• 22 year old spared jail over sex with 15 year old - "it was utterly inappropriate but fully consente
    275 replies, posted
Depending on the person, a 15 year old may not fully understand what sex really is all about and what to expect. They've probably never taken a sex ed class in their lives, and may not understand the risks involved. Shit are we really debating if having sex with 15 year old girls or boys who simply say "yes" is okay? damn fp never change
doesn't sex ed start at like 11 lol what 15 year old doesn't know about sex
It's like 3/4th of the people here have never ever met a 15 year old. They definitely know what sex is.
[QUOTE=Kagu;46575203]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] Because people are different, and people mature at different paces. No scientist or study today can accurately tell when a person's brain is "fully matured". The developmental stage of the brain lasts from pre-birth infancy all the way to adulthood and beyond, so that's a lot of wiggle room and uncertainty. Going by that study, on average, people died before they were even fully matured for throughout most history. And these people laid siege on cities, ruled people, produced and reproduced, in all their immature developmental stages. Sounds a bit crazy. As for the consequences, I don't even know what YOU meant about them. Sexually transmitted diseases? Unwanted pregnancy? What? And as for the legality of it, it WAS consensual. If the law says something is illegal, then it is illegal, yep. But the circumstances, like the apparent "fulsome consent", sure as fuck complicates the issue when handing out sentences, so the Judge ordered as he saw fit. Now of course, I still don't know how developed her brain truly was, or how mature she were, but for that I would have to meet her in person. I trust the Judge's decision.
Whichever way you square it, the "well she said she was old enough" model of consent is open to a lot more abuse than the "straight-line age moratorium" model.
I'm 15, I know what sex is(and potential consequences), and I seriously think that the coach should've gotten a harsher sentence for what he did, because we're usually more impulsive and reckless at this age, and the fact that HE WAS A FUCKING COACH WITH POWER OVER THEM, it may have "consensual," but it may have been because the coach had power over them, and they might've been worried, that they would lose their money, or something bad might've happened, if they didn't fuck, and even if that shit was 100% pure consensual, they are literally a year younger than the age of consent, so the judge should have given the coach a harsher sentence.
When your 15 you can legally drive, they should know how to say yes or no.
it's actually really cool that this forum is populated not only by pedophiles but brazen pedophiles at that [editline]a[/editline] if you really, seriously think a 15 year old is psychologically mature to fully understand the ramifications of sexual relationships i don't really know what to say except maybe stop being a creep? there's a difference between a teenager understanding how sex works and a teenager fully understanding things like consent, what constitutes predatory behaviour, etc.
I find sex with that much age difference to be fairly creepy in some cases but that doesn't mean I should have any sort of legal grounds to punish it. There's a reason most of the countries in Europe have an age of consent situated around 16 which sometimes drops down to 14. [editline]27th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;46584190]if really, seriously think a 15 year old is psychologically mature to fully understand the ramifications of sexual relationships i don't really know what to say except maybe stop being a creep? there's a difference between a teenager understanding how sex works and a teenager fully understanding things like consent, what constitutes predatory behaviour, etc.[/QUOTE] That's a dumb argument in my opinion. Some people are stupidly gullible and some others are surprisingly mature for their age, you can't just generalize by saying "yeah every single 15 years old girls or even the noticeable majority of them is completely oblivious to the concepts of consent and predatory behavior" and actually expect it to hold any legal ground. If someone who's fifteen years old can fully understand sexual relationships and can fully consent, then you don't have grounds to decide whether or not they should get laid even with creepy weirdos who like fucking 15 years olds because that's no longer your problem or the law's problem.
[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;46584190]it's actually really cool that this forum is populated not only by pedophiles but brazen pedophiles at that [/QUOTE] Why on earth do you people keep assuming that people who defend pedophiles are pedophiles themselves? It's like you ignore whatever actual reason they had for defending this guy or whatever and try to vilify them because it's so much easier to do that rather than accepting the fact that some people sometimes aren't bothered by stuff that you're not fond of at all, which of course makes sense to feel that way, but you don't need to be fucking name-calling your opponents like that in an argument. Honest to god, it just seems pretty juvenile.
[QUOTE=Skerion;46584491]Why on earth do you people keep assuming that people who defend pedophiles are pedophiles themselves? It's like you ignore whatever actual reason they had for defending this guy or whatever and try to vilify them because it's so much easier to do that rather than accepting the fact that some people sometimes aren't bothered by stuff that you're not fond of at all, which of course makes sense to feel that way, but you don't need to be fucking name-calling your opponents like that in an argument. Honest to god, it just seems pretty juvenile.[/QUOTE] There's a pretty high correlation between pedos defending pesos, same as furries defending furries and other shit like that, so it's probably safe to assume that pedo defenders are in fact pedos. Honestly, there's hardly any* good reasoning for defending the guy at all, as all of them are either highly subjective, or just irrelevant, i.e. "instincts,"maturity, etc. *None at all.
I'm not even entirely sure about the definition of "pedophilia" anymore, but I thought it generally means sexual attraction to prepubescent persons. Or generally just [i]really[/i] young persons? This 22-year-old and the 15-year-old didn't quite meet that criteria or the definition of that, because the 15-y-o very likely wasn't a prepubescent anymore. That'd be quite concerning for her actually, considering she's already 15 years old. Don't girls hit puberty sooner than boys on average as well?
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;46584979]I'm not even entirely sure about the definition of "pedophilia" anymore, but I thought it generally means sexual attraction to prepubescent persons. Or generally just [i]really[/i] young persons? This 22-year-old and the 15-year-old didn't quite meet that criteria or the definition of that, because the 15-y-o very likely wasn't a prepubescent anymore. That'd be quite concerning for her actually, considering she's already 15 years old. Don't girls hit puberty sooner than boys on average as well?[/QUOTE] Etymology wise, Pedo means boy/child, it doesn't mean legally underage. In the US, the psychiatric designation for pedophilia in the DSM-5 (in which it's called pedophilic disorder) is as follow : "Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children." Having sexual relationships with a fifteen years old teenage girl who's fully physically able to have sex and mentally able to consent doesn't make you a pedophile. It makes you weird because it's very close to being pedophilia from an age standpoint, sure, but it's not pedophilia and as such is not a mental disorder or a criminal offense.
[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] Imagine advocating child rape
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;46585699]Imagine advocating child rape[/QUOTE] lmao what the fuck are you talking about?
[QUOTE=NotMeh;46585750]lmao what the fuck are you talking about?[/QUOTE] You meant to say that biologic maturity results in attraction, which I'm sure nobody disagrees with. What it looked like you said was, "when a person is attracted to someone young, you do what you want and then later consider the morality of it".
Pretty sure this is what I meant: [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]
[QUOTE=Skerion;46584491]Why on earth do you people keep assuming that people who defend pedophiles are pedophiles themselves? It's like you ignore whatever actual reason they had for defending this guy or whatever and try to vilify them because it's so much easier to do that rather than accepting the fact that some people sometimes aren't bothered by stuff that you're not fond of at all, which of course makes sense to feel that way, but you don't need to be fucking name-calling your opponents like that in an argument. Honest to god, it just seems pretty juvenile.[/QUOTE] Because when pedos see that people think that pedophilia is disgusting they feel attacked? They jump to the defense with a silver shield and loli porn mags in hand, screaming about how normal it is to fuck people under the age of consent
[QUOTE=LondierX;46584662]There's a pretty high correlation between pedos defending pesos, same as furries defending furries and other shit like that, so it's probably safe to assume that pedo defenders are in fact pedos. Honestly, there's hardly any* good reasoning for defending the guy at all, as all of them are either highly subjective, or just irrelevant, i.e. "instincts,"maturity, etc. *None at all.[/QUOTE] I find it quite stupid to deal in absolutes in such a manner. According to your logic, people opposing the goddamn quartering or public hanging of pedophiles (who aren't even criminals unless they engage in child molestation) would be pedophiles too. Heck, that kind of witch hunting would be fitting, seeing as people's mind seem to go medieval every time pedophilia is mentioned, as if they were somehow worse than fucking murderers.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46585791]I find it quite stupid to deal in absolutes in such a manner. According to your logic, people opposing the goddamn quartering or public hanging of pedophiles (who aren't even criminals unless they engage in child molestation) would be pedophiles too. Heck, that kind of witch hunting would be fitting, seeing as people's mind seem to go medieval every time pedophilia is mentioned, as if they were somehow worse than fucking murderers.[/QUOTE] Allow me to rephrase that for the context of this thread: People who support Child/Underage fuckers defend other Child/Underage fuckers. Child/Underage fuckers meaning those that actually did fuck children, or are planning to. And morally speaking, paedophiles are worse than murderers, and even more so if they act on their urges.
[QUOTE=LondierX;46585836]And morally speaking, paedophiles are worse than murderers, and even more so if they act on their urges.[/QUOTE] So you'd prefer they kill children rather than rape them? I don't really see where you're coming from with that.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46585884]So you'd prefer they kill children rather than rape them? I don't really see where you're coming from with that.[/QUOTE] Rape will traumatize them for life, it's something that will haunt them forever (Obviously that doesn't make murder okay, but you could say all the suffering that they will be inflicted is worse than straight up ending their life)
[QUOTE=_Axel;46585884]So you'd rather they kill those children rather than rape them? I don't really see where you're coming from with that.[/QUOTE] Universally speaking, I'm saying that paedophiles are morally worse since they harmed a child, and potentially scarred said for life, which will lead the child into a spiral of guilt with the child thinking that it was his/her own fault for getting molested, and said experience will lead to distrust of other people. No, I wouldn't prefer the child to be killed, because if it were killed, it wouldn't have much of a chance at life. The direction I was going in was that most people generally consider paedophiles worse than murderers because their targets are usually children.
[QUOTE=LondierX;46585924]Universally speaking, I'm saying that paedophiles are morally worse since they harmed a child, and potentially scarred said for life, which will lead the child into a spiral of guilt with the child thinking that it was his/her own fault for getting molested, and said experience will lead to distrust of other people. No, I wouldn't prefer the child to be killed, because if it were killed, it wouldn't have much of a chance at life. The direction I was going in was that most people generally consider paedophiles worse than murderers because their targets are usually children.[/QUOTE] OK, so it's more about the choice of the victim than the act itself? That makes more sense to me, even if I don't exactly agree.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;46585699]Imagine advocating child rape[/QUOTE] Can we stop using "Imagine X" please? Imagined it. What now Mr Fancy Pants?
[QUOTE=itisjuly;46586169]Can we stop using "Imagine X" please? Imagined it. What now Mr Fancy Pants?[/QUOTE] Just ignore him, he's just saying stupid shit to rile you. If he's really that stupid and believes what he says, I wouldn't be surprised either. It's easy to call someone a pedophile when you're too mentally inept to hold an argument.
[QUOTE=Kagu;46586182] It's easy to call someone a pedophile when you're too mentally inept to hold an argument.[/QUOTE] Dude you are seriously supporting the idea that it's "natural" for people to be attracted to underage girls, and you are condoning the fact that people are willing to act on these urges. The man used his position of authority and his age to take advantage of these girls. It [I]is[/I] pedophilia. You are blatantly ignoring this fact.
[QUOTE=NotMeh;46585774]Pretty sure this is what I meant:[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][/QUOTE] They were underage, probably looked underage, he was in a position of power so he likely coerced them into sex, and it's very likely that they actually weren't through puberty yet. No your argument does not hold. Arguing with biology in social issues is always highly fallacious and pretty terrible morally, see social darwinism for an example.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;46586831]Dude you are seriously supporting the idea that it's "natural" for people to be attracted to underage girls, and you are condoning the fact that people are willing to act on these urges. The man used his position of authority and his age to take advantage of these girls. It [I]is[/I] pedophilia. You are blatantly ignoring this fact.[/QUOTE] You're using the wrong terminology. That's my problem. I'm not condoning anything, judging from your previous posts, you barely read shit and if you just took a glance at one page back and the very page your post is on, I stated that the judge should have put that man in jail for the very same reasons as your second sentence. But "pedophilia" is the incorrect term. You are blatantly ignoring this fact. It's "statutory rape".
Is it really that hard of a concept to grasp, 6 pages into the thread, after it's been explained multiple times, that the question here is whether or not the persons could legally consent and not pedophilia ? why the fuck are we still talking about pedophilia ?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.