So they are related in that a child has sex with an adult, nevermind the child's intentions at the time or the adult's relationship with the child.

You are the dumbest nigger in South Africa.

I tried but you kept being so dumb.

Yes but a 22 year old woman is a whole lot more prepared, both mentally and physically, to handle pregnancy, motherhood, and all of the responsibilities associated with this than a 15 year old. You can dispute this all you want, but you will be wasting your time, because it will be illogical.

No, you're saying that attempted child rape isn't really a crime because he only thought he'd get some tail that night. You are also saying you want children to work off the books for the police force in situations that may place them in very real danger.

Sadly, this also varies from state to state. Again, a problem in my eyes.

Having sex with her shouldn't make him a criminal in the first place! Why enforce ridiculous laws instead of making the laws better?

I'm done "discussing" things with you. Back the fuck off, asshole!

Nope, I don't dispute that at all. I just think it's irrelevent. A rich person is more prepared to handle pregnancy than a poor person, too; should only the rich be allowed to have sex? Of course not! This is why I advocate safe sex.

EDIT: Why is it I'm being attacked and flamed for having the opinion that, basically, our society needs to be more open about sexuality?

You haven't discussed anything with me because your points are bullshit at best and easily cut down. You feel that sixteen years old is a fine time for children to be allowed to do whatever they want to do. Furthermore, you feel that planning and being in the process of executing a crime is mere thought crime.

You have never grown out of being sixteen years old.

Double Post:
Because you want to open an enormous can of ethical worms on a group of people in the misguided attempt to liberate them.

Oh right, the readily available methods of having safe sex have 100% success rates, yeah I forgot. :rolleyes:

Also, you seem to think that you can argue whether a person comitted a crime or not, not based on any real law, but because you like the action and/or the person.

Thankfully, most of America still agrees with me on that.

No, I feel thinking you're doing one thing while actually doing another, and getting arrested for it, is thought crime.

There are no guarantees in life. That's no excuse to make sex illegal until 18 (as is the case in some states).

Do you have ADD or something? I said from the beginning that I'm against these laws because I feel they are punishing thought. That and I question the legality of the stings. Oh, and I'm morally against some aspects of these laws.

What you claim I've been doing and what I've been doing are two very different things.

If I may make a suggestion, Patty, perhaps it would be better if you dropped this argument and just moved on.

You are wrong, and mistaken, and do not understand the concept of thought crime.

You are absolutely right here. I was claiming until now, because I'm such a nice guy, that you were being a little misguided in your arguments. What you are actually doing is flailing about nothing.

What? Not a single person in this thread said it should be illegal for people of consent age to have sex with other people of consent age.

Only you, the dumbest nigger in Darfur, said that actual real-life children should be employed by the police in order to make something that is absolutely illegal... extra illegal, so you feel more comforted that what they are not doing is a thought crime. I honestly don't know, you know. Since it's just words on the screen, and ideally the predator will never come in contact with the child, I just can't see how it makes any difference.

No, most of America does not agree with you, Patty. They do not want their children, virgin or not, placed in harm's way or used by the police as live bait. Most of America furthermore does not like the ethical quandary of training up a fleet of children in a high-turnover (you're not sixteen forever) field for propositioning men for sex. Most of America's young are not mentally mature enough for such work, do you really need me to tell you this?

The reason why real live prostitutes aren't used for stings is because they do not have the training necessary to keep themselves protected if something really bad happened. If a real live prostitute died in her line of duty, she's a dumb bitch (orders of magnitudes less dumb than you but I digress); if she dies in the line of police duty, it's because the force and therefore the government failed her.

And you tell me, because a couple of guys got dealt rotten hands in life, you want this to happen to children.

I had a big post typed up to retaliate against a lurker, but I've decided to be the mature one here and not let it get out of control. Still, after that most recent post, I can't just walk away either.

It appears that a lurker has done a good job of skewing my words to make me look bad. That ends right now. I'm not against preventing rape. I know how horrible rape is. This debate isn't about forcible rape, though.

I'm against statutory rape laws. Stopping the guys that would go after actual kids (like young, up to like 13), I've got no problem with that. I just think there's a big gray area in the 15-18 range in some states that allows the law to put away normal people who may just happen to be breaking the law. I do think the legal age should be 15 or 16 nationwide (it already is 16 in many states), and that's a big part of my problem with these stings.

That and I'm heavily against luring based on false pretenses. It just seems dishonest to me, and I'm really big on honesty.

So to quote O'Reilly, "the spin stops here". People need to stop acting like I'm in favor of letting little kids loose with old men and start reading what I post in full. I'm against statutory rape and I'm against being dishonest to bust people. That is the bottom line of what I believe.

No, it's about online predators visiting children's homes with the intent to have sex with them. Whether the child, at the time of the visit, wants sex or not is irrelevant, because Sgt. Patty of the Keystone Kops thinks this should be perfectly legal, and that it should only be an illegal act if the child.. is actually home?

I think there's a major disconnect here, darkie. You want children who have zero formal training to act as police decoys, don't you think this would lead to trouble down the road?

Wow, um.

...uh.

You do know that your child lures will not want sex with these men, right? They're just going to say that they do in order for the bust to work?

.....

You mean to tell me that these kids are going to play honestly with the guys, and that you expect the kids will lead the guys to their real-life house where the bust will be made instead of a decoy home?

............

You are the dumbest nigger in the Congo.

All rape is considered forced (otherwise it wouldn't be rape yuk durr).

Statuotory rape is a default status that occurs when one of the parties is considered to be mentally incapable of providing consent.

Pedophilia is the state of being attracted to sexually undeveloped people. Prosecuting people for being pedophiles would constitute as a thought crime, because in being a pedophile, one only thinks about or wants to have sex with children.

When one actively plans out and executes the attempted statuory rape of a child is when one crosses the line of being a pedophile to being a prospective kid-diddler.

That is the difference, because whether or not the person being propositioned is actually a child, the suspect in question has still intended to rape one. Attempted Rape.

Idiot thieves aren't let off the hook because their attempted robbery didn't fall through and nothing was actually stolen.

End of the fucking discussion.

Any further discussion about whether or not soliciting a perceived child is actually kid-diddling will not be tolerated. Talk about Bush suks, but this shit is absolutely objective, and no amount of niggerdom will change that.

Okay, fine by me. I won't say anything else about that in that case.

You did say something, though, that I feel the need to address, if anything to be informative . . .

This is not true, not by legal definition. This is something I do know, as I have dealt with people on both sides of the issue.

Not quite. Statutory rape is when a person that is above the age of consent has sex with a person who is not above the age of consent. You can put in a search at Dogpile for "statutory rape", or just look at one of these links:

http://www.sexlaws.org/statrape.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape
http://marriage.about.com/cs/teenmar...tutoryrape.htm

How many moderators have to tell you to drop the statutory rape subject?

Bush is a crook. DISCUSS.

And the age of consent is an establishment of the ability to provide consent. Since the offering of consent requires certain mental faculties, one who is under the age of consent is considered incapable of providing it. Thus, it is assumed that they lack the capacities (mental ones) to provide consent.

Whether or not one has been violently raped or given into pressures does not mean that one case excludes the presence of force. If I threatened you into sucking my dick, and you relented, does that not constitute an act of force via threat? I've essentially forced you to do something against your will with threat.

If an act of rape was consentual, then it wouldn't be rape.

Go back to Africa you fucking Jiggaboo.

Patty, why do you keep misunderstanding the term 'legal'? If anything the legal definition is very strict and unambiguous, more than any other definition you care to employ.

Perhaps what you wanted to say was "by the emotional definition". It's awkward, but 'overly emotional' is the only way I can characterize your arguments, girl.

Catching him is physically infeasable, I'm sorry to say. You can see those high-strength muscle fibers at work in his pedalling motion.

I bet dinosaurs could catch him. RAWR

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20030317/spino.jpg

He didn't say anything about the statutory rape subject. He said, and I quote: "Any further discussion about whether or not soliciting a perceived child is actually kid-diddling will not be tolerated." That's a different subject. The definition of statutory rape is something he just now brought up.

A better question is, why is it you're giving warning to me when I haven't even broken the rules, yet not given any warnings to a lurker despite his breaking several big rules continually in this thread? Rules are to be applied fairly across the board. Maybe I'd actually listen if you actually enforced the actual rules. I have yet to break any of the rules.

As I said, that's not true. If a 19-year-old has consensual sex with his 17-year-old underage girlfriend (in states where the age of consent is 18), then it's still statutory rape. There was absolutely no force, but it's still statutory rape. Basically, there are two general categories of rape: forcible and statutory. Forcible rape is when you force or coerce or use threats to get sex from anyone, regardless of age; statutory rape is any consentual sex between an adult and a minor.

Okay, I've fucking had it. Now a "Moderator" is throwing racial slurs around? First off, you're as moronic as a lurker is because I'M NOT BLACK, which makes these racial slurs all the more retarded (but no less offensive). How did a racist bigot like you ever become a moderator anyway?

I would have shut up about this a long time ago if one of you guys had stepped in and stopped the attacks a lurker was throwing at me. If he doesn't have to follow the rules, then why should I? Sorry, I don't roll like that. Now Bradylama, I'm willing to drop this if you take back your attack and then actually enforce the rules as stated in the thread posted by Lord Styphon (which would mean warning a lurker and leaving me alone seeing as I haven't broken the rules). I simply refuse to get treated like shit just because I think differently and have a different lifestyle.

I will not tolerate the anti-homosexual comments or the racial slurs, not even from a moderator. I don't get intimidated so easily. I thought this was a place where friendly debate could occur, and I have been polite and nice throughout up until this point. Was I wrong? I will not play nice with racist bigots, regardless of how much power they have. Instead of hiding behind your power and joining the attacks, why don't you try participating in the discussion instead?