• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Sexually abusing a child while Female

p0lka said:
Ok,



Re: the highlighted, I would disagree as I feel 14 is a bit too low.

You ******* advocating to **** 14 year olds and its ******* ok? you ******* *** ophile.
Click to expand...

Read again for comprehension.

If 13 is way too low, then it is a bit of a stretch to assume 14 is perfectly okay in my opinion. That is simply where I would start arguing in regards to a countries age of consent.

If I were the god emperor of mankind and my word was enforced with violence and gusto , I'd simply set an arbitrary age of 19 hard and fast rule with penalties starting when age difference is over 2 years.

Thankfully for some here that is not the case.
 
When people joke that guys would enjoy this, the immediate reaction appears to be to dismiss that because guys can be abused too, but the same jokes also do a disservice to girls of the same age. Regardless of sex, a 13-year-old in this kind of situation (not being physically forced) has made the same kind of choice either way, because it's what (s)he wants to do. But only the guy's ability to make such a choice is acknowledged; she's treated as completely unable to manage her own feelings and make her own choices, just waiting for someone else to somehow compel her to do their will instead.
 
Last edited:
My MRA lens chalks this up to being an example of perceived hyperagency vs hypoagency of men and women. As well as seeing male sexuality as bad and female sexuality as good.
 
Delvo said:
When people joke that guys would enjoy this, the immediate reaction appears to be to dismiss that because guys can be abused too, but the same jokes also do a disservice to girls of the same age. Regardless of sex, a 13-year-old in this kind of situation (not being physically forced) has made the same kind of choice either way, because it's what (s)he wants to do. But only the guy's ability to make such a choice is acknowledged; she's treated as completely unable to manage her own feelings and making her own choices, just waiting for someone else to somehow compel her to do their will instead.
Click to expand...

No. The vulnerability of a 13-year-old to being manipulated into this kind of situation is correctly acknowledged in the case of female children. It is not a disservice. The problem is hypermasculine culture which, as you observe at the beginning, inappropriately bestows more agency on boys in its refusal to see them as "real victims" of sex abuse.
 
p0lka said:
If someone has legal sex with a 16/17 year old, Do you judge them on your laws or theirs?
Click to expand...

Lawbreakers should be judged according to the laws they broke, obviously. Usually this is sufficient to assess their overall degree of douchebaggery, even if the laws in question are stricter than you believe necessary.
 
Cain said:
I suggest you consult a dictionary for the definition of infantilizing.
Click to expand...

What I said was just fine.

I wrote: "I wonder if young males would prefer to do their geometry problems or **** their hot teacher... "



This is a good example of standard operating procedure on this board, where people try to fashion themselves as thinking "skeptically," or "logically" rather than actually doing the real work of reading for comprehension and thinking rationally. Yes, it is indeed possible to want neither or both, but I asked which is preferred, so no, it's a false dichotomy along the lines you would pretend.
Click to expand...

I definitely misread your post because I was operating under the assumption that it had something to do with what I argued.

Your question has nothing to do with what I said, and I'm sorry I tried to make it. The answer to your question thus also has nothing to do with what I said.

Incidentally, earlier you remarked that the coercion to do homework somehow strengthens your argument, but you were reduced to balkanizing my post, removing that leading question from its context. So, thanks. Try to read in paragraphs, not sentences.
Click to expand...

Leaving the question in changes nothing about my point there. The problem you seem to be having is that I'm not arguing to your headcanon on how this 'discussion' is supposed to go. My point stands; teachers have an authority over students, especially young students, that makes meaningful consent extremely difficult to establish.

Teachers must -- generally -- coerce students to do their homework. However, it's not mindbogglingly impossible to believe an attractive, young woman does not need to employ any coercion at all to get a teenage boy to **** her.
Click to expand...

And? You seem to think this connects to my arguments somehow. Do your homework and connect them. Where did I say that there must be coercion? You're not arguing to what I actually said again.



More sophistry. Yes, it is true that wanting something is not the same as being willing, but is that the case here? This kid is sticking his dick in her reluctantly? And no, it does not follow that if he is enthusiastic and willing that it should be allowed for reasons explained here:



Given to their own devices, a fair percentage of teenage boys would prefer to eat Cheetos, play Fortnite, and watch porn.
Click to expand...

Well yes, is that the case here? How would that be established meaningfully? How would you rule out coercion?

Not sophistry in the least to point out meaningful distinctions. 'Wanting it' is simply not the real standard. The impulsiveness inherent in children that lets them give in to their base desires over second level desires is yet another aspects that would let them be 'easier prey' to manipulate.

Try arguing with what I actually said and not how you thought this would go. You keep acting like I have argued that the child could want the sex. I have not. I've specifically said things that require that to not be my belief. Continuing to argue as if I had is not going to be productive.
 
bluesjnr said:
I'm sure you can use the search function and find them yourself but if you can't, like me, be bothered, how about reading this very thread?

Qayak is a prime example - no harm apparently, as is Pterodactyl who wonders about how "hot" the abuser is. Thermal seems to be hung up on how developed the victim is as if that has some bearing on why he was abused. Cainkane1 has admitted to fantasising about sexual scenarios involving minors and Isissxn thinks it's a hoot.

Will that satisfy your curiosity?
Click to expand...

Whoa, whoa, whoa...I don't condone such a thing at all, and for several reasons. I am trying to understand it.

Many of the women accused of abuse like this in recent memory have been remarkably attractive. When men are accused...well, let's just say you wouldn't mistake them for male models. What I am wondering is whether the boy looks physically like someone the young woman might date (and otherwise in the legal and ethical ranges), or whether she is preying on actual little boys.

What I mean is that this woman could possibly be seeing this boy as more of a peer than prey. It's hands-down wrong either way, but a possibility.
 
tyr_13 said:
I definitely misread your post because I was operating under the assumption that it had something to do with what I argued.
Click to expand...

So, one reading comprehension failure after another.

Leaving the question in changes nothing about my point there. The problem you seem to be having is that I'm not arguing to your headcanon on how this 'discussion' is supposed to go. My point stands; teachers have an authority over students, especially young students, that makes meaningful consent extremely difficult to establish.
Click to expand...

You must have the memory of a proverbial goldfish. You asked, "Even if the person was otherwise willing, how can we tell the consent was meaningful? Informed? Valid? Back to the robbery example, when there is gun pointed at you, even if you really were willing to give your wallet without it, how would anyone else be able to know?"

When I provided examples, you were reduced to semantics, claiming a relevant difference between "willing" and "wanting."

Here's the recent bit:
Not sophistry in the least to point out meaningful distinctions. 'Wanting it' is simply not the real standard. The impulsiveness inherent in children that lets them give in to their base desires over second level desires is yet another aspects that would let them be 'easier prey' to manipulate.
Click to expand...

OK, so let's take this most recent ad hoc nonsense and change "Wanting it" to some version of "willingness" because willingness is supposedly what matters. The same argument about "the impulsiveness inherent in children" applies, which indicates the willing-wanting never meant anything at all. Then you have the gall to whine about not dealing with what you're "actually" saying.

Muddled thinking, muddled writing:

[after robbery analogies and child rape] Where did I say that there must be coercion? You're not arguing to what I actually said again.
Click to expand...

Then, in the same post:

How would you rule out coercion?
Click to expand...

This could be mildly amusing if you didn't take yourself so seriously. Let me know when you figure out what you want to say.
 
Delvo said:
When people joke that guys would enjoy this, the immediate reaction appears to be to dismiss that because guys can be abused too, but the same jokes also do a disservice to girls of the same age. Regardless of sex, a 13-year-old in this kind of situation (not being physically forced) has made the same kind of choice either way, because it's what (s)he wants to do. But only the guy's ability to make such a choice is acknowledged; she's treated as completely unable to manage her own feelings and make her own choices, just waiting for someone else to somehow compel her to do their will instead.
Click to expand...

It is just what happens.

Kind of get used to it.

Could be worse.

People could be calling her the victim and blaming them for 13 year old, unconscious toxic masculinity.
 
p0lka said:
slightly offtopic:
Different countries have different rules regarding the whole age of sex thing yeah,
If you are from a country that puts it at 18 for instance, does that influence your opinion on countries that put it at say 16?
If someone has legal sex with a 16/17 year old, Do you judge them on your laws or theirs?
Click to expand...

That is undoubtedly a factor, and indeed we have the perfect example here where Qayak's legal experience at 14 is still judged "wrong" by those in other jurisdictions with a higher AoC. The laws where we live certainly shape our opinions, and that applies to a whole host of things that are crimes in one place, but not another, or else are treated with significantly different severity.

It follows that an adult having sex with a 13 year old in a jurisdiction with an AoC of 16, is not viewed the same as they would be in a jurisdiction with an AoC of 18.

When, at the age of 16, a girl who was literally 14 the next day tried to stick her hand down my jeans, my reluctance to go along with that was determined by the fact that both of us were from a country where the AoC was 16, not that we were in a country where the AoC was 14 at the time.
 
Last edited:
Information Analyst said:
That is undoubtedly a factor, and indeed we have the perfect example here where Qayak's legal experience at 14 is still judged "wrong" by those in other jurisdictions with a higher AoC. The laws where we live certainly shape our opinions, and that applies to a whole host of things that are crimes in one place, but not another, or else are treated with significantly different severity.

It follows that an adult having sex with a 13 year old in a jurisdiction with an AoC of 16, is not viewed the same as they would be in a jurisdiction with an AoC of 18.

When, at the age of 16, a girl who was literally 14 the next day tried to stick her hand down my jeans, my reluctance to go along with that was determined by the fact that both of us were from a country where the AoC was 16, not that we were in a country where the AoC was 14 at the time.
Click to expand...

Think age difference needs to be taken into account as well

A couple of 14 year olds "exploring" each other in a place where the AoC is 16 is a tad different to say a 24 year old doing the deed with a 14 year old
 
cullennz said:
Think age difference needs to be taken into account as well

A couple of 14 year olds "exploring" each other in a place where the AoC is 16 is a tad different to say a 24 year old doing the deed with a 14 year old
Click to expand...

Sure it is, but what if they're somewhere where the AoC is 14 or even 13? The whole point is that there are multiple shades of grey that vary geographically. As with most things, the bottom line is that the laws in situ are what matters, but then again there are plenty of laws that people will ignore for their own reasons.
 
Last edited:
Information Analyst said:
Sure it is, but what if they're somewhere where the AoC is 14 or even 13? The whole point is that there are multiple shades of grey that vary geographically. As with most thinks, the bottom lines is that the laws in situ are what matters, but then again there are plenty of laws that people will ignore for their own reasons.
Click to expand...

Fair points
 
angrysoba said:
Don't worry. Put it down to recreational outrage.

"I bet someone's going to say something that really gets my gooooa.... that's it, how dare you, how very, very dare you! Shame on you! Shame and blame and thunder and lightning on you!"
Click to expand...

Yeah it can't be healthy to perpetually look for this sort of thing.
 
Back when the first of these stories started hitting the national news, early 90s I think, I remember a guy calling in to a local radio show that was talking about it.

"I don't see what everyone is so upset about. It's basically every schoolboy's dream."
"What if it was a 30 year old guy and a 14 year old girl?"
"Well, that's different."


I also had a boss who argued that there was no such thing as a female pedophile because "their brains aren't wired that way", but he was specifically talking about young children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom