Teens have right to have sex, lawyer argues (Huh?!?)

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ^ | 8.21.03 | JAMAAL ABDUL-ALIM

[EGPWS]

Let them do it, for crying out loud. But it would be nice if those kids knew the consequences of a teen pregnancy.

What consequences? The risk of a hijacking of their flight to the "Jerry Springer Show"? Or the risk of a well tanned strap across the arse? Oh that's right, silly me! Forget the strap for that would just create more issues that these poor kid's would have to cope with.

Maybe your wrong! If they knew the consequences of a teenage pregnancy nowaday's, they may tell their friends and then they ALL would be working on getting pregnant at an early age just for the money and notoriety.

My reply is conveyed with sarcasm of course.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The girl pleaded guilty to fourth degree sexual assault, a misdemeanor, but is charged with violating her probation; a warrant has been issued for her arrest.

A fatherless girl already in trouble??

[ppaul]

Not to punish the children, she said, but to help them through various court-ordered services.

They were not succeesful in servicing each other.
Now they're fixin' to get serviced by the state.

[weegee]

But it is only a desire to commit statutory rape. You seemed to say in the earlier posts that there was no statutory rape since it was thought about but not permitted to occur.

[weegee]

You are confusing "assult rape" with "statutory rape".

One is a violation of person without consent. The other is a consensual sex act with someone under the age of consent.

Can minors commit sexual assault rape? Yes. Should they be held legally accountable for their actions? Yes.

Why is statutory rape any diffent? Because "both" participants are minors? In states that have Romeo & Juliet laws (that permit sex within age differences of 4 years) this is not the case, 18 year olds and 14 or 15 year olds can legally have sex. There are many on FR who defend this practice.

[capitan_refugio]

The story isn't about sex; it's about two incorrigible minors. No 14-year old has the "right" to challenge or disobey their parent(s). Not much can be learned from just this article ... I'm sure there is more going on than is reported.

Just wait a few weeks; this is going to be on Jerry Springer!

[weegee]

Not to encourage the act in any way but it could be argued that it is better for adults to engage in sex with minor females. Adult males are in a better position to earn a living wage to support a mother, the child, and medical expenses. What can a high school (or junior high) kid do? Go on welfare? Drop out of school? Get a paper route to pay for an abortion?

[goldstategop]

Such cases are virtually never prosecuted. You would put most teens in this country behind bars. The teens here are being prosecuted cause the daughter was caught in flagrante delicto by her mom in bed with her boyfriend. I agree her daughter was too young to be having sex with a boy her own age but that still doesn't right to the level of a sex crime.

[goldstategop]

right = rise

[Centurion2000]

They "were confrontational and remorseless."

The teens even "challenged" the woman to call police

This should be about where a 14 year old boy gets run out of the house with a whip/belt, pistol and buck naked screaming for the mean daddy to stop.

[nopardons]

True, but you've also left out a few other considerations. There is a big difference between a 14 year old girl and a 14 year old boy; the latter usually being behind , emotionally and maturity the girl. An adult male, besides being more mature,is able to provide for the girl and a possible bastard financially. Then, there is the probability that the adult male actually knows what he's doing physically, whilst a 14 year old boy hasn't a clue.

No, absolutely NOT, am I suggesting that the above is a good idea; it isn't ! I am just following your lead. :-)

The people who talk about their grandparents getting married at 14&15 make me wonder just when and WHERE that happened.Those ages were NOT the " norm " in America, England, or even in Hungary in the 20th century. And just because it happened, at some point in time, some place, doesn't mean that today's American 14 year olds should engage in illicit sexual conduct !

[weegee]

The earlier that people married, the less time they would spend "wandering" or sowing their oats. Get married and then get to work.

I've heard of businesses in the 1940s/1950s that preferred to have married staffers (the belief that they would behave more responsibly; getting work done, showing up on time, etc. since they had commitments to meet).

100 years ago, a job could be working in the family business (a store, warehouse, or farm). Get married and get to work. If it's a farm, the sooner you start having kids, the sooner there will be more hands to put to work.

[nopardons]

In the '40s & '50s and yes, earlier than that and later too, married men were hired AND given priority advancement in most businesses. We're NOT talking about 14 year olds though and also NOT about coalminers and the like.

Even in the '40s & '50s, the American farm was " BIG BUSINESS " and there were not a majority of small farms doing the business. Historical proof of this, goes back to the mid 19th century. The DUST BOWL and the GREAT DEPRESSION, did in a lot of small farmers too.

Also,100 years ago, even though some indulged in sexual promisquity, our culture frowned on it and made those caught ( primarily the females ) objects of scorn, contempt, and ridicule; not to mention outcasts.

[.45MAN]

When this happens somewhere else ten years from now no one will care, or maybe at our rate of speed down hill it will only be five years....

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Regarding children and sex, let each parent decide. In Canada, if a 12 year old girl wants to shack up with some guy, the mother taking her child away is considered to be a kidnapper.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I understand that children are highly driven sexually. Back in the Victorian era, parents sometimes allowed their children to practice bundling. You can see an example of it in "The Patriot". It looks like a lot of fun, to me. I'm in agreement with the outraged parent getting violent if it goes beyond that point, however. FReegards....

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

If a daughter is caught in bed with a young man-- or worse, an old man, or worse still, a woman, it is only natural for the parent to react with violent threats, to drive the culprit out of the house.

If the law forbids that kind of reaction, and the law says that the parent cannot interfere or even call the police, then society unravels. Imagine a man and wife both working all day, going home, and hearing an orgy in one of the rooms, particularly gross if the orgy is boy-with-boy, boy-with-man, or female-with-female. And the parent has no rights, a court order to not interfere, even. But it's still your parental duty to feed, clothe, and house your defiant child.

[Yeti]

Ah, yes: fourteen!

That's how old my daughter was when I used high-strength epoxy to permanently seal her bedroom windows shut. That's how old she was I first parked the axe-handle next to the head of my bed.

Fourteen...

You can't stop the wind from blowing, but you can plant a tall hedge and put up a nice, solid fence to cut down on the amount of trash that blows into your own yard...

[Centurion2000]

And the parent has no rights, a court order to not interfere, even. But it's still your parental duty to feed, clothe, and house your defiant child.

If that happens to me the kids get dropped on the steps of the orphanage. If at 14 they are stupid enough to want their total independence they will get it from me.

[Steve Eisenberg]

Back in the Victorian era, parents sometimes allowed their children to practice bundling.

Actually that was the colonial era. Back in the Victorian era, they had more common sense than at anytime, before or after .