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

[ninja51]

To quote Southpark,

"Nice..."

 

[kinggamecat]

Go directly to jail[footnote]After the trial, of course[/footnote]. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Bonus of sex offender registry from community chest.

This is what a fourteen year old boy looks like (Not the one from this case, from another):
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/06/11/image5082228x.jpg

Do you honestly think 20 year olds of any sex should be fucking that?

LOL This made me laugh pretty hard XD

 

[chadachada123]

Wait, people actually voted 'no big deal' on the poll? What the hell is wrong with those people?! Giving alcohol to a minor and taking sexual advantage of said minor! How is the seriousness of this even up for debate?

If I were 14, I would have done it in a heartbeat, and I don't think that a 19 year old girl should be punished for doing what nearly every 14 year old could only DREAM of.

Besides, it has been established that the alcohol may not have been involved until months after their relationship started, and by that point you could hardly use intoxication as an argument.

It's not an issue of whether the kid wanted it or not. He was underage, and the babysitter knowingly had sex with him regardless. That's statutory rape, and it's a crime for a reason. If say, an underage girl agreed to have sex with some 20 year old guy, would you consider that consensual? You'd probably accuse the guy of taking advantage of a minor, that she was in some way unable to give her full consent due to her youth and naivete. How is it any different when the genders are flipped? Young boys are just as irrational at that age. It's an indefensible double standard to claim that a woman can have sex with a 14 year old boy whereas the same relationship can't exist with the genders flipped.

Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth, because I personally do not have a problem with a 14 year old GIRL doing it with a 19 year old guy, either.

I think that a 14 year old girl can give consent, assuming she knows what sex is, biologically-speaking. In the same way, a 14 year old boy can give consent, assuming he knows what sex is.

On a somewhat-related note, why is it okay for two 14 year olds to do it (legally-speaking), but not a 14 year old and a 19 year old? Why is it okay when both of them are "young and naive," but not okay when only one of them is, yet still consents to the actions?

It's ok for two underage people to sleep together because neither is legally considered to be in a position to manipulate the other. When an older person has sex with a minor, it is more often than not the case that the minor is not mentally mature enough to be granted legal/sexual independence. Yes, some young people are 'mature for their age', or whatever, but there's really no way that you can claim that the vast majority of minors are in a position to live independent of parental/state supervision. After all, you wouldn't let a 14 year old buy a house and start paying rent now, would you? Thus, as the adult is considered 'independent', whereas the minor doesn't 'qualify', so to speak, the adults advances are tantamount to manipulation, as it would be if consenting to the minors advances and all. Think of it like a car dealer trying to sell your little brother a porsche. Every young boy wants a fancy sports car, but you wouldn't actually let them buy one.

That would be an appropriate argument were it not for the fact that minors can be charged in crimes *as adults,* yet cannot be separated for status-based offenses in situations like this.

There are teenagers that have been charged AS ADULTS for child porn distribution, of pictures of themselves, which wouldn't even be a crime if they were adults. If teenagers can be charged as adults for crimes based on the nature of their offenses and the maturity of the suspect, why can't teenagers be argued in court to be legally able to consent to sex based on the maturity of the "victim"?

That is a horribly-worded sentence but I hope the message is conveyed clearly. If you can charge kids as adults, saying that they are mentally capable of making decisions like that, you should also be able to exempt kids, as adults, for sex-related things.

 

[4173]

Wait, people actually voted 'no big deal' on the poll? What the hell is wrong with those people?! Giving alcohol to a minor and taking sexual advantage of said minor! How is the seriousness of this even up for debate?

If I were 14, I would have done it in a heartbeat, and I don't think that a 19 year old girl should be punished for doing what nearly every 14 year old could only DREAM of.

Besides, it has been established that the alcohol may not have been involved until months after their relationship started, and by that point you could hardly use intoxication as an argument.

It's not an issue of whether the kid wanted it or not. He was underage, and the babysitter knowingly had sex with him regardless. That's statutory rape, and it's a crime for a reason. If say, an underage girl agreed to have sex with some 20 year old guy, would you consider that consensual? You'd probably accuse the guy of taking advantage of a minor, that she was in some way unable to give her full consent due to her youth and naivete. How is it any different when the genders are flipped? Young boys are just as irrational at that age. It's an indefensible double standard to claim that a woman can have sex with a 14 year old boy whereas the same relationship can't exist with the genders flipped.

Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth, because I personally do not have a problem with a 14 year old GIRL doing it with a 19 year old guy, either.

I think that a 14 year old girl can give consent, assuming she knows what sex is, biologically-speaking. In the same way, a 14 year old boy can give consent, assuming he knows what sex is.

On a somewhat-related note, why is it okay for two 14 year olds to do it (legally-speaking), but not a 14 year old and a 19 year old? Why is it okay when both of them are "young and naive," but not okay when only one of them is, yet still consents to the actions?

It's ok for two underage people to sleep together because neither is legally considered to be in a position to manipulate the other. When an older person has sex with a minor, it is more often than not the case that the minor is not mentally mature enough to be granted legal/sexual independence. Yes, some young people are 'mature for their age', or whatever, but there's really no way that you can claim that the vast majority of minors are in a position to live independent of parental/state supervision. After all, you wouldn't let a 14 year old buy a house and start paying rent now, would you? Thus, as the adult is considered 'independent', whereas the minor doesn't 'qualify', so to speak, the adults advances are tantamount to manipulation, as it would be if consenting to the minors advances and all. Think of it like a car dealer trying to sell your little brother a porsche. Every young boy wants a fancy sports car, but you wouldn't actually let them buy one.

That would be an appropriate argument were it not for the fact that minors can be charged in crimes *as adults,* yet cannot be separated for status-based offenses in situations like this.

There are teenagers that have been charged AS ADULTS for child porn distribution, of pictures of themselves, which wouldn't even be a crime if they were adults. If teenagers can be charged as adults for crimes based on the nature of their offenses and the maturity of the suspect, why can't teenagers be argued in court to be legally able to consent to sex based on the maturity of the "victim"?

That is a horribly-worded sentence but I hope the message is conveyed clearly. If you can charge kids as adults, saying that they are mentally capable of making decisions like that, you should also be able to exempt kids, as adults, for sex-related things.

This doesn't directly refute your argument, but if it would be a hell of a risk to have sex with someone under age, and hope they can convince a judge they can consent.

 

[Nymphonic]

Why would a 14 year old boy have to be given alcohol in the first place. When I was 14 all a 20 year old girl would have to do is be there. All she would have to do is ask him.

This whole situation sounds too fishy to me, especially with a 14 year old being babysitted.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

I sure wish I had had sex with an attractive woman within the last ten years. Would have been nice. But no, just lonely nights by myself posting on message boards. I can't count the number of times my parents have left me alone in the house for long periods of time over the years. I could have had chicks over. Could have done stuff on every surface of the building.

I never had sex underage or of age sex, so I can't possibly fathom the horrible emotional pain it must bring. I mean, it must be pretty bad considering how awful it feels to want to have sex, but to never get to. Oh, that poor boy and his agony. Such a pity. Thank God the court system is there to let it be publicly known what he did with his wee wee. That will make him feel better. Getting to talk about his first sexual experiences with a beautiful woman. To his parents. That will solve everything and make it all better.

This country disgusts me sometimes.

 

[Harrowdown]

Wait, people actually voted 'no big deal' on the poll? What the hell is wrong with those people?! Giving alcohol to a minor and taking sexual advantage of said minor! How is the seriousness of this even up for debate?

If I were 14, I would have done it in a heartbeat, and I don't think that a 19 year old girl should be punished for doing what nearly every 14 year old could only DREAM of.

Besides, it has been established that the alcohol may not have been involved until months after their relationship started, and by that point you could hardly use intoxication as an argument.

It's not an issue of whether the kid wanted it or not. He was underage, and the babysitter knowingly had sex with him regardless. That's statutory rape, and it's a crime for a reason. If say, an underage girl agreed to have sex with some 20 year old guy, would you consider that consensual? You'd probably accuse the guy of taking advantage of a minor, that she was in some way unable to give her full consent due to her youth and naivete. How is it any different when the genders are flipped? Young boys are just as irrational at that age. It's an indefensible double standard to claim that a woman can have sex with a 14 year old boy whereas the same relationship can't exist with the genders flipped.

Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth, because I personally do not have a problem with a 14 year old GIRL doing it with a 19 year old guy, either.

I think that a 14 year old girl can give consent, assuming she knows what sex is, biologically-speaking. In the same way, a 14 year old boy can give consent, assuming he knows what sex is.

On a somewhat-related note, why is it okay for two 14 year olds to do it (legally-speaking), but not a 14 year old and a 19 year old? Why is it okay when both of them are "young and naive," but not okay when only one of them is, yet still consents to the actions?

It's ok for two underage people to sleep together because neither is legally considered to be in a position to manipulate the other. When an older person has sex with a minor, it is more often than not the case that the minor is not mentally mature enough to be granted legal/sexual independence. Yes, some young people are 'mature for their age', or whatever, but there's really no way that you can claim that the vast majority of minors are in a position to live independent of parental/state supervision. After all, you wouldn't let a 14 year old buy a house and start paying rent now, would you? Thus, as the adult is considered 'independent', whereas the minor doesn't 'qualify', so to speak, the adults advances are tantamount to manipulation, as it would be if consenting to the minors advances and all. Think of it like a car dealer trying to sell your little brother a porsche. Every young boy wants a fancy sports car, but you wouldn't actually let them buy one.

That would be an appropriate argument were it not for the fact that minors can be charged in crimes *as adults,* yet cannot be separated for status-based offenses in situations like this.

There are teenagers that have been charged AS ADULTS for child porn distribution, of pictures of themselves, which wouldn't even be a crime if they were adults. If teenagers can be charged as adults for crimes based on the nature of their offenses and the maturity of the suspect, why can't teenagers be argued in court to be legally able to consent to sex based on the maturity of the "victim"?

That is a horribly-worded sentence but I hope the message is conveyed clearly. If you can charge kids as adults, saying that they are mentally capable of making decisions like that, you should also be able to exempt kids, as adults, for sex-related things.

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.

 

[chadachada123]

This doesn't directly refute your argument, but if it would be a hell of a risk to have sex with someone under age, and hope they can convince a judge they can consent.

In Germany, the age of consent is 14. 14 and 15-year olds can petition in writing (a point that I'm somewhat confused about) to say that sex with someone older wasn't consensual, but otherwise, everyone 14 and up is fair game, and everyone 16 and up can fully consent without written approval.

That way, 14 and 15 year olds won't be screwed over by over-zealous parents when they themselves were consenting, though it seems to leave an opening for said 14/15 year olds to screw over the older person.

In any case, it's a far better system than the US's, from what I can tell.

 

[TheDooD]

Wait, people actually voted 'no big deal' on the poll? What the hell is wrong with those people?! Giving alcohol to a minor and taking sexual advantage of said minor! How is the seriousness of this even up for debate?

If I were 14, I would have done it in a heartbeat, and I don't think that a 19 year old girl should be punished for doing what nearly every 14 year old could only DREAM of.

Besides, it has been established that the alcohol may not have been involved until months after their relationship started, and by that point you could hardly use intoxication as an argument.

It's not an issue of whether the kid wanted it or not. He was underage, and the babysitter knowingly had sex with him regardless. That's statutory rape, and it's a crime for a reason. If say, an underage girl agreed to have sex with some 20 year old guy, would you consider that consensual? You'd probably accuse the guy of taking advantage of a minor, that she was in some way unable to give her full consent due to her youth and naivete. How is it any different when the genders are flipped? Young boys are just as irrational at that age. It's an indefensible double standard to claim that a woman can have sex with a 14 year old boy whereas the same relationship can't exist with the genders flipped.

Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth, because I personally do not have a problem with a 14 year old GIRL doing it with a 19 year old guy, either.

I think that a 14 year old girl can give consent, assuming she knows what sex is, biologically-speaking. In the same way, a 14 year old boy can give consent, assuming he knows what sex is.

On a somewhat-related note, why is it okay for two 14 year olds to do it (legally-speaking), but not a 14 year old and a 19 year old? Why is it okay when both of them are "young and naive," but not okay when only one of them is, yet still consents to the actions?

It's ok for two underage people to sleep together because neither is legally considered to be in a position to manipulate the other. When an older person has sex with a minor, it is more often than not the case that the minor is not mentally mature enough to be granted legal/sexual independence. Yes, some young people are 'mature for their age', or whatever, but there's really no way that you can claim that the vast majority of minors are in a position to live independent of parental/state supervision. After all, you wouldn't let a 14 year old buy a house and start paying rent now, would you? Thus, as the adult is considered 'independent', whereas the minor doesn't 'qualify', so to speak, the adults advances are tantamount to manipulation, as it would be if consenting to the minors advances and all. Think of it like a car dealer trying to sell your little brother a porsche. Every young boy wants a fancy sports car, but you wouldn't actually let them buy one.

That would be an appropriate argument were it not for the fact that minors can be charged in crimes *as adults,* yet cannot be separated for status-based offenses in situations like this.

There are teenagers that have been charged AS ADULTS for child porn distribution, of pictures of themselves, which wouldn't even be a crime if they were adults. If teenagers can be charged as adults for crimes based on the nature of their offenses and the maturity of the suspect, why can't teenagers be argued in court to be legally able to consent to sex based on the maturity of the "victim"?

That is a horribly-worded sentence but I hope the message is conveyed clearly. If you can charge kids as adults, saying that they are mentally capable of making decisions like that, you should also be able to exempt kids, as adults, for sex-related things.

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.

so basically its a double standard to a double standard....damn morality laws are fucked up

 

[chadachada123]

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.

 

[LT Cannibal 68]

lucky son of a ***** that girl must've had some self esteem issues she could've easily got anyone she wanted, either that or the kids wang must've been MASSIVE. hell if i was that kids dad i would've given him a high five not reported the girl.

 

[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.

 

[TheDooD]

A 14 year old is NOT FUCKING INNOCENT! Boy or girl, they know they want sex. If they meet an attractive member of the opposite sex, they will want their dick/vagina. This girl's not a criminal, she was probably just being nice. People calling her a "sex offender," don't know what that actually means.

I have pretty good idea of what it means. A sex offender is a person who has committed a sex crime, an adult having sex with someone underage is a crime ergo she is a sex offender.

Kinda fucked up being nice means you go to jail. 2 people having sex that are 6 years apart that are in their sexual prime and it's wrong for them to do it. Yet sex when you're old and shit doesn't work as well is basically glamorized. Sometimes I hate as humans in modern day we're still overall very immature and scared when it comes to sex.

 

[dragcrew]

She shouldn't have sex with the kid. He's underage, by taking up a job such as babysitting she should absolutely know that that's completely wrong. She has to understand the consequences of what basically is a sexual offense. That said the boy should have known better that what was happning was wrong and could ruin the woman's future, but he is still only a boy and so can be excused.

 

[chadachada123]

She shouldn't have sex with the kid. He's underage, by taking up a job such as babysitting she should absolutely know that that's completely wrong. She has to understand the consequences of what basically is a sexual offense. That said the boy should have known better that what was happening was wrong and could ruin the woman's future, but he is still only a boy and so can be excused.

I don't think it fair for the boy to possibly know that he is, no matter what, completely exempt from punishment, yet still goes along with it, while the girl took all the risk for something that they both wanted.

 

[Wyane380]

*GASP* She was underaged with alcohol!? Death!