Did she really "rape" him?

[peregrinerose 0]

I agree with Jeffrey regarding the ice skater thing and the kid probably jumped at the chance to do it. But look at the long term scenarios. Those kids who are pushed into their parents' dream worlds are often messed up in the head. Even the 12 year old is now an unemployed 21 year old with 2 kids who are in the care of his mother, the letters that Mary sent to him from jail are extremely controlling and threatening and jealous in nature, and this hasn't messed up his mind?

The questions with minors isn't so much what they want to do, it is the long term effects of doing it. If a kid wants to go jump off a bridge, mom and dad are going to stop him because it is unsafe and the long term ramifications are less than favorable. No difference with the rape analogy. No legal effect for the idiots who live vicariously through their kids, but the moral issue is something else completely (and not really part of this thread anyway).

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Quote

In PA its rape only if YOU administered the intoxicating substance.

Wrong. Look up the statutes on 2nd degree rape and indecent deviant sexual intercourse.

As far as "rape" being diltued, it already is by different gradings. Breaking into someone elses house and raping them at gunpoint is one kind of rape and judged that way...getting someone drunk to the point they don't know what they're doing and having sex with them is another kind of rape. It's still rape.

Sorry PK, there is no statute on 2nd degree rape. It's only rape. Period. You go look it up. By the way, your answer seems to indicate my point anyway. If you meet a woman at the bar & she's trashed and says yes to sex, that's not rape. If YOU get her trashed and have sex with her it's rape.

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

If a kid wants to go jump off a bridge, mom and dad are going to stop him because it is unsafe

Hey, are you trying to hijack this into a BASE thread?

illegible usually

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Sorry PK, there is no statute on 2nd degree rape. It's only rape. Period. You go look it up.

You're right, my mistake. I swear that I did look it up and read that when I initially made my post. But I'm looking now and it's not there. Hmmm, maybe I was looking at another state's rules....

[starkmtn 0]

Quote

Think back to when you were 13. If some hot female -- whether 13 or 34 -- offered herself for sex with you, you woulda done it. You would have known, to yourself, that it was YOUR CHOICE to do so. No one would have been able to convince you that she took advantage of you and made you do something you didn't freely decide you wanted to do.

1. No, I wouldn't have done it.
2. I think you would have _believed_, to yourself, that it was YOUR CHOICE to do so. Your choice, however, was not informed by a certain level of wisdom which our society deems necessary before entering into the act of such sexual activity.
3. Children want to do many things. I wanted to eat ice cream for breakfast. I was never allowed to, because it wouldn't have been good for me. I didn't have the ability to think about nutritional needs, etc. When I got to college, one of the first things I did was have ice cream for breakfast. And I learned that it really didn't feel that great later in the day. By that point, I had the judgment skills to realize that "hey, that was fun to do once, but I wouldn't want to make a habit of it." I wouldn't have had that judgment at 8 years old. My point is that the capacity to make an informed decision comes later. I work with 13-year-olds every day. Maybe one or two of 130 is mature enough to have sex. The rest are just hormone-riddled but don't have the brain development yet to act responsibly on those feelings. Brain research backs me up on this.

Quote

Why is the decision tohave sex one that a kid can be said to have not made on his own (i.e. he was manipulated and taken advantage of -- "raped" -- by an adult woman) but, say, the decision of a young female figure skater to devote every waking hour to harsh and strict training so that she can possibly -- possibly -- go to the Olympics (foregoing nearly all the pleasures of childhood for this "Olympic dream") is a freely-made choice?

It seems like you're making the (invalid) case here that because some parents push some children into sports or other activities before they're really ready, that it's OK for adults to have sex with children. Please tell me I've misinterpreted!

Quote

You see this all the time. Kids' decisions are made for them by adults. But when some adult comes along who LOVES the kid, even though he's a "minor," and he is a PARTY to the decision to enter a love relationship that includes sex, that decision to affect the kid's life is wrong.

1. The fact that some parents are overbearing doesn't make it right.
2. Any adult who thinks they LOVE a 13-year-old kid is SICK IN THE HEAD. Period. End of story.

"You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

[billvon 2,989]

>But sex that the kid WANTS, that's harmful? Talk about your one-
>size-fits-all legislation. You end up "protecting" a kid who does not
> either want or need the protection.

Protecting kids from errors in judgement until they are old enough to make decisions for themselves is one of the roles of both parents and government. You could protest until you're blue in the face that smoking won't hurt you one bit - but 14 year olds still can't buy cigarettes and that, in my opinion, is a good call. A single beer isn't going to kill a 15 year old guy, but I agree that it should be illegal until you are a certain age. (Although I don't think the voting/military service/alcohol/tobacco ages make sense when taken together.)

> We seem to be picking and choosing which decisions we consider a
> 13-year-old "able" to make "validly." (flying, karate, sex...)

That's exactly right. Part of being a parent is picking and choosing what a child is ready for. The law backs that up to an extent (although it cannot, of course, replace good parenting.)

>There is no logic to saying that a 13-year-old can make decisions
> about some things and he's making an informed, valid decision, but
> then change topics and now this is a matter on which he can't be
> said to make a valid decision just because he's too young.

Of course there is! That's the nature of growing up. At 13 you can start taking responsibility for some things and not others. Riding a bike is probably OK. Dirtbike? Depends on the kid. Driving a bus on an interstate probably isn't OK.