So by that logic, a man who molests a nine year old who has started puberty should get a lighter sentence than a man who molests a thirteen year old who has not had a period yet? Seems unfair. Punishment is usually more severe the younger the victim.
You are trying to create hypotheticals to "prove" a point I am not making.
I am pointing out that there are TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES GOING ON and it is obvious to anyone who spends half a second thinking about it, or anyone who remembers what they were like when they were a young teenager v. a child; especially their mental development and ability to determine their own actions.
Nevertheless, here's a non hypothetical example of the ludicrousness of not looking at the reality of the situation.
I don't remember where it is, but there was a post about a "pedo" who was sexting some poor young innocent girl on here a while ago. People were going off on the guy, just like here, without any thought to the reality of the situation, just wanting blood. The guy was 20, the girl was 17.
Give me a fucking break.
I am not saying that this is the same as that, but that is exactly nothing. This is more than nothing, but its not the same as molesting a child who hasn't developed mentally enough to understand that they are being abused, or understands and can't do anything about it because of their programming.
A teenager is rebellious basically 100% of the time. They question everything. They don't do what they are told (like a child does). They choose for themselves. They have outgrown the entire concept of "respect your elder no matter what".
Can they be coerced? Yes, so can an adult. Can they be forced? Yes, so can an adult. Those are different crimes than using the authority of "elder" v. "child" to prey upon those that are still programmed to obey.
So what is your argument? The age of consent should be lowered? In many states it's already 16, but if the victim is younger the defendant can get off if they fall within a certain age range.
If you're trying to change the stigma conservatives have about under 18 sex, I can tell you that is a fruitless endeavor.
My argument is that people in general, and us specifically need to stop wanting blood so badly that we ignore reality. There is nothing but evil in that mentality.
Categorizing a crime as one thing, when it is obviously something else is a crime in itself and must be avoided at all costs.
That is my argument. I am not talking about changing any laws. I honestly don't know how I feel about the age of consent. The line has to be drawn somewhere I guess, though I really think it should be more case by case than a specific age in an ideal world.
I have known many 18 year olds who were too naïve and gullible to be interacting in that way with older people (or anyone really). I have known many younger teenagers that were more than mature enough to make their own decisions about that. But really, that's a much more nuanced and difficult conversation and really has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
I am talking about looking at situations with reason, instead of hate.
No sound decisions are made with hate. Stringing someone up for a crime they didn't commit because it looks somewhat similar (in some minds) to a different, worse crime is the worst possible way a society can conduct itself. That is not justice, but vengeance, and its worse than that because its vengeance for a crime that was not even committed by that person, but by someone else.
They are very different crimes. Yes, the law should absolutely consider the fact that one is a crime of a pure predator, and one is not.
And so should we. Ignoring the real differences is imo criminal.
So by that logic, a man who molests a nine year old who has started puberty should get a lighter sentence than a man who molests a thirteen year old who has not had a period yet? Seems unfair. Punishment is usually more severe the younger the victim.
You are trying to create hypotheticals to "prove" a point I am not making.
I am pointing out that there are TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES GOING ON and it is obvious to anyone who spends half a second thinking about it, or anyone who remembers what they were like when they were a young teenager v. a child; especially their mental development and ability to determine their own actions.
Nevertheless, here's a non hypothetical example of the ludicrousness of not looking at the reality of the situation.
I don't remember where it is, but there was a post about a "pedo" who was sexting some poor young innocent girl on here a while ago. People were going off on the guy, just like here, without any thought to the reality of the situation, just wanting blood. The guy was 20, the girl was 17.
Give me a fucking break.
I am not saying that this is the same as that, but that is exactly nothing. This is more than nothing, but its not the same as molesting a child who hasn't developed mentally enough to understand that they are being abused, or understands and can't do anything about it because of their programming.
A teenager is rebellious basically 100% of the time. They question everything. They don't do what they are told (like a child does). They choose for themselves. They have outgrown the entire concept of "respect your elder no matter what".
Can they be coerced? Yes, so can an adult. Can they be forced? Yes, so can an adult. Those are different crimes than using the authority of "elder" v. "child" to prey upon those that are still programmed to obey.
So what is your argument? The age of consent should be lowered? In many states it's already 16, but if the victim is younger the defendant can get off if they fall within a certain age range.
If you're trying to change the stigma conservatives have about under 18 sex, I can tell you that is a fruitless endeavor.
Interesting chart: https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/statutory-rape-guide-state-laws-and-reporting-requirements-summary-current-state-laws/sexual-intercourse-minors
My argument is that people in general, and us specifically need to stop wanting blood so badly that we ignore reality. There is nothing but evil in that mentality.
Categorizing a crime as one thing, when it is obviously something else is a crime in itself and must be avoided at all costs.
That is my argument. I am not talking about changing any laws. I honestly don't know how I feel about the age of consent. The line has to be drawn somewhere I guess, though I really think it should be more case by case than a specific age in an ideal world.
I have known many 18 year olds who were too naïve and gullible to be interacting in that way with older people (or anyone really). I have known many younger teenagers that were more than mature enough to make their own decisions about that. But really, that's a much more nuanced and difficult conversation and really has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
I am talking about looking at situations with reason, instead of hate.
No sound decisions are made with hate. Stringing someone up for a crime they didn't commit because it looks somewhat similar (in some minds) to a different, worse crime is the worst possible way a society can conduct itself. That is not justice, but vengeance, and its worse than that because its vengeance for a crime that was not even committed by that person, but by someone else.