Woman avoids jail after 'very drunk' sex with boy, 14 (2 Viewers)

[loquasagacious]

niiiiiiice

but srsly why is this so bad?
(generally speaking) if the reasons for an act being criminal don't apply, why should the act still be considered criminal?

If a 41 year old man got a 14 year old girl (or boy) drunk and had sex with them would you have a problem with it?

 

[lolokay]

If a 41 year old man got a 14 year old girl (or boy) drunk and had sex with them would you have a problem with it?

well I guess it depends on the exact situation, but intuition tells me that this situation would be more likely to do more harm, and the adult in question more likely to be criminal/dangerous, compared to what is described in the article

I don't get: why were the guys with her in the first place? if she was "extremely drunk" then wouldn't she not be able to 'consent' either? and, given that the 17 year old is above the age of consent, could he also be charged for allowing the sex with a minor to occur, or something like that?

would the act described in the article do any sort of permanent damage to the 14yo? It doesn't make it sounds like it was non-consensual (not counting the whole "people under 16 aren't able to consent" thing)
and: would sending the woman to jail do any good? I can't see how it would.

 

[loquasagacious]

well I guess it depends on the exact situation, but intuition tells me that this situation would be more likely to do more harm, and the adult in question more likely to be criminal/dangerous, compared to what is described in the article

I don't get: why were the guys with her in the first place? if she was "extremely drunk" then wouldn't she not be able to 'consent' either? and, given that the 17 year old is above the age of consent, could he also be charged for allowing the sex with a minor to occur, or something like that?

would the act described in the article do any sort of permanent damage to the 14yo? It doesn't make it sounds like it was non-consensual (not counting the whole "people under 16 aren't able to consent" thing)
and: would sending the woman to jail do any good? I can't see how it would.

I didn't tell you anything about the individual. Only that they were the same age and a man.

So you are explicit in your double-standard. Women raping boys is OK and no lasting harm is done but men raping girls (or boys) is NOT-OK and does lasting damage?

How can you possibly justify that position?

 

[louy]

She is old enough to be their mum

 

[lolokay]

I didn't tell you anything about the individual. Only that they were the same age and a man.

yes, I said it would depend on the exact situation. It just seems more likely..

So you are explicit in your double-standard. Women raping boys is OK and no lasting harm is done but men raping girls (or boys) is NOT-OK and does lasting damage?

How can you possibly justify that position?

I never made these claims. It was just questions and speculation. I did imply that the older man/girl situation is probably going to be more harmful, but so what? You still treat each case individually - looking at the factors relevant to the particular instance.

I don't see why it is a double standard if the scenario, effects, etc. etc. have significantly changed - and if that still counts as a double standard, then why is a double standard bad (and what exactly does that mean)?

 

[hectic_lowie]

how does it seem more likely

how can you say that a 14yr old boy having sex with a 41yr old lady is going to cause less damage than if i have sex with a 41yr old man

that is why the justice system doesnt (in theory) discriminate based on gender

 

[SylviaB]

niiiiiiice

but srsly why is this so bad?

Because if the genders were reversed, people would be calling for his head.

 

[loquasagacious]

yes, I said it would depend on the exact situation. It just seems more likely..

I never made these claims. It was just questions and speculation. I did imply that the older man/girl situation is probably going to be more harmful, but so what? You still treat each case individually - looking at the factors relevant to the particular instance.

I don't see why it is a double standard if the scenario, effects, etc. etc. have significantly changed - and if that still counts as a double standard, then why is a double standard bad (and what exactly does that mean)?

You are speculating that it is more likely that a man does harm than a woman. That is gendered thinking and is a double standard.

Of course the justice system should consider things on a case by case basis (that is the entire point of a common law system), however the justice system can't do that if you begin by assuming men to be more harmful than women. Justice is blind. Blind to gender, blind to race, blind to religion.

Would you argue that it is likely for a black man to do more harm than a white one? What about a christian being more harmful than an atheist?? Because these are exactly the same as what you're doing.

If a 41 year old man had an "appalling history of neglect and abuse, psychological problems and her alcohol dependence after being weaned off pain medication, and otherwise good character made for exceptional circumstances." had a "drinking binge" with a "a 17-year-old boy and then his 14-year-old friend" got "very drunk and had little memory of what happened" and "had sex with a 14-year-old boy". Then you and the media would be baying for blood.

 

[hectic_lowie]

she plied a 14yr old boy with alcohol

she is female dennis ferguson

 

[will-anal]

this kid is a loser

how many guys at 14 would smash a hot cougar, even if she did get you paralytic first

 

[JonathanM]

+1

+1

 

[lolokay]

You are speculating that it is more likely that a man does harm than a woman. That is gendered thinking and is a double standard.

if it were shown to be statistically true, is it still a double standard?
I don't get why it matters anyway since you still take it case by case.

I just don't like things being criminal because they are a particular kind of act, or jail sentences in general. I would prefer a look at the effects of the act, how to fix what was done etc. but I realise this is not realistic.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

it's not realistic so let's apply crude, ill labels upon men because they JUST SEEM to be more evil

shut the fuck up

 

[loquasagacious]

if it were shown to be statistically true, is it still a double standard?
I don't get why it matters anyway since you still take it case by case.

I just don't like things being criminal because they are a particular kind of act, or jail sentences in general. I would prefer a look at the effects of the act, how to fix what was done etc. but I realise this is not realistic.

You fail to actually address the points I made. Re-iterating your position does not an argument make.

 

[lolokay]

You fail to actually address the points I made. Re-iterating your position does not an argument make.

and I fail to see how your points relate to or disagree with my points. All I could think to do was re-iterate my position, assuming you'd misunderstood it.

 

[loquasagacious]

and I fail to see how your points relate to or disagree with my points. All I could think to do was re-iterate my position, assuming you'd misunderstood it.

Re-read until it makes sense. It's not that hard.

 

[John McCain]

You are speculating that it is more likely that a man does harm than a woman. That is gendered thinking and is a double standard.

There is a difference between adolescent men and women, and there may be good reason to treat them differently. Although there'll be individual difference, as a population, one group would be more vulnerable to harm from sexual assault than the other.

Intuitively we're inclined to feel young boys are more robust about this thing, but that may be unfounded.

 

[Bushra1209]

Why the hell is this woman hanging with these boys in the first place? Or vise versa?
Were they having a wild night at the Blue Light Disco or something haha

 

[fixing]

I congratulate this fine young man.