Voluntary Sex With Minors

[Kane]

I recently watched a show on MSNBC called "To Catch A Predator";

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12842511/

where the news crew lures adult men into thinking they are going to have consenting sex with minors. For more information read the article.

Anyways, I don't really agree with the shows unorthodox methods to lure these men on national TV in the first place, humiliate them, and then arrest them. One might say that "they deserve it" but is this really the case? In any case I'm okay if a certain news group wants to promote what they think is right and even expose them. It is there freedom of speech. What I disdain is the arrest than soon comes after. This leads me to the point of this thread. Should government criminalize any consenting behavior, between minors or not?

These men are called predators but is this a correct title? To me the word "predator", sexual or not, refers to force. In these cases there is no force. Both individuals (the minor and the adult) are consenting to have sex with each other. There is no force and the minor could have backed off when he or she felt like it. Therefore where is the abuse? Where is the victim? Most would reply "the child" because supposedly a child this old cannot make such decisions. Well I agree to a certain extent, but the people that are supposed to regulate a child are their parents, not the state. A parent should be the one who prevents their children from seeing people who they consider bad people by any means necessary (except abuse). Whether their parents don't want their kids to see an adult who wants to have sex with them, to real sexual predators, to just normal people who they just dislike, ect. this is the parent's responsibility, not the states. These types of laws not only threaten liberty but they also make parents irresponsible. It makes the parents lazy and too reliant on the government to be the parent. It is no wonder why parents are so irresponsible these days.

If we make laws against minors voluntarily engaging in sex with adults, why don't we just criminalize any type of consenting behavior between an adult and a child? Why only sex? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that a certain segment of society believes voluntary sex between a minor and an adult is immoral. But that is their opinion. Sex to me is not a big enough taboo to have special laws against it. Some parents may disagree with the laws and believe a minor of a certain age can handle having sex. In this case the parent should have the power to permit their minor to have sex but under the current system they do not. And this is not right.

Why can't the government just stay out of human relationships unless there is force? I can totally understand if these men raped the minor, in this case criminal action needs to be taken. But if it is just a voluntary act, it should be the parents duty to regulate the voluntary act regardless of what the voluntary act is (sexual or not).

That is my opinion on the matter. What do you think?

 

[Adept]

Should government criminalize any consenting behavior, between minors or not?

Why can't the government just stay out of human relationships unless there is force?

Because there are other ways to get what you want without forcing people, especially with regards to minors, that society has deemed to be immoral. It's why there are false advertising laws. I could concievably pay a modest sum of money to buy a child from a third world country, tell that child that he or she will be given ponies and candy and balloons, but he or she has to have sex with adults, and then set up my own pedophile brothel, with no force involved.

As a whole, most people think sex is a significant enough decision that a certain degree of maturity should be reached before it is made. Thats why, in this (and similar) country at this time the age of consent is 16.

 

[Kane]

Because there are other ways to get what you want without forcing people, especially with regards to minors, that society has deemed to be immoral. It's why there are false advertising laws. I could concievably pay a modest sum of money to buy a child from a third world country, tell that child that he or she will be given ponies and candy and balloons, but he or she has to have sex with adults, and then set up my own pedophile brothel, with no force involved.

As a whole, most people think sex is a significant enough decision that a certain degree of maturity should be reached before it is made. Thats why, in this (and similar) country at this time the age of consent is 16.

False Advertising has nothing to do with this since false advertising is fraud. Murder, force, fraud, and theft are considered by nearly all people of all societies as immoral and should be banished from human relationship. Sex is a much more relative issue.

However it is your opinion that sex is a significant enough decision that requires maturity. You should not be able to force this belief upon others. I agree with you that some maturity and knowledge needs to be known to engage in sex, as in anything in life. But this is the parent's responsibility, not the state's responsibility. This applies to all sectors of life including signing contracts, driving, ect. Sex is no different. And the idea that sex is something different has its roots in Judeo-Christian ideas that sex is "icky" and "immoral". It is no wonder that in the United States sex is in many ways considered worse than violence, even though there is no comparison. Sex is apart of life. Yes people need to be careful when they have sex and safe sex should be taught to everyone. However this is the parent's responsibility. And once the parent decides one is mature enough to have sex they should be allowed to permit the minor to do so. Even then they can regulate who they can have sex with (ie no old men if they choose).

You talk about 16 being a consenting age but there are still many cases where adults are criminalized with sex with 17 year olds! Now that is silly!

 

[MA-Caver]

These men are called predators but is this a correct title? To me the word "predator", sexual or not, refers to force. In these cases there is no force. Both individuals (the minor and the adult) are consenting to have sex with each other. There is no force and the minor could have backed off when he or she felt like it. Therefore where is the abuse? Where is the victim? Most would reply "the child" because supposedly a child this old cannot make such decisions.

Predators... HUNT! These guys have been shown seeking (via chat-logs) and finding, then soliciting sex from the (supposed) minors and set up the meeting arrangement for the sole purpose of having sex. Knowing full well that the girl they're wanting is far under age (14 yrs. old).
The perps were LOOKING for these girls. That to me says predatory behavior... particularly, especially specifically when it pertains to minors.
By any definition... there is no such thing as "consenting" sex with a minor.
As far as the "no force..." think about this... you got a highly stimulated sexually aroused male with the object of his desire... said desire decides to change her mind... this guy is used to having his way with these girls... you think he's going to say: "oh gee, umm, oh-kay, well I'll see ya later then huh?"
The sex offenders that I worked with in the treatment center in no shape or form or thought or whatever allowed the minor to dictate how things will go. If they said no, the perp either had then applied force/threats/warning to tell/corcerced the minor to giving in. Not CONSENT, surrender. BIG difference.
Where's the abuse? IT'S A CHILD for God's sake! 14 yrs. old! You think a girl/boy that age is going to KNOW the same things that an adult (you or I or anyone else on this board (over 18) is going to know? Absolutely correct that they are not informed/experienced enough to make the proper decision regarding sexual relations with an adult. The minor just does not have full awareness of the consenquences and ramifications and long term effect of sexual activity... particularly when they may (or may-not) be fully sexually mature. This would include emotional and mental maturity as well as physical maturity. More so it is not the perp's place to "teach" the minor these things. As you've observed it is the place of the parent.
Sadly yes there are parents who do not take that responsibility seriously enough to ensure their child is learning what they need to know to protect themselves. But even so... it is still not up to anyone who gets sexual satisfaction from having "consenting" sex with a minor to be the one to teach them.
Think one more on this... why are these guys targeting these young pre-teens? What can a 14 yr. old girl give them that a healthy 24 yr. old girl can't? .... How about the inability to say NO! How about raising the odds considerably that the 14 yr. old won't reject them when a 24 yr. old knows enough to know that this guy is just another "horny henry" and doesn't care about a real relationship?

I recently watched a show on MSNBC called "To Catch A Predator";

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12842511/

where the news crew lures adult men into thinking they are going to have consenting sex with minors. For more information read the article.

Anyways, I don't really agree with the shows unorthodox methods to lure these men on national TV in the first place, humiliate them, and then arrest them. One might say that "they deserve it" but is this really the case? In any case I'm okay if a certain news group wants to promote what they think is right and even expose them. It is there freedom of speech. What I disdain is the arrest than soon comes after. This leads me to the point of this thread. Should government criminalize any consenting behavior, between minors or not?

I saw the show in question... thought it was hilarious at how stupid some of those guys were. My favorite was the guy who didn't cover his face until AFTER he found out some 10 minutes later that he was being filmed... it's like DUH, too late nimrod, we already know what you look like. The attempt to conceal identity also indicates guilt.

I don't care what methods they use to find and catch these guys. IMO...wait, in my STRONG opinion, they have NO PLACE WHAT-SO-EVER in our society.

I've run out of time here but I will be happy to discuss further later. :asian:

 

[Kane]

Predators... HUNT! These guys have been shown seeking (via chat-logs) and finding, then soliciting sex from the (supposed) minors and set up the meeting arrangement for the sole purpose of having sex. Knowing full well that the girl they're wanting is far under age (14 yrs. old).
The perps were LOOKING for these girls. That to me says predatory behavior... particularly, especially specifically when it pertains to minors.
By any definition... there is no such thing as "consenting" sex with a minor.
As far as the "no force..." think about this... you got a highly stimulated sexually aroused male with the object of his desire... said desire decides to change her mind... this guy is used to having his way with these girls... you think he's going to say: "oh gee, umm, oh-kay, well I'll see ya later then huh?"
The sex offenders that I worked with in the treatment center in no shape or form or thought or whatever allowed the minor to dictate how things will go. If they said no, the perp either had then applied force/threats/warning to tell/corcerced the minor to giving in. Not CONSENT, surrender. BIG difference.
Where's the abuse? IT'S A CHILD for God's sake! 14 yrs. old! You think a girl/boy that age is going to KNOW the same things that an adult (you or I or anyone else on this board (over 18) is going to know? Absolutely correct that they are not informed/experienced enough to make the proper decision regarding sexual relations with an adult. The minor just does not have full awareness of the consenquences and ramifications and long term effect of sexual activity... particularly when they may (or may-not) be fully sexually mature. This would include emotional and mental maturity as well as physical maturity. More so it is not the perp's place to "teach" the minor these things. As you've observed it is the place of the parent.
Sadly yes there are parents who do not take that responsibility seriously enough to ensure their child is learning what they need to know to protect themselves. But even so... it is still not up to anyone who gets sexual satisfaction from having "consenting" sex with a minor to be the one to teach them.
Think one more on this... why are these guys targeting these young pre-teens? What can a 14 yr. old girl give them that a healthy 24 yr. old girl can't? .... How about the inability to say NO! How about raising the odds considerably that the 14 yr. old won't reject them when a 24 yr. old knows enough to know that this guy is just another "horny henry" and doesn't care about a real relationship?

Again though, it is your opinion that sex is something that has to be treated differently from other things. I agree that sex involves a certain degree of maturity. But so does many other things a child can legally do. Who are you or anyone else to say that sex is something so radically different that needs to be controlled?

I understand that many of these people that consent can become predators, but this is an overgeneralization. Who are you to say that some men wouldn't stop if the minor decides they don't want to have sex? That is like saying anyone that drinks alcohol will automatically abuse the drug.

Speaking of alcohol, many can argue that parents permitting their children to drinking, no matter what the reason, is immoral. Yet in many states this is legal. Should the government then ban parents from permitting their kids to drink, even under controlled conditions where they are present?

Again you may think parents permitting their children to drink and permitting them to have sex is different, but that is your opinion. We shouldn't force one world view over everyone else's. No matter how you look at it, in the end it is the parent's duty to keep their child from drugs, sex, and anything else they find immoral. The state shouldn't have a say, except maybe in protecting the parents right to raise their kids as they see fit.

I would say the same thing regarding children who want to work. We have laws against persons under 16 to work. But should there be any such laws? All of them are under the impression that parents will force their kids into labor. But it is really a cynical way to look at life. If a 12 year old kid wants to work and their parents permit it they should have the right. Similarly If a 14 year old wants to have sex and their parents permit it, it is their right. Children have rights too. Their only limit should be their parents.

By the way, 14 year olds are not considered pre-teens .

I saw the show in question... thought it was hilarious at how stupid some of those guys were. My favorite was the guy who didn't cover his face until AFTER he found out some 10 minutes later that he was being filmed... it's like DUH, too late nimrod, we already know what you look like. The attempt to conceal identity also indicates guilt.

I don't care what methods they use to find and catch these guys. IMO...wait, in my STRONG opinion, they have NO PLACE WHAT-SO-EVER in our society.

I've run out of time here but I will be happy to discuss further later.

Yea, yea some of these dudes were hilarious. Especially the one that wanted the minor to have sex with a cat.:rofl: That was pretty disgusting as well.

 

[modarnis]

I recently watched a show on MSNBC called "To Catch A Predator";

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12842511/

where the news crew lures adult men into thinking they are going to have consenting sex with minors. For more information read the article.

Anyways, I don't really agree with the shows unorthodox methods to lure these men on national TV in the first place, humiliate them, and then arrest them. One might say that "they deserve it" but is this really the case? In any case I'm okay if a certain news group wants to promote what they think is right and even expose them. It is there freedom of speech. What I disdain is the arrest than soon comes after. This leads me to the point of this thread. Should government criminalize any consenting behavior, between minors or not?

These men are called predators but is this a correct title? To me the word "predator", sexual or not, refers to force. In these cases there is no force. Both individuals (the minor and the adult) are consenting to have sex with each other. There is no force and the minor could have backed off when he or she felt like it. Therefore where is the abuse? Where is the victim? Most would reply "the child" because supposedly a child this old cannot make such decisions. Well I agree to a certain extent, but the people that are supposed to regulate a child are their parents, not the state. A parent should be the one who prevents their children from seeing people who they consider bad people by any means necessary (except abuse). Whether their parents don't want their kids to see an adult who wants to have sex with them, to real sexual predators, to just normal people who they just dislike, ect. this is the parent's responsibility, not the states. These types of laws not only threaten liberty but they also make parents irresponsible. It makes the parents lazy and too reliant on the government to be the parent. It is no wonder why parents are so irresponsible these days.

If we make laws against minors voluntarily engaging in sex with adults, why don't we just criminalize any type of consenting behavior between an adult and a child? Why only sex? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that a certain segment of society believes voluntary sex between a minor and an adult is immoral. But that is their opinion. Sex to me is not a big enough taboo to have special laws against it. Some parents may disagree with the laws and believe a minor of a certain age can handle having sex. In this case the parent should have the power to permit their minor to have sex but under the current system they do not. And this is not right.

Why can't the government just stay out of human relationships unless there is force? I can totally understand if these men raped the minor, in this case criminal action needs to be taken. But if it is just a voluntary act, it should be the parents duty to regulate the voluntary act regardless of what the voluntary act is (sexual or not).

That is my opinion on the matter. What do you think?

Your obvious ignorance of what the law considers force is frightening. People who prey on children more often than not do not use physical force. They ply their trade by exploiting children's weaknesses. They select victims who exhibit low self esteem, teen angst, or other signs that clue the offender that a target is succeptible.

This grooming process involves building trust and gaining some power over the child. Photos are a tool these guys use. They will ask the child to send a pic or 2, then maybe a nude or 2. They will threaten the child with exposure to school, peers, parents etc. as a blackmail and control. Coercion is equal to force.

Most states have ages of consent where teens are able to give their consent for sexual activity. If the child is below that age, no matter how many times they say yes, it is still a crime.

Having just returned from a week long course at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, I understand how the internet has created great opportunity for these cretins to ply there trade. Rather than access to a dozen kids at the ballpark, they have access to millions of potential victims. If you saw some of the video of these consenting 9, 10, 11 and 12 olds, you would likely have a very different opinion

 

[Brother John]

KANE:
I mean you no offense, just asking here..

From your posts here you seem to be advocating either some type of NAMBLA like agenda
OR
Extreme Libertarian agenda....

true or not?

Your Brother
John

 

[Swordlady]

Tell me something, Kane...have you ever stopped to think for a moment about the possible consequences of young children having sex, period?

I've been a social worker for almost eight years, and have spent the majority of my career working with families and chidren. I've worked with many single mothers (some who started having children when they were 12 years old!) who don't bat an eye if their young daughter becomes pregnant - because that is what they are used to. Not surprisingly, many of these teen parents wind up dropping out of school and either collect welfare or work at some minimum wage job to make ends meet. But with the cost of living being what it is today, a minimum wage job isn't nearly enough to take care of a family.

Where these child predators are concerned, do you really think that they are overly concerned about "protecting" their intended victim from the possible consequences of sex (i.e., pregnancy, STDs, etc)? Why would a thirty-something year old man (statistically, most sexual predators are male) even want to solicit sex from a young child? Perhaps it is because as MA-Caver also stated, a young child would be less likely to say "no" to the man's sexual advances than a woman his age (who may say "No" because they sense that something about this fellow ain't right).

Think about the whole furor revolving around Michael Jackson. I'm sorry, but you have to be seriously naive to think that a grown man who admitted to having boys sleep on his bed had "pure" motives. Mind you, I also fault the children's parents for continuing to send their children to Michael's ranch, even after the initial accusations of sexual abuse back in the early 90's.

Your argument about allowing very young children under the age of 14 to work also doesn't hold any water. Are you familiar at all with the ugly American history of sweatshops - which had very young children working extremely long hours for mere pennies a day? THAT was one of the main reasons why a minimum working age for children exists.

Ask yourself again if you really have the children's best interests of heart. The laws are not just a matter of Judeo-Christian values. They are there to help protect children from exploitation.

 

[Jade Tigress]

The simple fact of the matter is that children's brains are not developed to the point of making sound choices or processing things beyond their level of maturity. To have sex with an underage child causes long-lasting and deep emotional wounds to the child, whether it is *consensual* or not. Which, in my opinion, it is impossible for a child to have consensual sex at all because they are easily manipulated, and lacking in the cognitive processes necessary for such an adult decision. Their bodies are not fully developed yet and you expect their minds to be? Not only that, we mature physically much faster than we mature emotionally. Sex is for consenting ADULTS.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

There are numerous laws on the books, designed to protect children from harm.
These laws were drafted, writen, debated and passed after centuries of abuses.
In nations that do not have them, children are still used and abused.
In Thailand for example, you can travel there and enjoy a nive virginal 11 yr old, who is then taken out back and killed since the child is now "used". All for a fee. When you come back to the US, you stand a very good chance of being arrested and locked up as a result. Unless one is very rich or very connected, or in Congress.

Children and many adults lack the ability to reason and think. Laws have been passed to protect them, from those who would abuse them. These people of course, insist that they are fully capable of making that decision, which is why rape, unwanted pregnancies and abortions are almost non-existant in American society.

Kane, if you are under 17, I can excuse you. If you are over 18, and advocating sex with children, then I will have to consider you a possible sexual preditor, and a danger to society.

The simple truth here is that American children and many adults are not equiped with the reasoning ability to maturely make the decision on sexual activity.

 

[marlon]

I recently watched a show on MSNBC called "To Catch A Predator";

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12842511/

where the news crew lures adult men into thinking they are going to have consenting sex with minors. For more information read the article.

Anyways, I don't really agree with the shows unorthodox methods to lure these men on national TV in the first place, humiliate them, and then arrest them. One might say that "they deserve it" but is this really the case? In any case I'm okay if a certain news group wants to promote what they think is right and even expose them. It is there freedom of speech. What I disdain is the arrest than soon comes after. This leads me to the point of this thread. Should government criminalize any consenting behavior, between minors or not?

These men are called predators but is this a correct title? To me the word "predator", sexual or not, refers to force. In these cases there is no force. Both individuals (the minor and the adult) are consenting to have sex with each other. There is no force and the minor could have backed off when he or she felt like it. Therefore where is the abuse? Where is the victim? Most would reply "the child" because supposedly a child this old cannot make such decisions. Well I agree to a certain extent, but the people that are supposed to regulate a child are their parents, not the state. A parent should be the one who prevents their children from seeing people who they consider bad people by any means necessary (except abuse). Whether their parents don't want their kids to see an adult who wants to have sex with them, to real sexual predators, to just normal people who they just dislike, ect. this is the parent's responsibility, not the states. These types of laws not only threaten liberty but they also make parents irresponsible. It makes the parents lazy and too reliant on the government to be the parent. It is no wonder why parents are so irresponsible these days.

If we make laws against minors voluntarily engaging in sex with adults, why don't we just criminalize any type of consenting behavior between an adult and a child? Why only sex? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that a certain segment of society believes voluntary sex between a minor and an adult is immoral. But that is their opinion. Sex to me is not a big enough taboo to have special laws against it. Some parents may disagree with the laws and believe a minor of a certain age can handle having sex. In this case the parent should have the power to permit their minor to have sex but under the current system they do not. And this is not right.

Why can't the government just stay out of human relationships unless there is force? I can totally understand if these men raped the minor, in this case criminal action needs to be taken. But if it is just a voluntary act, it should be the parents duty to regulate the voluntary act regardless of what the voluntary act is (sexual or not).

That is my opinion on the matter. What do you think?

these perverts are an ofense to every child and parent and any such involvement with children is force with intent to damage and is detrimental to society as a whole. I as a parent do all i can to protect my children and in such a matter will take all the help i can get.
Respectfully,
Marlon

 

[Andrew Green]

Anyways, I don't really agree with the shows unorthodox methods to lure these men on national TV in the first place, humiliate them, and then arrest them. One might say that "they deserve it" but is this really the case? In any case I'm okay if a certain news group wants to promote what they think is right and even expose them. It is there freedom of speech. What I disdain is the arrest than soon comes after. This leads me to the point of this thread. Should government criminalize any consenting behavior, between minors or not?

The only thing I might disagree with there is the news crew being involved. Using Decoys to catch people is fine, probably the best way to do it, hopefully will make people think twice if there is a chance they are meeting a decoy instead of who they thought they where meeting too.

But law enforcement should handle it, news programs shouldn't be making a reality show out of it.

From the looks of things the decoys didn't make the offers in the chat rooms, they just waited until the "predators" did. If the decoys where going in there and asking older men to come and have sex with them, then I would agree that the method is wrong, but that's not what's happening by the looks of things.

But then it is a news agency making a reality show out of it, so I'd hope there is a bit of a investigation into there methods by law enforcement as part of this.

Putting them on TV? That's perhaps not fair. Not to them, but to there family's. What happens after it airs and there kids go to school and classmates say, "Hey, I saw your dad on TV trying to shack up with a 14 year old!"

Whether or not age of consent laws are good or not is another topic I think, but in this context I think you will find very few people that think there isn't something wrong with someone asking a much younger teenager to get together for Sex... on there first meeting no less...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Actually, public ridiculing is fine with me. The fear of shaming their entire family might cause a few of these scumbags to keep it in their pants.

 

[Kane]

All, please read this post carefully.

I guess my opinion here is a bit too extreme for people. However there is a fundamental problem with some of your opinions. You assume I am morally for, say, a 13 year old having sex with an adult. This can be no further from the truth. Maybe you do not understand where I am going with this.

Perhaps you should know something else. I am for the legalization of all drugs. Now are you going to assume that I think our society should be full of junkies that do nothing but drugs?

I am also very against any form of gun control. Does that mean I advocate people going around the country shooting everyone in sight?

I am also tolerant toward voluntary prostitution. Does that mean I advocate every single woman making a living this way?

NO! Of course not! So then I get crap like this;

and advocating sex with children, then I will have to consider you a possible sexual preditor, and a danger to society.

NO! Look bud, I am a little uncomfortable with homosexual sex, but I think it should be legal. Why? Because; just because I think it is a little sick and a bit unnatural it doesn't mean I have the right to force my opinion upon other people. I think marriage is between a man and a woman, but this is my opinion. Government should NOT force a definition on something so relative.

Similarly, many people in Western countries assume any sexual behavior as evil and this is linked to Judeo-Christian values. In the old Puritan societies it was considered immoral to have sex unless it was for reproduction. As much as we deny it, we still have a very narrow attitude toward sex. What is sex after all? Why should it be treated differently than any other thing that parents would find unsuitable for children. Tell me would any of you consider a grown man teaching a child dangerous martial art lessons immoral? I know most of you would say that it is okay. Even though the grown man is teaching "violence". You tell me should a grown up be engaging in the act of teaching violence to kids when violence is just as bad as sex? Sure he maybe just teaching the child self defense moves but do you know that for sure? Some people get pleasure from beating up children. Perhaps it was an excuse to beat up the child. And you always have to worry about the child using the martial art moves on someone else.

Now you tell me, which is worse? An adult beating up a child or a adult raping a child? Or a child engaging in sex or a child that beats up people with his new martial art knowledge? Most would reply both are bad. Well if that is the case why don't we have special laws about adults training kids in deadly martial art moves? This right can be abused, so why stop with just sexual issues? Maybe it is because our society has an anti-sex bias.

It is no wonder people think that nudity is equal to sex. People were enraged when Janet Jackson showed her breast in the Super Bowl Game. There were obviously children watching. Parents were upset on how they are going to explain this to their children. WTF!!!!!???? IT'S JUST A FREACKING BREAST! It is a part of the human body that is mainly used to feed young. THERE! Was that really so hard? Would that really be so hard to explain to your children? It is just a part of the body, no different from your hand or leg. I bet most Americans would say that parents walking around nude with their kids is immoral. But what is immoral about it? There are many cultures in the world that walk nude all the time. And there is probably less abuse in such tribal societies.

Please note I am not against grown people teaching martial arts to children nor am I a nudist (although if I am nudist I wouldn't be ashamed to admit it). I am just trying to show the hypocrisy we have for sex in this society. And yes it is linked to Judeo-Christian values. People are now starting to associate even sharing beds as evil sexual activities. For example;

Think about the whole furor revolving around Michael Jackson. I'm sorry, but you have to be seriously naive to think that a grown man who admitted to having boys sleep on his bed had "pure" motives.

Well guess what? I used to "sleep" with my father in bed! So now I ask you, did my father molest me? Abraham Lincoln slept with a good friend of his. Does that mean he is homosexual? I sometimes still sleep with my mom, as a 21 year old. Tell me, am I having incestuous relationships with my mom?

If you still don't get it by now, I will spell it out for you. I shared a bed with my parents, not sex. Yet in this society you might be charged with child molestation if you do such a thing. In time it will probably be a crime to even kiss your children to bed before child protection services come in and take your child away.

To have sex with an underage child causes long-lasting and deep emotional wounds to the child, whether it is *consensual* or not.

Really? Well guess what? I had sex for the first time when I was 16. Of course it was with a 15 year old girl, many children in America loose their virginity as young as Junior High (maybe even your kid, how do you know). Well guess what again? I had sex with a lady 24 years old when I was 17. I have no emotional scars and big wounds from the situation. If anything I cherished the those times. Sex is fun and is apart of life. Why would I feel damaged from it?

Which brings me to another point. Do you really think boys after puberty think they have been abused when they have sex? I think our society is forgetting that boys don't usually think of it as "abuse" unless they are pre-adolescent. Just look at the numerous cases between the boys who voluntarily had sex with their teachers. They have no scars whatsoever and if anything they cherish it.

Many people think girls are so much different but I think girls can handle it too as long as its CONSENUAL.

Children and many adults lack the ability to reason and think.

Yes they do, I agree. Which is why nudity is such a big taboo in our society. People don't stop to think or reason that there is nothing immoral with nudity. Sex is still a negative part in our society. And people think sharing a bed = sex. Heck many adults can't even figure out that violence is worse than sex. Yes I would agree that there are many insanities in our society that cause children and adults to use faith, tradition, and dogma over their reason.

Laws have been passed to protect them, from those who would abuse them.

And this type of attitude is what leads to the death of liberty and the rise of fascism and/or communism. If we start by the premise that so many laws need to be their to protect everyone from each other and themselves then why should liberty exist at all? You seem like such a big supporter of same sex marriage in other threads. Shouldn't we ban that too because it is a threat to the family?

Are you of the opinion that all people are fundamentally bad? Well I disagree, and I have proof to back it up. Criminals (who do crimes with a victim, not victimless crime) make up the minority. If anything is making society into people that can't reason and think it is a government who tries to force one way of belief. People usually do what government tells them. And some people just want to rebel for the sake of rebeling (which is why the US has so much more crime than Europe even though laws are more relaxed in Europe in many cases) If the state did not legislate morality and provide welfare programs perhaps we would be living in a freethinking hardworking society. Alas this is not the case.

Your argument about allowing very young children under the age of 14 to work also doesn't hold any water. Are you familiar at all with the ugly American history of sweatshops - which had very young children working extremely long hours for mere pennies a day? THAT was one of the main reasons why a minimum working age for children exists.

Ask yourself again if you really have the children's best interests of heart. The laws are not just a matter of Judeo-Christian values. They are there to help protect children from exploitation.

What about women? Back in the day it was considered that women were easily as exploitable as children. Should we make laws to restrict the freedom of women to "protect" them?

Why do you assume that parents will force their kids into labor? It has happened in the past but I think most people today wouldn't do that to their children. I trust that most humans would send their kids to school or raise them in some positive fashion. In South Korea it isn't mandatory (in some regions) for kids to attend school and yet nearly all parent send their kids to school. And South Korea is considered a developed countries by most standards. It looks like your opinion that the government must force parents to do certain things to get a desired effect is not proven.

No offence, but perhaps some of you should think for yourself instead of a government thinking for you. You should also think about the rights you take away when you make laws against a certain segment of society (ie taking away the right of children to work if their parents permit it).

From your posts here you seem to be advocating either some type of NAMBLA like agenda
OR
Extreme Libertarian agenda....

It's not that I'm advocating what NAMBLA wants. I personally think children shouldn't engage in sex until they are at least 15 years of age (by then I would have taught them safe sex). My politics lean toward libertarian and I guess my opinion on the matter is rather extreme for a Westerner. I know though that I have my beliefs and no government should enforce my belief or any other person's belief on someone else. For example my belief that the consenting age should be 15 should not be forced on people, any more than the idea that it should be 16, 18, 13, 14, or whatever.

 

[Kane]

Actually, public ridiculing is fine with me. The fear of shaming their entire family might cause a few of these scumbags to keep it in their pants.

I'm okay with it too, whether I agree with it or not. But when the government steps in everything goes wrong.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Well the objections I would have had about the underage sex have pretty much been gone over many times, and in far better writing than I'd put together, so I'll just focus on the other aspect of this that bothers me.


What deep seated mental cancer is wrong with Americans that we need these asinine "Reality Shows" to feel entertained anyway?(what they have to do with "reality" is beyond me to begin with).

Between that and the "Most Extreme" this and the "World's Deadliest" that, and the "craziest" other thing---can you imagine writing that letter to your favorite station?

"Dear Station---I'm bored. Please create shows that will shock and horrify me, or I will no longer support your station

Joe Muffinhead
Grab Butt, Idaho"



How's for a little truth in advertising here? Whay don't we call all reality shows "Save the Drama fo' yo' Mama" and all the most extreme deadliest whatevers should be plainly and simply renamed "Idiots Trying To Kill Themselves".

Aren't we starting to feel a bit like the later half of the Roman Empire a little? Regular gladiator games weren't enough, so they had to invent more horrific and bloody spectacles to keep them from , Heaven forbid--being BORED( GASP!!!)

And we know what happened to the Roman Empire now don't we.

 

[Brother John]

Kane-
I agree with your sentiment that our society puts a big negative stamp on all things related to sex and sexuality.... and it's not necesary. It can even create some real mental/emotional problems that didn't have to be there and can cause some really strange societal problems that didn't need to be a problem either (as in your example of Janet whipping out her breast).

But I can't agree with your suggestion, or at least what it seems you are saying, that it's ok for children to have sex with adults. As many have said, it's far too easy for the hearts and minds of children to be swayed and sex IS mentally emotionally damaging in the wrong contexts.... it's one of the most emotionally powerful things in our lives (extreme intimacy, vulnerability to one another....a connectedness that's difficult to explain in words), and as with any such POWERFUL thing... it...in and of itself, is not Bad OR Good, it's in how it's expressed and used. I cannot see any rational excuse for adolescents and young teens to be having sex, ESPECIALLY if they are having it with adults.

........your arguments to make it seem Ok are really pretty shallow.

Your Brother
John

 

[Swordlady]

You know what, Kane...your last post just makes it even more clear that you do NOT fully understand the implications of young children having sex. So you lost your virginity at age 16. What if that 15-year-old girl you slept with got pregnant? Would you have been ready to be a father at age 16? Or would you have been a total schmuck (like a LOT of teen fathers) and abandon the girl to care for her child by herself? Honestly, you were REALLY damned lucky that you didn't father any children with your irresponsible behavior as a teenager - or at least I hope you didn't father any children during your teen years. How many teenagers do you know are ready to be parents at age 13? 14? 15? 16? 17? 18? Shoot...there are MANY adults who aren't ready to be parents at age 30!

Your comparison of teaching a child martial arts to having sex with a child is weak. (By the way, are you even studying a MA? Your profile is blank.) A *real* (emphasis on REAL) instructor would NOT teach a child MA to make him/her more violent. Even if a child gets injured while training (hopefully, nothing beyond the norm in a dojo), the child would eventually recover for another day.

Having sex with a child (or anyone, period) comes with the VERY real possibility of bringing another life into the world - and once a baby is involved, that changes everything (even if both sides decide to abandon the baby or abort it). Yes, it may "feel good", but are both parties willing to take total responsibility for their actions, if the female gets pregnant or if someone gets AIDS? These are very real questions both parties need to think about if they are thinking about having sex. And you could pretty much bet that your average child does not think that much about the possible consequences of their behavior.

 

[Andrew Green]

You know what, Kane...your last post just makes it even more clear that you do NOT fully understand the implications of young children having sex. So you lost your virginity at age 16. What if that 15-year-old girl you slept with got pregnant? Would you have been ready to be a father at age 16? Or would you have been a total schmuck (like a LOT of teen fathers) and abandon the girl to care for her child by herself? Honestly, you were REALLY damned lucky that you didn't father any children with your irresponsible behavior as a teenager - or at least I hope you didn't father any children during your teen years. How many teenagers do you know are ready to be parents at age 13? 14? 15? 16? 17? 18? Shoot...there are MANY adults who aren't ready to be parents at age 30!

http://www.sexualityandu.ca/eng/teachers/YSH/intercourse.cfm

First stats I found, place average age for first time at 16.5.

I think there is an assumption there that teenagers can't be responsible about ex and use birth control, but I think that is a flawed assumption if it is there.

But I think this is an entirely different subject then the initial post (teens with teens / age of consent) then adults seeking out teenagers online

 

[Kane]

Kane-
I agree with your sentiment that our society puts a big negative stamp on all things related to sex and sexuality.... and it's not necesary. It can even create some real mental/emotional problems that didn't have to be there and can cause some really strange societal problems that didn't need to be a problem either (as in your example of Janet whipping out her breast).

But I can't agree with your suggestion, or at least what it seems you are saying, that it's ok for children to have sex with adults. As many have said, it's far too easy for the hearts and minds of children to be swayed and sex IS mentally emotionally damaging in the wrong contexts.... it's one of the most emotionally powerful things in our lives (extreme intimacy, vulnerability to one another....a connectedness that's difficult to explain in words), and as with any such POWERFUL thing... it...in and of itself, is not Bad OR Good, it's in how it's expressed and used. I cannot see any rational excuse for adolescents and young teens to be having sex, ESPECIALLY if they are having it with adults.

........your arguments to make it seem Ok are really pretty shallow.

Your Brother
John

I agree with you but again, it is the parent's responsibility to regulate what their children do, not the state. That is the whole point of this thread. Until the crime has been committed (child rape) it should be in the parent's domain. We can't rely on the state to make parents more responsible, they need to be responsible themselves. That includes keeping children away from pedophiles. I understand sex is important to many different people but it doesn't mean it has to be treated specially. Ultimately it is the parent's responsibility and not the government's responsibility for anything, sex or not.

You know what, Kane...your last post just makes it even more clear that you do NOT fully understand the implications of young children having sex. So you lost your virginity at age 16. What if that 15-year-old girl you slept with got pregnant? Would you have been ready to be a father at age 16? Or would you have been a total schmuck (like a LOT of teen fathers) and abandon the girl to care for her child by herself? Honestly, you were REALLY damned lucky that you didn't father any children with your irresponsible behavior as a teenager - or at least I hope you didn't father any children during your teen years. How many teenagers do you know are ready to be parents at age 13? 14? 15? 16? 17? 18? Shoot...there are MANY adults who aren't ready to be parents at age 30!

You know what, Kane...your last post just makes it even more clear that you do NOT fully understand the implications of young children having sex. So you lost your virginity at age 16. What if that 15-year-old girl you slept with got pregnant? Would you have been ready to be a father at age 16? Or would you have been a total schmuck (like a LOT of teen fathers) and abandon the girl to care for her child by herself? Honestly, you were REALLY damned lucky that you didn't father any children with your irresponsible behavior as a teenager - or at least I hope you didn't father any children during your teen years. How many teenagers do you know are ready to be parents at age 13? 14? 15? 16? 17? 18? Shoot...there are MANY adults who aren't ready to be parents at age 30!

First of all I used protection, so the chances of getting pregnant or catching STDS was little to none. I know teenagers can be irresponsible, but not all are. You want to take away the right of a teen to have sex because some other teenagers are irresponsible? Irresponsible people are within every age bracket and while there maybe more irresponsible behavior with younger people, it doesn't mean they have to be treated differently. Why don't we extend the law and make it illegal for anyone under 30 to have sex? I hope you see my point. Believe it or not, there are many 15 year olds that are as responsible if not more responsible than some 35 year olds.

But regardless of your opinion, it is still your opinion. You or I shouldn't have the right to force my opinion on someone else through legislation.

Your comparison of teaching a child martial arts and having sex with a child is weak. (By the way, are you even studying a MA? Your profile is blank.) A *real* (emphasis on REAL) instructor would NOT teach a child MA to make him/her more violent. Even if a child gets injured while training (hopefully, nothing beyond the norm in a dojo), the child would eventually recover for another day.

I'm a 4-time All American in Greco and Freestyle wrestling and have done Ju Jitsu and Judo equally since I was really young. I have also been doing TKD for the past 3 years or so. I've done a little BJJ as well, about 5 months of it.

Yes the child will eventually recover from an injury but it is still an injury. A voluntary sex act on the other hand is something some minors would cherish (especially teenage boys). You tell me where is the abuse in all this unless there is rape? Sure there can be STDs and pregnancies, as with ANY age.

Having sex with a child (or anyone, period) comes with the VERY real possibility of bringing another life into the world - and once a baby is involved, that changes everything (even if both sides decide to abandon the baby or abort it). Yes, it may "feel good", but are both parties willing to take total responsibility for their actions, if the female gets pregnant or if someone gets AIDS? These are very real questions both parties need to think about if they are thinking about having sex. And you could pretty much bet that your average child does not think that much about the possible consequences of their behavior.

The key word here is if. You can't automatically assume that all teenagers are this irresponsible. I know you are a social worker and you probably have worked with pregnant teens and teens with STDs. But what you aren't realizing is that children are having sex nearly all the time without their parent's consent (which shows that legislation is not working). How come then we aren't having so much more teen pregnancies (although there a lot, they don't make up the majority)? While many more teens may involuntarily get pregnant than other age groups, they are still in the minority.

But again, I agree with you that children too young should not engage in sexual activities. But this should be up to the parents to decide when their kids are ready, not the state.