Did you miss the part where I ammended my previous post? Yes, I misread the part about turning in the photos to the police.
At least I quickly corrected my error.
I won’t hold my breath waiting to see you do the same. Because that would spoil all your fun.
It’s so much more enjoyable to just call me a “liar,” after all.
What is with you?
So why are we talking about pictures?
That’s all I am talking about. The rest of it, you take it up with someone else who has more patience for your hysterics.
Hell, they could do that now. Without the sex law in place, they could just tell the kid it’s illegal, and blackmail them now. I mean, if they are so evil and devious and all. What’s to prevent them? After all, the kids are so ignorant and gullible, they’ll fall for any lie, right?
They could lie and tell the kids that they have pictures when they didn’t. They could make up some fake law and tell the kids that they broke it and blackmail them that way.
If parents are going to be evil and devious, they will find a way.
I don’t know why you assume that a kid would be ignorant about child porn laws but aware of the sex laws.
What am I being “dishonest” about?
I was just debunking your “example,” that’s all I was doing. That was all. Get it through your head. Just the photos. That’s all.
And this malicious person could do it right now.
If the kid is so gullible that they don’t know how highly illegal child porn is, and the malicious person feels comfortable actually possessing child porn, then there’s no telling what they might do.
But if you want to make child porn “doubly illegal” so they can’t use it to blackmail kids, fine by me.
Oh boy.
What a melodramatic person you are. You are really enjoying this, aren’t you? The melodrama. The angst. The self-righteous accusations. The assumptions. The jumping to conclusions. You are in your element, aren’t you?
And it’s all so difficult for you, and so traumatic and distressing, but you keep coming back just to get riled up over something that didn’t really mean what you thought it meant.
Have a ball my dear. I can see you are just loving every minute of this. How could I think of depriving you of all this melodrama?
Sigh. You are so enraptured by the melodrama, aren’t you?
But of course it doesn’t matter that you’ve warped and twisted it all around, does it?
The kids could say that the parent forced them to pose for the picture. Tht’s what I was talking about. The kids could say any number of things that would make the parent look completely twisted and perverted, therefore getting the parent into all sorts of trouble. And the parent’s going to have to know this, beforehand. And know that they’d probably be the one not believed by the police. They are the ones with the child porn, after all. They are automatically regarded as perverts.
Why would the parent go to all the trouble? And if he’s willing to lie (to give a hollow threat of having “evidence” in the form of a photograph), what’s stopping him from lying and making up twisted blackmail schemes now?
And even just lying and saying he has photos when he really doesn’t—imagine what trouble the parent would get into if the kid tells someone else, who tells someone else, who tells some authority, who then get a search warrant to search the house for child porn?
Any non-perverted parent would think about all of this and invariably decide to forgo the “child porn as blackmail” angle. Any perverted parent would probably do it now anyway. Just make up fake laws and blackmail their kids with it, do all sorts of evil twisted things NOW.
So I don’t really see how your little “what if” with child porn can pan out. And I’m done debunking it, thankyouverymuch. I’m tired of all the over-the-top reactions from you.
If poor CanvasShoes still has the patience to discuss all of this with you, more power to her. My goodness.
…because I might CARE what happens to my kid, ya dip. Certainly, I do not wish to be liable for my kid’s mistakes, but I don’t really want my KID to suffer, either. Perhaps I would rather get him/her into counseling, or residential treatment. This is why I would support a law that allows me to do so.
As to the “Child Porn” thing… the more I look at it, the more I find the situation kind of specious. Nightime and I agree that any usual offender under a “no teen sex” law should get a warning, even if we disagree as to whether or not it should be codified in the law.
So, assuming someone gets pix of the kids screwing, what’s going to happen? The kids screwing get a warning. The possessor of the pix goes into the hoosegow for possession of child porn, and possible blackmail charges, depending on the local laws; I am told this is a crime, some places.
Furthermore, I find it VERY hard to argue that “we should not have a law in existence because someone might use it to blackmail those who break that law.” Jeez, we could argue that about ANY law you don’t happen to like. We could argue that laws against armed robbery are what drove someone to blow up a pizza driver last week!
I also notice you still have a MAJOR problem with assuming you know what others are thinking, and putting words in their mouths. Chill, will you?
I NEVER SAID ANYONE WOULD TAKE PICTURES TO THE POLICE.
How much more clear can I make it?
Here is what I said:
A law which makes teens into sex criminals, and allows anyone to turn them in, puts teens into great danger from malicious people.
DO YOU AGREE? YES OR NO?
Now, this harm could take many forms:
The malicious person could simply turn the teen in, get them convicted of sex crimes, and take away the right to parent from the actual parents.
The malicious person could threaten to turn the teen in, manipulating and intimidating them. PERHAPS THEY WOULD HAVE PICTURES TO PROVE THEY KNEW - BUT THEY COULD JUST BURN THE PICTURES AFTERWARDS. THE PICTURES WERE NEVER ANYTHING BUT AN EXTREMELY SMALL EXAMPLE OF HOW A MALICIOUS PERSON COULD MANIPULATE AND ABUSE A TEEN.
Concentrating on the pictures, and completely ignoring all the other ways the law could be used to harm and abuse children is despicable. Yes, there are kids who are not as smart as you, and could be manipulated and intimidated by someone who had pictures to prove that they knew they were a “sex criminal”. But there are many other ways this law could be abused without any pictures.
I can’t believe how hard it is to get a straight answer from you people. You refuse to respond to anything but your own lies about what was said.
Do you agree that letting just anyone turn kids in as “sex criminals” makes kids extremely vulnerable to abuse and harm, and takes away the right to parent from the actual parents?
Just answer that question! Give a straight answer for once in your life!
**Here is what needs to be changed: only parents of the teens involved should have the ability to turn the kids in.
Not the neighbor, not the ex, not the child molester.
If you continue to argue that this change is not necessary, I will continue to speak out against your beastly and horrifying callousness to the abuse of children.**
Once again, whether or not the law is widespread has ZERO to do with your silly and farfetched belief that if this law WERE to suddenly become “widespread” that child molesters would dash in in droves to start “taking pics of teens having consensual sex, and blackmailing them”.
You seem to have trouble comprehending my simple question.
Which is merely:
Where did you come up with such a ridiculous and farfetched idea. It’s a VERY illogical and silly thing to believe.
Child molesters do their best “work” in secrecy. To take pics and try to blackmail teens would require that they be willing to reveal THEIR part in the act at some point. Something that they, by nature, wouldn’t do.
Second, what earthly good would it do them. In other words, what would be the “payoff”??? Money? NO. What 14 year old is going to have enough money to make it worthwhile?
Sex? Highly improbable, the “secrecy” factor that child molesters need, that of isolating their victim and making THEM feel guilty and wanting to keep the secret etc, has already been blown because NOW there is another person involved, the teen’s sex partner. Child molesters might be sick, but they’re NOT stupid. They do everything in their power NOT to get caught. TRUST me. I know from experience. The LAST thing one of these psychos is going to do is put himself into a position where his “cover” will even POSSIBLY be blown.
Also, if the teens in question are snotty and challenging to the point where they’d tell their own PARENTS where to get off, that they’ll screw if they want to, then what hold does the alleged perp have over them? He might be able to to get them into trouble if any of them WERE, but then, with personalities like that, HE’D then get turned in, and being an adult, his freedom is OVER at that point.
They’re not going to risk that for no payoff.
[quote]
A law which criminalizes ALL consensual sexual contact between teens. Not just intercourse - any sexual contact.
And does this law care about the parents? No. It says nothing about the parents. It does exactly this: criminalizes ALL consensual sexual contact between teens.
And does this law care about last resorts? No. It says nothing about last resorts. It does exactly this: criminalizes ALL consensual sexual contact between teens.[/]quote]
Asked and answered several times throughout this thread.
Why not??? Again, asked and answered above.
Could you possibly GET any more melodramatic? Otherwise, asked and answered.
Again, asked and answered above. The “child molester taking pics and blackmailing” scenario is just silly. It’s scraping the bottom of the “excuse” barrel and a really DESPARATE reaching for a reason.
Again, asked and answered above. How could they? What would it profit them even if someone did attempt such a ludicrous stunt?
Bestial? Do you even know the meaning of that word? Are you sure you’re not 17? Your desparate frantic posturing does NOT help your position, neither does childish name-calling. There are several others within this thread who disagree with us, but if you notice, NONE of them are resorting to the melodramatic theatrics that you are.
[quoteAre you simply relying on everyone being a good person? If so, you are being dangerously naive. If not, you are being fiendishly barbaric.[/quote]
No, I’m stating that it would be ridiculously illogical for an actual child molester to operate in such a fashion as your silly blackmailing pics scenario.
And again, the reasons I say that are outlined above in my first answer to you.
You keep asking the same question over again in different ways.
No, that’s not QUITE what they’ve said. By the way, along with the others, I’ve ALSO agreed that making criminals out of kids who break this law is NOT what should be done, and that law such as this should be changed to effect change in a less drastic way. If you’d read people’s entire posts, you would have SEEN that.
Nope, not in the least. I merely asked where you got your crazy notion that a child molester would use this law to blackmails teens who had sex.
I asked it in relation to your over the top posts, NOT as support for criminalizing teens. And again, if you’d read my post, THAT was very apparent.
And I immediately acknowledged that in a follow-up “correction” post. I missed the part about not taking the photos to the police at first. And I quickly corrected myself.
But of course, you apparently refuse to acknowledge my swift correction. Much more fun to call everyone “liars.” Much more fun to become increasingly hysterical, too. You sound like you’re enjoying the drama of it all. Knock yourself out, then.
Hey Nightime—as far as I am concerned, the “Child Porn as Blackmail” has been debunked by several of us. But oh well, I’m sure you’ll just keep ignoring that, and continue to escalate with the hysteria.
(Besides, even if the “blackmailer” didn’t show the photos, someone else could find out about them and turn the “blackmailer” in.)
Also, I thought Wang-Ka brought up a good point, but, no surprise, you’ve IGNORED it, preferring to become more and more hysterical. Here, I’ll quote it for you again. Make it a little harder to ignore:
And by that same token, someone evil enough could tell the kid that they’d broken some imaginary law, and “blackmail” the kid with that! All sorts of creative evil things could be done if someone is evil enough.
Well, I’m pretty satisfied that the “child porn as blackmail” thing has been thoroughlydebunked (which was what I have been currently focusing on here). So, now I think I’ll mostly watch as you tax everyone else’s patience with your over-reactions and hysterics.
**Here is what needs to be changed: only parents of the teens involved should have the ability to turn the kids in.
Not the neighbor, not the ex, not the child molester.
If you continue to argue that this change is not necessary, I will continue to speak out against your beastly and horrifying callousness to the abuse of children.**
But yet YOU still insist that underaged teens who want to have sex would NOT be, in your words, “too scared to break the law” and that they would then be subject to “evil adult males”.
In your “cites” of alleged adult males fathering babies of underaged teens, I didn’t see where these "adults’ were anything other than 18.
In other words, I didn’t see statistics proving your, Again, desparate frantic posturing that middle aged pervs were fathering the babes of all the underaged teens who get preggers.
What I saw was that the “adult” fathers were instead, old enough to have reached majority. But perhaps I read your “cites” wrong.
If you do in fact have cites that prove that most babies of teens are fathered by men of VAST age differences of the girls, or from middle aged men. Do please re-post them.
Well, I don’t know about Yosimitebabe or wang-ka, but I didn’t see you POST any valid, reasonable or realistic examples.
WHAT!!!
Boy, WAY to completely twist someone’s words. That is NOT what she said.
Okay, you said you weren’t 17. How old ARE you? You seem very drastic, melodramatic and ridiculous. Maybe there’s a reason. If you are young, and this is a personal battle for you, then perhaps just being honest about that would be more respectable.
As it is, you sound like a 14 year old who is being denied sex, and because of your anger and impotence at those strictures, you are grasping at straws.
Straws which you seem to believe will “tug at the heart or guilt strings” of we adults here. Your “examples” of the evil that will befall teens if they’re not allowed to have sex, and further, have that rule upheld by the law, are just plain nonsense.
**Here is what needs to be changed: only parents of the teens involved should have the ability to turn the kids in.
Not the neighbor, not the ex, not the child molester.
If you continue to argue that this change is not necessary, I will continue to speak out against your beastly and horrifying callousness to the abuse of children.**
Sweetheart? You need to go take a nice nappy and perhaps have mommy give you a half a valium and some warm milk.
All of us who originally supported the law, have said, SEVERAL times that we also believe that it needs changes so as not to make the kids who might break this law in the future have to be “criminalized” for it. (remember, the two in custody now are setting the precedence).
What a great way to demonstrate the wisdom and maturity imparted by your age. Have you got any good ones about fried chicken and watermelon? :rolleyes:
…for the record, Wang-Ka also said earlier that EITHER set of parents of EITHER kid should have the right to report the kids.
That is to say, people who are involved in the situation.
I did remark that I didn’t think that bluenosed bitch across the street should be able to, simply because if we have agreed that my kid and your kid are mature enough, and we have agreed that they are having safe sex and that we are going to ignore the situation… what business is it of hers?
But I can’t say this “blackmail” business holds much water.
I also remember you stating this, Wang-Ka, and I recall that I agreed—that third parties with an “agenda” should not be allowed to get into the mix in such a situation.
The “blackmail” thing was more than a bit of a stretch, though. And I think it’s been thoroughly debunked.
If the blackmail scenario is impossible because evidence of teenage sex is illegal to possess, then how will a law against teenage sex be enforced at all? Will the police have to arrive while the kids are still naked in bed?
For context, here’s errata’s comment to which yosemitebabe objects:
(That’s absolutely correct; it is pretty much only in modern, sexually repressed societies that teenage sexuality is seen to be such a nightmarish horror that it must be outlawed and punished.)
Here’s her reply:
Babe, your (and others’) obsession with pregnancy and it’s consequences as an argument is seriously distorting the issue and the debate.
If you had a reasonable argument (which I don’t believe you have, I’m afraid), then you would be able to tell us why we would need the laws and juvenile prison terms you implicitly defend if the teenagers were of the same gender! Can you?
ambushed: The pregnancy was just one such peril that a parent would have to face. And it can be a really expensive one, since babies can be such a money pit. But there are others consequences—like STDs. Same sex couples can be afflicted with that.
I think the point that many of us were wanting to make is that sex can have consequences, and that the parent of a minor child also ends up being affected (sometimes quite dramatically) by these “consequences.”
Ditto from me ambushed the pregnancy issue was but one that we as parents brought us as reasons we’d rather our very young teens didn’t have sex. It was those in this thread who were against the law that took it and ran with it ad nauseum.
Also, your statement “sexually repressed”. A parent not wanting their young teen to have sex does not necessarily mean that they’ve decided that for reasons of their being “sexually repressed”.
Sex creates all kinds of complications in the “human condition,” lots of baggage, frequently heartache, and difficulty in other areas of a persons life due to emotional/mental/psychological carryover. It’s hard enough sometimes to deal with these issues as an adult.
Those of us who are parents want, (and it is perhaps a futile wish), to have things be better for our kids than we ourselves had them. And frequently sex too soon was a big part of what screwed up OUR lives. Hence our desire to protect our kids from those same sorts of issues and problems that may then cause them to “screw up” their lives.
This part of this debate has not yet been discussed because of the DRAFT HORSE (long dead and stinking) that is the pregnancy issue. But it is JUST as valid a concern as that of uplanned pregnancies, STDs, the child getting in with the wrong crowd due to his/her sexual activities etc. among the many other issues that were brought up as reasons parents were trying to protect their children from themselves regarding having sexual intercourse too early in their childhood.
But there are others consequences—like STDs. Same sex couples can be afflicted with that.