Upload
Login or register

defeats

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 24
Date Signed Up:6/28/2011
Last Login:10/01/2016
Location:La France
Stats
Comment Ranking:#9554
Highest Content Rank:#4433
Highest Comment Rank:#105
Content Thumbs: 1411 total,  1545 ,  134
Comment Thumbs: 12349 total,  17019 ,  4670
Content Level Progress: 10% (10/100)
Level 114 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 115 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 79% (395/500)
Level 311 Comments: Wizard → Level 312 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:0
Content Views:19704
Times Content Favorited:51 times
Total Comments Made:5307
FJ Points:12518
I'm 6'3, about 190, a legend...

latest user's comments

#224 - 'Age of consent' is a legal term, 'consent' is not. 'Age of co…  [+] (2 replies) 15 hours ago on Female Teacher faces Justice 0
User avatar
#226 - platinumaltaria (14 hours ago) [-]
Pedantry should be a legal term.

I do not believe that you actually think this way.
No, it's pretty obvious that I've been toying with you for the past couple of comments. That does tend to happen when you can't make any inference on the speech of the other person. Your entire argument boils down to "muh not a child" even though that's silly.

I can only say this so many times; it's not about what the kid was doing, it's about the adult's failure to act responsibly. I can't consent whilst intoxicated, but if I drink and drive the argument "the car came on to me" probably won't suffice.

The reason for these laws are far more complex than you seem to think, you can't boil them down to a single point.
User avatar
#231 - defeats (14 hours ago) [-]
You aren't "toying with me", you are either attempting to troll me, I'm not bothered, you aren't taking anything out of my day and I am enjoying this discourse.

When I said I dont believe you think this way I wasn't inferring shock, I genuinly don't see anybody actually thinking that way about this topic.
The reason for these laws in America is to keep teens in education until they are finished with it, which is why originally statutory rape only applied to an older male having sex with an underage female, because the female could become pregnant which would force her out of education. This is also the reason for the 'double standard', because this is a consequence of an older man having sex with an underprepared female.

Like I previously said though, my issue isn't with the law, these laws have their purpose and i don't object to that, if somebody breaks the law they should be punished to the extent of the law. But I object to this case being treated as an assault, and the woman being treated as a violent rapist, I would feel the same way about a male teacher.
There have been cases where females had relations with male teachers and married them later, it's also happened with males who had relations with female teachers.

I'm also not a teacher by the way, in case you thought I was trying to defend behaviour of my own.
#215 - Consent is a legal term which means to give permission, it has…  [+] (4 replies) 15 hours ago on Female Teacher faces Justice 0
User avatar
#218 - platinumaltaria (15 hours ago) [-]
It does, it has a cutoff below a certain age... that's to do with age is it not?
Well I'm not american, so I don't have much to do with their laws. If that's what they decided on then that's their business.

I'd say the difference is as much as that between murdering 100 people and murdering 101.

Ok well good for you, but unless I'm wrong (hey I could be) you're not the kid in this article, which means you don't know shit about his state of mind. The kid could be unhinged from this, he could be fine, the point is that it varies significantly, and it is better to err on the side of caution than to allow an abuser to walk free. In addition this is still not an issue of sex, but of the perpetrator's failure to act responsibly.

I don't know every 15 year old, but I do not believe that every 15 year old is capable of making the decision to have sex, and as such I consider it responsible to protect them from themselves.
User avatar
#224 - defeats (15 hours ago) [-]
'Age of consent' is a legal term, 'consent' is not. 'Age of consent' means the age at which one can legally consent to sex. A person under 18 can consent to things in America completely unrelated to sex, such as having their schoolbag checked by their teacher, they may also not consent. A person in a coma can't consent to sex, having sex with them is not statutory rape, is it just rape. Statutory rape always implies consent or coersion.

And statutory rape to assault rape is more like assault is to murder. I don't understand how you can think raping somebody using violence is the same. That same student and teacher could have left the country together, and had sex else where perfectly legally, but because this happened in America, hes "a child and severely traumatized by this horrific assault, he'll probably never get over it and commit suicide" please...

I do not believe that you actually think this way.

As far as I'm concerned, if I was given the chance to change these laws, I would keep statutory rape as a punishable crime, maintaining the age of consent of 16. Teachers convicted of statutory rape would be put on the sex offenders register and banned from teaching, but I would take every case on a case by case basis, coersion cases would be punished more severely. Cases where in your words; the student literally wave their dick in your face would be punshed less severely.
Why? You might ask. Because coercing students into having sex with you is blatently abuse of influence, which is the whole reason for these laws.
User avatar
#226 - platinumaltaria (14 hours ago) [-]
Pedantry should be a legal term.

I do not believe that you actually think this way.
No, it's pretty obvious that I've been toying with you for the past couple of comments. That does tend to happen when you can't make any inference on the speech of the other person. Your entire argument boils down to "muh not a child" even though that's silly.

I can only say this so many times; it's not about what the kid was doing, it's about the adult's failure to act responsibly. I can't consent whilst intoxicated, but if I drink and drive the argument "the car came on to me" probably won't suffice.

The reason for these laws are far more complex than you seem to think, you can't boil them down to a single point.
User avatar
#231 - defeats (14 hours ago) [-]
You aren't "toying with me", you are either attempting to troll me, I'm not bothered, you aren't taking anything out of my day and I am enjoying this discourse.

When I said I dont believe you think this way I wasn't inferring shock, I genuinly don't see anybody actually thinking that way about this topic.
The reason for these laws in America is to keep teens in education until they are finished with it, which is why originally statutory rape only applied to an older male having sex with an underage female, because the female could become pregnant which would force her out of education. This is also the reason for the 'double standard', because this is a consequence of an older man having sex with an underprepared female.

Like I previously said though, my issue isn't with the law, these laws have their purpose and i don't object to that, if somebody breaks the law they should be punished to the extent of the law. But I object to this case being treated as an assault, and the woman being treated as a violent rapist, I would feel the same way about a male teacher.
There have been cases where females had relations with male teachers and married them later, it's also happened with males who had relations with female teachers.

I'm also not a teacher by the way, in case you thought I was trying to defend behaviour of my own.
#204 - You don't understand what statutory rape means do you? Because…  [+] (6 replies) 15 hours ago on Female Teacher faces Justice 0
User avatar
#209 - platinumaltaria (15 hours ago) [-]
I never claimed they could?
I think fucking a [juvenile human] is a pretty severe crime, don't you?

Consent is a legal term, derived from the reality that humans below a certain age do not have a fully matured brain, and are as such incapable of correctly judging certain situations and bearing certain responsibilities. This means, among other things, they cannot own property, they cannot drive or consume various controlled substances, and are unable to vote or engage in sexual activity. This is designed to protect young people from themselves and from others who might wish to take advantage of them. The specific age varies by region depending on what the people of the region have deemed acceptable.

I disagree, american youths are coddled beyond recognition, to the point that we have adults in their 20s acting like children. It has much to do with the culture of the region.
The lowest age of consent in Europe is 14. If I were to go out and have what you deem "consensual sex" with a 14 year old it would be considered rape in my home nation. I cannot use the laws of other countries to defend myself.

In France the age of consent is 15, which means it is perfectly legal for you to engage in sex with whomsoever you choose. This is not the case in other regions, and you have no recourse to claim that your laws should apply to us any more than I have recourse to apply my nation's laws to you. If you were in my country then your partner would be considered illegal, since our laws prohibit sex with anyone below the age of 16. This is irrelevant to you since you do not live in my country and are not bound by our laws. I never claimed you were raped, I merely pointed out that the actions you performed were illegal in both my nation and the nation this event transpired in.
User avatar
#215 - defeats (15 hours ago) [-]
Consent is a legal term which means to give permission, it has nothing to do with age.
The American age of consent is almost certainly related to education, not mental development, its about stopping people becoming parents before they finish school.

You seem to think my entire argument is about changing the laws in America to allow adults (18+) to have sex with people below 18, this is not the case. My argument is about you treating this case like an aggravated rape case. You are not right if you think that statutory rape is on the same level as a violent rape.

I don't think having sex at 15 is a severe crime, I did it, with an adult, who, if I lived in America would have been prosecuted and treated as a rapist, this is my issue. I'd have fucked her at 15 and I'd have felt terrible if she got prosecuted for it. I'll add, I am 6 foot 3 and have been in combat sports (boxing, muay thai) I would have loved to see any female teacher attempt to rape me.

It's fair enough if you think that American 15 year olds can't think for themselves and that he was brainwashed into having sex with her, then sure, she's pure evil. (this is only half sarcasm)
User avatar
#218 - platinumaltaria (15 hours ago) [-]
It does, it has a cutoff below a certain age... that's to do with age is it not?
Well I'm not american, so I don't have much to do with their laws. If that's what they decided on then that's their business.

I'd say the difference is as much as that between murdering 100 people and murdering 101.

Ok well good for you, but unless I'm wrong (hey I could be) you're not the kid in this article, which means you don't know shit about his state of mind. The kid could be unhinged from this, he could be fine, the point is that it varies significantly, and it is better to err on the side of caution than to allow an abuser to walk free. In addition this is still not an issue of sex, but of the perpetrator's failure to act responsibly.

I don't know every 15 year old, but I do not believe that every 15 year old is capable of making the decision to have sex, and as such I consider it responsible to protect them from themselves.
User avatar
#224 - defeats (15 hours ago) [-]
'Age of consent' is a legal term, 'consent' is not. 'Age of consent' means the age at which one can legally consent to sex. A person under 18 can consent to things in America completely unrelated to sex, such as having their schoolbag checked by their teacher, they may also not consent. A person in a coma can't consent to sex, having sex with them is not statutory rape, is it just rape. Statutory rape always implies consent or coersion.

And statutory rape to assault rape is more like assault is to murder. I don't understand how you can think raping somebody using violence is the same. That same student and teacher could have left the country together, and had sex else where perfectly legally, but because this happened in America, hes "a child and severely traumatized by this horrific assault, he'll probably never get over it and commit suicide" please...

I do not believe that you actually think this way.

As far as I'm concerned, if I was given the chance to change these laws, I would keep statutory rape as a punishable crime, maintaining the age of consent of 16. Teachers convicted of statutory rape would be put on the sex offenders register and banned from teaching, but I would take every case on a case by case basis, coersion cases would be punished more severely. Cases where in your words; the student literally wave their dick in your face would be punshed less severely.
Why? You might ask. Because coercing students into having sex with you is blatently abuse of influence, which is the whole reason for these laws.
User avatar
#226 - platinumaltaria (14 hours ago) [-]
Pedantry should be a legal term.

I do not believe that you actually think this way.
No, it's pretty obvious that I've been toying with you for the past couple of comments. That does tend to happen when you can't make any inference on the speech of the other person. Your entire argument boils down to "muh not a child" even though that's silly.

I can only say this so many times; it's not about what the kid was doing, it's about the adult's failure to act responsibly. I can't consent whilst intoxicated, but if I drink and drive the argument "the car came on to me" probably won't suffice.

The reason for these laws are far more complex than you seem to think, you can't boil them down to a single point.
User avatar
#231 - defeats (14 hours ago) [-]
You aren't "toying with me", you are either attempting to troll me, I'm not bothered, you aren't taking anything out of my day and I am enjoying this discourse.

When I said I dont believe you think this way I wasn't inferring shock, I genuinly don't see anybody actually thinking that way about this topic.
The reason for these laws in America is to keep teens in education until they are finished with it, which is why originally statutory rape only applied to an older male having sex with an underage female, because the female could become pregnant which would force her out of education. This is also the reason for the 'double standard', because this is a consequence of an older man having sex with an underprepared female.

Like I previously said though, my issue isn't with the law, these laws have their purpose and i don't object to that, if somebody breaks the law they should be punished to the extent of the law. But I object to this case being treated as an assault, and the woman being treated as a violent rapist, I would feel the same way about a male teacher.
There have been cases where females had relations with male teachers and married them later, it's also happened with males who had relations with female teachers.

I'm also not a teacher by the way, in case you thought I was trying to defend behaviour of my own.
#194 - My argument was never against the crime though, yours is. …  [+] (8 replies) 16 hours ago on Female Teacher faces Justice 0
User avatar
#200 - platinumaltaria (16 hours ago) [-]
Well good for those girls, but last I checked they were not the ones being assaulted, no? And again, the crime has little to do with the victim, it's about the breach of trust that an adult committed.

I don't care if he's 15 or 45, you can still get raped >_>

That shit doesn't fly, you see it's still illegal to have sex with a minor, it doesn't matter whether or not they come on to you. They can literally wave their dick in your face, if you touch it you're in the wrong, not them. The only time this would not be the case is if they took you against your will, in which case it's them raping you.

Murder is an act that does not require any form of legal consent, and so it is perfectly possible for a child to murder someone. Sex requires consent that a minor cannot give.
I don't care whether they're "capable of having sex", they aren't capable of giving consent, so their desires are irrelevant.
User avatar
#204 - defeats (15 hours ago) [-]
You don't understand what statutory rape means do you? Because a 45 year old cannot be a victim of statutory rape.
Like I said, it is illegal to have sex with a minor, but you are acting like this is some violent crime.

And you say "they aren't capable of giving consent" is a false statement, they can, 15 year olds can say how they feel, they can say what they are confortable doing and what they are comfortable having to them. A 15 year old in America is no less capable of giving consent than a 15 year old in France. The first time I had sex I was 15 with an 18 year old girl, I gave consent, I was not raped. But here you are, telling me what a rape victim I am, kinda cute I suppose.

By the law they can not give consent, there is a profound difference.
User avatar
#209 - platinumaltaria (15 hours ago) [-]
I never claimed they could?
I think fucking a [juvenile human] is a pretty severe crime, don't you?

Consent is a legal term, derived from the reality that humans below a certain age do not have a fully matured brain, and are as such incapable of correctly judging certain situations and bearing certain responsibilities. This means, among other things, they cannot own property, they cannot drive or consume various controlled substances, and are unable to vote or engage in sexual activity. This is designed to protect young people from themselves and from others who might wish to take advantage of them. The specific age varies by region depending on what the people of the region have deemed acceptable.

I disagree, american youths are coddled beyond recognition, to the point that we have adults in their 20s acting like children. It has much to do with the culture of the region.
The lowest age of consent in Europe is 14. If I were to go out and have what you deem "consensual sex" with a 14 year old it would be considered rape in my home nation. I cannot use the laws of other countries to defend myself.

In France the age of consent is 15, which means it is perfectly legal for you to engage in sex with whomsoever you choose. This is not the case in other regions, and you have no recourse to claim that your laws should apply to us any more than I have recourse to apply my nation's laws to you. If you were in my country then your partner would be considered illegal, since our laws prohibit sex with anyone below the age of 16. This is irrelevant to you since you do not live in my country and are not bound by our laws. I never claimed you were raped, I merely pointed out that the actions you performed were illegal in both my nation and the nation this event transpired in.
User avatar
#215 - defeats (15 hours ago) [-]
Consent is a legal term which means to give permission, it has nothing to do with age.
The American age of consent is almost certainly related to education, not mental development, its about stopping people becoming parents before they finish school.

You seem to think my entire argument is about changing the laws in America to allow adults (18+) to have sex with people below 18, this is not the case. My argument is about you treating this case like an aggravated rape case. You are not right if you think that statutory rape is on the same level as a violent rape.

I don't think having sex at 15 is a severe crime, I did it, with an adult, who, if I lived in America would have been prosecuted and treated as a rapist, this is my issue. I'd have fucked her at 15 and I'd have felt terrible if she got prosecuted for it. I'll add, I am 6 foot 3 and have been in combat sports (boxing, muay thai) I would have loved to see any female teacher attempt to rape me.

It's fair enough if you think that American 15 year olds can't think for themselves and that he was brainwashed into having sex with her, then sure, she's pure evil. (this is only half sarcasm)
User avatar
#218 - platinumaltaria (15 hours ago) [-]
It does, it has a cutoff below a certain age... that's to do with age is it not?
Well I'm not american, so I don't have much to do with their laws. If that's what they decided on then that's their business.

I'd say the difference is as much as that between murdering 100 people and murdering 101.

Ok well good for you, but unless I'm wrong (hey I could be) you're not the kid in this article, which means you don't know shit about his state of mind. The kid could be unhinged from this, he could be fine, the point is that it varies significantly, and it is better to err on the side of caution than to allow an abuser to walk free. In addition this is still not an issue of sex, but of the perpetrator's failure to act responsibly.

I don't know every 15 year old, but I do not believe that every 15 year old is capable of making the decision to have sex, and as such I consider it responsible to protect them from themselves.
User avatar
#224 - defeats (15 hours ago) [-]
'Age of consent' is a legal term, 'consent' is not. 'Age of consent' means the age at which one can legally consent to sex. A person under 18 can consent to things in America completely unrelated to sex, such as having their schoolbag checked by their teacher, they may also not consent. A person in a coma can't consent to sex, having sex with them is not statutory rape, is it just rape. Statutory rape always implies consent or coersion.

And statutory rape to assault rape is more like assault is to murder. I don't understand how you can think raping somebody using violence is the same. That same student and teacher could have left the country together, and had sex else where perfectly legally, but because this happened in America, hes "a child and severely traumatized by this horrific assault, he'll probably never get over it and commit suicide" please...

I do not believe that you actually think this way.

As far as I'm concerned, if I was given the chance to change these laws, I would keep statutory rape as a punishable crime, maintaining the age of consent of 16. Teachers convicted of statutory rape would be put on the sex offenders register and banned from teaching, but I would take every case on a case by case basis, coersion cases would be punished more severely. Cases where in your words; the student literally wave their dick in your face would be punshed less severely.
Why? You might ask. Because coercing students into having sex with you is blatently abuse of influence, which is the whole reason for these laws.
User avatar
#226 - platinumaltaria (14 hours ago) [-]
Pedantry should be a legal term.

I do not believe that you actually think this way.
No, it's pretty obvious that I've been toying with you for the past couple of comments. That does tend to happen when you can't make any inference on the speech of the other person. Your entire argument boils down to "muh not a child" even though that's silly.

I can only say this so many times; it's not about what the kid was doing, it's about the adult's failure to act responsibly. I can't consent whilst intoxicated, but if I drink and drive the argument "the car came on to me" probably won't suffice.

The reason for these laws are far more complex than you seem to think, you can't boil them down to a single point.
User avatar
#231 - defeats (14 hours ago) [-]
You aren't "toying with me", you are either attempting to troll me, I'm not bothered, you aren't taking anything out of my day and I am enjoying this discourse.

When I said I dont believe you think this way I wasn't inferring shock, I genuinly don't see anybody actually thinking that way about this topic.
The reason for these laws in America is to keep teens in education until they are finished with it, which is why originally statutory rape only applied to an older male having sex with an underage female, because the female could become pregnant which would force her out of education. This is also the reason for the 'double standard', because this is a consequence of an older man having sex with an underprepared female.

Like I previously said though, my issue isn't with the law, these laws have their purpose and i don't object to that, if somebody breaks the law they should be punished to the extent of the law. But I object to this case being treated as an assault, and the woman being treated as a violent rapist, I would feel the same way about a male teacher.
There have been cases where females had relations with male teachers and married them later, it's also happened with males who had relations with female teachers.

I'm also not a teacher by the way, in case you thought I was trying to defend behaviour of my own.
#190 - I didn't say we should change the age of consent, I don't live…  [+] (10 replies) 16 hours ago on Female Teacher faces Justice -1
User avatar
#193 - platinumaltaria (16 hours ago) [-]
Is child your trigger word? You seem to take more offence to me calling the "young person" a child than you do to the fact that he was raped.

But seriously, contesting my choice of words is pathetic, substitute child for minor and suddenly your whole argument vanishes.

I'd also like to take the time to ask if you'd say this were the genders reversed. If a 15 year old girl had been raped would you stand up and say "well guys she's not really a child".
User avatar
#194 - defeats (16 hours ago) [-]
My argument was never against the crime though, yours is.
Like I said before, I am absolutely supportive of the courts decision to charge this women for this sex crime. But you seem to think this is something so much more than it is.

And don't get me started on your "double standard" bullshitm I have a pal who's a young teacher, qualified and teaching at 21, he's teaching 14-17 year olds currently and the girls are hunting him he's the sexiest piece of ass in the school. He's had to make complaints against them, and they know what they're doing.

At 15/16 most males have reached sexual maturity, I was fully grown at 15, I haven't grown since.

You don't know if the teacher who was prosecuted was the instigator behind the whole thing, maybe the boy seduced her.

15 year olds can be charged as adults for murder, but you expect me to think they aren't capable of having sex.
User avatar
#200 - platinumaltaria (16 hours ago) [-]
Well good for those girls, but last I checked they were not the ones being assaulted, no? And again, the crime has little to do with the victim, it's about the breach of trust that an adult committed.

I don't care if he's 15 or 45, you can still get raped >_>

That shit doesn't fly, you see it's still illegal to have sex with a minor, it doesn't matter whether or not they come on to you. They can literally wave their dick in your face, if you touch it you're in the wrong, not them. The only time this would not be the case is if they took you against your will, in which case it's them raping you.

Murder is an act that does not require any form of legal consent, and so it is perfectly possible for a child to murder someone. Sex requires consent that a minor cannot give.
I don't care whether they're "capable of having sex", they aren't capable of giving consent, so their desires are irrelevant.
User avatar
#204 - defeats (15 hours ago) [-]
You don't understand what statutory rape means do you? Because a 45 year old cannot be a victim of statutory rape.
Like I said, it is illegal to have sex with a minor, but you are acting like this is some violent crime.

And you say "they aren't capable of giving consent" is a false statement, they can, 15 year olds can say how they feel, they can say what they are confortable doing and what they are comfortable having to them. A 15 year old in America is no less capable of giving consent than a 15 year old in France. The first time I had sex I was 15 with an 18 year old girl, I gave consent, I was not raped. But here you are, telling me what a rape victim I am, kinda cute I suppose.

By the law they can not give consent, there is a profound difference.
User avatar
#209 - platinumaltaria (15 hours ago) [-]
I never claimed they could?
I think fucking a [juvenile human] is a pretty severe crime, don't you?

Consent is a legal term, derived from the reality that humans below a certain age do not have a fully matured brain, and are as such incapable of correctly judging certain situations and bearing certain responsibilities. This means, among other things, they cannot own property, they cannot drive or consume various controlled substances, and are unable to vote or engage in sexual activity. This is designed to protect young people from themselves and from others who might wish to take advantage of them. The specific age varies by region depending on what the people of the region have deemed acceptable.

I disagree, american youths are coddled beyond recognition, to the point that we have adults in their 20s acting like children. It has much to do with the culture of the region.
The lowest age of consent in Europe is 14. If I were to go out and have what you deem "consensual sex" with a 14 year old it would be considered rape in my home nation. I cannot use the laws of other countries to defend myself.

In France the age of consent is 15, which means it is perfectly legal for you to engage in sex with whomsoever you choose. This is not the case in other regions, and you have no recourse to claim that your laws should apply to us any more than I have recourse to apply my nation's laws to you. If you were in my country then your partner would be considered illegal, since our laws prohibit sex with anyone below the age of 16. This is irrelevant to you since you do not live in my country and are not bound by our laws. I never claimed you were raped, I merely pointed out that the actions you performed were illegal in both my nation and the nation this event transpired in.
User avatar
#215 - defeats (15 hours ago) [-]
Consent is a legal term which means to give permission, it has nothing to do with age.
The American age of consent is almost certainly related to education, not mental development, its about stopping people becoming parents before they finish school.

You seem to think my entire argument is about changing the laws in America to allow adults (18+) to have sex with people below 18, this is not the case. My argument is about you treating this case like an aggravated rape case. You are not right if you think that statutory rape is on the same level as a violent rape.

I don't think having sex at 15 is a severe crime, I did it, with an adult, who, if I lived in America would have been prosecuted and treated as a rapist, this is my issue. I'd have fucked her at 15 and I'd have felt terrible if she got prosecuted for it. I'll add, I am 6 foot 3 and have been in combat sports (boxing, muay thai) I would have loved to see any female teacher attempt to rape me.

It's fair enough if you think that American 15 year olds can't think for themselves and that he was brainwashed into having sex with her, then sure, she's pure evil. (this is only half sarcasm)
User avatar
#218 - platinumaltaria (15 hours ago) [-]
It does, it has a cutoff below a certain age... that's to do with age is it not?
Well I'm not american, so I don't have much to do with their laws. If that's what they decided on then that's their business.

I'd say the difference is as much as that between murdering 100 people and murdering 101.

Ok well good for you, but unless I'm wrong (hey I could be) you're not the kid in this article, which means you don't know shit about his state of mind. The kid could be unhinged from this, he could be fine, the point is that it varies significantly, and it is better to err on the side of caution than to allow an abuser to walk free. In addition this is still not an issue of sex, but of the perpetrator's failure to act responsibly.

I don't know every 15 year old, but I do not believe that every 15 year old is capable of making the decision to have sex, and as such I consider it responsible to protect them from themselves.
User avatar
#224 - defeats (15 hours ago) [-]
'Age of consent' is a legal term, 'consent' is not. 'Age of consent' means the age at which one can legally consent to sex. A person under 18 can consent to things in America completely unrelated to sex, such as having their schoolbag checked by their teacher, they may also not consent. A person in a coma can't consent to sex, having sex with them is not statutory rape, is it just rape. Statutory rape always implies consent or coersion.

And statutory rape to assault rape is more like assault is to murder. I don't understand how you can think raping somebody using violence is the same. That same student and teacher could have left the country together, and had sex else where perfectly legally, but because this happened in America, hes "a child and severely traumatized by this horrific assault, he'll probably never get over it and commit suicide" please...

I do not believe that you actually think this way.

As far as I'm concerned, if I was given the chance to change these laws, I would keep statutory rape as a punishable crime, maintaining the age of consent of 16. Teachers convicted of statutory rape would be put on the sex offenders register and banned from teaching, but I would take every case on a case by case basis, coersion cases would be punished more severely. Cases where in your words; the student literally wave their dick in your face would be punshed less severely.
Why? You might ask. Because coercing students into having sex with you is blatently abuse of influence, which is the whole reason for these laws.
User avatar
#226 - platinumaltaria (14 hours ago) [-]
Pedantry should be a legal term.

I do not believe that you actually think this way.
No, it's pretty obvious that I've been toying with you for the past couple of comments. That does tend to happen when you can't make any inference on the speech of the other person. Your entire argument boils down to "muh not a child" even though that's silly.

I can only say this so many times; it's not about what the kid was doing, it's about the adult's failure to act responsibly. I can't consent whilst intoxicated, but if I drink and drive the argument "the car came on to me" probably won't suffice.

The reason for these laws are far more complex than you seem to think, you can't boil them down to a single point.
User avatar
#231 - defeats (14 hours ago) [-]
You aren't "toying with me", you are either attempting to troll me, I'm not bothered, you aren't taking anything out of my day and I am enjoying this discourse.

When I said I dont believe you think this way I wasn't inferring shock, I genuinly don't see anybody actually thinking that way about this topic.
The reason for these laws in America is to keep teens in education until they are finished with it, which is why originally statutory rape only applied to an older male having sex with an underage female, because the female could become pregnant which would force her out of education. This is also the reason for the 'double standard', because this is a consequence of an older man having sex with an underprepared female.

Like I previously said though, my issue isn't with the law, these laws have their purpose and i don't object to that, if somebody breaks the law they should be punished to the extent of the law. But I object to this case being treated as an assault, and the woman being treated as a violent rapist, I would feel the same way about a male teacher.
There have been cases where females had relations with male teachers and married them later, it's also happened with males who had relations with female teachers.

I'm also not a teacher by the way, in case you thought I was trying to defend behaviour of my own.
#184 - You are thick as mince... You've been told over and over, huma…  [+] (12 replies) 16 hours ago on Female Teacher faces Justice -1
User avatar
#186 - platinumaltaria (16 hours ago) [-]
Ok, and when is puberty? It varies, so in order to deobfuscate the process of justice we have decided on a age cutoff that applies to all people. This is the fairest way to deal with the problem. As I said to you before, if you wish to alter this age you can petition it. Defending a convicted CHILD molester is probably not the way to go.
User avatar
#190 - defeats (16 hours ago) [-]
I didn't say we should change the age of consent, I don't live in America, where the girl I lost my virginity to would be put in prison for 6 years.
She's also not a "convicted child molester", she¡s a convicted sex offender, he is not a child.

Are you sure you aren't trying to troll¿
User avatar
#193 - platinumaltaria (16 hours ago) [-]
Is child your trigger word? You seem to take more offence to me calling the "young person" a child than you do to the fact that he was raped.

But seriously, contesting my choice of words is pathetic, substitute child for minor and suddenly your whole argument vanishes.

I'd also like to take the time to ask if you'd say this were the genders reversed. If a 15 year old girl had been raped would you stand up and say "well guys she's not really a child".
User avatar
#194 - defeats (16 hours ago) [-]
My argument was never against the crime though, yours is.
Like I said before, I am absolutely supportive of the courts decision to charge this women for this sex crime. But you seem to think this is something so much more than it is.

And don't get me started on your "double standard" bullshitm I have a pal who's a young teacher, qualified and teaching at 21, he's teaching 14-17 year olds currently and the girls are hunting him he's the sexiest piece of ass in the school. He's had to make complaints against them, and they know what they're doing.

At 15/16 most males have reached sexual maturity, I was fully grown at 15, I haven't grown since.

You don't know if the teacher who was prosecuted was the instigator behind the whole thing, maybe the boy seduced her.

15 year olds can be charged as adults for murder, but you expect me to think they aren't capable of having sex.
User avatar
#200 - platinumaltaria (16 hours ago) [-]
Well good for those girls, but last I checked they were not the ones being assaulted, no? And again, the crime has little to do with the victim, it's about the breach of trust that an adult committed.

I don't care if he's 15 or 45, you can still get raped >_>

That shit doesn't fly, you see it's still illegal to have sex with a minor, it doesn't matter whether or not they come on to you. They can literally wave their dick in your face, if you touch it you're in the wrong, not them. The only time this would not be the case is if they took you against your will, in which case it's them raping you.

Murder is an act that does not require any form of legal consent, and so it is perfectly possible for a child to murder someone. Sex requires consent that a minor cannot give.
I don't care whether they're "capable of having sex", they aren't capable of giving consent, so their desires are irrelevant.
User avatar
#204 - defeats (15 hours ago) [-]
You don't understand what statutory rape means do you? Because a 45 year old cannot be a victim of statutory rape.
Like I said, it is illegal to have sex with a minor, but you are acting like this is some violent crime.

And you say "they aren't capable of giving consent" is a false statement, they can, 15 year olds can say how they feel, they can say what they are confortable doing and what they are comfortable having to them. A 15 year old in America is no less capable of giving consent than a 15 year old in France. The first time I had sex I was 15 with an 18 year old girl, I gave consent, I was not raped. But here you are, telling me what a rape victim I am, kinda cute I suppose.

By the law they can not give consent, there is a profound difference.
User avatar
#209 - platinumaltaria (15 hours ago) [-]
I never claimed they could?
I think fucking a [juvenile human] is a pretty severe crime, don't you?

Consent is a legal term, derived from the reality that humans below a certain age do not have a fully matured brain, and are as such incapable of correctly judging certain situations and bearing certain responsibilities. This means, among other things, they cannot own property, they cannot drive or consume various controlled substances, and are unable to vote or engage in sexual activity. This is designed to protect young people from themselves and from others who might wish to take advantage of them. The specific age varies by region depending on what the people of the region have deemed acceptable.

I disagree, american youths are coddled beyond recognition, to the point that we have adults in their 20s acting like children. It has much to do with the culture of the region.
The lowest age of consent in Europe is 14. If I were to go out and have what you deem "consensual sex" with a 14 year old it would be considered rape in my home nation. I cannot use the laws of other countries to defend myself.

In France the age of consent is 15, which means it is perfectly legal for you to engage in sex with whomsoever you choose. This is not the case in other regions, and you have no recourse to claim that your laws should apply to us any more than I have recourse to apply my nation's laws to you. If you were in my country then your partner would be considered illegal, since our laws prohibit sex with anyone below the age of 16. This is irrelevant to you since you do not live in my country and are not bound by our laws. I never claimed you were raped, I merely pointed out that the actions you performed were illegal in both my nation and the nation this event transpired in.
User avatar
#215 - defeats (15 hours ago) [-]
Consent is a legal term which means to give permission, it has nothing to do with age.
The American age of consent is almost certainly related to education, not mental development, its about stopping people becoming parents before they finish school.

You seem to think my entire argument is about changing the laws in America to allow adults (18+) to have sex with people below 18, this is not the case. My argument is about you treating this case like an aggravated rape case. You are not right if you think that statutory rape is on the same level as a violent rape.

I don't think having sex at 15 is a severe crime, I did it, with an adult, who, if I lived in America would have been prosecuted and treated as a rapist, this is my issue. I'd have fucked her at 15 and I'd have felt terrible if she got prosecuted for it. I'll add, I am 6 foot 3 and have been in combat sports (boxing, muay thai) I would have loved to see any female teacher attempt to rape me.

It's fair enough if you think that American 15 year olds can't think for themselves and that he was brainwashed into having sex with her, then sure, she's pure evil. (this is only half sarcasm)
User avatar
#218 - platinumaltaria (15 hours ago) [-]
It does, it has a cutoff below a certain age... that's to do with age is it not?
Well I'm not american, so I don't have much to do with their laws. If that's what they decided on then that's their business.

I'd say the difference is as much as that between murdering 100 people and murdering 101.

Ok well good for you, but unless I'm wrong (hey I could be) you're not the kid in this article, which means you don't know shit about his state of mind. The kid could be unhinged from this, he could be fine, the point is that it varies significantly, and it is better to err on the side of caution than to allow an abuser to walk free. In addition this is still not an issue of sex, but of the perpetrator's failure to act responsibly.

I don't know every 15 year old, but I do not believe that every 15 year old is capable of making the decision to have sex, and as such I consider it responsible to protect them from themselves.
User avatar
#224 - defeats (15 hours ago) [-]
'Age of consent' is a legal term, 'consent' is not. 'Age of consent' means the age at which one can legally consent to sex. A person under 18 can consent to things in America completely unrelated to sex, such as having their schoolbag checked by their teacher, they may also not consent. A person in a coma can't consent to sex, having sex with them is not statutory rape, is it just rape. Statutory rape always implies consent or coersion.

And statutory rape to assault rape is more like assault is to murder. I don't understand how you can think raping somebody using violence is the same. That same student and teacher could have left the country together, and had sex else where perfectly legally, but because this happened in America, hes "a child and severely traumatized by this horrific assault, he'll probably never get over it and commit suicide" please...

I do not believe that you actually think this way.

As far as I'm concerned, if I was given the chance to change these laws, I would keep statutory rape as a punishable crime, maintaining the age of consent of 16. Teachers convicted of statutory rape would be put on the sex offenders register and banned from teaching, but I would take every case on a case by case basis, coersion cases would be punished more severely. Cases where in your words; the student literally wave their dick in your face would be punshed less severely.
Why? You might ask. Because coercing students into having sex with you is blatently abuse of influence, which is the whole reason for these laws.
User avatar
#226 - platinumaltaria (14 hours ago) [-]
Pedantry should be a legal term.

I do not believe that you actually think this way.
No, it's pretty obvious that I've been toying with you for the past couple of comments. That does tend to happen when you can't make any inference on the speech of the other person. Your entire argument boils down to "muh not a child" even though that's silly.

I can only say this so many times; it's not about what the kid was doing, it's about the adult's failure to act responsibly. I can't consent whilst intoxicated, but if I drink and drive the argument "the car came on to me" probably won't suffice.

The reason for these laws are far more complex than you seem to think, you can't boil them down to a single point.
User avatar
#231 - defeats (14 hours ago) [-]
You aren't "toying with me", you are either attempting to troll me, I'm not bothered, you aren't taking anything out of my day and I am enjoying this discourse.

When I said I dont believe you think this way I wasn't inferring shock, I genuinly don't see anybody actually thinking that way about this topic.
The reason for these laws in America is to keep teens in education until they are finished with it, which is why originally statutory rape only applied to an older male having sex with an underage female, because the female could become pregnant which would force her out of education. This is also the reason for the 'double standard', because this is a consequence of an older man having sex with an underprepared female.

Like I previously said though, my issue isn't with the law, these laws have their purpose and i don't object to that, if somebody breaks the law they should be punished to the extent of the law. But I object to this case being treated as an assault, and the woman being treated as a violent rapist, I would feel the same way about a male teacher.
There have been cases where females had relations with male teachers and married them later, it's also happened with males who had relations with female teachers.

I'm also not a teacher by the way, in case you thought I was trying to defend behaviour of my own.