Statutory Rape
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
86 comments displayed.
#6
-
lordbroldamort (01/09/2016) [-]
i think some people are missing the point, this guys actually starting a dialogue about boys who get taken advantage of by their adult teachers and how it isnt taken seriously. thats the important part, whether you like the guy or his show or not, he is starting a fight for men and mens rights, that why it got a thumb from me. good for him.
#65 to #16
-
schneidend (01/09/2016) [-] He's got a point, sorta. FBI recently changed their definition of rape to penetration only, though I think that only applies to statistics.
#93 to #65
-
tarabostes (01/09/2016) [-] So if I make you jerk me off it's alright? THANK YOU BASED FBI
#73 to #65
-
chuckledarkly ONLINE (01/09/2016) [-] so if i get her to only lick my penis im ok???? cool i can work with this.
#75 to #73
-
schneidend (01/09/2016) [-] Well, you could still go to jail, but you won't affect any statistical data!
#161 to #65
-
anon (01/10/2016) [-]
I don't know why you're getting thumbed downed. You're correct and the FBI re-defining rape is really pretty seriously ****** .
By the new FBI standard, if a woman drugs me (a man), drags me to some shady basement, ties me to a bed, force feeds me Viagra, then gets on top of me, no rape has been committed. Like, really, what the **** ? That's an extreme case, but it makes a/the point. Rape is definitely NOT only when something is penetrated; the old definition of "penetrated or made to penetrate" was far superior.
By the new FBI standard, if a woman drugs me (a man), drags me to some shady basement, ties me to a bed, force feeds me Viagra, then gets on top of me, no rape has been committed. Like, really, what the **** ? That's an extreme case, but it makes a/the point. Rape is definitely NOT only when something is penetrated; the old definition of "penetrated or made to penetrate" was far superior.
#109 to #61
-
toosexyforyou (01/10/2016) [-] What if I just have her lick it and handjob? No penetration so it's all good with you, right?
#143 to #61
-
thundergyra (01/10/2016) [-] No, she's putting the penis into her orifice, so it isn't rape. If you're going to be a retard, at least follow your own line of reasoning correctly.
#144 to #143
-
ilovehitler (01/10/2016) [-] Nope, still is. While Desdenne is *********** , he's legally correct, in the US. In the US, rape requires penetration- which essentially just makes it so women can't rape men unless using a strap-on or whatever
#172 to #8
-
hikakiller (01/10/2016) [-]
Okay, silly willy. This isn't ancient rome, you and your silly archaic opinions.
#17 to #6
-
anon (01/09/2016) [-]
if your teachers is hot and you want to get your dick in her....i mean, yeah its illegal, but they didnt harm anyone
if the student/teacher took advantage out of the situation somehow then thats another case
be happy the judge didnt overreact for no reason
its like "a man kills someone who murdered his entire family and just got 3 years, while mah cousin killed some random teenager and got 20....soooooo unfair"
if the student/teacher took advantage out of the situation somehow then thats another case
be happy the judge didnt overreact for no reason
its like "a man kills someone who murdered his entire family and just got 3 years, while mah cousin killed some random teenager and got 20....soooooo unfair"
#22 to #17
-
timmywankenobi ONLINE (01/09/2016) [-] What if it's a girl with a hot male teacher and she just wants to get her pussy pounded ?
#24 to #22
-
ILIEKPEPSEE ONLINE (01/09/2016) [-] Given it's the same ages in the content, then the guy is disgraced from his family and social circles, branded a monster akin to hitler by our new PC society, added to the sex offender registry, and given the max sentence. Double standards are fun.
#177 to #101
-
djmaryhikineet (01/10/2016) [-] i say the same thing for when it comes to animals, don't **** them, let them **** you cuse you can hurt them if your the one ******* them. if they **** you, your the one who has to deal with anything that happens to your body and not theres. people don't get that sometimes a double standard isn't needed b/c one is worse then the other so if they got treated teh same then it be unfair
#182 to #177
-
dammriver (01/10/2016) [-] The problem with this is that even when you "let the girl **** you instead of ******* them", all that they have to do is claim that you raped them. Even if you have proof of consent, she can say that she changed her mind halfway through.
Then, when you flip this around, even when a male doesn't want it, he just gets laughed at. As a male, if she gets pregnant after she had sex with you against your will, you can still get hit with child support and can be treated 100% as the father figure. That's even if you didn't want sex to begin with.
So no, although it might not "physically" damage males, it still can be just as mentally damaging as when a female is raped.
Then, when you flip this around, even when a male doesn't want it, he just gets laughed at. As a male, if she gets pregnant after she had sex with you against your will, you can still get hit with child support and can be treated 100% as the father figure. That's even if you didn't want sex to begin with.
So no, although it might not "physically" damage males, it still can be just as mentally damaging as when a female is raped.
#185 to #182
-
djmaryhikineet (01/10/2016) [-] your right but i was more saying a genral version of it since ik there would be alot of exeptions though if you arent willing to take on fatherhood then you shouldnt have sex with a minor
#123 to #6
-
rarityrarityrarity (01/10/2016) [-] People are still making such a big deal out of it. Do you think there's such a huge difference between being 18 and 17? No there isn't and if the guy had given consent then there shouldn't be a problem. Gonna get a lot of faggots crying about how I'm wrong and how it would shouldn't be a problem to **** a 11 year old if they've given consent, but that's a completely different story.
#147 to #123
-
quantumranger (01/10/2016) [-] More like it's inappropriate because the teacher is a figure of authority. Even if a student is of legal age it is never acceptable for a teacher to engage in any sort of physical or romantic relationship with them. And people are pissed because the teacher got 30 days in jail despite pleading guilty to statutory rape, when a male teacher would have gotten a regular amount of jail time. Also the judge essentially blaming the whole thing on the student, who is legally the victim.
#95 to #6
-
otisriedel (01/09/2016) [-] this is probably the one thing i'veheard from him that i like. as for his show in general, i can't stand it. every episode he has a glorified circlejerk and anyone who disagrees is shut down by the audience booing them/being dismissed with a joke. plus he's a huge wage gap believer and half of his show is BLM-related.
#105 to #6
-
vegasstoner (01/09/2016) [-]
yeah i've heard bad things about the show, never watched it myself. but i really respect what he did here.
#149 to #6
-
brobathehutt (01/10/2016) [-] The age of consent in Penn is 16. The only issue is it was a teacher, but to be honest unless the teacher really did force him to have sex with her (by threatening a bad grade or whatever) there isn't a real issue and the best thing to do is just to give them a slap on the wrist. It wasn't rape.
#124 to #6
-
derpthefifth (01/10/2016) [-] It's not ******* about mens rights though..... When you're 16, 17, 18, you are horny as **** granted but you're definitely capable of making the decision to **** somebody without it being considered that you were taken advantage of.
I remember being 16, there were a few of my teachers i'd have given quite a few things to **** as well as girls my age and you know what? The girls were just as bad if not worse, i'm not saying there shouldn't be a punishment because there are a lot of reasons teachers shouldn't **** students but for **** sakes it's not like some poor little kid being taken advantage of, it's more like a stupid adult not understanding and enforcing the teacher/student boundaries.
I remember being 16, there were a few of my teachers i'd have given quite a few things to **** as well as girls my age and you know what? The girls were just as bad if not worse, i'm not saying there shouldn't be a punishment because there are a lot of reasons teachers shouldn't **** students but for **** sakes it's not like some poor little kid being taken advantage of, it's more like a stupid adult not understanding and enforcing the teacher/student boundaries.
#150 to #124
-
lordbroldamort (01/10/2016) [-]
ok but the problem is that if a male teacher had done the same with a 17 year old female student then he would have been crucified, and like the guy said, "just because boys dont care to lose thier innocence doesnt mean they dont deserve it just as much as girls do." hes pretty right, if the justice system is going to defend a 17 year old girls rights like that then they should defend the boys rights and give the same punishment. justice should be blind, not saying hey shes hot and its cool yo.
#159 to #150
-
derpthefifth (01/10/2016) [-] My point is (i suppose i didn't directly say this but i'm saying it now) that the willing consent of the 16/17 year old should be a factor in the sentence no matter what gender both parties are.
If the teen felt in any way pressured into the interaction, or into continuing then yes ******* CRUCIFY THEM but if it's a willing engagement on both sides then it's nothing worse than a breach of student/teacher conduct, not that it shouldn't be punished but definitely not as heavily as actual sexual extortion/blackmail from an authority figure against a minor.....
Honestly though i think there's 3 things that make for worsening degrees of assault.
1) Was the teen in question already sexually active (accounting for loss of innocence)
2) Were they pressured into anything
3) Are they mentally developed enough to make that choice. I know it's not realistic that any of this should/could be measured, but it's criteria for abuse vs breach of conduct all the same.
If the teen felt in any way pressured into the interaction, or into continuing then yes ******* CRUCIFY THEM but if it's a willing engagement on both sides then it's nothing worse than a breach of student/teacher conduct, not that it shouldn't be punished but definitely not as heavily as actual sexual extortion/blackmail from an authority figure against a minor.....
Honestly though i think there's 3 things that make for worsening degrees of assault.
1) Was the teen in question already sexually active (accounting for loss of innocence)
2) Were they pressured into anything
3) Are they mentally developed enough to make that choice. I know it's not realistic that any of this should/could be measured, but it's criteria for abuse vs breach of conduct all the same.
#183 to #159
-
lordbroldamort (01/10/2016) [-]
thats a valid point that would have to be made for all considerations not just that of a male student, but thats not the case in most of these situations, especially since the legal age of adulthood is 18, even if the consent age is lower. but i see your points and they make sense they would just have to be implemented globally in the justice system.
#50
-
gedoushinken (01/09/2016) [-] I think it's the authority role is the bigger problem than age. Teacher shouldn't be seducing students for having sex, it's just inappropriate because of the authority figure role. Just like psychologist shouldn't be ******* their adult patients. I'm just saying that because 17 is already legal in most European countries.
#87 to #50
-
ImmortalBaconEater (01/09/2016) [-] It's legal in most states in the US as well. The age really isn't what upsets me.
#58 to #50
-
anon (01/09/2016) [-]
Agreed.
If the adult was not the students teacher, and was in fact some chick he met at a party or something, no one would've found out about it, and the guy wouldn't be getting "abused" as lots of people like to say.
What happened here is that some student was hot for the teacher and the teacher couldn't contain herself, and decided to NOT abuse her position of authority, but to remove it completely and disregard it.
The teacher should have been fired and reprimanded. Not put in jail.
If the adult was not the students teacher, and was in fact some chick he met at a party or something, no one would've found out about it, and the guy wouldn't be getting "abused" as lots of people like to say.
What happened here is that some student was hot for the teacher and the teacher couldn't contain herself, and decided to NOT abuse her position of authority, but to remove it completely and disregard it.
The teacher should have been fired and reprimanded. Not put in jail.
#66
-
magicsteel (01/09/2016) [-] Not really big supporter of "Age of Consent" being 18 years old.
I mean if the kid is old enough to want it, he's old enough to have it.
18 is just an arbitrary number people came to agree upon.
Be it girl or guy, I think we need to drop the "protection" for those who don't want it... and hold them up responsible for their decisions.
I mean if the kid is old enough to want it, he's old enough to have it.
18 is just an arbitrary number people came to agree upon.
Be it girl or guy, I think we need to drop the "protection" for those who don't want it... and hold them up responsible for their decisions.
#175 to #66
-
hkd (01/10/2016) [-] I never understand the "Arbitrary number" ******** that always gets bought up. It's not arbitrary. It's the age at which a large majority of people have gone through puberty. Though there are the odd few who don't until 19 or 20, almost everyone has at 18, so it makes perfect sense.
#180 to #66
-
woolfy (01/10/2016) [-]
I think you're missing the real point of having an 'age of consent.' Very few people in society see anything inherently wrong with seventeen year olds having sex with each other. In fact the age of consent is usually 15-17 in most European countries.
That's not why the law is there. It's there to stop a 45 year old from preying on a 15 year old.
That's not why the law is there. It's there to stop a 45 year old from preying on a 15 year old.
#82 to #66
-
dharkmoswen (01/09/2016) [-] Actually, 18 is based on the attempt to lower teenage pregnancy and isn't such a bad thing. Most people under 30 don't seem to get exactly how badly having kids before you're 20 is for you, physically, emotionally, and financially. Personally, I think the age should be raised to 25, but I'm old fashioned.
#114 to #66
-
anon (01/10/2016) [-]
Yeah, but in order to survive in society you ned a good job, which you can only get an education. At the very least you need a high school diploma. Pretty much 99% of people do not get a diploma before they're 18. How do you expect them to raise a child like that?
18 isn't arbitrary, it's the age you're supposed to be done with school and able to go off into the adult world. Hence why you don't **** kids
18 isn't arbitrary, it's the age you're supposed to be done with school and able to go off into the adult world. Hence why you don't **** kids
#70 to #66
-
nyxeos (01/09/2016) [-] It's not just an issue of age in this case though. She was his teacher. And it's sort of a matter of having to draw the line somewhere. Lots of kids do **** they shouldn't and do **** they later regret. You expect more of the adult, especially when that adult is in a position of authority over said kid. Lots of people, children and adults, can be convinced they want or deserve abuse to an extent. The law can't rely on feelings.
#1
-
dbqpdb ONLINE (01/09/2016) [-] Wow, that's the first smart thing I ever heard him say on that show. I'm actually impressed by that integrity
#145
-
catburglarpenis (01/10/2016) [-] This guy is stupid. I would never **** a box of Junior Mints
#11
-
oxymoronking (01/09/2016) [-] i normally dont like his show, but like family guy, sometimes bad shows bring up really important points
#83
-
dannyredwizard ONLINE (01/09/2016) [-]
The entire time I'm reading this all I can think of is that South Park episode where Ike gets it on with his kindergarten teacher.
This is a little different though, the guy in this story is 17 instead of 4 for one.
I really don't see what the big deal is, the age of consent is just a law, laws are not perfect, there are consequences for breaking them, but that doesn't make them perfect. The age of consent in Mexico is 12, younger than that and you're in trouble but to them 12 and over is fine. Bestiality is legal in some countries, illegal in others. You shouldn't let the law decide your morals for you.
This is a little different though, the guy in this story is 17 instead of 4 for one.
I really don't see what the big deal is, the age of consent is just a law, laws are not perfect, there are consequences for breaking them, but that doesn't make them perfect. The age of consent in Mexico is 12, younger than that and you're in trouble but to them 12 and over is fine. Bestiality is legal in some countries, illegal in others. You shouldn't let the law decide your morals for you.
#88 to #83
-
vilememory (01/09/2016) [-] Because if the gender roles had been reversed... They would have crucified the teacher. Older women ******* teens and pre teens is all right because boys are all about sex. But older men ******* teen girls and pre teens means that the man is a horrible monster violating the innocence of young children who should be burned alive at the stake.
#90 to #88
-
dannyredwizard ONLINE (01/09/2016) [-]
That's kind of the point I'm trying to argue against, everyone sees it that way, but it's really not that way. Girls think about sex as much as guys do, girls enjoy sex too.
The fact that there's a double standard is ******** and there shouldn't be.
The fact that there's a double standard is ******** and there shouldn't be.
#91 to #90
-
vilememory (01/09/2016) [-] Sadly people will always think this way. Boys sex crazed beasts, girls pure delicate things that must be protected. It is a horrible double standard but one that will take quite a while to fix if it ever gets fixed.
#102 to #88
-
severepwner (01/09/2016) [-] Then that just means we should loosen the social stigma for young women then, not tighten it on young men for equality, that's ludicrous.
#59
-
SuperSixONE (01/09/2016) [-] I hate him, his show, and all his opinions but I can look past all that for being one of the only people with a voice that talks about these things on mainstream TV.
I miss Colbert
I miss Colbert
#86
-
twentyninersaregay (01/09/2016) [-]
why the 2 second gifs? it could be screencapped and have the text and would be better for everyone, you are the reason admin sucks dick for servers
#38
-
Shorticus (01/09/2016) [-] I think I have some info here as I am going to be a teacher in April once i graduate and have taken a class about THIS specific issue(and others in this ethical nature) before. Teachers are held to higher moral regard than other citizens (just like cops, elected officials, etc.). We have been taught that as soon as one instigates a relationship with a student past the teacher-student normal relationship, we have committed a felony, will get ou teaching certification removed and be sentenced to jail for a min of 5 years. I am in Canada, if that's different from the US as this person is talking about. Both male and female laws are the same (there is no differential or change if the teacher in question happens to be a woman). As well, we have been taught from day 1 that hugging and touching students, even if we are just friends with them, is now NOT ok because of lawsuits like these popping up (and just general harassment cases), which I dislike because I've always hugged my teachers that I am close to in the past and I wish to do the same.
tl;dr In Canada, a min sentence of 5 years and an immediate revoking of one's teaching certificate happens once more 'intimate' relationship is fostered with a student, regardless of who the teacher is.
tl;dr In Canada, a min sentence of 5 years and an immediate revoking of one's teaching certificate happens once more 'intimate' relationship is fostered with a student, regardless of who the teacher is.
#189 to #186
-
stealingbikes (01/10/2016) [-] You're attractive. I hope for the sake of your sanity you won't be teaching horny highschool boys lol
#191 to #190
-
stealingbikes (01/10/2016) [-] Good point. But at least elementary aged kids are still actually kids in their minds (for the most part) and easier to deal with than middle and high school kids.
My daughter's a couple years from starting elementary school and I'm not looking forward to the parent-teacher conferences. She's very much her own stubborn little person
My daughter's a couple years from starting elementary school and I'm not looking forward to the parent-teacher conferences. She's very much her own stubborn little person
#20
-
beasert (01/09/2016) [-] I can't read half of what he's saying because the play bar blocks the text.
#40
-
charak (01/09/2016) [-] The boy was 17, already making decisions on his college and what he wants to do for the rest of his life, but sex? alcohol? No way jose' !
#54 to #40
-
emiyashirou (01/09/2016) [-] "There's no large difference between being 17 and 18" leads to the slippery slope of 16 and 17 being no different, 15 and 16 being no different, and before you know it you'll get adults ******* 10 year olds.
#62 to #54
-
schneidend (01/09/2016) [-] That's not a slippery slope at all. That's more like a staircase. A slope will have gravity drag your ass downwards to the bottom. It's pretty easy to consciously not take another step down the stairs.
#98
-
askafj (01/09/2016) [-] The only thing I didn't like about this is that it feels like he's trying to say that you have to keep your innocence.
Like no, that's something that is made up by religious lunatics.
I'm not saying it justifies the teacher having sex with a minor, I'm just saying that you shouldn't try to force your own opinions when you're talking about serious issues.
Like no, that's something that is made up by religious lunatics.
I'm not saying it justifies the teacher having sex with a minor, I'm just saying that you shouldn't try to force your own opinions when you're talking about serious issues.
#85
-
anon (01/09/2016) [-]
I agree that this is hypocrisy. I agree authority figures have a responsibility. However, I disagree that a 17 year ol should be called a boy, and everyone should disregard their actions. Yes the law is harsher on the legal adult, and for good reason. But statutory rape laws are kinda zany.
#60
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (01/09/2016) [-] yfw it's ok to **** kids if you're an attractive woman... but yo that patriarchy.
#166
-
quantumranger (01/10/2016) [-] The problem is that the responsibility for initiating sex is automatically assigned to the male in any situation. In this case, it is assumed that the male student started the relationship, considering the judge implies the boy "jumped" on the female teacher's "candy". It is presented as the male student's responsibility to resist the "candy" rather than the female teacher's responsibility to keep the "candy" unavailable. If it were a male teacher and female student, I'm sure the assumption would be that the male teacher initiated the relationship with the female student. Even if it was accepted that the female student had initiated the relationship, the male teacher would be held responsible for not resisting strong enough.
