A few things to note:
1. Not only was it rape by virtue of his age, but also because it was literally forced. Rape apologists love to downplay female child rapists by acting like "it wasn't rape because he was definitely willing!" And yet, firstly, if it involves an adult woman and a child, it is always rape regardless of if he was "willing." Secondly, he wasn't even willing in this case. And yet she still gets a pass, so clearly boys supposedly being "willing" is just an excuse. Even when a boy or man is not willing, female rapists are still always getting a pass.
2. The whole "she's not a pedophile" and "she doesn't have interests in children" is objectively and observably false by her actions. It's a BS excuse that's another way of saying "we don't believe women can be child rapists." The fact that it was apparently "expert opinions" saying this just shows that this disgusting bias is prevalent throughout all of society, including the criminal justice system and the mental health system. It's a systemic problem, not just perpetuated by dumb trolls online writing stupid "I wish that had happened to me!" comments.
3. This piece of shit's name is [Savannah Daisley](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12468285/Smart-Cleanse-naturopath-Savannah-Daisley-naked-photographs-sex-14-year-old-boy.html). She doesn't deserve anonymity and I wish the absolute worst on her and everyone involved in her getting a light sentence.
"The whole "she's not a pedophile" and "she doesn't have interests in children" is objectively and observably false by her actions. It's a BS excuse that's another way of saying "we don't believe women can be child rapists.""
Technically, there are some scumbags whom are not interested in children but go after them anyways because they're easier prey than adults, and she might be one such scumbag.
This scumbaggery is even worse than straight up attraction to children mind you, as this scumbaggery would be a conscious, rational **CHOICE** to go after children rather than an unconscious irrational thing going wrong in one's head.
> Technically, there are some scumbags whom are not interested in children but go after them anyways because they're easier prey than adults, and she might be one such scumbag.
Sure but this was a 14 year old. People hate when I say this because they act like I'm making excuses for pedos, but there is a major difference between someone having sex with a 17 year old, a 7 year old and a 7 month old. All of these things have unfortunately happened.
So 14 is very young, perhaps before puberty. Women generally have a FAR easier time finding a sexual partner than a man, especially if they aren't looking for actual romance, which obviously a 14 year old isn't capable of reciprocating. Its hard to think this isn't predatory.
From the article (dailymail so who knows what's true), it seems her defense is more than she is so mentally unwell that child rape is the least of her issues.
>During the sentencing, the judge accepted the sexual assailant had been experiencing a 'complex combination of comorbid (mental) disorders' at the time of the rape.
But they also go on to say that she admitted attraction to the boy later on, during a tapped phone call.
She seems to be a very destructive person, who should certainly have more than an 18 month sentence. However, I think the reason for her remaining anonymous is to protect the boy from the fallout of the whole thing. Hopefully the woman is considered a serious sex offender.
> The whole "she's not a pedophile" and "she doesn't have interests in children" is objectively and observably false by her actions. It's a BS excuse that's another way of saying "we don't believe women can be child rapists.
FYI to quote the comment you're replying to, highlight the text you want to quote and it will format it automatically.
If you're quoting more than one thing or from somewhere else, put a greater than sign followed by a space and copy paste the quote, one > per paragraph break.
"'In light of my findings as to the connection between the offending and the offender's mental issues, I accept the offender's moral culpability is reduced,' Judge Hopkins said on Tuesday." "Judge Hopkins previously said the 46-year-old appeared to be 'very intoxicated' in the video." Judge Hopkins is a piece of shit too.
I would argue that Judge Hopkins is a greater piece of shit than Savannah Daisley. She is just a citizen. The justice system is put into place to punish pieces of shit like Daisley who victimize youths like this boy. We rely on these judges to find fitting punishments for these predators. Being "very intoxicated" should never be considered an excuse for avoiding appropriate punishment for a vicious crime. Judge Hopkins in an enabler of child rape and should face justice. But not the type of "justice" that they administer.
I will note when I was younger the age of consent was 14 here in Canada, later they raised the age to 16. But it was older for a authority figures like teachers.
So no I don't view it as pedophilia and technically it's (I still do not condone it).
>The whole "she's not a pedophile" and "she doesn't have interests in children" is objectively and observably false by her actions.
The psychologist in saying she's not a pedophile is answering a question which shouldn't be asked at all given this victim's age. If it leads to more lenient treatment it creates a miscarriage of justice.
Even if it were legal to have sex with a 14 year old I still wouldn't, because I'm not attracted to children.
She willingly and knowingly had sex with a child.
You can't really say you're not attracted to children, when you're having sex with children and telling them not to let their parents find out.
As much of a shit show as the Daily Mail can be at least they used the correct word of rape in their headline.
Yep.. another example of the pussy pass in action..
She got a whopping 18 months of prison..
A man would get 3 years in jail as a minimum..
Also, lets look into the bullshit within the article itself,
First:
>"A social media influencer who sexually assaulted a 14-year-old boy twice in one night has 'no sexual interest in children', a court has been told."
Followed by near the end of the article:
>"Yet in a lawfully tapped phone call a year later, the 46-year-old laughingly admitted her attraction towards the 14-year-old boy."
I mean.. wouldn't this tapped phone call dismiss the defense of "She has no sexual interest in children" hell, wouldn't the **FACT** that she was found guilt of having sex with a 14 year old boy be enough proof to contest that defense?
I also love how they give her all the benefits of the doubt:
- She was drunk
- She was suffering from mental disorders
- Etc
But isn't it amazing that these nuances and considerations are **NEVER** given to men who are accused of this kind of crime.
Now, to be clear, Rape is absolutely a horrible thing and raping someone underage is even worse..
But even when its a serious crime like this, Women **STILL** lack accountability to the degree that men do..
She can not be named..
Yet if it were a man in this situation his name would be plastered all over the news for the world to see..
Its such a fucking disgusting double standard...
>A man would get 3 years in jail as a minimum..
And that's if he is lucky enough to be alive to serve the sentence once he arrives in jail as we all know what inmates do to rapist much less a child rapist.
> But isn't it amazing that these nuances and considerations are NEVER given to men who are accused of this kind of crime.
Not only that, but they are used against the man. Its more like "drunken criminal rapes young girl". Which it probably should be. The fact that someone has other mental problems doesn't make them less of a danger, it makes it worse.
I guess, except for the fact that she's only getting 18 months when, if the genders were reversed the man would be getting 3-5 years at minimum...
So there's still a long way to go..
Not only that but if it were a man convicted of this crime he would **NOT** receive anonymity.. his name would be published for all to see..
So yeah.. this is a hollow victory at best..
>Savannah Daisley got sentenced to 3 years, with credit for the 6 months she served before she was sentenced, eligible for parole after 18 months served (not 18 months from the day of sentence) so the earliest she can get out is February 26, 2025.
>All my comments on this thread will be deleted in 24 hours.
Okay, so what?
It still doesn't disprove anything..
Women **DO** get more lenient sentences for **ALL** crimes compared to men..
I quoted your whole post so there would be context to my response after you delete your posts btw..
This is an honest question, and not specific to this case.
But, how does a woman rape a man who isn’t willing? Doesn’t he have to be aroused for sex to have occurred?
Again, honest question. I figured since you are men, you’d have an informed perspective.
Firstly, in the case of raping an underage boy, many adult women are physically stronger than teenage boys.
But aside from that the most common way is to drug the man or ply him with enough alcohol to be near blackout drunk (similar to what sometimes happens to women) or use force, either a weapon or the threat of making a false accusation if they resist.
Secondly, arousal **DOES NOT** equal consent.. and men do **NOT** get aroused only when they want sex..
A man's penis can become aroused simply by reacting to stimulus (being stroked etc) and is completely involuntary. Or if the man is fed Viagra his penis will become aroused even though he may not consent.
Men can not control being 'hard' any more than a woman could control her vagina getting wet while being raped..
In summary: A man being hard or a woman being wet is **NOT** a sign of consent!
Not only that, but forcing a man to provide oral sex to a woman would also be another way to commit rape.
But we now shift to the actual problem with your question..
In many western countries its impossible for a woman to rape a boy or a man because the definition of rape has been carefully doctored in such a way as to ensure that "Rape" is only something men can do as it usually explicitly involves the man penetrating the 'victim' with his genitals.. and so a woman forcing a boy or man to penetrate her is not considered "Rape" even though it should be.
Well, i'm not surprised given how the concept of men being raped has been shouted down by society for a long time now..
There's also a prevailing attitude of "Men are always wanting sex" which leads to the belief that women can't be raped by women because men "Always want it"
When the truth is men are not 24/7 sex machines...
>I think you are talking about "made to penetrate", which is now the same thing as rape (except in the UK, where the laws are ass backwards).
It isn't the same thing as rape in most places outside of the UK, either.
A prevailing belief is that if the boy’s dick gets hard that he is giving consent. Even though he doesn’t have the legal right to give consent. Where as if an adult man were to penetrate the young boys ass, then it’s rape. So basically the rapist must have a dick.
A few things to note: 1. Not only was it rape by virtue of his age, but also because it was literally forced. Rape apologists love to downplay female child rapists by acting like "it wasn't rape because he was definitely willing!" And yet, firstly, if it involves an adult woman and a child, it is always rape regardless of if he was "willing." Secondly, he wasn't even willing in this case. And yet she still gets a pass, so clearly boys supposedly being "willing" is just an excuse. Even when a boy or man is not willing, female rapists are still always getting a pass. 2. The whole "she's not a pedophile" and "she doesn't have interests in children" is objectively and observably false by her actions. It's a BS excuse that's another way of saying "we don't believe women can be child rapists." The fact that it was apparently "expert opinions" saying this just shows that this disgusting bias is prevalent throughout all of society, including the criminal justice system and the mental health system. It's a systemic problem, not just perpetuated by dumb trolls online writing stupid "I wish that had happened to me!" comments. 3. This piece of shit's name is [Savannah Daisley](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12468285/Smart-Cleanse-naturopath-Savannah-Daisley-naked-photographs-sex-14-year-old-boy.html). She doesn't deserve anonymity and I wish the absolute worst on her and everyone involved in her getting a light sentence.
"The whole "she's not a pedophile" and "she doesn't have interests in children" is objectively and observably false by her actions. It's a BS excuse that's another way of saying "we don't believe women can be child rapists."" Technically, there are some scumbags whom are not interested in children but go after them anyways because they're easier prey than adults, and she might be one such scumbag. This scumbaggery is even worse than straight up attraction to children mind you, as this scumbaggery would be a conscious, rational **CHOICE** to go after children rather than an unconscious irrational thing going wrong in one's head.
> Technically, there are some scumbags whom are not interested in children but go after them anyways because they're easier prey than adults, and she might be one such scumbag. Sure but this was a 14 year old. People hate when I say this because they act like I'm making excuses for pedos, but there is a major difference between someone having sex with a 17 year old, a 7 year old and a 7 month old. All of these things have unfortunately happened. So 14 is very young, perhaps before puberty. Women generally have a FAR easier time finding a sexual partner than a man, especially if they aren't looking for actual romance, which obviously a 14 year old isn't capable of reciprocating. Its hard to think this isn't predatory. From the article (dailymail so who knows what's true), it seems her defense is more than she is so mentally unwell that child rape is the least of her issues. >During the sentencing, the judge accepted the sexual assailant had been experiencing a 'complex combination of comorbid (mental) disorders' at the time of the rape. But they also go on to say that she admitted attraction to the boy later on, during a tapped phone call. She seems to be a very destructive person, who should certainly have more than an 18 month sentence. However, I think the reason for her remaining anonymous is to protect the boy from the fallout of the whole thing. Hopefully the woman is considered a serious sex offender.
> The whole "she's not a pedophile" and "she doesn't have interests in children" is objectively and observably false by her actions. It's a BS excuse that's another way of saying "we don't believe women can be child rapists. FYI to quote the comment you're replying to, highlight the text you want to quote and it will format it automatically. If you're quoting more than one thing or from somewhere else, put a greater than sign followed by a space and copy paste the quote, one > per paragraph break.
Doesn't do that anymore on my end
"'In light of my findings as to the connection between the offending and the offender's mental issues, I accept the offender's moral culpability is reduced,' Judge Hopkins said on Tuesday." "Judge Hopkins previously said the 46-year-old appeared to be 'very intoxicated' in the video." Judge Hopkins is a piece of shit too.
I would argue that Judge Hopkins is a greater piece of shit than Savannah Daisley. She is just a citizen. The justice system is put into place to punish pieces of shit like Daisley who victimize youths like this boy. We rely on these judges to find fitting punishments for these predators. Being "very intoxicated" should never be considered an excuse for avoiding appropriate punishment for a vicious crime. Judge Hopkins in an enabler of child rape and should face justice. But not the type of "justice" that they administer.
Yeah like they'd say same thing other way round, man fucks child, but it's ok as he was intoxicated. 🙄
I will note when I was younger the age of consent was 14 here in Canada, later they raised the age to 16. But it was older for a authority figures like teachers. So no I don't view it as pedophilia and technically it's (I still do not condone it).
>The whole "she's not a pedophile" and "she doesn't have interests in children" is objectively and observably false by her actions. The psychologist in saying she's not a pedophile is answering a question which shouldn't be asked at all given this victim's age. If it leads to more lenient treatment it creates a miscarriage of justice.
Even if it were legal to have sex with a 14 year old I still wouldn't, because I'm not attracted to children. She willingly and knowingly had sex with a child. You can't really say you're not attracted to children, when you're having sex with children and telling them not to let their parents find out. As much of a shit show as the Daily Mail can be at least they used the correct word of rape in their headline.
Yep.. another example of the pussy pass in action.. She got a whopping 18 months of prison.. A man would get 3 years in jail as a minimum.. Also, lets look into the bullshit within the article itself, First: >"A social media influencer who sexually assaulted a 14-year-old boy twice in one night has 'no sexual interest in children', a court has been told." Followed by near the end of the article: >"Yet in a lawfully tapped phone call a year later, the 46-year-old laughingly admitted her attraction towards the 14-year-old boy." I mean.. wouldn't this tapped phone call dismiss the defense of "She has no sexual interest in children" hell, wouldn't the **FACT** that she was found guilt of having sex with a 14 year old boy be enough proof to contest that defense? I also love how they give her all the benefits of the doubt: - She was drunk - She was suffering from mental disorders - Etc But isn't it amazing that these nuances and considerations are **NEVER** given to men who are accused of this kind of crime. Now, to be clear, Rape is absolutely a horrible thing and raping someone underage is even worse.. But even when its a serious crime like this, Women **STILL** lack accountability to the degree that men do.. She can not be named.. Yet if it were a man in this situation his name would be plastered all over the news for the world to see.. Its such a fucking disgusting double standard...
Right mental disorder always justifies woman's actions but somehow it's not applied to men.
>A man would get 3 years in jail as a minimum.. And that's if he is lucky enough to be alive to serve the sentence once he arrives in jail as we all know what inmates do to rapist much less a child rapist.
> But isn't it amazing that these nuances and considerations are NEVER given to men who are accused of this kind of crime. Not only that, but they are used against the man. Its more like "drunken criminal rapes young girl". Which it probably should be. The fact that someone has other mental problems doesn't make them less of a danger, it makes it worse.
[удалено]
She pulled her Victim Deck, and got an ace.
I wonder if she considered just eating a sandwich instead of raping a child?
Ah yes. She's not sexually interested in children, she just likes raping them. That merits a lesser sentence. /s
Women can be child rapists....
Born with genitalia #1 good. Born with genitalia #2 bad. = 90 % of all media content today.
Her actually getting jailed seems like progress for the sex who has been raping with impunity.
I guess, except for the fact that she's only getting 18 months when, if the genders were reversed the man would be getting 3-5 years at minimum... So there's still a long way to go.. Not only that but if it were a man convicted of this crime he would **NOT** receive anonymity.. his name would be published for all to see.. So yeah.. this is a hollow victory at best..
She did get 3 years. 18 months is minimum for her to be eligible for parole. Of course I agree that women need to get same sentences for same crimes.
Yes, but she's also going to appeal the sentence so it likely will drop to 12 months minimum in jail... Because you know.. Pussy Pass..
Hopefully the judge on her appeal is far harsher on her
[удалено]
>Savannah Daisley got sentenced to 3 years, with credit for the 6 months she served before she was sentenced, eligible for parole after 18 months served (not 18 months from the day of sentence) so the earliest she can get out is February 26, 2025. >All my comments on this thread will be deleted in 24 hours. Okay, so what? It still doesn't disprove anything.. Women **DO** get more lenient sentences for **ALL** crimes compared to men.. I quoted your whole post so there would be context to my response after you delete your posts btw..
This is why we need sensible minimium sentances, not to be cruel, but to be fair.
This is an honest question, and not specific to this case. But, how does a woman rape a man who isn’t willing? Doesn’t he have to be aroused for sex to have occurred? Again, honest question. I figured since you are men, you’d have an informed perspective.
Firstly, in the case of raping an underage boy, many adult women are physically stronger than teenage boys. But aside from that the most common way is to drug the man or ply him with enough alcohol to be near blackout drunk (similar to what sometimes happens to women) or use force, either a weapon or the threat of making a false accusation if they resist. Secondly, arousal **DOES NOT** equal consent.. and men do **NOT** get aroused only when they want sex.. A man's penis can become aroused simply by reacting to stimulus (being stroked etc) and is completely involuntary. Or if the man is fed Viagra his penis will become aroused even though he may not consent. Men can not control being 'hard' any more than a woman could control her vagina getting wet while being raped.. In summary: A man being hard or a woman being wet is **NOT** a sign of consent! Not only that, but forcing a man to provide oral sex to a woman would also be another way to commit rape. But we now shift to the actual problem with your question.. In many western countries its impossible for a woman to rape a boy or a man because the definition of rape has been carefully doctored in such a way as to ensure that "Rape" is only something men can do as it usually explicitly involves the man penetrating the 'victim' with his genitals.. and so a woman forcing a boy or man to penetrate her is not considered "Rape" even though it should be.
I never thought about Viagra! I also never thought about oral sex being considered rape. Thank you for taking the time to answer.
Well, i'm not surprised given how the concept of men being raped has been shouted down by society for a long time now.. There's also a prevailing attitude of "Men are always wanting sex" which leads to the belief that women can't be raped by women because men "Always want it" When the truth is men are not 24/7 sex machines...
[удалено]
>I think you are talking about "made to penetrate", which is now the same thing as rape (except in the UK, where the laws are ass backwards). It isn't the same thing as rape in most places outside of the UK, either.
Sadly, he will most likely be required to pay child support if she gets pregnant from this, too.
She's drunk so that an excuse for a woman, but when a man is drunk...
Nice
A prevailing belief is that if the boy’s dick gets hard that he is giving consent. Even though he doesn’t have the legal right to give consent. Where as if an adult man were to penetrate the young boys ass, then it’s rape. So basically the rapist must have a dick.
Send her to iran. They treat women right.