Tickle Me Child Rape?

[shadowplay]

They're both examples of situations where minors should be protected by the law.

 

[Evie]

I find it odd that without stating the statutes of the states in question that people feel it safe to assume that 16 is the age of sexual adulthood in this case and therefore not child rape. To boot, they don't even try to hide the fact that the definition they are using is their own belief based on assumptions and opinions, not law.

Irrelevant. Until not that long ago, several states had anti-sodomy laws (now thankfully anticonstitutional). That didn't make those laws right, and it didn't make those who broke those laws monsters. It in no way informed any sort of legitimate moral judgement. The fact that a law exist means nothign about how we should view that law, or those who break it.

The other fact here is, this would be legal in the overwhelming majority of western nations, the majority of US States, and so forth. To ruin the life of a man and tar and feather him for something that wouldn't be a crime for the vast majority of us is completely out of place.

 

[bhsup]

Who gives a flying monkey's ass about the rest of the world's laws as they relate to this? This is a US State's law we're talking about, not a law in some foreign land.

The rest of the world has laws that restrict freedom of speech stupidly (hello Europe), restrict religious freedom stupidly (hello Europe), and so forth and so on, so please don't go telling us we should adopt what goes on elsewhere in the world just because.

 

[Borachio]

In effect, mutual crimes are committed when two unmarried 16-year-old individuals voluntarily have sex with each other in New York State, each being the "victim" of the other.

What?

How does this work? Can someone explain this to me please? I don't really care, but I genuinely don't understand.

How can they each be the victim of the other? Is this like a suicide pact?

 

[Farm Boy]

What?

How does this work? Can someone explain this to me please? I don't really care, but I genuinely don't understand.

How can they each be the victim of the other? Is this like a suicide pact?

Suicide pact is too severe. Consider this instead. A 15 year old takes a picture of themselves naked and sends it along to a 15 year old significant other, that significant other then sends it along to more people. I believe, often, both individuals - the picture takee and the significant other are afoul of child pornography laws.

 

[Luckymoose]

They're both examples of situations where minors should be protected by the law.

Sixteen isn't a minor in most of the world.

 

[bhsup]

Sixteen isn't a minor in most of the world.

Irrelevant. Completely and utterly irrelevant to this specific situation.

You might as well have said DDT is illegal in much of the world as it would have had the same amount of relevance.

 

[Crezth]

Who gives a flying monkey's ass about the rest of the world's laws as they relate to this? This is a US State's law we're talking about, not a law in some foreign land.

The rest of the world has laws that restrict freedom of speech stupidly (hello Europe), restrict religious freedom stupidly (hello Europe), and so forth and so on, so please don't go telling us we should adopt what goes on elsewhere in the world just because.

It may sound odd, but I completely agree.

Also still waiting for what meaningfully distinguishes 16-year olds from 15-year olds from 10-year olds, here.

 

[Evie]

Who gives a flying monkey's ass about the rest of the world's laws as they relate to this? This is a US State's law we're talking about, not a law in some foreign land.

The rest of the world has laws that restrict freedom of speech stupidly (hello Europe), restrict religious freedom stupidly (hello Europe), and so forth and so on, so please don't go telling us we should adopt what goes on elsewhere in the world just because.

Adopt them or not as you see fit.

But when you get all morally outraged over something that's legal in the vast majority of the world, your country certainly doesn't look like a shining beacon of liberty and truth. More like a shining beacon of repressive morality.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Irrelevant. Completely and utterly irrelevant to this specific situation.

You might as well have said DDT is illegal in much of the world as it would have had the same amount of relevance.

Why is it "completely irrelevant" that the US continues to show how provincial and repressive it is compared to other modern countries in regard to basic freedom and liberty in so many ways, especially in regard to sex?

 

[bhsup]

I am sorry you guys have skewed views over what constitutite basic freedom and liberty and good, decent moral laws.

 

[Quackers]

What is an appropriate age of consent?

 

[Farm Boy]

I see you edited out the DDT part Formy, I like that. Don't get me started on the moral and ethical repercussions of DDT bans.

 

[bhsup]

What is an appropriate age of consent?

Personally I'd go with 18.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I see you edited out the DDT part Formy, I like that. Don't get me started on the moral and ethical repercussions of DDT bans.

Many people seem to conveniently forget that evil DDT saved much of the world from malaria.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I am sorry you guys have skewed views over what constitutite basic freedom and liberty and good, decent moral laws.

I agree that US law is what is relevant in United States cases. Full stop.

On the other hand, I do view U.S. law as backwards.

What we need is U.S. freedom of speech ( to avoid Europe's half-assed understanding of freedom of speech/religion ) coupled with a casting down of U.S. provincialism( gay rights, etc. ) At least that's my ideal country.

EDIT: That said, 18 should be the cutoff. The Elmo guy screwed up.

 

[Evie]

Oh, definitely he should be judged per US laws. There's no question there.

But getting into life-ruining moral outrage (which is different from handling a criminal case) over something that's legal in the vast majority of the western world will rightly make you look completely backward and antiquated.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Personally I'd go with 18.

I tend to agree...somewhat. If you are an adult at 18 than the age of consent should be 18.

On the other hand, we've got to be real, two 17 year olds having sex should not be a crime.

I could live with the age being a year or two younger than 18 but would recommend against anything younger than that. And I definitely support "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions to prevent cases that are between two people are are close in age and clearly actually did consent from being criminal.

 

[Quackers]

It's not a very good arguement though. Just because the majority of other, relatively, civilised countries have a lower age of consent doesn't mean your level is bad. I mean do we want to be like Spain where it's 13????

 

[AlpsStranger]

Spain always struck me as Europe's trailer park.