30 days in jail for sex with child

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't want anyone (especially some nutball job) to be able to say that a 14 year old is old enough to obtain birth control without permission so they must be old enough to seduce, lure, and otherwise tempt and have sex with a grown-ass man.
What is is so hard to understand about that?

Anybody can say anything. However, anybody cannot make up their own laws. The law says that a 14-year-old cannot consent to sex. Full stop. Whether that 14-year-old uses contraception, wants to use contraception, knows somebody who uses contraception, heard about contraception once on the playground -- all of this is completely irrelevant to the law. Which says, in case you missed it the first few times around, that a 14-year-old cannot consent to sex, and therefore, sex with a 14-year-old is rape.

I never said it was not rape -- it's rape all day long.
What I am saying is there are other tangential issues that need to be addressed as well.
But I guess that is not allowed?

If you want to discuss your own issues in a post about something else, do not be surprised that people remind you that this post is about the something else, not about your issues.

What's a better way to make a post be about your issues? Starting your own post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't want anyone (especially some nutball job) to be able to say that a 14 year old is old enough to obtain birth control without permission so they must be old enough to seduce, lure, and otherwise tempt and have sex with a grown-ass man.
What is is so hard to understand about that?

Anybody can say anything. However, anybody cannot make up their own laws. The law says that a 14-year-old cannot consent to sex. Full stop. Whether that 14-year-old uses contraception, wants to use contraception, knows somebody who uses contraception, heard about contraception once on the playground -- all of this is completely irrelevant to the law. Which says, in case you missed it the first few times around, that a 14-year-old cannot consent to sex, and therefore, sex with a 14-year-old is rape.

I never said it was not rape -- it's rape all day long.
What I am saying is there are other tangential issues that need to be addressed as well.
But I guess that is not allowed?

If you want to discuss your own issues in a post about something else, do not be surprised that people remind you that this post is about the something else, not about your issues.

What's a better way to make a post be about your issues? Starting your own post.

I think it is not a separate issue -- it is part of the broader issue.
You can think what you want and I can post where I want and we can call it even.

[Anonymous]

But you are. You are the one confusing the issues.

If a child of any age who is sexually active is legally allowed to get birth control for example, without parent knowledge or permission, then we as a society are saying that same child is old enough to give consent. The two go hand in hand.

A child cannot take aspirin at school for cramps without written permission from the parents, but in many states that same girl can be given birth control or referred for an abortion or referred for treatment of an STD by that same school nurse, without parent knowledge or permission.

Why? The argument is that the child's sexuality is her business only, not the parents. They only need this birth control or abortion or treatment of the STD because they are sexually active, yet they can't give consent.

It is twisted that we are sexualizing our children too early and opening them up for predators (not to mention a whole host of self destructive behaviors), all without the knowledge of those who want to protect them.

If they cannot give consent, then they should not be allowed these services without parent knowledge and written permission. If they can legally access these things on their own, which are only needed if the child is sexually active, while still a child below the age of consent, then something is wrong with our laws.

The age of consent should be the age of the cut off for parent permission. NOT younger than the age of consent. Why are we not protecting our children.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Even if a child seeks out and obtains birth control or an abortion, if/when the person they are having sex with is found out, that person is still liable for statutory rape. As they should be.

If a child gives birth, and now we know that she's been having sex, when we find out who the (overage) father is, he can and should and usually does face statutory rape charges.

[Anonymous]

Very sad. The Polanski victim was also 13 or 14, drugged before being raped, also vilified and slut-shamed...

[Anonymous]

Thought that when you rape someone, you are responsible for the forseeable consequences like the victim killing herself. And not just a 30 day kind of responsibility. But a long time in the slammer with the big boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thought that when you rape someone, you are responsible for the forseeable consequences like the victim killing herself. And not just a 30 day kind of responsibility. But a long time in the slammer with the big boys.

Dumb prosecutor doesn't know