Former Cheerleader put on Probation for Fellating 12 year old boy.
247 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871570]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]
how about if the genders were reversed? would you have problems with a grown man trying to have sex with a 12 year old girl?
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871570]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]
12 years old isn't a teenager. And it's prepubescent compared to the average.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;42871587]how about if the genders were reversed? would you have problems with a grown man trying to have sex with a 12 year old girl?[/QUOTE]
If it was consensual then no I wouldn't.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Pedophile" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871466]Do we really need to resort to ad hominem?[/QUOTE]
that's not ad hominem. defending adults having sex with 12 year olds is rape apologia by definition.
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
~16 just seems like a good number to play it safe at. the laws are there to protect children from exploitation from adults, so you set the line at an age where most kids at that age would have enough understanding of sex and their bodies to make a conscious decision regarding sex. setting it too low allows for more child exploitation to slip through the cracks. ~16 is just a tried-and-true age that seems to work and plays it safe
[QUOTE]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?[/QUOTE]
you really don't see the damage in [B]adults exploiting underage children who cannot consent?[/B]
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871592]If it was consensual then no I wouldn't.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, fuck off.
[QUOTE=Explosions;42871589]12 years old isn't a teenager. And it's prepubescent compared to the average.[/QUOTE]
I misspoke, i'm having to type very quickly to keep up with this thread. I meant adolescent/pubescent.
There's so much wrong in this thread its sad.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871592]If it was consensual then no I wouldn't.[/QUOTE]
i don't think you understand why a prepubescent child cannot consent. were you entirely reasonable when you were 12? I was too busy nursing broken bones and saying stupid shit out loud to remember
[QUOTE=Sally;42871605]There's so much wrong in this thread its sad.[/QUOTE]
It's just one or two weirdo posters defending pedophilia.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;42871598]that's not ad hominem. defending adults having sex with 12 year olds is rape apologia by definition.
~16 just seems like a good number to play it safe at. the laws are there to protect children from exploitation from adults, so you set the line at an age where most kids at that age would have enough understanding of sex and their bodies to make a conscious decision regarding sex. setting it too low allows for more child exploitation to slip through the cracks. ~16 is just a tried-and-true age that seems to work and plays it safe
you really don't see the damage in [B]adults exploiting underage children who cannot consent?[/B][/QUOTE]
No it isn't I think statutory rape in some cases is absurd but I think actual rape is terrible.
"16 just seems like a good number to play it safe at"
Why?
It would be easy to exploit a 16 year old, it would be easy to exploit an 18 year old and it would be easy to exploit a 20 year old. There's always the potential for exploitation, it should be punished when it occurs not just because it possibly could, because it always possibly could.
At the risk of being accused of being a pedophile or some stupid shit, I think 12 is too low, but a year or so more, it wouldn't have mattered. 12 is sort of that turning point in maturity where some guys are capable of sexual shit, and desire it, and some aren't. After at the most 14 pretty much every dude's at that point.
If he had been a year or two older, I wouldn't give a fuck, most guys are seeking it out at that age anyway.
I don't know what all this mentally physically emotionally shit is about. Teenagers are able, willing, and more than happy to bone. I know this, I've been one. I got handjobs and shit at like 14. Guess what, my fragile little mind was not destroyed. And I know that every guy at my age was also on his own personal journey for any sort of sexual satisfaction not coming from themselves.
So, if that's true, that most (and probably all except rare extreme slow developers) are physically ready, and it's not going to hurt them mentally, why isn't the age of consent lowered to 15, or 14?
At the [i]very[/i] least, the age of consent ought to be 16. Tons of countries have done it (like, I believe, the UK) and it turned out just fucking dandy.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;42871612]i don't think you understand why a prepubescent child cannot consent. were you entirely reasonable when you were 12? I was too busy nursing broken bones and saying stupid shit out loud to remember[/QUOTE]
That's true of some 14 year olds and 16 year old and 20 year olds etc. People can always be exploited. Se isn't complicated and it's ramifications could easily be explained to an adolescent.
[editline]15th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Explosions;42871615]It's just one or two weirdo posters defending pedophilia.[/QUOTE]
Hebephilia and ephebophilia not pedophilia.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;42871081]Because randomly feeling up grown men is perfectly acceptable, normal behavior.
So does that mean I can go into the womens' restroom and get a handful of tits?[/QUOTE]
Well I tried it once it didn't work
well but on the other hand, free vasectomy!
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871621]"16 just seems like a good number to play it safe at"
Why?[/QUOTE]
Because after 16, the vast majority of people have already entered puberty.
I like how the different standards that are applied to sexes are being so blatant here.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871534]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.[/QUOTE]
yeah, but i just said that you CAN'T do it on a case by case basis because that would be hideously impractical, wasteful, and largely unnecessary. consider the kind of budget required to screen every single person under the age of sixteen in the UK alone for sexual readiness, which isn't even quantifiable to begin with.
you'd need psychologists, neuroscientists, medical doctors, huge amounts of regulation and police presence to make sure the system isn't exploited, all kinds of checks and balances, and all that would NOT be cheap. and you'd probably have to do that shit [I]yearly[/I], AND children would still slip through the cracks and wind up being raped because somebody said they were okay for sex when they weren't.
the whole thing is just a heinously poor, expensive, wasteful, and above all immoral idea, all for the incredibly small amount of children who are sexually ready before the age of sixteen. it's far easier to just put down the age of consent and enforce it rather than coming up with these overly grandiose systems that mostly wouldn't even work properly and rely on the unquantifiable measurement of sexual readiness.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;42871631]At the risk of being accused of being a pedophile or some stupid shit, I think 12 is too low, but a year or so more, it wouldn't have mattered. 12 is sort of that turning point in maturity where some guys are capable of sexual shit, and desire it, and some aren't. After at the most 14 pretty much every dude's at that point.
If he had been a year or two older, I wouldn't give a fuck, most guys are seeking it out at that age anyway.
I don't know what all this mentally physically emotionally shit is about. Teenagers are able, willing, and more than happy to bone. I know this, I've been one. I got handjobs and shit at like 14. Guess what, my fragile little mind was not destroyed. And I know that every guy at my age was also on his own personal journey for any sort of sexual satisfaction not coming from themselves.
So, if that's true, that most (and probably all except rare extreme slow developers) are physically ready, and it's not going to hurt them mentally, why isn't the age of consent lowered to 15, or 14?
At the [i]very[/i] least, the age of consent ought to be 16. Tons of countries have done it (like, I believe, the UK) and it turned out just fucking dandy.[/QUOTE]
I agree mostly, but i think it should just be viewed on a case by case basis, if people are ready and willing it just seems absurd to bar them from consensual sexual activity.
[editline]15th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Explosions;42871641]Because after 16, the vast majority of people have already entered puberty.[/QUOTE]
That's also true of 12 year olds.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871621]No it isn't I think statutory rape in some cases is absurd but I think actual rape is terrible.
"16 just seems like a good number to play it safe at"
Why?
It would be easy to exploit a 16 year old, it would be easy to exploit an 18 year old and it would be easy to exploit a 20 year old. There's always the potential for exploitation, it should be punished when it occurs not just because it possibly could, because it always possibly could.[/QUOTE]
Because there is a substantial difference between knowing about sex and actively seeking it out and having the opportunity thrust upon you, with no forewarning of STD's, pregnancy, psychological and physiological trauma, and social stigma.
You really don't seem to understand the difference between freedom and exploitation, Aidan_088.
[QUOTE=Cone;42871648]yeah, but i just said that you CAN'T do it on a case by case basis because that would be hideously impractical, wasteful, and largely unnecessary. consider the kind of budget required to screen every single person under the age of sixteen in the UK alone for sexual readiness, which isn't even quantifiable to begin with.
you'd need psychologists, neuroscientists, medical doctors, huge amounts of regulation and police presence to make sure the system isn't exploited, all kinds of checks and balances, and all that would NOT be cheap. and you'd probably have to do that shit [I]yearly[/I], AND children would still slip through the cracks and wind up being raped because somebody said they were okay for sex when they weren't.
the whole thing is just a heinously poor, expensive, wasteful, and above all immoral idea, all for the incredibly small amount of children who are sexually ready before the age of sixteen. it's far easier to just put down the age of consent and enforce it rather than coming up with these overly grandiose systems that mostly wouldn't even work properly and rely on the unquantifiable measurement of sexual readiness.[/QUOTE]
I don't know why you think it's only a small amount, i imagine it would be a lot, but regardless of how many it should still be done, just because something impractical doesn't mean it's not worth it.
Also you would just need to improve sexual education and make sure that relationships are pubic and thus open to scrutiny. All you would really need to check is if someone pubescent and if they're willing, it wouldn't be that complicated and it would definitely be worth it.
[editline]15th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Aphtonites;42871665]You really don't seem to understand the difference between freedom and exploitation, Aidan_088.[/QUOTE]
Exploitation can take place with someone of any age.
[editline]15th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;42871658]Because there is a substantial difference between knowing about sex and actively seeking it out and having the opportunity thrust upon you, with no forewarning of STD's, pregnancy, psychological and physiological trauma, and social stigma.[/QUOTE]
They're all still major risks regardless of age. This could be addressed through better sex education.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871673]
Exploitation can take place with someone of any age.[/QUOTE]
So that's makes it all fine and dandy, right?
You don't understand that it's easier to trick children, no matter how much information you throw at them.
For example: it's easier to get a child to believe in santa than it is to get a fully grown adult.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871673]make sure that relationships are [I]pubic [/I]and thus open to scrutiny[/QUOTE]
That Freudian slip.
Aside from that, the impracticality of the matter is a huge factor. Do you think every 12 year old should be surveyed and have their 'sexual readiness' assessed? Don't you think being given a really in-depth screening on sexual activity might influence the children to try some of what is being mentioned to them, especially at such a young and impressionable age?
I get the sense that implementing that system would cause more harm and confusion than it would prevent.
Why is it so important to you that the age of consent be so low? I have no interest in hooking up with someone under 18 at this point in my life, yet I am arguing for 15-16 based on my personal experience and what I learned from being around other people my age at that time.
You haven't made a argument other than 'They can be exploited at other ages too, so why not let people exploit them when they are younger?' and 'most boys want sex anyways'.
You just seem like you want to be able to legally fuck (or be fucked by) a 12-14 year old, consequences be damned.
[quote]Garner later told police she thought the boy was someone else (a grown man). [/quote]
There comes a point where your defense gets too silly to run with.
This woman obviously passed that point.
[QUOTE=Aphtonites;42871697]So that's makes it all fine and dandy, right?[/QUOTE]
It's terrible but I don't see why it would always happen in relationships with an age difference, there'd be the potential for it to happen, but there's always the potential in very relationship.
[editline]15th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;42871703]That Freudian slip.
Aside from that, the impracticality of the matter is a huge factor. Do you think every 12 year old should be surveyed and have their 'sexual readiness' assessed? Don't you think being given a really in-depth screening on sexual activity might influence the children to try some of what is being mentioned to them, especially at such a young and impressionable age?
I get the sense that implementing that system would cause more harm and confusion than it would prevent.
Why is it so important to you that the age of consent be so low? I have no interest in hooking up with someone under 18 at this point in my life, yet I am arguing for 15-16 based on my personal experience and what I learned from being around other people my age at that time.
You just seem like you want to be able to legally fuck a 12-14 year old, consequences be damned.[/QUOTE]
I think that with a higher quality sexual education such a system would be unnecessary.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871712]It's terrible but I don't see why it would always happen in relationships with an age difference, there'd be the potential for it to happen, but there's always the potential in very relationship.[/QUOTE]
And these these "relationships" are heavily one sided and are usually just fetishized.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871534]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.
[/QUOTE]
Really? The onset of arguably the most troubling and confusing time for a youngster?
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871712]It's terrible but I don't see why it would always happen in relationships with an age difference, there'd be the potential for it to happen, but there's always the potential in very relationship.[/QUOTE]
Especially those in which one of the people are so young that their brains literally have not solidified into what it will be when they mature.
It is arbitrarily pretty unethical for a grown adult to derive sexual pleasure based on the inexperience and acquiescence of someone so far below their age, because the odds are that the younger party's decisions will be largely be influenced (and thus manipulatable) by the information being given to them by the adult.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871673]I don't know why you think it's only a small amount, i imagine it would be a lot, but regardless of how many it should still be done, just because something impractical doesn't mean it's not worth it.
Also you would just need to improve sexual education and make sure that relationships are pubic and thus open to scrutiny. All you would really need to check is if someone pubescent and if they;re willing, it wouldn't be that complicate and it would definitely be worth it.[/QUOTE]
just increasing the amount of sex education wouldn't properly prepare them for sex, they can still be exploited or messed with without them knowing. and if they aren't even necessarily prepared for sex, i fail to see how willingness is in any way a measurement of their sexual readiness. so i repeat: sexual readiness is unquantifiable.
[QUOTE=Aphtonites;42871746]And these these "relationships" are heavily one sided and are usually just fetishized.[/QUOTE]
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?
[QUOTE=Cone;42871757]just increasing the amount of sex education wouldn't properly prepare them for sex, they can still be exploited or messed with without them knowing. and if they aren't even necessarily prepared for sex, i fail to see how willingness is in any way a measurement of their sexual readiness. so i repeat: sexual readiness is unquantifiable.[/QUOTE]
It is unquantifiable using age as a determining factor, for sure. It is one thing to say "Most people over 16 know what they are getting into (based on assumed social experience and exposure to media/information)", and completely different to say "If we tell our kids about sex enough, they will ALL be ready at 12".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.