Consensual Sex

[indago]

]Jade Hatt a then 20 year old UK babysitter who had been looking after an eleven year old boy has been spared jail after the child’s father told a court his son saw it as a ‘notch on his belt.’ ...Hatt stripped off and took off the ‘sex mad’ boy’s clothes, straddled him before they had sex for 45 seconds.


article (http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2015/10/jade-hatt-babysitter-had-sex-with-11yr-old-boy-spared-jail-dad-notch-on-his-belt/)

[Motown]

I think that kid could have done better, that chick is maybe a 4.

[gabosaurus]

I read this story earlier. There is no f-ing way an 11 year old can be "mature." The judge in this case should be removed and disbarred. This is an incredibly stupid decision.

[darin]

Beating a dead horse, but I PROMISE had the genders of the victim and criminal been reversed - even with the same evidence and the same testimony, the Male would be in prison for decades.

[Motown]

I think the judge in this case was being realistic, a refreshing change. A lot of guys lose their virginity to older girls because the older girls put out and the girls their own age don't, or didn't when I was a kid. Double standard? Absolutely and I'm glad we have that double standard, sometimes dudes just have to get laid.

[Noir]

sometimes dudes just have to get laid.

Just so we're clear, what you're saying here is -Sometimes 11 year old boys have to get laid?

[Gunny]

I read this story earlier. There is no f-ing way an 11 year old can be "mature." The judge in this case should be removed and disbarred. This is an incredibly stupid decision.

Different country, right? Their rules aren't ours. Everyone likes to get on Drummond for not understanding us, but my experience is there are a LOT of Americans that don't know jack about Foreign countries and their cultures. You're just another one that wants to judge them by our standards. Our arrogance as a society is our weakest link. I can tell you now 12 years old is marriage age in Thailand.

And you forget where you came from and who got you here. Girls married at 14 in this country and were old maids if not married by 18 less than 200 years ago. Average lifespan was 47 years. I'm not endorsing anything. Just pointing out facts.

For someone who thinks you're a "liberal" you got more rules than Communist Russia had.

[Gunny]

I think the judge in this case was being realistic, a refreshing change. A lot of guys lose their virginity to older girls because the older girls put out and the girls their own age don't, or didn't when I was a kid. Double standard? Absolutely and I'm glad we have that double standard, sometimes dudes just have to get laid.

Y'all young un's trip me out. I didn't know what sex was when I was 11. I was still playing with Hot Wheels and playing sports and girls were disgusting creatures. :laugh:

[jimnyc]

Y'all young un's trip me out. I didn't know what sex was when I was 11. I was still playing with Hot Wheels and playing sports and girls were disgusting creatures. :laugh:

Same here. And while I understand there are cultural differences, I can't imagine 11 year olds being mature enough to ok such situations. That can easily be sexual assault at minimum. Seriously, imagine if this were a 20 year old guy, and an 11 year old girl. The guy would get a 30 year prison sentence. The double standard can't be ignored. The law should be the same regardless of the sex. I'm sure guys at younger ages want to get a notch, but 11 is a tad young, and 20 is a tad high. But hell, that's just my opinion.

Don't even get me started with the Islamic cuckoos who believe even younger ages are a-ok.

[Gunny]

Same here. And while I understand there are cultural differences, I can't imagine 11 year olds being mature enough to ok such situations. That can easily be sexual assault at minimum. Seriously, imagine if this were a 20 year old guy, and an 11 year old girl. The guy would get a 30 year prison sentence. The double standard can't be ignored. The law should be the same regardless of the sex. I'm sure guys at younger ages want to get a notch, but 11 is a tad young, and 20 is a tad high. But hell, that's just my opinion.

Don't even get me started with the Islamic cuckoos who believe even younger ages are a-ok.

I don't imagine it. I have little girls. Now wire my temper into the mix. There wouldn't be any going to court crap. And I DO look at it the same either way. Punishment should be the same. For some reason, women get more of a pass, but which laws don't they?

Reverse this and make this a 20 years old guy and an 11 years old girl we're talking life and he has to be secluded in prison so he doesn't get a shiv to the kidneys. I see the double standard. Been there as far back as Lucretia Borgia.

[Voted4Reagan]

oh those crazy Bohemian Europeans..... what a bunch of cheeky sons of kidders they are!!

[WiccanLiberal]

If, as a woman, I believe males should be held accountable for their sexual choices, then women need to be held to the same standard. I think the judge missed the mark big time. A child of 11 can't make informed choices about their sexuality.

[indago]

If, as a woman, I believe males should be held accountable for their sexual choices, then women need to be held to the same standard. I think the judge missed the mark big time. A child of 11 can't make informed choices about their sexuality.

...but ...but... he got a "notch"...

[WiccanLiberal]

...but ...but... he got a "notch"...

Perhaps I am projecting unfairly but it sometimes seems as if mature males commenting on and considering these stories are harking back to their own adolescence and the sexual interest they had in some lovely older woman - a teacher, etc. These tropes are fodder for fantasy, risque jokes and numerous film and TV shows. Teenagers need to explore their sexuality but appropriate partners should be closer to their own age. A kid this young can't be expected to make an appropriate choice when confronted with such an immediate and physical challenge to his libido

[Gunny]

Perhaps I am projecting unfairly but it sometimes seems as if mature males commenting on and considering these stories are harking back to their own adolescence and the sexual interest they had in some lovely older woman - a teacher, etc. These tropes are fodder for fantasy, risque jokes and numerous film and TV shows. Teenagers need to explore their sexuality but appropriate partners should be closer to their own age. A kid this young can't be expected to make an appropriate choice when confronted with such an immediate and physical challenge to his libido

I sort of agree. At 11, for guys, you have no clue what's even going on. Then you have to take our current society into account. An 11 years old can commit murder and be tried as an adult. There's a definite double standard.

As I said, when I was 11 I had no idea what sex was. I played with toys and built model airplanes and fight to us was one on one, fists on the playground. The world's different now. You got 8 years olds running drugs and carrying weapons.

Not saying I got an answer either. I'm a jarhead. I loathe predators. MY answer ain't going to change society. I'm the reckoning, not the change.

[Elessar]

article (http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2015/10/jade-hatt-babysitter-had-sex-with-11yr-old-boy-spared-jail-dad-notch-on-his-belt/)

Huh?

That decision was crazy!

[Elessar]

Just so we're clear, what you're saying here is -Sometimes 11 year old boys have to get laid?

That is not the issue.....

Geesh, You are dense.

[Noir]

That is not the issue..... Geesh, You are dense.

If you don't see an issue in what Motown said, fair enough, but I do.

[Motown]

If you don't see an issue in what Motown said, fair enough, but I do.

You're not the first person to take issue with my opinion on this matter. Regarding this specific incident: I do not believe this happened without the father's foreknowledge. This is a story because the boy was 11 years old at the time but he is also his father's son so if daddy set up a booty call for his son with an ex-girlfriend I'm alright with it as long as the kid was alright with it and by all accounts the kid was alright with it. What do you think is going to do more mental harm to the kid in this case, his memory of having sex or all of the people involved in bringing this case telling him he participated in a crime? That he was victimized?

Regarding this topic in general: we as a society like to believe that one day you're a child and then you reach some arbitrary age and then you're magically an adult or can consent. Biology doesn't work that way. Even the law in this area is hypocritical in my opinion. In America we can't drink legally until we're 21. We can't vote until we're 18 and that used to be 21. We can't sign contracts until we're 18 or even legally smoke a cigarette. In most states though the age of consent is 16. I remember a time when it was as low as 14 in a couple of states. In most of Mexico right now it's 12 years old, not much older than the 11 year old in the article. Why do you think that is?

[indago]

Perhaps I am projecting unfairly but it sometimes seems as if mature males commenting on and considering these stories are harking back to their own adolescence and the sexual interest they had in some lovely older woman - a teacher, etc. These tropes are fodder for fantasy, risque jokes and numerous film and TV shows. Teenagers need to explore their sexuality but appropriate partners should be closer to their own age. A kid this young can't be expected to make an appropriate choice when confronted with such an immediate and physical challenge to his libido

Well, it's a start...

You have to start somewhere...

[Motown]

Perhaps I am projecting unfairly but it sometimes seems as if mature males commenting on and considering these stories are harking back to their own adolescence and the sexual interest they had in some lovely older woman - a teacher, etc. These tropes are fodder for fantasy, risque jokes and numerous film and TV shows. Teenagers need to explore their sexuality but appropriate partners should be closer to their own age. A kid this young can't be expected to make an appropriate choice when confronted with such an immediate and physical challenge to his libido

11 years old sounds extreme at first which is why this is a story but once you think about it a little bit more how odd is it really? Some guys mature late. I went to high school with a few guys who didn't hit puberty until after they graduated. Some guys mature early, very early, like this 11 year old who had already hit puberty. I'm not saying sex with older women is the norm, I don't believe it is, but it's more common than you might want to believe.

Granted 11 does seem young but you think it's too young to make the right decision? Have you already decided that 'No' is the right decision because if that's what you believe then you're holding the 11 year old to an impossibly high standard, I've never known any male under the age of 22 to turn down sex when offered by a woman he's attracted to.

Similar ages are fine for relationships, I agree with you there, but I'm not talking about a relationship. Discount the older woman thing as a fantasy if you want to but it does happen, even with teachers. Boys sexually mature in their teens, some younger than that. Women sexually mature in their 30's and the suburbs are full of horny women in their 30's and all it takes for some young guys to get laid is for one or two of those women to be slutty enough and it happens more than some people want to believe.

[Gunny]

If you don't see an issue in what Motown said, fair enough, but I do.

What issue do you take? Everyone here is entitled to an opinion. I think your issue is it's a guy and a girl.

[Noir]

What issue do you take? Everyone here is entitled to an opinion. I think your issue is it's a guy and a girl.

Two issues -

I take issue with the idea that an 11 year old can consent to sex.
I also take issue with the concept that "dudes just have to get laid".

[Motown]

Two issues -

I take issue with the idea that an 11 year old can consent to sex.
I also take issue with the concept that "dudes just have to get laid".

Why do you take issue with an 11 year old consenting to sex as opposed to a 15 or 16 year old?

Why do you deny one of our primal urges? You're not one of those Catholics who like to punish yourself are you?

[Noir]

Why do you take issue with an 11 year old consenting to sex as opposed to a 15 or 16 year old?

Why do you deny one of our primal urges? You're not one of those Catholics who like to punish yourself are you?

I am not a Catholic.
Concepts such as sexual consent are of course human constructs, arrived at by discourse and refinement, we can of course disagree with the definitions, and endeavour to put forth our personal views as a path to a different future, however, that lies upon the outliers to challenge the status quo. Given you are the outlier in the case, it rests upon yourself to pitch why and 11 year old is able to sexually consent, and why this is desirable. I would advise than an argument of 'primal urges' seems a shaky path, do you have any more than that?

[Motown]

I am not a Catholic.
Concepts such as sexual consent are of course human constructs, arrived at by discourse and refinement, we can of course disagree with the definitions, and endeavour to put forth our personal views as a path to a different future, however, that lies upon the outliers to challenge the status quo. Given you are the outlier in the case, it rests upon yourself to pitch why and 11 year old is able to sexually consent, and why this is desirable. I would advise than an argument of 'primal urges' seems a shaky path, do you have any more than that?

You think a primal urges argument when talking about sex is a shaky path? So in other words no, you don't have a response to that.

As for the 11 year old and consent. Saying I'm the outlier here is true, I am and I have admitted that, but it's also dodging the issue. Put simply, I've asked you why do you think this is wrong and your response was because it is. That ignores the point I've been making which is boys do not mature at a uniform rate.

[Motown]

Noir, just so I can get a better idea of where you're coming from here what bothers you more, the boy being 11 or the woman being 20?

[indago]

I am not a Catholic.
Concepts such as sexual consent are of course human constructs, arrived at by discourse and refinement, we can of course disagree with the definitions, and endeavour to put forth our personal views as a path to a different future, however, that lies upon the outliers to challenge the status quo. Given you are the outlier in the case, it rests upon yourself to pitch why and 11 year old is able to sexually consent, and why this is desirable. I would advise than an argument of 'primal urges' seems a shaky path, do you have any more than that?

You are probably not aware, then, that people do things regardless the law, or what others think.

[fj1200]

Granted 11 does seem young but you think it's too young to make the right decision?

11 is to young to make that decision. All should be held equally under the law.

[Gunny]

Two issues -

I take issue with the idea that an 11 year old can consent to sex.
I also take issue with the concept that "dudes just have to get laid".

Fair enough. I've already posted on the 11 years old thing.

You have to factor in your weird factor. About 13, guys ain't thinking about much else but girls. Girls ain't thinking about much else but guys. They're just more selective. Guys will hit anything that doesn't get out of their way quick enough. Girls usually focus on one loser guy they think is cool.

You and your rainbow flag don't even belong in this conversation actually. I can't even imagine your mentality, but I sure don't think it belongs in a conversation about guys and girls.

[Motown]

11 is to young to make that decision. All should be held equally under the law.

We've had this disagreement before, you think the law is the be all end all because it's the law. I like the law to make sense. The he's only 11 year old argument doesn't fly with me because if he had banged another 11 year old there wouldn't have been any legal action at all.

[WiccanLiberal]

11 years old sounds extreme at first which is why this is a story but once you think about it a little bit more how odd is it really? Some guys mature late. I went to high school with a few guys who didn't hit puberty until after they graduated. Some guys mature early, very early, like this 11 year old who had already hit puberty. I'm not saying sex with older women is the norm, I don't believe it is, but it's more common than you might want to believe.

Granted 11 does seem young but you think it's too young to make the right decision? Have you already decided that 'No' is the right decision because if that's what you believe then you're holding the 11 year old to an impossibly high standard, I've never known any male under the age of 22 to turn down sex when offered by a woman he's attracted to.

Similar ages are fine for relationships, I agree with you there, but I'm not talking about a relationship. Discount the older woman thing as a fantasy if you want to but it does happen, even with teachers. Boys sexually mature in their teens, some younger than that. Women sexually mature in their 30's and the suburbs are full of horny women in their 30's and all it takes for some young guys to get laid is for one or two of those women to be slutty enough and it happens more than some people want to believe.


Granted kids physically mature at different ages. But just because the plumbing works is no indication that the choices made about when to use it are good ones. Experts in neurophysiology now suspect that the brain, specifically the connections to the frontal cortex which controls judgement, are not complete until the mid 20's.( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124119468 ) Imagine if a young man is presented with the opportunity to have a romantic encounter with an older female friend of the family. He follows the rather questionable genius of his gonads and has a great time. But he also contracts herpes. Or maybe he becomes an HPV carrier, putting every one of his future female partners at risk for cervical cancer. Because the harsh truth is when you have sex with a new partner, you are also in contact with every partner that person has ever had. Seen in that light, these situations take on a more serious tone. As a mature adult, and in a sober condition, we can generally make decent choices about who we take to bed. Kids can't. That's the truth. And that means the law must protect them with limiting the age at which they can be expected to consent to activity of this kind, especially with an older partner.

[Noir]

You think a primal urges argument when talking about sex is a shaky path?

Yes, do you base all your moral answers on the landscape of 'primal urges'?


So in other words no, you don't have a response to that. As for the 11 year old and consent. Saying I'm the outlier here is true, I am and I have admitted that, but it's also dodging the issue. Put simply, I've asked you why do you think this is wrong and your response was because it is. That ignores the point I've been making which is boys do not mature at a uniform rate.

It is wrong because we have agreed as a society that it is wrong in the interests of protecting those too young to make considered decisions, and be left prone to abuse. If you want to argue the age of consent should be lowered, present your case.


Noir, just so I can get a better idea of where you're coming from here what bothers you more, the boy being 11 or the woman being 20?

Both factors are distasteful in their own ways, i would consider the adult more responsible? And therefore to be the one that 'bothers me more' but if this were a case of two 11 year olds having sex with eachother the same points would stand.

[fj1200]

We've had this disagreement before, you think the law is the be all end all because it's the law. I like the law to make sense. The he's only 11 year old argument doesn't fly with me because if he had banged another 11 year old there wouldn't have been any legal action at all.

We have? OK. In this case because the law is the law and it's been considered for decades and in many different states, countries, etc. There are even exceptions in the law when ages are closer (Romeo and Juliet); these additions to the law speak to the considered nature of the laws and the rationale. I think even you will agree that if the sexes were reversed the 20-year old would be looking at a long stretch; there is no reason that the sexes should really make the difference here. But this is not just about primal urges it's about the responsibility of an adult and the power that they hold in the relationship. There are reasons that even colleges have rules against teachers and students. In this case especially the law makes sense and your example of two 11-year olds creates a completely different dynamic.

[Gunny]

We have? OK. In this case because the law is the law and it's been considered for decades and in many different states, countries, etc. There are even exceptions in the law when ages are closer (Romeo and Juliet); these additions to the law speak to the considered nature of the laws and the rationale. I think even you will agree that if the sexes were reversed the 20-year old would be looking at a long stretch; there is no reason that the sexes should really make the difference here. But this is not just about primal urges it's about the responsibility of an adult and the power that they hold in the relationship. There are reasons that even colleges have rules against teachers and students. In this case especially the law makes sense and your example of two 11-year olds creates a completely different dynamic.

Give it a rest. You're talking literally and he's talking actual application. Got a perfect example for you:

Hillary Clinton. If you were a Lance Corporal and did the crap she's done, that whole "I didn't do anything" excuse would get you a one-way trip to the brig awaiting your court martial. Yet she's free to posture.

The double standard is there for all to see.

[Motown]

We have? OK. In this case because the law is the law and it's been considered for decades and in many different states, countries, etc.

This isn't what you said when we were talking about gay marriage.


There are even exceptions in the law when ages are closer (Romeo and Juliet); these additions to the law speak to the considered nature of the laws and the rationale.

I know in Michigan we have a new Romeo and Juliet law and it was the result of the public growing tired of the way the laws you're defending were applied. People like me were the driving force behind that law being adopted, not any careful consideration by a legislative body. Here's a link to an article about it:

http://www.michigancriminaldefenselawyer-blog.com/2014/02/so-called-romeo-and-juliet-law-provides-some-relief-young-adults-charged-with-sex-offenses-in-michig.html

Notice that the new law sets a new secondary and conditional age of consent: 13 years old. To me there's not much of a difference between 11 and 13, could be as little as 367 days. Once we're talking about 13 year olds I think it's time to admit that my view on this may not be as outlandish as some people think because it's an admission by our legislature that a 13 year old can consent and would want to, albeit with restrictions.


I think even you will agree that if the sexes were reversed the 20-year old would be looking at a long stretch; there is no reason that the sexes should really make the difference here.

Of course, I've already said I think there's a double standard, guys get hammered a lot harder than women do by these laws. Once again though I have a problem with drawing arbitrary lines. Something in the OP that hasn't been discussed is the mental maturity of the 20 year old woman, the judge mentioned that. Don't you think age of consent laws assume the older person to be at least of functional mental capacity? If she's not mentally 20 years old can she be treated as a 20 year old in any matter where age matters?


But this is not just about primal urges it's about the responsibility of an adult and the power that they hold in the relationship. There are reasons that even colleges have rules against teachers and students.

Of course it's problematic for a student to date a professor who is teaching a class the student is taking but I'm not aware of any wide spread rules prohibiting faculty from dating students and most college students are 18 or older anyway so the issue here isn't age of consent, it's one party holding authority over another which is a problem no matter how old you are. Instead of setting an age maybe authority and coersion should be the standards to look to when deciding whether or not to prosecute these cases?


In this case especially the law makes sense and your example of two 11-year olds creates a completely different dynamic.

Just pointing out the law isn't exactly fair and even. Someone can either consent or they can't consent, but these cases rest upon the age of the other participant, not the younger one.

[fj1200]

Give it a rest. You're talking literally and he's talking actual application. Got a perfect example for you:

Hillary Clinton. If you were a Lance Corporal and did the crap she's done, that whole "I didn't do anything" excuse would get you a one-way trip to the brig awaiting your court martial. Yet she's free to posture.

The double standard is there for all to see.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I agree that there is a double standard; I argue that there shouldn't be just because someone says a boy gets to get a "notch" while a girl, who is likely more developed than a boy of equal age, is molested or raped or...

We have laws for a reason and in actual application the example presented is wrong.

[fj1200]

This isn't what you said when we were talking about gay marriage.

Apples and oranges. Consenting adults, varying interpretations among the States, etc.


I know in Michigan we have a new Romeo and Juliet law and it was the result of the public growing tired of the way the laws you're defending were applied. People like me were the driving force behind that law being adopted, not any careful consideration by a legislative body. Here's a link to an article about it:

http://www.michigancriminaldefenselawyer-blog.com/2014/02/so-called-romeo-and-juliet-law-provides-some-relief-young-adults-charged-with-sex-offenses-in-michig.html

Notice that the new law sets a new secondary and conditional age of consent: 13 years old. To me there's not much of a difference between 11 and 13, could be as little as 367 days. Once we're talking about 13 year olds I think it's time to admit that my view on this may not be as outlandish as some people think because it's an admission by our legislature that a 13 year old can consent and would want to, albeit with restrictions.

Hold on there; I'm not defending one law and resisting R&J laws, I fully support both. A bright line rule of one age of consent law without taking into account varying ages is not appropriate. I am saying that this example should be subject to prosecution; alternatively a 15 and 17 year old shouldn't result in a lifetime sex offender status for one of them. Even in MI this example is still outside the lines of the new law.


Of course, I've already said I think there's a double standard, guys get hammered a lot harder than women do by these laws. Once again though I have a problem with drawing arbitrary lines. Something in the OP that hasn't been discussed is the mental maturity of the 20 year old woman, the judge mentioned that. Don't you think age of consent laws assume the older person to be at least of functional mental capacity? If she's not mentally 20 years old can she be treated as a 20 year old in any matter where age matters?

These lines are not arbitrary especially as it applies to the OP. I think the only argument to say that this case is acceptable is because of the genders; take those away and I'd be surprised if you make the same argument. Regarding whether this 20-year old might be mentally impaired then she needs to be monitored for completely different reasons and even moreso should not be let off the hook. If she is that age and looking at pre-teens that raises new questions while at the same time not obviating the original. This isn't to say of course that a family court judge doesn't/shouldn't have some leeway when the lines are closer together but that is a different discussion.


Of course it's problematic for a student to date a professor who is teaching a class the student is taking but I'm not aware of any wide spread rules prohibiting faculty from dating students and most college students are 18 or older anyway so the issue here isn't age of consent, it's one party holding authority over another which is a problem no matter how old you are. Instead of setting an age maybe authority and coersion should be the standards to look to when deciding whether or not to prosecute these cases?

Which is why I referenced the power relationship. A 20-year old can exert considerable power over an 11-year old in addition to the younger not mentally capable of consenting.


Just pointing out the law isn't exactly fair and even. Someone can either consent or they can't consent, but these cases rest upon the age of the other participant, not the younger one.

I wouldn't disagree with that point but it's not relative to the case presented.

[Motown]

Apples and oranges. Consenting adults, varying interpretations among the States, etc.

Only when you want it to be? You pooh-pooh'ed my opinion when I used the "other countries and traditional standards" argument. Now you're using it. I say pooh-pooh to you sir, now good day! I said good day!




Hold on there; I'm not defending one law and resisting R&J laws, I fully support both. A bright line rule of one age of consent law without taking into account varying ages is not appropriate. I am saying that this example should be subject to prosecution; alternatively a 15 and 17 year old shouldn't result in a lifetime sex offender status for one of them. Even in MI this example is still outside the lines of the new law.

I know you're not resisting Romeo and Juliet laws. All I was pointing out is that at least one of these laws ended up setting a new, even lower, age of consent. 13 years old, that's pretty young, don't you think? Why would they have set the age so low?




These lines are not arbitrary especially as it applies to the OP. I think the only argument to say that this case is acceptable is because of the genders; take those away and I'd be surprised if you make the same argument. Regarding whether this 20-year old might be mentally impaired then she needs to be monitored for completely different reasons and even moreso should not be let off the hook. If she is that age and looking at pre-teens that raises new questions while at the same time not obviating the original. This isn't to say of course that a family court judge doesn't/shouldn't have some leeway when the lines are closer together but that is a different discussion.

My point here was that the judge made an issue of the woman's mental age. Why would he do that unless he thought the line set by the law was somehow unfair and not well thought out?



Which is why I referenced the power relationship. A 20-year old can exert considerable power over an 11-year old in addition to the younger not mentally capable of consenting.

But he did consent, he wanted it. What power was the woman holding over the boy? No milk and cookies before you go to bed tonight unless you do me right now? She told the father about it as soon as he came back home. As I've said before in this thread I think the father is the key figure here not the babysitter.



I wouldn't disagree with that point but it's not relative to the case presented.

I think it matters, you can either consent or you can't. If you can't consent then it shouldn't matter how old the other person is, but it does matter, at least as far as prosecutors deciding which cases to take action on and which one's not to. That's not fair or even.

[indago]

Something in the OP that hasn't been discussed is the mental maturity of the 20 year old woman, the judge mentioned that. Don't you think age of consent laws assume the older person to be at least of functional mental capacity? If she's not mentally 20 years old can she be treated as a 20 year old in any matter where age matters?

But then, there is the consideration that even a normally, mentally stable woman, when the sex drive takes over, will throw consequences out the window and proceed toward satisfying her desires, the law, and consequences be damned.



.

[gabosaurus]

This thread is proof of why men are unable to function properly. Guys have two heads, but they allow the one below the waist to make all the important decisions.

Anyone who thinks an 11 year male is mature and rational enough to process sexual thoughts needs to go play on a freeway someplace. Because you are a detriment to society and one of the reasons why male rape culture is so prevalent.

[Motown]

This thread is proof of why men are unable to function properly. Guys have two heads, but they allow the one below the waist to make all the important decisions.

Anyone who thinks an 11 year male is mature and rational enough to process sexual thoughts needs to go play on a freeway someplace. Because you are a detriment to society and one of the reasons why male rape culture is so prevalent.

You're saying male rape culture is the problem in a thread about a 20 year old woman having sex with an 11 year old boy. Want to rethink that?

[gabosaurus]

Look at the responses to this thread. That is what I am referring. Not to mention the judge in question.

[Motown]

Look at the responses to this thread. That is what I am referring. Not to mention the judge in question.

I've been looking at the responses. Have you? Especially the responses mentioning that a 20 year old man doing an 11 year old girl would have been tossed in prison for basically ever, but male rape culture is the problem?

I don't know about the judge. It seems to me there's a lot more to this story that wasn't in the article.

[WiccanLiberal]

This thread is proof of why men are unable to function properly. Guys have two heads, but they allow the one below the waist to make all the important decisions.

Anyone who thinks an 11 year male is mature and rational enough to process sexual thoughts needs to go play on a freeway someplace. Because you are a detriment to society and one of the reasons why male rape culture is so prevalent.

As much as I have made bad man bashing jokes sometimes, the truth is we are necessary to each other and I think you are being a little overly general about this discussion. I know plenty of men who can and do make careful considered choices about their lives, including sex. My point in the article I referenced is that neither of the individuals in that case was making a good choice. Judgement, in either gender, is a later development. And it is anatomically and physiologically based. But I doubt very seriously that the 11 year old was the prime mover in the act so I do think the 20 year old holds the legal responsibility for it.

[Abbey Marie]

Granted kids physically mature at different ages. But just because the plumbing works is no indication that the choices made about when to use it are good ones. Experts in neurophysiology now suspect that the brain, specifically the connections to the frontal cortex which controls judgement, are not complete until the mid 20's.( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124119468 ) Imagine if a young man is presented with the opportunity to have a romantic encounter with an older female friend of the family. He follows the rather questionable genius of his gonads and has a great time. But he also contracts herpes. Or maybe he becomes an HPV carrier, putting every one of his future female partners at risk for cervical cancer. Because the harsh truth is when you have sex with a new partner, you are also in contact with every partner that person has ever had. Seen in that light, these situations take on a more serious tone. As a mature adult, and in a sober condition, we can generally make decent choices about who we take to bed. Kids can't. That's the truth. And that means the law must protect them with limiting the age at which they can be expected to consent to activity of this kind, especially with an older partner.

Heck, even adults often suck at picking their partners. What hope does a kid have?

[Motown]

I can't help but notice it's the women who seem to be interested in picking partners wisely.

[Gunny]

I can't help but notice it's the women who seem to be interested in picking partners wisely.

Uh huh. Got a couple of daughters to introduce you to if you think THAT. :laugh:

[Gunny]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I agree that there is a double standard; I argue that there shouldn't be just because someone says a boy gets to get a "notch" while a girl, who is likely more developed than a boy of equal age, is molested or raped or...

We have laws for a reason and in actual application the example presented is wrong.

I was addressing the double standard. White male and you're a pedophile You have to be isolated in prison so the other prisoners don't kill you.. White female and you don't get as much time as a murderer or bank robber. This story will be gone before next week is over.

The correlation is John Walk is STILL in prison for selling confidential material in the mid-80s. Hillary's still running for office for divulging Top Secret info on an unsecure computer. Double standard.

[Noir]

]She told the father about it as soon as he came back home. As I've said before in this thread I think the father is the key figure here not the babysitter.

That would be the father who called the police to report the incident, yeah?

[Motown]

That would be the father who called the police to report the incident, yeah?

Yes, that guy.

[indago]

That would be the father who called the police to report the incident, yeah?

Yes, he was proud of his "sex mad" son getting a "notch"...

[indago]

THE mother of Jade Hatt’s victim has said she is disgusted with the justice system and is planning to appeal after the babysitter was spared custody despite being found guilty of having sex with a child. The mother of the 11-year-old boy, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, said she felt utterly violated after she heard what the 21-year-old babysitter had done to her son.

...“He is just a normal boy. He would rather be playing his computer games.” “I feel violated myself because this is my baby boy."

article (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/13812345.___He___s_not_sex_mad__he___s_11______mum _of_boy_abused_by_Jade_Hatt_speaks_out/?ref=rl)

His "Mum" is going to have him traumatized over this whole affair if she keeps harping on it. And then she will blame it all on Jade Hatt.

[fj1200]

I was addressing the double standard.

And I completely agreed with it so I'm not sure why you took issue with my post. :)

[fj1200]

Only when you want it to be? You pooh-pooh'ed my opinion when I used the "other countries and traditional standards" argument. Now you're using it. I say pooh-pooh to you sir, now good day! I said good day!

No, it's different when it's different. Every state has age of consent laws and they don't always match up which is perfectly acceptable. Different states have/had different laws regarding gay marriage which had to be reconciled given the Federal government making laws and regulations per a defined word. The problem with gay marriage laws is that the Federal government took away the State's power to make rules and laws regarding such decades ago and most people now only have a problem with that Federal definition when they have to "share" the definition with someone whom they disagree. I've argued for years that the State should not have legislation regarding interpersonal relationships... outside of age of consent that is but that's because we define who is an adult and who is not.


I know you're not resisting Romeo and Juliet laws. All I was pointing out is that at least one of these laws ended up setting a new, even lower, age of consent. 13 years old, that's pretty young, don't you think? Why would they have set the age so low?

Good we got that first part straight but yes 13 is pretty young but it also involves others who are pretty young which means the two individuals are at the same level where one does not have influence over another. It almost seems to be a pointless law in that case because if there were no law and two 13-year olds engage in sexual activity where would the crime be?


My point here was that the judge made an issue of the woman's mental age. Why would he do that unless he thought the line set by the law was somehow unfair and not well thought out?

I can only go by what the article points out. That doesn't make his logic correct nor applauded by everyone.


But he did consent, he wanted it. What power was the woman holding over the boy? No milk and cookies before you go to bed tonight unless you do me right now? She told the father about it as soon as he came back home. As I've said before in this thread I think the father is the key figure here not the babysitter.

He does not have the legal capacity to consent. And you don't see that a babysitter, granted authority by his father, doesn't have power over that situation? Was Jared unjustly sentenced to prison? By accounts some of his victims were willing participants.


I think it matters, you can either consent or you can't. If you can't consent then it shouldn't matter how old the other person is, but it does matter, at least as far as prosecutors deciding which cases to take action on and which one's not to. That's not fair or even.

It's not relevant because there are clear age differences than what you're trying to inject. Also since it seems the father had relations with the babysitter and the babysitter is mentally impaired then it seems that the father should be subject to prosecution.