Underage Gay Sex Worse than Underage Straight Sex in Kansas - Until Now

Remove all ads!

If it's real rape, I hardly see the person living a decent life. If it's child molestation, I'm still highly doubtful. I believe a small share of "statutory rapist" may be good people and victims of circumstances, but not many. I've only heard of two rapists reforming and it was heavy penance on which their further life focused. Their life was basically centred around repenting. One of them was a guy who raped and killed his wife, then became a monk in prison (and I don't even know how credible the story is). The other was the attempting but unsuccessful rapist of St. Maria Goretti (she died resisting at the age of 11 years IIRC). I've been challenging people for months to provide more examples but haven't been given any.

Erm... you can't excuse things retroactively. A circumstances that excuses an act needs to exist at the time of committing the act or before. You can make up for crimes in various ways afterwards but you can't undo the original crime, either. I'm not excluding the possibility of a rapist ever becoming a good citizen but the only two I've heard about have ended up in religious orders repenting for the rest of their lives, so hardly "citizens" in the same sense as everyone.

Scars remain for life, especially from childhood and from things far lesser than rape, but people who have been raped aren't damaged goods.

I have to agree. I've seen examples of that. Obsessive protection of a child's virtue ends in creating drones that don't have the willpower to resist anything on their own. I especially dislike the absurd rules some Catholic parents make up for their children. For example, while they don't see anything wrong in kissing on dates, they forbid their children from dating the same person twice in a row because they don't want attachments to be formed, as in their minds, sticking to one person leads to sex. So in order to avoid their children having sex, they encourage taking it out by having romantic encounters with more people than just one and many romantic relationships but of a lighter kind, to balance out each other. As a result, while they mean well, they end up making their children feel guilty for having a boyfriend or girlfriend, and that not because of the PDA involved but because it's with one person. I've heard one of such teenagers rant on how bad pairing up is. So, in order to avoid something which can potentially lead to a bad thing, they accept or even create something which is already bad (which they admit under sufficient pressure).

I don't think that's true. There are neo-Nazis and others who would beat gay people up on sight but being opposed to gay sex, gay "marriage" and gay adoption doesn't mean persecution. For example, I'm firmly against calling gay unions marriage or letting them adopt children and even more firmly against any sort of propaganda claiming that homosexualism is normal, but I don't want to see gay people hurt or even ridiculed for being what they are, discriminated in areas where their homosexualism isn't relevant. I think most people who are against gay "marriage" and adoption think the same. Prosecution is a nice dramatic word but it doesn't reflect reality.

Shhh... let's not give people ideas.

 

Very true, and we do tend to go overboard; I only meant to point out that the opposite extreme could be even worse. Moderation, as you said, is indeed the best policy.

Because all human beings are egotistical, self-righteous pr*cks.
.
.
.
Oh yeah, and me too.

My high school girlfriend was raped, and I tried to help her through it. It wasn't easy, and I'm ashamed to say that I failed in the end. She never was quite the same after that. And before you go spouting again, there was no news coverage, which made her feel like noone cared what had happened to her. It's been four years, and last time I called to ask how she was doing, she was still too afraid to leave the house at night.

No, it does not make you a victim of 'fatalism', but it sure as hell gives you a strong push in that direction. And degeneration is not always bad in the long run, if done correctly. Some, left to their own devices, would simply degenerate on their own and rot at a comfortable level of self-pity and desolation. Others (possibly like yourself) refuse to give in the least bit.

The third path has become the most trusted: the rebound. Hit rock-bottom and bounce back stronger for the experience. Pushing down past the farthest depths of despair to get to a level of misery that is beyond the threshold of comfort, you can bounce back up and put the whole thing in the past.

Those who would rebound on their own simply rebound faster, and those who would rot are given the strength to hit and bounce. But those who resist are sometimes pushed down into the 'comfortable' level by this therapy. I often wonder if that's what I did, or if I was simply not strong enough to see her through.

My throat's starting to close up, so I think I'll finish quickly.

More than you can ever imagine...

 

I'm of two minds on this issue. First of all, I can't debate that anytime someone has a traumatic experience, it can have recurring effects for the rest of their lives. Yes, they may never fully recover (mentally). However, I do not think that this is something that happens only in the case of people who are sexually assaulted/raped/etc.

I know of one person who refuses to drive at night, after having been in a serious accident while driving at night. She wasn't doing anything wrong, and the person who struck her was driving with a suspended lisence, and yet, she will not drive herself at night. I can only imagine that the traumatic experience this person has gone through has been just as life-altering and long-lasting as that of people who have been molested. Yet, I don't think people could justify sending someone to prison for life or executing them for driving with a suspended lisence.

The problem here is that the reprecussions cannot be quantified or predicted in advance. Many people get into car accidents, and don't have long-lasting effects. I'm also reasonably sure that most people who have been molested recover in time as well. However, there's no way to predict, at the time it occurs, how long-lasting the effects will be, or if they will go away at all. I'm just not sure that being molested is that much worse than any other traumatic experience, whether that be a car accident, seeing a family member die, or even something like suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. In fact, while post-traumatic stress disorder is something most closely associated with people who have been in extremely stressful situations in the military, based on the symptoms and reactions, it seems like most of these other people are suffering from the exact same thing. I don't know if we can say that one case is worse than another.

As for the case at hand, I don't think that the punishment should be any harsher for homosexual contact as opposed to heterosexual contact. I say contact, because the charge was not any form of rape or sexual assault. That suggests, at least, that there was no sex involved.

I'd also like to point out that this isn't a case of child molestation - at least not a typical one. Typically child molestation is used to refer to an adult forcing himself on a child who has not reached sexual maturity. With a 14-year old and an 18-year old, that doesn't apply. Hell, I know of many instances when I was in high school of a freshman dating a senior, and in some cases that was a 14-year old and an 18-year old.

I also agree with Morgoroth's point of tying the age of consent to when you reach sexual maturity. And 14 seems to be a pretty reasonable figure in that regard. I'd imagine that would cover upwards of 95% of males, and probably upwards of 98% of females.

 

Well, Aldeth, on surface, driving with a suspended licence is just it, driving with a suspended licence. But licences are revoked or suspended for a reason and there's also a reason why only people with a licence are allowed to drive (at least on their own) or people who have been drinking are banned from driving. A person who chooses to drive in such circumstances endangers other people either as a matter of choice or stupidity. I don't like the fact that it depends on a crash happening or not how many years a given person will get (if at all), while all such persons make essentially the same initial choice and it doesn't depend on them if the crash eventually happens or not. But I don't like the idea of punishing people for what they haven't done. If we were to punish all drunken drivers (or people with suspended licences) as potential crash culprits, we would need to be consequent and punish the actual drunken car accident perpetrators only for posing danger. There is, however, too much room for speculation: how drunk is drunk, what about individual limits, was drunkenness (suspended licence) the only cause or just a sufficient one or completely incidental etc etc. Finding out if an accident would have happened if a car had been approaching from the opposite direction would be even more bizarre. I think we are well off enough with what we have now. As for the comparison between child molestors and car accident perpetrators, the first basic difference that comes to my mind is the fact that child molestation, let alone rape, is a voluntary crime, while car accidents are mostly results of stupidity. There's a difference between malice and stupidity.

I tend to think traumas from car accidents should also be easier to heal, given that a car accident is often close to a natural disaster from the point of view of the victim. Not the same, because there's still someone to blame, but close. In molestation, one is directly faced with the dark side of the human soul. I think that's more traumatic, although it surely depends on individual cases and individual people. Seeing a family member die can be explained away: accidents happen, age exacts toll, diseases collect mortal boon. "People sometimes molest children" doesn't really work that way. Again, it surely depends on the intensity of molestation.

As for 18 year olds dating 14 year olds, I can tell you that when I was 18, being hit on by girls three or four years younger didn't feel right. Perhaps not wrong but not normal, either. Individual maturity or even just older looks seem to help the situation a bit, but it still feels somewhat weird.

As for age of consent, sexual maturity is a vague term. Do you mean the ability to have intercourse or finished puberty or the psychological condition of being able to understand the implications and possible consequences of sexual intercourse (which in 90% cases doesn't come before 30 )? Personally, I don't think people should have sex before they have finished puberty and are ready to bring up children, but a maturity-based distinction seems to be a good one for the purposes of criminal law.

 

LNT:

The objective of informing the viewing public of a situation such as that is so that they are AWARE of what kind of predator is on the loose. There were no graphic details given, as you seem to imply. The media reports these things at the police dept's REQUEST....so if we see the moron, we can report him.

Personal morale crusade?? The anger that people feel, just MIGHT help to catch these criminals -- to be more aware. And you're right, it might not have a positive effect on that particular child, unless that child feels somehow good that other children won't suffer the same.

Funny, but that's just what you're proposing, by your earlier comments. Keep the crime and the child locked away -- so that the public can't help in some way to get these monsters off the street.

I think you really need to speak for yourself here. There are many individuals who HAVE been traumatized and DO feel broken -- I think it's quite as bad as it's reported to be.

I cannot even believe you would make such a comment, particularly in the context of this discussion. Absolutely unbelievable.

 

@ Spellbound

Regarding the "sex is overrated" comment...

There are far more damaging things done between two people besides one molesting the other as a child. And yet, at least according to my view of popular culture (which could be wrong of course), the child molester is considered the single most vile human being to exist. In fact, to most people, they are not even human, but rather some sort of monster.

So that seems somewhat inconsistent. To my view, it is because the child molester is a deviant variant of human sexuality. Once sexuality enters the picture, all of the sudden people lose all sense of perspective, hence the statement: "Sex is overrated."

Child molesters are bad people. Don't imbue them with magical properties. They are in no way capable of effecting someone for the rest of their adult lives. That is just overly romantic dramatizing.

I think perhaps we are in disagreement over the healing process. I say there is one and it ends one day. The popular view is that being molested or raped is a life-long affliction. I think the popular view is not true.

If a person claims to be "broken", I claim there is someone else allowing them to exist in a broken state by providing them with a lower standard.

People whom claim not to be able to walk, demand others carry them, and yet own two working legs make me ill. Put them down. They'll get hungry and walk again. Trust me.

 

Sorry to chime in like that when you're obviously talking back to Spelly, but it doesn't even take molestation to mark someone for life. Children are generally vulnerable to such things and not only children. The fact the stigma, internal and external, can be shaken off, doesn't mean it hadn't been caused first by the offender. Where the lawyer in me agrees with you is that people should be punished for what they have done, not for how bad we feel about them. Murderers are scary, child molesters are creepy. The creepy part comes from the fact they get off on it, a very specific kind of perverse pleasure, making them sick in the eyes of the rest of people and rightfully so.

Being a perpetual victim is convenient. One of the way of cheating one's way out of normal requirements, perhaps, plus a way of attracting attention.

 

I wish I had said "person who has done a very bad thing to someone". Bad people is sort of a judgement I am not truly capable of making. That is the domain of the suprahuman...

But regardless...

My point (I think I had one...) was that the hysteria surrounding child molestation hurts the abused by offering them the "understandable" mindset of a victim. Eventually, you just have to tell them to "walk it off" or they will become the carried.

 

LNT:

Excuse me... I didn't realize that you were speaking for all people.... or that it was "Life According to Late Night Thinker". For your information, one of my closest friends was raped at an earlier period of her life -- she hasn't worn a dress since that attack.....in fact she goes out of her way to dress like a boy. Not broken?? Romantically dramatisizing? What gives you the right to make generalizations like this? SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, please, and stop minimizing other people's traumas.

 

If your friend is afraid that wearing a dress will cause her to be raped again, do you recognize that as irrational? Are you complacent in allowing her to think that is a rational cause & effect relationship? Being abused as a child does not grant someone the right to be irrational.

Maybe she is just not the "wilting flower" type... Plenty of women are not "wilting flowers" without being raped. Correlation does not imply causation, even if claimed by the subject.

But in all honesty, I was talking about claimed effects a little worse than choice in attire: things like alcoholism and spousal abuse and infidelity. You know, things that are important.

 

LNT:

I cannot discuss this with you any further. I find your comments unbelievably arrogant and highly insulting. Who the hell are you to say what is important to a victim and what isn't?? Can you not see that the attire issue is a manifestation of a serious wounding that never healed? Who do you think you are? You have quite the gall.

 

Which word in that question implies special privilege?

But if you don't want to talk, then fine...

[ October 25, 2005, 05:54: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

You may have had a couple good points before, but now you have not only crossed the line, you urinated on it. Spellbound may have been able to restrain herself, but I will NOT let you off so easily.

Do you honestly think that she would not (at least occasionally) try to dissuade her friend from an ultimately harmful compulsion? Do you also assume that her friend is stupider than even you, so that she cannot see how irrational her actions are? Do you think that her friend does not struggle with this every single day of her life!?!

If so, then you know less than nothing about psychological damage, and you should stop posting in this thread so as not to further embarass yourself. I have seen people try to overcome these things with disastrous results. When the brain recognizes a danger (imagined or real), it can pump out dangerously high levels of adrenaline and other chemicals. Someone in imagined danger can even have a fatal heart attack.

I'll end with a word of warning that I hope and pray you will never need. Based on your previous posts, I'd say it's possible that the damage you suffered is festering so deep that it's become a part of who you are. If so, it will spread like a cancer and eventually there will be nothing left except a gaping hole in your soul. And should the worst occur and you turn into that which you hate, I hope you will remember my words and stop yourself by whatever means are necessary.

 

Each person is an individual. Each reacts according to his or her own strengths and weaknesses.

What we have in the way of support also affects us.

My childhood was in the era when silence was the norm for the crime of child molestation. In fact I'm not even sure it was a crime then. People just ignored it.

Let us not keep silient but let us recognize that what is true for one person is not of necessity true for another. How I react is not going to be the same as someone else.

 

Yes, well, refraining from making judgement is also the domain of the suprahuman; one can't live and not judge things, events, people, what have you.

One may claim--and believe--one's judgements are invalid or irrelevant, one may refrain from speaking about them, but one makes judgements nonetheless.

 

Aldeth's hit the nail on the head, IMO. Not sure about the sexual maturity thing at 14, though - physically, yes, but mentally? I think statutory rape is a bit of a crock, since it's a strict-liability offence that only requires actus reus, and the defence to "normal" rape doesn't apply to it. Personally, I'd be more concerned if a hypothetical underage son or daughter of mine was having consensual gay sex than consensual heterosexual sex, but it's certainly nothing that would warrant a 17-year jail term for their partner.

Now, if it wasn't consensual... well, I'd be getting out the hypothetical shovel and getting medieval on that hypothetical someone...

LNT - You're being more than a little insensitive, but I can see what you're saying. Different people have different sensitivities, and yes, those can be amplified or worsened by media exposure, or by being told repeatedly that they're a victim. Using a particular victim as a poster-child for a campaign can perpetuate the "you're a victim, and you always will be" perspective, which does nothing to help them. That said, the "irrational" comment was a bit harsh - after all, a perceived risk requires management, and if that risk has ever translated into reality for someone, is it really irrational?

 

Take up theatre Fel...

 

So...anywho...

Wow, Kansas-huh...

Anybody ever seen a tornado?

 

Tornadoes...I hear they're sorta like nukes, only, like, cooler. Less radiation, y'know.