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

[Ifreann]

Some people think that what she did shouldn't be against the law.

So they want to lower the age of concent, right. I don't agree.

Maybe. Some seem to want to expand the close-in-age exception. You'd have to read the thread yourself.

---

I know that some states give the franchise back to felons after they've served their time, but I wouldn't know off hand whether Florida is among them.

Yeah, I don't know how that sort of thing works in Florida. I mean, I think that preventing felons from voting after they served their time is pretty terrible, especially when coupled with a racist legal system which ensures that certain minorities are disproportionately convicted of felonies

I don't think that they should be disenfranchising felons in the first place, serving or not, except maybe if their crime was election fraud or something like that, but that's quite the tangent to wander down.

[Farnhamia]

That's a whole other kind of fuck...

Yeah, the general opinion seems to be that the law is rather unjust.

What's unjust about protecting children from the sexual advances of adults?

[Dusk_Kittens]

Marriage is between a man and a women period.

... which has nothing to do with anything being discussed in this thread.

[Farnhamia]

Marriage is between a man and a women period.

... which has nothing to do with anything being discussed in this thread.

Some people just like the sound of their own voices. I know I do.

[SatrapyofChloe]

No. My view is that the Law is just, regardless of it's status as a law. It's sensible to have ages of consent and Romeo and Juliet laws.

What about racial law?
There is not a single law that promotes or forces interracial miscegenation to happen.
But there were and still are many laws that ban interracial events from occuring.

This being said, you approve of racial purity, because it's supported by many laws of history or present?

Good for you.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Yeah, the general opinion seems to be that the law is rather unjust.

What's unjust about protecting underage children from the sexual advances of adults?

You'll have to read the thread for specifics, but I think the argument was that it was unjust because the relationship had already been going on and was perfectly legal for several months beforehand.

[Farnhamia]

No. My view is that the Law is just, regardless of it's status as a law. It's sensible to have ages of consent and Romeo and Juliet laws.

What about racial law?
There is not a single law that promotes or forces interracial miscegenation to happen.
But there were and still are many laws that ban interracial events from occuring.

This being said, you approve of racial purity, because it's supported by many laws of history or present?

Good for you.

What laws "ban interracial events from occuring"?

[Ifreann]

... which has nothing to do with anything being discussed in this thread.

Some people just like the sound of their own voices. I know I do.

So that's how you post so much, you're dictating to your secretary.

[Dusk_Kittens]

This is completely horrible in my opinion.

Yes, because holding a Lesbian accountable for Statutory Rape is horrible!

Again, it has nothing to do with the parties in the case being lesbians; the law is unjust because it is (a) unfair, and (b) illogical.

[Farnhamia]

What's unjust about protecting underage children from the sexual advances of adults?

You'll have to read the thread for specifics, but I think the argument was that it was unjust because the relationship had already been going on and was perfectly legal for several months beforehand.

So you're concentrating on this particular tree and not the forest. I see. As I said before, and you apparently agreed, the injustice of this law in this case is mostly a matter of perception.

[SatrapyofChloe]

'Asexuality' specifically means a lack (or negligible level) of sexual attraction - not just lacking a penis.

Antisexuality is lack of sexual attraction.
Asexuality is lack of sex or lack of sexual life or sexual activities.

I just *sarcastic love* it when sexuals climb your high horses and trumpet your preachy definitions of what "asexuality" is.
What you think it is, is not what it actually is.
Asexuality can only be defined by asexuals. This includes lesbians of course.

[SatrapyofChloe]

Have you ever met a lesbian? I doubt it.

Have you ever met an asexual or antisexual? The feeling's mutual.

[Farnhamia]

Some people just like the sound of their own voices. I know I do.

So that's how you post so much, you're dictating to your secretary.

When you're done with field work you can have a secretary, too.

[Dakini]

Yeah, I don't know how that sort of thing works in Florida. I mean, I think that preventing felons from voting after they served their time is pretty terrible, especially when coupled with a racist legal system which ensures that certain minorities are disproportionately convicted of felonies

I don't think that they should be disenfranchising felons in the first place, serving or not, except maybe if their crime was election fraud or something like that, but that's quite the tangent to wander down.

Oh yeah, here they definitely have polling stations in prisons because we take everyone's right to vote seriously. I forget how it works with elections fraud. The only thing I've heard of when it comes to that is that if you show up at the polling station with someone who hasn't registered and doesn't have proof of residence/citizenship and you declare that they are your neighbour and a citizen, you can get them registered to vote, but if it turns out that they are not then you can get in trouble (e.g. you're barred from jobs where oath taking is ever a thing). I don't know if you're kept from voting in future elections though.

[Eastfield Lodge]

You'll have to read the thread for specifics, but I think the argument was that it was unjust because the relationship had already been going on and was perfectly legal for several months beforehand.

So you're concentrating on this particular tree and not the forest. I see. As I said before, and you apparently agreed, the injustice of this law in this case is mostly a matter of perception.

You were talking about in general? Sorry.
Yeah, I agree, in this particular case, it is rather subjective. Personally, drop the sex offender registration, but enough of a penalty to keep the two girls apart until they can be together legally.

[Cosara]

No. My view is that the Law is just, regardless of it's status as a law. It's sensible to have ages of consent and Romeo and Juliet laws.

What about racial law?
There is not a single law that promotes or forces interracial miscegenation to happen.
But there were and still are many laws that ban interracial events from occuring.

This being said, you approve of racial purity, because it's supported by many laws of history or present?

Good for you.

Your logical fallacy is false equivalence.

[Farnhamia]

So you're concentrating on this particular tree and not the forest. I see. As I said before, and you apparently agreed, the injustice of this law in this case is mostly a matter of perception.

You were talking about in general? Sorry.
Yeah, I agree, in this particular case, it is rather subjective. Personally, drop the sex offender registration, but enough of a penalty to keep the two girls apart until they can be together legally.

That would work for me but the sex offender thing may be mandatory under the law.

[Ifreann]

So that's how you post so much, you're dictating to your secretary.

When you're done with field work you can have a secretary, too.

It'll be good for my fingers to get a rest.

[Dakini]

Yeah, the general opinion seems to be that the law is rather unjust.

What's unjust about protecting children from the sexual advances of adults?

Protecting them from sexual advances of much older adults is very different from protecting them from their peers (especially their peers with whom they have a pre-existing and ongoing relationship).

[Neutraligon]

'Asexuality' specifically means a lack (or negligible level) of sexual attraction - not just lacking a penis.

Antisexuality is lack of sexual attraction.
Asexuality is lack of sex or lack of sexual life or sexual activities.

I just *sarcastic love* it when sexuals climb your high horses and trumpet your preachy definitions of what "asexuality" is.
What you think it is, is not what it actually is.
Asexuality can only be defined by asexuals. This includes lesbians of course.

No, asexuality is a person who does not feel sexual attraction. A lesbian is a female who feels sexual attraction to other females. She need not act on that feeling to be a lesbian.

[Blakullar]

Last time I checked, house arrest was a breach of individual rights and could lead to sanctions from the United Nations.

Not that anyone actually gives a fuck, because 'Murica.

[Farnhamia]

What's unjust about protecting children from the sexual advances of adults?

Protecting them from sexual advances of much older adults is very different from protecting them from their peers (especially their peers with whom they have a pre-existing and ongoing relationship).

No state has the resources to review each case of teenage lust individually. I'm sorry of the idea of having to wait a few years until both parties are over the age of consent offends you, but that's the reality of the law. You do, however, have the right to try to change that law to make the distinction you want. Are you going to do the states alphabetically or in the order they joined the Union, or what?

[Dusk_Kittens]

She broke the law and got into trouble for it, what's the deal?

None, though there are some who count illegal (not legally recognized) consent as actual consent, even know for it to be considered consent, it HAS to be Legal.

"Illegal" is not the same as "not legally recognized." "Illegal" means "against the law."

"Legally considered consent" is not the same as "considered consent."

Please, read:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html

[Cosara]

Last time I checked, house arrest was a breach of individual rights and could lead to sanctions from the United Nations.

Not that anyone actually gives a fuck, because 'Murica.

No one gives a shit. Most countries do it (or have some form of it).

[SatrapyofChloe]

[quote="SatrapyofChloe";p="14551935"
It's not pornography if she consents to it.

Yes it is.[/quote]
So called "antipedo" cause accuses many FB groups of being pedophiles for uploading pictures of little girls in some state or other.
Some of those girls were few years old and more or less naked at the beach, filmed by their parents or relatives.

If their parents or whoever relative or friend took that naked picture of the girl, and neither they nor the girl consider that pornography, or even remotely sexual, doesn't it make you a pervert for seeing that as pornography?

Nudity is not pornography, the two aren't even remotely alike. Nudity is healthy biological condition that we're all born with, except those who have fur or scales or turtoise shells. Or feathers. Or invisibility cloaks.

Pornography is sexual, by which penetration with a sexual organ is visible or occurs suggestively and obviously. But it's not pornography just because you're a pervert or have a sick twisted deviant mind.

If you look at a little girl and see sexual images that arouse you, so that you call that "porn" then you're the sick one.
Likewise just because she's nude doesn't mean she can't be beautiful. Or that her beauty can't be appreciated in any nonsexual ways by others, or even herself when she's older and wants to study her anatomy when she was 5.

Nudity is appreciated because of the beauty of the model, not because of sexual reasons, or sexual attraction. It's art, despite what your disgusting mind is pervertedly telling you.
You may see a mutilated cow and climax prematurely and instantly if that's your fetish. But that's not art.
You may consider shaved animals or skinned animals who lost their fur or skin to be "artistic nudity" but it's still just gore.
Despite your opinion of it, pornography isn't defined by the perverts who get aroused out of every little thing.

However Art is easier to define by those who admire or study something not because of it seems or appears or feels pornographic, but from realistic aspects, that are actually happening. Such as the visual quality of skin, or biological heritage of the model. Bone structure or skin tone or body shape can be beautiful even without nudity, since they can seen even with clothes on, so is studying those while the person has clothes on make it "porn"?

No, because nudity isn't porn.