Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by DarkPony

Hmm, good or bad depends on your definition of "sex offender".

Looking how anal (no pun intended) sex offenses can be in the US I don't think this is such a great idea. Not sure about this but I once read an article about a 21ish year old guy having a normal relationship with a 17 year old girl and that making him a sex offender as well. I think that is slightly draconic, but whatever ...

They should only restrict this to the actual "predators", who have been convicted for stalking and trying to groom minors (or worse).

What the fuck does a 21 year old see in a 17 year old, exactly? Sex offenders are exactly what they all are and this is a good move by New York. It should have been done before.

Humerously enough, this is perfectly legal in NY as age of consent is 17.

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by DarkPony

Hmm, good or bad depends on your definition of "sex offender".

Looking how anal (no pun intended) sex offenses can be in the US I don't think this is such a great idea. Not sure about this but I once read an article about a 21ish year old guy having a normal relationship with a 17 year old girl and that making him a sex offender as well. I think that is slightly draconic, but whatever ...

They should only restrict this to the actual "predators", who have been convicted for stalking and trying to groom minors (or worse).

What the fuck does a 21 year old see in a 17 year old, exactly? Sex offenders are exactly what they all are and this is a good move by New York. It should have been done before.

Maturity is relative. It's possible for two people of that kinda age range to be compatible. I met my current girlfriend when she was 18 and I was 24. If I started dating her a few months earlier, I'd be legally lumped in with people who molest and rape babies and toddlers.

Or for a less clear boundary...consider a dating couple, both 17. He turns 18 a few days before her, and they are seen out in public just being a couple. Maybe kissing, or just hugging. Somneone calls the cops, they find out he's an 18 yr old dating a minor, and next thing you know he's labeled for life as a sexual predator.

Sounds ridiculous, but by the law it's entirely possible.

Or here's another one. You go out drinking one night. It's late, you're walking home, you gotta pee. You're drunk and a moron, so you duck behind some bushes. A cop notices you and arrests you. You had your junk out in public son, so you're obviously a sexual predator. You're not allowed near a school pretty much for life, because you peed on a tree at 2am and the only person that saw you was a bored 30-something or older cop.

The law as it stands does little to protect children from predators and too much to vilify people who commit lesser acts.

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by DarkPony

Hmm, good or bad depends on your definition of "sex offender".

Looking how anal (no pun intended) sex offenses can be in the US I don't think this is such a great idea. Not sure about this but I once read an article about a 21ish year old guy having a normal relationship with a 17 year old girl and that making him a sex offender as well. I think that is slightly draconic, but whatever ...

They should only restrict this to the actual "predators", who have been convicted for stalking and trying to groom minors (or worse).

What the fuck does a 21 year old see in a 17 year old, exactly? Sex offenders are exactly what they all are and this is a good move by New York. It should have been done before.

how old are you?  4 years age difference is seriously very small, even at that age range, especially when comparing male vs female maturity levels.  Really, men and women of the same age are mismatched mentally until at least age 30.  Guys generally mature slower, refuse to take responsibility, and just generally act childish for much longer.  I'm a guy, I can say this. 

The age difference and 90% of what's considered statutory or predatory is cultural.  Even in america, 50 years ago things were much different.  It was not unheard of for a 17 year old to marry a man in his mid to late 20s.  My grandfather, one of the few members of my family who wasn't a dipshit, had 12 years on my grandmother, who was 17 when they met, no kidding.  They remained married their entire lives, over 60 years.  Not saying everything was rosie, but when is it.

Originally posted by adam_nox

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by DarkPony

Hmm, good or bad depends on your definition of "sex offender".

Looking how anal (no pun intended) sex offenses can be in the US I don't think this is such a great idea. Not sure about this but I once read an article about a 21ish year old guy having a normal relationship with a 17 year old girl and that making him a sex offender as well. I think that is slightly draconic, but whatever ...

They should only restrict this to the actual "predators", who have been convicted for stalking and trying to groom minors (or worse).

What the fuck does a 21 year old see in a 17 year old, exactly? Sex offenders are exactly what they all are and this is a good move by New York. It should have been done before.

how old are you?  4 years age difference is seriously very small, even at that age range, especially when comparing male vs female maturity levels.  Really, men and women of the same age are mismatched mentally until at least age 30.  Guys generally mature slower, refuse to take responsibility, and just generally act childish for much longer.  I'm a guy, I can say this. 

 

The age difference and 90% of what's considered statutory or predatory is cultural.  Even in america, 50 years ago things were much different.  It was not unheard of for a 17 year old to marry a man in his mid to late 20s.  My grandfather, one of the few members of my family who wasn't a dipshit, had 12 years on my grandmother, who was 17 when they met, no kidding.  They remained married their entire lives, over 60 years.  Not saying everything was rosie, but when is it.

Edited because I can't make what I am thinking make sense in a forum post.  In essence I agree with this 100%.

Originally posted by niceguy3978

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by DarkPony

Hmm, good or bad depends on your definition of "sex offender".

Looking how anal (no pun intended) sex offenses can be in the US I don't think this is such a great idea. Not sure about this but I once read an article about a 21ish year old guy having a normal relationship with a 17 year old girl and that making him a sex offender as well. I think that is slightly draconic, but whatever ...

They should only restrict this to the actual "predators", who have been convicted for stalking and trying to groom minors (or worse).

What the fuck does a 21 year old see in a 17 year old, exactly? Sex offenders are exactly what they all are and this is a good move by New York. It should have been done before.

Humerously enough, this is perfectly legal in NY as age of consent is 17.

+1.

Regardless, I believe that it would pretty damn easy to get around anything like this.  Like I said in a previous post, this is nothing but political pandering on the part of NY politicians hoping to get re-elected.  People get scared by the media and allow this money and time to be wasted.  New York has been doing stuff like for a few years now.  They deleted a few thousand offenders Facebook and Myspace accounts 2009.  They have required email addresses for any offenders.

What's silly is that absolutely nothing is stopping the offender and going out and making a new account with a fake name. 

I love this quote from the ag of NY: 

"Together we are making the online community safer for our children, not allowing it to become a 21st century crime scene"

It's the state's job to make the internet safer?  Do these children have no parents?  Who is buying them xboxs and computers and online games? 

Originally posted by Worstluck

Originally posted by niceguy3978

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by DarkPony

Hmm, good or bad depends on your definition of "sex offender".

Looking how anal (no pun intended) sex offenses can be in the US I don't think this is such a great idea. Not sure about this but I once read an article about a 21ish year old guy having a normal relationship with a 17 year old girl and that making him a sex offender as well. I think that is slightly draconic, but whatever ...

They should only restrict this to the actual "predators", who have been convicted for stalking and trying to groom minors (or worse).

What the fuck does a 21 year old see in a 17 year old, exactly? Sex offenders are exactly what they all are and this is a good move by New York. It should have been done before.

Humerously enough, this is perfectly legal in NY as age of consent is 17.

 

+1.

 

Regardless, I believe that it would pretty damn easy to get around anything like this.  Like I said in a previous post, this is nothing but political pandering on the part of NY politicians hoping to get re-elected.  People get scared by the media and allow this money and time to be wasted.  New York has been doing stuff like for a few years now.  They deleted a few thousand offenders Facebook and Myspace accounts 2009.  They have required email addresses for any offenders.

 

What's silly is that absolutely nothing is stopping the offender and going out and making a new account with a fake name. 

 

I love this quote from the ag of NY: 

 

"Together we are making the online community safer for our children, not allowing it to become a 21st century crime scene"

 

It's the state's job to make the internet safer?  Do these children have no parents?  Who is buying them xboxs and computers and online games? 

Welcome to America. We stopped expecting parents to take care of their children about 30 years ago.

And while it's obvious pandering, any time you let a law like this through you create a precedent, and someone can use that to build a worse one, and a worse one.

Originally posted by terrant

Maturity is relative. It's possible for two people of that kinda age range to be compatible. I met my current girlfriend when she was 18 and I was 24. If I started dating her a few months earlier, I'd be legally lumped in with people who molest and rape babies and toddlers.

 

Or for a less clear boundary...consider a dating couple, both 17. He turns 18 a few days before her, and they are seen out in public just being a couple. Maybe kissing, or just hugging. Somneone calls the cops, they find out he's an 18 yr old dating a minor, and next thing you know he's labeled for life as a sexual predator.

 

Sounds ridiculous, but by the law it's entirely possible.

 

Or here's another one. You go out drinking one night. It's late, you're walking home, you gotta pee. You're drunk and a moron, so you duck behind some bushes. A cop notices you and arrests you. You had your junk out in public son, so you're obviously a sexual predator. You're not allowed near a school pretty much for life, because you peed on a tree at 2am and the only person that saw you was a bored 30-something or older cop.

 

The law as it stands does little to protect children from predators and too much to vilify people who commit lesser acts.

I've gone over this before. There isn't a good or acceptable reason for why a twenty-something, or older, is having sex with a teenager. You can't cite a small pool of interaction if you live in the United States of fucking America. You can't cite maturity here either as it is much more pronounced in that age group within a space of one year than in other age brackets.

That other little scenario you described, about pissing in bushes, isn't exactly helping you. At all.

Originally posted by Gazenthia

I've gone over this before. There isn't a good or acceptable reason for why a twenty-something, or older, is having sex with a teenager.

Unless of course they get married first?

Nice long list of country singers with child brides...or people of my grandfather's generation, who married very young routinely?

Originally posted by adam_nox

how old are you?  4 years age difference is seriously very small, even at that age range, especially when comparing male vs female maturity levels.  Really, men and women of the same age are mismatched mentally until at least age 30.  Guys generally mature slower, refuse to take responsibility, and just generally act childish for much longer.  I'm a guy, I can say this. 

 

The age difference and 90% of what's considered statutory or predatory is cultural.  Even in america, 50 years ago things were much different.  It was not unheard of for a 17 year old to marry a man in his mid to late 20s.  My grandfather, one of the few members of my family who wasn't a dipshit, had 12 years on my grandmother, who was 17 when they met, no kidding.  They remained married their entire lives, over 60 years.  Not saying everything was rosie, but when is it.

First of all, a four year gap at that bracket is significant. It is further exacerbated by other details, like why would you pursue a relationship with a teenager versus another, let's say, twenty something? Are there really no other women in your age bracket in your life that pursuing a teenager is easier? Who are you working with, going to school with, doing things with? What is it really that you see in a teenager that isn't in an actual adult?

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Gazenthia

I've gone over this before. There isn't a good or acceptable reason for why a twenty-something, or older, is having sex with a teenager.

Unless of course they get married first?

Nice long list of country singers with child brides...or people of my grandfather's generation, who married very young routinely?

 

As for your grandfather and mine, yes that was more acceptable at the time due to circumstances that no longer exist today. For the wealthy, do we really need to elaborate on that?

Originally posted by Gazenthia

I've gone over this before. There isn't a good or acceptable reason for why a twenty-something, or older, is having sex with a teenager. You can't cite a small pool of interaction if you live in the United States of fucking America. You can't cite maturity here either as it is much more pronounced in that age group within a space of one year than in other age brackets.

That other little scenario you described, about pissing in bushes, isn't exactly helping you. At all.

OK, let's go over a couple things. First off, love is love. If you love someone, and you're both intelligent enough to understand what you are doing and the consequences, and both willing and able to accept whatever those may be, why the hell not have sex? The laws regarding statutory rape and such were done to prevent adults from taking advantage of a minor's naivete and having them commit acts they did not fully understand the ramifications of.

Anyway, let's throw that aisde. You're assuming sex is involved. A person can be arrested for statutory in the US if they commit any action which is viewed by the public as indecent due to the age difference. A kiss, possibly even holding hands, can be bad enough. Especially if the minor's parents protest.

And the peeing scenario...are you seriously gonna tell me that, at some point in your life, you've NEVER done something that stupid? The point is it's the kind of idiocy that happens sometimes..but because of the current law, a guy caught using some bushes for a toilet is considered by society just as morally reprehensible as someone who sodomizes a newborn. 

Scuse the graphic-ness of that statement, but it has to be said just that harshly so you understand. Megan's law and other policies like it see absolutely no difference between a child rapist, someone dating a girl a week younger than him, and a guy who got drunk and chose the wrong place to relieve himself.

What's more, once you're on these lists you're required to tell your employers, register with the police when you move, etc...meaning it can make it difficult for you to get a job or be a normal part of society. 

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by adam_nox

how old are you?  4 years age difference is seriously very small, even at that age range, especially when comparing male vs female maturity levels.  Really, men and women of the same age are mismatched mentally until at least age 30.  Guys generally mature slower, refuse to take responsibility, and just generally act childish for much longer.  I'm a guy, I can say this. 

 

The age difference and 90% of what's considered statutory or predatory is cultural.  Even in america, 50 years ago things were much different.  It was not unheard of for a 17 year old to marry a man in his mid to late 20s.  My grandfather, one of the few members of my family who wasn't a dipshit, had 12 years on my grandmother, who was 17 when they met, no kidding.  They remained married their entire lives, over 60 years.  Not saying everything was rosie, but when is it.

First of all, a four year gap at that bracket is significant. It is further exacerbated by other details, like why would you pursue a relationship with a teenager versus another, let's say, twenty something? Are there really no other women in your age bracket in your life that pursuing a teenager is easier? Who are you working with, going to school with, doing things with? What is it really that you see in a teenager that isn't in an actual adult?

By teenager you mean 18-19 as well?  As far as I know the legal age of consent in all states is at least 18, some appear to be 17.

If a 20 something year old want's to date an 18 year old, that is legal as far as I am concerned.  It's none of my fucking business what that person does, who they associate with or anything.  Hell in NY, the state we are talking about it here the legal age of consent is 17, so pretty much your whole post is moot.

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Gazenthia

I've gone over this before. There isn't a good or acceptable reason for why a twenty-something, or older, is having sex with a teenager.

Unless of course they get married first?

Nice long list of country singers with child brides...or people of my grandfather's generation, who married very young routinely?

 

As for your grandfather and mine, yes that was more acceptable at the time due to circumstances that no longer exist today. For the wealthy, do we really need to elaborate on that?

Really? What changed?

Oh right, the mores that you're claiming are universal constants.

Originally posted by Vesavius

Originally posted by brody71

Originally posted by DarkPony

Hmm, good or bad depends on your definition of "sex offender".

Looking how anal (no pun intended) sex offenses can be in the US I don't think this is such a great idea. Not sure about this but I once read an article about a 21ish year old guy having a normal relationship with a 17 year old girl and that making him a sex offender as well. I think that is slightly draconic, but whatever ...

They should only restrict this to the actual "predators", who have been convicted for stalking and trying to groom minors (or worse).

um, yeah a 21 year old with a 17yr old is considered rape.   and the 21yr old would be considered, and is a predator.   the 17yr is a minor.

 

this is true in the US? Or does it depend on state?

wow, didnt know that. In the UK this would be perfectally legal.

The problem is, it's worse than this. From personal experience I was 16 and my boyfriend was 17 then turned 18. We'd been together for well over a year but when we got caught having sex he was charged with rape regardless of it being consentual. He would have been on a sex ofender list for life had my parents not dropped the charges.

They really need to be careful who they apply these laws to.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Gazenthia

I've gone over this before. There isn't a good or acceptable reason for why a twenty-something, or older, is having sex with a teenager.

Unless of course they get married first?

Nice long list of country singers with child brides...or people of my grandfather's generation, who married very young routinely?

 

As for your grandfather and mine, yes that was more acceptable at the time due to circumstances that no longer exist today. For the wealthy, do we really need to elaborate on that?

Really? What changed?

Oh right, the mores that you're claiming are universal constants.

The mores I'm claiming are universal constants, interesting but false.

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Gazenthia

I've gone over this before. There isn't a good or acceptable reason for why a twenty-something, or older, is having sex with a teenager.

Unless of course they get married first?

Nice long list of country singers with child brides...or people of my grandfather's generation, who married very young routinely?

 

As for your grandfather and mine, yes that was more acceptable at the time due to circumstances that no longer exist today. For the wealthy, do we really need to elaborate on that?

Really? What changed?

Oh right, the mores that you're claiming are universal constants.

The mores I'm claiming are universal constants, interesting but false.

See first quote.  You're speaking in absolutes, and presenting an absolute that's demonstrably false to be a Truth.

The only way a judgement about morality can be an Truth is if it is a universal constant, yes?

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Gazenthia

I've gone over this before. There isn't a good or acceptable reason for why a twenty-something, or older, is having sex with a teenager.

Unless of course they get married first?

Nice long list of country singers with child brides...or people of my grandfather's generation, who married very young routinely?

 

As for your grandfather and mine, yes that was more acceptable at the time due to circumstances that no longer exist today. For the wealthy, do we really need to elaborate on that?

Really? What changed?

Oh right, the mores that you're claiming are universal constants.

The mores I'm claiming are universal constants, interesting but false.

These aren't even universal in the U.S.  As you can see by the actual fact that in some states the age of consent is 18 and others it is 17 and yet others are 16.

Originally posted by niceguy3978

These aren't even universal in the U.S.  As you can see by the actual fact that in some states the age of consent is 18 and others it is 17 and yet others are 16.

And in all states, the state of marriage (implicit consent) overrides statutory rape legislation.  You can't be prosecuted for having sex with a under-consent female to whom you are married, in other words.

Gaz may not feel that there's any good reason for that couple to be married; fortunately that decision's not in the public's hands.

* Rolls her eyes *

Just one more in a long list of unconstitutional BS laws that will be abused and misused by a corrupt government.

* Waves bye bye to all those guys that get drunk and pee on the side of a building *

* Waves hello to all the women that hate thier men gaming and make false accusations to get them banned from it *

It's a good step, but if only they could go further. Maybe we could have a big, secure building made where all the dangerous pedophiles, sexual predators, and rapists go when they're caught, so they can't harm innocent people. We could call it a...hmmm.... piston? No... prism? Meh, not qute there... PRISON!! We could call it a prison!

So anyone convicted of one of those horrible crimes could spend the rest of their lives in one of these 'prisons'. Of course, it would be costly for taxpayers to keep feeding & housing them, so maybe they could be forced to do something productive, like fix the roads? There we go, road construction is expensive! We'll just send them out from time to time under heavy guard to perform manual labor. We could even chain a bunch of them together in gangs, a 'chain gang', if you will, to deter escape attempts.

I know, keeping dangerous people in a 'prison' is kind of a radical concept, but I think it's the right way to go in the end. That way we don't have draconian policies & laws which punish some poor bloke for taking a whizz in an alley at 2AM, and society as a whole can breathe a bit easier knowing that it's just a little bit safer from criminals. And hey, who doesn't like less taxes due to inexpensive labor?