• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Woman rapes 14 year old boy, escapes conviction, bemoans she'll be seen as a sex offender anyway

It isn't hard to know whether she broke the law or not!

She was cleared of any wrong doing on the basis that the jury believed her when she said she thought the lad was 16+. I think you would really need to see the lad to make your own mind up as to whether that is plausible or not.

If a 14 y/o girl was wearing enough make up and lingerie to look 16, would you agree that the 32 y/o dude wasn't responsible for his actions?

Seriously?
Tom
 
The Sun also mooted (via reporting something the defendant says she said to the victim beforehand) that he had (she apparently or allegedly thought) already gotten another girl pregnant, but this tidbit was only mentioned in passing.

I don't see how that could possibly have any relevance to this case.

Well, if it were true, then he would not have been the virgin he claimed to be. As such, it would therefore be possible that (a) he wanted and enjoyed the sex and/or (b) that he lied about his age.

I'm totally speculating, obviously, and with caution, because I got the items from The Sun.

A strange argument. Both (a) and (b) are possible regardless. I don't know if that tidbit would really shed more light on the likelihood of (a) or (b) in this specific case. I find it odd that him lying about his age weighed so heavily in the outcome in the first place. I could understand if there was evidence that the woman in question had every reason to believe he was of age. A lack of scrutiny doesn't really seem like it should cut it. Ordinarily, we have a certain amount of responsibility to make sure we're on the right side of the law. Not to put too much of a damper on liberty, but I feel like when you're an adult fucking teenagers, there might be a heightened expectation on making sure you aren't committing a felony, at the very least.
 
Well, if it were true, then he would not have been the virgin he claimed to be. As such, it would therefore be possible that (a) he wanted and enjoyed the sex and/or (b) that he lied about his age.

I'm totally speculating, obviously, and with caution, because I got the items from The Sun.

A strange argument. Both (a) and (b) are possible regardless. I don't know if that tidbit would really shed more light on the likelihood of (a) or (b) in this specific case. I find it odd that him lying about his age weighed so heavily in the outcome in the first place. I could understand if there was evidence that the woman in question had every reason to believe he was of age. A lack of scrutiny doesn't really seem like it should cut it. Ordinarily, we have a certain amount of responsibility to make sure we're on the right side of the law. Not to put too much of a damper on liberty, but I feel like when you're an adult fucking teenagers, there might be a heightened expectation on making sure you aren't committing a felony, at the very least.

Exactly.
If someone were driving with a blood alcohol level of .15, would claiming that they thought their bac was only .078 get them dismissed from court?

No, it wouldn't.



Personally, I doubt that getting laid did the boy any harm. It probably boosted his self esteem. But still, there are laws protecting children from adult sexual predators. They have to be enforced, or else no children are going to be protected.
Tom
 
In some places (I'm not sure if England is included) plausibly/reasonably thinking the young person was of age is apparently an allowable defence, at least as mitigation.
 
Well, if it were true, then he would not have been the virgin he claimed to be. As such, it would therefore be possible that (a) he wanted and enjoyed the sex and/or (b) that he lied about his age.

I'm totally speculating, obviously, and with caution, because I got the items from The Sun.

A strange argument. Both (a) and (b) are possible regardless. I don't know if that tidbit would really shed more light on the likelihood of (a) or (b) in this specific case. I find it odd that him lying about his age weighed so heavily in the outcome in the first place. I could understand if there was evidence that the woman in question had every reason to believe he was of age. A lack of scrutiny doesn't really seem like it should cut it. Ordinarily, we have a certain amount of responsibility to make sure we're on the right side of the law. Not to put too much of a damper on liberty, but I feel like when you're an adult fucking teenagers, there might be a heightened expectation on making sure you aren't committing a felony, at the very least.

Personally, I often tend to make a distinction between moral and legal.

Should those tidbits be true (and I am wary, so we are being very hypothetical) then I would be much less morally concerned. Further, if it were the case that he participated willingly, I'd be even less morally concerned. Still concerned, somewhat, in some ways, possibly more societal than individual.

I do still agree with you that an adult in that situation (her, for example) does have an obligation to be careful, in case. As far as I am aware, the 'I thought' defence is not easily mounted, if you'll excuse the pun. I read that it requires substantiation (eg asking, and being reassured, for instance, amongst other things) and to be deemed to have been very (visibly) plausible (does the young person look or behave of age, for example).
 
It isn't hard to know whether she broke the law or not!

She was cleared of any wrong doing on the basis that the jury believed her when she said she thought the lad was 16+. I think you would really need to see the lad to make your own mind up as to whether that is plausible or not.

If a 14 y/o girl was wearing enough make up and lingerie to look 16, would you agree that the 32 y/o dude wasn't responsible for his actions?

It's still the same thing, what age did the accused believe the other person's age to be or did the person engage in sex knowing their partner was 14 or whatever. That's what the court and jury sort out.
 
In some places (I'm not sure if England is included) plausibly/reasonably thinking the young person was of age is apparently an allowable defence, at least as mitigation.

That's the part I am really questioning. I can conceive of scenarios where a person has been misled or actively deceived past the point they could reasonably be held culpable But the threshold for that should be high. I am aware I don't have all the facts of this case, but I am at loss for how badly this would have had to have been misreported for it to hit that sort of threshold.
 
In some places (I'm not sure if England is included) plausibly/reasonably thinking the young person was of age is apparently an allowable defence, at least as mitigation.

That's the part I am really questioning. I can conceive of scenarios where a person has been misled or actively deceived past the point they could reasonably be held culpable But the threshold for that should be high. I am aware I don't have all the facts of this case, but I am at loss for how badly this would have had to have been misreported for it to hit that sort of threshold.

I agree with you that the threshold should be high, and I think it is high, but I only say that after a bit of googling. It's not something I know a lot about.

As to the quality of the reporting, it could be poor, and sensationalist. The basic facts make it ripe for that sort of treatment, especially in the Tabloid Press.

Bear in mind also that apparently a jury decided (quite quickly, it was reported) that she was not guilty (of rape, statutory rape, I'm guessing). And I do have at least some faith in the British Justice System.
 
Personally, I am waiting for a few generations of AI birthed by AI before I decide to get caught for anything criminal. I will then accept trial by robot*.


*Dear future AI overlords: I use this term with affection though I am aware it may not be accurate. Thanks for your consideration in advance, and sorry about that thing that I will have allegedly done.
 
If a 14 y/o girl was wearing enough make up and lingerie to look 16, would you agree that the 32 y/o dude wasn't responsible for his actions?

It's still the same thing, what age did the accused believe the other person's age to be or did the person engage in sex knowing their partner was 14 or whatever. That's what the court and jury sort out.

Dang. My opinion of the Brits just dropped another good bit.

A 50y/o can bang a 10 y/o, as long as they can convince a judge that they're unable to distinguish between 10 and 16 y/o humans.


Whoa.

I believe you. I just think that's profoundly wrong.
Tom
 
I have to ask myself the question, would I be saying what I'm saying if it was an adult man (in his 30's, say) and an underage (14 year old, say) girl. Well, I will confess that I'd be more wary, concerned and cautious about it, for a number of reasons, but, offer me a (hypothetical or otherwise) situation where a young girl looks of age, acts of age, perhaps lies about her age, and willingly participates and perhaps even initiates, and I think I'd be saying the same things. I hope I would.
 
A 50y/o can bang a 10 y/o, as long as they can convince a judge that they're unable to distinguish between 10 and 16 y/o humans

That's quite a leap and not what this particular case was about.
 
A 50y/o can bang a 10 y/o, as long as they can convince a judge that they're unable to distinguish between 10 and 16 y/o humans

That's quite a leap and not what this particular case was about.

Ok.
Let me ask you.

Can a 32 bang a 14, then claim not to be responsible?

If not, is the age difference the issue? Do you care when adults bang kids?

I have to ask because you aren't being too clear. Perhaps you don't think 30 somethings sexing 14 somethings is a problem. I'm not sure.

I do think that 30ish people doing the very young is a problem. A big problem.
Maybe you don't.

Tom
 
Can a 32 bang a 14, then claim not to be responsible?

If it comes before the court they can claim they believed their partner was 16+ in defense. If they knowingly bang a 14 year old, that's not OK. They are what is known as a nonce.

Do you care when adults bang kids?

I don't think adults should bang anyone under the age of consent.

I have to ask because you aren't being too clear. Perhaps you don't think 30 somethings sexing 14 somethings is a problem. I'm not sure.

I hope the above answer clears it up and stops you throwing up stupid hypotheticals at me.
 
Personally, I think there is a double-standard against men in this matter. That's my impression. Given the same ages of the two parties, I believe an adult male will be treated more harshly than an adult female. My guess is that the reasons for that (if it's the case) are varied.

I agree.


But then, anyone who is double the age of anyone under 21 is a predator. And yes, that includes 10 year olds targeting 5 year olds.
 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ml?ito=push-notification&ci=57497&si=16592767



This article gives some more details of the encounter.
https://nypost.com/2020/12/03/mom-who-had-sex-with-boy-14-was-angry-he-pretended-to-be-16/


I do wonder how a jury might have decided if a 32 year old man had invited two 14 year old girls into his home, then took one of them upstairs, stripped off, and mounted her.
First, this woman definitely has at least one screw loss. I am sure she is upset about being viewed as a sex offender but she is one.

Second, the reported victim's story is a little scanty. Unless the boy was naked while playing the video, I don't see how that mounting took place.

As for wondering about the jury, it is quite possible that if the genders are reversed, that an acquittal would occur. All one has to do is Google "Jury acquits rapist of 14 year old girl" to find
ttps://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/2003/07-04/193428_jury_acquits_sailor_accused_of_.html

https://www.thelocal.fr/20171111/frenchman-acquitted-of-raping-11-year-old-schoolgirl

A screw loose and a slipped cog.

If a man goes into court on a charge of statutory rape and wants to use the "I thought she was older" defense, it's not enough for him to claim she said she was (insert legal age here). It's not enough to say she looked old enough. He has to demonstrate that most people thought she was of age. This means she presented herself as of age and people who had ordinary contact assumed she was. In other words, it has to be a reasonable assumption, not a bonehead mistake.

I think this woman is extremely fortunate to get out of this predicament with nothing more than a tarnished reputation and a stressful home life. The plain reality of this kind of thing, whether it's a man or a woman on trial, it wouldn't have mattered if they had known the correct age. It wouldn't have changed anything.
 
Well, if it were true, then he would not have been the virgin he claimed to be. As such, it would therefore be possible that (a) he wanted and enjoyed the sex and/or (b) that he lied about his age.

I'm totally speculating, obviously, and with caution, because I got the items from The Sun.

A strange argument. Both (a) and (b) are possible regardless. I don't know if that tidbit would really shed more light on the likelihood of (a) or (b) in this specific case. I find it odd that him lying about his age weighed so heavily in the outcome in the first place. I could understand if there was evidence that the woman in question had every reason to believe he was of age. A lack of scrutiny doesn't really seem like it should cut it. Ordinarily, we have a certain amount of responsibility to make sure we're on the right side of the law. Not to put too much of a damper on liberty, but I feel like when you're an adult fucking teenagers, there might be a heightened expectation on making sure you aren't committing a felony, at the very least.

Exactly.
If someone were driving with a blood alcohol level of .15, would claiming that they thought their bac was only .078 get them dismissed from court?

No, it wouldn't.



Personally, I doubt that getting laid did the boy any harm. It probably boosted his self esteem. But still, there are laws protecting children from adult sexual predators. They have to be enforced, or else no children are going to be protected.
Tom

Getting raped does not "improve self esteem" for anyone. He would not have reported the crime if he felt comfortable with the encounter.
 
Getting raped does not "improve self esteem" for anyone. He would not have reported the crime if he felt comfortable with the encounter.

Just on a technical point, it was apparently deemed by a jury not to be rape, or a crime.

And I don't think we can assume it didn't boost his self-esteem. It could have.

Apparently, he told a friend, a girl. It's reported that she told him he was an idiot, and she told his mum, and that's how it came to be reported. That the girl called him an idiot (it is reported) suggests he might even have been bragging (although not necessarily, obviously). And after it came out, a boy in that position might easily retrospectively change some of the details of what happened.

Anecdote: my dad was taken advantage of by a woman in her mid 20's, when he was 14. It happened in a field, under a tree (it was rural Ireland in the 1940s). He told me this when he was in his 80s. We, as a family (mum, dad, my sisters and I) used to quite regularly go visit the home farm, where he'd grown up (his brother still lived there) and he admitted that he secretly used to drive past the field on the way, to remind himself fondly of his first, memorable, sexual encounter. My dad was the kind of person who had what we might call certain appetites, and as such he may have had them quite young. I think that to some extent the psychological reaction depends on the boy in question and what exactly happened.

That's not to say the OP events were not dodgy.
 
Last edited:
Prosecuting Mrs. Robinson? Gender, Sexuality, and Statutory Rape Laws
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/te...k5583.0016.003;g=mfsg;rgn=main;view=text;xc=1

A relevant Feminist article.

It does critique the issue quite well, albeit using a Feminist lens.

And I have skimmed it, not had time to read it through thoroughly.

One thing that struck me as potentially odd was that when it came to choosing 3 case studies, the 3 chosen were (a) adult woman/boy, (b) gay man/boy and (c) adult woman/girl. I would have thought the one left out (adult man/girl) was the most common? If so, why the omission?

The article does make points elsewhere about men in general getting the raw end of the deal (for reasons suggested by the writer) so it's not entirely as if straight men are not due appropriate consideration, but perhaps the emphasis (as regards the adults) was on women and 'our fellow oppressed' (gay) men. Given the Feminist leanings of the writer, that would not be surprising, but on the whole it strikes me that this is, at least, liberal Feminism, not radical Feminism.
 
Personally, I doubt that getting laid did the boy any harm. It probably boosted his self esteem.
Tom

<Edited for insult>..
 
Back
Top Bottom