Girl, 12, blamed by judge for sex attack.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 8, 2004, 12:33 pm

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm ... _page.html

A JUDGE yesterday freed a man who had sex with a girl of 12 - and said it was her fault they ended up in bed.

Child protection groups were furious after Michael Barrett, 20, was handed a two-year conditional discharge for the attack.

MP Dan Norris accused the judge of "playing into the hands of paedophiles". Barrett met the girl in an internet chatroom and later twice had sex with her at her parents' home when he was 18.

But judge Michael Roach said she was a "willing participant" who instigated sex at the house in Greater Manchester last year when she went to his bedroom.

He said trainee croupier Barrett was not "predatory to children" and told him: "There was no sexual coercion. Her family allowed you to stay in their home. I trust you to behave yourself now."

Former child protection officer Mr Norris said: "This is inexcusable and sends out the wrong message.

"There is no way anybody under 16 is able to make a genuine and informed decision about sex."

London child-abuse expert Professor Liz Kelly added: "The sentence is saying the age of consent does not matter."

Kidscape branded the decision "appalling". And the NSPCC said: "It is a very lenient sentence."

Barrett first met the girl at a 2002 concert in London after contacting her via the internet and phone. He was invited to stay with her family, who did not believe the relationship "inappropriate", the court heard.

After the case at Bristol crown court, Barrett said: "I have been lucky. I won't do that again."

He admitted having unlawful sex and has to sign the Sex Offenders' Register for two years.

A new law in May made sex with under-13s rape, carrying a possible life sentence. But it came into force after Barrett, of Bristol was held.

Judge Roach has come under fire before for leniency with sex offenders.

In 2003 he spared Bristol pervert Gary Templar jail after he assaulted a girl of eight.

And he gave a doctor just one year jail despite a 20 year reign of assaults against eight women.

The parents should have been handed a very harsh jail term. They are supposed to lookout for the welfare of their freaking 12 year old daughter. I don't see anything in the the article about the girl lying about her age or anything like that so the guy, having full knowledge of her being 12, should also be in jail for rape. I cannot believe a judge let them all off basically scott free. He should be taken off the bench. I have a son that just turned 13 and if he were to have sex with an 18 year old I would be furious that a judge would say to my face that he was old enough to make an informed decision about sex, especially considering all of the std's we have going around.

How the judge could blame this on the little girl is a revealing peek into his mind, he's a loon that needs to be kidnapped and raped repeatedly, so we could tell him that since he did not commit suicide then it was considered consentual.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 8, 2004, 1:55 pm

the worst thing about having a british style justice system is lunatic or arrogant judges that don't have to answer to anyone. although it's debatable whether or not it's better or worse than having elected judges who are desperate to appear "tough on crime" and sentence every minority to 20-to-life for jaywalking or littering.

that said, I don't think 18 and 12 is much of a difference to warrant prison time.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 8, 2004, 2:25 pm

Well, her parents did let him sleep over, so unless they are MONUMENTALLY stupid, they knew someone would be getting poked that night.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » September 8, 2004, 2:38 pm

I agree that an average 12 year old whether it's a boy or girl can not make a completely informed decision on sex, partly due to the repression of information ( at least in the U.S. ), but mostly because emotionally and mentally they are not developed enough to handle that situation.

However, I am not a big fan of one size fits all laws. By this I mean that we don't know anything about these people, I would assume that each had a physiological examination that the judge was able to review. Plus we don't know if the guy was out looking for a 12 year old girl or just found a girl made a connection and then found out she was 12.

Now the parents felt that the girl had the maturity to handle that situation, I am not going to stand here and say that I know what's best for someone else's child. In all honestly how many 12 year old would actually tell their parents they were going out with an 18 year old? Most would just sneak around behind their backs.

Did the adults in this situation make a mistake by not stopping the relationship when they found out (the guy when he found out she was 12 and her parents when they found out he was 18 )? My gut says yes, but I'm not them. However, as far as the judgment goes you have to ask yourself, is the guy a danger to other underage girls? If he was out looking for a 12 year old girl, then yes he is and he should be locked up for as long as the law allows. However, from the little information we have it sounds like a very unique situation, and that many bad decisions were made.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » September 8, 2004, 4:18 pm

I remember being 13. I remember being 13 and wanting to get laid.

It's easy now that you're in your 30's or 40's to think it's so shocking, but kids these days are farther along with sexual knowledge than you were, and if you were after a piece of ass at 15+, you better believe they know all about it at a much younger age. Not to mention how developed kids are these days at much earlier ages than we all were. Girls at 12 these days look like they're 20. It's crazy.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » September 8, 2004, 5:20 pm

people are having sex in 7th grade .... hello people WAKE UP and i graduated last year

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 8, 2004, 5:25 pm

Drasta wrote:people are having sex in 7th grade .... hello people WAKE UP and i graduated last year

I whacked off in 7th grade but didn't have sex until high school!

What's the age on drugs now? I recall some kids doing it 7-8th grade but I didn't inhale until 9th.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » September 8, 2004, 5:27 pm

people were smoking pot in 6th grade my one friend started at 12 he's 18 now

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 8, 2004, 5:37 pm

So you all would have no problem with your 12 year old daughter having sex with an 18 year old? Incredible. It's one thing for a couple of 12 year olds to be experimenting with sex, it's quite another for a 12 year old to have sex with an 18 year old who has most likely had a greater exposure to sex with other partners and therefore a greater exposure to std's. An 18 year old knows the finality of catching a disease and can risk it if they want to as an adult, a 12 year old does not. For a parent to condone their child having sex with an adult that has only been on this planet through 12 summers is completely irresponsible.

If just one of you says you would have no problem with your 12 year old kid having sex with an adult, then I'll shutup, but I don't think you have the balls to be that stupid on this forum.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » September 8, 2004, 5:40 pm

I don't have a problem with other parents having no problem with it. I am not their keeper as the saying goes. I would certainly have a problem with it. However, they invited him into their house, and seemed okay with it, so I don't see a problem here. I recognize that my views are different than others' and if that's their thing, then fine.

-=Lohrno

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 8, 2004, 5:44 pm

You don't feel an obligation to protect an innocent child? What if the kid were 11? How about 4, what if the kid was 1 year old? Where do you draw the line of letting parents do whatever they want with their child in matters concerning sex? There is a reason why child porn is illegal.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » September 8, 2004, 5:53 pm

I think the parents are dumb as shit - but I don't see this guy getting off scott free unless there was soemthing we weren't told in the article, ie: the girl said she was 18 or so.. and then faked it.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » September 8, 2004, 5:53 pm

I can just see the conversation

Girl: "Mom Dad! I met this 18 year old guy in an internet chat room, can he come over and sleep over!?!??"

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » September 8, 2004, 5:58 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:You don't feel an obligation to protect an innocent child? What if the kid were 11? How about 4, what if the kid was 1 year old? Where do you draw the line of letting parents do whatever they want with their child in matters concerning sex? There is a reason why child porn is illegal.

She wasn't really innocent, she kind of came in and seduced him. But yeah I'd put the limit at about 12. That's when most girls start to 'come of age' as it were.

From the sound of it it's not really like he was pushing for it either...

-=Lohrno

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 8, 2004, 6:11 pm

I agree that we are missing something here...

Personally I know a number of girls, and I'm in my 30s, that were having sex when we were 12... unfortunately just not with me at the time

That being said I can't even IMAGINE a parent going sure he can "sleep" over. Hell my parents wouldn't even let my wife and I sleep in the same bed at their house when we were engaged and had been dating for 4 years.

The guy is definitely somewhat responsible and it sounds like he knows that and wasn't trying to fight it. Who I would hold more responsible is her parents... WTF were they thinking?

Marb

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 8, 2004, 6:23 pm

I think kyoukan was hinting at something like this. Have a slider age law. Something like three years. 15/18, 16/19, 17/20.

A 20 year old screwing a 17 year old with consent does not warrant the same penalty as a 50 year old screwing a 13 year old. Call it the naivety law. An 18 year old Senior may still be clueless about laws and screw a sophmore 15 year old. That doesn't warrant 10 years in the slammer.

It's a highly debatable topic as the age limit applies to a person on their 18th birthday screwing their partner that's 17 and 364 days old the same as a 13 year old and 50 year old having sex. Something's not right there.

While 18 isn't a magical age, anyone younger than that can really be influenced. I suppose you could argue that people older than 18 are easily influenced as well. That's what makes it such a difficult topic.

Think of it like the DUI law. Not everyone has the same loss in reaction time to the same amount of alcohol. Some people can consistently pass a DUI test even at .015. The DUI law is set to the lowest possible amount of alcohol that can affect a person which is now .08 in many states. No matter how your body is affected personally, you're getting hit with a DUI if you're above .08.

The age limit of 18 has been determined to be the latest reasonable age a human can become a consenting adult by the powers that be. (I guess, otherwise they just threw out an arbitrary age)

I can see a case made for an age range for under 18 not necessarily making it legal but reducing the penalties to sex education counseling or something.

Note: I don't see any scenario including this one that someone under 18 should be blamed. A more robust (realistic) program starting in junior high and continuing through high school on sex education would help along with a well developed required counseling program for those caught that fall within the "slider" range.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 8, 2004, 6:33 pm

Agreed Winnow

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » September 8, 2004, 6:40 pm

Damn, never thought i should say this, but i quite agree with you Winnow .)

Thess · Post by **Thess** » September 8, 2004, 6:41 pm

I actually agree with Winnow as well.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » September 8, 2004, 8:43 pm

I agree with Winnow. When someone is in your peer group (as I have experienced) this law really limits the amount of growing two kids can do. I was 17 and had a 15 year old girlfriend when I was a junior. This made anything we did illegal, even two we were a two year difference. The fact that we were in the same groups wouldn't have mattered to the state; the fact that we were both kids relatively the same age coming to decisions about our bodies would not matter. The state would see a number attached to our name, and then would render a decision. (I suppose I should note before the jokes start coming that this didn't happen, but it's more of a hypothetical). A slider rule or same school rules would provide a much more sensible solution to the problem, but the difficulty in that rule is actually setting standards: what constitutes a peer group or acceptable ranges for kids, and what is obscene? Also, this system doesn't take into account people's personalities or maturity levels as there is no real way to gauge that. I know 17 year olds that were too immature for an 18 year old dating partner, and then I know 14 year olds that would have no problem interacting with a 17 year old on a dating level. There's just too much variability to come up with a fair system.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 8, 2004, 9:08 pm

yea that idea is logical, but too hard to set a standard. Say you set the standard, then some guy misses the cutoff birthdate by a month, or a week. He's boned. I guess you could have a slider with a case by case margin to go along with it.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 8, 2004, 10:28 pm

Well.. it varies state to state in the US, and I still find MN law that says 17 goes into 13 wrong, but that's me, and no 13 year old daughter of mine would be having a sleep over with any age guy.

I realise you can't stop children having sex, but that doesn't mean you pussy out and condone it either; for fear of confronting your kids, like I see so many parents do these days.

I think the judges comments are *very* specific to the case, and I don't think he'd say the same in a case involving your kids or mine, Krim

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 8, 2004, 11:55 pm

Chronological age is a fairly meh thing psychologically to draw a hard line on. You really have to allow leeway for a judgement of "mental age". I am familiar with at least on case where a 12 year old female coerced a 35 year old mentally defficient individual into non-consensual sexual relations. The 35 year old later reported it and was promptly arrested. The law also left no discretion for the DA. Fortunately a judge was able to resolve the situation reasonably eventually but not without a good degree of harm to all parties involved.

I have also more frequently seen cases in which juvenile males have been guilty of raping mentally deficient individuals who were totally incompetent to consent. So this is where you need to leave the judiciary leeway interpret the reality of the situation...Rigid standards can and often do fail to to justly address situations like this...And I'm sure there are potentially other similar situations that I (fortunately) cannot conceive...

Hard lines in the sand on this sort of issue definitely have the potential to seem perfectly reasonable be ultimately unjust...This is one of those areas where judges/police and DAs must be allowed a degree of discretion you simply will not predict every potential variant...

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 9, 2004, 1:00 am

Krimson Klaw wrote:So you all would have no problem with your 12 year old daughter having sex with an 18 year old?

I probably would have a major problem with it. I most definitely wouldn't puruse prison time for the guy unless it was apparent that he manipulated my daughter into having sex though. ruining the kid's life because he had sex with his girlfriend who was six years younger than him - and she instigated it - isn't very good.

Asheran Mojomaster · September 9, 2004, 9:39 pm

IMO, I think that once you are 12 or 13 you should be able to make these decisions for yourself. I think that the legal age of consent should be 13 and maybe make the actual age you are a legal adult stay 18, so that way if you are 13 you can make the decisions for yourself, but someone who is 14 wont be punished for having sex with a 12 year old. Of course, if you are drunk you can never really make a good decision on shit like this. Or type.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 9, 2004, 10:05 pm

Oh man I hope it never comes to that. I had an entire paragraph typed out about a 12 year old legally screwing 18 year olds and getting pregnant but I'll just leave it.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 9, 2004, 10:33 pm

Asheran Mojomaster wrote:IMO, I think that once you are 12 or 13 you should be able to make these decisions for yourself. I think that the legal age of consent should be 13 and maybe make the actual age you are a legal adult stay 18, so that way if you are 13 you can make the decisions for yourself, but someone who is 14 wont be punished for having sex with a 12 year old. Of course, if you are drunk you can never really make a good decision on shit like this. Or type.

Someone who's 14 having sex w/ a 12 year old is unlikely to "get in trouble" but you have to draw a line somewhere..

That said, jurisprudence is supposed to be left to judges, not politicians..

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » September 9, 2004, 11:28 pm

Zaelath wrote:
Asheran Mojomaster wrote:IMO, I think that once you are 12 or 13 you should be able to make these decisions for yourself. I think that the legal age of consent should be 13 and maybe make the actual age you are a legal adult stay 18, so that way if you are 13 you can make the decisions for yourself, but someone who is 14 wont be punished for having sex with a 12 year old. Of course, if you are drunk you can never really make a good decision on shit like this. Or type.
Someone who's 14 having sex w/ a 12 year old is unlikely to "get in trouble" but you have to draw a line somewhere..

That said, jurisprudence is supposed to be left to judges, not politicians..

I hate to break it to you but girls typically have their periods around 12 years old, so yes, they are likely to "get in trouble" if they are having sex.

I think I read somewhere that there is a link between puberty and sexual activity

Asheran Mojomaster · September 10, 2004, 1:13 am

Lalanae wrote:
Zaelath wrote:
Asheran Mojomaster wrote:IMO, I think that once you are 12 or 13 you should be able to make these decisions for yourself. I think that the legal age of consent should be 13 and maybe make the actual age you are a legal adult stay 18, so that way if you are 13 you can make the decisions for yourself, but someone who is 14 wont be punished for having sex with a 12 year old. Of course, if you are drunk you can never really make a good decision on shit like this. Or type.
Someone who's 14 having sex w/ a 12 year old is unlikely to "get in trouble" but you have to draw a line somewhere..

That said, jurisprudence is supposed to be left to judges, not politicians..
I hate to break it to you but girls typically have their periods around 12 years old, so yes, they are likely to "get in trouble" if they are having sex.

I think I read somewhere that there is a link between puberty and sexual activity

Well actually the "get in trouble" thing was more to do with legal problems than pregnancy...most teenagers know more about safe sex and condoms than we are given credit for. I was saying that if they made the legal age for consent like 13 or so they would have to set it up some way so that if a 14 year old and a 12 year old had sex the 14 year old kid isnt gonna be "in trouble" for it...theres just nothing wrong with that.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » September 10, 2004, 1:58 am

this is america, no one should be having sex at all or be even uttering the word ... and no more sex ed in school its poisoning and causing the decline of america

Asheran Mojomaster · September 10, 2004, 6:11 pm

Drasta wrote:this is america, no one should be having sex at all or be even uttering the word ... and no more sex ed in school its poisoning and causing the decline of america

I live in Alabama, we dont have Sex Ed here anyway. In fact we dont have very many classes at all other than the core English, Science, Math, and History...plus every year they cut more and more elective classes because the schools are full of idiots who waste all the money we have on football so we end up broke and unable to afford to pay more teachers or buy supplies for classes.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » September 10, 2004, 6:40 pm

we had sex ed when I was in school but is was very clinical, didn't deal with the emotional affects of sex really. We learned a laundry list of STDs, learned to recognize the uterus, and saw a movie that scientifically outlined what happens in the body during arousal and pregnancy (leaving a huge gaping hole when it came to the sexual act). Masturbation was NEVER mentioned. If we talked about birth control, it was cursory. STDs were discussed like we discussed malaria and leprosy, with fear, but a fear that was too far removed from us. They were foreign, something we would never encounter even in a world gripped by AIDS.

The clinical look at sex doesn't help kids whose parents are either too embarrassed or too oblivious to talk to their kids about sex, but as soon as teachers start discussing the emotional affects some parent will freak that the school system is "trying to do the parent's job." I don't blame the education system for half-assed sex education, I blame the parents who get bent out of shape when the school system wants to implement better sex education.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » September 10, 2004, 10:29 pm

i know they need to pass out like damn condoms in school .. my school was on MTV for teen pregnaces! YAY US !

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » September 11, 2004, 4:49 am

Hehe, a lot of sex ed education failures do lie in the teachers inhibitations imo.

Here in Denmark, i had a pretty good sex ed, and we had (might still have, not sure) a corpse of teenagers who could be hired to go do seminars for a class about their experiences with sex, so they kids could hear something about someone almost at the same ages problems and fears, not some 60 year old geezer who havent been laid in 10 years problems

That being said, the teacher are usually at fault here in DK when sex ed go bad. My cousin had a old biology teacher who got forced to tell those kids about sex, so his natural way of doing it was going the biological way, wiht the best part being a nature film of otters having sex.
That was NOT very impressive

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » September 11, 2004, 4:55 am

Statutory age limits on sex are just stupid. They run into all sorts of completely unfiar harsh results for young couples that choose to have sex. I think the people posting here that 12 y.o. lack the capacity to understand those consequences are fooling themselves. We have rape laws and sexual misconduct laws between adults that require proving a lack of consent. Those laws are adequate to protect youth as well.

At a minimum, and I am not even thrilled with that, there could be a shifting burden based on an arbitrary age limit (maybe 11 with a requirement that the perp. be at least 3 years older) where the presumption was the sex was not consentual, but that presuption would be rebuttable.

I think it is laughable that a 13 y.o. in LA has the capacity to marry, but lacks the capacity to have sex when not married. The whole thing is a crock and has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with Christian prudism.

In America sex = bad (at least the public recognition of it). Young people are politically powerless, so there are all sorts of laws that prevent them from acting in the way they would naturally act (sex, drugs, alcohol, etc.) if left alone. All of that is because Christians and other *people of faith* hate the idea that other folks who don't buy into their crap might be having fun. If christians could make all that sex that they hate amoung adults illegal, they'ed do that too. The history of the laws in our Country proves that. Bigamy = illegal, adultry = illegal, buggery = illegal, miscogenation = illegal, contracetives = illegal. All of that was true at some point in our history. Some of it still is. Kids having sex = illegal still. Not because kids can't comprehend sex, but because kids like sex, christians don't, and kids have 0 political power.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » September 11, 2004, 9:04 am

edited to remove.. nonconstructive..

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » September 11, 2004, 2:26 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:Statutory age limits on sex are just stupid. They run into all sorts of completely unfiar harsh results for young couples that choose to have sex. I think the people posting here that 12 y.o. lack the capacity to understand those consequences are fooling themselves. We have rape laws and sexual misconduct laws between adults that require proving a lack of consent. Those laws are adequate to protect youth as well.

At a minimum, and I am not even thrilled with that, there could be a shifting burden based on an arbitrary age limit (maybe 11 with a requirement that the perp. be at least 3 years older) where the presumption was the sex was not consentual, but that presuption would be rebuttable.

I think it is laughable that a 13 y.o. in LA has the capacity to marry, but lacks the capacity to have sex when not married. The whole thing is a crock and has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with Christian prudism.

In America sex = bad (at least the public recognition of it). Young people are politically powerless, so there are all sorts of laws that prevent them from acting in the way they would naturally act (sex, drugs, alcohol, etc.) if left alone. All of that is because Christians and other *people of faith* hate the idea that other folks who don't buy into their crap might be having fun. If christians could make all that sex that they hate amoung adults illegal, they'ed do that too. The history of the laws in our Country proves that. Bigamy = illegal, adultry = illegal, buggery = illegal, miscogenation = illegal, contracetives = illegal. All of that was true at some point in our history. Some of it still is. Kids having sex = illegal still. Not because kids can't comprehend sex, but because kids like sex, christians don't, and kids have 0 political power.

I don't know how old you are (guessing you are a teenager) but sex is not just an act. There are a lot of emotions involved. There are responsibilities and consequences to having sex. 12 year olds are NOT capable of understanding responsibilities and consequences beyond losing their XBox priviledges for not cleaning Fluffy's litterbox. Sex takes a certain amount of maturity that kids just don't have. And if you look at kids today, the most mature ones know they are not ready for sex. They know the dangers, they know the benefits of waiting till they find the right person. I don't advocate waiting till marriage, but I do advocate not having sex just cause you have a boner.

The folks here who have been in serious relationships will agree, sex is sooooo much better in a mutual loving relationship.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » September 11, 2004, 3:39 pm

The "psycho girl" thread in the NWS forum is all I have to say. No way in hell she knew what she was doing.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » September 11, 2004, 10:35 pm

Lalanae wrote:
Aaeamdar wrote:Statutory age limits on sex are just stupid. They run into all sorts of completely unfiar harsh results for young couples that choose to have sex. I think the people posting here that 12 y.o. lack the capacity to understand those consequences are fooling themselves. We have rape laws and sexual misconduct laws between adults that require proving a lack of consent. Those laws are adequate to protect youth as well.

At a minimum, and I am not even thrilled with that, there could be a shifting burden based on an arbitrary age limit (maybe 11 with a requirement that the perp. be at least 3 years older) where the presumption was the sex was not consentual, but that presuption would be rebuttable.

I think it is laughable that a 13 y.o. in LA has the capacity to marry, but lacks the capacity to have sex when not married. The whole thing is a crock and has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with Christian prudism.

In America sex = bad (at least the public recognition of it). Young people are politically powerless, so there are all sorts of laws that prevent them from acting in the way they would naturally act (sex, drugs, alcohol, etc.) if left alone. All of that is because Christians and other *people of faith* hate the idea that other folks who don't buy into their crap might be having fun. If christians could make all that sex that they hate amoung adults illegal, they'ed do that too. The history of the laws in our Country proves that. Bigamy = illegal, adultry = illegal, buggery = illegal, miscogenation = illegal, contracetives = illegal. All of that was true at some point in our history. Some of it still is. Kids having sex = illegal still. Not because kids can't comprehend sex, but because kids like sex, christians don't, and kids have 0 political power.
I don't know how old you are (guessing you are a teenager) but sex is not just an act. There are a lot of emotions involved. There are responsibilities and consequences to having sex. 12 year olds are NOT capable of understanding responsibilities and consequences beyond losing their XBox priviledges for not cleaning Fluffy's litterbox. Sex takes a certain amount of maturity that kids just don't have. And if you look at kids today, the most mature ones know they are not ready for sex. They know the dangers, they know the benefits of waiting till they find the right person. I don't advocate waiting till marriage, but I do advocate not having sex just cause you have a boner.

The folks here who have been in serious relationships will agree, sex is sooooo much better in a mutual loving relationship.

or sex can be just a one night stand ... emotions don't have to be involved

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 11, 2004, 10:54 pm

Lalanae wrote:
Aaeamdar wrote:Statutory age limits on sex are just stupid. They run into all sorts of completely unfiar harsh results for young couples that choose to have sex. I think the people posting here that 12 y.o. lack the capacity to understand those consequences are fooling themselves. We have rape laws and sexual misconduct laws between adults that require proving a lack of consent. Those laws are adequate to protect youth as well.

At a minimum, and I am not even thrilled with that, there could be a shifting burden based on an arbitrary age limit (maybe 11 with a requirement that the perp. be at least 3 years older) where the presumption was the sex was not consentual, but that presuption would be rebuttable.

I think it is laughable that a 13 y.o. in LA has the capacity to marry, but lacks the capacity to have sex when not married. The whole thing is a crock and has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with Christian prudism.

In America sex = bad (at least the public recognition of it). Young people are politically powerless, so there are all sorts of laws that prevent them from acting in the way they would naturally act (sex, drugs, alcohol, etc.) if left alone. All of that is because Christians and other *people of faith* hate the idea that other folks who don't buy into their crap might be having fun. If christians could make all that sex that they hate amoung adults illegal, they'ed do that too. The history of the laws in our Country proves that. Bigamy = illegal, adultry = illegal, buggery = illegal, miscogenation = illegal, contracetives = illegal. All of that was true at some point in our history. Some of it still is. Kids having sex = illegal still. Not because kids can't comprehend sex, but because kids like sex, christians don't, and kids have 0 political power.
I don't know how old you are (guessing you are a teenager) but sex is not just an act. There are a lot of emotions involved. There are responsibilities and consequences to having sex. 12 year olds are NOT capable of understanding responsibilities and consequences beyond losing their XBox priviledges for not cleaning Fluffy's litterbox. Sex takes a certain amount of maturity that kids just don't have. And if you look at kids today, the most mature ones know they are not ready for sex. They know the dangers, they know the benefits of waiting till they find the right person. I don't advocate waiting till marriage, but I do advocate not having sex just cause you have a boner.

The folks here who have been in serious relationships will agree, sex is sooooo much better in a mutual loving relationship.

Ermm... Aaeamdar is no teenager. And while sex is better in a mutual relationship (for a while, then you have to get out the whips and ropes just to make it interesting) that doesn't mean it's not a fun recreational activity.

The female view of sex is very different to the male view though. A good deal of which is probably down to them wanting him to hang around to at least rear the resultant get until it can walk..

I don't particularly want kids having random sex, but I don't think it's cause I'm part of the anti-fun brigade.. I think it's for the reason most social tabboos come into existance; they source from medical issues like congenital birth defects, STD's, pregnancy (yeah, it's magical, it's wonderful, unless you happen to be 12 and your boyfriend this week is a 14 year old C student with a glue habit)

Besides, "relationships" in the teenage years are usually about as lasting as a snowman.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 12, 2004, 12:06 am

As you can see from the psycho girl video, teenagers are highly confused and unstable when it comes to the emotions involving sex partners. Adults aren't much better actually but they are a little less naive.

The answer is clear but will never happen. Non permanently sterilize everyone at birth and then request pregnancy permits. Sex is a natural instinct that can't be totally controlled especially with many forms of drugs influencing decisions on top of the powerful desire to breed we already possess. A simple example of this: Get drunk, fuck.

I know most liberals will immediately shout "big brother!" but is there another answer? Education will help but won't remove our instincts. Unless there is a way to dull the natural sexual instincts we have to breed, we aren't going to avoid this problem. I'd rather have births/pregnancies conrolled than have my emotions/instincts dulled.

This would solve the abortion problem as well except for the controversy over aborting known defective babies from scans because I am not proposing limiting pregnancies in any genetic way, only the requirement to make a distinct conscious decision to become pregnant and eliminated the bazillion unwanted pregnancies. You could argue for a morning after pill but then the abortion freaks jump in and rant and rave.

Come to think of it, this post only has to do with unplanned pregnancies as sexual child abuse remains with or without the pregnancy factor.

Who's with me!? What say you anti abortion people? Every pregnancy is meant to be because it's god's will? What about you pro choice people? Are you in favor of the wait and react John Kerry approach sort of like he has on terrorism? ...lets wait until they get pregnant and then respond to the problem?

I personally see zero problem with unfettered sexual activity among everyone with the sole restriction of the "slider age" for kids between 15-17. Fuck away! Sex rocks and there's nothing "evil" about it. The only problem with sex is unwanted pregnancies, sexual diseases and abuse of children or the mentally challenged.

Solutions:

1. control pregnancies, zero refusal policy for pregnancy requests but you must activily make a decision to become pregnant beyond loss of reason initiated by strong sexual instincts.
2. sexual diseases are bad, sex itself is not bad. Promote protection from these and not deterrence of sex.
3. revamp sexual education to focus on the emotional side of sex and eliminate the biological issue.
4. implement the slider rule and continue harsh penalties for child abuse.

Raise your hand if you've had an abortion or caused an unwanted pregnancy. I know some will say some unplanned pregnancies are good but the majority aren't.

A counter argument would be that not controlling pregnancies but removing our instinctual desire to breed would make us less violent, waste much less time pondering and persuing sex, and allow us to focus on more intellectually stimulating things.

Or...leave it as it is and battle over abortions for eternity.

Asheran Mojomaster · September 12, 2004, 3:45 am

Winnow wrote:As you can see from the psycho girl video, teenagers are highly confused and unstable when it comes to the emotions involving sex partners. Adults aren't much better actually but they are a little less naive.

The answer is clear but will never happen. Non permanently sterilize everyone at birth and then request pregnancy permits. Sex is a natural instinct that can't be totally controlled especially with many forms of drugs influencing decisions on top of the powerful desire to breed we already possess. A simple example of this: Get drunk, fuck.

I know most liberals will immediately shout "big brother!" but is there another answer? Education will help but won't remove our instincts. Unless there is a way to dull the natural sexual instincts we have to breed, we aren't going to avoid this problem. I'd rather have births/pregnancies conrolled than have my emotions/instincts dulled.

This would solve the abortion problem as well except for the controversy over aborting known defective babies from scans because I am not proposing limiting pregnancies in any genetic way, only the requirement to make a distinct conscious decision to become pregnant and eliminated the bazillion unwanted pregnancies. You could argue for a morning after pill but then the abortion freaks jump in and rant and rave.

Come to think of it, this post only has to do with unplanned pregnancies as sexual child abuse remains with or without the pregnancy factor.

Who's with me!? What say you anti abortion people? Every pregnancy is meant to be because it's god's will? What about you pro choice people? Are you in favor of the wait and react John Kerry approach sort of like he has on terrorism? ...lets wait until they get pregnant and then respond to the problem?

I personally see zero problem with unfettered sexual activity among everyone with the sole restriction of the "slider age" for kids between 15-17. Fuck away! Sex rocks and there's nothing "evil" about it. The only problem with sex is unwanted pregnancies, sexual diseases and abuse of children or the mentally challenged.

Solutions:

1. control pregnancies, zero refusal policy for pregnancy requests but you must activily make a decision to become pregnant beyond loss of reason initiated by strong sexual instincts.
2. sexual diseases are bad, sex itself is not bad. Promote protection from these and not deterrence of sex.
3. revamp sexual education to focus on the emotional side of sex and eliminate the biological issue.
4. implement the slider rule and continue harsh penalties for child abuse.

Raise your hand if you've had an abortion or caused an unwanted pregnancy. I know some will say some unplanned pregnancies are good but the majority aren't.

A counter argument would be that not controlling pregnancies but removing our instinctual desire to breed would make us less violent, waste much less time pondering and persuing sex, and allow us to focus on more intellectually stimulating things.

Or...leave it as it is and battle over abortions for eternity.

Wow, I completely agree here, that would be great. Would be so much easier then. Would say Winnow for president, but that would be bad, so Winnow for control over sex policies!

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » September 12, 2004, 5:31 am

I am 37 and have been in a committed relationship for 13 years. Our relationship is not entirely monogmous (well I guess that's like "very unique" somethign is either unique or it is not, there ar eno gradations - the relationship is not monogomous, but I don't go out and get laid by 15 people a year either) .

I completely reject your assertions. Sex, at least for me, has nothing (even when having sex with my boyfriend) with love. Yeah, its an "emotional" experience, but those emotions are pleasure, excitement, hornieness, etc. I love my boyfriend all the time, but that has nothing to do with how much we fuck. When we first fucked and for a very long time thereafter, I did not love him (and I doubt he loved me). We just wanted to fuck. Now I do love him and now when we have sex its because we want to fuck. If we were having sex because we loved each other, we'd just be fucking all the time - which would hurt.

Frankly, the whole "sex is better when you are with someone you love" is, imo, a complete crock (and again the result of christian dogma . When I am with my boyfriend, sex is mostly good because we both know exactly what the other guy likes. It has nothing to do with loving him. The flip side is that there is quite a bit to be said for fucking someone new. Plus, unlike most gay guys, I actually like to fuck chicks sometimes too.

I can't even begin to understand the near religious terms in which fucking is generally described. It is not something "special, to be treasured" or anything of the sort. Sex rocks, but its fundementally no different than anything else one does for fun.

Apart from christain dogma, there is no reason sex should be any different from drinking, smoking, skiiing, etc. Almost everything we do has consequences and children can understand those consequences and make choices about them. Mind you, the role of parents is to help their kids make those decisions. But, again thanks to the christians, a 16 y.o. woul dnever dream of telling their parents they were thinking of having sex with their boyfriend and seek eitehr their advice or permission. Same with drugs and everything else on which we place these stupid taboo's.

If you want kids to learn about sex and treat it with the respect it deserves (respect deserved because of its consequences, not its be oh so special), then you can't treat it like some experience from heaven. Treat it exactly like it is - a fun thing to do that can have some pretty serious potential consequences. If your kid wanted to rollerblade, you wouldn't just say "oh no sarah, don't rollerblade. God teaches us that rollerblading is a heavenly act only to be experienced by a man and a woman after they are married." No, you would chat with them about it and make sure they had a helmet, kneepads (which will come in had later for sex!) and wristguards and then you would do your best to make sure they rollbladed safely.

If you are ever able to escape from the dogma with which you have been trained and approach sex rationally, you will see the inescapable logic that it is really no different than any other activity we involve ourselves in that may carry some risk. All the emotional problems people suffer from owning to sex are completely dervived from the puritanical manner in which our society treats it.

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » September 12, 2004, 7:19 am

Winnow's modest proposal would get him blacklisted for life from the so-called small-government party if the Republicans actually stood for it these days.

By the way, I find his idea absolutely abhorrent. Aldous Huxley just rolled over in his grave.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 12, 2004, 10:24 am

Problem is, dogmatic or no, there is a significant difference between two men having sex and a heterosexual union. Both biologically and psychologically.

You can maintain that the psychological part is the result of dogma, but I'll maintain that the dogma is the result of the biological. Catch 22.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » September 12, 2004, 11:36 am

yeah, fucked up, winwin.

To paraphrase another dead guy -

"The first thing to do, is kill all the Winnows"

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » September 12, 2004, 11:56 am

lol when i started reading dar's post i was like boyfriend? WTF then i remember he was gay ... i was kinda shocked for a second then it passed but yea ... dar has the right idea

Thess · Post by **Thess** » September 12, 2004, 4:15 pm

Aaeamdar wrote: Apart from christain dogma, there is no reason sex should be any different from drinking, smoking, skiiing, etc. Almost everything we do has consequences and children can understand those consequences and make choices about them. Mind you, the role of parents is to help their kids make those decisions. But, again thanks to the christians, a 16 y.o. woul dnever dream of telling their parents they were thinking of having sex with their boyfriend and seek eitehr their advice or permission. Same with drugs and everything else on which we place these stupid taboo's.

I lost my virginity at 16 and one of the first people I told was my mother. Of course my mother is an athiest so it wasn't life shattering for her or anything. She immediately set me up with an appointment at a gynocologist so I could get on the birth control pill.

My parents also knew I smoked pot, they allowed me to keep my paraphernalia in my room, because it was a better place to keep it then in my car. While they didn't exactly condone me smoking pot, they realised they couldn't stop me from doing it, and that I would grow out of smoking pot eventually.

Of course I was very lucky to have such laid back parents, who made it easy to approach about things like sex and drugs. My mother started talking to me about masturbation and sex at around 10 years old, and made it so any question about it was not an awkward thing for me. I truely feel bad for people who have such a taboo placed on sex because of their parents and/or religion.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 12, 2004, 8:33 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:Statutory age limits on sex are just stupid. They run into all sorts of completely unfiar harsh results for young couples that choose to have sex. I think the people posting here that 12 y.o. lack the capacity to understand those consequences are fooling themselves. We have rape laws and sexual misconduct laws between adults that require proving a lack of consent. Those laws are adequate to protect youth as well.

At a minimum, and I am not even thrilled with that, there could be a shifting burden based on an arbitrary age limit (maybe 11 with a requirement that the perp. be at least 3 years older) where the presumption was the sex was not consentual, but that presuption would be rebuttable.

I think it is laughable that a 13 y.o. in LA has the capacity to marry, but lacks the capacity to have sex when not married. The whole thing is a crock and has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with Christian prudism.

In America sex = bad (at least the public recognition of it). Young people are politically powerless, so there are all sorts of laws that prevent them from acting in the way they would naturally act (sex, drugs, alcohol, etc.) if left alone. All of that is because Christians and other *people of faith* hate the idea that other folks who don't buy into their crap might be having fun. If christians could make all that sex that they hate amoung adults illegal, they'ed do that too. The history of the laws in our Country proves that. Bigamy = illegal, adultry = illegal, buggery = illegal, miscogenation = illegal, contracetives = illegal. All of that was true at some point in our history. Some of it still is. Kids having sex = illegal still. Not because kids can't comprehend sex, but because kids like sex, christians don't, and kids have 0 political power.

What a load of horseshit.

You sound like you're trying to rationalize a case for allowing adults to have sex with children.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » September 12, 2004, 8:39 pm

Metanis wrote:
Aaeamdar wrote:Statutory age limits on sex are just stupid. They run into all sorts of completely unfiar harsh results for young couples that choose to have sex. I think the people posting here that 12 y.o. lack the capacity to understand those consequences are fooling themselves. We have rape laws and sexual misconduct laws between adults that require proving a lack of consent. Those laws are adequate to protect youth as well.

At a minimum, and I am not even thrilled with that, there could be a shifting burden based on an arbitrary age limit (maybe 11 with a requirement that the perp. be at least 3 years older) where the presumption was the sex was not consentual, but that presuption would be rebuttable.

I think it is laughable that a 13 y.o. in LA has the capacity to marry, but lacks the capacity to have sex when not married. The whole thing is a crock and has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with Christian prudism.

In America sex = bad (at least the public recognition of it). Young people are politically powerless, so there are all sorts of laws that prevent them from acting in the way they would naturally act (sex, drugs, alcohol, etc.) if left alone. All of that is because Christians and other *people of faith* hate the idea that other folks who don't buy into their crap might be having fun. If christians could make all that sex that they hate amoung adults illegal, they'ed do that too. The history of the laws in our Country proves that. Bigamy = illegal, adultry = illegal, buggery = illegal, miscogenation = illegal, contracetives = illegal. All of that was true at some point in our history. Some of it still is. Kids having sex = illegal still. Not because kids can't comprehend sex, but because kids like sex, christians don't, and kids have 0 political power.
What a load of horseshit.

You sound like you're trying to rationalize a case for allowing adults to have sex with children.

Well Metanis, once upon a time a woman was a woman when she began to have her periods and could reproduce. If you believe in god, and god made woman this way, why would you choose an organization of man over god?

In todays day and age though, it makes sense for children to not have sex. Children are irresponsible by nature, and with what STD's are floating around nowdays I would rather tell my child to not have sex until you are responsible enough to practice safe sex, without question, everytime.