Should a 13-Year-Old and Her 12-Year-Old Partner Really Be Considered Sex Offenders?

[Oglethorpe]

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/10/01/should-a-13-year-old-and-her-12-year-old-partner-really-be-considered-sex-offenders/

Last Tuesday, the Utah Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that should
make us once again reconsider our age-of-consent laws. In 2003, an unnamed
13-year-old girl had “consensual sex” with her then-12-year-old boyfriend.
The state learned of this relationship when she became pregnant, filing
delinquency petitions against both teens for committing sexual abuse of a
child. The young woman, who is now 23, wants the court to overturn the
finding of delinquency. She and her attorney are arguing that she can’t be
both the victim and the perpetrator of the exact same crime. Moreover, they
say that she is not being treated fairly under the law because older teens
are not prosecuted for engaging in sexual activity with someone of a similar
age. The state, however, is not backing down, saying that it has an interest
in protecting children, even if it is from other children.

--

What idiots.

[Frank McCoy]

How about the case of the boy who took pictures of himself
masturbating? He was charged with both "producing child porn" and
"abuse of a child" (to support the "producing CP" case).

[For that last to make sense, you have to remember the Supreme Court
ruling that the justification of outlawing CP so extremely, enough to
completely ignore the First Amendment, is that supposedly producing
such material *MUST* be the result of a real "child" being "abused".]

Say what?

Never did hear the results of THAT case.

As Heinlein pointed out: "Straining at gnats and swallowing camels is
a required course in law-school."

It doesn't HAVE to make sense.

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

[Oglethorpe]

"Frank McCoy" <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
news:tfbl59h2ene7vk2el...@4ax.com...

The constitution means nothng to them. Before they made CP illegal there
were controls. The participanrts were paid. The children's parents knew what
the children were going to be doing. Anyone could back out at any time. No
children were harmed. Today we have no idea what's going on. The authorities
try to tell us CP is a multi billion dollars underground indutry but I've
never seen any proof.

There was the case of James Perry, aka the mall rapist. Perry committed
rapes in shops inside malls. He'd catch a young female clerk in an empty
store and rape her while gholding a knife to her throat. Perry met a guy who
was making CP and uploading it. He appeared in a few CP videos but quit. He
said the children he had sex with were all too willing and compliant. He
went back to mall rapes. He was careful not avoid surveilance cameras in
malls but his face was visible in some of the CP that had been conficated.
Cops matched the face in the videos up with partial face views from mall
surveilnce cameras and arrested him.

The point being Perry could have had sex with willing children who were
being paid to have sex wih him in CP but Perry liked his victims to b crying
and shaking with fear. He fed off their humiliation and fear.

A few years back in a nearby city they busted a guy who was taking nude
pictures of an 8 year old neighbor girl and posting them to the Internet. No
sex involved. When her parents asked her why she let him take naked pictures
of her she said, "He paid me". She was making money. All that mattered to
her.

[Frank McCoy]

"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote:

>The point being Perry could have had sex with willing children who were
>being paid to have sex wih him in CP but Perry liked his victims to b crying
>and shaking with fear. He fed off their humiliation and fear.

Something all too many people forget:
Rape (the REAL thing, not "statutory rape") is based on fear,
humiliation, and mainly power. "I can do THIS to you; and you can't
stop me or even do anything about it!" Also, sexual-abuse is just
about always part of a *pattern* of abuse ... usually of many kinds,
not just physical, but mental and verbal-abuse as well.

Sex itself, unlike what the fundies assert, does-not and should-not
hurt or be abuse; as any so-called "child" who has discovered the joys
of masturbation can tell you.

Of course, to those same religious anti-sex fanatics, such activity is
called "self abuse". Ick. To many such, sex should only be done in
the dark, under covers, with your married partner of the opposite-sex;
and definitely should *NOT* be "for fun" or even enjoyable! The only
excuse being to make babies for said church to raise to be equally as
up-tight and anti-joy.

When you think about what it says about a religion that defines one of
the greatest gifts their god has given Humanity as being abuse ....
"Self-Abuse" What a travesty! Of course, many of those same people
think that ANYTHING that most of us would define as being "fun" is a
"sin" and should be outlawed.

What's the old joke about Baptists not having sex standing up?
Oh yeah: People might think they are dancing!
;-{

[Oglethorpe]

"Frank McCoy" <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message

news:lh7m59d7t13dama5s...@4ax.com...

Not all religious people are anti sex. And not all who are anti sex people
are religious. It's about people control.

We cannot effectively study child - adult sex because it'd be illegal. Same
thing for CP. The only time we hear about either is when something kept
secret is revealled.

The most incorrectly used term is "pedophile". Pedophilia refers to a sexual
attraction to prepubescent human beings. The average age of achieving
puberty has been dropping but a good average number is 12 years old. There
are cases of very young children becoming pregnant but they are rare.
Hebophilia is a sexual attraction to post pubescent human beings, meaning an
average of 12 and over. There was a time - not long agao - when 16 was
considered adult. Many times I have seen men caught having sex with 16 year
olds as being pedophiles. Moreover, a sexual attraction does not mean acting
on that attraction. Young girls first try out their feminine wiles on their
fathers. Getting their fathers "hard" is the goal. They quickly learn that's
the best time to hit dear old dad up for something they want. It's easy to
see why many fathers and daughters take it to all the way. The only time we
hear of it is when it goes wrong or someone finds out.

[Frank McCoy]

"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote:

>Not all religious people are anti sex. And not all who are anti sex people
>are religious. It's about people control.
>

By those in-charge of seeing that the sheeple follow orders.

>We cannot effectively study child - adult sex because it'd be illegal. Same
>thing for CP. The only time we hear about either is when something kept
>secret is revealled.

It's rather like the very biased view a single divorce-lawyer gets
about marriage as an institution. Since pretty much the only (or
perhaps, being generous, just mostly) view (s)he gets of such a thing
is when things go from bad to disastrous, it means a really distorted
view.

In the assumption that ALL young/old sex is inherently bad, evil, and
at the least "molestation", if the ONLY time it ever shows up is in a
criminal prosecution ....

CP, (and yes, "child sex" itself) at least, for a WHILE had very
obvious opposing evidence in the "Child Sex Stars" of Denmark, Sweden,
and The Netherlands before they also got browbeaten and forced by the
Religious Reich here in the USofA to pass similar restrictions
outlawing what OUR country insisted was abuse ... Any evidence to the
contrary being hidden, covered-up, or in some cases even outlawed as
well. (Look at what they did to the Rind Report.)

Now, most people don't even know such evidence even exists or ever
existed, because they just aren't old enough to remember.

To today's "average person", the 50s and 60s are only dimly remembered
as days when Great-Grandpa liked something called "Country Music"
where "Cowboys" on real horses twanged on old-fashioned guitars
(without even a single plugin!) and chased "Indians".

"Child Pornography" didn't even have a NAME back then.
There were several states with "Ages of Consent" as low as 14, and at
least one (I think two) with 12 as the lower-limit. Loretta Lynn
wasn't even young enough to make people notice until she wrote her
biography. Romeo and Juliet were considered fairly normal teenagers
with a bit of extra angst thrown in. Mary, the mother of Jesus,
giving birth at about 12 or 13 was ... well, normal for THOSE times.
Nowadays, of course, people try to rewrite or at least ignore history.

That being why my stories are so reviled.
People don't LIKE being reminded of what they're trying to forget:
"Children", at or even just near puberty are most definitely
INTERESTED in sex! And yes, they go looking for it too.
Most FIND it.
Again, people hate being reminded of what THEY did when they were
young. And, of course, try to "prevent OUR kids from making the same
mistakes WE did."

It never works. Never did. Never will.

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."
- Socrates?

As for "children" having sex?
People should check through their own genealogical records and check
birth-dates of their grandparents and great-grandparents.
It can be amazing sometimes.