• Parents bust teacher's relationship with teen son
    75 replies, posted
That's a bit of a stretch. You have some people denying that this is a traumatizing event, or even rape at all, but that doesn't mean they are involved. Age of consent is arbitrary. There are countries where this is allowed, and you don't get immediately shunned or thrown into a life disrupting legal case. (Be it the perpetrator or the victim) If you want to argue about something, i think it's important to realize and understand the different points of view before calling posters child molesters because they dared voice their opinion about this very taboo subject.
found the 13 year old not smart person
you're not allowed to keep "following your emotions" when it involves fucking kids, sorry
Sorry, I missed the cheating part. No, I don't intend to defend that, and by "boyfriend" I meant the kid. Or maybe it is because everyone around him is gonna consider him one? I am 100% certain that if I had been in a consensual sexual relationship with an adult in my teens I would not feel abused at all. Bad or good, it would've been my decision. Having been 13 once, I'm well aware that the typical 13 year old does not understand the world, or their own feelings, as well as the typical 18 year old. But why does this matter? It's just sex. Why require someone to understand it fully? What is it that makes sex so special that everyone thinks it needs such a high bar for informed consent, as opposed to all the things we do let kids do (including with adults) without question? I actually do agree with that, and that is definitely something she can be blamed for. But the fact that this is how all such relationships end up is not her fault. It's society's. And that's what I'm upset about.
Yeah I'm pretty sure they're not trolling mate, most of their post was pretty damn agreeable if you ask me. I'm personally pretty damn liberal about age of consent, but 13 is still pretty iffy for me so I can't say I entirely agree with their post. But, essentially every bit other than condoning that... Yeah, I mostly agree with all of it. So let me go over this point for point. Is it fucked that she fucked (hah) a 13 year old? Yes. That's not great to be doing. However, it's also fucked that this is going to essentially destroy her life. It is fucked that she's going to be ostracized to such an extreme from this. It's fucked that she's gonna be out of a job because of this. The consequences this will almost inevitably have for her are completely out of proportion. Even for violent criminals these kinds of extreme, life ruining consequences are just pointless and unconstructive, and this is not even a violent crime. You completely miss why he believes her boyfriend will be fucked by this. Assuming that Tudds comment in the OP is accurate since it was not mentioned in the article, he does not seem concerned by her cheating on him. We don't know what the situation is there. Maybe they're in an open relationship. Maybe he already knew about it. Or maybe he didn't know, but cares less about that than he cares about losing his girlfriend. Regardless of all that though, he's now going to be known as the guy who dated a child molester. Regardless of how he feels about her, he's going to be constantly hearing about how much everyone else hates her. That's the part that will definitely fuck him up emotionally. Maybe he is also upset about her cheating on him, but we don't know. And before I get on to your big rant, I'm just gonna say that regardless of how fucked it is to fuck a 13 year old, that will never change that it's totally fucked to spy on someone's private messages. That's just a grotesque invasion of privacy. So then, on to the big rant. For starters, the presiding opinion of cultures and the legal status of something is not a measure of morality. Age old example, but does the fact that it was an established and accepted part of culture that was entirely legal make slavery okay? Of course not. That's ridiculous. Don't assert that something is wrong because many cultures or many laws say so, it's a false equivalency. Second, while there is certainly potential for abuse with a relationship between two partners of differing age, it is not inherently exploitative. You claim that it is because it would be very easy for an adult to coerce or manipulate someone younger than them. So there's a pretty glaring issue here in that it being possible does not make it automatically the case. The potential for coercion or manipulation does not mean that coercion or manipulation has taken place, it just means the potential exists. And this potential exists in a great deal more relationships than just those involving an age difference. A difference in status, wealth, influence, it's all quite similar. It can all, in some situations, be used to coerce. Pretty big example of it popping up recently with the whole Weinstein controversy. However, a relationship with someone more wealthy or with greater influence than yourself is not and should not be illegal. It is perhaps questionable, and should be since there does exist an extreme potential for abuse there. But again, the potential for abuse does not equate to abuse. The potential that your mechanic could sabotage your car when it's down for repairs does not mean we arrest all autoworkers for attempted murder. Something is not inherently bad simply because there is a potential for it. The question, for me, is whether he's sexually mature enough to have sex in the first place, and I'm not entirely convinced a 13 year old would be. I know for a fact the vast majority aren't, at the very least. However, if someone is sexually mature enough that it would be just fine for them to have sex then that's that, really. Sex is sex, whether its with someone your age or not. It may be questionable for the relationship to be with someone older than you, sure. Much more so with them also being his teacher, that is extremely questionable, because yes there is a great potential for abuse there. But so is there in a relationship between, say, one of the most popular kids in a class and one of the least popular, even if they're the same age. The potential for emotional and social abuse there is incredible, and it's questionable. But once again, the potential for abuse existing does not mean that it's abusive.
I imagine you're just trying to trip me up, but: That's the illegal part. The part that everyone thinks the kid needs to be protected from. And the one that I think shouldn't be considered such a big deal at all.
Of course it's arbitrary. There's no universal agreement on age of consent. Different people believe different things, everyone believes they are in the right and everyone else is wrong. I'm not going to argue about child marriage in this thread.
This is just a bad argument, you could use this to justify anything. Moral relativism suuuuucks.
Yes, that's exactly my point. I actually quite literally said this exact thing in my post, if you read it. The key word you were missing is most. Well except for the part about there being a reason 18 is the go to age for recognizing people as adults, because it isn't really. It is in a lot of places, sure, yet even then it sometimes isn't really. In America for example, sure you're considered an "adult" when you're 18. But you can't buy alcohol before you're 21, the age of consent varies from 16 to 18, and running for many public offices has other age requirements as well. They're all pretty arbitrary, really. Someone picked a year that they thought sounded about right and went with it. As you yourself say, the brain generally isn't fully developed until you're about 25. Not 18, when you're considered an "adult". Not 16, when you can legally work full time. Not 21, when you can purchase alcohol. Not 30 when you can become a senator, or 35 when you can run for the presidency.
for real, many 13 year olds are pretty smart but when it comes to anything sexual they may as well be completely deaf dumb and blind they in no fucking way should be involved in anything even remotely similar to this. I don't care how much Milo-Yanapologic you use. They need to learn this on their own and be taught how to experience this kind of thing on their own, at their own pace, in their own setting
Then bring in some statistics or whatever. I'm not justifying anything, that's your misinterpretation. Pretty much all arguments in this thread are about personal beliefs, based on their personal moral codes. I'm saying it's important to really consider the other side of the argument before dismissing it entirely. The other side of the argument in this case pretty much boils down to these questions: - Is this damaging to the teen? - Would this have been damaging to the teen if the age of consent was lower and there was no court case/serious reprecussions? And it's not really possible to give concrete answers to these questions, so it all devolves to arguments over arbitrary beliefs, or personal attacks.
I'd really appreciate it if you'd not throw around insults constantly? That would be cool, thanks. Like I said earlier, I think 13 years old is probably a bit early to start actually having sex. But, on the other hand, some people just mature faster in some ways. Most 13 year olds are hardly completely deaf to sexuality though. 13 is when that sort of thing first starts to come to mind, so unless you've developed slowly in this area you should at least be starting to understand it, but much like some develop faster many of course do develop slower.
How much damage was/would have been done is not the entire issue. We can't trust people to accurately determine if initiating a relationship with a child would cause harm. Factoring in risk is important, which is why drunk driving is illegal even if you obey all other laws.
Probably the first time I've actually seen a decent counterargument in this sort of discussion. However, being drunk demonstrably hampers your ability to drive to a massive degree and it is statistically obvious that they cause many accidents, often lethal. Yet even then most places have some leeway. You have to be a certain degree of drunk before it's considered a crime. Is there any significant proof that it is demonstrably harmful the vast majority of the time in cases where there is an actual relationship, rather than the kid being manipulated into sex or molested?
Guess it's a statistical point of view VS. a per-case point of view? I sense a sliver of truth in some of these arguments. It's not too far fetched to imagine that all the ruckus surrounding the event is what actually causes the harm in such a case..
This has to be the biggest paedophile sympathetic post I've seen lmao
Children are bad at understanding the ramifications of their actions or what consequence that can carry way down the line. It's why some of them swallow tide pods because a funny internet picture told them to. An adult woman in a position of authority preying on that to satisfy her needs is gross as hell and the "maturity" of the child in question is so far removed from the point of these laws it's not even funny.
It's kind of stunning how you managed to paint yourself as a complete idiot in not even half a line. Don't paint someone as a poor, bewronged person just following their heart when they're fucking underage kids, let alone barely pubescent ones.
It's disturbing that we still have to spell this out: Sex carries inherent risks, like owning a gun, or drinking alcohol. Kids are not very good at assessing risk and acting accordingly. -> If you are an adult who has a well-developed understanding of sex, by having sex with a kid and exposing them to these risk factors, you are exploiting them. Of course people don't develop at different rates, but by-and-large (and I mean very much so in the case of 13-year-old), they are not mature enough to treat sex maturely. A 19-year-old might not be either, but you have to cut the cord sometime.
That's kind of what I'm saying - that when a legally/culturally underage teenager has consensual sex / is in a consensual relationship with an adult, that's not gonna hurt them a whole lot by itself. But if it comes to light and now their partner's going to prison, will never be able to lead a normal life again, and everyone's gonna treat them as a sexual abuse victim? Now that's traumatising. True. So, has anybody actually analysed the risk? 'far as I can tell, when these laws are written or defended, it's only ever with a prescription of "sex between teens and adults is abusive and gross" which is taken for granted, with little investigation into what a society that afforded teenagers a right to sexual self-determination even when it comes to older people would look like. (Note the self-determination bit. Ancient Greek pederasty or cultures where arranged child marriages are accepted do not qualify.)
But is it really wrong to sympathise with people that have pedophilic tendencies? It's very much a mental/social disorder, and much like other addictions this shit can overcome your common sense and make you do things you shouldn't. I think the best way to fight pedophilia is to be open about discussion around it, instead of condemning people with these tendencies as being evil. If people are forced to hide their tendencies / addictions, they won't get any treatment.
It's not wrong to say that pedophiles don't choose their attractions and we should be sympathetic and help them. But it is bad to apologize for the actual act of child sexual abuse.
Once again, I really have to stress the "some of them" aspect of this. Not to even mention how your example actually proves the exact opposite of your point, since the vast majority of people who got poisoned by tide pods because of those memes were actually young adults by law. We have statistics on this. Last year, of all the people who had been reported to poison control as having ingested laundry pods, just 9% of them were over 20. Near the beginning of this year when the meme was going wild, it was 44% And that's just over 20, that's not even counting 19 or 18 year olds who are also considered "adults"
Yeah I'm not going to defend the actual act. I really feel that there's a lot of moral inconsistencies surrounding this whole subject though. Wish I could put it into better words.
'far as I can tell, when these laws are written or defended, it's only ever with a prescription of "sex between teens and adults is abusive and gross" which is taken for granted Don't forget about the physical risks of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, which are already significant risks even for adults. I also think you should consider the hypothetical world where it is completely allowed, and harmless child-adult relationships can exist: The problem I see is that it becomes difficult to determine when actual abuse is happening, and when it is actually harmless. Similar to a problem if children were able to vote, adults would easily be able coerce children into not only doing as the adult wants, but also to pretend (or even believe) that they want it. If you looked at every case and simply asked the children "is this okay?" and nothing could be done if they answered yes, I think we might quickly end up finding that this hypothetical world needs to instate laws to protect children from sexual abuse, even if it sometimes was harmless.
Maturation of the adolescent brain This isn't a "what if", it's a an actual physical structure in the brain that doesn't develop until later in puberty that you straight up don't find in kids below a certain age. And you're missing the greater point I was trying to make. Children below a certain age cannot be trusted to make informed decisions on certain things because they have a risk/reward analysis that's completely out of whack due to a mixture of hormones, and lack of maturity.
I don't think I have ever seen literally even one single apologist pop up in any thread about a male teacher having sex with a female kid. I pretty much guarantee you that none of the child molester apologists in this thread would be giving any of this horseshit about "think of the poor child molester this is going to ruin his life : '(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((" and "if she wanted it then what's the problem???" if the genders were reversed.
these threads are always useful because they give you a clear list of users you should stay the fuck away from
At least for myself, I have a problem with the sheer degree of outrage that surrounds pedophilia. Discussing any aspect of the issue is practically impossible when most people immediately jump down your throat if you do anything besides condemning it on the harshest possible terms. No matter how bad you think being in a relationship with a 13 year old is, it's not even in the same ballpark as, say, kidnapping and molesting a 7 year old. It's not even comparable. Yet to me at least it often feels like these things are all lumped into the same category and receives the same kind of extreme emotional response. It's like no matter how relatively mild the crime is it gets the kind of reaction you'd normally expect from a violent rape or murder. Even in situations where the supposed victim were 16 or 17, well into the age where most people are quite sexually active, it still gets this kind of response. It feels like as soon as the concept of sex between people below and above the age of consent is brought up, people lose all sense of scale or severity.
Totally okay for a 16 year old to be sexually active with someone in a similar stage of development to them. Utterly different from a 13 year old having sex with a full-fledged adult more than twice their age in a position of power over them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.