TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Teen sends dick pic to 22-year-old woman, now he’s a child pornographer

5th_Law_of_Robotics

September 15, 2017
363 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/teen-sends-dick-pic-to-22-year-old-now-hes-a-child-pornographer/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Teen sends dick pic to 22-year-old woman, now he’s a child pornographer
Author

5th_Law_of_Robotics

Upvotes 363
Comments 84
Date September 15, 2017 2:54 PM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/70aceb/teen_sends_dick_pic_to_22yearold_woman_now_hes_a/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/teen-sends-dick-pic-to-22-year-old-woman-now-hes-a.914314
https://theredarchive.com/post/914314
Top posts by 5th_Law_of_Robotics

Terry Crews may be out as feminism's token non-toxic male after making comments defending the role of paternal influences in raising healthy children

3035 upvotes
March 10, 2019
/r/MensRights

A second person has accused Katy Perry of sexual misconduct

2557 upvotes
August 16, 2019
/r/MensRights

Of the critics who didn't like the new Ghostbusters 77% were men. Men are also 76% of all movie critics. Naturally this proves male critics are misogynists

2034 upvotes
July 18, 2016
/r/MensRights

Faced with the prospect of reproductive Rights equal to men feminists suddenly decide that forcing someone to pay for a kid they never wanted is slavery. But only for women.

1855 upvotes
June 6, 2019
/r/MensRights

Asia Argento accuser filing police report against her

503 upvotes
September 6, 2018
/r/MensRights

Feminists attempt to femsplain why men lying about birth control are rapists while women who lie about birth control are just exercising bodily autonomy and have done nothing wrong

430 upvotes
May 5, 2019
/r/MensRights

The commuting gap: men account for 65% of commutes lasting more than an hour

401 upvotes
February 13, 2019
/r/MensRights

Men are the vast majority of prisoners. But the rate at which women are imprisoned has dropped slower than for men so let's write an article about how unfair the American prison system is for women

388 upvotes
January 30, 2018
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]HeForeverBleeds 136 points137 points138 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Another one off those cases you'll never see gender swapped. Just imagine the outrage that would ensue if the teen girl who sent nudes to an older guy was the one treated as a sex offender

I'd say hopefully the boy doesn't actually get convicted, but it's already unfortunate that his name is in the newspaper

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points37 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

His name has been in the paper before.

WASHINGTON MAN ARRESTED FOR INDECENT EXPOSURE, and unless he gets some serious help, he'll probably be in the paper again.

[–]Rethgil 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What would you make of the genders being reversed? Female pedophile teachers that are so common now, and that get preferential treatment often have prior warning signs.

[–]Mencite 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not sure why we should support some guy who wants to sexually humiliate himself. If he's no respect for himself why should we have support for him.

[–]JonDeaux 36 points37 points38 points 8 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Except there are cases where females have been charged with production:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sexting-leads-to-child-porn-charges-for-teens/

https://www.wired.com/2009/01/kids/

And this kid is being treated as a sex offender because, wait for it... he IS a registered sex offender. He has a history of indecent exposure, and at least one case where he was masturbating in front of two minor females. In this case, he used his phone to commit the act, and sent it to an unwilling participant.

As a prior law enforcement officer, I am well aware of gender differences in the criminal justice system, and I did everything I could to prevent it from happening further. This law does need to be changed, but not because it's biased against males. Don't let this kid, or this case, be your call to action, we'll only get laughed out of the court room.

[–]Pathfinder24 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What change do you advocate?

[–]JonDeaux 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I think ANY charge, where it can be argued that you are the victim AND the perpetrator, should be dropped.

It's been stated below that this law was designed to protect children from adults. Perhaps it's not the law that should be changed, just the way that its enforced.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Pretty much. Unless you're being "groomed" then I can understand it, as you're being manipulated by an adult into sending THEM your nudes. But if you simply take them yourself and send them to another teen, how is that victimization? Argument can be made about the ages involved, but that's too complicated to get into.

You can regret it, but we need to teach kids to be smarter. Not put treat them like pedophiles just because THEY TOOK A PICTURE OF THEMSELVES.

The laws need to update for the time we live in. This wasn't an issue then, but it is now. How the FUCK does it make sense to try a boy as an adult for victimizing an underage boy who is himself. So he's simultaneously an adult perpetrator AND the underage victim? What?

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Who cares what his priors are. They aren't relevant to the case being tried. A 17 year old sent a dick pic to a 22 year old and HE's going to jail. There is no other information necessary to know that is fucking insane.

[–]vooffle 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Given the nature of the case, the person the image was sent to does not matter as much.

Imagine an underaged individual sent you an unsolicited nude image of themselves. Would it be fair to accuse you of any wrongdoing?

While the application of the law here appears to be wrong, the only individual that can be accused of anything is the teen.

[–]blackxxwolf3 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

thats a solid point. 22 year old is irrelevant here. the relevant part is a teen being tried for sending a nude pic

[–]JonDeaux 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Unfortunately, that's how courts work - from minor traffic offenses, to major criminal courts. Criminal history, or lack thereof, is one of the single most important aggravating or mitigating factors, and have always been used in sentencing.

This kid's conviction was not upheld because he was a male. It was upheld because there was a clear distinction between consensual sexting amongst teens (where those charges were dropped), and a kid with a prior history of sexual deviancy, sending unsolicited dick pics, and harassing messages over the course of a year, to his mom's coworker. He accompanied his photo with the message, "Do u like it babe? It's for you". He is a sex offender, bottom line.

Just to be clear, I don't like this law. It does need to change. But not for the reasons everyone here is claiming. This isn't a men's rights issue.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He accompanied his photo with the message, "Do u like it babe? It's for you".

Oh god, the horror of it all! Someone fetch my smelling salts! I take it all back, thank god this ghoulish monster is behind bars!

[–]Rethgil -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Would a teen GIRL who did what he did, prior or not, have likely faced actual sentencing, classification and criminalisation? Or for the things she did before the latest event?

Nope.

The point still stands unchallenged.

[–]JonDeaux 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

From the article I linked:

There are no known cases involving federal charges against a minor for child porn: the recent cases were brought under state laws by local prosecutors, usually in juvenile court. Since juvenile cases are not part of the public record, Rasch says it's not known what kinds of sentences have resulted from such cases. But he said generally juveniles who commit crimes get convicted of delinquency, not the actual crime they commit.

In the recent Pennsylvania case, Capt. Seranko said the teens are likely to get community service if convicted.

Juvenile records are usually not available in the media, or to the general public, but if you're able to provide evidence of a case where a minor female was ultimately not convicted of production, and a male in the same instance was, then sure... I'll bite. Until then, the only evidence I'm aware of is that minor males AND females are CHARGED with production of child porn similarly. If you want to argue that an adult female sex offender would receive a lesser judgement, or perhaps a lighter sentence than an adult male sex offender, ok, we're on the same side of that argument. But evidence clearly shows that the production of child porn charge - in this context - is not biased against males, and is also used in cases where the teen is female.

[–]Rethgil 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There was an article today in the independent of a girl similarly being charged. For similar things. Now compare media coverage of the event across the media.

Now tell me you think cops, prosecutors, lawmakers, judges and so on aren't swayed at all by the culture they live in, and that this doesn't affect charging in many ways?

[–]JonDeaux 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So my point is proven... female teens are charged as well. Media coverage will ALWAYS lack in juvenile cases - males or females. It's the nature of the juvenile courts. The only reason you're hearing about Mr. Gray's case is because he is now an ADULT and appealed his juvenile conviction.

And yes, I agree with your last statement about the culture effecting charging. Anyone would be ignorant to think otherwise. However, I never argued the contrary, so not sure what you're attempting to prove.

[–]The__Tren__Train 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

underage female sends nudes to adult male = male is sex offender

underage male sends nudes to adult female = male is sex offender

it's the current year

[–]Rethgil -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

God what are future generations going to make of all this? Libs and feminists are happy to spin Trump as the new Nazi and talk of how its awful some people aren't standing up.

While I'm no fan of his, the REAL threat is being missed.

What will people make of all those who let things like this mass hatred of males go unchallenged and how the majority of people just sat back and let mass persecution of people happen? Our kids are growing up being taught to hate being males. No wonder kids are confused about their gender. If I'd grown up being taught I should feel a ashamed for being male, I'D have felt confused too. Thank god I grew up before this and before they threw pills at such kids.

[–]HotDealsInTexas 52 points53 points54 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Ahh, the good ol' male teenager double standard. Young enough for pictures of his body to be illegal under CP laws because he's too young and irresponsible to consent, yet magically old enough to be held criminally responsible for taking or sending those pictures.

It blows my mind that after numerous cases like this over the years, we still haven't managed to pass a law banning prosecuting people under any child-porn-related charges for pictures they took of themselves.

Oh wait, it doesn't, because it's only boys who have their lives ruined over this shit, so no lawmaker or other public figure gives a shit.

[–]Rethgil 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And the reverse is true. Women are always too delicate for their actions to be held responsible for their actions, yet also too strong to be doubted or denied access to something. Even when too weak to compete equally in reality, leading to separate physical tests for the same job where lives are at risk.

[–]scotscott 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The problem with such a law is it opens up new avenues for abuse. If you have a law that says "you can't prosecute if the kid took the pictures of himself and sent them to someone else," how can you then arrest someone who may have coerced the kid to do so in the first place. It's not necessarily an insurmountable obstacle, but legal shit is complicated and most importantly, very precise.

[–]HeroBobGamer 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You should still be able to prosecute, just don't prosecute the kid.

[–]locks_are_paranoid 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Simply rewrite the law to say:

"It is a criminal offence for an adult to take an explicit picture of a minor, and for an adult to coerce a minor into taking an explicit picture of themselves. No one under 18 may be prosecuted under this statute."

If a rewrite like this is passed, it will prevent minors from being prosecuted, but it will still prosecute adults who coerce minors into taking explicit images.

[–]mwobuddy 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No need to go that far. Rewrite it as "no person may be prosecuted for child porn for taking sexualized pictures of themselves no matter their age".

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Young enough for pictures of his body to be illegal under CP laws

Pictures of anyone under 18 in sexualized manners are ALWAYS illegal. That he created them is just coincidentally unjust, if you like.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some patriarchy. This is one of the most egregious and disgusting cases of its kind that I have seen in years. Punishing young men (in the eyes of the law a child, even) as adults for victimless "crimes" of normal male sexuality in which the court apparently expects us to believe the perpetrator is his own victim. A court decision that would be of course utterly inconceivable if the genders were reversed in the case. Vile misandric insanity.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

This is dumb as fuck! How can taking a picture of your own meat constitute as CP? Do you know how many millions of horny teenage boys are taking and sending pics of their dicks? I'm sure my 15 year old son has taken pics of his junk.

[–]TheJazzProphet 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Does that mean cellphone carriers are technically acting as CP trafficking rings?

[–]HeroBobGamer 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They're common carriers, so they aren't responsible for what people use their service for.

[–]TheJazzProphet 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh, good point. Wow, that being the case, you'd think internet companies would want common carrier status as a means of avoiding liability for the data they transmit. They'd never have to worry about being sued by an IP owner for allowing their IP to be shared illegally.

[–]HeroBobGamer 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They are free from liability, but also from the responsibility of free treatment.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Because anything >18 is CP. Its to 'protect naive children (Im sorry, teens)' from being exploited for sex. It has a lot to due with feminist Power Dynamic theory from Marxism, which actually birthed the suffragette/feminist groups in the first place. A lot of people forget that and think Suffs/fems were born in a vacuum but the parity of language, the reconception of sex, sexuality, and gender equality under the terms of Power Games and Oppressor vs Oppressed, makes it abundantly clear that they co-opted the ideas behind Marxism for feminist goals.

CP = any sexualized image of someone under 18. That means a sexually legal male or female of 17 years old in states where AoC is 16 are completely legal to fuck for any man or woman, 16-60 years old, but pictures of them is sexploitation.

Also, there is a transmission act wherein anyone sexting with someone underage is violating child grooming laws. If you use phone text, snapchat, facebook, IRC, Kik, instagram, or anything else to send sexualized messages to someone underage, you're already violating the law, regardless of whether naked pics were distributed or not.

If you go to some internet sites like pornhub or motherless and search for teens, amature, etc (legal, illegal stuff is supposed to be reported/taken down by moderators), you'll see the kinds of things people get up to in their late teens/college years. Picture girls pretending to be lesbians and grabbing/grinding each other for titillation of other guys, while fully nude. Or bathtubs full of both naked males and females in obvious house parties that are not scripted or made by 'professional pornographers'. It is naive and foolish to assume this behavior isn't trickling down to the underage.

I was a teen once, and went to parties where that thing sometimes happened. It may not be happening for all underage teens. Many probably find that gross and disturbing. But those that participate do so because they are of a different subculture.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I definitely wasn't an innocent teen, and in all honestly I think mid to late teenage boys shouldn't be stigmatized for being sexual because we were all walking hard ons at that age. Especially today when porn is so accessible. I caught my son jerking it to porn at 12. Do I have a problem with it? No. I stole my dad's porn mags at the same age.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

There's this cultural duality that seeks to make teenagers innocent, naive beings but also filthy degenerates, depending on the context. Its remarkably similar to the way feminists of the 19th-20th century viewed women who had sex.

A woman is pure and innocent, but once she starts having sex with guys, she's a degenerate who's been tainted and should be shunned by society. Suffragettes slogan was "votes for women, chastity for men". While they claimed wanting to protect women, they made prostitution illegal which means that it creates exploitation of women and the underage and True Children by having only illicit outlets for sex from both men and women.

This puts those groups in dangerous positions similar to the war on drugs; the dealers are hardened criminals who abuse their charges (charges = people). The people who also are willing to pay for his illicit service may also be hardened criminals or at the least highly abusive in the context of the 'pay for sex' issue.

Women sought to protect themselves from becoming 'fallen', but once you were fallen, you were a whore and should be shunned.

If you lose your 'innocence' as defined subjectively by culture, you're now a person who is responsible for your acts and inherently morally corrupt. That's what it means to 'lose innocence'. That's why a male teen sending his dick pics to females is considered a corrupt agent who is responsible for his actions under the law of CP.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think girls are more innocent naive beings, but guys definitely hormone driven degenerates haha

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And that's the 'women are wonderful' dichotomy that got us to this point.

Suffragettes said the age of consent (only for women) should be 21 because they're still basically children at that point. They literally said that about their own gender. Yet they also said that women are men's equals and should have access to everything equally, like votes. So you'd want a child-like mind to have voting rights for having a vagina, eh?

The fact that you said "girls are innocent, guys are degenerates" is EXACTLY why he's charged with CP for sending it to an older woman. Its EXACTLy why 20-30 year old males fucking 15-17 year old female students get 20 years, and EXACTLY why 20-30 year old females fucking 15-17 year old male students get 1 year of fucking probation.

The 'double standard' is why the OP post teen is in trouble. Underage females are SOMETIMES also subject to this rule, thanks to based judges who are not full of feminist hypocrisy, but those cases are exceptions to the rule.

[–]Rumpadunk 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Dude the law itself is fucking stupid. Why should we have one age of consent for having sex and another one for filming it or sexting?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're right! And by law my son would be in trouble for CP because I asked him last night and he does have pics and some of his gf

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My son would definitely be in trouble now because he admitted to me that he has a couple vids of him fucking her. And I feel like a perv dad now because he showed me a part of it haha

[–]mwobuddy 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Makes perfect sense. By law, he did something illegal. Unless you all want there to be an exception in the law by allowing the underage to not be criminally liable, then you have proliferation of child porn.

Alternatively, we could change the child porn laws to indicate something more meaningful like 9-10 year olds being raped by adults rather than teens.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Except the laws are intended to protect children from being preyed on by adults.

That didn't happen here.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Would you be happy if the laws protected them from legal adults but not from being preyed upon by other legal children? Im asking because predatory behavior comes from within their same class of people as the 'upper' class called legal adults. The laws have proven ineffectual at protecting anyone.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I think if the predator and the victim are the same person we aren't protecting anyone by jailing them.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The predator in this case would more logically be the 'overage' recipient.

[–]JonDeaux 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think you need to go back and reread the facts of this case.

The of-age female in this case did not request, coax, groom, or convince this kid to send the picture. The kid had been making harassing phone calls to his mothers co-worker for at least a year. And then sent a picture of himself, to her, on his own volition.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then he would be guilty of sexual harassment.

[–]Rumpadunk 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I disagree with the law. If the age of consent is 16 (which is to me a reasonable number, plus a 3/4/5 year Romeo/Juliet addition) it should be 16. Not 16 for sex, but 18 for sexts and filming it or whatever. Just 16.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The idea is to protect them from making stupid mistakes that are 'forever'.

Anyway, RNJ laws are inherently unjust because it suggests that if you fall outside that number you're inherently abusing someone, and if you are inside that number you can't be considered to be abusing someone for sex (by abuse, I mean anything which is shady, unethical, but otherwise legal, as in the case of 18+ year olds being 'abused' or abused, whichever you prefer, by 18-40 year olds for sex in ways that are still legal, e.g. by coercion such as 'if you really loved me you'd ___').

So RNJ exceptions provide immunity from prosecution for sex with someone who is near the same age. And why? Because age gaps are considered inherently abusive and age similarities are inherently not abusive. But!

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/11/teenage-girls-coerced-sex-survey

Clearly they are not safe from their 'close in age' boyfriends, either.

The idea of age of consent is to prevent coercive tactics being used on "naive child-like mind young women", to use the parlance of the suffragettes of 19th century who wanted it raised from 13-14 in the first place.

Setting it to 16 or 18 makes it the automatic assumption by law that sex was coercive and therefore unwanted, and damaging to the individual. Therefore, anyone (males of 14 or 40 years old, according to feminist/suff doctrine) who has sex with a females under the line is guilty of sexual abuse and the use of the state to punish a male for sex with a young female is wielded by feminism.

To punish what is seen as inherent abuse of female sexuality. If you create RNJ laws, it suggests that abuse is not de-facto when someone has sex with someone under the age of consent, which impugns the reason for age of consent's being. If one person can have sex with someone 15, why not another who is slightly or much older?

Because it is assumed as de-facto abuse if they're much older. But as we can see, abuse comes from 'age peers' as well, therefore RNJ provides immunity from predatory 'age peers', and destroys the entire reason for age of consent to exist.

It'd be like giving certain groups of people the ability to steal or murder (since age of consent violations are considered rape by society at large, and rape is considered murder of the soul, this is an apt comparison), because they meet some arbitrary criteria.

Furrthermore, RNJ laws, as well as AoC laws, do NOT account for the FACTS that females mature 10 years sooner than males, physically (that includes body AND brain), and that people, female or male, age internally and externally at different rates.

I've seen haggard 18 year old males and youthful 24 year old males. The former were called sir more often than the latter. When people look younger on the outside, they're literally physically that age. It's not just appearance. But young and old isn't just skin deep. It goes to the brain as well.

Lots of people blame rBST or other hormones on males and females reaching puberty sooner, but I think its an effect of the 'overdrive' of both population growth and human sexuality. Sperm among adults are getting 'faster' to compete with other males. Why wouldn't puberty get here 'faster' to compete with other males or females for partner selection? Furthermore, it is shown that females enter puberty sooner if there is no father in the household. Consider it chronic-lack-of-male-figure stress induced genetic switching which leads to entering it sooner, in combination with the 'speed' theory, or consider it a naturally evolved state of young, helpless females 'turning sexual' sooner to attract a capable and physically protective male mate. This would explain a small part of why males are chronically attracted to 18 year olds despite being 40, and females having an age of attraction that sticks to their own age physically.

Anyway, after the 'biological imperative/essentialist' digression, Age of consent as well as RNJ do not address a lot of core issues, namely differing rates of maturity among genders as well as among individuals within genders. RNJ itself explicitly destroys the entire raison de'tre of age of consent because it assumes that no sexual coercion takes place when, in fact, age peers are just as coercive.

Remember, peer pressure is best pressure. You're not in the in-group if you're an adult. If you have a teen child, try getting them to do anything. They only respond to adult direction to clean up or do their homework by overt coercive threats, such as "you'll get grounded/no allowance, lose your car privileges".

On the other hand, its easy to influence other teens if you're one yourself and get them to do all kinds of crazy shit to fit in.

And you want to make an RNJ exception... lol.

[–]Rumpadunk 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't want a RnJ rule because there is or isn't inherent abuse due to ages, but because 2 15 year olds both raping each other doesn't make sense, and so people at a high school or middle school don't have to worry about how old their crush is. I don't think a 30yo and 14yo is inherently an issue too, but it's just a safety precaution and you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

but because 2 15 year olds both raping each other doesn't make sense, and so people at a high school or middle school don't have to worry about how old their crush is. I don't think a 30yo and 14yo is inherently an issue too, but it's just a safety precaution

it doesnt but the law wasn't about rape in the first place. It was about placing the state in control of punishment of males for having sex with willing females who might be naive.

Lets put it this way: We already have laws against rape. If a 15 or a 30 year old RAPED a 15 year old, and the law of AoC didn't exist, they could STILL be tried and found guilty of a crime, and sentenced to LONGER than AoC laws would ever give them.

Why? Because that's actual rape and we have a law that covers that. AoC is not really about rape, its about punishing male sexuality with young females and always has been. That's why 90% of the underage on the sex offender list are males.

I don't think a 30yo and 14yo is inherently an issue too, but it's just a safety precaution and you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

The problem with this is "its not inherently an issue, but we'll punish you as IF you'd coerced and tricked her into sex", whereas

don't want a RnJ rule because there is or isn't inherent abuse due to ages, but because 2 15 year olds both raping each other doesn't make sense

"this is inherently not an issue but we wont punish you even IF you'd coerced and tricked her into sex".

Its not about rape. Never has been.

Suffragettes vying for control of sexuality via AoC used various red herrings: First was 'to stop prostitution". They said that if we raised age of consent, prostitution could be stopped. Both of 15 year old females and adult females. The idea is that if you do it young, you're consigned to it forever as someone older.

Didn't work. It was a red herring but a good try at an appeal to emotion argument.

Second, they said that women were morally pure and tainted by men (and their EEEEVUL penises). They wanted state coercive control of male sexuality. As their slogan went "votes for women, chastity for men". They regarded sexuality as an evil men visit on women, and even demanded age of consent be 21 because in their words "women at 21 are still naive and child-like in mind".

Third, you can see their true intent lying in the fact that they never, EVER, sought equal protection of males who are 'underage' until the homosexual hysteria of the mid to late 20th century. Then and only then were 'underage males' an afterthought, but it was specifically to target homosexual sexuality as an evil, just as the earlier heterosexual age of consent raising of males -> females was to target male sexuality in general as an evil.

Over the years, it is true, AoC arguments have been consistently rebranded to post-modernist terms such as Power Dynamic, in the same way that Marxist ideology was rebranded to post-modernism after the embarassment of Bloody ideological conflict of 100 million dead in the name of communism.

Now people substitute the true intent of AoC, punishing males for their evil sexual ways of leading women into sin and vice, with odes to how its 'rape', or how its 'a power imbalance', to keep the dying fire of AoC alive. See, this isn't the first time in history people have started to doubt AoC.

Throughout the 20th century, multiple times the constitutionality or legality of AoC has been drawn into question.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/13/books/renegade-view-on-child-sex-causes-a-storm.html

https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/case-studies/230

Today, the knee jerk reaction is to label ALL of this questioning of age of consent as pedophilia and condemn even the very TALK of these concepts. Why? I find it likely that its because there are no more good arguments left. The ones that were good have holes like swiss cheese in today's world. We cannot have anyone question weak positions, so we label it automatically as pedophilia.

The same is true of Nazis and SJW speak. Questioning their flimsy unsupported arguments gets you labeled a Nazi? Why? Because their ideology CANNOT bear scrutiny.

So, too, AoC CANNOT bear scrutiny as something truly just and moral, so people questioning it are called pedophiles to shut down discussion.

[–]TheJazzProphet 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wow. Is anyone else wondering how that trial will go, considering he's both the alleged perpetrator and victim?

[–]JonDeaux 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, no need to wonder. If you read the article, you'd see that he was convicted, and the state Supreme Court upheld the conviction.

[–]mrwhibbley 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

By would they release the name of an underage victim of sexual abuse?

[–]Rumpadunk 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Fuck stupid pornagraphy laws. Why the fuck doesn't it have the same age of consent?

People can have sex as 16 year olds but not sext each other or film their sex. It's fucking stupid.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah it is pretty ridiculous. It's not like all these horny teenagers aren't already watching porn. I was excessively when I was a teen, check out my son's browser history or the umm dirty socks in his room. What harm does it do to a 16 year old guy if he wants to send some girls pics of his dick?

[–]BernieSandersgirl101 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Shouldn't she be the one arrested?! She most likely took advantage of him. What's next, 10 year old boys getting arrested for their own rape?!

[–]fearednoob 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

If a child takes a picture of themselves nude, it's a picture of a nude child. Are nude pictures of people below the age 18 not child porn? It doesn't matter who pressed the button, it's CP. As a teenager myself, it's really sad to see other boys who cannot control their urges, let alone think they can somehow get something out of an unwanted dick pic. Especially from a 22 year old. She is only abiding by a law which sees no gender. It's CP.

[–]atred 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Are nude pictures of people below the age 18 not child porn?

No, they are not. "Federal law defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor". So being nude in a picture is not enough, it needs to either be a picture of a sexual act or at least be "sexually suggestive".

http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2256.html

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think taking a picture of your cock for the intent of sexual titillation of someone else qualifies as child porn by being sexually suggestive, don't you?

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think taking a picture of your cock for the intent of sexual titillation of someone else qualifies as child porn by being sexually suggestive, don't you?

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I think taking a picture of your cock for the intent of sexual titillation of someone else qualifies as child porn by being sexually suggestive, don't you?

[–]atred 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I was replying to the words you wrote that were clearly untrue.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What words? Quote me.

[–]atred 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Are nude pictures of people below the age 18 not child porn? It doesn't matter who pressed the button, it's CP.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Ah, so you're quoting someone else. Nice job.

[–]atred 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I was replying to the OP, you got into the discussion with an argument I didn't make/address, sorry I confused you with the OP, so understand my point as "I was replying to his/her words that were clearly untrue"

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Maybe you were making an argument the OP didn't make.

[–]atred 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was commenting on his words, he implied that a picture of naked person under age 18 is automatically child port, I explained that's not true.

[–]locks_are_paranoid 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't you see how absurd it is to prosecute a child for taking an explicit image of themselves? These laws were clearly meant to only apply to adults, and to protect children from predators. Its incredibly ironic that a law which was designed to protect children is instead putting them in prison.

[–]Emstario -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

you're an idiot

[–]Bestoftherest222 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If this case stands wouldn't that mean, legally speaking, any under age girl sending pics, posting pics online, or doing chat like sexual acts be a pedophile?

[–]JonDeaux 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This case did stand. The article clearly states the state Supreme Court upheld the conviction.

Pedophilia is a diagnosable disorder - none of the symptoms involve filming yourself, or sexting.

However, under the word of the law, an underage female who does take sexual photos or film herself, could be charged with production of child porn. In fact, underage females have been charged with production - see the articles I posted up top.

[+]Well_this_ducks1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

As sad as it is and how much it would change if it was a women. But that is a law that a child cannot own nude photos of THEMSELVES!

[–]locks_are_paranoid 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The intent of these laws was to prosecute adults, and to protect children. These laws are being deliberately misapplied to put children in prison, which is the exact opposite of protecting them.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think I ever took nude photos of myself. I was smart enough at that age to not be like that. ;)

[+]ImTooCozy -14 points-13 points-12 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

WTF is the big deal...Why did this stupid bitch press charges? She's never seen a dick before? She can't accept that he's a horny teenager who wants her? Shouldn't that be a compliment?

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics[S] 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

He shouldn't be arrested for CP, but it was kinda a dick move. Not going to defend it as a "compliment".

In a sane society the woman and the judge and his parents and friends would call him a dumbass and tell him not to do that anymore. The end.

[–]bufedad 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He shouldn't be arrested for CP, but it was kinda a dick move.

I see what you did there.

[–]Rethgil 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But he's not legally an adult yet is he? So he shouldn't and can't be held responsible legally on adult terms. But he is isn't he. Bevause the legal system is feminist bias like everything else.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I feel like you're making the claim that if someone isn't legally adult, they shouldn't be held responsible at all. Which is odd.

If he raped or murdered someone, would his lack of being a legal adult be reason to treat him as totally naive and innocent?

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In the eyes of the courts boys are adults from the moment they can walk. Women never really are.

[–]This_is_my_phone_tho 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

some community service. Sending your dick to someone is a shit move.

Honestly, if it was un solicited it's sexual harassment.

[–]Incident-Pit 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Horny teenagers would probably eagerly want a lubed up sock, all things considered... I'm not sure in what world that constitutes a compliment.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter