NationStates Jolt Archive

Linkage (http://news10now.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=113208)
Updated linkage! (http://www.newswatch50.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=17248b97-9557-41de-b978-a5afa721249e)

POTSDAM, N.Y. -- Police say what began as a friendship through an online game turned into an inappropriate relationship between a 13-year-old Potsdam boy and a 22-year-old California woman.

Proof at last that there are female internet predators. But most shocking:
Police believe she's been in the area for more than two weeks, staying with the boy and his mother. The mother was also charged with a crime.

Your 13 year old son meets a 22 year old women on the internet and you let her stay with you? What are you smoking?

:confused: Who the hell plays Runescape anymore?

How did this even come to the attention of law enforcement? The mother clearly didn't report it.

Linkage (http://news10now.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=113208)



Proof at last that there are female internet predators. But most shocking:


Your 13 year old son meets a 22 year old women on the internet and you let her stay with you? What are you smoking?

I've always known that there were female predators: we just don't hear about them as often and there aren't nearly as many of them.

As for the mom: seriously, what are you smoking? Where are you getting it? And why aren't you sharing?

The double standard rears its ugly head again.

Speaking of ugly...socially awkward...and potentially obese, online gaming women are becoming predators. *shudders*

Proof at last that there are female internet predators.

I thought we were still trying to prove that there were females on the internet...

The double standard rears its ugly head again.

Speaking of: am I the only one that saw the thread title and thought 22 year old man and 13 year old girl?

Damn, she's ugly. That teacher from Florida was hot as hell, though. Where was she when I was 13? :( I would have given a testicle for a night with her when I was 13.

This is clearly awful, but I'm more disturbed by the fact that you all seem to think 22 is old.

Umm...what? Who said that?

This is clearly awful, but I'm more disturbed by the fact that you all seem to think 22 is old.

Speaking of: am I the only one that saw the thread title and thought 22 year old man and 13 year old girl?

Nope.

And apparently I thought Germany when I saw POTSDAM.

Speaking of: am I the only one that saw the thread title and thought 22 year old man and 13 year old girl?

Nope. The thought leapt like lightning to my mind until I rolled over the thread title in the General index.

The only thing worse than someone that old thinking someone that young is capable of understanding what's going on is the parent who says "okay".

Then again, never forget Mary Kay Letrouneau. I don't want to get into a whole debate about the nature of sexual "readiness" (lest we degenerate into another "pedo/ephebo != sicko" thread), but they were sending suggestive pictures to each other. That means it went both ways. How could the 13-y-o not know what he was doing if he's emailing pictures of his junk to a woman (who clearly hasn't matured quite enough herself)?

Seems like a wash to me. "Mom said it was okay", and, like so many teenagers who are allowed to drink with underage friends in some parents' households, many people tend to think that it happened in private with implied consent...it's not the police's business.

Yup. This is a wash.

Meh. Once you play Runescape, it's a small step to go from there.

(That sort of thing thing never happened to me when I played it as a 13-year-old, though.)

Nope.

And on the topic... Potsdam. Isn't that Germany?

Damn... that's a long ways from home.

Well, unless there's somewhere in Germany with the initials "N.Y." then no, not Germany :p

This is clearly awful, but I'm more disturbed by the fact that you all seem to think 22 is old.

Meh. It is by comparison. That's the flaw with those who attempt to justify these pairings. If it's really a legitimate relationship, and there's "something there", then what's the harm of waiting until it's legal (or at least not quite as unsavory)? No, it's the "need" for immediacy that sinks any try to legitimize such relationships. If you can't control yourself, it's probably unhealthy.

Nope. The thought leapt like lightning to my mind until I rolled over the thread title in the General index.

The only thing worse than someone that old thinking someone that young is capable of understanding what's going on is the parent who says "okay".

Then again, never forget Mary Kay Letrouneau. I don't want to get into a whole debate about the nature of sexual "readiness" (lest we degenerate into another "pedo/ephebo != sicko" thread), but they were sending suggestive pictures to each other. That means it went both ways. How could the 13-y-o not know what he was doing if he's emailing pictures of his junk to a woman (who clearly hasn't matured quite enough herself)?

Seems like a wash to me. "Mom said it was okay", and, like so many teenagers who are allowed to drink with underage friends in some parents' households, many people tend to think that it happened in private with implied consent...it's not the police's business.

Yup. This is a wash.

Well, legally this is statuatory rape. At 13, he can't legally consent. But I am intrigued to see how this turns out. We all know if the genders were reversed there would be people cried for the guy's head for seducing the "innocent little girl" when the situation would've been likely the same.

Nope.

And apparently I thought Germany when I saw POTSDAM.

Heh, then don't ever look at a map of the state of Illinois. Havana, Peru, and Marseilles are within 3 hours of one another (just to name a few). ;)

"It's definitely a wake-up call for all parents for children that have access to a computer, the internet and cell phones," said Officer Murray. "This is an extreme example, but it should raise your eyebrows and make you aware if what you need to be looking for."


its a wakeup call for parents who will allow their sons to have their predators come stay for a couple of week anway.

i dont know how this came to the attention of the cops but im glad the mother is facing charges too.

its a wakeup call for parents who will allow their sons to have their predators come stay for a couple of week anway.

i dont know how this came to the attention of the cops but im glad the mother is facing charges too.

Stuff like that can leak out through seemingly innocent statements (or in the case of a 13-y-o boy, perhaps bragging?) or from anyone who's visited the house and thought..."hmmm...something's not quite right here."

I didn't think runescape was still active, but meh.

I really don't see the problem with this. When I was 13, I would have given my left nut to get laid - I really don't see it as 'taking advantage' of a horny teenage boy. If the mother didn't see anything wrong with it, that means the boy's legal guardian thought he was mature enough to have sex - so where is the problem?

She's prolly really a man in drag.

I really don't see the problem with this. When I was 13, I would have given my left nut to get laid - I really don't see it as 'taking advantage' of a horny teenage boy. If the mother didn't see anything wrong with it, that means the boy's legal guardian thought he was mature enough to have sex - so where is the problem?

which is why its statutory rape and why the mother is facing charges.

would you feel the same way if a 22 year old man was invited into the home for sex with a 13 year old girl?

I really don't see the problem with this. When I was 13, I would have given my left nut to get laid - I really don't see it as 'taking advantage' of a horny teenage boy. If the mother didn't see anything wrong with it, that means the boy's legal guardian thought he was mature enough to have sex - so where is the problem?

Hear, hear!

I'm 25 years old, and when I was in high school (typical male horndog) there was more than one female teacher I would have had sex with - even without the promise of an easy A, and many of them were in their late 30's / early 40's. Even in college, although it's less common because most of the faculty are older, there are a few nice-looking women.

I've just never had the guts to ask someone to risk her career for a roll in the hay with a young man.

On the main topic, I think if the boy's parents consent to it, then that should be enough for the cops. Unfortunately, that creates a loophole that can open the door to literal motherfuckers.

Jeez where were all of these women when I was younger? Also why couldn't she find someone her own age?

Reminds me of South Park....

The Kindergarten teacher?!...but she's a woman?!...But...She's HOT?!...nice...

:D:D

I really don't see the problem with this. When I was 13, I would have given my left nut to get laid - I really don't see it as 'taking advantage' of a horny teenage boy. If the mother didn't see anything wrong with it, that means the boy's legal guardian thought he was mature enough to have sex - so where is the problem?

Reverse the genders and ask the same question.

Hear, hear!

I'm 25 years old, and when I was in high school (typical male horndog) there was more than one female teacher I would have had sex with - even without the promise of an easy A, and many of them were in their late 30's / early 40's. Even in college, although it's less common because most of the faculty are older, there are a few nice-looking women.

I've just never had the guts to ask someone to risk her career for a roll in the hay with a young man.

On the main topic, I think if the boy's parents consent to it, then that should be enough for the cops. Unfortunately, that creates a loophole that can open the door to literal motherfuckers.

So if the parents consent to any other crimes, they're okay, too? Look, in PRINCIPLE, there might not be anything wrong with it, but in PRACTICE, there almost always IS. It's never just "a roll in the hay", especially with teachers -- incidentally, nobody mentioned teachers. Why did you?

Reverse the genders and ask the same question.



So if the parents consent to any other crimes, they're okay, too? Look, in PRINCIPLE, there might not be anything wrong with it, but in PRACTICE, there almost always IS. It's never just "a roll in the hay", especially with teachers -- incidentally, nobody mentioned teachers. Why did you?

The only older women I've had substantial contact with. :)

In the case of this young woman and young boy, yes, I feel that if the parents consented to him being active with her, the cops have no business being involved.

The only older women I've had substantial contact with. :)

In the case of this young woman and young boy, yes, I feel that if the parents consented to him being active with her, the cops have no business being involved.

As long as such contact is illegal, it's...illegal. If you want to advocate legalizing parentally-consented underage sex/statutory rape, you go ahead and see how many signatures you get on that petition.

So long as it is illegal, unless you're giving the green light to other crimes so long as mommy says it's okay to commit them, that's a rotten precedent.

The only older women I've had substantial contact with. :)

In the case of this young woman and young boy, yes, I feel that if the parents consented to him being active with her, the cops have no business being involved.

Once again, reverse the genders and ask the same question. If it was a 22 year old man and a 13 year old girl would you be saying the same thing?

So many double standards. Yet again more typical "males can shag anyone they want regardless of age. Women can't"

The law is there, it was broken, punish the guilty. Doesn't matter whether it was a woman, man, bisexual or hermaphrodite.

I really don't see the problem with this. When I was 13, I would have given my left nut to get laid - I really don't see it as 'taking advantage' of a horny teenage boy. If the mother didn't see anything wrong with it, that means the boy's legal guardian thought he was mature enough to have sex - so where is the problem?I don't see the problem either. Isn't it part of consent laws that parents can okay certain things? Isn't that why underage people can sometimes get married?

I don't see the problem either. Isn't it part of consent laws that parents can okay certain things? Isn't that why underage people can sometimes get married?

Nope that's not the case

Yes, the AOC can not be over ruled by your parents. Even if your parents give you their OK and buy you your birth control, you still must abide by the AOC. While your parents may not have a problem with your being sexually active before you have reached the AOC, they still do not have the ability to put aside the law. Parents can not give you the right to vote early, they can not give you your driver's license early, they can not let you drink alcohol at your discretion early, and they can not remove the legal barrier of the AOC.

Link (http://teenadvice.about.com/library/weekly/aa090701b.htm)

As long as such contact is illegal, it's...illegal. If you want to advocate legalizing parentally-consented underage sex/statutory rape, you go ahead and see how many signatures you get on that petition.

So long as it is illegal, unless you're giving the green light to other crimes so long as mommy says it's okay to commit them, that's a rotten precedent.

It's not a crime for the boy, he's not being charged with anything. If the mother thinks it's OK for the boy to risk becoming a father, and is willing to cover the expenses of raising a grandchild, and is willing to pay for therapy if the relationship fails... well, parents are given power to decide for a reason, and laws against such statutory offences violate that parental discretion.

Once again, reverse the genders and ask the same question. If it was a 22 year old man and a 13 year old girl would you be saying the same thing?

Yes, I would. A girl's parents can make the same decisions for her as a boy's parents can make for him. I don't think that the two genders are that different, it's merely a social construct that stat. rape (I hate that term, makes it sound like... well, rape) of a girl is viewed as unforgivably heinous but of a boy it's viewed as somewhat less so.

Honestly, I think that pedophile is a pretty big word for a 13 year old.

I've always known that there were female predators: we just don't hear about them as often and there aren't nearly as many of them.

As for the mom: seriously, what are you smoking? Where are you getting it? And why aren't you sharing?
Well-said.

One could only imagine that courtship.

"Why you mine mana like a real pro..."

*Shudders.*

Thirteen year old girls are more mature than boys of the same age.

So in terms of consent, this is worse than it would be with the genders reversed.

Now, why am I having trouble seeing it as a problem ? Perhaps I'm assuming that sex affects boys less than girls ? Less potential for harm ? But why would I think that ? Is "consent" really not the only important factor ?

Seriously confusing.

...nice.

Shes 22? And he's 13? .....nice

Shes 22? And he's 13? .....nice

He's 22 and she's 13.

Still nice?

He's 22 and she's 13.

Still nice?

I have trouble feeling as much sympathy for a male who has been raped, as opposed to a female. To SOME extent the male has to kind of go along with it, void any extreme measures.

He's 22 and she's 13.

Still nice?

Jeez. Just go watch South Park Episode: 1010 "Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy"

And Im inclined to agree with Luporum.

And Im inclined to agree with Luporum.

niccccccce.

I have trouble feeling as much sympathy for a male who has been raped, as opposed to a female. To SOME extent the male has to kind of go along with it, void any extreme measures.

Hmm. I think I see it now. "The male has to go along with it" is a reference to getting an erection I presume. Would you consider showing him porn or fondling him "extreme measures" ?

The assumption is that guys are always looking for sex, whereas girls give consent or not.
Hence, consent is less important in the case of guys. I think that's the assumption that explains why so many of us are seeing this as quite different from the gender-reversed role.

Something about power needs to be said here. I cast "summon Bottle"

Hmm. I think I see it now. "The male has to go along with it" is a reference to getting an erection I presume. Would you consider showing him porn or fondling him "extreme measures" ?

I'm having a hard time picturing a woman simultaneously holding a guy down and arousing him.

I really feel uncomfortable discussing the logistics of rape.

Yeah.. Im actually watching the episode right now.

Anyways, it could certainly damage the boy mentally, but I don't think any of us can really say anything without having experienced it. As horrible as that sounds. Yeah.

I'm having a hard time picturing a woman simultaneously holding a guy down and arousing him.

I really feel uncomfortable discussing the logistics of rape.

Yeah, we won't go there.

But guys get arrested and charged for "grooming" girls they know to be underage. Showing them pornography is usually considered prima facie evidence.

So how do you feel about these two exchanging porn and naughty pics of themselves ?

Yeah, we won't go there.

Oh thank god.

But guys get arrested and charged for "grooming" girls they know to be underage. Showing them pornography is usually considered prima facie evidence.

So how do you feel about these two exchanging porn and naughty pics of themselves ?

Not so much rape, as it is sexual harasment. A far less serious crime imo.

Not so much rape, as it is sexual harasment. A far less serious crime imo.

There was an established pattern of sexual grooming. There was an arranged meeting.
If the police had intervened at that stage, and the genders were reversed, it would not be seen as "far less serious." It would be seen (even by a jury) as a clear intention to commit statutory rape.

You don't think this is as serious. Why not ?

EDIT: If anyone has a better link, that would be good. There's no indication in that article that they had sex.
RE-EDIT: In California, Second Degree Rape (what she's charged with) means vaginal intercourse without consent. So my first edit was wrong.

There was an established pattern of sexual grooming. There was an arranged meeting.
If the police had intervened at that stage, and the genders were reversed, it would not be seen as "far less serious." It would be seen (even by a jury) as a clear intention to commit statutory rape.

You don't think this is as serious. Why not ?

He should get less time than a guy who physically forced himself on a young girl.

Intention to commit and the crime itself are two seperate punishments.

Something about power needs to be said here. I cast "summon Bottle"

Do we need that? Really?

I'm having a hard time picturing a woman simultaneously holding a guy down and arousing him.

Statutory rape can happen with the victim's consent. Therefore there would be no need to be forceful whether or not the victim is male or female.

The common theme in statutory rape is not necessarily that the victim was forced to perform a sexual act but that the victim was too young to make an informed decision.

Mom said it was okay for her 13 year old son to have sex with a 22 year old woman. What about if her son was 7 years old, would it be okay then?
Age of consent laws exist for a reason. So adults with more "life" experience can't exploit minors. That includes young teens who may think they know what's best for themselves but rarely do.

He should get less time than a guy who physically forced himself on a young girl.

Intention to commit and the crime itself are two seperate punishments.
Why? It is the same intentions and the same fucking crime! Why have different sentences because of gender?

Why? It is the same intentions and the same fucking crime! Why have different sentences because of gender?

What? I love the: "Did he say the sexist remark!! Oh I hope he said the sexist remark! I can't wait for him to be a sexist so I can win!!"

Why? It is the same intentions and the same fucking crime! Why have different sentences because of gender?

You kinda missed his point. It's back over there in the bushes somewhere, go get it.

You kinda missed his point. It's back over there in the bushes somewhere, go get it.

With the Bushes or in the bushes?

Do we need that? Really?

Heh, I'm not sure Bottle would agree with me anyway. I just think it's too confusing for me to try to cover all the reasons the case seems different with the genders this way 'round.

A possible case might go: "Males have a power advantage in every case. That mitigates the abuse of power inherent in age and the independence of adulthood. So it's not as bad as a 22-y-o man going with a 13-y-o girl."

To be honest, my personal feeling is that this isn't as bad as the opposite case. Intellectually, I know it should be, but "just apply the letter of the law" is a cop-out, literally. I want to know why I feel that it's not as bad, and I'll interrogate anyone who says it isn't. Not to make myself look all virtuous and PC, but just to try to work out why.

To be honest, my personal feeling is that this isn't as bad as the opposite case. Intellectually, I know it should be, but "just apply the letter of the law" is a cop-out, literally. I want to know why I feel that it's not as bad, and I'll interrogate anyone who says it isn't. Not to make myself look all virtuous and PC, but just to try to work out why.

Shit! Rationality! RUN!

I'm having a hard time picturing a woman simultaneously holding a guy down and arousing him.

When the woman is stronger than the guy or he's somehow restrained? Is doable.

When the woman is stronger than the guy or he's somehow restrained? Is doable.

In such a way, kidnapping is usually involved as well, but it's a much less frequent occurence.

To be honest, my personal feeling is that this isn't as bad as the opposite case. Intellectually, I know it should be, but "just apply the letter of the law" is a cop-out, literally. I want to know why I feel that it's not as bad, and I'll interrogate anyone who says it isn't. Not to make myself look all virtuous and PC, but just to try to work out why.

I would imagine it is a combination of identifying with the gender, along with social constructs you faced when you were growing up. Unless you grew up in a matriarchal or purely gender equal society (unlikely), it is possible that you were influenced at an early age by the stereotypes that dealt with positions regarding female/male places in society. When you grew up and you started learning about hormones, the existing societal presets followed. Boys chased after girls, etc, etc. That sort of thing. Furthermore, reverses of pre-established roles of courtship were seen more as aberrations than anything else.

It is likely that as this carried down with you as you grew up, they influenced your perception and weightage of judgment.

It's just as horrible when a woman rapes a boy as a man a girl. So what if he got an erection, was attracted to her etc. Having a boner and actually giving consent are to different things.

The brain, not the cock gives consent.

It's just as horrible when a woman rapes a boy as a man a girl. So what if he got an erection, was attracted to her etc. Having a boner and actually giving consent are to different things.

The brain, not the cock gives consent.

Quite true. I've had a good friend of mine break down in front of a high school class and confess that he was raped at around the same age as this young boy. It's not different; different genders, yes, but not different consequences.

Perhaps (but only a maybe) if the boy was of age, he would accept it. But I'm not willing to say that a 13 year old boy was either willing or accepting of said sexual abuse.

I'm sorry, but, a 13 year old in todays world understands sex just fine, as well as the consequences.

Thats just the way it is...it gets explained...

The world is a different place, and in another time, or decade, a 13-14 year old getting /married/ would've been considered the norm.

Now go ahead and call me a sicko, for saying it's not a big deal. It's stupidity on the kids parents part, and a really strange attraction on her part.

It happens, and it's none of the cops business...really.

now see if mom ok'd it they should have moved to a state where its legal to marry that young with parental consent, and no one would have said anything. i'm not saying its ok but it was probably found out by the little bugger bragging to his friends that he was getting laid. if a 13 y/o girl gets knocked up in the inner city we say thats a shame another welfare case, not that poor girl was raped. cause we all know what goes on. new hormones and boredom lead to experimenting, throw in someone older and looking to get laid, a little weed and boom people, it is more common than we want to see.


some one mentioned that hot school teacher, hell yeah at 13 i wanted to bang one of my teachers she had great tits, i wouldn't have married her when she got out of jail though. but who is to argue with love.

now see if mom ok'd it they should have moved to a state where its legal to marry that young with parental consent, and no one would have said anything. i'm not saying its ok but it was probably found out by the little bugger bragging to his friends that he was getting laid. if a 13 y/o girl gets knocked up in the inner city we say thats a shame another welfare case, not that poor girl was raped. cause we all know what goes on. new hormones and boredom lead to experimenting, throw in someone older and looking to get laid, a little weed and boom people, it is more common than we want to see.

If the guy is 9 years older than her that moved into her mothers house after meeting her on the internet most people would tend to place the blame elsewhere.

now see if mom ok'd it they should have moved to a state where its legal to marry that young with parental consent, and no one would have said anything. i'm not saying its ok but it was probably found out by the little bugger bragging to his friends that he was getting laid. if a 13 y/o girl gets knocked up in the inner city we say thats a shame another welfare case, not that poor girl was raped. cause we all know what goes on. new hormones and boredom lead to experimenting, throw in someone older and looking to get laid, a little weed and boom people, it is more common than we want to see.


some one mentioned that hot school teacher, hell yeah at 13 i wanted to bang one of my teachers she had great tits, i wouldn't have married her when she got out of jail though. but who is to argue with love.

So, you're implying that this 13 year old kid wasn't raped, he was just "experimenting?"

And I suppose you'll tell me that she loved the little boy too, eh? :rolleyes:

So, you're implying that this 13 year old kid wasn't raped, he was just "experimenting?"

And I suppose you'll tell me that she loved the little boy too, eh? :rolleyes:

Mary Kay Letourneau at age 32 found guilty of raping 13 yo Vili Fualaau, goes to jail pregnant baby number 1, baby 2 he gets her pregnant at age 15 while she is on parole. she goes back to jail. she gets out, when his age was 21 and he is able to legally see her, then in 2005 they are married. hmm love happends,

Mary Kay Letourneau at age 32 found guilty of raping 13 yo Vili Fualaau, goes to jail pregnant baby number 1, baby 2 he gets her pregnant at age 15 while she is on parole. she goes back to jail. she gets out, when his age was 21 and he is able to legally see her, then in 2005 they are married. hmm love happends,

Okay.

Now elaborate for all of the other thousands of rape cases. You can't say that because one case happens this way, we "don't know" about all the rest. That's just silly.

Well, even if the boy didn't feel like a victim at the time, I guess he probably does now.
Article doesn't say what the mother is charged with ... but how could the court send her to jail ? How would that help him ?

I'm kind of inclined to see some value in this:
It's not a crime for the boy, he's not being charged with anything. If the mother thinks it's OK for the boy to risk becoming a father, and is willing to cover the expenses of raising a grandchild, and is willing to pay for therapy if the relationship fails... well, parents are given power to decide for a reason, and laws against such statutory offences violate that parental discretion.

It should mitigate the 22-y-o woman's guilt that the mother permitted it to happen. Perhaps mom thought they were just friends, I dunno.

Parents have almost unlimited discretion in some matters (eg religious upbringing or reasonable discipline) but then the case crosses some line, and they have none? Sure, the mother can't "give consent" on behalf of her 13-y-o son, but surely whatever judgement the boy has is bolstered by still being in the custody of his mom. For instance, if the 22-y-o tried to blackmail him or use unreasonable persuasion, he could refuse to let her in the house. He has power in this situation which mitigates his lack of judgement. (Yes, I realize I am equivocating 'consent.' How can it be black and white? It's a variety of 'judgement'.)

And would things have been safer or more healthy (in terms of consent) if mommy had grounded him and taken away his computer and phone ? He'd get in touch with the woman somehow, possibly run away to be with her and be far more at risk than when he was in his mother's house.

I really don't see the problem with this. When I was 13, I would have given my left nut to get laid - I really don't see it as 'taking advantage' of a horny teenage boy.


so where is the problem?the problem?
The problem is puritanism

you are not supposed to enjoy sex at 13.
and dont forget.. masturbation makes you blind. :D

So, you're implying that this 13 year old kid wasn't raped.He wasnt.

Oh sure, a man rapes a girl and gets called a pervert. A woman rapes a boy and is considered lucky.

:rolleyes:

Oh sure, a man rapes a girl and gets called a pervert. A woman rapes a boy and is considered lucky.we are sexist.
you did not get the memo? ;)

Okay.

Now elaborate for all of the other thousands of rape cases. You can't say that because one case happens this way, we "don't know" about all the rest. That's just silly.
not saying that there aren't others that are horrible, like incestual rapes, date rape, random bathroom rapes. but the ones that get the most media attention are the ones that seem for lack of a better word questionable in intent. 21 y/o living with her 13 y/o lover and his mom. living there not some hey i'm locking you in the closet. and you fear for your life. he probably maintained a normal life except he was playing with her box instead of x box. got caught out by bragging or someone thinking it was wrong. that teacher case wasn't even reported by the spouse of the teacher but a cousin in law almost a year later. because they thought it was immoral. i think rape is bad the kind where its forced or fear plays a role there should be an age limit yes but at what age? 13 was legal a hundred years ago and still in some countrys, then sex wasn't at well taught or publicly available as it is today. you can't go to the mall without seeing its influence. girls all tarted up and they are only 14

sexist we are.

Not you, dear.

EDIT: Memo? No I didn't. :(

Not you, dear.hmm.. you are working on my ego again. So unfair of you :cool:


EDIT: Memo? No I didn't. :(I sent it to all "the boys" :D

He wasnt.

The woman has been charged with Second Degree Rape, so according to what little we know of the case, the boy was legally raped.

Let's hear it then. In what sense was he not raped ?

Okay.

Now elaborate for all of the other thousands of rape cases. You can't say that because one case happens this way, we "don't know" about all the rest. That's just silly.

since my other reply must have been moderated for content. rape is bad, incest, date rape, and forced acts.

we see a 21 y/o raping a 13 y/o
she lived there, he probably went about his life day to day going from x box to her box. it gets the media attention because of its circumstance. if it was one of horror it would be barried to protect the innocent. but no this one is national media why cause its a 21 y/o woman shacking up with her 13 y/o boy friend and his mom. a hundred years ago this wouldn't have been an issue.

since my other reply must have been moderated for content. rape is bad, incest, date rape, and forced acts.

we see a 21 y/o raping a 13 y/o
she lived there, he probably went about his life day to day going from x box to her box. it gets the media attention because of its circumstance. if it was one of horror it would be barried to protect the innocent. but no this one is national media why cause its a 21 y/o woman shacking up with her 13 y/o boy friend and his mom. a hundred years ago this wouldn't have been an issue.

Last I checked, this wasn't 1907. Or 1707.

She RAPED him. It wasn't consensual, it wasn't a love affair - s.h.e. r.a.p.e.d h.i.m. End of story. Don't give an explanation for this particular case when you don't know what happened, and don't try to excuse her or him or his mother or whoever for what happened.

She's 22. He's 13. That's it. It's not a national media issue, it's rape. Grow some gray matter.

The woman has been charged with Second Degree Rape, so according to what little we know of the case, the boy was legally raped.

Let's hear it then. In what sense was he not raped ?Legally speaking?
Legally speaking people gets raped on almost every Fraternity Party, have you ever been to college?

since my other reply must have been moderated for content. rape is bad, incest, date rape, and forced acts.

Incest is bad? You can't defend that.

I know you can't. You can't think clearly enough, or if you can you can't express yourself clearly enough to compare incest with rape. Some cases of incest are rape, and as such are bad.

we see a 21 y/o raping a 13 y/o
she lived there, he probably went about his life day to day going from x box to her box.
Nice pun, but totally unfounded assumption.

it gets the media attention because of its circumstance. if it was one of horror it would be barried to protect the innocent. but no this one is national media why cause its a 21 y/o woman shacking up with her 13 y/o boy friend and his mom. a hundred years ago this wouldn't have been an issue.

A hundred years ago rape was not reported in the media unless it was by a black man on a white woman. Nice argument.

It wasn't consensual...My mistake.
If he did not consent, then yes he was raped.

POTSDAM, N.Y. -- Police say what began as a friendship through an online game turned into an inappropriate relationship between a 13-year-old Potsdam boy and a 22-year-old California woman.

Kathryn Brauch was arrested in Potsdam on Wednesday after police say she flew to the area to have sex with the boy.

"They had conversed over the internet, and eventually disclosed their age and names to each other and developed a relationship, and eventually traveled to Potsdam to meet the juvenile," said Officer Mark R. Murray, of the Potsdam Police Department.

Police say the two met on the online game RuneScape, an interactive game which lets you chat with other players.

A 22-year-old California woman was arrested in Potsdam on Wednesday after police say she had inappropriate sexual relations with a 13-year-old Potsdam boy.

Brauch was charged with second degree rape, disseminating indecent material to minors and a second degree criminal sexual act.

Police believe she's been in the area for more than two weeks, staying with the boy and his mother. The mother was also charged with a crime.

I fail to see where the mother consented to this.

And, finally, this isn't national news. It's hardly even local. It's a small affiliate of Time Warner Cable, not "World News Tonight."

Legally speaking?
Legally speaking people gets raped on almost every Fraternity Party, have you ever been to college?

Okay. So throw up a thread including links to news articles about "almost every Frat party" included in legal rape. Please. Just to back up your claim.

I'm IN college and I've heard nor seen nothing of the sort.

Legally speaking?
Legally speaking people gets raped on almost every Fraternity Party, have you ever been to college?

Done talking to you now.

My mistake.
If he did not consent, then yes he was raped.

Just to make this clear:
a)The mother didn't consent. That's rape already.
b)The boy is 13. He's not 18. He's not of an age to rationally make decisions of this sort. He, most probably, found this to be fun and excited him in some sort of way. But consensual? Hell no. Pray tell, would the boy even know what consensual sex is at his age?!

Okay. So throw up a thread including links to news articles about "almost every Frat party" included in legal rape. Please. Just to back up your claim.Nah, I cant be bothered.

I'm IN college and I've heard nor seen nothing of the sort.LOL.. Pillsbury college ? (http://www.pillsbury.edu/)

Done talking to you now.see ya. ;)
*waves good bye*

.

Just to make this clear:
a)The mother didn't consent. That's rape already.
b)The boy is 13. He's not 18. He's not of an age to rationally make decisions of this sort. He, most probably, found this to be fun and excited him in some sort of way. But consensual? Hell no. Pray tell, would the boy even know what consensual sex is at his age?!Just to make this even more clear:





did he Consent.. YES or NO ?
did he want to have sex.. or did he do it against his will ?

I fail to see where the mother consented to this.

It's implied:
Police believe she's been in the area for more than two weeks, staying with the boy and his mother. The mother was also charged with a crime.

Could be "keeping a bawdy house" or something. Letting the woman stay in her house implies a degree of responsibility, surely?

And, finally, this isn't national news. It's hardly even local. It's a small affiliate of Time Warner Cable, not "World News Tonight."

Indeed. It's pretty thin data to make sweeping judgements on.

they had a relationship she came out to be with him lived with him and mom.

2nd degree rape is sex with a person under 17 thats it. it even states if any one under 17 has sex it is a violation of the criminal code

the hundred year ago thing is about the age when people where getting married. being a lot younger than it is now. new york you can actually marry at 14 with consent from parents and probate judge she should have waited a year.

Just to make this even more clear:





did he Consent.. YES or NO ?
did he want to have sex.. or did he do it against his will ?

He's not old enough to consent, and his mother didn't consent. Therefore, NO.

You have to remember this is a 13 year old boy we're talking about. We aren't talking about a sexually active young adult - it's a boy. Who might not even know what sex, or consensual sex for that matter, is. And she forced him to do it against his will. She wouldn't have flown across the country to have consensual sex with a 13 year old boy she met over the internet and text message sexual pics with him.

[QUOTE=Nobel Hobos;12903032]Could be "keeping a bawdy house" or something. Letting the woman stay in her house implies a degree of responsibility, surely?[QUOTE]

However, this does not in the least give consent for her to have sex with her son. It's implied, yes, but it never directly says that she consented to him having sexual activity with her.

b)The boy is 13. He's not 18. I think the line should be drawn at 14 or 15, so they should charge her with "having sex with a minor".. Maybe condemn her to some community works or something.

but they should not call this "rape", rape is a violent crime.
Rapists deserve the death penalty.

You have to remember this is a 13 year old boy we're talking about. We aren't talking about a sexually active young adult - at 13 I had just discovered Masturbation, so I was more sexually active than my 40 years old Dad.

I could masturbate 3 times in a roll over the same Penthouse Magazine..

So... at what age did you discover Masturbation?
given the fact that you went to extremely puritan schools.. You probably discovered masturbation at 21 :D

I think the line should be drawn at 14 or 15, so they should charge her with "having sex with a minor".. Maybe condemn her to some community works or something.

but they should not call this "rape", rape is a violent crime.
Rapists deserve the death penalty.

Rape doesn't necessarily have to be a violent crime. The consequences of the actions this woman took against this boy can and will change him for the rest of his life psychologically. Rape doesn't necessarily have to be physically harmful to be rape.

And saying that rapists deserve the death penalty is fairly childish.

I think the line should be drawn at 14 or 15, so they should charge her with "having sex with a minor".. Maybe condemn her to some community works or something.

but they should not call this "rape", rape is a violent crime.
Rapists deserve the death penalty.

ny rape 2 is sex any person under age 17 thats what she is charged with

And saying that rapists deserve the death penalty is fairly childish.Rapist deserve the Death Penalty.

You may say childish, I say "Punishment fits the Crime"

Statutory rape refers to a sexual act that is considered rape by the law regardless of whether it was coercive or consensual. Such laws are common and exist in order to prevent adults from having sex with minors who are deemed legally unable to give effective informed consent.

I hate to quote Wiki, but here's another form of rape that applies, nonwithstanding any other sort of consent or sexual activities.

I hate to quote Wiki,

"Statutory rape refers to a sexual act that is considered rape by the law regardless of whether it was coercive or consensual. Such laws are common and exist in order to prevent adults from having sex with minors who are deemed legally unable to give effective informed consent."What a coincidence, you "forgot" to quote the part it says "Other countries do NOT call it Rape"

Statutory rape refers to a sexual act that is considered rape by the law regardless of whether it was coercive or consensual. Such laws are common and exist in order to prevent adults from having sex with minors who are deemed legally unable to give effective informed consent.

Sexual activity involving a person below the age of consent is often known as statutory rape although some jurisdictions prefer terms such as "unlawful sexual intercourse" to avoid the forcible connotation of the word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

I hate to quote Wiki, but here's another form of rape that applies, nonwithstanding any other sort of consent or sexual activities.
That sounds right. Canada's AOC is 14, which I think is about right. As for the mother...I'd say criminal negligence. I mean, come on, she invited a 22 year old her 13 year old son had met online into her home, and let her stay. Really, what could she have been thinking...

First of all I think the most important issue here is the mother's behaviour.

What kind of mother does this boy has or what lies did he told her?
Perhaps that she was his teacher?

If I was his parent, I would had asked him some stuff about this person.
I won't consent a complete stranger to stay at my home, specially if its almost the double age of my son.
I would get suspicious there.

The we can set what happened there.

I haven't read that he did that against his will.

If the boy already knew what was going to happen and that was the point of the visit, I think that is consensual.
Of course it quite wasn't intelligent but he knew what he was doing.
Specially if she was staying for 2 weeks.
And as we have established here, its a fantasy for many young boys to have sex with an older girl.
I had that fantasy with my art teacher, she was 20 and I was 14.


And for this women, there's something wrong with her, engaging with a 13 year old, flying and staying with him for 2 weeks.
Thats odd.

By the way, who was the one that accused this woman?
The mother or someone that had nothing to do with the issue?

It is a wierd world.

Just to make this clear:
a)The mother didn't consent. That's rape already.
b)The boy is 13. He's not 18. He's not of an age to rationally make decisions of this sort. He, most probably, found this to be fun and excited him in some sort of way. But consensual? Hell no. Pray tell, would the boy even know what consensual sex is at his age?!

Are you stupid? Have you never been a 13 year old boy?

Trust me, they know all about sex and want it, possibly more then any other demographic on earth.

Firstly, anyone who voted for 'vice versa' and such thought that rapist was a female, is lying. Unless they had previous knowledge of this story.
But yeah, RuneScape. I was on there for like a week when I was 14. No older women hit on me then, damn.

But yeah, RuneScape. I was on there for like a week when I was 14. No older women hit on me then, damn.YEAH..

*starts multiple Torrent searches for "Runescape" *
lets see if I can get luckier than you :D

Have you never been a 13 year old boy?

Is that a rhetorical question? :P

Possibly more than any other demographic? Including 17 and up? I don't think so.

What a coincidence, you "forgot" to quote the part it says "Other countries do NOT call it Rape"

New York City is where said action occurred. So, no, you don't need to know what happens with these cases in other countries because there aren't any other countries involved.

EDIT: And the part you redded said that another term is used for the same crime, not that the action isn't a crime.

Are you stupid? Have you never been a 13 year old boy?

Trust me, they know all about sex and want it, possibly more then any other demographic on earth.

I'm getting well sick of this. I'll try a different tack.

When I was a 13-y-old boy, I knew all about sex. And I didn't want it, despite the powerful peer-group expectations, and the fact that I was non-specifically attracted to girls.

So call me a freak. Bump that up to FIFTEEN, and still I didn't want sex. At least two other boys in the my year cohort of one hundred likewise admitted that despite peer-group pressure, they didn't think they'd ever want sex. And there were a number more who were either openly or implicitly gay.

Bang. Your generalization will stop twitching in a minute. You might want to stuff it.

Firstly, anyone who voted for 'vice versa' and such thought that rapist was a female, is lying. Unless they had previous knowledge of this story.

I was a little suspicious, but not enough to honestly vote #2. I thought: "is that even a story? Happens all the time."

But yeah, RuneScape. I was on there for like a week when I was 14. No older women hit on me then, damn.

Shucks, what bad luck. You could have groped her in the cinema, boasted about it at school, and visited her in jail.

I.e. you weren't competent to choose sex, because you didn't give a damn about the consequences.

EDIT: That wasn't meant to be personal, Peis. Your "damn" is small change compared to some of the salivating enthusiasm for child molestation earlier in the thread. Just the straw that breaks the camel's back I guess.

Rapist deserve the Death Penalty.

You may say childish, I say "Punishment fits the Crime"

That implies a different punishment.

That implies a different punishment.

"Punishment fit the crime" is just a line from The Mikado by Gilbert & Sullivan.
That it is almost always used by ranting vengeance-types is rather sweetly ironic, really.

can you really call that rape?

Yep I can

Nope.

And apparently I thought Germany when I saw POTSDAM.

So did I... and I was more than a little surprised that German officials would treat that as rape, considering that the age of consent is 14 anyway.

So did I... and I was more than a little surprised that German officials would treat that as rape, considering that the age of consent is 14 anyway.

But the boy was 13, not 14, so really it makes no difference

But the boy was 13, not 14, so really it makes no difference

German courts tend not to look at numbers as absolutes in cases like that. Meaning that if the boy has just turned 13 the case would be treated differently than if he's 2 months away from his 14th birthday.

German courts tend not to look at numbers as absolutes in cases like that. Meaning that if the boy has just turned 13 the case would be treated differently than if he's 2 months away from his 14th birthday.

Doesn't the partner have to be under 18 for that to be legal?

EDIT: Link (http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm)

In Germany, sexual intercourse is legal from the age of 14 provided the older partner is aged under 18 and provided they are not "exploiting a coercive situation" or offering compensation. In addition, sex between one partner aged 14-15 and another aged under 21 is legal unless the older partner "exploits the victim's lack of capacity for sexual self-determination".

Doesn't the partner have to be under 18 for that to be legal?

EDIT: Link (http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm)

If I'm reading that right, then it would even if the boy were 14-15 they would have a case to charge the woman.

I've noticed a lot of folks here saying that the mother (or legal guardians in general) can somehow give consent for the child. I want you to stop and think about this for a second. If legal guardians can give consent in the child's stead, you're creating a loophole that legitimizes every parent that ever assaulted their children (oh, well I can give consent for them) and every case where a molester managed to become guardian of their victim and passed the child around (sure, take them for awhile, I give consent for them).

For whomever wanted to hear Bottle's opinion on this: while I won't speak for her (I like my skin attached), I would say that part of the reason we don't look at this as as bad as if the genders are reversed is because of sexual roles of men that we are brought up with (and were mentioned prior). We're supposed to chase tail. Nevermind that these values were handed down from the same patriarchy that said women should be making babies and cooking meals for the rest of their lives.

Nope that's not the case

Link (http://teenadvice.about.com/library/weekly/aa090701b.htm)That's odd. I don't really see it any differently than giving consent for your child to get married before they're legally able to. The reason for this is due to the expectation that the marriage would be consummated before the wedding night.
Meh. I've given up trying to understand the law.

Pray tell, would the boy even know what consensual sex is at his age?!I did. I dunno why someone else would or wouldn't.

That's odd. I don't really see it any differently than giving consent for your child to get married before they're legally able to. The reason for this is due to the expectation that the marriage would be consummated before the wedding night.
Meh. I've given up trying to understand the law.


I think it's because, legally, marriage is nothing more than a contract, which is something parents and guardians can sign (in most circumstances) for their children. But I see your point. I just think giving parents and guardians the power to consent to sex for their children is a really bad precedent to set.

If I'm reading that right, then it would even if the boy were 14-15 they would have a case to charge the woman.

I've noticed a lot of folks here saying that the mother (or legal guardians in general) can somehow give consent for the child.

OY! I hedged that, and I diluted "consent." I made a strong point nonetheless, and you should address it directly without confounding it with the statements of other posters.

I won't hurt you if you don't hurt me. But swipe in my general direction and there will be collateral casualties all 'round.

I want you to stop and think about this for a second. If legal guardians can give consent in the child's stead, you're creating a loophole that legitimizes every parent that ever assaulted their children (oh, well I can give consent for them) and every case where a molester managed to become guardian of their victim and passed the child around (sure, take them for awhile, I give consent for them).

Legal fotin' loophool my galactic ass. I spoke of this particular case, of which we know very little, and I quite deliberately allowed that it might be other than it seemed. Perhaps the 22-y-old offered the mother a million bucks to persuade her son to go with her, and the mom has been pimping the son out to furry-sex freaks who may not even be human, since he was five.

Don't assume I'm trying to make a precedent, a rule-of-thumb, a principal of justice. As I said later, this will be decided in court, with due respect to days of testimony, as opposed to five minutes of second-hand reporting (for a slow reader) on which we base our opinion.

I commented on the case. I believe that the involvement of another adult, who (as a mother) would reasonably be expected to advocate for and defend the rights of the 13-y-o boy, makes this a lesser case of injustice than "22-y-o meets 13-y-o on internet, they meet and have sex."

Mother solicited 22-y-o to have sex with 13-y-o. MORE bad.
Mother tried to arbitrate internet relationship between 22-y-o and 13-y-o. LESS bad.

No black and white. If you need that, attack the shadows.

For whomever wanted to hear Bottle's opinion on this: while I won't speak for her (I like my skin attached), I would say that part of the reason we don't look at this as as bad as if the genders are reversed is because of sexual roles of men that we are brought up with (and were mentioned prior). We're supposed to chase tail. Nevermind that these values were handed down from the same patriarchy that said women should be making babies and cooking meals for the rest of their lives.

There is only one answer to that. And I can't give it.

But, heh, it was me who wanted Bottle's opinion. Back before I lost my temper and queered the pitch.

OY! I hedged that, and I diluted "consent." I made a strong point nonetheless, and you should address it directly without confounding it with the statements of other posters.

I won't hurt you if you don't hurt me. But swipe in my general direction and there will be collateral casualties all 'round.

The first comment wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular. Dundee-Fienn posted the law in Germany and I commented on it.



Legal fotin' loophool my galactic ass. I spoke of this particular case, of which we know very little, and I quite deliberately allowed that it might be other than it seemed. Perhaps the 22-y-old offered the mother a million bucks to persuade her son to go with her, and the mom has been pimping the son out to furry-sex freaks who may not even be human, since he was five.

And if the mother could give consent for the boy, it would all be legal except for when the money was involved. Just because the mother is willing to deal with the potential consequences doesn't make doing a potentially damaging action ok.

That said, you're right, we do know very little about this particular case. Hence my generalized comments about a larger issue.

Don't assume I'm trying to make a precedent, a rule-of-thumb, a principal of justice. As I said later, this will be decided in court, with due respect to days of testimony, as opposed to five minutes of second-hand reporting (for a slow reader) on which we base our opinion.

You seem to think this was a direct comment about you, despite the fact that I never quoted you and deliberately hedged my comments.


I commented on the case. I believe that the involvement of another adult, who (as a mother) would reasonably be expected to advocate for and defend the rights of the 13-y-o boy, makes this a lesser case of injustice than "22-y-o meets 13-y-o on internet, they meet and have sex."

You're right. The mother would reasonably be expected to defend the child. But dealing with the consequences isn't the same as preventing them for happening in the first place.


Mother solicited 22-y-o to have sex with 13-y-o. MORE bad.
Mother tried to arbitrate internet relationship between 22-y-o and 13-y-o. LESS bad.

No black and white. If you need that, attack the shadows.


I don't think anyone's arguing that it would be worse if the mother actually solicited the 22 year old. But I don't see how because the Mother was involved, it's somehow ok or less bad. But now we're getting into responsiblities of parents. I don't think that the right thing for the mother to do was attempt to arbitrate this relationship, rather I think she should've prevented it rather than deal with the potential consequences as they happen (or don't).

Unfortunately, this argument can't go anywhere but into the realm of "how old is old enough?" Which doesn't interest me. The double standard does. It has been stated prior that if the genders were reversed it wouldn't (shouldn't) matter. On that, I agree. But we both know that if that were the case there would be a lynch mob after the "ebil paedo bastard".

I think this is unfair. Where are the women traveling across the country to have sex with me?

I think this is unfair. Where are the women traveling across the country to have sex with me?

I know! your pantless and everything!

I think this is unfair. Where are the women traveling across the country to have sex with me?When you start playing Runescape.

Get on with the Program already !! :D

as soon as i finish Downloading the torrent.. My Runescape Nom-de-Guerre is going to be -13m_looking_for_horny_California_female-

:D :D ;) :D

I didn't even think that most 13 year old boys could preform sexually...

I didn't even think that most 13 year old boys could preform sexually...preform? is that foreplay?

preform? is that foreplay?
No, like I didn't know that most 13 year old boys could get it up. I could see how foreplay is do-able at that age, but apart from that...

I could see how foreplay is do-able at that age, but apart from that...yes, its very do-able.


No, like I didn't know that most 13 year old boys could get it up.You... what?

???
?????

...



are you kidding me?

I dunno, I'm not a boy and I didn't start to date until I was nearly 18 so I really can't say I had any experience with 13 year old boys and their erections. I do know that a number of my classmates were still talking with their high pitched voices as I towered over them at 13...

No, like I didn't know that most 13 year old boys could get it up. I could see how foreplay is do-able at that age, but apart from that...


I was having erections and sexual fantasies long before I was 13

.. a number of my classmates were still talking with their high pitched voices as I towered over them at 13...the truth is.. some of them were masturbating at nite.. thinking about you.

..and others about any young female teachers.

"the truth"® brought you by OccNEWS©, since 2003.

the truth is.. some of them were masturbating at nite.. thinking about you.
Unlikely. There's a reason I didn't date until I was almost 18.

Oh snap, MeatLoaf is on tour again.

Unlikely. There's a reason I didn't date until I was almost 18.the rite guy did not present himself?

the rite guy did not present himself?
Not quite. I wasn't quite well-liked throughout most of high school or senior public school and was never seriously approached by any guys. There was the occasional joker who would ask me on a date in front of the entire class thinking it was funny, but that's it.

Hmm. I think I see it now. "The male has to go along with it" is a reference to getting an erection I presume. Would you consider showing him porn or fondling him "extreme measures" ?

The assumption is that guys are always looking for sex, whereas girls give consent or not.

This assumption often comes from having BEEN a 13 year old boy who was always looking for sex.

I'm having a hard time picturing a woman simultaneously holding a guy down and arousing him.

I really feel uncomfortable discussing the logistics of rape.

Unless the guy in question finds being held down to be arousing in and of itself . . .

The reason I thought the 22 year old was the guy in this is because I too have a little trouble understanding the logistics of how a woman would violently rape a male (barring being the inserter rather than the insertee so to speak) and the thread title being non-specific caused me to think that this was a violent rape not a case of statutory rape. I'm not certain the latter needs it's own categorization as there are already laws applying to adults having sex with children. The statutory rape laws seem to do no more than brand 17 or 18 year olds "sexual predators" due to engaging in consensual sex with a girlfriend a year or two younger than them.

There was an established pattern of sexual grooming. There was an arranged meeting.
If the police had intervened at that stage, and the genders were reversed, it would not be seen as "far less serious." It would be seen (even by a jury) as a clear intention to commit statutory rape.

You don't think this is as serious. Why not ?

To my knowledge he was not beaten, he was not threatened, he was not coerced by her holding any form of actual power over him (couldn't cause him to flunk, couldn't ground him, etc.), in short it sounds as if his reaction was much the same as mine would have been at his age "Do I want to have sex? You have to ASK???"

He should get less time than a guy who physically forced himself on a young girl.

Intention to commit and the crime itself are two seperate punishments.

Why? It is the same intentions and the same fucking crime! Why have different sentences because of gender?

Unless there is something I missed it isn't the same fucking crime. In one case we have someone who was held down, possibly beaten, and FORCED to engage in intercourse. In the other we have someone who was asked "Hey, want to fuck?" who responded "Hell yeah!". Yes it is still wrong as he was not old enough to consent, but it is not as wrong as using violence.

Okay. So throw up a thread including links to news articles about "almost every Frat party" included in legal rape. Please. Just to back up your claim.

I'm IN college and I've heard nor seen nothing of the sort.

I believe the poster was referring to people who are legally drunk (and thus unable to give consent) engaging in sexual activity. Technically anyone who has had sex while too impaired to legaly operate a motor vehicle has been raped and anyone who has had sex with someone who was so impaired (regardless of their level of impairment) is technically, by legal precedent, a rapist.

Not quite. I wasn't quite well-liked throughout most of high school or senior public school and was never seriously approached by any guys. There was the occasional joker who would ask me on a date in front of the entire class thinking it was funny, but that's it.

That wouldn't preclude sexual fantasies, I assure you. Unless you were a guy at that point in life.


But then, still...

Are you stupid? Have you never been a 13 year old boy?

Trust me, they know all about sex and want it, possibly more then any other demographic on earth.

I would hesitate to say that at age 13 I knew "all about sex". All I really knew for sure was that if I got a chance I should wear a condom because I didn't want to catch anything or become a father and that I REALLY wanted to have some right away, as many times as possible.

Unless the guy in question finds being held down to be arousing in and of itself . . .

The reason I thought the 22 year old was the guy in this is because I too have a little trouble understanding the logistics of how a woman would violently rape a male (barring being the inserter rather than the insertee so to speak) and the thread title being non-specific caused me to think that this was a violent rape not a case of statutory rape. I'm not certain the latter needs it's own categorization as there are already laws applying to adults having sex with children. The statutory rape laws seem to do no more than brand 17 or 18 year olds "sexual predators" due to engaging in consensual sex with a girlfriend a year or two younger than them.

There are laws dealing with adults having sex with minors other that statutory rape laws? Really?

And obviously I mean in places that have statutory rape laws.

I believe the poster was referring to people who are legally drunk (and thus unable to give consent) engaging in sexual activity. Technically anyone who has had sex while too impaired to legaly operate a motor vehicle has been raped and anyone who has had sex with someone who was so impaired (regardless of their level of impairment) is technically, by legal precedent, a rapist.
So when my bf and I are drunk and go at it, we're raping each other?

So when my bf and I are drunk and go at it, we're raping each other?

Yes. Kinda.

So when my bf and I are drunk and go at it, we're raping each other?

Legally, as I understand it, yes.

Legally, as I understand it, yes.
Dumbest thing I've heard all day, imo.

the truth is.. some of them were masturbating at nite.. thinking about you.

..and others about any young female teachers.

"the truth"® brought you by OccNEWS©, since 2003.

And some were thinking about young male teachers, or the captain of the foot ball team . . .

Dumbest thing I've heard all day, imo.

It sounds like it, sure. But one of my brother's former roomates can tell you it's a very real legal principle. Or at least, when he's eligible for parole in 2027, he can tell you. :p

Dumbest thing I've heard all day, imo.

How so? You can't consent when you're drunk, and if you have sex without consenting it's rape.

How so? You can't consent when you're drunk, and if you have sex without consenting it's rape.

Some states had an exemption for that sort of thing within marriage. Of course, that had the negative effect of making it legally impossible to 'rape' your wife, even if you did so violently. I think that's been phased out, though. Maybe a criminal lawyer can answer it better. :)

And some were thinking about young male teachers, or the captain of the foot ball team . . .

and locker room showers

There are laws dealing with adults having sex with minors other that statutory rape laws? Really?

And obviously I mean in places that have statutory rape laws.

I was under the impression that it would be governed by the same laws covering other forms of molestation. Or if violence or overt coercion were involved that it would fall under the general heading of rape in addition to charges of child molestation.

Dumbest thing I've heard all day, imo.

Heard worse.

So when my bf and I are drunk and go at it, we're raping each other?

From a legal stand point yes. Either of you could file charges against the other, in practice I doubt your boyfriend would stand a chance of winning were he the one who filed rape charges though.

I would hesitate to say that at age 13 I knew "all about sex". All I really knew for sure was that if I got a chance I should wear a condom because I didn't want to catch anything or become a father and that I REALLY wanted to have some right away, as many times as possible.

As a 13 year old boy, I can testify to Haaregrad's claims about wanting it and your claims about condoms. Although I know a little about STDs.

From a legal stand point yes. Either of you could file charges against the other, in practice I doubt your boyfriend would stand a chance of winning were he the one who filed rape charges though.

What an idiotic law.

What an idiotic law.

Why? It doesn't matter as long as you choose your partner well and can trust them

What an idiotic law.

It's the same law that outlaws date rape. Still think it's idiotic?

It's the same law that outlaws date rape. Still think it's idiotic?

There are flaws in many laws.

There are flaws in many laws.

And in what way is a law that stops people from consenting to sex when they're drunk or high(it probably covers other things too) flawed?

I believe the poster was referring to people who are legally drunk (and thus unable to give consent) engaging in sexual activity. Technically anyone who has had sex while too impaired to legaly operate a motor vehicle has been raped and anyone who has had sex with someone who was so impaired (regardless of their level of impairment) is technically, by legal precedent, a rapist.

except that's not true as it ignores the concept of implied consent.

So when my bf and I are drunk and go at it, we're raping each other? Legally, as I understand it, yes.

Um...no.

Ok. Note that when I say this, my religion hat is officially off:

What the fuck? This woman should have been given a fricken medal, not arrested. :mad:

Unusually lucid (if strange) post for you, Gens. I was just about to add you to ignore, but I won't, just for that. :p

What the fuck? This woman should have been given a fricken medal, not arrested. :mad:

For raping a child? What world do you live in?

For raping a child? What world do you live in?

You can bet your ass that I wish a 22 year old woman wanted to have sex with me when I was that age.

For raping a child? What world do you live in?

A world where Catholic priests rape altar boys and get away with it?

Ok. Note that when I say this, my religion hat is officially off:

What the fuck? This woman should have been given a fricken medal, not arrested. :mad:

You can leave your hat on.

You can bet your ass that I wish a 22 year old woman wanted to have sex with me when I was that age.

That's very nice, it's still rape.

Only by technicality!

One party not consenting is not a technicality.

That's very nice, it's still rape.

Only by technicality!

Ok. Which party didn't consent?

The boy, obviously.

One party not consenting is not a technicality.

Ok. Which party didn't consent?

Uh huh. Is this to say that the boy said no?

What he said doesn't really matter. He's 13. As I understand it, he can't legally consent, whether he wants to or not.

The boy, obviously.

Uh huh. Is this to say that the boy said no?

Emphasis mine. Nuff said. He clearly consented. The sex was clearly consentual. The police, and the rest of you, merely don't care what he thinks.

So I got a question, if the situation was reversed, 22 year old man, 13 year old girl, still ok?

And you're right, we don't care what he thinks. We don't give a flying fuck what he thinks. Why? because he is 13. It doesn't matter what he thinks.

Uh huh. Is this to say that the boy said no?

no, this is to say that the boy can't legally consent, regardless of what he said.

What he said doesn't really matter. He's 13. As I understand it, he can't legally consent, whether he wants to or not.

Emphasis mine. Nuff said. He clearly consented. The sex was clearly consentual. The police, and the rest of you, merely don't care what he thinks.

So I got a question, if the situation was reversed, 22 year old man, 13 year old girl, still ok?

Potentially.

Emphasis mine. Nuff said. He clearly consented. The sex was clearly consentual. The police, and the rest of you, merely don't care what he thinks.

Exactly. It doesn't matter what he was thinking, it was enough that he was under the age of consent.

Only by technicality!
and it's that technicality that the woman, and his mother was arrested by.

Emphasis mine. Nuff said. He clearly consented. The sex was clearly consentual. The police, and the rest of you, merely don't care what he thinks.
Doesn't matter if he did consent or not. He's UNDERAGE. She knew he was UNDERAGE. Yet she could not wait 3 - 5 years until he was over the AoC for their state. So she's still at fault.

He may honestly love her, she may Honestly love him, no one is denying that possiblity.

But the Law is the Law. She should've kept it online until he was past the AoC. Use the time to get to know each other better. Then when he's legal, then go and celebrate his... manhood... legally and properly.

Acutally, looking back to my Star Trek RPing days, there was a tendancy for 30 something married women to get awkwardly close to young teenage boys.

Emphasis mine. Nuff said. He clearly consented. The sex was clearly consentual. The police, and the rest of you, merely don't care what he thinks.

One could persuade a 6 year old to consent to sex, if one were that way inclined. What would you say in that situation?

Acutally, looking back to my Star Trek RPing days, there was a tendancy for 30 something married women to get awkwardly close to young teenage boys.

Perhaps Jack Chick is right about role playing games :eek:

One could persuade a 6 year old to consent to sex, if one were that way inclined. What would you say in that situation?

Six is not thirteen.

The "consent" of a six-year-old is clearly meaningless... but you simply cannot say the same for the consent of at least a large number of thirteen-year-olds.

But the Law is the Law.

And Gay marriage is currently illegal in many places in America, and remains more or less illegal for Federal purposes as according to the Defense of Marriage Act signed in by Bill Clinton.

So Gay marriage is the law. There should be no discussion of it, for the law is the law.

Thank you, Junii!

Six is not thirteen.

The "consent" of a six-year-old is clearly meaningless... but you simply cannot say the same for the consent of at least a large number of thirteen-year-olds.

After a number of people have told us how delighted they would have been to have been in that boys position I think I can.

And Gay marriage is currently illegal in many places in America, and remains more or less illegal for Federal purposes as according to the Defense of Marriage Act signed in by Bill Clinton.

So Gay marriage is the law. There should be no discussion of it, for the law is the law.

Thank you, Junii!

And gay marriage and rape are fairly different issues. The law we are CURRENTLY dealing with is laws dealing with rape and either non-consensual sex or sex with a minor whose parent did not consent. Not gay marriage. If you want to do a threadjack, go somewhere else.

After a number of people have told us how delighted they would have been to have been in that boys position I think I can.

I fail to see the connection.

And so you admit a double standard. Nuff said.

No, I admit that they are TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES. Go read the "Flip/Flop" thread for further reference.

And gay marriage and rape are fairly different issues. The law we are CURRENTLY dealing with is laws dealing with rape and either non-consensual sex or sex with a minor whose parent did not consent. Not gay marriage. If you want to do a threadjack, go somewhere else.

And so you admit a double standard. Nuff said.

I fail to see the connection.

At 13 the urge to have sex is, in most cases, new and unfamiliar. At 13 I probably would have jumped into bed with an older woman, consequences be damned, and it seems I wouldn't be the only one.

No, I admit that they are TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES. Go read the "Flip/Flop" thread for further reference.

Here's what I am saying:

Those who are arguing against the boy's ability to consent are doing so because the law says so. So, they are, in doing so, establishing a universal. "If the law says so, then so be it."

However, I know that these same people, given a different circumstance, wouldn't possibly accept that argument, particularly in the case of the one I have given.

So assume the law is the law. Very well, then the boy can't consent AND gay marriage is WRONG.

However, if you admit that gay marriage is NOT wrong, then you can't say "the law is the law," and therefore cannot use it as a justification for the boy not being able to consent.

Here's what I am saying:

Those who are arguing against the boy's ability to consent are doing so because the law says so. So, they are, in doing so, establishing a universal. "If the law says so, then so be it."

No, those who can't read (IE: you) are assuming that's what people are saying. It is not the case that the boy can't consent because the law says so.

Rather, the boy can't make informed consent because he's fucking 13, and the law reflects that.

It is not that it is illegal therefore he can not consent. Rather, he can not give informed consent, therefore it is illegal.

There has been no appeal to "the law is the law!" other than your own failed attempt at constructing a sandman. Nobody has said it is wrong because the law says so, rather it is wrong because he's 13. The law merely reflects that fact.

You fail.

At 13 the urge to have sex is, in most cases, new and unfamiliar. At 13 I probably would have jumped into bed with an older woman, consequences be damned, and it seems I wouldn't be the only one.

While that would obviously have its problems, it does not seem to me to be at all equivalent to rape.

While that would obviously have its problems, it does not seem to me to be at all equivalent to rape.

an individual engaged in sex when that individual lacks the capacity to give informed consent, and the other party knows that.

Gee, sounds like rape to me. Rape need not be forced, rape need not be violent, all that is needed for rape to be rape is for one party not to have informed consent, and the other party/parties to be aware, or, in some cases, had the opportunity to reasonably be aware, of that fact.

That's it. There is no argument of "well that's not as bad as rape" It is rape, by definition. Rape can also include sexual assault as well, but it need not. He did not form informed consent, she knew that, it is rape.

Here's what I am saying:

Those who are arguing against the boy's ability to consent are doing so because the law says so. So, they are, in doing so, establishing a universal. "If the law says so, then so be it."

I, at least, am saying that in this case I agree with the law, not that the law is always right.

Also, strawman.

While that would obviously have its problems, it does not seem to me to be at all equivalent to rape.

an individual engaged in sex when that individual lacks the capacity to give informed consent, and the other party knows that.

Gee, sounds like rape to me. Rape need not be forced, rape need not be violent, all that is needed for rape to be rape is for one party not to have informed consent, and the other party/parties to be aware, or, in some cases, had the opportunity to reasonably be aware, of that fact.

That's it. There is no argument of "well that's not as bad as rape" It is rape, by definition. Rape can also include sexual assault as well, but it need not. He did not form informed consent, she knew that, it is rape.

What NA said.

Here's what I am saying:

Those who are arguing against the boy's ability to consent are doing so because the law says so. So, they are, in doing so, establishing a universal. "If the law says so, then so be it."

However, I know that these same people, given a different circumstance, wouldn't possibly accept that argument, particularly in the case of the one I have given.

So assume the law is the law. Very well, then the boy can't consent AND gay marriage is WRONG.

However, if you admit that gay marriage is NOT wrong, then you can't say "the law is the law," and therefore cannot use it as a justification for the boy not being able to consent.

If I'm understanding you, you take the phrase "The law is the law" to mean that we are saying that the law is absolute and that there should be no discussion about it. On the contrary, I believe that the person that said "The law is the law" referred to the fact that the law is on the side of the prosecution and not of the defense.

Other than that, you are stretching the meaning of the phrase to unconventional proportions and making it a fallacy. You're essentially saying, "If you believe this is rape you believe that gay marriage is WRONG or you believe that Rape is legal and gay marriage is RIGHT," when, in fact, gay marriage is currently illegal but not wrong. Other than that, it's a Either/Or fallacy where you tailor the argument to make the opposition seem evil. You're arguing the abstract, I'm arguing the concrete, and the concrete is that the law says that, in this case, the woman committed second degree rape.

I, at least, am saying that in this case I agree with the law, not that the law is always right.

Also, strawman.

exactly. I believe a 13 year old boy can not give informed consent. The law agrees with me. Therefore, in my opinion, the law is right, in this instance.

I believe gay marriage should be allowed. The law disagrees with me (except in my state). Therefore, in my opinion, the law is wrong, in that instance.

There is no appeal to "it's the law!" and therefore this pathetic attempt at an argument you tried to make falls flat on its face. I believe it is rape. The law agrees with me, ergo in my opinion the law is a valid one.

Law need not, and is not, valid merely because it is law. THIS law, however, is a good one.

Once again, you fail.

No, those who can't read (IE: you) are assuming that's what people are saying. It is not the case that the boy can't consent because the law says so.

Rather, the boy can't make informed consent because he's fucking 13, and the law reflects that.

It is not that it is illegal therefore he can not consent. Rather, he can not give informed consent, therefore it is illegal.

There has been no appeal to "the law is the law!" other than your own failed attempt at constructing a sandman. Nobody has said it is wrong because the law says so, rather it is wrong because he's 13. The law merely reflects that fact.

You fail.


Emphasis mine. So what you are saying is that the Law agrees with you.

That said, the law was appealed to several time. "He cannot consent legally."

That said, the real question here is not, "What does the law say," but can a child make an informed decision?

So, here's my question: Can you prove that, in and of itself, a child cannot make an informed decision?

Rather, I disagree based on my own current disposition. I am 18. I am therefore at a legal age for sex. I am saying that, as an 18 year old, were I 13, I would have wanted to have such a thing happen to me, having 20/20 hindsight.

So as an 18 year old, I would have gladly fucked her either way.

So, clearly, there is at least some degree of consent in this case, at least for me.

when that individual lacks the capacity to give informed consent

I see no reason to make that assumption.

As an 18 year old, were I 13, I would have wanted to have such a thing happen to me, having 20/20 hindsight.

So as an 18 year old, I would have gladly fucked her either way.

Here's your problem - you're making the assumption that, as an 18 year, that 13 year olds will want to have sex as much or more than you do, when you admit that you did not have the same drive for that when you were 13, "having 20/20 hindsight."

Emphasis mine. So what you are saying is that the Law agrees with you.

That said, the law was appealed to several time. "He cannot consent legally."

Correct, he can not. That however is not an appeal to the law, merely a note of the law.

he CAN NOT consent legally. Does that IN AND OF ITSELF make the law right? No, of course not.

It IS right however in this sense.

That said, the real question here is not, "What does the law say," but can a child make an informed decision?

Actually, I believe that this woman will soon find out that the VERY real question is "what does the law say". Regardless of WHAT we think about the law, it is the law and she broke it.

SHOULD it be the law is the question. I say, yes, it should.

So, here's my question: Can you prove that, in and of itself, a child cannot make an informed decision?

Please see the definition of child.

Rather, I disagree based on my own current disposition. I am 18. I am therefore at a legal age for sex. I am saying that, as an 18 year old, were I 13, I would have wanted to have such a thing happen to me, having 20/20 hindsight.

So as an 18 year old, I would have gladly fucked her either way.

And yet, that doesn't matter. Why? Because that you are 18 means (presumably, you may well be the exception against the rule) that you can look back and decide that you would have done the same thing is irrelevant.

That you can say that now that you can evaluate it as an adult you would have done the same thing does not matter. The fact is, a child can't. And the fact that you were not capable of making informed consent THEN would have made it rape, even if you can as an adult look back and say you would have done the exact same thing.

You were not capable of making the decision at that time. That's all that matters.

As a baby I would have grabbed at anything you put in front of me that was shiny. If you present my baby self with something shiny and I take it, and then 20 years later tell me you handed me an extremely valuable diamond, I can promise you I will agree that in hindsight, I definitly would have taken it.

It doesn't mean that when I as a baby grabbed for it, I made an informed decision to do so.

So, clearly, there is at least some degree of consent in this case, at least for me.

Oh, there certainly was consent. He agreed, after all.

There was not informed consent, however, and that is what matters.

I see no reason to make that assumption.

I do. He's 13.

Throughout the world, they have the age of consent there for a reason. It may be different in every country but it is there to stop people abusing children and forcing them to do sexual things. OK, I am not just talking about this example but many that I have heard over the last couple of years with people playing adult games with kids. Just look at South East Asia and how some of those kids (well they are but not mentally) are treated. Its not just this area of the world but in every country. They may not be in the sex trade but they're being shown and treated like it by not only the parents but the government as well. These people should be made so they can't have kids.

I do. He's 13.

That, in and of itself, is not a reason.

Uh huh. Is this to say that the boy said no?of course not..

The Boy did say YES.. But -in Ifreann country- they assume he said NO, and charge the Girl with RAPE anyways.

That, in and of itself, is not a reason.

is being 4 a reason? Surely you admit that fucking a 4 year old is rape

Is being 5?

6?

7?

8?

Where does it stop becoming a reason in and of itself? In my opinion, it is. Children can not make informed consent, they are children.

of course not..

The Boy did say YES.. But -in Ifreann country- they assume he said NO, and charge the Girl with RAPE anyways.

A toddler can say "Yes." to damn near everything. If a toddler said "Yes" when queried if he or she wanted to have sex, does that make it an informed consent?

No, because the toddler and the 13 year old alike did not know or had very little knowledge of the consequences of sex with a 22 year old woman he'd met online playing Runescape. Thus, there are consent laws.

Wow... It was a lady that raped a kid? Don't hear that everyday...

Well then again it wasn't like a violent back-alley rape like I thought it would be, she was even staying over at their house... The mom was probably smoking something, and whatever it is, I'm quite sure it's illegal...

Emphasis mine. Nuff said. He clearly consented. The sex was clearly consentual. The police, and the rest of you, merely don't care what he thinks.WTF
what do you mean "the Rest of you"

I do NOT agree with the US laws say this is Rape.
for me Rape is a violent Crime.

And I definitely think the laws making Dakini and his boyfriend "rapists" are retarded too.

Dont say "the Rest of you", I dont wanna be grouped with the people defending this laws.

is being 4 a reason?

In and of itself? No.

Surely you admit that fucking a 4 year old is rape

Undoubtedly. But not because they are four years old. Because most (virtually all) of four-year-olds are incapable of meaningful consent.

Some thirteen-year-olds are also incapable of meaningful consent... as are, for that matter, some people above the legal age of consent.

Children can not make informed consent, they are children.

Thirteen-year-olds generally have enough independence to be capable of genuine consent, and generally have enough intelligence to be capable of understanding the risks and potential consequences of sex.

The real risk is that of adult pressure... but morally, at least, the relevance of that can be decided on a case-by-case basis. (Legally, of course, the difficulty of measurement might reasonably justify universal prohibition.)

Some thirteen-year-olds are also incapable of meaningful consent...

That's the point!!

I'm quite sure it's illegal...It is illegal, but calling it rape is like putting it in the same category as kidnapping or murder..

like i said -in a fair country- the Girl should get only community works or something.

That's the point!!

As I proceeded to note in the second part of that sentence, the same is true of some people above the age of consent.

Perhaps we should just ban sex. That would put a stop to this sort of thing once and for all.

but morally, at least, the relevance of that can be decided on a case-by-case basis. (Legally, of course, the difficulty of measurement might reasonably justify universal prohibition.)

OK, I think we're on similar enough grounds where I can generally agree with you. It's POSSIBLE for a 13 year old to give consent, possible.

I'll say very unlikely, you can disagree with me on that if you so choose. However I think we both agree that the difficulty of seperating the few from the many is extremely difficult for the legal field.

Thirteen-year-olds generally have enough independence to be capable of genuine consent, and generally have enough intelligence to be capable of understanding the risks and potential consequences of sex.

At age thirteen, at least in the United States, a thirteen year old, if he is on pace with the education system, he would be either just out of elementary school or finishing the 7th grade. Hardly mature material. Just because he wanks at everything he sees doesn't mean he's capable of meaningful consent or capable of understanding the potential consequences of sex.

No, because the toddler and the 13 year old alike did not know or had very little knowledge of the consequences of sex with a 22 year old woman he'd met online playing Runescape. Thus, there are consent laws.what is a toddler? I know what it is but I want to hear you say it.

for me Rape is a violent Crime.

And you'd be wrong. You could also call an elephant a small pink mosquito. You'd be wrong then too. Words have actual definitions, and just because you disagree with it, doesn't make it untrue.

Rape, by definition, is not violent. If you define rape as necessarily being violent then you are wrong. No "matter of opinion", you are just wrong.

*Ahem* (pg. 7)

but they should not call this "rape", rape is a violent crime.
Rapists deserve the death penalty.

I understand that you believe that this isn't a rape case "in your eyes," but you should certainly rethink your position regarding a)this case and b)punishing sex offenders.

Hardly mature material. Just because he wanks at everything he sees doesn't mean he's capable of meaningful consent or capable of understanding the potential consequences of sex.WTF?
Are you out of your freaking mind???
what do you want? the end of the Human race?

If we had to "self-control".. If -we- males had to proof we are "mature" and capable of understanding all the potential consequences of sex.

then most of us would never get any.

Rape, by My definition -in NeoArt Country-, is not violent. If you define rape as necessarily being violent then you are wrong. No "matter of opinion", you are just wrong.you stand corrected,
my edit in bold red

you stand corrected,
my edit in bold red

Or maybe it should be "in america", which is where this crime took place. Because "in america" rape need not be, and is not necessarily a violent crime.

Seriously, between this post and the one previous...are you seriously fucking damaged or something? No, really, I don't mean this as an insult, I'm genuinly curious, what the fuck is wrong with you because, really, you ain't right.

Hardly mature material.

Yes, obviously, a thirteen-year-old is not fully mature, or even close.

But thirteen-year-olds are also not mindless, nor utterly lacking in self-control.

At age thirteen, at least in the United States, a thirteen year old, if he is on pace with the education system, he would be either just out of elementary school or finishing the 7th grade. Hardly mature material. Just because he wanks at everything he sees doesn't mean he's capable of meaningful consent or capable of understanding the potential consequences of sex.


Woah .. things must've changed. I started 9th grade at 12 and turned 13 during. Given my brightday is in mid October.. right before what the cut off date use to be. But still 12 in the 7th? That's old as hell for that grade.

Or maybe it should be "in america", which is where this crime took place. Because "in america" rape need not be, and is not necessarily a violent crime.exactamente.
Neo Art Country is the USA, and Dakini and her BF would be "rapist" in NeoArt Country. -Which is still retarded-
Goof for her she is in Canada where the Justice system tend to be a bit more rational.
..

Seriously, between this post and the one previous...are you seriously fucking damaged or something? No, really, I don't mean this as an insult, I'm genuinly curious, what the fuck is wrong with you because, really, you ain't right.you know that dont Work with me.. silly NeoArt. ;)

exactamente.
Neo Art Country is the USA, and Dakini and her BF would be "rapist" in NeoArt Country. -Which is still retarded-

Seriously, what the fuck is going on with NSG lately when we have people like corny, pantless, and this genius here acting like they know their ass from a hole in the wall when it comes to legal matters?

Seriously, what the fuck is going on with NSG lately when we have people like corny, pantless, and this genius here acting like they know their ass from a hole in the wall when it comes to legal matters?

This is NSG. We're all backseat lawyers. Except the lawyers.

Woah .. things must've changed. I started 9th grade at 12 and turned 13 during. Given my brightday is in mid October.. right before what the cut off date use to be. But still 12 in the 7th? That's old as hell for that grade.

not really. Children start school at age 5 here. so 12 yrs old would be in the 6th to 8th grade range depending on when they were born (average).

Goof for her she is in Canada where the Justice system tend to be a bit more rational.
..


There is no such thing as rape in Canada. Rather, there are various sexual assault laws. But don't be fooled...there is no 'lighter' stigma being labelled a sexual predator, compared to being labelled a rapist.

And had this case happened in Canada, this woman would have been labelled a sexual predator, because a thirteen year old can not give consent.

You know...just like in the US.

This is NSG. We're all backseat lawyers. Except the lawyers.
Backseat Laywers, Presidents, Congressmen, Senators, Generals of vast armies, Holders of the Nobel Peace Prize, Mensa Members, Saints, Top Level Scientists, etc...

:p

Backseat Laywers, Presidents, Congressmen, Senators, Generals of vast armies, Holders of the Nobel Peace Prize, Mensa Members, Saints, Top Level Scientists, etc...

:p

In short: People who are All-Knowing and Always Right(tm) :)

except that's not true as it ignores the concept of implied consent.

So if I get too shitfaced to stand and stumble off with a stranger because it seemed like a good idea at the time have I implied consent?

Edit: Where do we draw the line between that and being just slightly over the limit when you meet someone attractive and decide to head back to their place?

In short: People who are All-Knowing and Always Right(tm) :)
... I was thinking people who screw other people over... in the backseat... without actually being a prostitute. :p

At 13 the urge to have sex is, in most cases, new and unfamiliar. At 13 I probably would have jumped into bed with an older woman, consequences be damned, and it seems I wouldn't be the only one.

And assuming no STD's or pregnancy resulted what consequences would result?
Mind you I'm not one of the people who seems to be arguing that she did nothing wrong, I'm arguing that what she did is different than black mailing someone into sex or using violence to force someone into sex.

And had this case happened in Canada...what about the example I was talking about?

If you have sex -in Canada- with your Boyfriend/Girlfriend.. after having consumed lots of alcohol.. are you legally raping each other ??

If that is the case, then I must say Canada laws are retarded too.

what about the example I was talking about?

If you have sex -in Canada- with your Boyfriend/Girlfriend.. after having consumed lots of alcohol.. are you legally raping each other ??

If that is the case, then I must say Canada laws are retarded too.

what's the age of the participants?

and Legally Raping someone?

well, here...
According to the Criminal
Code of Canada, “Consent is defined as a voluntary
agreement of the complainant to engage
in the sexual activity in question”
(Section 273.1).
Consent is not given if:
⇒ someone else gives the agreement
⇒ the accused is abusing a position of trust; i.e.
parent, relative, babysitter, teacher, coach,
police officer, doctor, etc.
⇒ The participant is incapable of giving consent;
i.e. unconscious, impaired by alcohol or drugs,
sleeping, heavily medicated, etc.
⇒ the individual says or implies NO through
their words or actions
⇒ The participant changes their mind at anytime
before or during sexual activity

So if she is drunk, (assuming Legal age 18 - 19) Consent is considered not given... thus rape.

what's the age of the participants?lets say they are both 15

lets say they are both 15BTW this is not about underage drinking Laws..

This is about "lets call them all rape" Laws (or sexual assault like Nessika says)
I want to know if they can be legally called Rapists, because they have consumed a lot of alcohol.

what about the example I was talking about?

If you have sex -in Canada- with your Boyfriend/Girlfriend.. after having consumed lots of alcohol.. are you legally raping each other ??

If that is the case, then I must say Canada laws are retarded too.

Here's how the law stands. You can give consent if you've been drinking. Up to what point you become too intoxicated to give consent, is debatable. However, consent can not be assumed, it must be explicit. Your own intoxication is no excuse for wrongly believing you have consent.

So. Could a boyfriend and girlfriend who have been drinking, and then have sex with each other be charged with rape/sexual assault? Absolutely, depending on the circumstances. Why...do you think that husbands/wives and/or boyfriends/girlfriends should be immune from rape/sexual assault charges?

what's the age of the participants?like I said 15


and Legally Raping someone?thats an oxymoron.


So if she is drunk, (assuming Legal age 18 - 19) Consent is considered not given... thus rape.I say they are both drunk, it could be 2 females, or 2 males.

Why are you assuming the victim is a "she"?.. if there is a victim.

lets say they are both 15

looked it up. under Canada law, both are guilty of underage drinking. and being drunk Consent is not given.

However, I believe they have some weird thing about the Age of both participants, being that they are the same age (or near) the AoC would be 14, legal but it's higher if one of them is older by a number of years/over a stated age.

from Here (http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm)
In Canada, consensual activity with those over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent according to national law, although provincial laws may vary.

but since both are drunk, consent is not deemed to have been given thus it can be argued that it is rape.

According to the Criminal
Code of Canada, “Consent is defined as a voluntary
agreement of the complainant to engage
in the sexual activity in question”
(Section 273.1).
Consent is not given if:
⇒ someone else gives the agreement
⇒ the accused is abusing a position of trust; i.e.
parent, relative, babysitter, teacher, coach,
police officer, doctor, etc.
⇒ The participant is incapable of giving consent;
i.e. unconscious, impaired by alcohol or drugs,
sleeping, heavily medicated, etc.
⇒ the individual says or implies NO through
their words or actions
⇒ The participant changes their mind at anytime
before or during sexual activity

Of course this is assuming discovery by a third party. if one of them want to cry rape... well that's up to the lawyers.

looked it up. under Canada law, both are guilty of underage drinking. and being drunk Consent is not given. Not entirely true. You can drink, even illegally, and still give consent. However, at some ill-defined point, you may become too intoxicated (impaired) for your consent to be valid, and the partner, proceeding at that point, consent or no consent, is an guilty of an offence.

Not entirely true. You can drink, even illegally, and still give consent. However, at some ill-defined point, you may become too intoxicated (impaired) for your consent to be valid, and the partner, proceeding at that point, consent or no consent, is an guilty of an offence.

and the question is where is that point. It's never stated, so I'll agree that it's ill-defined.

But when it comes down to a court battle, where do you think the jury will side? One saying consent was given or the other who admits to being too drunk.

and the question is where is that point. It's never stated, so I'll agree that it's ill-defined.

But when it comes down to a court battle, where do you think the jury will side? One saying consent was given or the other who admits to being to drunk.

Depends on the circumstances. Was consent never given? Was the victim too drunk to give consent? That's a question of fact. Was the accused so drunk he or she believed consent was given? That's a matter of law, and the law says, your own intoxication is no excuse for believing you have consent.

Why are you assuming the victim is a "she"?.. if there is a victim.
habit.

you're right tho, it could be HE is the victim also. :cool:

lsince both are drunk, consent is not deemed to have been given thus it can be argued that it is rape.


So when my bf and I are drunk and go at it, we're raping each other?Legally, as I understand it, yes.Dumbest thing I've heard all day, imo.What an idiotic law.So there you have it folks:

based on the latest evidence by Neesika and Junni, some Canadian rape Laws are as retarded as the US laws.

So there you have it folks:

based on the latest evidence by Neesika and Junni, some Canadian rape Laws are as retarded as the US laws.

LOL... basically any law you disagree with is retarted. :p

tho think of it this way. with this "impaired consent" definition... it give some protection from the victim being taken advantaged of when their judgement is impaired due to the Consumption of Alcohol.

Add to that the law stating that consent can be withdrawn during sex...