Colorado woman faces no jail time for statutory rape, pregnancy by 13-year-old boy

Yeah I understand. According to the law, statutory rape is a form of rape.

In the U.S., yes, and perhaps in most other countries. Ofcourse, the age of consent varies depending on what country or even what state you're in and then there's the issue of the age differential playing a part as well.

Rape can be considered as a thief of innocence.

From what I've seen, rape seems to constitute all forms of unlawful sex. I think calling it as such would be best- the problem with the word rape is that a lot of people associate it exclusively with forcible rape, making it a word with too many connotations. As to unlawful sex being a theft of innocence, the other word for innocence is ignorance or a lack of knowledge. I think we can all agree that most people who have engaged in sex have found that it can be a very enjoyable thing if the circumstances are right. It can be argued that society regulates what constitutes lawful sexual interactions in order to avoid people having negative experiences. The fact that countries and even states don't always agree on what the age of consent or maximum age differentials should be suggests that there is still work to be done in this regard. I personally think that there should be something akin to a license to engage in sexual activities, something like a driver's license. Like a driver's license, there could be a minimum age requirement as to when you can apply for one. I came up with this idea a long time ago and I know that it's had its detractors, but it would address an issue that is seldom looked at in any depth, which is the issue of -informed- consent.

My point really is that how is it possible for this woman to "rape" the boy if she doesn't even have a penis? LOL.

The dictionary definitions of rape don't limit themselves to the older party doing the penetrating- simply having intercourse with someone below the age of consent is enough to meet the definition of statutory rape, which we've agreed is a form of rape according to the law in the U.S., and defined this way in at least 2 well known U.S. dictionaries as well.

I think we probably agree that the term statutory rape can be misleading, due to many thinking of rape as someone penetrating or at least forcing someone else to have sex with them. I firmly believe that it would make much more sense if sex where one party isn't allowed to give consent would simply be called unlawful sex- unlawful sex can be all sorts of things, but it's not nearly as charged a word as rape.
 
Lmfao that means I'm spot. You fucking retarded queer

You are spot? And I'm a fucking retarded queer? :laugh: When did you realize that your family hates you and that no one who knows you cares about you? You have wasted an entire human life, have nothing to show for it, and are dumber than dog shit. I would pity you, but the world will be a better place when you die soon. Smooches!
 
Celibacy is not a virtue; it's a defect.

It's neither.
It's an option with no moral polarity either way.

I think the truth is a bit more nuanced than that. Here's the The American Heritage Dictionary's first 3 definitions of morality:

**
•noun The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

•noun A system or collection of ideas of right and wrong conduct.

•noun Virtuous conduct.

**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/morality

The issue is, who determines what is "right or good conduct"? Religions and governments certainly attempt to do so, but the fact that the world's religions and governments have disagreements as to what is right or good conduct makes it clear that what is right and good is not always clear.

I personally subscribe to a line voiced in by Spoc in Star Trek but not actually originating from him:

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

It may be that Aristotle was the first to come up with a line that may have eventually morphed into the one above:

**
"Even supposing the chief good to be eventually the aim for the individual as for the state, that of the state is evidently of greater and more fundamental importance both to attain and to preserve. The securing of one individual's good is cause for rejoicing, but to secure the good of a nation or of a city-state is nobler and more divine."
**

A lot of words, but it still leaves things open as to what is actually the best for a given nation or the world at large when it comes to regulating sexual interactions.

I think it may be best to start simple: if someone in a sexual interaction is negatively impacted, try to avoid this from happening again.

I can see the appeal of picking an age of consent and some age differentials in the various jurisdictions in the world as a way of resolving what is in fact a much thornier issue.

Case in point- just because 2 people can legally consent to a sexual interaction doesn't mean that they will see that sexual interaction as a good one. Conversely, just because 2 people -can't- legally consent to a sexual interaction doesn't mean that they will find the sexual interaction to be a negative experience.

That being said, I do strongly believe that the law has a way of -making- interactions both positive or negative based on various factors. Making an interaction illegal can have consequences all its own regardless of whether the sexual interaction would have been fine were this not the case.

I imagine I'm not the only one who has seen at least part of a film that came out back in 1980 called Blue Lagoon. It was panneed by critics, but there's a line from a critic that I think is revealing:

**
In a retrospective review for RogerEbert.com, critic Abbey Bender wrote: "When it comes to the depiction of burgeoning sexuality, 'The Blue Lagoon' wants to have it both ways ... with puberty making itself known through rather obvious dialogue. Sexual discovery is here the natural outcome of the storybook situation. So yes, the soft-focus montages of teen flesh are gratuitous but the film presents it all as innocent—these kids don't even know what sex is! They don't even know how a baby is made! They learn it the hard way, obviously. By couching sexuality in primitive purity, 'The Blue Lagoon' gets away with perversion that would likely be even more controversial today".[7]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Lagoon_(1980_film)

I think Abbey was clearly aware that there was quite possibly a theme that being sexual before one is an adult may not be a bad thing and it seems clear she's against that.

One way or another, children will grow up to be adults. While I have not and perhaps may never have kids myself, I think it makes a lot more sense to try to teach them that sexual interactions can be negative but that they can also be positive and that instead of forbidding sexual interactions (and where do sexual interactions begin in any case?), to just caution to go slow and to try to encourage one's kids to be forthcoming with what they're doing.
 
Sex Karens


Why is sex such a big deal that only a mature person can engage in it? This is so Puritanical and obsessively intrusive in people's personal lives. They really hate any kind of enjoyment; they love to make up moral crimes in order to inflict pain and suffering and revel in divine frigidity. Celibacy is not a virtue; it's a defect.

Syphilis is a defect.
 
Jammin' Benjamin


Nobody had a problem with Mrs. Robinson seducing The Graduate., or the implied possibility that she had the hots for him ever since he reached puberty.

Good point. I just checked Wikipedia's page on the film and I certainly saw no criticism of her seduction there.

As to the way society differentiates between an adult woman having sex with a young male and an adult man having sex with a younger female, I think it comes down to the fact that it's females who get pregnant, not men, and females that tend to take care of any offspring alone if a relationship doesn't work out. Put another way, males tend to just get the pleasurable part of a sexual interaction with an adult woman and tend to skip out on what could arguably be thought of as the most serious consequences of any potential pregnancy, namely the pregnancy and taking card of any resulting child/children. They'd also probably skip out on child support in cases like this for obvious reasons.

I'm sure it still has some negative consequences, especially in the case where a pregnancy results, but not nearly as severe as if it's a young female instead of a young male.
 
Lefty seems to have a hard time coming to terms with the fact that statutory rape is legally defined as a type of rape. I certainly don't think it -should- be defined as a type of rape, but rather as a type of unlawful sex, with rape being one type, and sex with someone under the age of consent in one's jurisdiction as being another type. That way, we would be able to more easily differentiate between those who were forced into having sex and those who wanted to have sex with someone but weren't legally allowed to do so. But I accept that legally speaking, it is defined as a type of rape, and that at least 2 well known dictionaries define it this was as well.

If a guy goes out with a girl and she gets drunk but she tells him no and he has sex with her anyway. Is it rape.

Definitely. From Wikipedia's definition of the term:

**
Rape is a type of sexual assault involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without their consent.
**

If the female says no, she's explicitly not consenting.
 
No, I asked you if teenage boys going through puberty meet your clear thinking standard.

Sex Karens

Why is sex such a big deal that only a mature person can engage in it? This is so Puritanical and obsessively intrusive in people's personal lives. They really hate any kind of enjoyment; they love to make up moral crimes in order to inflict pain and suffering and revel in divine frigidity. Celibacy is not a virtue; it's a defect.

I -kind- of agree with Nifty's response to your bit on celibacy, which is that it has no moral polarity, but I also said that it was more complicated than that. If you'd like to see my complete response to Nifty's post, it's in Post #323.

As to why society prohibits a good portion of minors from sexual interactions, I would say it's more complicated than you're suggesting. That being said, I do believe that a lot of the time, these prohibitions cause more harm than good. I read a really good book that delves into these harms called "Harmful to Minors", written by Judith Levine. It had a hard time getting published. Quoting Wikipedia:

**
Because of its controversial nature and content, it was nearly impossible for Levine to find a publisher—one prospective publisher even called it "radioactive." University of Minnesota Press eventually agreed to publish the book, despite cries of outrage from the right wing of Minnesota's political establishment.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmful_to_Minors

An interesting bit of information, again from the above link:

**
The foreword was written by former United States Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, who resigned after suggesting that masturbation be destigmatized as a means of preventing young people from engaging in riskier forms of sexual activity.[1]
**

Just checked out one of the reviews of the book. Quoting from it:

**
In the furor over the book, most commentators have missed Levine's main point: "Sex is not ipso facto harmful to minors." In fact, "America's drive to protect kids from sex is protecting them from nothing. Instead, often it is harming them."

Despite what critics contend, "Harmful to Minors" is not about pedophilia. It tackles a wide range of issues including censorship, statutory rape laws, abstinence-only sex education, abortion, gender, AIDS, and child welfare. The latter issue, which raises questions beyond sexuality about how our society provides for its neediest children, is "the most important one in the book," Levine told AlterNet, and "the real reason the right is against me." But the inflammatory issue of child-adult sex continues to draw the headlines.

Why does the proposition that youth deserves sexual autonomy, pleasure, and privacy seem so radical? In the 1970s, the sexual revolution was in full swing and the idea that children and teens were sexual beings was accepted, at least among progressives. Books such as Heidi Handman and Peter Brennan's "Sex Handbook: Information and Help for Minors" and Sol Gordon's "You!" showed respect for young people and their ability to make their own sexual decisions.

For the past two decades, though, the religious right has been winning the war against comprehensive sex education, access to abortion and contraception, and the sexual autonomy of young people. By the late 1980s, Gordon had shifted his advice toward parents with "Raising a Child Conservatively in a Sexually Permissive World," and child pornography laws made it illegal to even possess a copy of "Show Me!," an award-winning sex education book for children.

What happened? Levine does not place all the blame on the right, acknowledging the role cultural feminists played in imposing a regime of overwhelming sexual protectionism.

"The right won, but the mainstream let it," she says. "Comprehensive sex educators had the upper hand in the 1970s, and starting in the 1980s, they allowed their enemies to seize more and more territory, until the right controlled the law, the language, and the cultural consensus."

Add to this the fact that the sexual liberationists of yesterday are parents today, facing all the typical parental fears. As the joke goes, a conservative is a liberal with a teenage daughter. Many people feel a pervasive sense of dread about children and sex, but as Levine notes, things are not appreciably worse now than they were in the past. Children's exposure to sexual images is hardly new, and research indicates that rates of teen sexual activity are not "galloping upward."

**

Source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120711222625/http://www.alternet.org/story/12960
 
I think the truth is a bit more nuanced than that. Here's the The American Heritage Dictionary's first 3 definitions of morality:

**
•noun The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

•noun A system or collection of ideas of right and wrong conduct.

•noun Virtuous conduct.

**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/morality

The issue is, who determines what is "right or good conduct"? Religions and governments certainly attempt to do so, but the fact that the world's religions and governments have disagreements as to what is right or good conduct makes it clear that what is right and good is not always clear.

I personally subscribe to a line voiced in by Spoc in Star Trek but not actually originating from him:

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

It may be that Aristotle was the first to come up with a line that may have eventually morphed into the one above:

**
"Even supposing the chief good to be eventually the aim for the individual as for the state, that of the state is evidently of greater and more fundamental importance both to attain and to preserve. The securing of one individual's good is cause for rejoicing, but to secure the good of a nation or of a city-state is nobler and more divine."
**

A lot of words, but it still leaves things open as to what is actually the best for a given nation or the world at large when it comes to regulating sexual interactions.

I think it may be best to start simple: if someone in a sexual interaction is negatively impacted, try to avoid this from happening again.

I can see the appeal of picking an age of consent and some age differentials in the various jurisdictions in the world as a way of resolving what is in fact a much thornier issue.

Case in point- just because 2 people can legally consent to a sexual interaction doesn't mean that they will see that sexual interaction as a good one. Conversely, just because 2 people -can't- legally consent to a sexual interaction doesn't mean that they will find the sexual interaction to be a negative experience.

That being said, I do strongly believe that the law has a way of -making- interactions both positive or negative based on various factors. Making an interaction illegal can have consequences all its own regardless of whether the sexual interaction would have been fine were this not the case.

I imagine I'm not the only one who has seen at least part of a film that came out back in 1980 called Blue Lagoon. It was panneed by critics, but there's a line from a critic that I think is revealing:

**
In a retrospective review for RogerEbert.com, critic Abbey Bender wrote: "When it comes to the depiction of burgeoning sexuality, 'The Blue Lagoon' wants to have it both ways ... with puberty making itself known through rather obvious dialogue. Sexual discovery is here the natural outcome of the storybook situation. So yes, the soft-focus montages of teen flesh are gratuitous but the film presents it all as innocent—these kids don't even know what sex is! They don't even know how a baby is made! They learn it the hard way, obviously. By couching sexuality in primitive purity, 'The Blue Lagoon' gets away with perversion that would likely be even more controversial today".[7]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Lagoon_(1980_film)

I think Abbey was clearly aware that there was quite possibly a theme that being sexual before one is an adult may not be a bad thing and it seems clear she's against that.

One way or another, children will grow up to be adults. While I have not and perhaps may never have kids myself, I think it makes a lot more sense to try to teach them that sexual interactions can be negative but that they can also be positive and that instead of forbidding sexual interactions (and where do sexual interactions begin in any case?), to just caution to go slow and to try to encourage one's kids to be forthcoming with what they're doing.

Well, that's giving the subject more gravitas than I ever have, but it's nonetheless a view.
 
I think the truth is a bit more nuanced than that. Here's the The American Heritage Dictionary's first 3 definitions of morality:

**
•noun The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

•noun A system or collection of ideas of right and wrong conduct.

•noun Virtuous conduct.

**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/morality

The issue is, who determines what is "right or good conduct"? Religions and governments certainly attempt to do so, but the fact that the world's religions and governments have disagreements as to what is right or good conduct makes it clear that what is right and good is not always clear.

I personally subscribe to a line voiced in by Spoc in Star Trek but not actually originating from him:

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

It may be that Aristotle was the first to come up with a line that may have eventually morphed into the one above:

**
"Even supposing the chief good to be eventually the aim for the individual as for the state, that of the state is evidently of greater and more fundamental importance both to attain and to preserve. The securing of one individual's good is cause for rejoicing, but to secure the good of a nation or of a city-state is nobler and more divine."
**

A lot of words, but it still leaves things open as to what is actually the best for a given nation or the world at large when it comes to regulating sexual interactions.

I think it may be best to start simple: if someone in a sexual interaction is negatively impacted, try to avoid this from happening again.

I can see the appeal of picking an age of consent and some age differentials in the various jurisdictions in the world as a way of resolving what is in fact a much thornier issue.

Case in point- just because 2 people can legally consent to a sexual interaction doesn't mean that they will see that sexual interaction as a good one. Conversely, just because 2 people -can't- legally consent to a sexual interaction doesn't mean that they will find the sexual interaction to be a negative experience.

That being said, I do strongly believe that the law has a way of -making- interactions both positive or negative based on various factors. Making an interaction illegal can have consequences all its own regardless of whether the sexual interaction would have been fine were this not the case.

I imagine I'm not the only one who has seen at least part of a film that came out back in 1980 called Blue Lagoon. It was panneed by critics, but there's a line from a critic that I think is revealing:

**
In a retrospective review for RogerEbert.com, critic Abbey Bender wrote: "When it comes to the depiction of burgeoning sexuality, 'The Blue Lagoon' wants to have it both ways ... with puberty making itself known through rather obvious dialogue. Sexual discovery is here the natural outcome of the storybook situation. So yes, the soft-focus montages of teen flesh are gratuitous but the film presents it all as innocent—these kids don't even know what sex is! They don't even know how a baby is made! They learn it the hard way, obviously. By couching sexuality in primitive purity, 'The Blue Lagoon' gets away with perversion that would likely be even more controversial today".[7]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Lagoon_(1980_film)

I think Abbey was clearly aware that there was quite possibly a theme that being sexual before one is an adult may not be a bad thing and it seems clear she's against that.

One way or another, children will grow up to be adults. While I have not and perhaps may never have kids myself, I think it makes a lot more sense to try to teach them that sexual interactions can be negative but that they can also be positive and that instead of forbidding sexual interactions (and where do sexual interactions begin in any case?), to just caution to go slow and to try to encourage one's kids to be forthcoming with what they're doing.

Well, that's giving the subject more gravitas than I ever have, but it's nonetheless a view.

After a bit of reflection, I think you're essentially right in that one's celibacy status itself has no moral polarity. The issue is -why- one is celibate. Another important factor, we don't always choose one's celibacy status ourselves. Most would agree that not having the choice to be celibate is a bad thing, but it seems few people consider the possibility that not having the choice to have -had- sex can also have serious detrimental consequences, especially as time passes. While I didn't exactly plan to end my celibacy when I did, I certainly made the choice to end it myself. I certainly didn't want to extend it past the age of 20 that I was at when I did end it. It was with a prostitute. I explain the exact circumstances in post #101.

How many people ended their celibacy long after they would have preferred to have ended it, either because of a lack of a way that they would find acceptable to end it? I was fortunate enough to be in a situation where I had enough money and a low risk place to pay someone to 'help me out' with my celibacy issue, as well as a moral structure that found this way of ending it acceptable, but many may not find such circumstances themselves.

There's another issue that this thread hasn't really touched, which is the fact that not all sexual interactions involve penetration of an orifice, but these types of things are rarely talked about other than the rather ambiguous "good touch" and "bad touch". For that matter, the criteria for what constitutes "good touch" and "bad touch" is murky at best.
 
I confess to having known several thirty-year old women I would have enjoyed "knowing" as an adolescent, and I believe that my experience is thankfully much more common than yours.

the fact that you wanted to fuck women more than twice your age 60 years ago is not something to brag about.

Nifty's revelation didn't strike me as bragging, just as stating something that he felt as a boy himself. I myself freely admit that I also would have loved to have had more sexual interactions as a minor, both with females that were my age at the time as well as adult females. As I've made clear in post #82, just because I would have desired it doesn't mean I would have done it though. For those who don't want to read post 82, even as a kid I was aware that if an older female were to do something with me, they could get in trouble and so I actually declined putting myself in a position where an older female might have engaged in a sexual interaction in part to avoid them getting into trouble for it.

I have responded to posts directed at me, nothing more. Your myriad issues and "investment" in this thread suggest that you should be legally prevented from interacting with children.

I -hope- you don't still feel this way about Nifty, at least in regards to the subject of this thread. I suspect much of your anger towards him here has to do with what he said in post #4. I think even Nifty might agree that he made some assumptions in that post, but I don't think those assumptions are necessarily mistaken, at least not initially. I think at this point, the firestorm of this controversy has probably affected anyone even remotely involved with the boy. I personally hope that as time goes on, we learn more about the boy's feelings on all of this. Right now, all we know of the boy for whom this firestorm is all about is that he had been living with Andrea and regarded her as a maternal figure, had been living with her for several weeks. It may also be that he was the one that told a therapist that he'd had sexual relations with Serrano. From an article I found on the subject:

**
As per News Au, Andrea Serrano is a woman from Fountain, Colorado, who had reportedly been living with her teenage victim for a period of time. While officials have not disclosed how she sustained herself at the time of the assault, she was reportedly regarded by the victim as a surrogate mother figure.

The arrest affidavit read:
"he (the victim) looked at her (Serrano) like a mother figure and even called her mom before."

According to Colorado authorities, Serrano was arrested after a therapist discovered that the relationship between her and the then 13-year-old had involved inappropriate intimacy.

Upon being arrested on July 5, Serrano reportedly told investigators that the teen had lived with her for several weeks and that she was pregnant with his child.

**

Source:
Who is Andrea Serrano? 31-year-old Colorado woman who had a child with a 13-year-old avoids jail term | sportskeeda.com
 
Last edited:
Nifty's revelation didn't strike me as bragging, just as stating something that he felt as a boy himself. I myself freely admit that I also would have loved to have had more sexual interactions as a minor, both with females that were my age at the time as well as adult females. As I've made clear in post #82, just because I would have desired it doesn't mean I would have done it though. For those who don't want to read post 82, even as a kid I was aware that if an older female were to do something with me, they could get in trouble and so I actually declined putting myself in a position where an older female might have engaged in a sexual interaction in part to avoid them getting into trouble for it. ...
Proof you were never a 15-year-old American boy.

Where did you grow up, Phoenyx? What country? State?
 
Nifty's revelation didn't strike me as bragging, just as stating something that he felt as a boy himself. I myself freely admit that I also would have loved to have had more sexual interactions as a minor, both with females that were my age at the time as well as adult females. As I've made clear in post #82, just because I would have desired it doesn't mean I would have done it though. For those who don't want to read post 82, even as a kid I was aware that if an older female were to do something with me, they could get in trouble and so I actually declined putting myself in a position where an older female might have engaged in a sexual interaction in part to avoid them getting into trouble for it.

Proof you were never a 15-year-old American boy.

First of all, I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that I was never a 15-year-old American boy from the statement you bolded. Secondly, I have never claimed I was American. I believe I even told you once straight out that out that I wasn't.

Where did you grow up, Phoenyx? What country? State?

I've spent most of my life in Canada. You probably could have figured that out if you'd read post #82.
 
First of all, I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that I was never a 15-year-old American boy from the statement you bolded.

Secondly, I have never claimed I was American. I believe I even told you once straight out that out that I wasn't.

I've spent most of my life in Canada. You probably could have figured that out if you'd read post #82.
Because I used to be one. You? Where did you grow up, Phoenyx? Is it a difficult question for you to answer?

I noticed. :)

Which explains why you don't know shit about American boys.
 
First of all, I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that I was never a 15-year-old American boy from the statement you bolded.

Because I used to be one.

Alright, so what about your having been a 15 year old American boy made you think that I wasn't one?


Secondly, I have never claimed I was American. I believe I even told you once straight out that out that I wasn't.

I've spent most of my life in Canada. You probably could have figured that out if you'd read post #82.

Where did you grow up, Phoenyx?

I spent most of my time growing up in Canada.
 
Back
Top