Because of the Constitution. It allows the states to set their own laws. Its an interesting document.

12/19/2006 3:35:43 PM

Quote :

"also 35 and 18 is ok but 17 and 15 is rape."

because if older men couldn't nail 18 year olds the economy would go straight to hell.

guys would no longer spend money on luxury cars, homes, and other ballin ass shit.

12/19/2006 3:40:09 PM

Just so you know, it would only be a temporary recession while industry retooled, if that were the case.

12/19/2006 4:10:30 PM

haha

12/19/2006 4:45:21 PM

^^ Ha! You said, "'tooled" or "retooled" or. . .oh, nevermind.

12/19/2006 4:51:47 PM

Quote :

"The Georgia Supreme Court has turned down an appeal from a teen who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for having sex with a 15-year-old."

And this is the same country where you can get out after 5-7 years in prison for R A P E. Wow, it sure IS the "best" country in the world!

[Waiting for: but you live in saudi arabia where they beat women blah blah blah...]

[yeah, but neither saudis nor their gov says they are the best country in the world, so shut the fuck up and shove your jingoism up bush's ass]

LONG LIVE HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY.

DOWN WITH OPPRESSION AND HYPOCRISY [such as in the case above with the teen EDIT: and in the case of the saudi gov].

[Edited on December 19, 2006 at 5:38 PM. Reason : ]

12/19/2006 5:37:14 PM

OEP, nobody values your opinion.

12/19/2006 5:52:40 PM

wow, what an insightful comment.

tell that to the victims of rape at the hands of americans, in the US, and outside the US, who are basically told that their shame, injury, and degradation is worth 5-7 years in jail for the rapist.

"nobody values your opinion"

wow, did you even think that through, you fucking kid? i presented a fuckin fact, that most rapists seem to get out of jail in the US after 5-7 years.

so shove that "opinion" up your ass.

[Edited on December 19, 2006 at 6:01 PM. Reason : i think you WOULD value my "opinion" if your wife/mom/sis/daughter was raped]

12/19/2006 5:59:55 PM

Quote :

"tell that to the victims of rape at the hands of americans"

that must be a lot of people since all american servicemen are rapists according to you.

12/19/2006 6:03:37 PM

forgive me, but i don't remember saying "american servicemen" in this thread.

and FYI, hundreds of thousands of rapes take place in the US/year. and the majority of them are committed by americans.

[Edited on December 19, 2006 at 6:08 PM. Reason : 100,000's == "a lot", or not? fucking idiot ignoramus]

[Edited on December 19, 2006 at 6:09 PM. Reason : i also never said all amurrcan servicemen are rapists, which makes you a liar.]

12/19/2006 6:06:56 PM

maybe i'm wrong, but couldn't this guy challenge the sodomy law in a federal court? i thought those were deemed not cool by the supreme court a couple years ago.

12/19/2006 6:09:44 PM

Quote :

"wow, what an insightful comment. tell that to the victims of rape at the hands of americans, in the US, and outside the US, who are basically told that their shame, injury, and degradation is worth 5-7 years in jail for the rapist. "nobody values your opinion" wow, did you even think that through, you fucking kid? i presented a fuckin fact, that most rapists seem to get out of jail in the US after 5-7 years. so shove that "opinion" up your ass."

I oppose rape (naturally) and I'm not even that big a fan of this country (I'm skeptical, I question things, etc, but at the end of the day I like living here).

That said, your "OMGARR AMERICA" stance on everything is exausting and sounds like a broken record. People everywhere are fucked up. If you don't realize that you're a fucking idiot.

12/19/2006 6:37:12 PM

Quote :

"I understand your frustration with choosing an arbitrary number, but surely you understand the need to come up with one. I mean, you can't simply say "mature kids can have sex, we should look at it on a case by case basis" because then we would be looking at millions of cases to decide if they are mature enough to consent to sex."

No, I don't agree at all. Don't our children deserve better than to have the difference between a caring lover and felony rapist be defined by calendars and state lines? Is it fair to err on the side of oppression by creating artificial boundaries that forbid sexual relations between two intelligent individuals? Is it just or cost-effective to have jury trials and long prison sentences when it should be fairly easy to determine if someone has enough maturity and intellectual capabilities to agree to sex?

12/19/2006 6:46:16 PM

Quote :

"in this thread."

haha

----------------
On a more serious note:

Quote :

"On New Year’s Eve in 2003, Mr. Wilson and several friends rented a hotel room for a party at which they planned to have plenty of alcohol, marijuana and sex. One friend, goofing around with a video camera, captured much of the action on videotape. A 17-year-old girl reported after leaving the party that she had been gang raped. The tape showed that she was severely intoxicated. A second girl, 15, also attended the party, but did not drink or smoke. She had what she later said was consensual oral sex with Mr. Wilson. But according to the law, a 15-year-old is below the age of consent. Mr. Wilson went to trial on charges of rape and aggravated child molesting. After watching parts of the tape, the jury decided that Mr. Wilson had not raped the older girl. But it was bound by law to find him guilty of molesting the 15-year-old. Jurors said afterward they did not know that the charge carried a minimum sentence of 11 years, including 10 without parole. Juannessa Bennett, Mr. Wilson’s mother, said her son was crushed by the Supreme Court decision. “We’ve got people that is in power that don’t have no emotions,” Ms. Bennett said. “They don’t sympathize.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/19/us/19georgia.html

12/19/2006 6:47:16 PM

i think 15 year olds are fully capable of consent.

maybe not 50 years ago, but in today's age of sluttification (by parents, society, celebrities, music/film industry) starting at 10-12 for girls, a 15 year old is fully mature, and knows what she is doing.

Quote :

"the jury decided that Mr. Wilson had not raped the older girl"

i thought that she was severely drunk, as the tape showed. so, shouldn't they have convicted him of rape?

and where the FUCK were these girls' parents????

[Edited on December 19, 2006 at 6:58 PM. Reason : ]

12/19/2006 6:55:54 PM

I think we should veil all our women and not allow them to drive so this wont ever happen again.

12/19/2006 6:57:30 PM

^^ Her mom was probably working late and her pops probably ran out on them, considering they were lower class blacks in Georgia

Although, considering how her parents flipped out (apparently), maybe the girls were white...

[Edited on December 19, 2006 at 7:08 PM. Reason : ]

12/19/2006 7:07:36 PM

is that what they were?

blacks? (no need to say lower-class blacks from georgia)

well if so, then you don't have to use that smiley.

if they were blacks, then surely, the scenario must be as you speculated.

call me racist if you wish, but i am just a realist.

12/19/2006 7:09:42 PM

please kill yourself in a suicide bombing, the loss of innocent life will be worth it

12/19/2006 7:21:16 PM

^^ Most blacks are friendly, honorable people, you know.

[Edited on December 19, 2006 at 7:27 PM. Reason : ]

12/19/2006 7:26:38 PM

Quote :

"forgive me, but i don't remember saying "american servicemen" in this thread."

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=449153

Pardon me, I was simply making a reference to you being a moron in another thread.

Quote :

"and FYI, hundreds of thousands of rapes take place in the US/year. and the majority of them are committed by americans."

The majority of rapes in america are committed by americans?!?!?!

Who woulda thunk it?

Quote :

"100,000's == "a lot", or not? fucking idiot ignoramus"

~350,000/300,000,000=?

Quote :

"i also never said all amurrcan servicemen are rapists, which makes you a liar."

Hyperbole

dumbass.

12/19/2006 7:36:51 PM

OEP, do you mean to say that no Saudi has ever claimed it was the greatest nation in the world? Because I'm willing to bet that's bullshit.

12/19/2006 8:18:22 PM

Haha. This criminal got what he deserved. Enjoy prison, kid.

12/19/2006 9:51:36 PM

Headline coast to coast and all ships at sea: Supreme Court holds sodomy laws 'not cool'
By sarijoul, BBC World Service

12/19/2006 10:44:27 PM

It would be a good point if the kid wen't down for sodomy, but he was charged with

Quote :

"aggravated child molestation"

.

Sadly, no court is going to rule that law to be outdated and "uncool"

But I'm all for getting rid of other stupid sodomy laws.

12/20/2006 7:53:11 AM

Quote :

"That said, your "OMGARR AMERICA" stance on everything is exausting and sounds like a broken record"

here here

12/20/2006 9:20:49 AM

Quote :

"I've written before about the plight of Wendy Whitaker, who was tagged an offender for giving a boy a blow job as a tenth grader. She was 17; he was 15. She’s just one of thousands on the list who are there for consensual sex crimes, and she’s not the only woman."

12/21/2006 2:28:59 AM

^ Was she a fatty?

12/21/2006 3:02:02 AM

Is she serving 10 years?

12/21/2006 9:11:01 AM

Presumably she fell victim to the same law with the same minimum sentence.

12/21/2006 10:56:34 AM

Is she in Georgia as well?

12/21/2006 12:57:57 PM

Dude's probably going to get raped in prison. (I don't mean that as a joke. I don't think it's at all funny.) He might well come out a hardened criminal or traumatized wreck.

All because he had oral sex with a girl two years younger.

I guess you do have to draw the line somewhere, but sending kids to prison for this type of thing is insane, especially considering the state of our prison system.

12/21/2006 11:06:34 PM

Quote :

"Is it just or cost-effective to have jury trials and long prison sentences when it should be fairly easy to determine if someone has enough maturity and intellectual capabilities to agree to sex?"

Except it isn't even remotely easy. Everyone has a different idea of what qualifies "enough maturity and intellect." There are people of all ages with limited intellect, and maturity is about as damned subjective a quality as you get.

Take away the mandatory minimums and adjust some of the parameters, maybe, but the general idea behind the system -- the calendar dates, as you put it -- is about as good as is practicable.

Oh, and to everybody who mentioned the possibility of a pardon -- please. Can't you see the "While in office, he pardoned a convicted sex offender" ad already?

[Edited on December 21, 2006 at 11:33 PM. Reason : ]

12/21/2006 11:33:11 PM

Quote :

"Headline coast to coast and all ships at sea: Supreme Court holds sodomy laws 'not cool' By sarijoul, BBC World Service"

well it is true. and in the first post:

Quote :

"Wilson’s case was one of two cases that were cited earlier this year when lawmakers passed a law that otherwise strengthened penalties for sex offenders, but reduced the penalty from a felony to a misdemeanor for some teenagers convicted of sodomy."

and from wikipedia:

Quote :

"On June 26, 2003, the US Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision struck down the Texas same-sex sodomy law, ruling that this private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution. (See Lawrence v. Texas.) This decision invalidated all state sodomy laws insofar as they applied to noncommercial conduct in private between consenting civilian adults, and overruled an earlier ruling from 1986 in which Georgia's sodomy law had been upheld. (Bowers v. Hardwick.)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

12/22/2006 12:06:37 AM

Not cool, man.

12/22/2006 12:23:57 AM

Quote :

"Except it isn't even remotely easy. Everyone has a different idea of what qualifies "enough maturity and intellect." There are people of all ages with limited intellect, and maturity is about as damned subjective a quality as you get."

*shrug* Courts have to determine sanity all the time. I don't see why this is so much harder.

Quote :

"Take away the mandatory minimums and adjust some of the parameters, maybe, but the general idea behind the system -- the calendar dates, as you put it -- is about as good as is practicable."

I'll never agree that it's fair to determine mental faculties by arbitrary dates, but yes, it is fairly practical. What really gets me though is how these laws are treated as being so valid when they're so inconsistent. AOC ranges between 16-18 in the US, and depending on the state considers tons of other things like age differential, sexual orientation, marriage status, type of sex, etc. wtf? Is a person bright enough to fuck or isn't he/she?

I don't see what's so harmful about sucking a dick anyways.

12/22/2006 1:40:02 AM

Quote :

"Oh, and to everybody who mentioned the possibility of a pardon -- please. Can't you see the "While in office, he pardoned a convicted sex offender" ad already?"

I certainly see your point, but here's the kicker:

The state of Georgia doesn't allow pardons from the governor. It would have to come from the Board of Pardons and Paroles; the members of which are much less swayed by public opinion and outrage.

12/22/2006 8:19:57 AM

Quote :

"I don't see what's so harmful about sucking a dick anyways."

Obviously, under certain circumstances, it can fuck up your mind pretty good. I feel confident in assuming you don't think everybody should be able to get a blow job from anybody.

Quote :

"Courts have to determine sanity all the time. I don't see why this is so much harder. "

The difference between a lot of the insane/retarded defendants and their mentally sound counterparts is usually pretty cut-and-dry, or at least, it's a hell of a lot more cut-and-dry than the difference between an immature 18 year old and a mature 14 year old.

Quote :

"What really gets me though is how these laws are treated as being so valid when they're so inconsistent."

Here I'll agree with you. I wouldn't start screaming "States' rights!" if Uncle Sam wanted to pressure them into coming up with a uniform AOC law.

Quote :

"The state of Georgia doesn't allow pardons from the governor."

Ah. Well, ignore what I said, then.

12/22/2006 12:10:08 PM

Quote :

"Obviously, under certain circumstances, it can fuck up your mind pretty good."

Circumstances like living in a sexually repressed society?

Quote :

"The difference between a lot of the insane/retarded defendants and their mentally sound counterparts is usually pretty cut-and-dry"

Usually? If you say so.

12/22/2006 3:03:27 PM

Quote :

"^ Was she a fatty?"

hawt

12/22/2006 4:28:05 PM

Quote :

"Circumstances like living in a sexually repressed society?"

No, more like the difference between me forcing an 8 year old to do it and an 18 year old willing to do it.

12/22/2006 4:42:36 PM

Oh wow, I didn't realize we were talking about raping 8-year-olds. I thought the thread was about a 15-year-old who licked a cock on purpose.

12/22/2006 5:03:16 PM

^That's why I said "under certain circumstances" and not "under these circumstances."

All you said was that you couldn't see the harm in sucking a cock, you didn't specify much.

Quote :

"Usually? If you say so."

I'm willing to lay down money that the ones you hear about as being controversial are in the minority. Not that it matters much, actually, to anything I'm saying.

Quote :

"Circumstances like living in a sexually repressed society?"

No, circumstances like being seven years old and having no idea what the fuck is going on. My point was that even you -- I hope, anyway -- wouldn't say that there's nothing harmful in coercing an extreme minor to suck a dick.

[Edited on December 22, 2006 at 5:08 PM. Reason : ]

12/22/2006 5:07:24 PM

Jesus. I just said that sexual contact isn't inherently damaging, especially for those in their mid-teens. I wish I was fucking at that age. Exactly where did I support using force or coercion (on those 8 and younger, no less)? Y'all gotta quit this slippery slope shit.

12/22/2006 5:41:15 PM

It isn't a slippery slope, it's inherent: if you get any extremely young person to do something sexual, it's coersion because they don't grasp what they're doing. The same goes for any older person who doesn't understand.

My point is as it stands, that blowjobs (or any sex act) might not be inherently damaging across the board, but in certain circumstances they are. If we are to prevent that damage, we have to target those circumstances.

[Edited on December 22, 2006 at 11:06 PM. Reason : ]

12/22/2006 11:05:31 PM

Your post is too vague to argue against. Under some circumstances some things are bad. I know that. What do you want from me, a signed retraction that says "It ain't right to walk up to a four-year-old and shove your dick in her mouth"? I thought that sort of thing was obvious. The problem is a wide, wide range of stuff that isn't clear-cut. What counts as young, how do you measure if someone knows what they're doing, in what way are these things damaging? There's a lot of gray area between 16-18 and plenty of years around. One person's view of child protection can be another person's view of sexual oppression. Hell, there's 2 years of difference between being sexually mature in North Carolina and Tennessee. Are 17-year-olds being abused in NC or are they being repressed in TN?

[Edited on December 23, 2006 at 12:43 PM. Reason : ]

12/23/2006 12:34:34 PM