David Norris - Post-Revelations

Einhard

minidazzler wrote: »

I'd still vote for him, simply because I have no moral objection to what the guy he was supporting did. A 15 year old can decide on their own accord to have sex. It wasn't sexual abuse, it was sex.

You really think that all 15 y/o kids can have the necessary emotional and intellectual capacity to enter a sexual relationship with a 40 y/o man? We don't allow kids to sign contracts with adults because we recongnise the developmental disparity renders a minor unsuitable for such decisions, and liable to be exploited and taken advantage of, but when it's sexual encounters they're somehow fair game?

Pompey Magnus

minidazzler wrote: »

Physically I would argue girls mature faster. Sexually, I would argue boys do.

How about the most important factor, emotionally?

minidazzler

Einhard wrote: »

You really think that all 15 y/o kids can have the necessary emotional and intellectual capacity to enter a sexual relationship with a 40 y/o man? We don't allow kids to sign contracts with adults because we recongnise the developmental disparity renders a minor unsuitable for such decisions, and liable to be exploited and taken advantage of, but when it's sexual encounters they're somehow fair game?

As I said, I have no moral objection to it. Not that I would encourage it, but really I don't have a problem with it.

The issue here is Norris, whom I believe did nothing at all wrong. I don't know enough about the statutory rape case to make an informed judgement, but in general terms if the boy involved was consenting who am I to judge?

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

How about the most important factor, emotionally?

No two people mature emotionally at the same rate.

Einhard

Kanoe wrote: »

No, it's not but it's not as some would like us to believe a case of paedophilia.

I haven't seen any such accusations.

he didn't seek to diminish responsibility, he sought that the courts deal with the case in a lenient manner, in a country which at that point had little in the way of tolerance toward homosexuality and ultimately served harsher punishments. He merely requested that all the facts be considered and put into context.

I was talking about statutory rape in general, not about this case.

Don't get me wrong- I like Norris. I think his actions were wrong in this instance, but they don't make him a bad human being.

where does it state that anyone was groomed? Do you know the difference between grooming someone and a 15yr old going out and seeking sex? does it pain you to think that might actually happen?

I'm talking in the general sense. It pains to think that there are adults who would facilitate a a 15 y/o in such a desire. You seem quite ambivalent at the prospect.

I doubt you ever will.

Eh, right. Perhaps if you made your suggestions a little clearer I'd have more success in deciphering them.

Pompey Magnus

minidazzler wrote: »

No two people mature emotionally at the same rate.

Thank you. I fully agree, it is impossible for the law to know the emotional maturity of these adolescents just as it is impossible to know for the 40 year old man who is about to have sex with them and indeed the young person his or her self has no idea how emotionally ready they really are. So in order to protect those that aren't ready we as a society have an age of consent and this needs to be strictly adhered to in ALL cases, no exceptions.

K-9

A 15 year old and a 19 year old, I could see a case. A 40 year old man though? Bit sleazy for me and I'd say the same if it was a 15 year old girl.

minidazzler

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Thank you. I fully agree, it is impossible for the law to know the emotional maturity of these adolescents just as it is impossible to know for the 40 year old man who is about to have sex with them and indeed the young person his or her self has no idea how emotionally ready they really are. So in order to protect those that aren't ready we as a society have an age of consent and this needs to be strictly adhered to in ALL cases, no exceptions.

It's impossible for the court to know yes, I agree, and I don't believe that it should be something tried on a case by case basis, but it is definitely possible for a 40 year old man to know, simply from knowing the boy.

Kanoe

Einhard wrote: »

I haven't seen any such accusations.

these are the general sentiments displayed when an adult male has sexual relations with a minor.

I was talking about statutory rape in general, not about this case.

Don't get me wrong- I like Norris. I think his actions were wrong in this instance, but they don't make him a bad human being.

but this case is the point.

I'm talking in the general sense. It pains to think that there are adults who would facilitate a a 15 y/o in such a desire. You seem quite ambivalent at the prospect.

I've already stated I'm a parent, of course I'm going to be concerned about the physical, sexual and emotional health of our children. but I've also been 15. Pretending that minor's don't have sex is unrealistic. Imagining that it doesn't happen on a daily basis is unrealistic. I'm aware that it is not unusual in gay circles for a younger male to befriend an older male when he first comes out. It is a different environment and one I am all too familiar with and I can assure you it's not uncommon occurrence. I'm not suggesting they are all minors but as difficult as it may be for some people to understand or accept and sad as some people may find it, that's the reality of the situation.

Eh, right. Perhaps if you made your suggestions a little clearer I'd have more success in deciphering them.

I'm referring to the homophobic remarks in this thread. I asked you to read them and start counting.

Einhard

minidazzler wrote: »

As I said, I have no moral objection to it. Not that I would encourage it, but really I don't have a problem with it.

The issue here is Norris, whom I believe did nothing at all wrong. I don't know enough about the statutory rape case to make an informed judgement, but in general terms if the boy involved was consenting who am I to judge?

:eek:

What if the boy is 13? Or even 14? All the evidence points to the fact that younger teenagers especially do not have the emotional capacity to make such decisions. It's also entirely wrong to present such activity as some form of harmless fun. Statutory rape isn't a harmless bit of men- the physcological impact on the minor can be very serious. I think it's incumbent on society to lay down some rules to protect them from their emotional incapacity.

Pompey Magnus

minidazzler wrote: »

It's impossible for the court to know yes, I agree, and I don't believe that it should be something tried on a case by case basis, but it is definitely possible for a 40 year old man to know, simply from knowing the boy.

Right so then how do we prosecute the 40 year old man who has sex with a 15 year old boy who he knows isn't ready?

minidazzler

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Right so how do we prosecute the 40 year old man who has sex with a 15 year old boy who he knows isn't ready?

I would suggest it be a misdemeanor offence. But I'm not really one who knows much about Law. I just don't think jail time is necessary or being labeled a sex offender is necessary when it was consensual sex.

Pompey Magnus

minidazzler wrote: »

I would suggest it be a misdemeanor offence. But I'm not really one who knows much about Law. I just don't think jail time is necessary or being labeled a sex offender is necessary when it was consensual sex.

An adult who has sex with a minor he knows to be unprepared to adequately deal emotionally with sex should be just seen as committing a misdemeanor and is not a sex offender? Are you being serious???

Einhard

Kanoe wrote: »

I've already stated I'm a parent, of course I'm going to be concerned about the physical, sexual and emotional health of our children. but I've also been 15. Pretending that minor's don't have sex is unrealistic. Imagining that it doesn't happen on a daily basis is unrealistic.

I'm fully aware that minors get up to all sorts of sexual shenanigans, but that's not what this is about. There's a world of difference between two teenagers getting it on, and a 40 y/o man getting having sex with a young teenager.

I'm aware that it is not unusual in gay circles for a younger male to befriend an older male when he first comes out. It is a different environment and one I am all too familiar with and I can assure you it's not uncommon occurrence.

So what? Are you suggesting that, because something occurs, it's somehow right?

I'm not suggesting they are all minors but as difficult as it may be for some people to understand or accept and sad as some people may find it, that's the reality of the situation.

The reality of the situation is that that sort of behaviour is criminal, and those who engage in it should generally be treated as such.

I'm referring to the homophobic remarks in this thread. I asked you to read them and start counting.

And I was referring to the many attempts by the more dogmatic supporters of David Norris to shut down debate and dissent by resorting to the slur of homophobia. There are those targeting Norris because of his sexuality, and that's reprehensible. But equally wrong is throwing around accusations of homophobia whenever someone questions Norris' stance, or is troubled by his actions.

mgmt

Here is Norris defending another child abuser.

http://www.senatordavidnorris.ie/blogger/2008/03/order-of-business-11th-march-2008.html

minidazzler

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

An adult who has sex with a minor he knows to be unprepared to adequately deal emotionally with sex should be just seen as committing a misdemeanor and is not a sex offender? Are you being serious???

My apologies, missed the last part. OK, knowingly, how will you know that the adult knew they weren't ready? I'm not saying it's something I approve of, I simply don't think statutory rape is as big a deal as it's made out. There was consent, but the word rape makes the whole thing seem more agravated.

Anyway, we are not going to agree here, so I'm outie. Norris did nothing wrong in pleading for leniency of a friend. And I still believe he would be a fine candidate for President.

Pompey Magnus

minidazzler wrote: »

My apologies, missed the last part. OK, knowingly, how will you know that the adult knew they weren't ready? I'm not saying it's something I approve of, I simply don't think statutory rape is as big a deal as it's made out. There was consent, but the word rape makes the whole thing seem more agravated.

Anyway, we are not going to agree here, so I'm outie. Norris did nothing wrong in pleading for leniency of a friend. And I still believe he would be a fine candidate for President.

I agree that statutory rape is not neccessaily a big deal. The "victim" could be completely ready for sex and there could be no long term harm done in having sex with an older person and they both could completely enjoy the experience.

However there is on the other hand the potential for enormous amount of emotional harm to be caused by the victim genuinely being unprepared, it could cause deep emotional damage to that person that may last the rest of their life.

If the price of protecting those people is that some 40 year old bloke will have to wait a couple of years before he gets his way with some youngster then I reckon it is a price worth paying.

Kanoe

Einhard wrote: »

I'm fully aware that minors get up to all sorts of sexual shenanigans, but that's not what this is about. There's a world of difference between two teenagers getting it on, and a 40 y/o man getting having sex with a young teenager.

There is and in any one's world view there should be a responsibility on the adult to know better. I continue to state that I do not condone statutory rape.

So what? Are you suggesting that, because something occurs, it's somehow right?

No, as I keep saying. It is illegal but it is NOT peadophilia and doesn't fall into the same category as sexual abuse. This was consensual.
You continue to defer back to this point and seem to completely shirk the reasons why Norris sought for lenience. Would you not be interested to know why?

The reality of the situation is that that sort of behaviour is criminal, and those who engage in it should generally be treated as such.

y'know, I'm giving up this discussion with you. I know that in the case of a young male having sex with an adult female this criminality would be played down and the boys club anthems would ensue. This is only deemed that more serious an offence as it was committed by an adult male with a younger male.

And I was referring to the many attempts by the more dogmatic supporters of David Norris to shut down debate and dissent by resorting to the slur of homophobia. There are those targeting Norris because of his sexuality, and that's reprehensible. But equally wrong is throwing around accusations of homophobia whenever someone questions Norris' stance, or is troubled by his actions.

I had up until this point no interest in the presidential candidacy until I read this thread. It has clearly stated for me that this is the case and subsequently has given me a reason to get off the fence.

Pompey Magnus

Kanoe wrote: »

y'know, I'm giving up this discussion with you. I know that in the case of a young male having sex with an adult female this criminality would be played down and the boys club anthems would ensue. This is only deemed that more serious an offence as it was committed by an adult male with a younger male..

Where was this "boys club" when Tom Humphries was involved in a heterosexual relationship with a minor? Don't bring out the homophobia card please, it is simply nonsense. Some people might approve of an adult woman having sex with an underage boy, just like some might approve of adult man having sex with an underage boy, but to suggest that this is a prevelant view among straight men is just as offensive as to make the same suggestion about gay men. Alot of us actually approve of the law, just so you know!

Kanoe

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Where was this "boys club" when Tom Humphries was involved in a heterosexual relationship with a minor? Don't bring out the homophobia card please, it is simply nonsense. Some people might approve of an adult woman having sex with an underage boy, just like some might approve of adult man having sex with an underage boy, but to suggest that this is a prevelant view among straight men is just as offensive as to make the same suggestion about gay men. Alot of us actually approve of the law, just so you know!

probably in after hours having a ****. Like I said, 15 year old boy getting it on with an older woman, perfectly acceptable in the minds of the hardcore hetero male.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2056336415

Pompey Magnus

Kanoe wrote: »

Like I said, 15 year old boy getting it on with an older woman, perfectly acceptable in the minds of the hardcore hetero male.

Would you also say "15 year old boys getting it on with older men, perfectly acceptable in the minds of the hardcore homo male"?

I may be wrong but I'd imagine saying something like that here would be close to earning a ban.

Kanoe

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Would you also say "15 year old boys getting it on with older men, perfectly acceptable in the minds of the hardcore homo male"?

I may be wrong but I'd imagine saying something like that here would be close to earning a ban.

it's not acceptable, but pederasty is widely acknowledged.

It wouldn't make a difference anyway.

Pompey Magnus

Kanoe wrote: »

it's not acceptable, but pederasty is widely acknowledged.

What I want to know is why it is okay to accuse straight men of finding it acceptable but it would be homophobic to say the same about gay men?

Mully_2011

No for an adult to have sex with someone who they know is 15 is wrong and for David Norris to defend such a person makes him just as bad imo.

HarryPotter41

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I would argue that a 14 year old girl is quite possibly more mature than a 15 year old boy, that girls mature quicker than boys at that age is well established. I can see absolutely no difference between the two cases, both are reprehensible in my opinion.

If what you say is true then why is an underage lad the only one who can be charged in the eyes of the law for having sex with an underage girl. He apparently is the one who should know better and the girl has more to lose in the eyes of the law.

Kanoe

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

What I want to know is why it is okay to accuse straight men of finding it acceptable but it would be homophobic to say the same about gay men?

I'm not sure what you want to say about gay men, you're not making your point very clearly.
I'm not a gay man btw.

I'm also not bothered to go trawling through AH looking for threads which support my opinion but there are many. Consider how different the views are in the above thread involving the statutory rape of 12 year old girls.

Pompey Magnus

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

If what you say is true then why is an underage lad the only one who can be charged in the eyes of the law for having sex with an underage girl. He apparently is the one who should know better and the girl has more to lose in the eyes of the law.

I don't agree with that law and I would like to see it changed.

Pompey Magnus

Kanoe wrote: »

I'm not sure what you want to say about gay men, you're not making your point very clearly.

All I want to know is why:

"15 year old boy getting it on with an older woman, perfectly acceptable in the minds of the hardcore hetero male" = acceptable statement

"15 year old boys getting it on with older men, perfectly acceptable in the minds of the hardcore homo male" = homophobic statment.

What is the difference between the two?

Kanoe

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

All I want to know is why:

"15 year old boy getting it on with an older woman, perfectly acceptable in the minds of the hardcore hetero male" = acceptable statement

"15 year old boys getting it on with older men, perfectly acceptable in the minds of the hardcore homo male" = homophobic statment.

What is the difference between the two?

Still not clear, who called it a homophobic statement?

This is all about swaying public opinion and it is, apparently, more acceptable in the eyes of the hardcore hetero male acceptable if the situation is reversed and that's all there is to it.
The variables are different and it's torch burning time.

Pompey Magnus

Kanoe wrote: »

This is all about swaying public opinion and it is, apparently, more acceptable in the eyes of the hardcore hetero male acceptable if the situation is reversed and that's all there is to it.
The variables are different and it's torch burning time.

So I return again to the question, where were all the men coming out defending Tom Humphries? I didn't hear a single man speak up for him, not one. Did you?

Einhard

Kanoe wrote: »

This is all about swaying public opinion and it is, apparently, more acceptable in the eyes of the hardcore hetero male acceptable if the situation is reversed and that's all there is to it.
The variables are different and it's torch burning time.

What does that even mean?

It's very simple really- what Norris' ex-partner did was wrong, and Norris was wrong to use his position to influence the Israeli court. I fail to see how people can have any issue with that assessment. Apparently though, some people think that the concept of gay rights should include a moral and legal double standard, whereby a gay person can never be criticised by a hetero person.