The Glade 4.0

My entire initial point was that in Arizona you can be required to prove consent. You don't seem to be disagreeing with me at all. If you have sex with someone under 18 in Arizona, you can be charged with rape. If you are, at that point you must prove that your partner consented in order to satisfy the affirmative defense and be acquitted on the rape charge. Proving consent, is, well, pretty much impossible unless the "victim" flat out admits in court that it was consentual. We did this in the New Zealand thread where people agreed that a prove consent requirement would lead to vindictive women crying rape and leave the man up a creek with no way to defend himself. Well, in Arizona, teenagers can do this and the exact same problem happens. If the girl cries rape, or even is just pressured by her parents into keeping quiet, the boy is instantly guilty. Most states have laws that prohibit rape defendants from questioning the alleged victim about their sexual activity, so the boy's lawyers can't even put the girl on the stand and ask her to testify under oath as to whether the conduct was consentual or not. As a result, he can't prove consent and the prosecutor has a 100% slam dunk case if he decides to prosecute, because the defendant is now required to prove something that he basically can't.



I will freely admit that I did not have any specific cases in mind when I made the initial post, I merely figured that, hey, 100+ million people are living in states where this conduct is a felony, it's probably happened at least like a half-dozen times where over-protective or over-religious parents made a huge stink about their precious daughter getting violated and managed to convince a bored or crusading prosecutor to actually file charges. I mean, 18/17 prosecutions happened so many times that it eventually got major media attention and most states had to amend their laws to prevent it, why would 16/15 be any different?

ah a good hellfire argument... I have missed you so. and from the link you posted Xeq... in response to the deviant sexual behavior it states:



This, to me, says you can rail that girls ladies parts all you want, but goodness forbid she gives you head, or you eat her out.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

First of all, the disabled person is not mentally equivalent to a toddler. He is rather a grown man with a very low IQ. If she gave the disabled man a massage, would that be ok? What if she gave him a massage with a happy ending? At what point do you think she deserves to go to jail for 10 years? The disabled man is barely a victim here in my opinion.

That or god forbid "she" isn't a girl....

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Which is different from a toddler how? He, like a toddler, can't even use the toilet properly. A qualified psychologist described him as equivalent to a toddler, so really who are you to argue with that description? The man's capabilities certainly back it up.



So because touching him in some fashion is ok, touching him in any fashion must be?

Perhaps, if he could express himself, he'd say he'd rather die than live like this. Does that therefore make it ok if she kills him? You're saying substantially the same thing - that it must be ok because you imagine what she did is agreeable to him. All you're doing is saying he's not a victim because you don't feel like it. Evidently you think your personal sensibilities outweigh him as a person.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Your entire initial point that I just got done quoting had nothing to do with Arizona. All the stuff about Arizona, and for that matter, percentages of states with felonies was a distraction from your intital point which was about the 2nd post in the thread. My mistake was in foolishly entertaining this instead of focusing on your original untenable position that there are widespread actual instances of teenagers convicted of not just any old sex offense but aggravated rape, solely becuase of minor age differences - one which you have not even begun to defend.



Proving consent isn't hard at all in the absence of evidence of lack of consent, and you won't be charged with "Rape"; you'll be charged with "sexual conduct with a minor" which is a class 6 felony. It is not even remotely equivalent to aggravated rape.



Except for the fact that a charge of "sexual conduct with a minor" rather than "rape" is, itself, a tacit stipulation by the prosecution that it was consensual. Furthermore, putting the "victim" on the stand is going to expose her to the defense attorney, so if she's been told "you better say it was rape" it's going to be pretty hard for a teenager to hold to that int he face of determined cross-examination. Teenagers are not terribly resistant to interrogation.



And in that case the prosecution would not tacitly have admitted consent already.



No, it doesn't. There would be no need for the "sexual conduct with a minor" charge if it were.



It's funny how hard it is to convict if the alleged victim "keeps quiet". This is especially true in juvenile courts which are set up specifically to add protection for juvenile defendants.



Yes they can. Those laws pertain to her sexual history. They defense can ask any question they want about the sex act in question. Furthermore, rape shield laws don't protect against questioning about history when it directly goes to the act in question, and a sudden accusation of rape out of the blue just because 2 kids got caught **** certainly arouses that suspicion. All that has to be weighed against the general reluctance of courts to permanently damage the prospects of teen defendants unless its unavoidable.



Nope. Wrong. He admitted it was consensual as soon as he didn't charge based on the nonconsensual in the first place.



So in other words you made an outrageous claim based on nothing more than your own anti-religious bigotry and then backpedalled to "well it's theoretically a felony in some states" because it was ridiculous. I must be slipping to have fallen for that for so many posts.

Here's a clue - the conservatives you're worrying about don't exist. They're the Democrat propaganda version of a conservative. Similarly, there is no such thing as "overly religious". You, as a non-religious person, are not in a position to determine what's an ok amount of religion and what isn't.



Because they'd already learned their lesson, and becuase 16 year olds automatically go to juvenile court?

Furthermore, even in the 18/17 case, they didn't meet your own original criteria - the same charge as the woman in the OP. You don't seem to get that all felonies are not created equal. There are degrees of felonies and degrees of sex offenses and they vary greatly. This charge carries a 20-year maximum sentence per count.
You don't seem to grasp just how outrageous your initial claim was.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Fun fact.

A very close friend of mine got caught having sex with his girlfriend ~15 years ago. At the time, she was 18 and he was 17. His parents went to the police and tried to charge her with statutory rape.

So there goes the claim that Xeq's conservative religious boogeymen are fictitious. They're real people. They do exist. They are the reason why we have age of consent laws in the first place.

Now, perceptive readers might eventually notice that 17 year-olds can legally consent to sexual activity in many states. This is because children don't magically become adults overnight, and instead transition into adulthood gradually over a period of time. Many parents aren't comfortable with how early this process actually begins in humans and have to be told rather bluntly that being a child's parent doesn't actually mean a damn thing, that their children are going to grow up, and that nature isn't going to ask for their permission.

I believe the police were a bit more diplomatic. They simply asked the young man if he was raped, he said he was a willing participant of the sexual encounter, and the police then informed his parents that had exhausted their legal grounds to pursue a rape trial. This kind of puts a hole in Xeq's theory of religious conservatives putting kids in jail for **** as teenagers. Oh, they try, but that's why we have age of consent laws.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Killing anyone is never ok. Homicide is always a crime. Having sex with people is ok depending on if they give consent. If they seem to be enjoying it, and are of legal age, then it is implied consent. Having sex with children is an extremely traumatizing event for them, and harms their development. However, you can not say the same is true with this man. It could even be good for him psychologically, who knows.

I think she should lose her license and maybe spend up to a few months in jail. But I don't think 10 - 20 years fits the crime. I don't think what she did is as bad as an adult abusing children.

I don't see a religious link there - and even if we accept that there are, in fact, some people with such motivations the discussion is about the practice as a whole across the country, or at the very least across a given state. You certainly cannot make the case that because people like this occasionally exist that this is the general view of religious people, or even religious evangelicals. It certainly is not something they're making an issue of, even in states like Arkansas where they're very prevalent yet the law on underage sex is quite lenient.

Similarly, you can certainly go to a bar in the south and find some bearded white guy wearing Realtree that will be happy to ask your feelings about black people in very impolite terminology. It is not that racists like this literally do not exist, but that systemic racism does not exist any longer. The differences group-wide for blacks from whites aren't a product of active, systemic discrimination right now; they're the product of the last 50 years of ham-handed attempts to remedy the 400 or so years prior by throwing money at the problem to buy their votes.





While this is true, the fact also is that children mature at different rates and just because a child is physically ready for sex and/or imagines themselves to be mentally ready for it, that does not mean that they in fact are as ready as they think. Teenagers as a general rule get themselves into trouble by wildly overestimating their own capabilities and underestimating their own vulnerabilities and the risk of a given situation. This is true in all kinds of situations, not just sexual ones, and just because a parent does not want a teenager having sex does not mean that we can say "well those people go to church so obviously it's overwrought religious objection." - and doubly so coming from people with a history of taking issue with religion because of their own issues with it.



This part I agree with, especially since trying to get a juvenile into the adult justice system is reserved for the most heinous crimes.

I would also point out that most people are simply not aware of the nuances of sexual crimes (or for that matter any other crime). The average person is vaguely aware that there's rape and statutory rape and some lesser sex crimes, but not with the elements of the offenses, or the fact that states don't all break them down the same way or use the same terms. This is true of any other sort of crime as well. When parents go in and want someone charged with rape in a situation like that they use that word because that's the term they know whether it's the appropriate charge in MO or not.

The police and the prosecutor know the right charge (maybe it is rape; I didn't look it up) but they probably didn't see any point in explaining the niceties of the law to the parents; they cut right to the chase and pointed out (it seems) that rape wasn't an appropriate charge based on the consensual nature of things. I didn't look up the law in MO; there may or may not have been another potential charge but the police were obviously not interested in pursuing it.

The bottom line is that the justice system simply has better things to do than lock up teenagers for having consensual sex with each other. To the degree this was ever a problem it was remedied with close-in-age laws and in the states that don't have those it was probably never a problem in the first place. The lesson is that just because a law can technically be read that way does not mean that scads of people are going to be unjustly convicted based on linguistic pedantry.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

A) Killing people is quite frequently "OK" and legal and B) having sex with people that can't consent is also always illegal. Why are you objecting to the law being applied in one case and appealing to it in the other?



A) He didn't and can't B) there's a movement to make assisted suicide legal having varying degrees of success.



Except that it isn't. A very severely intoxicated person may appear to enjoy sex and yet be beyond the point where they can consent. Cases have occurred where a person thinks they are having sex with someone other than the person they're actually having sex with.

A person has to be competent to consent - legal age is necessary but not sufficient for that. Appearing to enjoy it can go to the facts if consent is contested, but competence is necessary first. This man is not competent to make decisions in any other area of his life and lacks any means to make those decisions known even if he were so there's no reason to assume he can make them in regard to sex.



Which is irrelevant. He has the same right to bodily integrity as anyone else, and its the job of responsible caregivers to maintain that right on his behalf in view of his inability to do so.

This view, that "well we can just assume he'd probably consent because ~reasons~ so it's no big deal" is exactly what the law is trying to prevent from happening.



So what? Cyanide might also cure cerebral palsey, who knows? Maybe we should give him some, right?



What license would that be? She doesn't have a **** license. This was already discussed - she's an ethics professor. She has no medical or therapeutic credentials in the first place. Her sole claim to be able to do this "technique" is her association with a bunch of other idiots that think this technique actually works despite all evidence to the contrary. It's faith healing without bothering with the "faith" part.

Thanks for admitting you haven't actually bothered to familiarize yourself with the facts though.



And yet this person is, for all intents and purposes a small child in an adult-sized body. He can't even go to the bathroom - something my 3-year-old can do unsupervised.

Your argument amounts to special pleading that despite being a child in practically every respect because of his disabilities that we should A) treat him as an adult and B) assume consent on his behalf because of nothing more than special pleading on your part.

This really speaks to some pretty disturbing ideas about consent on your part.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

My initial claim wasn't intended to equate this woman's felony with 16/15 felonies, it was to claim that letting this woman off or giving her a light sentence (which is advocated for by this far left-leaning article) would be an injustice similar to the injustice faced by teenagers that have sex and get into legal trouble for it. (Which is advocated for by far right-leaning individuals)

A) It's not particularly associated with "far-right individuals"; while some of them may indeed advocate it the left has more than its share of sex-negative individuals who would be more than willing to do the same thing, especially if the male is the defendant.
B) You made a claim of multiple instances of teenagers being tried as adults on equally severe charges, so if that wasn't what your initial claim was intended to convey you did an appallingly poor job of phrasing it - as in you just threw some words in the general direction of what you were trying to say. Then, rather than clarify early on, you tried to kite the discussion over the the specifics of what sex acts were what sort of crime in what state, and I foolishly allowed you to do so.

I must be slipping in my old age, but the fact remains that this is just face-saving at this point.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."