High School Teacher Found Naked Atop Naked 16 Year Old Boy (Pic)
- Thread starter JoeBoy101
- Start date
- Status
Suairyu said:
On this topic, there is no difference. There can be no difference. Or logically, any limitation is completely meaningless.
What are you trying to say? No, of course the law does not work like a magical prohibitory force field. A person isn't allowed to rape, but they can, and then they get punished for it.
If there is a age of consent, then there is no difference, or else there is no age of consent.
I would call arbitrarily ignoring / enforcing a system is more indicative of a systemic failure.
Brian Griffin
Member
JayDubya said:
Actually, by definition, they can:
consent
- 4 dictionary results
con·sent
/kənˈsɛnt/
verb (used without object)
1. to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.
2. Archaic . to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony.
noun
3. permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence: He gave his consent to the marriage.
4. agreement in sentiment, opinion, a course of action, etc.: By common consent he was appointed official delegate.
5. Archaic . accord; concord; harmony.
--------------------
13yr old: "Hey, wanna fuck?"
14yr old: "Sure!"
BAM, consent.
timetokill
Banned
Suairyu said:
Just as a note, I believe in California that if both people are underage, they can be charged with a misdemeanor for having sex.
Depends what the law says and if there are any Romeo-and-Juliet laws pertaining to it.
We are discussing a legal topic, so that has been what I have been discussing. But I will come back to this concept in a moment, after this:
Here we come to the crux of it. Does one person in the scenario know better, and furthermore, do they have some form of authority over the other person?
In the situation we are discussing (a teacher and student), the teacher both knows better and has an authoritative position over the child, which makes it especially offensive.
You said earlier that the laws are there to prevent adults from preying on children, but try really looking into that: why are we worried about them preying on children? The answer is because the adult can manipulate the child into doing something they cannot totally comprehend the consequences of.
This ability to manipulate is only enhanced in situations where one person is an authority figure. Children already look to adults as authority figures but being a teacher or policeman or something is even more established. People in those positions can even more easily manipulate a child into having sex and even "consenting" in your opinion -- but again, that's why you said we have the law there in the first place, right? To avoid this exact situation of an adult preying on a child. I would think you would see that, considering you said yourself that the law should err on the side of caution.
However, you also apparently think that it's "not really rape" for 18 year old's to have sex with 13 year old's if they've convinced them it's a good idea, we may not see eye-to-eye on that. I just can't personally agree with it.
It sounds like you don't believe that convincing somebody to have sex, even if they're unsure but agree to go along with it anyway because you're a person who is older and perhaps an authority figure, is rape.
As a personal note, btw -- beyond the legal stuff -- I don't think it should be anything more than a misdemeanor at worst for two underage people to have sex with each other, and this is typically the case already, so whatever. Beyond that, I would put a 2-year age difference max on sex involving an underage person, to help avoid situations of one person having the ability to manipulate the other person through age-based authority.
Then you don't understand legal systems, nor what 'ignore' means. Or even 'arbitrarily'. Context is everything. Laws cannot take into account every possible permutation of life and events. It is the role of the courts to interpret the law and enforce it as it best fits the situation.JayDubya said:
You ever see I, Robot starring Will Smith? And how all the robots held those three laws to the letter and it resulted in them taking control and enforcing a police state? That's what your advocating by saying law has to be enforced to the letter. Laws are a legal framework, not a writ order.
Never, ever become involved in anything to do with the law because you will be failing your fellow citizens.
Oh no, not at all. Coercing someone who is unsure about having sex is a thorny issue even when past the age of consent. It's not rape as I would define it, but it's not great. It's that coercion that the laws of consent are there to prevent.timetokill said:
What if there was no convincing needed? What if the 13 year old was the one who wanted it?
For the record, in this case I think the teacher did wrong - she abused a position of authority. Or maybe she didn't abuse the position, but she was certainly irresponsible in it. She should be punished. But 10 years? A massive fine? Calling it rape? Hell no. She should be fired, the student should be expelled. That would be a fair judgement in my eyes.
Black-Wind
Member
Man, this is a silly argument.
The LAW is in place to dictate, by law, when someone can consent. They put in research and did studies and all that jazz and decided that at so-and-so age this person is mature enough mentally and emotionally to consent to having sex.
From a legal PoV thats IT, thats what consent in this case. Sure, some 20-30-40yo man can whip out his dick and some horned up 9-10-11-12-13-14yo boy or girl could jump all over that because they fully want to ... but thats not gonna fly in court because they can't legally consent to it.
The LAW is in place to dictate, by law, when someone can consent. They put in research and did studies and all that jazz and decided that at so-and-so age this person is mature enough mentally and emotionally to consent to having sex.
From a legal PoV thats IT, thats what consent in this case. Sure, some 20-30-40yo man can whip out his dick and some horned up 9-10-11-12-13-14yo boy or girl could jump all over that because they fully want to ... but thats not gonna fly in court because they can't legally consent to it.
UltimaPooh
Member
JayDubya said:
But they literally just consented.
In simple terms if a parent asked "Hey you want pizza for dinner?" to a 12 year old and the 12 year old said "Yeah." that's a consent.
Bullshit did they. It's a relic of the 'sex=dirty, perverse practice only married adults can partake in' mentality that has been carried over for far too long.Black-Wind said:
Biologically, most people are reading (and willing, thanks to their impulses) to go by the age of 12. A lot even sooner. Psychologically, everyone is vastly different, but if they aren't capable of saying 'yes' or 'no' by the age of 16 I don't see what two extra years are going to do.
Age of consent laws are primarily there to prevent adults coercing the underaged into engaging in practices they might not be ready for for, not to dictate when someone is able to have sex.
EDIT - Actually I think I'm just going to leave this now. I come from a society which has - in my mind - a much healthier and modern outlook on sex than the American one, both socially and in regards to how the laws are applied. In general, Europe is like that. Hell, compared to other European countries, the UK is still far behind.
This is personal experience and it naturally clouds my ability to be objective in any of this discussion. I've said my views on the matter and I'll leave it at that.
Epic Tales of Penis
Banned
*fist bump*Blackace said:
TOM f'N CRUISE
Member
punk bitch husband
Black-Wind
Member
Sure, it may have started out that way. Hell, it likely did ... but thats probably a move made out of common sense after observing how people grow at the time.Suairyu said:
The studies and research I'm referring to isn't from back then, its from recent years. ( Sorry if you thought I was saying they did this w/e they made the laws. Fucking blizzard missing with my head, IDK why I typed that that way
)The body of a 9-12-15yo may be ready to have sex but the mind is not in a state that is capable of making the type of long term decisions of an adult nor is it able to understand romantic relationships or control impulses as well as the adult brain. Its still developing and growing, just like their bodies. Thats why teens do so many stupid things, they don't have the foresight to understand the lasting results of their actions and they lack the full ability to control their hormone fueled impulses.
Not saying that they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions, just that they sure as hell arnt working with the same deck of cards as adults. Thats why we don't charge them as adults for certain crimes.
But this is getting off topic. :/
Like I said "The LAW is in place to dictate, by law, when someone can consent". Its just that simple. Just because a 40yo can ask a 9yo if they wanna fuck and the 9yo says yes does NOT mean, by law, that 9yo consented.
Is this some kind of cop-out?Suairyu said:
Your land has it's own age of consent of 16 I believe ... so I assume they follow these laws in some ways.
You should respect the fact that other places that don't have such low ages of consent instead of questioning it. If some adult where you lived fucked a 12 yo would, how would it turn out? Would they factor in that the 12yo consented? How would that work?
(I actually do want to know seeing as you're taking this stance and I have not the slightest clue how sex laws work there)
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
UltimaPooh said:
You really don't understand consent. The law puts consent on different terms when relating to much more consequential things; like "eating a pizza" as opposed to "having sex".
That's why a child doesn't need their parents consent when doing certain inconsequential acts. The more consequence (or chance to go awry or socially and morally wrong) an act can carry, the less lenient the government is on the word consent. Just because a kid says yes, doesn't mean it's consent. You can easily manipulate kids, and once again, they do not fully grasp the enormity that certain actions may produce.
Kids are dumb. They see stuff on TV so they want it no matter what it is. (just like pizza fortunately for them pizza is....well its not going to kill them immediately)
hsin said:
Looks like hubby still forgives her.
Husband holding her hand.. wow. So not only does she cheat on you and besides that with a kid but she also can't even help take care of the kids assuming she is now fired as she can't see them. Nice. If I was that guy I'd have myself a nice attorney and working to get her out of my life.
Also would.
I don't think his point is just that our age of consent is too high, but also that the consequences for sex with a 16 year old are much too harsh. Sex with a post-pubescent person should come with some consequences, but 10 years in state prison with murderers, rapists, and gang members is a little ridiculous. Especially in cases where the older one was duped as to the true age of their sex partner. Sex with a prepubescent child however, is pedophilia, and should be punished accordingly.Black-Wind said:Sure, it may have started out that way. Hell, it likely did ... but thats probably a move made out of common sense after observing how people grow at the time.
The studies and research I'm referring to isn't from back then, its from recent years. ( Sorry if you thought I was saying they did this w/e they made the laws. Fucking blizzard missing with my head, IDK why I typed that that way
The body of a 9-12-15yo may be ready to have sex but the mind is not in a state that is capable of making the type of long term decisions of an adult nor is it able to understand romantic relationships or control impulses as well as the adult brain. Its still developing and growing, just like their bodies. Thats why teens do so many stupid things, they don't have the foresight to understand the lasting results of their actions and they lack the full ability to control their hormone fueled impulses.
Not saying that they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions, just that they sure as hell arnt working with the same deck of cards as adults. Thats why we don't charge them as adults for certain crimes.
But this is getting off topic. :/
Like I said "The LAW is in place to dictate, by law, when someone can consent". Its just that simple. Just because a 40yo can ask a 9yo if they wanna fuck and the 9yo says yes does NOT mean, by law, that 9yo consented.
Is this some kind of cop-out?
Your land has it's own age of consent of 16 I believe ... so I assume they follow these laws in some ways.
You should respect the fact that other places that don't have such low ages of consent instead of questioning it. If some adult where you lived fucked a 12 yo would, how would it turn out? Would they factor in that the 12yo consented? How would that work?
(I actually do want to know seeing as you're taking this stance and I have not the slightest clue how sex laws work there)
It's no wonder our prisons are so over crowded, violent, and people that go in as relatively good people (like people in for statutory rape or smoking pot) come out much worse than when they went in. Putting the public directly in danger. That's the exact opposite of rehabilitation and is the main problem with our prison system.
supermackem
Banned
16 over here is legal, they would be high fives all round for the lad over here. Seems harsh, what the legal age in the usa?.
WretchedTruman
Member
heh...where is this from?Szu said:SCORE!!!!!!!!!!!
BobTheFork
Member
It differs from state to state, so most of us carry of these -supermackem said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBPsYBUhF-U
mightynine
Member
Ashes1396 said:
Best name in that list: "Autumn Leathers".
EDIT:
WND Automatic Link Generator said:
adamsappel
Member
As hurt as the husband probably is, perhaps he doesn't want to see his wife rot in jail for 10 years, even if he does divorce her. Being by her side in the courtroom is a positive influence on a judge or jury.Dorrin said:
- Status