Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
James G 5 said,
I will make this comment on the argument in general
Statutory rape laws exist for the same reason as seat belt laws
Yes, there are 15-17 yr old girls (and boys) who're mentally capable and emotionally mature enough to make the decision to commit to a relationship with someone older on a serious & physical/sexual level
Yes there are 23 year + old men or women who might genuinely find them attractive or fall in love with them
However MOST 15-17 year olds aren't that mature (heck, I think marriage should be illegal before age 25 for ANYONE) and most will grow & change a LOT between "now" and 30
And everyone knows people that age like to THINK they know everything, but generally grow out of it. The perceived maturity vs actual maturity, desire for rebellion, wish to feel or SEEM grown up, and general teenage angst combined with hormonal overdrive serve to render this age group susceptible to those who are out to prey on them
And a disproportionate number of men over 20 who get involved with younger girls do it because THEY are emotionally immature and unable to relate to women their age or unwilling to put the work in to it. One lady I work with had a child at 17 and another at 18 by 2 different men who're now both convicted sex offenders for sleeping with girls as young as 14 and 15 while well in to their 30's. These guys swore they always had feelings for the girls. *shrug* Most guys that age without issues WOULD choose older women. (NOTE, I am talking in generalizations here and about the MAJORITY of situations, not everyone or all situations or the people in this situation, who I do not know at all. Nor, given that my mom dated one ofher high school teachers who SHE pursued, do I feel ALL of this is guys out to exploit girls)
Additionally, a serious issue in several states (here in Florida included) in the welfare system is the number of underage girls who have children by absentee fathers. Statistcs show many of these absentees, often non-support payings ones, are over 30. This is not a minority issue but an issue across the welfare system. (Contrary to popular belief, there're a lot of non-minorities on the welfare rolls).
So what does all of this have to do with seatbelt laws?
They were passed to protect society from bearing the cost ofthe bad decisions of a group of people, those who drove without them and raised insurance costs for the rest of us
Statutory rape laws were passed to give us a mechanism protecting society at large from having young people exploited and costing society in any number of ways
They're applied selectively and often unfairly, for instance used as a club to "force" marriage
But they exist because of the bad people & bad cases, not the situations where everything is mutual and happy
So much as I love Sheath I have to disagree with changing the laws
I'm not sure what to make of this argument. James says he's giving a reason why certain laws exist. It turns out, according to J, that the reason is to 'protect society.' Well James, that reason is certainly talked about, but we also know laws come about through such things as 'moral hysteria' or witchhunting (though stated in terms of 'protecting society').
It appears, however, you're trying to say why such laws _should exist_, are good laws, etc. Youre not describing a process so much as defending it in terms of results -- alleged protection.
You're arguing from 'bad cases.' Not even a 'majority of cases' but a few 'bad ones' , is that right?
What has to be factored in, is the costs of 'paternalism', which is essentially what's being defended. How much 'intrusiveness' of the state do we want? Now I don't mind the seat belt laws, since the 'cost' to the person is low, and his being cared for by society after getting his neck broken is large and maybe lifelong.
Let's take a similar case of drunkenness or 'excessive drinking'. It certainly has its bad cases. So, on your analysis should there be a law against it? (i.e., simply drunkenness, apart from any acts presenting a danger to others, such as driving.). Imo, the intrusion problem is large, here, and the result is that many such laws are falling. (e.g., 'public drunkenness').
James stresses the harm suffered by certain underage girls who end up in the welfare system because of sex with 30 year olds.
I know of that, since it happened in my family. Yet the law didn't stop it, and it wasn't prosecuted. The girl was mixed up, her parents were divorcing, etc. So your favored law is often inneffective and beside the point, in addressing the welfare problem
In fact, a sensible approach to teen age pregnancy and motherhood (fatherhood, sometimes) is to educate and empower the teen age girls as in Holland or Sweden. Get them condoms and further teach a 'level headed' and realistic approach to sex (i.e., assume it's likely to occur).
So I conclude, James, *even if it's admitted there are sometimes bad consequences* that is far short of showing that a criminal- law approach is a good one. In fact, I'll bet Florida has such a law, and has a pretty high rate of teen moms in the welfare system. So where has it gotten the Floridians, in terms of 'protecting society' (from costs). This is quite different from seat belt laws, which have proven effectiveness.
In general, the approach of preparing midteens, and empowering them should, imo, be the first recourse. They should also be sheltered from economic hardship, which contributes to 'socially harmful' forms of sex. The 'criminal law' approach--wielded against adults who 'take advantage'--, as in the 'internet crime laws' being proposed, is neither good nor effective.
J.
I will make this comment on the argument in general
Statutory rape laws exist for the same reason as seat belt laws
Yes, there are 15-17 yr old girls (and boys) who're mentally capable and emotionally mature enough to make the decision to commit to a relationship with someone older on a serious & physical/sexual level
Yes there are 23 year + old men or women who might genuinely find them attractive or fall in love with them
However MOST 15-17 year olds aren't that mature (heck, I think marriage should be illegal before age 25 for ANYONE) and most will grow & change a LOT between "now" and 30
And everyone knows people that age like to THINK they know everything, but generally grow out of it. The perceived maturity vs actual maturity, desire for rebellion, wish to feel or SEEM grown up, and general teenage angst combined with hormonal overdrive serve to render this age group susceptible to those who are out to prey on them
And a disproportionate number of men over 20 who get involved with younger girls do it because THEY are emotionally immature and unable to relate to women their age or unwilling to put the work in to it. One lady I work with had a child at 17 and another at 18 by 2 different men who're now both convicted sex offenders for sleeping with girls as young as 14 and 15 while well in to their 30's. These guys swore they always had feelings for the girls. *shrug* Most guys that age without issues WOULD choose older women. (NOTE, I am talking in generalizations here and about the MAJORITY of situations, not everyone or all situations or the people in this situation, who I do not know at all. Nor, given that my mom dated one ofher high school teachers who SHE pursued, do I feel ALL of this is guys out to exploit girls)
Additionally, a serious issue in several states (here in Florida included) in the welfare system is the number of underage girls who have children by absentee fathers. Statistcs show many of these absentees, often non-support payings ones, are over 30. This is not a minority issue but an issue across the welfare system. (Contrary to popular belief, there're a lot of non-minorities on the welfare rolls).
So what does all of this have to do with seatbelt laws?
They were passed to protect society from bearing the cost ofthe bad decisions of a group of people, those who drove without them and raised insurance costs for the rest of us
Statutory rape laws were passed to give us a mechanism protecting society at large from having young people exploited and costing society in any number of ways
They're applied selectively and often unfairly, for instance used as a club to "force" marriage
But they exist because of the bad people & bad cases, not the situations where everything is mutual and happy
So much as I love Sheath I have to disagree with changing the laws
I'm not sure what to make of this argument. James says he's giving a reason why certain laws exist. It turns out, according to J, that the reason is to 'protect society.' Well James, that reason is certainly talked about, but we also know laws come about through such things as 'moral hysteria' or witchhunting (though stated in terms of 'protecting society').
It appears, however, you're trying to say why such laws _should exist_, are good laws, etc. Youre not describing a process so much as defending it in terms of results -- alleged protection.
You're arguing from 'bad cases.' Not even a 'majority of cases' but a few 'bad ones' , is that right?
What has to be factored in, is the costs of 'paternalism', which is essentially what's being defended. How much 'intrusiveness' of the state do we want? Now I don't mind the seat belt laws, since the 'cost' to the person is low, and his being cared for by society after getting his neck broken is large and maybe lifelong.
Let's take a similar case of drunkenness or 'excessive drinking'. It certainly has its bad cases. So, on your analysis should there be a law against it? (i.e., simply drunkenness, apart from any acts presenting a danger to others, such as driving.). Imo, the intrusion problem is large, here, and the result is that many such laws are falling. (e.g., 'public drunkenness').
James stresses the harm suffered by certain underage girls who end up in the welfare system because of sex with 30 year olds.
I know of that, since it happened in my family. Yet the law didn't stop it, and it wasn't prosecuted. The girl was mixed up, her parents were divorcing, etc. So your favored law is often inneffective and beside the point, in addressing the welfare problem
In fact, a sensible approach to teen age pregnancy and motherhood (fatherhood, sometimes) is to educate and empower the teen age girls as in Holland or Sweden. Get them condoms and further teach a 'level headed' and realistic approach to sex (i.e., assume it's likely to occur).
So I conclude, James, *even if it's admitted there are sometimes bad consequences* that is far short of showing that a criminal- law approach is a good one. In fact, I'll bet Florida has such a law, and has a pretty high rate of teen moms in the welfare system. So where has it gotten the Floridians, in terms of 'protecting society' (from costs). This is quite different from seat belt laws, which have proven effectiveness.
In general, the approach of preparing midteens, and empowering them should, imo, be the first recourse. They should also be sheltered from economic hardship, which contributes to 'socially harmful' forms of sex. The 'criminal law' approach--wielded against adults who 'take advantage'--, as in the 'internet crime laws' being proposed, is neither good nor effective.
J.
Last edited:
icks Tania up and drags her tiny angry body from the thread:: Stay out, love, it's for the best. You just end up angry and wanting to kill everyone for not understanding your lifestyle... it's best if you distance yourself from all of it, lol. 
