RE: Why is it illegal to be happy?
September 24, 2012 at 3:31 am
(This post was last modified: September 24, 2012 at 3:35 am by Ciel_Rouge.)
You have clearly missed the diagram I have already quoted a couple of times which shows that at the age of 16 the very same person can be an"incapable child" in California but a "consenting adult" in North Carolina:
![[Image: age-of-consent-map-usa.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=biopearco.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F05%2Fage-of-consent-map-usa.jpg)
My question for you is this: How can a person magically be "mentally retarded" in one state and fully capable in another, all at the SAME time?
OK then, let as go back to the religious aspect: in the Bible, girls at the age of 12, 13 or 14 were married and sexually active. Interestingly, the CONSENT was given by their FATHER. My question is: do you consider THIS right?
To me it is not only rape. It is a human rights violation. But you do not seem to oppose - or do you?
Let me give you my definition of rape: Rape is penetration that is UNWANTED or HARMFUL to the person being penetrated. Period. And I am against all rape. This inludes not only freaks raping little children, it includes guys raping other guys in prisons, Catholic priests raping altar boys and even wives who were forced into their marriage by their parents. I am against all that.
But my teacher did not initiate anything and back then I was under the "legal age" - I guess this makes matters even more complicated
This sort of comparison is not valid, a child is more mentally capable and self-aware than a drunk adult.
Of course You aim to prove your point at all cost and against all odds and even the facts themselves ;-) But it was ME who was underage back then. So how do you call it? REVERSE pedophilia?
My question for you is this: How can a person magically be "mentally retarded" in one state and fully capable in another, all at the SAME time?
(September 24, 2012 at 2:24 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: First off, I think I made clear that I consider ALL sex with children to be forced sex, because children aren't capable of consenting to sex with adults.
OK then, let as go back to the religious aspect: in the Bible, girls at the age of 12, 13 or 14 were married and sexually active. Interestingly, the CONSENT was given by their FATHER. My question is: do you consider THIS right?
To me it is not only rape. It is a human rights violation. But you do not seem to oppose - or do you?
Let me give you my definition of rape: Rape is penetration that is UNWANTED or HARMFUL to the person being penetrated. Period. And I am against all rape. This inludes not only freaks raping little children, it includes guys raping other guys in prisons, Catholic priests raping altar boys and even wives who were forced into their marriage by their parents. I am against all that.
(September 24, 2012 at 2:24 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: Although you might very well have wanted to get your bone on with your teacher as a 12 year old, that is not the same as being capable of consent.
But my teacher did not initiate anything and back then I was under the "legal age" - I guess this makes matters even more complicated
(September 24, 2012 at 2:24 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: Desire and consent are not the same. The same as if I have sex with a someone very drunk when I am completely sober.
This sort of comparison is not valid, a child is more mentally capable and self-aware than a drunk adult.
(September 24, 2012 at 2:24 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: All you are saying in being against 'forced' sex with children is that you are against child rape. That's hardly independant of what I was saying, that your fourth premise is in favor of pedophilia. Which of course, it is.
Of course
You aim to prove your point at all cost and against all odds and even the facts themselves ;-) But it was ME who was underage back then. So how do you call it? REVERSE pedophilia?
