Who wants to endlessly debate a little ?

[MaineShark]

But no one will ever change my mind about predators . No one will ever convince me that men ( mostly) who exploit children can be trusted and should be accepted as they are , that they showed bad judgment .. that is crap. They continually repeat their bad behavior because that is how they are wired. Thinking they can be helped by a shrink is as silly as the born again christians thinking they can pray a gay man straight

No one's arguing about predators.  The issue is distinguishing between predators, and non-predators.

I'm opposed to folks doing drive-by shootings.  That doesn't mean I'm automatically willing to ban guns, or lock up anyone who owns a gun which could possibly be used for a drive-by.

A high age of consent law will certainly help to catch predators.  Just like a ban on semi-automatic firearms would certainly help to catch gang-bangers who commit drive-bys.  The issue with each is the collateral damage to those who are not predators, and those who are not murderers.

As far as my libeling anyone. I have not and maybe some one else can speak to what they are holding back. Ian has spoken of children being able to decide when they share themselves . Children. He has said it many times and some one here has heard his words and is not speaking up .I am more than a little sad that you feel that way but am sure when more information comes to light you will change your mind , but I am not the one to bring it up.

Are you quoting him as using the word "children," or is that just your interpretation?

Abusers are being protected Joe

Where?  Haven't seen it...

But you're the one with daughters there, not me. I re read what you posted in that thread and will say that yet again you made a reasonable comment about your daughter and how you would handle something like that . I ask this.. what kind of 28 year old man desires a relationship with a 14 year old girl? Do you want your daughter , no matter how well you raised her .. no matter how emotionally mature she is going on dates with that 28 year old ?

Would you be upset if a 28-year-old was dating a 18-year-old?  How about a 24-year-old?  What if she was 16, which is the legal age of consent?  Presumably, you would find that acceptable, right?

So, if she was 14, and was as mature as a 16-year-old, or as mature as an 18-year-old, or as mature as a 24-year-old, what would be the problem?

If she was as mature as the average individual of whatever age you would consider acceptable to date a 28-year-old, what issue can you have?

Maturity is what matters.  If she's mature enough to consent, then she's mature enough to consent, regardless of calendar age.

I hope that my daughter, at 14, is mature enough to consent.  I hope she'll wait longer than that, but I hope she'll be mature enough to actively make the decision to wait, rather than just passively obeying what others expect.

Sex with someone who is too young to consent is rape, and no one here, that I've seen, is defending rapists.  All that's been said is that there is not a single age at which each and every individual becomes able to consent.  There are individuals younger than 16 who are perfectly capable of consent.  There are plenty of women in their 40's whom I wouldn't even consider dating, because they are far too immature for my standards.  15 years, plus 364 days old, and it's rape?  15 years, plus 365 days, and it's not?  Sorry, but reality doesn't work that way.

I fail to understand why folks cannot grasp such a simple concept as requiring that the supposed-victim's maturity be a component of the case.  Do you imagine that it will be difficult to convince a jury that an 11-year-old is incapable of consent?  Ian says he was, and I have no reason to disbelieve him.  But, if that case was adjudicated, wouldn't it be a substantial uphill battle, before that was proven?

However, maybe I'm wrong, and there's a specific age at which every individual suddenly becomes capable of consent.  If so, could you provide the scientific evidence to prove that claim?

If you'll admit that there's not one, single age at which each and every individual becomes capable of consent, then could you explain why you seem to support a system based upon a claim you admit is false?

I have asked more than once in the couple years I have been posting here for some one to explain to me how a free society would handle a predator or a murderer and no one does.

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=21486.msg328899#msg328899

Joe

[littlehawk]

anything positive coming from all of this?

[highline]

I was just thinking...  trying to make arguments in favor of the restructuring of society's statutory rape laws is quite similar to trying to make arguments in favor of restructuring society's blanket prohibition on "felons" owning firearms.  The restructuring is necessary, in both cases, so that victimless crimes do not result in a ruined future for an individual.

I think the 2nd Amendment means precisely what it says and subsequent laws which prohibit the possession of firearms by anyone are unconstitutional.  When arguing that felons have a constitutional right to possess a firearm one is faced with an uphill battle (just like when arguing that a "rapist" shouldn't be labeled a "rapist").

That said, I'm glad that CJS is understanding of the point we are trying to make. 

[Free libertarian]

When I was under the age of consent I was "raped" by a girl of age a couple years older than me.   It was the best 3 seconds of my life up to that point.  I couldn't wait to be "raped" again. 

While I am uncomfortable with big age differences and have all the "right" societal inhibitions built into me, I think the real issue should boil down to harm and consent.    This is for me an uncomfortable subject because I know my preferences are that people stick to their age groups, in a relative way.  However that is probably more of a learned behavior than anything else.

Protecting people from unwanted advances is a good thing, BUT, as a young teen I didn't feel raped or taken advantage of...heck...I thought it was the coolest thing ever.   For crime to exist there must be an unwilling participant, absent that, I might be uncomfortable with it  and even think something is "wrong", but I have trouble justifying intervention if my morality is offended but the actual participants are consenting.

[Lloyd Danforth]

anything positive coming from all of this?

11 year old's are beginning to lose their appeal too me. 14 year old's?....that's on a case by case basis.

[Free libertarian]

anything positive coming from all of this?

11 year old's are beginning to lose their appeal too me. 14 year old's?....that's on a case by case basis.

Hey Aqualung....wipe your nose you pervert !!

[Russell Kanning]

cjs .... I guess it will take a long time for you to wrap your mind around the idea of using no force and it still being a desirable society.
even if you still want to jail or kill those that hurt others ..... a good first step would be to try to find out if they actually hurt someone.

didn't 14 year olds used to get married?

here is some interesting info on laws around the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

check out Sudan, Scotland, Canada, Mexico, and NH

[Tom Sawyer]

There certainly is lots of room for discussion, debate and dialog about the current "sexual abuse" abusive system. 15 year olds with 17 year olds... of course most reasonable people would think that shouldn't be for the law to punish.

However I think if CJS is seeing this topic from anything close to my position it revolves as much around the PR issue. Should we appear to be giving shelter and cover for pedophiles to move to the neighborhood? I mean cannibalism, necrophilia and bestiality are also sensational topics to create drama and excitement for talk radio.

Maybe the person promoting people to move can't wear the different hats of radio talk show personality and welcome wagon. Limiting what the talk show can cover isn't proper, but the folks working for the welcome wagon would probably chose not to focus on the subject. 

Not understanding how your audience is likely to perceive things is the sign of someone that doesn't have the skill set to be the PR face of the movement.

"Gee honey let's take the family and move to Keene." can be quickly destroyed...

[Russell Kanning]

it also makes sense to keep the main things the main things
I have met people inside the fsp though that their main thing is no-holds-bar sexual freedom .... so they don't want anyone to limit anything whether by force or even a frown
I guess this is another example of how some of us have to keep trying to attract people who have our same goals in mind, and slowly let some people fade from our group of friends.