Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

[Clarence]

Just as a way to insert some facts.... In much of the US, the legal age of sexual consent is less than 18 years. In my state of Michigan the age of consent is 16. Yes friends, 16 years old is legal (unless you are a teacher, doctor, therapist etc.). This is a good thing for my daughter's boyfriend.

In Hawaii the age of consent is 15! Each state sets its own statutory rape law. Many states are graduated so that a young man can legally have sex with a young woman, but an old man can't (cause that's just gross!)

Oh, It gets better.
In my state of Maryland I could legally have sex with a 16 year old provided, as in Michigan I'm not a parent, teacher, or someone else in legal position of guardian.
However, I couldn't photograph her naked body.
Hell, I couldn't even PAINT her naked body.

This stuff is arbitrary.
But at least most of the psychologists and people who study these things agree it's not 'pedophilia' or 'abnormal' for men of any age to be attracted to sexually developed teen girls. So we really have to wonder at some of the bullshit. This isn't about 'protecting ' the teens because one could easily make laws such as that getting a girl (or getting impregnated by a boy) younger than a certain age ( 15-17) would be a crime, transmitting an STD to the younger partner, etc.

Nope. Currently, right now in the states as far as sex with teens at around 15 or 16 its either 'anything goes' or Don't-You-Dare-Touchy-Wouchy(and it doesn't matter if she had a faux ID and looked older too). As far as any photos or paintings or drawings or illustrations, it's Federal Law all the way.
And those 17 year old prostitutes in Germany?
They will get you 17 years here.

I think this is mostly about hysteria, money, and power.
And it's not really good for teens to have to 'learn' (irregardless of THEIR desires) fumbling sex from other teens who often struggle with 'no means no', let alone advanced standards like "yes means yes" that the SJW's want to saddle sex and consent with.

[John D]

There is a valid and rather practical way to think about compassion. I think of my compassion as being made up of circles. Those closest to me are in my inner circle and include my wife and kids. The next circle are my friends and other family. Further circles include community, country, animals, and all people etc. It is unrealistic to assume I will feel as dedicated to a random cow (in one of the outer circles) as I am to my child. Why would I expect this? This is not how compassion works. Every individual has their own compassion model based on their life experiences and how they feel. Some people have a beloved pet in their inner circle. This is fine. It is totally up to the individual.

So... which circle of hell your compassion do we Slymepitters inhabit?

:evil:

you'all are in a closer circle than starving third world children and food animals.

[Brive1987]

I'd crucify any non-teen that even looked at my daughter. She may be in her teens, but she has a young emotional maturity that I can almost literally see developing in a tentative fashion.

I will go with arbitrary if it keeps the toolies away.

As for any non teen who wants to take a photo of her naked as part of his deal?

FFS

[TiBo]

And those 17 year old prostitutes in Germany?

Wrong. It's illegal. While the general age of consent is 14/16 (depending on who does what), the legal age for prostituion is 18.

[John D]

But, in any case, it seems to me that the purpose for having a statutory rape law is to protect young people from having sex before they are old enough to understand it.

You could make that case, but I wouldn't be so confident about taking it as a given. I'd argue that it's more about protecting minors from predation by more experienced adults. Not about protecting them from sex in general.

Statutory rape laws are pretty arbitrary. I understand that it is a tricky topic and I will not say that I have a perfect solution. I will say that making it illegal for a 18 year old to have sex with a 17 year old is bizarre on its face. Thus, the laws have developed a graduation by age. Still, it is pretty bizarre to say a 17 year old can't have sex with a 21 year old, and this is the case in some states.

The entire concept of legal adulthood is arbitrary. It has to be because all people develop at different paces and we as yet have no way to account for that. So we pick a number that's good enough and use that.

Romeo and Juliet clauses are attempts to add back a little bit of that gradation into the law.

The problem is that it may be more likely that a 16 year old boy would be a predator of a 16 year old girl. Who is more likely to put excessive social and physical pressure on a 16 year old girl, a 50 year old man, or her 16 year old boyfriend? Why are we targeting older people and just assuming an older person is being a predator. This doesn't make sense to me. What is the goal here? Is the goal to unfairly accuse older people of being predators?... because then the law is working just fine.

And keep in mind.... it is not uncommon for 15 and 16 year olds to be tried as adults for major crimes like murder. Isn't rape a major crime?

[Clarence]

Another Truther? Did you even read what Dick Strawkins just wrote? The morons are flying low today.

Yes I did. And what he said doesn't actually change anything. While independent witnesses are a promise of revealing the truth, it's the trial that has to determine if these witnesses' testimonies fulfill that promise, or not. The police's or the prosecutor's accusations aren't really worth a penny. And even when assuming that these testimonies would've been flawless, they can only attest to single events. If someone is accused to have molested 300 children, and a "flawless witness" testifies to the molestation of 1 child, then what does this testimony say about the other 299 ? While this testimony demands further investigation, it's not nearly sufficient to convict a defendant on these other 299 accounts.

I'd never say that Mr. Savile is "likely to be innocent", the known facts simply forbid me to do so, but it's also unwarranted to say that he did do all the things he's said to have done. That door is closed.

What a pity that Hitler died before he could be tried in court. Now we'll never know the truth.

Actually, he was tried - in the only way the law allows it - indirectly, through trying his accomplices. To convict them, the initial crime has to be proven as well. And that's what the Nuremberg trials were all about. Besides that, most of Hitler's actions were openly documented at any given time, since he wanted them to be documented. No room for any type of public opinionfest. :violin:

Very good point.
And yes, of course there was all that independent witness testomony about things like the Concentration camps.
And photos.
And videos.
And people willing to use their names and publicly testify.

[John D]

This stuff is arbitrary.
But at least most of the psychologists and people who study these things agree it's not 'pedophilia' or 'abnormal' for men of any age to be attracted to sexually developed teen girls. So we really have to wonder at some of the bullshit. This isn't about 'protecting ' the teens because one could easily make laws such as that getting a girl (or getting impregnated by a boy) younger than a certain age ( 15-17) would be a crime, transmitting an STD to the younger partner, etc.

yeah... you are making sense to me on this topic Clarence

[TiBo]

HJ Hornbeck is certain the Stollznow retraction is a fake. Which is all the info I need to come to the conclusion it's real.

I can see a new scientific law on the horizon... Like BAOs are the "standard ruler" for measuring distances to galaxies, the confirmed amount of idiocy in people is also a "standard ruler" for determining the distance between their opinions and the probable truth.

[AndrewV69]

Leaving it up to people's own morality hasn't worked to well in the past.

Therefore law.

I can see law as a means of delivering punishment. Law as a deterrant has not worked too well though? Phrased as a question because I can see it working for some that way. On the other hand it does not seem to work too well for other people.

Anyone aware of any studies/papers on the subject they think worth reading?

[another lurker]

http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine-o ... 02323.html

A Belgian math teacher seems to have found a solution for unruly kids: threaten them with 'Game of Thrones' spoilers.

Fucken welch in motherfucken Belgium!

[Brive1987]

PZ wants to let us know that he's got a particularly hard day at work and so may not get to wile away the hours blogging.

Poor baby.

Oh, yeah, I’m also about to step into non-stop class/meetings/lab, not to emerge until 6pm,

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments

[Clarence]

I'd crucify any non-teen that even looked at my daughter. She may be in her teens, but she has a young emotional maturity that I can almost literally see developing in a tentative fashion.

I will go with arbitrary if it keeps the toolies away.

As for any non teen who wants to take a photo of her naked as part of his deal?

FFS

It's nice you own your daughter's sexuality, and your neighbor's eyes.
I hope you get an increased bride-price when you marry her off, having kept her chastity intact. Perhaps you could scare her potential teen and young adult suitors with your shotgun while you are at it.

I'm not against the fatherly (or hell, parental) protective instinct, but it's often used to excuse the most ridiculous bullshit.

[Steersman]

Many states are graduated so that a young man can legally have sex with a young woman, but an old man can't (cause that's just gross!)

I know you're probably joking, but just in case, I'll point out that this is to protect young couples who have a minor age disparity such as high school sweethearts from running into trouble with the law just because one of them had a birthday a few months before the other.

And it should be pointed out that boys are unfairly targeted in these cases, and are put on sex offender registries, and have their lives ruined, because their gf is one year younger than them. Just more sex policing by abstinence only bible belters. Purity balls for girls, and throwing boys in prison.

Indeed. But that’s the problem with rules and regulations – seem to recollect Donovan doing a song on them some time back (not a very good one mind you): start drawing lines all over the place and someone is likely to get their privates in a wringer – and frequently without any rhyme, reason, justice, or mercy involved. Reminds me of an aphorism from Bertrand Russell:

The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists – that is why they invented hell.

And the noun seems to encompass a great many, including both religious and atheists. But reminds me also of the cartoon about the Biblical story of Jephthah someone posted a while back – terribly easy to paint ourselves into some very tight corners if we’re not careful, or honest. Although I might point out, en passant, that a close reading of the Bible suggests that that really wasn’t a case of a literal sacrifice of a child, even if that might qualify as a bit of historical revisionism ....

But it seems we do need those rules and regulations; the trick seems to be to not go hog-wild with them or to turn them into absolutes.

[Clarence]

And those 17 year old prostitutes in Germany?

Wrong. It's illegal. While the general age of consent is 14/16 (depending on who does what), the legal age for prostituion is 18.

Ok, you are currently right. I was using old information. But as recently as 2008 the age of prositution in Germany was 16.

And yes, some American Gi's ended up running afoul of those Reagan era Meese-inspired laws.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

PZ wants to let us know that he's got a particularly hard day at work and so may not get to wile away the hours blogging.

Poor baby.

Oh, yeah, I’m also about to step into non-stop class/meetings/lab, not to emerge until 6pm,

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments

That's like ... I dunno ... like a "job" or something?

Over privileged wankstain that he is ...

[John D]

I'd crucify any non-teen that even looked at my daughter. She may be in her teens, but she has a young emotional maturity that I can almost literally see developing in a tentative fashion.

I will go with arbitrary if it keeps the toolies away.

As for any non teen who wants to take a photo of her naked as part of his deal?

FFS

Haha. Reminds me of a girl that was on my daughter's softball team. This girl was probably only 13 or 14, but was ridiculously smoking hot. It was crazy and I am glad I am not her father, because I would need two bats to keep the punks away. But, while watching the softball game you can't really help but watch. I mean... she was batting... and that is the person you watch. So.... I said to my wife "Shit! I am having some bad thoughts"! Haha. My wife said something like "No shit"! No one knew what I was thinking and I would never do anything rude. Still, sometimes you can't help what you think. The trick is not to always act on what you think. Controlling your behavior is the key... not controlling your thoughts.

[Brive1987]

This stuff is arbitrary.
But at least most of the psychologists and people who study these things agree it's not 'pedophilia' or 'abnormal' for men of any age to be attracted to sexually developed teen girls. So we really have to wonder at some of the bullshit. This isn't about 'protecting ' the teens because one could easily make laws such as that getting a girl (or getting impregnated by a boy) younger than a certain age ( 15-17) would be a crime, transmitting an STD to the younger partner, etc.

yeah... you are making sense to me on this topic Clarence

Forget the sarcasm tag?

Really, there is a world of pragmatic difference between teen peers learning about life together, the good and the bad, and having an adult with a fetish getting his jollies off because a kid has crossed a desirable physical threshold. Or perhaps hasn't even done that.

This is a slippery slope to all all that child love justification bullshit.

Why stop at teens? That's so fucking arbitrary.

Clarence - just cause it tastes good doesn't mean it's right to eat it.









Surprise, I was actually thinking about food. Were you?

[Clarence]

This stuff is arbitrary.
But at least most of the psychologists and people who study these things agree it's not 'pedophilia' or 'abnormal' for men of any age to be attracted to sexually developed teen girls. So we really have to wonder at some of the bullshit. This isn't about 'protecting ' the teens because one could easily make laws such as that getting a girl (or getting impregnated by a boy) younger than a certain age ( 15-17) would be a crime, transmitting an STD to the younger partner, etc.

yeah... you are making sense to me on this topic Clarence

Forget the sarcasm tag?

Really, there is a world of pragmatic difference between teen peers learning about life together, the good and the bad, and having an adult with a fetish getting his jollies off because a kid has crossed a desirable physical threshold. Or perhaps hasn't even done that.

This is a slippery slope to all all that child love justification bullshit.

Why stop at teens? That's so fucking arbitrary.

Clarence - just cause it tastes good doesn't mean it's right to eat it.









Surprise, I was actually thinking about food. Were you?

Because being attracted to signals of sexual-fertility is a 'fetish'?
Who knew?

[Brive1987]

I'd crucify any non-teen that even looked at my daughter. She may be in her teens, but she has a young emotional maturity that I can almost literally see developing in a tentative fashion.

I will go with arbitrary if it keeps the toolies away.

As for any non teen who wants to take a photo of her naked as part of his deal?

FFS

Haha. Reminds me of a girl that was on my daughter's softball team. This girl was probably only 13 or 14, but was ridiculously smoking hot. It was crazy and I am glad I am not her father, because I would need two bats to keep the punks away. But, while watching the softball game you can't really help but watch. I mean... she was batting... and that is the person you watch. So.... I said to my wife "Shit! I am having some bad thoughts"! Haha. My wife said something like "No shit"! No one knew what I was thinking and I would never do anything rude. Still, sometimes you can't help what you think. The trick is not to always act on what you think. Controlling your behavior is the key... not controlling your thoughts.

Amen. Per above, the difference between admiring the cakes and stuffing them in two at a time!

[AndrewV69]

Aye. But capability isn't culpability.

If that was the case then some 200 million Americans would be guilty of murder. [Which might actually be true depending on how loosely one wants to define the term, and how broadly one wants to distribute actions done in the public's name.]

I doubt the 200 million number because for some reason I am under the impression that many/most are incapable of even killing a chicken.

[Steersman]

I'd crucify any non-teen that even looked at my daughter. She may be in her teens, but she has a young emotional maturity that I can almost literally see developing in a tentative fashion.

I will go with arbitrary if it keeps the toolies away.

As for any non teen who wants to take a photo of her naked as part of his deal?

FFS

Haha. Reminds me of a girl that was on my daughter's softball team. This girl was probably only 13 or 14, but was ridiculously smoking hot. .... Still, sometimes you can't help what you think. The trick is not to always act on what you think. Controlling your behavior is the key... not controlling your thoughts.

Indeed. The American moralist Philip Wylie said it as succinctly as anyone, I think: “We aspire to the discipline of the instinct by the heart and mind.” Although now that I’m 93 (and don’t give a damn, you see) I find that easier than in days of yore ....

[Sunder]

The problem is that it may be more likely that a 16 year old boy would be a predator of a 16 year old girl. Who is more likely to put excessive social and physical pressure on a 16 year old girl, a 50 year old man, or her 16 year old boyfriend?

I don't think I'd put sexually forward behavior by one's boyfriend/girlfriend in the same category as sexual predation.

Why are we targeting older people and just assuming an older person is being a predator. This doesn't make sense to me.

In what way does a significantly older individual initiate a relationship with a minor in a non-predatory fashion?

Minors are relatively segregated in society. They're far from autonomous. Their travel is restricted, they're mandated by law to be in certain places for a large chunk of the year, and virtually all of the adults that they interact with regularly are people in positions of authority over them. A relationship with any of those adults would be automatically predatory. And for any adults outside of that cloistered mini-society, how do they meet?

And keep in mind.... it is not uncommon for 15 and 16 year olds to be tried as adults for major crimes like murder. Isn't rape a major crime?

This is starting to sound a bit social justicey to me, but sex between two minors is not rape unless there's actual physical coercion.

Think of consent less as a prerequisite for sex and more of a burden only on adult humans. If you're an adult human being, you are required to obtain consent before sex, and only other adult humans can give this consent.

[Clarence]

Clearly there is no difference between someone who fantasizes about having consensual sex with a 16 year old DD sized ponytailed cheerleader and someone who thinks a 4 year is 'hawt' and that they 'just don't know they want it'.

Or at least according to some here.

[Brive1987]

Because being attracted to signals of sexual-fertility is a 'fetish'?
Who knew?

Goal posts. You were arguing for removing legal barriers to "action" and justifying the premise using a spectrum argument. John D' baseball story is the morally acceptable pragmatic approach. Feels weird. Lock it away.

[Mykeru]

I guess this means there is no such letter.

If he has left up the post I can only conclude that the letter was written and agreed between the two parties lawyers rather than there being some kind of jointly written and signed statement by Radford and Stollznow.

Radford may have erred in trusting Stollznow one last time when she was just interested in agreeing to enough to get the heat off her and then went right back into "fuck with him" mode.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/imag ... mTWJFKZm4Q

Retraction? What retraction?

[John D]

This stuff is arbitrary.
But at least most of the psychologists and people who study these things agree it's not 'pedophilia' or 'abnormal' for men of any age to be attracted to sexually developed teen girls. So we really have to wonder at some of the bullshit. This isn't about 'protecting ' the teens because one could easily make laws such as that getting a girl (or getting impregnated by a boy) younger than a certain age ( 15-17) would be a crime, transmitting an STD to the younger partner, etc.

yeah... you are making sense to me on this topic Clarence

Forget the sarcasm tag?

You make some kind of big assumption that there are tons of older guys out there stalking young girls so they can enjoy non-coequal relationships. I am pretty sure it is a stupid idea for the state to enforce how people have relationships. Is this what rape laws are for? Are they for protecting women from non-coequal relationships. WTF?

[AndrewV69]

Hewson makes an argument worth listening to, if only because she is an oppositional voice in what was/is undoubtedly mob madness.

As for convicting dead persons of criminal offences, my favourite instance of it, was when one pope dug up his dead predecessor, dressed him in papal garbs, put him in the dock, and had a trial.

Beautiful. I think in the end he was convicted. His defense was somewhat absent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Formosus

Reminds me of what happened to Cromwell after he shuffled off this mortal coil:

On 30 January 1661, (the 12th anniversary of the execution of Charles I), Cromwell's body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey, and was subjected to the ritual of a posthumous execution, as were the remains of Robert Blake, John Bradshaw and Henry Ireton. (The body of Cromwell's daughter was allowed to remain buried in the Abbey.) His disinterred body was hanged in chains at Tyburn, and then thrown into a pit, while his severed head was displayed on a pole outside Westminster Hall until 1685.

[Mykeru]

Although now that I’m 93

http://creepyanimals.com/wordpress/wp-c ... eoduck.jpg

[Clarence]

The problem is that it may be more likely that a 16 year old boy would be a predator of a 16 year old girl. Who is more likely to put excessive social and physical pressure on a 16 year old girl, a 50 year old man, or her 16 year old boyfriend?

I don't think I'd put sexually forward behavior by one's boyfriend/girlfriend in the same category as sexual predation.

Why are we targeting older people and just assuming an older person is being a predator. This doesn't make sense to me.

In what way does a significantly older individual initiate a relationship with a minor in a non-predatory fashion?

Minors are relatively segregated in society. They're far from autonomous. Their travel is restricted, they're mandated by law to be in certain places for a large chunk of the year, and virtually all of the adults that they interact with regularly are people in positions of authority over them. A relationship with any of those adults would be automatically predatory. And for any adults outside of that cloistered mini-society, how do they meet?

And keep in mind.... it is not uncommon for 15 and 16 year olds to be tried as adults for major crimes like murder. Isn't rape a major crime?

This is starting to sound a bit social justicey to me, but sex between two minors is not rape unless there's actual physical coercion.

Think of consent less as a prerequisite for sex and more of a burden only on adult humans. If you're an adult human being, you are required to obtain consent before sex, and only other adult humans can give this consent.

All that stuff is a result of our rather sick society refusing to allow teens to grow up.
People have ran countries at 14.
People have married at 14.
Add a few more years (16,17) and it gets even more ludacris.

And we segregate children and teens and teens and adults to an extent (talking the US here) that is almost unprecedented in human history. Once again, I don't see how an older partner would be bad for a teen IF the older partner had the responsibility of protection and education which is what ADULTS ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. We are SUPPOSED to be helping teens into adulthood, not ignoring them, leaving them to their own devices and then just handing them the Keys to the freaking Kingdom at 18 (or maybe letting them visit the impoverished prison our country is more and more turning into) and telling them they are on their own.

[John D]

The problem is that it may be more likely that a 16 year old boy would be a predator of a 16 year old girl. Who is more likely to put excessive social and physical pressure on a 16 year old girl, a 50 year old man, or her 16 year old boyfriend?

I don't think I'd put sexually forward behavior by one's boyfriend/girlfriend in the same category as sexual predation.

Why are we targeting older people and just assuming an older person is being a predator. This doesn't make sense to me.

In what way does a significantly older individual initiate a relationship with a minor in a non-predatory fashion?

Minors are relatively segregated in society. They're far from autonomous. Their travel is restricted, they're mandated by law to be in certain places for a large chunk of the year, and virtually all of the adults that they interact with regularly are people in positions of authority over them. A relationship with any of those adults would be automatically predatory. And for any adults outside of that cloistered mini-society, how do they meet?

And keep in mind.... it is not uncommon for 15 and 16 year olds to be tried as adults for major crimes like murder. Isn't rape a major crime?

This is starting to sound a bit social justicey to me, but sex between two minors is not rape unless there's actual physical coercion.

Think of consent less as a prerequisite for sex and more of a burden only on adult humans. If you're an adult human being, you are required to obtain consent before sex, and only other adult humans can give this consent.

Are you are using the term minor to actually mean something? Adulthood and criminal actions are very much smeared over many ages. About the only thing that makes 18 special anymore is the ability to sign a contract and the ability to vote. Otherwise it doesn't really mean shit. This is the issue here.

I am claiming that it is more likely that a young woman will suffer from an abusive relationship with one of her age peers rather than with someone older. The statutory rape laws don't do squat to protect a young woman from getting abused. I think the statutory rape laws are graduated simply because society think it is gross for an older man to have sex with a young woman.

[bhoytony]

It's getting pretty creepy round here. Think I'll come back tomorrow. I always said I had nothing in common with you fuckers.

[Brive1987]

Clearly there is no difference between someone who fantasizes about having consensual sex with a 16 year old DD sized ponytailed cheerleader and someone who thinks a 4 year is 'hawt' and that they 'just don't know they want it'.

Moving beyond "thought crime" and into real world action, then well done - clearly put.

If the "someone" is an adult then both examples are morally and (bordering - well done there) legally unacceptable.

A 16 year old is a dependant not an adult. And I don't care how big their tits are or whether they push them in your face. Back away pops.

Go watch American Beauty if this needs a clarifying wrapper.

[free thoughtpolice]

Evidence of Savile's guilt:
[youtube]BUSmc5Tiuto[/youtube]

[AndrewV69]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... I_1870.jpg

Dood!!!

You never mentioned that it might have happened twice!!!!

Sergius reportedly had the much-abused corpse of Formosus exhumed once more, tried, found guilty again, and beheaded, thus in effect conducting a second Cadaver Synod:[3] although Joseph Brusher, S.J. says that "Sergius [III] indulged in no resurrection-man tactics himself"[4] and Schaff, Milman,[5] Gregorovius,[6] von Mosheim,[7] Miley,[8] Mann,[9] Darras,[10] John the Deacon of Naples, Flodoard, and others make no mention of this story.

That is just funny as fuck.

[Beta Neckbeard]

Clarence creeping it up on p259.

[Steersman]

Aye. But capability isn't culpability.

If that was the case then some 200 million Americans would be guilty of murder. [Which might actually be true depending on how loosely one wants to define the term, and how broadly one wants to distribute actions done in the public's name.]

I doubt the 200 million number because for some reason I am under the impression that many/most are incapable of even killing a chicken.

That number was related less to moral qualms or squeamishness than to the number of “implements of destruction” in the hands of the “great unwashed” – currently (2007) at 89.0 (precisely) per 100 residents. Which at a population of some 300 million works out to some 267 million guns of various types .... Although Canada isn’t a whole lot better at 30.8.

All of which gives us a great degree of "capability" to off our fellows, but that hardly qualifies as culpability for having done so.

[Parody Accountant]

That's andrew's schtick. He'll misquote/misrepresent a link or series of links, and then when you point that out, try to make it sound like you didn't really read the thing(s) you just read. Until you basically quote the entire thing with specific highlighting, at which point, he may or may not admit he might not have been completely right.

After a while, you just shrug, I see it as a rather tedious form of trolling myself.

Why bless your heart!!! Your input is valued and I do appreciate your contribution.

Don't welch welch. Come up with your own material.

TBH, I think he kind of has you pegged. However, I like your contributions here (the ones he's talking about included).

[Brive1987]

It's getting pretty creepy round here. Think I'll come back tomorrow. I always said I had nothing in common with you fuckers.

On this topic I concur.

Brive out.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

It's getting pretty creepy round here. Think I'll come back tomorrow.

Yep, gonna do that too.

[another lurker]

Amen. Per above, the difference between admiring the cakes and stuffing them in two at a time!

Stop harassing Stephanie Zvan, you insensitive cunt.

[AndrewV69]

Technology advances. We have moved from

http://i.imgur.com/nJwxdUB.jpg

to

http://i.imgur.com/R6MiGC4.jpg

If even 10% of the tinderfessions are true ... https://twitter.com/tinderfessions

j.random.sample:

[Guestus Aurelius]

It's getting pretty creepy round here. Think I'll come back tomorrow. I always said I had nothing in common with you fuckers.

Seriously. Maybe a separate thread for discussing pedophilia and statutory rape?

Now, let's get back to a less triggering subject, like infanticide.

[Clarence]

Clearly there is no difference between someone who fantasizes about having consensual sex with a 16 year old DD sized ponytailed cheerleader and someone who thinks a 4 year is 'hawt' and that they 'just don't know they want it'.

Moving beyond "thought crime" and into real world action, then well done - clearly put.

If the "someone" is an adult then both examples are morally and (bordering - well done there) legally unacceptable.

A 16 year old is a dependant not an adult. And I don't care how big their tits are or whether they push them in your face. Back away pops.

Go watch American Beauty if this needs a clarifying wrapper.

A 16 year old can have themselves legally emancipated.
They can also get married.
They can also, within limits, drive a car.
They are also, in some countries (not just thirld world shitholes...those get the 8 and ten year olds) subject to a draft.

A sixteen year old is a young adult in pretty much all the important biological and mental senses.

[Steersman]

I guess this means there is no such letter.

If he has left up the post I can only conclude that the letter was written and agreed between the two parties lawyers rather than there being some kind of jointly written and signed statement by Radford and Stollznow.

Radford may have erred in trusting Stollznow one last time when she was just interested in agreeing to enough to get the heat off her and then went right back into "fuck with him" mode.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/imag ... mTWJFKZm4Q
Retraction? What retraction?

Maybe. But she and Carrie Poppy have apparently asked many people to delete various damning statements by them and their supporters - the Facebook page of Ashley Miller, if I'm not mistaken, that was discussed here recently probably being a case in point. But there certainly seems to be some highly questionable actions by both of them in that mess - even if it has some similarities to the The Rape of the Lock.

[Clarence]

LOL.
The Great Slymepit...scared of discussion of sex with 16 year olds.

My God, this is hilarious.

And I didn't even get to post any PRON!
(though legally it would be 18 plus that looked younger).

I'm so disappointed :)

[Dave]

I'd crucify any non-teen that even looked at my daughter. She may be in her teens, but she has a young emotional maturity that I can almost literally see developing in a tentative fashion.

I will go with arbitrary if it keeps the toolies away.

As for any non teen who wants to take a photo of her naked as part of his deal?

FFS

The fact of the matter is most law is arbitrary. The law is a fucking blunt instrument.

Can the law be improved? Absolutely. By the collections of idiots we refer to as "Legislatures"? I have my doubts.

Will it be improved by people denying the fact that in general adults and children (including teens) have unequal power in society and unequal maturity to deal with social pressure? Not at all. By suggesting that we should roll back Statutory rape laws and allowing 50 year olds to fuck 16 year old cheerleaders when they have DD's? Thats got as much chance as a vodka shot in Becky's bedroom.

[John D]

Clearly there is no difference between someone who fantasizes about having consensual sex with a 16 year old DD sized ponytailed cheerleader and someone who thinks a 4 year is 'hawt' and that they 'just don't know they want it'.

Moving beyond "thought crime" and into real world action, then well done - clearly put.

If the "someone" is an adult then both examples are morally and (bordering - well done there) legally unacceptable.

A 16 year old is a dependant not an adult. And I don't care how big their tits are or whether they push them in your face. Back away pops.

Go watch American Beauty if this needs a clarifying wrapper.

According to the laws of the State of Michigan, a 16 year old is treated as an "adult" regarding murder and other violent crime, and sex with others not in an authority position. A 18 year old is an "adult" regarding signing a contract, smoking, making medical decisions and voting. A 21 year old is considered an "adult" regarding the consumption of alcohol.

A dependent is someone you claim on your taxes. My 62 year old sick mother-in-law was my dependent when she lived in my house.

I am my child's legal guardian until they are 18, but this makes little difference if they commit murder. They will be tried as an adult.

The idea of adulthood is not so black and white.

[Sunder]

Adulthood and criminal actions are very much smeared over many ages.

Yes. Real development is graduated. Legal adulthood is arbitrary by necessity. I went over that.

And I don't see the point in referencing the criminal status of other crimes where minors can be tried as adults as a justification for bringing consent laws in line with them unless you're willing to make the argument that those laws are correct. I'm actually not for the trend of trying minors as adults and think it's a pretty shit policy that ruins a lot of lives without providing much benefit to society.

I am claiming that it is more likely that a young woman will suffer from an abusive relationship with one of her age peers rather than with someone older.

Only because it's more likely that a young woman will find herself in a relationship with one of her peers, because again, segregated society. But it's much less likely that a same-age relationship between two schoolmates will be abusive than it would be between a schoolkid and a much older individual.

The statutory rape laws don't do squat to protect a young woman from getting abused. I think the statutory rape laws are graduated simply because society think it is gross for an older man to have sex with a young woman.

Why do you keep focusing on young women? I'm talking about young people in general. You know, equity. Young boys are preyed upon as well.

[AndrewV69]

Just as a way to insert some facts.... In much of the US, the legal age of sexual consent is less than 18 years. In my state of Michigan the age of consent is 16. Yes friends, 16 years old is legal (unless you are a teacher, doctor, therapist etc.). This is a good thing for my daughter's boyfriend.

In Hawaii the age of consent is 15! Each state sets its own statutory rape law. Many states are graduated so that a young man can legally have sex with a young woman, but an old man can't (cause that's just gross!)

Nope.

It is the rules set by the gynofacists wot control the vagina supply to limit access so that the doddering old fossils have no choice but to get turned down by the likes of OB.

[youtube]Ew8KPNeEds8[/youtube]

[Clarence]

Anyway, back on track:
Here's some stuff on Saville from the British "press":

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/370439 ... tanic-ring

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/jimmy-savi ... ld-2097740

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ji ... on-1398159

Just to show that I arguably wasn't strawmanning.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

LOL.
The Great Slymepit...scared of discussion of sex with 16 year olds.

My God, this is hilarious.

And I didn't even get to post any PRON!
(though legally it would be 18 plus that looked younger).

I'm so disappointed :)

It's just not a discussion of any interest to me.

Carry on, my scroll-wheel is brand new. Or as Augustus said, open another thread.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Aurelius*

[Dick Strawkins]

LOL.
The Great Slymepit...scared of discussion of sex with 16 year olds.

My God, this is hilarious.

And I didn't even get to post any PRON!
(though legally it would be 18 plus that looked younger).

I'm so disappointed :)

Maybe we just aren't the right gang for you?

http://i.imgur.com/vWxvj4Y.jpg

[Dave]

You make some kind of big assumption that there are tons of older guys out there stalking young girls so they can enjoy non-coequal relationships. I am pretty sure it is a stupid idea for the state to enforce how people have relationships. Is this what rape laws are for? Are they for protecting women from non-coequal relationships. WTF?

Enforcing how people have relationships IS what the state does. That is its job. Why do you imagine that romantic relationships should be excluded from this? The whole point of the law is to define what sorts of relations between parties are permissible and which are not.

[James Caruthers]

[

Dunno if you (or anyone else) want more recommendations, but if you read manga, Berserk is pretty much the king of dark fantasy. If you want cyberpunk, anything by Tsutomu Nihei, like Blame!, should be good.
I'd also like to recommend Otoyomegatari and Gunnm (both the original and Last Order), been reading both recently and found them very good, even though they are very different from each other. Otoyomegatari is about a young bride in Turkish Central Asia, being married off in the early 19th century, while Gunnm is a action sci-fi series about the cyborg Alita.

Oh, and Yokohama Kaidashi Kikou, one of the best mangas I ever read, very simple and clean but yet absolutely stunning artwork, and a very slow paced but still interesting story.

Gunnm (called Battle Angel Alita in the States) is the shit. I've pretty much stopped reading all manga except for Gunnm, Jojo's Bizarre Adventure and Berserk.

These three manga also have about the best art of all manga I have read.

[Clarence]

LOL.
The Great Slymepit...scared of discussion of sex with 16 year olds.

My God, this is hilarious.

And I didn't even get to post any PRON!
(though legally it would be 18 plus that looked younger).

I'm so disappointed :)

Maybe we just aren't the right gang for you?

http://i.imgur.com/vWxvj4Y.jpg

Ok, that was hilarious!!!!! I'm the farthest thing from Glary Glitter...omg LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[katamari Damassi]

Although now that I’m 93

http://creepyanimals.com/wordpress/wp-c ... eoduck.jpg

Uncut too by the looks of him. Anyone else turned on as much as I am?

[Gumby]

LOL.
The Great Slymepit...scared of discussion of sex with 16 year olds.

My God, this is hilarious.

And I didn't even get to post any PRON!
(though legally it would be 18 plus that looked younger).

I'm so disappointed :)

You're a creepy fucker, Clarence.

And if you post that kind of pic here, you're gone, just like the last asshole that tried it.

Fair warning.

[Parody Accountant]

http://imgur.com/jmK5IOC.jpg

Loved this one. Amazing.

[Clarence]

[

Dunno if you (or anyone else) want more recommendations, but if you read manga, Berserk is pretty much the king of dark fantasy. If you want cyberpunk, anything by Tsutomu Nihei, like Blame!, should be good.
I'd also like to recommend Otoyomegatari and Gunnm (both the original and Last Order), been reading both recently and found them very good, even though they are very different from each other. Otoyomegatari is about a young bride in Turkish Central Asia, being married off in the early 19th century, while Gunnm is a action sci-fi series about the cyborg Alita.

Oh, and Yokohama Kaidashi Kikou, one of the best mangas I ever read, very simple and clean but yet absolutely stunning artwork, and a very slow paced but still interesting story.

Gunnm (called Battle Angel Alita in the States) is the shit. I've pretty much stopped reading all manga except for Gunnm, Jojo's Bizarre Adventure and Berserk.

These three manga also have about the best art of all manga I have read.

Ironic. I've watched the anime of "Battle Angel Alita" and "JoJo's" but not read the manga. This does remind me.