Total Posts:91|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"Rape Culture"

missbailey8
Posts: 1,888
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 5:49:51 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
After hearing of the Brock Turner incident, I decided to browse the trending tag for it on Tumblr to see how the users would react. To my dismay, they term "rape culture" came up quite a bit when describing the Brock Turner.

This is the definition of rape culture according to Marshall University.

"Rape Culture is an environment in which rape is prevalent and in which sexual violence against women is normalized and excused in the media and popular culture."
https://www.marshall.edu...

Here's another excerpt from a different article.

"Rape culture is a thing. I'm sorry if you bristle at that notion, guys, but it just is. Any time you put the onus on our daughters " don't wear that dress, don't get drunk, don't lead guys on " you're perpetuating it. Any time you make a rape joke, you're perpetuating it.

"And any time you miss an opportunity to educate our sons about the concept of consent " even if you prefer to talk abstinence because you're not comfortable talking about sex, or if you just say something vague that conflates drunkenness and rape " you're perpetuating it."


http://mashable.com...

If you haven't picked up on it yet, I don't believe that America has a rape culture at all. But what do you think about rape culture? Does it exist here in the west? If so, what is your reasoning?
~missbailey8~

Me: What is the weirdest thing I have ever done?
Solon: Agreeing to date me.

Skep: Bailey, you have sardonic written all over your face.
Annie: She has gorgeous written all over her face!

"[M]en are weak. All of us are weak."
-Fatihah

If you ever just want someone to vent, rant, or discuss anything troubling you, my PMs are always open. Have a fabulous day!

The Clown Queen of DDO
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 9:05:52 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
No rape culture and they are aware on some level of their own stupidity on that issue and it is why you never see anybody try to defend it in a debate.

The biggest advocates for the silly SJW topics just keep those topics in the forum, because a debate would force them to realize just how indefensible their positions are.

The second their opponent defines rape culture it is pretty much over.

We do not have a rape culture. Rape is illegal, it is frowned upon, and if you do it ordinarily peaceful people who get the chance may try to murder you. That is the opposite of rape culture
ballpit
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 1:42:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
We do not live in a rape culture, rapists in this country are prosecuted not encouraged and rape is a charge met with charges resembling that of manslaughter or murder. A "Rape Culture" is one like those where women are forced into sex with men and those that rape women are seen as normal people or even heros in some of the more extreme cases. So no america is not a "Rape Culture" no matter how much they may want it to be it is not and most likely will not ever be a true statement. Also just gonna put this out there "If both partners are intoxicated beyond giving consent it can't be rape" - Chloe08.
This user is an Angel and will answer any DDO-related questions to the best of their ability. PM for help, or post in the Welcome Thread.
Before you do anything:
http://www.debate.org......
Welcome Thread:
http://www.debate.org......
New Members Read Me:
http://www.debate.org......
Argument Bingo
http://imgur.com......
I avoid fights with gay people because even when you win you lose. - Wylted
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 1:45:57 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 1:42:08 PM, ballpit wrote:
Also just gonna put this out there "If both partners are intoxicated beyond giving consent it can't be rape" - Chloe08.
Why is that? You can get convicted for getting in a brawl or driving irresponsibly after you drink alcohol; why apply a double standard to sexual crimes? IMO in a just society, minimally, the man should be charged with rape and the woman with sexual assault.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 1:47:39 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 1:45:57 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:42:08 PM, ballpit wrote:
Also just gonna put this out there "If both partners are intoxicated beyond giving consent it can't be rape" - Chloe08.
Why is that? You can get convicted for getting in a brawl or driving irresponsibly after you drink alcohol; why apply a double standard to sexual crimes? IMO in a just society, minimally, the man should be charged with rape and the woman with sexual assault.

Whats wrong with "penalties offsetting", and they both just get out of the courtroom?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ballpit
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 1:50:05 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 1:45:57 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Why is that? You can get convicted for getting in a brawl or driving irresponsibly after you drink alcohol; why apply a double standard to sexual crimes? IMO in a just society, minimally, the man should be charged with rape and the woman with sexual assault.

Why would the man get the heavier charge when both parties are equally at fault. In a just society both genders should be held to the same esteem in court and should hence have the same charge for the same crime; However, how can you say that having sex while intoxicated is a crime in it's own right since technically neither side can decline or approve of the act how does one rule that in a court of law.
This user is an Angel and will answer any DDO-related questions to the best of their ability. PM for help, or post in the Welcome Thread.
Before you do anything:
http://www.debate.org......
Welcome Thread:
http://www.debate.org......
New Members Read Me:
http://www.debate.org......
Argument Bingo
http://imgur.com......
I avoid fights with gay people because even when you win you lose. - Wylted
ballpit
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 1:50:49 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 1:47:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:45:57 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:42:08 PM, ballpit wrote:
Also just gonna put this out there "If both partners are intoxicated beyond giving consent it can't be rape" - Chloe08.
Why is that? You can get convicted for getting in a brawl or driving irresponsibly after you drink alcohol; why apply a double standard to sexual crimes? IMO in a just society, minimally, the man should be charged with rape and the woman with sexual assault.

Whats wrong with "penalties offsetting", and they both just get out of the courtroom?
+1
This user is an Angel and will answer any DDO-related questions to the best of their ability. PM for help, or post in the Welcome Thread.
Before you do anything:
http://www.debate.org......
Welcome Thread:
http://www.debate.org......
New Members Read Me:
http://www.debate.org......
Argument Bingo
http://imgur.com......
I avoid fights with gay people because even when you win you lose. - Wylted
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 1:51:21 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 1:47:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:45:57 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:42:08 PM, ballpit wrote:
Also just gonna put this out there "If both partners are intoxicated beyond giving consent it can't be rape" - Chloe08.
Why is that? You can get convicted for getting in a brawl or driving irresponsibly after you drink alcohol; why apply a double standard to sexual crimes? IMO in a just society, minimally, the man should be charged with rape and the woman with sexual assault.

Whats wrong with "penalties offsetting", and they both just get out of the courtroom?
We can't apply that to violent crimes - why would we apply that to rape?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 1:56:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 5:49:51 AM, missbailey8 wrote:
After hearing of the Brock Turner incident, I decided to browse the trending tag for it on Tumblr to see how the users would react. To my dismay, they term "rape culture" came up quite a bit when describing the Brock Turner.

This is the definition of rape culture according to Marshall University.

"Rape Culture is an environment in which rape is prevalent and in which sexual violence against women is normalized and excused in the media and popular culture."
https://www.marshall.edu...

Here's another excerpt from a different article.

"Rape culture is a thing. I'm sorry if you bristle at that notion, guys, but it just is. Any time you put the onus on our daughters " don't wear that dress, don't get drunk, don't lead guys on " you're perpetuating it. Any time you make a rape joke, you're perpetuating it.

"And any time you miss an opportunity to educate our sons about the concept of consent " even if you prefer to talk abstinence because you're not comfortable talking about sex, or if you just say something vague that conflates drunkenness and rape " you're perpetuating it."


http://mashable.com...

If you haven't picked up on it yet, I don't believe that America has a rape culture at all.

But what do you think about rape culture?
as it is typically invoked...retarded beyond measure.

the second quote illustrates my point perfectly.

is drinking really discouraged due to subconscious victim blaming? not because it's a reasonable precaution?

but because folks will actually think it's their fault then?

really?

yes...they are this stupid.

Does it exist here in the west?
maybe in certain, particular (sub)cultures. it's not a mainstream issue, obviously.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 1:56:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 1:50:05 PM, ballpit wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:45:57 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Why is that? You can get convicted for getting in a brawl or driving irresponsibly after you drink alcohol; why apply a double standard to sexual crimes? IMO in a just society, minimally, the man should be charged with rape and the woman with sexual assault.

Why would the man get the heavier charge when both parties are equally at fault. In a just society both genders should be held to the same esteem in court and should hence have the same charge for the same crime;
Man-on-woman rape is a worse crime than woman-on-man because the woman faces the risk of pregnancy and because, in many cases, the emotional trauma is far greater on the woman than on the man. Moreover, woman-on-man rape is rare, so less of a deterrent effect is needed. (In any case, where I live, woman-on-man rape isn't considered rape - a woman who forces a man to have sex will be charged with sexual assault.)
However, how can you say that having sex while intoxicated is a crime in it's own right since technically neither side can decline or approve of the act how does one rule that in a court of law.
The act itself is having sex without the other party's consent. I really don't see the problem here, if the laws allow for such charges...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
greatkitteh
Posts: 394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 2:01:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Well, we don't live in a rape culture per se in the goverment; Rape is frowned upon by America. A Mexican bragging about raoe in CNN won't fly by either. (although now the media is bs so. . . Maybe it will.)

We're not helping things by liberalizing s*x, but that's indirect and thus not a direct rape culture.
ballpit
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 2:05:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Im just gonna say this right now about the whole idea of rape. Rape is the sexual assault of a "HUMAN" being (Male or Female) without one's consent. So if both parties are physically unable to consent then why would both parties not be charged with rape when technically they did rape the other person involved by definition. Yet again explain to me why this charge should be less on women outside of the reason that feminists provide for everything (They are oppressed and deserve special privileges.) I am not claiming you are a feminists and I am all for equality but I do not see a legitimate reason why women should get a lesser charge for a crime than a man does. It happens in violent crimes already where women get off easier than men do.
http://journalistsresource.org...

Also ignore this stupid statement in the beginning of the article as it has been debunked countless times and I refuse to do so again.
Women often make less money than men working the same jobs. According to the White House, a woman earns an average of 78 cents for each dollar a man makes.
This user is an Angel and will answer any DDO-related questions to the best of their ability. PM for help, or post in the Welcome Thread.
Before you do anything:
http://www.debate.org......
Welcome Thread:
http://www.debate.org......
New Members Read Me:
http://www.debate.org......
Argument Bingo
http://imgur.com......
I avoid fights with gay people because even when you win you lose. - Wylted
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 2:20:32 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 1:51:21 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:47:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:45:57 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:42:08 PM, ballpit wrote:
Also just gonna put this out there "If both partners are intoxicated beyond giving consent it can't be rape" - Chloe08.
Why is that? You can get convicted for getting in a brawl or driving irresponsibly after you drink alcohol; why apply a double standard to sexual crimes? IMO in a just society, minimally, the man should be charged with rape and the woman with sexual assault.

Whats wrong with "penalties offsetting", and they both just get out of the courtroom?
We can't apply that to violent crimes - why would we apply that to rape?

Because other violent crimes have a regular aggressor and a regular offender, in this instance, both are "victims" of a sort.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 2:27:11 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 2:05:56 PM, ballpit wrote:
Im just gonna say this right now about the whole idea of rape. Rape is the sexual assault of a "HUMAN" being (Male or Female) without one's consent. So if both parties are physically unable to consent then why would both parties not be charged with rape when technically they did rape the other person involved by definition.
I was thinking in terms of definition of rape in my own jurisdiction. If women can be charged with rape in your area, then I'd be fine with both being charged with rape as long as the woman receives the lighter sentence, all other factors equal. (If the woman has a previous criminal record or something then perhaps she can face a longer jail term; but ceteris paribus, the man should receive heavier punishment.)
Yet again explain to me why this charge should be less on women outside of the reason that feminists provide for everything (They are oppressed and deserve special privileges.) I am not claiming you are a feminists and I am all for equality but I do not see a legitimate reason why women should get a lesser charge for a crime than a man does. It happens in violent crimes already where women get off easier than men do.
http://journalistsresource.org...
Personally I don't think conclusions can or should be made from statistical data of court rulings alone. There are far too many confounding factors that could potentially affect the rulings (e.g. perhaps women tend to have more mitigating factors, like the fact that they need to take care of kids or cleaner criminal records). If there's anything that needs to be rectified or remedied, it should be on a case-by-case basis, which is done through appeals.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 2:28:53 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 2:20:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:51:21 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:47:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:45:57 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:42:08 PM, ballpit wrote:
Also just gonna put this out there "If both partners are intoxicated beyond giving consent it can't be rape" - Chloe08.
Why is that? You can get convicted for getting in a brawl or driving irresponsibly after you drink alcohol; why apply a double standard to sexual crimes? IMO in a just society, minimally, the man should be charged with rape and the woman with sexual assault.

Whats wrong with "penalties offsetting", and they both just get out of the courtroom?
We can't apply that to violent crimes - why would we apply that to rape?

Because other violent crimes have a regular aggressor and a regular offender, in this instance, both are "victims" of a sort.

I'm thinking of cases where both sides simply get in a fight in public, where it's unclear who's the aggressor.

Or take an example of two underage boys having sex. If they truly seem to be a loving couple (and the judge isn't too conservative), this could be a mitigating factor, but it cannot spare them from jail terms, nor would it be fair or just to do so.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 2:46:43 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 2:28:53 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:20:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:51:21 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:47:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:45:57 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:42:08 PM, ballpit wrote:
Also just gonna put this out there "If both partners are intoxicated beyond giving consent it can't be rape" - Chloe08.
Why is that? You can get convicted for getting in a brawl or driving irresponsibly after you drink alcohol; why apply a double standard to sexual crimes? IMO in a just society, minimally, the man should be charged with rape and the woman with sexual assault.

Whats wrong with "penalties offsetting", and they both just get out of the courtroom?
We can't apply that to violent crimes - why would we apply that to rape?

Because other violent crimes have a regular aggressor and a regular offender, in this instance, both are "victims" of a sort.

I'm thinking of cases where both sides simply get in a fight in public, where it's unclear who's the aggressor.

And both shout "he started it", and with no witnesses to the contrary, how do you determine guilt? They both are guilty of the same thing, so charge both, or charge neither, depending on how interested the pair are in carrying out justice.

Or take an example of two underage boys having sex. If they truly seem to be a loving couple (and the judge isn't too conservative), this could be a mitigating factor, but it cannot spare them from jail terms, nor would it be fair or just to do so.

Just for whom? The purpose of a justice system is to ensure those that are a threat to the public are incarcerated, a victim is given some form of justice, and that the criminal in question has a means of rehabilitiation. What common good is served by jailing them both?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:05:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 2:46:43 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:28:53 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:20:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:51:21 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:47:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:45:57 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:42:08 PM, ballpit wrote:
Also just gonna put this out there "If both partners are intoxicated beyond giving consent it can't be rape" - Chloe08.
Why is that? You can get convicted for getting in a brawl or driving irresponsibly after you drink alcohol; why apply a double standard to sexual crimes? IMO in a just society, minimally, the man should be charged with rape and the woman with sexual assault.

Whats wrong with "penalties offsetting", and they both just get out of the courtroom?
We can't apply that to violent crimes - why would we apply that to rape?

Because other violent crimes have a regular aggressor and a regular offender, in this instance, both are "victims" of a sort.

I'm thinking of cases where both sides simply get in a fight in public, where it's unclear who's the aggressor.

And both shout "he started it", and with no witnesses to the contrary, how do you determine guilt? They both are guilty of the same thing, so charge both, or charge neither, depending on how interested the pair are in carrying out justice.
I don't know about the US, but it doesn't matter how interested the pair are in carrying out justice here; if you fight in public, you get charged. There were two dumb mothers a while ago fighting over some dispute between their children. Before that, there was a case where (IIRC) three brothers got in a fight with an unwelcome guest at their barbecue. In all these cases, they are all arrested and brought to court by the police.
Or take an example of two underage boys having sex. If they truly seem to be a loving couple (and the judge isn't too conservative), this could be a mitigating factor, but it cannot spare them from jail terms, nor would it be fair or just to do so.

Just for whom? The purpose of a justice system is to ensure those that are a threat to the public are incarcerated, a victim is given some form of justice, and that the criminal in question has a means of rehabilitiation. What common good is served by jailing them both?
Rehabilitation. It's not like they'll get in an adult jail anyway; they'll go to a jail for youth or maybe even a youth labour camp, which will be more focused on rehabilitation than adult jails.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:08:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:05:15 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:46:43 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:28:53 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:20:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:51:21 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:47:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:45:57 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:42:08 PM, ballpit wrote:
Also just gonna put this out there "If both partners are intoxicated beyond giving consent it can't be rape" - Chloe08.
Why is that? You can get convicted for getting in a brawl or driving irresponsibly after you drink alcohol; why apply a double standard to sexual crimes? IMO in a just society, minimally, the man should be charged with rape and the woman with sexual assault.

Whats wrong with "penalties offsetting", and they both just get out of the courtroom?
We can't apply that to violent crimes - why would we apply that to rape?

Because other violent crimes have a regular aggressor and a regular offender, in this instance, both are "victims" of a sort.

I'm thinking of cases where both sides simply get in a fight in public, where it's unclear who's the aggressor.

And both shout "he started it", and with no witnesses to the contrary, how do you determine guilt? They both are guilty of the same thing, so charge both, or charge neither, depending on how interested the pair are in carrying out justice.
I don't know about the US, but it doesn't matter how interested the pair are in carrying out justice here; if you fight in public, you get charged. There were two dumb mothers a while ago fighting over some dispute between their children. Before that, there was a case where (IIRC) three brothers got in a fight with an unwelcome guest at their barbecue. In all these cases, they are all arrested and brought to court by the police.
Ok, not really 'brought to court by the police' but you know what I mean...
Or take an example of two underage boys having sex. If they truly seem to be a loving couple (and the judge isn't too conservative), this could be a mitigating factor, but it cannot spare them from jail terms, nor would it be fair or just to do so.

Just for whom? The purpose of a justice system is to ensure those that are a threat to the public are incarcerated, a victim is given some form of justice, and that the criminal in question has a means of rehabilitiation. What common good is served by jailing them both?
Rehabilitation. It's not like they'll get in an adult jail anyway; they'll go to a jail for youth or maybe even a youth labour camp, which will be more focused on rehabilitation than adult jails.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:20:33 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:05:15 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:46:43 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:28:53 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:20:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:51:21 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:47:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:45:57 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:42:08 PM, ballpit wrote:
Also just gonna put this out there "If both partners are intoxicated beyond giving consent it can't be rape" - Chloe08.
Why is that? You can get convicted for getting in a brawl or driving irresponsibly after you drink alcohol; why apply a double standard to sexual crimes? IMO in a just society, minimally, the man should be charged with rape and the woman with sexual assault.

Whats wrong with "penalties offsetting", and they both just get out of the courtroom?
We can't apply that to violent crimes - why would we apply that to rape?

Because other violent crimes have a regular aggressor and a regular offender, in this instance, both are "victims" of a sort.

I'm thinking of cases where both sides simply get in a fight in public, where it's unclear who's the aggressor.

And both shout "he started it", and with no witnesses to the contrary, how do you determine guilt? They both are guilty of the same thing, so charge both, or charge neither, depending on how interested the pair are in carrying out justice.
I don't know about the US, but it doesn't matter how interested the pair are in carrying out justice here; if you fight in public, you get charged. There were two dumb mothers a while ago fighting over some dispute between their children. Before that, there was a case where (IIRC) three brothers got in a fight with an unwelcome guest at their barbecue. In all these cases, they are all arrested and brought to court by the police.

Great, so charge them all, but charge them all with the -same crime-, not lesser variants to certain parties.
Or take an example of two underage boys having sex. If they truly seem to be a loving couple (and the judge isn't too conservative), this could be a mitigating factor, but it cannot spare them from jail terms, nor would it be fair or just to do so.

Just for whom? The purpose of a justice system is to ensure those that are a threat to the public are incarcerated, a victim is given some form of justice, and that the criminal in question has a means of rehabilitiation. What common good is served by jailing them both?
Rehabilitation.

but from what crime?

It's not like they'll get in an adult jail anyway; they'll go to a jail for youth or maybe even a youth labour camp, which will be more focused on rehabilitation than adult jails.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:33:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Rape culture describes all attitudes that defend the sexual assault of women. Stuff like 'Her dress was too provocative,' 'She was asking for it,' and 'She's a whore anyways,' are all aspects of rape culture. Yeah, those things definitely exist in society. Don't really see the logic of denial.
For Mother Russia.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:39:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:33:58 PM, Syko wrote:
Rape culture describes all attitudes that defend the sexual assault of women. Stuff like 'Her dress was too provocative,' 'She was asking for it,' and 'She's a whore anyways,' are all aspects of rape culture. Yeah, those things definitely exist in society. Don't really see the logic of denial.

I have never heard any of those used as a means of justifying rape.

All of those are garners of negative attention, but never defense of the crime.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:46:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:39:31 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:33:58 PM, Syko wrote:
Rape culture describes all attitudes that defend the sexual assault of women. Stuff like 'Her dress was too provocative,' 'She was asking for it,' and 'She's a whore anyways,' are all aspects of rape culture. Yeah, those things definitely exist in society. Don't really see the logic of denial.

I have never heard any of those used as a means of justifying rape.

All of those are garners of negative attention, but never defense of the crime.

Do you live under a rock...?
https://en.wikipedia.org...
For Mother Russia.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:48:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:46:08 PM, Syko wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:39:31 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:33:58 PM, Syko wrote:
Rape culture describes all attitudes that defend the sexual assault of women. Stuff like 'Her dress was too provocative,' 'She was asking for it,' and 'She's a whore anyways,' are all aspects of rape culture. Yeah, those things definitely exist in society. Don't really see the logic of denial.

I have never heard any of those used as a means of justifying rape.

All of those are garners of negative attention, but never defense of the crime.

Do you live under a rock...?
https://en.wikipedia.org...

I am not saying it doesn't happen, I am stating there is not a -culture- of it.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:51:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:20:33 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:05:15 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:46:43 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:28:53 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:20:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:51:21 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:47:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:45:57 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:42:08 PM, ballpit wrote:
Also just gonna put this out there "If both partners are intoxicated beyond giving consent it can't be rape" - Chloe08.
Why is that? You can get convicted for getting in a brawl or driving irresponsibly after you drink alcohol; why apply a double standard to sexual crimes? IMO in a just society, minimally, the man should be charged with rape and the woman with sexual assault.

Whats wrong with "penalties offsetting", and they both just get out of the courtroom?
We can't apply that to violent crimes - why would we apply that to rape?

Because other violent crimes have a regular aggressor and a regular offender, in this instance, both are "victims" of a sort.

I'm thinking of cases where both sides simply get in a fight in public, where it's unclear who's the aggressor.

And both shout "he started it", and with no witnesses to the contrary, how do you determine guilt? They both are guilty of the same thing, so charge both, or charge neither, depending on how interested the pair are in carrying out justice.
I don't know about the US, but it doesn't matter how interested the pair are in carrying out justice here; if you fight in public, you get charged. There were two dumb mothers a while ago fighting over some dispute between their children. Before that, there was a case where (IIRC) three brothers got in a fight with an unwelcome guest at their barbecue. In all these cases, they are all arrested and brought to court by the police.

Great, so charge them all, but charge them all with the -same crime-, not lesser variants to certain parties.
I think it still depends very much on circumstances... If one party decides to gauge the other, obviously this person should serve longer.
Or take an example of two underage boys having sex. If they truly seem to be a loving couple (and the judge isn't too conservative), this could be a mitigating factor, but it cannot spare them from jail terms, nor would it be fair or just to do so.

Just for whom? The purpose of a justice system is to ensure those that are a threat to the public are incarcerated, a victim is given some form of justice, and that the criminal in question has a means of rehabilitiation. What common good is served by jailing them both?
Rehabilitation.

but from what crime?
Uh, sex with an underage person, of course...
It's not like they'll get in an adult jail anyway; they'll go to a jail for youth or maybe even a youth labour camp, which will be more focused on rehabilitation than adult jails.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:52:09 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:51:13 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:20:33 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:05:15 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:46:43 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:28:53 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:20:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:51:21 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:47:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:45:57 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:42:08 PM, ballpit wrote:
Also just gonna put this out there "If both partners are intoxicated beyond giving consent it can't be rape" - Chloe08.
Why is that? You can get convicted for getting in a brawl or driving irresponsibly after you drink alcohol; why apply a double standard to sexual crimes? IMO in a just society, minimally, the man should be charged with rape and the woman with sexual assault.

Whats wrong with "penalties offsetting", and they both just get out of the courtroom?
We can't apply that to violent crimes - why would we apply that to rape?

Because other violent crimes have a regular aggressor and a regular offender, in this instance, both are "victims" of a sort.

I'm thinking of cases where both sides simply get in a fight in public, where it's unclear who's the aggressor.

And both shout "he started it", and with no witnesses to the contrary, how do you determine guilt? They both are guilty of the same thing, so charge both, or charge neither, depending on how interested the pair are in carrying out justice.
I don't know about the US, but it doesn't matter how interested the pair are in carrying out justice here; if you fight in public, you get charged. There were two dumb mothers a while ago fighting over some dispute between their children. Before that, there was a case where (IIRC) three brothers got in a fight with an unwelcome guest at their barbecue. In all these cases, they are all arrested and brought to court by the police.

Great, so charge them all, but charge them all with the -same crime-, not lesser variants to certain parties.
I think it still depends very much on circumstances... If one party decides to gauge the other, obviously this person should serve longer.
Or take an example of two underage boys having sex. If they truly seem to be a loving couple (and the judge isn't too conservative), this could be a mitigating factor, but it cannot spare them from jail terms, nor would it be fair or just to do so.

Just for whom? The purpose of a justice system is to ensure those that are a threat to the public are incarcerated, a victim is given some form of justice, and that the criminal in question has a means of rehabilitiation. What common good is served by jailing them both?
Rehabilitation.

but from what crime?
Uh, sex with an underage person, of course...
Actually it should be sexual assault (we only have a statutory rape charge when the victim is female).
It's not like they'll get in an adult jail anyway; they'll go to a jail for youth or maybe even a youth labour camp, which will be more focused on rehabilitation than adult jails.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:53:07 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:48:13 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:46:08 PM, Syko wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:39:31 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:33:58 PM, Syko wrote:
Rape culture describes all attitudes that defend the sexual assault of women. Stuff like 'Her dress was too provocative,' 'She was asking for it,' and 'She's a whore anyways,' are all aspects of rape culture. Yeah, those things definitely exist in society. Don't really see the logic of denial.

I have never heard any of those used as a means of justifying rape.

All of those are garners of negative attention, but never defense of the crime.

Do you live under a rock...?
https://en.wikipedia.org...


I am not saying it doesn't happen, I am stating there is not a -culture- of it.

rape culture was defined as when the practice of justifying rape is accepted. Rape culture is a problem like any other problem. The first step in dealing with it is accepting that it's there.
For Mother Russia.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:54:05 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:51:13 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:20:33 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:05:15 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:46:43 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:28:53 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:20:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:51:21 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:47:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:45:57 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:42:08 PM, ballpit wrote:
Also just gonna put this out there "If both partners are intoxicated beyond giving consent it can't be rape" - Chloe08.
Why is that? You can get convicted for getting in a brawl or driving irresponsibly after you drink alcohol; why apply a double standard to sexual crimes? IMO in a just society, minimally, the man should be charged with rape and the woman with sexual assault.

Whats wrong with "penalties offsetting", and they both just get out of the courtroom?
We can't apply that to violent crimes - why would we apply that to rape?

Because other violent crimes have a regular aggressor and a regular offender, in this instance, both are "victims" of a sort.

I'm thinking of cases where both sides simply get in a fight in public, where it's unclear who's the aggressor.

And both shout "he started it", and with no witnesses to the contrary, how do you determine guilt? They both are guilty of the same thing, so charge both, or charge neither, depending on how interested the pair are in carrying out justice.
I don't know about the US, but it doesn't matter how interested the pair are in carrying out justice here; if you fight in public, you get charged. There were two dumb mothers a while ago fighting over some dispute between their children. Before that, there was a case where (IIRC) three brothers got in a fight with an unwelcome guest at their barbecue. In all these cases, they are all arrested and brought to court by the police.

Great, so charge them all, but charge them all with the -same crime-, not lesser variants to certain parties.
I think it still depends very much on circumstances... If one party decides to gauge the other, obviously this person should serve longer.
Or take an example of two underage boys having sex. If they truly seem to be a loving couple (and the judge isn't too conservative), this could be a mitigating factor, but it cannot spare them from jail terms, nor would it be fair or just to do so.

Just for whom? The purpose of a justice system is to ensure those that are a threat to the public are incarcerated, a victim is given some form of justice, and that the criminal in question has a means of rehabilitiation. What common good is served by jailing them both?
Rehabilitation.

but from what crime?
Uh, sex with an underage person, of course...

Based on your criteria, do you honestly feel that situation is warranting "rehabilitation", that being its possible the boy(s) in question will have sex with other underage boys?

It's not like they'll get in an adult jail anyway; they'll go to a jail for youth or maybe even a youth labour camp, which will be more focused on rehabilitation than adult jails.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:55:37 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:54:05 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:51:13 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:20:33 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:05:15 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:46:43 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:28:53 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:20:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:51:21 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:47:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:45:57 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:42:08 PM, ballpit wrote:
Also just gonna put this out there "If both partners are intoxicated beyond giving consent it can't be rape" - Chloe08.
Why is that? You can get convicted for getting in a brawl or driving irresponsibly after you drink alcohol; why apply a double standard to sexual crimes? IMO in a just society, minimally, the man should be charged with rape and the woman with sexual assault.

Whats wrong with "penalties offsetting", and they both just get out of the courtroom?
We can't apply that to violent crimes - why would we apply that to rape?

Because other violent crimes have a regular aggressor and a regular offender, in this instance, both are "victims" of a sort.

I'm thinking of cases where both sides simply get in a fight in public, where it's unclear who's the aggressor.

And both shout "he started it", and with no witnesses to the contrary, how do you determine guilt? They both are guilty of the same thing, so charge both, or charge neither, depending on how interested the pair are in carrying out justice.
I don't know about the US, but it doesn't matter how interested the pair are in carrying out justice here; if you fight in public, you get charged. There were two dumb mothers a while ago fighting over some dispute between their children. Before that, there was a case where (IIRC) three brothers got in a fight with an unwelcome guest at their barbecue. In all these cases, they are all arrested and brought to court by the police.

Great, so charge them all, but charge them all with the -same crime-, not lesser variants to certain parties.
I think it still depends very much on circumstances... If one party decides to gauge the other, obviously this person should serve longer.
Or take an example of two underage boys having sex. If they truly seem to be a loving couple (and the judge isn't too conservative), this could be a mitigating factor, but it cannot spare them from jail terms, nor would it be fair or just to do so.

Just for whom? The purpose of a justice system is to ensure those that are a threat to the public are incarcerated, a victim is given some form of justice, and that the criminal in question has a means of rehabilitiation. What common good is served by jailing them both?
Rehabilitation.

but from what crime?
Uh, sex with an underage person, of course...

Based on your criteria, do you honestly feel that situation is warranting "rehabilitation", that being its possible the boy(s) in question will have sex with other underage boys?
Or even each other. If they can get away with having sex with each other once, it's quite possible they'll do it again. We don't want that to happen; we want to change their ways.
It's not like they'll get in an adult jail anyway; they'll go to a jail for youth or maybe even a youth labour camp, which will be more focused on rehabilitation than adult jails.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:56:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:53:07 PM, Syko wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:48:13 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:46:08 PM, Syko wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:39:31 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:33:58 PM, Syko wrote:
Rape culture describes all attitudes that defend the sexual assault of women. Stuff like 'Her dress was too provocative,' 'She was asking for it,' and 'She's a whore anyways,' are all aspects of rape culture. Yeah, those things definitely exist in society. Don't really see the logic of denial.

I have never heard any of those used as a means of justifying rape.

All of those are garners of negative attention, but never defense of the crime.

Do you live under a rock...?
https://en.wikipedia.org...


I am not saying it doesn't happen, I am stating there is not a -culture- of it.

rape culture was defined as when the practice of justifying rape is accepted.

And this "culture" usually stems from, you guessed it, the people that raped in the first place. Its like stating there is a murder culture because people plead not guilty of murder, and seek to find ways to exonerate themselves.

Rape culture is a problem like any other problem. The first step in dealing with it is accepting that it's there.

Mm. Which means then doing what, exactly?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
roun12
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:56:45 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:52:09 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:51:13 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:20:33 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:05:15 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:46:43 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:28:53 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 2:20:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:51:21 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:47:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:45:57 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/9/2016 1:42:08 PM, ballpit wrote:
Also just gonna put this out there "If both partners are intoxicated beyond giving consent it can't be rape" - Chloe08.
Why is that? You can get convicted for getting in a brawl or driving irresponsibly after you drink alcohol; why apply a double standard to sexual crimes? IMO in a just society, minimally, the man should be charged with rape and the woman with sexual assault.

Whats wrong with "penalties offsetting", and they both just get out of the courtroom?
We can't apply that to violent crimes - why would we apply that to rape?

Because other violent crimes have a regular aggressor and a regular offender, in this instance, both are "victims" of a sort.

I'm thinking of cases where both sides simply get in a fight in public, where it's unclear who's the aggressor.

And both shout "he started it", and with no witnesses to the contrary, how do you determine guilt? They both are guilty of the same thing, so charge both, or charge neither, depending on how interested the pair are in carrying out justice.
I don't know about the US, but it doesn't matter how interested the pair are in carrying out justice here; if you fight in public, you get charged. There were two dumb mothers a while ago fighting over some dispute between their children. Before that, there was a case where (IIRC) three brothers got in a fight with an unwelcome guest at their barbecue. In all these cases, they are all arrested and brought to court by the police.

Great, so charge them all, but charge them all with the -same crime-, not lesser variants to certain parties.
I think it still depends very much on circumstances... If one party decides to gauge the other, obviously this person should serve longer.
Or take an example of two underage boys having sex. If they truly seem to be a loving couple (and the judge isn't too conservative), this could be a mitigating factor, but it cannot spare them from jail terms, nor would it be fair or just to do so.

Just for whom? The purpose of a justice system is to ensure those that are a threat to the public are incarcerated, a victim is given some form of justice, and that the criminal in question has a means of rehabilitiation. What common good is served by jailing them both?
Rehabilitation.

but from what crime?
Uh, sex with an underage person, of course...
Actually it should be sexual assault (we only have a statutory rape charge when the victim is female).
....Wait what?
It's not like they'll get in an adult jail anyway; they'll go to a jail for youth or maybe even a youth labour camp, which will be more focused on rehabilitation than adult jails.
"No, I disagree. 'R' is among the most menacing of sounds. That's why they call it MURDER, not Muckduck." - Dwight

"Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." - George Carlin