4 edits
Originally posted by techsouthYou think people in the Bible Belt would pass a law against oral sex (actually, it's a law against Sodomy...doing what the people of Sodom supposedly did that motivated God to smite them...wonder where that term came from?) that did not also criminalize vaginal sex without a religious motive? You must be kidding.
Actually the only discernable point that I was responding to was a bashing of religious people.
As far as the point of the thread goes, unless the same legislative body in the same legislative session passed both laws, then I would counter that this is not at all silly, but rather a normal phenomenom of different politics at different times. This anoma ...[text shortened]... lable to revamp other statutes.
I don't think I am missing any points, I am countering them.
Let's talk about just the law against Sodomy. Why do you suppose it was passed?
Originally posted by techsouthhehe in canada the age for consent is 14 (for now they were talking about changing it to 15) 14 seams so young u know its creepy to me
Indeed. Silly of them to even try to make laws against 15 year olds having sex.
And they've only been a state for a little over 200 years. How absolutely stupid of them that statutes from each and every legislative body not be 100% consistent in philosophy.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAmazing that we try to legislate what biology decrees. Kind of like the apochryphal attempt to legislate pi to 3.00 to make it easier to remember.
I was under the impression that in most states one cannot obtain legal consent from someone who is intoxicated. Is Georgia an exception? If not, this should be charged as statutory rape. If so, someone needs to bring Georgia into the 21st century.
A fifteen year old is a GIRL. Period.
If a 15 year old woman is sexually mature and determined to have sex (and her legal guardians are irresponsible) -- then >99% of the time she will be successful. Maybe she will be discrete -- maybe not. Maybe she will get pregnant, maybe not.
But to say this is entirely the fault of the male(s) is totally unjust.
Originally posted by spruce112358It's exactly because there's a grey area that we have to legislate in absolutely. The chosen age is there to protect those that need it, regardless of whether they think they are mature or not. I hear that if a girl is mature enough to want sex and the guy doesn't know what age she is, it's not his fault. Balls. If a girl is even close to the age, then he should be thinking otherwise, the likelyhood is that she's not mature enough to have thought about what sex really entails, and it's his responsibility to say she could be underage and if I don't know if she's really ready for this, in virtue of how close to that boundary age she might be it's better if I don't risk either her innocence or my liberty. Anyone that goes ahead and later protests that she didn't say no, or that they thought she was legal, should have thought about that being a possibility before trying it on.
Amazing that we try to legislate what biology decrees. Kind of like the apochryphal attempt to legislate pi to 3.00 to make it easier to remember.
If a 15 year old woman is sexually mature and determined to have sex (and her legal guardians are irresponsible) -- then >99% of the time she will be successful. Maybe she will be discrete -- maybe not. Ma ...[text shortened]... pregnant, maybe not.
But to say this is entirely the fault of the male(s) is totally unjust.
Originally posted by StarrmanIf all men thought like you the world would be a better place.
It's exactly because there's a grey area that we have to legislate in absolutely. The chosen age is there to protect those that need it, regardless of whether they think they are mature or not. I hear that if a girl is mature enough to want sex and the guy doesn't know what age she is, it's not his fault. Balls. If a girl is even close to the age, then ...[text shortened]... he was legal, should have thought about that being a possibility before trying it on.
Someone who actually can put other peoples feelings before their own gratification.
Good on you 🙂
Originally posted by StarrmanI agree with most of your points, but still there are many ways to legislate in an absolute way and drawing a simple line doesn't seem a good way to me. This case is between a 17 y.o. and a 15 y.o., so I think that there should be preferably something like a line and a bandwidth.
It's exactly because there's a grey area that we have to legislate in absolutely. The chosen age is there to protect those that need it, regardless of whether they think they are mature or not. I hear that if a girl is mature enough to want sex and the guy doesn't know what age she is, it's not his fault. Balls. If a girl is even close to the age, then ...[text shortened]... he was legal, should have thought about that being a possibility before trying it on.
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm not sure how one would go about securing such a band, and the problem with any form of relative legislation is that the potential for manipulation and circumvention of such legislation is high.
I agree with most of your points, but still there are many ways to legislate in an absolute way and drawing a simple line doesn't seem a good way to me. This case is between a 17 y.o. and a 15 y.o., so I think that there should be preferably something like a line and a bandwidth.
1 edit
One good thing about Africa is that stuff like this never happens. They're a much more refined culture and have ways of preventing the little ho's from cutting loose.
It's simple, just remove there clitoris's (clitori?) on there 12th birthday and the problem is solved.
We're so backward in the West, we just don't get it.
Young girls that express there sexuality must be kept under control .. by men of course.
Originally posted by jammerRaping them when they are infants helps too. Cures AIDS, in fact. Good thing the English taught them this important habit.
One good thing about Africa is that stuff like this never happens. They're a much more refined culture and have ways of preventing the little ho's from cutting loose.
It's simple, just remove there clitoris's (clitori?) on there 12th birthday and the problem is solved.
We're so backward in the West, we just don't get it.
Young girls that express there sexuality must be kept under control .. of men.
Originally posted by jammersometimes, i wonder "where are the parents?" when i see the girls at my school on myspace
One good thing about Africa is that stuff like this never happens. They're a much more refined culture and have ways of preventing the little ho's from cutting loose.
It's simple, just remove there clitoris's (clitori?) on there 12th birthday and the problem is solved.
We're so backward in the West, we just don't get it.
Young girls that express there sexuality must be kept under control .. of men.
Originally posted by StarrmanEasy, just say that there is a line for which differences above X year. It's not a relative form of legislation, just an absolute definition of for whom the law applies.
I'm not sure how one would go about securing such a band, and the problem with any form of relative legislation is that the potential for manipulation and circumvention of such legislation is high.
Originally posted by StarrmanI hear that if a girl is mature enough to want sex and the guy doesn't know what age she is, it's not his fault.
It's exactly because there's a grey area that we have to legislate in absolutely. The chosen age is there to protect those that need it, regardless of whether they think they are mature or not. I hear that if a girl is mature enough to want sex and the guy doesn't know what age she is, it's not his fault. Balls. If a girl is even close to the age, then ...[text shortened]... he was legal, should have thought about that being a possibility before trying it on.
Actually, I said they would share the blame in that case.
The extreme case that shows the illogic of a "black and white" law would be if a gang of 15 year olds raped a 30 year old. Should the 30 year old be prosecuted for having sex with minors? Obviously not.
But if you agree, then you agree that volition is important. The older person did NOT want to have sex with the younger -- hence there should be no prosecution under the statute.
So since volition is important, what if a younger person wants to have sex with an older person -- lures them on, seduces them, maybe on top of that lying about their age. Should the older person be prosecuted?
I say not to the same extent as in cases when the younger person was clearly pre-pubescent, unwilling or innocent.
In fact, in the case in point, I would be inclined to cite the parents for negligence in raising their daughter and subject them to a fairly stiff fine. for not knowing where she was or what she was up to.
Originally posted by StarrmanWhat exactly is it with sex that requires someone to understand what it entails (apart from pregnancy of course)?
If a girl is even close to the age, then he should be thinking otherwise, the likelyhood is that she's not mature enough to have thought about what sex really entails,