13 girls puts innocent boy in jail for false rape for being a player [04/18/15]

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mwobuddy -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

Not at all. If he had sex with them when they were underage, and there is no R&J law in his state, he committed a crime. As he committed a crime against several minors who couldn't consent to sex by law, he should face legal repercussions.

If you want to have the age of consent laws, then you have to accept that they should encompass everyone. A person shouldn't get a pass for being underage themselves. Stripping protection from sexual abuse (which is what age of consent means, that a person under the line cannot give consent, and is therefore being sexually abused) from one person because the other person is close to their age is saying "you get a free pass to sexually abuse people who can't consent to sex".

Either teens can consent to sex or they can't. If they can't and a law says they can't, they are being sexually abused.

The boy/man in this instance is presumed to be the initiator or actor. If the girls initiated sex against him, and he was the 'receiver' of the sexually forward acts, I'd argue that they should be the ones in jail for violating AoC laws.

It doesn't matter if they're both under the age of consent, the person who takes steps to perpetrate a crime is the one who should do the time. If he undresses and fucks them, he goes to jail. If they do it to him instead, they go to jail.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

What a fairy tale.

A 16 year old with a 16 year old saying "yes fuck me please" is consenting, but a 16 year old with a 26 year old saying "yes fuck me please is not consenting? So the part of the brain that the law says "is too immature or lacking in emotional or mental readiness" switches on because the vagina or the dick that they're fucking is chronologically similar to themselves?

There's a host of information showing that the negative AND positive aftereffects of sex for a teen is no different, whether teen on teen, or teen on adults.

As we can take the possible effects out of the equation, we can take age out of the equation. As we can take age out of the equation, what we are left with is the law and reasons that "a person who is underage cannot consent to sex as they lack the mental capability to consent to it, for emotional/psych reasons".

That means it doesn't matter what age the initiator of the sex act is. Unless you want to give victimizers a pass simply because they're young.

Either they can consent or they cant. Either they're a victim or they aren't. If they're a victim because they can't consent due to their age, then they're always a victim.

That is the only rational conclusion to the laws and the reasons for those laws being in place.

[–]DrDespolardo 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

sighs Yes, I'm going to do this.

Carrie: A court hearing today in the case of the Pinal County teenager accused of sexually assaulting several girls at his former high school. Lawyers for Tyler Kost are going after the social media records of the accusers. Fox 10's Marc Martinez is live in Florence with more on these new developments. Marc.

Marc Martinez: Yeah Carrie. Tyler Kost's attorney says social media records obtained by the Pinal County Sheriff's Department as part of this investigation to help prosecutors actually show that his client is a victim here, what he calls "a shocking conspiracy organized by a group of teenagers who are out to get Tyler Kost" and now he is asking the judge to order prosecutors to turn over the social media records of everyone involved in this case. 19-year old Tyler Kost has been called a serial rapist. Accused of sexually assaulting 13 young women in Pinal County from 2009 to 2013. But his defense attorney is filing a motion in court today claiming this was all part of a conspiracy theory by a group of teens who were plotting to attack Tyler, including fabricating a rape allegation to take revenge against Kost for, quote, "being a player". Kost's attorneys say social media conversations among some of the "victims" show they planned the conspiracy at least a week before the allegations came out in March of 2013, even getting together to watch John Tucker Must Die. One alleged victim saying in a Facebook group chat "He needs to be taught a lesson," and then "he's gonna feel the pain he put every girl through". Another comment says "This is just gonna be so much fun." One of the young women who said Tyler Kost raped and impregnated her said on her Instagram account, weeks after the alleged attack, she wanted to marry Kost, calling him a "dream come true of a boyfriend".

Christine (lawyer): What we now know is that there were a group of girls who conspired against Tyler to put him in jail. They succeeded at that and Tyler has been in jail for over a year based on those lies.

Marc: And the plot of the 2006 movie John Tucker Must Die is a bunch of girls who get together to get revenge on their exboyfriend and that is what Tyler Kost's defense attorneys are saying happened here. They want, again, the social media records of six other people involved in this case to be turned over to them. The judge, so far today, said he will take it under advisement and could have a decision on that in a couple of weeks. Reporting live from Pinal County, Marc Martinex, Fox 10 News.

Honestly, it's like the tiniest fucking slip to forget to say "alleged" there. Which is why I didn't even catch it. Because, seriously, they say "alleged victim". They put "accusers" on the damn screen. They are basically portraying the entire case against him as a total lie and an injustice toward Tyler. For fuck's sake, stop trying to be a little prick and let people make human mistakes.

Also, I've seen this case a lot and just realized that these girls clearly didn't get the fucking point of John Tucker Must Die. The movie is about how even a "player" can be redeemable and how trying to get revenge just drives you insane so you're better off just letting it go. Seriously, the movie is about how the girls became worse than John ever was when they tried to get revenge on him.

[–]Mythandros 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -17 points-16 points-15 points 10 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]spaceman4572 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BonerXpress8 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -10 points-9 points-8 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]VersionX 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Untrue. If a minor manipulates another person into committing murder (or suicide), that minor will be on the hook.

Furthermore, the age of criminal responsibility is around 10 or 12. I forget how it is in the states. The essence is that, yes, as long as the age of consent exists how it currently is, the reasoning behind it is to stop people from manipulating or coercing teen girls into sex. If the age of criminal responsibility is in the low teens, then a teen who commits a criminal act, such as fucking someone under the age of consent, is still committing a criminal act.

You disagree just because you don't like where this reasoning goes. That's fine, but based on law and based on the reasoning of the age of consent, this is the conclusion. To provide a method of revenge/'justice" for underage girls who are manipulated into sex. That is what happened here, if he's "playing" them all.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BonerXpress8 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BonerXpress8 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes, thats true. However, if he intitiated sexual activities, he'd be on the hook.

Its like if a 5 year old and a 15 year old have sex. The 15 year old initiates, and thus is the legally culpable offender.

The same holds true when a 25 year old initiates sex with a 15 year old. The 25 year old is legally culpable.

Despite being unable to consent, we recognize that the 15 year old is a perpetrator of a crime when they have 'willing sex' with a 5 year old. The 5 year old certainly does not know any better.

How is it that the initiator of a sex crime, fucking someone under the age of consent, is responsible if they're 15 going for a 5 year old, or 25 going for a 15 year old, but not 15 going for another 15 year old?

The law is about protecting those who can't consent from sex acts. To protect them means that they are protected from INCOMING acts of sex, e.g. from initiators. If he was the initiator, he is perpetrating a crime.

The same way the initiator or theft or murder is the perp of a crime, even if they're 12 or 20.

[–]BonerXpress8 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cikatomo 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fuckin_bubbles 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, I'm saying that regardless of his age, if he's violating these teen girls, he should be treated as a sex offender, if you believe in age of consent laws.

Those age of consent laws were/are reputedly put in place to protect teen girls from being manipulated into sex.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=feminism+age+of+consent+protection+for+girls

Statutory rape laws (which are called by a plethora of other names) refer to those laws that “criminalize voluntary sexual acts involving a minor that would be legal if not for the age of one or more of the participants.” The premise behind these laws is that until a certain age, young people are incapable of giving their consent for sexual behavior but the intent behind the laws has morphed over the 700 years or so since they were first codified. The first known law, passed in Westminster England in 1275, made it illegal to “ravish” a “maiden” under the age of 12 (also the age at which a girl could legally marry) without her consent. Later laws reduced this age to 10 or 11. The result was that an underage girl did not have to show that she had struggled in order to prove that she had not given her consent as her older friends did. Age of consent laws, therefore, made it easier to prosecute a man who sexually assaulted an underage girl.

The acknowledged purpose of these laws was to protect the young girl’s “chastity,” possibly so as not to ruin her future chances for marriage.

The acknowledged purpose of these laws was to protect the young girl’s “chastity,” possibly so as not to ruin her future chances for marriage.

The acknowledged purpose of these laws was to protect the young girl’s “chastity,” possibly so as not to ruin her future chances for marriage.

Though they remained largely unchanged for several centuries, the laws began to morph in the late 1800s and early 1900s as other aspects of societies and the role of women changed. European nations and U.S. states slowly raised the age to 13 and 14 under scientific arguments that this is when young women begin to menstruate and reach physical maturity. In the 1920s and 30s as the modern concept of the teenager began to emerge and movements formed to fight child prostitution and exploitation, the age of consent in most states was raised to 16 or even 18.

Not everyone agreed with these changes, however, some argued that teenage women “were sufficiently developed not to need legal protection,” and, moreover, that “by late adolescence girls possessed sufficient understanding about how to use the law to blackmail unwary men.”

Steven Robertson of the University of Australia Sydney points out in an article that the term “jailbait,” gained popularity in the 1930s because people recognized “teenage girls as sexually attractive, even sexually active, but legally unavailable.”

Do some research on the subject. Feminists in particular pushed for raising the age of consent to protect girls from being "manipulated into sex/used for sex" by older men. If the idea is to protect them from being manipulated into sex, because of the fake or real aftereffects, then the law should not make a distinction between a 15-17 year old male or a 19+ year old male manipulated a teen girl into sex.

The outcomes WILL be the same for them emotionally. Why should some male under the age of consent get a pass to do this to girls under the age of consent when a male over the age of consent does not?

You're saying that a person who is victimized no longer is actually a victim if their abuser is close to their age? That makes no sense.

tl;dr

If the age of consent is meant to protect "children" from sexual manipulation

And the age of consent implies that such manipulation is harmful

Then it should be applied to anyone who manipulates a so called child into sex

You're asking that the protection the girls have be stripped from them because the male was under the age of consent himself.

[–]Sour_Badger -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

Legally, if he's breaking the law fucking someone underage, he's already in the wrong. If he's manipulating girls into sex, then that puts him on par with any other under/overage male doing the same. The results for the girls are mentally the same whether hes 14 or 40.

40 year old manipulates teen girl into sex.

fucks and dumps her.

she cries.

HES A PEDO RAPIST SEX PREDATOR CHILD MOLESTOR

Teen male manipulates multiple girls into sex.

fucks and dumps them.

they cry.

Oh, its all cool.

The intent, as I have stated elsewhere here, is for age of consent to protect girls from manipulation into sex. It has been designed that way since the early 19th-20th centuries. You're turning a blind eye to what is technically the point of the existence of the age of consent laws, because the offender is underage themselves.

You fucking know I'm right. Thats the entire point of these laws. You just don't like that its true. So go downvote me some more because you don't accept it.

[–]Sour_Badger -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Wow are you saying that statutory rape is only designed to protect females? Where'd you get your law degree? Equal protection is Guaranteed under the constitution. What your saying goes against everything society has put forward as rule of law.

Secondly manipulation, save black mail or threat of physical violence, is not illegal. Should girls who lie about being virgins be prosecuted for manipulating a boy into having sex? How about just lying about the amount of sexual partners they've had? This is what you are advocating. To not see fault with a group of girls who maliciously conspired to send a boy to prison for revenge is ludicrous. You should be ashamed.

Ps stop using your pedophile analogy it's really terrible. Stick the facts of the case. All parties underage all parties consented.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Statutory rape laws (which are called by a plethora of other names) refer to those laws that “criminalize voluntary sexual acts involving a minor that would be legal if not for the age of one or more of the participants.” The premise behind these laws is that until a certain age, young people are incapable of giving their consent for sexual behavior but the intent behind the laws has morphed over the 700 years or so since they were first codified. The first known law, passed in Westminster England in 1275, made it illegal to “ravish” a “maiden” under the age of 12 (also the age at which a girl could legally marry) without her consent. Later laws reduced this age to 10 or 11. The result was that an underage girl did not have to show that she had struggled in order to prove that she had not given her consent as her older friends did. Age of consent laws, therefore, made it easier to prosecute a man who sexually assaulted an underage girl. The acknowledged purpose of these laws was to protect the young girl’s “chastity,” possibly so as not to ruin her future chances for marriage.

Though they remained largely unchanged for several centuries, the laws began to morph in the late 1800s and early 1900s as other aspects of societies and the role of women changed. European nations and U.S. states slowly raised the age to 13 and 14 under scientific arguments that this is when young women begin to menstruate and reach physical maturity. In the 1920s and 30s as the modern concept of the teenager began to emerge and movements formed to fight child prostitution and exploitation, the age of consent in most states was raised to 16 or even 18.

Not everyone agreed with these changes, however, some argued that teenage women “were sufficiently developed not to need legal protection,” and, moreover, that “by late adolescence girls possessed sufficient understanding about how to use the law to blackmail unwary men.” Steven Robertson of the University of Australia Sydney points out in an article that the term “jailbait,” gained popularity in the 1930s because people recognized “teenage girls as sexually attractive, even sexually active, but legally unavailable.”

girl

girl

girl

You're right about the constitution in your little sandbox of the world, but that's not what the intent was for the entire time the age of consent laws were formed. It has always been about protecting girls' purity and protecting them from being manipulated into sex.

Go fuck yourself, seriously. It has always been the intent behind the law to protect teens from being manipulated into sex "when they don't know any better or cant consent in their own minds". These girls, having been underage at the time, FALL UNDER ALL OF THESE CATEGORIES.

Girl is underage.

Girl is manipulated into sex.

Girl gets dumped.

Guy who manipulated her is 18-40.

KILL HIM!

Girl is underage.

Girl is manipulated into sex.

Girl gets dumped.

Guy who manipulated her is 14-17.

NO PROBLEM!

Let me repeat once more since you have a hard time understanding. The reason its illegal for someone older to have sex with someone younger under the common understanding of AoC laws is because "possible manipulation and they don't understand sex and the repercussions + its bad for them. Don't let them get pressured or coerced into sex". Suddenly, when the perp is the same age of the victims, the victims lose that protection?

What they did was vigilante. It was stupid. That doesn't mitigate his culpability for having manipulated underage girls into sex.

You can even see how we believe these laws were meant to be applied by people taking non-consenting acts of underage boys with older women seriously. I agree that is a flaw. I agree it should be equally applied. As such, I want it equally applied to an underage boy who manipulates underage girls into sex, because he's breaking the law re: age of consent, and because he's doing exactly what the law is there to prevent: Manipulation of underage girls (and boys, if you want to be ass pained over minutiae) into sex.

You know I'm right. Stop feigning ignorance.

Ps stop using your pedophile analogy it's really terrible. Stick the facts of the case. All parties underage all parties consented.

Its not an analogy. Its an example of what people believe and say. Its probably what you think in the same scenario.

Even an underage person can be a pedophile. A 16 year old who sexually craves 5 year olds is a pedophile. Let's not get bound up on terminology because you want to quibble.

[–]Sour_Badger -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I don't know you're right. I know the exact opposite actually. You are wholly wrong.

What does historical significance of a law from 700 years ago have to do with anything? this is the USA not England. Laws have adapted and changed with the times as they should. Would you support a fellacio or sodomy outlawing because these too are based in historical beginning? How about heresy? Your logic is deeply flawed and it makes me question wether you can actually hold an honest conversation.

You keep making these asinine false equivalences. The girls weren't 5 years old. They were all similar age and under age of consent including the male.

Where does the term manipulation start and end with your draconian rule of law? Is lying about ones age acceptable? How about penis size? Is a girl stuffing her bra manipulative? Absolutely. Criminal? No.

You still haven't answered my question about female manipulation are these not equal in your perverse sense of justice or law? If they aren't you are simply a hypocrite and we can be done

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/womens-long-battle-to-define-rape/2012/08/24/aa960280-ed34-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html

The earliest challenges emerged in the 1840s, just as the women’s rights movement was coalescing. Reformers tried to make it easier to prosecute white men who had been neither strangers nor violent. They sought criminal penalties to discourage what they called “the licentious man” from coercing, persuading or pressuring a young woman to have sex, especially through a false promise of marriage. By 1900, their lobbying campaigns had succeeded in most states, making seduction by an acquaintance, regardless of consent or force, a lesser crime than rape but still punishable by fines and imprisonment.

A subsequent national campaign, endorsed by temperance and suffrage advocates, called for increasing the age at which a young woman could legally consent to sex beyond the common-law standard of 10. At a time when women could not vote, they gathered tens of thousands of signatures on petitions and lobbied male officials. By 1900, they had convinced legislators in 32 states — primarily in the North and the Midwest — to increase the age of consent to between 14 and 18. These statutory rape laws did not require evidence of force or resistance for a conviction, but the penalties were less severe.

http://historyoffeminism.com/british-feminists-role-in-the-reform-of-age-of-consent-laws-in-colonial-india/

The different cultural contexts, however, show how a concept as simple as age of consent takes on multiple meanings when different groups are vying for control over sexuality and for the power to define the appropriate contours of the family.

In the end, however, British women cared most about age of consent, because both prostitution and the child-bride threatened their power to define the parameters of sexual access.

For many, prostitution was seen as a social disease caused by economic woes among the rural peasantry who became vulnerable to the licentious decadence of the ruling elite. The solution was to raise the age of consent for sexual intercourse from thirteen to sixteen, to reduce the victimization of girls who were believed to have little or no control over their sexual conduct.

To counter the claim that they were interfering in the private realm of the Indian family, the colonial and reform authorities maintained that the Age of Consent Bill was not about age of marriage, but rather about an age at which sexual intercourse is appropriate. Supposedly, the colonial state was not interfering in the autonomous Indian family but was, instead, protecting young girls from sexual acts that could be physically harmful. But as the indigenous populations quickly pointed out, sexual intercourse within marriage is not rape. If the age of consent was raised without changing the age of marriage, the state was introducing the possibility of marital rape within Indian families at a time when England itself did not recognize the crime.

Age of consent arose in the context of prostitution in England because prostitution threatened efforts to curb sexual excess—a task taken on by Victorian wives, clergy, and middle-class men who equated sexual restraint with moral and civil superiority.

These groups generally linked social stability with domestic stability, which they defined as compliance with norms of sexual restraint. Men and women were expected to postpone sexual intimacy until marriage and then to limit it to procreative purposes, overcoming their desires by channeling their energies into other arenas such as: work, church, or charitable endeavors

It was the prostitute, however, that most threatened the English wife’s control over her husband’s sexuality.

OH look! They're actually stating that women want control over a man's sexuality!

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times/1895/10/15/Purity_Congress_Meets

He declared, further, that this society had urgent need to pronounce itself on the subject of the so-called age of consent laws. Girls are deemed capable of controlling property only at their majority, but States decide not so with their persons. In four States the age of consent is fixed at the shockingly low age of ten years, in four others at twelve, in three at thirteen, and so on, increasing, except in Delaware, where the original statute pertaining to the crime of rape is still unrepealed, fixing the age at seven years. These so-called age of consent statutes, which discriminate against girlhood and favor immoral men, are a disgrace to the several States of the Union.

He praised the White Cross movement, which is especially for men, and whose motto is “Keep Thyself Pure,” and hoped that the outcome of this congress would be an emphasis upon the necessity for one moral standard for both sexes.

Age of consent is about moral vs immoral in the context that sexuality outside of marriage is immoral.

http://womhist.alexanderstreet.com/teacher/aoc.htm

n the late nineteenth century,"Age of consent" referred to the legal age at which a girl could consent to sexual relations. Men who engaged in sexual relations with girls who had not reached the age of consent could be criminally prosecuted. American reformers were shocked to discover that the laws of most states set the age of consent at the age of ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven. Women reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, although their ultimate goal was to raise the age to eighteen. The campaign was eventually quite successful; by 1920, almost all states had raised the age of consent to sixteen or eighteen.

Now I hear you screaming internally "But this is now, not the past!".

The Age of consent laws were generated because of past thinking. They are now perpetuated by a reforming of that thinking under a pseudoscientific and pseudopsychological perspective.

The claim today is that a person of teenage years is incapable of making good decisions, and therefore this atrocity called sex must not be visited upon them if they fall under the age of consent, because it mentally fucks them up.

If this is true, it doesn't matter what age the penis is that does the deed.

You can jump up and down and shout hypocrite all you like, but the facts remain that it was designed to protect young women from the very start up to now, it was designed with the idea that sex is immoral and damaging, and that continues to be the suppositon now wrapped up in gunky pseudo science talk about how the brain of a teen can't make good decisions and we don't stop evolving or brain until 25, or more recently, 30-40 age range.

If you think its nonsense and that the boy did nothing wrong, then you're saying the age of consent law is flawed. You can't have it both ways. You can't say he didn't do anything wrong but the age of consent is a reasonable and fair law, as you don't want it applied to him.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

They were all similar age

Which shouldn't matter if the law is meant to protect someone from being manipulated into sex, which as the girls show, they felt manipulated into sex. if they can't consent, they can't consent. If they don't know what sex is, they don't know what sex is. Their capacity doesn't magically change whether the guy is 16 or 60.

All newly made laws are based on revisions and additions to older laws. Abortion restriction was ruled unconstitutional based on using older laws (such as body autonomy as laid out in your constitution) to apply to women being able to cut a fetus out of herself.

The age of consent is not a new law. It was invented for exactly the reasons I said it was. The age of consent law now explicitly states that a person is committing a crime to have sex with someone under the age of consent. It doesn't state the older person's age.

If we use the older reasoning, to protect "maidens" from being "ravished", to protect their "purity" because sex is defiling to the soul, mind, and body (and newsflash: when you say that it's psychologically damaging to a teen girl to have sex with an older man, you're just playing a shell game of substituting 'defiling to mind, body, and soul' to 'psychologically damaging'), the older reasoning means that she is not meant to be had sex with at all. Not by an older man. Not by a younger man. Not by an older or younger woman.

Go ahead and explain what you think the age of consent is for in full detail. If you include anything relating to manipulation, coercion, or false information (such as lying about loving her), then I can immediately throw out any ageist argument you make when you say "THE PERSON MUST ALSO BE AN OLDER GUY/GIRL!".

Age of consent is about protecting teens because they ostensibly can't consent to sex, because they can't handle it mentally, because they could be taken advantage of, and/or because of the emotional fallout that happens from having sex with someone who just wants to use them for sex.

This case fits ANY of those.

[–]Sour_Badger 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The law is to protect of age adults from sexual relations with under age children.

Protect... of age adults...

What?

http://www.ageofconsent.com/california.htm

Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

http://www.avvo.com/topics/criminal-charges-for-statutory-rape

Statutory rape occurs when a minor is manipulated into sexual contact with an older person. Age of consent laws regulate whether minors can consent to sex.

manipulated.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/apr/15/teenagers-law-human-right-consensual-sex

In 2008, the House of Lords considered the case of a 15-year-old boy who was convicted of rape of a child under 13 after having sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old girl whom he believed to be 15. For the purposes of sentencing, the prosecution accepted that the girl consented and that she had said she was 15. Neither of those factors amounted to a defence, however, because the offence is committed if a person intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis and that other person is under 13. The attitude of the victim towards the act is irrelevant, as is the perpetrator's belief as to the victim's age.

Age of consent laws are designed to protect children and young people from sexual exploitation and abuse. Such laws effectively determine that children and young people below the age of consent do not have the emotional maturity to consent to sexual activities. In relation to sexual abuse charges in each state and territory, the key difference between child sexual assault and adult sexual assault is that adult sexual assault is based on the absence of sexual consent, whereas in child sexual assault, the issue of consent is superseded by age of consent laws (Eade, 2003). An important distinction should be made between "willingness" and "consent". A child may be willing to engage in sexual behaviour; however, as they do not have the psychological capacity to give consent according to law, all sexual interactions between an adult and a person under the age of consent are considered abusive (Barbaree & Marshall, 2006).

Read: Abuse, exploitation (manipulation).

Germany

The age of consent in Germany is 14, as long as a person over the age of 21 does not exploit a 14- to 15-year-old person's lack of capacity for sexual self-determination, in which case a conviction of an individual over the age of 21 requires a complaint from the younger individual; being over 21 and engaging in sexual relations with a minor of that age does not constitute an offense by itself. Otherwise the age of consent is 16, although provisions protecting minors against abuse apply until the age of 18 (under Section 182(1), it is illegal to engage in sexual activity with a person under 18 "by taking advantage of an exploitative situation

Again, exploit/manipulation.

The core reasoning is to protect minors from exploitation or manipulation into sex, as they are deemed incapable of making a good decision.

If we take your argument at face value

The law is to protect of age adults from sexual relations with under age children. Period. Full stop

Okay, but why? If it is okay for them to have sex with each other, why is it NOT OKAY for them to have sex with an Of Age adult? Such a law is meaningless if there isn't a reason behind it.

You're intentionally ignoring that.

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	13 girls puts innocent boy in jail for false rape for being a player [04/18/15]
Author	mankindglobalmedia
Upvotes	60
Comments	47
Date	March 17, 2016 11:43 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4ask8h/13_girls_puts_innocent_boy_in_jail_for_false_rape/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/13-girls-puts-innocent-boy-in-jail-for-false-rape.953847 https://theredarchive.com/post/953847

Comments