Age of Consent
Why is it that so many people in this country are so fired up to get as many Americans as possible signed up for the sex offender lists?
What warped logic dictates to people that an arbitrary number like 16 or 18 can be assigned as the age at which young people are 'allowed' to have sex with other people?
When looking at cases of consensual sex between a person aged 15 and a person aged 30, why can we not leave these people alone if this is what they want, or at the most ostracize them for being 'gross', if that's what you think of it.
The real travesty of these laws is a guy who has a 15 year old girlfriend and has been having sex with her for awhile while he is 17, but on his 18th birthday he is a criminal! This is an excellent demonstration of the absurdity of government control, because one size NEVER fits all.
Even if you disagree with young people having sex with people that are older than they are, how can you justify locking these people into cages and destroying their entire lives over it?
This bugs me at least as much as the immigration thing.
I'd appreciate the opinions of DPers, and would like to hear a logical justification for such thuggery, if one exists.
Thanks
I have mixed feelings
Back in the seventies when I was a teenager, I lived right next door to a pervert in his fourties who was willing to have sex with anyone: young, old, male, female, it didn't matter to him, any warm body would do. He hit on my mother, my little brother and me.
My family didn't need for him to be on a state sex offender list. He wasn't a rapist. He was a typical predator who gained the trust of his victims and took advantage of it. No one in my family trusted him, so we all said "no" to his advances and he left us alone.
He did, however, face a number of statutory rape charges filed by his teenaged daughter's friends (even he wouldn't have sex with his own daughter, only his stepsons) and perhaps a state sex offender list would have been helpful to discourage these young girls from giving it up to him.
I wish such a thing wasn't necessary, though. The bottom line here is responsibility. I firmly believe libertarianism is unpopular because people don't want to take responsibility for their own thoughts, actions, opinions or even the use of their own money, and look to the government to guide them instead.
The lesson to be learned here is if a sexual predator makes a move on you, have respect for yourself and tell him (or her, although I doubt there's many "hers") to politely but firmly to go away, as I did to my neighbor, and there will be no incident.
I'll bet that if somebody had taught those girls about sex
Instead of calling it 'the 's' word and absolutely forbidding any discussion and/or practice of sex by their kids, the girls would have understood what was happening to them and the pervert would have been thwarted.
Arresting this asshole and putting him in a cage seems like the right thing to do, until you consider the cost. Who pays? Taxpayers do. I personally am not interested in paying for the caging of old perverted slicksters. In a less litigious society, the guns of government wouldn't even be a factor here. Some irate dad would have beat the shit out of this guy and his name would be well known by all and sundry.
What if this guy wasn't a perv and some 15 yr old girl seduced him? What then? Will you use the guns of government to arrest and cage him for the 'crime' of caring for someone younger than himself? Why concern yourself with such things?
Let people take care of themselves
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
Today, it is sex, not religion, which is the opium of the
people. Unwittingly, society is being manipulated into a preoccupation with sex in almost all interactions. The controllers have even been adding growth hormones to the foods we eat and now it is not uncommon for pre-teens to reach puberty, some as early as 6-8 yrs. old. All liberty minded people would do well to grow as much food for themselves as possible. Each year, more and more gmo, microwaving, etc. is in the food chain.
On a less serious note... Question: Is it a pedophile crime for a woman in her 20's to have sex with a wealthy old man in his 70's who is reverting back to his second childhood?
Love (consciousness) is in everything including the void.
"Be wary of those who know the truth. Align yourself with those who are questing for the truth." L. Gardner
I've heard lots of anecdotal evidence
to indicate that people who get together when there is a large age discrepancy between them can have successful relationships, and I've heard bad stories too. I think this would be true for any relational demographic. People who got married when one was 15 and the other was 29, and they've been married 50 years. so what's the problem?
Here is the problem, and it's something that I have been trying to get out on these boards because I think you people are neat and I hope you will understand where I'm coming from here.
The problem is 'social conventions.' These are the levers by which governments can legislate morality, because their tyrannical plans have the support of a majority of those who vote. These laws are advertised as being for the 'greater good.' Believe me, no law which has been purported to be for 'the greater good' has actually BEEN for the 'greater good.'
There is no greater good than the protection of individual liberty and individual sovereignty. The quote below that 'communities' are better equipped to deal with these issues than the state or the feds, I think, is fallacious. Some individuals will not agree with the boundaries you have drawn for them, and then what will you do to them for that? In cases where violence is used against these people, even when they have harmed no one (whether you think a 14 year old girl can give consent is irrelevant, it is only a criminal issue if force is alleged by a VICTIM, not 'the State'. 'The State' is never a victim because it has no rights. Individuals have rights), then the sovereignty of those people is ignored by those who are claiming to serve 'the greater good.' How is this good?
The whole idea behind us all living here under this government was that we would control the government, not the other way around. Giving the guns of government control over us in our bedrooms where there is no force or fraud is anathema to liberty.
Thanks
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
At what age do you think it becomes a crime
for someone over 21 or 18 to have sex with someone younger? When do you think a young person is giving consent and when do you think he/she is being coerced and convinced. When do you think a person can make a decision they will be able to live with for the rest of their life. When do you think a young person can have equal say in what happens to the person who is over 18? When do you think abuse stops and consent starts?
The questions are complex
but the answer is simple.
It doesn't matter what I think.
If it's not me or my kid and not my life, it's none of my damn business. That is what liberty is all about. Minding my own damn business. People who wish to legislate the morality of others and lock them in cages when they have harmed no one are harming my liberty and their own.
If there are complaints of coercion or direct force, most likely these will come out. Without the role of government in projecting shame upon the sex act, I think more crimes would be reported. I also think a lot of people who didn't need to ever be harassed will be left alone.
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
I Thought
you was gone: Government Operator!
Excuse me, sir
But your characterization of someone who is obviously an anarchist as a 'government operator' is without factual basis and is, in fact, RETARDED. Go come up with a new line that isn't just totally dumb, ok?
thanks
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
You Told me
YOU WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT!
No lying out of it buddy!
I did no such thing
I work at a factory, retard, fixing mahines, retard, and I am an anarchist (free marketeer is closer), retard, so please stop making false claims about me. I would have to imagine that you are starting to look pretty dumb at this point, considering the content of all of my posts.
Maybe you're just afraid of the 'brown people', huh?
Didn't like my immigration thread? Well too bad. Bring it back up and refute my claims if you want. I am not going to bother, I already ate your lunch. And I'll do it again if you like.
Thanks
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
Laugh
Laugh
Tryin' to "snake" your way out of it? Even the devil has to tell the truth when he is forced!
every society...
has a tradition of transforming a child into an adult.
luckly ours has been legislated for us.
can you legislate morality too?
--------------
if you build it he will come..........Ron Paul 2012.
digg http://digg.com/autos/First_Genuine_Chevy_Volt_to_be_Complet...
In The Ethics of Liberty
Murray Rothbard addresses the very difficult subject of children. Rothbard argues for an anarcho-capitalistic society, of course. But it can also apply to minarchistic and federalist societies, too. In as much as they are dependents, children must essentially be regarded as property. Property of the parent or guardian. It is the parent's right and responsibility, and the parent's alone, to regulate the behavior of his or her child. And he or she has every right to defend that child with lethal force if necessary.
Of course, one is only a child up to the point at which he or she is able to become independent and survive on his or her own. This age varies quite a bit. Community pressures are often responsible for shaping judgment on this. Not always in line with local law.
There is absolutely no need for criminal law on this issue. Or the drawing of arbitrary age barriers. I see the issue as a natural extension of property rights. And any violations of those rights can be settled in any civil court with an appropriate payment of restitution.
The problem with criminal law is "once a criminal, always a criminal." Why bother with so-called "rehabilitation" when the inmate will be ostracized for the rest of his or her life? And why should innocent taxpayers foot the bill for incarceration? Which ultimately gives the inmate an advanced degree in bad behavior?
More harm than good
These laws often serve the state and big government more than anything else. For instance, I know a guy in solitary confinement right now. You can trace his current situation back to being a sex offender. After heavy drinking in a bar in Illinois, he was ADMITTEDLY taken advantage of by a girl that held herself out as "Of age". After having sex while he was highly incapacitated, the girl realized that she made a big mistake (This man is far from handsome) and complained about. In the end, her and her parents dropped any complaint. Enter big brother. The state ran with the case on its own and now this guy is in jail in Florida for not registering himself like a good little pervert.
Here, the state served only itself. NO single person sued for this outcome.
As a Woman
Who has seen several sides of this coin, I believe I see your point. This country will do anything, it seems, to lock someone up and give them a record. Then they put them on a list that makes them virtually unemployable and keeps them homeless and basically a leper. This list is for anyone and no one can discern whether the guy was a total pervert who forced a 3 year old or a 19 year old boy in love. THEY DO NOT make a distinction. It is really messed up. Also, if someone is on the list, they can never get off the list. If you were some loser in your 20s but got your act together in your 40s, too bad you are still a pervert and unemployable with leprosy.
They do the same with drunks. It is part of the whole system of controlling the masses. I know there has to be some laws and strong ones. I have been there as a victim but I have known someone who was wrongly accused. Laws are essential but the true perpetrators of evil are different than silly boys in love. Again, this is part of the whole government control.
Healthnut4freedom
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths." Proverbs 3:5,6
Healthnut4freedom
The lip of truth shall be established forever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment...Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are His delight. Prov 12:19,22
I agree with you. In a state
I agree with you. In a state where age of consent is 16(many states have 16 as the legal age of consent), if a boy who is 15 and one day away from his 16 birthday has consentual sex with a girl who is his girlfriend that he loves very much and she just turned 17 and loves him very much too, then the woman can get arrested(even though the boy told her he was legal age of 16), sent to jail for years and be put on a sex offender list for life, the same thing that can happen to a 40 year old man who forcibly rapes a 6 year old girl. That is messed up that the two situations are often treated in the same way. Both convicted offenders have their lives ruined and be branded for life publicly, but one is much worse than the other and more desrving of punishment than the other, but the law often does not really distinguish between severety of the crimes.
The average person who sees a sex offender sign on the house of a sex offender, assumes the worst about a person living there, and these people have sometimes had their homes set on fire or vandalized because they assumed a horrible evil sex offender lived there. But in the above case with the 17 year old girl who was the girlfriend of the 15 year old boy who was one day away from being the legal age of 16, she is automatically seen as some terrible, despicable and evil monster because of the sex offender sign she will have on her house for the rest of her life and will for the rest of her life probably have to face threats, insults and vandalism of her property, and perhaps even physical violence, and have to live in fear forever. That sort of punishment hardly fits the crime she was convicted of. And thats one of the big problems with the system.
groups
like LDS, sex registey members (I know they're not the same thing) etc...
What's that saying? "They came for the Z but I wasn't a Z so I didn't say anything" Matter of fact, I didn't like Z either so I helped push them into the fire.
And then, somehow I got labeled a Y and found myself getting pushed into the fire I helped stoke for the Z's.
Armbands, report to location on the 31st. Germany didn't START with killing Jews.
But hey, you're a perv for thinking. For bringing it up. Perv Perv Perv even though you've never said anything to indicate it, you brought it up so you're a perv I guess.
CONTROL: "Age of consent" is arbitrary as "Minimum Wage". I don't think some 40 yr olds are mature enough to engage in "Adult" behavior, some 17 yr olds are mature enough, but then those usually choose not to heh.
Like the kid I knew in school that had a drivers Licence at 14. Kid acted like an adult, didn't care about the toys and whatnot like some other kids... was all responsible and stuff.
maybe you should ask the
maybe you should ask the friend of my daughter who at the age of 14 just had her 1st baby from some dumbass older then her.. having sex at 13 is not good.. they are children and do not understand that doing ADULT things have adult consequences!
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson
I am more concerned about the return of my money than the return on my money. --Mark Twain
“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12 KJV)
Hey McCain-----┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
If a 13 year old doesn't understand
what the consequences of actions like these are, it is NOT society's fault, it is the fault of either the parents for failing to properly educate their kids, or the kids themselves for ignoring such advice, if given.
Probably 'baby daddy' is a dumbass. Probably also the whole thing could have been prevented by effective, reasonable communication between the parent and the kid. you see? Does 'baby daddy' need to go to jail? I kind of doubt it. he's probably not dangerous any further than his own lack of edification about sex and its ramifications, which would not have been a huge problem if the girl didn't have the same problem.
Individuals solve problems among each other peacefully. Governments make up rules and lock people up that don't follow them.
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
sierra...
How would you respond to the contention that a 13 year old girl having sex (if we grant you that having sex at 13 is not good) is indicative of a problem with the parents?
If you are receptive to that, then I would contend further that it is not practical for the government to attempt to enforce good parenting. And it is very advantageous to the rest of society to give parents complete freedom and opportunity to pursue excellence in raising their children in the way they see fit.
If you'll let me push it a little further, this is one way to view the abortion issue. (And I know I depart from Ron Paul here.) There are some parents who are going to destroy their children by the way they raise them. It is very difficult for the government to do anything about this. (A better approach is to rely on family and voluntary social structure in this regard.) And there is much value in the opportunity costs associated with the alternative. That is to say, if the government is going to make everyone satisfy some minimal standards for parenting, then those standards must be established, monitored, and enforced. All of those things will potentially (and practically very much so) impinge on the contributions of parents of excellence who don't fit into the mold. We have that system now; it's called family services, and the ill effects it has on our society far outweigh the benefits----I believe---consider the case of the flds. In one way, the anti-abortion movement seeks to extend this kind of monitoring to the pre-born. The ill effects may be harder to see in this case, but the invasive nature of the question is the same. In short, some parents will destroy their children before they are born and some after. We should ask ourselves long and hard if it is worth trying to prevent this through the police powers of government; the lost opportunity and abuse of the system should be taken into account.
LMAO!!
With everything going on and everything wrong with our system, THIS is something you actually think about and worry about?!?
Are you kidding me?
Seriously, come on now...
_________________________________
My liberty-minded home base of thought:
www.ponderthis.net
_________________________________
Freedom - Peace - Prosperity
This is a website devoted to liberty
Why shouldn't we get into the nitty gritty details?
Thanks you guys (most of you)
For declaring me a pervert for bringing this up. It warms my heart to be painted with such a broad brush by so many people who don't even know me. I am 31 years old and married to a 34 year old woman. I have no interest in young girls. I brought this up as a topic of debate about the intrusiveness of the state, not to show what a pervert I am. Yes, I have a pro-liberty slant to my ideals. No, I am not a pervert. We all need to look at these issues not as parents or as Christians, but as individuals. As people who have rights, just like your kids do. Close your mind to this if you want, but please, think of the rights of others, too. The way I see it, if I don't let my neighbor have his rights, how shall I expect mine to be protected?
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
That's not Libertarian, that's libertine
Don't pollute the good name of Libertarians by trying to tie them to your agenda. Libertarians believe your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. You talk of rights! What about the rights of children to grow up without being molested, or the rights of parents to protect their children from gross old pervs? You clearly don't get it, but just stay away from the young'uns, or you may find yourself face to face with a Libertarian Dad with a gun.
As I observed below, parental rights are superior
and must be protected.
A parent has a greater right to forbid his child to have sex than the child has a right to have sex. A parent's rights over their minor children must be held inviolate or this country will completely fall apart.
- -
Get your own "Ron Paul for Treasury Secretary" or "Nothing Changes 1-20-09 / Vote Third Party" sticker, designed by AlaskaRon, today!
http://www.cafepress.com/thirdparty08
RP2012!
The problem with this assertion
while true to an extent, is that parents who have had it with their kid who won't stop commiting behaviors that are not allowed have no right to kick the damn kid out! Another example of government getting in the way of a free society taking care of its problems on its own. If, after having had extensive conversations about the pros and cons of sex with my kid, he/she still decides to come home pregnant or bring home news of a pregnancy, what am I supposed to do? It's 'wrong' to kick a kid out of your house, even when he/she is acting in an adult fashion. So yes, this would seem to be the answer, but again we have the government right in the road. What do you suppose could be done to fix this problem?
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
Parental rights include discipline
I knew plenty of kids in high school, years and years ago, who got kicked out from their parents' home from time to time and had to go live with friends for a few days or months even. I never knew any of them to have had their parents prosecuted for kicking them out, though.
- -
Get your own "Ron Paul for Treasury Secretary" or "Nothing Changes 1-20-09 / Vote Third Party" sticker, designed by AlaskaRon, today!
http://www.cafepress.com/thirdparty08
RP2012!
That's a great point
and although there are cases in which parents are arrested for kicking their kids out (I have heard of it happening), I need to delve further into the issue of 'parents' rights.' I'm thinking preliminarily that this is simply an extension of property rights, wherein you control your property and the things that go on on your property. If the kid is not home, I don't think parental rights apply so much. Given the right of the parents to expel the kids from their property (which may vary by location and age, I would think) then your point is valid.
Where does the government come in here, though? What do we need their involvement for?
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
YOU
ARE A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE!
Thank you for showin' up, I can "observe the operation".
notes:
Tryin' to confound (out maneuver) the forum with the pretense of a superior intellect.
Twisting (perverting, manipulating) knowledge in support of the Government Agendas. Includes the "open border policy" of this Government.
do you have a backwards B on your cheek?
because you are pervert for chosing to suspend your rationality so you can ignore that undeveloped cognitivie functionality of children's brains cannot give this kind of consent!