Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
We are at an impasse ouze.

You do realize that at 16 in Louisiana you *can* be emancipated and therefore be allowed to make your own choices and *gasp* choose to have -legal- sex?

http://lawdigest.uslegal.com/minors/emancipation-of-minor/6538

But apparently you do not believe that any 16 year old is capable of making any rational decision that is exclusively reserved for "adults" of 17 or older because it is entirely unthinkable that a 16 year old is capable of thought beyond choosing what they are going to wear or if they should text that person that they are crushing on.

I do think we're at an impasse, but I don't think we need to be. I think you're making kind of a bad argument in the original premise - specifically the idea that a 16 year old can lawfully drive, and so is fully an adult with every right and privilege and responsibility. That, obviously, neither I nor really any state legislature agrees with, so there is no common ground. However, you've been skirting the edges of a much more reasonable argument - one that we're finally homing in on here, that the age of consent at 17 is too high. I'm going to choose to ignore the latter part of your post where you raise a strawman and pretend I argued that no 16 year old can make an adult decision; because that's obviously being silly, we both know I didn't say or imply that.


First, lets start with idea of a cutoff at all. Everyone matures at a different age, yes, just as everyone handles their liquor differently, to use an analogy. However, it's not practical to invent some kind of test for every single citizen in the country at some age to determine what their BAC is to make them legal to drive - and at least that's something that's scientifically possible! We just pick a good average BAC and use that. The same goes for the age of consent - we can't really test every person's emotional ability to handle adult sexual relationships. I'm sure we can agree that 10 year olds can't consent to sex, yes? And I'm sure we similarly agree that a 25 year old age of consent is similarly foolish? At this point we're just squabbling about the number. How do we pick a specific cutoff? The answer is, all of us agree upon it via our social mores, and we have it legislated into law via our elected representatives. In this case, that is exactly what the State of Louisiana did, and they picked 17 years old. While I personally think it's a little high, the people of Louisiana disagree with me, and it's their call to make.

So, they decided it was 17. I am not a fan of hard-and-fast statutory rape laws; they are too inflexible. I think it's a travesty when you have a 16 year old boy charged with statutory rape for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. Hard lines lead to hard law. On the other hand, we cannot err too much in the other direction, either. There are a plethora of cases that show well that if the judge has too much leeway in sentencing, that sometimes rapists get off with sentences either too light or too heavy to serve justice.

I think the so-called Romeo and Juliet laws are a terrific middle ground, which have a hard number, and then also have a modifier for a juvenile or young sexual partner. Louisiana has just such a law - a 16 year old child who has sex with an 18 year old adult would technically have committed statutory rape, but it's also merely a misdemeanor and unlikely to actually be prosecuted without there being another accompanying charge - in other words it's going to be the peas for some kind of actually-in-serious-trouble steak dinner. Again, we might argue over the specific ages but I think that these codicils to statutory rape laws serve the purpose of justice well.

In this case, when we have a 16 year old who had sex with a 24 year old, I think unmodified statutory rape is a reasonable charge. A 32 year old woman having sex with a 16 year old boy is, in my opinion, not even debatable anymore.

The other issue here, wholly separate, are the charges of an educator having sex with a student. I am not a fan of these when the student is of the age of consent. I understand they good they are trying to do and I also agree that an educator has a ethical responsibility to abstain with sex from their students, when we have an issue as we do with Louisiana educator sexual conduct law: a hypothetical 23 year old teacher having sex with a hypothetical 18 year old high school student off school grounds after hours is a criminal act.... I think this goes too far. I think a teacher in that position should be fired, but not prosecuted.

Anyways, that's all I've got to say about that.

Let's try to break it down for you, again:

 TheMeanDM wrote:

What I had been initially trying to discuss is that at 16 this guy could be perfectly capable of making the decision to participate in this situation

And he is. There is not a single law preventing him from banging on teacher, both teachers, getting his other 16 year old buddy to do the Eiffel Tower with the teachers. He can do whatever he wants as long as both teachers give their consent. He is not breaking a single law by banging his way through the teachers lounge.

....even though legally in LA he is absolved of any responsibility simply by virtue of a number,

He is not absolved, he never faced any responsibility to begin with. To be absolved implies that he broke a law to begin with but they decided not to charge him because he was 16. But since it is not illegal for 16 year old kids to have sex he didn't break the law. It's also not illegal for teachers to have sex.

and not upon evaluation of his actual mental/emotional maturity.

His mental emotional maturity has nothing to do with it. The case would be the same if he was a 16 year old kid with Down's Syndrome or a 16 year old Rhodes Scholar completing his Bachelors Degree at Yale.

It doesn't matter what they kid can and cannot do since it doesn't impact the laws that target someone else. We could take your argument and say that it shouldn't be illegal for the teacher to assault a student because that student is able to drive a car and enlist with his parents consent. The law doesn't affect the kid, it affects the teacher.

 TheMeanDM wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Precisely my point....

That society has deemed a 16 year old incompetent enough to make a legal decision to have sex....but can make a legally competent decision to murder someone strikes me as *very* moronic....and indeed...it definitely shows the hangup America has regarding sex.

not all society does,

most of the civilized world has age of consent at 16-14 IIRC... (it was 14 here till fairly recently)

most also think you can drink at 16-18 and so on.

it is a bit odd that you can be singled out as "an adult totally in control and aware of your actions" at 16 in regards to murder, but not in regards to sex, booze, R rated movies, and so on.

however, in THIS specific case, its deplorable regardless of the age/gender of the teachers/student as its a teacher/authority figure and student relationship which is never ok.

Exactly what I have tried to say (perhaps poorly?).

Not once have I said that this wasn't wrong...that the teachers weren't wrong..that this isn't an immoral or bad or in anyway legal act.

What I had been initially trying to discuss is that at 16 this guy could be perfectly capable of making the decision to participate in this situation....even though legally in LA he is absolved of any responsibility simply by virtue of a number, and not upon evaluation of his actual mental/emotional maturity.

I may have poorly worded my response, i meant more to elaborate on the point you were making.

I think we both agree the teachers are in the wrong here, regardless of age.

I think we also both agree that setting random ages for "when you can do stuff:" is a bit silly when you can smoke and drive before you can have sex or drink.

esp when so much of the world does allow that 16 year old to consent to sex.

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Except they're not punishing the 16 year old for having sex......

I mean, that's pretty clear....

Are you suggesting the victim of statutory rape be prosecuted?

Obviously not. My first post makes that pretty clear.

I misread hybrids post. Thought to be fair I'm so used to his "eeemereeeka Izz zeee worst" nonsense that I just expected him to say what i misread.

Ouze...your post is full of awesome.

Yes indeed the biggest issue I had was the age of consent and how it feels disproportionately high given many of the things a "normal" 16 y^o can legally do.

We actually agree, based on your far more detailed response!

And I offer my apologies for adding that unnecessarily sarcastic (what did you call it...:straw man"?) last couple sentences.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Except they're not punishing the 16 year old for having sex......

I mean, that's pretty clear....

Are you suggesting the victim of statutory rape be prosecuted?

Obviously not. My first post makes that pretty clear.

Yes, it does - my apologies, I did not see the post that preceded the one I quoted, and I did not intentionally pick that one out of context.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
And I offer my apologies for adding that unnecessarily sarcastic (what did you call it...:straw man"?) last couple sentences.

No need, re-reading some of my earlier posts I was definitely being kind of a jerk so had it coming. My at-work internet access is greatly reduced from what it was and so some my postings were not as nuanced as I would have liked them to be, which again leads to mistakes wholly-my-own in both tone and issues like the first part of this post, I need to either read more carefully, or only post when i can do so more thoughtfully.

 cincydooley wrote:
Thought to be fair I'm so used to his "eeemereeeka Izz zeee worst" nonsense

What the hell are you talking about? The U.S. have a weird gun fetish, but apart from that, they are not very different from western European countries, really. We do not like people doing murder either, if I am to be completely honest with you .

As I was thinking about your argument I came across another thought as well.

Now I want to clarify that I don't think that this is the argument that you are making at all, so please don't feel like I am trying to argue that this is what you are thinking.

With that said, I do worry that some of your argument shifts the blame of the rape to the 16 year old and takes away some of the responsibility from the teachers.

Having a hard arbitrary age limit is inflexible, I won't argue that. And like I said before, I think it's perfectly viable to argue that it could be changed. But the limit makes it clear that the responsibility is on the adult that decides to have sex with a child. If we remove that limit and start to rely on the emotional ability of the child, then we just enter a lot of muddy waters. How do we test to see if a child was emotionally mature enough to consent to sex? How do we protect the adults in that situation? Will it be the fault of the child that the adult got charged with rape because they were too dumb to consent? Would we end up with a "it's your fault that you were raped because you were not emotionally mature enough to say yes" scenario?

Again, I'm not saying that you are arguing that the responsibility for the rape should be on the child. I just want to make that clear.

I'm just worried that going from a "don't have sex with kids under X years of age" system to a "don't have sex with kids that are not emotionally mature enough for it" system could end up shifting the blame for the rape to the wrong person.

Such feels here lately...I...I...

I can't imagine what goes through the minds of such teachers. In the UK at least the age of consent is 16, but there is a straightforward abuse and manipulation of power problem over a child supposedly in your care. It's just so staggeringly unprofessional and in the face of the most basic rules laid down in teaching.

There was a guy in the UK who ran away abroad with a girl from his school. It's just crazy, he clearly exploited an infatuation, or bought into it making him either a groomer or complete idiot. After all the promises she would wait for him to serve his five years or whatever, within months shed met a boy her own age to go out with. Thank god.

Very few male 16 years old can top that........if it was my kid I have a celebration bee...eerrrrrrr kool aid with him in the backyard

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Pete, we've covered that they've done a bad thing. Now it's time to have some fun with the thread!!

Mah bad, didn't read past the first page.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Very few male 16 years old can top that........if it was my kid I have a celebration bee...eerrrrrrr kool aid with him in the backyard

I mean....I feel you man I really do. I remember being a 16 year old dude and having some hot teachers. Still, consider if it had been 2 adult male teachers running a train on a 16 year old girl. In terms of the way our institutions react, there has to be equal negative consequence.

Where the hell were these kind of teachers when I was in high school?

I had one of these types of teachers while I was in school. She got caught and fired the year before I could have made an attempt at it. 5'1", 38DD, fiery redhead. An ass you could have bounced a quarter off of. And she was sleeping with the soccer team. Well, two of them, anyway. Lucky pricks.

And yes-they bragged. They weren't exactly harmed in the matter-they both had LOTS of fun.



I apparently had this type of teacher in college too-I didn't realize I had a shot when she was constantly flirting with me until after I left the school and found out she was banging students for grades. Ironically, she was a biology teacher. I wish I had known she didn't have moral qualms-I banged anything I could in college-I'd have no qualms about nailing my hot 30 year old teacher!

That is something I have always wondered about when it comes to these stories....

Why is it some teachers get busted and some just continue to go through the rumor mill. You know...everybody knows but everybody ignores it....? Teacher union? Weak school board? Inept police?

I don't think they are really breaking any actual laws by the time you are talking about college teachers. Probably lots of school policies, but it might be hard to prove rumors about having sex with students.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Ouze, can we can ebola added to Dakka Bingo?

and lo, it is so.

also how did these threads get intertwined, I thought I had responded to the wrong thread but no?

You would think after a while teachers would learn not to bang the students, but no. They do it anyway.

Those teachers probably could have a wide variety of other options but no.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
That is something I have always wondered about when it comes to these stories....

Why is it some teachers get busted and some just continue to go through the rumor mill. You know...everybody knows but everybody ignores it....? Teacher union? Weak school board? Inept police?

Probably because they molest teenage boys instead of girls and apparently it's ok because those said boys are emotionally mature.

 Breotan wrote:
Where the hell were these kind of teachers when I was in high school?

In college.

Doing you know what.


studying you perv

 TheMeanDM wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Precisely my point....

That society has deemed a 16 year old incompetent enough to make a legal decision to have sex....but can make a legally competent decision to murder someone strikes me as *very* moronic....and indeed...it definitely shows the hangup America has regarding sex.

not all society does,

most of the civilized world has age of consent at 16-14 IIRC... (it was 14 here till fairly recently)

most also think you can drink at 16-18 and so on.

it is a bit odd that you can be singled out as "an adult totally in control and aware of your actions" at 16 in regards to murder, but not in regards to sex, booze, R rated movies, and so on.

however, in THIS specific case, its deplorable regardless of the age/gender of the teachers/student as its a teacher/authority figure and student relationship which is never ok.

Exactly what I have tried to say (perhaps poorly?).

Not once have I said that this wasn't wrong...that the teachers weren't wrong..that this isn't an immoral or bad or in anyway legal act.

What I had been initially trying to discuss is that at 16 this guy could be perfectly capable of making the decision to participate in this situation....even though legally in LA he is absolved of any responsibility simply by virtue of a number, and not upon evaluation of his actual mental/emotional maturity.

Again, you're 16 aren't you. Let me squeeze your cheeks you're so cute when you stomp your feet and say you're a big boy. SO CUUUUUTTE.

 Breotan wrote:
Where the hell were these kind of teachers when I was in high school?

Firstly. NICE ONE KID

Second- I hear that. We had some proper old crusty teachers lol.

 Ouze wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Ouze, can we can ebola added to Dakka Bingo?

and lo, it is so.

also how did these threads get intertwined, I thought I had responded to the wrong thread but no?

Someone above my post mentioned getting their bingo cards ready for this thread so having just commented on the Ebola thread it was fresh on my mind, that's all.

I see. Definitely a confusing moment but it worked out well I think.

I'm really concerned for the victim's health...especially his physical health after the incident.


He's in danger of dislocating his shoulder from all the high-fives.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
What I had been initially trying to discuss is that at 16 this guy could be perfectly capable of making the decision to participate in this situation....even though legally in LA he is absolved of any responsibility simply by virtue of a number, and not upon evaluation of his actual mental/emotional maturity.

Yeah, but that isn't how laws work. Take for instance DUIs (this is just an example, I'm not condoning anything): I might be able to drive perfectly fine under the influence of marijuana, but maybe my friend can't. To solve that problem we make it illegal for everyone.

 Ouze wrote:
I see. Definitely a confusing moment but it worked out well I think.

Plus, it's a pandemic you know... It spreads!

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I see. Definitely a confusing moment but it worked out well I think.

Plus, it's a pandemic you know... It spreads!

Nobody tell President Madagascar about memes.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I agree child abuse is a thing. My point is how things change. 16 you can drive a car, own a gun, be tried as an adult. Join the marines under certain circumstances. But not have sex?

How can you own a gun at 16? and you're usually only tried as an adult for the most heinous crimes/repeated offenses

 jreilly89 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I agree child abuse is a thing. My point is how things change. 16 you can drive a car, own a gun, be tried as an adult. Join the marines under certain circumstances. But not have sex?

How can you own a gun at 16? and you're usually only tried as an adult for the most heinous crimes/repeated offenses

There is no federal legislation setting a minimum age for long gun ownership, nor should there be in my opinion: in rural areas younger boys and girls hunting is both natural and needed. Some states have set a limit, anywhere from 14 to 18 to not at all, but in almost all the ones that do have a limit there is a parent or guardian while hunting exception.

 Ouze wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I agree child abuse is a thing. My point is how things change. 16 you can drive a car, own a gun, be tried as an adult. Join the marines under certain circumstances. But not have sex?

How can you own a gun at 16? and you're usually only tried as an adult for the most heinous crimes/repeated offenses

There is no federal legislation setting a minimum age for long gun ownership, nor should there be in my opinion: in rural areas younger boys and girls hunting is both natural and needed. Some states have set a limit, anywhere from 14 to 18 to not at all, but in almost all the ones that do have a limit there is a parent or guardian while hunting exception.

There is a minimum age for purchasing a gun, but that doesn't really cover "owning" so there might be some confusion there.