Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, actually, we aren't. You may not like the law as written. It is, nonetheless, the law.

But they are getting birth control, STDs, abortions or what have you because they are sexually consenting below the legal consent age.

This should be a mandatory reporter issue, not a privacy issue.

The laws are wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, actually, we aren't. You may not like the law as written. It is, nonetheless, the law.

I don't see how hyper sexualization of girls can be blamed for this man's actions. Perhapsore accurately, I don't see how it can be used as an excuse or a contributing factor when a grown man has intercourse with a 14 yo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Concerning archaic views of women and girls, the more things change, the more things stay the same.

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.

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.

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. 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, 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.

[b]No on is saying that any child is completely independent and responsible for their own sexuality. You are confusing the issues.[/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.

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:This is NOT about birth control and abortion. Whatever other laws are established or not about those items and parental involvement does not change the ideal in our society that there is an age for sexual consent.

If you don't like laws that permit children to access abortion or birth control without parental involvement, then you feel free to lobby for politicians who agree with you.

Meanwhile, can we focus on the issue here which is that a JUDGE stated that, in essence, it was really no big deal that a teacher had sex with a 14 year old girl. Period.

I understand that the specifics of this particular case.
I think it is horrible -- past horrible.
However, that does not preclude us all from taking a BROADER VIEW of how we frame sexuality in our society.
Our kids are sexualized way too early (padded bras for little girls, VS geared towards a younger and younger demographic)
This is a multi-pronged problem, in other words legal age of consent is not the only gate that needs a sentry.
We should be seeking to protect our kids from every angle.
In the meantime, vote this crazy judge out of office.

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.

This is NOT about birth control and abortion. Whatever other laws are established or not about those items and parental involvement does not change the ideal in our society that there is an age for sexual consent.

If you don't like laws that permit children to access abortion or birth control without parental involvement, then you feel free to lobby for politicians who agree with you.

Meanwhile, can we focus on the issue here which is that a JUDGE stated that, in essence, it was really no big deal that a teacher had sex with a 14 year old girl. Period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Concerning archaic views of women and girls, the more things change, the more things stay the same.

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.

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.

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. 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, 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.

No on is saying that any child is completely independent and responsible for their own sexuality. You are confusing the issues.

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.

What is sick about what pp is saying???
A child is a child -- point. period. end of story
As a parent I want to morally and LEGALLY oversee all aspects of my child's behaviour, most especially their sexual behaviour.
If I have to give permission for the consequences of sexual behaviour (birth control, abortion) then I have a better and fuller view of what is going on so I can better protect my child.
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?
No 12 year old is mature enough to make an informed decision about sex, birth control, or pregnancy -- so why in the hell are we giving them legal leeway to do so?
It's like telling folks they are a child, but not a child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Concerning archaic views of women and girls, the more things change, the more things stay the same.

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.

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.

Gee willickers people
The pp is not excusing the behaviour.
I believe what they are saying it is giving the freaks a legal "in".
A way to say hey ' 12 yr old is old enough to take birth control w/out permission, so she is old enough to give consent.
It is the proverbial slippery slope.
I for one think there is no excuse and no justification for what this teacher and the judge did.
I think it is abhorrent, but I do agree with the pp.
We as a society as a whole are sexualizing our kids too early and before they are ready and then the freakzoids are ready to swoop in and take advantage.
And before I get blamed, I am not blaming the victim, I am blaming society!!

See that word "rape", right there in the phrase "statutory rape"? Do you also say, "Oh, she wasn't raped, she was just date-raped"? Or "Oh, she wasn't raped, she was just marital-raped"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, 14 year old girls can't consent to sex and are innocents while 14 year old boys who commit crimes are thugs and should be locked away forever. Something doesn't compute here.

Wait, what? How are "14-year-old boys who commit crimes" relevant here in the slightest? Given that the case involves:

1. a 14-year-old girl, who was raped and later killed herself
2. a 49-year-old man, who was a teacher, and the rapist of the 14-year-old girl
3. a judge who (like many) does not seem to understand the concept of consent

It speaks to development and maturity. You want to move the goalposts and declare some innocent and naive, while saying that others know what they are doing and should be punished. Not sure how you missed that point because it's clear to rational minds.

To your points:

1. There is no evidence of rape. There is no evidence that she killed herself as a result of "rape". The fall-out could have very well been the thing that drove her to commit suicide.
2. The age of the man in question does not mean that he raped her (or rather that she was not a willing participant)
3. In actuality, I think the judge understands it very well

So if you meet a hot 15 year old today and he comes on to you, is it OK to have sex with him? What if he's 16? 16 and a half?

Sorry, in my book, statutory rape is not a grey area. You have sex with an underage person - no matter how he or she may "entice" you - you should pay the maximum possible penalty under the law.

I think I read he was almost 60 at the time. A grown man should know better than to have sex with a 14 year old - and a student no less - no matter what she did or said or wore or any other excuse.

I'm on board with the statutory rape label. NOT on board with the "rape" label other folks are throwing around here. IMO, there is a big difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, 14 year old girls can't consent to sex and are innocents while 14 year old boys who commit crimes are thugs and should be locked away forever. Something doesn't compute here.

Wait, what? How are "14-year-old boys who commit crimes" relevant here in the slightest? Given that the case involves:

1. a 14-year-old girl, who was raped and later killed herself
2. a 49-year-old man, who was a teacher, and the rapist of the 14-year-old girl
3. a judge who (like many) does not seem to understand the concept of consent

It speaks to development and maturity. You want to move the goalposts and declare some innocent and naive, while saying that others know what they are doing and should be punished. Not sure how you missed that point because it's clear to rational minds.

To your points:

1. There is no evidence of rape. There is no evidence that she killed herself as a result of "rape". The fall-out could have very well been the thing that drove her to commit suicide.
2. The age of the man in question does not mean that he raped her (or rather that she was not a willing participant)
3. In actuality, I think the judge understands it very well

So if you meet a hot 15 year old today and he comes on to you, is it OK to have sex with him? What if he's 16? 16 and a half?

Sorry, in my book, statutory rape is not a grey area. You have sex with an underage person - no matter how he or she may "entice" you - you should pay the maximum possible penalty under the law.

I think I read he was almost 60 at the time. A grown man should know better than to have sex with a 14 year old - and a student no less - no matter what she did or said or wore or any other excuse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, 14 year old girls can't consent to sex and are innocents while 14 year old boys who commit crimes are thugs and should be locked away forever. Something doesn't compute here.

Wait, what? How are "14-year-old boys who commit crimes" relevant here in the slightest? Given that the case involves:

1. a 14-year-old girl, who was raped and later killed herself
2. a 49-year-old man, who was a teacher, and the rapist of the 14-year-old girl
3. a judge who (like many) does not seem to understand the concept of consent

It speaks to development and maturity. You want to move the goalposts and declare some innocent and naive, while saying that others know what they are doing and should be punished. Not sure how you missed that point because it's clear to rational minds.

To your points:

1. There is no evidence of rape. There is no evidence that she killed herself as a result of "rape". The fall-out could have very well been the thing that drove her to commit suicide.
2. The age of the man in question does not mean that he raped her (or rather that she was not a willing participant)
3. In actuality, I think the judge understands it very well

PP, I think that not only do you not understand the concept of "consent", you do not understand the concept of "this is actually what the law says".

In this case, yes, the age of the man in question actually does mean that he raped her. Girls under the age of 16 are legally unable to consent to sex. Sex without consent is rape.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, 14 year old girls can't consent to sex and are innocents while 14 year old boys who commit crimes are thugs and should be locked away forever. Something doesn't compute here.

Wait, what? How are "14-year-old boys who commit crimes" relevant here in the slightest? Given that the case involves:

1. a 14-year-old girl, who was raped and later killed herself
2. a 49-year-old man, who was a teacher, and the rapist of the 14-year-old girl
3. a judge who (like many) does not seem to understand the concept of consent

It speaks to development and maturity. You want to move the goalposts and declare some innocent and naive, while saying that others know what they are doing and should be punished. Not sure how you missed that point because it's clear to rational minds.

To your points:

1. There is no evidence of rape. There is no evidence that she killed herself as a result of "rape". The fall-out could have very well been the thing that drove her to commit suicide.
2. The age of the man in question does not mean that he raped her (or rather that she was not a willing participant)
3. In actuality, I think the judge understands it very well