Anger is a gift (Happy 3rd Anniversary!)

[€uroMeinke]

I read this article on the pedophile and was surpirsed by this quote:

The Homeland Security department is one of the federal agencies responsible for investigating child pornography and online exploitation of children, through its immigration and customs unit and the Secret Service

I didn't realize this was a tasks of Homeland Security - is there an expectation that terroristist are also pedophiles or pornographers?

[innerSpaceman]

The most recent science concludes that the essential judgment centers of the brain, necessary for making rational decisions, is not fully developed in humans until age 25.

My personal experience with people in the younger 20's, and AS a person in the younger 20's, only confirms this.

So, do we make sexual decision-making illegal until then? What makes 16 or 18 or 21 the magic number, when decision-making ability does not mature until 25?

I'm very sorry and understanding that parents may bemoan the acts of Mother Nature, which is having girls (especially) hit puberty younger and younger. But who can argue with Nature? (Argue and win, that is)


And why is it that kids were married at 12 or 13 when the life-expectancy age was 40, but that is somehow considered too young now? What has changed, besides society? Nothing about the children themselves, though perhaps society once molded them to be a bit more mature at that age than it does today. But they were children biologically nonetheless.

Have we simply realized our mistake? Or is the mistake being made now by puny humans pitting themselves against indomitable nature and evolving biology?

[Nephythys]

Anyone can argue with nature and win. It's called self-control and personal responsibility, and it can be instilled into children as well.

[innerSpaceman]

Then instill it in the children. It's pretty much naturally instilled in most adults as well, not to find young children attractive (ick!). But "instill" is a far cry from criminally punish.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Accepting sexual activity with children who are physically "mature" is no more or less "natural" than a someone murdering someone to protect their territory or property. By your "laws shouldn't go against nature" theory, we really ought to repeal laws agains murder as a simple look into the animal kingdom shows that it's an entirely natural instinct.

[scaeagles]

I have all sorts of issues with the way ages are randomly set for all sorts of activity.

For example, why can someone vote and enroll in the military at age 18, but not consume alcohol until 21? That has always baffled me.

I instill (or have attempted to....my eldest is 12, so I really have no evidence that what I'm doing is working because it's too early) some Judeo-Christian values in my children with regards to sexuality (and drugs as well). With the 12 year old almost year into puberty, it was time to start (several months ago). We have had excellent communication thus far.

That aside, with understanding that Judeo-Christian morality is not what governs the law, I would keep the the statutory limit for consent at 18, with the an exception of a two year age separation exception. Like a 19-17 year old relationship. Personally, I'd like to ban 50-20 year old relationships, but that's just because I find it icky.

Natural law and societal law, to agree with GD, should not be in a position to be forced to line up.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Personally, I'd like to ban 50-20 year old relationships, but that's just because I find it icky.

Sorry to quote myself, but after rereading my post, I didn't want to offend MBC, so I will retract it.

[innerSpaceman]

Sorry, but I'm not buying that murder is natural law. Animals generally don't kill members of their own species. In fact, I'd say it's much more an abberation among animals than it is among men.


In any event, I find zero correlation between consensual sex and unconsenual violence. In wanting to de-criminalize the natural, I am not supporting de-criminalizing everything under the sun simply because everything happens in nature.

Perhaps that leads us back to when people can "consent" to sex. I say the science makes that 25, and I say that's absurd. Any other age limit is arbitrary. I'm not comfortable with criminalization based on arbitrariness.

[wendybeth]

Not true about the animals, iSm. Male cats often kill litters, as do the larger wildcats. Dogs will fight to the death, not to eat, but to establish their ranking in the pack. (Or to protect, etc). Animals kill often for no apparent reason, just like people, and within their own species. We had a murderous zebra finch we had to get rid of not too long ago.

I'm far more comfortable with an arbitrary age of consent than with none at all. A child, by your own statement, cannot make an informed decision and an adult can. Until we come up with a better way of determining the age of consent we're stuck with societal rules. Part of the social contract, whether one likes it or not. I understand the rules are far more relaxed in other countries, but that is changing- just ask Gary Glitter.

[Not Afraid]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/517604.stm

So, I had to look up Gary Glitters chargers and history.

Originally Posted by re:ex GF

She received £10,000 for revealing that he was "bald and a wig-wearer".

Originally Posted by QC guy

he had downloaded the material and secondly "that it was carefully, deliberately and enthusiastically done".

The judge, Mr Justice Butterfield, described the pictures in Glitter's vast library as "filthy and revolting" and of the "worst possible type".

As opposed to the better type of child porn?