I have a new neighbor three houses down. He's a 3 time sex offender. Twice convicted of sex with girls under 16 and once for sexual assault with "slight force", whatever that means. I printed up his rap sheet and handed it to all my neighbors. I had to stop Arty, my Jamaican neighbor from making a preemptive strike with his machete...no joke.
I feel a slight tinge of guilt for printing his wrap sheet and photo and sharing it with everyone on the street. Our children ride their bikes up and down the road together on a daily basis and I thought the families should know.
Was I wrong to let all his neighbors know what he just got out of prison for? He paid his price but the next charge will be his 4th. Any other crime would mean nothing to me.
[ March 14, 2010, 04:13 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Your disgusting.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You know how the activists on whale wars are so damn ignorant and arrogant that they practically make me feel sympathy for the whalers? Well, lookahere. Malanthrop is trying to make me feel sympathetic to sex offenders.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Maybe he won't offend for the 4th time in fifteen years. Maybe he's finally learned his lesson and I should consider the debt to society paid. I do have a twinge of guilt, but I bet he feels a different kind of twinge when the neighborhood kids ride their bikes past his front window.
Did he pay his price and deserve privacy? Am I wrong for letting his neighbor with a 14 year old kid know who just moved in next door? Maybe I am an unforgiving bastard. I feel that twinge of guilt for letting the cat out of the bag.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Maybe he won't offend for the 4th time in fifteen years. Maybe he's finally learned his lesson and I should consider the debt to society paid.
Maybe you're the last person to be considered to have the self-awareness and reason required to be an adequate judge of what social vigilante measures should be taken!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You know how the activists on whale wars are so damn ignorant and arrogant that they practically make me feel sympathy for the whalers? Well, lookahere. Malanthrop is trying to make me feel sympathetic to sex offenders.
I'm not trying to illicit sympathy for sex offenders. I'm truly conflicted about having a recently released offender rent a house down the road. Has he learned his lesson? Do I have anything to worry about? If I could force him out of my neighborhood, I would. The ACLU is defending the likes of him for city laws that force them to live outside the city. I wish my city had those kind of laws.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You went beyond and above what could be considered reasonable in this situation, it is very rude, if your concerned for your neighbours then inform them privately and discreetly.
Did you know what actions get you on the listing? Consensual sexual relations between a 17 year old male and a 16 year old female in some states.
One of the few perks about Quebec, the age of consent I hear is 14.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm not trying to illicit sympathy for sex offenders.
Yeah, definitely not your intent.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
This guy was born in 1966 and his first offense was in 1998. I know that jerking off behind a tree can get you on this list. A one time "lewd and lascivious behavior" charge isn't a 3x 30+ year old having sex with 15 or under.
I understand that pissing in public might get you on this list but his wrap sheet is something different. He was 32 the first time he had sex with someone under 16. Under 12 and he's a "sexual preditor". Make sure they're between their 12th and 16th birthday and you're a minor "sexual offender".
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Doesn't Megan's Law already do this?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
According to my formula (1/2 your age +7) the youngest you can go at 32 is 23 years old give or take.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Munroe called. He wants his formula back.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
BB, Samp:
I don't think you have given your reasons for your objections. Care to elaborate why you oppose malanthrop's actions?
I don't see anything wrong with them, honestly.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
The girls were "under 16"? That doesn't necessarily make him a pedophile. Congratulations, you destroyed this guy's chance at some sort of life with your crappy psychological diagnosis.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
He was 32, and the victims were under 16. While he may not meet the psychological distinction of "pedophile," that doesn't make malanthrop's actions wrong. And as far as destroying this guy's chance at some sort of life: that's completely NOT malanthrop's responsibility.
I REALLY don't see what the problem here is; malanthrop informed his neighbors of a repeat sex offender living in his neighborhood. I consider that being a good neighbor.
Blayne, as far as I can tell malanthrop DID inform his neighbors privately and discreetly. Do you have information to the contrary?
Are people reacting to malanthrop's personality and history rather than the actual argument?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I'm pretty sure a 30 year old who thinks it's ok to have sex with 16 year olds should be kept away from 16 year olds. I am with Elmer, I thought the cops already had to inform the neighbors. But yes, I think parents of teens should be aware that an adult may try to have sex with their kids. Especially if there was force involved at some point.
Not that others haven't made good points about our sex offender laws. One should always be leery of the labels and even some of the explanations. (One case of SVU, the perp claimed his sex offender label was from urinating in public and the cop counter that he'd done it three times and groups of young girls always just happened to be nearby.)
But a 30 year old convicted of sex with a 16 year old with force is pretty cut and dry wrong.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Are people reacting to malanthrop's personality and history rather than the actual argument?
I'm assuming the girls he had sex with were teenagers. I also suspect that Mal would have acted in the same way if there was no mention of "slight force," whatever that means.
I'm sneering at this because statutory rape is, in my opinion, a pretty sketchy concept. We all have an "ew, gross" reaction to a much older person having sex with a much younger person, but that is not necessarily reason to criminalize it.
There are reasons for having stat rape laws, but these reasons - the power differential, etc. - are based on generalizations. There is no intrinsic reason why a 14 or 15 year old is incapable of giving consent to sex with an adult. If they can give consent to sleep with someone of their age, than they can do the same with an older person.
So, I think Mal has done a great deal of damage to this guy's life based on very limited information. It's a dick move.
My opinion would change a little if they were actual children. Sex acts with children are violent and the recidivism rate is really high.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I'll be honest, I'm with malanthrop to a point here. This wasn't a guy who had sex with his girlfriend while they were both teenagers and got caught. This is someone who went after girls who were at most half his age. And he's done so three times already.
The parents in the neighborhood absolutely need to know that this guy is in the neighborhood, which building he's in and what he looks like. They need to be able to know if he's around their children, and they need to know which homes to avoid on Halloween, for example. Notifying neighbors who don't have kids at home is questionable to me, though.
I know that I was not notified when a registered offender moved in a few blocks away from me. My daughter's best friend lives a couple HOUSES away from him, and I'm not sure they were contacted, either. I only found out about him because I make a point to check the registry before Halloween.
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
Okay, here I am. I am a teacher and we are periodically sent the list of sexual offenders in our county. I scanned the list and discovered that a man now lives on my road, next door to children, and the road has a lot of children on it. It's a cul-de-sac road, so the children play all around the road, and in it, often. Do I inform my neighbors? I've considered it, especially the next-door neighbors. Or do I just stay out of it. And then if something happens feel guilty for not informing my neighbors? ~Sala
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Your disgusting.
Why?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I had to stop Arty, my Jamaican neighbor from making a preemptive strike with his machete...no joke.
Why did you stop him? I mean, I'm not saying you should go at the guy with a machete, but I wouldn't pee on a sex offender if he was on fire.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I feel a slight tinge of guilt for printing his wrap sheet and photo and sharing it with everyone on the street. Our children ride their bikes up and down the road together on a daily basis and I thought the families should know.
Was I wrong to let all his neighbors know what he just got out of prison for? He paid his price but the next charge will be his 4th. Any other crime would mean nothing to me.
If you were my neighbor, I would feel nothing but gratitude. I don't know why you feel guilty. I mean, a guy gets on the list for one count of jailbait, that's one thing. Maybe he didn't know. Second time, that's pushing things. A lot. But sexual assault? You should hammer a copy of the printout into his forehead.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm frankly baffled your resposnes too, Blayne and Samprimary. I wonder how much of them are colored by malanthrop's well-earned reputation?
quote:Maybe you're the last person to be considered to have the self-awareness and reason required to be an adequate judge of what social vigilante measures should be taken!
Exactly what is a 'social vigilante'? Warning neighbors a multiple-repeat offender targeting adolescents has moved in their neighborhood? Frankly that sounds a lot more like responsible citizenship than vigilantism to me. The problem isn't with malanthrop's actions, it's with our crappy handling of sex crimes. This goes both ways, with our treating serious sex crimes many times too leniently and treating minor sex crimes (19yr old sex with 16yr old) much too harshly.
But malanthrop has said that this wasn't a case of a senior having sex with a freshman. So what's the problem? And the 'slight force' is all that's needed, for me anyway, to remove even the slightest whiff of uncertainty over whether to inform the neighbors.
quote: There are reasons for having stat rape laws, but these reasons - the power differential, etc. - are based on generalizations. There is no intrinsic reason why a 14 or 15 year old is incapable of giving consent to sex with an adult. If they can give consent to sleep with someone of their age, than they can do the same with an older person.
All laws are based on 'generalizations'. That's why we have degrees of laws. Laws against homicide are based on generalizations-that it's almost always really, really bad but very rarely it might be deemed acceptable. A 14-15 year old is not an adult. Not every decision belongs to them at that age. That's just the way things are in our society, and frankly in all societies-the only thing that changes is the age setting.
So, is it possible a 32 year old who has repeated sex with mid-teenagers might be a non-dangerous, reasonable, sane person who doesn't pose a threat to others? Of course it's possible. But you know what else is possible? That maybe someone who can't keep their pants zipped up and themselves away from having sex with adolescents when they're well into adulthood maybe has some shine taken off of their general trustworthiness.
quote:My opinion would change a little if they were actual children. Sex acts with children are violent and the recidivism rate is really high.
A little? OK, well, at least now I know where you stand, and it's a place that shouldn't be taken seriously. If your opinion that this was a 'dick move' would only change a little if they were actually children, well then, I don't understand at all where you're coming from.
'Sexual assault' and 'slight force' are words that are supposed to alarm people! Especially when you throw in the grossly disproportionate ages.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I'd like to point out that from the few posts I've seen from malanthrop over the past day, I'm pretty sure this is a troll. He didn't pass out flyers. There is no sex offender. He's just trying to start an argument.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Your disgusting.
Why?
I believe the correct response to "your disgusting" is not "why?" but "my disgusting what?"
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
You know, I disagree with most everything mal has written on every other thread, but I don't think what he did was totally crazy.
The repeat offenders often slip through the cracks and offend again (Jaycee Dugard anyone?). Mal has kids and so do his neighbors. Someday his kids (dunno how old they are) will be 16. Not everyone talks with their neighbors and the people who do are certainly free to gossip about their other ones. And quite frankly informing other neighbors about stuff that is true is probably prudent, especially when it's public information. One of the punishments for sex crimes is a loss of anonymity. The list does have levels and people do have the right to know exactly what you have done. Don't want to get on a list, don't do sexual things in public and especially don't do them with people who can't or didn't legally consent. I don't feel bad for this guy at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'd like to point out that from the few posts I've seen from malanthrop over the past day, I'm pretty sure this is a troll. He didn't pass out flyers. There is no sex offender. He's just trying to start an argument.
Well, yes, that's quite likely. But at least this is an interesting topic, and there are some actual contradicting positions in it that don't come from him, so it's interesting.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: I'd like to point out that from the few posts I've seen from malanthrop over the past day, I'm pretty sure this is a troll. He didn't pass out flyers. There is no sex offender. He's just trying to start an argument.
QFT. Don't get emotional.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I think it's fine to inform neighbors that he's a sex offender. Parents should know not to let their kids over to his house and kids should know to be suspicious of getting involved with him.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I haven't any quibble with people doing whatever is within the law to protect their children as best they can. I'm not going to touch that -- by me, fine. Do what you need to do.
I'm also not going to defend anyone who steps over any lines with children. When I've seen anything suggestive of it, including at this website with young adolescent girls, I believe I've been the first to flag it and pursue it as a high-priority problem with those in charge. Again, I think this is good to do.
I'm also a little bit worried about identifying to children those people in the neighborhood they should distrust. If one isn't careful, this comes with the natural connotation that the child doesn't need to be on guard with other people, because they aren't the bad ones, when, really, most potential predators are not known to law enforcement.
Just be careful, please. Nobody wants to raise children too afraid to trust anybody, but do encourage them to listen to the natural promptings of their own instincts about anyone that doesn't feel right to them, including people their parents know and trust. From the information gathered in actual cases, those people pose proportionally much greater risk to our kids than do identified perpetrators -- and our kids are going to be even more reluctant to tell us about feeling uncomfortable in situations with them.
[ March 14, 2010, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Below is an excerpt from a USA Today article. It references the comments of a representative of the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, which advocates for sex offender registry. Again, I am not arguing against registry or against discussions about identified registrants, and it should be obvious that this woman isn't, either.
"Jacob's Law" was the federal precursor to "Megan's Law," FWIW. The JWF (now JW Resource Center) helped launch the AMBER Plan in Minnesota and across the US.
quote:Broad restrictions provide a "false sense of security," says Nancy Sabin of the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, which fights child exploitation. She says such laws do not protect the more than 90% of abused children who suffer at the hands of people they know. And many of the laws bar offenders from living near schools but do not stop them from loitering there, she says.
A reminder.
[ March 14, 2010, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Excellent point, CT. I think it's just a rather striking and disturbing example of how hung up the US's sex crime laws really are-even when it comes to protecting children against registered sex offenders, our response is...dubiously effective, at best.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm frankly baffled your resposnes too, Blayne and Samprimary. I wonder how much of them are colored by malanthrop's well-earned reputation?
basically I can know three things about this because of what Malanthrop has established about himself.
1. He's the last person you want running your neighborhood DIY vigilantism because he's not rational and you can't trust him to make good distinctions.
2. This thread is here not only to express his act but to branch into him talking about his judgment of legal process and protective social measures.
3. Malanthrop can't be trusted to be telling the truth about these things anyway.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
(herself, mal I think is a she)
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
mal's mentioned having a wife several times.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Could mean something else, make no assumptions!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Given #3 Samprimary, how can you actually have a real handle on #1-2?
My responses weren't based on malanthrop having been honest about it. He's such a hack and so suspicious on many political subjects, I wouldn't trust him farther than I could throw him. On Jupiter.
Which is really why I was asking if your reactions were because it was malanthrop was saying these things, or if your reactions were on what was strictly said about the matter.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Given #3 Samprimary, how can you actually have a real handle on #1-2?
1 and 2 are based on 'statements taken at face value'
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Doesn't #3 actually mean you can't rely on any assessments of the person in question except that assessment: lack of integrity?
Anyway, my interest in this thread isn't malanthrop, it's reactions to his post. Are they based on a reaction to anyone if they described this scenario? If, for example, Papa Moose had made a post including the initial anecdote, what would people's responses be?
I'm just using him as an honest poster who is widely trusted-I'm definitely not suggesting malanthrop personally should be accorded that level of respect.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
My question is, what did malanthrop get outer for doing, so that he felt the need to retaliate? I'm guessing he has a public storage shed to keep the skeletons that no longer fit in his closet.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Repeat offenders have already surrendered thier rights to privacy, in some states this guy would never have left incarceration after his third strike. I dont truely understand how anyone could want to coddle a person who would fondle a child, take pictures and play "games" if you have ever looked at kid that you watched grow and thought about how unfair it is that they will inherit the world as it is, then you know it is the gravest sin to introduce them to the worst we have to offer.
Even in gangs and prison you can murder, steal even rape other inmates and your just another person. That is until the others find out that you put your hands on a child. Because the people who directly perpetuate negative cycles in society will not tolerate those who would steal away innocence, atleast the criminals are more effective in thier means.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Doesn't #3 actually mean you can't rely on any assessments of the person in question except that assessment: lack of integrity?
No. In this case, 1 and 2 are in case he's not a troll / liar. 3 does not CONFIRM that 1 and 2 aren't relevant anymore.
I can say to someone "you're probably just trolling, but even if you aren't, this, this and this still apply."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Repeat offenders have already surrendered thier rights to privacy, in some states this guy would never have left incarceration after his third strike. I dont truely understand how anyone could want to coddle a person who would fondle a child, take pictures and play "games" if you have ever looked at kid that you watched grow and thought about how unfair it is that they will inherit the world as it is, then you know it is the gravest sin to introduce them to the worst we have to offer.
Even in gangs and prison you can murder, steal even rape other inmates and your just another person. That is until the others find out that you put your hands on a child. Because the people who directly perpetuate negative cycles in society will not tolerate those who would steal away innocence, atleast the criminals are more effective in thier means.
I don't recall us discussing children.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Not every decision belongs to them at that age. That's just the way things are in our society, and frankly in all societies-the only thing that changes is the age setting.
I think we should be giving teenagers a lot more credit than we do. They are perfectly capable of being intelligent, sane and responsible. Don't we all have the suspicion that our society's extended adolescence is a bad thing?
Your second sentence is an argument in favor of my position, not yours. Cultures that refuse sexual relations between adults and teenagers have been few and far between through human history. I am certainly not arguing for some kind of return to the past, given that these relations often treated a teenage girl as the property of her adult husband, but I don't think we need to worry about that sort of thing so much anymore.
quote:dThat maybe someone who can't keep their pants zipped up and themselves away from having sex with adolescents when they're well into adulthood maybe has some shine taken off of their general trustworthiness.
This is a chicken-or-egg argument. What came first? I'd say their lack of "trustworthiness" is wholly a result of the prohibition against sex with teenagers. If no such prohibition existed, and I am arguing it does not need to, then we wouldn't consider them untrustworthy.
quote:A little? OK, well, at least now I know where you stand, and it's a place that shouldn't be taken seriously. If your opinion that this was a 'dick move' would only change a little if they were actually children, well then, I don't understand at all where you're coming from.
Well, I think it would change enough to make you happy. I'm perfectly happy to label pedophiles - who have acted on their desire - as a legitimate danger to children. I just think we should be careful about throwing out the concepts of rehabilitation and/or a fresh start so easily and glibly. It is something to be thought about carefully - there is no room for a pitchfolk-and-torch reaction.
My suspicion of this kind of reaction - that pedophiles are the highest form of evil in our society, worse than racists and sexists and therefore deserve no rights - is that it is more based on the chimerical notion of childhood innocence than it is on an actual calculation of danger.
I'll be clear: when it comes to pedophiles, I do not have a problem of neighborhood notification per se. My problem is with vigilante action.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I knocked on the doors of fellow parents and handed them his picture and criminal record. I did consider posting it on the telephone pole, but decided that was going too far.
Where I live, "predators" are mandatory notice. In fact a predator couldn't live in my neighborhood as I live too close to a park, bus stop, etc.
I don't know the circumstances of his offenses, all I know is he is a three time offender. Offender is under 16 and a predator is 12 and under. Sex with 13,14,15 is offender. Sex with 12 and under is predator.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I have no issue with what you did, Mal, and since we are not on the same side of most arguments that should mean something. I also think you did the right thing NOT posting it on a phone pole.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Thanks Kwea. I only brought it up since I did feel conflicted about it. He has solicitation of prostitution, domestic violence and cocaine charges as well. For those charges I wouldn't become the neighborhood gossiper and vigilante. I did feel conflicted about "gossiping" the sex offender charges. My record isn't perfectly clean but I doubt my neighbors care I had two driving without insurance tickets and a speeding ticket 15 years ago.
25% of offenders get caught again and the average sentence is 3 years.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Cultures that refuse sexual relations between adults and teenagers have been few and far between through human history. I am certainly not arguing for some kind of return to the past, given that these relations often treated a teenage girl as the property of her adult husband, but I don't think we need to worry about that sort of thing so much anymore.
You must not live in the South. I'm one of two women I know who by marrying my high school sweetheart married someone I actually went to high school with. The rest of them married guys who were 20 when they were 15.
So I've even got some sympathy for some statuatory rape situations. If he's a little emotionally immature and she's impressed by the money he's got working for his dad's business, I can see that. They can grow up together and she's got a decent shot at financial security right out of high school. I see the argument.
But where's that line? At what age can we say with certainty that a guy's just out to take advantage? Cause the other women I know who married much older got control freaks. I think one of them was in the 18/30 sort of range. Her friends miss her since they're not allowed to see her. When she does sneak off to be with them, she's miserable. (Yes, a grown woman still sneaks out of the house to be with her friends.) It's definitely not healthy. Or mature.
You can't craft case-by-case laws to try to keep the weirdos away from the kids while letting the emotionally delayed slide. I might be ok with raising the statuatory rape age limit to 21, but I wouldn't support it going to 30. Somewhere we have to draw a line and let folks work things out as best they can.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
But Avid, would you agree that as bad as the 18/30 range marriage was, it shouldn't be illegal?
quote:I might be ok with raising the statutory rape age limit to 21, but I wouldn't support it going to 30.
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that you would be ok with the age of consent being raised to 21? Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
No, I don't believe we can tell people they're adults and then tell them there's still limits on which other adult they can marry.
For the statuatory rape part, I'd be ok with creating some kind of age bracket where 15-20 isn't illegal.
I've also remembered I had a friend whose parents were 15 and 30 when she got pregnant. It was actually the younger mom who turned out to be the control freak in their relationship. So it's not even that I think the man is necessarily out to take advantage of the girl but that there's an unhealthy power structure in play with one party that much older than the other. [Edit to add] With one party being a minor, anyway.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think we should be giving teenagers a lot more credit than we do. They are perfectly capable of being intelligent, sane and responsible. Don't we all have the suspicion that our society's extended adolescence is a bad thing?
No. I don't have the same feeling about it that you apparently do. When I talk about extended adolescence being a bad thing, I mostly mean 20-somethings acting like fourteen-year olds.
But thank you for letting us know your views, Foust.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Foust, I don't have any such concerns. "If we made everything legal there wouldn't be any crime" is a bad argument, and doesn't justify squat.
In todays world I don't think we are coddling teens. There are a lot of factors these days that were non-issues in other times, and I don't think preventing older men from preying on teens is a bad thing.
Mal, I don't think you are being a vigilante, per se. You are informing your neighbors about a possible situation and asking them to be aware, but you aren't going around trying to assault the guy. I'd say you aren't doing anything I wouldn't do, and I don't even have any children yet.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Foust,
quote:I think we should be giving teenagers a lot more credit than we do. They are perfectly capable of being intelligent, sane and responsible. Don't we all have the suspicion that our society's extended adolescence is a bad thing?
I don't think we should be giving teenagers a lot more credit than we do. I do think we should raise expectations, though, and that's quite a different thing. Either way, though, I think the place to start doing that isn't permitting middle-adolescents to have sex with middle-aged adults. Quite frankly, it really sounds like you have a very poor understanding of the dynamics frequently involved in these situations, Foust.
quote: Your second sentence is an argument in favor of my position, not yours. Cultures that refuse sexual relations between adults and teenagers have been few and far between through human history. I am certainly not arguing for some kind of return to the past, given that these relations often treated a teenage girl as the property of her adult husband, but I don't think we need to worry about that sort of thing so much anymore.
No, it really isn't. What cultures in the past have done is permitted sexual contact at certain levels of maturity. That has changed along with lifespans in our society. It's the way everyone is raised. Maybe if this man were a time-traveler from the Middle Ages, or the teenagers were, your objections would carry more weight. But they both, presumably, grew up in an American society, being taught certain things. One of which is: when you're in your 30s, don't have sex with people half your age! I'm perfectly comfortable with labeling people incapable of obeying that taboo as sex offenders. Mostly because they, y'know, are.
quote:Well, I think it would change enough to make you happy. I'm perfectly happy to label pedophiles - who have acted on their desire - as a legitimate danger to children. I just think we should be careful about throwing out the concepts of rehabilitation and/or a fresh start so easily and glibly. It is something to be thought about carefully - there is no room for a pitchfolk-and-torch reaction.
Who's been having that reaction, Foust? Keep your labels accurate, if you please, where you're willing to use them at all that is.
quote: My suspicion of this kind of reaction - that pedophiles are the highest form of evil in our society, worse than racists and sexists and therefore deserve no rights - is that it is more based on the chimerical notion of childhood innocence than it is on an actual calculation of danger.
Who said they deserve no rights? That's not part of this discussion. As for the 'chimerical notion of childhood innocence'...well, that would be a lot more compelling a sentiment if there weren't, y'know, hoards of statistics and reports that sexual contact in childhood - pedophilia - really messes almost everyone it happens to up. The calculation that it's dangerous has taken place because it's been shown to be dangerous! Experience has taught us that, not some fanciful notion of childhood. What a strange notion!
quote:I'll be clear: when it comes to pedophiles, I do not have a problem of neighborhood notification per se. My problem is with vigilante action.
Where is the vigilante action in this case?
quote:But Avid, would you agree that as bad as the 18/30 range marriage was, it shouldn't be illegal?
Just to keep your argument rooted properly, we're not actually talking about that. No one says 18 yr sex should be illegal. We're talking 15-30 split here. Unhealthy power structure says it all. What do 15 and 30 year olds have that would attract them to one another? Analyze that and you'll see what the cultural objection to it is. It has nothing to do with fanciful chimeras (a bit redundant now that I think about it) and everything to do with shrewd, pragmatic analysis.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Where is the vigilante action in this case?
Yeah, none. There's no vigilante action here. Vigilantism is extrajudicial; you don't end up a vigilante just by informing people.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Foust, I don't have any such concerns. "If we made everything legal there wouldn't be any crime" is a bad argument, and doesn't justify squat.
I didn't say that. I used the word prohibition, which I guess was too vague. I mean the social prohibition; they're "untrustworthy" because what they're doing is condemned.
quote: There are a lot of factors these days that were non-issues in other times, and I don't think preventing older men from preying on teens is a bad thing.
You're begging the question. Of course "older men preying on teens" is bad, but I'm saying that not all of these relationships are necessarily a matter of predator and prey. You're playing with two generalizations. The first is that the only adult/teen relationships are between predatory men and naive teenage girls, and the second is that these relationships are always predatory. I tend to think that romantic love is far more unpredictable than we wish to give it credit for.
I'm also unconvinced there is a major difference between even a manipulative adult male/teen girl relationship and older women manipulating older men, or in any other number of combination of age and gender.
quote:Quite frankly, it really sounds like you have a very poor understanding of the dynamics frequently involved in these situations, Foust.
I'm well aware of what common sense has to say about these matters. I just don't hold common sense in very high regard.
quote:It's the way everyone is raised.
This isn't a good argument, and you wouldn't let conservatives use it in other contexts. So don't bother here.
quote:One of which is: when you're in your 30s, don't have sex with people half your age! I'm perfectly comfortable with labeling people incapable of obeying that taboo as sex offenders. Mostly because they, y'know, are.
Circular reasoning. We are taught to believe they are sex offenders because they are, and they are sex offenders because we are taught to believe they are.
quote:Who's been having that reaction, Foust? Keep your labels accurate, if you please, where you're willing to use them at all that is.
I'll bet Mal's neighbor feels a bit like a 30s movie version of Dr. Frankenstein right about now.
quote:As for the 'chimerical notion of childhood innocence'...well, that would be a lot more compelling a sentiment if there weren't, y'know, hoards of statistics and reports that sexual contact in childhood - pedophilia - really messes almost everyone it happens to up.
My complaint is that we are extending the already shaky concept of innocence into adolescence. Nothing I'm saying has anything to do with pedophilia.
quote:Just to keep your argument rooted properly, we're not actually talking about that.
Avid was using the 18/30 marriage as an example of a relationship with a large age difference was unhealthy. I was responding to Avid.
quote:Unhealthy power structure says it all.
Again, begging the question. This is exactly what I'm arguing against. Undesirable power relationships exist across any and all pairings; take a couple with any combination of age, race, class and gender you like, and you'll find messed up power games. I'm saying that these unhealthy power relations are not inherent in any combination, with the exception of pedophilia.
quote:What do 15 and 30 year olds have that would attract them to one another? Analyze that and you'll see what the cultural objection to it is
We've all come across a dozen couples and have asked ourselves, "why on earth are they together?" What attracts two people to one another is quite singular - because love is singular. Statistically, like falls in love with like, but you know what happens the minute you go to the individual level. Do I understand how a hot women in her 20s could find a stinky, obnoxious teenage boy attractive? Of course not. Does Mary Kay Letourneau's story make sense to me? No, but it doesn't need to - people fall in love in strange circumstances. And even if love isn't involved, people of all stripes can become mutually attracted to one another.
quote:Yeah, none. There's no vigilante action here. Vigilantism is extrajudicial; you don't end up a vigilante just by informing people.
I'll drop the term for now.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I would certainly inform my neighbors if I knew a sexual offender had moved into the neighborhood, though anyone with internet access can check the state website and find out for themselves.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Sadly, many people in my extended circle (i.e. parents of the kids' friends) STILL don't know about the state registry website, or have forgotten since I last attempted to enlighten them. I'd personally rather have three well-meaning neighbors warn me of a danger I already know exists because I did my own research than have those same three neighbors assume that I already checked it out when I may not have.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I agree. Interestingly, there is a book at the main office of every school in our county, so whenever I'm up there checking out a kid for a doctor's appointment I always flip through it to see if anyone new has moved into the area. The schools just print out the notifications and put them in there, the most recent on top.
I would say that most parents do the same, based on what I've seen, so I think that surprisingly low-tech option has made a big impact in keeping people informed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
EDIT: NEVERMIND I WAS CONFUSED, IT'S STILL THERE, POTS OF GOLD FOR EVERYONE
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
My problem with the sex offender list:
If we are releasing these people because they are rehabilitated, then it is wrong to punish them after prison.
If we are releasing these people and they are not rehabilitated, then we need to take a serious look at our justice system.
Either way, I find it a violation of personal freedoms.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:If we are releasing these people because they are rehabilitated, then it is wrong to punish them after prison.
I think sex offender registries just recognize the fact that a) we can't lock people up for crimes they haven't yet committed BUT b) sex offenders have a high level of recidivism.
I don't disagree with the use of sex offender registries in principle, but in practice they are a joke. Any old fart that gets spotted peeing in his yard or college senior that has sex with his sophomore girlfriend gets an ominous bullet on those online sex offender maps and may have draconian restrictions placed on where they can live or work.
There needs to be some sense of perspective in the system.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Maybe I'm just ignorant on this, but how do you rehabilitate a convicted felon, regardless of their crime? They're in a controlled environment where the temptation to repeat (probably) doesn't exist. I imagine that counseling can only go so far.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
there are actually plenty of situations where felons can be rehabilitated given the right resources. And it's recommendable because this results in a net decrease in drain on public resources. the only problem is that the system that tries to rehab felons has to be extremely methodological in determining what psychological profiles / groups are conductive to effective rehabilitation, etc.
counseling is pretty valuable for a large number of inmates.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:there are actually plenty of situations where felons can be rehabilitated given the right resources
Unfortunately a number of people view these rehabilitation efforts, effective or not, as being "soft on crime." So what if learning a vocational skill makes someone less likely to offend in the future, we shouldn't be paying to educate felons!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, like it's better to just have them accrue in prisons and drain our resources.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I have mixed feelings on the registries, not only because they might contain too varied a mix of threatening and non-threatening offenders, but also because I have a feeling that when we deliberately shun and exclude people who did wrong things in the past we might be making it more likely that they relapse into criminal behavior. However, I will not pretend that recidivism can be cured by forgive-and-forget; I think it's a lot more complicated than that.
The complications go both ways, though, and I am not comfortable that I can accurately analyze a case and determine that the upsides of actively warning neighbors outweigh the downsides. (Those downsides include contributing to irrational fear and overprotective behavior which might have a negative impact on development, health, and happiness. )
My net impulse is to do nothing. I want victims of abuse to have public resources at their command to react to crime and hopefully prevent further abuses in the future. I want criminals who have served their sentences to have maximal chances to have a normal, decent life going forward. I want people to be realistic about how to protect their kids and also to allow them to have experiences that have great value even if they also carry some risk. I simply can't do the calculus to determine how to balance these wants (let alone the psychohistory to achieve a goal even if I could define it).
So I would not warn neighbors about the guy next door. I would not try to stop anyone from doing that, either.
Some simpler equations leave me less apathetic, though. While I most likely cannot reach a conclusion about whether it is best to actively publicize a criminal registry, I can conclude that teaching my children not to go into the homes or vehicles of strangers is a good idea. I can say that I think it's worth it to test and fund rehabilitation strategies and to set that as a higher priority than retribution.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I have mixed feeling on them as well, but I would rather protect the right of children to grow up healthy than protect the right of someone to start over after molesting a child.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Foust,
quote: I mean the social prohibition; they're "untrustworthy" because what they're doing is condemned.
Or, put another way that doesn't thrust the blame on the prohibition itself, they're untrustworthy because they didn't stop themselves from doing what is condemned. Which isn't in this case something like paying an unjust tax or speaking peacefully against the government, but rather being an adult in your 30s and having sex with kids in junior high or high school.
quote:I'm also unconvinced there is a major difference between even a manipulative adult male/teen girl relationship and older women manipulating older men, or in any other number of combination of age and gender.
The difference is pretty obvious, I would have thought. Adults are their own responsibility. Teenagers (of this age) are not entirely their own responsibility. You can argue all you like that it shouldn't be this way in our society, but as long as it is? People dealing with them must take that into account-dealing with teenagers, that is. And when the 'dealings' are sexual activity, well, sorry kids, society says you don't get to entirely make up your own mind about it. If they don't like it, of course they're free to fume about it for awhile until they see things our way:)
quote:I'm well aware of what common sense has to say about these matters. I just don't hold common sense in very high regard.
That outlook is a lot more compelling when what you have to offer is at least on par with common sense or even better. So far your complaint is, "People are begging the question," and your evidence of this is a host of arguments that...well, beg the question or else just say, "That's not true."
quote:This isn't a good argument, and you wouldn't let conservatives use it in other contexts. So don't bother here.
When did conservatives come into this? I don't understand that objection. Anyway, it's an excellent argument on the trustworthiness factor.
quote:Circular reasoning. We are taught to believe they are sex offenders because they are, and they are sex offenders because we are taught to believe they are.
Well, yes. Words mean what we say they mean. That doesn't change, though, that the ideas, people, things, and places they refer to don't actually change depending on what we call them. A 30 year old who habitually has sex with 15-16 year olds isn't magically going to be a good guy in our society if we just start calling him that. Please note I said 'our society' where the differences between 15 and 30 year olds is much more striking than in centuries past.
quote:I'll bet Mal's neighbor feels a bit like a 30s movie version of Dr. Frankenstein right about now.
I have to admit, I'm not very concerned about the feelings of Mal's neighbor. In light of other considerations, that is, particularly in ensuring he doesn't sexually assault anyone else with slight force. Maybe if we re-evaluated our definition of 'sexual assault' and came to realize that 'slight force' isn't actually that bad, that people subjected to it were capable of resisting effectively, we could embrace the guy as a human being worthy of respect and comraderie?
quote:My complaint is that we are extending the already shaky concept of innocence into adolescence. Nothing I'm saying has anything to do with pedophilia.
Your complaints aren't entirely clear, for one thing. At times you'd feel a 'little' differently if it were a child, then it's a totally different case for example. And no, we're not equating pedophilia and sex between young adolescents and adults. What we're saying, though, is that there is not some magical line before which it's pedophilia and after which it's just normal sex between adults, which seems to be the thrust of your argument: that teens ought be treated as adults, sexually.
Now, if you were to frame your argument more reasonable in terms of sex between adolescents or those very recently out of adolescence, that would be quite different. A 19 year old who has sex with a 16 year old should not, I think, be on a sex offender registry for life, generally speaking. I'm a lot less uncertain about someone 11+yrs older, though.
quote:Undesirable power relationships exist across any and all pairings; take a couple with any combination of age, race, class and gender you like, and you'll find messed up power games. I'm saying that these unhealthy power relations are not inherent in any combination, with the exception of pedophilia.
Yes, I realize what you're saying. What you appear to be missing is that we as a society have no obligation to protect full-fledged adults from themselves in terms of their sexuality. Teenagers are a different case. Your argument that they shouldn't be treated as such centers around 'they're less innocent than we think they are'. Hardly compelling.
quote: quote:What do 15 and 30 year olds have that would attract them to one another? Analyze that and you'll see what the cultural objection to it is
We've all come across a dozen couples and have asked ourselves, "why on earth are they together?" What attracts two people to one another is quite singular - because love is singular. Statistically, like falls in love with like, but you know what happens the minute you go to the individual level. Do I understand how a hot women in her 20s could find a stinky, obnoxious teenage boy attractive? Of course not. Does Mary Kay Letourneau's story make sense to me? No, but it doesn't need to - people fall in love in strange circumstances. And even if love isn't involved, people of all stripes can become mutually attracted to one another.
Finding someone attractive is one thing. Mary Kay Letourneau's story absolutely needs to make sense, not only because she was an adult, but because the person she was having sex with wasn't just a random teenager (12, btw), but because she was his student in public school. That especially is a very specific kind of relationship.
It doesn't matter one whit if the two of them continued to be together for the rest of their lives in perfect, blissful happiness. If I beat someone into a coma and they remain there for 30 years and miraculously wake up three decades later and forgive me for it, I am not excused just because things turned out alright. Outcome does not retroactively change action.
quote:I'll drop the term for now.
For now, huh? Generous of you, since the term doesn't at all apply.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:
The complications go both ways, though, and I am not comfortable that I can accurately analyze a case and determine that the upsides of actively warning neighbors outweigh the downsides. (Those downsides include contributing to irrational fear and overprotective behavior which might have a negative impact on development, health, and happiness. [Frown] )
Irrational?
quote:I have mixed feeling on them as well, but I would rather protect the right of children to grow up healthy than protect the right of someone to start over after molesting a child.
Agreed. And in the meantime, support politicians who go after sex-crime laws that are actually pragmatic as opposed to politically expedient.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I have mixed feelings on the registries,
I don't.
1. A registry is a good idea in and of itself, but
2. The registry system we have now is broken and terrible and should be shot and killed and beheaded and its mouth stuffed full of garlic and buried at a crossroads, and
3. Once we do that, we should replace it with a system that doesn't suck and isn't modeled after zero-tolerance policies that also suck.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
The complications go both ways, though, and I am not comfortable that I can accurately analyze a case and determine that the upsides of actively warning neighbors outweigh the downsides. (Those downsides include contributing to irrational fear and overprotective behavior which might have a negative impact on development, health, and happiness. [Frown] )
Irrational?
I'm not sure if you're asking for clarification, or what. Assuming you are, I'll briefly explain what I mean.
People can have an disproportionate degree of fear about sexual predators, and it might be worsened by actively identifying and thinking about nearby offenders. I think that this is one contributor to a general trend of keeping kids indoors and at home as much as possible, which might be contributing to depression, obesity, and other problems.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I have mixed feeling on them as well, but I would rather protect the right of children to grow up healthy than protect the right of someone to start over after molesting a child.
The latter doesn't properly describe many of the people on the registry yet they get the same "sex offender" stigma. I'd have much less of a problem with a "child molester" registry.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, we need the registry to actually MEAN something, rather than be filled with 14-17 year olds who are permanent sex offenders due to having engaged in consensual sexual relations with other minors, or 18 year old girls who had a 17 year old boyfriend, etc.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Or, put another way that doesn't thrust the blame on the prohibition itself, they're untrustworthy because they didn't stop themselves from doing what is condemned.
All you're saying is that people who do things that are socially condemned are untrustworthy -- without any regard to the justice of their act or society's judgment.
quote:And when the 'dealings' are sexual activity, well, sorry kids, society says you don't get to entirely make up your own mind about it.
I'll type... this... very... slowly. You're begging the question. I know it is socially condemned. This is what I'm questioning.
quote:So far your complaint is, "People are begging the question,"
In some circles, that is enough.
I'd like like to know where you think I am begging the question.
quote:A 30 year old who habitually has sex with 15-16 year olds isn't magically going to be a good guy in our society if we just start calling him that.
This is the example you keep bringing up - which is fine - but obviously it is the example that generates the most outrage. This is what you're playing on - outrage. And while I am not claiming this is true of you in particular, the flipside of this outrage is this. (a link to a South Park clip, with all the mildly-nsfw connotations that involves)
(Maybe I stretched the argument a little to fit that clip in. )
quote: What we're saying, though, is that there is not some magical line before which it's pedophilia and after which it's just normal sex between adults, which seems to be the thrust of your argument: that teens ought be treated as adults, sexually.
Actually, I'm offering to add to this: that there is no magical line before which it is dirty old men taking advantage of innocent young girls, and after which it is two adults. We all already acknowledge that the age of consent is basically arbitrary - why not 15? why not 17? why not 18 and a half? - I'm questioning it's value as anything other than an empty regulatory mechanism.
quote:Outcome does not retroactively change action.
Boy oh boy, did you ever just step into a deep hole of deontological ethics that you'll never dig your way out of. But this is a good thing! Neither of us are consequentialists! Which means that even if Letourneau's story did end in tears, it doesn't mean she necessarily did the wrong thing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:All you're saying is that people who do things that are socially condemned are untrustworthy -- without any regard to the justice of their act or society's judgment.
Yes. The untrustworthiness is not necessarily tied to justice. It's important for a society to be able to say to its citizens, "There are things you cannot do, even if you really, really think you've got a good reason. Even if you're sure. You may turn out to have been right in some cases," (see homicide), "but we're the ones who will be making that decision, not you."
quote:I'll type... this... very... slowly. You're begging the question. I know it is socially condemned. This is what I'm questioning.
I'm aware I'm begging the question. You're saying, "We should let them make up their own mind." I'm saying, "Until we decide to do that, you don't get to make up your own mind." That's part of what it means to live in civilization.
quote:I'd like like to know where you think I am begging the question.
The parts about teenagers being a lot more capable than we give them credit for, for example.
quote:This is the example you keep bringing up - which is fine - but obviously it is the example that generates the most outrage.
It also happens to be the example that's actually being discussed here, and the example you expressed objections to.
quote:Actually, I'm offering to add to this: that there is no magical line before which it is dirty old men taking advantage of innocent young girls, and after which it is two adults. We all already acknowledge that the age of consent is basically arbitrary - why not 15? why not 17? why not 18 and a half? - I'm questioning it's value as anything other than an empty regulatory mechanism.
Of course there's no magical line. Why not 15 or 17 indeed? But until we change the line to go two years or one year or eight days back, the line is where it is. It's arbitrary. It does not reflect reality in all cases. But that doesn't make it an 'empty regulatory mechanism', because while there are going to be some people denied physical consummation of true love, there's also at least as many - or do you not grant that, even? - people who will be protected from being victimized by older adults preying on their comparitive inexperience and powerlessness?
quote:Boy oh boy, did you ever just step into a deep hole of deontological ethics that you'll never dig your way out of. But this is a good thing! Neither of us are consequentialists! Which means that even if Letourneau's story did end in tears, it doesn't mean she necessarily did the wrong thing.
What it means is that while intent and outcome matters, there is also the act itself in the framework of the society we live in. I'm comfortable putting this in 'wrong' category. I recognize it's arbitrary. That's the way life is sometimes. I had to look up deontological ethics, and now that you bring it up, it is like that. I'm fine just saying, "These are the rules, this is your duty," to 30 year olds wanting to have sex with 15 year olds.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote: I'm saying, "Until we decide to do that, you don't get to make up your own mind." That's part of what it means to live in civilization.
So you're about one centimeter away from just saying it's wrong because society says it is wrong, and we all just have to live with society's judgment. Is that really where you want to go? Are you taking this tact because you have no other way to justify your outrage and squick?
quote:
quote:I'd like like to know where you think I am begging the question.
The parts about teenagers being a lot more capable than we give them credit for, for example.
No, I was making an empirical statement there. Would you agree that there is a subset (of whatever size) of 16 year olds that could pass for 25? Would you agree that there is a subset of 16 year olds that could pass for 25 if there weren't constantly told "you'll understand when you're older"? I'm making a statistical argument, it isn't circular at all. I use this to say that we needlessly condescend to teenagers all the time. It is useless to judge by age.
quote:
quote:This is the example you keep bringing up - which is fine - but obviously it is the example that generates the most outrage.
It also happens to be the example that's actually being discussed here, and the example you expressed objections to.
Not true. This thread has been full of abstract, hypothetical scenarios. The discussion moved beyond Mal's one specific example before I came along.
quote:...while there are going to be some people denied physical consummation of true love, there's also at least as many - or do you not grant that, even? - people who will be protected from being victimized by older adults preying on their comparative inexperience and powerlessness?
And this is the base line rational of most legal thinking - taking a generalization and forcing all particulars under it. I'm arguing for the ethical importance of particulars - sometimes we just have to tell generalizations (even statistically well founded ones!) to go stuff themselves in the name of the unique, the new, the flashing appearance of what could be.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
As a former 16 year old assumed to be 26 on occasion, I'm not a fan of the thought of other 26 year olds considering me fair game. The phrase "jailbait" kept a remarkable amount of pressure off me, which I appreciate.
I guess I just don't see your argument, Foust. I should have been subjected to three times the near-constant social pressure to get physical because occasionally a 16 and a 25 year old are right for each other? How bout she just waits two years to sleep with him and other girls like me get to keep their temporary reprieve?
Cause if you haven't had to approach the majority of social situations wondering how much of the attention you're getting is because somebody wants to touch something, I'm not sure you appreciate the subtle insinuations that come with it. What if at every party a large group of guys wanted to talk to you until they found out how old you were and then didn't any more? What if people at your hobby were enjoying a nice conversation and stopped dead when they realized you were standing there? If every plan with them had to be changed because of your presence?
It's tough enough being mature for a teenager and looking older. I had sex young and married my high school boyfriend. I, of all people, am not arguing that teenagers aren't mature and can't make decisions about sex that they won't regret. (Though I'm not sure if anyone can ever really be ready and a certain amount of that may come down to luck.) I'm saying the good outweighs the bad, broken sex registry and all.
Change a few broken laws. Revamp the registry. But lets not compound the problem.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
When I was speaking about passing for 25, I meant mentally, not physically. As for your experiences, it sounds rough, but a lot of that is just down to human sexual politics regardless of age. If you're hot, you'll always wonder about people's motives.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So you're about one centimeter away from just saying it's wrong because society says it is wrong, and we all just have to live with society's judgment. Is that really where you want to go? Are you taking this tact because you have no other way to justify your outrage and squick?
Yep, you hit the nail on the head. The only real reason I object to 30 yr olds having sex with 15 yr olds is because society tells me it's wrong, and I do what society tells me and think what it thinks. Or, wait a second, maybe what I was talking about there was about a smaller section of the matter at large, and what you quoted does not describe my entire thinking on the matter. But it's probably the thing that makes me a sheep.
quote:No, I was making an empirical statement there. Would you agree that there is a subset (of whatever size) of 16 year olds that could pass for 25? Would you agree that there is a subset of 16 year olds that could pass for 25 if there weren't constantly told "you'll understand when you're older"? I'm making a statistical argument, it isn't circular at all. I use this to say that we needlessly condescend to teenagers all the time. It is useless to judge by age.
You had me right up until 'useless'. Useful does not mean 'right in every single instance'. The exact same reasoning you're using means we ought not have laws against, for example, assault. How do we know, before the event happens, that the assault wasn't merited? It's useless to make prior judgments. A person might have been defending themselves. A person might have been provoked beyond endurance. Two people might be having a fight club. Since we cannot know prior to every event what every cause and background was, it's needless to have a law against it.
Or a much saner, more reasonable solution would be instead of abolishing the law that works to protect the vast majority because it isn't perfect, to change the law to better fit reality, offering more variability to adapt to different situations. 19 yr old with a 16 yr old, for example. Keep `em off the registry. 30 yr old with a 15 year old? Either wait three years or go on the sex offender registry. It's a cruel, cruel world out there where a person in their 30s has to wait awhile for sex from half their age, I know, but they can handle it.
quote:Not true. This thread has been full of abstract, hypothetical scenarios. The discussion moved beyond Mal's one specific example before I came along.
Well, no, actually what happened was that you called the initial scenario and response described a 'dick move', and we were off to the races. It's not your overall philosophy I'm objecting to so much as your insistence it ought to be applied in a way that removes restrictions already in place.
quote:As for your experiences, it sounds rough, but a lot of that is just down to human sexual politics regardless of age. If you're hot, you'll always wonder about people's motives.
If you're 25 instead of 15, you'll most likely be much better equipped to deal with those worries.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Odd question Mal, how did you find out in such a way that no one else did? do you regularly check the interwebs to check out your neighbors or something?
Posted by The Ether of Space (Member # 2656) on :
From the Megan's Law website in California:
"The information on this web site is made available solely to protect the public. Anyone who uses this information to commit a crime or to harass an offender or his or her family is subject to criminal prosecution and civil liability. Any person who is required to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290 who enters this web site is punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 290.46, subd. (h)(2).)"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Doesn't mean he used it to harass the guy.
ANYWAY
hey guys remember when I said this
quote: The registry system we have now is broken and terrible and should be shot and killed and beheaded and its mouth stuffed full of garlic and buried at a crossroads
Georgia’s Supreme Court is upholding the government’s right to put non-sex offenders on the state’s sex-offender registry, highlighting a little-noticed (but growing) nationwide practice.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I'm saying the good outweighs the bad, broken sex registry and all.
Does it though? I realize that you personally feel good about registries, but how would go about demonstrating the good provided in order to weigh that against the harm. Do people on registries offend less than those not on registries? Do sex crimes decrease in an area once a registry is put in place?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Every time I see this thread I find myself singing the subject line (in my head) to the tune of "Girlfriend in a Coma."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I'm saying the good outweighs the bad, broken sex registry and all.
Does it though?
no. sexual offender lists have now been so diluted that they're virtually useless for actual law enforcement, unless you count prosecutors and police departments using them as tools of blunt coercion by threatening you with getting stuck with the label FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE and being unable to live in most places in most cities FOREVER unless you cop a plea.
FUN FACT: you can get made a sex offender for life by being a high school student who sexted, or by being drunk and peeing on a bush alongside the road.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: ! Which means that even if Letourneau's story did end in tears, it doesn't mean she necessarily did the wrong thing.
She did though. He was 12, for god's sake, and she was in a position of power over him.
Do you honestly think that she was right and did nothing wrong? Because if so I think I'd notify my neighbors if YOU moved near by.....
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, he appears to think nothing was done wrong if the outcome is good. That it's impossible to do wrong, or evil, or be mistaken, pick your word, if it leads to good results.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I'd like to point out that from the few posts I've seen from malanthrop over the past day, I'm pretty sure this is a troll. He didn't pass out flyers. There is no sex offender. He's just trying to start an argument.
Well, yes, that's quite likely. But at least this is an interesting topic, and there are some actual contradicting positions in it that don't come from him, so it's interesting.
Fair enough. As I think you pointed out, I don't have a major problem with sex offender registration, but I DO have serious issues with the classifications of sex crimes. Public urination is a sex crime requiring registration. So is streaking, I believe. So is a college kid having sex with his high school girlfriend.
Every single male here has peed by the side of the road dozens of times. If these laws were applied consistently, we'd be a nation of sex offenders.
Btw Jeff, what's up? Where are you now?
edit: Looks like this is almost word-for-word what Samprimary just said. Cool. Then focus less on us all agreeing that sex offense classification needs revamping and more on what's up.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Every single male here has peed by the side of the road dozens of times.
Er...I haven't. I've maybe peed by the side of the road twice, and not since I was like, six.
Bladder of steel, that's me!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Must be a pain when you have to fly though.....
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The only reason I know I have a pedophile for a neighbor is due to the registry. Every couple months, I do a neighborhood search in the registry.
This guy lived there longer than I realized. He was just released from a two week stint in jail for "failure to register".
I don't care about victimless crime criminals living in my neighborhood. I looked at his record. I won't deny that registry includes people who have been caught masterbating behind a tree, or charged with having sex with their girlfriend the day after their 18th birthday......this guy is different.
My sharing of knowledge did destroy one friendship. On my two block stretch, there are three Jamaican residences, the pedophile is one. One of the others is the one I talked out of performing machete justice for his teenage daughter. Prior to my notification, they were friendly with one another.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I'm getting the feeling that a lot of people don't realize that sexual assault can be just about anything. There was a girl at my high school who had made allegations of rape to the police. Later she dropped the charges and it became apparent that the sex was consensual, but who's to say what would have happened if the charges weren't dropped? Or how about the story of how my friend went home with a guy after a party, said yes when he asked her if she wanted to go upstairs, and told everyone she got raped afterwards (another friend was downstairs and the guy definitely didn't hurt her physically)? A lot of the time in these types of cases its one person's word against another's and it can be impossible to tell what really happened. If these are some of the cases that go to court, then I'm not sure what to think about what constitutes rape anymore. Where do we draw the line? The age for statutory rape is pretty arbitrary right now and if having sex with a drunk girl is considered rape, then I know plenty of guys (including myself) who are rapists and plenty of girls who have gotten raped. As a student in college the very idea that I could end up going to court faced with charges of rape because of a one night stand scares me a lot. On topic, mal I feel like if you were conflicted about what to do, its best to inform your neighbors anyways and get it off your chest. Personally I wouldn't have done with it, but don't feel beat yourself up too much about it.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: I'm getting the feeling that a lot of people don't realize that sexual assault can be just about anything.
And when the definition continually expands, it really looks like there's a growing problem. It also makes it harder to ascertain the real threats when words like "violent, assault, forced" etc, are used when no violence or force was used.
So when Joe Schmoe is browsing the registry looking out for "evil doers", he sees the words "violent, assault" and imagines some horrific, cinematic event filled with screaming or whatever his mind concocts. Now, it seems clear from Mal's description that his neighbor doesn't fit this scenario, but it's more common that you think, and many people who are on the sex offender registry for something they did as a teenager are becoming the victims of vigilantes.
This kind of language hijacking is absolutely detrimental to real-world solutions and makes things muddier, not clearer. Growing up Jewish, I'm also worried about the broadbrush stigmatization that's going on, and how that's eroding our rights and freedoms. It's very reminiscent of Nazi Germany, except substitute Jews and Homosexuals. Between the pedophiles and the terrorists, we're more than happy to hand our rights away it seems, whether it's airport security, the Patriot Act, or censoring the internet.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sala: Okay, here I am. I am a teacher and we are periodically sent the list of sexual offenders in our county. I scanned the list and discovered that a man now lives on my road, next door to children, and the road has a lot of children on it. It's a cul-de-sac road, so the children play all around the road, and in it, often. Do I inform my neighbors? I've considered it, especially the next-door neighbors. Or do I just stay out of it. And then if something happens feel guilty for not informing my neighbors? ~Sala
See what details you can get before spreading the word. The registry has a lot of people on it that are no danger to anyone. In Georgia where I lived, there was a woman in her 30's who was a registered sex offender because she had oral sex with a classmate who was two weeks short of his birthday. People end up on that list for all kinds of reasons.
Mal did his best to make sure the fella he ratted out wasn't one of those. Some folks don't. Don't start something unless you're pretty sure the 'offender' is an actual threat.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Mal did his best to make sure the fella he ratted out wasn't one of those. Some folks don't. Don't start something unless you're pretty sure the 'offender' is an actual threat.
Unsurprisingly, this is excellent advice:)
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
Olivet, I haven't done anything yet exactly because of what you just stated. I don't know enough yet to be sure I need to do anything. But I'm not quite sure how I would go about finding out if there is a threat. How do you do that? All I know was he was on the registry.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
SoaPiNuReYe - Saying yes to going upstairs is not saying yes to sex. Rape is rape if the girl says no and the man continues anyway. If the girl is unconscious or unable to give consent, assume it is not given. Whether a woman fights or not does not determine if it is rape. She says no to penetration, if he continues, it is rape, regardless of anything else that proceeded it. Numerous rape victims don't fight beyond saying no because they know they can't win the fight, so why get raped and assaulted? Or they freeze in a moment of terror.
If you don't want to be charged with rape, make sure the terms are explicit. You are engaging in a fairly intimate act, you can take a few minutes to make sure you are not crossing the line. If she is too drunk to consent, then don't sleep with her.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sala: Olivet, I haven't done anything yet exactly because of what you just stated. I don't know enough yet to be sure I need to do anything. But I'm not quite sure how I would go about finding out if there is a threat. How do you do that? All I know was he was on the registry.
Your profile says you live in Georgia. Go to the Georgia Sex Offender Registry and do a search for your county, zip code, or the name of the person you know is on the registry. There you can gain information on the exact crime the person on the registry was charged with, and the conviction date. Some legal charges are unclear, so it might be a good idea to google "GA sexual battery law" or what have you to figure out what acts fall under that charge .
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
scholarette: I think SoaPiNuReYe's point was that the guy in question believed that he did have consent, and it was only later that the woman (in the guy's mind) changed her story.
Maybe she had "buyer's remorse" and decided to make a deal out of it. Maybe someone convinced her she was raped. Maybe she wanted to get back at him for some slight.
The point is that nobody knows, and even if the allegations turn out to be false, it can still ruin the guy's life.
Everyone agrees that rape is horrible. Fewer people agree that false rape accusations are equally as horrible.
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
The criminalization of normal heterosexual behavior continues.
FACT: a 15 year old girl is often more inherently attractive to a heterosexual male than a 25 year old woman or a 30 year old woman. In fact, a 15 year old girl is way more fertile than a 25 year old woman or a 30 year old women. It simply wouldn't make biological sense, then, for that 15 year old girl not to be inherently more attractive.
If the guy in question slept with 8 year old girls, then sure, he really is a pedophile. If on the other hand he slept with 15 year old girls (who probably chose him as well) then he really shouldn't be punished. Age of consent laws are just another way feminists want to punish normal heterosexual behavior.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My concern with SoaPiNuReYe's statement was that he offered as evidence that she wasn't raped the fast that she consented to go upstairs with his friend and that she was not injured. Neither of these facts have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not she was raped. If a man considers those two factors part of a woman's consent, he is wrong. And the fact that so many men consider those factors part of judging whether a woman was raped is an extremely upsetting acpect of modern society.
I think false accusations of rape are horrible and any woman who does that is pretty awful. However, I would not agree that it is the same level of horribleness as an actual rape. Both are horrible, but not equivalent.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cindy Carter: The criminalization of normal heterosexual behavior continues.
FACT: a 15 year old girl is often more inherently attractive to a heterosexual male than a 25 year old woman or a 30 year old woman. In fact, a 15 year old girl is way more fertile than a 25 year old woman or a 30 year old women. It simply wouldn't make biological sense, then, for that 15 year old girl not to be inherently more attractive.
If the guy in question slept with 8 year old girls, then sure, he really is a pedophile. If on the other hand he slept with 15 year old girls (who probably chose him as well) then he really shouldn't be punished. Age of consent laws are just another way feminists want to punish normal heterosexual behavior.
the age is 14 if I recall in Quebec, so age of consent laws are probably only unreasonable in the US.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The criminalization of normal heterosexual behavior continues.
I dispute that a 25 yr old having sex with a 15 yr old is 'normal heterosexual behavior'.
quote: FACT: a 15 year old girl is often more inherently attractive to a heterosexual male than a 25 year old woman or a 30 year old woman. In fact, a 15 year old girl is way more fertile than a 25 year old woman or a 30 year old women. It simply wouldn't make biological sense, then, for that 15 year old girl not to be inherently more attractive.
You're seriously abusing the word 'FACT' here. Now I wouldn't say it's a fact, but most of the heterosexual men I know would disagree with your statement. Part of that is because many of them are fathers, and part is because many of them don't actually think with their libido, and most importantly most heterosexual men I know are attracted to adults. This bears out in public conversation and private behavior, incidentally, so you can hardly lay the blame on the dang feminists.
Also, what exactly does 'inherently attractive' mean?
As for your statements about fertility, many men I know are in fact more attracted to women where there is no possibility of children at all. Strictly Darwinistic thinking works great for studying animals on the savanna, less capably for studying human beings where we throw in culture, religion, and social convention into the mix where 'adaptation' does not always equate to 'breeds the most'.
quote:If on the other hand he slept with 15 year old girls (who probably chose him as well) then he really shouldn't be punished. Age of consent laws are just another way feminists want to punish normal heterosexual behavior.
15 year olds are not granted the right to make all decisions on their own, so whether or not the 15 yr old chose the 25 yr old isn't entirely relevant. As for age of consent laws being a feminist vehicle for punishing heterosexuality...yes, you're exactly right. Feminists have so much power in our society. They're the Colossus of Rhodes astride our legal system.
Are you Clive Candy?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Of course he's Clive Candy. That last post was the final straw nailed into the coffin that has broken the camel's back. If I could think of another appropriate metaphor off the top of my head I'd mix it in there too.
Also:
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: This kind of language hijacking is absolutely detrimental to real-world solutions and makes things muddier, not clearer. Growing up Jewish, I'm also worried about the broadbrush stigmatization that's going on, and how that's eroding our rights and freedoms. It's very reminiscent of Nazi Germany, except substitute Jews and Homosexuals. Between the pedophiles and the terrorists, we're more than happy to hand our rights away it seems, whether it's airport security, the Patriot Act, or censoring the internet.
You have a point. However, I will admit that I'm a little more okay with the government trying to crack down on terrorists and pedophiles than I would be if they were cracking down on Jews and Homosexuals. Or even, say, Scientologists and Necrophiliacs. (Also, why is the colloquial term for people engaging in necrophilia "necrophiliac?" Shouldn't it be necrophile?)
At least in the case of terrorists and convicted pedophiles, you're looking at two groups who actually are dangerous predators.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: the age is 14 if I recall in Quebec, so age of consent laws are probably only unreasonable in the US.
It would appear the the age of consent in Canada is 16. In the US, it is determined on a state-by-state basis, and in most states, it is also 16.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cindy Carter: The criminalization of normal heterosexual behavior continues.
FACT: a 15 year old girl is often more inherently attractive to a heterosexual male than a 25 year old woman or a 30 year old woman. In fact, a 15 year old girl is way more fertile than a 25 year old woman or a 30 year old women. It simply wouldn't make biological sense, then, for that 15 year old girl not to be inherently more attractive.
If the guy in question slept with 8 year old girls, then sure, he really is a pedophile. If on the other hand he slept with 15 year old girls (who probably chose him as well) then he really shouldn't be punished. Age of consent laws are just another way feminists want to punish normal heterosexual behavior.
Hi "Cindy Carter"
Nice to see you're already making smurf accounts to disobey your instructions not to make dickheaded, psychotic gender commentary.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: the age is 14 if I recall in Quebec, so age of consent laws are probably only unreasonable in the US.
It would appear the the age of consent in Canada is 16. In the US, it is determined on a state-by-state basis, and in most states, it is also 16.
The page I was looking at appeared to be from 1999, but there still exists a close in age exemption, so as long as your within roughly 2 years old your okay.
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
quote: You're seriously abusing the word 'FACT' here. Now I wouldn't say it's a fact, but most of the heterosexual men I know would disagree with your statement. Part of that is because many of them are fathers, and part is because many of them don't actually think with their libido, and most importantly most heterosexual men I know are attracted to adults. This bears out in public conversation and private behavior, incidentally, so you can hardly lay the blame on the dang feminists.
I certainly agree that men would hesitate to engage in those sort of relationships. That's because it's been made a social taboo, what with the laws against it and everything. And, certainly, 15 year old women won't, on average, have fathers and mothers that would allow that sort of relationship. It doesn't happen often, but it can happen, all too easily, if we strike down the laws that forbid it.
quote: Also, what exactly does 'inherently attractive' mean?
A 15 year old woman can often be more beautiful to men than a woman 10 or 15 years older. This is because that 15 year old is at her most fertile and that fact is being advertised full force when she's that age to heterosexual men. Certainly there are exceptions and it isn't always true but it is, on average, true.
quote: As for your statements about fertility, many men I know are in fact more attracted to women where there is no possibility of children at all.
The men you know must love to date grandmas.
quote: Strictly Darwinistic thinking works great for studying animals on the savanna, less capably for studying human beings where we throw in culture, religion, and social convention into the mix where 'adaptation' does not always equate to 'breeds the most'
Culture, religion and social convention are really often just ways to mitigate our Darwinian imperatives. We can look at these things and analyze them as features of the animal man that stem from his or her urge to procreate, just as we can look at features of savanna creatures and wonder similarly.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Hi, Clive Candy.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
Curious.
I recently read this article regarding teen mental development. I reflected on my own upbringing and came up with a few thoughts.
In my personal little world having sex of any kind with anyone is a big deal.
My parents had stringent rules regarding sex that I adopted.
If I hadn't adopted my parents' rules regarding sex I would have had sex as an adolescent.
If I would have had sex as an adolescent it probably wouldn't have changed my view that sex is a big deal.
Looking back at my adolescent life I am glad that I decided to adopt my parents' rules because although I would have felt at the time that sex as an adolescent was a mature and okay thing to do, my current 26 year old mind knows that my previous 15 year old mind and body was not ready for the big deal that sex actually is.
So, looking at these separate thoughts I wonder what kind of place others of you are coming from.
Is sex a big deal to you?
Was your 15 year old self ready for sex? This question, I believe, can only be more honestly answered by those of you who have grown out of adolescence (a time frame possibly difficult to pinpoint looking at this article).
Separately, I am currently an officer in the USAF. The US military has rules in place that seek to discourage people of higher rank from even dating people of lower rank than them. No matter what the ACTUAL situation is in a romantic relationship between people of drastically different rank, there is a POSSIBILITY of coercion. Because there is a possibility, there are rules in place to avoid it altogether. These civilian rules in place I believe are working on similar ideas.
Does this make sense?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
There is more to being a mother than fertility. A man would ideally want a woman who also would take responsibility for a baby (what with the whole helpless baby part of human development). I also am not convinced that 15 is the ideal time medically for a child. I would really like a link to a medical source. Just because it is the earliest time a woman can have a baby does not mean it is the optimal time. I have a vague memory of increased survival rates for first time mothers who were older esp in earlier times (like 19th century), but I don't care enough to find them. Now, is you want to argue 22 vs 42, sure, I'll give that to you- but 15 vs 25, I need a link.
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: There is more to being a mother than fertility. A man would ideally want a woman who also would take responsibility for a baby (what with the whole helpless baby part of human development). I also am not convinced that 15 is the ideal time medically for a child. I would really like a link to a medical source. Just because it is the earliest time a woman can have a baby does not mean it is the optimal time. I have a vague memory of increased survival rates for first time mothers who were older esp in earlier times (like 19th century), but I don't care enough to find them. Now, is you want to argue 22 vs 42, sure, I'll give that to you- but 15 vs 25, I need a link.
I don't need to provide a link showing that showing that 15 year old girls can have healthy children. If you believe that there's something medically unsound about teen mothers giving birth, you provide the link.
According to this female author, teenaged girls should be having babies:
quote: "We were being educated well into our 20s, an age when some of us wanted to become mothers – probably little bits of all of us wanted to become mothers … You know, I was perfectly capable of setting up a home when I was 14, and if, say, it had been ordered differently, I might have thought, 'Now is the time to have a couple of children, and when I am 30 I will go back and I'll get my PhD.' But society isn't yet ordered with that kind of flexibility, and is incredibly hypocritical about teenage sex, teenage mothers and so on."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't know if you're Clive Candy or not. You certainly sound like him. But if you continue sounding like him, it won't really matter much, because my reaction will be the same.
quote: I certainly agree that men would hesitate to engage in those sort of relationships. That's because it's been made a social taboo, what with the laws against it and everything. And, certainly, 15 year old women won't, on average, have fathers and mothers that would allow that sort of relationship. It doesn't happen often, but it can happen, all too easily, if we strike down the laws that forbid it.
You're describing a host of reasons why you shouldn't have used the word 'fact', much less in all caps. Furthermore, you're describing a series of methods by which we could change what's considered attractive. If I granted your premise, why shouldn't we do that?
quote:A 15 year old woman can often be more beautiful to men than a woman 10 or 15 years older. This is because that 15 year old is at her most fertile and that fact is being advertised full force when she's that age to heterosexual men. Certainly there are exceptions and it isn't always true but it is, on average, true.
By all means, continue begging the question. It's very persuasive.
quote:The men you know must love to date grandmas.
Yes, because the two settings for female age are mid-teens and grandma.
quote:Culture, religion and social convention are really often just ways to mitigate our Darwinian imperatives. We can look at these things and analyze them as features of the animal man that stem from his or her urge to procreate, just as we can look at features of savanna creatures and wonder similarly.
Given that you feel that way, why this importance placed on adhering to Darwinian imperatives?
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
You're describing a host of reasons why you shouldn't have used the word 'fact', much less in all caps. Furthermore, you're describing a series of methods by which we could change what's considered attractive.
But we have not changed what's considered attractive. We can't change something like that. We can, however, forbid men from pursuing females of the ages 13 - 17 who strike them as gorgeous. Society does this because men with daughters can't stomach the idea of their daughters in those ages dating older men, so the rational thing to do becomes forbidding all men from doing it. But older men dating/marrying/sexing teenaged girls is something that all too well fits with human nature.
quote: By all means, continue begging the question. It's very persuasive.
There is no question to beg. I'm presenting a possible, biological reason why teenaged girls are more attractive than women in their twenties or older. You are free to present a counter theory.
quote:Yes, because the two settings for female age are mid-teens and grandma.
You are the one who said "many men I know are in fact more attracted to women where there is no possibility of children at all." It follows that they must love grandmas. If I shouldn't have said your male friends have a thing for grandmas, then you shouldn't have said they like women that can't bear children.
quote: Given that you feel that way, why this importance placed on adhering to Darwinian imperatives?
Because I think sometimes adhering to our biological programming in these matters results in happier human beings.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cindy Carter:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
[QUOTE] By all means, continue begging the question. It's very persuasive.
There is no question to beg. I'm presenting a possible, biological reason why teenaged girls are more attractive than women in their twenties or older. You are free to present a counter theory.
You have not shown that teenage girls are more attractive to men- just that your hypothetical man is. You also have not demonstrated that a 15 year old is more fertile and more likely to produce a healthy child either. They are certainly capable of doing so- however that is not the same as being optimal, which is what you have claimed.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm not at all attracted to high school girls. I wont deny on occasion seeing one from behind and thinking wow - that's nice, but when I see the young face I am immediately dissuaded. Perhaps that's a learned behavior, but I doubt it. I had sex with a 13 year old once....when I was 14. Are those memories pedophillic (probably not a word) and if I had it on tape, would it be child pornography? But of course back then, college girls looked like women and a 25 year old woman looked old. Today, my wife's graying "highlights" are beautiful to me. We started dating when she was 18, now she's 37 and I am no less attracted to her. In fact, she looks like a woman not a kid, which to me is even better. I suppose in another 20 years, I'll like liver spots. Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm not at all attracted to high school girls. I wont deny on occasion seeing one from behind and thinking wow - that's nice, but when I see the young face I am immediately dissuaded. Perhaps that's a learned behavior, but I doubt it. I had sex with a 13 year old once....when I was 14. Are those memories pedophillic (probably not a word) and if I had it on tape, would it be child pornography? But of course back then, college girls looked like women and a 25 year old woman looked old. Today, my wife's graying "highlights" are beautiful to me. We started dating when she was 18, now she's 37 and I am no less attracted to her. In fact, she looks like a woman not a kid, which to me is even better. I suppose in another 20 years, I'll like liver spots.
The important thing is that you were dating her when she was 18. You have imprinted in your mind the memories of her when she was younger and more attractive. Your feelings about her graying features would be different all together if you had met her just two years ago.
quote: You also have not demonstrated that a 15 year old is more fertile and more likely to produce a healthy child either.
Female fertility is pretty much the same from the ages of 13 to 25. In this window, women are at their most fertile years. The point is that a 15 year old can easily produce children. I suspect that men might be programmed to find teen-aged girls more attractive due to the greater likelihood of teen-aged girls being unattached.
Studies measuring how men rate female attractiveness seem to only start from the ages of 18 years and up, fyi.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
There's not much imprinted in my mind about how she looked. I was indifferent to her looks at that time. I thought she was a cool decent looking girl. Now she's a beautiful woman. Fortunately, the acne she had hasn't been permanently imprinted on how I view her.
If we got a divorce, I wouldn't start trolling the college campus or local high school for a girlfriend. I admire the graceful older woman and the fit mother. The sexy 18 year old is like unripened fruit. I have an inside joke about my wife....I didn't marry her until she was 25 in order to weigh out the fat potential. The sexiest high school girls often end up being the nastiest later on. Being a voluptuous 15 year old is a sign of bad things to come. All women have their moment and during that moment they may be amazingly attractive...I like women with staying power. I've seen pictures of my wife from high school. Believe me, I wouldn't have given her a second glance.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: The men you know must love to date grandmas.
I geuss the whispering 'MILF' in your ear would make you brain explode.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cindy Carter: But we have not changed what's considered attractive. We can't change something like that.
Piffle. One word for you: Rubenesque.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
A MILF isn't hot for being an attractive woman who surprisingly has a child. A MILF is attractive for the same reasons all women are attractive, their apparent good genes. With a MILF, there is proof of good genes via the child. She had a child and is still fit. Many mothers go to waste like depleted soil. I wouldn't buy a farm for one good crop.
My mom told me to look at the mother to see how the girl will end up.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: My concern with SoaPiNuReYe's statement was that he offered as evidence that she wasn't raped the fast that she consented to go upstairs with his friend and that she was not injured. Neither of these facts have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not she was raped. If a man considers those two factors part of a woman's consent, he is wrong. And the fact that so many men consider those factors part of judging whether a woman was raped is an extremely upsetting acpect of modern society.
I think false accusations of rape are horrible and any woman who does that is pretty awful. However, I would not agree that it is the same level of horribleness as an actual rape. Both are horrible, but not equivalent.
See, I feel like if you go home with a stranger after a night of partying/clubbing then you are asking for something, and I can understand how a guy may interpret that as a one night stand and how a woman may just be interested in him or something like that. I'm not saying that I lean one way or the other, because honestly I can see both points of view and it leaves me conflicted as to what is right. Are you saying that if a woman sleeps with a stranger and then regrets it the next morning that it is rape? Or does it matter more what occurs in the actual moment?
And I have to disagree with your last point there, because imo both instances involve drastic life altering moments for the people involved. The girl's case is self-explanatory and in the guy's case it could easily lead to jail time which shuts a lot of doors for him in the future, not to mention all of the horrible things that occur in jail. They're equally as bad in my eyes, and the same would be true for pretty much every crime.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:My concern with SoaPiNuReYe's statement was that he offered as evidence that she wasn't raped the fast that she consented to go upstairs with his friend and that she was not injured. Neither of these facts have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not she was raped. If a man considers those two factors part of a woman's consent, he is wrong. And the fact that so many men consider those factors part of judging whether a woman was raped is an extremely upsetting acpect of modern society.
This, exactly. Thank you for saying it so concisely. I was struggling with how to phrase the same thoughts.
quote: Are you saying that if a woman sleeps with a stranger and then regrets it the next morning that it is rape?
It's rape is a woman says "no" to penetration, and the man penetrates anyway. No matter what came before. The end.
Of course it's not rape if a woman consents and then lies about it later. But in the story you provided, your "evidence" for the woman lying was that she said yes to going upstairs, and she was not physically hurt. That is not evidence that she lied, at all. It's troubling that some would think so.
quote:They're equally as bad in my eyes, and the same would be true for pretty much every crime.
Wait. You're saying all crimes are equally bad in your eyes? Please clarify.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Cindy Carter: But we have not changed what's considered attractive. We can't change something like that.
Piffle. One word for you: Rubenesque.
Yep. In a sea of bullshit, this "fact" still stinks to high heaven.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
What about a woman who doesn't remember saying yes? That same woman might have begged for it and enjoyed it while drunk but would never have done it sober. She wakes up and can't remember what she did but is convinced she would never do it.
I was told about fights I had been in that I couldn't remember. I didn't consider my sore jaw to be proof of a mugging.
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
First off, why are people attacking Soapinureye's example about the woman being taken upstairs? The actual transpiring of the event is unimportant, as long as we know of cases like that(which do exist). There are women out there who falsely file such charges, and get away with it because of the nature of the system, which was the point Soap was trying to show. Whether or not the event happened in the way he said it, or if it happened at all doesn't matter.
On the issue of teenage attractiveness, Cindy would likely use evolutionary psychology to back up the idea that we find such women attractive(some of this stuff can be hinted at in books like The Moral Animal, though I don't know of any specific citation). Using that it can quite clearly be seen why it would have been an effective trait for men to view younger women to be, on average, more attractive. That said, we are not purely driven by our evolutionary impulses. Many traits that have some bearing in our ancestral past are also traits that have heavy environmental associations. In the case of attractiveness, we are taught that looking at a young teenager is not attractive.
The problem that does arise, however, is when that teenager starts trying to make herself look older and more attractive. I would hazard that the prime attractiveness age for Americans is in the 18-25 range(which can be supported by the fact that most women involved in adult films are of that age), but there is also social pressure on 14/15/16 year olds to look like they are 18, because the boys they are with are also taught that 18 year olds are attractive.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:First off, why are people attacking Soapinureye's example about the woman being taken upstairs?
Because he brought up details like "but she didn't look physically injured" as if that is at all relevant to whether she was raped or not. There's a dangerous stereotype that if a woman doesn't physically fight off a man, she is consenting to sex. That is not true. Now that we understand the human response to fear and danger better, we know that shock and temporary paralysis is an extremely common response to attack. Many women feel unnecessarily guilty for "not having fought him off" while they were being raped, never mind that not attempting to fight is perhaps the best survival strategy in such a situation. We don't need to further perpetuate the stereotype that a woman not physically fighting off a man, and therefore not sustaining physical injuries, means that she necessarily consented to sex.
If Soap had just mentioned that false rape accusations are a problem, that would've been fine. I agree with that.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: What about a woman who doesn't remember saying yes? That same woman might have begged for it and enjoyed it while drunk but would never have done it sober. She wakes up and can't remember what she did but is convinced she would never do it.
I was told about fights I had been in that I couldn't remember. I didn't consider my sore jaw to be proof of a mugging.
I've never heard a guy use the phrase "begging for it" who wasn't a massive douchebag. I don't think it's coincidental. I think you might be a massive douchebag, supported by two days of reading your intellectual dishonesty and willful ignorance.
Nobody here supports false accusations of rape, whether based on shame or not. But we have no idea how far Soap's example was willing to go. Say she consented to oral sex, but wanted to save her virginity. Is it still rape to you, or does going upstairs mean she's given up all rights to her body?
Seriously dude, you seem to be a huge douchebag in nearly every thread I've read. Work on it.
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Cindy Carter: But we have not changed what's considered attractive. We can't change something like that.
Piffle. One word for you: Rubenesque.
Was Ruben's taste in thick girls representative of the taste of all the males from his era/culture?
It's a myth that really fat girls were ever more prized than regular chicks.
Maybe Ruben was afraid of offending the church, so he painted pictures of women that wouldn't arouse men.
Standard male preference remains consistent despite prevailing fashion. For instance, gay men control the fashion industry and they tend promote androgynous looking girls that are what they see themselves as/fantasize they could be. Nonetheless, men don't really desire androgynous looking females all that much. (By the way, it is these gay males who control the fashion that single-handedly are responsible for the pressure which pop culture puts on women/girls to be thin.)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: A MILF isn't hot for being an attractive woman who surprisingly has a child. A MILF is attractive for the same reasons all women are attractive, their apparent good genes. With a MILF, there is proof of good genes via the child. She had a child and is still fit. Many mothers go to waste like depleted soil. I wouldn't buy a farm for one good crop.
My mom told me to look at the mother to see how the girl will end up.
quote: What about a woman who doesn't remember saying yes? That same woman might have begged for it and enjoyed it while drunk but would never have done it sober. She wakes up and can't remember what she did but is convinced she would never do it.
I was told about fights I had been in that I couldn't remember. I didn't consider my sore jaw to be proof of a mugging.
I bet that's not the only reason why you 'jaw' is 'sore'. *evil laugh*
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Ok, fertility. A quick, little effort involved Google search gives me early to mid 20s as peak fertility. Which is funny; I'd always heard 28 was some kind of magic number.
Now for the Shakespearean angle. How long do you wait to not "mar those so early made"? That one's trickier to track down since it's mosly sites telling women they're not in much more danger after 35 than they would have been earlier.
But the March of Dimes does have some numbers on teen pregnancy.
quote: Most teenage births (about 67 percent) are to girls ages 18 and 19.
quote: Teen mothers are more likely than mothers over age 20 to give birth prematurely (before 37 completed weeks of pregnancy). Between 2003 and 2005, preterm birth rates averaged 14.5 percent for women under age 20 compared to 11.9 percent for women ages 20 to 29. Babies born prematurely face an increased risk of newborn health problems, long-term disabilities and even death.
quote: A teenage mother is at greater risk than women over age 20 for pregnancy complications, such as premature labor, anemia and high blood pressure. These risks are even greater for teens who are under 15 years old.
quote: Babies of teenage mothers are more likely to die in the first year of life than babies of women in their twenties and thirties. The risk is highest for babies of mothers under age 15.
If pregnancy becomes dramatically safer for mother and baby after 20, following your logic, Clive, women should become dramatically more attractive to men between 20 and 25.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cindy Carter:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Cindy Carter: But we have not changed what's considered attractive. We can't change something like that.
Piffle. One word for you: Rubenesque.
Was Ruben's taste in thick girls representative of the taste of all the males from his era/culture?
It's a myth that really fat girls were ever more prized than regular chicks.
Maybe Ruben was afraid of offending the church, so he painted pictures of women that wouldn't arouse men.
Standard male preference remains consistent despite prevailing fashion. For instance, gay men control the fashion industry and they tend promote androgynous looking girls that are what they see themselves as/fantasize they could be. Nonetheless, men don't really desire androgynous looking females all that much. (By the way, it is these gay males who control the fashion that single-handedly are responsible for the pressure which pop culture puts on women/girls to be thin.)
Once again, a total load of crap. It is well known, and easy to verify, that men's taste in women have changed here in the US in a mere 200 years. Over longer periods of time and geographical area the changes become even easier to see, unless you have an agenda.
I could post a ton of links showing the trends, but it wouldn't matter. I could use a ton of examples, but I doubt you have the class of intellect to understand even the most basic of them, Clive.
The facts don't interest you. This is just another thread meant to stir up crap, and it is based on nothing more than your own skewed view of the world.
One more thing.....reported. You DO know they can track IP numbers, right?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Cindy argues: Evolution demands that we see the most fertile women as the most attractive. A 15 year old girl is most fertile. Hence such women should be fair game for men of any age.
Everyone seems to be arguing the first point, that evolution demands men seek out the most fertile women as attractive, or they argue the second part, that 15 year old girls are the most fertile.
But there is a missing step in between--how do men know what girls/women are the most fertile?
Is there some kind of genetic memory?
If I was looking for fertility as the best marker of attractiveness I would not be looking for some young, inexperienced woman with a waist too thin to deliver children easily. I would be looking for an older woman with wide hips who has already delivered a child--who has proven her fertility.
There is a real reason to prefer girls to women. It is the idea that such a young woman has had limited or preferably no experience. Why would a man want a woman untrained in sex?
I think its either because such woman are easier to guide and control, or because there is an ownership idea--if you are her first, she is yours forever, or the man's own self-confidence in his skill and physical attributes are so low he only dares demonstrate them to someone with nothing else to compare them to.
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Ok, fertility. A quick, little effort involved Google search gives me early to mid 20s as peak fertility. Which is funny; I'd always heard 28 was some kind of magic number.
Now for the Shakespearean angle. How long do you wait to not "mar those so early made"? That one's trickier to track down since it's mosly sites telling women they're not in much more danger after 35 than they would have been earlier.
But the March of Dimes does have some numbers on teen pregnancy.
quote: Most teenage births (about 67 percent) are to girls ages 18 and 19.
quote: Teen mothers are more likely than mothers over age 20 to give birth prematurely (before 37 completed weeks of pregnancy). Between 2003 and 2005, preterm birth rates averaged 14.5 percent for women under age 20 compared to 11.9 percent for women ages 20 to 29. Babies born prematurely face an increased risk of newborn health problems, long-term disabilities and even death.
quote: A teenage mother is at greater risk than women over age 20 for pregnancy complications, such as premature labor, anemia and high blood pressure. These risks are even greater for teens who are under 15 years old.
quote: Babies of teenage mothers are more likely to die in the first year of life than babies of women in their twenties and thirties. The risk is highest for babies of mothers under age 15.
If pregnancy becomes dramatically safer for mother and baby after 20, following your logic, Clive, women should become dramatically more attractive to men between 20 and 25.
I've come across these same statistics. Have they controlled for socioeconomic factors? Because teen mothers tend to overwhelmingly come from the same economic stratum (working class.)
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Cindy Carter:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Cindy Carter: But we have not changed what's considered attractive. We can't change something like that.
Piffle. One word for you: Rubenesque.
Was Ruben's taste in thick girls representative of the taste of all the males from his era/culture?
It's a myth that really fat girls were ever more prized than regular chicks.
Maybe Ruben was afraid of offending the church, so he painted pictures of women that wouldn't arouse men.
Standard male preference remains consistent despite prevailing fashion. For instance, gay men control the fashion industry and they tend promote androgynous looking girls that are what they see themselves as/fantasize they could be. Nonetheless, men don't really desire androgynous looking females all that much. (By the way, it is these gay males who control the fashion that single-handedly are responsible for the pressure which pop culture puts on women/girls to be thin.)
Once again, a total load of crap. It is well known, and easy to verify, that men's taste in women have changed here in the US in a mere 200 years. Over longer periods of time and geographical area the changes become even easier to see, unless you have an agenda.
I could post a ton of links showing the trends, but it wouldn't matter. I could use a ton of examples, but I doubt you have the class of intellect to understand even the most basic of them, Clive.
The facts don't interest you. This is just another thread meant to stir up crap, and it is based on nothing more than your own skewed view of the world.
One more thing.....reported. You DO know they can track IP numbers, right?
Please provide the links showing that fat/thick women were ever in demand over regular or thin looking women. Thanks! (If you're going to provide paintings of Reuben, you need to show that a taste for thick women was extant and not merely the forte of artists who may have had a motive to not paint really attractive women.)
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Cindy argues: Evolution demands that we see the most fertile women as the most attractive. A 15 year old girl is most fertile. Hence such women should be fair game for men of any age.
Everyone seems to be arguing the first point, that evolution demands men seek out the most fertile women as attractive, or they argue the second part, that 15 year old girls are the most fertile.
But there is a missing step in between--how do men know what girls/women are the most fertile?
Is there some kind of genetic memory?
Does the peafowl have a genetic memory that attracts it to the plumage of the peacock?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm pretty sure the preference for young girls is related to the common preference for virgins, which has to do with making sure that the child born is YOUR child. (This ties in with something someone said earlier, about older women tending to be "taken.") People with a preference for younger women have a slight advantage in terms of likelihood of producing a child that is actually theirs, which is certainly the sort of thing evolution would select for. (It's not the ONLY way to ensure the child is yours, so the preference isn't necessarily universal, but it's a legitimate "evolutionary niche").
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
My dad once mentioned that as he grew older, his preference for women grew older. i.e., he had little interest in the teenagers I dated when I was a teenager, but would appreciate their mom's phone numbers.
The same seems to be true of me. I'm entering my mid-twenties now, and to walk around a college campus is to look at babies. I can't imagine dating anyone younger than 21. We're just in different worlds.
If "Cindy Carter," who seems to be a pervy dude, is older than me and still has a preference for 15 year old girls... he has problems.
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I'm pretty sure the preference for young girls is related to the common preference for virgins, which has to do with making sure that the child born is YOUR child. (This ties in with something someone said earlier, about older women tending to be "taken.") People with a preference for younger women have a slight advantage in terms of likelihood of producing a child that is actually theirs, which is certainly the sort of thing evolution would select for. (It's not the ONLY way to ensure the child is yours, so the preference isn't necessarily universal, but it's a legitimate "evolutionary niche").
This. The point is, it's possible that a male's pleasure centers in the brain get more activated when mating the younger the female is.
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: My dad once mentioned that as he grew older, his preference for women grew older. i.e., he had little interest in the teenagers I dated when I was a teenager, but would appreciate their mom's phone numbers.
Did your dad have the option of continuing to date women significantly younger than himself?
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
A consequence of the height of women's beauty/fertility being at the ages of 13 - 25 is that there is a shortage of desirable women, because not only are women 13 - 25 being competed for by their male peers but also by all the men older than that age group. This is why women in this age bracket seem more mature than their male peers -- they must have that social maturity in order to contend with that greater number of potential suitors.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Don't argue with Clive. Sit back and wait for him to get banned.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
Is it bad that I miss Thor?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
From Wiki:
quote: The average age of menarche in the United States is about 12.5 years. In postmenarchal girls, about 80% of the cycles were anovulatory in the first year after menarche, 50% in the third and 10% in the sixth year.
So girls don't even reach average fertility until 18.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: [QUOTE]I've never heard a guy use the phrase "begging for it" who wasn't a massive douchebag. I don't think it's coincidental
I didn't say "begging for it" like a rapist who uses her skirt length to justify rape. Begging for it, enjoying it,...without memory. I still "beg for more" from the woman I've been married to for over a decade.
"Begging for it" in the context I used was no different than saying "don't stop". The problem is, a women might not remember saying "don't stop" and wake up accusing rape.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cindy Carter: A consequence of the height of women's beauty/fertility being at the ages of 13 - 25 is that there is a shortage of desirable women, because not only are women 13 - 25 being competed for by their male peers but also by all the men older than that age group. This is why women in this age bracket seem more mature than their male peers -- they must have that social maturity in order to contend with that greater number of potential suitors.
Link?
For ANY of your so called facts?
I didn't think so.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Marie Cassatt and Johannes Vermeer, Paul Gauguin, Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, Edouard Manet, Auguste Renoir, and of course Ruben. Just to name a few.
NONE of their paintings fit todays standard of beauty, as you describe it, yet all were leading artists who depicted women in world famous paintings representing the standard of beauty of their time.
That doesn't even go into the various standards that exist TODAY, from area to area, country to country.
Some of them painted flat chested women who looked like boys....a very popular look in Fitzgerald's day.....some of them painted plump women, celebrating women that would not be considered attractive in todays world....and some of them actually painted very plump women, because it was a sign of health and wealth to be able to eat that well.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cindy Carter: I've come across these same statistics. Have they controlled for socioeconomic factors? Because teen mothers tend to overwhelmingly come from the same economic stratum (working class.) [/QB]
Good question and tough to track down. Assuming there's not much socioeconomic variation in sub-Saharan Africa, I may have found one.
quote: Childbearing at young ages has been associated with pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, anemia and hemorrhage, obstructed and prolonged labor, infection, and higher rates of infant morbidity and mortality.
It's tricky to pin down because teen pregnancy seems to correlate strongly to lower socioeconomic position and lack of education in every country. Then it doesn't help that in many cultures, girls are kicked out of school and denied medical care for being unwed mothers.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower:
quote:My concern with SoaPiNuReYe's statement was that he offered as evidence that she wasn't raped the fast that she consented to go upstairs with his friend and that she was not injured. Neither of these facts have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not she was raped. If a man considers those two factors part of a woman's consent, he is wrong. And the fact that so many men consider those factors part of judging whether a woman was raped is an extremely upsetting acpect of modern society.
This, exactly. Thank you for saying it so concisely. I was struggling with how to phrase the same thoughts.
quote: Are you saying that if a woman sleeps with a stranger and then regrets it the next morning that it is rape?
It's rape is a woman says "no" to penetration, and the man penetrates anyway. No matter what came before. The end.
Of course it's not rape if a woman consents and then lies about it later. But in the story you provided, your "evidence" for the woman lying was that she said yes to going upstairs, and she was not physically hurt. That is not evidence that she lied, at all. It's troubling that some would think so.
quote:They're equally as bad in my eyes, and the same would be true for pretty much every crime.
Wait. You're saying all crimes are equally bad in your eyes? Please clarify.
I meant that knowingly falsely accusing someone of a crime and committing the crime are equally as bad in my opinion, no matter what crime was supposedly committed. Please read more closely.
As for people saying that I used the fact that the girl showed no signs of physical abuse in my anecdote as evidence that she wasn't raped, I simply added that in there as an afterthought because I figured that maybe someone would ask if she looked hurt at all. Read my post again, maybe you just misinterpreted what I meant to say (Or maybe I just wrote poorly, it was pretty late at night). But even taking what you interpreted my post as saying into account, I think it is unfair of you to imply that was part of my evidence for consent, when I did not take sides, I merely presented facts. I understand the natural reaction to become angry or sensitive when rape is brought up, but as a person who both knows people who have made false rape allegations and people whose lives have been ruined because of it, my approach is to always take a step back and look at the facts.
In the story, the girl did not say no to the man, even when he asked her 'Are you too drunk for this?'. I am not saying that I support that type of behavior, I am simply stating the fact that often times the lines as to what constitutes rape can at times be very gray. No shit, if someone says 'no' and they do it anyway of course it is rape, but what if they don't say no? What if they freeze up or get scared and just stay silent the whole time and go with it? Believe it or not, this happens more than you think.
The point I was trying to make is this: It's almost always one person's word versus another's in a rape case, and as a result a lot of men have been wrongly sent to jail, a lot of lives have been ruined, and a lot of rapists have been left walking the streets because or mistaken identity or whatnot but I guess you guys missed it.
[ March 22, 2010, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: SoaPiNuReYe ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:What if they freeze up or get scared and just stay silent the whole time or go with it?
I don't know about you, but I would be turned completely off within a second if a girl I was intending to have sex with, had frozen up or stayed silent the whole time. Even if it happened after she had peeled the necessary articles of clothing off.
I think it's universally true, that if one partner is simply letting the other get off, you have an ethical obligation to stop trying to have sex with them.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:What if they freeze up or get scared and just stay silent the whole time or go with it?
I don't know about you, but I would be turned completely off within a second if a girl I was intending to have sex with, had frozen up or stayed silent the whole time. Even if it happened after she had peeled the necessary articles of clothing off.
I think it's universally true, that if one partner is simply letting the other get off, you have an ethical obligation to stop trying to have sex with them.
I'm the same way but there's a huge difference between silence and 'no' which was what I was trying to say.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Depends. I had a friend who was raped and she never said no. She passed out at a party and he assumed her lack of consciousness and no refusal was the same as a yes. If a girl freezes up or is unusually silent, I think the guy needs to make sure she is still conscious and capable of a no. Otherwise, it is rape.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I feel like that's a given though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yikes. If a man has to ask whether a woman is too drunk to consent - especially if her answer is silence!* - she may not be giving consent. Also what BlackBlade wrote.
Yes. Sometimes women lie about being raped and ruin men's lives and reputations. That is a rotten thing to do. Here is a helpful hint for men who want to avoid this: Until you know a woman well enough to judge that she is not the kind of woman who will do that, don't have sex with her. Until you know a woman well enough to recognize the difference between consent and terror or being too drunk to consent, don't have sex with her.
*She didn't say "no". She was in a coma, but she didn't say "no".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:What if they freeze up or get scared and just stay silent the whole time or go with it?
I don't know about you, but I would be turned completely off within a second if a girl I was intending to have sex with, had frozen up or stayed silent the whole time. Even if it happened after she had peeled the necessary articles of clothing off.
I think it's universally true, that if one partner is simply letting the other get off, you have an ethical obligation to stop trying to have sex with them.
I'm the same way but there's a huge difference between silence and 'no' which was what I was trying to say.
There is also a huge difference between silence and "yes". You need a "yes".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I meant that knowingly falsely accusing someone of a crime and committing the crime are equally as bad in my opinion, no matter what crime was supposedly committed.
This seems a strange belief to me: it's equally bad to falsely accuse someone of murdering John Doe as it is to go out yourself and murder John Doe?
quote: In the story, the girl did not say no to the man, even when he asked her 'Are you too drunk for this?'.
You are aware, aren't you, that this is a question with no correct answer if the person in question really is too drunk? If she's too drunk to consent, her response in either way will be suspect...because she's drunk.
quote:Until you know a woman well enough to recognize the difference between consent and terror or being too drunk to consent, don't have sex with her.
This right here, Soap.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yikes. If a man has to ask whether a woman is too drunk to consent - especially if her answer is silence!* - she may not be giving consent. Also what BlackBlade wrote.
Yes. Sometimes women lie about being raped and ruin men's lives and reputations. That is a rotten thing to do. Here is a helpful hint for men who want to avoid this: Until you know a woman well enough to judge that she is not the kind of woman who will do that, don't have sex with her. Until you know a woman well enough to recognize the difference between consent and terror or being too drunk to consent, don't have sex with her.
*She didn't say "no". She was in a coma, but she didn't say "no".
What happens when both parties are "too drunk to consent" and they end up having sex anyway? Who's to blame? Of course, "passed out" is rape. Lack of memory doesn't prove rape.
The man won't wake up next to a woman with no memory of what occurred and accuse rape. He wont feel violated, he'll be upset he can't remember what it was like. Of course, if he wakes up next to a hideous morbidly obese woman he might be glad he can't remember. That's something he would "never do willingly"....of course. If we lived in a just society, men would accuse fat women of rape for the same reasons.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yikes. If a man has to ask whether a woman is too drunk to consent - especially if her answer is silence!* - she may not be giving consent. Also what BlackBlade wrote.
Yes. Sometimes women lie about being raped and ruin men's lives and reputations. That is a rotten thing to do. Here is a helpful hint for men who want to avoid this: Until you know a woman well enough to judge that she is not the kind of woman who will do that, don't have sex with her. Until you know a woman well enough to recognize the difference between consent and terror or being too drunk to consent, don't have sex with her.
*She didn't say "no". She was in a coma, but she didn't say "no".
What happens when both parties are "too drunk to consent" and they end up having sex anyway? Who's to blame? Of course, "passed out" is rape. Lack of memory doesn't prove rape.
The man won't wake up next to a woman with no memory of what occurred and accuse rape. He wont feel violated, he'll be upset he can't remember what it was like. Of course, if he wakes up next to a hideous morbidly obese woman he might be glad he can't remember. That's something he would "never do willingly"....of course. If we lived in a just society, men would accuse fat women of rape for the same reasons.
you. are. a. pig.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yikes. If a man has to ask whether a woman is too drunk to consent - especially if her answer is silence!* - she may not be giving consent. Also what BlackBlade wrote.
Yes. Sometimes women lie about being raped and ruin men's lives and reputations. That is a rotten thing to do. Here is a helpful hint for men who want to avoid this: Until you know a woman well enough to judge that she is not the kind of woman who will do that, don't have sex with her. Until you know a woman well enough to recognize the difference between consent and terror or being too drunk to consent, don't have sex with her.
*She didn't say "no". She was in a coma, but she didn't say "no".
What happens when both parties are "too drunk to consent" and they end up having sex anyway? Who's to blame? Of course, "passed out" is rape. Lack of memory doesn't prove rape.
The man won't wake up next to a woman with no memory of what occurred and accuse rape. He wont feel violated, he'll be upset he can't remember what it was like. Of course, if he wakes up next to a hideous morbidly obese woman he might be glad he can't remember. That's something he would "never do willingly"....of course. If we lived in a just society, men would accuse fat women of rape for the same reasons.
You are an idiot, and I am glad I don't know you IRL. I wish I didn't here.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Isn't it possible to disagree with him without getting so viciously personal?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: What happens when both parties are "too drunk to consent" and they end up having sex anyway? Who's to blame? Of course, "passed out" is rape. Lack of memory doesn't prove rape.
The man won't wake up next to a woman with no memory of what occurred and accuse rape. He wont feel violated, he'll be upset he can't remember what it was like. Of course, if he wakes up next to a hideous morbidly obese woman he might be glad he can't remember. That's something he would "never do willingly"....of course. If we lived in a just society, men would accuse fat women of rape for the same reasons.
Reading your posts should at least count as a statuatory charge.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just as possible as it is for him to not write blatantly offensive, inane posts without demonstrating any willingness to scale back, until he tries everyone's patience.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I don't agree with much of what Mal says in any given discussion. But I think there is a qualitative difference between someone making insensitive or even offensive analogies (and generally sounding like an ignorant clod) and just blatantly insulting that person. I don't think the insults are called for.
Quite frankly, I think Mal is hardly alone in making wild generalizations, mischaracterizing those who disagree with him, and generally being an offensive jerk. I have no interest in calling anyone out, but I can think of several other posters on Hatrack who act in a way I consider just as shameful as Mal, and yet I think they get a greater pass for it. I'm not sure if this is because they've been here longer, or because they're generally being clods on behalf of, instead of in opposition to, leftist politics.
One person I will call out is Clive. Clive's posts have a tendency to go over the line from general ignorance/insensitivity into extreme, hateful diatribe. I don't think Mal is anywhere near that level, and I think it's unfair to treat him that way.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I've tried, multiple times, but I felt that post was way beyond the pale. Mal doesn't get to speak for all men, not when I am one and I disagree with pretty much every thing he says.
If these really are his views, and not just trolling (which I doubt), then he is pretty despicable. He is one of the very, very few people I feel this place would be better without, and I have noticed a distinct turn for the worst since mal and clive/cindy have been posting here.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Well, regardless of the side issue of what is and isn't rape, I have a question about the original issue.
Given, for the sake of argument, that a man twice convicted of sexual misconduct has some kind of problem, is it wrong to "out" him?
If we had some kind of results, do opinions differ between people who are parents and those who are not?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So what are you trying to accomplish with your childish insults, Kwea? I mean, besides making yourself look bad and breaking the TOS (incidentally, I whistled your post)?
I'm pretty sure you can establish that the things that mal says are considered abhorrent and ridiculous by just about everyone here without direct personal insults. Honestly, I think this would be established without you saying anything at all. And the insults don't really add anything to this, other than establish that you don't like him.
So, are you actually trying to accomplish anything with this? If so, what, and how do you think that you are doing so?
From my perspective, mal is posting as he does specifically to get reactions like the ones that you are giving him and, besides the problems inherent in the way you are posting, you are also feeding the troll that you seem to dislike so much, making him happy and reinforcing his behavior.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I don't agree with much of what Mal says in any given discussion. But I think there is a qualitative difference between someone making insensitive or even offensive analogies (and generally sounding like an ignorant clod) and just blatantly insulting that person. I don't think the insults are called for.
Unfortunately, it's practically impossible to expect that the entire forum will be wholly patient and not drift across the surprisingly substanceless line between only indirectly insulting him and just finally, after hundreds of mind-deadening posts, rolling their eyes and going oh my god shut up. And I wouldn't want them to be.
Your post, for example, is pretty clearly stating that, yes, Mal posts like an ignorant clod. I'm not going to treat 'mal generally sounds like an ignorant clod' that much differently than just moving to the direct insults like "mal, you are an ignorant clod" when and where he seems unable or unwilling to make the effort to stop being an ignorant clod who pollutes threads.
I guess we could continue being very civil (or at least, very technically indirect with our invicility) to fulfill this hope that there are no 'direct insults' towards an ignorant clod, but said ignorant clod would continue to pollute threads, inure himself to any factual rebuke, and cause the posters that the forum actually wants to keep to throw their hands up and stop posting on Hatrack.
I've watched malanthrop twice now pull "teh gay = teh pedophilia lolz" in this current iteration of late-night posting sprees, so I'm even more inclined to stick with my standard strategy: entertainment.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I dont know, I read his post and thought he was joking.
If Mal doesn't like heavier women, that is his preference. I am sure there are some people that wouldn't mind waking up to a large woman. To each his own. Generalizing was his mistake.
I just avoid situations like that by not drinking. Then again, I am married and get to sleep next to the most gorgeous woman in the world every night. How she puts up with me is beyond me. I consider myself conservative, she is big on liberalism. Somehow it works.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)