Former Cheerleader put on Probation for Fellating 12 year old boy.
247 replies, posted
[QUOTE=mchapra;42871341]And again, how does it make going to a 12 year old, forcefully fellating them ok in any regard?[/QUOTE]
Everything is OK until you present an exact reason why it isn't ok, tho?
Tell me how is strolling around the park on a bicycle OK. How's eating lettuce OK, huh? JUST SPEAK YOU LETTUCE EATING BICYCLE RIDER
[QUOTE=mchapra;42871341]And again, how does it make going to a 12 year old, forcefully fellating them ok in any regard?[/QUOTE]
The article is ambiguous, if it was really forceful then it's rape regardless of age. Due to the pantomime vocabulary surrounding the subject it's often difficult to ascertain if it was or was not consensual, if it really was forced then I'd obviously join you in condemning it but if it was consensual then I don't see the problem with it.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42871317]Either make your point or don't bother contributing to the discussion.[/QUOTE]
lol what are you doing? nobody asked for running commentary of this thread by some brave person playing devils advocate
what's more to say about the subject? rape is sex without consent, and 12 year olds absolutely cannot consent and every modern nation worth considering has laws for this very reason
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;42871360]lol what are you doing?
nobody asked for running commentary of this thread by some brave person playing devils advocate
what's more to say about the subject? rape is sex without consent, and 12 year olds absolutely cannot consent and every modern nation worth considering would agree[/QUOTE]
He makes a fair point you just keep stating your opinion on the subject and then not elaborating on why you think what you think, some people obviously disagree with you.
just becuse a near consensu currently exist doesn't mean it always will or that it;s right, an example would best illustare this:
"what's more to say about the subject? women should absolutely not be able to vote and every modern nation worth considering would agree"
Consensus changes.
I imagine this happens way more often but never gets reported because lets face it, what 12 year old is going to complain about getting head.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;42871360]lol what are you doing?
nobody asked for running commentary of this thread by some brave person playing devils advocate
what's more to say about the subject? rape is sex without consent, and 12 year olds absolutely cannot consent and every modern nation worth considering would agree[/QUOTE]
My contribution to the thread is that I point out you are not obeying rules of discussion and aren't actually having one, just throwing what amounts to insults and "but that's obvious".
You can't expect rape apologists to change their thinking when people don't use legit logic and arguments against them and it's all just "ZOMG YOU DISGUST ME".
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871367]He makes a fair point you just keep stating your opinion on the subject and then not elaborating on why you think what you think, some people obviously disagree with you.[/QUOTE]
lol my "opinion"
why do you think most nations have 16 as the age of consent?
This is crap - why did she get a veritable slap on the wrist for this?
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;42871383]lol my "opinion"
why do you think most nations have 16 as the age of consent?[/QUOTE]
Most European nations have it lower than that.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871392]Most European nations have it lower than that.[/QUOTE]
not as low as *12*
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;42871396]not as low as *12*[/QUOTE]
They did once and they may again, attitudes change.
you see the problem with a kid having sex like this (and i honestly can't believe that i'm having to explain this) is that children can't properly consent. you wouldn't say that someone who's passed out at a party should enjoy sex, i don't see why you would ever say the same thing about a twelve year old.
like, oh my god. why do i have to tell you this
a line has to be drawn somewhere, so you set the age of consent where the average person of that age would be mature enough and ready for sex. 16 tends to be a common age of consent.
the average 12 year old is in no way sexually, physically and mentally mature for sex, and especially not with a grown adult. saying a 12 year old can consent just means you're completely out of touch with reality, and probably a rape/pedo apologist
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871402]They did once[/QUOTE]
A lot of things were okay historically, doesn't mean they're still okay
[QUOTE=Cone;42871405]you see the problem with a kid having sex like this (and i honestly can't believe that i'm having to explain this) is that children can't properly consent. you wouldn't say that someone who's passed out at a party should enjoy sex, i don't see why you would ever say the same thing about a twelve year old.
like, oh my god. why do i have to tell you this[/QUOTE]
why cant they consent, any information required to understand the ramifications is very simple and it's covered in sexual education classes and most will have access to the internet anyway.
Informed consent is just a ridiculous concept that collapses under the slightest scrutiny. Any information that's required can be given, I mean adolescents have sex with each other all the time anyway why allow this but disallow them from doing the exact same thing with someone older. If they want to do it what's the harm?
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871355]The article is ambiguous, if it was really forceful then it's rape regardless of age. Due to the pantomime vocabulary surrounding the subject it's often difficult to ascertain if it was or was not consensual, if it really was forced then I'd obviously join you in condemning it but if it was consensual then I don't see the problem with it.[/QUOTE]
Its amazing how you say it's too ambiguous to come to the conclusion that it was without consent then proceed to say that it probably wasn't most likely.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;42871424]a line has to be drawn somewhere, so you set the age of consent where the average person of that age would be mature enough and ready for sex. 16 tends to be a common age of consent.
the average 12 year old is in no way sexually, physically and mentally mature for sex, and especially not with a grown adult. saying a 12 year old can consent just means you're completely out of touch with reality, and probably a rape/pedo apologist[/QUOTE]
Do we really need to resort to ad hominem? You're just stating your opinion as if it's fact, why do you believe that 16 rather than 12 is the right magic number? At neither age is a person fully mental, emotionally or physically mature.
What do you think sex involves that makes it so complicated and life altering that adolescents should be banned form doing it. If we are to allow them to masturbate why not allow them to participate in consensual sexual activity? What damage could consensual sexual activity possibly cause?
[editline]15th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=mchapra;42871446]Its amazing how you say it's too ambiguous to come to the conclusion that it was without consent then proceed to say that it probably wasn't most likely.[/QUOTE]
The article is ambiguous but I think one case is more likely than the other, what about that is unclear?
[QUOTE=mchapra;42871292]Did.. did you just use Saudi Arabia, Oman and Yemen as shining examples that paedophilia is ok?
holy shit[/QUOTE]
he also used mexico, japan and bolivia
they are perfect examples of where it is legal to fondle kids. as they are places where it is legal to fondle kids.
holy shit, right??
"Former Football Player put on Probation for Fellating 12 year old girl."
There would be no discussion whatsoever. Instant, universal condemnation.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871441]why cant they consent, any information required to underrated the ramifications is very simple and it's covered in sexual education classes and most will have access to the internet anyway.
Informed consent is just a ridiculous concept that collapses under the slightest scrutiny. any information that's required can be given, I mean adolescents have sex with each other all the time anyway why allow this but disallow the from doing the exact same thing with someone older. If they want to do it what's the harm?[/QUOTE]
well by the same token as some adolescents being ready for sex (which i still think is very disputable), you'd also have to admit that an equally large amount wouldn't be. like MisterMooth said the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it's better to draw it at a point where you wouldn't have kids taking on responsibilities they may not be able to handle, even if some of them might nonetheless be able to.
ultimately, unless you want to examine every single child in the world and individually test them for sexual readiness (which would still be an abhorrent idea even if it was possible (which it isn't)), you WILL need to draw the line somewhere.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;42871439]A lot of things were okay historically, doesn't mean they're still okay[/QUOTE]
I posted this in the mass debates forum i repsonse to such an accusation.
"I can already hear you saying “Just because it was legal once or is legal elsewhere doesn’t mean it should be now, slavery was once legal etc.” So we must ask why an age of consent exists in some places, the answer is probably is to protect people from unwanted sexual advances, but what is the basis for the specific ages chosen? The reasoning behind picking specific ages is usually arbitrary or non-existent, in some case such as Bolivia the reasoning is arguably sound as it has a biological basis, but many people do not accept a biological argument as sufficient and instead look to psychological arguments ( As doing so would either involve setting the age of consent at the onset of puberty(9-11), or at the end of puberty (20+).
It is often said that people beneath a certain age are insufficiently mature to consent to sex, usually the person saying this is only referring to people that have fallen below their arbitrary local age of consent. So the logical thing to do is to set the age of consent at the point at which the average person is fully mentally and emotionaly mature, leaving aside individual differences, this still causes one major problem. According to current scientific thinking (Source1 Source2) the brain does not finish maturation, which affects decision making, behavioural inhibition etc. until the late 20s, so if we are to base the age of consent on this it would mean raising it to at least 25. I would think most people would not be in favour of this.
We no longer live in an age in which all sex is taboo which raises a logical inconsistency in regards to policy surrounding adolescent sexuality. Masturbation amongst adolescents is now considered normal and healthy, when not done in excess. Rudimentary sex play between adolescents is now also considered normal and healthy. So if we concede that two 13 year olds engaging in sexual activity is not inherently harmful, why is it then that when an 18 year old and a 13 year old engage in sexual activity the younger supposedly suffers such extreme psychological trauma that it may take a lifetime of therapy to overcome it and the 18 year old is unironically considered to be worse than a murder. Ever since Bruce Rind’s 1998 meta-analysis and the various follow up studies (Rind et. A. Wikipedia summary)it has been the accepted scientific consensus that intergenerational sexual contact is not inherently harmful and that society’s extremely negative reaction to it is the cause of any resultant trauma. Even leaving aside the evidence supporting this it is in many ways deductively obvious; imagine yourself as a young teenager that was in a relationship with an adult, you found this person attractive and loved them, you confided in them and trusted them, you had a source of unbiased information and unconditional love, and then you’re caught, leaving aside the embarrassment you would feel having your sexual relations discussed by policemen and the media, you would be told that the relationship you had, the love you felt the sex you enjoyed was evil and sick and that the person you loved was evil and worse than a murderer and you would never be allowed to speak to that person ever again, if you refused to discuss things with the police or a psychologist you would likely have to go through a humiliating physical exam to ascertain what sexual contact took place. Is it any wonder that going through all this you come out the other end psychology damaged. And yet all of the studies show in cases where you aren’t caught and allowed to love in private no psychological harm takes place."
[QUOTE=Explosions;42871481]"Former Football Player put on Probation for Fellating 12 year old girl."
There would be no discussion whatsoever. Instant, universal condemnation.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. This thread makes me sick.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871466]
The article is ambiguous but I think one case is more likely than the other, what about that is unclear?[/QUOTE]
That's pretty hypocritical when you just said too ambiguous to assume either.
You must love that little bubble you live in if you think that consent is more likely over being forced.
[QUOTE=DeeCeeTeeBee;42871479]he also used mexico, japan and bolivia
they are perfect examples of where it is legal to fondle kids. as they are places where it is legal to fondle kids.
holy shit, right??[/QUOTE]
your point??
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;42871424]a line has to be drawn somewhere, so you set the age of consent where the average person of that age would be mature enough and ready for sex. 16 tends to be a common age of consent.
the average 12 year old is in no way sexually, physically and mentally mature for sex, and especially not with a grown adult. saying a 12 year old can consent just means you're completely out of touch with reality[/QUOTE]
I don't know if sexual experimentation with other people in your age group (who have agreed to experiment) counts as consent or mutual rape in the eyes of the law, but I was experimenting as young as 12 and knew my way around sex and consent by the age of 15.
I blame that on reading every kind of college-level and higher novel, though. I was far more informed than most people in my age group. Hence, I wasn't the 'average' 12 year old. I wouldn't support having the age set as young as my first time despite my experience (and not being substantially harmed by it), but I would also argue that setting it at 18 has a problem with being the opposite extreme, in that people older than 14 tend to start consenting even though it could result in both parties getting charged with rape at the worst.
I would say 15-16 is probably proper, but I would even then argue for restricting factors like 'you can only have sex with someone up to 19 years of age (and over the age of consent) while below the age of 18' or something - with some kind of mitigating factor for the odd couple that starts dating at 15/17 and ends up straddling the legal line, while also preventing rich ephebophiles from swooping in on 'barely legal' teenagers.
[QUOTE=Cone;42871495]well by the same token as some adolescents being ready for sex (which i still think is very disputable), you'd also have to admit that an equally large amount wouldn't be. like MisterMooth said the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it's better to draw it at a point where you wouldn't have kids taking on responsibilities they may not be able to handle, even if some of them might nonetheless be able to.
ultimately, unless you want to examine every single child in the world and individually test them for sexual readiness (which would still be an abhorrent idea even if it was possible (which it isn't)), you WILL need to draw the line somewhere.[/QUOTE]
A line does need to be drawn but I just think drawing at 18 or 16 is too high, I think the onset of pubescence would be best.
Really though consider what you're saying, you admit that in some case consensual sex is possible with someone under 16 and yet under current law people are imprisoned for their entire lives an put on the sex offenders register for doing just that. I think this is important enough to be judged on a case by case basis.
[editline]15th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=mchapra;42871517]That's pretty hypocritical when you just said to ambiguous to assume either.
You must love that little bubble you live in if you think that consent is more likely over being forced.
your point??[/QUOTE]
Come on, she looks pretty attractive I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that a pubescent boy would be interested.
[editline]15th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;42871532]
I would say 15-16 is probably proper, but I would even then argue for restricting factors like 'you can only have sex with someone up to 19 years of age (and over the age of consent) while below the age of 18' or something - with some kind of mitigating factor for the odd couple that starts dating at 15/17 and ends up straddling the legal line, while also preventing rich ephebophiles from swooping in on 'barely legal' teenagers.[/QUOTE]
This is usually refereed to as Romeo and Juliet laws. In regards to "Romeo and Juliet" laws I believe they are a good thing in that they address some of the worst excesses of age of consent laws but in many ways they are simply half measures. Take the above example of a 14 year old dating an 18 year old, depending on the specific age limits of the "Romeo and Juliet" law the older partner may be spared jail but why then should a 20 year old dating a 14 year old or a 25 year old dating a 14 year old and so on not also be allowed. Why is a 4-5 year difference okay but a 10 year difference is not? What would the actual difference be? They would do and feel the same things, but one would be punished and the other spared.
Before another spurious argument is brought up about an 18 year old not being able to exploit a 14 year old and a 25 year old only being able to do so, it again must be said that anyone in any relationship of any age can exploit someone of any age.
If it is conceded that an 18 year old should be able to date a 14 year old I see no logical opposition to an adult of any age doing the same.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871244]Not In Mexico, Japan, Saudia Arbaia, Yemen, Bolivia and Oman. And if we go back about 100 years it was legal basically everywhere. I made a thread about this very subject in the mass debates forum if you want to know more.[/QUOTE]
The [I]federal[/I] age of consent in Japan is 13, but every municipality there has laws raising it to be higher than that.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871441]why cant they consent, any information required to underrated the ramifications is very simple and it's covered in sexual education classes and most will have access to the internet anyway.
Informed consent is just a ridiculous concept that collapses under the slightest scrutiny. any information that's required can be given, I mean adolescents have sex with each other all the time anyway why allow this but disallow the from doing the exact same thing with someone older. If they want to do it what's the harm?[/QUOTE]
"Why is it okay for two kids to play doctor with one another but it's just suddenly wrong for me to join in with them?"
Same reason why it's okay for two people who are blackout drunk to have sex but not for a sober person to have sex with a blackout drunk person. Adolescents are still very immature (literally / physically), and can't make fully informed decisions. (Such as why you can't have a teenager sign a contract) If [I]neither[/I] of them fully understand sex, then they're both exploring it together. If an adult, who is fully developed mentally, has sex with an adolescent, they're taking advantage of the latter's relatively impaired cognitive reasoning.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871534]Come on, she looks pretty attractive I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that a pubescent boy would be interested.[/QUOTE]
You are aware that argument is as paper thin as "you know she wanted it".
[QUOTE=Last or First;42871556]The [I]federal[/I] age of consent in Japan is 13, but every municipality there has laws raising it to be higher than that.
"Why is it okay for two kids to play doctor with one another but it's just suddenly wrong for me to join in with them?"
Same reason why it's okay for two people who are blackout drunk to have sex but not for a sober person to have sex with a blackout drunk person. Adolescents are still very immature (literally / physically), and can't make fully informed decisions. (Such as why you can't have a teenager sign a contract) If [I]neither[/I] of them fully understand sex, then they're both exploring it together. If an adult, who is fully developed mentally, has sex with an adolescent, they're taking advantage of the latter's relatively impaired cognitive reasoning.[/QUOTE]
why would a teenager not fully understand sex though? and if they didn't why not just give them all of the relevant information first.
[QUOTE=mchapra;42871560]You are aware that argument is as paper thin as "you know she wanted it".[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's no different to
[QUOTE]Come on, he looks pretty attractive I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that a pubescent girl would be interested.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=mchapra;42871560]You are aware that argument is as paper thin as "you know she wanted it".[/QUOTE]
I'm obviously arguing more broadly than this specific case. I don't know if in this specific case he wanted it or not, all i'm saying is that in cases similar to this I think it would be likely that a boy would be willing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.