Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

Age appropriate behavior? (break from another thread)

Page 1 of 2 [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

28 Jan 2010, 4:15 am

^^^ No need to be so insulting just because someone points out the fallacious nature of your arguments. What Fuzzy is saying is correct, when asked to undertake a voluntary medical a refusal is the same as a negative result.

Also just because the law protects at today, it does not follow that this will always be the case. It used to be that once a prison term was served, that was the end of the matter, in fact it was illegal to discriminate on the basis of a prior conviction. Now, every man women and their dogs need to under go police checks.

A shocking example of this occurred about 4 years ago here in Aus. Here, unlike the UK the age of sexual consent is 18 (there are exemptions). This guy aged 20 was reported to the police for fondling his 16 year old girlfriends breast by her mother. The guy admitted to the 'offence' in court and the girlfriend told the court it was consensual. The Judge said that although he did not wish to, he was compelled by law, to record a conviction. He told the kid not to worry as it would not affect his life. Move forward 12 years. the 20 year old now 32 is now a very respected teacher, the school, the kids. the parents love him. The Government discovers his prior conviction, sacks him and puts him onto the sexual offenders list.

So please do not be so naive as to think that a test you get today will not come back to haunt you in the future. Laws, Governments, Agendas change


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


mikkyh
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 159

28 Jan 2010, 4:26 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
^^^ No need to be so insulting just because someone points out the fallacious nature of your arguments. What Fuzzy is saying is correct, when asked to undertake a voluntary medical a refusal is the same as a negative result.

Also just because the law protects at today, it does not follow that this will always be the case. It used to be that once a prison term was served, that was the end of the matter, in fact it was illegal to discriminate on the basis of a prior conviction. Now, every man women and their dogs need to under go police checks.

A shocking example of this occurred about 4 years ago here in Aus. Here, unlike the UK the age of sexual consent is 18 (there are exemptions). This guy aged 20 was reported to the police for fondling his 16 year old girlfriends breast by her mother. The guy admitted to the 'offence' in court and the girlfriend told the court it was consensual. The Judge said that although he did not wish to, he was compelled by law, to record a conviction. He told the kid not to worry as it would not affect his life. Move forward 12 years. the 20 year old now 32 is now a very respected teacher, the school, the kids. the parents love him. The Government discovers his prior conviction, sacks him and puts him onto the sexual offenders list.

So please do not be so naive as to think that a test you get today will not come back to haunt you in the future. Laws, Governments, Agendas change


Good, he shouldn't be allowed people under his age. Especially school children.


_________________
Michael H
mikkyh.info


thewrll
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,619

28 Jan 2010, 5:22 am

Shocking he fondled his girlfriend. He should never be able to be around children ever again. Sick freak. What the hell. And what kind of job would ever kick sack you for being smart. There are jobs that would welcome someone with aspergers.



makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

28 Jan 2010, 12:09 pm

mikkyh wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
^^^ No need to be so insulting just because someone points out the fallacious nature of your arguments. What Fuzzy is saying is correct, when asked to undertake a voluntary medical a refusal is the same as a negative result.

Also just because the law protects at today, it does not follow that this will always be the case. It used to be that once a prison term was served, that was the end of the matter, in fact it was illegal to discriminate on the basis of a prior conviction. Now, every man women and their dogs need to under go police checks.

A shocking example of this occurred about 4 years ago here in Aus. Here, unlike the UK the age of sexual consent is 18 (there are exemptions). This guy aged 20 was reported to the police for fondling his 16 year old girlfriends breast by her mother. The guy admitted to the 'offence' in court and the girlfriend told the court it was consensual. The Judge said that although he did not wish to, he was compelled by law, to record a conviction. He told the kid not to worry as it would not affect his life. Move forward 12 years. the 20 year old now 32 is now a very respected teacher, the school, the kids. the parents love him. The Government discovers his prior conviction, sacks him and puts him onto the sexual offenders list.

So please do not be so naive as to think that a test you get today will not come back to haunt you in the future. Laws, Governments, Agendas change


Good, he shouldn't be allowed people under his age. Especially school children.


In many places, 16 is considered the age of consent; in my opinion, you are overreacting and endorsing the penalization of an individual for being in a consensual relationship, albeit with less-than-stellar judgment. This is why mandatory requirements are the ultimate in ineffective knee-jerk responses.


M.


_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.

For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!


mikkyh
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 159

28 Jan 2010, 12:22 pm

makuranososhi wrote:
mikkyh wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
^^^ No need to be so insulting just because someone points out the fallacious nature of your arguments. What Fuzzy is saying is correct, when asked to undertake a voluntary medical a refusal is the same as a negative result.

Also just because the law protects at today, it does not follow that this will always be the case. It used to be that once a prison term was served, that was the end of the matter, in fact it was illegal to discriminate on the basis of a prior conviction. Now, every man women and their dogs need to under go police checks.

A shocking example of this occurred about 4 years ago here in Aus. Here, unlike the UK the age of sexual consent is 18 (there are exemptions). This guy aged 20 was reported to the police for fondling his 16 year old girlfriends breast by her mother. The guy admitted to the 'offence' in court and the girlfriend told the court it was consensual. The Judge said that although he did not wish to, he was compelled by law, to record a conviction. He told the kid not to worry as it would not affect his life. Move forward 12 years. the 20 year old now 32 is now a very respected teacher, the school, the kids. the parents love him. The Government discovers his prior conviction, sacks him and puts him onto the sexual offenders list.

So please do not be so naive as to think that a test you get today will not come back to haunt you in the future. Laws, Governments, Agendas change


Good, he shouldn't be allowed people under his age. Especially school children.


In many places, 16 is considered the age of consent; in my opinion, you are overreacting and endorsing the penalization of an individual for being in a consensual relationship, albeit with less-than-stellar judgment. This is why mandatory requirements are the ultimate in ineffective knee-jerk responses.


M.


It's still inappropriate for a 20 year old to fondle a 16 year old's breast, even with consent. In that area the legal age of consent is 18. She was 16. Therefore he had committed a crime. And he must be punished. If he likes younger people he shouldn't be trusted around school children.

It would be wrong to assume the teacher wouldn't go for someone even younger or even go around having relationships with many more teenagers.


_________________
Michael H
mikkyh.info


elderwanda
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2008
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,534
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

28 Jan 2010, 12:44 pm

mikkyh wrote:
makuranososhi wrote:
mikkyh wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
^^^ No need to be so insulting just because someone points out the fallacious nature of your arguments. What Fuzzy is saying is correct, when asked to undertake a voluntary medical a refusal is the same as a negative result.

Also just because the law protects at today, it does not follow that this will always be the case. It used to be that once a prison term was served, that was the end of the matter, in fact it was illegal to discriminate on the basis of a prior conviction. Now, every man women and their dogs need to under go police checks.

A shocking example of this occurred about 4 years ago here in Aus. Here, unlike the UK the age of sexual consent is 18 (there are exemptions). This guy aged 20 was reported to the police for fondling his 16 year old girlfriends breast by her mother. The guy admitted to the 'offence' in court and the girlfriend told the court it was consensual. The Judge said that although he did not wish to, he was compelled by law, to record a conviction. He told the kid not to worry as it would not affect his life. Move forward 12 years. the 20 year old now 32 is now a very respected teacher, the school, the kids. the parents love him. The Government discovers his prior conviction, sacks him and puts him onto the sexual offenders list.

So please do not be so naive as to think that a test you get today will not come back to haunt you in the future. Laws, Governments, Agendas change


Good, he shouldn't be allowed people under his age. Especially school children.


In many places, 16 is considered the age of consent; in my opinion, you are overreacting and endorsing the penalization of an individual for being in a consensual relationship, albeit with less-than-stellar judgment. This is why mandatory requirements are the ultimate in ineffective knee-jerk responses.


M.


It's still inappropriate for a 20 year old to fondle a 16 year old's breast, even with consent. In that area the legal age of consent is 18. She was 16. Therefore he had committed a crime. And he must be punished. If he likes younger people he shouldn't be trusted around school children.

It would be wrong to assume the teacher wouldn't go for someone even younger or even go around having relationships with many more teenagers.


:roll:

He was 20!! ! He wasn't an old geezer fondling a little child. He was a young man, just at the end of adolescence, with a young woman --his girlfriend--at about the same stage. That's what young couples do, although preferably not in front of the girl's mother.

That is NOT the same thing as being the kind of man who, as a full adult, does sexual things with children.



makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

28 Jan 2010, 12:44 pm

In a surprising number of states in America, and many countries around the world, it is not illegal for this 20 year old male to fondle a 16 year old's breath. Don't confuse your local laws with being something absolute or universal. Second, you're making a huge and rather inappropriate leap that because he had a relationship with a 16 year old, that he has an issue with sexual behavior. Perhaps take some time to read up about the attitudes and cultural norms for some different countries, and see how different things can be from what you are familiar with.


M.


_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.

For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!


DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

28 Jan 2010, 12:53 pm

makuranososhi wrote:
Don't confuse your local laws with being something absolute or universal.

Also a point that needs to be brought up in relation to Fuzzy's assertion. The rules to join the metropolitan police force in a city in Alberta, Canada, are not likely to be the same as the laws governing what information must be disclosed to gain employment as, say, a clerk/typist in Seattle, Washington, US. And both are probably going to differ from the requirements to enlist in the British Army.

But a great deal of heat has been generated, this past page or so, by an exchange between people in different countries, each assuming that their local laws constitute some sort of universal framework.


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.


Meadow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2009
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,067

28 Jan 2010, 12:58 pm

A sixteen year old is a child. A twenty year old is an adult. There shouldn't be any confusion there.



dddhgg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,108
Location: The broom closet on the 13th floor

28 Jan 2010, 12:58 pm

makuranososhi wrote:
In a surprising number of states in America, and many countries around the world, it is not illegal for this 20 year old male to fondle a 16 year old's breath. Don't confuse your local laws with being something absolute or universal. Second, you're making a huge and rather inappropriate leap that because he had a relationship with a 16 year old, that he has an issue with sexual behavior. Perhaps take some time to read up about the attitudes and cultural norms for some different countries, and see how different things can be from what you are familiar with.


M.


I think mikkyh is merely trying to adhere to the letter of the law, which, in many cases, is actually a good thing. What use would laws have if they were infinitely flexible and could be stretched to suit any individual circumstance? "Lex dura, sed lex," the Romans said, and with good cause.

That being said, we mustn't forget that one of the main purposes of the law is to defend those not sufficiently capable of defending themselves or their interests, such as minors. It could be argued, however, that in a fully consensual relationship between a 16-year old girl and a 20-year old man nobody's interests are damaged, nor are society's. In such a case nobody needs to be defended and the law serves no proper purpose anymore. In fact, enforcing the law in such a case would arguably damage both these people's interests. In my view the law doesn't exist to adjudicate the finer points of morality; it merely exists to ensure that nobody's interests are harmed in a serious way and that nobody's freedom is abridged by the exercise of other people's freedom,


_________________
Dabey müssen wir nichts seyn, sondern alles werden wollen, und besonders nicht öffter stille stehen und ruhen, als die Nothdurfft eines müden Geistes und Körpers erfordert. - Goethe


Last edited by dddhgg on 28 Jan 2010, 1:09 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Lecks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,987
Location: Belgium

28 Jan 2010, 1:02 pm

Meadow wrote:
A sixteen year old is a child. A twenty year old is an adult. There shouldn't be any confusion there.

Mental maturity doesn't abide by one's age and both are physically mature enough to have sexual relations.



Meadow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2009
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,067

28 Jan 2010, 1:06 pm

Lecks wrote:
Meadow wrote:
A sixteen year old is a child. A twenty year old is an adult. There shouldn't be any confusion there.

Mental maturity doesn't abide by one's age and both are physically mature enough to have sexual relations.


That isn't for you or I to say, with regard to maturity in said case. The law is the law and it should be adhered to. Sixteen years old's are not mature enough for such activity. My mother was seventeen when she gave birth to me. She wasn't mature enough, prepared or ready for that situation, even though she was capable of and willing to have sex.



Lecks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,987
Location: Belgium

28 Jan 2010, 1:13 pm

Meadow wrote:
Lecks wrote:
Meadow wrote:
A sixteen year old is a child. A twenty year old is an adult. There shouldn't be any confusion there.

Mental maturity doesn't abide by one's age and both are physically mature enough to have sexual relations.


That isn't for you or I to say, with regard to maturity in said case. The law is the law and it should be adhered to. Sixteen years old's are not mature enough for such activity. My mother was seventeen when she gave birth to me. She wasn't mature enough, prepared or ready for that situation, even though she was capable of and willing to have sex.

I made no claims about their level of maturity. Only that to judge their ability to decide by their age alone, is flawed.

The only noteworthy factor here are the laws about this topic in whatever country you happen live in, as said in previous posts.



makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

28 Jan 2010, 1:14 pm

Meadow wrote:
Lecks wrote:
Meadow wrote:
A sixteen year old is a child. A twenty year old is an adult. There shouldn't be any confusion there.

Mental maturity doesn't abide by one's age and both are physically mature enough to have sexual relations.


That isn't for you or I to say, with regard to maturity in said case. The law is the law and it should be adhered to. Sixteen years old's are not mature enough for such activity. My mother was seventeen when she gave birth to me. She wasn't mature enough, prepared or ready for that situation, even though she was capable of and willing to have sex.


*shakes head* I'm sorry, but it appears you're confused on a few counts. The law where you are is not the same as the law where I am, or the laws in various states in America, nations in Europe, countries in across the continents. Some states allow (or have in the past couple decades) ages of consent of 15; some countries consider girls younger than that to be mature enough for a sexual relationship. My opinion, your opinion - neither matter in the fact that such a relationship IS legal in many parts of the world. Second, your mother's experience is not the only experience in the world. Many people aren't prepared to be parents at 17; many people aren't prepared to be parents at 37. Coincidence does not equate to causality. Lastly, it isn't up to you to judge how other people live their lives. Personally, I think we as a society and species lose entirely too much time spent in the interest of the status and methods of the lives of others.


M.


_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.

For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!


Meadow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2009
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,067

28 Jan 2010, 1:22 pm

makuranososhi wrote:
Meadow wrote:
Lecks wrote:
Meadow wrote:
A sixteen year old is a child. A twenty year old is an adult. There shouldn't be any confusion there.

Mental maturity doesn't abide by one's age and both are physically mature enough to have sexual relations.


That isn't for you or I to say, with regard to maturity in said case. The law is the law and it should be adhered to. Sixteen years old's are not mature enough for such activity. My mother was seventeen when she gave birth to me. She wasn't mature enough, prepared or ready for that situation, even though she was capable of and willing to have sex.


*shakes head* I'm sorry, but it appears you're confused on a few counts. The law where you are is not the same as the law where I am, or the laws in various states in America, nations in Europe, countries in across the continents. Some states allow (or have in the past couple decades) ages of consent of 15; some countries consider girls younger than that to be mature enough for a sexual relationship. My opinion, your opinion - neither matter in the fact that such a relationship IS legal in many parts of the world. Second, your mother's experience is not the only experience in the world. Many people aren't prepared to be parents at 17; many people aren't prepared to be parents at 37. Coincidence does not equate to causality. Lastly, it isn't up to you to judge how other people live their lives. Personally, I think we as a society and species lose entirely too much time spent in the interest of the status and methods of the lives of others.


M.


You are entitled to your ethics, and so am I. To each his own. Stop riding my back and condescending to me. I'm entitled as you are to an opinion. I did not mock you for yours. Likewise, don't mock "*shakes head*" at me, for mine.



elderwanda
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2008
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,534
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

28 Jan 2010, 1:25 pm

makuranososhi wrote:
Meadow wrote:
Lecks wrote:
Meadow wrote:
A sixteen year old is a child. A twenty year old is an adult. There shouldn't be any confusion there.

Mental maturity doesn't abide by one's age and both are physically mature enough to have sexual relations.


That isn't for you or I to say, with regard to maturity in said case. The law is the law and it should be adhered to. Sixteen years old's are not mature enough for such activity. My mother was seventeen when she gave birth to me. She wasn't mature enough, prepared or ready for that situation, even though she was capable of and willing to have sex.


*shakes head* I'm sorry, but it appears you're confused on a few counts. The law where you are is not the same as the law where I am, or the laws in various states in America, nations in Europe, countries in across the continents. Some states allow (or have in the past couple decades) ages of consent of 15; some countries consider girls younger than that to be mature enough for a sexual relationship. My opinion, your opinion - neither matter in the fact that such a relationship IS legal in many parts of the world. Second, your mother's experience is not the only experience in the world. Many people aren't prepared to be parents at 17; many people aren't prepared to be parents at 37. Coincidence does not equate to causality. Lastly, it isn't up to you to judge how other people live their lives. Personally, I think we as a society and species lose entirely too much time spent in the interest of the status and methods of the lives of others.




M.


Also, last I checked, fondling someone's breast doesn't get them pregnant.