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

[Cosara]

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

I wasn't using the proper definition. I was using Illegal as contrast to Legally Recognized Consent. I was meaning that Legally Recognized is Legal and the other form is Un-legal or illegal. No proper definitions were used there.

[Farnhamia]

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.

How is it a breach of one's rights?

[Grave_n_idle]

A law is informative because it's made up. Laws are just a social construct just like numbers.

A bad choice of parallel, because 'numbers' just represent the numerical value of something, and that exist with or without the social construct.

Sex is not a social construct it's just an instinctive act, which some societies try to regulate for their own interests, through other social constructs like laws and so on.

But sex is older than society. Society, languages and numbers are all younger than sex, which is instinctive. Thus Sex is Adult and Mature, and Knows what it's doing. Instinctively.

But you can't understand societies, numbers or laws instinctively. You can only understand them by being informed about them. That's what makes them informational, instead of instinctive.

All true, but irrelevant.

The simple fact is that instincts are not always good for us - for society or for individuals. Half the job of 'laws' is to protect us from our instincts... and that's a good thing.

Instincts > Information. Both in age and wisdom.

Nope. Instincts may be older than our laws, but just because an idea is ancient, doesn't mean it is worthy.

Society is too young to have consent, Numbers are too young to have consent, laws are too young to have consent.

Now you're just rambling.

What truly has consent, is Instinct and Sex. Because these are both older than societies, laws or numbers.

Therefore by law of Maturity and Consent, Sex wins. And Sex is instinctively possible AT ANY AGE .

Sex is instinctively possible below the age of consent, for sure - but that is irrelevant. Just because a thing is possible, doesn't mean it is desirable.

Murder is possible, but one of the great achievements of society has been limiting it.

Whoever dictated we all consider solar years as actual years?

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter which calender you count the years by, so long as you're consistent.

So if the age of consent is 18 by our solar calender, and 226.5 in a lunar calender, so long as you don't try to pretend the units of one are the units of the other, it's all good.

[Ifreann]

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

Maybe you should check again.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

You either don't get it or are pretending not to get it.

I'm not at all saying that "She gave consent, but it's not legal consent" is a defense in the case. I'm pointing out that the law itself recognizes that there is such a thing as "consent" which is not legally recognized as "legal consent," which invalidates your repeated attempts to characterize what happened in this case as "rape." It is only "rape" in a statutory sense (do you even know what "statutory" means? hint: statute/ordinance/law), and not in any ordinary use of the term, and therefore referring to it as "rape" without the modifier "statutory" is an attempt to cloud the issue with emotively-charged language.

No, sorry - you're wrong. It's rape because there is a lack of consent - that's what rape means.

Statutory rape is still rape, and it's not doing anyone any favours to try to diminish the seriousness of sex without informed consent.

[Episarta]

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?

But the thing is, where does one stop being a child and become an adult? I know the law says 18 (or 21) or whatever for wherever you live, but why? Why those ages? So you are 17 one day and a child, 18 the next and an adult? It all seems like arbitrary imaginary lines. If there was some reasoning and scientific evidence to back all these laws up, I would be a tad more inclined to support them.

And while I agree there needs to be a minimal law, I believe many 16 and 17 year olds, at least, are capable of understanding the intricacies and consequences of sex (protected or unprotected).
Shouldn't AoC laws be used to protect those without an idea or even the faintest notion (such as a 5, 8, or 12 year old)? And even those cases could even become a bit iffy with a 12 year old and may even need to be looked at individually if the younger is particularly precocious.

But the thing is, why do we draw the line at 15 or 16? Teenagers are going to have sex, it's a given. Biologically we are programmed for it. Hell, you could even say our media encourages it. You can't stop natural processes with a law assigned to an arbitrary age. I don't believe most people take into account psychological development while creating laws such as this. They go with what they feel to be "right" and "wrong."

And these laws classify people (such as the 18 year old in this case) as a same sort of sexual offender as a child molester. This was a consensual situation, not a forced one. If AoC laws do stand, then there should, at the very least, be some sort of exception or leeway for situations like these which are certain to come to hand.

[Grave_n_idle]

Why would women even want to get married to one another? That's just an insult to their relationship. Why don't two girlfriends marry each other just because they've been best friends for 12 years?

They should be able to.

But girls cannot have babies with each other, or sex for that matter. So marriage is stupid.
Yes definition of marriage is only between men and women. But so is sex.
Sex is defined only between men and women, which due to said definition included men and men.
But that definition just like the definition of marriage, doesn't include women and women.
Who can't get married or have sex with one another. At best they can have light sapphic engagings. Which are not sexually penetrative with sexual organs, therefore not sex.

This kind of nonsense, coupled with the low post count, makes me think this is your parody account.

[SatrapyofChloe]

You don't even know what a finger is. And YOU tell me I don't know biology?

You unconscious unthinking illogical *****.

Go on, complete the sentence without hiding behind asterisks.
Or are you too scared of the OMG SCARY MODS enforcing rules you - as antisocial - refuse to recognize?

Poor attempt at a strawman. 1/10.

If you think a finger is a sexual organ, instead of a digit belonging to a superior member, then you know less than subzero of human anatomy or biology. Where did you get your degree in the public toilet?

Complete the sentence? I did complete it. The full sentence was "You unconscious unthinking illogical *****."
I used the 5 asterisk with no actual word behind them, since I knew your insecurity and cowardly fears of being mocked will get you to assume that was an actual insult.
And now you're begging for it, just because your low selfesteem is tormenting you into finding out what others think about you.
I don't need to form any opinion by someone as lowly as *this, points in your general direction* so I only put blank asterisks to torture you with the idea of someone insulting you.
Clever, yes? Why waste my time searching 5 letters to type them out, and transmit just a single insult, when I can break the limits and expand it to all possible insults your silly mind can conjure up behind those 5 asterisks?
In fact you just insulted yourself, by thinking there was an insult behind the "*****".

Hiding behing a social expression to avoid responsability for losing an argument to me? Now that's true societal dogmatism at it's lowest! Congratulations at being a fruitfully trained socialist coward drone of suckciety. 14/10.

Or if you're still hissy and fussy about it, I can think of an insult to replace those 5 *'s with, just so you think you've won by begging an insult out of me ...

What do you say, bitch?

[Dakini]

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?

Why not set up age of consent laws in a sensible manner? In Canada, the age of consent is 16, but there are a few close in age exceptions (12 and 13 year olds can have sex with people less than two years older than them, 14 and 15 year olds can have sex with people less than 5 years older). You can get into slightly squicky situations, but at least you're not just running around charging teenagers with felonies for dating other teenagers at their school or charging people for continuing a relationship that suddenly became illegal because one of them had a birthday.

Furthermore, what are you talking about? What is a criminal trial but a chance to look at each case of teenage lust brought before the court individually? You know how many resources would be saved by just having the police wander around and go "Oh, they were dating well before this one turned 18? Ok, moving along then." compared to the amount of resources once you get lawyers involved?

[Ifreann]

Why would women even want to get married to one another? That's just an insult to their relationship. Why don't two girlfriends marry each other just because they've been best friends for 12 years?

They should be able to.

But girls cannot have babies with each other, or sex for that matter. So marriage is stupid.
Yes definition of marriage is only between men and women. But so is sex.
Sex is defined only between men and women, which due to said definition included men and men.
But that definition just like the definition of marriage, doesn't include women and women.
Who can't get married or have sex with one another. At best they can have light sapphic engagings. Which are not sexually penetrative with sexual organs, therefore not sex.

This kind of nonsense, coupled with the low post count, makes me think this is your parody account.

A parody of what is my question.

[Dusk_Kittens]

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?

An 18-year-old is (arguably) still a child (or at least an adolescent, and in this case, the 15-year-old is, I would say obviously, an adolescent), psycho-socially/emotionally. The fact that "The Law" declares someone "an adult" on the date of their 18th birthday doesn't mean that they are actually an adult in any meaningful sense.

[Grave_n_idle]

Must be awkward to be that stupid at reasoning.

You decided to push the boat out and start flaming... and that was what you got?

Seriously, my 6 year old has better put-downs.

Any woman can say she never consented to being speaken that way to. So she can always say it was unconsensual, and that her dignity was raped through those lews words.

True. Which means it's probably a good idea to only engage in lewd conversations with someone you know well enough to know they aren't going to arbitrarily try to get you arrested/fired/executed for it.

Therefore anyone is a rapist, even if the woman "consented". You have no way of proving she actually consented, do you?
So she can still claim she didn't. And it would still legally make you a rapist, and all those men too.

...this doesn't sound like you have a very high expectation for women.

In my experience - and I could be wrong - they're not all lining up to accuse me of rape.

[Farnhamia]

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

But the thing is, where does one stop being a child and become an adult? I know the law says 18 (or 21) or whatever for wherever you live, but why? Why those ages? So you are 17 one day and a child, 18 the next and an adult? It all seems like arbitrary imaginary lines. If there was some reasoning and scientific evidence to back all these laws up, I would be a tad more inclined to support them.

And while I agree there needs to be a minimal law, I believe many 16 and 17 year olds, at least, are capable of understanding the intricacies and consequences of sex (protected or unprotected).
Shouldn't AoC laws be used to protect those without an idea or even the faintest notion (such as a 5, 8, or 12 year old)? And even those cases could even become a bit iffy with a 12 year old and may even need to be looked at individually if the younger is particularly precocious.

But the thing is, why do we draw the line at 15 or 16? Teenagers are going to have sex, it's a given. Biologically we are programmed for it. Hell, you could even say our media encourages it. You can't stop natural processes with a law assigned to an arbitrary age. I don't believe most people take into account psychological development while creating laws such as this. They go with what they feel to be "right" and "wrong."

And these laws classify people (such as the 18 year old in this case) as a same sort of sexual offender as a child molester. This was a consensual situation, not a forced one. If AoC laws do stand, then there should, at the very least, be some sort of exception or leeway for situations like these which are certain to come to hand.

I think people do take "psychological development" into account with these laws. Teenagers constantly exhibit an inability to make informed decisions (so do adults but we're not talking about that right now). This is why there are laws governing a teenager's access to automobiles and firearms and alcohol and a great many other things deemed dangerous. Is it fair to have an arbitrary age under which you can't and over which you magically can? No, but there has to be a line somewhere because, as I pointed out, the states do not have the resources to judge individuals and individuals. If you want to change where the line is drawn, feel free to try, it's your right as an American. If you aren't an American, your opinion has been noted.

[Grave_n_idle]

'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.

Actually, 'asexuality' can be defined by biologists. I'm not trumpeting my preachy definition - I'm just saying what the word means.

[Farnhamia]

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

An 18-year-old is (arguably) still a child (or at least an adolescent, and in this case, the 15-year-old is, I would say obviously, an adolescent), psycho-socially/emotionally. The fact that "The Law" declares someone "an adult" on the date of their 18th birthday doesn't mean that they are actually an adult in any meaningful sense.

viewtopic.php?p=14552567#p14552567

[Ifreann]

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?

Why not set up age of consent laws in a sensible manner? In Canada, the age of consent is 16, but there are a few close in age exceptions (12 and 13 year olds can have sex with people less than two years older than them, 14 and 15 year olds can have sex with people less than 5 years older). You can get into slightly squicky situations, but at least you're not just running around charging teenagers with felonies for dating other teenagers at their school or charging people for continuing a relationship that suddenly became illegal because one of them had a birthday.

I'm no more an expert in Canadian law than I am a giraffe, but surely if the exception is +2 years for 12 and 13 year olds, wouldn't one be breaking the law if one was, say, just turned 16 and had sex with one's still 13 year old boy-/girlfriend? Or is there another exception allowing people to age out of the range of the exceptions?

[Farnhamia]

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?

Why not set up age of consent laws in a sensible manner? In Canada, the age of consent is 16, but there are a few close in age exceptions (12 and 13 year olds can have sex with people less than two years older than them, 14 and 15 year olds can have sex with people less than 5 years older). You can get into slightly squicky situations, but at least you're not just running around charging teenagers with felonies for dating other teenagers at their school or charging people for continuing a relationship that suddenly became illegal because one of them had a birthday.

Furthermore, what are you talking about? What is a criminal trial but a chance to look at each case of teenage lust brought before the court individually? You know how many resources would be saved by just having the police wander around and go "Oh, they were dating well before this one turned 18? Ok, moving along then." compared to the amount of resources once you get lawyers involved?

What I meant was, they can't look at individual relationships and say, "Oh, okay, you both seem like responsible youngsters, just please use protection and be careful. Next!" That the older girl here broke the law put her in this position. Perhaps the fact that she apparently thought she and her BFF felt they could get away with this and no one would either notice or mind points up the fact that teenagers need guidance.

Arbitrary ages of consent are arbitrary. That's a fact. Don't like it? Get to work.

[Dusk_Kittens]

'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.

FFS! Is there not some way to ignore another person's posts entirely so that never again will I have to read something like this (apart from others quoting it in order to reply)?

[Eastfield Lodge]

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.

FFS! Is there not some way to ignore another person's posts entirely so that never again will I have to read something like this (apart from others quoting it in order to reply)?

Put them on your foe list (found in User Control Panel).

[Neutraligon]

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.

FFS! Is there not some way to ignore another person's posts entirely so that never again will I have to read something like this (apart from others quoting it in order to reply)?

There is, add them to your foe list.

[SatrapyofChloe]

So, excuse me, if someone forced you to have sex with him because of his instincts, you'd be ok with that, as instincts > information and law = information?

It really sounds like you're supporting rape.

Your beliefs are of no consequence when it comes to laws.

You're really new at this whole *thinking* think, are you?

If someone has instincts to rape, and they are naturally a rapist, then their instincts are not legal.
Since anyone can have instincts of defense, they'd defend themselves against rape, or any other form of abuse, which proves you can't be ok with something that's against your instincts.

I realize you are being intentionally stupid, or posing as an idiot to create a strawman argument (20/10 btw), but your futile attempt is both in vain, and redundant and oxymoronic.

How can anyone rape anyone, if everyone's instincts is to resist rape, or other forms of aggression? Rape isn't an instinct, it's a choice. Rapists chose to act violently on their sexual and violent instincts, through rape.

If you think rape is an instinct, you're admitting you have rapist instincts. Which makes this a confession. I'm calling you Rapist from now, since social laws and standards suggest I should address you by what title you just identified as, in public.

Damn these social laws, now I have to register you as a sex offending rapist, no? Social contract be damned!
But, wouldn't wanna insult your society, by calling you a liar and saying you don't have rapist instincts.

So, Rapist, if anyone has self defense instincts, doesn't that prove rape is wrong because everyone's instinct is to fight back or run or hide, or counterattack or whatever other form of passive or active resistence?

If anything, instincts prove rape is wrong, and "unnatural" because it's not in everyone's instincts to rape. But defending against things, such as rape but not just, proves self defense is ok.

I'm ok with self defense and instincts of defensiveness. So how could I be ok with rape instincts?

You cannot even prove someone has rape instincts. They could just be liars like you, who are Rapists and want to justify or make their raping easier, by laying the blame and responsability on their "instinctive rights to rape".

But can you prove you or other rapists like yourself, have this instinct to rape? If not, then you have no right to rape.

Any more than you have a chance at intelligent debates. Your laws are of no consequence when it comes to personal beliefs, or beliefs of any kind.
Society often choses to break laws, or change laws, when those laws are against their beliefs. People (individuals, yeah heard of those?) often chose to break social laws or change social laws, when those laws are against their personal beliefs.

You're really new at this society thing, are you?

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

FFS! Is there not some way to ignore another person's posts entirely so that never again will I have to read something like this (apart from others quoting it in order to reply)?

Yes. It is under the 'friends' and 'foes' lists. It's in your control panel.

[Dusk_Kittens]

"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

I wasn't using the proper definition. I was using Illegal as contrast to Legally Recognized Consent. I was meaning that Legally Recognized is Legal and the other form is Un-legal or illegal. No proper definitions were used there.

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

[SatrapyofChloe]

*consults the bylaws of the Lesbian League* No, sorry, having sex is not a requirement. And she wasn't arrested for being a lesbian.

You're not a lesbian, those bylaws never apply to you. So you can't use them, ever.
You have no right to.

[Farnhamia]

FFS! Is there not some way to ignore another person's posts entirely so that never again will I have to read something like this (apart from others quoting it in order to reply)?

Yes. It is under the 'friends' and 'foes' lists. It's in your control panel.

But it only works on direct posts. If someone quotes your foe, you get to see the post.