18 Year Old Girl Facing Felony for Dating 15 Year Old Girl

[Forsakia]

I remember speaking on here a few months back about age of consent laws, and how ridiculous the notion is in some cases. This case is a perfect example as to why I said what I said. The relationship began when the elder was 17, and the younger 14. Both were attending the same school, the same sporting events, and in some cases according to my knowledge, the same classes. They are in the same peer group, engaging in the same activities and experiencing the same things. And we say it is immoral for them to engage in a sexual relationship? Bollocks! Pure and utter nonsense! I am amazed that the only argument supporters of this prosecution can come up with it seems is "well, it's the law, dur hur". As if that justifies it. To hell with law, what matters is whether or not something wrong actually occurred! The "victim" of the crime has repeatedly stated that she has no desire for any harm to befall Kate, that she truly cares for her, that their relationship was consenting, and that she didn't want any of this to occur. Yet because of the law, her voice means nothing. This is barbaric. This is immoral.

All this is is an insane crusade on the part of the younger girl's parents, seething with vitriol towards homosexuality. Don't believe me? Read accounts of her expulsion from school. The "victim's" family repeatedly tried to get Kate expelled, appealing to various channels, despite the fact that both the school and a judge twice stated that Kate could continue to attend. Eventually she was expelled by appealing to the school board. These people are miserable excuses for human beings, out on a mission to ruin the life of someone they are disgusted by; because she's homosexual.

There is no justification for this. Arguing that "it's the law" is no better than supporting any other insanely evil ideal that was once justified by law. This is a victimless crime, being fed by bigoted parents and a justice system that upholds ridiculous laws that should be done away with, or at the very least, altered to be more accommodating. If you disagree, ask yourself, where's the magic shift that makes an 18 year old and 15 year old of the same peer group immoral, but an 18 year old and 16 year old, perfectly acceptable? One day it's a crime, the next, it's okay?

Bullshit. Utter bullshit.

Because practicality. Because we need some kind of age of consent law and the only realistically clear method is to do it by age in one form or another.

And however you do it by age, whether with sliding scales, or whatever. Then you inevitably end up in a situation of an obviously arbitrary line with one side legal and the other illegal. It's not ideal, but you have to have a line somewhere.

[Aurora Novus]

In fairness, STD transmission via female/female sex is very much possible. However, I very strongly suspect that both of these individuals understood the risks of STDs. Teenagers aren't stupid, despite popular myth to the contrary.

I didn't mean to come of as saying it was impossible, just that it's not nearly as likely, considering the fundamental difference in sexual practice. But yes, it's entirely possible for them to understand the risks of sex, which was really my point. If they understand it, they can consent to it, regardless of age. All the law is doing at this point is being intrusive and ruining the lives of not one, but two women, neither of which want the law there and bothering them to begin with. Yet still it persists. It's abominable.

[Aurora Novus]

Because practicality. Because we need some kind of age of consent law and the only realistically clear method is to do it by age in one form or another.

There are better ways however then just a clear cut "if you're younger than X age, it's a crime" type laws. For instance, my proposal that we have an age of consent, but also some form of test which one could take to demonstrate a capability to consent, overriding the legal age limit. Or as some have suggested, an age of consent law, but one that is malleable based on the circumstances. But rigid laws like these are not only unhelpful, they are harmful, as evidenced by the horror that lay before us now.

[Quelesh]

Because we need some kind of age of consent law and the only realistically clear method is to do it by age in one form or another.

My response: No we don't, and no it's not.

The younger partner in this case is in a much better position to know whether or not the sex she had was consensual than you or I are.

In fairness, STD transmission via female/female sex is very much possible. However, I very strongly suspect that both of these individuals understood the risks of STDs. Teenagers aren't stupid, despite popular myth to the contrary.

I didn't mean to come of as saying it was impossible, just that it's not nearly as likely, considering the fundamental difference in sexual practice. But yes, it's entirely possible for them to understand the risks of sex, which was really my point. If they understand it, they can consent to it, regardless of age. All the law is doing at this point is being intrusive and ruining the lives of not one, but two women, neither of which want the law there and bothering them to begin with. Yet still it persists. It's abominable.

We are in agreement (with the caveat that the likelihood of STD transmission depends on the specific activity engaged in, and there are sexual activities that two females can engage in that have relatively high risks of STD transmission - but yeah I completely agree with your point).

[Ostroeuropa]

Because practicality. Because we need some kind of age of consent law and the only realistically clear method is to do it by age in one form or another.

There are better ways however then just a clear cut "if you're younger than X age, it's a crime" type laws. For instance, my proposal that we have an age of consent, but also some form of test which one could take to demonstrate a capability to consent, overriding the legal age limit. Or as some have suggested, an age of consent law, but one that is malleable based on the circumstances. But rigid laws like these are not only unhelpful, they are harmful, as evidenced by the horror that lay before us now.

I'm a supporter of both being in place.
If someone wishes to access their rights and cease being protected, it's our duty to provide them with the tools necessary to prove they are competent.

[Quelesh]

If someone wishes to access their rights and cease being protected, it's our duty to provide them with the tools necessary to prove they are competent.

You sound a lot like John Holt in Escape from Childhood, which earns you a cookie.

"I propose... that the rights, privileges, duties of adult citizens be made available to any young person, of whatever age, who wants to make use of them."

[Aurora Novus]

I didn't mean to come of as saying it was impossible, just that it's not nearly as likely, considering the fundamental difference in sexual practice. But yes, it's entirely possible for them to understand the risks of sex, which was really my point. If they understand it, they can consent to it, regardless of age. All the law is doing at this point is being intrusive and ruining the lives of not one, but two women, neither of which want the law there and bothering them to begin with. Yet still it persists. It's abominable.

BAN ZE LAW!!!

I find that to be a perfectly suitable option. Better to have no law than a corrupt law. Not ideal, but suitable.

In the mean time, I'll be waiting for your argument that does not stem from "it's the law".

[Cosara]

Because practicality. Because we need some kind of age of consent law and the only realistically clear method is to do it by age in one form or another.

There are better ways however then just a clear cut "if you're younger than X age, it's a crime" type laws. For instance, my proposal that we have an age of consent, but also some form of test which one could take to demonstrate a capability to consent, overriding the legal age limit. Or as some have suggested, an age of consent law, but one that is malleable based on the circumstances. But rigid laws like these are not only unhelpful, they are harmful, as evidenced by the horror that lay before us now.

BAN ZE LAW!!!

In all seriousness, this is not horror. This is the United States Judiciary hard at work. You see, this is a nation of laws. These laws are meant to protect the people and the interests of America. These laws are to prevent pedophiles. This girl broke the laws and committed a felony.

[Cosara]

BAN ZE LAW!!!

I find that to be a perfectly suitable option. Better to have no law than a corrupt law. Not ideal, but suitable.

In the mean time, I'll be waiting for your argument that does not stem from "it's the law".

Didn't delete the post fast enough. See new one.

[Katganistan]

You have to balance God's Law with America's Law.

God doesn't like compromise. In fact, I heard he can be quite jealous.

You are a Phoenecian worshiping Baal. Except you're an American worshiping the idol called your country's legal system. If there were a god I don't think he'd distinguish.

God doesn't get a vote, fortunately. And given the shit job he's done lately with everything, I'm glad he doesn't.

He can rule heaven and leave the US alone. Was it not Jesus himself who said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"?

[Ostroeuropa]

There are better ways however then just a clear cut "if you're younger than X age, it's a crime" type laws. For instance, my proposal that we have an age of consent, but also some form of test which one could take to demonstrate a capability to consent, overriding the legal age limit. Or as some have suggested, an age of consent law, but one that is malleable based on the circumstances. But rigid laws like these are not only unhelpful, they are harmful, as evidenced by the horror that lay before us now.

BAN ZE LAW!!!

In all seriousness, this is not horror. This is the United States Judiciary hard at work. You see, this is a nation of laws. These laws are meant to protect the people and the interests of America. These laws are to prevent pedophiles. This girl broke the laws and committed a felony.

It isn't pedophilia if they are post-puberty, fyi.
It's statutory rape.
So no, the law is there to prevent statutory rape, which is a crime because...
well because the law is there.
Can you justify statutory rape being a crime?

[Aurora Novus]

If someone wishes to access their rights and cease being protected, it's our duty to provide them with the tools necessary to prove they are competent.

You sound a lot like John Holt in Escape from Childhood, which earns you a cookie.

"I propose... that the rights, privileges, duties of adult citizens be made available to any young person, of whatever age, who wants to make use of them."

Bingo.

Ironically, the forcing of a person's rights and protections upon them against their will can be seen as a violation of their rights. The supposed victim of this situation has made it adamantly clear she does not want this, and not only consented to the relationship, but still desires it. If that is not reason enough for the law to back off, then the law is corrupt and oppressive, and in my view, violating the victim's right to pursue her own sense of happiness.

[Galloism]

BAN ZE LAW!!!

In all seriousness, this is not horror. This is the United States Judiciary hard at work. You see, this is a nation of laws. These laws are meant to protect the people and the interests of America. These laws are to prevent pedophiles. This girl broke the laws and committed a felony.

It isn't pedophilia if they are post-puberty, fyi.
It's statutory rape.
So no, the law is there to prevent statutory rape, which is a crime because...
well because the law is there.
Can you justify statutory rape being a crime?

Yes. Yes I can.

[Ostroeuropa]

You sound a lot like John Holt in Escape from Childhood, which earns you a cookie.

"I propose... that the rights, privileges, duties of adult citizens be made available to any young person, of whatever age, who wants to make use of them."

Bingo.

Ironically, the forcing of a person's rights and protections upon them against their will can be seen as a violation of their rights. The supposed victim of this situation has made it adamantly clear she does not want this, and not only consented to the relationship, but still desires it. If that is not reason enough for the law to back off, then the law is corrupt and oppressive, and in my view, violating the victim's right to pursue her own sense of happiness.

At worst, the girl should be taken for psychiatric evaluation. If they return with a finding that she is pretty sane and not suffering stockholm or some kind of psychologically detrimental thing causing her to say "No, I consent" then they should back off.

[Wisconsin9]

It isn't pedophilia if they are post-puberty, fyi.
It's statutory rape.
So no, the law is there to prevent statutory rape, which is a crime because...
well because the law is there.
Can you justify statutory rape being a crime?

Yes. Yes I can.

Then please do.

[Cosara]

BAN ZE LAW!!!

In all seriousness, this is not horror. This is the United States Judiciary hard at work. You see, this is a nation of laws. These laws are meant to protect the people and the interests of America. These laws are to prevent pedophiles. This girl broke the laws and committed a felony.

It isn't pedophilia if they are post-puberty, fyi.
It's statutory rape.
So no, the law is there to prevent statutory rape, which is a crime because...
well because the law is there.
Can you justify statutory rape being a crime?

If it's not obvious enough, I won't bother explaining.

[Ostroeuropa]

It isn't pedophilia if they are post-puberty, fyi.
It's statutory rape.
So no, the law is there to prevent statutory rape, which is a crime because...
well because the law is there.
Can you justify statutory rape being a crime?

If it's not obvious enough, I won't bother explaining.

That's a no then. Hopefully, the prosecutor takes your excellent argument as his case.

[Katganistan]

Based on bullshit logic that ignores the fact that they clearly can consent and were in this situation. Does the ability to consent magically change in accordance to the law? In most countries in the world, this would be legal. Are they able to consent there, but somehow lose the mental capacity once they enter the states? They cannot consent in the eyes if the law, but in this case the law is undoubtedly wrong. They were consenting before, unless you honestly believe both parties were raping each other before. The only difference is that one of them is a year older than they were before. That is the legal basis of this bullshit, and that is easily one of the shittiest reasons you can ever give.

OK then. We'll just allow adults to illegally fuck minors because they claim they were consenting.

Because that is TOTALLY what we're talking about here.
Do try to keep up.

[Nordwalsh]

This should be a fun topic to bring up to my numerous bi friends. I'd like to hear their opinions, especially since two of them are going to be in a very similar situation come the elder one's birthday. Of course, the age difference in their case is only two years (the younger one is 16), but I'd expect they'd be treated the same...welp, interesting situation is interesting.

[Cosara]

OK then. We'll just allow adults to illegally fuck minors because they claim they were consenting.

Because that is TOTALLY what we're talking about here.
Do try to keep up.

It actually kinda is. That's what this case is.

[Aurora Novus]

In all seriousness, this is not horror.

A victimless crime being prosecuted, and the supposed victimizer potentially facing penalties that will ruin the rest of her adult life (which she is less than a year into), isn't a horror? then what is?

This is the United States Judiciary hard at work.

Well then I can with sound mind say fuck the US and it's judiciary.

Now what's your argument?

These laws are meant to protect the people and the interests of America.

Even when it's actions are not in the interest of the people it's supposedly protecting, am I right?

These laws are to prevent pedophiles.

Actually, they're to prevent minors from being taken advantage of, not pedophilia. Also, there's nothing wrong with pedophilia in of itself. It's not a crime.

This girl broke the laws and committed a felony.

Right. And it used to be law to stone homosexuals. What's your point? Give us something of actual substance. Tell me why what occurred was immoral and should be punished. "It's the law" tells us nothing other than there is a gang of people out there who are going to force you to do what they want, and if you don't, punish you for it. That tells us nothing of right or wrong, which is the issue here.

[Aurora Novus]

It isn't pedophilia if they are post-puberty, fyi.
It's statutory rape.
So no, the law is there to prevent statutory rape, which is a crime because...
well because the law is there.
Can you justify statutory rape being a crime?

If it's not obvious enough, I won't bother explaining.

Translation: I have no argument, but if you don't agree with me, shame on you!

[Galloism]

Yes. Yes I can.

Then please do.

It's really quite simple. We recognize that children (and I include certain ages of teenagers in this category) can be easily manipulated into things which can be harmful to them by those who are older and have more experience in dealing with people.

It makes good sense to restrict a 60 year old woman from having sex with a 14 year old boy or 60 year old man with a 14 year old girl (or the appropriate homosexual variants). The ability of the older individual to manipulate the younger into an abusive relationship, in most cases, leaves a power dynamic too great to be allowed. The younger may not realize that he or she is being abused until months or years after the fact, when counseling or life experience gives him/her the ability to recognize that fact.

By then of course, the perpetrator has gone on to abuse several more young people without them immediately recognizing it, and without a statutory rape law, they will get away with it - over and over again.

[Ethel mermania]

seniors fucking seniors is OK
seniors fucking juniors is OK
freshmen fucking freshmen is too young but they are on equal footing and we can deal with that
seniors fucking freshmen is not.

an 18 year old is an adult and for the most part is significantly more mature than a 15 year old. That is why we have statutory rape laws to protect the 15 year old from older people, who are more mature, and experienced in the ways of the world than they are.

[Mirkana]

Because that is TOTALLY what we're talking about here.
Do try to keep up.

It actually kinda is. That's what this case is.

What we're saying is that, rather than assuming that the adult manipulated the minor, we investigate to find out whether or not the minor consented. If we are capable of investigating domestic abuse cases, I think we can handle this.