Refresh Comments
Anonymous comments allowed.
42 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.
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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 (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 (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
#172 to #8
-
hikakiller ONLINE (01/10/2016) [-]
Okay, silly willy. This isn't ancient rome, you and your silly archaic opinions.
#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
#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?
#65 to #16
-
schneidend ONLINE (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.
#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.
#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 (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 ONLINE (01/09/2016) [-] Well, you could still go to jail, but you won't affect any statistical data!
