Uh-huh. Maury....I have to wonder about the people who go on those shows
in the first place. I don't watch....not "quality" entertainment. I am
the mother of two daughters. I don't want my children having sex EVER!
PERIOD! Is that realistic? Of course not. If my daughter was 16 brining
home a 22 year old and I found out they were consensually sexually
active and exercising precautions, that would be a reality I could deal
with. I hope I raise my children well enough for them to take
responsibility for the choices they make and try to always open the door
to every opportunity for open communication. This is a different time
and age. Kids are moving much more quickly now. Everything is happening
younger and younger. I really don't know too many 22 year old males who
think like men, and I don't think their maturity level is that of a
27-30 year old. Yet, to each his own. I don't have to like your opinion,
you don't have to like mine. Makes absolutely no difference to me. I
just know I sure as hell wouldn't go back and press statutory rape
against a guy who was 22 when I was 16 if I knew full well I had
willingly taken my pants off for him. I sure as hell wouldn't press
statutory as a means of punishment for non paymt. of child support.
There are other legal avenues for that.
I think we really need to teach our kids to take responsibility for the
choices they make. We need to educate them and help them to be safe. We
need to open lines of communication to our children. Saying, "well,
hon., if he doesn't pay child support, were gonna press rape charges" is
a pretty irresponsible and negligent action on behalf of the parent.
What example is that setting. Vengeance is mine, sayeth the angry
mother?? We can't allow emotional turbulence to rule our actions. You
choose to spread your legs for them, you are one half of the act. You
willingly engage in sex, that's not rape. That's a teenager with a
hormonal burst and desire to hang with the big dogs. If you don't know
who your child is seeing and get in their business to know what they are
doing, then you are the guilty one. We cannot use the law here or there
as the situation suits our emotional whims. My opinion, no one is going
to change it, no matter what anyone has to say. I am going with it. If
someone doesn't like it, they can suck farts.........

HA!!! That'll be the freaking day.

18, 17...that's one thing...

22, 16?

21, 15?

20, 14?

what about 19, 13? hmmm..a little too risky, there?

so what's wrong with 18, 12???



what's wrong with this picture Jean is you are intentionally twisting
the numbers. You have taken them from being two numbers between two
people old enough to say yes or no, kept the same age differance, and
taken it down to a child. as far as 13 or 14 goes? no number is
compatible with that and you know this. You are a highly intelligent
woman jean, so I ask that you do not try to mock my intelligence with
someting like this. Plain and simple there is nothing ilegal with two
poeple that are 6 years apart in age having sex, as long as BOTH of them
are old enough to choose. A sixteen year old is old enough to choose
for him or herself. now if that 6 year age differance has a 12 year old
on on eend then yes it is illegal.

Hummmm Micheal believe me your one in a million.

Hi Txs,

Told you I was a romantic!!!!



michael

"in retrospect, I wouldn't have CARED if my mother
had him prosecuted for statutory rape, had I known he was going to shirk
his responsibility to his child."


Ok lets pick this one apart for a monet, cause I know we are disagrreing
on what i tmeans, and i wan t make sure We undertsand, ok?

this whole sentence can be rewritten several ways, but the easiest to
dowithout changing the meaning would be to do thid:

Had I known he was going to shirk his responsibility to his child, I
wouldn' have CARED if my mother had him prosecuted for statutory rape.

you are saying that you did not originally agree with the idea of
charging him cause you thoguht he was gonna do his part. right?

however, now that you look back, as an older and more mature woman who
knows he did not do his part, you would not have agreed OR disagreed
with his being prosecuted, right?

it boils down to this, if you think he is gonna do his part, then he
should be left alone and not troubled by the law, but if he doesnt do
his part, then he should be charged with statutory rape.

one more way to say this. It is ok for a 22 (?) year old guy to have
consentual sex witha 16 y/o girl as long as he isgoing to do his part.
however, ih he is NOT oging to do his part then it is statutory rape.

"He should have been arrested for statutory rape, if the son
of a ***** wouldn't pay child support."

Again, lets paraphrase this entence jean, cause I am stills eeing yo
stating that a person that doe snot pay child support shoud be charged
with statutory rape.


"if the son of a ***** ***** wouldn't pay child support, he should have
been arrested for statutory rape."


What deos that sound like to you jean? To me it clearly states that you
think he should have been charged with statutory rape becuse he did not
pay support.

first, let me say that i would do everything possible to prevent said
relationship between a 16 and 22 yo. up to and including personally
threatening him with litigation...which would generally work, methinks.

some children at sixteen just might be old enough to make that
decision...i might have been one of them. there are vast differences
between someone who is 16 and someone who is 22, though...and because
each kid matures at a different rate, just where do you draw the line?

i've known twelve-year-olds that would take their pants off with someone
who was 22, too...and do it willingly...but that doesn't mean that she
isn't being twisted in some way.

mind you, i'm not saying that he should be labeled as a "rapist" or
spend years in jail...i think the judge in the case should have a bit of
lee-way on who carries such a stigma.

there was a guy on another site we were on, for instance...that had
"almost" slept with a twelve-year-old. he was 24, i think...and was
adamantly opposed to anyone doing a back-ground check, because he's on
the registries and such...his defense was that she said she was sixteen.

Nobody said a DAMN thing about "if he doesn't pay child support, we're
going to..."

Do you understand what the word "retrospect" means?

I said that, in RETROSPECT (i.e., looking back on the situation) that, I
wouldn't have blamed my mother had she prosecuted him for the CRIME he
did commit (which was BY LAW at the TIME) statutory rape.

Don't twist my words, okay?

"what's wrong with this picture Jean is you are intentionally twisting
the numbers. You have taken them from being two numbers between two
people old enough to say yes or no, kept the same age differance, and
taken it down to a child. as far as 13 or 14 goes? no number is
compatible with that and you know this. You are a highly intelligent
woman jean, so I ask that you do not try to mock my intelligence with
someting like this."

You missed my point entirely. The LAW in 1975 stated a 16 year old was
NOT of the age of consent. PERIOD. Not to mention, I was a MINOR and my
MOTHER made the RULES, not ME. Teenagers don't tell the parents what to
do; the parents tell the teens what to do. At least they did back then.
I realize things are different now, because many parents are a bunch of
wimps who don't even TRY to control their kids' behavior.

"Plain and simple there is nothing ilegal with two poeple that are 6
years apart in age having sex, as long as BOTH of them
are old enough to choose."

Uhh..excuse me? Plain and simple (back then) it WAS illegal! Not to
mention...there is a huge difference (at least theoretically) between a
16 y/o girl and a 22 year old MAN.

"A sixteen year old is old enough to choose for him or herself."

No, they are not, not (back then) in the eyes of the law. Now, if you
want to let your kids run their own lives at 16, that's YOUR
prerogative. But my daughter at 16 sure as hell wouldn't be allowed to
date a 22 year old man.

"it boils down to this, if you think he is gonna do his part, then he
should be left alone and not troubled by the law, but if he doesnt do
his part, then he should be charged with statutory rape."

If you want me to not insult your "intelligence," then quit acting so
ignorant.

And STOP misquoting me. I did NOT say "If he's not going to do his
part." That's an absolute LIE if you're saying I said that, because I
did not.

what part of the word "retrospect" do you not understand?

And by the way, there is no "t" in CONSENSUAL.

Lulu, i think most people are thinking entirely with their genitals and
not with their brains.

I don't know of any 16 year old who is prepared to be a mother at that
age, and particularly not a single mother.

As you know, we have laws in place to protect children for a reason. It
doesn't matter one iota whether or not she is "capable" of saying "yes."

I would argue the same thing if the situation were reversed (Mary Kay
and Villi ring a bell?) though he was only 13 at the time...I'd still
have been highly PISSED if he was my son and was 16 and I found out his
34 (?) year-old teacher had "seduced" him.

Someone has to be held responsible and it should be the (theoretically)
more mature of the two, the one who is the age of LEGAL consent.

jean all I am going to do at this point is suggest to you that you
either need to go back to school and retake basic english lessons,
because you sure do not know what you are writing, OR you need to quit
getting so defensive, go back, and reread your posts and look at what yu
really did write.
I have not misquoted you once. When I quote someone, I use the cut and
paste tools, and if I am paraphrasing (which is saying the same exact
thing all ready said in a different order of words) I make sure I have
the exact phrase I am paraphrasing sitting in front of me, or else I
will type in something to the effect of that being how I remembered it
having been said.
And finally, don't be so petty. I know there is no 't' in consensual.
It was a typo, as I am sure there were other typos and will be more
typos.
You really are quite intelligent Jean, and I enjoy reading your thoughts
and opinions usually. However, when you get upset about an issue, you
appear to stop thinking about what your writing, and you claimthat what
you write means something entirely different than from what is actually
written.

Quick in & out remark.

There is a legal age of consent LAW

There is a legal age of dependants LAW

Educate the kids as to what can happen.
I knew that if I played wrong I could go to jail.
In most cases I know of, if the sex was with consent, as long as there
is an agreed no contact order, no prosecution.
Some one is being hard headed & creating the problem.
Know of an exact case going on here in Iowa.
Kids were offered a deal, boy is saying no deal.
Will they die from not seeing eachother for 18 months, THINK NOT.

OHH letters will be allowed with parental supervision.
Think there is always a compromise to be found.
COURTS do not want to handle everything, dockets are full, why do you
think there are so many plea bargins?

My thoughts

That is true oldsage...
And I have to say, that what I was primarily getting at i the beginning
of htis post, is that as parents WE NEED TO SLAP SOME SENSE INTO
OURSELVES

Damn tab key, lol.

As I was saying, as parents we need to slap ourselves sometimes and
remember that if they were seeing each ohter during highschool, and
there is one, two or three years differance, then they are gonna
continue to see each other if they are so inclined. And with nay
natural relationship, there is gonna come a point when they decide they
want they want to start having sex. And considering that it was "legal"
or at least not considered to be stat rape while both were in school,
then one of them having graduated should not make a difference.
And yes, for those that have said at 18 you know what the law dictates,
and you knowif you break it there are consequences. That deos not mean
the law is always right no matter what. Rightnow as an example, here in
michgan a woman still "legally" is required to get permission from her
husband before cutting her hair. That is an actual law in effect. Now,
is it enforced? Hell no, of course not. Should it be taken off the
ledgers? yes. Does it mean it will? No it doesnt. So legally, if my
wife (if I ever am presented witht hat special gift again) decides to
cut her hair in michiugan and deos not talk to me first, I could legally
have her prosecuted. And no, ladies I would not even consider doing
that
Some laws need to be revamped over the ages, and some laws should never
have existed in the first place. In my honest and humble opinion, in
order to be charged with statutory rape, the child in question, should
not be in highschool yet (or normal highschool age). A highschool age
person, wether they are correct or not, usually considers themself to be
an adult, or adult enough to make rational decisions, and they are gonna
make decisions wether or nto tey should or you agree with them. Do NOT
mark someone with something as filthy and life changing as rape, simply
because they and their significant other decided to go the next step
when they shouldnt have.

all I know is that my daughter isn't leaving the house now at all until
she is 21
<--off to buy lots of duct tape and nails to nail her door shut

lmao at im, now now man you know that aint right although I
can agree with ya on wanting it that way

"jean all I am going to do at this point is suggest to you that you
either need to go back to school and retake basic english lessons,
because you sure do not know what you are writing, OR you need to quit
getting so defensive, go back, and reread your posts and look at what
you really did write."

OMFG!!!!
That has to be about the funniest, most ABSURD statement I've ever heard
in my entire LIFE!!! Thanks for the laugh!!!!

Yeah, I need to go back and take basic English lessons. I've only been
an editor for more than 20 years. I don't have any PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER
with my English, nor with my writing skills, thank you very much.


"I have not misquoted you once. When I quote someone, I use the cut and
paste tools, and if I am paraphrasing (which is saying the same exact
thing all ready said in a different order of words) I make sure I have
the exact phrase I am paraphrasing sitting in front of me, or else I
will type in something to the effect of that being how I remembered it
having been said."

You misconstrued and deliberately twisted the intent behind my words.

"And finally, don't be so petty. I know there is no 't' in consensual."

Yeah, ok.

It was a typo...

Yeah, okay.

"You really are quite intelligent Jean, and I enjoy reading your
thoughts and opinions usually. However, when you get upset about an
issue, you appear to stop thinking about what your writing..."

Like HELL I do! I know EXACTLY what I was writing and I meant EVERY WORD
of it!!

"you write means something entirely different than from what is actually
written."

No, I'm sorry, but it does not. Even when I clarify for those who cannot
GRASP what I SAID (what I actually TYPED) some still INSIST on twisting
my words. It's not my fault some people have problems with comprehending
PLAIN ENGLISH.

If you need help with the big words next time, please don't hesitate to
ask, and I'll be glad to assist you. Alternatively, wait until you have
time to read, with CLARITY, what it is I have written, and try to pay
attention to the really difficult words such as "RETROSPECT" before you
fly off on a tangent and accuse me of saying things I did not say, or
meaning things I did not mean.

Having said that, the bottom line is whatever i WANTED to have happen to
him or not, regardless of whether or not he shirked his responsibility
to his child, he STILL, according to the laws of the time, committed
STATUTORY RAPE and he was old enough to know better than to get involved
with a MINOR.

It's mind-boggling to me that you don't seem to understand that basic
concept and the reason for such laws.

uhh jean I hate to burstyour bubble, but I probably speak and understand
english better than a good majority of the american population. Not to
pat myself on the back, but english and literature has been a major
passion of mine since before I was even in kindergarten, and I was
reading (and understanding) shakespeare when I was 7. I read J.R.R.
Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings when i was ten. C.S.
Lewis's Narnia series when I was 8 and 9.
To this day I still read whenever I get the chance, and I coach kids in
their english and literature studies when asked. So no, I do not really
think I am ignorant on the subject of the written word and it's meaning.

Humm maybe it is just me but..... I seem to have the need now to put my
two cents in to this conversation once again.

First yes I do agree with you to a point Daniel about the situation of
an 18 with a 16 year old and the parents of the 16 pressing charges.
That is if it was consent which is not always the case and the boy
having to be labled as a sex offenderd for 10 yrs or longer to always be
on his record.


BUT............. I also understand the laws and why they are there and
the reasons we do have them. I also stand behind those laws as well.

If it had been my son yes I would have been very upset with the out come
but also could understand and have told my kids many times if you make
the choice to break a law make sure you are ready to pay the price it
will cost you. Yes my son has not been the perfect child and yes he has
been in trouble with the breaking the laws and yes he had to append by
those laws. He paid the dues that was put upon him by the courts and he
did learn from them as well. No it was not sexually charges his was
driving records and some other things. He wishes he had listen and done
things the right way. But our kids do not always listen to all we tell
them.

No one is beneath the laws. Yes there are laws on the books that are
outdated and do need to be revised. But........ they can not make a law
with a clause saying if it happens this way we will look the other way.
The ones that break the law now have too many loop holes to get out of
them now.

One thing for sure , if more of the parents took more time with there
children instead of letting the system educate there kids on the laws
and what is right and wrong more kids would understand the issues.

I'm in no way saying this is in the case of all parents for sometimes
you can teach them till you are blue in the face and they will do what
they please anyway. So also I don't feel that parents should ever have
to take the full blame of the actions of there kids. For I myself have
seen parents that could have not done a better job and the kids did a
totaly turn around and did a 360 from everything they have been taught.

But... also I do see Jeans views on this post with the utmost respect
she is a lady first and formost and one with great knowledge of the
written word. One I would not go head to head on as far as to tell her
how to write and how it should be written. Humnmm its like telling a
bird that it does not flap its wings correctly in order to fly.

But.......... when it comes right down to the post its self I still
don't agree with the way the law is due to certain situations. But like
I said regardless the law is there also to protect. For at 16 years old
no one can tell me they fully understand what it means to have sexually
relationship and what the outcome can produce from the hardship of
raising a baby learning to be a mother or father. Life is in no way that
easy. And at 16 they do not have the knowledge or can see the whole
picture. They are easily taken advantage of and one can very easily
paint a pretty picture for them to believe. Maybe the truth of the
matter I really don't see at times that an 18 year old is in much better
shape. Truth of it is I think the age at times to be considered as an
adult maybe should be moved to the age of 20 in order to let one get out
of school and really live in the real world for a couple of years to
fully understand. What life is about. But.... then I have seen those at
20 that still can not understand that either so then it comes back to at
what age should one be considered as an adult. And at that time be
prosecuted to the fullest if they so make the choice to break them.

Either way it goes and no matter what we think of those laws they are
the laws. Unless we actually make a diffenerne and change those laws we
must abide by them never less. We can make all the excuses we want to of
why we break them but in the end we will have to follow those laws and
pay the dept as well. As far as the the law sees there is no excuses for
our actions or any excuses for not knowing the law.