Replies

I don't like the word "assualt". That could signify "rape".

I'm thinking of it along these lines:

Suppose an 18 year old has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. Why he could be charged with statutory rape, and be labeled a child sex offender for the rest of his life.

But just 10 days ago, when he was 17 also? No harm no foul?

What's up with that?

Either states must be consistent and call a spade a spade - that is call ALL underage sex a crime - or just ignore the problem and teach sex education, and watch the teen pregnancies rates continue to sky-rocket.

Actually, what most states do is say that if the participants are within one or two years of one another (it varies by state) then it's not stat. rape even if the older person is above the stat. rape age. I don't know what the Kansas law is on that.

Don't be ridiculous. That is a false dilemma, and only an especially stupid person would fail to see that. Since I'm not an especially stupid person I'll just note that: no, that is utterly false. A state need not do one or the other.

Moreover, your "spade" is not a spade, because it's also false that all underage sex is criminal. In order for a spade to be a spade then the spade has to be a true statement. Yours isn't.

Finally, your statement that sex education is "ignoring the problem" of minors have sex is also absurdly false. It is obviously addressing the problem, not ignoring it. Whether it's addressing it in the right way is an open question.

It is an impressive achievement to cram so much fallacy and absurdity into one short sentence! I don't think I could do it if I tried. I bow to your skills!

PS. Oh, and as far as statutory rape, it's worth noting that in a number of states the age of consent is 16 or 17 but the age above which one might commit statury rape is 18 or 19. Therefore, you automatically don't have a situation arise where two people having sex born a few days or even months apart would become statutory rape.

be labeled a child sex offender for the rest of his life.

You hear about people being put on Sex Offender Watch Lists for all kinds of reasons these days. It's wrong. Some people who should be in jail for the rest of their lives are free as a bird, and some people who don't belong on SOWLs are there.

It's the fault of cheezy, good-for-nuthin legislators who don't take the trouble to make the statutes specific enough to target only the intended and nobody else. Or else it's this "this is tantamount to that" thinking that permeates the left. As in George Bush attacking Iraq is tantamount to the Holocaust.

Suppose an 18 year old has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. Why he could be charged with statutory rape, and be labeled a child sex offender for the rest of his life. But just 10 days ago, when he was 17 also? No harm no foul? What's up with that?

That reminds me of a headline in the Detroit Free Press a few years ago: "Man Rapes Boy".
When you actually read the article, the "man" was 18 and the "boy" was 17. In fact there were only 4 months difference in their ages.