Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maried. who wrote (1633)	3/6/2002 11:25:51 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 21057

Male or female...abuser or abused...if it's wrong ...it's wrong. I see that you feel strongly about this. I simply don't see a brite line drawn at age 18. Karen, where are you coming from? Perhaps part of our disagreement is that I had in mind age eighteen. When I was eighteen, that was the age of demarcation. Not being a pedophile, I have had no reason to notice that California and perhaps other states have established lower ages for victims and higher ages for perps. I didn't know that until I saw your post. Statutory rape when I was a girl was, typically, sex after the prom between a girl who was a 17 year old high school senior and her boyfriend who was 18 or 19 and a freshman in college. I'm not talking about children. My Cannery Girl was a sixteen year old. The state of California and I are not that far apart. Karen

To: maried. who wrote (1633)	3/7/2002 7:39:20 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

marie, IMO Karen's right - and understates the case. Like it or not, most 14/15-year-old boys would leap at any chance of sex with a reasonably attractive woman of any age (up to about 40-50, anyway, and probably more if she looked younger). Force isn't necessary. Seduction? LOL, as if... It might not be the best thing for the youth. That's why it's statutory rape. And the woman is probably not very stable or happy to want so immature a lover (jeez, the thought of myself at 14... ugh). But I'd say 99.9% of the time it isn't rape and shouldn't be classed as such. BTW, until about 1890 it was legal, common and not an issue for boys to marry at 14 (same age they'd leave school and start work), and girls at 12. It was thought of as unwise for girls below ~14 to have children - because it was dangerous and the children were less likely to thrive. In Regency times, noblewomen were presented at 15-17 and were thought of as too old for a good marriage by 21 or so.

To: maried. who wrote (1633)	3/11/2002 9:36:22 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 21057

Well, I can! Because he listened to her...and encouraged her painting...and then seduced her into thinking that she was worthy of having sex? Please, Karen. You are way out there now. Because your male friends and this young girl did not have a knife to their throat...does not make this a memorable experience. If none of them protest, they are still under age...the abuser is still over the age of 21...and if it's not pedophilia, it's statutory rape!!! Legally in most states it would be statuatory rape, but not in all states. Does the moral nature of the act change if it happens in a state with a lower limit? Leaving aside the law for a second, which is worse a consensual sexual relationship between a mature 17 year old and a 21 year old, or that same 21 year old seduceing a taking advantage of a stupid, immature, insecure 19 year old? If its evil or horrible wrong for a 21 year old to have sex with someone who is 17 is it just as horribly wrong if they are both 17? I think Karen has a good point, there is no magical difference that occurs when you turn 18, at least there was not for me. Of course the same thing is true about any age, and I'm not saying that some age of consent doesn't serve a good purpose but I think Karen was not saying that either. She only said some sexual encounters between teenagers and adults might not be harmful or even if they are harmful aren't really abusive. With younger teens or esp, pre-teens its more obvious abuse, but I'm not sure that a 17 year old girl is abused because she has sex, or why it is abuse if a man in his twenties has sex with her but not if her partner is a 16 year old boy. However I can see reasons to consider such relationships inapropriate, and I can see that they are sometimes or even usually abusive, I would just say that they are not always abusive. Tim