A judge in Texas has banned a teenage drug offender from having sex as part of her probation, as long as she is living with her parents and attending school.
Christina Brazier, 17, pleaded guilty to possession of drugs, a crime which carries up to 10 years in jail and a $10,000 (£5,700) fine. District judge Lauri Blake, who sits in Sherman, 65 miles north of Dallas, ruled that to avoid jail Ms Brazier "shall not have sexual intercourse while enrolled in school and living with parents".
As a Texan myself, I would like to point out that while Texas is messed up in plenty of ways, this judge is quite whacko and does not represent the texas judicial system as a while.
Besides, North of Dallas and you're into Bible Belt territory, Texas can hardly be blamed for that!
"I think instead of telling pregnant women not to drink, female alcoholics ought to be told not to fuck".
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all. - Douglas Adams
Is there anyplace in the US a 17 year old can legally have sex? I know there are age of consent laws lower but with all the statatory rape chages etc,.
BTW you should all google and read the rest of the sotry, she is barred from a lot of things and smokinggun shows that it includes like 5 specific people.
I found one unconfirmed mention that she was in possession of over a kilo of coke if she had been less than a year older she probably would have mandatory minimum sentencing longer than her probation. She was drug moving for a bunch of guys she was fucking, her parents didn't want the little druggie whore in there house unless there were some rules when the tart starting doing the same things again.
I wouldn't blame her parents for feeling that way, just for raising a 17 year old piece of shit that is going to burden the taxpayers forever.
She Dreams in Digital
\"Led Zeppelin taught an entire generation of young men how to make love, if they just listen\"- Michael Reed(2005)
Isn't Hawaii's age of consent 14? I know Illinois' is 17, but only with other 17 year olds, and then 18 year olds can with anyone, or that's what we were taught in high school. Minor sex is a state's rights issue, apparently, hence all the differences in requirements.
I know NJ anyone under 13 cant have sex.. period.. 14 year olds sadly can have sex with anyone up to the age of 16 and 16 year olds can legally have sex with anyone 3 years older than them..legal age of conset is 16 in N.J... Sad..
The age of consent in Canada is a national thing and is 14. In the last couple weeks there was a motion to raise it to 16.
Primary argument for raising: stopping predatory older people from having sex with 14 year olds (i.e. 30 year old with a 14 year old).
Primary argument against: preventing "puppy love" from becoming a Criminal Code offense (i.e. an 18 year having sex with a 14 or 15 year old).
I can see both sides of the argument and agree with them, so which way do you go?
As for this girl, as a 17 year old, IMO she's damned lucky not to get jail time: she's old enough to know better. If her parents can maintain control over her, it might be a good thing and teach her some self discipline (or least discretion ). But are the parents capable of keeping her behaviour under wraps and is she smart enough to realize that she got a huge gift in this sentence? I'm betting no to at least one and probably both of those or she wouldn't be in this position now...
Wulfran Moondancer
Stupid Sidekick of the Lambent Dorf
Petitioner to Club Bok Bok
Founding Member of the Barbarian Nation Movement
Wulfran wrote:
Primary argument for raising: stopping predatory older people from having sex with 14 year olds (i.e. 30 year old with a 14 year old).
Primary argument against: preventing "puppy love" from becoming a Criminal Code offense (i.e. an 18 year having sex with a 14 or 15 year old).
I can see both sides of the argument and agree with them, so which way do you go?
Why not use the sliding sex scale between ages 14 and 16? Make it five years so permissible age ranges would be:
14-19
15-20
16-3x (oops, typo)
17-anyone
The sliding scale makes so much sense. Make it so Canadians! Those early ages still seem young but not 10 years jail time young for an 18 year old for example.
Possibly because not everyone is of the same opinion? I think 19 year olds farking 14 year olds is predatory behaviour, you obviously don't.
Then again, I wouldn't need an arrest warrant to stop a college kid humping a daughter barely into high school...
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
Zaelath wrote:Possibly because not everyone is of the same opinion? I think 19 year olds farking 14 year olds is predatory behaviour, you obviously don't.
Then again, I wouldn't need an arrest warrant to stop a college kid humping a daughter barely into high school...
Who are you responding to and what's "farking"?
I'm suggesting changes to what looks like an age 14 or older sex free for all at the moment in canada if what wulfran said is correct. 14 year olds are freshmen in high school. If there's an issue with 14-16 year olds having sex with people in their same school, perhaps the high schools should be changed to have 7th through 10th grades in one school and 11th and 12th grades in another, otherwise the chances of 14 and 18/19 year olds getting together is a realistic scenario. Are we discussing real life here or some sort of moralistic, I don't have a clue what really goes on in the world, high ground?
As for my personal opinion, I'd go with 16 as the minimum age with the restriction of a maximum age difference of four years for sixteen and seventeen year olds. (16-20, 17-21). Alternatively, you could restrict 16-17 year olds to hummers and handjobs or at least only to anal sex to avoid pregnancies. The hummers/handjobs/anal sex isn't likely so I'm left believing a sliding scale for the youngest sex age group is the most realistic plan to avoid lots of 18 year olds hanging out in jail with much older pervs. I suppose you could reduce the penalties on a sliding scale and keep it illegal so you could take the lunch money away or acne cream away from a high school senior if he had sex with his girlfriend/boyfriend instead of locking him/her up.
Legal age difference here is 2 years unless they're 16, that's a fairly reasonable gap, and yeah, 16 is still probably too young to allow them to hook up with someone of any age, but social stigmas tend to mean the 16 and 30+ couple is pretty rare.
People on here keep falling back on "well, they're in school together". The teachers are in the school too. Their priest and their youth group leaders are in groups with them as well. What's so fucking special about sharing a lunch room with a girl that means you can't tell that she's too young for you?
I'm fully aware of 'the real world' but I'm also not so fucking deluded to think that it's even remotely feasible to suggest that a 14 year old and an 18-19 year old are even close developmentally. You're not that old that you can't remember how much you learnt between 15 and 19, 19 and 24, but, say, 25 and 35? Now you're talking about a large age gap that is very close developmentally.
Who are you responding to and what's "farking"?
Take a wild guess, jackass.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
I think we should bring back the fucking chastity belt. Finally, abstinence based education that WORKS!
"There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships." -Theodore Roosevelt
masteen wrote:I think we should bring back the fucking chastity belt. Finally, abstinence based education that WORKS!
In case you're confused, I'm not in favour of abstinence based anything. I'm simply against seniors bagging freshmen because they're too much of a loser to attract a girl of their own maturity level and have to bottomfeed.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
Spang wrote:or perhaps the freshman girl has no interest in guys her age. on average guys mature slower than women.
a freshman female can easily have the maturity level of a senior male.
That's popularist horseshit. Girls mature physically earlier than males, they're not somehow more worldly or "mature" in the capacity for rational though sense.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
The point Zaelath is that males and females all the way up through age 18, and sometimes beyond, are normally not wise enough to fully comprehend what's right and wrong. Couple that with basic natural insticts and I'll explain why an 18/19 year old shouldn't be treated the same as an older individual when it comes to sex.
Do you think that back in the cave man days they waited to have sex until age 16, 18, etc? Hell no. Basic instincts and raging hormones took over.
What's changed since then? Nothing, except that we now have laws. The same insticts are still there. It's debatable at what age everything is in place mentally for an individual to really understand the meaning behind laws and not just that they determine right and wrong. Does a kid not steal because they fully understand why it is wrong to steal or because their parents told them it was wrong and the kid associates "wrong" with something they've done in the past which resulted in a punishment of some sort from their parents?
When you were told to go to bed as a kid, did you really understand the reasons why sleep was important and go to bed or did you do it because "mama spank" if you didn't? (of course at some point you did, don't be a he-man and actually reply that you knew the very first time your mom told you to go to bed, the reason it was important)
Now, when you had a chance to stay up late because maybe a babysitter was there or for some other reason, did you do it? Relate that to the same idea of being told not to have sex (or not having ever formally been told about sex at all) and then having your homones kick in and the natural instict to reproduce drive your actions...why would someone having sex be any different than staying up late...knowing it was wrong because your parents told you but not fully understanding why? How is a kid to know that having sex is worse than skipping school or anything else a kid isn't supposed to do?
I still say all kids should be sterilized until they turn 18! (and probably permanently until a couple requests to become fertile with 100 percent approval. The mere fact that a couple would have to make a conscious decision to have a baby, even with 100% approval no matter what their status, would prevent umpteen unwanted pregnancies and not infringe on anyone's rights)
That's all very interesting, but it's also true that most social stigmas evolved from the problems that occured if you did anything you felt like. And, the ability to quash our instincts is what makes for a civilized society, not how many Xbox 360's you can afford.
Inbreeding isn't taboo because it's immoral, it's because you get genetic defects. People couldn't explain that when it was first noticed, so it was the wrath of the gods from an ill conceived coupling, hence it found it's way into the 'moral code' and in many cases the legal code.
Similarly, girls in our society simply aren't prepared for having kids before (at least) 16, so a lot of civilized countries set that as the age of consent, however, a lot also recognise that it's rediculous to go around arresting a 16 year old for having sex with a 15 year old, neither of whom are adult (here defined as being old enough to understand their responsibilities under law and thereby be judged by them), so they make exceptions for children sleeping with children.
Once you start talking about a 4+ year gap you're talking about an adult (18, under law) having sex with a child (14). Certainly they are old enough to go to war, they're old enough to be legally independant of their parents, they're old enough to jail.
18 year olds have a much firmer grasp of cause and effect and that they are legally responsible for their own actions. To suggest they are hostage to their hormones and not liable for their actions is just more of the cult of irresponsibility that people seem to love. The same people that will say an 18 year old is too young to control his hormones won't be saying they're too young to control their emotions if they lash out and beat someone to death. Why not? They're both hormone-driven emotional responses.
Regardless, you can't talk about "caveman days" and small children's response to a bed time then move on to try to apply that to what is considered an adult in our society.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
the problem with these types of laws is they basically say that at age X you are mature and responsible enough to do Y.
realistically that's not always the case. it varies from person to person.
some 16 year olds are very responsible drivers. some 35 year olds never were and still aren't.
when i turned 21 i didn't feel any more mature or responsible than when i was 20. i didn't drink any more responsibly than i already did. i was a responsible drinker underage (except for the fact i was drinking underage, that's kinda irresponsible, heh) and of the appropriate age. the only difference was i didn't need someone else to get the stuff for me.
the reality is people of the same age do not mature at the same rate, regardless of gender. not all high school seniors are mature and not all high school freshmen are immature, for lack of better terms. it would be great if it were true but it's just not that simple.
While I agree that some people never grow up, that doesn't prove the corollary; that some people magically accrue wisdom at a faster rate, which was your original point.
Hell you could make a case that a mentally disabled person never reaches the age of majority in a sense, but one has to draw lines somewhere, and I don't think the "normal" case of a 19 year old dating a 14 year old is anything but exploitative.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
). But are the parents capable of keeping her behaviour under wraps and is she smart enough to realize that she got a huge gift in this sentence? I'm betting no to at least one and probably both of those or she wouldn't be in this position now...
