Vigil on 25/5/2006 at 15:13
Quote:
The article is not clear about whether any girls replied to the article, but assuming they did, why? Because they are already potentially sexual at that age. So, perhaps we can protect them from abuse by recognising this fact rather than ignoring it, and give younger girls suitable education.
I assume by "replied to the article" you meant "replied to the advertisement scrawled on the door of a train toilet in black marker-pen". The news article quotes the chief inspector as saying "We have not identified any children who responded to the graffiti and were sexually abused" and clarifies that the children which the group abused were all known to the assailants through other channels and not via the ad; and, moreover, had been drugged and held against their will.
So we can't very well go ahead and assume any children did respond to the ads; and to do so would be to make dramatic claims about pre-pubescent sexuality for the purposes of an argument. There's plenty of reported cases of children that young engaging in sexual activity at their own volition, but the circumstances are usually a little different from answering a want-ad scribbled by a pederast in a loo on a train, and as such I'm not clear what sort of education you are suggesting to prevent a hypothetical set of children from responding to that.
AFAIK most western countries already do provide some level of sexual education to children that age, with actual "here's how you do it and how condoms work" education taking place a few years later. I don't know about you, but when I was a kid I and my peers were all repeatedly warned not to follow any invitations of strange men or women. We were never told specifically why, but I'd maintain that that was simple tact and that "because you could be raped and possibly killed" is not something you want to impress on a child.
Convict on 25/5/2006 at 15:14
Quote Posted by Ajare
That twelve years is strictly the minimum time, although it does seem rather lenient. It's still up to the parole board's discretion though, they could easily keep the guy in prison for life if they wanted. It's the parole board who really call the shots on this, not the judge. Also, people who receive life sentences, once released, are still on license for the rest of their lives, and if they so much as get drunk could find themselves serving another 15 years inside.
I may well be wrong here so correct me if I am but doesn't a parole board judge whether to release someone based on whether they will re-offend if released and if they have been behaving themselves in jail? If this is correct then the offender would not receive due punishment for their crime IMO.
I have also heard that men who are not biologically the father (but are the stepfather I think) are much more likely to abuse the child in their care.
OrbWeaver on 25/5/2006 at 15:19
Quote Posted by Tenkahubu
Regarding the issue of abuse, the age of consent has not always been 16. So imagine a hypothetical time in the past. A 14 year old girl willingly has sex with an older man.
You don't need to imagine a time in the past. The age of consent is lower than 16 today in a fair few countries around the world (and not just "third world" ones either), going as low as 12 in some cases.
Dia on 25/5/2006 at 15:23
Quote Posted by Tenkahubu
Dia, you do not understand the male mind and should not try to state what is normal for it.
I do understand the male mind :rolleyes: (I mean how hard is that!?), but am not going to waste time nitpicking the finer details as to the difference between pedophilia vs. 'healthy' male sex fantasies. As I've stated before, I am referring to pedophilia in the sense of the crime that these four men committed by raping and sexually abusing underage children.
Not all pedophiles are male, by the way.
Quote:
My personal opinion is that all sex should be illegal (maybe allow masturbation).
If that's coming from a typical male mind then I retract my previous statement. I don't understand. And now you're scaring me.
Quote:
The age of consent is lower than 16 today in a fair few countries around the world (and not just "third world" ones either), going as low as 12 in some cases.
I'd like to see where you got those statistics, please.
Convict on 25/5/2006 at 15:24
@orbweaver
There was a case in Australia about Aboriginal customary law in which a (at the time) 4-year-old girl was promised to an already married older man. This case (actually a rape case - age 14) gives rise I think to the question - is might right (as in should we arbitarily state that forced marriage is wrong - I personally believe we should do so but that's a whole tot discussion)?
OrbWeaver on 25/5/2006 at 15:29
Quote Posted by Dia
I'd like to see where you got those statistics, please.
Certainly.
(
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm)
Quote Posted by Convict
should we arbitarily state that forced marriage is wrong - I personally believe we should do so but that's a whole tot discussion
Yes. Any kind of forced sexual activity should be considered wrong in my opinion, irrespective of whether it is "part of culture".
SD on 25/5/2006 at 15:35
Quote Posted by Convict
but that's a whole tot discussion
what?
Naartjie on 25/5/2006 at 16:08
"This is not an official guide. We do not guarantee the accuracy of any of the information contained herein."
Nice one, you colossal bellend.
