And of cause vice versa (just listening to a podcast of a 28 year old female teacher having sex with a 14 year old student - and the comments from some that he was lucky as the teacher was hot are appalling.
another hidden and sinister part of the pro life/republican agenda is keeping marriage legal between adult men and children. please repost and flood their social media NOW and ask why they support archaic laws that allow them to exploit children.
i’m a lvl 60 disabled, cis white male that confronted them ALONE at PP for two years until 01.17.25 and these are direct quotes:
“14 is the ideal age for girls to be married”
“we want the ‘victim’ and the ‘predator’ to form a bond for the sake of the baby”
“come here alone again, you die”
I mean, the legal jargon is itself written to be vague so that nobody can say someone isn't underage just because they're a month out from their eighteenth birthday, or something, but the legal jargon in its current state does itself downplay the issue. It should certainly be re-constructed.
Not disagreeing with the point, just musing on the problem and how to address it. If they were to use the word "children," some lawyer somewhere would probably use it as a semantic defense against a statutory rape case involving an older teenager, might even find a judge and jury that would buy it.
Semantics are a depressing aspect of the way laws are written and the way they're applied in practice. Simultaneously so meticulous that they're out-of-touch with the way people talk (which is why we need specialists to do anything with them), and difficult to adjust in the slightest.
In this case, the intent of the law's wording is to afford older teenagers the same legal protections as younger ones, even if colloquially they may not be referred to as "children," merely "minors" or "underage." The INTENT is to remove that debate from relevance to the conversation.
But in doing so, it sometimes (depending in part on local attitudes) has the inverse effect of placing younger minors on the legal level of older minors, when the intent is to place older minors on the level of younger ones. Does that make sense?
Yet if we were to divide the categories, it would open the door, legally, to whittle down protections on one because they "aren't the same as the other."
It's one of those maddening legal foibles that's tough to arbitrate. And so the language remains annoying.
There are many forms of propaganda. You can make something bad sound better using glossy words or glittering generalities. It is also a repetition of propaganda. Children and teenagers are not women anyone underage is a child, teenager, juvenile not a woman. Having sex with one is called rape. 1/2
Comments
They're all silent on two underage human traffickers entering the US
(Irony; only one is concerned, the Gov of FL - can you believe that)
“14 is the ideal age for girls to be married”
“we want the ‘victim’ and the ‘predator’ to form a bond for the sake of the baby”
“come here alone again, you die”
It's one of those maddening legal foibles that's tough to arbitrate. And so the language remains annoying.
https://makevisionclear.com/propaganda-techniques-used-in-advertising/
"Wanna",..ain't "is, was,..will ever be." that's just silly.
Every conservative accusation...