Massive fuckwit I know jailed for two years, for having sex with a 14 year old girl

[Camundongo]

[QUOTE=TestECull;39471036]How about, for driving, we just [i]test their skill[/i]? Or does that make too much sense?[/QUOTE]

Because passing a test totally means you won't decide to speed at 90mph down a dark road, or decide to drive after just having a few beers? It's not about skill, it's the fact that people aren't mature enough to use the skill responsibly. People in their twenties are bad enough as it is, and teenagers, for want of a better word, are stupid. I was stupid when I was a teenager, and everyone else I know was as well.

[Shadaez]

[QUOTE=TestECull;39470993]No, not South America. Southern America. It's a distinctly different place. One is home to dictators, one is home to rednecks.
[/QUOTE]

never heard of the south being called southern america lol

[mobrockers2]

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;39471058]the laws are there to protect kids from [b]rape[/b]

why are you even bringing "rebellious phases" into this

that doesn't outweigh a child's/teen's right to not be raped[/QUOTE]

I think he's talking about driving. I hope.

[Shadaez]

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;39471068]I think he's talking about driving. I hope.[/QUOTE]

ehrm didn't know driving got you pregnant

vvv
i dont know, we're talking about driving now I guess

[mobrockers2]

[QUOTE=Shadaez;39471104]ehrm didn't know driving got you pregnant[/QUOTE]

What are you rambling about.

[sambooo]

[QUOTE=TestECull;39470993]No, not South America. Southern America. It's a distinctly different place. One is home to dictators, one is home to rednecks.[/QUOTE]

Here in the UK, they are both the same place, whereas the place you are talking about is called South(ern) USA. I dunno if that's the case in other places, but calling the US 'America' when it's ambiguous is just asking for misunderstanding.

[JennyC6]

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;39471068]I think he's talking about driving. I hope.[/QUOTE]

I am and I'm not. I'm mostly arguing that these arbitrary numbers don't make any sense more than "This activity should be restricted to X age, this one Y age."

[QUOTE=Camundongo;39471061]Because passing a test totally means you won't decide to speed at 90mph down a dark road, or decide to drive after just having a few beers? It's not about skill, it's the fact that people aren't mature enough to use the skill responsibly. People in their twenties are bad enough as it is, and teenagers, for want of a better word, are stupid. I was stupid when I was a teenager, and everyone else I know was as well.[/QUOTE]
So was I. Doesn't change the fact that arbitrary numbers don't make much sense.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;39471058]the laws are there to protect kids from [b]rape[/b][/quote] And they don't work. They bite consenting kids in the ass far more often than they do anything against actual rape...which was already illegal to begin with. I'm not sure why we need so many sets of rape laws. It's already illegal to rape an adult, and it's already illegal to rape a child, so why put a third set on the books that screws normal kids over far more often than it catches someone doing something wrong?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't have any interest in anyone that young either. I already have someone my own age, and if I didn't, I'd look for someone my age. But I still don't really see the point in saying "Look, you haven't aged to some arbitrary milestone we put in the lawbooks, so if you fuck anyone...even consentingly...that other person is fucked for life." That's what doesn't make sense to me. It's already illegal to rape people regardless of their age, yet we've tacked on yet another set of pointless laws, the logic of which escapes me. They're making something that's already illegal illegal..wat

[mobrockers2]

[QUOTE=TestECull;39471126]I am and I'm not. I'm mostly arguing that these arbitrary numbers don't make any sense more than "This activity should be restricted to X age, this one Y age."

So was I. Doesn't change the fact that arbitrary numbers don't make much sense.

And they don't work. They bite consenting kids in the ass far more often than they do anything against actual rape...which was already illegal to begin with. I'm not sure why we need so many sets of rape laws. It's already illegal to rape an adult, and it's already illegal to rape a child, so why put a third set on the books that screws normal kids over far more often than it catches someone doing something wrong?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't have any interest in anyone that young either. I already have someone my own age, and if I didn't, I'd look for someone my age. But I still don't really see the point in saying "Look, you haven't aged to some arbitrary milestone we put in the lawbooks, so if you fuck anyone...even consentingly...that other person is fucked for life." That's what doesn't make sense to me. It's already illegal to rape people regardless of their age, yet we've tacked on yet another set of pointless laws, the logic of which escapes me. They're making something that's already illegal illegal..wat[/QUOTE]

Having sex with a child is RAPE regardless of consent, because minors CAN'T consent. They are not mature enough to be able to make such a decision with a clear mind, and without being heavily coerced.

[MisterMooth]

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;39471111]What are you rambling about.[/QUOTE]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/YBIOPvd.png[/img]

it was about setting laws to be at certain ages

[JennyC6]

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;39471142]Having sex with a child is RAPE regardless of consent, because minors CAN'T consent. They are not mature enough to be able to make such a decision with a clear mind, and without being heavily coerced.[/QUOTE]

Link me a study that says someone 17 years, 364 days old is too soft-headed to consent to sex, but someone 18 years 0 days old is.

I don't believe you'll find one, because it isn't the case. No two kids are the same. IMO it should be up to the parents to decide when it is and isn't ok for their child to do it. Not the state. The parents know the maturity of their offspring, the parents can tell whether or not they're mentally there enough to handle consent. The state cannot do that. The state can only throw down an arbitrary number and hope it doesn't screw too many people over.

[MisterMooth]

[QUOTE=TestECull;39471126]And they don't work. They bite consenting kids in the ass far more often than they do anything against actual rape...which was already illegal to begin with. I'm not sure why we need so many sets of rape laws. It's already illegal to rape an adult, and it's already illegal to rape a child, so why put a third set on the books that screws normal kids over far more often than it catches someone doing something wrong?[/QUOTE]

you're gonna need sources for this shit yo

[JennyC6]

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;39471171]you're gonna need sources for this shit yo[/QUOTE]

I've seen it firsthand enough to know it's the case, especially when the AoC is 18. Plenty of 17/18 couples, both partners being equally mature, get screwed over by these laws all the time.

[MisterMooth]

[QUOTE=TestECull;39471176]I've seen it firsthand enough to know it's the case, especially when the AoC is 18. Plenty of 17/18 couples, both partners being equally mature, get screwed over by these laws all the time.[/QUOTE]

anecdotal evidence means jack shit

[JennyC6]

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;39471181]anecdotal evidence means jack shit[/QUOTE]

Then you go pouring through sex offender registries yourself. It doesn't get on the 9 o'clock news so I can't just link the huffpo or some shit, and I definitely can't be assed to dig through that registry because some random guy on facepunch is like "lol sources".

Do it yourself or put me on your ignore list.

[mobrockers2]

[QUOTE=TestECull;39471158]Link me a study that says someone 17 years, 364 days old is too soft-headed to consent to sex, but someone 18 years 0 days old is.

I don't believe you'll find one, because it isn't the case. No two kids are the same. IMO it should be up to the parents to decide when it is and isn't ok for their child to do it. Not the state. The parents know the maturity of their offspring, the parents can tell whether or not they're mentally there enough to handle consent. The state cannot do that. The state can only throw down an arbitrary number and hope it doesn't screw too many people over.[/QUOTE]

The state can, and the state does. No one is going to prosecute a 19 year old for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend.

[JennyC6]

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;39471194]The state can, and the state does. No one is going to prosecute a 19 year old for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend.[/QUOTE]

Except they will. And do. All the 17 year old has to say is "mommy he didn't listen to me" and the state won't even think twice about pursuing a bullshit rape charge based entirely on a lie.

[rhx123]

[QUOTE=Camundongo;39470969]AOC is 16 in the UK, minimum age for a driving license is 17 (except mopeds/low powered bikes where it's 16), and I sure as hell wouldn't want either to be lower.[/QUOTE]

They should make the driving age for mopeds 40, that way no one has to put up with the vzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz from chavs on their 50cc moped on L plates.

[Milk]

The fact that this is even being debated is fuckin ridiculous.

Statutory rape laws are not only concerning the maturity of minors, but it keeps REAL rapists from getting off on a technicality.

You guys supporting a lower AoC have been supporting your beliefs mostly by spouting inane shit depicting sex as purely reproductional, despite your likely double standard in that portrayal.

[editline]4th February 2013[/editline]

This has to be the worst debate in a while

all my boxes, dude. All my boxes.

[mobrockers2]

[QUOTE=TestECull;39471200]Except they will. And do. All the 17 year old has to say is "mommy he didn't listen to me" and the state won't even think twice about pursuing a bullshit rape charge based entirely on a lie.[/QUOTE]

Then don't have sex with people you don't trust.. If you're having sex with a 17 year old girl who regrets it later, then maybe you shouldn't of done it in the first place.

[Canuhearme?]

[QUOTE=TestECull;39471200]Except they will. And do. All the 17 year old has to say is "mommy he didn't listen to me" and the state won't even think twice about pursuing a bullshit rape charge based entirely on a lie.[/QUOTE]

That's a "problem" with the current rape laws in general, not AoC.

Not to mention AoC laws aren't there to screw kids banging kids over, it's to stop adults banging kids (since there's a disproportionate hold of power in that case.) I mean hell, they account for this by having age gaps so the only person that would [I]really[/I] get screwed over is a 28 year old trying to get it on with a 15 year old.

[QUOTE=TestECull;39471158]Link me a study that says someone 17 years, 364 days old is too soft-headed to consent to sex, but someone 18 years 0 days old is.

[/QUOTE]

Now you're just being pedantic. The line in the sand [I]has[/I] to be drawn somewhere.

[Roshbitnak]

[QUOTE=TestECull;39471200]Except they will. And do. All the 17 year old has to say is "mommy he didn't listen to me" and the state won't even think twice about pursuing a bullshit rape charge based entirely on a lie.[/QUOTE]

Arguing extreme examples isn't helping your case. Neither is saying "It's the parent's responsibility". Thing is, the teenagers are the ones ultimately making the decision of whether or not to have sex. Pretty much everybody agrees though that teenagers are retarded, and having the age of consent means that at least they'll be making that decision at a less retarded age. Are there exceptions, like the one you mentioned?
Yes.
Is there a better system?
No.
Maybe those guys you mentioned shouldn't be dating girls who fucking claim rape if they aren't happy with their relationship? Or for that matter, just not dating underage girls/waiting until they're 18? All of the cases you're talking about are an 18+ year old guy and an underage girl. Nobody cares about two below-18 teenagers having sex.

[JennyC6]

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;39471253]Then don't have sex with people you don't trust.. If you're having sex with a 17 year old girl who regrets it later, then maybe you shouldn't of done it in the first place.[/QUOTE]

It's not a problem I experienced first-hand, mostly because I was smart enough to avoid the ditzes that pull that shit. But it's still a problem. Someone's life shouldn't be ruined for all eternity over a common lover's spat.

[QUOTE=Milkdairy;39471227]

You guys supporting a lower AoC have been supporting your beliefs mostly by spouting inane shit depicting sex as purely reproductional[/quote] Much to the opposite, actually. Teens do it because it's fun to do, and that's fine.[quote]

all my boxes, dude. All my boxes.[/QUOTE]
I'll let you know when I give half a flying fuck. Don't hold your breath, though, it's going to be a loooooooooooooooong time.

[Jocke]

[QUOTE=Ern;39470522]"he had been caught for something minor"

He sure did.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://facepunch.com/image.php?u=435005&dateline=1359978932[/IMG]

[Uber|nooB]

[QUOTE=Ern;39470587]Do you really think the mind of a teenaged girl should be making a decision to have sex at such an age?[/QUOTE]

i have a friend who lost his virginity at about 13; he certainly doesn't feel like it was non-consensual

yes, we have a legal age of consent, but it doesn't mean that anyone below it automatically has absolutely no idea what's going on; likewise there are people who are older than the age of consent but don't really get what sex is about till a bit later on

it's exactly the same as the fact that turning 18 does not suddenly turn you into a responsible adult, and neither does being under 18 imply that you are irresponsible and can't make any decisions. it all depends on the person.

[Shadaez]

[QUOTE=TestECull;39471158]Link me a study that says someone 17 years, 364 days old is too soft-headed to consent to sex, but someone 18 years 0 days old is.

I don't believe you'll find one, because it isn't the case. No two kids are the same. IMO it should be up to the parents to decide when it is and isn't ok for their child to do it. Not the state. The parents know the maturity of their offspring, the parents can tell whether or not they're mentally there enough to handle consent. The state cannot do that. The state can only throw down an arbitrary number and hope it doesn't screw too many people over.[/QUOTE]

Didn't see this, but this is the reason people are arguing with you. There needs to be a set number, and you're obviously arguing from your PoV where 18 is the AoC with no age-gap exemptions and everyone else is arguing from probably a 16 AoC / 2-4 year gap exemption. There does need to be a set line drawn, but 18 is too extreme when there's no age gap exemption. I don't think anyone would argue that.

[mobrockers2]

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;39471330]i have a friend who lost his virginity at about 13; he certainly doesn't feel like it was non-consensual

yes, we have a legal age of consent, but it doesn't mean that anyone below it automatically has absolutely no idea what's going on; likewise there are people who are older than the age of consent but don't really get what sex is about till a bit later on

it's exactly the same as the fact that turning 18 does not suddenly turn you into a responsible adult, and neither does being under 18 imply that you are irresponsible and can't make any decisions. it all depends on the person.[/QUOTE]

We all acknowledge that, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be an age of consent.

[Shadaez]

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;39471330]i have a friend who lost his virginity at about 13; he certainly doesn't feel like it was non-consensual

yes, we have a legal age of consent, but it doesn't mean that anyone below it automatically has absolutely no idea what's going on; likewise there are people who are older than the age of consent but don't really get what sex is about till a bit later on

it's exactly the same as the fact that turning 18 does not suddenly turn you into a responsible adult, and neither does being under 18 imply that you are irresponsible and can't make any decisions. it all depends on the person.[/QUOTE]

he didn't lose it to an adult though (I hope)

[Uber|nooB]

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;39471341]We all acknowledge that, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be an age of consent.[/QUOTE]

i'm not arguing that there shouldn't be

[MisterMooth]

[QUOTE=TestECull;39471193]Then you go pouring through sex offender registries yourself. It doesn't get on the 9 o'clock news so I can't just link the huffpo or some shit, and I definitely can't be assed to dig through that registry because some random guy on facepunch is like "lol sources".

Do it yourself or put me on your ignore list.[/QUOTE]

there wouldn't be a set age of consent pretty much everywhere if it were hurting "innocents" more

it's up to you to back up your ridiculous claim, not for me to try to prove otherwise

you can't spread bullshit without proof

[JennyC6]

[QUOTE=Shadaez;39471336]Didn't see this, but this is the reason people are arguing with you. There needs to be a set number, and you're obviously arguing from your PoV where 18 is the AoC with no age-gap exemptions and everyone else is arguing from probably a 16 AoC / 2-4 year gap exemption. There does need to be a set line drawn, but 18 is too extreme when there's no age gap exemption. I don't think anyone would argue that.[/QUOTE]

Mhm, and that's precisely why I think these arbitrary AoCs are bullshit. There are no age gap emptions in my area. If someone one day shy of their 18th bones someone one day after their 18th, the older party is guilty of statutory rape in the eyes of the State of Tennessee, and if charges are brought, they can and will stick. It's fucking stupid.

If there was an age gap I wouldn't really care, because it would pretty much exclude the people for whom I'm arguing from such action. A 2-4 year age gap exemption solves the problem I have with the AoC nicely.