• 22 year old spared jail over sex with 15 year old - "it was utterly inappropriate but fully consente
    275 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Grimhound;46566905]Fucking a 15 year old, regardless of the circumstances, isn't pedophilia. There's a separate word for it. Pedophilia by definition means they engage or wish to engage in sexual activity with prepubescent children. If there's an implied lack of consent, it's statutory rape. It doesn't make the guy a pedophile.[/QUOTE] Nobody cares what you call it.
[QUOTE=elitehakor;46564868]don't forget that 15 year olds don't have the mental capacity of an 18 year old[/QUOTE] UK age of consent is 16 not 18 like in the states.
[QUOTE=DigitalySane;46567212]UK age of consent is 16 not 18 like in the states.[/QUOTE] The federal age of consent is 12, all US states define it between 16 and 18 individually.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;46566905]Fucking a 15 year old, regardless of the circumstances, isn't pedophilia. There's a separate word for it. Pedophilia by definition means they engage or wish to engage in sexual activity with prepubescent children. If there's an implied lack of consent, it's statutory rape. It doesn't make the guy a pedophile.[/QUOTE] Even if it ain't pedophilia by textbook definition, it sure as hell ain't moral, and the morals are the main fucking point of this argument. [editline]24th November 2014[/editline] And it kinda does make the guy a pedophile or whatever the technical term is if he's ducking underage girls.
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;46564884]A child can't legally give consent. Even if the guy didn't completely avoid a sentence, the judge's reasoning is still fellatio.[/QUOTE] Fixed that for you. [sp]I agree with you.[/sp]
[QUOTE=LondierX;46567542] [editline]24th November 2014[/editline] And it kinda does make the guy a pedophile or whatever the technical term is if he's ducking underage girls.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't read the thread
Imagine defending pedophiles and saying that it's "okay". Holy shit I can't believe you people exist.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;46568082][B]Imagine defending pedophiles and saying that it's "okay".[/B] Holy shit I can't believe you people exist.[/QUOTE] how do people keep coming to this conclusion? no one has said anything like this
[QUOTE=NotMeh;46568159]how do people keep coming to this conclusion? no one has said anything like this[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=NotMeh;46565810]??? Yes, your dick reacting to a person who looks sexually mature is normal Listen dude, humans are animals, your mind and morals come second whether you want it or not[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Wootman;46569010].[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=NotMeh;46565989] I was saying that on a biological level, being attracted to anybody who has gone through puberty is normal if you're not attracted to them then it's purely your morals getting in the way[/QUOTE] Holy shit, how many times do I have to point this out? note '[I]on a biological level[/I]', morality is what we were discussing in the first place meaning that [I]morally[/I], it isn't fucking right [editline]25th November 2014[/editline] This entire thread has just descended into idiocy it really pisses me off how calling out some of the fallacious bullshit that you people spout here automatically makes you a 'pedo apologist' or 'fucking disgusting' it's like the lot of you cover your eyes/ears and completely disregard what I'm actually arguing for/what I actually fucking believe christ
Age of consent here in Denmark is 15, and I know people who were together with people quite a bit older than them at age 15. I think that's pretty fucked up, but the age of consent is basically a line in the sand, and obviously a mature 15 year old could conceivably make a more informed decision than a childish 17 year old. Personally, I think this should be taken into account in the court case, though that doesn't change that the guy should know that what he was doing was illegal, and even if (hypothetically) the girls were the ones to make advances, he should have rejected all of them, because he should be a responsible adult and know that they can't consent. He's 22 [I]and[/I] their coach, and that makes this inexcusable. He should have known better, and he abused his position of power. Even if they were 16, this guy should have rejected them, because there's still a big gap in maturity. I'm not saying "put this guy in jail forever", but there's no reason to rate this "winner" and defend the guy's actions, he's quite obviously in the wrong.
can you stop calling others paedophiles for literally nothing, it's like the paedofinder general's brigade has descended on the thread
Fucking hell, I knew FP was full of dogfuckers, but kidfuckers too? [editline]25th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Grimhound;46566905]Fucking a 15 year old, regardless of the circumstances, isn't pedophilia. There's a separate word for it. Pedophilia by definition means they engage or wish to engage in sexual activity with prepubescent children. If there's an implied lack of consent, it's statutory rape. It doesn't make the guy a pedophile.[/QUOTE] "Paedophiles are bad people, and I'm not bad."
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;46568082]Imagine defending pedophiles and saying that it's "okay". Holy shit I can't believe you people exist.[/QUOTE] Imagine demonizing someone solely over a mental condition they have no control over and acting like you're in the moral authority for it, because that doesn't sound fucking familiar in the slightest. Holy shit I can't believe you people exist. Unless you're talking about people that actually act on those preferences, which is a completely different story. I'm not really sure about what to think on this particular case, since 15 was only three years ago for me and I feel like I might've been ready for that shit at the time, but... It's definitely really dicey. I'm usually really adverse to chipping in to these threads because if you even dare to defend people like that you're immediately accused of being into kid-diddling, yourself- but it's a serious pet peeve of mine to see people get made into monsters because of shit as petty as that.
it's kinda creepy because like, being 15 and all, I mean, I know I had a completely different mindset between the ages of 14, 15 and 16, so there's like, room for misjudgement and all of that, but I guess if they consented ;s
[QUOTE=elitehakor;46564868]don't forget that 15 year olds don't have the mental capacity of an 18 year old[/QUOTE] and don't forget that some 18 year olds don't even have that of a 15 year old. [editline]25th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Kagu;46566255]Ironic shitposting is still shitposting. Judge had terrible reasoning imo. Guy should have been jailed.[/QUOTE] So the guy should have been jailed because of an arbitrary law saying that having sex with girls under a certain age is ILLEGAL! *gasp* That's bad reasoning if anything. Instead, it should be illegal to have sex with girls who have not entered their first menstruation period yet, which is around the age of 12. Sounds harsh I know but logical at least.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;46566327]i can assure u i'm well versed in english i just don't really care, sorry. if i want to use shorthand, i will[/QUOTE] You could at least make an effort out of respect for the people who read you. These last few pages made me wish the smartness system was reinstated.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46571439]You could at least make an effort out of respect for the people who read you. These last few pages made me wish the smartness system was reinstated.[/QUOTE] I think it's kinda annoying to read "shorthand" or whatever, but come on, it doesn't matter at all.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46571487]I think it's kinda annoying to read "shorthand" or whatever, but come on, it doesn't matter at all.[/QUOTE] I was more referring to the horrendous spelling. There are instances where it's fine to be a bit lax about it, but past a certain threshold it becomes tiring.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;46570441]So the guy should have been jailed because of an arbitrary law saying that having sex with girls under a certain age is ILLEGAL! *gasp* That's bad reasoning if anything. [/QUOTE] No, he was in a position of power and at her age, she is not mentally developed yet to consider the consequences. And no, your personal experience does not nullify scientific data. This is a clear cut case of statutory rape. People are just throwing the term "pedophile"/"pedophilia" around because they think it's cool to insult people or they're too lazy to search up the true definition when all it takes is 2 seconds on the computer. And even then you have a phone. Smart phones, dumb people.
Very nice to see a court of justice actually having some common sense. Not that I support his actions. As it's stated, it's utterly inappropriate - and fucking dumb. Don't know enough about the case to comment on whether he's exploited his position as their trainer.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;46566327]i can assure u i'm well versed in english i just don't really care, sorry. if i want to use shorthand, i will[/QUOTE] Bring back the smartness system
[QUOTE=Kagu;46571633]she is not mentally developed yet to consider the consequences.[/QUOTE] how do you know? [editline]25th November 2014[/editline] also yes the "dire" consequences
[QUOTE=.Lain;46564741]it's literally law. sometimes within two years of fifteen is accepted in court, but 22 and 15 should [I]never[/I] be looked past[/QUOTE] What about a 20 year old and a 30 year old.
[QUOTE=PiX06;46571935]Bring back the smartness system[/QUOTE] Could for work a comedic effect.
[QUOTE=FLIPPY;46572714]What about a 20 year old and a 30 year old.[/QUOTE] What about 10 and 20? Yeah no. It's not just about the difference.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;46573007]What about 10 and 20? Yeah no. It's not just about the difference.[/QUOTE] Yeah, you can't just use an absolute difference. You really have to use the half-your-age-plus-seven rule, which scales properly. That means the the minimum for a 22-year-old would be an 18-year-old. Or a 20-year-old and a 17-year-old, or a 30-year-old and a 22-year-old.
[QUOTE=ShaunOfTheLive;46573390]Yeah, you can't just use an absolute difference. You really have to use the half-your-age-plus-seven rule, which scales properly. That means the the minimum for a 22-year-old would be an 18-year-old. Or a 20-year-old and a 17-year-old, or a 30-year-old and a 22-year-old.[/QUOTE]Lets not use any "rules" like that?
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;46572641]how do you know? [editline]25th November 2014[/editline] also yes the "dire" consequences[/QUOTE] How do you know she is mentally developed? Shitty way to argue your stance mate. There are multiple studies that show the brain doesn't fully mature until a person is nearing the age of 25. A simple Google search would lead you to that. Consequences are still consequences. Your snark remark about it being dire or not doesn't help your argument. I'm happy you can get your kicks off of someone getting away scot free for "consensual" sex, but the circumstances leading up to and surrounding it are illegal.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;46575089]Lets not use any "rules" like that?[/QUOTE] It seems to work okay as a baseline "who should I not rub nasties with" for people who are already legal age. Though once you get a bit older it makes less sense, it's still a lot safer than, I dunno, a 34 year old banging a 18 year old. That doesn't sound like a massively healthy relationship just due to the age difference alone.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.