High School Teacher Found Naked Atop Naked 16 Year Old Boy (Pic)
- Thread starter JoeBoy101
- Start date
- Status
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
If the genders would have been reversed, GAF would be all:
"ZOMG MONSTER MONSTER!"
"BURN AT HIM AT THE STAKE!"
"RAPIST!"
"OFF WITH HIS HEAD!"
"ZOMG MONSTER MONSTER!"
"BURN AT HIM AT THE STAKE!"
"RAPIST!"
"OFF WITH HIS HEAD!"
"It's not rape rape" is the 'excuse' people use when 30 year old men sleep with 11 year old girls. That is rape rape. I know plenty of girls who lost their virginity that young, but they sure as shit didn't know what they were doing when they did.timetokill said:
Just because the law says they cannot consent does not mean they cannot consent. Statutory rape and rape do not go hand in hand automatically. By your definition, if a 16 year old has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, he just raped her and she him because neither could consent. Paradox!
I'm not defending sex with people who aren't old enough to consent here. I'm saying 16 is plenty old enough to consent. This is a case of 'sex with willing individual under the age of legally defined consent', not a case of 'sex with individual who does not consent or cannot consent'.
Thus, no matter what some backwards law says, it isn't rape.
Not really. An adult sleeping with a 16 year old, whilst more than a bit creepy, isn't a monstrous act.Flying_Phoenix said:
See, this doesnt make sense to me.stupei said:
At the age of 16, I think most boys are completely aware of their actions and completely willing/able to consent to sex with someone that is an adult. The law is strange. It somehow suggest that in the next TWO YEARS this boy will suddenly gain the right mind to consent to sex with an older woman. What life altering events will this boy experience in the next two years that will suddenly make him able to do this?
Its a dumb archaic law that cant be changed. Changing it would be like saying "ok NOW you can sex with 16 yr olds... not 14 though."
At the same time if my daughter walked in my house hand in hand with a 30 yr old Id kill him. So I think the law is technically stupid but I can see why the law exist. Many are saying that he knows what hes doing but the woman is still taking advantage of his uncontrollable horniness.
Lost Fragment
Obsessed with 4chan
.GqueB. said:
There has to be a line drawn somewhere, because you can apply this logic to pretty much any age.
BamYouHaveAids
Member
Krauser Kat said:
Dave Inc. said:
Changing my career--teacher by day, waiter by night, prison by morning.
Hydranockz
Member
Taaaakeeee oooooon meeeeeee.lethial said:
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Oh, :lol smiley, how I miss thee 
TekkenMaster
Banned
Many girls in my school started having sex in the 7th grade - that's around 12/13 years old.
The guys were still into Magic The Gathering, AD&D, sports, etc...maybe one out of the entire class wasn't a virgin at that age. But there were many girls who would brag outright about giving blowjobs, fucking guys at parties, and even using chocolate and whipped cream for sexual purposes (lol).
One girl even bragged about giving her first blowjob at the age of 10.
The guys were still into Magic The Gathering, AD&D, sports, etc...maybe one out of the entire class wasn't a virgin at that age. But there were many girls who would brag outright about giving blowjobs, fucking guys at parties, and even using chocolate and whipped cream for sexual purposes (lol).
One girl even bragged about giving her first blowjob at the age of 10.
hydragonwarrior
Member
Lucky bastards.
I would say 14. 4 years of "maturing" makes more sense to me. 16 is just an odd age to suggest that someone is 2 yrs away from being able to consent to sex with an older person. 2 yrs is nothing. And its technically 1 yr since 17 is considered the age of consent in many states. How is that logical?Lost Fragment said:
In the case of driving I feel its more justified. You get your learners permit at 16, you spend 2 yrs practicing with a parent in the car and you get your license at 18. You're actively completing tasks in those two years in order to further prepare yourself to drive on the road solo. What is that same person doing in those same two years to prepare themselves for consensual sex with an adult? Reading books on how to fuck consensually? Maturing at a rapid rate?
I guess its the whole "ok nooooooooooooooooow youre ready" aspect that doesnt make sense to me. But as I said, the law is pretty much there protect vulnerable horny teenagers. But its still stupid and bizarre.
obligatory.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=39783
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=39783
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
Just because you have that opinion doesn't mean squat. Unless you frequently propose new law. Others could argue against 14 down to 13 or 12. After all in Jewish communities a bar or bat mitzvah is held at that age...so why not?[/sarcasm] His point is still valid. The government has drawn a line and if you cross it, it's considered rape. If she wanted to have sex with a child without going to prison she should have transferred to another state..GqueB. said:
edit: Well, not that I always agree with the government. But in this case she messed up big time.
BloodySinner
Banned
The dude is 16. He is NOT a child by any means and knew exactly what he was getting into. Gotta' feel sorry for the husband.
Lost Fragment
Obsessed with 4chan
.GqueB. said:
Well, there are other factors to consider here.
Like, how well-prepared is a 14 year old gonna be to take care of a kid if they don't use protection and get knocked up? Not like a 16 year old is gonna be much better off, but at least you can legally work at 16 in most (all?) of the country. Most places let you drop out of school at this age too. And you can drive, etc. 16 makes sense in a lot of ways.
xxjuicesxx
Member
Mother of two: Bowles, who faces up to 10 year in jail if convicted, is on $50,000 bail - but cannot approach anyone under teh age of 18, including her own children
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sex-16-year-old-boy-school.html#ixzz1CkwETdqp
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sex-16-year-old-boy-school.html#ixzz1CkwETdqp
Suairyu said:
That law defines the age of consent. If you're younger than it, by definition, you cannot consent.
If you're saying you think the age of majority should be younger - say, 16, maybe? -then say that and I might agree with you... I think we should be consistent in our application of the age of majority, though.
But what you just said is just wrong.
timetokill
Banned
Suairyu said:
Which is the exact argument the government makes with their law that says that adults having sex with 16-year old's are raping them because they are not mature enough to make that decision for themselves. Not to mention it's a teacher, a person in a position of authority. But you want to be the arbiter of whatever the age of consent is and say it's lower than 18? Okay, fine. What age is it then?
Actually, by law, that's exactly what it means.
By your presumed definition of the age of consent at... say, 15, two 13 year olds could fuck each other and both be raping each other too. Or are you including a clause that says that kids can fuck each other as much as they want?
edit: JayDubya got to the last part so I won't comment on it.
lightless_shado
Banned
not bad
Epic Tales of Penis
Banned
I'm sure the 16 year old kid was packing a pencil dick for sure. That 31 year old beat up pussy of two kids felt nothing of his slim jim. Heck, she probably used the vodka bottle on herself.Jason's Ultimatum said:
At least her husband has a man cock.
What the law says and what the truth of the matter is are two completely different things in this case. By definition, you can consent whenever you like. By psychological/sociological definition, something in 14-16 age range is probably when you can safely say someone has a grasp on what sex is and make their own choices about it. Some even younger than that, though laws should always err on the side of caution. By legal definition, in the USA you cannot unless you're 18. Which is stupidly high. If by 16 you are not actually able to consent or not consent to sex then you have learning difficulties to the degree you will never be able to consent to sex/trauma that will take years of therapy to work through.JayDubya said:
Hence why I will never call a consenting 16 year old having sex with someone older than them rape, no matter what the law of the land says. It's factually untrue. Just because the law has the ability to disregard the facts doesn't mean the law is right.
No, it means the law does not give them the authority to consent, not that they can't consent. You would have to strip an individual of their own personal free-will (I mean literally, not legally) to say they are not in a position to consent when their mind is is mature enough to evaluate the situation. The law says you cannot murder people, yet murderers are able to commit murder. Do you see my point here. A 16 year old can absolutely consent. The legal status of that consenting is another matter entirely.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
It depends on your definition of "right."Suairyu said:
Future PhaZe
Member
I don't have any particular comment about whats right or wrong in terms of consent but I will say that I feel that this country hands down lengthy jail sentences far too quickly. I understand the use of such strictness as a deterrent to future crimes, but in this instance a ruling of 10 years...it's absolutely devastating.
I for one actually question at what point sentences of such a length start to actually bring the eight amendment into question. I think we as a society fail to realize just how long these sentences are and what they mean. 10 years. Think about that for a moment. Especially under the circumstances of this particular event.
I for one actually question at what point sentences of such a length start to actually bring the eight amendment into question. I think we as a society fail to realize just how long these sentences are and what they mean. 10 years. Think about that for a moment. Especially under the circumstances of this particular event.
Right as in factually accurate. I'm not talking in moral terms here.XiaNaphryz said:
Not my definition, yours. You are the one claiming that anyone having sex under the legally defined age of consent is being raped. So under your definition, two 13 year olds having consensual sex are raping each other.
That is the issue of calling consensual underage sex 'rape', a definition I abhor as much as I abhor the adults taking advantage of vulnerable kids who the the laws of consent are meant to protect.
Dreams-Visions
Member
hubby is a punk bitch.hsin said:
Looks like hubby still forgives her.
timetokill
Banned
Suairyu said:
No, the legal status of consenting is the matter at hand. Your comments about "well he could totally say yes" are irrelevant to the fact that she is facing jail time.
Okay, I'll bite. Let's hear your definition, then? And is it totally cool in your opinion for two 13-year olds to fuck?Suairyu said:
18 isn't that unreasonable. It's the age one graduates from high school, leaves home, is able to vote, is able to work or join the military. At 18 you are wholly responsible for what you do on so many other topics...
Sex is an adult activity with adult consequences. Unless you're willing and able to deal with those eventualities like a responsible adult, you shouldn't be partaking in the activity.
It's going to be arbitrary whenever it is set, but one thing I find worse than being arbitrary is being inconsistent. Either one is responsible enough to be considered able to make one's own decisions w/ regards to school, labor, sexual activity, drinking (and other such vices), voting, criminal punishments etc, or they are not.
I could see lowering the age of majority, but I do not think the age of consent and age of majority should differ.
No, because neither is able to consent. This is a case of utter parent failure. There is no aggression to prosecute, but there is possible / arguable negligence.
Sex is an adult activity with adult consequences. Unless you're willing and able to deal with those eventualities like a responsible adult, you shouldn't be partaking in the activity.
It's going to be arbitrary whenever it is set, but one thing I find worse than being arbitrary is being inconsistent. Either one is responsible enough to be considered able to make one's own decisions w/ regards to school, labor, sexual activity, drinking (and other such vices), voting, criminal punishments etc, or they are not.
I could see lowering the age of majority, but I do not think the age of consent and age of majority should differ.
Suairyu said:
No, because neither is able to consent. This is a case of utter parent failure. There is no aggression to prosecute, but there is possible / arguable negligence.
biggersmaller
Banned
Ashes1396 said:
I gotta say, this could be its own thread. Nonetheless, there are some really hot women in that list that I would've gladly done when a teenager.
The age of consent is there to protect underage people from being taken advantage of by of much older adults. If you tried to take a 13 year old boy and his 14 year old girlfriend to court and charge them with underaged sex you wouldn't get very far. They consented the sex, even if many would argue they didn't understand what they were doing (in my personal experience, most people know what they're doing by the age of 12. Intellectually, at least).timetokill said:
In the UK, where the age of consent is 16, you couldn't even take a 16 year old boy to court for having consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. Nobody would think of it as rape. Consent had been given. They probably wouldn't even actually consider it 'statutory rape', despite the letter of the law. Laws are forever context-based like that.
Would you call that case rape?
In fact, there are cases of look-20-but-actually-around-14 girls who go out to seek the older male partner and have consensual sex with them. One such case reached court, the 14 year old girl in question was deemed emotionally mature enough to have made the consensual decision so that - even though the man had engaged in sexual contact with her - it would never come under the definition of rape, especially given she physically had the body of someone around the age of 20 - certainly the guy was not guilty of searching out underage girls.
Would you call that case rape?
Don't use legal logic. Think carefully about what 'rape' means - to force someone to have sex.
A 30 year old with a learning disability has sex. Is the partner guilty of rape?
A 15 year old with an emotional and intellectual maturity greater than that 30 year old has sex. Is the partner guilty of rape?
And to answer your question - two 13 year olds engaging in sex. Yes. That's totally fine, so long as it's all consensual. Maybe they're not actually ready for sex and there will be emotional fall out, but that's part of growing up. They don't know much better, but it is their call to make, not anyone else's.
To extend the question to where I believe you'd next take it - a 13 year old and an 18 year old engaging in sex. Broadly speaking, no. The 18 year old does know better. They are in the position of responsibility to say no. In many cases, despite the 13 year old giving their consent, they are not mature enough to fully comprehend giving that consent. The 18 year old should realise this and say no. That doesn't make it rape if he doesn't act responsibly, it's the term 'statutory rape' - technical rape due to the individual not being able to give consent.
Goddamn I'm reading the last paragraph back and some of the phrases out of context sound like excuses for actual rape. I'm being extremely trusting of everyone on GAF (perhaps foolishly) to fully comprehend the context to everything I'm writing and not to cherry pick single sentences out and jump on me for being a rape apologist.
See that's a difference of viewpoint there. In Europe, sex is culturally accepted as something you begin once your body lets you in some cases. It's about whenever you as the individual feel ready, whether that is age 11 or age 23. The age of consent is there to prevent adults preying on younger ones uncertain about what they want to do, taking advantage etc., not to prevent teenagers fumbling around and figuring it all out for themselves.JayDubya said:
Yet you're putting joining the military and learning to kill people on the same level as sex. It's like all American gaming websites showing Kratos ripping some dude's head off, blood and bits everywhere, then blurring out the tits. It's ridiculous.
I may be mistaken but i'm not 100% sure we're disagreeing here.Lost Fragment said:
I know i'm being a bit wordy here but the basic idea is this:
I think it's ludicrous to suggest that at the age of 16 a boy is not ready/prepared to consent to sexual intercourse with an adult but in one or two years time he suddenly will be. The separation needs to be more substantial to make any sense.
For instance, when I was 17 years old, my 25 year old neighbor gave me head and i had sex with a 30ish year old co worker. Now to suggest that if this had happened a year or so earlier these women would have been considered criminals and could've faced some jail time is just a bit off to me.
I'm gonna stop arguing this now though because i'm starting to sound like a pedo.
The Bookerman
Member
Steelrain said:
Brian Griffin
Member
You mean society actually looked at the context of the situation and the maturity level of the minor instead of immediately labeling the guy a pedophile child rapist? Brilliant!Suairyu said:
Good post.
If they're not adults, responsible for their actions, then no, they didn't consent because by definition they couldn't.Suairyu said:
If you don't, then the age of consent is meaningless.
This is more situational. Not because the 14 year old is "mature enough to make a consensual decision" (and if the court uses this reasoning, then the court is wholly ignoring the law which sets the age of consent at 16), but because there is deception involved. If the defendant can demonstrate that he or she was not acting in aggression in violation of the rights of the minor, then leniency is warranted. Of course, demonstrating that may prove quite difficult...
She can't consent to sex, so if he has sex with her, he has had sex without consent. That is rape, no ifs, ands, buts, or technicalities. Just rape.
SouthernDragon
Member
She has children.
How could she do that to them? That's terrible. : (
How could she do that to them? That's terrible. : (
Have you read nothing I have said? She can consent, she just isn't legally allowed. Can you not understand the difference? A person isn't a allowed to steal, that doesn't mean they can't. Do you get me? Rape is sex without consent, not sex without legally approved consent. That latter category is statutory rape - rape due to technical breach of statutory laws and rights.JayDubya said:
You seem to throw around 'by definition' a lot, when you mean 'as defined by the law', another two terms that are very different.
And courts never ignore laws, they choose to add context and common sense. Any legal system that applies the letter of the law alone is a failed legal system. Is that what US courts are like? Ignore context, intelligence and apply the law to the letter even in cases where the law is demonstrably wrong? It isn't rendering a law pointless, it's merely using it for its intended purpose - the protection of the populace.
- Status