Remove this Banner Ad

The Law Pedophile Avoids Prison!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rooface
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Nah, she's an Ephebophiliac. If for no other reason than it cheapens and detracts from the very nature of the crime, I hate the way that 'paedophile' gets thrown around in cases like this where no child was involved.
 
She is, thats it. A woman can get away with it easier. The 14 year old boy will be happy.

If it was a man and two girls however.
 
I'd have to see a picture of the sex offender before I express an opinion. Grey area for mine.

Could either be a high-five story for the boys, or result in a lifetime of humiliation. Although if I had to bet on it I'd say the latter, based on the area she comes from.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

bit_pattern said:
Nah, she's an Ephebophiliac. If for no other reason than it cheapens and detracts from the very nature of the crime, I hate the way that 'paedophile' gets thrown around in cases like this where no child was involved.
Click to expand...

My dictionary (oxford) defines an ephebe as being a young man of 18-20 undergoing military training. Not 14. She is a paedophile.
 
Maybe you need a dictionary of sexual ethics?

And maybe hebephilia would be a more appropriate term.

Seriously,though, can you not distinguish between somebody who like ****ing prepubescent children with somebody who ****ed a post-pubescent boy who in most other cultures would be considered a man? The age of consent in this country is sixteen, do you think that somebody havin g sex with a fifteen year old is a paedophile?
 
Judge Mason said Mitchell was brought up in a violent and abusive family and was often afraid to come home from school because she was being sexually abused.

She left home at 14 and later entered a relationship with a man she described as an “animal” who r*ped and assaulted her and kept her hostage for 16 days.

On one occasion he threw a hair dryer in the bath when she was in it.

“You have been very much a victim,” the judge told Mitchell.

“The incident was spontaneous (and) you were acting out of character.”

The judge said her life had been blighted by alcohol abuse, suicide attempts and she suffered head injuries and fits.

The judge said the Crown conceded the case was exceptional because of Mitchell’s background.

He jailed her for two years but suspended the term for two years
Click to expand...

I wonder if these mitigating circumstances were subject to any confirmation. I doubt they would have counted if it were a 41 yo male and a 14 yo female involved.

I'd prefer to see more emphasis placed on the impact on the victim. There is a huge range of maturity and experience amongst 14 year olds. What was the impact on this particular boy?
 
However you spell it, she is a paedophile. Only difference is its easier for her to get away with. If a 41 year old man had sex while drunk with a 17 and 14 year old girl, even with consent, would be off to jail to be r*ped.
 
bit_pattern said:
Nah, she's an Ephebophiliac. If for no other reason than it cheapens and detracts from the very nature of the crime, I hate the way that 'paedophile' gets thrown around in cases like this where no child was involved.
Click to expand...
She has been put on the sex offender register for 15 years so that might be saying she is.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

I dunno, I reckon cheapening the concept of paedophilia is just a tad more egregious than cheapening the concept of racism, it's a far more serious problem, but that's just me I guess...
 
bit_pattern said:
I dunno, I reckon cheapening the concept of paedophilia is just a tad more egregious than cheapening the concept of racism, it's a far more serious problem, but that's just me I guess...
Click to expand...
I see what you mean.

By not charging the 14 year old boy for sex? she just got him drunk? Depends what type of liquor i suppose.

Either way, still a ped.
 
Skirting the issue of it being a female and getting away with what a male in the same situation would get, automatic lock-up.
 
^^ I agree that if it were a man and a girl then there would likely have been a jail term involved. But I still say that bandying around the term paedophile when talking about teenagers cheapens the word which should refer to the heinous crime of sex with children, not young adults.

I don't think it excusable for a 41 y.o to **** a 14 y.o but I don't think it is paedophilia.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Lance Uppercut said:
I understand what BP is saying.

****ing a 14 year isn't cool, particularly when you're more than twice that age, and even more so when you're in a position of power.

But it's magnitudes of orders less worse than ****ing, say, a 7 year old.

Would anyone disagree with this?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't.
The Ped tag for this case for me is also lessened a bit over the fact its a woman having sex with a pubescent boy. The actual sexual act is less disgusting than a man of that age having sex with a girl of that age if ya'll get what I mean.
 
Every country obviously see's it different. According to these experts she is disturbed but escapes being a ped by 1 year-

The focus of pedophilia is sexual activity with a child. Many courts interpret this reference to age to mean children under the age of 18.

Most mental health professionals, however, confine the definition of pedophilia to sexual activity with prepubescent children, who are generally age 13 or younger.

​
http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html
 
Another thing to remember is that being penetrated tends to have far more impact on someone that being the penetrator (I don't think that's a a word). This doesn't make it right, but is a reason that it's less bad than if she'd anally r*ped them with a strap on.
 
Might want to get your computer checked.

Mine say's post 24 is BS testosterone blinded by double standards.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom