Statutory rape

LA how does the UK treat female molesters?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i don't know for sure, not has tough has they do male molesters i would agree to that, they should be treated equally, if a female teacher has sex with a 13yr old pupil then yes she shold loose her job and do a jail term, just like the guys would, but i am not 100% sure

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not even going to debate this, they ARE different. End of story.

No I am not or at least not in this thread.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what????

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i agree WHAT!¬!!!! :shrug::shrug:

 

Word.

I couldn't agree more. Boys and girls have very different attitudes to sex. Girls have a far more emotional attitude towards it, whereas boys just have a boner they want to get rid of.

I had a huge crush on my teacher when I was 13, and would have jumped at the chance to get jiggy with her, and no, it would not have given me emotional scars.

 

I agree. However, we are all discussing boys and girls and the age of consent.

So what about men who rape little boys? I don't think anyone can deny that they are just as condemned by society as men who rape little girls. On the other hand, the same can't be said for female molesters.

So surely the real point to address is the one raised in the first post - why should repercussions for the rapist differ on a gender basis?

Aside from the obvious erection issue, women who 'touch up' a boy, or pressure the boy into touching up them, aren't treated as severely by society as men. Therefore, the previous answer given (erections meaning consensual sex) isn't all encompassing.

 

Completely different issue. The title of the thread says Statutory rape and that means consent...

 

Well, you know ...

Just trying to make the point and fulfill it at the same time.

 

im sorry orleander and LA, i didnt mean to offend you

as someone pointed out i dont know wether the courts would enforce paternity on a father who was molested so i could be compleatly wrong about that.

but even so why was my post so wrong?
we arnt talking about RAPE we are talking about STATITORY RAPE which is a compleatly different kettle of fish.

So at 13 (randomly picked out of the air) we are saying women (who tend to mature faster) have apsolutly no understanding of the dangors of sex like hep, aids, herpies, gonaria, clamidia ect as well as no ablility to look after the product of that relationship

on the other hand at 13 boys are able to handle these?

This is what state rape laws are about, its got nothing to do with wether the under aged kid wants it or not, (oviously they did or the charges would be rape of a minor) its about wether they CAN CONSENT or not.

Most of you seem to be compleatly missing the point, is they are forced into sex (male or female) then that is a compleatly different crime. In THIS crime sociaty is saying to the "child" i dont care how much you want it (either gender) you CANT have it. Saying its because women dont really want sex is not only insulting its compleatly irelivent

 

You didn't offend me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I didn't understand what you were saying. The words you put together didn't make sense to me.

 

oh if thats what you ment then cool

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(thought it was another "its not as bad to pay for a kid as it is to bare a kid" thing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

i will try to explaine my post better

The risks involved in sex:

Pregnancy (and everything that goes with it)

STD's

Now in the case of an underaged girl, she could have an abortion (if the services are avaliable) or access the morning after pill ect
But for a boy these things arnt avialable. An underaged boy who is molested by his teacher who then falls pregnant doesnt have the option of aborting the fetus, he just has to live with the decision SHE makes. Not even the courts can force her to abort it. So even if he isnt forced by law to agnolaged the child he still has the emotional burden of knowing he has a kid somewhere. Im not meaning to suggest that the burdens of aborting a fetus are any less either BTW

Thats what i ment, sorry for the confusion

 

There are risks associated with sex, and if people want to say that children below a certain age shouldn't be having sex, that's fine. But I've always thought it very odd that people consider it too dangerous for a person below a certian age to have sex with an older adult, but think it acceptable for then to have sex with a young person the same age. Which is more dangerous? Who is more likely to know about safe sex?

 

i think that has more to do with the fact that the younger person is at a disadvantage to the elder, ie its easier for a younger person to be cohersed by and older person than it is between to younger people.

However i still find it facinating that on the origional topic (ie should molesters be treated equally) only orleander, Syzygys and LA have bothered to respond and one of those was to say "who cares if older women abuse kids"

 

Well, that issue is easily solved. Instead of throwing the old broad in jail, just pass a law saying if she gets knocked up while having sex with an underage boy, he's off the hook. No child support is owed.

 

lets contrast the way a couple of threads have gone on this issue

firstly we have this thread where a man was aleged to have had sex with his 13 year old goddaughter

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81998

Out of interest here is one comment picked at random from a public comments thing of the origional link

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1589361/20080616/kelly_r.jhtml

so even though he has been found not guilty he is a "pervert"

then we have this thread (on an unrelated issue but with highly informative comments on page 6 and 7

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79423&page=6

The fact that its the same poster both times is something i never noticed until just now, ironic concidering hes the one arguing that young boys have nothing to complaine about while girls have no brains aparently

and here are some comments from THAT link

again these just happened to be the top two comments there

 

Asguard, I don't know what you don't get. OJ was found not guilty, nevertheless every sane person think he is a murderer. R. Kelly was clearly having sex with is goddaughter, the jury's decission has nothing to do with that fact.

My 2 different positions on 2 different issues are not contradictory, so again, I don't get what's your problem is, except not understanding biology....

and again, quote when I said girls were brainless...

 

If you think its acceptable for a teen to have sex with another teen, then the hypothetical older person is only coercing them into doing something that you have already determined is acceptable. It makes little sense to say that a teen is mature enough to handle the risks of having sex with someone the same age, but not mature enough to handle the risks of sex with someone who is older. Sex with the older person is probably much less risky.

Also, the whole idea that an older person can be more manipulative or apply more pressure to a teenager is laughable. A peer can usually create much greater pressure on a teenager than an older person. There's a reason why we differentiate "peer pressure" from regular pressure, after all. Most teenagers are perfectly happy to ignore older adults and don't particularly care what older adults say or think. Their peers, on the other hand, are usually much more influential and can exert much greater pressure.

No, that's not what Syzygys said. He said that he didn't think it constituted abuse. If you disagree and think that it does constitute abuse, please provide some evidence that it is acually harmful. Here's a question for you - how many of these young guys who you think were "abused" regret what happened? How many of them do you think would happily have sex with the same person again in 5 or 10 years (assuming they are single etc.)? I'm guess that the percentage with no regrets who would do it again given the chance is close to 100%.

 

But at least with teen on teen, there is a more even playing field. There is a power imbalance between parent vs. child.

 

I wasn't talking about parent vs child. I was talking about adults in general vs. peers in general. When every single adult that a teen talks to tells them not to smoke/drink/do drugs/whatever, and then the teen does it anyway because one of their friends tells them to, how can you possibly say that adults have more influence? I agree that there are special cases in which a particular adult might have more influence than a particular teen, but in general it is crazy to say that adults have "more influence" on teens than their peers do. If you are going to argue that a random adult shouldn't be allowed to have sex with a teen because he might be able to manipulate the teen more or apply more pressure, then you should definitely ban the captain of the football team from having sex - because that guy is going to be able to apply much, much more pressure than any adult is likely to.