I guess all of our former 13 year old straight male selves would have loved to have been raped by her then??
By "raped", you mean "had sex with an adult woman", right? If I substitute that into your reply, your response on how he was harmed seems much less convincing. I think you are relying on a word rather than the facts of what happened in this case. The risk of him impregnating the woman also isn't really putting him in danger either -- not physical danger at least. Threat of STDs is a valid concern, I guess.
THat would be a valid concern regardless of age. Besides, a argument can be made that an adult woman might be more knowledgeable about safe sex practices than another 13 year old girl, so that argument is kinda moot. I really don't know what we are arguing anyways since we all do agree in general, the teacher abused her power which is obviously morally reprehensible.
I'm really confused by your position here? Everything you're saying could similarly be said for an 8 year old, or a 5 year old... assuming there was no "physical" harm. Look, I'm a dude, too, right. I get it. I remember being 13 years old. But the fact is a 13 year old is not emotionally or physically mature enough to be considered capable of consenting to a sexual relationship with a 24 year old. Moreover, there might be harm - physical, mental, or otherwise. I mean, if a 5 year old kid, or 13 year old kid, is tempted into a strangers van and goes on their own accord, then is kidnapped and not found for [x] years, but when found is perfectly "healthy" emotionally and physically and happy and well adjusted and what not... that's still kidnapping right?
Personally, it's not so clear to me that she did anything really wrong, if she had the consent of both the 13 year old and his parents (assuming she wasn't carrying STDs as well). But then, I'm not familiar with the psychological ramifications of a 13 year old having sex with an adult. Maybe it's traumatic in some way.
This argument kinda gets lost upon me. Okay, so he isn't mentally mature enough to make a decision to have sex with a smoking hot 24 year old woman. Can you please explain to me the decision making process where that 13 year old would change his mind at 20 and not have sex with her? All in know is 13 year old version of me and 25 year old version of me would both love to have at the very least a one night stand with her.
The actual definition is what the actual definition is. I guess the medical community can use a different definition if they want. As I noted, there is a difference between randomly seeing someone that you think is attractive (hot, sexy, whatever), and learning that such person is a child and then continuing to have those sexual feelings and activities. Or more succinctly, what Sam noted... yes, thank you. it's pretty cut and dry here.
This has nothing to do with anything. Whether or not he would change his mind or not, or whether or not you would at different ages doesn't change anything.
Okay, here is an experiment for you. Go to the 3 minute mark of the video I posted earlier. Spoiler <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/r80kSTVoPUY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Now, do those giant boobs on that 15 year old suddenly not look sexually appealing to you once you realized that she was 15?
Why? Your premise is that he is being taken advantage of because his low level of maturity and reasoning at his age. But if the same decisions were to be made even with a fully developed adult mind, how is the 13 year old boy being harmed? More than anything, the limelight and press coverage he is receiving is harming him more than the actual sex he had with that lady.
Legally, I think she might have some kind of argument if consent was fully provided by the parents from the get go. And when I say some kind of argument, I mean some kind of argument, but not a winning one. Again, substitute relationship with other things and it doesn't fly. Eg. say the kid wanted to be killed, and his parents were fine with him being killed, and everyone consented... she'd still be tried for and likely convicted of some kind of manslaughter. That aside, in this case, there wasn't full consent from the get go. Rather, there was hiding around from the get go. Texting, going to the parents house when they knew they wouldn't be home, etc. She didn't meet his parents until October, after their relationship started in the summer.
Ok, first of all, this whole thing with the video is really weird. Why am I watching a Japanese anime cartoon with strange dialogue and language? Its more than possible to get your point by just noting that there are 15 year old girls out there that look like they are in their early 20's and have large boobs. Secondly, whether I think they still look sexually appealing after I realize she is 15 years old isn't relevant. What is relevant is my actions thereafter. Do I continue going back to that picture over and over again? Am I wanting more of that, searching the internet for "mature looking" 15 year olds? No, I'm not. Instead I say "wow, fooled me" and move on. No, my premise is that he is not an adult. Moreover, especially at 13, he is not emotionally mature enough to consent to a relationship with a 24 year old. Mind you, this isn't just my premise. This is basically the premise of the majority of the people in America, and frankly the world. Age of consent does differ worldwide, but outside of countries where general human rights issues as a whole aren't up to par with fairness, equality, etc. you're not finding many places where age of consent is 13 and under. I'm not sure why this is a hard concept for you to understand? What she did is illegal. It's pedophilic. And its reprehensible. If the boy isn't emotionally harmed... or physically harmed... GREAT!!! But that's irrelevant to the law, and to right and wrong.
Your entire argument stems from authority and not rationality. Again, without using authority as your argument, if your premise was that the boy is making an haphazardly decision because of the inherent nature of his age but in reality he would make the same exact decision if he were 20(let's be honest here), what harm has been performed besides maybe not concentrating on his homework after class and instead railing an almost 10 on his bed which would be still the case if he was sexually active with a girl of his age. BTW, the video was on the frontpage of reddit. That's how I found it. It's just really hilarious and from left field.
I'm not sure why you continue to make assumptions about the premise of my argument?? I've been pretty clear about the premise of my argument. Which isn't what you're saying, and frankly isn't an argument at all... there's laws in this country and she will be prosecuted accordingly. If you want to continue to go down this rabbit hole, though... as I've noted repeatedly, there can be lots of cases where you can say no harm, no foul. And yes, lots of times that does promote interesting and good conversation, and occasionally real conversation that ultimately supports legislative changes - see mar1juana laws for example. And so, sure, on an individual case by case basis, can we say, MAYBE, no harm no foul here? MAYBE. I've got no clue. I do feel strongly that if it was female kid, male adult, even fewer people would be arguing that, or if it was extremely obese overweight ugly female teacher there'd again be fewer people making that argument. The argument you are making here, principally, is stemming from a basis of her being attractive. Which, given human nature, is probably unavoidable. Moreover, again, we really have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE what harm has been done to the child, if any. Consider he's now the would be parent of an aborted child, for example. And regardless of how you feel about abortion that has an emotional impact. Moreover, again, consider if the situation was reversed, and the child was female, and had the abortion. I feel pretty strongly you and durvasa wouldn't be in here with this narrative. Males obviously can't physically have an abortion, but obviously feel the emotional impact. As a guy strongly believes in the rights (and certainly very very strong opinions) of the father in scenarios where there is an abortion, I can't just gloss over the fact there was an abortion in this case. More generally, we do have these "authoritative" laws in place as a society... and they make sense to have.
How does this argument relate to the premise? Can only 20+ year old females get pregnant? Couldn't he be in the exact same predicament with an unwanted abortion if it was a girl his age?
I did explain in a separate post ... or maybe it was that post. This is just me, so maybe I'm the weirdo in this thread (lol), but when I find out attractive adult looking female is only 15, I stop having sexual thoughts about them, to the extent I might have been before. And I certainly don't keep looking for that stuff. He'd be 20, not 13... so the predicament would be different. 13 year olds don't process the world like adults do. beyond being obvious to those of us old enough to have viewed this from many different angles, its also proven by science. you do get why there are specific sets of laws that are different, applicable, set up differently, etc. for children than adults, right?
I'm not really relying on a word. I think statutory rape is rape. What you're saying to me is I could just as well replace "had sex with an adult woman" with "was forced to have sex against his will" or "was given a date rape drug so he would not resist" and it would mean the same thing. It's not the same thing. If you are not of age to consent, it is real, actual rape. On the other stuff: I see the risk of impregnating someone as a significant risk. In our society, we put most of the burden and decision-making on the female, but becoming a father is a pretty significant life event. It's only slightly less significant than a girl becoming a mother, but even then only because of the way or society devolves responsibility. To make someone a father because he didn't have the wherewithal to make a choice for himself is a pretty despicable thing in my reckoning and I would call it a significant burden to foist on someone even if the burden isn't financial (a big if unto itself).
