Poll: Female babysitter charged for having sex with 14-year old boy.

[s0denone]

Snip.

Alright listen... As you point out yourself, you have been "riled up". I really want to infer something into yours posts, such as personal experience and attack you for being completely irrational and one-track-minded, but you assert yourself in this position quite beautifully, by constantly doing these ad hominem attacks. That is, of course, only when you're not building strawmen to break down afterwards.

Comparing "The root of all evil" with mindless plebs in support of apartheid "cause it's the law", after having equated my main point with me equaling this case with the case of a 60-year-old man statutory raping a 5-year-old, and then pointing to my "paranoia" of the case in the OP to me being insecure and dumb about "if we don't prosecute this woman, all paedophiles of the world will go free".

You know, it's pretty sad.

I couldn't give less of a shit about anyone in this' threads personal experience, and whether or not they personally think this is morally objectionable. As The Root of All Evil rightfully points out, this is a case of the law. I asked in my original post, which you replied to, how the general consensus would have been, had it been a 20-year-old male having sexual congress with a 14-year-old female.

I didn't ask how this case compared to some child molesting predator. I ask that this woman is tried as a man would have been, which is prison. I don't care that the boy thought she would "sexy" or "attractive", as that does not factor into this at all. Lo and behold, you will throw your coup de grace in, calling out the system for making the 14-year-old stand trial as an adult in a murder(or rape, to stay on topic) case, while in this case, the 14-year-old is unable to even give their consent.

That is because there is a difference between knowing the difference of right and wrong(Should I kill this girl, force myself on this guy), and being coerced into sexual relations by someone more experienced than yourself, taking advantage of your undeveloped mind.
If you are simply not able to make this very clear distinction, which seems to be the root of your entire argument, I offer you this:
When a child is five years of age, the parents have (hopefully) taught their kid, that the kid shouldn't dance on the table. When the kid then dances on the table anyway, it is held responsible for its actions. Whereas, had the child instead been a mere two years old, surely the parents would be more lenient (not to mention impressed, that their two-year-old was moving rhythmically in tandem with music) --- What is the connection to this case, not to mention your main argument ("Why adult in the eyes of the court here, when not here")? Because children/teenagers are expected to know the difference between right and wrong in terms of killing, or for that matter in any way infliction mental or physical harm upon, other people, whereas they are not yet expected to know what they want sexually, or know/fully understand the consequences of their actions in such a context.

Morality is spoonfed from the moment you are born. "Do this, don't do that". Sexuality is not. You work out your own sexuality. You become a sexual being with age, hormones and puberty. You are not born one. Do you understand?
Before these kids have developed their own sexuality, stance on sex, what they want, and what they don't want, they cannot be held responsible if they engage in sexual relations with individuals who already have their sexual identity figured out.

Much different is the kid being tried for murder. He bloody hell knows it was wrong. In such a case, wow, I mean, I feel sorry for that kid, with his shit parents and shit upbringing.

"Sure", you may say, "But I was sexuality developed and active when I was 13". I would answer "Good for you", and then ask you "But, when you were 13, did you have sex with people around your own age, or did you go and fuck your 25-year-old neighbour?"

Seriously mate, I know nothing about you, but what is up with you in this topic? I had sex for the first time when I was 13-years-old. The girl was fourteen. At that time, the age of consent in Denmark was fifteen. I see no wrong in that, and now as I have grown older, I have been in relationships with women who were, for instance six and seven years my senior, look back. Look at your 13-year-old self. That gullible little shit that you were, just like I were, and everyone else were. Sure, your 13-year-old self might think it "cool" and "nice" that you "scored" with that older blonde, but as an adult, how do you view that person, looking back?

 

[Caliostro]

Snip

Might I recommend that you calm down a little, maybe take a breather? I kinda agree with you, but you're coming across as quite angry, and that's not really helping your point at all. And we really can't have users go into personal attacks. Cheers.

Here's the issue: We can't establish whether a 14 year old boy's consent is "informed consent" or "ignorant consent". We don't know whether he's saying he wants it because he genuinely likes it, or because he's saying yes the same way he'd say yes to eating his own weight in sugar - because he doesn't understand what it is.

I will also say that this generally happens due to our society's mystification of sex. We make it way more than what it is by default. If the necessary precautions are taken (i.e.: condom) it's just something that feels good. This whole "DARK AND MYSTERIOUS!" approach is actually quite recent in human history and, unsurprisingly, can be traced back to religious influence.

However, it is what it is, and it is illegal. I do consider that people should at least listen to the boy and consider how much he might really have been "hurt" (if at all) before deciding to punish her as a simple reactionary blind measure.

 

[Nuclear Pancake]

This draws hilarious comparisons to that South Park episode.

'Thats her'

'But shes a chick'

'But shes hot'

 

[Treblaine]

Snip.

Alright listen... As you point out yourself, you have been "riled up". I really want to infer something into yours posts, such as personal experience and attack you for being completely irrational and one-track-minded, but you assert yourself in this position quite beautifully, by constantly doing these ad hominem attacks. That is, of course, only when you're not building strawmen to break down afterwards.

Comparing "The root of all evil" with mindless plebs in support of apartheid "cause it's the law", after having equated my main point with me equaling this case with the case of a 60-year-old man statutory raping a 5-year-old, and then pointing to my "paranoia" of the case in the OP to me being insecure and dumb about "if we don't prosecute this woman, all paedophiles of the world will go free".

These are not straw man arguments. Root specifically said he will support this law just because it is the law, even if he thinks (or at least claims) is wrong.

And I can only make sense of this outrage about teenagers having sex it they think to allow it would be somehow a softening of the law against the most sickening paedophiles.

All these calls for HUGE sentences (4.4% want the Death Penalty) I've only heard before when it comes to men raping children. That is justified rage but applied here it seems so out of proportion I suggest it may be misdirected.

I couldn't give less of a shit about anyone in this' threads personal experience, and whether or not they personally think this is morally objectionable.

Lets put that next to this part of your post

I had sex for the first time when I was 13-years-old. The girl was fourteen. At that time, the age of consent in Denmark was fifteen. I see no wrong in that, and now as I have grown older, I have been in relationships with women who were, for instance six and seven years my senior, look back. Look at your 13-year-old self. That gullible little shit that you were, just like I were, and everyone else were. Sure, your 13-year-old self might think it "cool" and "nice" that you "scored" with that older blonde, but as an adult, how do you view that person, looking back?

Seems you're happy to share your own personal experiences...

I didn't ask how this case compared to some child molesting predator. I ask that this woman is tried as a man would have been, which is prison. I don't care that the boy thought she would "sexy" or "attractive", as that does not factor into this at all.

You can't treat males and females identically. Especially when it comes to age and developments.

Yes it IS different a 20-year-old man sleeping with a 14-year-old girl.

Sex equality =/= gender blindness

Equal but not the same.

Call me old fashioned but I Do Not think a 14 year old girl is physically ready for sex, and if anything goes wrong the psychological damage is far worse than for a male of the same age.

Lo and behold, you will throw your coup de grace in, calling out the system for making the 14-year-old stand trial as an adult in a murder(or rape, to stay on topic) case, while in this case, the 14-year-old is unable to even give their consent.
That is because there is a difference between knowing the difference of right and wrong(Should I kill this girl, force myself on this guy), and being coerced into sexual relations by someone more experienced than yourself, taking advantage of your undeveloped mind.
If you are simply not able to make this very clear distinction, which seems to be the root of your entire argument, I offer you this:
When a child is five years of age, the parents have (hopefully) taught their kid, that the kid shouldn't dance on the table. When the kid then dances on the table anyway, it is held responsible for its actions. Whereas, had the child instead been a mere two years old, surely the parents would be more lenient (not to mention impressed, that their two-year-old was moving rhythmically in tandem with music) --- What is the connection to this case, not to mention your main argument ("Why adult in the eyes of the court here, when not here")? Because children/teenagers are expected to know the difference between right and wrong in terms of killing, or for that matter in any way infliction mental or physical harm upon, other people, whereas they are not yet expected to know what they want sexually, or know/fully understand the consequences of their actions in such a context.

Morality is spoonfed from the moment you are born. "Do this, don't do that". Sexuality is not. You work out your own sexuality. You become a sexual being with age, hormones and puberty. You are not born one. Do you understand?
Before these kids have developed their own sexuality, stance on sex, what they want, and what they don't want, they cannot be held responsible if they engage in sexual relations with individuals who already have their sexual identity figured out.

Much different is the kid being tried for murder. He bloody hell knows it was wrong. In such a case, wow, I mean, I feel sorry for that kid, with his shit parents and shit upbringing.

"Sure", you may say, "But I was sexuality developed and active when I was 13". I would answer "Good for you", and then ask you "But, when you were 13, did you have sex with people around your own age, or did you go and fuck your 25-year-old neighbour?"

Seriously mate, I know nothing about you, but what is up with you in this topic?

Right, unlike Root you have actually addressed the point I brought up, which I appreciate.

And it's interesting your distinction between morality and sex. I'd argue that they are all part of the same spectrum.

"Because children/teenagers are expected to know the difference between right and wrong in terms of killing, or for that matter in any way infliction mental or physical harm upon"

True, but if they can do that for how they treat others can they not apply the same logic to how the advances their girlfriend makes on them? They know that sex with a 19 year old isn't going to cause them mental or physical harm.

Here it is presented as a mini play;

14 year old arrested for rape:
14: "what is consent? I thought she wanted it?"
cop: "don't play dumb with me, you're old enough to understand what consent is. Whether someone wants it"
14: "I didn't mean to hurt her..."
Cop: "you're old enough to know when people are hurt, and how wrong that is"

14-year-old has his 19/20-year-old GF arrested for rape
14: "But I wanted this, I consented!"
Cop: "Your aren't mature enough to understand consent. You don't know what you want."
14: "... she didn't hurt me! I'd never let it"
Cop: "you don't know if you are hurt or not... you're too young to know till it's too late."

Sex is an integral continuation of morality. Morality tells you both when you hurt others and when they are hurting you or how they could hurt you.

But the thing is after all this... I don't know.

What I know is that it's wrong for an adolescent boy to rape anyone. That it's VERY wrong for an adult man to have relations with a little girl (0-15), that probably because a paedo man has control over even an adolescent girl that no woman could have over a 14 year old boy. And of course, if there is the inevitable inappropriate conduct asking a little girl to testify is too much.

This grey area is the bit I'm arguing. I think there needs to be a heavier burden of proof with these kind of relations, I think there needs to be MORE than just proving that there were sexual relations. The court needs to prove those relations actually had a negative effect.

That's why I can't call for a mandatory sentence and you know the punishment does not fit the crime. 2 decades in prison for a 14-year-old boy getting laid... that is a punishment that cannot fit the crime.

20-year-old dating a 14-year-old boy is still really inappropriate, but it just doesn't seem like a hideously exploitative crime. At least NOT IN ITSELF! It is certainly grounds for the police to investigate but unless it is demonstrated that the relationship is harmful then I worry it is all too easy to go too far.

I'm just alarmed by that 28% wanting jail time and worse; 4.4% wanting the death penalty.

Though 70% seem to side with me saying she does not deserve a severe punishment.

 

[s0denone]

Snip.

I snipped your post obviously not because I did not read it, but because I think I can summarize our main difference in this case, quite easily:
I believe men and women should be tried and sentenced the same, in relations to statutory rape / possible exploitation of minors, and you do not.

You claim that women are unable to have control of a boy, the same way a man has control of a girl.

I assume you talk a purely physical standpoint, and I think in the large majority of cases, you would be correct.

You have to remember though, as you have pointed out to the root of all evil numerous times in this topic already, that we are talking STATUTORY RAPE, not RAPE.
Remember, you pointing out that one is physically forcing yourself on the other, and the other is making one part unable to properly consent.

We are not talking about 20-year-old men FORCING themselves on 14-year-old girls. We are talking about them engaging in a sexual relationship that may or may not be entirely consensual(but the implying inability to consent on behalf of the court making it a crime).

So...
You're saying that when a 20-year-old man coerces (yeah, let's tackle it's at face value) a 14-year-old girl into various sexual relations, it is different from when a woman does the same to a boy? Howso? What?
Hasn't science even established that girl are generally more mentally developed earlier, not to mention enter puberty at an earlier stage?
How on earth do you figure a 14-year-old boy consents more significantly to sexual intercourse with an adult, than a 14-year-old girl?

This has nothing to do with the adults exerting physical control, as that would constitute actual rape. This has to do with manipulation. Button pressing. Coercing. Call it what you want.

Your main point is that young girls are more impressionable than young boys? Or how am I meant to interpret your stance?

 

[Treblaine]

Your main point is that young girls are more impressionable than young boys? Or how am I meant to interpret your stance?

Actually, that wasn't my main point, you decided to completely ignore this port, best summarised here:

14 year old boy arrested for rape:
14: "what is consent? I thought she wanted it?"
cop: "don't play dumb with me, you're old enough to understand what consent is. Whether someone wants it"
14: "I didn't mean to hurt her..."
Cop: "you're old enough to know when people are hurt, and how wrong that is"

14-year-old boy has his 19/20-year-old GF arrested for rape:
14: "But I wanted this, I consented to having sex with her!"
Cop: "Your aren't mature enough to understand consent. You don't know what you want."
14: "... she didn't hurt me! How could she even"
Cop: "you don't know if you are hurt or not... you're too young to know till it's too late."

[small](It doesn't matter what I think, I know people are more protective of teenage girls being sexually penetrated by older men than teenage boys sexually penetrating willing and permitting women. The distinction seems to be the very mechanics of sex, that the male must always be to a huge extent in control and the psychological effect of physical dominance too that a man has over a teenager girl that a 20 year old would struggle to have over a 14 year old boy)[/small]

 

[tobyornottoby]

You can't treat males and females identically. Especially when it comes to age and developments.

Yes it IS different a 20-year-old man sleeping with a 14-year-old girl.

Sex equality =/= gender blindness

Equal but not the same.

Call me old fashioned but I Do Not think a 14 year old girl is physically ready for sex, and if anything goes wrong the psychological damage is far worse than for a male of the same age.

Actually girls mature much earlier than boys, both physically and psychologically.
And while it is true that there are plenty of differences between the avarage man and woman, it is also true that there can be no generalisations made about individuals. Girls can be like boys, boys can be like girls. Therefore, the laws must treat them as equal. Yes, on avarage, it will be different to boys than to girls, but some girls will like it just like boys do. So unless you want to judge each on a case by case scenario, they should both be allowed or not be allowed. They should be treated equally.

So whatever it is how she's dealt with, it must be the same as in a 20-year-old man & 14-year-old girl case.

 

[s0denone]

Your main point is that young girls are more impressionable than young boys? Or how am I meant to interpret your stance?

Actually, that wasn't my main point, you decided to completely ignore this port, best summarised here:

14 year old boy arrested for rape:
14: "what is consent? I thought she wanted it?"
cop: "don't play dumb with me, you're old enough to understand what consent is. Whether someone wants it"
14: "I didn't mean to hurt her..."
Cop: "you're old enough to know when people are hurt, and how wrong that is"

14-year-old boy has his 19/20-year-old GF arrested for rape:
14: "But I wanted this, I consented to having sex with her!"
Cop: "Your aren't mature enough to understand consent. You don't know what you want."
14: "... she didn't hurt me! How could she even"
Cop: "you don't know if you are hurt or not... you're too young to know till it's too late."

[small](It doesn't matter what I think, I know people are more protective of teenage girls being sexually penetrated by older men than teenage boys sexually penetrating willing and permitting women. The distinction seems to be the very mechanics of sex, that the male must always be to a huge extent in control and the psychological effect of physical dominance too that a man has over a teenager girl that a 20 year old would struggle to have over a 14 year old boy)[/small]

I didn't decide to *ignore* anything, I merely thought you were mainly taking me on because I stated I wanted her tried the same as had it been a man.

You have switched the nature of the discussion, however, as we are now debating whether or not the ability to consent to sex is the same as the ability to commit a crime.

Well honestly... I think there is a difference. Ability to distinguish right from wrong stems from ones upbringing. Primary/secondary socialisations mostly, and these affecting, sculpting, and molding one into whoever we become. At age 13, for example, any "normal" child knows that hitting other children is wrong. Maybe they had a bad upbringing and/or bad influences in their lives, so they still do it - this does not mean they do not *know* it is wrong.

A child hits puberty at say... 12? And slowly takes its first steps towards adulthood. They are able to copulate at this time, as semen/eggs are producing in the testicles/glands of the boy/girl.
They are, however, still rather carefree, stupid little runts. While they are *able* to have sex, it does not mean that they should, or that they understand the consequences of their actions.
As I already menionted, I lost my virginity before hitting the age of consent myself, so in an honest effort to make this more credible: I think youngsters having sex with other youngsters is fine. Both participants are carefree, stupid individuals, are with some sex-ed, they probably use condoms, too. The act is exciting, new and cool just as much as it is enjoyable, and at this stage they are still exploring their sexuality.

This, to me(and this, at this point, appears to be a discussion of our seperate opinions) is vastly different from one such carefree young teenager entering into a sexual relationship with one who is, for instance as in this case, six years their senior.

 

[Treblaine]

You can't treat males and females identically. Especially when it comes to age and developments.

Yes it IS different a 20-year-old man sleeping with a 14-year-old girl.

Sex equality =/= gender blindness

Equal but not the same.

Call me old fashioned but I Do Not think a 14 year old girl is physically ready for sex, and if anything goes wrong the psychological damage is far worse than for a male of the same age.

Actually girls mature much earlier than boys, both physically and psychologically.
And while it is true that there are plenty of differences between the avarage man and woman, it is also true that there can be no generalisations made about individuals. Girls can be like boys, boys can be like girls. Therefore, the laws must treat them as equal. Yes, on avarage, it will be different to boys than to girls, but some girls will like it just like boys do. So unless you want to judge each on a case by case scenario, they should both be allowed or not be allowed. They should be treated equally.

So whatever it is how she's dealt with, it must be the same as in a 20-year-old man & 14-year-old girl case.

Without going into more detail than I really want to, it's the mechanics of it.

The role a man has in sex is very different from a woman.

It's not like the 14 year old male could be physically hurt by disparity in size of being with a woman, but a teenage girl...

"So unless you want to judge each on a case by case scenario"

Funny, I thought that was what the trial is for.

 

[Treblaine]

Your main point is that young girls are more impressionable than young boys? Or how am I meant to interpret your stance?

Actually, that wasn't my main point, you decided to completely ignore this port, best summarised here:

14 year old boy arrested for rape:
14: "what is consent? I thought she wanted it?"
cop: "don't play dumb with me, you're old enough to understand what consent is. Whether someone wants it"
14: "I didn't mean to hurt her..."
Cop: "you're old enough to know when people are hurt, and how wrong that is"

14-year-old boy has his 19/20-year-old GF arrested for rape:
14: "But I wanted this, I consented to having sex with her!"
Cop: "Your aren't mature enough to understand consent. You don't know what you want."
14: "... she didn't hurt me! How could she even"
Cop: "you don't know if you are hurt or not... you're too young to know till it's too late."

[small](It doesn't matter what I think, I know people are more protective of teenage girls being sexually penetrated by older men than teenage boys sexually penetrating willing and permitting women. The distinction seems to be the very mechanics of sex, that the male must always be to a huge extent in control and the psychological effect of physical dominance too that a man has over a teenager girl that a 20 year old would struggle to have over a 14 year old boy)[/small]

I didn't decide to *ignore* anything, I merely thought you were mainly taking me on because I stated I wanted her tried the same as had it been a man.

You have switched the nature of the discussion, however, as we are now debating whether or not the ability to consent to sex is the same as the ability to commit a crime.

Well honestly... I think there is a difference. Ability to distinguish right from wrong stems from ones upbringing. Primary/secondary socialisations mostly, and these affecting, sculpting, and molding one into whoever we become. At age 13, for example, any "normal" child knows that hitting other children is wrong. Maybe they had a bad upbringing and/or bad influences in their lives, so they still do it - this does not mean they do not *know* it is wrong.

A child hits puberty at say... 12? And slowly takes its first steps towards adulthood. They are able to copulate at this time, as semen/eggs are producing in the testicles/glands of the boy/girl.
They are, however, still rather carefree, stupid little runts. While they are *able* to have sex, it does not mean that they should, or that they understand the consequences of their actions.
As I already menionted, I lost my virginity before hitting the age of consent myself, so in an honest effort to make this more credible: I think youngsters having sex with other youngsters is fine. Both participants are carefree, stupid individuals, are with some sex-ed, they probably use condoms, too. The act is exciting, new and cool just as much as it is enjoyable, and at this stage they are still exploring their sexuality.

This, to me(and this, at this point, appears to be a discussion of our seperate opinions) is vastly different from one such carefree young teenager entering into a sexual relationship with one who is, for instance as in this case, six years their senior.

You're not very convincing.

You seem to concede that a 14 year old boy is probably old enough to have sex, just as long as there is not a huge age gap.

5 years is not a huge age gap - the girl was 19 when this started - which is what I've been arguing against the die-hards who demand 20 years in jail or even the death penalty.

 

[Something Amyss]

Look at it like this.

What if it was a 20 year old male babysitter who got a 14 year old girl drunk and slept with her?

That's right people would be screaming for blood.

But seriously why is this even up for debate?

Providing alcohol to a minor
Sexual assault
Sexual assault of a minor

You're looking at this from the point of view of a single standard. That's gonna cause a lot of problems. >.>

 

[s0denone]

You're not very convincing.

You seem to concede that a 14 year old boy is probably old enough to have sex, just as long as there is not a huge age gap.

5 years is not a huge age gap - the girl was 19 when this started - which is what I've been arguing against the die-hards who demand 20 years in jail or even the death penalty.

I think we just close it up here.

I will not ever agree with you, that man or women should be tried and sentenced differently(this is still your stance, correct?)

And what is this with me "conceding" that a 14-year-old is "probably" old enough to have sex? I stated they were quite obviously old enough, given their biological functions, and then added that maybe they shouldn't.

You have your stance here, I have mine. I think adults, regardless of sex, having sexual relations with minors is despicable, and I find it different from when two minors have sexual relations with eachother.

Last word is yours.

 

[Agayek]

Considering I'm against the concept of statutory rape in the first place, I don't think she should be punished terribly harshly.

From what I've read on this case, it was basically a relatively prolonged (couple of months or so) "relationship" that the parents cottoned on to and reported her for. Personally, if both parties were willing, I see no reason there should be any sort of punishment.

That said, if she drugged him, with alcohol or whatever else, then she should definitely be punished rather severely. If she did actually drug him, I would support a rape conviction. I don't have enough evidence to tell what happened though.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

I can't vote, there are almost no details

 

[Treblaine]

And what is this with me "conceding" that a 14-year-old is "probably" old enough to have sex? I stated they were quite obviously old enough, given their biological functions, and then added that maybe they shouldn't.

you justified it beyond biological functions:

I lost my virginity before hitting the age of consent myself... I think youngsters having sex with other youngsters is fine. Both participants are carefree, stupid individuals, are with some sex-ed, they probably use condoms, too. The act is exciting, new and cool just as much as it is enjoyable, and at this stage they are still exploring their sexuality.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

2 words, double standards.

If the genders were reversed, everyone would be advocating tarring and feathering.


Granted, he is old enough to have a sex drive, but this smacks of abuse of a position of authority and abusing the judgement of a minor.

When you're that young, if you're sexually experimenting you should be doing it with people your age. Not people who have this sort of power over you and can potentially cause a host of mental issues for you in the future.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

edit: double post

 

[Virtual Connor]

She is legally defined paedophile.
Regardless of biological sex this is a serious offence for very obvious reasons.

Is it OK for a 20-something year old dudes to screw your underage daughter/sister?? This is no different.

 

[sumanoskae]

Look at it like this.

What if it was a 20 year old male babysitter who got a 14 year old girl drunk and slept with her?

That's right people would be screaming for blood.

But seriously why is this even up for debate?

Nobody's debating its a crime. This is a mainly male site and most people wouldn't mind fucking someone hot. That kid managed him. Typical response is "props" to a guy.

You can't expect everyone to react the same way. Its the same thing as when a girl go's out for a date, the father is always lecturing the young lad on how he'll kill him if anything happens and that they have to be back early.

What's the dad of the bloke saying? "Give 'er one for me mate!". Why is it different? Because society doesn't treat everyone the same.

Sorry for wall of text at you, but it always annoys me how people bring that up like it's not obvious. Society is crazy.

OT:

*insert stupid comment of props here*

*wonders why the hell she slept with a 14 year old when she wouldn't have much trouble finding a boyfriend in the social circles i frequent*.

DAMN, I didn't realise how far this thread had gotten, you've probably got a few of these, sorry dude

Yes, society is shit, but the more we consent to double standards, the more true they become. And no, they are not helpful. And apparently, since she's being tried, society isn't fucked up enough to properly enforce their double standards.

And no offense, but I don't think the father of a kid who's just been arguably molested is happy for him.

It's also worth noting that this largely male site appears to represent a large amount of disagreement for this point, why?, because you can't be a thoughtless, obnoxious, insensitive douchebag here without incurring the moderator wrath. If you were to post this on YouTube or 4chan you'd probably get a great deal of "Grats", but that's because those sites are subject to the aforementioned bags of ignorant douche.

We complain about double standards all the time, but by consenting to them we just give them more power. If we would just take upon ourselves the small burden of trying to expect equality and decency from ourselves and others, we might actually get somewhere, even if it's just separating ourselves ourselves from ignorant pieces of shit and their poisonous influence. Ignorance is like a disease, and we owe it to ourselves and all humans who come after us, to take our stand in protecting them from it.

And if you don't give a fuck about humanity(Like me), then consider, the more you put up with this shit, the more people are going to dump on you

You clearly missed the point of my post.

Ok, look, that fourteen year old? Everyone goes on about how he'll be traumatized but look at most 14 year old kids who're sexually active? Don't pretend they don't exist, especially in lower income areas this is common as hell and most people grow up to be perfectly functional human beings.

People keep saying that if the roles were reversed would I be saying anything different and considering it was a parent that complained, not the kid, i'm assuming the kid is fine with it, in which case i'd say exactly the same thing, mad props, you got laid. Well done.

I never said you personally would say different, what I said is that we shouldn't ever try to defend the opinions of the people who do.

As you said, you're assuming the kid is fine. He might be, but the reason this sort of thing looked down upon is because the relationships between adults and children are often subject inequality. Most sexually active 14 year old's(Like the ones I know) are sexually active with other 14 year old's

I myself am not sure about this case, I'd have to talk to the kid myself. Unfortunately, his opinion may very well not be taken into account. I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just think we should expect more then "Grats" from eachother