|
|
Forum: General
Thread (Discussion): Is Prevention even possible without understanding? - You and teenaged girls
Message 120015
Is Prevention even possible without understanding?
Posted by Silverthorne
on Oct 17, 2003 06:43 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
Many people advocate prevention in child molestation. The problem is their idea of prevention is a sex offender registry or a long jail sentence. The problem is for these to do any good a child has already been molested.
Real prevention would involve understanding pedophilia and what it is NOT. Pedophilia doesn't mean child molestation. While the media constantly plays this up they are two very different things.
Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to pre-pubsecent children which has been present over six months. Thats a simplified description of the very long one from the DSM-IV manual used by the psychiatric community.
For people to understand Pedophilia they need to know there is a difference. Much of society today incorrectly connects it with child molesting. Often the name "pedophile" in an article is a scarlet letter. The problem is the word is so misused.
Back to the original issue here - prevention. The key to prevention is understanding. Why is that? Because understanding leads to a willingness to offer help. People need to feel safe asking for help before they'll do so. If the climate socially is one of hatred and intolerance we can't expect people with pedophilia symptoms to voluntarily ask for help.
To really PREVENT child molestation we must get these people into professional help BEFORE they act out. Anything else is a failure.
So no. Prevention isnt possible without understanding. Real prevention that is.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 120021 (In Reply to Message 120015)
Better yet
Posted by HPierce
on Oct 17, 2003 04:31 PM | Also by HPierce
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I agree that for those that would ACTUALLY MOLEST BY FORCE OR COERCION, your remarks ring true. However, many of the offenses are for consensual behavior. IF you are interested in seeing those victimless crimes erradicated, then there needs to be sanity to the AOC.
H. Pierce (proud pedosexual)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120015)
Message 120025 (In Reply to Message 120021)
AOC idiocy
Posted by orolan
on Oct 17, 2003 05:57 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
"then there needs to be sanity to the AOC"
First, a unified national AOC(a realistic one).
Second, decriminalization of sexual activity involving a minor who is of the AOC but lacks chastity and an adult.
Third, decriminalization of sexual activity between minors below the AOC.
IMHO
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120021)
Message 120027 (In Reply to Message 120025)
Posted by betsemes
on Oct 17, 2003 06:40 PM | Also by betsemes
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: Puerto Rico |
What do you mean by "lacks chastity"?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120025)
Message 120033 (In Reply to Message 120027)
chastity
Posted by orolan
on Oct 17, 2003 10:50 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I mean, "was not a virgin at the time of the alleged offense". This used to be the law, but most states have eliminated this defense from the statutes.
It needs to be brought back, because 19 year-olds are going to jail for having sex with girls who have already bedded half the football team at their high school.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120027)
Message 120039 (In Reply to Message 120015)
You Can't Prevent Something From Nothing
Posted by dp1
on Oct 18, 2003 02:26 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Silver,
I know you mean well and share your desire for intervention prior to abuse. But as we both can see not all people that have pedophilia think it's wrong for minors to have sex. How can you blame society for their failure to accept pedophilia and treat it when the problem clearly is the pedophiles who believe minors could or should have sex if they want to and deny having a problem themselves?
You know that T-shirt that was so popular in the 70's that said:
I Drink
I Get Drunk
No Problem
That's how I see pedophilia mainly...for the most part they honestly see no problem with it......so few actually believe that it is wrong so how can these folks get help if they don't think they have a problem? That's exactly why the laws got stiffer and stiffer...to force these guys into treatment. So what I am saying is, I think it's a pipedream to hope that society will change....if society continues to become less tolerant than maybe someday some folks will actually change their minds and start to think sex with minors is not a good thing...what do you think about that?
DP1
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120015)
Message 120050 (In Reply to Message 120033)
Prior Abuse or Sex Acts?
Posted by dp1
on Oct 18, 2003 04:50 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Orolan,
Is it possible for you to elaborate on the significance of the victim's virginity in regards to the responsibility of the perpetrator? For some odd reason I don't get the connection. If there really is a connection then maybe we could get into the drug business together and use the same logic...we'll get rich overnight. We'll sell crack cocaine to only those people that have smoked a rock let's say three or four times before...it can't possibly be a crime to sell crack cocaine to addicts....only to first time users, right? Think that'll fly? NOT!!
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120033)
Message 120051 (In Reply to Message 120021)
Minors Are Too Young To Consent
Posted by dp1
on Oct 18, 2003 05:04 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
This post is irrational! Minors can't consent to sex with an adult; therefore, many of the offenses are not for consensual behavior. These crimes are only victimless in the eyes of the pedophiles. This is a clear example as to why intervention is not possible......no problem is noted, therefore no treatment is sought.
Silver, why do you blame society for lack of compassion for pedophiles when you know that treatment is not a reality unless a crime is committed, reported and action is taken? Don't you see the real issue? Pedophiles want to have sex with children. The only problems are the laws and the people that enforce them.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120021)
Message 120056 (In Reply to Message 120033)
Posted by SurvivorForever
on Oct 18, 2003 07:30 AM | Also by SurvivorForever
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: California,
Country: United States |
Maybe the 19 year olds need to rethink who they are dating.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120033)
Message 120061 (In Reply to Message 120039)
Your right DP1
Posted by Silverthorne
on Oct 18, 2003 09:38 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
Your exactly right DP1. Part of the problem is this group of people who say its an orientation or "normal". Because society finds it so abhorrant that an adult would bed a child they don't even look at the rest of us.
Personally I have to believe these "orientation" types are small in number vocally. I think even people like me who know they can't change don't believe its "normal". Just because its incurable doesn't mean its "ok".
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120039)
Message 120067 (In Reply to Message 120050)
Culpability
Posted by orolan
on Oct 18, 2003 01:34 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
DP1,
The crack analogy doesn't work in this case. Now if we sold crack to the addict, got arrested for selling it, and the addict was seen as an innocent "victim" of our trade, was seen as being corrupted by us, with absolutely no culpability in the matter, and we were not allowed to use his/her addiction or prior usage as a "mitigating circumstance" at trial, THEN you would have an analogy.
Bottom line is that AOC laws exist because we don't want adults taking the innocence of our children. But when our children are already sexually active amongst themselves, what innocence is there to take? What corruption of morals occurs?
It's ludicrous for a 17 year-old to be able to have sex with his or her classmates with impunity, but bring an 18 year-old into the picture and somebody is going to prison.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120050)
Message 120113 (In Reply to Message 120056)
Posted by orolan
on Oct 19, 2003 05:59 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
"Maybe the 19 year olds need to rethink who they are dating."
Only from a legal standpoint.
Then again, the clubs are full of 17 year-olds with fake ID's who are there simply because they are looking for an "older" guy. What about them "re-thinking"? Wait, they're just poor innocent little girls who don't know what they're doing. My bad.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120056)
Message 120114 (In Reply to Message 120051)
terminology
Posted by orolan
on Oct 19, 2003 06:26 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
"Minors can't consent to sex with an adult; therefore, many of the offenses are not for consensual behavior"
A "minor" is a statutory definition of a class of persons due STRICTLY to age, typically 18 and under.
But many AOC laws allow for sexual activity with persons under this age. So a "minor" in most states CAN consent.
A "child" on the other hand is variously described by statute as a person under some age between 13 and 16, depending on the state.
Perhaps a more accurate statement would be "A child can't consent to sex with an adult"?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120051)
Message 120161 (In Reply to Message 120015)
An Addendum
Posted by Dragonfly
on Oct 20, 2003 04:49 AM | Also by Dragonfly
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Washington,
Country: United States |
From what I've learned treatment after the fact doesn't happen till 5 years before release from prison. I know for my own therapy (My father molested me from age 3-13) it took 10+ years. How can we believe that 5 years worth of therapy is all that offenders need.
A good friend of mine is serving a 26 1/2 year sentence for sexual offenses (yes he is still a good friend, to abandon him would be wrong to me.) and not only is he not getting any type of therapy they have placed him in a prison with a Youth Offender Program. So how is he getting any kind of help?
~Dragonfly
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120015)
Message 120182 (In Reply to Message 120015)
Dragonfly
Posted by myoung
on Oct 20, 2003 01:33 PM | Also by myoung
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
I think that many of us are trying to make the point that many times the system certainly fails because it isn't truly set up to treat these matters.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120015)
Message 120199 (In Reply to Message 120161)
Depends
Posted by Silverthorne
on Oct 20, 2003 04:37 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
"How can we believe that 5 years worth of therapy is all that offenders need. "
Each person is different. Some need a couple years some need lifetime. There isn't any set criteria.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120161)
Message 120242 (In Reply to Message 120199)
just plain crazy
Posted by myoung
on Oct 21, 2003 04:52 AM | Also by myoung
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
"How can we believe that 5 years worth of therapy is all that offenders need. "
It's not we, it's they....... it takes the recovered to heal another.......how can some prison therapist possibly understand what they need when they cannot relate to the issues?
This is a bit confusing though. I was under the impression that pedophilia is an orientation like being homosexual or heterosexual. You knew you were attracted to children at a very young age (I believe that was what you'd said). I don't know your story and I don't know what type of childhood you had so I will assume that your parents were involved. Do you think if you would have been in therapy for your feelings toward children back when you first noticed them that a therapist may have changed that attraction for you? If yes, why do you think that? If no, why? Do you think those feelings arose from the trauma you suffered at age 10? PTSD is quite powerful....just ask a Vietnam vet. Do you think that you can rewire a child if they are caught early enough (it's really like brainwashing or relearning I guess)? Or do you feel like some of the trauma offenders may have endured in their childhood contribute to PTSD type syndromes which worsen when left untreated? It is very interesting to see things from your vantage point so I look forward to reading them. Thanks Silverthorne. I am always willing to learn so that I might understand and gain better insight. You cannot have tolerance without understanding and insight. So lay it on me:) Oh, by the way, have you ever tried biofeedback, hypnosis, extreme meditation, etc. in conjunction with your therapy?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120199)
Message 120245 (In Reply to Message 120199)
Posted by Dragonfly
on Oct 21, 2003 07:54 AM | Also by Dragonfly
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Washington,
Country: United States |
True but it seems futile to make him wait for 16 years before he can have any real therapy. He is doing stuff on his own but that is only good to a point. Seeing a "therapist" once a month doesn't seem very effective to me especially when there is no feedback.
~dragonfly
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120199)
Message 120247 (In Reply to Message 120245)
Help = $$$$$
Posted by dp1
on Oct 21, 2003 01:21 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Yes Dragonfly you are absolutely correct. How many tax dollars would you or your neighbors want to spend out of your next paycheck getting sex offenders the "help" they need? The only help the average citizen wants from the government is to get these dangerous people off the streets as cost effectively as possible. Have you seen the rates some psychologists are charging nowadays? The only way to afford treatment for sex offenders is to sentence them to probation and make them pay for their own help. It works just fine. The more dangerous ones statistically reoffend more often and it isn't worth the chance by sentencing them to street level supervision because someone might get hurt. I have seen treatment on the inside and that's just great. But, it's more important on the outside when they are trying to adjust to the real world while coping with the usual stress of everyday life.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120245)
Message 120261 (In Reply to Message 120242)
rewire
Posted by orolan
on Oct 21, 2003 04:15 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
"Do you think that you can rewire a child if they are caught early enough"
I once watched a show on TV about a young girl who had to have one side of her brain removed as an infant. The doctors said she would never develop the rational and logical thought processes typical of the "left brain", because she didn't have one. But her body fooled them. Her brain developed anyway, in more of a front/rear fashion rather than a left/right fashion, and she is as intelligent, creative and athletic as any "normal" kid. I think she's around 12 now. The doctors determined that the human brain stops developing around age 8-10 and that since her surgery occurred so early, there was enough time for her brain to play "catch-up" and reconfigure itself, in effect "rewiring" itself.
Based on this, I would theorize that a child's behavior patterns could be "rewired" if caught and addressed early enough. But it is just a theory, and I'm no brain expert.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120242)
Message 120309 (In Reply to Message 120261)
girl rewired
Posted by myoung
on Oct 22, 2003 05:49 AM | Also by myoung
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
I remember that story.....she had severe seizures and violent outbursts if it is the same story I am thinking of. Removing the left hemisphere would stop any future seizures and the violent outburst were completely eliminated. I also remember that the exposed corpus collosum allowed the reconnection of severed neural pathways so they she could regain some cognitive development. Yes......I am a geek:) Anyway, it was interesting for her but we do not know where personality and behavior reside so how could we know what part of the brain to either remove or paralyze, etc. I am going to be very general here although you can imagine it is much more involved than just this: there are a lot of theories about aggression, depression, etc.and where in the brain they actually reside. When a person goes blind or deaf and they had seen or heard in the past, their other senses become more finely tuned due to the same responses of the brain in the girl's situation. Stimuli that is not being received by the brain from those organs that are now obsolete allow more energy to be used by the body in other stimulus areas such as touch, taste, etc. hence the increase in sensitivity and increase stimulus response in those areas. I am no expert but I have studied a bunch of bio organics and drug carrier molecules which is what my thesis work was about. Well, I don't think the ethics board at any research hospital will condone any type of reseach in this area "just for study". You know, removing a part of someone's brain in the name of research isn't gonna happen anytime soon! By the way (you probably already know), in a PET scan of the corpus colossum, it has been found that schizophrenia has a very real physical manifestation. There is some malformation in the corpus area and it is present in all true schiz patients. That is non invasive so maybe they need to go down some of those roads in research. The corpus colossum is a hot ticket item since it links both sides of the brain where neural pathways cross to each side........lots of critical neural crosslinking activity here and any physical malformations can disrupt some of those pathways. This is why there is no "cure" for schizophrenia. It occurs in such a sensitive area and you can't just operate on it and simply "fix" it.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120261)
Message 120323 (In Reply to Message 120309)
Clarification
Posted by orolan
on Oct 22, 2003 04:15 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
myoung,
Thanks for the clarification/confirmation. Glad another "geek" on this board is familiar with the story.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120309)
Message 120487 (In Reply to Message 120025)
Posted by marta
on Oct 26, 2003 12:31 AM | Also by marta
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
orolan wrote:
>>>
First, a unified national AOC(a realistic one).
>>>
And who would decide what "realistic" is? I can tell you one thing, it wouldn't be a pedophile, or a person who didn't think it necessary to check with a child's parents to make sure they knew that the kid was engaging in sexual activity.
It's still not clear to me why you and H. Pierce think that because YOU find extant AOCs unreasonable, it means they have to change. I take the fact that the only people who have problems with them are like you and H. Pierce as evidence of their soundness.
>>>
Second, decriminalization of sexual activity involving a minor who is of the AOC but lacks chastity and an adult.
>>>
In the rare times that it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor who is of the AOC, I think that we needn't resort to stupid defenses like lack of chastity. The implication of this defense is that the harm done to a minor in such a situation exists only where the minor was a virgin before interacting with the adult in question. Do we really think the question of harm should turn on virginity? If so, why? If a twelve year old (AOC) has had sex before with another 12 year old, do you actually think the parents are going to be any less appalled if some 25 year old starts chasing their kid around? I think not.
>>>
Third, decriminalization of sexual activity between minors below the AOC.
>>>
With this I can agree wholeheartedly.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120025)
Message 120512 (In Reply to Message 120487)
So somebody help me understand.
Posted by ladyjane
on Oct 26, 2003 03:18 PM | Also by ladyjane
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arkansas,
Country: United States |
Are you saying that some people believe that if the AOC were changed, that would make child molesters no longer child molesters but now merely seducers of lovers?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120487)
Message 120514 (In Reply to Message 120487)
AOC
Posted by orolan
on Oct 26, 2003 04:44 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Marta wrote:
>>>
And who would decide what "realistic" is?
>>>
Certainly not me. The public, through their duly-elected representatives in Congress would make this decision. I can only offer my opinion of what "I" think realistic is. States have set the AOC at anywhere from 14 to 18, though the trend is to bring the lower ages up to 16. I agree with this trend and would have little problem supporting a national AOC of 16 with a few caveats.
>>>
It's still not clear to me why you and H. Pierce think that because YOU find extant AOCs unreasonable, it means they have to change
>>>
And it's not clear to me why you can be so arrogant in that since you disagree with my OPINION, it is obviously wrong. Perhaps you can enlighten me and tell me what is so WRONG in your eyes about a unified AOC?
>>>
In the rare times that it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor who is of the AOC
>>>
A unified AOC would eliminate the various laws where a person 18-21 is guilty of a minor felony, persons 22 and up a major felony, or the various "age-difference" statutes. Sex between an adult and a person who was of the AOC would be legal regardless of whether the adult was 20 or 60.
>>>
stupid defenses like lack of chastity. The implication of this defense is that the harm done to a minor in such a situation exists only where the minor was a virgin
>>>
Consider that the whole premise behind an AOC and laws about sex involving minors revolves around the concept that the minors are innocent, impressionable, immature, naive and unable to make a decision on their own about having sex. So if said minors are already sexually active with their fellow minors, can you tell me what is left of their innocence and naivete for an adult to exploit and take advantage of? What "harm" has been done?
>>>
If a twelve year old (AOC) has had sex before with another 12 year old, do you actually think the parents are going to be any less appalled if some 25 year old starts chasing their kid around?
>>>
I may have said 12 would be a good cutoff wherein sex between persons of that age and less and persons over that age is illegal. I don't recall advocating it as an AOC. As for parents being appalled, is that why we have the AOC? Not for the sake of the children, but for the sake of the parents? Funny, I don't recall reading a statute that says "Since parents of minors are subject to crying fits, sleepess nights and feelings of inadequacy when they learn that their darling children are having sex, said sex involving minors shall be illegal".
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120487)
Message 120515 (In Reply to Message 120512)
reply to LadyJane
Posted by orolan
on Oct 26, 2003 04:48 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
A unified AOC would level the playing field nationally. Currently there are "child molesters" in one state who would not be so-labeled in another state because the activity is legal there. What you call them in that "legal" state is a matter of personal opinion.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120512)
Message 120550 (In Reply to Message 120512)
Come again?
Posted by marta
on Oct 27, 2003 04:26 AM | Also by marta
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Can you please elaborate on your question. It's not clear to me.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120512)
Message 120551 (In Reply to Message 120514)
Stand down
Posted by marta
on Oct 27, 2003 04:38 AM | Also by marta
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
orolan wrote:
------------------------------
And it's not clear to me why you can be so arrogant in that since you disagree with my OPINION, it is obviously wrong. Perhaps you can enlighten me and tell me what is so WRONG in your eyes about a unified AOC?
------------------------------
Nowhere did I arrogate to say that your opinion is "wrong." Such a statement is nonsensical as far as I'm concerned. My only point was the same as yours: that the people should democratically decide the AOC. And what they decide should become law, regardless of whether you think it realistic or not.
My question for you is: how can you argue that all of this has not already occurred? Are you so self-righteous as to think that people must not have really thought about this issue, because if they had actually thought about it, they would surely have come to the same conclusions you have, rather than pass these retched AOCs that you find so unrealistic?
orolan wrote:
-------------------------
Consider that the whole premise behind an AOC and laws about sex involving minors revolves around the concept that the minors are innocent, impressionable, immature, naive and unable to make a decision on their own about having sex. So if said minors are already sexually active with their fellow minors, can you tell me what is left of their innocence and naivete for an adult to exploit and take advantage of? What "harm" has been done?
-------------------------
I'm not so arrogant as to assume that wherever a parent is angry upon finding out their child is having sex, it is because they were naive and thought their child a lily white innocent. However, even if we were to assume this to ALWAYS be the case, are you actually suggesting that such parents be powerless to prevent such activity despite their continuing legal liability? If that's what you'd like, fine, so long as the romancing adult in question becomes the new legal guardian.
What you are actually arguing, in case you haven't noticed yet, is simply to reduce the age of majority to 16. Go ahead, try getting a consensus on that one.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120514)
Message 120573 (In Reply to Message 120514)
orolan.....virginity
Posted by myoung
on Oct 27, 2003 04:31 PM | Also by myoung
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
Hi Orolan....
I have been milling over this virtue issue for several days now and I have to ask you this.....how can we prove that a child is or is not a virgin anyway? Their hymen can be broken through varous physical activities and harmful falls or injuries. Gymnasts, competitive cheerleading, misuse of feminine products, etc. It has been known to happen so that might be another gray area. Not only that, do we subject them to internal exams to find out after they've just been traumatized? Doesn't sound pretty. I think our discussion of this in other threads left me pretty satisfied in the fact that we agree on, what seems to be, very logical age groupings. (child vs. minor). I understand where you are coming from about how the laws are based (innocence and that stuff) but then those terms must be defined with very sharp edges and that is difficult to do. What about the mentally challenged girl who is mentally innocent but has had someone take advantage of her and she is not aware that it was wrong. I don't even know how to deal with that situation. I have a retarded cousin who was gang raped by her boyfriend's family members and some that were not of the family. She was not able to completely rationalize what happened to her so she didn't go to the police until she told her caseworker what happened. Those are harder situations because, although physically she was in her 20's at the time of the incident, her mental age will never surpass approx. 7 years old. I definitely agree.....we need to have a national AOC and possibly define it to cover the mentally incapacitated when a well defined mental age is known or can be assessed. It just gets too sticky w/o one.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120514)
Message 120575 (In Reply to Message 120573)
Posted by steve
on Oct 27, 2003 05:00 PM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
I'll throw in my 2 cents.
Physical evidence would be inconclusive for females, impossible for males and wouldn't help period with determining whether the minor has engaged in other types of sexual activity or whether the female had engaged in intercourse *before* engaging in it with the adult male in the most likely scenario where such a defense would be brought forward.
If such a defense was available it would have to be argued based on testimony from others or the minor's own admission.
Even if provable, I find this line of defense to be meaningless. Every reason I've given in the past for my position that sexual activity between an adult and a minor much younger should be illegal stands even if the minor has engaged in sexual activity in the past.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120573)
Message 120580 (In Reply to Message 120551)
Posted by orolan
on Oct 27, 2003 07:54 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Marta said:
>>>
Nowhere did I arrogate to say that your opinion is "wrong."
>>>
Oh? But you allude that a sex offender and an admitted pedophile are the only people who want a unified AOC. And then you close with this "as evidence of their soundness", which tells me you think the current laws are fine. How would I ever think that you believe my opinion to be wrong!
>>>
how can you argue that all of this has not already occurred?
>>>
Can you argue that it has? Do you have evidence of bills introduced in either chamber of Congress seeking a unified AOC? I sure can't find any. And if they have, who says we can't try again?
Are we to believe, as you seem to think, that every law worth thinking about has already been thought about, debated and either passed or discarded?
>>>
parents be powerless to prevent such activity
>>>
I live in a state that has an AOC of 16, and there is no age restriction for adults having sex with minors of the AOC. But I am not powerless. I have every right to limit who my child speaks to, goes somewhere with, brings into my house, etc. The AOC has nothing to do with that, so I have plenty of "power" to control my child's sexual activity, if any.
>>>
What you are actually arguing, in case you haven't noticed yet, is simply to reduce the age of majority to 16
>>>
I fail to see your logic. Somewhere around 32 states have an AOC of 16 and an age of majority of 18, and around 22 of those have no restrictions on the age of the participating adult. But I don't see mass protests by parents and scores of 16 year-olds demanding that they be given the rights they must otherwise wait until age 18 to obtain.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120551)
Message 120594 (In Reply to Message 120015)
You go steve!!
Posted by myoung
on Oct 27, 2003 11:41 PM | Also by myoung
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
I totally agree:)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120015)
Message 120600 (In Reply to Message 120594)
Posted by steve
on Oct 28, 2003 12:14 AM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
> I totally agree:)
Glad to hear it.
P.S. Your message showed up as a reply to Silverthorne's post that started this thread so I don't know if you inadvertently replied to his or there's a bug I need to look into. I usually use threaded mode instead of flat mode, but I'm replying in flat mode to see if this shows up in the right place.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120594)
Message 120601 (In Reply to Message 120600)
Posted by steve
on Oct 28, 2003 12:16 AM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
> I'm replying in flat mode to see if this shows up in the right place.
It shows up in the right place. Let me know if there's a problem I should look into. Feel free to use the Private Message feature so we don't clutter up the forums with off-topic discussion...and because I built it and it hasn't been used much yet. :-(
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120600)
Message 120602 (In Reply to Message 120580)
Ah, I see.
Posted by marta
on Oct 28, 2003 01:05 AM | Also by marta
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Orolan wrote:
-------------------------
Oh? But you allude that a sex offender and an admitted pedophile are the only people who want a unified AOC. And then you close with this "as evidence of their soundness", which tells me you think the current laws are fine. How would I ever think that you believe my opinion to be wrong!
-------------------------
Your interpretation of what I said has everything to do with what I'm talking about. I see your opinion as nothing more (neither wrong, nor right) than what it is: your opinion. As such, you must confess that it is influenced by the excessive response the government had to your personal mistake. Likewise, H. Pierce's opinion about AOCs is heavily influenced by his sexual attraction to young girls. All I suggested is that perhaps people who are motivated by such personal emotions are not the best judges of what the law should be because they cannot be as objective as is required for making laws.
orolan wrote:
-------------------------
Can you argue that it has?
-------------------------
Of course I can. The proof is that wherever people have seen fit to name an AOC, they have done so democratically.
orolan wrote:
-------------------------
Do you have evidence of bills introduced in either chamber of Congress seeking a unified AOC?
-------------------------
I have no problem with a unified AOC per se, but I very much doubt that you could convince a sufficient number of people to adopt a national AOC. The problem is that the attitudes and values which inform such a decision vary widely from one area of the country to another. I'm not so narrow-minded as to say that the people in Southern Louisiana should not be able to have an AOC of 12, or that the people in New York should not be able to have an AOC of 16. As the age of consent is informed by regional attitudes and practice, it has to be determined regionally for it to be democratic. But perhaps that's just my states rights streak showing through.
orolan wrote:
------------------------
I live in a state that has an AOC of 16, and there is no age restriction for adults having sex with minors of the AOC. But I am not powerless. I have every right to limit who my child speaks to, goes somewhere with, brings into my house, etc. The AOC has nothing to do with that, so I have plenty of "power" to control my child's sexual activity, if any.
-----------------------
And what if your child, encouraged by the romancing adult, and the fact that they are pubescent, decides to see the adult anyway? What, are you going to lock them to their bed? The most absolute way for a parent to be able to control the sexual activity of their children, where another adult is involved, is to give their concerns the force of law. I think that the power to prosecute should lie with the parents. If they don't care, then nothing happens, but if they do, then they can get restraining orders and eventually, if necessary, file charges.
orolan wrote:
-----------------------
I fail to see your logic. Somewhere around 32 states have an AOC of 16 and an age of majority of 18, and around 22 of those have no restrictions on the age of the participating adult. But I don't see mass protests by parents and scores of 16 year-olds demanding that they be given the rights they must otherwise wait until age 18 to obtain.
----------------------
If a woman of 26 can legally have sex with a 16 year old male, and can also legally demand child support from the "father," how is the 16 year old ultimately being treated as anything but an 18 year old? Not to mention that if the parents want to help their child at all, they are also going to suffer the consequences of a stupid law which treated a 16 year old, for the most important intents and purposes, as an adult.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120580)
Message 120625 (In Reply to Message 120602)
Posted by orolan
on Oct 28, 2003 09:24 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Marta wrote:
>>>
people who are motivated by such personal emotions are not the best judges of what the law should be because they cannot be as objective as is required for making laws
>>>
Considering that Megan's Law and the Wetterling Act were written and passed in a whirlwind of personal emotion and knee-jerk outrage, I find this statement hilariously funny. Thanks for the laugh.
>>>
The problem is that the attitudes and values which inform such a decision vary widely from one area of the country to another
>>>
True. But the Fed had no problem finding a way to have a "unified" drinking age of 21, a "unified" smoking age of 18, a (formerly) "unified" maximum speed limit of 55MPH, and of course a "unified" requirement that there be sex offender registries. All of these were done regardless of the desires of the individual voters in the counties, parishes, etc of the individual states. So I see no reason why a unified AOC is not a strong possibility, especially when two-thirds of the states already have the same AOC.
>>>
decides to see the adult anyway
>>>
Then I'll get a protection order. I can do that to keep an adult away from my child. When he violates it, he goes to jail.
>>>
If a woman of 26 can legally have sex with a 16 year old male, and can also legally demand child support from the "father," how is the 16 year old ultimately being treated as anything but an 18 year old?
>>>
What's the difference? What if the "woman" is also 16? Does she not still have the right to demand support from the father? Is this not still a burden on the parents? Your rationale, carried through, would lead to a total ban on sex by or with anybody until they became legal adults.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120602)
Message 120672 (In Reply to Message 120625)
Posted by marta
on Oct 29, 2003 03:06 PM | Also by marta
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
>>>
Considering that Megan's Law and the Wetterling Act were written and passed in a whirlwind of personal emotion and knee-jerk outrage, I find this statement hilariously funny. Thanks for the laugh.
>>>
Oh, so one stupid law deserves another? There is nothing funny about this. I don't think that emotion-based laws should ever stand, whether they're passed by hysterical ninny parents, politically motivated Florida governors, or convicted SOs with a chip on their shoulder. But I guess that's the way things are run around here. So good luck getting your law passed, but in the interim try to REALLY, REALLY think about the implications of the law, using something other than your wounded perspective. I, a person with no kids to be hysterical about, and no criminal/civil convictions in my past, think that the law, as you proposed it, will be nothing but trouble, just for a different set of people than you and your brother.
>>>
True. But the Fed had no problem. . .especially when two-thirds of the states already have the same AOC.
>>>
The examples you mentioned (alcohol, speed, etc.) all involved issues which the Federal government was able to demonstrate both an mandate AND a compelling interest for federal as opposed to local regulation. Explain to me what possible interest the Feds could have in setting a national AOC.
>>>
Then I'll get a protection order. I can do that to keep an adult away from my child. When he violates it, he goes to jail.
>>>
Protection against what? Their sex is consensual. Unless s(he)'s harming your child in some other legal way, you can't stop them from having sex. You WOULD NOT get a protection or restraining order, and s(he) WOULD NOT go to jail. That's the meaning of CONSENT: your child can decide to have sex. CONSENT means that it is the child's decision alone, that you have very little to say about it, except that it not happen on your property. So if your child persists in going to see their adult, you'll either have to lock them to their bed, or give up and disown them.
>>>
What's the difference? What if the "woman" is also 16? Does she not still have the right to demand support from the father? Is this not still a burden on the parents?
>>>
Finally, we come to my point. The "difference" is that we hold a 26 year old to a higher standard of culpability than a 16 year old. So unless, as I suggested back on the old forum, you also provide stiff penalties where an adult gets a minor pregnant or gives them an STD, there's nothing in your law to protect the minor against the 26 year olds who apparently either don't know better, or don't give a damn.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120625)
Message 120703 (In Reply to Message 120672)
Posted by orolan
on Oct 30, 2003 12:20 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Marta said:
>>>
I don't think that emotion-based laws should ever stand
>>>
So when you're a judge, will you be throwing out criminal cases because the laws used to charge the defendant were based on emotion?
>>>
I, a person with no kids to be hysterical about, and no criminal/civil convictions in my past
>>>
Your status as such simply gives you a different perspective, but not necessarily the one true and correct perspective. Are we to believe that you, a childless person, have a more valid say in what the AOC should be than us, a group of parents with children? Try selling that to the legislature and see how far you get.
>>>
just for a different set of people than you and your brother
>>>
I fail to see where our proposed unified AOC would have changed anything about me or my status as a sex offender, so that is an empty rationale. As for my brother, who committed an act that was totally legal in one state but illegal one state over, the unified AOC would simply level the field in that the acts are either legal or illegal in ALL states so there is no question or doubt.. Is simplification such a bad thing?
>>>
a compelling interest for federal as opposed to local regulation.
>>>
You answer your own question. A compelling interest. What is it and how will it be worded? I don't know. That's why my cousin is involved. As an 8-term Representative, you can bet he and his buddies can come up with one. Obviously he agrees with the concept. But he would, because he is another one of us "hysterical ninny parents".
>>>
You WOULD NOT get a protection or restraining order
>>>
You're being arrogant again. How can you possibly state categorically that I WOULD NOT get a protection order? Do you know the laws of my state? No, because you don't know where I am. You need to think before you make such a definite statement.
Allow me to provide an example from another state. We go to the Revised Code of Washington, RCW §10.14.040(6):
"The parent or guardian of a child under age eighteen may petition for an order of protection to restrain a person age eighteen years or over from contact with that child upon a showing that contact with the person to be enjoined is detrimental to the welfare of the child."
Oops! Looks like maybe I CAN get a protection order.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120672)
Message 120723 (In Reply to Message 120703)
Posted by marta
on Oct 30, 2003 03:10 PM | Also by marta
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
>>>
So when you're a judge, will you be throwing out criminal cases because the laws used to charge the defendant were based on emotion?
>>>
Don't be silly, judges have to hear all prima facie cases, whether they like the law or not. However, as a judge, I will work as much as is possible and prudent to implement the law in such a way as to rob it of it's irrational content.
>>>
Are we to believe that you, a childless person, have a more valid say in what the AOC should be than us, a group of parents with children?
>>>
Than you, a convicted SO, who's conviction was generated by JUST the sort of situation which your proposed law would remedy, and who's brother might have ended up a convicted SO too if the law at the time was enforced?
My whole point is that in such a situation, it is possible that I may be the better judge. That's not to say you're not capable of objectivity - I'm just suggesting you're failing at this point. However, if you look back at my previous messages again, you'll see that it isn't really the standardized AOC that I have a problem with, it's your stupid lack of chastity defense.
>>>
You're being arrogant again. How can you possibly state categorically that I WOULD NOT get a protection order? Do you know the laws of my state? No, because you don't know where I am. You need to think before you make such a definite statement.
Allow me to provide an example from another state. We go to the Revised Code of Washington, RCW §10.14.040(6):
"The parent or guardian of a child under age eighteen may petition for an order of protection to restrain a person age eighteen years or over from contact with that child upon a showing that contact with the person to be enjoined is detrimental to the welfare of the child."
>>>
None of this addresses the legal question at hand, which I implied in my last post WITHOUT HAVING TO READ your particular law, which is that unless the adult is demonstrably harming your child in some other way, you won't be able to do anything to keep your child from seeing them, except to chain them to their bed. If a parent doesn't care that their 16 year old is having sex with a 26 year old, then it's all fine and dandy, unless the 26 year old is otherwise a bad influence on the child, at which point the parents, under the above law, could get a restraining order. But what of the adult who isn't otherwise a bad influence or contributing to the child's delinquency? What can the parents who simply think it's bad for ANY 26 year old to be having sex with a 16 year old do? Nothing, because the law you want to write gives the power to make the decision to anyone 16 years old. Implicit in the law is that no harm is done where a 16 year old has sex, even with an adult 10 years his/her senior. While you may agree with that, I can guarantee that a LOT of people do not.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120703)
Message 120773 (In Reply to Message 120113)
You and teenaged girls
Posted by marta
on Oct 31, 2003 02:45 PM | Also by marta
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
>>>
Wait, they're just poor innocent little girls who don't know what they're doing. My bad.
>>>
Boy, does someone hate teenaged girls or what? Sounds like a chip on your shoulder to me.
Whether you like it or not, it is public policy that it is more important to protect against a 17 year old girl having sex when her parents don't want her to than it is to prevent the 19 year old guy who does her from serving time for sex that they both wanted.
Hmmm. None of this will ever change until the sex, or "chastity" if you insist, of women IN GENERAL is not guarded so fiercely that all reason flys out the window.
Kind of reminds me of a conversation we once almost had.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (120113)
Thread
120015, Silverthorne, Oct 17, 2003 06:43 AM [Is Prevention even possible without understan...]
120021, HPierce, Oct 17, 2003 04:31 PM [Better yet]
120025, orolan, Oct 17, 2003 05:57 PM [AOC idiocy]
120027, betsemes, Oct 17, 2003 06:40 PM
120033, orolan, Oct 17, 2003 10:50 PM [chastity]
120050, dp1, Oct 18, 2003 04:50 AM [Prior Abuse or Sex Acts?]
120067, orolan, Oct 18, 2003 01:34 PM [Culpability]
120056, SurvivorForever, Oct 18, 2003 07:30 AM
120113, orolan, Oct 19, 2003 05:59 PM
120773, marta, Oct 31, 2003 02:45 PM [You and teenaged girls]
120487, marta, Oct 26, 2003 12:31 AM
120512, ladyjane, Oct 26, 2003 03:18 PM [So somebody help me understand.]
120515, orolan, Oct 26, 2003 04:48 PM [reply to LadyJane]
120550, marta, Oct 27, 2003 04:26 AM [Come again?]
120514, orolan, Oct 26, 2003 04:44 PM [AOC]
120551, marta, Oct 27, 2003 04:38 AM [Stand down]
120580, orolan, Oct 27, 2003 07:54 PM
120602, marta, Oct 28, 2003 01:05 AM [Ah, I see.]
120625, orolan, Oct 28, 2003 09:24 PM
120672, marta, Oct 29, 2003 03:06 PM
120703, orolan, Oct 30, 2003 12:20 AM
120723, marta, Oct 30, 2003 03:10 PM
120603, Rejected
120573, myoung, Oct 27, 2003 04:31 PM [orolan.....virginity]
120575, steve, Oct 27, 2003 05:00 PM
120051, dp1, Oct 18, 2003 05:04 AM [Minors Are Too Young To Consent]
120114, orolan, Oct 19, 2003 06:26 PM [terminology]
120039, dp1, Oct 18, 2003 02:26 AM [You Can't Prevent Something From Nothing]
120061, Silverthorne, Oct 18, 2003 09:38 AM [Your right DP1]
120161, Dragonfly, Oct 20, 2003 04:49 AM [An Addendum]
120199, Silverthorne, Oct 20, 2003 04:37 PM [Depends]
120242, myoung, Oct 21, 2003 04:52 AM [just plain crazy]
120261, orolan, Oct 21, 2003 04:15 PM [rewire]
120309, myoung, Oct 22, 2003 05:49 AM [girl rewired]
120323, orolan, Oct 22, 2003 04:15 PM [Clarification]
120245, Dragonfly, Oct 21, 2003 07:54 AM
120247, dp1, Oct 21, 2003 01:21 PM [Help = $$$$$]
120182, myoung, Oct 20, 2003 01:33 PM [Dragonfly]
120183, Rejected
120594, myoung, Oct 27, 2003 11:41 PM [You go steve!!]
120600, steve, Oct 28, 2003 12:14 AM
120601, steve, Oct 28, 2003 12:16 AM
120595, Rejected
120596, Rejected
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
