pedophilia: double standard

[Dorian6]

I don't understand it myself.

The adult is taking advantage of a youth and should go to jail forever, the pedophile's gender is irrelevant.

 

[Thick]

In the most general of terms, this is a valid debate to be had, but your hypotheticals here have such a massive hole in them that I can't wrap my head around it.

Thirteen year-old kids of either gender cannot realistically be said to understand all the consequences of sex. Consent, even if not the legal definition of it, is one thing for a kid that young to give, but sex is such a convoluted thing that most adults don't understand all the consequences of it, much less kids.

While writing this I had a thought about a possible explanation of such a double standard, but I'd really like to leave my final statement as: "You set up your argument wrong."

 

[Miumaru]

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.

I dont think you get MY point. It is more damaging to have a penis enter you than your penis to enter another.

 

[jaythedogg]

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.

It's the penetration factor that upsets people. A 13 year old boy isn't being penetrated by the 26 year old female. Vice versa though & there is a problem. It is more of the thought of physical "violation" or in a girl's case, de-flowering.

It is the social viewpoint on the matter.

Want my opinion? I think sex is best saved for marriage. Legal marriage.

 

[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.

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 >_> <_<

And just because you and your friends have double standards doesn't mean "most" of us do, nor does it mean it is a true reflection of public standard.

 

[BlindMessiah94]

Unless you are in high school and are a guy and hear of a mate who had sex with your "hot teacher", you hardly consider it to be awesome. You consider it vulgar and disgusting.

Maybe when I was 13 I would have loved to make it with my hot teachers, but really, I was just a horny teenager. Looking now at those situations any adult who sleeps with any kid, regardless of gender or age difference, is doing something illegal and immoral. The kid is too young to know what they want sexually. They need to figure it out on there own, as they grow up and learn emotional and sexual maturity.

Doing that in school where you are supposed to feel "safe" is not right.

 

[Eleima]

I agree with the OP, and do think that there is, in the eyes of the general public, a double standard. And I am very disappointed by that. Whether the child (because let's face it, when you're 13, you're still a child in so many ways) is a boy or a girl, there are still minors, and differences in sex do not make it right. I certainly would not condone an "older" woman taking advantage of a 13-year-old boy, and I certainly would not be congratulating him.

 

[Shockolate]

Doesn't matter if people think the 13 year old is lucky or not.

It's still Statutory Rape, which is against the law.

 

[Lovelocke]

Young boys can't get pregnant for one... in fact, that's a large chunk of the bias you speak about. See, I thought you were gonna go a different route for this thread, y'know, something a bit deeper, but okay.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

What strange, bizarre universe are you living in where it would be perfectly acceptable for a 13 year old boy to have sex with a 26 year old woman? I mean, my first instinct was to go with a "Real life is not like a porno" joke, but that would still be some fuckin weird porn. And porn is pretty goddamn weird already.

 

[BoxCutter]

The adult is taking advantage of a youth and should go to jail forever, the pedophile's gender is irrelevant.

This is what it is really about. Regardless of the gender of the two parties, the issue is an adult with malicious intent using his/her knowledge (and usually power) to sway the child to perform demeaning acts with them against their will. I could not care less about about what gender the pervert is.

 

[Blair Bennett]

Both scenarios made me nauseous, and it is my strong belief that both the male and female adult should be tried equally, and without prejudice towards the male simply for his gender. It's true that society will view the adult female as less of a threat, perhaps simply because we attribute a more nefarious nature to the male, whereas we are biologically created with maternal views of women. True, the adolescent boy most likely endured less/little physical discomfort/pain during the action, and it's true that there is the threat of pregnancy for females, but the fact still remains that he is a child of 13. It is irrelevant that both parties are consenting, as, in most, if not all North American provinces/states, this is still an illegal act. 13 year olds are considered incapable of offering legally binding consent to sexual acts, as they are still very much children.

To return to the subject of gender roles, I find it distressing that women are still perceived with a sort of fragility. The fact that she is a woman makes her no less capable of causing another person physical or emotional harm, especially a child. People need to realize that women can be just as sadistic and dangerous as men. I should know, I have met many, and am one. Need we look back on Gertrude Banizewski, Mary West, etc. ?

 

[Penguinness]

I don't understand it myself.

The adult is taking advantage of a youth and should go to jail forever, the pedophile's gender is irrelevant.

I don't understand the whole.. forever bit of that. I can say with some confidence that if the situtation occured when I was 13 (example age stated in OP), I don't think I would have felt taken advantage of, as I would have consented. Can't say much about any younger than that, but 13 is when you're in year 7 secondary school right? Guess I can't really put forward such a point now that I'm over the legal age line.

The 32-yo teacher having sex with a 16-yo and getting 10 years.. that sounds incredibly harsh to me, but then I guess she'd would be out in 5?

Hmm it's one of those subjects that if you aren't 110% commited to stringing up pedophiles, you sound like one of them >_>. I just think that there's worse things out there, the media never stops trying to convince me otherwise.

 

[Dags90]

I dont think you get MY point. It is more damaging to have a penis enter you than your penis to enter another.

At 13, a girl has a completely woman sized vagina. Any arguments about a "man" not fitting into a teenage girl are without merit.

I think you're both missing the point that the gravity of all rape is in the emotional trauma, not the physical injury. It's about a gross violation of enterprise, not physical harm.

 

[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.

I dont think you get MY point. It is more damaging to have a penis enter you than your penis to enter another.

Grapefruit! I win. Don't get it? Well I don't get why you are trying to win an argument about a different topic here.

Please elaborate on your point as right now it just seems like you don't want to admit being wrong and as such are rushing blindly forward with this idea. Nobody was talking about rape here to begin with, statutory rape might have been brought up, but that is not the same as physical rape. That means that even if your point was correct it would still not be valid to this thread.

 

[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 >_> <_<

And just because you and your friends have double standards doesn't mean "most" of us do, nor does it mean it is a true reflection of public standard.

Hey me and my friends don't have that double standard but a lot of people in our area do. And your right most don't have this double standard and it's not a true reflection of the general public standard.

That being said the amount of people who do have this double standard is worrying and while it might not be a true reflection of the public it still has a impact in some functions that the public partake in.

 

[Miumaru]

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.

I dont think you get MY point. It is more damaging to have a penis enter you than your penis to enter another.

Grapefruit! I win. Don't get it? Well I don't get why you are trying to win an argument about a different topic here.

Please elaborate on your point as right now it just seems like you don't want to admit being wrong and as such are rushing blindly forward with this idea. Nobody was talking about rape here to begin with, statutory rape might have been brought up, but that is not the same as physical rape. That means that even if your point was correct it would still not be valid to this thread.

You are hanging on to the fact I used the word rape. While forceful rape would do it more, even conseting sex, being entered is more physically taxing than entering, male or female. I was simply initially saying why a girl/Man situation may be seen worse than a boy/Woman situation, assuming both are just vaginal. Whats the worse that can happen? The boy gets the woman pregnant, the perp gets stuck with it (and the baby too unfortunatly) but what about the other? No 13 year old is ready for pregnancy. But even not just that, what about boy/Man? Certainly that would be more damaging to the boy than if he were to do an adult woman. I am not saying the boy with the woman isnt damaged emotionally by the situation, but what about the other two? Certainly those are obviously physically more damaging, and likely also more emotionally so. Now if you still are stuck because I used the word rape since it was simpler than jumbling up how I say it, then its just you not listening.

 

[capin Rob]

Because in the public view, the bo yis a sex craving hound, and the teen girl is a perfect haven of purity who would want nothing to do with sex.

 

[Miumaru]

I dont think you get MY point. It is more damaging to have a penis enter you than your penis to enter another.

At 13, a girl has a completely woman sized vagina. Any arguments about a "man" not fitting into a teenage girl are without merit.

I think you're both missing the point that the gravity of all rape is in the emotional trauma, not the physical injury. It's about a gross violation of enterprise, not physical harm.

What about pregnancy?