Much Ado About Lesbian Teen Sex?

[Formaldehyde]

But aren't exactly the same moral standards implemented in essentially all societies both primitive and modern, even Muslim and communistic ones? What is your opinion again of Sharia law?

 

[Akka]

Age of consent is one of the most ******** aspects of the law. I see 14 year old kids in sexual relationships and they know exactly what they are doing, safe sex and all. You telling me they can't consent because they aren't the magic age? Christian laws are stupid.

I agree on the rest, but I really don't see what christianity has to do with anything here.
The whole "teenager sex is illegal" thing is not old, it was commonplace for people to marry at ages that would seem crazy today (like 12 to 14 years old) as recently as early XXth century, when basically everyone was Christian in the West.

In fact, I wonder if actual real psychological limits are involved in any ways when it came to define "underage sex" as 18, and if it wasn't simply standardizing all kind of "majorities" on a common number.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think it is clear that society as a whole changed their attitudes to a great extent in this regard. The Christian influence comes more from the Religious Right imposing these draconian criminal laws on everybody else commencing with the Reagan years.

 

[JollyRoger]

let's just do away with all form of Christian morality.

Murder, lying, stealing, nah, thy are just old fashioned.

Funny that the Bible doesn't have anything to say about age of consent. Are you angry that Florida has moved beyond Christian morality?

Oh, and thank God for Christians telling us about murder, stealing, and lying. Nobody warned us about that stuff before Christ.

 

[dutchfire]

I'm not opposed to her punishment. Judicary institutions have to function as they're instructed in order to be meaningful. If what they do is wrong, don't change the punishment: First change the law, then the punishment.

My issue is with the way age of consent is handled, or that it as a function even exists. People utilize psychoanalysis and individual consideration plenty of other places in the justice system - and then in a few areas, it's continually blind and not in accord with individual needs.

The problem I see with taking into account individual consideration in age of consent laws is that every (alleged) paedophile could claim such a thing, this would mean that children who have been raped should also be put through this analysis for a court case. In the current situation, the (alleged) victims don't have to be involved in the court.

 

[Tahuti]

The problem I see with taking into account individual consideration in age of consent laws is that every (alleged) paedophile could claim such a thing, this would mean that children who have been raped should also be put through this analysis for a court case. In the current situation, the (alleged) victims don't have to be involved in the court.

Pedophiles have a notably different brain structure, and is significantly more out of the ordinary compared to the differences between gays and straights. A brain-scan can detect pedophiles, even those that have never raped a child.

While I'm not here to defend pedophilia, it must be noted that more psychological damage may be done to children abused by pedophiles by stressing the severity of the abuse in their formative years than the sexual act itself.

The problem is that pretty much all laws against pedophilia - including age of consent laws - not only sets arbitrary age limits, but do not consider that child molesters may not be fully able to assume full responsibility in the same way a mentally handicapped person may not be fully responsible for any crime either.

 

[Akka]

Also, there is a vast overuse with the "paedophile" buzzword, which is indiscriminally applied to anyone trying to have sex with [whatever is the arbitrary age limit of the law in the country], regardless to what paedophilia really being about.

There is far more difference in the mind between a person after a 8-years old and one after a 15 years-old, than there is between this latter and a third going after a 19-years old (despite the last one being legal unlike the others).

 

[Traitorfish]

let's just do away with all form of Christian morality.

Murder, lying, stealing, nah, thy are just old fashioned.

Christians, collectively, don't have a very strong record on any of those three fronts.

 

[MobBoss]

Humans, collectively, don't have a very strong record on any of those three fronts.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Traitorfish]

Certainly, certainly. It's clear enough to me that the poor collective record of Christians has a lot to do with their being human, and not all that much to do with their being Christian. My question is, though, how much does the latter actually do to mitigate the former?

 

[classical_hero]

Funny that the Bible doesn't have anything to say about age of consent. Are you angry that Florida has moved beyond Christian morality?

Oh, and thank God for Christians telling us about murder, stealing, and lying. Nobody warned us about that stuff before Christ.

Their is no AoC laws in the Bible because the fact of the matter is that the only time sex was allowed was inside marriage.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Their is no AoC laws in the Bible because the fact of the matter is that the only time sex was allowed was inside marriage.

Or if God commands you to do it. Tamar's consent was never a matter for debate, now was it?

 

[JollyRoger]

It seems that sex with one's maid was allowed.

 

[Gucumatz]

It seems that sex with one's maid was allowed.

Or when hiking on the Appalachian trail.

 

[classical_hero]

The Bible accurately records the sinful acts of men. Neither act

With the rape of Tamar as it is described in the Bible, so I don't get where you say that the Bible at any time agrees with what happens to her, but that is the typical attitude of those who only ever copy stuff from atheist websites.

The situation with Abraham caused so much trouble in the house that to stop the trouble he had to send Hagar and Ishmael away, which basically was a death sentence, except for the promise God made to Abraham and his offspring.

 

[JollyRoger]

I yeah, I forgot about Abraham. I was thinking about Jacob.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I don't get where you say that the Bible at any time agrees with what happens to her

God orders it. Does God order things immoral? Further, are we to believe that The Bible, insomuch as we are attributing the book to a single author, is making moral judgments of things it contains, including Divine commands?

Don't you believe that the Bible was divinely inspired so that each word was whispered correctly into St. Jerome's ear by the Holy Spirit? So wouldn't you be claiming that the Holy Spirit, 1/3 of God himself, is being critical of himself?

 

[Gucumatz]

Sure why not [God being critical of himself - And oddly enough not being sarcastic on this one]

And who believes that the Bible was divinely whispered word for word but for fundamentalists? Is God who we really think he is if we believe everything early Hebrew statutes say? Is God the version Jesus depicts against the teachings of his day and contradictory to the past? If even the son of God can criticize and rewrite the 'book' of his father, why can't anyone who is a part of the human spirit and a collective part of the holy spirit?

 

[Farm Boy]

Of course, thanks to prosecutorial discretion, only the 18 year old gets prosecuted.

And this is a problem. We have all these people that are probably actually guilty of a felony on the books. Yet because of the benign common sense of a prosecutor we can single out one of dozens and throw charges at them. Means the law is overbroad. When you criminalize a lot of people, then say "oh but wait, we'll only charge when it makes sense" you've really stepped in the direction of criminalizing what is in essence normal human behavior that shouldn't be criminalized and are leaving the discretion to prosecute far too open. The discretion is no longer an escape valve to avoid weird situations but is instead a weapon to charge somebody just when you feel like it. I would actually much rather we see all those kids and friends and teachers that probably "suspected(as the law terms it)" this crime was being committed have that level 3 felony thrown at them. But then that might actually point out how overbroad the law is, and that might cause that law to be rewritten costing the prosecutor some power, so undoubtedly that wouldn't be in his/her best interests to do so. Rule of man yet again.

 

[civ_king]

And this is a problem. We have all these people that are probably actually guilty of a felony on the books. Yet because of the benign common sense of a prosecutor we can single out one of dozens and throw charges at them. Means the law is overbroad. When you criminalize a lot of people, then say "oh but wait, we'll only charge when it makes sense" you've really stepped in the direction of criminalizing what is in essence normal human behavior that shouldn't be criminalized and are leaving the discretion to prosecute far too open. The discretion is no longer an escape valve to avoid weird situations but is instead a weapon to charge somebody just when you feel like it. I would actually much rather we see all those kids and friends and teachers that probably "suspected(as the law terms it)" this crime was being committed have that level 3 felony thrown at them. But then that might actually point out how overbroad the law is, and that might cause that law to be rewritten costing the prosecutor some power, so undoubtedly that wouldn't be in his/her best interests to do so. Rule of man yet again.

There have also been laws which fall under the just one more thing, for example historically when prosecutors wanted to pad a list of criminal things someone was guilty of they often threw in sodomy/buggery for good measure as the kitchen sink.