jsgoddess, I’ve given thoughtful replies to three of your posts in this thread. Is it really that hard to answer a simple question in return?
Random, your question came after she asked for a clarification-which clarficiation you did not make; instead changing the subject.
Random: “I don’t think zookeepers are able to choose the life for their monkeys. Thus, we should let zookeepers be able to give freedom to their monkeys.”
jsgoddess: “If the zookeepers can’t choose properly, it doesn’t make sense to make a law them gives them such a choice.”
Random: “Are you concerned with zookeepers choosing properly? Or improperly?” <- WTF?
jsgoddess: “No, I’m saying that your OP is internally conflicting.”
Random: “So then, both?” <- WTF??
etc.
Thank god. I was beginning to think I was completely nuts instead of moderately nuts.
Sorry, I’ve already written some very long replies to people in this thread, and some of those replies were likely longer than they needed to be. That’s because I couldn’t figure out the exact concern, or point, or source of confusion of the the person I was responding to. So I had to respond to all of the possible issues that I though may have been meant, and sometimes I still wasn’t sure that I had figured out the post.
So, in her first post, jsgoddess says:
I’m not sure what she has in mind here, but I take a guess, Oogy? Maybe she’s troubled by the need for parents and children to have uncomfortable discussions about sex as part of the permission process. So I respond on that assumption.
But apparently I failed to read her mind correctly:
This one puzzled me, too. Apparently, she had formed the belief that, under my proposal, parents could force unwilling minors to have sex. Even though I clearly said in the OP that the minor’s actual consent would be a requirement. (and even if I had left that out, her assumption that I intended forced sex for teens would still have struck me as bizarre.) Oh well, I think. She must have missed that
line in my OP.
So I refer her back to the relevant OP phrase which said that the minor’s actual consent would be required under my suggested change in the law.
But no, apparently I guessed wrong again:
At first, this seems fairly obtuse to me. These are common English words. Even if someone doesn’t understand all of the nuances of the phrase “actual consent”, to reach the conclusion that she reached in her prior post - that no consent of the minor would be required - seemed to be a wilful disregard of what I had said.
But no matter. I decide that she’s unfamiliar with at least one the basic premises and terms of this debate, so I define actual consent at some length, with as much precision as I can.
Have I now addressed her original source of confusion? I have no idea, as she makes no response or comment. Instead, she (apparently) jumps to another issue. She pulls a one-sentence fragment from one of my earlier replies to another poster and adds a one-sentence comment that appears to be saying that she disagrees with my sentence, or at least has concerns about it. As my sentence was part of a multipost debate with that other poster, a debate that had veered (in some part) off the topic of the OP, I thought it possible that she
had missed the context in which it was made. And I was tired of guessing wrong, and responding to assumed concerns and sources of misunderstanding that, as it turned out, might not have been there.
So I asked her a clarifying question, which she has so far refused to answer. Unless she gives me the courtesy of an answer, I will not be responding to her posts. I’m afraid I’d just be wasting more time.
One of your scenarios casts doubt on the idea of “consent” for minors. You even showed the doubt explicitly:
In other words, you are the one who introduced doubt of what a minor’s consent means. Now you claim that the idea of “forced sex for teens” is “bizarre.” What is Moesha’s mother doing? Your scenario points out a specific though extreme example of your idea working against the minor.
You’re complaining about a system. The faults in the system are not improved by your suggestions, as others in this thread have already pointed out to you. I pointed toward a specific, obvious, disconnect between what you think the problem is and how you think you’re going to solve it. Apparently, pointing out that contradiction requires me to answer a question that I find meaningless.
I’ll ask the question again, in case someone else, perhaps someone not so apparently emotional, can explain what you mean:
If the problem with the current system is, at least in part, that parents don’t use good sense, how is giving them more discretion going to help?
And, as a followup, the parents who were going to call the cops before would still be calling the cops they would refuse consent, so how is giving them more discretion going to help?
The only people who would be getting parental permission are the people whose parents weren’t going to call the cops in the first place.
Bah. Left out a word.
the parents who were going to call the cops before would still be calling the cops because they would refuse consent, so how is giving them more discretion going to help?
It’s can be one word answer. Humor me.
After all, I’ve responded to your posts and questions, even when I found them difficult to understand, or caused by a failure to read the OP. It’s not a one way street. I answer your questions. You answer mine.
To wit:
Minors cannot give consent to have sex because they are presumed to be too immature mentally and emotional to have sex. Can a minor be adjudged mature enough to have sex? Who determines exceptions to the law? Under present law, only a judge or similar magistrate can make such a determination. Under common law, certainly parents can give consent to minors marrying. The idea is that the parent can affirm the emancipation of their minor children into adulthood since are not the parents the shepherds of their children unto adulthood? However, does this mean parents can give consent to their minor children to have sex without benefit of marriage? 
Random, play nice.
If jsg is saying she cannot understand what you said or are asking, telling her to reread what you wrote is silly.
She hasn’t said she doesn’t understand the question. She’s said that she doesn’t want to answer it because she doesn’t understand why it’s meaningful. In other words, she doesn’t understand why I’m asking it.
I’m the one who has said that I sometimes haven’t understood her questions. In an effort to avoid further misunderstandings in this regard, I’ve asked a question in an effort to better understand her concern(s). I don’t want to keep on spending time writing long, general replies that may miss the mark. I’d rather write a short, focused one if that is possible.
I’ve got no obligation to reply to anyone, let alone someone who refuses to cooperate in my efforts to save time and write a more focused reply.
-
Under present law, yes. That certainly one of the reasons behind the law. (again, as used here, “minor” = person below the AOC.)
-
No, not in any state that I’m aware of. Some states have emancipated minor procedures, but I’ve never heard one of one that allowed a minor to consent to sex, even after emancipation. If you know of such a statute, please direct me to it.
-
Not applicable. See answer to #2.
-
Not in any state I’m familiar with. Where and how can a judge do this?
-
Yes, as I’ve said before, parents can consent to the marriage of their minor children, at least in most states.
-
I don’t understand this sentence.
-
No, not under present law. But this is exactly what is under discussion in this thread - a change in the law to allow parents to do this. The whole thread would make no sense if parents could do this today. Has this escaped you somehow?
Ummmm, yeah. All the confusion about how a single sentence can be read many ways aside, I thought I should bring up an real-life example. The fark.com headline reads “Police find registered sex offender sleeping in bed with 15-year-old. He’s fine with that, she’s fine with that, mom’s fine with that. The police, not so happy”
Looking at his his mug shot, and considering that two years has gone by since his initial arrest, it appears he might have been only one or two years older than the girl in the original case. What is he? 21?
I think you’re reading too much into those scare quotes. The point is that if she’s “consenting” because her parents coerced her, that isn’t really consent, even though other minors who haven’t been coerced can give actual consent.
Ah, but there’s a difference. Under Random’s system, a teenager can get permission to have sex, and even if her parents change their mind in the future (“What’s this, a D in chemistry? No more sex for you, young lady!”), she and her boyfriend are safe from prosecution for anything they did while she had their consent.
Under the present system, all she can do is ask her parents not to turn her boyfriend in, and they can hold that over her for as long as they want. (“If you don’t bring these grades up, so help me, I’ll tell the cops all about what you and Jeremy were up to last weekend!”)
Furthermore, I may be wrong here, but isn’t it possible for a third party to report underage sex? If so, even asking her parents not to report him may not be good enough if a neighbor or police officer passing by happens to hear what’s going on.
I think the point is that if she’s consenting because she’s coerced other kids might consent because they are coerced. Having the opportunity to give consent opens the door to coercion in a new way.
And the OP screamed that fearing such coercion was “bizarre” even though it was in his own post.
No, because he has specifically said that his idea was not built around having something in writing.
The teen would have no way of proving what the status of the consent was at the time she believed she had consent. The parent(s) could revoke the consent at tany time, in the middle of a relationship they had previously consented to, and the teen would be just as vulnerable as if consent didn’t exist.
And, of course, all of the parents who now refuse their children sex by using the law would still be doing so.
Under the new system all she can do is ask her parents not to turn her boyfriend in. The parents get a little boost of power, but the teen is in the same situation she was before.
I don’t know if third parties can report it. It seems likely. Most underage relationships don’t get reported, or if reported don’t get prosecuted. I believe most parents would not give permission and that permissions once given would be subject to being revoked or denied without warning. The number of actual prosecutions this law would prevent would, in my opinion, be vanishingly small.
Yup, police can and do arrest people for statutory rape, even without any parent complaining. (Yeah, I’d bet most arrests originate with an unhappy parent. But that’s not always the case.) So my proposed change in the law would have potential value in all of those situation where a neighbor, or a cop, or a DCFS representative, or a local minister, or a jealous ex-GF, or anyone other than a parent learns of the sexual act(s) with the minor and makes a stink.
And I can even think of a few (admittedly rare) situations where the proposed law could prevent a statutory rape conviction even when it is the parent who files the police complaint. One I touched on already - where the 18 year old ends the relationship and the 16 year old gets angry and vindictive, or tries to blackmail the 18 year old into returning, or gets despondent, and this reaction by the teen leads to a complaint by her parent.
Another situation might involve divorced parents. The custodial parent gives permission. The non custodial parent objects, either because she (a) legitimately believes premarital sex is evil; or (b) wants to paint the custodial parent as evil because she hates him, or to convince a judge to give her custody, or to blackmail him so that she can avoid making child support payments.
A third situation is akin to the one described by Mr2001: A parent could use the past sex act as a weapon against the minor and her BF - “If you don’t do what I want, I’ll report you for what you did last Saturday, even though I gave permission at the time.”
I don’t necessarily agree with one aspect of Mr2001’s interpretation of my proposal, though. Althougn parental permission would be continuing in one sense, in that Alison wouldn’t need to ask Mom every time she and Adam do it (“Hey, Mom! Adam and I are back at his dorm. We’re going to have sex again! That ok? Thanks, bye!”) I think that the parent should be able to revoke permission for the future, either because circumstances change or, in the parent’s view, the sexual relationship is no longer in the minor’s best interests.
Adults might also “consent” if they are coerced, but we recognize that it isn’t really consent.
No, not really. It just opens the door to coercion in the same way that it’s already open to everyone else. Similarly, if I have no money, I don’t have to worry about someone stealing it from me; if you give me a $20 bill, the door is now open to theft, but only in the same way that it’s already open for everyone else who carries cash.
For the future, certainly. But they shouldn’t be able to revoke it retroactively, which is what I was referring to. (“A D in chemistry, huh? Gee, that reminds me, I changed my mind about letting you have sex with Adam last week, just before you left for his dorm. Guess I just forgot to tell you. You didn’t do anything I’d have to call the police about, did you?”)
How would you deal with a situation like that?
Superficially, this issue is easy to deal with. Unspoken revocations like this wouldn’t be effective. Mom would have to communicate her changed views on the subject.
But here’s where (I admit) it gets tricky. I’ve got no problem requiring Mom to say something to Alison in order for the consent to be revoked. Let’s say she does, though, but Alison doesn’t tell Adam. (Adam knows about the prior permission.) Alison and Adam have sex. Would Adam be guilty of statutory rape?
True. But the tacit admission of the law itself is that minors are not like everyone else. Generally, risks and rewards are a balanced thing. My freedoms open me up to dangers. If I am to be exposed to the same risk, surely I should have the same freedoms?
If he honestly believes the facts are on his side, I see no reason to find him guilty of anything. There’s no practical way for him to find out about the change if no one tells him, and it’s unjust to put Adam in jail because of Alison’s failure to tell him about it.
Yes. And you would, wouldn’t you?
Either your parents give consent, in which case you’re at risk of being coerced but also have the freedom to have sex, or they don’t, in which case you have neither the risk nor the freedom.
Found this article online today: