Edi wrote:
Look, as good a friend as you are, don't strawman me on this issue. I fucking said, as the very first thing, that I do not approve of the woman's actions. They were wrong. But they were not as wrong as if it had been a 28-year old man and a 13-year old girl. What part of that slipped past you?
I've calmed down a bit. The jovial bent the tread started off with totally pissed me off. My apologies. Yes, physically, penetration is more harmful that the penetrator. Thus, in that sense a 13 year old girl is harmed more in a simular circumstance.
And specifically after I've gone on at length to point out the differences between male and female thinking, biology, physiology etc, you equate adult woman/adolescent male sex (where both were willing, but the other legally incompetent to give consent as far as the law is concerned) to a standard rape situation where a man forces a woman to have sex? That's a fucking huge strawman, and you have no point.
Very well. Consider it conceeded or retracted.
I never did claim that he was fully capable of understanding all the things involved or the consequences to himself or to her, and I'll thank you to find anything in my post that says those laws should not be in place. Simply saying it's the law in an individual case with some pretty damned unusual circumstances is goddamn stupid, because you have to weigh the facts of the case to decide and to determine how much punishment is due. And the facts of biology, psychology and physiology in this case are in the defendant's favor and work as a mitigating factor. I've yet to see you contest that. I've yet to see you challenge Mike's post on the issue either, and he cuts to the heart of the same matter as I do.
And I still disagree with you on this point. He was used. It should not be an excuse that the kid wanted to be used for multiple reasons. Due to age, maturity and the same hornyness that you say works in his favor, I see works against him and her. His screaming biology is hampering his ability to make reasonalbe decisions with this particular subject.
No, I would not, because legal incompetence to perform an action (such as signing a contract) usually makes that action null and void in the eyes of the law. You could apply the same principle here and free the kid from paying child support. Another option is freeing him of that responsibility until he turns 18 or 21 or whatever the fuck is considered the age of majority in the US (which is the more likely option), or possibly some other specific arrangement could be instituted by order of the court. This hypothetical of yours is not a black/white situation and trying to treat it as one just makes you look foolish.
Establishing a reason why we don't let 13 year olds have adult status when it comes to sexual issues makes me look foolish? Ok. And of course it isn't black and white, however you don't hold a 13 year old to the same standard as you do an 18 year old or even a 16 year old.
Again, what part of the differences between adult woman/adolescent male and adult man/adolescent girl sexual realtionships escaped you? They are not the same despite the law being blind on it, and the judge obviously had the capacity to recognize that even if you don't. If it was a 28 year old man and a 13 year old girl, you'd be hearing me demand that he be strung up by his balls over a slow fire after being flayed alive. Because the facts of the situation in that event would be different.
Ok, I admit I knee jerked that one. However, even now, I think 9 months in jail is still too soft.
So what about that case in Oregon a while back where the situation was basically the same? The woman violated her parole orders by fucking the same kid again, and when she finally did get out a few years later and the kid was an adult, they promptly got married. Afaik they are still happily married, and she never did approach any other kids. Should she still be behind bars? Or can you get it through your thick marine skull that not all situations of an adult having sex with a kid are equally bad, even though they are bad to begin with? Because the sentence of a crime must be in some way commensurate to the actual harm caused by that instance of it being committed, as Mike pointed out.
Ah, what was her name.......Anyways, yes, I think she got off lightly, especially considering she got out on parol, while the kid was still a kid, and still went and hooked up with him. She was pulled out of a parked car and arrested while being with the kid again.
Yes, I knee jerked before, but there has to be a better middle ground between 20 years and 9 months.
You're free to disagree with me, but you've yet to actually refute anything I said in my first post, and you have not given me any kind of convincing reasons for why my position is wrong. Because I agree that pedophilia is bad and should be treated harshly, but each damned case should be judged by its own merits instead of having a stock answer reagrdless of the facts. The vast majority of pedophiles are men, and the laws against pedophilia of a necessity reflect that. They are very ill-equipped to deal with cases like this because of that default assumption.
Edi
Edi
