It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do rapist and pedophiles have paternity rights?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


Do you have a thread on parental licenses then, or a more related thread in general? I'll share some of my thoughts




posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailasa

Originally posted by who's watching who
reply to post by Kailasa
 





Now how about naming me 3 civilized countries in which marriage is legal at 13?

we were talking about sex not marriage.

Argentina ; consent starts at 13
Cyprus : consent starts at 13
Japan : consent starts at 13
Mexico : consent start at 12
Spain : consent start at 12
USA : travelling citizens starts at 12

www.avert.org...


I specify "civilized" because you are suggesting our moral beliefs should be influenced by what goes on in the rest of the world.


I'm not suggesting this at all, what I'm trying to say is that the subject i relative to the country the person lives in. I would consider the above countries to be civilised, but I don't agree that someone of 12/13 has the mental capacity to think through the consequences of having sex, but I'm also not conceited enough to think that I should be telling another country what their laws should be.

In the case we are talking about here I believe that even if the young girl did give consent the guy should still be jailed, because as he was the girls mother partner he was in a position of authourity over her, and having sex with her whatever the age of consent, this is an abuse of power.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I will U2U you so as to not hijack this thread.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
The age of consent was different back then,thats why.


Yes it was... and somewhere along the line, an imaginary line was pulled out of a Rabbit's hat and what was previously adult became a secondary sub-category of "CHILD" with an extra included loss of rights and responsibilities!

Wait, so why are you even mentioning this as it has zero relevance to the argument I am making, or is this your one obvious comment for the day?

Morality changed, Maturity didn't. You can't legislate sexuality, or whether people are aroused by someone older/younger. But you sure as heck can make it illegal to think such thoughts.



If this was so then there would be no statutory rape laws.The reason their are is because teenagers under the age of 16 are minors and therefore can not have legally given consent.


Statutory Rape laws exist Specifically, and ONLY, for parents who wish to imprison adults who have sex with their teenagers. Statutory Rape is NOT rape... it is Defined as Rape because someone wants penance for "Robbing their children of innocence", when really they are upset that they were robbed of their own innocent naivety about their tweens or teens.

When an underage girl is raped by force, coercion or domination by an adult with authority, that is classified as RAPE. Not Statutory, full on Rape.

As such, Statutory rape is for prosecuting one party of a couple for having consensual sex.



WTF!
Rape is rape is rape.
Saying that a child (or woman) was a slut is nothing but a BS excuse.


Unless they are a slut? Or a Nympho, or likes sex, or enjoys getting their freak on?

Rape IS Rape. Definitionally, Being a slut generally means you weren't raped but that you consented. Now, it could be STATUTORY rape, but look above at what that means.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheColdDragon
 




Being a slut generally means you weren't raped but that you consented.


No.A slut is slang for a woman who is promiscuous.
If you think raping women is ok because they enjoy sex then that speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.Not the type i care to debate with.So congratulations,you've made it to my highly coveted ignore list.Wanker.


[edit on 14-11-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 


Wow. This has to be one of the more humorous ignores I've ever earned, considering you just basically agreed with me about what Slut means and then turn around and say something I didn't say.

Kudos, even though you don't hear me.
I'll continue to star your salient comments on other threads, without your knowledge. BWAHAHA!



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Though it does beg the question, now that I think about it, if an individual (Regardless of age) enjoys the act, DOES it constitute actual rape?

Laws say one thing, and the ones that apply to those who consent and participate but are not legally classified as being able to consent are the Statutory Rape laws. These are enacted in order to protect the "Child" from "Themselves" as well as to enforce punishment against the partner of the "Child" for having a "Predatory Nature".

Likewise, if the age discrepancy is great enough, the partner of the "Child" is classified as a "Pedophile" by society, even though the term "Pedophile" means something entirely different than "Has consentual sex with someone under the age of consent".

Look, I realize that the law says certain ages CANNOT consent... and to a point that is certainly true (I certainly don't expect six year olds to have any clue or inkling about sex). However, when you say that an individual CANNOT CONSENT because the LAW says they cannot, you are cornering yourself into a circular (Illogical) and incorrect argument.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Cold Dragon,

At this point in the thread we've sidetracked, since we don't even know if the original victim "enjoyed" it or not.

I agree with the person who said that most statuatory rape laws are prosecuted by the parents, who become vindictive at the child's loss of innocence.

I beleive that the spirit of the law is that the child cannot give informed conscent. He may say yes to a specific sexual act, but have been coerced into it against his will and decided that he "Enjoyed" it after the factor agreed to do an act without fully realizing the consequences or responsibilities involved. That is not the same as an adult givingtheir conscent.

I also think that many teenagers can be "Sluts" and seduce and older man, but I think that is by far the minority in these cases.

It doesn't absolve either side of their guilt though. She, if she actually did seduce anyone, was fully guilty of that, and he should have known that there would be legal recourse for the sexual act.

But, I don't think that "seduced" should be used as a legal defense at all; it's an extreme example but that's why they stone 16 year old rape victims in the Middle East.


Edit: Oh yeah, and whether the "rape victim" enjoys the physical sensation of sex is irrelevant; if they were physically or, in the case of these children I supposed, simply coerced into it then that is still rape.

I don't think you m eant it this way, but it's absurd to think that one can force himself into another person's body, but if they force themselves in such a way that they enjoy it, then it absolves them of guilt.

In fact I think some rapists use that as a justification. I remember watching a documentary on a serial rapist that detailed how he performed oral sex on his victims during his attacks, because he beleived that the women would enjoy this, and then they wouldn't see it as rape.


[edit on 18-11-2008 by asmeone2]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


All salient points and I commend you. However, what I specifically refer to is sexual intercourse without coercion. If both parties are consenting, *I* don't classify it as rape, even if Law does.

However, if Force or Authority is used as leverage to enact against the minor, then the initial PURPOSE was force and control towards a sexual end.

If both participate and enjoy it, regardless of the law (And Statutory Rape), it isn't true rape.

Likewise, no matter what age a person is, if Force/Coersion/Authority is used as a Kludge to instigate satisfaction of one participant primarily, then it is rape even if the victim "ENJOYS" it after the fact or finds that they enjoy it DURING.

Does this clarify at all?



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TheColdDragon
 


Yes, I think we agree


It does get very dicey, though, when you are in that grey area where the 'victim' is in her mid to late teens and the 'rapist' is only a few years older.

He can say that he didn't know her age or that she seduced him in order to cover up a rape just as easily as she can say it was rape when it wasn't.

In cases where there wasn't rape involved, merly a difference of age, I think it is very unfair that the men are usually punished harshly and the women gtet of free (if we must punish at all.)



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


And I agree, I think that Statutory laws are more often abusive than they are helpful. I think people who make a decision to have sex should be responsible and admit to their choice, and I think that parents should stay out of it if it is obvious that their daughter or son had sex of their own volition.

But then I also think Coercing a minor into admitting to reluctance is just as bad as coercing a minor into having sex, because it is dishonest and it causes suffering to someone who doesn't necessarily deserve it.

I am certain there are cases where the parents use their parental authority and influence to convince the minor that they were victimized.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by asmeone2
 


And I agree, I think that Statutory laws are more often abusive than they are helpful. I think people who make a decision to have sex should be responsible and admit to their choice, and I think that parents should stay out of it if it is obvious that their daughter or son had sex of their own volition.


To an extent. As a parent I can say I would NOT want my child having sex if I didn't think that they were ready or with a person that was dangerous to them. I would want them to be at a point where they are strong enough in themselves that they do not feel that they have to use sex to manipulate and understand that if there is no love or respect in the relationship that sex won't put it there.

Most parents would be appaled by your suggestion... because it would mean that we'd have to actually talk to out children and teach them about birth control and other issues, and my gosh, the world would collapse if we did that.


But then I also think Coercing a minor into admitting to reluctance is just as bad as coercing a minor into having sex, because it is dishonest and it causes suffering to someone who doesn't necessarily deserve it.

I am certain there are cases where the parents use their parental authority and influence to convince the minor that they were victimized.



Yes, I'm sure of that first point too.

Unfortunately there are parents who get emotional milage out of their children's problems.

And, I'm happy to say that I do not know any pedophiles, but I suspect that for many of them, the appeal is not so much the physical sensation but the sense of control they get from manipulating a child and taking his innocence.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
And, I'm happy to say that I do not know any pedophiles, but I suspect that for many of them, the appeal is not so much the physical sensation but the sense of control they get from manipulating a child and taking his innocence.


I actually have known some, over the course of many years. You'd be surprised to know that actual Pedophiles aren't usually the ones responsible for a lot of the rapes that happen. The Wikipedia article on the subject discusses this.

Most childhood rapes which involve power-play were usually committed by people who had much deeper seated problems than just being attracted to children.

Though I certainly do not expect you to take my word on it. I feel it would be best to read up on the matter, and always be aware of the problems with statistics/sources and public bias on the topic.

As an aside, I happen to have a four year old kiddo and am just as protective and cautious about such concerns with him.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TheColdDragon
 


Refresh my memory, what article are we talking about?

And I think I might have confused you, because by "pedophile" I meant the people who are actually raping and molesting children, not those who might entertain the fantasy of sex with a teenager or child but never act on it.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


The Wikipedia Article about Paedophilia. Many of the ones that rape/torture/murder children tend to have psychotic disorders or sociopathy, and in most cases it has little to do with any actual sexual attraction and more to do with the convenience of a small, childlike victim who cannot save themselves and is powerless.

Pedophile's, on the other hand, would like to have sex without harming the child emotionally or physically because they are sexually attracted to children.

Consider it the difference between someone who rapes women and someone who is sexually attracted to women.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
More abuse of children.... is this girl's punishment to never end?

In our society, at this time, the laws state that a minor cannot give consent. Without consent, this is rape. Period. It does not matter when our forefathers got married; that is not our society. It does not matter what other countries do; that is not our society.

In my opinion, a 13 year old girl cannot fully understand the implication of what she is doing, and the future consequences of her actions. At 13, a girl should be playing with her Barbie Dolls and having sleepovers with friends while they talk about 14 year old boys and what yucky thing they heard in school about sex, not doing it with 'old guys'. That is why we have these laws.

And please, don't anyone start telling me this is OK because it's 'victimless'. A young girl lost her youth and a part of her education to have a baby. She will now lose a great deal of her carefree years tending for and caring for that baby. And as she realizes with the increased knowledge of life that adulthood will bring, just how badly she was robbed, she gets to face this man now who did this thing to her, every visitation and probably in between.

How many dates with boys her age will she miss now? How much money throughout her life will she now not have a chance at, because she has to care for a baby while she is still little more than a baby herself, and cannot educate herself beyond cashier at WalMart or waitress at a truck stop?

And even worse, what kind of life awaits that baby, being raised by someone so young and inexperienced in life? That's two counts of child endangerment and abuse, the way I see things.

Criminals like this, any grown man who would harm a child for a quick joyride in the sack, and then who is so callous to bring her to court to get any 'rights' to a child he should never have even had, should not be allowed to use up oxygen that could be used by intelligent humans. And he should also be forced to stop producing CO2, as that might make Al Gore leave the rest of us alone for a little while.


Hmmmm...

Actually I doubt it on the Al Gore thing, but it's a nice dream.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Way to ignore a cogent argument taking place and spout off your own emotion-based opinion about a topic.

Remind me of Loud Howard, irreverent as to what is actually being said and vehemently proclaiming whatever passes through his head.

Look, if you had read the previous several posts, you'd realize that the discussion taking place recognizes what the law is... but that you want to ignore the past, ignore cultures of the world, and to endorse the Law because it IS the Law and you want protectionism for sexually mature teenagers speaks directly to your level of dissemination.

I have nothing at all against you, Redneck. I merely view the situational world, where Relativism is considered above and beyond Absolutist Morality.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TheColdDragon
 


Okay we actually agree again then, I just mis-used the term Pedophile.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Who brought up the word slut?

WTF has that got to do with a 13 YR OLD being raped?

FFS!!!

IMO the person who molests & rapes children does not deserve anything at all, except castration and a long jail term.

How absolutely tragic, it is situations like these I am definitely pro abortion.

Poor girl.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Thurisaz]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Thurisaz
 


I brought it up. Considering the context of its usage, it was not being mis-used since the topic of its sentence was a situational possibility.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join