Who didn't see this one coming?

[jj3jordan 2,053]

Study all you want but if you rename it a "sexual orientation" you have attempted to normalize it and make it acceptable, just like homosexuality.

[homersapien 11,385]

Study all you want but if you rename it a "sexual orientation" you have attempted to normalize it and make it acceptable, just like homosexuality.

You are seriously confused about the terminology and what it means.

[alexava 6,973]

Study all you want but if you rename it a "sexual orientation" you have attempted to normalize it and make it acceptable, just like homosexuality.

look I am as sickened by sexual child abuse as ANY one on this board. I will never excuse the act or the urge to commit the act. A public hanging of convicted abusers would be ok with me. but I will concede to science, studies and logic that there are causes and reasons for this behavior and this orientation. I doubt you will cure anyone but understanding can only help diagnose, punish or quarantine the potential offenders and protect children. how this can be looked at any differently needs to be explained to me. homosexuality was not normalized but found to be normal. homosexuality has no effect at all on my life. I like women and never even had a thought of anything else. I cant fathom how some can be so threatened by something that has(or supposedly has no effect on them). consenting adults are free to do as they please.but I have children and they will be protected at any and all cost and I don't care what causes the urge, you hurt my child you die. I don't care if you cant help it.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

So you want to use science to diagnose, punish, and quarantine potential abusers? How do you punish a potential abuser?

Homosexuality is not normal; has not been found to be normal. You consider it normal now because so much science and society have told you so, and apparently convinced you that if you still think homosexuality is abnormal, then you are the problem, the bigot, the homophobe.

Obviously you should protect your children.

[DKW 86 7,426]

The more we understand it, the better we can prevent advocate for it or accept it.

FTFY.

Predicted this almost 25 years ago. Sad to be right, but some things are just too obvious.

BTW, NAMBLA has said that any argument made for Pedophilia. For the record, they were first heard from on 60 Minutes about 1974 or so.

So, you really believe that scientific study of a condition that can manifest itself as child rape will necessarily lead to the societal acceptance of child rape? :-\

I know a lot of you folks don't care for science but this really has to do more with logical reasoning. How in the world did you make it through college?

But I love your avitar: "I can explain it for you but I can't understand it for you"

How ironic.

Nope, you arent getting it and i left out or edited out on line, my bad.

NAMBLA said year ago that any line of reasoning that the Gay Rights crowd would use was fine with them. Because it would work for them as well.

IE:

"Some portion of the adult population was born this way..."

"It was popularized in ancient writings..."

"We have been dealing with this for centuries..."

"Who are we to criticize anyone else..."

Now, i want everyone to know that i know, love, and support gay folks. I have some extremely important people in my life that are gay.

i will likely go to and may even be asked to participate in a gay wedding in PA this summer. .

i have no problems with the gay crowd,

The pedophiles are still going to use the pro-gay arguments to support their own agenda. They have been organized and working on this for decades. 60 Minutes got them national attention back in the 70s. This is just a normal extension of their argument. My problem is that it is going to look like the GLBT Community is supporting this by their ideas being co-opted. i doubt seriously that they want this at all.

[AUDub 11,153]

So you want to use science to diagnose, punish, and quarantine potential abusers? How do you punish a potential abuser?

You can't. But I would suggest reading page 2 of the linked LATimes article. You can treat before they act on their unacceptable desires and help them keep their behavior under control.

Homosexuality is not normal; has not been found to be normal. You consider it normal now because so much science and society have told you so, and apparently convinced you that if you still think homosexuality is abnormal, then you are the problem, the bigot, the homophobe.

Well, yes. Homosexuality is certainly abnormal in the biological sense. It's ok to feel that way and I do agree. I would even go so far as to say that any sexual act outside of procreation is biologically abnormal. The societal shift has to do with:

A. The fact that they can't help who they are. It could be a naturally occurring phenomenon. A trait that may be shared with pedophiles.

B. A homosexual relationship is perfectly inoffensive to society at large. A trait not shared with pedophiles.

The fact that there is a victim is what differentiates the two. While we may come to accept the fact that pedophilia occurs for reasons beyond our control and does not change (thereby qualifying as an orientation), the associated behavior will never be acceptable.

[homersapien 11,385]

The more we understand it, the better we can prevent advocate for it or accept it.

FTFY.

Predicted this almost 25 years ago. Sad to be right, but some things are just too obvious.

BTW, NAMBLA has said that any argument made for Pedophilia. For the record, they were first heard from on 60 Minutes about 1974 or so.

So, you really believe that scientific study of a condition that can manifest itself as child rape will necessarily lead to the societal acceptance of child rape? :-\

I know a lot of you folks don't care for science but this really has to do more with logical reasoning. How in the world did you make it through college?

But I love your avitar: "I can explain it for you but I can't understand it for you"

How ironic.

Nope, you arent getting it and i left out or edited out on line, my bad.

NAMBLA said year ago that any line of reasoning that the Gay Rights crowd would use was fine with them. Because it would work for them as well.

IE:

"Some portion of the adult population was born this way..."

"It was popularized in ancient writings..."

"We have been dealing with this for centuries..."

"Who are we to criticize anyone else..."

Now, i want everyone to know that i know, love, and support gay folks. I have some extremely important people in my life that are gay.

i will likely go to and may even be asked to participate in a gay wedding in PA this summer. .

i have no problems with the gay crowd,

The pedophiles are still going to use the pro-gay arguments to support their own agenda. They have been organized and working on this for decades. 60 Minutes got them national attention back in the 70s. This is just a normal extension of their argument. My problem is that it is going to look like the GLBT Community is supporting this by their ideas being co-opted. i doubt seriously that they want this at all.

The question on the table is the inevitable legalization of pedophilia because homosexuality is legal.

That is never going to happen because pedophilia involves an innocent victim that is a child no less. It doesn't matter what NAMBA or anyone else advocates. They represent an infinitesimal part of the populace and will have no effect whatsoever in terms of making pedophilia legal.

Furthermore, the fact homosexuality is legal has absolutely no bearing on pedophilia. They are just as different as heterosexuality (another spot on the sexual continuum) is to pedophilia. To conflate the politics or morality of pedophilia with homosexuality is clearly an attempt to disparage homosexuality by suggesting it as somehow equivalent in moral terms to pedophilia.

[DKW 86 7,426]

The question on the table is the inevitable legalization of pedophilia because homosexuality is legal.

That is never going to happen because pedophilia involves an innocent victim that is a child no less. It doesn't matter what NAMBA or anyone else advocates. They represent an infinitesimal part of the populace and will have no effect whatsoever in terms of making pedophilia legal.

Furthermore, the fact homosexuality is legal has absolutely no bearing on pedophilia. They are just as different as heterosexuality (another spot on the sexual continuum) is to pedophilia. To conflate the politics or morality of pedophilia with homosexuality is clearly an attempt to disparage homosexuality by suggesting it as somehow equivalent in moral terms to pedophilia.

Wrong answer.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, yes the Supreme Court Justice, wrote in 1976 in support of lowering the legal age of consent to 12.

Can i see this moving toward legalization, SLOWLY? Why yes i can...

[AUDub 11,153]

Wrong answer.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, yes the Supreme Court Justice, wrote in 1976 in support of lowering the legal age of consent to 12.

Can i see this moving toward legalization, SLOWLY? Why yes i can...

Sorry DKW, this one is a bit of a read.

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1104181917.shtml

It Looks Like Justice Ginsburg Likely Was the Victim of a Drafting Error

after all; and it looks like I erroneously failed to recognize just how likely this was to be an error.

Here's what I wrote on the subject when I first dealt with it last year:

[The] Sex Bias in the U.S. Code [report] was prepared for the Commission by former ACLU lawyer Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, then-professor Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and 15 Columbia Law School students working under their supervision. The reporters went through federal statutes, identified various sex-based classifications and terms, and suggested ways to eliminate them. In the process, here's what the report said on p. 95 about the relevant statu[t]e, 18 U.S.C. § 2032:

Under 18 U.S.C. §§1153 and 2032, it is a crime for a person to have carnal knowledge of a female not his wife who has not reached 16 years of age. "Rape" is defined [as limited to female victims]. . . . The "statutory rape" offense is defined in these sections in much the same way: the victim must be a female and the offender a male . . . .

These provisions clearly fail to comply with the equal rights principle. They fail to recognize that women of all ages are not the only targets of sexual assault; men and boys can also be the victims of rape. In the case of statutory rape, the immaturity and vul[n]erability of young people of both sexes could be protected through appropriately drawn, sex-neutral proscriptions. The Model Penal Code and S. 1400 §1633 require a substantial age differental between the offender and victim, thus declaring criminal only those situations in which overbearing or coercion may play a part.

So far, not a proposal to generally lower the age of consent — it's a call for sex-neutral statutes, and for making the statutory rape rules turn on the difference in age between the parties. One can argue against this on various grounds, and it's not clear why the age differential vs. clear cutoff issue is relevant to the "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code" issue. Moreover, S. 1400 §1633 provided (at least in the version that I could find), that "sexual abuse of a minor" (essentially statutory rape) be limited to victims who are under 16, and who are "at least five years younger than" the defendant. This could be criticized, since it would allow 17-year-olds to have sex with 12-year-olds, which many people would treat as child molestation and not just young love. But at least it doesn't make 12-year-olds fair game for adults.

But here's the suggestion [given under the heading "Recommendations"] on p. 102:

18 U.S.C. §2032 — Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years" and substitute a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B)by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.

Under this proposal, it seems to me that sex with 12-year-olds and older would be legalized in the federal territorial and maritime jurisdiction, regardless of the age of the other party. This wouldn't be a "Romeo-and-Juliet" law aimed at preventing prosecution of young lovers — it would equally be a dirty-old-man-and-Juliet law. And while there are plausible debates about what the age of consent should be, it seems to me that simply lowering it to 12 would be quite a striking and unjustified change.

Now this all happened nearly 30 years ago; but I'm still curious about what was happening here. Am I misreading the proposal? Am I missing some important statutory context, such as other federal statutes that would have banned sex by adults with 12-year-olds even when this statute had been relaxed to allow it?

If I'm not mistaken or reading this out of context, then were many in the late 1970s feminist movement really in favor of lowering the age of consent to 12? Did Justice Ginsburg hold this view? Or was this something that was added by an overzealous student and not caught by her (of course she had the responsibility of checking everything produced by the people she was supervising or even by her coauthor, but mistakes happen)? Might it even have been an inadvertent drafting error? (As to 18 U.S.C. §1153 — which applied to Indian country — the other section mentioned alongside §2032 on p. 95, the report on p. 103 simply suggests that it be changed to the S. 1400, §1633 version.)

On reconsidering the matter, I now think there's very strong evidence that there was indeed an inadvertent drafting error. The error is not, as I thought some had suggested, a reference to "12" instead of "16." Rather, the error is that the report quite likely was intended to quote the Romeo-and-Juliet language from §1633 (the provision it cited in the "Recommendations"), and instead inadvertently quoted the flat-age-12 age-of-consent language from §1631. I think this because the report did indeed cite §1633 in the recommendations; because it had discussed it earlier in the text; because it called for sex-neutralizing the rape definition elsewhere in the Recommendations (see item 1 below); and because the report (as I pointed aut above) suggested that §1153, governing Indian territory, borrow the language from §1633, and there's little reason why it would have a different recognition for §1153 and for §2032, the provision that governs federal enclaves.

Here's what I now think the report was probably intending to recommend:

(1) Elsewhere in the recommendations, the report would have sex-neutralized the definition of rape ("A sex-neutral definition of rape, such as the one set forth in S. 1400 §1631 should be added to Title 18 or Title 10 and referred to throughout for the definition of the offense.").

(2) The recommendation as to "carnal knowledge" was not intended just to sex-neutralize the definition of rape or carnal knowledge, but rather to replace the flat age of consent of 16 with the more complex "Romeo-and-Juliet scheme" (under which sex with under-16-year-olds was legal for people who were less than 5 years older, a misdemeanor for under-21-year-olds who were more than 5 years older than the victim, and a felony punishable by at most 3 years in prison for adults). This is consistent with the earlier discussion in the report, where the report praises Romeo-and-Juliet laws, and consistent with the fact that it had already recommended that rape be sex-neutralized (see item 1 above).

(3) The recommendation correctly cited §1633 but erroneously quoted the text from §1631; it should have read "patterned after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person who is not his spouse, who is less than sixteen years old, and who is at least five years younger than the actor. . . ."

(4) The recommendations were also intended to make sure that any sex with under-12-year-olds, regardless of the age of the other party, would be illegal; but that would have been accomplished through the recommendation that "A sex-neutral definition of rape, such as the one set forth in S. 1400 §1631 should be added to Title 18 or Title 10 and referred to throughout for the definition of the offense." That definition would have included a flat ban on sex with under-12-year-olds.

So a person who was just reading the report would have rightly inferred, I think, that the report was meaning to change the age of consent. (That's why it recommends including §1633, the main purpose of which is to change the age of consent, not to sex-neutralize the offense.) A casual reader might also have inferred that the report was meaning to change the age of consent to 12, period, which is what the text says.

But the careful reader — which I, unfortunately, was not (especially in my more recent post on the subject here) — should have realized that the report was likely intending to recommend replacing the "carnal knowledge" ban not with a flat age of consent of 12 (what the text said) but rather with a graduated Romeo-and-Juliet age of consent that would have been set at 16 for adults (what the §1633 that the text cited said).

So while I still disagree in some measure with some of Tim Noah's analysis in Slate (I think the report was endorsing a change in the age of consent, and not just talking about sex-neutralization, and I think Ginsburg's critics' views may well have been just a reasonable mistake and not a deliberate smear), and while I stand by my points about the report's recommendation to decriminalize prostitution and its likely recommendation to decriminalize polygamy, I now find it highly unlikely that the authors of the report really did intend to recommend that the age of consent be generally lowered to 12. Rather, the recommendations cited the right subsection but quoted the wrong one; and the intended purpose was to decriminalize sex between 12-year-olds and up-to-16/17-year-olds and substantially lower the maximum penalties for sex between 12-year-olds and older partners (from 15 years to 3 years) — a scheme that is probably still less restrictive than many (including me) would endorse, but that makes much more sense than a flat age of consent of 12.

Ginsburg's critics were led astray by this error, which suggests that their characterization of Ginsburg's views was likely a mistake of their own, rather than a deliberate "smear." But I now do think that the critics' assertions — and my own past assertions — were indeed likely mistaken.

UPDATE: I've updated the text above to reflect the punishment that S. 1400 §1633 would have authorized for sex between adults (over age 21) and 12-year-olds -- it would have been at most 3 years in prison.

Here's the slate article he was referencing.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2005/09/lindsey_grahams_smear.html

[alexava 6,973]

So you want to use science to diagnose, punish, and quarantine potential abusers? How do you punish a potential abuser?

Homosexuality is not normal; has not been found to be normal. You consider it normal now because so much science and society have told you so, and apparently convinced you that if you still think homosexuality is abnormal, then you are the problem, the bigot, the homophobe.

Obviously you should protect your children.

have you ever heard of a person being convicted of possessing child pornography? that is exactly one way to punish a potential abuser. there may be others but it takes study, understanding and an open mind to have a chance to protect children better. being a homophobic bigot and refusing to listen to logic is not helping a damn thing.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

So you want to use science to diagnose, punish, and quarantine potential abusers? How do you punish a potential abuser?

Homosexuality is not normal; has not been found to be normal. You consider it normal now because so much science and society have told you so, and apparently convinced you that if you still think homosexuality is abnormal, then you are the problem, the bigot, the homophobe.

Obviously you should protect your children.

have you ever heard of a person being convicted of possessing child pornography? that is exactly one way to punish a potential abuser.

If he has child porn, he's already an abuser. That's not a victimless crime.

[DKW 86 7,426]

Here's the slate article he was referencing.

http://www.slate.com...hams_smear.html

Reading is fundamental: from your own source...

http://www.volokh.co...html#1127335040

Thursday, September 22, 2005

[Orin Kerr, September 22, 2005 at 6:41pm] Trackbacks

Watching Your Own Plane Make an Emergency Landing: Story here.

Comments

[Orin Kerr, September 22, 2005 at 6:12pm] Trackbacks

The Source of Blackstone's Intuition: Larry Solum links to a provocative paper, The Source of Blackstone's Intuition: Why We Think it Better to Free the Guilty than to Convict the Innocent, by Samson Vermont. The gist of the argument is that our intuition that it is better to let 10 guilty persons (or even n guilty men) go free than convict one innocent person is partly irrational because it is based on a "psychological quirk" — the greater mental accessibility of a false conviction than a false acquittal. I've just skimmed the paper, and it's pretty interesting. The problem, I think, is that there are lots of quite rational reasons to agree with the intuition. Samson acknowledges some of them in footnote 9, but there are others, such as the uncertainty of whether the theories of punishment work in a particular case. Without knowing the relative significance of the rational and irrational as an empirical matter, it's hard to assess Samson's argument. Nonetheless, it's an interesting paper.

Comments

[Eugene Volokh, <a href=http://www.volokh.co...8563">September 22, 2005 at 3:49pm] Trackbacks

Sex With 12-Year-Olds in the 1970s:

[uPDATE: The first paragraph below flowed from my misreading of S. 1400, which would indeed have set up multiple ages of consent depending on the age of the other party: It would have legalized sex with 12-year-olds when the other party was less than five years older; made it a misdemeanor when the other party was under 21; and made it seemingly a relatively low-grade felony when the other party was 21 or older. That's still a scheme that strikes as too tolerant of sex with the quite young, but at least it's much more comprehensible than a flat age of consent of 12. And this correction makes the rest of this post rather moot, since it leaves only the NCGO's recommendation, which on its own now seems as simply an outlier. My apologies for the error.]

Whatever Justice Ginsburg thought about the recommendation that the age of consent in federal enclaves be lowered to 12, it seems striking by today's standards that such a recommendation would be offered. Yet in 1973, a Senate bill specifically made this suggestion, and as best I can tell it wasn't a part of a scheme in which there would be one (higher) age of consent when adults have sex with minors, and a lower one when two minors who are close in age have sex. The law would have made it legal for adults to have sex with 12-year-olds in federal enclaves (federal territories, federal admiralty jurisdiction, Indian country, at least in those cases where the tribes didn't have jurisdiction), plain and simple.

Likewise, the National Coalition of Gay Organizations' "1972 Gay Rights Platform in the United States" called for "Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent." According to Laud Humphreys, Out of the Closets: The Sociology of Homosexual Liberation 162 (1972), the meeting at which this was adopted was apparently a pretty mainstream event within the liberal activist movement — "upportive telegrams were received from Democratic candidates John Lindsay and George McGovern," which suggests that it wasn't just an entirely irrelevant fringe group.

Can anyone give me a sense of what was going on at the time? Were these just a few isolated events? Did they flow from a broader sexual revolution movement (even if they didn't represent everyone in that movement, and even if many in that movement would draw the line at consenting adults, or at least consenting teenagers-with-each-other-but-not-with-40-year-olds)? Did they come out of a broader children's rights movement, some branches of which believed in children's sexual autonomy rights? (Naturally others in a children's rights movement may support stronger statutory rape laws; again, I'm not speculating that some movement entirely or largely supported these proposals — I'm just wondering what intellectual stream these proposals flowed from.)

Incidentally, I realize that until recently the age of consent in many states was 14, and that even now it's 14 in some European countries (if this site is to be trusted); and I realize that deciding the proper age of consent is a complex matter. But (1) 12 isn't 14, (2) moving to cut the age of consent isn't the same as maintaining a longstanding low threshold, and (3) I'm not asking what the right age of consent is: I'm curious what was the ideological and political movement (if any) that led to the proposals that I mentioned. If anyone has any pointers on this, I'd love to hear them.

In short:

It is Justice Ginsburg's responsibility to read anything she signs off on. To retroactively blame an anonymous student is just too lame for words. She was working on a REVIEW of several bills and yet only commented on the (paraphrasing here) "Lack of Equality as pertaining to THE GENDER of those raped?" REALLY??? Sorry, doesnt pass the smell test on many levels.

Which is the bigger issue?

the actual problem of the age of consent for both genders in a statutory rape law

or the "perceived slight" that gender was not specifically enumerated as male and female in some random bill from almost 40 years ago?

(Just wondering, but by and large the majority of the victims here would be female by definition whether from some old pervs going after young girls, or from young bucks going after equally young girls. So isnt the question of the gender of the pronouns just a little CRAZY? Legalese of the time, hell even now, would have used the masculine gender just pro-forma. just a thought...)

Either way, Ginsburg is responsible for her own work. If she was concerned about it then, she should have meticulously said so. She did not. The defense of her position is carried out by those who actually have no dog in this fight. It is carried out not by those on the original draft of the review, nor by those working on the bill itself.

Further, the author of this leaves the entire question open for further comment and does not specifically say he knows it is a "drafting error" by a student. He vaguely offers it up as an excuse for what is supposed to be scholarly work done by Ginsburg.

THIS IS ONLY A THEORY FLOATED, 30+YEARS LATER, BY SOMEONE THAT DID NO ACTUAL WORK ON THE REVIEW NOR THE BILL ITSELF. He asks for outside authentication of his theory. Funny, but since the article was written in 2005, eight years later and no one has come to his aid to offer any support of HIS THEORY of what really happened.

Nice try at a save tho. ;-)

[AUDub 11,153]

Reading is fundamental: from your own source...

In short:

It is Justice Ginsburg's responsibility to read anything she signs off on. To retroactively blame an anonymous student is just too lame for words. She was working on a REVIEW of several bills and yet only commented on the (paraphrasing here) "Lack of Equality as pertaining to THE GENDER of those raped?" REALLY??? Sorry, doesnt pass the smell test on many levels.

Which is the bigger issue?

the actual problem of the age of consent for both genders in a statutory rape law

or the "perceived slight" that gender was not specifically enumerated as male and female in some random bill from almost 40 years ago?

(Just wondering, but by and large the majority of the victims here would be female by definition whether from some old pervs going after young girls, or from young bucks going after equally young girls. So isnt the question of the gender of the pronouns just a little CRAZY? Legalese of the time, hell even now, would have used the masculine gender just pro-forma. just a thought...)

Either way, Ginsburg is responsible for her own work. If she was concerned about it then, she should have meticulously said so. She did not. The defense of her position is carried out by those who actually have no dog in this fight. It is carried out not by those on the original draft of the review, nor by those working on the bill itself.

Further, the author of this leaves the entire question open for further comment and does not specifically say he knows it is a "drafting error" by a student. He vaguely offers it up as an excuse for what is supposed to be scholarly work done by Ginsburg.

THIS IS ONLY A THEORY FLOATED, 30+YEARS LATER, BY SOMEONE THAT DID NO ACTUAL WORK ON THE REVIEW NOR THE BILL ITSELF. He asks for outside authentication of his theory. Funny, but since the article was written in 2005, eight years later and no one has come to his aid to offer any support of HIS THEORY of what really happened.

Nice try at a save tho. ;-)

So if I am to understand your position on this, you're basically pointing out that a bill she cited in a report she co-authoured 40 years ago that, a bill on which her comments were concerning the gender neutrality of it's language, which was the subject of a report entitled "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," set the bottom line at 12, that's an attempt at enabling pedophiles. OK. I disagree.

The language of the bill strikes me as a bastardized attempt at a Romeo and Juliet law. I don't agree with that third clause. That's too young. I prefer the line we have now at 16. I read that 14 wasn't uncommon in that day. But it doesn't look like a hard line that stated adults could prey on twelve years olds. Back to my source.

Sex With 12-Year-Olds in the 1970s:

[uPDATE: The first paragraph below flowed from my misreading of S. 1400, which would indeed have set up multiple ages of consent depending on the age of the other party: It would have legalized sex with 12-year-olds when the other party was less than five years older; made it a misdemeanor when the other party was under 21; and made it seemingly a relatively low-grade felony when the other party was 21 or older. That's still a scheme that strikes as too tolerant of sex with the quite young, but at least it's much more comprehensible than a flat age of consent of 12. And this correction makes the rest of this post rather moot, since it leaves only the NCGO's recommendation, which on its own now seems as simply an outlier. My apologies for the error.]

18 U.S.C. §2032 — Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years" and substitute a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B)/> by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.

Please, keep going. This is a very informative discussion. :-)

[DKW 86 7,426]

Well i read all that and tried to stay awake.

The point here is that the work is hers.

It is 30+ years old.

And it has been quoted for years.

The defense of the quotes started back in 2005 and even today it is nothing more than a theory.

While i dont think it i was her original work, it is nothing more than commentary, she still signed off on it.

The age of consent even then was a crazy 14 in some places. Why anyone would let an opportunity pass to correct or talk down that is lost on me.

[alexava 6,973]

So you want to use science to diagnose, punish, and quarantine potential abusers? How do you punish a potential abuser?

Homosexuality is not normal; has not been found to be normal. You consider it normal now because so much science and society have told you so, and apparently convinced you that if you still think homosexuality is abnormal, then you are the problem, the bigot, the homophobe.

Obviously you should protect your children.

have you ever heard of a person being convicted of possessing child pornography? that is exactly one way to punish a potential abuser.

If he has child porn, he's already an abuser. That's not a victimless crime.

the person possessing the pics is not always the one who made them and they are not always acts of sex, but nude or clothed pics sometimes photo edited or altered in some way so that the child was not abused(besides just being the subject of a potential abuser). so it is possible to be a victimless crime or at least the victim was not physically harmed. it actually makes my head hurt thinking about this.

[telling tiger 156]

Well i read all that and tried to stay awake.

The point here is that the work is hers.

It is 30+ years old.

And it has been quoted for years.

The defense of the quotes started back in 2005 and even today it is nothing more than a theory.

While i dont think it i was her original work, it is nothing more than commentary, she still signed off on it.

The age of consent even then was a crazy 14 in some places. Why anyone would let an opportunity pass to correct or talk down that is lost on me.

Probably because they do not feel the need to quote it to defend the latest talking point of the day, of the hyperconservative right wing used to whip the frenzy into people who already believe everyone but them is burning in hell anyway. Just a theory.

[DKW 86 7,426]

Well i read all that and tried to stay awake.

The point here is that the work is hers.

It is 30+ years old.

And it has been quoted for years.

The defense of the quotes started back in 2005 and even today it is nothing more than a theory.

While i dont think it i was her original work, it is nothing more than commentary, she still signed off on it.

The age of consent even then was a crazy 14 in some places. Why anyone would let an opportunity pass to correct or talk down that is lost on me.

Probably because they do not feel the need to quote it to defend the latest talking point of the day, of the hyperconservative right wing used to whip the frenzy into people who already believe everyone but them is burning in hell anyway. Just a theory.

Me? Hyper conservative?

You get out much?

i am trying to point out that this small segment of the population is taking over some points used by the GLBT Rights Crowd over the years. It was obvious years ago that they would use them. NAMBLA et al are still worthy of their First Amendment Rights, no matter how unsettling their views might be.

As for myself, i am a confirmed Indie. I have a respect for the Competence of Clinton and the Ideals of Reagan.

i find myself horrified by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party on almost every issue. They tend to look more like the Left & Right Hands of the same party.

While being an ardent fiscal conservative, i am likely somewhere to the Left of you socially.

[autigeremt 6,642]

Libertarians are often called names...lol!

[AUDub 11,153]

Well i read all that and tried to stay awake.:D/>

The point here is that the work is hers.

It is 30+ years old.

And it has been quoted for years.

The defense of the quotes started back in 2005 and even today it is nothing more than a theory.

While i dont think it i was her original work, it is nothing more than commentary, she still signed off on it.

The age of consent even then was a crazy 14 in some places. Why anyone would let an opportunity pass to correct or talk down that is lost on me.

Well, the attacks they are fending off are theories themselves, correct? And everyone has their own interpretation.

I'm not necessarily disputing the idea that the work is hers. Her name is on the report, after all. What I am disputing is the assertion that she was somehow advocating for policy that would benefit organizations like NAMBLA.

The updated portion of the article you posted from my source lays it out pretty well. Note that even the author states that it refutes much of his argument. Sure, there is an age of consent mentioned according to the report itself. In fact, judge Ginsberg's proposal actually means there would be multiple ages of consent.

Simply put, what she appears to be proposing is that a 12 year old could be involved in a consensual relationship, but not with anyone over 17. Anyone 18 up would be guilty of statutory rape. I read it more like a Romeo and Juliet law with a 5 year maximum allowance of age difference, as opposed to the 2 we currently have in the state of Alabama.

I don't believe she was correct. The proposed punishments for violation aren't severe enough, the lower limit is too low for my liking at age 12 (16 is as low as I'd go, and even there I still prefer 18), and the difference in age is too great. But it certainly seems much more reasonable than what you proposed earlier, in that it's not a wholesale recommendation for lowering the age of consent.

I also think that the need of defense of her work arises from the fact that there have been somewhat misguided attacks that are, more or less, based in a simple misunderstanding of that portion of the report.

On your last two sentences, and I may be having a reading comprehension failure here, so correct me if I'm wrong. My grandmother married my grandfather at age 15. While I wouldn't propose lowering the consent laws to 15, given what we know now on human growth and development, I can understand there was a time in the past when 14 may have seemed reasonable.

Fun fact. You can get married to an adult legally at age 14 in Alabama.

[telling tiger 156]

Well i read all that and tried to stay awake. :D/>

The point here is that the work is hers.

It is 30+ years old.

And it has been quoted for years.

The defense of the quotes started back in 2005 and even today it is nothing more than a theory.

While i dont think it i was her original work, it is nothing more than commentary, she still signed off on it.

The age of consent even then was a crazy 14 in some places. Why anyone would let an opportunity pass to correct or talk down that is lost on me.

Probably because they do not feel the need to quote it to defend the latest talking point of the day, of the hyperconservative right wing used to whip the frenzy into people who already believe everyone but them is burning in hell anyway. Just a theory.

Me? Hyper conservative?

You get out much?

i am trying to point out that this small segment of the population is taking over some points used by the GLBT Rights Crowd over the years. It was obvious years ago that they would use them. NAMBLA et al are still worthy of their First Amendment Rights, no matter how unsettling their views might be.

As for myself, i am a confirmed Indie. I have a respect for the Competence of Clinton and the Ideals of Reagan.

i find myself horrified by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party on almost every issue. They tend to look more like the Left & Right Hands of the same party.

While being an ardent fiscal conservative, i am likely somewhere to the Left of you socially.

Do I get out much? Just returned home from 8 days out of town working. I get out plenty as it has been my entire career. I've spent more time in airports than some spend at home. THANKFULLY not all of it in the great state of Alabammy. You hyperconservative? Nope, not what I meant at all. I could not care less what your political line of thinking is or the lack thereof. The Ginsburg deal has been taken out of context by the extreme fringe social right for as long as it has been read. Somehow she managed to be confirmed for her seat on SCOTUS. A position that a supporting member of NAMBLA is never going to achieve in this or any other lifetime. It has also been somewhat funny if hypocritical to watch the self-proclaimed defenders of morality, have no problem lying like Perisan rugs to suit their own political ends. This thread has so many issues in it, it has become almost funny, except for the subject matter. This issue is about as much of a non-issue as I've ever seen. It of course, should be studied by people who try to understand and treat those with issues of criminality, based in personal nature or opportunity.. Study and research, does not and will not mean acceptance. To imply otherwise is hilarious, at best. You have made an assumption that somehow you are to the left of me socially when you have no basis knowledge to claim so. EMT, I do not call people random names because of their political beliefs. Particularly on this board. I save that for people who are less than adroit no matter their beliefs.

[DKW 86 7,426]

The original focus of this thread still stands. Who didnt see this coming?

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517#comment-7566

An article from the Greeley CO Gazette. Yes, just as the thread topic suggested, the NAMBLA Bunch are in fact using the same arguments as the Gay Rights crowd used. They are attempting to redefine themselves as just a variation of Gay and therefore acceptable. "It just makes logical sense." i do nor agree with many slippery slope arguments, but this is one case in which it was just inevitable to happen.

[telling tiger 156]

They can use whatever tactic they like. It doesn't mean that society will ever move their direction. Many on the extreme right have no problem in linking them with the same aforementioned group. So what. Irrelevant. Both are lies used toward political end. Meaningless.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

Amazingly, this isn't satire, nor is it some obscure blog from a fundamentalist Mormon sect.

[telling tiger 156]

It is just one article, even the state where this was so common at one time, for religious purposes I might add (what irony huh?, lol) has long since made it anything but the accepted norm from a legal perspective. HOWEVER, even they often turn a blind eye toward it as long as it isn't done Warren Jeffs child bride style.. It never ceases to amaze me the latest social issues that the far right tries to trumpet to rally the base. The vast majority of the US population has never known anyone who lives that way and likely will not. BUT, just so I can add to the social constant panic, MAYBE THEY DO!!!!!!!!!! In all sincerity, it is beyond reality to imply one study( about acknowledged criminal acts, btw) or one article signals a greater movement toward acceptability.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

It's just one article...now. (Actually, it's not) But if you think that's the way it's going to stay, I think you'll be sadly mistaken in the not too distant future.

I've tried to explain this before...if you decide that the sex of the participants is not important or sacrosanct, then you have no argument whatsoever to turn and say that the number of participants is. So if you're under some illusion that this is only about letting the sweet lesbians across the street get married, you're in for a surprise.