DVDizzy Forum

Lazario wrote:

Siren wrote:There is no such thing as having consensual sex with a 13 year old. Any child under 18....its rape, plain and simple. A person under 18 does not need to say no, fight back or cry for it to be rape. I don't feel bad for the bastard at all. Millions of other Jews were in concentration camps and suffered under Nazi rule...they didn't all turn out to be pedophiles.

A very enlightened point of view. Like, fer shur.

By the way, show of hands, how many of you people here were under the age of 18 when you lost your virginity?

I lost my virginity at 16....with another 16 year old...because I was raped. When I said about no such thing as having consensual sex with a 13 year old, I meant an ADULT having consensual sex with a 13 year old.

I'm not usually the type to support statuatory rape laws (they always seem really idiotic to me), but a 30-something with a 13 year old? She probably hadn't even finished puberty. Ugh.

And there's something to be said for her having been too young to make a full judgment of his crime at the time it happened--people can be manipulated when they're too naive to know better.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I'm not usually the type to support statuatory rape laws (they always seem really idiotic to me), but a 30-something with a 13 year old? She probably hadn't even finished puberty. Ugh.

And there's something to be said for her having been too young to make a full judgment of his crime at the time it happened--people can be manipulated when they're too naive to know better.

As far as I'm concerned- we're all playing guessing games. We weren't there, we are not the people involved. So, if all we're doing is arguing principle- I think we're all smart enough to know that rape is wrong. But consensual sex is a lot different.

As for this incident- I say we should forget about it. This was the early 70's anyway. For a lot of people, that was no different from the peace & love 60's where everyone was f*cking everyone and anything that moved. Hell- look at how many of those smelly, sweaty, hairy, skinny, skanky hippies got laid! Look at Playboy. Look at swingers, those love-in places, that guy who had that retreat where couples went to do it with total strangers. The times were absolutely insane. So- this girl obviously shouldn't have even been in the same place with Polanski. But she was and she consented, and he probably didn't know how old she was anyway.

Did he?

Siren wrote:I lost my virginity at 16....with another 16 year old...because I was raped. When I said about no such thing as having consensual sex with a 13 year old, I meant an ADULT having consensual sex with a 13 year old.

I've always said (and I'm not about to change my opinion now) "adult" is a hard thing to judge. And unless a person is violently assaulted or the sex is not consensual- the government has no right to intervene in our bedrooms ever. I would be a huge hypocrite if I said they're evil for saying sodomy is wrong but they're right to say a 22 year old can't have sex with a 17 year old. Or a 20 year old can't have sex with a 17 year old. Or a 16 year old.

Bush was - how old? He ran our country for 18 years. And yet, over 99% of the people he and his administration always disapproved of or went after were more mature and ADULT than he ever was. Yet, he was still allowed to continue running our country. Many people over the age of 18, 19 are still children and haven't proved they are ADULTs.

I was 15 as a male Freshman in high school, in my Government class I sat next to a 13-year old female Sophomore who talked at length about her experiences f*cking while taking Ecstasy. What right do I have to say I'm more adult than someone else just because I'm older?

We have laws against having sex with children period. If we start using their maturity levels and if they are consensual, then it opens the door to say any age is okay to have sex with so long as they are mature young people. What's next? If its okay to have sex with a 13 year old because it was consensual and she is "mature acting", where do we draw the line...if a 12 year old is okay with it and mature...an 11 year old...a 10 year old. Say a man asks a 8 year old, "Can I touch you there?" and she says yes, its consensual and she knew where he was going to touch her, so she must have the maturity to understand it all.

The law is the law. If someone steals a pack or gum or a DVD player, they are still thieves. If someone murders a child who would have lived a long life or a senior citizen who was at the end of theirs, its STILL murder. There is no "little bit breaking the law". You either do or you don't.

Plus age is absolute. You can look at a birth certificate and see how old they are. Maturity level is not. There is no sure fire way to judge the maturity level of a person. And maturity is a roller coaster. One day they are ready to move out on their own, sure they can make it. And next someone teases them and they run home to mom to cry. Regardless of how this kid acted, it was not a free pass to have sex with her.

It doesn't matter if she came onto him, was "in love" with him...she was still underage. An adult should have sense enough in their head not to do it. And an adult should frankly be disgusted by the idea of having sex with a child.

Siren wrote:There is no "little bit breaking the law". You either do or you don't.

Depends on whose eyes you're looking through. That attitude seems to suggest: the law is always right (even though it's not always the same from place to place) and that justice is always of-the-right-mind and fair. Is that honestly the impression you're trying to give people, that that accurately represents what you think?

Siren wrote:It doesn't matter if she came onto him, was "in love" with him...she was still underage. An adult should have sense enough in their head not to do it. And an adult should frankly be disgusted by the idea of having sex with a child.

That - I completely agree with. But I'm not childish enough myself to say that at all times in American history people were smart enough to do the right thing, especially as we would judge it in these much more socially conservative times. You have to take the times into account. The same way you have to realize you yourself are acting very much according to the popular attitudes of our current times. Time changes things. All things. And, we can't ignore the details in this case. Like I said: she shouldn't have been there with him at all. Where is she being punished at all for what happened? If an under-the-legal-age child or teenager breaks the rules and puts themselves in physical danger - what do you do as a parent? Ignore what they did and only go after the element of danger? That's a little bit like saying: we're not responsible for putting ourselves in harms' way. If you're going to be judgmental of one more than the other, you're not going to prove anything.

In a way- this case is not about Roman Polanski having sex with an underaged child. Or- justice prevailing after all these years. It's about punishing him for being part of "Hollywood" as the conversative social-machine sees anything a celebrity does wrong being a product of "Hollywood" - as though it's a factory programming people to do bad things. And punishing him for being someone who enjoyed sexual freedom in the 70's instead of being part of the Hate Brigade who castigated it. Because - that's what her being at that place with him is all about. The fact that anyone could have had sex there in any way without thinking about consequences. Hell- any of the people there could have been legally underaged! But- people found out about Polanski and this woman because he was Roman Polanski, famous for a movie as successful as Rosemary's Baby and for the highly-publicized murder of his wife and friends.

Siren wrote:There is no sure fire way to judge the maturity level of a person. And maturity is a roller coaster. One day they are ready to move out on their own, sure they can make it. And next someone teases them and they run home to mom to cry.

I understand this, very well. In fact: "Maturity level is not absolute" was my point exactly. However- what's the alternative? To accepting that we all, regardless of age, have to deal with the potential consequences for our actions? Life sucks a lot sometimes and the world is a screwed up place always. No one law will ever change that. If we're talking principles... these are lessons we all have to learn. You can't shelter anyone from second thoughts. So in that, age...doesn't make a difference. In many areas, not just in sex, we all make decisions that impact our lives negatively. There's no way we can know if the decision we're making is right. This is true for adults the same way it is true for children and teenagers. You're pretending that it only applies to, as the law sees them: underaged people. I'm assuming. Since, as stated, your example applies more to people with attributes you condescendingly see as childish.

Also... not everyone under what you agree is a fair LEGAL age of consent is a child. In any regard. How many times do people like you have to be told that teenagers are young-adults? Calling them children is the same thing as calling them "little boys" and "little girls." It's always patronizing- which, as you hopefully can tell, I seriously don't agree with people doing. They're growing up even at that age. On top of the pressures they already have to face, they really don't need anyone patronizing them. It would be adult of us to at least assume they have the capacity to use their brains. Don't you think?

Siren wrote:We have laws against having sex with children period. If we start using their maturity levels and if they are consensual, then it opens the door to say any age is okay to have sex with so long as they are mature young people. What's next?

"What's next?" Are you listening to yourself? You're no different than the paranoiaists that are keeping gay marriage from becoming legal. That's the exact same mentality that goes - "what happens if we legalize gay marriage? What's next? Polygamy? Incest marriages? Women marrying their cats?"

I don't play the "What's Next?" game, Siren. I am an Adult. I am mature and intelligent enough to know that my fears don't impact on what's right and wrong. And they certainly have nothing to do with the law. I can keep huffing and puffing - "what about equality, social justice, and legalized murder" - until I'm blue in the face, but people who act like you are acting right now always win. And just because you're paranoid and have fears - does not justify the law in cases when it's wrong. The law should be about doing what's right, not making you feel better about what happens in the world around you.

Furthermore- the world is a screwed up place and there are worse things going on right now than what you're whining about. Upholding this law doesn't keep these children from being exposed to Girls Gone Wild and dozens of other media outposts that reinforce the stereotypes that all women are whores for mens' pleasure. That's far worse. And we can get all nuts about this one issue, but guess what? All that energy you spent trying to protect kids from having sex while they're kids goes right out the window when they realize that nobody cares about them once they become legal and the world is sending them very few messages promoting: you can do it and succeed and grow up healthy and strong and be independent and happy and sexually free and liberated. Rather, the messages they are mostly getting are: BUY BUY BUY trendy items because there's nothing more important than looking expensive and trendy, act like a bimbo to make straight men happy, take off your clothes and make out with other women because it will make men happy, don't be gay unless you're filthy rich, don't be Out unless you're a stereotype in a place where stereotypes are accepted...

You're completely forgetting about the influence of proper parenting (which I actually do have faith in) and guidance in the lives of everyone. You're forgetting that before we do something, we make a decision to do it. You're acting as though everything bad happens if in your eyes there's no safety to keep it from happening. Well guess what- there is no safety to keep anything bad from happening. Laws don't prevent things from happening. They're meant to punish people after they have happened. After it's already too late. And like I've said about a hundred times on this board the last 4 or so weeks - you can't keep kids from thinking about sex. If the legal age on that law were discreetly made lower, in the lives of the teenagers themselves- almost nothing would change. At least, if we could ever shelter anyone (including the true perverts, because I'm positive that part of their drive comes from the attitudes of outrage from more conservative-minded protestors) from the insanity and paranoia of self-righteous psychopaths who rant endlessly about morals all the time, almost all having a religious agenda or a "it happened to this person so it can happen to everyone!" bend. Have any of those freaks actually put a stop to Girls Gone Wild? Or better yet, have they focused any of their alleged wants for safety into better parenting their kids? Tell me that.

The laws don't teach us what's right and wrong. Experience and honest, quality guidance does. Laws also don't make us do things. The attitudes of others do. Because the world unfortunately is populated by way more followers than leaders.

Siren wrote:Regardless of how this kid acted, it was not a free pass to have sex with her.

If its okay to have sex with a 13 year old because it was consensual and she is "mature acting", where do we draw the line...

I didn't in any way suggest it was okay, Siren. You would know that if you weren't so busy flying off the handle. About everything. In several different topics the past 3 weeks or so that I've seen you in. I would ask you - what's your problem? - but honestly, I didn't do that with 99% of the other posters I've debated with and disagreed with over the course of my 5 years here, so I'm not going to break stride now. I don't care what your problem is and I am not going to answer to your paranoias and fears. Only to your intelligence and rationality. When you start showing that your side of this discussion is actually being ruled by them.

First thing's first - I'm not stupid, Siren. I would never think or say it's okay for anyone to have sex. Of any age. But I would also never say it's not okay either. Because... I'm not stupid. I don't presume to know that people are mature enough to have sex due to their age the same as I don't presume they aren't, due to their age. This is because - I am not a hypocrite. My beliefs firmly state - STAY THE HELL OUT OF PEOPLES' BEDROOMS, unless they want the law / government to intervene. Unless the sexual activity was forced by way of unconsensual rape or violence. And I've already explained why I have this belief and why it's important to stick to it. If you've forgotten, go back and re-read.

Also- if you don't like hearing that or you think it's outrageous or wrong or thisthatortheotherthing... tough. Themz my beliefs. This is America. I have every right to them as you have to be paranoid that you're personally responsible for people getting raped or having second thoughts about having had sex because the law isn't what you think it should be. Or that isn't upheld the right way - whatever. The fact is, anyway, that your paranoia scenarios are not the way things really happen. Reality is going to seem a lot stranger than that. In reality, not every "Adult" by your standards is a raging pervert who wants to touch every child or underaged person. And gee golly wow... you must think every child has no parents and no supervision at all ("school" must be another word for Massage Parlor in your vernacular), and no one to teach them any morals at all (which would be the only thing to give credence to your claim that any/every 8 year old would say "okay" to a sexual advance from an adult).

As much as people may think being a parent makes them less responsible for the kind of person their child grows up to be... reality is quite the opposite. Parents by and large still spend way too much time blaming everyone but themselves for what goes wrong with children when they don't like what they see in the world. Think of how many times kids look at their parents and say- "that's not the kind of parent I want to be." Children and teenagers may not always be right but they have to be held responsible for putting themselves in harm's way. As much as we hold people responsible for taking advantage of them.

Lazario, you will never understand, ever. At least till you, if ever, become a parent. Fuck your "rationality", you are stupid to say in any context, it is okay for an adult to have sex with a children. There is WHAT IFs in this case. Because you are talking only about humans here. I have no problem with polygamy. No problem with adults marrying other adults. The people who do what ifs about allow gay marriage we should allow marrying animals...there is no comparison since gays are humans and animals are animals. Gays can say their vows, animals cannot. Animals can't write a signature on the marriage license. However, if you say that 13 year old is mature enough to have sex, but that other 13 year old isn't, then you do open the door for ANY age. The law is absolute, if you are under 18, an adult cannot have sex with you, expose themselves to you, touch you, have you touch them, take nude pictures of you, etc. I never said ALL laws were right, but this one IS. If you think I've been this bitchy just for 2 weeks, you haven't been paying attention. I am always this bitchy when it comes to something I am passionate about. So a couple of threads came recently around the same time, that I feel I need to be heard, that means its only been for 2 weeks? LOL I am not acting according to what is "popular". That's bullshit. The law has been "popular" long before I was born. You are not a legal adult till you are 18. You can't work full time and overtime till you are 18. In many states, you have a curfew and can't drive after night or without an adult till you are 18. You graduate high school and can move onto college at 18. You can get credit cards at 18. You can rent and buy property at 18. Until you are 18, you can't have sex with an adult. Its been around a lot longer than me, that 18=adult. I could see you being this much off a anal retentive jerk to me if I was saying, raise the age of adult to 21, 25, etc. And I agree with the, because it makes sense. If you start saying you don't need to be 18 to have sex with an adult, then you will open the door to allow kids to do everything else they are limited from doing. Child labor laws would be called into question. Kids will be in debt by the time they are 18, etc.

And yes, teenagers are "young adults". Just as a toddler is a "young child". You're point?

The government belongs in bedroom when it comes to PROTECTING CHILDREN. If you can't see that, you are hopeless.

For once get your head out of you ass and realize, you sound like you are all set to save pedophiles from jail time. Makes me sick. I'm sorry, but for those who support this guy, feel bad for him, they are as sick as the pedophile himself. Its like feeling bad for a rapist. If he really "loved" her he would have waited till she was 18 and avoided putting her and her family though this. Not taken off his pants the moment he had the chance.

I understand that he had been through a lot - more than anyone should ever go through. That, though, does not justify rape of a minor, no matter if it was consenual or not.

I do believe, however, that most everyone deserves a second chance, and since both Polanski and the woman have both decided to put it behind themselves, I see no reason for indefinite arrest. He hasn't committed a crime since then, and I honestly feel a bit bad for him.

And yes, I would be saying the exact same thing had Polanski not been famous - Celebrity status does not equal freedom from any laws.

Siren wrote:The law is absolute, if you are under 18, an adult cannot have sex with you, expose themselves to you, touch you, have you touch them, take nude pictures of you, etc.

I know what the law says, but unlike you - I don't pretend any one law is always right. Just because the intention behind it is good doesn't make every case cut and dry. Ever.

Siren wrote:The government belongs in bedroom when it comes to PROTECTING CHILDREN. If you can't see that, you are hopeless.

Well, there's a difference between you and me. I won't allow the government to assume a person is a child just because they are under a legal age. You support the blanket idea that all people under the Legal Age are children just because the law says so. Children are not stupid and immature - then magically, one day they become ready to do anything. And this law isn't recognizing that.

I didn't allow the law to tell me I was a child when I was engaging in sexual activity while being underaged. Neither the law, you, nor anyone else are or ever were my parents. So, it was up to me to decide who I was adult enough to have sex with. Because I am the one responsible for the consequences. And I more than consented. I was with someone younger than me. But if I had had my way, you better believe I would have been with people older than I was. I was for the most part not interested in people my own age. In terms of my sexual interests- I think I was pretty advanced for my years. And you expect me to have allowed other people to have decided what was right for me? Why? Because "adults" are scared if they don't try to control "children," there will be a freeforall where everyone else is concerned?

Your "point of view" is leaving more gray-area than mine is. Suddenly, if someone is so much as 1 year over the legal age and the person they're having sex with is 1 year under - which is a perfectly natural age difference - the older person is a "bastard" and the younger person is a victim of rape. I mean- forgive me for thinking this law should make perfect sense before anyone defends it! And I don't buy that whole "it was decided before either of us." That's b.s., Siren. No matter what way you slice it!

You can call me "anal retentive." And maybe I am a little. Suggesting young people should be expected to make the right decisions, pay for their actions the same as anyone else, and thinking that pertains to having sex as well... totally anal, isn't it? At least I'm not patronizing people because I see them as less adult than I am. I don't pretend to decide who is and who isn't more adult than I am.

Siren wrote:Lazario, you will never understand, ever. At least till you, if ever, become a parent.

An unsurprisingly elitist point of view. Which I have the strangest feeling you wouldn't share with me if I had agreed with you before, point blank. A point of view pretending young people have no brains and don't make their own choices at all.

You know what people are before they become parents, Siren? Children. Hopefully most of them are teenagers too. So, excuse you, but I think I understand what I'm talking about pretty well.

And for your information, I see a huge difference between 13 and 16 (which was about how old I was when I was ingesting someone else's bodily fluids). But I can't pretend to tell other people that that means everyone who is 16 is more mature than everyone who is 13.

Siren wrote:Fuck your "rationality"

Great idea. Let's allow all laws to be decided by the emotionalism and theatrics of the moral-majority. Remember: this applies to all self-righteous people and coddles them when they're being paranoid and feeling everyone else should share their exact morals.

No way is rationality to ever be discarded. Ever. It's the thing we're supposed to use before making decisions. And if you say "f*ck rationality" when deciding punishment for crimes - who's to say rationality can't be "f*cked" when the crime is being committed in the first place?

Siren wrote:However, if you say that 13 year old is mature enough to have sex, but that other 13 year old isn't, then you do open the door for ANY age.

I've already said maybe she wasn't mature enough and maybe she was. I don't presume to know either way. But I also said - SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE. She was there and she allowed the law to be broken. It's more her fault than his. So, if you want someone to fry because your idea of morality has been upset - it wouldn't have happened if she hadn't been there. She wasn't supposed to be there.

Obviously, if what happened between him and her happened there, it could have happened with any 2 people at that party. Henceforth, it was too adult for her. The people who held this party should have known how old everyone there was before Roman and the girl had sex. They should have asked for identification. But, they really didn't do that kind of thing in those days. It's not like she was a girl wearing tight clothes walking down the street, anyone could end up having sex that way. Or being raped. But if you go to a place it's widely known people have sex, especially in an era of absurd sexual freedom, you are responsible for having sex if you go there. She should have known better. And obviously, she didn't care. So- don't tell me we should.

If you want to clearly identify what is and isn't right for children to be involved in, you have to expect the person who was there when they weren't supposed to be to accept some of the responsibility if not most of it.

That's it. That's the way it should have been. Things are different now, this kind of thing probably would/could never happen again. So, now please explain- what's the point in punishing him all these years later? Just because it would make you feel better? So, it would make me feel better if people stopped giving birth. That might help stop the population problem a little. And hey, it's so important to think about all those bigots, sexists, and homophobes who don't like that gays and women have as many rights as they do now. Let's make sure they're considered more important than what they don't agree with just because they're scared and angry!

You want to play the "What Next?" game. I can play too.

Siren wrote:For once get your head out of you ass and realize

Let me guess - it's your right as a parent that allows you to say that to me. To tell me I never realize anything, in all the discussions I've had on this board in 5 years?

Siren wrote:you sound like you are all set to save pedophiles from jail time.

Only to someone with their head up their ass.

Siren wrote:Makes me sick. I'm sorry, but for those who support this guy, feel bad for him, they are as sick as the pedophile himself. Its like feeling bad for a rapist.

You are now telling me I don't take rape seriously just because I don't think someone who has sex with someone who consents and is underaged is as bad as a rapist who would beat someone or drug someone and then force them to have sex against their will.

If you don't know how sick that sounds... you're the hopeless one. Not me.

Slightly O/T but very much concerned with the Polanski story...

I just found out that Susan Atkins, one of the Manson followers directly involved with killing Sharon Tate and her unborn son, died behind bars on September 24th. She had been diagnosed with a brain tumor earlier this year.

I guess it's up to a higher power to judge her soul now... Don't get me started on how disgustingly evil and a threat to society I still consider the Manson killers.

I'm actually going to have to agree with Laz here. I can't give an opinion on the specific case of Polanski, because I don't know all the details, but I personally feel the law has no place in matters of willing (if you'd rather I not say "consentual") sex, regardless of age. That's not to say I support sex at a young age. I was not sexually active while underage and have never been so with anyone underage, but the fact is that most people are willingly sexually active before 18 in some way or another. I feel the "burden" of this issue and many other activities/decisions the government has decided to regulate/dictate for us should actually be in the hands of parents and the individuals themselves, together. After all, how much of this is a moral/individual issue, and thus something opinions/beliefs differ on? 18 is not a magic number, and in some places it is not even the age of "adulthood", and views on sex itself are so culturally diverse, so to call this a black and white issue perfect for harsh lawmaking is absurd. Anyway, if a teenager has decided to be sexually active, I really don't see how it matters how old their partner is. Can they be taken advantage of more easily? This depends on the individual (and greatly on their upbringing as well), and little on their age, unless they are VERY young (much younger than 18 ). Fact is, naive and easily manipulated people don't suddenly become sharper on their 18th birthday. Many simply stay that way and only learn what life teaches them. Laws don't protect such people much anyway, they mostly punish after the fact.

And, yes, we do have to obey the laws, but that doesn't mean they are right or perfect, that we have to agree with them, or that we can't argue and attempt to change them. It's not even always a matter of wanting to make currently illegal things legal, it's a matter of wanting legalities to be more reasonable and make more sense, and to have a more free and less uptight society. In our supposedly free country, the amount of laws we have is ridiculous. They should be few enough that we can all quote them from memory. They should simply be about not hurting/endangering others or forcing others into doing anything, and not damaging or stealing others' property. Every single law that exists is one less freedom we have, so the goal should be bare minimum. And if you want to ask, "Where does it end?" the whole Registered Sex Offender thing is a good place to point concern. Names on a list are rarely a good thing. Yeah, there are a lot of people on there who are bad news and need to be watched, but from some of the stuff I've been hearing, it doesn't take much to get on that list. When I heard they were threatening to make registered sex offenders out of some teenagers who, at one school, were e-mailing nude pictures of themselves to each other as a joke, I was pretty disgusted with that whole program. And Escapay mentioned another disturbing and probably very common example. You're going to ruin people's lives because of things like that? And make no mistake, having your name on a blacklist does ruin your life. And who knows what other registration programs will come next? Ones based on religion or other personal beliefs? Race? Sexual orientation? If we're going to be paranoid, let's be paranoid about the new laws instead of the ending of (or in this case just disagreeing with) older ones.