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

Ex-dinner lady who had sex with 14-year-old boy spared prison spell because it would have put her four children into foster care

JohnKimble111

January 8, 2017
1059 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2557367/ex-dinner-lady-spared-prison-spell-because-it-would-have-put-her-four-children-into-foster-care/
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 Ex-dinner lady who had sex with 14-year-old boy spared prison spell because it would have put her four children into foster care
Author

JohnKimble111

Upvotes 1059
Comments 104
Date January 8, 2017 2:05 PM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5mqyyf/exdinner_lady_who_had_sex_with_14yearold_boy/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/ex-dinner-lady-who-had-sex-with-14-year-old-boy.934425
https://theredarchive.com/post/934425
Top posts by JohnKimble111

Women Should Have to Register for the Draft, Congressional Commission Says

6700 upvotes
March 25, 2020
/r/PussyPassDenied

BBC admits its viral “women write better code” story was fake news

6298 upvotes
December 28, 2016
/r/MensRights

Gender pay gap in modelling sees men paid 75% less than women

6153 upvotes
February 8, 2018
/r/MensRights

Toxic Masculinity

5904 upvotes
March 10, 2018
/r/MensRights

After feminist cry sexism over BBC pay, official review uncovers more underpaid men than women

5789 upvotes
January 31, 2018
/r/MensRights

Controlling girlfriend, 22, who starved and stabbed her partner, banned him from her bed and took over his Facebook account is jailed for more than seven years

3826 upvotes
April 16, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

'If you tell anyone I've cheated, I'll ruin you': Cambridge don is cleared after his PhD student fiancee accused him of assault 'to get back at him' for calling off their wedding after she had affair in Galapagos Islands

3770 upvotes
September 16, 2017
/r/MensRights

Amber Heard loses bid to get $50 million defamation suit by her ex Johnny Depp thrown out

3737 upvotes
March 28, 2020
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]HeForeverBleeds 216 points217 points218 points 9 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

I have to take into account the effect on the children.

And apparently not take into account the effect it will have on the children to be raised by a child rapist? Contrary to it being used as a get-out-of-jail-free card, she should have had the children removed from her care, period, whether she went to jail or not

Can you even imagine a man grooming a 14-year-old girl and being spared jail so he could raise children? Mothers continuously getting away with murder and violent crimes and child rape is one of the most revolting phenomenons in society, particularly since it's the mothers who are often the abusers and molesters of the children in the first place

"Best interest of the children" my ass. The fact of the matter is that this judge obviously doesn't consider a woman grooming and raping a 14-year-old boy to be a serious crime in the first place. If a man had done it, I have no doubt all of a sudden he'd be a danger to the children, he'd be imprisoned for more than a decade, and after his sentence the children would still be kept under others' care

[+]gabblox points 9 years ago [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

How do you deal with this kind of benevolent sexism? Women and mothers shouldn't be put on some pedestal for their 'innate ability to nurture'. My girlfriend killed a cactus that she bought, so she's literally less nurturing than a desert.

[–]LucifersHammerr 33 points34 points35 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

benevolent sexism?

Probably best to avoid that term. It was invented by feminists as a way of recharacterizing female privilege as female oppression. Exhibit A: the fact that men were forced to fight and die in wars throughout history was actually oppression against women because they were "viewed as less capable fighters." I'm sorry, but hurt feelings over women being generally less capable fighters does not compare to having your guts blown out in a trench.

[–]mwobuddy 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But with all that privilege bestowed on him, Im sure he was relieved to be exploded by bombs. It was like an orgasm for him, experiencing the ultimate in male privilege.

[+]mwobuddy -25 points-24 points-23 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

You can kill cacti by overwatering, too. Don't be an ass.

[–]Novashadow115 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I'll take "what are jokes" for 500 plz

[+]hiesatai -20 points-19 points-18 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What are stolen jokes, you mean.

[–]shill_account_46 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

All jokes are stolen mate

[+]SnuwwieRotMG points 9 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't make sense

[–]ohmslyce -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What doesn't make sense? You?

[–]xXcagefanXx 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol

[–]Hydris 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's 4 kids the state would have to take care of. They don't want to take care of another 4 kids. Between that and the pussy pass, she goes free.

[+]RedPilledNina points 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Fair points. What are your sources that it's the mother that is often the abusers? Not disagreeing (I have no idea on that) just would be interested to read evidence on that.

[–]HeForeverBleeds 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Regarding physical abuse: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/somatic-psychology/201105/who-are-the-perpetrators-child-abuse

and regarding sexual abuse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQhEv9Ov7nQ or https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1294939/pdf/jrsocmed00079-0063.pdf (should be the same info.)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247495491_Deductive_thematic_analysis_of_a_female_paedophilia_website

[+]wfkp points 9 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I hate the double standard that courts have when they make excuses for women to have sex with minors and but never for men. Women tend to be favored by courts in regards to custody which is one of the reasons many women get let off the hook when having sexual relations with a minor as compared to men. They are the only parents because a court took the kids away from the father. And not they are giving this ex-dinner lady another pussy pass.

However, it actually is in the best interest of her children to remain in the home. Foster care is almost always a worst situation for children.

Children are 7-8 times more likely to be abused when placed in foster care than a child in the general population. According to Carlos Morales, a former Child Protective Services investigator, author of Legally Kidnapped: The Case Against Child Protective Services Nearly one third of children in foster care reported being abused by a foster parent or another adult in a foster home. (Same source)

Foster kids are 7-8 times more likely to be abused than normal children, nearly half will end up homeless, they are 3 times more likely to be put on psychotropic drugs, seven times more likely to develop an eating disorder, more likely to have PTSD than veterans of war and less likely to recover from that PTSD, more likely to become pregnant as a teenager, 20% more likely to be arrested, and are 6 times more likely to die than if they stayed in an abusive household.

More information can be found if you read in the book: Legally Kidnapped: The Case Against Child Protective Services

[–]HeForeverBleeds 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Children are 7-8 times more likely to be abused when placed in foster care than a child in the general population.

Children being raised by a child rapist are not children in the general population. This isn't between a child in foster care and a child living with biological relatives who have not committed crimes (the majority of people in the general population). A more appropriate comparison would be the statistics on how children living with convicted sexual predators fare compared with children in foster care

In foster care the children may unfortunately end up with a predatory foster parent or may not; as it is, the children are with complete certainty living with a predatory parent. There's no reason to assume she's less of a threat than any foster parents just because she's the biological mother after she's already shown herself to be willing to and capable of abusing children

[+]mwobuddy -44 points-43 points-42 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

And apparently not take into account the effect it will have on the children to be raised by a child rapist?

You say rape, but I highly doubt she'd be free if she actually committed rape, as in, threatened by physical force, use of physical force, or drugging.

[–]Elee3112 43 points44 points45 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Rape is having sex with someone, absent their consent.

The boy is 14, he cannot give consent legally.

[–]SpaceDog777 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Statutory rape and child rape bring two very different pictures to mind. That's the same for both women and men.

[–]NowlmAlwaysSmiling 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You mean the difference being whether or not they scream and fight because they know it's wrong and damaging? Is that what you mean?

[–]SpaceDog777 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We aren't talking 7 year olds here. Now I'm not saying people should be going around fucking 14 year olds, but there is a world of difference between rape and statutory rape. That is why there is two very different punishments for the two crimes.

[–]EeeeeeevilMan 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What if I think anybody past puberty should be able to legally consent to sex?

Because I totally fucking do.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then that makes you a sick, disgusting, twisted individual who likes child rape, according to everyone.

[+]mwobuddy -23 points-22 points-21 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

So if we remove age of consent law tomorrow, its no longer rape? It seems terrifying to conclude that such a horrible act as sex with someone against their will simply wouldn't be rape if the laws ceased to exist tomorrow.

Or do you mean that it would be rape regardless? Im a bit confused by what you mean. Is it only bad because its illegal?

[–]Jiang-Wei 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I mean with that line of thinking rape is only bad because it's illegal. If you wanna play that game.

[–]mwobuddy -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

I mean with that line of thinking rape is only bad because it's illegal.

If you go to California or Florida and have sex with a 16 year old, they're underage, and by your reckoning that is rape. If you go to Ohio or Washington and have sex, they're not underage, and therefore by your reckoning it isn't rape.

this makes it sound like whether someone is a victim of rape or not hinges solely on the laws, and not on the act itself. Is this what you mean? It sounds like it by suggesting that someone is a victim of rape because they're under the age of consent.

That's what's got me confused. I would never suggest that someone could no longer be a victim of rape if it became "legal" tomorrow.

Do you think People in 16 states are getting away with child rape because its legal?

[–]Elee3112 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Just to be upfront, I'm no legal expert, and even if I am, I can only make speculations based on what was written on the article.

Now that we have that out of the way, to be honest, if we remove the age thing, I personally don't think it is rape in this case, somewhere in the article, it mentions the boy is "fond" of her.

Now, somewhere in the US legal system, I would imagine there's a law against grooming minors for sex, but I would also imagine the definition of minor is also given an arbitrary number that differs across each state; again you are left with a case of "it's legal here, but not legal there." That's just how the world is, different countries, different laws.

[–]xynomaster 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The United States legal system is only allowed to make laws against certain types of crimes - terrorist attacks, treason, and interstate crimes, to name a few.

Laws like statutory rape are defined and controlled entirely by individual states. A state could, if it wanted, decide not to have any statutory rape laws at all, and that would be perfectly fine. (As it stands now, every state has statutory rape laws with an age of consent between 16 and 18).

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think you mean federal law can override state law in certain cases but not others. The default age of consent for federal law, which covers U.S. citizens abroad, is 18. So even if its legal to fuck someone 16 in some other country, you violate federal law because its 18 for U.S. government, but its lower in certain states of the U.S.

[–]xynomaster 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So even if its legal to fuck someone 16 in some other country, you violate federal law because its 18 for U.S. government

Sure, that's something the federal government is allowed to regulate because it involves interstate / international travel.

If a state decides to make its age of consent 14, and someone in that state has sex with a 15 year old, the federal government cannot come in and arrest them for it. There is no federal law that was violated.

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

"just how it is" isn't really good enough when it can bring an everlasting and destructive impact to a person's life. Did you know there is no R&J law in California? Therefore someone 17 or 18 having sex with their girlfriend is also guilty of this "child rape".

They are then subject to the laws, the sex offender garbage, and their future is ruined because they've been convicted of "child rape", in the eyes of anyone who sees their conviction on record (jobs), and thus their life is permanently ruined.

"just how it is" supposes that we should unthinkingly sacrifice people on the altar of "justice" for who knows what benefit other than to feel better about "ridding society of intolerables", something every society has done, willfully harming innocent and guilty alike (in this instance, guilty means guilty of actual crime or harm to others, innocent not so), and if you consider the zeal with which people persecute those convicted of these laws as child sex predators and monsters, it seems irreconcilable that such an individual is a horrific monster in Florida but a perfectly normal, healthy human being who did no wrong in Nevada.

If a law is this arbitrary, it surely harms more people than it protects. I can think of a few movies and tv shows I've seen that have had laws which seem bizarre and unthinkingly unjust on the outside.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708739/

It isn't really the matter of gauging a person's harm or intent, but considering that sacrifices are made to keep "the disease of crime" out of society. We always come to this sub and rant and rave about how the males who are falsely accused are treated by society, and yet turn into the same kinds of people who condemn and shit on falsely accused males when presented with people who break an arbitrary law. Hand out the pitchforks, there' a witch to burn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Morality_and_the_Law

Foucault observes that whereas the law formerly condemned the infringement, the act of breaking the law, we enter from now on in a disciplinary society which condemns the criminal himself – called "delinquent" or "pervert" – and instead of punishing the act, we criminalize a person or a category of the population.

Hocquenghem sustains that "a whole mixture of notions" is responsible for the fabrication of the idea of the crime against decency, ranging from religious prohibitions concerning sodomy to the separation between the world of the child and the world of the adult.

He observes that this was possible due to the creation of a category of people regarded as "perverts", "legal monsters" whose aim in life would be to practice sex with children. They would then really become intolerable perverts since the crime as such is recognized, and reinforced by a psychological and sociological arsenal.

Hahn – who coordinated the debate – remembers then that this idea leads us to the concept of the "born criminal", present in the work of Italian controversial criminologist Cesare Lombroso: "Indeed this idea that legislation, the legal system, the penal system, even medicine must concern themselves essentially with dangers, with dangerous individuals rather than acts, dates more or less from Lombroso and so it is not at all surprising if one finds Lombroso's ideas coming back into fashion", he said.

Hocquenghem considered the construction of this new type of criminal – an individual perverse enough "to do a thing that hitherto had always been done without anybody thinking it right to stick his nose into it" – as "an extremely grave step from a political point of view":

"In the case of "attentat sans violence" [attack without violence], the offence in which the police have been unable to find anything, nothing at all, in that case, the criminal is simply a criminal because he is a criminal, because he has those tastes. It is what used to be called a crime of opinion. (...) The crime vanishes, nobody is concerned any longer to know whether in fact a crime was committed or not, whether someone has been hurt or not. No one is even concerned any more whether there actually was a victim."

Foucault sees the emergence of a new penal system, with the focus changing from criminal acts to the definition of dangerous individuals. He predicted that a society of dangers would come:

"We're going to have a society of dangers, with, on the one side, those who are in danger, and on the other, those who are dangerous. (...) Sexuality will become a threat in all social relations, in all relations between members of different age groups, in all relations between individuals. And sexuality will no longer be a kind of behavior hedged in by precise prohibitions, but a kind of roaming danger, a sort of omnipresent phantom, a phantom that will be played out between men and women, children and adults, and possibly between adults themselves. It is on this shadow, this phantom, this fear that the authorities would try to get a grip through an apparently generous and, at least general, legislation and through a series of particular interventions that would probably be made by the legal institutions, with the support of the medical institutions."

Both Foucault and Hocquenghem agreed that consent is a contractual notion. 'This notion of consent is a trap, in any case. What is sure is that the legal form of an intersexual consent is nonsense. No one signs a contract before making love', said Hocquenghem.

[–]Jiang-Wei 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes you are. Rape is not about the legality of it. It is about consent. That may vary between states but that is something we have to deal with. And regardless of that this is objectively rape by all states.

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If it is objectively rape, why do we need age of consent laws? Surely if she raped someone, the laws of rape which apply to all human beings regardless of age would apply.

[–]shill_account_46 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Or you're actually 100% wrong and making unfounded assumptions. Learn the law before spreading your misinformed bullshit.

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If she rape-raped him, we wouldnt need age of consent laws to put her away; the original rape laws all people are subject to would do, wouldn't they?

[–]shill_account_46 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No...

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well..

lets see:

woman is accused of raping person X.

evidence is shown that she did actually rape the person.

If X is an adult male, she'll go away for a little bit of time.

If X is "underage" male, she'll go away for a little bit of time.

This is based on conclusive evidence of rape or sexual assault being found and used in obtaining conviction.

Thus it is immaterial that he would be underage if she actually raped him.

[–]shill_account_46 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If that is the world you live in, terrific. Maybe I'll visit some day from the real world but until then enjoy.

[–]richardnorth 70 points71 points72 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

This is an example of why feminists support old-fashioned gender norms when it comes to child-custody: it gives women benefits and exemptions.

These include:

  • immunity from punishments for crimes committed (or drastically reduced sentences)

  • alimony from her former spouse (for which she is not accountable on how it is spent)

  • government housing and subsidies (paid for by men who are, in aggregate, the only net-taxpers)

[–]Wasuremaru 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

in aggregate, the only net-taxpayers

What does this mean and do you have a source? Honest curiosity here. I'll believe if you've got a reliable source.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Here's a study from New Zealand. Page 21, Figure 16 & 17 are the parts that directly jump into OP's point, but the rest of it is an interesting read if you have the time.

I sadly cannot find a US-based source that confirms or denies OP's claim.

[–]Wasuremaru 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow. That's almost impossible to believe, but there it is.

I mean, the core issue, though, is that women aren't being paid enough. If they were paid as much as men, they'd get taxed the same. When will sexism stop hurting women!

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 58 points59 points60 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Has any guy, ever, been given a pass on child rape because he's a dad?

If anything that makes it worse.

[+]mwobuddy -9 points-8 points-7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

child rape

you're using that term rather loosely.

[–]l3linkTree_Horep 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What would you use instead, or how would you prefer they use it?

[–]xynomaster 29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If you have a second, please email the UK attorney general's office at [email protected] and ask them to review this sentence. It was worked a number of times in the past to get similar sentences overturned (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

If you don't want to be bothered writing your own email, you can feel free to use the one I sent:


I'm writing to refer the case of Terri Spragg for review as unduly lenient. According to news reports she was convicted of seven counts of sexual activity with a child for sexual abuse of a 14 year old boy. On Friday January 6 at Isle of Wight Crown Court she was sentenced to just 15 months in jail, suspended for 2 years.

According to the NSPCC "Spragg deliberately targeted, and took advantage of, an underage boy. Her deplorable actions have had a serious effect on the victim". For a case with such a significant disparity in age (she was 35 and her victim was only 14), in which she chose not to plead guilty and forced her victim to testify at trial, and in which she was convicted of 7 counts of abuse, I cannot imagine how a non-custodial sentence can be justified.

I know male victims of sex crimes often face bias in the courts, which tend to treat them less seriously than female victims in cases like this. However, your office has made clear many times in the past that this is not acceptable. After successfully appealing similar decisions you have stressed that "teenagers of both genders have a legal right to be protected from grooming and sexual interference" and "male and female victims and perpetrators will be treated equally before the law". I only ask that you review this sentence and consider whether it, also, might be unduly lenient.

Thank you, and I really appreciate all that your office has done to make boys who are victims of this sort of crime feel valued and protected.

[–]furchfur 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Done

[email protected]

All you need to send them is the following:

I would like to appeal this totally unacceptably lenient sentence.

Name: Terri Spragg

Court: Isle of Wight Crown Court

Date of sentence: 6 January 2017

Crime committed: Sexual activity with a child, a boy of 14

http://www.iwcp.co.uk/news/news/exdinner-lady-sentenced-for-child-sex-97265.aspx?mn=1

It is outrageous that she has not been given an immediate custodial sentence.

Many thanks

[–]mwobuddy 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I just did it to say it isn't fair women get to do it and men don't

[–]xynomaster 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, thanks for that regardless.

[–][deleted] 50 points51 points52 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

50 year old man who boned a 14 year old spared jail because he has a family

to give some perspective how retarded this sounds

[–]testmypatience 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If I rob a bank can I be spared because I have a family to support? Don't worry, I'll support them with the money I stole from the bank.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sounds plausible. You're good to go matey!

[–]AmazingFuckinAtheist 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, this proves it's not just attractive women that get away with it. This bitch looks uglier than donkey diarrhea.

[–]Banned_By_Default 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Damn. You made me visit TheSun.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Something that Philip Davies MP revealed from his research was that often women are given light (ie no) sentencing because they are single mothers or otherwise primary caregivers when the reality is that the kids are actually looked after by somebody else already.

Maybe it's just be, but she looks like a toothless alcoholic. I wonder if there is instant social work intervention to get a handle on the truth of home life in these cases?

[–]mwobuddy 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And men actually receive harsher sentences if they commit a crime and are fathers, rather than single.

Its like the gap for gender sentencing gets bigger when they have kids.

[–]TheRavenousRabbit 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

*"In other news, a child rapist has been let go from her prison term in order to make sure that she can take care of children."

"Uh, wait, isn't she a child rapist?"

"Yeah, so what of it?"

"Doesn't she, as a sex offender, represent a threat to children? Doesn't male sex offenders of children get specific rules around not being able to be around children, even their own?"

"Yeah, so what? She's a woman! She's hardly responsible for her actions! I bet that 14 year old boy was just raping her!"

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's perhaps the most concise version of how crazily fucked up society and the system which society designed.

[–]MazeMouse 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So instead of jailing a child rapist she's allowed to keep and raise four kids?

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm mystified by how people can defend sexuality of people under 18 if they do it with other under 18, but call someone over 18, whether 20 or 40, pedophile or child molestor for the same sexual actions.

In this case, it is clearly someone who is otherwise considered a legal adult.

If the age of consent determines when pedophilia and child rape/molesting start, then someone in one state where the age of consent is 18 is committing child rape or molesting for sex with someone who is otherwise willing but 16 or 17 years old. In another state where the age of consent is 16, then the question is asked: are they STILL committing child rape/molestation, and is it simply legalized child rape/molestation? Because Im clear on the original intent of age of consent laws, which were designed to allow "maidens" to bring the charge of "rape" without having to show "use of force". See, that's what rape means. Molestation means unwilling sexual acts that are not rape. Rape means force or threats into sex.

Which means it can't really be "rape" or "molestation" if someone has sex with an underage 16 year old in one state, but not rape or molestation with an "of age" 16 year old in another state, where the laws differ. Because those terms mean the participant is unwilling.

In Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nebraska, and Washington state, age of consent is 16. It would seem lunacy to call someone 20-40 years old having sex with someone 16 "child rape" in those areas. In California and Florida, age of consent is 18.

Take a different tactic, what if we removed all rape laws tomorrow? Would rape cease to exist? No, it would still exist, because you could still force someone to unwillingly have sex. It would simply be legal. Is that the case with 16 and 40 age differences having sex? If it is, then the U.S. population is allowing so much "legal child raping" to occur in those states. How barbaric.

We've shown that whether someone is raped or not has no basis on the legality of it, therefore how can it be "child rape" for someone to have sex with someone under the age of consent who is willing, when it wouldn't be child rape in identical circumstances in a legal state?

[–]Kalcipher 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that stigmatized relationships with a large difference in maturity and power often end up badly, and children are legally vulnerable because they have little autonomy, meaning they could be trapped in extremely damaging relationships with somebody who has a lot of power over them and pressurizes them to not seek help. Stigmatizing these relationships might further harm the children, which despite being circular should still be considered for legislation.

At least, that is the problem I see with paedophilia, although most people seem to make a case that essentially boils down to disgust, which I'd consider bigoted.

People will typically make arguments about children being unable to provide informed consent, but this seems to be a rationalization, as that standard is not applied consistently. The reason we need age-of-consent laws, I think, is because paedophilic relationships have power dynamics that very often cause a whole lot of damage to the child, to the point where a blanket ban is advisable even though there might be some unobjectionable cases.

[–]MazeMouse 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What age of consent means simply decides when it is or isn't statutory rape and that's a discussion for somewhere else IMO.
What we have here is a situation where someone commited statutory rape (which automatically makes her a rapist and because statutory rape is by definition a minor it causes her to be a child rapist) and everybody seems to skirt around that word.
Worse, she isn't even punished for it. Now reverse the genders and it being a 35 year old man and a 14 year old girl... people would be falling over eachother to condemn the man.
Double worse, she's getting out of the punishment of statutory rape because she's a mother.

So according to the definitions we have to work with they are leaving a child rapist out of jail and in custody of four kids...
And she was fully aware it was illegal warning the kid not to tell anyone.

[–]mwobuddy -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Right, so if the age of consent was lowered to 14 tomorrow would it be creating "legal victims of rape" or would it cease to be rape?

What Im getting at is that the law does not make someone a "Child rapist" because of violation of age of consent, because if she committed actual rape they could easily get her on that.

I mean, if they said tomorrow that a person having sex with a woman who drank half a beer was a rapist, and enshrined that into law, would you take it seriously as the person being de-facto a rapist?

What they're doing is considering her threat/risk to society and the negative repercussions. They are saying that the person she had sex with was not negatively impacted as much as her being put away for al ong time would negatively impact people, and that doesn't sound like status quo for rape accusations or convictions. What they're doing is judging whether he fits being called a victim and to what extent.

You make the analogy to 14 year old girl and 35 year old man, and its apt because she would definitively fit the definition of victim and him being a dangerous predator, because its based on the status of sexuality of males and females.

[–]MazeMouse 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So a 14 year old boy "willingly" having sex with a 35 year old women is perfectly fine yet a 14 year old girl "willingly" having sex with a 35 year old man is a victim?
What kind of a sick sexist are you. Both are cases of an adult diddling a child and should be treated the same.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

what if she was only 16 or 19?

[–]Electroverted 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Justice for that boy is worthless in the eyes of that judge, and no man raising children on his own would be afforded this leniency when caught in a criminal act.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah so if a man has sex with a girl and he doesn't go to jail the feminazis will go batshit insane. But where are they when a woman has sex with a boy ? No where and the mother gets let go because think of the children! Man a plan ticket to Saudi Arabia is looking really good right now.

[–]ZimbaZumba 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

A single complaint to the Attorney General will have this sentence reviewed. This is rape and a non-custodial sentence for heavens sake.

Perhaps Rape Crisis UK will join us in making a complaint. Lol, chances are zero.

[–]TheRavenousRabbit 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely disgusting.

[–]atheist4thecause 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

In the name of the children, we're going to make sure they stay with their pedophile mother! That's some serious backwards thinking, although there are plenty of pedophiles in the government as well.

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Not pedophilia, but you can be forgiven for thinking so since you've been well trained by your feminist masters through your upbringing.

[–]atheist4thecause 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

It depends on your definition. The dictionary defines pedophilia as "a person who is sexually attracted to children." Some definitions defined pedophilia as being attracted to those 13-and-under, but then there are other terms such as Hebephilia that include 11-to-14 year-olds, and at that point you're just playing a semantic word game. Call it whatever you want, but a 35 year-old having sex with a 14 year-old is extremely wrong, and that has nothing to do with Feminism.

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

You'd also be playing semantics with children, as at least one large established religion noted that you "became a man" at 13 (Judaism if you din know), and yet we mark it rigidly as between 17 and 18 nowadays, when in times past (1900-2000) we thought of people between 13-18 as not children and not adults, but that was before it was children/adult at around 12-13 depending on culture.

Still semantic word games, so if you want to make claims of semantics, so is the definition of child.

I readily expect any day now that people will begin to claim that even up to 22 is child, with the way people are regressing later in life more often (see yale student crying at teacher in public over Halloween costumes).

[–]atheist4thecause 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

The semantic aspect is whether you use the term "pedophile" or "hebephile". But I understand, Milo was the predator, right?

EDIT: And btw, Feminists didn't define adulthood. But when it comes down to it, the laws are on the books that it is quite illegal for a 35 year-old to have sex with a 14 year-old. You can defend this pedophile/hebephile until your little heart desires, though.

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Ah, I see, now you're using the ad hominem and saying its all pedophilia. Congrats on the subtle trolling. In case you actually believe it, it was legal to go down to 13 until around 1910 in the U.S. so I guess you were a nation of "pedophiles" for allowing it, right?

And yes, feminists did push age of consent up to 16-18. You have no concept of what pedophilia means.

[–]atheist4thecause 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Ah, I see, now you're using the ad hominem and saying its all pedophilia.

What ad hominem? But like I said, I don't care if you want to use the term pedophilia or hebephilia.

In case you actually believe it, it was legal to go down to 13 until around 1910

It's not 1910 anymore is it? There were all kinds of messed up laws in the past.

And yes, feminists did push age of consent up to 16-18. You have no concept of what pedophilia means.

No, they didn't. And I've already given a definition of pedophilia. You haven't. Stating that I don't have a concept of what pedophilia means does not make it so.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

No, they didn't. And I've already given a definition of pedophilia. You haven't. Stating that I don't have a concept of what pedophilia means does not make it so.

Yes they did, and you don't have a concept of it because you're saying "fine, whatever, lets play semantics", because you originally thought that it meant strictly underage, which is actually par for the course. I know so manty people that assume age of consent is what defines pedophilia, but that's ridiculous because it would make someone a pedophile if they had sex with a 16 year old in california but not a pedophile in nevada for the same thing.

That makes the term semantic, to gauge it being true or false based on an arbitrarily set law.

Google Purity Act if you don't think feminists were the ones screwing with age of consent. After all, I already gave you plenty of link information.

[–]atheist4thecause 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

because you originally thought that it meant strictly underage,

Stop lying and making stuff up, especially about my positions.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Then make your position clear, because when I corrected who was calling it pedophilia, you said "well, hebephilia then, but you're just playing semantics now", e.g. that you think its just basically pedophilia.

Furthermore, teleiophilia is a thing as well, and so is gerontophilia. Having the term -philia tacked onto the end does not mean that the behavior is abnormal or wrong in of itself. After all, something is only a -phile or -philia when it is a sole or obsessive interest, and if someone is attracted to "hebephile" range but also adults, they are probably not a -phile of any sort, unless being normal is now a "philia".

Pedophilia strictly means a sole or overriding attraction to those who are under puberty, and for interest in enlightening you, sex and molestation of those under puberty does not mean the individual is a pedophile, because they may be doing it for reasons other than sexual attraction.

You can be a child molester without being a pedophile, basically. I hope you understand now.

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

An age of consent statute first appeared in secular law in 1275 in England as part of the rape law. The statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age.

Legislators, however, did not reduce the legal age of consent. The resulting tension was reflected in slang, most notably the American term "jailbait," dating from the 1930s, that registered cultural recognition of teenage girls as sexually attractive, even sexually active, but legally unavailable. American legislators did amend laws to take account of the offender's age during the 1940s and 1950s as teen culture expanded and female adolescents exercised their sexual autonomy. During and after World War II, if both the male and female were underage (or between two and six years above the age of consent), the punishment was reduced.

More than 800 years after the first recorded age of consent laws, the one constant is the lack of consistency. Laws around the world define the socially appropriate age of consent anywhere from 13 to 18. Some differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual acts while others do not. Some apply to young men as well as young women and others remained focused on the lives and actions of girls. And beyond the legislation lies the world of practice, an even more complex story.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199501/the-invention-adolescence

Discusses adolescence. How 13-year-olds in Shakespeare's time (the 16th century) were considered adults in the eyes of society; How puberty has inched back one year for every 25 years elapsed since the mid-1800s; Comments by Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Ph.D. on what triggers puberty; New capacity for abstraction in teens; Move toward autonomy; Hormones.

Just as example of how your definition of "child" is just as semantic.

[–]atheist4thecause 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It's not semantic because there is established law in the US for an age of consent. Sure, in 1275 and in other places they may have a different age, but this is far from semantic. You don't seem to know what semantic means to be honest. And when a country has a set age, such as 18, breaking that law means something.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

of, relating to, or arising from the different meanings of words or other symbols: semantic change; semantic confusion. ... Note that text format (bold or italic) has semantic meaning in this volume.

I'm beginning to think it is you who doesn't understand it. If the meaning has changed due to the culture, this is semantics. It is not a fact that you are a child at 17 and then an adult at age 18, it is a truth, because it is arbitary, and by definition, semantic.

[–]atheist4thecause 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If the meaning has changed due to the culture, this is semantics.

No it's not. The meaning has changed over time due to a better understanding of mental health.

It is not a fact that you are a child at 17 and then an adult at age 18, it is a truth, because it is arbitary, and by definition, semantic.

It's not arbitrary. There are good reasons for choosing the ages we do. For instance, there is a difference between calling someone adult (in terms of consent) at 2, 12, or 82. That difference is not semantic or arbitrary.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It was set to 16-18 in 1910 by Purity Act feminists not based on any psychological reasoning, but actually based on religious reasoning which has to do with "fallen men and women" (yes, feminists called teen girls women in those days), because sex outside marriage was bad to them.

18 is arbitrary and therefore a semantic for when someone is an adult. Keep sidestepping the issues as you like, but you know you have no ground here.

[–]TheWaxPuppy 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The double standard is appalling, but for those interested, the age of consent is 14 here in Quebec, Canada.

[–]barabusblack 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Someone got an extra blast with the ugly stick.

[–]pintocat 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I know you used the title from the article, but it's interesting that you didn't correct it from "had sex" to "rape"

[–]betamos 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How come the papers continue to do this? Under what ethical guidelines are they operating? Who decides them?

[–]crazypants88 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This shit's getting comical...

[–]betamos 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Forgive me, but what in the fuck is an "ex-dinner lady"?

[–]Smaskifa 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Is this a British term? I'm lost here.

Edit: I guess it's like a lunch lady in the US, but for some reason they serve dinner to children?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dinner_lady

[–]betamos 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thanks for clarifying (even though I'm not really familiar with that term either). Then what is an ex-dinner lady? Someone who used to be a dinner lady?

[–]Smaskifa 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A lunch lady is just someone who serves lunch to children at school. We don't typically get dinner served to us at school in the US, so the term "dinner lady" isn't used. I guess it's the same thing, different meal. And "ex" just means she's no longer doing that sort of work I guess.

[–]vedanapatchayatanha 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Gynocentric society is gynocentric? Why is anyone surprised?

Also, she looks rekt. She looks 50 at best.

[–]spamcow 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Can we please change the headline from "had sex with" to "raped", per definition under statute of consent?

[–]mwobuddy 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Except that's not what statute of consent means. If it meant actual rape, it wouldn't need its own law to begin with.

[–]spamcow 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Since my cursory reading of the article, I have tried to become literate in U.K. forensics, and nowhere in the article does it mention what were the specific charges, whether rape of minor, forced or unforced sexual contact with a minor, solicitation of sex with a minor, nor any aggravated clauses.

[–]thrway_1000 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://archive.is/zfPMl

[–]Proteus_Marius 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do this wretch get to keep her job as her community's chief groomming madame?

[–]jostler57 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, you're a mother? Well then, feel free to commit any crime you like!

[–]RedPilledNina 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They are pretty interesting, although the journal is pretty old. More up to date statistics would be useful. I have heard (no idea if it is true) that female child abusers tend to get harsher sentences but are convicted less. Did have a source for that once.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You guys saying looks gives you a pass.. She a hottie huh?

[–]HeForeverBleeds 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's why it's called the Pussy Pass: all one needs is a pussy, not necessarily good looks

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They need a new term called Fire Pass, when its just a smoking hottie that gets no jail time.

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