A different subject I’d like to talk about

Post Reply New Topic

Pretty much this.

Hooking up with random people you don’t know probably isn’t a great idea for a variety of reasons.

Men always get in trouble for having sex with a drunk woman. It doesn't matter if she made the move and got on him. Drunk people can't consent. If this is rape, then a minor is raping an adult when they are drunk. But wait, it will be the adult in trouble but if they were underage, then the woman was raped. If a woman has sex with a drunk man, then she raped him.


I watched the documentary called Untouchables as mentioned in the link in the OP about sex offenders and the 19 year old was drunk and the 14 year old slept with her. She couldn't say no.

Here is the link and it made me change my mind

https://reason.com/2017/01/07/this-moth ... -offender/

and the mom basically groomed the 19 year old and got her and the kid drunk for her 19th birthday. Basically he raped her but because she was over 18, she got treated as the perpetrator, if she had been his age, the kid would have been treated as that than as the victim. There are so many double standards in our laws. So teens do dumb s**t but let's charge them with a crime but wait, if the victim is over the age, they are now the victim now than the perpetrator. And I have heard stories of teens being charged with rape for having sex with another underage girl his age because she was drunk. Their defense is always she got on top of him, they took their stuff off. Teens need to be taught that drunk people cannot consent to sex. But yet if a teen had sex with an elderly, they are charged but if the victim wasn't an elderly but were over 18, the teen is treated as a victim. This is how our laws are. If the adult was mentally disabled, the parents would have to work real hard to get the judge to see they were they victim than the perpetrator.

19 is barely even an adult and the other adult was 31 and what is she doing being friends with a 14 year old?

Last edited by League_Girl on 17 Jul 2022, 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

What about the guys? Where is their protection?

He just said that they are mandated to wear condoms. Protects both the girls and them.

He only mentioned about protecting women. That seems to be implying this is about safety of women only and not about men. Aren't they afraid of getting underaged guys in their places too? Why only women?

I tried to say something else last night but it was one of those weird cases where it got appended to a completely different thread and deleted.

There's a reason that I don't trust pure stigma or 'if you cross this arbitrary line you'll get ye old spiked bat or the hot spoon', an early fall freshmen and senior where the senior just turned 18 and the freshmen will be 15 is still a peer context where as it's a lot harder to explain a 19 and 12 year old unless absolutely no one can tell that the 12 year old is that age. Similarly We legally allow 50-somethings to date and have sex with 18 year olds. We might find it disgusting but it's legal.

I think the way to resolve this one is to be able to clarify whether pedophilia is the intent for having sex with a minor. In most cases it will be, and it will only be very strange edge cases where appearances are either very deceiving or where there's an artificial amplification (ie. two high schoolers who are three years apart appearing to be four years apart momentarily) that deserve consideration that child sexual predation was not the intent. OTOH if a 14 year old sexually engages with a 6 year old - there's no way to spin that, the given 14 year old is engaging in pedophilic predation.

Also if we're talking about actual coercion taking place - that's wrong no matter what the age gap is or whether they were born on the same day of the same year.

That would be just about always impossible to prove unless we develop technology that can read minds.

Also, we aren't talking about a 15 and 18 year old.

Moderator warning - this post contains detail under the spoiler which some may find triggering.

Now imagine if my mom decided to think I was the victim here because of my age and my dad is an adult so she blamed it on him and said this was his fault so she went to the police? I would be traumatized alright, traumatized from my own guilt because I knew I did this and caused this all because of my manipulation and me trying to coerce him and waiting till he was a sleep and if I knew this would happened, I wouldn't have done it.

Life isn't always black and white when it comes to laws and crime. There has even been a case where a man in Texas caught his neighbor f*****g his 5 year old granddaughter, so he beat him to death. Instead of just yelling "what the f**k man" and shoving him off and grabbing his grand daughter and running off, he beats him instead. Then he called 911 when he saw the man was unconscious and he died on the way to the hospital. Technically he did break the law here and did a crime. Police were called and charges were dropped. Crimes are not always black and white.

I have heard of another case where these parents in Florida woke up and caught an intruder in their home f*****g their 2 year old so the man grabbed a flower pot and hit him over the head with him knocking him out and called 911 and the police. I can remember lot of parents saying at Babycenter how strong the man was and how lucky the sicko was because he would have been dead if this was their child. So you see, parents out there were admitting they would commit a crime if their kid was being sexually abused by a predator. Most people would say there should be no charges. I consider this self defense. Technically a crime was committed if the parents murdered them. Remember, I am going by law here.

I heard another case that this happened in California. Two teens break onto a property and break into a barn and steal a bunch of stuff. They steel these discs too and discovered it had child porn on it so they go to the police. The police charged the property owner but not the teens for breaking an entry. But they did do a crime by breaking an entry, after all it's the law and they should be charged with a break in crime while the owner is charged too. They both did a crime but one was worse than the other.

So this is why the "laws are laws" is a dumb argument to make and you ignore the nuance. We used to deal with mods here who acted robotic about rules here so they acted like everyone here broke a rule on purpose or did a crime here if they talked about a banned member by mistake because they had no idea they were banned. Then we get new staff team and I find out they don't operate that way because they are not robots. A warning doesn't always go against you towards a ban if you violate a rule here. It all depends on what you did and why. They are not so black and white about rules here where everyone has committed a crime.

I know in real life ignorance is never an excuse when a crime is committed and your intentions don't matter and that is how the former staff here were treating the rules here. Imagine if my dad got in trouble for touching me down there because I waited till he was sleeping before I took his hand and rubbed myself there trying to get him to rub me there while he is sleeping. Kids can be manipulating too. After all ignorance is no excuse so my dad did sexually abuse me technically because of law you know. I do not claim to be a victim here because I did this myself and my dad always refused to do it so I waited till he was sleeping. Once I knew my dad would go to jail for it if he did it, I stopped. Why? I didn't want to lose my father and the thought of my dad being taken from his home all because of the my actions is pretty scary for the kid so that was why I stopped. I think a kid would only get traumatized by this because of self blame and they knew their actions did it and they would have to learn to forgive themselves and accept laws are written in a way to protect a kid but it doesn't cover rare cases like this when it's the kid trying to trick the adult to do it and they wait till they are sleeping. This is messed up here. Technically I sexually assaulted my own father but by law, he sexually assaulted me because of my age and he was an adult. It came to a point he didn't want to be around me anymore and lay in bed with me to rub my back because he couldn't trust me so my mom talked to me about it. I had no idea I was putting him in danger so I stopped.

One thing that we don't start to understand until we get at least into our mid twenties is morals. Just because there is no law about it doesn't make it right. Something can be right but still be illegal like for example, I have heard about parents kidnapping their own children to protect them from their abuser because the judge was forcing the mom to bring her kids to the abuser, their father because of child custody. So the mom kidnaps them. By law she was wrong for what she did but morally, she was right for what she did because she was protecting her kids and that is what a mom is supposed to do.


I remember back in my teens and early twenties I had the "it's the law" mentality so anything you did that was illegal was wrong and you are a criminal and if there is no law against it, it's okay and you are not a bad person for it. My mom explained this in a way to me when I was 17 "just because you are allowed to do it doesn't mean you should."

Should older men be sleeping with newly adults, no. But is it illegal? No. In France you can litter in the streets and they have workers come and pick it up at night, this is in Paris. Does this mean we should go there and drop our trash in the street? No.

And I am sure you have heard of Gypsie Rose who went to prison who murdered her mom. But she did try to escape before but her mom always tracked her down and got her. She was already in prison, her own home thanks to her mother. Do I think she should be treated like a criminal and be locked up? No. I think this is exceptional but my mom acts like she is a criminal here because "it's the law" and she sounds so stupid and cold hearted. Does she not care about abuse victims? She is okay with her being abused by her own mom and being a victim of Munchausen by Proxy because she couldn't escape from her and run away? This is what she is implying her with her cold hearted "it's the law" opinion. I do not think Gypise being locked away is even a punishment for her because she already was living in a prison before she got sentenced so she wouldn't know any different and at least her mom can no longer abuse her and she can be herself now finally than being forced to play a roll of a disabled person in a wheelchair. But even she has had tons of supporters for her and think the judge failed her.

Just because a law is written doesn't mean everyone who does the crime is an actual criminal. There are nuances. It's not like Gypise will go out and kill again.

_________________

Not everything makes sense

I am not saying that I agree with that law

I am saying that that *is*. a law.

Please google "public urination sex offender" if you don't believe me

This is an extreme oversimplification of the argument that people are making. We need to have clear and firm laws regarding child abuse so predators do not work the system and get out of serving time for their crimes. That's why the law has very specific guidelines in place here - we need them. Nuances will enable predators to get away with victimizing children.

Most of the time people are not going to press child abuse charges without just cause and evidence. Child sexual abuse is actually an underreported crime.

Until we develop the technology to read minds, things should stay how the currently are.

We can agree to disagree, though.

You are free to ignore my posts here and not respond to them. I am free to express my views here expressing how messed up laws are because of nuances and how they are written and judges just blindly going along with it than looking at the situation. I have already provided examples here including my own story of what I did when I was 8.

There's also that case that Kim Kardashian has been involved in, ie. where a girl was tried for murder after killing the man who'd bought her as a child sex slave. How that didn't fall under self defense I have no idea but, it apparently didn't.

Clearly if one needs to break the law because the letter is broken - CYA.

The really scary think in the other direction, ie. things that are legal now but in any functioning future would be illegal, is kicking off certain kinds of arms races or multipolar traps. There are some types of competition which are healthy and aid in human antifragility and growth, there are other forms that are both a race to the bottom where it's a deal no one can refuse unless they want to be serfs or slaves to those who didn't refuse it. That can also apply to nations as well - like the US for example banning DNA experimentation and China not doing so.

In some countries, being raped is illegal so imagine if anyone used the "but the woman broke the law, laws are laws" to justify their bad opinion.

Yeah it does suck when people to go jail for self defense and get charged. Even domestic abuse victims have gone to prison for being unable to leave the marriage so they were charged with child abuse as well even though it was their partner that did the abuse, or they have did indeed kill the abuser and still went to prison for it because they were charged with murder. Very few judges will drop the charges. There was even one judge that said if this one mother had stuck a gun to his head and killed him, he would have let her go because she was protecting her kids from the abuse. So basically it's a gamble and you would have to hope the judge understands domestic violence and battered woman syndrome to bend the laws for you and find an exception for it to drop charges because your case was exceptional. Black and white thinkers suck.

First of all, as far as I know, experiments that do not use human DNA are not prohibited or even encouraged in most countries.

Secondly, China prohibits DNA experiments applied to humans.
If the world's first gene editing baby who appeared in China left a deep impression on you, another information is that the experimenter received a three-year sentence for this.

I recall that there is something wrong with this matter.
Convention on the Rights of the Child

The United States seems to be the only country that has not ratified this treaty so far, because...

But somehow, the overlapping groups seem to be obsessed with the agenda of "protecting children" at the same time.