Originally posted by Scarlett O.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"Minor" is a completely relative and arbitrary term.
Not according to state laws.</font>[/QUOTE] As was pointed out, the age of consent is different in various states... not to mention the variations world wide.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I know many 13-17 year old girls who know exactly what they are consenting to....to say they don't know what they are consenting to is ridiculous.
I don't know quite what to say to that.
But yours is a very widespread and common opinion...the belief that because some young girls look and act like grown women that they are,</font>[/QUOTE] So if they look and act like grown women... what precisely is the man supposed to go on? Especially since these young women are known to lie about their ages... and have for many years now.
completely and with adult capacity for emotional and intellectual reasoning, asking for it and their adult male partners are are just victims of wild teenage "bad girls".
These young women are moral beings. They are responsible before God... as are their "adult male partners".
I am not excusing sex acts with between any unmarried couple.
You seem to be laying the burden of not only the morality but also legality on the man. It is very conceiveable that a young woman at 15 is
more responsible and mature than her 21 year old boyfriend... and that she has pursued him. Should she be charged with a crime? Why not? A more worldly person has taken advantage of an emotionally immature person.
You are in vast company with that opinion.
The opinion that "minor" girls dress in an intentionally provocative way and are fully aware of the moral issues and still pursue or even deceive older men? There is probably a good reason for the vast company.
Again, both parties are wrong morally. But to say that the girl has no understanding of what she is doing is in fact ridiculous. If it were a crime for two "minor" girls I mentioned before to deceive and seduce a 21 year old man... the guy I mentioned wouldn't have spent the last 7 years in prison. They plotted. They lied.... and knew exactly what they were doing.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Labels don't demonstrate a lack of understanding... a lack of understanding does.
You are on the right track here. It is NOT the label that demonstrates the lack of understanding.
It the lack of understanding that demonstrates the need for the label in the first place.
</font>[/QUOTE]The problem is that some 14 year old girls have more understanding than an 18 year old girl... or boy. This fact is illustrated by the various statitory rape laws. In some cases, charges are seldom brought because the laws are virtually unenforceable if the girl consents.
Someone may be able to correct me but I think the law in NC is something like this: The victim must be 12 or younger with an offender that is at least 4 years older
and the victim must have not had previous carnal knowledge.
Other states obviously have stricter laws. That's why the label does not have an objective meaning.