Aspies For Freedom

That's a pretty ridiculous formula.

Because it was. Seriously, say a person was 50; that would mean that they could only date people at age 34 or older. It's absurd because they are perfectly capable of dating someone much, much younger than that and still not get in trouble with the authorities.

There's also the issue of some states having the age of consent being 16 as opposed to 18 (in Hawaii it used to be 14). So the whole DON'T DATE ANYONE UNDER 18 principle is not entirely universal.

That's just fucked up.

That article leaves out so many facts on the case in order to present this as two kids in love or just messing around.  Yes, 10 years is too long, but even if it were a 17 year old and a 15 year old having oral sex, they are not on an equal playing field either physically, emotionally or intellectually. In other words, he took advantage of her and exploited her.

But, if you know more about the case you'd see that he also raped his girlfriend while she was intoxicated and unable to say 'no' and encouraged others to do the same. "Come get some of this" were his words. But the jury couldn't get him on that rape because she had sex with him earlier so they went after him on the under aged thing.

So I have a HUGE problem with the tone of the article making it out to be some poor kid in love with someone younger than him and getting busted for it. He's not a child molester, but he was using these girls and treating them with disdain and should have SOME sort of punishment.

I try not to date women younger than 25.  I am 27.

Tim

No, honestly I didn't - but I DID read this one because it was so much less full of hostility and much shorter. So long as you remain civil, reasonable, and intellectually honest I'll consider engaging with you.

Consent to sex while sober is one thing - she could not consent to sex with him once she was drunk - which is rape. Maybe not according to the law, but

I really don't care if you disagree with me or not.

*LOL*

As I said, if you can't be reasonable and civil, I'm not even going to bother with you. This qualifies as a ridiculous prejudiced fabrication and it's not worth my time to clarify for you the difference between an ethical system and a judicial system and how someone might be able to separate them in their minds.

Guesswho, agreed.  Sexual relations are not just physically fooling around for pleasure, they are a very complicated emotional interactions which require a lot of self-knowledge and foresight to implications of what might happen when alone with someone, what you want to happen and understand the consequences of how they are going to feel afterwards. (let alone the diseases you could catch)

Many adults don't have the sophistication to make the right decisions so that they respect themselves and their bodies and don't do something stupid that they'll regret later. MOST people understand this and agree with consent laws... two young teens are on the same playing field and don't have to deal with the added pressure and confusion of someone who is good at manipulating them.

It is not impossible to create a law that would put older repeat predators behind bars forever while having less stiff penalties for older teens who manipulate and exploit teens a few years younger than they. But for some reason few jurisdictions have taken the time to write such a creature.

A recent study showed that alcohol and/or drugs are present in virtually every sexual interaction between young people... and everyone knows that being under the influence even further impairs your judgment - but I wonder, was anyone at that party charged with underage drinking even though it was clear there was drinking involved? Probably not - and if so the penalty was probably completely lax.

Our feelings and thoughts on each other are identical.

On thinking about it further, I doubt we share emotions and thoughts about much of anything, but I did find that your words do describe a bit of how I perceive that you seem to argue - taking what I say and filtering it through your prejudices.

In short, there's little I could say or explain that wouldn't be taken wrong by you and just give you more fodder to call me names and cast accusations my way.

I guess I have this inner hope that something I say might register with you.

Thrusting a stereotype on someone to justify your debilitating and unjustified hatred? Isn't that the definition of bigot?  You should look in the mirror Max, you seem to have become what you loath.

I don't like Ann and nobody tells me what to believe - you don't even know what I believe, which is evident by the fact that every time you respond to me you get my thoughts completely wrong and accuse me of beliefs you think I have and respond to that.

Stalkers, eh? Fascinating. Since most of what you have said about me is a lie, I find it difficult to believe that you actually have stalkers. Probably just some people who responded in kind to you and you couldn't take it.

Let's make a deal - you stop slandering me and fabricating my beliefs on the board and I'll stop responding.

I don't want your approval, *L* but I would like you to stop making up stuff about me and calling me names.

Unfortunately you don't seem to be able to not make it personal.

You are so self blind it's really sad.

You say I have a 'little mind' and then justify it by making up an opinion for me here that I think he should be 'lynched'.

I never said that and I don't think it.

You make up something about how I read Ann Coulter and submit to an order as to what I think - which is completely untrue. And you are implying I am stalking you - which is ridiculous name calling and untrue.

Examples would keep you from sounding utterly paranoid.

And you must quote me directly from what I have posted - putting up what you THINK my politics are doesn't count.

Ah... okay. Nice. But is that the only response you have to all that I quoted?

Are you going to try to quote my political views that are so 'dangerous'?