Thank you for being my cite.
You mentioned Romeo and Juliet exceptions which already exist, and which I don’t have a problem with.
That’s not a replacement for age of consent, though, unless you’re suggesting that the two year line (or whatever it is) should exetend all the way down to infancy.
Incidentally, even with Romeo and Juliet laws, you’re still going to get the scenarios where a guy is a week or a day too old, and whatnot. It doesn’t solve the “abitrary line” argument, it just draws different arbitrary lines.
Well they don’t exist where I live and based on your arguments you seem to be against them. See your response to Zeriel’s query.
I’m the cite that you’re lying. Again. Saying that an 11 year old can look 16 or 18 is **not **the same as saying they can look 21.
I’m not against them.
The claim was made in this thread that they can look 21.
I don’t even buy that they could pass as 18. Maybe at a glance, but not after any significant level of interaction and convrstaion. I guarantee I could not be fooled.
It’s against the rules to call people liars outside the Pit, by the way.
I’m not calling you a liar. I’m saying you are lying when you make that statement. If you would like to prove me wrong, please provide a cite for the post(s) where anyone claimed that an 11 year old could look 21.
No, they have “literally” tried to demonstrate that it is possible for someone who is a minor to pass as a legal adult, which is something you have said is impossible. This is in support of the notion that a 15 year-old could possibly pass as 20 or older; after all, if even an 11 year-old can appear much older than is usual for someone that age, how much more possible is it for a 15 year-old to pass for 20 or older? You are deliberately projecting your own phobias onto these arguments and declaring that they are attempts by a horde of pedophiles to justify having sex with prepubescent girls. Which, by the way, must include many of the female posters who have tried to demonstrate this point to you.
And “pre-teen” does not necessarily mean “pre-pubescent.”
Cite? How do you know that a greater age difference has a higher potential for damage? And again, how are you defining “damage?” Please try to answer that question for me, at least.
You’re wasting your breath (fingers?). He’s just going to define it with the definition again.
Maybe an intelligent judge or jury considering the pertinent facts of the cases and determining what level of culpability is appropriate for the parties involved? We have cases of minors being tried as adults based on circumstances and motives and the mental capacity and state of the offenders, so even though there is a “hard line” that can be amended, altered, or suspended according to the discretion of officials in the legal system. So keep your arbitrary, inconsistent hard line if you must, but allow for extraordinary cases to be handled according to any evidence available which might prove to be a reasonable mistake, as opposed to the “anyone fucking a minor is a slimeball predaphile” blanket assumption.
Good catch. I’ll amend the question then:
Anyone can look up the definition of the word “damage.” In what specific ways are the minors “damaged,” how is it diagnosed (preferably with cites) and how is the “damage” actually inflicted? Please use specific examples in support of the assertion that minors actively seeking sex with legal adults are being “damaged” if they succeed in procuring it.
And while you’re at it, explain why it’s then OK to REALLY subject them to possible “damage” including social stigma, ostracism, trials, etc., by prosecuting the case, even if the minor testifies that they consented. Is it OK to “damage” them through this traumatic experience even if, based on all available evidence, they suffered no “damage” from the act itself?
And here’s my “Dio Disclaimer” in case it’s needed: I have never fucked a minor, even when I was a minor myself. Late starter I guess, judging by most accounts.
That is still against the rules.
I’m not going to go back and search, but Drain Bead alleged it happened to her when she was eleven, and there was a lengthy discussion about it.
Calling *you *a liar is an attack against you personally. Saying you *are lying *is an attack against your words. And that’s always been the distinction of what is and is not allowed.
No, they’ve said pre-teens can do it, not just “monors.”
No, I said it’s impossible for an 11 year old to do it.
Disgustingly irrelevant.
The If you don’t already understand the answers to the questions, then I’m not going to be able to explain it to you.
The short answer is that the greater the age difference, the greater the power differential and the less the equality of mental accuity and comprehension. A 40 year odl is not a menatl or emotional peer to a 14 year old.
The “damage” is that a child is being exploited for sex.
Neither is allowed in this forum. I’m not reporting you, but read the rules.
You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. The child has to go on trial too, and the judge will arbitraily decide what her “culpability” is? That’s completely asinine.
Again, this can be referring to a 17 year old “child” as well as an 11 year old one. And what’s wrong with a jury “arbitrarily” deciding responsibility as opposed to a prosecutor doing the same thing? As others have mentioned, 16 year old “children” have been prosecuted as adults before, so clearly the idea that they are incapable of forming intent is foreign to everyone except you.
Edit: Also, apologies, the above post I linked to isn’t “Lying, liars and lies in Great Debates” but “NO DIRECT PERSONAL INSULTS OR “FLAMING” IN GREAT DEBATES.”
There is absolutely no way that even the most precocious eleven year old could pass as a sixteen year old, still less eighteen, in any serious conversation. They just don’t understand things in the same way as adults.
Simple but famous example - get them to consider a starving man stealing bread to feed his family. They’ll all claim it is wrong (except for the sociopathic bastards that so many of the child “geniuses” turn out to be, who won’t even understand that concept)… they just don’t get shades of grey.
No, it’s absolutely 100% relevant. It’s the part you’ve been avoiding this whole time: people’s apparent ages from puberty to the age of consent are very much dependent on the age where they enter puberty. An 11 year old who started menstruating when she was nine could very well look much older than a 17 year old who hasn’t gotten her period yet.
Thanks for the cite. I completely misremembered. Dio, you have my apologies.