Re: AOL and strippers

[rincewind]

> >>Me too :-) But that was then, this is now. 16 is the age of consent here,
>
> >>and although people might get upset over such a birthday party I can't see
>
> >>any laws broken. It's not as if they were actually molesting the boys ...

Yeah, just saw an report on the news about a high school girl admitting she had "consensual sex" with a teacher. Police have reported that as the girl was 16, no laws were broken. I was stunned, I thought age of consent was 18. Shows what I know.

[Frank McCoy]

Depends upon the state.
In CA, if you're 18 and have consensual sex with your 17-year-11-month
SO, you can be charged with rape.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

[David Simpson]

The Age Of Consent (AOC) varies from state to state and country to
country. Most of Australia is 16 with NSW being 17 and Victoria being
18 if you are over 18 else it is 16.
--
David
No email replies please.
2/03/2013

You will soon forget this.

[Tesseract]

Here the AOC is 16 with generous close in age exceptions. One exception
that raises that to 18 is if one person is in a position of authority
over the other. Being her teacher would qualify. Considering the
authority structure of most schools, just being a teacher in her school
would probably qualify. Otherwise, being a teacher would not be a
problem, though it might violate some teacher code of conduct, but that
is a different matter.

--
Tesseract

[rincewind]

We've had this discussion before, Frank. Age of consent is age of consent. Wait 'til she's legal or face the consequences.

[Chris Zakes]

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 12:46:53 +1030, an orbital mind-control laser
caused David Simpson <faro...@picknowl.com.au> to write:

>On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:16:56 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:49:06 +0100, an orbital mind-control laser
>>caused Bj�rn Steensrud <bjo...@skogkatt.homelinux.org> to write:
>>
>>>Chris Zakes wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 01:19:59 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
>>>> caused Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com>
>>>> to write:
>>>>
>>>>>http://seo.ulitzer.com/node/2556495
>>>>>
>>>>>While looking for the above (I first heard about it as a tidbit on the
>>>>>radio) I came across this:
>>>>>http://on.aol.com/video/mom-hires-strippers-for-sons-16th-birthday-
>>>party-517679597
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>How many of you that used to be 16 year old boys think that you would
>>>>>have been harmed by that?
>>>>
>>>> Harmed? Probably not. Freaked out? Almost certainly. I was still
>>>> pretty naive at 16.
>>>>
>>>> And the notion of my *mom* doing it? Inconceivable!
>>>>
>>>> -Chris Zakes
>>>> Texas

>>>
>>>Me too :-) But that was then, this is now. 16 is the age of consent here,
>>>and although people might get upset over such a birthday party I can't see
>>>any laws broken. It's not as if they were actually molesting the boys ...
>>

>>Unless there were lap dances done, rather than just stripping.
>>
>That is the attitude that harms the experience.

In New York, where this happened, the age of consent is 17. According
to this article, there *were* lap-dances performed on the
birthday-boy. As Frank said, rather raunchy ones:
http://wnyt.com/article/stories/s2834826.shtml

I wonder how old the stripper was, and if statutory rape charges might
apply? Because frankly, If *I* was a stripper and walked into that
situation, I'd turn around and walk right back out again.

Discussion of New York age of consent laws here:
http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/New-York-Age-Consent

-Chris Zakes
Texas
--

From the point of view of an arrow, chain mail can be thought of as a series of
loosely connected holes.

-Terry Pratchett, "Lords and Ladies"

[Frank McCoy]

I'm just pointing out that OTHER states have far more reasonable laws.
It's not too late (It's NEVER too late) to change a law that's worse
than the supposed crime.

Saying an unjust law is the law, and cannot be changed is worse than
the idiocy that creates such a law.

And yet, some people (like you, I suppose) are under the impression
that even trying to change a bad law is illegal.

It's not. That's the very BASIS and REASON for the First Amendment.

[Fred E Brown]

"rincewind" <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f33130d-a410-47b6...@googlegroups.com...

Some states put a limit on the age of the older person. In Florida a 16-17
year old can have sex with
someone under 25.

[invalidd]

Frank McCoy wrote:


> Hmmmm ....
> "But if a 17-year-old turns 18 before his or her partner turns 14,
> then as of the older child's eighteenth birthday, the sexual relations
> would be considered rape. This can be very disconcerting to the
> children and parents. It presents a scenario where sexual behavior
> that was legal on one day is be completely illegal the next."
>
> Obviously not the INTENT of the law; but ....
> It's hard to write a comprehensive and yet fair law that doesn't have
> glitches in it.

Someone who was born overdue could be biologically older than someone
born prematurely yet it would be legal for the biologically younger
person to have sex but not the biologically older person.

[Frank McCoy]

Not to mention that some people mature a lot faster than others ...
Sometimes physically, sometimes mentally, and often both; with the
reverse also implied. Some people never do grow up.

[rincewind]

Didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. You want to work to change the law, change the law. But until you do, don't come up with; "It would have been OK two weeks later!"

BTW, it used to be 21, now in most places it's 18. Where would YOU draw the line? (If you can discuss it without getting into more trouble.) 17? 16? 15? 14? (Let's not forget Jerry Lee Lewis married his 14-year old cousin and while it was perfectly legal in his state, it ruined his career.)

[Tim Merrigan]

Not particularly ruined. He couldn't tour the UK, that's hardly a
ruined career.

As to where the dividing line should be, if you're going to insist
that there be one, how about puberty. Have the law match biology.

[Frank McCoy]

rincewind <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> And yet, some people (like you, I suppose) are under the impression
>>
>> that even trying to change a bad law is illegal.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not. That's the very BASIS and REASON for the First Amendment.
>
>Didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. You want to work to change the law, change the law. But until you do, don't come up with; "It would have been OK two weeks later!"
>

Or sometimes two weeks earlier.

>BTW, it used to be 21,

Um ... NO.
It USED to be about 12, with some (a very few) states as high as 14 to
16. Go check your history books. About 200 years ago, a girl of 14
not already married and raising kids was looked at as an "Old Maid"
with hardly any chance. 50 years later with the Industrial
Revolution, that age had moved up to about 15 or 16. Read some OLD
books. Heck, go check your own genealogy, and see when your
great-great-grandparents had their first child. It's amazing the ages
you get when you learn how to subtract.

>now in most places it's 18.

Now THAT is true. They keep drawing the line later and later.
Soon they'll try to make it 25.

>Where would YOU draw the line? (If you can discuss it without getting into more trouble.) 17? 16? 15? 14? (Let's not forget Jerry Lee Lewis married his 14-year old cousin and while it was perfectly legal in his state, it ruined his career.)

It didn't hurt Moon when marrying Loretta Lynn.

So ... Where would *I* draw the line?
At about 6 months to a year before MOST people go out looking for sex
... and usually finding it.

At one time, I figured that would be around the start of puberty,
which has been getting earlier and earlier; so that would-have-been at
about 12 or 13 ... JRL and Moon being fair examples.

However my studies and statistics now show that most "kids" start
actively *seeking* sex these days at about 14-15; with probably more
than half not being virgins by 16.

So my particular inclination would be to make 13 or becoming a
teenager the dividing-line, if age alone is to be the decision.

However, that's NOT how I'd make the law, if I was proposing one.

MY suggestion is that sex, like driving a car, should be licensed and
tested-for; so the idea that a person could "give consent" would be
based on both their knowledge and inclination.

Nobody could *pressure* a person into taking the test; nor could
anybody because of age be refused a chance. Either one would be a
felony.

Having sex with somebody without such a license would be similar to
driving a car without one. And, like buying booze or tobacco, you
would be "carded" before being allowed into sexually oriented
businesses.

Other than that, I'd STILL make it a crime for a person in a
power-situation to have sex with an underling; be it a teacher/student
relationship, officer/enlisted, or parent/child ... With the caveat
that when the power imbalance was gone, so was the restriction.

Thus, a teacher COULD have sex with a (legal, see above) student, once
said student was no longer in his/her class. Same thing with
officer/enlisted; if no longer in the chain-of-command. And yes, also
with parent/child, once the child had moved out and was living on
his/her own without parental support. (Note that would NOT allow sex
between parent and child going to College, if said parent was still
paying for the studies.)

But that's MY idea of being fair.

And yes, of course, there would be thousands of people who would/will
misuse the system ... as do millions of people misuse today's laws.

There is no (and probably it can be proved mathematically that it's
impossible for there to actually BE) a completely FAIR system that's
right for everybody. Just like with any proposed voting system.

However, some systems ARE better and closer to "fair" for most people
than the laws we have today (in both voting and AOC) which are
basically unfair to the majority of people, if enforced to the
lettter-of-the-law (which most are not).

When you make it a FELONY for people to have sex at the age when MOST
people in the country *already ARE and have-been having sex*, often
for YEARS, then the law is WRONG!
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html#Age
Time to change it back.
Especially now that most of the *original* reasons for making such
rules are as dead as Prohibition.

A. Having sex is no longer a practical guarantee of pregnancy.
B. MOST STDs these days are treatable.
C. Having a baby "out of wedlock" is no longer the ultimate crime.
D. Parents rarely disown their kids for having sex.
E. Women NOW can hold down good jobs.
F. Etc.

Of course, the TRUE original reason for outlawing sex for what we now
call "adolescents" (originally just called adults) is still there:
Jealousy by older people who cannot stand the thought of younger,
more-virile, sexier, prettier, and more fertile generation moving in
to displace them. Thus the present trend to move the "Age of Consent"
higher and higher with each passing generation.

For, we ALL remember how obsessed with sex WE were at the ages we now
forbid "Children" to do so ... With about the same success-rate that
making booze illegal had during Prohibition; and for the same reason.

If a person is defined-by-law as being a "child" and forbidden to have
sex ... How often does that work? Did it work for you and your
generation? Like Prohibition, (or yes, in the modern "war on drugs")
instead of stopping drinking, smoking-pot, or having sex, we just make
a nation of criminals.

The soapbox is empty.
NEXT!

[David Simpson]

Or work to change the law to something sensible.

--
David
No email replies please.

3/03/2013

You will overcome the attacks of jealous associates.

[David Simpson]

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 18:43:29 -0800, Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com>
wrote:

But that means you lose control over other people!

[Frank McCoy]

Exactly. There ARE other states with far more reasonable laws.
Why set the state with the most ridiculous one as an example?

[rincewind]

> >We've had this discussion before, Frank. Age of consent is age of consent. Wait 'til she's legal or face the consequences.
>
> Or work to change the law to something sensible.

Granted. I should have put that there and did add it to a later post. I don't agree with "13-14" though.

[rincewind]

If that's the state you're in that that's the law you either have to work to change or follow. You don't get to ignore it.

[Tesseract]

What would the purpose of this law be?

If it is to keep young people from having sex, it will fail. I suspect
that many of those young people may not even know that the law exists.
If it is seldom enforced, as people here have said about California's
law, it's even worse as that means it is selectively enforced, raising
the question of fairness.

In some places, the law's purpose is not to stop kids from having sex
but to stop older people from having sex with younger people. It is much
more likely to succeed.


--
Tesseract

[invalidd]

Tim Merrigan wrote:

> As to where the dividing line should be, if you're going to insist
> that there be one, how about puberty. Have the law match biology.

While I understand the sentiment, in practice I think that wouldn't be a
good idea.

Puberty isn't a single instant, it lasts several years. And a person
isn't fully sexually developed until the end of puberty. Besides,
rampaging hormones during puberty make for poor decision making.

The end of puberty and the beginning of adolescence might be a better
idea if there was any way of discerning it eg hormone levels.

[Tim Merrigan]

I can remember being warned about the AoC laws in High School (which
is when it would be most relevant to most people). (Note, I was a
virgin until my late 20s, and wasn't even dating in High School.)

[Tim Merrigan]

Human's aren't FULLY sexually developed till about 25 or so, though
our optimal reproductive, and most sexually productive (those "raging
hormones" you mention) years are from about 15 to 20.

And poor decision making makes for a new generation (at least
historically).

[Tim Merrigan]

I don't either, since puberty these days is closser to 9 or 10.

[Frank McCoy]

Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:

>In some places, the law's purpose is not to stop kids from having sex
>but to stop older people from having sex with younger people. It is much
>more likely to succeed.

Except it also punishes the young for having sex as well.

[Frank McCoy]

invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:

>Tim Merrigan wrote:
>
>> As to where the dividing line should be, if you're going to insist
>> that there be one, how about puberty. Have the law match biology.
>
>While I understand the sentiment, in practice I think that wouldn't be a
>good idea.
>
>Puberty isn't a single instant, it lasts several years. And a person
>isn't fully sexually developed until the end of puberty. Besides,
>rampaging hormones during puberty make for poor decision making.
>

True; but like the urge to eat, those same hormones WILL drive young
people TO have sex ... law or no law. The drive often is stronger
than the need to eat, sleep, or drink. Punishing them for doing what
their bodies are designed for is idiocy.

>The end of puberty and the beginning of adolescence might be a better
>idea if there was any way of discerning it eg hormone levels.

[Frank McCoy]

A probable reason for declining birth-rates in affluent societies.

[Frank McCoy]

You miss the point.
That's the state you should change the law in; NOT the state you use
as a model for laws in other states.

[Frank McCoy]

When over a third of people are already having sex by age 13, and well
over *half* by age 15, you want to make -18- the standard?
Well ... OK ... SOMEBODY does!

Punishing young people for doing what THEY did when the same age.
Sick.

It's the old, "Don't do as I DO, Do as I SAY ... or you'll be punished
severely!"

[Frank McCoy]

That's why I moved *my* suggested ages up from puberty to ... 13-14.

[invalidd]

Frank McCoy wrote:


>>
>>While I understand the sentiment, in practice I think that wouldn't be a
>>good idea.
>>
>>Puberty isn't a single instant, it lasts several years. And a person
>>isn't fully sexually developed until the end of puberty. Besides,
>>rampaging hormones during puberty make for poor decision making.
>>
>
> True; but like the urge to eat, those same hormones WILL drive young
> people TO have sex ... law or no law.

Sadly true :(

> The drive often is stronger
> than the need to eat, sleep, or drink. Punishing them for doing what
> their bodies are designed for is idiocy.

So you think there's a designer????

How about a car analogy - it's got an engine but the brakes haven't been
installed yet.

[Chris Zakes]

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 18:43:29 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> to write:

>As to where the dividing line should be, if you're going to insist
>that there be one, how about puberty. Have the law match biology.

Right. Because we all know that emotional maturity and physical
maturity *always* go hand-in-hand.

-Chris Zakes
Texas
--

From the point of view of an arrow, chain mail can be thought of as a series of
loosely connected holes.

-Terry Pratchett, "Lords and Ladies"

[Chris Zakes]

That's just stupid. How many teenagers are going to go to a place
where they have to be *carded* before they can fool around? As Bob
Seger put it, "the back room, the alley, and the trusty woods" is far
more likely. Not to mention the back seat of his '60 Chevy.

[Tesseract]

US high school = last four years, so 14 or 15 y.o. at the earliest.
that may have been ok for you but what about that precocious 13 yo?

--
Tesseract

[Tesseract]

Only with significantly older people. They are free to have all the sex
they want (depending on other considerations, such as parents) with each
other.

--
Tesseract

[Tesseract]

Along with better health care providing a better childhood survival
rate. Also, a more affluent society is usually a more sophisticated and
complex one, requiring more preparatory time before a child has acquired
the skills necessary to enter it as a productive member, thus making
childhood more expensive.

--
Tesseract

[invalidd]

I've noticed a steady stream of questions on Yahoo Answers of the form:

"I'm <age in early teens> and my <two years older on average> boyfriend
is pressing me for sex. What should I do?"

[Tesseract]

In places with sensible laws, what the law says is irrelevant and the
answer should start with, "What would want to do?". It should end along
the lines of, "Most girls your age are not emotionally ready for sex and
you should wait a few more years." But some people will not wait
regardless of any advice that they receive and the law should not make
matters worse for them.

--
Tesseract

[saa...@sympatico.ca]

Well put, Chris...and let's not forget Intellectual maturity (ie. the capacity to make sensible decisions in the first place).

[David Simpson]

Why? Puberty is around 9-13 these days for most kids.

Not so long back twelve was considered to be legal in most places,
still is in some.

I can agree with those being five years or more in age difference
being wrong but the age of puberty is the age at which most kids are
ready to explore sex. We should educate children well before that age
so that they are better prepared to cope with the stresses and
strains.

--
David
No email replies please.

4/03/2013

Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson

[Marten Kemp]

On 3/3/2013 3:03 PM, David Simpson wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 01:44:52 -0800 (PST), rincewind
> <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>> We've had this discussion before, Frank. Age of consent is age of consent. Wait 'til she's legal or face the consequences.
>>>
>>> Or work to change the law to something sensible.
>>
>> Granted. I should have put that there and did add it to a later post. I don't agree with "13-14" though.
>
> Why? Puberty is around 9-13 these days for most kids.
>
> Not so long back twelve was considered to be legal in most places,
> still is in some.
>
> I can agree with those being five years or more in age difference
> being wrong but the age of puberty is the age at which most kids are

> ready to explore sex. *We should educate children well before that age*

> so that they are better prepared to cope with the stresses and
> strains.

And thereby lies the rub. The sexuality of offspring is
something that not very many parents are able to deal with,
most especially fathers with daughters (in some of their
minds the daughters never have sex and grandchildren appear
by magic).

In light of that, education on sexual matters devolves on
the schools because parents are either unwilling or unable
to address the issues, and 'unable' includes abject ignorance
of the subject. In 'the good old days' Kinsey found more than
one couple who were mystified that they didn't have children
but who had never had sex.

There are also certain segments of the population who seem to
be bent on punishing women simply because they might be sexually
active whether inside marriage or not.



--
-- Marten Kemp (Fix ISP to reply)

[Frank McCoy]

Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:

>On 03-Mar-13 5:22 AM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>> Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In some places, the law's purpose is not to stop kids from having sex
>>> but to stop older people from having sex with younger people. It is much
>>> more likely to succeed.
>>
>> Except it also punishes the young for having sex as well.
>>
>

>Only with significantly older people. They are free to have all the sex
>they want (depending on other considerations, such as parents) with each
>other.

Not really. In some jurisdictions a teenager can have consensual sex
with another teenager; and BOTH could be charged with "Statutory
Rape". That's the LAW.

In one case in the last two years, a 13-year-old girl was charged with
"child abuse" ... for taking pictures of *herself* masturbating.

It boggles the mind. Who was she abusing; and who was abusing her?
Of course, masturbation has long been called "self abuse", hasn't it?

[Frank McCoy]

invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:

>Tesseract wrote:
>
>> On 03-Mar-13 5:22 AM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>>
>>> Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In some places, the law's purpose is not to stop kids from having sex
>>>> but to stop older people from having sex with younger people. It is much
>>>> more likely to succeed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Except it also punishes the young for having sex as well.
>>

>> Only with significantly older people. They are free to have all the sex
>> they want (depending on other considerations, such as parents) with each
>> other.
>>
>
>I've noticed a steady stream of questions on Yahoo Answers of the form:
>
>"I'm <age in early teens> and my <two years older on average> boyfriend
>is pressing me for sex. What should I do?"

Tell him, "Thanks, but no-thanks."
"Thanks for the offer; but I don't want to ... yet."
"Maybe, just MAYBE, if you're nice, later when I do want sex, you just
*might* make the list."

[Frank McCoy]

Marten Kemp <marte...@thisplanet-link.net> wrote:

>On 3/3/2013 3:03 PM, David Simpson wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 01:44:52 -0800 (PST), rincewind
>> <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>> We've had this discussion before, Frank. Age of consent is age of consent. Wait 'til she's legal or face the consequences.
>>>>
>>>> Or work to change the law to something sensible.
>>>
>>> Granted. I should have put that there and did add it to a later post. I don't agree with "13-14" though.
>>
>> Why? Puberty is around 9-13 these days for most kids.
>>
>> Not so long back twelve was considered to be legal in most places,
>> still is in some.
>>
>> I can agree with those being five years or more in age difference
>> being wrong but the age of puberty is the age at which most kids are
>> ready to explore sex. *We should educate children well before that age*
>> so that they are better prepared to cope with the stresses and
>> strains.
>
>And thereby lies the rub. The sexuality of offspring is
>something that not very many parents are able to deal with,
>most especially fathers with daughters (in some of their
>minds the daughters never have sex and grandchildren appear
>by magic).
>

The reverse is also true, you know.
To many kids, the thought of their parents having sex is troubling, to
say the least. Even their parents *kissing* is an Ick! moment.
They just don't THINK of the older folks having sex ... in spite of
their own existence. Go figure.

>In light of that, education on sexual matters devolves on
>the schools because parents are either unwilling or unable
>to address the issues, and 'unable' includes abject ignorance
>of the subject. In 'the good old days' Kinsey found more than
>one couple who were mystified that they didn't have children
>but who had never had sex.
>
>There are also certain segments of the population who seem to
>be bent on punishing women simply because they might be sexually
>active whether inside marriage or not.

After all ... "Sex is a SIN ... Invented by the DEVIL!!!"
Uh ... Since when did the Devil invent anything; especially something
as important as what is needed to follow God's direction to "replenish
the Earth"?
I'm pretty sure this mainly all goes back to Thomas Aquinas and his
idea that only pure and celibate virgins can go to Heaven ... and yes,
a bit further back to Paul ... another misogynist if there ever was
one. His opinions of women seems to be that they are all trying to
lead men into sin.

[Tesseract]

On 03-Mar-13 1:30 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
> Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03-Mar-13 5:22 AM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>>> Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In some places, the law's purpose is not to stop kids from having sex
>>>> but to stop older people from having sex with younger people. It is much
>>>> more likely to succeed.
>>>
>>> Except it also punishes the young for having sex as well.
>>>
>>
>> Only with significantly older people. They are free to have all the sex
>> they want (depending on other considerations, such as parents) with each
>> other.
>
> Not really. In some jurisdictions a teenager can have consensual sex
> with another teenager; and BOTH could be charged with "Statutory
> Rape". That's the LAW.

Do please read what I was responding to and how I was responding to it.

>
> In one case in the last two years, a 13-year-old girl was charged with
> "child abuse" ... for taking pictures of *herself* masturbating.
>
> It boggles the mind. Who was she abusing; and who was abusing her?
> Of course, masturbation has long been called "self abuse", hasn't it?

This has little to do with AOC and a lot to do with child porn laws.
They may be related but they are not the same thing. It's possible, but
I doubt it, that she got into trouble for taking the pictures but much
more likely for publishing them.

>
> --
> _____
> / ' / ™
> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
>

--
Tesseract

[Tim Merrigan]

answer: Put it off till you're both 18, or risk going to jail, and
spending the rest of your life on the registered sex offender list, as
child rapists (if they specify the offence).

[Tim Merrigan]

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 15:30:17 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:

She got a lenient prosecutor (such decisions have long since been
taken out of the hands of judges), she could have been additionally
charged with production and possession (and distribution, if she sent
it to anyone) of child pornography.

[Tim Merrigan]

No, no designer, but life forms that don't have a drive, by whatever
mechanism, to recreate themselves die out, so strong reproductive
drives tend to win the evolutionary war quite early on. One of our
mechanisms is that in the most fertile part of our lives (early post
pubescence) our sex drives are the strongest they'll ever be in our
lives.

[Tim Merrigan]

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 08:03:28 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 18:43:29 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> to write:
>
>>As to where the dividing line should be, if you're going to insist
>>that there be one, how about puberty. Have the law match biology.
>
>Right. Because we all know that emotional maturity and physical
>maturity *always* go hand-in-hand.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas

no, often there's no relationship between them whatsoever.

[Tim Merrigan]

The sex drive does it's best to override that. It "purpose" is to
make babies, it doesn't give a rat's ass whether the parents regret
that outcome or not.

[invalidd]

Frank McCoy wrote:

> invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>


>>
>>I've noticed a steady stream of questions on Yahoo Answers of the form:
>>
>>"I'm <age in early teens> and my <two years older on average> boyfriend
>>is pressing me for sex. What should I do?"
>
>
> Tell him, "Thanks, but no-thanks."
> "Thanks for the offer; but I don't want to ... yet."
> "Maybe, just MAYBE, if you're nice, later when I do want sex, you just
> *might* make the list."

I actually answered a couple and got a 'best answer', but I don't
actively seek out that category.

I have to admit to spending waaay too much time in a different category,
fielding questions in one of my areas of expertise. It's educational to
see just how often a wrong answer is picked as 'best answer' over a
correct answer - it even makes wikipedia look half decent.

[invalidd]

Tim Merrigan wrote:

> One of our
> mechanisms is that in the most fertile part of our lives (early post
> pubescence) our sex drives are the strongest they'll ever be in our
> lives.

That might be true for teen boys with their short recovery times, but I
thought that other things being equal, women's sex drives increased with
age until the menopause.

[Frank McCoy]

Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:

>On 03-Mar-13 1:30 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>> Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03-Mar-13 5:22 AM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>>>> Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In some places, the law's purpose is not to stop kids from having sex
>>>>> but to stop older people from having sex with younger people. It is much
>>>>> more likely to succeed.
>>>>
>>>> Except it also punishes the young for having sex as well.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only with significantly older people. They are free to have all the sex
>>> they want (depending on other considerations, such as parents) with each
>>> other.
>>
>> Not really. In some jurisdictions a teenager can have consensual sex
>> with another teenager; and BOTH could be charged with "Statutory
>> Rape". That's the LAW.
>
>Do please read what I was responding to and how I was responding to it.
>

Um ... Likewise.

>>
>> In one case in the last two years, a 13-year-old girl was charged with
>> "child abuse" ... for taking pictures of *herself* masturbating.
>>
>> It boggles the mind. Who was she abusing; and who was abusing her?
>> Of course, masturbation has long been called "self abuse", hasn't it?
>
>This has little to do with AOC and a lot to do with child porn laws.
>They may be related but they are not the same thing. It's possible, but
>I doubt it, that she got into trouble for taking the pictures but much
>more likely for publishing them.
>

You'd THINK so, wouldn't you?
However, while (as I remember) the original charge, *against somebody
else* was "distributing child pornography"; that charge was dropped.
Can't remember why; except the reasoning made sense, considering how
the pictures came to be found.

On the other hand: (READ what I said above!) She WAS charged with
"child abuse" for TAKING said pictures of herself.

As I recall, SHE didn't give them to anybody ... they just found them
on her cell-phone when investigating something else.

So ... They picked a charge they figured they could make stick.

And no, they didn't find any men molesting her either.
She supposedly was "just having fun" with her new toy.

And finally: No, I don't know how far they went with said charges.

What bothers me is that they can, would, and DID charge her with said
child-abuse. Whether or not the charges ever went anywhere, I have no
idea. I presume any idiot of a lawyer could get said charged laughed
out of court. On the third hand, there are GREAT lawyers, good
lawyers, bad lawyers, shysters, idiots, bloody damned-fools, and
worst-of-all people who don't give-a-shit.

In the Public Defender system, you get all of the above.
I was *incredibly* lucky. Damned GOOD lawyer.

Worst-case I heard, was that she could be required to register as a
sex-offender for the rest of her life ... especially if she pleaded
guilty. Think about it.

Can't find a reference to the exact case; but the "logic" is explained
in this document which you might find instructive:
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/family_law_quarterly/vol45/3fall11_potter.authcheckdam.pdf

[Frank McCoy]

As I recall, she wasn't charged with distribution. The original
charge though WAS "production". That was dropped for the "child
abuse" charge. Can't find ANY news of what happened after that.

[Frank McCoy]

While older people strive to punish the slightest expression of that
drive ... especially when they remember what THEY did when young,
nubile, horny, and yes, in the prime of their fertility and virility.

[Frank McCoy]

Um ... No.

[Frank McCoy]

Or the Law, or Social-Services, or the parents of the kids, or
damn-all anybody else. Those people in the past who did NOT have such
a strong sex-drive, usually had their lines and genes die out, not
just a few decades ago, but millennia, hundreds of millennia, and even
tens of millions of years earlier.

[Frank McCoy]

Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 08:03:28 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 18:43:29 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
>>caused Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> to write:
>>
>>>As to where the dividing line should be, if you're going to insist
>>>that there be one, how about puberty. Have the law match biology.
>>
>>Right. Because we all know that emotional maturity and physical
>>maturity *always* go hand-in-hand.
>

>no, often there's no relationship between them whatsoever.

Contrary to popular opinion, SOME people mature emotionally far
earlier than they do physically. It's just a LOT less common. So,
most people ass-u-me that the mean, the median, and the average in
such things apply to EVERYBODY.

"Nobody *I* know was that smart that young!"

So ... We make laws based on the idea that everybody is an idiot.
Well ... OK ... Perhaps better than assuming everybody is a genius.
;-{

[Chris Zakes]

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 15:45:27 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser

caused Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> to write:

>On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:58:19 -0800 (PST), "saa...@sympatico.ca"
><saa...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, 3 March 2013 09:03:28 UTC-5, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 18:43:29 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
>>>
>>> caused Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> to write:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >As to where the dividing line should be, if you're going to insist
>>> >that there be one, how about puberty. Have the law match biology.
>>>
>>>
>>> Right. Because we all know that emotional maturity and physical
>>> maturity *always* go hand-in-hand.
>>>
>>> -Chris Zakes
>>> Texas
>>>
>>

>>Well put, Chris...and let's not forget Intellectual maturity (ie. the capacity to make sensible decisions in the first place).
>
>
>The sex drive does it's best to override that. It "purpose" is to
>make babies, it doesn't give a rat's ass whether the parents regret
>that outcome or not.

Granted. But humans aren't rats, rabbits or lemmings. Most of us, even
hormone-crazed teenagers, *can* override the sex drive, where the
results would be more trouble than they're worth. Otherwise, there'd
be daily orgies in every high school in the land.

Or we can work around it. For example, in college my girlfriend and I
were quite adept at having a lot of fun *without* risking pregnancy.

[Chris Zakes]

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 19:19:25 -0600, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> to write:

>Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:58:19 -0800 (PST), "saa...@sympatico.ca"
>><saa...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sunday, 3 March 2013 09:03:28 UTC-5, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 18:43:29 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
>>>>
>>>> caused Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> to write:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >As to where the dividing line should be, if you're going to insist
>>>>
>>>> >that there be one, how about puberty. Have the law match biology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right. Because we all know that emotional maturity and physical
>>>>
>>>> maturity *always* go hand-in-hand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Chris Zakes
>>>>
>>>> Texas
>>>>
>>>

>>>Well put, Chris...and let's not forget Intellectual maturity (ie. the capacity to make sensible decisions in the first place).
>>
>>The sex drive does it's best to override that. It "purpose" is to
>>make babies, it doesn't give a rat's ass whether the parents regret
>>that outcome or not.
>
>Or the Law, or Social-Services, or the parents of the kids, or
>damn-all anybody else. Those people in the past who did NOT have such
>a strong sex-drive, usually had their lines and genes die out, not
>just a few decades ago, but millennia, hundreds of millennia, and even
>tens of millions of years earlier.

Nonsense. That presumes that human evolution is a smooth progression.
It's not; it's blind, random chance right the way down. That's why we
still have things like spina bifida and hemophilia.

Yes, folks in the past who didn't want kids probably didn't breed. But
you can meet folks today who don't particularly want kids either.
Clearly that strain *hasn't* died out like you postulate.

[Chris Zakes]

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 15:42:07 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser

caused Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> to write:

>On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 08:03:28 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 18:43:29 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
>>caused Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> to write:
>>
>>>As to where the dividing line should be, if you're going to insist
>>>that there be one, how about puberty. Have the law match biology.
>>
>>Right. Because we all know that emotional maturity and physical
>>maturity *always* go hand-in-hand.
>>
>> -Chris Zakes
>> Texas
>
>no, often there's no relationship between them whatsoever.

Precisely. So why encourage/allow kids to make stupid decisions, just
because their hormones say they should?

[Chris Zakes]

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 06:33:24 +1030, an orbital mind-control laser
caused David Simpson <faro...@picknowl.com.au> to write:

>On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 01:44:52 -0800 (PST), rincewind
><edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> >We've had this discussion before, Frank. Age of consent is age of consent. Wait 'til she's legal or face the consequences.
>>>
>>> Or work to change the law to something sensible.
>>
>>Granted. I should have put that there and did add it to a later post. I don't agree with "13-14" though.
>
>Why? Puberty is around 9-13 these days for most kids.
>
>Not so long back twelve was considered to be legal in most places,
>still is in some.
>
>I can agree with those being five years or more in age difference
>being wrong but the age of puberty is the age at which most kids are
>ready to explore sex. We should educate children well before that age
>so that they are better prepared to cope with the stresses and
>strains.

That makes about as much sense as saying that as soon as a kid is able
to walk, we should let them walk wherever they want--out into traffic,
away from home with no idea of how to get back, etc.

[Chris Zakes]

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 15:42:28 -0600, an orbital mind-control laser

caused Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> to write:

(snip)

>I'm pretty sure this mainly all goes back to Thomas Aquinas and his
>idea that only pure and celibate virgins can go to Heaven ... and yes,
>a bit further back to Paul ... another misogynist if there ever was
>one. His opinions of women seems to be that they are all trying to
>lead men into sin.

So you're saying Paul was a Muslim?

[Frank McCoy]

Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 15:42:28 -0600, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> to write:
>
>(snip)
>
>>I'm pretty sure this mainly all goes back to Thomas Aquinas and his
>>idea that only pure and celibate virgins can go to Heaven ... and yes,
>>a bit further back to Paul ... another misogynist if there ever was
>>one. His opinions of women seems to be that they are all trying to
>>lead men into sin.
>
>So you're saying Paul was a Muslim?
>

Paul was long before Mohammed was born.
Like Christ, he had a huge influence on the Prophet.

[David Simpson]

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 08:40:05 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 06:33:24 +1030, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused David Simpson <faro...@picknowl.com.au> to write:
>
>>On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 01:44:52 -0800 (PST), rincewind
>><edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> >We've had this discussion before, Frank. Age of consent is age of consent. Wait 'til she's legal or face the consequences.
>>>>
>>>> Or work to change the law to something sensible.
>>>
>>>Granted. I should have put that there and did add it to a later post. I don't agree with "13-14" though.
>>
>>Why? Puberty is around 9-13 these days for most kids.
>>
>>Not so long back twelve was considered to be legal in most places,
>>still is in some.
>>
>>I can agree with those being five years or more in age difference
>>being wrong but the age of puberty is the age at which most kids are
>>ready to explore sex. We should educate children well before that age
>>so that they are better prepared to cope with the stresses and
>>strains.
>
>That makes about as much sense as saying that as soon as a kid is able
>to walk, we should let them walk wherever they want--out into traffic,
>away from home with no idea of how to get back, etc.
>

Why? Educated children are less likely to walk into traffic and,
because of their education, always know how to find their way home.

--
David
No email replies please.

5/03/2013

If you stand on your head, you will get footprints in your hair.

[David Simpson]

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 08:42:26 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 15:42:28 -0600, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> to write:
>
>(snip)
>
>>I'm pretty sure this mainly all goes back to Thomas Aquinas and his
>>idea that only pure and celibate virgins can go to Heaven ... and yes,
>>a bit further back to Paul ... another misogynist if there ever was
>>one. His opinions of women seems to be that they are all trying to
>>lead men into sin.
>
>So you're saying Paul was a Muslim?
>

I do not understand your reasoning at all. How can you equate Paul and
Muslims, which religion did not appear for several hundred years?

[Tim Merrigan]

On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 03:22:23 +1030, David Simpson
<faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 08:42:26 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 15:42:28 -0600, an orbital mind-control laser
>>caused Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> to write:
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>>I'm pretty sure this mainly all goes back to Thomas Aquinas and his
>>>idea that only pure and celibate virgins can go to Heaven ... and yes,
>>>a bit further back to Paul ... another misogynist if there ever was
>>>one. His opinions of women seems to be that they are all trying to
>>>lead men into sin.
>>
>>So you're saying Paul was a Muslim?
>>
>I do not understand your reasoning at all. How can you equate Paul and
>Muslims, which religion did not appear for several hundred years?

(As presented in western media) Islam is institutionally misogynistic,
Paul was a misogynist, therefore Paul was a Muslim.

Flawed logic at best (even leaving aside the grossly false premise),
and demonstrably false in this case.

[Tim Merrigan]

On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 03:20:00 +1030, David Simpson
<faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 08:40:05 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 06:33:24 +1030, an orbital mind-control laser
>>caused David Simpson <faro...@picknowl.com.au> to write:
>>
>>>On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 01:44:52 -0800 (PST), rincewind
>>><edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> >We've had this discussion before, Frank. Age of consent is age of consent. Wait 'til she's legal or face the consequences.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or work to change the law to something sensible.
>>>>
>>>>Granted. I should have put that there and did add it to a later post. I don't agree with "13-14" though.
>>>
>>>Why? Puberty is around 9-13 these days for most kids.
>>>
>>>Not so long back twelve was considered to be legal in most places,
>>>still is in some.
>>>
>>>I can agree with those being five years or more in age difference
>>>being wrong but the age of puberty is the age at which most kids are
>>>ready to explore sex. We should educate children well before that age
>>>so that they are better prepared to cope with the stresses and
>>>strains.
>>
>>That makes about as much sense as saying that as soon as a kid is able
>>to walk, we should let them walk wherever they want--out into traffic,
>>away from home with no idea of how to get back, etc.
>>
>Why? Educated children are less likely to walk into traffic and,

true

>because of their education, always know how to find their way home.

False

People, regardless of age, and knowledge of the area, get lost all the
time.

[invalidd]

Tim Merrigan wrote:


>
> People, regardless of age, and knowledge of the area, get lost all the
> time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278470/Sam-Woodhead-safe-little-sunburned-going-missing-Australian-Outback.html

Nothing like going for a jog in the Australian Outback when you don't
know the area and you don't have any water.

This guy wants to be an officer and has applied to Sandhurst. You
couldn't make it up :(

[Tesseract]

Was he warned that it was was easy to become disorientated if he wander
away? If not, then it is an understandable mistake. If a bit of thought,
he might have foreseen it but 18 year olds are not know for thinking ahead.

What shows really poor judgment is what you see much too often in skiing
country. These people ignore signs and sometimes climb over ropes or
fences to enter areas clearly marked out of bounds. The lucky ones get
rescued.

--
Tesseract

[David Simpson]

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 09:02:11 -0800, Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com>
wrote:

Exactly!

--
David
No email replies please.
5/03/2013

You'll never be the man your mother was!

[invalidd]

Tesseract wrote:

> On 04-Mar-13 10:04 AM, invalidd wrote:
>

>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278470/Sam-Woodhead-safe-little-sunburned-going-missing-Australian-Outback.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Nothing like going for a jog in the Australian Outback when you don't
>> know the area and you don't have any water.
>>
>> This guy wants to be an officer and has applied to Sandhurst. You
>> couldn't make it up :(
>>
>
> Was he warned that it was was easy to become disorientated if he wander
> away?

Seriously? You think that's necessary for 'officer material'?

> If not, then it is an understandable mistake. If a bit of thought,
> he might have foreseen it but 18 year olds are not know for thinking ahead.
>
> What shows really poor judgment is what you see much too often in skiing
> country. These people ignore signs and sometimes climb over ropes or
> fences to enter areas clearly marked out of bounds. The lucky ones get
> rescued.

Yes, Prince Chas used to do that. He was officer material and is now
commander in chief of all the British forces.

Okay, point conceded. Still lions led by donkeys :(

[Chris Zakes]

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 09:02:11 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser

caused Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> to write:

Note to the other patrons: do not be alarmed. The whooshing noise you
hear is the sound of a joke going right over the heads of Tim and
David.

Serious comment: there seems to be a school of thought in Islam that
women *are* trying (possibly unintentionally) to lead men into sin,
and that's why they should keep their hair--possibly their whole
bodies--covered at all times.
Google "hair sex rays" if you don't believe me.

There's a corollary to this belief: that the mere sight of a woman
will cause uncontrollable lust in a man *unless* her hair or possibly
her whole body is completely covered up. I'm not sure which belief is
more insulting.

[Chris Zakes]

On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 03:20:00 +1030, an orbital mind-control laser

caused David Simpson <faro...@picknowl.com.au> to write:

>On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 08:40:05 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 06:33:24 +1030, an orbital mind-control laser
>>caused David Simpson <faro...@picknowl.com.au> to write:
>>
>>>On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 01:44:52 -0800 (PST), rincewind
>>><edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> >We've had this discussion before, Frank. Age of consent is age of consent. Wait 'til she's legal or face the consequences.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or work to change the law to something sensible.
>>>>
>>>>Granted. I should have put that there and did add it to a later post. I don't agree with "13-14" though.
>>>
>>>Why? Puberty is around 9-13 these days for most kids.
>>>
>>>Not so long back twelve was considered to be legal in most places,
>>>still is in some.
>>>
>>>I can agree with those being five years or more in age difference
>>>being wrong but the age of puberty is the age at which most kids are
>>>ready to explore sex. We should educate children well before that age
>>>so that they are better prepared to cope with the stresses and
>>>strains.
>>
>>That makes about as much sense as saying that as soon as a kid is able
>>to walk, we should let them walk wherever they want--out into traffic,
>>away from home with no idea of how to get back, etc.
>>
>Why? Educated children are less likely to walk into traffic and,
>because of their education, always know how to find their way home.

I'm guessing you don't have kids. A baby learns to walk around one
year old. Do you seriously believe that a kid between the ages of one
and two can be "educated" to never walk out into traffic, or how to
find the way to and from Daddy's office, which is ten miles away?

"Education" does *not* automatically lead to emotional or intellectual
maturity, even if the sexual maturity is present. For that matter, an
eleven or twelve year old girl might be able to get pregnant; that
doesn't mean her body is developed enough to give birth without
serious complications.

[Tim Merrigan]

On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 08:29:30 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>

I've always thought that attitude was horribly insulting to Muslim
men, as it would seem to indicate that they have no self control
whatsoever.

[invalidd]

Chris Zakes wrote:

>
> There's a corollary to this belief: that the mere sight of a woman
> will cause uncontrollable lust in a man *unless* her hair or possibly
> her whole body is completely covered up. I'm not sure which belief is
> more insulting.
>

That's the excuse diversity apologists use when defending muslim gangs
who lure teens and pre-teens into prostitution.

And being taught that women are worthless appears to be an excuse for
pedophilia acceptable to British judges :(

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268395/Adil-Rashid-Paedophile-claimed-Muslim-upbringing-meant-didnt-know-illegal-sex-girl-13.html

[Frank McCoy]

Whatever happened to the old rule that, "Ignorance of the law is no
excuse,"?

[David Simpson]

On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 07:07:57 -0800, Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com>
wrote:

They don't seem to.

--
David
No email replies please.

6/03/2013

Keep it short for pithy sake.

[Barry Gold]

On 3/1/2013 8:12 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
> rincewind<edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>> Me too :-) But that was then, this is now. 16 is the age of consent here,
>>>
>>>>> and although people might get upset over such a birthday party I can't see
>>>
>>>>> any laws broken. It's not as if they were actually molesting the boys ...
>>
>> Yeah, just saw an report on the news about a high school girl admitting she had "consensual sex" with a teacher. Police have reported that as the girl was 16, no laws were broken. I was stunned, I thought age of consent was 18. Shows what I know.
>
> Depends upon the state.
> In CA, if you're 18 and have consensual sex with your 17-year-11-month
> SO, you can be charged with rape.

Yeah, you _could_ be charged. In practice, it's unlikely. DAs don't
like to lose cases, and they know a jury will probably say, "You've got
to be kidding" when the "perp" and "victim" are about the same age.

Mind you, it could happen to Frank, because his stories make him a
high-profile target, somebody who prosecutors would just love to put
away. Even then, chances are they'd make him "an offer he couldn't
refuse," a guilty plea to some lesser offense just so they could get a
conviction (and hang a "sex offender" label on Frank, with the
registration requirement and limits on where he could live, etc.)

AFAIK, there are two kinds of states in the US: those with formal "Romeo
and Juliet" laws that make sex legal if the two people are within two
years of the same age (three in some states), and those where the it's
done informally by DAs declining to prosecute.

Also to beware of: even states with R&J laws typically have a minimum
age, e.g., 14 in Texas. This may have been realistic in 1960 (although
I remember being interested in sex at about 12), but these days puberty
seems to be around 9 or 10, and I've read of at least one 7-year-old
girl having a baby. (boggle!)

[Frank McCoy]

Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote:

>On 3/1/2013 8:12 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>> rincewind<edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>>> Me too :-) But that was then, this is now. 16 is the age of consent here,
>>>>
>>>>>> and although people might get upset over such a birthday party I can't see
>>>>
>>>>>> any laws broken. It's not as if they were actually molesting the boys ...
>>>
>>> Yeah, just saw an report on the news about a high school girl admitting she had "consensual sex" with a teacher. Police have reported that as the girl was 16, no laws were broken. I was stunned, I thought age of consent was 18. Shows what I know.
>>
>> Depends upon the state.
>> In CA, if you're 18 and have consensual sex with your 17-year-11-month
>> SO, you can be charged with rape.
>
>Yeah, you _could_ be charged. In practice, it's unlikely. DAs don't
>like to lose cases, and they know a jury will probably say, "You've got
>to be kidding" when the "perp" and "victim" are about the same age.
>
>Mind you, it could happen to Frank, because his stories make him a
>high-profile target, somebody who prosecutors would just love to put
>away. Even then, chances are they'd make him "an offer he couldn't
>refuse," a guilty plea to some lesser offense just so they could get a
>conviction (and hang a "sex offender" label on Frank, with the
>registration requirement and limits on where he could live, etc.)
>

Well, except:
A. If it was ME, in a case like that I wouldn't plead or take a deal;
instead relying on a *jury* (not a judge) to nullify. Juries are
human; and know that a short age-difference ....
Of course, I'd then run the (albeit small) risk that if I WAS
convicted, the judge would throw the book at me ... Which I'd then
appeal on grounds of not being appropriate.
B. Surprisingly, especially considering my stories, I've usually been
more interested sexually in women slightly *older* than me. They're
better company. Still, at 18, if a younger woman *did* throw herself
at me ....
C. I'm WAY past that age now. ;-{
Oh to be 18 again ....

>AFAIK, there are two kinds of states in the US: those with formal "Romeo
>and Juliet" laws that make sex legal if the two people are within two
>years of the same age (three in some states), and those where the it's
>done informally by DAs declining to prosecute.
>
>Also to beware of: even states with R&J laws typically have a minimum
>age, e.g., 14 in Texas. This may have been realistic in 1960 (although
>I remember being interested in sex at about 12), but these days puberty
>seems to be around 9 or 10, and I've read of at least one 7-year-old
>girl having a baby. (boggle!)

!*BOGGLE*!
Sex at seven, I can possibly understand; what with puberty coming so
early these days. The interest CAN be there. Most don't start
getting that curious (like you say) until at least nine or ten. OK
... So girls supposedly mature a bit faster than boys. Still ...
That's a dangerous age. Pregnancy at what ... Probably SIX?

Even more dangerous for boys in their early teens, are girls who start
puberty at seven or eight ... and at nine *look* like they're 12 or
13; as pointed-out in one recent study I saw in the local newspaper.

Well ... OK ... There was Lina Medina in Peru about a half-century
ago; but still ....
Other than her, the usual lower-limit is about nine; and THAT is
extremely rare. Still, see above about looks ....

The soapbox is empty.
NEXT!

[Walter Bushell]

In article <kiotnf$v0k$1...@dont-email.me>,

Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote:

>
> Mind you, it could happen to Frank, because his stories make him a
> high-profile target, somebody who prosecutors would just love to put
> away. Even then, chances are they'd make him "an offer he couldn't
> refuse," a guilty plea to some lesser offense just so they could get a
> conviction (and hang a "sex offender" label on Frank, with the
> registration requirement and limits on where he could live, etc.)

In some places it would be better to plead to manslaughter at least
you're free when you get out. Living under a bridge or other
disgusting habitat; your best alternative is suicide.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[Chris Zakes]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:23:36 -0400, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> to write:

>In article <kiotnf$v0k$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Mind you, it could happen to Frank, because his stories make him a
>> high-profile target, somebody who prosecutors would just love to put
>> away. Even then, chances are they'd make him "an offer he couldn't
>> refuse," a guilty plea to some lesser offense just so they could get a
>> conviction (and hang a "sex offender" label on Frank, with the
>> registration requirement and limits on where he could live, etc.)
>
>In some places it would be better to plead to manslaughter at least
>you're free when you get out. Living under a bridge or other
>disgusting habitat; your best alternative is suicide.

To quote a cardboard sign I saw a couple of years ago: "Why live in a
$200,000 house when you can live under a $20,000,000 bridge?"

-Chris Zakes
Texas
--

Well, if you're going to have a circus, you've got to have elephants.

-Jubal Harshaw in "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert Heinlein

[Barry Gold]

On 3/2/2013 8:27 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
> For, we ALL remember how obsessed with sex WE were at the ages we now
> forbid "Children" to do so ... With about the same success-rate that
> making booze illegal had during Prohibition; and for the same reason.
>
> If a person is defined-by-law as being a "child" and forbidden to have
> sex ... How often does that work? Did it work for you and your
> generation? Like Prohibition, (or yes, in the modern "war on drugs")
> instead of stopping drinking, smoking-pot, or having sex, we just make
> a nation of criminals.

Up until about 1950, it worked most places. Not because of the law, but
because of social custom and technology. Children didn't have the
privacy needed for sex. Anything that today would lead to comments of
"get a room", back then an adult would do something to break it up --
and maybe send one of them away, when possible.

More so in urban areas than farms, but even in farming areas they rarely
left opposite-sex children alone together.

Then came the automobile. Well, at first only rich people could afford
one. Then came Henry Ford, and most families could afford one. _One_.
Mostly the man used it to commute to work, and the whole family could go
out for a weekend drive. Later on, as wages rose and the assembly line
got more efficient, a family could afford two cars (probably at least
one used...)

Then three cars, and all of a sudden the oldest son (probably teenaged)
could pick up a girl and go somewhere secluded ("lovers lane" or simply
an out-of-the-way spot) for a little necking, or maybe more depending on
how far she'd let him go.

_That_ spelled the end of sexual prohibition, even more than "The Pill"
did. The Pill was just the last nail in the coffin. But as with the
war on (some) drugs, the old guard just won't admit its hopeless and
repeal the stupid law.

WW Smith was a lot smarter, in "The Tale of the Adopted Daughter."

[Barry Gold]

On 3/3/2013 5:08 AM, Tim Merrigan wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 01:44:52 -0800 (PST), rincewind
> <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>> We've had this discussion before, Frank. Age of consent is age of consent. Wait 'til she's legal or face the consequences.
>>>
>>> Or work to change the law to something sensible.
>>
>> Granted. I should have put that there and did add it to a later post. I don't agree with "13-14" though.
>

> I don't either, since puberty these days is closser to 9 or 10.

Yeah. Still being unrealistic, but at least _less_ unrealistic than 18.
Good grief, by that time the kids have probably been having sex for
6-8 years.

[Chris Zakes]

"As for sex, each generation thinks it invented sex, each generation
is totally mistaken. Anything along that line today was commonplace
both in Pompeii and in Victorian England, the differences lie only in
the degree of covering up - if any."

-Heinlein, "Expanded Universe"

Or read Maureen's descriptions of some of her amorous encounters
around the turn of the last century in "To Sail Beyond the Sunset."

And FWIW, I managed a fair bit of fooling around with various
girlfriends even without the use of a car. A bicycle can go many
places a car can't.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <kj3gju$19u$1...@dont-email.me>,

Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote:

> More so in urban areas than farms, but even in farming areas they rarely
> left opposite-sex children alone together.
>
> Then came the automobile.

Actually the bicycle. Enclosed cars did make things easier.

[MajorOz]

On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 6:56:46 AM UTC-5, Chris Zakes wrote:

> To quote a cardboard sign I saw a couple of years ago: "Why live in a
> $200,000 house when you can live under a $20,000,000 bridge?"

Using that to go off topic, for a moment......

I have been poor...rich.....poor.....rich......poor...and, currently, comfortable.

Rich is more fun, but comfortable is.....comfortable -- and less stressful.

Anyway....

In each case, my home / domicile / residence was "low class". I never saw the need for a MacMansion, thinking of it as a HUGE waste of resources.

My preferred place to live is a comfortable mobile home....sometimes in a CAREFULLY SELECTED (read: few pets / children), or sitting in the woods.

We don't "entertain" folks other than the terminally anti-pretentious, which we characterize ourselves to be. Our friends vary -- PhD physicists, grade school dropouts, farmers, physicians, relatives, grandkids, and hunters who have asked permission to hunt the place, and the only jen-yew-ine rocket scientist between the MO river and AR border.

My requirements are a comfy bed, convenient kitchen, weather proof, sit-down shower, porch to house bird feeders and a swing, a warm place to shit ...... and hi-speed DSl.

Money left over is for TOYS......TOYS......TOYS.....and travel.

Other than to impress, or raise a dozen pretentious yuppie larvae, I have never seen the purpose of a "nice big house".......or a FOOOOKIN' LAWN.

MPMWV (most people's mileage will vary)

[Tesseract]

One of my university profs did a stint at an early nuclear power
station/research centre. He said that all the highly paid technicians
drove very expensive cars. The even higher paid PhDs drove clunkers.

--
Tesseract

[MajorOz]

My experience is most physicians drive new caddies, infinities, merc's, etc, while physicists drive old accords, triumphs, and pick-up's.

I could buy a new one each year, but the newest one we have is momma's '09 Lucerne. I trade like most folks change underwear.....old convertibles, pick-up's, MG's, etc.

On the other hand, Caol Ila is expensive, as is a boron fly rod. I am on the verge of dropping a couple Kbucks on a new Dobro, and motorhomes really eat fuel.

Just bought my new home.......'05 mobile for less than what the motorhome cost.

toys......priorities.......toys.......priorities......

And my hillbilly honey has learned to like jewelry...but, since most things she wears come from garage sales......hey.......

My buddy, the rocket scientist, has an '05 LaCrosse and a '76 GMC pick-up, and lives in a shack in the woods. But his computer systems comprise a good percent of my net worth.

On the other hand, a woman I play bridge with drives a new Escalade and her hubby has a Merc. They live in a MacMansion, are in their early 60's, kids all gone......and in debt up to their eyeballs.

OK......enough babbling......

Everyone makes choices.

[Chris Zakes]

I agree, it's all relative. We live in a comfortable middle-class
house in a comfortable middle-class neighborhood. We're too close to
Tornado Alley for me to be happy in any kind of mobile home (not to
mention that when I walk around in a mobile home, I keep expecting the
floor to collapse under me--I'm not what you'd call "small" and my
footsteps tend to cause the whole structure to rattle a bit.)

As for cars, our '98 Chevy Astro with about 270K on the odometer is
going to to be traded in soon--my wife is about to inherit a fair pile
of money, and she's going to buy her dream-car (BMW Z4) and buy me an
SUV to haul my SCA and massage gear around.

-Chris Zakes
Texas
--

Two things I have ever respected are warmth and the ability to sit still.

-Mayland Long in "Tea With the Black Dragon" by R.A. MacAvoy

[Jake Jones]

I've got a buddy who recently started work at a research lab. Lotsa
Piled higher & Deeper types. One of them took him out to lunch (at a
low-rent bar-b-q place) in his 70's clunker. Had to slam the doors
twice to get them to latch, windows wouldn't roll down, carpet on the
floor torn...when they got to the restaurant, the Phd remembered he'd
forgotten his wallet. Opened the glovebox to get enough for lunch. My
friend said there was EASILY ten grand in the glove box. hundred,
fifties, twenties, smll stuff, just...stuffed in until the box was
full.

[Barry Gold]

In the 1980s I worked for a small company. I was the second oldest
person there, the CEO was about a week older. Most of the other
programmers drove cars no more than two years old. The CEO drove a
Jaguar.(*) I drove a 1967 Dodge Dart. Some of the other programmers made
fun of this, but I had the pleasure of knowing that:
1. It was paid for
2. My house was paid for as well
3. The only money I owed anybody was whatever hadn't been billed yet
on my credit card. As soon as the bill came, it was paid in full.

Aside from my second car (a used Pontiac) and the loan to purchase our
house -- which we paid off in 6 years -- I have paid maybe $0.75 in
interest in my life. (A bill got lost in the mail so I had to pay the
minimum finance charge.)

That's a large part of why I was able to retire at 63.



(*) A Jaguar spends about 20% of its time in the shop, but the
dealership brings another Jag and leaves it, drives your Jag to the
shop. The visual effect was that Jerry's Jag was subject to random
color changes.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <kn3il7$teh$1...@dont-email.me>,

Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote:

> (*) A Jaguar spends about 20% of its time in the shop, but the
> dealership brings another Jag and leaves it, drives your Jag to the
> shop. The visual effect was that Jerry's Jag was subject to random
> color changes.

Cue the Kliban cartoon of someone with their cat on the counter of a
repair shop. "It'll be two weeks if I can get the parts."

[Kay Shapero]

In article <proto-776BD1....@news.panix.com>, pr...@panix.com
says...

>
> In article <kn3il7$teh$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > (*) A Jaguar spends about 20% of its time in the shop, but the
> > dealership brings another Jag and leaves it, drives your Jag to the
> > shop. The visual effect was that Jerry's Jag was subject to random
> > color changes.
>
> Cue the Kliban cartoon of someone with their cat on the counter of a
> repair shop. "It'll be two weeks if I can get the parts."

Grin. I used to use a PDA with a "repair" warranty that saved time by
sending you someone else's refurbished device when you sent in yours,
your former device going to the next guy to mail one in. Their repairs
were a tad whimsical - you got rid of your original problem but were
likely to pick up someone else's in exchange. Though it was amusing
when I got one that switched to Chinese ideographs whenever I did
whatever it was I did, if anything, to cause it (never did figure that
out) and I had to figure out how to put it back. THAT I managed.

--

Kay Shapero
Address munged, try my first name at kayshapero dot net.