[lbo-talk] Susie Bright on Foley etc

[andie nachgeborenen]

It is fucked up and there is not much nuance in law --
the law in a very blunt instrument -- but at the same
time I still know know how I'd fix it. One thing to do
might be import into federal law some of the relative
age limits I mentioned holding (as I understand) in
state law, eliminating or (slightly more likely in the
existing political environment) downgrading the
offense for persons within, say, 3-5 years of the
minor; maybe jacking it up for persons more than 10-15
years older than the minor and for sex (or attempts to
have sex) with children under (say) 13. 

I don't think putting things off on the teen is a
solution, And Btw the Capitol Hill pages are not the
special victims of a repressed society; they are the
children of the wealthy, powerful, and influential,
and probably have more sexual experience than most
grownups.

--- Matt <lbo4 at beyondzero.net> wrote:


> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:48:01PM -0700, andie
> nachgeborenen wrote:
> > Vis a vis 18 and maybe 20 year olds, 16 year olds
> > aren't _entirely_ kids. (They are largely kids --
> you
> > will see, Doug!) Vis a  vis 50 year olds, I think
> they
> > are just plain kids.  Lines are hard to draw but
> > there's a difference between 16-18 year olds and
> > year olds and younger. It's futile to expect teens
> not
> > to boff each other, and absurd to make it a crime
> (I
> > had one girlfriend in HS with whom part of our
> > entertainment was counting up the statutes we were
> > violating, not being lawyers we probbaly got it
> wrong)
> > but it's not futile to expect grownups to not to
> > squeeze the Charmin -- if you are over 21, make
> passes
> > at people 18 or over, please. The older the
> grownup,
> > the worse the, uh, indiscretion. Morally
> speaking.As I
> > say, the severe criminal penalties we impose on
> sex
> > with minors seem excessive, but I also don't know
> what
> > to do about undeterrable and essentially incurable
> > sexual predators like Foley.
> 
> Yeah, but there's not much nuance in the law here,
> is there?  At least
> not Federal.
> 
> I don't know how to express it other than to say it
> is fucked up that
> the law thinks a 50 year old hitting on a 16 year
> old is "more like" a
> 50 year old slipping into his 6 year old's bedroom
> and molesting him
> than it is "like" the 50 year old hitting on an 18
> year old.
> 
> It seems to be all a part of America's sexual
> repression and
> prudishness.  A teenager who didn't grow up in a
> repressed society
> would be well equipped to recognize the questionable
> nature of the
> power imbalance vis a vis an affair with Foley, and
> if there wasn't
> such a stigma associated with gay sex, and sex with
> a teenager (!), it
> might be water cooler chit chat ("Foley likes em
> young, don't flirt
> with him...") instead of the kind of drama that
> wastes time which
> could be spent talking about the shitty laws he
> votes for.
> 
> 
> Matt
> 
> -- 
> PGP RSA Key ID:    0x1F6A4471                     
> aim: beyondzero123
> PGP DH/DSS Key ID: 0xAFF35DF2                       
>   icq: 120941588
> http://blogdayafternoon.com                  yahoo
> msg: beyondzero123
> 
> Damn the rules, it's the feeling that counts.
>      -John Coltrane
> 
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com