18).

And no speed limit on much of the autobahn.

[Nick Soapdish]

So be it.

Although psychology and morality are fluid and temporal.

I'll just let it stand then.

Psychology? Well, yeah. If you consider that they're constantly doing new studies and updating theories and practices based on those. By that standard, definitions of pretty much anything are fluid and temporal - including maturity and intelligence.

I included morality specifically because someone can be a mature, intelligent adult and make the deliberate decision to take advantage of another person for their own gratification.

The reference to germany brings up a question; in Germany isn't the legal age 16 for drinking and don't they have "less" issues with alcoholism and drunk driving accidents, despite also having higher speeding limits?

I'm a bit confused about the posts that you're quoting. Are you responding to them and just leaving them beneath your reply?

[Nick Soapdish]

Beer and wine is legal at 16. Driving at 18 (or 17 if you are willing to have a parent in the passenger seat until you turn 18).

And no speed limit on much of the autobahn.

I think that order makes a lot more sense. It gives people a bit of time to get used to the novelty of alcohol. Plus, I think that driving a car is a lot more dangerous than simply being able to get drunk.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

Inregards to damage; we've had this kind of discussion before, basically whenever some teacher had sex with one of the kids in her class.

And I could be wrong but I think it was basically Solaris who actually made this point; that damage is actually more likely to be done in these relationships if they exist in an actual position of authority such as being a teacher or a similiar position.

That if its just the neighbor lady down the street etc....its less likely to cause damage.

That also guys are more likely to be damaged by these kinds of relationships than girls.

[Spackling Compound]

That also guys are more likely to be damaged by these kinds of relationships than girls.

Interesting observation.

How so?

[Gumbo Maximillian]

He mentioned a german counselor going against him in the debate; that was as much "reference towards germany" as it got.

Probably should have been more specific than that but it did remind me of something I had heard about but wasn't totally sure of.

Psychology? Well, yeah. If you consider that they're constantly doing new studies and updating theories and practices based on those. By that standard, definitions of pretty much anything are fluid and temporal - including maturity and intelligence.

I included morality specifically because someone can be a mature, intelligent adult and make the deliberate decision to take advantage of another person for their own gratification.



I'm a bit confused about the posts that you're quoting. Are you responding to them and just leaving them beneath your reply?

[Gumbo Maximillian]

Its been awhile since the conversation but basically guys were more likely to actually get emotionally involved at that age despite the stereotypes of it being vice-a-versa.

I'll go see if I can find it on the community forum to be more specific.

Interesting observation.

How so?

[BnL]

I haven't ever heard of an example like that. Instead, the best of the examples that I've heard of is merely oblivious to the idea that physical maturity doesn't equal to emotional maturity.

I don't see a problem with somebody being sexually attracted to somebody that is physically mature. I do see problems with somebody that is willing to act on that with somebody that is still underage.

Exactly. I have to wonder why any adult would even want to have sex or a relationship with a 14 year old? What's appealing about a person who hasn't even developed a real personality yet, hasn't finished developing physically, who knows nothing about life, hasn't even got a high school education, and who only sprouted pubic hair 2 years ago?

[Spackling Compound]

Exactly. I have to wonder why any adult would even want to have sex or a relationship with a 14 year old? What's appealing about a person who hasn't even developed a real personality yet, hasn't finished developing physically, who knows nothing about life, hasn't even got a high school education, and who only sprouted pubic hair 2 years ago?

An ephebophile and a pedophile are both attracted to the above type person, exclusively.

A man/woman can be attracted to the above kind of person for most any reason. Love is blind. Love is chemical. All those sorts of things.

I know some people say the same about elderly people in love or someone who is attracted to elderly persons. How can they be attracted to a saggy, old, incontinent, perhaps a bit demented, person?

[Charles RB]

Exactly. I have to wonder why any adult would even want to have sex or a relationship with a 14 year old?

Easier to control, it seems.

[Michael P]

Easier to control, it seems.

Fewer standards, as well.

[Venom Melendez]

An ephebophile and a pedophile are both attracted to the above type person, exclusively.

A man/woman can be attracted to the above kind of person for most any reason. Love is blind. Love is chemical. All those sorts of things.

I know some people say the same about elderly people in love or someone who is attracted to elderly persons. How can they be attracted to a saggy, old, incontinent, perhaps a bit demented, person?

Though liking and elderly person isn't the same as a pedo though.

[Gail Simone]

As someone who logged many, many hours doing volunteer work in crisis centers, let me just as a simple nine word question:

Spackling Compound, what the FUCK is wrong with you?


The predator doesn't look for the emotionally mature, stable child. He or she looks for the fucked up kid who can be manipulated and exploited. He or she looks not for the articulate sophisticate with advanced experience, he or she looks for the closet case potential suicide who will keep their mouth shut.

And the damage these people do lasts forever with these kids. Your scenario is ridiculous. Two kids letting their confused hormones get the best of them is a different world from an adult showering a marginalized kid with affection and gifts and praise and manipulation to get to the one thing they want, to bone an innocent who doesn't have the tools to stick up for him- or herself. They want someone who they can take and take and take from and then discard.

I talked with enough of these kids who had to be talked down from killing themselves, who were too ashamed to tell their families or the police, and who had so internalized the guilt and shame, to know you're talking completely out of your ass on this.

Shame on you.

[Cam63]

Well said and thank you for the work you've done there, Gail.

[Cam63]

And, btw, Spackling, stop speaking for arrogantcur.

And your viewpoint on this? Is more than a little bit creepy. It's a lot creepy.

Adolescents might very well want to have sex with anything that has a pulse because of hormones.

Which is why adults should avoid them, even if they look of age, and I would think that any reasonable adult would know this and thus avoid a sexual relationship until the appropriate time. AC's story was a great example of this.

Of course, adults are going to recognize physical attraction in adolescents. But, being adults, they have to recognize the emotional/adolescent issues at the same time.

Your insistence that these kids are fair game so long as the adult doesn't intend to harm them is, yes, creepy. Because any adult would realize that such a move could cause serious harm.

Well said again.

Spackling, your posts here are coming off creepy.

[Nick Soapdish]

Well said again.

Spackling, your posts here are coming off creepy.

I've been assuming that he's arguing about the 1 in 10,000 case that got mentioned before, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how he wants that 1 in 10,000 case to be legalized without screwing up the other 9,999.

There was a mention of a test at some point, but I dunno if it was serious.

[FalconX2000]

As someone who logged many, many hours doing volunteer work in crisis centers, let me just as a simple nine word question:

Spackling Compound, what the FUCK is wrong with you?


The predator doesn't look for the emotionally mature, stable child. He or she looks for the fucked up kid who can be manipulated and exploited. He or she looks not for the articulate sophisticate with advanced experience, he or she looks for the closet case potential suicide who will keep their mouth shut.

And the damage these people do lasts forever with these kids. Your scenario is ridiculous. Two kids letting their confused hormones get the best of them is a different world from an adult showering a marginalized kid with affection and gifts and praise and manipulation to get to the one thing they want, to bone an innocent who doesn't have the tools to stick up for him- or herself. They want someone who they can take and take and take from and then discard.

I talked with enough of these kids who had to be talked down from killing themselves, who were too ashamed to tell their families or the police, and who had so internalized the guilt and shame, to know you're talking completely out of your ass on this.

Shame on you.

I don't think Spackling was referring to sexual predators when he said pedophiles, but rather the kind that doesn't mean to hurt anyone but, of course, very likely ends up doing so anyway.

Exactly. I have to wonder why any adult would even want to have sex or a relationship with a 14 year old? What's appealing about a person who hasn't even developed a real personality yet, hasn't finished developing physically, who knows nothing about life, hasn't even got a high school education, and who only sprouted pubic hair 2 years ago?

Perhaps likings that never quite went away? You know, maybe when they were kids they liked kids, then when they grew up that didn't change?

[Spackling Compound]

I suppose there is no point in saying "I'm not being creepy" when all others are saying it. So, my intent was not to be creepy or to allow free reign of raincoated pedos to troll the playgrounds of our fairest cities.

I appreciate the folks who discussed this with me. I also will take the "what the fucks" and "sick fuck" to heart.

Thanks.

[Gail Simone]

I'm not calling you a sick anything. I don't really know you.

But this line of posting absolutely earned it's healthy dose of "what the fuck?"

[Solaris]

Inregards to damage; we've had this kind of discussion before, basically whenever some teacher had sex with one of the kids in her class.

And I could be wrong but I think it was basically Solaris who actually made this point; that damage is actually more likely to be done in these relationships if they exist in an actual position of authority such as being a teacher or a similiar position.

That if its just the neighbor lady down the street etc....its less likely to cause damage.

That also guys are more likely to be damaged by these kinds of relationships than girls.


Are you sure it was me? I don't remember that---but my memory's been faulty before. If you find the post in question, let me know---I'd like to read it. (I especially don't remember saying guys are more likely to be damaged than girls.) :confused:

Leaving all that aside for a moment, I'd like to point out something:

During this discussion, people keep talking as though sex between teens is fairly harmless, and/or that the teens in question are roughly on the same playing field.

I disagree.

The reality is, teens often wield enormous pressure against each other to have sex, and to continue having sex.

Consider this stereotypical example:

Star quarterback and captain of football team starts dating new girlfriend (latest of many). He's got top status at the school---he doesn't just run *with* the "A" crowd, he *runs* the "A" crowd. He's good-looking, his family is well-to-do in town, he drives the newest Nissan sports car (or maybe even a 'Vette).

Let's say he likes "popping cherry." He targets "B" crowd girls: asks them out, lets them parade around on his arm and hang with his "A" crowd, drives her everywhere in his shiny sportscar, takes her home to "meet the parents." The girl is in High School Heaven.

So on the second or third date, he takes her up to the Bluff to park, and starts pushing. She eagerly accepts the kisses, begins to shift around a bit as his hands start to roam---and grows more and more uncomfortable as his hands begin invading her clothing. She starts to push back, finally getting serious with it.

He stops, looks her dead in the eyes, and says, 'I can make or break your reputation here at this school. One word from me, and you'll be avoided by everyone, even the geekiest geeks. Or---" and he drawls it out, "I can make it so that you're part of our crowd, the power players, all the time. You could be the Queen of the School."

"Now isn't all that worth making me happy?"

Yes, this is a fictional account and a stereotype---but it serves as an example of how power-plays, feting, flattering, and intimidation do indeed go on between teens over sex. The circumstances may vary---but the intimidation and tactics are the same. Older men aren't the only ones who do this.

Likewise, a predatory sex-hungry girl may well threaten to lie about a guy's size, prowess, awkwardness, etc. if he doesn't come through... or use other tactics.

Flattery, being included in a better crowd, and intimidation aren't limited to age. The nice thing is, if you help a kid grow a strong, confident personality, they're less likely to fall victim to these things, whether it's coming from an adult, or someone their own age.

Oh, and the "continue having sex" thing is a very big thing at all ages. What is it about the human psyche that assumes, once that intimacy is established, that you now have a right to expect it to be repeated? I'm sure girls do it too---but in my experience, it's been guys who make that assumption... like having sex with them once gives them some kind of ownership rights to you. And the predatory types (teens and adults) are very willing to put forth the idea that "Well, you've done it now---there's no going back, so you might as well keep doing it."

Bullshit. But with a lot of girls, and women, it works as a "push" tactic.

[Spackling Compound]

Leaving all that aside for a moment, I'd like to point out something:

During this discussion, people keep talking as though sex between teens is fairly harmless, and/or that the teens in question are roughly on the same playing field.

I disagree.


I agree with what you've said on that topic, Sol. That's why I thought it was interesting that there's a sense that two lovable little scamps are sort of clumsily bumping and grinding without a whit of knowing what they're doing while it also was brought up that the same age group is incredibly cruel to one another.

The high school movies scene is illustrative but a female counselor said that the guys use a simpler technique. They ask the girl, "What is wrong with you?" She said that makes girls feel deficient, odd and off-base so they want to do whatever it is they need to do to be "unwrong". Her advice to girls is to not answer the question and say, "Take me home".

I know in my high school, some of the girls dated older guys (20-30) because they didn't play games nor did they seek a conquest.

Some of the girls I know now lament that the guys their age are immature and cruel and tend to want to be with older people, in general. I don't prescribe jumping in bed with anyone but I also think that is somewhat a mature and perhaps self-preserving decision.

[BnL]

I agree with what you've said on that topic, Sol. That's why I thought it was interesting that there's a sense that two lovable little scamps are sort of clumsily bumping and grinding without a whit of knowing what they're doing while it also was brought up that the same age group is incredibly cruel to one another.

Leaving aside the "lovable little scamps" part (which is both dismissive, and an intentional distortion of what's been said to make my argument look foolish), children CAN be both clueless and cruel. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. I don't know why you're harping on this point anyway, since I've repeatedly said that, just because I don't think that it shouldn't be illegal, doesn't mean that I don't disapprove of 14 year olds having sex with each other. I just find it preferable to an adult having sex with a 14 year old. Children and adults are not each others' peers. Rational, responsible adults know this obvious fact, and therefore, would never take advantage by trying to hook up with a child.

[Spackling Compound]

Leaving aside the "lovable little scamps" part (which is both dismissive, and an intentional distortion of what's been said to make my argument look foolish), children CAN be both clueless and cruel. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. I don't know why you're harping on this point anyway, since I've repeatedly said that, just because I don't think that it shouldn't be illegal, doesn't mean that I don't disapprove of 14 year olds having sex with each other. I just find it preferable to an adult having sex with a 14 year old. Children and adults are not each others' peers. Rational, responsible adults know this obvious fact, and therefore, would never take advantage by trying to hook up with a child.

It wasn't your argument. I know you said you didn't think sex between teens was advisable. I respect that.

[section 8]

Yes, this is a fictional account and a stereotype--


And as a former jock, this bit always pisses me off.

For every "Jock" stereotype i hear, from now on I will retaliate by making an equally stereotypical comment about how only geeks go on shooting rampages at their schools.

[Solaris]

And as a former jock, this bit always pisses me off.

For every "Jock" stereotype i hear, from now on I will retaliate by making an equally stereotypical comment about how only geeks go on shooting rampages at their schools.

Sorry, Section---I just came off that thread about the Sacramento DJ's, and one of 'em was going on about being a jock and bullying being okay, so I may have had a bit of carryover there when it came time to come up with (what I DID say was) a very stereotypical example. I also did say there were any number of other stereotypical scenarios I could've come up with... the smart geek guy who'll help you get your grades up if you sleep with him, the rich guy who wines you and dines you to get into your pants, and a whole lot more.

[Charles RB]

And in fairness to jocks, I've never seen anything to suggest nerds aren't going to use the exact same type of tactics. Arguably they'd be more efffective by nerds against other nerds - there's a smaller social circle, it'd be easier to get you isolated.

And if the girl (or guy) mentions what happened, she's not accusing this popular guy who their friends know but might not hang with, she's accusing a guy they hang out with. Not him! They know he'd never do that, why's she lying about good ol' him?

[section 8]

Sorry, Section---I just came off that thread about the Sacramento DJ's, and one of 'em was going on about being a jock and bullying being okay, so I may have had a bit of carryover there when it came time to come up with (what I DID say was) a very stereotypical example. I also did say there were any number of other stereotypical scenarios I could've come up with... the smart geek guy who'll help you get your grades up if you sleep with him, the rich guy who wines you and dines you to get into your pants, and a whole lot more.

The one think I liked about my High school (one of the few things, that is)
Is that the football team's head coach made it very clear that he would not tolerate ANY delinquent behavior (including bullying) his logic was that he would rather cut a player and have a bad season than sit by and watch that same player gradually become a criminal (which was very likely in my neighborhood) just to make himself look good. (and he was ALWAYS looking to make an example out of someone.)

As our team was reigning state champions for the next four years, cutting the bad apples must have done some good.

[Free-Man]

Jesus H Christ....I can't believe some of the stuff that has been posted here....who is actually gonna come out and defend a PEDO like that?
The whole "You can't control who you love" argument is bullshit as well. If you feel the urge to start touching kids, then just kill yourself. It's that simple.

[FalconX2000]

Jesus H Christ....I can't believe some of the stuff that has been posted here....who is actually gonna come out and defend a PEDO like that?
The whole "You can't control who you love" argument is bullshit as well. If you feel the urge to start touching kids, then just kill yourself. It's that simple.

You can't control who you love. You really can't. That's why actions play such a big role in how one is judged.

[Nick Soapdish]

You can't control who you love. You really can't. That's why actions play such a big role in how one is judged.

You can't control who you love. You can control what you do about it.

[Free-Man]

You can't control who you love. You can control what you do about it.

Yes, like putting a gun in your mouth.

[Nick Soapdish]

Yes, like putting a gun in your mouth.

Or simply not trying to date the teen.

[the4thpip]

Yes, like putting a gun in your mouth.

There's a special therapy group at Berlin university for people who are in that situation... Helping them cope with the issue without harming any minors.

[TCJohnson]

When I was in my late 20s a 16 year old developed a major crush on me. She flat out told me that she wanted to be my girlfriend because I was the only person who could cheer her up when she was in a bad mood.

Was I tempted? Hell yes! She was really cute and seemed mature for her age.

But nothing ever happened. I realized that a relationship like that probably wouldn't have been healthy for her, no matter how mature she seemed. Had to be an adult and say no.

You can't help who you are attracted to but you can be adult enough to know when to walk away.

EDIT: As soon as I hit submit on this post, The Police's "Don't Stand So Close To Me" came up on the radio.

[Arrogantcur]

Which is why adults should avoid them, even if they look of age, and I would think that any reasonable adult would know this and thus avoid a sexual relationship until the appropriate time. AC's story was a great example of this.

I'm at the point where I'd like to move on from this thread, but I would first like to make it clear that the story I told wasn't meant to say "I didn't proposition her because I was a reasonable adult," it was meant to say "I didn't proposition her because I was worried she would think I was sick for doing so and I was worried about winding up in jail if she said yes and somebody found out about it. But later on I found out that she wouldn't have thought I was sick and had been attracted to me, and I don't see why somebody like myself who was certainly not a 'predator' should have been risking punishment in a court of law for propositioning somebody who wanted to be propositioned."

True, in a post after that I wondered if it were possible that IF I asked her out and things eventually progressed into the bedroom, she would have been saying yes for all the wrong reasons. But I don't know whether that was the case or not. For all I know, everything might have worked out fine.

Also, I was thinking back today and remembered that after we had met the first time we talked about which movies to see and I had suggested Spider-Man and Fahrenheit 9/11, both of which were in theatres at the time. So it was 2004 and she was 16 years old. If I had handled things differently I would make no apologies for that if nothing went wrong for either of us as a result, both because 16 is legal here and I think that when determining whether or not to enter a sexual relationship with somebody you ought to consider more than the six numbers in their date of birth.

Your insistence that these kids are fair game so long as the adult doesn't intend to harm them is, yes, creepy. Because any adult would realize that such a move could cause serious harm.

Just when I think I'm out, I see something that's gonna pull me back in...

With all due respect, I don't believe that's the case. I'm sure not convinced that I could cause "serious harm" beyond, worst case scenarios, hurt feelings if a breakup followed or pregnancy if proper precautions weren't taken. And those things? Are no worse than the kind of harm somebody her own age could cause.

Based on the assumption that they (both the adult and the teenager) are both intelligent and mature. And that the adult is moral.

Psychology isn't backing you up on this one about the teenagers.

Well, stranger things HAVE happened.

Exactly. I have to wonder why any adult would even want to have sex or a relationship with a 14 year old? What's appealing about a person who hasn't even developed a real personality yet, hasn't finished developing physically, who knows nothing about life, hasn't even got a high school education, and who only sprouted pubic hair 2 years ago?

You have a pretty specific picture in your mind of what a 14-year-old looks like and acts like. Admittedly, it's been a while since I interacted with one outside of World of Warcraft, so I don't know how common the following is, but humour me: what if they actually have finished developing physically, or started developing early? I mean, what if they can pass for 18? What if they TALK like an adult? Maybe you know better, but if an adult runs into a teenager like that what is to stop them from thinking that they are dealing with an adult, and treating them like an adult?

And also, since this happens sometimes, what happens if the adult either doesn't find out about the teen's age until after they've gone to bed, or if the teen lies about their age? Do you think that's the same as a sexual predator stalking around looking for children to trap?

Consider this stereotypical example:

Star quarterback and captain of football team starts dating new girlfriend (latest of many). He's got top status at the school---he doesn't just run *with* the "A" crowd, he *runs* the "A" crowd. He's good-looking, his family is well-to-do in town, he drives the newest Nissan sports car (or maybe even a 'Vette).

Let's say he likes "popping cherry." He targets "B" crowd girls: asks them out, lets them parade around on his arm and hang with his "A" crowd, drives her everywhere in his shiny sportscar, takes her home to "meet the parents." The girl is in High School Heaven.

So on the second or third date, he takes her up to the Bluff to park, and starts pushing. She eagerly accepts the kisses, begins to shift around a bit as his hands start to roam---and grows more and more uncomfortable as his hands begin invading her clothing. She starts to push back, finally getting serious with it.

He stops, looks her dead in the eyes, and says, 'I can make or break your reputation here at this school. One word from me, and you'll be avoided by everyone, even the geekiest geeks. Or---" and he drawls it out, "I can make it so that you're part of our crowd, the power players, all the time. You could be the Queen of the School."

"Now isn't all that worth making me happy?"

And by the logic of the people here who believe it's never ever okay, if I'm over the age of 18 and I meet somebody under the age of 18 and one or the other of us suggests getting intimate, I am somehow as bad as the hypothetical quarterback. Which just ain't true, because I would never engage in that kind of blackmail, with anybody. If I thought that what I've come to know as a pleasurable experience for both parties would result in the other party having a nervous breakdown or something as a result, I would not do it. That ought to count for something.

When I was in my late 20s a 16 year old developed a major crush on me. She flat out told me that she wanted to be my girlfriend because I was the only person who could cheer her up when she was in a bad mood.

See, if I were in that situation and I were likewise attracted to the girl? I would have said yes. If she told me that she wanted to get physically intimate, I might worry about the consequences if somebody found out and called the cops, but I wouldn't see any problem with agreeing other than that. Unless, of course, she were clearly unstable, in which case I would question whether doing those things would screw her up even worse even though those were things she wanted.

And Joe, while I don't agree with every single thing Spackling has said I do agree with some of it, and you're out of line when you call him a piece of shit and imply that he likes fucking little kids. I'm not a mod, but if you can call another member a piece of shit I can tell you that you're out of line. SC hasn't said anything about wanting to fuck little kids. Neither have I. Don't distort what others who disagree with you have said, regardless of how pissed off you might be.

You and Gail have seen what happens when things go horribly wrong. The fact that I don't believe things always go horribly wrong, or the fact that I don't believe that things go horribly wrong 99.9% of the time, is not a valid reason for you to feel disgust and contempt.

[TCJohnson]

See, if I were in that situation and I were likewise attracted to the girl? I would have said yes. If she told me that she wanted to get physically intimate, I might worry about the consequences if somebody found out and called the cops, but I wouldn't see any problem with agreeing other than that. Unless, of course, she were clearly unstable, in which case I would question whether doing those things would screw her up even worse even though those were things she wanted.


A couple of thoughts to that...

1st: you are assuming the adult in this situation is also stable. He may not be a predator, but I would wonder why they are not in a stable relationship with a person their own age? And whatever those reasons are, I would ask if they are reasons that a teenager could handle.

2nd: When you are in a relationship you share all the joys, but you also need to share some of the burdens. As an adult, I have very adult burdens. I am worried about the layoffs my company had, I am worried about my mortgage and bills. I am worried about the value of my house going up and down and how the neighborhood effects that. I am worried about what Obama is doing and how it is going to affect my taxes. And that is completely ignoring my concerns I have about my relationship with my fiancee which is hard work!

Why would I ask a teenager to share those burdens? Teenagers in our culture have very different burdens and I have no interest in sharing them. My fiancee has a 16 year old sister that I have been spending some time with and she tells me about her burdens and man....they are tedious! She is concerned about how she is going to get from her work at the grocery store to the DMV to pick up a sample test to get her driver's license. Lord Almighty! I wish I had her problems. This was a major dilema for her!

Let teenagers have their teenage dilema's. Let them have fun being young before we show them our burdens of adulthood! Them them grow up with their peers where they can share new experiences and share the joys and problems that teens should be having.

[Arrogantcur]

A couple of thoughts to that...

1st: you are assuming the adult in this situation is also stable. He may not be a predator, but I would wonder why they are not in a stable relationship with a person their own age? And whatever those reasons are, I would ask if they are reasons that a teenager could handle.

2nd: When you are in a relationship you share all the joys, but you also need to share some of the burdens. As an adult, I have very adult burdens. I am worried about the layoffs my company had, I am worried about my mortgage and bills. I am worried about the value of my house going up and down and how the neighborhood effects that. I am worried about what Obama is doing and how it is going to affect my taxes. And that is completely ignoring my concerns I have about my relationship with my fiancee which is hard work!

Why would I ask a teenager to share those burdens? Teenagers in our culture have very different burdens and I have no interest in sharing them. My fiancee has a 16 year old sister that I have been spending some time with and she tells me about her burdens and man....they are tedious! She is concerned about how she is going to get from her work at the grocery store to the DMV to pick up a sample test to get her driver's license. Lord Almighty! I wish I had her problems. This was a major dilema for her!

Let teenagers have their teenage dilema's. Let them have fun being young before we show them our burdens of adulthood! Them them grow up with their peers where they can share new experiences and share the joys and problems that teens should be having.

Answers:

1. It's hard to meet people. For a long time I had trouble meeting people. For a long time, I was lonely. For whatever reason, nobody my own age was interested in me. My first girlfriend was 45 years old and I was 19 (this was the one who broke up with me after a couple weeks and proceeded to emotionally blackmail me on several occasions after the breakup, by the way, but I believe that those problems were the result of her being a rotten person rather than the age difference between us). Later on I would enter into a "friends with benefits" relationship with a woman 7 years older than I was, and to the best of my recollection that is the closest I have ever come to being involved with somebody my own age. I am currently seeing somebody who is 46 years old. Before that I was briefly involved with somebody in her early 20s. For whatever reason, I've never connected with somebody who was close to me in age.

Basically if I am alone and I meet somebody I like, I am not picky. I have low standards. It's possible that this has something to do with how I used to have worse self-esteem and would have said yes to anybody who expressed any interest in me and that because of this I do not meet the definition of a "stable adult." But it is how it is. I don't like being alone. I don't like being the cause of anybody's emotional pain either, though, so if I believe I might hurt somebody I will not get involved with them. However, I have a pretty good track record. There's only been one person that I hurt because I thought I was in love with her when I wasn't, and when I admitted that to myself and to her it crushed her. The fact that I was responsible for that pain made me feel horrible, and guilty. But we remained friends. As a result I am careful, and I haven't made any promises or declarations to anybody since which I am not sure I can keep. I make sure people I do get involved with, in any fashion, know what I can and can't give them. I'm honest at the start about not getting serious and not being exclusive because I'm not sure if I can keep either promise if I were to make it. Fortunately, this has not been a problem so far.

EDIT TO ADD: Again (and I am typing this more for the benefit of the more shrill and outraged posters here than you, TC), I believe that the fact I try that hard to avoid hurting people ought to count for something. I believe I am better than the sorts of assholes described in other parts of the thread who just don't give a shit who their actions hurt.

2. Whether we shared burdens would depend on whether we wanted to share burdens if I were in that sort of relationship. The fact that we have different burdens does not necessarily mean that we cannot lean on one another, as far as I can see.

[Arrogantcur]

What's disappointed me about this thread, by the way, is the tactics of whole lot of people.

There are some, such as Corrina and Solaris and Nick Soapdish, who (from what I have seen) tend to try to be civil and explain their position without disrespecting those who don't see eye to eye with them.

Then there are others who, instead of doing that, get all shrill and scream "pedophile!" or "NAMBLA!"

You know what that reminds me of? It reminds me of how in the aftermath of 9/11, if anybody questioned President Bush, they would get called unpatriotic, or be accused of hating America, or whatever. People tuned out the arguments of those people and villified them because instead of thinking about what was being said, they put blinders on and refused to listen. In their minds, they were totally right, and anybody who questioned the rightness of their position was a traitor or a monster.

[Charles RB]

That doesn't work as an analogy at all. Statutory rape is known to harm minors, the evidence is overwhelming pointing that way - no such evidence points to the principle of political opposition as damaging the United States.

[Arrogantcur]

That doesn't work as an analogy at all. Statutory rape is known to harm minors, the evidence is overwhelming pointing that way - no such evidence points to the principle of political opposition harming minors.

I'm not making an analogy, Charles, I'm saying that when somebody here calls somebody else a pedophile or when they say something like "You sound like somebody from NAMBLA," it is the same damn thing. It is one person saying to the other "I am not going to listen to you or debate with you in a civil manner because my mind is already made up and I think you are an awful person for disagreeing with me. So I am going to insult you instead."

ETA: As for debating this in a civil manner, which I for one have tried to do, here is a point I'd like to make.

I do not dispute the fact that rape of any kind can and has harmed people. I won't even dispute the fact that consensual sex between a minor and an adult can cause harm later on. I don't have statistics on hand because I haven't bothered to study this issue in the past. I do, however, recall that Mary Kay Letourneau's former lover to this day has not come out and said that she was some kind of predatory monster who scarred him for life. Quite the opposite, as I recall.

I just checked. Turns out: they got married. They're still married. You can either view this as the exception that proves the rule, or you can view it as proof that not all cases of adults sleeping with people under the age of 18 or 17 or 16 or whatever it happens to be results in the minor being traumatized.

[Flying Saucers Over Oz]

My feeling?

If you're 'in love' with this person, and you want what's best for said person, why in Heaven's name would you then have underage sex with said person? Why wouldn't you wait until it's legal?