Another teenage boy going on the sex offender list and facing 20 years in prison because of another teenage girl crying rape because she is afraid of her mother

[–]IronJohnMRA 186 points187 points188 points 7 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bearded4Glory 38 points39 points40 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Skydiver860 44 points45 points46 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]fuckboyshands 65 points66 points67 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bearded4Glory 40 points41 points42 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Skydiver860 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bearded4Glory 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Skydiver860 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bearded4Glory 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bearded4Glory 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bearded4Glory 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azurenightsky 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]1forthethumb 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RobDog101 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]ocilar 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Evets616 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]guilty_by_design 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]rj2029x 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HobbitjJoufflu 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rj2029x 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prometheus444 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mens-Advocate 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DoItLive247 660 points661 points662 points 7 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–]unclefisty 538 points539 points540 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Punniest 109 points110 points111 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]unclefisty 97 points98 points99 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Punniest 37 points38 points39 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]CaptainTeaBag24I7 25 points26 points27 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Making_Butts_Hurt[🍰] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]elebrin 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]matthew_lane 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prometheus444 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nevek_Green 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]PatDiddyHam 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]risunokairu 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nevek_Green 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Batbuckleyourpants 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SuperPwnerGuy[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cusoman 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Saturn23M31 -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Punniest 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Saturn23M31 -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prometheus444 -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brusanan 87 points88 points89 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Traiklin 26 points27 points28 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brusanan 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtemAndrew 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Traiklin 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtemAndrew 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Traiklin 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtemAndrew 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rj2029x 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

https://www.crin.org/en/home/ages/Americas

No person can be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission committed while under under the age of 12. [Criminal Code, Section 13] (canada).

The minimum age of criminal liability is set at the federal and state level in the United States. At the state level, 33 states set no minimum age of criminal responsibility, theoretically allowing a child to be sentenced to criminal penalties at any age [Cipriani,D. Children's Rights and the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: A Global Perspective, Ashgate 2009, p. 221 and 222], though in most of these states a capacity related test is applied.

Of the States that do set a minimum age of criminal responsibility, North Carolina has the lowest at seven years, while Wisconsin has the highest at ten years. [For full references of state laws see Cipriani D., Children's rights and the minimum age of criminal responsibility: A global perspective, Ashgate 2009, p. 219 and 220]

Age of criminal responsibility. The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years old. This means that children under 10 can't be arrested or charged with a crime. There are other punishments that can be given to children under 10 who break the law

Juvenile delinquents are minors, usually defined as being between the ages of 10 and 18, who have committed some act that violates the law. These acts aren't called “crimes” as they would be for adults. Rather, crimes committed by minors are called “delinquent acts.”

This section provides only basic information about the juvenile court process. Make sure you talk to a lawyer if your child has been arrested. Click for help finding ...

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/12/gatlinburg_fire_juvenile_suspe.html

The two teenagers suspected of starting the fire that killed 14 people in Gatlinburg, Tennessee could face 60 years in prison.

Prosecutor James Dunn said "everything is on the table," including charging the two as adults, in connection to the blaze. The juveniles' names and other details are being withheld per state law. That could change, however, if the case is moved to adult criminal court.

The teens are suspected of starting the deadly fire that forced more than 14,000 people to evacuate the east Tennessee tourist areas of Gatlinburg, Sevier County and Pigeon Forge in late November. More than 2,400 homes, businesses and other structures were damaged or destroyed in the fire, with costs expected to top $500 million. The fire began in Great Smoky Mountain National Park, reportedly when the two boys, ages 17 and 15, dropped lit matches along Chimney Tops Trail.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-west-palm-baby-death-case-20160823-story.html

The prosecution of a 12-year-old West Palm Beach boy accused in the suffocation death of a baby last December will remain in juvenile court.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/19/boy-12-charged-with-murder-as-adult-in-florida.html

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/pasco-deputies-12-year-old-arrested-for-making-clown-threats/2296474

Pasco Sheriff Chris Nocco said Tuesday that his deputies arrested a 12-year-old boy — as an adult — on allegations that he made an online threat against Seven Springs Middle School.

"He could've had a picture of the sky with clouds in the background, and a beautiful picture," Nocco said. "You write 'Hello, I am going to kill kids at Seven Springs Middle School,' you're going to be charged with a second-degree felony."

http://fox17online.com/2014/08/05/12-year-old-charged-as-an-adult-for-open-murder-in-stabbing-death-of-nine-year-old/

http://www.komu.com/news/missouri-boy-charged-as-adult-in-12-year-old-sister-s-death

Jasper County prosecuting attorney Dean Dankelson says Thomas "Tristan" Potts was charged Tuesday with second-degree murder, armed criminal action and first-degree attempted arson. He was 13 in October when Teresa Potts was killed and previously was charged as a juvenile.

Sounds like he tried to burn the body. Smart boy.

Juvenile "detention" facilities are often home to drug using children, children who commit assault, etc.

Not sure if you're stupid or woefully retarded.

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 314 points315 points316 points 7 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 7 years ago* (45 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Ujustgotjamed 88 points89 points90 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Gandhi_of_War 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pocketknifeMT 65 points66 points67 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rj2029x 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neovitami 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prod_Is_For_Testing 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]beckett_96 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 25 points26 points27 points 7 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

Why not? This is what the age of consent laws, and the anti-child porn laws are designed for; to punish people who have sex with 'children/girls under age of consent' and/or exploiting them for sexual purposes via photography.

I can show you where it was intentionally craeted to be used to punish 15 year old or 50 year old males in the early 1900s, if you like. Its called Purity act, and I have a lot of resources to show you the evolution of age of consent.

The concept of age of consent is that it 'defiles a child', 'imparts carnal knowledge', and 'contributes to their delinquency'.

Note that this was what came after the age of consent was established around 12 for the purposes of rape. It was first intended to allow "maidens within age" to bring rape charges without having to show proof of force. It was not intended to say that someone could not have sex with them whatsoever. At the Purity Act/Movement era, it became the latter, while it was raised to 16-18.

The law books still use the defilement/impure terms. Sex is de-facto damaging to "minors" mentally and physically, by law.

Thus it stands to reason to prosecute any underage males that have sex with underage females, no matter how much both sides are willing, because they're still being defiled, still learning carnal knowledge, and still becoming delinquent (because the concept of delinquency for minors is the big taboos, smoking, drinking, and sex).

So either these things ARE happening to a minor or they aren't happening. If they aren't happening, then anyone over 22 who's been put in prison for the age of consent violation has been charged with a crime where there was no victim.

If these things are happening to the minds and bodies of minors, though, then it is perfectly correct to imprison and put minors on sex offender lists when they have sex with other minors, because the same issue of defilement (body/mind), carnal knowledge, and delinquency are occurring.

To put another light on it, some people say that the age of consent is there to protect children's innocence from being stolen. Close in Age exemption seems to say "their innocence can be stolen as long as its with another child", or how about "their innocence is maintained (somehow) if its with another child".

if we consider "innocence" some virtue that must be upheld, then it makes sense to once again imprison and sex offender registry any children that rob other children of their innocence via sex. If their innocence is maintained somehow, then they are somehow NOT learning about sexuality, nor losing their "virginity"( because virginity is a bullshit belief system based on religions and puritanism), nor becoming delinquent... in spite of the fact that the law says that this is occurring if one of the actors in this sex romp were to be "overage".

You can't say that innocence is destroyed by sex with an adult but maintained by sex with another "child". You can't say that the sins of imparting carnal knowledge and other issues are harmful to a "child" when it comes from an adult but not when it comes from another "child".

The people who argue that laws should not harm minors in this regard are suggesting that a 15 year old girl can take an entire football team of dicks in one night, and, provided they're also the same age, no one should be put in jail, because no innocence was lost, nor was any knowledge of sexuality and the body obtained, nor was anyone tainted, like they would've been if the dicks had been older.

Put in another light, a minor girl sends nudes to a boy. That's okay and she doesn't go to jail. An older woman sends nudes to a boy. She's now in jail (or house arrest) for "sending harmful material to a minor". Either the material is harmful or it isn't. If its harmful, then the minor girl should also be in jail or have house arrest. If it isn't, then the older woman shouldn't have been punished because the law is incorrect.

Now we come to a more relevant argument. We want to have two "pools", one for the kids, one for the adults. If you act sexually with those of the same pool, then it is okay, because it isn't harmful (although thats not true, as rates of coercion into sex between teens, and depression/suicide rates can attest), and therefore this is fine but any cross-pool interaction is de-facto harmful and not fine.

We know that harm or benefit (good?) that can come from teen on teen sex is similar to teen on adult sex, or adult on adult sex. There's been more than one woman who've crunched the numbers, like Judith Levine for instance, and determined that age of partner tends to fall out as being irrelevant, because the afteraffects were not particularly better or worse, when college aged students were polled for their sexual interactions. Some reported older partner and positive outcome, some reported negative. The reports are no different than those that had sex with "age peers", although this was back in the 90's or earlier, so there may be some movement allowed for "cultural mores changes". If it becomes more taboo, it becomes more harmful to the minds of those who engage in it.

So the concept of preventing harm by keeping pools separate doesn't really work out. What it says is that anyone who is underage and is going to make bad choices should be with other people just as capable of making bad choices, just as impulsive, and just as lacking in conscientiousness. We tend to grow morally as we grow physically. A person of 24 would feel like its not right or that its abusive to put someone in a position where a lusty teen male (or female) might think that its perfectly okay. Think about all the sexting videos of "ex girlfriends" in the teen realm that keep getting put on the internet. Isn't child porn laws meant to protect these girls?

Further to the point, we assume there is no harm when the ages are the same, but we can show that coercion into "legal" sex happens in teen relationships, and also happens in adult relationships. We're talking about when they don't cross any legal line, but are still abusive sexual relationships. "if you really loved me, you'd...". The "pool theory" suggests that no harm comes, but really two teens or two adults can and do often abuse each other like this all the time. In this case, age of consent is no longer protecting teens from sexual abuses of being used (and all the carnal knowledge, impurity stuff is still applying), because the age of consent's intent is to stop naive teens from being sexually exploited. The pool theory attempts to say that there's no such exploitation going on, which is false. Rather, leaving it legal on either side of a magic number such as 18 only allows exploitation to go on between like-groups of individuals.

In the magic pool theory, therefore, both sides can abuse their peers all they want, but only when it crosses the line in one direction is there any legal recourse for that kind of harm. What we're talking about is across the entire range of people who are legally capable of doing this harm to each other, only a small sliver is actually punished for this harmful behavior by age of consent laws.

If this is true, it means that the law is cruel and unusual to older violators, because it does not punish everyone who is sexually coercive and harmful to their mate(s). It does not punish a coercive teen male or female, or a coercive adult male or female, if their partners are on the same side of the magic line. It only punishes an adult male or female by assuming the sex was coercive if the person was underage.

To punish only a tiny minority for doing the same amount of harm to others that others can do to each other legally is by definition unjust.

Continued: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5ihtvy/another_teenage_boy_going_on_the_sex_offender/db8rogg/

[–]absent-v 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]absent-v 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elthus 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Making_Butts_Hurt[🍰] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

Having fleshed out the logic of the people who maintain that Age of Consent and close in age exemptions can go hand in hand and that will prevent abuse but allow teens to fuck each other with no harm or innocence lost, we can see that the logic doesn't make sense and is self-defeating. Abuse can still occur. Innocence is still lost. Carnal knowledge is still gained. Etc.

If we want to wander into the realm of claiming age of consent as a stopgap measure for child sex abuse wherein someone molests them by threats or scaring them, that would be considered molestation, sexual assault, or even rape, if it happened between two adults just as much as if it happened between an adult and a minor, or a minor and another minor. If it can be proven, we can put anyone away on this. So a parent and their child, for instance, or a teen male threatening bodily harm if not getting laid, etc. Thus the age of consent laws are unnecessary in these cases, and, in fact, prove superfluous.

If we still maintain that the AoC laws are for this kind of issue, the logic is that sexual relations between a minor and an adult are considered de-facto cases of these kinds of already illegal coercion, because once again it cycles back to the old 1200 A.D. reasoning for the law; for a person "within age" to be able to put away a sex offender with a far more relaxed burden of proof (in AoC case, basically nil burden of proof, as the abuse is assumed to be already present). Meanwhile, a sexual relation between two minors is not de-facto coercive sex abuse, at least not of the legally actionable kind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Morality_and_the_Law

I leave you with some Foucault, et al.

In the case of "attentat sans violence" [attack without violence], the offence in which the police have been unable to find anything, nothing at all, in that case, the criminal is simply a criminal because he is a criminal, because he has those tastes. It is what used to be called a crime of opinion. (...) The crime vanishes, nobody is concerned any longer to know whether in fact a crime was committed or not, whether someone has been hurt or not. No one is even concerned any more whether there actually was a victim."

Jean Danet adds that this crime without violence can be used by the state for political reasons, against "inconvenient" individuals: "Incitement of a minor to commit an immoral act, for example, can be used against social workers and teachers. (...) In 1976 in Nantes, a teacher was tried for inciting minors to immoral acts, when in fact what he had done was to supply contraceptives to the boys and girls in his charge".

We're going to have a society of dangers, with, on the one side, those who are in danger, and on the other, those who are dangerous. (...) Sexuality will become a threat in all social relations, in all relations between members of different age groups, in all relations between individuals. And sexuality will no longer be a kind of behavior hedged in by precise prohibitions, but a kind of roaming danger, a sort of omnipresent phantom, a phantom that will be played out between men and women, children and adults, and possibly between adults themselves. It is on this shadow, this phantom, this fear that the authorities would try to get a grip through an apparently generous and, at least general, legislation and through a series of particular interventions that would probably be made by the legal institutions, with the support of the medical institutions."

Would you find it interesting to consider how, through the culture of fear, much like witchcraft or communists, or the day care child sex abuse scandals (that turned out to be almost wholly false and a lot of innocent adults got crucified over), people painted with the brush of the "great evil" are cast into prisons without a second thought, regardless of whether any harm was done or not, and only when it is teens having sex with other teens, and them being punished by the law, has there arisen the question of whether the acts constitute actual harm done or not? After all, if harm is still being done, we would not bat an eye at throwing teens in jail or putting them on a sex offender registry for their transgressions against another individual.

Some people suggest that we shouldn't criminalize that behavior because they're equals, and therefore they'd be both victims and perpetrators. But why does this say we shouldn't convict them? After all, if two people tried to murder each other, we'd put them away. If one person raped another in the very real sense, and the other person raped them in revenge a few days later, we'd put them both away. In fact we must put both teens away for sex, if sex is really harmful when done to teens, because we have an obligation to segregate offenders who harm others, and because if it is harmful, they've willfully harmed another "child", and we make laws especially to protect the weaker/children from harm, and to punish those especially harshly who harm the weaker/children. Since they're harming someone "especially vulnerable", as law and armchair pundits state minors are, they should receive more penalty. As they are also "especially vulnerable" themselves by being the same age, they should receive less penalty for being young. The net result would mean that some baseline punishment should be enacted. Its not that adults receive excessive amounts, but teens should receive some much lesser but still very real amount of legal punishment, by virtue of their status.

If we think of sex as some harm or evil that is simply not that bad as to put them both in juvenile facilities over, then it really must not be that bad for them to have sex after all, and whence comes the excess of harm from an "adult" that demands they be treated as a subhuman who can be tortured and forgotten forever in a prison for being such a great evil in our society, as if they had been a witch in the 1700's?

[–]matthew_lane 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

When a person suggests age of consent should be lower, it is decried as sick and wrong.

Common reasons are given:

It is pedophilia for anyone over 18 (incorrect).

People also have made the claim that someone 40ish able to have sex with a 16 year old in places where it is legal is simply legal pedophilia. There is a willful attempt by whatever groups there are invested in the sex predator boogeyman to confuse pedophilia with an "adult" having sex with an "underage minor", as if evidenced by

Anyone having sex with someone under the age of consent is pedophilia if they're an adult.

The bright red line does not say when pedophilia begins and ends. The way so many people have come to believe this speaks to the way those against such sexual behaviors have willfully muddied the waters for political boogeyman issues. Would it no longer be pedophilia if the age of consent was lowered?

As a very personal example, an otherwise pretty rational gay man 7 years older than me was calling a 50 year old guy that had my friend's ex-lover (27 when I met him, around 18-19 when he first met the much older man, not my friend), a pedophile. Why? Because he was so much older. He even said he wanted to hit him because he was one. I actually corrected him on what pedophilia is, but the point that even someone I know, let alone most strangers on the internet, call age difference of extremity pedophilia, whether that's accurate or not. The longer we go on the continuum from the 70's to 2010's, the smaller the age gap is considered to be morally wrong and disgusting.

It robs them of their innocence to have sex with someone over the age of consent/adult.

This is a different claim, made by those who think that the underage should be allowed to have sex and masturbate, and its "normal and natural". They claim that its okay because its part of the process of development and growing up, however, if they do it with an adult their innocence is ruined.

This is what you have a problem with, and I do too. It is a nonsensical argument, intended as a placeholder for supporting the age of consent and condemning those who violate it (from Pool "adult" to Pool "child/underage/minor" direction) because they lack a more coherent reason as to why its wrong.

I'm all for people having a legitimate, well constructed reason for why age of consent laws are right while age exemption laws are also right. I haven't heard a single one.

On to the contributing to carnal knowledge, etc. There's no legal recourse for "self abuse", but there's very definitely the attempt to have legal recourse for "abuse of others".

If you google age of consent laws, they range from the carnal knowledge to the "lewd, lascivious acts with a minor". The context of the latter is that these are de-facto harmful and bad for minors to have or be exposed to. If they are, why not lock up more teens who have sex with their boyfriends or girlfriends? The context of the former is really not much different.

"carnal knowledge" is bad for "children" to have. We set age barriers for porn at 18 for just this reason. Porn is bad for them to see.... unless it comes from their underage girlfriends or they make it together, while also being underage, and as long as no one finds out about it in order to prosecute.

If health education books were more honest, they might say:

Sex is fine, you shouldn't sext, but its normal and healthy and natural to want to do it, but just don't get caught because if you're male teen you could be sent to jail and put on sex offender list, since you have child porn of your girlfriend and you are proven to have had sexual relations with someone underage.

No adult man or woman would be sent to jail for sending nudes to the underage if not for the law. Laws typically are struck down when they are baseless, so claim and evidence of harm has to be given. The law therefore codifies claim of harm by "lewd lascivious conduct" and/or "imparting carnal knowledge/contributing to delinquency".

If the latter, teens doing it with other teens in age of exemption states are still guilty, they're simply given a free pass to keep doing it. That calls into question whether it is really harmful, because you should not allow people exemptions in law to harm others, or damage their minds. If sex is really so bad for teens to be exposed to or do with adults, then how does it become healthier or less destructive to their minds to do it with teens?

Lewd, Lascivious conduct is much easier to prosecute under, which is why more progressive states have shifted to this from the old "carnal knowledge, etc" paradigm. However, there is a judgement call in itself that sexuality is lewd (meaning morally bad), and lascivious. If this is true, once again we're still at the point where teen on teen sex being given exemptions means that we think lewd, lascivious behavior is perfectly okay to be visited on teens by other teens.

In short, we claim that sexual "abuse" is fine as long as they're both the same age. That is the logical conclusion to age of exemptions. The only other alternative is to claim that sex isn't really harmful, and we simply want to prevent adults from having sex with teens because it COULD be abusive.

The latter is more close to what "progressives" believe. But what do we mean by abusive? If its "lying to a teen about loving them to get sex", then we're right back at the Purity Act era which says that the lies are wrong and immoral, and therefore the vulnerable "young women" must be protected. But teens can do this as well, so they can be just as abusive, and therefore we should punish teen on teen sex as if they are de-facto "abuse relationships".

If we're talking about molestation or rape, such as a parent forcing their child by virtue of having control over their life and taking advantage of them WHILE THEY ARE UNWILLING PARTICIPANTS, then we don't need age of consent laws to attack the offender at that angle, as such things are already illegal for teens on teens, and adults on adults.

Returning to the stance of "lewd, lascivious conduct" for states where they have gotten rid of the more archaic "carnal knowledge, etc", these words are moralized.

If its lewd, its not healthy or moral. Therefore its bad. If its bad, and there's a "child" involved, then there should be a law.

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/16/364538087/criminal-law-says-minors-cant-consent-but-some-civil-courts-disagree

The teacher was convicted in criminal court of lewd acts with a child, and he went to prison.

Acts that involve sexuality are lewd. Lewd is wrong. Therefore anyone underage having sex with someone else underage is wrong.

http://www.shouselaw.com/statutory_rape.html

Under California Penal Code 261.5 PC, a "statutory rape" takes place when any person engages in sexual intercourse with a person under the age of eighteen (18).1 The crime of statutory rape is also commonly referred to as "unlawful sex with a minor"...or as "unlawful sexual intercourse."

So its wrong simply because its unlawful. Kind of like if it was wrong for a homosexual to engage in "buggery" simply because its unlawful... or is there an actual claim of harm? Once again, "lewd, lascivious" or "carnal knowledge" comes to the rescue.

As in the case of older women put in jail for sending their tits to underage males, that is "harmful material". How is it harmful? Once again "lewd, lascivious" or "carnal knowledge".

The age of consent is a Russian Doll series. The reasons it exists now is based on past reasons, and you have to unpack each one to see the progression.

To make something illegal when it is not harmful (especially when we give people who are younger the ability to commit this act because they're "underage") is to be atrociously unjust, so we better be sure we can prove harm.

By your logic masturbation should now be illegal because a teenager masturbating is adding to their carnal knowledge & steals their "innocence."

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with my points or calling me illogical. My attempt is to explain the reasoning for age of consent laws, as well as why teens would and should be put in jail for the violation of said laws, using the logic of others.

If you argue age of consent laws with faceless masses, they usually rely on rhetoric.

its wrong.

its immoral.

it hurts the underage person.

They're just a child.

their innocence is being stolen.

You can't find a reasoned argument against adult+teen sex. It is simply considered "wrong and that's that". On the other hand, they believe that when one "Child" has sex with another.

its natural.

its normal.

its healthy.

its innocent.

The faceless masses rely on this rhetoric to inform themselves of why they can condemn an adult man or woman as an evil, sick, child molesting predator, who should be in jail forever, because they massively damaged some underage teen through exchanging sexts or having sexual relations.

But if one teen does it to another, its suddenly not nearly as harmful and destructive, at least not enough to send them to jail over. The places where age of exemptions have been enacted are due precisely to people not wanting to ruin " a child's life" for having had explicit sexual relations, but why should we provide a free pass to young people for committing a horrific act? After all, sexual acts with "children" are damaging to it's victims. Right?

[–]Novashadow115 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]matthew_lane 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Novashadow115 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rawrination 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

The asexual myth really needs to stop being perpetuated. Lets agree that you can have a sexual identity (I know I did, when I was crushing heavily on some specific girl in first grade), even though I didn't know a thing about sex back then.

Innocence in this vein is considered innocence OF sex and sexuality, which is lost when someone "imparts carnal knowledge". Thats why its "sending harmful materials to minors" to show them sext pictures.

You can't lose innocence without losing it to the things that cause that loss; having sex or viewing sexually explicit images. To maintain innocence, you have to not have sex or see sexual images. Thats why its 18 to get into porn sites... Except Close age exemption states try not to put teens in jail for sexting, and having sex with each other.

It seems apparent that pushing sexuality on people, like in first grade, is clearly wrong, but when we're debating innocence and lost innocence in the teen area, its a lot more grey.

http://www.gracepointwellness.org/462-child-development-parenting-early-3-7/article/12771-early-childhood-gender-identity-and-sexuality

One final realm, or channel, of child development is gender identity and sexuality. Many people believe that sexual development does not become an important issue until puberty and adolescence. However, children begin showing sexual behavior and interest in their sexual functioning starting in infancy. Development of gender identity and sexuality cuts across physical, cognitive, social, and emotional developmental dimensions. However, just as in all channels of development, it's important to remember that each child is unique and may develop more rapidly or slowly than other children.

http://kidshealth.org/en/parents/development.html

To parents of infants and toddlers, their children's sexual development may seem a long way off. But actually, sexual development begins in a child's very first years. Infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and young school-aged kids develop an emotional and physical foundation for sexuality in many subtle ways as they grow.

Asexuality is not an age issue, its an issue of a very small group of people who have brains that fall outside the bell curve of development. Very few people are truly asexual.

[–]Rawrination 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If all of this sounds circular and incoherent, its because I have been looking for a cogent argument for this for a long time and still can't see a way out of the apparent contradictions.

In this case, I'm going to try some Platonic dialogue.

A: Why do we allow two children to has sex with each other? Isn't in wrong and damaging to them?

B: But it would be wrong to imprison them for doing what they are naturally driven to do.

A: Man is often naturally driven to murder, should murder therefore be allowed?

B: But we know the consequences of murder, and they are negative.

A: We also know the negative consequences of sex.

B: Sex is normal and healthy to desire and engage in.

A: Even for those who are deemed incapable of consenting to sex such as the underage?

B: Even those. It would be wrong to harm them with legal repercussions for doing something that is a normal desire.

A: it is also a normal desire of many of the immature and child-like to want to fondle a real gun, and play with it, yet we know the consequences of them being able to play with such a thing are deadly. Should we placate that desire because it is normal?

B: No, because it has the potential for great harm, and even then, the older they are, the better they know not to play around with it. It is usually those under around 13 or 14 who end up shooting themselves, as older children know better.

A: So playing with a gun leads to severe consequences and children can be taught to know better, in general, by the time they are in their teens. We also do not allow them to play with guns even though it would be a normal desire. Why do we allow them to play with sex, as a normal desire, if it is harmful to them?

B: Because the harm of imprisonment outweighs the harm of sex.

A: And we know that the harm of imprisonment is far less than the deadly harm of playing with a gun. Therefore, the normal desire and action of sex is less harmful than imprisonment, and far less harmful than the effects of a gun. If this is so, why can an adult be imprisoned for longer for sex with someone underage than for manslaughter? We have established that sex is the least harmful, compared to imprisonment and death.

B: Manslaughter is often unintentional. Those adults who have sex with the underage intend to have sex.

A: But they do not intend to harm. In fact, harm is not even on their mind. To this point, the only reason to punish so severely is because we claim that an adult should know that sex and sexuality is harmful. Since we believe this, we construct laws that are intended to prevent the underage from accessing sexual content, at stores or on the internet, and anyone found disregarding these laws can be found guilty of providing harmful material to minors. We are once again stuck at the point where we do believe harm is happening to the underage if they are exposed to sexualized nudity or sex. Why do we not jail teens for harming other teens then?

B: Because its not harmful enough to ruin the future of these juvenile offenders over.

A: It must not be very harmful at all, then. We surely have laws which put teens in jail for physical assault, for drug use, for theft, etc. Is committing sexual acts against another minor really not as harmful as all these things?

B: No, it isn't nearly as bad. Those things are inherently bad and inherently cause harm. Sex is not inherently bad nor does it inherently cause harm.

A: So if it does not inherently cause harm for a minor to have sex with another minor, where does the harm come in for an adult to have sex with a minor?

B: Because they should know better.

A: What do you mean by know better? If there is no harm, is it simply knowing better than to break the law, because of the law's mere existence?

B: They should know better because they could be abusive and could harm.

A: So instead of it being that harm is always occurring, its the possibility of its occurrence that should make it illegal?

B: Yes.

A: Then why not between two teens? Isn't there a similar possibility of harm?

B: No.

A: Why not?

That's as far as I can get tonight.

[–]TheLizardKing89 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 29 points30 points31 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheLizardKing89 77 points78 points79 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BrainTumorBoy 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Schozinator 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Schozinator 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]princessvaginaalpha 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rj2029x 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]offlightsedge -16 points-15 points-14 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]offlightsedge -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hypertroph 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]offlightsedge -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]UncleGrabcock 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFuckYou 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hightrix 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AstroTibs 125 points126 points127 points 7 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

A Whitehall, New York, teenager is charged with having sex with a 13-year-old girl.

So, a teenager is charged with having sex with a teenager.

Zachery McClure, 17

Not a legal adult, and currently only accused and not convicted... and yet his name is out for all to see.

13-year-old girl
a victim under the age of 16
the girl
She

Wait, where's the name of the other underage person relevant to this case? I mean, no names should be made public at all, but certainly news media wouldn't only name the accused?

Anyway enough of the facetiousness. I'm skipping to the end...

state law forbids sexual acts with children under 16, “except where the persons are married to each other.”

Ugh, ew. You're telling me people under a certain age cannot legally consent to sex, but they can legally consent to marriage? In which case they can legally consent to sex??

I knew being married gave you certain privileges, but that seems like a major oversight, doesn't it?

[–]mwobuddy 28 points29 points30 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]Making_Butts_Hurt[🍰] 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]ocilar 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

We're talking about a 13 year old who falsely identified her age

Kids lie. She's a child.

and has testified she was not forced or coerced.

So what? The point of age of consent laws is that a child doesn't know if they're being coerced and doesn't know what they're getting into. That why these laws exist.

Should i be obtaining background checks and FBI certification of the age of every person i sleep with beforehand because underage girls cant be held responsible for their actions, and their parents can't be held responsible for their failure to parent?

No, but you should get to know them, their friends, family, etc. Spend some time getting to know someone before you stick your dick in them. And when there's any chance they aren't who or what they say they are, be extremely careful. Big lies like identity and age and stuff generally fall apart pretty quickly if you start really getting to know them and meeting other people in their life.

Haven't you ever heard don't stick your dick in crazy? Lying about your age to sleep with older guys = crazy.

Again, the older person has more responsibility because they're older and should know better.

This girl was 13. 13. 13. She's a fucking middle schooler and it is really really disgusting to imply there should be no punishment for raping her because she did a dumb thing. Really fucking sick.

[–]Making_Butts_Hurt[🍰] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]rj2029x 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

So you're basically saying that her telling him she was only about year younger than him, her sending him graphic messages and photos, and the fact that she was the one to invite him for sex is all irrelevant to this case.

That he is automatically a predator, instead of a hormone laden teenager thinking he would be hooking up with someone basically his age. Yet somehow, you put the all of the onus on someone who was 16 to know every law regarding sex and to be self-aware enough to understand concepts that most 20 year olds still don't know (such as people lying about their identity, age, and lifestyle.)

On top of that, you totally absolve the girl in this case that initiated the encounter, willingly sent the photos/messages, lied to the police (she is more than old enough to know this was wrong), and has ruined someone's life based on her lies. Somehow she is the innocent victim in all of this? Quite frankly she's only even a victim by the strictest legal definition.

I'm not saying the boy didn't break the law, because he obviously did. What I am saying is that calling him a predator, rapist, and sick is ridiculous. On a larger scale, this is the reason that there are some many young people on this list committing suicide. Being branded for life for a crime that is essentially victimless (the definition of victimless being that no harm was done) is devastating. I'm not saying that every person on the sex offender registry was put there unfairly because there are actual rapists and child molesters on there that deserve to be there. What I am saying is that cases such as this one where two consenting parties of similar age have sex should not end with one person's life being ruined for absolutely no reason.

[–]BullsLawDan -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So you're basically saying that her telling him she was only about year younger than him, her sending him graphic messages and photos, and the fact that she was the one to invite him for sex is all irrelevant to this case.

Yes. That's exactly what I am saying.

On top of that, you totally absolve the girl in this case that initiated the encounter, willingly sent the photos/messages, lied to the police (she is more than old enough to know this was wrong), and has ruined someone's life based on her lies. Somehow she is the innocent victim in all of this? Quite frankly she's only even a victim by the strictest legal definition.

She's a fucking child. She's a middle schooler. It's disgusting that you or anyone else puts liability on her. Fucking disgusting.

Yes, she's an innocent victim.

I'm not saying the boy didn't break the law, because he obviously did. What I am saying is that calling him a predator, rapist, and sick is ridiculous. On a larger scale, this is the reason that there are some many young people on this list committing suicide. Being branded for life for a crime that is essentially victimless (the definition of victimless being that no harm was done) is devastating.

A CHILD WAS RAPED. SHE IS THE VICTIM. THIS IS NOT A VICTIMLESS CRIME FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rj2029x -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yet there have been plenty of 13 year olds put into juvenile,

The whole point of the juvenile justice system is that juveniles shouldn't be held criminally responsible for what they do. It's all about reforming them from a bad choice, not punishment.

and even tried as adults for decisions they make.

It would be extremely rare for a 13 year old to be tried as an adult. We can probably count on one hand the number of times it's happened in each state.

For things they do regardless of their age or whether they theoretically knew the consequences of their actions or not.

Yeah like I said we actually don't push that view.

So it seems we will just have to agree to disagree here

I mean you can disagree with someone who is right if you want, I'm not the one that looks like I'm excusing rape because the victim "wanted it".

because I remember middle school and high school, and I know that thirteen is not some innocent age where kids no nothing about sex or the consequences thereof.

Who said she knew nothing? Not me. I'm sure she did. I'm saying she didn't fully recognize the implications of her actions. I'm also say it is the older person's responsibility to reject the inappropriate advances of a child. Apparently you are ok with letter adults fuck kids as long as the kids instigate it?

If you feel she is magically absolved of all responsibility for her part in this situation then you have a right to your opinion.

It's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of anyone who doesn't want to punish rape victims. And also it's the law.

I do not agree because it's extremely obvious she knew what she was doing.

Extremely obvious based on your having read this one article about the case, and knowing nothing of these two people. You're not biased at all or anything!

[–]Making_Butts_Hurt[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Making_Butts_Hurt[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So what? The point of age of consent laws is that a child doesn't know if they're being coerced and doesn't know what they're getting into. That why these laws exist.

That is the claim made by the law. That may or may not be actually true in the mind of the supposed victim. In this case, she sought out sex and if this had been 1850, it would be perfectly legal.

When a law claims something is rape, that doesn't actually mean it's rape. It means that the person is going to be charged and convicted of it, but not that rape actually occurred. As far as I'm aware, the term rape means to forcibly have sex with an unwilling participant. She does not fit that description, except in legal terms (which have been invented after rape has already existed for 1000's of years).

See, if they took away all age of consent and rape laws tomorrow, you could still rape someone by forcing them into sex. Its not just a legal term. This being called rape is definitively only rape by legal term, and not by the original meaning of the word.

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That is the claim made by the law.

It's a belief shared by people in a civilized society: That we should protect children from exploitation from adults.

That may or may not be actually true in the mind of the supposed victim.

Ok, and? Again, she's a child. She doesn't know the effects of what she's doing, hence why the law exists.

In this case, she sought out sex and if this had been 1850, it would be perfectly legal.

We didn't have an understanding of childhood the way we do now. In 1850 there were, what, 6 planets? And people thought diseases were caused by evil spirits? Science has moved, just slightly maybe, in 166 years.

When a law claims something is rape, that doesn't actually mean it's rape. It means that the person is going to be charged and convicted of it, but not that rape actually occurred.

Rape is a legal term, so yeah when something is rape under the law it's rape, the end.

As far as I'm aware, the term rape means to forcibly have sex with an unwilling participant.

It means sex without consent. A 13 year old cannot consent to sex, therefore this was sex without consent.

This being called rape is definitively only rape by legal term, and not by the original meaning of the word.

The legal term is the meaning. It's a legal condition.

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]saberus 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rj2029x 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's not what this sub is saying. You would have to take this entire thread grossly out of context to come to that conclusion. What this sub is saying is that there is responsibility on both sides, and that he lacked mens rea (the guilty mind) in this situation. In other words, he had no intention of committing a crime, did not know the girl's age, and was not even the instigator of the encounter.

Obviously what he did is not legal by letter of the law, which has been brought up multiple times. What people are saying is that this girl is not some innocent/helpless victim of an attack. She was a willing participant in a sexual act, with full knowledge of what she was doing. She admitted to sending the messages, photos, extending the invite, and consenting to intercourse. That is the reason this thread is not screaming about him being a rapist, molester, predator, or even a criminal.

[–]BullsLawDan -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's not what this sub is saying. You would have to take this entire thread grossly out of context to come to that conclusion.

Many of the comments belie that.

What this sub is saying is that there is responsibility on both sides,

There isn't. She's a child. A. Child. Children are not "responsible" for bad decisions. A hallmark of a civilization is protecting children from bad decisions.

and that he lacked mens rea (the guilty mind) in this situation. In other words, he had no intention of committing a crime,

That's not how mens rea works. It's not intention to commit a crime. It's intention to commit an act. Unless he fell on the ground and his dick landed in her, he intended to commit the act. Regardless, this is a strict liability crime so no mens rea applies.

did not know the girl's age,

It was his responsibility as the legal adult here to find out.

and was not even the instigator of the encounter.

So you're saying if a child offers to suck your dick and you accept, no crime has occurred?

The role of the responsible adult, when a child instigates inappropriate behavior, is at minimum to say no.

Obviously what he did is not legal by letter of the law, which has been brought up multiple times. What people are saying is that this girl is not some innocent/helpless victim of an attack.

She is an innocent victim of a crime.

She was a willing participant in a sexual act, with full knowledge of what she was doing.

She doesn't have full knowledge. That's what the age of consent means and its what you and everyone else here doesn't understand.

A child does not have full knowledge of their acts. That's precisely why we have different rules for them, legally.

She admitted to sending the messages, photos, extending the invite, and consenting to intercourse. That is the reason this thread is not screaming about him being a rapist, molester, predator, or even a criminal.

And it's a terrible reason, because she didn't consent.

She.

Cannot.

Consent.

Because.

She.

Is.

A.

CHILD.

[–]AstroTibs -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Murgie 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raidicus 35 points36 points37 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Silvystreak 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chuck202 34 points35 points36 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]cesarjulius 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prometheus444 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]MafiaBro 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]1forthethumb 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MafiaBro 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prometheus444 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Prometheus444 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rj2029x 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Objectively, either punishment would be achieve the exact same result, if the result is to have less false rape accusations.

Doubling the sentences would achieve the end result faster, and probably more efficiently. However, it could lead to under-reporting since it would discourage victims that are unsure if they can prove it.

Matching sentences would achieve the end result slower, however I believe it would be far more palatable for society. It also wouldn't discourage as many true victims from coming forward.

However they would both be fine as long as the law surrounding the punishment were handled correctly. Basically, as long as the prosecution (or defense) could prove that the false claim was made knowingly and with intent to cause harm (mens rea and actus reus; guilty mind and guilty act) then apply punishment.

If these things cannot be proven, then the case and charge is dismissed and removed from all records.

[–]Prometheus444 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pref-top 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 56 points57 points58 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 36 points37 points38 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points37 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prometheus444 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MisterDeagle 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rj2029x 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]aGreyRock 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 100 points101 points102 points 7 years ago (130 children) | Copy Link

I love the men's rights movement for using facts when it comes to their arguments, because facts are the truth. However this boy will be charged for crimes in accordance with the facts.

I believe that he is telling the truth about how she said she was older than she was, mainly because she can't keep her lies straight and he is telling the truth.

Having said that he still claims that she said she was 14 - 15 which is still under the age of consent while he was older. So unfortunately he does belong in a category of having committed a statutory rape as much as people on here would be displeased of this.

I also believe she should be charged for distribution of child pornography, however I assume a lawyer would successfully argue that because she is underage and only 13 years of age that he probably 'groomed' her into sending those pictures to him.

Either way he has admitted to having sex with a minor even if his story is 100% accurate and as a result should face the consequences of that crime, however the prosecution should only attempt to charge him for having sex with a 15 year old rather than a 13 year old purely because she has a history of lying

[–]Vandechoz 82 points83 points84 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fashbinder_pwn 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]atb614 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]locks_are_paranoid 28 points29 points30 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Norm_Peterson 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 7 years ago (112 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Murgie 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kevin-96-AT 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Murgie 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kevin-96-AT 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mothermilk 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kevin-96-AT 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -16 points-15 points-14 points 7 years ago* (103 children) | Copy Link

That shouldn't matter, breaking the law is breaking the law regardless of if you feel it's a stupid law or not. People are aware of the laws and the punishments that breaking those laws include. It doesn't matter if a states age of consent is 5 or 21, people in that state should be aware of the law and not break it.

This isn't an argument of whether the age of consent is right, this is an argument about a young man and wether or not he broke the law. In this case he admitted that he did and as a result will be prosecuted appropriately.

Edit: Also even if the age of consent is 14, anyone wanting for fuck an inexperienced 15 year old is disgusting, if they can't drive, smoke and vote they certainly shouldn't be taking a penis

Edit 2: TIL everyone wants to fuck 15 year olds, thanks for the downvotes.

[–]Nevek_Green 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nevek_Green 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]jl2121 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]jl2121 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok I found something on page 388 of 470.

Notwithstanding the age of criminal responsibility, civil majority and the age of consent as defined by national legislation, States should ensure that children benefit from all their rights, as guaranteed to them by international law, specifically in this context those set forth in articles 3, 37 and 40 of the Convention.

Articles 3, 37 and 40 do not go into details about age of consent for sexual intercourse in any way. But the above passage does say "Age of consent as defined by national legislation".

While wikipedia is not really a great source of trustworthy information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States

Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C uses the age of consent as a pretty standard 18 years old across the board. Except in this one particular section.

{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)} forbids traveling in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" with a minor; this is considered one form of sexual tourism. 2423(f) refers to Chapter 109A as its bright line for defining "illicit sexual conduct" as far as non-commercial sexual activity is concerned. For the purposes of age of consent, the only provision applicable is {Chapter 109A, 18 U.S.C. 2243(a)}. 2243(a) refers to situations where such younger person is under the age of 16 years, has attained 12 years of age, and the older person is more than 4 years older than the 12-to-15-year-old (persons under 12 are handled under 18 U.S.C. 2241(c) under aggravated sexual abuse). So, the age is 12 years if one is within 4 years of the 12-to-15-year-old's age, 16 under all other circumstances. This most likely reflects Congressional intent to not unduly interfere with a state's age-of-consent law, which would have been the case if the age was set to 18 under all circumstances. This law is also extraterritorial in nature to U.S. Citizens and Residents who travel outside of the United States. Although legislation tends to reflect general societal attitudes regarding male versus female ages of consent, Richard Posner notes in his Guide to America's Sex Laws: "The U.S. Supreme Court has held that stricter rules for males do not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution, on the theory that men lack the disincentives (associated with pregnancy) that women have, to engage in sexual activity, and the law may thus provide men with those disincentives in the form of criminal sanctions."[15]

The end of that was a bit shocking to say the least.

Edit: but going by the above passage, she was 13 he was 16, so it isn't considered a crime? I don't know if that refers to all cases or just in the case of this "Sexual tourism" stuff, but I'll have a read of Chapter 109A and see what I can find

[–]Nevek_Green 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]jl2121 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nevek_Green 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Compared to other documents it is indeed not that long, but the problem is I did all my studies on it years ago, so while I retain a good portion of what it said, where it says it is iffy. For instance if you read the 14th amendment it doesn't actually abolish slavery and even says it can still be done through a legal means. So I have an idea where it is at, it's within the either the opening, or within the first 14 amendments.

What this has to do with Age of Consent laws is simple. There are two legal arguments to be made here. First is the old rule that to be a crime with a prosecution clause there must be a victim. In olden times this was the Father of the child. As the father was fully legally responsible for the child until a certain age, he had the legal right to argue a violation of the child, but age of consent would even apply here, but another legal principle.

Thus age of concent laws in the 21st century lack any victim and thus without a victim prosecuting anyone for them, which we know is predominately men, is a violation of a person's rights as he or she has not infringed upon anyone else. This brings us to the second issue is that both the Constitution and the International Bill of Human Rights set about enshrining your rights.

There is a reason that these rights are enshrined, it is the reason why George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison worked tirelessly to pass the Bill of Rights to amend the broken Federal Government. A government that had already launched wars against its own people for refusing taxation without representation. When the government is not restricted it naturally seeks to restricts its own citizens. Or in what I call the suicide spiral in a democracy they start voting out the "undesirables" and either expelling or exterminating them.

The Constitution establishes that you have pre given rights. Briefly mentioned, but these rights fall into 4 categories, Life, Liberty, The Pursuit of Happiness, and Property rights. These rights shall not be infringed under any circumstance and any law that is passed shall be enacted upon as if it were never passed. A huge example is the Right to Travel, which gives you free reign to travel as you see fit unless infringing upon the rights of a service provider. For example if I own an airline and say no guns, you can't argue you have the right to bring a gun on my plane because it is my Property, which goes into the Right of Association. The Right to Travel was recently upheld by the Supreme Court, so you are able to argue away the following with Constitution Law: Traffic Tickets, Citations, and Fines related to motor vehicles.

I'll touch upon how the government gets away with prosecuting later as I want to keep the flow of this functional without jumping around, but hold onto the thought of "but how do they get away with it if it is illegal for them to do so?"

What this means is that under Human Rights you cannot make an age of consent without infringing upon the rights of an individual or the rights of a caregiver (IE Parents or adopted parents). As age of consent does not have a victim, as if there was it would be rape, there cannot be a prosecution clause or constitutional basis for such a law. So how do they get away with it?

Well and here is the part you're going to have a hard time believing, technically the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA owns it's people and has since 1913. I'll not bore you with the details, but it involves trickery which we will cover in a second and the legal concept of Capitis Diminutio Maxima.

Basically what is happening is they are tricking you into agreeing to their arbitration thus waving you Constitutional and Human Rights. There is an old joke that Legalese is a completely separate language, and it's not really a joke, it's actually dead accurate. For example if I were to ask you are you jl2121 you would naturally assume I am asking you if you are you. In legalese what I am saying is "Are the Corporation JL2121," followed by do you know what is happening to you today which actually means "do you agree to our arbitration." The answer to both these questions should always be no. If you do not agree to their arbitration and in fact demand they vacate the issue they don't have a leg to stand on.

This is actually how you can get out of child support, because the state cannot legally interject itself into an arrangement without the consent of both parties. Now of course keep in mind two things: 1) The US government is corrupt and cares very little about following the law. 2) If there is a prosecution clause they don't need your permission to be involved. You've caused them damages and they can seek reparations.

TLDR: The Constitution Enshrines Rights and Pre-Existing Rights that are violated by Age of Consent Laws.

[–]BullsLawDan -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nevek_Green 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Nevek_Green 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]boomscooter 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It depends on what you deem as being an appropriate solution to the gender difference in prosecution. I never denied that women should get a lesser punishment for such a crime.

There are two solutions for the difference in the time served gender gap and that is that men should face a lesser sentence in line with that of a woman.

Or.

That women should be given punishments at an increase magnitude so that it is equal to that of men's.

I believe that we should strive for the second, that women should face much harsher punishments.

Unless by saying women don't get punished in relation to her not being charged for statutory rape... but that doesn't make sense in this particular case as he is over the age of consent so technically she didn't commit that crime. However, she should be charged with false reporting. Given how sexist our society is though I doubt she will receive punishment at all which is fucked up.

[–]boomscooter -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]boomscooter -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]boomscooter -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]davidrsilva 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]locks_are_paranoid 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rj2029x 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SlashLDash7 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Call_me_Kelly 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

17 is a significant age because most 17 year olds can be trialed as adults because as society we acknowledge that a 17 year old understands that things like, murder, rape, holding someone against their will are highly illegal things.

This was apparent with my sister who is a social worker, a co-worker of hers was held hostage and raped by a 17 year old kid who was a client and he was charged as an adult because we (society) acknowledge people at that age know better.

I agree with you though, with statutory rape it is different because the rules change state to state about what that crime actually is, as oppose to murder and rape which are flat out bad everywhere in every situation. So yes, he should be charged as a minor (which means he should be able to get out next year as a result, depending on the local laws there) or have a very much reduced sentence. But just because someone is 17 shouldn't allow them to be excused from absolute prosecution for everything just because they are 17

[–]Dack_Blick 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]osufan765 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheLizardKing89 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neovitami 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]osufan765 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rj2029x 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They don't fully understand the consequences of their action, and aren't developed enough mentally to handle them.

Your generalization here is faulty and has been disproved by science. It has already been proven that children develop at drastically different rates both physically and emotionally. So while there will probably never be a 14 year old that is mentally more developed than a 19 year old, there can be a 14 year old that is more developed (in certain aspects) than a 17 or 18 year old.

Development is what informs knowledge of consequences. There are 10 year olds that have shown to be better at understanding consequences of possible actions better than a 14 year old counterpart. Also, not all children seek to break away from their parents nor are they self-destructive.

Everything you are basing your opinion on is a bunch of conjecture informed by your own opinions. You have every right to those opinions, however it doesn't make you correct.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]s0nicfreak 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

The sperm and eggs don't know the laws.

If it's illegal and your daughter gets pregnant anyway you're still going to be financially responsible - her teenage boyfriend isn't going to be able to get a job, and if if he's on the sex offender list he's going to have a hell of a time getting a job as an adult too, so enjoy being financially responsible for the full 18 years and just pray you don't become a great-grandparent before then.

If a 15 year old knows her parents believe she shouldn't have the right to do what she wants with her body, she's not going to ask them to help her get birth control. If it's illegal for a 15 year old to have sex, she's going to be afraid to ask the doctor for birth control lest her boyfriend get locked up.

Create an environment where she feels safe talking about birth control and it's a lot less likely she'll have an unwanted pregnancy.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]rj2029x 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Have you studied much on social trends? This is an honest question. If not, I really think you should. A great place to start would be prohibition.

During the Era of Prohibition in America, alcohol use was at its highest rate ever. Even though the punishments for distilling, transporting, or selling alcohol were extreme and laws especially inflexible.

Humans have a tendency to seek out things that are forbidden, generally speaking. The more illegal you make something, especially when it is extreme, and the more people you tend to have doing (and profiting from) it. Keep in mind that when we speak of the prohibition, we are speaking of adults that knew the law, risks, and consequences yet they still chose to do it anyway. Do you think hormonal teenagers, who (according to you) are unable to grasp consequences, are going to somehow be less likely to offend if the laws are made more strict?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

The thing about prohibition is that they had it before it was forbidden. There's a difference between wanting access to something you have never had a thus have no strong appeals to have it vs having something regularly that was taken away. If the example you mention were true then everyone between the ages of 10-21 would be producing alcohol at record highs but they don't because of two reasons.

1) there is no strong ingrained need or want for it (excluding the occasional HS party)

2) knowing that they will eventually be an age where they can access it gives them more motivation to wait for it instead of produce it

Which is evident with things like smoking, driving etc. so in a way yes, if the age of consent was risen than more people would have sex underage, but the beauty with that vs alcohol ban is that it would last three years before those teens were now adults and the new teens grew up into the new age of consent.

I mean no disrespect by disagreeing with you and your point is a valid one when it comes to human human behaviour, absolutely, but I don't think it applies to age limits as oppose to total bans, which is why the prohibition ended yet we still have age limits to many things

[–]s0nicfreak 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]rj2029x 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]s0nicfreak 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kevin-96-AT 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kevin-96-AT 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Hey no need to be a fuckhead mate. You make yourself look like a retard if you are somehow implying that school shootings are somehow tied to the age of consent.

it was just an example of what someone who would be severely mentally damaged from sexual abuse, might do. to show you how unrealistic it is.

I mean in Spain apparently you can't even hang your underpants outside to dry which is pretty dumb. But I don't think any Americans here are going to start insulting your country based on the age of consent. [link: http://www.lolwot.com/10-weird-and-crazy-laws-from-spain/ ]

citing some meme site as a source for your knowledge about international laws? well that actually explains quiet a lot

What is your problem anyway? why are you so angry about US states age of consent if you are so happy being in Europe, unless you have your heart set on flying to the states to bang 15 year olds?

first of all, i don't go around saying that the usa should change their laws to this and that. however when someone says something about a ridiculous legal situation, i will surely not miss the opportunity to point out that somehow other countries are able to handle it just fine.

and besides, the main reason why i care about that, is because the USA, just like any other country, signed the human rights convention. so i will do whatever i can to make sure they abide by it. and right now, as this post clearly shows, they don't.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kevin-96-AT 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]help_me_m8 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]help_me_m8 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They're both minors.

Not when the age of consent is concerned they aren't.

You must think insanely little of 17 year olds or must be so far from it to actually understand the mental capacity of people of that age. When I was 17 I was already day trading financial markets.

A 16/17 year old understands J-walking, speeding, drink driving, rape, murder, assault, battery, littering, arson etc but apparently its okay for everyone of that age not to know the age of consent in their own state when one of the main motivations of teenagers is to get laid? I don't believe that for a second and neither does anyone I work with.

Think about what you are implying, that all 18 year olds understand the age of consent and as a result should be charged with statutory rape but someone 1 - 12 months younger doesn't makes sense?

Do you guys get a statutory rape legislation print out on your 18th birthday where you are from or what? When I was a teenager everyone I knew, knew the age of consent and considering that with every year access to this information becomes much easier and easier to obtain it makes less sense for a 17 year old not to know.

Even more-so since these things are reported on all the fucking time. One parent reading this article in Vermont will turn to their kids and tell them the age of consent, or a kid will read it and look it up. Something publicised as much a murder but far less than speeding should be known by anyone over the age of 14. Period. I mean for fucks sake man...

[–]rj2029x -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Temperfuelmma 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Murgie 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Murgie 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I love the men's rights movement for using facts when it comes to their arguments, because facts are the truth.

With all due respect, that's probably not the best route to take when the title of the submission is a blatant and objective lie.

As the article clearly and explicitly stated, it doesn't matter what she's crying:

Regardless of consent, state law forbids sexual acts with children under 16, “except where the persons are married to each other.”

I don't even understand why this sub is so intent on shooting itself in the foot. When you guys find a valid case to rally around, but see that the title is full of shit, just resubmit the damn thing with an honest title and upvote that instead.

I mean, god damn. I know I'm being harsh, but if you want things to change as a result of your movement, you've got to be able to collectively manage at least that much.

I also believe she should be charged for distribution of child pornography, however I assume a lawyer would successfully argue that because she is underage and only 13 years of age that he probably 'groomed' her into sending those pictures to him.

Not a chance in hell, that's simply not a valid legal defence. In the eyes of the law, grooming is an offense committed by a perpetrator, not a defence employed by a victim.

The way they'd actually avoid such a conviction is simply by pointing to the intent clause that virtually every child pornography prohibition law contains to avoid things like medical textbooks and personal photographs meeting the criteria for child pornography.

[–]rj2029x 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you read that entire law, it actually states:

Vermont Age Of Consent Law: §3252(c) No person shall engage in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 16, except: where the person is less than 19 years old, the child is at least 15 years old, and the sexual act is consensual.

So if the kid thought she was 15, then he would have had no reason to fear being accused of statutory rape. Also, the title is not an obvious lie. This young woman voluntarily lied to the police and falsely accused him of rape, for the sole purpose of not being in trouble with her parent.

So yea the title is accurate. He was falsely accused of rape, the girl admitted to accusing him to appease her mother, and he faces the possibility of 20 years and will automatically be put on the sex offender registry just for telling the truth about the situation.

The way they'd actually avoid such a conviction is simply by pointing to the intent clause that virtually every child pornography prohibition law contains to avoid things like medical textbooks and personal photographs meeting the criteria for child pornography.

Also there have been multiple cases where these clauses have not held up and children have been prosecuted for distribution of personal photographs. Example.

[–]perplexedm 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Granyaski 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alarid 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DolphinsAreOk 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Makonar 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]VoxVirilis 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Wasuremaru 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kragshot 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kragshot 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is not nearly as rare as you are stating.

It's incredibly rare. Crime is rare. Sex crimes are exceedingly rare. Made up sex crimes are several levels rarer than that. Look at the BJS data on these things.

Without counting the rather large number of African-American men who were lynched because of this in the past,

I'm not talking about the past. I'm talking about in our modern society.

you can just look at the rolls of the Innocence Project to get a real scope of how much of a problem that this is.

I don't need to look at their rolls. Trust me I am considerably more familiar with the Innocence Project than almost anyone.

Don't fool yourself or let the propaganda lull you into thinking that this is a non-issue.

Thanks, but I'm a professional in the field. I'm a bit more qualified than to be subject to simple propaganda. I know exactly what is going on and "exceedingly rare" as a percentage of the total population is absolutely the way to describe this.

[–]Griever114 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]IsThereAnAshtray 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kragshot 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Strayed54321 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]QZip 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rangamatchstick 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mens-Advocate 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prometheus444 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prometheus444 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prometheus444 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Bayerrc -22 points-21 points-20 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points28 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Bayerrc -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prometheus444 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EochuBres 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prometheus444 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bayerrc -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prometheus444 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bayerrc 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bayerrc 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bayerrc 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]rj2029x 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bayerrc -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rj2029x 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -31 points-30 points-29 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hypertroph 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prometheus444 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -13 points-12 points-11 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prometheus444 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prometheus444 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Prometheus444 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowalker125 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why wouldn't a 16 year old guy be attracted to someone within +/- 3 years of age?

Why wouldn't a 40 year old be attracted to anyone +10 or -22 years in age (so as to skirt the legal limit)?

The age limit is based on claims, not based on biological drives. Tits don't magically appear at 18.

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/hebephilia-crime-not-mental-disorder

The concept of “Hebephilia” has been widely and vigorously opposed—both by the experts in sexual disorders (aware of how weak is the supporting science) and by the forensic experts (aware of how it would be misused in Sexually Violent Predator court hearings). The Work Group first proposed an omnibus diagnosis, “Pedohebephilia,” nesting “Hebephilia” within the already authorized “Pedophilia” category. The DSM-5 Web site has recently been revised—the term “Pedohebephilia” disappears altogether, but the concept of “Hebephilia” lives on—the definition of “Pedophilia” has been expanded to include pubescent children. The rationale section of the Web site doesn’t bother to mention the change or discuss the highly controversial issues involved and their enormous forensic consequences.

“Hebephilia” is a simply terrible idea. The basic issue is that sexual attraction to pubescent youngsters is not the slightest bit abnormal or unusual. Until recently, the age of consent was age 13 years in most parts of the world (including the United Statse) and it remains 14 in many places. Evolution has programmed humans to lust for pubescent youngsters—our ancestors did not get to live long enough to have the luxury of delaying reproduction.

It is natural and no sign of mental illness to feel sexual attraction to pubescent youngsters. But to act on such impulses is, in our society, a reprehensible crime that deserves severe punishment. The proper disposition for those who break the law and selfishly violate the innocence of the vulnerable is prison—not a mental hospital.

At this point, I refer you to the lunacy of claiming innocence is violated if its an adult, but progressives think innocence is maintained if that 15 year old girl is reamed out by a whole football team that is of the same age, as they push to decriminalize teen on teen sex (or more appropriately, sexual abuse, if it is de-facto innocence destroying harm).

http://www.sexual-offender-treatment.org/2-2010_01.html

Another justification is that "In large scale surveys that sampled individuals from the general population and included questions regarding sexual experiences with older persons when the respondent was underage, a substantial proportion report ages at occurrence that fall within the normal time frame of puberty." This too hardly proves that sex with pubescents is a mental disorder, though it can be a crime.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/12/jn.aspx

The expert testifying for Hamelin agreed that he was not a pedophile. Instead, Hamelin's attraction was to post-pubescent minors. The judge decided that such an attraction was not clearly and convincingly a "serious mental illness, abnormality or disorder." Despite the fact that Hamelin's sexual interests, if acted on, might violate the law, the judge noted that sexual attraction to pubescent minors is not considered inherently deviant. Given testimony that characterized hebephilia as a contested diagnosis, the court found it to be inappropriate to predicate civil commitment on a condition that is not formally recognized in the DSM-IV-TR (though it may be included in the DSM-5).

Despite the fact that Hamelin's sexual interests, if acted on, might violate the law, the judge noted that sexual attraction to pubescent minors is not considered inherently deviant.

the judge noted that sexual attraction to pubescent minors is not considered inherently deviant.

not considered inherently deviant.

Most of the mental health community would argue that sexual relationships between adults and pubescent minors — particularly when there is a significant age difference between the two — is exploitive of the adolescent.

But somehow we're led to believe that teen on teen sex is not exploitative. Lol. Again, it is a rhetorical handwave to avoid proving the harm, above and beyond teen on teen where close in age exemption laws exist.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22739816

Blanchard et al. (2009) demonstrated that hebephilia is a genuine sexual preference, but then proposed, without argument or evidence, that it should be designated as a mental disorder in the DSM-5. A series of Letters-to-the-Editor criticized this proposal as a non sequitur. Blanchard (2009), in rebuttal, reaffirmed his position, but without adequately addressing some central criticisms. In this article, we examine hebephilia-as-disorder in full detail. Unlike Blanchard et al., we discuss definitions of mental disorder, examine extensive evidence from a broad range of sources, and consider alternative (i.e., non-pathological) explanations for hebephilia. We employed Wakefield's (1992b) harmful dysfunction approach to disorder, which holds that a condition only counts as a disorder when it is a failure of a naturally selected mechanism to function as designed, which is harmful to the individual in the current environment. We also considered a harmful-for-others approach to disorder (Brülde, 2007). Examination of historical, cross-cultural, sociological, cross-species, non-clinical empirical, and evolutionary evidence and perspectives indicated that hebephilic interest is an evolved capacity and hebephilic preference an expectable distributional variant, both of which were adaptively neutral or functional, not dysfunctional, in earlier human environments. Hebephilia's conflict with modern society makes it an evolutionary mismatch, not a genuine disorder. Though it should not be classified as a disorder, it could be entered in the DSM's V-code [corrected] section, used for non-disordered conditions that create significant problems in present-day society.

It is true. Something is a mental disorder if it generates a debilitating effect in person's ability to live daily life. As the age of consent goes up, it would be clear that it might have a debilitating effect if it's someone who "should be" attracted to someone who is underage, because they might commit crimes and therefore have their lives ruined, as is the case in California where age of consent is STRICTLY 18 and there is no close in age exemption, so 15 and 16 or 17 and 19 is pound-me-in-the-ass prison time.

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MafiaBro 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

BECAUSE I'M FUCKING ALLOWED TOO TO!!