Leave rapists alone!

Bleachy wrote:

Unless, of course they didn't want the person touching them. And then it's rape.

No it's not. By no legal definition is it rape. By no sober person's definition is that rape.

Cyberwulf wrote:

The age of consent is the only protection children, especially female children, have against sexual abuse and rape, because if someone is under eighteen/seventeen/sixteen then by law they cannot give consent to sex, therefore if an older person engages in sexual activity with them it is rape. Not that that stops anyone from casting eleven year old girls as seductive temptresses who provoked their own gang rape, but it is a protection not afforded to adults, especially female adults, who abide in a constant state of "yes" to sexual activity unless they can prove otherwise. It sickens me that someone would want to lower the age of consent to protect child abusers.

While I understand what you're saying, the problem is that it is a totally arbitrary number. Should it be 16? Should it be 20? Should it be 18? Should it be an odd number for a change? And no matter what you do, it leave potential for abuse in prosecutors who want to make a name for being OMG TOUGH ON SEXUAL PREDATORS by prosecuting 19 year olds who have sex with 17 year olds.

What I'm trying to say is that just because the law throws out some arbitrary number doesn't mean the "victim" isn't actually capable of giving consent in REALITY, which is often vastly different from whatever world lawyers live in. However, most people who aren't actively trying to seduces 13 year olds can agree that 13 year olds don't have the mental faculties (or physical presences or anything else useful) to turn down a 40 year old.

Cloptrop wrote:

I'm not a paedo, I just like teen pussy.

He is technically correct. The best kind of correct. If they have hit puberty, it's not pedophilia (Side note: see how I spelled that word? That is how it is spelled. There is only one goddamn "A").

Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't unsettling that a most likely overweight, crippled, loser with poor hygiene is furiously yanking it to 13 year old girls.

Reidy wrote:

I guess so. In the mean time, lets just proceed to continue poking him, hm?

But if we do that teacher will scold us again.

Quote :

Japan [Age of Consent]: 13

And no one was surprised in the least.

Somath wrote:

Okay, so, it's not just me and Xerro did actually take a dive from stupid idiot or troll right into admitted pedo yes?
Cause if Yes, Ban Please, like, yesterday if at all possible.
Bonus points if if we can delete all his posts from the site as well, please? Sorry if I'm over reacting but please?

Fuck off. Please?

Quote :

It's the responsibility of the older partner to use protection and make thoroughly sure that the girl is comfortable with going through with any kind of sexual act.

When I was a child I was raped by a man who told me he was being responsible and making sure I was comfortable and was just introducing me to my sexuality and because I was a naive child with the reasoning and logic centers of my brain not fully developed I believed him.

Please, Clopper, continue to tell me about how a 27 year old man can have sex with a child responsibly.

Or please "HAHAITROLLU". I'm sure everyone will have a good laugh.

Or please, kindly go tell the mods about how mean we're all being. I'm certain they'll be sympathetic.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

actual rational discourse

And you wonder why I like you, despite all the shit you do. I must object to the poor hygiene bit though, that's not true at all. Also, American English is an abomination and should be struck from the dialects of the world. Damn you, Roosevelt.

No, please. Do tell me all about the benefits a child has to gain from sex with a person more than twice their age, I'm dying to hear it.

Doobie, fuck off. Take your molestation story and go cry in the shower. You're getting in the way of an actual discussion.

xerrofoot wrote:

WOO fucking thirteen year olds is awwwwwwright as long as the adult is responsible and makes sure they're into it

Mr. Doobie wrote:

Funny, that's exactly the rationale my abuser used to justify molesting me.

xerrofoot wrote:

FUCK YOU GO CRY IN THE SHOWER

That doesn't sound like rational discourse to me. That sounds...defensive. Like you know your position shelters abusers and gives them licence to do whatever they want to vulnerable teenagers under the guise of consent. One would imagine, in the interests of rational discussion, you'd want to defend or clarify your position instead of telling a victim of child abuse that they're whining.

But if you don't want to answer Doobie's question, how about answering mine? Even if one lives in a jurisdiction where some legislator with his head up his ass decided YEAAAAAH THIRTEEN YEAR OLDS CAN TOTALLY CONSENT TO SEX, why the hell would a twenty-seven year old want a relationship with a thirteen year old? What common ground could you possibly have? If you just want sex, why that young? Why not twenty? Why not your own age?

xerroballs wrote:

FUCK YOU GO CRY IN THE SHOWER

No, buddy, fuck YOU.

I'm with Cyberwulf and Doobie on this one.

And to their comments let me add my own: In the past week you've basically outed yourself as the Australian Ariel Castro, yet you're still playing the victim card and looking for ways to blame somebody else for the fact that nobody on this board wants anything more to do with you. If I didn't hate you already, I certainly would now; your very existence is a mortal insult not just to everybody else here at WGW but to the whole human race. I just thank God you're not typical of Australians-- or human beings in general for that matter. As far as I'm concerned the day when you're gone from this world forever can't come a minute too soon.

xerrofoot wrote:

Doobie, fuck off. Take your molestation story and go cry in the shower. You're getting in the way of an actual discussion.

What the fuck?

Seriously, what the hell is your problem? What sort of self-centered asshole are you that you honestly think that is funny? You are lucky that the board only has three rules because any other place and your ass would have been tossed out a long time ago.

Oh gawd inorite? I wish we had Something Awful level moderation at times like this.

xerroheart wrote:

Doobie, fuck off. Take your molestation story and go cry in the shower. You're getting in the way of an actual discussion.

EAT SHIT AND DIE.

You're a waste of oxygen and DNA, xerrohoof. I wouldn't blame Doobie and Cyberwulf one bit if they went to your house and took a baseball bat to your skull.

Chris91 wrote:

xerroheart wrote:

Doobie, fuck off. Take your molestation story and go cry in the shower. You're getting in the way of an actual discussion.

BOLD TEXT RAGE

insert alot of screeching

We get it Christ chris calm yourself. I'm fairly sure good old foalfucker will be getting banned, eventually. In other news, I'm thirsty.

Okay, Chris, my initial reaction was the same as yours. But if you calm yourself before you post, there's far more fun to be had than simply CAPSRAEGING.

xerro has talked about how much he values discussion and rational discourse, yet he reacts to someone whose life experience (not merely opinion) undermines his utopian view of responsible twenty-seven year olds gently guiding little girls through their first sexual experience with hostility, callousness, and silencing techniques. So, I remain calm. This allows me to point out the hypocrisy of his actions. I now attempt to engage in discussion and rational discourse, so that if xerro doesn't reply to me he will further expose himself as a hypocrite.

I paraphrase what he says to prod others into thinking a little more about the wider implications of what he says. The questions I ask will hopefully shed some more light on his viewpoint, and I will continue the discussion (because this is a discussion) as rationally and as discoursefully as possible based on his answers. Which I shall likely paraphrase to get the rest of you thinking. But always calm. Nice and civilised.

Watch, and learn.

Penguin wrote:

What are we up to, now?

Pony spam
Fake daughter
Fake paganism/goddess worship to justify using "cunt" as an insult
Rape fetish
Rape threats
LOL I TROLL U
Complete inability to have a rational discussion
Bragging about inappropriate and non-noteworthy details from his personal life
Criminally high levels of butthurt/"rectal Ragnarok" when called out on his shitty behavior
Attempting to hide behind a mod to continue his shitty behavior without reprisal
Delusions of grandeur
Advocating statutory rape

Also he is a-okay with sexually exploiting the mentally disabled.

So this really ought to come as no surprise! Silly, naive Reepy of COURSE Clopsy is a kiddy diddler! The only people he can trick into sex are people who do not know any better!

I think it'd be pure torture, being a paedophile. I mean, being the real deal. Like, the person who looks at children and wants to fuck them, knowing it's absolutely wrong to want that. To have such a pure desire for something so taboo, so wrong that it disgusts most everybody. And it might even disgust yourself. Having those urges, and knowing you can never do anything with them -- brrr. Knowing you can never live near a school, knowing you can't ever be left alone in one room with your young cousins.

I'm not talking about the predatory paedophiles, the ones who act on their urges. I'm talking about the ones who have the urges, but actively try to ignore the urges, suppress them and try not to act on them. The ones who can't ever see a kid and just see them as kids, but always think of them sexually. Always knowing that you just might slip up, and do something to an 8-year old you will regret for the rest of your life, either within prison or without.

Now, to be fair, there are a lot of gradations in this. A 30-year old and a 7-year old, that's wrong. But a 19-year old and a 15-year old? Or a 25-year old and a 17-year old? Those are straddling the line. The problem is that some girls and boys are sexually mature -- or, as sexually mature as they're ever gonna be -- way earlier than others, and that's where the lines become blurred.

Now, the fact that in some cases the younger ones in the relationship don't require the protection doesn't mean that the protection in place are wrong, or even unnecessary. Fact is, most people under sixteen aren't mature enough to get seriously sexually active with anyone, let alone another adult. Which means in general that the power in the relationship is skewed, always in favour of the older one. It's never healthy, and it becomes extremely hard to figure out if the younger one was strongarmed into anything they didn't want to. And, even if the younger one did want it, whether they were even old enough to make an educated decision on the subject.

So, yes, there's a lot to be said about the age of consent and paedophilia. Telling someone that their negative experience with an older person is moot? Surprisingly, it still makes you a dick.

Jay/Cris wrote:

So, yes, there's a lot to be said about the age of consent and paedophilia. Telling someone that their negative experience with an older person is moot? Surprisingly, it still makes you a dick.

Then, what is the point of coming onto a message board, and stating that you got more or less sexually molested and possibly raped as a kid, I'm not trying to antagonize or anything, just wondering if there's a point behind it or otherwise.

Who is even in charge of this place?

Reidmar wrote:

Jay/Cris wrote:

So, yes, there's a lot to be said about the age of consent and paedophilia. Telling someone that their negative experience with an older person is moot? Surprisingly, it still makes you a dick.

Then, what is the point of coming onto a message board, and stating that you got more or less sexually molested and possibly raped as a kid, I'm not trying to antagonize or anything, just wondering if there's a point behind it or otherwise.

...Other than the point that this is not some abstract concept and that kids actually get damaged by it?

No idea.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

While I understand what you're saying, the problem is that it is a totally arbitrary number. Should it be 16? Should it be 20? Should it be 18? Should it be an odd number for a change? And no matter what you do, it leave potential for abuse in prosecutors who want to make a name for being OMG TOUGH ON SEXUAL PREDATORS by prosecuting 19 year olds who have sex with 17 year olds.

What I'm trying to say is that just because the law throws out some arbitrary number doesn't mean the "victim" isn't actually capable of giving consent in REALITY, which is often vastly different from whatever world lawyers live in. However, most people who aren't actively trying to seduces 13 year olds can agree that 13 year olds don't have the mental faculties (or physical presences or anything else useful) to turn down a 40 year old.

While it's true that people mature at different rates and ages of consent are arbitrary, making the law based on a ballpark figure of when we guess "the average person is now typically ready for adult responsibilities, more or less" is the best (or if you prefer, least bad) way we have of sorting out the issue and protecting kids from Kiddieclopper and his ilk.

Penguin wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

While I understand what you're saying, the problem is that it is a totally arbitrary number. Should it be 16? Should it be 20? Should it be 18? Should it be an odd number for a change? And no matter what you do, it leave potential for abuse in prosecutors who want to make a name for being OMG TOUGH ON SEXUAL PREDATORS by prosecuting 19 year olds who have sex with 17 year olds.

What I'm trying to say is that just because the law throws out some arbitrary number doesn't mean the "victim" isn't actually capable of giving consent in REALITY, which is often vastly different from whatever world lawyers live in. However, most people who aren't actively trying to seduces 13 year olds can agree that 13 year olds don't have the mental faculties (or physical presences or anything else useful) to turn down a 40 year old.

While it's true that people mature at different rates and ages of consent are arbitrary, making the law based on a ballpark figure of when we guess "the average person is now typically ready for adult responsibilities, more or less" is the best (or if you prefer, least bad) way we have of sorting out the issue and protecting kids from Kiddieclopper and his ilk.

Pretty much. I was just impotently bitching about the flaws in the current system. If I had thought of a better way to do it, I would have mentioned it. The current system is open to prosecutor abuse, but with sensible prosecutors, it works just fine.

The appearance of consent in young children may actually be an indication that they were sexually abused in the past. When my mother was running a daycare, there was one little girl (a 4-year-old) who tried to come on to adult men. She had been molested by her father in the past (before CPS had taken her away and placed her with her aunt and uncle), and believed that this was the appropriate way to get attention.

As to the age of consent, it is an arbitrary number, but it's also an attempt to protect children. It isn't 100% accurate when it comes to predicting maturity levels--some 13-year-olds are mature enough to raise families, while some 27-year-olds still fap to My Little Pony. Sometimes age of consent laws get people into trouble when they shouldn't (like a 16-year-old boy being arrested for having sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend). Other times, they're right on the money (like the 25-year-old dumbass I went to college with who wound up in prison because he couldn't stay away from 15-year-old girls).

Cyberwulf wrote:

xerrofoot wrote:

WOO fucking thirteen year olds is awwwwwwright as long as the adult is responsible and makes sure they're into it

Mr. Doobie wrote:

Funny, that's exactly the rationale my abuser used to justify molesting me.

xerrofoot wrote:

FUCK YOU GO CRY IN THE SHOWER

That doesn't sound like rational discourse to me. That sounds...defensive. Like you know your position shelters abusers and gives them licence to do whatever they want to vulnerable teenagers under the guise of consent. One would imagine, in the interests of rational discussion, you'd want to defend or clarify your position instead of telling a victim of child abuse that they're whining.

But if you don't want to answer Doobie's question, how about answering mine? Even if one lives in a jurisdiction where some legislator with his head up his ass decided YEAAAAAH THIRTEEN YEAR OLDS CAN TOTALLY CONSENT TO SEX, why the hell would a twenty-seven year old want a relationship with a thirteen year old? What common ground could you possibly have? If you just want sex, why that young? Why not twenty? Why not your own age?

First, the bit with Doobie. You know that thing about following me from thread to thread and berating me about unrelated shit? He's doing it again and I merely assumed he was telling me about that just to further aggravate me, which, let's be honest, he has done just as much as you have.

Now on to your question: why would someone in their late twenties want to bone a 13 year old? I have no idea. But I'm sure it's happened somewhere. Everyone has different tastes - some like them older, some like them younger. Of course, you always draw the line at paedophilia, but like Mikey said, 13 is not paedophilia. Also, as I said earlier, it goes back to mental and emotional maturity, which varies widely according to the individual. I wasn't ready for sex for the longest time, but when I was 15, a boy in my grade stuck his fingers under my nose and told me to smell the vaginal secretions. In the same respect, some 13yos would feel that they're ready, some would not.

Chris91 wrote:

Ariel Castro

YOU DID NOT JUST FUCKING SAY THAT. YOU DID NOT.

bleachedblackcat wrote:

xerrofoot wrote:

Doobie, fuck off. Take your molestation story and go cry in the shower. You're getting in the way of an actual discussion.

What the fuck?

Seriously, what the hell is your problem? What sort of self-centered asshole are you that you honestly think that is funny? You are lucky that the board only has three rules because any other place and your ass would have been tossed out a long time ago.

Doobie is my fucking problem. I'm sick of him harassing me.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Okay, Chris, my initial reaction was the same as yours. But if you calm yourself before you post, there's far more fun to be had than simply CAPSRAEGING.

xerro has talked about how much he values discussion and rational discourse, yet he reacts to someone whose life experience (not merely opinion) undermines his utopian view of responsible twenty-seven year olds gently guiding little girls through their first sexual experience with hostility, callousness, and silencing techniques. So, I remain calm. This allows me to point out the hypocrisy of his actions. I now attempt to engage in discussion and rational discourse, so that if xerro doesn't reply to me he will further expose himself as a hypocrite.

I paraphrase what he says to prod others into thinking a little more about the wider implications of what he says. The questions I ask will hopefully shed some more light on his viewpoint, and I will continue the discussion (because this is a discussion) as rationally and as discoursefully as possible based on his answers. Which I shall likely paraphrase to get the rest of you thinking. But always calm. Nice and civilised.

Watch, and learn.

Well, I've answered your question. Welcome to the world of rational discourse. Now answer mine: at what age do you think age of consent should be established, and how do you come to that conclusion?

Jay/Cris wrote:

I think it'd be pure torture, being a paedophile. I mean, being the real deal. Like, the person who looks at children and wants to fuck them, knowing it's absolutely wrong to want that. To have such a pure desire for something so taboo, so wrong that it disgusts most everybody. And it might even disgust yourself. Having those urges, and knowing you can never do anything with them -- brrr. Knowing you can never live near a school, knowing you can't ever be left alone in one room with your young cousins.

I'm not talking about the predatory paedophiles, the ones who act on their urges. I'm talking about the ones who have the urges, but actively try to ignore the urges, suppress them and try not to act on them. The ones who can't ever see a kid and just see them as kids, but always think of them sexually. Always knowing that you just might slip up, and do something to an 8-year old you will regret for the rest of your life, either within prison or without.

Absolutely. There was a guy in my town who was jailed after he left his phone in a public restroom, someone handed it in to the police and they found child pornography on it. The perp told the media he had been struggling with paedophilia for a long time and he needed to get help. It must be utter hell to live like that.

Reidmar wrote:

Jay/Cris wrote:

So, yes, there's a lot to be said about the age of consent and paedophilia. Telling someone that their negative experience with an older person is moot? Surprisingly, it still makes you a dick.

Then, what is the point of coming onto a message board, and stating that you got more or less sexually molested and possibly raped as a kid, I'm not trying to antagonize or anything, just wondering if there's a point behind it or otherwise.

I'd like to know that myself. I honestly think Doobie's just having another go at me.

xerrofoot wrote:

First, the bit with Doobie. You know that thing about following me from thread to thread and berating me about unrelated shit?

Well, except he wasn't. What he said was entirely related to the discussion. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean he's berating you. Just because it put the lie to your notion of responsible loving adults gently guiding thirteen year old girls through sex doesn't make it "unrelated shit".

Quote :

He's doing it again

No, he isn't.

Quote :

and I merely assumed he was telling me about that just to further aggravate me [...] I honestly think Doobie's just having another go at me.

This isn't very rational of you. This is quite irrational. Paranoid, actually. You owe Doobie an apology for what you said, which was far more reprehensible than calling you HopClop.

Quote :

why would someone in their late twenties want to bone a 13 year old? I have no idea.

Really, you have no idea? That's odd. I could've sworn you talked about how much you love teenage pussy, that you cited thirteen as your cut-off point, and that you described people who baulk at the idea of sex with a thirteen year old as having sticks up their asses when it comes to sex. I'm surprised that you suddenly have no clue why someone your age would want to fuck a thirteen year old.

Luckily, I have an idea. More on that in a bit.

Quote :

Of course, you always draw the line at paedophilia, but like Mikey said, 13 is not paedophilia.

Oh, well, as long as it's not paedophilia, it's all right. There's no power imbalance at all between a twenty seven year old and a thirteen year old.

Quote :

it goes back to mental and emotional maturity, which varies widely according to the individual.

Aaah, yes, and in your world a responsible adult would make sure the thirteen year old is emotionally and mentally mature enough for a sexual relationship with someone much older. Except, responsible, non-scuzzbucket adults would be concerned enough about the potential damage an inherently unequal relationship would do to a vulnerable teenager to, you know, NOT DO ANYTHING SEXUAL (or even romantic) WITH A TEENAGER.

Quote :

some 13yos would feel that they're ready, some would not.

Ready for sex with other thirteen year olds, perhaps. Not with someone twice or three times their age.

The only reason an adult would want a sexual relationship with a thirteen year old is because they want someone who's naive, easy to influence, and easy to intimidate. Lowering the age of consent to thirteen not only makes it harder to prosecute adults who would prey on vulnerable teenagers regardless of the law, it also gives a green light to scumbags who want someone easy to control and discard to strike up relationships with young teens, pressure them into doing things they aren't comfortable with, dump them when they're sick of them, and walk away unpunished because it was all technically consensual.

Quote :

Chris91 wrote:

Ariel Castro

YOU DID NOT JUST FUCKING SAY THAT. YOU DID NOT.

Yes, how dare Chris say that to someone who told a survivor of child abuse to fuck off and cry in the shower. Shame on him.

Quote :

Doobie is my fucking problem. I'm sick of him harassing me.

You know, you really are far too defensive about this. What about "My abuser justified his actions by saying he was being responsible and guiding me, just like you suggest that adults who have sex with teenagers should be. Tell me how a teenager benefits from that" is making you so angry?

Quote :

Cyberwulf wrote:

Okay, Chris, my initial reaction was the same as yours. But if you calm yourself before you post, there's far more fun to be had than simply CAPSRAEGING.

xerro has talked about how much he values discussion and rational discourse, yet he reacts to someone whose life experience (not merely opinion) undermines his utopian view of responsible twenty-seven year olds gently guiding little girls through their first sexual experience with hostility, callousness, and silencing techniques. So, I remain calm. This allows me to point out the hypocrisy of his actions. I now attempt to engage in discussion and rational discourse, so that if xerro doesn't reply to me he will further expose himself as a hypocrite.

I paraphrase what he says to prod others into thinking a little more about the wider implications of what he says. The questions I ask will hopefully shed some more light on his viewpoint, and I will continue the discussion (because this is a discussion) as rationally and as discoursefully as possible based on his answers. Which I shall likely paraphrase to get the rest of you thinking. But always calm. Nice and civilised.

Watch, and learn.

Well, I've answered your question.

oh my god i laid out my giant trap step by step and you quoted it and everything and you still don't get it

Quote :

at what age do you think age of consent should be established

Fixing an arbitrary age of consent only provides very basic protection for juveniles under the age of consent. I think we should turn it around. Instead of saying "this is the age at which kids can legally have sex" the law should be "no person who has reached the age of majority (18) may lawfully engage in sexual activity with persons under the age of majority" with an exception/defense to the law where the age difference is no more than, say, two years. So statutory rape doesn't apply in the case of 18/16 and 19/17 couples. I say two years because in this country at least it's entirely possible that both parties are still in school, or both parties may be in college. They're at a similar life stage and so there is no inherent power imbalance. There's still a possibility for abuse, as there is in all relationships, and either party may still go to the cops and report rape or sexual abuse. It's just not automatically against the law.

Cy can I just say

you are fantastic in threads like this one

Doobie I don't think I need to tell you what a reprobate Clopper is but I'm sorry he tried to use you as a vehicle to sink to a new low.

Cyberwulf wrote:

This isn't very rational of you. This is quite irrational. Paranoid, actually. You owe Doobie an apology for what you said, which was far more reprehensible than calling you HopClop.

What about calling me a paedophile and saying I like to have sex with pony foals? Pretty fucking reprehensible to me. Oh, but it's Doobie and he's a special snowflake. The only thing I owe him is a punch in the fucking head.

Quote :

I could've sworn you talked about how much you love teenage pussy

Correct

Quote :

that you cited thirteen as your cut-off point

No, I described thirteen as the very lowest possible AOC without supporting paedophilia. Did I actually say I wanted to have sex with thirteen year old girls? I think you'll find I didn't. I said I liked teens, which in my neck of the woods generally implies I like 16+. This is what happens when you jump to conclusions like an irrational, hysterical fearmonger.

Quote :

and that you described people who baulk at the idea of sex with a thirteen year old as having sticks up their asses when it comes to sex

No, people who think sex with teenagers is paedophilia are the ones with sticks up their asses. But that doesn't matter to you, does it? You'd rather just keep going XERROFOOT R PEDO" because you'll take any excuse to get your knickers in a twist. I am not a paedophile and anyone who claims otherwise is an idiot.

Quote :

Oh, well, as long as it's not paedophilia, it's all right. There's no power imbalance at all between a twenty seven year old and a thirteen year old.

Power imbalance, yes. Rape, no. (Unless, of course, she indicates that no is the answer)

Quote :

Aaah, yes, and in your world a responsible adult would make sure the thirteen year old is emotionally and mentally mature enough for a sexual relationship with someone much older. Except, responsible, non-scuzzbucket adults would be concerned enough about the potential damage an inherently unequal relationship would do to a vulnerable teenager to, you know, NOT DO ANYTHING SEXUAL (or even romantic) WITH A TEENAGER.

Quote :

Ready for sex with other thirteen year olds, perhaps. Not with someone twice or three times their age.

Quote :

The only reason an adult would want a sexual relationship with a thirteen year old is because they want someone who's naive, easy to influence, and easy to intimidate. Lowering the age of consent to thirteen not only makes it harder to prosecute adults who would prey on vulnerable teenagers regardless of the law, it also gives a green light to scumbags who want someone easy to control and discard to strike up relationships with young teens, pressure them into doing things they aren't comfortable with, dump them when they're sick of them, and walk away unpunished because it was all technically consensual.

More fearmongering. "ZOMG ALL OLDER MEN ARE CREEPY PERVERTS!" This is exactly what the British barrister was fighting against. It's also sexist (you're essentially telling me all older men are out to take advantage of young girls), ageist (implying younger teens are all the same mentally and emotionally) and ridiculously patronizing to allinvolved. You're the goddamn hypocrite, not me.

Quote :

Quote :

Doobie is my fucking problem. I'm sick of him harassing me.

You know, you really are far too defensive about this. What about "My abuser justified his actions by saying he was being responsible and guiding me, just like you suggest that adults who have sex with teenagers should be. Tell me how a teenager benefits from that" is making you so angry?

Doobie is only trying to push guilt and shame on me for debating a point. Of course I'm fucking defensive about it!

Quote :

oh my god i laid out my giant trap step by step and you quoted it and everything and you still don't get it

"LOL I TRAPPDED U" again? Oh, fuck off.

Quote :

Fixing an arbitrary age of consent only provides very basic protection for juveniles under the age of consent. I think we should turn it around. Instead of saying "this is the age at which kids can legally have sex" the law should be "no person who has reached the age of majority (18) may lawfully engage in sexual activity with persons under the age of majority" with an exception/defense to the law where the age difference is no more than, say, two years. So statutory rape doesn't apply in the case of 18/16 and 19/17 couples. I say two years because in this country at least it's entirely possible that both parties are still in school, or both parties may be in college. They're at a similar life stage and so there is no inherent power imbalance. There's still a possibility for abuse, as there is in all relationships, and either party may still go to the cops and report rape or sexual abuse. It's just not automatically against the law.

That still doesn't take mental and emotional maturity into account. Are you still trying to tell me that younger teens can't be mentally and emotionally mature? Because that's what it sounds like.

Hey folks I think at this point it might be better to just ignore this person entirely. They have been so compulsively antagonistic that I can't imagine them having a goal besides getting attention and abusing others. There is a lot of anger swirling around because of the comments in this thread, and while it is 100% justifiable anger, having ANY kind of discourse with this person rational or not is going to do nothing besides fan this forum's version of the Springfield tire fire. Please, take this abuser's power away from them by assuring they will get nothing from any of us besides a cold shoulder.