DeepNeuralNetwork
No bio...
User ID: 799
DeepNeuralNetwork
5hr ago
But... how do you tell the difference? In a legal sense, how does the law get set up in a way that you can prove one or the other beyond a reasonable doubt?
I've noticed a problem that a lot of the dumbest laws that makes no sense today were set up in the 20th century. Much older customs are Lindy; they persist between ages. Very recent laws might make sense for right now. But stuff invented by people between 1910 and 1970 were temporary patches for a bygone era. High age of consent laws are an example of this. 15 year olds just aren't as sheltered as they were in 1940, and trials aren't just based on witnesses and testimony like they were in 1940. When someone has a relationship, there is a huge electronic paper trail of the promises and dynamics of that relationship. Therefore, the government can prove much more subtle things than just "she is 15 and they had sex." Through online messages and social media, the government can show where a man lied and did not follow through. The law does not recognize this because it was created 100 years ago for a specific people that are now gone, when all of that would have been spoken in private, mouth to mouth, in a world where that couldn't even be secretly recorded, leaving no objective evidence behind. There is no reason to assume that law is the best for us, with all of our technology, medicine, hygiene, and education.
I believe adultery should be a felony and deceptive seduction should be a crime, maybe a felony. So in the case of a 40 year old and a teenager, one or both of those applies in most cases. If neither applies, then we are condemning age gaps or fornication, which could be okay, but I'm not sure how the mainstream society can consistently justify that (they never justify anything though, it's always just feelings).
If these chain relationships had been with 40 year old, wealthy, sexually mature/greedy/desperate men this would have likely been a lot worse.
Why, other than STDs, cutting out teenage boys, adultery, and deception? I think all of those except cutting out should be illegal on their own. Cutting out is good actually because I don't think most teenage boys are mature enough for dating. Personally I was not mature enough to date for marriage until I was 20. I think they ruin the girls far worse than a 20 something could. 40 somethings are in between, they're more mature but you get into the massive age gap issue and the question as to why a 40 something is dating a 15 year old. Is it frequently adultery? Did his wife die in childbirth? Otherwise, why is he even available for that? And so on.
Again, anyone acting in good faith can just date them without having sex for a couple years and everything is fine.
Say this to the gays and see what happens. I don't find this reasoning consistent with current sexual ethics; it's special pleading, and the exception to the rule can't be justified.
DeepNeuralNetwork
5hr ago
I'm really struggling to envision how this would work in practice.
Prosecutor charges defendant with rape or sexual assault and argues with evidence that the charge applies because the victim lacked the cognitive ability to consent to sex, due to being too young of a child.
A 20-year-old man has consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl, but it's okay because "she seemed really mature for her age"?
It would be okay because she was not mentally handicapped. Normal 15 year olds understand sex.
How would this synergise (or not) with other rights only afforded to people who have reached the age of majority? 15-year-olds can vote, drink alcohol, smoke, buy guns etc. provided they can demonstrate that they're unusually mature for their age? Can you imagine the administrative overhead involved in having a public body vet the emotional maturity of every 15-, 16- and 17-year-old in the land on a case-by-case basis?
I think all of those are fine for 15 year olds as long as their parents can veto it. In fact that's how it was for a long time until the late 20th century. They used to have smoking rooms in high schools (for students) and they would bring their rifles to school and so on. What is more important is whether they can not have their parents be their guardians. I think there should be the ability for smart 15 year olds to become emancipated in cases where their parents lack ability, are abusive, or are just too different from their own tastes. This is very rare, however, but courts already hear emancipation cases. Most 15 year olds probably don't want to be emancipated since they get along with their parents and depend on them. In fact the opposite is more frequently the case, many parents keep parenting until their child is in their early 20s, which is probably why the age of adulthood in the US used to be 21. This happens because their 18 and 19 year olds are still dependent on them and don't trust their own judgement. For example, I bought a gun when I was 18. Looking back I definitely did not need it and I was glad my parents took it away from me. I went to college and they found I had a fake ID when I came back for the summer and that got taken too when I was 19. A lot of girls had tracking apps on their phones for their parents during freshman year of university and when I was 21, a friend wanted his freshman girlfriend to come live with him in a different city while he did an internship, but her father wouldn't allow her.
As for the franchise, I don't care at all because I don't vote. The reason for that is that I don't accept mass democracy as a political system, but that's a totally different can of worms.
DeepNeuralNetwork
6hr ago
People who find a reason to say five or six when I say 15 are simply FUDing. I'm increasingly convinced that nobody is actually attracted to pre-adolescent children, dogs, or decayed corpses. The roots of sexual behavior towards these are rather extreme horniness and other mental illnesses. If true, this would imply it's straight FUD to talk about "Paedophiles out there claiming six year olds experience sexual desire" -- this is not a real thing outside of a couple of shock artists. Equating it to a 20 year old dating a 15 year old is just incorrect.
DeepNeuralNetwork
6hr ago
No one is attracted to 10 year olds. They get together at 15 and 20, then time goes forwards, not backwards.
DeepNeuralNetwork
6hr ago
By high age of consent I mean 18. If you are a 21 year old man, it's normal to only seek women younger than yourself. That means 18-20. But statistics show you are going to be attracted to girls as young as 15. Which means the 15-17 year old age range is artificially cut out of your dating pool.
DeepNeuralNetwork
20hr ago
So rape that leaves no injury isn't rape?
It's rape, but I have to have evidence it happened other than victim testimony. If the accused denies the victim's testimony, and there's no other evidence of rape, then they cancel out and I wouldn't convict.
I see this is not just about the age of consent.
You thought I liked little kids but really I'm just anti-feminist.
DeepNeuralNetwork
20hr ago
I present to the jury the transcript of the defendant's sexual encounter with the victim: https://litreactor.com/columns/themes-of-pedophilia-in-the-works-of-piers-anthony
"Your father wants to have sex with you, but doesn't dare, and your brother wants to, but doesn't know how." "What's sex?" "That's when a man and a woman—a grown man and grown woman—get together and do it. Children aren't supposed to." She didn't know what he meant. A look of great perplexity showed on her face. "What do they do?" "They take off their clothes and lie on a bed and, well, they do it." "What do they do? I don't understand!" "Well, he puts his—I guess you don't know the words—his thing in her thing." "Why?" "Because it's a hell of a lot of fun, kid!" "You mean like when Daddy plays with me?" "Yes, only more so. A lot more so." "I want to do it!" she told him.
Jury, I claim that this transcript proves the victim had no idea what sex was when she "agreed" to it. Consent is defined as informed agreement. What say ye on the victim's informedness.
"Guilty".
...
You can never make this argument for a mentally normal 15 year old.
DeepNeuralNetwork
21hr ago
There's fiction, and there's real life. In a fictional book, a character can be any age, any size, and still behave in any way. In real life, those features correlate strongly. It's easy to write an adult, mention she's 5 years old, and about 4 feet tall, and then have her wax eloquently about her passion for her lover on a stand. In real life, 5 year olds can barely string a coherent adult sentence together, and not about abstract ideas.
testimony of victims of child sexual abuse who later claim they were too young to consent and that even if they enjoyed it at the time, it fucked them up later in life, I suggest you watch some parole hearings, of which there are many on YouTube.
Link? How old were the victims? How does one enjoy something and then have it insidiously fuck them up later if there's no physical damage? Is it heartbreak? Addiction? Those are the only two experiences like that I can imagine. I'm not sure what they would be addicted to. Sex? I don't think it works like that, people just have a sex drive. As for heartbreak, what if it's just a lover's quarrel gone wrong? How come it's not illegal to break my heart?
Except that once we accept your arguments for why young men should not be denied the pleasures of a 15-year-old, you really don't have much except vaguely-defined "physical and mental development" to argue against going much younger.
What you call vaguely defined is in fact scientifically measured. What you prefer to my indices are the stated feelings of older women. As a rule, I can't condone the idea of labeling someone a felon because a woman says she's offended by him. She's got to show some physical damage or demonstrate some kind of financial or physical grievance using hard evidence. Maybe the difference between me and age of consent should be 18 folks is that I won't convict a man or legislate based solely on woman's scorn.
(There are children who go through very precocious puberty. Should they be on the menu?)
I already answered that with the "common law age of consent" idea. If it wasn't clear, puberty timing doesn't appear to correlate much with intelligence, so no, I would not buy precocious puberty as a defense if the girl clearly can't mentally understand consent because, for instance, she is 9.
DeepNeuralNetwork
21hr ago
Enough to matter. Mostly outside of large American coastal cites, though.
DeepNeuralNetwork
21hr ago
Serious question, bub: You keep talking about your "lived experience." So I assume you are not a virgin. I'm not going to ask if you've ever banged an underage girl
The lived experience is me at 15. I only know what went on in my head at 15 for sure, not anybody else's.
but I am going to ask: assuming you have had sex with a virgin, why didn't you marry her?
This is a loaded question, because I did marry her.
DeepNeuralNetwork
23hr ago
What age do girls stop playing with dolls? Do they play with them at 14? They're playing with dolls during their freshman year of high school?
DeepNeuralNetwork
23hr ago
If 15, why not 14? If 14, why not 13? If 13, why not 12 - after all in the Classical world 12 year olds were married! (as you have used as an example yourself).
As age falls, the number of men who are disrupted decreases, while the reasons for disrupting increase. Eventually, you get children who don't desire sex, can't get pregnant, and don't understand it. It's pretty clear that the age of consent should be higher than that number, and that number is probably greater than 10 or 11. Probably it's between 13 and 15, if you look at the recent modern world. I personally think 13 is too young for sex because I think it's probably the minimum age a girl can really fall in love with a man, she's very inexperienced at that age, and any man (or boy) ought to wait and meet her family before taking her virginity, which she should definitely have. And 13 year olds still have mild intelligence deficit compared to adults that goes away by 15. If I had to pick an exact age, I'm split between 14 and 15. Maybe I would pick 14.5 because it would be funny and it would highlight the arbitrary nature of the law. "How old are you?" "14." "Which type of 14??" LOL
DeepNeuralNetwork
23hr ago
Ah. Are we getting to the real nub of the argument now? And how many 20 year old men want to have babies with their 15 year old girlfriends, as opposed to getting to stick their dick into a hot, wet hole?
Plenty I'm sure. But how many 15 year old girls want to have babies with their boyfriend, as opposed to getting their hot, wet, well I'll not finish this, but you know what I mean? Are you saying 15 year old girls date for marriage at a higher rate than older women?
But why don't you?
They want to convict people of felonies based on their experience. But it's canceled out by mine and others, plus lived experience isn't enough for what they want anyway.
It's bad for society when minors are exploited, even if minors consent to the exploitation and feel they are not being exploited and that they really do love the guy.
What do you mean by exploitation exactly? How is this bad for society, even if it makes minors happy?
The problem is that libertarianism is a fundamentally lazy attempt to systematize and plan social structure. The problem with this plan for children is that parents are adapted to maximize their childrens' fertility. Understanding how exactly this works gets into a ton of math and science very quickly, and that's where the NAP writer checks out.
More options
Context Copy link