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

[CatmanStu]

The whole age of consent thing is a waste of time. I understand the need to have one in place to keep the conservatively moral (also very vocal) majority happy but when it is all said and done you can not judge a person's ability to make a sound judgement based on their age.

I have met fourteen year olds that wanted to make sure their first time was with someone special and I have met thirty year olds that would sleep with anyone if that person bought the drinks and paid for the hotel room.

 

[PowerC]

(Story found here [http://abcnews.go.com/US/connecticut-babysitter-accused-sexually-assaulting-14-year-boy/story?id=14238187] if you wanna read it)

The article is pretty skimpy on the details, but the gist of it is that there's a 20-year old babysitter who was charged with sexual assault of a 14-year old boy she babysat. She allegedly got him drunk before sleeping with him, and legally, that makes it sexual assault (because she intoxicated someone with the purpose of clouding their mental judgement before seducing them). She's facing jail time, but her lawyer says that she needs rehab instead.

The events aren't explained in detail, but honestly, I don't feel like she should be in jail (even though "sex rehab" is a load of bullocks). Part of it is that while 14 is too young to have sex with an adult imo, the age gap between her and the guy is only 6 years or so.

The main reason I don't take this seriously though, and I really don't want to admit it; is that she's an attractive young female as opposed to the stereotypical sex offender. All hate for double standards aside, would you really send this woman to jail for getting a teen drunk and having sex with him?

I honestly don't know whether to have contempt for this girl, or to make a stupid joke about the kid being a hero. What do you guys think?

[HEADING=1] BIG, NOTICEABLE EDIT: [/HEADING]

Another site said they were in a sexual relationship for several months, and his mom was the one who reported her. This almost definitely means that she didn't use the alcohol to force him into sex, and that they were both consenting. Many people would still find this wrong, but a lot of you were confused whether or not the sex was forced. Also worth mentioning is that the relationship started when he was 14 and she was 19, so it's more of a 5 year-ish difference.

Sorry that I didn't have the full story when I made the topic. My bad...

That woman should be put in a cell just like any other perv preying on kids. That woman was obviously manipulating that kid for sex because, lets be honest, what kind of 20 year old attractive woman wants to be in a relationship with some para-pubescent 14 year old kid that she was BABYSITTING! Whether he was drunk or not, a teenager that young can't comprehend the mental and emotional complexities of sex.In addition, the law requires that all sexual relations between someone of age and a minor(even if it were consensual) is considered statutory rape. Finally, that kid is going to be sexually messed up for the rest of his life and nobody should be given an award for losing their virginity at age 14, that's kinda trashy.

 

[PowerC]

I guess no one realizes that the age of consent was anywhere from 7 to 12 less then a hundred years ago. Granted anywhere from 7 to 12 is too young but 14 is about the time males hit puberity so the current age of consent really needs to taken down from where it is. Its a complete joke to prosecute anyone who has sex with older teens. As mentioned before it was only a hundred years ago that the age of consent was changed... so for the other 2000+ years before mankind has been made up of pedophiles? Also in most parts of Mexico the age of consent is currently 12 years old... so is Mexico full of pedophiles? Its also retarded to when people go "OMG THEY HAD SEX! PEDOBEAR ALERT!" and have people registered as a sex offender with jail time when its CONSENTUAL. I mean really what do people expect. Most advertisements use the motto "sex sales" so when children are consistanally shown that sex is good or fun or anything for that matter how can anyone think they won't do it when no one who will condemn then isn't around? *Flameshield ON* Now before anyone starts with anything a little background info on me is I started having sex on my 15th birthday so barely older then the lucky kid mentioned in the article. After about a year or so I got reckless and 9 months later had my first son at 17 (neeeeeeeeever believe a girl when she says shes on the pill >< ). Anyways I'm currently 22 with 2 amazing sons. All I'm saying is no one should be punished for doing something with someone they care about... or I guess even with someone they don't as long as its CONSENTUAL. I personally think 14 is fine for consent 99% of the time... but 40 year olds with 14 year olds is just creepy.

Okay for one thing the age of consent 100 years ago shouldn't have any bearing on what is is today because I like to think that science and society in general have advanced to a point where we all realize that screwing 7-year olds isn't a good idea. Sex is a very complicated thing, minors generally shouldn't be dealing with.Also, 14 isn't "older teens", I could see you're argument if this was a twenty year old and a 17 year old. Also 14 being a good age for consent except with people over the age where they're still attractive is a ridiculous double standard.

 

[Treblaine]

Here is an interesting quote:

"It appears that adolescents, at least by age 14, are comparable to adults in their ability to understand and consider options, weigh pros and cons, make purposeful choices, and defend those choices (Weithorn & Campbell, 1982)"

Very dated research. We now have two decades of brain scans showing that the opposite is true and that kids that age don't have the white matter to allow them to properly assess risk and long term consequences. Seriously, look back at your decisions when you were 14 (or even 16) and tell me you weren't a little idiot a lot of the time.

Could you actually cite a source on that? Brain scans are nice, but it jumps to conclusions saying "x structure isn't there" the study I cite looks objectively at behaviours in situ, not speculating on links between behaviour and structure.

It's like saying "girder isn't there, therefore the bridge should stand" even though another empirical test objectively measured how much weight the bridge can actually take.

As to your personal example I just happen to have made the biggest mistakes in my life since I turned 18. Frankly I am wise from experience, not age.

Bottom Line:
The law has a double standard on whether a 14 year old male is an adult or a child.

In both cases it follows what gets the most convictions.

 

[AnarchistFish]

That woman should be put in a cell just like any other perv preying on kids. That woman was obviously manipulating that kid for sex because, lets be honest, what kind of 20 year old attractive woman wants to be in a relationship with some para-pubescent 14 year old kid that she was BABYSITTING!

I can see this point.
I disagree with the rest of what you say. It's too general and stereotypical

Whether he was drunk or not, a teenager that young can't comprehend the mental and emotional complexities of sex.In addition, the law requires that all sexual relations between someone of age and a minor(even if it were consensual) is considered statutory rape. Finally, that kid is going to be sexually messed up for the rest of his life and nobody should be given an award for losing their virginity at age 14, that's kinda trashy.

 

[Treblaine]

Charge and convict... but judge should use discretion on a shorter sentence. Considering how this is quite a benign crime.

-snip-

What if she was a terrorist?

What if she is a communist spy?

What if she is a witch?

What if she murdered the boy?

What if she cannibalised his corpse?

(1) no evidence any of these are the case
(2) if it was different: it would be different. DUH! The point is it isn't.

You can's say because 'A is related to B' then that 'A is B'.

This is a case of inappropriate and unhealthy relations that should not be allowed but don't try to equate this with priests who forcibly rape children.

She deserves to be punished but not even close to as severely as the worst child rapist.

It should be a case-by-case basis of harm done. Was the teenager harmed by deciding (with their limited capacity) to sleep with another teenager only 5 years older? Probably not that much, it's quite an imbalanced relationship that cannot go on.

I hope people aren't calling for her head in some misguided sense of gender and age equality, as if a teenage girl is the same as a middle aged man in the context of sexual relations with an underage teenager.

Obviously I realise this. However a fucktonne of replies were saying things like "what's the big deal? She's hot."

I was directing my post at those type of comments.

Uhhh, the "she IS hot" is completely unrelated to "what if she wasn't"

You can't argue a case by changing the evidence. The case IS the evidence!

The point of "she is hot" is that it would not have been a bad experience for the boy. In fact no force would be expected and it would be like any other sexual encounter. It may not have been great for the boy's development as it is important to have something good to look forward to though it hardly ruins your life. Clint Eastwood for example lost his virginity when he was only 14 and he turned out pretty god damn amazing:

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/w0003353.html

Saying "what if she was a middle aged priest" would mean he was obviously forcibly raped.

There is a huge difference between someone who is not quite mature enough to consent to sex and someone who is forced to have sex against their will and every fibre of their being.

 

[Brown_Coat117]

I know that this has be mentioned that if this was an older guy and the chick was younger people would be crying for blood so yes she should go to jail

 

[Treblaine]

That woman should be put in a cell just like any other perv preying on kids. That woman was obviously manipulating that kid for sex because, lets be honest, what kind of 20 year old attractive woman wants to be in a relationship with some para-pubescent 14 year old kid that she was BABYSITTING!

That makes ZERO sense.

you say:
-a 20 year old would have NO INTEREST in a 14 year old boy
-Therefore it is the 20 year old who is manipulating the relationship
-... to be with someone, that she doesn't want to be with

I remember being 14, I was a little hound dog, it took all my restraint not to lust for every hot woman I saw. If I had the guts I'd have flirted with every hot woman I came in contact with. I didn't want a relationship I wanted to hump!

 

[AnarchistFish]

That woman should be put in a cell just like any other perv preying on kids. That woman was obviously manipulating that kid for sex because, lets be honest, what kind of 20 year old attractive woman wants to be in a relationship with some para-pubescent 14 year old kid that she was BABYSITTING!

That makes ZERO sense.

you say:
-a 20 year old would have NO INTEREST in a 14 year old boy
-Therefore it is the 20 year old who is manipulating the relationship
-... to be with someone, that she doesn't want to be with

I remember being 14, I was a little hound dog, it took all my restraint not to lust for every hot woman I saw. If I had the guts I'd have flirted with every hot woman I came in contact with. I didn't want a relationship I wanted to hump!

Isn't the point that why would she want to have sex with a 14 year old when it blatantly isn't out of some kind of desperation? Why would she want to specifically sleep with someone so young?

 

[StBishop]

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

Uhhh, the "she IS hot" is completely unrelated to "what if she wasn't"

You can't argue a case by changing the evidence. The case IS the evidence!

The point of "she is hot" is that it would not have been a bad experience for the boy. In fact no force would be expected and it would be like any other sexual encounter. It may not have been great for the boy's development as it is important to have something good to look forward to though it hardly ruins your life. Clint Eastwood for example lost his virginity when he was only 14 and he turned out pretty god damn amazing:

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/w0003353.html

Saying "what if she was a middle aged priest" would mean he was obviously forcibly raped.

There is a huge difference between someone who is not quite mature enough to consent to sex and someone who is forced to have sex against their will and every fibre of their being.

Ok lets just back up a little. The fact that were available to me at the time of posting were as follows.

An adult had sex with a minor to whom they owed a duty of care (or other applicable legal term that varies by region)
The child was intoxicated.
There was nothing suggesting that she too was intoxicated.

From those facts I'd been given, it's safe to conclude that it was non-consensual.

Obviously given the info that's been edited into the OP, there really shouldn't be a problem here other than that, realistically she should have found someone her own age and he should just wait 2 years like everyone else.

So yeah, based on the info I was given it makes sense to be a little flustered at people saying "lol she's hot, what is he complaining about?" however apparently he didn't care, and was, presumably, down for it as they were dating or some such.

 

[Kevon Huggins]

So ummm a 2o year old has sex with a 14 yearold boy isn't that considered pedo

 

[SaberXIII]

Two words come to mind:
Good man.

 

[Treblaine]

That woman should be put in a cell just like any other perv preying on kids. That woman was obviously manipulating that kid for sex because, lets be honest, what kind of 20 year old attractive woman wants to be in a relationship with some para-pubescent 14 year old kid that she was BABYSITTING!

That makes ZERO sense.

you say:
-a 20 year old would have NO INTEREST in a 14 year old boy
-Therefore it is the 20 year old who is manipulating the relationship
-... to be with someone, that she doesn't want to be with

I remember being 14, I was a little hound dog, it took all my restraint not to lust for every hot woman I saw. If I had the guts I'd have flirted with every hot woman I came in contact with. I didn't want a relationship I wanted to hump!

Isn't the point that why would she want to have sex with a 14 year old when it blatantly isn't out of some kind of desperation? Why would she want to specifically sleep with someone so young?

I don't know, why would a woman sleep with a fat guy? Yet fat guys get laid... occasionally.

PS: I can't see why any woman would sleep with any guy, what is so great about men anyway whether 14 or 41 or 30 years old. Way I see it men have to depend mostly on their minds, their actions and words rather than their bodies.

 

[Treblaine]

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

Uhhh, the "she IS hot" is completely unrelated to "what if she wasn't"

You can't argue a case by changing the evidence. The case IS the evidence!

The point of "she is hot" is that it would not have been a bad experience for the boy. In fact no force would be expected and it would be like any other sexual encounter. It may not have been great for the boy's development as it is important to have something good to look forward to though it hardly ruins your life. Clint Eastwood for example lost his virginity when he was only 14 and he turned out pretty god damn amazing:

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/w0003353.html

Saying "what if she was a middle aged priest" would mean he was obviously forcibly raped.

There is a huge difference between someone who is not quite mature enough to consent to sex and someone who is forced to have sex against their will and every fibre of their being.

Ok lets just back up a little. The fact that were available to me at the time of posting were as follows.

An adult had sex with a minor to whom they owed a duty of care (or other applicable legal term that varies by region)
The child was intoxicated.
There was nothing suggesting that she too was intoxicated.

From those facts I'd been given, it's safe to conclude that it was non-consensual.

Obviously given the info that's been edited into the OP, there really shouldn't be a problem here other than that, realistically she should have found someone her own age and he should just wait 2 years like everyone else.

So yeah, based on the info I was given it makes sense to be a little flustered at people saying "lol she's hot, what is he complaining about?" however apparently he didn't care, and was, presumably, down for it as they were dating or some such.

Yeaaaah, it's not like the title of this thread is about a "Female babysitter"

How did you get "Middle Aged male Priest" from THAT!

It is with overwhelming likelihood a teenager or very young woman with a boy of quite similar age.

 

[Treblaine]

Here is an interesting quote:

"It appears that adolescents, at least by age 14, are comparable to adults in their ability to understand and consider options, weigh pros and cons, make purposeful choices, and defend those choices (Weithorn & Campbell, 1982)"

Very dated research. We now have two decades of brain scans showing that the opposite is true and that kids that age don't have the white matter to allow them to properly assess risk and long term consequences. Seriously, look back at your decisions when you were 14 (or even 16) and tell me you weren't a little idiot a lot of the time.

Could you actually cite a source on that? Brain scans are nice, but it jumps to conclusions saying "x structure isn't there" the study I cite looks objectively at behaviours in situ, not speculating on links between behaviour and structure.

Sure. It's not conclusive, and in fact early white matter development can also lead to problems, but here's a few examples:

The evidence now is strong that the brain does not cease
to mature until the early 20s in those relevant parts that govern
impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences,
and other characteristics that make people morally
culpable?. Indeed, age 21 or 22 would be closer to the ?biological?
age of maturity.?
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/criminal_justice_section_newsletter/crimjust_juvjus_Adolescence.authcheckdam.pdf

Based on the stage of their brain development, adolescents are more likely to:

?act on impulse
?misread or misinterpret social cues and emotions
?get into accidents of all kinds
?get involved in fights
?engage in dangerous or risky behavior
Adolescents are less likely to:

?think before they act
?pause to consider the potential consequences of their actions
?modify their dangerous or inappropriate behaviors
http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/the_teen_brain_behavior_problem_solving_and_decision_making

The results from the McLean study suggest that while adults can to use rational decision making processes when facing emotional decisions, adolescent brains are simply not yet equipped to think through things in the same way. For example, when deciding whether to ride in a car driven by a drunk friend, an adult can usually put aside her desire to conform and is more likely to make the rational decision against drunk driving. However, a teenager's immature frontal lobes may not be capable of such a coolly rational approach, and the emotional feelings of friendship may be likely to win the battle. As Dr. Yurgelun-Todd told U.S. News, "Good judgment is learned, but you can't learn it if you don't have the necessary hardware."
http://brainconnection.positscience.com/topics/?main=news-in-rev/teen-frontal

This isn't very strong. Brain studies have broader potential but are a more ambiguous ways to go.

What is the problem with far more conclusive empirical behavioural studies: directly testing their actual reasoning. Yes, those studies were done in the 1980's but studies for the Theory of Evolution were done in the 1850's! Time doesn't decay evidence, it stands until dis proven.

And their case was that between 14 and 18 there was insignificant difference.

These studies go further and say "true" maturity does not begin till 22.

Also lack of an important word in all this: "Significant"

That is a HUGELY important word, as if the difference is NOT significant, then there is more difference within a group than there is on average between the groups.

 

[sketch_zeppelin]

Its ill advised. If she really cared about the 14 year old then she would have convinced him to wait a few years...or at the very least tell the family what was going on. They likely would have been pissed and forbid the kid to see her again but in a couple of years he'd be legal and they couldn't say shit.

I'm tyring to reverse the roll in my head 19 year old boy and a 14 year old girl to see if its any worse and in both cases the only reason i'd asign jail time is becuase of the booze. Neither of them are old enough to drink yet and your already pushing it by having a relationship with a minor. That kind of stupid deserves some kind of punishment...i just don't think being sent to prison would help at all.

I'm thinking thearapy and some kind of work release program.

 

[Treblaine]

Yeaaaah, it's not like the title of this thread is about a "Female babysitter"

How did you get "Middle Aged male Priest" from THAT!

It is with overwhelming likelihood a teenager or very young woman with a boy of quite similar age.

Did you read the thread? The boy was 14, the adult woman was 19 when it started, 20 when arrested.

Of course I did. The person I am replying to obviously did not.

 

[StBishop]

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

Ok lets just back up a little. The fact that were available to me at the time of posting were as follows.

An adult had sex with a minor to whom they owed a duty of care (or other applicable legal term that varies by region)
The child was intoxicated.
There was nothing suggesting that she too was intoxicated.

From those facts I'd been given, it's safe to conclude that it was non-consensual.

Obviously given the info that's been edited into the OP, there really shouldn't be a problem here other than that, realistically she should have found someone her own age and he should just wait 2 years like everyone else.

So yeah, based on the info I was given it makes sense to be a little flustered at people saying "lol she's hot, what is he complaining about?" however apparently he didn't care, and was, presumably, down for it as they were dating or some such.

Yeaaaah, it's not like the title of this thread is about a "Female babysitter"

How did you get "Middle Aged male Priest" from THAT!

It is with overwhelming likelihood a teenager or very young woman with a boy of quite similar age.

Hyperbole, try it some time. It's often used to prove a point.

What I'm getting at is that basically, I disagree with you. I feel that what she did (as the time I read the OP, not with the facts I have now) is as bad as any one else sleeping with a child regardless of how much more of an adult they are or their gender or their "hotness".

That's pretty much where it all breaks down.
I was trying to illustrate my opinion that she shouldn't be treated any differently than anyone else who commits carnal knowledge (statutory rape or whatever) just because she's hot and young or because her victim is a boy.

What I was trying to say is, in the eyes of the law, she may as well be a 90 year old priest, and in my mind that is how it should be.

I don't understand why this is confusing to you. I had about 7 people quote me who agreed so I can't be that bad at communicating.

and this:

Yeaaaah, it's not like the title of this thread is about a "Female babysitter"

How did you get "Middle Aged male Priest" from THAT!

It is with overwhelming likelihood a teenager or very young woman with a boy of quite similar age.

Did you read the thread? The boy was 14, the adult woman was 19 when it started, 20 when arrested.

Of course I did. The person I am replying to obviously did not.

Is uncalled for.