Oh i dont know - i looked at many a 14 year old and had sexual thoughts...

...granted, i was under 16 at the time.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

There are two aspects to this. The first is that you may subconsciously suppress any feelings of attraction you feel toward younger girls. The second is that in dealing with the number of adolescents I'm accustomed to seeing on a daily basis I've come across girls of the same age where I would find one sexually attractive(and in a couple of cases think they were old enough to pursue if I just saw them walking down the street with no context to indicate their actual age) and not find the other so because she appeared too young.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

That's fabulous.

Hope that works out for ya'...

Perhaps. By healthy, I mean that they are sexually motivated(not towards children, just that they have a libido).

I do understand that for a man to pursue a girl who is too young for adult relationships is psychologically unhealthy for both parties and indicates greater mental health problems in the background. On that note, I've had the displeasure of having to explain to a sixteen year old why her relationship with a thirty year old was inappropriate. I wasn't sure I could handle talking to the guy about it without incurring assault charges.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

I would like to take this opportunity that this is not the case. Being attracted to and looking at for sexual gratification are two very different subjects. I would refer to the latter as unhealthy assuming the age of the girl is known.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

Thread cleaned up. People; discuss the issue, not each other.

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos

This has nothing to do with whether a 14 year old girl turns you on. You're still more than welcome to lustfully watch a pre-pub walk out of a Gap in her skimpy yet covered clothing and enjoy it fully, as long as you aren't breaking other public obscenity laws while doing it.

Bathrooms are public areas where such body parts are typically exposed, and you are not allowed to get a tub of popcorn and sit by the toilets as little boys urinate into them.

This seems a pretty distinct difference in what the law says and what is being argued.

I also don't think anyone will disagree with the law as intended.

Then intention of the law appears to be an attempt to give police a legal reason to overreact when some paranoid mom tells him that some creepy guy is watching her kid that she dressed carelessly. You bring up bathrooms, but there is no reason to believe that exposure (such as flashing) only occurs there. If we follow the letter of the law, having a developed 13yo expose her tits to a 40yo guy, and having that 40yo guy look at them continually (intentionally) while popping a boner would constitute a crime.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Flashing is classified as accidental exposure to the viewer, and as a flasher only temporarily exposes themselves, this is not a violation of this law. However, if a 13 year old walks up to a man and continuously exposes herself to him, it is the man's responsibility to walk away. If you stand there, keep watching, and get aroused, then yes, you are in violation of the law. Just as if you stood and watched a man get murdered and did nothing about it, you would be guilty of aiding and abetting. Not all laws allow you to be passive to be legal.

Classified by whom? Flashing one's body parts temporarily can be both intentional or unintentional.Why? The man has less of a right to be there than the 13yo?Eh? I guess that puts a lot of bank robbery victims in prison. Are you actually supportive of a law that essentially forces everyone to act like bodyguards?Furthermore, who is the victim if a 13yo flashes herself to a 40yo? The 13yo? Laughable.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

To the viewer, he did not intentionally see what the flasher shown.

See last

If you have the capability of stopping a crime with no harm to yourself, then it is your responsibility to do so as a law abiding citizen. "bank robbery victims" usually don't fit this as stopping the robbery would put themselves in immediate danger.

Ask yourself why these laws exist in the first place. Why is it legal to engage in sexual relations with an 18 year old, but not a 17 year old.

Age of consent laws are there to stop young people from being exploited by adults.

A 13 year old exposing to a 40 year old man may not know she is doing anything wrong, a 40 year old man does.

Onteria,

Before you go too far, I might suggest that you do a little searching. One of the individuals on this board thinks that any kind of law that protects children is unacceptable - he/she has no problem saying that if a 2-month-old doesn't actively resist that it is consenting to sex, and that if a child is raped, it would be appropriate for the parents to expel them from the house.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Then you essentially want everyone to be forced bodyguards, aka slavery.Overreaching piece of shit politicians and the idiots who elect them.Why was it made so? Well, I would assume they picked an arbitrary (yet practically meaningless) age in order to hop on the "think of the children" bandwagon.Why do you assume something wrong is being done? Furthermore, should the 40yo man immediately execute the 13yo? After all, if a wrong is being done, it is she that is doing it. It's just that you are punishing the WRONG party here. The way I see it, neither party needs to be punished. But if you assume something is wrong, the man BEING flashed sure as hell is not the one at fault, nor should he be forced to leave because someone ELSE does something you consider wrong. It simply does not make logical sense to punish one for the actions of another just because he didn't go out of his way to accommodate their "wrong" behavior.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

What individual would that be? Perhaps you mean one of them finds that age-based discrimination in law, when such age-based discrimination is proven to be extremely inaccurate much of the time, to be unacceptable. Age, at least when it comes to setting concrete lines like "exactly 18," is inaccurate in judging judgment ability. People develop at different rates. Similarly, color is not an accurate measure of criminal activity, as being black does not condemn one to crime just like being white does not make it impossible.That depends on circumstances. Consent has to be given. Simply not actively resisting does not equal consent.Once again, wrong. I said expulsion could be used as a threat to keep kids from screwing old strangers (assuming it is what you want them to avoid), much like "no TV" could be used to get kids to do other things you want them to do but they don't. Perhaps you should ask a 2-month-old to read what is written and to give you a quick summary before you make your next post.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Thanks for the warning.

The founding fathers found people incapable of educated thought (such as voting in elections) before they turned 21 years of age. Obviously age restriction in laws is not unprecedented.

Also, age of consent laws are state laws. Anything not mentioned in the constitution is reserved to the states. Each state found it prudent to protect its children from sexual molesters. If enough people who want to have sex with "consenting" 2 month olds and all move to the same state and put that into law, well then I'd have to accept it. However none do, so I don't.