McD

I apologize, BDS. I didn't catch the humorous aspect of your post, because it was juxtaposed with yguy's arbitrary and cynical attacks. I also did a search and read a few of your posts on other threads, and I can tell you are not a troll.

Yeah, he would have a slight advantage from an age standpoint, but I have recently gotten back into fitness and I daresay that I am in better shape than the average man in his late twenties. Still, even considering this, I would hate to guess who would win.

McD

That and many other bumper sticker platitudes are simply wrong. Honest men get cheated daily. Disreputable people have built empires by cheating honest people. I am not surprised that a whacko like yourself would pull such an obviously false saying like that out of your hat. If that is the best argument you can come up with, I submit you haven't much.

You are trying to say that this whole thing had something to do with my honesty. Predictable and wrong. I was actually a good boy, when I was a young man. I had never done anything like that before and never did anything like it after. I didn't drugs; I worked hard; I was (at that time) on the Navy's delayed entry program (one of the things I talked about with her father). I lived with my elderly grandmother to take care of her, and after I joined I had $200 per month taken out of my meager military paycheck and had it put straight into her bank account.

Even if I was a pothead who had illicit sex with girls, I still don't see how you could regard me as guilty on an ethical level. By your logic, her father was an accessory to the crime. He and I should have both been cooling our heals in the slammer. He was lied to just like I was.

Of course not, but since as far as I knew, we were both consenting adults, I did and why not? I had no knowledge of any reason why I shouldn't have.

I don't think that 18 is such a hot idea anyway, myself. I think it should be 16 with the 2 year rule for under 18. Even then, there should be a clause to have it case-by-case. I say this without even really thinking through it, because any age of consent law makes a governmental body the arbiters of morality--a posture that should ideally never be adopted by the government.

Hmmmm... gotta think about this one some more. My quasi-libertarianism is in conflict with my morality. You can see this is not something I have given much thought to. I avoided the situation by not having one night stands, and by marrying a woman in her 30s. No fake IDs there.

SimplyAtheistic

I am still waiting to hear exactly how it was McDuffie who committed a crime. The girl is the one who lied and McDuffie assumed she was an adult. So yguy, exactly what did McDuffie do that was wrong? I can't wait for the bullshit to start flying.
Jake

McD

Not only did she lie to me, but I met her in a bar. During that time, there is a logical presumption that everyone there was 19 or older. She certainly looked 19 or older. We saw one of those troubled teens shows on TV today in which there was a 12 year old who looked 18 or 19 and 2 fifteen year olds who looked 19 or older.

It happens. Yguy's real complaint is that I had sex at all. His "You just had to have sex with her" comment pretty much proves that.

yguy

No doubt. Better men than you or I have made the same mistake - but to call it something besides a mistake is erroneous. You didn't care about the girl so much as how she made you feel. You'd have done both her and yourself a favor had you, rather than letting her attentions go to your head, stared her down that extra few seconds. She would probably have hated you, but at least she would have been somebody else's headache.

Look at it this way: had she gotten pregnant and refused an abortion, would it really have been OK for you to cut and run simply on the grounds you'd been had? If you bore no responsibility in the matter it would have - but I suspect you agree that would have been the act of a scoundrel.

The fact that you weren't married to her suffices for me, though I don't expect you to find that compelling.

McD

Not only have you not shown that it was morally wrong on my part, you are also now ignoring the fact that throughout these posts, my contention (implied though it was) was that it was merely a mistake.

Well, nevermind that the reason I parted ways with her was because she said that if she got pregnant she would have had an abortion without my knowledge, I don't see how this is relevant.

If she had gotten pregnant and not gotten an abortion, I would not have cut and run, of course. So what? This is irrelevant. Why am I not surprised that you say "Look at it this way" and then fail to make a point?

I would have borne responsibility if she got pregnant whether she was 14 or 44. This point, you must admit, is irrelevant. You are equivocating the responsibility for the cause with the responsibility for the (potential) effect.

sergeyvladimirovich

Age of consent is an unnatural concept. The rationale for is to prevent people who are not sexually mature from being tricked into sex. However, sexual maturity occurs at different ages in different people so whatever number you make up, there will be exceptions.

I think that in the old times people were more reasonable about it. The reason sex exists in nature is for procreation. If the couple is developed enough to conceive a baby as a result of their relations, there are no natural reasons whatsoever to prevent them from having sex. This is why people usually married in their teens.

To this one might object that if we tie sex to procreation, things like contraception, gay sex or oral sex are not to be tolerated (in fact, this is how Catholics reason). While this reasoning is correct, a secular democratic society typically assumes "live and let live" attitude and does not act as a moral judge. Thus, even if it is understood that non-procreative sex is an aberration, such a society is not to meddle with it, as there are no victims.

However, if one of the partners is incapable of fathering/conceving a child, from a biological point of view, they have no buisness being engaged in sex. It is only the other person that can appreciate sex, while the other is a mere spectator. It is, then, fair to assume that the inactive participant is undergoing an abuse which makes such an act a rape.

You might point out that with such a philosophy it is unclear what to do about gays or infertile people. With gays, I would say that they qualify for sex if both of them can father/conceive a child. With an infertile couple, the answer depends on the kind of infertility. If eggs/sperm are being produced but they are not potent, that person is sexually mature (even though ill). When sperm/eggs are not being produced, the only sensible solution is to have an age of consent.

That age will be a conservative estimate of sexual maturity. This same age is also to serve as an age of "guaranteed right to sex". That is, past that age, the participants should not be examined for their sexual maturity. From what I know about sexual development, that age should be set at around 16-17. If a person below that age is found to engage in sexual activity, they are to be examined by a doctor.

yguy

There are mistakes and there are mistakes. A mathematical mistake is qualitatively different from using a woman for your own instant gratification.

You admit responsibility, yet insist you were a victim. How can that be?

And why is this a problem? How can you be responsible for the effect, as you appear to agree you would have been, without being responsible for the cause?

SimplyAtheistic

Yguy, you forget this was consensual sex. It is not like he raped her. There is no blame to be put on McDuffie and crazy people like you are the only ones who insist there is. You need to realize that sex is a normal thing and that it isn't to be put in shame like your fu#^%&* holy book tries to do.
Jake

McD

You are equivocating. Equivocating automatically puts you in the wrong. The responsibility of any pregnancy would have existed no matter what her age was. This is a wholly different thing altogether. Funny how you can see a difference when it helps your viewpoint ("there are mistakes and there are mistakes") but can't see the difference between the assumed shared responsibility of pregnancy and the responsibility of the fact that the relationship only happened because one party conspired against the other. Like I said, by your logic, her father was an accessory to this crime.

If she had gotten pregnant, I would have first learned that she was pregnant and subsequently learned that she was below the AoC. Would I be responsible for the pregnancy? Of course! Would I be responsible for the fact that she lied to get me in the sack? Of course not!

It is a false dichotomy you are setting up: Either I am responsible in the event of pregnancy and committing the immoral act of willfully having sex with a minor, or I am not responsible for either.

That is ludricrous on the face of it.

This statement is proof that you cannot admit you are wrong. I do not want to get into the events of that evening, but does the phrase "it takes two to tango" ring a bell? This is aside from the fact that using a consenting woman for your own instant gratification is not, necessarily, a mistake. If you think so, then discourse cannot continue as each of us will be necessarily prejudiced against the other.

This "using a woman" statement of yours also indicates that it is the sex part that bothers you, not the fact that she was a kid. No mention on your part that she was so intent on having sex with an adult that she procured a false ID and was in a bar. No mention on your part that she lied to me about her age and to her father about my age to maintain the conspiracy. Just one lie would not have worked. She had to tell both lies in order to continue with her deception.

Earlier, I said that your logic says that her father is an accessory, but your logic could also reveal that I am to blame for the fact that her father was lied to. You seem intent on blaming me for the whole thing.

You are also simply admitting that what you find offensive is that I had pre-marital sex. I have a hard time respecting your view based on that fact alone and I am likely to disagree with you just as a knee-jerk.

If anyone here thinks that pre-marital sex is not morally wrong, and yet thinks that I was wrong wants to take argue this guy's position, I will be happy to do so, but he has admitted that it was the 'sex' part to which he takes exception.