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

[JordanDH]

The moral issue here isn't whether a man WOULD go to jail in this situation, it's whether a person, regardless of their gender, SHOULD go to jail. I would find fucking a 15/16 year old pretty fucking creepy at my age (21, nearly 22). It kind of depends on how mature the kid is, whether he was sexually active prior to this woman, and ultimately, whether he's suffered any negative effects as a result of his youthful exposure to sex and/or the age gap. On the other hand, if she's looking for 14 year olds or jumping into this kind of relationship with people around that age with no regard for their emotional maturity, then she's kind of a dick.

Also, I'd probs dick 'er. Y'know, if she wasn't a paedo.

 

[Tim Mazzola]

Yes. She should be treated like every other sex offender. Anything else is hypocritical and sexist, because just male and female sex offenders should be treated the same.

 

[Kafka Torkarev]

wow... damn that lucky sonava *****. kid must be some stud.
and no the lady should not go to jail. if i were 15-14 and i got to fuck a hot 20 year old i would be the happiest person on earth, (even if there was kinky shit, i mean hey to each his own right) laws and age difference be damned

 

[Iron Lightning]

Did the boy or his parents report her?
Did the boy want to report her at all?

That makes all the difference in the world to me.

Honestly, I'm of the same mind. I don't think that any truly consenting relationship between biological adults should be illegal.

Also, if you didn't read the edit, his mom reported her and the two had been having a sexual relationship for about a year.

 

[AngloDoom]

Everyone saying "if the roles were reversed..." stop it. There is a double standard in our society, and there is still lots of sexism. Like it or not, it's true. You can say that they should treat her like a male sex offender, but at the end of the day, it's not going down like that. Be realistic, there are tons of differences between how males and females are treated in our society. It's not as bad as it was 50 or 100 years ago, but the fact is that these differences exist, so you must take them into consideration.

In this case, here is the view: males all want sex 24/7, provided the girl is hot, STD free, and not going to get pregnant. Females rarely want sex, except with someone they are in a serious relationship with, excepting sluts who drunkenly hook up with people at clubs/bars. Yes it's not true, but that is the view that 90% of the people are gonna accept regarding this case.

But that's the problem. Instead of addressing the issue at hand, you're just accepting it completely. That's what the entire argument is about, there SHOULD NOT be that double standard. We shouldn't just say something that's broken is good enough to use.

Okay, we'll just change society's view on a massive subject in a short period of time, over a trivial case. Yes I sound like a douche, but it's called being realistic. There are lots of things that shouldn't be: theft, murder, hatred, racism, sexism, rape, etc. However, there are these things, and likely, there always will be. Call me an ass, pessimistic, whatever. At the end of the day, the world will still continue to prove me right.

Not trying at all is allowing society to stay the same.

Any drop in crime or discriminating views is a good amount: and these things have happened before. If everyone took your opinion, the world would be stuck in the same rut it was when society was conceived. You're not being a douche, and ass, or even a pessimist, you're totally ignoring the past.

I'm not saying we can't change, of course we can, and have. But over such a trivial case? Likely not.

Of course not, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. The point when you stop trying is when you've truly failed.

Also, Rosa Parks.

Yes, yes, and every vote matters, we can make a change, etc. There's a whole list of people who've made monumental changes to the world, but there is a much longer list of those who haven't. And I am one of them, simple statistics.

I think you're missing the point.
The way you think only makes that true. Those people who made changes weren't anything but the same ingredients as you, probably not as intelligent, and most certainly not anything but human. Why aren't you any of those people? Because you haven't become one of them. Rosa Parks sat on a bus and ignored people, she didn't blow up the houses of Parliament.

 

[crimson sickle2]

As long as both party give their consent, I believe that it shouldn't be a crime.

 

[lunam-kardas]

She should go to jail, simple as that. A crime is a crime no matter what gender commits it.

 

[chadachada123]

If this woman doesn't go to jail, then we don't have any right to send a man to jail if the situations were reversed. Sexual assault is sexual assault, and unfortunately, it seems like most people aren't treating it as bad this time since the victim was a boy and it was a woman sexually assaulting him. If it were a man sexually assaulting a 14 year old girl, or even a man assaulting another man the person would be written off as "Scum" and sent to jail. Unfortunately, it seems, despite the blatant double standard, there's a good chance this woman wouldn't be punished nearly as much as a man were if the situation was reversed.

He had a several-month long relationship with her. Don't call him a "victim" because there is zero evidence that he was abused or harmed in any real way.

You are correct that society is hypocritical against males, but that's an argument against blanket age-of-consent laws, NOT an argument against the "perpetrator" in this case.

/I don't think that a 19 year old guy should be punished for a similar offense, either

 

[Warped_Ghost]

And once it was done the father realized why she was 200$ a night.

 

[chadachada123]

She should go to jail, simple as that. A crime is a crime no matter what gender commits it.

The argument in this thread is not just about whether the letter of the law should be followed, but about whether the law itself is asinine or not.

Even so, the letter of the law allows for rehab if it can be shown that the girl is not a true criminal in this case, making your point irrelevant.

 

[Mosesj]

I'll put that in my contract and conditions for baby sitting

1. absolutely no amount of alcohol is allowed in the child's presence

2. Having sex with our child will not be considered
a free bonus, the payment will be one punch to the face

 

[Lilani]

They say he was mature for his age.

Then answer me this: If this were about a 20 year old male having a sexual relationship with a 14 year old girl, would she be seen more as a victim of abuse or "mature of her age?"

 

[JordanDH]

Did the boy or his parents report her?
Did the boy want to report her at all?

That makes all the difference in the world to me.

Honestly, I'm of the same mind. I don't think that any truly consenting relationship between biological adults should be illegal.

Also, if you didn't read the edit, his mom reported her and the two had been having a sexual relationship for about a year.

There's a difference between consent and informed consent.

She should go to jail, simple as that. A crime is a crime no matter what gender commits it.

But not every law should be a law.

 

[wench]

Rehab.
If a pretty chick like that feels the need to get with a 14 year old she obviously has mental issues.

Well, they tried to make her go to rehab, but she said "no, no no!"

 

[Slayer_2]

Everyone saying "if the roles were reversed..." stop it. There is a double standard in our society, and there is still lots of sexism. Like it or not, it's true. You can say that they should treat her like a male sex offender, but at the end of the day, it's not going down like that. Be realistic, there are tons of differences between how males and females are treated in our society. It's not as bad as it was 50 or 100 years ago, but the fact is that these differences exist, so you must take them into consideration.

In this case, here is the view: males all want sex 24/7, provided the girl is hot, STD free, and not going to get pregnant. Females rarely want sex, except with someone they are in a serious relationship with, excepting sluts who drunkenly hook up with people at clubs/bars. Yes it's not true, but that is the view that 90% of the people are gonna accept regarding this case.

But that's the problem. Instead of addressing the issue at hand, you're just accepting it completely. That's what the entire argument is about, there SHOULD NOT be that double standard. We shouldn't just say something that's broken is good enough to use.

Okay, we'll just change society's view on a massive subject in a short period of time, over a trivial case. Yes I sound like a douche, but it's called being realistic. There are lots of things that shouldn't be: theft, murder, hatred, racism, sexism, rape, etc. However, there are these things, and likely, there always will be. Call me an ass, pessimistic, whatever. At the end of the day, the world will still continue to prove me right.

Not trying at all is allowing society to stay the same.

Any drop in crime or discriminating views is a good amount: and these things have happened before. If everyone took your opinion, the world would be stuck in the same rut it was when society was conceived. You're not being a douche, and ass, or even a pessimist, you're totally ignoring the past.

I'm not saying we can't change, of course we can, and have. But over such a trivial case? Likely not.

Of course not, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. The point when you stop trying is when you've truly failed.

Also, Rosa Parks.

Yes, yes, and every vote matters, we can make a change, etc. There's a whole list of people who've made monumental changes to the world, but there is a much longer list of those who haven't. And I am one of them, simple statistics.

I think you're missing the point.
The way you think only makes that true. Those people who made changes weren't anything but the same ingredients as you, probably not as intelligent, and most certainly not anything but human. Why aren't you any of those people? Because you haven't become one of them. Rosa Parks sat on a bus and ignored people, she didn't blow up the houses of Parliament.

Of course they were the essentially the same biologically, but it was the factors in their lives and their willpower that made them strong.

 

[wench]

Kind of overreacting if you ask me. You can't 'rape' someone using alcohol. No matter how far gone, it's still them taking the decisions. Alcohol is never an excuse.

While it does look abusive, I wouldn't say it is clearly. It's ridiculous ruining someone's life over such a thing by taking her to court.

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.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Statutory rape is still statutory rape no matter who the participates are. It's illegal, if you don't like it then go talk to a law-maker. Simple as that.

 

[wench]

Weird. I remember understanding what was going on when I was 14.

Again, at what age do people stop being mentally retarded vegetables for you people? At what age do people arbitrarily become capable of understanding consent?

The age at with people are mature enough to give consent varies wildly from person to person. That's why there's a legal standard. Some 12 year olds are completely mature enough, some 16 year olds aren't. The question isn't really whether this kid gave informed consent or not - because he isn't legally able to give informed consent at 14. That's the thing about laws, they don't always fit the situation. That's why they have some flexibility in sentencing, so they can say "yes, this was wrong, but it wasn't that wrong."