pedophilia: double standard

[Azaraxzealot]

Dear escapist lets have a serious discussion about the double standards involving pedophilia.We in our day and age have very interesting views on pedophilia which i will try my best to describe.

If a 13 year boy willing has sexual relations with a very attractive 26 year old teacher most of us would find that ok saying stuff like "that lucky bastard" and would opt for no real punishment on the women behalf.

Now take that same situation and reverse the genders a 13 year old girl willing agrees to have sex relations with a very attractive 26 year old male teacher. Most people would say "that scum lock him up for life".

Why is that my dear escapist? Their both the same age and both fully agree knowing full well what would happen? They weren't forced they both consented but the male teacher receives more blame.And what does the attractiveness have to do with the situation? If the Female was ugly why would our view change .

So the questions i would like to ask are this: Do you agree with this double standard why/why not, What punishment would you give the teachers if any?

Now your probably wondering whats my view,it simple if both people agree and know the consequences and are both above the age of 13 then no what the gender there should be no punishment. Now it's your turn.

sexism, plain and simple, which is why most people take pity on women in court and they win their cases of false rape claims and child custody. we STILL think women need to be protected, if sexism was to be completely eliminated, then everyone would always be treated equally, no matter the circumstance, but of course that will never happen, as humans are a very biased species united by only one thing: hate.

OT: I do not agree with this, older women AND men should be prosecuted all the same.

 

[Lust]

Everybody should be tried equally...................no exceptions.

 

[Dags90]

If there is a double standard though, I believe it comes from the fact that an underage girl can get pregnant while a boy, obviously, cannot. That's not to say that an older woman wouldn't be taking advantage of an underage boy, just that people are more likely to jump to an emotional reaction in old-man-young-girl pedophilia than in old-woman-young-boy pedophilia.

The outrage against male pedos who take advantage of other young males would lead me believe that pregnancy scares and the gender of the victim is not the major reason for any disparities.

There have been cases like that, and they're always convicted, regardless of the genders.

Conviction rates are not the sole standard for equality under the law. As it stands, women get lower sentences when convicted of all violent crimes with the exception of killing their husbands.

 

[knight steel]

If a 13 year boy willing has sexual relations with a very attractive 26 year old teacher most of us would find that ok saying stuff like "that lucky bastard" and would opt for no real punishment on the women behalf.

Well, here's your problem right there: false premise.

In fact, it was pretty big news not too long ago when a 32-year-old woman picked up a relationship with a 16-year-old-boy [http://www.xboxist.com/xbox-360/news/32-year-old-woman-pleads-guilty-to-xbox-live-video-sex-010621.php].

She was tried and convicted with 10 years of prison and is now a registered sex offender.

If that was what happened with a 16-year-old, don't think they'd go any easier on adult women going after on 13-year-old.

Yeah i was not talking about the law but the public view but you have already been told that, As for "There's not a whole lot of difference, as the former eventually leads to the other. If we were really okay with it, there wouldn't be those laws." I'm not saying that we find one totally ok and the other not but you do have to agree we look on the male harsher than the female.

Uhh, no. I do not hold that to be a double standard. Both scenarios make my skin crawl. Thirteens-year-olds do not have the knowledge or experience to make a decision like that. I have no idea what punishment I would choose but it would be the same for both.

If a 13 year boy willing has sexual relations with a very attractive 26 year old teacher most of us would find that ok saying stuff like "that lucky bastard" and would opt for no real punishment on the women behalf.

Well, here's your problem right there: false premise. In fact, it was pretty big news not too long ago when a 32-year-old woman picked up a relationship with a 16-year-old-boy [http://www.xboxist.com/xbox-360/news/32-year-old-woman-pleads-guilty-to-xbox-live-video-sex-010621.php]. She was tried and convicted with 10 years of prison and is now a registered sex offender.

Depending on the state that would be completely legal.

Just because you do not have that double standard does not mean others don't which still means that it still stands as a public double standard.

 

[Pegghead]

I don't support either instance, frankly I think it's sick that children would willingly have sex at such an age and that people who are old enough to know better morally would abide by it.

 

[mjc0961]

Well, under the law both are equally crimes. However, there is indeed a very disappointing double standard there. Most like to do with that whole alpha male bragging about getting laid thing some guys do. "Scoring" with an attractive older woman could be seen as something to brag about I suppose, in a "why is someone who looks like her having sex with some kid still in high school, nice job dude" sort of way.

However, I could understand that more if the younger person was closer to the age of consent, such as 17 if the age was 18. But 13? No, that is also very disappointing.

 

[teutonicman]

I would imagine that it would go back to virginity, women as objects and what not.

 

[Kortney]

If a 13 year boy willing has sexual relations with a very attractive 26 year old teacher most of us would find that ok saying stuff like "that lucky bastard" and would opt for no real punishment on the women behalf.

Total conjecture, total nonsense. The legal system has incarcerated many females teachers for doing that exact thing, and I know of many, many people who would find the situation disgusting. Including myself. You can't make broad, sweeping statements like that to further your point of discussion.

And yes, just because I don't have the double standard doesn't mean everyone else doesn't. But the opposite is true as well.

Now your probably wondering whats my view,it simple if both people agree and know the consequences and are both above the age of 13 then no what the gender there should be no punishment. Now it's your turn.

The problem is some early teenagers (13,14,15) are very prone to manipulation. They are at that stage in their life where they can be tricked into feeling love and can be taken advantage of. Sure, not all 13 year olds are like this - I myself was always headstrong enough to realise people's motivations but I know many kids who aren't. I have a 14 year old sister who isn't capable of knowing the impact of her choices yet, and a manipulative bastard could have a pretty easy time making her convinced she's in love.

Allowing consensual sex between a 13 year old and a 40 year old is allowing the child to be manipulated, deceived and threatened. Even if they didn't do it consensually, the 40 year old could threaten and emotionally abuse the 13 year old to convince them it was consensual and not to say anything incriminating.

Completely stupid idea, I'm thankful you aren't in Parliament .

 

[Grathius22]

I do not agree with either of the scenarios honestly. I think the kids should be punished too, for agreeing to do it, whether male or female.

 

[geldonyetich]

On the flip-side, I know a 16 year-old girl who married a 26 year-old man. It required a bit of legal hoop jumping and affidavits of consent from her parents, but they did it. There is an age of mutual consent that isn't 18, apparently, as long as certain stipulations and agreements can be upheld.

If you think that's pushing things, up until the mid-1900s, the Age of Consent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent] was about 10-13.

Interesting point: in that article I linked [http://www.xboxist.com/xbox-360/news/32-year-old-woman-pleads-guilty-to-xbox-live-video-sex-010621.php], the woman who was convicted for 10 years and became a registered sex offender lived in Ohio, where the age of consent was 16, the same age as the victim [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Ohio]. What's more, they didn't have sex, they only exchanged nude pictures of each other.

Point to take away from this: Clearly, skirting the age of consent is pretty risky business regardless of sex. I can see why they'd green light a marriage over a pornographic picture swap on the grounds that with marriage there's a lot more responsibility between partners and both the families would have to be okay with it for it go through.

That said, I do think a certain difference of treatment for low age sex between men and women is acceptable on the grounds that there are differences in the physical ramifications. However, this is not to say that mental damages should not be a consideration. Rushing a kid into a sexual relationship is pretty irresponsible.

 

[unoleian]

Well I think it's all about how much the child actually knows about sex, assuming they have a sex ed class like we do in my town, where sex ed starts in the fourth grade, I feel it would be, at least, marginally better. A child who has just simply been told that sex feels good however, is another situation completely.

Knowledge does not equate to wisdom. A young teen can be quite knowledgeable about the practicalities of sex, but have no comprehension of the emotional and psychological aspects that are attached to it.

They are also prone to performing actions simply for acceptance or rebellion, or even a response to a perceived authority (elder) and none of those are good qualifiers to justify such an act.

On the flip-side, I know a 16 year-old girl who married a 26 year-old man. It required a bit of legal hoop jumping and affidavits of consent from her parents, but they did it. There is an age of mutual consent that isn't 18, apparently, as long as certain stipulations and agreements can be upheld.

If you think that's pushing things, up until the mid-1900s, the Age of Consent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent] was about 10-13. What you should take away from that is this: standards have changed.

In that article I linked [http://www.xboxist.com/xbox-360/news/32-year-old-woman-pleads-guilty-to-xbox-live-video-sex-010621.php], the woman who was convicted for 10 years and became a registered sex offender lived in Ohio, where the age of consent was 16, the same age as the victim [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Ohio]. What's more, they didn't have sex, they only exchanged nude pictures of each other.

So, clearly, skirting the age of consent is pretty risky business regardless of sex.

That said, I do think a certain difference of treatment for low age sex between men and women is acceptable on the grounds that there are differences in the physical ramifications. However, this is not to say that mental damages should not be a consideration. Rushing a kid into a sexual relationship is pretty irresponsible.

Actually, they made a stable, loving relationship, and both were certain it was the right decision for them. (And I believe it, I do not believe she was manipulated into this, as both could be considered family friends, and people I was familiar with, not only was the guy a family friend for several years, the girl was a classmate and someone I talked to most everyday sneaking out on bell for a smoke) I don't really consider it "pushing it" at all, but by the word of law and social mores, it was perceived by many as an utterly inappropriate move for them to make.
What really raised the eyebrows, though, was that they were "involved" for appx two years prior to this decision. That would have made her 14, and him still in his 20's. Now, we're getting people's attention.

 

[geldonyetich]

If there is a double standard though, I believe it comes from the fact that an underage girl can get pregnant while a boy, obviously, cannot. That's not to say that an older woman wouldn't be taking advantage of an underage boy, just that people are more likely to jump to an emotional reaction in old-man-young-girl pedophilia than in old-woman-young-boy pedophilia.

The outrage against male pedos who take advantage of other young males would lead me believe that pregnancy scares and the gender of the victim is not the major reason for any disparities.

Hey. I didn't write that [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.208249.7053399]. Don't stick somebody else's quotes in my quote tag, pls.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I'm not sure such a double standard exists. People might react with more disgust over sex with underage girls, but sex with underage boys still provokes disgust rather than admiration. Never underestimate people's paranoia.

 

[Penguinness]

I think at the age of 13 I really liked the thought of having sex with an older woman, and I am rather disgusted about the other way round. Kpt._Rob put it best.

I find these age lines a bit strange at times, but I guess they have to go down somewhere. I don't know how the system works but I figure if the line is at 16 and a 17 year old has sex with a 15 year old they would be fairly leaniant about it, and it increases depending on the difference? Because it's not like pokemon, you don't evolve at level 16.

 

[manaman]

If a 13 year boy willing has sexual relations with a very attractive 26 year old teacher most of us would find that ok saying stuff like "that lucky bastard" and would opt for no real punishment on the women behalf.

Well, here's your problem right there: false premise.

In fact, it was pretty big news not too long ago when a 32-year-old woman picked up a relationship with a 16-year-old-boy [http://www.xboxist.com/xbox-360/news/32-year-old-woman-pleads-guilty-to-xbox-live-video-sex-010621.php].

She was tried and convicted with 10 years of prison and is now a registered sex offender.

If that was what happened with a 16-year-old, don't think they'd go any easier on adult women going after on 13-year-old.

That is the double standard starting to shift thanks to the attention it was getting.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=39783

Most of those women on that list received slaps on the wrist comparatively. Few received 3 year sentences, and registering as a sex offender does not carry quite the same weight for a women as it does for man.

Well, it is worse for the girl in all ways, assuming the boy/Woman was just vaginal. Not saying the double standard isnt wrong, but it doesnt physically hurt a boy to have sex with an adult woman.

So girls are special in some way that boys are not?

This is taking advantage of an innocent plain and simple. Disgusting anyway you look at it. It matters not if it was a boy or a girl, and it matters not if it was a man or a women committing the crimes. The man or women are still sexual predators and the children are still victims.

 

[Miumaru]

If a 13 year boy willing has sexual relations with a very attractive 26 year old teacher most of us would find that ok saying stuff like "that lucky bastard" and would opt for no real punishment on the women behalf.

Well, here's your problem right there: false premise.

In fact, it was pretty big news not too long ago when a 32-year-old woman picked up a relationship with a 16-year-old-boy [http://www.xboxist.com/xbox-360/news/32-year-old-woman-pleads-guilty-to-xbox-live-video-sex-010621.php].

She was tried and convicted with 10 years of prison and is now a registered sex offender.

If that was what happened with a 16-year-old, don't think they'd go any easier on adult women going after on 13-year-old.

That is the double standard starting to shift thanks to the attention it was getting.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=39783

Most of those women on that list received slaps on the wrist comparatively. Few received 3 year sentences, and registering as a sex offender does not carry quite the same weight for a women as it does for man.

Well, it is worse for the girl in all ways, assuming the boy/Woman was just vaginal. Not saying the double standard isnt wrong, but it doesnt physically hurt a boy to have sex with an adult woman.

So girls are special in some way that boys are not?

This is taking advantage of an innocent plain and simple. Disgusting anyway you look at it. It matters not if it was a boy or a girl, and it matters not if it was a man or a women committing the crimes. The man or women are still sexual predators and the children are still victims.

Two people are in an accident. One loses an arm, one gets a bunch of scratches and scars, but all limbs and nothing that wont heal. A tragedy for both, but who had it worse? A boy being raped by a woman via vaginal sex is not as severe as a boy or girl raped by a man either anally or vaginally. I am not saying the boy raped by the woman deserves to be ignored or thrown aside, but they are not so physically harmed as they could have been.

 

[Blindswordmaster]

The double standard (in the public's) eye is that most boys are thinking about sex everyday from when they're 9 to death. Honestly, I would have loved to fuck an attractive teacher who was twice my age when I was in Middle School. Hell, that's how I feel now; and I'm in college! That easily rates in the top 5 of most Men's fantasies.

 

[KarumaK]

Why the double standard? Because cultures don't change that quickly I suppose?

Different views on when a child stops being a child maybe? Different views on when someone's advanced enough to give consent?

Possibilities... there are a lot of possibilities here

Two people are in an accident. One loses an arm, one gets a bunch of scratches and scars, but all limbs and nothing that wont heal. A tragedy for both, but who had it worse? A boy being raped by a woman via vaginal sex is not as severe as a boy or girl raped by a man either anally or vaginally. I am not saying the boy raped by the woman deserves to be ignored or thrown aside, but they are not so physically harmed as they could have been.

Woah, woah, woah if rape is the case here then physical harm is pretty irrelevant. Everyone complains about rape because of the emotional trauma. If you got into and altercation and physical rape damage is all you got, you got off pretty easy in most situations regardless of gender.

 

[knight steel]

If a 13 year boy willing has sexual relations with a very attractive 26 year old teacher most of us would find that ok saying stuff like "that lucky bastard" and would opt for no real punishment on the women behalf.

Total conjecture, total nonsense. The legal system has incarcerated many females teachers for doing that exact thing, and I know of many, many people who would find the situation disgusting. Including myself. You can't make broad, sweeping statements like that to further your point of discussion.

Now your probably wondering whats my view,it simple if both people agree and know the consequences and are both above the age of 13 then no what the gender there should be no punishment. Now it's your turn.

The problem is some early teenagers (13,14,15) are very prone to manipulation. They are at that stage in their life where they can be tricked into feeling love and can be taken advantage of. Sure, not all 13 year olds are like this - I myself was always headstrong enough to realise people's motivations but I know many kids who aren't. I have a 14 year old sister who isn't capable of knowing the impact of her choices yet, and a manipulative bastard could have a pretty easy time making her convinced she's in love.

Allowing consensual sex between a 13 year old and a 40 year old is allowing the child to be manipulated, deceived and threatened. Even if they didn't do it consensually, the 40 year old could threaten and emotionally abuse the 13 year old to convince them it was consensual and not to say anything incriminating.

Completely stupid idea, I'm thankful you aren't in Parliament .

I am not talking about the law but about public standard, and just because you and your friends don't agree with the double standard does not make it any less real that being said i agree that i made the statement a little to broad and sweeping which i will now fix. As for me not being in parliament.......lets just say i have friends in high places and my time will come hahahahahaha >_> <_<

 

[manaman]

Two people are in an accident. One loses an arm, one gets a bunch of scratches and scars, but all limbs and nothing that wont heal. A tragedy for both, but who had it worse? A boy being raped by a woman via vaginal sex is not as severe as a boy or girl raped by a man either anally or vaginally. I am not saying the boy raped by the woman deserves to be ignored or thrown aside, but they are not so physically harmed as they could have been.

I don't think you grasp the concept here. It's statutory rape, not physical rape. The sexual acts are consensual in such that both parties agreed to them. The problem is that the younger party doesn't have a clue to exactly what they are agreeing to and are easily manipulated by the older, supposedly more responsible party. It is that taking advantage of the younger party that the laws are there to prevent.

Edit: I would have gone into the emotional trauma bit as the emotional trauma often far outweighs any physical harm, but I noticed another poster already brought up that with you. Also seeing how it's slightly irrelevant since it wasn't the topic of discussion here in the first place.