INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Peter on May 07, 2007, 04:36:50 AM
-
ATLANTA, Dec. 18 — Genarlow Wilson, 20, is serving a prison sentence that shocked his jury, elicited charges of racism from critics of the justice system and even acknowledgment by prosecutors and the State Legislature that it is unjust.
Skip to next paragraph
Genarlow Wilson, 20, has been in prison for nearly two years.
He was sentenced to 10 years in prison without parole for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl at a New Year’s Eve party, an offense that constituted aggravated child molesting, even though Mr. Wilson was 17.
With Mr. Wilson — a football player, honor student and the first homecoming king at Douglas County High School — nearing two years in prison, the Georgia Supreme Court declined last Friday to hear his appeal.
Mr. Wilson, who is black, is trapped in a legal vise intended to ensure severe penalties for child molesters and other sex offenders, navigating a maze of legal technicalities that for him seems to hold nothing but dead ends. Some critics of the sentence also say Mr. Wilson is caught in a system that metes out disproportionately harsh sentences to black defendants.
Disturbed by Mr. Wilson’s conviction, the Legislature changed the law in March to ensure that most sex between teenagers be treated as a misdemeanor. But the State Supreme Court said legislators had chosen not to make the law retroactive.
“While I am very sympathetic to Wilson’s argument regarding the injustice of sentencing this promising young man with good grades and no criminal history to 10 years in prison without parole and a lifetime registration as a sexual offender,†wrote Justice Carol W. Hunstein, “this court is bound by the Legislature’s determination that young persons in Wilson’s situation are not entitled to the misdemeanor treatment.â€
The problem with that argument, legislators on the judicial committee said in interviews Monday, is that the State Constitution prohibits retroactive laws.
Even more confounding, at the time of Mr. Wilson’s offense, a so-called “Romeo and Juliet†exception had already been made for sexual intercourse between teenagers.
“Had Genarlow had intercourse with this girl, had he gotten her pregnant, he could only have been charged with a misdemeanor and punished up to 12 months,†said Brenda Joy Bernstein, Mr. Wilson’s lawyer.
Her client is not eligible for parole, only a reprieve that would not remove his name from the sex offender registry, Ms. Bernstein said.
The prosecutor, David McDade, the district attorney in Douglas County, west of Atlanta, says he has repeatedly offered Mr. Wilson the opportunity to resolve the case with a plea deal, adding that he would have to be treated similarly to the other defendants in the case, who are serving five- to seven-year prison sentences with a chance at parole. They, too, will have to register as sex offenders.
Mr. Wilson is adamant that he will not plead.
“Even after serving time in prison, I would have to register as a sex offender wherever I lived and if I applied for a job for the rest of my life, all for participating in a consensual sex act with a girl just two years younger than me,†he told a reporter for Atlanta magazine last year, adding that he would not even be able to move back in with his mother because he has an 8-year-old sister. “It’s a lifelong sentence in itself. I am not a child molester.â€
On New Year’s Eve in 2003, Mr. Wilson and several friends rented a hotel room for a party at which they planned to have plenty of alcohol, marijuana and sex. One friend, goofing around with a video camera, captured much of the action on videotape. A 17-year-old girl reported after leaving the party that she had been gang raped. The tape showed that she was severely intoxicated.
A second girl, 15, also attended the party, but did not drink or smoke. She had what she later said was consensual oral sex with Mr. Wilson. But according to the law, a 15-year-old is below the age of consent. Mr. Wilson went to trial on charges of rape and aggravated child molesting.
After watching parts of the tape, the jury decided that Mr. Wilson had not raped the older girl. But it was bound by law to find him guilty of molesting the 15-year-old. Jurors said afterward they did not know that the charge carried a minimum sentence of 11 years, including 10 without parole.
Juannessa Bennett, Mr. Wilson’s mother, said her son was crushed by the Supreme Court decision.
“We’ve got people that is in power that don’t have no emotions,†Ms. Bennett said. “They don’t sympathize.â€
Discuss.
If two people under the age of consent have sex, who, if anybody, should be charged with a crime? And if two people are separated by a couple of years and straddle the AOC, should that be a crime?
-
They both should. Dirty little buggers.
They should learn their sex from an
elder master.
-
:agreed: :plus:
Seriously speaking: this is just one example of how sick and twisted politically correctness is.
-
I think the real issue with cases like the one Peter posted is that the law that is there to protect minors is being used to prosecute them.
I like PI's comment. Laws that are meant to protect people shouldn't be turned into a hammer for moralists to use to smash the very lives of the people the law intended to protect.
-
I think the real issue with cases like the one Peter posted is that the law that is there to protect minors is being used to prosecute them.
I like PI's comment. Laws that are meant to protect people shouldn't be turned into a hammer for moralists to use to smash the very lives of the people the law intended to protect.
There was a man falsely accused for incest and rape on his daughter in Sweden. He got 8 years in prison and spent 3 of them, before some reporters found out that he had been convicted on totally false accusations and cops and prosecutors lying and forging evidence. Who are they trying to charge for this? The cops? The prosecutors? No, his then underaged daughter, whom the cops and the prosecutors made testify falsely to her own father! :grrr:
-
I think the real issue with cases like the one Peter posted is that the law that is there to protect minors is being used to prosecute them.
I like PI's comment. Laws that are meant to protect people shouldn't be turned into a hammer for moralists to use to smash the very lives of the people the law intended to protect.
I was intending to comment on this thread earlier but my connection went down again (not sure how long it will be working for this time). I did have some links on this subject that were interesting reading but firefox ate all my bookmarks last week :grrr:
I'm not going to add anything else right now- the kids are having some loud time, and I'd rather comment when I can hear myself think. :laugh:
-
I think the real issue with cases like the one Peter posted is that the law that is there to protect minors is being used to prosecute them.
I like PI's comment. Laws that are meant to protect people shouldn't be turned into a hammer for moralists to use to smash the very lives of the people the law intended to protect.
There was a man falsely accused for incest and rape on his daughter in Sweden. He got 8 years in prison and spent 3 of them, before some reporters found out that he had been convicted on totally false accusations and cops and prosecutors lying and forging evidence. Who are they trying to charge for this? The cops? The prosecutors? No, his then underaged daughter, whom the cops and the prosecutors made testify falsely to her own father! :grrr:
Conniving little wench deserves it. First, she seduces her father, and then puts him in jail?
Where's your sense of misogyny?
-
I think the real issue with cases like the one Peter posted is that the law that is there to protect minors is being used to prosecute them.
I like PI's comment. Laws that are meant to protect people shouldn't be turned into a hammer for moralists to use to smash the very lives of the people the law intended to protect.
and thats the point he broke the law it is there to protect children
there are reasons for these laws. children should be protected from the manipulation of older people who have more experience at it. but that sentence is a little harsh for the crime.
-
I think the real issue with cases like the one Peter posted is that the law that is there to protect minors is being used to prosecute them.
I like PI's comment. Laws that are meant to protect people shouldn't be turned into a hammer for moralists to use to smash the very lives of the people the law intended to protect.
There was a man falsely accused for incest and rape on his daughter in Sweden. He got 8 years in prison and spent 3 of them, before some reporters found out that he had been convicted on totally false accusations and cops and prosecutors lying and forging evidence. Who are they trying to charge for this? The cops? The prosecutors? No, his then underaged daughter, whom the cops and the prosecutors made testify falsely to her own father! :grrr:
Conniving little wench deserves it. First, she seduces her father, and then puts him in jail?
Where's your sense of misogyny?
But you forget that I also hate government people and jurists. I'd love to see district attorneys and judges go to jail even more. >:D
-
I think the real issue with cases like the one Peter posted is that the law that is there to protect minors is being used to prosecute them.
I like PI's comment. Laws that are meant to protect people shouldn't be turned into a hammer for moralists to use to smash the very lives of the people the law intended to protect.
and thats the point he broke the law it is there to protect children
there are reasons for these laws. children should be protected from the manipulation of older people who have more experience at it. but that sentence is a little harsh for the crime.
How does a law that imprisons a child for 10 years and marks them as a sex offender for life protect that child? And how does it protect the 'victim', who'll have to live with the fact that a boy's life was ruined because she gave him a blow-job? It's a law that merely serves to create criminals and victims, sending one to prison and the other to therapy (where they'll be convinced by the therapist that they were actually raped), traumatising both, and for what? Consensual oral sex between a guy and a girl with a 2-year age gap? Thank god that monster was locked away!
-
I think the real issue with cases like the one Peter posted is that the law that is there to protect minors is being used to prosecute them.
I like PI's comment. Laws that are meant to protect people shouldn't be turned into a hammer for moralists to use to smash the very lives of the people the law intended to protect.
and thats the point he broke the law it is there to protect children
there are reasons for these laws. children should be protected from the manipulation of older people who have more experience at it. but that sentence is a little harsh for the crime.
How does a law that imprisons a child for 10 years and marks them as a sex offender for life protect that child? And how does it protect the 'victim', who'll have to live with the fact that a boy's life was ruined because she gave him a blow-job? It's a law that merely serves to create criminals and victims, sending one to prison and the other to therapy (where they'll be convinced by the therapist that they were actually raped), traumatising both, and for what? Consensual oral sex between a guy and a girl with a 2-year age gap? Thank god that monster was locked away!
The "legal" system is sick and twisted in most countries. I agree with Francis E. Dec that the law is "the lowest form of gangsterism". You can put an innocent man in jail through cops and prosecutors forging evidence and you can put a boy in jail for having consent, if not formally legal, sex with a girl. At the same time the big gangsters go free. The ones who mostly belong in jail are politicians and power-abusing cops, prosecutors and judges. :grrr:
-
I think in the example given, it is more a case of racism.
The law is obviously antiquated. If every under-age boy who got an underage girl was prosecuted for statutory rape, then sooner or later the law would have to change. As it stands it can be used depending on who the male.
You would have to be careful if you are a black guy shagging the vicar's daughter.
-
I just think the age of consent should be lowered. Or better yet, have some other form of qualification besides age to determine if the person is capable of making fully aware personal decisions.
-
I just think the age of consent should be lowered. Or better yet, have some other form of qualification besides age to determine if the person is capable of making fully aware personal decisions.
you mean like pubic hair?
well i mean the maturity to grow it.
-
I mean psychological and emotional maturity and awareness.
-
Well you cant really measure such things can you.
And then there are people say with down syndrome or mentally handicapped.
You cannot deprive them of a sex life.
I think when you have reached a level of psychological muturity, then the physical aspects are more important. The age of consent would be more sensible, but it's impossible to come up with a formula.
In general 16 seems way too high for the average person.
-
sick. i also agree with PI. +1 PI :P
-
I think the real issue with cases like the one Peter posted is that the law that is there to protect minors is being used to prosecute them.
I like PI's comment. Laws that are meant to protect people shouldn't be turned into a hammer for moralists to use to smash the very lives of the people the law intended to protect.
and thats the point he broke the law it is there to protect children
there are reasons for these laws. children should be protected from the manipulation of older people who have more experience at it. but that sentence is a little harsh for the crime.
Yes but the point is according to that very same law he should also be considered to be a minor, yet he was tried as an adult. If you're not considered old enough to legally consent to sex until you are 18, presumably because you're not considered 'adult' enough before then how can you be try you with that same law as an adult? The law should be applied to all minors not just those might be traditionally considered 'victims'.
-
I mean psychological and emotional maturity and awareness.
What variables, how will you consrtuct it, and how will you norm it? Because honestly I can't imagine a test like that being accurate and passing most college students, or even my mom. I think you'd wind up with less than 1% of the eligible underage population (I'm assuming you'd still set an age minimum to take the test or tests) being emotionally "genius" enough to pass. Would that actually help things? Would such a test even stand up in court, aside from the fact that it would never be implimented?
-
I think that the story Peter linked is disgustingly stupid and unfair on the guy - but on the other hand, if there was a case where a tough, experienced 17 yr old guy pressuered a scared, nervous 15 yr old, that would be sad to. But , it would still be sad if one adult pressured another adult. What I would like is common sense taking each case.
-
Serious pressure is no longer statutory rape.
-
just persuading, nagging, influence
-
I think having the age of consent at 16 on the whole is a good indicator of the level of maturity needed for teenagers to understand the consequences of sex. However, I think it should be used more as an indicator than an absolute. You hear these ridiculous stories of people getting prosecuted for having sex with someone who is almost 16 but not quite, knowing full well that if said person was a couple of weeks older (i.e. had their 16th birthday), the police would not be interested.
Each case should be judged on its merit and the personalities and mental capabilities of the people involved. The law needs to be more flexible.
Having said that, I think the sentences on real offenders should be increased. Also, women should get the same punishment as men who have committed the same crime. Sorry ladies, but abuse by females does exist in society (its a bit taboo at the moment), and it is daft and grossly unfair that a female abuser can be imprisoned for as little as 45 days whilst a male abuser gets 45 years for a very similar crime, albeit gender roles reversed. Something needs to change there.
-
Creating a test would be no biggie, the problem would be finding norms that enough people can agree on so that it would get made into law, and still have it be lenient enough to be worth changing the system from age based to the new system.
It is the system I would like, not the system I think would actually come to pass.
-
Sorry ladies, but abuse by females does exist in society (its a bit taboo at the moment), and it is daft and grossly unfair that a female abuser can be imprisoned for as little as 45 days whilst a male abuser gets 45 years for a very similar crime, albeit gender roles reversed. Something needs to change there.
Agreed. Gender equality should be about taking both the good and the bad.
-
I think the gender inequality comes about from the (mistaken?) belief that women never want sex as much as men. That women put up with sex just because of their desire to have a longer term relationship, whist men are devious and will lie to persuade a woman into bed. Men are seen as the sexual predators with women their 'victims'.
Look at the way that older women who have sex with under-age boys are viewed less harshly than a man would be- a lot of people think 'well all men want are sex, I doubt the boy involved was complaining', whilst baying for the blood of older men who've had sex with under-age girls.
Personally I agree that both situations should be considered the same. And the same goes for the original article that Peter posted- if both people are considered under-age neither should be charged.
-
Yeah, and the argument that comes out here
is something along the lines of, "what boy wouldn't
want to fuck his hot teacher?" Well, it happens to
be true of a lot of teenage girls too.
-
Yeah, and the argument that comes out here
is something along the lines of, "what boy wouldn't
want to fuck his hot teacher?" Well, it happens to
be true of a lot of teenage girls too.
:agreed: So why when its a girl has she been manipulated into it, yet when its a boy people imagine his mates patting him on the back about it?
-
When really, it's the poor older person who's
being manipulated, nearly every time.
-
Actually, its quite interesting because isn't it true that boys go through puberty later than girls? Therefore, it could be claimed that teenage boys are actually more emotionally vulnerable than girls, and therefore the consequences of any type of abuse could be more severe? I know that boys are physically less vulnerable, but I think the emotional aspects of things are often overlooked.
Also, there is the old saying that all boys are interested in nothing except sex. That is so not true. I wasn't interested in girls or sex really until I was 16 or 17 even though I went through puberty at 11-12.
-
The difference in level of maturity was something I'd considered actually, people always claim that girls mature faster than boys- if that's true a 15 year old girl and a 17 year old boy could conceivably have the same level of maturity.
-
I know that I would have jumped at the chance
at about 15 or 16. Any earlier, and I don't think
that it would have been reasonable though.
-
Agreed. Gender equality should be about taking both the good and the bad.
Pyraxis, I find this view on gender equality really refreshing - and yours too, PI :thumbup:. I have always been a firm believer in gender equality, but I believe this should revolve around rights and responsibilities. I am really thankful that are still some good feminist debaters out there who's arguements are not lined with a hatred of males. I've had to put up with two years of omega's male-hating rants posing under the guise of "feminism". She seemed to believe that females are victims of male oppression and that women should be allowed to behave how they like without regard to their responsibilities by sheer virtue of the fact that they are female. Its amazing how she has managed to guilt-trip me with all her "oppression" and "victim" stories for so long. She is probably the type of person who would cry "rape" and get a man imprisoned falsely just because he had the audacity to ask her out.
-
I personally wouldn't call myself a feminist, mainly because I don't like what feminism has come to stand for and the way feminist doctrine is used to tell people how to think and act. Gender equality is one thing, wanting special treatment to make up for the 'disadvantages' you believe you have in life is quite another.
-
boys mature sexually faster. girls mature mentally. so it's not the same thing at all. and they say a man's sexual peak is at the age of 15 and a woman's at the age of 30.
-
boys mature sexually faster. girls mature mentally. so it's not the same thing at all. and they say a man's sexual peak is at the age of 15 and a woman's at the age of 30.
What's the difference between emotional maturity, sexual maturity and mental maturity then? (I would have assumed that mental maturity was the same or similar to mental maturity).
Plus I thought men reached their sexual peak at around 18-22.
-
:'(
what, i am passed my sexual peak?
-
I know I'm past mine.
-
i'll give you an example. many boys are ready for sex at a younger age while staying stupid way longer. everyone knows boys that are mentally and emotionally mature before they turn 20 are rare jewels.
-
i'll give you an example. many boys are ready for sex at a younger age while staying stupid way longer. everyone knows boys that are mentally and emotionally mature before they turn 20 are rare jewels.
So what would you say being ready for sex actually involves then, if its not emotional or mental maturity? Is it all about what age you go through puberty?
-
i'll give you an example. many boys are ready for sex at a younger age while staying stupid way longer. everyone knows boys that are mentally and emotionally mature before they turn 20 are rare jewels.
So what would you say being ready for sex actually involves then, if its not emotional or mental maturity? Is it all about what age you go through puberty?
maybe she thinks that you have to be horny to engage in sex. maturity doesn't matter.
-
Damn- I was horny from being 13 but I wasn't ready for sex.
-
no, i just know i was on a certain level more mature than my friends, but i'm still not completely ready for sex and i'm 24. as in, i didn't like doing all the stupid things teenagers do, i thought it was childish, but when it came to dating i was nowhere near ready for that or sex or even kissing. i'm an aspie though so it's not typical of all girls to be like that but girls still mature sexually slower than boys imo.
i was horny at an early age too but not ready for sex. that's not what i mean.
-
I know I'm past mine.
I'm pretty sure that my sexual peak happened when I was about thirty. I've always been a late bloomer.
-
I personally wouldn't call myself a feminist, mainly because I don't like what feminism has come to stand for and the way feminist doctrine is used to tell people how to think and act. Gender equality is one thing, wanting special treatment to make up for the 'disadvantages' you believe you have in life is quite another.
Perhaps "feminist" was the wrong word to use. You are right in a way because the term "feminist" portrays the "femme" or woman as central, whereas gender equality should not portray either as central. Someone needs to come up with a new term that encompasses gender equality.
In the past, I always assumed that feminism was gender equality and it covered all the events leading to the emancipation of women. Perhaps it was? Now it has become more clear to me that since emancipation, some people have applied it to all forms of women's "rights", some of which are unfair and unnecessary.
-
no, i just know i was on a certain level more mature than my friends, but i'm still not completely ready for sex and i'm 24. as in, i didn't like doing all the stupid things teenagers do, i thought it was childish, but when it came to dating i was nowhere near ready for that or sex or even kissing. i'm an aspie though so it's not typical of all girls to be like that but girls still mature sexually slower than boys imo.
i was horny at an early age too but not ready for sex. that's not what i mean.
you aren't ready for pleasure?
it would be mature, at least to use a condom, and responsible to use another form of birth control.
do you think that sex is meant for procreation only?
-
I personally wouldn't call myself a feminist, mainly because I don't like what feminism has come to stand for and the way feminist doctrine is used to tell people how to think and act. Gender equality is one thing, wanting special treatment to make up for the 'disadvantages' you believe you have in life is quite another.
Perhaps "feminist" was the wrong word to use. You are right in a way because the term "feminist" portrays the "femme" or woman as central, whereas gender equality should not portray either as central. Someone needs to come up with a new term that encompasses gender equality.
In the past, I always assumed that feminism was gender equality and it covered all the events leading to the emancipation of women. Perhaps it was? Now it has become more clear to me that since emancipation, some people have applied it to all forms of women's "rights", some of which are unfair and unnecessary.
we call ours, pyraxis.
-
i'll give you an example. many boys are ready for sex at a younger age while staying stupid way longer. everyone knows boys that are mentally and emotionally mature before they turn 20 are rare jewels.
I don't really agree with that. Boys may think they are ready for sex as soon as they have entered puberty, but the reality is very different. I've never "done it", but I would imagine that sex is a profoundly emotional experience as well as a physical one, so therefore the person should be emotionally mature before engaging in it.
-
I personally wouldn't call myself a feminist, mainly because I don't like what feminism has come to stand for and the way feminist doctrine is used to tell people how to think and act. Gender equality is one thing, wanting special treatment to make up for the 'disadvantages' you believe you have in life is quite another.
Perhaps "feminist" was the wrong word to use. You are right in a way because the term "feminist" portrays the "femme" or woman as central, whereas gender equality should not portray either as central. Someone needs to come up with a new term that encompasses gender equality.
In the past, I always assumed that feminism was gender equality and it covered all the events leading to the emancipation of women. Perhaps it was? Now it has become more clear to me that since emancipation, some people have applied it to all forms of women's "rights", some of which are unfair and unnecessary.
I think first wave feminism was about gender equality, but somewhere its gotten distorted and seems to be about treating women differently because they need help 'levelling the playing field'. What really bothers me about it is that its often used as a stick to bash other women with for making different choices- for example if a woman admits to liking porn, its because she's been conditioned into it by a male dominated society.
-
a new term for gender equality... hmm, how about... gender equality
no i don't think it's only for procreation jagger. i think god wanted us to have a good time which is why we have g spots.
-
a new term for gender equality... hmm, how about... gender equality
no i don't think it's only for procreation jagger. i think god wanted us to have a good time which is why we have g spots.
do you masturbate?
-
who doesn't? :P that's not the same as sex.
-
who doesn't? :P that's not the same as sex.
i equate both with pleasure.
-
Also there is the issue of women wanting to stay at home and raise kids. These women are often shunned by feminists as being "docile" and "submissive". I think that child-rearing has become the most under-rated profession and women who selflessly choose to bring new life into the world and raise them themselves (rather than packing them off to a commercialised childcare centre) deserve so much more recognition by society than they receive at present. Unlike going to the office, it is a 24/7 job.
My mother stayed at home to raise me for the first 10 years of my life. It was the best thing she ever did, and I am thankful that I have turned into a well-balanced youth rather than a love-starved chav who is pretty much left to grow up on his own because his parents are too busy to look after him.
-
Yes that's another example of 'feminism' being used to bash other women for their choices.
When I was at school I was told quite seriously by a 'friend' that I shouldn't have chosen to study home economics and textiles because 'we woman have a responsibility now, we should pick the subjects that women couldn't do to prove that we can do them just as well.'
And having made the decision to stay at home and raise my kids I've had plenty of other women ask me when I was going back to work (even when my first baby was only a few months old) and seem shocked that I would want to stay at home with them full time. People seem to look down on woman who choose to raise their own kids nowadays.
-
Also there is the issue of women wanting to stay at home and raise kids. These women are often shunned by feminists as being "docile" and "submissive". I think that child-rearing has become the most under-rated profession and women who selflessly choose to bring new life into the world and raise them themselves (rather than packing them off to a commercialised childcare centre) deserve so much more recognition by society than they receive at present. Unlike going to the office, it is a 24/7 job.
My mother stayed at home to raise me for the first 10 years of my life. It was the best thing she ever did, and I am thankful that I have turned into a well-balanced youth rather than a love-starved chav who is pretty much left to grow up on his own because his parents are too busy to look after him.
they are actually choosing life's most important job.
they get to shape the minds of the next generation....hopefully they will give them the ability to reason and use common sense.
-
boys and girls both took both home ech and shop in my school. i hated both. it was either knitting - which i sucked at, and the wool felt awful against my skin and the teacher was a total bitch who hated me, little did she know i sucked even more than she thought, mom did most of my homework >:D - or facing the circle saw, our teacher told us horror stories of kids who lost their fingers to that thing.
-
We took both till we had to choose our GCSE subjects at 14.
-
who doesn't? :P that's not the same as sex.
I'm not convinced that there is that large a difference.
I mean, it all rather depends upon one's view of sex.
For sex without emotion, something that I find distasteful,
I find it difficult to particularly distinguish, outside of whatever
is gained by pleasing the other - something which is almost
totally lacking from encounters without other hopes, for me.
-
there's a big difference for me.
-
no, i just know i was on a certain level more mature than my friends, but i'm still not completely ready for sex and i'm 24. as in, i didn't like doing all the stupid things teenagers do, i thought it was childish, but when it came to dating i was nowhere near ready for that or sex or even kissing. i'm an aspie though so it's not typical of all girls to be like that but girls still mature sexually slower than boys imo.
i was horny at an early age too but not ready for sex. that's not what i mean.
I'm assuming that you're a virgin. There was a big difference for me then, as well.
My first lay was with someone I was friends with, and ended up loving. I've had
a couple of encounters without ANY hope beyond that moment, and they were
a bit different - mainly in that I was asking myself what the fuck I was doing. At
least, there's no guilt in masturbating.
-
you assume correctly
funny you say that there's no guilt in masturbating :P i assume you're not a catholic.
-
Why is there guilt involved in sex though?
-
you assume correctly
funny you say that there's no guilt in masturbating :P i assume you're not a catholic.
I was brought up vaguely Catholic. My dad seems to have a lot of guilt about it.
I have some - mainly based on wasting the mystic force, and all - though when
I used to do so all day, I would have a similar guilt that I do towards being on
the net.
Why is there guilt involved in sex though?
Maybe guilt's the wrong word. Shame, perhaps? Just the feeling of pointlessness to the whole
act, when only done for some quick thrill with someone you're not going to bother seeing
again. I suppose I might feel different if it were with someone I was very attracted to, and
could spend a day going at it - but I'd probably end up having feelings for them then.
-
the whole catholic notion that you're murdering sperm when you wank is so stupid. :P why would a soul attach itself to sperm if there's no eggs around?
-
the whole catholic notion that you're murdering sperm when you wank is so stupid. :P why would a soul attach itself to sperm if there's no eggs around?
That's not the Catholic position, AFAIK. I'm not an expert,
but I suspect that is more of a joke - the act is a sin
itself, and a sign of disorder.
But, as I was pretty much not ever a REAL Catholic,
I wouldn't really know for sure.
-
that's just what i heard.
-
Catholics and sex:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzzCPHdpISo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzzCPHdpISo)
-
Can't open that up, I'm at work.
-
Catholics and sex:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzzCPHdpISo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzzCPHdpISo)
:LMAO:
:plus:
-
Can't open that up, I'm at work.
you get paid for trolling forums ?
-
Can't open that up, I'm at work.
you get paid for trolling forums ?
Yeah. Doesn't everyone?
-
only part-time here.
-
By work, I simply meant that I'm in the
office, and my co-occupiers are present.
I don't have headphones here, so it would
probably be distracting.
-
or facing the circle saw, our teacher told us horror stories of kids who lost their fingers to that thing.
:laugh: I cut a fingernail in half on one of those things. It actually didn't hurt, I must have just missed the nerves or something.
-
good thing to have around if your nails need trimming. :P
-
Yep. The scary part? My shop teacher was missing two and a half fingers.
-
:o I bet that filled you with confidence :laugh:
-
Yep. The scary part? My shop teacher was missing two and a half fingers.
That makes sense. My MATH teacher was.
-
So did you have to do all your homework in base 7.5?
-
So did you have to do all your homework in base 7.5?
:laugh:
No. It was geometry, so we didn't use numbers much.
-
So did you have to do all your homework in base 7.5?
:LMAO:
For as easy as that one came to you, it's still hilarious.
-
if scientists moved onto base 12 math they would discover cool stuff.
-
So did you have to do all your homework in base 7.5?
:LMAO:
For as easy as that one came to you, it's still hilarious.
:)
-
if scientists moved onto base 12 math they would discover cool stuff.
Yeah, like all the great advances that the Sumerians made.
-
if scientists moved onto base 12 math they would discover cool stuff.
Yeah, like all the great advances that the Sumerians made.
Yo!!! Quit dissin my peeps MoFo!!
-
if scientists moved onto base 12 math they would discover cool stuff.
Yeah, like all the great advances that the Sumerians made.
Yo!!! Quit dissin my peeps MoFo!!
I thought you were a frog?
-
Uuuuuuuuuuuuuh huh Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh huh Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh huh Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh huh
Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum yeah...........
Oh yeah......
:emb:
-
Don't worry about it, my wife was a Sumerian.
She always counted in base twelve. Couldn't be
too good for the brain, as she hooked up with moi.
-
Don't worry about it, my wife was a Sumerian.
She always counted in base twelve. Couldn't be
too good for the brain, as she hooked up with moi.
You mean she was from Iraq ??
-
Don't worry about it, my wife was a Sumerian.
She always counted in base twelve. Couldn't be
too good for the brain, as she hooked up with moi.
You mean she was from Iraq ??
No. Her family was Palestinian, but she tended to
act like a Sumerian. Just little subtle things, like
counting in base 12, and wanting to find out
more about Hittite military techniques.
-
Don't worry about it, my wife was a Sumerian.
She always counted in base twelve. Couldn't be
too good for the brain, as she hooked up with moi.
You mean she was from Iraq ??
she was a street whore sold her body for $200 a pop.
-
Don't worry about it, my wife was a Sumerian.
She always counted in base twelve. Couldn't be
too good for the brain, as she hooked up with moi.
You mean she was from Iraq ??
she was a street whore sold her body for $200 a pop.
No, THAT was my psycho ex. Plus, she wasn't a street
whore, but an escort. A little safer, I guess.
-
so, when i was 17 i was sexually assaulted by two fourteen year old girls in Bakersfield, CA.
this was 20 years ago.
yes, i ended up in a three way with them and fucked their brains out, but i felt used afterwards.
who, in this scenerio would get jailtime if it had ever gone to court.
-
I grew up in the wrong part of the country.
-
I grew up in the wrong part of the country.
maybe you just weren't super duper sexy.
like me. 8)
-
I grew up in the wrong part of the country.
maybe you just weren't super duper sexy.
like me. 8)
Or better at fighting them off.
-
so, when i was 17 i was sexually assaulted by two fourteen year old girls in Bakersfield, CA.
this was 20 years ago.
yes, i ended up in a three way with them and fucked their brains out, but i felt used afterwards.
who, in this scenerio would get jailtime if it had ever gone to court.
I hear all the girls in Bakersfield carry knives.
-
Sumerians rule.
-
Sumerians rule.
Not so much, anymore. But yeah.
-
tell us about Sumerians. i didn't pay attention in history.
-
i, as a man, make a claim that i was raped, and the issue isn't taken seriously.
typical.
-
tell us about Sumerians. i didn't pay attention in history.
They lived in what's todays Iraq. They probably were the first that had an alphabet and a calendar, maybe except for the Chinese. They don't exist anymore.
-
i, as a man, make a claim that i was raped, and the issue isn't taken seriously.
typical.
From what you posted on here and on the other thread about it- it seemed to me that you were saying you were held down and brought to arousal against your will, but once you had an erection you chose to use it and fucked them of your own free will.
-
i, as a man, make a claim that i was raped, and the issue isn't taken seriously.
typical.
From what you posted on here and on the other thread about it- it seemed to me that you were saying you were held down and brought to arousal against your will, but once you had an erection you chose to use it and fucked them of your own free will.
did i have a choice?
-
i, as a man, make a claim that i was raped, and the issue isn't taken seriously.
typical.
From what you posted on here and on the other thread about it- it seemed to me that you were saying you were held down and brought to arousal against your will, but once you had an erection you chose to use it and fucked them of your own free will.
did i have a choice?
Were you physically restrained while the two girls were having sex with you? Did they drug you or use a weapon or did you consent after you were aroused?
-
i, as a man, make a claim that i was raped, and the issue isn't taken seriously.
typical.
From what you posted on here and on the other thread about it- it seemed to me that you were saying you were held down and brought to arousal against your will, but once you had an erection you chose to use it and fucked them of your own free will.
did i have a choice?
Were you physically restrained while the two girls were having sex with you? Did they drug you or use a weapon or did you consent after you were aroused?
do any of these things matter?
when i said no at the start and they continued.....
-
Equalise this. :finger:
-
i, as a man, make a claim that i was raped, and the issue isn't taken seriously.
typical.
From what you posted on here and on the other thread about it- it seemed to me that you were saying you were held down and brought to arousal against your will, but once you had an erection you chose to use it and fucked them of your own free will.
did i have a choice?
Were you physically restrained while the two girls were having sex with you? Did they drug you or use a weapon or did you consent after you were aroused?
do any of these things matter?
when i said no at the start and they continued.....
I see your point, but it would matter at a trial, because if you take the positive action to fuck them both willingly after you were aroused, that would be considered consent, unless you were under some sort of duress, like you were being held at gunpoint or knifepoint or were drugged or something.
-
how about the duress that society puts on a man?
there came a point where i realized that everybody would make fun of me if i didn't perform.
maybe they'd call me gay!
-
how about the duress that society puts on a man?
there came a point where i realized that everybody would make fun of me if i didn't perform.
maybe they'd call me gay!
No, the only duress that would be considered duress for these purposes would be if you feared serious bodily harm to yourself or some loved one if you did not do it. Calling you gay or making fun of you for not having sex with them would not count as duress.
-
i, as a man, make a claim that i was raped, and the issue isn't taken seriously.
typical.
From what you posted on here and on the other thread about it- it seemed to me that you were saying you were held down and brought to arousal against your will, but once you had an erection you chose to use it and fucked them of your own free will.
did i have a choice?
What would they have done to you if you didn't have sex with them? Made fun of you? Spread rumours about you? Damn if people got charged with rape everytime peer pressure played a part in the decision to have sex the courts would be working flat out to process them all.
-
i, as a man, make a claim that i was raped, and the issue isn't taken seriously.
typical.
From what you posted on here and on the other thread about it- it seemed to me that you were saying you were held down and brought to arousal against your will, but once you had an erection you chose to use it and fucked them of your own free will.
did i have a choice?
Were you physically restrained while the two girls were having sex with you? Did they drug you or use a weapon or did you consent after you were aroused?
do any of these things matter?
when i said no at the start and they continued.....
You've said yourself that believe that where woman are concerned 'no' often means 'maybe'. Are you telling me that every time your wife tells you she's not in the mood you let it drop? That you've never tried to get her turned on so she'd change her mind? In the terms you're viewing this incident doing so would be considered rape. Seems like you're wanting a double-standard yourself there.
-
interesting.
though i was read the riot act by just about every single woman on this site for telling the pea, a very long time ago, that it is ok to tlak a woman into it. and i never said anything as severe as peer pressure was ok.
-
interesting.
though i was read the riot act by just about every single woman on this site for telling the pea, a very long time ago, that it is ok to tlak a woman into it. and i never said anything as severe as peer pressure was ok.
I think that was because people weren't seeing what you actually meant by no means maybe. As I pointed out at the time (in your defence)
I think people seem to be looking at this issue from two slightly different angles- but I could be wrong since I don't actually have 'special abilities' :D
I think there is a world of difference between a guy trying to persuade his girlfriend/date to have sex when she's said she's not ready- after all society does tell women they shouldn't 'give it up too easily' And a guy trying to forcefully persuade her to have sex when she's made it clear it ain't gonna happen.
Edited to add: Yes once people realised you were talking about your 'Barry White charm offensive' they admitted they'd thought you'd meant something more sinister.
-
that is why i wrote just about every woman on this site.
i knew that you had come to my defence over this. you usually do, since, you are sexually honest with yourself.
however, the fact remains that i was forced to give up my argument, since it was clear that the contributors to that thread overwhelmingly called my actions rape. RAPE for christ sakes.
i am just trying to argue that there are huge differences in the way that a man is allowed to play the game of sex and the way that women act....on a whim.
-
Like I said until you pointed out you were talking about your 'Barry White charm offensive' and not holding them down and telling them they really wanted it.
-
Like I said until you pointed out you were talking about your 'Barry White charm offensive' and not holding them down and telling them they really wanted it.
they backed off a little.
but i had to back off my advice to the pea in the end.
it was concluded that if you do not accept no the first time then you are, in essence, raping them.
still, i find the hippocricy very interesting indeed.
-
To me it seems that those that were in the debate from the start backed off and then someone new joined in the debate with an ultra PC way of looking at it (curious primate). Then after a little more debate, where he nit-picked at everything you said, you decided you'd lost the argument.
As far as the current debate goes I'm not saying there isn't hypocrisy (I already stated in this thread and the other thread about rape that there is), I just don't believe that your example is doing your argument any good. If you want to argue that men can and are be raped (although no-one seems to be arguing against that fact) look for real examples to back up your claims.
-
but they overpowered me and took off my pants.
-
I see your point, but it would matter at a trial, because if you take the positive action to fuck them both willingly after you were aroused, that would be considered consent, unless you were under some sort of duress, like you were being held at gunpoint or knifepoint or were drugged or something.
So, you're expressing the view that raping is ok,
as long as consent is given post-facto? Even
temporarily? Wow.
-
I see your point, but it would matter at a trial, because if you take the positive action to fuck them both willingly after you were aroused, that would be considered consent, unless you were under some sort of duress, like you were being held at gunpoint or knifepoint or were drugged or something.
So, you're expressing the view that raping is ok,
as long as consent is given post-facto? Even
temporarily? Wow.
i am pretty sure (not with PI, though), that most women will agree to this.
but, only if it had happened to a man and not a woman.
-
I see your point, but it would matter at a trial, because if you take the positive action to fuck them both willingly after you were aroused, that would be considered consent, unless you were under some sort of duress, like you were being held at gunpoint or knifepoint or were drugged or something.
So, you're expressing the view that raping is ok,
as long as consent is given post-facto? Even
temporarily? Wow.
i am pretty sure (not with PI, though), that most women will agree to this.
but, only if it had happened to a man and not a woman.
While I think it is possible for a woman to rape a man, I think it would be even more difficult for him to prove in court than it is for a woman.
In an acquaintance rape situation, if it is prosecuted and goes to court the defense will often raise the issue of consent by the victim, because if the perpetrator reasonably believes he or she has consent to sexual intercourse from a person who is of legal age and mental status to grant consent, then the sexual intercourse is not defined as rape. That is why acquaintance rapes are so difficult to prove FOR BOTH MEN AND WOMEN.
In your case, you were only 17, which is below the legal age of consent in California, but your two perpetrators were 14, so the age issue would not have been in your favor. If the perpetrators had been adults, then it would have been. That is why the issue of implied consent matters. In my opinion, based on what you have said so far, if you had gone to the police with a rape accusation you would have been more likely to be prosecuted than the two 14 year olds.
-
This is one of the hardest problems there ever were. It's a nightmare to be raped, but it's an about equal nightmare to be innocently convicted for rape. There should be hard punishments for false rape accusations as well, at least the half maximum punishment for rape. In Sweden you usullay go free for false accusations or get feed or get probation or very short time in jail. If you're a "gangster judge" or "gangster prosecutor" :tantrum: ;) you definitely go free in any case of false accusations. :(
-
But McJagger has a point: even if a man would be raped by another man, it would be harder to get anywhere with it legally, and it would be even more shameful for most men. The system simply isn't equal for men and women.
-
I see your point, but it would matter at a trial, because if you take the positive action to fuck them both willingly after you were aroused, that would be considered consent, unless you were under some sort of duress, like you were being held at gunpoint or knifepoint or were drugged or something.
So, you're expressing the view that raping is ok,
as long as consent is given post-facto? Even
temporarily? Wow.
If he jumped on top of them after they made him horny and voluntarily penetrated them both, then his consent was not "post facto."
If on the other hand, they had physically restrained him and jumped on top of him cowgirl style while he was trying to resist them, that's a different story.
-
But McJagger has a point: even if a man would be raped by another man, it would be harder to get anywhere with it legally, and it would be even more shameful for most men. The system simply isn't equal for men and women.
It is very difficult for women to prove that they were raped too, especially if it was an acquaintance rape.
-
This is one of the hardest problems there ever were. It's a nightmare to be raped, but it's an about equal nightmare to be innocently convicted for rape. There should be hard punishments for false rape accusations as well, at least the half maximum punishment for rape. In Sweden you usullay go free for false accusations or get feed or get probation or very short time in jail. If you're a "gangster judge" or "gangster prosecutor" :tantrum: ;) you definitely go free in any case of false accusations. :(
So what if someone was actually raped, but the evidence was not convincing enough for the jury to convict the rapist?
Would the rapist then be able to prosecute the victim for false rape accusations?
-
This is one of the hardest problems there ever were. It's a nightmare to be raped, but it's an about equal nightmare to be innocently convicted for rape.
Guiltily too. :green:
If he jumped on top of them after they made him horny and voluntarily penetrated them both, then his consent was not "post facto."
If on the other hand, they had physically restrained him and jumped on top of him cowgirl style while he was trying to resist them, that's a different story.
No, but if they performed oral sodomy on him,
it would be.
-
This is one of the hardest problems there ever were. It's a nightmare to be raped, but it's an about equal nightmare to be innocently convicted for rape. There should be hard punishments for false rape accusations as well, at least the half maximum punishment for rape. In Sweden you usullay go free for false accusations or get feed or get probation or very short time in jail. If you're a "gangster judge" or "gangster prosecutor" :tantrum: ;) you definitely go free in any case of false accusations. :(
So what if someone was actually raped, but the evidence was not convincing enough for the jury to convict the rapist?
Would the rapist then be able to prosecute the victim for false rape accusations?
Prosecution would probably be possible, but it wouldn't be possible with a verdict against the victim. And then the rapist would have to pay the trial or as much of it that he could afford. So most freed rapists don't prosecute the victim, which is positive. But there are also horror examples where innocent men have spent years in jail, before it was found out that the "victim" simply was lying.
-
This is one of the hardest problems there ever were. It's a nightmare to be raped, but it's an about equal nightmare to be innocently convicted for rape. There should be hard punishments for false rape accusations as well, at least the half maximum punishment for rape. In Sweden you usullay go free for false accusations or get feed or get probation or very short time in jail. If you're a "gangster judge" or "gangster prosecutor" :tantrum: ;) you definitely go free in any case of false accusations. :(
So what if someone was actually raped, but the evidence was not convincing enough for the jury to convict the rapist?
Would the rapist then be able to prosecute the victim for false rape accusations?
Prosecution would probably be possible, but it wouldn't be possible with a verdict against the victim. And then the rapist would have to pay the trial or as much of it that he could afford. So most freed rapists don't prosecute the victim, which is positive. But there are also horror examples where innocent men have spent years in jail, before it was found out that the "victim" simply was lying.
Also there are cases where the victim was really raped but picked the wrong person out of a line-up. At least these kinds of false convictions will happen less often now that we have the ability to check the DNA, I hope.
You are right that there should be some sort of punishment for someone who completely fabricates a rape story or any other crime accusation, for that matter, but it might make real victims less likely to come forward because they are afraid of the rapist not only going free, but turning around and prosecuting them as well if he does.
-
Also there are cases where the victim was really raped but picked the wrong person out of a line-up. At least these kinds of false convictions will happen less often now that we have the ability to check the DNA, I hope.
I don't know. They were ready to prosecute me without ANY physical
evidence of a rape.
-
Also there are cases where the victim was really raped but picked the wrong person out of a line-up. At least these kinds of false convictions will happen less often now that we have the ability to check the DNA, I hope.
I don't know. They were ready to prosecute me without ANY physical
evidence of a rape.
Was this the case when you tore the woman's face?
-
Also there are cases where the victim was really raped but picked the wrong person out of a line-up. At least these kinds of false convictions will happen less often now that we have the ability to check the DNA, I hope.
I don't know. They were ready to prosecute me without ANY physical
evidence of a rape.
I was prosecuted and the only "proof" they had was a bruce on the girl's cheek, which came from a collar button on my jacket when we kissed and cuddled in the back seat of my car. No DNA. No proof of intercourse. Thank goodness I was freed.
-
Also there are cases where the victim was really raped but picked the wrong person out of a line-up. At least these kinds of false convictions will happen less often now that we have the ability to check the DNA, I hope.
I don't know. They were ready to prosecute me without ANY physical
evidence of a rape.
I was prosecuted and the only "proof" they had was a bruce on the girl's cheek, which came from a collar button on my jacket when we kissed and cuddled in the back seat of my car. No DNA. No proof of intercourse. Thank goodness I was freed.
The only reason I was let go, was that my 'victim' testified
in favor of me. Hell, the cops were itching to harm me,
when they arrested me.
-
Also there are cases where the victim was really raped but picked the wrong person out of a line-up. At least these kinds of false convictions will happen less often now that we have the ability to check the DNA, I hope.
I don't know. They were ready to prosecute me without ANY physical
evidence of a rape.
I was prosecuted and the only "proof" they had was a bruce on the girl's cheek, which came from a collar button on my jacket when we kissed and cuddled in the back seat of my car. No DNA. No proof of intercourse. Thank goodness I was freed.
The only reason I was let go, was that my 'victim' testified
in favor of me. Hell, the cops were itching to harm me,
when they arrested me.
Oh, the Swedish police are the greatest cowards on earth. They didn't beat me up, but they do if you're a well known criminal or bum and they got the slightest excuse to do so. They're "macho" against "ordinary" Swedes who haven't got their dim lights on or kids with tuned up mopeds, but they shit their pants if they face any real criminals, like the Russian or Serbian maffia. By the way, unlike cops in most countries with harsh gun laws, like the UK, the "brave" Swedish cops always carry their 9 mm German pistols. ::) I know, I've told this before, but you can never mock and ridicule Sweden enough, can you? ;)
-
but they overpowered me and took off my pants.
If you hadn't have then gone on to have sex with them of your own free will that would probably be considered a sexual assault. I think I know what point you're trying to illustrate here, like I said I just don't think your example is doing your argument any favours. I agree that to some extent it can be a lot harder for a man to prove he was raped, or sexually assaulted. Whilst people often perceive that there is some stigma attached to being raped, a man would also have to cope with the macho attitudes of other men who would struggle to believe that he couldn't fight his attacker off (especially if it was a woman).
Looking at you example- if you had stopped them or not consented to sex half way through the 'attack'- I agree it would have been harder for you to prove that you had been sexually assaulted or raped. But lets keep it real here- you know you weren't really raped.
-
Who the hell has given me a minus? I haven't said anything "offensive" in this thread, have I? ???
-
Maybe you were offensive in a different thread. Or francis was offensive while you were distracted by the hangman rope sneaks. :eyebrows:
-
The Computer God read my thoughts, of course, and automatically gheyed worse-than-defenseless Mr. Litigious. :(
-
Or maybe Dec did it to get you to stop rattling his bones? :laugh:
But I'll give you a point if it'll make you feel better.
-
I can see why statutory rpe laws are in place.... sort of..... If I came across a 14 year old who wanted to fuck my brains out, I don't see what the problem is though... :-\
-
I can see why statutory rpe laws are in place.... sort of..... If I came across a 14 year old who wanted to fuck my brains out, I don't see what the problem is though... :-\
i may have still been 16 years old.