First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Sex offenders... what is one?
66772 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Lagrange, KY
Offline
Posted 1/6/11

commanderkev wrote:

are you sure that 17/16 age difference is correct? i thought it was 18.
i think that if there is more than a three year difference for a 18 year old it should be illegal. 18 year olds don't need to find a guy/girl that is three years younger than him/her.
and the clergy in sexual relationships should have their title stripped away because of their religion. they have to practice what they preach. and unless the girl is under 18 then nobody outside the church should know.


any real input why? my parents are 5 years apart does that make my mom a pedo because my dad is younger? The who magical statement that people are magically adults when they are 18 or so forth is just bs. it ls law created by man in order to upload what they think is moarl or correct. On the op's note yes there are states where the age of consent is considered different where I am from it's 16 mind you i don't want a 16 year old since most are "bratty" no offense to any one here but well that's they way it's set up. Here is a link for usa states age of consent
http://www.ageofconsent.us/
Posted 1/6/11
As long as it's consented and the girl/boy is no younger then 16 years, then it's fine in my book
4387 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / Rainbow Factory
Offline
Posted 1/6/11
For the first topic(
I've always thought that this was pretty stupid. By age 15 or 16 you should have a decent understanding of sex and a basic understanding of pregnancy and STDs. Apparently if you're under the age of 18, according to the law, you don't have the right to give your consent to have sex with another person when it's your own body. And yet if you take drugs or a weapon on a school campus (I realize with weapons and drugs the circumstances are a bit different. However I hope you understand what I'm trying to say) as a minor you run the possibility of being arrested and sent to juvie. How does this make sense? Even in high school the teachers constantly remind you that, "You're old enough now to take responsibility for your actions." I mean at 16 in certain states and countries that you can be given the right to drive a motor vehicle, yet you aren't able to consent to sex? As for the person of legal age being listed as a sex offender, are they saying that he/she is a pedophile, or just being a bit too obnoxious like a normal paper pushing bureaucrat? As to whether or not the public should be able to have free access to sex offender databases, I believe it should be given for rapists and pedophiles because you should know that just in case something may or may not happen to you or your children so that you can be prepared. But folks who just have sex with a consenting minor should not even be placed on it. Well I guess it's the government's way of cutting down on teenage pregnancies I guess.

Second topic(
I'm not really sure about that. If it's between two consenting adults who are in love then there shouldn't be a problem with it. However if it's say a 40 year old pastor and a 17 year old girl/boy then there is a problem there in my mind.
5180 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 1/6/11

ZenZaku wrote:

For the first topic(
I've always thought that this was pretty stupid. By age 15 or 16 you should have a decent understanding of sex and a basic understanding of pregnancy and STDs. Apparently if you're under the age of 18, according to the law, you don't have the right to give your consent to have sex with another person when it's your own body. And yet if you take drugs or a weapon on a school campus (I realize with weapons and drugs the circumstances are a bit different. However I hope you understand what I'm trying to say) as a minor you run the possibility of being arrested and sent to juvie. How does this make sense? Even in high school the teachers constantly remind you that, "You're old enough now to take responsibility for your actions." I mean at 16 in certain states and countries that you can be given the right to drive a motor vehicle, yet you aren't able to consent to sex? As for the person of legal age being listed as a sex offender, are they saying that he/she is a pedophile, or just being a bit too obnoxious like a normal paper pushing bureaucrat? As to whether or not the public should be able to have free access to sex offender databases, I believe it should be given for rapists and pedophiles because you should know that just in case something may or may not happen to you or your children so that you can be prepared. But folks who just have sex with a consenting minor should not even be placed on it. Well I guess it's the government's way of cutting down on teenage pregnancies I guess.


Unfortunately most 15/16 year olds do not understand all that much about the topic as schools(at least in the US) teach only abstinence and about negative consequences(STIs and pregnancy) and other information sources(word of mouth or the internet) are...questionable at best. And even if they do know about everything involved including the risks a lot of teenagers have an invincibility complex so they think "oh hah, that won't happen to me"

16 is the age of consent where I live, personally I think if you can't take care of the possible consequences(a baby) you shouldn't be doing it, there's no reason why you can't wait a few more years
25918 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / There
Offline
Posted 1/6/11
I think when statutory rape occurs it's partially the parents fault for not teaching their kids--

and I think if two underage people have sexual contact then it's also the fault of the parents again for not teaching their kids--
but to have them be registered sex offenders I don't know about that--
27602 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / SA
Offline
Posted 1/6/11
Sex is not for Kids, 16-17 year old is a kiddy age. But you know thee problem is always with their PARENTS who never cared about them. LOL poor kids got no care or love from their parents to tell them whats thee right and wrong way. Get a life kids.
25918 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / There
Offline
Posted 1/6/11

That was a terrible comparison and you even answered your own question ("cutting down on teenage pregnancies")

At 16 the government believes you can start LEARNING under the supervision of your PARENTS and other experienced drivers to operate a motor vehicle-- what does that involve-- brake, gas, and steering if it's an automatic which most cars will be--

But, just b/c you can operate a vehicle does not mean you'll be a good, safe, responsible driver

I'm getting off topic here- the point is, sex is probably a BIT more complicated than teens will realize-- they think they're mature but they don't know shit-- they're only in highschool living under their parents roofs still-- they are not emotionally mature nor would they be prepared for the consequences if they ended up impregnating the slut who was stupid enough to sleep with them-- now you're 16 y/o and have to pay for child support with your lack of G.E.D. and bag-boy "salary"

Just b/c you can stick your wang inside a girl doesn't mean you should
57277 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Australia
Offline
Posted 1/6/11

vnkid wrote:


That was a terrible comparison and you even answered your own question ("cutting down on teenage pregnancies")

At 16 the government believes you can start LEARNING under the supervision of your PARENTS and other experienced drivers to operate a motor vehicle-- what does that involve-- brake, gas, and steering if it's an automatic which most cars will be--

But, just b/c you can operate a vehicle does not mean you'll be a good, safe, responsible driver

I'm getting off topic here- the point is, sex is probably a BIT more complicated than teens will realize-- they think they're mature but they don't know shit-- they're only in highschool living under their parents roofs still-- they are not emotionally mature nor would they be prepared for the consequences if they ended up impregnating the slut who was stupid enough to sleep with them-- now you're 16 y/o and have to pay for child support with your lack of G.E.D. and bag-boy "salary"

Just b/c you can stick your wang inside a girl doesn't mean you should


Your statement rings true with a lot of adults as well.
So many abortions and *mistake* babies that don't come from teenagers x.x... and parents freaking out when they know they will have a child and end up splitting before the baby is born etc etc.

But you are right in saying that teenagers need to back off a bit or at least get educated properly before jumping in the pants wagon... unfortunately that won't happen though. Teenagers hormones are going crazy and a lot won't try to hold themselves back. Parents need to take responsibility for at least giving their kids basic knowledge on how to protect themselves from STDs and pregnancies.

your last line was tops

61054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Yorktown VA
Offline
Posted 1/7/11 , edited 1/7/11
**Sorry for the long post!**
It's sad but, laws and rules have to be defined outside the realm of common sense. It would make enforcing laws by both the police and the judicial system unbearable because, whats common sense to one person isn't to another. They also have to hit the majority rule. The majority of the time this would never be an issue so "the majority wins" mentality, a.k.a the "80/20 rule" applies. How often does this case happen? Not a lot but, devistating when it does.

I do agree that a couple comprising of persons 18 and 17 being a crime is rediculous, but there had to be a line drawn somewhere to define an adult and "non-consenting" age. Since the "age of consent" law ties in and applies to much more than allowable sex (e.g. smoking, employment, voting, land rights, the draft, etc.), a number had to be picked. This is where common sense "should" play in the writing of the attachment laws and the previously suggested 3 year law should be. However, the 3 year law could also be tripped. A situational law would also have to be added. A self-reliant person 20yo should have no business with a 17yo still in high school living with parents. The life skills and life tactics gained outside of the home by the 20yo would put the 17yo at a major disadvantage for being overrun. But, a 20yo dating a 17yo who both are working full time and meet I think should be allowed. The difference between life skills gained from both would be negligable.

For example, a 20yo college student (or in the workforce) could easily sweet talk a young nieve 17yo highschool student into their bed. That would be why the law exists. Though granted I think the parent's role in keeping their kid out of situations where that can arise is equally important but, usually not possible and a totally different subject. However, you are able to join the military at 17 with parental consent and/or join the civilian workforce without parental consent if the persons are self-reliant (have been on their own for a period of time depending on state laws and applied federal child labor laws). That could mean that a 17yo had been self-reliant and in the workforce for almost a year or more gaining much in the way of life skills (say they got their GED near their 16th b-day and they are almost 18 thats close to 2 years). The 20yo could have just graduated HS at a late 19 (seen it happen), just turn 20, and join the work force. Now who has the better life skills and knowledge about the real world? Who is being taken advantage of by whom?

By no way am I sticking up for the rulings marking these people as sexual predators. I am however, trying to explain the mentality to the "line drawn in the sand" or the single defined year seperating an adult from a child. The laws would be extremely long and drawn out having to expose every possible situation. Unfortunately, we would hear about the one situation that "fell through the cracks" of the law and was punished severly for no good reason. I vote to change the judicial system. Enforce common sense at that level. Make the Judges make appropriate "judgement calls" to each situation and allow the police to enforce. Though the supreme court was created to see situations like this, translate the laws to a given situation, and provide a guidance to lower courts decisions, they are overrun with cases and way too picky about who's case they'll see. Thats where we need the reform to prevent bad judgements.

**end book** LOL
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.