Sex with 16 year old = Bad, BJ from 16 year old = OK - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Hard8s · 03-08-2006, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Court says oral sex law violates rights

Tue Mar 7, 7:56 AM ET

A 22-year-old Californian man who received oral sex from a sixteen-year-old girl should not be forced to register for life as a sex offender, the California Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

The state's top court found that California denied Vincent Hofsheier equal protection under the law because those having intercourse in such circumstances would not be forced to register as lifetime sex offenders.

Hofsheier appealed after being ordered to register his name on the list, which is shared with the public and carries significant stigma.

"Requiring mandatory lifetime registration of all persons who, like defendant here, were convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a minor of the age of 16 or 17, but not of someone convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse with a minor of the same age, violates the equal protection clauses of the federal and state Constitutions," the court ruled.

"We perceive no reason why the legislature would conclude that persons who are convicted of voluntary oral copulation with adolescents 16 to 17 years old...constitute a class of 'particularly incorrigible offenders'... who require lifetime surveillance as sex offenders."

U.S. law on oral sex has evolved over the years, and it was not until 1975 that oral sex between consenting adults was decriminalized in California. Today, in 38 of the 50 U.S. states consensual sex with a 16- or 17-year old is legal.

In the case, Hofsheier pleaded guilty and received probation after meeting the teenager in an Internet chat room and sharing rum and orange juice with her at a beach.

The California Supreme Court's decision returns the case to a lower court to decide whether he should still be subject to registration under that court's discretionary authority.

So basically if you have sex, in CA with someone who is 16-17, you are not a sex offender. But, if you give rum and OJ to a girl who is 16-17, and then get a BJ from her, you're a sex offender (or maybe not).
Does this seem odd to anyone else? What about contributing to the delinquency of a minor? It sure seems that if you look through the Meagans Law database there are a number of people convicted of sexual acts with a minor. I know if someone down the street from me was convicted of getting underage girls drunk and taking advantage of them I would want to know. I think that these kind of people "constitute a class of 'particularly incorrigible offenders'... who require lifetime surveillance as sex offenders."

Martian · 03-08-2006, 06:47 PM

There's a definite moral grey area there. I mean, this guy wasn't some depraved old man - hell, I'm 22. Would it be okay for me to have sex with a 16 year old? How about an 18 year old?

How do I tell the difference? What if the 16 year old looks 18, or vice versa? Is it still okay (or not, as the case may be)?

The problem with blanket laws with regards to teens and young adults is that no two develop at exactly the same pace. I've met girls who were in their teens but could pass for early twenties. At a glance, no one would give a second thought to me dating a girl like that but according to the letter of the law, I'm in the wrong.

This guy isn't a predator. He's just a guy who fucked up - he went to far with a girl who was too young. If he's forced to register as a sex offender that's going to follow him everywhere he goes.

As for plying her with liquor... well, I firmly believe that alcohol lowers inhibitions, but does not plant ideas that weren't there to begin with. Take from that what you will.

percy · 03-08-2006, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

This guy isn't a predator. He's just a guy who fucked up - he went to far with a girl who was too young. If he's forced to register as a sex offender that's going to follow him everywhere he goes.

As for plying her with liquor... well, I firmly believe that alcohol lowers inhibitions, but does not plant ideas that weren't there to begin with. Take from that what you will.

Well,..

In the case, Hofsheier pleaded guilty and received probation after meeting the teenager in an Internet chat room and sharing rum and orange juice with her at a beach.

If I were to guess, as you have, I'd go the opposite way of thinking. But I'm just a chick.

Deus · 03-08-2006, 08:02 PM

It seems to me that as long as all of this was consensual there was no harm done. I agree with martian insofar as blanket laws are effective sometimes, but can often leave a gray area. I feel that as long as two parties are in agreeance about a sexual act (and are able to understand the decision) nobody should have to go home with a bad taste in their mouth.

feelgood · 03-08-2006, 08:05 PM

Quote:

U.S. law on oral sex has evolved over the years, and it was not until 1975 that oral sex between consenting adults was decriminalized in California. Today, in 38 of the 50 U.S. states consensual sex with a 16- or 17-year old is legal.

So, based on the majority of the states legalizing sex with 16 years olds, why is sex with 16 years old = bad?

astrahl · 03-08-2006, 08:39 PM

Why not 15 or 14 or 13? 16 is 2 years out of elementary school. Do you really think a 16 year old girl (an average 16 yr old girl or boy for that matter) is capable of making that kind of decision? A 22 yr old knows better or at the very least SHOULD!
At that age, a young adult is too influenced by pressure, even science has shown that teenagers have irrational thought patterns. This guys took advantage of that to get a BJ.

Jack1.0 · 03-08-2006, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

As for plying her with liquor... well, I firmly believe that alcohol lowers inhibitions, but does not plant ideas that weren't there to begin with. Take from that what you will.

According to a "Sexual Assault Awareness" training course that I recently was required to take by my employer.

The majority of Serial Rapist are not the “Hooded Lurkers” that you see in the headlines, but are actually closer to what you might call a “Date Rape Artist” (my term.) The rapist is often someone that the victim knows casually through work/school/etc. In a social situation, such as a party or at a club, they condition their victim using alcohol and/or drugs to reduce the victim’s judgment and ability to physically resist. The rapist then maneuvers their victim away from friends and associates to a place where the rape begins as a consensual encounter (kissing/petting.) If the victim is still sober enough to resist, the rapist is not afraid to use their upper body strength and physical size to force their way.

The “Date Rape Artist” often convinces themselves that they are simply "hot with the ladies" and my often brags to friends about his latest successful conquest. His openness about having intercourse with his victim reduces the credibility of the victim and reinforces the rapist’ conviction that the rape was consensual.

The victims often doubt themselves and believe it was their own fault for letting the rape happen. The psychological effect on the victims can leave scars that will last their entire life.

I have known women who were victims of rape and their stories were frighteningly close to the scenarios presented in the awareness course.

There is line between using alcohol to “lowering inhibitions” and using it to condition a victim. There is a line between consensual sex and rape, it is crossed when the victim says “No” or tries to resist and the rapist disregards it. Proving that they resisted often comes down to the victim's word against the attacker's. Don't be so quick to assume that everything was consensual. As guys we tend to wink and give each other the high five. Stop and think the next time you hear someone bragging about the waisted Chick they got "Lucky" with.

[Please Note: My post here is intended as a plea to reconsider our personal attitudes. Not an attack on anyone in the thread.]

Martian · 03-08-2006, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack1.0

According to a "Sexual Assault Awareness" training course that I recently was required to take by my employer.

The majority of Serial Rapist are not the “Hooded Lurkers” that you see in the headlines, but are actually closer to what you might call a “Date Rape Artist” (my term.) The rapist is often someone that the victim knows casually through work/school/etc. In a social situation, such as a party or at a club, they condition their victim using alcohol and/or drugs to reduce the victim’s judgment and ability to physically resist. The rapist then maneuvers their victim away from friends and associates to a place where the rape begins as a consensual encounter (kissing/petting.) If the victim is still sober enough to resist, the rapist is not afraid to use their upper body strength and physical size to force their way.

The “Date Rape Artist” often convinces themselves that they are simply "hot with the ladies" and my often brags to friends about his latest successful conquest. His openness about having intercourse with his victim reduces the credibility of the victim and reinforces the rapist’ conviction that the rape was consensual.

The victims often doubt themselves and believe it was their own fault for letting the rape happen. The psychological effect on the victims can leave scars that will last their entire life.

I have known women who were victims of rape and their stories were frighteningly close to the scenarios presented in the awareness course.

There is line between using alcohol to “lowering inhibitions” and using it to condition a victim. There is a line between consensual sex and rape, it is crossed when the victim says “No” or tries to resist and the rapist disregards it. Proving that they resisted often comes down to the victim's word against the attacker's. Don't be so quick to assume that everything was consensual. As guys we tend to wink and give each other the high five. Stop and think the next time you hear someone bragging about the waisted Chick they got "Lucky" with.

[Please Note: My post here is intended as a plea to reconsider our personal attitudes. Not an attack on anyone in the thread.]

Allow me to clarify my previous statement regarding alcohol. The statement in question only applies to individuals who are mildly inebriated. If someone is so drunk as to be insensible, that individual is unable to give consent. There is no implied consent when it comes to sex. Any act where consent is not given is, in my mind, an offence.

Was this girl drunk to the point where she couldn't refuse? Maybe, but probably not. It'd be hard for her to commit an oral sex act if she were, I'd reckon. She did consent (the original article notes the act was voluntary) and this guy, from the sounds of it, got caught on a stat rape charge.

I make no assertions as to this man's character. He may be a saint or a creep and I have no way of knowing. I do know that it's not unreasonable that a 22 year old man would have sex with a 16 year old girl, possibly without even knowing she's as young as she is. As he's getting off with probation I'm inclined to say this is his first offence. There's nothing here that says 'this man is a pedophile' as far as I'm concerned.

astrahl - that's the grey area I was referring to. The whole issue here is that we can't make a universal statement in regards to the maturity of 16 year olds, because each individual develops at his or her own rate.

This is, to me, an example of where innocent until proven guilty holds true. Sexual offences are a very touchy area and the knee-jerk response tends to be 'burn 'em all.' Here's this guy who made a mistake, admitted to it (he plead guilty to a statutory rape, from the looks of it) and is willing to pay his dues. I'll grant that there's nothing here that expressly states that he isn't a sexual predator of some sort, but there's nothing that says he is, either. He may have just not realized that she was as young as she was. If that's the case, does he still deserve to have that registration following him everywhere he goes for the rest of his life?

Plaid13 · 03-09-2006, 12:19 AM

giving her rum first.... underage been drinking not thinking clear yeah thats just wrong. If she was sober i would say fine whatever let her do what she wants since hes only 22. Personaly im 25 and a 16 year old girl looks like a kid to me. Not to mention most 16 year olds are not mature enough to make choices like that. mostly they think woo hoo this will be fun without thought for what might happen as a result. stds or whatever. I really dont think they should make it diffrent to recive oral or intercorse they should be treated as the same thing. Oral intercorse are even just dry humping in the back seat of a car should all beconsidered the same thing. A line should be drawn on whats what. otherwise you could get some dirty old man rubbing a 12 year olds ass and getting off on it and getting away with it because she was dressed and they didnt have intercorse.

He is a sex offender and should have to register as one hes old enough to know better then to do crap like that. Personaly i think the girls parents should be allowed a few good swings with a baseball bat to his crotch. Sure it might be wrong but worry about that after its all done. its a mistake they made out of emotions. they were not thinking clearly at the time. maybe give them some rum first.

Destrox · 03-09-2006, 03:55 AM

Laws like these really do try to help for the better good, but rarely do they. There is simply too much that we dont know in this case about both parties to make judgment on wether the law is correct or not. The only thing we know for sure is we have a 16 year old, 22 year old, and illegal use of liquor.

How do you know that this 16 year old doesnt look like a 19 or 20 year old, its very common, and even more common for those that young to fake that age to get more attention. Maybe this one lied to the guy, whats he suppose to do, ask for ID and doctors records?

Then again maybe he did realize she was 16, and even then in most states there is nothing illegal about that. Immoral possibly, illegal no.

The whole idea of registering sex offenders is so far out of control its useless. Soon you wont even be able to look at girls in a bikini at the beach w/out being registered as a S.O because it turns out she developed faster and was only 16.

** edit **

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrahl

Why not 15 or 14 or 13? 16 is 2 years out of elementary school. Do you really think a 16 year old girl (an average 16 yr old girl or boy for that matter) is capable of making that kind of decision? A 22 yr old knows better or at the very least SHOULD!

Last I checked, elementary school ends when you're 9 years old, not 14. Not to defend the guy too much, but yes a 16 year old is able to make that kind of decision if she really wanted to do it.

ShaniFaye · 03-09-2006, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrahl

Why not 15 or 14 or 13? 16 is 2 years out of elementary school. Do you really think a 16 year old girl (an average 16 yr old girl or boy for that matter) is capable of making that kind of decision? A 22 yr old knows better or at the very least SHOULD!
At that age, a young adult is too influenced by pressure, even science has shown that teenagers have irrational thought patterns. This guys took advantage of that to get a BJ.

I dont know about anybody else, but at 16 I was 6 years out of elementary school.

All 16 year olds are different, I decided at 16 I was going to be the blow job queen of the world....I was gonna give the best blow job any guy had ever gotten and I set upon the mission with gusto....and lots of the guys were over 20 and it was usually MY idea to engage in the activity because I wanted the practice

stevie667 · 03-09-2006, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

I dont know about anybody else, but at 16 I was 6 years out of elementary school.

All 16 year olds are different, I decided at 16 I was going to be the blow job queen of the world....I was gonna give the best blow job any guy had ever gotten and I set upon the mission with gusto....and lots of the guys were over 20 and it was usually MY idea to engage in the activity because I wanted the practice

No comment

A- Plying her with alcohol is a definate no-no, they should have come down on him hard for that.
B- The guy should have known better
C- Rum and orange? Do these people not know how to make a good mix? Muppets

The_Jazz · 03-09-2006, 05:59 AM

Does anyone know what this guy was charged with or convicted of? The article doesn't make that clear at all.

As best I can tell, this was all completely voluntary on the girl's part, and she might have been a willing participant the whole time, alcohol or not. Let's remember that the court was just saying that the laws are inconsistent since they're treating voluntary intercourse differently than oral sex, and I have to agree with them. Which is the more invasive of the two? There's a lot more to the story than I think that any of us know. I can make a guess that these two were drunk on the beach, she went down on him and a cop walked by. He busts them for lewd conduct, figures out they're drunk and that she's underage. She may have even told the guy she was 18. Can anyone prove anything one way or the other with the information provided?

As far as whether or not the act itself was creepy or not, the age of consent in California is 18 (http://teenadvice.about.com/library/...nsentchart.htm), so it's pretty clear to me that he's not playing by the community standards. This link is pretty interesting, especially with the way that homosexual sex is treated. Check out New Mexico.

Charlatan · 03-09-2006, 07:01 AM

In Canada the age of consent is 14. I don't know how I feel about that other than I lost my virginity at 14 to an 18-year-old. At the age of 16, a woman should be considered old enough.

Giving alcohol to a minor should be seen as a seperate offense (contributing to minors) but should be taken into consideration.

Sounds like he did the time and probation. The issue is whether it is fair that he be labelled for life as a sexual predator when the sex that was had was consensual.

I agree that he should not have to live with that stigma for the rest of his life.

Jack1.0 · 03-09-2006, 07:19 AM

My question and the intent of my earlier post is, "Did the 16 year old really consent?" The only thing I see in the article above is that the man was “convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a minor of the age of 16 or 17.” This does not mean that the girl consented. It means she couldn’t prove in court that she did not consent, or that a plea bargain was reached for a lesser offense. Is it possible that the man in this case manipulated her, conditioned her, and preyed upon her? Do we really know all the facts? (I’m sure the news reports have been completely fair and factual. </Sarcasm off>)
I know I’m a little off topic from the original question but I feel strongly about this and I think that we are far to quick to assume, in this and simiar situations, that intercourse was consensual without even trying to get the facts. It sounds a little too much like, “She was asking for it.”

The_Jazz · 03-09-2006, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack1.0

My question and the intent of my earlier post is, "Did the 16 year old really consent?" The only thing I see in the article above is that the man was “convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a minor of the age of 16 or 17.” This does not mean that the girl consented. It means she couldn’t prove in court that she did not consent, or that a plea bargain was reached for a lesser offense. Is it possible that the man in this case manipulated her, conditioned her, and preyed upon her? Do we really know all the facts? (I’m sure the news reports have been completely fair and factual. </Sarcasm off>)
I know I’m a little off topic from the original question but I feel strongly about this and I think that we are far to quick to assume, in this and simiar situations, that intercourse was consensual without even trying to get the facts. It sounds a little too much like, “She was asking for it.”

According to California law (or at least the reading of the law by the website that I found), the sex could not be consensual, which is probably why this guy was charged in the first place. That said, we don't know any of the facts beyond the article that you've given us. If you have more facts, I'd be happy to give an opinion, but based on what we have in front of us, I don't see how we can judge as to whether or not she really did consent or even if she lied to the guy about her age. I think that you're rushing to judgement on a story where we don't even really have one side of the story, let alone both. Could he have been preying on her? Absolutely. Could she have lied about her age and given him a hummer of her own volition? Absolutely. Without knowing more about the story, it's really hard for me to condemn this guy. For all we know, she's the one who showed up with the rum, and he took the bullet on that for her. She may be a victim, and she may not be. Show me proof one way or the other.

AngelicVampire · 03-09-2006, 07:47 AM

Innocent until proven guilty. If she wants to convict him of anything she has to prove that he is guilty. He should also be allowed to question his accuser in person.

MO, probably not worth the £0.02 its written on (oops thats a crime)

cellophanedeity · 03-09-2006, 08:05 AM

I see nothing wrong with what he did. If she hadn't consented, that would be a different story, but she did, and so I don't think he did anything wrong.

Coppertop · 03-09-2006, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack1.0

My question and the intent of my earlier post is, "Did the 16 year old really consent?" The only thing I see in the article above is that the man was “convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a minor of the age of 16 or 17.” This does not mean that the girl consented. It means she couldn’t prove in court that she did not consent, or that a plea bargain was reached for a lesser offense.

Or it could mean she did consent.

Funny how you state that we do not have all the factas, yet you somehow know:

Quote:

It means she couldn’t prove in court that she did not consent, or that a plea bargain was reached for a lesser offense.

wolf · 03-09-2006, 08:13 AM

Rum and Orange Juice? I can't even imaging that tasting good.

Perhaps his idea of sex included Bill Clinton's theory that oral sex doesn't count.

astrahl · 03-09-2006, 08:16 AM

Let me clarify my math...
I went to a school that went from k-8th grade. There was no middle or jr high, THAT's why I made that comment.

A 16 year old cannot consent to a medical procedure, and a 16 yr old cannot consent to sexual activity with damn 22 yr old. So is it okay for a 27 yr old guy to get a bj from a 16 yr old? How about if that 16 yr old wants to suck off a 40 yr old? Still sound ok? If it doesn't, then is wrong for a 22 yr old too.

kutulu · 03-09-2006, 08:28 AM

Sex with 16 year old = Bad, BJ from 16 year old = OK

Just like when it was listed on fark, you misrepresented the acticle. He pled guilty to stat rape and served his time. Someone with a stat rape chage involving regular sex wouldn't have to register as a SO but he had to because he got a BJ. So the govt's line was Sex with 16 year old = ok, BJ from 16 year old = bad. The court ruled that if Sex with 16 year old = ok, then BJ from 16 year old = OK.

kutulu · 03-09-2006, 08:47 AM

we already had a thread that goes on about age differences. it got locked

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=101781

Ustwo · 03-09-2006, 08:50 AM

Decriminalization of the BJ, the true Clinton Legacy :P

The_Jazz · 03-09-2006, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrahl

Let me clarify my math...
I went to a school that went from k-8th grade. There was no middle or jr high, THAT's why I made that comment.

A 16 year old cannot consent to a medical procedure, and a 16 yr old cannot consent to sexual activity with damn 22 yr old. So is it okay for a 27 yr old guy to get a bj from a 16 yr old? How about if that 16 yr old wants to suck off a 40 yr old? Still sound ok? If it doesn't, then is wrong for a 22 yr old too.

A 16 year old cannot consent in California but can in several other states. Are you upset specifically about the California law? If the 16 year old is ok with giving a bj in, say, Alabama no law was broken regardless of the age of the receiver, provided he is 16 or older.

You're trying to crucify this guy with only the facts in this article. Maybe he's a bad guy and maybe he's not. Again, give me proof one way or the other. Blanket condemnations are pointless.

pig · 03-09-2006, 10:30 AM

what i think is interesting is that if one goes over and checks out the "when do you lose your virginity?" thread, you'll find a rather large number of people seem to have gotten it on when then were about 15, give or take a year...and the person who ushered them in is frequently older.

i personally think after about 15, that the stat rape should be about age. a 15 year old girl should be off limits to a 30 year old guy, but i don't think i'd really have a problem with consensual sex between two 15 year old, or even close. i think in most cases, 22 + 16 = bad idea..but a blanket ruling I'm not so comfortable with.

Aside from that, the ruling was more along the lines of what kutulu had done said was.

astrahl · 03-09-2006, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

You're trying to crucify this guy with only the facts in this article. Maybe he's a bad guy and maybe he's not. Again, give me proof one way or the other. Blanket condemnations are pointless.

Proof of a subjective statement? I have a visceral reaction to a 22 yr old taking advantage of a young girl's willingness to please and desire for attention. As far as subjective statements, that is all the proof I need. Just because the socially advanced, cultural center of ALABAMA thinks 16 year old girls can consent to sexual activity with a 22 year old or can choose to marry her kin doesn't make for a strong argument as to why 16 yr olds are "old enough."

This situation invokes a very strong reaction from people and I'd rather err on the side of caution in order to spare other kids, YES kids, from this type of person.

pig · 03-09-2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrahl

Proof of a subjective statement? I have a visceral reaction to a 22 yr old taking advantage of a young girl's willingness to please and desire for attention. As far as subjective statements, that is all the proof I need. Just because the socially advanced, cultural center of ALABAMA thinks 16 year old girls can consent to sexual activity with a 22 year old or can choose to marry her kin doesn't make for a strong argument as to why 16 yr olds are "old enough."

Regionalist. I'm pretty sure that older people have sex with younger people in locations outside the South; sometimes in exotic locations, like New Jersey and Utah, and even Oregon and Wyoming. What was that consent age in Canada, Charlatan? 14?

snowy · 03-09-2006, 03:49 PM

I certainly hope a 16-year-old girl knows her own mind. If not, she's going to have to learn it pretty quick--18 isn't that far away. Consider that for all we know, she might have been turning 17 the next week. Then in just over a year she'll be considered of age. My point? The age of 18 is incredibly arbitrary.

At 16 you can get a license to drive. The state in which you live will entrust you to operate a motor vehicle in such a manner than does not endanger yourself and others. Yet, at least in California, you can't be trusted to make your own sexual decisions. Yet you can operate something a lot more deadly. In my mind, I would hope that someone who can operate a car can make decisions regarding their own sex life, REGARDLESS of the age of the partner.

I know when I was sixteen my parents had faith in me to make the right decisions, regardless of the age of consent. I know if I have a daughter, I will have the same faith when she is sixteen.

The_Jazz · 03-10-2006, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrahl

Proof of a subjective statement? I have a visceral reaction to a 22 yr old taking advantage of a young girl's willingness to please and desire for attention. As far as subjective statements, that is all the proof I need. Just because the socially advanced, cultural center of ALABAMA thinks 16 year old girls can consent to sexual activity with a 22 year old or can choose to marry her kin doesn't make for a strong argument as to why 16 yr olds are "old enough."

This situation invokes a very strong reaction from people and I'd rather err on the side of caution in order to spare other kids, YES kids, from this type of person.

You're letting your distaste of the ages involved cloud your reaction. If you know more about this particular case, I would love to hear about it. Unless you can GUARANTEE that the oral sex wasn't the girl's idea or that she wasn't the one who showed up with the booze (the article says that they "shared" it, not that he's the one who had it), then I have to classify your reaction as "kneejerk". Like it or not, some 16 year olds are worldly enough to be sexually active, as we've seen in several threads on this board. Personally, I lost my virginity at 17 to a 23 year old who thought I was 21 (or at least that's what I told her. She was probably smart enough not to believe me or care.).

By the way, other than what's in this article, you don't know what kind of person this guy is. He may be a preditor, and I'll certainly agree that he did something that lots of known preditors do - hooking up with someone on line. However, unless you see something in here where he misrepresented himself or knowingly did anything wrong (in the 3 sentences that talk about the actual offense), I still think that you're condemning this guy prematurely. Again, show me proof one way or the other beyond commentary on a Supreme Court case, and I'll be happy to join in with you.

And as far as your attack on Alabama (which I don't necessarily mind being a UT Vols fan), let me point out some other states that might be a little more "worldly" that also have 16 as the age of consent - Connecticut, Washington DC, Deleware (for oral), Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts (oral only), Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Washington (in New York its 17, by the way). This isn't a comprehensive list, just ones with or near large population centers. So, are you going to tell me that all of these states aren't "socially advanced" or "cultural centers"? I think that the people of Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, DC, Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Seattle would probably have a bone to pick with you if you did. I used Alabama in my post simply because of the alphabet, so I would suggest doing your research before you try to skewer an entire state like that again. If you read the original article, you might note that over 2/3rds of the states say that16 or 17 is mature enough to have sex with an adult. If you don't like it, call your local representative.

Hard8s · 03-12-2006, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Sex with 16 year old = Bad, BJ from 16 year old = OK

Just like when it was listed on fark, you misrepresented the acticle. He pled guilty to stat rape and served his time. Someone with a stat rape chage involving regular sex wouldn't have to register as a SO but he had to because he got a BJ. So the govt's line was Sex with 16 year old = ok, BJ from 16 year old = bad. The court ruled that if Sex with 16 year old = ok, then BJ from 16 year old = OK.

You're right. As I was posting I went back and re-read the article but it was too late to change the title that went on the board. If you look at the first post, the title is different.

My thoughts on the article seem to be totally different from everyone else's. My major problem with the article is how all that it seems to focus on is the sexual acts committed, and how the state dealt with that. It seems to me that the part about meeting this girl online, drinking with her, and then engaging in the sexual act. It seems to me someone was taking advantage of the situation. Nowhere do they take into account the alchoal situation. It seems someone bought it. So if the guy brought it along, and shared it, wouldn't that be a crime as well. If she brought it along, who bought it for her? Wouldn't that be a crime as well?

As far as the age of consent thing, I can see 16 year olds having sex, but the age difference is the thing that gets me. I can see a 2 yr age difference as being OK, but 6 yrs? I know that with all I knew when I was 22, I could easily have manipulated a 16 year old, and made her think it was her idea. However, to me, 16 year olds may have looked great, and the attraction very well could have been there, but the maturity issue, the moral issues, and my scruples just wouldn't have allowed me to do it. I admit that times have changed ALOT since I was 22 and the girls these days, at 16, do not look or act like girls at 16, 15 years ago. But still... At 22, you should be, attracted to girls of your own age and maturity level. It may very well be that this guy was a victim of a sexual crime at around this age, and is mentally stuck at that age, therefore his tastes will stay at that age. Either way, to me he needs help, not jail.

DonovanDuVal · 03-12-2006, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus

I feel that as long as two parties are in agreeance about a sexual act (and are able to understand the decision) nobody should have to go home with a bad taste in their mouth.

I laughed at that. Even if the pun wasn't meant it was still funny.

I think that we may be mixing a debate about what is 'lawful' and what is 'right.' When geography can dictate the law he should really of had the sense to drive her to Canada. Or at least look for sixteen to seventeen year old where the law can't touch him.

I can't help but think from the article that he's not a predator, even if he did ply her with rum and orange. A bad barman maybe. Just the impression that I get, obviously I could well be wrong. Besides, if she did look old enough for sex maybe she also looked old enough to drink as well.

In fact on the subject of what we don't know from the article, who says that she didn't supply the booze. Which might explain why no other charges relating to that seem to be mentioned.

Regardless, what he did has been deemed unlawful. He's been punished, but all they've done is say that he shouldn't have to go on a register for life. Which is now also considered the 'lawful' decision.

Were he a predator I would probably agree that he was wrong with what he did. If it was just an honest mistake, then I merely think that he was stupid.

fastom · 03-13-2006, 10:31 PM

If 16 is legal for her what matters if the guy is 18 or 80? The law is only in regards to her age.

sonikeko · 03-14-2006, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus

It seems to me that as long as all of this was consensual there was no harm done. I agree with martian insofar as blanket laws are effective sometimes, but can often leave a gray area. I feel that as long as two parties are in agreeance about a sexual act (and are able to understand the decision) nobody should have to go home with a bad taste in their mouth.

Unfortunately, she WASN'T able to make a rational decision. She was under the influence of alcohol, which can greatly alter the thought patterns of someone who hasn't experienced alcohol before. I agree that these days, it can be increasingly difficult to discern between someone of legal age and someone who is not. HOWEVER, because of situations like this one, if there is a doubt, cover your own ass and ask.

03-08-2006, 06:47 PM	#2 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	There's a definite moral grey area there. I mean, this guy wasn't some depraved old man - hell, I'm 22. Would it be okay for me to have sex with a 16 year old? How about an 18 year old? How do I tell the difference? What if the 16 year old looks 18, or vice versa? Is it still okay (or not, as the case may be)? The problem with blanket laws with regards to teens and young adults is that no two develop at exactly the same pace. I've met girls who were in their teens but could pass for early twenties. At a glance, no one would give a second thought to me dating a girl like that but according to the letter of the law, I'm in the wrong. This guy isn't a predator. He's just a guy who fucked up - he went to far with a girl who was too young. If he's forced to register as a sex offender that's going to follow him everywhere he goes. As for plying her with liquor... well, I firmly believe that alcohol lowers inhibitions, but does not plant ideas that weren't there to begin with. Take from that what you will. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

03-08-2006, 08:39 PM	#6 (permalink)
astrahl Insane Location: You don't want to live here	Why not 15 or 14 or 13? 16 is 2 years out of elementary school. Do you really think a 16 year old girl (an average 16 yr old girl or boy for that matter) is capable of making that kind of decision? A 22 yr old knows better or at the very least SHOULD! At that age, a young adult is too influenced by pressure, even science has shown that teenagers have irrational thought patterns. This guys took advantage of that to get a BJ. __________________ Maybe it was over when she chucked me out the Rover at full speed. Maybe Maybe... ~a-Ha

03-09-2006, 05:59 AM	#13 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Does anyone know what this guy was charged with or convicted of? The article doesn't make that clear at all. As best I can tell, this was all completely voluntary on the girl's part, and she might have been a willing participant the whole time, alcohol or not. Let's remember that the court was just saying that the laws are inconsistent since they're treating voluntary intercourse differently than oral sex, and I have to agree with them. Which is the more invasive of the two? There's a lot more to the story than I think that any of us know. I can make a guess that these two were drunk on the beach, she went down on him and a cop walked by. He busts them for lewd conduct, figures out they're drunk and that she's underage. She may have even told the guy she was 18. Can anyone prove anything one way or the other with the information provided? As far as whether or not the act itself was creepy or not, the age of consent in California is 18 (http://teenadvice.about.com/library/...nsentchart.htm), so it's pretty clear to me that he's not playing by the community standards. This link is pretty interesting, especially with the way that homosexual sex is treated. Check out New Mexico. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

03-09-2006, 07:01 AM	#14 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	In Canada the age of consent is 14. I don't know how I feel about that other than I lost my virginity at 14 to an 18-year-old. At the age of 16, a woman should be considered old enough. Giving alcohol to a minor should be seen as a seperate offense (contributing to minors) but should be taken into consideration. Sounds like he did the time and probation. The issue is whether it is fair that he be labelled for life as a sexual predator when the sex that was had was consensual. I agree that he should not have to live with that stigma for the rest of his life. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-09-2006, 07:19 AM	#15 (permalink)
Jack1.0 Tilted	My question and the intent of my earlier post is, "Did the 16 year old really consent?" The only thing I see in the article above is that the man was “convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a minor of the age of 16 or 17.” This does not mean that the girl consented. It means she couldn’t prove in court that she did not consent, or that a plea bargain was reached for a lesser offense. Is it possible that the man in this case manipulated her, conditioned her, and preyed upon her? Do we really know all the facts? (I’m sure the news reports have been completely fair and factual. </Sarcasm off>) I know I’m a little off topic from the original question but I feel strongly about this and I think that we are far to quick to assume, in this and simiar situations, that intercourse was consensual without even trying to get the facts. It sounds a little too much like, “She was asking for it.” __________________ Jack1.0 ---------------------------------------------- I've learned to embrace my inner Geek. I haven't found anything else I'm good at. Last edited by Jack1.0; 03-09-2006 at 07:25 AM..

03-08-2006, 08:02 PM	#4 (permalink)
Deus Upright Location: New Orleans, Louisiana	It seems to me that as long as all of this was consensual there was no harm done. I agree with martian insofar as blanket laws are effective sometimes, but can often leave a gray area. I feel that as long as two parties are in agreeance about a sexual act (and are able to understand the decision) nobody should have to go home with a bad taste in their mouth.

03-09-2006, 12:19 AM	#9 (permalink)
Plaid13 I want a Plaid crayon	giving her rum first.... underage been drinking not thinking clear yeah thats just wrong. If she was sober i would say fine whatever let her do what she wants since hes only 22. Personaly im 25 and a 16 year old girl looks like a kid to me. Not to mention most 16 year olds are not mature enough to make choices like that. mostly they think woo hoo this will be fun without thought for what might happen as a result. stds or whatever. I really dont think they should make it diffrent to recive oral or intercorse they should be treated as the same thing. Oral intercorse are even just dry humping in the back seat of a car should all beconsidered the same thing. A line should be drawn on whats what. otherwise you could get some dirty old man rubbing a 12 year olds ass and getting off on it and getting away with it because she was dressed and they didnt have intercorse. He is a sex offender and should have to register as one hes old enough to know better then to do crap like that. Personaly i think the girls parents should be allowed a few good swings with a baseball bat to his crotch. Sure it might be wrong but worry about that after its all done. its a mistake they made out of emotions. they were not thinking clearly at the time. maybe give them some rum first.

03-09-2006, 07:47 AM	#17 (permalink)
AngelicVampire Insane	Innocent until proven guilty. If she wants to convict him of anything she has to prove that he is guilty. He should also be allowed to question his accuser in person. MO, probably not worth the £0.02 its written on (oops thats a crime)

03-09-2006, 08:05 AM	#18 (permalink)
cellophanedeity Heliotrope Location: A warm room	I see nothing wrong with what he did. If she hadn't consented, that would be a different story, but she did, and so I don't think he did anything wrong. __________________ who am I to refuse the universe? -Leonard Cohen, Beautiful Losers

03-09-2006, 08:13 AM	#20 (permalink)
wolf Ravenous Location: Right Behind You	Rum and Orange Juice? I can't even imaging that tasting good. Perhaps his idea of sex included Bill Clinton's theory that oral sex doesn't count. __________________ Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.

03-09-2006, 08:16 AM	#21 (permalink)
astrahl Insane Location: You don't want to live here	Let me clarify my math... I went to a school that went from k-8th grade. There was no middle or jr high, THAT's why I made that comment. A 16 year old cannot consent to a medical procedure, and a 16 yr old cannot consent to sexual activity with damn 22 yr old. So is it okay for a 27 yr old guy to get a bj from a 16 yr old? How about if that 16 yr old wants to suck off a 40 yr old? Still sound ok? If it doesn't, then is wrong for a 22 yr old too. __________________ Maybe it was over when she chucked me out the Rover at full speed. Maybe Maybe... ~a-Ha

03-09-2006, 08:28 AM	#22 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Sex with 16 year old = Bad, BJ from 16 year old = OK Just like when it was listed on fark, you misrepresented the acticle. He pled guilty to stat rape and served his time. Someone with a stat rape chage involving regular sex wouldn't have to register as a SO but he had to because he got a BJ. So the govt's line was Sex with 16 year old = ok, BJ from 16 year old = bad. The court ruled that if Sex with 16 year old = ok, then BJ from 16 year old = OK.

03-09-2006, 08:47 AM	#23 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	we already had a thread that goes on about age differences. it got locked http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=101781

03-09-2006, 08:50 AM	#24 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Decriminalization of the BJ, the true Clinton Legacy :P __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-09-2006, 10:30 AM	#26 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	what i think is interesting is that if one goes over and checks out the "when do you lose your virginity?" thread, you'll find a rather large number of people seem to have gotten it on when then were about 15, give or take a year...and the person who ushered them in is frequently older. i personally think after about 15, that the stat rape should be about age. a 15 year old girl should be off limits to a 30 year old guy, but i don't think i'd really have a problem with consensual sex between two 15 year old, or even close. i think in most cases, 22 + 16 = bad idea..but a blanket ruling I'm not so comfortable with. Aside from that, the ruling was more along the lines of what kutulu had done said was. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

03-09-2006, 03:49 PM	#29 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	I certainly hope a 16-year-old girl knows her own mind. If not, she's going to have to learn it pretty quick--18 isn't that far away. Consider that for all we know, she might have been turning 17 the next week. Then in just over a year she'll be considered of age. My point? The age of 18 is incredibly arbitrary. At 16 you can get a license to drive. The state in which you live will entrust you to operate a motor vehicle in such a manner than does not endanger yourself and others. Yet, at least in California, you can't be trusted to make your own sexual decisions. Yet you can operate something a lot more deadly. In my mind, I would hope that someone who can operate a car can make decisions regarding their own sex life, REGARDLESS of the age of the partner. I know when I was sixteen my parents had faith in me to make the right decisions, regardless of the age of consent. I know if I have a daughter, I will have the same faith when she is sixteen. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

03-13-2006, 10:31 PM	#33 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	If 16 is legal for her what matters if the guy is 18 or 80? The law is only in regards to her age.