Young females (below 18) don't realize the power they have

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 11
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
Lets say you are a 17 year old female.  You go into a bar, you meet single guys who are 25 and have like $60K in net worth.  You lie to one of them about your age and say you are 18 when you are 17.  You have sex with them with them thinking you are 18 when you are 17.

You leave.  You tell them by text "I have evidence.  You committed statutory rape.  You have 2 options:
  1. Give me your entire net worth ($60K) by venmo.  I don't want to look at your ugly face and stinky body anymore.  Just venmo me the money.  You have 48 hours to comply.  If you don't, #2 will take into effect:
  2. I turn you into the police for statutory rape where you lose the $60K and your freedom.  Your reputation goes down the toilet.  You will be an outcast from society.  You may kill yourself from societal rejection and homelessness.  I don't care.  You mean nothing to me except an income source that needs to be depleted as quickly as possible and then I move on to the next sucker; the next SIMP.  Girl power!
Option 1 at least lets you keep your freedom.  So what is it going to be?
"

In that situation, the law argues the 17-year-old female is a rape victim while the 25-year-old that got tricked is a predator.

Until the laws regarding age of consent change, this is totally legal and the 17 year old female will face no prosecution.

Young females don't realize the level of legal power they have.  If I was a young female their age, I would be taking advantage of the laws until they get changed.  I'd be rich all from desperate men and blackmail with the law on my side.

If the law gets bumped down to age 16, a 15 year old female can try this.  If the law changes to 15, a 14 year old can do this, and so on and so forth.

If there is a stratified age of consent (16 for people within 2 years of age), this is inconsistent.  Either a 16 year old is mentally competent enough to consent to sex or she isn't.

If you think this is unfair, change the laws.
#2
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,187
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
That was basically Epstein's business model and it apparently worked well for a time.

Fortunately of all the evil 17 year old women very few have the "balls" (aggressive disregard for consequences) to try. Whether or not this is widely gamed out in their minds I do not know, but blackmailing people is not a safe activity. Some people counter-attack. There is reason to believe Epstein's organization fell because of a counter-attack, Bill Gates almost seemed to gloat about it.

Also it's hard to play a victim and have proof at the same time. Outside of the pedo-paranoia at the national level, juries and prosecutors do care about context.

Regardless the law is wrong. Nothing consensual should be called rape. Whether or not it should be allowed is a more complicated subject, but if it is banned it should be under much lighter punishment, carry no "sex offender" etc...
Topic's author
#3
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That was basically Epstein's business model and it apparently worked well for a time.
I wouldn't be Epstein pimping out little girls.  But if I was a 17 year old girl, I might do what can legally be done while it's legal and highly profitable.  17 year old girls aren't sexual predators legally speaking.  I would be self employed if I was a 17 year old girl with this knowledge I think.

Fortunately of all the evil 17 year old women very few have the "balls" (aggressive disregard for consequences) to try. 
That might be true, or they just are unaware of their power while the law has this as reality.


Outside of the pedo-paranoia at the national level, juries and prosecutors do care about context.
The juries are going to represent the consensus of their culture.  If a lot of the culture becomes pro legalized pedophillia once they realized this, the jury will reflect that.  If the culture, once they realize this, advocates that the child is the victim, they jury will reflect that.

Nothing consensual should be called rape. Whether or not it should be allowed is a more complicated subject, but if it is banned it should be under much lighter punishment, carry no "sex offender" etc...
Do you endorse lightening the sentences for pedophillia (which means it might go so far as to legalize pedophillia)?  It's fine if the answer is yes; it turns out there is a lot of support for pedophillia legalization on DART; but be upfront with it if it's what you believe.  But then what is your preferred punishment for pedophillia where the child clams to consent for the sex?
#4
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,187
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
That was basically Epstein's business model and it apparently worked well for a time.
I wouldn't be Epstein pimping out little girls.  But if I was a 17 year old girl, I might do what can legally be done while it's legal and highly profitable.
To be clear, you wouldn't be charged with a crime for the sex, but blackmail is a crime in many jurisdictions. It is often a felony to attempt blackmail even when the blackmail is reporting a 'actual' crime.

The legal code wasn't born yesterday and despite it's many flaws this isn't one of them. Of course minors often get away with things adults can't, but the window of opportunity is very small if you only receive payments for 1-2 years as a minor.


Outside of the pedo-paranoia at the national level, juries and prosecutors do care about context.
The juries are going to represent the consensus of their culture.
It's an uphill battle, but not an unwinnable one; not yet. One of the reasons bars are locations to hit on people is because it would be illegal for minors to be drinking. Most people can see through a fair amount of BS if you focus their attention for longer than 5 minutes (such as in court).


If a lot of the culture becomes pro legalized pedophillia once they realized this, the jury will reflect that.
The question is not whether they support pedophilia but whether they are so blinded by outrage as to recognize the difference between pedophilia and a young woman committing the crime of blackmail.

People high on Alex Jones or who have recently binged law and order SVU would convict a ham sandwich of pedophilia, but they are not the norm. It makes people feel good to express outrage at child rape. It's an easy win for their simple minds. Like bashing Nazis. "Jeez the sky is blue today" never gets push back.

Behind closed doors (like in a jury) and forced to focus for hours, most would be a bit more rational and it only takes one.


Nothing consensual should be called rape. Whether or not it should be allowed is a more complicated subject, but if it is banned it should be under much lighter punishment, carry no "sex offender" etc...
Do you endorse lightening the sentences for pedophillia (which means it might go so far as to legalize pedophillia)?
Pedophilia isn't a crime and shouldn't be a crime as it would be thought crime if it was a crime.

I endorse removing the concept of 'statutory rape', reforming the legal concept of 'informed consent' to a more rational form, and if objective arguments for banning consensual sex for certain age gaps can be made I would say the punishments for that crime should be as light as possible while still being a deterrent.

It's pretty obvious that the 'creepiness' is proportional to the likelihood of foul play (such as bribery, emotional blackmail, and general grooming) which is itself proportional to the age gap and reduced exponentially with absolute increases in age. The punishment should thus be proportional to that provided no specific evidence to the contrary.

i.e. 18 year old + 17 year old = $100 fine, 40 year old + 18 year old = $5000, 60 year old + 16 year old = $1,000,000 sort of thing


be upfront with it if it's what you believe.
Says the pro-pain absolutist... I wasn't convinced by your denial. (lol)
#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,724
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Punishment should be proportional to the crime.

It seems absurd to punish non-violent sexual activities the same as violent ones.

Obviously, if all else is equal in two crimes, crime that includes violence must be punished more than crime that doesnt include violence.
Topic's author
#6
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
To be clear, you wouldn't be charged with a crime for the sex, but blackmail is a crime in many jurisdictions. It is often a felony to attempt blackmail even when the blackmail is reporting a 'actual' crime.
Really?  If someone used blackmail against Osama Bin Laden and decided to turn them into the US military, the US military wouldn't punish them.  Same thing if someone used blackmail on Jeffery Epstein or any pedophile that has sex with kids.

If you want the blackmail to lose it's power, legalize the thing that is giving the blackmail the power because of that thing being illegal (and felonious).

 Of course minors often get away with things adults can't, but the window of opportunity is very small if you only receive payments for 1-2 years as a minor.
The law is the law and should be enforced 100% while it is the law (and I think bad laws should get changed).  If you don't like it, change it.  It's not set in stone.  But the law says the 17 year old female in this situation is the victim, while the 25 year old that got tricked is the predator.

If you don't like the law, change the law (or advocate for the law to be changed).  In this situation, it means either advocating for at least one of the following:

  1. repealing age of consent laws entirely
  2. For women who claim to be 18 or older while 17 or younger and have sex with a 25 year old guy that thinks they are 18 or older to not get treated as a child in that situation (meaning the guy who had sex with her legally wouldn't be liable for child rape, so the 17 year old female loses her blackmail power).

Blackmail for the sake of the law should be 100% legal and if the thing that is being used for blackmail shouldn't be illegal, then the law should change to legalize the thing that is currently illegal.

One of the reasons bars are locations to hit on people is because it would be illegal for minors to be drinking. 
You can really do this anywhere; it doesn't have to be a bar.  An 18 year old passing 17 year old female can literally look like a prostitute and some guy asks her her age, she says 18, she forges a driver's license as "proof", illegal sex happens, and the jury is going to have to decide whether to allow at least some pedophilia or for a deceived guy to face charges for child rape.  Either the law should be upheld 100% of the time on a particular issue or it should be changed.

Most people can see through a fair amount of BS if you focus their attention for longer than 5 minutes (such as in court).
The whole country would know the court case and the whole country's opinion would change at the same rate about as the jury.

The question is not whether they support pedophilia but whether they are so blinded by outrage as to recognize the difference between pedophilia and a young woman committing the crime of blackmail.
The female would be a child legally speaking.  To claim the 25 year old dude should be innocent would be the same as making some exceptions for generic adults having sex with younger people (like if the young person said they are a legal age, and not every 17-18 year old has a driver's license as proof.  Like I knew a 20 year old college kid that didn't have a license; probably the majority of Manhattan's population doesn't have driver's licenses).  There should be an exception made if you want to spare the man in this situation.

Behind closed doors (like in a jury) and forced to focus for hours, most would be a bit more rational and it only takes one.
The jury is going to be part of the public.  With court cases where virtually everybody is going to pick the same side (State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin), we know how the court case will turn out; everyone was against Chavin.  Although if Chavin gets convicted, Qualified immunity should be repealed in that state; because they repealed it for Dereck Chavin.  Otherwise, the standard is inconsistent.  For other cases (Kyle Rittenhouse), the public wasn't as unified, so his fate could have gone either way.

Whether the man in this situation is more like Rittenhouse or Chavin is determined by how the public reacts, and how the public reacts will largely be determined by if they have the parties backing them.

If the democrat and republican media pick the same side, society will follow that side.

If the democrat media sides with the man (criminal justice reform) and the republican media sides with the girl (law and order), the democrats (and the democratic leaning "independents") will follow their party.  The same will be true for the republicans (and the republican leaning "independents").

If the democrat media sides with the woman (feminism) and the republican media sides with the man (Men's rights activism), the democrats (and the democratic leaning "independents") will follow their party.  The same will be true for the republicans (and the republican leaning "independents").

I don't know which party would pick what side, but I am fairly confident that I would pick the Man's side no matter which party backs which side (unless both parties pick the woman's side, then I will kind of have to keep those opinions to myself).  I support an unconditional age of consent at 16; if a 16 year old can consent to sex with a 17 year old (the law in most US states), they are mentally capable enough to consent to sex with anyone of any age.

Pedophilia isn't a crime
Acting on pedophillia is a crime.  You can prefer it to not be a crime.  But it would be like a pro choice Texan saying abortion isn't a crime in her state.  It is a crime in Texas, and it would be more accurate if you said, "Abortion is a crime in Texas, but it shouldn't be" if it's what you believe.

You would say, "Pedophillia is a crime, but it shouldn't be" if it's what you believe.

be upfront with it if it's what you believe.
Says the pro-pain absolutist... I wasn't convinced by your denial. (lol)
Why?  How is all of the bullet points I mentioned then even arguably an endorsement of pain?
#7
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,251
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
Easy way to end up dead, because on average men are stronger and more aggressive. Their moral inhibitions against killing would be vastly diminished when dealing with a person, perhaps especially a female person, who tried to screw them over like that. And if you leave them a text and a venmo address, then you've left enough information that they may be able to track you down even if you try to keep it anonymous.
And if somehow you get away with it, then you'll have to out yourself in order to accuse them. They probably wouldn't spend all that much time behind bars given the ambiguous circumstances, and afterwards they'd have the rest of their free lives to hunt you down.

If I were a woman, I wouldn't be so dumb as to attempt this.
#8
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,187
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
To be clear, you wouldn't be charged with a crime for the sex, but blackmail is a crime in many jurisdictions. It is often a felony to attempt blackmail even when the blackmail is reporting a 'actual' crime.
Really?  If someone used blackmail against Osama Bin Laden and decided to turn them into the US military, the US military wouldn't punish them. 
Why would you choose judicial grey area? Traditionally the US military doesn't deal with criminal law (besides to regulate itself) at all.

Say it's the cops and someone is turning in a serial killer, whether or not a prosecutor decides to do anything about blackmailing a serial killer, there is no provision in the law which states that blackmail is a crime that requires only innocent victims. In fact I know of several instances where the opposite is true, that is delaying reporting criminal activity for the purposes of blackmail is specifically punished (adding to the punishment of blackmail). People should not be encouraged to do blackmail, especially against criminals because that requires that criminal activity go unreported (in theory) and it motivates people to entrap others into crimes they may not have ever committed (people should never stand to gain by fellow citizens committing crimes).


Same thing if someone used blackmail on Jeffery Epstein or any pedophile that has sex with kids.
Perhaps, but unequal application of the law is one of the major issues in the US and the world right now. Prosecutorial discretion is a violation of the 14th amendment IMO. Failure to prosecute is not proof of legality, something anyone who has ever driven on a highway should be aware of.


The law is the law and should be enforced 100% while it is the law (and I think bad laws should get changed).
I strongly agree.


Blackmail for the sake of the law should be 100% legal
"blackmail for the sake of the law" is an empty set.


The whole country would know the court case and the whole country's opinion would change at the same rate about as the jury.
You are confused about how the media works. Hundreds of rape cases are doubtless going on right now, more than one is inevitably statutory rape (i.e. consenting but they call it rape because #(&$# definitions). Unless a powerful political faction stands to profit these things don't make national news.


Acting on pedophillia is a crime. 
Ctrl-F it. The crime adults who have sex with minors are charged with is "statutory rape" or something of that sort. Of course in people's minds it is about the person, and that's why I think the man would be found not guilty by most juries. They hate pedophiles, not people who were tricked into 'acting like a pedophile'.

They can have empathy for someone (the man in this case) if they can imagine themselves as being victimized in the same way.


be upfront with it if it's what you believe.
Says the pro-pain absolutist... I wasn't convinced by your denial. (lol)
Why?  How is all of the bullet points I mentioned then even arguably an endorsement of pain?
Apparently all it takes is the presumption that I'm anti-pain and then anyone who disagrees with me automatically becomes a pro-pain absolutist until proven otherwise...
Topic's author
#9
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
People should not be encouraged to do blackmail, especially against criminals because that requires that criminal activity go unreported (in theory) and it motivates people to entrap others into crimes they may not have ever committed (people should never stand to gain by fellow citizens committing crimes).
What if the crime was against the person doing the blackmailing though?

Hundreds of rape cases are doubtless going on right now
Those rape cases are always the prosecution claiming there was rape and the defendant either saying there was no sex or that there was only consensual sex.  If the victim is under 18 when the sex happened, legally, it's impossible for it to be consensual.  If there is DNA evidence (which the 17 year old would make sure there was DNA evidence), then there is child rape and the 25 year old would be swindled into losing their money and freedom (all legal).

Unless a powerful political faction stands to profit these things don't make national news.
A hypothetical court case regarding this would make the news just like Keneddy v Lousiana did.

They hate pedophiles, not people who were tricked into 'acting like a pedophile'.
If that's how people would act, change the laws so if you get tricked into committing pedophilia, you can't be prosecuted.

Apparently all it takes is the presumption that I'm anti-pain and then anyone who disagrees with me automatically becomes a pro-pain absolutist until proven otherwise...
I didn't presume that.  You are a libertarian I would presume.

But if you insist I'm something that I'm not, it is what it is.  People have the free speech to call Biden a communist (when he's not, even though a lot of the people who vote for Biden are at least more like Bernie Sanders than they are Biden).
#10
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,187
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
People should not be encouraged to do blackmail, especially against criminals because that requires that criminal activity go unreported (in theory) and it motivates people to entrap others into crimes they may not have ever committed (people should never stand to gain by fellow citizens committing crimes).
What if the crime was against the person doing the blackmailing though?
I don't see how that changes anything.


Unless a powerful political faction stands to profit these things don't make national news.
A hypothetical court case regarding this would make the news just like Keneddy v Lousiana did.
Well there are only two possibilities then: Either no 17 year old has attempted this scam and had their bluff called, or it isn't so newsworthy that either of us know about it after all.


change the laws
You've said that several times. I agree we should change the laws until they are objectively correct, not make exceptions to protect the general public from the consequences of the flaws.

Other than that, there is no point in telling me to change the laws. I would if I could.


I didn't presume that.
Not enough people on here care to go find quotes. You know what you said and so do I.
Topic's author
#11
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well there are only two possibilities then: Either no 17 year old has attempted this scam and had their bluff called, or it isn't so newsworthy that either of us know about it after all.
A lot of this is because females this age:

  1. Aren't creative or greedy enough to think of trying this.
  2. Are worried about parental approval and getting evicted.

I do believe no 17 year old female has tried this scam, but it might become a very big trend at some point that spreads quickly.  In October of 2019, nobody predicted that in 6 months, COVID would spread around, but here we are.

Stonewall riots happened unexpectedly.

A lot can unexpectedly happen.

Other than that, there is no point in telling me to change the laws. I would if I could.
I'm just saying that as a general statement to people that want to make sex with minors illegal even in situations like this.