Be Excellent To Each Other

going on!



I didn't realise there were people like *that* where I lived!

Malc

I really don't get child pornography. I can't conceive of why anyone would find that remotely appealing.

Then again, I'm a boob man myself. If there aren't boobs then I don't see the point.

I agree with Mr. Gnomes, with the proviso that they are female boobs, and not of the "moob" variety.

Man boobs are worse than child porn, imo.

Of course, since the ridiculous 2003 sex offences act, anyone between the ages of 16 and 18 is classed as a child for the purposes of laws against indecent images of children, unless it's their spouse taking and viewing the photos. So just because someone has been done for having child porn doesn't necessarily mean they're a nonce.

Same as someone being on the sex offenders' register - you can end up on that for having a piss in an alleyway.

Aye, actual child pornography and paedophilia is a mental disorder that should in no way be comprehensible to the average person.
But on the other hand if you showed a picture of a 15-year old girl in a state of undress to the average hetrosexual male, assuming she didn't look obviously young and you didn't tell them (to avoid the, quite correct 'oh god I don't want to see that' response) - said bloke would likely be turned on by it.

But under the law and the eyes of the media the offense is the same thing, which is a ridiculous situation to be in. Especially as Chris mentions, were the girl 16 it would legally okay to have sex with her, but not to see a naked picture.

As a society we really need to start differentiating between the two. Although in many ways the latter case is worse: a paedophile is generally almost exculsively attracted to pre-pubescents, it's a disorder that drives those lacking self control to horrible things. But the guy getting off on pictures of a 15-year old (assuming he knows what he's looking at) likely has pretty 'normal' sexual preferences and would be equally turned on by a 25-year old, so frankly has no excuse for being a bastard.

How is it being a bastard being attraced to a sexually mature unclothed woman?

It's not - but going after a 15 year-old with no mental disorder to excuse you is a bit much.

Edit: Also,


Why, because you'd go blind halfway through?

Har har.

I'd gotten the impression, purely from watching the news, that the police already have and employ far more discretion when it comes to the sexual adventures of the underaged-yet-postpubescent. Unless there's a significant difference in the ages they don't seem to prosecute, which I guess would be in line with the reasoning behind the age of consent being higher than the age of sexual maturity in the first place. I suppose the 16-18 proviso Mr Chris mentioned also falls in line with this... it's basically about stopping proper, full-on, world-weary adults exploiting naive, fresh-faced idiot kids, isn't it? Better safe than sorry etc.

Sorry wasn't very clear: point was, if you're attracted to pre-pubescents, there's something wrong with you - it's a biological issue - something in the human desire to procreate has gone very wrong with you and you don't find post-pubescents sexually appealing. And in the current moral climate it's very hard to find help for that sort of thing without risking ruining your life and career. Obviously it's still very wrong if someone gives into the temptation but they're likely confused, scared and all manner of fucked-up.

But the 21-year old that sees an attractive 15-year old, seduces her and beds her knowing full-well she's only 15 - he's a mostly 'normal' guy, he's attracted to post-pubescents, maybe he has a preference for younger looking girls but that's just in the same way you or I would have a preference for large breasts or red-heads. He'd be perfectly happy going after girls his own age but instead opts to break the law and bed a child. To me that seems somewhat worse. I mean, obviously if we're judgeing based on the effect on the victim, the former case probably causes more damage, but in terms of who the bigger bastard is, I'd go with the latter.

Zigackly. I, some of my friends, and probably a large minority of people born after about 1984 (who would reach this age bracket after the internet took over everything) could technically have been done for this simply for mucking about and experimenting/showing off with people our own age or a few months younger.

I'd imagine the police and courts are at least vaguely aware of and take this into consideration, but it still shows how grey the fuzziness around sex offenders and the register are, despite the ravings of the witch hunters.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?



Just. Ridiculous. It was ridiculous in 2005 when it happened, and still is, as it's set a precedent.

And now with the new "extreme porn" bit in the latest sexual offences act, what's currently legal to both do and look at could be criminalised due to exceptionally shonky legislative drafting. Thank heavens Baroness Miller (Lib Dem, natch) sticking her head over the parapet to protect people's right to watch videos of legal acts. More on that here

Oh, for fuck's sake. Can't the zombies just hurry up and storm the country? I'm sick of watching everything slowly decay into stagnant ignorance. Get it over with, universe.



I mean, seriously, what? "Public morals"? What the fuck does that even mean? There must be hundreds of 15 year olds who'll have sex today - are all of them somehow turning the imaginary public into amoral psychopaths? And why the hell is it in the public interest to force people to refrain from any sexual contact until they're 16? If anything surely that's harming the public interest and raising a generation of frustrated hormone bombs.

Christ.

Is he still a bastard if it happens while he's on holiday on Spain, where she'd be legal?

What if he was in Oregon in the USA, and he bedded a 17 year old, who would be illegal?

Biologically, we're wired to breed as soon as we get through puberty, the age of consent is an artificial construct. It's not a bad one, per se... but it causes all sorts of problems, which the courts should look at carefully when dealing with.

I knew a lad at college who used to boast of 'wowing the slags' at the local discos (as they still basically were then), which had an age range of 'You don't look old enough' to 'You're an adult, clear off'. In other words, it actually seemed to herd young would-be-slappers into once alcohol-fuelled dance-fest.

This lad I knew would turn up, show a bit of money, go for a ride in his car, then pop their cherry in the back seat. I just remember him saying in a general, genial manner, "Go for the ones who are allowed in, but who obviously are too young, that way you know they're still fresh, no STDS or that."

Me and another lad went to beat the crap out of him one night after he heard (more) disturbing reports. Unfortunately him and his two mates instead beat the crap out of us, and he carried on. This says something, but I don't know what.

Some girls are just stupid?

Yes. I think it's wrong to assume boys are somehow more culpable. If you're willing and consenting, you deserve whatever you get, frankly.

14 year old drunk girls deserve to be used by sexual predators?

I think there is a point of drunkenness where one can't really consent. Morally, at least, I don't think that's the case legally.

That does seem rather one-sided and unnecessary (and I fail to see how the possibility of pregnancy lessens one's responsibility!) -- I had to mind examples I've seen reported on the telly with your stereotypical chav couples, where there's a lot of hand-wringing about what society is coming to but no hint of prosecution.


Cultural differences are pretty interesting. Last time I was in Canada there was a high profile case about a teacher who had shagged several of his pupils and, the age of consent being 14 over there, the furore was over his breach of his duty of care as a teacher rather than their ages. And even then there seemed to be this persistent opinion that the woman in question was only bringing the charges out of some unrelated bitterness and that they had all known what they were doing by consenting and had a gay ol' time etc. Coming from Blightly, where a Blackpool post-card is the peak of socially acceptable sexual naughtiness, I found the coverage of it bizarre.

I'd have bloody loved it if some of *my* teachers had come on to me when I was at school.

Giggedy giggedy giggedy!

I'm not entirely sure why the law was drafted in the way it currently stands anyway. Why should the state interfere if two 15 year olds both sexually active and consenting have fun in their bedroom?

I believe this was thrashed out at WoS and we didn't come to any agreement or answers then, though. I'm sure I don't know what the answer is, but that's why I'm not a top paid lawyer man.

It's all fun and games till some 13 year old has a kid, or gets aids.

What is?

The law not caring about kids fucking.

Of course the law cares about kids fucking. The ban on smoking has made the unwanted belly fruit of children, all the healthier, with less chance of low birth weight.

If anyone wants to cheer me up please go to WoS, and argue that the smoking ban will only increase Britain's population, and therefore anyone in favour of no ciggies = in favour of chav babies taking over the country.

Hah! I like that logic.

Indeed. However, many people will not care about this, so getting that drunk, especially if one is a teenaged girl in a culture that fetishises slaggish, drunken youth, is very stupid. Especially if you do it while out with people who aren't going to keep you safe and cart you home.

Yeah precisely. You'd never say 'she deserved to be raped', but living in a society where such things are possible, you really aren't doing yourself any favours by dressing like a tart and then getting wasted and incapable of protecting yourself.

Your 'desire to procreate' reasoning applies to gay people as well.

Yep it does. And if you look at the numbers, the biological 'norm' is clearly attraction to people of the same sex. Being gay is strictly 'abnormal', defined by the dictionary definition of 'different from what is usual'. But you can put a paedophile in therapy for years, few, if any, ever go on to have happy, fulfilling adult relationships. At best you try and kill the attraction to children or help them control it.
Likewise there is no cure for 'gayness' but in that case perfectly possible for them to live a happy, contented life indulging in that preference without hurting anyone, so no harm in it.

That's probably going to upset people isn't it? To put it into perspective, while I'd say paedophilia and homosexuality were both biological abnormalities, so are webbed feet, third nipples, Aspergers and all sorts of other weird things that crop up. Most of us have one or two, it's just that an attraction to kids is potentially dangerous to others and is an impulse that can never be acted on. An attraction to people of the same sex is absolutely fine.

The acceptability of attraction (and acting thereon), regardless of normality, comes down to the proviso of "consenting adults", doesn't it? But that still leaves the definition of "adult" open to question.

Boobs.

Given that, in the eyes of the law, even being really really drunk is no excuse to committing a crime, I can't see how it can, logically, be deemed to be a barrier to consent.

If, notwithstanding being shitfaced, you can be said to have decided to do something with sufficient responsibility for legal guilt, you can bloody well have decided to shag someone with sufficient responsibility for it to constitute consent.

However, if you think that, morally, someone can get so drunk they can't consent to sex because they don't know what they're doing, then, by extension, you believe that, morally, someone who stabbed your wife to death shouldn't be found guilty if they were too drunk to know what they were doing.

I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound right at all.

The law's found a pretty reasonable level on this one, and it's: being drunk isn't a fucking excuse for anything.

I support this statement and agree with its sentiments.

I tend to agree with you, my point was more that taking advantage of someone who's incredibly drunk is not morally a good thing to do.

On the legal side, on the rare occasion that someone gets drunk inadvertantly, such as a drink being spiked, they wouldn't be held responsible. When they've chosen to get drunk they, correctly, will be.

Then the criminal is the spiker, not the fucker (presuming he/she doesn't know of the spiking)... so to speak.

Is spiking someone's drink with alcohol when they don't know it actually illegal? Cuntish behaviour generally, I agree, but if it's illegal there's a lot of students in trouble...

If it's not, it should be. It is essentially poisoning, after all.

It may not be named specifically but there's several it can be prosecuted under. I bet you could even get an assault conviction. You're effectively drugging someone.