oculus rift Head of Computer Vision at Oculus VR arrested in Child Sex Sting

[tlink]

1 minute ago, Memories4K said:

That's another thing, kids will have sex with other kids regardless of the legal age of consent.

I remember being 15 in high school not too long ago, i don't know what it was like for previous generations but it was a very sexually immature yet sexually free time.

I think a great solution is, yes, proper sexual education. (No doubt the argument will come up on who's responsibility it is: The parent/s or the state to sexually educate, let me save you the trouble for myself. I believe the state should.)
The more educated kids are (Abstinence is ok, so long as it's not propaganda. It's only smart to engage in sex with others who have lower sex partners to reduce the chance for STDs/STIs, or to better find ideal mates.) i believe the more kids will benefit and make better decisions about their own sexual health.

yea sexual education is really important, my parents and school where pretty good at that. they basically told about where baby's come from or how sex should be something both enjoy and consent too like as soon as i understood the concepts. there are even special kids books about the human reproduction system and sexual health that explain it in a simple manner with drawings. but even with a good sexual education a kid can still rebel against their parents and stuff like that. 

and yea the other problem is kids that just want to have sex and one of the parents disagreeing or something, but thats often where the judge just makes a call if there was abuse in play. if there wasn't its just the parents their job to make sure the kids don't have sex, otherwise the judge can maybe give a very light sentence such as mandatory therapy or reeducation or something, just a way so the police can actually do something when there is actual abuse in play but the other party is not mature enough to see it.

[Memories4K]

8 minutes ago, tlink said:

you can't agree based on science, science doesn't have an opinion. you can agree on the logic conclusion from an ethical standpoint, but that isn't science . what i meant by researching it is by making a statistical analysis of what age people start to 'mature sexually' enough that sexual exploitation is below a certain threshold (what that treshold should be again is ethical and up for debate). and why i think that parents should be able to override that is because statistics should never override an individual, some kids just age really fast, some don't. i just think that a parent can judge this the most accurately, so we have like a equal distribution or tollerance system for ages of consent judged by parents with the state protecting the extremes. i mainly think this way because nobody would want to be judged by how said person is categorized, we should judge people by how they are as a person. it would be like putting every depressed person on the same medication without looking at their medical files. or specific atributes of that depression. the state just doesn't have the overreach to look into the files, but the parents do. 

 

5 minutes ago, tlink said:

i chose 16-18 ish because thats the current societal norm, i am all for more research into it but any result is just going to be probibility statistics, we would still have to chose some point where we think the freedom outbalances the risk, which is inherintly an ethical decision. like i said, science doesn't have an opinion, it just tells us facts. what we do with those facts is purely ethical and what the law is and always shall be.

Well science tells us that we'd least likely fuck up a person's psyche around their mid-20s and early-30s, due to that being the age zone in which the human brain is fully developed.
Science also tells us that male fertility peaks in their early 30s and that female fertility peaks (you guessed it) around their mid-20s to early-30s.

Simple biology tells us that humans become capable of sexually reproducing by 12/13 (puberty)

There has to be some kind of critical reason outside of "this is the way things have always been/this is what i was told was good" 25 is higher than 16-18, but it sure would cover lots of bases.

 

[Memories4K]

7 minutes ago, tlink said:

yea sexual education is really important, my parents and school where pretty good at that. they basically told about where baby's come from or how sex should be something both enjoy and consent too like as soon as i understood the concepts. there are even special kids books about the human reproduction system and sexual health that explain it in a simple manner with drawings. but even with a good sexual education a kid can still rebel against their parents and stuff like that. 

My sex ed was ok, not bad but honestly i learned a lot more later that i wish i was taught earlier.
I don't trust parents to teach their kids about sex ed, just like i don't trust the parents to teach their kids about nutrition and health.
A lot of parents just aren't equipped to to handle that kind of situation, they aren't qualified enough to do the job needed, many times because they themselves don't know better.

[tlink]

1 minute ago, Memories4K said:

 

Well science tells us that we'd least likely fuck up a person's psyche around their mid-20s and early-30s, due to that being the age zone in which the human brain is fully developed.
Science also tells us that male fertility peaks in their early 30s and that female fertility peaks (you guessed it) around their mid-20s to early-30s.

Simple biology tells us that humans become capable of sexually reproducing by 12/13 (puberty)

There has to be some kind of critical reason outside of "this is the way things have always been/this is what i was told was good" 25 is higher than 16-18, but it sure would cover lots of bases.

 

well that depends, wouldn't said persons around that time have moved out? how can someone learn when there is nobody to teach anymore? its probably also hard to enforce because who's going to oversee it? 18 and 16 generally are the age where a lot of things become available to adolescents, drinking, driving, smoking, taking a loan, being medically independent etc. so after that parents just have less oversight over their kids. I honestly don't know if there's a perfect solution, nor if my solution is the best.

[tlink]

3 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

My sex ed was ok, not bad but honestly i learned a lot more later that i wish i was taught earlier.
I don't trust parents to teach their kids about sex ed, just like i don't trust the parents to teach their kids about nutrition and health.
A lot of parents just aren't equipped to to handle that kind of situation, they aren't qualified enough to do the job needed, many times because they themselves don't know better.

the government and parents should compliment eachother on both subjects i think. i wouldn't want to hand the government complete control over education because that just leads to a circlejerk, but some restrictions should be set. its again a balance between freedom and safety. i also do think that suffering just is part of human life, you can't learn without falling down. it sounds very harsh but we can't protect everyone without harming others. and we can't give everyone freedom without endangering parts of society too. politics is basically constantly trying to find a balance between those.

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

2 hours ago, tlink said:

...the point im trying to make is that kids and teens often just are not mentally capable of overseeing the consequences and impact of things they do, the brain is in development until 21 and is extremely unstable during that time...

The brain actually is still developing into the mid-20s, the brain is just deemed as being able to handle alcohol and is mostly mature at age 21.

 

http://hrweb.mit.edu/worklife/youngadult

[DarkBlade2117]

8 hours ago, Kloaked said:

Dude what? Yes it does. The age of consent is 18 in the USA - if you're over that age and you get in bed with a minor (less than 18 years of age) then you can be considered a statutory rapist. Someone I'm close to married a man who did that to a 15 year old girl (he swears he didn't know she was 15 but that's always the story) and he had to register as a sex offender and report to a law enforcement officer every so often - and he has to hold a job with his agreement. He got off lucky as far as I'm concerned.

 

This has nothing to do with biology. Dude is guilty of statutory rape if what is being said is true. Defining him as a pedophile is debatable but he will have to register as a sex offender if he's found guilty.

Actually age of consent in US is state by state basis. For example, in my state it is 16.

[Guest Kloaked]

5 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Actually age of consent in US is state by state basis. For example, in my state it is 16.

I had no idea!

[tlink]

53 minutes ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

The brain actually is still developing into the mid-20s, the brain is just deemed as being able to handle alcohol and is mostly mature at age 21.

 

http://hrweb.mit.edu/worklife/youngadult

the brain actually is in development its entire lifetime, it just degrades faster than it builds new connections.  but that wasn't really my point i guess. like i said it just depends on where you draw the line for certain definitions. the distinction in nature isn't really that clear. just as the difference between animals and plants, it sounds really bipartisan but it has species that dance at both sides of the camp.

[Mooshi]

I like how we're trying to equate a 15 year old to a 4 year old. 

[Jack the Stripper]

19 hours ago, coasterghost said:

-

He will be cell mates with the ex-Subway Spokesman skinner Jared Fogle. That is some really sick shit, should be a trophy kill for anyone on the inside, but they probably put their entire kind together. These kinds of people are never cured, NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!

[eLucid]

Once a creep, always a creep.

 

Hardly surprising tbqh.

[MrDynamicMan]

17 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

I wouldn't call statutory rapist "pedos". It's a tricky subject but we where all horny 15 year olds once. It's still a crime, it's still taking advantage of a stupid teenager, he still should go to jail if guilty. But to me there's a large difference between someone who abuses his position as an adult to fuck with a teen and someone who is honestly attracted to prepubescent, under developed kids.

There's a big difference between a 16 Yo with daddy issues and a 5 year old boy. I agree completely. 

[MadyTehWolfie]

This is Chris Henson on dateline.

 

So why did you come to this house?

 

[HughMungusCynicalAnarch]

I wouldn't exactly call a 15 year old a child especially since that's around the age when people begin having sex.

you can't exactly call it rape when sex between two people of the same age would have been perfectly legal.

[dalekphalm]

7 hours ago, HughMungusCynicalAnarch said:

I wouldn't exactly call a 15 year old a child especially since that's around the age when people begin having sex.

you can't exactly call it rape when sex between two people of the same age would have been perfectly legal.

I agree with your first point. There's a large distinction between say a 10 year old and a 15 year old.

 

However, your second point is patently not the case in ALL civilized nations. It's considered rape because (in theory) the younger party wasn't mature enough or mentally developed enough to make a correct decision regarding consent. Furthermore, the fact that he is significantly older can be interpreted as him using his age and sense of authority to pressure a younger person into agreeing to something they don't want to do, or wouldn't normally of their own volition.

 

It's called "statutory rape". It's not the same thing (and less severe) as non-consensual/forced/violent rape, but legally it's in the same ballpark.

 

I'm not going to say whether it should be legal for a 15 year old to have sex with someone in their 30's or not - that's for psychologists and medical professionals to determine. But whether it should be considered rape or not, it is.

[HughMungusCynicalAnarch]

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I agree with your first point. There's a large distinction between say a 10 year old and a 15 year old.

 

However, your second point is patently not the case in ALL civilized nations. It's considered rape because (in theory) the younger party wasn't mature enough or mentally developed enough to make a correct decision regarding consent. Furthermore, the fact that he is significantly older can be interpreted as him using his age and sense of authority to pressure a younger person into agreeing to something they don't want to do, or wouldn't normally of their own volition.

 

It's called "statutory rape". It's not the same thing (and less severe) as non-consensual/forced/violent rape, but legally it's in the same ballpark.

 

I'm not going to say whether it should be legal for a 15 year old to have sex with someone in their 30's or not - that's for psychologists and medical professionals to determine. But whether it should be considered rape or not, it is.

So then anyone extremely wealthy or powerful rapes anytime they have sex? 

That authority argument is bullshit.

if anything a younger person has more authority about this because they can say "if you don't have sex with me" or "if you don't give me money" I'll claim we had sex. Also coercing someone into sex is not rape unless violence is involved. Statutory rape doesn't not exist in reality and only in the law where it was arbitrarily created.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, HughMungusCynicalAnarch said:

So then anyone extremely wealthy or powerful rapes anytime they have sex? 

That authority argument is bullshit.

if anything a younger person has more authority about this because they can say "if you don't have sex with me" or "if you don't give me money" I'll claim we had sex. Also coercing someone into sex is not rape unless violence is involved. Statutory rape doesn't not exist in reality and only in the law where it was arbitrarily created.

Obviously it's not black and white, so your argument is invalid.

 

Authority IS important. It's exactly WHY most universities, for example, have policies against students sleeping with staff. Same goes for High School - even if the student is 18 years old and legally allowed to have sex.

 

But it's not black and white. It's not saying that you automatically rape someone if you're wealthier then they are. But if you are in a position of trust or authority, it is very easy to abuse that position to take advantage and force sex upon someone.

 

It's true, a younger person could use that to their advantage. Fortunately, we live in a society where the court has to prove you are guilty of a crime.

 

And frankly, fake rape reports happen regardless of wealth disparity or authority. It's one of the biggest challenges facing real rape victims.

 

You can say that statutory rape doesn't exist (BTW: "doesn't not" means does, as it's a double negative), but then what do you say about, let's say, a 13 year old girl who decides she wants to have sex with a 38 year old man? Are you okay with that? Let's say she agrees to it, and he doesn't have to pressure or convince her at all (Let's even say that she had to pressure HIM into it). What is that, if not statutory rape?

Quote

Statutory rape doesn't not exist