"sex Offenders" Not Hiding Identity

illuminex

Yesterday I was skimmed a front page article of a local newspaper while waiting for a buddy of mine to get off of work. The basic jist of the article was that a study done by the University of New Hampshire has just released a study that debunks some common stereotypes of sex offendors.

1.) "Sex Offenders will have sex with any age." They found that most would only go as young as 13, and were normally searching for those in a more mid-teen range.

2.) "Sex Offenders conceal their age, identity, and intentions." They found that almost every one of them told the teens straight up who they were, their age, and their intentions.

In my state, the age of consent is 16, I was told that in Arkansas it was 12, and I know in many states it is 18.

Any opinions on what this might mean for consent laws and the way "sex offenders" treated? Also, should receiving a BJ at a party from a 15 year old when you're over 17 result in a hefty prison sentence as well as having to register with the town police and practically have a sign on your house?

Edit: <a href='http://www.theunionleader.com/Articles_show.html?article=41606&archive=1' target='_blank'>Here's</a> the article.

SaltzBad

Its nonsense, to be quite honest. Sexual transgressions are bound to happen, and scapegoating often practically innocent people is nothing but politically correct mobbing.

While it does in theory make sense to put a modicum of responsibility on every mature persons shoulders to make sure kids (below the legal age of consent) don't sexually transgress or that you don't take advantage of them, its a law that by its very design does more damage than good.

It starts with the problem that the younger party is almost completely immune from retribuition, simply because of the artifical consent-age barrier. This puts alot of power in the younger partys hands - since their consent bears no weight, they may throw themselves at you and/or lie about their age and later claim the high ground ("Sure she told you she was 19" <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ). Thats the first impracticality.

Next comes the nonsenical-ness of any scenario where both partys are both physically and spiritually fully capable and responsible, yet one might not be of the legal age and even within whats socially fairly acceptable (15 and 17 in your states examples, or 17 and 19 in mine <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ). Theres no moral reason and no practical reason why this should be illegal.

And finally, a bit offtopic from the predominant teenager theme is that of simply unfair labels. A few years ago, a foreign boy (less than 6 years old) was jailed on US soil for helping his sister urinate - a neighbor saw what he considered sexual impropriety, and reported him. I'm not even sure if this falls in the same category - I'm sure someone remembers the detail, it was a fairly large news item for a while.

Theres similiar examples en masse though, where you can easily become a sexual offender for a fairly harmless deed - like bathing with your kid. Especially if you're male (males are the stereotypical and even statistical prime offenders after all), you're prone to be pounced by overzealous watchdogs. Obviously these things are the exception, but none the less a pretty clear-cut injustice.


Anyway :

<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The research also found that victims, primarily teens 13 to 15, met and had sex with the adults more than once; half of the victims were described as being in love or having close bonds with the offenders. About 25 percent were boys.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Pretty much sums up the first, and most major problem with sexual offense lawmaking.

lolfighter

I will present you with a link to an article I've read. I will then strongly dissuade you from clicking that link and reading the article, as it contains explicit language that is not allowed on this board. Also, I will strongly encourage you not to read the rest of the site, as it also contains explicit and sometimes controversial language and viewpoints.

The link is <a href='http://www.misanthropic-beeyotch.com/ftc.html' target='_blank'>here.</a>

I do not encourage you to click that link. It contains explicit language that is not allowed on this board. Do not check out the site, as it also contains explicit and sometimes controversial language and viewpoints.

I felt that the article, however, had a singnificant relevance to this discussion, and find myself agreeing with it more than disagreeing with it.

If you, dear moderators, feel that I am not authorized to post this link despite my warnings about it, please remove the link and/or my entire post. I ask only that understand that it was not my intention to harm the discussion or any of the participants or readers.

Note: When you click the link, you will get an error. This is because I had to misspell the link because one of the words was being filtered out. If you carefully check the link, you will notice the misspelled word (I've written it in slang). Correct the word and you have the right link.

Edit: Here's a doctored version of the <a href='http://www.misanthropic-b%69tch.com/ftc.html' target='_blank'>link.</a> It substitutes one of the letters in the censored word with the corresponding hexadecimal value (or so I'm told). It'll work in Internet Explorer, but not in Firefox or (so I'm told) other Netscape-based browsers.

Edit2: Here's another workaround that should work in all browsers: <a href='http://snipurl.com/88b3' target='_blank'>Clicky.</a> Snipurl will redirect you to the right page.