Father says his raped "sex mad" 11 year old was "fully up for the experience"

Flippyfloppy

bluewolf wrote: »

can't believe the dad's comments if they were true

Sure the dad had a relationship with this apparent immature 20 year old. How old was she then I wonder?!

jungleman

Just read the story. Yer one is a complete freak. He was 11 years old, he probably hadn't begun to go through puberty. She had sex with a pre-pubescent child ffs.

And that line by the dad, "he was fully up for the experience" , such a load of arse. The state of her, the child will probably be scarred for life having to relive the memories of her flopping up and down on top of him.

What a weird, disturbing story.

Jayop

Controversial opinion and all that, but putting this specific case to one side for a moment, I don't think it's as bad for an older female to have sex with an underage lad as it is for an older man to have sex with an underage girl. 11 is obviously ridiculous and disgusting, but I know loads of lads who I grew up with who actively chased older woman when they were 14/15 and on many occasions either got their hole with them or at least got a shift. Sometimes the gap could be 10/15 years.

If someone at that time (or now) told me that a guy of 30 had got off with a 14/15 year old female friend I'd have been disgusted.

I think a lot of comes down to the perceived idea of who was doing the chasing. It also the reason why when you read these stories that crop up every now and again of a schoolboy having an affair with his teacher a lot of lads will react to say he was a legend because most of us growing up had a teacher we'd have been up like a rat up a drainpipe given half a chance.

Old Jakey

At least the kid didn't get charged with rape.

Azalea

Yes, teenage boys fantasise about sex with older women/teenage girls fantasise about sex with older men, but none of those older women and men should take advantage of teenage fantasies.

jungleman wrote: »

Just read the story. Yer one is a complete freak. He was 11 years old, he probably hadn't begun to go through puberty. She had sex with a pre-pubescent child ffs.

And that line by the dad, "he was fully up for the experience" , such a load of arse. The state of her, the child will probably be scarred for life having to relive the memories of her flopping up and down on top of him.

What a weird, disturbing story.

How she looks is hardly such a pressing concern.
I know a guy who's absolutely scarred after an attractive older woman kept molesting him when he was a young fella.

What a depraved story this is.

Dial Hard

NachoBusiness wrote:

Even if it were true, what has that got to do with the case? And coming from the father. I honestly can't imagine an 11 year old girl being described like that after being raped by a man. Especially from a parent. There'd be murder if it happened. Loose Women would have a special. Yet it seems to have pretty much gone unreported when it's said of a boy, barring a few of the usual articles which will soone disappear. Nothing in the nature of the reaction to Chrissie Hynde's recent comments anyway.

This is exactly why the prevailing "Men are all inherently sexual beasts" and "Women are locks, not keys" crap that's coming out of the States is so damaging, to both genders.

It puts men (or boys, in this case) in the role of perpetual horndogs who will take sex in any circumstances and an 11-year-old child who is sexually abused by an older woman should somehow feel thankful for it.

Likewise, all women are automatically placed in positions of not really knowing any better, to the point where an adult woman can rape a male child and it not really be seen as a big deal.

This is where third/fourth wave feminism and ultra-macho thought processes have brought us. It's grossly unfair to both genders and the saddest part is that both extremes of the divide will learn absolutely nothing from it.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No they did not, and no amount of inverted commas will make that statement a fact.

Was a custodial sentence imposed? Did she walk out of the court? If she walked out of the court and went home because a custodial sentence was not imposed then she did walk free. 'Don't rape any more children for six months' is not a punishment; it's barely a slap on the wrist.

Dial Hard wrote: »

This is exactly why the prevailing "Men are all inherently sexual beasts" and "Women are locks, not keys" crap that's coming out of the States is so damaging, to both genders.

It puts men (or boys, in this case) in the role of perpetual horndogs who will take sex in any circumstances and an 11-year-old child who is sexually abused by an older woman should somehow feel thankful for it.

Likewise, all women are automatically placed in positions of not really knowing any better, to the point where an adult woman can rape a male child and it not really be seen as a big deal.

This is where third/fourth wave feminism and ultra-macho thought processes have brought us. It's grossly unfair to both genders and the saddest part is that both extremes of the divide will learn absolutely nothing from it.

I disagree; the 'all men/boys love sex and always want to have sex with any woman' is as, if not more, prevalent amongst men than women. I don't see any women on this thread saying 'nicccccccce'.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

Was a custodial sentence imposed? Did she walk out of the court? If she walked out of the court and went home because a custodial sentence was not imposed then she did walk free. 'Don't rape any more children for six months' is not a punishment; it's barely a slap on the wrist.

No, she didn't walk free -

A six-month jail term suspended for two years with supervision was imposed and Hatt was told she must register as a sex offender for seven years. Mousley also imposed a sexual harm prevention order banning her from having unsupervised contact with young boys for two years.

Source: The Guardian


She received a ridiculously lenient sentence, and that's the fact which should be acknowledged and criticised. The sentence itself is a farce for the crime committed, and it was even worse that the judge took the account by the father into consideration in determining sentencing.

It wasn't simply because of the fact she is a woman that she received such a lenient sentence, there were other factors involved also.

That's why the 'reverse the genders' crap is nothing more than simplistic bullshìt whataboutery that takes the focus off the fact that a child was abused and the perpetrator was given a lenient sentence when the sentencing for adults who commit sex crimes against children should be much tougher, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator or the victim.

NachoBusiness

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No they did not, and no amount of inverted commas will make that statement a fact.

Did they amputate her legs along with the suspended sentence?

No. Well, then she walked free.

We'll have to agree to differ on just how clear the linked article.. makes it clear the woman was given a suspended sentence.

Seems quite clear to me:

https://twitter.com/MrNachoBusiness/status/651549520602509312

..fwiw, those sentences are still too lenient IMO.

Well, if you think they are lenient, how's about this woman who raped an 8 year old boy 50 times and only got 2 years. Or how about this woman who tried to have sex with her ten year old pupil, got his name tattoo'd on his chest and walked free. Although you might not like that last one as the paper says she "walked free" but in fact was given a community order. Damn tabloids, eh.

Yes, it is.

Eh, no, it's not.

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Eh, no, it's not.

No point in addressing the rest of it, I'll just clarify this bit. Yes that is bollocksology. At least that much we can agree on.

Billy86

Jayop wrote: »

Controversial opinion and all that, but putting this specific case to one side for a moment, I don't think it's as bad for an older female to have sex with an underage lad as it is for an older man to have sex with an underage girl. 11 is obviously ridiculous and disgusting, but I know loads of lads who I grew up with who actively chased older woman when they were 14/15 and on many occasions either got their hole with them or at least got a shift. Sometimes the gap could be 10/15 years.

So what you are saying is, growing up you knew a lot of child rapists and child molesters (at least by proxy). There is absolutely no way that it should be viewed differently for women and boys than it should for men and girls - if anything, females mature faster both mentally and physically.

kowloon

For anyone not getting the 'Niiiice' comments, it's from an episode of South Park which satirizes this exact situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR-EU_l_pKA

Billy86

kowloon wrote: »

For anyone not getting the 'Niiiice' comments, it's from an episode of South Park which satirizes this exact situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR-EU_l_pKA

Only it's been run into the ground for a solid decade over and over and over and over and over and over and over again by people who don't seem to have noticed that it was criticising the double standard to begin with.

_Whimsical_

Billy86 wrote: »

So what you are saying is, growing up you knew a lot of child rapists and child molesters (at least by proxy). There is absolutely no way that it should be viewed differently for women and boys than it should for men and girls - if anything, females mature faster both mentally and physically.

11 year old girls are not any more mature than 11 year old boys, physical maturity definitely is not a sign of emotional maturity and should never be seen as such. The fact that the boy in question looked older went against him too. The judge deemed his physical maturity and her emotional immaturity to cancel each other out and negate the age difference, a completely preposterous conclusion to have drawn.

This case is utterly appalling. This little boy really has been failed by the woman, the courts and most importantly his father. It's his job to protect and fight for his child, he's clearly not fit to be a parent, you'd really have to fear for his welfare.

Overheal

The Irish judicial system really does set the most perplexing legal precedents at times.

tritium

Overheal wrote: »

The Irish judicial system really does set the most perplexing legal precedents at times.

Um, calm down and read the thread. Its a UK story. Plenty if cases and reasons to kick the Irish legal system with but this isn't one of them....

Annasopra

Fleawuss wrote: »

Posters with more than a casual knowledge of case law here obviously. I'm sure that given the obvious training and access to record they have they could quantify and compare sentences in cases of illegal sexual relations between opposite sexes involving those victims legally classed as children on the basis of gender of the convicted over, say, a 20 year period. Should settle the matter.

That would take considerable research

Duckjob

What a pathetic excuse for a father that poor lad has. If it was his 11yr old daughter being ridden by a 20yr old bloke you can be sure he wouldn't consider it a "notch on her belt".

People with his mental age shouldn't have kids in the first place.

The Corinthian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point I'm making is that I have no interest in the 'if the genders were reversed' bollocksology - a child was the victim of a rape or sexual assault, and the perpetrator only received a suspended sentence. That for me, is the most important thing that should be focused on, rather than 'ohh if the genders were reversed, this would happen', etc.

Thing is, it probably wouldn't. The evidence is not difficult to come by and some has been already presented, and dismissed out of hand, by you.

Problem with your point is that you claim it's bollocksology, then when given evidence of the opposite, you either change your argument, or apply pedantry to defend yourself; such as claiming that if one can find an example of a man who's received a lenient sentence, ergo there is no discrimination - which, logically speaking, is bollocksology.

Thing is, you don't even believe that there's no discrimination:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course there's a gender discrepancy between genders with regard to the sentencing handed down for rape and sexual abuse of children in the UK, but what's actually more important as far as I'm concerned, is not the gender of the perpetrator, or the victim, but the leniency of the sentencing handed down. That's actually what needs to be addressed more urgently IMO.

Instead you simply seem to have an aversion to anyone pointing this out and even when it becomes blatantly obvious that your position is patently false, you'll change the goalposts or dismiss others with remarkable immaturity:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, it [that the existence of gender based judgments is 'bollocksology'] is.

And it's not the first time you've done this, neither is it the first time you've responded ad nauseam with ever more surreal dismissals, strawmen and denials, until the thread it dragged so OT that a moderator shuts down the discussion.

Why are you so intent on denying or dismissing these things exist? TBH, after a while it all starts sounding like the gender rights equivalent of David Irving.

One eyed Jack

The Corinthian wrote: »

Thing is, it probably wouldn't. The evidence is not difficult to come by and some has been already presented, and dismissed out of hand, by you.

Problem with your point is that you claim it's bollocksology, then when given evidence of the opposite, you either change your argument, or apply pedantry to defend yourself; such as claiming that if one can find an example of a man who's received a lenient sentence, ergo there is no discrimination - which, logically speaking, is bollocksology.

The overall circumstances of that case were completely different. The intrinsic difference wasn't simply the gender of the perpetrator at all.

Thing is, you don't even believe that there's no discrimination:

Instead you simply seem to have an aversion to anyone pointing this out and even when it becomes blatantly obvious that your position is patently false, you'll change the goalposts or dismiss others with remarkable immaturity:

No, I never agreed there was discrimination, I said there were discrepancies. For instance a woman cannot be charged with rape, she can be charged with sexual assault. I haven't changed the goalposts or dismissed anyone. In fact I've been more than accommodating with people who have refused to actually read my posts, and instead attempted to try and say I say one thing but I really mean something else.

And it's not the first time you've done this, neither is it the first time you've responded ad nauseam with ever more surreal dismissals, strawmen and denials, until the thread it dragged so OT that a moderator shuts down the discussion.

You know what to do if you have a problem with a post rather than attack the poster.

Why are you so intent on denying or dismissing these things exist? TBH, after a while it all starts sounding like the gender rights equivalent of David Irving.

I don't deny discrepancies exist. I just don't care for some people's hard-on for gender wars when I think they're missing the more important point. All things aren't equal, no two cases are exactly the same, and instead of being focused on the gender of the perpetrator, I think the focus should be on the leniency of the sentencing handed down in these cases where children are the victims of sexual crimes perpetrated by adults.

That's hardly so difficult to understand, is it?

The Corinthian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The overall circumstances of that case were completely different. The intrinsic difference wasn't simply the gender of the perpetrator at all.

What was it then, because you've not made a convincing argument of one to date?

No, I never agreed there was discrimination, I said there were discrepancies. For instance a woman cannot be charged with rape, she can be charged with sexual assault. I haven't changed the goalposts or dismissed anyone. In fact I've been more than accommodating with people who have refused to actually read my posts, and instead attempted to try and say I say one thing but I really mean something else.

A woman cannot be charged with rape because the legal definition of rape requires a penis. Only men have penises. Ergo only men, on the basis of solely their gender, can be charged with the more serious charge of rape.

And this does not constitute discrimination based on gender? Are you serious?

You know what to do if you have a problem with a post rather than attack the poster.

Actually I am attacking your posts, their content.

I don't deny discrepancies exist. I just don't care for some people's hard-on for gender wars when I think they're missing the more important point. All things aren't equal, no two cases are exactly the same, and instead of being focused on the gender of the perpetrator, I think the focus should be on the leniency of the sentencing handed down in these cases where children are the victims of sexual crimes perpetrated by adults.

Yet, we can see that gender is very much a core factor in the leniency of the sentencing handed down. You're not going to get very far focusing on the leniency of the sentencing handed down if you ignore the principle factor in that 'discrepancy', are you?

So, why the denial? Why actively ignore the elephant in the middle?

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You know what to do if you have a problem with a post rather than attack the poster.





I don't deny discrepancies exist. I just don't care for some people's hard-on for gender wars when I think they're missing the more important point. All things aren't equal, no two cases are exactly the same, and instead of being focused on the gender of the perpetrator, I think the focus should be on the leniency of the sentencing handed down in these cases where children are the victims of sexual crimes perpetrated by adults.

That's hardly so difficult to understand, is it?

I agree with this because it shifts the focus from the child being the victim, to an entire population of an adult gender being the victim.

The child is the victim here. Not men at large.

I do think school teachers, men or women, should get extra tough sentencing. Special place in hell for them.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

A woman cannot be charged with rape because the legal definition of rape requires a penis. Only men have penises. Ergo only men, on the basis of solely their gender, can be charged with the more serious charge of rape.

Let's not kid ourselves, it's pretty hard to get a rape charge for a man too.

Where you have penetration you also have risks of pregnancy, possible actually pregnancy {for which NO law exists at all...if you get a woman pregnant though a rape there is no extra charge put on that...]

Unless you have a penis you can't actually increase those risks.

ANd maybe just maybe if men stopped peer pressuring each other, their friends, and their own sons, into the conviction that they love sex all the time, indiscriminately, then maybe the culture and the judiciary might start believing it too.

So men, peers, fathers and brothers have to do their part too to change the perceptions.

Maguined

zeffabelli wrote: »

Let's not kid ourselves, it's pretty hard to get a rape charge for a man too.

Where you have penetration you also have risks of pregnancy, possible actually pregnancy {for which NO law exists at all...if you get a woman pregnant though a rape there is no extra charge put on that...]

Unless you have a penis you can't actually increase those risks.

So men shouldn't be convicted of rape against another man as there is no risk of pregnancy? It should just be sexual assault by your reasoning.

zeffabelli wrote: »

ANd maybe just maybe if men stopped peer pressuring each other, their friends, and their own sons, into the conviction that they love sex all the time, indiscriminately, then maybe the culture and the judiciary might start believing it too.

So men, peers, fathers and brothers have to do their part too to change the perceptions.

Is this not victim blaming? Blaming the attitudes of men rather than the fact the 21 year old adult woman raped an 11 year old boy similar to how a rapist might say a woman was asking for it due to her dress or behaviour?

Still not asking for it.

zeffabelli

Maguined wrote: »

So men shouldn't be convicted of rape against another man as there is no risk of pregnancy? It should just be sexual assault by your reasoning.

No of course not. But a male rape victim still has no risk of pregnancy or all that follows that risk, creating even more risk. Abortion...birth...raising a child....And there is NO law that covers those risks.

Maguined wrote: »

Is this not victim blaming? Blaming the attitudes of men rather than the fact the 21 year old adult woman raped an 11 year old boy similar to how a rapist might say a woman was asking for it due to her dress or behaviour?

Still not asking for it.

No it's not.

What I am saying is that the peer pressure that men put on each other colludes with a perception that there is no circumstance under which a man will not want sex. That they will **** anything any time. What this then feeds into is the sense of an impossibility of rape.... because there is no such thing as not wanting it....

Now how this translates to an 11 year old is beyond my scope of imagining....

jungleman

Jesus can we not have one of these threads without people resorting to saying "victim blaming"?

It's stupid. It's just such a lazy phrase. It really gets on my tits. It encompasses a wide range of events and emotions and compresses them into a singular stupid phrase.

One eyed Jack

The Corinthian wrote: »

What was it then, because you've not made a convincing argument of one to date?

When I say the intrinsic difference wasn't simply the gender of the perpetrator, that is to say that there were many differences between this case, and the case that Nacho presented. The perpetrator wasn't an adult for starters.

A woman cannot be charged with rape because the legal definition of rape requires a penis. Only men have penises. Ergo only men, on the basis of solely their gender, can be charged with the more serious charge of rape.

And this does not constitute discrimination based on gender? Are you serious?

No, it doesn't constitute discrimination based on gender, it constitutes a discrepancy based on gender. It's similar to the way in which abortion laws exist with regard to women, but they do not exist with regard to men. This doesn't constitute discrimination based on gender, it constitutes a discrepancy based on gender.

Actually I am attacking your posts, their content.

You're not actually, as you seem more interested in ascribing motivations to me that simply don't exist. If you were attacking the content of my posts, you would first have to acknowledge what I have posted, rather than trying to imply motivations based on your reinterpretation of my posts.

Yet, we can see that gender is very much a core factor in the leniency of the sentencing handed down. You're not going to get very far focusing on the leniency of the sentencing handed down if you ignore the principle factor in that 'discrepancy', are you?

No, we can't see that at all. What I do see however, is that a male victim's opinion was not considered in sentencing, because their male parent gave an account that was favourable towards the perpetrator, and this was taken into account by a male judge in determining sentencing for the perpetrator's crime.

Apparently I'm supposed to see all this as the perpetrator's responsibility because of the the fact that they are a woman?

You're not going to see what I see though if you're solely focused on the gender of the perpetrator in this case solely because she is a woman. Instead you perceive gender bias in the legal system as the principle factor that should be focused on, rather than the fact that an adult received a lenient sentence for abusing a child.

The fact that excuses were made for the perpetrator (a woman) by the parent (a man), and the judge (a man) who were in a position to prevent the abuse, and in a position to punish the abuser, seems to have been ignored by yourself, and a few other posters, who seem to ignore the fact that the victim (a male child) can recognise, and has said, that what was done to him, was wrong.

So, why the denial? Why actively ignore the elephant in the middle?

I could ask you the same questions tbh.

Maguined

zeffabelli wrote: »

No of course not. But a male rape victim still has no risk of pregnancy or all that follows that risk, creating even more risk. Abortion...birth...raising a child....And there is NO law that covers those risks.

But why are you even bringing risk of pregnancy into the debate then? Corinthian mentioned the fact alone that only a man can be charged with rape is discriminiation inherently within the law. Do you agree or disagree with that point? You seemed to be arguing against it by mentioning pregnancy risks as justifying why only men can be charged with the more serious offense.

zeffabelli wrote: »

No it's not.

What I am saying is that the peer pressure that men put on each other colludes with a perception that there is no circumstance under which a man will not want sex. That they will **** anything any time. What this then feeds into is the sense of an impossibility of rape.... because there is no such thing as not wanting it....

Now how this translates to an 11 year old is beyond my scope of imagining....

It is the exact same reasoning as the victim blaming concept we see many slutwalk protests about. Only the perpetrator of sexual assault is to blame and any factor outside that is labelled as victim blaming. Not necessarily my beliefe but just questioning yours?

zeffabelli

Maguined wrote: »

But why are you even bringing risk of pregnancy into the debate then? Corinthian mentioned the fact alone that only a man can be charged with rape is discriminiation inherently within the law. Do you agree or disagree with that point? You seemed to be arguing against it by mentioning pregnancy risks as justifying why only men can be charged with the more serious offense.





It is the exact same reasoning as the victim blaming concept we see many slutwalk protests about. Only the perpetrator of sexual assault is to blame and any factor outside that is labelled as victim blaming. Not necessarily my beliefe but just questioning yours?

A woman can't be charged with rape because she doesn't have a penis. I think we can all agree, as a general rule, that women do not have penises. Is this some discriminatory politically incprrect fact? It may be politically incorrect, but it is biologically correct. I don't really see what the problem is here.

I don't really know what the slutwalk stuff is about because I pay no heed to activist street theatre.

Yes the old victim blaming card. Yes in some contexts it's fair call, but in many many it is just a way to sustain the status that comes with being a victim. Check your privaledge maybe? Maybe look for your own collusions? No no, we can't have that....

It may be hard to translate culturally.....but I'll try....if you look at all this rape culture talk...and you look at fraternities in the US on campuses with high sports profiles, ritualised hazing, and massive peer pressure on men to be sexually active and they use sports and war metaphor like score, nailed her... etc... of course this is going to produce more pressuure to rape a woman because if you are not scoring then you are a fag... and you are emasculated by your peers.

When you have this culture that has this kind of pressure on men...that they **** anything...whenever....even Allah turns his head on a Thrusday...then that will filter into perceptions of the judiciary...men or women...that a man not wanting sex is a near impossibility or at best a mental disorder.

You know when some monster lets loose with a gun and we all label him a monster....I don't agree with that...well I do a little...he maybe a monster but we all helped to create him.

Wibbs

zeffabelli wrote: »

ANd maybe just maybe if men stopped peer pressuring each other, their friends, and their own sons, into the conviction that they love sex all the time, indiscriminately, then maybe the culture and the judiciary might start believing it too.

What in holy hell did I just read? Oh wait… of course, it's always men's, all men's fault. Sorry I forgot.

zeffabelli

Wibbs wrote: »

What in holy hell did I just read? Oh wait… of course, it's always men's, all men's fault. Sorry I forgot.

See my paragraph above.

No need to get so defensive. If that's what you read, then you weren't reading or you need new glasses.

jungleman

zeffabelli wrote: »

See my paragraph above.

No need to get so defensive. If that's what you read, then you weren't reading or you need new glasses.

Yeah you're basically saying that men feel pressurised into going around raping people. We're all a big bunch of rapists, trying to be cool.

"All the guys are doing it, c'mon man, let's go for a rape. You wanna be cool, don't you?" is pretty much how I translated your post.

Nonsense.

Maguined

zeffabelli wrote: »

A woman can't be charged with rape because she doesn't have a penis. I think we can all agree, as a general rule, that women do not have penises. Is this some discriminatory politically incprrect fact? It may be politically incorrect, but it is biologically correct. I don't really see what the problem is here.

The problem is the current legal definition is outdated and does not reflect the suffering of some victims. Do you think a boy child suffers any less than a girl child simply because of the sex of their pepertrator and the biologly involved? It's not as bad a crime or a violation simply because of the genitalia involved in the crime? Simply their suffering is not as significant or important as the other?

Cuban Pete

Wibbs wrote: »

What in holy hell did I just read? Oh wait… of course, it's always men's, all men's fault. Sorry I forgot.

Okay, what's the alternative? Do men not say "nice"? Do they not say they wish it'd happened to them? Do you not think that might have at least some part to play?

It's primarily men dismissing this. As long as that continues society will mirror those beliefs.

One eyed Jack

jungleman wrote: »

Yeah you're basically saying that men feel pressurised into going around raping people. We're all a big bunch of rapists, trying to be cool.

"All the guys are doing it, c'mon man, let's go for a rape. You wanna be cool, don't you?" is pretty much how I translated your post.

Nonsense.

What's actually nonsense, is how you chose to interpret that post. That wasn't anything at all like what they said. They're not saying at all that men are encouraged to rape women, what they are saying is that men put pressure upon other men to pursue sex as though their worth is measured among men by their sexual experiences or their sexuality.

I don't like the implication myself that I played a part in contributing to that mindset among men, but I understand that the poster means it's a perception created and fostered by men among men in wider society, and in this case, the father's attitude towards his son being sexually assaulted by a woman, is evidence of that fact.

The father doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that what was done to his son was wrong, and he doesn't seem to want to acknowledge this fact because the perpetrator is a woman, so he makes all sorts of rationalisations and ignores the fact that his own son recognises that what was done to him was wrong.

Even the judge is complicit in mitigating the severity of the crime because of the fact that the perpetrator is a woman and the victim is a male child. That's not the fault of the legal system, and the judge could easily have imposed a much more appropriate sentence for the crime, but chose not to, because of the ideas perpetuated among men that sexual abuse against a male child committed by a woman, isn't perceived as sexual abuse that the abuser should be punished for, but rather is something that the victim deserves credit for!

The Southpark clip, much as I loathe the 'humour', satirises this perception to great effect - men empathise with the male victim at first upon the assumption that the perpetrator was male, and it makes them feel awkward, but upon realising that the perpetrator was female, that's where the "niiiiice" nonsense comes from, and the victim isn't perceived as a victim, but a victor among men.

One eyed Jack

Maguined wrote: »

The problem is the current legal definition is outdated and does not reflect the suffering of some victims. Do you think a boy child suffers any less than a girl child simply because of the sex of their pepertrator and the biologly involved? It's not as bad a crime or a violation simply because of the genitalia involved in the crime? Simply their suffering is not as significant or important as the other?

I don't think it's that the current legal definition of rape is outdated. That's simply the terminology, and the maximum sentence for sexual assault is the same as that for rape. The problem is in sentencing, and the sentencing being handed down for sex crimes is simply far too lenient. The idea of a six month custodial sentence, suspended for two years, is ludicrous, and it would be just as ludicrous were the genders reversed.

It's the sentencing that doesn't appropriately reflect the suffering of some victims (as was seen in this case where the effect on the child doesn't appear to have even been considered by the judge). The wrangling over legal definitions or gender biases is at best a distraction from the real issue which is the leniency of sentencing for sex crimes.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

I agree with this because it shifts the focus from the child being the victim, to an entire population of an adult gender being the victim.

Only in your mind. Most of us can concieve that many social problems can be more complex than "four legs good, two legs bad".

Or should we ignore any social problems that may end up endangering some agreed monopoly on victim-hood?

zeffabelli wrote: »

Where you have penetration you also have risks of pregnancy, possible actually pregnancy {for which NO law exists at all...if you get a woman pregnant though a rape there is no extra charge put on that...]

So you feel pedophile rapists should get less severe sentences? After all, they're not going to get their victims pregnant...

...or maybe what you're saying is a bit silly?

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

Only in your mind. Most of us can concieve that many social problems can be more complex than "four legs good, two legs bad".

Or should we ignore any social problems that may end up endangering some agreed monopoly on victim-hood?

So you feel pedophile rapists should get less severe sentences? After all, they're not going to get their victims pregnant...

...or maybe what you're saying is a bit silly?

The sentencing of sex offenders is complex and case by case, unlike your gender activists. And yes there are children, girls who can get pregnant.

You don't think there should be some consequence for this or are you going to start complaining now about child support for unwanted children?

The Corinthian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When I say the intrinsic difference wasn't simply the gender of the perpetrator, that is to say that there were many differences between this case, and the case that Nacho presented. The perpetrator wasn't an adult for starters.

For starters? You'll have to do better than that. Still waiting.

No, it doesn't constitute discrimination based on gender, it constitutes a discrepancy based on gender. It's similar to the way in which abortion laws exist with regard to women, but they do not exist with regard to men. This doesn't constitute discrimination based on gender, it constitutes a discrepancy based on gender.

Bollocksology. So a woman can 'peg' a boy with a strapon, but because the strap-on she uses is not a real penis, it's not rape. And the law should not compensate for such biological discrepancies, apparantly; grand let's abolish all laws that protect the rights of women on the basis of their biology then - if a woman gets let go when she falls pregnant, it's not discrimination, it's a 'discrepancy' now.

You're really grasping at straws where it comes to avoiding the notion that such discrimination exists.

You're not actually, as you seem more interested in ascribing motivations to me that simply don't exist. If you were attacking the content of my posts, you would first have to acknowledge what I have posted, rather than trying to imply motivations based on your reinterpretation of my posts.

Actually I have repeatedly done so; quoted and responded to your arguments, point by point. Please do not be so disingenuous.

No, we can't see that at all.

You. It's pretty clear given the responses, it's pretty much just you.

I could ask you the same questions tbh.

Meaningless response. I'm the one presenting the elephant in the room, you're the one who's trying to tell us it's a gerbil.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

The sentencing of sex offenders is complex and case by case, unlike your gender activists. And yes there are children, girls who can get pregnant.

Not if they're prepubescent. So by your logic, if there is no threat of pregnancy, it's not as severe a crime. Your logic, not mine.

You don't think there should be some consequence for this or are you going to start complaining now about child support for unwanted children?

What's this nonsense? Shall we talk about the weather too if we want to go off topic?

abbir

zeffabelli wrote: »

No of course not. But a male rape victim still has no risk of pregnancy or all that follows that risk, creating even more risk. Abortion...birth...raising a child....And there is NO law that covers those risks.

There is the risk that a male rape victim could get the rapist pregnant and then be forced into paying child support. Or does that sound too ridiculous to happen?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think it's that the current legal definition of rape is outdated. That's simply the terminology, and the maximum sentence for sexual assault is the same as that for rape. The problem is in sentencing, and the sentencing being handed down for sex crimes is simply far too lenient. The idea of a six month custodial sentence, suspended for two years, is ludicrous, and it would be just as ludicrous were the genders reversed.

It's the sentencing that doesn't appropriately reflect the suffering of some victims (as was seen in this case where the effect on the child doesn't appear to have even been considered by the judge). The wrangling over legal definitions or gender biases is at best a distraction from the real issue which is the leniency of sentencing for sex crimes.

This is really a linguistic complaint.

The sentencing is not that different.

It's that rape has a stronger punch than sexual assault, which is a spectrum,and doesn't carry the same resonance... So it really has nothing to do with sentencing but more to do with cultural recognition via language.

zeffabelli

abbir wrote: »

There is the risk that a male rape victim could get the rapist pregnant and then be forced into paying child support. Or does that sound too ridiculous to happen?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/

Yeah that's nuts. still statutory though.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

It's that rape has a stronger punch than sexual assault, which is a spectrum,and doesn't carry the same resonance... So it really has nothing to do with sentencing but more to do with cultural recognition via language.

No, rape carries a maximum life sentence, sexual assault does not (10 years maximum, I believe, but could be corrected).

The Guardian

The Guardian wrote:

A judge has been criticised after deciding not to imprison a 21-year-old babysitter who admitted sexual activity with the 11-year-old boy she was looking after.

the boy’s father spoke up for Hatt in court, claiming his son was “fully up for the experience

Jesus H Christ, the "father" thought the kid was young enough to need a babysitter and old enough to have sex?! What the actual fúck??

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not if they're prepubescent. So by your logic, if there is no threat of pregnancy, it's not as severe a crime. Your logic, not mine.

What's this nonsense? Shall we talk about the weather too if we want to go off topic?

You didn't specify pre pubuscence. It's up to you to be specific. Pedophilia covers a range.... it is also more accurate to refer to sex offenders or sex offences.

There are a number of factors which will determine how severe a crime it is, the consequence of pregnancy would be one of those, but so would the levels of co - ercion, the repetitions or once off. or the nature of the seduction.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, rape carries a maximum life sentence, sexual assault does not (10 years maximum, I believe, but could be corrected).

Aggravated sexual assault is sexual assault involving serious violence or the threat of serious violence. In common with rape offences, the maximum sentence for aggravated sexual assault is life imprisonment.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/law_on_sex_offences_in_ireland.html

Consider yourself corrected.

One eyed Jack

The Corinthian wrote: »

For starters? You'll have to do better than that. Still waiting.

Fair enough - the perpetrator committed multiple acts of rape against the victim in that case. In this case, according to the father's account of the events that took place, the victim was "well up for the experience", that went on for "45 seconds". The judge took the father's account into consideration in sentencing, and also in sentencing tried to put responsibility for the perpetrator's actions on the victim by claiming to acknowledge that the victim was mature for their age, and the perpetrator was immature for her age. In the case Nacho linked to, the judge placed no responsibility on the victim in determining sentencing for the perpetrator.

Bollocksology. So a woman can 'peg' a boy with a strapon, but because the strap-on she uses is not a real penis, it's not rape. And the law should not compensate for such biological discrepancies, apparantly; grand let's abolish all laws that protect the rights of women on the basis of their biology then - if a woman gets let go when she falls pregnant, it's not discrimination, it's a 'discrepancy' now.

Yeah, that's bollocksology alright, and even worse is the idea that I should entertain it. It has nothing to do with anything I said, more like you're trying to set up an argument and argue against that instead of actually making a counter-point to what I actually said.

You're really grasping at straws where it comes to avoiding the notion that such discrimination exists.

Discrimination exists alright, but what you're arguing should be recognised as discrimination in the legal system, doesn't. Discrimination exists in the courtroom, not so much in the legislation.

Actually I have repeatedly done so; quoted and responded to your arguments, point by point. Please do not be so disingenuous.

Far from being disingenuous, I'm actually wondering when you'll get around to actually addressing my arguments rather than simply responding to them with glib missives and strawman scenarios.

You. It's pretty clear given the responses, it's pretty much just you.

Apparently it's not just me if your claims are that gender bias exists in the legal system. The legal system is more than just me. Far more people it seems than just me, simply don't see what you're seeing.

Meaningless response. I'm the one presenting the elephant in the room, you're the one who's trying to tell us it's a gerbil.

You're not presenting any elephant, you're expecting that I should ignore the forest because look at the trees. That's simply not going to happen, and I'm hardly alone in that regard if you claim that anyone who doesn't see what you see must mean they're part of the problem.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

You didn't specify pre pubuscence. It's up to you to be specific. Pedophilia covers a range.... it is also more accurate to refer to sex offenders or sex offences.

What has prepubescence got to do with what you argued? You stated that because a penis can cause pregnancy then it is a more serious crime. So you brought the importance of pregnancy, and thus pubescence, into the discussion.

You can hardly blame me because you hadn't thought through the implications of your own logic.

There are a number of factors which will determine how severe a crime it is, the consequence of pregnancy would be one of those, but so would the levels of co - ercion, the repetitions or once off. or the nature of the seduction.

Were that the case, could the fertility of a female rape victim not be used as a factor in sentencing? Could you let us know where this is the case?

zeffabelli wrote: »

Aggravated sexual assault is sexual assault involving serious violence or the threat of serious violence. In common with rape offences, the maximum sentence for aggravated sexual assault is life imprisonment.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/law_on_sex_offences_in_ireland.html

Consider yourself corrected.

Fair enough.

@One eyed Jack; I just don't have the time or patience to argue with you any further. TBH, when you started to argue that gender based discrimination was instead 'discrepancy' I just gave up on you.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

What has prepubescence got to do with what you argued? You stated that because a penis can cause pregnancy then it is a more serious crime. So you brought the importance of pregnancy, and thus pubescence, into the discussion.

.

No it was because you wrongly assumed pedofilia wiped out the detail of pregnancy as an unequal consequence.

You mention pedofilia ....I don't know about you but I still think of ten + as kids....

So it was up to you to clarify kids under 10.

And sex offenders is far more accurate in this debate.