Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Yuricon] Digest Number 300

Expand Messages
  • trolenean@aol.com
    ... Aha! My fatigued brain vaguely remembers something like that. Much thanks. ... And if that s not weird enough, know ye that in New York, two consenting
    Message 1 of 1 , May 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >The alternate ending Shinji sees. He bumps into Rei while running
      >and a piece of toast she's nibbling on goes flying.

      >Vera

      Aha! My fatigued brain vaguely remembers something like that. Much thanks.

      >That's not entirely true. Every state has a completely different set of
      >criteria and ages for age of consent - and age of consent about different
      >things...for instance, in New jersey, my beloved home state, age of consent
      >is 16 - that is, a 16 can legally have sex with *another minor.* Until a
      >person is 18, they are a minor, and any adult who has sex with a minor is
      >commiting de facto sexual assault. Which is not to say that they can't
      >legally get married - of course they can, because age of consent is 16. LOL
      >Really.

      And if that's not weird enough, know ye that in New York, two consenting
      minors who have sex are technically raping each other because minor's can't
      give consent. I have this on authority from a state trooper. And hey, if
      you can't trust legal trivia from a bored off-duty state trooper lecturing to
      a large group of teenagers that he doesn't want to be anywhere near, what can
      you trust? Anyway, according to him this is a legal reality but not any
      other kind of reality, since no charges have, would, or could ever be brought
      on those grounds.

      >This conversation is getting decidedly odd.

      >dooky

      And, with my completely irrelevant and vaguely disturbing space-waster,
      decidedly... uh... I don't know... something stronger than odd with a small
      slice of disturbing and a little dab of contemptuous for the poster (me) that
      brought the conversation to this point.

      Argh. I've posted four times here and out of those only one of them has
      actually had to do with yuri. I'M SO SORRY!

      Oh wait! But I have a pertinent comment!
      Oh damn! But everyone's going to hate me for it!
      Oh well, here goes. It's in responst to Kat's message:

      >How is this for funny. When I mentioned that we were going to have a
      "Lesbian >Catgirl" at the table. you won't beleive the first thing out of the
      program head's >mouth. "What.. what age is she?" he looked worried but when I
      told him 18 he let out >a sigh of relief. What does it matter if she was 14
      (age of consent for lesbians in >Canada.. yes we have a graduated age of
      consent out here) and it is not like Alex is >going to be doing anything
      questionable *looks at Alex* right?


      >Anyway, It seems that you can only be out if your over 18 acording to this
      guy. I just >gave him an odd look and told him there was no way you could
      stop anyone underage >from being themselves so why should he care? Suddenly
      he changed the subject. It >still urks me that someone thinks you have to be
      a certain age in order to know you >sexuality... grrrrr...

      Actually, I think I can sort of sympathize with the program head. Since he's
      one who is held responsible for any disasters relating to the con, he'd
      probably want to know if the radical right wing of the PTA would come
      storming in two weeks later shouting about corruption of youth, or if the
      legally adult, decision-capable-in-the-eyes-of-public-opinion lesbian catgirl
      would be able to just tell anyone who objected to buzz off. A 14-year old
      might be just as capable of saying that to anyone who claimed them as a
      victim of whatever homophobic conspiracy might be fashionable, but her
      statement might not be given as much weight, being seen as the statement of
      an Ingenue Entering the Cruel and Corrupt World (tm), as opposed to that of a
      possibly foolish (or sinful or reckless or perverted whatever the party in
      question assigns to discredit someone's sexuality) but somewhat self-aware
      young woman. Maybe. I could be wrong. It's a strong possibility.
      Especially given the grammar in the 5-line monster sentence. In any case, to
      get back to what I'm fairly sure was my original point, this guy isn't
      necessarily homophobic, he might just be wary of the reaction the con might
      draw from homophobes.
      Wow, that was long even for me. I'm sorry, I'm rambling. I'll shut up now.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.