Excuse me Czarcasm, a sec please

[Waverly]

Just a clarification on your ‘closeness in age’ caveat:

According to Article 130 (Sexual Offenses) of the New York Penal Code, if the perpetrator is less than 21 years of age and the victim is under 17 years, this is a sexual misconduct offense; if the perpetrator is older than 21 and the victim is under 17, t his is known as third degree rape; if the perpetrator is older than 18 and the victim is less than 14, then this is second degree rape; and, if the victim is younger than 11 years of age, then first degree rape has been committed.

I had assumed the law had already taken into account that an absolute value for age of majority does not make sense, and does not account for couples that include a member on either side (but close to) the dividing line. It seems for the crime of ‘sexual misconduct’, NY defies common sense. [I seem to remember, way back in the sands of time, being 17 and having a 16 year old girlfriend] Still, the crime is not termed ‘rape’ until the age gap is greater than 5 years with one person being underage. Your state may vary.

[wring]

Yea, Waverly my state (MI) DOES vary. I spoke to an 18 year old in the county jail who’d had sex w/a 15 year old (he was a senior in h/s, she was a sophomore) They were 2 years, 2 months apart in age. That’s why I have that caveat. That young man will be registering as a ‘sexoffender/child molester’ once he gets out of jail.

[Waverly]

Wring: That’s a very sad situation you describe. Given her age, I’m sure the young ladies parents have legitimate concerns (I make the assumption that without their involvement this would not have been pursued legally, and that the girl herself did not make accusations), but the young man seems to be getting an unfair deal. I don’t think the spirit of the law is to prevent teenagers from being, well, teenagers.

[wring]

*Originally posted by Waverly *
**Wring: That’s a very sad situation you describe. Given her age, I’m sure the young ladies parents have legitimate concerns (I make the assumption that without their involvement this would not have been pursued legally, and that the girl herself did not make accusations), but the young man seems to be getting an unfair deal. I don’t think the spirit of the law is to prevent teenagers from being, well, teenagers. **

I have limited info about the case, not much 'cept her age (and his). From what I understand, the prosecution occured 'cause she got an STD.

But it underscores some of the problem w/data and ‘mandatory’ sentences. There’s another case (and this one just burns me, too, for other reasons), where a guy had sex w/underaged girl, (she got passed around at a party). he’s now on a full football scholarship to the local U. :mad: (they did a plea agreement which dropped it down to a misdeamnor non sexual assault.)

But our state statute’s quite clear. Under the age of 16 can be charged as a crime. It’s also clear that it includes any sexual contact, (groping anyone?) - so damn near all 15 year olds could be potential ‘victims’ under the statute. (Criminal Sexual Contact in the 4th degree - note it still refers to sexual contact, and would require being on the sex offenders list)

Being the parent of a male (now 17), I’ve drummed it into his head that he needs positive proof of age before he so much as shakes hands with any female.

[Spyderman]

*Originally posted by Esprix *
*IANATherapist, but desires and feelings are not inherently wrong; acting inappropriately on those feelings is.
Esprix **

WOW Words Of Wisdom

[Czarcasm]

Spyderman, please tell me you are not implying what I think you are implying-some sort of moral equivilancy between non-consenting sex between an adult and a child, a consenting sex between two adults?

[Esprix]

Czarcasm, I am so very, very glad you’re in my corner.

Esprix

[Spyderman]

I dunno.
Ask Esprix exactly what he meant when he posted that blanket generalization, and this.

I don’t see why this is so hard to get. I don’t care why he’s attracted to [snip] insert age/gender/nationality here**[/snip]**. I don’t care that such attaction is not his fault. I loathe the very idea of it, with every fiber of my being. I refuse to “validate” such a feeling, because it is my firmly held belief that it is wrong. I don’t give a shit if he can control how he feels or not.

[bolding mine]

Personally, I did not read the thread that was mentioned, but I believe that it was proper that it was closed and deleted.

I do not equate homosexuals to pediophiliacs but if you look at the world around you, apparently there are many people that do. Their world is black and white, we do not all live in gray like ESPRIX. A recent thread pertaining to the BS of A (where many supporters of their decisions were flamed) is just one example.

Flame me, whatever, I just call 'em as I see 'em. Does that make me a bad person too?
Perhaps, perhaps not.
::shrug:: Don’t really care either.

But to give you your answer: no.

[PosterChild]

I fully respect Czarcasm’s & Tuba’s judgement, and I feel their actions fall within their perogative.
This is a very emotional topic, and I think the danger of letting the thread remain is posted mostly to those of us on the board who would be hurt by reading it.

It seems to be accepted by everyone who opposes allowing the thread, that the guy is a child molester and the thread would only make him feel more valid in his behavior, not change it. So leaving the thread open would only affect him emotionally (give him a thrill), which we wouldn’t want to do.

No one has ever stated (here at least) that child molesting is in any way defensible, so he wouldn’t get encouragement. In fact, here would be a chance for people to tell him how wrong he was, to his (virtual) face. If it didn’t change him- no harm done.

I feel, though, that I missed something by not seeing it, and not being able to contribute. I do think fighting ignorance (of the rest of us SD posters) would have been better served by allowing the discussion.

Of course, if it put the SDMB or it’s host in legal jeopardy, then there are no other options, anyway.
Except maybe having a mod/admin post at the beginning that child molestation is sick & wrong morally, ethically, legally, and while discussion of the topic is allowed, no support implied or otherwise should be inferred.

*Originally posted by Jodi *
The reason the guy’s word is inherently untrustworthy [snip], but rather becasue he has admitted to having desires that are both (a) highly illegal if acted upon and (b) societally repugnant in the extreme if acted upon.

So we tar a person who hasn’t acted on these desires with someone who has? I, for one, save my full repugnance for the the villain. Czarcasm wouldn’t tell us if he was an animal lover in the biblical sense, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t believe him if he said he wasn’t.

Are we worried that more people will be victimized if we left the thread? If so, then I fully support removing it. If not, if it’s because of it’s emotional impact, then (while I still respect the mod/admin action) I disagree with removing it.

I think as long as no one is hurt (any more than people are by the statements of the gay-haters, obese-bashers, racists, etc that we allow expression to) we should allow discussion, and hope that we all learn from it.

PC

[seawitch]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Spyderman *
**Ask Esprix exactly what he meant when he posted that blanket generalization, and this.

I don’t see why this is so hard to get. I don’t care why he’s attracted to <snip snip snippity snip snip snip>**

Um… I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at. The above quote was from Jodi, and not Esprix. It also was specifically about attraction to kids, not attraction to anything else, though your bolded insert seems to imply that she covered more groups than she really did.

Can you rephrase?

[Edited by TVeblen on 09-28-2001 at 09:17 PM]

[Stoid]

Here’s my reaction to Czarcasm, Spyderman and Esprix’s most recent posts.

HUH?

stoid
feeling really stupid.

[seawitch]

Stupid missing end tags. Any mods want to fix that, I’ll mail you a slice from this humble pie I’m getting ready to eat.

::Hopes nobody is looking::

[Esprix]

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Spyderman

Ask Esprix exactly what he meant when he posted that blanket generalization, and this.

I don’t see why this is so hard to get. I don’t care why he’s attracted to [snip] insert age/gender/nationality here**[/snip]**. I don’t care that such attaction is not his fault. I loathe the very idea of it, with every fiber of my being. I refuse to “validate” such a feeling, because it is my firmly held belief that it is wrong. I don’t give a shit if he can control how he feels or not.

[bolding mine]

Um, that quote is not mine; it is from Jodi. My response to her statement was thus:

And I do (and his therapist ought to). Therein lies the difference between us.

I don’t understand the rest of your post, but I will assume it has something to do with this misunderstanding of who said what.

And as far as this statement of mine you quoted:

IANATherapist, but desires and feelings are not inherently wrong; acting inappropriately on those feelings is.

As I said, I’m not a therapist, but this is something that every mental health care professional has told me is a basic tenent of therapy. What problem do you have with that statement? If, as Czar commented, you are trying to draw a parallel between pedophilia and homosexuality, you are woefully out of your depth.

Esprix

[panzermanpanzerman]

Well, I’m a childhood sexual and physical abuse survivor, too. I’m still kicking, although I am no doubt profoundly affected by those experiences in ways which I do not yet understand, as well as ways which I have largely overcome.

I’ve also worked in clinical settings with victims as well as perpetrators.

Thanks, mods, but I don’t feel the need to be protected from the machinations of their sick minds. I’m a grown-up now, and fully capable of dealing with this cretin (or not dealing with him) in my own way. I don’t need you to make that decision for me.

It strikes me as the Straight Dope equivalent of banning the publication of “Mein Kampf,” or the memoirs of the commandant of Auschwitz.

[bdgr]

*Originally posted by panzermanpanzerman *
**
It strikes me as the Straight Dope equivalent of banning the publication of “Mein Kampf,” or the memoirs of the commandant of Auschwitz. **

To me, the differance was that the authors of those books are not feeding off of the reading of them. they are dead. By giving this guy a safe forum to air his ideas, we are helping him to think that it may be ok to act on these feelings. If he even had come to terms with it being wrong, and was trying to get help, maybe, but he didnt want treatment, and didnt want to admit it was wrong.

[PosterChild]

*Originally posted by bdgr *
By giving this guy a safe forum to air his ideas, we are helping him to think that it may be ok to act on these feelings. If he even had come to terms with it being wrong, and was trying to get help, maybe, but he didnt want treatment, and didnt want to admit it was wrong.

So a forum where everyone tells him he’s sick and wrong, in intellectually proficient detail, is encouraging him? While this board is not covered by the first amendment, I think the principles behind it are valid here. It is only through discussion of ideas that we learn. If no one talks to the bastard, he’ll write off everyone as just not understanding the situation as well as he does.
We wouldn’t block a thread becasue a person wants to talk about suicide. Even though we’re against it. (Of course, the perpetrator and victim are the same, and we don’t hate the person for the act, but talking is not the same as doing.)