~ archived since 2018 ~

"quit being a melodramatic know-all. You're taking away from people who are actually raped." [X-Post from /r/Tinder]

rabidmonkeyman

January 28, 2015

5 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.np.reddit.com/r/Tinder/comments/2tvnpu/my_first_tinder_chat_and_this_is_what_happens/co2v4b9

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	"quit being a melodramatic know-all. You're taking away from people who are actually raped." [X-Post from /r/Tinder]
Author	rabidmonkeyman
Upvotes	5
Comments	15
Date	January 28, 2015 12:06 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2twiq0/quit_being_a_melodramatic_knowall_youre_taking/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/quit-being-a-melodramatic-know-all-youre-taking.989512 https://theredarchive.com/post/989512

Comments

[–]nicemod 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rabidmonkeyman[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]DuusieDos 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Yeah so... Here's the thing. I don't think that this necessarily is rape.

Try to follow my perspective for a moment, you don't have to agree at all, but just read this. I'm from Denmark. Here the consent age is 15. We as a nation recognize that people of this general age are old enough to be sexually autonomous, and a 14 year-old is very close to this age. This is the first thing to take into consideration.

The second thing is, that in Denmark we don't classify two people having sex while one is under the age of consent as rape, we consider having sex with someone against their will to be rape. otherwise it's sex with a minor. We do this because the age in which you start being sexual vary greatly from person to person and this makes it, not from a legal perspective, but from a moral one; very murky waters.

Understand that laws are made from a common ethos. A collective ideal of what is right and what is wrong. And that this is what laws are made to reflect. We are not trying to enforce an arbitrary line at which people can start having sex, we are trying to protect people who are not ready for sex from having to engage in it, or protect them from feeling pressured into it.

Is this rape? I don't know. However if the two willfully engages in it then I would have to say no. Is it right? From a moral perspective; I don't know, my society decided 15 is right and however arbitrary that very specific line in the sand is I think we can all agree that there is a line somewhere that must be drawn, an age difference at which this is wrong. The thing is just that it's a moral question. We may be able to form a general consensus however we will never all agree on exactly when and where the line gets crossed.

[–]IlleFacitFinem 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]DuusieDos 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I mentioned that we don't consider it rape because the notion of something being "statutory rape" is in itself silly to me.

Statutory rape means by definition; an action that is rape because the law says so, not because it warrants it. Rape however, by definition is to have sex with someone against their will, or force them to have sex with you. The two things have no correlation.

Moving on. It's not that we are lenient with people who have sex with minors. We just don't match a scenario with particular set of conditions and then hand out a result. That is something computers do, not humans.

var age = prompt(how old is he/she?);

if(age >= 15) {

console.log("Legal");

} else {

console.log("illegal");

};

If anyone is a java nerd. They'll understand that line of code as something a computer might read. It's black and white; simply right or wrong. However we do not and should not practice law as computers, but as humans. We should recognize that the law is generally applicable not omni-applicable. in our society if a 14 year-old and a 16 year-old had consensual sex, they would never be punished for it, because even though the law states that the act is wrong, our humanity states that the law isn't always right.

[–]IlleFacitFinem 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]DuusieDos -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

actually this practice of interpreting the law is universal. It's done no matter what country you live in. When you cite precedence what you're actually doing is referring to the moral decision someone else made on the basis of that particular law. As these very particular circumstances change so does the precedence; as the precedence changes so does the law. What remains constant is the ethos, the reason for why the law exists.

Let me give you an example. The first time someone was brought before a judge accused of having sex with a minor he was convicted. Thus a precedence was put down, that if someone had sex with anyone under the age of consent this was generally to be considered illegal (I write generally because precedence is as you're about to see not set in stone.)

Now another case is brought forth, the accused has had sex with a minor and in the eyes of the law this is illegal. However the circumstances have changed. The alleged perpetrator is in fact himself under the age of consent. The judge decides that the two parties are equally guilty and innocent and that any consequences of their actions should be their own to bear and not for the state to decide. Now a new precedence has been set within the parameters of the old one and the law has evovled. It hasn't changed in nature. It's still there to protect people, but there were circumstances were it punished them instead and therefore a precedence was set so that the law would be more in line with the ethos it stems from.

Now another case comes before the judge. This time the perpetrator is over the age of consent, however only by a year. The alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator had been together for years and now suddenly one is to be punished, just because he turned 18 a couple of months before his girlfriend. This doesn't seem in line with what the law is meant to do, so the judge sets another precedence within the two existing ones, stating that there is to be a close-in-age exemption to the law and thus the law evolves again, but still without changing in nature.

There are numerous exemptions from the age of consent laws no matter in which country you live. I've obviously included a few in the example, but if you have reasonable belief that your partner was over the age of consent this often also exempts you. In some countries if you are married before the age of consent that exempts you. There are also provisions which makes the law more strict. For example if you live in the US, in a state where the consent age is 16, and you travel to another state to be with your girlfriend and the age of consent in this state is also 16, you are not legally allowed under federal provision to engage in sexual activities unless you're both 18 years-old.

So you see. It's not my prerogative. It's just the way laws work, and they work this way universally. If they didn't, they could not be morally correct.

[–]IlleFacitFinem 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I know how precedents work, but I like your example so I won't be offended.

I know that there are exemptions to the statutory laws, but in my honest opinion, there shouldn't be. It isn't something I agree with that people be allowed to sex people under the age of 16 at least for because it is my belief that people at that age are incapable of understanding fully the consequences that can come from sex. Similar to how companies require that you be over a certain age before you can access their services. You have to be able to understand the ins and outs of your decision.

I also don't think that people at that age can make an informed decision on whether or not to consent. At that age, kids are very confused and highly hormonal and may make decisions that they don't necessarily want to simply for the sake of "looking cool with their friends" or some silly myth of "becoming a man" by having sex. It's preposterous, and don't tell me it doesn't happen because I've seen it happen a few years ago when I was still in highschool.

I can understand that people don't agree with me, and that's fine, but these are my beliefs and I will work for these, not because I hate sex or want kids to be miserable, but because I want kids to make informed decisions and prevent mistakes.

[–]DuusieDos 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Defending your beliefs in civil discussion is a noble thing.

The way I see it, as an example; if we decide to set a rule that says that you can have sex at age 18 not before. Then automatically hand out a guilty verdict to anyone who breaks that rule, which if I'm not mistaken is what you're suggesting and please correct me if I'm wrong. Then would we not punish a great deal of people unnecessarily? I'm not saying that it doesn't happen that young people regret having sex or get pressured into it, often without fully understanding what they're doing. Without having any statistical evidence I would say that I believe this happens all the time, however I would like to draw a parallel to the standard rape laws.

If two drunk people have consensual sex and the woman decides when she wakes up that she didn't want to do it. Then we would, if we followed the way you think the law should work, have to convict this man if she said she had lied about wanting sex.

There's an exempt from age of consent laws in which a man is innocent if the woman he was with lies about her age and if you remove that. You must also remove consent at the time of the sexual act as an exempt from rape laws if the woman claims to have been lying about that. Now this argument is obviously morally incorrect. However removing the ability to make moral based exempts is exactly (if I'm understanding you correctly) what you're suggesting. This is cannot endorse. It would personally give me great sorrow to see the world work in this fashion.

[–]IlleFacitFinem 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I just spent some time looking for stats on Statutory rape. Hard to find, even the FBI doesn't really keep clear records about it. I noticed this on the FBI page here. "Sexual attacks on males are counted as aggravated assaults or sex offenses, depending on the circumstances and the extent of any injuries." God this makes me angry, but that's different topic, maybe some other time I will talk about it.

You make a fair point about lying. Consent recanting is different than Statutory Rape, however. There is still the matter of lying. I suppose you are right about having to look at these things more carefully than I suggest. While in several states, they allow people who are close to the age of consent and within a certain age difference to.. ermm... sex...

All in all, I'm not sure how to address the issue. I suppose that a better way to go about it would be... a sex license? That sounds fucked up though, so I suppose the best thing to do is to go about it in a way that addresses the elder person's state of mind and why they sexed someone younger than the age of consent.

[–]DuusieDos 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]IlleFacitFinem1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DuusieDos1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IlleFacitFinem1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DuusieDos1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link