| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
13 Dec 2007 04:09:57 PM |
| Object: |
Is consensual sex with minors under 18 always rape; or at what age is |
Are there ways to determine if a minor consents to sex or not?
Response to "bobandcarole" [Was: Pedophile Alert]
On Nov 28, 2:16 am, "=AA=BA=AAandcarole(R)(tm)" <bobandcarole...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Nov 23, 10:02?pm, wrote:
On Oct 31, 6:19 pm, bobandcarole(R) <bobandcarole...@hotmail.com> wrote:=
On Oct 31, 5:17?pm, "wonderer" <pir...@bigpond.com> wrote:
"bobandcarole" <bobandcarole...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
What are the consequences of sexual abuse?
Fears, panic attacks, sleeping problems, nightmares, irritability,
outbursts of anger and sudden shock reactions when being touched.
Little confidence, and self-respect and respect for one's own body may=
change.
Of course, all of your examples, above and below are concerning
victims of abuse and rape. I believe what some pedophile acceptors
are pointing to is the ability of a child to consent at a younger
age. Certainly as young as 14. Probably as young as 9. And perhaps
even at any age.
Hurting, restricting, violating, and assaulting someone against their
will is always rape. Consensual activity is possibly always
consensual activity.
consentual sex with a child is rape and
will be punished as such.
It's true that's it's been punished as such, but how should it be
"rape" as defined by the law? I'm merely questioning the status quo.
If you can't explain why, then you have no argument for the law. If
you don't care to question, then get out of the discussion.
The greatest number of people committing child abuse must be parents.
No one has a greater opportunity to commit child rape - incest and get
away with it than a parent. Parents need to know, that while they may
have a right to force their children to do many things, such as play
in little league or clean their rooms, they do not have a right to
force them to have sex with them, for that is rape. Parents do not
have a right to have sex with their children. In fact, they do not
have a right to touch their children in any way without their consent,
just as no one has a right to touch anyone else without their consent,
and it should be illegal to spank your children or strike them in any
way, for that is pure assault. Parents should not lord over their
children in any case, and hopefully they don't have to force them to
do very many things to begin with.
But even children younger than 8 can say yes or no. Kids know if they
want cotton candy or green beans.
So perhaps if pedophiles have to ask the kids and not in a suggestive
way, then we would know they are consenting.
Children need to have sex-ed at a young age, be taught about sex, and
how to deal with abusive parents, that they must either get the abuse
to stop, or suffer the abuse, or be orphans and go into a foster
home. The obvious choice is for the child to get the abuse to stop,
and get on with their lives, if it is not flagrant, and if possible.
Next they need to be taught to tell a school counselor or teacher or
principle or call a number, so they can get out of an abusive family
if it's too abusive and it doesn't stop.
Society makes scapegoats out of lesser sex offenders and ruins many
individuals for no reason. Society is doing evil in this regard. The
current sex-offender registry is an abomination that effectively
leaves people in prison for years, with an illusion that they have
been released to the outside. Except for forcible rapists, no one
should be classified as a "sex offender, " if anyone should be
classified as a sex offender at all. in my opinion all these other
sexual offenses are legal, or should at least be worth no more than a
fine. But they seek to make social outcasts of good people, they have
made scapegoats of them, they are nearly the new "niggers" and they
ruin innocent individuals lives, which all the while does nothing
about the real rape and incest which must be going on within homes
behind closed doors of families with tyrants for parents.
If sex is consensual then I don't see how it hurts a minor. Having
someone touch your genitals does not hurt you. Having someone put
their mouths on your genitals does not hurt you. Touching someone
else's genitals does not hurt you. Putting your mouth on someone
else's genitals does not hurt you, and coitus does not hurt you,
unless it does, and in which case you would be saying "stop" and it
would be rape, and if a minor is forced or restrained it is rape, just
as it is for an adult. If a minor is threatened or coerced it is
rape, just as it is for an adult. And nobody wants to be raped.
Assault is bad to begin with. Rape is a flagrant violation. Desired
hugging is not assault.
Even to a baby, what can you do? Touch its genitals? Lick its
genitals? Rub your genitals on it?
You're getting off on this, aren't you, shitbag?
No, I'm merely making a point. That even when considering a non-
consenting baby, having sex with it does not hurt it, and what matters
*is* if it's being hurt or not, not whether or not someone is having
sex with it. Have sex with the baby that doesn't hurt it, and that
doesn't matter. Hurt the baby without having sex with it and that
matters. Granted, the baby hasn't consented and it's iffy, but I don't
think a baby cares if someone touches or licks its genitals. And
there's nothing else a pedophile could do besides rub its genitals on
the baby; taking care not to ejaculate in its eyes or something...
Child abuse can occur with or without sex. And that is what matters.
Not someone's sexual attraction to, or activity with a child. I think
people are confused in this regard.
40% of women who breastfeed have had the experience of feeling
aroused, and even having an orgasm, while breastfeeding. See
http://sexuality.about.com/od/anatomyresponse/a/orgasm_breastfe.htm
Rape is rape, and always a crime. It is a crime because it is
assault, and a flagrant violation of someone's will. When
"bobandcarol" made the following comment:
What are the consequences of sexual abuse?
Fears, panic attacks, sleeping problems, nightmares, irritability,
outbursts of anger and sudden shock reactions when being touched.
Little confidence, and self-respect and respect for one's own body may
change.
They were relying on examples of child abuse and rape, and not
seemingly consensual sexual activity which should possibly be legal.
.
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is consensual sex with minors under 18 always rape; or at what age is consent honestly possible - a discussion [Was: Pedophile Alert] |
13 Dec 2007 05:20:21 PM |
|
|
<gooddad@rock.com> wrote in message
news:9466353b-a0f3-4f08-b1c7-f05a0b2ebee7@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Are there ways to determine if a minor consents to sex or not?
No. Age is one of the criteria defined by legal consent. A minor cannot
legally consent to anything.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: Is consensual sex with minors under 18 always rape; or at what age is consent honestly possible - a discussion [Was: Pedophile Alert] |
14 Dec 2007 01:32:28 PM |
|
|
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
<gooddad@rock.com> wrote in message
news:9466353b-a0f3-4f08-b1c7-f05a0b2ebee7@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Are there ways to determine if a minor consents to sex or not?
No. Age is one of the criteria defined by legal consent. A minor cannot
legally consent to anything.
Yet they CAN be held to account for crimes they commit.
Odd, isn't it ? I mean if they're considered too stupid
to know who they wanna screw then how could they possibly
be smart enough to know what's legal and what's not ? :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is consensual sex with minors under 18 always rape; or at what age is consent honestly possible - a discussion [Was: Pedophile Alert] |
14 Dec 2007 04:20:14 PM |
|
|
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:nfm5m31o597e62j7ed7tpqolj8c2lqgh4p@4ax.com...
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
<gooddad@rock.com> wrote in message
news:9466353b-a0f3-4f08-b1c7-f05a0b2ebee7@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Are there ways to determine if a minor consents to sex or not?
No. Age is one of the criteria defined by legal consent. A minor cannot
legally consent to anything.
Yet they CAN be held to account for crimes they commit.
Sometimes yes and sometimes no, and parents are often held responsible for
restitution. The juvenile justice system has much different rules and
procedures than the adult criminal justice system. See
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/juvenile-justice/.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: Is consensual sex with minors under 18 always rape; or at what age is consent honestly possible - a discussion [Was: Pedophile Alert] |
14 Dec 2007 02:53:21 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:32:28 -0500, B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
<gooddad@rock.com> wrote in message
news:9466353b-a0f3-4f08-b1c7-f05a0b2ebee7@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Are there ways to determine if a minor consents to sex or not?
No. Age is one of the criteria defined by legal consent. A minor cannot
legally consent to anything.
Yet they CAN be held to account for crimes they commit.
However they are normally held to be less responsible than an adult
who commits the same crime. An exception is sometimes in places made
for minors who go so far as to commit murder but that's what it is.
Odd, isn't it ? I mean if they're considered too stupid
to know who they wanna screw then how could they possibly
be smart enough to know what's legal and what's not ? :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: Is consensual sex with minors under 18 always rape; or at what age is consent honestly possible - a discussion [Was: Pedophile Alert] |
14 Dec 2007 04:31:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:53:21 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:32:28 -0500, B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
<gooddad@rock.com> wrote in message
news:9466353b-a0f3-4f08-b1c7-f05a0b2ebee7@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Are there ways to determine if a minor consents to sex or not?
No. Age is one of the criteria defined by legal consent. A minor cannot
legally consent to anything.
Yet they CAN be held to account for crimes they commit.
However they are normally held to be less responsible than an adult
"Less", but not "Un" ... unless they're REALLY young.
Even then, there have been kids aged in the single
digits charged with felonies.
who commits the same crime. An exception is sometimes in places made
for minors who go so far as to commit murder but that's what it is.
My complaint is the conveniently uneven treatment
of the alleged incompetence of youth. If you're
looking for someone to BLAME ... then it's OK to
blame minors, even tiny tots. They're treated as
if they DID know exactly what they were doing.
But if the kiddies want a beer or anything else
fun ... then they're presumed to be brain dead,
utterly incapable of accepting responsibility
or speaking for themselves.
So, if a 16-year-old bimbo wants a diamond ring
and throws a brick through a store window to get
it then she's presumed competent to stand trial
for grand theft. If she wants some hot 18-year-old
guy and aggressively, even deceptively, seduces
him, then the guy is the criminal and she's presumed
to be as ignorant and blameless as a newborn.
Hence my use of the term 'convenience' here. There
are no standards. "Competence" is assigned almost
randomly, depending on the nature of the annoyance
created.
Odd, isn't it ? I mean if they're considered too stupid
to know who they wanna screw then how could they possibly
be smart enough to know what's legal and what's not ? :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: Is consensual sex with minors under 18 always rape; or at what age is consent honestly possible - a discussion [Was: Pedophile Alert] |
15 Dec 2007 01:19:00 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:31:36 GMT, (B1ackwater) wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:53:21 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:32:28 -0500, B1ackwater < > wrote:
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
<gooddad@rock.com> wrote in message
news:9466353b-a0f3-4f08-b1c7-f05a0b2ebee7@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Are there ways to determine if a minor consents to sex or not?
No. Age is one of the criteria defined by legal consent. A minor cannot
legally consent to anything.
Yet they CAN be held to account for crimes they commit.
However they are normally held to be less responsible than an adult
"Less", but not "Un" ...
That's all right. Their legal inability to give consent isn't based
on a total incapacity, just a reduced capacity for rational thought.
.
|
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: Is consensual sex with minors under 18 always rape; or at what age is consent honestly possible - a discussion [Was: Pedophile Alert] |
15 Dec 2007 04:31:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:19:00 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:31:36 GMT, (B1ackwater) wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:53:21 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:32:28 -0500, B1ackwater < > wrote:
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
<gooddad@rock.com> wrote in message
news:9466353b-a0f3-4f08-b1c7-f05a0b2ebee7@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Are there ways to determine if a minor consents to sex or not?
No. Age is one of the criteria defined by legal consent. A minor cannot
legally consent to anything.
Yet they CAN be held to account for crimes they commit.
However they are normally held to be less responsible than an adult
"Less", but not "Un" ...
That's all right. Their legal inability to give consent isn't based
on a total incapacity, just a reduced capacity for rational thought.
So ... if they shoot 10 people in a robbery or just for
the hell of it ... they can plead "reduced capacity"
and everything will be OK ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: Is consensual sex with minors under 18 always rape; or at what age is consent honestly possible - a discussion [Was: Pedophile Alert] |
15 Dec 2007 07:25:25 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:31:33 GMT, (B1ackwater) wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:19:00 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:31:36 GMT, (B1ackwater) wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:53:21 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:32:28 -0500, B1ackwater < > wrote:
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
<gooddad@rock.com> wrote in message
news:9466353b-a0f3-4f08-b1c7-f05a0b2ebee7@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Are there ways to determine if a minor consents to sex or not?
No. Age is one of the criteria defined by legal consent. A minor cannot
legally consent to anything.
Yet they CAN be held to account for crimes they commit.
However they are normally held to be less responsible than an adult
"Less", but not "Un" ...
That's all right. Their legal inability to give consent isn't based
on a total incapacity, just a reduced capacity for rational thought.
So ... if they shoot 10 people in a robbery or just for
the hell of it ... they can plead "reduced capacity"
and everything will be OK ?
Good god no. You have to a total incapacity to get that, not merely
somewhat impaired. But they can expect to see more lenience than an
adult who commits crimes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dave, the angry, gay, stupid, republican warrior" |
|
| Title: Re: Is consensual sex with minors under 18 always rape; or at what |
13 Dec 2007 06:29:34 PM |
|
|
On Dec 13, 2:09 pm, wrote:
Are there ways to determine if a minor consents to sex or not?
Response to "bobandcarole" [Was: Pedophile Alert]
On Nov 28, 2:16 am, "=AA=BA=AAandcarole(R)(tm)" <bobandcarole...@gmail.com=
wrote:
On Nov 23, 10:02?pm, wrote:
On Oct 31, 6:19 pm, bobandcarole(R) <bobandcarole...@hotmail.com> wrot=
e:
On Oct 31, 5:17?pm, "wonderer" <pir...@bigpond.com> wrote:
"bobandcarole" <bobandcarole...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
What are the consequences of sexual abuse?
Fears, panic attacks, sleeping problems, nightmares, irritability,
outbursts of anger and sudden shock reactions when being touched.
Little confidence, and self-respect and respect for one's own body m=
ay
change.
Of course, all of your examples, above and below are concerning
victims of abuse and rape. I believe what some pedophile acceptors
are pointing to is the ability of a child to consent at a younger
age. Certainly as young as 14. Probably as young as 9. And perhaps
even at any age.
Hurting, restricting, violating, and assaulting someone against their
will is always rape. Consensual activity is possibly always
consensual activity.
consentual sex with a child is rape and
will be punished as such.
It's true that's it's been punished as such, but how should it be
"rape" as defined by the law? I'm merely questioning the status quo.
If you can't explain why, then you have no argument for the law. If
you don't care to question, then get out of the discussion.
The greatest number of people committing child abuse must be parents.
No one has a greater opportunity to commit child rape - incest and get
away with it than a parent. Parents need to know, that while they may
have a right to force their children to do many things, such as play
in little league or clean their rooms, they do not have a right to
force them to have sex with them, for that is rape. Parents do not
have a right to have sex with their children. In fact, they do not
have a right to touch their children in any way without their consent,
just as no one has a right to touch anyone else without their consent,
and it should be illegal to spank your children or strike them in any
way, for that is pure assault. Parents should not lord over their
children in any case, and hopefully they don't have to force them to
do very many things to begin with.
But even children younger than 8 can say yes or no. Kids know if they
want cotton candy or green beans.
So perhaps if pedophiles have to ask the kids and not in a suggestive
way, then we would know they are consenting.
Children need to have sex-ed at a young age, be taught about sex, and
how to deal with abusive parents, that they must either get the abuse
to stop, or suffer the abuse, or be orphans and go into a foster
home. The obvious choice is for the child to get the abuse to stop,
and get on with their lives, if it is not flagrant, and if possible.
Next they need to be taught to tell a school counselor or teacher or
principle or call a number, so they can get out of an abusive family
if it's too abusive and it doesn't stop.
Society makes scapegoats out of lesser sex offenders and ruins many
individuals for no reason. Society is doing evil in this regard. The
current sex-offender registry is an abomination that effectively
leaves people in prison for years, with an illusion that they have
been released to the outside. Except for forcible rapists, no one
should be classified as a "sex offender, " if anyone should be
classified as a sex offender at all. in my opinion all these other
sexual offenses are legal, or should at least be worth no more than a
fine. But they seek to make social outcasts of good people, they have
made scapegoats of them, they are nearly the new "niggers" and they
ruin innocent individuals lives, which all the while does nothing
about the real rape and incest which must be going on within homes
behind closed doors of families with tyrants for parents.
If sex is consensual then I don't see how it hurts a minor. Having
someone touch your genitals does not hurt you. Having someone put
their mouths on your genitals does not hurt you. Touching someone
else's genitals does not hurt you. Putting your mouth on someone
else's genitals does not hurt you, and coitus does not hurt you,
unless it does, and in which case you would be saying "stop" and it
would be rape, and if a minor is forced or restrained it is rape, just=
as it is for an adult. If a minor is threatened or coerced it is
rape, just as it is for an adult. And nobody wants to be raped.
Assault is bad to begin with. Rape is a flagrant violation. Desired
hugging is not assault.
Even to a baby, what can you do? Touch its genitals? Lick its
genitals? Rub your genitals on it?
You're getting off on this, aren't you, shitbag?
No, I'm merely making a point. That even when considering a non-
consenting baby, having sex with it does not hurt it, and what matters
*is* if it's being hurt or not, not whether or not someone is having
sex with it. Have sex with the baby that doesn't hurt it, and that
doesn't matter. Hurt the baby without having sex with it and that
matters. Granted, the baby hasn't consented and it's iffy, but I don't
think a baby cares if someone touches or licks its genitals. And
there's nothing else a pedophile could do besides rub its genitals on
the baby; taking care not to ejaculate in its eyes or something...
Child abuse can occur with or without sex. And that is what matters.
Not someone's sexual attraction to, or activity with a child. I think
people are confused in this regard.
40% of women who breastfeed have had the experience of feeling
aroused, and even having an orgasm, while breastfeeding. Seehttp://sexual=
ity.about.com/od/anatomyresponse/a/orgasm_breastfe.htm
Rape is rape, and always a crime. It is a crime because it is
assault, and a flagrant violation of someone's will. When
"bobandcarol" made the following comment:
What are the consequences of sexual abuse?
Fears, panic attacks, sleeping problems, nightmares, irritability,
outbursts of anger and sudden shock reactions when being touched.
Little confidence, and self-respect and respect for one's own body may
change.
They were relying on examples of child abuse and rape, and not
seemingly consensual sexual activity which should possibly be legal.- Hide=
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
In retrospect, those advocating child rape should have been taken out
and beat up, lliterally shot, and the culture as a whole should never
ever have questioned whether it was OK to denigrate women, and
children, and this is the next cheney troll, btw. "Perhaps they will
shoot up that neonatal mursery, after all. Or look for a particularly
heinous crime involving a mother, anh her children, either as victims,
or involving mental illness, such as Susan Smith, or Andrea Yates.
He's not creative.
Amway shitferbrains ***** Florida cow cow traitors are trolled to
another TET , and YOU ARE THERE.
Same pattern, shitferbrains, and you're taking the bait. Again.
Wiped?
Did you forget?
That projection and chaos thing not working out for you as planned?
Uhoh, the simpleton is gonna blow " I HAVE CONTROL NOW."
no, you dont.
You really dont know how powerful the CIA and the Pentagon are...this
nsa *****, you, anyway, you have these toys, and you have no fucking IQ
by which to use them.
Anyone can buy an electric guitar, few can play it.
So they turn the toys against you.
See?
They're setting Cheney up again, and you have no fucking clue what to
do, except for the same old *****, oh, go to connor, and they know,
they're trolling you to another mistake.
Maybe they will end the torture debate, it is destroying your
organiztion, isnt it?
(florida too stupid, they'll crumble, blame the liberals, go on to
lose another war)
(traditional CIA is a bit smarter)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
