Male/Female's punishment in Sex Offenses.

[Zombie activists]

Remove age limits. Done.

[Quelesh]

If it was consensual then she committed no crime, at least in my view!

They were minors, so there was no consent.

Boys cooperated with her. And they were teens, there was consent. Illegal, but consent.

Again, they were minors so there was no consent.

consent - To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree. It wasn't forced.

Again, they were minors, there was no consent. The age of consent is 18 in Florida.

You are either being deliberately obtuse or English is not your first language.

We're discussing a legal case, so the legal terms are what matters. The boys were not old enough to be able to consent, so therefore they did nor and could not consent.

The age of consent refers to the age where someone is legally allowed to give consent to sex. Obviously they could agree to sex at a far younger age, it would just be illegal not be consent.

Fixed

I think we have different definitions of the word "consent."

When I say "consent," I mean something like "agreeing to an action, with an adequate understanding of the consequences of said action."

When you say "consent," you seem to mean something along the lines of "agreeing to an action, with an adequate understanding of the consequences of said action, while simultaneously having reached the statutory age of consent of the jurisdiction in which you are located."

If the definition of consent being used is yours, then the young people in question definitely did not consent. If the definition of consent being used is mine, then there's a good chance they did consent, though again I can't say for certain because I don't know them.

I don't think there's any point in continuing to debate this matter, since no one in this thread seems to be willing to change their definition of consent.

I don't understand the urge to punish this woman. Of all the things that it's possible to do to another human being, giving them an orgasm is among the best, not the worst.

Because she broke the law and abused her position.

Well, she certainly broke the law. Whether she abused her position is debatable.

Again, they were minors, there was no consent. The age of consent is 18 in Florida.

That is what the law says.

And since this is a legal matter, that is what counts.

The boys thought otherwise.

They were wrong.

I think what he is saying is that the statutory assumption made by the law in Florida (that every single human being in Florida does not possess the cognitive capacity necessary to grant informed consent to sexual activity until midnight on his or her eighteenth birthday, at which moment every person in Florida suddenly gains that capacity) is incorrect and that, in this case, the young people involved did in fact possess the cognitive capacity necessary to grant informed consent to sexual activity, despite the statutory assumption otherwise made by the law.

And yet for some reason when addressing legal matters it is the law that matters... Don't like the law? Work to get it changed.

I agree that working to get laws with which we disagree changed is an appropriate course of action. The point is that the text printed in a law book does not affect a person's actual maturity, intelligence or capacity to reason.

Laws which criminalize activity that is actually (though not legally) consensual should be changed, because such laws are morally wrong, and until such laws are changed, they should not be enforced, because their enforcement is morally wrong.

I'm speaking in general terms here; in this particular case, I don't know if the young men involved actually consented (I know they did not legally consent), because I don't know them or anything about them.

Alas... it is rather hard to make everyone take some sort of test to determin whether they are capable of giving consent before proceeding into the bedroom...

As with all age of majority kind of things, there will always be people ahead and behind the curve, the point is to cast the net wide enough to catch most of the fish, not all of them.

It would certainly be impractical to make everyone take a test. I do think that these kinds of things could be handled on a case-by-case basis though.

At the least, a system similar to the one that the Netherlands used to have would work. In the Netherlands, before they changed the law, the unrestricted age of consent was 16, but it was generally legal to have consensual sex with someone younger than 16, but at least 12. However, parents (or others, I believe) could file a complaint if they believe a relationship is exploitative, and the authorities could conduct an investigation and file criminal charges if it is determined to be exploitative.

A similar system could work without any statutory age being set; the police would be able to make an arrest if they have probable cause to believe that the younger partner was not capable of granting informed consent, and if the case goes to trial, the prosecution would have to prove that inability to consent to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Many other age restrictions could be handled in a similar manner, on a case-by-case basis, though we'd have to be more careful with some (like the age of consent or the drinking age) than with others (like the voting age) because of the potential for actual harm.

[Arborlawn]

Well, Women are always fighting to be equal with men, so there you go, equal punishment.

[Jaunty tunes]

Well, Women are always fighting to be equal with men, so there you go, equal punishment.

10 years for multiple offences and multiple victims may be a harsh punishment for a female, but if the average male gets 15 to 20 years it is a light scentence for a male who was convicted of raping multiple victims on multiple occasions. I would suggest 25 would be more appropriate considering the frequency and number of victims

[Dyakovo]

If it was consensual then she committed no crime, at least in my view!

They were minors, so there was no consent.

Boys cooperated with her. And they were teens, there was consent. Illegal, but consent.

Again, they were minors so there was no consent.

consent - To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree. It wasn't forced.

Again, they were minors, there was no consent. The age of consent is 18 in Florida.

You are either being deliberately obtuse or English is not your first language.

We're discussing a legal case, so the legal terms are what matters. The boys were not old enough to be able to consent, so therefore they did nor and could not consent.

The age of consent refers to the age where someone is legally allowed to give consent to sex. Obviously they could agree to sex at a far younger age, it would just be illegal not be consent.

Fixed

I think we have different definitions of the word "consent."

When I say "consent," I mean something like "agreeing to an action, with an adequate understanding of the consequences of said action."

When you say "consent," you seem to mean something along the lines of "agreeing to an action, with an adequate understanding of the consequences of said action, while simultaneously having reached the statutory age of consent of the jurisdiction in which you are located."

If the definition of consent being used is yours, then the young people in question definitely did not consent. If the definition of consent being used is mine, then there's a good chance they did consent, though again I can't say for certain because I don't know them.

I don't think there's any point in continuing to debate this matter, since no one in this thread seems to be willing to change their definition of consent.

We're discussing a legal case so I am using the appropriate terminology, where as you are not.
*shrugs*

[Ismon]

If it was consensual then she committed no crime, at least in my view!

They were minors, so there was no consent.

Boys cooperated with her. And they were teens, there was consent. Illegal, but consent.

Again, they were minors so there was no consent.

consent - To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree. It wasn't forced.

Again, they were minors, there was no consent. The age of consent is 18 in Florida.

You are either being deliberately obtuse or English is not your first language.

We're discussing a legal case, so the legal terms are what matters. The boys were not old enough to be able to consent, so therefore they did nor and could not consent.

The age of consent refers to the age where someone is legally allowed to give consent to sex. Obviously they could agree to sex at a far younger age, it would just be illegal not be consent.

Fixed

I think we have different definitions of the word "consent."

When I say "consent," I mean something like "agreeing to an action, with an adequate understanding of the consequences of said action."

When you say "consent," you seem to mean something along the lines of "agreeing to an action, with an adequate understanding of the consequences of said action, while simultaneously having reached the statutory age of consent of the jurisdiction in which you are located."

If the definition of consent being used is yours, then the young people in question definitely did not consent. If the definition of consent being used is mine, then there's a good chance they did consent, though again I can't say for certain because I don't know them.

I don't think there's any point in continuing to debate this matter, since no one in this thread seems to be willing to change their definition of consent.

We're discussing a legal case so I am using the appropriate terminology, where as you are not.
*shrugs*

The correct terms have been pointed out to you, it is your choice if you choose to remain ignorant.

[Bottle]

Okay so recently a female teacher was sentenced to ten years in prison for having sex with several minors.

Some people are not really happy about the sentence, and when I mean some, I mean alot.


In the comments of this article, a majority of people who would usually pray death for a man who committed the crime want her set free because she didn't "hurt and scar the children for life".

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/28/flo ... index.html

UH-OH PERHAPS I WAS NOT BEING CLEAR!

People hate male sex-offenders

People love the attractive female sex offenders.

Apologize for the inconvenience!

This is all part and parcel with the idea that men want sex and women do not. Males, even male children, are supposed to be the ones chasing after sex, and therefore we get crappy attitudes like "it's impossible for a woman to rape a man because you can't rape the willing" or "an adult woman fucking a little boy isn't really so bad...what kid doesn't want to nail his hot teacher?" or whatever the hell else.

Yet another way that our traditional gender roles hurt people.

[Bottle]

http://www.bloggernews.net/19618

Hey look at this article showing a similar light sentence for a convicted female teacher. On average a male would get 15 to 20 years according to a professor but a female gets probation or one to three years.

So if we want a number on how many times worse a male rapist is to a female it is 17.5 / 2. A male (teacher) rapist is 8.75 times more sinister than his female counterpart.

This woman received 10 years and will be on probation afterward.

I'm not saying that sexism doesn't exist. I'm saying that it does and it's prevalent. It might also be getting better (given that this woman, a more recent case, received a tougher sentence).

Granted, it would be nice if women were also given equal rights in all aspects of society instead of just being punished like men.

In Western society can you name one area that woman have less than equal rights then men? I doubt it

Reproductive rights.

[Dyakovo]

If it was consensual then she committed no crime, at least in my view!

They were minors, so there was no consent.

Boys cooperated with her. And they were teens, there was consent. Illegal, but consent.

Again, they were minors so there was no consent.

consent - To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree. It wasn't forced.

Again, they were minors, there was no consent. The age of consent is 18 in Florida.

You are either being deliberately obtuse or English is not your first language.

We're discussing a legal case, so the legal terms are what matters. The boys were not old enough to be able to consent, so therefore they did nor and could not consent.

The age of consent refers to the age where someone is legally allowed to give consent to sex. Obviously they could agree to sex at a far younger age, it would just be illegal not be consent.

Fixed

I think we have different definitions of the word "consent."

When I say "consent," I mean something like "agreeing to an action, with an adequate understanding of the consequences of said action."

When you say "consent," you seem to mean something along the lines of "agreeing to an action, with an adequate understanding of the consequences of said action, while simultaneously having reached the statutory age of consent of the jurisdiction in which you are located."

If the definition of consent being used is yours, then the young people in question definitely did not consent. If the definition of consent being used is mine, then there's a good chance they did consent, though again I can't say for certain because I don't know them.

I don't think there's any point in continuing to debate this matter, since no one in this thread seems to be willing to change their definition of consent.

We're discussing a legal case so I am using the appropriate terminology, where as you are not.
*shrugs*

The correct terms have been pointed out to you, it is your choice if you choose to remain ignorant.

No,actually they haven't.

[Dakini]

I honestly don't know where to start here. It's rare to come across someone so poorly informed.

Woman are more likely to be non working and relying upon a man for income.

If you look at men and women and take into account time worked, education level and being in similar jobs, men still earn more. There are also additional points where women are more likely to be employed in lesser paying professions or part time jobs. There are real studies that go into figuring out how to fix this too.
Of course, you don't seem to think that there are reasons that women are less likely to work, apart from them being lazy perhaps.

This expenditure would be far more demonstrative of equality as whilst there might be a working CEO they probably have a trophy wife that spends alot. When I go to the shops I see far more woman’s clothing stores than men’s clothing stores. Things such as shoes, jumpers and cosmetics are targeted at the females. More wives do more shopping than men. Whilst Men earn more money on average, Woman spend more money on average.

Women generally do more shopping for household items, including their husband's clothes sometimes. It's not like women are off spending money exclusively on themselves. However, if you notice: cars, televisions, electronics etc are usually targeted toward men. Usually leisure items are targeted toward men.

Woman have the decision if they want to earn lots of money or have children that is their choice. If you can find figures of simgle childless men to single childless woman it will be far more equal.

1. No they're not. Married men earn more than unmarried men and unmarried men earn more than women of any marital status.
2. Why should women have to choose between their careers and having a family? Men are able to have a spouse, children and careers. Why are women prohibited from having all these things?

There are articles where a transgendered individual has noted that when him became a man, suddenly people stopped interrupting him and started taking his ideas more seriously. Conversely, the same article features an MTF transgendered individual who was demoted after her surgery and began having to deal with people attacking her work with less evidence (in addition to interrupting her more frequently

Most transgender people suffer from emotional problems or mental illness. I wouldn’t take that view too seriously. The change to the desired gender may have given confidence and that could be the main factor. But I especially like your continued lack of referencing of any sorts

Ummm... I'm going to ignore your negative characterization of transgendered individuals. But here's a source. It also mentions a study where people are given the same description of a manager, but one version has a male name and one has a female name and the male manager is consistently viewed as being a better manager, despite the exact same words being used to describe both individuals.

As much as women have the same legal rights, we don't experience the same treatment. A man who's assertive is fine, a woman who's assertive is a bitch. A woman who enjoys sex is a nympho or a freak, a woman who as multiple partners is a slut or a whore. Women do most of the housework in most households, even when they work the same amount of hours outside the house as their partner. Sexism is alive and well, my friend.

If woman on average spend less time at work as is the case of course they would do more work around the house.

No. Even women who work do more housework than their husbands. Even comparing men and women in the same line of work.

However when a female can get sex and money far easier than a male it is really the male that is on the backfoot.

Bullshit. Members of both genders can get laid just as easily. They just both need to avoid standards of any sort if they want this to happen. I'm not sure what money has to do with sex in this case since I wasn't talking about prostitution.

A female can ask almost any male at roughly her own age at any time for sex and the answer is probably, yes. Men on the other hand would be far more likely to get a negative answer

ugh, I would hate to know what kind of man would say yes to that request from a stranger. You also fail to mention that this only works for attractive women.

All the examples you have are not full examples. It is expenditure of money that matters more than who earns it
Transgender people wanted a sex change and that helps then psychologically. Try referending some actual study for that if you wish to continue (as with everything else you have said which is unreferenced)

Dude, you're one to talk. Your references have included an off-topic .pdf and a blog.

The legal rights are skewed towards the female when it comes to children and legally females are treated lighter for similar offences.

Only because sexism includes the idea that men desire sex more than women. So men who are the victims of sexual abuse clearly aren't too bad off.

Even on things such as breast cancer, the male equivalent prostate cancer receives far less attention and government help.

Because women have fought hard and campaigned aggressively for it. If there were similar groups for prostate cancer then you would see similar attention for it. So go volunteer for a prostate cancer awareness group and help make them well known.

The feminist movement has won in the west.

No, it still has a long way to go.

[Bottle]

The feminist movement has won in the west.

No, it still has a long way to go.

Yeah, um, if feminism had "won," then opinions like Jaunty's wouldn't exist any more.

[Dakini]

The feminist movement has won in the west.

No, it still has a long way to go.

Yeah, um, if feminism had "won," then opinions like Jaunty's wouldn't exist any more.

Indeed.

[Volea]

Aye, and many girls probably aren't either, but I'd say that equal protection is a fairly straight forward thing.

It should be.

[New high charity 24]

Im gonna bring this thread from the Pits of hell!

[Sazo]

*sighs* When a teenage boy gets laid by his female teacher, everyone just grins and slaps him on the back. When the sexes are reversed, everyone grabs pitchforks and torches. It's more than a little annoying.

I AGREE