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

[SatrapyofChloe]

What laws "ban interracial events from occuring"?

19th cent. Second German Empire.
20th cent. Third German Empire.
20th cent. Europe
16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th cent. America


You're not even worth the facepalm.

[Ibwa]

Rape is when some ass forcefully has sex with an unwilling subject, everything els is parents and all there "underage" bullshit

Change dick to ass and i would agree. Dick implies male, and women can rape.

typical guys cant be raped by women unless she is ugly, thats how i see it anyway

[Grave_n_idle]

You reckon? I would have figured that trying to create situations where rape isn't really rape would be the "not doing any favours" thing here.

Rape is when some dick forcefully has sex with an unwilling subject, everything els is parents and all there "underage" bullshit

No, 'rape' is when sexual activity occurs without consent. 'Force' may or may not be required. For example - sex you are coerced into against your will, because otherwise you believe harm will come to your family - would still be rape, even though there is no 'force'.

[Gravlen]

Stuff I deleted.

I strongly suggest you look over the rules of this forum our you won't be here long. viewtopic.php?f=16&t=74486

While I agree, I strongly suggest other posters refrain from engaging with that particular poster.

[SatrapyofChloe]

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.[/quote]
Your denial is true cowardice.

[Episarta]

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.

I disagree with you on people taking psychological development into account, I don't believe most do. Although, that may just be my biased thoughts on the subject, or I am just pessimistic about most people (I am quite pessimistic, so it wouldn't be a surprise there).

And while alcohol, automobiles, and firearms laws are (mostly) reasonable, I still find this one not. Those laws affect the safety of not just one or two individuals, but entire communities. Also, these laws are about objects and usage. If somebody incompetent is given a vehicle or firearm and let loose into the community, everyone could suffer from it. And perhaps the same with alcohol, depending on situations. Also, it comes with consent. Most people won't consent to being shot in the face or run over by an incompetent driver. There is little consent involved when these laws are broken.

But these AoC laws tell people when they are capable of making informed decisions about their own bodies. Which may be reasonalbe (such as cases with a 5 year old and a 19 year old) or unreasonable (17 year old and 18 year old). And while the situation in this particular circumstance was technically illegal, it does not necessarily make the punishment justifiable.

Perhaps someday the law will change. And sure, as Americans we do have the capability to get involved in the process of changing it. But that also means people who don't consider the law and its relation to mental development also have the possibility of keeping it the same. Just toss out an "it's wrong because...." whatever, and that's good enough for the many people who find carefully thinking on a situation to be difficult. Or maybe I am just pessimistic and biased, as I said, and lack faith in my fellow citizens (likely). But I digress.

Anyway, I must go for the day. Can't spend too long on NSG everyday or my head would explode from too much argueing, hahaha. And while I agree with you on many of your positions, Farn, I must respectfully disagree here. Agree to disagree and the like.

[Grave_n_idle]

Change dick to ass and i would agree. Dick implies male, and women can rape.

typical guys cant be raped by women unless she is ugly, thats how i see it anyway

That's an interesting position.

Not one I agree with, and I think it would be hard to see it objectively supported.

For example - I'm in a long-term monogamous relationship, and have rejected several offers for sexual intimacy with other people in that time. If one of them had forced me into a sexual situation, that would definitely have been without my consent.

[Ibwa]

Rape is when some dick forcefully has sex with an unwilling subject, everything els is parents and all there "underage" bullshit

No, 'rape' is when sexual activity occurs without consent. 'Force' may or may not be required. For example - sex you are coerced into against your will, because otherwise you believe harm will come to your family - would still be rape, even though there is no 'force'.

force doesnt always mean phisical

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Knock it off with the namecalling RIGHT NOW, SatrapyofChloe. *** Warned for flaming ***

I don't have the time or energy to sweep this thread, but SatrapyofChloe isn't the only one making direct and personal attacks. It needs to end NOW.

But wait! If one of those misogynists reported me to you, in a true whine asshole fashion, doesn't that prove they ARE misogynists?

Oops! Ok then I take back my truthful namecalling of misogynists by revealing them for what they truly are.


I've only barely seen this warning now, since the posts are numerous, so from now on I won't say it. I won't take responsibility for what I said until I saw this warning, even if it was written after your post, because I wasn't warned by those maggots in question that they'll be bitching to you.

Oh well, bitches gonna bitch. I forgive all of you. You are aborted children of a mutilated Hephaistian Misogynist God.

*** 3-day Ban *** for the persistent trolling/flamebaiting. Keep it chilly folks. That means everyone needs to behave.

[Neutraligon]

Change dick to ass and i would agree. Dick implies male, and women can rape.

typical guys cant be raped by women unless she is ugly, thats how i see it anyway

Women in positions of power can coerce males (threat to family, threat to job, threat to other things). Females can be stronger than men, females can gang up on a man. Females can drug a man. There are many ways a female can force a man to have sex against his will. That is still rape.

[Ibwa]

typical guys cant be raped by women unless she is ugly, thats how i see it anyway

That's an interesting position.

Not one I agree with, and I think it would be hard to see it objectively supported.

For example - I'm in a long-term monogamous relationship, and have rejected several offers for sexual intimacy with other people in that time. If one of them had forced me into a sexual situation, that would definitely have been without my consent.

my stand on the topic may be swayed by the fact that im single but if some random woman came up to me and basicly said have sex with me or die i would say "well what are you waiting for?

[Grave_n_idle]

No, 'rape' is when sexual activity occurs without consent. 'Force' may or may not be required. For example - sex you are coerced into against your will, because otherwise you believe harm will come to your family - would still be rape, even though there is no 'force'.

force doesnt always mean phisical

I didn't say it did - I'm saying that rape is not just "when some dick forcefully has sex with an unwilling subject".

[Dakini]

It's not even her being a lesbian. It's not like she's some sexual predator, she had a pre-existing relationship with the 15 year old and then she passed an arbitrary age barrier and suddenly this became illegal. If you want to have laws preventing 18 year olds from having sex with 15 year olds, you should totally allow an exception for "unless they were dating beforehand", because really, there isn't anything on the books in Florida preventing 17 year olds from having sex with 15 year olds (or 14 year olds for that matter) and it's asinine to act like anything should actually change.

The fact that the younger girl's parents reported it for revenge, and the general inconsistency of Florida's consent laws (the relationship was legal before the older girl was 18 [17 and 15], but became illegal as soon as she turned 18, when it would become legal again when the younger girl turned 16 in a few months).

As far as I can see, that's not correct. The relationship was illegal even before she turned 18.

Sauce? If it was illegal before, why didn't the 15 year old's parents call the police before? Instead they waited until the older girl was 18 and then did it (because that's when it became illegal).

[Cosara]

As far as I can see, that's not correct. The relationship was illegal even before she turned 18.

Sauce? If it was illegal before, why didn't the 15 year old's parents call the police before? Instead they waited until the older girl was 18 and then did it (because that's when it became illegal).

Exactly. They called the police because they were probably bigoted, but they brought to light a Statutory Rape case.

[Ibwa]

typical guys cant be raped by women unless she is ugly, thats how i see it anyway

Women in positions of power can coerce males (threat to family, threat to job, threat to other things). Females can be stronger than men, females can gang up on a man. Females can drug a man. There are many ways a female can force a man to have sex against his will. That is still rape.

i was implying that typical (maybe single)guys would not hesitate to be in that position, granted she was worth it.

[Farnhamia]

What laws "ban interracial events from occuring"?

19th cent. Second German Empire.
20th cent. Third German Empire.
20th cent. Europe
16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th cent. America


You're not even worth the facepalm.

You said, "But there were and still are many laws that ban interracial events from occuring." I agree that there were and, given your attitude, perhaps I should have said that. My question was about the "and still are" part, because not in the US there aren't. <sigh> But you're just talking generally, I suppose, and there might still be some benighted places where that's true.

[Grave_n_idle]

That's an interesting position.

Not one I agree with, and I think it would be hard to see it objectively supported.

For example - I'm in a long-term monogamous relationship, and have rejected several offers for sexual intimacy with other people in that time. If one of them had forced me into a sexual situation, that would definitely have been without my consent.

my stand on the topic may be swayed by the fact that im single but if some random woman came up to me and basicly said have sex with me or die i would say "well what are you waiting for?

My stance was much the same when I was single, so I don't think that, alone, can be it.

But the point you seem to be missing is - guys certainly could be raped by women.

[Ibwa]

force doesnt always mean phisical

I didn't say it did - I'm saying that rape is not just "when some dick forcefully has sex with an unwilling subject".

how els can you be raped?

[Dakini]

Change dick to ass and i would agree. Dick implies male, and women can rape.

typical guys cant be raped by women unless she is ugly, thats how i see it anyway

...wow...

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

We've had a number of male/female rape threads. This need not become another one. Please keep the discussion more or less on topic, which is not whether or not you happen to think a man can be raped. Thank you.

[Grenartia]

Its not because they're lesbians that we're supporting this. We're supporting this because the charges are a waste of the state's time and resources, and taxpayer money (I thought you Republican types were supposed to be against that), only serves to oppress two people, who are peers in a consensual relationship.

Don't forget, the Republican types are more than willing to compromise their principles if it will result in a hardship for someone with whom they disagree. Witness, e.g., the Ken Starr prosecution of Bill Clinton, which exposed minors to hours of discussion of sex, oral sex, and the like, which ordinarily, the Republican types don't believe anyone under 18 needs to even know about unless their parents are the ones imparting said knowledge.

External inconsistency, also known as "hypocrisy," is no stranger to Republican types. We could also reference the Republican legislators who loudly and vehemently opposed any sort of equal rights for homosexuals, yet themselves engaged in homosexual activities, but I hardly think it's necessary.

Indeed, but its always fun to watch them squirm and try to weasel around it when their hypocrisy is uncovered, and pointed out for all to see. I imagine its not that different from those dreams where one walks into class either totally naked or only wearing their underwear.

It's Statutory Rape. She is an adult having sex with a girl who is below the age of consent (and Romeo and Juliet laws don't apply here. She was BARELY outside of the limit. The parents hit the perfect window of opportunity). That is a felony.

No, Romeo and Juliet laws apply if you have sex with someone between 14 and 17 and are less than 4 years apart in age. Also, it doesn't prevent felony charges, it just prevents sex offender registry (really, I think it should prevent both because... seriously?).

^this.

[Sophian]

This wasn't forcible sexual behavior. This was consensual sexual behavior between 2 individuals who are dating, and one of the individuals is less than 3 years younger than the other. They are both high school students, high school students aren't exactly naive about sex. It is surprising to me that people want to try to equate this to forcible sexual behavior or pedophilia and say it should be punished as such, because the alleged victim is not some naive young kid and was not exploited to do anything against her will. If you have ever engaged in sexual behavior with someone 2 years and some months younger than you or even younger, yet you are condemning this girl, then you are a hypocrite.

[Evraim]

This presumes that all individuals are equally capable of exercising their autonomy, and that human beings are undistinguishable from Locke's rational automaton. I, and most of society, reject these assertions.

Not really. It simply means for certain individuals removing autonomy causes less harm than granting it to them. A tad parochial, but not a defense of draconian punishments for victimless crimes.

The whole point is that most fifteen year olds are not as capable as most eighteen year olds when it comes to exercising their autonomy because there are generally intrinsic differences between the one and the other. This creates an unbalanced power dynamic, meaning that any relationship between the two of them involves a degree of coercion. You seem to be under the impression that there are no differences between most fifteen and eighteen year olds and that all people are equally capable of exercising their autonomy. This is not the case.

The principle is the same, namely, we don't exist to serve the law, but vice-versa. I didn't specifically mention "harm," nor did I make a literally identical statement. Here's the link to what I did say:
viewtopic.php?p=14540699#p14540699

I'm not making a legal argument. In fact, in the context of this discussion, making a legal argument would be pointless.

[Farnhamia]

This wasn't forcible sexual behavior. This was consensual sexual behavior between 2 individuals who are dating, and one of the individuals is less than 3 years younger than the other. They are both high school students, high school students aren't exactly naive about sex. It is surprising to me that people want to try to equate this to forcible sexual behavior or pedophilia and say it should be punished as such, because the alleged victim is not some naive young kid and was not exploited to do anything against her will. If you have ever engaged in sexual behavior with someone 2 years and some months younger than you or even younger, yet you are condemning this girl, then you are a hypocrite.

It's called "statutory rape" for a reason, the reason being that the law says no one under a certain age may have sex, regardless of their consent or the lack of exploitation or force.

[Gravlen]

As far as I can see, that's not correct. The relationship was illegal even before she turned 18.

Sauce?

The statute linked to before doesn't contain an age requirement for the perpretrator.

(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.

"A person who" "engages in sexual activity with a person [...] less than 16 years of age" - It is not said that the person has to be an adult, over 18 years etc. So a person below 18 years can be engaged in a criminal act by having sex with someone below the age of 16.

Indeed, the alleged perpretrator may even be below the age of 16. One lawyer uses this as an example on his website:

A reoccurring problem in Lewd and Lascivious Battery cases is when the accused is also under the age of 16; as the law does not provide for any defense when the participants are close in age.

Example: If a 12 year-old were to have sex with a 14 year-old, either child or both could be prosecuted for the offense.

Instead, proximity in age can only be used as a mitigating circumstance to seek a downward departure from Florida's sentencing guidelines.

If it was illegal before, why didn't the 15 year old's parents call the police before? Instead they waited until the older girl was 18 and then did it (because that's when it became illegal).

Or because they wanted to hit the girl extra hard, waiting until she would be tried as an adult in the adult Criminal Justice System instead of the Juvenile Justice System, where the focus is on rehabilitating juveniles rather than punishing them.