Reply to 30 days in jail for sex with child

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "30 days in jail for sex with child"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Concerning archaic views of women and girls, the more things change, the more things stay the same. [/quote]

I don't think this is the sole issue.

I think this is a result of giving younger and younger kids more legal rights with regards to sexuality.  When is the age of consent?  When is a young girl allowed to receive birth control, abortions, etc with out any parent knowledge or consent?  In some cases, as young as 12 for the latter.

I think that treating children as legal adults when it comes to sex, even in some circumstances, and putting a barrier between responsible parenting and the child, creates a situation where creeps and perverts are able to get away with taking advantage of children.
[/quote]

This is an understanding of consent I have not yet heard before.

I mean, I have heard that wearing a short skirt equals consent. And that being married equals consent. But a 12-year-old girl being able to get contraception without her parents' permission equals consent for all girls everywhere? That one's new.[/quote]

It is not about consent.  It is about placing barriers between a parent and their ability to properly parent a child.

Whatever your views on abortion and birth control, if your 12 or 14 year old child had to get your consent to purchase birth control, or to deal with a host of other issues that are caused by being sexually active, perhaps you would be able protect your child better from predators such as this.

By removing parents from the equation when dealing with children (below the age of consent) you are putting in place barriers to important conversations between parents and their children.

I am not talking specifically about this case, but it could be applied to the judge's warped and evil thinking.  If I read the news articles correctly, he basically dismissed this whole tragedy because he felt that the child shared some responsibility and control in the behavior. [b] If we are saying that legally, a child of any age is completely independent and responsible for their her sexuality, regardless of the age and independent of any parent involvement[/b], creeps like this judge can apply it to all issues of the child's sexuality.

I think that below the legal age of consent, in all situations, a child should have no legal independence for any issues surrounding sexuality, be it consent, pregnancy, birth control, or abortion.  I think it exploits children and allows them to be victimized when we try to separate out some issues of sexuality from others.

If they are children, they are children.  That is a line in the sand and should be in all instances.[/quote]  [b][b]No on is saying that any child is completely independent and responsible for their own sexuality.  You are confusing the issues.[/b][/b]
We are discussing whether a child can consent to having sexual contact.  Specifically, whether a child can consent to intercourse.  The law says they cannot.  Whatever other things a child may or may not be able to do independently is NOT RELEVANT.

Trying to justify the judge's perverse thinking by in essence, thinking like he does - that there can be ANY grey area in having sexual contact with a child is just.... sick.  You really seem sick to me.  [/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics