Statutory Rape Willow
Brian21Massage
age difference at this stage in their lives. This is just like if Xander went
after Dawn and kissed her and did more down the line. First Dark Willow, now
Statutory Rape Willow. Willow is just going downhill.
Eeyore48
Kennedy is 19, I believe. I don't know what ep that was mentioned in,
but that seems to be what everyone believes - also, Kennedy thinks she
is too old to still be a SIT, so she's definitely older than 15.
Carmikl
Kennedy is supposed to be 19 according to the script. They sort of
customized Kennedy's age fit the situation.
John Briggs
Don't forget the actress is about 24.
John Briggs
EGK
I don't recall Kennedy's age being mentioned at all in the show but it is in
a script. Trouble is, most viewers don't read scripts and I would wager
most people have the image of the SITs as being 14-17 at most so for some
people the age difference may come across as a bit icky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
- (Calvin and Hobbes)
email: egk-n...@hotmail.com
Eeyore48
EGK wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 10:26:59 -0500, Eeyore48 <eeyo...@baerana.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Brian21Massage wrote:
>>
>>>Willow is supposed to be 22 this year and Kennedy is 15. That is too much of an
>>>age difference at this stage in their lives. This is just like if Xander went
>>>after Dawn and kissed her and did more down the line. First Dark Willow, now
>>>Statutory Rape Willow. Willow is just going downhill.
>>
>>Kennedy is 19, I believe. I don't know what ep that was mentioned in,
>>but that seems to be what everyone believes - also, Kennedy thinks she
>>is too old to still be a SIT, so she's definitely older than 15.
>
>
> I don't recall Kennedy's age being mentioned at all in the show but it is in
> a script. Trouble is, most viewers don't read scripts and I would wager
> most people have the image of the SITs as being 14-17 at most so for some
> people the age difference may come across as a bit icky.
That's possible - but Kennedy did specifically mention thinking she was
too old to be an SIT - so it should be obvious to anyone that she is
older than the "normal" SIT.
The Black Sheep
I think you got those ages wrong. In any case, what I find shocking
is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing. I know some US
states have really silly age of consent laws (including stat rape
charges as you mention) but does anyone really think that reflects the
real world at all?
--
Canadians-- Help set our future foreign policy
http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca/
Robert Scott Clark
news:20030204102256...@mb-ba.aol.com:
> Willow is supposed to be 22 this year and Kennedy is 15.
Except she's 19.
> That is too
> much of an age difference at this stage in their lives. This is just
> like if Xander went after Dawn and kissed her and did more down the
> line.
No, I found this sort of forced. I'd be cheering Xander on.
> First Dark Willow, now Statutory Rape Willow. Willow is just
> going downhill.
>
Now, that I'll agree with. I just find it odd that of everything Willow
did and said in the episode you find kissing a cute girl to be the evil
part.
Kathryn
>
> I think you got those ages wrong. In any case, what I find shocking
> is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing. I know some US
> states have really silly age of consent laws (including stat rape
> charges as you mention) but does anyone really think that reflects the
> real world at all?
>
Uh yeah cos a 40 year old getting it on with a 15 year old is a 'healthy'
relationship.
If it were 2 15 year olds then fine...but the stat rape laws are partly
there to protect children from the attention of, for a wont of a better
word, paedophiles, who can quite easily claim that they consented and get
the kids in question to confirm they consented. Id have reservations about
anyone over the age of 20 trying to pursue a relationship with some under
18. The age gap may not be massive but at that age it *does* count.
Saying that, I dont think Kennedy is 15 or anywhere near it. She did point
out she was the oldest SiT and the rest of them are hardly under 15
themselves.
Kathryn
Rose
>From: "The Black Sheep" blacks...@hotmail.com
>Date: 2/4/2003 8:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <b1oquh$14t1na$1...@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>
>
>Brian21Massage <brian21...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Willow is supposed to be 22 this year and Kennedy is 15. That is too
>> much of an age difference at this stage in their lives. This is just
>> like if Xander went after Dawn and kissed her and did more down the
>> line. First Dark Willow, now Statutory Rape Willow. Willow is just
>> going downhill.
>
>
>I think you got those ages wrong. In any case, what I find shocking
>is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing. I know some US
>states have really silly age of consent laws (including stat rape
>charges as you mention) but does anyone really think that reflects the
>real world at all?
22/15? Yes that certainly does and should reflect the real world in the U.S.
22 year olds have no business dating or boinking 9th and 10th graders. Now, in
cultures where girls marry and begin their secure new family lives at 15, that
is a whole other story.
Rose
Genius "Buffy" fan
Robert Scott Clark
news:b1p026$mv2$1...@venus.btinternet.com:
>
>
>>
>> I think you got those ages wrong. In any case, what I find shocking
>> is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing. I know some US
>> states have really silly age of consent laws (including stat rape
>> charges as you mention) but does anyone really think that reflects
>> the real world at all?
>>
>
> Uh yeah cos a 40 year old getting it on with a 15 year old is a
> 'healthy' relationship.
Ehhh.
A 15-year-old capable of making good, intelligent, well-thought-out
decisions in relation to sex is going to be rare, but then again, so is a
40-year-old.
>
>
ai...@rmta.org
> Brian21Massage <brian21...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Willow is supposed to be 22 this year and Kennedy is 15. That is too
>> much of an age difference at this stage in their lives.
> I think you got those ages wrong. In any case, what I find shocking
> is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing.
i did go out on one date with a 20yo at 15. one. the fact that he was
basically just drooling over my youth was a real turn-off. he didn't even
get a kiss, much less a second date. i know very few people who dated
someone that much older than them as adolescents, and all of them had
similar problems. a 22yo who considers a 15yo to be an appropriate
dating/sex partner likely has maturity issues, if nothing else. that's
really a huge gap for those age groups.
that said, as others have pointed out, kennedy is supposed to be 19, which
is reasonable.
Aimee the Magdalene
# new around here? get the newbie pack #
# before i have to tell you to fuck off #
# send mail to new...@rmta.org #
# all will be revealed #
Don Sample
<eeyo...@baerana.com> wrote:
It hasn't been mentioned yet, but the description of Kennedy in the
_Bring on the Night_ script says 19. (Of course that same script says
14-15 for Molly, and she was one of the girls fighting over who'd
drive.)
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Wally Rosenberg
She could just teleport to a country where the age of consent is lower.
Pelican
> is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing. I know some US
> states have really silly age of consent laws (including stat rape
> charges as you mention) but does anyone really think that reflects the
> real world at all?
What in the hell?
No, 7 years is not terribly amazing. I personally have few problems with 10
or 15 year age gaps, either, so long as you're talking about adults. But
sorry, a 22 year old _is_ an adult and a 15-year-old is not _nearly_ an
adult, emotionally or physically.
Robert Scott Clark
news:pOU%9.110358$Vh.1...@news2.central.cox.net:
"Emotionally" is a value judgement, but "physically" 15 has been a
mariagable and reproductive age for centuries, and the age of the onset
of puberty is going down, not up. Hell, there are probably plenty of 12
year olds out there who are physically ready.
Pelican
> mariagable and reproductive age for centuries
Yes, generally because procreation was - for centuries - the foundation of
family and community, and you had to take advantage of it while you could.
The onset of puberty does not herald a physically 'mature' person, and in
the vast majority of cases an emotionally mature person, whether it be their
capacity to handle their emotions and make rational judgements, or simply
their capacity not to be such easily pliable victims of manipulation or poor
treatment. If you're going to simply base things on puberty onset, I expect
you'll be prepared to toss out child porn as well since a large segment of
it focuses not young teenage girls.
Robert Scott Clark
news:ABX%9.111537$Vh.9...@news2.central.cox.net:
>> "Emotionally" is a value judgement, but "physically" 15 has been a
>> mariagable and reproductive age for centuries
>
> Yes, generally because procreation was - for centuries - the
> foundation of family and community, and you had to take advantage of
> it while you could. The onset of puberty does not herald a physically
> 'mature' person,
Actually it does.
That's what puberty is, the beginning of physical maturation.
> and in the vast majority of cases an emotionally
> mature person, whether it be their capacity to handle their emotions
> and make rational judgements, or simply their capacity not to be such
> easily pliable victims of manipulation or poor treatment. If you're
> going to simply base things on puberty onset, I expect you'll be
> prepared to toss out child porn as well since a large segment of it
> focuses not young teenage girls.
But that's an issue of emotional and intellectual maturity, which is
based on experience, not hormones. Physical maturity happens when the
body says so, and that time happens to be called puberty.
>
>
>
Rose
>Date: 2/4/2003 2:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ABX%9.111537$Vh.9...@news2.central.cox.net>
>
>> "Emotionally" is a value judgement, but "physically" 15 has been a
>> mariagable and reproductive age for centuries
>
>Yes, generally because procreation was - for centuries - the foundation of
>family and community, and you had to take advantage of it while you could.
>The onset of puberty does not herald a physically 'mature' person, and in
>the vast majority of cases an emotionally mature person, whether it be their
>capacity to handle their emotions and make rational judgements, or simply
>their capacity not to be such easily pliable victims of manipulation or poor
>treatment.
What's more, having kids is kinda hard on the bodies of girls under 16. Being
"fertile" is not the same thing as being "adult."
And it ain't just humans. I have read that it's unsafe for fillies to have
foals at too young an age even though they can get pregnant at that age.
Rose
Genius "Buffy" fan
Rose
>Date: 2/4/2003 3:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns9318BBC9863C6cl...@65.82.44.9>
Puberty takes years from the time of onset to be completed. A girl can be
"fertile" long before she is fully developed into a physical adult woman.
Rose
Genius "Buffy" fan
Eeyore48
Absolutely. Both animals and people frequently die in child birth or
due to pregnancy related compilations if they get pregnant too early.
JustMe
"Eeyore48" <eeyo...@baerana.com> wrote in message
news:3E404FD1...@baerana.com...
I think this line of discussion is moot as relates to the Willow/Kennedy
relationship, since Kennedy has stated "on the show" that she believes she
is too old to be called thus older then the 15/16 that is the accepted age a
slayer is called.
Also the character is 19 according to many sources about the show.
So a 22 yr old and a 19 yr old appear to be getting involved. no biggy, no
statutory laws apply.
And since when is a kiss defined as Rape?
At most a kiss between an underage and an "of age" person would be
considered improper conduct, far from rape.
Mathew R. Ignash
Where did you get the idea Kennedy is 15? They mention on the show that Kennedy
is the oldest of the SITs, and the shooting script desribes her as being 19!
Chloe, the youngest is 15, the rest are 16 to 18.
--
Mathew
Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/
Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/
Robert Scott Clark
news:20030204183322...@mb-fi.aol.com:
#1. Note the use of the word "herald" in the message I responded to. I
didn't say puberty completed physical maturation. All I said was that
15-year-olds were physically ready for sex before, and that they start
the process of maturing earlier, so unless we postulate that it now takes
longer to finish the process, the only conclusion is that 15 is
physically mature still. (note, all of that applies only to physical
maturation, not emotional or intellectual)
#2. "Fully developed" is not required for being physically ready for
sex. Many 21 year old females are barely "fully developed".
#3. And my main point. Why does physical maturation matter much at all?
A 12-year-old who is almost fully physically matured is probably not
ready for sex, while a 20 year old who is still less physically mature
than that 12-year-old might very well be.
>
>
>
> Rose
> Genius "Buffy" fan
>
Smaug69
<rowan_hawthorn_at_hotmail_dot_com> mumbled incoherently:
>
>"Brian21Massage" <brian21...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030204102256...@mb-ba.aol.com...
>OK, where was it stated that Kennedy is 15? I don't think her age has ever
>been mentioned on the show, but character descriptions being passed around
>say she's 19, and the oldest of the SiTs.
Kennedy has also stated that she thought she was too old to be a
Slayer.
--
I know no one can do me no harm because Joy is a hot revolver,
and he is afraid of the monkeys who are in possession of the
digital skeletons of swiss cheese.
Ben Varkentine
>is the oldest of the SITs, and the shooting script desribes her as being 19!
Shooting script, shmooting script. Within the show, has anyone mentioned the
SiT's being anything but a bunch of 15 yr olds?
Ben Varkentine
"Thanks for being a smart-arse"-- Keith Gow
Read my film, music and book reviews at
http://ink19.com/ (new) & http://popmatters.com/ (archival)
Don Sample
Varkentine <benva...@aol.com> wrote:
> >They mention on the show that Kennedy
> >is the oldest of the SITs, and the shooting script desribes her as being 19!
>
> Shooting script, shmooting script. Within the show, has anyone mentioned the
> SiT's being anything but a bunch of 15 yr olds?
>
>
> Ben Varkentine
They haven't been mentioned specificly, but Kennedy said that she
thinks she may be too old to be called, and Rona and Molly are old
enough to have driver's licenses.
Tom Breton
(Spoilers for TKIM)
> I think this line of discussion is moot as relates to the Willow/Kennedy
> relationship, since Kennedy has stated "on the show" that she believes she
> is too old to be called thus older then the 15/16 that is the accepted age a
> slayer is called.
> Also the character is 19 according to many sources about the show.
> So a 22 yr old and a 19 yr old appear to be getting involved. no biggy, no
> statutory laws apply.
> And since when is a kiss defined as Rape?
Since DT, actually, according to discussion here at the time.
> At most a kiss between an underage and an "of age" person would be
> considered improper conduct, far from rape.
>
>
--
Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom
EGK
>In article <20030205005604...@mb-cp.aol.com>, Ben
>Varkentine <benva...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >They mention on the show that Kennedy
>> >is the oldest of the SITs, and the shooting script desribes her as being 19!
>>
>> Shooting script, shmooting script. Within the show, has anyone mentioned the
>> SiT's being anything but a bunch of 15 yr olds?
>>
>>
>> Ben Varkentine
>
>They haven't been mentioned specificly, but Kennedy said that she
>thinks she may be too old to be called, and Rona and Molly are old
>enough to have driver's licenses.
How do you know that? Just because they argued about who got to drive?
Lots of kids know how to drive before they ever have a license.
Don Sample
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 01:06:38 -0500, Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <20030205005604...@mb-cp.aol.com>, Ben
> >Varkentine <benva...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >They mention on the show that Kennedy
> >> >is the oldest of the SITs, and the shooting script desribes her as being
> >> >19!
> >>
> >> Shooting script, shmooting script. Within the show, has anyone mentioned
> >> the
> >> SiT's being anything but a bunch of 15 yr olds?
> >>
> >>
> >> Ben Varkentine
> >
> >They haven't been mentioned specificly, but Kennedy said that she
> >thinks she may be too old to be called, and Rona and Molly are old
> >enough to have driver's licenses.
>
> How do you know that? Just because they argued about who got to drive?
> Lots of kids know how to drive before they ever have a license.
They were arguing over who was going to drive because Giles didn't have
a valid license. I think that if he was willing to let an underaged
unlicensed driver do the driving, he'd be willing to take the chance,
and just drive himself. (What are the odds of getting pulled over
anyway, especially if he doesn't speed.)
EGK
It still doesn't mean they were old enough to have licenses. They could
have just been using that as an opportunity to get to drive. Most all kids
want to drive.
I love using your debate techniques against you. <grin>
I can't help it. When you start making up rationales for things on the show
I always think of that old line, "If ifs and buts were candies and nuts,
everyone would have a merry Christmas"
David Marc Nieporent
>> Willow is supposed to be 22 this year and Kennedy is 15. That is too
>> much of an age difference at this stage in their lives. This is just
>> like if Xander went after Dawn and kissed her and did more down the
>> line. First Dark Willow, now Statutory Rape Willow. Willow is just
>> going downhill.
>I think you got those ages wrong. In any case, what I find shocking
>is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing. I know some US
>states have really silly age of consent laws (including stat rape
>charges as you mention) but does anyone really think that reflects the
>real world at all?
Uh, yes. What world are _you_ living in? A college senior dating a high
school freshman/sophomore isn't strange to you? I assure you that the
latter's parents would find it a little bit... criminal.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Hunter
brian21...@aol.com says...
> Willow is supposed to be 22 this year and Kennedy is 15. That is too much of an
> age difference at this stage in their lives. This is just like if Xander went
> after Dawn and kissed her and did more down the line. First Dark Willow, now
> Statutory Rape Willow. Willow is just going downhill.
>
Assuming this isn't a troll....
what is the f*cking matter with people and there statutory rape hang
ups? She didn't even have sex with Kennedy. I am fast coming to the
realization that people who doth protest too much about statutory rape
is harboring thoughts about it themselves and projecting it on others.
Sheesh!
BTW, Kennedy is about 19 fool.
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Hunter
john.b...@ntlworld.com says...
> Carmikl wrote:
> > Brian21Massage wrote:
> >>
> >> Willow is supposed to be 22 this year and Kennedy is 15. That is too
> >> much of an age difference at this stage in their lives. This is just
> >> like if Xander went after Dawn and kissed her and did more down the
> >> line. First Dark Willow, now Statutory Rape Willow. Willow is just
> >> going downhill.
> >
> > customized Kennedy's age fit the situation.
>
> Don't forget the actress is about 24.
>
> John Briggs
>
---
That is irrelevent. We are talking about 21 year old Willow and 19
year old Kennedy.
Rose
>
>#3. And my main point. Why does >physical maturation matter much at all?
The body's ability to deal with pregnancy and giving birth, for one thing. Or
ability to deal with being on the Pill, if giving birth isn't the lady's bag.
At any rate, most women have not reached full adult growth by age 15. Some
have. Most haven't.
Rose
Genius "Buffy" fan
Hunter
blacks...@hotmail.com says...
> Brian21Massage <brian21...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Willow is supposed to be 22 this year and Kennedy is 15. That is too
> > much of an age difference at this stage in their lives. This is just
> > like if Xander went after Dawn and kissed her and did more down the
> > line. First Dark Willow, now Statutory Rape Willow. Willow is just
> > going downhill.
>
>
> is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing. I know some US
> states have really silly age of consent laws (including stat rape
> charges as you mention) but does anyone really think that reflects the
> real world at all?
>
>
> Canadians-- Help set our future foreign policy
> http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca/
>
>
>
---
A 22 year old having sexual relations with a 15 year old is wrong and
against the law in all of the states of the United States (although,
confusingly, if the two are married they get a pass). What I am
looking for is proportion. 22 with a 15 year old is wrong, but is it
the same as a 22 year old with a 10 year old? Hell no! But that is how
people are acting. Christ, over at alt.tv.angel some have actually
said that because they cannot see 18 year old Conner other than a five
month old baby Cordy is a baby raper! I think that says a lot about
them than of Cordy.
Rose
>Date: 2/5/2003 12:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <MPG.18aa92145...@news.earthlink.net>
>
>In article <20030204102256...@mb-ba.aol.com>,
>brian21...@aol.com says...
>> Willow is supposed to be 22 this year and Kennedy is 15. That is too much
>of an
>> age difference at this stage in their lives. This is just like if Xander
>went
>> after Dawn and kissed her and did more down the line. First Dark Willow,
>now
>> Statutory Rape Willow. Willow is just going downhill.
>>
>-----
>Assuming this isn't a troll....
>
>what is the f*cking matter with people and there statutory rape hang
>ups?
I don't know. I suppose the original poster thinks Willow and Kennedy will
have sex.
My posts have been inspired by the person who implied that it's perfectly
normal for 22 year olds to get funky with 15 year olds.
Rose
Genius "Buffy" fan
Hunter
kathryn...@btinternet.com says...
>
>
> >
> > I think you got those ages wrong. In any case, what I find shocking
> > is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing. I know some US
> > states have really silly age of consent laws (including stat rape
> > charges as you mention) but does anyone really think that reflects the
> > real world at all?
> >
>
> relationship.
>
> If it were 2 15 year olds then fine...but the stat rape laws are partly
> there to protect children from the attention of, for a wont of a better
> word, paedophiles, who can quite easily claim that they consented and get
> the kids in question to confirm they consented. Id have reservations about
> anyone over the age of 20 trying to pursue a relationship with some under
> 18. The age gap may not be massive but at that age it *does* count.
>
> Saying that, I dont think Kennedy is 15 or anywhere near it. She did point
> out she was the oldest SiT and the rest of them are hardly under 15
> themselves.
>
> Kathryn
>
>
>
----
Now this is a rational response, albeit strickly speaking pedeophiles
only go after pre-teens. True child molesters and pedophiles would not
be interested in Kennedy or the othe SiTs or Dawn, much to womanly.
Hunter
cla...@mindspring.com says...
> "Kathryn" <kathryn...@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:b1p026$mv2$1...@venus.btinternet.com:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I think you got those ages wrong. In any case, what I find shocking
> >> is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing. I know some US
> >> states have really silly age of consent laws (including stat rape
> >> charges as you mention) but does anyone really think that reflects
> >> the real world at all?
> >>
> >
> > Uh yeah cos a 40 year old getting it on with a 15 year old is a
> > 'healthy' relationship.
>
>
> A 15-year-old capable of making good, intelligent, well-thought-out
> decisions in relation to sex is going to be rare, but then again, so is a
> 40-year-old.
>
----
I am sure there is the rare mature for her years fifteen year old that
can make decisions of this magnitude for her/himself but these laws
are for the overwhelming majority that cannot. Sure there are a lot of
40 year olds that can't handle a mature relationship but most can.
Also, if society gave it the ok for 40 year olds to date 15 year olds
a lot of 40 year old women will find themselves alone. Nature has set
it up for males to be attracted to young nubile girls (remember, we
are not supposed to live this long. By the time we are 30, some
disease or a saber tooth tiger should had done us in). It is to
protect them too that we have these laws.
If the average teenager were like the 16 year old Lana and Chloe on
"Smallville" then it would be different, both girls seem to be more
mature than the average real life 50 year old but that is TV, reality
is different. I'm about to turn 40 myself and I for the life of me
find it annoying to be around a bunch of giggly teenagers. Hell, it
was annoying when I was a teenager. I find Dawn very attractive, but
if she acted like the real life teenagers I see almost every day, I
would be driven mad.
Hunter
dsa...@synapse.net says...
> In article <3E3FDBC3...@baerana.com>, Eeyore48
> <eeyo...@baerana.com> wrote:
>
> > Brian21Massage wrote:
> > > Willow is supposed to be 22 this year and Kennedy is 15. That is too much
> > > of an
> > > age difference at this stage in their lives. This is just like if Xander
> > > went
> > > after Dawn and kissed her and did more down the line. First Dark Willow, now
> > > Statutory Rape Willow. Willow is just going downhill.
> >
> > but that seems to be what everyone believes - also, Kennedy thinks she
> > is too old to still be a SIT, so she's definitely older than 15.
>
> It hasn't been mentioned yet, but the description of Kennedy in the
> _Bring on the Night_ script says 19. (Of course that same script says
> 14-15 for Molly, and she was one of the girls fighting over who'd
> drive.)
>
>
---
When are you eligable for a driver's license in California? I'm 39 and
I think it is 16 here in New York, but since I never learned how to
drive I don't know.
Hunter
wallyro...@hotmail.com says...
> brian21...@aol.com (Brian21Massage) wrote in message news:<20030204102256...@mb-ba.aol.com>...
> > Willow is supposed to be 22 this year and Kennedy is 15. That is too much of an
> > age difference at this stage in their lives. This is just like if Xander went
> > after Dawn and kissed her and did more down the line. First Dark Willow, now
> > Statutory Rape Willow. Willow is just going downhill.
>
>
---
I think she would be breaking Federal law if she did that.
Hunter
cla...@mindspring.com says...
> "Pelican" <pelic...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:pOU%9.110358$Vh.1...@news2.central.cox.net:
> >> I think you got those ages wrong. In any case, what I find shocking
> >> is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing. I know some US
> >> states have really silly age of consent laws (including stat rape
> >> charges as you mention) but does anyone really think that reflects
> >> the real world at all?
> >
> >
> > No, 7 years is not terribly amazing. I personally have few problems
> > with 10 or 15 year age gaps, either, so long as you're talking about
> > adults. But sorry, a 22 year old _is_ an adult and a 15-year-old is
> > not _nearly_ an adult, emotionally or physically.
> >
> >
> >
>
> "Emotionally" is a value judgement, but "physically" 15 has been a
> of puberty is going down, not up. Hell, there are probably plenty of 12
> year olds out there who are physically ready.
>
>
---
Physically, but not emotionally or psycologiclly.
Hunter
m...@privacy.net says...
I don't think Giles wants to be pulled over by the CHiP and none of
the girls having licenses.
Hunter
dsa...@synapse.net says...
Oh, about the same as having a third undetected Slayer floating around
somewhere.... ;-D
Hunter
m...@privacy.net says...
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 01:28:57 -0500, Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <11b14vkuksaveie0k...@4ax.com>, EGK
> ><m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 01:06:38 -0500, Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
>
> >> >They haven't been mentioned specificly, but Kennedy said that she
> >> >thinks she may be too old to be called, and Rona and Molly are old
> >> >enough to have driver's licenses.
> >>
> >> How do you know that? Just because they argued about who got to drive?
> >> Lots of kids know how to drive before they ever have a license.
> >
> >They were arguing over who was going to drive because Giles didn't have
> >a valid license. I think that if he was willing to let an underaged
> >unlicensed driver do the driving, he'd be willing to take the chance,
> >and just drive himself. (What are the odds of getting pulled over
> >anyway, especially if he doesn't speed.)
>
> It still doesn't mean they were old enough to have licenses. They could
> have just been using that as an opportunity to get to drive. Most all kids
> want to drive.
> I love using your debate techniques against you. <grin>
>
> I can't help it. When you start making up rationales for things on the show
> I always think of that old line, "If ifs and buts were candies and nuts,
> everyone would have a merry Christmas"
>
>
> ---
> didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
> - (Calvin and Hobbes)
>
> email: egk-n...@hotmail.com
>
Giles is a level headed adult. Don's "rationalizations" are highly
logical. I would think much less of Giles if he let a unlicense girl
drive when if he did drive and got pulled over he could say "Sorry
officer, I was away in England and forgot to renew my license" It
would be on him. On the other hand if he got pulled over with an
unlicense girl at the wheel, she would get in trouble and the Highway
Patrol would not take a liking to him and start to ask a lot of
arkward questions. And if he were to lie and put it on the girl and
say she lied to me about having a license what would we think about
him then?
No, I think the chances of the girls having valid licenses are very
very high.
Hunter
says...
By people who have no idea how devestating "true" rape is. If they
did, they would not unknowingly trivialize it so.
Who Cares
that Kennedy was only 15? I don't remember her age specifically being
pointed out.
Derick McKnight
<@> ¿ <@>
\________/
Smile, God loves you
Robert Scott Clark
news:MPG.18aa9942c...@news.earthlink.net:
> In article <Xns93188A4168095cl...@65.82.44.9>,
> cla...@mindspring.com says...
>> "Kathryn" <kathryn...@btinternet.com> wrote in
>> news:b1p026$mv2$1...@venus.btinternet.com:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I think you got those ages wrong. In any case, what I find
>> >> shocking is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing. I
>> >> know some US states have really silly age of consent laws
>> >> (including stat rape charges as you mention) but does anyone
>> >> really think that reflects the real world at all?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Uh yeah cos a 40 year old getting it on with a 15 year old is a
>> > 'healthy' relationship.
>>
>> Ehhh.
>>
>> A 15-year-old capable of making good, intelligent, well-thought-out
>> decisions in relation to sex is going to be rare, but then again, so
>> is a 40-year-old.
>>
> ----
> I am sure there is the rare mature for her years fifteen year old that
> can make decisions of this magnitude for her/himself but these laws
> are for the overwhelming majority that cannot. Sure there are a lot of
> 40 year olds that can't handle a mature relationship but most can.
You have a higher opinion of people than I do. In my experience, the
majority of people of any age are not competent to cross the street
alone.
It's hard to nit-pick about 2-3 years when the majority of people are a
hairline from drooling on themselves.
> Also, if society gave it the ok for 40 year olds to date 15 year olds
> a lot of 40 year old women will find themselves alone.
So?
I must have missed the day where we learned that people have a right to
have a relationship. Or even the right to have people attracted to them.
> Nature has set
> it up for males to be attracted to young nubile girls (remember, we
> are not supposed to live this long. By the time we are 30, some
> disease or a saber tooth tiger should had done us in). It is to
> protect them too that we have these laws.
>
> If the average teenager were like the 16 year old Lana and Chloe on
> "Smallville" then it would be different, both girls seem to be more
> mature than the average real life 50 year old but that is TV, reality
> is different. I'm about to turn 40 myself and I for the life of me
> find it annoying to be around a bunch of giggly teenagers.
I find it no more annoying than to be around a bunch of crusty old farts
whose brains have been calcified for a couple of decades.
Too many of the aged confuse "making an informed, intelligent decision"
with "doing what I would do."
Robert Scott Clark
news:20030205032100...@mb-cl.aol.com:
Men finish maturing by 18 usually, while for women it's 21, but you know,
for the life of me, I wouldn't feel very confident trying to tell a 20-
year-old what she could do with her own body - even if it were for her
own good - that's not something I get to decide.
I repeat, why would "full adult growth" be required?
>
>
> Rose
> Genius "Buffy" fan
>
Robert Scott Clark
news:MPG.18aa9b3dc...@news.earthlink.net:
> In article <Xns9318AF1526AC3cl...@65.82.44.10>,
> cla...@mindspring.com says...
>> "Pelican" <pelic...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:pOU%9.110358$Vh.1...@news2.central.cox.net:
>>
>> >> I think you got those ages wrong. In any case, what I find
>> >> shocking is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing. I
>> >> know some US states have really silly age of consent laws
>> >> (including stat rape charges as you mention) but does anyone
>> >> really think that reflects the real world at all?
>> >
>> > What in the hell?
>> >
>> > No, 7 years is not terribly amazing. I personally have few
>> > problems with 10 or 15 year age gaps, either, so long as you're
>> > talking about adults. But sorry, a 22 year old _is_ an adult and a
>> > 15-year-old is not _nearly_ an adult, emotionally or physically.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> "Emotionally" is a value judgement, but "physically" 15 has been a
>> mariagable and reproductive age for centuries, and the age of the
>> onset of puberty is going down, not up. Hell, there are probably
>> plenty of 12 year olds out there who are physically ready.
>>
>>
> ---
> Physically, but not emotionally or psycologiclly.
Never claimed otherwise.
The person I responded to said "a 15-year-old is not _nearly_ an adult,
emotionally or physically." Well, from basic logic, not(A or B) = notA
and notB. I disagreed with notB; thereby, disagreeing with the composite
statement.
Had the original statement been "a 15-year-old is not _nearly_ an adult
emotionally," I would not have made the argument I made.
When people have a reasonable point, they should refrain from adding
words that nullify that point by making their statements false.
Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineeer
<cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>fyl...@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in
>news:20030205032100...@mb-cl.aol.com:
>
>> RS wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>#3. And my main point. Why does >physical maturation matter much at
>>>all?
>>
>> The body's ability to deal with pregnancy and giving birth, for one
>> thing. Or ability to deal with being on the Pill, if giving birth
>> isn't the lady's bag.
>>
>> At any rate, most women have not reached full adult growth by age 15.
>> Some have. Most haven't.
>
>Men finish maturing by 18 usually,
My wife would disagree vehemently with you on this one.
Robert Scott Clark
>>
>>Men finish maturing by 18 usually,
>
> My wife would disagree vehemently with you on this one.
Physically. That's what is being discussecd here, so I did not feel the
need to continue repeating that part.
And if she disagrees with that, she's wrong.
BTR1701
buffh...@my-deja.com (Hunter) wrote:
> In article <a6dd0bff.03020...@posting.google.com>,
> wallyro...@hotmail.com says...
> > brian21...@aol.com (Brian21Massage) wrote in message
> > news:<20030204102256...@mb-ba.aol.com>...
> > > Willow is supposed to be 22 this year and Kennedy is 15. That is too
> > > much of an age difference at this stage in their lives. This is just like if
> > > Xander went after Dawn and kissed her and did more down the line. First Dark
> > > Willow, now Statutory Rape Willow. Willow is just going downhill.
> >
> > She could just teleport to a country where the age of consent is lower.
> >
> ---
> I think she would be breaking Federal law if she did that.
How so?
BTR1701
buffh...@my-deja.com (Hunter) wrote:
> In article <Xns93188A4168095cl...@65.82.44.9>,
> cla...@mindspring.com says...
> > "Kathryn" <kathryn...@btinternet.com> wrote in
> > news:b1p026$mv2$1...@venus.btinternet.com:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> I think you got those ages wrong. In any case, what I find shocking
> > >> is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing. I know some
> > >> US states have really silly age of consent laws (including stat rape
> > >> charges as you mention) but does anyone really think that reflects
> > >> the real world at all?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Uh yeah cos a 40 year old getting it on with a 15 year old is a
> > > 'healthy' relationship.
> >
> > Ehhh.
> >
> > A 15-year-old capable of making good, intelligent, well-thought-out
> > decisions in relation to sex is going to be rare, but then again, so is
> > a
> > 40-year-old.
> >
> ----
> I am sure there is the rare mature for her years fifteen year old that
> can make decisions of this magnitude for her/himself but these laws
> are for the overwhelming majority that cannot. Sure there are a lot of
> 40 year olds that can't handle a mature relationship but most can.
> Also, if society gave it the ok for 40 year olds to date 15 year olds
> a lot of 40 year old women will find themselves alone.
That's hardly a rationale for making it illegal. Because one group would
find themselves lonely doesn't justify making it a crime.
BTR1701
buffh...@my-deja.com (Hunter) wrote:
> In article <b1oquh$14t1na$1...@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>,
> blacks...@hotmail.com says...
> > Brian21Massage <brian21...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Willow is supposed to be 22 this year and Kennedy is 15. That is too
> > > much of an age difference at this stage in their lives. This is just
> > > like if Xander went after Dawn and kissed her and did more down the
> > > line. First Dark Willow, now Statutory Rape Willow. Willow is just
> > > going downhill.
> >
> >
> > I think you got those ages wrong. In any case, what I find shocking
> > is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing. I know some US
> > states have really silly age of consent laws (including stat rape
> > charges as you mention) but does anyone really think that reflects the
> > real world at all?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Canadians-- Help set our future foreign policy
> > http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca/
> >
> >
> >
> ---
> A 22 year old having sexual relations with a 15 year old is wrong and
> against the law in all of the states of the United States (although,
> confusingly, if the two are married they get a pass).
And in the end, it's irrelevant because Kennedy is older than 15.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In article <a6dd0bff.03020...@posting.google.com>,
> wallyro...@hotmail.com says...
> > brian21...@aol.com (Brian21Massage) wrote
> > > Willow is supposed to be 22 this year and Kennedy is 15. That is
> > > too much of an age difference at this stage in their lives. This
> > > is just like if Xander went after Dawn and kissed her and did
> > > more down the line. First Dark Willow, now Statutory Rape
> > > Willow. Willow is just going downhill.
> >
> > She could just teleport to a country where the age of consent is
> > lower.
>
> I think she would be breaking Federal law if she did that.
I think you're right, but only if Kennedy is, in fact, under 16 (and
Willow is at least four years older). The relevant statutes would
appear to be 117 USC sec. 2423, "Transportation of minors":
18 USC ch. 117 sec. 2423 "Transportation of minors"
(b) Travel With Intent To Engage in Sexual Act With a Juvenile. -
A person who travels in interstate commerce, or conspires to do
so, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent
residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, or
conspires to do so, for the purpose of engaging in any sexual act
(as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age
that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act
occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of
the United States shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not
more than 15 years, or both.
18 USC ch. 109a, sec. 2243 "Sexual abuse of a minor or ward"
(a) Of a Minor. -
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of
the United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in a
sexual act with another person who -
(1) has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age
of 16 years; and
(2) is at least four years younger than the person so engaging;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned
not more than 15 years, or both.
18 USC ch. 109A sec. 2246 "Definitions for chapter
(2) the term ''sexual act'' means -
(A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the
anus, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving
the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight;
(B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the
vulva, or the mouth and the anus;
(C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital
opening of another by a hand or finger or by any object, with
an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or
gratify the sexual desire of any person; or
(D) the intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the
genitalia of another person who has not attained the age of 16
years with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or
arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |To find the end of Middle English,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you discover the exact date and
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |time the Great Vowel Shift took
|place (the morning of May 5, 1450,
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |at some time between neenuh fiftehn
(650)857-7572 |and nahyn twenty-fahyv).
| Kevin Wald
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Rose
>> ---
>> I think she would be breaking Federal law if she did that.
>
>
>How so?
>
>
You're not supposed to take a minor across state lines for the purpose of sex.
Going into another country would entail crossing a state line.
Rose
Genius "Buffy" fan
Robert Scott Clark
news:BTR1702-EAADEB...@nntp.ix.netcom.com:
To further clarify here...
That's not to say there might bot be other reasons for doing so, only
that this particular reason is poor.
Robert Scott Clark
news:20030205153618...@mb-cu.aol.com:
I think you would have to lood closely at the word "crossing" here.
Also, the only federal law I know of on the subject makes it illegal to
leave the country for the purpose of paying someone under 18 for sex
(even if both prostitution is legal at the destination and the other
person is over the age of consent at the destination - kind of a silly
law really, kind of overstepping jurisdictions) For crossing state lines
with minors, I would think it would have to be state law, not federal.
>
>
> Rose
> Genius "Buffy" fan
>
DEATH AND BLACK METAL
wrote:
>Willow is supposed to be 22 this year and Kennedy is 15. That is too much of an
>age difference at this stage in their lives. This is just like if Xander went
>after Dawn and kissed her and did more down the line. First Dark Willow, now
>Statutory Rape Willow. Willow is just going downhill.
ANAL WILLOW
-I-
The heresies of Spinoza Ray Prozak:
1. This community is not your (social) scene.
2. Evolution is more real than morality.
3. Money really is just a means to an end.
4. Your soul does exist, but you do not.
5. Opeth, Cannibal Corpse, and Six Feet Under suck.
6. You are not important.
Politics & Society
http://www.necrocapitalist.org/
Ambient, noise, electronica reviews
http://www.anus.com/music/
Underground Metal Community
http://www.hessian.org/
Americans Against the American Way of Life
http://www.corrupt.org/
Hail/Fuck This "Scene"
http://www.ripsawonline.com/hagglegash/man_prozak.htm
Burn a Church Today
http://www.churcharson.com/
-I-
BLAKK METAL IS NOT FOR MALL KIDZ
John Briggs
> "Robert Scott Clark" <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9319A9E03A88Ccl...@65.82.44.187...
> with a minor for immoral purposes.
>
> http://www.law.du.edu/sterling/Content/ALH/mann.pdf
Well, the Mann Act made it a federal crime cross state lines with *anyone*
for immoral purposes (providing they were female, of course).
John Briggs
Desiree Davis
> When are you eligable for a driver's license in California? I'm 39 and
> I think it is 16 here in New York, but since I never learned how to
> drive I don't know.
It used to be you could get a learner's permit at 15 1/2 and your
licence at 16. The learner's permit allowed you to drive provided
there was a licenced driver over 25 in the ar with you.
Since some study showed that 16 year olds caused the most acidents,
the raised the age to 17 either last year or the year before.
Seemed kind of a stupid rational to me. It's like saying you want to
get rid of the smallest whole number so you eliminate 1 and ignore the
fact that 2 is now the smallest, thus you still have a "smallest whole
number"
Désirée - licenced at 16
Rose
>
>I repeat, why would "full adult growth" be required?
>
I answered that question already.
Rose
Genius "Buffy" fan
BTR1701
fyl...@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote:
So the purpose is sightseeing. The sex is incidental.
Robert Scott Clark
@mb-mu.aol.com:
> RS wrote:
>
>>
>>I repeat, why would "full adult growth" be required?
>>
>
> I answered that question already.
No, you didn't. You stated why someone not developed to a certain
minimal degree would be in danger. You in no way showed any evidence
that this certain minimal degree corresponded directly with "full adult
growth."
For all you said, it is entirely possible that 1/3 complete with puberty
solves the vast majority of the health related issues.
>
>
> Rose
> Genius "Buffy" fan
>
Rose
>From: Robert Scott Clark cla...@mindspring.com
>Date: 2/5/2003 5:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns9319D4CBE5B84cl...@65.82.44.187>
>
>fyl...@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in news:20030205195555.21651.00000991
>@mb-mu.aol.com:
>
>> RS wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I repeat, why would "full adult growth" be required?
>>>
>>
>> I answered that question already.
>
>No, you didn't. You stated why someone not developed to a certain
>minimal degree would be in danger. You in no way showed any evidence
>that this certain minimal degree corresponded directly with "full adult
>growth."
>
Ah. True.
Then again, I didn't say "full adult growth" would be required for sex.
Rose
Genius "Buffy" fan
Robert Scott Clark
@mb-fj.aol.com:
Well, that got into this thread somehow, and it wasn't from me.
And really, just changes the question to what you think the age normally
is where the development is enough.
And hell, if we're using that as a requirement, just have a doctor tell
you when kids are ready. "Alright Suzie, your uterus is coagulated
correctly, here's your fucking liscense. Have fun!"
It works a lot better than trying to second guess when someone is making
god decisions when they have different desires and priorities than you
have. It's hard to tell when someone is immature as opposed to just
being stupid.
>
> Rose
> Genius "Buffy" fan
>
DEATH AND BLACK METAL
>Then again, I didn't say "full adult growth" would be required for sex.
No, but in sheep it's near essential.
The Black Sheep
>> I think you got those ages wrong. In any case, what I find
shocking
>> is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing. I know some
US
>> states have really silly age of consent laws (including stat rape
>> charges as you mention) but does anyone really think that reflects
>> the real world at all?
>>
>
> Uh yeah cos a 40 year old getting it on with a 15 year old is a
> 'healthy' relationship.
Who said anything about a relationship? (For that matter, who said
anything about 40?)
> If it were 2 15 year olds then fine...but the stat rape laws are
> partly there to protect children from the attention of, for a wont
of
> a better word, paedophiles,
Except that paedophiles still prey on kids, laws limiting age of
consent do not protect anyone, they just victimise young adults and
teenagers. We've just been through this debate in Canada and the
government concluded (with little real opposition) that there was no
reason to raise the age of consent here because it would (a) restrict
the rights and freedoms of young people, including teens, *for no
gain* and (b) designing laws specifically to protect kids from
predators would be more effective and more enforceable.
> Saying that, I dont think Kennedy is 15 or anywhere near it. She
did
> point out she was the oldest SiT and the rest of them are hardly
> under 15 themselves.
Given the older actor/younger character casting used on all shows and
her behaviour/comments on the show I would have guessed 17-19.
The Black Sheep
> The Black Sheep <blacks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Brian21Massage <brian21...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Willow is supposed to be 22 this year and Kennedy is 15. That is
too
>>> much of an age difference at this stage in their lives.
>> I think you got those ages wrong. In any case, what I find
shocking
>> is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing.
>
> was basically just drooling over my youth was a real turn-off. he
> didn't even get a kiss, much less a second date. i know very few
> people who dated someone that much older than them as adolescents,
> and all of them had similar problems.
I know several, with a variety of experiences. Only one feels very
negative about it in hindsight. I've never asked him if he would
still defend his right to make that choice back when (he was 14 at the
time).
> a 22yo who considers a 15yo to
> be an appropriate dating/sex partner likely has maturity issues, if
> nothing else. that's really a huge gap for those age groups.
I'm not prepared to make a blanket statement about all 15yo or all
22yo. Stat rape laws leave no room for individuality, and some don't
even consider age gap-- in the most ridiculous extreme you could have
a 1 day age difference resulting in stat rape charges.
We didn't protect people from date rape by outlawing or limiting
dating, we criminalized rape and set legal precedents. Similarly you
won't stop abuse of the young and (presumably) innocent with a stat
rape law. You might do it by education, precedent, and laws regarding
specific behaviours which a court can judge on an individual basis.
The Black Sheep
>> No, 7 years is not terribly amazing. I personally have few
problems
>> with 10 or 15 year age gaps, either, so long as you're talking
about
>> adults. But sorry, a 22 year old _is_ an adult and a 15-year-old
is
>> not _nearly_ an adult, emotionally or physically.
>>
>>
>>
>
> "Emotionally" is a value judgement, but "physically" 15 has been a
> mariagable and reproductive age for centuries, and the age of the
> onset of puberty is going down, not up. Hell, there are probably
> plenty of 12 year olds out there who are physically ready.
I was a peer-support group facilitator and youth counsellor for many
years* (during my volunteer phase). Nearly every 15yo is a sexual
human being who has started to experience that sexuality in one way or
another. They may not "have sex" with another person for years-- or
they may have done so years before-- but sexually they are no longer
children. The best we can do is make sure that they proceed in a
healthy and safe manner by offering education about sex and safer-sex
in a non-judgemental environment.
I certainly saw many people in the 14-16 age range who would have been
better served by *not* having their first experiences with someone as
young as they-- someone equally shy, insecure, and inexperienced who
was willing to forget about some precautions before having fun.
(* I was trained by the local Youth Services Bureau and the local GLB
services group).
The Black Sheep
> Uh, yes. What world are _you_ living in? A college senior dating a
> high school freshman/sophomore isn't strange to you?
What may or may not seem strange to me is not the point, it is not my
place to judge the relationship-- particularly not without any
knowledge other than age.
> I assure you
> that the latter's parents would find it a little bit... criminal.
Not relevant. 14 is the age of consent in Canada, so what the parents
think is not relevant.
(Note that statutory rape laws deal with *sex* not *dating*, so your
question as worded is completely beside the point).
The Black Sheep
> what is the f*cking matter with people and there statutory rape hang
> ups? She didn't even have sex with Kennedy. I am fast coming to the
> realization that people who doth protest too much about statutory
rape
> is harboring thoughts about it themselves and projecting it on
others.
> Sheesh!
That's just it, its a hang-up. When it comes to sex reason leaves the
room. When it comes to statutory rape people take that knee-jerk
reaction to the extreme. We don't accuse someone of grand theft and
give them a criminal record as a sex offender for stealing a loaf of
bread, but when it comes to people's prejudices about what age it is
"right" for someone to have sex they are willing to make someone a
criminal for life. Would be funny of it wasn't such a frightening
example of personal hang-ups clouding any sound judgement.
Statutory rape laws leave no room for circumstances, individuality,
exceptions, mistakes, or any other consideration: if the age of one
person is below an arbitrary limit then the sexual partner is a
criminal sex offender. Once the surrounding issues are removed, I
have yet to find anyone defend stat rape on its own merits.
The Black Sheep
> A 22 year old having sexual relations with a 15 year old is wrong
and
That is a personal value judgement you are making and arbitrarily
imposing on others.
> against the law in all of the states of the United States (although,
> confusingly, if the two are married they get a pass).
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm has a comprehensive list
of age of consent laws. 16 is the most common age in the US, although
I think that is qualified in some states.
I consider the marriage bit to be odd, no doubt a holdover that needs
to be modernized.
> What I am
> looking for is proportion. 22 with a 15 year old is wrong, but is it
> the same as a 22 year old with a 10 year old? Hell no! But that is
how
> people are acting. Christ, over at alt.tv.angel some have actually
> said that because they cannot see 18 year old Conner other than a
five
> month old baby Cordy is a baby raper! I think that says a lot about
> them than of Cordy.
Knee-jerk reactions combined with people being often unwilling to
examine (or just watch a TV show) issues they are personally
uncomfortable with.
Robert Scott Clark
$1...@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de:
> David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>> Uh, yes. What world are _you_ living in? A college senior dating a
>> high school freshman/sophomore isn't strange to you?
>
> What may or may not seem strange to me is not the point, it is not my
> place to judge the relationship-- particularly not without any
> knowledge other than age.
>
Bingo.
>> I assure you
>> that the latter's parents would find it a little bit... criminal.
>
> Not relevant. 14 is the age of consent in Canada, so what the parents
> think is not relevant.
>
> (Note that statutory rape laws deal with *sex* not *dating*, so your
> question as worded is completely beside the point).
An overzealous cop is looking to make a bust at a local teenage parking
spot. He sees a car with the interior lights on and sneaks over to take a
look.
In the front seat there is a young man reading a book, while in the back
seat a young woman is knitting a sweater.
The cop looks confused and uses his flashlight to knock on the car
window.
After rolling down the window, the guy in the driver's seat asks, "What's
the problem, Officer?"
"Well, son, can I ask what you two are doing out here."
"I'm reading this book, and she's knitting me a sweater," he motions to
the girl in the back seat, and she smiles at the police officer."
"Well, how old are you then?"
"Oh, I'm 22, and," looking at the clock on the dash, "she'll be 18 in 6
minutes."
David Marc Nieporent
"The Black Sheep" <blacks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> Uh, yes. What world are _you_ living in? A college senior dating a
>> high school freshman/sophomore isn't strange to you?
>What may or may not seem strange to me is not the point,
Actually, it was the point exactly, as the part of the post you snipped
pointed out:
In any case, what I find shocking
is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing. I know some US
states have really silly age of consent laws (including stat rape
charges as you mention) but does anyone really think that reflects the
real world at all?
We were not discussing legalities; we were discussing whether it was
strange.
> it is not my
>place to judge the relationship-- particularly not without any
>knowledge other than age.
It is everyone's place to judge. It is your job as a thinking human being
to judge. Making judgments is what a brain is for.
>> I assure you
>> that the latter's parents would find it a little bit... criminal.
>Not relevant. 14 is the age of consent in Canada, so what the parents
>think is not relevant.
So when you said "the real world," you meant Canada? How about the
majority of the world that doesn't reside in Canada?
>(Note that statutory rape laws deal with *sex* not *dating*, so your
>question as worded is completely beside the point).
My question as worded was precisely the point. Then I added another
sentence that dealt with sex, which may or may not have been related to the
point. Kennedy did, after all, want to share a bed with Willow, so it's
likely sex was contemplated. (Of course, as we all agree, the original
poster got the ages wrong, so this is purely hypothetical. Kennedy is 19,
not 15.)
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
sill...@famous.com
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>So when you said "the real world," you meant Canada? How about the
>majority of the world that doesn't reside in Canada?
We feel sorry for them. We invite, but do not pressure them, to come
live among the enlightened. And though it is only human nature, we
fight the urge to judge others.
The high road is a lonely road . . .
Robert Scott Clark
>
> We were not discussing legalities; we were discussing whether it was
> strange.
Watching a show named "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is strange. Whether or
not something is strange or not is a pretty worthless thing to discuss
seriously.
>
>> it is not my
>>place to judge the relationship-- particularly not without any
>>knowledge other than age.
>
> It is everyone's place to judge. It is your job as a thinking human
> being to judge. Making judgments is what a brain is for.
You missed that excrutiatingly important part there at the end - "without
any knowledge other than age". That's the point. Age (within the ranges
we are discussing here) gives precious little information that would be
valuable for making an intelligent decision about the relationship, which
is - or at least should be - a requirement for making judgement.
>
>>> I assure you
>>> that the latter's parents would find it a little bit... criminal.
>
>>Not relevant. 14 is the age of consent in Canada, so what the parents
>>think is not relevant.
>
> So when you said "the real world," you meant Canada? How about the
> majority of the world that doesn't reside in Canada?
Plenty of placed have ages of consent that low or even lower.
I think you are making the mistake of saying "real world" and meaning the
"US", when in reality "US" really means "land founded by puritans forever
locked into trying to make it's citizens live by the tyrany of the most
repressed standard available."
Robert Scott Clark
Don't get too cocky. You guys have some nasty censorship going on at
times. I seem to recall from a few years ago, book shipments getting
stopped at the boarder when they were shipped to gay/lesbian book stores,
but the exact same shipments making it through to the chain stores.
Rose
>Message-id: <Xns931A5EEE49509cl...@65.82.44.187>
>
>fyl...@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in news:20030206010739.04127.00000115
>@mb-fj.aol.com:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Statutory Rape Willow
>>>From: Robert Scott Clark cla...@mindspring.com
>>>Date: 2/5/2003 5:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <Xns9319D4CBE5B84cl...@65.82.44.187>
>>>
>>>fyl...@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in news:20030205195555.21651.00000991
>>>@mb-mu.aol.com:
>>>
>>>> RS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I repeat, why would "full adult growth" be required?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I answered that question already.
>>>
>>>No, you didn't. You stated why someone not developed to a certain
>>>minimal degree would be in danger. You in no way showed any evidence
>>>that this certain minimal degree corresponded directly with "full adult
>>>growth."
>>>
>>
>> Ah. True.
>>
>> Then again, I didn't say "full adult growth" would be required for sex.
>>
>
>Well, that got into this thread somehow, and it wasn't from me.
>
>And really, just changes the question to what you think the age normally
>is where the development is enough.
>
In most girls, I'd say 17. (And I am not hereby giving tacit permission to 40
year old men to go boink 17 year old girls in California where the age of
consent is 18.)
Rose
Genius "Buffy" fan
Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer
Damn.
>
>Rose
>Genius "Buffy" fan
Robert Scott Clark
news:20030206160247...@mb-mq.aol.com:
Then what about the ones who are ready at 16? Tell them to take a flying
leap because of where they fall on the bellcurve?
BTR1701
> In article <b1u9o6$16fr8l$1...@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>,
> "The Black Sheep" <blacks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >> I assure you
> >> that the latter's parents would find it a little bit... criminal.
>
> >Not relevant. 14 is the age of consent in Canada, so what the parents
> >think is not relevant.
>
> So when you said "the real world," you meant Canada? How about the
> majority of the world that doesn't reside in Canada?
Actually, in the *majority* of the world, the ages of consent are closer
to Canada's than in the USA. America has some of the highest age of
consent laws in the world.
The Black Sheep
>> What may or may not seem strange to me is not the point, it is not
my
>> place to judge the relationship-- particularly not without any
>> knowledge other than age.
>>
>
> Bingo.
[takes humble bow]
<snipping story>
> "Oh, I'm 22, and," looking at the clock on the dash, "she'll be 18
in
> 6 minutes."
LOL. Illustrates the point well, but really funny.
The Black Sheep
>>
>
> Don't get too cocky. You guys have some nasty censorship going on
at
> times. I seem to recall from a few years ago, book shipments
getting
> stopped at the boarder when they were shipped to gay/lesbian book
> stores, but the exact same shipments making it through to the chain
> stores.
Keep in mind that the censorship in question dealt *only* with
materials imported into Canada, and that the courts have largely
stopped the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency's practices in that
regard (but not entirely). Within the country much less material is
censored than in common in most US states, particularly on television
The Black Sheep
> In article <b1u9o6$16fr8l$1...@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>,
> "The Black Sheep" <blacks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Uh, yes. What world are _you_ living in? A college senior dating
a
>>> high school freshman/sophomore isn't strange to you?
>
>> What may or may not seem strange to me is not the point,
>
> Actually, it was the point exactly, as the part of the post you
> snipped pointed out:
>
> In any case, what I find shocking
> is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing. I know
some
> US states have really silly age of consent laws (including stat
> rape charges as you mention) but does anyone really think that
> reflects the real world at all?
>
> We were not discussing legalities; we were discussing whether it was
> strange.
Not sure why you quoted my own words back to me, I know what I wrote.
No, it does not seem "strange", and while it is uncommon enough that I
might be surprised to meet a 15/22 couple, I would suppress any
outward reaction of surprise (if any) so as to avoid giving offence,
and do my best to avoid passing judgement on the people involved.
Even if it did seem strange to me, its none of my business.
>> it is not my
>> place to judge the relationship-- particularly not without any
>> knowledge other than age.
>
> It is everyone's place to judge. It is your job as a thinking human
> being to judge. Making judgments is what a brain is for.
It is not my place, nor anyone's place, to judge a relationship. My
brain belongs on my life, not someone else's bedroom. If, and only
if, I have a personal involvement with one of the people involved
then it *might* be appropriate for me to form an opinion of the
relationship.
> So when you said "the real world," you meant Canada? How about the
> majority of the world that doesn't reside in Canada?
No, I meant the world inhabited by most of the readers of Usenet and
the world Buffy is (more or less) set in-- the western world in the
first few years of the 20th century.
ai...@rmta.org
[snip]
>> a 22yo who considers a 15yo to
>> be an appropriate dating/sex partner likely has maturity issues, if
>> nothing else. that's really a huge gap for those age groups.
> I'm not prepared to make a blanket statement about all 15yo or all
> 22yo.
i am! in our culture, a 15yo is in a very different social and emotional
place than a 22yo. while there are very mature 15yo's and very immature
22yo's, it's still a bad combination.
> Stat rape laws leave no room for individuality, and some don't
> even consider age gap-- in the most ridiculous extreme you could have
> a 1 day age difference resulting in stat rape charges.
who said anything about statutory rape laws? i just said it was a bad
idea. although while we're on the subject, i do prefer peer consent laws
which give some leeway. at the same time, i'm happy to lose purity points
for statutorily raping my husband (not my husband then, obviously) for two
months when we were in HS. ;)
[snip]
> Similarly you
> won't stop abuse of the young and (presumably) innocent with a stat
> rape law.
i think you're confused by the point of having a law. while it may have
some deterrent value, as with any crime of passion its main use is in
identifying and punishing offenders. i think you're also ignoring the
fact that prosecutors don't spend much time on statutory rape cases and
are very likely to weed out trivial differences in age (such as the 1 day
you mention above) when deciding what to prosecute.
> You might do it by education, precedent, and laws regarding
> specific behaviours which a court can judge on an individual basis.
there's a reason why we have set guidelines - leaving a lot up to
individual courts and judges can result in very uneven justice. some
judges might think that a 2 year difference for young adolescents is
always too much while other judges may think only a 10 year difference is
meaningful.
in missouri the peer consent age is 14 (the regular consent age is 17),
and a peer for someone under 17 is defined as age 20 or younger. if it
were up to me, i'd say there should be a maximum difference of 3 years
for those under 17 - a 20yo with a 14yo is pretty squicky imo.
Aimee the Magdalene
* losing your faith is a lot like losing your virginity *
* you don't realize how irritating it was 'til it's gone *
* - AEL *
* and when they say 'take of his body' *
* i think i'll take from mine instead - Tori Amos *
* once i could see...now i am blind - Trent Reznor *
ai...@rmta.org
> <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>So when you said "the real world," you meant Canada? How about the
>>majority of the world that doesn't reside in Canada?
> We feel sorry for them. We invite, but do not pressure them, to come
> live among the enlightened.
not true! canada has pretty strict laws about moving there; i have
friends who were looking into moving to vancouver.
> And though it is only human nature, we
> fight the urge to judge others.
this is why i'm only an honourary canadian. i like judging people and
don't fight my urge to do so. ;)
Aimee the Magdalene
agnostic apathetic atheist
don't know don't care don't buy it
-------------------------------------------------
tell your gods for me
all debts are off this year
they're free to leave -Tori Amos
David Marc Nieporent
"The Black Sheep" <blacks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> "The Black Sheep" <blacks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>>> Uh, yes. What world are _you_ living in? A college senior dating a
>>>> high school freshman/sophomore isn't strange to you?
>>> What may or may not seem strange to me is not the point,
>> Actually, it was the point exactly, as the part of the post you
>> snipped pointed out:
>> In any case, what I find shocking
>> is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing. I know some
>> US states have really silly age of consent laws (including stat
>> rape charges as you mention) but does anyone really think that
>> reflects the real world at all?
>> We were not discussing legalities; we were discussing whether it was
>> strange.
>Not sure why you quoted my own words back to me, I know what I wrote.
Because you had apparently forgotten, since your more recent post directly
contradicted this. You said that whether it seemed strange wasn't the
point, when the previous post made clear that it *was* the point. You said
that you found it shocking that others would find it strange. That's what
I responded to.
>No, it does not seem "strange", and while it is uncommon enough that I
>might be surprised to meet a 15/22 couple, I would suppress any
>outward reaction of surprise (if any) so as to avoid giving offence,
>and do my best to avoid passing judgement on the people involved.
>Even if it did seem strange to me, its none of my business.
Well, there you go. I don't think avoiding giving offense is the highest
goal. For one thing, I think truth is more important. For another, it's
ultimately futile; the sort of people who get offended are professional
victims. They take offense because basically, they enjoy taking offense.
>>> it is not my
>>> place to judge the relationship-- particularly not without any
>>> knowledge other than age.
>> It is everyone's place to judge. It is your job as a thinking human
>> being to judge. Making judgments is what a brain is for.
>It is not my place, nor anyone's place, to judge a relationship. My
>brain belongs on my life, not someone else's bedroom. If, and only
>if, I have a personal involvement with one of the people involved
>then it *might* be appropriate for me to form an opinion of the
>relationship.
It is everyone's place to judge. Constantly. One cannot go through life
without forming judgments. One would have to turn off one's brain to do
so. The reason many people feel that it's not their place to judge is
because people on all sides of the political spectrum feel that if they
disapprove of something, it's their place to outlaw it. Some people feel
that way about marijuana and pornography, others about hate speech and
SUVs. You can make a judgement without doing something about it.
>> So when you said "the real world," you meant Canada? How about the
>> majority of the world that doesn't reside in Canada?
>No, I meant the world inhabited by most of the readers of Usenet and
>the world Buffy is (more or less) set in-- the western world in the
>first few years of the 20th century.
Okay, great. So we agree on the perspective from which to describe this.
(Except that I assume you mean the 21st century.) Basically, the
Anglosphere. Primarily the U.S., and to a lesser extent Canada, the U.K.
So in that case, it's extremely strange. Canada is the only one of those
that has an age of consent that low.
David Marc Nieporent
Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> We were not discussing legalities; we were discussing whether it was
>> strange.
>Watching a show named "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is strange. Whether or
>not something is strange or not is a pretty worthless thing to discuss
>seriously.
There's the door; you're welcome to find it if you don't like what we're
discussing.
>>> it is not my
>>>place to judge the relationship-- particularly not without any
>>>knowledge other than age.
>> It is everyone's place to judge. It is your job as a thinking human
>> being to judge. Making judgments is what a brain is for.
>You missed that excrutiatingly important part there at the end - "without
>any knowledge other than age". That's the point. Age (within the ranges
>we are discussing here) gives precious little information that would be
>valuable for making an intelligent decision about the relationship, which
>is - or at least should be - a requirement for making judgement.
Age, within the ranges we're discussing here, offers a lot of information.
15 year olds are not mature. They should not be having sex with 22 year
olds. (And again, we all agree that the original poster was wrong, and
that those aren't the ages.)
(And in this case, we do have knowledge other than age, such as how long
the two have known each other.)
>>>> I assure you
>>>> that the latter's parents would find it a little bit... criminal.
>>>Not relevant. 14 is the age of consent in Canada, so what the parents
>>>think is not relevant.
>> So when you said "the real world," you meant Canada? How about the
>> majority of the world that doesn't reside in Canada?
>Plenty of placed have ages of consent that low or even lower.
Well, I can't vouch for the accuracy of the chart here --
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm -- it's just the first one
that came up in a google search. But assuming it's accurate, only a
handful of countries, mostly third world ones, are at least that low.
>I think you are making the mistake of saying "real world" and meaning the
>"US", when in reality "US" really means "land founded by puritans forever
>locked into trying to make it's citizens live by the tyrany of the most
>repressed standard available."
No, I don't think that's what it means.
Rose
>Date: 2/6/2003 2:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <BTR1702-34A504...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
Isn't it typically 16 in most of the world? Which it is in much of the US.
Me, I think 14 is *way* too young. Some girls haven't even reached puberty by
then.
Rose
Genius "Buffy" fan
Rose
>
>Then what about the ones who are ready at 16? Tell them to take a flying
>leap because of where they fall on the >bellcurve?
That's not what you asked me. What you asked was when do I think most girls
are physically mature enough for sex, the Pill, pregnancy, etc. Ideally, I
don't believe most girls should have sex until around age 17.
However, I also don't think stat rape laws should be as cut and dried as
"anyone over 18 who has sex with anyone a day under 18 should be thrown in
jail." I think if I were Supreme Dictator, I would make 17 the age of consent,
and I'd impose some kind of "peer consent law" as the previous poster
described.
That said, I think 14 is too young, period.
Rose
Genius "Buffy" fan
Sam James
wrote:
>Willow is supposed to be 22 this year and Kennedy is 15. That is too much of an
>age difference at this stage in their lives. This is just like if Xander went
>after Dawn and kissed her and did more down the line. First Dark Willow, now
>Statutory Rape Willow. Willow is just going downhill.
As opposed to S2 Buffy and Angel?
Robert Scott Clark
news:nieporen-72E8E6...@news-east.giganews.com:
> In article <Xns931A8F939257Fcl...@65.82.44.187>,
> Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>> We were not discussing legalities; we were discussing whether it was
>>> strange.
>
>>Watching a show named "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is strange. Whether
>>or not something is strange or not is a pretty worthless thing to
>>discuss seriously.
>
> There's the door; you're welcome to find it if you don't like what
> we're discussing.
>
>>>> it is not my
>>>>place to judge the relationship-- particularly not without any
>>>>knowledge other than age.
>
>>> It is everyone's place to judge. It is your job as a thinking human
>>> being to judge. Making judgments is what a brain is for.
>
>>You missed that excrutiatingly important part there at the end -
>>"without any knowledge other than age". That's the point. Age
>>(within the ranges we are discussing here) gives precious little
>>information that would be valuable for making an intelligent decision
>>about the relationship, which is - or at least should be - a
>>requirement for making judgement.
>
> Age, within the ranges we're discussing here, offers a lot of
> information. 15 year olds are not mature.
Neither are 19 year olds.
Most 22 year olds aren't either.
>They should not be having
> sex with 22 year olds. (And again, we all agree that the original
> poster was wrong, and that those aren't the ages.)
That's not a decision for you.
The decision we get to make (societally) is if they are capable of making
an informed intelligent decision.
If they aren't capable, then we opperate under the assumption that the
answer is "no".
>
> (And in this case, we do have knowledge other than age, such as how
> long the two have known each other.)
And this is relevant why?
>
>>>>> I assure you
>>>>> that the latter's parents would find it a little bit... criminal.
>
>>>>Not relevant. 14 is the age of consent in Canada, so what the
>>>>parents think is not relevant.
>
>>> So when you said "the real world," you meant Canada? How about the
>>> majority of the world that doesn't reside in Canada?
>
>>Plenty of placed have ages of consent that low or even lower.
>
> Well, I can't vouch for the accuracy of the chart here --
> http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm -- it's just the first
> one that came up in a google search. But assuming it's accurate, only
> a handful of countries, mostly third world ones, are at least that
> low.
>
>>I think you are making the mistake of saying "real world" and meaning
>>the "US", when in reality "US" really means "land founded by puritans
>>forever locked into trying to make it's citizens live by the tyrany of
>>the most repressed standard available."
>
> No, I don't think that's what it means.
We have this fantasy that the US was settled by people that wanted to be
left alone to worship as they saw fit. Unfortunately, that's not true.
The US was settled by people who were upset that they were in places
where they weren't allowed to force those around them to follow their
religion, and didn't want to be surrounded by sin.
Robert Scott Clark
news:20030207003215...@mb-ca.aol.com:
Well, I think (in the US at least) we have a perfectly functional set of
laws making it illegal to have sex with someone lacking the mental
capacity to understand the act and make an informed decision. In
addition to that, we have stupid age of consent laws to placate puritans.
I'm uncomfortable telling any intelligent person what they can do with
their own genitals.
People are the quintessential square pegs.
>
>
>
>
>
> Rose
> Genius "Buffy" fan
>
Robert Scott Clark
news:20030207002637...@mb-ca.aol.com:
Some? Maybe.
And others are 6 years into it.
>
>
> Rose
> Genius "Buffy" fan
>
Rose
>Message-id: <Xns931B5A288FABcl...@65.82.44.187>
It's extremely rare to reach puberty by age 10.
Rose
Genius "Buffy" fan
sill...@famous.com
>>
>>
>
>It's extremely rare to reach puberty by age 10.
>
Uncommon, yes. Extremely rare, no. My wife works with pre-teens. Every
year there's at least one little girl who looks like a little woman.
Generally she has to suffer for it too. There's always a little cadre
of bastards (and little bitches too) who take it as an invitation to
be abusive.
Back to your point though ( I think it was your point ), someone in
late teens or early twenties getting pillow time with a 15 year old is
creepy. Several generations ago a 15 year old wedding 30 year was not
remarkable at all, but that was then.
ShadowWalker
"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:nieporen-E7E81D...@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <b1unu1$177suv$1...@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>,
> "The Black Sheep" <blacks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> In any case, what I find shocking
> >> is that anyone would consider 22/15 all that amazing. I know some
> >> US states have really silly age of consent laws (including stat
> >> rape charges as you mention) but does anyone really think that
> >> reflects the real world at all?
> >> We were not discussing legalities; we were discussing whether it was
> >> strange.
Given the heated nature of the argument, it may be dangerous to wander into
the middle of this thread, but I just couldn't help myself. I missed the
actual
kissing scene, so I hadn't given the issue much thought until I saw this
thread.
It did strike me that this wasn't a bigger topic, though, especially because
in
other forums the Cordy/Connor thing has been a major issue. This is slightly
different animal--perhaps a different breed of the same species.
In both the C/C & W/K situations, there is the issue of experience & whether
the
older partner is taking advantage of someone w/ a lack of it. This is
glaringly so
in the C/C coupling, given that Connor literally had zero experience w/ all
matters
pertaining to love, sex & relationships. He couldn't have even had the
faintest
memory of a human woman when he first returned to our dimension. He
certainly
had never been in a position to learn about physical love & its effect on
emotions.
Even though they suddenly began proclaiming he was 18 (I had been under the
impression to that point that he was 16), in no way was he capable of
handling
the situation w/ Cordy. It might not have been sexual molestation under the
law,
but it was definitely immoral, as far as I'm concerned. I don't give a damn
whether
it was the end of the world or not. Wrong is wrong is wrong--ethical
relativists, be
damned! You can run into problems w/ absolutism, but give me Kantian ethics
over Cordy's situational ethics any day of the week.
Kennedy isn't as ill-equiped as Connor to deal w/ her situation. She had
obviously
done a lot of soul-searching in regards to her Sapphic nature. However, I
wasn't aware
she was only 15. I know some of the Potentials were older than others. At
that age,
many teens have sex. I did when I was that age (actually, I was 14), but I'm
not sure
I was really emotionally mature enough to deal w/ the end of the
relationship after
having shared that kind of intimacy w/ someone. That's probably true of
most
15-yr-olds. It's also relevant that she & Willow didn't actually have sex as
C/C did.
So, yes, it's wrong, it's just not quite *as* wrong as the C/C thing.
> >and do my best to avoid passing judgement on the people involved.
> >Even if it did seem strange to me, its none of my business.
>
> Well, there you go. I don't think avoiding giving offense is the highest
> goal. For one thing, I think truth is more important. For another, it's
> ultimately futile; the sort of people who get offended are professional
> victims. They take offense because basically, they enjoy taking offense.
> It is everyone's place to judge. Constantly. One cannot go through life
> without forming judgments. One would have to turn off one's brain to do
> so. The reason many people feel that it's not their place to judge is
> because people on all sides of the political spectrum feel that if they
> disapprove of something, it's their place to outlaw it.
>
> Okay, great. So we agree on the perspective from which to describe this.
> (Except that I assume you mean the 21st century.) Basically, the
> Anglosphere. Primarily the U.S., and to a lesser extent Canada, the U.K.
> So in that case, it's extremely strange.
Both of you have good points--and not-so-good ones. It isn't the business
of people outside a relationship between two *adults*. When someone is
underage, however, it becomes a different matter. The reason statutory
rape laws were put in place is to prevent adults, people w/ some amount of
authority & respect in the eyes of the children around them, from taking
advantage of the trust & obedience children are told to give them. That's a
worthy goal, IMO. But, wait! There's a catch: a lot of this has to do w/
the values of the society. At one time, it was perfectly okay for a
13-yr.-old
girl to marry an adult man. My own great-grandmother did so, and had
twins the next year; another great-grandma married a 24-yr.-old when she
was just 16. This seemed perfectly normal to them because their communities
said it was--although I don't agree at all.
> Canada is the only one of those that has an age of consent that low.
I don't know if it's still the case, but as recently as the '90s, the states
of
New Mexico & Utah had an age of consent of 13 & 14.
-K
Chelsea Christenson
> Several generations ago a 15 year old wedding 30 year was not
> remarkable at all, but that was then.
Several generations ago, giving birth to 10 children and having 3 survive
to adulthood was not remarkable. Thank goodness for progress.