11 August 2006

division thirteen; in which statutory age limits are arbitrary




  • Aug 11, 2006

  • division thirteen; in which statutory age limits are arbitrary

    Arbitrary is arbitrary.

    We need one law on sex. Rape. Rape should be illegal, no matter what the age, what the circumstances.

    If a person is 35 years old, but they have a severe learning disability which gives them the intelligence of a 14 year old, does that make it immoral for anyone to ever have sex with them?

    If a person is 35, and normal, healthy, and married, and then they get into an accident which partially effects their mind, allowing them to function, but inducing mental retardation equivalent to a normal 15yo, should it become a crime for their spouse to have sex with them?

    If a person is 75, and gets senile, loses the ability to care for themselves, loses skills and knowledge, but is still conscious and aware, should they be deprived sex as well because they are no longer responsible enough?
    (hey, there are some elderly who are still capable)



    If a person has been alive for only 16 years, but are extra intelligent, and have had a lot of life experience, they are already an upper division college student, and have been legally emancipated, is it immoral for them to have sex?

    If the intelligent 16 yo had sex with the retarded 35 yo, which one is the victim?

    The law says the "child" is the victim, which is defined, not by mental capacity, experience, or responsibility, but by number of years since birth.

    Now, which ever gender you assumed each had, switch them, now who’s the victim?

    Two 10 year olds in a play shed, experimenting, which one is the victim?

    15yo female babysitter "playing" with the 9yo male she is watching, which one is the victim?

    15yo male babysitter with 9yo girl - why do you automatically assume this one is worse than the other? Are girls stupider? Are they less interested in sex for their own sake? Are they less capable of knowing what they want or of saying no?

    Two 17yo have sex, which one is the victim?
    What if they are both the same gender?
    18yo girl w/ 17yo boy.
    Is she taking advantage of him?

    20 year old girl with 16yo boy
    20yo girl w 18yo boy
    Is he taking advantage of her, or her of him?

    20 year old boy with 16 year old girl - now I switch it, and now it's a problem - why? What's the difference?

    20yo boy w/ 18yo girl
    now its OK again?

    22yo boy with 18yo girl
    Same age difference, why is this ok?

    28 boy w/ 18yo girl
    35yo boy with 18yo girl
    45yo boy w/ 18yo girl
    Maybe we should make the age of consent 35, just like the age for presidency.
    If you're responsible enough to be president, maybe you can handle sex.

    Maybe it should be a question of age spread. Any two people no more than 3 years apart, and its legal.
    35 and 38, no problem.
    35 and 39, clearly the 35yo is being taken advantage of.
    13 and 17 is wrong, but 13 and 16 should be ok.

    Or, maybe we should just assume that ANY time two people have sex, the woman is being taken advantage of.

    After all, if we admit that some females actually like or want sex, we'd have to admit that young females may like and want sex also, and if they want it, it becomes kind of hard to call them a victim.

    Here’s the easy solution.
    We only need one law in regards to inappropriate sex, and its already on the books.
    Its called rape.
    Rape means one person was forced, (whether by violence or not), against their will.
    Statutory "rape" means there is no victim.
    If the "victim" didn't want to do it, it would have been real rape, which is already illegal. 







    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    If you ask a question, I will answer it.

    NEW: Blogger finally put in a system to be notified of responses to your comments! Just check the box to the right, below, before you hit "publish"

    Post a Comment