The conversation brought an awkward thought. I frequently opine, "no victim, no crime" for other issues. I doubt that I am unique in saying that I had sex before the age of 18. I dated girls older than myself, in some cases they were older than 18 when I was younger and I'm not talking about a one or two year difference. Was I a victim? …
The conversation brought an awkward thought. I frequently opine, "no victim, no crime" for other issues. I doubt that I am unique in saying that I had sex before the age of 18. I dated girls older than myself, in some cases they were older than 18 when I was younger and I'm not talking about a one or two year difference. Was I a victim? How does one justify that opinion? If the sexes had been reversed and I had been a girl would that change anything? Why? I'm not giving an opinion with this and even if you are in favor of victimless crime laws I ask, where is the victim in this? https://youtu.be/G2NhmnI0dpc
"The conversation brought an awkward thought. I frequently opine, "no victim, no crime" for other issues. I doubt that I am unique in saying that I had sex before the age of 18."
Yeah, there are a few important nuances to pick apart here. First, some laws are important even if there's no clear victim, no? Drunk driving springs to mind. I think drunk drivers should be punished if caught, even if they don't kill anybody on that particular drive. In this case, the law exists to prevent the behaviour, not because every time somebody commits the behaviour somebody dies. In fact, probably most of the time when somebody drives drunk, nobody dies.
I think age of consent laws are similar. Some people under the age of consent are nonetheless mature/intelligent enough to make informed decisions about sex. Like you, and I suspect many other people, I had sex before I was 18. I wasn't a victim of anything. But once we move out of the window of close-age exceptions already covered by law, once one of the parties is old enough that they should know better, I think there should be consequences simply for not exercising the restraint to protect that minor from the possibility of harm.
To put it in more concrete terms, let's imagine a 24-year-old who is genuinely in love with a 15-year-old. Let's gloss over the details of how that's possible without some other disturbing things happening first. Even if the 15-year-old "consents" to sex, I think the 24-year-old should refuse until that child is no longer below the age of consent. The 24-year-old is aware of the law, they should be mature enough to control their urges, and they have a responsibility to protect that minor from potential harm. Even (or, in fact, *especially*) if their feelings are genuine.
The choice to ignore all that and have sex anyway is not only against the law, it's an act of pure selfishness that I would strongly argue is abusive. None of this is perfect. As no laws are. The age of consent, sadly, can't be a scientifically determined safe point. It's a line in the sand. But it's a necessary one.
I doubt these words accurately define real categories of any significant size so as with the woke it's just a pointless exercise in neologism.
there is no useful distinction between attraction to the barely-pubescent and the same kid a year later. Be as attracted as you want but if you undress her, you're going to lose pieces you were born with in Quentin.
I wasn't endorsing that link; it is an example of people trying to address that zone between sexual maturity and mental/emotional maturity.
One of the most disturbing realizations of my lifetime was the existence of child prostitutes in the proximity of the military. They wouldn't be there if there were no patrons. A testimony to what some people will do if they can get away with it.
On one occasion a woman paraded two prepubescent girls out in front of us, advertising. For all I know they were her daughters. There were witnesses which tempered my urge to shoot her if I had been able to get away with it.
Disturbing. How different were the two cases (sexual predator and killer) of being able to get away with something as a deciding factor? Therefore, we do have laws.
Sorry I should have used the impersonal "one" instead of the sloppy "you." Of course I don't think you were endorsing that.
Parenthetical: I subscribed to that magazine for over forty years. Then it went Happy and I don't even read it anymore. As a child it was pure joy for me.
The law is intended to prevent much older adults from taking advantage of their superior powers of manipulation, as in a 35yo man getting a 14yo girl into bed.
It becomes absurd when a 18 plus a day male is branded a sexual predator for bedding an 18 minus a day girl. But this has indeed happened.
The conversation brought an awkward thought. I frequently opine, "no victim, no crime" for other issues. I doubt that I am unique in saying that I had sex before the age of 18. I dated girls older than myself, in some cases they were older than 18 when I was younger and I'm not talking about a one or two year difference. Was I a victim? How does one justify that opinion? If the sexes had been reversed and I had been a girl would that change anything? Why? I'm not giving an opinion with this and even if you are in favor of victimless crime laws I ask, where is the victim in this? https://youtu.be/G2NhmnI0dpc
And then there's this. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/pedophiles-hebephiles-and-ephebophiles-oh-my-erotic-age-orientation/
"The conversation brought an awkward thought. I frequently opine, "no victim, no crime" for other issues. I doubt that I am unique in saying that I had sex before the age of 18."
Yeah, there are a few important nuances to pick apart here. First, some laws are important even if there's no clear victim, no? Drunk driving springs to mind. I think drunk drivers should be punished if caught, even if they don't kill anybody on that particular drive. In this case, the law exists to prevent the behaviour, not because every time somebody commits the behaviour somebody dies. In fact, probably most of the time when somebody drives drunk, nobody dies.
I think age of consent laws are similar. Some people under the age of consent are nonetheless mature/intelligent enough to make informed decisions about sex. Like you, and I suspect many other people, I had sex before I was 18. I wasn't a victim of anything. But once we move out of the window of close-age exceptions already covered by law, once one of the parties is old enough that they should know better, I think there should be consequences simply for not exercising the restraint to protect that minor from the possibility of harm.
To put it in more concrete terms, let's imagine a 24-year-old who is genuinely in love with a 15-year-old. Let's gloss over the details of how that's possible without some other disturbing things happening first. Even if the 15-year-old "consents" to sex, I think the 24-year-old should refuse until that child is no longer below the age of consent. The 24-year-old is aware of the law, they should be mature enough to control their urges, and they have a responsibility to protect that minor from potential harm. Even (or, in fact, *especially*) if their feelings are genuine.
The choice to ignore all that and have sex anyway is not only against the law, it's an act of pure selfishness that I would strongly argue is abusive. None of this is perfect. As no laws are. The age of consent, sadly, can't be a scientifically determined safe point. It's a line in the sand. But it's a necessary one.
I doubt these words accurately define real categories of any significant size so as with the woke it's just a pointless exercise in neologism.
there is no useful distinction between attraction to the barely-pubescent and the same kid a year later. Be as attracted as you want but if you undress her, you're going to lose pieces you were born with in Quentin.
I wasn't endorsing that link; it is an example of people trying to address that zone between sexual maturity and mental/emotional maturity.
One of the most disturbing realizations of my lifetime was the existence of child prostitutes in the proximity of the military. They wouldn't be there if there were no patrons. A testimony to what some people will do if they can get away with it.
On one occasion a woman paraded two prepubescent girls out in front of us, advertising. For all I know they were her daughters. There were witnesses which tempered my urge to shoot her if I had been able to get away with it.
Disturbing. How different were the two cases (sexual predator and killer) of being able to get away with something as a deciding factor? Therefore, we do have laws.
Sorry I should have used the impersonal "one" instead of the sloppy "you." Of course I don't think you were endorsing that.
Parenthetical: I subscribed to that magazine for over forty years. Then it went Happy and I don't even read it anymore. As a child it was pure joy for me.
The law is intended to prevent much older adults from taking advantage of their superior powers of manipulation, as in a 35yo man getting a 14yo girl into bed.
It becomes absurd when a 18 plus a day male is branded a sexual predator for bedding an 18 minus a day girl. But this has indeed happened.