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

[devilkingx]

She committed statutory rape at the very least. The kid is under the age of consent and the 20 year old, who had more power over the 14 year old, knew better.

She should go to jail.

I don't believe in the double standard. But then, I'm a feminist, so I believe in equality and double standards. So yeah. She needs to go to prison.

statutory rape isnt even real rape, for obvious ass reasons

how they can even call that rape is beyond me, since statutory "rape" can be consentual, that means that rape can be consentual according to law, which throws the fucking definition out of wack

"(of a man) Force (another person) to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them
- the woman was raped at knifepoint"

how can it be rape if it goes against the very definition of the word?

one more thing, the definition of consent

"Permission for something to happen or agreement to do something
- no change may be made without the consent of all the partners"

i dont see age being a factor in that,

so technically, these laws exist to restrict or contradict the meaning of the god damn words that govern them

 

[Kashrlyyk]

If its fully consensual then I don't see a problem,....

Really? You and all the other high-five retards do know that sex can lead to pregnancy??

Do you think a 14 year old is mentally able to complete comprehend what it means to be a parent??

Do you think a 14 year old would have thought about contraception at all??

Would being a dad at 14 screw his life enough for you to think that maybe that is why it is a crime???

 

[The Sandvich]

Honestly, I have no idea how to think about this. This situation has too many grey areas and too little information for me, or anyone quite frankly, to instantly decide if it was truly right or wrong

 

[wench]

Um, yes you can. Check the laws - if the person is intoxicated (a single beer is unlikely to count), asleep, or otherwise unable to give consent... then yes, that is in fact rape.

You misunderstand. My point is it is impossible to intoxicate someone to the point where they have no control, using alcohol. The effects of alcohol remove restraint a person has, it doesn't render them psychotic or anything.

The law itself is not a valid argument, since it's not self-justifying. Blaming one's bad decisions on drinking may have made it into lawbooks, it's still nonsense.

It definitely is possible to intoxicate someone to that point, but it's a fair bit of alcohol. If someone's drinking to the point of blacking out, for example. And the law is a perfectly valid argument, because that's where we get the definition of rape. If you think that definition is wrong, then that's fine... but it doesn't make it not be rape just because you don't like the definition.

 

[devilkingx]

If its fully consensual then I don't see a problem,....

Really? You and all the other high-five retards do know that sex can lead to pregnancy?? well obviously

Do you think a 14 year old is mentally able to complete comprehend what it means to be a parent?? why would it be the 14 year olds job to do that? is there not a responsible adult who's "got this"?

Do you think a 14 year old would have thought about contraception at all?? obviously, i know people who've brought condoms to school, and atleast 1 of them(not including me) knows what to do with them, but im a bad example because i doubt all or even many kids know as much as me(to be fair thats true in almost every single area of life)

Would being a dad at 14 screw his life enough for you to think that maybe that is why it is a crime??? normally the mother gets screwed, not the father, in this case his life wouldnt change all that much in this aspect its better than if he was with someone his age, because they'd both need to drop out, him to get a job her to take care of the baby, in this case she already has a job therefor the father doesnt have any responsibilities that will detract from his schoolwork, the sitter would also be fine because there are many people who go to work and raise kids

 

[kickassfrog]

This depends on whether the boy wanted her to or not. If not, it's rape, and illegal. If it's a yes then depending on the age of the babysitter it's either illegal or not.

Also on a more immature note, Where the hell where babysitters like this when I was fourteen!

The fact that it seems to have gone on for several months probably means he's cool with it.

And god damn, I wish I was in that kid's place

 

[Harrowdown]

I kinda get what you're saying, but when minors are tried as adults, it's because they're judged to be morally aware of their actions and of the consequences. Youth isn't generally taken as an alleviating factor if the defendent knows exactly what s/he was doing. It's different in statutory rape cases. Whomever the victim, the offender is still accountable for they're actions. Besides, courts aren't in the habit of passing these sorts of judgements against victims, especially in sexual offense cases. I mean, a court excusing an offender because the victim was 'mature' is a little like excusing rapists because the victim was known to be promiscuous or something.

I concede to the first point, that it's different to judge the suspect as mature enough to be judged, than to judge the victim as mature enough to consent.

The second, however, I must politely disagree with. If the "victim" claims that he/she wasn't victimized, and no coercion/black-mailing can be seen, then I don't believe that it should be a chargeable offense. If the kid wants it and isn't provably emotionally harmed, it's hardly appropriate to call him a "victim." In this case, it would be the victim petitioning the judge to have the "victim" label removed from him/herself, not excusing the suspect unless the victim wants the suspect excused. Your example would have the judge not taking the "victim's" wishes into account.

If the victim didn't consider themselves a victim, then surely they wouldn't press charges in the first place. Yes, i'm aware that in this case it was the parents that charged, or at least I think it was. I forget. Nevertheless, as I pointed out before, minors are *generally* seen as unable to consent to adults, so the childs guardians are within their rights, or even obliged, to press charges. It would have to be a very special case indeed for a court to ignore parental right in favour of the kid. As the law is now though, I guess the kid could try and get emancipated from their parents. If you're unaware, an emancipated minor is an underage individual whose been freed from parental control. Not sure if age of consent laws would apply or not to an emancipated minor, but they're given full independence in most other matters. As complicated as this would make the whole situation, it's surely better than introducing some other legal exception, despite the fact that the minor in almost every case is going to be judged a victim.

On a side note, i've been reading up on the law regarding these sorts of cases. In America, where this case took place, there's what's called 'romeo and juliet' laws in some states, put in place to soften sentencing in cases where the couple are only a few years apart, despite being on either side of the age of consent. The example from texan law specifies i believe, that the minor be 14 or over, which in this case he is, and that the age difference be no more than 3 years, which it certainly is not. There's also the issue of the offender in this case being in a position of trust. I believe the law in America, as does the law in the UK, specifies that a person over the age of 18 violates their position of trust by having sex with an employee/student/charge etc, under the age of 18.

It's occured to me that we may be from different countries with radically different social norms with this sort of thing. I'm British, and the law here states 16 or over. Yourself? I ask because this debate will go a lot easier if we're aware of the social contexts we're both arguing out of.

 

[mrmostlymittens]

Has anyone said: "Nicccccccce" yet?

 

[chris89300]

*Sigh*

People, especially kids get drunk and fuck, most often with complete strangers all the damn time. Even if it was the other way around: a 20 year old boy fucking a 14 year old girl, why should any of them be punished as long as it's not rape?

Seriously, if that's making the news and the a CASE (WTF!?!), then people are really bored with life. If I were a cop or whatever, I'd laugh the imbeciles out of my office.

Besides, their parents grew up in the 60-70's, they were doing the exact same thing at that age, unless they were religious zealots, so they should all just STFU.

Even centuries before that, there were people doing it, except, people weren't bragging, cuz, hell, it would have shamed their entire family.

We're all basically animals, with instincts and sex, be it for reproduction purposes or just for the thrill, is an instinct, and a pretty powerful one.


IMHO, anyone who sees this as anything more than "another thing that's wrong with the world" is seriously frustrated, sexually that is. Especially the boy's mom.

 

[MetalGenocide]

If it was an 20 y.o. guy, many would be screaming "paedo! twisted monster!", but being a woman, it's suddenly 'better'(ok). Fucking double standards.

To jail with her. She must face conviction and treatment like any man, whom is guilty of the same.

 

[MorganL4]

Jail is overkill imo, she should just get a bit of help and go meet some boys her own age.
Honestly, the shame of screwing a 14 year old will probably follow her for a while.

Yep... bascially this

Sorry but In my opinion the age discrepancy is too great. That qualifies as statutory rape... That means jail time and sex offender registration.... Atractiveness of the individual has no legal precedence. WHAT SO EVER.

What =|
I said "jail is overkill" meaning that it is completely over the top, way overboard, unnecessary, etc.

Yes, sending a rapist to jail is an overkill.

In fact sending anyone in jail is an overkill, let's just slap murderers on the hand and be done with it.

oops sry dude, I meant to quote the guy above you....

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

 

[Lilani]

Check this: Men have penises and women have vaginas. Men and women are different, especially mentally. Clearly, that's not good for a young woman, but IMO and as a man, I think a young man can handle that.

Prove if and how it has affected the boy negatively and maybe I'll change my mind? If you can't, my mind won't change.

Keep in mind, safe sex isn't the issue here so STDs and babies are not relevant. Obvi, he should be wearing rubbers.

Would it have been different if it were a guy who had sex with the boy? Or would that still be within the range of things you "think he can handle?"

This is a matter of someone underage being manipulated into having sex when they might not have known all the facts, or felt they were in a situation where they were at a disadvantage to refuse because they were dealing with someone older and an authority figure. I mean, what if she actually did manage to get pregnant by him? If my facts are correct, she would still be in a position to get child support from him. And even if she can't while he's a minor, it's only a four year wait, and then she can request backpayments from there. Would a 14-year-old know about that? And would he have even have known to ask about STDs?

Nobody has the right to say one gender can "handle it" better than the other. You have no right to say what you think others "can handle." That's like saying spiking a guy's drink isn't as bad as spiking a woman's drink because guys can usually metabolize drugs better. Sex with a minor is sex with a minor. It's a matter of what was done, not who it was done to. Your argument is acting purely on the stereotypes of boys and sex.

And even if your argument were to "win", it would only serve as a detriment to all cases of sexual assault and sexual harassment with male as the victims. People already don't take those seriously enough as it is. They don't need any more help from you.

 

[MyNameIsNowNotMyName]

Well here's the problem with that, it's not an equity thing, it's that males and females are DIFFERENT. They have a different buildups, they start puberty at different ages, and they are born with different mindsets. Don't call me sexist, but that's the way nature made us.

 

[devilkingx]

Check this: Men have penises and women have vaginas. Men and women are different, especially mentally. Clearly, that's not good for a young woman, but IMO and as a man, I think a young man can handle that.

Prove if and how it has affected the boy negatively and maybe I'll change my mind? If you can't, my mind won't change.

Keep in mind, safe sex isn't the issue here so STDs and babies are not relevant. Obvi, he should be wearing rubbers.

Would it have been different if it were a guy who had sex with the boy? Or would that still be within the range of things you "think he can handle?"

This is a matter of someone underage being manipulated into having sex when they might not have known all the facts, or felt they were in a situation where they were at a disadvantage to refuse because they were dealing with someone older and an authority figure. I mean, what if she actually did manage to get pregnant by him? If my facts are correct, she would still be in a position to get child support from him. And even if she can't while he's a minor, it's only a four year wait, and then she can request backpayments from there. Would a 14-year-old know about that? And would he have even have known to ask about STDs?

Nobody has the right to say one gender can "handle it" better than the other. You have no right to say what you think others "can handle." That's like saying spiking a guy's drink isn't as bad as spiking a woman's drink because guys can usually metabolize drugs better. Sex with a minor is sex with a minor. It's a matter of what was done, not who it was done to. Your argument is acting purely on the stereotypes of boys and sex.

And even if your argument were to "win", it would only serve as a detriment to all cases of sexual assault and sexual harassment with male as the victims. People already don't take those seriously enough as it is. They don't need any more help from you.

i would think guy on boy is wrong, but thats more because of my anti-gay opinion than anything else

as for if he can handle it, why dont we ask him, why must we treat the boy like a house cat? its easily possible that somebody could fucking ask his opinion and then this would be over but even though no one here can do that, nobody seems to even consider that a possibility

 

[BrownGaijin]

My reaction to the whole relationship can be summed up in one word...

Spoiler

ALRIGHT FINE! I'll be an adult and admit that the age difference and him being 14 is not right. But let's admit it gentlemen, when we were all fourteen we were all fantasizing about women that were even older than her.

And girls don't? I've got one word for you: Twilight.

Ah touche.

 

[Avistew]

I think it depends on the actual physical and emotional maturity of the two people involved. Other than that, their respective sex aren't relevant in my opinion.
14 is too young in many countries, but I fully believe that some 14 year old can handle a sexual relationship, and that kid might have been one of them. Still, I can see a case for the babysitter waiting longer before the relationship being sexual.

If there was any abuse at all, she should be punished for it, and I would certainly think that getting someone drunk to get in their pants is shady, even if a relationship arises from it, and especially when there is already a power dynamics, such as teacher/student or babysitter/babysat. I mean, if she was babysitting him, that means he was supposed to follow her authority.
If it was consensual (and I do think a 14 year old can give consent. Just not all 14 year olds in all cases. But it's a possibility and it might have been the case here) then I don't think she should be punished, but I do think it's still illegal, so... morally from my point of view she shouldn't be, but legally from following the law she should be, if people can see the distinction here.
As in, I don't think it should be a crime, but considering it is, she needs to pay her debt, get over the whole thing, and when she gets out start the relationship again if they both still want to (and if he's old enough by then).

 

[staika]

She should go to jail for the horrible crime of not sleeping with me and instead going for some little kid.

OT: my serious (maybe) answer is that she should do some community service and rehab but I wouldn't fight it if they gave her jail time.

 

[Dogstile]

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