17 year old jailed for 10 years for recieving oral

[TC]

Teen’s 10-Year-Term for Consensual Sex Draws Attention to Georgia Law

Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2006
By: Monica Lewis, BlackAmericaWeb.com

With every passing day, Juanessa Bennett wonders when -- or better yet, if -- her 19-year-old son, Genarlow Wilson, will be released from a Georgia prison.

It wasn’t illegal drugs, robbery or even murder that placed Wilson in the Douglas County jail almost two years ago. It was an act that, much to the dismay of parents and adults, many of our young people are doing -- engaging in oral sex with their peers, many under the age of 16. In Georgia, such an offense is considered aggravated child molestation.

And though just 17 himself at the time, Wilson, a track star, homecoming king and honor-roll student, was sitting before a judge seeking acquittals from a number of offenses stemming from consentual sex acts with another teen -- including rape, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, aggravated sodomy and aggravated child molestation -- when many of his Douglas County High classmates were preparing to leave for college.

...

Eventually, the boys were arrested and charged with a number of offenses, including rape, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, aggravated sodomy and aggravated child molestation. Four of the six decided to accept a plea bargain, avoiding mandatory 10-year sentences for the aggravated child molestation, but forever being labeled sex offenders, despite the fact that the girl who performed oral sex had decided not to press charges.

By the time the trial was to start for the remaining two, the only other defendant who wanted to go to trial initially had opted to take a plea as well, leaving Wilson to go at it on his own. After a three-week trial, which included a videotape of the raucous party as evidence, Wilson was found not guilty of rape and other charges, but guilty of aggravated child molestation and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

...

“What’s happening here is that there’s a clash between laws that should be and the laws that are on the books,” Bernstein told BlackAmericaWeb.com. “When the laws were done, no one really contemplated the reality of teen sexuality.”

Bernstein, who wrote the amicus brief for the case of Marcus Dixon, another Georgia teen who was found not guilty of rape and sexual battery, but guilty of aggravated child molestation and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Dixon’s case caused headlines nationwide, but there are far too many teens finding themselves in similar predicaments, Bernstein said.

“No one wants to talk about this. No one wants to talk about sex,” Bernstein said. “The realities are that teens are engaging in this, but we just tell them don’t get pregnant. We don’t tell our kids that it’s even illegal to do this. A lot of parents aren’t going into the detail that is required to make their children aware.”

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/wilson0111

When he was a senior in high school, he received oral sex from a 10th grader. He was 17. She was 15. Everyone, including the girl and the prosecution, agreed she initiated the act. But because of an archaic Georgia law, it was a misdemeanor for teenagers less than three years apart to have sexual intercourse, but a felony for the same kids to have oral sex.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=wilson

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




This sort of sick, reactionary anti-sex oppression of young people is precisely the reason why the left needs to take a hard line against oppressive age of consent laws and in defense of teenagers rights to be regarded as autonomous human beings and not the sexual property of their parents or state.

[Ander]

I noticed this little tidbit:

The first time the Supreme Court voted on Genarlow's case, it was 4-3. The four judges who voted against the black teen were white. The three judges who voted for him were black.

This man's life, as well as that of his mother, has been ruined because of this bullshit. I say man because he's not a kid anymore, he had to grow up quick when this injustice was laid upon him.

Thank you for posting this TC, this is something of great interest to me now.

[Raúl Duke]

So the reason behind why he is in prison (or juvie hall) is because he, a 17 year old, recieved oral!

And they didn't acquitt him?

This is reactionary bullshit, also I like the points about how only black judges voted in favor of the black teen; yet the rascist conservative white judges voted against, the fact that sex is a misdeameanor yet oral sex isn't, etc.

People should campaign to let teens arrested for this kind of stufff free and to eliminate these archaic reactionary laws.

[Pilar]

I can't speak to the issue of racial prejudice, if there is one, but I will discuss the overall concept of concent.

If a girl/woman does not say yes to sex, the act is rape. There is, so far, no middle ground on this issue, and no one knows how to "build" one.

Of course, one could lower the age of consent to 16 or lower, but this is besides the point.

In all of our United States, statutory rape is based on strict liability intent. That is, the prosecution does not have to show there was an intentional mindset on the part of the defendant. One is guilty merely be performing the act. Most drug and fire related crimes are of this kind as well.

Most of us CAN create a level of disgust for sex between a man and an older girl, such as a 45 year old man and 12 year old girl. Obviously as the ages get closer to one another, it becomes more difficult to accept as criminal.

But this doesn't have to be racial or discriminatory. One of the questions I have on my mind is what is the age of the female. If she is 14 and he 17, that is a very large gulf of maturity between the two ages. Also, I ask myself, "Why would he be with a girl who may still be in 8th grade?" "Can't he achieve success with an older girl?"

I don't know the details, but he's probably going to have very few friends on his side, at least openly. I can't see this issue disolving if there were to be a socialist society. Parents will want to protect their young until they are old enough to make decisions on their own. 16, perhaps so. 14...no thank you.

[Guerrilla22]

I wonder how old the "victim" in this case is?

[MarxistFuture]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 11:22 pm
I noticed this little tidbit:

The first time the Supreme Court voted on Genarlow's case, it was 4-3. The four judges who voted against the black teen were white. The three judges who voted for him were black.


I noticed this as well.

I was almost surprised. If you told me that before I read the article, I could have guessed that. As they are brought up in an archaic, race-driven society, they clearly think less of any non-white standing in front of them.

This is clearly reactionary.

However, a line must be drawn somewhere. This is not it, but a 19-year-old should not be legally able to have sex with a 13 or 14 year-old. I'm sure most comrade's have the same level of disgust for paedophiles.

The worst part about this, is near the end. Not being American, and being in work at the moment, I can't really do much, but it says if they had sexual intercourse, it would have been a misdemeanour, but as they had oral sex, it was a felony.

What are the differences? I'm guessing severity / amount of jail-time?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 09:25 am
However, a line must be drawn somewhere. This is not it, but a 19-year-old should not be legally able to have sex with a 13 or 14 year-old. I'm sure most comrade's have the same level of disgust for paedophiles.
A relationship between a 19 year old and a 14 year old is perfectly acceptable. It is not paedophilia because most 13/14 year olds are certainly pubescent or post pubescent.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 02:26 am
I wonder how old the "victim" in this case is?
The "victim" who didn't even press charges at that.

---------------------------

I wish they gave us the age of the "victim", but from all I could gather from the article, it wasn't an unreasonable act at all. Unless I'm missing something, the way this kid has been treated is disgusting and inexplicable. There is not a single reason for him to spend a single hour in jail, and he's going to have how much of his life stolen from him? Disgusting.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

This makes me very angry. Why would someone want to do this? Is it just the ruling class enjoying ruining people's lives? Surely they have the capacity to think, they know what this person will go through, what his life will be reduced to. He will be branded as a child molestor and a paedophile for the rest of his life. Stretching it a bit, one could say they have just signed his death penalty. I mean if there was as hint of rationality then I could understand but I don't so... why?

A similar thing happened in Norway. A 19 year old had sex with a 17 year old. That was according to law fine. But then he filmed it, it suddenly became child porn! Because in order to film pornographic material the person filmed must be 18 years or older. So using the state's logic, you can have sex with (ahem) the "child" (ahem), but you cannot film the act! So he had to stand in court being prosecuted as a paedophile, as a child molestor and a rapists.


Comrade, pedophilia really means having sex with a child that has not yet gone through puberty. The meaning of the word has been distorted mostly by anti-sex reactionaries. Let's not misuse words in the same way they do.

I agree.

[TC]

I wonder how old the "victim" in this case is?



I wish they gave us the age of the "victim", but from all I could gather from the article, it wasn't an unreasonable act at all. Unless I'm missing something, the way this kid has been treated is disgusting and inexplicable. There is not a single reason for him to spend a single hour in jail, and he's going to have how much of his life stolen from him? Disgusting.


err i realize the way i chopped up the original article for length it left that out but she was 15 at the time, so just two years younger than he was at the time.

From a different article:

When he was a senior in high school, he received oral sex from a 10th grader. He was 17. She was 15. Everyone, including the girl and the prosecution, agreed she initiated the act.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=wilson

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 02:43 pm

I wonder how old the "victim" in this case is?



I wish they gave us the age of the "victim", but from all I could gather from the article, it wasn't an unreasonable act at all. Unless I'm missing something, the way this kid has been treated is disgusting and inexplicable. There is not a single reason for him to spend a single hour in jail, and he's going to have how much of his life stolen from him? Disgusting.


err i realize the way i chopped up the original article for length it left that out but she was 15 at the time, so just two years younger than he was at the time.

From a different article:

When he was a senior in high school, he received oral sex from a 10th grader. He was 17. She was 15. Everyone, including the girl and the prosecution, agreed she initiated the act.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=wilson
Thank you. A two year difference is perfectly fine, especially when she initiated it. There is not a single problem with what happened.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:08 am
I can't speak to the issue of racial prejudice, if there is one, but I will discuss the overall concept of concent.

If a girl/woman does not say yes to sex, the act is rape. There is, so far, no middle ground on this issue, and no one knows how to "build" one.

Of course, one could lower the age of consent to 16 or lower, but this is besides the point.


I don't know the details, but he's probably going to have very few friends on his side, at least openly. I can't see this issue disolving if there were to be a socialist society. Parents will want to protect their young until they are old enough to make decisions on their own. 16, perhaps so. 14...no thank you.
there is no issue of real consent here because the girl involved didn't only consent but initiated it and no one involved disputes that. The question is

[coda]

http://www.wilsonappeal.com/update.html

[Pilar]

A relationship between a 19 year old and a 14 year old is perfectly acceptable. It is not paedophilia because most 13/14 year olds are certainly pubescent or post pubescent.

No it is not perfectly acceptible. Pubescence is not the issue. It is one of consent. By your reasoning an 11 year old girl who has gone through puberty early can have sex, and a late girl going through it at a later age could not.

Consent is the legal ability to say "yes". I now learn she is 15. A fifteen year old girl, regardless of what she initiates, is not emotionally mature enough to be burdened with all of the matters involved in a sexual relationship. Perhaps 500 years ago, she was. But our societies have (perhaps artificially) maintained a childhood for a 15 year old. Older males, whether one likes it or not, are to check themselves and not participate with them. Otherwise, a 12 year old who "initiates" is also fair game.

Rules of ages of consent maybe disagreed upon, but the overall concept that people become mentally and emotionally developed to understand the weight of their conduct as they mature is accepted by nearly all the world.

Again, this isn't about how a girl looks or developes, or a boy for that matter. It is about their chronological age.

That being said, I personally believe in lowering the age of consent to 16.

For those of you who believe that pubecence should be controlling here, and would allow a 14 year old female who has gone through puberty to "consent" to sex with a 55 year old male, go f--- yourselves.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

A fifteen year old girl, regardless of what she initiates, is not emotionally mature enough to be burdened with all of the matters involved in a sexual relationship

Maybe you should let each girl decide on her own, rather than grouping them all together like they all feel the same at the same age.



Rules of ages of consent maybe disagreed upon, but the overall concept that people become mentally and emotionally developed to understand the weight of their conduct as they mature is accepted by nearly all the world.


How is oral sex, such a massive issue?

It is not for us to tell them that its a massive deal, and then lock up the person who received it.



For those of you who believe that pubecence should be controlling here, and would allow a 14 year old female who has gone through puberty to "consent" to sex with a 55 year old male, go f--- yourselves.

Now we can all see how rationally you are approaching this, and to be honest, not all that rationally.

[Pilar]

Maybe you should let each girl decide on her own, rather than grouping them all together like they all feel the same at the same age.

That is dumb beyond reason. The whole point is that she CAN'T decide on her own, unless you abolish the basis of consent law. Letting each girl decide on her own is an open invitation to pediphiles following them home from 7th grade and "letting each of them decide."



Rules of ages of consent maybe disagreed upon, but the overall concept that people become mentally and emotionally developed to understand the weight of their conduct as they mature is accepted by nearly all the world.



How is oral sex, such a massive issue? It is not for us to tell them that its a massive deal, and then lock up the person who received it.


Capitalist Sham:

You are about 24 years. If you can't find either your true love or simply a partner (or 5 or 6 partners) to shag yourself blind with that are in the age of majority, than somethings seriously wrong with your needs.



Now we can all see how rationally you are approaching this, and to be honest, not all that rationally.

All I can say for your Sham is that there are websites where you can indulge in whatever fantasy you have a hard-on for.

[TC]

Originally posted by Pilar+March 15, 2007 08:02 pm--> (Pilar @ March 15, 2007 08:02 pm)
No it is not perfectly acceptible. Pubescence is not the issue. It is one of consent. By your reasoning an 11 year old girl who has gone through puberty early can have sex, and a late girl going through it at a later age could not.
[/b]
sure, it is perfectly acceptable for 11 year olds who have developed enough to *want* to engage in sexual activity to do so, just as you'd expect those who hadn't developed not to want to. But it wouldn't occur to any five year old to engage in sexual activity because they don't have the hormonal development level that causes those urges. Thats why puberty is relevant.



Consent is the legal ability to say "yes".

no actually consent is agreement to something, you can consent to things that you're not legally empowered to such as buying illegal drugs or expropriating the means of production. The fact that you choose to elevate the bourgeois legal system to a metaphysical level this way is quite irrational.



I now learn she is 15. A fifteen year old girl, regardless of what she initiates, is not emotionally mature enough to be burdened with all of the matters involved in a sexual relationship.

I'm sorry to hear that you didn't have fun as a teenager, but there is no level of 'emotional maturity' that somehow magically enables people to handle the 'burden' of a sexual relationship.

And most of that "burden" is from reactionary anti-sex paternalist types like you making people put an inordinate amount of crypto-spiritual importance on sex.

People get hurt emotionally at any age, and no one should be so objectified that they aren't allowed to make their own decisions for paternalistic fear of hurting themselves.


Perhaps 500 years ago, she was. But our societies have (perhaps artificially) maintained a childhood for a 15 year old. Older males, whether one likes it or not, are to check themselves and not participate with them.

Right, and oppressive bourgeois social institutions like treating 15 year olds as property should be abolished, not reinforced as you're doing.

"Our" societies, which is to say the societies that serve the bourgeois, maintain people as mechanical assets which sell their time and labour for wages, so should people just 'check themselves' and get in line for that?


Otherwise, a 12 year old who "initiates" is also fair game.

I have absolutely no problem with that. I didn't at that age but i knew some who did.



Rules of ages of consent maybe disagreed upon, but the overall concept that people become mentally and emotionally developed to understand the weight of their conduct as they mature is accepted by nearly all the world.


No, its not, its bourgeois ideology which you've simply accepted as some sort of divine truth whereas Marxists know that ideology is contextual and the dominate ideology is the one that consolidates the current mode of production.

The notion of such "weight" attached to sex is part of an antiquated patriarchal understanding of sex that was used to promote patriarchal family institutions rather than personal autonomy... (except for adult bourgeois or aristocratic men of course who could have mistresses and do whatever they like and what not). This 'weight' is a purely artificial 'family value' thats imposed on people as a way of keeping them in line and establishing a sense of shame around their sexuality so as to regulate reproductive rates in the productive classes.

Powerful men have never attached much weight to their own sexual encounters because doing so wouldn't have served the socioeconomic purpose of it.



Again, this isn't about how a girl looks or developes, or a boy for that matter. It is about their chronological age.



Right because we all know that you magically become more responsible, mature, and mentally developed when your birthdate roles around on the calendar :rolleyes:

Give me a fucking break :lol:


That being said, I personally believe in lowering the age of consent to 16.


LOL you just claimed that chronological age mattered and now you want a different one???

And, having just argued that the 15 year old girl in this case "is not emotionally mature enough," you now want to argue that at 16 she would be???

So, if she started sucking this guy's dick a minute before midnight the day before her 16th birthday and stopped a minute afterwards, would she have been emotionally capable of consenting or not? Maybe she was getting raped for the first minute but having consensual sex for the second minute?

You can see how your position becomes clearly nonsense when considering the practical implications of what you're saying right?



For those of you who believe that pubecence should be controlling here, and would allow a 14 year old female who has gone through puberty to "consent" to sex with a 55 year old male, go f--- yourselves.

Yah that was a very sophisticated analytical argument i'm sure you've won everyone over now. :rolleyes:



BloodyCapitalistSham

How is oral sex, such a massive issue?

It is not for us to tell them that its a massive deal, and then lock up the person who received it.

Really. No risk of pregnancy, virtually no risk of HIV, mostly the same risk of infection as associated with kissing, drinking from the same glass, etc.

Its only a "massive deal" for anti-sex conservatives who ought to mind their own business rather than trying to policing others private affairs.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

The whole point is that she CAN'T decide on her own, unless you abolish the basis of consent law. Letting each girl decide on her own is an open invitation to pediphiles following them home from 7th grade and "letting each of them decide."

You seem to be unable to form an argument that doesn't cling to irrational fears.

Paedophiles are interested in pre-pubescent children.

Society isn't going to ever tolerate such relationships because the adult paedophile is using his adult social skills to manipulation the child.

What your are saying is that, imposed laws of consent make the decision for the girl of 15.

the girl, is not allowed to make that decision. Even if she was in reality actually able too.

And in this case, the girl said that she initiated it. The fact that she did that, means the age of consent laws did not work, she made a choice to disagree with that law. So, the law failed.

And a victim of a paedophile, is not going to say they initiated it.




You are about 24 years. If you can't find either your true love or simply a partner (or 5 or 6 partners) to shag yourself blind with that are in the age of majority, than somethings seriously wrong with your needs.

okay.. firstly, this is really broken English and its not too easy to decipher.

You seem to be eluding that I am opposing your views so i can have sex with 15 year olds? lol

I am totally able to find partners in a similar age range as me :P

thanks though ;)




All I can say for your Sham is that there are websites where you can indulge in whatever fantasy you have a hard-on for.

Really, you are making it obvious that even you know your position is stupid, so you feel the need to attack your adversaries.

When you come back to earth, have another go :)

[bloodygolfclubs]

Every person goes through diffrent things in their lives causing them to develop, mentaly, at diffrent speeds. Some 17 year old girls simply arent mentaly ready for even the concept of sex and believe oral to be disgusting. Yet there are also 14 year old girls who willingly partake in sex and have no problem with it.
The mental diffrence between 15 and 17 is barely a gap. Both are in highschool, both still live at home, both are going through alot of the same things emotionaly and hormonaly. At 18 girls do not magically turn into mature women who can mentaly handle sex, there is no flip switch in their brain that turns on the second they turn a certain age.

[ichneumon]

you fail to understand the purpose of the american justice system. that purpose is vengeance. the boy was locked up to make the girl's parents feel better. that's what they pay their taxes for, justice was served. jurors are required to vote by law, coldly, not by their consciouses.

a proper society would seek HARM REDUCTION. is the boy going to do this again? hell, no. for one, he's too old now and not psychologically a pedophile. will putting him in jail accomplish anything? no. was the girl harmed? no.

children are not mindless commodities. in the u$a, a child's parents can LET HIM DIE rather than receive an experimental treatment on religious grounds, even if the "child" is 15 and begging the doctors for the medicine. we just covered this in my ethics class - that is the law.

american law is not about ethics or social benefit or even justice, except of a very rough and primitive kind. this is not something that can be changed with a bit of legislation.

[Pilar]

ichneumon,

just to help you out:

Jurors ONLY make determinations of fact. They are not allowed to make the deep decisions you mentioned about whether someone deserves treatment versus jail time versus community service versus suspended sentence versus whatever. All of that is the decision of the judge.

Also, there are many mitigation factors involved in the sentencing of defenants, especially minors.

It's ironic as most people throughout the world believe one can get away with murder in America far easier than anywhere else.

This is one issue I may be in the minority on the board here, but I don't care. Perhaps being a woman makes a difference, but to believe a child should be able to dictate their own decisions on sex in a world of adults is absurd. And in this instance, it isn't about cappies v. commies.

[LSD]

A fifteen year old girl, regardless of what she initiates, is not emotionally mature enough to be burdened with all of the matters involved in a sexual relationship.

The average age of first sexual contact is, I believe, currently 15. That means that, by your logic, most teenagers were "raped" their first time. It also means that at least half of teenagers are technically "rapists" for having sex with people their own age.

On what planet does that make sense?

Do you seriously want to lock up two 14 year olds for having sex? Are you really comfortable charging them with the same crime that you would some asshole who grabbed a woman out of her car and forced himself on her?

How many lives do you want to ruin in the name of "protecting" teenagers from the "burden" of a blowjob?

Fifteen year olds were capable of having sex 500 years ago and they are just as capable today. I have seen absolutely no evidence that we have "de-matured" as a species or that high school students are not more than capable of handling the "matters involved" with having sex.

But please, prove me wrong. Show me credible scientific evidence which says that 15 year olds can't handle sex. Or that this or any other fifteen year old was harmed in any way by having sex with someone two years older than her.

'Cause if you don't have anything but your own puritanical assertions, you can just fuck off right now. This is exactly why there's no room for "morals" in public policy.

There obviously needs to be a line of consent, but setting that line anywhere above 13 is just plain insane and not including a close-in-age exception is downright criminal.

No one should be locked up for having sex with someone less than two years younger than them. And it is absolutely astounding to me that I am having to explain that to someone who considers themselves a leftist.

You're right, this isn't an issue of "cappies v. commies", it's one of political common sense. Something which you clearly do not have.

[Cheung Mo]

in the u$a, a child's parents can LET HIM DIE rather than receive an experimental treatment on religious grounds, even if the "child" is 15 and begging the doctors for the medicine.

Can you provide me with evidence that this is the case under U.S. law? If a teen were in that position and asked me to off his/her parents, I would seriously consider helping them out.

[Pilar]

No one should be locked up for having sex with someone less than two years younger than them.

Thank you. Someone else who has a rule.

I have no problem with this rule either. I have no problem lowering the age to 16. It is possible to lower it if society is prepared for certain changes that have nothing to do with socialism v. capitalism.

Yeah, 500 years ago this was happening, but it wasn't a matter of de-maturity, it was a matter of sexual exploitation in many circumstances. Obviously I am not referring to societies where property was not an issue, and sex and love were part of a growing experience. I am instead referring to 15 year olds being married off to 40 year olds as part of a parental agreement, for what ever reason.

22 year old males who have a sexual act with 14 year olds should be criminally punished because their relationship with them is based, phsychologically, on an overpowering disadvantage with the younger.

This is preventing the normal exploration and experimentation of discovery surrounding one's sexuality.

But overall, LSD, I do not view this argument as one that is based on economics. I know many revolutionaries do. So I simply disagree with them. I also have a healthy attitude toward compromise on this issue.

On one hand is the 16 and 15 year old children sexually experimenting and trying sex, and that is not to me criminal. On the other hand is my 40 year old and 15 year old scenario, where the 40 year old to me is disgusting and acting in a harmful way to the 15 year old. That one I have no compromise for. But as one moves to the middle of these two extreems, there is a lot of room for discussion, which I have said I do not believe to be economically based.


Cheung Mo:

Here's the rule in the United States---

No parent has a duty to maintain "experimental treatment" for their child. The state is not allowed to overturn a parent's decision that a child only be treated with proven medical methods.

The other side of the coin is that no parent may prevent proven medical treatments for their children where the child is in danger. The case involved a mother and father who didn't want their child to receive a blood transfusion on religious grounds. The court ruled the child gets the blood transfusion regardless of the parent's views, and that, until 18, the state could protect a child from those parents' religious views.

But what you mentioned was different. Experimental implies that there are still studies going on. There the state gives to the parents greater role in determining what is proper for the child.

Obviously with an experimental process, parents who don't opt for the procedure are viewed differently than those who attempt to turn down regular, proven procedures.

[analfilth]

I am 15 but in 2 weeks I will be 16. I see no problem with myself, or other people my age, even younger, like 12 or 13, taking part in sexual activities AS LONG AS THEY GIVE FULL CONSENT and understand exactly what is going on. In Australia, the legal age to have sex is 16 but plenty of teenagers, young adults, are having sex before then. Sex has nothing to do with your chronological age, it's to do with how emotionally and physically mature you are. I don't see how 2 weeks for me would change anything as to whether I am ready to have sex or not. Hell I felt ready to take part in sexual activities when i was 13! Didn't have sex though, but does that mean the person who participated in it with me should go to jail? Heck no.
But as much as I believe that age does not matter as to when you can and cannot have sex, I do not agree with a 55 year old having sex with a 14 year old. But then when I think of this I think of it being a 55year old male and a 14 year female, would it be so bad if it were a 55 year old female and a 14 year old male? Society, I'm sure would be much more accepting of this.
Ahh god this is a tough one :P
But no, noone should be locked up for taking part is sexual activities with someone 2 years younger than them. ESPECIALLY when they younger of the two initiated the act.

[TC]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 20, 2007 03:09 pm

The average age of first sexual contact is, I believe, currently 15.

In what country? Source?
i don't know where its 15 but after a quick google search, average age of first sexual intercourse in Canada is just 14.3 years, so i would guess average age for oral sex is going to be younger than that in Canada.

And obviously this also means that huge portion of Canadians have sex at 11 or 12 or 13 or possibly less they would have to in order bring the average down that young given that enough people don't do it until significantly older and to keep ti that low means that for everyone who does it first in their 20s more would need to be doing it in their preteens.

Source:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/clp/faq.html

[Ahazmaksya]

This is SICKENING. I don't believe the poor kid is in jail. I mean for fucks sake, the girl initiated the act!

Effectively, all the guy could have done was sit there - and not stop the girl from performing a sexual act on HIM. And for that he is going to jail. Unbelievable.

[Tommy-K]

Even here in England if someone aged 16 or over has consensual sexual relations with someone under 16 (even if they are 15, only an age gap of a year) it is seen as rape, whether it was consensual or not.

For example, a 16 year old boy and 15 year old girl are having consensual sex. The girl gets pregnant. The girl's mother informs the police. The 16 year old boy faces a prison sentence and has to sign the sex offenders register, making it impossible for him to pursure many careers, teaching for example. His life is ruined because he had consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.

It's an appalling, archaic, conservative system that is branding innocent people as 'sex offenders' when in reality, it's exactly the same as two consenting adults having sexual intercourse. The law needs to be changed.

[Module]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:32 pm
The average age of first sexual contact is, I believe, currently 15. That means that, by your logic, most teenagers were "raped" their first time. It also means that at least half of teenagers are technically "rapists" for having sex with people their own age.

On what planet does that make sense?

Do you seriously want to lock up two 14 year olds for having sex? Are you really comfortable charging them with the same crime that you would some asshole who grabbed a woman out of her car and forced himself on her?
Just for the record, I believe that it is usually not illegal if both people are under 16. It only becomes illegal when one of them is over 16.

[TC]

Just for the record, I believe that it is usually not illegal if both people are under 16. It only becomes illegal when one of them is over 16.

actually and hilariously, at least in America, it actually is illegal if they're both under the age of consent and both parties are committing a sex crime. However, because both parties are also below the age of criminal responsibility and, doing the thing that every parent and social conservative would want to do and just prosecuting the boy while pretending the girl didn't have any agency, would violate the fourteenth amendment, so these cases are very rarely prosecuted, even though they technically could be (no one though, wants to put a 15 year old girl on trial for "raping" a consenting 15 year old boy, since, you know that would kind of undermine the whole theory that 15 year old girls are basically devoid of sexual agency).

[Hate Is Art]

Pilar, I had oral sex with a girl who was 15 (I have 17 at the time) who I was madly in love with at the time, should I go to Prison?

You have not answered any of the points any one else brought up?

[Robo the Hobo]

Pilar, I see your argument. It is a good one, and the people who have dissagreed with you so far have been extremely rude. (If I could appologise on their behalfs I would.) BUT I will have to disagree with you on one major thing: people under 16 I would argue are actualy mentaly ready. Many people in my year have already lost their virginity, and we are only like 13/14, but they dont seem to have had any serious problems (other than one person who apparently had an abortion, but rumors spread more quickly than things actualy happen.) But you seem to think that sex can cause massive problems, indeed it can, but if people of my age want to have sex, the largest problem is probably society frowning uppon this. This leads to missinformation and a lack of discusion - pregnancy, and also the problem of massive neggative feelings toways sex, reasulting in things like guilt and so on. Sex isnt some dirty horrible thing, and if people my age would like to, that is their choice, and I think laws against that are wrong. If the two people are consenting, I would not worry too much about exactly what age gaps there are; there are probably a number of people I know who would like to have sex with people they know who are many years (well, 2 or 3 possibly more) older than them.

Younger people can make decisions, and older people should realy just leave our private lives, well, private. When it comes to younger people and older people that is more of an area where I would not want to comment, as that is more complicated, but frankly, I should be allowed to consent sex with anyone I want to if they also are consenting.

It is probably a point worth making to conclude that I am actualy against (in principal) sex outside of marriage as a practicing christian, but that I see that more as a personal choice of how I choose to live more than rules/laws I would want to impose on others, and as such I would and will fight for peoples rights to do as they wish, whilst still encouraging them to do as I would consider to be right. It is their right to choose, as it is mine, and what has happened here is wrong. 10 years for having oral sex with someone!?!?!?!?!?! There have been convicted murderrers of his age getting that sort of time. That is simply WRONG.

Pilar, think about some of your arguments about younger people a bit more, and dont presume things about them, but I see completely where you are coming from, and in some ways you are right.

And please the rest of you have some more respect for her views. That is just common courtesy and politeness. Though being an evil 'capitalist' invention it is something that is still worth keeping.

[Huelguista]

Alright, I really don't agree with the judges ruling in this case, after looking over it may be linked to racism in some way..but i dont reall know.

I believe that the age difference is the matter here...in adolescence if you're 2 years older than someone, then its completely fine in my book, 3 year difference is on the brink, and 4 years is kinda pushing it.

At some point, it does become a bit creepy yes..but i mean come on, in your adolecent years you're still just kids, not really had a chance to experience a whole lot, and sex is just another one of those experieces where you just throw caution to the wind, along with drugs and alcohol.

my two cents :blush:

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by Hate Is [email protected] 14, 2007 08:42 pm
Pilar, I had oral sex with a girl who was 15 (I have 17 at the time) who I was madly in love with at the time, should I go to Prison?
According to British and American laws, yes, you are a sex offender and you should go to prison.

This is why the system needs to be changed. It's absolute bollocks, as you say, that two people can't consensually perform sexual acts if one of them is underage.

The law is branding perfectly innocent people as 'sex offenders' which completely ruins the rest of your life. Those on the sex offenders register have great difficulty aquiring jobs in many different proffessions, so to put perfectly innocent people on there is ridiculous.

[Sand Castle]

Sex is bad. God forbids it. What God says goes, and you shouldn't criticize the state's decision. God runs the state you know. Don't criticize the right-wing either, that's God's wing.

[analfilth]

Robo the Hobo, I do agree with you but I just found it very insulting when Pilar claimed that... 'A fifteen year old girl, regardless of what she initiates, is not emotionally mature enough to be burdened with all of the matters involved in a sexual relationship' Thankyou for making me feel worthless, as for the fact that I have not reached what you believe to be an acceptable age for people to make their own decisions. I believe it is wrong for someone to pass such a judgement especially with a topic like maturity as it can vary so greatly between different people.. (However I am now 16 so I needn't worry anymore? Eh? Oh and no offence meant Pilar)

Oh and Sultan, AMEN to that!

[Nathan_Morrison]

Consent is the legal ability to say "yes". I now learn she is 15. A fifteen year old girl, regardless of what she initiates, is not emotionally mature enough to be burdened with all of the matters involved in a sexual relationship. Perhaps 500 years ago, she was. But our societies have (perhaps artificially) maintained a childhood for a 15 year old. Older males, whether one likes it or not, are to check themselves and not participate with them. Otherwise, a 12 year old who "initiates" is also fair game.

So what you are saying there is a girl who is 15 in not emotionally secure enough to engage in a sexual relationship, yet was soon as he is 16 she is suddenly able to become ready to have a sexual relationship i think that it should be all right for a girl to have sex after the age of 12 if it is with someone under the age of 18 and if they are in a secure relationship, they would do it anyway so you there is no real point in having the age of consent. Myself i know what it feels like for the guy affected here, it's disgusting that its all ways the guy who gets screwed ad never the girl even when she initiates.

[TC]

:)

Wilson has been let out of prison, a judge threw out his previous sentence and removed him from the sex offender registry.


"The fact that Genarlow Wilson has spent two years in prison for what is now classified as a misdemeanor, and without assistance from this Court, will spend eight more years in prison, is a grave miscarriage of justice," the judge wrote.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_6113992



Still Georgia continue to criminalize totally innocent, consensual sexual behavior between teenagers, (Wilson's crime was reduced to a misdemeanor carrying a 12 month sentence, which had already been served, rather than a felony with a 10 year sentence), but a good result on an individual level.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 02:32 am
No one should be locked up for having sex with someone less than two years younger than them. And it is absolutely astounding to me that I am having to explain that to someone who considers themselves a leftist.
I agree, but is this how you believe rape should be legally defined? If no, then how? By a four year age difference? Adults with children under 13? How?

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+June 12, 2007 04:30 am--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ June 12, 2007 04:30 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 02:32 am
No one should be locked up for having sex with someone less than two years younger than them. And it is absolutely astounding to me that I am having to explain that to someone who considers themselves a leftist.
I agree, but is this how you believe rape should be legally defined? If no, then how? By a four year age difference? Adults with children under 13? How? [/b]
If you are unable to judge the grounds of statutory rape based on the person's maturity, both physical and mentally, the odds are asking that person can help.

The odds are against an 8 year old and a 6 year old performing sexual acts outside of " I'll show your mine if you show me yours " and even with that the best thing to do would be to teach, explain about male and female differences. If a 40 year old is performing sexual acts with a 6 year old is it quite obvious there is something wrong going on. There are too many variables to be able to say " after this age you are ready for sex and no sooner than this date will you be ready ".

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

A total lack of objectivity sounds like an awful way to enforce laws preventing sexual abuse.

[Rollo]

A total lack of objectivity sounds like an awful way to enforce laws preventing sexual abuse.

Bingo.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Do you disagree that statutory rape should be punishable by law?

[Oedipus Complex]

A total lack of objectivity sounds like an awful way to enforce laws preventing sexual abuse.

It can be objective. When someone achieves puberty, then they are "fair game", as long as the sexual act is sanctioned.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 08:18 am


Just for the record, I believe that it is usually not illegal if both people are under 16. It only becomes illegal when one of them is over 16.

actually and hilariously, at least in America, it actually is illegal if they're both under the age of consent and both parties are committing a sex crime.
Laws vary from state to state. So you can't make any general statement about "America" with this kind of thing.

Now, in Georgia, your statement's accurate. The law which put Genarlow Wilson away for 10 years has been changed, because of his case and the outcry against the injustice.

Now it would....only be a misdeameanor! With maximum jail time of 1 year.

That's the same as the sentence for consensual intercourse....previously, because oral sex is considered sodomy, it carrried a longer sentence. I ask you.

Genarlow Wilson remains in jail because the change in the law is not retroactive.

An article that gives some more information about this... (http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208119.htm)


This year, a Republican demagogue -- Senate President pro tem Eric Johnson -- blocked a bill (SB 37, pdf) that would have given judges in the state the authority to revisit last year's law and apply it to Wilson. Adding insult to injury, the "leader" lied about Wilson in his floor speech.

This week, a Monroe County Superior Court Judge, Thomas Wilson (no relation), called Genarlow's punishment "a grave miscarriage of justice." He changed Genarlow's sentence to a 12-month misdemeanor with credit for time served (2+ years).

Judge Wilson wrote, "Genarlow Wilson has spent two years in prison for what is now classified as a misdemeanor, and without assistance from this Court, will spend eight more years in prison."

The Georgia attorney general immediately (90 minutes later) announced an appeal, which keeps Wilson locked away, saying that Wilson had "absolutely no authority to reduce or modify the judgment of the trial court."

It seems that even most of bourgeois public opinion and the bourgeois media considers this a ridiculous injustice. But some politicians remain amazingly determined to keep Wilson in jail.

It should also be said that there are plenty of adults in Georgia who've had sex with minors and received much shorter sentences.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that racism had a lot to do with Wilson's prosecution on these charges.

[Vladislav]

I'm sorry , I did not read this thread,but is it mentioned anywhere that the "offender" was black?

Maybe there's something more to this?

[Severian]

I don't know if it's mentioned - probably in some of the articles - but in fact Genarlow Wilson is Black.

Oh, and the girl is white.

[Ol' Dirty]

Great article. Thank you. :)

[Jof]

I've only read the first post so apologies if any of this is repetative. I'm not too sure on the Law in the US, but I'm presuming that it was a) Trial by peers and b) The Jury room is completely private if A is the case. If so, then it was the general publics opinion that he should of been guilty, otherwise they had full rights to acquit him?

[Janus]

If so, then it was the general publics opinion that he should of been guilty, otherwise they had full rights to acquit him?
He was acquitted of raping the 17 year old but he was sentenced to 10 years because he received fellatio from a 15 year old. The jury did find him guilty of child molestation because the age of consent in Georgia is 16 though I don't think they actually knew how long the punishment would be. The fact that this law was changed after the sentencing shows the general public disagreement and outcry over it.

[Jof]

Ahh, Didn't know it had been changed, though it rings a bell now. Was this a while ago? And also, is it not the case as in Britain that Regardless of the law the Jury can acquit?(sp?)

[Janus]

I don't know if it's mentioned - probably in some of the articles - but in fact Genarlow Wilson is Black.

Oh, and the girl is white.
According to this article, all of the boys charged in the case as well as the two girls were black.

Case (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/teen_sex_case)

[Janus]

Was this a while ago?
The actual incident occured in January 2005.


And also, is it not the case as in Britain that Regardless of the law the Jury can acquit?(sp?)
I don't know about Great Britain but the Georgian jurors didn't acquite Wilson of the molestation charge because it was a law. For some reason, oral sex is given special consideration in Georgia as it was illegal even for married partners to engage in it up until 1998.

[Jof]

Ahh right. I remember it coming up now, but like said i wasn't sure on US Jury service. in the UK you can just go Guilty or Not Guilty on anything because you don't have to give reasons (outside the jury room, and indeed i guess inside... but it would be hard to convince the others without saying why =S) We arn't confined by the Law unless "You think that it was actually committed" and even then you can go against it...

[Janus]

In the US, jury nullification is rarely practiced and has been severely limited by the law as well as the power of the judge.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:52 pm

I don't know if it's mentioned - probably in some of the articles - but in fact Genarlow Wilson is Black.

Oh, and the girl is white.
According to this article, all of the boys charged in the case as well as the two girls were black.

Case (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/teen_sex_case)
OK. Sorry. Guess that last part was a false rumor.

'Course, if the media was less coy about race, less fake color-blind, these rumors wouldn't get started.

I did see one article about the juror's decision...


And at first, the jury's deliberations moved swiftly. Jurors voted to acquit Wilson of raping the 17-year-old.

But there was one other charge the jury had to decide on. The second girl in the videotape was 15, and the age of consent in Georgia is 16. And under state law, prosecutors charged Wilson with aggravated child molestation.
....
Even jurors frowned on the charge. "A bad law, absolutely," Manigault said.

And in Georgia, that they'd had oral sex made matters worse. Until 1998, oral sex between husband and wife was illegal, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. In Wilson's case, even though he is only two years older than the girl, she was 15 and -- willing or not -- could not consent legally that night.

Whatever their feelings about the law, jurors felt they had no choice but to find Wilson guilty of aggravated child molestation. Moments later, back in the jury room, jurors were told for the first time that the conviction came with a mandatory sentence of at least 10 years in prison. In addition, Wilson would be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

Emphasis added. They didn't know they were putting him away for ten years.

And they had an exaggerated respect for the letter of the law, as unfortunately many people do.

[dannthraxxx]

case is ridiculous.


most 15 year olds i know have more sex than i do.