PICTURES.

THE PUBLIC DEMANDS PICTURES OF THE WOMAN BEFORE PASSING JUDGMENT.

If this woman looks like that model-level hot schoolteacher who was messing with her student last year, then I say let her go free!

If she's one of those repulsive bloated cows, then this abomination before the eyes of God must be punished with the full force of the law.

Ace--

I've been meaning to post on this subject before, but really, anything approaching this topic is verboten. It's the "third rail" of inappopriate humor.

Since you went first. . . my thoughts are identical. Yes, it's a crime. . . but c'mon. 95% of teenage males would *love* this sort of situation. I knew I certainly would have, back in the day.

Let's be honest: past a certain age, all boys think about nothing but sex. And this story, and others like it, are a Van Halen video fantasy come to life for millions of teenage boys.

Does it make it legal, or even ethically right? No, certainly not.

Do I understand it? Of course I do.

Damn genetics. Why can't men and women be timed to perfectly line up sexually? Can't we fix it so we both hit our stride at, say, 25? When boys start kickin', no woman will look at them. When women finally get kickin', the men are too busy watching the game.

Cruel, cruel fate.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

I'm holding off judging this poor woman until I see whether she's hot.

How would you all feel if it was your mom doing all your friends, if not your entire 9th grade class?

I'd feel terrible, of course.

She's a horrible parent to her son. But the legal/moral question is whether she *really* violated these boys.

The drug stuff seems a lot worse to me than the sex.

Reversing what Joe Jackson said, "Don't you know that it's different for boys?"

Julie--

If it were my mom, I'd pity those poor boys. They'd never be right again.

Yikes. There's absolutely no way she could be part of any teenager's fantasy. She's a mix between that woman from Natalie Wood's last movie, Brainstorm (Louise Fletcher) and Kathy Bates in Dolores Claiborne. No wonder she had to drug them up.

Sorry, forgot to link it properly.

Now my fourth grade teacher on the other hand, the 25 year old competitive swimmer. Oh my God, I would have volunteered for some molesting in a split second. Then there was the grad assistant teaching Spanish 102 in college, hell, I had to drop the course as I genuinely could not concentrate.

Too bad this wasn't by buddy Joe's mom. She'd popped him out at 15 and will always be the original MILF to me.

Louise Fletcher? I.e., Nurse Ratched?

Dave, by 25 the pickin's have already become a bit too thin for my tastes. Could we settle on 20 or 21? (not a serious comment)

And Julie, would it really matter how old the boys were? I would be sick to my stomach if my mom was bangin' (okay, typing that made me feel 'icky') my friends when they were 25 or 30. I'd still want to vomit. (a serious comment)

But the real issue is whether the boys had the mental capacity to agree to have sex with her. Were they capable of rationally deciding. Well, if we think 16 year olds should be sent to adult jails or subjected to first degree murder charges, then we have implicitly decided their ability to make adult decisions. And why that doesn't apply to sexual encounters with older women is beyond me.

This is the basic, if they're old enough to die for their country, then why can't they have a beer argument.

And for me, the outcome is the same. 18 is an artificial age by which to deem somebody an adult. And I fall well within the "they're all horn-dogs" camp.

Best regards,

And what a-hole was the one who ratted on the deal?

That's the kid I really don't understand.

And Ugh, please never link to pictures like that again. Ever. Thank you.

Yes, I was Nurse Rachet. And here's a picture of me where I look like this crazy mom. Sorta ruins the fantasy, no?

I wonder if the mom said anything like, "The boys don't get shirts. The boys don't get shirts!"

Ace:

Since, the law is on the books, yes, she broke the law. You say you don't think it as bad as an offense. But, since when does the law have to have victims on an equal footing? What if I came up and punched both you and your elderly grandmother. One could say one act is not as bad as the other, but they are still against the law. As far as boys being different, I don't know if they're any legitimate studies on it. And what if it were your Dad doing your freshman class? How would that work out? Would the question still be whether he legally and morally *really* violated these boys? Stop squirming.

Okay, Birkel, we'll do it your way and and prosecute juveniles for statutory rape, too.

And the 'if they are old enough to die for their country, they are old enough to have a beer argument' – After lowering the drinking age in the 1970s, I believe a number of states raised the age back to 21 because the alcohol injury/death rates were too high.

what if the old bat got knocked up? Sure a teenager boy is ready to screw but that doesnt mean they are ready to deal with all of the consequences. Its not like women cant get layed whenever they want to so why mess with the kinder?

Whoever above posted the link to the pictures, I swear on my family I will hunt you down and take a chainsaw to your groin.

I think I am now impotent.

This thread should be closed. Now. For the sake of all mankind.

Cheers!
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Let's say you give a pass to the adult woman doing your 13 y/o son. When the 50 y/o geezer who is doing is your 12 y/o daughter complains about equal protection under the law, does he get a pass, too?

Julie, you are wrong about why most states raised the drinking age. (interesting side note- in Louisianna the drinking age is 21 but the purchasing age is still 18 [unless it's been changed recently] ) Most of the states raised the legal age because Congress threatened to withhold federal roads dollars if they didn't.

Now that I've dismissed your "belief," please let me tell you that what you wrote, even if it wasn't wrong, would be irrelevant to my point. Nice try though.

Oh, and btw, juveniles are prosecuted for statutory in some jurisdictions. But then that's just another "fact" about which you were wrong.

My point remains. We think people can make adult decisions as to crimes. And yet when sex enters the discussion we think they should be protected. What is the sexual hang up? Why is it substantively different than decisions to steal, kill, etc.

And amish, what difference does pregnancy make to the argument? Are you saying that a post-menopausal woman should be allowed to have sex with males of any age? Young girls? Your comment is unserious, IMO.

Julie, the argument is that boys are fundamentally differently situated than girls. So yes, I am saying the punishment of women who have sex with teenage boys is substantively different than a man having sex with a teenage girl.

And, just so you know, the SCOTUS determined in the 70s that statutory rape laws could be applied differently as to boys and girls. So the 14th Amendment claims of men in your hypothetical could, but only could, be denied. That decision would remain with the Supremes...

Funny too, Laura, that you naturally proclaim the victims to be 12 or 13.

I personally believe children of that age should not be punished as adults, as I don't, truly, believe they have the faculties to make adult decisions. Adults who have sex with 12 year olds should be prosecuted for pedophilia, IMO. I think when the age is raised to 16 or 17 your argument becomes more tenuous.

But what makes a 16 year old different than an 18 year old? What separates 17 from 19?

As far as whether it makes a difference if boys or girls are raped, sexually transmitted diseases know no gender. What if the boys end up with STDs? Does that make it worse? As the parent of a son, just because that's all he thinks about doesn't mean it's right or *moral* for someone older to take advantage. Would you all be so sanguine about it if it involved a *father* taking advantage?

when is the last time any of you guys have been around any teen age girls? Are boys more mature than girls? Are they less horny?
I think the reason guys say a female teacher sleeping with a student is less wrong than a male teacher doing the same is because they always wanted to bang their teacher. And men seem to have the idea that girls are some innocent princess' that would never have sex unless some dirty old man tricks them into it. Its sexist i think. wrong is wrong.

What separates 16 from 18? I ask again.

Just because is AN answer. Just not a convincing one.

ok lets assume a 15 year old boy is mature enough to have sex with his 30 year old female teacher

What if he had an affair with a male teacher? Can any man on hear tell me he thinks that this would be ok? I think most people would say the male teacher had taken advantage of his impressionable teenage student. And they would be right.

Birkel,
17

STD's and pregnancy--

Aren't those reasons to criminalize all out-of-wedlock sexual encounters regardless of age?

And yes, I'd be just so sanguine. I think 16 year olds are capable of making adult decisions. And thus are capable of giving consent.

Meanwhile, it remains an academic discussion, as the law really is on the books. And sometimes in democracies majorities rule and even laws that I criticize are ones I'll follow.

The comments you guys are making about homosexual May-December romances are telling. I guess homosexual sex just doesn't move my "icky meter" very high. Some of you obviously feel differently. There's a word for that.

What was that word again...?

homosexual sex doesnt move my "icky meter"?

is that some kind of slang term for penis? do you measure it in metric?

Birkel ,
Now listen, you queer it better not be"crypto fascist"or I’ll sock you in you goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered.

Sin.,
William F. Amish

I'm not sure what William Amish's last comment means.

A li'l help, anybody?

Oh, now I get it. You meant to place a comma after the word queer, didn't you? Honest to goodness hatred on your site here Ace. Oh, and, uh, William, you do know, don't you, that it's unlikely that you'll actually physically assault me?

Now, as for my "icky meter," I mean to say we outlaw some things because of our collective disdain for the thought of the thing happening. (e.g. having sex with corpses) On that one, you see, I am repelled by the thought. It raises my "icky" or "gross" meter past where I think criminalization is appropriate.

The fact that your thoughts, Amish with no first name, turned so quickly to my penis is a little disconcerting. But, to each their own, I always say. Live and let live.

Amish, I missed the clever

Birkel,
17

comment above.

Do you mean to imply I'm seventeen years old? Really? What gave it away? Was it my reference to a Supreme Court case from the 1970's. From Oklahoma, IIRC.

Or was it my knowledge of the drinking laws of LA?

Or did you check my site by clicking on my name and realize that I probably earned three degrees before my 18th birthday?

You could search Harvard or U of Michigan's Law School website to determine whether I graduated or not.

Did you do all that and determine I was 17?

Nice that your style of argumentation devolves to insults and threats.

Congress threatened to withhold federal roads dollars if they didn't.

And the reason for that was . . . . because the alcohol injury/death rates were too high.

Oh, and btw, juveniles are prosecuted for statutory in some jurisdictions.

In what jurisdictions are juveniles prosecuted for having sex with an adult?

But then that's just another "fact" about which you were wrong.

Prove it.

My point remains. We think people can make adult decisions as to crimes. And yet when sex enters the discussion we think they should be protected.

People? I thought we were discussing minors. Nevertheless, we do not think *juveniles* can make adult decisions as to crimes. That is why they are afforded the protection of the juvenile justice system. In comparison to the number of kids in the system, it is still relatively rare that one is deemed unfit for the juvenile justice system and treated as adult.

And, just so you know, the SCOTUS determined in the 70s that statutory rape laws could be applied differently as to boys and girls.

Wow, did you purposely misstatement the issues in that case? If you remember, the issue was whether there was a rational basis for a gender specific statutory rape law. Even then the court commented that there were already 37 states with gender neutral statutory rape laws on the books. Unlike you, they saw the writing on the wall.

So the 14th Amendment claims of men in your hypothetical could, but only could, be denied.

Oh, yeah? Good luck arguing discriminatory enforcement and sentences under gender-neutral laws is fair.

Funny too, Laura, that you naturally proclaim the victims to be 12 or 13.

What's funnier, is that now you can't get my name straight. And I don't *naturally proclaim anything*. Nothing natural about an adult doing a 12 or 13 y/o.

I personally believe children of that age should not be punished as adults, as I don't, truly, believe they have the faculties to make adult decisions.

Do you have prove that they are? The way you keep changing this discussion to make it seem as if the minors are the ones being punished is weird.

Adults who have sex with 12 year olds should be prosecuted for pedophilia, IMO. I think when the age is raised to 16 or 17 your argument becomes more tenuous.

For pedophilia or statutory rape? And according to you, isn't age merely arbitrary? If 12 is wrong and age is irrelevant than according to your arguments 16 and 17 is also wrong.

But what makes a 16 year old different than an 18 year old? What separates 17 from 19?

What separates 16 from 15? 15 from 14? 14 from 13? 13 from 12? As you say, it's just age.

Just because is AN answer. Just not a convincing one. Right.

Who said just because? Not me. Anyway, you are criticizing others for making what you call arbitrary age determinations while doing the exact same thing.

you guys should really lighten up. Discuss more. fight less.

The comments you guys are making about homosexual May-December romances are telling. I guess homosexual sex just doesn't move my "icky meter" very high. Some of you obviously feel differently. There's a word for that.

Why are you calling them "romances." That is something very telling about you.

What was that word again...?

Well, here's a phrase that fits you: Bug up his butt. You immediately got snippy with me and others. Amish made a harmeless joke about what separates 16 and 18 -- 17. Get it? You're suppose to laugh. It was funny. But instead we get your resume as if we are all suppose to bow down to it.

Amish is on quite a roll. Too bad it flew over your head. The Wm. F. Amish comment was a play on the infamous Wm. F. Buckley/Vidal Gore catfight on national televsion DNC 1968.

Julie, sorry about getting the name wrong. It was not intentional, I assure you. I beg your pardon.

In what jurisdictions are juveniles prosecuted for having sex with an adult?

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Clearly I mean minors can be prosecuted for statutory rape of other minors. And the SCOTUS decided it was legal to only prosecute the boys in such cases.

Prove it.

Search for it yourself.

People? I thought we were discussing minors. Nevertheless, we do not think *juveniles* can make adult decisions as to crimes. That is why they are afforded the protection of the juvenile justice system. In comparison to the number of kids in the system, it is still relatively rare that one is deemed unfit for the juvenile justice system and treated as adult.

Minors aren't people? And yes, we prosecute minors as adults all the time. Remember the 12 year old boy who was given an adult sentence in Florida for killing a 6 year old girl. His defense was that they were just wrestling. He got out on probation but has since gone back to jail, IIRC. What does rare have to do with it? Some minors are prosecuted as adults. Because some courts determine some minors have the ability to act as adults, are you saying statutory rape cases should require the court to determine the maturity of the minor before the case could be pursued? If not, then I stand by my comment.

Just because is AN answer. Just not a convincing one. Right.

I did not put the word 'right' in my post.

Who said just because? Not me. Anyway, you are criticizing others for making what you call arbitrary age determinations while doing the exact same thing.

It is my opinion that 18 as a cut off is a poor choice. Others are, of course, free to make whatever judgments they choose.

Well, here's a phrase that fits you: Bug up his butt. You immediately got snippy with me and others. Amish made a harmeless joke about what separates 16 and 18 -- 17. Get it? You're suppose to laugh. It was funny. But instead we get your resume as if we are all suppose to bow down to it.

I see the joke now. But not before. Thanks for pointing to it. I guess when somebody goes so far as to offer threats and name calling my humor fails me. But you're right, of course, I should have recognized it as a joke.

Perhaps you'll see fit to challenge the person who called me a 'queer' or threatened me now. I await that.

And just for you, I'll now refer to them as May-December rapes.

I'm afraid I don't remember the Gore Vidal-WFB spat.

Sounds funny though.

tee, hee, hee

As for bowing down because of my resume-- not at all.

I thought Amish was saying he thought I was 17 in order to excuse my desired behavior with older women. You know, like he was accusing me of a li'l projection and all.

I didn't take him to be completely serious. Just didn't see what now seems so obvious-- thanks to your help, Julie.

---

Laws vary. And I do know something about them. And it strikes me that having sex with someone who is one day from 18, when the accused can be one day over 18 is a BAD way to write laws. But that's the law in some states.

NC and TN, for example have laws that say 14-17 is okay, 15-18 is okay, 16-19 is okay and 17-20 is okay, IIRC. (no legal advice, that) This strikes me as fair. But differences of more than three years are prosecutable. And sex with anybody below 15 is statutory.

Utah's law, where 14 and above is legal, IIRC, strikes me as (Are you ready for it?) 'icky.' That's what got that kidnapper of that young girl from being charged with statutory a couple of years ago.

So, we can just agree that states' laws are arbitrary but that you think anybody under 18 is incapable of making a decision to have sex. The legislatures of many states have agreed with both of our positions on this issue.

My best to you.

you know whats sad? the fact that the three of us dont have anything better to do on Saturday night.
I say buy couple bottles of hooch and head for Utah. Ive heard good things about mormon girls.

Okay, before I wasn't pissed, amish.

But now that you pointed out the patently obvious fact that I'm a loser, I'm... well... er... uh...

Nevermind.

And if I was in Australia it'd be Sunday so at least then I'd have an excuse. Does the fact I'm watching ESPN2's coverage of the Australian Open count?

Gimme an out.

Please?

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Clearly I mean minors can be prosecuted for statutory r*pe of other minors.

Clearly the discussion was about sex between minors and adults. Don't change it and expect other people to read your mind and then call others obtuse.

And the SCOTUS decided it was legal to only prosecute the boys in such cases.

Back to misstating the law again, I see.

Search for it yourself.

No, you search for it yourself. You're the proponent that minors are being prosecuted for statutory r*pe with adults. So, you name a jurisdiction. Me, I'll just pass on proving a negative.

Minors aren't people?
Minors aren't adults.

And yes, we prosecute minors as adults all the time.

As I previously stated, it is relatively rare compared to the number of juveniles in the system, the number that are tried as adults. Your one little example proves it.

Because some courts determine some minors have the ability to act as adults, are you saying statutory r*pe cases should require the court to determine the maturity of the minor before the case could be pursued? If not, then I stand by my comment.

Once again, you make absolutely no sense. I'm not the one that made some bs statement that kids are prosecuted for having sex with adults. You did. I'm not the one arguing to make consensual sex between adults and minors legal. You are. I'm not arguing that maturity of a minor is a defense to statutory r*pe. You are. So, what ever comment you are standing by, I am sure you are still wrong.

It is my opinion that 18 as a cut off is a poor choice. Others are, of course, free to make whatever judgments they choose.

Your opinion is arbitrary.

I guess when somebody goes so far as to offer threats and name calling my humor fails me. But you're right, of course, I should have recognized it as a joke.

No one threatened you, no one called you names, you have no sense of humor, and yes you shed have recognized the joke.

Perhaps you'll see fit to challenge the person who called me a 'queer' or threatened me now. I await that.

See above. And don't expect any sympathy from me. You are the one who started getting pissy with me and others first.

And just for you, I'll now refer to them as May-December r*pes.

And I'll just refer to you as Mr. Bug Up His Butt.

I'm afraid I don't remember the Gore Vidal-WFB spat. Sounds funny though. tee, hee, hee

In real life it wasn't. But, Wm. F. Amish's parody of it was.

As for bowing down because of my resume-- not at all.

Don't worry, no one is going to. But you are the one who felt it was relevant in some way to the discussion. GOK why.

I thought Amish was saying he thought I was 17 in order to excuse my desired behavior with older women. You know, like he was accusing me of a li'l projection and all.

Your explanation of your reaction to his comment is a stretch.

I didn't take him to be completely serious. Just didn't see what now seems so obvious-- thanks to your help, Julie.

Oh, come on! You got angry. Accused him of attacking your intelligence. Had to tell us you were Mr. Ivy league. So, please don't tell us you didn't take very seriously what you only thought he had written.

Laws vary. And I do know something about them. And it strikes me that having sex with someone who is one day from 18, when the accused can be one day over 18 is a BAD way to write laws. But that's the law in some states.

That's nice. But we were discussing sex between minor boys and women. In almost all your arguments, you portray the minor and not the adult as the offender. That bothers me.

My best to you.

Yeah., right.

Sorry, amish, don't include me in your club. The night's still young and who goes out before 11 pm anyway.

Now I know you're purposefully obtuse. You know exactly what my point was and you accuse me of misstating the law?

Let me try to restate it for you. Minors are quite often prosecuted for statutory rape of other minors. Such laws can, constitutionally, be applied only to the male involved in the act. Discrimination, based on gender, therefore is permissible in at least cases involving only underage actors. That is the state of the law.

At this point you should clearly know that I mean the SCOTUS has said it is legal to treat minor boys as criminals when their minor girl partners are exempt from prosecution. If you continue to disagree with that (my original) point, you're just arguing with yourself.

This is true because the SCOTUS does not apply strict scrutiny to gender distinctions, as I'm sure you're aware.

That's nice. But we were discussing sex between minor boys and women. In almost all your arguments, you portray the minor and not the adult as the offender. That bothers me.

This is a troubling mischaracterization.

In some jurisdictions, it would be illegal for a minor of 17 to have sex with a majority person over 18. In other jurisdictions not.

In Utah, what the woman in the news story did WOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL so long as none of the boys was 13 or younger. Surely you didn't misread that part of my post. So yes, I am discussing the law of statutory rape and the natural implication of the differences in the laws I mentioned is that reasonable people could disagree about the prudence or imprudence of certain cut off ages.

Just so you know, I'm most proud of graduating from Western Carolina University. Go Catamounts.

Now I know you're purposefully obtuse. You know exactly what my point was and you accuse me of misstating the law?

Watch me do it for the third time.

Let me try to restate it for you.
You mean mis-state, don't you?

Minors are quite often prosecuted for statutory rape of other minors.

Relatively speaking, minors are not often prosecuted for statutory rape of other minors. And, once again the topic was sex between minors and adults.

Such laws can, constitutionally, be applied only to the male involved in the act. Discrimination, based on gender, therefore is permissible in at least cases involving only underage actors. That is the state of the law.

For the third time: The ussc case found a rational basis for a gender specific statutory rape law, therefore no discrimination. Most states do not have gender specific statutory rape laws but have opted instead to have gender neutral statutory rape laws on the books. A state can pass a discriminatory law so long as there is a rational basis. But it can also pass a non-discrimatory law. Most states have chosen to do just that.

At this point you should clearly know that I mean the SCOTUS has said it is legal to treat minor boys as criminals when their minor girl partners are exempt from prosecution.

And you should clearly know because I have stated it so many times and one can easy check it, the ussc holding applied to gender specific laws and has nothing to do with gender neutral laws, which, once again, most states have enacted.

If you continue to disagree with that (my original) point, you're just arguing with yourself.

Your original point is irrelevant. The states have enacted different laws than the one that was challenged and ruled on by the ussc. It's amazing that you fail to grasp that.

This is true because the SCOTUS does not apply strict scrutiny to gender distinctions, as I'm sure you're aware.

Who cares! Most states have chosen not to discriminate in the treatement of minor boys and minor girls. They have the right to enact nondiscriminatory laws and did so.

“That's nice. But we were discussing sex between minor boys and women. In almost all your arguments, you portray the minor and not the adult as the offender. That bothers me.” This is a troubling mischaracterization.

There are many things troubling in this conversation but that is not one of them.

I asked this: “Once again, in what jurisdictions are minors prosecuted for having sex with an adult?”

You gave this non-sequitor: In some jurisdictions, it would be illegal for a minor of 17 to have sex with a majority person over 18. In other jurisdictions not.

Are you ever going to answer my question? Obviously, not.

In Utah, what the woman in the news story did WOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL so long as none of the boys was 13 or younger. Surely you didn't misread that part of my post.

And if the news item orignally in ace's story occurred in Utah, the woman would be guilty of a felony unless the boys were 18 y/o. It always pays to read the actual code.

Just so you know, I'm most proud of graduating from Western Carolina University. Go Catamounts.

Yeah, well, we could tell how proud you were by your failure to mention it.

Rational basis is the wrong standard. It receives intermediate scrutiny, as I'm sure you're quite aware.

All right Julie, here is a link to the state of the law of Utah.

I must admit that the law has changed since I learned it w/rt Utah. And you are right. What the woman did would now be illegal.

The law is now, not as I suggested it was, that sex with minors aged 14 or 15 is illegal--UNLESS the difference in ages is four years or less.

And sex with 16 and 17 year olds is illegal--UNLESS the age difference is 10 years or less.

HOWEVER, in Texas the age of consent appears to be 17.

In Wyoming the age of consent appears to be 16.

And in Delaware it appears to be 16.

So, I send out apologies to any Utahans for mistakenly stating the age of consent was lower than it actually is. Otherwise, the point remains. Some states deem the appropriate age of consent to be 16, some 17, some 18.

Like I said, Julie, some people agree with your position that 18 is an appropriate cut off. Some don't.

Hmmm, and I guess we have different definitions of "not often prosecuted" as this article demonstrates. Would 2,000 juvenile court cases in the state of Michigan be "not often"? (Read down to the last 5 or 6 paragraphs.)

I think, and at this point I expect you to disagree, 2000 juveniles convicted of statutory in Michigan is a considerable number.

And just so we're clear I never said that minors were prosecuted for sex with adults. That was your misreading.

Although, upon reading the statutes, it does seem clear that a juvenile who had sex with a mentally handicapped adult could be prosecuted. Once again it comes down to the ability to give consent.

I do not know, nor do I care, whether this has in fact ever happened, as it is not germane to anything I have said.

Just tidying a loose end.

Oh, and I made another error. In the article that references the 2000 juveniles as sex offenders. I mistakenly said that all 2000 were convicted of statutory. I apologize to any readers. They could have been convicted of other crimes--including forcible rape--and I do want to make that clear.

However, it should also be noted that minor perpetrators (17 years old) in these statutes, including the Michigan statute can be convicted for a term including life (for first degree) or up to 15 years (for 2nd or 3rd degree). So in a statute meant to protect children, the statute allows for the criminal conviction, as an adult, of minors. Neat-o.

So once again I say it's the "dying for your country but can't drink a beer" scenario. Except in this case, it's the "you can form the requisite criminal intent but can't form the requisite consent" which kinda rhymes.

> Teenage boys are horn-machines without conscious or remorse

Without conscious? Damn, that explains a lot of loose shit.

Like I said, Julie, some people agree with your position that 18 is an appropriate cut off. Some don't.

My position? Where did I state that? Can you ever not pull this crap?

I think, and at this point I expect you to disagree, 2000 juveniles convicted of statutory in Michigan is a considerable number.

You think right because that is not what the article you link to states:

As of May 1, there were 29,300 people on Michigan's registry and 100 to 500 names are added each month, according to the state police. Nearly 2,000 of those names come from juvenile court cases.

No where in the article does it state 2000 juveniles were convicted of statutory r*pe. It states that over an unspecified time period 2000 cases were referred by juvenile courts to the state sex registry for unnamed crimes.

So, let me state once again, compared to other juvenile crimes and juvenile sex crimes, juvenile statutory r*pe convictions are infrequent.

And just so we're clear I never said that minors were prosecuted for sex with adults. That was your misreading.

Yeah, birkel, you never misread anything. lol!

Oh, and I made another error. . . They could have been convicted of other crimes--including forcible r*pe--and I do want to make that clear.

I love how you say “they could have.” lol!

However, it should also be noted that minor perpetrators (17 years old) in these statutes,

What states? Just a rhetorical question. Do not do what you always do and post one of your inevitably untrue "facts."

including the Michigan statute can be convicted for a term including life (for first degree) or up to 15 years (for 2nd or 3rd degree). So in a statute meant to protect children, the statute allows for the criminal conviction, as an adult, of minors. Neat-o.

Yeah, Neat-o, Once, again you misstate the law. Only Third degree criminal sexual conduct 750.520d is statutory r*pe. Fifteen years is the maximum sentence. More representative of how the laws are applied in Mich. is the case where in order to have sex with them, four 18-19 year old guys deliberately got three 14 year old girls drunk. When the girls went to the authorities, they were harassed. The charges were reduced to contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Three of the men were sentenced to 60 days. The instigator received 90-180 days.

You are now on your own birkel, I do not have the time or interest to constantly correct every deliberate misstatement you post. It should be well known by now, not to take what you say at face value.

Eh, just to make a point, we teenage boys aren't all "horn-machines." I'm 17, myself, and I'm honestly not really interested in women (and no, I'm not gay). I mean, I think they look attractive and all, but I've never been driven to pursue a romantic relationship of any kind.