|
On August 20 2015 16:59 fluidrone wrote: So sorry to read people posting that "child prostitutes" "knew what they were doing" "no real prroblems there".
The object of such laws is meant to protect the minors in spite of themselves.
Really awful when kids do this, and please don't kid yourselves, no one wants to do this ; they might rationalize it and might even convince you, however no one wants to be a sex slave for money.
As a clear reminder to them too (even if they had no choice about it one way or another), the "laws" wants to clearly bring these kids back to an axiom/realization: kids are not mature enough for certain things and even if they disagree and fight it, the law is there to remind them! Societies actually imprison people who cross the line, with years of prison! How can the message be clearer?
The rationale of "going from 17 to 18 nothing special has changed" is a 12 year old kid's lack of experience talking.. you should try to understand the law's stance. The great change happening: the law grants you your sexual freedom as of your 18th birthday! (this age varies in many cultures, just simplifying it to make a "quick"point).
As for the age of sexual maturity, it is not so ill defined. No! a 14 year old is not and should not be held in the same respect as an adult. Two 14 year old having sex can be "fine" within the understanding that it is "their adventure" (not fine intrinsically (getting pregnant or other.. but morally non reprehensible), they are both "untutored". A "rich" 40 year old guy with SERIES of one time kleenex under age relationships is not comparable in the least. Having the tools to perform sexuality does not mean you are ready to use them, it takes years to "situate" one's self in this new "field" that is/means something for teenagers and something else completely for adults and is mostly anathema to anything childhood related.
As for any kind of "I am sick, I need to be furbished with a few dozen kids (for their sexual abuse) for the next few decades to make me all better".. wtf! NO WAY! This grave problem (rich sick selfish and soulless people shopping for kids) is still very much taboo and as such, few offenders really get thwarted in their ""consumerism" habit. That does mean WE ALL should work at it, not look away and/or ignore thinking "it only happens to other people". Yes! a 16 year old is most often still a clueless kid, yes at 18 you are a kid awaiting permission for everything, that's the way it is supposed to be, because one needs to be an adult and take certain things seriously and not "wtf I'll do it anyway! "yolo" it some way some how" to everything, like a kid does.
TLDR:, the law grants you your sexual "freedom" for yourself and for others towards you.
What stuck out to me about your perspective is that two 14 year olds having sex can be justified, even though it's technically against the law in most places in the US and Canada I believe.
Now lets take a 23 year old virgin who has been socially awkward, never got to be with a girl, not the most well-versed in how the real world works. Then you have an older looking 16-17 year old (and make-up can add plenty)... This is a girl that goes party all the time, and she kind of knows how things are when it comes to this. This situation could feel similar to both parties, experimental, etc. Really, the only difference is the age of the person, while their maturity might be the same, so in the same sense, is it justified?
I know a lot of this is situational, but it's something that needs to be analysed on a case-by-case basis. It's not like you'll have a ten million of these cases a year, so sure, it'd be more workload for the justice system, but nothing unreasonable. I knew a girl when I was 15, she was 16, and her boyfriend was 21. She told him she's 20, and they were dating for quite a few months... Then somehow the police caught on (I don't remember, but she didn't tell on him), and he went to join for 3-4 years. Like what the fuck, I legit felt bad for that guy. Fundamentally I don't think the law is working correctly if that kind of shit happens.
Yes, making the rules too lenient can open up avenues for abuse - and that's why you analyse it on a case-by-case basis, on not equate sleeping with a teenager to murder. When a law would send 10-20% (just going from what I saw in my high school, and from the parties I went to, and extrapolating it to the entire population during their high school days) of the population to prison if the agency was able to enforce it properly, there is something fundamentally wrong with its implementation is my viewpoint.
edit: Anyway, I think I'll be done with this topic. I understand both sides to the picture, and it's possible that what we have right now is the best solution (preventing abuse, deterrence, etc), but god damn, it works so poorly in certain circumstances (not necessarily this case in particular).
|
the 23 year old guy should stick to women of legal age. period, end of story.
my concern with these laws occurs when its a bf/gf thing and both are right on the border of the legal limit. say (X) is the legal age... and the guy is (X)+1 month old and the girl is (X)-1 month old. so the guy gets charged with statutory rape because he is 2 months older than his gf? whatever man.
|
On August 20 2015 17:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote: the 23 year old guy should stick to women of legal age. period, end of story.
my concern with these laws occurs when its a bf/gf thing and both are right on the border of the legal limit. say (X) is the legal age... and the guy is (X)+1 month old and the girl is (X)-1 month old. so the guy gets charged with statutory rape because he is 2 months older than his gf? whatever man.
No, I think it's like if you're over 18, you're able to do "stuff" with people who are within two years of your age, so 17 + 19 together are fine. And you need to be over 16 to have sex legally from what I last read (in Canada).
And I was pointing out, that it's very similar to the case of the two 14 y/o kids, with the only differentiating things being a number, while the social interaction may be completely unchanged. In essence we're using a number (the age), as an indicator. Often times, it does a good job, but this number doesn't always explain the whole situation every single time, and that's why it should be handled on a case by case basis (unlike say something like drug trafficking, where the numbers speak much more).
edit: Society and the justice system treats all child prostitution offenders very similarly, when there's a big difference between someone pressing charges against you 10 years later, for something you did when you were 20, and only because you've gotten wealthy, and they will say anything because they need the money... They will say how they got manipulated and blah blah, when it's quite unrealistic (long explanation, I hope most can agree), but because you are the one being accused of being the child prostitution offender, the weight of what you say bears very little meaning. I'm not even discussing this case specifically anymore, just the topic in general... Versus, being what we associate with the stereotypical child offender videotaping little children.
I feel bad for some of them, in the same way I feel bad for some people who gets years in jail for posting a torrent or pirated link on a forum.
|
On August 20 2015 17:41 FiWiFaKi wrote: No, I think it's like if you're over 18, you're able to do "stuff" with people who are within two years of your age, so 17 + 19 together are fine.
well its good to know they have that 2 year rule.
|
On August 20 2015 17:50 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 17:41 FiWiFaKi wrote: No, I think it's like if you're over 18, you're able to do "stuff" with people who are within two years of your age, so 17 + 19 together are fine.
well its good to know they have that 2 year rule.
Yeah, otherwise it'd be super silly.
|
Edit: laws vary very much in different countries, the two year law is merely a "guideline" added to "recognize" circumstances.
Going to prison ("the joint") for that is awful. But again, there should never be any "judiciary" clotting on the "case by case mechanic" necessity. Our disinterest/disgust for this as citizens is to blame!
To be crystal clear, the law has to be stupid and be unfair. Such is the price we all pay for letting abuse be carried out so blatantly on "arguably" the future of our societies (kids).
It starts with us not caring enough about other "unknown" people and ends with your (possibly innocent/clueless) kid in jail for years.
There are serious/deadly issues in both "extremes" that suffer from this "line in the sand" law - a few less than innocent minors are overly protected while most if not all who are facing horror are left wanting (not defended enough / left to their own devices) - some innocents pay an unfair price for love .. and the law itself fails to be enforced reinforced on a case by case bases, most people not wanting to "take part" in the "resolution" of each of those. This issue is the bases for destroying families for instance (not that that would have to be a bad thing (family dispersion can be in some cases a good thing)) but just to state that the stories do not stop at the headline judgement, it is something that carries on FOREVER.
Overall as a society we are willing to pay such a price (a line in the sand "guillotine" law applied unfairly) seeing as we are unable to destroy this particular type of slavery practices thriving in our societies.
|
in before jokes about 5 dollars for a foot long >_>
in all seriousness this shouldn't be a big deal. people commit crimes all the time, the fact that it is a famous person shouldn't make it more special than if it is a mundane person.
|
shouldn't it be teenage pornography or something? I came in thinking he was involved with 6-10 year old children.
Because his porn could be marketed with titles like "Barely Illegal 2" instead of "I love babies 2"
|
Sorry for thinking this specific type of crime is of vital importance to showcase:
A rich guy getting caught because someone got money from making him get caught.
"Crimes are done every day" : lol at how cynic can one want to be seen as, this is exactly the problem #sigh#.
We report crimes and debate their correlated issues because it is part of the process, read: you are on a forum and many other people read what you right, many young uninformed people.
Slavery needs to be seen for what it is and fought with every once of one's might!
|
On August 20 2015 18:03 fluidrone wrote: Going to prison ("the joint") for that is awful. But again, there should never be any "judiciary" clotting on the case by case necessity. Our disinterest/disgust for this as citizens is to blame!
To be crystal clear, the law has to be stupid and be unfair. Such is the price we all pay for letting abuse be carried out so blatantly on "arguably" the future of our societies (kids).
It starts with us not caring enough about other "unknown" people and ends with your (possibly innocent/clueless) kid in jail for years.
There are serious/deadly issues in both "extremes" that suffer from this "line in the sand" law - a few less than innocent minors are overly protected while most if not all who are facing horror are left wanted - some innocents pay an unfair price for love .. and the law itself fails to be enforced reinforced on a case by case bases, most people not wanting to "take part" in the "resolution" of each of those. This issue is the bases for destroying families for instance (not that that would have to be a bad thing (family dispersion can be in some cases a good thing)) but just to state that the stories do not stop at the headline judgement, it is something that carries on FOREVER.
Overall as a society we are willing to pay such a price (a line in the sand law applied unfairly) seeing as we are unable to destroy this particular type of slavery practices thriving in our societies.
Yeah, it might be. That's why I was also suggesting that it might be the best solution... Even though it can give an unfairly harsh punishment to someone relatively innocent. It's just in the current system, I feel like enforcement turns a blind eye to when it's seen as more normal (ie parties, etc), versus other cases, and what this leads to, is that nobody breaking the law will be impacted, unless they want to specifically want to target you. This leads to unfair assertion of the law.
Maybe it was because I was surrounded by a lot of this "child prostitution" when I was younger in cases that are deemed more ethically acceptable, I'm quicker to defend this position... As I've never really got to know just what the true disgusting sex offenders are like, all I've experienced is people who seemed more or less innocent. When I was teenager, sleeping with older people was "cooler", you'd always want to party with the older kids, you felt more like a delinquent - you didn't really think about "oh, this is the age difference, or this is wrong". For the people who didn't go to university afterwards, or just stayed in that party lifestyle, I can easily see them thinking they aren't doing anything wrong... It's just how it is.
Anyway, getting late here - 3am, but there are many further paths to continue the discussion that I find interesting.
edit: For people getting caught, I know of the one that mentioned previously, and one girl pressing charges when she got mad at someone, not sure how that ended up, as it was mostly gossip about people I didn't know well. So most don't get caught, but you don't know what's going to happen in their life 10 years down the road, and it'd be awful to get dragged down for something so silly. "Oh, this politician, I remember him from highschool, we did stuff when I was drunk once... Oh, let's go sue him and destroy his life since I'm a single mom, and it's tough paying for stuff" etc. (I'm not looking at both sides here, I'm just showing in how many cases this can be such a bullshit law for the accused).
|
The teenager, by essence is going to do "wrong" stuff.
It is perfectly possible for a 15 year old to be in love with his teacher. One can wait 3/5 years to sleep with her/him. Sounds unfair if they are in love but not insurmountable if the love is genuine.
I had sex while under age with older girls, even if I would have wanted to "protect" them if they were accused of abusing me, I would not have been "allowed" to be part of the "discussion". I loved so many "illegal" stuff when I was that age that now I feel almost "sorry" that at the time I was moreover comforted by the fact that I was aware of the fact that, in my country, under age people are overly protected!
That teenagers (or even kids, i started at 13 ) jump out the high dive (take risks and should try to learn stuff, go out and discover / conquer the world) is the human way (hormones come to mind), that is not any reason to protect kids forever. That subway guy is a kid. he made beaucoup bucks (too much money) and is spending it as a selfish soulless person = that is my "p o v". That subway guy is one out of thousands who do it, he got caught = fact!
So yes, it is an occasion not to shy away from the debate.
No, I am not mean and old (as in I wouldn't care about it since I am not concerned by those "kid laws" and I'm allowed "consensual sexual practices"), I do hope teenagers will continue to enjoy this "lul" in the law, but trust me (I'm old) that lul will disappear and laws will become even more unfair and harsh. This abstract notion of freedom still awarded to some teenagers (depending on geography) will not survive the horror of what sex slavery is / means to some people. What people will lobby for from having not psychologically survived its impact on their personal lives is unimaginable and the increasing number of "concerned citizens" ("concerned about their kids' future") is sky-rocketing as we speak. Such is the case that these "worried parents" will condemn their own kids because they wanted to protect them.
On the darker side, some will object and defend the kid's right to be sexual earlier and earlier.. while I understand it, I reject it nonetheless, precisely because the arbitrary line is not that good and lowering it does nothing to help.
In a world where/when 12 year old kids ask you if you can get babies from doing it "in another hole" (excuse my nsfw ; from discovering sex through overly accessible online pornographic content), in a world where/when information/culture/criticism/thought and analysis are so downplayed (while "imperial wants/needs" are put forward in every facet of our lives), the time is not to award more latitude but again and again to help people in an "each individual's own semantic" context, and try to help restrain/destroy what loopholes still remain to eradicate the worst slave practice that ever was. (you can debate that 16 18 is not a kid, you will meet me in such a debate ; most people remain kids well over their 30ies!)
The fact that we live in a media world is no excuse, it is even an extra guilt we should bare / be sorry for / try to overcome. That guy is "fair game" since he has been charged/proven guilty? Let us take this occasion to speak about the unspeakable! #could care less about the symptoms, go for the diseases responsible:
apathetic laziness towards "other" people cult of success sordid sex is the only thing that sells papers feeling righteous indignation is easy, it is really hard to talk/help someone else in real vital need
|
On August 20 2015 18:16 FiWiFaKi wrote: Anyway, getting late here - 3am, but there are many further paths to continue the discussion that I find interesting.
Go to sleep
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 20 2015 18:04 evanthebouncy! wrote: in before jokes about 5 dollars for a foot long >_>
in all seriousness this shouldn't be a big deal. people commit crimes all the time, the fact that it is a famous person shouldn't make it more special than if it is a mundane person. He used the non-profit he owns to gain access to the kids. It's a big deal.
|
Is he going to be getting the 6-inch or the foot long?
I didn't know he had a non-profit. How much money was he raking in with those ads?
|
On August 20 2015 22:45 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 18:04 evanthebouncy! wrote: in before jokes about 5 dollars for a foot long >_>
in all seriousness this shouldn't be a big deal. people commit crimes all the time, the fact that it is a famous person shouldn't make it more special than if it is a mundane person. He used the non-profit he owns to gain access to the kids. It's a big deal.
didn't know that. wow. i did know it was 14 girls under 18. so its not like one single 6 foot athletic 17 year old blonde lied to him and said she was 19. the "she lied about her age" is a BS excuse any way.
|
On August 21 2015 01:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 22:45 Jibba wrote:On August 20 2015 18:04 evanthebouncy! wrote: in before jokes about 5 dollars for a foot long >_>
in all seriousness this shouldn't be a big deal. people commit crimes all the time, the fact that it is a famous person shouldn't make it more special than if it is a mundane person. He used the non-profit he owns to gain access to the kids. It's a big deal. didn't know that. wow. i did know it was 14 girls under 18. so its not like one single 6 foot athletic 17 year old blonde lied to him and said she was 19. the "she lied about her age" is a BS excuse any way.
The prosecuting line is that he hired a friend as executive director for his non profit, commissioned him for videos, knew he was exploiting a 14 year old and requested footage instead of reporting. For the physical part, said to have been hunting for young flesh through prostitution networks rather than his charity.
|
So will South Park do a follow-up episode?
|
On August 21 2015 18:12 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2015 01:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 20 2015 22:45 Jibba wrote:On August 20 2015 18:04 evanthebouncy! wrote: in before jokes about 5 dollars for a foot long >_>
in all seriousness this shouldn't be a big deal. people commit crimes all the time, the fact that it is a famous person shouldn't make it more special than if it is a mundane person. He used the non-profit he owns to gain access to the kids. It's a big deal. didn't know that. wow. i did know it was 14 girls under 18. so its not like one single 6 foot athletic 17 year old blonde lied to him and said she was 19. the "she lied about her age" is a BS excuse any way. The prosecuting line is that he hired a friend as executive director for his non profit, commissioned him for videos, knew he was exploiting a 14 year old and requested footage instead of reporting. For the physical part, said to have been hunting for young flesh through prostitution networks rather than his charity.
Hey, its a big deal.
Surely its a healthy debate, but honestly there is no polemic here. Dude is a criminal and got arrested.
|
|
|
|