US Teenager expelled, arrested for underage relationship, Homophobia alledged motivation

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

thaluikhain:

Kopikatsu:
And what's with automatic relationship = sex thing? What happened to platonic love? Seriously. 'Oh hey, let's all contract HO41 and spread it everywhere! This is the best idea ever!'

Well, teenagers. But, having said that, you are of course correct, even if most young 'uns today wouldn't agree. Or older people or at any age for that matter.

And I genuinely cannot imagine why that is. Everyone went to the same risk prevention rallys at school that I did, I'm sure, considering they're mandatory. 1 + 1 = High risk behaviors are dumb.

-Double post-

thaluikhain:

Kopikatsu:
And what's with automatic relationship = sex thing? What happened to platonic love? Seriously. 'Oh hey, let's all contract HO41 and spread it everywhere! This is the best idea ever!'

Well, teenagers. But, having said that, you are of course correct, even if most young 'uns today wouldn't agree. Or older people or at any age for that matter.

Indeed; also in some durations 'intent to commit statutory rape' and the actual act in legal terms can blur. The reasoning of this is because such laws were written with the intention of 'getting those basterds!' who spent far to much time with young children but no solid 'proof' (pics of it didn't happen sort of thing); presumably due to the child being in cooperation with the offender.

Kopikatsu:

Shaoken:

Kopikatsu:
Somehow I knew that it would be a statutory rape case and nothing to do with homosexuality in particular before I even clicked on the thread.

I even admitted as such. The issue seems to be that the parents were the one forcing the issue (would the police have even considered this if the parent's didn't go to them?)

Although this isn't stat rape case, it's a molestation charge. Which leads to the next point;

And what's with automatic relationship = sex thing? What happened to platonic love? Seriously.

From the wording of the law it seems just groping is enough to count under this law. You could get so many teenagers on that law it's a joke.

Why is it a joke? Laws generally aren't changed because a lot of people break them. Should we get rid of speeding laws because most people drive 5-10 mph over the speed limit?

It's a joke because if you enforced this law equally and to all who broke it in high school a quarter of each school campus would get arrested because they coped a feel. Also this is basically stabbing a big "sex offender" stamp on their foreheads for life and telling society they're morally equivilant to pedophilies and rapists.

Shaoken:

It's a joke because if you enforced this law equally and to all who broke it in high school a quarter of each school campus would get arrested because they coped a feel. Also this is basically stabbing a big "sex offender" stamp on their foreheads for life and telling society they're morally equivilant to pedophilies and rapists.

Psst. Maybe they shouldn't break the law if they don't want to suffer the consequences for their own actions.

Kopikatsu:
And I genuinely cannot imagine why that is. Everyone went to the same risk prevention rallys at school that I did, I'm sure, considering they're mandatory. 1 + 1 = High risk behaviors are dumb.

Assuming the education isn't an appalling failure (admittedly very often not a given), then yeah. I can understand reckless kids to an extent, but supposedly responsible adults...no.

Having said that, lots of people still drink and drive, take up smoking, gamble etc.

Kopikatsu:

thaluikhain:

Kopikatsu:
And what's with automatic relationship = sex thing? What happened to platonic love? Seriously. 'Oh hey, let's all contract HO41 and spread it everywhere! This is the best idea ever!'

Well, teenagers. But, having said that, you are of course correct, even if most young 'uns today wouldn't agree. Or older people or at any age for that matter.

And I genuinely cannot imagine why that is. Everyone went to the same risk prevention rallys at school that I did, I'm sure, considering they're mandatory and, if I remember correctly, federally mandated.

Have you met many teenagers? Confident their way is the best, rebellious. You tell them not to do something and that's a good way to get them to do it.

Kopikatsu:

Shaoken:

It's a joke because if you enforced this law equally and to all who broke it in high school a quarter of each school campus would get arrested because they coped a feel. Also this is basically stabbing a big "sex offender" stamp on their foreheads for life and telling society they're morally equivilant to pedophilies and rapists.

Psst. Maybe they shouldn't break the law if they don't want to suffer the consequences for their own actions.

Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's justice.

And there is a difference between drinking and driving (which posses a tangible danger to others) and being physical with someone in a consenual relationship (which holds no real tangible risk).

There's a reason why there are such things as "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions in most places in the civilised world.

thaluikhain:

Having said that, lots of people still drink and drive, take up smoking, gamble etc.

I was referring to that as opposed to just kids being kids. I would think that seeing things like

would make people think twice about picking up a cigarette, but nope.

Or that time when Russian-imported cocaine that would literally cause your flesh to rot off after a couple of uses came into New York, and tons of people were admitted to the hospitals because...I can't even think of a reason why. Because flesh eating cocaine is fucking rad, I guess.

Shaoken:

Kopikatsu:

thaluikhain:

Well, teenagers. But, having said that, you are of course correct, even if most young 'uns today wouldn't agree. Or older people or at any age for that matter.

And I genuinely cannot imagine why that is. Everyone went to the same risk prevention rallys at school that I did, I'm sure, considering they're mandatory and, if I remember correctly, federally mandated.

Have you met many teenagers? Confident their way is the best, rebellious. You tell them not to do something and that's a good way to get them to do it.

I was once a teenager. Surprising, I know, you'd think I was born as a 58 year old man, but it is what it is.

I have never once engaged in high risk behavior specifically because it is high risk. The most 'outrageous' thing I've ever done is buy a case of non-alcoholic beer for my 21st birthday. Which I still have, because I learned that beer tastes awful.

Shaoken:
and being physical with someone in a consenual relationship (which holds no real tangible risk).

Would you like me to go over all of the real, tangible risks of sex? Because there are a lot of them

Kopikatsu:

Shaoken:
and being physical with someone in a consenual relationship (which holds no real tangible risk).

Would you like me to go over all of the real, tangible risks of sex? Because there are a lot of them.

That would depend on what you include as "sex", though. Plenty of ways to be safe.

Kopikatsu:

Shaoken:
and being physical with someone in a consenual relationship (which holds no real tangible risk).

Would you like me to go over all of the real, tangible risks of sex? Because there are a lot of them

I'd bet a fair number of them don't really apply in this case... not going to accidentally get pregnant or anything of that nature.

thaluikhain:

Kopikatsu:

Shaoken:
and being physical with someone in a consenual relationship (which holds no real tangible risk).

Would you like me to go over all of the real, tangible risks of sex? Because there are a lot of them.

That would depend on what you include as "sex", though. Plenty of ways to be safe.

None of which are 100% effective. Hence the millions of new STD infectees every year and such.

Seanchaidh:

Kopikatsu:

Shaoken:
and being physical with someone in a consenual relationship (which holds no real tangible risk).

Would you like me to go over all of the real, tangible risks of sex? Because there are a lot of them

I'd bet a fair number of them don't really apply in this case... not going to accidentally get pregnant or anything of that nature.

Here's a list to start you off with.

Kopikatsu:

Shaoken:
and being physical with someone in a consenual relationship (which holds no real tangible risk).

Would you like me to go over all of the real, tangible risks of sex? Because there are a lot of them

Except by definetion of this law you're guilty if you so much a grope someone. And like thal said there are plenty of ways to mitgate dangers of sex, which you can't do for drunk driving.

So you're really just committing the appeal to authority fallacy right here; you're saying that it's wrong to break the law but don't even entertain the notion that just because something is the law doesn't make it right. Or that there are plenty of exceptions to said law just for this specific set of circumstances.

Kopikatsu:

thaluikhain:

Kopikatsu:

Would you like me to go over all of the real, tangible risks of sex? Because there are a lot of them.

That would depend on what you include as "sex", though. Plenty of ways to be safe.

None of which are 100% effective. Hence the millions of new STD infectees every year and such.

Some of which are 100% effective, if perhaps stretching the definition of "sex" a little.

Kopikatsu:

thaluikhain:

Kopikatsu:

Would you like me to go over all of the real, tangible risks of sex? Because there are a lot of them.

That would depend on what you include as "sex", though. Plenty of ways to be safe.

None of which are 100% effective. Hence the millions of new STD infectees every year and such.

Seanchaidh:

Kopikatsu:

Would you like me to go over all of the real, tangible risks of sex? Because there are a lot of them

I'd bet a fair number of them don't really apply in this case... not going to accidentally get pregnant or anything of that nature.

Here's a list to start you off with.

So by your logic it should be illegal for two adults to have sex then? What is the difference between the two beyond age?

What is the tangible danger here?

Shaoken:
you're saying that it's wrong to break the law but don't even entertain the notion that just because something is the law doesn't make it right.

You...must not be familiar with me. I'm a bit too tired to go into it fully at the moment (long night), but feel free to ask anyone else in this thread about my particular feelings on that matter.

Shaoken:

So by your logic it should be illegal for two adults to have sex then? What is the difference between the two beyond age?

What is the tangible danger here?

Absolutely. I don't see a discernible difference between statutory rape and casual sex between adults, especially when considering that pretty much every country/most states have different laws regarding statutory rape because those laws are determined by 'It just feels wrong' as opposed to anything objective. Age of consent in Spain is 12/13~ while it's 16-18 in most US states. What's the difference? Are Spanish children more mature than US children, or are the laws just bullshit? Probably that second one.

In any case...I can (and will) go over much of the list if you want, but as I'm tired (see above), I'm just going to leave you with HO41 for now.

Kopikatsu:

Shaoken:
you're saying that it's wrong to break the law but don't even entertain the notion that just because something is the law doesn't make it right.

You...must not be familiar with me. I'm a bit too tired to go into it fully at the moment (long night), but feel free to ask anyone else in this thread about my particular feelings on that matter.

Shaoken:

So by your logic it should be illegal for two adults to have sex then? What is the difference between the two beyond age?

What is the tangible danger here?

Absolutely. I don't see a discernible difference between statutory rape and casual sex between adults, especially when considering that pretty much every country/most states have different laws regarding statutory rape because those laws are determined by 'It just feels wrong' as opposed to anything objective. Age of consent in Spain is 12/13~ while it's 16-18 in most US states. What's the difference? Are Spanish children more mature than US children, or are the laws just bullshit? Probably that second one.

In any case...I can (and will) go over much of the list if you want, but as I'm tired (see above), I'm just going to leave you with HO41 for now.

I'm gonna wager a guess, and I could certainly be wrong, but I am fairly certain the odds of AIDS, Herpes, Gonorrhea, Clamydia, and other STD exposure from a 15-year old high school student is PRETTY DAMN LOW.

The parents didn't report this case because they thought their daughter could get an STD. They did it because they wanted vengeance on the heathen that made their sweet daughter gay and probably turned her to Satan.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
I'm gonna wager a guess, and I could certainly be wrong, but I am fairly certain the odds of AIDS, Herpes, Gonorrhea, Clamydia, and other STD exposure from a 15-year old high school student is PRETTY DAMN LOW.

Actually no, I'm led to believe there are, at least some places in the US where it's a serious issue in schools.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
I'm gonna wager a guess, and I could certainly be wrong, but I am fairly certain the odds of AIDS, Herpes, Gonorrhea, Clamydia, and other STD exposure from a 15-year old high school student is PRETTY DAMN LOW.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/health-disparities/age.htm

I suppose that assumption is why young people (15-24) had four times the reported Gonorrhea and Clamydia rate of the total population (10-65+) in 2011.

They did it because they wanted vengeance on the heathen that made their sweet daughter gay and probably turned her to Satan.

Out of curiosity... Do you have any proof of this claim?

While homophobia may have played a part in the younger girl's parents' decision to prosecute, it is clearly only a minor aspect of the story, and the title should reflect that.

The main issue with this case is that the law is not only blind, but deaf and dumb too.

It seems to me that the fact these girls are gay really has fuck all to do with it. She broke the law and she deserves to face the consequences of her actions. At this point she should just be happy if she manages to stay off of the sex offender registry. If this was a heterosexual couple then I highly doubt it would be garnering nearly as much attention. However, this is hardly surprising.

This story is just another fine example of a bigger problem I keep seeing more and more of. If something bad happens to a person who is a member of a race other than white then people are fighting each other to be the first in line to start screaming racism. If something bad happens to people who happen to be gay then those same people, again, can't get in line fast enough to start screaming homophobia. If something bad happens to a woman then the race is on to be the first one to scream sexism. Meanwhile if something bad happens to a straight white male all those people are surprisingly quiet or if they do make noise it's to celebrate.

While it is against the letter of the law, I'd bet a trillion Zimbabwean dollars that under differing circumstances this situation would have turned out much different. Despite the letter of the law, cases such as these are rarely pursued without some aggravating circumstances being present.

I doubt this case would have even came to be had it not been for the parents of the younger girl throwing a shit-fit over the whole situation. It's one thing to be against the relationship, but it's another to potentially ruin a young girl's life over it.

The way I see it is that if the younger girl's parents were against it from the start and they made it known only to have the older girl ignore their wishes and continue her relationship with their minor daughter then they were well in the right by involving the police. I don't find that the least bit unreasonable. It sounds to me like they were just being good parents.

This older girl was in the wrong. She acted in a way that was both incredibly disrespectful and highly illegal. As I said before if she is able to get a deal that keeps her out of jail and off the sex offender registry she should jump at it and be happy her own selfish actions didn't end with her behind bars.

To be honest the lesbian aspect hasn't much to do with it, the problem is that in many states statutory rape laws have gone far beyond their original intention: to protect young people from adult exploitation. Anyone can see that the difference between a 15 year old dating a 17 or 18 year old fellow student is minute and not worthy of tax payer's money to enforce by law, even if such a relationship isn't perhaps the best choice on either parties behalf. The solution here is either to bring in wide 'Romeo and Juliet' laws as many places have or lower the age of consent to 13 or 14 but criminalise certain particularly exploitive relationships with anyone under 18 such as inter-familial, teacher-student or involving prostitution.

While I am rooting for her, she DID break the law. The consent of the younger daughter means @#$% all in the legal world. The younger daughter, as a minor, is incapable of consent. At worst, she should get a restraining order. This incident is not worthy of ruining her life. This is like going 1 mph over the speed limit. Hopefully the judge will treat her with kids gloves (which is kinda ironic).

As for the "homophobia", there is no proof of this. It is just as likely that the article was trying to put a sensationalist spin to generate views as there is that the parents are actually homophobic. If turns out the parents were against their child having any relationship or relationships with older people, well that is not newsworthy.

Well, this is a Yahoo article taken from this site, which isn't necessarily a noteworthy news source in it of itself. Then again, even if the sources were worth your time, the fact that the article is as biased as biased gets should be a turnoff itself. Seriously, this is one side of the story, and any information about the other side is filtered through the interpretation of this one side that they present. Granted, it does look like this might have been a simple act of homophobia, but jumping to conclusions based entirely on the perspective of people who view it as homophobia without even giving the other side a chance is purely irresponsible. Could the charges be the result of homophobia? Yes, but we don't really know that at this point.

However, if we can confirm that this is purely the result of the other parents' (supposed) homophobia and it would have never happened if this were a heterosexual relationship, then I can see getting angry.

Kopikatsu:

I have never once engaged in high risk behavior specifically because it is high risk. The most 'outrageous' thing I've ever done is buy a case of non-alcoholic beer for my 21st birthday. Which I still have, because I learned that beer tastes awful.

I can understand that (and I used to agree on beer being awful, but only until I moved to Oregon), but I'm wondering what kind of life you have if you never take risks. Hopefully you meant that you stay within the law, but your description of getting non-alcoholic beer as the most outrageous thing you've done suggests you mean any risk.

The thing is, if you don't take risks, then the set of things you're willing to do only shrinks. This is because you will find out about risks related to the things that you still do, and stop doing them. Eventually this will mean that there will be nothing that you do worth talking about, and you'll have made your own life poorer.

madwarper:

Shaoken:
Starting with the law I think the way it's written is going against the original intent behind it. This isn't a 40 year old having a relationship with a 14 year old, it's a 17 year old in high school having a relationship with a 15 year old in the same high school, or less than two years seperating the two.

Doubtful. An adult (18) having sex with a minor (15) is the very definition of statuary rape in some states, like Rhode Island.
The fact that the adult is 18 and not 40, or that the relationship started when they were both legally minors, is irrelevant.

The ages involved, the fact that they are both in high school, have the same friends, etc. are entirely relevant to the fact that this law is unjust and should be amended to deal with relationships which are actually an issue rather than slapping teenagers with a serious sex offense because the parents of the younger party don't approve.

The statutory rape laws in many states are laughably bad and have been used to destroy the lives of teenagers who did nothing wrong by the standards of any sane person or society. They should should have been changed a very long time ago.

Vivi22:

madwarper:

Shaoken:
Starting with the law I think the way it's written is going against the original intent behind it. This isn't a 40 year old having a relationship with a 14 year old, it's a 17 year old in high school having a relationship with a 15 year old in the same high school, or less than two years seperating the two.

Doubtful. An adult (18) having sex with a minor (15) is the very definition of statuary rape in some states, like Rhode Island.
The fact that the adult is 18 and not 40, or that the relationship started when they were both legally minors, is irrelevant.

The ages involved, the fact that they are both in high school, have the same friends, etc. are entirely relevant to the fact that this law is unjust and should be amended to deal with relationships which are actually an issue rather than slapping teenagers with a serious sex offense because the parents of the younger party don't approve.

The statutory rape laws in many states are laughably bad and have been used to destroy the lives of teenagers who did nothing wrong by the standards of any sane person or society. They should should have been changed a very long time ago.

In the state this happened in (Florida) there are just those kinds of laws. The age of consent in FL is 18. However, the laws are not nearly as harsh if the perpetrator is between 18-24 and the victim is either 16 or 17. This case fell outside that provision.

It sounds to me like the state is trying to give this girl a reasonable out that doesn't end up destroying her life. They are offering two years house arrest plus a year's probation. It doesn't say if she will have to register as a sex offender or not but if she isn't required to register under that deal she should jump on it and count herself lucky.

The fact of the matter is this girl ultimately has nobody to blame for this but herself. I imagine she was well aware that the parents of her girlfriend, a minor, were staunchly against this relationship. Instead of honoring their wishes she chose to continue on with the relationship anyhow. She could have avoided the whole thing had she acted respectably by honoring the wishes of her girlfriend's parents until such a time when her girlfriend was also an adult. She didn't and as a result they sought to take legal actions as a result of her selfish and disrespectful actions.

Super Not Cosmo:

In the state this happened in (Florida) there are just those kinds of laws. The age of consent in FL is 18. However, the laws are not nearly as harsh if the perpetrator is between 18-24 and the victim is either 16 or 17. This case fell outside that provision.

It is important to note though that it didn't start out that way (the relationship began before either party was 18) and the age gap between the two is somewhere between 2 and 3 years, meaning there's less than a year's worth of time between when the elder girl turned 18 and when the younger turned 16, meaning that the case takes place in a certain 'sweet spot' for prosecution.

Asita:

Super Not Cosmo:

In the state this happened in (Florida) there are just those kinds of laws. The age of consent in FL is 18. However, the laws are not nearly as harsh if the perpetrator is between 18-24 and the victim is either 16 or 17. This case fell outside that provision.

It is important to note though that it didn't start out that way (the relationship began before either party was 18) and the age gap between the two is somewhere between 2 and 3 years, meaning there's less than a year's worth of time between when the elder girl turned 18 and when the younger turned 16, meaning that the case takes place in a certain 'sweet spot' for prosecution.

Indeed it did at that, which is why I think they are trying to give her the deal they are despite pretty much having her dead to rights. If the prosecutor wanted to he could makes things far worse for her than they are currently.

Kopikatsu:

Shaoken:
you're saying that it's wrong to break the law but don't even entertain the notion that just because something is the law doesn't make it right.

You...must not be familiar with me. I'm a bit too tired to go into it fully at the moment (long night), but feel free to ask anyone else in this thread about my particular feelings on that matter.

Shaoken:

So by your logic it should be illegal for two adults to have sex then? What is the difference between the two beyond age?

What is the tangible danger here?

Absolutely. I don't see a discernible difference between statutory rape and casual sex between adults, especially when considering that pretty much every country/most states have different laws regarding statutory rape because those laws are determined by 'It just feels wrong' as opposed to anything objective. Age of consent in Spain is 12/13~ while it's 16-18 in most US states. What's the difference? Are Spanish children more mature than US children, or are the laws just bullshit? Probably that second one.

In any case...I can (and will) go over much of the list if you want, but as I'm tired (see above), I'm just going to leave you with HO41 for now.

No risks are irrelevant if a person chooses to proceed with the act in the face of them.

Also, as the other guy said, your view of how laws work seems rather flawed. So yeah, that's the more interesting part for me still.

LetalisK:
Okay, let me play devil's advocate. How much do the sexes of those in the relationship play a role in this, do you think? Would there be a different kind of outrage if it were an 18 year old male with a 15 year old female?

Btw, why didn't you link where you got your quote?

Statutory rape laws are in place to defend children and those under the age of consent when they are being taken advantage of by someone older. Not to be used as a vehicle for disapproving parents to run over others if their child engages in a relationship they don't approve of.

Shadowstar38:

No risks are irrelevant if a person chooses to proceed with the act in the face of them.

Since when? Reckless driving is a major traffic violation. Illegal drug use is a federal offense in many cases. You do not have the freedom to act as you please. Laws are there just as much for your own protection as the protection of others. The State has an obligation to protect it's constituents, even if it has to protect them from themselves.

Lilani:

LetalisK:
Okay, let me play devil's advocate. How much do the sexes of those in the relationship play a role in this, do you think? Would there be a different kind of outrage if it were an 18 year old male with a 15 year old female?

Btw, why didn't you link where you got your quote?

Statutory rape laws are in place to defend children and those under the age of consent when they are being taken advantage of by someone older. Not to be used as a vehicle for disapproving parents to run over others if their child engages in a relationship they don't approve of.

Minors are not legally capable of making their own decisions. Parents make their child's decisions until they're of age. If the parents say the relationship should end, then it should end. It was not, so legal action was taken. System worked.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked