http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/05/babysitter-who-had-sex-with-11-year-old-boy-gets-suspended-sentence
Can't copy it here on mobile, but this just makes my blood boil.
Secretly a Warsie.
this is depressing
Pretty simple biology will tell you that while the boy may or may not have enjoyed it one simple fact remains. She could never have gotten him pregnant and make him go through life raising an unwanted child. This is why women will almost always get the easier sentence in these types of cases.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 05, 2015, 10:54:04 PM
Pretty simple biology will tell you that while the boy may or may not have enjoyed it one simple fact remains. She could never have gotten him pregnant and make him go through life raising an unwanted child. This is why women will almost always get the easier sentence in these types of cases.
Yeah that makes it so much easier on the kid who was raped. Never mind the fact that arousal isn't necessary for an erection, what if the boy was gay? Fuck, I get mad if I'm grabbed by some woman at the club (straight women get oddly grabby at gay clubs. It's fucking horrid and it needs to be addressed more), if I were actively raped I'd be out for blood.
Forget the fact that I'm not the one being penetrated in that instance. Forget that I can't be impregnated. It's my sexual autonomy that's being violated. What if the woman's rapist had a vasectomy? Why if he was really gentle so she didn't get physically hurt? Does that make it any less horrible? Fuck no.
When people brush off a male's rape by a female like this it's not only fucking bullshit, but it constitutes further victimization.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 05, 2015, 10:54:04 PM
Pretty simple biology will tell you that while the boy may or may not have enjoyed it one simple fact remains. She could never have gotten him pregnant and make him go through life raising an unwanted child. This is why women will almost always get the easier sentence in these types of cases.
She didn't get an easier sentence, you moron, she was let go on the basis of her being "immature" and the boy being "sex crazy." Let go. As in no sentence whatsoever. Do you think that would ever fly if the situation was reversed?
Secretly a Warsie.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 05, 2015, 11:10:00 PM
She didn't get an easier sentence, you moron, she was let go on the basis of her being "immature" and the boy being "sex crazy." Let go. As in no sentence whatsoever. Do you think that would ever fly if the situation was reversed?
Secretly a Warsie.
Hey hijiri. Go fuck yourself. I didn't call you a moron until right now you fucking moron. I simply stated why women get easier sentences in general.
I assume you flunked basic biology in school.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 05, 2015, 11:19:29 PM
Hey hijiri. Go fuck yourself. I didn't call you a moron until right now you fucking moron. I simply stated why women get easier sentences in general.
I assume you flunked basic biology in school.
Does that stick make it hard to poop? :lol:
Secretly a Warsie.
Fuck off asswipe. *click...ignore*
You won't be missed.
After six posts there are already people dropping f-bombs at each other.
All I can think is... nope nope nope. Not touching this one with a 10 foot pole. Nope.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 05, 2015, 11:10:00 PM
She didn't get an easier sentence, you moron, she was let go on the basis of her being "immature"...
Immature really? if you do not understand the concept of statutory rape at 20 years old, you are not immature, you are a fucking idiot or mentally retarded.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 05, 2015, 11:10:00 PM
She didn't get an easier sentence, you moron, she was let go on the basis of her being "immature" and the boy being "sex crazy." Let go. As in no sentence whatsoever. Do you think that would ever fly if the situation was reversed?
Secretly a Warsie.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 05, 2015, 11:19:29 PM
Hey hijiri. Go fuck yourself. I didn't call you a moron until right now you fucking moron. I simply stated why women get easier sentences in general.
I assume you flunked basic biology in school.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 05, 2015, 11:23:10 PM
Does that stick make it hard to poop? :lol:
Secretly a Warsie.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 05, 2015, 11:28:13 PM
Fuck off asswipe. *click...ignore*
You won't be missed.
This type of intellectual conversation is why I come here. I fell truly enlightened.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 05, 2015, 11:19:29 PM
Hey hijiri. Go fuck yourself. I didn't call you a moron until right now you fucking moron. I simply stated why women get easier sentences in general.
I assume you flunked basic biology in school.
So is it just stating a fact, mind you there's probably a lot more factors that influence the lower sentences on women, or do you believe it is fine that it works like that? Cause imo that's just terrible and it should be an equal punishment for men or women when all other variables are equal.
Quote from: mauricio on October 05, 2015, 11:32:38 PM
Cause imo that's just terrible and it should be an equal punishment for men or women when all other variables are equal.
Obviously.
Hijiri. Don't instigate people if you don't want them to get mad at you. And you can't be mad at someone for calling you an asswipe or moron after you call them a moron.
So don't get mad at APA because he called you a name that you called him first and added one of his own. Don't want to say you had it coming, but... you kinda had it coming.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on October 05, 2015, 11:38:35 PM
Hijiri. Don't instigate people if you don't want them to get mad at you. And you can't be mad at someone for calling you an asswipe or moron after you call them a moron.
So don't get mad at APA because he called you a name that you called him first and added one of his own. Don't want to say you had it coming, but... you kinda had it coming.
I fail to see how calling someone out on their bullshit is instigating. He defended a pedophile by saying, "Well, the boy can't get preggers, hur hur hur," as if that makes a child rapist getting NO SENTENCE AT ALL any better. If you're really going to tell me to just let that go, you need to be kicked off the moderator team, because Child-fuckers and anyone who defends are unforgivable monsters.
Secretly a Warsie.
Lets put all the pedophile strings in Enter The Darkness where they belong, puuuleeeze.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on October 05, 2015, 11:38:35 PM
Hijiri. Don't instigate people if you don't want them to get mad at you. And you can't be mad at someone for calling you an asswipe or moron after you call them a moron.
So don't get mad at APA because he called you a name that you called him first and added one of his own. Don't want to say you had it coming, but... you kinda had it coming.
They were both flinging shit, I don't see the need to single a side out. I'm agreeing with Hijiri here, but both are shit flingers here.
It's an honored tradition here. I still have my shit catapult from 2009. It's crusty, to say the least.
That being said, let's focus in the thread topic: how does a female rapist deserve more leniency than a male when both absolutely destroyed the sexual autonomy of their victims?
Maybe if you get off your high horse and take a closer look at how you talk to people for once, you would see why I'm talking to you about this and not APA.
You called him a moron first. You started the confrontation. Therefore I am addressing you and not him... even though APA could have held back his insults.
APA wasn't even necessarily siding with the sentence, he was just saying why he thought she got such a lenient one.
Call people out by all means, but chill with the insults. It seems to be too much of your way of talking to people on here.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on October 06, 2015, 12:02:50 AM
They were both flinging shit, I don't see the need to single a side out. I'm agreeing with Hijiri here, but both are shit flingers here.
Yes. They both could have handled it a lot better. I am only adressing hijiri though because he started the direct insults first.
Quote from: Baruch on October 05, 2015, 11:55:28 PM
Lets put all the pedophile strings in Enter The Darkness where they belong, puuuleeeze.
We gave more respect than that to a thread about 9/11 conspiracy theories. It's a current topic of the forum that will go away, but until it does I happen to think there is some merit in it. It's an which ethical and philosophical issue that shouldn't be turned away simply because we feel squicked out by it.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on October 06, 2015, 12:08:20 AM
Yes. They both could have handled it a lot better. I am only adressing hijiri though because he started the direct insults first.
True. But APA continued it. That being said either side could have stopped at any time. In the game of shit flinging no-one wins. That being said my shit flinger is the best. I have the smelliest shit, the stickiest shit. You wish you had my shit to fling.
Anyway. Back on topic
I don't know what to add, because what I was going to say... that the double standards in this is horrendous and disgusting that she got off so easy with that... was already said, more or less
Quote from: PickelledEggs on October 06, 2015, 12:07:08 AM
Maybe if you get off your high horse
I really thought you were better than this, Pickle, but there's no two ways about this and you are really pissing me off right now. He defended a child ducker, and now you're defending him. How about you get off YOUR high horse so that stick has a better chance of sliding out?
Secretly a Warsie.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on October 06, 2015, 12:14:45 AM
True. But APA continued it. That being said either side could have stopped at any time. In the game of shit flinging no-one wins. That being said my shit flinger is the best. I have the smelliest shit, the stickiest shit. You wish you had my shit to fling.
Yes I know. APA could have been a bit more mature and just hit ignore in the first place instead of engaging. I felt that in this situation that the person that "threw the first stone" needed the main addressing.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 06, 2015, 12:16:58 AM
He defended a child ducker, and now you're defending him
Secretly a Warsie.
He is not necessarily defending anyone. He just said what he thought was the reason that she got such a lenient sentence; it doesn't mean he agrees with it. And I am not defending him by addressing you for starting the confrontation. All it means by me addressing you, is that I am addressing you.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on October 05, 2015, 11:07:50 PM
Yeah that makes it so much easier on the kid who was raped. Never mind the fact that arousal isn't necessary for an erection, what if the boy was gay? Fuck, I get mad if I'm grabbed by some woman at the club (straight women get oddly grabby at gay clubs. It's fucking horrid and it needs to be addressed more), if I were actively raped I'd be out for blood.
Forget the fact that I'm not the one being penetrated in that instance. Forget that I can't be impregnated. It's my sexual autonomy that's being violated. What if the woman's rapist had a vasectomy? Why if he was really gentle so she didn't get physically hurt? Does that make it any less horrible? Fuck no.
When people brush off a male's rape by a female like this it's not only fucking bullshit, but it constitutes further victimization.
For reference on this I have been grabbed about 10 times by women in the local gay club. They have grabbed my ass and my crotch without my permission. It's nether cute nor funny, and it makes me feel like my space away from the homophobic bible belt is being invaded by people who think I'm a joke. So if I make any strong statements on this thread in the future: that's why.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on October 06, 2015, 12:25:12 AM
He is not necessarily defending anyone. He just said what he thought was the reason that she got such a lenient sentence. And I am not defending him by addressing you for starting the confrontation. All it means by me addressing you, is that I am addressing you.
She didn't get a lenient sentence, she got no sentence. So either APA didn't read the article, in which case he's a moron, or he honestly thinks that the lack of pregnancy risk adequately supports a suspended sentence... in which case he's a moron. Either way, he's a fucking moron. And you owe me an apology; although I won't hold my breath waiting for it. :lol:
Secretly a Warsie.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 06, 2015, 12:31:36 AM
She didn't get a lenient sentence, she got no sentence. So either APA didn't read the article, in which case he's a moron, or he honestly thinks that the lack of pregnancy risk adequately supports a suspended sentence... in which case he's a moron. Either way, he's a fucking moron. And you owe me an apology; although I won't hold my breath waiting for it. :lol:
Secretly a Warsie.
I owe you an apology.... huh. Interesting.
Lets see. I address you for starting an argument that started off by you calling another member a "moron". Then after you insisting that I am defending someone's views that they probably don't even have, you continue to call them a "fucking moron"... even after I made it clear that that's the thing I am addressing. Even after I made it clear that I'm not even supporting what APA said to you, that he could have and it would have been much better for him to just hit "ignore" instead of reacting to your insult with some of his own, you continued insulting him by calling him a "fucking moron" without him even being in the conversation anymore. And now you think I owe you an apology....
You could have dropped it and calling people names and the attention would have went away from you and back to the main topic. But as the saying goes, "the squeaky wheel gets the oil".
This is a warning. No more personal insults or you get a vacation like Peace did.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 06, 2015, 12:31:36 AM
She didn't get a lenient sentence, she got no sentence. So either APA didn't read the article, in which case he's a moron, or he honestly thinks that the lack of pregnancy risk adequately supports a suspended sentence... in which case he's a moron. Either way, he's a fucking moron. And you owe me an apology; although I won't hold my breath waiting for it. :lol:
Secretly a Warsie.
I understand your reaction because it seemed like he was implying something pretty fucked up and inflammatory, but i rather ask for him to actually state it explicitly before insulting him. Because it is like saying that black people commit more crime on average than white people. I maybe be implying a racist statement along the lines of blacks are more criminal due to their race or simply stating a statistical relation. Anyhow his wording was pretty bad and it seemed like he was indeed making that implication.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 06, 2015, 12:31:36 AM
She didn't get a lenient sentence, she got no sentence. So either APA didn't read the article, in which case he's a moron, or he honestly thinks that the lack of pregnancy risk adequately supports a suspended sentence... in which case he's a moron. Either way, he's a fucking moron. And you owe me an apology; although I won't hold my breath waiting for it. :lol:
Secretly a Warsie.
Not a mod, but stop with the insults.
Apparently it's not the old wild west forum anymore. Even if it is insults are only useful for the idiotic theists who visit.
They being said, you do not necessarily have to be respectful with how you answer. I wss less than so in my initial post in this thread. Just keep the ad hominem to a minimum. I can call the
idea moronic without calling the person that.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on October 06, 2015, 12:59:03 AM
They being said, you do not necessarily have to be respectful with how you answer. I wss less than so in my initial post in this thread. Just keep the ad hominem to a minimum. I can call the idea moronic without calling the person that.
^
This.
Okay, so fortunately my phone died before I dug a deeper hole for myself and... wow, I need to stay far away from the internet when I'm angry, I'm really sorry for that outburst. Deepest apologies to Pickle and APA for letting my anger get the better of me like that.
Wow, the joints a rockin'. Like the good old days. Even got a mod giving warnings. This is more like it.
And don't forget the lawyers. Hers was better than theirs.
It's disgusting. She should have been sentenced to prison.
It's a very god demonstration of the levels of inequality and how the patriarchal system handles genders according to its primitive norms.
I wrote about -roughly- how both genders benefit from these norms a month ago in a post (to dtq); including this in the female column. This is not just something with sex crimes, people mostly notice it with those crimes which is another indicator how does this bullshit actually works and that the system actually is based on biblical understanding alone.
Patriarchal norms define the male gender as the original perpetrator according to his primitive function. Hence he is the potential murderers, rapists...etc. So much that for a long time, they didn't even acknowledge that there would be female psychopaths or serial killers until pretty recent in history.
How does that primitive system work or what is that primitive function ? To provide some order in society which is based on building block called nuclear family: man provides, protects, takes care of -including the clan, the tribe then the country- he is disposable as the last line of protection, because the civilisation depends on survival of women and children from wild animals and other humans. Therefore the male owns the family; women and children.
That picture looks funny and absurd doesn't it? It is funny to most of us -at least to me- because we have very different ways of existences and families don't work that way. Lgbtq families...So on.
However, all the social norms and cultural codes, laws, regulations work based on that principle of the protection of that building block; the nuclear family. There is no other game. As a result gender norms maintain that primitive set of codes even though things changed a lot.
And as that patriarchal system is based on vindictive vicious religious bullshit it has a twisted, corrupted kind of balance. The event in the OP is a result of that perverted balance.
Women do not get the same punishment with men in a lot of examples, because they are not men; not regarded as the standard human. And that is one of the benefits bestowed on them by patriarchal system which defines human with heterosexual men. This is not something about what an individual believes in. It is a main category of human culture. Everything around us from society, every day survival to the state-religion-nation is designed according to that because its functional and beneficial.
II
Another note: If the kid was a girl and the perpetrator was a 20 year old man his life would ruin completely in and after prison. Every body would be outrageous and that doesn't change if we go back decades, centuries, or even thousands of years. Doesn't matter if she is 11 or 17 or something in between.
But just a few decades ago that boy was regarded as just 'got lucky' and 'started very early'. By men. And the age 11 probably causes more sensible outrage, but how about the boys a few years older in the same situation? 15, 16...etc. what is the outcome as opposed to the girls of the same age in the same situation? Completely different.
Why? Because boys are seen as 'legitimate' participants in sexual acts as a result of being male; the standard the standard human norm -the perpetrator according to the patriarchal system- while girls are seen just as 'victims' because they are females as if they are different at age 15 with their raging hormones. Or as if they are even different at all as adults.
Double standard starts in defining the gender norms. It doesn't suddenly pop up when a crime is committed.
When it comes to attributes of male gender celebrated by almost all het men and women that how they are different physically, biologically wired, mechanical: 'natural' consequences of testesteron -bullshit- as opposed to weak females everything is fine, but when that patriarchal bullshit turns around and stabs back with its disgusting perverted sense of balance it is outrageous as if this is some sort of a conspiracy against boys and men. It should make people angry because its double standard starts with at both sides, but not just here with a woman getting away with a crime.
Yeah well, both genders need to learn that they cannot get equal in every sense, keep their bullshit privileges and eat their cake too. (Did I use that phrase correctly?) It doesn't work that way, because system doesn't -cannot- allow that to work and nobody is out of it, doesn't matter which corner of the planet you were born.
Quote from: stromboli on October 06, 2015, 01:55:17 AM
And don't forget the lawyers. Hers was better than theirs.
Yeah. The babysitter's laywer must be some sort of genius with words if she got off so easy.
It's a shame to think about how traumatized the kid might be and the mental repercussions he might face just because it happened... not to mention how his babysitter didn't even have the proper action taken against her.
I am a male, but I have no issue with there being a double standard and with a woman getting less jail time. There is a double standard for a reason. A man abusing a child will usually be much more strong and powerful than a woman abusing a child. There's a good chance the 11 year old boy in this case could have overpowered his abuser. The woman still should have gotten jail time though. Not as much as a man would get, but still jail time. If the woman had raped a 7 year old girl rather than an 11 year old boy, then yeah, give her the jail time that a man would get. In this case though? No. Don't give her the time that a man would get for raping an 11 year old boy. It's just not the same situation.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on October 06, 2015, 11:03:28 AM
I am a male, but I have no issue with there being a double standard and with a woman getting less jail time. There is a double standard for a reason. A man abusing a child will usually be much more strong and powerful than a woman abusing a child. There's a good chance the 11 year old boy in this case could have overpowered his abuser. The woman still should have gotten jail time though. Not as much as a man would get, but still jail time. If the woman had raped a 7 year old girl rather than an 11 year old boy, then yeah, give her the jail time that a man would get. In this case though? No. Don't give her the time that a man would get for raping an 11 year old boy. It's just not the same situation.
There is also the fact of the babysitter being of diminished capacity, apparently. And the father knew the babysitter beforehand and had some sort of affair with her. The question is whether punishment serves to fix a situation or be ultimately damaging to both parties. I'm not judgmental by nature, so it is not my place to put myself in the judge's shoes. The bad part is how it affects the boy. That we will never know.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on October 06, 2015, 11:03:28 AM
I am a male, but I have no issue with there being a double standard and with a woman getting less jail time.
Double standards are not cut out seperate things tbat happens with gender issues. They all have their parallels. And at some point it gets back at everyone one way or another. That's why they're called double standards. In the end someone suffers. Inequality. And in these subjects it is usually a life ruining one.
QuoteThere is a double standard for a reason. A man abusing a child will usually be much more strong and powerful than a woman abusing a child.
This is so wrong, I wouldn't know where to begin with.
You are basically saying,
- males should be punished more severely because they are males
-because they are physically stronger
-because they have penises and having sex by penetrating someone which some how counts as more sexual assault than any other.
QuoteThere's a good chance the 11 year old boy in this case could have overpowered his abuser.
Really? Why because he is a male? Then it would be a different type of news.
QuoteThe woman still should have gotten jail time though.
No kidding. However, not if she was assaulted. Choose one.
QuoteNot as much as a man would get, but still jail time. If the woman had raped a 7 year old girl rather than an 11 year old boy, then yeah, give her the jail time that a man would get. In this case though? No. Don't give her the time that a man would get for raping an 11 year old boy. It's just not the same situation.
How is that you can even say that what sexual assault is what kind of a situation for what victim.
Why you are giving an example of a 7 year old girl being raped by a woman to this case? Being 11 is not child enough? Or being male excludes someone from being a rape victim when raped by a female?
Over all, your post is about the idea that for sexual assault to be rape there sbould be penetration by a penis and perpetrator should be male.
QuoteRoss said Hatt “clearly doesn’t operate at the level of a 20-year-old†and was honest with the police about what had taken place.
I am going to let the judge have a pass. Clearly he saw something that we cannot, with what little info we got.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 06, 2015, 12:24:05 PM
Double standards are not cut out seperate things tbat happens with gender issues. They all have their parallels. And at some point it gets back at everyone one way or another. That's why they're called double standards. In the end someone suffers. Inequality. And in these subjects it is usually a life ruining one.
This is so wrong, I wouldn't know where to begin with.
You are basically saying,
- males should be punished more severely because they are males
Yep. That's right. Men and women are not made equal by Mother Nature. We are different. If a male knocks a woman down, he's going to get more punishment than if a woman knocks another woman down. The man is more of a threat. In my opinion, we shouldn't just ignore that in the interest of fairness. Life is not always fair. Women are better at raising children on average, so they win out most of the time in court cases. Is that fair to men? No, but life is not fair. It isn't realistic to say that a judge is going to look at two parties without any type of bias going into it. How would he decide who to give the kid to most of the time if neither of them had anything bad in their records or looked bad? In my opinion, since women are better at raising kids on average, it makes sense that the woman gets the kid most of the time.
As far as statutory rape goes, I think it should be looked at case by case. I don't know why you claimed I don't think this was rape. I wrote in my post that this woman did rape the 11 year old boy. I like your posts usually, but I don't know why you would think I think rape is ok if I didn't say it. I pointed out that I disagree with the sentencing. I have no problem with the opinion that women should get more time. Give both women and men more time for these kinds of disgusting acts, but don't treat them equally just because.
Does a rape by a woman harm a boy less than a rape by a male harms a girl long term? I'm no expert, but I would think so. For one, the boy is probably not going to be looking over his shoulder, worried his whole life that he's going to be attacked and raped by a woman, or tricked into going somewhere to have sex with a woman. A female rape victim on the other hand, may live most of the rest of her life in terror, not knowing what could happen with so many people around more powerful than her.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on October 06, 2015, 11:03:28 AM
I am a male, but I have no issue with there being a double standard and with a woman getting less jail time. There is a double standard for a reason. A man abusing a child will usually be much more strong and powerful than a woman abusing a child. There's a good chance the 11 year old boy in this case could have overpowered his abuser. The woman still should have gotten jail time though. Not as much as a man would get, but still jail time. If the woman had raped a 7 year old girl rather than an 11 year old boy, then yeah, give her the jail time that a man would get. In this case though? No. Don't give her the time that a man would get for raping an 11 year old boy. It's just not the same situation.
Then you don't understand what a double standard means. It would mean the punishment differs even when all other variables are equal, because you have 2 standards for 2 groups of people.
Obviously the more gruesome rapes should be punished harder. Ideally it should be all in a case by case basis and the gender of the person should not matter, rather the brutality of his act.
Quote from: stromboli on October 06, 2015, 11:16:11 AM
There is also the fact of the babysitter being of diminished capacity, apparently. And the father knew the babysitter beforehand and had some sort of affair with her. The question is whether punishment serves to fix a situation or be ultimately damaging to both parties. I'm not judgmental by nature, so it is not my place to put myself in the judge's shoes. The bad part is how it affects the boy. That we will never know.
Imo justice is not/should not be about punishment but about preventing crime by using any mean necessary: rehabilitation, prison, therapy, and the unfixable should be eliminated (this last one I would not trust to our current justice systems to administer) But this is an ideal. For now we should be consistent with our laws and ethics this woman should have gone to jail if that is consistent with the precedent.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on October 06, 2015, 11:03:28 AM
I am a male, but I have no issue with there being a double standard and with a woman getting less jail time. There is a double standard for a reason. A man abusing a child will usually be much more strong and powerful than a woman abusing a child. There's a good chance the 11 year old boy in this case could have overpowered his abuser. The woman still should have gotten jail time though. Not as much as a man would get, but still jail time. If the woman had raped a 7 year old girl rather than an 11 year old boy, then yeah, give her the jail time that a man would get. In this case though? No. Don't give her the time that a man would get for raping an 11 year old boy. It's just not the same situation.
LMAO! GENDER EQUALITY NEEDED!
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on October 06, 2015, 03:19:57 PM
Yep. That's right. Men and women are not made equal by Mother Nature. We are different.
Quick question: have you ever heard the phrase "justice is blind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice#Blindfold)"?
The law is an ass ... heard of that one too?
She probably had a pretty good lawyer. Remember that teacher who got probation for raping a boy because her lawyer argued she was too pretty to go to prison?
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on October 06, 2015, 07:55:41 PM
She probably had a pretty good lawyer. Remember that teacher who got probation for raping a boy because her lawyer argued she was too pretty to go to prison?
Wait....really?
Shit, I have my defense ready should I ever get arrested.
QuoteRoss said Hatt “clearly doesn’t operate at the level of a 20-year-old†and was honest with the police about what had taken place.
Quote from: aitm on October 06, 2015, 12:45:35 PM
I am going to let the judge have a pass. Clearly he saw something that we cannot, with what little info we got.
I am with aitm on this one. Also I think what also should be taken into account is this happened in Britain, not America and the way the legal systems work can be quite different especially on what factors may be taken into account by a judge the woman's mental ability would be considered a very significant factor in a British court. Cultural differences; British people get shocked when they see the amount of Americans on death row who have 'learning problems' it is not only that many British people disagree with a death penalty, but we presume the mental impairment of the criminal would be taken into far more account than it seems to be in America so this tends to shock liberal brits.
I think I should also mention that the British media have a tendency shall we say to follow a party line. As such the report of the woman only getting a suspended sentence and put on the sex offenders register might well need to be reported as an aberration just to let it be known this is not the usual treatment an offender might expect, rather than a report on justice well served.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on October 06, 2015, 03:19:57 PM
Yep. That's right. Men and women are not made equal by Mother Nature. We are different. If a male knocks a woman down, he's going to get more punishment than if a woman knocks another woman down. The man is more of a threat. In my opinion, we shouldn't just ignore that in the interest of fairness. Life is not always fair. Women are better at raising children on average, so they win out most of the time in court cases. Is that fair to men? No, but life is not fair. It isn't realistic to say that a judge is going to look at two parties without any type of bias going into it. How would he decide who to give the kid to most of the time if neither of them had anything bad in their records or looked bad? In my opinion, since women are better at raising kids on average, it makes sense that the woman gets the kid most of the time.
As far as statutory rape goes, I think it should be looked at case by case. I don't know why you claimed I don't think this was rape. I wrote in my post that this woman did rape the 11 year old boy. I like your posts usually, but I don't know why you would think I think rape is ok if I didn't say it. I pointed out that I disagree with the sentencing. I have no problem with the opinion that women should get more time. Give both women and men more time for these kinds of disgusting acts, but don't treat them equally just because.
Does a rape by a woman harm a boy less than a rape by a male harms a girl long term? I'm no expert, but I would think so. For one, the boy is probably not going to be looking over his shoulder, worried his whole life that he's going to be attacked and raped by a woman, or tricked into going somewhere to have sex with a woman. A female rape victim on the other hand, may live most of the rest of her life in terror, not knowing what could happen with so many people around more powerful than her.
You are in peace with patriarchal norms and the system built on it. You think it works and it is NATURAL.
Couldn't disagree more.
That's it.