You're viewing a single thread.
I dunno what the reason for this poll is. Honestly, what do opinions matter for this?
Legally, yeah, that's something that can happen. Basically child marriage, which, with the consent of the parents, can happen.
The law is pretty clear on these things.
You might not like that, or disagree with it, and that's fine. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion on it. The fact is, the proposed agreement in this hypothetical is a private contract which, for the most part, is fine and acceptable under common law pretty much everywhere.
I think it's insane to allow parents to effectively force a child into this position, and that parents would ever agree to such a thing, or that anyone would want to in the first place. None of the motivations for this make sense to me. So personally, I wouldn't agree to nor propose anything like this (I'm a guy).
But I also recognise that any such private contract between a family and a would be husband or whatever, are outside of my control. I might not understand it, I may not agree with it, but as long as it's not breaking a law, I can't do shit about it. If anyone is bothered by this, and you fell strongly about making sure things like this don't happen, you will have to talk to your government and make the changes in law to forbid it.
IMO, legally, I don't care. If someone wants to put themselves into this situation, then fine. It doesn't really affect me. I don't feel strongly enough about it (given that everyone is consenting), that I feel that anything should change. I also feel like the vast majority of people would not agree to something like this, neither the children, nor their parents. So in my mind, anyone who would morally be okay with this, has made their decision and must live with the consequences of their choices. I certainly won't, so why would I care.
I'm just apathetic to people who willfully put themselves in these unusual and morally questionable scenarios.
I'll emphasize that my apathy is heavily dependent on consent on all sides, including and especially the consent of the child in the scenario. In my mind that consent must be informed consent, which would require that the child has an understanding of the acts they are agreeing to. IMO, the number of 14 year old persons who are sufficiently informed about intercourse to be able to be informed of what they are consenting to, is going to be an incredibly small number to begin with. Only in that context am I apathetic.
In pretty much every other scenario, I'm strongly against such an agreement until all parties are sufficiently informed to provide consent.
The fact is, the proposed agreement in this hypothetical is a private contract which, for the most part, is fine and acceptable under common law pretty much everywhere.
"Pretty much everywhere"?
Dude do you even know what "common law" means? There's basically one in Europe, the UK.
Secondly, you can't make contracts to void laws/avoid regulations set by laws. You can't make a private contract that someone agrees to work for you for less than the federal mandated minimum wage.
You can't make a contract saying you're selling someone to be a slave, as slavery is illegal in the US (unless you're put in prison, US industry strongly relies on prison slave labour).
You can't make a contract saying you allow someone to murder you. That person would still be trialed as a murderer.
IMO, legally, I don't care. If someone wants to put themselves into this situation, then fine. It doesn't really affect me.
I think it does, however indirectly. When the rich start getting more relaxed about buying people and treating them more as product than people.... it will affect us all.
You could get people to do absolutely inhumane shit if you took 10 million to a very poor country and just started egging people on. People would literally kill for just hundreds of dollars. With 10 million you could make some sort of mad max murderdome type of setup. Just have "private contracts" with everyone, and it's okay, right? No need to consider the morality in the slightest.
do you even know what "common law" means?
Yes. But apparently you don't.
Yes, the UK uses common law. Also, so do many current or former "Commonwealth", including, but not limited to, the USA.
Common law is why overturning Roe v. Wade made abortion bans possible. Roe v. Wade was the common law precedent that allowed for women to have the right to an abortion.
And no, contacts cannot overrule the law, whether from a law passed by the governing body, or by common law. This is why i essentially said, if you don't like it/agree with it, change the laws.
Make it illegal. Change the law to make it illegal.
Then, regardless of the contract, it is a crime.
As for the rich and any affect this might have on me.... The rich do this shit, not to dehumanize us "Poor's", but because they've already dehumanized us. I don't think this is a cause, this is an effect.
But I'll give you an upvote for sharing your opinion. I'll fight anyone who tries to take your opinion away from you.
Oh you went from "pretty much everywhere" to "well, uh, many commonwealth countries".
You sure you didn't have to go check what it meant, and then you were shocked at how many of what we'd consider "developed countries" actually do not use common law?
In the EU, only Ireland still has common law.
All others use civil law. And I'm sure you didn't know that. :)
IMO, legally, I don't care. If someone wants to put themselves into this situation, then fine. It doesn't really affect me.
Why... would it affect you. What on earth are you talking about?
You know, one guy murdering another guy over a pack of raisins doesn't affect you, but I have no earthly idea why this should stop you from caring it happened.
For me it's about freedom.
Freedom has limits that most don't really talk about. To me, the limits of freedom exist where your freedom and the freedom of others intersect. If your freedom is impacting the ability for someone else to enjoy their freedoms, then it needs to be a matter settled by law.
Murdering someone kinda removes that person's ability to exercise their freedoms.
Someone getting freaky behind closed doors, doesn't affect anyone else's freedoms.
Both individuals engaged in that act should be free to consent to the act, and revoke that consent at any time.
I'll reiterate, this assumes informed consent, not implied or assumed consent. Again, reiterating: children that have no understanding of sexual acts, or what they entail, cannot provide informed consent because they do not understand what they are consenting to, or what the ramifications are of that consent.
Does that clear things up a bit?
Both individuals engaged in that act should be free to consent to the act, and revoke that consent at any time.
A 14 year old.
Again, reiterating: children that have no understanding of sexual acts, or what they entail, [...]
I like how you keep putting up these disclaimers like they're supposed to absolve you of being a weirdo, but you keep building in these little exceptions for "very mature" children.
Mystik, how much the child knows about sex does not matter. That's not why it's illegal.
The law makes it legal or illegal.
You miss the point.
The fact is, the law specifically allows for this shit. Holy crap people.
The judicial system is so fucked that you can get parental consent and do whatever you want with the underage person. That's fucked.
The laws are fucked.
Now that I've pointed it out, and you bozos don't know enough about the law you live under, you think I agree it should be allowed. I don't.
It's allowed.
I don't agree with it.
It's it clear yet? Fix your laws. Period.
The fact is, the proposed agreement in this hypothetical is a private contract which, for the most part, is fine and acceptable under common law pretty much everywhere.
Uh. No. That's not correct. That's not even remotely correct.
You can't have a private contract for an act that is illegal. This isn't a contract for marriage. This is a contract for sex. Moreover, it's a contract for sex with a person that can not legally consent to sex.
WTF is wrong with you?
You also can't legally enter a contract of any kind at that age.
This isn't completely true, children actually can be married at that age including to adults in some states. There's also no such thing as statutory rape between spouses in this circumstance. The kid's spouse also usually become their guardian, so they cannot get divorced without the adult spouse's permission in many places.
Ok, I forgot marriage was a contract.
That's alright, I kinda used your comment to spread awareness about child marriage in the US. I want people to know so they can vote to ban it. Overwhelmingly most voters in the US do want to ban child marriage but they don't even realize it exists.
Hey, it's a good cause. I'm not mad about it. Child marriage is a disgrace and people should be made aware that it still exists and who it is that is fighting for it to continue.
This isn't strictly true, in some states you can marry kids. And they make an exception for statutory rape if it occurs between spouses.
The legality of paying for intimate acts varies wildly from country to country and even in the USA, from state to state.
I make no judgement about what is considered legal or not in any given area.
I'm mostly thinking about the common law of marrying off young persons. In many places the lower limit on how old you must be to marry, is shocking. Marrying a 14 year old isn't unheard of, even in developed countries. I just don't draw a significant distinction between being married at such a young age, and being paid for intercourse at the same age. Marriage at that age may be arguably more "legal" depending on the jurisdiction, but in my mind, you're not marrying a 14 year old for their hobbies, or personality. The only reason, again, that I can think of, where someone would propose to be married to someone so young, is if the person proposing the marriage is a similar age, or if they want to have sexual relations with someone who is that young.
So for me the line is blurred and I often conflate the point in my mind.
More to the point, statutory rape generally requires that the parents are opposed to the sexual acts. Otherwise, charges are generally not pressed against the offender. Again, this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. To that end, if you have the written consent of the parents to engage in sexual acts with someone who is below the age where they can legally make such decisions, then it might be legal, again, depending on the jurisdiction.
This is entirely, and completely commentary from a neutral standpoint. Personally, I think anyone who would seek such an arrangement needs to see a therapist, or be locked up. Morally, I don't agree with it, but often, the law does not conform to my sense of morality.
I'm just saying, I understand that some places allow for these kinds of contracts to exist. I'm not saying I agree with it at all, because I don't. I can't imagine any situation where a father, or mother, would willingly subject their child to that situation, unless they were truly and utterly desperate.... But the matter of their desperation for money to survive, is an entirely different discussion.
Tl;Dr: This pedo thinks kids can consent to have sex with him.
Oh, you misunderstand.
By expressing an understanding of the legalities of it, and speaking from a neutral viewpoint, plus some deficiency in reading comprehension (you clearly didn't read the whole post), you seem to have assumed that my statements meant I agreed with any of the laws I was discussing.
I don't.
Let me put it simply (and I said this in my previous post, more or less): no adult person should be seeking this kind of "deal" or "relationship" with someone who is under the age of consent.
I recognise that with parental permission you can attain concent to (at the very least) marry an underage person. I don't agree that people this young should be allowed to be married or perform sexual acts even with the consent of the parents. The law disagrees.
I don't like it, and I don't have to.
My post was largely a commentary on how fucked up the legal system is for allowing this.
You want change? Pass new laws.
You should consider offing your self
Dude I think the proper nomenclature is "unalive"