I've gone over this before. There isn't a good or acceptable reason for why a twenty-something, or older, is having sex with a teenager.
Unless of course they get married first?
Nice long list of country singers with child brides...or people of my grandfather's generation, who married very young routinely?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
how old are you? 4 years age difference is seriously very small, even at that age range, especially when comparing male vs female maturity levels. Really, men and women of the same age are mismatched mentally until at least age 30. Guys generally mature slower, refuse to take responsibility, and just generally act childish for much longer. I'm a guy, I can say this.
The age difference and 90% of what's considered statutory or predatory is cultural. Even in america, 50 years ago things were much different. It was not unheard of for a 17 year old to marry a man in his mid to late 20s. My grandfather, one of the few members of my family who wasn't a dipshit, had 12 years on my grandmother, who was 17 when they met, no kidding. They remained married their entire lives, over 60 years. Not saying everything was rosie, but when is it.
First of all, a four year gap at that bracket is significant. It is further exacerbated by other details, like why would you pursue a relationship with a teenager versus another, let's say, twenty something? Are there really no other women in your age bracket in your life that pursuing a teenager is easier? Who are you working with, going to school with, doing things with? What is it really that you see in a teenager that isn't in an actual adult?
___________________ Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
I've gone over this before. There isn't a good or acceptable reason for why a twenty-something, or older, is having sex with a teenager.
Unless of course they get married first?
Nice long list of country singers with child brides...or people of my grandfather's generation, who married very young routinely?
As for your grandfather and mine, yes that was more acceptable at the time due to circumstances that no longer exist today. For the wealthy, do we really need to elaborate on that?
___________________ Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
I've gone over this before. There isn't a good or acceptable reason for why a twenty-something, or older, is having sex with a teenager. You can't cite a small pool of interaction if you live in the United States of fucking America. You can't cite maturity here either as it is much more pronounced in that age group within a space of one year than in other age brackets.
That other little scenario you described, about pissing in bushes, isn't exactly helping you. At all.
OK, let's go over a couple things. First off, love is love. If you love someone, and you're both intelligent enough to understand what you are doing and the consequences, and both willing and able to accept whatever those may be, why the hell not have sex? The laws regarding statutory rape and such were done to prevent adults from taking advantage of a minor's naivete and having them commit acts they did not fully understand the ramifications of.
Anyway, let's throw that aisde. You're assuming sex is involved. A person can be arrested for statutory in the US if they commit any action which is viewed by the public as indecent due to the age difference. A kiss, possibly even holding hands, can be bad enough. Especially if the minor's parents protest.
And the peeing scenario...are you seriously gonna tell me that, at some point in your life, you've NEVER done something that stupid? The point is it's the kind of idiocy that happens sometimes..but because of the current law, a guy caught using some bushes for a toilet is considered by society just as morally reprehensible as someone who sodomizes a newborn.
Scuse the graphic-ness of that statement, but it has to be said just that harshly so you understand. Megan's law and other policies like it see absolutely no difference between a child rapist, someone dating a girl a week younger than him, and a guy who got drunk and chose the wrong place to relieve himself.
What's more, once you're on these lists you're required to tell your employers, register with the police when you move, etc...meaning it can make it difficult for you to get a job or be a normal part of society.
how old are you? 4 years age difference is seriously very small, even at that age range, especially when comparing male vs female maturity levels. Really, men and women of the same age are mismatched mentally until at least age 30. Guys generally mature slower, refuse to take responsibility, and just generally act childish for much longer. I'm a guy, I can say this.
The age difference and 90% of what's considered statutory or predatory is cultural. Even in america, 50 years ago things were much different. It was not unheard of for a 17 year old to marry a man in his mid to late 20s. My grandfather, one of the few members of my family who wasn't a dipshit, had 12 years on my grandmother, who was 17 when they met, no kidding. They remained married their entire lives, over 60 years. Not saying everything was rosie, but when is it.
First of all, a four year gap at that bracket is significant. It is further exacerbated by other details, like why would you pursue a relationship with a teenager versus another, let's say, twenty something? Are there really no other women in your age bracket in your life that pursuing a teenager is easier? Who are you working with, going to school with, doing things with? What is it really that you see in a teenager that isn't in an actual adult?
By teenager you mean 18-19 as well? As far as I know the legal age of consent in all states is at least 18, some appear to be 17.
If a 20 something year old want's to date an 18 year old, that is legal as far as I am concerned. It's none of my fucking business what that person does, who they associate with or anything. Hell in NY, the state we are talking about it here the legal age of consent is 17, so pretty much your whole post is moot.
I've gone over this before. There isn't a good or acceptable reason for why a twenty-something, or older, is having sex with a teenager.
Unless of course they get married first?
Nice long list of country singers with child brides...or people of my grandfather's generation, who married very young routinely?
As for your grandfather and mine, yes that was more acceptable at the time due to circumstances that no longer exist today. For the wealthy, do we really need to elaborate on that?
Really? What changed?
Oh right, the mores that you're claiming are universal constants.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Hmm, good or bad depends on your definition of "sex offender".
Looking how anal (no pun intended) sex offenses can be in the US I don't think this is such a great idea. Not sure about this but I once read an article about a 21ish year old guy having a normal relationship with a 17 year old girl and that making him a sex offender as well. I think that is slightly draconic, but whatever ...
They should only restrict this to the actual "predators", who have been convicted for stalking and trying to groom minors (or worse).
um, yeah a 21 year old with a 17yr old is considered rape. and the 21yr old would be considered, and is a predator. the 17yr is a minor.
this is true in the US? Or does it depend on state?
wow, didnt know that. In the UK this would be perfectally legal.
The problem is, it's worse than this. From personal experience I was 16 and my boyfriend was 17 then turned 18. We'd been together for well over a year but when we got caught having sex he was charged with rape regardless of it being consentual. He would have been on a sex ofender list for life had my parents not dropped the charges.
They really need to be careful who they apply these laws to.
I've gone over this before. There isn't a good or acceptable reason for why a twenty-something, or older, is having sex with a teenager.
Unless of course they get married first?
Nice long list of country singers with child brides...or people of my grandfather's generation, who married very young routinely?
As for your grandfather and mine, yes that was more acceptable at the time due to circumstances that no longer exist today. For the wealthy, do we really need to elaborate on that?
Really? What changed?
Oh right, the mores that you're claiming are universal constants.
The mores I'm claiming are universal constants, interesting but false.
___________________ Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
I've gone over this before. There isn't a good or acceptable reason for why a twenty-something, or older, is having sex with a teenager.
Unless of course they get married first?
Nice long list of country singers with child brides...or people of my grandfather's generation, who married very young routinely?
As for your grandfather and mine, yes that was more acceptable at the time due to circumstances that no longer exist today. For the wealthy, do we really need to elaborate on that?
Really? What changed?
Oh right, the mores that you're claiming are universal constants.
The mores I'm claiming are universal constants, interesting but false.
See first quote. You're speaking in absolutes, and presenting an absolute that's demonstrably false to be a Truth.
The only way a judgement about morality can be an Truth is if it is a universal constant, yes?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I've gone over this before. There isn't a good or acceptable reason for why a twenty-something, or older, is having sex with a teenager.
Unless of course they get married first?
Nice long list of country singers with child brides...or people of my grandfather's generation, who married very young routinely?
As for your grandfather and mine, yes that was more acceptable at the time due to circumstances that no longer exist today. For the wealthy, do we really need to elaborate on that?
Really? What changed?
Oh right, the mores that you're claiming are universal constants.
The mores I'm claiming are universal constants, interesting but false.
These aren't even universal in the U.S. As you can see by the actual fact that in some states the age of consent is 18 and others it is 17 and yet others are 16.
These aren't even universal in the U.S. As you can see by the actual fact that in some states the age of consent is 18 and others it is 17 and yet others are 16.
And in all states, the state of marriage (implicit consent) overrides statutory rape legislation. You can't be prosecuted for having sex with a under-consent female to whom you are married, in other words.
Gaz may not feel that there's any good reason for that couple to be married; fortunately that decision's not in the public's hands.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
It's a good step, but if only they could go further. Maybe we could have a big, secure building made where all the dangerous pedophiles, sexual predators, and rapists go when they're caught, so they can't harm innocent people. We could call it a...hmmm.... piston? No... prism? Meh, not qute there... PRISON!! We could call it a prison!
So anyone convicted of one of those horrible crimes could spend the rest of their lives in one of these 'prisons'. Of course, it would be costly for taxpayers to keep feeding & housing them, so maybe they could be forced to do something productive, like fix the roads? There we go, road construction is expensive! We'll just send them out from time to time under heavy guard to perform manual labor. We could even chain a bunch of them together in gangs, a 'chain gang', if you will, to deter escape attempts.
I know, keeping dangerous people in a 'prison' is kind of a radical concept, but I think it's the right way to go in the end. That way we don't have draconian policies & laws which punish some poor bloke for taking a whizz in an alley at 2AM, and society as a whole can breathe a bit easier knowing that it's just a little bit safer from criminals. And hey, who doesn't like less taxes due to inexpensive labor?
OK, let's go over a couple things. First off, love is love. If you love someone, and you're both intelligent enough to understand what you are doing and the consequences, and both willing and able to accept whatever those may be, why the hell not have sex?
Pretty much the only argument I'm seeing here is the same one that pedophiles use, with at least one of the debaters admitting to fucking 17 year olds when he was in his mid twenties because the law in his state allowed it.
"Anyway, let's throw that aisde. You're assuming sex is involved. A person can be arrested for statutory in the US if they commit any action which is viewed by the public as indecent due to the age difference. A kiss, possibly even holding hands, can be bad enough. Especially if the minor's parents protest."
In order to be arrested for statutory you need to be having a relationship with a minor, an out and out minor, where you are into dealing with their parents FFS. That isn't some niggly little thing buddy.
"And the peeing scenario...are you seriously gonna tell me that, at some point in your life, you've NEVER done something that stupid? The point is it's the kind of idiocy that happens sometimes..but because of the current law, a guy caught using some bushes for a toilet is considered by society just as morally reprehensible as someone who sodomizes a newborn. "
What I got from that example is that on top of fucking teens as young as he can possibly get away with, he gets wasted and pisses in public like an animal without understanding what the big problem society has with him is. Urination and defecation in public is pretty serious, digusting, etc on top of... you guessed it, exposing yourself in public. With that said their punishment is not the same as the one for the person who would sodomize a minor. That is just bullshit and you know it.
"Scuse the graphic-ness of that statement, but it has to be said just that harshly so you understand. Megan's law and other policies like it see absolutely no difference between a child rapist, someone dating a girl a week younger than him, and a guy who got drunk and chose the wrong place to relieve himself."
Yes it does. This is what you don't actually realize. Generally when you are talking about 18 and 17, it is very rarely persued. 20+ fucking kids as young as they can technically get by in the state will have a different story. Sodomizing children results in jail time. Defecating/urinating in public, and naturally exposing your crapping/pissing ass to everyone will get you slapped with a fine and possibly some time, but not nearly as much as worse offenses.
"What's more, once you're on these lists you're required to tell your employers, register with the police when you move, etc...meaning it can make it difficult for you to get a job or be a normal part of society. "
Pro-tip: Don't shit or piss in public, don't expose your genitals to the public, and pursue relationships with people your own age. Most people, the vast majority, don't have any problems with this.
___________________ Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
It's a good step, but if only they could go further. Maybe we could have a big, secure building made where all the dangerous pedophiles, sexual predators, and rapists go when they're caught, so they can't harm innocent people. We could call it a...hmmm.... piston? No... prism? Meh, not qute there... PRISON!! We could call it a prison!
So anyone convicted of one of those horrible crimes could spend the rest of their lives in one of these 'prisons'. Of course, it would be costly for taxpayers to keep feeding & housing them, so maybe they could be forced to do something productive, like fix the roads? There we go, road construction is expensive! We'll just send them out from time to time under heavy guard to perform manual labor. We could even chain a bunch of them together in gangs, a 'chain gang', if you will, to deter escape attempts.
I know, keeping dangerous people in a 'prison' is kind of a radical concept, but I think it's the right way to go in the end. That way we don't have draconian policies & laws which punish some poor bloke for taking a whizz in an alley at 2AM, and society as a whole can breathe a bit easier knowing that it's just a little bit safer from criminals. And hey, who doesn't like less taxes due to inexpensive labor?
But that would be smart. This is America. We don't do smart in America.
Hmm, good or bad depends on your definition of "sex offender".
Looking how anal (no pun intended) sex offenses can be in the US I don't think this is such a great idea. Not sure about this but I once read an article about a 21ish year old guy having a normal relationship with a 17 year old girl and that making him a sex offender as well. I think that is slightly draconic, but whatever ...
They should only restrict this to the actual "predators", who have been convicted for stalking and trying to groom minors (or worse).
um, yeah a 21 year old with a 17yr old is considered rape. and the 21yr old would be considered, and is a predator. the 17yr is a minor.
whoever considers this a rape or predator (even if the 2 people are engaged as couple) has much less voice and vote that the girls family. If they parents accept, no law should get in the way unless the man is an actual trouble maker / sex offender / etc...
But i guess US laws are just like that where everyone is a sex offender by engaging with a 17yr person, while the real bad guys are out there like nothing happened
Considering what it takes to be a registered sex offender this is pretty stupid. If you were caught by a cop, getting a bj from your girlfriend behind some bushes in a park a late evening then you become a registered sex offender. That's just one out of many ways one can get on that list. Not every sex offender is a child predator
Something tells me you know exactly how false this statement is, so I will leave it at that. As for the OP, I do not have a problem with the state doing this. Unfortunately, it is so easy to work around that it will basically be useless and almost impossible to enforce except after the fact of a predator getting caught again.
Actually this statement is accurate. Not all offenses are predatory in nature or involve pedophillia. And in some states perversion laws would qualify one for a sex offender status, especially if leveraged by a sentencing request. There was a teenage girl who was convicted of a sexual offense because she sent her nude picture to her also underage boyfriend.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ever wonder why its sex offenders that were singled out first for this obvious invasion of civil liberties?
Refugee from UO,EQ,AC,AC2,AO,DAOC,L2,SB,HZ,CoH,PT,EQ2,WoW,VG,SWG,EVE,WAR,DF,MO,AI,GA,LOTRO, SWTOR... Gw2 on Deck
It's a good step, but if only they could go further. Maybe we could have a big, secure building made where all the dangerous pedophiles, sexual predators, and rapists go when they're caught, so they can't harm innocent people. We could call it a...hmmm.... piston? No... prism? Meh, not qute there... PRISON!! We could call it a prison!
So anyone convicted of one of those horrible crimes could spend the rest of their lives in one of these 'prisons'. Of course, it would be costly for taxpayers to keep feeding & housing them, so maybe they could be forced to do something productive, like fix the roads? There we go, road construction is expensive! We'll just send them out from time to time under heavy guard to perform manual labor. We could even chain a bunch of them together in gangs, a 'chain gang', if you will, to deter escape attempts.
I know, keeping dangerous people in a 'prison' is kind of a radical concept, but I think it's the right way to go in the end. That way we don't have draconian policies & laws which punish some poor bloke for taking a whizz in an alley at 2AM, and society as a whole can breathe a bit easier knowing that it's just a little bit safer from criminals. And hey, who doesn't like less taxes due to inexpensive labor?
Well, after I went and defended people accused of statutory rape and indecent exposure....
Personally, screw my tax dollars going to give some child rapists three meals a day and a roof over their heads when I have to fight to keep those myself. The worst of the worst, the REAL rapists and predators? Hang em. Cause it's cheaper than bullets.
Personally, screw my tax dollars going to give some child rapists three meals a day and a roof over their heads when I have to fight to keep those myself. The worst of the worst, the REAL rapists and predators? Hang em. Cause it's cheaper than bullets.
If the government start doing this with all serious criminals the country would be a lot safer. I would love to see this. Criminals dont care about human rights, so why the government have to give them their rights after raping a child or killing a person? .... something smells fishy here
something I haven't seen mentioned: the article states that about 3500 sex offenders will be banned..... That is certainly not all the sex offenders in NY. That probably wouldn't cover all the sex offenders in Albany. So it sounds to me as if they are taking the specific crime into account.
In order to be arrested for statutory you need to be having a relationship with a minor, an out and out minor, where you are into dealing with their parents FFS. That isn't some niggly little thing buddy.
No, you don't. In many states, you have to be accused of sexual abuse, not intercourse. Which is a LOT more open to interpretation. And again, if I turn 18 tomorrow and she's still 17, by the law, in many states, it's now rape. This obviously varies from state to state, but it IS possible.
What I got from that example is that on top of fucking teens as young as he can possibly get away with, he gets wasted and pisses in public like an animal without understanding what the big problem society has with him is. Urination and defecation in public is pretty serious, digusting, etc on top of... you guessed it, exposing yourself in public. With that said their punishment is not the same as the one for the person who would sodomize a minor. That is just bullshit and you know it.
The actual criminal punishment for the act is different, yes. Here's the problem. Where Megan's law or any variation thereof is upheld, anyone convicted of a sexual-based offense is required to register themselves as such. In some cases, for life. And this involves ANY sexual based offense. Including public indecency or feelng up your girlfriend one week too late. Megan's law and similar policies do not discriminate here. If you're forced to register, it can affect where you live, whether you can get a job...even though you were "punished" for your crime years ago, paid, and lived a good life since.
And yes, I agree public indecency is wrong, but there are levels of distinction between it and raping a child, don't you think?
Yes it does. This is what you don't actually realize. Generally when you are talking about 18 and 17, it is very rarely persued. 20+ fucking kids as young as they can technically get by in the state will have a different story. Sodomizing children results in jail time. Defecating/urinating in public, and naturally exposing your crapping/pissing ass to everyone will get you slapped with a fine and possibly some time, but not nearly as much as worse offenses.
Read above about Megan's law. The REAL punushment comes years after you "paid" for your crime.
Pro-tip: Don't shit or piss in public, don't expose your genitals to the public, and pursue relationships with people your own age. Most people, the vast majority, don't have any problems with this.
Pro-tip: Don't destroy someone's life over an innocent act of stupid that harmed no one, or over an honest relationship between two mature consenting persons. Yes my examples are on the extreme end, but only because the law is so black-and-white and isn't separating degrees of crime fairly. In order to be "tough" on the harshest offenders, people guility of FAR lesser sins pay just as greatly.
something I haven't seen mentioned: the article states that about 3500 sex offenders will be banned..... That is certainly not all the sex offenders in NY. That probably wouldn't cover all the sex offenders in Albany. So it sounds to me as if they are taking the specific crime into account.
Possibly. What's odd though is that like I said in a previous post, in 2009 they did the same for social networks, and deleted Facebook and Myspace accounts for offenders. The number was around 3500.
Regardless, it's time and money wasted. Things like this are not enforcable. No one is going to stop them from going to an internet cafe and making a new account, or going to a friend's house and using their Xbox.
something I haven't seen mentioned: the article states that about 3500 sex offenders will be banned..... That is certainly not all the sex offenders in NY. That probably wouldn't cover all the sex offenders in Albany. So it sounds to me as if they are taking the specific crime into account.
True, but my (sarcastically made) point earlier was that truly dangerous sex offenders (ones worth banning from online games) shouldn't be out running around in the first place. They should either be fried up extra crispy by Ol' Sparky, or spend the rest of their lives as a cheap labor force so we at least get some use out of their continued existence.
And I think some people did bring your point up earlier, but I'm not sure. I just skimmed everything up to the last page, heh.
Technically there needs to be more distinction in Sex offender classifications.
Personally imo any adult ( 21+) that engages in sex with anyone 16 or younger should warrant the death penalty.
Anyone who engages in sex with anyone against thier will should warrant the death penalty.
But then I think their are many crimes that deserve the death penalty.
All these corrupt executives, bankers, wall street types, politicians, should be put to death and have every penny taken from thier estates and given back to thier victims.
Any of these facist teachers, teaching marxist retoric and anti-american sentiment should be convicted as the traitors they are and put to death. We've convicted people of treason and excuted them for less that most teachers say and do now.
Frankly if we made the penalty death, most of these wrongs would stop, but as long as we pussy foot around and even if we do convict someone we just send them to a federal country club with swimming pools and golf courses.
Technically there needs to be more distinction in Sex offender classifications.
Personally imo any adult ( 21+) that engages in sex with anyone 16 or younger should warrant the death penalty.
Anyone who engages in sex with anyone against thier will should warrant the death penalty.
But then I think their are many crimes that deserve the death penalty.
All these corrupt executives, bankers, wall street types, politicians, should be put to death and have every penny taken from thier estates and given back to thier victims.
Any of these facist teachers, teaching marxist retoric and anti-american sentiment should be convicted as the traitors they are and put to death. We've convicted people of treason and excuted them for less that most teachers say and do now.
Frankly if we made the penalty death, most of these wrongs would stop, but as long as we pussy foot around and even if we do convict someone we just send them to a federal country club with swimming pools and golf courses.
Wow. You just...dive right into the deep end. Wow.
Just a side note about that Anti-American rhetoric...last I looked, our founding fathers wanted us to question authoirty when we didn't think it was doing the right thing, and fight for our right to speak our beliefs without persecution from the government. Just wondering who's really anti-American here.
Totally with you on rapists and corrupt types though.
Comments
Unless of course they get married first?
Nice long list of country singers with child brides...or people of my grandfather's generation, who married very young routinely?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
First of all, a four year gap at that bracket is significant. It is further exacerbated by other details, like why would you pursue a relationship with a teenager versus another, let's say, twenty something? Are there really no other women in your age bracket in your life that pursuing a teenager is easier? Who are you working with, going to school with, doing things with? What is it really that you see in a teenager that isn't in an actual adult?
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
As for your grandfather and mine, yes that was more acceptable at the time due to circumstances that no longer exist today. For the wealthy, do we really need to elaborate on that?
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
OK, let's go over a couple things. First off, love is love. If you love someone, and you're both intelligent enough to understand what you are doing and the consequences, and both willing and able to accept whatever those may be, why the hell not have sex? The laws regarding statutory rape and such were done to prevent adults from taking advantage of a minor's naivete and having them commit acts they did not fully understand the ramifications of.
Anyway, let's throw that aisde. You're assuming sex is involved. A person can be arrested for statutory in the US if they commit any action which is viewed by the public as indecent due to the age difference. A kiss, possibly even holding hands, can be bad enough. Especially if the minor's parents protest.
And the peeing scenario...are you seriously gonna tell me that, at some point in your life, you've NEVER done something that stupid? The point is it's the kind of idiocy that happens sometimes..but because of the current law, a guy caught using some bushes for a toilet is considered by society just as morally reprehensible as someone who sodomizes a newborn.
Scuse the graphic-ness of that statement, but it has to be said just that harshly so you understand. Megan's law and other policies like it see absolutely no difference between a child rapist, someone dating a girl a week younger than him, and a guy who got drunk and chose the wrong place to relieve himself.
What's more, once you're on these lists you're required to tell your employers, register with the police when you move, etc...meaning it can make it difficult for you to get a job or be a normal part of society.
By teenager you mean 18-19 as well? As far as I know the legal age of consent in all states is at least 18, some appear to be 17.
If a 20 something year old want's to date an 18 year old, that is legal as far as I am concerned. It's none of my fucking business what that person does, who they associate with or anything. Hell in NY, the state we are talking about it here the legal age of consent is 17, so pretty much your whole post is moot.
Really? What changed?
Oh right, the mores that you're claiming are universal constants.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
The problem is, it's worse than this. From personal experience I was 16 and my boyfriend was 17 then turned 18. We'd been together for well over a year but when we got caught having sex he was charged with rape regardless of it being consentual. He would have been on a sex ofender list for life had my parents not dropped the charges.
They really need to be careful who they apply these laws to.
Genocidal Tendencies
The mores I'm claiming are universal constants, interesting but false.
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
See first quote. You're speaking in absolutes, and presenting an absolute that's demonstrably false to be a Truth.
The only way a judgement about morality can be an Truth is if it is a universal constant, yes?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
These aren't even universal in the U.S. As you can see by the actual fact that in some states the age of consent is 18 and others it is 17 and yet others are 16.
And in all states, the state of marriage (implicit consent) overrides statutory rape legislation. You can't be prosecuted for having sex with a under-consent female to whom you are married, in other words.
Gaz may not feel that there's any good reason for that couple to be married; fortunately that decision's not in the public's hands.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
* Rolls her eyes *
Just one more in a long list of unconstitutional BS laws that will be abused and misused by a corrupt government.
* Waves bye bye to all those guys that get drunk and pee on the side of a building *
* Waves hello to all the women that hate thier men gaming and make false accusations to get them banned from it *
It's a good step, but if only they could go further. Maybe we could have a big, secure building made where all the dangerous pedophiles, sexual predators, and rapists go when they're caught, so they can't harm innocent people. We could call it a...hmmm.... piston? No... prism? Meh, not qute there... PRISON!! We could call it a prison!
So anyone convicted of one of those horrible crimes could spend the rest of their lives in one of these 'prisons'. Of course, it would be costly for taxpayers to keep feeding & housing them, so maybe they could be forced to do something productive, like fix the roads? There we go, road construction is expensive! We'll just send them out from time to time under heavy guard to perform manual labor. We could even chain a bunch of them together in gangs, a 'chain gang', if you will, to deter escape attempts.
I know, keeping dangerous people in a 'prison' is kind of a radical concept, but I think it's the right way to go in the end. That way we don't have draconian policies & laws which punish some poor bloke for taking a whizz in an alley at 2AM, and society as a whole can breathe a bit easier knowing that it's just a little bit safer from criminals. And hey, who doesn't like less taxes due to inexpensive labor?
Pretty much the only argument I'm seeing here is the same one that pedophiles use, with at least one of the debaters admitting to fucking 17 year olds when he was in his mid twenties because the law in his state allowed it.
"Anyway, let's throw that aisde. You're assuming sex is involved. A person can be arrested for statutory in the US if they commit any action which is viewed by the public as indecent due to the age difference. A kiss, possibly even holding hands, can be bad enough. Especially if the minor's parents protest."
In order to be arrested for statutory you need to be having a relationship with a minor, an out and out minor, where you are into dealing with their parents FFS. That isn't some niggly little thing buddy.
"And the peeing scenario...are you seriously gonna tell me that, at some point in your life, you've NEVER done something that stupid? The point is it's the kind of idiocy that happens sometimes..but because of the current law, a guy caught using some bushes for a toilet is considered by society just as morally reprehensible as someone who sodomizes a newborn. "
What I got from that example is that on top of fucking teens as young as he can possibly get away with, he gets wasted and pisses in public like an animal without understanding what the big problem society has with him is. Urination and defecation in public is pretty serious, digusting, etc on top of... you guessed it, exposing yourself in public. With that said their punishment is not the same as the one for the person who would sodomize a minor. That is just bullshit and you know it.
"Scuse the graphic-ness of that statement, but it has to be said just that harshly so you understand. Megan's law and other policies like it see absolutely no difference between a child rapist, someone dating a girl a week younger than him, and a guy who got drunk and chose the wrong place to relieve himself."
Yes it does. This is what you don't actually realize. Generally when you are talking about 18 and 17, it is very rarely persued. 20+ fucking kids as young as they can technically get by in the state will have a different story. Sodomizing children results in jail time. Defecating/urinating in public, and naturally exposing your crapping/pissing ass to everyone will get you slapped with a fine and possibly some time, but not nearly as much as worse offenses.
"What's more, once you're on these lists you're required to tell your employers, register with the police when you move, etc...meaning it can make it difficult for you to get a job or be a normal part of society. "
Pro-tip: Don't shit or piss in public, don't expose your genitals to the public, and pursue relationships with people your own age. Most people, the vast majority, don't have any problems with this.
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
But that would be smart. This is America. We don't do smart in America.
whoever considers this a rape or predator (even if the 2 people are engaged as couple) has much less voice and vote that the girls family. If they parents accept, no law should get in the way unless the man is an actual trouble maker / sex offender / etc...
But i guess US laws are just like that where everyone is a sex offender by engaging with a 17yr person, while the real bad guys are out there like nothing happened
Actually this statement is accurate. Not all offenses are predatory in nature or involve pedophillia. And in some states perversion laws would qualify one for a sex offender status, especially if leveraged by a sentencing request. There was a teenage girl who was convicted of a sexual offense because she sent her nude picture to her also underage boyfriend.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ever wonder why its sex offenders that were singled out first for this obvious invasion of civil liberties?
Refugee from UO,EQ,AC,AC2,AO,DAOC,L2,SB,HZ,CoH,PT,EQ2,WoW,VG,SWG,EVE,WAR,DF,MO,AI,GA,LOTRO, SWTOR... Gw2 on Deck
Well, after I went and defended people accused of statutory rape and indecent exposure....
Personally, screw my tax dollars going to give some child rapists three meals a day and a roof over their heads when I have to fight to keep those myself. The worst of the worst, the REAL rapists and predators? Hang em. Cause it's cheaper than bullets.
If the government start doing this with all serious criminals the country would be a lot safer. I would love to see this. Criminals dont care about human rights, so why the government have to give them their rights after raping a child or killing a person? .... something smells fishy here
Possibly. What's odd though is that like I said in a previous post, in 2009 they did the same for social networks, and deleted Facebook and Myspace accounts for offenders. The number was around 3500.
Regardless, it's time and money wasted. Things like this are not enforcable. No one is going to stop them from going to an internet cafe and making a new account, or going to a friend's house and using their Xbox.
True, but my (sarcastically made) point earlier was that truly dangerous sex offenders (ones worth banning from online games) shouldn't be out running around in the first place. They should either be fried up extra crispy by Ol' Sparky, or spend the rest of their lives as a cheap labor force so we at least get some use out of their continued existence.
And I think some people did bring your point up earlier, but I'm not sure. I just skimmed everything up to the last page, heh.
Technically there needs to be more distinction in Sex offender classifications.
Personally imo any adult ( 21+) that engages in sex with anyone 16 or younger should warrant the death penalty.
Anyone who engages in sex with anyone against thier will should warrant the death penalty.
But then I think their are many crimes that deserve the death penalty.
All these corrupt executives, bankers, wall street types, politicians, should be put to death and have every penny taken from thier estates and given back to thier victims.
Any of these facist teachers, teaching marxist retoric and anti-american sentiment should be convicted as the traitors they are and put to death. We've convicted people of treason and excuted them for less that most teachers say and do now.
Frankly if we made the penalty death, most of these wrongs would stop, but as long as we pussy foot around and even if we do convict someone we just send them to a federal country club with swimming pools and golf courses.
Wow. You just...dive right into the deep end. Wow.
Just a side note about that Anti-American rhetoric...last I looked, our founding fathers wanted us to question authoirty when we didn't think it was doing the right thing, and fight for our right to speak our beliefs without persecution from the government. Just wondering who's really anti-American here.
Totally with you on rapists and corrupt types though.