Every other weekend in jail for Cheerleader guilty of rape.

she was the wife of a ceo and was cheerleading and giving BJs?
 
Here's some for you.

I bet there's nobody surprised by this finding. :icon_chee


https://www.yahoo.com/health/who-has-the-more-fluid-sexuality-men-or-women-127560881542.html

I'm not surprised by it at all, though of course its nice to have such a comprehensive look at the subject instead of relying on anecdotal evidence, and I find it interesting so thanks for the link.

That said it has no relevance to the conversation we were having about whether or not gender has an influence on the harmful effects of nonviolent sex between adults and adolescents. Maybe I'm missing something here but it really has next to nothing to do with this thread. It'd make a great thread for the Mayberry though :icon_chee
 
That said it has no relevance to the conversation we were having about whether or not gender has an influence on the harmful effects of nonviolent sex between adults and adolescents. Maybe I'm missing something here but it really has next to nothing to do with this thread. It'd make a great thread for the Mayberry though :icon_chee

It relates to the silliness of asking for some sort of study as "proof" when pretty much everyone's experience is in agreement. It relates to me saying that men and women have different psychologies when it comes to sex. I think you disputed both those points because you didn't seem to want to agree that just because we take protecting underage girls so seriously that we don't need to go to the same extent with boys.
 
It relates to the silliness of asking for some sort of study as "proof" when pretty much everyone's experience is in agreement.
No it doesn't because the evidence based approach is always the best one especially when we're talking about something as important as sentencing disparities. We're not talking about girl scouts vs boy scouts here, we're talking about taking people's freedoms away and I'm not not comfortable leaving that up to broscience.

In fact I think its telling that you cite a completely unrelated study as some sort of proof. It would be like saying "men have more upper body strength, therefore they are better filmmakers". It may be true that men are better filmmakers but it has nothing to do with upper body strength.
It relates to me saying that men and women have different psychologies when it comes to sex. I think you disputed both those points because you didn't seem to want to agree that just because we take protecting underage girls so seriously that we don't need to go to the same extent with boys.
I never said it wasn't possible, I just said it should be based on evidence before we allow it to influence our legal system
Common agreement about gender interactions is pretty insufficient IMO since common ideas have been wrong about plenty of other things and with people's freedom on the line I don't quite think that's nearly enough. I see where you're coming from but here I think people are taking the difference for granted. Sure men and women are different in ways that are relevant to sex but are they really so different here? Is it crazy to think some girls out there actually want to fuck their teachers like their male counterparts? I certainly knew many in high school that did and in fact one ended up blowing a teacher, Like I mentioned earlier its in fact women who tend to find older partners more attractive rather than men, though admittedly these cases are an exception for men, so I find it silly to throw the book at men and not women.
.
I'm saying that should be the default assumption in the absence of evidence. I happen to think research in this area very well might end up justifying the double standard, I'd just rather wait for the evidence before perpetuating the double standard.
First off, I never said men and women view sex the same way. In fact I mentioned earlier than men and women do have different reasons for having sex despite pleasure being the number one reason for both.

The evidence I'm asking for is evidence that would justify a double standard in the treatment of male and female sex offenders. If there is no evidence that female adolescents react more negatively to nonviolent sex with an adult of the opposite gender than a male adolescent I don't think there should be a double standard. I don't think calling for an evidence based approach is too controversial.
I think I've been very clear here, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself.
 
I just can't see my 15-year-old self saying to my parents, "Mother, Father - I've had my innocence stolen by a former NFL cheerleader."

I'd have a hard time not telling everyone I know
 
Women need to check their female privilege.
lady-justice-drawing.gif
 
I think I've been very clear here,

Maybe I'm confused because you talk about "bro-science" being invalid on one hand while supporting its conclusion (i.e. it's inappropriate to give lengthy prison sentences to seductive women under the guise that teenage boys need protected from their sexual advances).


You really can't understand why I posted that study in this thread? Here's my impression of your position on (what should be) an obviously agreeable premise.

Person A: We all know X is true.
Person B: We can't say that because there's no scientific study to proclaim it truth.
Person A: Sometimes things are obvious and we don't need a study to make a decision. For perspective here's an example of a study showing how something else that's obviously true to everyone is confirmed.
Person B: I have no idea why there's any discussion of the validity of proceeding on a (near) unanimously held belief in the absence of proof to the contrary.


So to bring that back around for you, my position is that boys don't see sex the same as girls so using a standard for boys because it's applied to girls ignores reality. The reality being that men are viewed more highly for conquests and women more highly for virtue. That you would bring up the need for proof of a difference in mentality seemed like willful ignorance.

You talk about strict scrutiny when it comes to taking someone's freedom, which I agree with. So that leaves you with a choice. Either punish both genders the same out of principle (by either increasing sentencing for females / lowering sentencing for males) or have sentencing reflect societal views when it comes to biology. Roughly put, I'm not going to take up the fight that girls don't need protection in order to make that case that boys banging older women makes them closer to heroes than victims. Assuming people won't budge on heavy protections for underage girls, then what?
 
Maybe I'm confused because you talk about "bro-science" being invalid on one hand while supporting its conclusion (i.e. it's inappropriate to give lengthy prison sentences to seductive women under the guise that teenage boys need protected from their sexual advances).
I'm calling it broscience because of the methodology used. Or rather, lack thereof.
You really can't understand why I posted that study in this thread? Here's my impression of your position on (what should be) an obviously agreeable premise.

Person A: We all know X is true.
Person B: We can't say that because there's no scientific study to proclaim it truth.
Person A: Sometimes things are obvious and we don't need a study to make a decision. For perspective here's an example of a study showing how something else that's obviously true to everyone is confirmed.
Person B: I have no idea why there's any discussion of the validity of proceeding on a (near) unanimously held belief in the absence of proof to the contrary.
I don't see why this is so hard to understand. When something as important as people's freedom is on the line, we need to employ the best methodology available(i.e. the scientific method) to justify a double standard. Plenty of things that seem to be true aren't. Since we're talking about sex differences I can use the example of domestic violence; its overwhelmingly seen as exclusively a male on female issue despite plenty of evidence that there is gender symmetry in DV. Here, the common knowledge couldn't be more wrong and unfortunately it continues to influence the national debate and the way we handle the situation. Given that men commit most other violent crimes at higher rates one could fairly assume it would be the case for DV but the evidence points in the other direction.

Defaulting to societal views on the matter in that case is actually wrong. Now, if societal views had been vindicated by the evidence then I wouldn't mind that double standard but its not.
So to bring that back around for you, my position is that boys don't see sex the same as girls so using a standard for boys because it's applied to girls ignores reality. The reality being that men are viewed more highly for conquests and women more highly for virtue. That you would bring up the need for proof of a difference in mentality seemed like willful ignorance.
Its not willful ignorance, its using an evidence based approach over a broscience one. Women may be more valued by society for their chastity and they may approach sex differently in some ways but in the most important ways they're not so different
Top 50 reasons WOMEN have sex:

1. I was attracted to the person.

2. I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.

3. It feels good.


Top 50 reasons MEN have sex:

1. I was attracted to the person.

2. It feels good.

3. I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
Given this is it so hard to believe some of these young girls who have sex with their teachers are enjoying it, not unlike their male peers? And given that girls tend to be more attracted to older men than the reverse isn't it then more likely that these young girls are attracted to these older male teachers?

The double standard doesn't seem to be motivated by the need to protect these young's girls mental health at all, it seems more based on a desire to protect their chastity, as if that's not something they'll end up losing to a peer anyway.
You talk about strict scrutiny when it comes to taking someone's freedom, which I agree with. So that leaves you with a choice. Either punish both genders the same out of principle (by either increasing sentencing for females / lowering sentencing for males) or have sentencing reflect societal views when it comes to biology. Roughly put, I'm not going to take up the fight that girls don't need protection in order to make that case that boys banging older women makes them closer to heroes than victims. Assuming people won't budge on heavy protections for underage girls, then what?
Assuming that then I guess these poor women should have the book thrown at them like the men but ideally the legal system should not be based on societal views with no basis in evidence so I would say that offenders who engaged in nonviolent, quasi-consensual(i.e. the minor consented despite that consent not being recognized) should not be sent to 20 years though they should also not be allowed to have jobs that put them near children/adolescents.
 
Teens that drink heavily or use hard drugs think they're having the time of their lives, without realizing the damage they are doing to themselves mentally and physically.

You don't think a 14 year old being exposed to sex by a much older woman can have negative consequences?
 
A large reason for this hypocrisy is other men. Men who are upset they didn't get laid when young or something or secretly crave young vagina but deny it.

Look no further than this own forum to find posters who have daughters who would cheer with sadist joy at the thought of sending a way some 20 year old let alone a 48 year old to prison for decades all for consensual sex with his sexual daughter. These walking hypocrites like to PRETEND that their daughters aren't sexual or that certain sexual acts with men or multiple men are 'above' their precious little daughter.

Oh how false they are. It is patriarchal society which creates a lot of this.

Oh and btw I am not a social justice warrior I am just speaking the truth. Men do NOT like a loss of power but it is this very same constant crave for power and cyclical cycle of needing to feel 'masculine' which encourages the phenomenon of empty 'religious' men and or walking hypocrites. Look no further than your own churches to see truly broken men masquerading with masks trying to deny the inner warrior/beast which craves to be let out!

^well this guy clearly wants to get in on a teen girl gangbang, to let out his inner warrior or some shit.

Hide yo kids, Sherdog.
 
Sex for women, particular younger girls, is as much about an emotional connection as it is physical. Sex for boys is primarily satisfying horny cravings and going through a rite of passage. This is not a double standard but a different standard. How many 15 year old guys are going to be all fucked up later in life because they banged their hot 30 year old math teacher? But I bet you almost all 15 year old girls will have self-esteem and trust issues.

Most of it is how we are socialized but a decent portion of it also is that sex to women and men is not the same. Yes women love sex too but there is often much deeper things going on with them at the same time when it involves sex. Particularly at younger ages. These boys are not victims for the most part. And some of the girls probably aren't either. The sentencing should be based primarily on the amount of coercion and psychological damage after as assessed by a shrink. Don't think for a second the younger person can't be the predator either.

Most of this is fucking stupid. A 15 year old can't consent and someone can get 20 years but 2 weeks later when they turn 16 its legal?? Yes there has to be a line somewhere but the punishments should be proportionate to how close to the line someone is and what kind of relationship it is. Hell there have been stories of these kind of cases where both ran away to avoid the one being sentences and they got married and had kids and were still married 15 years later. Not quite the same as some 15 year girl crying in the shower trying to get the stink of some 48 year old chemlab teacher who coerced into sex. These situations are not black and white.

Correct. And thus why young men historically were often taken to a prostitute by their dads if they were struggling to find a sexual relationship and break that seal.

It is far more damaging to young men's confidence and psyche to not get sex and most struggle with women who find them desperate and pathetic.

For young men sex is mostly physical and immediately after that sex they are ready for it again with someone, something, else. For young women they are often seeking a connection and emotional commitment before 'giving it up'. Older men know that and will fake it to get sex leaving the young girls bitter and jaded and not trusting of future men.
 
I thought consent was a big deal to everybody here. A 14 year old girl can't consent but a male can? So there is no problem with adult males having sex with young boys?
 
I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

It's not. And I already agreed with it. Differentiating between that and the point I was focusing on seems to be where the difficulty lies.

Women may be more valued by society for their chastity and they may approach sex differently in some ways but in the most important ways they're not so different

Yep. But then there's gender roles and what Freud would call the Super-ego. So until treatment and expectations are identical we can deduce a different in perception of sex between genders.

Assuming that then I guess these poor women should have the book thrown at them like the men but ideally the legal system should not be based on societal views with no basis in evidence so I would say that offenders who engaged in nonviolent, quasi-consensual(i.e. the minor consented despite that consent not being recognized) should not be sent to 20 years though they should also not be allowed to have jobs that put them near children/adolescents.

As a man using introspection, an reflecting on all of my experiences, and what others have told me of theirs, and what I've read, and the absence of a shred of evidence to the contrary, I can say that for a boy who has hit puberty sex with a woman is very unlikely to have been unwelcome. Especially considering the general lack of physical control women can exert. Women hardly need to blackmail male students with grades in order to get them to put out. So with that said, women who fuck teenage boys don't deserve prison and if that means treating men the same in order to achieve justice then so be it.




By the way, here's what started this.

If you think men and women are in fact equal then I don't know what to say. If you want to argue for equal treatment under the law on principle that's cool, and as it should be for the most part. Only a moron doesn't see differences between genders (both physically and psychologically). Only a liar would try to argue that gender plays no role in the impact upon the minor in a matter like this. Your position seems to be that we need to stick it to the woman so we can make a point of some sort, regardless of actual harm done.

You responded with this.

But do you have any evidence that this is the case? I haven't looked into the subject so perhaps the evidence is out there but if you're going to assert it so strongly you might as well back up your claim. If not, calling for equality in the absence of such evidence seems like the logical and fair thing to do.

In retrospect I should have asked you to clarify of what consequence to my argument these questions are. My case doesn't even require there be a difference, truth be told. It's just the path of least resistance because "yes" answers to "Do men and women view sex the same?" would be in nutter territory. Disagree? Do your own poll here, in case (unlike myself and most old enough to be President) you've not indulged in this topic with others, nor observed such conversations, over the decades. Maybe you & the vcash bookies can do an over/under against the Hilary being anti-establishment one and take action in the betting forum. :icon_chee
 
Teens that drink heavily or use hard drugs think they're having the time of their lives, without realizing the damage they are doing to themselves mentally and physically.

You don't think a 14 year old being exposed to sex by a much older woman can have negative consequences?

Well if they think that then aren't they (having the time of their lives), by definition?

Yes, because exposure to sex at any age can be unpleasant. I'd say the solution to that then would be to have more, because it's usually pretty damn enjoyable compared to other leisure activities. Most dads would tell their son to get back on the whorse. I'd hate to have one that said "Boy, just stick to masturbating. It'll save you most of your earnings." What fun would that be?
 
Well if they think that then aren't they (having the time of their lives), by definition?

Yes, because exposure to sex at any age can be unpleasant. I'd say the solution to that then would be to have more, because it's usually pretty damn enjoyable compared to other leisure activities. Most dads would tell their son to get back on the whorse. I'd hate to have one that said "Boy, just stick to masturbating. It'll save you most of your earnings." What fun would that be?

What a 14 year old boy thinks about sex doesn't matter as he is unable to legally consent. If you disagree with this, then say hello to pedophilia
 
What a 14 year old boy thinks about sex doesn't matter as he is unable to legally consent. If you disagree with this, then say hello to pedophilia

I think your definition is incorrect.

Beyond that, based on this post, your logic allows for not letting women vote and that 3/5th's (or whatever it was) bullshit. Because, you know, the law is the law there isn't it chief? :cool:
 
I think your definition is incorrect.

Beyond that, based on this post, your logic allows for not letting women vote and that 3/5th's (or whatever it was) bullshit. Because, you know, the law is the law there isn't it chief? :cool:

I'm not sure what people that target young teens for sexual contact would be called.

How does my logic go towards those at all?

Kids this young are not able to consent to sex. Do you disagree?
 
I'm not sure what people that target young teens for sexual contact would be called.

"Target"?

How does my logic go towards those at all?

Sorry, I took the following as an argument.

What a 14 year old boy thinks about sex doesn't matter as he is unable to legally consent.

Which you've doubled down upon.

Kids this young are not able to consent to sex. Do you disagree?


Legally? Depends. Here's some facts you should consider prior to further argumentation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#State_laws

Let me know if you decide that "legally" and "reality" might not totally coincide.
 
"Target"?



Sorry, I took the following as an argument.



Which you've doubled down upon.




Legally? Depends. Here's some facts you should consider prior to further argumentation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#State_laws

Let me know if you decide that "legally" and "reality" might not totally coincide.

1. Look, I'm not interested in having this nit picky back and forth with you over semantics

2. I'm against men and woman being treated differently under law. You apparently have no problem with it. Do you take issue with men having sex with teen boys?

3. I'm fully aware the age of consent varies. Not sure what impact this has on my point. If a teen is in fact under that age, he is unable to consent. Whether it is a man or woman performing the sexual acts does not change that

4. You brought up woman voting and I have no clue why
 
Back
Top