Please Help To Keep The
"Conservative News and Views"
On FR Coming By "Clicking Here"!!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 08/29/2013 7:44:33 AM PDT by redreno
I didn’t mention the word “acceptable” at all. I asked a simple question: is it possible the girl consented to the act. It requires a yes or no answer.
Your frustration in part arises from the fact that you’re trying to defend your stance against some anticipated “attack.” I’m just asking questions; you’re the one drawing the conclusions.
By the way, under what morality is it not “acceptable” for a 50-year-old teacher to sleep with his 14-year-old student? What is the age of consent in the Bible, for example?
That is what we do not know. The consensus seems to be, that even if a 17 year old deliberately seduces a 20 year old in a state where 18 is the age of consent, the 20 year old deserves to live a life as a registered sex offender for the rest of his life./S
My view of the world is not quite so black and white.
I know a number of people who have been propositioned by underage girls. In this case it is abundantly clear that the teacher *knew* the girl was underage, so he does not have that defense.
We certainly do not know that the suicide was dependent on the sexual activity, but I believe that suicide is more common among people who are promiscuous.
Anyone seen statistics on that?
No, it can't. If a 30 year old woman is less mature than a 14 yr old, then there is something wrong with the 30 year old.
And it is equally arbitrary to assume that the 50+-year-old man has a greater responsibility to safeguard her chastity than she herself does.
Again, in the interest of playing devil’s advocate.
More like douche bag advocate.
“beyone her chornological age”.
The above phrase can have many contexts. Physical, sexual, psychological, moral.
I think that an adult who is seduced by an underage girl should not receive as dire a sentence as one who forcibly rapes a girl of the same age.
We do not know exactly what happened in this case. There were only two actors. One is dead. The other is under legal threat. Unless other information is available, I am withholding judgement from what the judge did.
If someone puts a steak in front of a hungry man, who is forbidden from eating it by law, they may be guilty, but the person putting the steak there bears some guilt as well.
Thanks for the adult response. You do great credit to your ideology.
Aren’t there some cartoons you should be watching?
You are the one trying to excuse adult males from controlling their sexuality and refraining from the exploitation of underage females.
Pretty sure my “ideology” is just fine. Yours needs a tune up.
Just so we’re clear. Real men know and accept the responsibility of their social duty to protect children from themselves and others.
Those who try to split hairs about the possible maturity of 14 yr olds in order to apportion blame and shift responsibility from a mature legally competent male to an immature and legally incompetent female are douche bags.
For all you other nimrods out there, normal and mature 14 yr olds do not seduce, come on to or throw themselves at 50 yr old men. An immature girl with emotional issues might be aggressive or promiscuous but that doesn’t make them fair game for your schoolgirl fantasies.
Normal girls will be “ick, dude, you’re older than my dad, go away”.
You are the one trying to excuse adult males from controlling their sexuality and refraining from the exploitation of underage females.
Hardly. I've simply asked a few questions. Instead of answering them, you've engaged in a repartee of pre-school caliber, replete with just about every logical fallacy extant. The only thing you left out is calling me a "doo-doo head."
Pretty sure my “ideology” is just fine. Yours needs a tune up.
I didn't criticize your ideology. I criticized your contribution to it.
Just so we’re clear. Real men know and accept the responsibility of their social duty to protect children from themselves and others.
I didn't know you had been appointed the arbiter of "real" masculinity, or the definer of "social duty."
Those who try to split hairs about the possible maturity of 14 yr olds in order to apportion blame and shift responsibility from a mature legally competent male to an immature and legally incompetent female are douche bags.
Name-calling aside, I am indeed trying to split those hairs, and for a very good reason: laws -- as we've seen in this example -- are not adequate to govern behavior. Being the fruits of highly flawed individuals -- and their collective bodies -- laws are flawed as well. Something more must be present or we have only the temporal structure to rely on for the administration of justice.
For all you other nimrods out there, normal and mature 14 yr olds do not seduce, come on to or throw themselves at 50 yr old men. An immature girl with emotional issues might be aggressive or promiscuous but that doesn’t make them fair game for your schoolgirl fantasies.
Once again setting aside the infantile fixation with name-calling, what kind of ridiculous generalization is that statement? What do you know about "normal and mature 14 yr olds?" By your statement, is a 14-year-old girl who is "aggressive and promiscuous" abnormal and immature? And you base that on what again? Your vast experience as a developmental psychologist? Your history as a mature 14-year-old girl? Intoxication?
Normal girls will be “ick, dude, you’re older than my dad, go away”.
Once again, you set yourself up as the arbiter of "normal." I challenge your credentials. And it's no secret that many young girls find older men attractive, and that those feelings are entirely "normal," although acting on them may not be within societal norms.
We've deviated considerably from my initial questions, so unless you're willing to return to the issue at hand, I'll move on to a conversation with someone more adept at counterpoint ... maybe a flat rock or a bag of hammers.
“Once again setting aside the infantile fixation with name-calling, what kind of ridiculous generalization is that statement? What do you know about “normal and mature 14 yr olds?” By your statement, is a 14-year-old girl who is “aggressive and promiscuous” abnormal and immature? And you base that on what again? Your vast experience as a developmental psychologist? Your history as a mature 14-year-old girl? Intoxication?”
Your point about “normal” is exactly correct. As a Christian, we are all sinners, and that includes 14 yr old girls. Children are *not* innocent in the sense of a lack of desire to commit sin. Children are closer to wild animals that have to be taught discipline and morals, and civilized behaviour.
I was once told that the average age of becoming a mother in Honduras was 14. That does not mean that we should condone this behaviour, but it does question the assertion that it is unnatural. Up until 100-150 years ago, a great number of girls were married by age 14.
“People who engage in sexual activity with children under the age of 16 may be prosecuted for statutory rape in Montana.”
From the biological standpoint, it makes sense for girls to have sex as soon as they're physically capable of reproducing, which these days is younger and younger.
As I've maintained all along, laws are arbitrary. Absent a moral component, trying to stop this kind of behavior is doomed to failure.
And the tired old argument that "it's the law so it must be right" just means that it's LEGAL or ILLEGAL. Unless you trust "the government" or "society" to always act in accordance with moral or natural law, condemning behavior because of its legality is tantamount to letting someone else do your thinking for you.
No, normal young girls do not find older men attractive. Immature, emotionally deprived girls with daddy issues may try to meet her unmet developmental needs for affirmation with older men, but it is neither normal nor mature.
Men trying to excuse the exploitation of the vulnerable and the needy is disgusting and unmanly.
As for the arbiter of manliness, I will point to the entirety of the better parts of Western Civilization and Judeo-Christian morality culminated in the code of chivalry.
“The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the employed, the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, even the clever over the silly—the forbearing or inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence from it when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain light” Robert E. Lee
Hmmmm. Almost every psychologist from Freud to Fritz Perls would disagree with you. But who are they to argue with a man of your intellect?
Immature, emotionally deprived girls with daddy issues may try to meet her unmet developmental needs for affirmation with older men, but it is neither normal nor mature.
It is perfectly normal. And I didn't say anything about how "mature" it was.
Your opinions are just that: opinions. You have not offered anything beside one sweeping generalization after another to bolster your viewpoint. And you have answered my questions only obliquely. So your contribution to this discussion has been minimal. Let's leave it at that.
We are losing the war to maintain marriage as a sacred institution because we're doing a bad job of articulating its value to society, its moral integrity, and its alignment with Natural Law. If the best argument we can put forth against lowering age of consent is calling its advocates Poopyheads, we've lost that battle too.
So we need to start formulating our rebuttals NOW, to anticipate the enemy's moves and cut them off. And we're not going to do it with a lot of religious mumbo-jumbo or self-righteous puffery. (The fact is, the Bible does not say anything about an age of sexual consent.)
So we'd better have something better to pin our defense on or we've lost before the first shots are fired.
Emotional pouters (like some unnamed posters on this thread) will be eviscerated by our opponents, and I don't want anyone to think cretins like that speak for the entire conservative movement. Some of us ARE capable of putting together a cogent thought. And it is up to us to man the moral barricades when the time comes.
Citing Freud and Perls as experts rates right up there citing Kinsey. Obsessed with sex and hedonism and founders of psychobabble is not a workable appeal to authority.
And improperly trying to fill unmet developmental needs through dysfunctional behavior is an excellent definition of abnormal, i.e. not normal, non-normative.
Boy, you sure sound like your trying to make the case for having sex with children. Maybe your neighbors should be concerned about you. You sound like you’re justifying this type of behavior......very scary!
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.