@snowy
heehehe helicopter catttttt.

@kavette
Ok don’t take out your lack of following up on David. Why didn’t read you actually read the thing before you jumped to that conclusion?

“And here is where the crowd will come in and tell you that they know someone who was of legal age, was asked for ID once, and got offended and didn’t have sex with the person who asked. It’s the same argument we hear all the time from people who don’t bother to get explicit consent. “If I ask if they want me to have sex with them, they might decide they don’t! And then I won’t get to have sex!”

The number of people who would rather take their chances that they’re raping someone (whether it’s an adult who is capable of consent, but hasn’t given it; or an adolescent who is too young to consent to sex with an adult) than risk not having an orgasm is astounding. Fucking sickening, and astounding.”

All of this. Adult men started hitting on me when I was 9. Yes, I had boobs, but no, there was no way I could have been mistaken for an adult. I know this because when they were doing that thing that creepers do where they try to manipulate young girls into sex by flattering them they would say “oh, come on, there’s no way you’re that young – you look like you’re 13!”. And then they would keep hitting on me.

Men like the ones on Reddit were the bane of my existance from the age of 9 till about 17. I was so incredibly happy when that particular form of sexual attention went away.

The title makes me believe that reddit is somehow to blame or completely overrun by horrid people

No one would suggest that it`s COMPLETELY ovverun with terrible people. Just that it`s almost entirely, or overwhelmingly overrun with horrid people.

Any decent Redditors who even try to counter the racism, misogyny and other phobias and -isms that plague every single Subreddit are quickly downvoted or told off (The female posters are even faced with rape threats! Oh boy!)

Rutee- while there are many states that allow mistake as a possible defense for stautory rape (i.e. the fake ID example), it is not all of them. Garnett v. State (http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/garnett_v_state.htm) involved a 20 year old man with an IQ of 52 (he was about on par with a 11-12 year old in terms of social interation according to testimony of a social worker) who was convicted of second degree statutory rape after having sex with, and impregnating, a 13 year old who had told him that she was 16. Some of their common friends also said that she was 16. In the state Stat. rape was only if the child was under 14, or over 14 and the partner was more than 4 years older. Even though Garnett did not know the age of the girl, and acted reasonably when considering his disability and what he had been told, he was still convicted and must now register as a sex offender.

I only know that case because I have a Crim Law exam next week and have been re-reading my case notes. Want to make it clear that I don’t usually have a command memory of various stat. rape cases.

So, while it is true that there are rarely cases where someone who lacks mens rea can be convicted of statutory rape. But, let’s face it, that isn’t really what the reddit post was talking about. It wasn’t saying that stat. rape laws should be amended to create some type of mens rea. It was lamenting that guys had to wait until girls are of legal age instead of being able to hook up with them as soon as they go through puberty. It is such a weird naracisstic view of the world. Because they might be sexually attracted to the body of a person (accepting the premise that our theorietical 13 year old is actually physically identical to a 18 year old) they should be able to pursue sex with that person without regards to the other person’s maturity or emotional well being. It is the same lack of concern for others that leads to arguments about why it should be okay to have sex with a woman who is too drunk to consent, or emotionally coercing someone into sex via guilt or threats. In all these cases the sexual urges of one person are given priority over any type of concern for the other person. And until society starts making it clear that it is not okay to have sex with someone who is not actively consenting in the act, and who has the faculties to make that decision, then this will continue and it is not good for anyone.

Rutee- while there are many states that allow mistake as a possible defense for stautory rape (i.e. the fake ID example), it is not all of them

Yes, what I said is that it is not ‘usually’ anything, nott hat ignorance is always a defense (However REasonable it may be)

But, let’s face it, that isn’t really what the reddit post was talking about. It wasn’t saying that stat. rape laws should be amended to create some type of mens rea.

When have these idiots ever taken the reasonable position potentially available when there was room to go into full-on jackassery?

How many child porn apologists or outright supporters do there need to be before we can say that there are too many child porn apologists on Reddit? Personally, even a handful is enough for me to avoid a site.

@Cliff Pervocracy – Again, I’m not saying this kind of thing happens all the time. But there exist mature-looking young teenagers- that is, physically mature, not emotionally. They’ll go out to a bar (where, of course, the mangina bouncers will let ‘em in), and later regret their decision.

LOL, what makes the bouncer a mangina? I mean, when in doubt, always quote Whitney, “I wanna see the receipts!” Most stores card anyone who looks under 35 to avoid getting in trouble for selling to minors, maybe you should start taking up the same practice.

Also, glad I have the reverse problem. I’m 26 but still get rejected purchasing alcohol without an ID because I “look like a teenager” to some people still. I mean, jesus, is it that hard to deduce someone’s actual age from simply speaking to them?

Seriously- Reddit hates SRS. The pedo groups, the racist groups, r/beatingwomen and SRS are the dregs.

But the MRAs are the champions of truth, justice, and the American way! Because grown men who taunt a 14 year old who might have just gotten raped are way better than the people who criticise them for doing it.

For 5000 years of recorded history in virtually every diverse culture, it was normal for men to marry girls aged 13 to 16. It’s really only been the last half century or so that men have been vilified for what was considered natural and good since the dawn of time.

The feminist faith simply takes any action or drive a man has and legislates it to be a crime. To imprison men and portray men as evil just make mens natural instincts criminal.

It’s called science, dipshit. They did these little tests that determined the age of consent, tests which were formerly not possible. They also used to burn people at the stake for fear of being witches. There were times in which slavery was acceptable. People used to not be allowed to sit in the same chairs as women. But I mean, they did it back then, why isn’t it ok now?

For thousands of years, women were considered property in many cultures. Then along came evil feminists who made it a crime for a man to treat women like that. What a shame.

Oh wait, that’s actually something NWO believes.

My culture of origin used to burn people alive. Would it be OK if we still did that now? I’m going to vote no on that.

Milkboy probably doesn’t have a problem with that, so long as you don’t do it to white christians.

@Missy: If you’ve been around little kids you’ve probably had the experience where you tell them they can’t grab another kid’s toy/steal something/take an extra piece of cake and their response is “But I want it!” Their moral sense isn’t developed enough that they understand “I want” does not automatically trump all other considerations, like fairness or others’ feelings.

These guys are exactly the same. “But I want it!”

Also, bullshit on the argument that until the mid-1950s, men everywhere routinely married 13-16 year old girls and this was considered ‘natural and good’.

http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/society/family/marriage.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-11-09-delayed-marriage_N.htm

Big Momma, I’m not sure what’s going on…I tried to post and I won’t let me either…. I’ll look into it and see what’s up.

I said usually because I meant usually.

This Article argues that, fueled in part by a misplaced reliance on dicta from the landmark decision of Morissette v. United States, most states have concluded that statutory rape is a strict liability offense.

…In the majority of states, the prosecution bears no burden to prove that defendant knew, or should have known, the victim’s underage status, and consequently, defendant is precluded from mounting the affirmative defense of mistake-of-age to refute the issue of guilt.

The majority of states, either by legislative enactment or court interpretation have rejected defendant’s good faith defense regarding the age of the victim.

From, On Statutory Rape, Strict Liability, And the Public Welfare Offense Model: American University Law Review, Vol. 53, No. 2, 2003. Catherine L. Carpenter

I’m going to sum up some of the supporting citations, because the article is 92 pages (and I encourage the entire piece, because some of the attendant issues related to the ways in which the second order effects of the strict liability standard play out; which has been used by some of the MRAs we see to attempt to sweep away all laws relating to age of consent are worthy of discussion, esp. as one of the reasons for blanket registration of any sexual offender who was over the age of 18 [per the Wetterling Act, which was used to strongarm states into creating registries, even when they wished not to] is that such offenders have, “a guilty mind”, which makes registering them a public good)

In Robinson v. Pennsylvania, 457 U.S. 1101 (1982) the Court refused to hear an appeal based on a mistaken age defense. The US Supreme Court has never accepted request for cert in a statutory rape case based on a mistake of fact. This has been used in Texas, among others, (Johnson v. State, 967 S.W. 848, 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) to affirm the principle of strict liability in statutory rape.

State v. Haywood, Lexis 2545 (Ohio App. 2001) finding that
defendant assumed the risk and noting that “American culture might glorify youthful sex appeal, but is at the same time rife with warnings against sexual conduct with children…Any person contemplating sexual conduct with a child in this age range should be cautious- the existence of statutory rape laws is hardly a secret

Which is a response to the idea that strict liability offenses require the violator to have a reasonable awareness the offense exists. Which is in keeping with the general defintions of the offense. Black’s Law Dictionary says it’s “unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of consent (as defined by statute), regardless of whether it is against that person’s will)”.

Which is what it’s been since the doctrine of statutory rape shows up in the Common Law in the 13th century (back when women ruled the world and wanted to keep men from doing, “what came naturally”*

In State v. Barlow, 630 A.2d 1299 (Vt. 1993). That court said, … the state has long recognised an obligation to protect its children from others, and from themselves

In Commonwealth v. McCutcheon, 748 N.E.2d 489, 493 (Mass. Ct. App. 2001) “Since the law presumes that a person under sixteen is incapable of consenting, the assumption that one who consents to a sexual act would not make a complaint is both inapt and irrelevant.”

I note the use of the word irrelevant. It obviates the question of an active participant, and implies that the victim’s willingness to engage in the act is immaterial.

Which, at law, it is. It doesn’t matter that the victim doesn’t think it was rape State v.
Thorp, 2 P.3d 903 (Or. Ct. App. 1986) As far as I am concerned, Justin didn’t do anything wrong. From the beginning I never thought that these charges should have been made against Justin. I still think that this whole thing is stupid and should have never been pursued. As far as I am concerned, I was never a victim of rape.

Specifically point is People v. Toliver, 270 Cal. App. 2d 492 (1969) [C]onsent can be an element of statutory rape, since a male may reasonably believe that a female is older than 18 and, therefore, can consent to an act of intercourse….

Montana, explicitly, allows for a, “reasonable belief” defense. Wyoming’s disallowance of an affirmative defense is scary: “[I]t is no defense that the actor did not know the victim’s age, or that he reasonably believed that the victim was twelve (12) years or fourteen (14) years of age or older, which implies someone attempted to say, “Yes, I had sex with her, but I thought she was older than 12 (or 14).

Eew.

The way a lot of states handle this is the “age gap” defense, which helps avoid some of the trickier issues of strict liability laws (and the requirement for the offendor to know there was an obligation), which makes it more than mere inadvertence Commonwealth v. Dennis, 784 A.2d 179, 182 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001)

Those systems (see New Jersey, or Alaska) also usually make the severity of the offense, and the subsequent punishment, lesser as the age get higher; sometimes with a range of punishments based on the gap between the offender and the victim.

The real issue, and one that’s harder to address, is that the caselaw we have on the subject is appeals courts. In those cases the issue of mens rea is decided by the language used by legislatures discussing the statutes.

What can be said is that when a prosecution decides to go forward with a case mens rea isn’t (barring those states which allow an affirmative defense) an element of the crime, and saying, “I thoguht she was legal,” or, “She gave willing, and enthusiastic consent,” isn’t an issue. How many prosecutors choose to accept, “I thought she was legal” is a question difficult to resolve.

*that was for NWO

This is totally off-topic but I’m gonna have a go at it anyway: What is wrong with Men Going Their Own Way? How are they any worse than manhating separatist feminists? (Like the butt ugly hairy mary’s @ radfem. And if they aren’t then Futrelle has some explaining to do as to why he targets MGTOW instead) They are simply men who have decided that they don’t want to be with women. I honestly wonder why feminists(and many women in general) feel so threatened by this fringe movement. Is it because they feel that it might gain popularity and threaten their sexual power over men?

Monsieur

Radical feminists are not posting their hate on the spearhead and other mra blogs. mgtow seem to spend their lives on sites that are supposed to be geared to women telling the women how awful they are.

If they didn’t do this no one would be complaining. Because they are doing this they are clearly not just going their own way.

I’m a lot more mainstream then a lot of the posters here, and I think pretty tolerant of others choices in life, and others viewpoints as strange to me as they sometimes are. For instance I spend a great deal of time in Nicaragua where it is very normal to see a young Nica on the arm of middle age or elderly man (occasionally women as well).

Except for the few men who seek the very young (who will end up in a Nica prison, which is the ultimate Karma got you) I’m friendly with these men. I would not choose to take a young man as a lover but that’s me.

I am disgusted my the mra’s and the mgtow simply because they will not stop trying to impose their choices and viewpoints on the rest of the world.

This is totally off-topic

Hey, this is Man Boobz. What is this concept of “on-topic?”

but I’m gonna have a go at it anyway: What is wrong with Men Going Their Own Way?

Other folks have addressed this already, but my two cents is: They go their own way because they’re all butt-hurt that they are expected to treat women as people. Except, of course, that they’d rather hang around on the internet and be bitter and butt-hurt in public instead of Going Galt like they keep threatening to do.

How are they any worse than manhating separatist feminists?

It might have something to do with how many women are sexually assaulted by entitled men (as has been discussed upthread, sometimes at a very young age) vs. the much smaller number of men and boys who are sexually assaulted by women. The former number is so large as to be endemic; the latter so small as to be uncommon.

Also, using the term “manhating” in your sentence reveals your prejudice. Separatist feminists hate men if they say men pose a threat to women? How then are MGOTWs not hating women by categorically stating that no woman is worth spending time with?

(Like the butt ugly hairy mary’s @ radfem.

Way to be classy, there. Puerile insults do not an argument make.

And if they aren’t then Futrelle has some explaining to do as to why he targets MGTOW instead)

Oh, if only there was a Man Boobz mission statement. It would clear up a lot of this confusion. Let’s post it somewhere prominent, like, I dunno, in the page header, or over there under the photo of the child in the sidebar on the right.

They are simply men who have decided that they don’t want to be with women.

Because they think all women are not worth the time or effort. If we swapped out some other group, say, Jewish people, or African Americans, or plumbers, would you agree that such a statement is problematic? Why are women the exception, here?

I honestly wonder why feminists (and many women in general) feel so threatened by this fringe movement. Is it because they feel that it might gain popularity and threaten their sexual power over men?

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Prove that feminists (and many women in general) feel threatened by MGTOW.

Prove that women have sexual power over men. Sure, a lot of men are sexually attracted to women, but does that equal power? Who’s saying men can’t say no? Sure sounds like you are.

Oh, and aren’t you MRAL?

@Falconer: Sexual assault really has nothing to do with entitlement. It has to do with a desire for power and dominance. Men who rape women use sex as tool of aggression. And no, I am not MRAL, an MRA or even a MGOTW. However, you sound like a typical internet mangina.

@cloudiah: My oh my! Such butthurt. PMS much? :-P

@Pecunium: If you still think I’m an aspie poser, the shrink who gave me my diagnosis back in ’91 was Dr Alan Unis. You can google him; assuming you know how to use it. ;-)

Great insult there. For a 5 year old I mean.

I believe that these guys on reddit wouldn’t mind to have sex with underage girls if that was legal. It doesn’t bother them that these girls (even if they have developed bodies) still have a mind of rather a child and are not mentally ready to have sex. And that makes me sick…

And no, I am not MRAL, an MRA or even a MGOTW. However, you sound like a typical internet mangina.

Well, that’s just what MRAL wouldsay!

Associating me with genitals isn’t going to hurt me, because I actually don’t think genitals are dirty or disgusting. However, it does reinforce the idea that women are Less Than because it tells them that being a woman is an insult. So … yeah. Sorry about your lack of sex life.

Sexual assault really has nothing to do with entitlement. It has to do with a desire for power and dominance. Men who rape women use sex as tool of aggression.

The men discussed upthread who made inappropriate comments to or actually laid hands on underage girls have exhibited a massive dose of entitlement along with their aggression.

Just because something is X doesn’t mean it isn’t also about Y. And my statement about entitlement is not defeated.

Try harder.

I think I’m missing some backstory. Why does it matter whether or not M. sans Nom has aspergers?

@Falconer: Sexual assault really has nothing to do with entitlement. It has to do with a desire for power and dominance.

You really think these concepts are mutually exclusive? You’re honestly saying saying that desire for power and dominance is in no way related to feeling you have a right to that which is not yours, such as access to and control over someone else’s body?

Congrats, you’re even more stupid than I thought.

I proposed we designate a nice tropical island for the MGTOWs. One Manboober insisted that we stock it with food and supplies because those brave MGTOWs, who are of the gender who built society and who don’t need women, would quickly starve to death since most of their time would be sitting around on the beach complaining about how awful women are instead of gathering coconuts or some shit.

Hey, OP guys, it might help if you don’t try to judge a girls’ age by her boob size. Just saying.

@Lady Zombie: I hear tell Bikini Atoll doesn’t have any women on it.

But telling all the MGOTWs to go there would be eliminationism, wouldn’t it?

No Shaenon, the radfeminazi’s actually ARE bitter hairy mary’s and come to think of it, MGTOW are the male equivalent. I just think that this blog should try to balance out and give those radfeminazi’s their fare share of belittlement and mockery. ;-)

@Dracula: I actually do think they are mutually exclusive; and especially in the case of forcible rape. “entitlement” is nothing more than social construct. The concept has no meaning outside the social reality and it’s only useful if others actually recognize it. Promulgating that certain people have a sense of entitlement is a guilt trip tactic. Rapists do what they do because they lack empathy for their victims and feel no guilt about their deeds 99% of the time! They do it because they can and because they think that they’ll get away with it. Men who have sex with underage girls are acting on their sexual impulses and hoping they won’t get caught. Sometimes these underage girls even give their explicit permission even though it’s legally meaningless since they’re under the age of consent. And unlike most whiny MRAs who bitch about women having sex with underage boys getting off easy, I personally don’t find that double standard to be a bad thing at all.

Addendum: Maybe I’m too reasonable and moderate for someone on this blog with a dissenting opinion…..*shrug* Perhaps I really do need to TROLL instead. But it’s quite telling that anyone who dares to disagree with the dominate paradigm around here gets branded a “troll” and is “boring” unless they’re actively offensive.

@Nameless Trolling dude: What is wrong with Men Going Their Own Way?

As far as I’m concerned, the only thing wrong is that they come here and endlessly tell us all about GTOW and keep blathering on and demanding validation and cookies and strokes from people, some of whom are women, which means, basically, they ain’t going their own way.

Plus, choosing not to get married not this major radical thing any more–I chose not to get married decades ago. Still not married. Still not giving a damn. Still not demanding perfect strangers validate my position.

I’ve NEVER heard or seen a lesbian separatist demanding that men support their lesbian separatism. If you have, I wanta see it.

And why are radfems ugly, but you don’t make any comment on the physical appearance of MGTOW? Sexist, much?