quote: An honor student, standout athlete and homecoming king, the 17-year-old was preparing for the SAT exams he hoped would pave the way to college. A New Year's Eve party fueled by alcohol, marijuana and sex at a Douglas County hotel changed all that.
Wilson, now 21, is serving 10 years without the possibility of parole after a jury found him guilty of aggravated child molestation for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl that night.
quote:
If Wilson had sexual intercourse with a teen he would have fallen under Georgia's "Romeo and Juliet" exception. But under the law in 2003, oral sex for teens still constituted aggravated child molestation and carried a mandatory sentence.
This is pure BS. This man needs to be let go. Charge him for marijuana use, charge him for underage drinking, but not for consensual sex with another teenager. Why hasn't the girl been arrested? Shouldn't she spend as much time in jail?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The girl did not have a sexual relation with someone who was fifteen years old. He did.
I do not have any problems with it being illegal to have sexual relations with people who are too young. I don't think that fifteen is an unreasonable age for it to be too young.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The same honor student that was part of a gang rape of a semiconcious girl?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The same honor student that was part of a gang rape of a semiconcious girl?
The jury found him not-guilty of that.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: The girl did not have a sexual relation with someone who was fifteen years old. He did.
I do not have any problems with it being illegal to have sexual relations with people who are too young. I don't think that fifteen is an unreasonable age for it to be too young.
So if they were both fifteen you would agree they should both go to jail?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Please do not put words in my mouth, saying that I agree when you do not know if I do or not.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Please do not put words in my mouth, saying that I agree when you do not know if I do or not.
I'm sorry, I meant to say "would you", it is a question not a statement.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I don't think oral sex should cary more of a sentence than intercourse. I also think that relative age of the people involved should be a factor. Any "gang rape of a semiconcious girl" would obviously pale these other factors.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm not stating anything about the appropriateness of specific punishments. It is not something that I have spent enough effort thinking about to feel like sharing any half-formed opinions.
That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with criminalizing sexual relations with someone who is too young, even if the perpetrator is also young themselves.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, if two 15 year olds have sex (or oral sex), do you believe that they should both be punished?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
The lesson is never have oral or anal sex with an underage kid, but regular sex is fine.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
If we put all 17 year olds who engaged in oral sex with 15 year olds in jail, i think a vast majority of my high school would have been in jail together. As well as I'm sure countless teens around the country. We're talking about a 2 year difference here!
And the fact that this punishment was handed down for oral sex, whereas there would've been no punishment for normal sexual intercourse is even more ridiculous.
Again, this is all assuming that oral sex between a 17 year old and 15 year old is the only factor here.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't think it would be wrong for it to be criminalized. That is not the same thing as saying that it should be criminalized.
Posted by Madb (Member # 10532) on :
Key question here, for Georgia, was the guy black or white?
- MaSTERdb
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
In your view, what would the justification for criminalizing having relations with a 15 year old, were it to be done?
I'm assuming that there is something beyond that bald statement that having relations with a 15 year old is wrong/criminalizable and looking for the reasons why it would be considered wrong/criminalizable.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I also don't think criminalizing sex with an underage person is wrong, regardless of the other persons age. However, I think that relative age and consent should be a factor in sentencing. Also, having a different, and far harsher, charge and punishment for oral sex than for intercourse seems ridiculous to me. The criminality isn't what I have issue with, it's the punishment.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Morally I to have no problem with laws on the books in regards to underage sex.
But 10 years in prison for consensual sex under a law designed to go after child predators, AND the fact that when he is out he will have to register as a sex offender seems more then excessive to me.
Whether or not this guy should be in jail for rape, drugs, or underage drinking is irrelevant. He was found not-guilty for rape, and was not charged with drugs or alcohol use. The fifteen year old girl even said it was consensual, though legally it doesn't matter.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Also, out of curiosity, I found that in Georgia with parental consent sixteen year olds can get married. They can get married without parental consent if the girl is pregnant. Does that mean the groom is arrested after the ceremony?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Whether or not it was "consensual" could be debated, I think....
If this was "consensual", does that mean it is possible for a 15-year-old to consent? Many on this forum have argued that underage children cannot consent.
Then again, if underage children can't consent, how is it fair to send an underage child to jail for 10 years for doing something he didn't even consent to doing?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Stephan: Not immediately...they wait about 30 minutes.
Posted by Madb (Member # 10532) on :
Poor sucker, I hope that at least was one mean BJ.
Have fun getting stuffed in Georgian prisons at age 21 dude.
Oh and does anyone know if he was WHITE or BLACK? I have a feeling this may have had some bearing on the case in Georgia. Just hunch.
- MaSTERdb
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: Whether or not it was "consensual" could be debated, I think....
If this was "consensual", does that mean it is possible for a 15-year-old to consent? Many on this forum have argued that underage children cannot consent.
Legally no, they cannot consent. I agree a line has to be drawn somewhere, in most of this country that line is 18. Personally I think if you are old enough to operate heavy machinery at 60 miles per hour on a crowded highway at 16, you are old enough to know to make an informed decision on this matter as well.
quote: Then again, if underage children can't consent, how is it fair to send an underage child to jail for 10 years for doing something he didn't even consent to doing?
Exactly!
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Madb: Poor sucker, I hope that at least was one mean BJ.
Have fun getting stuffed in Georgian prisons at age 21 dude.
Oh and does anyone know if he was WHITE or BLACK? I have a feeling this may have had some bearing on the case in Georgia. Just hunch.
- MaSTERdb
Black.
Posted by Madb (Member # 10532) on :
<Removed.>
[ June 07, 2007, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This story has been knocking around for awhile. Last I saw it, it was on the front page of Sports Illustrated (the website).
What are the details of the Romeo and Juliet clause?
Either way, it seems most people agree that this is ridiculous, since they changed the law. I have no problem with criminalizing sex with underage people, but 15 and 17 is ridiculous. Friends of mine in high school were 17 and 15 when they first had sex and such, and they either both knew what they were doing, or were both foolish in doing so, but it wasn't advantage taking. It's sexual experimentation, it's normal, and it's something 15 year olds, like it or not, do now. Criminalizing it is just going to put decent kids in jail for acting on their hormones. A 30 year old and a 15 year old is abuse and sexual molestation, a 17 or even 18 year old, and 15 year old is not (of course, depending on the circumstances).
Lawmakers shouldn't deal in absolutes like that, because real life isn't so cut and dry. I hope they get the bill passed to apply the law retroactively to him. Regardless of anything else, it seems silly to make him serve out the rest of the sentence when future offenders won't have to face the same punishment.
Posted by Madb (Member # 10532) on :
<Removed.>
[ June 07, 2007, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I've got to agree with the idea that the punishment was overly harsh in this case, but I'm not going to get too upset up for this guy. He was at party with drugs and alcohol, when he was underage and not supposed to be drinking much less using illegal drugs, having sex with multiple women it sounds like, and even though he was acquitted of the rape charge, both of the women he is engaging in sexual activity with on tape were underage.
He should have been punished, even if I agree that 10 years is too long. Sounds like the idea now is pretty good, they changed the law and now it would be misdemeanor with a one year sentence. I'm okay with that and I'd be okay with them reviewing his case and letting him out of jail now that he's served four years. But, like I said, he's not completely blameless in this and while the sentence is probably a bit overboard, he was in the wrong that night and should suffer some consequences for his poor decisions.
One thing that bugs me is the constant appeal to the fact that he was an athlete. So what? Either the sentence is wrong, and should be overturned or it shouldn't. The fact that he had potentially a promising career as a college athlete shouldn't enter into it.
So if he was an overweight, mediocre student with no college prospects or athletic prowess the sentence would be okay? That's the impression I got from the article and I think that's ridiculous.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Just to tie in the last thread on this topic I started back in January after ESPN did a feature. The ESPN.com story is linked in the first post:
[ June 07, 2007, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Even if it was reduced to a misdemeanor, would he still be registered as a sex offender?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
According to the article, the law now says no, he would not have to register. That's under the new law. Under the one he was convicted under, then yes he does have to register.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally Posted by Belle: both of the women he is engaging in sexual activity with on tape were underage.
Wait, the one girl was 17, and HE was 17 at the time, you're telling me it's wrong to have sex with a girl who is the SAME AGE? And isn't he underage too?
Edit to add: If they pass the special law to make it retroactive for him, then he won't have to register, I would think.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Just to tie in the last thread on this topic I started back in January after ESPN did a feature. The ESPN.com story is linked in the first post:
I like the ESPN article, much more detailed. Sorry for the repost.
This especially caught my eye:
"If he had accepted the plea bargain, Wilson would've had to register as a sex offender and wouldn't have been permitted to live in the same house as his younger sister."
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I think this nation needs to do an overhaul of its sex offender laws. It sounds like if I moon somebody, and a cop sees it, I would have to register. While I agree it is important that I know if a rapist lives on my street, it is way to easy to be labeled a sex offender. But what politician is going to push for a law taking people off the registry? It would be political suicide.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I don't think it is a question of whether this kid broke the law and should be punished for it. I think it is a question of whether the punishment fit the crime. Ten years without parole seems excessive, especially the 'without parole' part.
Kids smoke Pot, that is a reality. Kid drink underage, that is a reality. Kids have underage sex, that is a reality. But those are all against the law, and if you do the crime then by implication you are saying that you are willing to do the time.
Society does have to set an arbitrary working standard for age of consent. In Minnesota we don't have a flat Age of Consent Law, we have a range of Criminal Sexual Conduct Laws that define several age thresholds and age spans.
By some interpretation it is possible for two 12 year olds to have sexual contact. Yet (based on memory here) a 14 year old and a 15 year old can not. A 15 year old can have sex with a 16 year old, but neither can have sex with a 17 year old, and none of them can have sex with an 18 year old. (Again, based on my very foggy memory. Even if it fails as a factual example, it still serves as an illustration.)
The point is society has to draw the line somewhere. Generally in the USA (UK and other Euro countries) it is 16. All parties 16 and over = OK. Any one party under age 16 = against the law. This is admittedly a 'one size fits all' solution. In some cases, a younger person might be mature enough to make an informed consent, but society has deemed that the exception rather than the rule. Just a some drivers are able and competent at high road speeds, we have to set a standard that works in the public interest and serves the greater good, so the speed limit is 70; no exceptions.
If this kid was so smart, such a brilliant honor student, why didn't he consider the long term consequences rather than the short term pleasure? He smoked Pot knowing it was against the law. He drank alcohol knowing it was against the law. He had sexual contact with a minor knowing it was against the law. He did all these things based on the false assumption that he wouldn't and couldn't get caught. But he did, and now he has to pay for his crimes.
But, I think the price he is paying is way way way way out of proportion to the events. Circumstances should be able to moderate a crime. The court should be able to see the difference between a 50 year old man conning a 15 year old into willing compliance, and a 15 year old and a 17 year old getting carried away at a party. Part of the problem is the Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, they take away a judges ability to view the circumstances as unique and make judgments accordingly.
Also, it is the result of over-zealous headline grabbing prosecutors trying to make a name, reputation, and career for themselves. This probably had a lot more to do with the prosecutor wanting to see his name in the paper, than it did with justice or fairness.
And for the record, I saw something about this on TV, and I'm pretty sure the guy was black, though I can't remember the race of the girl. I'm sure that didn't help.
I personally think if this has been a white boy and a white girl, there would have been a lesser charge, sufficient to make the boy realize he had broken the law, but not so much as to destroy a clearly positive and worthwhile life.
He should be punished for the crime, but it should be a fair punishment that takes into consideration the various factors involved.
Ten years without the chance of parole is clearly unreasonable and excessive considering the circumstances.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: He had sexual contact with a minor knowing it was against the law.
You know, that is the one think they didn't teach me in family life and sex-ed. They taught me all about birth control and STDs, they skipped the part about jail time. I like all of what you wrote, except he may not have known it was against the law for a 15 year old and a 17 year old to be together. Not that ignorance of the law is an argument anyways.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The ESPN article already said that a white teacher in Georgia who had sex with her male student was only given 90 days. I don't think it's hard at all to prove the double standard that exists.
Hell look at Mary Kay Latourneau. She was in her 30's and had sex with her THIRTEEN year old student, and gave birth to his BABY after committed adultery on her husband! She was given 7 years, which was reduced to six months and a deliquency program. Then she did it AGAIN, and got pregnany AGAIN and still served 3 years less than the guy in prison for 10 years just for having oral sex.
Posted by Madb (Member # 10532) on :
Nicely put steve, but
"and if you do the crime then by implication you are saying that you are willing to do the time."
Dude no one ever wants to or is will to do the time, d'you even know what you are saying.
The reality in this case is the law is unjust and damaging to citizens.
I mean even the poor gorl had to get dragged to court and probably had to testify, at age 15, infront of a room full of adults, how she put the guys penis in her mouth.
I mean COME ON this is FREAKISH !
- MaSTERdb
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Wait, the one girl was 17, and HE was 17 at the time, you're telling me it's wrong to have sex with a girl who is the SAME AGE? And isn't he underage too?
If it's wrong to have sex with someone who is 17, I fail to see how being 17 yourself makes it not wrong.
But then, I'm not terribly satisfied with the inability to give consent being the justification for criminalizing sex with those who are too young.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Madb: Nicely put steve, but
"and if you do the crime then by implication you are saying that you are willing to do the time."
Dude no one ever wants to or is will to do the time, d'you even know what you are saying.
The reality in this case is the law is unjust and damaging to citizens.
I mean even the poor gorl had to get dragged to court and probably had to testify, at age 15, infront of a room full of adults, how she put the guys penis in her mouth.
I mean COME ON this is FREAKISH !
- MaSTERdb
Actually I don't think she did testify in court, I remember seeing that in one of the articles. Her testimony probably wasn't necessary either way. The defense knew that being 15 it was not legal consent, and the prosecution had a video of her doing it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Wait, the one girl was 17, and HE was 17 at the time, you're telling me it's wrong to have sex with a girl who is the SAME AGE? And isn't he underage too?
If it's wrong to have sex with someone who is 17, I fail to see how being 17 yourself makes it not wrong.
But then, I'm not terribly satisfied with the inability to give consent being the justification for criminalizing sex with those who are too young.
In what states is it illegal for two 17 year olds to have sex? It's not illegal in Michigan, I don't know about other states. But even so, why wasn't the other girl also sent to jail then? She was taking illegal drugs and or alcohol and had sex with a 17 year old, sounds to me like she's just as guilty as he is. And if 17 is underage, the 15 year old ALSO broke the law and she ALSO be in jail. Do you agree?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I'm not too comfortable with the implications many are making that because some kids do X, Y, and Z, therefore it's normal and inevitable, everybody does it, and we should all just get used to it.
I think we should expect more from our children.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I'm not too comfortable with the implications many are making that because some kids do X, Y, and Z, therefore it's normal and inevitable, everybody does it, and we should all just get used to it.
I think we should expect more from our children.
This is true. I never used drugs, waited until 20 for sex, and only had the occasional beer and wine with family before being 21. I know I am not unique either.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:She was taking illegal drugs and or alcohol and had sex with a 17 year old, sounds to me like she's just as guilty as he is.
I don't know the laws in any specific states, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's "more" illegal to have sex with a 15-year-old than a 17-year-old.
quote:And if 17 is underage, the 15 year old ALSO broke the law and she ALSO be in jail. Do you agree?
I've already said in this thread that I don't have any opinions I feel like sharing about the appropriateness of any specific punishment.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:I'm not too comfortable with the implications many are making that because some kids do X, Y, and Z, therefore it's normal and inevitable, everybody does it, and we should all just get used to it.
I think we should expect more from our children.
I think it's more along the lines of a large percentage of kids do X, Y, and Z, therefore it's fairly normal, large amounts of poeple do it, and we should all find better ways of dealing with it than labeling it wrong and illegal and punishing them outright, such as education, open-mindedness and positive feedback role-modeling.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The ESPN article already said that a white teacher in Georgia who had sex with her male student was only given 90 days. I don't think it's hard at all to prove the double standard that exists.
I suspect that part of the reason for going against this guy so hard is because the prosecution failed to convict him for raping the other girl, so if they can't get him in prison for one crime (which they believe he deserves to be in prison for), they did their best to put him in prison for another crime.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I think it's more along the lines of a large percentage of kids do X, Y, and Z, therefore it's fairly normal, large amounts of poeple do it, and we should all find better ways of dealing with it than labeling it wrong and illegal and punishing them outright, such as education, open-mindedness and positive feedback role-modeling.
Sure, we can always find better strategies for dealing with a harmful behavior. I'm just saying that popularity doesn't make a behavior like youthful promiscuity less harmful, and it doesn't make parents and other adults any less responsible for reining it in.
These are kids. They're supposed to be taught, held to standards, and given solid rules and guidelines until they're old enough to make responsible decisions. It's obvious that these particular kids needed a huge dose of that and didn't get it. And we're treating this situation like it's no big deal, and to be expected?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
It's sad they had that party at all. What a waste. All that potential on the line. I wonder how many honor students have thrown away their honor in situations like that.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:The ESPN article already said that a white teacher in Georgia who had sex with her male student was only given 90 days. I don't think it's hard at all to prove the double standard that exists.
I suspect that part of the reason for going against this guy so hard is because the prosecution failed to convict him for raping the other girl, so if they can't get him in prison for one crime (which they believe he deserves to be in prison for), they did their best to put him in prison for another crime.
And that just makes me sick.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I'm not too comfortable with the implications many are making that because some kids do X, Y, and Z, therefore it's normal and inevitable, everybody does it, and we should all just get used to it.
I think we should expect more from our children.
Let's rephrase this and see how it sounds.
It is normal for people to do Z, therefore, when people do Z, we should all already be used to it and should be careful when punishing people for it.
I think we should expect more from our legal system.
...
I'm not quite sure I'd consider sex at a young age to necessarily be considered harmful behavior.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
It wasn't all that long ago that 14 year olds getting married was the norm.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't know. If I'm a prosecutor and I believe there is evidence I have a rapist on my hands, and I can't convict him of the rape, then I might push harder to convict him of whatever lesser charge I can. I wouldn't do anything unethical or illegal, but we have no reason to think the prosecutor did anything like that. The kid was charged under a law that was on the books at the time, and the punishment was appropriate for the crime as the law was written.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Well, I don't think it can be universally agreed on that X, Y and Z are harmful behavior. That's like three other conversations right there.
Standards, rules and guidelines (SRaG) are great, and should be taught to kids, but they shouldn't be held to with iron bands. Some things are acceptable and appropriate at certain times, and not at others. Also, these SRaG are ultimately up to the individual to make and adapt to in life, and any deviance from the authorities SRaG should not be seen as necessarily wrong, but should be evaluated and discussed and agreed upon. I think we are treating this situation like it's a deal, and the guy should have to aknowledge what happened and deal with it, but that yes, it should be expected and we as a society and as individual people and families should have a framework for handling the situation that will result in the best circumstances for all involved.
Posted by Madb (Member # 10532) on :
Oh never mind then, still I think this whole sordid affair is profoundly wrong and quite twisted.
I mean who doesn't smoke up, get drunk & try to get laid in highschool?
- MaSTERdb
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's scary to think how much influence over your life the prosecutor might have in such a situation, depending on whether he decided to go for the maximum or not. I don't like the idea of any human having that much power over me. I know that that power is not unchecked, but still, it's scary.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I'm not bothered by what this particular prosecutor did (as far as I can tell everyone-defense, prosecution, judge, and jury- did what they were supposed to do), just the idea that a prosecutor would "push harder" to get someone convicted of one crime because the court found them innocent of another that the prosecutor FELT he was guilty of.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I don't know. If I'm a prosecutor and I believe there is evidence I have a rapist on my hands, and I can't convict him of the rape, then I might push harder to convict him of whatever lesser charge I can. I wouldn't do anything unethical or illegal, but we have no reason to think the prosecutor did anything like that. The kid was charged under a law that was on the books at the time, and the punishment was appropriate for the crime as the law was written.
I'm sure Mike Nifong would agree with you
Posted by Mr. Stryker (Member # 10517) on :
Ok, before i throw in my two cents, I have to admit that when i was in high school, I used to smoke pot, drink alcohol, and have sex with girls who were around my age (yes some of them were under 16, but so was I).
In Indiana, they have found a wonderful way to solve the problem that this. The 3 year rule. If 2 minors ages are within 3 years of each other, then it is not absolutely an criminal act. If 18 year old decided to go sleep with a girl who is 15, but she'll 16 before he is 19, then they are in the clear. However, if the older individual is 3 years and 1 day older then the younger one, that is child molestation / statutory rape. And in IN all forms of sex are considered to be equally as criminal... it doesn't matter if it's oral, anal or vaginal....
Now, I personally don't see any reason why an individual who is 17 and a junior in high school can't have sex with a sophomore who is 15. I mean on moral grounds yes i see the problem, but i firmly believe that laws shouldn't be written based on morals. Laws are meant to keep society running and two kids getting it on in the back of their run down car in no way threatens to tumble our society.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Madb: Oh never mind then, still I think this whole sordid affair is profoundly wrong and quite twisted.
I mean who doesn't smoke up, get drunk & try to get laid in highschool?
- MaSTERdb
While I might not have complained about getting laid, getting drunk and stoned was definitely not an interest for me.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I'm sure Mike Nifong would agree with you
Mike Nifong did push it too far and did things that were unethical. Something I specifically said I would not do and that I think is wrong. We have no evidence that this prosecutor did anything of the sort.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: I'm not bothered by what this particular prosecutor did (as far as I can tell everyone-defense, prosecution, judge, and jury- did what they were supposed to do), just the idea that a prosecutor would "push harder" to get someone convicted of one crime because the court found them innocent of another that the prosecutor FELT he was guilty of.
Wouldn't that fall safely within the bounds of prosecutorial discression?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Madb: Oh never mind then, still I think this whole sordid affair is profoundly wrong and quite twisted.
I mean who doesn't smoke up, get drunk & try to get laid in highschool?
- MaSTERdb
Me, since you asked.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Laws are meant to keep society running and two kids getting it on in the back of their run down car in no way threatens to tumble our society.
But in this situation, that is not what was happening. This was not a date between a couple of teenagers. It was a party with alcohol (illegal, as the drinkers were underage), marijuana (illegal, no matter what your age), and group sex with girls that were underage and *may have been drunk or stoned* and thus unable to consent.
* of course, that hasn't been proven by the information we have, yet based on what we do know, I must submit I think it likely
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: I'm not bothered by what this particular prosecutor did (as far as I can tell everyone-defense, prosecution, judge, and jury- did what they were supposed to do), just the idea that a prosecutor would "push harder" to get someone convicted of one crime because the court found them innocent of another that the prosecutor FELT he was guilty of.
Wouldn't that fall safely within the bounds of prosecutorial discression?
I'm not sure I understand your question.
To clarify, though, I'm only arguing my point on moral grounds here. I'm not suggesting legal impliciations - if that were even possible.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"But then, I'm not terribly satisfied with the inability to give consent being the justification for criminalizing sex with those who are too young."
Hard to pick another. Physical age? Women are capable of reproducing at the onset of menses. Emotional? There are 14-year-old girls ready for the responsibility and 40-year-olds who still aren't. An arbitrary age that protects the bulk of them seems best, if awkward.
18 works as a number because it's also when you can vote, sign binding contracts, and other aspects of responsible society. But I definitely favor the 2 year rule and the removal of mandatory sentencing, and I think sex offender registrations need to be restricted to those who might actually pose predatory harm to others.
Posted by Madb (Member # 10532) on :
<Removed.>
[ June 07, 2007, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:I'm sure Mike Nifong would agree with you
Mike Nifong did push it too far and did things that were unethical. Something I specifically said I would not do and that I think is wrong. We have no evidence that this prosecutor did anything of the sort.
No we don't, and I don't mean to suggest that he did. However, I'm sure that Nifong used the same logic that you did to justify his actions, which is a little bit scary. Nifong just happened to be unlucky enough that none of the lower charges stuck either.
As mph pointed out, prosecutors have an incredible amount of discretion. I'm uncomfortable with one person deciding that someone is a 'bad person' and then finding things to convict them of. This seems especially wrong when the defendent is not guilty of the thing that the prosecutor made the initial judgement about, so alternative things are found to convict them of. I understand that it is perfectly legal, but it just seems wrong.
Posted by Mr. Stryker (Member # 10517) on :
The Alcohol and the Drugs I have no arguement with. As far as the group sex goes, what happens behind closed doors is none of our business. I mean when one of the women comes foward and accuses, that is one thing. But when a 17 year old boy is being punnished because one of the girls was "too young" and not for the actual act... That is wrong in my opinion. The state of Indiana has the right idea with the 3 year rule...
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:As far as the group sex goes, what happens behind closed doors is none of our business.
Yet, as a society we've determined it becomes our business when one of the involved people is unable to consent. Either because they are being forced, or are mentally incompetent due to disability or drug or alcohol use, or are too young.
That's what happened here. I don't think anyone here advocates throwing out all the laws that protect children from sexual predators. We do agree, most of us, that this particular situation did not call for 10 years in prison. So, the question becomes, how to write the laws so they punish the ones that need to be punished, and are lenient in cases where they should be lenient.
My only position through the whole thing, is that the kid probably doesn't deserve to be in jail for 10 years, but he does deserve some punishment for his actions. I dont' advocate leaving him in jail for a decade, but neither do I think he should have been given a pat on the back and told to go enjoy his college scholarship.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Madb: Ah come on Belle & Stephen, you guys never smoked some ganja & just hungout with your girlfriend in bed for 4hours. Or went out on friday night and got shitfaced with you friends?
It's harmless.
- MaSTERdb
Nope, nope, and nope.
I was an eyewitness to a drunk driving accident that quite nearly resulted in the deaths of three small children I knew. Not to mention a family friend who was paralysed from the waist down by a drunk driver. Yet another friend went drinking one Friday night and had to get her stomach pumped. Just this year, a pub night was organised on my campus. A 15 year old girl snuck in somehow and ended up in the hospital. I believe the people who were supposed to be checking IDs got kicked out of residence. Now combine all of the above with the fact that ethyl alcohol was all I ever tasted in a drink (until recently, when my taste buds changed) and it tastes really nasty.
Ethyl alcohol is a poison. It's just slower acting than the other alcohols. I don't mind a drink now and again, never have, but I have never understood the attraction of overloading my system with toxins and doing stupid things I'll probably regret in the morning. Where's the fun in that?
Marijuana a) stinks to high heaven and b) impairs your judgement and c) makes me physically ill to catch even a whiff of it. It's also expensive. Frankly, I had far better things to do with my time.
As for sex, I never wanted to. Again, I saw consequences I didn't like, and I had better things to do.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:My only position through the whole thing, is that the kid probably doesn't deserve to be in jail for 10 years, but he does deserve some punishment for his actions.
So do you think that the girls involved should be punished as well?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I think "punishment" is the wrong way to approach a situation like this. No harm was done to any person or property. This is solely a matter of what society has deemed unacceptable. Behavioral/psychological correction via counseling and further education should be the goal here. I think fines and jail sentences of any amount are completely unjustified.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Indiana has what I think are some fairly sensible laws in that regard, but it does not have a three year rule. That is an urban legend.
The basics of Indiana's laws are: If you are 14 or 15 years old, it can be consensual to have sex with someone 14 to 17 years old (this is a three year interval, but it is not a moving three year interval). If you are 16 or 17 years old, it can be consensual to have sex with someone 14 years old or older. If you are 18 years old or older, it can be consensual to have sex with someone 16 years or older.
There are modifications and exceptions given things like authority relationships.
The main difference with the rumored three year rule is that it is not consensual under indiana law for a 15 year old to have sex with an 18 year old, despite the difference being only three years.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I also wonder if the punishment would have been different if the boy had been 15 and the girl had been 17 instead.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Relevant to the OP:
The kid screwed up. Our actions have consequences. I don't think 10 years is justified in this case, but neither should he get that pat on the back Belle mentioned.
I can see some reasoning for the added severity of oral sex from a minor. Oral sex, especially female-to-male, carries overtones of power and dominance (in stable adult relationships this may or may not be the case, and those overtones might be part of the enjoyment). But there's studies that have been done (at least here in Canada) that younger teenage girls view oral sex more casually, can be more easily coerced into it, and don't realise the potential consequences (such as STIs). I can understand (though I'm honestly not sure if I agree) how these concerns could result in the law they did.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The rules are set up to protect what society has deemed the more vulnerable of the participants. The fact that this is not always the case is why I don't like mandatory sentencing.
<-- Didn't drink or smoke in high school, or after, or now
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote: So, the question becomes, how to write the laws so they punish the ones that need to be punished, and are lenient in cases where they should be lenient.
Well, for starters getting rid of mandatory minimums would help. As Steven said in the post about his 'soft-on-crime' suggestion, it would be political suicide to go that direction now.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Madb: Oh never mind then, still I think this whole sordid affair is profoundly wrong and quite twisted.
I mean who doesn't smoke up, get drunk & try to get laid in highschool?
- MaSTERdb
It's extremely misguided to assume that your experiences are the norm, the mean, the typical. Most people think that the way they grew up is the way everyone grew up, and it just ain't so.
To answer your question: more people than you could possibly imagine.
p.s. When I used the past tense of 'grow', above, I was speaking generally. If I were only directing that post to you I would've used the present tense.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Madb : Nicely put steve, but
"and if you do the crime then by implication you are saying that you are willing to do the time."
Dude no one ever wants to or is will to do the time, d'you even know what you are saying.
Steve/BlueWizard:
You seem to have missed the part where I said 'BY IMPLICATION'. When you choose to rob a bank by implication you are saying that you accept the potential outcomes of that event. You might get money, or you might get jail, but you made a choice knowing the possibilities. I think you also missed that part where I said this person committed crimes but likely thought 'he wouldn't or couldn't get caught'.
This was in intelligent person, he simply can't say he didn't know there would be consequences to getting caught breaking all these laws, and there were many. He certainly knew there could be consequences, he just didn't think he would get caught, which is a clear indication of his definite lack of maturity.
Kids do stupid things all the time with no forethought to getting caught. That's the reason youth are protected by law, they are extremely short sighted. The girl who chose to engage in this act, never thought beyond the moment and what it bought her. I suspect now with the public humiliation and her friends going to prison, she wishes she had looked a little farther into the potential future.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Those of you who are in favor of a 2 or 3-year law, would you mind explaining why? What is the rationale behind protecting children from sex with older people, but not from sex with children their own age?
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: I also wonder if the punishment would have been different if the boy had been 15 and the girl had been 17 instead.
They wouldn't have cared, which is why these types of laws are pure BS.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
m_p_h: there are several reasons, some practical and some more general.
Practicality-wise, teenagers are commonly having sex with each other, and have commonly been having sex with each other for many centuries. Dealing with this in law rather than by families seems unproductive, bound to result in extremely varied enforcement, and possibly harmful (I'm not saying teenagers should be having sex, I'm saying using the law to enforce that might be harmful).
If the children are about the same age, either both must be punished or one must be picked who is the one 'guilty'. There isn't an obvious solution, and there are obvious problems with the former and ways to manipulate the latter.
There isn't an implicit power relationship between teenagers about the same age, like there is with someone significantly older having sex with a teenager. If the goal of the law is to prevent exploitation due to implicit power relationships, then it makes sense to have a window based on nearness (that is invalidated in the case of specific power relationships).
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:What is the rationale behind protecting children from sex with older people, but not from sex with children their own age?
Sex between children their own age is a matter of hormones. Sex between childen and older people carries with it these odd power-dynamics. I'm not too far away from 17 to believe kids can have consensual sex. It's not scientific, but that's my rationale.
I read the article, and the situation sounds gross and tacky, but we are talking about a kid's life here. I'd need to hear the testimony, but I think the court was being overly casual with this 17(now 21) year-old's life. This seems to be a problem with mandatory minimum sentencing.
I have a question? Does this mean that babies of underaged couples should be considered material evidence of rape? Why not?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Those of you who are in favor of a 2 or 3-year law, would you mind explaining why? What is the rationale behind protecting children from sex with older people, but not from sex with children their own age?
Because the idea isn't to protect kids from sex.
The idea, as far as I understand it, is that when there's a significant age difference it results in a rather large asymmetry of power, for a variety of reasons. The idea is to prevent people from grossly abusing that asymmetry.
Posted by Mr. Stryker (Member # 10517) on :
Thanks Fugu, I guess the three year rule is more of a... I guess guideline? At any rate, sorry for my not actually looking it up, and thanks for correcting me.
By the way Fugu, it's good to see your still around here, I hadn't seen any sign of you since i suddenly found the time to come back to the forum.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Because the idea isn't to protect kids from sex.
Because I think that protecting kids from the consequences of having sex to early is something worthy of implementing by law, I don't have problems with it being illegal for two young-uns to have sex with each other.
Posted by Mr. Stryker (Member # 10517) on :
Well I think stupid people should be protected from spawning devil children that will ruin their lives (not to mention what the little ankle biters will do to society)... and I don't have a problem with it being illegal for them to breed... [/end sarcasm]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I like you mph, but I'm very glad you aren't making the laws. Making sex illegal would simply add another consequence. My understanding of the reason for the law is, as Juxtapose, fugu, and Iremi have said, to protect young people from being exploited by older people who can coerce them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ah, but I vote. I am making the laws.
Also not that I didn't advocate making it illegal -- I just said that I don't have a problem with it being illegal.
Posted by Mr. Stryker (Member # 10517) on :
I vote him off this island...
OK, maybe not... I too kinda like mph... but seriously, if you got your way, then two 17 year olds could go to prison for having sex after their senior prom... Honestly, who here wasn't at least kinda hoping to get some action at their senior prom?
Edit: Typos
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
<deleted bacause I decided not to feed the troll - but I don't like disappearing posts so I left this note...>
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:OK, maybe not... I too kinda like mph... but seriously, if you got your way, then two 17 year olds could go to prison for having sex after their senior prom
Wrong, wrong, WRONG. That is a gross misrepresentation of what I said, on multiple levels.
I just got finished reiterating again that I am not advocating making it illegal for two kids to have sex. Therefore, it is not fair for you to say that if I had my way it would be illegal.
I have also said MULTIPLE times in this thread that I'm not saying anything about the appropriateness of any punishment. Therefore, it is wrong for you to say that if I had my way, the punishment for said action would be prison time.
I have also never said that I think that 17 is an age for which it would be reasonable to outlaw sex. Therefore, you are pulling it out of your ear when you say that if I had my way, it would be illegal for two 17-year-olds to have sex.
I don't mind you disagreeing with me, but don't make up crap and put it in my mouth.
quote:Honestly, who here wasn't at least kinda hoping to get some action at their senior prom?
Me, for one.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Making sex illegal would simply add another consequence.
There certainly is that. A case certainly could be made that the deterrent value of such a law, while not being zero (which you imply), would, by nature of teenage brains and hormones being as they are, would not rise to a level as to counteract the negative affects of adding another bad consequence to those already suffering others.
And, in case anybody has missed it previously, I never said that it should be illegal.
Also, I never said it should be illegal.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Stryker: Honestly, who here wasn't at least kinda hoping to get some action at their senior prom?
Already answered this one, but it seems some folks are having trouble with generalising from thier experiences to others. Just because some people have a hope, wish, or experience, does not mean everyone does. I wish people would stop speaking as if anyone who had a contrary experience is some sort of freak.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I totally disagree with making sex illegal between consenting minors.
Absolutely 100% against it. I'd possibly consider voting against a candidate who supported this position.
It's a violation of their rights, which contrary to much of the law, under 18 year olds DO have. Maybe we should criminalize teenage obesity too. It's dangerous, harmful, damaging to their mental well being and could result in much more negative consequences than sex. So long as we're trying to outlaw HUMAN NATURE, we might as well add eating to the list.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Lying, stealing, and killing are all human nature as well, and most of us would agree that outlawing them in some fashion is a good idea.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Does anybody know which is more likely to result in teen pregnancy or the transmission of STDs: a young teen having sex with another young teen, or a young teen having sex with someone who is older, and likely (on average) to be more mature?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Lying, stealing, and killing are all human nature as well, and most of us would agree that outlawing them in some fashion is a good idea.
Lying, Stealing and killing are not necessary for human survival.
Eating and reproducing are.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Does anybody know which is more likely to result in teen pregnancy or the transmission of STDs: a young teen having sex with another young teen, or a young teen having sex with someone who is older, and likely (on average) to be more mature?
I think we should also make it the law that you HAVE to wear a condom. It's like a seatbelt. It's for your own safety. Or better yet, NO SEX AT ALL FOR ANYONE. You must procreate via artificial insemination. Sex is too dangerous.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Lying, Stealing and killing are not necessary for human survival.
Neither is teen-teen sex.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lying, Stealing and killing are inherently harmful. Teen-teen sex isn't.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yes. Lying, stealing, and killing are different from teen-teen sex, so we shouldn't lump them all together and treat them the same, even though they are all human nature.
Which is exactly the point I tried to make by bringing up lying, stealing, and killing when you rolled your eyes and said that if we're going to outlaw human nature that we should also outlaw obesity.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What is your argument, specifically? If you don't have one, I might as well save myself the effort.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Maybe we should criminalize teenage obesity too. It's dangerous, harmful, damaging to their mental well being and could result in much more negative consequences than sex. So long as we're trying to outlaw HUMAN NATURE, we might as well add eating to the list.
My point is that this argument doesn't hold water. We already outlaw HUMAN NATURE.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Remove "So long as we're trying to outlaw HUMAN NATURE, we might as well add eating to the list."
I concede that line was a mistake to say. The point stands.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Indiana has what I think are some fairly sensible laws in that regard, but it does not have a three year rule. That is an urban legend.
The basics of Indiana's laws are: If you are 14 or 15 years old, it can be consensual to have sex with someone 14 to 17 years old (this is a three year interval, but it is not a moving three year interval). If you are 16 or 17 years old, it can be consensual to have sex with someone 14 years old or older. If you are 18 years old or older, it can be consensual to have sex with someone 16 years or older.
There are modifications and exceptions given things like authority relationships.
The main difference with the rumored three year rule is that it is not consensual under indiana law for a 15 year old to have sex with an 18 year old, despite the difference being only three years.
What was the rationale here? So a 17-year-old and a 14-year-old can have consensual sex in Indiana, but a year later, when they are older and presumably wiser, they cannot?
[edit: speelink]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Lyrhawn, I'm not sure how exactly you're supporting your assertion that the possible negative consequences of overeating are worse than the possible negative consequences of underage sex. Are you comparing the worst and rarest imaginable consequences of obesity (such as becoming blind and immobile due to diabetes at the age of 17) directly to the most easily-dismissed consequences of sex (such as emotional issues caused by excessive sexual intimacy with ill-considered partners)?
For me, this is about not handing kids the "keys" to something dangerous until we know they are ready to handle the consequences. Is your average 15-year-old ready to deal reliably with the responsibility of ALWAYS using birth control, and if they don't, or if the method they use fails, are they ready for the responsibility of successfully raising a child, or dealing with the emotional aftermath of an abortion or adoption (leaving aside the question of whether the former is morally justifiable)? And are we ready to tell that newborn child that the struggles they deal with growing up under trying circumstances were worth it so their dad and mom could get some action on prom night?
I think we do a grave disservice to our children if we cut them loose with something as powerful and life-changing as sex with the pathetically small amount of controls and guidance that we give them today. Restricting kids from having sex isn't all about the fear of sin, or squeamishness about the idea that a teenager might "do it" ... it's being a responsible parent.
Again, I'm leaving aside the question (as mph has) of whether or not this or that should be illegal or involve jail time. I'm responding to the attitude that this is no big deal, and people should just get used to it. I was raised in a subculture where sex between teenagers, or unmarried people in general, is heavily frowned upon, and kids are given only measured freedom to date and "explore their sexuality" as they get older. I don't regret at all the fact that I never slept with any of the ridiculous choices of girlfriends that I made at that age, and I am ecstatic that I didn't have a kid until I was married to the right woman, and was perfectly capable of supporting a child, both emotionally and materially.
What I don't understand is, what makes teenaged sex such a valuable and wonderful addition to a young person's life that it is worth potentially saddling them with responsibilities and experiences that they are not ready or eager to handle? Am I only half a person, somehow, because I didn't do it, and am glad not to have?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well I don't really plan on pursuing the comparison super far, but obesity has long lasting consequences. Fat kids who are teased can be effected by it for life, it can have detrimental effects on their lives for years and years afterwards. It can lead to diabetes yes which has incredible consequences, it can kill them in their 20's or 30's if it isn't nipped in the bud in the teen years. It's dangerous and potentially life threatening.
It's their right to do it. When it comes down to it, this is about their bodies, their lives, their choices, and their relationshops. Not your life, your choice, your body, your anything. Teach them, teach them responsibility and give them the knowledge they need to make an intelligent choice and then let them live their lives. It IS a big deal. But I don't agree with the way you think it should be handled.
The issue in national politics is always framed as an all or nothing debate. It's either abstinence or willy nilly porn filled sex romps in sex ed. That's ridiculous. Teens should be taught about condoms, and safe sex, about STDs, about abstinence, about anything and everything involved. They shouldn't be cut loose, they shouldn't be given free reign, but they shouldn't be absolutely denied the right to explore their sexuality. Why? Because they are going to do it regardless of the laws. The laws are already strict in dozens of states and the average 15 or 17 year old has no idea what the law is until they're charged with it. They're emotions and hormones are running wild and sometimes they make foolish rash choices. Making it illegal does nothing to stop it, it just punishes kids for experimentation, which is natural and part of their maturing process.
quote:Am I only half a person, somehow, because I didn't do it, and am glad not to have?
Why are you placing that kind of value on sex? I'm not saying that sex is good and that everyone SHOULD do it. My argument is one of personal choice. It should be the job of the parent to raise their kids responsibly, to give them the tools they need to make smart choices, to teach them how to weigh pros and cons. I don't care one way or the other if you had sex, that's for YOU to decide, and you had that choice. You chose to wait, it's not necessarily negative or positive, it's whatever you want and get out of it. And it's not about protecting the right of teens to get it on on prom night. You're devaluing sex when you put it like that.
It's about personal choice and freedoms, and the utterly silly nature of criminalizing this as a deterrent, especially when I've seen zero evidence that criminalizing it actually serves as a deterrent. This isn't something we should be solving with punishments and laws, this is something families should be dealing with, families have always traditionally been the ones who have taught their children about sex, why all of a sudden is it the state's job to do everything involved with it?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Mike: I don't know any details about the legislative proceedings when it was passed, so I'm not sure. The law does make explicit that if the younger person one had sex with is (or was!) married, that is a defense, along with some other things, so there's at least a possible argument for the sex at 14 and 17 being a defense at 15 and 18.
I agree that it could have been done somewhat better.
Posted by Mr. Stryker (Member # 10517) on :
Apologies mph, I missed the post where you clarified that you weren't advocating.
Also, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, i was making an extreme example of how I was interrupting your position.
As to the getting some action comment I made. By getting some action i didn't necessarily mean sex. I meant any physical activity with the opposite sex. I never meant to imply that abstaining made an individual a freak. I was more pointing out the fact that MOST people at that age are very interested in the opposite sex and Prom tends to be a bit of a mating frenzy.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Most highschool students smoke weed drink beer and have sex.
That's false. Most highschool students don't smoke weed, drink bear, and have sex. Here are some actual stats:
53% of high school students did not drink ANY alcohol in the month before the survey. 76% of high school students did not smoke weed in the month before. 54% of high school students had NEVER had sex with anyone. 67% of high students had not had sex in the 3 months before the survey.
So, most high school students DON'T do these things, especially not on a regular basis. If you do, you are a bit weird....
quote:It's harmless.
I personally know one friend who is dead, several friends who have spent considerable time in jail, many friends who were expelled from school, several friends who had to spend time in the hospital, and numerous people who live very difficult lives now because they did stuff like this in high school and had to face the consequences. It isn't harmless. It is only harmless if you are lucky.
If you don't believe me, just look at this thread. This kid will be in jail for 10 years because he thought the stuff he was doing was harmless.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Most high school students don't...drink bear...
Well, of course they don't. Bears are notoriously difficult things to drink-- it's not like they just stand around waiting for some fourteen year old to come by with a straw.
Captain Obvious, over here.
(Huzzah for hyper-literalism!)
Posted by krynn (Member # 524) on :
OK, im just reading this thread for the first time, and stuff like this kinda bothers me. i think both the boy and girl should be punished. it takes two for anything like this to occur, and it didnt sound forced to me. The sex with the 17 year old sounded much worse, and he was acquitted of the rape charge.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Does anybody know which is more likely to result in teen pregnancy or the transmission of STDs: a young teen having sex with another young teen, or a young teen having sex with someone who is older, and likely (on average) to be more mature?
I can tell you the most likely combination to result in a pregnancy and the profile of the majority of teen mothers: young girl with a boyfriend at least 3-4 years older than her.
Catherine teaches at the alternative high school and the vast majority of the teen mothers there have boyfriends who are out of high school - they are 18 to 25 years old.
There is actually a reason to be concerned when a teenage girl has a boyfriend a few years older than her - I believe the relationship is astronomically more likely to turn sexual and to turn sexual much earlier.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Speaking on topic for a moment-- the penalty this kid received seems undue for the crime. The legislation lessening the mandatory sentence should be applied to him (at least).
It seems ridiculous that he's still in jail. Granted, we don't know all the details, just the barest facts.
I don't know that teen sex should be criminalized; it seems an ineffective way to go about teaching teens to be responsible with their bodies.
Lyrhawn, did you mean for your posts to read like a defense for removing sex ed from schools?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by krynn: OK, im just reading this thread for the first time, and stuff like this kinda bothers me. i think both the boy and girl should be punished. it takes two for anything like this to occur, and it didnt sound forced to me. The sex with the 17 year old sounded much worse, and he was acquitted of the rape charge.
The problem I have with this is how do you effectively prosecute both participants? What if the girl in order to avoid jail or the fines simply says, "He made me do it?" And in this instance the girl being 15 makes that MUCH easier to fly in court.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BB: and that is exactly one of the big problems with criminalizing this sort of behavior.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I don't think that's what he meant at all.
"Teens should be taught about condoms, and safe sex, about STDs, about abstinence, about anything and everything involved. They shouldn't be cut loose, they shouldn't be given free reign, but they shouldn't be absolutely denied the right to explore their sexuality."
Fundamentally reformed, yes, but not done away with.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by krynn: OK, im just reading this thread for the first time, and stuff like this kinda bothers me. i think both the boy and girl should be punished. it takes two for anything like this to occur, and it didnt sound forced to me. The sex with the 17 year old sounded much worse, and he was acquitted of the rape charge.
The problem I have with this is how do you effectively prosecute both participants? What if the girl in order to avoid jail or the fines simply says, "He made me do it?" And in this instance the girl being 15 makes that MUCH easier to fly in court.
I don't know, maybe I'm being ignorant. But with video evidence is there even a chance she could make that case? Unless he had a weapon in his hand, wouldn't she just bite it off if she were being forced?
Posted by Mr. Stryker (Member # 10517) on :
OK, lets not talk about biting anything off... I know a guy who's wife had a seizure randomly while they were having oral sex... and well... and quite honestly, just the thought makes me cringe.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not saying that teenage sex is something we should trivialize. I had sex for the first time at 17. He was 20. We started dating when I was fifteen and he was 18. It was a big deal. It was life changing. And I wouldn't trade that experience for anything. It, 25 years later, is a precious memory.
I was ready. I was responsible. It was my choice (it was my idea!) Sex with this man that I loved was a blessing to me. To both of us.
The idea that we should be considered criminals for this is appalling. It does bother me.
I realize that Porter isn't saying that. I'm not sure what his position is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: BB: and that is exactly one of the big problems with criminalizing this sort of behavior.
Oh I am not sure we should not try. We criminalize all sorts of things that are rampant all the time.
I completely agree that 10 years of jail time for this particular act is ridiculous.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
rollanim--
I figured. However, Lyrhawn says:
quote:This isn't something we should be solving with punishments and laws, this is something families should be dealing with, families have always traditionally been the ones who have taught their children about sex, why all of a sudden is it the state's job to do everything involved with it?
I'm not committed to debating this-- I believe in publicly funded sex ed, *because* parents are not teaching their children, and the topic is important enough to society to deserve talking about.
But SOME people might note the irony inherent in Lyrhawn's position.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by krynn: OK, im just reading this thread for the first time, and stuff like this kinda bothers me. i think both the boy and girl should be punished. it takes two for anything like this to occur, and it didnt sound forced to me. The sex with the 17 year old sounded much worse, and he was acquitted of the rape charge.
The problem I have with this is how do you effectively prosecute both participants? What if the girl in order to avoid jail or the fines simply says, "He made me do it?" And in this instance the girl being 15 makes that MUCH easier to fly in court.
I don't know, maybe I'm being ignorant. But with video evidence is there even a chance she could make that case? Unless he had a weapon in his hand, wouldn't she just bite it off if she were being forced?
Have you never seen somebody verbally intimidate somebody into something? Like, "This better feel good or Ill cut you, if you bite me I'll kill you."
You do not have to physically brandish a weapon to get cooperation out of people, you just have to make them believe you can make good on your threat.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I was ready. I was responsible.
Fifteen year olds, by definition, are not responsible enough to have sex. I'm going to go so far as to say that all sex outside of marriage is irresponsible, and that lots of married people have sex irresponsibly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Would you like to point out to me exactly how I am being irresponsible?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I was ready. I was responsible.
My guess is that you were more lucky than ready. What would you have done if you had a child?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Er...I think I just did.
EDIT:
That is-- if you're having sex outside of marriage, you're acting irresponsibly, in my opinion.
If you're having sex, within marriage, with someone you don't really love, you're being irresponsible.
If you're having sex, and you are X, and circumstance Y applies to you, you're being irresponsible.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Does anybody know which is more likely to result in teen pregnancy or the transmission of STDs: a young teen having sex with another young teen, or a young teen having sex with someone who is older, and likely (on average) to be more mature?
I can tell you the most likely combination to result in a pregnancy and the profile of the majority of teen mothers: young girl with a boyfriend at least 3-4 years older than her.
Catherine teaches at the alternative high school and the vast majority of the teen mothers there have boyfriends who are out of high school - they are 18 to 25 years old.
There is actually a reason to be concerned when a teenage girl has a boyfriend a few years older than her - I believe the relationship is astronomically more likely to turn sexual and to turn sexual much earlier.
I know that's anecdotal, but it rings true (to somebody who has very little experience in such matters). Very interesting.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Er...I think I just did.
No...you've stated that it is irresponsible; you haven't told me how it is irresponsible, to whom I'm being irresponsible, what risks I am taking.
What definition of irresponsible are you using and how do I fit that definition?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I was ready. I was responsible.
Fifteen year olds, by definition, are not responsible enough to have sex. I'm going to go so far as to say that all sex outside of marriage is irresponsible, and that lots of married people have sex irresponsibly.
Well I guess that really depends on your opinion on the definition of responsibility.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
kmb:
I'm stating that the act of sex, consensual or not, is irresponsible in every situation except where the participants are married, in love, and emotionally/mentally stable.
How this applies to you now, I have no idea. It may not-- how am I to know? (Why would I WANT to?)
How it's irresponsible:
Well, pregnancy out of wedlock. Also, emotional attachments, STDs, motel bills... For me, it's irresponsible on the face of it. Those are a few reasons why.
To whom it's irresponsible:
Yourself. Society. Your partner.
What risks involved:
I think I covered this under how...
AGAIN:
I'm not calling for legislation. I oppose legislation on consensual sexual relations, for the most part. I support measures directed at educating teens about sex; and I support cultural measures that encourage society to wait until marriage (a loving, healthy marriage at that) before having sex, and that support monogamy during marriage.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, that still isn't making sense to me. Irresponsible sex is irresponsible. Responsible sex - preparing for, taking precautions to avoid and accepting the consequences of sex - is responsible whether or not one is married.
Why is incurring a motel bill irresponsible if I am prepared to pay it? Or for that matter, why wouldn't I be having sex in my home? Why is an emotional attachment a bad thing? I am emotionally attached to many people (only some of whom have been sexual partners) and I thank goodness for that. How cold and lonely I would be without emotional attachments! I take care not to pass on diseases in general whether sexually or not. As I haven't had any STD, I have been more successful at this than I have been about passing on the flu. My chances of getting pregnant are slim to none but I would gratefully and gladly accept a child.
And waiting till marriage may be lovely for those people who are going to get married. You seem to think that includes everyone. It doesn't.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
And waiting till marriage may be lovely for those people who are going to get married. You seem to think that includes everyone. It doesn't.
Especially since the majority of people who demand that sex only take place in marriage oppose masturbation as well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not really relevant as sex and masturbation are qualitatively different actions for me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
And waiting till marriage may be lovely for those people who are going to get married. You seem to think that includes everyone. It doesn't.
Especially since the majority of people who demand that sex only take place in marriage oppose masturbation as well.
I do not see how this had anything to do with what she just said. Care to elaborate?
If I were to hazzard a guess, you just said that frowning on masturbation makes being celebate until marriage unreasonably difficult if not impossible?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Responsible sex - preparing for, taking precautions to avoid and accepting the consequences of sex - is responsible whether or not one is married.
What if marriage is the precaution that is necessary to adequately prepare for the consequences of sex?
If that is the case then you have not taken the precautions needed to accept the consequences of sex if you aren't married, and thus sex outside marriage would always be irresponsible.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay...that is pretty circular. Explain why marriage is a necessary precaution.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QUOTE]
If I were to hazzard a guess, you just said that frowning on masturbation makes being celebate until marriage unreasonably difficult if not impossible?
While emotional needs are obviously not being met, especially when single, the physical urges I would say can go a long way in helping abstain. Unreasonably so? I couldn't say that about everyone no. But not everyone is strong willed enough to handle complete abstinance, and I really think it should be encouraged as an alternative.
Anyways, I went way off topic with my remark, it just pops in my head when ever the sex before marriage debate comes up.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: [QUOTE]
If that is the case then you have not taken the precautions needed to accept the consequences of sex if you aren't married, and thus sex outside marriage would always be irresponsible.
In my case it was both of our first times, so STDs were not an issue. She was on the pill, and we used a condom. I would say that is as safe and as responsible as it gets.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:While emotional needs are obviously not being met, especially when single, the physical urges I would say can go a long way in helping abstain. Unreasonably so? I couldn't say that about everyone no. But not everyone is strong willed enough to handle complete abstinance, and I really think it should be encouraged as an alternative.
See I think that sexuality is certainly a need that must be filled. But in some filling that need could amount to simply observing art, but for others it borders on nymphomania (if you are a girl obviously). I don't think however that in most instances, sex is some uncontrolable need that will make you insane if not submitted to.
I think suggesting that people cannot control themselves in that regard belittles us as a race.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
IN TERMS OF GENERAL SOCIETY, AND NOT IN TERMS OF KMBOOTS' PERSONAL LIFE:
A healthy marriage provides partners with emotional, sexual, and physical stability.
A healthy marriage provides children with two parents who are prepared to shoulder the responsibilities of their existence.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Okay...that is pretty circular. Explain why marriage is a necessary precaution.
Well, I think it is not unreasonable to claim that in order to willingly bring a child into the world, you should be committed to being together to raise that child and to jointly ensuring you have the resources available to raise that child. If that commitment does not exist, how prepared are you really? Especially as a teenager with no career and limited life experience...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I would say that is as safe and as responsible as it gets.
:stunned:
You, sir, lack imagination.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QUOTE] I think suggesting that people cannot control themselves in that regard belittles us as a race.
While there are many great individual humans, as a race I think we deserve to be belittled.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I would say that is as safe and as responsible as it gets.
:stunned:
You, sir, lack imagination.
Maybe I do, but then again I married her, so I haven't been exposed to much else in the way of how it could have turned out differently.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QUOTE] I think suggesting that people cannot control themselves in that regard belittles us as a race.
While there are many great individual humans, as a race I think we deserve to be belittled.
That would certainly shed light on why you hold the views you do on sex before marriage.
I don't mean that in a rude way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But, Scott honey, when you make blanket statements that sex outside of marriage is irresponsible, you are always going to be talking about someone's personal life.
Irresponsible people will have irresponsible sex. Responsible people won't. I agree that teenager are often irresponsible. Forty-three year old woman who was hyper-responsible even as a teenager, not so much. If I got married tomorrow, I could not be any more responsible* without needing therapy.
So, unless you do want to address my personal life, you might consider qualifying your statements.
* with regard to sex
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Irresponsible people will have irresponsible sex. Responsible people won't.
I think responsible people do irresponsible things all the time - because responsible people don't always realize what the responsible thing to do is. People make mistakes. I'm sure there are plenty of responsible people out there contemplating getting abortions right now, who thought they had done everything right and thought they took the right precautions, but made some mistake.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Lyrhawn, where was I talking about legislation or criminalization? Did I not, in fact, state quite clearly that I'm stepping aside from that argument and instead addressing the more culturally-based attitudes that were being expressed in the thread?
quote:
quote:Am I only half a person, somehow, because I didn't do it, and am glad not to have?
Why are you placing that kind of value on sex?
That particular quote was aimed less at you and more at folks who were insinuating that there are certain things that "everybody" does. Since I haven't done those things, I have to wonder by what means have I been excluded from "everybody".
quote:It's about personal choice and freedoms, and the utterly silly nature of criminalizing this as a deterrent, especially when I've seen zero evidence that criminalizing it actually serves as a deterrent. This isn't something we should be solving with punishments and laws, this is something families should be dealing with, families have always traditionally been the ones who have taught their children about sex, why all of a sudden is it the state's job to do everything involved with it?
I agree with you. Like Scott, I'm against laws that mess around with what consenting adults can do in their own bedrooms, and I'm strongly in favor of comprehensive state-sponsored sex education.
I also believe that if we loosen up the legal restrictions (as we should) and disseminate libraries' worth of information on the subject (as we should), then we had better match those things with cultural constraints and expectations that rein in abuse of the system by minors who aren't mature enough to know what they're doing to themselves and others. So far, we've only done step 1 and step 2, and it really bothers me that so many people who agree with me on the first two steps are unwilling to take this all the way and complete the third.
When folks declare that "kids will do it anyway", that can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sure, you can't control other people's choices, and there are a lot of ways you could attempt to do so that would result in more harm than good. But if we give up and tell our kids we expect no better of them than to simply behave like animals and react instinctively to every rush of hormones, then we are not doing our job of preparing them for civilized adult life, either.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kate,
It isn't fair to try and shut down a general discussion by taking it all personally and then appealing to someone's politeness.
In other words, some general discussions will strike closer to home than others, but that doesn't mean those topics should be off limits or that it should be impossible to discuss them generally.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I would say that is as safe and as responsible as it gets.
In regards to Stephan's lack of imagination:
You could've not had sex. That's more responsible.
quote:when you make blanket statements that sex outside of marriage is irresponsible, you are always going to be talking about someone's personal life.
...or abortion, or homosexuality, or pornography. We're always talking about "someone's" personal life, without talking about any one person specifically.
Most people don't take it personally. If you insist on doing so, maybe this isn't the right time for you to be in this conversation.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
You could've not had sex. That's more responsible.
Depends on your definition of responsibility.
Two people, committed and in love. Why does a county document saying we are married make us more responsible? Sure didn't have anything to do with God, my Rabbi said since she wasn't Jewish it wasn't religiously legal.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Why does a county document saying we are married make us more responsible?
This is a backwards way of thinking-- you (again-- NOT YOU SPECIFICALLY) are responsible, THEN or SO you get married, THEN the sex you have is responsible.
The county document doesn't make you responsible. Responsible people get married before having sex because marriage affords protections for couples that staying single does not.
(Now before you go and decry my last statement- I never said it's the ONLY reason...)
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Why does a county document saying we are married make us more responsible?
This is a backwards way of thinking-- you (again-- NOT YOU SPECIFICALLY) are responsible, THEN or SO you get married, THEN the sex you have is responsible.
The county document doesn't make you responsible. Responsible people get married before having sex because marriage affords protections for couples that staying single does not.
(Now before you go and decry my last statement- I never said it's the ONLY reason...)
Maybe I'll surprise you. I agree that responsible people get married. But I don't agree that sex before marriage is ALWAYS irresponsible. But I think this is where faith and religion comes in to play as part of the reason you have your opinion, and I have mine.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I've never mentioned religion as a reason in this thread.
Just so you know.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I've never mentioned religion as a reason in this thread.
Just so you know.
Oh I know, purely me again.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Responsible people get married before having sex because marriage affords protections for couples that staying single does not.
If you are getting married as a way to have sex and insure yourself against single parenthood, it may be responsible, but it seems to me that that's a degraded sense of marriage. Admittedly, I'm a fan of sex before marriage, and marriage for love and not as a way to have sex.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Responsible people get married before having sex because marriage affords protections for couples that staying single does not.
If you are getting married as a way to have sex and insure yourself against single parenthood, it may be responsible, but it seems to me that that's a degraded sense of marriage. Admittedly, I'm a fan of sex before marriage, and marriage for love and not as a way to have sex.
I'm 99% sure I could respond for Scott R, and that is not saying anything bad about him.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So could I, mostly that Irami has completely skipped this sentence:
quote:(Now before you go and decry my last statement- I never said it's the ONLY reason...)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just so you know, I am not "taking this personally" in a way that means my feelings are hurt or that I think anyone is being impolite by answering questions that I ask. Saying "Kate is irresponsible" is no more offensive than saying "people who do X are irresponsible" if I am part of that group. My purpose in bringing my own life into the discussion is not to quell anyone's discussion or to hope that they are too polite to say outright what they want to say. My purpose is to offer a concrete example that I believe contradicts their assumption. If they have concrete answers to why I (or people like me) are irresponsible I still haven't heard them. Other than where specific details might impact the privacy of other people, I am happy and comfortable having that conversation.
If it would make you more comfortable, I could make up an example. She would resemble me.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Scott is defining responsibility in such a way that any extramarital sex is irresponsible, no matter what the circumstances.
But it doesn't have anything to do with religion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kate, your scenario relies WAAY too much on general, intimate, detailed knowledge of your life. How on earth could anyone make a judgment about your life when the only source of information is you on this message board?
I'm responsible - I can prove it! Just ask me! Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Scott is defining responsibility in such a way that any extramarital sex is irresponsible, no matter what the circumstances.
But it doesn't have anything to do with religion.
At this point, I would be thrilled to hear "because God said so". At least that I could understand. I don't really understand any other argument that I have read yet.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
We should use what merriam-webster.com defines as responsible:
1 a : liable to be called on to answer b (1) : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for the job> (2) : being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were responsible for the accident> c : liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties 2 a : able to answer for one's conduct and obligations : TRUSTWORTHY b : able to choose for oneself between right and wrong
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So ask. People who have decided that all sex outside of marriage is irresponsible have already made that judgement about me. Shouldn't you know what the facts are? As I said, outside of impacting other people's privacy, I am happy to answer relevant questions.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Scott is defining responsibility in such a way that any extramarital sex is irresponsible, no matter what the circumstances.
But it doesn't have anything to do with religion.
At this point, I would be thrilled to hear "because God said so". At least that I could understand. I don't really understand any other argument that I have read yet.
I can't say all the oppositions arguements have made much sense to me either.
They seem to be saying, "Hey look an incident where sex took place, but taking my word as the sole authority on the incident, nothing bad happened, therefore premarital sex as a general rule is just fine!"
By itself I think premarital sex contributes to a greater increase in abortions. I believe any abortion that can be avoided is a good thing, therefore premarital sex leads to a situation that I find unfavorable.
I fail to see what horrors and terrible events ensue when somebody keeps it in their pants.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kate, there is no way for you to be the impartial source of information about how responsible you are. It isn't pointless because you don't talk about sex enough - it's pointless because you are not a source of impartial information.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I can't say all the oppositions arguements have made much sense to me either.
They seem to be saying, "Hey look an incident where sex took place but nothing bad happened, therefore premarital sex as a general rule is just fine!"
By itself I think premarital sex contributes to a greater increase in abortions. I believe any abortion that can be avoided is a good thing, therefore premarital sex leads to a situation that I find unfavorable.
I fail to see what horrors and terrible events ensue when somebody keeps it in their pants.
I guess that goes back to are views on the human race. I think 75% are either incapable of keeping it in their pants or are responsible (the vast MINORITY of the 75%) enough to not need to, otherwise everyone would wait for marriage, there would be no need for abortion, and there would be no STDs. Which is why I think it is a waste of time to worry about preaching abstinence ALL the time, but teaching responsibility in using birth control.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But you can decide how responsible I am?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*sigh* You are the one insisting on making this a personal referendum on yourself.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
[pop psychology mode] If Scott admits that it is possible to have responsible sex outside marriage, then he's going to have to admit that all those chances he turned down in his teens and early twenties were missed opportunities, not virtuous responsibility. Obviously he can't do that. [/pop psychology mode]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [pop psychology mode] If Scott admits that it is possible to have responsible sex outside marriage, then he's going to have to admit that all those chances he turned down in his teens and early twenties were missed opportunities, not virtuous responsibility. Obviously he can't do that. [/pop psychology mode]
Sarcasm aside, I still consider him virtuous if he managed to avoid giving in to temptation. Not necessarily more responsible though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As I said, I am using myself as an example. It is the one with which I am most familiar. It is an example that, I believe proves the statement, "all sex outside of marriage is irresponsible" wrong.
I could give other examples:
A man and a woman have lived together for 10 years. She has a son by a previous marriage; they have one son together. How are they being irresponsible. Their son is happy and healthy and loved. How is having sex with her partner irresponsible?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: OK that was moderately funny.
Stephan: There is a disconnect somewhere in your post, I do not follow your conclusion based on your statements. What is wrong with eliminating the need for abortions or STDs?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: KOM: OK that was moderately funny.
Stephan: There is a disconnect somewhere in your post, I do not follow your conclusion based on your statements. What is wrong with eliminating the need for abortions or STDs?
Nothing wrong at all. What I am trying to get at is that I have serious doubts that humanity as a whole is capable of being strictly monogamous, and wait for marriage.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:They seem to be saying, "Hey look an incident where sex took place, but taking my word as the sole authority on the incident, nothing bad happened, therefore premarital sex as a general rule is just fine!"
Well, no. I don't think anyone is saying that premarital sex as a general rule is fine. Rather, I think people are saying that not all premarital sex is necessarily bad.
quote:By itself I think premarital sex contributes to a greater increase in abortions. I believe any abortion that can be avoided is a good thing, therefore premarital sex leads to a situation that I find unfavorable.
What if there is no possible way for the couple to conceive a child? What if both people are ready and willing to have a baby, therefore removing the possibility of an abortion? Would premarital sex then be sometimes acceptable?
Incidentally, there are many activities that involve a certain degree of risk that are not considered irresponsible.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Sarcasm aside, I still consider him virtuous if he managed to avoid giving in to temptation. Not necessarily more responsible though. [/QB]
That makes no sense; it's not virtuous to resist a temptation if you are tempted to do something that does no harm! Consider the temptation to have a cold drink of milk on a hot day; is it virtuous to resist it?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kate, you set up a scenario that basically says "Two people engage in this activity and there are no negative results. What is the negative result?"
Can you see how that's not a good argument?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Sarcasm aside, I still consider him virtuous if he managed to avoid giving in to temptation. Not necessarily more responsible though.
That makes no sense; it's not virtuous to resist a temptation if you are tempted to do something that does no harm! Consider the temptation to have a cold drink of milk on a hot day; is it virtuous to resist it? [/QB]
I find it virtuous because to HIM it would do harm. Whether physically or spiritually it doesn't matter.
And cold milk on a hot day would do some harm to me. I'm lactose intolerant.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I can't say all the oppositions arguements have made much sense to me either.
They seem to be saying, "Hey look an incident where sex took place, but taking my word as the sole authority on the incident, nothing bad happened, therefore premarital sex as a general rule is just fine!"
That's funny, the argument I'm mostly seeing is that there are instances in which premarital sex isn't irresponsible. Which is nothing like the argument you paraphrased.
[ June 07, 2007, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: El JT de Spang ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I actually wish Scott would have said, "Because God says so," instead, I'd rather him look at it like in a pious light rather than like an actuary.
quote:So could I, mostly that Irami has completely skipped this sentence:
quote:(Now before you go and decry my last statement- I never said it's the ONLY reason...)
I didn't skip the sentence, I just don't think it's ever acceptable. I'll put my thinking plainly: "Getting married in order to have sex always degrades marriage."
_____
I believe in romantic love. I don't think the phrase is a punch-line to some joke, and I think marriage is only for people in committed, romantic love.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Kate, you set up a scenario that basically says "Two people engage in this activity and there are no negative results. What is the negative result?"
Can you see how that's not a good argument?
I am responding to a statement that says, "Sex outside of marriage is always irresponsible" by giving examples of sex outside of marriage that I don't think are irresponsible. I am asking to be shown how they are irresponsible or for a retraction of the "always".
Cats are always black. Here are two cats that are orange. Stop making it about those cats.
[ June 07, 2007, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that the idea that romantic love should be the foundation of marriage to be an idea that weakens marriage both for individuals and as an institution.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:What if there is no possible way for the couple to conceive a child? What if both people are ready and willing to have a baby, therefore removing the possibility of an abortion? Would premarital sex then be sometimes acceptable?
Incidentally, there are many activities that involve a certain degree of risk that are not considered irresponsible.
Abortion was not the sole concern, I know its the only one I listed in that particular post, but I posited it as a non religious reason to discourage premarital sex.
quote:Well, no. I don't think anyone is saying that premarital sex as a general rule is fine. Rather, I think people are saying that not all premarital sex is necessarily bad.
See I am getting the vibe that people are saying, "Its going to happen, in fact most people probably will do it, so instead of trying to stop it, lets try to minimize damage if not outright accommodate it."
quote: Nothing wrong at all. What I am trying to get at is that I have serious doubts that humanity as a whole is capable of being strictly monogamous, and wait for marriage.
And I have serious doubts that divorce will ever become non existance or that extra marital affairs will cease, but that does not mean we should not strive to obtain that ideal.
quote: That's funny, the argument I'm mostly seeing is that are instances in which premarital sex isn't irresponsible. Which is nothing like the argument you paraphrased.
Well to put it politely I don't agree with how you are viewing comments in this thread.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I think that the idea that romantic love should be the foundation of marriage to be an idea that weakens marriage both for individuals and as an institution.
I quite agree.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Kate, I think a better analogy to Scott's statement might be something like this:
Gambling with someone else's money you can't afford to lose is irresponsible. But I had a full house, and I won! I'm not talking about a specific hand.
I believe Scott is using one of those "veils of ignorance" -- before you knew that your birth control worked and that neither person suffered any emotional damage, it could be considered irresponsible. Less irresponsible than the actions of someone who takes no precautions, but still irresponsible.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Stray and MPH: I agree, although I would add that it is a sine qua non. Not at full force all the time, but getting or being married and romantic love never being a part of it sounds horrifying.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Has there ever been an example of a pregnancy occuring where both the birth control pill and a condom are used both together and properly?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Kat -- I don't know that phrase, which I'm assuming is Latin. Care to explain in English? Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
THere's a difference between being the 'foundation', as mph suggested, and being a necessary condition, which is what Irami was saying.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Considering that using them both together perfectly still does not have a 0% failure rate, then clearly yes. Consider that typical use does not match perfectt use, and the risk is even higher.
MPH: sine qua non = without which, not
Posted by Mr. Stryker (Member # 10517) on :
I'm with mph and stray on the marriage thing... Marriage can have many foundations. I know in my parents case the foundation for their marriage is their passion for theatre... It is so overwhelming that only they can stand it... Now granted they was an element of romance, but my mother is quick to point out that romance is dead as far as she's concerned...
And my parents have been happily married for almost 30 years...
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:...before you knew that your birth control worked and that neither person suffered any emotional damage, it could be considered irresponsible. Less irresponsible than the actions of someone who takes no precautions, but still irresponsible.
A mother drives her car with her child along. There is a slight possibility that they could get into a car accident and the child could die. She could have left the child at home, thus completely eliminating the risk of the child dying in a car accident. If the mother knew about the risk but decided to go ahead with it while taking precautions to make the child as safe as possible in the car, is the mother acting irresponsibly?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
I think generalizations about anything are dangerous and usually wrong. It's the white crow argument William James made about trance mediums: "To upset the conclusion that all crows are black, there is no need to seek demonstration that no crows are black; it is sufficient to produce one white crow."
The conclusion that all sex outside of marriage is irresponsible seems to me first to be culturally bounded, reliant upon a society that (like ours) has increasingly enshrined sex as the sole prerogative of the married couple. This has not always been true, just as the concept that one should marry for love is a fairly recent (and Western) development. Now, we can say that "Within American culture right now, all sex outside of marriage is irresponsible." That's a more defensible claim, I think, but still leaves unclear *why* it is irresponsible, which almost certainly will lead us into larger social analysis and various caveats.
This is particularly touchy for Mormons, I think, because since the end of polygamy the church has worked hard to invest monogamous marriage with divine significance; perhaps intentionally and perhaps unintentionally, this has also resulted in a glorification of a particularly mid-twentieth-century American version of the family, based on sentimental love and a particular understanding of gender relationships. All of this has made sex and marriage central to Mormon culture in ways beyond most other denominations.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Considering that using them both together perfectly still does not have a 0% failure rate, then clearly yes. Consider that typical use does not match perfectt use, and the risk is even higher.
I have heard of one or the other failing. And I know 98% plus 90% effective does not equal 188% effective, but I have never heard of it happening. In a committed relationship of love, that just wants to wait to save up for a nicer marriage, I see no evidence as to how it is irresponsible.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Has there ever been an example of a pregnancy occuring where both the birth control pill and a condom are used both together and properly?
Though extremely rare, I'm sure it happens.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: rollanim--
I figured. However, Lyrhawn says:
quote:This isn't something we should be solving with punishments and laws, this is something families should be dealing with, families have always traditionally been the ones who have taught their children about sex, why all of a sudden is it the state's job to do everything involved with it?
I'm not committed to debating this-- I believe in publicly funded sex ed, *because* parents are not teaching their children, and the topic is important enough to society to deserve talking about.
But SOME people might note the irony inherent in Lyrhawn's position.
No, that was not a call for removing sex ed from schools. If anything I was saying that schools need to have more options available in sex ed. I don't find irony in my position. Schools should provide comprehensive sex education, but the moral foundation, and another layer of defense needs to come from families. Schools can't raise our children for us. Schools only need to have sex ed anyway because families dropped the ball on it, I agree with you there. I don't see why it needs to be an either/or stance. It's not that parents or the schools need to do it, I don't see why both can't. Schools provide unbiased text book information, the science of the matter. Parents need to be the ones who step in and really help their children weigh the consequences, to judge whether or not they are emotionall ready, the stuff you don't get from a text book. Not necessarily that kids are going to have long drawn out conversations with their parents on the pros and cons of a specific sexual act with a specific person, but parents can lay a foundation for good judgement and the like.
I don't see the irony.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Well to put it politely I don't agree with how you are viewing comments in this thread.
We must not be talking about the same comments, then. I'm talking about the discussion that's been happening over the last few pages.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:...before you knew that your birth control worked and that neither person suffered any emotional damage, it could be considered irresponsible. Less irresponsible than the actions of someone who takes no precautions, but still irresponsible.
A mother drives her car with her child along. There is a slight possibility that they could get into a car accident and the child could die. She could have left the child at home, thus completely eliminating the risk of the child dying in a car accident. If the mother knew about the risk but decided to go ahead with it while taking precautions to make the child as safe as possible in the car, is the mother acting irresponsibly?
That does not make sense. Is there a Nanny at home who can look after the baby while mommy is away? Is the woman running an errand that required the child's presence? Like a haircut?
Posted by Mr. Stryker (Member # 10517) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Has there ever been an example of a pregnancy occuring where both the birth control pill and a condom are used both together and properly?
Though extremely rare, I'm sure it happens.
It does happen.... and that is why I'm an uncle.... 5 times over... one would think the my older sisters would have figured out that they BOTH are the most fertile women in the universe...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Well to put it politely I don't agree with how you are viewing comments in this thread.
We must not be talking about the same comments, then. I'm talking about the discussion that's been happening over the last few pages.
So am I, go figure.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Has there ever been an example of a pregnancy occuring where both the birth control pill and a condom are used both together and properly?
I'm sure it's happened to some poor soul, but you'd have to be ridiculously unlucky and/or ridiculously fertile to get pregnant while on two pretty effective means of birth control.
Then again, people win the lottery and get struck by lightning.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Stryker:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Has there ever been an example of a pregnancy occuring where both the birth control pill and a condom are used both together and properly?
Though extremely rare, I'm sure it happens.
It does happen.... and that is why I'm an uncle.... 5 times over... one would think the my older sisters would have figured out that they BOTH are the most fertile women in the universe...
Condom AND birth control pill together every time, properly? Wow. Not to be gross or anything but I would almost want to see it happen to believe it. If its true, amazing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Lyrhawn, where was I talking about legislation or criminalization? Did I not, in fact, state quite clearly that I'm stepping aside from that argument and instead addressing the more culturally-based attitudes that were being expressed in the thread?
quote:
quote:Am I only half a person, somehow, because I didn't do it, and am glad not to have?
Why are you placing that kind of value on sex?
That particular quote was aimed less at you and more at folks who were insinuating that there are certain things that "everybody" does. Since I haven't done those things, I have to wonder by what means have I been excluded from "everybody".
quote:It's about personal choice and freedoms, and the utterly silly nature of criminalizing this as a deterrent, especially when I've seen zero evidence that criminalizing it actually serves as a deterrent. This isn't something we should be solving with punishments and laws, this is something families should be dealing with, families have always traditionally been the ones who have taught their children about sex, why all of a sudden is it the state's job to do everything involved with it?
I agree with you. Like Scott, I'm against laws that mess around with what consenting adults can do in their own bedrooms, and I'm strongly in favor of comprehensive state-sponsored sex education.
I also believe that if we loosen up the legal restrictions (as we should) and disseminate libraries' worth of information on the subject (as we should), then we had bettermatch those things with cultural constraints and expectations that rein in abuse of the system by minors who aren't mature enough to know what they're doing to themselves and others. So far, we've only done step 1 and step 2, and it really bothers me that so many people who agree with me on the first two steps are unwilling to take this all the way and complete the third.
When folks declare that "kids will do it anyway", that can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sure, you can't control other people's choices, and there are a lot of ways you could attempt to do so that would result in more harm than good. But if we give up and tell our kids we expect no better of them than to simply behave like animals and react instinctively to every rush of hormones, then we are not doing our job of preparing them for civilized adult life, either.
That first part makes more sense then. I'm not adding any kind of "everyone is doing it" value (if that's even value) onto sex. It's a personal choice. If you don't regret decisions you made in high school and college or what not, then I don't think you missed anything. It's different for everyone.
Could you further elaborate on what I put in italics up there? I want to be sure of what you mean, but I think I get what you're saying.
I fully agree with what you're saying at the end there. Saying things like "oh boys will be boys" and what not are cop-outs from good parenting. Parents should demand responsible choices from their children, but, I disagree (I think with Scott) that teens are inherently incapable of making a responsible choice to partake in this specific act of love. I worry that the emotional damage from having society make teen sex into a taboo (which is unlikely almost to a point of absurd, I know) wouldn't be worth the benefits of such. I think that part of the problem needs to be handled within families, in discussions and conversations between teens and their parents about their lives. Parents need to be more involved. I think we can all agree on that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Then again, people win the lottery and get struck by lightning.
And in some instance die of a heart attack when the realize they won the lottery.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:That does not make sense. Is there a Nanny at home who can look after the baby while mommy is away? Is the woman running an errand that required the child's presence? Like a haircut?
It doesn't matter. The point being that people that are willing to engage in actions that have a certain amount of risk are not always considered irresponsible. Therefore, being willing to take risks does not in itself make someone irresponsible.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Well to put it politely I don't agree with how you are viewing comments in this thread.
We must not be talking about the same comments, then. I'm talking about the discussion that's been happening over the last few pages.
So am I, go figure.
You might think you are, but you're not.
Since the top of page 3, 3 people have defended pre- or extramarital sex. Here are the caveats from each of them:
quote:Lyr I'm not saying that sex is good and that everyone SHOULD do it.
quote:kmbboots I am not saying that teenage sex is something we should trivialize.
quote:Stephan But I don't agree that sex before marriage is ALWAYS irresponsible.
(meaning he does SOMETIMES agree it is irresponsible)
Then comes your post:
quote:They seem to be saying, "Hey look an incident where sex took place, but taking my word as the sole authority on the incident, nothing bad happened, therefore premarital sex as a general rule is just fine!"
So, I'll ask again -- who exactly, is saying this?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Kat -- I'm still not positive I understand what you were trying to say. Is there some significance to the Latin phrase that can't be communicated in English?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
She's saying she agree with you that romantic love shouldn't be the sole basis for marriage, but that a marriage without romantic love would be unfortunate.
(edit: I think, anyway.)
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
I'm pretty sure that's what she meant.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:That does not make sense. Is there a Nanny at home who can look after the baby while mommy is away? Is the woman running an errand that required the child's presence? Like a haircut?
It doesn't matter. The point being that people that are willing to engage in actions that have a certain amount of risk are not always considered irresponsible. Therefore, being willing to take risks does not in itself make someone irresponsible.
Actually I think that is a good point. Does risk equal irresponsibility? According to the definition of responsible I posted earlier, it only requires that one is "able to answer for one's conduct and obligations". If my girlfriend (current wife) had gotten pregnant I would have been able and willing to marry her.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Matt, that make a great deal of sense to me. And, though I don't accept it as true, I won't argue with a "for us, God says so" reason. Scott, though has (I think) said (or at least) implied that his reasons are not religious.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I tell my kids that marriage is not about love, it's about commitment. Yet, you should only make that sort of commitment to someone you love.
I think assuming romantic love and passion and the feelings they bring you must always be present for there to be a happy marriage, is a sure way to set oneself up for disappointment. I do not feel the exact same passion and fiery, romantic love I felt for my husband the first few months we dated. I still love him fiercely, but it's deepened and improved, in my mind, to a much better relationship over the years and a more fulfilling love. If I had believed from the beginning I must always feel the fiery passion, I would have thought the marriage was over years ago, and how sad that would have been.
So, while romantic love is a great thing, and yes one should marry someone that you share that romantic love with, I do not think one should always feel the exact same way throughout the years of marriage. Many people think if they no longer have the exact same all-consuming passion the love is gone, and leave in order to seek that all-consuming passion with another, If they do that, sometimes they are missing the crucial ingredient of commitment that I think should be the true foundation of all marriage.
This not to say that all marriages end for that reason, I know full well there are some excellent reasons for divorce and not every marriage should always stay together, but I think far too many end because one or both partners has valued romantic love over commitment.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think far too many end because one or both partners has valued romantic love over commitment.
I agree.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Sure didn't have anything to do with God
Perhaps it should have.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [pop psychology mode] If Scott admits that it is possible to have responsible sex outside marriage, then he's going to have to admit that all those chances he turned down in his teens and early twenties were missed opportunities, not virtuous responsibility. Obviously he can't do that. [/pop psychology mode]
You realize, of course, that this can just as easily be turned in the other direction?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think keeping a firearm in your home, loaded, is about as irresponsible as having sex outside of marriage.
Now. There may be things that can be done to alleviate the harmful effects of that firearm, and that sex. Safeties abound; gun cabinets and so on. BUT the fact remains that you've got a weapon primed to kill in your home. You've made a conscious choice to retain it.
There are levels of irresponsibility to this; but as a guy who hates firearms I'm always going have a little tickle of...dismay, disappointment, etc, for the idea that keeping them in the home is a-okay, safe-as-long-as-you-do-X.
It's a similar feeling with extramarital sex.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Since I haven't read all 5 pages of this thread, I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet. If a 15 year old isn't mature enough to consent to sexual relations with another teenager, why should we believe that a 17 year old is mature enough to be charged and tried as an adult for a sexual crime?
You can't have it both ways. If teenagers aren't mature enough to make adult decisions like whether or not they engage in sex, then they are not mature enough to be held responsible for those decisions in the adult criminal system.
While I fully agree that this young man, by all reports, was behaving in a recklessly irresponsible and reprehensible manner, irresponsibility is one of the hallmarks of immaturity. The judgement centers in the brain of a 17 year old haven't matured. There are real biological reasons why it is unreasonable to hold minors to the same standard as adults. In another 3 to 5 years, most 17 year olds brains will have matured and they will begin to be have in a more responsible manner if they are given the chance. That is why they shouldn't simply be thrown into an adult prison.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That describes how you feel, but not why. Sex is not designed to kill people. Sex is a good thing. A powerful thing, of course, but it's purpose is not to harm people.
Even so, would you feel that a police office is irresponsible for having a gun? What about people in the army on active duty?
Sometimes it is responsible to deal with powerful, even dangerous things. How you do that is what determines if someone is being responsible.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Moose: Kate, I think a better analogy to Scott's statement might be something like this:
Gambling with someone else's money you can't afford to lose is irresponsible. But I had a full house, and I won! I'm not talking about a specific hand.
I believe Scott is using one of those "veils of ignorance" -- before you knew that your birth control worked and that neither person suffered any emotional damage, it could be considered irresponsible. Less irresponsible than the actions of someone who takes no precautions, but still irresponsible.
Sorry, Papa, I didn't see this. My version of this analogy would be:
Two people together decide to pool their money and make an investment. They research the investment, they understand the risks and do what they can to minimize them, and risk no more than they can afford. Together decide that it is well worth the investment. Their investment pays off abundantly.
Repeat for 25 years.
Sure there is risk. There is risk in almost anything. Friendship, love, crossing the street. But you can still do those things with care and responsibility.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think far too many end because one or both partners has valued romantic love over commitment.
What value DOES romantic love have, then? At what point does someone in a marriage without it become justified in seeking it elsewhere, if they put a positive value on romance?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Sometimes it is responsible to deal with powerful, even dangerous things. How you do that is what determines if someone is being responsible.
I completely agree with this. This concept is part of my understanding of why it is important to limit sex to within the confines of marriage. I think that what we believe actually isn't that far off from each other. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I put a big value on commitment as well in a marriage. I would also suggest that it is important to keep the romantic fire tended and burning. Agreed, it does deepen and mature as you pass the years together. But you should still be able to hold hands and, you know, nuzzle each other's cheeks with your noses 20 years after you went on your first date.
Should that romance die down too far, you are NOT automatically justified in seeking it elsewhere. Rather, your commitment should lead you to look for ways to rekindle it, and then stick to it.
I don't think you will ever know the full extent of the love you can have for each other if you do not stick with it through the tough times. And that love is one of life's chief rewards.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In my experience, it is possible to be responsible without being married. No one has demonstrated to me yet why this can't be true. I am answerable for my actions.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:In my experience, it is possible to be responsible without being married. No one has demonstrated to me yet why this can't be true. I am answerable for my actions.
In my experience, you're wrong.
:shrug:
Rabbit--
quote: If a 15 year old isn't mature enough to consent to sexual relations with another teenager, why should we believe that a 17 year old is mature enough to be charged and tried as an adult for a sexual crime?
You haven't read the whole thread, so let me let you know-- no one's arguing that the sentencing was just.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
It should be noted that pregnancy is not the only serious consequence related to the choice to have sex. If it were, then extensive birth control might be good enough to justify casual sex. That is not the case, though. I would think sex is riddled with possible serious consequences, including but not limited to:
-Pregnancy, as has been discussed on this thread -STDs -The potential for sexual abuse -Powerful emotional bonds/promises created by the act... Marriages have been ended because one partner had relations with someone outside the marriage. Relationships have been destroyed by it. People have been killed over it. To most people, it is emotionally far more than just a way to have fun. -Reputation issues... including the devaluation of women in subcultures where women with multiple partners in their past are looked down upon. -The potential dehumanization of the opposite sex... looking at them as sexual objects -Addiction to sexual behavior... which can be a problem when a partner is not available. (I would guess this might be related to the abuse issue.) -Legal issues, such as the incident being discussed on this thread... -A powerful influence on peers, especially for teenagers: Even if you are a responsible person having sex, that act is likely to encourage irresponsible people to have sex too. If it seems like "everyone is doing it" people feel pressured to do it, even when they would otherwise realize they aren't ready. -Religious issues above and beyond anything listed above.
All of these are issues that I know exist. Some only rarely become an issue; some are more common. Some are life-ruining; some are simply problematic. When added together, I think they represent a significant risk that is not resolved by anything as simple as taking a pill. Instead, to be able to deal with these potential issues if they arise requires a degree of responsibility and maturity that many people think they have, but which often they actually do not - particularly among teenagers. (That's the kicker. Most people think they are responsible, but how do you know you aren't one of those people who thinks they are but isn't? There is no surefire test for responsibility) Many of the issues, if you look through them, also tend to be resolved if you are in a permanent, committed relationship.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I am answerable for my actions.
One view of responsibility is not to look at it as being accountable for past actions, but as having the will to not act a certain way in the first place.
I'm a responsible citizen-- therefore I pay taxes vs. I'm responsible for my failure to pay taxes, therefore, I pay that which I owe to the IRS.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I am answerable for my actions.
One view of responsibility is not to look at it as being accountable for past actions, but as having the will to not act a certain way in the first place.
Ah, but now you are touching more on morality then on responsibility. If you are saying it is immoral to have pre-marital sex, I can deal with it. Look at the definition of the English word responsible I posted that we are all using. How were we not responsible?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Sure didn't have anything to do with God
Perhaps it should have.
Perhaps. But as much as I respect and honor it, unfortunately I don't quite have your level of faith.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:What value DOES romantic love have, then? At what point does someone in a marriage without it become justified in seeking it elsewhere, if they put a positive value on romance?
It has enormous value. But to me, it's not the most important one. We probably would have to talk about specifics, because "romantic love" is probably defined differently by each of us.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:All of these are issues that I know exist. Some only rarely become an issue; some are more common. Some are life-ruining; some are simply problematic. When added together, I think they represent a significant risk that is not resolved by anything as simple as taking a pill...Many of the issues, if you look through them, also tend to be resolved if you are in a permanent, committed relationship.
All of those issues are also possible serious consequences of falling in love. Is falling in love outside of marriage also an irresponsible act?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:but now you are touching more on morality then on responsibility.
That's a curious way to look at things-- as if morality and responsibility are separate things, rather than complimentary.
Responsible Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:but now you are touching more on morality then on responsibility.
That's a curious way to look at things-- as if morality and responsibility are separate things, rather than complimentary.
Every part of that definition talks about accountability. We were accountable for our actions. The only part that mentioned morality talked about being capable of moral decision making.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: -Pregnancy, as has been discussed on this thread -STDs -The potential for sexual abuse -Powerful emotional bonds/promises created by the act... Marriages have been ended because one partner had relations with someone outside the marriage. Relationships have been destroyed by it. People have been killed over it. To most people, it is emotionally far more than just a way to have fun. -Reputation issues... including the devaluation of women in subcultures where women with multiple partners in their past are looked down upon. -The potential dehumanization of the opposite sex... looking at them as sexual objects -Addiction to sexual behavior... which can be a problem when a partner is not available. (I would guess this might be related to the abuse issue.) -Legal issues, such as the incident being discussed on this thread... -A powerful influence on peers, especially for teenagers: Even if you are a responsible person having sex, that act is likely to encourage irresponsible people to have sex too. If it seems like "everyone is doing it" people feel pressured to do it, even when they would otherwise realize they aren't ready. -Religious issues above and beyond anything listed above.
All of these are issues that I know exist. Some only rarely become an issue; some are more common. Some are life-ruining; some are simply problematic. When added together, I think they represent a significant risk that is not resolved by anything as simple as taking a pill. Instead, to be able to deal with these potential issues if they arise requires a degree of responsibility and maturity that many people think they have, but which often they actually do not - particularly among teenagers. (That's the kicker. Most people think they are responsible, but how do you know you aren't one of those people who thinks they are but isn't? There is no surefire test for responsibility) Many of the issues, if you look through them, also tend to be resolved if you are in a permanent, committed relationship.
Pregancy - addressed already
STDs - also addressed
Potential for sexual abuse - not sure what you mean by that. I am talking about consensual sex with adults.
Powerful emotional bonds - Thank goodness for powerful emotional bonds. I would hate to live without them. I have powerful emotional bonds with many people, sisters and brothers, parents, friends, nieces and nephews, lovers - all of them fraught with risk, all of them well worth it. Sex, for me, isn't just about having fun; it is about forming powerful emotional bonds.
Reputation issues - I am not ashamed of anything (clearly). My friends and family don't have a problem with it. Except for you all, the people with whom I associate think I am pretty tame. This includes the ladies from church choir.
I neither dehumanize people, nor am I addicted to sex. People can become addicted to anything. Eating for example.
Legal Issues - As I am not having sex with minors.
Pressure on others - my peers are grown ups. At any rate, I am answerable for my conduct, not the conduct of others.
Religious issues - Scott has said that this isn't about religion and I am taking him at his word. And I have addressed the religious issues, for me, about a zillion times on other threads.
I get that there are risks. I agree that many people don't handle those risks responsibly. I especially agree that this is often true of teenagers. Sex is not a trivial thing and it shouldn't be treated as trivial. I don't agree that marriage is the only way ever to be responsible about it. Hence my objection to "always".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:In my experience, it is possible to be responsible without being married. No one has demonstrated to me yet why this can't be true. I am answerable for my actions.
In my experience, you're wrong.
:shrug:
So we have two different kinds of experiences. Which means not always. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:All of those issues are also possible serious consequences of falling in love. Is falling in love outside of marriage also an irresponsible act?
No, only two of those issues are consequences of falling in love, if you don't have sex. Falling in love does create powerful bonds (although of a different sort than sex) and it can put you at risk of sexual abuse (though a smaller risk if you aren't having sex). It doesn't normally by itself lead to any of the other things I listed though.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Well to put it politely I don't agree with how you are viewing comments in this thread.
We must not be talking about the same comments, then. I'm talking about the discussion that's been happening over the last few pages.
So am I, go figure.
You might think you are, but you're not.
Since the top of page 3, 3 people have defended pre- or extramarital sex. Here are the caveats from each of them:
quote:Lyr I'm not saying that sex is good and that everyone SHOULD do it.
quote:kmbboots I am not saying that teenage sex is something we should trivialize.
quote:Stephan But I don't agree that sex before marriage is ALWAYS irresponsible.
(meaning he does SOMETIMES agree it is irresponsible)
Then comes your post:
quote:They seem to be saying, "Hey look an incident where sex took place, but taking my word as the sole authority on the incident, nothing bad happened, therefore premarital sex as a general rule is just fine!"
So, I'll ask again -- who exactly, is saying this?
Well for one thing that comment was mostly formed by kmbboots description of her own "responsible" sexual encounter. But you will note that right next to that post Stephan said,
quote:"I guess that goes back to are views on the human race. I think 75% are either incapable of keeping it in their pants or are responsible (the vast MINORITY of the 75%) enough to not need to..."
I could be wrong but that SOUNDS like saying, the majorit of the human race will do it, so etc...
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:At any rate, I am answerable for my conduct, not the conduct of others.
Actually, I'd say in order to be truly responsible, one should be considering the way one's conduct impacts the conduct of others.
Consider, for instance, that although your peers may be adults, there may be several people on this forum reading this thread who are not adults.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Sure didn't have anything to do with God
Perhaps it should have.
Perhaps. But as much as I respect and honor it, unfortunately I don't quite have your level of faith.
Understood. I am congenitally unable to let something like that pass without comment, though. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do you only do things that you think everyone should do? What if a 10 year old sees you drive a car and decides to try driving. Are you being irresponsible by driving?
Actually, driving is pretty risky. I could think that all of you who drive cars are irresponsible. People get killed everyday while driving.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Well to put it politely I don't agree with how you are viewing comments in this thread.
We must not be talking about the same comments, then. I'm talking about the discussion that's been happening over the last few pages.
So am I, go figure.
You might think you are, but you're not.
Since the top of page 3, 3 people have defended pre- or extramarital sex. Here are the caveats from each of them:
quote:Lyr I'm not saying that sex is good and that everyone SHOULD do it.
quote:kmbboots I am not saying that teenage sex is something we should trivialize.
quote:Stephan But I don't agree that sex before marriage is ALWAYS irresponsible.
(meaning he does SOMETIMES agree it is irresponsible)
Then comes your post:
quote:They seem to be saying, "Hey look an incident where sex took place, but taking my word as the sole authority on the incident, nothing bad happened, therefore premarital sex as a general rule is just fine!"
So, I'll ask again -- who exactly, is saying this?
Well for one thing that comment was mostly formed by kmbboots description of her own "responsible" sexual encounter. But you will note that right next to that post Stephan said,
quote:"I guess that goes back to are views on the human race. I think 75% are either incapable of keeping it in their pants or are responsible (the vast MINORITY of the 75%) enough to not need to..."
I could be wrong but that SOUNDS like saying, the majorit of the human race will do it, so etc...
I don't think I ever said general premarital sex is just fine. I'm saying responsible premarital sex is fine.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote: It doesn't normally by itself lead to any of the other things I listed though.
The fact that most of the things you listed are potential or possible consequences means that there needs to be something else that facilitates it, such as attitudes and other outside factors. Acknowledging, understanding and dealing with those factors, imo, is a better indicator of responsibility than the person that abstains for no valid reason.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I don't think I ever said general premarital sex is just fine. I'm saying responsible premarital sex is fine. [/qb]
So when you said, "What I am trying to get at is that I have serious doubts that humanity as a whole is capable of being strictly monogamous, and wait for marriage," you believe it will happen generally but that so far as it's done irresponsibly that is not a good thing? Do you think that most instances of premarital sex are responsible? If most people are going to do it, does the blame that it is not done responsibly rest on the adults for not preparing them?
Just want to make sure I am not making responses to arguements that do not exist.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I dare say most people think in a situation they are right and the exception to all the bad consequences and of course responsible, unlike all those other people. That's why we have principles in the first place.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
kat, your principles are different from mine. If you think I (or, if you prefer, the other example I gave) am irresponsible, show me how.
Or stop calling me incapable of understanding my own life.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You are incapable of giving an impartial assesment of your life. That's not an insult - that applies to everyone.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Do you only do things that you think everyone should do?
No, I consider how my behavior might impact other people, but there are many other considerations too. When I drive my car, I consider my need to get whereever I'm going to far outweigh the relatively tiny danger that some kid is going to get hurt trying to imitate me.
But, at least when it comes to particularly risky things, the impact on others should at least be considered. In certain cases, where the need to do something is minor and the danger that it might negatively influence someone is very great, that by itself might be reason not to do that thing. For instance, do you consider it irresponsible to curse a lot around little kids? I'd say it is irresponsible, because there is little need for you to do it, and because little kids are very likely to imitate things like that.
I would not say premarital sex is one of those certain cases like cursing around little kids, because I doubt (at least in your case) your choice by itself is going to radically influence anyone else's behavior. But collectively our decisions influence the behavior of those in our society enough that it should at least be some small consideration.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
kmboots:
People have to meet certain socially mandated requirements in order to be licensed to drive. This is because we recognize that a certain mindset, and certain circumstances must be met for safety's sake.
Was this the point you wanted to make?
quote:So we have two different kinds of experiences. Which means not always.
No. Having sex before marriage is always irresponsible to some degree. One may never be forced to face the grave consequences, but that doesn't make the action LESS irresponsible.
Our different experiences only lead us to different conclusions. They don't change the reality of the above statement.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:You are incapable of giving an impartial assesment of your life
But I am in a better position than anyone else when it comes to assessing my own life. I may not be able to assess my life impartially, but then, no one else can impartially assess my life either.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I think y'all may have different definitions of "irresponsible."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think so, too.
I'm not willing to compromise on mine.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:<insert any action> is always irresponsible to some degree. One may never be forced to face the grave consequences, but that doesn't make the action LESS irresponsible.
So basically doing anything is in some way irresponsible. Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I don't think I ever said general premarital sex is just fine. I'm saying responsible premarital sex is fine.
So when you said, "What I am trying to get at is that I have serious doubts that humanity as a whole is capable of being strictly monogamous, and wait for marriage," you believe it will happen generally but that so far as it's done irresponsibly that is not a good thing? Do you think that most instances of premarital sex are responsible? If most people are going to do it, does the blame that it is not done responsibly rest on the adults for not preparing them?
Just want to make sure I am not making responses to arguements that do not exist. [/QB]
In this thread the point I'm trying to make is that premarital sex CAN be done responsibly.
I agree that is it not a good thing that it happens so often irresponsibly.
I strongly believe that no amount of preaching, screaming, or enacting laws is going to stop it happening so often.
Because it CAN happen responsibly, I don't see the harm in creating many programs to encourage it be done responsibly for those who choose to engage in premarital sex.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You have yet to show me how it is irresponsible. You keep making that assertion. How have I failed to answer for my actions? Been unwilling to face possible consequences?
Or if not me, how has my other example been irresponsible? How has she not met her obligations?
Swimming. Also very risky. People drown. Those olympic swimmers - very irresponsible.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kate, you continue to insist on making this personal and demanding judgement with yourself as the only knowledge source. It would be nice to discuss this in abstract instead of continually needing to soothe your ruffled feathers because you're taking it personally.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I don't think I ever said general premarital sex is just fine. I'm saying responsible premarital sex is fine.
So when you said, "What I am trying to get at is that I have serious doubts that humanity as a whole is capable of being strictly monogamous, and wait for marriage," you believe it will happen generally but that so far as it's done irresponsibly that is not a good thing? Do you think that most instances of premarital sex are responsible? If most people are going to do it, does the blame that it is not done responsibly rest on the adults for not preparing them?
Just want to make sure I am not making responses to arguements that do not exist.
In this thread the point I'm trying to make is that premarital sex CAN be done responsibly.
I agree that is it not a good thing that it happens so often irresponsibly.
I strongly believe that no amount of preaching, screaming, or enacting laws is going to stop it happening so often.
Because it CAN happen responsibly, I don't see the harm in creating many programs to encourage it be done responsibly for those who choose to engage in premarital sex. [/QB]
OK, I think I understand you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You have yet to show me how it is irresponsible.
[EDIT]No, I've just failed to convince you.
I'm okay with that.
quote: How have I failed to answer for my actions? Been unwilling to face possible consequences?
Megan pointed out that we're using different definitions of the word 'irresponsible.' I agreed with her; this shows the difference.
I believe it is possible to be irresponsible before the consequence becomes apparent. You seem to think that irresponsibility is only displayed post-consequence.
Also, really-- stop asking me to judge your life and character. I've got no interest in taking over from the Man whose job it already is.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I think so, too.
I'm not willing to compromise on mine.
And that's your prerogative, of course.
But if you'd like for the discussion to become productive, I would suggest outlining what your definitions are (what, exactly, do you think makes all extra-marital sex irresponsible, for example, if you're not talking about possible consequences--what makes the risks of extra-marital sex so much worse than, say, the risks of driving a car or walking near a busy street, and what is it about marriage that makes those risks suddenly acceptable).
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: kmboots:
People have to meet certain socially mandated requirements in order to be licensed to drive. This is because we recognize that a certain mindset, and certain circumstances must be met for safety's sake.
Was this the point you wanted to make?
quote:So we have two different kinds of experiences. Which means not always.
No. Having sex before marriage is always irresponsible to some degree. One may never be forced to face the grave consequences, but that doesn't make the action LESS irresponsible.
Our different experiences only lead us to different conclusions. They don't change the reality of the above statement.
The ONLY grave consequence I faced was my girlfriend getting pregnant, which would have been far less likely then dying in a plane crash, or even less likely then having a misccarriage with a planned pregnancy.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:No, I consider how my behavior might impact other people, but there are many other considerations too. When I drive my car, I consider my need to get whereever I'm going to far outweigh the relatively tiny danger that some kid is going to get hurt trying to imitate me.
So different situations have different levels of risk and value that help determine how responsible a person is. Yet, you think that your personal assessment of these things based on your personal opinions should be used as a universal measuring stick for everyone regardless of their personal opinions?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Yet, you think that your personal assessment of these things based on your personal opinions should be used as a universal measuring stick for everyone regardless of their personal opinions?
I don't see where he's done that, unless expressing his opinion is construed as doing so.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Yet, you think that your personal assessment of these things based on your personal opinions should be used as a universal measuring stick for everyone regardless of their personal opinions?
No, I absolutely don't think that. Doing whatever I say just because I say it, without thinking for yourself, would be a terrible way to make decisions!
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:No, I absolutely don't think that. Doing whatever I say just because I say it, without thinking for yourself, would be a terrible way to make decisions!
Ah, perhaps I misunderstood your position. Is this more accurate? You believe that doing z is irresponsible based on your values, but other values might lead to a belief that doing z can be done responsibly. Both opinions are valid depending on personal beliefs and values.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The ONLY grave consequence
I admit that my term "grave consequence" is utterly subjective.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, as I have said, you are the one who decided to judge my behavior. You just do it in the abstract. All I have done is point out that it is mine. If your judgement is correct, why should putting a face on it bother you?
All you have done is assert your opinion; you haven't backed it up. How does my behavior - or if you prefer "Mary's" (the other woman I mentioned) behavior fit your definition of irresponsible?
No, I don't think that irresponsibility is only displayed post consequence. I haven't made that clear. I think responsibility is assessing the risks beforehand and making an informed decision beforehand to accept and prepare for those risks and consequences. My only purpose in mentioning that I haven't had any consequences that I regret is to show that my assessments have consistantly been correct.
kat, how, exactly, have you done anything to sooth my "ruffled feathers". Which, by the way, are not particularly ruffled. I use the example that I am most familiar with. Pretend it isn't me, if that makes you more comfortable.
And, as I have also said, if you are tired of my example, I have provided another.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:[snipped, as it is irrelevant to my point]
:stunned:
You, sir, lack imagination.
Odd, this is exactly the same reaction I am having towards your arguments, Scott R. I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm just trying to understand how you can categorically make an assertion (that it is always irresponsible to engage in extramarital sex) without addressing Kate's counterexample (aside from simply saying "you are wrong") or camus's points about risk.
I'd also be very interested in hearing your answers to Megan's questions:
quote:Originally posted by Megan: But if you'd like for the discussion to become productive, I would suggest outlining what your definitions are (what, exactly, do you think makes all extra-marital sex irresponsible, for example, if you're not talking about possible consequences--what makes the risks of extra-marital sex so much worse than, say, the risks of driving a car or walking near a busy street, and what is it about marriage that makes those risks suddenly acceptable).
As it stands now, though, it sounds like you are saying "Anyone who doesn't live the way I do is irresponsible, and that's just the way it is." Is this indeed what you are saying?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kate, since every post is apparently all about you and you demand a personal judgement, it would be rude not to soothe your clearly ruffled and wonky feathers. Really - this isn't a personal judgment about you and it especially isn't all about you. Stop trying to make it one.
1) I'm not at all interested in your sex life, 2) It is impossible given these circumstances 3) It isn't my job in the first place.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:You believe that doing z is irresponsible based on your values, but other values might lead to a belief that doing z can be done responsibly.
It would be more accurate to say this: I believe that doing z is irresponsible based in part on what I believe is valuable . If one disagrees with me on what is valuable, then that might also lead them to disagree with me on whether or not z is responsible.
However, it should be added that I am inclined to believe I am correct about what is valuable, and that those who disagree with me are mistaken, until I can see a good reason why I should believe otherwise (in which case I'd probably change what I believe to be valuable). I also think others should be inclined to believe they are correct about what is valuable, and should think I am mistaken if I disagree with them, until I can demonstrate some good reason to them that they should agree with me on what is valuable.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
So ya I mention the news in this thread to friends of mine.
Blayne: Hey guys apparently a 17 year old honor student got sentenced to 10 years in prison no parole.
Friends: What for?
Blayne: Having oral sex with a 15 year old.
Friends: Wait how old was he?
Blayne: 17.
Friends: *Shocked* And where is this?
Blayne: Georgia.
Friends: Ahhh thats right, that explains everything.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:However, it should be added that I am inclined to believe I am correct about what is valuable, and that those who disagree with me are mistaken, until I can see a good reason why I should believe otherwise (in which case I'd probably change what I believe to be valuable).
Why can't both sides be correct? We've already seen how the value of romantic love differs from person to person without there being a specific correct answer that applies to everyone. What's wrong with saying that what I value in life is different than what you value in life, yet neither of us are wrong.
To suggest that one side must be wrong would be like me saying that blue is my favorite color and you saying, "nope, sorry, red is actually your favorite color."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Kate, since every post is apparently all about you and you demand a personal judgement, it would be rude not to soothe your clearly ruffled and wonky feathers. Really - this isn't a personal judgment about you and it especially isn't all about you. Stop trying to make it one.
1) I'm not at all interested in your sex life, 2) It is impossible given these circumstances 3) It isn't my job in the first place.
Again, the judgement was already made. It is a judgement about me. If I said, "all people who live in Washington are tranvestites" I would consider it reasonable of you to point out that, you do not in fact cross dress. That is all I am doing.
And I have offered you an alternative example. Demonstrate how that example is irresponsible if that is more comfortable for you.
Really not ruffled except by your possible implication that this is about my ego and your possible suggestion that I have no principles. And I decided in both cases to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was not what you meant.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You taking it personally is your responsibility. I really don't know why you insist on doing so.
I have already shown how your theoretical example is useless - you are defining the example to have no negative consequences then asking someone to point out the negative consequences.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
You know, I think we are finally getting somewhere with this. By page 20 we might come to a conclusion.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I can already tell you what the conclusion is.
"I think you're wrong."
"And I think you're wrong."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
kat, I'm not sure what I can do to make this clear to you.
If someone says, "wearing pants always means a woman is "loose". If you wear pants and were not "loose" wouldn't you dispute that assertion? Why would you think that "always" exempted you?
Scott is defining irresponsible. I have given a couple of examples that don't fit his definition of irresponsible. As his assertion is "always", these examples would disprove his assertion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You haven't given examples. You have stated that you weren't irresponsible because nothing bad happened (according to your report). 1) The determination of an irresponsible action does not come AFTER the consequences have occurred, and 2) your report is both biased and incomplete.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think you have yet to show, first, what the bad consequences could have been; kmb has explained why none of the ones mentioned so far would have applied to her case; and second, why these bad consequences are so horrible that risking them counts as irresponsible. As was pointed out, nobody calls you irresponsible for getting in a car, although certainly that's a risk.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: kat, I'm not sure what I can do to make this clear to you.
If someone says, "wearing pants always means a woman is "loose". If you wear pants and were not "loose" wouldn't you dispute that assertion? Why would you think that "always" exempted you?
Scott is defining irresponsible. I have given a couple of examples that don't fit his definition of irresponsible. As his assertion is "always", these examples would disprove his assertion.
For what it's worth, I totally agree with this, and the loose/pants analogy really is fairly good. So how WOULD you defend yourself against such an assertion?
For the record, I also take it "personally", although that has a connotation of drama and apparently ruffled feathers ; I'm an unmarried sexually active person, and my actions are not irresponsible. I am not irresponsible. I am prepared, careful, and committed. I have nothing to hide.
I have no feathers, as far as I know. But when you (generic you) say "all people who have extramarital sex are behaving irresponsibly", well, you do mean me. Defending myself/disagreeing is not having a hissy fit.
Edited to add a fairly important slash.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I can already tell you what the conclusion is.
"I think you're wrong."
"And I think you're wrong."
I'd put it as, "We're both right, but we define the word 'right' in completely separate ways."
ScottR, you realize that the vast majority of sex throughout human history is irresponsible under your definition? I imagine that you know that and don't care, but I thought I'd bring it up. In case you're interested in the fact that you've defined 'responsibility' so narrowly as to make it functionally useless.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
kat, what I have demonstrated with my examples is not that there were no bad consequences. I demonstrated my willingness before taking on those risks to prepare for them and to accept the consequences of them. I have also demonstrated that, for many of the possible risks mentioned that the risk didn't not exist or was slight.
Take the example of "Mary". In a monogamous relationship. Caring, with her partner, for their child, having mutual powers of attorney etc.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I disagree that his definition of responsible is functionally useless.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I disagree that your examples have demonstrated what you claim.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. Explain why, please?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:1) The determination of an irresponsible action does not come AFTER the consequences have occurred, and 2) your report is both biased and incomplete.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:1) The determination of an irresponsible action does not come AFTER the consequences have occurred, and 2) your report is both biased and incomplete.
If sex was not spontaneous, protection was planned, and consequences considered and acceptable, how is that not responsible?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:ScottR, you realize that the vast majority of sex throughout human history is irresponsible under your definition?
I don't think you really mean to make this particular argument.
Our ancestors did a lot of things much worse than dallying with the milkman. Should we hold those things up as mitigating factors in chauvanism, racism, classism, etc.?
Not sure how it's pertinent at all, JT. And possibly counter to what you want to argue.
quote:I have given a couple of examples that don't fit his definition of irresponsible.
You gave the example of a woman, living unmarried to a man, raising their child together.
If they were to get married, their relationship would gain legal rights that they don't currently have.
Such a couple, in terms of social responsibility, would really not be that irresponsible. There's nothing, in terms of their relationship's health, that I can see that's any worse than a comparable marriage.
So, while I would encourage them to get married, and take advantage of the social support for married couples, it's not like I'd grimace at them for their situation.
All the terrible situations that can happen in a marriage can happen in your example--but there's fewer legal protections to fall back on.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
I think the problem here is that boots is arguing that sex outside marriage can be (and frequently is) undertaken by adults in relationships as committed and responsible as those of married couples.
However, Scott has defined sex outside marriage as intrinsically irresponsible, irrespective of context.
Thus, impasse.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
kat, I am not understanding you unless you either haven't read what I have written or you are asking me to predict future irresponsible acts. I can only tell you what has already happened. Except to say that, in the future, I have no intention of behaving irresponsibly.
How can there be an example that isn't biased and incomplete (since none of us knows everything)? I have given an example that isn't me. So has Sharpie. (Thanks, Sharpie.)
What kind of an example would be valid?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
kate, I notice that once again you seem to be applying this to your own experiencs. I've run out of ways of telling that it's inappropriate and personalizing it in a way that stops the conversation. I must conclude that you have no other method of discussing the issue and thus our conversing on it is pointless.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think so, too, Matt. But why intrinsically irresponsible ?
Scott, they have covered with a lawyer all the legal protections that are ordinarily covered by marriage. Wills, powers of attorney, insurance etc.
You might not grimace at their situation, but you would still call them irresponsible?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I haven't made a lot of blanket statements. I'm about to.
Having a kid when the parents are not committed to each other and together the family they may be creating is short-changing the kid. No matter who willing someone is to bear the price of it, they CAN'T - it's the kid who has to pay the price. Saying it'll be fine is very irresponsible, inherently.
In other words, there is potentially and often is another, innocent life or lives involved.
I also, and this is the religious point of view of course, think it's incredibly damaging to your soul, and it's something that takes the Atonement to reconcile. Saying it's completely responsible and you'll bear the consequences ignores the need for the Atonement later. There are consequences that you yourself are not able to bear. Blithely saying it's fine is irresponsible.
That's not everything. That's just some of what falls outside your "I was totally careful" scenario.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: kate, I notice that once again you seem to be applying this to your own experiencs. I've run out of ways of telling that it's inappropriate and personalizing it in a way that stops the conversation. I must conclude that you have no other method of discussing the issue and thus our conversing on it is pointless.
My experience, too. And I don't find it in the least inappropriate.
You are probably correct that it is pointless for the two of us to converse on it :-). However, there are other people in the conversation who seem fine with conversing about it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
kat, it hasn't seemed to be stopping the conversation. And if it is inappropriate to you, feel free to either not comment or to use the other example (as Scott has).
My last post to you was in response to your post that my example was biased and incomplete. Hence referring to the example I assumed you were citing.
I don't know a better way to refute an assertion than to provide examples that disprove it. There have been four so far (including Sharpie and Stephen).
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Having a kid when the parents are not committed to each other and together the family they may be creating is short-changing the kid.
Who said they aren't committed? What if a couple has sex a week before they get married? Is that inherently irresponsible?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
camus: I am not talking about a specific example. It is a blanket statement. If you say "Maybe they were committed" then they inherently do not fall under the blanket statement.
-- Kate: *shrug* Fine. I'm done discussing it with you. -------
I think in the case of this boy that the justice system was out of balance and ill-served. I also devotedly hope that true justice was served in the acquittal for the alleged gang rape and I am devastated for all of the young people involved, especially the 17-year-old girl. It sounds like a horrible night for everyone.
Is there anyone here saying that having sex with strangers at a party after drinking is a good thing?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: You might not grimace at their situation, but you would still call them irresponsible?
I think it's a bad idea to hold up extramarital relationships as approaching married relationships in terms of appropriateness or social value. This is one reason why I'm hesitant to talk specific examples-- and I'm not willing to legislate against the practice anyway.
Would I call THEM irresponsible? No. But neither do I think it's responsible behavior to emulate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
To add to the commpleteness of the "Mary" example. She and her partner are committed to their relationship and to their child.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Lots of people are committed to their relationship NOW.
Marriage helps protect individuals (legally, socially, etc) for when that commitment isn't as strong.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Marriage is different than committment (see any pro same sex marriage argument for reasons why).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
They believe that it would hurt rather than help their committment. They feel safer in their committment without marriage.
And, especially in cases where there isn't (and couldn't be) a child, why is it more responsible for the committment to be fixed rather than flexible?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's the problem with fabricated examples. Now you're just making things up.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Scott - if the government removed all legal privileges associated with marriage (as some people are advocating as a solution to the gay marriage wars), would extramarital relationships still be irresponsible?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think so, because of both reasons I stated before - it isn't fair to the possible children (although if marriage was changed radically then that whole thing requires a reconception) and the religious reason.
[ June 08, 2007, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Mary" is a real person. Just not me. (which I thought was your objection)
I really wouldn't try to fool someone with a fake example. That wouldn't be fair unless I said it was made up. What I tell you about her is true to the best of my knowledge.
[ June 08, 2007, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Why can't both sides be correct? We've already seen how the value of romantic love differs from person to person without there being a specific correct answer that applies to everyone. What's wrong with saying that what I value in life is different than what you value in life, yet neither of us are wrong.
To suggest that one side must be wrong would be like me saying that blue is my favorite color and you saying, "nope, sorry, red is actually your favorite color."
I am making a distinction: In my opinion, what I value is different from what actually is valuable. That's why I rephrased your statement earlier. "What I value" is what I care about, and may be different from what you value. "What is valuable" is what is valuable in an objective sense. As in, it would be valuable whether or not anyone was there to value it.
I believe that "What I value" is valuable in an objective sense, precisely because I value it. Similarly, I believe that "What you value" is valuable in an objective sense, precisely because you value it. In other words, the things that people value are objectively valuable because people value them. Do you follow me?
In addition to this, I think there are other things that may be objectively valuable. Human life, for instance, I think is objectively valuable. Even if nobody in the world valued the life of someone, I think their life would still have value, independent of everyone - even if that person didn't value his own life.
Given all of this, I think "Responsibility" is concerned with "What is valuable" in the objective sense. Being responsible is NOT about doing whatever just makes me happy. That is to say that being responsible is NOT about just catering to whatever I value. Instead, being responsible is about respecting the things that are valuable in an objective sense, including not only what I care about, but also what others care about, and also other things that are valuable even if nobody cares about them at all.
Here's an example: I value red. It is my favorite color. But you hate red, and you are my neighbor. If I act in accordance only with my own values (and let's assume for this example for some reason I don't value your happiness at all) then I could paint my house entirely bright red. Would this be responsible of me? I think it would not be, no matter what my values are - because you hate red and would have to look at it every day. And even if I don't value your happiness, I should, objectively speaking. So, responsibility is not about what I feel will best serve what I value. Instead it is about what bests serves what is valuable in the objective sense. And there is only one correct answer for that, I believe, in each particular case. Does that make any sense?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Why not just use the dictionary definition?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So if I value sex outside of marriage, is Scott irresponsible for judging that to be irresponsible?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [QB]
quote:ScottR, you realize that the vast majority of sex throughout human history is irresponsible under your definition?
I don't think you really mean to make this particular argument.
I don't intend to make that argument. I intend to ask if you really have defined responsibility in such a way that the only people who fall under its umbrella are American citizens born in the last hundred years. And if so, how is that not prohibitively narrowing it?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Why not just use the dictionary definition?
Because the dictionary definition is inadequate.
The difference between responsible and irresponsible is dependent upon the human condition, ones metaphysics, and cultural conditioning.
To some people, it's irresponsible for a woman to go outside showing bare arms. To others, it's irresponsible to divorce your husband, even though he has had numerous affairs. To some, it's irresponsible to have sex before marriage, to others, it's irresponsible to burden yourself with familial obligations before you've figured out right and wrong in the world, lest you end up supporting your family by perpetrating some minor evil, like selling drugs or working for a social irresponsible company, or backing a socially irresponsible doctrine.
There is a range of what's considered responsible and irresponsible, and any objective standard is going to come down to some sort of deep myth, religion, or intuition.
The fragile ground on which these responsibilities reside is part of the wonder, and deep incomprehensibility of this world, that's why I like religion in general, even if I find distasteful many of the peculiarities of different religions. There is nothing wrong with people living by a legend, be it Jesus or MLK or Tubman. It is said that the best people live by the light of legends. The Mediocre live by ideologies. And the lowest live in fear of all the noises in the night.
[ June 09, 2007, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sooo...doing anything anybody doesn't like is "irresponsible"? Then "irresponsible" is defined in such a way as to have no useful meaning.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Responsibility and irresponsibility are not easily fixed. If I eat a cheeseburger chased by oysters, is it appropriate for a Jewish person to call me irreverent?
I have very severe ideas about responsibility, and they don't match up with Scott's severe ideas about responsibility. I don't think there is one doctrine or principle that's going to account for our sophisticated, seemingly disparate views. (Maybe, if we are lucky, there is a poem or a story that will articulate our views in a way that doesn't set them at odds, but I don't think that's going to happen, either.)
[ June 09, 2007, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:if the government removed all legal privileges associated with marriage (as some people are advocating as a solution to the gay marriage wars), would extramarital relationships still be irresponsible?
Yes, but AGAIN-- getting married for the legal benefits alone is not part of my argument.
JT:
Each culture defines social responsibility in its own way. For example, among the Masai (I think), it is not frowned upon for teens to have sex, or for girls to get pregnant before marriage. This grows out of an actual *need* for people-- the demand for population, throughout their history, has shaped their values to set up a system for supporting unwed mothers and their children.
We don't have such a system. If we did, it would mitigate some of the social cost, and culturally, there would be less of a reason for me to consider extramarital sex irresponsible.
Still-- making babies isn't the only reason I've given for why I consider extramarital sex irresponsible.
quote:why is it more responsible for the committment to be fixed rather than flexible?
Hmmm...I'm not sure commitment and flexibility of that commitment go together.
In our society, married partners are usually considered off-limits, sexually, by everyone else. Generally, society supports the decision of the two to be sexually exclusive. (YES, I know there are scumball exceptions-- that's why I used the words "usually" and "generally.")
There's not as much protection for the social creation "girlfriend" or "boyfriend." If someone's got a boyfriend, it's generally considered not as strong a commitment as someone who has a husband. This concept figures into the behavior of the sexually available singles that encounter the boyfriend/girlfriend; the result is that the BF/GF appears more "available" for courting than the married person.
I'm not arguing that you get married solely so you can keep your lover from dallying. But with marriage comes a socially recognized (and generally honored) commitment that does not exist for unmarried couples.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You know Scott, if you had said "usually" or "generally" -- or even "overwhelmingly" or "in almost all cases" in your original statement instead of "all", we could have skipped 5 pages of comments...
Following your arguments, it is possible for an unmarried couple to be together for 50 years, raising kids into healthy adults and maintaining a strong commitment throughout, and still have their actions considered irresponsible because they never got married.
Which is more responsible: sex between an unmarried but committed and financially comfortable couple, or sex between a married couple with severe money problems? Or a married couple with an abusive relationship? Or a married couple with debilitating health issues? In all those unfortunately common cases, the stability and security offered any possible children is extremely questionable. Wouldn't sex be irresponsible then?
I think that while marriage is an important component, it is not a magical switch that confers responsibility. (And no, I don't think you do, either, but that's how it's starting to come across). In these pages, "irresponsible" has implied carelessness or thoughtlessness, which is insulting to someone -- like, say, kmboots -- who rightfully objects. I think that if we define "irresponsible" here as "not as responsible as it's possible to be" then it's easier to see the balance.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Chris--
Go back and look at my original statement, man.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Which is more responsible: sex between an unmarried but committed and financially comfortable couple, or sex between a married couple with severe money problems? Or a married couple with an abusive relationship? Or a married couple with debilitating health issues? In all those unfortunately common cases, the stability and security offered any possible children is extremely questionable. Wouldn't sex be irresponsible then?
If you'll go back and read through my statements on this subject, you'll note I spoke to these circumstances.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
And for my THIRD consecutive post:
I think everyone would appreciate a little common understanding in regards to this topic. Heck, all topics. I've felt, recently, that Hatrack has become a place where EVERY little quirk must be addressed-- that's the reason for all of the qualifiers ('still,' 'again,' 'NOTE,' etc). They become necessary in order to head off truly silly attacks, that if people would assume the best intentions of their opponents, would not need to be brought to light.
Oh, and actually responding to what people write, instead of arguing based on what one thinks one knows of another's personal history-- that'd be nice, too.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As children are not always a possibility for people - say an older couple, or a couple for whom it is medically impossible* - what would be the need for legal protection?
I am getting the idea that, for some, responsible" necessarily includes "conforming to the expectations of society". I don't agree with this. I believe that I have many obligations to people - even people in general - but those obligations do not include making my life fit a particular model. In fact, I believe that I sometimes have an obligation to change society in my small way.
Sometimes, rocking the boat is the responsible thing to do.
*hypothetically examples, lest I mislead anyone.
[ June 09, 2007, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, I am responding to this statement:
"I'm going to go so far as to say that all sex outside of marriage is irresponsible, and that lots of married people have sex irresponsibly."
I really know very little about your personal history. I know that you write, but that isn't really relevelant. (I probably should know more, but I don't pay breyerchic level attention). I do know that you are LDS, but, as you have you weren't referring to religion, I have not addressed that.
If you are talking to me in that last post, please know that any references I've made to your personal life have been inadvertant.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
" I'm going to go so far as to say that all sex outside of marriage is irresponsible, and that lots of married people have sex irresponsibly."
You did indeed address my comments on sex inside marriage (before I made them:) ) and I apologize for forgetting them.
I still stand by my statement that had it been "virtually all sex outside of marriage" or "in almost every case", etc, most of this thread would not have happened. I'm not suggesting you change your position. But where I think you're saying "you're not being as responsible as it's possible to be" (which is true) it's sounding like "you're being careless, selfish, and foolhardy." For someone who has been as careful and committed as they can but does not place the same value on a marriage certificate, that can come across as insulting. I submit that there are degrees to responsibility, as in every other human endeavor, and someone who is only 99% responsible might still have a long and happy life.
If I've still misunderstood you, I apologize.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
How do you want to "rock the boat" here, kmboots?
quote:I believe that I have many obligations to people - even people in general - but those obligations do not include making my life fit a particular model.
Everyone believes this.
quote:what would be the need for legal protection?
In my last post, I outlined a benefit of marriage that was not physical, emotional, or legal.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But where I think you're saying "you're not being as responsible as it's possible to be" (which is true) it's sounding like "you're being careless, selfish, and foolhardy."
I've said twice now, EXPLICITLY, that I believe there are degrees of irresponsibility in this matter.
I'm going to use the Tom Davidson defense and say that I have no control over how you choose to interpret my words, after I've been so exact, with so many qualifiers.
I mean, sheesh.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry, I should have separated those to make it more clear. Legal issues are one thing that was mentioned.
You also mentioned a societal and cultural cost. I tried to address that in my post separately. If I understand you, you are saying that it is a cost to society when people don't conform to cultural norms. I disagree. I think it is sometimes good for society to have norms challenged.
I am not trying very hard to rock the boat in this instance except to point out that there are other responsible ways to have relationships.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:As children are not always a possibility for people - say an older couple, or a couple for whom it is medically impossible* - what would be the need for legal protection?
More explicitly:
In terms of what I think the legal advantages of marriage are: Legal jurisdiction over the spouse's affairs tops the list. Joint property ownership, which can help ease their economic situation.
I don't know that a couple "needs" these things.
quote:there are other responsible ways to have relationships.
Within our society, I disagree. But that's not news.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do I at least (finally) understand why you disagree? (the conforming to norms outlined above)
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Scott, I'm still curious about the whys of your position. These are the questions I asked on the previous page. You may feel you've answered them already; if so, just point me to the post(s) and I'll re-read.
what, exactly, do you think makes all extra-marital sex irresponsible, for example, if you're not talking about possible consequences (I believe in the last page you've alluded to not following societal norms as being irresponsible; are there reasons beyond that?)
what makes the risks of extra-marital sex so much worse than, say, the risks of driving a car or walking near a busy street,
and what is it about marriage that makes those risks suddenly acceptable (aside from the fact that it fulfills societal norms)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Good questions, Megan. I think that would help and I look forward to more discussion. But now I am off...to a wedding!
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But now I am off...to a wedding!
AKA a Responsibility Conference Ceremony Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:what, exactly, do you think makes all extra-marital sex irresponsible, for example, if you're not talking about possible consequences (I believe in the last page you've alluded to not following societal norms as being irresponsible; are there reasons beyond that?)
I've given those reasons in the preceding pages, Megan. The term 'social norms' is misleading-- we're not talking about niceties or politeness, here, but things that are culturally necessary. That's what I meant when I said:
quote:We don't have such a system. If we did, it would mitigate some of the social cost, and culturally, there would be less of a reason for me to consider extramarital sex irresponsible.
When I say social cost, I'm talking about things like supporting single, teenage mothers-- as the Masai, do. That was part of the reason I used that example: to tie social costs into cultural norms.
(FYI--I DO support stronger social programs to help single parents)
Responsibility DOES encompass consequences. It also begins before the action resulting in those consequences takes place.
quote:what makes the risks of extra-marital sex so much worse than, say, the risks of driving a car or walking near a busy street,
Again I've explained the risks I feel are associated with extramarital sex. The risks of these are, for me, beyond the threshold of mitigating actions (with the exception of abstinence).
I understand that some people are willing to take those risks, and while I'm not going to encourage legislating against them, I can hardly call them 'responsible' within my POV, now, can I?
**You'll also note that not just anyone is allowed to drive a car. The government restricts driver's licenses to those who meet specific, culturally informed levels of emotional, physical, and mental maturity. And they have classes on how to drive, tests to make sure you know the basic safety rules, and severe penalties when you break the law-- whether or not any harm was done when the law is broken.
quote:what is it about marriage that makes those risks suddenly acceptable (aside from the fact that it fulfills societal norms)
I've also explained on both this page and the last, the benefits of marriage as opposed to single life.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:if the government removed all legal privileges associated with marriage (as some people are advocating as a solution to the gay marriage wars), would extramarital relationships still be irresponsible?
Yes, but AGAIN-- getting married for the legal benefits alone is not part of my argument.
JT:
Each culture defines social responsibility in its own way. For example, among the Masai (I think), it is not frowned upon for teens to have sex, or for girls to get pregnant before marriage. This grows out of an actual *need* for people-- the demand for population, throughout their history, has shaped their values to set up a system for supporting unwed mothers and their children.
We don't have such a system. If we did, it would mitigate some of the social cost, and culturally, there would be less of a reason for me to consider extramarital sex irresponsible.
Still-- making babies isn't the only reason I've given for why I consider extramarital sex irresponsible.
quote:why is it more responsible for the committment to be fixed rather than flexible?
Hmmm...I'm not sure commitment and flexibility of that commitment go together.
In our society, married partners are usually considered off-limits, sexually, by everyone else. Generally, society supports the decision of the two to be sexually exclusive. (YES, I know there are scumball exceptions-- that's why I used the words "usually" and "generally.")
There's not as much protection for the social creation "girlfriend" or "boyfriend." If someone's got a boyfriend, it's generally considered not as strong a commitment as someone who has a husband. This concept figures into the behavior of the sexually available singles that encounter the boyfriend/girlfriend; the result is that the BF/GF appears more "available" for courting than the married person.
I'm not arguing that you get married solely so you can keep your lover from dallying. But with marriage comes a socially recognized (and generally honored) commitment that does not exist for unmarried couples.
Thanks for clarifying your position, Scott. I see where you're coming from now. Still don't agree, of course, but I understand your thinking.
Thanks for being so patient and calm in this thread, too.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I cannot figure out the prosecutor's line of attack here. The original ruling is enormously unpopular; going after it the way they are makes me think that there's information that isn't being conveyed to the public.
By the same token, I'm a little tired of the line, "He was a good kid: honor roll, football hero, prom king, homecoming king..." Those things do not a good kid make. An *active* kid maybe, but there's nothing inherently morally complete about having a 4.0, and being able to run the 100 yard dash in 10 seconds flat...
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I, too, am sick to death of the "good kid" label. I don't see how being busy = being good.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
You've never heard the 'idle hands' proverb?
Scott, 10 seconds flat would make him a great kid. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: I, too, am sick to death of the "good kid" label. I don't see how being busy = being good.
Perhaps it is emphasised to combat the stereotype, "Punk 17 year old African American kid, he MUST be guilty." Or, "If he is a poor student he probably did it."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It probably does mean that he shows up to school, does his homework, is motivated to do well (which is not a given). All those things speak to character.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If I were him, I'd have seriously considered taking the more recent plea deals offered to him. No criminal record, probably out for time served, and no registering on the sex offender registry?
Who knows if that will still be an option if the AG wins his appeal?
He should still consider it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I will read the decisions when I get a chance. This directly contradicts a decision from a couple of years ago on the same issue, so I'll be interested to see how they distinguished the old and new case.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Quoted from Dagonee's link above-
"The court ruled 4-3 that the 10-year sentence Genarlow Wilson received was cruel and unusual punishment, and it directed a lower court to reverse the conviction and release him."
This person engaged in a wider range of criminal activity, and he did so knowing it was wrong and knowing that he risked in doing so.
The fact that many teens are doing the same thing is irrelevant, they are all taking the same risk and gambling away their futures. The only saving grace is that the odds are in their favor; most get away with it. But to quote the old TV show 'Beretta'; 'Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time'.
This person gambled and lost, and deserves to be punished, but the 10 year sentence was completely out of proportion to the events.
Of the new ruling, here is what bothers me, the '...court to reverse the conviction...'. I think they should have reduce the conviction to the new misdemeanor standard for this type of crime. That is, I think he should still have a conviction, but that misdemeanor conviction should be under the new law, and the sentence should be 'time served'.
While I don't in any way consider two years in prison 'getting off easy'. I do fear that completely reversing his conviction hints of getting off too easy. It sends the message that action don't have consequences, that you can do anything and get away with it. But again acknowledging that two years in prison is hardly getting away with it.
Part of what I worry about is that if the conviction is reversed, then that opens the door to a law suit. This person can claim he was wrongfully imprisoned, which he was not, and thereby claim substantial damages. He committed a crime, and should acknowledge that crime. I think, based on my limited knowledge, that the new misdemeanor law is more in line with the nature of the actual crime.
And here us a news flash to any would be law breakers, don't be stupid enough to video tape yourself committing a crime. If you are that stupid, then maybe a few years in prison will smarten you up a bit.
Not worth much, but there it is.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Of the new ruling, here is what bothers me, the '...court to reverse the conviction...'. I think they should have reduce the conviction to the new misdemeanor standard for this type of crime. That is, I think he should still have a conviction, but that misdemeanor conviction should be under the new law, and the sentence should be 'time served'.
I don't think that's an option. You can't convict someone by a law that was not in effect at the time they committed the act.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
At that age, it's not really a good time to have a kid, it's unhealthy and unwise to be sucking on sexual organs, and emotional trauma can be severe for rape victims.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
C3PO, the sex was consensual, according to the jury anyway.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Whoops, I had missed that. And to think I had read everything up to Page 6...
Posted by I Am The War Chief (Member # 9266) on :
Once again Canada has it right! Ontario laws make it legal for a female over the age of 15 to have sex with a male within 5 years her own age. I have always thought this is fair as it gives the individual the right to choose and keeps the perverts accountable.
Posted by I Am The War Chief (Member # 9266) on :
Slight revision of above post here is the law as it sits in the legislative books as of now
The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal(3) and the Quebec Court of Appeal(4) have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code.
I didnt actually know any of this till the issue arose
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
His conviction should be completely reversed (morally) because the state owes him a large debt for their totally over-the-top sentence, and for their behavior regarding that since then.
As for him engaging in a wider range of criminal activity, that means nothing since the charge under contention isn't about those things.
quote:The fact that many teens are doing the same thing is irrelevant, they are all taking the same risk and gambling away their futures.
It's extremely relevant. It calls into question the law itself, the state's approach to that law, and whether or not it should be in place as it exists if lots of people are routinely violating that law.
quote:While I don't in any way consider two years in prison 'getting off easy'. I do fear that completely reversing his conviction hints of getting off too easy. It sends the message that action don't have consequences, that you can do anything and get away with it. But again acknowledging that two years in prison is hardly getting away with it.
You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand you 'fear' sending a message about this activity which you already admit lots of teens engage in, but on the other hand you 'acknowledge' that he's hardly gotten away with it.
But you don't want to...send the message that he's gotten away with it?
quote:If you are that stupid, then maybe a few years in prison will smarten you up a bit.
Hey, yeah! Maybe a couple of years facing daily threats of rape and beatings will 'smarten you up a bit'! How many days have you spent in jail, BlueWizard, or how many years in prison?
Perhaps you shouldn't be so casual throwing them around, then, for consentual teenage sexual activity. Or at least throw them both in jail, because damnit, if that girl had murdered someone she'd face a strong chance of being tried as an adult.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Hey, yeah! Maybe a couple of years facing daily threats of rape and beatings will 'smarten you up a bit'! How many days have you spent in jail, BlueWizard, or how many years in prison?
Um... isn't this a recommendation then to fix the prison system rather then not use prisons?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
BlueWizard, I'm stunned at how hard you want to come down on two teenagers engaging in consensual sexual acts. How can you morally agree with those acts being *criminal*?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Um... isn't this a recommendation then to fix the prison system rather then not use prisons?
It's pointing out just what he's so blithely handing out, BlackBlade. For a nonviolent consentual sex act.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The meat of the decision starts on page 15. The principle issue was whether the punishment was disproportional to the offense. The primary deciding factor was the legislature's change in the law to make this offense a misdemeanor, which, according to the Court, indicated a change in the evolving standards of decency. The court called the legislature's acts the best evidence of such changes.
I'm skeptical of this reasoning, because the legislature explicitly chose to not make the reduction in sentence retroactive. In other words, the best evidence of the changing standards of decency explicitly decided that this person's punishment should be 10 years.
I think the outcome is the just one - 10 years was way too long a sentence. But the reasoning seems counter-intuitive to me.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
That is a gross misrepresentation of what I said, on multiple levels.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)