Jared from Subway's house is currently being raided by the FBI...

[The Oi]

I mean, did no one here who was a senior in high school plow through some freshmen and sophomores? I did it all the time in high school.

You didn't. But I agree with your point.

 

[brownindian]

After seeing this news, Everytime i see an underage girl The words "Subway, Eat Fresh" keeps springing in my mind !!!!!

Pa Ra Pa Pa Pa - He's Lovin' It !

 

[gourimoko]

Don't a lot of states have the romeo and juliet laws that allow those kinds of relationships to exist legally as long as the parties are within 2-3 years of each other?

But what kind of sense do these laws make?

If Romeo and Juliet aren't being raped when they decide to have sex with each other, then they surely have the capacity to consent.

And again, these laws are demonstrative of people using the rape statutes as a means of enforcing some moralistic policy against young girls having sex.

The issue really is about just consent. We keep piling on personal views about sex with young girls, but are avoiding the real issue. If Jack can consent to have sex with his friend Jill, and he's 16 and she's 17; then he can consent to have sex with Janet who is 40. It makes no logical difference with respect to his ability to consent.

You're right though that I think it ends up sweeping up more guys who unknowingly have sex with younger girl at a club.

Definitely.

Is there any repercussions for the girl being under aged at the club in those situations?

Besides the fake id? None.

The case I cited up thread was brutal. The girl, and her mother, both came to court and pleaded for the guy. It was a one-time thing, and she admitted to the judge and jury and prosecutor that she instigated the entire thing. They were not romantically involved, so she wasn't doing it out of love but out of pity because "she ruined his life."

Regardless though, he got hosed.

This literally just happened recently.

I'm sure it's nowhere near as bad as being listed as a sex offender, but do they get anything?

Nothing.

 

[gourimoko]

While there are a few areas in the law where it shouldnt be "rape", the fact that less than .1% of the statutory rapes fall into this category. Ie, high school senior dating a high school sophomore, ore meeting a girl in a club.

99.9% of these rapes are legitamtely situations where the adult belongs in jail.

This is because statutory rape removes the burden of proof from the prosecutor to prove that a girl was raped; so consent is no longer an issue. Prosecutors use statutory rape as a fallback in cases where the victim was under age.

I don't have much of a problem with this in states where the age of consent is 16. My problem is with 16-18, or in cases where the victim can and is willing to prove in court that he or she has the capacity to consent. So essentially, I'm opposed to statutory rape laws in principle.

To convict someone of rape, you should need to prove that a rape occurred. If the victim is say 15, and the assailant is 19, and the victim openly states that he/she was not ever raped - why are we jailing the 19 year old?

Now does that mean there can be no age limit? No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that any age under 16, and I'm fine with the state having laws that involve the courts and potential prosecution. But it should not simply be up to judges to through the book at kids for having sex. They need to demonstrate that a very real crime, a felony, was committed by the assailant.

 

[CavsHomer]

Technically, 19, is still a teenager. I've never known anyone at 19, to be fully developed as a human being either. So, I agree in the sense, where do we draw the line?

19 is legally an adult age, but I seriously wouldn't consider most at 19, serious adults.

I agree, that people at 16 aren't fully developed, but I don't really think you're fully developed as a person, for most people, until about 26.

People at age 20, and 19, and fully developed and functioned adults? Pleaseeee.

The age varies with each person, but there's not a literal set age from which a person is fully developed as a grown adult, that's capable of making sound decisions on their own.

I just find it hilarious just because we put a "legal age number" on people, that should qualify as meaning everyone is truly a functional adult the minute they turn 18.

Look, anyone willingly in their 30s, engaging in sex with girls that are 17/16, are clearly fucked up individuals, there's no debating that.

But say someone that's 22, has sex with a 17 year old? Come on... And to expect them to act like fully functional adults, capable of making completely rational decisions is hysterical.

So you agree that in the end, it's more or less subjective at what age someone is fully developed as a human being but one's still developing and NOT able to fully take responsibility of all their actions, especially regarding sex, at age 16?

And to the bolded: I don't expect them to act like fully functional adults, but at this age, I expect them to KNOW the risks about this highly dangerous and tricky topic.

 

[gourimoko]

Ok let me say this: By age 16, you're still in a development phase as a child. Often, you aren't always aware of all of your feelings, thoughts, emotions etc. A 16 year old girl is technically still a child.

Who is "you"?

At age 16, I lived on my own, in my own home, with my own car, with a full-time job.

Do you realize how many minors served in wars throughout this nations history? You can still join the service at 17, I almost did.

So, my problem is that you (you personally) are stating outright what others can and cannot do, without any historical or biological basis for your argument.

Historically, marriages have been of people who were much younger than the present age. In America, the median age for a woman marrying a man, not simply having sex - but getting married - was in her teens. The man's age was generally that of land-ownership so at least 21, but the median age was 25.

To quote Slate magazine which had a piece on both the historical and biological aspects of the age of consent:

"The original age of consent, codified in English common law and later adopted by the American colonies, ranged from 10 to 12. In 1885, Britain and the states began raising the age to 16, ostensibly to protect girls' natural innocence. This moral idea was later bolstered by scientific reference to the onset of puberty."

Biologically, your point is way off. The average age of first menstruation has fallen from 15.3 years old in the 1840s to 12.8 by 1980. Women are pubescent at a much earlier age in the United States, largely due to dietary and cultural factors. But with pubescence comes sexual desire.

Again, to quote Slate:

"Getting your period doesn't mean having sex right away. But earlier puberty does, on average, mean earlier sex. According to the most recent data from the U.S. government's Youth Risk Behavior Survey, one of every three American ninth graders has had intercourse. And that's not counting the millions of teens who have had oral sex instead.

Having sex at 12 is a bad idea. But if you're pubescent, it might be, in part, your bad idea. Conversely, having sex with a 12-year-old, when you're 20, is scummy. But it doesn't necessarily make you the kind of predator who has to be locked up. A guy who goes after 5-year-old girls is deeply pathological. A guy who goes after a womanly body that happens to be 13 years old is failing to regulate a natural attraction. That doesn't excuse him. But it does justify treating him differently."

Emotionally, there is very little deviation between a 16 year old and a 21 year old with respect to emotional development. In fact, according to the article above, this range and these factors make 16 a reasonably scientific cutoff. A cutoff not establishing statutory rape laws, but, wherein the state could criminalize predatory behavior of adults going after young individuals who are unable to see the situation for what it is; but this is not rape.

So you can't tell me that these young teenagers can always make informed decisions about sex, both physically and emotionally.

The word "always" is not in my post. You inserted that word to bolster your argument.

My point is that there is no functional difference between the average 17 year old and the average 18 year old. There simply is no real separation there. So to make this distinction, and put people in jail who fall on the wrong side of your own personal moral judgement, I think, is a flawed, irrational, and untenable position.

And of course I wouldn't feel raped, especially if I agreed to have sex with an adult person. But that's not the point

No. That's entirely the point.

You wouldn't feel raped, because you were not raped.

A 16-year old boy having sex with 40-year old woman who happens to teach at his school is not rape. He's not being raped. So let's drop that pretense.

Yet, this woman would be convicted of serving prison time for doing so.

Who is the victim here? The boy who got high fives and was bragging about it?

Sure it shouldn't be permissible behavior; but let's not call it rape. I don't even think it's criminal. Fire her, ban her from teaching ever again. But putting her in prison for decades? C'mon.

The point is, as an adult person, you HAVE to know the risks. And if the law says that you're considered a rapist after a sexual interaction with a 16 year old, then of course you have to live with the consequences.

This is circular reasoning.

You are justifying the existence and just nature of statutory rape laws; by citing them as the law.

That's not a valid argument.

See, that's your most controversial point right here. I understand that (almost) no guy will do this in a club, I really do. But let me ask you this: If, in a hypothetical case, you sleep with someone who looks like she's 18+ years old but later on, she tells you she's only 14 years old, would you still use the "You expect guys to go out and card girls -- in a club?" - excuse for your argumentation?

I would be shocked, and worried... for my own safety. Not hers.

I would do anything to keep it a secret, because no matter what, I'm fucked in this situation. But again, that's because there is no room in the law for such a hypothetical situation resulting in a just outcome.

And again, you're using the law itself to justify itself. It's circular.

The question is, who is the victim here? Me or her?

If you use this as justification for having sex with a 16 year old, then you could also use it for 14 year olds (or even younger)...

You could...

If you can prove to a jury that this girl appears or said she was of age then you shouldn't go to prison. In fact, in the case I cited above, the girl herself did just this. She went to court, and told the judge and jury that she duped the guy into thinking she was of the age of consent and wasn't. It didn't matter.

So this guy, not realizing she was underage, is in prison, because he gambled and lost. Oh well, fuck him, protect our daughters, right?

I mean, I know this is a difficult topic, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere!?

Sure.. But that line need not be so black and white.

You're saying that a 17-year old cannot have consensual sex; that's your argument.

I think that's nuts. And I can't find any rational basis for it.

No, I never said that. I don't know the exact US law on this, I'm just saying that if the law says you're a rapist, you have to live with the consequences. Not really hard to understand.

It's very hard to understand.

If you didn't commit a rape, yet the law says you did and you need to live with the consequences; then that's just and okay with you?

Laws are not self-referential. They do not justify themselves. Laws must be just, and you are blatantly ignoring the ethical, moral, and legal components here.

I get that you might err on the side of caution, and while that's good advice, that's not really the point of the discussion.

And it's not about if the law is right or wrong. Again, you have to be aware that you could be in serious trouble if you sleep with said girl. And this should influence your reasoning and ultimately, your later actions.

See?

This entire conversation is about whether or not the law is or isn't wrong.

We know what the law is.. There is no disputing the fact that having sex with a person under the age of consent is at a minimum statutory rape. No one is arguing this isn't the case.

The argument here is that it should not be the case because it is not just and does not address the problem of child predators.

Gour, why do you make it personal? Cause I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion.

Because your position seems so concrete and absolute that it seems it lacks experience.

I'm not trying to offend you at all, btw. And if you want, we can discuss this completely rationally and devoid of emotion. I have no problem arguing my position completely from a logical standpoint if that's your preference.

But whatever, I'm 23.

I kinda figured.

I just think you, as a young man, have probably not had the same experiences as many others. And often in our youth, we think our experiences are representative on the whole of everyone else's, when this is rarely, if ever, the case.

That might sound condescending, but, trust me, I'm speaking from first hand knowledge.

But like @godfather , I remember being 20 years old, even 21, 22, and having teenage girls slinging me their pussy. I also remember being 16, 17 years old and fucking college girls in their 20s.

To me, for someone to say that 17-year olds can't consent to sex, when in fact, that's all I did every day when I was 17, speaks more about that person's life experiences than it does about 17-year olds in general.

And does this mean I made all the right decisions...? No.. All of my sex, and lack of wisdom, meant that by the age of 18, I had my first kid. It wasn't that I couldn't conceptualize what I was doing - it was that I could make wise decisions that come from make enough poor ones. You don't glean wisdom on your 18th birthday.

Life happens.... And frankly we should stop trying to keep people from living it... Now, in my 30s, kids, married, house, career, etc; I can finally look back and not feel regret. I actually miss those years.

With all the fun I had in my youth, I just find it sad that there's seriously people who would imprison teenagers and young folks for simply having sex. They would go to the point to pretend that teenagers cannot consent, just so they can stop teenage girls from having sex... Guess what.. teenagers are still going to have sex..

 

[Maximus]

Jared's wife just filed for divorce and full custody of his two kids. He should just off himself.

 

[Otsego Mar]

Ouch.

Pretty informative post above from gouri, though.

 

[Lee]

Jared's wife just filed for divorce and full custody of his two kids. He should just off himself.

He rather pay a 14 year old to off him.

 

[godfather]

So you agree that in the end, it's more or less subjective at what age someone is fully developed as a human being but one's still developing and NOT able to fully take responsibility of all their actions, especially regarding sex, at age 16?

And to the bolded: I don't expect them to act like fully functional adults, but at this age, I expect them to KNOW the risks about this highly dangerous and tricky topic.

I think at 16, you're capable of making your own decisions in a lot of ways, just not literally on everything naturally. But, a 16 year old, obviously is different than say a 12 year old, who clearly doesn't know better at all on that topic in any way, has yet to hit puberty, and are clearly "victims" that really fucks them up emotionally and psychologically when experienced at such a young age.

I think 16 year olds are definitely capable of making decisions regarding sex. Good decisions? Of course not, not necessarily at all, but they're well aware of the topic at hand to have general understanding in regards to sex. How they personally feel about it, and what its about.

There's a "reason" they teach sex ed during middle school. It's supposed to educate, and prepare you for the next phase of your life.

Your hormones are developing, along with your body. A 16 year sexually, I don't think is very different, if at all, than most in their 20s.

Your body is developed, your hormones are developed. You've past puberty. You are physically prepared for sex. Emotionally? Well, that differs for many people. Hell, there are people in their 20s that aren't emotionally ready for sex. It's a choice each one has to make on their own, but yes, at 16, I think one is capable to make that choice in that regard.

I think where it comes stupid is if you don't think regards to sex, someone can end up pregnant, and that can definitely derail your life. But guess what? That can happen at any age.

 

[godfather]

Jared's wife just filed for divorce and full custody of his two kids. He should just off himself.

Some how he probably doesn't care, given he'll be married to the foot long sub behind bars.

 

[Hurl Bruce]

His real punishment is that he's missing all of the first day of school pictures on Facebook.

 

[BimboColesHair]

There was a 14 year old?

Dude made millions upon millions dropping the line "eat fresh" for Subway...he took that shit to heart.

 

[CavsHomer]

Who is "you"?

At age 16, I lived on my own, in my own home, with my own car, with a full-time job.

Do you realize how many minors served in wars throughout this nations history? You can still join the service at 17, I almost did.

So, my problem is that you (you personally) are stating outright what others can and cannot do, without any historical or biological basis for your argument.

Historically, marriages have been of people who were much younger than the present age. In America, the median age for a woman marrying a man, not simply having sex - but getting married - was in her teens. The man's age was generally that of land-ownership so at least 21, but the median age was 25.

To quote Slate magazine which had a piece on both the historical and biological aspects of the age of consent:

"The original age of consent, codified in English common law and later adopted by the American colonies, ranged from 10 to 12. In 1885, Britain and the states began raising the age to 16, ostensibly to protect girls' natural innocence. This moral idea was later bolstered by scientific reference to the onset of puberty."

Biologically, your point is way off. The average age of first menstruation has fallen from 15.3 years old in the 1840s to 12.8 by 1980. Women are pubescent at a much earlier age in the United States, largely due to dietary and cultural factors. But with pubescence comes sexual desire.

Again, to quote Slate:

"Getting your period doesn't mean having sex right away. But earlier puberty does, on average, mean earlier sex. According to the most recent data from the U.S. government's Youth Risk Behavior Survey, one of every three American ninth graders has had intercourse. And that's not counting the millions of teens who have had oral sex instead.

Having sex at 12 is a bad idea. But if you're pubescent, it might be, in part, your bad idea. Conversely, having sex with a 12-year-old, when you're 20, is scummy. But it doesn't necessarily make you the kind of predator who has to be locked up. A guy who goes after 5-year-old girls is deeply pathological. A guy who goes after a womanly body that happens to be 13 years old is failing to regulate a natural attraction. That doesn't excuse him. But it does justify treating him differently."

Emotionally, there is very little deviation between a 16 year old and a 21 year old with respect to emotional development. In fact, according to the article above, this range and these factors make 16 a reasonably scientific cutoff. A cutoff not establishing statutory rape laws, but, wherein the state could criminalize predatory behavior of adults going after young individuals who are unable to see the situation for what it is; but this is not rape.



The word "always" is not in my post. You inserted that word to bolster your argument.

My point is that there is no functional difference between the average 17 year old and the average 18 year old. There simply is no real separation there. So to make this distinction, and put people in jail who fall on the wrong side of your own personal moral judgement, I think, is a flawed, irrational, and untenable position.



No. That's entirely the point.

You wouldn't feel raped, because you were not raped.

A 16-year old boy having sex with 40-year old woman who happens to teach at his school is not rape. He's not being raped. So let's drop that pretense.

Yet, this woman would be convicted of serving prison time for doing so.

Who is the victim here? The boy who got high fives and was bragging about it?

Sure it shouldn't be permissible behavior; but let's not call it rape. I don't even think it's criminal. Fire her, ban her from teaching ever again. But putting her in prison for decades? C'mon.



This is circular reasoning.

You are justifying the existence and just nature of statutory rape laws; by citing them as the law.

That's not a valid argument.



I would be shocked, and worried... for my own safety. Not hers.

I would do anything to keep it a secret, because no matter what, I'm fucked in this situation. But again, that's because there is no room in the law for such a hypothetical situation resulting in a just outcome.

And again, you're using the law itself to justify itself. It's circular.

The question is, who is the victim here? Me or her?



You could...

If you can prove to a jury that this girl appears or said she was of age then you shouldn't go to prison. In fact, in the case I cited above, the girl herself did just this. She went to court, and told the judge and jury that she duped the guy into thinking she was of the age of consent and wasn't. It didn't matter.

So this guy, not realizing she was underage, is in prison, because he gambled and lost. Oh well, fuck him, protect our daughters, right?



Sure.. But that line need not be so black and white.

You're saying that a 17-year old cannot have consensual sex; that's your argument.

I think that's nuts. And I can't find any rational basis for it.



It's very hard to understand.

If you didn't commit a rape, yet the law says you did and you need to live with the consequences; then that's just and okay with you?

Laws are not self-referential. They do not justify themselves. Laws must be just, and you are blatantly ignoring the ethical, moral, and legal components here.

I get that you might err on the side of caution, and while that's good advice, that's not really the point of the discussion.



See?

This entire conversation is about whether or not the law is or isn't wrong.

We know what the law is.. There is no disputing the fact that having sex with a person under the age of consent is at a minimum statutory rape. No one is arguing this isn't the case.

The argument here is that it should not be the case because it is not just and does not address the problem of child predators.



Because your position seems so concrete and absolute that it seems it lacks experience.

I'm not trying to offend you at all, btw. And if you want, we can discuss this completely rationally and devoid of emotion. I have no problem arguing my position completely from a logical standpoint if that's your preference.



I kinda figured.

I just think you, as a young man, have probably not had the same experiences as many others. And often in our youth, we think our experiences are representative on the whole of everyone else's, when this is rarely, if ever, the case.

That might sound condescending, but, trust me, I'm speaking from first hand knowledge.

But like @godfather , I remember being 20 years old, even 21, 22, and having teenage girls slinging me their pussy. I also remember being 16, 17 years old and fucking college girls in their 20s.

To me, for someone to say that 17-year olds can't consent to sex, when in fact, that's all I did every day when I was 17, speaks more about that person's life experiences than it does about 17-year olds in general.

And does this mean I made all the right decisions...? No.. All of my sex, and lack of wisdom, meant that by the age of 18, I had my first kid. It wasn't that I couldn't conceptualize what I was doing - it was that I could make wise decisions that come from make enough poor ones. You don't glean wisdom on your 18th birthday.

Life happens.... And frankly we should stop trying to keep people from living it... Now, in my 30s, kids, married, house, career, etc; I can finally look back and not feel regret. I actually miss those years.

With all the fun I had in my youth, I just find it sad that there's seriously people who would imprison teenagers and young folks for simply having sex. They would go to the point to pretend that teenagers cannot consent, just so they can stop teenage girls from having sex... Guess what.. teenagers are still going to have sex..

Well, first off: My apologies, I didn't mean to come off as arrogant or overly-sensitive.
Guess I just misunderstood your last part of your previous post. I see why you wanted to know my age and you're right: After reading all of your posts, I definitely lack the experience of many others in this forum, regarding this topic.

But the few girls I slept with, I was always cautious about their age and the law (though the law is a bit different here in Germany compared to the US). And don't get me wrong, I don't want to make those of you, who may not have made this cautious approach look bad or "guilty" - my point is simply that teenagers these days, in my eyes, have to be more aware about this sensitive and difficult topic.

And I have to admit that I actually agree with most of your points and now see where the real problem lies. As you said, the line doesn't need to be so black and white but the fact still remains the same in that most "adult teens" should know about this law in all it's complexity and therefore should always keep in the back of their minds that they may be skating on very thin ice.

 

[elcheato]