Letters to the Editor
-
Thanks to Anonymous above...
... who brought this discussion back on track.
I suspect that the man involved was probably not quite the innocent soul that the defense would have the court believe, but much of the discussion here is taken completely out of the context of the original case and its unique circumstances and is thus irrelevant, except that it provides opportunities for some wounded correspondents to abreact when a nerve is touched.
This is a pretty common phenomenon in Broadsheet, where the idea is to totally misrepresent what some judge (always male) has said or done so as to start a conversational hare that will be chased down by the usual compulsive letter writers (maybe I am one too), thus getting lots of hits for Salon and hopefully boosting viewership numbers and hence advertising revenue
-
Why age of consent matters
Adolescent brains are not the same as adult brains. During puberty, brain development happens at a pace unseen since infancy and early toddlerhood (http://www.duke.edu/~amwhite/Adolescence/adolescent3.html for starters).
Centers of the brain that control long-term thinking develop long after parts of the brain that involve risk-taking. It is completely normal for tweens and teens to engage in risky behavior without thinking through the consequences and repercussions of their actions.
It is for *this reason* that societies have developed laws tthat protect aolescents from themnselves. These include laws against voting, employment, owning firearms, serving in the military, driving, drinking, or engaging in sex with adults before a certain age.
No matter how "mature" a girl might look, no matter how sophisticated she seems, no matter if she says she's willing ... a little girl is incapable of making decisions the way an adult woman can.
I find it fascinating that the defendant in this case is getting sucvh an easy ride in public opinion. The "it's not his fault; she looked old enough" is so stupid. He met a little girl in a park and got a blow job in a secluded part of the park. No one is calling him on his piss-poor judgement. If a woman had met a man in a bar, followed him to the bathroom and was brutally beaten and raped, how many of these same people would be saying "Well, she should have known bewtter ... she should have behaved more responsibly ... what did she think was going to happen ... she got what she deserved ..." ????
So here's a tip for any guy who doesn't know better. The only women who consent to sex in public within moments of meeting you are wither pros, or incompetent. Any way you look at it, accepting their offer is likely to be a crime. Now you've been warned.
-
RE: Why Age of Consent Matters
Sorry Juliebird....I have had sex with many women in public places after meeting them (didn't you got to college ?).....and yet I never broke the law. I guess you don't believe women (not girls) can be accountable for their own actions. There is no doubt this man is guilty of a crime and should/has been punished. The question is whether you believe in extenuating circumstances....which clearly you dont. If this man knowingly had sex with a minor, he should get the full impact of the law. The gray area is whether this girl could have been viewed as a non-minor and if she gave consent. The consent issue is clearly not settled, and there are apparently others, outside of the judge, who felt the girl looked of age. To me, it all boils down to if the defendant knew the girl was under age.
-
Agree with my namesake
Anonymous, you and I have the same name and we think alike.
Here are some possibilities.
1. The guy took the girl at her word that she was 16 (= legal).
2. The guy took her at her word, but suspected she was underage and did not inquire too closely.
3. The guy accepted her claim that she was 16 with a wink, knowing darn well that she was not 16 or even close.
4. The guy knew her, her age, and her reputation, and didn't care anyway. After all, we can assume they lived in the same neighborhood. The defense story is just a story.
5. Maybe the guy is a career criminal, or maybe he is a delinquent. Or maybe he is a bit simple and himself a vulnerable person. Or maybe he is just an average guy who lacks impulse control and took advantage of an opportunity which he now bitterly regrets.
We just don't know. We weren't in the court and we are not judges. The judge in this case IS a judge. Maybe he is a bad judge, but he presumably deals with such cases all the time and uses his judgement, so it is absurd to call him a pedophile because he accepted as a mitigating factor the defense's argument that the girl looked older, was provocatively dressed, and may have been soliciting men for sex.
This may come as a suprise to some people, but when a sexily dressed female comes on to men, they often become sexually aroused, which impairs their judgement.
The guy was not found innocent. He has served several months in jail and will no doubt be subject to parole, probation etc. for some time to come.
The question is really whether this was an aggravated offense of pedophilia or a very stupid mistake.
-
Consent laws
the question is do we impose arbitrary restraints on males in order to "train" them or to avoid treating girls differently, or do we say that girls that age can make decisions too.
Boys cannot get pregnant.
Females, of any age, do not exist to gratify male sexual urges. There's a lot more to us than that, and that potential can be seriously jeopardized in the time it takes for a male to orgasm.
Consent laws, especially for females who are too young to reasonably become mothers, are not there to deny them pleasure, they are there to protect them from serious harm. I don't care how mature a 10-year-old is, she is not old enough to become a mother. Therefore, she is not old enough to make decisions about sex.
Yes, young teens have strong sexual feelings. They also have no judgment to speak of, and tend to think they're invulnerable.
No young teen girl is old enough to make sensible decisions about pregnancy and its prevention. As pregnancy is a natural result of sex, they are denied that privilege until they are considered of age to make those decisions, never mind safely carry a baby to term. Girls in their early teens face serious physical risks from pregnancy, and the younger they are, the worse it gets. 16 is really the bare minimum age. 10 is outrageously young.
Some exemptions are made for boys their own age, mostly because those boys are at a similar level of maturity and cannot be expected to understand the risks either. Their parents are the ones expected to take responsibility. If a 15-year-old boy knocks someone up, his parents must shoulder the burden.
And adult man, however, is expected to understand the risks he inflicts on his partner when he puts his penis in her, and he is expected to understand that a minor doesn't. He is expected to know that children can't make responsible decisions and expected, as an adult, to think with the big head.
Men are not entitled to sex with every female they find attractive. They are not even entitled to sex with every female who is willing. If they cannot keep this in mind when dealing with girls under the age at which motherhood is a reasonable option, then laws must be passed and enforced that keep it in mind for them.
At its core, sex is a reproductive function, and we cannot throw this out the window when discussing the age of consent just because some men find teenie-boppers hot. If she's not old enough to be a mommy, she's not old enough to be screwing. She may not know that, and a boy her own age may not know that, but a man in his twenties is expected to know and to act on that knowledge no matter how sexy she looks.
If he can't, then he needs to go someplace where he cannot inflict his lack of self-control on the general population.