Mimi wrote:
BikNorton wrote:
Now, not wanting to be dismissive or anything but 14 and 15-16 are not unusual ages and 'last year' means all sorts of horrible recent 'child' pornography law wording including 16-18 year olds whether or not the offender knows, the 'victim' lies to the 'offender', is a willing participant, the instigator or the photographer.
Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by '14 and 15-16 are not unusual ages'?
I'm not sure I understand any of that post.
I thought it meant that it was not unusual for a 15 year old or thereabouts to lie about their age, and seem plausible enough to not know that they were underage.
But that's just my interpretation.
But that's just my interpretation.
Eh? Any guy of 40+ who thinks it's OK for them to shag a 16 year old child needs his dick chopping off. If any bloke even remotely approaching - let alone exceeding - that age had got involved with the Teen Angels when they were that young, he would've spent the rest of his remorse-filled days speaking in a falsetto tone, believe you me.
Cavey wrote:
Eh? Any guy of 40+ who thinks it's OK for them to shag a 16 year old child needs his dick chopping off. If any bloke even remotely approaching - let alone exceeding - that age had got involved with the Teen Angels when they were that young, he would've spent the rest of his remorse-filled days speaking in a falsetto tone, believe you me.
And you in prison.
Mr Dave wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Eh? Any guy of 40+ who thinks it's OK for them to shag a 16 year old child needs his dick chopping off. If any bloke even remotely approaching - let alone exceeding - that age had got involved with the Teen Angels when they were that young, he would've spent the rest of his remorse-filled days speaking in a falsetto tone, believe you me.
And you in prison.
Indeed. However, some things in life are worth fighting for, at any price. Inaction on my part (not that this would ever happen) would be a far, far worse sentence for me.
I don't think of myself as violent, but I've flattened people (much bigger/younger than me) for far, far less. Bollocks to the consequences I say - not that there have been any to date. They don't call me "Gimli" for nowt.
I've heard it said that the acceptable range of ages is half your own age plus 7. Therefore the youngest a 40+ can consider is 27. Seems fair
DavPaz wrote:
I've heard it said that the acceptable range of ages is half your own age plus 7. Therefore the youngest a 40+ can consider is 27. Seems fair
Acceptable to whom?
DavPaz wrote:
I've heard it said that the acceptable range of ages is half your own age plus 7. Therefore the youngest a 40+ can consider is 27. Seems fair
I'm not sure of any "formula" mate; personally I could not care less if there was a 40 year age gap - as long as the younger party was an adult. If some randy old 60 year old gets it on with a 28 year old and they're both happy with the arrangement, whilst I might think it a bit odd, who am I to judge what two consenting adults do?
It's very different if we're talking about a 16 year old *child*, however. Well, it is for me at any rate.
SilentElk wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
I've heard it said that the acceptable range of ages is half your own age plus 7. Therefore the youngest a 40+ can consider is 27. Seems fair
Acceptable to whom?
"them"
My son turns 16 next year, should I be beating up any older women who show him some sexual attention?
Is it ok for an 18 year old woman to sleep with a 42+ year old man?
I really don't get this overprotective stuff that daughters get. If my daughter (in 12 years time) wanted to sleep with an older man, why should I get in her way? Sure, make sure she has all the facts, and aware of the risks, and give her advice and stuff, but if she really wants to do it, then why not let her? I really don't see it to be that different to her having sex with a 30 year old or a 20 year old or indeed a 50 year old or 60 year old!
Malc
Is it ok for an 18 year old woman to sleep with a 42+ year old man?
I really don't get this overprotective stuff that daughters get. If my daughter (in 12 years time) wanted to sleep with an older man, why should I get in her way? Sure, make sure she has all the facts, and aware of the risks, and give her advice and stuff, but if she really wants to do it, then why not let her? I really don't see it to be that different to her having sex with a 30 year old or a 20 year old or indeed a 50 year old or 60 year old!
Malc
Malc wrote:
My son turns 16 next year, should I be beating up any older women who show him some sexual attention?
Is it ok for an 18 year old woman to sleep with a 42+ year old man?
I really don't get this overprotective stuff that daughters get. If my daughter (in 12 years time) wanted to sleep with an older man, why should I get in her way? Sure, make sure she has all the facts, and aware of the risks, and give her advice and stuff, but if she really wants to do it, then why not let her? I really don't see it to be that different to her having sex with a 30 year old or a 20 year old or indeed a 50 year old or 60 year old!
Malc
Is it ok for an 18 year old woman to sleep with a 42+ year old man?
I really don't get this overprotective stuff that daughters get. If my daughter (in 12 years time) wanted to sleep with an older man, why should I get in her way? Sure, make sure she has all the facts, and aware of the risks, and give her advice and stuff, but if she really wants to do it, then why not let her? I really don't see it to be that different to her having sex with a 30 year old or a 20 year old or indeed a 50 year old or 60 year old!
Malc
Well, there's a big difference between 18 and 16. If you're saying you'd be cool with your 16 year old daughter sleeping with a 50 year old man, well, that's your prerogative as her father mate. We differ, widely.
I don't see how it's really any difference to her sleeping with someone her own age? I can't imagine many 16 year old girls would want to sleep with a 50 year old man. But if I'm ok with her sleeping with boys her own age, then surely I need to be ok with her sleeping with older men too?
I see it the same way as parents who try and "encourage" their children into professions that the parent want them to do, rather than seeing what the child wants.
You educate the child, you let them know the ramifications of sex, the fact that some people will want to use them and exploit them, and to let them know they should be having sex for the right reasons (ie they want to and they enjoy it) and to be doing it safely and so on. And then from that point on it's their own bussiness.
Malc
I see it the same way as parents who try and "encourage" their children into professions that the parent want them to do, rather than seeing what the child wants.
You educate the child, you let them know the ramifications of sex, the fact that some people will want to use them and exploit them, and to let them know they should be having sex for the right reasons (ie they want to and they enjoy it) and to be doing it safely and so on. And then from that point on it's their own bussiness.
Malc
Malc wrote:
And then from that point on it's their own bussiness.
No, not at 16 (and still a *schoolgirl*) it's not. Well, not for me.
You protect your kids from harm - that is the prime role of any parent/guardian. At 16, they might be sexually mature (just), but they are not mentally mature and are therefore vulnerable to all sorts of threats that they'll be much better equipped to deal with when older.
I mean seriously, I can't believe we're having this conversation? The State prohibits underage sex for very good reasons and there is almost universal consensus. Surely I don't need to trot them out here?
Isn't the age of consent 16?
I'm definitely going to need pictures before I decide whose daughter I am going to be sleeping with.
Saturnalian wrote:
Isn't the age of consent 16?
I think there are certain restrictions between 16-18 (IIRC, teachers cannot have sex with pupils within this age group).
But whatever, I'm not talking about legalities - I'm talking about what would've been acceptable, or not, to me as a parent, when my girls were 16.
Fair play to Malc for saying in plain terms he'd be fine with his 16 year old daughter having sex with 50 years olds. For me, that's both horrific and absurd, but I'm only talking about what *I* would do, not necessarily moral absolutes.
What about if you had a son?
Would you feel the same about him having sex with a 50 year old woman?
Malc
Would you feel the same about him having sex with a 50 year old woman?
Malc
I think the majority would consider 14 and 80+ to be a bit of an odd gap!
Actually, maybe Rolf Harris got confused when he heard Calvin Harris say it is "acceptable in the 80s".
Cavey wrote:
I mean seriously, I can't believe we're having this conversation? The State prohibits underage sex for very good reasons and there is almost universal consensus. Surely I don't need to trot them out here?
This sentence confused me then, since Malc wasn't talking about underage sex.
Curiosity wrote:
Actually, maybe Rolf Harris got confused when he heard Calvin Harris say it is "acceptable in the 80s".
It was acceptable at the time (m'lud).
Saturnalian wrote:
Cavey wrote:
I mean seriously, I can't believe we're having this conversation? The State prohibits underage sex for very good reasons and there is almost universal consensus. Surely I don't need to trot them out here?
This sentence confused me then, since Malc wasn't talking about underage sex.
Yes, but the reasons are the same whether it is a girl aged 15 and 364 days or 16 and 0 days; kids don't magically transform on the night of their 16th birthday. Age 16 is an arbitrary threshold only.
If people here think it's fine and dandy for girls of 16 to have sex with 50 year olds, that's fine with me. Personally I think that's disgusting, but it's only my opinion. It's hardly as if anything I'm going to say is going to change their minds.
Thank goodness I don't need to worry about people like that anymore; my girls are well into their 20s and happily married with kids and nice husbands.
Is any sex at 16 acceptable then? What if your girl had a twenty five year old boyfriend would you let them do the nasty while you're out down the shops?
Cavey wrote:
If people here think it's fine and dandy for girls of 16 to have sex with 50 year olds, that's fine with me. Personally I think that's disgusting, but it's only my opinion. It's hardly as if anything I'm going to say is going to change their minds.
Malc's real question to you, I think, is what is the actual the difference between a 16 year old girl having sex with a 16 year old boy or a 50 year old man? She's either mature enough to understand the ramifications of sex or she's not and the age of her partner doesn't make any difference to that. What is this threat that a 50 year presents as a sex partner that a 16 year doesn't exactly? What would you be protecting your daughter from if you prevented one situation but allowed the other?
Bamba wrote:
What is this threat that a 50 year presents as a sex partner that a 16 year doesn't exactly?
He'd probably know what he's doing.
Bamba wrote:
and the age of her partner doesn't make any difference to that.
No. (IMO at least)
*Of course* the age of a 16 year old girl's partner makes a difference.
People are fixated about sex itself - the physical act. But what I'm talking about is the mental manipulation that a mature man, with the benefit of his years, is able to deploy in order to bed such a vulnerable young child in the first place, and then no doubt cause significant mental damage/hurt as a result of such a relationship?
Last I'm going to say on this as it's tiresome, frankly. If people think it's OK for Rolf Harris or anyone else in their 50s to have sex with 16 year olds - then that's YOUR problem, not mine.
There's a big, BIG difference between molestation and consensual sex, Cavey.
GazChap wrote:
There's a big, BIG difference between molestation and consensual sex, Cavey.
Fair point.
Although, the ability to consent at age 16 is, in my opinion, impaired as compared to say, 18 and most certainly 21 on, for the reasons I've mentioned (and irrespective of mere legalities).
The law cannot account for everything. What's *morally* right also comes into this IMO.
Also, Rolf Harris is 83!
You might worry about your child's sexual partner for all sorts of reasons but a 50 year old bloke who goes for 16 year olds? Come on. That would surely set almost any parent's alarm bells ringing. I think a parent who did fuck all in that situation should be prepared to deal with someone who feels they were quite badly let down in a couple of years.
markg wrote:
You might worry about your child's sexual partner for all sorts of reasons but a 50 year old bloke who goes for 16 year olds? Come on. That would surely set almost any parent's alarm bells ringing. I think a parent who did fuck all in that situation should be prepared to deal with someone who feels they were quite badly let down in a couple of years.
Well you'd think so wouldn't you Mark - but apparently not.
Ugh.
Curiosity wrote:
Also, Rolf Harris is 83!
The main alleged incidents happened in the early 80's so he would have been in his 50's at the time
Like I say, give them advice, let them know the risks, but it's their mind to make up what they want to do.
Still no one has said if they would feel the same if it was their 16 year old son having sex with a 50 year old woman.
Malc
Still no one has said if they would feel the same if it was their 16 year old son having sex with a 50 year old woman.
Malc
Cavey wrote:
*Of course* the age of a 16 year old girl's partner makes a difference.
People are fixated about sex itself - the physical act. But what I'm talking about is the mental manipulation that a mature man, with the benefit of his years, is able to deploy in order to bed such a vulnerable young child in the first place, and then no doubt cause significant mental damage/hurt as a result of such a relationship?
People are fixated about sex itself - the physical act. But what I'm talking about is the mental manipulation that a mature man, with the benefit of his years, is able to deploy in order to bed such a vulnerable young child in the first place, and then no doubt cause significant mental damage/hurt as a result of such a relationship?
This is true if you assume someone's being manipulated but that's your addition to the scenario, not mine. If a 16 year old wants to have consensual sex what's the difference if that sex is with another 16 year old or a 50 year old?
Cavey wrote:
Last I'm going to say on this as it's tiresome, frankly. If people think it's OK for Rolf Harris or anyone else in their 50s to have sex with 16 year olds - then that's YOUR problem, not mine.
I didn't realise that asking someone their opinion on something automatically meant you condone the subject of the question. When did that become a thing?
I guess you aren't going to automatically assume that the 16 year old is some sort of malfunctioning cretin and/or quite possibly a paedophile.
But surely the 50 year old woman can manipulate the 16 year old boy just as easily (perhaps more so?) as the 50 year old man can manipulate the 16 year old girl?
Or is it not a problem when it's a boy?
(also paedophiles like pre-pubescent children, it's called something else if they are physically sexually mature)
Malc
Or is it not a problem when it's a boy?
(also paedophiles like pre-pubescent children, it's called something else if they are physically sexually mature)
Malc
Malc wrote:
(also paedophiles like pre-pubescent children, it's called something else if they are physically sexually mature)
Ephebophiles. A pederast is a child molestor. Technically a paedophile is someone who is attracted to children, not someone who abuses them.
[oops, wrong thread]
It’s all started this week, Roache, Harris and Travis all in court today on various assault charges.
Have to wonder how some of the crimes can stand up in court when they were done pushing 50 years ago?
Not for one minute saying there should be a time limit on this sort of charge, but I wonder what evidence aside for verbal allegations can be left?
Have to wonder how some of the crimes can stand up in court when they were done pushing 50 years ago?
Not for one minute saying there should be a time limit on this sort of charge, but I wonder what evidence aside for verbal allegations can be left?
British Nervoso wrote:
Malc wrote:
(also paedophiles like pre-pubescent children, it's called something else if they are physically sexually mature)
Ephebophiles. A pederast is a child molestor. Technically a paedophile is someone who is attracted to children, not someone who abuses them.
Only loosely related to this thread, but today I spoke to a chap called Peter Fyle.
Oh my.
The 'revelations' about DLT today reminded me of something that Sandy Togsvig mentioned when this all kicked off about her being fondled while she was on air
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745810
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandi_Toksvig
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745810
Quote:
Dave Lee Travis trial: Presenter assaulted while on air
A radio announcer has described the moment Dave Lee Travis grabbed her breasts when she was broadcasting live on BBC Radio 4, his trial has heard.
The woman, who was a 26-year-old BBC trainee at the time in the 1980s, said she was frightened but could not cry out because she was broadcasting at the time.
A radio announcer has described the moment Dave Lee Travis grabbed her breasts when she was broadcasting live on BBC Radio 4, his trial has heard.
The woman, who was a 26-year-old BBC trainee at the time in the 1980s, said she was frightened but could not cry out because she was broadcasting at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandi_Toksvig
Quote:
In October 2012, in the wake of allegations about the behaviour of Jimmy Savile and claims that during the 1980s there was a culture within the BBC which tolerated sexual harassment, she says she was groped by a "famous individual" on air.[5][6] Toksvig said the allegations of inappropriate behaviour at the BBC "did not surprise me at all".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26068034
Roache is found not guilty on all charges, thought that this would be hard to prove, the evidence was largely the women's word and was very shaky and the verdict reflects that.
Roache is found not guilty on all charges, thought that this would be hard to prove, the evidence was largely the women's word and was very shaky and the verdict reflects that.
My mate's found some reel to reel he did years ago of saville talking about prisons. One of a kind stuff, only copy, never used. I'm going to sample the shit out of it.
DLT not guilty of indecent assault.
Was he charged with anything else?
Hmmm, so 14 counts of indecent assault: cleared of 12 & the jury failed to make a decision on 2. CPS to decide whether to go with a retrial. I predict they give it up as a bad job.