|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to the article she broke no laws, she didn't commit a crime. IMO we have gotten way too rabid in this witch hunt sex crimes crusade. Didn't we just finish a 62 post thread on this article? Anyways, really guys...so a 20 year old girl had sex with a 13 year old boy, I'll come out and say it...SO WHAT! BTW I'd say the same thing if she was 13 and he was 20. This is not the case of "Aqualung". We seem to have this magical cut off of 17 or 18 years of age, it's arbitrary and stupid. For the overwhelming history of this country and human existence 'girls' and 'boys' hooked up pretty earlier in age, did the wild thing and started families. Yes, this article exposes a double standard..we know that. But what do you suggest we do...throw her in prison for decades, make her register as a sexual predator, put her picture, name and address on the internet..etc...Methinks we need to really rethinks what 'crime' is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, this article exposes a double standard..we know that. But what do you suggest we do ...
Treat her the same way if she was a man and the boy was a girl. Which is the point. This isn't about a witchhunt. It's about double standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is not a case of a boy and girl having sex. It is a case of an adult having sex with a kid. The perpetrator can't be held legally responsible. That's unfortunate, but true. If she suffers extreme negative social consequences, though, good!
I'm not surprised, though it's ridiculous, that the article points out the boy's height and weight (nearly six feet and about 175 pounds) followed by the statement that "He is not a little kid." As if his height and weight have any bearing on whether or not he's an adult. And the perpetrator's statement, "If he made the decision to deal with grown up things he needs to own up to what he is doing in a grown up way," could be said of an even younger kid or a very young child. It doesn't excuse her, though she seems to think it does at least to some extent. The statement reminds me of the question by Zorn of the Chicago Tribune asking why a boy-student, who is a victim of pedophilia by a woman, isn't suspended.
I hope that social condemnation haunts the perpetrator for years. She doesn't sound the least bit contrite for her sick act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday April 21, @12:02AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas and Shawn.
Yeah, I'm with you all the way.
The fact of the matter is that not just ONE crime has been commited, in this case, but actually TWO.
One is this coaches pedophilia and the other that the law treats a female criminal diffrently than it would if the perpitrater were a man.
THAT IS NOT EQUALITY! It is INequality, and anyone who thinks it is equality needs to pull their heads out of a particular oraface.
I know I've said this before, but I still find it amazeing that you actually have to EXPLAIN this sort of thing to some people!
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And the same media that would be screaming bloody murder if it was a 13 year old GIRL are allowing this woman to defend herself. Aargh! it makes me want to scream!
If anything this is a MORE heinous crime than if the roles were reversed... boys emotionally develop slower than girls (who throughout history were often having children by 13-15 when boys didn't have a chance at a family until much later... women have been genetically programmed to develop faster). This young man was LESS developed in emotional terms than a 13 year old girl would be, and the risk of long term damage is likewise increased.
He can't get her on criminal charges... I wonder if she could be sued for damages (not sure about civil law down there).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"boys emotionally develop slower than girls"
If you can call getting sexually and emotionally excited over someone buying you a shiny rock and a bunch of weeds being emotionally developed. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I was 13 I sometimes thought about what it would be like to do sexual things with older women, and it did not appeal to me... my best friend wasn't like that though, he drooled over girls in their late teens, early twenties at that age. (Now we are in our mid-20s and he salivates over 40'ish stock broker type women, go figure!) Perhaps these cases should be evaluated individually rather than just setting a hard age limit. Everyone is different, you can't really say that each person is ready to have sex at the same age, and I don't see how it's fair to limit people who mature faster. And of course we have this ridiculous one-age-here, another-age-there nonsense in the United States. One state it's 18 and the next one over it's 16 and a few more away it's 14. Then you go north and it's 17? What the hell?!?
Last year on the Tom Leykis show a caller said that when he was 12 or 13 his dad took him on a week-long fishing vacation. While they were there they encountered a woman, who went back to their rented cabin and stayed there for the whole week, having sex with both of them. He spoke FONDLY of this. Was he profoundly and deeply wounded by this? I don't think so. He talked about it like it was the best experience of his life! (I don't remember if his mom and dad were still together, and if they were, then his dad was unfaithful, but that's another matter.)
Perhaps each case should be looked at individually. Obviously there are some cases where a minor is victimized - coerced into doing things they didn't want to. But it appears to me that that isn't what always happens. Sometimes it is mutual. Where is the blame then? Is that guy who called Professor Leykis out hunting for that woman? No, I don't think he is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps each case should be looked at individually. Obviously there are some cases where a minor is victimized - coerced into doing things they didn't want to. But it appears to me that that isn't what always happens. Sometimes it is mutual.
We are talking about statutory rape. In 100% of the cases there is no coercion. In 100% of the cases, every person consents. Obviously, a 17-year-old having consensual sex with a 15-year-old is generally not as serious as an adult having sex with a 13-year-old.
Remember, we are talking about a boy or a girl wanting to have sex with an adult, and the adult then having sex with the girl or boy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remember, we are talking about a boy or a girl wanting to have sex with an adult, and the adult then having sex with the girl or boy.
If I had a 13-year old daughter, I would not allow her to date let alone have sex with a 21-year old man. I don't care how mature she thought she was. I may not be able to keep it from happening, but if necessary, I'd sit in a rocking chair with a shotgun (so to speak). I'd do everything I could to prevent and stop the relationship. Call me close minded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would you do the same for your 13 y/o son?
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would you do the same for your 13 y/o son?
Yes, and that is the point. There's a lot of talk about how the 13-year old boy "wants it," and this makes it OK. Yet a lot less people will make the same argument when the roles are reversed.
A 13-year old is not old enough to make this decision. A 20-year old is too old, meaning that they have the ability to use a child. While I don't know what the cut-off age should be, and there probably shouldn't be absolute limits, a 13-year old and a 20-year old is not appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's a lot of talk about how the 13-year old boy "wants it," and this makes it OK. Yet a lot less people will make the same argument when the roles are reversed.
Sad but true. And as I've stated, it is a major item on the feminist agenda today to accept, promote, and glorify pedophilia committed by women.
It got even weirder in the Chicago Tribune article. The article maintained that it was less serious for a woman to have sex with a boy than it would have been for a man to have sex with a girl of the same age. They justified this by alleging that there are more other boys who want to have sex with women than there are other girls who want to have sex with men. If I remember correctly, they did this with some statment about a lot of boys fantasizing about sex with a woman. The point is: They were writing about statutory rape. The child wasn't coerced. It's equally serious if a boy and a girl want the sex. How many other boys or girls want it is irrelevant to the individual case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday April 22, @02:59AM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
It is primarily based on maturity.
A child 13, under, or a bit older is generaly not mature enough to make certain descisions.
sex is ONE of those decisions that they are not fully mature enough to make. That is EXACTLY WHY we have such laws in place. It makes NO difference if the child is a girl OR a boy. Alot of people seem to be forgeting that.
A child may "fantasize" about ALOT of things.
When I was a child, I fantasized about being a soldier in the US military. So according to some people's logic, does that mean I should have been allowed to become a soldier, even though I was only about 6 or 7 years old at the time?
You have to be a certain age to smoke, drink "adult beverages", vote, drive, etc. There are REASONS for this. It is because a persons ability to make concise, rational, expirienced and logical decisions does not develope untill a certain age, generaly speaking.
These laws are in place to PROTECT children from certain things includeing pedophilia, untill they ARE mature enough to make such descisions on their own.
So the whole "It's different when it's a BOY" argument is ABSURD to it's very CORE!
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
guess I am close-minded as well. When my sons were 12 and 13, I would have done much the same for them. Now that my daughter is 12, I have the same attitude. Perhaps they would have been mature enough at that age, perhaps not. In this culture, with mores as they are and the atitude of some adults toward using children, I think probably not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd have to go with you here. It's not a matter of if the children like it or not. Parents have a right to raise children with there moral standards. Schools and 20 year old pedophiles shouldn't be teaching kids about sex.
I'm just waiting for the pedophile to get pregnant and for her to try and get child support from the kids and his parents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuckin' hell of it is, Andrew, she'll get it too.
Even in the US, women whpo are convicted and who have gone to jail over statuatory rape have won custody and support. Routinely. Fuckin' ROUTINELY. And these wastes of oxygen ougth to be stripped of their rights as parents, be sterilized, and have their twats sewn shut and their clits amputated.
It just galls me no end.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's happened here in Canada also. It's pretty sick to get child support from a child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Perhaps each case should be looked at individually. Obviously there are some cases where a minor is victimized - coerced into doing things they didn't want to. But it appears to me that that isn't what always happens. Sometimes it is mutual."
I agree completely Hunsvotti, that's what I was propounding in part in my origination of this thread. There is nothing wrong with sex per se. Sex crimes laws have gone completely out of whack. In some states a man commits rape if his partner had a drink. In others it's rape if she says stop during the act. I remember saying stop to a girlfriend while she was riding me (I didn't want to cum too quick), she didn't stop. Is this rape on HER part? Of course not! Put her in jail? Give me a break! (Although some would argue that stop means stop, and no means no.) The stupidity of these laws is that they analyze rape in a "vacuum", without regard to the real world. Life should not be treated like a game of golf where one is penalized severly for accidently touching the ball...even if it does not even move. What these laws do is ruin lives when there was no harm done. It is a witch hunt, a demonization where no demon exists. And like you said, in some states the age of consent is 14, some 16, some 17. The distinction is arbitrary.
The double standard presented by this article is obvious. However, it is simply naive to automatically label her as a "rapist" and punish her severly. IMO the proper solution to a double standard is not to blindly hold women to the same onerous unfair standards that men are held to, but instead the laws need to be relaxed and adjusted so that justice is done and men are not unfairly prosecuted. The problem with this case is not that the laws are too lenient on women, instead the problem is that the laws are too harsh on men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, I'd like to mention that I myself received some VERY unwanted attention from an older woman when I was in my early teens. Maybe I will write on it some day but it isn't something I like to dwell on!
Anyway, I have NO problem putting a stop to this kind of thing, if it is unwanted. But if the younger person is into it, what the hell. Why not. I'm tired of all this "victimless crime" BS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday April 21, @12:14AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I can see all the points made above, and can accept them.
What I can't accept is the fact that when men have sex with under aged girls it is called "rape" and severe punishment is meaded out to that man.
If a woman has sex with an under aged BOY, it is (A) not considered as "bad" as when a man does it to a girl, (B) not frowned on by the media and feminists or the courts. Instead EXCUSESS are made for the FEMALE perpatrator. And (C) generaly speaking the penalty for a female pedophile is much lighter than if the abuser is a MAN.
That's the thing that sticks in MY craw.
I mean, You could set the 'age of consent' to whatever. But either way women who violate the 'age of consent' law WHATEVER it is set at, MUST pay the same price as ANY MAN who does the same, piriod.
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Thundercloud, I just want to say that I appreciate many of the things that you share in this forum, and that I understand how and why the double standards sticks in your craw. However, in rectifying social and legal conditions I believe that justice and fairness are independent of simply whether or not men and women are treated equally. Let me explain:
We all realize how men are treated unfairly in family court...no need to elaborate here. However, the injustices that occur are independent of the fact that men suffer much more as a class than women. Our movement is about human rights...not SIMPLY to equalize things between men and women. For instance, if in divorce 50% of the time men got sole custody, the assets, alimony and child support; and 50% of the time women got sole custody, the assets, alimony and child support, then between men and women everything would be equal on average. However, the injustices and problems of the system would remain...just leveled upon men and women equally. That's not a solution to the problem and I don't think anybody here would be satisfied with that. The system needs to be changed so that equity and fairness are the norm, men and women have the opportunity to productively get on with their lives in the pursuit of happiness, and that all parents and children preserve their relationship.
Likewise, if a law was passed that all boys at the age of six must have their DNA analyzed by the gov't and that all males who possess genes deemed 'undesirable' by the gov't shall be sterilized,...that would be an outrage, an atrocity, a human rights violation. That sick law is the problem, not simply the bare fact that it does not apply to females. It doesn't solve the atrocity to subject women to the same treatment.
Equal treatment for men and women is surely a goal worthy of aspiration and fighting for. However, the underlying law must itself be examined to determine if it is fair and promotes justice regardless of gender. Simply holding women to the draconian 'statutory rape' laws that men are held to will only put women behind bars who just happened to have an underage boyfriend. I think, in this case, it is much more fair and desirable to hold men to the lesser standard that women are subject to. Here IMO women should not be held accountable as men, rather men should be held accountable like women.
By the way Thundercloud, is Thunderchild an offspring of yours..:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday April 21, @02:28AM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
(("By the way Thundercloud, is Thunderchild an offspring of yours..:)"))
Nope.
But it sounds like a comic book duo, doesn't it?
"THE ADVENTURES OF THUNDERCLOUD AND THUNDERCHILD"
Vanquishing feminist injustice where ever they go. (insert heroic music here.)
Okay, okay, I'll stop, now.
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's next guys? We inviting NAMBLA to join forces with us.
Let's make it clear. 20 year old adult. 13 year old child. It's sick. It's perverted. It's not normal, it's like sleeping with your sister.
Hey, there we go. Let's get a nice tall, willowy 13 year old girl, one with a big set of knockers, put some makeup on her and a tight dress. Hubba Hubba! It's on! Yeah, rah!
No it's not, it's twisted. It's twisted even if she's "in love" and wants to screw your legs off. She has no experience; it's real easy for you to convince her that she's your "soulmate" and fuck her up when she gets to old (That darn 14th birthday) and you dump her for the next hot Lolita that comes along.
She gets pregnant, her risk of complications is enormous compared to a sexually mature woman.
Jeez, I could go on, but I'm flabbergasted. This is a no-brainer.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's make it clear. 20 year old adult. 13 year old child. It's sick. It's perverted. It's not normal, it's like sleeping with your sister.
Exactly, Gonzo Kid. It seems rather like a smoke screen to say that it would not promote justice to hold women to the same draconian laws and sentencing to which men are held, and then to use that reasoning to say that both men and women should be allowed to engage in an act that is as morally reprehensible as a 20-year-old having sex with a 13-year-old. This is NOT a matter of punishing a 19-year-old young man for having sex with a female who is a few weeks shy of her 17th birthday, but not punishing a 19-year-old young woman for having sex with a male who is a few weeks shy of his 17th birthday
At some point the sex should not be punished, an 18-year-old with a 17-year-old for instance. At some point the sex should be a crime, a 45-year-old with a seven-year-old for example. At what point does the crossover from acceptable to criminal behavior take place? That's open to debate. Clearly some people here think it's fine for a 20-year-old, male or female, to have sex with a 13-year-old. I don't share that opinion.
A 13-year-old is a kid. A 20-year-old is an adult.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
