THIS...

Where to begin with this one!

Apparently you missed the posts regarding VICTIM and SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION prorams speaking out aainst these laws because of research showing that we're not going in the right direction to protect kids. We are not "sacrificing the safety and protection of children" by exploringg better alternatives. It is our responsibility to protect children by using the best, most effective means possible. When we rely on knee-jerk reactions and what appears to be "common sense" in creating laws in this area, we stop looking for better solutions.

My next thought is, WHAT? You honestly believe that kids' lives should be ruined because of a consensual sexual encounter in the name of protecting other kids? We are ruining the lives of countless children - those of offenders as well as those CHILDREN and very young men who are being convicted of sex offenses. These are not insignificant numbers, especially when compared to the actual negligible recidivism rates of sex offenders.

Finally, there is ALWAYS grey in the law, mental health, and behavior.

We need to be smarter than this and use information and not emotions.

 

Of course. Not to mention that we'll take a 14-year-old that kills a parent and have prosecutors DEMAND that she be tried "as an adult." Then we take the exact same kind of 14-year-old, getting hot and heavy with her 18-year-old boyfriend, 100% consensually, and the prosecutor screams "THIS POOR CHILD WAS VIOLATED BY THAT EVIL MAN!"

So a 14-year-old is adult enough to understand the consequences of killing someone, yet isn't old enough to understand the consequences of letting some guy stuff his privates downstairs.

Double standard indeed.

 

You just reminded me of something.

The "black and white" view that permeates popular opinion on sex crimes is not very much different from "zero-tolerance rules" in schools, where a child is expelled for pointing a chicken finger at a teacher and saying "bang!" because it violates the black-and-white policy on "weapons."

Black-and white or "zero-tolerance" is synonymous for not wanting to consider the issue case-by-case. It is a result of intellectual sloth. It's easier to say "all who violate this generic policy, suffer this mandatory punishment" than it is to say "well, son, you shouldn't be doing that, because if you had a real gun it would have hurt someone" and send the kid back to lunch.

 

Yes and they are being charged. One of the noteable cases making news is in Utah. It involves a 13 year old girl who had intercourse with a 12 year old boy. Both were charged with sexually assaulting the other. Both will be listed as sex offenders the rest of their life.

The judge said he had difficulty in dealing with a victim also being a predator. I guess so.

 

Thats strange

 

Are we getting angry again? calm yourself down have some tea

 

At 12 or 13 I still wonder where the parents are and why they are not watching their kids. My Daddy watched me like a hawk at that age and threatened any boy who came around. (Still dose)

 

Most dads tend to be that way - protective of their little girl. And the girls tend to mature faster than the guys do, and tend to prefer guys that are a bit older. So that is why the law usually gets the boy. Daddies wrote the laws for themselves.

 

Having "teen" as part of your chronological age does not mean you are anything other than still a child. These "teens", at age 13, 14, 15...and for many, even 16....don't have the emotional maturity to make a decision regarding something as consequential as having sex.

OMG...now I just find you disturbing. A kid may "think" he's ready to drive at age 8...shall we let him? A child of 10 may think he's old enough to stay by himself at home for days...so you think we should let him?

Grandma's nightgown...do you hear yourself? There's a whole hell of a lot of things that kids "think" they are ready for. Thank God there are people in this world called parents and ADULTS who are responsible for holding the reins until they grow up and are mature enough to make such decisions.

We'll, as a rational adult that doesn't belief life is a free-for-all where everyone - no matter their age - gets to do whatever they want....I would certainly hope that a 13 year old doesn't HAVE any PRIOR sexual experience.

The stupid is so strong in some people posting here lately. First we have someone defending sexual predators...now we have someone who thinks little kids should be allowed to have sex "because they want to."

 

You'll note that while the post you're slamming focuses on teens that are quite prone to sexual experimentation, you decided to change the poster's position to "ten-year-olds having sex with each other" and then attack that weaker yet erroneous position.

It's called the "straw man fallacy."

 

Couey actually forces another issue - that is what we do to our mentally ill in this country. Some may remember under Ronald Reagan, they started cutting funding for mental treatment. Ill people were forced out of mental institutions onto the streets - that was when we actually started seeing people living on the streets in numbers. Next thing that happens, these people commit some horrendous crime. Of course they are then incarcerated in the prison system where they spend some number of years still with no medical care. Then they are released again. Take Couey. He had been a crack cocaine user which can cause permanent brain damage, can cause paranoid schizophrenia even. When he been incarcerated previously, he told everyone something was very wrong with him, he was hearing voices and needed a psychiatrist. Of course he never got one.

The story of what upset Paris Hilton so bad was that she watched a crazy woman locked in a cell, bash her head against the wall until she bleeding profusely and died. No medical care to the woman. These are our prisons today. This is what we do with mentally ill people.

Rather than our politicians addressing their mistake and the need in a society of a system to take care of our mentally ill, their new solution is to increase punishments, and they come up with other brilliant ideas like registration for sex offenders.

 

I'm glad my Daddy was protective tg for that . Parents these days just are not watching their kids . I have a daughter I know who she is with at all times which shes young now but that wont change I plan to follow her around and watch everything she does and know where shes at whos there at all times until shes 18 and trust me I'm not backing off easily then. As young as she is now she don't like boys thinks they are nasty but that will change and I will be strict. I'm not here to be her friend I'm her mom thats my job.The parents of these girls who are having sex at 12 13 14 15 should be charged with neglect.

 

Teens are also known to be prone to experimenting with alcohol and drugs. I guess you are all for that too? Let 'em have a little fun, eh?

Wrong...defender of molesters. Point out where the boundary of "teens" is anywhere in this statement:

 

Drinking leads to sex . Thats how I lost my, lets call it my "flower " Kids need boundaries point blank. They also need parents to watch them and know whats going on with them.

 

You can just keep on hoping. Having run a program for at-risk and delinquent youth as well as working in the area of program development for a variety of family issues, I know that there are many girls who are sexually active and even intentionally promiscuous with boys their age and older - sometimes much older. A recent study out of Ohio State University found that 10% of girls were sexually experienced by the age of 13-14. I dearly hope that my youngest children will not be, but teaching them values, providing appropriate supervision, and HOPING is all that I can do.

 

Ask you family doctor to explain to you why teenagers are not considered "children" by his profession, but rather adolescents. It has everything to do with puberty and the biological reproductive capability. Now some teenagers are more mature than a lot of adults. And whether we give them credit for having the maturity to make sexual decisions, fact of the matter is, they make them anyway. What you are actually stating is that you think they should CHOSE not to have sex. I don't have a problem with that, I have a problem with your reality system in believing that these "children" are innocent of sex when in fact, it is one of the most important aspects of their lives. This is not new - it has always been this way.

The problem with "letting" kids of whatever age have sex is that they never ever ask permission for that activity. They do it when they are ready. Plus, our laws do not prohibit teenagers from having sex. They actually allow them to have all they want. Our laws rather just restrict the partner from having sex with them if they are above a certain age span of the other.

Actually first intercourse experiences start around 10 for a very small percentage, and that percentage increases each year. By the time they are 16, close to 50% are having intercourse, even more are engaging in foreplay activities. While there has been some decrease in promiscuity with this generation, again, these are not new occurrences. Teenage sex went on when we were young too, same for our grandparents and theirs. Ever read Shakespeare?

Now it is quite highly possible in this day to have a 14 year old girl who has been active for 3-4 years, is quite knowledgeable, and she could be with a male partner of 18 who is having his first experience. Who has the real advantage?

Again, I do not consider teenagers as "little kids". This actually is a new concept that did not occur in previous generations. Teenagers used to be considered pre-adults and had more freedoms than children, and more responsibilities to go with those freedoms. There is a strange concept of late about these little kids suddenly on the 18th birthday, magically instantaneously transform into adults, skipping this middle state. I find it bizarre.

 

Same thought I have been rattleing around for the last 5 or so pages. It is funny how in one instance folks are so black & white and then go all gray on you when the situation changes.

 

Hey hught how are you this evening?

 

I never said anything about drinking or drugs. Presenting that is a red herring.

You quoted a statement out of context, and you expect people to play along with that. Let's apply your rules to yourself!

YOU said to "Let 'em have a little fun, eh?" So apparently you support teen drug use.

 

Thats not what she said.