What's new
By:

This is pure crap.

I think you should have to move out of your parents house, and be financially responsible for yourself, before you can legally be considered an adult...but that creates a legal conundrum.
 
JazzSpazz said:
Just curious about how much experience you have watching the decision making process of 13-17 year olds and how they weigh the consequences in their decision making process.
I realize you were a teen once, but there is also the issue of how closely have you seen the teen decision making process, and from how many different situations and scenarios in order to come to your opinion. Have you seen it from nieces/nephews, as a teacher, neighborhood kids? I just was curious about the depth and breadth of your experience in this area to get a feel for your opinion.

While I see teens weigh consequences in their decision making process, I often see the fact that they have a warped view of what the consequences would be based on inexperience, lack of information, or quite often lack of actually weighing any sort of consequences because they just want to do what they want to do without any thought involved. It is a time in life where they are changing so much that they are dealing with physical changes, hormonal changes, peer pressures, media expectations, friends, parents, and what to do with this whole sex issue based on all of that. Even if teens go through their decision making process it often times is based on not enough data, or they are not seeing the whole picture.

I get your point though too, I've seen teens make much better and rational decisions than many adults. I've also seen many adults make terrible decision that had zero thought for the consequences. On the whole though I still don't think 13-17 year olds should be held just as accountable for their decisions as 18-99 year olds and think that generally they are not in a position to make the best decision possible.

There is a reason teens under 18 are held less accountable legally for their choices and it is still considered a crime for someone 18 or over when they have sexual relations with someone younger. There should be some accountability in this case, but 15 years seems excessive especially when the girl is just 18 and was still in school. I would think that the judge would understand that it was consensual and that she was just 18. It is up to 15 years, but I think the verdict will be minimal based on this information. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

What you said is pretty much my point.

Some kids can make good decisions, some are hyper-emotional, some have long term hormonal issues that distort reality at an even higher degree during puberty...

The issue is way too complex to throw every 18 year old who fooled around with a 14 year old into prison and label them a sex offender or rapist. Some are clearly predatory and manipulate unwilling girls into a yes. Other girls, however, are the aggressors and are in no way violated by anyone other than themselves.

IMO, society should strongly discourage 18 year olds from playing with 14 year olds, but the punishment should be more of a warning at first like 3 months jail or 1000 hours community service, with higher degrees for the cases when predatory acts seem more clear. Then escalate punishment with the second offense on. Maybe something similar for 18-15, but not 18-16 or 19-16.

I just don't see most these kids as rapists. They're children trying to figure life out and fit into society. A lot of them are probably less matured than the young girls their accused of "raping".
 
PearlWatson said:
They have the ability to reason. Their lack of experience and their underdeveloped brains limit their reasoning power.

"Billions" of teenage boys abstaining is the result of efforts by parents and churches teaching higher-power based morals. Teenagers who believe in a higher power, and have a foundation of a loving family with moral expectations have a reason to abstain, besides "I might get her knocked up or get an std." "Maybe" is not very powerful when libs tell them condom use is "safe sex."
Click to expand...

If there weren't any negative consequences then there wouldn't be a reason to abstain in the first place. The consequences don't change based on what god you worship, only possibly the degree of guilt. I'm sure there are plenty atheists and agnostics who teach their boys that it's wrong to deflower young women before their wedding, and to have more pride and respect. The potential for guilt will hold them back all the same.

Religion doesn't change the risk-reward profile one bit.
 
franklin said:
If there weren't any negative consequences then there wouldn't be a reason to abstain in the first place. The consequences don't change based on what god you worship, only possibly the degree of guilt. I'm sure there are plenty atheists and agnostics who teach their boys that it's wrong to deflower young women before their wedding, and to have more pride and respect. The potential for guilt will hold them back all the same.

Religion doesn't change the risk-reward profile one bit.
Click to expand...

This response shows a lack of understanding of my original post.

Since agnostics are unwilling to commit to any of a billion church family options, who knows what sex ed they are willing to commit to. Probably just leave it up to the liberals in school.

God deniers don't see marriage as sacred so there is no reason to discourage their sons from out-of-wedlock sex. Consent may be the only important criteria, but there is no lack of willing girls. It ain't like boys lack possible ways to avoid consequences, either.

Condoms and Abortion are an undisciplined cad's dream come true. I'd say porn has saved many a young buck from himself but that only seems to encourage the actual behavior rather than prevent it.

Most boys are gonna give in to their hard ons, no matter the consequences, if they don't have the religious and family background I already mentioned...even that is not enough with the onslaught of girls with no dads.
 
PearlWatson said:
This response shows a lack of understanding of my original post.

Since agnostics are unwilling to commit to any of a billion church family options, who knows what sex ed they are willing to commit to. Probably just leave it up to the liberals in school.


God deniers don't see marriage as sacred so there is no reason to discourage their sons from out-of-wedlock sex...
Click to expand...

um...

last I heard, marriage was essentially a pact/promise made between two individuals - often in a church but often not. A belief in God really has nothing to do with it. Many people live within their vows, regardless of their religious beliefs. And a belief in God has little to do with those who don't live within their vows.
 
moevillini said:
um...

last I heard, marriage was essentially a pact/promise made between two individuals - often in a church but often not. A belief in God really has nothing to do with it. Many people live within their vows, regardless of their religious beliefs. And a belief in God has little to do with those who don't live within their vows.
Click to expand...

yeah I get that...

I ain't talking adultery. I meant "out of wedlock" as in they ain't in a marriage commitment yet.

It was a response to this:

I'm sure there are plenty atheists and agnostics who teach their boys that it's wrong to deflower young women before their wedding
Click to expand...

I don't see how it could be "wrong" outside of thinking marriage is sacred...that sex should be reserved only within marriage...
 
PearlWatson said:
yeah I get that...

I ain't talking adultery. I meant "out of wedlock" as in they ain't in a marriage commitment yet.

It was a response to this:



I don't see how it could be "wrong" outside of thinking marriage is sacred...that sex should be reserved only within marriage...
Click to expand...

Yeah, without God it's pretty much anything goes...

Maybe for all the same reasons why it makes sense for religious people? In order to develop a relationship based on more than sexual desire. To eliminate the possibility of unwanted pregnancy. To reduce the risk of getting an STD. To avoid the emotional difficulties associated with a sexual relationship that falls apart.

But atheists don't care about any of that. We're all just about gluttony and hedonism.
 
Gameface said:
Yeah, without God it's pretty much anything goes...

Maybe for all the same reasons why it makes sense for religious people? In order to develop a relationship based on more than sexual desire. To eliminate the possibility of unwanted pregnancy. To reduce the risk of getting an STD. To avoid the emotional difficulties associated with a sexual relationship that falls apart.

But atheists don't care about any of that. We're all just about gluttony and hedonism.
Click to expand...

says the guy who "got lucky" at 13, 14, 15.
 
Beantown said:
You can try the Joseph Smith card but back then it was legal and times were very different. Nobody gives Edgard Allen Poe **** for having a 13 year old wife.....who also happened to be his cousin.

That's like saying its ok to keep a black kid in your basement and make him clean your house for free because the President's did it 200 years ago.
Click to expand...

He's saying it was never okay, not the other way around. Have you ever had an IQ test done on you?
 
NUMBERICA said:
He's saying it was never okay, not the other way around. Have you ever had an IQ test done on you?
Click to expand...

How do you have an IQ test "done on you"? You actually take an IQ test.

So next time say "Have you ever taken an IQ test?"

Your retard hick sentences are confusing.
 
Beantown said:
How do you have an IQ test "done on you"? You actually take an IQ test.

So next time say "Have you ever taken an IQ test?"

Your retard hick sentences are confusing.
Click to expand...

The one's I've taken have had a proctor actively involved. They read the questions and mark your answers. Maybe I was a special case because they weren't sure if I was retarded or a genius.
 
Beantown said:
I don't know where the hell you live but Ive never seen a 16 year old date a 20 year old...Nor a 14 year old and an 18 year old.
Click to expand...
I have (re: the 16 and 20 yr old). She was a friend of mine. Actually asked her out when I was in HS and she said she couldn't right now. I later found out why. She ended up getting pregnant with her boyfriend. He was a decent guy otherwise, and I don't think anyone would have wanted him sent to prison. Now as a father, I would be appalled to hear about my 14 yr old daughter having sex. But I would also have to consider the circumstances. Obviously, dating a fellow student is a LOT different than a 30 yr. old she met at the mall. And, I would also have to consider whether it was consensual. A long-term relationship is a 2-way street and both parties are responsible to varying degrees. Admittedly, I don't know the whole story behind this case. But if I DID want that 18-yr old to stay away from my daughter, then I might tell him or her that I would be going to the police and to consider the consequences of an arrest and conviction for adult/juvenile sex. But even if the two persisted in a relationship, the punishment should be commensurate with the crime. Consensual sex in this case is not the equivalent of felony manslaughter. IMO, the punishment should be a restraining order, classes and even house arrest. But a felony, 15 years in prison and being required to register as a sex offender? That's WAY over what the punishment should be in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top