Beefy's Corner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread
- Thread starter TheSecondStain
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Monty Panesar has been fined for pissing on nightclub bouncers.
They didn't expect him to rain down with his wrong un?
Twitter account @goddersukip
Now we know where he's gone.
N.B. may or may not be the same godders.
I somehow think Godders has a bit more sense than to get involved with that bunch of clowns. Anyway, where is he? I miss the old bugger.
Illegal, yes. But there has to be a clear difference between sexually molesting a young girl who didn't want it, and having sex with a young girl who did want it. Both are wrong, but clearly to different degrees.
Not in the eyes of the law. Both are illegal, as an underage girl is legally not capable of consenting to sex.
And that is the problem I have with the current law. Underage girls shouldn't be consenting to sex, but clearly they can and do. By all means it should still be the guy who takes the blame, but not to the same extent as if the girl had been unwilling. It's not rape.
I'm just teasing. I don't know where the real Godders. Unlike that Godders who has been on every TV and radio channel this morning.
Oh wait, here's his views on women! http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/04...be-misogynist-some-his-best-friends-are-women
Ok I'm done now.
you can't play the devil's advocate with things like this. regardless of whether she was naked and jumping on him, he as the responsible adult should always say no. how anyone can get away with saying something like that to a child in court is unbelievable.
i imagine you'll feel different about this if/when you have a little girl.
it is according to british law, joe. you are not old enough/responsible enough to make the decision to "want" it when you are under 16 so it is ALWAYS rape.
I'm not saying he's not responsible, and I'm not saying he should get away with it. What I'm saying is that it's not as bad as raping an unwilling girl. It's an enormous insult to actual rape victims to equate the two things.
If there's no legal difference between having sex with a girl who wants to have sex with you, and forcing an unwilling girl to have sex with you, then something is very wrong.
It's an interesting distinction and one that is highlighted by all the Operation Yewtree arrests - it seems there is a line being drawn (and clearly must be the case in terms of the complainants) between the Jimmy Savile's/Stuart Hall's of this world, and the COUNTLESS incidences of rock stars in the 70s having sex with underage (but willing) girls - see Bill Wyman/Mandy Smith for the most obvious case......
Yeah, exactly. The law is outdated and not specific enough, and it's being fixed. Those rock stars you speak of were/are in the wrong and deserved a tough sentence, but it's not even in the same ball park as forceful, violent and traumatic rape.
I did always wonder why there was a plethora of media arrests, but none in terms of musicians. It can only be that complaints weren't made by the girls (or boys) as it was something that they were complicit in and accepting of.......
I think the sexualisation and exploitation of children has to take some responsibility here. Hold onto to your hats here, but I'm going to utter that well worn phrase of... back in my day, children were still children at 12-13, and anything upto the age of consent. Sexualisation was largely absent from our lives, although the exploitation of children was well underway. With that sexualisation [I'm not going to bother with the sexual education because it's still often non-existent] a new door to emerging adulthood is opened and the curiosity antennae is raised. At 12-13, it's far too early for a child to be dealing with the complexities of emotional and sexual encounters and the responsibilities and consequences that can result. Many consenting adults aren't even equipped, so how are they going to be.
The point that was being made on Radio 4 this morning is that if a 12 or 13 year old girl is acting provocatively, you should be looking at what in her history or, indeed, mental capacity, has led her to behave like that. She may have a history of abuse, or parents or guardians who haven't given her good advice in life, or even a medical condition which is causing her to act inappropriately. You can't just assume that just because she appears to want sex, she has the capacity to consent to it.
Someone else said that in British law there is a line drawn in the sand at 16 years. Both boys and girls below that age are deemed to be incapable of consenting to sex, whatever their individual mental and physical development. As a father of 2 girls (and 1 boy), all of whom are well above that age group thankfully, I am very happy that is the case.
Except the government are trying to change the legal age to 14. Alot of people are saying the only reason they are just trying to save money.
- Status