RICHMOND, Va. - The state is posting billboards with messages such as "Isn't she a little young?" as part of a campaign to dissuade men from having sex with underage girls.
The campaign is aimed at reducing the number of young girls who have children with older men, the Virginia Department of Health said Monday.
In 1999 and 2000 in Virginia, men over 18 were responsible for 219 births involving girls who were 13 and 14, the department said.
Messages such as "Isn't she a little young?" and "Sex with a minor, don't go there" also appear on posters, coasters and napkins in bars, restaurants and stores in five cities.
"We encourage adult men to talk to their peers and discourage them from pursuing teenagers. What they are doing is unhealthy and against the law," said Robert Franklin, a health department official.
I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Alabama starts a "Don't have sex with your sister" campaign.
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest "Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
219 births in the entire state isn't really that bad. With such a small number of men involved, I doubt such an advertising campaign would do anything. You have to be pretty sick in the head to knock up a 14 year old, so I doubt seeing a billboard will go far towards changing their mind.
The most basic assumption about the world is that it does not contradict itself.
Wicked Pilot wrote:219 births in the entire state isn't really that bad. With such a small number of men involved, I doubt such an advertising campaign would do anything. You have to be pretty sick in the head to knock up a 14 year old, so I doubt seeing a billboard will go far towards changing their mind.
There's a shitload of sick fuckers out there,sadly most of them are old fart in their late 40s up to their 60s.
Jerry Orbach 1935 2004 Admiral Valdemar~You know you've fucked up when Wacky Races has more realistic looking vehicles than your own.
Wicked Pilot wrote:219 births in the entire state isn't really that bad. With such a small number of men involved, I doubt such an advertising campaign would do anything. You have to be pretty sick in the head to knock up a 14 year old, so I doubt seeing a billboard will go far towards changing their mind.
1 birth in the state is too much. 13 year olds? Jesus!
The wisdom of PA:
-Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad
Why would a pedophile be dissuaded by a billboard?
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet
"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert
"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
We have similar commercials here. All promoting against the child slave trade. Like your one, it's utterly confusing.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"
- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist
"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin
I'm pretty sure Micheal Jackson wouldn't be swayed by a billboard. Nothing short of unanimous dissaproval from the Elephant Man's bones, Blanket, and Gary Coleman's stool sample would keep him from molesting children.(/forced joke)
Anyway, I say it's a novel concept, but it's going to do little to stop such things, as most old men who are willing to have sex with an underage girl are pretty messed up anyway.
Wicked Pilot wrote:219 births in the entire state isn't really that bad. With such a small number of men involved, I doubt such an advertising campaign would do anything. You have to be pretty sick in the head to knock up a 14 year old, so I doubt seeing a billboard will go far towards changing their mind.
1 birth in the state is too much. 13 year olds? Jesus!
But is it enough to waste millions on an ad campaign that could go to other things? I don't think so.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
Xenophobe3691 wrote:And this used to be the richest part of the nation, too...
Hey, Northern Virginia is pretty decent (Fairfax County has the highest median income in the nation, and one of the best public school systems I think, thanks to all those government jobs and tech companies here (My parents make 40K, but much of that has to be spent on the high cost of real estate)). It's the rest of VA that's filled with rednecks...
ah.....the path to happiness is revision of dreams and not fulfillment... -SWPIGWANG
Sufficient Googling is indistinguishable from knowledge -somebody
Anything worth the cost of a missile, which can be located on the battlefield, will be shot at with missiles. If the US military is involved, then things, which are not worth the cost if a missile will also be shot at with missiles. -Sea Skimmer
George Bush makes freedom sound like a giant robot that breaks down a lot. -Darth Raptor
I think statutory rape is a serious matter, but this billboard campaign is a joke. I think teenagers need to be told what the age of consent is. Anyone over the age of 20 who shags an underage girl needs to be locked up.
The problem is that all the states and territories have different ages of consent and different "Romeo and Juliet" laws (which many states don't have). If there was a uniform standard nationwide, it might cut out some of this bullshit.
There's a rather ugly case in Georgia, where an eighteen-year-old was charged with rape for sex with a fifteen-year-old (who was a few days from 16). There was a similar case in Wisconsin a few years ago.
It seems that in some cases, horny teenagers are getting the book thrown at them as though they're child molesters. Once again common sense isn't very common.
Elfdart wrote:
There's a rather ugly case in Georgia, where an eighteen-year-old was charged with rape for sex with a fifteen-year-old (who was a few days from 16). There was a similar case in Wisconsin a few years ago.
It seems that in some cases, horny teenagers are getting the book thrown at them as though they're child molesters. Once again common sense isn't very common.
You know, I think in all liklihood that the most people don't care if a young man (18-20) has sex with a 16 or 17 year old unless it's their daughter, otherwise colleges would have jails, not dorms. And I have a strong suspicion most of these cases are either parental complaints or they got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Elfdart wrote:
There's a rather ugly case in Georgia, where an eighteen-year-old was charged with rape for sex with a fifteen-year-old (who was a few days from 16). There was a similar case in Wisconsin a few years ago.
It seems that in some cases, horny teenagers are getting the book thrown at them as though they're child molesters. Once again common sense isn't very common.
You know, I think in all liklihood that the most people don't care if a young man (18-20) has sex with a 16 or 17 year old unless it's their daughter, otherwise colleges would have jails, not dorms. And I have a strong suspicion most of these cases are either parental complaints or they got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
How about the wrong "race" at the wrong time? In the Georgia case, the boy was black and the girl white. Even though Georgia doesn't have a "Romeo and Juliet" clause in its statutory rape laws, an eighteen-year-old being prosecuted for banging a fifteen or sixteen-year-old was unheard of.
You're right. As Kinsey said, if all the sex laws were strictly enforced, most of the adult males would be locked up. Until recently here in Texas, there was no "R & J" provision and the age of consent was (and still is) seventeen. So any eighteen-year-old guy who even got to second base with his seventeen-year-old prom date, could have been put in prison and spent the rest of his life registering as a sex offender. We need some sanity here.
Elfdart wrote:
There's a rather ugly case in Georgia, where an eighteen-year-old was charged with rape for sex with a fifteen-year-old (who was a few days from 16). There was a similar case in Wisconsin a few years ago.
It seems that in some cases, horny teenagers are getting the book thrown at them as though they're child molesters. Once again common sense isn't very common.
You know, I think in all liklihood that the most people don't care if a young man (18-20) has sex with a 16 or 17 year old unless it's their daughter, otherwise colleges would have jails, not dorms. And I have a strong suspicion most of these cases are either parental complaints or they got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
How about the wrong "race" at the wrong time? In the Georgia case, the boy was black and the girl white. Even though Georgia doesn't have a "Romeo and Juliet" clause in its statutory rape laws, an eighteen-year-old being prosecuted for banging a fifteen or sixteen-year-old was unheard of.
I assume you mean the Marcus Dixon case?
And of course it has nothing at all to do with the fact that the girl in question alleged that he basically sexually assualted her? A case for which there is more than enough evidence to have brought it to trial over. I think they tend to prosecute the hell out of any one that does that.
As I understand it, the family and the defense were quick to play the race card but as is often the case, it doesn't hold up.
Thanks for the link. Just as I suspected, the GA Supreme Court threw out the molestation charge. Technically, Dixon did commit statutory rape -but if every teenage boy who screwed a slightly underage girl (18/15) was prosecuted like Dixon, the prisons would be full. That's why sensible leges have passed "Romeo & Juliet" laws.
Shouldn't they simplify it. If your (20) you cannot have sex with people under 20 or its rape. For those who are under 20 who have sex together, its not rape.
It seems much easier than this 17/18 18/19 stuff.
Rhode island is really stupid. Age of consent is 16. (It was, it might not STILL be)
nimetski wrote:Shouldn't they simplify it. If your (20) you cannot have sex with people under 20 or its rape. For those who are under 20 who have sex together, its not rape.
It seems much easier than this 17/18 18/19 stuff.
Rhode island is really stupid. Age of consent is 16. (It was, it might not STILL be)
right. So a 20 yr old sleeping with someone who will turn 20 in a few weeks would go to prison. Brilliant.
nimetski wrote:Shouldn't they simplify it. If your (20) you cannot have sex with people under 20 or its rape. For those who are under 20 who have sex together, its not rape.
It seems much easier than this 17/18 18/19 stuff.
Rhode island is really stupid. Age of consent is 16. (It was, it might not STILL be)
In some states, it's 14. There was a congressman a decade ago who was run out of office and did time in jail for screwing a 17-year-old in Illinois (his home state). If he had screwed her in D.C. it would have been perfectly legal since the age of consent there is 16. There needs to be a simplified, nationwide standard.
Elfdart wrote:Thanks for the link. Just as I suspected, the GA Supreme Court threw out the molestation charge. Technically, Dixon did commit statutory rape -but if every teenage boy who screwed a slightly underage girl (18/15) was prosecuted like Dixon, the prisons would be full. That's why sensible leges have passed "Romeo & Juliet" laws.
Actually Dixon was prosecuted as hard as he was because of the allegations that he sexually assualted her. Most places prosecute charges like that as hard as they can. That it was reduced on appeal is most likely because of the lack of the non-circumstancial evidence.
However, there's no technically about it. He committed statutory rape; you might feel that the law should be altered but the fact is he did commit the crime.
nimetski wrote:Shouldn't they simplify it. If your (20) you cannot have sex with people under 20 or its rape. For those who are under 20 who have sex together, its not rape.
It seems much easier than this 17/18 18/19 stuff.
Rhode island is really stupid. Age of consent is 16. (It was, it might not STILL be)
right. So a 20 yr old sleeping with someone who will turn 20 in a few weeks would go to prison. Brilliant.
You have to draw a line some where. You can argue the merits of where you draw it but sooner or later there has to be a line or you get people like that peice of human garbage PatKelly.
nimetski wrote:Shouldn't they simplify it. If your (20) you cannot have sex with people under 20 or its rape. For those who are under 20 who have sex together, its not rape.
It seems much easier than this 17/18 18/19 stuff.
Rhode island is really stupid. Age of consent is 16. (It was, it might not STILL be)
right. So a 20 yr old sleeping with someone who will turn 20 in a few weeks would go to prison. Brilliant.
You have to draw a line some where. You can argue the merits of where you draw it but sooner or later there has to be a line or you get people like that peice of human garbage PatKelly.
You can have laws that have the age difference between them limited to a set amount of years (say, 4 years) (for people under 20). That would make more sense than a specific age limit, and will stop the ridiculous statuatory rape cases, yet punish the pedophiles.
That's what the "Romeo & Juliet" laws are about: To prevent (I'm using my home state of Texas here.) an eighteen-year-old from being sent to prison and branded for life as a sex offender because he got to second base or beyond with his 16-year-old prom date.
Most states that have R & J laws leave a two or three-year margin with an absolute minimum (so a 16 can't legally screw a 13).
