15 year-old boy forced to register as sex offender

[Greater Cesnica]

Because females must always be the victims.

Because people can't be charged with sexually exploiting themselves in Colorado. As has been explained to you already.

The fuck is up with all you people not understanding this?

Iffy that reply about cp and victimhood. It's one thing if an adult was sexting a minor and received nudes from him/her. It's the same thing if a dad is filming his 8-year-old daughter for cp purposes (scum of the earth btw). But minors who voluntarily exchanged nudes; more than a quarter of teens in the U.S have done the same thing. There is no lasting harm or trauma from such actions.

[Ifreann]

Funny thing is how your golden boy was busted with the clit pics because police were investigating allegations from two other girls about something similar in the ballpark so to speak. Might not be the innocent victim people here have been lionizing him as.

No, he’s a coy lothario.

Why do you believe that this boy should be prosecuted?

For being a lothario. We will start with a stern talking to.

Vass please. The kid is fucking 15 and the girls voluntarily sent him the snaps. He's not a rapist, he doesn't need to be punished.

He doesn’t need 20 years but he is a lothario.

But our society decides who is a victim based purely on gender, so few people will care.

I don’t entirely disagree but he IS a lothario.

Play something else.

[Nova Cyberia]

Because females must always be the victims.

Because people can't be charged with sexually exploiting themselves in Colorado. As has been explained to you already.

The fuck is up with all you people not understanding this?

Creating child porn is a crime in Colorado.

They all created child porn.

[Ors Might]

Only two of them were under the age of consent by Colorado law. Him and the girl his age.

Oh, well forgive me, allow me to correct my paraphrasing.
"Why can't an underage child consent?" - Ors Might 2019

You’re missing the point. The context is that my post was made in response to the claim that these girls were coerced because he asked them multiple times. My argument has not been that children can consent to sex so put that straw man back where you found it.

[Gormwood]

Because people can't be charged with sexually exploiting themselves in Colorado. As has been explained to you already.

The fuck is up with all you people not understanding this?

Creating child porn is a crime in Colorado.

They all created child porn.

Sounds like you're saying the boy was properly punished.

[Magisterial Imperium]

Oh, well forgive me, allow me to correct my paraphrasing.
"Why can't an underage child consent?" - Ors Might 2019

They consent with each other all the time, I just don’t want them preyed on is all. I consider my position most enlightened in comparison to all these dogmatic fellows.

[Greater Cesnica]

Creating child porn is a crime in Colorado.

They all created child porn.

Sounds like you're saying the boy was properly punished.

So why weren't the girls?

[Nova Cyberia]

Creating child porn is a crime in Colorado.

They all created child porn.

Sounds like you're saying the boy was properly punished.

Well, yes, it sounds like that to you because you're physically incapable of not strawmanning.

[Ifreann]

Because people can't be charged with sexually exploiting themselves in Colorado. As has been explained to you already.

The fuck is up with all you people not understanding this?

Iffy that reply about cp and victimhood. It's one thing if an adult was sexting a minor and received nudes from him/her. It's the same thing if a dad is filming his 8-year-old daughter for cp purposes (scum of the earth btw). But minors who voluntarily exchanged nudes; more than a quarter of teens in the U.S have done the same thing. There is no lasting harm or trauma from such actions.

It wasn't a voluntary exchange. It was one party sending unsolicited dick pics, which the recipients deleted, and that party insisting on reciprocation at length despite repeated refusal, and then keeping the pictures he received.

[Galloism]

Sounds like you're saying the boy was properly punished.

So why weren't the girls?

So one interesting thing about this case - the girls can't be prosecuted because they didn't solicit, and they can't be prosecuted for sending the nude for the same reason he can't be prosecuted for sending the nude - at the time the law was that you could not sexually exploit yourself. If they had sent nudes without being asked, they'd all be legally in the clear.

The fact that he asked, and then kept the photos, is what made it a crime.


Colorado's legislature recognized that this was retarded. Those trying to defend this are defending something the legislature has already recognized is retarded, and would not be a crime if committed by an equivalent 15 year old boy today.

[Ifreann]

Sounds like you're saying the boy was properly punished.

So why weren't the girls?

As has been pointed out repeatedly, they can't be charged with exploiting themselves.

[Ors Might]

Iffy that reply about cp and victimhood. It's one thing if an adult was sexting a minor and received nudes from him/her. It's the same thing if a dad is filming his 8-year-old daughter for cp purposes (scum of the earth btw). But minors who voluntarily exchanged nudes; more than a quarter of teens in the U.S have done the same thing. There is no lasting harm or trauma from such actions.

It wasn't a voluntary exchange. It was one party sending unsolicited dick pics, which the recipients deleted, and that party insisting on reciprocation at length despite repeated refusal, and then keeping the pictures he received.

To summarize, he sent a dick pic and then asked them for nudes. They said no. He asked a few more times until they agreed to send nudes. He kept nudes for the implicit reason why anyone wants nudes.

[Galloism]

Iffy that reply about cp and victimhood. It's one thing if an adult was sexting a minor and received nudes from him/her. It's the same thing if a dad is filming his 8-year-old daughter for cp purposes (scum of the earth btw). But minors who voluntarily exchanged nudes; more than a quarter of teens in the U.S have done the same thing. There is no lasting harm or trauma from such actions.

It wasn't a voluntary exchange.

Oooh, it wasn't in the case linked earlier. Do you have proof they were coerced under a legally acceptable definition of coercion, and this vitiated their ability to act independently?

I'd like to see your source.

[Nakena]

Because people can't be charged with sexually exploiting themselves in Colorado. As has been explained to you already.

The fuck is up with all you people not understanding this?

Creating child porn is a crime in Colorado.

They all created child porn.

A 15 yo isn't a child anymore. Its an adolescent. Biggy difference. Also they did it themself.

They're like 2-3 years away from being in an age were they could marry and have children themself.

[Greater Cesnica]

So why weren't the girls?

As has been pointed out repeatedly, they can't be charged with exploiting themselves.

In that case the boy shouldn't be charged. It's a matter of equity. I know it's an iffy case, and I do believe the boy should receive some consequence. Just not 20 years on the sex offender registry.

[Magisterial Imperium]

Oooh, it wasn't in the case linked earlier. Do you have proof they were coerced under a legally acceptable definition of coercion, and this vitiated their ability to act independently?.

The Lothario kept pestering them, that’s good enough for me.

[Greater Cesnica]

Creating child porn is a crime in Colorado.

They all created child porn.

A 15 yo isn't a child anymore. Its an adolescent. Biggy difference. Also they did it themself.

They're like 2-3 years away from being in an age were they could marry and have children themself.

uhhh if a 63 year old teacher has nudes of 15 year olds on his computer that's child pornography sorry. but I get what you were trying to say.

[Ors Might]

Oooh, it wasn't in the case linked earlier. Do you have proof they were coerced under a legally acceptable definition of coercion, and this vitiated their ability to act independently?.

The Lothario kept pestering them, that’s good enough for me.

Being pestered does not prevent consent.

[Greater Cesnica]

The Lothario kept pestering them, that’s good enough for me.

Being pestered does not prevent consent.

How does pestering constitute being forced to do something again?

[Galloism]

Oooh, it wasn't in the case linked earlier. Do you have proof they were coerced under a legally acceptable definition of coercion, and this vitiated their ability to act independently?.

The Lothario kept pestering them, that’s good enough for me.

I'd like to talk about my wage slavery.

[Greater Cesnica]

The Lothario kept pestering them, that’s good enough for me.

I'd like to talk about my wage slavery.

Take it to the NAACP.

[Magisterial Imperium]

Being pestered does not prevent consent.

I don’t think pestered consent is identical with, say, interested consent.

[Nakena]

A 15 yo isn't a child anymore. Its an adolescent. Biggy difference. Also they did it themself.

They're like 2-3 years away from being in an age were they could marry and have children themself.

uhhh if a 63 year old teacher has nudes of 15 year olds on his computer that's child pornography sorry. but I get what you were trying to say.

Yeah that'd be kinda creepy.

[Ors Might]

Being pestered does not prevent consent.

I don’t think pestered consent is identical with, say, interested consent.

It is identical with consent consent though

[Greater Cesnica]

I can't help but wonder if the FBI is just flagging anyone who replies to this thread more than 15 times.