Quote: (02-16-2017 04:42 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

Quote: (02-15-2017 10:24 AM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  

A while back, I think in the ROK comment sections on a related article, there was a poster talking about who the majority of the sex offenders are in his area. He apparently worked in the Sheriff's office or some other government agency that handled the registrar. His observation:

The majority of those registered were guys in their '20s who at around age 18 had a gf under the age of 18. These guys were the victims of 'bad breakups' or angry parents (of the girl) with the GF / parents then accusing the men of statutory rape.

So you have guys who's crime was banging a 16 or 17 year old at age 18. So they get to spend the rest of their lives treated as a criminal on the order of someone like Sundusky who liked to butt rape kids.

The law has to be changed to acknowledge a difference between consensual sex between teenagers and the likes of a 40 year old guy drugging and raping say a 12 year old boy or girl. If not, then the law is not just.

When I was in HS I was hooking up with this girl in the year below me. She was 3-4 months younger; I was one of the younger people in my class. We were involved for like two years off and on. She was sort of my mistress since I technically had a girlfriend.

I knew her father from being at her place and he didn't like me at all; he never wanted me around. She was a virgin when we got together and she came from a really religious family. Well at one point when we were fighting--you know, young lover drama--she told her father she'd been sleeping with me.

So this fucking guy tried to have me charged with statutory rape!

Since the age difference was actually quite small and whatever we did was totally legal--we actually got caught by a cop banging in a car one time and he just looked at our driver licenses and told us to find a goddamn room --nothing came of it. I didn't force her to do anything. She was super enthusiastic every step of the way. Her father couldn't have done anything to me, but she didn't know that and really fought against him over it. Nice of her, not to throw me under the bus in a fit of pique.

But what a cocksucker, eh?

This is a girl who would show up at my house during her lunch break (after I graduated early and was attending a local college) to get banged out. I lost track of how many times I woke up in the middle of the day--I was on a night schedule--to this horny little blonde chick climbing in bed with me. But because I dared to sleep with this guy's "angelic" little daughter, he wanted to ruin my life. And if circumstances had been a little bit different, he might have succeeded.

Maybe it's not very nice to say, but I sure didn't shed a tear when I heard he had a stroke about 5 years later. What a fucking prick.

Blue pill men who become father's who have daughters only or more daughters then sons are usually the biggest feminists who would like to see all other men to grovel before their slutty spawn.

The religious ones are worst of them all they tend to attribute angelic or near godlike attributes to their spoiled daughters.

I have noticed that men who primarily raise sons generally have an easy time to accept red pill ideas. Men who raise primarily raise daughters tend to be viscous and dangerous manginas unless they have been players before becoming fathers themselves.

Quote:Quote:

Blue pill men who become father's who have daughters only or more daughters then sons are usually the biggest feminists who would like to see all other men to grovel before their slutty spawn.

The religious ones are worst of them all they tend to attribute angelic or near godlike attributes to their spoiled daughters.

I have noticed that men who primarily raise sons generally have an easy time to accept red pill ideas. Men who raise primarily raise daughters tend to be viscous and dangerous manginas unless they have been players before becoming fathers themselves.

This has been my experience as well. Growing up in the church, in the south, with a bunch of spoiled little sluts being treated like queens really opened my eyes at a young age.

If they do have sons, they tend to treat them like shit while letting their daughters roam free. I've seen enough fathers chastise their sons for every little thing while praising little Susie as she wears a fake smile and prances around in her little dress that's about to be bunched up in the bed of Chad's Chevy as he fucks her every which way.

The true patriarchs keep their daughters in check and accurately apply religion to steer their behavior. They're also great role models for their sons and true leaders of their households. I met plenty of men like this as well, although they seemed to be outnumbered by the pedestalizing mangina fathers.

Back to the OP, this is what happens when discretion is removed from all levels of the legal system. This is also a result of the "gotta look tough on crime" mentality that's driven by numbers rather than common sense and the need to look at everything on a case by case basis. Every person I've known in various government positions (child services, police, education, etc.) have all made similar comments:

"It's all about the numbers."

"They don't care about the kids, all they care about are how many cases they close."

"As long as we don't receive bad publicity, everything is fine."

It is a common trend in governmental agencies, especially ones that are heavily involved in people's lives. It's more about image control than safety. Now they can brag that they're removing pedophiles from the streets while the true predators go free and teenagers doing teenage things get fucked.

Sure it's harsh but come on. Your 18. Why are you having an online romance with a 13 year old ?

This is another example of toxic virtue signaling. SJWs have declined to prosecute real crimes, so they make up shit like this. Having socially awkward boogeymen to screech at makes the SJWs feel like their lives have value, and that---finally!---they found someone more of a loser than they are.

Same thing with "sex slavery" which is about as real as "Global Warming" in actual prevalence (except in Muslim subcultures, where it's huge, but SJWs still fail to prosecute it).

Meanwhile, the 'shocked' SJWs tell their girls to enjoy as much promiscuity as they can possibly wrap their legs around, and "don't let anybody judge you for it!"

This insane hypocrisy seriously helps make the case for the existence of sin and God. No reasonable person could be such a hypocrite; therefore something else must be the cause (I suggest it's resistance to admitting that submission to God, and therefore conforming to scriptures, is the only acceptable lifestyle).

Quote:Quote:

If they do have sons, they tend to treat them like shit while letting their daughters roam free. I've seen enough fathers chastise their sons for every little thing while praising little Susie as she wears a fake smile and prances around in her little dress that's about to be bunched up in the bed of Chad's Chevy as he fucks her every which way.

Patriarchy is non viable for a society comprised largely of men like this.

Patriarchy = rule by fathers.

Rule by men like you describe = hell on earth.

Quote: (02-16-2017 04:20 AM)RBerkley Wrote:  

What about those feminazis who claim that "Nudity is not sexual" when they bathe fully naked with their 5-year-old son in a compromising way for those feminazi magazines? What about that cunt "Spiritual Tasha Mama" who is already infamous on Facebook for posting a video of several boys sucking her tits while she naked on the floor for "breastfeeding", but post one wrong word & FB police come after ya?

It's a matter of interpretation. If I were to rewrite those statutes, I would strike out the vague, subjective provisions about lewd exhibitions:

Quote:Quote:

"child pornography" means sexually explicit visual material which utilizes or has as a subject an identifiable minor.

"sexually explicit visual material" means a picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film, digital image, including such material stored in a computer's temporary Internet cache when three or more images or streaming videos are present, or similar visual representation which depicts sexual bestiality, a lewd exhibition of nudity, as nudity is defined in § 18.2-390, or sexual excitement, sexual conduct or sadomasochistic abuse, as also defined in § 18.2-390, or a book, magazine or pamphlet which contains such a visual representation.

"Nudity" means a state of undress so as to expose the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple, or the depiction of covered or uncovered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.

"Sexual conduct" means actual or explicitly simulated acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact in an act of apparent sexual stimulation or gratification with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such be female, breast.

"Sexual excitement" means the condition of human male or female genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal.

"Sadomasochistic abuse" means actual or explicitly simulated flagellation or torture by or upon a person who is nude or clad in undergarments, a mask or bizarre costume, or the condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one so clothed.

By the way, if anyone wants to actually do anything to reform the sexual offender laws, they can join RSOL. I opted to become a life member of that group, even though I don't agree with their stance that an 18-year-old receiving underwear pics from a 13-year-old girl is somehow less serious than when it's, say, a 30- or 40-year-old guy receiving those pics. If anything, it's LESS of a serious problem when someone older is committing a crime, because older people are less likely to re-offend.

Quote: (02-16-2017 04:58 PM)Sensei Creation Wrote:  

Sure it's harsh but come on. Your 18. Why are you having an online romance with a 13 year old ?

Yeah come on guys, it's only 350 years in prison, or a a ruined life as a "lesser" sentence, for *receiving* unsolicited non nude photos when 17 years old

GTFO

Quote: (02-16-2017 10:10 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

Quote: (02-16-2017 04:58 PM)Sensei Creation Wrote:  

Sure it's harsh but come on. Your 18. Why are you having an online romance with a 13 year old ?

Yeah come on guys, it's only 350 years in prison, or a a ruined life as a "lesser" sentence, for *receiving* unsolicited non nude photos when 17 years old

GTFO

FTFY.

It's absolutely fucking insane that you can be charged and convicted for something someone else did. It's not like you know what's in a text before you get it.

^The article doesn't specify whether the photos were solicited. Even if they were, the charges are still ludicrously out of whack with what actually took place. One of his charges is "child porn reproduce/transmit/sell." Let's break that down:

"Child porn" for underwear photos? As others have pointed out, go ahead then and arrest every adult at the community pool for viewing child porn.

"Reproduce/transmit/sell," he simply did not do, according to the article. Unless it's flat-out lying about that point, this charge is outrageous cannot possibly have been made in good faith.

Ripping apart these prosecutors should not even have to rely on the [possibly true] assumption that he did not ask for the photos.

Quote: (02-16-2017 04:58 PM)Sensei Creation Wrote:  

Sure it's harsh but come on. Your 18. Why are you having an online romance with a 13 year old ?

Because awkward, sexless 18 year olds are notoriously prone to doing foolish things in pursuit of girls that are ultimately harmless and should be taken as learning experiences, not excuses for the state to destroy their young lives.

He probably didn't have any money for a lawyer, or the family didn't have any money to support him...he took a pretty bad plea bargain. His life is ruined. He is going to be a social outcast and marginalized for the rest of his life. His career opportunities are going to be limited, and so will his abilities to find a decent woman.

If I were in his shoes I would have taken it to trial by jury. That's always a mixed bag, but given that your life is going to be fucked if you take the plea deal, I'd take that gamble.

Edit- I don't know now, trial by jury probably wouldn't end well for him. Maybe his only way out would have been to go Game of Thrones and demand a trial by combat!

http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/crime...c392d.html

frozen-ace I'm of the opinion one should always demand a jury trial if able to afford a lawyer. I've gone to court over petty bullshit with a legal team and the judge decides it's not worth his time. Even for serious shit a good lawyer can work magic in the court room.

On a case that involves the sex offender registry demand a jury period, lawyer or not. You take a plea your life is ruined. I'd rather risk jail with the upshot of the chance of a decent life over guaranteed misery barring death or conversion to Christianity/religious experience.

^
It's not like a random 13 year old sent him pictures and now he getting thrown under the jail for it.

The artical clearly states that he was developing an online friendship with the child. And yes she's 13 years old, she is a child.

I'm only 23 so 17/18 isn't that long ago for me. I was reckless in many ways back then but even still you couldn't have paid me to do what this guy did.

I'm surprised no one has has pointed out how incredibly stupid and thirsty you have to be to do such a thing.

It reminds of that footballer that got caught texting and kissing a 15 year old and lost everything not to long ago.

At 18 you should be well aware that gaming or having "online friendships" with 13 year olds is an absolutely no no.

Quote: (02-16-2017 10:54 PM)frozen-ace Wrote:  

He probably didn't have any money for a lawyer, or the family didn't have any money to support him...he took a pretty bad plea bargain. His life is ruined. He is going to be a social outcast and marginalized for the rest of his life. His career opportunities are going to be limited, and so will his abilities to find a decent woman.

If I were in his shoes I would have taken it to trial by jury. That's always a mixed bag, but given that your life is going to be fucked if you take the plea deal, I'd take that gamble.

Edit- I don't know now, trial by jury probably wouldn't end well for him. Maybe his only way out would have been to go Game of Thrones and demand a trial by combat!

http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/crime...c392d.html

I disagree, his life is only ruined if he planned to follow the whole deal of: go to college in useless degree, try to find a job with a company that doesn't give a shit about him, find some fat girlfriend and wife it up give her a kid and father another one that isnt his, get divorced and lose half his stuff and his kids, and pay alimoney for the rest of his life, get sick, die.

If he doesn't get jail time, then this is a blessing in disguise. He's now PERMANETLY red pilled. Someone needs to direct him here, show him that he can get REALLY decent IT skills online, and work remotely, then advise him to leave the country, it's not like the Justice and political system is working for him as it should. Hell I'd take it one step further, I'd revoke my visa after getting settled, its not like being an American citizen is going to help him at this point.

I think a lot MORE young men are going to wise up very soon, and just up and leave, resulting in a brain drain.

Who gives a crap how red pilled he now is. The story is that he can't live anywhere he wants, his housing selections are highly restrictive and will probably have to live in shitty housing at a trailer park or section 8 housing unless he buys a home that's 300 feet away from a church, school, park, etc.

Fuck getting red pilled and have to live with a minimum wage job in a shitty ghetto. Getting a visa with his record will be a bitch. Considering he has to register as a sex offender, I'm not sure how that would work with the state if he moved abroad.

Edit: Some cities are passing restrictions to make it 1000 feet away, essentially making it impossible for sex offenders to live in that city. I know in my hometown sex offenders are banned from 98% of the city. As a result, they are forced to lived in makeshift camps or under the bridge....which defeats the purpose of keeping track of their movements.

Quote: (02-17-2017 01:48 AM)Sensei Creation Wrote:  

^
It's not like a random 13 year old sent him pictures and now he getting thrown under the jail for it.

The artical clearly states that he was developing an online friendship with the child. And yes she's 13 years old, she is a child.

I'm only 23 so 17/18 isn't that long ago for me. I was reckless in many ways back then but even still you couldn't have paid me to do what this guy did.

I'm surprised no one has has pointed out how incredibly stupid and thirsty you have to be to do such a thing.

It reminds of that footballer that got caught texting and kissing a 15 year old and lost everything not to long ago.

At 18 you should be well aware that gaming or having "online friendships" with 13 year olds is an absolutely no no.

This is clearly the most ridiculous argument I've ever read on the forum.

I'm in no way condoning the actions of the beta awkward kid. But you think he should spend the rest of his life in prison because she sent him pictures in her underwear?

Give me a fucking break. I could go to any local aquatic center in the U.S. and see 13 year old girls wearing bikinis. You would never bat an eyelash if you walked by a girl in a swim suit.

Was the kid's game bad? Yes. And he probably handled everything poorly. But why should he spend the rest of his life in jail?

This kid is not a "sex offender". White knights like Sensei Creation are the reason awkward kids get thrown on the sex offender list. As if this kid and Jerry Sandusky are on a level playing field.

Please quote me in bold when I said he deserved to spend the rest of his life in jail.

I explicitly said it should be pointed out that he is unbelievably stupid and/or thirsty.

As I've already stated. Yes the punishment is harsh. However personal responsibility has to come into play at some point. And the fact that the state is over punishment him does not abstain him from that.

Like it seems like your forgetting that this guy is 18. Beta or not he is more than old enough to be making decisions and dealing with the consequences of them.

He sounds like that one guy we all had back in the day who would date 13 and 14 year olds at 18. I always thought there was something weird with those guys even back then.

Okay. So when you turn 18 you magically know how not to be a dumb-ass?

I'm 26 and far from knowing when I'm being a dumb-ass.

You never said he deserves a life in jail. But that is what the court is discussing.

A 13 year old sent a picture of her in what is essentially a bikini.

This is the most retarded case ever.

"He deserves this because he's 18". Give me a break.

I agree that an 18 year old shouldn't develop a relationship with a 13 year old. That's fucked up. But a picture covering the alleged 13 year old should not cause the 18 to spend his life in jail.

Quote: (02-17-2017 02:56 AM)Sensei Creation Wrote:  

Please quote me in bold when I said he deserved to spend the rest of his life in jail.

I explicitly said it should be pointed out that he is unbelievably stupid and/or thirsty.

As I've already stated. Yes the punishment is harsh. However personal responsibility has to come into play at some point. And the fact that the state is over punishment him does not abstain him from that.

Like it seems like your forgetting that this guy is 18. Beta or not he is more than old enough to be making decisions and dealing with the consequences of them.

He sounds like that one guy we all had back in the day who would date 13 and 14 year olds at 18. I always thought there was something weird with those guys even back then.

You're completely missing the bigger picture, which is that a young man who is not a criminal is getting locked up for life for receiving a clothed picture.

That's not too far off from the feminists endgame of locking up men for looking at a girl in a way that made her feel like she was going to be raped. Because all men are just rapists waiting to happen right? And doing wacky stuff with age of consent laws to criminalize men who reject the spinster post wall trash en masse. I'm eagerly awaiting the crazy hamster logic for the coming age of consent change by our out of control court system which sees itself as being a higher authority than our own executive branch.

Have you missed the countless threads of women in their 30's actually fucking their 13 year old students and getting off with probation or minimal jail time? Legitimate female predators who use their position of authority to take advantage of young students should bother you A LOT more than this.

With all the sex throw into teenager's face these days and them going puberty, i reckon about 20-50% of underage teenagers are sex texting each other!

The laws need to change and catch up with current events! Just like underage teenagers having sex with each other of the same age being legal (Australian law, i'm sure it's the same in the US), the same should apply to teenagers regarding sex texting.

Quote: (02-15-2017 10:24 AM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  

A while back, I think in the ROK comment sections on a related article, there was a poster talking about who the majority of the sex offenders are in his area. He apparently worked in the Sheriff's office or some other government agency that handled the registrar. His observation:

The majority of those registered were guys in their '20s who at around age 18 had a gf under the age of 18. These guys were the victims of 'bad breakups' or angry parents (of the girl) with the GF / parents then accusing the men of statutory rape.

So you have guys who's crime was banging a 16 or 17 year old at age 18. So they get to spend the rest of their lives treated as a criminal on the order of someone like Sundusky who liked to butt rape kids.

The law has to be changed to acknowledge a difference between consensual sex between teenagers and the likes of a 40 year old guy drugging and raping say a 12 year old boy or girl. If not, then the law is not just.

Hold it right there. I find this hard to believe.

All statutory rape laws have two parts that are written into it.

The first one generally being age of consent which they set at 18 for most states. The second being a romeo and juliet clause where you have a 4 year buffer so an 18 year old guy can legally have sex with a girl who is 14 or older. Certain states word it differently and the ages differ so definitely check. This is how PA does it.

I believe the poster on ROK to be mistaken. Nowhere in the US is it illegal for an 18 or even 19 year old guy to have sex with a high school girl who is 16 or 17 as the laws are set up to protect against this. I challenge people to find a case like this in the US.

Now, what you will find are officers making arrests of 18,19 year old guys for "corruption of a minor" which can be for pretty much anything if a young girl's parents aren't cool with their minor aged daughter hanging out with an 18+ guy. This is definitely something that happens and sadly a guy in this position needs to respect the wishes of the parents.

Quote: (02-17-2017 01:49 AM)CJ_W Wrote:  

If he doesn't get jail time, then this is a blessing in disguise. He's now PERMANETLY red pilled. Someone needs to direct him here, show him that he can get REALLY decent IT skills online, and work remotely, then advise him to leave the country, it's not like the Justice and political system is working for him as it should. Hell I'd take it one step further, I'd revoke my visa after getting settled, its not like being an American citizen is going to help him at this point.

How easy do you think it will be for him to get into other countries?

I know a guy who had a visa revoked in New Zealand because he had a business where a NAMBLA meeting had allegedly taken place. Once he found it was NAMBLA, he told them to get lost. This was about 15 years before he lost his visa.

Back in 1879, my great grandfather was 24 and got a 15-year-old girl pregnant. She became my great grandmother. There were 15 kids from 1880 to 1907. They were married for 15 years.

That was a different America, of course. It was one that actually believe that law should be based on reason, logic, and common sense.

More recently, Jerry Lee Lewis was 22 when he married his 13-year-old cousin.

This is ultimately part of a trend to extend childhood. In "primitive" societies, a child becomes an adult when they are able to have children. We now live in a society in which many people are still living off their parents into their mid 20's. in the end, the powers that be want us all to be children who all look at government and politicians as our parents.

Quote: (02-17-2017 02:56 AM)Sensei Creation Wrote:  

As I've already stated. Yes the punishment is harsh. However personal responsibility has to come into play at some point. And the fact that the state is over punishment him does not abstain him from that.

Like it seems like your forgetting that this guy is 18. Beta or not he is more than old enough to be making decisions and dealing with the consequences of them.

He sounds like that one guy we all had back in the day who would date 13 and 14 year olds at 18. I always thought there was something weird with those guys even back then.

I don't like this idea that "Sure, this law is draconian and unfair, but he deserves to be punished because he knew (or should have known) that it was the law. His unjust punishment is deserved, because he failed to be personally responsible in following this draconian law."

It seems kind of... evil. To me.

I'm having a hard time coming up with a better word for it.

Quote: (02-17-2017 09:12 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

Quote: (02-15-2017 10:24 AM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  

A while back, I think in the ROK comment sections on a related article, there was a poster talking about who the majority of the sex offenders are in his area. He apparently worked in the Sheriff's office or some other government agency that handled the registrar. His observation:

The majority of those registered were guys in their '20s who at around age 18 had a gf under the age of 18. These guys were the victims of 'bad breakups' or angry parents (of the girl) with the GF / parents then accusing the men of statutory rape.

So you have guys who's crime was banging a 16 or 17 year old at age 18. So they get to spend the rest of their lives treated as a criminal on the order of someone like Sundusky who liked to butt rape kids.

The law has to be changed to acknowledge a difference between consensual sex between teenagers and the likes of a 40 year old guy drugging and raping say a 12 year old boy or girl. If not, then the law is not just.

Hold it right there. I find this hard to believe.

All statutory rape laws have two parts that are written into it.

The first one generally being age of consent which they set at 18 for most states. The second being a romeo and juliet clause where you have a 4 year buffer so an 18 year old guy can legally have sex with a girl who is 14 or older. Certain states word it differently and the ages differ so definitely check. This is how PA does it.

I believe the poster on ROK to be mistaken. Nowhere in the US is it illegal for an 18 or even 19 year old guy to have sex with a high school girl who is 16 or 17 as the laws are set up to protect against this. I challenge people to find a case like this in the US.

Now, what you will find are officers making arrests of 18,19 year old guys for "corruption of a minor" which can be for pretty much anything if a young girl's parents aren't cool with their minor aged daughter hanging out with an 18+ guy. This is definitely something that happens and sadly a guy in this position needs to respect the wishes of the parents.

I don't have examples for you because this isn't something I track--it's been a long time since I was 18, after all, and I aim for the 20-21 set--but I can tell you the laws vary quite a lot by state. Not all states even have a Romeo and Juliet provision. Mine doesn't. At a glance, it looks like about half of the states in the country have no such provision.

https://legaldictionary.net/romeo-and-juliet-laws/

There's a table at the link showing age of consent and allowable age difference if the partner is below age of consent.