I said it is arbitrary. Are you really that stupid? My preferences are irrelevant to the discussion. Perhaps it should be 25 or so.
No, actually your preferences are relevant when we are looking at the context of the conversation.
The thread is about a 19 year old who had sex with a 12 year old. Your problem is that people have yet to forgive the 19 year old. In support of why the 19 year old should be forgiven, you say 1) that he has served his prison time; and 2) that the age of consent is arbitrary.
It is the second point that we are dealing with. Given the context of the conversation, your opinion on the age of consent is entirely relevant. But for some reason you want to dance around that and bring up historical differences. As if this area of the law is the only time laws have changed due to changes in societal mores. But keep typing and exposing yourself.
I said it is arbitrary. Are you really that stupid? My preferences are irrelevant to the discussion. Perhaps it should be 25 or so.
No, actually your preferences are relevant when we are looking at the context of the conversation.
The thread is about a 19 year old who had sex with a 12 year old. Your problem is that people have yet to forgive the 19 year old. In support of why the 19 year old should be forgiven, you say 1) that he has served his prison time; and 2) that the age of consent is arbitrary.
It is the second point that we are dealing with. Given the context of the conversation, your opinion on the age of consent is entirely relevant. But for some reason you want to dance around that and bring up historical differences. As if this area of the law is the only time laws have changed due to changes in societal mores. But keep typing and exposing yourself.
Who cares if people have “forgiven” him? Do you respect the law or not? I just cannot stomach you judgmental freaks, many of whom are secret predators, probably including you.
Who cares if people have “forgiven” him? Do you respect the law or not? I just cannot stomach you judgmental freaks, many of whom are secret predators, probably including you.
So let me get this straight... to prove that you're not a secret predator, you're advocating for people to not comment/care about whether a child rapist participates in the Olympics AND for people to reevaluate child consent laws? So when reading about a potential Olympian who was convicted of raping a 12 year old, your iutrage is with the"judgmental freaks" who won't forgive the convicted rapist?
It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em
He wins the stupid award and a certain set of legal penalties and status, but a 19 year old acting in this way on / with a 12 year old isn't the purest definition of evil.
who am I kidding though, you can't just SAY these things because these are tantamount to the things which we can't say because they occupy an indefinite and evil zone.
In this invisible zone, we can't distinguish between monsters and normal people unless it's abundantly obvious. In this invisible zone, both random nympho ladies teaching high school students, Jeffrey Dahmers, Epsteins, Anthony Kiedises, many musicians and Bohemians before a certain decade, people in other countries with more permissive laws, and even Jerry Seinfeld occupy this zone.
Imagine you're in high school. A girl tells you they're 16, and you believe it. Then she tells you she's 13. You're stupid, so you eventually come back to her when she reaches out to you. Her father is out for blood when he finds what happened, some stupid kid commandeered his daughter, and he has to live with the knowledge his daughter apparently learned nothing - or that he provided poor guidance to her, or that she was afraid to ask for help and instead turned to things forbidden.
He wins the stupid award and a certain set of legal penalties and status, but a 19 year old acting in this way on / with a 12 year old isn't the purest definition of evil.
who am I kidding though, you can't just SAY these things because these are tantamount to the things which we can't say because they occupy an indefinite and evil zone.
In this invisible zone, we can't distinguish between monsters and normal people unless it's abundantly obvious. In this invisible zone, both random nympho ladies teaching high school students, Jeffrey Dahmers, Epsteins, Anthony Kiedises, many musicians and Bohemians before a certain decade, people in other countries with more permissive laws, and even Jerry Seinfeld occupy this zone.
Imagine you're in high school. A girl tells you they're 16, and you believe it. Then she tells you she's 13. You're stupid, so you eventually come back to her when she reaches out to you. Her father is out for blood when he finds what happened, some stupid kid commandeered his daughter, and he has to live with the knowledge his daughter apparently learned nothing - or that he provided poor guidance to her, or that she was afraid to ask for help and instead turned to things forbidden.
Imagine a 19 year old man has sex with a 12 year old you know or are related to.
Now imagine him and his friends saying "well she wanted it, she said it herself and she looked/acted older."
He wins the stupid award and a certain set of legal penalties and status, but a 19 year old acting in this way on / with a 12 year old isn't the purest definition of evil.
who am I kidding though, you can't just SAY these things because these are tantamount to the things which we can't say because they occupy an indefinite and evil zone.
In this invisible zone, we can't distinguish between monsters and normal people unless it's abundantly obvious. In this invisible zone, both random nympho ladies teaching high school students, Jeffrey Dahmers, Epsteins, Anthony Kiedises, many musicians and Bohemians before a certain decade, people in other countries with more permissive laws, and even Jerry Seinfeld occupy this zone.
Imagine you're in high school. A girl tells you they're 16, and you believe it. Then she tells you she's 13. You're stupid, so you eventually come back to her when she reaches out to you. Her father is out for blood when he finds what happened, some stupid kid commandeered his daughter, and he has to live with the knowledge his daughter apparently learned nothing - or that he provided poor guidance to her, or that she was afraid to ask for help and instead turned to things forbidden.
Imagine a 19 year old man has sex with a 12 year old you know or are related to.
Now imagine him and his friends saying "well she wanted it, she said it herself and she looked/acted older."
Humans are conditioned to believe it is wrong. I agree he should face the criminal court, which he has, because we have laws. it is otherwise not clear that it is so bad. But then they think I am a pedo when I have nothing to do with it. I do think what he did was not cool, that he took advantage of a 12 year old, and he should be punished, but he is likely a better person than many of you.
Oh boo fvcking hoo. The rapist is being attacked for raping a 12 year old. Oh poor guy. I feel so bad.
When you rape anyone especially a child you are never the victim. I feel like Madagascar has a reasonable solution but someone I know was raped so I take a more aggressive stance than most people.
Nuance is not your strength. The perpetrator may have been a victim in the past. A much higher percentage of perpetrators have been past victims. This does not excuse their egregious behavior but it is no coincidence. That is another reason we need to try to prevent anyone from being victimized, so we may have fewer perpetrators in the future.
Was it ever determined that he was raped/assaulted before? If so then I would love to have these posts removed but until then I think he should have been in for the years he got sentenced.
Agreed. I just don't think that child rapist deserves "empathy and forgiveness".
“Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn others, or it will all come back against you. Forgive others, and you will be forgiven. Luke 6:37
Dear god please forgive me for not liking this rapist. I know I have sinned for I think he earned more punishment then was given. Also have you read the old testament? That is full of brutal punishment.
British law has age of consent at 16. Under that age, a person is not legally able to give consent.
I was going to say that in many US states a defense can be put forth if the assailant had strong reason to believe the victim was of age. I am thinking she was in a bar drinking so a person could assume she was 21 even if she was 16.
However, I found this article that states that he knew how old she was. And he only got 4 years? And he only served 1 (13 months maybe).
As for how the Dutch allowed him: my guess is that Dutch selection procedures do not have a clause that allows them to ban him. Based on what I read UK and Aussies have a provision. I am a bit removed from the USOPC process these days, but the two NGBs I did work for had no policy in place to address such a situation unless the person had been suspended by the NGB.
In the article, it says that the parents found out after he took the girl to get a morning after pill. The parents then contacted authorities. When he was prosecuted, the girl was so wracked with guilt over the prosecution that she started engaging in self harm. They had a months' long online relationship that resulted in multiple sexual experiences that were labeled rape due to the girl's age (i.e. statutory rape). There was no indication that the girl did not want to have sex with this guy. There was alcohol involved. But none of the reports suggest that the girl was so drunk that she could not consent to having sex.
The idea that we can legislate when kids debut sexually through picking an arbitrary age line and enforce that through criminal sanctions is at best very problematic, at worst, a indirect effort enforce religious prohibitions on sex before marriage. I used to work in high schools and have kids in middle school and HS. Kids under the age of 16 are having sex. Lots of them are having sex. Whether they are ready physically and emotionally is an issue that is never addressed because parents and teachers all operate from the assumption that they shouldn't be sexually active and just tell them they are too young whenever the subject comes up. That doesn't work and the kids have no one to talk to about sex who will have a serious discussion about when is the right time to start having sex and how to do it safely. To kids, sex just ends up getting filed under the list of deviance that includes drugs, alcohol, skipping school, shoplifting, etc. Then when kids are caught, parents go to the police instead of dealing with the fact that their kid is sexually active and needs guidance and support.
This guy served his time. There was no evidence that he had a preference for under aged girls. There was no evidence that he was abusive, violent or coercive with the girl. It was a bad decision to have sex with a girl that young. But ruining people's lives because they at a young age acted with bad judgment on their sexual impulses is not something that will make our society better. Instead, it make sexual debut for young boys something that risks criminal prosecution which instills fear and keeps boys from ever talking with anyone other than their peers about it.
Her age means she can not consent. Do you appreciate how 12 year old's don't know how to make their own decisions
British law has age of consent at 16. Under that age, a person is not legally able to give consent.
I was going to say that in many US states a defense can be put forth if the assailant had strong reason to believe the victim was of age. I am thinking she was in a bar drinking so a person could assume she was 21 even if she was 16.
However, I found this article that states that he knew how old she was. And he only got 4 years? And he only served 1 (13 months maybe).
As for how the Dutch allowed him: my guess is that Dutch selection procedures do not have a clause that allows them to ban him. Based on what I read UK and Aussies have a provision. I am a bit removed from the USOPC process these days, but the two NGBs I did work for had no policy in place to address such a situation unless the person had been suspended by the NGB.
In the article, it says that the parents found out after he took the girl to get a morning after pill. The parents then contacted authorities. When he was prosecuted, the girl was so wracked with guilt over the prosecution that she started engaging in self harm. They had a months' long online relationship that resulted in multiple sexual experiences that were labeled rape due to the girl's age (i.e. statutory rape). There was no indication that the girl did not want to have sex with this guy. There was alcohol involved. But none of the reports suggest that the girl was so drunk that she could not consent to having sex.
The idea that we can legislate when kids debut sexually through picking an arbitrary age line and enforce that through criminal sanctions is at best very problematic, at worst, a indirect effort enforce religious prohibitions on sex before marriage. I used to work in high schools and have kids in middle school and HS. Kids under the age of 16 are having sex. Lots of them are having sex. Whether they are ready physically and emotionally is an issue that is never addressed because parents and teachers all operate from the assumption that they shouldn't be sexually active and just tell them they are too young whenever the subject comes up. That doesn't work and the kids have no one to talk to about sex who will have a serious discussion about when is the right time to start having sex and how to do it safely. To kids, sex just ends up getting filed under the list of deviance that includes drugs, alcohol, skipping school, shoplifting, etc. Then when kids are caught, parents go to the police instead of dealing with the fact that their kid is sexually active and needs guidance and support.
This guy served his time. There was no evidence that he had a preference for under aged girls. There was no evidence that he was abusive, violent or coercive with the girl. It was a bad decision to have sex with a girl that young. But ruining people's lives because they at a young age acted with bad judgment on their sexual impulses is not something that will make our society better. Instead, it make sexual debut for young boys something that risks criminal prosecution which instills fear and keeps boys from ever talking with anyone other than their peers about it.
They are having sex with people their ages. The fact you defend statuary rape says a lot about you. Let me make clear it is unacceptable for someone to have sex with someone 7 years younger than them. Especially when they are 12 and can not be trusted to make decisions like that. The part of the brain that evaluates consequences are much less developed at that age
This post was edited 27 seconds after it was posted.
That's a lot of words to mitigate and normalize child rape.
Except that is not what he did.
it literally is. The fact that the kid consented does not matter. SHE WAS 12. Since these people cant keep it in their pants they need to learn a look don't touch. 12 Year old's are not allowed to consent. It is different if the 2 people are the same age but the gap was 7 years.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.