Male Rape Victim forced to pay Child Support to Rapist.

[Deleted]

You're joking.

No, he didn't specify any age. Obviously it shouldn't be a-okay to have sex with a 5 year old but I don't see the issue when it comes to someone who is in the teen years.

[oxymoronic]

No, he didn't specify any age.

boy is pretty self-explanatory buddy

but yeah i thought i had disturbing thoughts - not on this level tho!

[Speaknoevil]

No, he didn't specify any age.

Young boy would probably range 5-13.

[AeneasBK]

North American Man/Boy Love Association.

Basically, they say that a relationship between a full grown man and a young boy is perfectly fine, as long as there is no coercion..

Wait, this is actually a thing? I thought it stood for North American Marlon Brando Lookalikes Association. <mindblown>

[Deleted]

boy is pretty self-explanatory buddy

but yeah i thought i had disturbing thoughts - not on this level tho!

I call males "boys" or "guys" in most cases when they're under 18. So, no it's not pretty self-explanatory to me.

[Zvinny]

Wait, this is actually a thing? I thought it stood for North American Marlon Brando Lookalikes Association. <mindblown>

i c wut u did thar

Also Mooneye, if you're not on a government watchlist someone is slacking on doing their job.

[endersblade]

North American Man/Boy Love Association.

Basically, they say that a relationship between a full grown man and a young boy is perfectly fine, as long as there is no coercion..

Considering many cultures around the world already do this, I see nothing wrong with it. Although in their situation it may not always be consensual, at least here (from what little I've read up on the subject) NAMBLA requires consent on both sides for it to be ok.

Many of you seem to forget that even within the past 100 years, it was OK for someone 14, 15, 16 to be married and have kids, usually with an adult. It's something humans have been doing for thousands of years. Then suddenly, a...specific, will leave unnamed...group decided it's just ewwy gross and against their beliefs to be doing things with young, innocent kids who are completely innocent and don't know anything about sex, because they're innocent, you know? So somehow this got ingrained in our society, and now everyone gets up in arms if, even if 17 and almost 18, someone does something naughty with someone under the age of 18. Because 18 has suddenly become this magic number that turns kids into adults, even though, again, not more than 100 years ago people under the age of 18 were having families and holding jobs, contributing to their society.

[Deleted]

Oh, so you're a pedophile.

Okay.

Refl, no. I've pretty much only had sex with people my age or older, mostly older with a few exceptions where it's been a few years younger, last one when I was 23.

[WarFalcon1]

How would such a law protect me if it would hurt me and my friend?

The law protects kids by realizing the VAST majority of kids are not mentally prepared to deal with the consequences of sex. Now, mental maturity varies sure. But laws need definition. And 14 was the settled upon age for this law. I break laws here and there. And guess what, if I get caught then its my own damn fault and I should know better. Just like the adult in this case. She broke the law, and is now being REWARDED for doing so, which means the system is broken somewhere.

[Lora]

For some reason, I imagine this happens less often than false rape accusations(which are rare). I mean, they both happen, sure, but is it really something we need an advocacy group for?

An advocacy for male rape victims? Yes, we fucking do. Males get raped just like females do. This case is completely fucked up and he should not HAVE to pay shit to this horrible fucking bitch that raped him.

[fps90]

a...specific, will leave unnamed...group

Rational people?

[Deleted]

Should be judged on a case-to-case basis.

well, the thing with the law is, there can not be "case to case basis" because then the law would be fucking unfair, corrupt and impractical. we work with clearly defined rules and precedence cases. the judge it not the person who literally decides if something is right or wrong, he is the one that has to represent the law as written as accurately as possible and make a judgement based on that. there can be no case to case basis in a court of law.

[Speaknoevil]

Considering many cultures around the world already do this, I see nothing wrong with it. Although in their situation it may not always be consensual, at least here (from what little I've read up on the subject) NAMBLA requires consent on both sides for it to be ok.

Many of you seem to forget that even within the past 100 years, it was OK for someone 14, 15, 16 to be married and have kids, usually with an adult. It's something humans have been doing for thousands of years. Then suddenly, a...specific, will leave unnamed...group decided it's just ewwy gross and against their beliefs to be doing things with young, innocent kids who are completely innocent and don't know anything about sex, because they're innocent, you know? So somehow this got ingrained in our society, and now everyone gets up in arms if, even if 17 and almost 18, someone does something naughty with someone under the age of 18. Because 18 has suddenly become this magic number that turns kids into adults, even though, again, not more than 100 years ago people under the age of 18 were having families and holding jobs, contributing to their society.

You're being absurd. Puritanism isn't the source of age of consent legislation, it's about psychological development. It's not a magic number, it is an average, to protect the most amount of people.

[Zvinny]

Considering many cultures around the world already do this, I see nothing wrong with it. Although in their situation it may not always be consensual, at least here (from what little I've read up on the subject) NAMBLA requires consent on both sides for it to be ok.

Many of you seem to forget that even within the past 100 years, it was OK for someone 14, 15, 16 to be married and have kids, usually with an adult. It's something humans have been doing for thousands of years. Then suddenly, a...specific, will leave unnamed...group decided it's just ewwy gross and against their beliefs to be doing things with young, innocent kids who are completely innocent and don't know anything about sex, because they're innocent, you know? So somehow this got ingrained in our society, and now everyone gets up in arms if, even if 17 and almost 18, someone does something naughty with someone under the age of 18. Because 18 has suddenly become this magic number that turns kids into adults, even though, again, not more than 100 years ago people under the age of 18 were having families and holding jobs, contributing to their society.

So since it was right and accepted for thousands of years, it must be true and good. Thats a horrific world you want to live in.

[Deleted]

well, the thing with the law is, there can not be "case to case basis" because then the law would be fucking unfair, corrupt and impractical. we work with clearly defined rules and precedence cases. the judge it not the person who literally decides if something is right or wrong, he is the one that has to represent the law as written as accurately as possible and make a judgement based on that. there can be no case to case basis in a court of law.

Yeah, because getting convicted because you got the wrong judge when another would have freed you is the way to go.

[fps90]

Refl, no. I've pretty much only had sex with people my age or older, mostly older with a few exceptions where it's been a few years younger, last one when I was 23.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say, no, you've never actually had sex with anyone.

[Symphonic]

Its different because a girl doesn't get a boner. It would be impossible for a woman to rape a man who didn't have a boner, unless she anally raped him somehow.

Someone doesn't know how a woman's body works!

[Deleted]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say, no, you've never actually had sex with anyone.

Yes, I have, actually.

[AeneasBK]

well, the thing with the law is, there can not be "case to case basis" because then the law would be fucking unfair, corrupt and impractical. we work with clearly defined rules and precedence cases. the judge it not the person who literally decides if something is right or wrong, he is the one that has to represent the law as written as accurately as possible and make a judgement based on that. there can be no case to case basis in a court of law.

The judge doesn't determine guilt. He passes sentences, that is where the case-by-case aspect comes in. 2 people can be guilty of the same crime but due to the circumstances receive different sentences. I think thats why they have "bands" with set limitations on minimum and maximum you can receive.

- - - Updated - - -

i c wut u did thar

But seriously (becaues like fuck am I googling it ) is NAMBLA a real thing?? When I watched that 10 or so years ago I thought it was a farcical construction made up for making a point.

<shudders>

[Zvinny]

The judge doesn't determine guilt. He passes sentences, that is where the case-by-case aspect comes in. 2 people can be guilty of the same crime but due to the circumstances receive different sentences. I think thats why they have "bands" with set limitations on minimum and maximum you can receive.

- - - Updated - - -



But seriously (becaues like fuck am I googling it ) is NAMBLA a real thing?? When I watched that 10 or so years ago I thought it was a farcical construction made up for making a point.

<shudders>

No, NAMBLA is a very real organization.