And a 23 year old man has sex with a 17 year old girl and gets lifetime ban.

The story about the 44 year old :

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum...ng-3944331

The story about the 23 year old and the 17 year old.

Note : The legal age in England where this took place is 16 :

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tea...ng-3904618

Harriet Harman is to blame, its disgraceful.

I'd love to be used as a sex object at age 14.

But not by that bitch... WNB

look at the two headlines

"Mum aged 44 seduced friend's son, 14, but escapes immediate prison sentence"

"teacher handed lifetime ban for having sex with pupil after meeting her in a club"

Swap seduced for molested/raped/abused then there is a more honest headline.

There's a double standard for a reason. If it the kid enjoyed it I don't see why anyone's life should be ruined here.

As frustrating as the double standard is, it is actually a vestigial note of the once-mainstream belief that men and women are essentially different. Since this is correct, I don't think this is such a bad thing.

The boy told a friend: “She stripped naked in front of me. Yeah, we had sex.”

Quote: (07-31-2014 03:27 PM)nigerian Wrote:  

There's a double standard for a reason. If it the kid enjoyed it I don't see why anyone's life should be ruined here.

So to be intellectually consistent you would also say the same if a 40-year old fucked a 12 year old girl and she enjoyed it?
Would you say the same if a 40-year old man fucked your 12 year old son and he enjoyed it?

The fact that you consider a childs opinion as the ultimate decider or litmus test on whether or not something is abusive makes me question your intelligence. There should not be a double-standard (discrimination) under the law, I find it amazing that I even need to state that... but apparently I do.

1) The law doesn't discriminate but humans do. As it's humans that interprete the law there will always be double standards and discrimination in the application of the law.

2) This explains why defendants wear a suit in court. It shouldn't make a difference what you wear...but see point 1

Quote: (07-31-2014 04:45 PM)Ping Wrote:  

Quote: (07-31-2014 03:27 PM)nigerian Wrote:  

There's a double standard for a reason. If it the kid enjoyed it I don't see why anyone's life should be ruined here.

So to be intellectually consistent you would also say the same if a 40-year old fucked a 12 year old girl and she enjoyed it?
Would you say the same if a 40-year old man fucked your 12 year old son and he enjoyed it?

The fact that you consider a childs opinion as the ultimate decider or litmus test on whether or not something is abusive makes me question your intelligence. There should not be a double-standard (discrimination) under the law, I find it amazing that I even need to state that... but apparently I do.

This is equalist logic, Enlightenment-era logic. It's what ultimately produced feminism.

A 40-year-old man fucking a 12-year-old girl is not the same act as a 40-year-old woman fucking a 12-year-old boy. Neither is acceptable, of course, but one exceeds the other in terms of its brutality and in terms of the destructiveness of the emotional landscape produced. This is because men and women are different. They are fundamentally different. They are two different types of human being.

Quote: (07-31-2014 04:53 PM)space Wrote:  

1) The law doesn't discriminate but humans do. As it's humans that interprete the law there will always be double standards and discrimination in the application of the law.

2) This explains why defendants wear a suit in court. It shouldn't make a difference what you wear...but see point 1

One thing is that the jury/judge subconsciously discriminate, another is to rationalize and defend it. Which is what the guy I replied to did.

Quote: (07-31-2014 04:55 PM)richler Wrote:  

Quote: (07-31-2014 04:45 PM)Ping Wrote:  

Quote: (07-31-2014 03:27 PM)nigerian Wrote:  

There's a double standard for a reason. If it the kid enjoyed it I don't see why anyone's life should be ruined here.

So to be intellectually consistent you would also say the same if a 40-year old fucked a 12 year old girl and she enjoyed it?
Would you say the same if a 40-year old man fucked your 12 year old son and he enjoyed it?

The fact that you consider a childs opinion as the ultimate decider or litmus test on whether or not something is abusive makes me question your intelligence. There should not be a double-standard (discrimination) under the law, I find it amazing that I even need to state that... but apparently I do.

This is equalist logic, Enlightenment-era logic. It's what ultimately produced feminism.

A 40-year-old man fucking a 12-year-old girl is not the same act as a 40-year-old woman fucking a 12-year-old boy. Neither is acceptable, of course, but one exceeds the other in terms of its brutality and in terms of the destructiveness of the emotional landscape produced. This is because men and women are different. They are fundamentally different. They are two different types of human being.

Citation needed for:

"but one exceeds the other in terms of its brutality and in terms of the destructiveness of the emotional landscape produced."

Men and women being different does not equal or support your statement above.

Anyway, so if it is only a matter of the victim being a girl or boy that determines the "destructiveness" of the pedophilia. A 40 year old man having sex with your 12 year old son is the same as a 40 year old woman right? In terms of "destructiveness" that is.

Also, are you also arguing that what the child thinks/feels about it in the present should be a major factor in determine the pedophiles sentence?

The reason there's a double standard is because a dude physically has to make an effort to stick it in. A man (or boy in this case) has to voluntarily engage in sexual activities, for obvious reasons. If a man doesn't want sex, odds are that sex is not happening, simply because there won't be a boner present.

But if a woman doesn't want sex to happen, sex could still happen because the man wants it to. The woman definitely got off too easily, and that man definitely had too harsh of a punishment. All I'm saying is I know where the double standard comes from.

Quote:Ping Wrote:

Citation needed for:

"but one exceeds the other in terms of its brutality and in terms of the destructiveness of the emotional landscape produced."

Men and women being different does not equal or support your statement above.

Anyway, so if it is only a matter of the victim being a girl or boy that determines the "destructiveness" of the pedophilia. A 40 year old man having sex with your 12 year old son is the same as a 40 year old woman right? In terms of "destructiveness" that is.

Also, are you also arguing that what the child thinks/feels about it in the present should be a major factor in determine the pedophiles sentence?

Citation needed? I don't think that's the sort of thing for which one would employ a citation in this sort of discussion. It's my opinion, an intuited feeling, the way I see things.

I feel that, given the differences (both physical and mental) between men and women, the act of an adult male having sex with an adolescent — female or male — is a more brutal thing than the act of an adult woman having sex with an adolescent boy (or girl, but given female sexuality that could be dark in other ways, and I don't really know where I come down on it).

This is why this double standard exists, and why people make sly jokes ("sure wish MY teacher woulda done that") about one situation and not the other.

Typically, when something exists in the world I tend to suspect there is a reason for it, and I try to understand that reason. Railing at injustice is not a behavior I often engage in.

This is my view on this sort of thing, and if we do not see it the same way, that's fine. I'm a new member and I come here because I enjoy the discussions. I don't come here to provide citations as one would do for a term paper, nor to get in extended arguments.

Quote: (07-31-2014 05:08 PM)Switch Wrote:  

The reason there's a double standard is because a dude physically has to make an effort to stick it in. A man (or boy in this case) has to voluntarily engage in sexual activities, for obvious reasons. If a man doesn't want sex, odds are that sex is not happening, simply because there won't be a boner present.

But if a woman doesn't want sex to happen, sex could still happen because the man wants it to. The woman definitely got off too easily, and that man definitely had too harsh of a punishment. All I'm saying is I know where the double standard comes from.

You mixed your rape and pedophilia double-standards explanations bro.

Quote: (07-31-2014 05:11 PM)richler Wrote:  

Quote:Ping Wrote:

Citation needed for:

"but one exceeds the other in terms of its brutality and in terms of the destructiveness of the emotional landscape produced."

Men and women being different does not equal or support your statement above.

Anyway, so if it is only a matter of the victim being a girl or boy that determines the "destructiveness" of the pedophilia. A 40 year old man having sex with your 12 year old son is the same as a 40 year old woman right? In terms of "destructiveness" that is.

Also, are you also arguing that what the child thinks/feels about it in the present should be a major factor in determine the pedophiles sentence?

Citation needed? I don't think that's the sort of thing for which one would employ a citation in this sort of discussion. It's my opinion, an intuited feeling, the way I see things.

I feel that, given the differences (both physical and mental) between men and women, the act of an adult male having sex with an adolescent — female or male — is a more brutal thing than the act of an adult woman having sex with an adolescent boy (or girl, but given female sexuality that could be dark in other ways, and I don't really know where I come down on it).

This is why this double standard exists, and why people make sly jokes ("sure wish MY teacher woulda done that") about one situation and not the other.

Typically, when something exists in the world I tend to suspect there is a reason for it, and I try to understand that reason. Railing at injustice is not a behavior I often engage in.

This is my view on this sort of thing, and if we do not see it the same way, that's fine. I'm a new member and I come here because I enjoy the discussions. I don't come here to provide citations as one would do for a term paper, nor to get in extended arguments.

I did not realize citations were exclusive to term papers. If you are gonna make a claim which you are then gonna base your whole argument on, you kind of need to prove it true yes?

There might be a reason for it existing, but it is not necessary a good reason.

So from I gather so far, in pedophilia cases things that should matter in terms of sentencing and severity are: gender of pedophile, gender of victim, wether the child enjoyed it. Anything else?

Hey Ping,

I think I stated my view fairly clearly. If you find it lacking, incoherent or flawed, that's OK — I'm going to leave it there as my contribution and maybe it will add to the conversation for some of the other members.

I don't recall mentioning enjoyment, but I certainly do think gender (sex, rather: gender is a modern term and I don't really use it) of both perpetrator and victim plays a role in the crime's severity.

To be 100% honest here, I find the tone of the debate (the citation requests, the quotation marks "placed" around "terms") to be getting a little lawyerly for my tastes, so I will bow out having said what I said. I don't enjoy that sort of back and forth and its not why I come here.

Curious to see what you guys make of this though.

The reason that the teacher got into shit is because teachers are in a "position of trust" so they're not supposed to be banging students. I don't think she was one of his students, but I guess it's not the done thing for teacher to be banging any students in UK Law.

Ages of consent in Europe - England and Wales

Quote:Quote:

The age of consent in England and Wales is 16 regardless of sexual orientation or gender, as specified by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. However, if person A is over the age of 18 and is in a position of trust to person B who is under the age of 18, it is illegal for A to engage in sexual activity with B. Section 47 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it an offence to pay for or promise payment for sexual services of a person under 18 where the 'client' does not reasonably believe that person is over 18, or in any event for a person under 13.

In UK law this wouldn't have been an issue if he wasn't a teacher.

Quote: (07-31-2014 05:25 PM)Ping Wrote:  

I did not realize citations were exclusive to term papers. If you are gonna make a claim which you are then gonna base your whole argument on, you kind of need to prove it true yes?

You're my new favourite poster.

Well, to state the obvious that "richler" implied, a 40 year old fucking a 12 year old girl is likely to be taking her virginity, possibly exposing her to pregnancy, and certainly opening the gates to what could be a life of disillusioned sluttiness on the girl's part due to premature loss of innocence.

The 12 year old boy? Not good either due to premature loss of innocence, but without physical effect and a more neutral psychological effect - for example, it could boost confidence.

Yes, it is different.

   


6/10 WB if she stripped naked before me with no effort from my part. Especially if I were a 14y old and thirsty for my first experience.

When I was 17 I had sex with one of my friend's mom. Regularly, for an entire summer.

It was AWESOME.