Misleading information

I literally provided a case, you're just misinterpretting the laws. I can understand why, it says one thing and works out another way.

It's your word vs the local law student i provided. I trust the local and the case proving everything i said.

Read again and then reply because the case you posted doesn't contradict what I posted.

Oh, and either block me and don't reply to me or don't block me and reply to me because what you're doing right now is extremely disrespectful. You want to reply to my posts but I'm not allowed to reply to yours.

You replied to me 1st... And you can reply to yourself to reply to me.

Read your own source, the person even admits in the short answer "the age of consent is 13".

The rest is technicality. If the accused can give definitive proof it was consensual, that's it.

You have to read everything. There's more than just the short answer there's also
The second most important part:

Consequently, even though the ACT ON THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND JUVENILES FROM SEXUAL ABUSE clearly states that it is considered rape when a person who is older than a juvenile engages in a sexual intercourse with the juvenile,[63] many Westerners are misinformed about this law because of ambiguous translations. Again, the ACT ON THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND JUVENILES FROM SEXUAL ABUSE clearly states that a person who is under 19 and will not turn 19 in the year in which the act is committed is considered a juvenile. (Korean age reckoning is never used in South Korean laws therefore the age of consent in South Korea is 20 in Korean age.)


The MOST important part:

In South Korea, judges have right to interpret the law and this is how the majority of judges interpret the ACT ON THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND JUVENILES FROM SEXUAL ABUSE.

Do you know what "the short answer" means? It means it's a condensing of the long answer.

But I can only reply to you when you're not the one who made the topic. Do you not see why it might come off as disrespectful when you don't want me to reply to you're topics but you still reply to mine? Of course I could block you as well but that's not something I do.

But i feel like you're going to start spamming my comments... You just did with my last and you just made a separate topic to respond to me.

Well I responded to your comments. That's how it works. Replying to what you write is not spamming.

I'm sorry but this ends her. I'm running out of patience with you. The article clearly says that having sex with a minor can be considered illegal although it doesn't have to be but most judges rule that way. The short answer given doesn't make the rest of the article wrong because it doesn't contradict it.
I don't get why you don't understand it and I don't know any other way to make you understand or how to explain to you that you have to read the entire article and not just the first sentence.

Sure (￣∇￣")

You weren't up for discussion, what i mean by spamming is that i dont want you arguing with me at every chance you get.

I didn’t really want to reply to all of this, because you keep bending your arguments in a way that are hard to argue against, and arguing about morals is hard, but I have a debate in class soon so this’ll be good practice. This is going to be long.

Ok, maybe he isn’t a “pedophille”, maybe in the legal aspect of all this he didn’t do anything wrong and wouldn’t be put in jail. But does that make what he’s doing, ok? Is it ok to manipulate and groom teenagers? You seem to interpret his intentions as out of love, instead of anything deviant, so let’s talk about his intentions then, since you seem so adamant on defending this guy.

At first you agree that blondie isn’t a great guy, and that it’s horrible that he sent a dick pic to a middle schooler, but then you go on to say that his intentions might be good? It is proven that he likes younger boys, he sent a dick picture to a kid, legal or not, they’re still a kid if they’re in middle school in South Korea (12-15). Why would you send a sexually explicit photo of yourself to someone (in this case a child) if you don’t want to engage in some sort of sexual conduct with them. But let’s ignore that, since we’re focusing on MC and blond guy here. Ok, then why did blondie go after MC? Well Chapter 63 spells it out for us, “Oh. That nephew you met for his innocence?” He went after MC because of his childish naivety and ignorance, does that spell healthy to you?

Even if blondie’s intentions are now because he truly loves MC, there is no way, that this can be a “healthy” or “good” relationship. MC has been groomed and conditioned into believing that blondie can do no wrong, there is an extreme power dynamic set in place here from the start, and that is not healthy. If you need proof, going back to chapter 63, “He loves everything I give him.” Or even moreso chapter 62 when MC refuses to believe blondie preys after young teens. Which is yes, is considered a bad thing and is framed as a bad thing in the story, regardless of consent age in Korea, the story CLEARLY views it as disgusting.

Regarding on your opinion that this could ok because it’s out of “love”, let me ask you and let chapter 63 ask you, “Does the content change if you wrap it up like that?” Even though it’s unhealthy, is it ok because you’ve wrapped a pretty little bow on it called love? Or are you saying that, without mentioning age, this specific relationship is perfectly healthy? Remember MC has never been in a relationship before, as a angsty gay 17 year old with no friends and shitty family, when someone older man just pops outta nowhere and gives you validation, of course you would easily cling to that. Whether or not that’s healthy is your opinion, but something like that is not a relationship out of love for the other person. People hate the guy not just simply because he’s breaking the law, and yes I know he’s technically not breaking the law in Korea, they hate him because he’s preying on naive and impressionable teens. Something you have a hard time understanding despite the fact so many people are telling you.

Oh, and I have a question about who you consider to be a pedophille. I thought a pedophille was someone who is sexually attracted to children, but according to you he’s not because it’s a mental illness, and he doesn’t have this mental illness because he has shown restraint? So if I have depression but I control the urges to kill myself, I am not depressed? You’re not making a lot of sense here. I just hope you were kidding when you said you were studying law and were just trying to use fake ethos to validate your argument.

Yeah, none of this^ is what i was saying at all and you replied to words you put in my mouth so... I wasn't even the one who 1st started pointing out that, by definition, he isn't a pedophile. I have said as much because i agree, but that isn't really my argument. It's just that people keep calling him a pedophile, which isn't accurate as pedophilia is a mental disorder aimed specifically at children ages 13-. He aims for young men, not children. What he has is ephebophilia, which isn't classified as a mental disorder. This means it is a sexual preference. Preference can be changed, disorder can't. Hence those of us wondering how he feels about Seunghee. I'd like to go ahead and clarify that i'm not "defending" him in the sense you're implying. I acknowledge that preying on minors is disgusting. My argument is that, while he started out preying on Seunghee, he might not be now. It looks as though, over time, he might have developed feelings. IF he IS in love with Seunghee and isn't preying on him, i don't see the problem. Seunghee is 17, they can wait a year if sex is the problem, though i believe a 17 y. o. has the mental faculties to reason out whether they should or shouldn't have sex. I base this on my own experience, i was very mature at 17, probably because of my shitty childhood. I had sex at 15 (no penetration) with a 19 y. o. guy, did or do i view him as a predator now? No, because i approached him and wanted it. People are arguing even if he fell for Seunghee, that he's automatically disgusting for falling for a minor, while as i know from personal experience that that isn't always the case. I'm trying to make a distinction, ephebophilia and pedophilia aren't the same, one is just plain morally wrong, the other is case sensitive. Epobophilia isn't inherently "preying on minors" like pedophilia is. In the blond's case, he WAS preying, i'm not arguing that, i'm wondering if he no longer is. His past interaction with Seungtaek was wrong, but not all of his interactions were. Seunghee was looking through his account, the guy was just talking with minors and giving advice until he sent a dick pic to Seungtaek. He's shown that he has control when he refused to spend time with Seunghee to get him to spend time with friends. Again, this shows it isn't a disorder, he doesn't feel compulsed to attack young men, it a preference. One he put aside here because he started to empathize with Seunghee.

-continuation-

You're also misunderstanding my argument of legality, my argument isn't "it's legal so it's okay", it's "it's legal, which is indicative of cultural differences". What may seem gross here might not give a 2nd thought over there. This actually seems to be the case if you look over the reddit link i provided above. You misunderstood something else as well, i never said i was a law student. I said there is a local Seoul university student studying this exact topic within the reddit link i posted, this student lays out the reality of the laws there very well and goes over the clauses. There is also a case linked in the reddit that shows how this all works out. The defendant was judged not guilty after having sex with a 13 y. o. girl because he had definitive proof that it was consensual.

youraedthiswrogn never said they were studying law, they give redditt and quora sources without reading the entirety of their own source. They are just simply in denial about how wrong they are and are stubborn to admit to differing opinions that are in the right

No argument? Okay.

@Perlita: You've stopped arguing since i posted that reddit link because your argument of legality fell apart.

I literally responded to that, you giant oaf of a wannabe know-it-all. You don’t even know how to properly hold your argument and your sources literally contradict you and you don’t defend yourself and can only say stuff like “you didn’t respond to me blah blah” or “good one, make that a topic” and are just being an egotistical bigot who can’t understand what a crime is