posted July 30, 2013 07:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Sounds good in theory. However, the way it would actually work out is that many parents would pimp their kids for money, drugs, and favors. It would also embolden predators to predate on teens saying it was consensual (in short, regular rape) when prosecution for "statutory rape" is no longer a concern. And btw, I don't see these as "isolated incidents" I think both abuses would become rampant (even more so than they already are).

---

Isn't that kind of like saying that without a belief in God, people would become amoral degenerates?

Without the law in place, parents would turn into pimps?

I don't see how legalizing statutory rape would encourage pimping; if a parent cares about the laws whatsoever, they wouldn't take the legalization of statutory rape as an opportunity to engage in a separate, illegal activity.

I know it is notoriously difficult to locate and prosecute pimps, because their would-accusers are terrified of retribution. I think everyone would like to see the police working harder at rooting out prostitution rings, especially where children are involved.

I think that is a better application of law enforcement than arresting and prosecuting 19 year-olds who date 15 year-olds.

(Btw that reminds me of one of my favorite statutory rape couples: Olympic gold medalist figure skaters Gordeeva and Grinkov. He was 21 when they started dating; she was 17. They grew up together, and he was practically part of her family when they started dating. Those are exactly the kinds of normal circumstances that happen a lot, actually, and can lead to romance between teen and twenty-something.)

posted July 30, 2013 08:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
The only thing I hate about these laws is they always treat men like sexual predators.

---

The law does seem to assume that a young man is automatically a serious pervert if he has interest in a teenager. Maybe I am just too idealistic but I can imagine situations where that would not the case. Especially when the age difference isn't that great: a 23 year-old and 17 year-old are from the same generation and have a lot in common.

Also, it's just funny that once the younger person turns 18, all those objections magically fly out the window and the 18 year-old can date a 50 year-old without the law intervening whatsoever.

In some cases, a twenty-something man would actually be more mature and stable as a romantic partner for a teenager than her male peers would be. After all, girls mature faster emotionally than boys (don't get all mad, aquaguy, that's just the conventional wisdom. ) Thinking back, would it have spared me some heartache to have dated, say, a 23 year-old guy with adult responsibilities like a real job and car payments, back when I was sixteen, instead of self-obsessed teen guys with One Thing On Their Minds?

posted July 30, 2013 09:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoursTrulyAlways:
Perhaps if teenagers were actually studying in school and accomplishing something in life, they would be more preoccupied with success and have less concern for frivolities and trouble-inducing activities including teenage sex.

---

State the obvious

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 30, 2013 09:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoursTrulyAlways:
Perhaps if teenagers were actually studying in school and accomplishing something in life, they would be more preoccupied with success and have less concern for frivolities and trouble-inducing activities including teenage sex.

---

I agree with that, although I think school is usually more like an indoctrination camp that's not exactly worth devoting all one's energies to...but wait...I went off topic again!

Suffice it to say some teenagers accomplish remarkable things, independently of, or in spite of, schooling. Like this kid (not even a bonafide genius) who invented a screening test for cancer in his free time:

quote:

---

It was after a close family friend died of pancreatic cancer that Jack became interested in finding a better early-detection diagnostic test. Unfortunately, pancreatic cancer is usually detected too late to save the patient.

Jack said the solution came to him during his high school biology class. He was secretly reading an article about nanotubes while the teacher was talking about antibodies. Jack said the two ideas came together in his head, and he thought he could combine what the teacher was saying with what he knew about nanotubes to create an early detection test for Pancreatic cancer.

Jack Andraka used what he found through Google searches and free online science journals to develop a plan and a budget. Jack contacted about 200 people including researches at Johns Hopkins University and the National Institutes of Health with a proposal to work in their labs. He got 199 rejections and then finally got an acceptance from Dr. Anirban Maitra, Professor of Pathology, Oncology and Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. It’s at Maitra’s lab where Jack worked daily after school, on weekends and over holidays until he developed his test.

Why did a 15-year-old beat out billion-dollar pharmaceutical companies with his diagnostic test? Perhaps as a young person with no experience, he hadn’t yet learned what everyone else in the industry “knew couldn’t be done.”

---

posted July 30, 2013 10:07 AM            

The core is values and morals.

When that erodes, you have all manner of perversions.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 30, 2013 11:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
[B] I agree with that, although I think school is usually more like an indoctrination camp that's not exactly worth devoting all one's energies to...but wait...I went off topic again!

Suffice it to say some teenagers accomplish remarkable things, independently of, or in spite of, schooling. Like this kid (not even a bonafide genius) who invented a screening test for cancer in his free time:

---

posted July 30, 2013 11:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by mockingbird:
Personally, I think the age of consent should be lowered to 16-17 (it already is in some states) with a 3-year cushion (that is, you could not prosecute an 18-year-old for sex with a 15-year-old) - though I think that's already the case in some states as well.

Re: 10 years: There's just too much of a disparity between where a 15-year-old is mentally and emotionally and where a 25-year-old is for me to get on board with that.

---

This sounds completely reasonable.

I have a 14 year old boy and he is extremely sweet and naive. He's not allowed to date anyone of any age yet. If a 24 year old tried to 'date' him I'd have to pull out a can of whoop-ass.

posted July 30, 2013 01:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
The only thing I hate about these laws is they always treat men like sexual predators. A lot of teenage girls can be very sexually forward but society tells us that us men always force the girls into it.

---

If you have a son, you worry about one penis.

posted July 30, 2013 07:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
Isn't that kind of like saying that without a belief in God, people would become amoral degenerates?

Without the law in place, parents would turn into pimps?

---

No, because it's obvious that people who don't believe in God are not amoral degenerates. However, there is a long history of child exploitation back when it was legal, and even illegal it's distressingly common.

Parents are extremely abusive and exploitative already, and back when it was legal to send kids to factories that literally cost them limbs parents did it without a second thought not caring Susie or Johnny might not come home with fingers or about their education, and only stopped because it became illegal (granted, this was the work of adult unions who didn't want to compete with child labor rather than any concern for the kids, but whatever). To this day the mothers who exploit their kids for child support and other bennies are legion which shows extreme callousness, and I think it could be argued that parents show callousness in other ways as well (but to avoid those tangents I won't list the examples, just suffice to say they care very much what the neighbors think far more than about their kids, among other things).

My mom sure exploited me legally every way she could, often bending the laws to stop just short of outright breaking them (unless you count the neglect), and even after I ran away from home Mom refused to report me missing out of fear of losing her bennies (child support, food stamps, etc), and I really don't like the idea of her having had the power to "approve" my relationship (and testifying in court saying I'd been ok with it, assuming it even got that far, which it probably wouldn't) to older men!

posted July 30, 2013 07:53 PM            

That said, I think there should be a ceiling and floor instead of just one way, a ceiling.

posted July 30, 2013 08:12 PM            

quote:

---

Parents are extremely abusive and exploitative already

---

I wonder, in what sense do average parents exploit their children? I think it could argued that they are "abusive" in many ways; some people think any kind of discipline is abusive...sending kids to daycare is abusive...putting kids on Ritalin without just cause is abusive...on and on.

But exploitation? I haven't seen any of that in the people I am acquainted with.

quote:

---

To this day the mothers who exploit their kids for child support and other bennies are legion which shows extreme callousness, and I think it could be argued that parents show callousness in other ways as well

---

So you think that there ought to be deterrents placed upon adults to prevent them from stepping in and manipulating unsupervised or pimped out teenagers.

I guess my question is, if you assume that parents are fundamentally incompetent or prone to taking advantage of their own children, do you think there ought to be some kind of state monitoring on all parents to determine whether or not they are qualified to keep their kids?

Should welfare recipients, at the very least, be screened to ensure they are not merely exploiting their children? Or is that bigoted profiling or...?

Just curious about the social reforms you might have in mind.

quote:

---

I really don't like the idea of her having had the power to "approve" my relationship (and testifying in court saying I'd been ok with it, assuming it even got that far, which it probably wouldn't) to older men!

---

Ok, but...for the record, I wasn't recommending this kind of legal scheme. If there were no statutory rape laws, there would be no court unless you, the teenager, were claiming rape, in which case your mother's testimony wouldn't necessarily matter (unless she were a witness and heard you screaming or something like that.)

posted July 30, 2013 08:32 PM            

I was a runaway, I've met all kinds of kids fleeing extreme abuse and exploitation at home or foster care, and because of that I read into it and learned much more. I believe you would be truly shocked what is normal (beatings, broken bones, sexual exploitation of kids, etc). Maybe later I'll add some educational links on that, or maybe not as that is a bit off topic.

And generally speaking, I see the government as being as flawed as the people that make it up so I don't look for many solutions there (especially with the epically lousy job of helping abused kids already, and the hell many foster homes are). If I were to pursue some kind of massive reform then it might coincidentally be in line with what I think you'd want: essentially empower kids to make adult decisions (that includes leaving home legally to go to a shelter or elsewhere, though naturally such shelters wouldn't be REQUIRED to take them). This shouldn't be confused with letting kids make adult decisions about sex (led on by adults) while adults continue to control ever other aspect of their lives, however.

But nothing is ever that simple, there are always unintended consequences (something you should keep in mind yourself, though granted unpleasant unintended consequences are happening as a result of these laws, too), even when the intended consequences are actually brought about as well. (Though it might be funny when news exposes how badly emancipated 15-year-olds screw up their lives now that they don't have to stay home and it unintentionally reminds people that many 30-year-olds are doing just as bad for themselves...). I don't think there's be a flood of new kids on the streets because in my experience the kids who didn't have it bad went home fast (assuming they ran away at all), after all life sucks without your AC/heat, regular food, and trips to the movies and mall...a more valid fear, IMO, is kids racing to where they can party 24/7 (not that I think all would) but those have their own problems, they're not as attractive once they're no longer forbidden (though other laws can still be kept in place of course that limit what those parties can be like), and things like that become old pretty fast when they're done enough. The most valid fear, IMO, is that parents would then have license to drive their kids away (though they seem to find it easy enough to throw them out as it is anyway, despite it being illegal).

posted July 30, 2013 09:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoursTrulyAlways:
If you have a son, you worry about one penis.

If you have a daughter, you worry about 3 billion penises.

---

posted July 30, 2013 09:07 PM            

quote:

---

If I were to pursue some kind of massive reform then it might coincidentally be in line with what I think you'd want: essentially empower kids to make adult decisions (that includes leaving home legally to go to a shelter or elsewhere, though naturally such shelters wouldn't be REQUIRED to take them).

---

I would like to see reform of the statutory rape laws and was exploring, on this thread, what might happen if the laws were removed altogether, but I actually am not advocating that. I haven't researched it enough to have a *real opinion* or stance. I think Germany's laws that Ceri posted look agreeable at first glance but would have to delve further into it before subscribing to and promoting the idea.

I do like the idea of legally empowering teenagers, but it might have to be part of a total overhaul of culture and the justice system in order to work out so that the teens weren't overwhelmed with too much power too soon (as would be the case if we granted them all these powers, effective immediately.) That, of course, could backfire on them and the adults affected by their decisions.

What I always liked about Ron Paul was his sweeping ambition to change everything from the ground up. It seems to me that nothing less than that will really solve much; unless you target the roots of the problem, you will just keep having to deal with symptoms.

I know I am naive, but in this case, I was thinking that anyone who is criminal enough to pimp out their own children would find customers regardless of the laws. It's hard for me to fathom what the statistics might be like here: would the rate of teen prostitution increase dramatically if the supply of potential customers suddenly increased? Or would that be offset by the number of teens in abusive homes seeking older spouses/partners to live with?

I'm not a sociologist but I'd be interested to know if there are answers or hypothetical models available or anything to shed some light on these questions. Send me links if you have them, I'm always up for learning.

posted July 31, 2013 02:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
I know I am naive, but in this case, I was thinking that anyone who is criminal enough to pimp out their own children would find customers regardless of the laws. It's hard for me to fathom what the statistics might be like here: would the rate of teen prostitution increase dramatically if the supply of potential customers suddenly increased? Or would that be offset by the number of teens in abusive homes seeking older spouses/partners to live with?

---

When I say pimping I mean more than outright pimping and was thinking more of like a woman who gets a sugar daddy by offering her daughter's body instead of her own, or even just does it to "please her man" (evil ******* who should be executed right along with the man who pushes the woman to hand over one or more of her children to him). It happens quite a bit already. And even boys get victimized by this as well (like one boy who was pimped to a man who officially employed him for good money at his store and forced to hand over his check to his mom who KNEW about the sexual abuse, and IIRC even made him take the job in the first place).

I've been exposed to this quite a bit, I even met one of the evil mothers (who brought a friend with her!) who did this. She and her knowing friend came out to bring her 13-year-old runaway back because her man was going to leave her unless the little girl was there so they could "be a family" (while also promising the sexual abuse would stop which we all knew to be a lie, and she used her adult authority to try to make us all obey...in retrospect we should've stabbed her or something, but that's not how girls 12-15 think when confronted by adult women bearing maternal authority). And I've read of far more (like one woman wasn't a virgin when she married her man horribly disappointed so she drugged and kidnapped her 14-year-old sister and gave the girl to her husband to rape as she was "in love" and "wanted to please her man"--more proof that "love" isn't always good). These aren't isolated incidents, btw, I could go on and on, listing even plenty that I've come across personally.

Furthermore, I've been exposed to the system to know it was my apathetic enemy, from schools to courts. The courts didn't care that an evil psyche hospital abused (including sexually) kids (even if there were some out of court settlements over that) only that the insurance companies had been bilked (and it was a PI working for one of those insurance companies that bothered to expose them, and busted the school psychiatrist who talked my parents into sending me, him getting a bounty per kid). During the divorce that followed the courts wouldn't let me live with granny, I was forced to live with mom & forbidden to stay with granny as I chose despite that granny had a more stable and wholesome environment for me to live in and wanted me (but mom had to have her child support to buy her brandy and Virginia Slims as her other welfare bennies didn't get that for her).

And even as a runaway I met kids burned and betrayed by the system far worse than I'd been, and therefore I reject the notion that if my mom pimped me that I could just call the cops and the courts would protect me. And since getting older I've read of far more outrageous cases than any I've ever heard of (and those I personally known about were bad enough!)

Lots of parents are supremely selfish and just as evil as so many parents were who sent their kids to be maimed at factories just to have a few extra pennies a day coming in for awhile when that was legal. And btw, it wasn't parents who put a stop to that horrid practice, it was the adult unions who were being squeezed out by factories firing those in unions to hire kids without a union instead. That is society doesn't give a damn about kids, not even their own, they hurt their kids out of pure selfishness and it was pure self-serving interest that put a stop to it rather than compassion and a desire to protect children. I believe society is still just as callous and evil today, and if all laws pertaining to compulsory education--also rooted in adult self-interest rather than for the benefit of children--and protection from factory abuses were repealed (along with safety regulations) then we'd see kids missing fingers and hands everywhere once again as history repeated itself (speaking of history repeating itself, I bet "arranged marriages" for wealth, if only informal, would make a come back if parents could approve their 14-year-old being with someone). It gets even worse in other parts of the world, and extreme poverty doesn't explain all of it.

I don't trust the parents (not saying all are that way, but enough are, possibly even the majority), and for damn good reason, IMO. OTOH, I also don't trust the government as it cannot reasonably be expected to exceed the sum of its parts (with too many self-serving swine), and is especially attractive to the corrupt (and the more power the government has the more attractive it becomes to those who want to use it for evil instead of good).

posted July 31, 2013 03:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
Your best friend from your teenage years died, Pixie? I never heard that before. So sorry to hear it.

Did she die from being out on the streets?

---

Long story short, she was given a bad doob spiked with something...same trick had been used on me but I got saved and never let anyone pull that on me again (he was trying to lead me away, whether to rape me and/or sell me to the same pimp who killed my friend, IDK, friends from my krew showed up and chased him off as they didn't know him and I was obviously uncomfortable with him & dazed, and he'd been said to have raped an underage girl before). She, however, failed to learn from my experience.

Once captured my krew began to plot how to bust her out, but we couldn't actually break in so that we had to wait until she was peddled on the streets before we could arrange a rescue. I was told that they broke the girls before putting them on the street, and that including selling them inside their home and even gang rape them within while forcibly (as in at gun point if necessary) have them do hard drugs which both makes them dependent and destroys any sympathy anyone might have for their victims. And the corruption of the system plays into it as well, one former prisoner showed me her bullet scar where the same pimp had shot her in the leg with a .22 pistol to teach her "not to run," and she'd been caught by deputies, released from jail, and thugs working for the pimp snatched her right in sight of the jail (meaning a deputy told her pimp they had her and when she'd be released). In my friend's case, they guessed wrong on dosage (which happens from time to time) and she died...at least that's as best we can figure it, officially she was found dead in the "village" (a bunch of boxes a couple of blocks away from where she was held where the homeless who lived in them were notorious for people who shot up serious drugs) of drug OD, but while she loved her pot, she didn't do drugs like that while that pimp DID force all girls to, brutally if he had to.

And that was what inspired my suicide attempt (to be with her, just as I'd run away with her) when I experienced Freya, and I know I've explained that before.

Btw, not only are there dirty cops on the take and who abuse prostitutes themselves, but the system itself is dependent on prostitution. Here's how it works: pimps get those underage in their stable fake ID, and on "vice nights" (Tuesdays & Thursdays, IIRC, but now I can't recall if it was like every other week or what) the cops grabbed as many as they could who all got fined by the judge the same at the same time who were then released to turn more tricks to pay the fine (IOW, institutionalized pimping by the state). And there's worse out there (like when a 14-year-old bust busted as a runaway making a living as an exotic dancer it was found that all the dancers had been licensed by the police and they DID have records of her registered including her actual age...the cops stonewalled the reporters on that and I presume it was forgotten), though a few cities (including Oakland to my great surprise) refuse to fine prostitutes realizing it's exacerbating the problem. All in all it's just one more reason why I don't trust the system to take care of the problem.

posted July 31, 2013 07:49 AM            

Thanks for taking the time to write all of that. I don't have much to say in reply but I've taken it all in. I'm literally sick to my stomach about some of it, which is fine, it just shows that I'm taking in a hard lesson.

I'm really sad about your friend dying...well, I think she was murdered but in a kind of slow process.

To think of cops as deliberately arresting prostitutes just so they can collect money in fines (which the prostitutes will have to earn the hard way) is just so terribly sick. It infuriates me to see people in power, who are charged with HELPING others, abusing that authority. I HATE it.

That pimps keep prostitutes on drugs, forcing them to take them. is a revelation to me, actually. The stories just get worse and worse.

Not pretending to have ANY answers but again, I wonder how the country would change if it were more Libertarian. As you know I am not the most trusting of government, and see a lot of these stories as supreme government failure: misapplied force (in the case of the girl who was murdered by her father; and in the case of you not being allowed to choose where to live, and being forced into an evil psyche ward); misapplied money (to corrupt foster homes, to mothers who exploit their children) and screwy laws, and so on.

I've lived a sheltered life and it's hard to believe it was the same time, same country as what you experienced. The reforms I consider might help in my neck of the woods but backfire out on the streets. (Which is part of the reason I think that concentrating power in local governments makes sense; if the local government sucks you can probably move.)

posted July 31, 2013 10:56 AM            

I've noticed people who've had Pixie's experiences (or have even brushed up against them) tend to be more traditionally liberal, conservative, or anarchist - but very few trust in the inherent goodness of people and the fairness of life as Libertarians so often seem to.
Most of the Libertarians I know have been quite sheltered.

posted August 03, 2013 08:06 AM            

@mockingbird~ I am torn between thinking it's the Libertarians who are the most naive, or the people who honestly think government can be trusted to solve the problems. I guess it depends on the individual and their knowledge level.

posted August 03, 2013 12:51 PM            

Did you see my thread on unions in GU?
Situations like that are what make me think that about half of Libertarian philosophy's completely batty.
(I can totally get on board with the other half.)

The bottom line for me as that people are all selfish in varying degrees. There's so much potential for abuse to be lain upon those with no power by those with power - not necessarily out of malice, but perfectly human selfishness and disregard - and there must be checks against that tendency. Whether that's social or institutional, it doesn't really matter to me as long as there's room for vying interests to be adequately met by comparable power.