Leave rapists alone!

xerrofoot wrote:

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?

You know, I've looked all over this thread and he hasn't said any such thing. You wouldn't be dragging stuff from other threads into this thread in direct contravention of the anti-harassment guidelines, would you?

Quote :

The only thing I owe him is a punch in the fucking head. [...] This is what happens when you jump to conclusions like an irrational, hysterical fearmonger. [...] 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.

This is extremely hostile and irrational of you. Are you sure you want a nice calm discussion?

Quote :

I said I liked teens, which in my neck of the woods generally implies I like 16+.

Ah, well, perhaps you could tell me what it is about sixteen year old girls that appeals to you.

Quote :

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)

So you do acknowledge that there is a power imbalance. Then why did you say that it was okay as long as the adult was responsible and used protection and made sure the teenager was mature enough for it?

Quote :

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),

Nowhere in those quotes do I specify men and girls. You'll notice I've been extremely careful to say "adult" and "teenager". I also never said "all older men". I said that the only reason an adult would want sex with a teenager that young is because of the inherent power imbalance, which you've acknowledged does exist. If you've managed to think of another reason, please enlighten me.

I'm also a little disappointed that you didn't even attempt to engage or discuss any of my points. This defensiveness and jumping to conclusions isn't very becoming of someone who's looking for rational discourse.

Quote :

ageist (implying younger teens are all the same mentally and emotionally)

See, the thing is, most younger teens are mentally and emotionally immature. That just comes with their stage in life. The potential for abuse and harm to be done by allowing adults to have sex with kids as young as thirteen is far greater than the potential for a loving, equal relationship between a thirteen year old and an adult. Not to mention that nobody has a crystal ball that allows them to see into someone else's mind. A responsible adult knows that, and understands that no matter how articulate and level-headed a thirteen/fourteen/fifteen year old appears to be, they and the adult are not on a level playing field.

And lowering the age of consent doesn't eliminate the power imbalance (which you've acknowledged exists) between an adult and an adolescent.

Quote :

and ridiculously patronizing to allinvolved.

This suggests that either you're trying to date a sixteen year old, or that you're fourteen and lied about your age to post here.

Quote :

You're the goddamn hypocrite, not me.

Could you explain how I'm being a hypocrite, please? I'm a little slow or something today, I'm not getting it.

Quote :

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!

Why would you feel guilt and shame if you're just debating a point? Surely someone interested in discussion and rational discourse would take the time to calm himself (as I have done) and engage with the point he made. Perhaps you could go into how to avoid the kind of abuse Doobie outlined in his post, while still allowing adults to bang thirteen year olds.

Quote :

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.

How do you propose to take mental and emotional maturity into account without making it easier for scumbags to manipulate and abuse vulnerable young people?

Quote :

Are you still trying to tell me that younger teens can't be mentally and emotionally mature?

It's vanishingly rare. As I said, it comes with their life stage. Basing age of consent laws on the notion that some teenagers are fully capable of engaging in a sexual relationship with an adult without suffering any short or long-term damage does more harm than good.


EDIT: Hawaiian Shirt I take your point, but I want him to have all the rope.

Quote :

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

I didn't indicate that the answer was "no". Tell me what this means for me.

Reidmar wrote:

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.

Count on me to be one of the first to cheer when it finally happens.

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.

Very true indeed. But that said, one should never underestimate the value of caps lock.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

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.

For that matter I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was into necrophilia too.

xerrodick wrote:

Chris91 wrote:

Ariel Castro

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

Oh yes I did. And you know what, HopClop? You had it coming.

bleachedblackcat wrote:

Seriously, what the hell is your problem? What sort of self-centered asshole are you that you honestly think that is funny?

The kind of self-centered asshole whose morality is so inverted he can call American English "an abomination" but at the same time think pedophilia is OK.

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.

This. 100x.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Chris91 wrote:

Ariel Castro

xerrobrains wrote:

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.

Mind if I add this line to my sig, Cyberwulf? It cracked me up.

TheHedonist wrote:

Cy can I just say

you are fantastic in threads like this one

Hear hear.

TheHedonist wrote:

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.

For that matter, Doobie, if you decide to give that son of a bitch the ass-kicking he so richly deserves I won't object in the least.

Hawaiian Shirt wrote:

Hey folks I think at this point it might be better to just ignore this person entirely.

Normally I might agree with you, HS, but nothing about what's going on with xerroconscience is normal. He's escalated from merely being a jerk to showing signs of becoming an outright sexual predator. I wish we knew his IRL address so we could tip his neighbors off to what kind of sick shit he's getting into.

Cyberwulf wrote:

xerrofoot wrote:

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?

You know, I've looked all over this thread and he hasn't said any such thing. You wouldn't be dragging stuff from other threads into this thread in direct contravention of the anti-harassment guidelines, would you?

Silly question...of course he would. He'd spit on his own grandmother's grave if it suited his warped purposes.

Chris91 wrote:

Mind if I add this line to my sig, Cyberwulf?

Go ahead if you like.

Thanks.

Well, there you go, Chris just called me a paedophile. Reprehensible, I tell you.

Chris, I'm returning the favour. Welcome to my ignore list, you degenerate asshole.


Wulf, you can get fucked. I'm done discussing this with you because you are completely determined to paint me as some sick pervert no matter what I say or do (and no, that's not paranoia, that's a fact). You're right, you're not getting it and I don't think you ever will.

xerrofoot wrote:

Well, there you go, Chris just called me a paedophile. Reprehensible, I tell you.

Chris, I'm returning the favour. Welcome to my ignore list, you degenerate asshole.


Wulf, you can get fucked. I'm done discussing this with you because you are completely determined to paint me as some sick pervert no matter what I say or do (and no, that's not paranoia, that's a fact). You're right, you're not getting it and I don't think you ever will.

So if you don't want to answer her questions answer mine, please. As someone who has firsthand experience with this stuff I believe I, at least, deserve an answer.

xerrofoot wrote:

Welcome to my ignore list

You've ignored like 2/3 of the forum now. Assuming you stick to it, you might as well just leave. At this rate, you'll have effectively banned yourself.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

xerrofoot wrote:

Well, there you go, Chris just called me a paedophile. Reprehensible, I tell you.

Chris, I'm returning the favour. Welcome to my ignore list, you degenerate asshole.


Wulf, you can get fucked. I'm done discussing this with you because you are completely determined to paint me as some sick pervert no matter what I say or do (and no, that's not paranoia, that's a fact). You're right, you're not getting it and I don't think you ever will.

So if you don't want to answer her questions answer mine, please. As someone who has firsthand experience with this stuff I believe I, at least, deserve an answer.

You're getting fuck all from me. Leave me the fuck alone, Doobie, I mean it.

xerrofoot wrote:

Wulf, you can get fucked. I'm done discussing this with you because you are completely determined to paint me as some sick pervert no matter what I say or do (and no, that's not paranoia, that's a fact). You're right, you're not getting it and I don't think you ever will.

xerrofoot wrote:

You're getting fuck all from me. Leave me the fuck alone, Doobie, I mean it.

I really don't understand your hostility. I haven't accused you of anything since we started having this nice rational discourse. I've engaged with your points, answered your questions, and offered you the opportunity to clarify and elaborate on your points. You've reacted with paranoid accusations and a refusal to continue this actual discussion that you were so excited for when Mikey agreed with some of what you said.

The only reason I can think of for you to be so paranoid and defensive, and so hostile to Doobie, is because you're actively trying to pursue a relationship with a teenager. I really hope that I'm wrong.

Quote :

You're getting fuck all from me. Leave me the fuck alone, Doobie, I mean it.

Ok, so "calm and rational discourse" means agreeing with you or at least saying things in a way that you can construe into agreeing with you.

Seriously, are you 14? You're awfully defensive about the emotional and mental faculties of a teenager, and the last time I was like that.... yyyyeah I was 14. Not to mention you completely fail to grasp irony ("let's engage in calm and rational discourse -> proceeds to be anything but calm and rational"). The funny part is you think it's ok to insult and belittle a rape survivor for being a rape survivor but calling someone "HopClop" THAT'S JUST GOING TOO FAR MAN.

Quote :

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.

Uhhhhhh.... you know if he has child pornography that means he's already hurt a child, right?

I'm sorry if the sympathy well has run dry for people jerking it to children being manipulated into having sex on camera.

Quote :

Uhhhhhh.... you know if he has child pornography that means he's already hurt a child, right?

Yeah, that's not at all in line with the "people who are honestly attracted to children but haven't done anything because they are good people"

Quote :

Uhhhhhh.... you know if he has child pornography that means he's already hurt a child, right?

Okay, spoonman, this is where I have to kindly sit down, face your posts, and ask you, how the fuck does that make sense?

I mean, think about it, unless xerro was the one who took the photo of the kid, (even though me just talking about this makes me sick to my stomach) I don't understand how he's hurting the kid if he keeps it to himself (ew) .

Reidmar wrote:

Quote :

Uhhhhhh.... you know if he has child pornography that means he's already hurt a child, right?

Okay, spoonman, this is where I have to kindly sit down, face your posts, and ask you, how the fuck does that make sense?

I mean, think about it, unless xerro was the one who took the photo of the kid, (even though me just talking about this makes me sick to my stomach) I don't understand how he's hurting the kid if he keeps it to himself (ew) .

Because, somewhere along the line, a kid was involved in the process, forced into being photographed. Duh.

Now, if they were drawings of children, not drawn to life, that might be a different issue.

Quote :

Okay, spoonman, this is where I have to kindly sit down, face your posts, and ask you, how the fuck does that make sense?

.... Jesus Christ can you be any more dense?

Like... do you even know why possession of (edited for clarity) child porn is illegal?

xerrobrains wrote:

Well, there you go, Chris just called me a paedophile. Reprehensible, I tell you.

But mocking sexual assault is perfectly fine, right?

You worthless son of a bitch.

Reidmar wrote:

Quote :

Uhhhhhh.... you know if he has child pornography that means he's already hurt a child, right?

Okay, spoonman, this is where I have to kindly sit down, face your posts, and ask you, how the fuck does that make sense?

I mean, think about it, unless xerro was the one who took the photo of the kid, (even though me just talking about this makes me sick to my stomach) I don't understand how he's hurting the kid if he keeps it to himself (ew) .

I'm trying to figure out how you got us saying "that one guy xerro told us about who was caught with child porn" and made it become "XERRO HAD CHILD PORN ON HIS PHONE!!111"

Reidmar wrote:

Quote :

Uhhhhhh.... you know if he has child pornography that means he's already hurt a child, right?

Okay, spoonman, this is where I have to kindly sit down, face your posts, and ask you, how the fuck does that make sense?

I mean, think about it, unless xerro was the one who took the photo of the kid, (even though me just talking about this makes me sick to my stomach) I don't understand how he's hurting the kid if he keeps it to himself (ew) .

The theory goes that there is only a supply of child porn because there is a demand for it. People wouldn't sell it if no one bought it. Therefore, if one makes buying it illegal, there would be no more selling it, therefore no more making it, therefore no more children being exploited.

Of course one of the problems would be the 50 Shades thing. It's by no means new. I remember reading my mother's Mills & Boon books, (and hating them), wherein a women of clearly youthful age, (nineteen or thereabouts), gets off with a guy in his forties. One of the things that I find wierd about the main character in 50 Shades is that she comes across as really young. The story would have us believe she was older, but it was written as if she was a teen. And by that, I mean sixteen or less.

So a lot of fanfic is about teenaged girls, sometimes even pre-teen, wishing for sex with their hero. In the last couple of weeks alone, I've read maybe a half dozen self insert fics about Tom Hiddleston. Some of these authors have stated they are thirteen or fourteen. Hiddleston is thirty two. There is a glamour about older men. Their supposed sophistication, sexual or worldly, that flatters the young. They come across as rational when every boy your age is a prize berk.

But really, deep down, most girls know that it is just fantasy. If they met Hiddleston, they'd probably be gibbering wrecks. And since he has gone out with women his age or near it, I expect he'd be utterly horrified if a teen asked for sex.

But, Cyber, I'm a little bit off on your two year rule. What about, say, boy bands who are not the most mature of adults? Many nineties bands, Boyzone, Backstreet Boys, Take That and so on, now admit to having sex with fans. The boys were, say sixteen to twenty five. The fans might say they are over sixteen. My partner's niece is fourteen. She is six foot tall and looks easily eighteen or over. She's just come back from holiday, where she got alcoholic drinks from the bar because they thought she was adult. She found it funny. Luckily, she's not the sort to get stupid drunk and her mum wouldn't let her anyhow. But some girls would get stupid drunk and you don't have to be sexually immature to do stupid drunk sex.

So would you prosecute a twenty year old who had sex with a girl who said she was over sixteen, looked it, consented to it, but turned out to be fifteen? I'd say not. Very few teenage or early twentysomethings ask for ID before sex.

Tl:dr. Shades of grey in everything. An age of consent should be enforced, but not as an absolute. There are liars, slyness and coercion on both sides of that line and by all genders. Without some leeway in court justice is even less served.

Mikey Go Wooga wrote

Quote :

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").

Mikey, pedo would be a prefix meaning foot or feet, such as Pedometer or Pedicure. A Paedophile wishes to have sex with children. A Pedophile would want to have sex with feet.

Quote :

Mikey, pedo would be a prefix meaning foot or feet, such as Pedometer or Pedicure. A Paedophile wishes to have sex with children. A Pedophile would want to have sex with feet.

Thank you for the first image in this thread that has actually made me laugh.

Summercorn wrote:

So would you prosecute a twenty year old who had sex with a girl who said she was over sixteen, looked it, consented to it, but turned out to be fifteen?

Yes. If the defense of "honest mistake" is allowed, what's to stop scuzzbuckets from plying fifteen year olds with drink and then saying OH I THOUGHT S/HE WAS OLDER?

See, it's really easy not to have sex with someone who's underage. Don't have sex with total strangers. If you know someone for a while, you'll find out how old they are either directly or by context (if your crush asks you to pick him up from school, and you're in your twenties, maybe put the brakes on till you find out more info).

By the way, no-one should be having sex with drunk people either.

Quote :

There are liars, slyness and coercion on both sides of that line

Most of the time the lie comes in the form of "it was consensual" from the older person. Sorry, no. Age of consent laws are there to protect juveniles. An adult has no business having any sexual relationship, casual or otherwise, with a minor. It doesn't matter if fourteen year olds are throwing themselves at you - as the adult you have to be responsible, because you're supposed to be mature. Teenagers by and large only think in terms of what they want right now and have no idea about what's best for them.

Cyberwulf wrote:

If the defense of "honest mistake" is allowed, what's to stop scuzzbuckets from plying fifteen year olds with drink and then saying OH I THOUGHT S/HE WAS OLDER?

IAWTC.

Summercorn wrote:

Very few teenage or early twentysomethings ask for ID before sex.

They probably should!

Quote :

ageist (implying younger teens are all the same mentally and emotionally)

Man, I should not even dignify this with a response it is so far out there in moon-land, but seriously? I mean claiming AoC laws are ageist is like saying translating books into braille is ablist because it implies the blind cannot read printed text.

And while I am still loath to acknowledge that this basic, basic stuff is even worth debating, I am reading a lot of people I otherwise respect grumbling about the AoC being "arbitrary" and young people not being equal "mentally and emotionally" so imma let you in on a little secret... it does not fucking matter. This is basic risk management here, weight the potential consequences for a half a second and you will see what I mean. On the one hand we have the theoretical "mentally and emotionally mature" 16-year-old who wants to bone an adult but- oh no!- the law says he will be in big trouble if he does so neither of them get any sex/ have to wait two entire years. On the OTHER hand we have child rape. HMM I WONDER WHICH CONSEQUENCE IS WORSE.

Nevermind the fact that the law says under-18s are children in every other respect, so even if this magically as-mature-as-an-adult teenager exists, s/he still does not have the same options for getting work (and even if they can find ok work they are obligated to do the full-time school thing so they cannot get significant hours), renting/owning property, banking, buying their own booze, telling their parents/guardians to fuck off, etc. So an adult is always going to have that to hold over them regardless of mental/ emotional maturity.

Cyberwulf wrote:

See, it's really easy not to have sex with someone who's underage. Don't have sex with total strangers. If you know someone for a while, you'll find out how old they are either directly or by context (if your crush asks you to pick him up from school, and you're in your twenties, maybe put the brakes on till you find out more info).

By the way, no-one should be having sex with drunk people either.

Oh, yes, because that's how it always works. Some people like the thrill of having sex with strangers. It's not, per definition, wrong.

Also, what's drunk and what isn't? If I saw a guy take some vodka, does that mean I can't take him home? Should I be asking him to blow -- y'know, into one of those gizmos that measures the amount of alcohol in someone's blood? Should we enforce sex as a sober activity only?

I'm not saying your points are wrong, but they aren't wholly right either. You could at least try'n sample a few shades of grey, love.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

See, it's really easy not to have sex with someone who's underage. Don't have sex with total strangers. If you know someone for a while, you'll find out how old they are either directly or by context (if your crush asks you to pick him up from school, and you're in your twenties, maybe put the brakes on till you find out more info).

By the way, no-one should be having sex with drunk people either.

Oh, yes, because that's how it always works. Some people like the thrill of having sex with strangers. It's not, per definition, wrong.

Also, what's drunk and what isn't? If I saw a guy take some vodka, does that mean I can't take him home? Should I be asking him to blow -- y'know, into one of those gizmos that measures the amount of alcohol in someone's blood? Should we enforce sex as a sober activity only?

I'm not saying your points are wrong, but they aren't wholly right either. You could at least try'n sample a few shades of grey, love.

Just my personal opinion but in both these scenarios the parts where it's wrong and the part where it's pretty dumb overlap so much it's still a good idea to not do it.