YOU CALL THIS "RAPE"?????
NYC XYZ
You're fourteen, and a young and sexy blue-eyed blonde teacher gives
you sex...and this is rape????
What a fucked-up society we live in!
How the hell can a pretty young woman rape a teenage guy????
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/21/charges.dropped/index.html
owen...@163.com
the Danimal
> You're fourteen, and a young and sexy blue-eyed blonde teacher gives
> you sex...and this is rape????
Legally, yes. The law in most parts of the U.S. holds that
a minor cannot consent to sex with an adult.
"Rape" is a legal definition: sex without consent. If someone
cannot legally consent to sex, then having sex with that
person is rape.
> What a fucked-up society we live in!
Actually that would be the legal system. I would imagine a good
part of society wouldn't find the boy to have been victimized.
Especially anyone who recalls being a 14-year-old boy with
an exploding libido and no outlet.
> How the hell can a pretty young woman rape a teenage guy????
Easy: by offering sex to him. Most teenage guys would
accept the offer, allowing the pretty young woman to rape
them.
The problem you are overlooking is the equal protection
thing which is the basis for a democratic society. The
law isn't comfortable with definitions of crime that apply
only to some people and not to others. If it's illegal for,
say, an adult man to have sex with a 14-year-old girl,
then to keep things fair it pretty much also has to be
illegal for an adult woman to have sex with a 14-year-old
boy. If you start trying to work in exceptions for gender,
or for physically attractive people, that creates a
slippery slope problem. Plus the definition of "gender"
itself is not always clear. What if a pedophile gets
gender reassignment surgery to turn himself into a
"woman," and s/he continues to prey on children?
the Danimal
> pain drugs, because it isn't legal for the rest of us.
Obviously the statutory rape laws aren't based on "that thinking."
> It shouldn't be
> legal for kids with ADHD to take speed because it isn't legal for the rest
> of us. It shouldn't be legal for an ambulance to run a red light because
> it isn't legal for the rest of us. The law makes a TON of exceptions; this
> woman did NOTHING wrong and neither did the kid.
The government isn't in the right and wrong business; the government
is in the legal business. Laws are more about what is practical and
affordable and an acceptable trade-off and demanded by sizable
numbers of voters than about what this or that person considers
right or wrong in every situation. Sometimes doing the "right"
thing costs more than taxpayers are willing to pay.
Why do you think some businesses can legally pollute? And in
case you had not noticed yet, different people can have wildly
different views about what is "right" or "wrong" in a given situation.
The exceptions you cite are not about individuals acting independently.
In the first example, patients are allowed to take some (but not all)
drugs under a doctor's supervision, and the drug rules are inconsistent
and arbitrary. A doctor can prescribe Viagra, which is clearly a
recreational drug---there is no medical "need" for sex, people do it
because it feels good---but many other drugs cannot be prescribed
for recreational use. In the second example, ambulance
drivers are specially licensed, their vehicles are specially equipped
with warning lights and sirens, and they are only allowed to run red
lights while making emergency runs. An ambulance driver off the
clock has to obey the same traffic laws as everyone else.
In both examples that you cite, the people who get to do things that
aren't "legal for the rest of us" have to qualify for their
professional
status as physicians or ambulance drivers, and they are subject
to government oversight. They are not random individuals acting
unilaterally according to whatever they think is proper. Physicians
are subject to getting sued, and they have to carry expensive
malpractice insurance. Their extra privileges do not come free.
The government does not give an ordinary individual _carte blanche_
freedom to take whatever drugs he pleases, or disregard whatever
traffic laws he pleases. Only people who have worked their way into
some sort of officially recognized position, satisfied the necessary
requirements, and paid the necessary price can do those things
under precisely defined circumstances. The government has to
regulate what they do, and punish them if they overstep their
authority.
Regulation is not free; it costs money to hire bureaucrats who
monitor doctors and ambulance drivers. Society tolerates the
cost because most people benefit from having doctors and
ambulance drivers around.
If the government were to, by analogy, set up some sort of licensing
scheme to sanction sex between adults and consenting minors,
who would pay for it? Who would pay for the investigators,
psychologists, etc., necessary to insure the minors weren't being
coerced by the adults? The only people likely to benefit would be
the very tiny minority of such couples. It's just not an issue
important
enough to enough people to make it worth the tax dollars.
Face it, if an adult wants to have sex, there are lots of other adults
to (potentially) have sex with. It's not like children are the only
option here. It's hard to make the general rule look like a grave
injustice to most people. Do you suppose the 25-year-old
woman in this current case (who looks pretty good in her
photos) would have the slightest problem finding an adult
man to have sex with? She was probably turning men down
while going after the kid.
In any case, of the few teenaged boys who get to bang their hot
young adult female teachers, what percentage of such cases
result in some sort of complaint? And why would there be a
complaint? Perhaps the boy's parents discover what's going on,
and don't approve. If that's the case, then it comes down to the
rights of parents vs. the rights of their child. Unfortunately for
some children, they are stuck with their parents until they grow
up and start paying their own bills. Such children should smarten
up and learn how to have sex with their teachers without their
parents getting wind of it.
So, what do you think should happen if the 14-year-old guy
knocks up his 25-year-old teacher, and she elects to bear
the child and demand support from the father? Should he
be legally liable to pay her child support for the next 18 years?
If you want kids to have adult freedoms, they should also
take on adult responsibilities.
-- the Danimal
catbr...@yahoo.com
I would refer to it as child molestation and grossly immoral behavior
on the part of a teacher. The issue of consent makes "rape" a debatable
point, whether the victim is male or female. Ms. Lafave should be
categorized as a sex offender and sentenced to five years in state
prison without benefit of parole for child molestation. And it goes
without saying, her license to teach should be revoked for life.
Cat
NYC XYZ
You're just jealous. She's hot and she knows it. What a woman!!!
NYC XYZ
the Danimal wrote:
>
>
>
> <SNIP hair-splitting digressions)
>
> So, what do you think should happen if the 14-year-old guy
> knocks up his 25-year-old teacher, and she elects to bear
> the child and demand support from the father? Should he
> be legally liable to pay her child support for the next 18 years?
> If you want kids to have adult freedoms, they should also
> take on adult responsibilities.
Since you're asking me, it is my most astute insight that if it is
indeed a woman's body and truly her right to choose, then it is HER
RESPONSIBILITY that's attached to her freedom, not anyone else's.
But to indulge in our present-day inanity, thanks to liberal schmucks
and putzes: precisely because the teenage years are a blend of
childhood and adulthood, the law allows them to work, for example, but
under restrictions. It is possible to establish law which also allows
a lucky study to bed his young blue-eyed blonde sexpot teacher without
having to pay child support.
Anyway, the whole situation is moronic: why bother analyzing shit?
This is a fucked-up society that needs more fucking, not less!
Beam me up, Scotty...no signs of intelligent life here!
> -- the Danimal
yamuna
NYC XYZ wrote:
> You're just jealous. She's hot and she knows it. What a woman!!!
You are blinded by sex. You say this society is fucked up and yet you
support more fucked up activites.
the Danimal
> the Danimal wrote:
> > <SNIP hair-splitting digressions)
> >
> > So, what do you think should happen if the 14-year-old guy
> > knocks up his 25-year-old teacher, and she elects to bear
> > the child and demand support from the father? Should he
> > be legally liable to pay her child support for the next 18 years?
> > If you want kids to have adult freedoms, they should also
> > take on adult responsibilities.
>
> Since you're asking me, it is my most astute insight that if it is
> indeed a woman's body and truly her right to choose, then it is HER
> RESPONSIBILITY that's attached to her freedom, not anyone else's.
So basically you're saying your freedom is everybody else's
responsibility.
Nice work if you can get it.
The problem with that approach is that other people are just
as emotional as you, but in the case of women, with very
different emotions. A billion years of evolution has yielded
women who are very well designed for obtaining resources
from men (by any means necessary) to feed their expensive
offspring. A woman is not emotionally equipped by evolution
to feel anything is wrong with expecting you to pay for your
moment of pleasure for the next 18 years. If a woman does
let you off the hook, she will feel she is doing you a huge
favor. That is how evolution has constructed her emotional
brain.
> But to indulge in our present-day inanity, thanks to liberal schmucks
> and putzes: precisely because the teenage years are a blend of
> childhood and adulthood, the law allows them to work, for example, but
> under restrictions. It is possible to establish law which also allows
> a lucky study to bed his young blue-eyed blonde sexpot teacher without
> having to pay child support.
Do you mean hypothetically possible (for example, under a
hypothetical NYC XYZ dictatorship), or politically possible
in the present-day USA?
I don't think it is politically possible in the present-day USA to
give men the same abortion rights enjoyed by women. The
woman holds the trump card: she doesn't have to abort, and
by not aborting, she is able to create a hostage situation, and
prey upon the compassion of society. Given that society is
not going to let that baby starve under any circumstances,
society would rather stick the father with the bill. Society gets
to satisfy its need to feel compassionate, and the beauty of it
is society gets to be compassionate with someone else's
money.
> Anyway, the whole situation is moronic: why bother analyzing shit?
Because actions have consequences, and by predicting the
future, sometimes we may outsmart it, instead of simply falling
victim the way stupid animals do.
This is what separates humans from animals. Humans are much
better (although still far from perfect) at predicting the future.
In many cases, "our" predictions of the future (actually, the
predictions of experts, or the predictions of the ruling class,
or in some cases the predictions of evolutionary wisdom)
are embedded into our personal habits, social customs, and
laws, so we don't have to think about them much. An example
would be the building fire codes we take for granted. Virtually
every provision in a modern building fire code is there in
response to previous tragedies. Lots of people died to put
that fire escape outside the window, or to make sure your
building has fire doors, alarms, sprinklers, exit lights, etc.
There's a pretty good understanding, at least among a
particular group of experts, of what you need to stay alive
if your building catches fire.
> This is a fucked-up society that needs more fucking, not less!
Sure, but with what? At least 90% of either sex would
prefer to have sex with less than 10% of the other sex.
I.e., hardly anyone is attractive.
For some reason, human evolution has yielded a species
that seems optimized to experience frustration.
Of course we all know by now what one technological
solution would be.
> Beam me up, Scotty...no signs of intelligent life here!
It's odd you would imply that the people who analyze
things rather than instantly agreeing with your emotional
beliefs are not intelligent. Generally the more intelligent
people are, the more they analyze things, instead of
relying solely on how things initially make them feel.
Emotional intelligence does embed a billion years of
evolutionary wisdom, so in general it is pretty good at
helping you to survive and do the things which (in the
ancestral environment, at least) would have resulted in
you getting more copies of your genes into the next
generation; but the ability to analyze things is a recent
evolutionary invention which is also proving useful.
For example, analytical reasoning can tell you why
you want the things you want.
-- the Danimal
%
Mxsmanic
> How the hell can a pretty young woman rape a teenage guy????
She can in some circumstances, but in most cases the "rape" exists
only in the Twilight Zone of legislation ("statutory rape").
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Mxsmanic
> Based on that thinking then it shouldn't be legal for pain patients to take
> pain drugs, because it isn't legal for the rest of us.
Unfortunately, many people suffering from severe pain are denied
adequate pain relief because of precisely that type of thinking.
Mxsmanic
> It wasn't rape and the kid knew it. It is why he refused to testify. He
> enjoyed himself, of course. Christ, I would have LOVED to have fucked that
> teacher when I was 14 (and I would love to fuck her, now!!!).
He probably refused to testify because the entire legal circus of the
case was ten thousand times more traumatic than the "rape" he
underwent with his teacher. He may also have realized that he was
being taken for a ride by his elders. And he may also have decided
that putting his teacher through all this just didn't make sense.
Mxsmanic
> I would refer to it as child molestation and grossly immoral behavior
> on the part of a teacher.
Even when the student consents?
> Ms. Lafave should be categorized as a sex offender and
> sentenced to five years in state prison without benefit
> of parole for child molestation.
Because you say so? Nobody was harmed.
Mxsmanic
> You are blinded by sex.
This entire case revolves around sex, so one can hardly be "blinded"
by it--it is the essence of the case.
yamuna
Mxsmanic wrote:
> yamuna writes:
>
> > You are blinded by sex.
>
> This entire case revolves around sex, so one can hardly be "blinded"
> by it--it is the essence of the case.
>
I meant he is blinded about the harm/danger because it's sex and all he
wants from a femal is sex such that while he claims that this society
is fucked up, he supports activites that's the cause to fuck this
society up more.
Mxsmanic
> I meant he is blinded about the harm/danger because it's sex and all he
> wants from a femal is sex such that while he claims that this society
> is fucked up, he supports activites that's the cause to fuck this
> society up more.
What harm/danger is there?
yamuna
Mxsmanic wrote:
> yamuna writes:
>
> > I meant he is blinded about the harm/danger because it's sex and all he
> > wants from a femal is sex such that while he claims that this society
> > is fucked up, he supports activites that's the cause to fuck this
> > society up more.
>
> What harm/danger is there?
A teacher breaking the law.
Back home, teachers are placed and revered and respected at the same
level as parents and Buddha. They are supposed to be role models. In
a society where basketball players are role models, this concept might
be incomprehensible.
%
%
Mxsmanic
> A teacher breaking the law.
Breaking a law isn't necessarily harmful or dangerous in any real
sense. People often break the law by crossing the street at the wrong
time or in the wrong place, but without harm or danger.
> Back home, teachers are placed and revered and respected at the same
> level as parents and Buddha.
Back home where?
> They are supposed to be role models. In
> a society where basketball players are role models, this concept might
> be incomprehensible.
I don't see any reason why teachers or basketball players should be
considered role models. People have to think for themselves.
A Human Being
yamuna wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > yamuna writes:
> >
> > > I meant he is blinded about the harm/danger because it's sex and all he
> > > wants from a femal is sex such that while he claims that this society
> > > is fucked up, he supports activites that's the cause to fuck this
> > > society up more.
> >
> > What harm/danger is there?
>
> A teacher breaking the law.
>
> Back home, teachers are placed and revered and respected at the same
> level as parents and Buddha. They are supposed to be role models.
True, these ideas still exist there and encourage the people to feel
and behave responsibly. But there are those who don't as well.
Its a different society here....or at least things have changed a lot.
Its each one to himself.
> In
> a society where basketball players are role models, this concept might
> be incomprehensible.
Basketball players being role models is not the problem. The real
problem is the shift in attitude and priorities of people as a society
turns increasingly materialistic and fast paced.
A Human Being
yamuna wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > yamuna writes:
> >
> > > I meant he is blinded about the harm/danger because it's sex and all he
> > > wants from a femal is sex such that while he claims that this society
> > > is fucked up, he supports activites that's the cause to fuck this
> > > society up more.
> >
> > What harm/danger is there?
>
> A teacher breaking the law.
>
> Back home, teachers are placed and revered and respected at the same
> level as parents and Buddha.
But back home such incidences do happen now and then, but the media
doesn't blow it out of proportion. The authorities concerned tackle it
. The result is that people involved get a chance to face the
consequences and learn from it themselves while the rest of the people
carry on with their lives.
Mass hysteria isn't generated and people don't get paranoid.
Most children and youngsters don't indulge in physical relationships
with their teachers in school . The thought doesn't even enter the
minds of many . But this is never reported. Guess why ?
And the few incidences that happen are blown so out of proportion I bet
almost every parent is looking at teachers and thinking- is he/she a
paedophile? when the vast majority of them aren't.
Its also giving the youngsters ideas about what is possible between
teachers and students, and the forbidden seems attractive to many
people - as it did to Lafave herself.
The media is ruining the lives of the people in the developed
countries, manipulating them any way it wants, feeding them lies and
exaggerated fears. As the people become more and more suspicious of
each other, prefer increasingly isolated lives and come to depend
increasingly on the media for all their information ...what kind of
future do you see? A paranoid population is not a sane population.
%
A Human Being
While this case happened and generated all the useless publicity,
hundreds of children across the country would have suffered various
kinds of physical abuse- beating of children is much more common than
sexually abusing them. Why aren't those cases reported?
Why are people so obsessed with repeatedly discussing one case of
consentual sex where no real harm done to anyone, and all it was at the
most is irresponsible and unethical, when so many other cases more
deserving of attention are ignored?
%
orioncity
You are inviated to join the OrionCity NetPals
http://orioncity.virtualave.net/cgi-bin/netpals/index.cgi which gives
you an opportunity to meet people from around the world.
It's new and growing and absolutely free of charge. Welcome to stop by
and enjoy our free services on line.
OrionCity's great services :
1. Free ADs : Welcome to post your personal ADs in OrionCity Classified
http://orioncity.virtualave.net/cgi-bin/Ads/atl.cgi
2. Taiwan Travel Forum : A great forum for traveling information
sharing !
http://orioncity.virtualave.net/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl
3. Free on-line email account : Do you need one more free email
account? Try here.
http://orioncity.zzn.com/
4. Web Hosting : Looking for a great place to host your website?
http://www.accountsupport.com/pages/018orioncity/info/
Also, if you know Chinese, then here you can also find a lots of free
services from OrionCity, such as free for promoting your website, free
website line, free BBS for many kind of fun stuffs. Also, love match
for attractive single persons. Check it out now.
Brought to you by OrionCity - http://orioncity.virtualave.net/
the Danimal
> Why are people so obsessed with repeatedly discussing one case of
> consentual sex where no real harm done to anyone, and all it was at the
> most is irresponsible and unethical, when so many other cases more
> deserving of attention are ignored?
Because the teacher in this case is pretty good-looking, in a trashy
porn star kind of way, and because most guys who went through puberty
had fevered adolescent wet dreams about young lady teachers like her---
but nothing more.
If someone found a 25 kg gold nugget in his backyard, that would also
make the news. Why? Because (a) it hardly ever happens, and (b) lots
of people wish it would happen to them.
yamuna
A Human Being wrote:
[..]
.
>
> The media is ruining the lives of the people in the developed
> countries, manipulating them any way it wants, feeding them lies and
> exaggerated fears.
Can't blame everything on the media. The fast pace of life has made
people not to give time to each other living ioslated and meaningless
lives.
yamuna
Mxsmanic wrote:
> yamuna writes:
>
> > A teacher breaking the law.
>
> Breaking a law isn't necessarily harmful or dangerous in any real
> sense. People often break the law by crossing the street at the wrong
> time or in the wrong place, but without harm or danger.
I can't believe you compare this irresponsible acts by a teacher to
with a person crossing the street at the wrong time where the possible
harm is danger to himself/herself only.
>
> > Back home, teachers are placed and revered and respected at the same
> > level as parents and Buddha.
>
> Back home where?
Asia.
>
> > They are supposed to be role models. In
> > a society where basketball players are role models, this concept might
> > be incomprehensible.
>
> I don't see any reason why teachers or basketball players should be
> considered role models. People have to think for themselves.
Everybody needs role models. Parents are the first role models. Then
older siblings along the way.
Children spend 5 days a week, about 6-8 hours with teachers for 13
years of their lives and you don't think teachers do not have
responsibility to behave appropriately? Sigh.
Andre Lieven
> catbr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > How the hell can a pretty young woman rape a teenage guy????
>>
>> I would refer to it as child molestation and grossly immoral behavior
>> on the part of a teacher. The issue of consent makes "rape" a debatable
>> point, whether the victim is male or female. Ms. Lafave should be
>> categorized as a sex offender and sentenced to five years in state
>> prison without benefit of parole for child molestation. And it goes
>> without saying, her license to teach should be revoked for life.
>>
>> Cat
>
> While this case happened and generated all the useless publicity,
> hundreds of children across the country would have suffered various
> kinds of physical abuse- beating of children is much more common than
> sexually abusing them. Why aren't those cases reported?
Because there aren't teevee pics of an attractive female perp...
> Why are people so obsessed with repeatedly discussing one case of
> consentual sex where no real harm done to anyone,
No proof offered ? Extraordinary claim fails.
There is proof that many young boys are harmed by being USED as
sexual playthings by adults who are in charge of them.
Much as sexual relationships are violations of the Uniform Code
Of Military Justice, when the couple are in the same chain of command,
and are of differing ranks, so is a teacher-underage student
situation, with the ADDED harm factor being that an underage
person is NOT capable of making adupt level choices with sufficient
ability, beyond the moment.
This is also why we don't let 5 year olds pick their own dinners,
or let 12 year olds vote, drink, and drive.
> and all it was at the
> most is irresponsible and unethical, when so many other cases more
> deserving of attention are ignored?
Contact your local prosecutor. Many cases happen off of the teevee
screens.
And, none of that mitigates against the fact that Lefevre is a sex
offender, and was found as such, quite rightly and... equally.
Free Clue: Your personal fantasies are NOT the law. But, if you
want to wallow in your own crapulence, consider this: What if the
female teacher had been a homely 45 year old ? Would you still be
all excited over that prospect for an underage boy ?
If that would be " eiuuu ! ", then cleaning up the violating
woman wouldn't really change anything material.
Andre
A Human Being
yamuna wrote:
> A Human Being wrote:
> [..]
> .
> >
> > The media is ruining the lives of the people in the developed
> > countries, manipulating them any way it wants, feeding them lies and
> > exaggerated fears.
>
> Can't blame everything on the media.
Agreed, but this incident wouldn't have got so much coverage in
societies where life is tougher and people have many things to worry
about in their own lives and the society is not ruled by the media.
>The fast pace of life has made
> people not to give time to each other living ioslated and meaningless
> lives.
True. Many are paying the price for so called progress.
Mxsmanic
> I can't believe you compare this irresponsible acts by a teacher to
> with a person crossing the street at the wrong time where the possible
> harm is danger to himself/herself only.
Your ability or inability to believe is not relevant here.
> Asia.
The same Asia that engages in honor killings, poaches endangered
species to pander to the superstitions of old men concerning sexual
remedies, charges the families of convicted criminals for the bullets
fired through their heads, and has thriving businesses in child
prostitution and comic books featuring prepubescent schoolgirls?
> Children spend 5 days a week, about 6-8 hours with teachers for 13
> years of their lives and you don't think teachers do not have
> responsibility to behave appropriately? Sigh.
What is inappropriate about the behavior under discussion here?
Mxsmanic
> If the only "harm/danger" is that the teacher broke the law then the law
> most certainly needs to be changed!
I agree.
Mxsmanic
> While this case happened and generated all the useless publicity,
> hundreds of children across the country would have suffered various
> kinds of physical abuse- beating of children is much more common than
> sexually abusing them. Why aren't those cases reported?
Because--in American society--physical violence is considered
acceptable, but sexual activity is not. Thus, sexual activity that
doesn't involve violence generates hysteria, but violence that does
not involve sexual activity is considered normal, acceptable, and even
commendable.
> Why are people so obsessed with repeatedly discussing one case of
> consentual sex where no real harm done to anyone, and all it was at the
> most is irresponsible and unethical, when so many other cases more
> deserving of attention are ignored?
See above.
Mxsmanic
> No proof offered ? Extraordinary claim fails.
It has already been established that the sex in this case was
consensual. And there's nothing extraordinary about a teenager and an
adult consenting to sex, anyway.
> There is proof that many young boys are harmed by being USED as
> sexual playthings by adults who are in charge of them.
Where? How many of these involve consensual relationships?
> ... an underage
> person is NOT capable of making adupt level choices with sufficient
> ability ...
Choosing to engage in sex is not an "adult level" choice. Sex is
simple and harmless.
> This is also why we don't let 5 year olds pick their own dinners,
> or let 12 year olds vote, drink, and drive.
Don't we?
> Free Clue: Your personal fantasies are NOT the law. But, if you
> want to wallow in your own crapulence, consider this: What if the
> female teacher had been a homely 45 year old ? Would you still be
> all excited over that prospect for an underage boy ?
If they both consented, I would see nothing wrong with it. I don't
see how my own preferences or distaste for such activity would enter
into it.
> If that would be " eiuuu ! ", then cleaning up the violating
> woman wouldn't really change anything material.
So you're saying that your personal preferences should be the
foundation of crime and punishment in society?
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven writes:
>
>> No proof offered ? Extraordinary claim fails.
>
> It has already been established that the sex in this case was
> consensual.
Actually, no. Under the LAW, it is not. So, you are either an
idiot or a liar.
Further, that LAW is entirely societally consistant, and is the
basis for children not being legally allowed to drive cars,
drink alcohol, vote, or join the military.
> And there's nothing extraordinary about a teenager and an
> adult consenting to sex, anyway.
No proof offered ? Extraordinary fact free claim fails.
>> There is proof that many young boys are harmed by being USED as
>> sexual playthings by adults who are in charge of them.
>
> Where? How many of these involve consensual relationships?
Non sequitur. YOUR claim was that there is NO harm. As YOU have
failed/refused to prove YOUR *prior* claim, it is gross HYPOCRISY
for you to demand from others what you *refuse/are unable* to do...
>> ... an underage
>> person is NOT capable of making adupt level choices with sufficient
>> ability ...
>
> Choosing to engage in sex is not an "adult level" choice.
Ibid Non sequitur.
> Sex is simple and harmless.
Try telling that to any rape victim.
>> This is also why we don't let 5 year olds pick their own dinners,
>> or let 12 year olds vote, drink, and drive.
>
> Don't we?
Thank you for proving that you ARE dumber than retarded dirt...
No, we don't. All such actions are quite illegal.
>> Free Clue: Your personal fantasies are NOT the law. But, if you
>> want to wallow in your own crapulence, consider this: What if the
>> female teacher had been a homely 45 year old ? Would you still be
>> all excited over that prospect for an underage boy ?
>
> If they both consented, I would see nothing wrong with it.
Thank you for displaying your pathology.
> I don't see
Indeed. Sicko loons rarely do...
> how my own preferences or distaste for such activity would enter
> into it.
Ibid pathology.
>> If that would be " eiuuu ! ", then cleaning up the violating
>> woman wouldn't really change anything material.
>
> So you're saying that your personal preferences should be the
> foundation of crime and punishment in society?
Straw Woman. Play with her on your own time.
The existing laws are well supported. Sign up with the group
that most represents your views, NAMBLA, and see how much
mass voter agreement you get.
But, thats YOUR responsibility. No one else's. Deal with it.
Andre
the Danimal
> Mxsmanic (mxsm...@gmail.com) defends pedophillia:
> > Andre Lieven writes:
> >> No proof offered ? Extraordinary claim fails.
> > It has already been established that the sex in this case was
> > consensual.
>
> Actually, no. Under the LAW, it is not. So, you are either an
> idiot or a liar.
The law says a minor cannot consent to sex with an adult.
This does not mean the minor cannot willingly have sex with
an adult, unless you hold that minors do not have free will.
If you want to say that some magical brain transformation
occurs in every individual who reaches the age of consent
(which varies by jurisdiction), such that the child instantly
becomes an adult capable of properly weighing adult choices,
then you are the idiot or the liar. Adulthood is not a
binary variable that switches from zero to one instantly.
Instead it is an abstract multidimensional continuum that
develops gradually in an individual, and not all components
of adulthood necessarily develop in lockstep.
Governments draw lines for administrative convenience.
Some individuals are ready for certain things before
their government says they are; and some individuals
are not ready even after their government says they are.
It costs too much to evaluate the capabilities of every
individual individually, so the government picks one
semi-reasonable number and applies it to everyone.
It's a tradeoff between restricting too many people who
are ready, vs. permitting too many people who aren't.
I don't have a problem with the government drawing
lines, because they are cheaper. People in the gray
areas around the boundary lines simply have to be
aware of the lines and take them into account. So,
we can conclude Debra Lafave behaved stupidly, but
we lack sufficient evidence to conclude she harmed
the boy she sucked off. Maybe he was highly
attracted to her. Maybe he is still highly attracted to her.
Debra Lafave should not be allowed to continue teaching,
because her stupidity itself is a poor role model for
students. Students have to understand that the law
matters, no matter how absurd the law may be in
an individual situation. There are people paid to enforce
laws regardless of whether the laws make sense to this
person or that person. We don't correct stupid laws by
breaking them. Instead there is a political process for
fixing stupid laws, and society is generally better off
when people use the political process.
If a stupid law can't be corrected, then it must reflect
some strongly-held beliefs of some politically influential
group. Students need to know there are lots of things
like that which you have to deal with in life.
> Further, that LAW is entirely societally consistant, and is the
> basis for children not being legally allowed to drive cars,
> drink alcohol, vote, or join the military.
But there are different jurisdictions with different age
requirements for all these things. When the U.S. lowered
its voting age from 21 to 18, did that mean all U.S. children
were suddenly becoming mature faster? Drinking ages,
driving ages, ages of sexual consent, these vary from
state to state. Are the people in one state biologically
different from people in the next state?
Also, the child is not being punished in the Debra Lafave
case.
> > And there's nothing extraordinary about a teenager and an
> > adult consenting to sex, anyway.
>
> No proof offered ? Extraordinary fact free claim fails.
When you were a teenager, were you ever sexually attracted
to an adult?
Check out the old movie "Weird Science," in which an
adult Kelly LeBrock gets "created" by a couple of boys
in high school. Do you think the young adult Kelly LeBrock
would have had any problems seducing schoolboys if she
had felt like doing so? A theme in the movie, which was perfectly
believable, was how all the young guys were drooling after
the stunning adult beauty.
> >> There is proof that many young boys are harmed by being USED as
> >> sexual playthings by adults who are in charge of them.
> >
> > Where? How many of these involve consensual relationships?
>
> Non sequitur. YOUR claim was that there is NO harm. As YOU have
> failed/refused to prove YOUR *prior* claim, it is gross HYPOCRISY
> for you to demand from others what you *refuse/are unable* to do...
What specific harm did Debra Lafave inflict on the teenaged
boy she sucked off several times?
It seems to me that most of the harm to the boy was in
getting caught, and having to experience all the hooplah
surrounding these kinds of events. Maybe next time he'll
learn not to kiss and tell.
In any case, you have already claimed it's not about the harm,
it's about the law.
> >> ... an underage
> >> person is NOT capable of making adupt level choices with sufficient
> >> ability ...
> >
> > Choosing to engage in sex is not an "adult level" choice.
>
> Ibid Non sequitur.
Actually the age of consent in many states is lower than the
voting age. Which means there are some people who can
legally consent to sex with an adult, but they cannot legally
make the adult choice of who to vote for.
Also, there aren't many laws against minors engaging in sex
with other minors.
So, here's legal logic for you: a minor can "consent" to have
sex with another minor, but cannot "consent" to have sex
with an adult.
> > Sex is simple and harmless.
>
> Try telling that to any rape victim.
Any rape victim? "Any" is a big word. How about victims
of statutory rape who were highly attracted to their
partners, and were eager and willing?
"Rape" is a very broad legal definition which includes
the familiar set of coercive sexual encounters that are
very unpleasant for the victims, along with some
non-coercive sexual encounters which are highly
enjoyable for the (legally defined) victims. There is
no logical connection between the victim of a violent,
non-coercive sexual encounter, and someone who
experiences a mutually enjoyable sexual encounter.
The only connection is legal.
Your odd habit of switching between law and reality as
it suits you does not strengthen your argument.
Laws are administrative tools which try to impose
uniformity and regularity on lots of different situations.
Breaking the law, or even an individual law, is not
always equally harmful in every case. Sometimes
breaking the law can be beneficial, such as when a
citizen with an emergency breaks a speed limit in
his car. If your wife is pregnant and going into labor,
will you wait patiently for every red light to change
when there is no cross traffic, and dutifully observe
every speed limit?
Everybody who buys an automobile demands one
which can go faster than the legal speed limit on any
highway in the USA. If someone built a car which was
specifically designed to never break a speed limit, who
would want to buy it? Would you want an automobile
which would detect the speed limit on each road it uses,
and automatically limit its speed? That is, would you
want an automobile which forces you to drive legally?
This technology is already feasible. GPS receivers can
tell the car's computer what road it is on. A database of
speed limits could be used to govern the throttle. But
there is no market for such technology. If the government
tried to impose it on the public, there would probably be
a popular revolt, or drivers would figure out how to
disconnect the governors so they could speed again.
There's a thriving market for radar detectors, which drivers
buy specifically to help them break the law.
> >> This is also why we don't let 5 year olds pick their own dinners,
> >> or let 12 year olds vote, drink, and drive.
> >
> > Don't we?
>
> Thank you for proving that you ARE dumber than retarded dirt...
>
> No, we don't. All such actions are quite illegal.
It's illegal to let a 5 year old pick his own dinner? As
far back as I can remember, when I dined out as a
child with my parents, they let me order from the menu.
That was part of the fun of dining out. I can't recall whether
I was ordering my own dinner at age 5, but I can't recall
having my parents order for me. The age at which
they ordered for me must have been lower than the age
at which I began forming persistent memories.
There are degrees to legality. For example, it is illegal to
speed on the highways, but virtually every motorist under
the age of 75 routinely speeds on the highways.
Lots of things are illegal, but the government lacks the
resources to enforce every law in every instance. The
government cannot put EVERYONE in jail. Someone has
to stay out of jail, to earn the money that pays the taxes
to feed the folks who are in jail. So the government
prioritizes those it deems the worst offenders.
Is Debra Lafave in the same category as a man who breaks
into women's homes and rapes them at gunpoint? Only
a lunatic would think so. The government hasn't caught all
the real rapists yet; let the government finish that job, and
then if it has money left to spend, go after the Debra Lafaves.
How many people took their first drink of alcohol before
they reached the legal drinking age? Lots. Did all of them
go to jail? Did all the adults who failed to keep alcohol
away from them go to jail? Let's get real here. The
government cracks down occasionally on underaged
drinking, but not nearly enough to make it difficult for
those who want to do it. So while underaged drinking
is technically against the law, millions of people get
away with it.
> >> Free Clue: Your personal fantasies are NOT the law. But, if you
> >> want to wallow in your own crapulence, consider this: What if the
> >> female teacher had been a homely 45 year old ? Would you still be
> >> all excited over that prospect for an underage boy ?
> >
> > If they both consented, I would see nothing wrong with it.
>
> Thank you for displaying your pathology.
What is pathological about letting people do what they want
to do? Isn't freedom what the USA is about?
> > I don't see
>
> Indeed. Sicko loons rarely do...
"Andre" is a male name. Are you saying that when you were
14 years old, or thereabouts, you never (not once) felt sexually
attracted to any young adult woman?
> > how my own preferences or distaste for such activity would enter
> > into it.
>
> Ibid pathology.
You haven't addressed the argument. How does my personal
taste determine what is right for other people?
For example, I am personally repulsed by the notion of gay
sex between two men. But if two men want to engage in it,
do they need me to like what they do? No. They only need
me to stay out of their business.
> >> If that would be " eiuuu ! ", then cleaning up the violating
> >> woman wouldn't really change anything material.
> >
> > So you're saying that your personal preferences should be the
> > foundation of crime and punishment in society?
>
> Straw Woman. Play with her on your own time.
>
> The existing laws are well supported. Sign up with the group
> that most represents your views, NAMBLA, and see how much
> mass voter agreement you get.
Has NAMBLA offered to help pay Debra Lafave's legal
expenses? If not, how is NAMBLA relevant to this
case?
Debra Lafave is a sexually attractive young woman.
She probably inspires a lot more wet dreams in adolescent
boys who know her than any NAMBLA member does.
Very few young boys are sexually attracted to adult men.
Few NAMBLA members are likely to have as many
willing sex partners as Debra Lafave could recruit
(with her fetching trashy porn star looks). It would
seem NAMBLA members might be more likely
to resort to coercive methods to obtain sex with boys
than Debra Lafave needs to use, so it's reasonable to
hold NAMBLA to a high standard of proof.
By much the same reasoning, if you see someone who
lives in an urban slum flashing lots of bling and "ice"
and a pimped-out ride, you might suspect he didn't make
his money as, say, an investment banker. The urban
gentleman is likely to attract more scrutiny from the
police because, statistically, he is more likely to have
come by his wealth illegally.
Note that the very existence of NAMBLA, combined with
the nonexistence of any corresponding NAWBLA organization,
undermines your argument. Attractive women like Debra
Lafave do not need to form an advocacy organization to
let them have sex with adolescent boys, if for some reason
they aren't satisfied with the many willing adult men they
can choose from. There are already plenty of adolescent
boys who want to have sex with them, and are eager to
help out. Debra Lafave doesn't need an advocacy group;
she only needs to be discreet---or, perhaps, to reconsider
her odd choice of rejecting all the adult men who want
her. Granted, maintaining secrecy could be tough,
because an adolescent boy who scores with his
hot female teacher will probably experience overwhelming
urges to brag to his friends about it.
-- the Danimal
the Danimal
> Positive Sex Fiend writes:
> > If the only "harm/danger" is that the teacher broke the law then the law
> > most certainly needs to be changed!
>
> I agree.
Why does the law need to be changed? These laws have been in
place for a long time, and in the case of Debra Lafave, the law
isn't even being applied.
Laws against sex between adults and minors do not reduce
opportunities for members of either group to have sex with
other members of their own group. Debra Lafave can choose
from many adult men to have sex with, because she is an
attractive woman. (From what I see in her photos, she could
choose me. She calls herself a Christian, so she could choose
from Jim Ledford too. A Christian who looks hot and gives good
head.) The 14-year-old she sucked off probably could
attract some girls near his age, because in my observation,
a boy (or man) who can attract one attractive girl (or woman)
can usually attract others. Every woman has slightly different
tastes, but there are enough similarities and trends to insure
that a man who can attract one can probably attract others.
Debra Lafave isn't being prosecuted as energetically as
a real rapist, because real rapists are more likely to have
complaining victims. And because most real rapists leave
some sort of evidence of their crimes, and their victims are
more likely to present themselves to the police in time for
the evidence to be collected.
The hooplah surrounding Debra Lafave does not reflect
the gravity of her crime, but its rarity, and its fantasy
appeal. Most adult men probably recall having been
"hot for teacher" at some point in their school days.
Stories about an attractive young lady teacher who
actually makes some schoolboy's wet dreams come
true will sell some papers. The news outlets simply
report the news that people find find interesting. Look
at all the hysteria this silly story has stimulated in this
thread.
I would imagine Jim Ledford would be interested in
Debra Lafave, because she claims to be a committed
Christian. Her Yankee flesh-licking habits notwithstanding.
Jim, Debra Lafave is being treated for "bipolar disorder."
But you know the real truth, don't you? Debra Lafave is
really possessed by demons. You could cast the demons
out of her "In the Na-a-a-a-ame of JAY-ZUS!" because you
have faith, and get yourself an excellent submissive Christian
wife with good flesh-licking skills.
-- the Danimal
Mxsmanic
> Actually, no. Under the LAW, it is not. So, you are either an
> idiot or a liar.
I am neither. The victim said it was consensual. The law cannot
change this reality.
> Further, that LAW is entirely societally consistant, and is the
> basis for children not being legally allowed to drive cars,
> drink alcohol, vote, or join the military.
Where is the consistency in allowing them to vote and marry before
they can drink alcohol?
> No proof offered ? Extraordinary fact free claim fails.
I'm not the one who made the extraordinary claim.
> YOUR claim was that there is NO harm.
In consensual relationships, there is no harm.
> Try telling that to any rape victim.
Try telling that to anyone who engages in consensual sex.
> Straw Woman. Play with her on your own time.
You haven't answered my question: Do you believe that your personal
preferences should be the foundation of crime and punishment in
society?
> The existing laws are well supported.
What do you mean by that?
> Sign up with the group
> that most represents your views, NAMBLA, and see how much
> mass voter agreement you get.
What does NAMBLA stand for?
Mxsmanic
> Students have to understand that the law
> matters, no matter how absurd the law may be in
> an individual situation.
Does this rule also apply to Presidents?
> It seems to me that most of the harm to the boy was in
> getting caught, and having to experience all the hooplah
> surrounding these kinds of events. Maybe next time he'll
> learn not to kiss and tell.
I agree.
> Actually the age of consent in many states is lower than the
> voting age. Which means there are some people who can
> legally consent to sex with an adult, but they cannot legally
> make the adult choice of who to vote for.
They can also legally make the choice of a marriage partner and
produce new human beings before they are allowed to vote or drink,
even though these former acts are arguably far more important and
long-lasting in their effects than these latter acts.
> Also, there aren't many laws against minors engaging in sex
> with other minors.
Laws against sex between unmarried persons also apply to minors, as do
laws against incest, some types of sexual acts, and so on.
Mxsmanic
> Why does the law need to be changed?
Because laws against statutory rape are designed specifically to allow
one group of people to interfere with the lives of another group of
people even when the acts of the latter have no effect on the former.
> Debra Lafave isn't being prosecuted as energetically as
> a real rapist, because real rapists are more likely to have
> complaining victims.
She also is not being prosecuted energetically because she is a
(pretty) woman.
> Jim, Debra Lafave is being treated for "bipolar disorder."
> But you know the real truth, don't you? Debra Lafave is
> really possessed by demons.
The real truth, I think, is that Lafave must make some visible show of
remorse and reform in order to stay out of prison. Claiming to have
psychological problems is helpful to this end.
Rick Morris
guessed already; our government and our country has all kinds of goofy
laws and restrictions that make no sense! Almost as bad as living in a
Communist Country actually! Why do we have laws prohibiting people from
engaging in prostitution or the use of such begnign substances as
marijuana? It's because of our mentally-retarded government in this
country! They don't have to make sense! They just make stupid laws; one
right after the other, and then enforce them! We just have to go along
with our country's stupid laws in order to not get fined or put behind
bars! No one says it makes any sense! It's just government! They make
the stupid rules and we have to live by them or suffer the consequences
-- that's all -- plain and simple! Just because it's a "law" doesn't
make it "right"! A law is just something somebody with nothing better to
do makes up in order to make our lives more miserable! Statutory-rape
laws are ridiculous; just like anti-prostitution laws and anti-marijuana
laws are! We have so many laws in this country anymore that it would
take an Einstein to know them all and figure them all out! Again I say:
just because it's a law doesn't make it right! Sincerely, Rick :-) ;-)
Your Name Here=Harvey
yamun...@yahoo.com says...
I think I have to disregard the background of my teachers, in that
some of their values they passed on, was not appropriate.
I am commenting on that, they were Christians - but their foundation
upon which they placed their beliefs on - was not sound.
It makes me want to ask the question - Did they not know their beliefs
were wrong?
The thing is - that what school teaches you - is how to use your brain.
To not merely use memory only, and to simply accept what you are told.
We are taught a lot of problem solving at school, particularly in
Mathematics.
My own conclusions are - that any kind of knowledge can be checked out.
In that it makes sense, given what basic foundations you are taught, and
they do correlate with other knowledge - ie. support each other.
However religion does not. A false religion does not correlate with
science and mathematics - or the very basics upon which these incorporate,
and that is observation of nature, and understanding the laws of nature.
And that of reason and logic.
Eastern thought and religion, I think does this - because they produce
results.
However the middle East religions (Jews Christians and Muslims) don't.
Anyway the teachers I had, I was thinking of - were Mathematics and
Science teachers - and were Christian teachers too.
Me thinks they compartise their religion separate from their science
and mathematics teaching - because to apply reason and logic (the very
basis of science and mathematics) to their religion, would take that
religion (Christianity) apart, and reveal it for what it is - something
which is not true nor accurate in their teaching/information.
They may not rape us physically - but they rape our souls and spirit,
and substitute something not worth keeping, instead.
Harvey
the Danimal
> the Danimal writes:
>
> > Why does the law need to be changed?
>
> Because laws against statutory rape are designed specifically to allow
> one group of people to interfere with the lives of another group of
> people even when the acts of the latter have no effect on the former.
I don't see how that is a reason. I wasn't aware there was
any requirement for a group to establish evidence for whatever
you consider an effect before it can pass a law to restrict
another group.
The only requirement is having enough votes to pass the law,
and enough guns to enforce it. Even Constitutional guarantees
can be amended if there are enough votes. Once upon a time,
slavery was legal in the United States, then later it wasn't, and
if enough people voted to reinstate it, it would be reinstated.
The real reason this law "needs" to be changed is because
you don't like it. That's similar to why the current law exists:
because some other people like it.
Also, I disagree with your opinion that acts of the one group
have "no effect" on the other group in the case of statutory
rape laws. Whenever one group gets worked up enough by
what another group does to decide to interfere, that means
something the other group does is affecting the first group.
Merely observing or learning about someone else's disturbing
behavior is enough to bother some people. For example, we
have laws against indecent exposure. You could argue that
if all you do is prance around naked on a bus, your actions
have "no effect" on people who could simply look elsewhere.
Or when Ilya wanks at a library, as long as he doesn't spill
anything, we could argue that his actions have "no effect"
on anyone else.
But that's not how lots of other people see it. They consistently
vote in favor of laws to protect themselves from being offended
by things they find offensive. Hanging up a picture of a naked
woman at the workplace creates a "hostile work environment"
in the minds of feminists---and they have gotten their point of
view into the laws.
Does it "affect" Muslims if you draw a picture of their Prophet?
They certainly claim it does. They have been indoctrinated to
believe that it does. So it does.
> > Debra Lafave isn't being prosecuted as energetically as
> > a real rapist, because real rapists are more likely to have
> > complaining victims.
>
> She also is not being prosecuted energetically because she is a
> (pretty) woman.
That's a big part of why she's not a real rapist. A pretty woman
doesn't have to use force to get a sex partner. Most people
tend to take the path of least resistance, so it would be very
strange for a pretty woman to coerce someone to have sex
with her. Why would she work so hard to get something she
can get easily from somewhere else?
How many male rapists would still be rapists if they were as
attractive to women as Brad Pitt is? Not many, I'd bet.
Debra Lafave is similar to Brad Pitt in that either one of them
can walk into almost any popular nightclub in the USA, or
much of the world, and quickly find several willing sex partners
to choose from with a modest effort, or perhaps with no effort.
> > Jim, Debra Lafave is being treated for "bipolar disorder."
> > But you know the real truth, don't you? Debra Lafave is
> > really possessed by demons.
>
> The real truth, I think, is that Lafave must make some visible show of
> remorse and reform in order to stay out of prison. Claiming to have
> psychological problems is helpful to this end.
Actually the prosecutor seems to have dropped the charges.
She seems to be quite a piece of work. Google for Debra Lafave
and read about her.
The Christian faith must be proud to have Debra Lafave
representing the transforming power of Jesus. Maybe
someday Debra will be a televangelist ministering to
her fellow sex offenders. Jim Ledford, do you feel Debra
Lafave is a good witness?
cbianco
>A Human Being wrote:
>> Why are people so obsessed with repeatedly discussing one case of
>> consentual sex where no real harm done to anyone, and all it was at the
>> most is irresponsible and unethical, when so many other cases more
>> deserving of attention are ignored?
you mean like all the WMDs in iraq?
i'm pretty sure they got lots of attention on 2003. billions and
bilions worth.
>Because the teacher in this case is pretty good-looking, in a trashy
>porn star kind of way,
whats so funny about peace love and understanding in a trashy porn
star kinda way?
>If someone found a 25 kg gold nugget in his backyard, that would also
>make the news. Why? Because (a) it hardly ever happens, and (b) lots
>of people wish it would happen to them.
so basically youre saying that georgebush press-conferences make the
news because of (a).
your (b) option lowers the bar, hallucinationwise, into root canal
territory.
cbianco
it warms my heart that science still works.
Andre Lieven
feces:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>> Mxsmanic (mxsm...@gmail.com) defends pedophillia:
>> > Andre Lieven writes:
>> >> No proof offered ? Extraordinary claim fails.
>> > It has already been established that the sex in this case was
>> > consensual.
>>
>> Actually, no. Under the LAW, it is not. So, you are either an
>> idiot or a liar.
>
> The law says a minor cannot consent to sex with an adult.
And, thats all she wrote. All else that follows is counseling
*criminal behavior*. That tells us all we need to know about
your willingness to pass up people to exploit...
> This does not mean the minor cannot willingly have sex with
> an adult, unless you hold that minors do not have free will.
Straw Woman. Free will is not the ability to form an *informed*
adult judgement.
> If you want to say that some magical brain transformation
> occurs in every individual who reaches the age of consent
> (which varies by jurisdiction), such that the child instantly
> becomes an adult capable of properly weighing adult choices,
> then you are the idiot or the liar.
<Projection>
If the law is arbitrary, it is only such as to not be even
more intrusive, by, say, demanding a person pass a test of
Adult Judgement, before they can legally have sex...
> Adulthood is not a
> binary variable that switches from zero to one instantly.
Blah, blah... Go tell a legislature that laws that mandate
an age where the person's *legal status* changes are a
bad thing.
Do let us know how long they laughed at you...
> Instead it is an abstract multidimensional continuum that
> develops gradually in an individual, and not all components
> of adulthood necessarily develop in lockstep.
>
> Governments draw lines for administrative convenience.
> Some individuals are ready for certain things before
> their government says they are; and some individuals
> are not ready even after their government says they are.
> It costs too much to evaluate the capabilities of every
> individual individually, so the government picks one
> semi-reasonable number and applies it to everyone.
> It's a tradeoff between restricting too many people who
> are ready, vs. permitting too many people who aren't.
<yawn>
> I don't have a problem with the government drawing
> lines, because they are cheaper. People in the gray
> areas around the boundary lines simply have to be
> aware of the lines and take them into account. So,
> we can conclude Debra Lafave behaved stupidly, but
> we lack
No, YOU lack it. The law and court found otherwise.
> sufficient evidence to conclude she harmed
> the boy she sucked off. Maybe he was highly
> attracted to her. Maybe he is still highly attracted to her.
IOW, you know *nothing*...
> Debra Lafave should not be allowed to continue teaching,
> because her stupidity itself is a poor role model for
> students. Students have to understand that the law
> matters, no matter how absurd the law may be in
> an individual situation. There are people paid to enforce
> laws regardless of whether the laws make sense to this
> person or that person. We don't correct stupid laws by
> breaking them. Instead there is a political process for
> fixing stupid laws, and society is generally better off
> when people use the political process.
And, as such, that process resulted in a law that people,
well, non reatrd law abiding people, find to be reasonable.
> If a stupid law can't be corrected, then it must reflect
> some strongly-held beliefs of some politically influential
> group. Students need to know there are lots of things
> like that which you have to deal with in life.
Yet, no teacher need have sex with their students to do that,
so this is another " sex robot " loon red herring...
>> Further, that LAW is entirely societally consistant, and is the
>> basis for children not being legally allowed to drive cars,
>> drink alcohol, vote, or join the military.
>
> But there are different jurisdictions with different age
> requirements for all these things. When the U.S. lowered
> its voting age from 21 to 18, did that mean all U.S. children
> were suddenly becoming mature faster? Drinking ages,
> driving ages, ages of sexual consent, these vary from
> state to state. Are the people in one state biologically
> different from people in the next state?
Note that NO state found that a 13 year old is a functioning
adult. After that *truth*, all else is dross and lunacy.
> Also, the child is not being punished in the Debra Lafave
> case.
Of course not, as the child was the *victim*, loon...
>> > And there's nothing extraordinary about a teenager and an
>> > adult consenting to sex, anyway.
>>
>> No proof offered ? Extraordinary fact free claim fails.
>
> When you were a teenager, were you ever sexually attracted
> to an adult?
Straw Woman. Children are " attracted " to many things.
Some of which won't kill the child...
> Check out the old movie "Weird Science," in which an
> adult Kelly LeBrock gets "created" by a couple of boys
> in high school. Do you think the young adult Kelly LeBrock
> would have had any problems seducing schoolboys if she
> had felt like doing so? A theme in the movie, which was perfectly
> believable, was how all the young guys were drooling after
> the stunning adult beauty.
So ? You ASSume that *children* should have everything they want.
Perhaps thats the basis of your narcissistic pedophile lunacy...
>> >> There is proof that many young boys are harmed by being USED as
>> >> sexual playthings by adults who are in charge of them.
>> >
>> > Where? How many of these involve consensual relationships?
>>
>> Non sequitur. YOUR claim was that there is NO harm. As YOU have
>> failed/refused to prove YOUR *prior* claim, it is gross HYPOCRISY
>> for you to demand from others what you *refuse/are unable* to do...
>
> What specific harm did Debra Lafave inflict on the teenaged
> boy she sucked off several times?
Ask the court.
> It seems to me that most of the harm to the boy was in
> getting caught, and having to experience all the hooplah
> surrounding these kinds of events. Maybe next time he'll
> learn not to kiss and tell.
Maybe next time, SHE'LL learn to OBEY THE LAW.
> In any case, you have already claimed it's not about the harm,
> it's about the law.
No proof offered ? Cowshit fact free pedo loon claim fails.
>> >> ... an underage
>> >> person is NOT capable of making adupt level choices with sufficient
>> >> ability ...
>> >
>> > Choosing to engage in sex is not an "adult level" choice.
>>
>> Ibid Non sequitur.
>
> Actually the age of consent in many states is lower than the
> voting age. Which means there are some people who can
> legally consent to sex with an adult, but they cannot legally
> make the adult choice of who to vote for.
So ?
> Also, there aren't many laws against minors engaging in sex
> with other minors.
As minors are not likely to hold *adult authority* OVER such
children...
Gads, you are a thincky...
> So, here's legal logic for you: a minor can "consent" to have
> sex with another minor, but cannot "consent" to have sex
> with an adult.
Yep. Makes perfect sense, but then, I'm not a pedo loon.
>> > Sex is simple and harmless.
>>
>> Try telling that to any rape victim.
>
> Any rape victim? "Any" is a big word. How about victims
> of statutory rape who were highly attracted to their
> partners, and were eager and willing?
Go do your " reasearch " then...
> "Rape" is a very broad legal definition which includes
> the familiar set of coercive sexual encounters that are
> very unpleasant for the victims, along with some
> non-coercive sexual encounters which are highly
> enjoyable for the (legally defined) victims. There is
> no logical connection between the victim of a violent,
> non-coercive sexual encounter, and someone who
> experiences a mutually enjoyable sexual encounter.
> The only connection is legal.
<yawn>
> Your odd habit of switching between law and reality as
> it suits you does not strengthen your argument.
<Projection>
> Laws are administrative tools which try to impose
> uniformity and regularity on lots of different situations.
> Breaking the law, or even an individual law, is not
> always equally harmful in every case.
<laughs> No one needs it to be " equally harmful ", so
that is yet another of your Straw Women.
Play with them on your own time...
> Sometimes
> breaking the law can be beneficial, such as when a
> citizen with an emergency breaks a speed limit in
> his car. If your wife is pregnant and going into labor,
> will you wait patiently for every red light to change
> when there is no cross traffic, and dutifully observe
> every speed limit?
OK, now PROVE that there was such a societally recognised
imperative in this case ?
No proof offered ? Cowshit fact free pedo loon claim fails.
> Everybody who buys an automobile demands one
> which can go faster than the legal speed limit on any
> highway in the USA. If someone built a car which was
> specifically designed to never break a speed limit, who
> would want to buy it? Would you want an automobile
> which would detect the speed limit on each road it uses,
> and automatically limit its speed? That is, would you
> want an automobile which forces you to drive legally?
Straw Woman. Or, do you want to fuck your car, too ?
<laughs>
> This technology is already feasible. GPS receivers can
> tell the car's computer what road it is on. A database of
> speed limits could be used to govern the throttle. But
> there is no market for such technology. If the government
> tried to impose it on the public, there would probably be
> a popular revolt, or drivers would figure out how to
> disconnect the governors so they could speed again.
>
> There's a thriving market for radar detectors, which drivers
> buy specifically to help them break the law.
And, in jurisdictions where such devices are illegal,
appropriate legal penalties are meted out.
>> >> This is also why we don't let 5 year olds pick their own dinners,
>> >> or let 12 year olds vote, drink, and drive.
>> >
>> > Don't we?
>>
>> Thank you for proving that you ARE dumber than retarded dirt...
>>
>> No, we don't. All such actions are quite illegal.
>
> It's illegal to let a 5 year old pick his own dinner?
<laughs> Try addressing the LEGAL points that I have RIGHT,
and that you CANNOT address/refute... Pedo loon.
> As far back as I can remember, when I dined out as a
> child with my parents, they let me order from the menu.
> That was part of the fun of dining out. I can't recall whether
> I was ordering my own dinner at age 5, but I can't recall
> having my parents order for me. The age at which
> they ordered for me must have been lower than the age
> at which I began forming persistent memories.
And, did your parents let you choose your menus daily ?
Uh huh.
> There are degrees to legality. For example, it is illegal to
> speed on the highways, but virtually every motorist under
> the age of 75 routinely speeds on the highways.
>
> Lots of things are illegal, but the government lacks the
> resources to enforce every law in every instance. The
> government cannot put EVERYONE in jail. Someone has
> to stay out of jail, to earn the money that pays the taxes
> to feed the folks who are in jail. So the government
> prioritizes those it deems the worst offenders.
>
> Is Debra Lafave in the same category as a man who breaks
> into women's homes and rapes them at gunpoint?
Straw Woman. No one claimed Lafave used armed force.
So, you're simply LYING... Pedo loon.
> Only
> a lunatic would think so. The government hasn't caught all
> the real rapists yet; let the government finish that job, and
> then if it has money left to spend, go after the Debra Lafaves.
Naw, let it do both jobs. Kids need legal protection, too.
Especially from pedo loons, like you...
> How many people took their first drink of alcohol before
> they reached the legal drinking age? Lots. Did all of them
> go to jail? Did all the adults who failed to keep alcohol
> away from them go to jail? Let's get real here. The
> government cracks down occasionally on underaged
> drinking, but not nearly enough to make it difficult for
> those who want to do it. So while underaged drinking
> is technically against the law, millions of people get
> away with it.
<yawn>
>> >> Free Clue: Your personal fantasies are NOT the law. But, if you
>> >> want to wallow in your own crapulence, consider this: What if the
>> >> female teacher had been a homely 45 year old ? Would you still be
>> >> all excited over that prospect for an underage boy ?
>> >
>> > If they both consented, I would see nothing wrong with it.
>>
>> Thank you for displaying your pathology.
>
> What is pathological about letting people do what they want
> to do? Isn't freedom what the USA is about?
" Freedon " and " license " are NOT synonyms...
>> > I don't see
>>
>> Indeed. Sicko loons rarely do...
>
> "Andre" is a male name. Are you saying that when you were
> 14 years old, or thereabouts, you never (not once) felt sexually
> attracted to any young adult woman?
ADULT women, yes. 13 year olds, NO.
But, thanks for once again showing how far you will LIE, to try to
look like you have a non pedo loon point.
Your pitiful appeal about ADULT women, in a case about CHILDREN, says
it all about your pedo lunacy.
>> > how my own preferences or distaste for such activity would enter
>> > into it.
>>
>> Ibid pathology.
>
> You haven't addressed the argument. How does my personal
> taste determine what is right for other people?
It doesn't. Duh.
> For example, I am personally repulsed by the notion of gay
> sex between two men. But if two men want to engage in it,
> do they need me to like what they do? No. They only need
> me to stay out of their business.
Did the court in the Lefave cxase call on you ? No ? So,
what are you whining about ?
>> >> If that would be " eiuuu ! ", then cleaning up the violating
>> >> woman wouldn't really change anything material.
>> >
>> > So you're saying that your personal preferences should be the
>> > foundation of crime and punishment in society?
>>
>> Straw Woman. Play with her on your own time.
>>
>> The existing laws are well supported. Sign up with the group
>> that most represents your views, NAMBLA, and see how much
>> mass voter agreement you get.
>
> Has NAMBLA offered to help pay Debra Lafave's legal
> expenses? If not, how is NAMBLA relevant to this case?
Your membership in it...
Two words: written diarrrhea.
And now, that you have shown your retarded verbosity, full
of sound and fury, signifying NOTHING, its time to send you
to the Pedo Bozo Bin.
PLONK.
But, at leats this pedo loon showed one thing. It IS possible
to be stupider than a Baby Feminist !
Andre
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven writes:
>
>> Actually, no. Under the LAW, it is not. So, you are either an
>> idiot or a liar.
>
> I am neither. The victim said it was consensual. The law cannot
> change this reality.
Wrong. See " Legal Consent ".
But, thanks for proving that you know AbZero about the law. It
allows everyone to thus see that your legal claims mean...
NOTHING.
>> Further, that LAW is entirely societally consistant, and is the
>> basis for children not being legally allowed to drive cars,
>> drink alcohol, vote, or join the military.
>
> Where is the consistency in allowing them to vote and marry before
> they can drink alcohol?
Irrelevent. As the child in this case was of an age to do NONE
of those things, *including* have sex with an *adult authority
figure*, your grasping at Straw Women only shows that you have
AbZero actual case to offer.
>> No proof offered ? Extraordinary fact free claim fails.
>
> I'm not the one who made the extraordinary claim.
<Projection>
>> YOUR claim was that there is NO harm.
>
> In consensual relationships, there is no harm.
Consensual relationships require that BOTH persons be
of the age of consent.
That is the basis of the legal crime in this case. Duh !
>> Try telling that to any rape victim.
>
> Try telling that to anyone who engages in consensual sex.
<laughs> No such thing among 13 year olds... Not by the LAW.
>> Straw Woman. Play with her on your own time.
>
> You haven't answered my question: Do you believe that your personal
> preferences should be the foundation of crime and punishment in
> society?
Its an irrelevent MS-direction Straw Woman.
Play with her on your own time.
>> The existing laws are well supported.
>
> What do you mean by that?
Exactly what I wrote.
>> Sign up with the group
>> that most represents your views, NAMBLA, and see how much
>> mass voter agreement you get.
>
> What does NAMBLA stand for?
Google is your pal.
Andre
Mxsmanic
> Straw Woman. Free will is not the ability to form an *informed*
> adult judgement.
The notion of "informed adult" judgement is an arbitrary one
specifically crafted to disenfranchise certain groups of people. It
is related to the concept of children as property, incapable of
thinking for themselves.
> If the law is arbitrary, it is only such as to not be even
> more intrusive, by, say, demanding a person pass a test of
> Adult Judgement, before they can legally have sex...
There is a less intrusive alternative: Place no restrictions who can
have sex, as long as all involved parties consent.
> Blah, blah... Go tell a legislature that laws that mandate
> an age where the person's *legal status* changes are a
> bad thing.
Legislatures do whatever they can to remain in power; that is the only
thing that motivates them to do anything.
> No, YOU lack it. The law and court found otherwise.
No, they did not. They found that she had engaged in intercourse with
a minor, which is illegal. They found no evidence of harm to anyone.
But the law is not designed to protect people from harm; it is
designed to enforce an arbitrary moral code.
> Note that NO state found that a 13 year old is a functioning
> adult. After that *truth*, all else is dross and lunacy.
Some States have allowed 13-year-olds to marry and have children. Are
you saying that these acts are too trivial to require that one be a
"functioning adult," whatever that is?
> Of course not, as the child was the *victim*, loon...
There were no victims in this case.
> Straw Woman. Children are " attracted " to many things.
> Some of which won't kill the child...
... and some of which will please the child and make him or her happy.
Is this a bad thing?
> So ? You ASSume that *children* should have everything they want.
I see no reason to deny them anything that want, as long as they harm
no one else. Raising children properly is a matter of education, not
control.
> Maybe next time, SHE'LL learn to OBEY THE LAW.
Or she'll choose partners who aren't likely to go public.
> So ?
So the implication is that sex is more important than voting to
maintain a democracy. Do you agree that sex is more important? Do
you also agree that drinking alcohol is even more important than
maintaining a democracy, raising children, getting married, or having
sex?
> Go do your " reasearch " then...
In fact, most consenting "victims" of statutory rape simply keep their
sexual activity quiet, and so no one is ever prosecuted.
> OK, now PROVE that there was such a societally recognised
> imperative in this case ?
In this case it is more of an unavoidable biological reality.
> <laughs> Try addressing the LEGAL points that I have RIGHT,
> and that you CANNOT address/refute... Pedo loon.
You aren't providing any legal points; your posts consist primarily of
personal attacks.
> And, did your parents let you choose your menus daily ?
When there were menus to choose from, yes.
> Naw, let it do both jobs. Kids need legal protection, too.
Then why not give them the same protection that adults have?
> ADULT women, yes. 13 year olds, NO.
Many thirteen-year-olds are biologically adults. An interest in sex
is one symptom of this.
Mxsmanic
> Wrong. See " Legal Consent ".
Legal consent is a legal fiction, just as its name implies. It may or
may not be congruent with consent in the real world; unfortunately, it
often is not.
> Irrelevent. As the child in this case was of an age to do NONE
> of those things, *including* have sex with an *adult authority
> figure* ...
That depends on the jurisdiction.
> Consensual relationships require that BOTH persons be
> of the age of consent.
No, consensual relationships only require that both persons consent.
There is no "age of consent" except in statutory law. Statutory law
and the real world are not synonymous.
Mxsmanic
> I don't see how that is a reason. I wasn't aware there was
> any requirement for a group to establish evidence for whatever
> you consider an effect before it can pass a law to restrict
> another group.
The most fundamental notions of universal human rights exclude such
practices. When such restrictions are put in place, they create
inequalities that make a system of universal human rights impossible.
> Also, I disagree with your opinion that acts of the one group
> have "no effect" on the other group in the case of statutory
> rape laws. Whenever one group gets worked up enough by
> what another group does to decide to interfere, that means
> something the other group does is affecting the first group.
There are avoidable effects and unavoidable effects. Only unavoidable
effects need be taken into consideration, because (1) avoidable
effects are _avoidable_, and (2) avoidable effects are infinite in
extent, and thus if one attempts to take them into account, nothing
can be accomplished, since everything has avoidable effects on
everything else.
> Merely observing or learning about someone else's disturbing
> behavior is enough to bother some people.
That is an _avoidable_ effect. They need not be bothered; they choose
to be bothered.
> That's a big part of why she's not a real rapist. A pretty woman
> doesn't have to use force to get a sex partner.
That depends on her choice of partner.
> Why would she work so hard to get something she
> can get easily from somewhere else?
She might not want it from somewhere else, but only from a specific
source. In this case, Lafave indicated that she did what she did
precisely because it was forbidden, and the forbidden character of it
appealed to her. So doing it with someone else would not have been
satisfactory to her.
> How many male rapists would still be rapists if they were as
> attractive to women as Brad Pitt is? Not many, I'd bet.
Essentially all of them. Most male rapists are not interested in sex
per se.
> Debra Lafave is similar to Brad Pitt in that either one of them
> can walk into almost any popular nightclub in the USA, or
> much of the world, and quickly find several willing sex partners
> to choose from with a modest effort, or perhaps with no effort.
But they won't be 13 years old.
> Actually the prosecutor seems to have dropped the charges.
At the insistence of the victim, and only in the second of two cases.
> She seems to be quite a piece of work. Google for Debra Lafave
> and read about her.
She is pretty but I'm not interested in reading about her.
Mxsmanic
> If the law isn't being applied then what the hell good is it?
It can be used for selective enforcement.
Selective enforcement of unreasonable laws is a way of exercising
autocratic authority in the guise of democracy. Many jurisdictions do
this.
the Danimal
> the Danimal writes:
>
> > I don't see how that is a reason. I wasn't aware there was
> > any requirement for a group to establish evidence for whatever
> > you consider an effect before it can pass a law to restrict
> > another group.
>
> The most fundamental notions of universal human rights exclude such
> practices. When such restrictions are put in place, they create
> inequalities that make a system of universal human rights impossible.
What about the right to stop other people from doing things
that bother you? That is a fundamental human right that no
group gives up voluntarily.
Look at the Muslims who are burning down Danish embassies
because they are angry about the Danish newspaper that mocked
their Prophet. Feeling offended by the actions of others, and doing
something about it is a universal human right. People in every
culture do this.
> > Also, I disagree with your opinion that acts of the one group
> > have "no effect" on the other group in the case of statutory
> > rape laws. Whenever one group gets worked up enough by
> > what another group does to decide to interfere, that means
> > something the other group does is affecting the first group.
>
> There are avoidable effects and unavoidable effects. Only unavoidable
> effects need be taken into consideration, because (1) avoidable
> effects are _avoidable_, and (2) avoidable effects are infinite in
> extent, and thus if one attempts to take them into account, nothing
> can be accomplished, since everything has avoidable effects on
> everything else.
That problem is easy to solve: let all the conflicting groups
compete to see which group gets its way. They can compete
with votes, or with guns.
Can you give an example of an "unavoidable" effect? Every
effect deriving from human action is avoidable, because
any human action is avoidable, given sufficiently ruthless
intervention. In the worst case, you can kill the people who
bother you. But usually you don't have to kill them, if you
can bring enough force to bear.
Whenever person X does something that bothers person Y,
there are two solutions:
1. Person X can stop doing it.
2. Person Y can tolerate it.
Which solution is "better" depends on who you ask. In general,
everybody wants to place the burden on the other guy.
> > Merely observing or learning about someone else's disturbing
> > behavior is enough to bother some people.
>
> That is an _avoidable_ effect. They need not be bothered; they choose
> to be bothered.
You can just as readily choose not to be bothered by complying
with the statutory rape laws. Do you, or does any other adult,
really NEED to have sex with a minor?
It's always easy to tell other people to put up with being
bothered more, so you can enjoy being bothered less.
That's your way of interfering with their freedom.
You choose to be bothered by the statutory rape laws, just as
most other people choose to be bothered by statutory rape.
Good luck on trying to derive your own personal preferences
from some fundamental principles.
> > That's a big part of why she's not a real rapist. A pretty woman
> > doesn't have to use force to get a sex partner.
>
> That depends on her choice of partner.
True, but a pretty woman can choose from so many willing
partners that it would be unusual for her to reject all of them,
in favor of some unwilling partner she has to coerce.
It's like the way you don't often hear of billionaires who
shoplift.
> > Why would she work so hard to get something she
> > can get easily from somewhere else?
>
> She might not want it from somewhere else, but only from a specific
> source. In this case, Lafave indicated that she did what she did
> precisely because it was forbidden, and the forbidden character of it
> appealed to her. So doing it with someone else would not have been
> satisfactory to her.
If Lafave's explanation for her behavior is true, revoking the
statutory rape laws will not help her, because that would
take the fun out of sex with minors for her. She would have
to seek out some other form of illegal coupling to find something
that appeals to her.
You are arguing that it should not be illegal for Lafave to do
the thing which she did precisely because it is illegal. That's
a weird argument. It sounds as if you are trying to stop
Lafave from having sex with boys.
Psychologists have demonstrated convincingly, through carefully
constructed experiments, that the reasons people give to explain
their behavior are not always the real reasons for their behavior.
Sometimes people lie, and sometimes people are mistaken
about their real motives.
That's not to say Lafave's explanation does not reflect her true
motive, just that we don't know how reliable her explanation is.
If her explanation reflects her real motive, why do you want
to take the fun out of statutory rape for her?
> > How many male rapists would still be rapists if they were as
> > attractive to women as Brad Pitt is? Not many, I'd bet.
>
> Essentially all of them. Most male rapists are not interested in sex
> per se.
Who told you that? Are you saying that if dozens of attractive
women were to throw themselves at a rapist, the way attractive
women throw themselves at Brad Pitt, the rapist would not be
interested in having sex with them _per se_? That smells to me
like an extraordinary claim.
If the tendency to rape has nothing to do with a man's attractiveness
to women, why don't we read about any stunningly handsome
rapists?
There aren't many stunningly handsome men, but there are enough
of them, and their lives are scrutinized enough, that if any man
as attractive to women as Brad Pitt were a rapist, it would be all
over the news. Men like Brad Pitt are all over the news just for
doing ordinary day-to-day things like visiting a museum with their
wives.
Intuitively, it seems that any man who had the good fortune to
grow up to be stunningly handsome is unlikely to have developed
a rapist's hatred of women, because the handsome man will have
been treated very well by women generally. Few people learn to
hate those who are chronically nice to them.
> > Debra Lafave is similar to Brad Pitt in that either one of them
> > can walk into almost any popular nightclub in the USA, or
> > much of the world, and quickly find several willing sex partners
> > to choose from with a modest effort, or perhaps with no effort.
>
> But they won't be 13 years old.
Sure, because you can't meet people so young in most night clubs.
But if Brad Pitt were a middle school teacher, he'd probably set
the hearts of a few young girls a-flutter. Especially if we consider
the Brad Pitt of 15 years ago when he was a younger adult, and
the age difference wouldn't have been as large.
> > Actually the prosecutor seems to have dropped the charges.
>
> At the insistence of the victim, and only in the second of two cases.
She pled out the first case and avoided jail.
-- the Danimal
Jim Ledford
> look at TV commercials and see if they could use them in some way
> to communicate ideas about God.
> Here are some of the results: scroll down.
> God is like..
> BAYER ASPIRIN
> He works miracles.
> God is like...
> a FORD
> He's got a better idea.
> God is like...
> COKE
> He's the real thing.
> God is like...
> HALLMARK CARDS !
> He cares enough to send His very best.
> God is like...
> TIDE
> He gets the stains out that others leave behind.
> God is like...
> GENERAL ELECTRIC
> He brings good things to life.
> God is like...
> SEARS
> He has everything.
> God is like...
> ALKA-SELTZER
> Try him, you'll like Him
> God is like...
> SCOTCH TAPE
> You can't see him, but you know He's there.
> God is like...
> DELTA
> He's ready when you are.
> God is like...
> ALLSTATE
> You're in good hands with Him.
> God is like...
> VO-5 Hair Spray
> He holds through all kinds of weather.
>
> God is like...
> DIAL SOAP
> Aren't you glad you have Him? Don't you wish everybody did?
>
> God is like...
> the U.S. POST OFFICE
> Neither rain, nor snow, nor sleet nor ice will keep Him from His
> appointed destination.
>
Mxsmanic
> What about the right to stop other people from doing things
> that bother you? That is a fundamental human right that no
> group gives up voluntarily.
It is a right only if an inequality exists. If someone bothers you in
an unavoidable way, as by stabbing you with a knife, you have a right
to stop the person from doing it. But if someone bothers you in an
avoidable way, such as by offending you, you can simply choose not to
be offended, and so taking action against the other person is not
justified.
The distinction is important. The number of avoidable offenses is
infinite; any system that allows people to act against others when
offended or otherwise avoidably bothered is doomed to failure.
Unavoidable offenses, on the other hand, are finite (because they are
not determined solely by imagination), and thus can be controlled
without undermining the foundations of the system.
> Look at the Muslims who are burning down Danish embassies
> because they are angry about the Danish newspaper that mocked
> their Prophet. Feeling offended by the actions of others, and doing
> something about it is a universal human right. People in every
> culture do this.
No, it's not a universal human right, because you don't have to feel
offended; you can choose not to be offended.
If everyone had this "right," then anyone could take offense at
anything and hurt or kill anyone else who had caused the offense.
Obviously that's an unworkable scenario.
Therefore, only action against unavoidable offenses (physical
assaults, robberies, etc.) can be justified as a right.
> That problem is easy to solve: let all the conflicting groups
> compete to see which group gets its way. They can compete
> with votes, or with guns.
That creates inequalities, and is thus incompatible with the notion of
universal rights.
> Can you give an example of an "unavoidable" effect?
Being hit by a car, being in a building that is bombed, etc.
> You can just as readily choose not to be bothered by complying
> with the statutory rape laws. Do you, or does any other adult,
> really NEED to have sex with a minor?
There is nothing about sex with a minor that has any effect on anyone
except the minor and his partner. Therefore there is no reason to
prohibit it as long as these two parties consent to it. There will
always be someone who is _bothered_ by the idea, but every idea
bothers someone, so if one forbids anything that causes offense to
anyone, nothing is left.
> It's always easy to tell other people to put up with being
> bothered more, so you can enjoy being bothered less.
> That's your way of interfering with their freedom.
They impinge upon their own freedom when they choose to take offense.
> Good luck on trying to derive your own personal preferences
> from some fundamental principles.
I don't need to derive personal preferences.
> True, but a pretty woman can choose from so many willing
> partners that it would be unusual for her to reject all of them,
> in favor of some unwilling partner she has to coerce.
It's not that unusual, as the Lafave case proves. Her partner was not
unwilling, but he was forbidden, and thus attractive to her, even
though many other unforbidden partners were available.
Being able to attract people is one thing; being able to attract those
to whom you feel attracted is quite another.
> If Lafave's explanation for her behavior is true, revoking the
> statutory rape laws will not help her, because that would
> take the fun out of sex with minors for her. She would have
> to seek out some other form of illegal coupling to find something
> that appeals to her.
Yes. But if all forms of mating were legal, there would be nothing
left to appeal to her.
> You are arguing that it should not be illegal for Lafave to do
> the thing which she did precisely because it is illegal.
No, I'm arguing that anything that takes place between consenting
partners is nobody else's business.
> That's not to say Lafave's explanation does not reflect her true
> motive, just that we don't know how reliable her explanation is.
> If her explanation reflects her real motive, why do you want
> to take the fun out of statutory rape for her?
I don't.
> Who told you that?
Every study I've seen on rape, including those that involve interviews
and psychiatric examinations of rapists themselves. Rape is almost
always a power trip, not a sexual release. Most normal people are put
off by the idea of an unwilling sexual partner.
> Are you saying that if dozens of attractive
> women were to throw themselves at a rapist, the way attractive
> women throw themselves at Brad Pitt, the rapist would not be
> interested in having sex with them _per se_?
He would not be raping them if they were throwing themselves at him.
> If the tendency to rape has nothing to do with a man's attractiveness
> to women, why don't we read about any stunningly handsome
> rapists?
Because there are few stunningly handsome men in the world. Ted
Bundy, however, is one example of a handsome man who nevertheless was
not satisfied by sexual attractiveness, and turned to murder instead.
> Intuitively, it seems that any man who had the good fortune to
> grow up to be stunningly handsome is unlikely to have developed
> a rapist's hatred of women ...
Rapists do not necessarily hate women; they simply choose women as
victims because they are easy targets.
> But if Brad Pitt were a middle school teacher, he'd probably set
> the hearts of a few young girls a-flutter. Especially if we consider
> the Brad Pitt of 15 years ago when he was a younger adult, and
> the age difference wouldn't have been as large.
So?
dizzy
>A Human Being wrote:
>> Why are people so obsessed with repeatedly discussing one case of
>> consentual sex where no real harm done to anyone, and all it was at the
>> most is irresponsible and unethical, when so many other cases more
>> deserving of attention are ignored?
>
>Because the teacher in this case is pretty good-looking, in a trashy
>porn star kind of way, and because most guys who went through puberty
>had fevered adolescent wet dreams about young lady teachers like her---
>but nothing more.
I, for one, feel very sorry for the boy, and feel that he was greatly
harmed but what happened.
Not.
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven writes:
>
>> Wrong. See " Legal Consent ".
>
> Legal consent is a legal fiction,
<laughs> No proof ever offered ? Insane legally ignorant pedo loon
claim fails.
Free Clue: Legal " fictions " cannot place on in gaol.
> just as its name implies. It may or
> may not be congruent with consent in the real world; unfortunately, it
> often is not.
No proof ever offered ? Etc...
>> Irrelevent. As the child in this case was of an age to do NONE
>> of those things, *including* have sex with an *adult authority
>> figure* ...
>
> That depends on the jurisdiction.
No proof ever offered ? Etc...
>> Consensual relationships require that BOTH persons be
>> of the age of consent.
>
> No, consensual relationships only require that both persons consent.
No proof ever offered ? Etc...
> There is no "age of consent" except in statutory law.
No proof ever offered ? Etc...
> Statutory law and the real world are not synonymous.
Your empty, fact free pedo loon claims and facts are not synonymous.
HTH.
Andre
NYC XYZ
the Danimal wrote:
>
>
> So basically you're saying your freedom is everybody else's
> responsibility.
Um...you're putting the cart before the horse...I'd said "it is her
responsibility that's attached to her freedom"....
> <SNIP>
>
> Do you mean hypothetically possible (for example, under a
> hypothetical NYC XYZ dictatorship), or politically possible
> in the present-day USA?
I think it's clear enough from the context of my remarks that I'm
speaking in a "subjunctive mood," even if I did not actually employ it
grammatically....
> <SNIP>
>
> Sure, but with what? At least 90% of either sex would
> prefer to have sex with less than 10% of the other sex.
> I.e., hardly anyone is attractive.
Me, about a quarter of all females I see have some physical appeal.
I've only ever seen a perfect 10 a handful of times, but there are
plenty of 9's and even more of 8's.
> For some reason, human evolution has yielded a species
> that seems optimized to experience frustration.
Tsk, tsk...I'm surprised you haven't figured out this red herring
yet....
> Of course we all know by now what one technological
> solution would be.
Can one "know" something which doesn't exist or isn't true?
> It's odd you would imply that the people who analyze
> things rather than instantly agreeing with your emotional
> beliefs are not intelligent.
It's odd that your analytical skills yield such a preposterous finding.
I only ever implied that analysis is the wrong tool for this here job.
> <SNIP>
>
> -- the Danimal
the Danimal
> the Danimal writes:
>
> > What about the right to stop other people from doing things
> > that bother you? That is a fundamental human right that no
> > group gives up voluntarily.
>
> It is a right only if an inequality exists. If someone bothers you in
> an unavoidable way, as by stabbing you with a knife, you have a right
> to stop the person from doing it.
Like every other person, I have whatever rights the powerful people
in my culture allow me to have.
Thomas Jefferson wrote about "inalienable" rights, which he
denied to the slaves he owned.
> But if someone bothers you in an
> avoidable way, such as by offending you, you can simply choose not to
> be offended, and so taking action against the other person is not
> justified.
Absolutely. You can simply choose not to be offended by the
laws against statutory rape, so taking action against the people
who bother you with those laws is not justified.
However, if you have a conviction, you probably cannot easily
stop having it. To some degree, the conviction owns you. You
don't own it. You are more like a host for your convictions, which
are something like viruses infesting your mind.
In some cases, when you are up against someone else who
has a conviction you cannot tolerate, such as Osama bin Laden,
then one of you has to kill the other. As T.E. Lawrence wrote,
you have to shoot a conviction.
> The distinction is important. The number of avoidable offenses is
> infinite; any system that allows people to act against others when
> offended or otherwise avoidably bothered is doomed to failure.
Speaking of doomed to failure, I'm guessing you will have a
harder time getting the world to agree with your personal opinion
on statutory rape laws than getting the world to agree with your
personal opinion on stabbing people.
The absurd hypothetical situation you portray above never exists
anywhere. No system in any culture has ever allowed everybody
to have veto power over everybody else. Instead, every culture has
some way to resolve every conflict, deciding who gets their way,
and who doesn't. Some powerful group or individual will emerge
as the arbitrator. And this has never led, anywhere, to the
slippery slope absurdity you present as an argument against it.
People everywhere are perfectly comfortable being hypocrites.
If you're trying to claim that letting some people have their way
at the expense of some other people invariably dooms a system,
that's just stupid, because every society does that, not all societies
have failed, and that's what you want to do anyway, by imposing
your preferences on those people who currently favor the existing
statutory rape laws.
> Unavoidable offenses, on the other hand, are finite (because they are
> not determined solely by imagination), and thus can be controlled
> without undermining the foundations of the system.
Unavoidable offenses are uncountably vast, because humans live
in a crowded, finite world, where virtually everything we do (or
refrain from doing) affects somebody else in some way.
For example, if you want to drive your car on the street, you must
exercise your right-of-way. That is, you must displace all those other
people who can think of other things to do with the road space you
require. The land used for almost every road was once used for
something else. Children might want to play in the street again.
People might want to have a picnic or a festival in the street.
Once upon a time, it was considered OK for people to pollute
the air, water, and land. As time went on, and knowledge of the
effects of pollution increased, the victims began demanding
protection. We still have a long way to go with this. Currently
most people feel it is their right to drive cars down the road and
belch poisons into the lungs of everyone who breathes the filth
they spew. Newer cars have gotten somewhat cleaner, but
you can still kill yourself by running an engine in a closed room.
Your error is to assume all unavoidable offenses are obvious
and clear-cut. However, avoidability as you use it here is not
a binary variable. There is a continuum of avoidability, as well
as a continuum of harm inflicted on others by various actions.
Stabbing someone harms them a lot, and right away.
Polluting their air with second-hand cigarette smoke harms
them a little, and possibly not for years.
For many years, when a smoker wanted to pollute the air
and a non-smoker wanted to breathe clean air, society decided
the smoker should win. Lately the tide has begun to turn, with
society ruling in favor of non-smokers.
Deciding who should win in these conflicts is purely a
matter of personal preference. No one has ever been able
to logically derive a system of absolute morality that would
pick the winners without reference to anyone's personal
preference. The greatest thinkers in history have tried,
and failed. Why do you think you are smarter than the
greatest thinkers in history?
There is no absolute morality (which can be logically
derived from facts). There is only personal preference.
> > Look at the Muslims who are burning down Danish embassies
> > because they are angry about the Danish newspaper that mocked
> > their Prophet. Feeling offended by the actions of others, and doing
> > something about it is a universal human right. People in every
> > culture do this.
>
> No, it's not a universal human right, because you don't have to feel
> offended; you can choose not to be offended.
But why would you choose not to be offended, if you have the
power to screw with the people who offend you?
For example, if you had the power to revoke all the statutory rape
laws, would you? Or would you choose not to be offended by the
statutory rape laws? Could you choose to not be offended by
those laws?
In your own way, you are like the Muslims. They don't
like the cartoons that mock their Prophet. You don't like the
statutory rape laws. They have their personal preferences;
you have yours.
In every culture, at least one group asserts its right to screw with
some other group of people who do things that bother them.
In the USA, you cannot say "fuck" on broadcast television. Why?
Because it bothers a lot of people. Every society which has ever
existed has some set of restrictions similar to this---things people
could theoretically choose not to be bothered by, but instead they
choose to be bothered by.
In any case, it's not clear that people are perfectly free to choose
their convictions. For example, could you choose to believe the
Earth is flat? I don't know if I could choose to believe that, even if
I tried. Belief is an emotion, after all, and emotions are not the
product of the conscious mind which chooses things.
Most people don't know where they got their beliefs. They only
know they have them now.
> If everyone had this "right,"
I didn't say everyone has this right. Only people with sufficient power
in a given conflict can sieze this right. In every culture, there is
some
group that does that in some conflict. That's the universal human
behavior I'm talking about.
If you don't believe me, you can visit any human culture and
find some sort of behavior which is arbitrarily forbidden, or
vigorously discouraged, because it bothers some powerful group
within that culture. Every culture does this. No culture tolerates
every sort of human behavior.
"Culture shock" is the emotional reaction to being plunged into
a foreign culture and (among other things) accidentally running
afoul of its unfamiliar rules. Actions which are no big deal or
even required in your native culture may be deeply offensive
in some other culture.
For example, in most parts of the U.S., you cannot walk down
the street naked. The police will tell you to put some clothes on.
The people who could choose not to be offended by your hairy
ass aren't going to choose not to be offended. Why would they?
If you put up huge offensive billboards on your lawn, in a residential
neighborhood, your neighbors are likely to complain, and a
neighborhood council will probably force you to remove the billboards.
Your neighbors could choose to ignore the billboards, but they
don't, because they don't want to, and they don't have to. There
is probably some meddling local ordinance than limits what sort
of signs you can put on your own property.
> then anyone could take offense at
> anything and hurt or kill anyone else who had caused the offense.
> Obviously that's an unworkable scenario.
Your strawman society doesn't exist anywhere, making
your argument irrelevant. There are many working societies,
and all societies forbid some sort of bothersome behaviors.
Such as advertising billboards in residential neighborhoods.
No slippery slope results.
> Therefore, only action against unavoidable offenses (physical
> assaults, robberies, etc.) can be justified as a right.
What unavoidable harm do statutory rape laws inflict
on you, that you think justifies your right to revoke
them? You can easily choose not to have sex with
minors, so what's the problem?
In the real world, powerful people have no need to justify
their actions to you. That's what power is all about.
You continue to confuse your personal preferences with
absolute morality---which is exactly what the people who
back the statutory rape laws do. They have a different
opinion as to what absolute morality is.
> > That problem is easy to solve: let all the conflicting groups
> > compete to see which group gets its way. They can compete
> > with votes, or with guns.
>
> That creates inequalities, and is thus incompatible with the notion of
> universal rights.
There you go again, confusing your personal preferences with
some ghostly absolute morality.
If you revoke the statutory rape laws, you will merely create
different inequalities. Now instead of bothering the people who
want to have currently illegal sex, the people who are bothered
by sex between adults and children will have to feel bothered.
> > Can you give an example of an "unavoidable" effect?
>
> Being hit by a car,
You must mean the effects of being hit by a car. Being
hit by a car is itself avoidable---just stay away from cars.
For example, you could live on a boat out on water.
> being in a building that is bombed, etc.
You are talking about physical effects. There are also
psychological effects. Since the brain is a physical
object, it can be physically affected by sensory experiences.
For example, it is possible to damage a person psychologically
by subjecting him or her to intense, sustained hatred. Even if
there is no physical harm, just having lots of people cursing
at you and hating you for years will mess you up. The purely
sensory experience will produce a physical harm in your brain.
There are also physical actions which in themselves produce
no lasting physical harm (which we can detect yet), but do
produce psychological harm. Actually, psychological harm
is physical harm, but we lack the knowledge of brain structure
to detect it directly by examining the resulting changes in
brain structure.
If you were to revoke the statutory rape laws, you would
unavoidably create psychological distress in the people
who think we need those laws. The extent to which this
would bother them can be inferred by the intensity of their
objections.
> > You can just as readily choose not to be bothered by complying
> > with the statutory rape laws. Do you, or does any other adult,
> > really NEED to have sex with a minor?
>
> There is nothing about sex with a minor that has any effect on anyone
> except the minor and his partner.
That's not an answer to my question. Do you, or does any other
adult, really NEED to have sex with a minor?
I.e., is sex between an adult and a minor avoidable?
Also, your claim is false. People who learn of the illegal coupling
will be bothered by it. Being bothered by something is an effect---
it is objectively measurable as a stress response. It is not
always an effect a person can "choose" to avoid. People
have social conditioning to be bothered, and there may
also be some sociobiological predisposition to be bothered.
Can you easily choose to stop being bothered by the statutory
rape laws, which you consider unreasonable and unfair? No.
You have convictions, which you cannot easily change, even
if you wanted to change them.
What effect do statutory rape laws have on anyone except
people who break them? Why do those laws bother you?
Do you have sex with minors? If not, why poke your nose into
something that doesn't concern you?
> Therefore there is no reason to
> prohibit it as long as these two parties consent to it.
You mean no reason you can think of.
Does the rest of the world limit its actions to those
things you can think of reasons for?
> There will
> always be someone who is _bothered_ by the idea, but every idea
> bothers someone, so if one forbids anything that causes offense to
> anyone, nothing is left.
Who is suggesting to do that? The people in power can selectively
forbid whatever they want.
How does one powerful group getting its way let
everyone else---or even anyone else---get their way too?
Do you also think that in a sports competition, allowing one
team to win creates the absurd situation in which
every team wins?
> > It's always easy to tell other people to put up with being
> > bothered more, so you can enjoy being bothered less.
> > That's your way of interfering with their freedom.
>
> They impinge upon their own freedom when they choose to take offense.
Do you impinge upon your own freedom when you choose to take
offense at statutory rape laws, which in all probability do not affect
you?
If you can find a way to see around your mountain of self-bias
which blocks your view of reality, you might recognize that
what you want to do is exactly analogous to what your opponents
want to do: rid the world of things you find bothersome.
> > Good luck on trying to derive your own personal preferences
> > from some fundamental principles.
>
> I don't need to derive personal preferences.
Perhaps you do not consciously perceive your need that
you continue to act on.
It's sad that we live in a world where almost nobody can
be honest enough to say "Because I don't like it." Instead,
most people feel a pathetic need to misrepresent their
personal preferences as absolute morality.
> > True, but a pretty woman can choose from so many willing
> > partners that it would be unusual for her to reject all of them,
> > in favor of some unwilling partner she has to coerce.
>
> It's not that unusual, as the Lafave case proves.
Are you insane? The Lafave case has become tabloid fodder
precisely because it is so rare.
Cases like this do not occur in every city every week, like
the far more common case of middle-aged men trying to get
sex with children on the Internet. Go visit a sex offender
Web site, look at the photos of the offenders. You won't
see too many who look like Debra Lafave. The vast majority
are middle-aged men who don't look especially good.
> Her partner was not
> unwilling, but he was forbidden, and thus attractive to her, even
> though many other unforbidden partners were available.
How does one example emerging every few years from a
nation of close to 300,000,000 people "prove" it is not
unusual for a pretty woman to reject all her easy opportunities
and pursue a minor?
> Being able to attract people is one thing; being able to attract those
> to whom you feel attracted is quite another.
For me, certainly. Maybe for you too. Not for most pretty
women, however. Most pretty women appear to have no
difficulty attracting someone they find attractive, as far as
I can see.
> > If Lafave's explanation for her behavior is true, revoking the
> > statutory rape laws will not help her, because that would
> > take the fun out of sex with minors for her. She would have
> > to seek out some other form of illegal coupling to find something
> > that appeals to her.
>
> Yes. But if all forms of mating were legal, there would be nothing
> left to appeal to her.
Debra Lafave recently got engaged to be married a second time.
Apparently you have made another error of logic. The fact that
she (may have) found one illegal sex option appealing does not
prevent her from enjoying some legal options also.
By analogy, some people may be attracted to illegal drugs
in part because they are illegal, but many of them also smoke
cigarettes and drink beer.
> > You are arguing that it should not be illegal for Lafave to do
> > the thing which she did precisely because it is illegal.
>
> No, I'm arguing that anything that takes place between consenting
> partners is nobody else's business.
Good luck getting the rest of the world to buy your argument.
Obviously most people don't buy your argument, and you
lack the power to force your preferences on them.
Suppose you cannot persuade everyone to willingly revoke
the statutory rape laws. Would you revoke the laws by force,
and impose your preferences on everyone else?
> > That's not to say Lafave's explanation does not reflect her true
> > motive, just that we don't know how reliable her explanation is.
> > If her explanation reflects her real motive, why do you want
> > to take the fun out of statutory rape for her?
>
> I don't.
You mean you're not smart enough to realize you want
to do something which will have precisely that effect, if
your analysis is correct.
> > Who told you that?
>
> Every study I've seen on rape, including those that involve interviews
> and psychiatric examinations of rapists themselves. Rape is almost
> always a power trip, not a sexual release.
Suppose a man is stalking a woman and preparing to rape
her, but when she sees him, she is overwhelmingly attracted
to him and begs him to have sex with her.
Will the rapist leave in disgust, and go seek out some other
woman who doesn't find him attractive, so he can have the
power trip he craves by raping her? Or will he enjoy having
sex with the woman who wants him, and forget about his
power trip?
The problem with the conclusion you seem to have drawn
from "every study" you've "seen on rape" is that they probably
don't investigate rape under controlled conditions. In a controlled
study on rape, investigators would separately evaluate the
rapist's sexual attraction for his victims, by seeing how he reacts
when a sample of them find him attractive.
I'm guessing most rapists would want to have consensual
sex with most women they choose as victims. Indeed, they
might even PREFER this. That is, they probably resort to
violence only when the women they desire don't give them
sex willingly. To claim otherwise sounds to me like an
extraordinary claim.
As evidence for my guess, I cite the extreme rarity of rape
charges being brought (and made to stick) against men who
are highly attractive to women.
I also cite the mass rapes which are routine in wartime.
During wartime, ordinary men have participated in mass
rapes of women from conquered populations, because the
conquering army temporarily eliminates the existing social
authority that normally keeps young men somewhat in check.
Perfectly normal young men suddenly have the weapons and
the power to take any of the women around them that they
want. Since normal young men are constantly horny, when
they no longer have to take "No" for an answer, a sizable
percentage don't.
When the Japanese Army set up rape camps and filled them
with young women from Korea, China, the Phillipines, etc.,
do you think the thousands officers and enlisted men who
went to these camps were primarily in search of sex, or a
power trip?
Oddly, Japan is considered one of the safest of the modern
nations for women to walk around in today, and yet ordinary
Japanese soldiers committed rape on an industrial scale.
> Most normal people are put
> off by the idea of an unwilling sexual partner.
Most normal people don't want sex enough to consider taking
it by force, at least during the normal conditions of peacetime
society when the probability of severe punishment is high.
Most normal people do not hesitate to impose their
will on unwilling people in other ways. For example,
the statutory rape laws. Nobody gets punished for
voting in favor of such laws, so this is one legal way to
screw with other people.
> > Are you saying that if dozens of attractive
> > women were to throw themselves at a rapist, the way attractive
> > women throw themselves at Brad Pitt, the rapist would not be
> > interested in having sex with them _per se_?
>
> He would not be raping them if they were throwing themselves at him.
You did not answer my question. I asked if the would-be
rapist would instead have consensual sex with them.
Would he have sex with those women, or would he
reject those women and seek out other unwilling women
so he could rape them?
That is, does he seem to be primarily after sex, or a power
trip?
If getting all the sex he wants with all the women he wants
makes him forget about raping other women, then it would
be safe to conclude he primarily wants sex rather than
"power."
Note that it is not politically correct to say "rape" has
anything to do with "sex." This is part of why we have
the absurdity of statutory rape laws, because any sex
act can then be defined as "rape" and considered to
have nothing to do with "sex."
> > If the tendency to rape has nothing to do with a man's attractiveness
> > to women, why don't we read about any stunningly handsome
> > rapists?
>
> Because there are few stunningly handsome men in the world.
No, there are thousands of them. More than enough for some
of them to be rapists, if the percentage of rapists among handsome
men is similar to the percentage among all men.
Stunningly handsome men are newsworthy, so we
would be much more likely to hear about them. We read about
trivial events in the life of Brad Pitt. If a man like that were
raping women, we would read about that. We were
much more likely to read about Debra Lafave because she is
an attractive sex offender.
In the many studies of rape you have read, how many made
any attempt to measure the sexual attractiveness of the
rapists to women? I'm guessing: zero, because of the
political pressure to make rape have nothing to do with
sex.
> Ted
> Bundy, however, is one example of a handsome man who nevertheless was
> not satisfied by sexual attractiveness, and turned to murder instead.
We heard about Ted Bundy. If there were a handsome rapist,
we would hear about him.
> > Intuitively, it seems that any man who had the good fortune to
> > grow up to be stunningly handsome is unlikely to have developed
> > a rapist's hatred of women ...
>
> Rapists do not necessarily hate women; they simply choose women as
> victims because they are easy targets.
This contradicts your earlier claim that rapists want power rather
than sex. If women are easy targets, raping them is not an
expression of "power," any more than stepping on ants would be.
"Power" is when you defeat a difficult target.
A person who wants power is not content to step on ants. Instead,
he picks a fight with some powerful adversary, or he tries to do
something difficult such as climb a high mountain or take over a
large company.
> > But if Brad Pitt were a middle school teacher, he'd probably set
> > the hearts of a few young girls a-flutter. Especially if we consider
> > the Brad Pitt of 15 years ago when he was a younger adult, and
> > the age difference wouldn't have been as large.
>
> So?
You deleted the context. I responded to your statement that
Brad Pitt would not meet any 13-year-old willing sex partners
in a night club. Of course he wouldn't, because 13-year-olds
cannot easily get into night clubs.
-- the Danimal
the Danimal
I wasn't aware I was writing about Presidential news conferences.
George W. Bush used different strategies to make the news than
Debra Lafave did, although if you put your mind to it, you could
probably think of some similarities.
Every President has been newsworthy. There is a whole
community of reporters who follow the President.
> cbianco
> it warms my heart that science still works.
If science stopped working, we'd have some problems.
Mxsmanic
<everything snipped>
Your post is extremely long and I don't have the energy to address it.
Sorry.
the Danimal
> the Danimal wrote:
> > Sure, but with what? At least 90% of either sex would
> > prefer to have sex with less than 10% of the other sex.
> > I.e., hardly anyone is attractive.
>
> Me, about a quarter of all females I see have some physical appeal.
That's different than what I wrote. Obviously 90% of either
sex is willing to settle for something. That's why unattractive
people continue to be born in large numbers. Very few people
can say they got their first preference, but hardly anyone
really needs to get their first preference.
> I've only ever seen a perfect 10 a handful of times, but there are
> plenty of 9's and even more of 8's.
Are you talking about the minority of young women?
There are quite a few 8's in the 18-25 range; I can't
recall the last time I saw a woman over 40 years
I would consider an 8, except on TV. Somewhere
during that 15 years, most of the pretty women
disappear.
Have you actually counted? Odds are, you ignore the
great majority of women who do nothing for you. Such
as the old women, the fat women, and so on. Attractive
women could seem more numerous than they are, because
when you see one, you might stare at her as long as you
can, during which time you could be overlooking dozens
of homely women waddling by.
When you go to a grocery store, and look at the women
standing in the checkout lines, if you could picture having
sex with a quarter of them, then I should live where you do.
> > For some reason, human evolution has yielded a species
> > that seems optimized to experience frustration.
>
> Tsk, tsk...I'm surprised you haven't figured out this red herring
> yet....
I haven't figured out the meaning of your cryptic response yet.
> > Of course we all know by now what one technological
> > solution would be.
>
> Can one "know" something which doesn't exist or isn't true?
Jim Ledford "knows" he is going to heaven. A Muslim suicide
bomber similarly "knows" he will soon wake up in Paradise with
his 72 virgins. Does that answer your question?
However, extrapolating the future of software technology can
be done on the basis of something considerably more solid.
I.e., some facts.
For example, computers are still doubling in computational
power per unit price every 18 months or so, and there is
every reason to believe this trend will continue for at least
another decade, and probably longer. That means whatever
computers can do slowly now, they will be able to much faster
in the future.
There are already some pretty convincing computer-generated
movies. They still require lots of skilled human artists to
supply lots of labor, and months of work for a few minutes
of final footage, but the labor requirements are steadily
dropping as the software improves and the computers get
faster. One interesting problem is that human actors are
still necessary to get the voices right. But eventually computers
should be able to speak as expressively as human actors.
It's just cheaper at the moment to hire human actors to do
the movie voices. Computer graphics development is farther
ahead, for various reasons. Recording existing sounds has
not been as expensive as filming physical scenes, so there
is more incentive to work on faking the graphics first.
Computer games keep getting better. This seems likely to
continue.
It's not difficult to project forward to computers turning into
something people can relate to. In fact this seems almost
inevitable.
> > It's odd you would imply that the people who analyze
> > things rather than instantly agreeing with your emotional
> > beliefs are not intelligent.
>
> It's odd that your analytical skills yield such a preposterous finding.
What finding is that?
> I only ever implied that analysis is the wrong tool for this here job.
What do you mean by "wrong"?
We can easily analyze why statutory rape laws exist and
why they will continue to exist. The conclusion will not be
wrong. I will wager any amount of money that in 20 years,
the USA will still have statutory rape laws. Would you like
to bet against me, say in the amount of fifty thousand dollars?
-- the Danimal
NYC XYZ
the Danimal wrote:
>
>
> That's different than what I wrote.
Of course it's different; otherwise, it'd be copyright infringement on
my part!
> Obviously 90% of either
> sex is willing to settle for something.
Now that's really different: I wasn't talking about "settling"...which
to me would be with 6's and 7's....
>That's why unattractive
> people continue to be born in large numbers. Very few people
> can say they got their first preference, but hardly anyone
> really needs to get their first preference.
I was really alluding to the fact that at least a quarter of folks seem
to be physically appealing, even if not physically perfect. You seem
unwilling to admit the contiuum of beauty which exists.
> Are you talking about the minority of young women?
> There are quite a few 8's in the 18-25 range; I can't
> recall the last time I saw a woman over 40 years
> I would consider an 8, except on TV. Somewhere
> during that 15 years, most of the pretty women
> disappear.
Lots of hot-looking MILFs around here. Hope my wife (wives?) look/s
that great at that age!
> Have you actually counted? Odds are, you ignore the
> great majority of women who do nothing for you. Such
> as the old women, the fat women, and so on. Attractive
> women could seem more numerous than they are, because
> when you see one, you might stare at her as long as you
> can, during which time you could be overlooking dozens
> of homely women waddling by.
Very astute observation...I suppose I do ignore more unattractive women
than I would know, as you say, but insofar as I don't shun them, and
make a hobby out of studying just where their defect lies, I think my
numbers are pretty accurate: around a quarter of all women will have
some fair amount of physical appeal to them.
> When you go to a grocery store, and look at the women
> standing in the checkout lines, if you could picture having
> sex with a quarter of them, then I should live where you do.
NYC is The Capital of the World! All we're missing is Amsterdam's Red
Light District and The Great Wall of China. And a dedicated recumbent
bicycle shop.
> I haven't figured out the meaning of your cryptic response yet.
Not surprisingly, given how thoroughly taken in you are by that most
non-material of non-material frustrations (beauty being in the eye of
the beholder and all that).
> Jim Ledford "knows" he is going to heaven. A Muslim suicide
> bomber similarly "knows" he will soon wake up in Paradise with
> his 72 virgins. Does that answer your question?
Yes: knowledge is linked to fact; we must be more careful with our
words. This promotes healthy thinking.
> However, extrapolating the future of software technology can
> be done on the basis of something considerably more solid.
> I.e., some facts.
That's why it's called a forecast.
> <SNIP Danimal Woody Allen imitation>
> What finding is that?
What you'd proclaimed.
> What do you mean by "wrong"?
Doesn't solve or help solve the problem.
> <SNIP Danimal comedy routine>
> -- the Danimal
Jim Ledford
> the Danimal writes:
>
> <everything snipped>
>
> Your post is extremely long and I don't have the energy to address it.
> Sorry.
Dan once gave us a good LOL by saying something along the
lines of - why use one sentence when a paragraph will allow
for a more complete explanation.
Baba Yaga Boney Legs
[Huge snip]
How pleasant to see clarity of thought and expression, and in a
cross-posted thread at that.
Out of curiosity, where are you posting from?
Baba Yaga
Follow-ups set to talk. rape. Add a group you read to reply.
--
The debunking of the expert is an important stage in the history of
democratic communities because democracy involves the assertion of the
common against the special interest. ... The first weapon in the
worker's armoury must be a strongly developed bump of irreverence. He
must insist on the secular nature of all knowledge.
- Aneurin Bevan (as quoted by Jonathan Rose)
yamuna
Mxsmanic wrote:
> yamuna writes:
>
> > I can't believe you compare this irresponsible acts by a teacher to
> > with a person crossing the street at the wrong time where the possible
> > harm is danger to himself/herself only.
>
>
> > Asia.
>
> The same Asia that engages in honor killings,
What kind of stupid talk is that> Asia is very diverse cutlure-wise.
Beside, honor killing happens in villages and especially among the poor
where the men in the family are already stressed with life's burdens.
>poaches endangered
> species to pander to the superstitions of old men concerning sexual
> remedies, charges the families of convicted criminals for the bullets
> fired through their heads, and has thriving businesses in child
> prostitution and comic books featuring prepubescent schoolgirls?
You are nuts.
>
> > Children spend 5 days a week, about 6-8 hours with teachers for 13
> > years of their lives and you don't think teachers do not have
> > responsibility to behave appropriately? Sigh.
>
> What is inappropriate about the behavior under discussion here?
If you ask that you are clueless. BTW, the teacher apologized stating
her bi-polar disorder.
If she doesn't have bi-polar and she wants to have sex with underage
kids, she has no business being a teacher to these kids.
yamuna
Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:
> In article <1143217796....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> yamun...@yahoo.com says...
> >
>
> > They may not rape us physically - but they rape our souls and spirit,
If you are talking about polluting with religious belief of teachers, I
feel that parents are the key when it comes to religion. And when a
child come to age, he/she can figure out what to believe but physical
violation that is that is against the law should be followed by the
authority in charge.
Mxsmanic
> What kind of stupid talk is that> Asia is very diverse cutlure-wise.
So is the rest of the world.
> Beside, honor killing happens in villages and especially among the poor
> where the men in the family are already stressed with life's burdens.
And that makes it okay?
> You are nuts.
Just listing some of the problems that Asia has.
> If you ask that you are clueless.
If you can't answer, you don't know.
> If she doesn't have bi-polar and she wants to have sex with underage
> kids, she has no business being a teacher to these kids.
I'd guess that a significant minority of teachers are at least
partially motivated to teach teenagers out of sexual interest. There
may also be a few pedophiles who are motivated to teach prepubescent
children out of sexual interest, also, although pedophilia is rare
whereas a sexual interest in people who have passed through puberty is
not.
Of course, even among these minorities, not all teachers would
necessarily act upon their interests.
catbr...@yahoo.com
I assure you, I am not jealous. The age differences are bad enough, but
the more significant issue is the fact that she was that boy's teacher,
and as such, was given an important trust by the child's parents and
the state. That trust carries with it a binding moral and ethical
imperative to act in loco parentis and for the best interests of that
child. Fucking him was a serious breach of that trust.
Cat
catbr...@yahoo.com
> hundreds of children across the country would have suffered various
> kinds of physical abuse- beating of children is much more common than
> sexually abusing them. Why aren't those cases reported?
Because they are so routine as to be un-newsworthy and I share your
anger at that.
> Why are people so obsessed with repeatedly discussing one case of
> consentual sex where no real harm done to anyone, and all it was at the
> most is irresponsible and unethical, when so many other cases more
> deserving of attention are ignored?
It's because she is very attractive and this is the stuff of sexual
fantasy. The press is using the titillation factor of "hot" news to
attract an audience and the case is also very polarizing. It's sordidly
tabloid. It fascinates the imagination.
But all of that distracts from the important issues involved.
Cat
Mxsmanic
> It's because she is very attractive and this is the stuff of sexual
> fantasy.
If it's the stuff of sexual fantasy, why do people insist on
considering it harmful when it actually happens?
the Danimal
> > You're just jealous. She's hot and she knows it. What a woman!!!
>
> I assure you, I am not jealous.
That claim seems plausible. Debra Lafave's photo now appears on
a sex offender Web site, and will remain there for a decade.
'catbrier04' may not be featured on any sex offender Web sites.
It is presumably rare for people who are not sex offenders to be
jealous of sex offenders.
'catbrier04' may or may not have reason to be jealous of
Debra Lafave's physical appearance. 'catbrier04' can know
this, but the rest of us cannot, since we cannot see
'catbrier04'. We cannot conclude 'catbrier04' is jealous on
the basis of the available evidence. I suggest changing
"You're just jealous" to "I believe you are jealous," a
claim which is difficult to refute.
> The age differences are bad enough,
By "bad" do you mean inherently/objectively bad, or do
you mean subjectively bad in the sense that many people
would disapprove vigorously?
I agree that the opinions of other people matter. For example,
indulging in gluttony to the point of becoming obese is subjectively
bad because many other people will disapprove. When others
disapprove of us, they can make our lives more difficult in many
ways. We can argue that they should not disapprove, but they
do and aren't likely to stop.
Gluttony is also objectively bad in that it causes health and
mobility problems.
I'm trying to think what could be objectively bad with a
sexual encounter between a 14-year-old boy and a
25-year-old woman, assuming both are willing.
There are, of course, all the usual risks of sex, but
it seems a 25-year-old woman would be more likely
to approach sex responsibly than, say, a 14-year-old
girl. That is, if a 14-year-old boy is going to
have sex with someone, an older woman seems likely
to be a safer partner. An adult woman can easily obtain
contraceptives, whereas a 14-year-old girl might be less
well prepared, both pharmaceutically as well as
emotionally.
> but
> the more significant issue is the fact that she was that boy's teacher,
> and as such, was given an important trust by the child's parents and
> the state.
What you really seem to be saying is that Debra Lafave
primarily harmed the boy's mother.
> That trust carries with it a binding moral and ethical
> imperative to act in loco parentis and for the best interests of that
> child.
Who determines the best interests of that child? The
boy himself, or his mom?
Obviously, mom doesn't want the boy fucking his teacher.
That's probably what drove the whole case. Somehow I
doubt the boy went to police on his own initiative
begging for protection from the predatory teacher.
While 14 sounds young to begin a sexual career, it
certainly isn't unheard of, illegal as it may be in
various places.
> Fucking him was a serious breach of that trust.
Yes, with the parents. But what trust did it breach with
the "victim"? Did the boy go to school on the assumption
that he could trust all the pretty female teachers not
to give him sex?
In what way do you think Debra Lafave harmed the boy?
Aside from involving him in all the hooplah surrounding
the case, which isn't the result of the sex, but of the
legal response to the sex. It would be strange to justify
a law on the basis of the harm the law itself causes.
Are you projecting your own previous mental state
as a 14-year-old girl? I don't think sex is as big a deal
for adolescent boys (who want it) as it for adolescent
girls.
Age of consent laws are entertaining to read.
According to this site:
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm
age-of-consent laws vary widely. For example, in the
state of Iowa (Debra Lafave falls under Florida state
law, which differs):
In conclusion, the age of consent in Iowa is indeed
16 years of age for anyone; as low as 14 for anyone
who is less than 5 years of age apart; and as low
as 12 years of age under marriage.
'catbrier04', can you explain the logic here? I'm trying
to think of a reason why a 14-year-old girl is a legal
sex partner for a 14-year-old boy, and a 25-year-old
woman is not. It seems the 14-year-old girl is at far
greater risk of becoming pregnant and severely harming
her chances to further her education and so on.
I'm also wondering how a 12-year-old can marry.
In the state of Florida, it seems no one under the
age of 16 can have sex, period. See:
http://www.ageofconsent.com/florida.htm
Thus if the 14-year-old "victim" had had sex with
a 14-year-old girl in the state of Florida, he would
be an offender.
-- the Danimal
Baba Yaga Boney Legs
>
>> ADULT women, yes. 13 year olds, NO.
>Many thirteen-year-olds are biologically adults. An interest in sex
>is one symptom of this.
try going beyond the chapter with the naughty diagrams.
Baba yaga
wondering how often this one has to come up
Baba Yaga Boney Legs
>catbr...@yahoo.com writes:
>
>> It's because she is very attractive and this is the stuff of sexual
>> fantasy.
>
>If it's the stuff of sexual fantasy, why do people insist on
>considering it harmful when it actually happens?
<<sigh>>
Fantasy and reality are not identical. one can quite safely fantasise
about rape, from the view of perpetrator or of victim, without any
harm done - and it's a common fantasy. the real thing generally
causes serious harm.
Thus with sex between children and those responsible for their
well-being.
Nor are harm and potential for harm identical propositions. Suppose i
were in the habit of idly dropping bricks from my window onto the
footpath below. Chances are, most of the time i wouldn't hit anyone.
but you can bet your bottom dollar the duly constituted authorities
<<cough>> would take a dim view of the practice, because the potental
harm is high.
Thus, again, with the abuse of children.
Baba yaga
you'd think i hadn't a dozen better things to do...
Baba Yaga Boney Legs
>In the state of Florida, it seems no one under the
>age of 16 can have sex, period. See:
>
>http://www.ageofconsent.com/florida.htm
>
>Thus if the 14-year-old "victim" had had sex with
>a 14-year-old girl in the state of Florida, he would
>be an offender.
Surely, both would be offenders?
Which is sufficiently nonsensical that the offences cancel out, in all
reason.
Baba Yaga
Your Name Here=Harvey
It is not polluting with religious belief of teachers, but the
reinforcement of that which is simply not true and correct.
(eg.
This or that religion - re: Jewish, Christian, Muslim...
That such things as UFOs don't exist...
That the present world of world history is correct ---
I think this is highly debateable - I've watched some documentaries
lately which say that Egyptogolists are wrong with their ideas as
regards the Great Pyramid, and the history of Egypt, etc.
That in fact there were the Ancients who built the Great Pyramid
and other structures, simply because they machined certain artefacts,
which were not carved/shaped with copper tools, etc.
That the ancient world suffered a great catastrophe which ended
that civilisation - worldwide.)
What you believe in, is in what teachers you agree with ...
absorbing their influence upon you.
Not many people figure out what to believe in --- they merely go along
with this or that mainstream thought.
And when you really examine this mainstream thought - it is not what
it is suppose to be. It is neither truthful or correct.
However many people would agree on general rules of conduct for peace and
harmony - to respect elders and parents.
To be truthful, honest, sincere - to be hard working.
To hurt no one.
etc etc etc
Harvey
Mxsmanic
> That claim seems plausible. Debra Lafave's photo now appears on
> a sex offender Web site, and will remain there for a decade.
Not for life? What happened to Megan's Law, or whatever it's called?
> I'm trying to think what could be objectively bad with a
> sexual encounter between a 14-year-old boy and a
> 25-year-old woman, assuming both are willing.
> There are, of course, all the usual risks of sex, but
> it seems a 25-year-old woman would be more likely
> to approach sex responsibly than, say, a 14-year-old
> girl. That is, if a 14-year-old boy is going to
> have sex with someone, an older woman seems likely
> to be a safer partner. An adult woman can easily obtain
> contraceptives, whereas a 14-year-old girl might be less
> well prepared, both pharmaceutically as well as
> emotionally.
Sounds like sexism to me.
> Are you projecting your own previous mental state
> as a 14-year-old girl? I don't think sex is as big a deal
> for adolescent boys (who want it) as it for adolescent
> girls.
Adolescent girls want it, too.
> In conclusion, the age of consent in Iowa is indeed
> 16 years of age for anyone; as low as 14 for anyone
> who is less than 5 years of age apart; and as low
> as 12 years of age under marriage.
Why would sex not be traumatic for a 12-year-old just because he's
married? And why is it okay to be married at 12, but not to have sex
outside marriage? Isn't marriage a somewhat larger step than sex
alone? If someone is incompetent to consent to sex at 12, how can he
possibly be competent to consent to marriage at that age?
This illustrates the _real_ reasons behind age-of-consent laws, and
they have nothing to do with "protecting children."
Mxsmanic
> try going beyond the chapter with the naughty diagrams.
There isn't anything beyond that.
Mxsmanic
> Fantasy and reality are not identical. one can quite safely fantasise
> about rape, from the view of perpetrator or of victim, without any
> harm done - and it's a common fantasy. the real thing generally
> causes serious harm.
The real thing doesn't correspond to the fantasy; there are key
differences.
> Thus with sex between children and those responsible for their
> well-being.
What are the key differences?
> Thus, again, with the abuse of children.
Abuse of children is widely accepted and even condoned. Only sex
seems to pose a problem. Sex and abuse are not the same thing.
catbr...@yahoo.com
> > It's because she is very attractive and this is the stuff of sexual
> > fantasy.
> If it's the stuff of sexual fantasy, why do people insist on
> considering it harmful when it actually happens?
What may be harmless to one may be profoundly harmful to another. The
law cannot be written so as to make fine destinctions regarding the
speculative outcome.
Fantasy is fantasy - this is a matter of a good law, designed to
protect children from predatory adults.
Cat
Mxsmanic
> What may be harmless to one may be profoundly harmful to another. The
> law cannot be written so as to make fine destinctions regarding the
> speculative outcome.
Then why are there driver's license tests?
> Fantasy is fantasy - this is a matter of a good law, designed to
> protect children from predatory adults.
Many adults are not predatory. Certainly having sex with someone
underage doesn't make anyone a predator. Sometimes they are the prey.
the Danimal
> the Danimal writes:
>
> > That claim seems plausible. Debra Lafave's photo now appears on
> > a sex offender Web site, and will remain there for a decade.
>
> Not for life? What happened to Megan's Law, or whatever it's called?
I don't know. Let's ask Google. Apparently the reporting
requirements vary by state:
http://www.klaaskids.org/pg-legmeg.htm
> > I'm trying to think what could be objectively bad with a
> > sexual encounter between a 14-year-old boy and a
> > 25-year-old woman, assuming both are willing.
> > There are, of course, all the usual risks of sex, but
> > it seems a 25-year-old woman would be more likely
> > to approach sex responsibly than, say, a 14-year-old
> > girl. That is, if a 14-year-old boy is going to
> > have sex with someone, an older woman seems likely
> > to be a safer partner. An adult woman can easily obtain
> > contraceptives, whereas a 14-year-old girl might be less
> > well prepared, both pharmaceutically as well as
> > emotionally.
>
> Sounds like sexism to me.
I think "ageism" would more properly apply to a claim that
25-year-old women are likely to be better prepared for sex
than 14-year-old girls.
> > Are you projecting your own previous mental state
> > as a 14-year-old girl? I don't think sex is as big a deal
> > for adolescent boys (who want it) as it for adolescent
> > girls.
>
> Adolescent girls want it, too.
Not exactly. To a first approximation, men primarily want
sex; whereas women primarily want to be sexy.
Most men would rather look at pictures of naked attractive
women than shop for clothes.
Most women would rather shop for clothes than look at
pictures of naked attractive men.
Men spend billions of dollars to look at attractive women.
Women spend billions of dollars to look more attractive.
Women throw away about five times as many clothes as
men throw away.
There are some men who want to be sexy as much as
women do, just as there are some women who want sex
as much as men do. But those are not the prevailing
attitudes of their genders.
I wonder, if women were given the following choice, what
most of them would choose:
1. To be loved exactly the way you are now; or
2. To be drop-dead gorgeous.
> > In conclusion, the age of consent in Iowa is indeed
> > 16 years of age for anyone; as low as 14 for anyone
> > who is less than 5 years of age apart; and as low
> > as 12 years of age under marriage.
>
> Why would sex not be traumatic for a 12-year-old just because he's
> married?
Who said anything about trauma? These kinds of laws have
probably been on the books since long before psychologists
introduced the term in this context.
Remember, legislators have never needed to justify their
laws on the basis of rigorous science, or pop psychology,
or whatever. It's only a question of getting a majority who
feel like passing a law.
> And why is it okay to be married at 12, but not to have sex
> outside marriage?
The short answer would probably be because the people who
wrote the laws in Iowa interpreted some passages in the Bible
to lead themselves to that conclusion.
But in practice, this nonsense provision of the Iowa law would
almost never apply. Very few people in the U.S.A. get married
at age 12.
> Isn't marriage a somewhat larger step than sex
> alone?
Probably, but in most cases, people treat marriage more
seriously than sex. There aren't many unplanned, spontaneous
marriages. Few people get married on a first date.
It would probably be difficult for a pair of 12-year-olds to elope.
Also, very few people of that age have any desire to marry
yet.
Consider the motivations of the people involved. Most
men (and boys after puberty) feel frequent urges to have
sex with women they find attractive, upon first seeing them.
Thus men and boys aggressively push for sex when they
date women, and sometimes women give in to them. On
rare occasions, sometimes a woman pushes for sex.
But very few men feel similar urges to marry right away.
Not even women, who generally view marriage as the
ultimate purpose of dating, want to get married right away
in most cases. They prefer to date a while first.
There is little need for laws to discourage people from marrying.
> If someone is incompetent to consent to sex at 12, how can he
> possibly be competent to consent to marriage at that age?
There probably isn't any married 12-year-old in Iowa. Thus
the nonsense provision would hardly ever apply. But it is
entertaining to read about.
> This illustrates the _real_ reasons behind age-of-consent laws, and
> they have nothing to do with "protecting children."
The real reasons for many social customs differ from the
stated reasons.
Legal codes have a long tradition. They often reflect points
of view that were more common in the past. In the year
1890, people viewed sex differently than people view it today.
Legislatures do not update their legal codes every year to
keep pace with youth culture trends. Thus a young person
who primarily orients to youth culture might find much in the
law at any given time to be nonsensical.
The ruling class in every human society is mostly over the age
of 40. The world is mostly ruled by people whose reproductive
careers are over, or soon to be.
If every batch of teenagers got to write their own age of consent
laws, the laws would probably differ from what old people write
for them.
-- the Danimal
the Danimal
> > While this case happened and generated all the useless publicity,
> > hundreds of children across the country would have suffered various
> > kinds of physical abuse- beating of children is much more common than
> > sexually abusing them. Why aren't those cases reported?
>
> Because they are so routine as to be un-newsworthy and I share your
> anger at that.
Careful research would be necessary to determine whether
this response disparity is a cultural construct, or genetically
determined.
Reports of child molestation in the Roman Catholic Church do
not seem to have become less disturbing as they have become
more commonly reported. So I don't buy the argument that
people will get used to everything.
Also, big primates have been beating up little primates for
millions of years. This is intrinsic to primate society. Most
parents do not want to sexually abuse their children, but
they do reserve the right to hit them when necessary to get
a point across.
> > Why are people so obsessed with repeatedly discussing one case of
> > consentual sex where no real harm done to anyone, and all it was at the
> > most is irresponsible and unethical, when so many other cases more
> > deserving of attention are ignored?
>
> It's because she is very attractive and this is the stuff of sexual
> fantasy.
It's also because most adult men recall having had to endure
years of unrequited sexual lust for attractive young adult women
they encountered during adolescence.
What man cannot recall having been "hot for teacher" at least
once during his teen years?
The teaching profession is female-dominated; female-dominated
professions often have disproportionate numbers of younger women,
because women tend to scale back their careers after they marry.
Thus in any large school that employs a lot of teachers, there will
probably be a few who are attractive young women, igniting their
testosterone-crazed male students.
> The press is using the titillation factor of "hot" news to
> attract an audience and the case is also very polarizing. It's sordidly
> tabloid. It fascinates the imagination.
> But all of that distracts from the important issues involved.
The important issue being the need to protect children from
unattractive, horny, predatory adults.
-- the Danimal
Mxsmanic
> I think "ageism" would more properly apply to a claim that
> 25-year-old women are likely to be better prepared for sex
> than 14-year-old girls.
If it's not sexism, then why do you speak specifically of girls, and
not of _people_ in general?
> Not exactly. To a first approximation, men primarily want
> sex; whereas women primarily want to be sexy.
No. Adolescent girls _want sex_. Both boys and girls want to be
sexy, too, but mainly because they both want sex.
> Most men would rather look at pictures of naked attractive
> women than shop for clothes.
Most women would rather cuddle than work on a car.
> 1. To be loved exactly the way you are now; or
> 2. To be drop-dead gorgeous.
They'd want both.
> Who said anything about trauma?
The law. If age-of-consent laws protect children, and there are
disparities in age of consent based on a child's marital status, then
what changes in marriage that makes sex non-traumatic (and thus makes
it unnecessary to "protect" children against it)?
> These kinds of laws have
> probably been on the books since long before psychologists
> introduced the term in this context.
Age-of-consent laws are relatively recent, IIRC.
> Probably, but in most cases, people treat marriage more
> seriously than sex. There aren't many unplanned, spontaneous
> marriages.
You've never been to Las Vegas, I presume?
> Few people get married on a first date.
See above.
> Also, very few people of that age have any desire to marry
> yet.
A lot of adolescents have romantic fantasies of marriage.
> Consider the motivations of the people involved. Most
> men (and boys after puberty) feel frequent urges to have
> sex with women they find attractive, upon first seeing them.
Do they?
> Thus men and boys aggressively push for sex when they
> date women, and sometimes women give in to them. On
> rare occasions, sometimes a woman pushes for sex.
Are you sure?
> There probably isn't any married 12-year-old in Iowa. Thus
> the nonsense provision would hardly ever apply. But it is
> entertaining to read about.
You haven't answered my question. If he can be mature enough to
consent to marriage for life, why can't he consent to sex?
Mxsmanic
> What man cannot recall having been "hot for teacher" at least
> once during his teen years?
What female teacher of adolescents cannot recall having been hot for a
student at least once during her career?
And both of these statements remain equally valid when the sexes are
reversed.
> Thus in any large school that employs a lot of teachers, there will
> probably be a few who are attractive young women, igniting their
> testosterone-crazed male students.
In my junior high, they were _all_ attractive young women around 22
years old, because our principle liked attractive young women. They
had no experience (they were freshouts), but they were very pretty,
and only a few years older than their students. It was often
impossible to distinguish them on sight from other students, except
for their different style of dress.
> The important issue being the need to protect children from
> unattractive, horny, predatory adults.
Unattractive was not a problem in this case.
A Human Being
Andre Lieven wrote:
> Mxsmanic (mxsm...@gmail.com) further lies:
> > Andre Lieven writes:
> >
> >> Wrong. See " Legal Consent ".
> >
> > Legal consent is a legal fiction,
>
> <laughs> No proof ever offered ? Insane legally ignorant pedo loon
> claim fails.
>
> Free Clue: Legal " fictions " cannot place on in gaol.
>
> > just as its name implies. It may or
> > may not be congruent with consent in the real world; unfortunately, it
> > often is not.
>
> No proof ever offered ? Etc...
>
> >> Irrelevent. As the child in this case was of an age to do NONE
> >> of those things, *including* have sex with an *adult authority
> >> figure* ...
> >
> > That depends on the jurisdiction.
>
> No proof ever offered ? Etc...
>
> >> Consensual relationships require that BOTH persons be
> >> of the age of consent.
> >
> > No, consensual relationships only require that both persons consent.
>
> No proof ever offered ? Etc...
>
> > There is no "age of consent" except in statutory law.
>
> No proof ever offered ? Etc...
>
> > Statutory law and the real world are not synonymous.
>
> Your empty, fact free pedo loon claims and facts are not synonymous.
>
> HTH.
>
> Andre
Not very long ago teens were settling down to family life, working and
making their own decisions and living their own lives. It still happens
in many countries today except for the so called highly developed
nations. In those societies the number of rebels is far fewer, by and
large the teen population is smarter and more responsible precisely
because they have been _entrusted_ with greater responsibilities. They
are treated as adults and wise decisions are expected of them. They
have much to do, little time to waste. Teen culture is non-existent.
There is a lot more interaction between people of different age groups
as a result of which there is greater understanding among them.
Families and friends matter, their opinions matter, and minor problems
are tackled by the people themselves. They don't run to `the law' or
expect them to step in. They still think for themselves and are more in
control of their own destiny.
One would expect the developed nations to be more advanced in every
way, have a more intelligent population with the capacity to make wiser
choices, better quality of life, more freedom. But I see less freedom
and much less wisdom. In fact so little that they have let the Law
dictate every aspect of their lives. As if they have completely lost
the ability to think for themselves.
I imagine in the not very distant future school children being taught
thus --
-The Law states that you must behave in the following manner......
-The Law states that you must have this kind of a diet....
- The Law states that you must attend the gym 4 times a week . Failure
to do so will result in fines .... The Law cares for your good health .
-The Law states that you must play only these games at only these
times. Not adhering to these guidelines will be an offence and will be
dealt with strictly....
-The Law states that nobody speak to anybody, else it offend them.
Offending others is against the Law.
-The Law will assess your abilities and assign you the jobs/
professions it thinks appropriate when you grow up. The decision will
be final and binding.
You are only a body, incapable of making any sensible decisions. The
Lawmakers are the mind and will do all the thinking for you. Anyone
exercising their own inferior minds will be punished.
A Human Being
Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>And why is it okay to be married at 12, but not to have sex
> outside marriage?
Marriage involves ( or used to) a wiser choice of a partner, since its
a long term commitment.People tend to enter into such relationships
with people they were compatible with and care for and where there is
mutual care and respect abuse is less likely.
> Isn't marriage a somewhat larger step than sex alone?
Yes. The partners often feel more responsible for each others' welfare
and happiness which people engaging in one night stands don't.
> This illustrates the _real_ reasons behind age-of-consent laws, and
> they have nothing to do with "protecting children."
What is the real reason?
yamuna
Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:
[..]
>
> It is not polluting with religious belief of teachers, but the
> reinforcement of that which is simply not true and correct.
> (eg.
> This or that religion - re: Jewish, Christian, Muslim...
Include Buddhism and hinduism, etc. too in your list. Where is the
evidence of reincarnation?
>
the Danimal
> the Danimal writes:
> > I think "ageism" would more properly apply to a claim that
> > 25-year-old women are likely to be better prepared for sex
> > than 14-year-old girls.
>
> If it's not sexism, then why do you speak specifically of girls, and
> not of _people_ in general?
Because the case we are discussing is not about people in general,
but about who might be able to have sex with the 14-year-old boy
we were discussing and avoid legal repercussions. The law punishes
a 25-year-old woman for doing that, but probably wouldn't punish a
14-year-old girl for doing that.
Do you have some sort of short-term memory deficit which
prevents you from following a Usenet discussion? If so, then
you should review the thread history so you understand what
I was commenting on.
In some ways, lacking memory would keep the world always
fresh, new, and exciting. It would be like waking up in a new
city every day.
Here's a tip, which you aren't likely to remember, given your
apparent short-term memory deficits: when replying to a
Usenet article, don't snip the relevant context that you cannot
recall.
> > Not exactly. To a first approximation, men primarily want
> > sex; whereas women primarily want to be sexy.
>
> No. Adolescent girls _want sex_. Both boys and girls want to be
> sexy, too, but mainly because they both want sex.
Most adolescent boys want to have sex with many more
girls/women than they can.
Most adolescent girls want to have sex with far fewer
boys/men than they can.
Most adolescent girls could easily have 500 male sex partners.
Why don't they? Most adolescent girls could even get paid for
it.
Most adolescent boys could not have 500 female sex partners
unless they had a million dollars to spend on hookers.
The *average* girl could get laid like a rock star, if she felt
like it. She doesn't.
A few adolescent boys, such as sports stars or entertainment
stars, have opportunities to have sex with large numbers of
adolescent girls. What do they usually do? Do they take
advantage of their opportunities, or show little interest like
most girls would?
Nothing you can write about adolescent girls is likely to change
what they do. If adolescent girls had the same sexual emotions
that adolescent boys do, most all adolescent girls would be
nymphomaniacs. As it stands, only a small percentage of
adolescent girls are nymphomaniacs.
Don't take my word for it; walk up to an adolescent girl and
ask her which of the following two gifts would get her more
excited:
1. The opportunity to have sex with you.
2. A $10,000 gift certificate to spend at the clothing store of her
choice.
Human emotional brains---both the male and female
versions---are the products of millions of years of natural
selection, so our instinctive emotions are those which proved
the most effective at promoting our survival and reproduction.
Sex was historically necessary for reproduction, so of course
girls must eventually want to have sex. But a woman has
limited opportunities to reproduce, and each one is expensive.
Therefore, the sensible emotional strategy for a woman is to
want to do those things which attract many men to her,
while her own attraction for one of them develops more slowly,
giving her time and the necessary detachment to subconsciously
evaluate each suitor's potential value to her reproductive agenda
(will he stick around? Will he deliver the resources the hungry
babies need?).
Emotional brains are not omniscient, so girls/women make
their share of dumb choices. Just not usually with me.
> > Most men would rather look at pictures of naked attractive
> > women than shop for clothes.
>
> Most women would rather cuddle than work on a car.
Cuddle with what? Are men who like to work on cars
as fussy about what car they work on?
> > 1. To be loved exactly the way you are now; or
> > 2. To be drop-dead gorgeous.
>
> They'd want both.
That depends on who is doing the loving in option #1.
Most women would probably NOT want to be loved by most men,
given the (sexual) way most men prefer to implement their love.
"Exactly the way" a woman is now might severely limit the
set of men willing to love her exactly the way she is now.
In any case, I phrased the question as a choice, specifically
to determine what a woman wants MORE. If a woman is
drop-dead gorgeous, she has the tools to get love. (She might
squander her chances, but that's not the fault of the tools.)
If a woman is loved (by someone), that doesn't make her any
more beautiful.
> > Who said anything about trauma?
>
> The law.
Where? Legal codes are indexed so you can cite any
specific passage.
> If age-of-consent laws protect children, and there are
> disparities in age of consent based on a child's marital status, then
> what changes in marriage that makes sex non-traumatic (and thus makes
> it unnecessary to "protect" children against it)?
If you need the law explained, don't ask me---ask the law.
As far as I can tell, lawmakers seem bettter at passing laws
than explaining them. Obviously, if lawmakers could convince
everyone to agree with them, there wouldn't be a need for police
and prisons.
> > These kinds of laws have
> > probably been on the books since long before psychologists
> > introduced the term in this context.
>
> Age-of-consent laws are relatively recent, IIRC.
Here's a Web page which purports to describe a statutory rape
case from the year 1916:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_4_35/ai_88583554
That's "relatively recent" on, say, a geological time scale, but
probably less recent on the scale of modern psychology.
> > Probably, but in most cases, people treat marriage more
> > seriously than sex. There aren't many unplanned, spontaneous
> > marriages.
>
> You've never been to Las Vegas, I presume?
I've heard of Las Vegas, but I cannot recall anyone I know who
got married there. I would imagine that most people who get
married in Las Vegas planned at least to go to Las Vegas.
They may have even planned to get married there.
How many people do you know who got married in Las Vegas
without really planning to?
Is that more or fewer than the number of people you know who had
sex without really planning to?
As far as I know, it is not a felony to get married. Governments have
not yet seen fit to criminalize some acts of marriage.
> > Few people get married on a first date.
>
> See above.
How many people go to Las Vegas on a first date?
How many native Las Vegans get married on a first date?
> > Also, very few people of that age have any desire to marry
> > yet.
>
> A lot of adolescents have romantic fantasies of marriage.
How easy would it be for you to find yourself an underaged
wife?
> > Consider the motivations of the people involved. Most
> > men (and boys after puberty) feel frequent urges to have
> > sex with women they find attractive, upon first seeing them.
>
> Do they?
It's not even necessary to see them. Just dreaming about them
while sleeping is often enough. "Wet dreams" are a common
occurrence among adolescent boys.
How many adolescent girls have orgasms in their sleep?
A very large fraction of women NEVER have an orgasm.
Women generally have to be taught how to have orgasms.
Men generally figure it out for themselves.
If that doesn't tell you something about who wants it more,
I'm not sure what would.
> > Thus men and boys aggressively push for sex when they
> > date women, and sometimes women give in to them. On
> > rare occasions, sometimes a woman pushes for sex.
>
> Are you sure?
Well, I suppose I could have been hallucinating all my life.
So, no, I'm not ENTIRELY sure. But I am as sure as I
can be about anything.
If women wanted sex just as much as men do, the whole
world would be one endless orgy.
> > There probably isn't any married 12-year-old in Iowa. Thus
> > the nonsense provision would hardly ever apply. But it is
> > entertaining to read about.
>
> You haven't answered my question. If he can be mature enough to
> consent to marriage for life, why can't he consent to sex?
And how about the question of why the age of consent differs
from state to state? Do kids in Iowa grow up at different rates
than kids in Florida?
That's right, I haven't answered your question. What makes
you think I would understand the thinking of Iowa lawmakers?
Legal codes merely prescribe lawful behaviors. They do not
usually include a "because" section. The Iowa lawmakers
don't have to explain why they picked different ages than the
other states, or why they did anything, in fact.
To explain a law would probably weaken it, because then
would-be lawbreakers could attack the explanation to find
loopholes excusing themselves. The mere presence of the
explanation would imply the lawmakers need to justify
their reasoning to you.
As I wrote earlier in this thread, laws attempt to impose uniform
standards on diverse people. Lawmakers do not have infinite
resources to evaluate individual capabilities. Therefore, lawmakers
resort to drawing arbitrary lines. To protect one group of people,
they harm some other group.
Any arbitrary age requirement is stupid on the face of it, because
people mature at different rates. No matter where you draw a line,
it's going to be wrong for some people. But it's cheaper for the
government to draw one line for everyone than to try to evaluate
everyone's individual readiness for some activity.
-- the Danimal
Mxsmanic
> Do you have some sort of short-term memory deficit which
> prevents you from following a Usenet discussion?
I see that you've run out of arguments. I'll skip the rest.
Mxsmanic
> Marriage involves ( or used to) a wiser choice of a partner, since its
> a long term commitment.People tend to enter into such relationships
> with people they were compatible with and care for and where there is
> mutual care and respect abuse is less likely.
So why would a 12-year-old be able to make that important decision,
and yet not be able to consent to sex?
> What is the real reason?
The real reason is that some people are offended by the sexual
morality of others and deliberately pass laws to force the entire
society to conform to their own prudish and warped mindsets.
A Human Being
Mxsmanic wrote:
> catbr...@yahoo.com writes:
>
> > What may be harmless to one may be profoundly harmful to another. The
> > law cannot be written so as to make fine destinctions regarding the
> > speculative outcome.
>
> Then why are there driver's license tests?
>
> > Fantasy is fantasy - this is a matter of a good law, designed to
> > protect children from predatory adults.
>
> Many adults are not predatory. Certainly having sex with someone
> underage doesn't make anyone a predator. Sometimes they are the prey.
Sometimes , not usually.
And why are they the prey when the situation is reversed?
Your Name Here=Harvey
I tend to believe in reincarnation, as there is nothing that comes close
except this, to what is plausible and believable...
Of course I don't believe in coming back as a dog, insect, etc - there is
no sense in that - you may as well say, come back as a rock, mineral,
vegetable or animal, etc etc.
Reincarnation evidence is in memories from past lives, from children
(case of an American boy, who recalled information about the Corsairs
he flew during WWII) as well as from adults.
And it does explain peoples' unexplained gifts, ie. talents.
I can't explain why I did so well in mathematics throughout High School.
When we had our first exams in all subjects, I came first in Mathematics -
surprising everyone, especially myself.
Look at your own life, to see this?
Harvey
Mobile Parakeet Gender Uncertainty Generator
Mxsmanic wrote:
> yamuna writes:
> > If she doesn't have bi-polar and she wants to have sex with underage
> > kids, she has no business being a teacher to these kids.
Agreed.
>
> I'd guess that a significant minority of teachers are at least
> partially motivated to teach teenagers out of sexual interest. There
> may also be a few pedophiles who are motivated to teach prepubescent
> children out of sexual interest, also, although pedophilia is rare
> whereas a sexual interest in people who have passed through puberty is
> not.
>
> Of course, even among these minorities, not all teachers would
> necessarily act upon their interests.
As regards motivation to teach, I don't think you need to look further
than Shaw's "If you can, do. If you can't, teach" as a sufficient
explanation. As a high skool teacher, I can assure you that most of us
do this job because we're just no good at doing anything else, and we
need to earn a living. Or as fotherington-tomas puts it:
"You are qualified becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have o
branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other
choice."
The problem with "sexual interest in teenagers" as a motivation is that
the experience of teaching is enough to cure any but the most
weirdly-wired-up of any such interest within a very short time. Teenage
girls may occasionally look interesting from a distance, but take it
from me, after spending a morning in a non-air-conditioned classroom
with upwards of 15 of 'em (+ 15 of t'other), esp. in a skool where
there is no freshening-up time between classes, the amount of Personal
Space you want to keep between yourself and them rises sharply in the
first two weeks and continues to climb steadily thereafter.
Mxsmanic
> As regards motivation to teach, I don't think you need to look further
> than Shaw's "If you can, do. If you can't, teach" as a sufficient
> explanation. As a high skool teacher, I can assure you that most of us
> do this job because we're just no good at doing anything else, and we
> need to earn a living.
That is true here in France, also.
> The problem with "sexual interest in teenagers" as a motivation is that
> the experience of teaching is enough to cure any but the most
> weirdly-wired-up of any such interest within a very short time. Teenage
> girls may occasionally look interesting from a distance, but take it
> from me, after spending a morning in a non-air-conditioned classroom
> with upwards of 15 of 'em (+ 15 of t'other), esp. in a skool where
> there is no freshening-up time between classes, the amount of Personal
> Space you want to keep between yourself and them rises sharply in the
> first two weeks and continues to climb steadily thereafter.
Many classrooms are air-conditioned.
--