Former Cheerleader put on Probation for Fellating 12 year old boy.
247 replies, posted
can't wait for the appellate courts to rule on this pathetic slap on the wrist for rape
[QUOTE=NuclearJesus;42874650]Thinking that fucking kids is something that can be reasonably defended is some retarded ass logic.
If you can't see my point, go back through this thread and read his posts. You can only claim "spirited debate for the sake of debate" so much. The man spent the entire thread giving reasons why it's perfectly acceptable, and desirable, to allow children to "experiment" and pursue sexual relationships with adults, and to allow adults to do the same. AT LENGTH.
EDIT: And with that, I remove myself from the discussion. If I post any longer, I'll just be parroting what I've already said. Suffice to say, when it comes to sex with children, even the "willing" participants are victims. It will stay with them for the rest of their lives. And no man, or woman, has the right to scar a child in such a manner.[/QUOTE]
If you actually read my posts you would know that on multiple occasions I made it clear that I am not in favor of pedophilia or "fucking kids".
[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;42873833]pedo's deserve nothing less then being lined up against a wall to face a firing squad.[/QUOTE]
Are you the paedofinder general
probably late
but imagine how popular the kid became in school
[QUOTE=NuclearJesus;42874650]Thinking that fucking kids is something that can be reasonably defended is some retarded ass logic.
If you can't see my point, go back through this thread and read his posts. You can only claim "spirited debate for the sake of debate" so much. The man spent the entire thread giving reasons why it's perfectly acceptable, and desirable, to allow children to "experiment" and pursue sexual relationships with adults, and to allow adults to do the same. AT LENGTH.
EDIT: And with that, I remove myself from the discussion. If I post any longer, I'll just be parroting what I've already said. Suffice to say, when it comes to sex with children, even the "willing" participants are victims. It will stay with them for the rest of their lives. And no man, or woman, has the right to scar a child in such a manner.[/QUOTE]
I never said I agree with him, I just hate when people fight against analogies because they are too stupid to understand what is really being compared. It's like people just can't wrap their head around analogies, causing much idiocy.
[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;42873833]pedo's deserve nothing less then being lined up against a wall to face a firing squad.[/QUOTE]
the pinnacle of logic, sensibility and reasoning, kai-ryuu
fantastic
this is wrong and all but
can someone explain how it is going to harm a boy, or traumatize him somehow? something tells me all the scares and trauma come later when he is having a talk with his parents, who insist on this act being evil and disgusting and all, different talks about sex, etc etc.
The fact the OP got so many winners astounds me.
[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;42874978]The fact the OP got so many winners astounds me.[/QUOTE]
It's an attractive woman.
[QUOTE=mchapra;42871238]Are you shitting me right now?
Munching on a 12 year old is not ok ANYWHERE and even if it is somewhere it's still sick and wrong.[/QUOTE]
There are countries where twelve is the age of consent, Mr. Condescending.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;42875035]There are countries where twelve is the age of consent, Mr. Condescending.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't mean it's ok
[QUOTE=qwerty000;42874924]this is wrong and all but
can someone explain how it is going to harm a boy, or traumatize him somehow? something tells me all the scares and trauma come later when he is having a talk with his parents, who insist on this act being evil and disgusting and all, different talks about sex, etc etc.[/QUOTE]
Just like how engaging in consensual (or [i]de facto[/i] consensual, depending on the circumstance) sex at the age of twelve with a person of the same age can be harmful to a child's psychology and mentality, so can statutory rape. Most twelve-year-olds are not sufficiently psychologically mature to handle sexual relationships or even unattached sexual acts.
[editline]15th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;42875056]Doesn't mean it's ok[/QUOTE]
Mchapra was implying that there is not a place in the world where it is socially acceptable. In countries where the age of consent is that low, it is generally accepted.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;42875035]There are countries where twelve is the age of consent, Mr. Condescending.[/QUOTE]
Vatican City?
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42875092]Vatican City?[/QUOTE]
That's implying that the Holy See even has an age of consent to begin with, haha.
If some hot cheerleader followed me into a bathroom at 12 years old and wanted to give me a blow job. I would have been so down for that.
doesn't matter if you call it hebephilia or ebephilia or whatever, adults shouldn't be trying to fuck 12 year olds. ever. anyone that does is a rapist
[editline]16th November 2013[/editline]
NOONE should be
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42875143]doesn't matter if you call it hebephilia or ebephilia or whatever, adults shouldn't be trying to fuck 12 year olds. ever. anyone that does is a rapist
[editline]16th November 2013[/editline]
NOONE should be[/QUOTE]
No one fucked anyone in the story it was about oral sex. Your position is fundamentally illogical, according to Rind's study inter generational sex is not harmful, but what is harmful is society extremely negative reaction is.
Leaving the mountain of evidence aside it is 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.
Rate disagree or dumb all you like, it doesn't change the facts, if you have evidence that refutes Rind, I suggest you publish it because you'll receive an honorary doctorate from every university in the country.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42875306]No one fucked anyone in the story it was about oral sex. Your position is fundamentally illogical, according to Rind's study inter generational sex is not harmful, but what is harmful is society extremely negative reaction is.[/QUOTE]
Is fucking only vaginal sex?
The age of consent exists for a reason and even if you're against that for some reason a teacher shouldn't be getting involved with a student. Its an unequal relationship where abuse is bound to happen.
snip
[editline]15th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42875329]Is fucking only vaginal sex?
The age of consent exists for a reason and even if you're against that for some reason a teacher shouldn't be getting involved with a student. Its an unequal relationship where abuse is bound to happen.[/QUOTE]
How many times must it be said, abuse could happen in literally any relationship.
The point is sometimes made that any relationship involving a teenager and an adult is exploitative due to the power imbalance inherit in the relationship. It is true that there is a potential for exploitation, however in reality there is potential for exploitation in almost every relationship. Relationships in which one partner is significantly more intelligent or educated than the other; relationships in which one partner earns much more money than the other, relationships in which one partner has a much higher social standing than the other, relationships in which one partner is significantly physically stronger than the other, relationships in which one partner is much more attractive than the other etc. all have the potential to be exploitative, so why is it that such relationships are considered acceptable when relationships with a significant age difference (with one partner being below the local age of consent) are illegal and sometimes considered the most evil thing a person can do.
So rather than punishing people for being involved in potentially exploitative relationships why not just punish them when actual exploitation takes place?
[QUOTE=Axznma;42873957]What a disastrous mentality. [I]It's too much work so don't even bother[/I]. That cancerous mindset is the reason justice systems are full of holes, needless bloat while still being ridiculously vague, improper use and political-correctness bullshit. In fact that mentality is the reason a lot of the bullshit in the modern era continues to exist. You should be ashamed for contributing to the snails pace that is humanities advancement.[/QUOTE]
First, I don't think human advancement should be measured by "the earlier we can fuck kids the better".*
Second, there's a difference between "it's too much work to go to the moon, let's not even try" and "it's too much work to professionally evaluate every adolescent and make personal ages of consent for each one just because some people can't find someone closer to their own age nor wait a few years, so let's stick with the law that works with when the average person is mature enough and then deal with the details during the court cases".
*Fun fact: it's the opposite of this, actually. Age of consent is directly linked to the age when you can marry someone. Usually when girls are married that young, they're being manipulated (by their parents or their 'suitor'), and if they [I]do[/I] go along with it, it's most likely because they aren't actually mature yet. Then, once they're married, the girls usually don't follow up with school, due to the parents / suitor forcing them out, and /or pregnancy stopping them. So, a lower age of consent is intrinsically tied to how much education women receive, and the rights they have.
[url=http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/yemen-end-child-marriage]Here[/url]
I remember having a different source for this, but I can't find it for some reason. I'll keep looking if I can.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42875306]No one fucked anyone in the story it was about oral sex. Your position is fundamentally illogical, according to Rind's study inter generational sex is not harmful, but what is harmful is society extremely negative reaction is.
Leaving the mountain of evidence aside it is 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.
Rate disagree or dumb all you like, it doesn't change the facts, if you have evidence that refutes Rind, I suggest you publish it because you'll receive an honorary doctorate from every university in the country.[/QUOTE]
oral or penetrative doesn't matter, when it comes to rape the distinction is meaningless. and you're trying to say your argument is about defending the child? no. if the relationship could ever be anything more than a older person taking advantage of a kid to get their rocks off, then that adult can wait until the child is of a reasonable age
[QUOTE=Last or First;42875408]First, I don't think human advancement should be measured by "the earlier we can fuck kids the better".*
Second, there's a difference between "it's too much work to go to the moon, let's not even try" and "it's too much work to professionally evaluate every adolescent and make personal ages of consent for each one just because some people can't find someone closer to their own age nor wait a few years, so let's stick with the law that works with when the average person is mature enough and then deal with the details during the court cases".
*Fun fact: it's the opposite of this, actually. Age of consent is directly linked to the age when you can marry someone. Usually when girls are married that young, they're being manipulated (by their parents or their 'suitor'), and if they [I]do[/I] go along with it, it's most likely because they aren't actually mature yet. Then, once they're married, the girls usually don't follow up with school, due to the parents / suitor forcing them out, and /or pregnancy stopping them. So, a lower age of consent is intrinsically tied to how much education women receive, and the rights they have.
[url=http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/yemen-end-child-marriage]Here[/url]
I remember having a different source for this, but I can't find it for some reason. I'll keep looking if I can.[/QUOTE]
Child marriage is a separate issue to the age of consent, it would be entirely possible to have a different age for marriage and for sexual consent.
"it's too much work to professionally evaluate every adolescent and make personal ages of consent for each one just because some people can't find someone closer to their own age nor wait a few years, so let's stick with the law that works with when the average person is mature enough and then deal with the details during the court cases".
This would be unnecessary, it's not done in Britain where the age of consent is 16, or France where it's 15 or Germany where it's 14 or Spain where it's 13 etc. It's true that there would need to be an improved sexual education system if the age of consent was changed again but I see no reason such a cumbersome system would be necessary.
[editline]15th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42875444]oral or penetrative doesn't matter, when it comes to rape the distinction is meaningless. and you're trying to say your argument is about defending the child? no. if the relationship could ever be anything more than a older person taking advantage of a kid to get their rocks off, then that adult can wait until the child is of a reasonable age[/QUOTE]
You're being ridiculous, if you love someone it's not realistic for you to wait years before you'd be able to consummate your relationship, no relationship could last through years of forced celibacy.
Why does it have to be exploitation? I agree that's it's possible for exploitation to take place and that it's a bad thing but why must it always occur when there's an age gap? There's always the possibility for exploitation to occur not just in relationships with age gaps.
there is no relationship an adult can have with a child that isn't exploitative. an adult can't have a proper relationship with a child because that's just not how it works, an adult can't intellectually connect with a child, get a house together, or basically do anything that constitutes an adult relationship. it's literally only for sex. and using a child for sex is exploitative
[editline]16th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42875471]Child marriage is a separate issue to the age of consent, it would be entirely possible to have a different age for marriage and for sexual consent.
"it's too much work to professionally evaluate every adolescent and make personal ages of consent for each one just because some people can't find someone closer to their own age nor wait a few years, so let's stick with the law that works with when the average person is mature enough and then deal with the details during the court cases".
This would be unnecessary, it's not done in Britain where the age of consent is 16, or France where it's 15 or Germany where it's 14 or Spain where it's 13 etc. It's true that there would need to be an improved sexual education system if the age of consent was changed again but I see no reason such a cumbersome system would be necessary.
[editline]15th November 2013[/editline]
You're being ridiculous if you love someone it's not realistic for you to wait years before you'd be able to consummate your relationship, no relationship could last through years of forced celibacy.
Why does it have to be exploitation? I agree that's it's possible for exploitation to take place and that it's a bad thing but why must it always occur when there's an age gap? There's always the possibility for exploitation to occur not just in relationships with age gaps.[/QUOTE]
and here we go again, see it's not about the relationship or 'love' it's just about sex
[editline]16th November 2013[/editline]
yes, i'm being ridiculous
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42875306]
Leaving the mountain of evidence aside it is deductively obvious, imagine yourself as a young teenager that was in a relationship with an adult, you found this person attractive and loved them[/QUOTE]
since you know, this clearly happens
you don't seem to realize how you're trying to please an extremely tiny minority at the cost of the safety of thousands of children here.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42875522]there is no relationship an adult can have with a child that isn't exploitative. an adult can't have a proper relationship with a child because that's just not how it works, an adult can't intellectually connect with a child, get a house together, or basically do anything that constitutes an adult relationship. it's literally only for sex. and using a child for sex is exploitative[/QUOTE]
So young people can't have friendships with adults? Why could they not just have a loving relationship without buying house or getting married, I don't see what's impossible or absurd about a loving relationship between two people with differing levels of maturity or intelligence, as long as no on takes advantage of anyone what's the harm?
"an adult can't intellectually connect with a child"
What about teachers? Aren't they employed to do just that?
Where is the exploitation in a loving consensual relationship?
Because friendship is equal to romantic involvement.
[quote=Aidan_088 the post isn't letting me quote it for some reason so here]No one fucked anyone in the story it was about oral sex. Your position is fundamentally illogical, according to Rind's study inter generational sex is not harmful, but what is harmful is society extremely negative reaction is.
Leaving the mountain of evidence aside it is 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.
Rate disagree or dumb all you like, it doesn't change the facts, if you have evidence that refutes Rind, I suggest you publish it because you'll receive an honorary doctorate from every university in the country.[/quote]
1. what mountain of evidence
2. Why are you assuming that this person is "a source of unbiased information and unconditional love"? Hell, if the kid is the one who thinks that, doesn't that only further the "they're being manipulated" thing?
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42875471]Child marriage is a separate issue to the age of consent, it would be entirely possible to have a different age for marriage and for sexual consent.
"it's too much work to professionally evaluate every adolescent and make personal ages of consent for each one just because some people can't find someone closer to their own age nor wait a few years, so let's stick with the law that works with when the average person is mature enough and then deal with the details during the court cases".
This would be unnecessary, it's not done in Britain where the age of consent is 16, or France where it's 15 or Germany where it's 14 or Spain where it's 13 etc. It's true that there would need to be an improved sexual education system if the age of consent was changed again but I see no reason such a cumbersome system would be necessary.[/QUOTE]
If you follow the quote line, you'll see that:
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871534]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]
you were the one who suggested it.
Unless if Cone misread what you meant.
And most of the time, age of marriage is linked to age of consent, even if they're not the same. For instance, [url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/spain-raises-age-of-consent]Spain is raising both its age of consent and age of marriage[/url].
[QUOTE=Aphtonites;42875551]since you know, this clearly happens
you don't seem to realize how you're trying to please an extremely tiny minority at the cost of the safety of thousands of children here.[/QUOTE]
It's just as absurd to say they're all egalitarian as it is to say they're all exploitative. No relationship is truly equal as long as no one exploits anyone else then it doesn't matter what the initial power imbalance is.
[editline]15th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42875583]Because friendship is equal to romantic involvement.[/QUOTE]
It's on a spectrum.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42875571]So young people can't have friendships with adults? Why could they not just have a loving relationship without buying house or getting married, I don't see what's impossible or absurd about a loving relationship between two people with differing levels of maturity or intelligence, as long as no on takes advantage of anyone what's the harm?
"an adult can't intellectually connect with a child"
What about teachers? Aren't they employed to do just that?
Where is the exploitation in a loving consensual relationship?[/QUOTE]
a friendship is different from a sexual relationship, and even friendships between youths and adults are different, you can't be friends with a kid like you can with someone your own age. and because your idea of a loving relationship is only sex. that's not what a relationship is. and a teachers way of connecting with a child is far far FAR different from the kind of connection involved in sexual relationships. the exploitation is that the adult is using the child for sex. there is nothing more to it.
[QUOTE=Last or First;42875585]1. what mountain of evidence
2. Why are you assuming that this person is "a source of unbiased information and unconditional love"? Hell, if the kid is the one who thinks that, doesn't that only further the "they're being manipulated" thing?
If you follow the quote line, you'll see that:
you were the one who suggested it.
Unless if Cone misread what you meant.
And most of the time, age of marriage is linked to age of consent, even if they're not the same. For instance, [url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/spain-raises-age-of-consent]Spain is raising both its age of consent and age of marriage[/url].[/QUOTE]
Rind' study that in 1998 proved that inter generational sex is not inherently harmful but societies negative reaction to it is what actually causes the harm. It's yet to be overturned, so if you have evidence to the contrary I suggest you publish as you'll go down in the history books.
[url]http://maggiemcneill.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/rind-tromovich-1998.pdf[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al[/url]
Marriage doesn't have to linked to the age of consent, there's nothing to stop the two laws being different.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.