Beefy's Corner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
ChilcoSaint said:
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.
Click to expand...

When I was under 16 I was certainly capable of consenting to sex, and would have done if presented with the opportunity. I'm sure we've all known underage boys and girls who have had sex because they wanted to, and not because of some traumatic past. The fact is kids naturally have these desires long before they are deemed old enough to act on them by law. It's ridiculous to try and pretend that's not the case.
 
Joe Steinberg said:
When I was under 16 I was certainly capable of consenting to sex, and would have done if presented with the opportunity. I'm sure we've all known underage boys and girls who have had sex because they wanted to, and not because of some traumatic past. The fact is kids naturally have these desires long before they are deemed old enough to act on them by law. It's ridiculous to try and pretend that's not the case.
Click to expand...

Come on Joe, you know that "being capable of consenting to sex" isn't the same as just wanting it. As TSS says above, there are a lot of issues involved with deciding to have sex with someone or not, and as a society we have at some point in the past decided that below a certain age, currently 16, we are not able to find a path through that minefield of emotion and physical desire balanced against moral or parental restrictions. It may well be that the age of consent needs to be lowered but at least there needs to be one! Otherwise you would be back in the Middle Ages, or like in Game of Thrones, where girls would be married off at their "first flowering".
 
ChilcoSaint said:
Come on Joe, you know that "being capable of consenting to sex" isn't the same as just wanting it. As TSS says above, there are a lot of issues involved with deciding to have sex with someone or not, and as a society we have at some point in the past decided that below a certain age, currently 16, we are not able to find a path through that minefield of emotion and physical desire balanced against moral or parental restrictions. It may well be that the age of consent needs to be lowered but at least there needs to be one! Otherwise you would be back in the Middle Ages, or like in Game of Thrones, where girls would be married off at their "first flowering".
Click to expand...

I also know that wanting sex and being forcibly raped are not the same.
 
Joe Steinberg said:
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.
Click to expand...

Those would all be sentencing considerations though, one would assume. As far as I know two consenting teenagers where one or both is U16 would not be illegal/wrong. In that case the girl was 13 and the man 41, it seems to me that that difference would be beyond the line, and the girl being "sexually experienced" not really a mitigating factor.
 
The way legal systems work makes it somewhat necessary but the whole practice of "drawing a line in the sand" is nonsense. The idea that everyone gains the ability to make these judgments at the same time and literally overnight is absurd. The "line in the sand" is made even more absurd by the fact that the age when you miraculously gain this ability varies from country to country. Legally, if you're 15 and in Paris you are able to consent to sex but if you get the Eurostar to London suddenly you're not. That's clearly ridiculous.

At least in Germany they make some sort of allowance. As I recall the lower age of consent is 14 but if the younger partner in a sexual relationship is between 14 and 18 the older partner can be prosecuted if they're over 21 and deemed to be taking advantage of the younger partner. That seems far more sensible than a simple line in the sand.
 
He watched her take off her school uniform...this is not a case of not knowing her age. He is a *****phile. A decent man would have shown her the door. He took advantage of a girl who had probably been abused in the past. She was probably seeking affection more than sex. Of course it cannot be as traumatic as forced rape, but the law is there to protect the vulnerable. I am often concerned about judges in cases like these...I wonder about their sexual proclivities.
 
I think a few people are struggling to keep track of what I'm arguing here.
 
Basically yes both are illegal, but they both shouldn't be both treated the same.
 
Cat in a shark costumes chases a duck whilst riding a hoover. Enjoy!

[video=youtube;Of2HU3LGdbo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of2HU3LGdbo&feature=player_embedded[/video]
 
Barrister in the *****phile case has been suspended from child abuse cases pending an investigation. I note that the defendant had child porn photographs and had a prior history...how is a suspended sentence the right decision in this case.
 
fran-MLs little camera said:
Barrister in the *****phile case has been suspended from child abuse cases pending an investigation. I note that the defendant had child porn photographs and had a prior history...how is a suspended sentence the right decision in this case.
Click to expand...

Surprisingly there's a female barrister who has been supporting the ruling in this case too, but if you read her Twitter feed, she seems slightly deranged....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back