King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

Enter code here

Topic History of: USA and UK - get ready for those tall buildings...
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
honey!oh sugar sugar.	Randall wrote: Oh yes you did. honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote: ...what she did was very wrong. Or are you confining the wrongness to fucking a student? And you agree with me that having sex with a willing 13 year isn't necessarily wrong in itself without any more to it? Yes. I was only referring to someone abusing the trust of care. Other circumstances vary so wildly that it would be impossible to generalise.
Randall	wyot wrote: Do you draw no line at all? I don't think drawing a line between heavily punished sex and exactly the same sex but not punished is at all useful. The more difficult question is what do we have instead? How do you know no harm was done, how do you measure this? Harm is tangible injury or loss. Sex can cause harm in the form of STDs, or ahem romantic damage for the careless or over-vigorous. None of that was reported in this case. And even if it was, it shouldn't necessarily be criminally prohibited.
Randall	Oh yes you did. honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote: ...what she did was very wrong. Or are you confining the wrongness to fucking a student? And you agree with me that having sex with a willing 13 year isn't necessarily wrong in itself without any more to it?
honey!oh sugar sugar.	Randall wrote: honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote: I dont think you can remove "that element" in considering the possible damage. It would not be ideal if a thirteen year old had sex with a random twenty year old, but at least a random twenty year old wouldn't be in a position of authority over them, which limits their choices and is a pretty rubbish position for anyone to be in. Oh come on, honey, use your imagination. It's not hard to consider a notional case of a 20 something woman having sex with the 13 year-old next door. You said this would not be ideal: few sexual encounters are. But why do you think it would be wrong, assuming both have a good time and suffer no illness or injury? Nobody said I thought it was "wrong" except you, Randall. You are jumping the gun!
wyot	I get your point Randall, but the challenge back is 1. Do you draw no line at all? And 2. How do you know no harm was done, how do you measure this? But yes, I think the sentence itself is informed by hysteria rather than reason, agreed.