Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Mother of child who slept with foxy teacher insists in not fighting in court

Mother of child who slept with foxy teacher insists in not fighting in court
Thread Tools
The Godfather
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tampa, Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 08:29 AM
 
More of the weird twist in the Debra Beasley case. If the boy opens his mouth in court, Debra will most likely be acquitted (what I've been saying since the beginning).

http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...77/1001/NEWS01
( Last edited by The Godfather; Mar 21, 2006 at 07:54 PM. )
     
wallinbl
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 08:38 AM
 
It was the aspect of protecting his anonymity that his mother was really concerned about. A London tabloid published her son's school photo and name on the internet last year. And Court TV, who said they were planning to film the trial, refused to have a time delay to delete any mention of her son's name at trial and refused to promise not to film the victim's family.
The media is getting obnoxious.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 10:41 AM
 
"She needs to have to answer to Judge Stancil for every move she makes. I want him to be able to watch over her, to answer to him for 10 years. I want her to see his face while she's sleeping," she said."

I'm sure the judge could be convinced that sleeping with her is a good idea.

But anyways, the lady is a pervert - just like any other child molester. Might as well lock her up, since perverts such as that cannot easily be cured.
     
faragbre967
Senior User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe, MI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 11:02 AM
 
OK OK, I'll take her. But you guys owe me...
...
     
wdlove
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 11:22 AM
 
She did a terrible thing to a minor child. The boy's mother should have some say in this situation.

"Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense." Winston Churchill
     
macaddict0001
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 11:40 AM
 
Its something I would never do, but if both party's were consenting, and say so in court I don't really care what they do behind closed doors. I strongly think that victimless crimes shouldn't be illegal.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by macaddict0001
Its something I would never do, but if both party's were consenting, and say so in court I don't really care what they do behind closed doors. I strongly think that victimless crimes shouldn't be illegal.
You sound like a fine supporter of NAMBLA.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by macaddict0001
Its something I would never do, but if both party's were consenting, and say so in court I don't really care what they do behind closed doors. I strongly think that victimless crimes shouldn't be illegal.
The thing that you overlook is this:

Consenting parties have to be adults.

A minor is below the age of consent.

A minor, willing or not, does not have the legal standing to consent, and is therefore a victim.

On that basis, this is not a victimless crime, but one with a victim.
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 02:58 PM
 
One question, how many straight guys on this forum WOULDN'T have "hit that" when they were 14?


*crickets*


Even now, the vast majority of men look at her and think, "where were teachers like that when I was in 8th or 9th grade?". Yes, it a dual standard, but it's just part of human nature.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 03:16 PM
 
First off, I would have hit it more than twice.

Second, SUV's have comfy backseats

Third, I would have hit it more than twice.


Seriously though, wasn't it not that long ago that women were married at 14? My grandmother had her first child at 14 and it was socially accepted. That was about 55 years ago.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 03:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Rumor
Seriously though, wasn't it not that long ago that women were married at 14? My grandmother had her first child at 14 and it was socially accepted. That was about 55 years ago.
Yeah, but that was in the dark ages of the 20th century. We're well advanced now. Today, 12 year olds get pregnant but never married. Holla to human evolution and advancement.

-t
     
CMYKid
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Dayton, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 03:26 PM
 
yeah, but how wierd is having your cousin drive you around WHILE you do your teacher in the back seat?
     
kikkoman
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNStein
One question, how many straight guys on this forum WOULDN'T have "hit that" when they were 14?


*crickets*


Even now, the vast majority of men look at her and think, "where were teachers like that when I was in 8th or 9th grade?". Yes, it a dual standard, but it's just part of human nature.
Yup, I'm sure we would have a much different opinion if she wasn't a hottie.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 03:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by kikkoman
Yup, I'm sure we would have a much different opinion if she wasn't a hottie.
Or if it was a man.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Rumor
First off, I would have hit it more than twice.

Second, SUV's have comfy backseats

Third, I would have hit it more than twice.


Seriously though, wasn't it not that long ago that women were married at 14? My grandmother had her first child at 14 and it was socially accepted. That was about 55 years ago.
Hell, when I was 14, I would have hit that 12 times, and that's just in the first hour.

Edit: My grandmother was 13 when she married, and had her first child at 14... my grandfather was 25 (or maybe 26).
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Salty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNStein
Hell, when I was 14, I would have hit that 12 times, and that's just in the first hour.

Edit: My grandmother was 13 when she married, and had her first child at 14... my grandfather was 25 (or maybe 26).
So your grand dad was a pedo, good for you. Simply because young boys feel sexual at 14 doesn't mean that it's OK for older women to embrace that. She did something wrong whether or not the boy saw it as some sort of initiation or not.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 04:44 PM
 
ouch

     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 04:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Salty
So your grand dad was a pedo, good for you. Simply because young boys feel sexual at 14 doesn't mean that it's OK for older women to embrace that. She did something wrong whether or not the boy saw it as some sort of initiation or not.
A pedo who raised 5 children (3 were girls), was a Methodist minister, and had more moral fiber than any other person I (or you) have ever met? Heh. Wrong, try again.

That's the way things were, you knucklehead. Women married young (13-15), and men married when they had established a good job (usually after serving in the military). It was completely normal.

As for Lafave...
Was what she did wrong? Yeah.
Did the boy volunteer? Hell yeah.
How many boys his age would have done the same thing? Almost all of them.
What should happen to her? Probation and lose her job.
What should happen to a male teacher who has sex with a willing 14 y/o female student? Same thing.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 04:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
ouch

He's not just a Yankee, he's Canadian. What more could you expect?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
wallinbl
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 04:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNStein
Edit: My grandmother was 13 when she married, and had her first child at 14... my grandfather was 25 (or maybe 26).
Yeah, see that wasn't socially acceptable then either.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 05:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by wallinbl
Yeah, see that wasn't socially acceptable then either.
It was in that part of the country. Standards change with location and time, we're just too ignorant to see and accept that. When people hit puberty, they were considered young adults. Now, however, we coddle and lie to our kids, and that's part of the problem.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 05:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by wallinbl
Yeah, see that wasn't socially acceptable then either.
Wrong. Especially in the South, girls used to marry quite young.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 05:23 PM
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

Japan, Spain, Mexico, the Philippines, Guyana, and South Korea all have 13 as their age of consent (it's 14 in Canada). Further, many states still have the Marriageable age at 13, with parental and/or court approval, which my grandparents had. Even more states have the age at 14.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

Really is surprising how many people don't know their state's laws.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 05:30 PM
 
14 - in Canada?

That makes sense.

The girls are so ugly there that parents don't wanna pass up any opportunity to get them married off.

(j/k about the parents)
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 05:31 PM
 
OK, my previous comment was uncalled for.

But if I waited for my comments to be called for, I wouldn't have 8,000 posts.
     
greenamp
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
14 - in Canada?

That makes sense.

The girls are so ugly there that parents don't wanna pass up any opportunity to get them married off.

(j/k about the parents)
I lol'd.
     
The Godfather  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tampa, Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 07:52 PM
 
She pulled a Michael Jackson. No charges in Marion County, because the mother did not want to take it to court.

http://tboblogs.com/index.php/newswi...deal_rejected/

Can the mother be sued for insufficient prosecution?
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 08:05 PM
 
how old was the kid?14? with a babe who is also crazy? priceless

     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 08:14 PM
 
^ I'd hit that.

C'mom, she's a teacher! She was teaching him how to do the horizontal hustle. Where's the wrong in that?

"How old are you?"

"14"

"What? 18? All riiight."

"Mom!"

"I like where this is going. Giggedty giggedty giggedty"
( Last edited by Rumor; Mar 21, 2006 at 08:21 PM. )
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
macaddict0001
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 08:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
The thing that you overlook is this:

Consenting parties have to be adults.

A minor is below the age of consent.

A minor, willing or not, does not have the legal standing to consent, and is therefore a victim.

On that basis, this is not a victimless crime, but one with a victim.
A lot of people would consider anyone who is a man an adult and a lot more would say becoming a man is this event, just because you had to pay for sex when you were his age doesn't mean its wrong.
Originally Posted by olePigeon
You sound like a fine supporter of NAMBLA.
I didn't know what that was so I googled itThis is googles first result
As long as both members are consenting at any age I don't have a problem with it, although I don't necessarily support it.
     
itistoday
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
The thing that you overlook is this:

Consenting parties have to be adults.

A minor is below the age of consent.

A minor, willing or not, does not have the legal standing to consent, and is therefore a victim.

On that basis, this is not a victimless crime, but one with a victim.
See, the problem with what you say is that you're arguing from a purely legal standpoint. Laws can be stupid.

Logically speaking, if they're both consenting, there is no problem, and there is no victim. Heh, there's no getting around that, since the very definition of a victim is someone who has had something done to them that they did not want.

The only "real" issue here is one that has been fabricated by society. You SAY that what she did was bad. That doesn't make it "bad". "Bad" here implies damaging. The boy would have been perfectly fine, undamaged both mentally and physically had society not told the boy that what had been done to him was "bad".

I won't reply to any illogical statements made to this post. This is a non-issue fabricated into an issue by the current cultural standards held by this boy's society.
     
Demonhood
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 10:06 PM
 
copy/pasted from a thread on sodomy 3 years ago:

we have laws in place to protect children because we've established an age of consent for them. an age at which we finally say "ok, you're old enough to make your own decisions. we, as a society, have taught you enough that you can make educated choices about the hard stuff in life. and you're now old enough that you probably won't be taken advantage of by someone who is in a position of power over you (teacher, priest, cop, etc..)"
that's why we protect minors. not because of some nebulous concept of "morals".
     
Ghoser777
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 10:09 PM
 
Actually, you can be a victim by having something done to you that you don't know you don't want for various reasons (confusion, peer pressure, ignorance, mental capacity, drunkenness).

Victimization becomes a really tricky topic at this point...
     
itistoday
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 10:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Ghoser777
you can be a victim by having something done to you that you don't know you don't want...
... no. You're only a victim if someone does something to you that you don't want. That's all there's to it. You may feel drugs "victimize" me, or something like that, but that doesn't mean **** if I do them willingly.
     
itistoday
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 10:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Demonhood
we have laws in place to protect children because we've established an age of consent for them. an age at which we finally say "ok, you're old enough to make your own decisions.
You're not actually using that as an argument are you? Seems quite arbitrary don't you think? 18's OK, but 17's definitely NOT, at least not in this state, but in Florida 16 is OK. Old enough to make your own decisions? Haha, I know 30 year olds that are too stupid to make "intelligent" decisions, while I know plenty of 16 year olds whose mental capacity and decision making skills would blow away those of "adults". We're not talking about age here, we're talking about intelligence. And that, my friend, is very hard to measure, in fact, it is *not* used by the government as a litmus test to tell when you're "smart enough to have sex". What I'm saying, Demonhood, is that the "age argument", is completely and utterly, bullshit.
we, as a society, have taught you enough that you can make educated choices about the hard stuff in life. and you're now old enough that you probably won't be taken advantage of by someone who is in a position of power over you (teacher, priest, cop, etc..)"
Precisely right, it is society, that "teaches" these things. However, one thing it most definitely does not teach, is how to make "educated choices" about "the hard stuff in life". Plenty of 30, 40, 50, 60 year olds are taken advantage of on a daily basis. They are simply too stupid to make "educated choices". Age has nothing to do with it.
that's why we protect minors. not because of some nebulous concept of "morals".
No. *shakes head*. You "protect minors" precisely because you have a VERY nebulous concept of "morals". It certainly isn't because you're using any logical basis for your (society's) actions.
( Last edited by itistoday; Mar 22, 2006 at 11:37 AM. )
     
itistoday
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2006, 11:35 PM
 
I was just discussing a deeper aspect of this with a couple of floormates of mine and I'd like to share some of the ideas we discussed with you all:

The main idea driving my arguments is the idea that sex with minors is not inherently "bad". The situation of a 40 year old having sex with a 10 year old does not inherently damage the 10 year old unless he/she is physically hurt. What damages them emotionally is society itself. Society tells them that what happened to them is wrong. They are "victims".

Basically, in an ideal society, such sex would be legal unless:
• The sex was not consensual
The sex was *inherently* physically damaging (i.e. 20 yr old with a 3 year old girl).
(Edit: Changing this one to read): The sex is between two persons that have passed through puberty.
• The sex caused an STD to be transmitted (meaning no protection was used).

Societies similar to this have already existed with no problems. Take 17th century Japan for example. One could "order a boy" if one wanted, and the boys were fine with it.

You must understand this fundamental truth: sex is not a damaging or evil act, unless it causes some sort of physical damage (such as bleeding, ripping, STDs, etc).

That's the basic idea. Toy with it in your head, perhaps elaborate on it. I've got to go right now, wish I could spend more time discussing this fascinating topic.
( Last edited by itistoday; Mar 22, 2006 at 12:13 PM. )
     
Demonhood
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 12:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by itistoday
Seems quite arbitrary don't you think? 18's OK, but 17's definitely NOT, at least not in this state, but in Florida 16 is OK. Old enough to make your own decisions?
it's up to the community (in this case the state) to set the age limit.

Originally Posted by itistoday
Haha, I know 30 year olds that are too stupid to make "intelligent" decisions, while I know plenty of 16 year olds whose mental capacity and decision making skills would blow away those of "adults". We're not talking about age here, we're talking about intelligence. And that, my friend, is very hard to measure, in fact, it is *not* used by the government as a litmus test to tell when you're "smart enough to have sex". What I'm saying, Demonhood, is that the "age argument", is completely and utterly, bullshit.
doesn't matter. it's what we have. there is no better test, at the moment, to determine, on a massive scale, the ability to consent. it's an average of sorts. the community is figuring that, at the age of 18 (let's say), you'll be educated enough to make proper decisions about your health, reproduction, etc.

Originally Posted by itistoday
The situation of a 40 year old having sex with a 10 year old does not inherently damage the 10 year old unless he/she is physically hurt. What damages them emotionally is society itself. Society tells them that what happened to them is wrong. They are "victims".

Basically, in an ideal society, such sex would be legal unless:
• The sex was not consensual
• The sex was *inherently* physically damaging (i.e. 20 yr old with a 3 year old girl)
• The sex caused an STD to be transmitted (meaning no protection was used).
well, that's bordering on complete nonsense.
how many 10 year olds do you know? the vast majority are neither sexually developed enough to understand their own reproductive system, nor emotionally able to handle a sexual relationship. then, of course, there is the matter of education. the 40 year old is in a position of power here. that's what you're failing to grasp. he/she can use their years of knowledge and adult status to manipulate the youngster into "consenting" to a lot of things. kids are easy to fool because they're kids (inexperienced for the most part). a teacher, priest, parent, sibling, cop, doctor, etc. could easily convince the child that going along with what they're doing is in their best interest. and that, sir, is wrong (and illegal).

you're taking the libertarian ideal too far here. yes, people should be able to do with their bodies what they want. yes, two consenting adults should be able to engage in whatever they want behind closed doors. a 10 year old cannot consent. they could tell the adult "yes, let's have sex" and it might not tear up their insides, and they might not contract an STD, but it is still damaging. i'd say 99% of 10 year olds are lacking the faculties necessary to give consent for sex with a 40 year old. society agrees with me.
are you going to test every single person for "intelligence" when someone complains? and if they're found to not be able to consent, then you're going to tell the adult "no, sorry. that sex you thought was consensual, yeah, we did a test and it turns out they weren't smart enough to consent. sorry." ? lives will be ruined, the courts will be in chaos, all because you don't see the inherit danger in restricting some things by age.

sure, the system isn't perfect, but it's the only viable option on the table.
     
bushwhacker
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: the third paradigm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 01:10 AM
 
i think it's pretty clear. if the older, initiating, agent of sexual intercourse is a hot, blonde, authority figure, it's not illegal.

if it's a fat, hairy, angry man, it is definitely illegal.

( Last edited by bushwhacker; Mar 22, 2006 at 01:18 AM. )

when you look this good, you don't have to know anything
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 01:47 AM
 
Are you saying Nick Nolte is a pedo?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
bushwhacker
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: the third paradigm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 01:58 AM
 
No. I'm saying he's old, fat, hairy and ugly.

Thankfully, for me, that is not yet illegal.

when you look this good, you don't have to know anything
     
itistoday
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 02:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Demonhood
doesn't matter. it's what we have. there is no better test, at the moment, to determine, on a massive scale, the ability to consent.
So you admit that "what we have" is complete bullshit, yet you claim it's the best thing possible... Odd... I'll address this shortly.
it's an average of sorts. the community is figuring that, at the age of 18 (let's say), you'll be educated enough to make proper decisions about your health, reproduction, etc.
Right. It's an average, that both you and I seem to agree has an extremely large number of exceptions, that has been made *law*, meaning that all of these exceptions are deemed illegal, even though they are perfectly legitimate. Basically, you're saying that it's alright to ruin someone's life by sending them to jail for doing something that is not inherently wrong in any way. I, naturally, take issue with that.
well, that's bordering on complete nonsense.
how many 10 year olds do you know? the vast majority are neither sexually developed enough to understand their own reproductive system
"Sexually developed enough to understand their own reproductive system"? What does that mean? I've already addressed the possibility that sex might cause them physical damage because of this. If they're developed enough to have the ability to have sex, then *safe-sex* shouldn't be a problem. It's rather easy to understand one's reproductive system. Could take a whole of... 10 minutes maybe? Not sure what you're trying to say here.
nor emotionally able to handle a sexual relationship.
Interesting how you throw that word "relationship" in there. Let's just make it clear I'm not talking about a complex "relationship" here. This is more akin to simple "play"... which I'm sure they can understand... but more on this in just a sec...
then, of course, there is the matter of education. the 40 year old is in a position of power here. that's what you're failing to grasp. he/she can use their years of knowledge and adult status to manipulate the youngster into "consenting" to a lot of things. kids are easy to fool because they're kids (inexperienced for the most part). a teacher, priest, parent, sibling, cop, doctor, etc. could easily convince the child that going along with what they're doing is in their best interest. and that, sir, is wrong (and illegal).
Now we get into the meat of the problem. As you say, kids are easily persuadable, so if you feel your child shouldn't consent to sex, then you should tell them so and give them rational reasons for this, such as "STDs", "potential pregnancy" etc. However, the crux of my viewpoint is that the act of having sex with a minor is not inherently emotionally damaging in ANY way. It is *made* damaging by society. Society damages the child, NOT the sex.
you're taking the libertarian ideal too far here. yes, people should be able to do with their bodies what they want. yes, two consenting adults should be able to engage in whatever they want behind closed doors. a 10 year old cannot consent. they could tell the adult "yes, let's have sex" and it might not tear up their insides, and they might not contract an STD, but it is still damaging.
You say: "but it is still damaging." And I tell you it is not. Prove to me, explain to me, why you feel that it is damaging. You have heard my viewpoint, that the damage comes from society, from this culture and its morals--not the sex. Sex can simply be a "fun thing to do". It can be used to display complex emotions and allow lovers to express their love to each other, but that does not mean that sex has to be restricted to only "consenting adults deeply engaged in a complicated relationship".
i'd say 99% of 10 year olds are lacking the faculties necessary to give consent for sex with a 40 year old. society agrees with me.
What does that mean? What does that really mean? At what point are you somehow qualified to "consent"? What's the difference? I'll allow that knowledge of STDs and possible pregnancies is essential to being able to make a qualified decision for consent, but once you have that, the decision to have sex is really the same for any (well, I've already qualified this, again, I'm not saying a 3 year old is "game") age. So a 10 year old has sex. What then? If you don't flip out about it, what happens to that 10 year old? Nothing...?
sure, the system isn't perfect, but it's the only viable option on the table.
The system is far from perfect. The system is inherently flawed and destroys lives. I object to such an unnecessarily destructive system. The other option I have just explained to you. I have attempted to show you that the "problem", really isn't as big as you think it is.

As a slight side-topic. I believe that in such a liberally minded society, sex with minors will probably be a rarity, since such a society would not breed sexually deprived "f*ck-ups". A friend of mine told me that she heard that "most serial killers were sexually 'abused' as children". I explained to her that that is completely irrelevant (if the 'abuse' constituted simple sex and not BDSM etc...), and that those killers were most likely the product of the society they grew up in. Society created those killers, not that horny uncle. Society told those children that they were "abused", that they were now somehow different, and that what happened to them was a "shameful thing". It was something to be ashamed of. Something not to be spoken about. How do you think a child handles such depression and isolation? It's no surprise to me they grew up to become psychos.
( Last edited by itistoday; Mar 22, 2006 at 04:18 AM. )
     
itistoday
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 04:56 AM
 
Ok, I'd like to add just a couple more things.. (this is getting too long). First let me say that I of course argue from what is most definitely a theoretical viewpoint. I have yet to live in such a society as I describe but I do live in a society where I see a system that does not work, and so I'm attempting to get to the "core" of the problem, so to speak. My statements seem logical to me, and I'm happy to share them with you so that you can point out any flaws they may have.

Upon mulling over the problem more I realized that many of these issues stem from how our society treats sex. We have elevated it to a high pedestal, far from its original place in the "circle of life" so to speak.

Sex, in our culture, is considered to be a very "sacred" institution. It's viewed as the pinnacle expression of the love two people share for each other. For that reason prostitution is looked down upon. Our culture refuses to acknowledge the fact that men are compelled to have sex, and if deprived of it become .. well... insane. As Chris Rock put it: "you know what happens when he doesn't get his MEDICINE!"

This over-valuing causes many problems for us. It makes the topic of sex "taboo". Try and imagine a society where this is not the case. Where sex is understood to be what it really is, a fundamental part of life, something as natural as breathing. In such a society there would most likely be few rapists, and no "sex scandals". One would be able to talk openly about sex, even to young children and explain the whole thing to them. "De-mystifying" it. The general population would be better educated about it, and therefore less likely to do stupid things like have sex without a condom, etc.

And so, as I see it, because of how high up on the taboo-pole our society has placed sex, we create these fabricated "moral issues". Sex with minors, yes, to be honest I'm not even 100% sure on that, but there's definitely something wrong with how seriously we treat it. If viewed from a completely different perspective, it could be something that was even taught in high school classes--with live demonstrations. "Kama Sutra 101".
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 05:14 AM
 
itistoday does have a point. I find it bizarre that we live in a society where we claim that although a person develops the ability to reproduce, they lack the "maturity". Isn't this because WE tell them they aren't ready and therefore don't do anything to help them understand it? Nature gives us all everything we need to live and go on living. When we need food we get hungry. When we need to get rid of waste we feel the urge to excrete waste. Then when we need to reproduce we…are told that we aren't ready?

Do you REALLY think that the boy in this case emotionally damaged by consensual sex with a hot teacher? Bullsh*t! The only stress he is under is from all of the psychotic "adults" around him telling him and the world that this is a tragedy. Gimme a break.

You give me another example where the inherent, NECESSARY biological urges are regulated and demonized in such a way! Point me to a place in nature where such thing exists or is justified! It's preposterous!

My proposal: Age 13(or 14) to 16 you may consent to sex with the contingency that any relationship with an adult may be challenged in court by the parents and handled on a case by case basis. Parents could be given a hearing and if they show that their child is being manipulated or coerced into sex then charged could be brought up. (much lighter charges than we currently have for such things) Age 16 and up would be the official age of sexual consent regardless of the age of the other party. I think this would be a decent balance between what nature intends for us and what society expects of us.

I DON'T think that that cut off should be whether or not it is "inherently physically damaging" to the person. Clearly we are supposed to at least wait until our bodies are ready to reproduce before we engage in sex.

Flame me if you want to. This is how I see it.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 08:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Demonhood
that's why we protect minors. not because of some nebulous concept of "morals".
Demon, it's about morals. The fact that we believe taking advantage of those that can't "defend" themselves is a moral belief shows that.

Why is "morals" such a naughty word to some?
     
chris v
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Sar Chasm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 09:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Demon, it's about morals. The fact that we believe taking advantage of those that can't "defend" themselves is a moral belief shows that.

Why is "morals" such a naughty word to some?
Because it's so often used selectively to define one group's disdain for another, while overlooking their own shortcomings. I.E. "Gays are teh evil because the bible calls it an abomination, but I think I'll have me a big, fat pork steak and sleep with my GF out of wedlock... G*d'll forgive me." or alternatively, "Thou shalt not kill, unless you're killing a heretic." That last one goes several ways.

(personal opinion, there)

When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 09:33 AM
 
k, think the demon quote is a holdover from the 3 years ago thread.

that we develop at age 12 doesn't mean we are ready for a modern relationship with its issues and stresses. Back in cave man days-->midieval times, it was a rush to procreate first before the dinosaurs/plague got you. Choice wasn't much involved, especially for girls.

Even if the age of consent is 12, (and eww) how many girls were told by their folks "this is who you're marrying, get to it?" How much power would they have had back then to protest? "Then" being midieval times, or apparently, up to anytime in the recent south.

(also, points to salty. ?!?!?!)
     
itistoday
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 11:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush
I DON'T think that that cut off should be whether or not it is "inherently physically damaging" to the person. Clearly we are supposed to at least wait until our bodies are ready to reproduce before we engage in sex.
I agree. It seems like puberty would be a good determinant. They don't have the hormones urging them to have sex before that anyways.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 01:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi
Even if the age of consent is 12, (and eww) how many girls were told by their folks "this is who you're marrying, get to it?" How much power would they have had back then to protest? "Then" being midieval times, or apparently, up to anytime in the recent south.

(also, points to salty. ?!?!?!)
No, because 13 y/o "girls" in the South during that time were more mature than the 13 y/o "babies" we're raising today. In modern times, we coddle and fuss over our kids, spoil them horribly, and never bother to teach them adult responsibilities when the time comes (at puberty if not before). No wonder we have so many teen pregnancies, disrespect, and overall immaturity.

So, in essence, a 13 y/o girl today is very much a child, while a 13 y/o "girl" back then was a young woman, and had already been working (either on a farm or with similar chores) and "fending for themselves" for quite some time.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 01:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNStein
No, because 13 y/o "girls" in the South during that time were more mature than the 13 y/o "babies" we're raising today. In modern times, we coddle and fuss over our kids, spoil them horribly, and never bother to teach them adult responsibilities when the time comes (at puberty if not before).
No wonder I've felt 10 years older than everyone my age half my life.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 01:59 PM
 
Let's try this again. Does anyone truly believe that this 14 year old kid is going to be mentally or emotionally damaged for having sex with her?



I highly doubt she took advantage of him. It's more likely the opposite. Maybe she is the victim. Maybe he pursued her so relentlessly that she finally caved in. I know if I was 14 and my teacher looked like, I would be trying to get with her.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:36 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,