How to become a registered sex offender in Newington, Connecticut:
Davis was a junior at Newington High School when he met the 15-year-old, a freshman, in study hall. They started out as friends and eventually fell in love, he said.
“We would sit out in my truck at her apartment complex and just talk. Thinking we were deeply, madly in love, we talked about getting married, buying a house,” he said.
But when the girl started slacking off at school and mouthing off, her father blamed Davis and wanted to get rid of him, Davis said.
“As far as he was concerned, I was the root of all his problems,” Davis said. …
Sex offender laws were designed to protect people from predators - pedophiles, rapists and the like. But Davis doesn’t fall into that category. At 18, he was convicted of having sex with his 15-year-old former girlfriend, who told investigators she was a willing partner.
If the age gap between Davis and the girl had been less than two years, he wouldn’t have been arrested under the state’s second-degree sexual assault statute, known as the “Romeo and Juliet” law.
But because the girl was younger than 16 - the age of consent in Connecticut - and he was more than two years older than she was, he was charged with a sex crime.
Now he’s 22, and on the sex-offender registry. So whenever he moves to a new neighborhood, his neighbors get notified that a “sex offender” just moved in. Not to mention, he’s got a felony conviction on his record, which makes it hard to find a job — thus arguably increasing the odds that he’ll turn to a life of actual crime, as opposed to the invented “crime” of being a sexually active teenager. In fact:
The two dozen conditions of probation for sex offenders can restrict where a sex offender works and lives, and with whom he or she socializes. Conditions are tailored to each offender, but many are ordered to attend sex offender treatment and most are required to be pictured on the state sex offender registry.
This sort of thing makes me angry.
When I was a senior at Newington High School, I had a crush on a sophomore girl who was two years and about a month-and-a-half younger than me. Nothing happened between us, but if it had, would I have been a sex criminal?
At least Connecticut has the two-year age difference requirement. California doesn’t have even that, so technically, if it’s your 18th birthday today, and you have sex with someone whose 18th birthday is tomorrow, you’re a sex offender. Re-damn-diculous. (Why do I know this? Because during the early stages of Becky’s and my relationship, in California, I was 18 and she was 17.)
I’m not sure what the answer is. Statutory rape laws are always inevitably going to involve arbitrary numerical cutoffs, and there are always going to be cases where the application of the law seems inappropriate. Yet that doesn’t mean statutory rape laws should be eliminated entirely; obviously, a 35-year-old having sex with a 14-year-old should be a crime, even if the 14-year-old technically “consented.” So what should be done? A bill that’s currently before the state legislature would be a good start:
Under the proposed bill, it would not be a crime for teenagers who are within four years of each other to have sex. Anyone who has sex with a person younger than 13 or who forces someone to have sex could still be prosecuted.
Sounds sensible. But beyond that, I’d say a helluva lot more prosecutorial discretion is needed here. The fact that a father has a grudge against his daughter’s high-school boyfriend, with whom she had completely consensual sex, is not a good reason to subject the boyfriend to a lifetime of stigmatization, just because they were two years apart in high school. That’s completely absurd.
|
Categories: Connecticut & Newington
|
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:13:12 pm
That’s a ridiculous conviction & deserving of a pardon.
Here’s another good one: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=wilson
Davis got off easy (no pun intended) compared to Genarlow Wilson, who’s stuck in prison for 10 years because he got a BJ from a 15 yr old when he was 17.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:32:10 pm
The problem here, and with the case above, are the prosecutors. In their Elliot Ness-like fervor (I know, he’s an FBI agent, not a prosecutor), they continue to simply hammer and hammer away without regard to the actual circumstances of what occurred.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:25:32 pm
You can end up on the sex offender list in NH for public urination.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:31:55 pm
This is why I only date cougars.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:36:01 pm
Frankly, I have absolutely NO problem with this.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:49:59 pm
Patrick, I realize that you have strong views about the morality of premarital sex. But even despite that, I find it somewhat stunning that you would have “absolutely NO problem” with something as manifestly unjust as a person being placed on a sex-offender list, with the severe lifelong consequences that that entails, for having consensual sex with a fellow high-school student barely two years younger than him.
It’s one thing to disapprove of someone’s actions, and even to support modest legal penalties befitting the crime; it’s quite another thing to drop the legal equivalent of a nuclear bomb on him, as placement on a sex-offender registry does. If you had “absolutely NO problem” with prosecution and a mild penalty for such “sex offenders,” I could understand and respect that (even though I’d disagree). But how can you possibly support the application of extremely harsh penalties — designed for rapists, molesters and predators — to a situation such as this?
Frankly, as much as I generally respect your deeply held beliefs (even when I strongly disagree with them), here I believe you are being blinded to logic and reason by your own moral views. Just because these teenagers are, in your opinion, sinners, doesn’t justify the earthly penalties that have been inflicted on the male partner in the relationship! If they are to be punished this harshly, it should be in the next life — in this life, given our regime of laws, it makes no sense to impose these penalties on such conduct.
Anyway, my question to you is, at what point WOULD you have a problem with it? Where would you draw the line? You’re obviously okay with Connecticut’s two-year-gap rule; what about California’s one-day-gap rule? If two (purely hypothetical) USC freshmen were found to be having premarital sex, one of them 18 and the other 17, with, say, a 9-month age difference between them, would you believe it is justified to place the 18-year-old on a sex offenders registry??
I don’t see how that position can be rationally justified in any imaginable universe.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:58:18 pm
“Genarlow Wilson”
Is this the Georgia football player that was featured on ESPN?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:59:55 pm
Correction, sort of:
If they are to be punished this harshly, it should be in the next life
That should really read, “If he is to be punished this harshly,” not “If they.” Although, in a sense, my original phraseology is correct: in the next life, I think you would agree, both partners face possible punishment for their (in your view) immoral acts, assuming they don’t repent; whereas in this life, only the older (male) partner faces any punishment at all. That’s a big part of the injustice: in reality, there has been no “sex crime” here, just a consensual relationship between two teenagers, and yet we’re using a law designed for actual sex crimes to punish one (and only one) partner in that relationship, simply because he happened to be slightly older. It’s a dishonest application of the law: labelling someone a “sex offender” for doing something that we disapprove of on grounds totally unrelated to the grounds on which the sex-offender registry was created.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:01:46 pm
P.S. There’s also a gender issue here. Something tells me the prosecution rate is considerably lower when 18-year-old girls have sex with 15-year-old boys. Just saying.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:06:07 pm
P.P.S. For that matter, there’s also a race issue. Something tells me the prosecution rate is considerably higher when an 18-year-old black boy has sex with a 15-year-old white girl.
And don’t even get me started on what happens if it’s two girls (presumptively OK; see, e.g., The Vagina Monologues*) or two boys (send the older one to Gitmo!).
It all comes down to society’s definition of “predator.” And what I’m saying is, when a high-school senior has consensual sex with a high-school sophomore — whatever their respective genders — there should be a pretty strong presumption that that’s not predatory behavior, because common sense and shared human experience tells us it’s usually not. (Immoral? Maybe. Should be discouraged? Sure. Predatory? Hell no.) But the law presumes precisely the opposite. It takes an awfully distorted worldview, IMHO, to have “absolutely NO problem” with such an irrational legal regime.
*This is the one point on which I think we’ll agree, if you know of the particular (disturbing) segment of the VMs that I’m referring to.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:17:33 pm
On the topic, did anyone hear that Fox News is starting a new reality TV series?
It’s called “Illegal ALIEN vs. Sexual PREDATOR.”
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:26:18 pm
HAHAHAHAHA thats awesome Condor, simply awesome
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:26:28 pm
I should think the activity outlined here in should not be illegal. If a school wants to make such behavior grounds for expulsion that’s one thing but that’s a whole different can of wax.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:29:24 pm
“…I’d say a helluva lot more prosecutorial discretion is needed here.”
“The problem here, and with the case above, are the prosecutors.”
Brendan and Anonymooose, in Fairness & Balance let us note, fwiw, that the linked Courant article reports (emphasis added) that:
Also fwiw, herewith the Courant’s unscientific readers poll:
(”Depends” on What? :)
But speaking for the nonDependent Nays ~
Well, if So then how about Mitigating the Penalties by Changing the Law to create a Misdemeanor category for the circumstantially-Mitigated, Mutually-consensual, “Romeo & Juliet” cases such as this one? With Incarceration not required and with no damn stupidass Sex Offender Registry listing.
I’m Sorry and surely Far be it from Me to be Contrarian ;> but this broadbrush blanket(y-blank) business with the wildly-popular Sex Offender Registries, is Messed Up. If the blacklists Must exist, the Offenses which Put a person on them need to be more Narrowly drawn. “Sex offender” covers too great a Multitude of (literally :) Sins, not all of which foreshadow an Ongoing threat to Society at large. / And furthermore, such Reform should be enacted promptly, i.e. Quick before the post-Virginia-Tech undifferentiated re-demonization of The Mentally Ill starts to produce online Nutjob Registries for our collective Protection, Edification and Entertainment. :|
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:33:04 pm
http://louisville.bizjournals.com/louisville/stories/2005/02/07/story3.html
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:34:19 pm
Brendan,
As a high school teacher, I have seen far more lives ruined by premarital sex than I’ve seen ruined by over-zealous statutory rape laws. In my opinion, there ought to be more prosecutions of this, not fewer.
18 year olds are adults, and need to realize that actions have consequences. You write that a liaison between a consenting 35-year-old and a 14-year-old should “obviously” be illegal.
In the eyes of the law, does one become “more adult” at age 35? How is this substantially different from the case you cite? You accuse Patrick of basing his arguments on emotions, but then you go on to do the same.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:44:15 pm
And what does “consent” have to do with anything if you’re under the legal age to give consent. Let’s say an 18-year-old cigarette vendor sells a cigarette to a “consenting” 15-year-old girl. Even if you’re alright with this, the law isn’t, because a 15-year-old doesn’t have the legal authority to give such consent.
And if a 15-year-old doesn’t have the legal right to stick a cigarette in her mouth, she shouldn’t be sticking larger, more damaging objects in other orifices.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:11:10 pm
WBV, a 35 year old adult is no more “adult” than an 18 year old legally, but that is beside the point. A 35 year old who desires (and acts on a desire) to have sex with a 15 year old has serious mental problems. The same cannot be said for an 18 year old who wants to have sex with a 15 year old. The 35 year old arguably poses a greater threat to society and my guess is that this type of person is likely to continue this behavior. The 18 year old will probably be attracted to 16 year olds next year, and so on. Not to mention, a 35 year old man is generally going to be much smarter at manipulating girls into getting what he wants whereas 18 years generally have no idea what the hell they are doing in that arena.
Additionally, not everything that “ruins” a person’s life should be illegal (not to mention, I am sure we have different opinions on how premarital sex can “ruin” a person’s life, but anyway). Teenagers can ruin their lives doing a lot of things, but we don’t prosecute them for doing those things.
The “consent” argument is equally flawed - unless you are arguing that no one under 18 should be allowed to have sex with anyone (even with people under 18). Why should it make a difference if you are consenting to having sex with someone 17 1/2 or 18? I don’t get that at all.
Finally, your argument that if cigarettes are illegal for 15 years then sex should be too is ridiculous. Cigarettes have (nearly) no redeeming value. I have a feeling that you think the same about teenagers having premarital sex, but not everyone does. Also, cigarettes are medically always carcinogens, but sex, if people take proper precautions, is not always “damaging.”
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:24:55 pm
“For that matter, there’s also a race issue. Something tells me the prosecution rate is considerably higher when an 18-year-old black boy has sex with a 15-year-old white girl.â€
First of all let me address this part to Brendan. I work at a juvenile detention center as part of my job in social work. I have seen WAY too much of this to even know how to respond to some of these boys that I work with. There seems to be a trend (in my opinion) that when a black or Hispanic boy gets involved with a “white” girl then her father usually comes un-glued and has the boy arrested. What I hate to see is even worse I also work with the girls who no matter what their side of the story is (ie: usually….I lied and told him I was 17 too) the law sticks just because of the age difference. I concur that it should be based more on “predatory” actions rather than teenagers fooling around no matter what your religious or moral beliefs are. This law is RUINING young mens lives because bottom-line…teenagers have out of control hormones and little self control. (Not to generalize all of them that way, but it’s a scientific fact).
Which leads to my next quote I’d like to address…..
“In the eyes of the law, does one become “more adult†at age 35?â€
I would have to say in the eyes of the law NO there is no difference between 18 and 35 for being an “adult”. Maturity wise??? OH HELL YEAH!!! As a teacher I am SHOCKED that you would say that an 18 year old has the maturity of a 35 year old to make the decision to not have sex with someone a few years younger than him or her. Yes…most should but do they really?? And as I mentioned earlier sometimes these 15-year-old girls lie their butts off just to get in good with an older guy. I’ve seen it. And please don’t misunderstand me I’m not in any way saying it’s the girls fault anymore than the boys but this is a LIFETIME stigma that is being placed on them. Can you imagine if you saw John Smith was a 23 year old moving into your apartment complex and was a “sex predator”??? I think everyone’s first instinct would be to try to keep them out. But if we knew that John Smith at 18 had slept with a girl who was 2 years behind him in school and they’d been in love since they were in Jr. High now does it seem like he’s a sexual predator?? Someone needs to ask these questions. Thanks Brendan for bringing this all up.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:25:31 pm
M -
“The same cannot be said for an 18 year old who wants to have sex with a 15 year old.”
What?!? Speak for yourself I don’t know about you but when I was 18 I was a freshman in college…and I wasn’t into banging high school sophmores AT ALL.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:30:41 pm
@ NEBRASKA 94 95 & 97: Yes, Genarlow Wilson was featured on ESPN.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:33:05 pm
This line does not make sense to me: “obviously, a 35-year-old having sex with a 14-year-old should be a crime, even if the 14-year-old technically “consented.—
Why? Does the capacity to consent vary according to the age of the person to whom the consent is being given?
I don’t think it does.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:45:32 pm
First, I hate when people whine about breaking a law that they knew existed before they broke it. Ok, you think the law is unfair, unjust, or whatever….that doesn’t mean you should just ignore it. Why should we pity someone who knowingly broke the law? No matter the age difference, the law is the law in this case and the consequences follow accordingly. For instance, I think the speed limit on my way to work is too low. If I choose to go even one mile over the speed limit, I am asking for a speeding ticket. If I get one, I can’t whine about it. If I want the law to change, I should get it changed and then change my actions AFTER the law is changed…not BEFORE! Geez….it’s not the hard of a rule to follow.
Oh, and the whole sex offender registry is important. If he thought the rules didn’t apply to his sexual actions then, who is to say he wouldn’t feel the same way now. He should have to deal with the punishment. As someone who knew this guy in highschool, too, I know he was smart enough to know what he was doing beforehand.
Stop feeling bad for people who break the law! aggghhhh!
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:02:14 pm
NHS alum, you are ignoring the issue. The article was not just some kid whining about the law, it was more a story to illustrate why politicians are considering changing the law. Of course people should obey the law, but in my opinion this kid’s punishment is an example of an extreme injustice.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:09:03 pm
Marty West, when I was in a junior in high school i was barely 16 and my boyfriend was 18 and a freshman in college. We had a very healthy 2 year relationship and are still friends 9 years later. If I was a couple months younger, would my boyfriend be a “sexual predator?” No, definitely not. The 32 year old waiter that tried to get me to go home with him by lying and saying he was 24, on the other hand, is exactly the type of guy these types of laws were meant to punish. You can’t even compare these two men.
NHS, I feel bad for a lot of people who break the law. Some of the laws in this country are just plain stupid.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:14:20 pm
Now, I only read the excerpts Brendan posted, but — where does it say either of them knew that having sex was illegal?
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:51:44 pm
Megan,
You write, “As a teacher I am SHOCKED that you would say that an 18 year old has the maturity of a 35…” Nowhere do I say anything of the sort. I merely write, as you concede, that in the eyes of the law, the two are equally adults.
In fact, 18-y.o. make worse decisions than 35-y.o., and arguably need stiffer punishments to keep them on the straight and narrow.
And, yes, I live in California, a state which prohibits sex between consenting partners even if BOTH parties are under the age of 18. And I’m perfectly fine with that.
And I don’t believe a 15 year old should be sleeping with an 18 year old any more than I believe she should be sleeping with a 35-y.o. or a 95-y.o. or Methuselah. My argument is consistent. It is you and Brendan who draw the artificial (and inconsistent) line saying a 15-y.o. giving consent in one case is beautiful, harmless puppy-love, and in the other case it amounts to depraved manipulation.
Either a 15-y.o. can decide for herself, or she can’t. I say she can’t. You (plural) seem to argue she can –under certain circumstances that you find acceptable– and can’t –under circumstances you find unacceptable.
And you seem to think this makes perfect logical sense. I’m not convinced.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:19:49 pm
So, you think that stiffer punishments are appropriate because 18 years olds are too immature to make good decisions? As a result, we, as a society, should attempt to keep them from making such decisions by imposing harsher punishments, which will, in effect, make the decision easier for them (i.e., scare them out of having sex?)? That is preposterous. The 35 year old who knows better and still takes advantage of an underage girl is much more culpable than the 18 year old and the punishment should reflect that. Your argument seems to rest on the “deterrence” theory of punishment (rather than retribution), but I would argue that the law should focus on deterring 35 year olds more than deterring 18 year olds. Not to sound too much like a crim prof, but even under the utilitarian theory of punishment your argument doesn’t make sense. Society will not be made better by imposing a harsher sentence on 18 year olds than 35 year olds. I have no problem labelling a 35 year old scumbag a sexual predator and ruining his chances at a decent career. An 18 year old should not have his future destroyed like this for making a decision that many 18 year olds would make.
IMO, we, as a society, should be more concerned with parents who resort to turning in their daughter’s 18 yer old boyfriends to the police because they don’t know how to properly relate to their daughter than the 18 year old guy who thinks he is in love and wants to get laid. This is a problem that should be resolved by parents learning how to have uncomfortable discussions with their kids rather than parents running to the cops for help with their smitten daughters.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:39:14 pm
M
You write, “So, you think that stiffer punishments are appropriate because 18 years olds are too immature to make good decisions?” I didn’t argue this… all I said was that the argument could be made. I happen to think that the same crime should merit the same punishment.
18-y.o. and 35-y.o. kill somebody –same punishment. Rob a bank –same punishment. Sleep with a minor — NOT THE SAME PUNISHMENT??!!!
Either it’s a crime to sleep with a 15 year old or it isn’t. If it is, both should be punished. If it isn’t, neither should. You say that one person should be punished and the other shouldn’t for doing the exact same thing. What kind of law is that?
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:26:27 pm
We already have a 2 year exception to the rule, why not make it bigger for cases such as the example from the post? If you honestly believe that CA’s law is the best way to go, that’s one thing, but if you are willing to make an exception for someone w/in 2 years, I think this article shows that the exception should be a little broader.
Also, did you seriously just compare murder and robbery with having sex with someone 2 1/2 years younger than you? If you can’t see the difference between something that is NEVER legal and something that is pretty much arbitrarily decided by society (the age of majority), then this debate won’t get far.
I am from CA and never knew that was the law there. Personally, I think it is ridiculous to say that anyone under 18 can’t have sex. If for no other reason, this just promotes lying and secrecy in families (not to mention abortions).
May 4th, 2007 at 12:09:41 am
Some commenters seem to think the alternatives are keep things the way they are or let 18yo offenders off completely. Why not consider creating some kind of middle ground with lesser penalties? If it’s okay for an 18yo to sleep with a 16yo on their birthday does it make sense to go from no punishment at all to the maximum if they were to sleep together the day before?
From Joe Loy’s quote: “most prosecutors are empathetic, but their hands are tied by the law.” If the law cannot be changed from 2yr to 4yr maybe they can at least untie the prosecutors hands in a 3yr or 4yr age difference.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:04:16 am
Thank you ScottF for injecting a little sanity back in this debate
May 4th, 2007 at 2:46:51 am
Sex-offender lists are not as “damning” as you claim, Brendan. The nature of this man’s crime would be revealed on the list. If you don’t believe me, go to watchdog.us and you’ll see. It would be classified as a Level 1 Sex Offender for corruption of a minor. It’s not like the list claims that he’s a serial child rapist. The Sex Offender registry is very specific and should warn people about illegal sex criminal’s proclivities, which is precisely what is taking place in this case. He was willing to break the law and have sex for a minor. I would want to know that about someone if I had a young child in the same neighborhood. Again, I have absolutely NO problem with this.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:47:41 am
Damn … riddled with typos. I’m too tired for this … goodnight.
May 4th, 2007 at 3:05:08 am
I would want to know that about someone if I had a young child in the same neighborhood.
Why? What the hell does a high-school junior having sex with his freshman girlfriend have to do with a “young child”? NOTHING. Absolutely, postively NOTHING.
You say he “was willing to break the law and have sex [with] a minor,” but the two acts in question — having sex with your high-school girlfriend, and raping a young child — are so totally dissimilar that it’s utterly ridiculous to even pretend they have something to do with one another. One type of behavior is predatory; the other is quite normal (even if immoral, unwise, whatever). One is sex; the other is rape. Simple as that. It’s comparing apples to oranges, it really is.
If you’re going to rest your argument on a “willing[ness] to break the law,” fine, but then why not have a registry for anyone who’s ever committed any sort of crime? I daresay the safety of your hypothetical “young child” would be MUCH more threatened by, say, someone with a history of burglary, or drunk driving, or possession of an illegal firearm, that by someone who had sex with his girlfriend in high school. Give me a break.
[Caveat: I haven’t read all the comments on this thread, I’m just reacting to the most recent comment.]
May 4th, 2007 at 2:07:52 pm
Here’s a little Zen for you. Repressing healthy sexual urges - such as wanting to have sex with somebody in your age group for whom you have feelings - with authoritarian punishments increases the likelihood of perversion. This law protects precisely nobody.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:24:18 pm
Repressing healthy sexual urges - such as wanting to have sex with somebody in your age group for whom you have feelings - with authoritarian punishments increases the likelihood of perversion.
Got anything to back up this rather grandiose statement? I say that as someone who agrees with Brendan and not Patrick in this thread, but i’d like to see proof that merely repressing sexual urges is enough to lead to perversion. We repress urges all the time. I repress the urge to punch someone who annoys me at work, does that mean i’m more likely to torture small animals? Likewise i repressed my normal teenage sexual urges in high school (for a number of reasons, including the profound consequences involved), so now your saying i’m more likely to be a child rapist? Sorry but thats ridiculous.
May 4th, 2007 at 3:56:01 pm
The first thing that comes to mind is the work of psychologist Alice Miller.
I wouldn’t call what you did repression, though. Recognizing your anger and deciding not to act upon it with violence is not repression. Not in the psychological sense anyway. Refusing to face your anger because you feel guilty or feel like a horrible human being for feeling anger or because someone - whether a real person or a god - will punish you severely just for thinking angry thoughts would be repression. Then, when you bury even the conscious acceptance that you felt angry, THEN you’ve repressed it, and THEN you’re likely to torture little puppies not to mention people. Likewise, mere abstinence from sex is not repression, if you accept that your desires are perfectly healthy and reasonable. If you feel that the human body is dirty, that sex is icky, that you’re morally wrong to even think such things, that you deserve severe reprisal from both God and Man for your transgression, THAT could be repression, and THAT breeds neurosis. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
May 4th, 2007 at 4:45:24 pm
Part of the problem is that it’s quite likely we all know some remarkably mature 15 year olds and some remarkably way-less-than-mature 18 year olds … how can “The Law” handle that in a reasonable way without opening yet more obnoxious cans of worms ?
Some of the tension between the two sides (”they are just kids in love” vs “They are underage and cannot legally give consent”) lies in the risk of giving prosecutors discretion - one must ask the question - “What is a Nifong going to do with that discretion ?
FWIW - this is a little too close to “zero-tolerance” for my tastes …
May 4th, 2007 at 5:37:28 pm
Bring back rites of passage!
May 4th, 2007 at 5:37:39 pm
OK, that i can agree with Sean, that makes a lot more sense, and i probably overreacted, so i apologize for that. Fridays leave me pretty frazzled.
May 15th, 2007 at 5:20:30 am
One question that hasn’t been brought up is individual freedom That is at the heart of this debate. When should a person be free to choose to have sex and with whom may they have sex. When can a young person whether male or female with the opposite or same sex choose to have sex. Once a person has the right to choose to have sex no matter how much older the other partner should not be an issue. This is one area of law that young people in a sense enjoyed greater freedom. Although presumable if one were going to have sex one would consent to marry. (Or if the woman got knocked up the man who did would marry her, and that was the real intent of statutory rape laws.) Statutory rape has a long history of misuse by women, parents, prosecutors, and judges. Yes the law does require some bright line to go by, and if your having sex with someone below that line you should go to jail. Rather than reflect societal changes and the act women can choose to go on the pill our society chooses to restrict the freedom of young people. To be frank and honest a young woman who chooses a 35 year old who can provide for her and children over a person who own age or one who is 18 may be making a mature and proper choice. Certainly no one here is making the argument that an 18 year old cannot go out and have sex with a partner who is twice or triple her own age, she may. The partner may be considered a dirty old man or a dirty old woman, a cradle robber, and the 18 year old may be considered robbint the grave.
If a teen who has begun to develop into a woman interests a 13-18 year old male she certainly interests 35 to 70 year old men. These men or women are not pedophiles, but they are human beings responding to basic human needs. Human beings for most of our several million year existence didn’t survive much past 35, and we deveolped on the savannah and men tend to be able to produce children pretty much through their entire lives. It’s known from the trial of Socrates that at 70 years old he had a child with a woman who was his wife. It’s highly likely that when they created that child she was 16 or perhaps younger. So by our standard shouldn’t reject Socrates and the basis of western thought. What of Islamic culture where in many countries is has been traditional for a much older male (25-30) to marry his first wife who would be (13-15). My argument is that our society should maximize the individuals freeedom and we should consider emulating countries in Europe who allow young people to have consensual sex at 16 or even as young as 13 with who they choose. If a much older or younger male forces them to have sex it’s rape. Either they have the ability or right to choose to consent to sex or they do not. We as a society or as parents have the ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies, or to be a more loving society should our daughter’s choose to become pregnant at an early age. We fight over abortion but we also put a heavy stigma on a young girl who becomes pregnant unlike Icelandic countries where it’s treated as simply part of life. It is nearly unthinkable to kick a daughter out of the home because she is pregnant and the father is gone to the wind. While marraige is possible and even support from the father it’s not the primary perogative. What is important is the child can choose to have a child but still become a fully productive member of society. It’s her choice.