FL teen "sex criminal" for consensual relationship

Post Reply New Topic

That she is 18 is completely immaterial. What is material under Florida law is that the younger is under 16. It was just as illegal at the age of 17 as it is at 18.

I don't necessarily believe in saving oneself for marriage but I would prefer it to be in the context of a committed relationship.

Remarkably similar to “16-year-olds can have sex as long as nobody can stop them”.



Not really. They’re only going to have it if they can.



The concept of waiting till marriage is ancient and comes from a time when people married much younger than they do today, so there wasn’t such a huge gap between their bodies becoming sexually mature and they finally being allowed to satisfy their urges. Besides, a woman wasn’t a free citizen, like she is today, but always depended on a man, so she was treated like merchandise, and her hymen was her security seal. This doesn’t make sense anymore. There’s a reason why male virginity was never prized nearly so much—more often than not, it was and still is an object of scorn.

Keeping some ancestral rules while the surrounding social circumstances change is bound to create an ever more strained scenario, where most people will sooner or later break the rules, except for the few individuals who can’t.



So don’t let them party with anyone of the opposite sex (unless they’re bi- or homosexual, of course)—problem solved!

I don’t, but this is beside the point. I’m talking about people who apparently would like to stop them, but act as if it were impossible.



So you don’t let them party unless you’re going to be present. Don’t let them go anywhere but in controlled environments where they’d never meet a potential sexual partner, or as much as a potential boyfriend or girlfriend. If you don’t have much time for overseeing them, that’s all the more a reason for not letting them party very often. This will also make it less likely for other youngsters to want anything to do with them, because they’d get fed up of seeing them so seldom outside school.



Guard it well and punish them effectively if they manage to break your rules. You can also keep them busy with housework, so, between it and studying, they don’t have much time for anything else, let alone if they’d have to fight you first.

This works even better if you manage to make them aware at an early age that education is in their own best interest, and then start taking big chunks of their time with random chores, so they struggle to meet deadlines with their homework and preparing exams in time. Make them feel like they can’t have their own plans, because they don’t know in advance how much time you’ll be taking from them, and they’ll be afraid of doing anything other than study or obey you, because that’d hurt their grades, and, remember, they’ve already given up any other personal goals in life. I can attest from firsthand experience that this works like a charm.

You could also warn them that if they attempt to have sex, you’ll deny them any education other than the legal bare minimum, so they reach adulthood having no useful skills whatsoever to make a living, and immediately kick them out when they turn 18. Oh, and no going out anymore, either, so they don’t develop many social skills and thus they’re even more dependent on you.



There are countries where sex outside marriage is always illegal (no need for an age of consent!), and I’m not sure they have overcrowded prisons. But this is a matter of the state meddling with private affairs. Parents can decide for themselves what to do about this.



Of course you would. There are simply so many things parents can do, I think it’s pretty much the other way round: if they have sex, it’s because you’ve helped them have it.



I wouldn’t. I don’t think preventing them from having sex is about doing them any good, but about satisfying a primal tendency to repress sexually those who depend on you. In the wild, being sexually mature used to mean you’re also ready to fend for yourself completely on your own. It’s also natural for alpha males of many species not to let lesser males approach the females. So those who want to keep their children sexually repressed for as long as possible should be consistent and not hesitate to be indeed repressive, especially in a society where they have more power than ever to do so, despite all the modern ideas about sexual freedom, because it used to be easier to stop depending on your parents at an earlier age.

How much later? Do you agree with the “put it off as long as possible” view after all?

A sexual predator deserves no better treatment than a prison sentence and a lifetime as a registered sex offender. An 18-year old is an adult; a 15-year old is a child. Sex between them - consensual or not - is a crime. Deal with it!

If the offender were a man, and the victim were a girl, then you can bet that WP would be in an uproar in every forum. There should be no special favor given to a predator just because she's a woman - she deserves the same treatment given to a man who commits the same crime.

A sexual predator deserves no better treatment than a prison sentence and a lifetime as a registered sex offender. An 18-year old is an adult; a 15-year old is a child. Sex between them - consensual or not - is a crime. Deal with it!

If the offender were a man, and the victim were a girl, then you can bet that WP would be in an uproar in every forum. There should be no special favor given to a predator just because she's a woman - she deserves the same treatment given to a man who commits the same crime.

What's funny is if the 18 year old was male (gay or straight), people would be calling to lock him up. Since she's a lesbian, however, it's a "gay rights issue" or something... People are such hypocrites.

I guess I was not clear on my main point.

Kaitlyn's parents knew that her relationship, once she turned eighteen, and knowing that they were having 'consensual sex', could lead to legal action by the parents who were already doing everything that they could to force termination of the relationship.

They knowingly allowed things to continue, knowing that these people were going to do ANYTHING to stop this.

If Kaitlyn were a boy, ...

The law about the difference in age would have applied if the younger girl was at least 16 years old. She was, however, 15 years old and cannot legally consent to sex.

Thats why I said the younger girl was but a couple months shy of being within the legal age gap. The state is forced to continue based on a technicality and the homophobic parents knew it. They're doing it just because they don't accept the daughter is lesbian..if it was a guy they wouldn't be doing this.

That's where the problem is. If Kaitlyn were a boy this would not have been an issue for her parents. The parents of the younger girl are maliciously ruining the older girl's life just because they cannot accept their daughter is lesbian. That's IT.

And that is why any judge would throw away this case in a split second.

The law does stipulate that there can be a few years separation between 18 and a minor if they were in a relationship before the 18yr old turned 18. The problem is that the younger girl is barely a few month UNDER that age gap.

Its a silly situation where the older girl just turns 18 and a few months later the younger one would be of an age the law allows such relationship to be... but the homophobic parents of the younger one jumped on the chance to take legal action.

The sad thing is, because of that month or two gap, the parents are able to sue this 18yr old and devastate her life with a sexual predator label on her record. It's disgusting.

According to an arrest affidavit obtained by CBS affiliate WTSP, the girls began dating in November 2012, when Kaitlyn Hunt was 18 and the other girl was 14. In a news conference Monday, Indian River County Sheriff Deryl Loar said that age difference, not sexual orientation, determined prosecution of the high school senior.

"If this was an 18-year-old male and that was a 14-year-old girl, it would have been prosecuted the same way," Loar said.

To give more context:



Apparently, while she was under 18 years old she was still committing a third-degree felony, as of 5.d, and when she turned 18 it became a second-degree felony, according to 5.c.2 and to 4.a. So legally she is indeed in a bad position.

But had this happened in Texas, there would have been nothing wrong in this. In my humble opinion, those Florida laws need revising. And Fnord, had this happened in Texas, where it is legal, what would be your thoughts about the issue?

I guess I was not clear on my main point.

Kaitlyn's parents knew that her relationship, once she turned eighteen, and knowing that they were having 'consensual sex', could lead to legal action by the parents who were already doing everything that they could to force termination of the relationship.

They knowingly allowed things to continue, knowing that these people were going to do ANYTHING to stop this.

If Kaitlyn were a boy, maybe they would have sent him to military school until the girl turned eighteen...I don't know, but my analogy to pot smoking was this; whether or not a parent agrees with a law, if they know that their child is knowingly, repeatedly breaking that law, AND they do nothing, that kid can be arrested.

The point was made regarding the creation of a 'Romeo and Juliet' law....were Kaitlyn's parents taking steps to make this happen?

Had they had a sit-down talk with their daughter's girlfriend, and strongly suggested that she might take steps to become an emancipated minor, therefore free to move in to their home, if they are that supportive of the relationship?

If your kid is tap-dancing on the highway, you do not wait until you see a car coming to try to get them off of the road!


Sylkat