So, when exactly will the US come out of the Dark Ages regarding sex?
http://www.examiner.com/article/flor...x-relationship
Printable View
So, when exactly will the US come out of the Dark Ages regarding sex?
http://www.examiner.com/article/flor...x-relationship
hehe. florida
I seem to remember that those laws are pretty much everywhere.
yeah, but most states have gray area protections. if the relationship starts when both are within a certain age bracket they are protected if one hits 18 before the other.
in fact, I thought florida did have such protections, which may explain why the older one isn't being charged with statutory rape.
this is one girls parents using the legal system to hide behind the fact that their child might be gay.
Well, Texas certainly doesn't have those checks and balances. California doesn't have them as well, by the way (where even minor-on-minor action will get one or both of them labelled as sex offenders)
http://www.today.com/id/43909060/ns/...e#.UZqHr7X0F8F
don't get me wrong. the US has serious problems with criminalizing natural sexual behavior, especially with teens and their sexting, its just that the case in florida is something more.
I'm not sure that it is "something more" besides being about a lesbian instead of a straight relationship. Not to mention that all those people are fucked up for life because of this idiotic registry they're registered in and all those laws restricting their place of residency and such.
I mean, in the example from Texas I posted above, the guy was not allowed to live in the same house as his sisters or his new-born child, for chrissakes!
One of the people was 18 and the other was 15. That's statutory rape. I'm not saying that this is why the younger girl's parents brought this to police attention, but a law was clearly broken.
They began their relationship when the older girl was still 17. But, of course, it makes total sense:
"We have to break up! I'm turning 18 tomorrow!"
Yeah, but at the same time the judge said she should finish her high school, yet they expelled her which I doubt would have happened if it had not been a gay relationship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The statutory rape laws are there for a reason. Unfortunately, any law must have an arbitrary component to it. I don't think it's unreasonable to require teens to be no more than 2 years older than the teens they're sleeping with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I think you'd get a similar outcome if one set of parents created a similar kind of stink over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Spoken like someone who never has been around teenagers for a longer period of time. I have now more than 15 years of experience of working with teenagers - and stuff like this is really something you don't need to worry about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And, by the way, yes, the statutory rape laws are there for a reason. This, however, isn't that reason. It's the same as with fundamentalists, however, blindly using the letter of the law to excuse their inability to think for themselves. As, I'm sorry to say, you just did.
If the law was actually that unyielding and unbending, we could as well do away with judges, juries and lawyers and simply replace them with mindless automatons.
Yeah, because older teens aren't able to manipulate or use their position in a school's hierarchy to coerce a younger teen (especially someone who just joins a school) into having sex with them...And of course we know that 15 year olds are just as developed mentally, including having an ability to appreciate consequences, as are 18 year olds...
Did this go to trial and was that proven to have been the case?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I'm not quite sure why a 2 year limit would hinder those older teens from doing just that. It's probably magic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
When it comes to long-term versus short-term consequences, 18 year olds are not that different from 15 year olds. Or do you actually think that the brain is fully developed when you turn 18?Quote:
And of course we know that 15 year olds are just as developed mentally, including having an ability to appreciate consequences, as are 18 year olds...
We should have laws against popular kids sleeping with other kids, too :mad::up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
So you're saying the age should be raised? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
What permanent consequences has the accused girl faced? She's not in jail and she hasn't been permanently kicked out of the school. She was transferred while the investigation is pending...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Heh. One thing I've learned over the years: If something holds an inherent attraction to teenagers, they will do it. And when it comes to sex, telling them to forget sex because "we forbid it!" is not exactly a good or intelligent thing to do. I mean, with the kind of news coverage they don't really have the greatest role models in that regard. And if those really important figures they see in the TV every day don't show the faintest inkling of staying true to their spouses, then why should an unimportant teenager feel bound by those rules?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Which in essence means: Acknowledge that teenagers will have sex, whether you as a parent want it or not. Educate them on the matter. And that should be about the height of your involvement.
Maybe you should try reading the article for a change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That means an entry in the sex offender list. Which means that she'll be a pariah for the rest of her life.Quote:
Kaitlyn has been offered a plea deal of house arrest for two years, plus a year of probation. This would delay her entering the next phase of her life and stay on her permanent adult record, limiting her career choices.
It is you who needs to read better. She hasn't faced those consequences yet. She'll face them only if she's convicted of the crime. Minx was claiming that the girl was punished without a trial.
Yeah, fat chance of that not happening, not with your moronic laws in that regard.
And I'm a bit confused: "To face a consequence" does not mean that you already suffered the consequence. Nor do those consequences have to be certain. Unless you rewrote all the dictionaries.
"I'm facing a grim future." By your logic, this shouldn't be possible.
I'm curious if you think 18 year olds should be able to sleep with any child? If not, what's the cut off age? And please justify that cut-off. And please refrain from using concepts that aren't easily measurable; if the courts can't measure them, there's no point to having them.
Jesus, I hope you never have children with that attitude. Seriously, they'll give you an aneurisma as soon as they become teenagers.
And you're strawmanning, by the way. I can't give you a hard number because every case is different. That's why it's such a moronic idea to have a hard cut-off age at all - that's not how humans work.
And please, don't even try to tell us that courts use "measurements" in such a way. If they did, we wouldn't need courts in the first place - because we could simply replace them with computers. But I already said that.
Completely disallowing sexual activity until college is a good way to really fuck up a kid socially and perhaps mentally.
What the what? No I didn't, what the hell is wrong with you? :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Here is what I said (asked):
Did this go to trial [?]
and
was that proven to have been the case?
I think it is you who needs to read better.
As for permanent consequences, the girl is being pressured to accept a plea bargain that sucks or take her chances in court and risk getting an even suckier punishment. What do you think her chances will be in court?
The law doesn't completely disallow sex and American parents have many more ways to fuck up their kids :downcast:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
If every case is different, on what grounds could we possibly arrest an 18-year-old for sleeping with someone substantially younger? :bored: Are you going to force each case to require the prosecution to prove manipulation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Maybe she shouldn't break a pretty clear law...The fact of the matter is that she wouldn't be in trouble if she didn't sleep with a 15-year-old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
There are a couple of different laws in play in this discussion (loki even tried to claim statutory rape), technically we do outlaw encounters between high schoolers. If the parents had reported the encounters before the other girl had turned 18 both students could have ended up with a record.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I'm fairly sure people are upset about the injustice of the "pretty clear law" that I suspect is also very irregularly enforced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It gets enforced when parents whine. How else would the police find out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
resource officers take a rather high interest in school relationships. not to enforce these laws that ruin their lives, but to be prepared for the relationships going south in an unpleasant way.