Why is it not sufficient to just not have sympathy? Why must you also make certain he knows you aren't sympathizing with him? Do you really need to rub it in? Who gains? I'm sorry, I don't have a problem with you, but you're on a high fucking horse here.

The poster never asked for sympathy. He presented an argument, a case study that happened to be himself. Yes, it is anecdotal evidence, but it's a compelling example of what's wrong with sex offender laws. Personally, I never was placed in the situation, so I can't quite empathize, but I sure can sympathize. I was 18 once. I couldn't say whether I would've done the same; I like to think I wouldn't, but regardless, that incident shouldn't cause people to avoid him like the plague. It also shouldn't cause him to have to keep moving and be a permanent black mark on his record. I don't have a problem with it being illegal and even making someone do time for it, but doing time permanently??? No way. From what's been presented, this isn't the guy these laws are protecting against.

Even if you can't offer sympathy to him, can't you at least offer it to his son? Why do we care about enforcing a punishment that's vastly superior to the crime when the net effect will be harmful to society, because his kid went without his father for three years.

quote:

Originally Posted by P-bo:
You were "dating" this girl and didn't sniff even a hint of her drug/violence/sex problem? I cannot and will not sympathize or empathize with you or your situation.

This is the beginning of the fallacy in your argument. Sex is a natural thing that happens between post-pubescent members of the species. I'm not defending rapists or people who have sex with young children, but I believe that there is a certain point where we have to look beyond are radical laws a say that sex is one of the things that links us to the other species on Earth, we generally have it indiscriminately. Much of this has to do with the wiring in our brain, we still have survival of the species type impulses that our ape-like ancestors had. Punishing somebody for being human is simply hypocritical.

quote:

Originally posted by P-Bo:
You were "dating" this girl and didn't sniff even a hint of her drug/violence/sex problem? I cannot and will not sympathize or empathize with you or your situation.

"Some issues of right or wrong will always be debatable but when we ignore the built-in moral regulator that we all possess, we get into trouble. I won't cry for you but I hope that others learn from your situation.

Amen. I am with you completely. I believe we all make our moral bed, and then we have to lie in it. We all make mistakes, but, honestly, some things are just obvious. And yes, some mistakes are so bad that the ramifications follow us around for the rest of our lives. Just ask the drunk driver I just saw who killed someone while he was high and drunk. Would you say that he should do his time, and then just get on with his life? Would you feel differently if it were your Mother/Sister/Brother/Son, etc that he had killed? Should he ever drive again? I believe that mistake should follow his ass around for the rest of his miserable life.

To tell you the truth, P-Bo, your argument seems to legitimize the censorship, two double-bed sleeping, "Leave It to Beaver" lies which I was brought up on. However, since I am personally a bastard child [unbeknownst to me until my Parents (my real grandparents) died], I'm here to tell you that, of course, you're right; it wasn't any different back in the day, at least up to a point.

This "technologically-savvy", yet "humanity-challenged" generation (and all those they will "teach" when they have kids) bothers me mightily, and I see them up close and personal teaching at a Continuation High School. I certainly don't blame the kids. I blame their education from both home and school, but after awhile, there is an enormous percentage of kids who believe their drug-dealing uncle or gangsta cousins are the coolest people around. Now, they don't really believe that because it's true, but because those people spend more time with them and talk to them about "real life". I'm happy to get through to anybody, and when I get through to somebody (who's smart) about Algebra, but only cares about text-messaging and i-Pods, it makes me happy. I had several of those epiphanies today in summer school. I'm just sad that many of my students are running out of time, and we may be tossing them out of the lifeboat. It really drives me crazy when I see a kid for the first time, and I'm supposed to pass him in his final high school class, and he cannot tell me what -2 + 3 is.

It's my current chosen profession, so I can't really complain. I'm just doing an extemporaneous, but I hope it makes sense.

P.S. - About 25% of my students were parents before they were 18.

Good points all. I'd like to respond directly to kc though. Kendo, the point of these crazy ass sex offender laws is to prevent it from happening again. They aren't intended as punishment, they're preventative. Unfortunately, because of their nature, they become a punishment. The poster did not merit the punishment he received for his actions, and from what I can tell, there's little chance that he's a person who's likely to repeat as an offender. I just cannot fathom that you're comfortable letting our society punish him for life because he "made his moral bed".

I don't think there's a person alive who feels that if somebody does something wrong, they shouldn't be punished. Obviously I want a drunk driver to think about his actions the rest of his life, especially if he killed someone. But yes, I feel like there reaches a point where he should be able to leave jail, get a job, and function normally in society.

The poster isn't even on that scale though, so I don't grasp the comparison. He didn't kill anybody and he didn't endanger anybody's life. He had sex with a girl three years younger than he was. I'm not even certain you can assign a morality to his actions. Yet, in my opinion, his punishment is much worse than that of a drunk driver. I mean, I don't really disagree with what you say specifically, but I don't like the implication that we shouldn't care about the rights of criminals because it's there own fault.

As for the decline of societal values, I've got nothing.

I agree with the Major. I had a lot of consensual sex before I was 17, with younger and older girls. I was not a rapist, nor were those women over 18 who had sex with me, but under these crazy US laws they and I would be branded one for life. It's all out of control over there my friends.

I don't look at sex as a bad thing but I know for a fact that it can be a dangerous thing and also an expensive thing that can have a boatload of responsibility attached. For me, it is less about whether I had sex under the age of 18 and with whom, and more about whether I would want my son or even a future daughter exploring with sex under the age of 18. We can all agree that as humans, we make some of the worst decisions of our lives around that age. I don't laugh at people whose decisions will follow them forever, but I also don't look the other way.

As far as our labeled poster is concerned, I realize that his life is now extremely difficult. If my son was in the same situation, I would take a long hard look at what I did right and wrong. I also had the benefit of having a father who did the same as does my son. I don't think Mr. Talking had this luxury. I do think that it comes to a point though where you absolutely must police yourself. He already had a child at an extremely young age and out of wedlock. Then he begins "dating" (as he stated) a 14 year old with more issues than her age should allow. How the hell do you not see that coming and avoid it? How do you date a 14 year old and not know it or even have a clue that she has a drug problem. I think of every girl I've been with and I would bet my life that there would be no way of me finding out, after the fact, that any of them were 14 year old runaways with drug problems; not even the slightest chance.

I realize that this may come off as preachy and harsh. I remember from my youth, reading and watching Rush Limbaugh with my father. I enjoyed his candor and confidence and my father agreed with his principles. Now, neither of us can stand the arrogant prick for our own reasons. I came to the age of reason where I softened on certain issues and didn't like the way things were presented, even when I agreed with them. I do still think that he made some very valid points but he also had the luxury of not being in the financial or social situation of many of the people he criticized. Maybe that applies in a way here? I wasn’t raised in a broken family or a desperate financial situation. I wasn’t oppressed on a daily basis. Maybe I just don’t have the proper frame of reference to comment on this topic, but I think my points are well thought out and valid and if he felt it was appropriate to post his story on this discussion site, then I feel it is appropriate to dissect it and discuss it.

P-Bo, I can acknowledge that there's a possibility that the poster should've known better. I don't know one way or another because I don't have enough details on the situation, but either way I don't think that's important.

The issue I'm taking up is not whether these people made a bad decision. Yes, any bad decision you make can haunt you for the rest of your life. If that's the way it has the be, that's the way it has to be. Such is the case with pregnancy, STDs, or drunk driving. You make your choices and you live with the consequences. The issue is whether we need to artificially apply severe consequences to these decisions. Quite simply, do you think that his punishment serves any purpose? It's very easy to simply claim "He did something wrong, so any punishment was simply the consequences he had coming to him". That sure does simplify life, but there's no way it's fair. Life isn't fair, but our laws are intended to make it more fair, not less.

Since he posted it, I definitely feel that it's appropriate to "dissect and discuss" his case. I'm all for asking him questions, and likewise I would neither ask for nor expect anyone's sympathy. I never once insinuated that you can't be critical of his case. You just seem very quick to cast a stone.

I can remember when I was a kid listening to Rush Limbaugh in my father's car. I think he solely listened to Rush to raise his blood pressure though, as they agreed on almost nothing. There's definitely some Rush in your argument here.

Ugh. I'm afraid that this thread is a quagmire, and so complex that this format makes it almost impossible to really "discuss" it in the detail that it deserves.

I'll start by answering several of the comments about what is "human" or "natural." There is no question that sexuality is a powerful human drive. There is nothing more "natural" that wanting to procreate.

There is also nothing more natural than wanting to club some MF to death when they thwart your desires (eg., cut you off in traffic, talk loudly on their cell phone next to you on the train, etc). It's natural to want to drop trousers and piss on the sidewalk when you have the urge, too.

The point is that we suppress "natural" and "human" desires all the time. That's one of the things that it means to be an adult. Control of impulses. It is what allows us to live together in society. Sublimation and control of our baser instincts, in the service of the greater good of the community. The astute among you will recognize the Hobbesian argument.

If your argument is that these are adolescents, and they have poor impulse control, then I'll agree, and say that intimacy is, truly, an adult activity. (Not "adult" in the XXX sense, but in the sense of "requiring a certain degree of emotional maturity.") While sexual experimentation among adolescents may well be inevitable, that doesn't mean that it's desireable, or that it serves the best interests of our society. Teen pregnancy, anyone?

However, sexual experimentation among peers is a moral order of magnitude away from sexual activity with children. Children (and, yes, a fourteen yr old is a child) is always immoral. No fourteen year old has the emotional maturity for sexual activity, much less for a sexual relationship. Yes, I know that 100 years ago, and 1500 years ago 14 year olds married and had children. However, we have lengthened infancy as we have developed better longevity, and today a fourteen year old is a child. Any sexual activity between a 17 year old and a 14 year old is exploitative. The age difference between a 23 yr old and a 20 year old is negligible. The difference in maturity and decision making ability between a 17 and 14 year old is enormous. Any sexual activity between a child and an adult, or an older adolescent is damaging to the child.

What about the argument that the 14 year old was "mature" and already doing drugs, and that she instituted the activity? To me, all of this sounds like justifications offered by the abuser. Read the book Lolita, and remember, as you read it, that it is being told in the voice of an abuser. And even, in the unlikely event that the child "comes on to" the adult, that is simply a sign that the child is already damaged, likely by prior abuse. Does that give anyone licence to exploit the prior damage? Is it alright to set a homeless person on fire because they were mentally ill, sick, and alcoholic anyway?

The answer that sexual activity between a 14 year old and a 17 year old "didn't hurt anybody," is patently false. You just don't see the injury on the surface.

Ok kendo, this is gonna have to be quick because I'm at work. I still feel like 18 and 15(the ages they were when they had sex) can be a gray area. The Lolita comparison was not lost on me(and had already occurred to me), as that is one of my favorite books of all time. I just don't think hooking up with a 15 year old when you're 18 constitutes a Lolita complex, or any psychological disorder for that matter. Inability to exercise restraint with a 14 year old when you're 30+ probably does. Does that make it morally right when you're 18? Of course not. I'm pretty sure if I had a 15 year old daughter I'd be scared shitless if she brought home an 18 year old. Am I convinced that sex between this age difference is always morally wrong? No, but I can understand if you want it to be illegal because it's probably more than likely immoral. Illegal I'm ok with, but sex offender??? That's extreme. Hit him with a fine. Send him to jail for six months. That'll get the message through. I just cringe at these fringe statutory rape cases, and it's too easy to play the "you had it coming because you made your moral bed" card.

quote:

Originally posted by Kendocubano:
And even, in the unlikely event that the child "comes on to" the adult, that is simply a sign that the child is already damaged, likely by prior abuse.

This is very true about the girl I had encountered. I later learned she'd been raped several times & finally had come to the point where she'd rather start it, than be forced into it. It's really sad that her story wasn't the only one like this there. Nearly every girl who had lost her virginity had lost it against their will & none of them knew how to deal with it. It also didn't help that the neighborhood was a haven for drug-addled losers that would take advantage of these confused children. But, like I said earlier, they acted like older women. Not only that, but they didn't look their age at all! Which is why I was almost fooled, but what if I had never asked her age? I was only curious if she was older or younger than me, but I had no clue she was THAT much younger! I coulda been just like these others, & got into all kinds of trouble! I find it strange she told me the truth because there were several guys that she told she was 16 or 17. It wasn't because she was trying to repel me because she came to me & started talkin' lustfully & if I had never asked we woulda ended up where we should never have been.

I have to say that some of these cases also seem to be the fault of the parents. When you have a 14 year old behaving in this way, something MUST be wrong at home. Going back to my close call, I did go to her parents & let them know what nearly happened & what had been happening with the other guys in the neighborhood. They didn't care one bit! And they weren't alone. In fact, every young girl on the block was with a pedophile nearly 10 years older than them & no parents were concerned! There is also a case I read about in Time magazine about a 20-something year old dude & his 14 year old wife. The guy had been dating the girl since she was 13, & when she got pregnant, they went to another state where it was legal for them to marry with her parents permission. However, once they got back to their home state, the prosecutor put the man under arrest & has him on trial for statutory rape & pedophilia. Now, the parents are instigating this, aren't they? In all cases, they knew what their kids were doing, & still, they did nothing! Does anyone agree they should lose custody of their children for this? I mean, if it's a crime for the individual to have sex with a minor, wouldn't those in charge of the safety of said minor also be liable if they had knowledge of such behavior? I know parents get in trouble for supplying their children with alcohol, what if they allow them to be sexually irresponsible? Don't let ME find out my daughter is dating someone over 15 when she's 14! She better not even be dating, let alone gettin' frisky!!!!

What a great discussion! I have plenty of thoughts, and I can agree a bit with all sides here.

quote:

Originally posted by kendocubano:
No fourteen year old has the emotional maturity for sexual activity, much less for a sexual relationship. Yes, I know that 100 years ago, and 1500 years ago 14 year olds married and had children. However, we have lengthened infancy as we have developed better longevity, and today a fourteen year old is a child.

I was thinking about this. I'm not so sure that people are growing up slower in a physical sense. We are growing up much slower mentally due to our modern culture. How many years of school does the average kid have to go through these days before they're ready for the real world? Back in centuries/millenia past, kids were put to work early and forced to grow up through these experiences. By the time they reached puberty, they were far better adapted to face the challenges of the real world. Nowadays, at 14 years old, you've still got at the very least another 4 years, but more likely 8+ before you're sent out on your own to start a family and provide for them. Does that mean that a modern 14-year-old kid's sexual impulses are gonna conform to that timeline? I don't think so. I'm not saying that it's right for kids to be having sex at this age, but I can understand why they are. But I agree with you, Kendo, that they aren't emotionally ready for what they may be physically ready for. It's a natural consequence of our modern system.

quote:

Posted by kendocubano
No fourteen year old has the emotional maturity for sexual activity, much less for a sexual relationship.

Speaking just for myself, this is inaccurate. I had sexual relationships at 14 which were rich, and beneficial and have not harmed the two parties involved in any way. I am still in touch with a number of those women. We are all happy and healthy. We took care then. We knew what we were doing, and we talked about it, and I look back now and am grateful for those experiences.

quote:

Posted by kendocubano
Any sexual activity between a child and an adult, or an older adolescent is damaging to the child.

Again, just speaking for myself, this is not accurate. I had a number of sexual relationships ( I have always been sexually active, from the age of 10) with 'adults' while I was a 'child' and I couldn't be more normal or unaffected.
When I was 13, I was having sex with a 17 y.o. We were happy, and had a wonderful time until she left town.
When I was 15, i was involved with a 21 y.o. Again, this was not exploitative, or damaging. We cared deeply for each other, and neither she or I were drug users, or abused kids. We were just 2 happy, healthy people engaged in a mutual relationship, fully aware of the consequences, and careful with it.

There is far, far too much hysteria about sex. I am living proof (even if I am only a anecdote k/c of how sex under age, with age differences matters not a whit.

Maybe we just do it different in Oz ha ha

quote:

Originally posted by Ishmaels coffin:
...I couldn't be more normal or unaffected.

I am living proof (even if I am only a anecdote k/c of how sex under age, with age differences matters not a whit.

I'd say you might not be in the best position to judge the veracity of your statements!

Well, at least he was over the rainbow, so I believe him. The only thing I can't buy is that you are in contact with all the different partners and know for a fact how they turned out.

On the other hand, I believe I saw you mentioned in Guinness Book of World Records in the Stud section, right next to my older brother, or whatever the hell he really is. In my copy, they had a large CENSORED over the picture of you or maybe it was your assets.

Ok, ok, I knew i would get some stud type remarks..very nice work there mark.

To k/c, I may be mad, but I can support my veracitititude. I walk, talk, work, play, sing, dance, and chat on metacritic, and so far I haven't ever needed the services of a shrink ha ha.

To my studly friend, mark, it is quite true that I am still in contact with a few of my teen loves. Not all of course, but I still am good friends with some, and indeed was boarding with one of them just before I came to China. All the ones I am still in touch with are normal (at least outwardly), hold jobs, families, yada, yada, yada.

Now, hows about you send me yr copy of Guiness...

I've learned something strange about Missouri laws concerning Sex Offenders, seems you will only be labeled one if you've sexually assaulted someone. (I'm guessing the guy who was put on the list for public urination must be from another state.) We had a case of a guy flashing women & girls all over town. He even assaulted one of 'em, but since he didn't touch anyone in a sexual manner, he won't be put on the registry. Does anyone here think that is how it should be, or should he be put on the list because his actions could lead him in that direction?

hello,

i have been reading up on this argument and thought i would put in my 2 cents.


anyway, in my opinion i think girls are very up on sexual matters. When you are an adolescent the primary drive is emotion, definately not using your head. I can remember thinking sexual thoughts from about 12 years old, and i don't think i would be in the minority. I am not defending sex offences, just everyone is a little fucked up during adolescence, with a heady mix of emotion, drive and not much brains. Surely those things should be taken into account.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kyla,

Ahhh, Aussie girls. Ya gotta love 'em.

I think its the Queensland heat...makes us all quite a bit sexual huh?