Age of Consent

Your paper did not refer to "sexual acts" at all. It only said that child pornography could include nude pictures of children in some instances. From that you make the leap to concluding that the entire child porn trade in The Netherlands could have been confined to just pictures of nude children, which may not be "offensive" as the paper describes.

From my article :

But we shouldn't be too hasty in judging this couple. There might be a paper somewhere online that you could find that questions whether this child really was abused.

But yes, I have some points to make, and it's a lot easier when progressives like you become apologists for child porn.

 

And that's where you get into the prosecutorial discretion zone. Did the 16 year old (neverminding the fact that in over 30 states 16 is the actual age of consent) provide MEANINGFUL consent? Did he or she REALLY understand what the situation was? Was the 27 year old someone in authority over the 16 year old, or just a random person they met at a restaurant? Granted, we're not talking about an actual case here, so there's no way to even speculate, much less know, my ONLY point is that all these factors, and probably dozens more, should be taken into account before damning someone to a lifetime on a sex offenders list because their genuinely consensual partner was a day, month, or year too young.

 

your insistence that a 16 yo can consent in many states does not mean a 40 yo can have sex with a 16 yo.... it means they are covered under romeo and juliet laws so a 19 yo doesn't go to prison because a 16 yo gets dumped and decides to report him as a sexual predator.....


a 16 yo is only allowed up to around 24 without the older person getting into trouble.


The difference between a 16 yo having sex with a 22 yo and a 16 yo having sex with a 34 yo, is the 34 yo is predatory.

When that girl is 18, and the guy is 34.... she's on her own to make her own bad decisions....

 

I won't say no, but I'll say it's improbable. Even though girls physically mature faster than boys, I'm not sure that any, at the age of 10, have done so. Then again, I haven't actually studied it, just answering from my personal experience. I've never seen, in my entire life, a physically mature (which is to say post-pubescent, hypothetically capable of breeding) 10 year old.

 

Big difference between a day and a year.......

 

It's not.

Rules & Guidelines | Politicalforum.com

 

Evidence that a 10 year old can be fertile and get pregnant and give birth:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/04/06/10-year-old-girl-gives-birth-to-daughter/

Evidence that a 10 year old can be fully capable of understanding sex, marriage and consent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kearney

 

As much as I agree with you... the way the homosexuals have interpreted the 14th amendment... the 16 year old should have the right to make their choice too. Especially because the age of 18 (or 16) is arbitrary.

 

Of course the flood gates would open but ... again... like I just said to JavisBeason... Homosexuals have put forth the interpretation that the 14th is not ONLY for protected classes... but it applies to all americans. If that's the case then it should apply to people under a certain arbitrary age as well.

People can deny it all they want, but support of homosexuality already opened the flood gates to these other perversions.

And we told you it was going to happen... you folks didn't believe us... but I GAURANTEE you it's coming.

 

but fetus' have no rights... so they have their age lines too.

 

I agree with you.
When I said there should be more taken into account than just the ages... but the difference in ages (19-16 vs. 27-16), that was just one variable involved.

 

Eh... I don't actually read rules.

I just assumed it would be in there under harassment, or taunting, or personal attacks or something.

I guess personal photos are fair game.... how odd.

 

well, if a rule is deemed too inconvenient for particular, mod supported, agendas, they get stricken. Like supporting proof for absurd claims, like "you are born gay" for example. Since no scientific proof of that exists.... pro-gay supporters would be violating the rules by posting that statement as truth or retract their statement......

but if the rule is removed... none of the above has to happen

 

So when an actual gay person posts that they believe they were, in fact, born that way, that means nothing to you? I'm not gay, but I can tell you based on my experience that I WAS in fact born that way. Women turn me on. Men, despite the fact that I'm more than capable of looking at a fine specimen and acknowledging that he is, in fact, a very attractive male, do not. At no point did I make a "choice". There was no point in my life where I sat down and had a conversation with myself about whether or not I was going to pursue men or women. It's always been women who "did it" for me.

But let's suppose I was gay, and said the exact opposite of what I said above. That I was a man, but it was men, not women, that "did it" for me. That I can acknowledge that a female is hot as hell, but does nothing for me, but the pool boy.... Damn, he turns me on. Would you not accept that it was a natural, inherent condition?

 

I too never sat down and thought "Hmmmmm, should I be gay today?". It's something we're born with.

 

That doesn't mean that there aren't people who have a choice and choose homosexuality. Look at Anne Heche, for example.

 

My only issue is that in states where the AOC is under 18, its legal to screw her lights out at 16 or 17, but if you take a photo of her or videotape you and her screwing, you've produced child porn and are looking at 20 years in a federal pen.

At 16 she can drive a 7000lb SUV at 70mph with 9 people in the car with her, but she can't drink a glass of wine with dinner (in some states) or have sex with her boyfriend if he's 18.

It just makes no sense.

 

uh, which state doesn't have a romeo and Juliet law

 

Nevada for sure. 18 strict AOC.

 

well, I support R+J laws.... 19-16 is WAY different than 39-16

 

Because the concept of minors being not as socially developed as adults is backed by science and pretty much an almost universal morality.

Whether liberal or conservative, societies generally draw a distinction between adults and children that defines consent differently. The only real debate is what the actual cutoff age should be.

Some places put it as low as 14, while others put it as high as 18.

 

If that's your argument, then what is your solution?

A society has to draw a line somewhere in terms of age with sexual relations. You won't find any society that is devoid of this.

 

The age of consent changes, but the basic concept of minors not being capable of the same consent as adults does not.

The example I gave earlier in this thread shows that you can have sliding scales with the age of consent in that minors can give consent within their own age group, but when people outside of that age group get involved, that's when it's usually illegal.

 

The "academic" Journal of Homosexuality would disagree with you:

The academic Journal of Homosexuality (vol. 20, nos. 1/2, l990) has also explored the issue of "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" in a generally approving manner. (Back issues of this journal can be ordered by calling Haworth Press at 1-800-HAWORTH.)

Discrimination Against a Minority
The vast majority of the articles in "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" argue that pedophilia should be freed from categorization as child abuse. In the foreword, Dr. Gunter Schmidt closes by saying that "Each individual case must be looked upon on its own merits...the threat to make all pedophile acts punishable by law can barely be labeled civilized...it implies discrimination and persecution of a minority and should be abolished." (p. 4)

Another group of writers (two psychologists and a lawyer--Sandfort, Brongersma, and Naerssen) argue that "the current social climate makes it rather difficult to look at [pedophilic] relationships in an objective way." (p.5)

"Born that Way and Can't Change"
In another article, "'The Main Thing is Being Wanted': Some Case Studies on Adult Sexual Experiences with Children," the author says that one-third of the pedophiles he has studied claimed that "their sexual desire for children is a natural part of their constitution. This desire is variously described as 'inbred,' 'innate,' 'a fact of nature,' 'inherent in them,' etc. The leitmotif of their accounts is 'this is me' or 'just the way I am.'"

The author concludes that the feeling of being "born a pedophile" makes them feel they cannot change, and therefore they are convinced they have the same right as other people to pursue the "natural" expression of their sexuality. (p. 133). The same author quotes a respondent's belief that "if adult-child sex was commonplace, the majority of it would surely be good for both participants." (p. 137).

Psychology Must Remain "Unbiased"
Another article ("Boy-Lovers and their Influence on Boys," by Edward Brongersma) complains about the "bias" which labels man-boy sex as "abuse, molestation, assault, " etc. Dr. Brongersma complains that researchers are unable to remain objective about pedophilia, saying "...many people...exhibit such violently emotional hostility toward boy-lovers because they fear their own...pedophile impulses." (p. l53).

Dr. Brongersma goes on to cite cases in which social workers achieved "miracles with apparently incorrigible young delinquents--not by preaching to them but by sleeping with them." He describes how these sexual relationships "did far more good than years in reformatories." (p. l6l).

He advises that the loving pedophile can offer a "companionship, security and protection" which neither peers nor parents can provide (p. l62) and goes on to say that parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home..."

Children's Rights to Autonomy
Another writer, David Thorstad, argues for "freedom of sexual expression for young people and children" (p. 255) and quotes a lesbian who talks of the "rich texture" of her experiences as a molested child.

Writer Gerald Jones says that "same-sex intergenerational intimacy may be developmentally functional" (p. 279) and says, "Some studies have found benign or even beneficial results in boys who were at the time involved with men" (p. 280). Dr. Jones speaks approvingly of recent studies which discuss pedophilia in "value-neutral terms." (p. 280)

Along the same vein, The Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review interviewed poet Allen Ginsberg, a homosexual pedophile, shortly before his recent death. In a generally flattering article, they report Ginsburg's philosophy (not mentioned by the mainstream press) about sex with children, and offer no judgmental comment about it. The article is entitled, "The Liberation is the Word" (Summer 1997):

(Allen Ginsberg): "Like the whole labeling of pedophiles as 'child molesters.' Everybody likes little kids. All you've got to do is walk through the Vatican and see all the little statues of little prepubescents, pubescents, and postpubescents. Naked kids have been a staple of delight for centuries, for both parents and onlookers. So to label pedophilia as criminal is ridiculous."

The problem is there's no age that you can put it at that isn't arbitrary.