My ex's sister got up the duff when she was 14, and had a kid at 15 (they are from 'Boro). Her feller was 17 at the time. They're still together now, 20 years later, moving from one area of the UK to another after exhausting the welfare in that town, then on to the next community. Point is, they were going to put him on a sexual offenders' register.
I get ya red ... Theyve changed that law here 8n Ireland so as not to ruin youngfellas lives by being labeled *****s for having sex with their girlfriends. If I remember correctly theyve given a 2 year leeway .. so a 17yr old with a 15 is ok and an 18 with a 16. But a 16 with a 14 is still rape.
Interestingly it's now a sex offender register offence for one underage person to send an image of themselves naked to another underage person, as well as owning images even if underage underage.... I understand where they're coming from as the images can be redistributed to perverts but if I'm a dad (I'm not) if I had to choose I'd rather my 13 year old daughter sent a naked picture to a fella than was naked in his presence.....different dangers but one doesn't get you pregnant or give you stds....
The offending thread was titled the rape gallery and consisted of pics of celebs. It wasnt on any board as such it was in a group even the regulator admitted it was harmless but the title cauzed someone offence.
In some countries under 16 is legal so I think that age bracket is a grey area in terms of what constitutes *****philia and what doesn't. Some teens mature more quickly than others, mentally and physically. I can see how there's an argument to be had there. That's discounting some of the disgusting stuff some creeps like to get up to with babies and the like of course. With rape it's harder to see where his argument is coming from. Forcing someone to have sex is forcing them whether it's with a weapon or more coercively with a drug in a drink. It's the intent that is the morally corrupt thing at least as much as the physicality of it, possibly moreso.
Thought it was something like that just didn't know whether the site would be a little sensitive about anything in the same sphere after the hoohaa.
I agree with Dawkins Raping a child is bad Raping a child and saying they will burn in Hell for eternity if they speak about it is worse
**** that. I'm in my early fifties and, chance being a fine thing, I got off with a nubile 23 year old.... And the reverse is true- when I was 22 I was banging a 45 year-old divorcee, for a while anyway. Over 21 is a consenting adult, in whatever circumstances. That said, if some grubby 40 year-old plus came onto my 19 year-old daughter....
I am a dad and have two girls and sorry frank but when you do have girls if you found out that they did that youd still want to kill the little **** she sent them to as you know hes gonna send em on to his mates etc. Touch wood and cross my fingers my girls have more sense
You could have a 16 years shag a 15yr +364day old girl on his birthday, he would still be labeled the same as a fifty year old on a child!
Yes that would obviously be true. but that wasn't his (Dawkins) example in that case as far as I remember. The example in that case was .....woman was molested by priest as a girl , and same woman was told (he doesn't state it was the priest who molested her) that her protestant friend (a child) was burning in Hell for not being RC. So do you still agree with him in his judgement on which was worse?
Not in liberal Ireland the age of consent is 17 over here but they have that law change for young lovers now.
Its a grey area mid to late teens. Especially with girls developing quicker than boys. When I was seventeen I had a 15 year old girlfriend. I waited until she was sixteen to sleep with her even though I knew she had had plenty of rod before i met her. Fact was I was a public school boy and didnt want to **** my life up...lol There is of course a big difference between mentally and physically ready. In the past there have been people labelled *****philes for having taken part in consensual sex with a partner a few years younger. This in my eyes is wrong and Ireland have definately taken the correct route forward. The whole subject of rape and *****philes really upsets me. A few years ago I had a really bad week that made me question my character judgement. Firstly a mate of mine who I had known for years was arrested , (and subsequently jailed) for sexually assaulting women. Later that week My boss and mentor was arrested for having extreme images of children on his computer. Was really close to both and never knew. Boss is now dead and mate is happily married with two kids. ****ed up, you can never tell....
Oh aye Hash naturally (I threatened so many fellas away from my sister until she was 16 she thought no one fancied her lol) but you'd hit a little harder if you overheard him saying how he shagged her rather than just showed them pics of her naked. Maybe this should have been Dawkins example!
Question then - (only a tad facetious) .... is promising not to come in her mouth and reneging unwanted sexual activity? Is that truly as bad as, say w**king in the bushes and lobbing your flob at a passing woman? Well according to the magistrate it wasn't. But seriously, all murders are bad, but a woman who knifes to death an abusive, violent partner in his sleep isn't sentenced the same as a sadistic, psychopathic child murderer, and rightly so. As Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds". And that was before he met Lake and Palmer.
This type of argument always reminds me of Spock in Star Trek. Whilst using Logic is almost always the best course of action in any situation, being human (or half human) makes it impossible for us to separate logic from emotion even if some of us like Dawkins would like to do so. I actually think this is humanities saving grace, despite also being one of its greatest stumbling blocks. That being said, despite agreeing with his logic, Dawkins is on a loser with this one.
He's (typically) using an inflammatory context, but in principle, all he's maintaining is that if you say example X is worse than example Y it doesn't mean you're condoning Y. I don't see the problem in understanding that.
Then you'd be doing yourself a great dis-service darko. Dawkins can only give you his flawed understanding of the efforts of the minds of other flawed understandings which only hold together until they become disproved. After all Dawkins is not omnipotent but is fully aware of the scientific process. The Bible on the other hand makes no attempt to do so. It can however give insights into far greater issues.
