• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Child brides vs Rape

dragonslayer said:
Doe she have consent of her parents to be married? If so, someone is being out of line and looking to get sued. In some states it is legal to be married at 14 with parent's permission.

Have you been watching t.v. lately? TV is full of young voluptous girl, they are singing, and dancing on many channels. Many of these girls are only 13 and 14 years old.

Just the other day,my Daughter and my Grand daughter stopped to visit me with one of her friends. My Granddaughter is only twelve and she is very pretty. I thought that the girl that accompanied my Grand Daugher, was 17 or 18. Hell she was really beautiful, 5' 6" or 5'7", and her body was highly matured.
I was surprised to learn that this girl was only 12 year old. I was amazed.
My Daughter does not let my Grand daughter dress in that manner and so she still seems like a child. Even my Daughter is amazed by this girl's physical maturity.

This girl could pass for an 18 year old easily, and if she told some 22 year old
guy that she was 18 or even 19. He would have no reason not to believe her. He could get fooled easily.

Look at some of the teen and children oriented shows and you willl soon see why a 22 year old could get fooled if the girl wanted to fool the guy.


Difference is that she wasn't trying to fool him. They met when she was EIGHT years old, and played together until they "officially started dating" when she was 12.
 
vergiss said:
LMAO! :lol:

How long has it been since you were 12?!

It's been THREE years, so don't act like I don't know what's up!!!

Hell, I still play Pretty Pretty Princess on occasion....:cool:
 
RightatNYU said:
Difference is that she wasn't trying to fool him. They met when she was EIGHT years old, and played together until they "officially started dating" when she was 12.

Maybe it's quibbling, but there has been no mention anywhere about what these two did together before she was 12 other than he came over to her house to play video games with her brother. You have several times in this thread alluded to what may have gone on before then, but if you don't have any facts, such allusions could be interpreted as finessing for emotional impact. Since we don't know the details of how their relationship started, it would probably be best to stick with the facts.
 
RightatNYU said:
It's been THREE years, so don't act like I don't know what's up!!!

Hell, I still play Pretty Pretty Princess on occasion....:cool:

Ummm....I'm confused. You are 15? And you drink, vote and run for public office?

Or are you joking? Or am I just mis-reading this exchange?
 
mixedmedia said:
Maybe it's quibbling, but there has been no mention anywhere about what these two did together before she was 12 other than he came over to her house to play video games with her brother. You have several times in this thread alluded to what may have gone on before then, but if you don't have any facts, such allusions could be interpreted as finessing for emotional impact. Since we don't know the details of how their relationship started, it would probably be best to stick with the facts.

He said they met when she was eight and played together until they started dating at the age of 12. How is he misinterpreting the facts?
 
mixedmedia said:
Ummm....I'm confused. You are 15? And you drink, vote and run for public office?

Or are you joking? Or am I just mis-reading this exchange?

Not only is he 15, he also has a kid in high school. NYU must lead a crazy life. :lol:
 
This will be my final post in this thread, since Kelzie and RightatNYU seem incapable of acknowledging that honest people can disagree about the role government and society should play in the sex lives of individuals. No, anyone who disagrees with them must be at best an enabler and at worst a child molestor. Therefore, I'll reiterate the main points one more time and then will not be posting here again:

1. NO ONE INVOLVED WANTS HIM PROSECUTED. Not the girl, not her family. While they may or may not be making an error in judgment, I certainly respect their wishes more than I do your rigid moral code and "uphold the law at any cost" mentality. Yes, there will certainly be cases where people should be prosecuted but are not because the alleged victims will not testify against them. This is unfortunate, but certainly much better than the government throwing its weight around and regulating every aspect of human life.

2. THEY HAVE A CHILD. Should people who commit a crime be excused in every case just because they're depended on? Of course not. Should people who commit a crime against the person who depends on them, and who doesn't want them prosecuted, be excused? In most cases such as this, yes.

3. THEY ARE MARRIED. This point alone should end the debate, as the marriage is perfectly legal.

4. NOWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD IS THIS CONSIDERED TABOO. I suppose you can believe that American/Canadian morality is 100% right and everywhere else is 100% wrong if you want to, but you won't find this attitude of revulsion toward this concept anywhere else. In Western Europe, this is generally frowned upon but there wouldn't be this kind of outrage. In Eastern Europe, this may be viewed with curiosity but is generally accepted. In Japan, Latin America, India, and probably many other places, it is the norm for young adolescents to have sex with older people. You can discuss the morality of this all you like (I choose not to do so), but stop pretending that your morality is so obviously and self-evidently right for every human being on the planet that anyone who acts against it is a horrible human being who needs to be locked in prison.

That's all I have to say on this subject. Hopefully you two (RightatNYU and Kelzie) will overcome your self-righteousness one of these days.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
 
Kandahar said:
This will be my final post in this thread, since Kelzie and RightatNYU seem incapable of acknowledging that honest people can disagree about the role government and society should play in the sex lives of individuals. No, anyone who disagrees with them must be at best an enabler and at worst a child molestor. Therefore, I'll reiterate the main points one more time and then will not be posting here again:

Ta ta! Don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

I'm sure "honest" people can disagree with the role that the government has in the sex life of adults. However, when it comes to the sex life of children, if you think that an 8 year-old should be able to consent to sex, you support child molestation. That's all there is to it. I never said you were one. But if you support it, stand up for it. Stop crying that we are calling you names, especially when you identify with it.

Kandahar said:
1. NO ONE INVOLVED WANTS HIM PROSECUTED. Not the girl, not her family. While they may or may not be making an error in judgment, I certainly respect their wishes more than I do your rigid moral code and "uphold the law at any cost" mentality. Yes, there will certainly be cases where people should be prosecuted but are not because the alleged victims will not testify against them. This is unfortunate, but certainly much better than the government throwing its weight around and regulating every aspect of human life.

As thrilled as I am to find out that you think there is nothing wrong if a parent sells their five year-old into sex and doesn't want to prosecute the people that pay, thankfully our government takes a more realistic approach to the situation. The government prosecutes even when the parties are unwilling because it is necessary to uphold law and order.

Kandahar said:
2. THEY HAVE A CHILD. Should people who commit a crime be excused in every case just because they're depended on? Of course not. Should people who commit a crime against the person who depends on them, and who doesn't want them prosecuted, be excused? In most cases such as this, yes.

Again with the child. He raped a child, made her pregnant, and you say he shouldn't go to jail because he now has a child to support. Suppose you must say that about all rapists.

Kandahar said:
3. THEY ARE MARRIED. This point alone should end the debate, as the marriage is perfectly legal.

A lot of things have been legal that aren't right. Slavery come to mind.

Kandahar said:
4. NOWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD IS THIS CONSIDERED TABOO. I suppose you can believe that American/Canadian morality is 100% right and everywhere else is 100% wrong if you want to, but you won't find this attitude of revulsion toward this concept anywhere else. In Western Europe, this is generally frowned upon but there wouldn't be this kind of outrage. In Eastern Europe, this may be viewed with curiosity but is generally accepted. In Japan, Latin America, India, and probably many other places, it is the norm for young adolescents to have sex with older people. You can discuss the morality of this all you like (I choose not to do so), but stop pretending that your morality is so obviously and self-evidently right for every human being on the planet that anyone who acts against it is a horrible human being who needs to be locked in prison.

I really don't believe this at all. In fact, if you could provide an opinion poll from the various world regions on this subject, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, stop acting like the world is your personal best friend, and you know what everyone is going to say on the subject.

Other countries practice FGM, don't allow women to vote, and have problems with selling children into slavery. You'll forgive me if I don't follow their morals.


Kandahar said:
That's all I have to say on this subject. Hopefully you two (RightatNYU and Kelzie) will overcome your self-righteousness one of these days.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

A bible quote isn't going to convince me that you're right. Especially when it's taken way out of context.
 
Last edited:
Kelzie said:
He said they met when she was eight and played together until they started dating at the age of 12. How is he misinterpreting the facts?

Well, number one, I have read several different stories about this event since we started talking about it, and none allude to any happenings before the age of 12 except for his coming to her house to play with her brother. Of course, if RightatNYU, has read something differently which claims that there was a sexual relationship or even a flirtation or seduction going on before the age of 12, that is different. But one shouldn't just assume these things. Sometimes things happen without being planned or expected. Even sexual relationships.

So if there is no proof or intimation of it, it seems to me to be somewhat of a ploy to enhance the taboo nature of this story. Not that I am accusing him of lying. Finessing the facts for dramatic effect? Ehm, maybe.
 
Kelzie said:
Not only is he 15, he also has a kid in high school. NYU must lead a crazy life. :lol:


Well, you know, I've never been known to be the brightest light bulb in the house. I must have missed something.
 
mixedmedia said:
Well, number one, I have read several different stories about this event since we started talking about it, and none allude to any happenings before the age of 12 except for his coming to her house to play with her brother. Of course, if RightatNYU, has read something differently which claims that there was a sexual relationship or even a flirtation or seduction going on before the age of 12, that is different. But one shouldn't just assume these things. Sometimes things happen without being planned or expected. Even sexual relationships.

So if there is no proof or intimation of it, it seems to me to be somewhat of a ploy to enhance the taboo nature of this story. Not that I am accusing him of lying. Finessing the facts for dramatic effect? Ehm, maybe.

He never said anything was going on before the age of 12.
 
mixedmedia said:
Ummm....I'm confused. You are 15? And you drink, vote and run for public office?

Or are you joking? Or am I just mis-reading this exchange?

I'm not actually 15.
 
mixedmedia said:
Well, number one, I have read several different stories about this event since we started talking about it, and none allude to any happenings before the age of 12 except for his coming to her house to play with her brother. Of course, if RightatNYU, has read something differently which claims that there was a sexual relationship or even a flirtation or seduction going on before the age of 12, that is different. But one shouldn't just assume these things. Sometimes things happen without being planned or expected. Even sexual relationships.

So if there is no proof or intimation of it, it seems to me to be somewhat of a ploy to enhance the taboo nature of this story. Not that I am accusing him of lying. Finessing the facts for dramatic effect? Ehm, maybe.

I'm not saying there was anything happening before then either. And while I'm unashamedly "finessing the facts" for dramatic effect, for most people, there isn't a need for more dramatic effect. 12/20 freaks enough people out, I only had to resort to the hyped rhetoric to argue with kanda who apparently doesn't believe that any child molestation should be illegal.

(see, there I go again.)
 
thats exactly 100% correct

lots of people tend to prescribe their morals to everyone
and in north America it is often the case

looking back on history it is clear that indeed it was more common for men to have much younger woman as mates

and any father that thinks he can control their teenage daughters are under an illusion
they can control them if they want to be controled

If she meets a young man of 21 and falls in love ( what ever that means)
the daughter will surely not listen to the father

only under complete mind control through religion or other means can it be otherwise
 
Canuck said:
thats exactly 100% correct

lots of people tend to prescribe their morals to everyone
and in north America it is often the case

looking back on history it is clear that indeed it was more common for men to have much younger woman as mates

and any father that thinks he can control their teenage daughters are under an illusion
they can control them if they want to be controled

If she meets a young man of 21 and falls in love ( what ever that means)
the daughter will surely not listen to the father

only under complete mind control through religion or other means can it be otherwise

And looking back on history, a father could sell his daughter into slavery. What was your point exactly?
 
Back
Top Bottom