WTF with all the pedophilia???
- Thread starter superrific
- Start date
- Replies: 39
- Views: 378
- Politics
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 12,631
I later found out that there was a group of young women who thought I was hot. I'm naturally skinny. Being younger meant that I was especially skinny compared to peers. And when the junkie look was popular, there were some girls who thought I had the junkie look without the downside of the junk. I guess that was good?She was a Bunsen burner I guess?
Two things came to mind.
1. First, my skinniness had never been an advantage (except on the court where I would rope-a-dope opponents into thinking I couldn't play). In fact, it had been a source of embarrassment. So that was weird.
2. Why didn't any of these women, you know, speak up about it?
- Messages
- 2,157
Because I think evil is a multifaceted characteristic among humans. Just because someone is positive and good in one part of his or her behavior does not mean they are not or cannot be evil in other parts of their behavior. The good aspects of a person's behavior do not excuse or justify the evil aspects of their behavior. Doing good does not create a "pass" for doing evil. I do not believe my use of chlorofluorohydrocarbons years ago constituted an evil on my part even though I was in fact contributing to what may still turn out to be a global catastrophe. However, had I participated in the hiding of evidence of the harm that chlorofluorohydrocarbons were doing, then that would have been an evil. Doing evil when you know what you are doing is evil can never be excused by the amount of good that you do or that you believe that doing evil was a necessary element of the good you are doing. Cesar Chavez did not "need" to rape females to accomplish the good he did. Cesar Chavez did not "earn" the "right" to rape females because of the good he did. Donald Trump's rape of underage women is not excused because he thinks that they were doing it for money or that they allowed themselves to be raped because they had an expectation of future benefits from him.
My father participated in US actions in WW2 where islands were reclaimed from the Japanese soldiers who had previously seized them. My father-in-law participating in US actions in North Africa and landed in Normandy on D+1 (June 7th 1944.) I never asked either of them if they knew for certain that they had killed anyone. But based on their characters, I believe and will continue to believe that if they did kill other people, they did so as a necessary means to overturn and reverse great and profound evils.
- Messages
- 8,455
Yes, and we train them to be victims.
Give your uncle a hug... when the child isn't comfortable.
Respect adults....
When respect should only be given once earned, not just because someone is older.
We need to teach them to speak up when they are uncomfortable.
- Messages
- 3,303
Not illegal in NC (not sure where you were at the time).
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 12,631
Not NC. Pre-internet so I couldn't just look up the law but that was the prevailing understanding.
I know I'm a special case because I was skipped ahead in school, but it's not as if there aren't other kids who are especially mature for their age. Ideally, there would be some sort of carveout for mature teens but I get why there isn't. Maybe the focus should be less on the "did the perp know she was underage" (the question that current laws do not permit) and more on the "victim" -- i.e. was s/he actually harmed. I have no idea if that would be a jury question, a prosecutor question, or what it should be. I've also never given this a lot of thought so any idea would be half-baked. And it is certainly not the case that "men accused of inappropriate relationships with teens who are easily mature enough to be choosing" is a pressing national problem that requires immediate repair.
It's more of a good example of how all rules and/or regulations are over- or under-inclusive.
In Texas, the age of consent used to be 16 with an affirmative defense of 14 if the defendant could show the victim was sexually active previously.
Kinda crazy how the law used to be.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 12,631
I mean, sort of. On the other hand, our society is crazy. 30 year old dude goes to a bar and hooks up with a hot 19 year old. He's a stud, a hero. His friend goes to the same bar and hooks up with the girl's friend . . . who is 17. He's a criminal.
If we are going to say that it's at least tolerable and perhaps laudatory for people to go into a bar and have one-night stands, then the underage teen is going to be a policy problem. I mean, it's not exactly unheard of for teenagers to get into bars with IDs or what have you. So a guy is in the bar, it's 21+, a woman is talking to him. What does he do? Ask for ID? Use a magnifying glass?
It just seems to me that age of consent laws are vestiges of the days before the sexual revolution. Which isn't to say that nothing should be done to protect adolescents. Quite the contrary. I'm not sure age of consent laws are the right vehicle.
I'm quite certain that there are people who have thought about these issues way, way more than I have and have better ideas that they articulated better than I would do on a message board thread. So maybe I'll go look at some literature if I find some time.
- Messages
- 38
Sickening simply sickening - almost cliche to say our most vulnerable, children and women fall prey to the horrific! It is both tragic and tiresome!
The age of consent laws have largely gone up since the sexual revolution - and especially since the 1980s as a result of evolving attitudes about power dynamics and mental capacity/emotional maturity.
Ddseddse
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,469
Does that mean we get to dump Trump from our history too? I’m against revisionist history as a principle. But in this case I’m willing to at least listen…
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 12,631
What do you mean, gone up? Like cutoff ages increased? The laws themselves are created?
- Messages
- 3,496
Sometimes it's just impossible to avoid drawing a line somewhere, especially with a "strict liability" situation.
It might seem silly that a contract signed with someone who is 18 years and 1 day old is completely enforceable, while a contract signed with someone who is 17 years and 364 days old could be completely unenforceable (even if they lied about their age). Especially because the 17 year old may be a lot smarter and more mature than the 18 year old.
It seems silly that driving 65 miles per hour is fine while driving 66 miles per hour on the same road is a crime that can get you fined, increase your insurance rates, and contribute to you losing your driver's license.
The establishment that serves a 21-year-old is doing nothing wrong, while if they serve a 20-year-old with a highly professional fake ID they face criminal liability.
You can't just never draw lines just because doing so can occasionally produce results that "feel" unfair.
Ages gone up (plus Romeo and Juliet exceptions decreased) and punishments have increased
In the 1970s, the laws were far more lax. Roman Polanski drugged and sodomized a 13 year old girl in a hot tub and was facing essentially a year in jail (and that mere threat got him to flee the country). Today he likely be looking at 20 years.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 12,631
By the way, sorry for the thread diversion (though my own thread!). I posted because I thought we should talk about it . . . and then realized I actually was not all that interested in talking about Cesar Chavez raping girls. I won't say he was ever a hero to me, but he's in a class of people who I have considered heroes -- i.e. crusaders for social justice.
- Messages
- 4,288
The 7yr relationship began when I was 23yo and she was 17yo . Our live in relationship began when I was 27yo and she was 21yo. The relationship ended when I was 29yo and she was 23yo.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 12,631
1. Well, that begs the question of whether it should be a strict liability situation.
2. As I said, all rules are under- and/or over-inclusive. Bright line rules can sometimes be more ill-fitted than discretionary rules, though that's not always true (depends on the rule!). So I get the point that there will always be boundary cases.
3. I think the difference is that there's no social meaning to signing a contract at 18 years old. You don't tell your friends the next day, "dude, I went to a bar last night and there was this chica there and I entered into a distribution deal with her." People don't bring their driving records to class reunions, or express admiration at their low insurance rates.
Whereas in our culture, men are implicitly and sometimes explicitly encouraged into the sort of risky situations that are the problem. Ironically, what the bright line rule has done (arguably) is allow prosecutors to bring charges in bad faith against the powerless, especially against disfavored groups, while accepting bribes or succumbing to pressure for the mature predators who are a bigger problem.
4. I'm aware that my view here is colored by my experience as an over-included individual. I wasn't the person whom the laws exist to protect. Still, we were publicly in a relationship for a bit, so it wouldn't have been hard for anyone to know and I would have felt really, really shitty if my partner had been prosecuted. Way, way shittier than I could have ever felt because of the "abuse."
And while that was unlikely to happen for many reasons, if my partner was a male it could have been very different even though the underlying reality wasn't.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 12,631
That's reassuring. I would have been worried if the relationship had ended when you were 29 yo and she was 27.
Duke Mu
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,178
Norm is the GOAT.