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

[SatrapyofChloe]

The thing is though, that people below a certain age just aren't mentally capable of deciding whether to have sex or not. For example, a four year old may be asked by an adult if it is ok for them to commit a sexual act upon them, and they may say yes, for a variety of reasons including that they don't know any better.

Now obviously, the above four year old is being exploited. Clearly if there is a point where someone is able to consent with full knowledge of what they're doing at some point, yet they weren't at another point, then there must be a stage where they transitioned between the two.

The law could have been created in such a way that it would take things on a case-by-case basis, but that would be so difficult to interpret that it would paralyse any statutory rape charges from ever achieving a conviction. So the law must set a certain age, in this case 18. Many, such as myself, agree that the age is too high, but that there must be a limit.

How could a 4 year old possibly even understand what the adult is saying to them, or asking of them?

I thought 4 year olds don't master language that fast. They barely understand anything that the adults are trying to tell them or ask them. So they can say yes to anything from candy to "playtime". If the adult defines that play the same way you define sex, then the child is being tricked into sex, by using the bait of "play" or candy.

But this was not the case. We are talking about two girls in a hypersexual country like US, who obviously know what sex is. But they're asexual, because they haven't penetrated each other with their clits or anything impossible like that. They never had sex. They cannot physically have sex.

The "age of consent" for anything that people think is sex, but isn't, should be 0. Just like relationships between females like friendship can happen without age of consent, the asexual relationship of lesbianism also makes "age of consent" useless, because they can't get each other pregnant or diseased.

If they hurt each other, then I can consider that rape or harm. But no one was hurt, so fuck it.
Literally fuck it, this "case" is so stupid, it makes the crap "law system" of America seem worse than Islam on it's worst day.

No wonder people hate America but love Islam. It's stupid misogynist anti-asexual laws like that.

[Wisconsin9]

How about yourself? Are you inept, or are you above those common rabble?

No, I'm never inept.

Then don't single out people under an arbitrarily determined age, thank you very much.

How about no. Minors are even dumber than adults, hence additional restrictions and regulations.

I'm guessing you knew when you posted that that I'm a minor and you basically just called me an idiot.

[Eastfield Lodge]

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. If you get caught for being Gay in a country in which being gay is not allowed, you still broke a law. I don't agree with the stoning of gays, however. I agree with the law in question.

So, you don't agree with that point, but still goes agree with the law then to stoning them?

Sounds very confusing...

The thing is, Cosara refuses to state his personal moral opinion on the law, just repeatedly stating what the law itself is.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Self-quoting?
Quite a masturbatory debating tactics.

I think Easfield is attempting to get an answer to a question posed directly to Cosara, who has chosen to ignore that question, because it's central to the reason Cosara is over here exulting in the first place (check recent threads dealing specifically with LGBT issues for evidence).

[Zweite Alaje]

No, I'm never inept.



How about no. Minors are even dumber than adults, hence additional restrictions and regulations.

I'm guessing you knew when you posted that that I'm a minor and you basically just called me an idiot.

Ok? And?

I wasn't referring to you directly.

[Eastfield Lodge]

I'm guessing you knew when you posted that that I'm a minor and you basically just called me an idiot.

Ok? And?

I wasn't referring to you directly.

Are you referring to minors as below AoC or below AoM?

[Gravlen]

Quite. But as you'll note - it won't stop her being convicted, only keep her off the SO registry.

True, personally I think there are issues with the statutory rape laws, ad this case shows off the issues. It wasn't a problem when they were dating a couple years ago since they were both minors, but the second one of them passes the age of majority, it becomes a problem. It holds even if they are less than a year apart and is flat out ridiculous. I thin dating and sexual intercourse among your peers is just fine and should not be illegal. There is a difference between an older adult having sex with a young child and a slightly older teen having sex with a slightly younger teen, especially if they were doing so before when they were both minors.

It actually does seem like there was a problem before she turned 18, as I understand the statutes in question.

I see your point though; but while I don't have a big problem with the statutory rape laws (Lewd and Lascivious Battery, to be precise), I do have a problem with the penalties. Facing a minimum sentence of seven and one-half (7½!) years in prison as well as registration as a sex offender is not a proportional response. No way, no how.

[Cosara]

So, you don't agree with that point, but still goes agree with the law then to stoning them?

Sounds very confusing...

The thing is, Cosara refuses to state his personal moral opinion on the law, just repeatedly stating what the law itself is.

The law is just. That is my opinion on it.

[Zweite Alaje]

Ok? And?

I wasn't referring to you directly.

Are you referring to minors as below AoC or below AoM?

Both.

[SatrapyofChloe]

Society cannot decide definitions of sexuality

And this is not about definitions of sexuality. It's about social behaviour of two people, which is regulated by law, which in turn is decided by the individuals that make up the society.

So, ultimately, society CAN and DOES decide what social behaviours are legal or illegal.

Exactly. But I am antisocial, therefore the laws of any society don't apply to me.

If those girls register for citizenship in the island of Lesbos, then they can do anything without being branded "homosexual" when they're not even being sexual, according to the laws of biology.

Since when does Society ignore or bypass Biology? You can't pretend those girls penetrated each other sexually, despite your disgusting futanari fantasies.

So there's no "crime" to speak of. Neither girl was forced or abused or manipulated by the other, into doing anything, sexual or physical. Anything they did do is defined as asexual, because they're female.

Males can rape other males, which does brand as homosexual, because they have sexual organs that can penetrate others sexually. Males can be homosexuals, and being 18 doesn't make any of it legal or consensual. Because their sex, whether homosexual or heterosexual, creates problem children unwanted children abortions and deadly epidemics of venerial diseases.

Chlamydia Trachomactis which in Britain and America is almost the most common sex disease which created infertility and health issues, only exists and perpetuates because of your "consensual" sex.

Consexual sex of either hetero or homo varieties is a MENACE TO SOCIETY. You unconscious unthinking illogical *****.

If unwanted babies or fatal or debilitating diseases are "not" a menace to society, and this doesn't make the age of consent for sexual relationships 1000, then your society is just a piece of shit. Or a total joke.

How does an asexual relationship between two girls, no matter what imaginary "age" of made up arabian numbers you think they "have", damage Society?

[Greed and Death]

True, personally I think there are issues with the statutory rape laws, ad this case shows off the issues. It wasn't a problem when they were dating a couple years ago since they were both minors, but the second one of them passes the age of majority, it becomes a problem. It holds even if they are less than a year apart and is flat out ridiculous. I thin dating and sexual intercourse among your peers is just fine and should not be illegal. There is a difference between an older adult having sex with a young child and a slightly older teen having sex with a slightly younger teen, especially if they were doing so before when they were both minors.

It actually does seem like there was a problem before she turned 18, as I understand the statutes in question.

I see your point though; but while I don't have a big problem with the statutory rape laws (Lewd and Lascivious Battery, to be precise), I do have a problem with the penalties. Facing a minimum sentence of seven and one-half (7½!) years in prison as well as registration as a sex offender is not a proportional response. No way, no how.

She should count herself lucky if she were in Texas she would be executed by now.

[Chestaan]

The thing is though, that people below a certain age just aren't mentally capable of deciding whether to have sex or not. For example, a four year old may be asked by an adult if it is ok for them to commit a sexual act upon them, and they may say yes, for a variety of reasons including that they don't know any better.

Now obviously, the above four year old is being exploited. Clearly if there is a point where someone is able to consent with full knowledge of what they're doing at some point, yet they weren't at another point, then there must be a stage where they transitioned between the two.

The law could have been created in such a way that it would take things on a case-by-case basis, but that would be so difficult to interpret that it would paralyse any statutory rape charges from ever achieving a conviction. So the law must set a certain age, in this case 18. Many, such as myself, agree that the age is too high, but that there must be a limit.

How could a 4 year old possibly even understand what the adult is saying to them, or asking of them?

I thought 4 year olds don't master language that fast. They barely understand anything that the adults are trying to tell them or ask them. So they can say yes to anything from candy to "playtime". If the adult defines that play the same way you define sex, then the child is being tricked into sex, by using the bait of "play" or candy.

But this was not the case. We are talking about two girls in a hypersexual country like US, who obviously know what sex is. But they're asexual, because they haven't penetrated each other with their clits or anything impossible like that. They never had sex. They cannot physically have sex.

The "age of consent" for anything that people think is sex, but isn't, should be 0. Just like relationships between females like friendship can happen without age of consent, the asexual relationship of lesbianism also makes "age of consent" useless, because they can't get each other pregnant or diseased.

If they hurt each other, then I can consider that rape or harm. But no one was hurt, so fuck it.
Literally fuck it, this "case" is so stupid, it makes the crap "law system" of America seem worse than Islam on it's worst day.

No wonder people hate America but love Islam. It's stupid misogynist anti-asexual laws like that.

The point, you've finally gotten it. Under a certain age, it is not possible to give consent.

Whether a person knows what sex is, does not factor into whether or not a person can be tricked or manipulated into having sex. Like I said, I believe that the age limit is too high, but it needs to be set somewhere.

[Dusk_Kittens]

What you have quoted admits that consent can be freely given, only that it does not meet the standard of law. How does this counter what I said? Oh, it doesn't.

You say that since some level of consent was given, it was not illegal. I am pointing out that it is illegal if it does not meet the standard of the law, which it doesn't.

Not at all. I say that consent is possible whether the law recognizes it as "legal consent" or not. I say that "consent" is not identical with "legal consent." "Legal consent" is wholly within the larger category of "consent," but not all "consent" need be "legal consent" to be regarded as "consent." If you honestly don't get this, draw a pair of Boolean circles or a Venn diagram and graphically illustrate what I've just said.

[Eastfield Lodge]

The thing is, Cosara refuses to state his personal moral opinion on the law, just repeatedly stating what the law itself is.

The law is just. That is my opinion on it.

All laws? Or the one that's currently being debated about?

[Cosara]

How could a 4 year old possibly even understand what the adult is saying to them, or asking of them?

I thought 4 year olds don't master language that fast. They barely understand anything that the adults are trying to tell them or ask them. So they can say yes to anything from candy to "playtime". If the adult defines that play the same way you define sex, then the child is being tricked into sex, by using the bait of "play" or candy.

But this was not the case. We are talking about two girls in a hypersexual country like US, who obviously know what sex is. But they're asexual, because they haven't penetrated each other with their clits or anything impossible like that. They never had sex. They cannot physically have sex.

The "age of consent" for anything that people think is sex, but isn't, should be 0. Just like relationships between females like friendship can happen without age of consent, the asexual relationship of lesbianism also makes "age of consent" useless, because they can't get each other pregnant or diseased.

If they hurt each other, then I can consider that rape or harm. But no one was hurt, so fuck it.
Literally fuck it, this "case" is so stupid, it makes the crap "law system" of America seem worse than Islam on it's worst day.

No wonder people hate America but love Islam. It's stupid misogynist anti-asexual laws like that.

The point, you've finally gotten it. Under a certain age, it is not possible to give consent.

And that age is legally 18, meaning that the 15 year old in this case was raped because she could give no legal consent.

[SatrapyofChloe]

But laws assume everyone is sexual, and can never consent to sex until 18, and will always consent to sex after 18.

Who has ever said that? Seriously, who? Because last time I checked, rape, even on an adult, is a crime.

How can that be a crime, if adult victims are "past the age of consent, +18" ?

See what I did there? I just proved there is no such thing as "age of consent". That's just a communistic delusion, age is just a social construct.

Some children are more mature than adults, really. Adults are indoctrinated by communist societies and other degenerates of conservative dead weight christian religions or other religious dogmas that were made up by misogynist males.

If adults over the "age of consent" can be raped unconsensually, then the age of consent is crap. Since it doesn't force adults to submit to rape willingly, just because they're old enough to "have to want sex" just because "they can consent to it".

So then there is no adults or underaged children. That's just a game of numbers. And you're not arabs, so numbers have no true value. Since we don't live in the stone age, where we attribute magical God-Like powers to numbers or other scribbling on the sand...

[Gravlen]

It seems you're quoting the wrong part. She's being prosecuted for 2 felony counts of “lewd and lascivious battery on a child 12--16 years of age,”

So you want this one:

800.04 Lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age.—
(1) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section:
(a) “Sexual activity” means the oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.
(b) “Consent” means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent, and does not include submission by coercion.
(c) “Coercion” means the use of exploitation, bribes, threats of force, or intimidation to gain cooperation or compliance.
(d) “Victim” means a person upon whom an offense described in this section was committed or attempted or a person who has reported a violation of this section to a law enforcement officer.
(2) PROHIBITED DEFENSES.—Neither the victim’s lack of chastity nor the victim’s consent is a defense to the crimes proscribed by this section.
(3) IGNORANCE OR BELIEF OF VICTIM’S AGE.—The perpetrator’s ignorance of the victim’s age, the victim’s misrepresentation of his or her age, or the perpetrator’s bona fide belief of the victim’s age cannot be raised as a defense in a prosecution under this section.
(4) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS BATTERY.—A person who:
(a) Engages in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age; or
(b) Encourages, forces, or entices any person less than 16 years of age to engage in sadomasochistic abuse, sexual bestiality, prostitution, or any other act involving sexual activity

commits lewd or lascivious battery, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Oh. I guess in principle, the Romeo and Juliet exception should keep her off the sex offender's registry (since this applies to cases where the victim is 14 to 17 and there's no more than 4 years age difference), but the fact that they have a Romeo and Juliet law suggests that the state of Florida doesn't actually think this kind of sexual activity with a minor is as bad as other kinds so I don't even know why it works out to be illegal.

I rather think it's because they've seen the consequences of the sex offender registry.

Florida’s “Romeo and Juliet” law was created during the 2007 Legislative Session to address concerns about high school age youth being labeled as sexual offenders or sexual predators as a result of participating in a consensual sexual relationship. The stigma and consequences that come with that classification have lifelong consequences that affect things such as an offender’s future employment opportunities, an offender’s ability to attend his or her own child’s school functions, and where an offender can live. The registry provides no clear distinction between the young “Romeo and Juliet” sex offenders who had consensual sex and the offenders who harm children and pose a real risk to society.

http://www.flsenate.gov/PublishedContent/Session/2012/InterimReports/2012-214cj.pdf

[Cosara]

You say that since some level of consent was given, it was not illegal. I am pointing out that it is illegal if it does not meet the standard of the law, which it doesn't.

Not at all. I say that consent is possible whether the law recognizes it as "legal consent" or not. I say that "consent" is not identical with "legal consent." "Legal consent" is wholly within the larger category of "consent," but not all "consent" need be "legal consent" to be regarded as "consent." If you honestly don't get this, draw a pair of Boolean circles or a Venn diagram and graphically illustrate what I've just said.

It has to be Legal Consent to be regarded as Consent by the Law. You cannot use "She gave consent, but it's not legal consent." as a defense in this case.

[Cosara]

Who has ever said that? Seriously, who? Because last time I checked, rape, even on an adult, is a crime.

How can that be a crime, if adult victims are "past the age of consent, +18" ?

See what I did there? I just proved there is no such thing as "age of consent". That's just a communistic delusion, age is just a social construct.

Some children are more mature than adults, really. Adults are indoctrinated by communist societies and other degenerates of conservative dead weight christian religions or other religious dogmas that were made up by misogynist males.

If adults over the "age of consent" can be raped unconsensually, then the age of consent is crap. Since it doesn't force adults to submit to rape willingly, just because they're old enough to "have to want sex" just because "they can consent to it".

So then there is no adults or underaged children. That's just a game of numbers. And you're not arabs, so numbers have no true value. Since we don't live in the stone age, where we attribute magical God-Like powers to numbers or other scribbling on the sand...

You don't fucking get it, do you? It's when you hit the age of 18 (Age of consent) that you can consent to anything. Below that age, it's always no, even if de facto consent is given. It's the Age of Consent that allows people to say Yes. They can still say no, but the Age of Consent allows them to legally say yes. Below the age of consent, no one can say yes. Do you understand?

[Dusk_Kittens]

Secondly, I find it incredibly ironic that there is backlash against the parents in this story, including calling them homophobes, when this kind of story happens literally everyday with an adult male and a minor female. It is remarkably hypocritical to react angrily to this story, and yet have no problem with punishment when the rapist is a male.

This has been alleged several times in the course of this thread, and countered each time.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Not at all. I say that consent is possible whether the law recognizes it as "legal consent" or not. I say that "consent" is not identical with "legal consent." "Legal consent" is wholly within the larger category of "consent," but not all "consent" need be "legal consent" to be regarded as "consent." If you honestly don't get this, draw a pair of Boolean circles or a Venn diagram and graphically illustrate what I've just said.

It has to be Legal Consent to be regarded as Consent by the Law. You cannot use "She gave consent, but it's not legal consent." as a defense in this case.

I think DK understands what you're saying about Legal Consent, but s/he's saying that there's a level of consent above and beyond that which the law recognizes as legal.

[Chestaan]

Who has ever said that? Seriously, who? Because last time I checked, rape, even on an adult, is a crime.

How can that be a crime, if adult victims are "past the age of consent, +18" ?

See what I did there? I just proved there is no such thing as "age of consent". That's just a communistic delusion, age is just a social construct.

Some children are more mature than adults, really. Adults are indoctrinated by communist societies and other degenerates of conservative dead weight christian religions or other religious dogmas that were made up by misogynist males.

If adults over the "age of consent" can be raped unconsensually, then the age of consent is crap. Since it doesn't force adults to submit to rape willingly, just because they're old enough to "have to want sex" just because "they can consent to it".

So then there is no adults or underaged children. That's just a game of numbers. And you're not arabs, so numbers have no true value. Since we don't live in the stone age, where we attribute magical God-Like powers to numbers or other scribbling on the sand...

Let me break it down for you to make it easier to understand:

1. Persons under 18 cannot consent legally speaking.

2. Persons over 18 can consent (i.e have the ability to consent but are not obligated to do so).

You seem to have some problems understanding 2. It doesn't say that someone over 18 MUST consent or that someone over 18 ALWAYS consents, it simply states that they have the right, but not the obligation to do so. Very simple concept really.

[Cosara]

How can that be a crime, if adult victims are "past the age of consent, +18" ?

See what I did there? I just proved there is no such thing as "age of consent". That's just a communistic delusion, age is just a social construct.

Some children are more mature than adults, really. Adults are indoctrinated by communist societies and other degenerates of conservative dead weight christian religions or other religious dogmas that were made up by misogynist males.

If adults over the "age of consent" can be raped unconsensually, then the age of consent is crap. Since it doesn't force adults to submit to rape willingly, just because they're old enough to "have to want sex" just because "they can consent to it".

So then there is no adults or underaged children. That's just a game of numbers. And you're not arabs, so numbers have no true value. Since we don't live in the stone age, where we attribute magical God-Like powers to numbers or other scribbling on the sand...

Let me break it down for you to make it easier to understand:

1. Persons under 18 cannot consent legally speaking.

2. Persons over 18 can consent (i.e have the ability to consent but are not obligated to do so).

You seem to have some problems understanding 2. It doesn't say that someone over 18 MUST consent or that someone over 18 ALWAYS consents, it simply states that they have the right, but not the obligation to do so. Very simple concept really.

This.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Not quite. The girl is 15 and doesn't fall within the close-in-age exception - JUST. If her parents had waited a couple of months, she would have done. But they hit just the right window of opportunity.

So the Romeo and Juliet exception doesn't apply here.

http://www.westpalmcriminallawyers.com/ ... uliet-law/

It does.

[Vitaphone Racing]

There's really no point arguing with SatrapyofChloe about consent as a legal term if they insist they're outside society and don't have to live by laws. It's sort of like telling an atheist about god.