Post: #51

(02-18-2017 12:47 AM)puckerman Wrote:  Back in 1879, my great grandfather was 24 and got a 15-year-old girl pregnant. She became my great grandmother. There were 15 kids from 1880 to 1907. They were married for 15 years.

I need to correct that. They were married for over 50 years. It ended when one died.

Post: #52

(02-18-2017 06:37 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 09:12 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 10:24 AM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  A while back, I think in the ROK comment sections on a related article, there was a poster talking about who the majority of the sex offenders are in his area. He apparently worked in the Sheriff's office or some other government agency that handled the registrar. His observation:

The majority of those registered were guys in their '20s who at around age 18 had a gf under the age of 18. These guys were the victims of 'bad breakups' or angry parents (of the girl) with the GF / parents then accusing the men of statutory rape.

So you have guys who's crime was banging a 16 or 17 year old at age 18. So they get to spend the rest of their lives treated as a criminal on the order of someone like Sundusky who liked to butt rape kids.

The law has to be changed to acknowledge a difference between consensual sex between teenagers and the likes of a 40 year old guy drugging and raping say a 12 year old boy or girl. If not, then the law is not just.

Hold it right there. I find this hard to believe.

All statutory rape laws have two parts that are written into it.

The first one generally being age of consent which they set at 18 for most states. The second being a romeo and juliet clause where you have a 4 year buffer so an 18 year old guy can legally have sex with a girl who is 14 or older. Certain states word it differently and the ages differ so definitely check. This is how PA does it.

I believe the poster on ROK to be mistaken. Nowhere in the US is it illegal for an 18 or even 19 year old guy to have sex with a high school girl who is 16 or 17 as the laws are set up to protect against this. I challenge people to find a case like this in the US.

Now, what you will find are officers making arrests of 18,19 year old guys for "corruption of a minor" which can be for pretty much anything if a young girl's parents aren't cool with their minor aged daughter hanging out with an 18+ guy. This is definitely something that happens and sadly a guy in this position needs to respect the wishes of the parents.

I don't have examples for you because this isn't something I track--it's been a long time since I was 18, after all, and I aim for the 20-21 set--but I can tell you the laws vary quite a lot by state. Not all states even have a Romeo and Juliet provision. Mine doesn't. At a glance, it looks like about half of the states in the country have no such provision.

https://legaldictionary.net/romeo-and-juliet-laws/

There's a table at the link showing age of consent and allowable age difference if the partner is below age of consent.

That website is terribly misleading. There isn't any state in the union where it becomes a crime if an child who becomes 18 has sex with a boy/girlfriend who is under the age of 18.

Check Florida, according to that site there isn't a romeo and juliet clause. However the actual law reads:

Quote:Florida Statutes Section 794.05 - Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.
(1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, "sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.

(2) The provisions of this section do not apply to a person 16 or 17 years of age who has had the disabilities of nonage removed under chapter 743.

(3) The victim's prior sexual conduct is not a relevant issue in a prosecution under this section.

(4) If an offense under this section directly results in the victim giving birth to a child, paternity of that child shall be established as described in chapter 742. If it is determined that the offender is the father of the child, the offender must pay child support pursuant to the child support guidelines described in chapter 61.

I just looked over South Carolina and Indiana. Two states that supposedly lack romeo and juliet clauses and they have similarly written exceptions to the rules.

I want to be proven wrong, but I challenge anyone to come up with a state that makes it statutory rape for someone who turns 18 that it becomes a crime for him/her to have sex with someone under 18 and above the age of consent.

Post: #53

So if two underage, same-aged individuals have sex in a state with out a Romeo & Juliet provision... did they both commit a crime?

Post: #54

Puckerman, back in 1879, everyone realized that 15 was an acceptable, though regrettable, age for a fertile filly to start breeding. Mind you, a 15-year-old girl then was probably better wife material than the average 22-year-old woman today.

It boggles the mind to see people performing Quinceaneras, Bat Mitzvahs---heck, even Sweet Sixteens---while pretending that the ceremonies have nothing to do with marriageability.

Post: #55

(02-18-2017 12:48 PM)Delta Wrote:  So if two underage, same-aged individuals have sex in a state with out a Romeo & Juliet provision... did they both commit a crime?

Honestly, this question is meaningless without knowing what state they had sex in and the specific ages of the underage individuals. These details are very important.

For example, let's use South Carolina as an example. Their laws are set up in such a way that if two children under 16 (age of consent) have sex (two 14 y/o for example) they can in fact be charged with statutory rape!

From what i've read, the charge is rare but to answer your question with the added in points yes this can happen.

What i was responding to was the claim that an 18 or even 19 year old man can be charged with statutory rape if he has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. This doesn't appear to be illegal in any state.

Post: #56

"The charge is rare" (for 14-year-olds to be charged with Stat Rape).

My money's on "Charged only when a creepy or otherwise unliked dude does it with a cute White girl."

Justice is NOT blind.

Post: #57

Being a teenager was a long time ago. Before puberty hit, I had no interest in women. When I went through puberty, it was the most horny part of my life where teenagers shouldn't be jailed due to something natural. If you ask me, it's only in force due to fuck up Feminism where older hoes want the attention away from younger women! I believe it was the late 70s that they ban nude pics of under-age. Yes let it be illegal but these long jail sentences more than murder Is bullshit!

Today, a 18 year old Western women looks like a 30 year old Eastern woman hence this age bullshit is a fucking joke in the west! After 18 most women stop acting feminine hence I underage why overage men are looking at underage women today. We don't have real women (feminine) anymore in the west!

If teenagers want to fuck let them and sex text each other which doesn't hurt teenagers if they are in love and consent. Laws are in place to protect the people where these extremes are a fucking joke like OH&S. That's what you get when you give women to much of a voice and the ability to vote and weak beta men running the country!

Post: #58

Agreed that it's only natural. Problem is, they used to have to marry the girl and stay with her for life. Birth control and no-marriage, or no-fault divorce, have ruined the West.

Post: #59

It would not be surprising if those US states where there are Romeo & Juliet provisions suddenly caused a national debate by some feminazi cunt who believes that all men are rapists, while she is on Omegele or Snapchat to message some 8-year-old boy to fuck her in the classroom during recess.

Anyways, the argument was that the 13-year-old girl sent pics of herself in underwear, which shouldn't constitute the treshold for "child pornography" because she wasn't naked, her pussy wasn't showing, her anus wasn't showing, her tits (if she has any) weren't showing (though Slutwalk feminazis claim that "breasts aren't sexual" when they pose naked in front of little children), so other words, the chick wasn't considered "naked" or in a "sexually provocative" position.

Regarding the comparisons of 13-year-old females wearing skimpy ass-cheek showing bikinis in a local swimming pool, you should know that most likely those chicks are dressing like that for Bill Clinton & Jeffrey Epstein on the Lolita Express.

Those hypergamous jailbait 12 to 15-year-old chicks you see dressed in short booty shorts where the pussy crease is exposed, or those butt-showing bikinis are peacocking & advertising themselves to become a "PIZZA" for Bill Clinton or the local Chief of Police, elite class of people.

This is the reason why the same people who enforce bizarre laws to put consenting teens in jail are the ones to travel to Lolita Express island to east some pizza from a 5 or 6-year-old girl. Those elite class of people are above the law.

Why do you think when an elite person like a police officer, doctor or lawyer is accused of sex crimes against minors, the first thing that usually happens is that they get reported to the organization which investigates their own rather than end up in prison, unless it's numerous complaints over a decade of "investigation"? Yet if an 18-year-old receives a sexy pic from his 17-year-old girlfriend with a phat ass, the SWAT team arrives to take him away?

One law for the PIZZA eaters at the Lolita Express, and Draconian laws for the average citizen. When you see these 8 to 15-year-old females dressing scantily at the swimming pool, while claiming that all boys in their class are rapists, they are likely PIZZA for Bill Clinton & Hitler y Clinton to munch on via Lolita Express.

Unfortunately, after being consumed like PIZZA thousands of times by Bill Clinton, when those same 8 to 15-year-old females later turn into adults & enter college, they end up making the campuses in DEFCOCK 1. Way to fucking go Bill Clinton you fucking Pizza eater/sarc.

Post: #60

^^^ Yup. We have a legal system, not a justice system.

Post: #61

Yup @ Hoser...Meanwhile, the feminazi teacher who encourages the abolition of Romeo & Juliet clauses & treating sexting teens worse than someone who kidnapped, raped, dismembered & murdered millions of 0-4 year-old Jewish children under Nazi Germany...Well that feminazi teacher is busy sharing naked pics of herself on Snap-chat or Omegle in a pre-teen chat-room while getting her pussy & asshole fucked by several of her junior elementary students inside the classroom.

Luckily, my Red Pill examples are putting some sense in these 14-16 year-old schoolchicks. Some even tell me how it's unfair that their female teacher can come to class dressed in a low neckline top, but wearing a neutral harmless vest in 90F weather in the summer causes them to be sent home.

Some of these feminazi teachers even scare these school-chicks warning them about the "Dangers of texting/online with male peers", yet feminazi teacher collects phone # & Twitter/Instagram info from the "cute" male students in the high school.

If I were a high school youth today, I would definitely find dirt on those feminazi teachers. Unfortunately these days, when feminazi teachers are taking cock up their asshole from 10-year-old boys in the same building where the area is under extra, tightened security against the "pedophiles, child molesters, drug dealers, pimps, insert any social ill here" it isn't easy to obtain info about these feminazi teachers unless someone in the school complains during a casual event or some shit.

One person I know accidentally parked his car near a high school in Toronto & the cops came & searched his car accusing him of selling drugs to the school community. He claimed that he was parked at least 100 feet away from the school property & that someone in the school called the cops before he even reached that distance because he claim that he saw a cop car parked at a street corner, so him just driving in that area is considered "suspicious".

Point is that instead of lawmakers violating the civil rights of teens under the cause of stopping "pedophiles", they should check their teacher Roster & they might probably find a feminazi teacher who was online last night sending videos of herself sucking a 10-year-old male student's dick to another underage student.

Post: #62

Extra to clarify:

Red Pill examples as in comparing the autocratic nature of the feminazi teacher punishing the younger students while double standard on privilege such as not following dress code, collecting social media info from male students & other double standard. Nothing too 4chan-ish in Language.

It's not the South Park humor I put on here, like describing what these feminazi teachers do to male students after class, to clear the record.

I know how much these feminazi teachers who take cock up their ass are threatened by my direct comparisons here on Roosh V forum, but I don't go around telling people such South Park humor in public, not even in a Roosh V meeting.

Just wanted to make that clear. Last Time I complained about a female feminazi teacher to her workplace on behalf of frustrated students, she tried to send some mangina to hack my email address & probably infect it with something illegal to "report" to the feds.

I'm telling ya...These pedophiles & child molester female feminazi teachers aren't gonna stop fucking underage students. They know the thugs in blue will believe any false accusation from those feminazi teacher.

and that's why feminazi teachers should be treated way harshly than some 18-year-old teen receiving an underwear pic from a 13-year-old chick.

Feminize teachers will falsely accuse shit to save their fucking penetrated asshole.

Post: #63

C'mon RBerkley, tell us what you really think

Post: #64

I guess this shit wouldn't happen in Japan with their used panties vending machines

Post: #65

Hoser, I already ranted plenty on here.

Summarize it really as:

It's not teenage chicks who are supporting these Draconian laws, but sexually depraved feminazis & bitter, old women who want to criminalize high school relationships because they are bitter old feminazi women who want to show their vagina to 5-year-old boys using "Sexual Education" as an excuse.

@ Filbert, even though Japan is categorized as a MGTOW sexless society utopia, in Japan, certain things there are considered decriminalized what would put Western men into jail for victim-less crimes such as that Canadian man who imported a sex doll from Japan, but Canadian police arrested him for "child porn" because the police & certain feminist groups accused the man of importing a sex doll to act on a sexual fantasy of sexual intercourse with an underage child.

In other words, under Canadian law, if a feminazi or police claim that if a man imports a flesh-light from Japan as "sexual intercourse with a child under 16", then it is jail time.

So in other words, if an 18-year-old chick wears a mask depicting 15-year-old Rebecka Black, the man can end up in jail in Canada for "unlawful sexual intercourse with someone depicting a minor under 16/child pornography".

Meanwhile, a feminazi teacher near you is preparing her ass TONIGHT to get raw dogged by that 9-year-old school bully in elementary school who stole your son's lunch money & caused your son to be suspended from school for defending himself from that bully.

Post: #66

I've seen articles about those extraordinarily alarming Japanese dolls. Are men seriously going to jail for ordering one? If so, holy fuck! Jailing men for trying to find a harmless(ish) release for their aberrant impulses, instead of prosecuting those who act out on such impulses, seems counterproductive, at the very fucking least.

Thought crimes are alive and well in the Great White North, it seems. Fucking cucks.

PS: you may infer from my user name that I have some experience with said Cucked White North. I left years ago, thinking I could return any time. Boy, was I wrong. Even if I did return, it wouldn't be the same country. FML.

Post: #67

(02-19-2017 03:21 AM)RBerkley Wrote:  Regarding the comparisons of 13-year-old females wearing skimpy ass-cheek showing bikinis in a local swimming pool, you should know that most likely those chicks are dressing like that for Bill Clinton & Jeffrey Epstein on the Lolita Express.

Those hypergamous jailbait 12 to 15-year-old chicks you see dressed in short booty shorts where the pussy crease is exposed, or those butt-showing bikinis are peacocking & advertising themselves to become a "PIZZA" for Bill Clinton or the local Chief of Police, elite class of people.

I understand most of what you are saying, but not this.
I know they do it, and I know they know what they're doing, but I have a feeling that it's more to do with getting the attention of 16 year old Chad than some pervy old elite grandpa.

Post: #68

Hoser: In Canada, the trad-cons enforced a law which makes even the WRITING of child erotica content the equivalent of kidnapping a 5-year-old child to act in a porn clip criminal offense.

That infamous case about a Professor of Education at the University of Toronto was one example. Though he didn't have sexual intercourse with any child under 16, he was charged & convicted for written child pornography because he was trolling on an incest forum & confided with an undercover cop about a sexual fantasy of a 10-year-old. I'm not defending that person; I'm just using an example.

Or for a less controversial person, one random young man from Hamilton, Ontario sent an undercover cop a text message about the tightness of some 16-year-old chick's pussy he was fucking & he was charged with writing child pornography though the AOC in Canada was 16 at that time.

As much as people don't like Justin Trudeau for his patronizing of feminist culture, he did the unspeakable for any Canadian politician wanting to pander to bitter, old aging man-hating cunts---Trudeau REDUCED the Age of Consent for anal sex which was set at 18 to 16. Trudeau even declared that there needs to be more "equality" to the AOC law. This totally is contrary to the intent of the feminist movement which aims to raise the AOC to billions of light years & beyond under the excuse of "protecting children from dirty old child molesters lurking under the bed".

It was a "Conservative" Canadian government which exercised such thought crime law. People in Canada come to me to complain about the thought police incidents, but I've found out that it was under a "Conservative" Canadian government that very Draconian laws such as "written child pornography", "indecent sharing of personal photos of a woman", Harper's government proposed a bill to criminalize prostitution in 2014, Harper raised the AOC in Canada in 2008, etc.

Trudeau claims that he is a feminist, but he doesn't even pander so much to women other than speaking "I am a feminist" all freaking day. If Trudeau was actually a bitch to those aging, feminazi cunts, he wouldn't have lowered the AOC for anal sex from 18 to 16. He would've raised the AOC to the value of 1.00 US$ to Zimbabwe currency in 2008.

Canadian politics are Lefty to the core, but Trudeau isn't as "war on men" compared to Harper.

Feminazis in Canada succeeded massively under Harper's government than in Trudeau's government. It's probably because Trudeau panders to immigrants whose culture don't like Anglo-Canadian feminism, along with the fact that Trudeau grew up in Quebec, more sexually liberal and less Anglo Puritan.

"Conservative" Harper government pandered more to enact pro-feminize laws than Trudeau. Even in Lefty Montreal, they aren't that "There are child molesters inside the head of every client of adult prostitution lurking under your child's bed to fuck them in their sleep" hysteria like the "Conservative" Harper government.

Tex Cruise: Donald Trump probably told me to input that paragraph :-p but nowadays, a child is more likely to be fucked by someone in a position of professional authority such as a teacher, doctor, politician, social worker, etc than by "Stranger Danger". That was the point I was trying to come across, but sounded like a Republican campaigning against Bill Clinton.