Posted on 06/22/2013 1:01:02 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Statutory rape is legally defined as:
“The criminal offense of statutory rape is committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex. Minors and physically and mentally incapacitated persons are deemed incapable of consenting to sex under rape statutes in all states. These persons are considered deserving of special protection because they are especially vulnerable due to their youth or condition.”
If you are a male, say age 18 and you have sex with a 14 year old girl, in most states that constitutes statutory rape. In all but three states, the age of consent is 18. That’s where the slang expression ‘jail bait’ came from when referring to a girl under the legal age.
Technically, the same should hold true if both participants are of the same sex, with one being under the legal age of consent. However, in keeping with the tradition of homosexuals demanding preferential treatment, a lesbian in Florida insists her actions were legal.
The defendant in this case is Kaitlyn Hunt. She has been charged with a felony, lewd and lascivious battery on a child for having sexual relations with her 14 year old girlfriend. She claims that the sex was consensual and therefore no crime was committed. Hunt argues that if they were a straight couple, no charges would have been filed, but because they are gay, she was charged with the crime.
Yet, I hear on the news from time to time about a teenage boy being arrested and charged with statutory rape or some other wording of the same crime, for having sex with his underage girlfriend, especially here in Kentucky. If you ask me, that kind of blows Hunt’s argument out of the water.
But she’s not done. Her attorney has also filed a motion to have Circuit Judge Robert Pegg remove himself from the case. Why? It’s because Pegg is not gay. Hunt and her attorney believe that a straight judge will not rule fairly on her case. But what they are really after is to get a gay judge who will rule in her favor. She doesn’t want equal treatment under the law, she wants privileged treatment because she is a homosexual.
I truly hope they find her guilty not because she is a lesbian, but because that is the rule of law.
Back in your great grandpa’s day, the age of consent was 13.
What’s the difference? Obama and the Democrats are F*ing America up the A$$ anyway.
Where to begin?
First of all, when your great-grandmother was 13, her life expectancy was in her mid 40s. Life expectancies in the US did not break 50 until the early 1900s.
Second, if your 32 year old great-grandfather was taking a 13 year old bride, chances are it was his second or third wife, with the earlier wives dying either during child birth or of one of any of hundreds of now easily treated diseases. If women did not have children when they were in their teens then there was very little chance that they would live long enough to see them grown.
Third, it is probable that your great-grandmother had no say in the matter and her husband was selected for her by her parents. They may have gotten a dowry as compensation for her or they may simply have been happy to get her married off before she died (or became an old maid at 16).
Fourth, I am betting that your great-grandparents were married. There is a big difference between getting married and having sex with your wife and roaming the elementary schools looking for sex partners.
Even now, marriage is an absolute defense to a statutory rape charge, though there are only a couple of states left where a 13 year old can get legally married even with the parents permission. I understand that 13 year old brides are still permitted in many Muslim countries, but so is killing 13 year olds that dishonor the family by getting raped.
Today (outside of Muslim countries) any 32 year old that has sex with a 13 year old would be rightly considered to be a pedophile, regardless of how "willing" the 13 year old may have been. A 13 or 14 year old cannot consent to sex with an adult and any adult that has sex with a 13 or 14 year old should be prosecuted as a sex offender.
So that puts the marriage around 1918, when women had a life expectancy of 42.
So if her family had all died from the flu pandemic, did great-grandpa select his child bride from an orphanage or off of the streets?
Seriously, if a 32 year old today picked a 13 year old orphan with no family to be his sex partner, you would be ok with that?
Only if his name was Elvis. Sorry, couldn’t help it.
“When government does not protect the public from criminals, or worse, takes the side of the criminals against the public, vigilantism results.”
It begins as a non-violent plea and petition to government to do its job, then as a movement to replace the ineffective government. When these fail, government realizes that from its point of view, the still non-violent vigilance movement is a bigger threat to their power than are the criminals. So it tries to stop the vigilantes.
The vigilantes form watches to ward off criminals from lurking or attacking honest citizens, and the government uses its police to stop this. At some point, the government may even join with the criminals to physically attack the vigilantes, definitely to arrest their leaders.
Finally the vigilantes have had enough, and seek to drive the criminals out, even at this point with minimal violence. But if they get resistance from the government or the criminals at this point, the vigilantes may finally become violent, killing those who attack them.
So, do these crimes committed by criminals include crimes against nature? Against children? etc? Most certainly.
Because there is a more powerful law than statutory law. It is called the “social sanction”, and though differing between societies, it is always ruthlessly enforced by most or all citizens.
For instance, if Americans (in a southern city) walk by an alley, and see a boy being attacked by a rapist, they will not meekly summon the authorities, but immediately attack the rapist, perhaps even lethally. At that point, the statutory law is meaningless, compared to the violence of the social sanction.
It will not matter one bit that the attacker is of a protected class, homosexual, or a protected minority, or a protected anything. The social sanction will be enforced.
Nor does it matter one bit that the government has lowered the age of statutory rape to far below that of the social sanction. It does not matter what the government wants.
Elvis started doing Priscilla when he was 24 and she was 14, but her parents wouldn't let him marry her until she was over 18.
When Jerry Lee Lewis was 22, he married a 13 year old and it almost ended his career.
Whatever. If they didn’t break the law, they didn’t break the law.
the quintessential 2016 campaign pic for hildabeast.
Or Jerry Lee Lewis.
There must have been something in the water over there at the Sun studios.
What are you trying to say?
What you said. Bravo.
The first girl I molested was 4 years old.
But it was consensual. I agreed to show her mine in exchange for seeing hers.
I was 4; too.
Thanks for pointing out the folly of government involvement in these things.
I doubt that the "age of consent" was a factor when my great-grandparents fell in love, married and proceeded to build a small empire in Eastern New Mexico.
For most of human history, the "age of consent" was the onset of puberty, whenever that happened.
Don't you find it curious that the "age of consent", as established by governments is considerably higher than the age at which any young woman can show up at any pharmacy and, by dictate of government can buy a "morning after" abortion pill?
You're right about life expectancies. However, both of them lived until their mid-80's.
My great-grandfather was a lifelong bachelor when he married my great-grandmother. It was both of their first and only marriage until they both died.
Neither of them had any living parents.
Yes, my great-grandparents were married to each other.
Today (outside of Muslim countries) any 32 year old that has sex with a 13 year old would be rightly considered to be a pedophile, regardless of how "willing" the 13 year old may have been. A 13 or 14 year old cannot consent to sex with an adult and any adult that has sex with a 13 or 14 year old should be prosecuted as a sex offender.
Add a couple of years to both. In 1957, when I was 15, I was jumped by a 34-year-old neighbor lady; an encounter for which I will be eternally grateful. In your world, she would then be a pedophile and I would be a victim?
I would say that is not a good idea, but government should have no role in that.
A lot of people would like me to disappear from this forum because of my libertarian views.
18 and 14? I don't know if that's worth 5 years, but it ain't right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.