polanski

[213374U]

Well, I have a daughter so my answer is "sometime after I die".

 

TBH, I dont have a concrete answer. IMO, any adult engaging in sex with a minor is a crime, but of course the example of an 18 year old w/ a 17 year old girlfriend getting in trouble sounds silly right?

It sounds silly, but it could happen. I don't have a concrete answer either. Mostly because I can't wrap my mind around the idea of a single rule being valid for everyone, always.

 

How old's your daughter, anyways? (cough)

 

 

Automatic value judgments? And what do you propose to substitute? Shall we argue whether it's wrong to murder people? That's an automatic value judgment, isn't it? You have to draw the line somewhere, it usually it's pretty clear where it needs to be drawn.

Funny. When the State ends the life of somebody, we say "it was JUSTICE". When I go and stab somebody then it's "murder". Or not. It depends on what the lawmakers at the time agree murder is, no?

 

In principle I agree that you have to draw the line somewhere, but that is mostly completely disconnected from reality. It's just a matter of bureaucratic feasibility. So, please, tell me where you get this unwavering certainty from, that lets you see "pretty clearly" where the line needs to be drawn. Or I could be dishonest and assume you are just making stuff up as you go or quoting directly from your Bible.

[Purkake]

I'm just going to tiptoe to the "I don't care" corner and sit there, alone.

[Amentep]

A child can not give consent.

Debatable.

 

Actually, it has BEEN debated. in Parliament. And in Congress. At length. By democratically elected representatives. Hence it's the law.

 

In England the minimum age is 16 years. Now, at 15 years, 11 months, and 28 days I'd be willing to concede leniency. 13 years is not just wrong, it's obviously wrong. A 13 year old does not even look like they're old enough to give consent.

 

What if one is 13 and the other 15?

 

One is 15 and the other 16?

[Amentep]

IMO, any adult engaging in sex with a minor is a crime, but of course the example of an 18 year old w/ a 17 year old girlfriend getting in trouble sounds silly right?

 

I don't think its silly.

 

When I was in high school one of the things EVERY teen boy was keenly aware of was the age of consent. And if you decided to date someone who was under that age, you were aware of what you were getting into.

 

I'm not a fan of giving a 16 year old a free pass with a 15 year old just because they're close in age.

[213374U]

Actually, it has BEEN debated. in Parliament. And in Congress. At length. By democratically elected representatives. Hence it's the law.

Oh, has it?

 

Well then. I feel so reassured, now. It's a good thing that legislators don't ever reverse changes by previous legislators and go back on old topics, and always tackle new issues and problems, right?

 

Further, I am now going to switch my brain off. Given that I have my dear politicians to shape my opinions for me, I don't really need to waste glucose pointlessly - choosing which brand of toothpaste to purchase doesn't really require that much brainpower anyway. After all, it is the LAW and God forbid I question my betters.

 

Gimme a break.

Edited September 29, 2009 by 213374U

[Gfted1]

IMO, any adult engaging in sex with a minor is a crime, but of course the example of an 18 year old w/ a 17 year old girlfriend getting in trouble sounds silly right?

 

I don't think its silly.

 

When I was in high school one of the things EVERY teen boy was keenly aware of was the age of consent. And if you decided to date someone who was under that age, you were aware of what you were getting into.

 

I'm not a fan of giving a 16 year old a free pass with a 15 year old just because they're close in age.

 

 

I think maybe it should be set up with an age separation in mind, something like the two minors cant be more than 2-3 years apart, or something to that effect. After all, I was 13 my first time (as was my gf at the time), who would have been wrong in that scenario?

[alanschu]

@Leet Numbers guy

So you're on board with UHC then?

Edited September 29, 2009 by alanschu

[Purkake]

Here's a handy chart for the age of consent around the world:

 

 

It's 14 in Estonia, BTW.

[213374U]

Oh, crap. I just realized I had donned my "fight the power!" t-shirt.

 

Nothing to see here. Move along.

[HoonDing]

Ugh, Saudi Arabia reminds me of a recent article I read about a 12-year old girl been married to a 80-year old.

 

Anyway, in before Thirteen movie jokes.

[Amentep]

IMO, any adult engaging in sex with a minor is a crime, but of course the example of an 18 year old w/ a 17 year old girlfriend getting in trouble sounds silly right?

 

I don't think its silly.

 

When I was in high school one of the things EVERY teen boy was keenly aware of was the age of consent. And if you decided to date someone who was under that age, you were aware of what you were getting into.

 

I'm not a fan of giving a 16 year old a free pass with a 15 year old just because they're close in age.

 

I think maybe it should be set up with an age separation in mind, something like the two minors cant be more than 2-3 years apart, or something to that effect. After all, I was 13 my first time (as was my gf at the time), who would have been wrong in that scenario?

 

As long as the arbitrary divide exists, then it either needs to be enforced, or made less arbitrary, so to that I can agree.

 

That's the problem with the dividing line though (and I think even with a 2-3 year gap there is still going to be debate; 3 year gap is the difference between a 14 year old and a 17 year old and I can see a lot of people saying that those two time periods are too different.) As a side note, I have seen 13 year olds who looked like they were in their 20s (and 40 year olds who looked like they were in their teens), so unless we expect one another to trade and authenticate ID badges before going horizontal, I think its always going to have a certain amount of arbitrariness that just has to be lived with.

 

Not that it ultimately matters since Polanski plead guilty; apparently the issue was whether or not the sentence being handed down was correct/fair/unjust/cruel&unusual, given a supposed plea bargain on Polanski's case. Not necessarily unlike other cases.

[Walsingham]

Actually, it has BEEN debated. in Parliament. And in Congress. At length. By democratically elected representatives. Hence it's the law.

Oh, has it?

 

Well then. I feel so reassured, now. It's a good thing that legislators don't ever reverse changes by previous legislators and go back on old topics, and always tackle new issues and problems, right?

 

Further, I am now going to switch my brain off. Given that I have my dear politicians to shape my opinions for me, I don't really need to waste glucose pointlessly - choosing which brand of toothpaste to purchase doesn't really require that much brainpower anyway. After all, it is the LAW and God forbid I question my betters.

 

Gimme a break.

 

Loo, if you want to gad about the room adopting intellectual poses that's fine. But there's a damn good reason there's an age of consent. Child abuse doesn't just hurt the victim, it ruins lives. Statutory rape isn't a game played by legislators it's real. Legislators have to codify it so they put an age on it. That age is just whatever is written down, but I say again that doesn't make it any less real when you back to the reason for it.

 

I have known people who have been abused as children, and the thought that their abusers would be feted just becaue they are middle class is quite literally sickening.

[Hurlshort]

The guy should serve his time. I've taught 12-13 year old kids for the last six years, and the very idea makes me sick to my stomach. There are no 13 year old kids that have the maturity to deal with a sexual relationship.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Automatic value judgments? And what do you propose to substitute? Shall we argue whether it's wrong to murder people? That's an automatic value judgment, isn't it? You have to draw the line somewhere, it usually it's pretty clear where it needs to be drawn.

Funny. When the State ends the life of somebody, we say "it was JUSTICE". When I go and stab somebody then it's "murder". Or not. It depends on what the lawmakers at the time agree murder is, no?

 

In principle I agree that you have to draw the line somewhere, but that is mostly completely disconnected from reality. It's just a matter of bureaucratic feasibility. So, please, tell me where you get this unwavering certainty from, that lets you see "pretty clearly" where the line needs to be drawn. Or I could be dishonest and assume you are just making stuff up as you go or quoting directly from your Bible.

The lawmakers need to tell you what murder is, you don't understand yourself? Are you being serious or intellectually dishonest? Value judgments are subjective, and of course they are influenced by culture. That doesn't mean what a barbarian believes is as valid as what a civilized person believes. Edited September 29, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Guest PoziomyPion]

Fun Fact # 23

 

Age of consent in Vatican is 12 :o

 

 

As for Romanski, what I heard is that this girl wanted to get laid and she had other men before Roman P. She also wanted the charges to be dropped all those years.

 

Even if she was a jailbait I am not saying what Roman did was right, but on the other hand she wasnt a typical American teenage angel-like blond girl with blue eyes praying to God every night before falling asleep

 

Polanski should be punished in the end and in the future he should go to Vatican or Spain(age of consent -13) if he wants some young(too young) booty.

 

Ultimately I'll join Purkake in "I do not care" corner.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I guess numberboy is all for pedophilia. So, if the grass is on the field its play ball, eh 213374U? Or you you prefer to play skins?

[mkreku]

On the one hand, I want him to abide under the same laws as everyone else.

 

On the other hand, the woman who was raped has said she wants him pardoned.

 

In this case, I'd listen to the woman.

[Gfted1]

She wants the charges dropped because:

 

The victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself publicly, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over. She sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement.

 

not because she thinks he was wrongly accused.

[213374U]

Legislators have to codify it so they put an age on it. That age is just whatever is written down, but I say again that doesn't make it any less real when you back to the reason for it.

So we just accept whatever's written on a piece of paper as the ultimate truth and guiding light for our actions (until somebody comes along and rewrites the whole thing, that is)?

 

Why are you trying so hard to mischaracterize me as defending statutory rape? That's NOT what I'm going on about.

 

Care to try again, without the strawmen?

 

 

There are no 13 year old kids that have the maturity to deal with a sexual relationship.

While I have trouble swallowing this (I guess, following this, that Gfted1 must be horribly scarred from the experience, for one), I'm going to let it slide, and pose a question instead.

 

Is this an impossibility in the same sense as "a human cannot survive in a vacuum", or just a result of how our children are reared and other cultural influences? During the Classical period, girls were bethrothed just after reaching sexual maturity, generally to older men. They were mature enough for maternity. There were many factors contributing to the collapse of the Roman Empire, but women marrying and becoming mothers while in their teens wasn't one of them.

 

Does this even have any semblance of scientific rigour?

 

 

The lawmakers need to tell you what murder is, you don't understand yourself? Are you being serious or intellectually dishonest? Value judgments are subjective, and of course they are influenced by culture.

Yes, the lawmakers need to tell me what murder is, because there's a lot involved in determining whether something is murder, manslaughter, or whatever. Not to mention the changing nature of those things being, as they are, legal details. Or are you quoting from your Bible, now?

 

You may want to take a look at this, specifically the part where it talks about the disconnection between law and morality.

 

Just a quick clarification, too: "subjective" does not mean "thoughtless".

 

 

That doesn't mean what a barbarian believes is as valid as what a civilized person believes.

Hahaha. And, of course, you belong to the "civilized" group, right?

 

It would be hilarious if you weren't serious.

 

 

I guess numberboy is all for pedophilia. So, if the grass is on the field its play ball, eh 213374U? Or you you prefer to play skins?

Didn't your mom teach you to shut up and go play in a corner when the grown-ups are talking?

[Guard Dog]

If you pump a 13 year old girl full of drugs and have sex with her it's rape no matter what. If he thought it was all right he would not have fled. I really cannot believe anyone would be defending him. I'd put this greasebag in Folsom or San Quentin and promise one of the big queens there a carton of Marlboros a week to take a special interest in him. He deserves to find out what rape is all about.

[Volourn]

"As for Romanski, what I heard is that this girl wanted to get laid and she had other men before Roman P. She also wanted the charges to be dropped all those years."

 

Yeha, you heard that from the people who are pro Romanski. It was rape. He drugged her, got her drunk, and used his position of authority to sexually abuse her. She also told him no repeatedly. It is rape. And, the fact he ran and managed to 'hide' for 30ish years doesn't make the crime any less. To me, her age is almsot irreleavnt (just makes it sicker) because she said no, and he used to drugs to control her.

 

And, as mentioned, she only wants the case to be dropped because she wants to move on NOT because she thinks he's innocent. He's guilty, and she knows it.

 

As for moving on.. it should be pointed out, that if he had faced the music 30 years ago, they *all* would have been able to move on so tack that on to another of his immoral crimes.

 

Also, he seems to have ZERO remorse for his heinous actions, still makes excuses, etc., etc.

 

Guy is scum no matter how good a movie director he is (and that's actually debatable as well).

[213374U]

Hey, Grom! Having fun yet?

[Killian Kalthorne]

I guess numberboy is all for pedophilia. So, if the grass is on the field its play ball, eh 213374U? Or you you prefer to play skins?

Didn't your mom teach you to shut up and go play in a corner when the grown-ups are talking?

 

Hey, you are the one arguing for pedophilia.

[213374U]

I guess numberboy is all for pedophilia. So, if the grass is on the field its play ball, eh 213374U? Or you you prefer to play skins?

Didn't your mom teach you to shut up and go play in a corner when the grown-ups are talking?

 

Hey, you are the one arguing for pedophilia.

Hey man, you should thank me. People like me would make it easier for people like you to lose their virginity.

[Hurlshort]

There are no 13 year old kids that have the maturity to deal with a sexual relationship.

While I have trouble swallowing this (I guess, following this, that Gfted1 must be horribly scarred from the experience, for one), I'm going to let it slide, and pose a question instead.

 

Is this an impossibility in the same sense as "a human cannot survive in a vacuum", or just a result of how our children are reared and other cultural influences? During the Classical period, girls were bethrothed just after reaching sexual maturity, generally to older men. They were mature enough for maternity. There were many factors contributing to the collapse of the Roman Empire, but women marrying and becoming mothers while in their teens wasn't one of them.

 

Does this even have any semblance of scientific rigour?

 

 

 

There are quite a few factors that go into a 13-year old not being emotionally developed enough to handle a sexual relationship, particularly with a 44-year old man, but I will address the cultural issues in comparing Ancient Rome to our modern day. In the past, that was a woman's sole purpose according to society, get married, rear children, rinse, repeat. Today's women, at least in most developed nations, are expected to get an education and to develop as an individual. When an older person gets into a sexual relationship with a younger person, they are creating a very serious reliance and it is a relationship that can easily be manipulated by the older party. The laws are written to protect young people from being manipulated and giving them a chance to get an education and develop as an individual.

 

There is a pretty clear difference between a sexual relationship for a boy and a girl. It can still be an emotionally scarring experience for a boy, but girls also struggle with the concepts of pregnancy. I've seen a lot of teenage pregnancies during my time as a teacher, and it is always tragic. No matter what route they go, their life is changed permanently and their childhood is over.