posted
Yes. Lying, stealing, and killing are different from teen-teen sex, so we shouldn't lump them all together and treat them the same, even though they are all human nature.
Which is exactly the point I tried to make by bringing up lying, stealing, and killing when you rolled your eyes and said that if we're going to outlaw human nature that we should also outlaw obesity.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is your argument, specifically? If you don't have one, I might as well save myself the effort.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe we should criminalize teenage obesity too. It's dangerous, harmful, damaging to their mental well being and could result in much more negative consequences than sex. So long as we're trying to outlaw HUMAN NATURE, we might as well add eating to the list.
My point is that this argument doesn't hold water. We already outlaw HUMAN NATURE.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Indiana has what I think are some fairly sensible laws in that regard, but it does not have a three year rule. That is an urban legend.
The basics of Indiana's laws are: If you are 14 or 15 years old, it can be consensual to have sex with someone 14 to 17 years old (this is a three year interval, but it is not a moving three year interval). If you are 16 or 17 years old, it can be consensual to have sex with someone 14 years old or older. If you are 18 years old or older, it can be consensual to have sex with someone 16 years or older.
There are modifications and exceptions given things like authority relationships.
The main difference with the rumored three year rule is that it is not consensual under indiana law for a 15 year old to have sex with an 18 year old, despite the difference being only three years.
What was the rationale here? So a 17-year-old and a 14-year-old can have consensual sex in Indiana, but a year later, when they are older and presumably wiser, they cannot?
posted
Lyrhawn, I'm not sure how exactly you're supporting your assertion that the possible negative consequences of overeating are worse than the possible negative consequences of underage sex. Are you comparing the worst and rarest imaginable consequences of obesity (such as becoming blind and immobile due to diabetes at the age of 17) directly to the most easily-dismissed consequences of sex (such as emotional issues caused by excessive sexual intimacy with ill-considered partners)?
For me, this is about not handing kids the "keys" to something dangerous until we know they are ready to handle the consequences. Is your average 15-year-old ready to deal reliably with the responsibility of ALWAYS using birth control, and if they don't, or if the method they use fails, are they ready for the responsibility of successfully raising a child, or dealing with the emotional aftermath of an abortion or adoption (leaving aside the question of whether the former is morally justifiable)? And are we ready to tell that newborn child that the struggles they deal with growing up under trying circumstances were worth it so their dad and mom could get some action on prom night?
I think we do a grave disservice to our children if we cut them loose with something as powerful and life-changing as sex with the pathetically small amount of controls and guidance that we give them today. Restricting kids from having sex isn't all about the fear of sin, or squeamishness about the idea that a teenager might "do it" ... it's being a responsible parent.
Again, I'm leaving aside the question (as mph has) of whether or not this or that should be illegal or involve jail time. I'm responding to the attitude that this is no big deal, and people should just get used to it. I was raised in a subculture where sex between teenagers, or unmarried people in general, is heavily frowned upon, and kids are given only measured freedom to date and "explore their sexuality" as they get older. I don't regret at all the fact that I never slept with any of the ridiculous choices of girlfriends that I made at that age, and I am ecstatic that I didn't have a kid until I was married to the right woman, and was perfectly capable of supporting a child, both emotionally and materially.
What I don't understand is, what makes teenaged sex such a valuable and wonderful addition to a young person's life that it is worth potentially saddling them with responsibilities and experiences that they are not ready or eager to handle? Am I only half a person, somehow, because I didn't do it, and am glad not to have?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I don't really plan on pursuing the comparison super far, but obesity has long lasting consequences. Fat kids who are teased can be effected by it for life, it can have detrimental effects on their lives for years and years afterwards. It can lead to diabetes yes which has incredible consequences, it can kill them in their 20's or 30's if it isn't nipped in the bud in the teen years. It's dangerous and potentially life threatening.
It's their right to do it. When it comes down to it, this is about their bodies, their lives, their choices, and their relationshops. Not your life, your choice, your body, your anything. Teach them, teach them responsibility and give them the knowledge they need to make an intelligent choice and then let them live their lives. It IS a big deal. But I don't agree with the way you think it should be handled.
The issue in national politics is always framed as an all or nothing debate. It's either abstinence or willy nilly porn filled sex romps in sex ed. That's ridiculous. Teens should be taught about condoms, and safe sex, about STDs, about abstinence, about anything and everything involved. They shouldn't be cut loose, they shouldn't be given free reign, but they shouldn't be absolutely denied the right to explore their sexuality. Why? Because they are going to do it regardless of the laws. The laws are already strict in dozens of states and the average 15 or 17 year old has no idea what the law is until they're charged with it. They're emotions and hormones are running wild and sometimes they make foolish rash choices. Making it illegal does nothing to stop it, it just punishes kids for experimentation, which is natural and part of their maturing process.
quote:Am I only half a person, somehow, because I didn't do it, and am glad not to have?
Why are you placing that kind of value on sex? I'm not saying that sex is good and that everyone SHOULD do it. My argument is one of personal choice. It should be the job of the parent to raise their kids responsibly, to give them the tools they need to make smart choices, to teach them how to weigh pros and cons. I don't care one way or the other if you had sex, that's for YOU to decide, and you had that choice. You chose to wait, it's not necessarily negative or positive, it's whatever you want and get out of it. And it's not about protecting the right of teens to get it on on prom night. You're devaluing sex when you put it like that.
It's about personal choice and freedoms, and the utterly silly nature of criminalizing this as a deterrent, especially when I've seen zero evidence that criminalizing it actually serves as a deterrent. This isn't something we should be solving with punishments and laws, this is something families should be dealing with, families have always traditionally been the ones who have taught their children about sex, why all of a sudden is it the state's job to do everything involved with it?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike: I don't know any details about the legislative proceedings when it was passed, so I'm not sure. The law does make explicit that if the younger person one had sex with is (or was!) married, that is a defense, along with some other things, so there's at least a possible argument for the sex at 14 and 17 being a defense at 15 and 18.
I agree that it could have been done somewhat better.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apologies mph, I missed the post where you clarified that you weren't advocating.
Also, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, i was making an extreme example of how I was interrupting your position.
As to the getting some action comment I made. By getting some action i didn't necessarily mean sex. I meant any physical activity with the opposite sex. I never meant to imply that abstaining made an individual a freak. I was more pointing out the fact that MOST people at that age are very interested in the opposite sex and Prom tends to be a bit of a mating frenzy.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most highschool students smoke weed drink beer and have sex.
That's false. Most highschool students don't smoke weed, drink bear, and have sex. Here are some actual stats:
53% of high school students did not drink ANY alcohol in the month before the survey. 76% of high school students did not smoke weed in the month before. 54% of high school students had NEVER had sex with anyone. 67% of high students had not had sex in the 3 months before the survey.
So, most high school students DON'T do these things, especially not on a regular basis. If you do, you are a bit weird....
quote:It's harmless.
I personally know one friend who is dead, several friends who have spent considerable time in jail, many friends who were expelled from school, several friends who had to spend time in the hospital, and numerous people who live very difficult lives now because they did stuff like this in high school and had to face the consequences. It isn't harmless. It is only harmless if you are lucky.
If you don't believe me, just look at this thread. This kid will be in jail for 10 years because he thought the stuff he was doing was harmless.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most high school students don't...drink bear...
Well, of course they don't. Bears are notoriously difficult things to drink-- it's not like they just stand around waiting for some fourteen year old to come by with a straw.
Captain Obvious, over here.
(Huzzah for hyper-literalism!)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, im just reading this thread for the first time, and stuff like this kinda bothers me. i think both the boy and girl should be punished. it takes two for anything like this to occur, and it didnt sound forced to me. The sex with the 17 year old sounded much worse, and he was acquitted of the rape charge.
Posts: 813 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does anybody know which is more likely to result in teen pregnancy or the transmission of STDs: a young teen having sex with another young teen, or a young teen having sex with someone who is older, and likely (on average) to be more mature?
I can tell you the most likely combination to result in a pregnancy and the profile of the majority of teen mothers: young girl with a boyfriend at least 3-4 years older than her.
Catherine teaches at the alternative high school and the vast majority of the teen mothers there have boyfriends who are out of high school - they are 18 to 25 years old.
There is actually a reason to be concerned when a teenage girl has a boyfriend a few years older than her - I believe the relationship is astronomically more likely to turn sexual and to turn sexual much earlier.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking on topic for a moment-- the penalty this kid received seems undue for the crime. The legislation lessening the mandatory sentence should be applied to him (at least).
It seems ridiculous that he's still in jail. Granted, we don't know all the details, just the barest facts.
I don't know that teen sex should be criminalized; it seems an ineffective way to go about teaching teens to be responsible with their bodies.
Lyrhawn, did you mean for your posts to read like a defense for removing sex ed from schools?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by krynn: OK, im just reading this thread for the first time, and stuff like this kinda bothers me. i think both the boy and girl should be punished. it takes two for anything like this to occur, and it didnt sound forced to me. The sex with the 17 year old sounded much worse, and he was acquitted of the rape charge.
The problem I have with this is how do you effectively prosecute both participants? What if the girl in order to avoid jail or the fines simply says, "He made me do it?" And in this instance the girl being 15 makes that MUCH easier to fly in court.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Teens should be taught about condoms, and safe sex, about STDs, about abstinence, about anything and everything involved. They shouldn't be cut loose, they shouldn't be given free reign, but they shouldn't be absolutely denied the right to explore their sexuality."
Fundamentally reformed, yes, but not done away with.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by krynn: OK, im just reading this thread for the first time, and stuff like this kinda bothers me. i think both the boy and girl should be punished. it takes two for anything like this to occur, and it didnt sound forced to me. The sex with the 17 year old sounded much worse, and he was acquitted of the rape charge.
The problem I have with this is how do you effectively prosecute both participants? What if the girl in order to avoid jail or the fines simply says, "He made me do it?" And in this instance the girl being 15 makes that MUCH easier to fly in court.
I don't know, maybe I'm being ignorant. But with video evidence is there even a chance she could make that case? Unless he had a weapon in his hand, wouldn't she just bite it off if she were being forced?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, lets not talk about biting anything off... I know a guy who's wife had a seizure randomly while they were having oral sex... and well... and quite honestly, just the thought makes me cringe.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not saying that teenage sex is something we should trivialize. I had sex for the first time at 17. He was 20. We started dating when I was fifteen and he was 18. It was a big deal. It was life changing. And I wouldn't trade that experience for anything. It, 25 years later, is a precious memory.
I was ready. I was responsible. It was my choice (it was my idea!) Sex with this man that I loved was a blessing to me. To both of us.
The idea that we should be considered criminals for this is appalling. It does bother me.
I realize that Porter isn't saying that. I'm not sure what his position is.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This isn't something we should be solving with punishments and laws, this is something families should be dealing with, families have always traditionally been the ones who have taught their children about sex, why all of a sudden is it the state's job to do everything involved with it?
I'm not committed to debating this-- I believe in publicly funded sex ed, *because* parents are not teaching their children, and the topic is important enough to society to deserve talking about.
But SOME people might note the irony inherent in Lyrhawn's position.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by krynn: OK, im just reading this thread for the first time, and stuff like this kinda bothers me. i think both the boy and girl should be punished. it takes two for anything like this to occur, and it didnt sound forced to me. The sex with the 17 year old sounded much worse, and he was acquitted of the rape charge.
The problem I have with this is how do you effectively prosecute both participants? What if the girl in order to avoid jail or the fines simply says, "He made me do it?" And in this instance the girl being 15 makes that MUCH easier to fly in court.
I don't know, maybe I'm being ignorant. But with video evidence is there even a chance she could make that case? Unless he had a weapon in his hand, wouldn't she just bite it off if she were being forced?
Have you never seen somebody verbally intimidate somebody into something? Like, "This better feel good or Ill cut you, if you bite me I'll kill you."
You do not have to physically brandish a weapon to get cooperation out of people, you just have to make them believe you can make good on your threat.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Fifteen year olds, by definition, are not responsible enough to have sex. I'm going to go so far as to say that all sex outside of marriage is irresponsible, and that lots of married people have sex irresponsibly.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does anybody know which is more likely to result in teen pregnancy or the transmission of STDs: a young teen having sex with another young teen, or a young teen having sex with someone who is older, and likely (on average) to be more mature?
I can tell you the most likely combination to result in a pregnancy and the profile of the majority of teen mothers: young girl with a boyfriend at least 3-4 years older than her.
Catherine teaches at the alternative high school and the vast majority of the teen mothers there have boyfriends who are out of high school - they are 18 to 25 years old.
There is actually a reason to be concerned when a teenage girl has a boyfriend a few years older than her - I believe the relationship is astronomically more likely to turn sexual and to turn sexual much earlier.
I know that's anecdotal, but it rings true (to somebody who has very little experience in such matters). Very interesting.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Fifteen year olds, by definition, are not responsible enough to have sex. I'm going to go so far as to say that all sex outside of marriage is irresponsible, and that lots of married people have sex irresponsibly.
Well I guess that really depends on your opinion on the definition of responsibility.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm stating that the act of sex, consensual or not, is irresponsible in every situation except where the participants are married, in love, and emotionally/mentally stable.
How this applies to you now, I have no idea. It may not-- how am I to know? (Why would I WANT to?)
How it's irresponsible:
Well, pregnancy out of wedlock. Also, emotional attachments, STDs, motel bills... For me, it's irresponsible on the face of it. Those are a few reasons why.
To whom it's irresponsible:
Yourself. Society. Your partner.
What risks involved:
I think I covered this under how...
AGAIN:
I'm not calling for legislation. I oppose legislation on consensual sexual relations, for the most part. I support measures directed at educating teens about sex; and I support cultural measures that encourage society to wait until marriage (a loving, healthy marriage at that) before having sex, and that support monogamy during marriage.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, that still isn't making sense to me. Irresponsible sex is irresponsible. Responsible sex - preparing for, taking precautions to avoid and accepting the consequences of sex - is responsible whether or not one is married.
Why is incurring a motel bill irresponsible if I am prepared to pay it? Or for that matter, why wouldn't I be having sex in my home? Why is an emotional attachment a bad thing? I am emotionally attached to many people (only some of whom have been sexual partners) and I thank goodness for that. How cold and lonely I would be without emotional attachments! I take care not to pass on diseases in general whether sexually or not. As I haven't had any STD, I have been more successful at this than I have been about passing on the flu. My chances of getting pregnant are slim to none but I would gratefully and gladly accept a child.
And waiting till marriage may be lovely for those people who are going to get married. You seem to think that includes everyone. It doesn't.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
And waiting till marriage may be lovely for those people who are going to get married. You seem to think that includes everyone. It doesn't.
Especially since the majority of people who demand that sex only take place in marriage oppose masturbation as well.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
And waiting till marriage may be lovely for those people who are going to get married. You seem to think that includes everyone. It doesn't.
Especially since the majority of people who demand that sex only take place in marriage oppose masturbation as well.
I do not see how this had anything to do with what she just said. Care to elaborate?
If I were to hazzard a guess, you just said that frowning on masturbation makes being celebate until marriage unreasonably difficult if not impossible?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Responsible sex - preparing for, taking precautions to avoid and accepting the consequences of sex - is responsible whether or not one is married.
What if marriage is the precaution that is necessary to adequately prepare for the consequences of sex?
If that is the case then you have not taken the precautions needed to accept the consequences of sex if you aren't married, and thus sex outside marriage would always be irresponsible.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
If I were to hazzard a guess, you just said that frowning on masturbation makes being celebate until marriage unreasonably difficult if not impossible?
While emotional needs are obviously not being met, especially when single, the physical urges I would say can go a long way in helping abstain. Unreasonably so? I couldn't say that about everyone no. But not everyone is strong willed enough to handle complete abstinance, and I really think it should be encouraged as an alternative.
Anyways, I went way off topic with my remark, it just pops in my head when ever the sex before marriage debate comes up.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
If that is the case then you have not taken the precautions needed to accept the consequences of sex if you aren't married, and thus sex outside marriage would always be irresponsible.
In my case it was both of our first times, so STDs were not an issue. She was on the pill, and we used a condom. I would say that is as safe and as responsible as it gets.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:While emotional needs are obviously not being met, especially when single, the physical urges I would say can go a long way in helping abstain. Unreasonably so? I couldn't say that about everyone no. But not everyone is strong willed enough to handle complete abstinance, and I really think it should be encouraged as an alternative.
See I think that sexuality is certainly a need that must be filled. But in some filling that need could amount to simply observing art, but for others it borders on nymphomania (if you are a girl obviously). I don't think however that in most instances, sex is some uncontrolable need that will make you insane if not submitted to.
I think suggesting that people cannot control themselves in that regard belittles us as a race.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
IN TERMS OF GENERAL SOCIETY, AND NOT IN TERMS OF KMBOOTS' PERSONAL LIFE:
A healthy marriage provides partners with emotional, sexual, and physical stability.
A healthy marriage provides children with two parents who are prepared to shoulder the responsibilities of their existence.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay...that is pretty circular. Explain why marriage is a necessary precaution.
Well, I think it is not unreasonable to claim that in order to willingly bring a child into the world, you should be committed to being together to raise that child and to jointly ensuring you have the resources available to raise that child. If that commitment does not exist, how prepared are you really? Especially as a teenager with no career and limited life experience...
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would say that is as safe and as responsible as it gets.
:stunned:
You, sir, lack imagination.
Maybe I do, but then again I married her, so I haven't been exposed to much else in the way of how it could have turned out differently.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, Scott honey, when you make blanket statements that sex outside of marriage is irresponsible, you are always going to be talking about someone's personal life.
Irresponsible people will have irresponsible sex. Responsible people won't. I agree that teenager are often irresponsible. Forty-three year old woman who was hyper-responsible even as a teenager, not so much. If I got married tomorrow, I could not be any more responsible* without needing therapy.
So, unless you do want to address my personal life, you might consider qualifying your statements.
quote:Irresponsible people will have irresponsible sex. Responsible people won't.
I think responsible people do irresponsible things all the time - because responsible people don't always realize what the responsible thing to do is. People make mistakes. I'm sure there are plenty of responsible people out there contemplating getting abortions right now, who thought they had done everything right and thought they took the right precautions, but made some mistake.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, where was I talking about legislation or criminalization? Did I not, in fact, state quite clearly that I'm stepping aside from that argument and instead addressing the more culturally-based attitudes that were being expressed in the thread?
quote:
quote:Am I only half a person, somehow, because I didn't do it, and am glad not to have?
Why are you placing that kind of value on sex?
That particular quote was aimed less at you and more at folks who were insinuating that there are certain things that "everybody" does. Since I haven't done those things, I have to wonder by what means have I been excluded from "everybody".
quote:It's about personal choice and freedoms, and the utterly silly nature of criminalizing this as a deterrent, especially when I've seen zero evidence that criminalizing it actually serves as a deterrent. This isn't something we should be solving with punishments and laws, this is something families should be dealing with, families have always traditionally been the ones who have taught their children about sex, why all of a sudden is it the state's job to do everything involved with it?
I agree with you. Like Scott, I'm against laws that mess around with what consenting adults can do in their own bedrooms, and I'm strongly in favor of comprehensive state-sponsored sex education.
I also believe that if we loosen up the legal restrictions (as we should) and disseminate libraries' worth of information on the subject (as we should), then we had better match those things with cultural constraints and expectations that rein in abuse of the system by minors who aren't mature enough to know what they're doing to themselves and others. So far, we've only done step 1 and step 2, and it really bothers me that so many people who agree with me on the first two steps are unwilling to take this all the way and complete the third.
When folks declare that "kids will do it anyway", that can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sure, you can't control other people's choices, and there are a lot of ways you could attempt to do so that would result in more harm than good. But if we give up and tell our kids we expect no better of them than to simply behave like animals and react instinctively to every rush of hormones, then we are not doing our job of preparing them for civilized adult life, either.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
