Gonna need a ruling on this. In my day, this would be a unanimous "not guilty" (non-hideous woman guides willing young boy into manhood), but I'm seeing a surprising number of "Guilty!" calls (women are evil sexual predators when they nail post-pubescent teens, too) nowadays:
Gonna need a ruling on this. In my day, this would be a unanimous "not guilty" (non-hideous woman guides willing young boy into manhood), but I'm seeing a surprising number of "Guilty!" calls (women are evil sexual predators when they nail post-pubescent teens, too) nowadays:
Gonna need a ruling on this. In my day, this would be a unanimous "not guilty" (non-hideous woman guides willing young boy into manhood), but I'm seeing a surprising number of "Guilty!" calls (women are evil sexual predators when they nail post-pubescent teens, too) nowadays:
Would you be ok if it was a man doing that with young girls? I think the law needs to equal for everyone. Well, except cops, they're above it. Fucking qualified immunity.
This is an area of law where I think this country gets most everything wrong, to the point of even getting some things wrong when they are "right" . And just look to your second sentence to see it in action here. If we're talking "everyone", why are the underage kids excepted? Why is it a crime for, say, an 18 year old, but not a 17 year old, or 16, 15, etc...? Why do we use a high age, like 16, 16, or 18, when kids are hitting puberty at, on average, somewhere between 10 and 11? After all, that age used to be much lower, and more in line with the start of puberty (and early marriage, for that matter)? And why, given the obviously more impactful "penalty" for the underage female (motherhood) than for the underage male (fatherhood), should we be looking for equality here?
I could go on and on about this subject, but I'll just put the broad brush to it by saying that men and women are different, that actual equality is a myth, and that equality before the law has to have context.