Unrepentant pair of 14 year old humpers face jail. Fair or not?

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
You are deliberately missing the point. It doesn’t matter if the parents’ house is a frickin’ showplace. THEY ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION to make room for that baby. NO “working it out”, no nothing. Not. Their. Problem. What part of “not disrupting the parents’ lives” don’t you get?

If the parents don’t want a baby in their house, they have plenty of time to let their daughter know that before it becomes an issue. If they can’t be bothered to consider that until after the baby is born… well, I won’t say they have to make room for the baby, but I don’t have a lick of sympathy for someone who doesn’t realize that the baby will eventually come out.

Bullshit. “Subset”? Bullshit.

You do realize that there are some rights denied to teenagers other than the right to have sex and work, right? A 14 year old mother can’t get a driver’s license, can’t buy alcohol, tobacco, or guns, can’t vote, can’t run for office, can’t sign contracts, etc etc. “Subset” is absolutely correct.

Why did you EVEN suggest the concept of the teen parents working and supporting their kids when you already know full well that most of them can’t?

1. I don’t believe that most of them would be unable to work, in the absence of laws preventing them from working.
2. I don’t believe that teen parents would be common at all if teens were required to provide for their own potential children.
3. Don’t put words in my mouth, and don’t make wild claims about what I “know full well”. I give you the same courtesy.

You already know that they’re going to end up on government assistance. Almost 100% of them will, if their parents won’t help out.

What makes you think that almost 100% of teenagers are incapable of earning money? Even today, with (grand)parents responsible for raising the children, and various laws making it difficult for teenagers to work, the number is closer to 80 percent.

Come on. You know the differences between adults and children. And like I said before, you want them to have their cake and eat it too.

This lie gets better and better each time you repeat it. Just keep waving that tattered old strawman around.

You agree to some absurd expectation about the kids having to “be responsible,” you agree that child labor laws should be changed in order to accomodate this absurd expectation, and yet you allow this huge, swinging back door there, saying, "If the little darlings can’t handle the sweat shops at age 13, here, they can get government assistance."

You’ve failed to provide a convincing argument that government assistance should discriminate by age. Either spin up a good reason that it should, or start another thread where you can argue against government assistance for everyone.

The expectations that a 25-year-old can be “responsible” are actually reasonable. No child labor laws need to be changed for them.

Surely you aren’t claiming that every single 25 year old is responsible enough to raise a child.

If you know that John Doe, 25 year old unemployable drug addict, actually is incapable of raising a child, and you think John Doe should still be able to legally have sex because he’s 25, but teenagers shouldn’t because they potentially might not be able to raise a child, then you’re a hypocrite. Plain and simple.

There are a world of differences there, but you just ignore them and gloss over them and talk about “subsets,” which is your codespeak for "getting their cake and eating it too."

::yawn:: Same old lies, right on time.

So how about those Mariners, huh? They’re tied for the top of the AL West. You think they’ll make it to the World Series this year?

Or, "cherry-picking which responsibilities one can have and offering huge loop-holes so they don’t really have to fulfill them."

Yup, you sound even more credible than you did last time you said this. A few hundred more times and you might actually fool someone!

Though you might have a better chance if you actually explained how they wouldn’t really have to fulfill their responsibilities in the same way that an adult would, instead of just asserting it like a parrot. “B-b-b-but their parents are still responsible [for something entirely different]” doesn’t cut it.

Read what Wang-Ka has to say about the realities. Stop painting this picture of 13-year-olds sharing cells with 300 lb. felons named "Bubba."

A warm cozy jail is still a jail, even if it has bulletproof windows instead of bars, and even if the sign out front says “Happy Times Halfway House” instead of “County Correctional Facility”. Sending kids to a place against their will and restricting their freedom is not an appropriate legal punishment for having sex.

Originally posted by Wang-Ka
But punishments, I think, DO retard behaviors. If the law locks you up overnight, or puts you in a halfway house, or demands two hundred hours of community service… I strongly think ANY teen would think twice before repeating the offense that did him in.

Sure, punishment can get results. (Tranquility Bay did a great job of retarding behaviors, but I wouldn’t wish that kind of “education” on anyone.)

Administering a punishment in order to stamp out a behavior is only valid if you believe the behavior needs to be stamped out.

[CanvasShoes]

Mr.2001, I’ve read parts of you posts and questions to me. Sorry, I haven’t been all “comfy and cozy” in the company supply store this week, I’ve been on another project.

Hope you don’t think I’m ignoring you. Looks like some of the other folks have answered your questions very well, but I’ve only read a few posts. Likely will be finishing up this outside project late tomorrow afternoon, or Friday.

Just didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you. Or anyone else who’s asked me questions, or commented on my posts, or comments.

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
If the parents don’t want a baby in their house, they have plenty of time to let their daughter know that before it becomes an issue.

OK, fine. They just tell her, and drive her to the hospital when the baby comes, and then she’s on her own after that. She can come home to sleep in her old bed, but anything else—she makes arrangements and they don’t need to be involved in any way.

You do realize that there are some rights denied to teenagers other than the right to have sex and work, right?

No kidding. Really?

:rolleyes:

1. I don’t believe that most of them would be unable to work, in the absence of laws preventing them from working.

So, you want labor laws changed so 13 year olds can work.

Okay…

And you seriously believe that any significant percentage of 13, 14, 15 year old teenagers are actually going to be able to fully support their offspring. (And this includes the possibility of rent too, you know.)

Really? Want to back this up with cites?

2. I don’t believe that teen parents would be common at all if teens were required to provide for their own potential children.

But they won’t be “required”! That’s what the government assistance is for!

3. Don’t put words in my mouth, and don’t make wild claims about what I “know full well”. I give you the same courtesy.

OK, I’ll just assume you are incredibly naive.

What makes you think that almost 100% of teenagers are incapable of earning money?

I think most 13, 14 year olds are incapable of earning enough money to support a baby, with rent, and other expenses.

I earned money at age 13, but I couldn’t imagine any kid at that age earning enough for rent and necessities for the support of a baby.

And you think that a significant portion of them can? Once again, back it up with some cites.

You’ve failed to provide a convincing argument that government assistance should discriminate by age.

It shouldn’t discriminate by age—it should treat children like children, and adults like adults. You don’t want that.

Surely you aren’t claiming that every single 25 year old is responsible enough to raise a child.

I’m tired of this.

Why do I have to keep repeating the same principles over and over again, just so you can trot out the rare instance of the deadbeat adult?

We know they exist. They are a sad fact. But most people live within society with built-in potential, and most fulfill societies’ minimal expectations.

And the laws reflect that.

We also know that some small fraction of a percentage of young teenagers could be responsible. But unless you can provide cites that PROVE that a high percentage of them could be as “responsible” as the whole of, say, 25-year-olds, then they don’t really compare.

Yup, you sound even more credible than you did last time you said this. A few hundred more times and you might actually fool someone!

I don’t think they’ll need to be convinced that “cherry picking” is going on when you sound so firm and strong about “responsibility” and “being charged for neglect,” but wait—of course they can get government assistance, so come on.

How many 13-year-old kids are going to even risk making it “on their own” when government assistance is ready and waiting to help them out?

Yeah, it’s cherry picking. CHERRY-PICKING. You can claim that you “don’t see it that way,” and you can claim that you think “most kids would be able to be responsible” or whatever, but as long as that safety net is there, they’ll take it.

Or, do you propose a way to stomp down real hard on Susie the 13-year-old and insist that she be “responsible,” without also letting her know that government assistance is right there, available to her?

Though you might have a better chance if you actually explained how they wouldn’t really have to fulfill their responsibilities in the same way that an adult would,

Well, then, you tell me. How do they fulfill their responsibilities? Do they pay back the money they got from government assistance?

I’ve never been on government assistance, but my guess is that adults are expected to prove that they are “worthy,” that they can’t get a job, or are somehow in dire straights. A lot of people can’t “prove” it well enough. I’ve had friends who tried.

How much “proof” do you think the government is going to need from a 13-year-old to prove that he or she can’t support a baby, (including rent)?

A warm cozy jail is still a jail, even if it has bulletproof windows instead of bars, and even if the sign out front says “Happy Times Halfway House” instead of “County Correctional Facility”.

You take that up with Wang-Ka. I think he’s got more of a clue about this than me (and most likely, you).

Sending kids to a place against their will and restricting their freedom is not an appropriate legal punishment for having sex.

Wait a minute! Wait a minute! But …but…the parents can send the kid away to Grandma’s against their will! The parents can send the kid away to (snicker) boarding school! But “Happy Times Halfway House” is suddenly out?

Wait! Wait! Let’s make sending the kid off to Grandma’s or to boarding school ILLEGAL too! They are being sent their “against their will” and “their freedoms are being restricted”!

That’s the solution. Make it all illegal. No one should take the kids anywhere if it will “restrict their freedoms” and is “against their will.” (I guess it should have been “illegal” for my parents to drag me to that damned Pomona County Fair when I was growing up. Damn. I hated that place. And they “restricted my freedoms” too! The nerve!)

[yosemite]

Mr2001, I forgot to ask before, but what portion of that cite you gave me did you want me to read? I’m a little confused what compelling point you wanted to make.

But it did have some interesting stuff. Like this:

More than 4 out of 10 young women become pregnant at least once before they reach the age of 20—nearly one million a year. Eight in ten of these pregnancies are unintended and 80 percent are to unmarried teens.

Or this.

#* Who suffers the consequences?*

* Teen mothers are less likely to complete high school, (only one-third receive a high school diploma)7 and more likely to end up on welfare (nearly 80 percent of unmarried teen mothers end up on welfare).
* The children of teenage mothers have lower birth weights, are more likely to perform poorly in school, and are at greater risk of abuse and neglect.

• The sons of teen mothers are 13 percent more likely to end up in prison while teen daughters are 22 percent more likely to become teen mothers themselves.

I’m a little confused by what your point is.

[CanvasShoes]

Changed my mind after reading the rest of the thread. wang-ka and yosemitebabe (whose name I keep MISSPELLING, sorry!!), have already said everything I’ve wanted to say.

Basically Mr2001 keeps wrangling between “let teens have sex with no legal consequences” but isn’t willing that if that should happen then mom and dad are 100% off the hook for any responsibilities, hassles or time related to that child.

nightime Still hasn’t come clean and simply admitted why she wants the law changed (or not to be there at all), she insists upon those silly strawmen of the “evil blackmailing molester filiming and blackmailing teens” and the LUDICROUS idea that this law will CREATE more teen pregnancies.

Again, I think people would have a LOT more respect for you opinion on this if you were just honest and stated your real reasons for disagreeing with the law.

The farfetched and silly stories, meant to distract, are quite transparent.

Like I asked, you’re 17, so WHAT if 14 year olds aren’t “supposed” to have sex, how does this affect you? Or, why do you seem to be taking this law SOOOOOOOOO personally. You seem as frothing at the mouth about it as if you were the young girl who was arrested.

Is it because you are still frustrated at having been “under” those rules only 3 years ago?

I’m honestly curious, I don’t get your INTENSE vendetta against this law.

FTR, the suggestion of wang-ka’s regarding that a judges warning be the first warning would be a change I’d think was fair and equitable. I’d actually like to see, instead of it going on their record at all, that it be made a misdemeanor of sorts (sorry, IANAL, not sure if that’s the right term), at any rate, a “traffic ticket of sex” if you will.

Where, if the children are warned, and then are caught again, they are subject to treatment, a 30 day program, special sex education, or other options specific to their cases.

[yosemite]

CanvasShoes wrote:

Basically Mr2001 keeps wrangling between “let teens have sex with no legal consequences” but isn’t willing that if that should happen then mom and dad are 100% off the hook for any responsibilities, hassles or time related to that child.

Yeah. That’s my take on it too.

He couldn’t quite understand what “parents being 100% off the hook” means, does he?

Mr2001, upon further reflection, I see how what you were getting at with that cite.

So, 80% of unwed married teen mothers end up on welfare. OK, I get it. I think that strengthens my case, but I get it.

So—what you need to prove is that if labor laws were changed, that number would go down. You need to give us some cites that prove that 13-14, 15 year olds can hold down full time jobs and support their babies. And without the help of mommy and daddy (yeah, like paying their own rent).

Frankly, I think even if labor laws were changed to allow these hypothetical young teenagers to hold down full time jobs, things would be even worse for them, because we now have their parents not having any obligation to deal with that baby. Not that all parents would do that—a lot of parents would allow themselves to be grossly inconvenienced. But some would be so disgusted with their willful child bringing this all on themselves that they’d (the parents) would say “the hell with it, you made your bed, now you lie in it.” And after all, one might understand their frustration, since there would be no “mechanism” like the one Wang-Ka describes that would maybe have a shot at straightening the kids out and preventing the pregnancies in the first place.

But still, if you think you can prove otherwise—if you think that a high percentage (hell, I’d even take 51%) of these 13, 14, 15 year olds could swing working enough to support a baby (and pay rent! Can’t forget rent!) then by all means, trot out the cites.

[Master_Wang-Ka]

A warm cozy jail is still a jail, even if it has bulletproof windows instead of bars, and even if the sign out front says “Happy Times Halfway House” instead of “County Correctional Facility”. Sending kids to a place against their will and restricting their freedom is not an appropriate legal punishment for having sex.

Bullshit.

I repeat: bullshit.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Either you are badly misinformed, or you know NOTHING about the situation you are speaking of.

Jail is not juvie jail, nor is it prison. A halfway house is none of these. Neither is a social retreat situation, or a residential treatment center.

ALL of these are different things, intended for a variety of different purposes. Anyone who thinks otherwise is WAY wrong.

Show me a kid who is flatly determined to do the wrong thing… a kid who is going to do as he pleases, regardless of the law… or the will of his parents… or his OWN BEST INTERESTS… and I will show you a kid who NEEDS to be in one of those places, and will likely wind UP there, after a few warnings and scare tactics.

Kids like that aren’t scarce at all, by the way. Much more common than you’d think, and considerably more common than insane judges who lock up minors on a first offense for ANYTHING.

[robertliguori]

Show me a kid who is flatly determined to do the wrong thing… a kid who is going to do as he pleases, regardless of the law… or the will of his parents… or his OWN BEST INTERESTS… and I will show you a kid who NEEDS to be in one of those places, and will likely wind UP there, after a few warnings and scare tactics.

Wang-ka, the whole source of this debate is that some of us feel that you shouldn’t have the authority to send us to any of the above places for things that aren’t crimes when you do them.

Also, you are beginning to sound ageist. Shall we dig up stats of arrests and convictions of black people vs. teenage people, and see who is worthy of self-determination?

[Master_Wang-Ka]

Well… I DON’T have the authority. I’m not a judge, or a cop.

And it’s not a matter of “ageist.” It’s a matter of the rights of a parent vs. the rights of a child. Whose rights are more important? Who gets to decide what?

And what does “arrests and conviction of black people vs. teenage people” have to do with anything?

[tracer]

I just wish the Wisconsin law didn’t refer to a teen-ager as a “child.” Lumping sex with 14-year-olds into the same broad category as sex with 7-year-olds just isn’t right.

[Nightime]

If consensual sex between minors IS illegal most places, that’s a surprise to me. I thought we were debating a hypothetical situation based on the OP, in which a law is being used to prosecute two teens, because they were going to have sex, whether their parents liked it or not.

That’s what I thought too. But people have been accusing me of trying to “change the law”, supposedly causing grave consequences. That doesn’t sound like they are aware that this law does not exist in many places, and that even where it does exist it is never enforced.

THIS situation, however, is the first I have ever heard of a situation where the kids would be charged as sex criminals.

Same here. Which again, makes me wonder why some people have been treating this like it is an established practice, or calling it “the best we have.” How is it the best we have, if it is the first time you’ve ever heard of it?

I simply said that sneaky teens don’t get caught, or at the very least, they lessen the likelihood of getting caught.

I think I see your point now, but I still disagree. It may be counterintuitive, but in practice I think sneaky teens get in more trouble. Why are adult males the fathers of most children born to teenage mothers, when they have the most to lose by getting caught? In practice, being sneaky about having sex does NOT mean being safe.

You have remarked that openness and education have far better results than sneakiness. I am actually inclined to agree with you.

That’s good.

Most juvenile crooks tend to have a tough time graduating from high school, too – crime’s penalties have a way of interfering with one’s public school attendance, and therefore they don’t graduate, and most colleges DON’T TAKE people with no high school diploma!

But does this not go directly against the line I’ve been hearing this whole time? “We’re trying to help the kids, not hurt them.” If you are admitting it hurts them, then that defeats the whole point. In any case, they still should not have a sex crime on their record at all, even if there is only a small chance they will apply to jobs or colleges before 18. It shouldn’t be too hard to make a law which does not count as a sex crime.

I worked in juvenile psychiatric care, in which I had considerable contact with law enforcement and legal officials. Not a thing there requires me to know diddly about the teen birth rate, or who the daddies are, or how old they are.

OK. Truthfully, I didn’t know that most of the fathers of children born to teen mothers were adults until this thread. It seems counterintuitive, because they should be the most careful considering the consequences, but the fact remains. This leads me to believe that criminalization could very well increase teen pregnancies. It seems wrong, but then… it also seems wrong that adult males are responsible for most teen births.

THIS IS PART OF THE LEARNING PROCESS. “I’m being discriminated against by society because I am part of a stigmatized group… and I joined that group of my own free will, because I made a mistake!”

I don’t think we should use sex crime records as punishment unless the crime was indeed a sex crime. Consensual sex between teens, even if it was criminalized, should not count as a “sex crime.” I’m sure we could come up with a law that does not require a sex crime record. And it seems as though you are getting caught up again in thinking that this is an established law - remember that you just admitted you know of no other case in which teens were convicted of sex crimes for consensual sex.

I would disagree with that. I catch your kid in my house, I’m having him arrested, unless I know he’s there, and what he’s doing. Takes two to have actual sex, you know.

Well, I would agree you should be able to make him leave, but why should you be able to press charges against him? How do you know his parents don’t trust him to have safe sex, and are willing to take the chance of a pregnancy? If his parents are willing to take the chance, that is their problem, not yours. All you have to do is worry about your own kid - like you said, it takes two, if you take one away the one left can’t do anything. Of course, in this case it looks like both parents supported the charges.

As to your “third party” argument… you actually have something there. I have known more than a few ruckuses to get started because a busybody “third party” decided to make a noise about how someone else was raising a child.

Agreed.

Debatable. If your son, for example, is simply trying to have sex with my daughter, once, I am not sure I would call this a sex offense, truth to tell…

This law would make it not only a sex offense for him, but for your daughter as well. Remember, this is a law about consensual sex - we have other laws for those who try to have sex with an unwilling partner. We should be helping these kids, not writing them off because they “probably wouldn’t have applied for jobs or colleges anyway” before 18.

I am just curious if you want to make it some official “warning.”

Wang-Ka came up with the idea that the judge would give the first “warning”. I think that is a very good idea. My original idea was that the parents could have the kid sign something that said “I understand that I will face legal consequences if I try to have sex”. You could give the parents both options.
So we agree on the warning, and only letting legal guardians of the teens involved have them arrested, but we don’t all agree that they shouldn’t have sex crime records… what about the fact that the law is about any sexual contact? I think it should only be about penetration. I believe (could be wrong) that even kissing technically counts as sexual contact, yet kissing is not likely to result in a baby.

[Nightime]

CanvasShoes - I’ve morphed into a 17 year old girl now? Hey, have you been writing fan fiction about me?

[CanvasShoes]

Oh! I’m sorry, I thought you were the one who’d answered “17” when I asked how old you were.

Frankly, the fact that you’re not a teen makes your farfetched scenarios of wild-haired child molesters, stalking, filiming and blackmailing underaged boinkers even Odder.

If you’d been a teen, I could at least understand your fervor in trying to prove a point in which you had a personal stake.

As it is, I’m at a loss as to your attitude. Don’t you have kids?

[robertliguori]

And what does “arrests and conviction of black people vs. teenage people” have to do with anything?

Well, you seem to believe that a lack of responsiblity of some (okay, many) teenagers is sufficent to justify laws against all teenagers having sex. I am curious if these beliefs apply to another random group of people, who (I am willing to bet) have a comparable collective record with regard to, for instance, pregnancies out of wedlock or drug use per person. If not, I am curious why you choose to target youngsters.

[Earl_of_Sandwhich]

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
**So, 80% of unwed married teen mothers end up on welfare. OK, I get it. I think that strengthens my case, but I get it. **

I think you are reversing cause and effect. Teenage mothers are more likely to have come from poor backgrounds in the first place.http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3325101.html

Which explains not only the greater proportion of teen moms with low birth weight babies, but the fact that the United States, with it’s higher rate of youth poverty, has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the developed world.

[yosemite]

Earl of Sandwhich wrote:

I think you are reversing cause and effect. Teenage mothers are more likely to have come from poor backgrounds in the first place.

I don’t think it weakens my case, actually. Teen pregnancies are already happening; teen mothers end up on welfare enough as it is. If Mr2001 had his way, child labor laws would be changed so that much younger teenagers could work full time (putting school on “the back burner”), and the parents of teen parents could completely wash their hands of the teenager’s baby and all the inconveniences that come with that baby. (They could make the teenager move their baby to an apartment where the teen parent would then be expected to provide day care and support for that baby, all by their lonesome.) And of course, if the teenagers couldn’t handle such expectations, they could come to the government for assistance. And I think an extremely high percentage would.

So, I don’t think that such changes in current policy would reduce the percentage of teen parents, poor or otherwise, that are using Welfare.

[Earl_of_Sandwhich]

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
**So, I don’t think that such changes in current policy would reduce the percentage of teen parents, poor or otherwise, that are using Welfare. **

But I would argue that a decrease in the youth poverty rate would bring the teen pregnancy rate down. I hope my link works this time:http://guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3325101.pdf

The low rates of teen pregnancy in Western Europe support my argument.

[Master_Wang-Ka]

robertliguori, I can give you lots of examples of why we make laws because SOME people can’t behave.

Gun control laws exist in some places, because some people behave badly with guns.

Murder laws exist because a very few people, statistically speaking, exercise bad judgement about who to kill and when to kill 'em.

Your analogy stinks, frankly. We ALL have to be youthful, at one time or another. We DON’T all have to be male, or female, or black. Discrimination on those grounds is frankly unfair.

Then again, so is discriminating against children… but, then, children will not remain children forever. Children become grownups. Black people, on the other hand, almost always remain black, except Michael Jackson, and I don’t think that’s an improvement.

Adult black people do not consistently demonstrate a lack of judgement, a lack of world experience, and a lack of knowledge. Children, on the other hand, do.

The fact that teens are regarded, legally, as “children” means they tend to get a raw deal, as far as priveliges go (they DO have rights. Believe me. I spent more time listening to their rights…) but by the same token… they don’t have to deal with adult responsibilities yet, either. Which is what a good hunk of this thread seems to be about. Adult black people, on the other hand, get to deal with the same rights and responsibilities as adult citizens of any other color.

There is a difference.

As to the nature of the laws: I was speaking contextually. There ARE a great many different laws regulating what people can do to each other, sexually and otherwise, and some of those laws are used to prosecute teens who get down and funky. And a few of those laws are specifically concerned with sex… notably the laws mentioned in the OP.

I tend to support this, simply because in all my experience with the system and with teens… I have never seen a judge do anything I would regard as excessive as far as penalizing teens for what I’d regard as “normal teen behavior.” And yes, that includes sex, everything from slap-and-tickle to the Full Court Press. Sure, I’ve heard the occasional wacko story… but in the vast majority of these cases, the judges handle things remarkably lightly, as far as consequences go.

“But wait!” cries a voice from the peanut gallery. “Wang-Ka, you’re a stinkin’ hypocrite! You’re saying that teens SHOULD be penalized for having sex, because a FEW of them get pregnant or have STDs… but that judges should be allowed to interpret the law any way they like, even though a FEW of them go apeshit and throw the book at unsuspecting teens?”

Well, yes. Last I heard, babies and STDs weren’t subject to judicial appeal, nor were they subject to reelection or reappointment. If you think you’ve been screwed (so to speak) by a judge’s decision, you have the option of appealing the case. In a situation where a judge really has gone around the bend, a higher court will often overturn the verdict. And ANY judge or JP who is subject to reelection or reappointment would be nuts to slap the children of voters with insane penalties for first offenses!

Now, on to the matter of “sex crimes.”

I will admit that the arguments presented here have softened my viewpoint. A little. Despite the fact that I had to repeat that I was NOT in favor of teens being sneaky, or encouraging sneakiness, about twelve times before anyone seems to have heard me.

While I don’t think I like the idea of a Legally Mandated Warning before they can hit you with a charge… I might have been a bit harsh when I said that ANY sexual incident between consenting teens should be regarded as a sex crime. Some damn fine points have been made. Are you a sex criminal if you grope your girlfriend’s breast, and get caught on video? How intense does a kiss have to get before it gets sexual?

On the OTHER hand… when you have a teen who is DETERMINED to have sex against the wishes of his elders… how is this NOT a sexually oriented offense?

Please note that NONCONSENSUAL sex IS a sex crime in my book, and ought to be treated as such. Don’t give me any of this “warning” crap when it comes to rape, or coercive seduction, or date rape, or drug rape. I have rather strong feelings about that.

[yosemite]

Earl of Sandwhich wrote:

But I would argue that a decrease in the youth poverty rate would bring the teen pregnancy rate down.

I have no reason to doubt you.

Do you think altering the child labor laws (so that young teenagers—as young as 13—could work full time and “put school on the back burner”) will help decrease youth poverty?

[Earl_of_Sandwhich]

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
**I have no reason to doubt you.

Do you think altering the child labor laws (so that young teenagers—as young as 13—could work full time and “put school on the back burner”) will help decrease youth poverty? **

Absolutely not, nor have I ever advocated doing that.

I bring up poverty because I want to look at the problem as one associated with factors other than youth.

When our leaders talk of this “epidemic” of teen pregnancy, they want us to see it apart from the social factors, like poverty, that help lead to it. The example of Western Europe shows the folly of this thinking: there are teens in Western Europe, they have the exact same desires as teens in this country, and yet they do not get pregnant in nearly the same numbers as teens in the U.S.
By creating the very concept of teen pregnancy as one entirely apart from adult pregnancy (even though the vast majority of teen pregnancies involve an adult father), our leaders imply that there is something inherently wrong with teenagers that makes them more vulnerable to pregnancy.
That is simply not the case.