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 : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gauguin who wrote (9750)	4/14/1998 5:44:00 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71178

Probably because the boy was 16...but you know I've been thinking about it...I think Janice's point about it not really being "criminal" when it involves two minors is well-taken. As is mj's about rape not really being an accurate term....On the other hand--there is a world of difference between a 16 and a 12---and if a 16 year old male seduced my 12 year old daughter, I sure as hell would hold him responsible for SOMETHING. And I do think that once one of the parties is over 18, it becomes rape even if consensual. I know J disagrees with me. But in her next life Janice is going to have five girls, all of whom will be as iconoclastic and rebellious as she is. We'll talk to her again then. I guess the point is that it's not a RIGHT for teens to be able to have sex. Our average is now down to 19.96666. Keep those stats coming in.

To: Gauguin who wrote (9750)	4/14/1998 5:56:00 PM
From: DScottD	Respond to of 71178

Don't forget; statutory rape is a strict liability offense, so it doesn't matter if the sex is consensual. He who penetrates has lost, so to speak. Or, as we used to say in high school, 15 will get you 20! And all the decision stands for, I think (puhlease correct me if I'm wrong) is that a minor defendant in a statutory rape case in California cannot assert that the S.R. statute is unconstitutional as an invasion of privacy, even when applied to a case of two consenting minors, because there is no fundamental right to privacy when it comes to the bedroom (or more likely, back seat) behavior of people under 18. If one of the players is over 18, then the state's compelling interest in protecting the virginity of its youth overrides any fundamental right to privacy one over 18 enjoys in the deployment of his or her genitals. At least that's what my Con Law professor would have said.