Female babysitters having sex with teenaged males

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

StarCecil:
I'll be honest. I'd have loved for an older woman to have been willing to have sex with me at 14.

But I still recognize how disgusting an abuse that is. She is an adult, he a minor - that alone is reason enough for her not to have abused the inherent imbalance of power in their relationship. That she was supposed to be babysitting him is even worse.

My main problem with this situation is the babysitter aspect. Until a couple years ago the age of consent in my country was 14. Based on my own experiences as 15 year old, I'm not really sure it should have gone up to 16. In any event, the age of consent is a debatable thing.

But abuse of power is just that. She was in a position of authority over him, and got him drunk. That's a problem in my books, and its really little different than a teacher or even a relative doing the same thing.

Kendarik:

Umbrella != penis

A penis can be used without your agreement, the umbrella thing just doesn't correlate in any way making the whole question as asked silly.

I didn't come up with the umbrella idea. And I was talking about penetration.

Instead of using your sexist views from the 1800s, I would find out what actually happened and assess the situation accordingly.

At least my sexist view are based in logic and facts. And guess what? That's why they aren't sexist. And please, do the test.

Ah, Danyal, how conveniently have you ignored the first part of Kendarik's post...

I'll just say that being told you're saying stupid things when you say stupid things then retorting with "You called me stupid! That proves I'm right" proves a lot about you, yes.

I'd tell you exactly what I think about you but I won't. Not for the fear of mod wrath, but for the fear that you'd actually like that.

Vegosiux:
Ah, Danyal, how conveniently have you ignored the first part of Kendarik's post...

I'll just say that being told you're saying stupid things when you say stupid things then retorting with "You called me stupid! That proves I'm right" proves a lot about you, yes.

I'd tell you exactly what I think about you but I won't. Not for the fear of mod wrath, but for the fear that you'd actually like that.

Vegosiux:
What, another thread with a pretentious title crying "please notice me!" and all?

*sigh* Yes, I am sure that there are some people who want the EU to fail. And in the spirit of the credit rating folks, they of course attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophecy to try and nudge the events that way.

Vegosiux, ad hominems are forbidden here.

Flaming
Calling people names (or groups who may visit The Escapist), this includes calling others a troll
Trolling
Posting inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

Please stop it now before you are suspended.

Danyal:

Kendarik:

Umbrella != penis

A penis can be used without your agreement, the umbrella thing just doesn't correlate in any way making the whole question as asked silly.

I didn't come up with the umbrella idea. And I was talking about penetration.

Instead of using your sexist views from the 1800s, I would find out what actually happened and assess the situation accordingly.

At least my sexist view are based in logic and facts. And guess what? That's why they aren't sexist. And please, do the test.

I did "the test". Now go back and read what I said.

You used the umbrella idea in a question to you, so I respond to you.

And yes I know you think penetration is all there is to sex and someone the one doing that is the one in control, that was why I suggested your comments were ignorant of reality. What "facts" do you think your view are based on?

Kendarik:

I did "the test". Now go back and read what I said.

Haven't seen your answers.

And yes I know you think penetration is all there is to sex and someone the one doing that is the one in control, that was why I suggested your comments were ignorant of reality. What "facts" do you think your view are based on?

And where did I state that penetration is all there is to sex?

I said...

Please don't whine about my discriminating laws people. I am not advocating a discriminating law, I'm advocating a law that looks at the situation and decides how harmful the act was instead of immediately throwing a 20 year old girl into prison for years because she did something quite innocent. And when you're looking at a certain situation, the penetrator can be ought more 'responsible' or something than the penetrated.

Danyal:

Kendarik:

I did "the test". Now go back and read what I said.

Haven't seen your answers.

You have. You even quoted it above.

And yes I know you think penetration is all there is to sex and someone the one doing that is the one in control, that was why I suggested your comments were ignorant of reality. What "facts" do you think your view are based on?

And where did I state that penetration is all there is to sex?

I said...

Please don't whine about my discriminating laws people. I am not advocating a discriminating law, I'm advocating a law that looks at the situation and decides how harmful the act was instead of immediately throwing a 20 year old girl into prison for years because she did something quite innocent. And when you're looking at a certain situation, the penetrator can be ought more 'responsible' or something than the penetrated.

Exactly. As if somehow the "penetrator" was doing something to the "penetrated" that makes them the one who did something "harmful".

By your definition if a man is raped by a woman he should be the one punished unless she has a strap-on. It's nonsense.

It also ignores the many forms of rape that involve no penetration at all, or that require the victim to be the penetrator (for example forcing someone to go down on a woman)

Kendarik:

Exactly. As if somehow the "penetrator" was doing something to the "penetrated" that makes them the one who did something "harmful".

By your definition if a man is raped by a woman he should be the one punished unless she has a strap-on. It's nonsense.

It also ignores the many forms of rape that involve no penetration at all, or that require the victim to be the penetrator (for example forcing someone to go down on a woman)

No, my judges will look at every specific case and not generalize simple rules for all cases. Not all non-penetrational sex is legal, but being penetrated isn't considered just as aggressive as penetrating, in general, unless there are good reason to assume something else.

Danyal:

Kendarik:

Exactly. As if somehow the "penetrator" was doing something to the "penetrated" that makes them the one who did something "harmful".

By your definition if a man is raped by a woman he should be the one punished unless she has a strap-on. It's nonsense.

It also ignores the many forms of rape that involve no penetration at all, or that require the victim to be the penetrator (for example forcing someone to go down on a woman)

No, my judges will look at every specific case and not generalize simple rules for all cases. Not all non-penetrational sex is legal, but being penetrated isn't considered just as aggressive as penetrating, in general, unless there are good reason to assume something else.

Right, so that takes us back to your claim that 'being penetrated' is worse somehow and that it assumes aggression where the reverse is not true. This once again shows an ignorant (and largely sexist) understanding of sexuality.

Seanchaidh:
snip

Of course, it is not the appearance of impropriety here that is the problem. It is actual impropriety. This isn't two consenting individuals who consented at the wrong time - it's a child being seduced by an adult.

It doesn't matter if they know each other as a person - her being an adult is an immediate imbalance of power. She is also his babysitter, meaning she was explicitly in a position of authority or responsibility over him. If his mother had said "She's watching you while I'm gone" or "She's in charge" or "You listen to her" then she is in a position of authority and she abused that position. That alcohol was involved is only worse.

If she wanted to wait for 4 years I would have no problem with it. There would be no problem; that would be perfectly legal. But she's 20, in charge of him, and he is a 14 year old boy.

That's not a sexual relationship - that's abuse of power.

StarCecil:

Seanchaidh:
snip

Of course, it is not the appearance of impropriety here that is the problem. It is actual impropriety. This isn't two consenting individuals who consented at the wrong time - it's a child being seduced by an adult.

It doesn't matter if they know each other as a person - her being an adult is an immediate imbalance of power. She is also his babysitter, meaning she was explicitly in a position of authority or responsibility over him. If his mother had said "She's watching you while I'm gone" or "She's in charge" or "You listen to her" then she is in a position of authority and she abused that position. That alcohol was involved is only worse.

If she wanted to wait for 4 years I would have no problem with it. There would be no problem; that would be perfectly legal. But she's 20, in charge of him, and he is a 14 year old boy.

That's not a sexual relationship - that's abuse of power.

But there are degrees of power, degrees of 'adultness' and degrees of 'childness'.

19 year old girl visits a 17 year old boy. They disguise their relationship by calling it 'teaching him math'. They actually have sex.

1. She was a in control, she was in power, she had a position of authority
2. She's an adult
3. He's a child

51 year priest is charged with watching a few young boys. He has sex with a 9 year old boy.

1. He was in control, he was in power, he had a position of authority
2. He's an adult
3. The boy is a child

Is it hard to decide what 'crime' is worse?

Danyal:

StarCecil:

Seanchaidh:
snip

Of course, it is not the appearance of impropriety here that is the problem. It is actual impropriety. This isn't two consenting individuals who consented at the wrong time - it's a child being seduced by an adult.

It doesn't matter if they know each other as a person - her being an adult is an immediate imbalance of power. She is also his babysitter, meaning she was explicitly in a position of authority or responsibility over him. If his mother had said "She's watching you while I'm gone" or "She's in charge" or "You listen to her" then she is in a position of authority and she abused that position. That alcohol was involved is only worse.

If she wanted to wait for 4 years I would have no problem with it. There would be no problem; that would be perfectly legal. But she's 20, in charge of him, and he is a 14 year old boy.

That's not a sexual relationship - that's abuse of power.

But there are degrees of power, degrees of 'adultness' and degrees of 'childness'.

19 year old girl visits a 17 year old boy. They disguise their relationship by calling it 'teaching him math'. They actually have sex.

1. She was a in control, she was in power, she had a position of authority
2. She's an adult
3. He's a child

51 year priest is charged with watching a few young boys. He has sex with a 9 year old boy.

1. He was in control, he was in power, he had a position of authority
2. He's an adult
3. The boy is a child

Is it hard to decide what 'crime' is worse?

Neither of those is comparable to what occurred here - a tutor is not an authority figure, it is an adviser at best (and most states have laws protecting relationships where the is a 1-2 year difference in the ages of those involved).

The babysitter is a figure of authority over the child she is in charge of - it is why we have the phrase "in charge". She abused that relationship to have sex with a child.

StarCecil:

Neither of those is comparable to what occurred here - a tutor is not an authority figure, it is an adviser at best (and most states have laws protecting relationships where the is a 1-2 year difference in the ages of those involved).

The babysitter is a figure of authority over the child she is in charge of - it is why we have the phrase "in charge". She abused that relationship to have sex with a child.

I don't know how it is in your culture - but in the Netherlands neither teaching your peers or 'babysitting' them is a very formal task.

Also; mature 14 year old = 16. Not so mature 20 year old = 18.

Danyal:

StarCecil:

Neither of those is comparable to what occurred here - a tutor is not an authority figure, it is an adviser at best (and most states have laws protecting relationships where the is a 1-2 year difference in the ages of those involved).

The babysitter is a figure of authority over the child she is in charge of - it is why we have the phrase "in charge". She abused that relationship to have sex with a child.

I don't know how it is in your culture - but in the Netherlands neither teaching your peers or 'babysitting' them is a very formal task.

Also; mature 14 year old = 16. Not so mature 20 year old = 18.

It need not be formal to be misconduct. She was in charge, she was the adult, she knew better.

A mature 14 year-old = 14.

An immature 20 year-old = 20.

Danyal:

StarCecil:

Seanchaidh:
snip

Of course, it is not the appearance of impropriety here that is the problem. It is actual impropriety. This isn't two consenting individuals who consented at the wrong time - it's a child being seduced by an adult.

It doesn't matter if they know each other as a person - her being an adult is an immediate imbalance of power. She is also his babysitter, meaning she was explicitly in a position of authority or responsibility over him. If his mother had said "She's watching you while I'm gone" or "She's in charge" or "You listen to her" then she is in a position of authority and she abused that position. That alcohol was involved is only worse.

If she wanted to wait for 4 years I would have no problem with it. There would be no problem; that would be perfectly legal. But she's 20, in charge of him, and he is a 14 year old boy.

That's not a sexual relationship - that's abuse of power.

But there are degrees of power, degrees of 'adultness' and degrees of 'childness'.

19 year old girl visits a 17 year old boy. They disguise their relationship by calling it 'teaching him math'. They actually have sex.

1. She was a in control, she was in power, she had a position of authority
2. She's an adult
3. He's a child

51 year priest is charged with watching a few young boys. He has sex with a 9 year old boy.

1. He was in control, he was in power, he had a position of authority
2. He's an adult
3. The boy is a child

Is it hard to decide what 'crime' is worse?

Those aren't the same situation. According to your setup in the first case, she wasn't really in any position of authority over him.

If however she was his 19 year old teacher in reality then the two situations would be the same and they would be equally bad.

StarCecil:

Seanchaidh:
snip

Of course, it is not the appearance of impropriety here that is the problem. It is actual impropriety. This isn't two consenting individuals who consented at the wrong time - it's a child being seduced by an adult.

How do you know it wasn't an adult being "seduced" by a "child"?

It is two consenting individuals. There's no denying that. Do you really think this teenager thought that his parents wanted him to have sex, or that his sitter was going to somehow punish him for not doing so? We're at the point where we're just making shit up about this to portray it in a bad light.

Seanchaidh:

StarCecil:

Seanchaidh:
snip

Of course, it is not the appearance of impropriety here that is the problem. It is actual impropriety. This isn't two consenting individuals who consented at the wrong time - it's a child being seduced by an adult.

How do you know it wasn't an adult being "seduced" by a "child"?

It is two consenting individuals. There's no denying that. Do you really think this teenager thought that his parents wanted him to have sex, or that his sitter was going to somehow punish him for not doing so? We're at the point where we're just making shit up about this to portray it in a bad light.

im assuming you were a 14 year old boy once (unless your female). you would understand that most fourteen year olds are easier to trick into having sex or at least easier to get them to do it then say a 20 year old. to get a fourteen year old boy all a girl has to say is "you wanna fuck?" most fourteen year old boys will say yes. a 14 year old girl all you gotta do is say i love you. so a 20 year old armed witht his knowledge can easily seduce a 14 year old. why do you think some of the older people go after such young girls and boys. its mainly cause they cant get the people their age and younger girls have this view of wanting a muture man so they will bang a 20+ year old guy cause apparently they are more muture (likely not if they cant get women their age). a 14 year old boy will likely have fantasies of being with older women or let their hormones control them and will fuck an older woman who plops it in their lap.

Seanchaidh:

StarCecil:

Seanchaidh:
snip

Of course, it is not the appearance of impropriety here that is the problem. It is actual impropriety. This isn't two consenting individuals who consented at the wrong time - it's a child being seduced by an adult.

How do you know it wasn't an adult being "seduced" by a "child"?

It is two consenting individuals. There's no denying that. Do you really think this teenager thought that his parents wanted him to have sex, or that his sitter was going to somehow punish him for not doing so? We're at the point where we're just making shit up about this to portray it in a bad light.

The same logic could be applied to a 50 year old teacher or a priest. You still in favor?

Seanchaidh:

StarCecil:

Seanchaidh:
snip

Of course, it is not the appearance of impropriety here that is the problem. It is actual impropriety. This isn't two consenting individuals who consented at the wrong time - it's a child being seduced by an adult.

How do you know it wasn't an adult being "seduced" by a "child"?

If that were the case then the babysitter is still at fault for not behaving like an adult in charge of a child is supposed to behave. There is a reason we don't let children make decisions for themselves.

It is two consenting individuals. There's no denying that. Do you really think this teenager thought that his parents wanted him to have sex, or that his sitter was going to somehow punish him for not doing so? We're at the point where we're just making shit up about this to portray it in a bad light.

It is not two consenting individuals - it is a child taken advantage of by an adult. She should know better; she is the adult in the situation.

Look, I'm actually older than my LCpl, but if she tries to take me out to dinner that's still a gross misconduct on her part for getting involved with someone she nominally has command over. It's the same situation here only made worse for it being between a minor and an adult.

How many men on Dateline have used every excuse you just made for the 20 year-old?

Seanchaidh:

StarCecil:

Seanchaidh:
snip

Of course, it is not the appearance of impropriety here that is the problem. It is actual impropriety. This isn't two consenting individuals who consented at the wrong time - it's a child being seduced by an adult.

How do you know it wasn't an adult being "seduced" by a "child"?

It is two consenting individuals. There's no denying that. Do you really think this teenager thought that his parents wanted him to have sex, or that his sitter was going to somehow punish him for not doing so? We're at the point where we're just making shit up about this to portray it in a bad light.

We don't actually know if it was two consenting adults or not. Unless you have a secondary source with more information, all we know is that a 20 year old female babysitter offered the 14 year old biy she was babysitting alcohol before having sex with him. We also know that sometime after that, she was reported to the police for it and is now facing rape charges.

He might have been all for it or he might have been forced. At this point we actually don't know. That the babysitter got reported indicates that he might not have enjoyed the experience though.

keiskay:

Seanchaidh:

StarCecil:

Of course, it is not the appearance of impropriety here that is the problem. It is actual impropriety. This isn't two consenting individuals who consented at the wrong time - it's a child being seduced by an adult.

How do you know it wasn't an adult being "seduced" by a "child"?

It is two consenting individuals. There's no denying that. Do you really think this teenager thought that his parents wanted him to have sex, or that his sitter was going to somehow punish him for not doing so? We're at the point where we're just making shit up about this to portray it in a bad light.

im assuming you were a 14 year old boy once (unless your female). you would understand that most fourteen year olds are easier to trick into having sex or at least easier to get them to do it then say a 20 year old. to get a fourteen year old boy all a girl has to say is "you wanna fuck?" most fourteen year old boys will say yes. a 14 year old girl all you gotta do is say i love you. so a 20 year old armed witht his knowledge can easily seduce a 14 year old. why do you think some of the older people go after such young girls and boys. its mainly cause they cant get the people their age and younger girls have this view of wanting a muture man so they will bang a 20+ year old guy cause apparently they are more muture (likely not if they cant get women their age). a 14 year old boy will likely have fantasies of being with older women or let their hormones control them and will fuck an older woman who plops it in their lap.

Well, I mean, if they're desperate, then obviously... wait, why do I care whether they can "get any" from people their own age again?

Gethsemani:
We don't actually know if it was two consenting adults or not. Unless you have a secondary source with more information, all we know is that a 20 year old female babysitter offered the 14 year old biy she was babysitting alcohol before having sex with him. We also know that sometime after that, she was reported to the police for it and is now facing rape charges.

He might have been all for it or he might have been forced. At this point we actually don't know. That the babysitter got reported indicates that he might not have enjoyed the experience though.

The point is that it's illegal either way (right?) and these relevant facts are not really considered to be relevant by courts of law except perhaps for sentencing. It's wrong to assume the worst of the situation, especially when the discussion is about how far the law should go-- because in that case we're making unwarranted assumptions not just about this but every case.

StarCecil:

Seanchaidh:

StarCecil:

Of course, it is not the appearance of impropriety here that is the problem. It is actual impropriety. This isn't two consenting individuals who consented at the wrong time - it's a child being seduced by an adult.

How do you know it wasn't an adult being "seduced" by a "child"?

If that were the case then the babysitter is still at fault for not behaving like an adult in charge of a child is supposed to behave. There is a reason we don't let children make decisions for themselves.

Yeah. They might make decisions that they later regret. And the heavens know that around the age of 18 a young man will outgrow his naivete and finally realize what a terribly unpleasant interaction sex really is, and henceforth avoid it at all costs!

It is two consenting individuals. There's no denying that. Do you really think this teenager thought that his parents wanted him to have sex, or that his sitter was going to somehow punish him for not doing so? We're at the point where we're just making shit up about this to portray it in a bad light.

It is not two consenting individuals - it is a child taken advantage of by an adult. She should know better; she is the adult in the situation.

Look, I'm actually older than my LCpl, but if she tries to take me out to dinner that's still a gross misconduct on her part for getting involved with someone she nominally has command over. It's the same situation here only made worse for it being between a minor and an adult.

I'm pretty sure "command" stretches the idea of babysitter.

How many men on Dateline have used every excuse you just made for the 20 year-old?

I have no idea, I don't watch Dateline. Does their gender make a difference?

Kendarik:

Seanchaidh:

StarCecil:

Of course, it is not the appearance of impropriety here that is the problem. It is actual impropriety. This isn't two consenting individuals who consented at the wrong time - it's a child being seduced by an adult.

How do you know it wasn't an adult being "seduced" by a "child"?

It is two consenting individuals. There's no denying that. Do you really think this teenager thought that his parents wanted him to have sex, or that his sitter was going to somehow punish him for not doing so? We're at the point where we're just making shit up about this to portray it in a bad light.

The same logic could be applied to a 50 year old teacher or a priest. You still in favor?

Could it, actually? A teacher actually has power and some authority.

And I don't think the problem with priests raping children was the abuse of the position so much as the rape.

Seanchaidh:

How do you know it wasn't an adult being "seduced" by a "child"?

It is two consenting individuals. There's no denying that. Do you really think this teenager thought that his parents wanted him to have sex, or that his sitter was going to somehow punish him for not doing so? We're at the point where we're just making shit up about this to portray it in a bad light.

The same logic could be applied to a 50 year old teacher or a priest. You still in favor?

Could it, actually? A teacher actually has power and some authority.

And I don't think the problem with priests raping children was the abuse of the position so much as the rape.

Most of the "rape" cases with priests were cases of "consensual" sex similar to this case. The issue is that they were adults in positions of authority that had sex with kids.

A teacher is a temporary guardian, similar to a babysitter. Your test of "would they think their parents want them to have sex" applies in both cases (as it does for the priests).

There really is no differentiating factor other than the age. But, if you don't see those rolls as the same, lets keep it to babysitters... Would you be ok with a a 50 year old babysitter having sex with a kid they are babysitting?

Kendarik:

Seanchaidh:

The same logic could be applied to a 50 year old teacher or a priest. You still in favor?

Could it, actually? A teacher actually has power and some authority.

And I don't think the problem with priests raping children was the abuse of the position so much as the rape.

Most of the "rape" cases with priests were cases of "consensual" sex similar to this case. The issue is that they were adults in positions of authority that had sex with kids.

A teacher is a temporary guardian, similar to a babysitter. Your test of "would they think their parents want them to have sex" applies in both cases (as it does for the priests).

There really is no differentiating factor other than the age. But, if you don't see those rolls as the same, lets keep it to babysitters... Would you be ok with a a 50 year old babysitter having sex with a kid they are babysitting?

It depends on the nature of the relationship. It seems less likely to be alright, but age alone isn't a determining factor. The problem is that the law is not taking anything into account other than age.

Seanchaidh:

Kendarik:

Seanchaidh:

Could it, actually? A teacher actually has power and some authority.

And I don't think the problem with priests raping children was the abuse of the position so much as the rape.

Most of the "rape" cases with priests were cases of "consensual" sex similar to this case. The issue is that they were adults in positions of authority that had sex with kids.

A teacher is a temporary guardian, similar to a babysitter. Your test of "would they think their parents want them to have sex" applies in both cases (as it does for the priests).

There really is no differentiating factor other than the age. But, if you don't see those rolls as the same, lets keep it to babysitters... Would you be ok with a a 50 year old babysitter having sex with a kid they are babysitting?

It depends on the nature of the relationship. It seems less likely to be alright, but age alone isn't a determining factor. The problem is that the law is not taking anything into account other than age.

That's not true (at least not in all countries). Where I live (and a number of other places) the law treats those in authority or influence, parents/guardians, and those in loco parentis (teachers, babysitters, coaches, etc) differently.

For example, the age of consent for non anal sex in Canada is currently 16. A 99 year old can have consensual sex with a 16 year old. However, teachers, babysitters, coaches, etc, are considered to be in a power role and for them, they can't have sex with the kid until they are 18. Additionally while prostitution is not illegal, paying for sex is seen as putting you in a position of unusual power/influence and thus it is illegal to offer money/gifts for sex to someone under 18.

It's a wise dividing line in my books.

Kendarik:

For example, the age of consent for non anal sex in Canada is currently 16.

There are special laws for anal sex?

And if you think different laws for penetrating and non-penetrating sex are sexist, don't you think different laws for anal and non-anal sex are homophobic?

Seanchaidh:

StarCecil:

Seanchaidh:

How do you know it wasn't an adult being "seduced" by a "child"?

If that were the case then the babysitter is still at fault for not behaving like an adult in charge of a child is supposed to behave. There is a reason we don't let children make decisions for themselves.

Yeah. They might make decisions that they later regret. And the heavens know that around the age of 18 a young man will outgrow his naivete and finally realize what a terribly unpleasant interaction sex really is, and henceforth avoid it at all costs!

Once more: it is not a question of whether or not the child is "mature enough" or "smart enough" to have sex; the issue is that a grown-ass woman had sex with a 14 year-old boy she was supposed to take care of. That's a gross misconduct on her part and a betrayal of the trust she shares with the boys parents to act as a guardian in their stead, and a betrayal of the trust she shares with the boy to do so.

Once the boy turns 18 there is no more issue; he is an adult and expected to behave as one - and adults are allowed to have sex with other adults; adults are not allowed to have sex with children.

It is two consenting individuals. There's no denying that. Do you really think this teenager thought that his parents wanted him to have sex, or that his sitter was going to somehow punish him for not doing so? We're at the point where we're just making shit up about this to portray it in a bad light.

It is not two consenting individuals - it is a child taken advantage of by an adult. She should know better; she is the adult in the situation.

Look, I'm actually older than my LCpl, but if she tries to take me out to dinner that's still a gross misconduct on her part for getting involved with someone she nominally has command over. It's the same situation here only made worse for it being between a minor and an adult.

I'm pretty sure "command" stretches the idea of babysitter.[/quote]

You are right; a woman in charge of a child is far more important than a pair of junior enlisted men.

She's supposed to watch out for the kid and she took advantage of him.

How many men on Dateline have used every excuse you just made for the 20 year-old?

I have no idea, I don't watch Dateline. Does their gender make a difference?[/quote]

For the purposes of this? No, not really.

The point is that damn near every sexual predator uses consent as a justification. Now, I don't know if the woman fits the profile of a sexual predator (I doubt it) but she still behaved in a predatory fashion and, again, had sex with the very person she was expected to take care of.

Danyal:

Kendarik:

For example, the age of consent for non anal sex in Canada is currently 16.

There are special laws for anal sex?

And if you think different laws for penetrating and non-penetrating sex are sexist, don't you think different laws for anal and non-anal sex are homophobic?

Yes, the law is 18 for anal.

No, the law is not homophobic, straight people have anal sex too. Gay people also engage in forms of sex other than anal and they aren't restricted. This restriction is similar to the restriction against more extreme S&M (that applies to all ages) in that it restricts an activity that can impact you no matter what your gender/sexual orientation is.

I do think that law is stupid, but it has a long history and is unlikely to change. When the first age of consent laws went in it was 13 for everything, then 14 for everything but anal (someone was feeling puritanical I guess). That stuck for several decades. When the government raised the general consent to 16, they weren't about to reduce the consent for something else, it was counter to what they really wanted but that they thought was political suicide...making everything 18.

I'm not really sure to what extent the 14 year old boy views himself as a victim here or not- he may well do, or he may not. I'm not sure how i would have felt if it had happened to me seven years ago. Whilst i had a preference for girls my age back then, there were a couple of older women who i was also sexually attracted to as well. I don't think given the chance i would have done it with older women at that age, but i'm damn sure many other lads my age would have gone for it.

Regardless, yes the female babysitter should be punished. She violated a breach in trust and abused her responsibility to protect the boy. The severity of the punishment however should be correlated with how much "harm" has been caused to the boy who was in her care.

Danyal:

Kendarik:

For example, the age of consent for non anal sex in Canada is currently 16.

There are special laws for anal sex?

And if you think different laws for penetrating and non-penetrating sex are sexist, don't you think different laws for anal and non-anal sex are homophobic?

If you don't understand why, just read up some more on anal sex. Compared to petting, oral sex or regular intercourse it is quite a bit more advanced and carries with it a far higher chance of the recieving party getting hurt.

Gethsemani:
Compared to petting, oral sex or regular intercourse it is quite a bit more advanced and carries with it a far higher chance of the recieving party getting hurt.

And penetrational sex isn't more advanced and doesn't carry a higher chance of the receiving party getting hurt than non-penetrational sex?

Danyal:

Gethsemani:
Compared to petting, oral sex or regular intercourse it is quite a bit more advanced and carries with it a far higher chance of the recieving party getting hurt.

And penetrational sex isn't more advanced and doesn't carry a higher chance of the receiving party getting hurt than non-penetrational sex?

Your definitions here are way too broad to be useful. In general though? No, not really. The female vagina is (ohmycanyoubelievethis) shaped in such a way as to allow a penis to enter it. This is especially true if the woman is sexually aroused. I am not sure in which reality you live, but in mine vaginal sex is the standard for penetratitve sexual acts. It is also the sexual act which the human sexual organs are created to perform and as such they are also designed to withstand it without sustaining harm.

Anal sex in comparsion is trying to enter a small orifice that doesn't have the same ability to stretch out or has its' own natural lubricant. On top of that, the rectum and colon has several forms of bacteria that can be directly harmful if they come in contact with wounds or other body openings (such as a vagina or a mouth).

If you really want to twist the argument, some forms of BDSM and M/s does not entail any penetration at all but can be very, very dangerous and harmful to the recieving partner. In comparsion, even anal sex seems fairly safe.

Gethsemani:

Your definitions here are way too broad to be useful. In general though? No, not really. The female vagina is (ohmycanyoubelievethis) shaped in such a way as to allow a penis to enter it. This is especially true if the woman is sexually aroused. I am not sure in which reality you live, but in mine vaginal sex is the standard for penetratitve sexual acts. It is also the sexual act which the human sexual organs are created to perform and as such they are also designed to withstand it without sustaining harm.

Anal sex in comparsion is trying to enter a small orifice that doesn't have the same ability to stretch out or has its' own natural lubricant. On top of that, the rectum and colon has several forms of bacteria that can be directly harmful if they come in contact with wounds or other body openings (such as a vagina or a mouth).

If you really want to twist the argument, some forms of BDSM and M/s does not entail any penetration at all but can be very, very dangerous and harmful to the recieving partner. In comparsion, even anal sex seems fairly safe.

I don't know exactly how it is worded in the Dutch legal system or how to translate it, but it's about entering someone's body. Putting your tongue in someone else's mouth is 'rape'.

"Verkrachting is het ongewenst seksueel binnendringen van het lichaam door een ander."
Google Translate;
Rape is sexual penetration of the body by another.

But they miss 'ongewenst', what means 'undesired' or something like that.

Sticking a finger in someone's ear, sticking an umbrella in someone else's ass... all rape by Dutch definitions, and penetrational sex in Danyal's dictionary.

Sorry you people are nitpicking. Even if she wasn't that attractive (like you've never done that dance). If I'm 14 and the 20 yr. old chick babysitting goes, "Hey..." Fuck yeah I'm on board like my name was Bushbeard the Pirate. I guess it should be punishment if caught, high five otherwise.

kingpocky:

Danyal:

Of course it should be sexist. Nature is sexist, evolution is sexist. Boys can't get pregnant and girls cannot get an erection.

. . . just noticed this, why does the ability to get an erection matter?

Why does having a child matter? It isn't that having a kid makes you special, it's how you raise them that impresses people. (much like my penis lolololkdone)

See Spot Run:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
We need to start differentiating between people raping minors and people having consensual sex with minors. Right now we hardly do. I do believe both should by illegal, for obvious reasons, but if this babysitter gets 10 years in prison and her cellmate got 9 years for pinning down a boy and actually RAPING him... Well... Need I say more?

Statutory rape is non-consensual by definintion.

Whether you agree with the law or not, the law states that a boy under the age of consent is not competent to give consent. Having sex with a person incompetent to consent is rape, just the same as having sex with a person who denies consent is rape. It's RAPE.

no, it is not rape. Should it be illegal to have sex with a minor who consents? Yes, but it should not be called rape. One situation makes me think of something terrible that is done during times of war(Rape) and one make me think of so stupid teenage guys idea of "fun"(a minor having consensual sex with a legal adult [I am NOT indorsing having sex with a minor!!]). There is a difference between the two.

See Spot Run:
Statutory rape is non-consensual by definintion.

Now you're confusing legal dogma with logic. Laws aren't self-justifying. It isn't non-consensual because some creepy Christian lawmakers who live in the 1950's have decided that everyone who has sex before the age of 18/21 is a terrible dangerous sex offender.

Some situations with a large age gap are exploitive, for certain, but that doesn't make it rape, and neither does that make it worth the punishment it carries. I mean, prison time? And in the US also registration as a sex offender and thus never being able to have a decent job ever in your life again? That's nonsense. It's a typical situation where the context makes all the difference, and people often deserve no more than a slap on the wrist.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked