22yr old Arrested for raping 13 yr old met online
 

PLOT TWIST: The 22 year old is female

So female predators. They do exist. Thanks to double-standards it boggles my mind when I hear cases of females on the giving end of rape, whether it be statuatory or plain rape or otherwise *memory drifts back to Antoine Fisher movie, which involved female raping male*

I need to start playing Runescape.

Seriously though..

I'm not sure how you can "rape" a male though, unlike females where the man can just force himself "in", in that kind of situation on the flip side, I imagine it to be hard has hell to get hard(no pun intended) O_o.

An erection can be brought about by pure physical contact. A guy does not need to be aroused in order to have an erection. So, if the woman is strong enough to hold a man down and stop him from moving, being able to coax him into an erection isn't much of a stretch.

This is a moot point anyways. This case involves statutory rape, which is consensual. Thus, there would be no need for the woman to force him to become erect.

Lucky bastard. He's gonna be the most popular kid in school, and gonna get 7x more sex than his peers.

The same way a woman can rape another woman; with a broomstick.

I'm wondering who actually called the police here. If the sex was consensual then the boy wouldn't have done it, and the mother ended up being arrested too. This is kind of sending the message not to call the police on statutory rape because they'll cart away your parents too if they might have known about it.

Prolly has something to do with THIS

They're watching you right now

Oh, don't get me wrong here. The mother definitely deserves to be charged for letting this happen to her son. She should never have allowed the woman to stay at their house and should've found out as much about her as possible before even allowing a public meeting (with the mother there too, of course) if they met at all.

What I meant was more if, say, the son had a change of heart and realized how screwed up the situation was. Knowing that his parents would also be arrested gives him a reason not to report an already terrible situation.

Ha, if there was any doubt before about the mother's negligence:

Yeah, I bet he hated every minute of it. :rolleyes:

Seriously though, if I'd bagged a 22 year old when I was 13 I'd have been king of the school and chuffed as fuck. I hope social services buy him a pimp stick.

Read the Invader's Plan series by L. Ron Hubbard. Your reactions will pretty much be:


(Lurker knows what I'm talking about.)

Soo... what if, hypothetically, the boy refuses to press charges against the lady? What happens then?

I don't think that will change anything. Remember this case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kay_Letourneau

In this more recent case, it doesn't appear as if the boy pressed charges in the first place. I mean, the woman was living with the boy and his mother for 2 weeks. I am assuming this case was put together by either the state or the feds and not the boy. It doesn't necessarily matter if the boy objects or not, as long as the system has a problem, someone is bound to get fucked. (no pun intended)

The 22 year old gal WILL go to jail for statutory rape.

I see the conversation has evolved.

But I'm wondering if Statutory rape is as massive a problem as people make it out to be--don't get me wrong, it IS a problem, but I'm wondering why we're chucking them in jail for seven years for what appears to be more of a social taboo.

I vote restraining order between the two unless and until the kid recovers from any trauma... if he even has any in the first place.

Now I'm definitely aware of double-standards. If the genders were swapped no doubt half the people would want his head for seducing an innocent girl...

Thats a damn shame. Seriously, how desperately low can you get? Theres no morality in today's society I tell you. Other kids get bicycles, video games, or toys, but when whenever one gets laid, some jealous cockblock has to go and report it. He had a once in a life time experience, something he'll be bragging about until he's 50. So whoever says 13 is an unlucky number, take a look at this guy, it makes me wish I was him.

Well the reason it's a taboo is because people would rather not worry about their kids being seduced by 34 year old fucks.

I mean, say what you will about sexual peaks, the sheer difference in mental faculties is nothing short of predatory.

Going off of what teenage boys normally think like, this boy will be the king of his school for many years to come. Though congratulations would be in order for getting to fuck around with a 22 year old, I don't doubt that he will get made fun of because this all happened thanks to Runescape.

That's what I wanted to say, but didn't want to be accused of condoning the act. . . .

The kid obviously knows what to say to women, I hope he uses that power(the right way) to get himself lots of love in his life.

Right, I bet the 22 year old is the real victim here. Pimp Master Snot Nose was just too much man for her to handle.

You know I have to agree with a lot of the guys on this forum, but when I was in high school and if someone who was 13 years old had sex with a 22 year old that was fairly attractive. He would honestly be the biggest hero in the entire school. Besides for all the guys that have gone through puberty, all of us would of loved to have sex with an older women, since our sexual drive hits our peak when were teenagers.

This entire concept is another example of the sex mentality between males and females. If a woman slept with a lot of guys she would be considered a slut, but if a guy slept with a lot of women he would be considered cool.

I've always been interested in the whole concept of rape by a female, because even if the boy was underaged or not, I still think that if they're forced to have sexual intercourse with a female against their consent, a woman should be held accountable for rape.

I'm just wondering who was the actual concerned citizen that actually reported the incident to the police. Its hard to tell, what would be the best course of action in terms of this situation. Its not like this boy was manipulated into this situation. More than anything else, you would have to question the woman's mentality, because why would she be interested in having a sexual relationship with a teenager in which she could of seeked out that kind of relationship with someone of her own age.

More than anything else, the biggest crime here is sex with a minor, whether it was consenual or not.

He was 13 fucking years old. Are you next going to argue that beastiality is ok because there's no way that an animal can be manipulated into having sex with a person?

The entire nature of statutory rape is the inability of minors to offer consent. What they think is right, or great, is not necessarily so, and shit like sexual peaks are what makes teenagers particularly susceptible to manipulation from adults.

Everybody would have loved to have had sex with an older woman when they were 13, but as adults we should recognize how wrong it is to actually indulge those impulses. The nature of statutory rape concerning males is inherently predatory, because it is so difficult (practically impossible) for them to say no.

I too am lolling at all the folks saying "oh the kid totally wanted it". Thirteen year olds are stupid, have you all forgotten that already?http://colonelskills.belkanairforce....ages/ace/1.gif

I think Angel has a good point about sexual socity between men and women. The more women a guy sleeps with the bigger hero he is going to be with his group, it's not true for all guys, but it is to a big number.

Weither this kid had a strong sexual impulse at the time I would not know, and it is that impulse that would have made it easy to make the move on him, but because the kid does not know any better being only 13, he may have given consent not knowing what he was doing.

if not out of sexual impuls, he could have indulged in his pride saying "wait till the guys hear about this!"

What ever the reason, the woman involed most likely targeted this boy for his naive age.

http://colonelskills.belkanairforce....ages/ace/1.gifYeah but what does that have to do with a woman preying on an idiot kid? That's like saying that women walking alone are gonna get raped because _______.

lollin' so bad :tpg:

"hai i'm from internet i'm here to have sex with your son"
"I'll bring the camera!"

:tpg:

Stupid or no, a 13 year old should have the capacity to determine whether something is right or wrong. (Then again, his mother obviously wasn't much of a teacher to allow something like this to take place.) He made a choice to willingly participate in sexual acts with the adult, which makes the 'rape' part of this case difficult to define. Child exploitation seems more likely as a heading.
I am not saying that the kid isn't a dummy, as most children are not quite fully functioning at 13, but should a case like this be defined as rape if the boy willingly allowed it and wasn't harmed in the process?

I mean, when I was around that age, I was already sexually active. I also knew what I liked and didn't like. In that, I had all the necessary means to make choices for myself. I think too much emphasis is being placed on this 22 year old as being predatory. Was the boy truly the 'prey' in this situation? The kid knew what he was doing. While this may be untrue, and evenso, such relationships are well defined within our own society as being 'bad' but greatly vary from culture to culture.

The question is, who is right and who is wrong?

Are you fucking daft? Rape is the act of forcing sex on an non-consenting party. Statutory rape exists because minors are categorically considered incapable of offering consent. Especially with adults.

13 year olds do not exactly know right from wrong. Hell, lots of people never stop developing their own personal moralities, but 13 is sure as fuck not an age where we should be burdening people with those kinds of dilemmas.

I am right, lurker is right, Dev is right, and you are out of your fucking mind if you think that 13 year olds can make informed decisions concerning sexual behavior.

This woman is, without a doubt, the predator, because she is taking advantage of somebody else's weakness for the sake of her own gratification.

Rape is quite explicit in specifying lack of consent. Child exploitation does not even mention consent.

Rape is there because the mental image of a 13 year old girl being raped sells newspapers. Thirteen year old boys don't know what the fuck they are doing (fuck, nineteen year old boys don't know what they're doing), and she knew as much, but she was too horny to care.

Child molesters aren't imprisoned for life or murdered for tearing some skin and ligaments in a girl's pussy.

Harm is emotional and mental harm. His dick may be sore for a few days afterward but there's a kid growing up with completely false ideas about sexuality and relationships to women. That is harm, that is abusing a child, because sexuality and relationships are a very large part of of a person's life and destroying both like that is wrong.

No need to talk to me like one of your whores. I don't appreciate your violent outbursts. (You know, for a mod, you sure act like a 13 year old.) I realize that there is a difference between rape and statutory rape but I am still inclined to think one is much more offensive and destructive than the other, at least in this particular case.

I largely agree with what you are saying. But, who exactly, knows right from wrong? Do you? Do you really think that ALL people at the age of 18 are all of a sudden hit with a smart stick which imparts upon them good judgment? This isn't always the case. Each case is different. That is all that I am saying.

Your smugness amuses me. :)

That is likely. However, the boy was also part of this equation so lets not assume that he didn't know what he was doing merely because he's 13. The law will not see it as such so I guess it makes no difference either way.

Sometimes its difficult to determine the legality of certain features of the written law. It seems that each region approaches this framework differently and as a result, the terminology gets somewhat confusing.

So what would think of a culture besides ours where the marriage age is 13? What would you think of a culture in which 13 year olds are married to much older men all the time with little incident?

I see what you mean and well put.

I am sorry if you do not feel that my Righteous Fury is appropriate for somebody who wants to redefine the severity of rape (i.e. you)

Yeah and everything is relative and nothing is the same, and if we could actually afford to determine on a case-by-case basis whether this minor is more mentally developed than this minor, then farts would be made of doves.

I am going out on a limb here, to put my foot down and declare: "Statutory Rape is wrong, in all cases."

Using somebody's weaknesses in order to extract juicy feelgood juice is always predatory, or did SirVG not skeev you out?

If you mean cultures like the arabs, then I don't think much of them. Especially not the countries where the Age of Consent is 9 because Mohammad who is great popped one of his wife's cherry at that age.

I would say that they have the worst quality of live, lowest life expectancy, lowest literacy rates, highest rates of malnourishment, infant deaths, and the highest percentage of population in military service. In short, they are uncivilized, uneducated, unemployed, war-mongering, and shit-eating apes.

How's that?
Name one good aspect a culture which forces 13 year old children to take on the responsibilities of grown women.

Terminology is a problem with all law, but I was quite clear when I said "Rape is quite explicit in specifying lack of consent. Child exploitation does not even mention consent."

Children do not understand consent, and hence there can not even be any discussion of consent. The adult is always in control, and if she or he chooses to abuse this control, they are sick and twisted individuals.

I am not trying to redefine the severity of rape, which I believe is a term which involves sexual brutality against the will of another. I think all will agree that rape is barbaric. However, I just don't understand why the line is drawn where it is in regards to statutory rape. Thats why I have fine folks such as yourself to help with ma edumacation. Thanks. <3

LOL. Of course. I am choosing to look beyond what we can afford though I understand why the law exists to help protect 'minors'. The golden standard doesn't necessarily imply that its without flaw.

Bollocks. I don't buy that argument. The principle of using somebody's weakness to maligned benefit happens everyday in the world of dating and even marriage, regardless of age. A weakness can be categorized as any number of things. People take advantage of others ALL THE TIME and have done so since the beginning of time, even to extract 'juicy feelgood juice'.

Weakness is a term which holds questionable principle, determined by morals of society. While I appreciate the laws as they exist in my own society, I am not brash enough to admit that it makes another culture wrong.

I didn't mean anyone in particular. though its interesting (and somehow unsurprising) to see that you don't think much of them.

I don't understand where you would get off determining someone's life for them from your own little comfortable perch. I mean lets not kid ourselves here, we are ALL war-mongering, shit-eating apes. Our society may be technologically advanced, but there is but a thin stretch of road separating ourselves from what some believe to be uncivilized societies.

That aside, our quality of life is very different from others. We enjoy the many amenities of a technological society, and greatly benefit from them. Yes, WE are so well educated that we have just about the worst educational system on the planet, but whose keeping track? Yes, we are so peaceful that we have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq but thats neither here nor there. MEH. Its nice that our culture seems so evolved, but without the ability to respect the views of other cultures, it doesn't seem like it means much.

Not good, unfortunately.

Good? Good according to what? Good according to your own perspective of a healthy, meaningful existence? Your statements are biased. I think its fair not to assume that anyone is worse off than we are simply on account that they practice different customs that we don't happen to understand and/or agree with.

One other thing to consider about statutatory rape is that it isn't an error on the part of the younger party for being immature, but the crime is charged against the older party, who should have known better and who should not be preying on the weaknesses of children.

Many statutory rape laws have an exception if the parties are less than 2 years different in age, i.e. the same level of immaturity/stupidity.

What really makes statutory rape such a sickening crime is the old preying on the inexperience of the young.http://colonelskills.belkanairforce....ages/ace/1.gif

If statutory rape wasn't barbaric, then it wouldn't be called rape. The reason it's considered to be barbaric, is because societies with high standards of living can afford to extend childhood throughout adolescence. Allowing adults to fuck teens is uncivilized because they don't have to, and therefore shouldn't. If there are no external factors which justify kid diddling, like life expectancies of 28, then the act itself is entirely unnecessary, and becomes just plain wrong.

Rape isn't merely defined in physical violence. The negative impact emotionally and mentally are catastrophic when it comes to teens, because it impacts their development so drastically, and not for the better.

The flaw, however, is immaterial. Minors are defined as being undeveloped as a group, because a mountain of psychological, sociological, and biological evidence demonstrates it as such. Is it ok if an adult is on the mental level of the 15 year old he or she is boning? That's the kind of intellectual luxury that should be afforded only for hypotheticals, and not something to be bandied about in regards to a real case. If we consider the possibility that what has happened might be ok, then we lose any semblance of moral solidarity, since the idea spreads and generates debate.

It is wrong in all cases, predatory in all cases, because the majority of scientific and cultural thinking say so. Though I see you're now going to try and say that it isn't predatory...

How enlightened of you. However, taking advantage of weakness for one's personal gain is predatory. The reason that an adult taking advantage of another adult within reasonable bounds isn't illegal, is because adults are capable of defending themselves.

Children cannot defend themselves. They are incapable of saying "no" and incapable of exerting will. Neus said it himself that in a child/adult relationship, the adult is always in control, and if that control is used at the expense of the child it is always predatory, always wrong. You cannot argue this.

There really isn't much well to think of Arab culture, despite your claims of an intellectual high ground. Between the petty tribalism and the inability to maintain an infrastructure, cultures that are predominantly arab will never be able to advance beyond the dark ages. Arab countries that do enjoy good standards of living do so because they either have tons of oil, or they have become much more Westernized.

The Persians would be running circles around the Middle East if they weren't saddled with a theocracy, and in many ways they already are.

What's the point of having one of these threads every six months, other than identifying the current crop of gf pedos?

I'd go so far as to say there isn't anything wrong with a 13/22 pair, although it's a signal that there's something deeply wrong with the 22 year old if they can find fulfillment beyond a one-off gratification in a 13-year-old punk. It's enormously stupid, and the kid will realize this when the sexual high wears off and suddenly there's no money (or worse, a baby shows up), but your teens are all about doing incredibly stupid things that you thought were brilliant ideas at the time. At least mine were. Assuming she has no STDs, it's probably a lot safer sort of stupid than making your own flaming arrows or "baking" clay sculptures on a bbq. (Funny how most of my childhood memories involve fire or mud or both.) You can't even say that it's going to damage the kid or warp his views on women, unless you have a psychology degree and personally interviewed him (or have a transcript from someone who did). Sure it's possible, just like it's possible he'll come out better for it.

The only things you can really say about it are "she should have known better" and "what the hell is up with the mom jesus".

You know it's the truth, don't step out without your burqa or no one's gonna protect you, woman.

Heh, I am not saying that at all. I am not saying, "Lets allow kiddie fiddlers to have their fun and destroy lives in the process." I am just saying in this particular instance that I am having difficulty ascertaining a clear cut predator/prey. I understand your stance and you understand mine so no further clarification is needed.

That is a fair point. I think I've seen the practicality of your arguments and thank you for sharing them. In truth, I don't have much reason to argue against your statements but its nice to see your reasoning. I agree with many of your points as they are implicitly stated above.

Hmmm. I didn't look at it from that point of view but that makes sense. I should have considered it a bit more in regards to the case posted by the OP.

I agree that law does make it seem easier to keep society within specific boundaries. It is true that the law isn't perfect and can never be expected to be, but in most cases it proposes a guideline which keeps a sense of order. I do agree that relationships between children and adults is wrong but I am willing to look at this case differently as it seems highly different than that of normal cases of this type. In that, I thought that perhaps a different approach might be relevant. It is becoming clear that it isn't warranted.

...It isn't predatory. (mwa) No, I am not going to beat upon this bush any longer. I must admit I haven't much to say contradicting your thoughts thus far.

I was probably nitpicking unintentionally. I am well enough aware that adults and children cannot be held to the same mental, physical standard.

Intellectual highground doesn't have much to do with it. Your comments seemed to be seeded with anger and racism. If at all, I am sorry I jumped the gun. However, I am still willing to be respectful and openminded of cultures outside of my own. Sometimes, I feel that perspective of others can better help me understand myself and my own culture, which is largely a reason as to why I use culture as a means to enter this argument. You can call me "enlightened" all you like, but its simply what I believe.

Yeah, I guess you could come out better from it in the same sense that somebody who has been mugged learns to buy a gun (LOL).

However, I don't see how you can say:
And then call it stupid, while calling the mentality of the mother and the woman in question.

If there is nothing wrong with the situation, why is there something wrong with the adults?

If there is no victim, then why should the adult know better? What is there to know better in a case where nobody has been harmed? There shouldn't be any reason to know better, unless it endangers the parties, and if it does so, how can it not be wrong?

Well now let's put this into perspective: I said that there's not much to think of arabs for things like the belief that Mohammad is the Gold Standard of human behavior, and therefore fucking a 9 year old can't be wrong because Mohammad did it. You thought that could have been racist?

Well lets see here.

Primarily because you offered an appraisal of a society that wasn't previously mentioned. As I mentioned, I wasn't referring to arabs specifically and yet you went out of your way to speak your displeasure with their customs by the principle that they differ from our own.

Secondly, this story involving Mohammed holds little merit for Islam as a whole. What you refer to is an outdated text which isn't largely supported by Islam in any way shape or form in modern times, at least in regards to marriage age. That is, marriage of girls at 9 is not common to the culture, as a whole. You were referring to arabs (or more notably islams as not every arab is bound to take heart with the teachings of Mohammed) and casting them all in one lump sum of rampant stupidity. Thats not fair. In that way of thinking, you have made a judgment according to a limited viewpoint for its own sake. However, I see that your intent may have not been to cast these people in an unfavourable light just for a cheap laugh, though instinct tells me a different story. If you aren't racist, then feel free to ignore my statements.

Are you seriously saying that a boy, who knows that orgasms are fun, was seducing an adult?
http://colonelskills.belkanairforce....ages/ace/1.gif
What sort of demented asshole are you?

I am glad you think so highly of Japan and Spain where the federal age of consent is 13...

It is insane that the mother let all of this happen in her own home.

It doesn't matter much what you "feel is right or wrong" the law is pretty cut and dry on this matter. She did things with a minor that society deems inappropriate and now she will pay the price of her actions.

I'm just saying from my perspective, not everything that can hurt someone is wrong even if it's illegal. Irreparable harm is wrong, and this kind of relationship can cause that, I'm not denying, but just saying that's not necessarily the case. The woman knew what the consequences were and was stupid for risking them brazenly, and pathetic for falling for kornbix over here that she knew wouldn't (couldn't?) turn her down. I'm only saying that because a lot of people are implying that this kid is now fucked for life, that this situation automatically confers irreparable harm on someone. Or I'm just misreading.

I'm not privy to the psychological evaluations to say how wrong the adult was. The most damaging consequences of pedophilia come from adults convincing children that they are ugly, dirty, shameful little creatures that no one can love, either carefully manipulated to feel only the molester can understand and love them or simply humiliating them into submission, and that if the relationship is revealed it'll be the child who will be punished and outcast. That's when it ruins lives and leads to severe psychological problems. It doesn't sound like that's the case at all here, given how brazen it all was, but who knows.

On the other hand, the mother's there to look out for the child's best interests, which as this thread so aptly points out, aren't going to be served by a 22 year old mooch, even if she brings da hooch. She's old enough to know a little pussy probably isn't going to do her son much good long-term when he should be studying and socializing, and more importantly, that there's a major chance that everyone involved could get in a great deal of trouble, like they did.

Gumby, in most of Japan it's 18. 13 is the federal limit, but only in force in the bumfuck redneck prefectures.

The cop in the newscast is a buzzkill. He should be saying:

YouTube Video

"Police say this is just another example of the dangers that come with technology."

Yeah, fucking technology. We outta make some rules to idiot-proof the world and save people from the hassle of thinking for themselves.

The reporter called the game "runscape" using a short U. lolzzzzzzzzzzzz!

I was a bit overzealous in that regard, and no it is not guaranteed that he'll be fucked up for life, or even significantly harmed in the short term. However, the danger of that harm is significant enough to warrant protections across the board.

The most significant harm, however, involves how the experience would affect the kid's personality. Half the people in this thread insist that he'll be placed on some kind of Pedestal of Machismo, and you think that's gonna be good for him?

What your logic inevitably arrives at, is that if something is not wrong, then why should it be illegal?

Quit putting words in my mouth. I was saying that there was no predator and there was no prey. That was fairly simple and yet you competely misread it. Try again.

Do you think you're so clever that no one knows what you're doing? You're defending a predatory, unstable woman and shifting some of the "blame" onto the victim because when you were thirteen you got laid. If your situation is analogous to this, you're justifying decisions thrust upon you in order to avoid the stigma of being a victim of male rape, of being deceived into thinking you want what she has to offer.

Of course, you don't think you were poorly affected by this. After all, you feel normal, right? You don't feel irrevokably damaged. Well, lest anyone thinks that statutory rape on a 13 year old boy doesn't affect the boy, here is proof positive.
http://colonelskills.belkanairforce....ages/ace/1.gif
Sociopaths think they're behaving completely rationally as well, not affected by their disorder since they make all of their decisions with a clear mind. What I'm saying is of course you can't tell how broken you are.

Additionally, I like how rainman thinks the ability to determine you shouldn't throw animals and kick little kids means you are capable of consenting to an act that can turn you, magically, into a father.

Do you think a thirteen year old boy can be a good provider to his baby?

http://colonelskills.belkanairforce....ages/ace/1.gif

Screw off bozo. I have better things to do than play one of your little games of cat and mouse. I've stated that child-sex is wrong, what more do you want? If I was a sexual predator, do you think I would readily admit it? If so, you are quite daft.

And to answer your question, yes. I hope that I've made myself clear.

Oh you again. How surprising. Is there a reason you are following me around from topic to topic like a lost puppy dog trying to nip at my heels? This is becoming habit. I encourage you to break it.

At any rate, my sexuality doesn't concern you. My argument was that I knew what I wanted/liked at that age and was sexually active. THAT'S IT, smartguy. I used that point to make an argument. No more, no less. You are reading far too much into far too little. (though its not too difficult to see why that is.)

(Judging from these run-ins we seems to be having, I am sure you get intense sexual gratification from stalking people on the internet.)

Again I am going to tell you that to question something is to concede nothing. We can consider something without acting upon it. I like to argue.
I like to consider different things contrary to what is considered common practice. This case is unique and I was interesting in discussing. What the hell about that is so difficult for you to come to grips with? I've stated that this women will go to jail and rightfully so.

Consider for a moment that I simply enjoy looking at things in a different way from time to time. You know better. Quit being so dense.

I am far from normal. (I am more honest than most.) Are you normal? If so, consider that you are completely full of shit. There is no such thing as normal. Anyone who says differently is lying. (Say what you mean. You want to find out whether I am psychotic or not? Usually I am not, but for you I am willing to make an exception.)
In any event, it doesn't hurt for me to admit what I am. I am honest with myself. ;) Other than that, I don't feel that any more input is needed. Take your pitiful psychological profiling elsewhere.

Please humor me. Just how broken am I? A person of your intelligence must have a rather clear cut answer to this. Actually don't. This thread isn't about me, is it? Why the hell are you so interested in what I am doing?

Additional Spam:
I like how you are always on my nuts, slobbering like a retarded rhesus monkey who has tasted the dried shavings of its buttcrack for the first time. Seriously! :) Its great!

Devo's got The Power.

I would encourage you to just stop posting. Before you dig any deeper holes with droll reasoning and overreactions.

It is not normal to have been sexually active at 13. It's not normal at all.

Many dangerous things are against the law because there is risk, even though they can be done many times without actual injury. (And to some degree the governments enact laws to babysit children, since the modern economy forces or at least rewards workaholic parents over properly raising and policing their kids. I don't think pedophilia laws fall under that though.)

In this particular instance, I suppose that with the long court case, the mother going to jail, the kid bouncing around foster homes, is all going to irreparably damage the kid, but in this case I think the justice system is going to do a lot more damage than peer awe ever could have, in the name of doing less damage in the vast majority of cases. But that's how society works, I guess, sacrifice the few to save the many.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're exceptionally hostile and defensive when someone brings up the fact that a) you are not behaving in an acceptable manner, and b) you were in all likelihood raped as a child and enjoyed it, information you volunteered. Who was it? Was it family?

http://colonelskills.belkanairforce....ages/ace/1.gif

You're arguing with the posterboy for irrevocably damaged over there, don't even bother.

I think we can reach a breakthrough here, to be honest. I think we can cut through the defensive mechanisms and start the healing.

I'm ears. I wouldn't mind seeing Rainman break down and confess all the details of his childhood filled of sodomy.

But the sad thing is it happens, I remember back in school how 13 and 14 year olds would brag how hey lost their virginity over the weekend, I would like to think they where making it up, but these days it's hard to tell.

You are immature.

Yea, I guess you need some new jerkoff material to accompany the plethora of beastiality and german scat vids which line your hard drive. Go read a book you tool!

lol.

NO U

"Oh this rape here might not be so bad, why are you getting so angry?"

I guess it's easy to see rape secreting from every dark alley's orifices when rainman is the lawyer for the defense. He's probably outside lurking in a trenchcoat in a park in the hundred degree weather right now.

I have been reading this thread over and over.... I fail to see how Rainizzle is justifying this crime. Ture what this woman did was wrong and she did prey on his naive age, but don't forget it is the 'law' that says 13 year olds are incapable of giving consent, 13 year old kids today do have the ability to say 'yes' or 'no' wither it is under manipulation or not, if the kid knew the meaning behind his answer is a case by case basis, the law does not say that someone considerd minor cannot say yes or no.

Yes this boy most likely did not know what he was doing, and yes the woman most likely preyed on him because of his naive age, but the point is that the idea that kids his age are 'incapable' of saying the words yes or no is preposterous, when I was 13 I said 'no' many times when I was told to wash the dishes or clean my room.

Aw man. How can you not get this?

I didn't say I was 13, I said I was around that age and its clear through my commentary leading up to this point that 'victim' is not a term which is free of argument. I have mentioned this many times, and yet it keeps slipping through your fumblesome fingers. Its making you look like quite the tard.

Now that we have that out of the way, I don't believe you really have anything else of substance to say, hmm?

There are a couple of ages around that age. Two of them, in fact.

Do not act like a faggot if you cannot communicate.

So I am a faggot now? (And you think I can't communicate?) Not only are you racist, but a homophobe as well. (neither instance is surprising) Its all becoming quite clear regarding the conservative and supposed rationale that you bring forth. Let me ask you, are you a Republican? lol

I didn't state my age implicitly. Get over it.

I appreciate your reading comprehension, but you should be weary. These fine folks might burn you at the stake for these transgressions.

Around here, nigger and faggot are like pal and chum. Brady is a loony libertarian. You did, in fact, state your age implicitly, but not explicitly. And it's 'wary'. That's four strikes in four statements, gg.

As a loony libertarian I support the right of every Arab to set fire to his local McAckbar's.

Being open-minded doesn't mean you have to accept all backwards superstitious nonsense because it's different from the way you live. At some point you have to come to terms with the fact that many aspects of a culture are wrong, and simply because they are different from you does not make it ok.

Do you have any idea how much a person's brain can grow and mature around thirteen? I'm betting if you were "around 13", you were probably closer to 15. That is significant.

Do you think a thirteen year old has the capabilities to deal with a pregnancy he caused?

http://colonelskills.belkanairforce....ages/ace/1.gif

You've quite firmly established that you think that every 13 year old is a drooling retard in nappies, you can only beat it to death so much. You make an automatic leap from being too young to understand the consequences to walking away from it with PTSD and lifelong regret without explaining. For instance, quite a few 13 year olds do work in the US, some for fun, some to escape a bad home, some as a family obligation, some because they have no money and no choice. Certainly nowhere near the majority. Some kids that young drive too, usually off public roads - where it's legal. (Some study or another found that older teens who started driving young make the safest teen drivers, on average, though it didn't recommend lowering the legal limit. Kids are, after all, short, overconfident, and prone to panic.)

This is much more like smoking, something kids want to do (or get cajoled into), aren't really prepared for, don't want to know the long-term consequences of, get it offered by someone older who definitely does know, and of course it's illegal. Neither is healthy long-term. The chance that it's going to screw up someone's life is still just that, a chance. (Pedophilia and smoking clearly have quite different effects though.) Do you also think offering a kid some cigarettes while stressing before a final exam is as loathsome and predatory? Would you agree that anyone who did should be locked up and have their name put in a public registry?

And if the situation is reversed? It's possible, still, but since girls are taught from day one to never give it up, they generally place far less emphasis on sex until later in life, as well as the physical pain and internal violation, it's much more common that they have to coerced into sex, and more likely that they'll be unable to cope. That's one real reason adult female pedophiles with pubescent boys are rarely heard of - a boy's reaction with a woman doesn't often rise much above the level of embarrassment, because it's seen as just a game. (Until the woman goes mental, or gets pregnant.)

When it's teachers, coaches, or other authority figures, it wildly distorts the balance of power and may tremendously affect the ability to learn in school, as well as keeping total coercive power over a student. It's not something I'd ever condone.

I don't know if you're just baiting or if you really think the guy is going to need years of therapy to get over the anguish of having sex (or switch from a gaming nerd to a macho wifebeater over it, as brady implies). I do know the woman is probably going to get the counseling she needs in prison. I don't even know why I care so much about it, but the thread did convince me to go hunting for research, since I didn't know enough. It just bothers the hell out of me that you immediately demonize anyone involved in a combination of ages & sexes that has a lower chance of mind-fucking someone, in a situation where the boy invited her into his home, because it doesn't fit into your (and my) general revulsion of pedophiles.

I don't recall a heapin' hunka hurtin' for Virginia Slims when I was 15. Though, yeah, I think that somebody who pushes cigs on kids because it will calm them down is predatory, and should at least be locked up for selling cigarettes to kids.

All I said was that he'd turn out to be an asshole, I didn't say he'd hit women.

Asshole.

Even without being an Authority Figure, the sheer difference in age gives her significant power over the kid.

I can't believe you actually need someone to say that it is highly unlikely that this boy has or will suffer as much as someone who was violently raped. Christ.

All anyone's saying is that suggesting the boy wasn't manipulated, and that statutory rape isn't really rape, is ridiculous and worthy of scorn and suggestive of a fetish for incestuous, pedophiliac roleplay.
http://colonelskills.belkanairforce....ages/ace/1.gif
And yes, if a 22 year old offered a 13 year old cigarettes touting them as a relaxant, that would be predatory.

And I'm saying I hung around a few guys in junior and high school who dressed fashionably, fancied themselves lady's men, and hit on women young and old when they could. The big difference being that women found it charming but otherwise unmoved. (One did claim he'd tapped that, at 15, but it turned out to be a chubby white trash mom, and he stopped bragging when someone passed a photo around. He got more nerdy over the years, but last I heard he was doing great in a finance major. And on the flip side, one of my teachers was teasing/harassing the kids in crude ways he thought was funny, until he was suspended after making one cry.)

I can't believe you guys actually think it's impossible for a young teen to be horny and manipulative liars, is all. They were both manipulating each other, consciously or unconsciously, as people do. The entire crux of the predation argument centers on how much she wanted the result from the beginning versus how much was a pathetic e-crush that got carried away. There are psychological states that are even easier to manipulate than childhood immaturity - she could easily be a predator who stalks kids on games, or opportunistically pursued once they bonded, and chances are good it's or the other, or a weepy post-divorce vagina with an LJ, a welfare check, and too much free time spent gaming all day.

I guess you just have to forgive me for thinking that a broken weepy vagina isn't as bad as someone who looks for children to 'love'.

are you seriously

seriously

telling me a 13 year old can and did manipulate an adult into having sex

also you seem to think we are saying that all predators are equally dangerous, please stop that

I don't think it's impossible, the adult would have to be quite gullible though.

No, she just would have had to have been legally retarded.

Yes I know at least one personally. You know they're out there, they're usually the ones who grow up to be predators and/or sociopaths.

Well anyway I realized shortly after posting that I was projecting some of my own online mistakes of 4-5 years ago onto the situation. Mistakes like quiet fox, tifa, typhin, and belgara all seemed like great ideas when I was as mentally screwed up as they were.

With that resolved, fuck off and die, you geriatric infant-loving bitchniggercunts.

I think we're forgetting who is saying that a thirteen year old boy can seduce a grown woman. (it's you)

grown physically != grown mentally

So you've never know college-age men and women who act for all the world like large children? Lucky, I guess.

Guys look we need to keep foxy discussing psychology as long as we possibly can

The potential lulz are indescribable

Can do.

Nigga, I've worked with 42 year old men who act like large children. Despite that, having in many ways not "grown up" and out of childish tendencies, their faculties for reasoning and the sheer benefit of experience far outweighed my own, just as my own faculties and experiences, being 22, far outweigh a 13 year old's.

I've also known college-age men and women who date high schoolers, and they skeev me the fuck out. Even then we're talking about 16-18 year olds, and in this case the kid is 13 goddamn years old.

When female teachers become attracted to their students, many times it's because they are the Alpha Male types, and their attention sexually and perhaps emotionally would fill some kind of personal void.

This kid is 13 years old. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. His testicles have barely dropped, and you're trying to get us to believe that he's got the skills for the ills. He sure as Hell isn't going to be some kind of Alpha Male.

I needn't remind you of the fact that this is SO BESIDE THE POINT that you shouldn't even be mentioning it.

Because there might be a few legally retarded twenty-two year olds doesn't mean that, on the whole, thirteen year olds can seduce twenty-two year olds.

Well, I suppose that THAT is possible, but the twenty-two year old is almost always responsible enough to hold off from pursuing it. In fact, even if said twenty-two year old is acting like a twelve year old, they are old enough to recognize, at least on its most basic level, that sleeping with a thirteen year old is illegal, if they are somehow unable to discern that it is wrong.

This is what I don't get. If you made the case about a seventeen year old, I would understand, and explain that the law HAS to be objectively cut off for all parties involved. A rape case involving a seventeen year old and a nineteen year old is indeed much harder to condemn (morally). But we're talking about a kid who is THIRTEEN. Chances are that he still has a child's voice. He certainly isn't finished growing. Whether or not this kid is a MALE is beside the fact entirely.

I mean, what? Why are you even trying?

I believe that you know a 13 year old who put the moves successfully on an adult. I also believe that particular adult was horribly broken, mentally retarded and/or punch drunk. That hardly counts, because those kinds of people are just waiting for someone to say go.

You know, between the "raping 13 year olds isn't so bad" and the Rozen Maiden av/sig:

HILARIOUS

I want to know where you guys think I said this was a healthy or perfectly normal thing. Okay, in the beginning I should have been clearer, since it obviously is a problem no matter what the circumstances, conflating "won't traumatize" with "no problem" is dumb. I support a prison term and long-term counseling. I usually give people way too much benefit of the doubt, and it does make me a bad judge of character, and I guess you can tell old memories are coloring my emotions. (On the other hand, my last post was pure stupid trolling before sleep and hey, it got replies.) I do feel pretty dumb overall now, looking back.

You aren't the first to say that, brady, but the fact that rozen has no sexual appeal whatsoever is why I enjoyed it. *shrug*

Rozen Maiden is the ultimate wet dream of the creepiest Real Doll fetishists.

And that was before the incest.

Making av/sigs around the theme of little girls in elaborate costume is generally poor policy as well, I think.

You deny that Glam Rock was the greatest musical movement of the 20th century? I grew up on a diet of glam and day-glo wristbands.

I'm not going to apologize for liking the show, particularly since it's still the music I'm more obsessed with than the rest, but I find nothing sexual about it and cringe when I see people who do. Same with Real Dolls. Unfortunately, there are creepy antisocial people who happen to like most of the enjoyable things in life, but that doesn't make me (or Styphon) one of them.

But if the sig gives you guys the willies, I'll change it.

It's a joke, see. On its own it would just be like any other animespot av/sig but now that you're arguing statutory it heightens hilarity.

I'm not telling you to take down your Bananarama posters, yo.

I get that, see, but why be the butt of the joke more than the hole I already dug for myself.

Oh well, too late, I found a pic I liked and found another to go with it.