Judge gives 30-day sentence to rapist.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

My opinion on this subject.

Let's see... Ah. Betsy Karasik: Writer, lawyer. That definitely sounds like someone who has credentials in adolescent development to go ahead and blur those lines. Some of my favorite lines include:
"Throughout high school, college and law school, I knew students who had sexual relations with teachers. To the best of my knowledge, these situations were all consensual in every honest meaning of the word, even if society would like to embrace the fantasy that a high school student can’t consent to sex...... I was fired from a waitressing job in Boston in 1979, during my first year of law school, after I refused to sit in the manager’s lap like the other girls. I would have much rather seen that sleazebag dragged through the legal system than certain teachers I considered friends despite their sexual relations with students that today would land them in jail...... If religious leaders and heads of state can’t keep their pants on, with all they have to lose, why does society expect that members of other professions can be coerced into meeting this standard?"

Mmmm.... Delicious, anecdotal, absurd... I also love it when people use the kind of rhetorical questions that a drunk person would make.

Look, it's like you're digging the hole a little deeper. I mean, you can have these "edgy opinions," but it really sounds like you're just grasping for straws trying to be contrary. It's okay bud, you can still be edgy. Just do a really sick flip on your BMX bike.

I'm gonna ask again. What's so hot about high school kids anyway? They manage to flawlessly combine tragically low self-esteems with raging Messiah complexes in the worst ways possible and they ooze pus from every pore.

.....

Actually, now I see a lot that Mikey can relate to....

Damn but I love how that article talks about how horny teenage girls are and barely touches on the motivations of grown men in positions of authority who get off on screwing their charges. I agree that more severe punishments won't stop it from happening, because first we have to destroy the notion that every single human being exists in a perpetual state of "yes" when it comes to sex and therefore victims of rape have to prove that they said "no".

I've said it before and I'll say it again - age of consent laws should be worded such that it is an offense for an adult (defined by whatever age of majority the jurisdiction decides, which in the West is usually 18) to engage in sexual contact with someone who has not achieved the age of majority. Also, build in an exception/defense to the law where the age gap is not more than a year/two years so that we don't have 19 and 18 year olds in prison for fucking 17 and 16 year olds. Then the onus is on the adult to restrain him/herself, and we don't get stupid bullshit like "oh but according to the law they raped each other" if a minor alleges that another minor raped him/her.

There should also be an exception for the (hopefully) rare cases in which an adult is raped by a minor but it would have to be watertight so as not to allow abusers to use it to weasel out of trouble.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Damn but I love how that article talks about how horny teenage girls are and barely touches on the motivations of grown men in positions of authority who get off on screwing their charges. I agree that more severe punishments won't stop it from happening, because first we have to destroy the notion that every single human being exists in a perpetual state of "yes" when it comes to sex and therefore victims of rape have to prove that they said "no".

I've said it before and I'll say it again - age of consent laws should be worded such that it is an offense for an adult (defined by whatever age of majority the jurisdiction decides, which in the West is usually 18) to engage in sexual contact with someone who has not achieved the age of majority. Also, build in an exception/defense to the law where the age gap is not more than a year/two years so that we don't have 19 and 18 year olds in prison for fucking 17 and 16 year olds. Then the onus is on the adult to restrain him/herself, and we don't get stupid bullshit like "oh but according to the law they raped each other" if a minor alleges that another minor raped him/her.

There should also be an exception for the (hopefully) rare cases in which an adult is raped by a minor but it would have to be watertight so as not to allow abusers to use it to weasel out of trouble.

But all of these would require common sense and logic to be used in the government. See the problem there?

Cyberwulf wrote:

I agree that more severe punishments won't stop it from happening, because first we have to destroy the notion that every single human being exists in a perpetual state of "yes" when it comes to sex and therefore victims of rape have to prove that they said "no".

If you can figure out a way to make that happen without undoing the much more important principle of "innocent until proven guilty," I'm on board.

Good luck.

Cyberwulf wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again - age of consent laws should be worded such that it is an offense for an adult (defined by whatever age of majority the jurisdiction decides, which in the West is usually 18) to engage in sexual contact with someone who has not achieved the age of majority.

How else would they be worded? It really isn't an Age of Consent law if it doesn't specify an age of consent.

Eeveegou wrote:

If religious leaders and heads of state can’t keep their pants on, with all they have to lose, why does society expect that members of other professions can be coerced into meeting this standard?"

Jeez, Eevee I agree, this question is such a blatant load of non-applicable bullshit.

I agree with Cy and Doobs, sure teenagers can be sexual and if they want to fuck each other then give them some protection and let them have at it, but adults who want to fuck children are gross, manipulative bastards 99% of the time and I do not really give a shit about the rare theoretical occasion where they are not because they are adults, they can damn well resist the urge to fuck children. Because we know perfectly well how often kiddy diddlers would actual get sent to prison if the prosecution had to "prove" the sex was non-consensual once the law declared that it was somehow possible for sex with a child to be consensual. As often as regular rapists get convicted now-a-days, which is barely ever.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again - age of consent laws should be worded such that it is an offense for an adult (defined by whatever age of majority the jurisdiction decides, which in the West is usually 18) to engage in sexual contact with someone who has not achieved the age of majority.

How else would they be worded?  It really isn't an Age of Consent law if it doesn't specify an age of consent.

What I mean is, rather than stating "You must be this old to have sex" the law should state "Persons of this age may not have sex with people below said age".

The 30 day sentence is being appealed by Montana state prosecutors as illegal. The mandatory minimum is such cases is supposed to be two years. As the idiot judge can't increase the sentence himself, an appeal must be made in the case.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Though it's little comfort to the mom, at least she got the news out there and didn't back down when the judge tried the whole "oh well I iz sorry" thing. And asshole rapist will spend more time in jail because no one else is going to be stupid enough to give him a light sentence.

what i don't understand is that regular guys get so up-in-arms, like "Oh, if I were in this guy's place I'd totally get convicted of rape too! Therefore I must put myself in his shoes and go, well what should I do?? Gonna go with the theory that I accidentally kiddled a diddle! 15?? She looked 60, officer!"

When 1) men hardly get convicted of rape 2) if they do there is a very minimum sentence and 3) look you, you go rape someone Mikey. Chances are you're gonna get away with it and that's why this shit is fucked up. You're gonna become infamous with tons of fans reassuring you that "she deserved it", "she really liked it", "she really really wanted it and if she didn't she wouldn't have approached you, you hot fuck no homo"

yeah maybe yr mom will be pissed but really, you're not stuck with a kid or in intense pain or shamed by society as some sort of slutbag or whatever, maybe you'll get doxxed all over the net, whatever, but that's not in response to what happened. It would be in response to the lack of desire of larger society to have any harsher punishments on the matter, and a mass (vigilanteish??) approach to set things "right", which might be an "embarrassment", but not a total life-ruiner

which is why I don't get it why guys usually are like, lol what if he was innocent! yeah most guys get off innocent anyway or get this type of laughable sentence if any

and yes I'm aware there are a few cases where women lie about it and that's where the grey area lies but

at the same time, why u hanging out with such lyin connivin bitchez bro get it together

Cyberwulf wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again - age of consent laws should be worded such that it is an offense for an adult (defined by whatever age of majority the jurisdiction decides, which in the West is usually 18) to engage in sexual contact with someone who has not achieved the age of majority.

How else would they be worded?  It really isn't an Age of Consent law if it doesn't specify an age of consent.

What I mean is, rather than stating "You must be this old to have sex" the law should state "Persons of this age may not have sex with people below said age".

I guess that makes sense, and would specify exactly what is meant. Given lawyers' penchant for wordy bullshit in order to clarify something that SHOULD be simple, I'm surprised this isn't already the case.