And no wonder there are no statistics showing that states in which safe consensual sex between teens of the same age is legal have higher teen pregnancy rates!
Since the father in most teen pregnancies is an adult, psycho laws like this which punish teens if they have sex with those of the same age, but not if they have sex with adults, should actually raise the teen pregnancy rate!
Nightime, once again, I beseech you to copy and paste any post of mine where I support jailing these teens, or where I support sex between 14-year-olds and 30-year-olds.
I think you’re making huge melodramatic leaps here. I also think Wang-Ka, Suse and doreen have made some excellent points which you’re not completely addressing.
OK, I believe you on this point—that more adults are impregnating teens than other teens inpregnating teens.
So, does that mean that if the (for instance) 14-year-old girl decides to keep the child (the result of sex with an adult) that she won’t be looking after that baby herself? That her parents won’t be having that baby in their household, along with the 14-year-old? That they won’t be helping to financially support that child (at least in some cases)? That the adult male who impregnated the 14-year-old will be responsible for 100% of the expenses? If that is the case, well, that puts a whole new spin on things, most certainly!
Well, first of all, Nightime, I would not suggest jail for any fourteen year olds who wanted to have sex with me.
Eye exams, perhaps. Psychiatric tests, maybe. But not jail.
And if I thought for one minute that statutory rape laws caused minors to WANT to screw adults, I would think that the laws DEFINITELY need to get changed.
I was simply pointing out that “Legal” and “Fair” ain’t the same thing. Far from it. The statutory rape laws assume that ANY sexual contact between a minor and an adult is:
(a) predatory
(b) instigated by the adult.
THIS IS USUALLY CORRECT. Not always, but almost always. I was making a point, that’s all.
By the same token, some fourteen year olds are totally capable of adopting adult responsibilities and having safe, socially acceptable sex.
…but not all of them. Not by a long shot. Not even MOST of them. Hence, the laws. These laws assume ALL fourteen year olds are blithering idiots who require the protection of the law.
Fair? No. Legal? Yes.
So… were you joking? Or did you really think I was advocating having sex with teenage minors?
Thank you! If people didn’t make such a big deal about it, it wouldn’t be such a big deal.
Do any of you personally know of any fourteen or fifteen year old parents who are living independently from their parents, supporting themselves and providing adequately for their own children? How about fifteen year olds? Sixteen year olds?
Since when will charging two teenagers for consenting to have sex together have any effect at all on their morals or the morals of a generation?
But I would object if they were using my bed!
You are supporting a LAW which makes it a sex crime for teenagers to have safe consensual sex with someone their own age.
Saying you don’t think the law should be enforced in all cases is not a defense.
And yes, by supporting this law you are indirectly supporting sex between 14 year olds and adults. Because this law punishes teenagers for having sex with someone their own age, but does NOT punish them for having sex with adults, who of course are the fathers in most cases of teen pregnancy.
So in your insane zeal to abolish consensual sex between teenagers of the same age, you are pushing teens into having sex with adults who are far, far more likely to get them pregnant.
I think it is clear that you are not at all interested in protecting anyone, or even in reducing teen pregnancy. Your ulterior motives remain a mystery.
“If you have sex with someone your own age, you’ll get convicted of sex crimes. But if you have sex with me, an adult, I’ll be the only one punished.”
I think that is the kind of line that we don’t want to be TRUE. At least most of us don’t.
This is complete garbage and you know it. This law does NOT REDUCE TEEN PREGNANCY! That alone makes your bogus argument a farce.
I think you are advocating a law which punishes teenagers severely for having sex with someone their own age, but does not punish them if they have sex with adults, who are more likely to get them pregnant.
Does anyone really believe that prosecuting consensual teenage sex will keep teens from having sex? It seems far more likely that they’ll just become sneakier about it. And thus even less likely to talk to adults, use adequate protection, etc. It’s a lot more intimidating to buy condoms if you suspect the cashier might turn you in.
[quote]
I’m very interested in seeing these studies and statistics.
[quote]
I’m talking of what each set of legislators and lawmakers used to make their decisions.
Your question was (paraphrased) “Why is the law for the age of consent 14”?
I answered that and ONLY that. I’ll answer it again, more clearly.
Because the lawmakers, based on the set of statistics, studies, and research THEY used (not me, THEY), decided that that would be the best age for their jurisdiction.
I didn’t “say that”. Again I was answering your question of “why do they come to those laws”? Why do different states choose different ages?
Like with any law, whether traffic, residential, whatever, the lawmakers and powers that be, introduce a bill based on their own (NOT canvasshoes’) research and available information.
Did you not READ the very statement of mine you just quoted here? I SAID, “I do not think that they should go to jail for sex”. “I didn’t even say it should be a crime”.
Neither did anyone else in this thread that I can recall.
Changing lanes without a turn signal is a law. But it’s not a crime if you DO change lanes without a turn signal, it’s a traffic violation.
Stating that you think there SHOULD be a stated age of consent for sex is NOT saying you think it should be a “crime”.
“We’re” not, YOU are. And if you’d read my previous post on “The Three Separate Issues” being discussed, you’d have had the answer to that question of yours.
But, to summarize. Ryle Dup had asked some related questions, which I was attempting to answer for him, both you, and the 3 or 4 teens in this debate didn’t separate the answers from the original OP, and when I answered such direct personal questions as Ryle Dup’s, "What are YOUR reasons for not wanting your teens to have sex, they got it mixed up with the issue in the OP and then argued “well yeah, but would YOU want to go to jail, etc”.
You’re NOT the only one I was replying to in that post. You’re not the one to which I was replying WITH that quote either. You need to read more carefully, who posted to whom, and who is being answered.
You’ve done that several times, grabbed a quote out of context that someone answered to someone else, and then argued against it.
Now you’re getting several different issues mixed up again. The original question to this had AGAIN, been one where the teens in this thread had wanted to know the reasons why parents wanted them to NOT have sex. The “irresponsibility should there be a child” answer came back. The kids then mixed up the two separate issues into “but why should we go to jail for it” (which was NOT the question or the issue).
Again, should kids go to jail for having sex? Posters in this thread have all said “NO”. Yes, even those of us parents who have put the law down in OUR households of “no sex”.
No, people aren’t giving the adult the 'benefit of the doubt". They are looking at her life, and her ability to be responsible, if she’s a drug using loser, who can’t make ends meet, and who is practicallly on the street, she/he is going to be looked at with the same doubt as to whether he/she could handle a child.
The difference is, that with a child, it’s OBVIOUS that he/she, cannot support a child. They don’t have training, jobs, cars, a home in which to raise the child etc.
And as someone else mentioned, even with the other options available, (and FTR this is another debate, but just briefly, abortion isn’t just some blithe answer to an “oopsie” pregnancy), the young woman in the situation cannot be FORCED to choose any of those other options. And since she’s still her parent’s responsibility, her decisions have the power to screw up lots of people’s lives. Parents prefer not to take that chance period.
And once again, this was a reason given by PARENTS wang-ka and me as reasons we didn’t want our teens having sex. NOT as reasons it should or should not be legal.
You’ve got to be kidding!!! Not even pro-choicers think that abortion should just “willy-nilly” be used as birth control.
Did you read the post even? Did I say that abortion wasn’t an option? NO. I said just airily decided as “preparation” for having sex that something to the effect of “oh well, let’s not worry, if anything happens we can always ‘just’ have an abortion” wasn’t a reasonable (meaning a choice made by a reasoning, thinking halfway feeling person)" choice.
The above description of mine "…airily decide “oh well…” is what my original statement “blithe decision” means.
Blithe:
1.) Carefree and lighthearted.
2.) Lacking or showing a lack of due concern; casual: spoke with blithe ignorance of the true situation.
Now, can you say that a reasonable person WOULD make a blithe decision like “oh well, we’ll just get an abortion”? Now that you understand what the word means?
For the sake of your argument, I hope not. Because if you do, then that just makes adults even MORE lkely to go, “YIKES, yet another reason I don’t want my child having sex at 14”!!!
It’s fairly safe these days, but 14 year old bodies aren’t exactly quite ready for the rigors of pregnancy etc. I’d be terrified to send MY 14 year old under the knife because she just went "Oh well, why worry, we can just have an abortion.
Before you demand “cites” be sure you’ve understood the person’s statement.
Your suggestion above would be nice, were it always physically possible. As I’ve described in this thread a COUPLE of times, by the time my daughter was 12, she was AS big as me, at 14, 15 she towered over me by at least two inches at 16 she’d nearly reached her full adult height of 5’10" (at least I didn’t have to share my high heels with her anymore!! her feet got bigger than mine at that point LOL).
So basically, by the time she was 12, there WAS no way I could physically “restrain” her from doing what she was bound and determined to do. Luckily for me, she was a good kid. She claims I was a great mom, despite her teen rebellion at about 16 and a half.
I’m not teensy or anything, I’m average, at about 5’6" but should she have decided to use her superior size and strength to just take off or trash the place, or do whatever? I wouldn’t have been able to stop her.
What are parents to DO in that case? They need assistance. Now granted, after reading further on this woman, it’s apparent that if not a springerite, she’s related to that mentality. But in that case, she faces even MORE of a challenge in knowing how to “make” her kid mind.
While I think that jail for sex is dumb. What were her recourses? Particularly if you consider her obvious lack of sophisitcation and knowledge??
She likely, at that point, felt completely helpless and with no options, and was FORCED into the corner of calling the police, especiallly after being taunted to.
Like wang-ka said, “heck if they’d been mature about it, likely nothing would have happened to them”.
They brought it upon themselves by their actions. NO, not the actions of having had sex, the actions they displayed afterward that resulted in the mom making the decision (whether you think it’s good, bad, or indifferent) that she did.
I’m going to want another cite for 14-year-olds not being ready for pregnancy.
And how is the decision to have an abortion if one becomes pregnant not a reasonable?
Also,
As a method of birth control, abortion rather sucks due to side effects, but some pro-choicers do indeed think it should be. Some use it for such a purpouse.
Also, when you say
, what did you mean by half-feeling?
Bolding mine.
This is the 3rd or 4th time you’ve made this claim, any proof for us with which to back it up?
Nightime, do NOT tell me what I know and don’t know. You don’t have a clue what’s in my head except what I put down here.
By the same token, kindly do not put words in my mouth.
Your post, for example, would seem to imply that adults are more likely to cause teen girls to become pregnant than their peers are.
So… are you saying that, statistically, adults cause more teen pregnancies? Or are you saying that adult sperm is more potent than teen sperm, or something? And are you advocating that teens should have sex with each other, as a form of birth control?You aren’t being real clear, here.
Now… I could assume that you’re an idiot.
I could assume that you are wrong.
…or I could simply assume that I have misunderstood you, and ask for clarification. You will notice that that’s what I did.
Did I SAY that any law ever made reduced teen pregnancy? No, I did not.
What I said was this:
So, since you apparently didn’t catch this the first time, I will repeat myself, and hopefully elucidate it for you.
Is the law perfect? No. I think I said that, more than once, now.
I’m not particularly WORRIED about minors seducing adults. I suspect it’s a fairly rare phenomenon, and if and when it DOES happen, I REALLY don’t think that laws or absence of laws have DIDDLY to do with it.
By the same token, I really don’t think that laws or absence of laws are stopping teenagers from screwing each others’ brains out. They certainly didn’t stop ME from engaging in sexual behavior when I was a minor (or trying to, anyway.) The LAST thing on my mind was what a jury might say about my behavior!
(MAJOR POINT BELOW. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION)
I believe the laws’ only real function are to give us, the parents, a handle on them when their parents CAN’T stop them, or do anything about their behavior. I thought I’d said this several times now, but for the benefit of anyone who cares, I have now said it again.
I DO believe that the laws DO prevent adults from attempting seduction of minors. Seen enough college guys shy away from townie girls like they were bristling with thorns to believe that. I don’t think it stops ALL adults, but, well, NO law prevents ALL crimes. At the very least, it gives us pause, and a moment for conscience to catch up with passion, if you follow me.
So: a recap. Please note that these are my OPINIONS; do not ask me to cite them. They are based on personal experience.
The laws are not fair.
The laws do not prevent pregnancy.
The laws probably don’t slow kids down from wanting to sleep with each other.
The laws do stop some adults from seducing minors.
The laws do not stop minors from seducing adults. This is left up to sanity and good taste; I’ve never heard of any fourteen year olds seducing thirtyish men, outside of Nabokov and some rather twisted erotic fiction. Although … if any of this business I’m hearing about mall chicks turning tricks is true, we may be overdue for a change in the laws, here.
5.5. Yes, I have heard of the Amy Fisher case. Unfortunately, we still don’t know for sure who originally seduced WHO in that one; both sides tell opposing stories. Perhaps we SHOULD punish both parties in a statutory rape case. I’m open for discussion.
Teens having sex with other teens should probably not be a matter for the law at all, so much as it should be dealt with by the teens’ families.
… but if the teens refuse to abide by their parents’ prohibitions, there needs to be some kind of legal backup.
A parent should be able to prohibit offspring from having sex until that offspring reaches legal age. This is because:
(a) the parent may have some responsibility for the offspring’s actions and errors,
(b) the parent presumably wishes to prevent emotional damage and/or upset to the offspring,
© the parent wishes to prevent physical harm to the offspring (std’s and the like).
Charging minors with sex crimes is not that big a deal in a situation where the minor’s record will be expunged when the minor reaches legal age. All it means is that legal and social officials who must deal with the minor in their professional capacities will know, right up front, what this kid is in trouble for.
In situations where neither the teens nor their parents nor any other involved party wishes to press any charges, the law should butt the hell out of private business of families.
I hope this clarifies things.
Because we…posted something OTHER than our opinions, in response to the question “why do YOU not want your teen to have sex?” as parents as to why we didn’t feel they were ready?
Re-read what I actually said, because that’s NOT it. Especially since I VERY carefully lined out what it was I DID mean.
Really? Pro-choicers think that abortion should be used as birth control? Where have you seen that please? I’ve never seen any of them advocate this. Please keep it germaine to this discussion out of respect for the OP so that this doesn’t seriously derail into an abortion debate.
, Sweetie? Please read what people have written more CAREFULLY. And since type sounds mean sometimes, I mean that in an honestly nice way.
I didn’t say “half-feeling” I said halfway feeling.
One who has feelings is considered to be a “feeling” person. Meaning emotional, moral, etc feelings.
I don’t believe that someone who could just airily plan for unwanted pregnancies by using abortion as birth control IS a very feeling person.
And FTR, and again, let’s not turn this into an abortion debate. But I have beefs with both factions of this debate (the abortion one) and because of that, I personally don’t consider myself either pro-choice OR pro-life. I consider myself a “why the HELL aren’t there affordable, available, 100% EFFECTIVE birth-control methods-ER”???!!!
Yes.
“We do know that on the average, the fathers of babies born to teen moms are at least four years older than the girls. So most of these men are adults, not teens.”
http://www.happinessonline.org/BeFaithfulToYourSexualPartner/p14.htm
“Driving the interest of legislators and prosecutors is a trend that has been lost in the national debate over teen-agers and their out-of-wedlock children: in two out of three births to teen-age mothers, studies indicate, the father is 20 years old or older, often much older than the mother.”
http://www.teenpregnancy.org/america/statisticsDisplay.asp?ID=3&sID=18
http://www.necrohell.net/vault/3/statutory.html
North Dakota has the lowest rate of teen pregnancy. The law:
“Unlawful sexual contact if perpetrator is an adult and victim is less than 15.”
Minnesota has the second lowest rate of teen pregnancy, however they have a reasonable law. It is only criminal sexual conduct if there is:
“a victim age 13 to 16 and an actor more than 24 months older.”
Not only are all the facts on my side, but even intuitively you should realize your argument has no merit. This law has been abused in this way so rarely that it is simply absurd for you to suddenly act like it is an essential part of a parent’s arsenal.
The fact is: this law does not reduce teen pregnancy. Not only that, but it makes it punishes teens severely for having sex with someone their own age, but not for having sex with an adult.
I would be willing to bet that at least one teen will hear of this insane ruling, and will decide to have sex with an adult because they know they cannot be punished for it. And I would be willing to bet that quite a few sexual predators will add this ruling to their list of things to say to get teens in bed.
That is what you are arguing for. It is completely backwards, and I can’t believe you would support it if you thought it through.
Bingo. See the cites I just provided.
And I believe I have said several times now, that it is the pinacle of stupidity to use sex crime convictions to control a teen who had consensual sex with a peer of the same age. I have given multiple reasons for this, from the fact that sex crime convictions will have adverse effects on job or college applications before they get erased, to the fact that such idiocy insults real sex crime victims, to the fact that it does not even reduce teen pregnancy, and to the fact that it punishes teens severely for having safe consensual sex with someone their own age, but not for having sex with an adult, so that teens will be likely to have more sex with adults who are the fathers in most teen pregnancies in the first place!
And of course, it gives a very good weapon for sexual predators to use on teenagers. I don’t mean to say you would do anything of the kind, just that you are, possibly inadvertantly, supporting this madness.
What the HELL are you on about? What alleged argument of mine has no merit?
I just asked you for your cite. Period.
Second, WHO is acting as if it’s an “essential part of a parent’s aresenal”??
We’ve said repeatedly that it’s a last resort.
Which of us said it DID reduce teen pregnancy? And please define “severely”. This is the first case I’ve heard of where teens have been charged with a crime for having sex with each other. They haven’t been yet punished AT ALL, let alone “severely”.
And if I remember right (going back to the second article), the in juvie, (JUVIE, not regular jail here) time that has been proposed is about 9 months (hmmmmmmm interesting number). I haven’t seen any follow-up but I doubt they’ll see more than, as I’ve described, one of those “boot camp” type programs. Those run about 30 days.
First of all, WHAT “insane ruling”?? So far it’s just been an arrest, their sentencing hasn’t been handed down yet.
Secondly, GIVE us a BREAK!! Talk about being “prejudiced” against teens!! I think, and yes, I’m “prejudging them” that teens are disriminating enough in their sexual desires to not decide to have sex with an adult JUST to bypass some law. One which I’ll wage they haven’t even heard or read (by the way, that was an “I’ll wager” NOT an “I’m stating this as fact”). I mean, could you reach any farther for a ridiculous supposition for your arguments?
This is just ludicrous. Having sex with minors will remain as against the law as it ever has been. Predators will be no more free to pursue underage children than they were before. And again, you’re rather maligning the taste and ability to judge of the teens you are trying to “help” here by this inane comment.
Do you think that even if some idiot pervert DID think that this was “his chance” to prey on some underaged teen, that her ability to judge his “creepiness” or potential danger factor would then mysteriously disappear?
Cite? Please show where that is what any of the parents who’ve posted in here have stated they were “arguing for”.
You are arguing that the law should allow what happened.
I am arguing that it should not.
Basically, we have vastly different philosophies of law.
Your approach is to criminalize everyone, and then hope, fingers crossed, that only those who “deserve it” get prosecuted.
I think that is extremely short-sighted, counterproductive, and would aggravate the very problem it is supposed to help solve.
“The boy is being held in secure detention on a charge of attempted second-degree sexual assault, a felony that carries a possible juvenile prison term.”
“The girl pleaded guilty to fourth degree sexual assault, a misdemeanor, but is charged with violating her probation; a warrant has been issued for her arrest.”
If you don’t consider this severe punishment, I’d hate to know what you do to your kids. Not to mention that it will make it hard for them to apply for jobs or colleges before the sex crime records are erased.
You think so? Maybe your kids wouldn’t, but girls who think that their parents would call the cops on them for consensual sex might very well choose to have sex with someone for whom they could not be arrested for having sex with.
Right… except that adults ARE the fathers in most cases of teen pregnancy. Can’t avoid the facts. Apparently adult males are quite capable of avoiding appearing creepy to a young, inexperienced girl.
I’m sure they’re thankful for the help you are giving them.
You have explicitly argued for it. You may have said it should be a “last resort” or something, but that is still saying it should be allowed. And how can you legislate the idea of “last resort”, by the way? Or are you just crossing your fingers again?
Wang-Ka also argued for it: “IS IT THE BEST SOLUTION? Of the three here – the three I can think of – yes, it’s the best goddamn solution. Yes, it means that if your fourteen year old seduces my fourteen year old, BOTH can be charged with a crime… unless they’re careful and sneaky.”
Not only is Wang-Ka arguing for it, but he is saying that if the kids are sneaky they should get away with it!
I don’t even know where to begin on the utter absurdity of his statement.
First of all, consider that most teen pregnancies are a result of adult fathers. Now, why do you suppose that is? Isn’t it likely that one factor is that such relationships are illegal, and thus those involved are SNEAKY, and likely not educated or careful about sex?
Now Wang-Ka says that consensual sex between teens of the same age should also be criminalized, and that they should be sneaky if they don’t want to be caught.
Sneaky teens will not go buy condoms. They will not ask questions about sex. They won’t risk getting caught. What they will do, is have uneducated, unprotected sex, and get pregnant.
So yes, both of you have explicitly argued for an insane law that you have admitted does not reduce teen pregnancy, and that in fact pushes teens into dangerous relationships with adults, in which they are even more likely to become pregnant, or makes them be so sneaky that they will not be educated or safe, and will be more likely to become pregnant.
It’s a bad law. That’s all there is to it. You have only just heard the law could be abused like this, and already you are clinging to it like your oldest friend. Just give it up. It’s deranged and diseased, and if you don’t stop making out with it you’re going to get sick.
“I don’t feel my child is ready for sex,” is an opinion. “My child isn’t ready for sex,” is a factual statement.
Er, I seem to be reading that you don’t think that a rational person would use abortion as a firm of birth control.
Er, it’s kind of built-in. Mind you, I only know one person who was using it as a primary method of birth control, and she was having sex very rarely, but they do exist.
[quote]
Sweetie? Please read what people have written more CAREFULLY. And since type sounds mean sometimes, I mean that in an honestly nice way.
I didn’t say “half-feeling” I said halfway feeling.
One who has feelings is considered to be a “feeling” person. Meaning emotional, moral, etc feelings.
I don’t believe that someone who could just airily plan for unwanted pregnancies by using abortion as birth control IS a very feeling person.
[quote]
Maybe someone just doesn’t feel for fetuses. (Or, from what I’ve heard, their own uterus.)
We have one. Abortion.
Sorry, sorry. But it does fit your criteria.
And I agree to drop the issue.