[kj] OT: R.Kelly Likens Self to Bin Laden
Amy Moseley Rupp
gathering@misera.net
Tue, 16 Sep 2003 19:53:01 -0500 (CDT)
> HOW MANY people follow these laws of consent out of an actual
> sense of morality?
Because there's a huge difference between two people in
a committed relationship, no matter what their ages, and
a one-nighter. With a one-nighter, if both parties are
overage, we might raise our eyebrows about the wisdom and
morality of such an act; but with a one-nighter between
an underaged person and an overaged person, we say, and
rightfully so, that the overaged person should have known
better and not subjected the underaged person to the
very real risks of sex. If it was truly risk-free, it'd
be an entirely different story: but it isn't. We would
like to pretend it is, because it *is* enjoyable: but just
like it's a primal force, it causes feelings of attachment
from one person to another, and .... pregnancy! We can
try to defeat procreation, and win most of the time, but it
is hard to defeat millions of years of evolution. Most
young girls and women have sex because they feel *attached*
to a guy -- they want to make a connection, an emotionally
deep one as well as a physically deep one. Unfortunately,
that's not reciprocated by most young males.
The rules we follow regarding sexual age-of-consent have
a *lot* to do with the age of female reproductive ability.
It truly used to *be* more like 16. Now, with a higher
fat diet, it can be as low as *10*. We've therefore extended
the outward sexual maturity of the female body, and the
ability to get pregnant, to far younger ages than ever before.
We want to protect our children (of both sexes) from pedophiles,
and we want society to protect them somewhat from being
taken advantage of -- for example, there are many jobs a "child"
under 18 cannot work, if they are deemed hazardous. I was in
one of them, and they thought I was 18 cos I'd graduated high
school. Boy did they freak out when I casually mentioned I
was 17 ;-) if anything had happened to me, my parents coulda
sued the shit out of them and won. And that's another part
of the equation. Parents are *really* going to protect their
children, and I guarantee if you diddle most 15-year-old girls,
and their parents find out about it, they'll come after you.
As to the right of a 15-year-old to express themselves
sexually: they have that right. Nobody goes after the
15-year-old. They go after an overaged person. That 15-year-old
can experiment to his or her heart's content with a like-aged
person. Two 15-year-olds? Okay, they are mutually experimenting.
But a sexually mature and experienced older person, with a 15-year-
old? What is that older person looking for? obviously they
don't need to experiment, and they aren't looking for a long-term
relationship in most cases, because a 15-year-old is simply too
young for that. Two inexperienced 15-year-olds are also
less likely to give each other a disease.
This is waaaaaaay more than I probably should say on the subject,
but I *am* making an attempt to explain my feelings. I remember
very well what it was like to be a teen: both from the wanting-to-
have-sex role and the feeling of exploitation. I'm a mother of
two daughters, and frankly, if there was some hot 17-year-old
guy I wanted to go after, I jolly well could wait until he was 18 ;-)
--Amy
>
> Now, that texan father would still draw his gun(yay!) b/c his
> daughter still got used, then kick her ass for consenting to sex
> with that 22-year-old married military man in Her Majesty's
> Forces, but not because she was raped. (Because he's 22? married?
> military? a man? British?)
> Because he'd have rationalized(the country too)long ago that 15
> wouldn't be considered rape.
>
> Something similar happens nowadays with prostitution being legal
> outside of Las Vegas. If a 'john' doesn't pay, he's accused of
> robbery, but not for solicitation, or the girl for prostitution,
> or the madam for "madaming", or the guy who spritzes the girls
> down B4 each gig for complicity or similar. Because their 'take'
> on it is that those activities, given an appropriate context and
> (though grudging) acceptance, are not illegal.
> So what defines a person being competent for sex?
> Age? we Gotta do better than that.
>
> PP.SS. (looking for a woman's perspective)
> As opposed to the phrase, "she WAS raped"**,
> does the phrase "she GOT raped" somehow feel like it's
> implying the woman had somehow 'caused' her being victimized?
>
> Saul
>
> --- Amy Moseley <amyr@jump.net> wrote:
> > Quoting Jester <webmaster@killing-joke.com>:
> >
> > > > In the US it's 18.
> > >
> > > No it is not. It varies from state to state. Here in Texas, the age of
> > > consent is 17 for both males and females, and affirmative defense is 14.
> >
> > You're correct, and in Texas we can also execute 17-year-olds, but
> > they can't vote. Affirmative defense is a laugh. Again, the over-18-
> > year-old oughtta know better. Lowering the age for "sexually active"
> > individuals is like saying rape isn't rape if the girl was slutty.
> >
> > Let's put it this way: if a 15-year-old Texas girl went to the UK
> > on a school trip, and got shagged by a 22-year-old married military
> > man, you *know* many Texans would feel her father justified in
> > taking a shotgun over there! It's not about just being a prude:
> > it's about disease and pregnancy. What if said 15-year-old had
> > gotten pregnant? Would've been pretty hard to marry her given
> > he was already married!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gathering mailing list
> > Gathering@misera.net
> > http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Gathering mailing list
> Gathering@misera.net
> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering
>