MySpace girl sends a second man to prison

Statutory rape is just one of those laws that is the government trying to get another set of fangs into our business. It's 32 year old mothers trying to use the law to prevent their 15 year old daughter from dating that 18 year old they don't like and then go off and marrying a 55 year old guy for his cash.

Maybe at one point I'd have said I think it's a little disgusting, though I never would say it should be a legal issue. At this point I don't think it's anyone's business as long as its consensual. I wouldn't date some underage girl, legal or not, because I don't need 2 scoops of crazy every morning, but I don't really give a shit.

That is until I have a 12 year old daughter, then you all get your fucking dirty hands off of her or I'll cut your balls off.
 
Statutory rape is just one of those laws that is the government trying to get another set of fangs into our business. It's 32 year old mothers trying to use the law to prevent their 15 year old daughter from dating that 18 year old they don't like and then go off and marrying a 55 year old guy for his cash.

Maybe at one point I'd have said I think it's a little disgusting, though I never would say it should be a legal issue. At this point I don't think it's anyone's business as long as its consensual. I wouldn't date some underage girl, legal or not, because I don't need 2 scoops of crazy every morning, but I don't really give a shit.

That is until I have a 12 year old daughter, then you all get your fucking dirty hands off of her or I'll cut your balls off.

So an 11 year old should be able to date a 38 year old "as long as its consensual"?
 
Statutory rape is just one of those laws that is the government trying to get another set of fangs into our business. It's 32 year old mothers trying to use the law to prevent their 15 year old daughter from dating that 18 year old they don't like and then go off and marrying a 55 year old guy for his cash.

Maybe at one point I'd have said I think it's a little disgusting, though I never would say it should be a legal issue. At this point I don't think it's anyone's business as long as its consensual. I wouldn't date some underage girl, legal or not, because I don't need 2 scoops of crazy every morning, but I don't really give a shit.

That is until I have a 12 year old daughter, then you all get your fucking dirty hands off of her or I'll cut your balls off.

pedobear1op8mm8.png
 
Within reason I would imagine, a 38yr. old dating an 11yr. girl is tad bit extreme. I would hope that a parent wouldn't even allow that, but in this world anything is possible. A parent of that disposition is part of the reason I think prospective parents should take an IQ test and a psychiatric evaluation before having kids.
 
Within reason I would imagine, a 38yr. old dating an 11yr. girl is tad bit extreme. I would hope that a parent wouldn't even allow that, but in this world anything is possible. A parent of that disposition is part of the reason I think prospective parents should take an IQ test and a psychiatric evaluation before having kids.

So its extreme but still permissible? Fuck that, its disgusting.

It would be ideal if people had to go through an approval process before having children, however that simply isn't feasible. Consequently, the government has stepped in to help protect children (which is really what statutory rape laws are about, even though girl in the OP is basically raping the system with her father's permission).
 
You could be completely psycho (not saying you are Blue) and drive up and down my street drunk at 1am honking your horn waking everyone up in my house just because I didn't answer your calls. Now thats extreme and yes it did happen to me lol.



My form of throwing a fit usually means Silent Treatment +1 or Blaming all of Life's Problems on Boyfriend.
 
Should neuter the parents for obviously doing nothing to stop their daughter. Especially when they know of their dughters MySpace page and that she has already done it before.

A good parent should keep an eye on everything their child is doing on the net. By letting her lie they are let it happen.
 
So its extreme but still permissible? Fuck that, its disgusting.

It would be ideal if people had to go through an approval process before having children, however that simply isn't feasible. Consequently, the government has stepped in to help protect children (which is really what statutory rape laws are about, even though girl in the OP is basically raping the system with her father's permission).

Sorry for not clarifying but the point I was trying to make was that in regards to a situation such as the example you gave, that extreme could very well be permissible. I don't know the full legal statutes in regards to this branch off, but as far as I know the parent does possess jurisdiction over their child. Is it socially acceptable? Fuck no. Do I approve of it? Trippin balls.

I think a better way of posing it would be; is it extreme but still possible? Sadly and disgustingly, yes.
 
Hell, my dad never said "Don't do drugs", "Don't smoke" or "Don't drink" and I never did because I was raised properly and had common sense. I didn't even have a curfew.

I drink occasionally now, but geez I'm 28, I'm allowed!
 
My form of throwing a fit usually means Silent Treatment +1 or Blaming all of Life's Problems on Boyfriend.

Silent Treatment works in our favor to be honest, at least in my books. The Blaming part I would just start to zone out and think if there are any games on tonight or a Slurpee sounds good right about now.
 
The problem is that in our current society, which stretches back roughly 100 years, we tend to be more nuturing/babying to adolescents. When you look back on thousands of years of history, it definitely favors older men-younger women relationships. The difference is that in those older societies, once a girl or boy reached the age of 12-14 they were considered to be an adult, treated like an adult, and expected to behave like an adult. In the last 10-15 years, the pressures and expectations placed on adolescents has generally tended more towards the adult side of things which is causing some serious social/identity problems. Don't take this the wrong way, I am not advocating 30 year old guys hooking up with 14 year olds. What I am saying is that something needs to give. Either we need to let kids be kids until they're 17-18 or we need to recognize that kids are increasingly more adult-like in their behavior and expectations and should do a better job of educating them on the responsibilities that come with being an adult. When you're talking about maturity levels, it's a social construct. Biologically, boys and girls are fully functioning adults when they hit puberty. Emotionally and mentally though they are usually not fully developed adults because of the taboos and limits that have been put in place by society.

damn you for stealing my idea... gar!

to add onto this tho:

Valandil is extremely correct, people back before were much older and wiser, as a key speaker at my university convocation said, "people before were forced to mature because of events forced upon them such as the great depression and the two world wars." Events such as these force people to move forward in life, and step UP to greater responsibility or be stepped ON. Additionally, people used to live much shorter, so being in the teens was already considered an "adult" since in the past being 15 could already be well into 1/3 of your lifespan. Nowadays with all the rules and regulations, children are too protected which essentially puts maturing etc on a standstill.

best example is: drinking. I hate to overgeneralize but because liquer is much harder to access as a teenager in North America (especially the United States), children go CRAZY when they get to college and the idea of drinking "illegally" is exciting. Compared to other parts of the world, ie. Peru where my good friend is from, or Italy where there is not drinking limit and Hong Kong where as long as you have money you get booze, people are much more controlled and in many senses mature about drinking and dont go insane about it. Well to phrase it better, Americans go crazier at a relatively "later stage" maybe 18 or 19 for example whereas in other parts of the world you either grow up drinking alcohol with meals or you may start earlier maybe at 13 or 14 for example. I'm not saying this from a "wow i drink earlier im cooler perspective" but more you make dumb mistakes earlier and you learn from it. What happens is that when I went to university and other people i met who started drinking earlier were a lot more reserved and knew what mistakes not to make.

This is essentially what has happened to the grand scheme of things in life, we are now all doing things at a theoretical "18 or 19" instead of the "13 or 14" like or ancestors did.

So nowadays because kids are "younger" people feel it isnt right anymore. But in general remember people that people got married when they were both the same age like 13 yr olds with 14 yr olds. 14 yr olds with 30 yr olds for example was rare, and I dont think it was that encouraged before either.
 
I like to invoke the rule that is universally accepted in my area: 1/2 age plus 7. If the younger person is less than half your age plus seven, than they're off limits and you're a creepy bastard for trying anything.

Example: I'm 22, that means that a girl I date cannot be younger than 22/2+7=18. As a 22 year old, it is unacceptable to date anyone younger than 18.

Now this is a great rule for even old farts. 50 yr old guys, don't date anyone younger than 32. It also creates a minimum age for starting to date. 14 is the first year that you break even, thus the perfect age to start dating and also coincidentally the average age of a high school freshman, at least at the beginning of that school term in America.

Edit: Also, let me add light to on of the most unfair laws in CT that I've personally seen corruptly used through some of my close friends. Statutory rape is defined in CT as the female participant not being of legal consenting age regardless of consent. The legal consenting age in CT is 16. That means that the female MUST BE at least 16 to consent, or the male is guilty. This law has no regard for the age of the male. If the male is 12 and the female is 15, he gets the charge. There is only "risk of endangerment to a minor" that works the other direction if it needs to be brought up, but does not carry the life long "sex offender" tag that statutory rape does.

a588_bm.gif
 
Last edited:
11 and 38? It's disgusting, I don't know if it should be illegal. Regulating sex is a bad idea in general, For all I care a man can fuck his own dog. It's not my business.
If you don't want your daughter fucking strange old men, try raising her right. When you make it a legal issue, you get bullshit like what's going on here.
 
I like to invoke the rule that is universally accepted in my area: 1/2 age plus 7. If the younger person is less than half your age plus seven, than they're off limits and you're a creepy bastard for trying anything.

Example: I'm 22, that means that a girl I date cannot be younger than 22/2+7=18. As a 22 year old, it is unacceptable to date anyone younger than 18.

Now this is a great rule for even old farts. 50 yr old guys, don't date anyone younger than 32. It also creates a minimum age for starting to date. 14 is the first year that you break even, thus the perfect age to start dating and also coincidentally the average age of a high school freshman, at least at the beginning of that school term in America.

Edit: Also, let me add light to on of the most unfair laws in CT that I've personally seen corruptly used through some of my close friends. Statutory rape is defined in CT as the female participant not being of legal consenting age regardless of consent. The legal consenting age in CT is 16. That means that the female MUST BE at least 16 to consent, or the male is guilty. This law has no regard for the age of the male. If the male is 12 and the female is 15, he gets the charge. There is only "risk of endangerment to a minor" that works the other direction if it needs to be brought up, but does not carry the life long "sex offender" tag that statutory rape does.

What a bunch of horseshit.
 
Wait, wait.

WAIT.

How did he think a 13 year old was a 19 year old? Are girls getting THAT skinny, short, and boobless? Is that the current trend of "hot girls" that guys want? If so, fuckers deserved it. Quit being pedobears and move to Japan.
 
Last edited:
Wait, wait.

WAIT.

How did he think a 13 year old was a 19 year old? Are girls getting THAT skinny, short, and boobless?

Girls are hitting puberty earlier than they used to and dressing like their are earlier because mommy and daddy don't care.
 
Girls are hitting puberty earlier than they used to and dressing like their are earlier because mommy and daddy don't care.

I still contend that only a blind man would make that horrible misinterpretation. Of course, the guys out cruising myspace for hookups are probably a few pies short a picnic.
 
I still contend that only a blind man would make that horrible misinterpretation. Of course, the guys out cruising myspace for hookups are probably a few pies short a picnic.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/children/03/31/early.puberty.wmd/

Drive by a middle school and see for yourself. Studies by scientists have given good reason to believe that hormones in our food and obesity can lead to early puberty.

EDIT: Need to not hit space bar so early. ^^;

Blind guys do need to pay attention to how the girls act but some girls take special care to act older.
 
This reminds me of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State_of_Georgia
Wilson v. State was a Georgia court case brought about to appeal the aggravated child molestation conviction of Genarlow Wilson (born April 8, 1986).

Wilson had been convicted of aggravated child molestation because, at the age of seventeen, he had engaged in oral sex with a consenting fifteen-year-old at a New Year's Eve party. Wilson was African American and the fifteen-year-old was white.

At the time of his conviction, provisions for similarity in age that allowed underage consent to be taken into account were only applicable to vaginal sex. Because the case involved oral sex the consent of the girl was not at that time legally relevant.

On October 26, 2007, the Georgia State Supreme Court ruled that Wilson's sentence was cruel and unusual ("grossly disproportionate"). He was released later that day, after serving over 2 years of his 10 year prison sentence in the Al Burruss Correctional Training Center in Forsyth, Georgia.

Background
The conviction was based on an amateur video tape showing Wilson engaging in sex with a 17-year-old girl during a private party, and later being offered and receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old girl. The video shows the 17-year-old girl on the bathroom floor, then later having sex with Wilson. She appeared sleepy or intoxicated during the sex act but did not ask Wilson to stop. Waking up naked and disoriented the next morning, she claimed to have been raped. Investigating the alleged rape, police later found condoms and evidence of drinking, as well as the video camera, in the motel room used for the party.

A jury acquitted Wilson of raping the older girl, but convicted him of aggravated child molestation against the 15-year-old. The "aggravated" nature of the charge refers to fellatio (oral sex) rather than a mere "immoral or indecent act." Had the two teenagers had intercourse without oral sex, Wilson would have been charged with a misdemeanor, punishable up to 12-months, with no sex offender status, instead of the mandatory 10-year minimum term that the judge gave him.


Legal process

Initial trial and plea deal
The 15 year old girl, who has remained unnamed in the press as a 'victim of a sex offense', has repeatedly stated that the act of oral sex was consensual, though she legally could not consent. The jury acquitted Wilson of the rape charge, but as the age of consent in Georgia is 16, they voted to convict him of aggravated child molestation for the oral sex incident, with the forewoman tearfully reading the verdict. Some jury members later complained they had not understood the verdict would result in a 10 year minimum sentence,plus one year on probation.

Wilson received the 10-year sentence following a refusal to enter into a proposed plea bargain, stating of his adamant belief that "It's all about doing what's right [...] And what's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong. And I'm just standing up for what I believe in." His decision to reject the plea agreement, as well as his continued fight to overturn his conviction, takes into account that sex offenders in Georgia must register themselves and are subject to penalty laws for life, and that the law was not intended to penalize teenage partners (a fact which has since been included in updated legislation). As the law stands, Wilson would not even be able to return to his own family after an early release, as he has an 8-year-old sister with whom he would be forbidden contact. The other young males involved (including one charged for the same oral sex acts as Wilson) accepted plea bargains with the possibility of parole; they are required to register as convicted sex offenders. Wilson had been offered, and rejected, a plea bargain for a five year sentence with the possibility of parole before the trial. After the jury had returned the guilty verdict, the prosecutor offered the same 5-year plea bargain again, and Wilson refused again. Another young man involved in the case had accepted a similar 5-year plea bargain and was paroled after two years.


Legislative action
In part because of the publicity surrounding this case, the law under which Wilson was convicted was changed after his conviction; the act would now be treated as a misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of one year in prison, and no sex offender registration. While Wilson's attorneys argued that such a change in the law should reverse his conviction, the Legislature specifically prohibited the bill (House Bill 1059 of the 2006 Legislative session) from being applied retroactively.

A bipartisan group of legislators introduced a bill in the 2007 Georgia legislative session (S.B. 37) that would allow Wilson's sentence to be reduced by the courts. This session was adjourned in April, before the bill could be considered. Several legislators have subsequently called for a rare special session of the Legislature to reconsider the bill.

Reacting to District Attorney David McDade's releasing the videotape to legislators, media and the general public upon request, Georgia State Sen. Emanuel Jones said he would introduce legislation to block district attorneys from handing over photographic images in sex cases. "'I'm going to call it the David McDade Act,' Jones said. 'Sometimes we have to protect our kids from district attorneys.'" Because the participants shown having sex in the video were under 18, the videotape constitutes child pornography under federal law. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act prohibits prosecutors from allowing defendants in criminal proceedings to possess a copy of any evidence that constitutes child pornography, even if the purpose is to mount a defense against the charge. Under this law, Wilson and his defense team are prohibited from having a copy of the videotape that prosecutor McDade has distributed to anyone else who has requested it.


Appeals
The case was appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court; the court twice refused to hear the case, with the presiding judge delivering an opinion that said she was "very sympathetic to Wilson's argument" but that she was bound by the Legislature's decision to make the law not apply retroactively.

The governor does not have pardon power in Georgia, but the prosecutor has the power to set aside the verdict. The prosecutor Eddie Barker, apparently waiting for an admission of guilt, has said "the one person who can change things at this point is Genarlow. The ball's in his court."


Habeas petition
In response to a petition of habeas corpus filed by Wilson's attorneys, the Superior Court of Monroe County in the State of Georgia reduced Wilson's charge to misdemeanor aggravated child molestation, ordered that his name not be placed on the sex-offender registry, and resentenced him to 12 months and with credit for time served. Stated Judge Thomas Wilson, "The fact that Genarlow Wilson has spent two years in prison for what is now classified as a misdemeanor, and without assistance from this Court, will spend eight more years in prison, is a grave miscarriage of justice."

Georgia's Attorney General Thurbert Baker, an African American, has appealed Judge Wilson's decision, staying Genarlow Wilson's release. Baker maintains the judge did not have the authority to overturn the conviction and says there is a plea bargain offer on the table.

According to Baker, the plea deal could allow Genarlow Wilson to be eligible for First Offender Treatment, which would mean that he would not have a criminal record nor would he be subject to registering on the sex offender registry once his sentence had been completed. It could also result in Genarlow Wilson receiving a reduced sentence, possibly leading to his release based upon time already served. Genarlow Wilson's lawyer, B.J. Bernstein, would not accept the proposed deal because it would require her client to plead guilty to a felony with a fifteen year sentence; thus Genarlow would be forced to register as a sexual offender for up to fifteen years.


Bond hearing
Following the grant of habeas and Baker's appeal, Bernstein urged prosecutors to allow her client to be set free on bond until the appeal could be heard. Whitney Tilson, a New York City investment manager, and others offered to finance a million dollar bond on Wilson's behalf, but District Attorney McDade noted that Wilson's crime, aggravated child molestation, prevented him from being released on bond. Douglas County Superior Court Judge David Emerson agreed with McDade and canceled a scheduled bond hearing. Bernstein announced that she would file an appeal.


Georgia Supreme Court appeal hearing
On July 9, 2007, the Georgia State Supreme Court set a hearing for Genarlow Wilson's appeal for July 20, 2007, more than two months earlier than previously scheduled. The first motion was an appeal by the State Attorney General Baker of the Monroe County Superior Court judge's decision to reduce Wilson's felony conviction to a misdemeanor and release him. The second motion was brought by Wilson's attorneys to have him released on bond while the appeals are heard which the Douglas County Superior Court judge denied.


Wilson's release
On October 26, 2007, the Georgia State Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that Wilson's sentence was cruel and unusual, and ordered him released. He was released from prison in the late afternoon that day. The majority opinion said that the new law (which made oral sex between minors a misdemeanor instead of a felony) “represent a seismic shift in the legislature’s view of the gravity of oral sex between two willing teenage participants” and “reflect a decision by the people of this State that the severe felony punishment and sex offender registration imposed on Wilson make no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment. ... Although society has a significant interest in protecting children from premature sexual activity, we must acknowledge that Wilson’s crime does not rise to the level of culpability of adults who prey on children and that, for the law to punish Wilson as it would an adult, with the extraordinarily harsh punishment of ten years in prison without the possibility of probation or parole, appears to be grossly disproportionate to his crime."

The dissenting opinion said that the legislators had explicitly made the law non-retroactive and, therefore, should not be applied to Wilson. The majority opinion claimed, however, that it did not apply the law retroactively but instead that the punishment was unconstitutionally cruel and unusual. The dissenters argued that the precedents the majority relied upon involved legislation with no prohibitions against retroactivity.

Attorney General Baker said he would not appeal the ruling.


Reaction
On December 21, 2006, The New York Times published an editorial condemning the Georgia Supreme Court's original refusal to hear Wilson's appeal, noting that Wilson was not a sexual predator, and that his behavior would have only been a misdemeanor if he had actually had sex with the girl, instead of having had oral sex (due to a loophole in the applicable law's provision intended to prevent exactly this kind of dubious conviction).

Oral sex has long had a special criminal status in Georgia law; until 1998, oral sex even between husband and wife was punishable with up to 20 years in prison. The United States Supreme Court, in 1986, originally upheld Georgia's anti-sodomy law (which covered both oral sex and anal sex) as constitutional even when applied to criminalize two consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom (Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 176). Twelve years later, Georgia's Supreme Court would, however, find that the same law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court was unconstitutional on state constitutional grounds, at least as applied to oral sex with persons over the age of consent (Powell v. Georgia, S98A0755, 270 Ga. 327, 510 S.E. 2d 18 (1998)).

On April 30, 2007, The New York Times published another editorial noting that Georgia's legislature has closed the loophole in the law and that if Wilson were tried today he would now be facing only misdemeanor charges for the same act. However, the State Senate adjourned for the year without taking up a bill allowing judges to review previous cases like Wilson's and Wilson continued to serve a mandatory 10-year sentence. The Times also noted that Wilson's attorneys have applied for a writ of habeas corpus with the U.S. Supreme Court and it urged the Court to grant it. In the same editorial, the Times lambasted prosecuting district attorney David McDade for continuing to publicly charge that Wilson participated in gang-raping a 17-year-old, even though he was acquitted of charges in that case.

On May 24, 2007 former US president Jimmy Carter wrote a letter to state attorney-general Thurbert Baker (who is also African-American) in which he questioned whether Wilson's race had played a role in his treatment. He wrote: "The racial dimension of the case is likewise hard to ignore and perhaps unfortunately has had an impact on the final outcome of the case," pointing out that white defendants have received lesser punishments for similar conduct.

Following the June ruling in Monroe County, both Attorney General Baker and Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue expressed concern that other convicted child molesters might attempt similar legal tactics to get out of prison. While Baker called the Wilson sentence "harsh", he also noted that he had taken an oath to uphold state law.

Black leaders such as Rev. Joseph Lowery and the Congressional Black Caucus have criticized Baker's appeal of the Monroe County ruling. Meanwhile, Rev. Markel Hutchins, a civil rights activist in Atlanta, has criticized them for not having all the facts and failing to stand up for the victims in the case. He also questioned the motivations of Wilson's attorney, Bernstein, and urged her to attempt to find a resolution in the case.

Short version:

17 year old guy goes to party. Guy gets head from a 15 year old. Guy goes to prison for having sex with a minor, even though he is a minor himself.
 
damn you for stealing my idea... gar!

to add onto this tho:

Valandil is extremely correct, people back before were much older and wiser, as a key speaker at my university convocation said, "people before were forced to mature because of events forced upon them such as the great depression and the two world wars." Events such as these force people to move forward in life, and step UP to greater responsibility or be stepped ON. Additionally, people used to live much shorter, so being in the teens was already considered an "adult" since in the past being 15 could already be well into 1/3 of your lifespan. Nowadays with all the rules and regulations, children are too protected which essentially puts maturing etc on a standstill.

best example is: drinking. I hate to overgeneralize but because liquer is much harder to access as a teenager in North America (especially the United States), children go CRAZY when they get to college and the idea of drinking "illegally" is exciting. Compared to other parts of the world, ie. Peru where my good friend is from, or Italy where there is not drinking limit and Hong Kong where as long as you have money you get booze, people are much more controlled and in many senses mature about drinking and dont go insane about it. Well to phrase it better, Americans go crazier at a relatively "later stage" maybe 18 or 19 for example whereas in other parts of the world you either grow up drinking alcohol with meals or you may start earlier maybe at 13 or 14 for example. I'm not saying this from a "wow i drink earlier im cooler perspective" but more you make dumb mistakes earlier and you learn from it. What happens is that when I went to university and other people i met who started drinking earlier were a lot more reserved and knew what mistakes not to make.

This is essentially what has happened to the grand scheme of things in life, we are now all doing things at a theoretical "18 or 19" instead of the "13 or 14" like or ancestors did.

So nowadays because kids are "younger" people feel it isnt right anymore. But in general remember people that people got married when they were both the same age like 13 yr olds with 14 yr olds. 14 yr olds with 30 yr olds for example was rare, and I dont think it was that encouraged before either.

You guys hit it all before I did... bastards =P

Seriously though, I feel the need to tack on to this simply because I view it as important. We look back in time and see "children" starting families/being given positions of power and we shake our heads in wonder. What we don't examine, is how these kids were raised. The bottom line is that by the time they hit 14/15/16, they weren't kids anymore, they were mature and functioning adults. Yes, physiologically, their brains were *slightly* different than older adults, but they had been given a value system from which to make their decisions and they were taught the reasons why that value system should be followed. Most importantly, they had learned the quality of self-discipline that enabled them to follow that value system.

Alexander the Great commanded troops at 16, Elizabeth I was able to position herself as eventual successor within the English court while a young teen, and Catherine the Great did the same in Imperial Russia. These are extreme examples, and many more ordinary ones (like a young son taking over a farm after the early death of his parents) can be found within the everyday life of our forebearers.

Saying that it was a "different time" is an excuse. What was different was how kids were raised. Given the length of our lifespans today, it *could* be perfectly acceptable to extend childhood to 18... but that's not what we're doing.

On the one hand, we encourage our kids to dress like adults, and on the other, we fly off the handle when they act like them. Parents let their 16 year old buy jeans with "JUICY" stitched across the ass, and then call the cops when a 20 year old happens to agree (which, kind of makes me laugh considering my grandparents were dating at that age spread, got married the next year and raised ten kids over the next thirty something years).

If you want teens to be children, fine... but enforce childhood and all its restrictions. If you want teens to be adults, that's fine too, but teach them how to be adults, and then *allow* them to make adult choices.

You cannot have it both ways.

Along these lines I'd also like to bring up the topic of age restrictions on driving, voting, fighting, and drinking. This has *never* made sense to me. I joined the military when I was 17, which is perfectly legal. Yet... while I could die for my country, I could not vote for my leaders, nor could I purchase alcohol or cigarettes.

This makes no sense.

If you're going to say with your laws that you cannot responsibly drink alcohol until 21, you'd better not say that you can go and take a bullet for your country until then either. The same goes for voting... you can choose the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet at 18, but you can't be trusted to choose whether or not to drink?

We need *one* age of majority. Before that, you're a child, after that, you're an adult. With it comes drinking, smoking, voting, everything. It needs to be old enough that young adults can handle the responsibility and young enough so that they're not chafing against the bonds of state-enforced childhood before then.

And for the love of all that is holy, parents, raise your kids early. Teach them responsibility and discipline early, or you're going to have a thirty-something living in your basement (no offense to present company if that applies to you... FFXI is a hell of an addiction that can mess with RL).

We shouldn't need government telling couples what is and isn't right - both parts of that couple should have the upbringing to make that decision for themselves... and that starts in the home.
 
Back
Top