The Debate Thread: Age of Consent and Sexting

[shadowgrin]

Quote koberulz's post, it even appears like that in Preview. Maybe we can find some evidence.

[koberulz]

*Delete this*

[shadowgrin]

He edited it.

Still, found the culprit. It's this line...

[quote="Jae"Is this common enough to warrant a change of laws?[/quote]

...and when added with other multiple quotes the post goes haywire if you don't fix it or at least add a closed bracket. I guess the forum can't handle mangled quotes.

[benji]

I checked in four browsers, then took screens just to prove it was legit so no ban. EDIT: I see it's changed now, but I can't be assed to change this post.

Anyway, I want to make a couple points here having I THINK read that post properly. If it fixes itself I'll respond more later.

First, I think a lot of posters around here would do well to READ me and Jae's exchange here. We are not only disagreeing on this issue, but understanding why the other person is disagreeing and trying to find a common ground "solution" something we have done countless times over the years. On a meaningless issue nonetheless, and we did this a few months back in a thread about taxation on millionaires or something as well.

We established our disagreement, then outlined the points that cannot be reconciled. There's nothing wrong with that but we both sought a solution to address as much as possible, and we didn't insult each other! Jae wants creeps punished, I want supercreeps punished but mere weirdos freed, we agreed to an extent on a framework that does allow some examination of each case while coming down hard on the real jerks. The fact that Jae, of extremist hate crime racist fame, agreed to the basics of my proposal is more than most of the scum around here would ever do.And I didn't even try to go in the BigKaboom2 eliminate age of consent direction!

And to go from there is to take koberulz's take on the child pron part:

Poor analogy. That logic leads to criminalisation of having children

He didn't understand my point from what he quoted, Jae did.

Note, koberulz says:

That logic leads to criminalisation of having children

While I said:

What couldn't you criminalize?

And he failed to notice that Jae actually understood and took steps towards MY position away from his natural "throw people I don't like in jail." (Not an inherently wrong position!) That a guy who downloads some child porn and jacks off to it by only taking advantage of what someone else did does not automatically need to be thrown in jail. That producing the content and paying for it have clear differences from simply acquiring (illegally if IP law extended to child porn that is) it to get off.

Jae understands from my PRIOR sentences in the same response, that my "fine" position is an offering for a middle ground, and Jae I think considered it and realized that straight jail is probably not a completely rational response, considered it and suggested his own sensible solutions. He recognized the consequences of an "encouragement" defense and mostly accepted the fine position in this case, something that is more reasonable for crime that doesn't directly affect someone. Which was my entire point.

I can clearly see Jae hates child porn, but he's rational enough, unlike most people around here, that throwing a guy in jail because he forgot to delete his child porn (that he PIRATED) that he jacks off to without harming someone isn't a real problem. And I think enough of Jae that I'm sure he'd agree that we should spend less time getting "wins" on idiots like that and shift those resources onto finding and throwing the people who produce the actual child porn in jail. Or at the least people paying for it.

If there's any actual serious long-term disagreement, it's that Jae thinks we can eliminate this problem through law, whereas I think outlawing things like this just encourages people to go further in pursuit of their desires. Thus my drug war references and our continued debate on the core ideological point that's happened for a few years.

I'd still prefer to live under the absolute rule of Jae than 99.9% of people.

[koberulz]

And to go from there is to take koberulz's take on the child pron part:

Poor analogy. That logic leads to criminalisation of having children

He didn't understand my point from what he quoted, Jae did.

Note, koberulz says:

That logic leads to criminalisation of having children

While I said:

What couldn't you criminalize?

I don't disagree with your position necessarily, I just didn't think the analogy was the best, given the differences in the amounts of endorsement, rather than merely opportunity, provided in each case.

[benji]

Are you saying that the payment for clothing and car is a different endorsement than downloading of child porn? I'd agree with that, but the government certainly doesn't automatically, as it considers any pirated work to be fully stolen income of the IP holder.

The only legal difference here is that it doesn't recognize the IP claim of the creator of the work.

But yet, at the same time that doesn't stop the government assessing a dollar value to seized drugs despite them being illegal and theoretically without value.

[koberulz]

Acquiring child pornography implicitly endorses the act of creating child pornography, which is a crime. Possessing something someone might want to steal offers no endorsement of their crime, merely the opportunity/motivation to commit it. Not exactly the same thing.

Again, though, possession is the one area I have the most trouble with here, because there are a lot of valid points on both sides. At the end of the day, though, if you're going to make any possession legal (received sexts, for example) it's a bit hard not to make all possession legal, because then you have to get into proving whether or not you know the child in question, or what have you.

[J@3]

Isn't once more than enough?

I don't believe so, no. If we were to change laws for every singular instance where it failed someone we'd be at a point where there are no laws because at some point there's always a loophole or an issue that sees someone innocent convicted. I did outline in my post to Ben what measures I'd take, but I don't believe in wholesale changes for what is not really a common occurrence (the example of kids under 12 being charged etc). If you could show that it's more common than I think it is then obviously I would reconsider my view on that.

By what non-arbitrary standard?

My comment was referencing the US state laws, some have the age of consent at 16, some at 18 but I'm fairly certain none are under 16. My own personal opinion wasn't "15 and under isn't ok anywhere". It was factual in the context of the example I was giving (someone being screwed over by the different age laws state to state).

But if it's arbitrary, there's no reason why it happening is a bad thing. The age of consent could arbitrarily be raised to 28, if enough people think people over that age shouldn't be having sex with people under that age. It's completely meaningless.

I didn't say it was arbitrary, I said even if Ben does consider it arbitrary (which he does). There are obviously reasons for the age limit being what it is. It's not like they picked numbers out of a hat.

You'd be surprised how early puberty begins and ends these days. The fact remains that I've met 15 year olds with far more maturity than some 20 year olds, so a blanket law like that simply doesn't make sense.

You speak about the age of consent being arbitrary, then you offer evidence that is far more subjective than that, in that you've met 15 year olds with more maturity than some 20 year olds. How do you measure their maturity? How do you know your idea of maturity doesn't differ to others? How do you know when that person is at home they act the same as they did in your presence? How do you know they are emotionally stable? How do you know they are capable of really processing and understanding serious sexual relationships? How do you know their perceived maturity wasn't just that they were well read and literate etc etc.

I did the same thing in my reply to Ben, saying I'd met 14-15 year old girls who were pretty much morons (and I did). But I'd never base my opinions or thoughts around that encounter because yeah there are 15 year olds who would be more mature than them, but I'd rather have a blanket law that protects those who aren't than open it up for interpretation when it is impossible to actually measure the maturity of a person.

As far as puberty is concerned; http://www.pamf.org/teen/parents/health ... 11-14.html says girls generally begin puberty at 10-11 and it generally ends at around 16. Boys from 12-17. Just because it begins early doesn't mean it ends early.

What difference does it make that they're considered an adult? How is two fifteen year olds dating really all that different to a fifteen and twenty year old dating? In most cases, I'd suggest either the older party is incredibly immature or the younger party is incredibly mature (or some degree of each), or they wouldn't be interested in each other in the first place.

You don't think 5 years life experience makes a difference in a person? Five years ago my mindset on a lot of things (including relationships) was entirely different to what it is now.

I think you're also being too kind to humanity with the second thing you said. You say either the older party most likely is immature and the younger party is mature or both are immature, I say the older party finds it easier to manipulate younger people and that's where the attraction lies (with physical aspects thrown in of course). I have less faith in people.

I just find it hard to believe that a 20 year old can find enough common ground or friendship or whatever with say a 15 year old to form the basis for a sexual relationship. I'm sure there's examples where people have, but as I said before I'd rather protect (what I perceive) as the majority than leave everyone exposed just to make sure the few examples where those relationships are actually healthy are allowed to prosper.

Why wouldn't a 15 year old's lack of understanding be down to that individual, too? Even if 99% of them are that retarded, that doesn't mean they're the ones involved.

Because at 15 not only is the difference in actual life experience vast, but the hormonal and physical impacts of puberty are still more present than in someone who is 30 obviously.

When you were 15 did you consider yourself to have a healthy grasp on relationships and your emotional connections with females, looking back now?

Who are you to know what he wants and what she expects? If he actually is interested in her, or if all she wants is sex, nobody's getting hurt.

It was an example, in my example that is what he wants... because it was my example, thus his mindset as determined by me. If I had said "A respectable 35 year old who has a genuine and loving interest in a 15 year old girl who is emotionally mature enough to understand their relationship" then his mindset would be different, in my example. Your question would be valid if I had said "all 35 year olds are just trying to manipulate girls for sex".

Most people these days (at least those who would be involved in a situation like this) start dating/being interested in one another when they're 11 or 12.

That's a blanket assumption. I know 6 year olds who claim to have multiple boyfriends/girlfriends.

Physically or psychologically, the same criteria that should be used for all laws. I won't go so far as to say emotionally, because that could give every girl I've ever rejected reason to press charges, and I'd never get out of jail.

There's no connection between psychology and emotions? At least you'd be the one person in jail not pissing in the child porn guy's food every day

So? It will never be perfect, so let's not even fix what we easily can?

Where did I say that? I followed my statement with ideas for what I would change to try and make the system better.

But it should be about the fairness of the law and its application, not any arbitrary moral standard. That's how homosexuality becomes illegal.

It's your moral standard that determines you think homosexuality is ok, just as someone elses moral standard determines that it's not. It's also your moral standard that determines whether or not you think the laws are being fairly applied. Other people may disagree with you, but you are not using a standard any more subjective or proven than they are. That applies to this too.

I'd rather a paedophile watch child pornography than, knowing he's going to jail and the registry for the rest of his life regardless of his crime, figure that he might as well actually rape a child. I'm not sure if there have been any sort of studies done on it, but I'd imagine paedophilia to be much the same as any other fetish or sexual orientation - you're just born that way. Deter all you want, the urges will still be there and I'd rather give those people as many outlets as possible that aren't real prepubescent people.

But in order for them to have those outlets, the outlets themselves would have to be created. Doesn't that advocate the creation of child pornography to feed the urges of people in an effort to stop them going out and molesting a child?

So why no acknowledgement of this in your blanket condemning of anyone having sex with anyone under 15?

You somehow read my statement out of context and misunderstood what was being said. I never said or condemned anyone for having sex with anyone under 15. I said by law you can't have sex with someone under 15. In my tiered age of consent post, the actual age I wouldn't allow personally is 14.

On a meaningless issue nonetheless, and we did this a few months back in a thread about taxation on millionaires or something as well.

Abortion too.

[koberulz]

I don't believe so, no. If we were to change laws for every singular instance where it failed someone we'd be at a point where there are no laws because at some point there's always a loophole or an issue that sees someone innocent convicted.

Bullshit. Innocent people going to jail shows a flaw that needs to be corrected. I'm sure your position would be entirely different if you were one of those innocent people.

My own personal opinion wasn't "15 and under isn't ok anywhere". It was factual in the context of the example I was giving (someone being screwed over by the different age laws state to state).

here are obviously reasons for the age limit being what it is. It's not like they picked numbers out of a hat.

What's to say they didn't?

When you were 15 did you consider yourself to have a healthy grasp on relationships and your emotional connections with females, looking back now?

Not really, but I don't think they're much healthier now.

That's a blanket assumption. I know 6 year olds who claim to have multiple boyfriends/girlfriends.

I think we can all agree they're too young to understand the concept. However, any reasonably attractive 15 year old girl would have had at least one guy her own age express an interest.

There's no connection between psychology and emotions?

There's a connection, obviously, but as I said opening it up to also include emotional pain would end up with anything and everything being illegal.

It's your moral standard that determines you think homosexuality is ok, just as someone elses moral standard determines that it's not. It's also your moral standard that determines whether or not you think the laws are being fairly applied. Other people may disagree with you, but you are not using a standard any more subjective or proven than they are. That applies to this too.

"If nobody gets hurt, it shouldn't be illegal" is about as objective as moral standards get, though. It's easy enough to see whether or not something should be illegal under that system, whereas once you start throwing in arbitrary moral rules, things get too complicated. Given that this is (apparently) a free country, it's also the moral standard that makes the most sense.

But in order for them to have those outlets, the outlets themselves would have to be created. Doesn't that advocate the creation of child pornography to feed the urges of people in an effort to stop them going out and molesting a child?

I'm not advocating its production, I just don't see the problem with someone viewing it once it's been made, particularly if we're choosing between that and actual molestation occurring. The laws making cartoon depictions of underage sex illegal are particularly stupid.

[J@3]

Bullshit. Innocent people going to jail shows a flaw that needs to be corrected. I'm sure your position would be entirely different if you were one of those innocent people.

A flaw that needs to be corrected in what? it's not the laws that put innocent people in jail it's the judicial process.

That second part is the easiest argument on the planet to make. I'm sure if you had a 6 year old sister who some pervert had snuck a pic of at the beach or something and spread it around for thousands to jerk off to you wouldn't feel so lenient towards their right to do so.

What's to say they didn't?

Information No results found for "age of consent drawn from hat".

I think we can all agree they're too young to understand the concept. However, any reasonably attractive 15 year old girl would have had at least one guy her own age express an interest.

Fair enough, that's true. Providing she's reasonably attractive of course. Fatties get no love in high school.

"If nobody gets hurt, it shouldn't be illegal" is about as objective as moral standards get, though. It's easy enough to see whether or not something should be illegal under that system, whereas once you start throwing in arbitrary moral rules, things get too complicated. Given that this is (apparently) a free country, it's also the moral standard that makes the most sense.

Well again, it's your own moral standard that determines that. We probably have similar opinions on issues related to religion and its involvement in government etc so our "moral standards" probably aren't too far apart, but even though I personally see it as the "right" way to think obviously objectively there's no proof that there is a true right way. Can't please everyone.

I'm not advocating its production, I just don't see the problem with someone viewing it once it's been made, particularly if we're choosing between that and actual molestation occurring. The laws making cartoon depictions of underage sex illegal are particularly stupid.

The part of your quote that I was mostly targeting that at was the "I'd rather give those people as many outlets as possible that aren't real prepubescent people.". Unfortunately providing those outlets means at some point a child has to be exploited/abused etc for the outlet to exist. I guess my thinking on it is that it would be better to pretty much scare them into not pursuing those desires any further. Yeah throwing someone into jail for looking at a few pics is too harsh, but at the same time some sort of warning system could put the brakes on his interest.

If someone's pathological enough about the idea of being with a child or whatever they are going to take it further no matter what, but I think there are people out there who probably internally debate what they're doing and early legal intervention could be a way of putting them off without having them blacklisted as a sex offender for life when their crime didn't involve them actually doing anything to any children.

[benji]

This is somewhat related, in that the topics came up, didn't want to start a whole thread:

The first, moved by the Associated Press under the headline of "DOJ Report Says Child Porn on the Rise" on Aug. 2 and published by thousands of newspapers and Web sites, undercuts itself with this quotation from the Department of Justice report:

The number of offenders accessing the images and videos and the quantity of images and videos being traded is unknown.

Presented with convincing data, I'm prepared to believe that child porn is growing. But if a Department of Justice report states that the number of offenders is unknown and the quantity of images and videos of child pornography being traded is also unknown, how can anybody say that the distribution of child porn is on the rise?

Solving this riddle would be easier if the AP named or linked to the DoJ report to Congress that it cites, but it does not, and I've failed to find the report myself.

Here's another bogus story from the AP: "Feds: Online 'Sextortion' of Teens on the Rise" (Aug. 14). Like the child-porn story, the sextortion piece also got play in thousands of newspapers and Web sites, and it carries a suspiciously similar disclaimer. Do the folks at AP store them on a hot key? The wire service reported:

No one currently tracks the numbers of cases involving online sexual extortion in state and federal courts, but prosecutors and others point toward several recent high-profile examples victimizing teens in a dozen states[.]

If the AP now considers anecdotes to be data, I've got a piece I want to write under the headline "Bogus News on the Rise at the AP."

Maybe I should just make a shoddy journalism thread after that crap about Jordan's shoes.

[koberulz]

Unfortunately providing those outlets means at some point a child has to be exploited/abused etc for the outlet to exist.

Except that the children have already been abused and the outlet already exists, or the hypothetical person in question wouldn't be in legal trouble for possessing it.

Further, when you start legislating against cartoon depictions of underage sex, text depictions of underage sex and people provably over 18 that look, in the opinion of the censorship board, as though they are under 18, all in the name of protecting children? That's bullshit.

[J@3]

Why download CP when you can just hang around Stickam late at night. Teenagers are fucking idiots.

[koberulz]

There is that.

[J@3]

Unfortunately providing those outlets means at some point a child has to be exploited/abused etc for the outlet to exist.

Except that the children have already been abused and the outlet already exists, or the hypothetical person in question wouldn't be in legal trouble for possessing it.

Further, when you start legislating against cartoon depictions of underage sex, text depictions of underage sex and people provably over 18 that look, in the opinion of the censorship board, as though they are under 18, all in the name of protecting children? That's bullshit.

I missed this, must've posted it just as I replied.

Using child pornography in any capacity would just be a way of further exploiting the child involved. It's like saying "sorry you got raped on camera, but I guess now we'll let a bunch of other perverts watch it and hope they don't do the same thing to someone else". There has to be a better way of curbing these urges than just giving them some of what they want and hoping that satisfies them.

Further, when you start legislating against cartoon depictions of underage sex, text depictions of underage sex and people provably over 18 that look, in the opinion of the censorship board, as though they are under 18, all in the name of protecting children? That's bullshit

Well obviously those things are stupid, but that's entirely separate to everything else. Massive difference between the actual sexual exploitation of a child and some idiot thinking a drawing of an underage cartoon character giving head is child abuse some how.

[koberulz]

Using child pornography in any capacity would just be a way of further exploiting the child involved. It's like saying "sorry you got raped on camera, but I guess now we'll let a bunch of other perverts watch it and hope they don't do the same thing to someone else". There has to be a better way of curbing these urges than just giving them some of what they want and hoping that satisfies them.

It's not ideal, and it's hardly something I'd recommend as therapy, but I'm still not sure throwing people in jail for possession is the right thing to do. In 99% of cases the child involved wouldn't have a clue who's seen what, it's not like one extra user is going to hurt them any more.

Well obviously those things are stupid, but that's entirely separate to everything else. Massive difference between the actual sexual exploitation of a child and some idiot thinking a drawing of an underage cartoon character giving head is child abuse some how.

Apparently not. They're not really separate at all, because they're all part of this anti-paedophilia crusade that has led to the stupid laws/interpretations elsewhere. If people changed their focus from the paedophiles to the children, 99-100% of the stupid laws would fuck off on their own.

[Andrew]

I guess they just want to be seen as doing something, misguided as it may be. I'd remove that law that protects convicted pedophiles upon their release and keeps the people in the areas they move to in the dark; I know I'm generalising here, but it doesn't seem many of them are rehabilitated and pretty willing to repeat what they've done before.

[koberulz]

But if you do that, you're punishing people for the rest of their lives. I certainly wouldn't want to be increasing the power of the sex offender's registry at least until we can make sure the only people on it are those who deserve to be.

EDIT: Similar subject, the last two paragraphs of this story:

"How has it gotten to be this bad where even to the point that as a father I go to a sports carnival and I want to take a photo of my daughter - because this is memories, this is my history, our family history - and some guy comes along and says, 'You can't take a photo'," he said.

"You're not allowed to take photos of these events because you might be a paedophile or something."

Fucking ridiculous.

[benji]

People like this for one thing.

[koberulz]

Maybe we should work out a list of things you can do without violating anti-paedophilia laws. It must be shorter.

EDIT: Okay, this is just ridiculous.

[J@3]

What kind of freak sleeps with their cousin?

[benji]

Well, I'd start by asking your Monarch, then move onto the "rest" of the royal families in Europe.

I thought the people in the story linked were married, but I guess that was just an aside point and there's no evidence they were one of the many cousin-marriages out there.

[J@3]

Royal families aren't really an accurate representation of people anywhere. Just pointlessly privileged people who apparently like to fuck their own bloodline.

[Andrew]

But if you do that, you're punishing people for the rest of their lives. I certainly wouldn't want to be increasing the power of the sex offender's registry at least until we can make sure the only people on it are those who deserve to be.

Granted, but some of them get off way too easy. I'm thinking of people like the guy who appeared on A Current Affair who had moved into a new neighbourhood after being released from prison and showed absolutely no remorse for what he's done, baldly stating that he'd do it again. Mike Munroe was on the verge of punching that creep and I don't blame him. People like that clearly haven't been rehabilitated and are a threat to repeat what they've done. These aren't cases of people who looked up cartoon porn for a chuckle or got it forwarded to them/forwarded it to someone else as a joke. I'm talking about the real sickos who deserve every bit of their punishment and then some.

It's not like someone being scolded for taking a picture of their daughter at a school carnival. Yes, that's stupid, that's overkill. As is the whole cartoon porn stuff. But I'm not talking about that stuff and that's completely different from people who have been convicted of child molestation. Those people earned the stigma they suffer the moment they committed those deeds and I do not believe they should be sympathetic figures at all. They're not akin to a sixteen year old boy who had sex with his fifteen and eleven month year old girlfriend or someone chuckling at cartoon porn or a father taking pictures of his own daughter as a momento at a school carnival. They're akin to the murderers, rapists, thieves, wife-beaters and other assorted scum who deserve to be punished.

[koberulz]

But if you do that, you're punishing people for the rest of their lives. I certainly wouldn't want to be increasing the power of the sex offender's registry at least until we can make sure the only people on it are those who deserve to be.

Granted, but some of them get off way too easy. I'm thinking of people like the guy who appeared on A Current Affair who had moved into a new neighbourhood after being released from prison and showed absolutely no remorse for what he's done, baldly stating that he'd do it again. Mike Munroe was on the verge of punching that creep and I don't blame him. People like that clearly haven't been rehabilitated and are a threat to repeat what they've done. These aren't cases of people who looked up cartoon porn for a chuckle or got it forwarded to them/forwarded it to someone else as a joke. I'm talking about the real sickos who deserve every bit of their punishment and then some.

It's not like someone being scolded for taking a picture of their daughter at a school carnival. Yes, that's stupid, that's overkill. As is the whole cartoon porn stuff. But I'm not talking about that stuff and that's completely different from people who have been convicted of child molestation. Those people earned the stigma they suffer the moment they committed those deeds and I do not believe they should be sympathetic figures at all. They're not akin to a sixteen year old boy who had sex with his fifteen and eleven month year old girlfriend or someone chuckling at cartoon porn or a father taking pictures of his own daughter as a momento at a school carnival. They're akin to the murderers, rapists, thieves, wife-beaters and other assorted scum who deserve to be punished.

Except that the law can't see that difference for some fucking ridiculous reason. Therefore, that lifetime punishment will be meted out to all those you've said you're not talking about. We need to make sure the people on the register deserve to be on the register, then we can look at increasing its power.