I'm not sure that's the school's joband while I think that everyone has the right to a fair trial rather than having their faces pastered across newspapers (and a whole bunch of lookalikes getting mauled), I think 18 is pretty much the right age.
Some people develop earlier and some later, but the line needs to be in the right place.
(Some people develop earlier and some later, but the line needs to be in the right place.
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 14:22,
archived)
Oh I wasn't meaning the job of the schoolI was happily sexing and aware of the consequences well before I was 18.
(
Captain Wow currently being a cunt in Infamous,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 14:23,
archived)
the law needs to accomodate the ladies that weren't ready yet (within reason) gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 14:26,
archived)
by making anyone who sleeps with the ones who area statutory rapist?
( Captain Wow currently being a cunt in Infamous,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 14:27,
archived)
not sure what it's like over there, but in australia it doesn't count if they're both underage and within a couple of years of each otherlaws can't have grey areas if they're going to work - you can't apply different rules to different people and call the system fair. Where would you draw the line?
( gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 14:30,
archived)
If you have a decent way to determine consent (which is ultimately what all this is about, that younger girls can't give consent because they don't fully understand the sexual act)then the ones who weren't ready would still be protected by a sexual assault or rape charge anyway.
Not that that helps given that the entire fucking world seems to want to convinct one paedophile and doesn't give a shit about the tens of thousands of rape charges which go floating about and never see conviction.
(,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 14:30,
archived)
Not that that helps given that the entire fucking world seems to want to convinct one paedophile and doesn't give a shit about the tens of thousands of rape charges which go floating about and never see conviction.
There's always a bigger issuebut back to this one, how would you prove decision-making maturity? I think finishing school and making other life decisions should be a given.
The first major life decision a person makes shouldn't be whether or not to bang an old man.
(The first major life decision a person makes shouldn't be whether or not to bang an old man.
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 14:38,
archived)
You say that but there's vast swathes (okay maybe not vast but they're are alot more than you'd think numerically) of women or men who do the whole 'daddy thing' with older men anyway.I mean yes I understand manipulation and not being led into being what is essentially a fuck toy for an older man, but at the same time some people actively seek that out anyway so you can't really claim that they don't understand just because it seems like a 'bad' decision.
I suppose the best you could do to see if there was true consent would be to just talk to the girl/boy/man/woman in question, see if they truely understand the sexual act, outcome, aftermath, etc.
(,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 14:44,
archived)
I suppose the best you could do to see if there was true consent would be to just talk to the girl/boy/man/woman in question, see if they truely understand the sexual act, outcome, aftermath, etc.
but how would we make sure the system was fair for everyone?would there be a checklist of boxes to be ticked to prove that someone was responsible enough? Why not just have a reasonable age that accomodates the majority?
Let's bear in mind that when a judgement is passed it sets a precedent, so if it's ok for one 14 year old it could be argued that it's ok for all of them.
Also, when I suggest bad decisions I'm talking about decisions that that person may regret/be ashamed of later in life, I'm not saying that their actions are inherently bad.
(Let's bear in mind that when a judgement is passed it sets a precedent, so if it's ok for one 14 year old it could be argued that it's ok for all of them.
Also, when I suggest bad decisions I'm talking about decisions that that person may regret/be ashamed of later in life, I'm not saying that their actions are inherently bad.
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 14:52,
archived)
People make those kind of decisions they regret are ashamed about in later life within the realm of consent anyway, you don't really start thinking about the future or responsibility until you're past your 20s or so anyway.There never used to be any real age of consent or precedent, parents would just punch or threaten whoever they thought was manipulating their children into bad behaviour or sex
. It's not as if people are going to be able to run riot and be all predatorial, schools still wouldn't let any older people near children, parents wouldn't let any older people near children, and both would constantly tell children not to any older people near them.
I'm really quite surprised that I'm having to justify jail terms for paedophilia here.It's not being handled very well when newspapers can print people's faces but the law is there to protect people who don't have the complete ability to defend themselves.
Not every child/teenager is going to tell their parents until after the event. Not every child/teenager is going to have living parents. Maybe the foster parents are the ones they need to be afraid of. Maybe the kid is so scared of the person that did it that they'll just say they gave consent because they're worried about what will happen.
The focus for all crimes should be rehabilitation, but society needs to have criminals put in a place where they can't reoffend if it's going to function properly.
You're right that historically this wasn't the case but some of us like to think that we've progressed a little bit since then, and even if we haven't then we should be trying.
(Not every child/teenager is going to tell their parents until after the event. Not every child/teenager is going to have living parents. Maybe the foster parents are the ones they need to be afraid of. Maybe the kid is so scared of the person that did it that they'll just say they gave consent because they're worried about what will happen.
The focus for all crimes should be rehabilitation, but society needs to have criminals put in a place where they can't reoffend if it's going to function properly.
You're right that historically this wasn't the case but some of us like to think that we've progressed a little bit since then, and even if we haven't then we should be trying.
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 15:09,
archived)
Yes I realise that the law is there to protect people who can't defend themselves, which was why I said they should be given the right to exist.Have their own fantasies and drawings and whatever as long as they don't encrouch people's freedoms. Doesn't stop me from hoping that in the future that society will be ordered and permissive enough for people to be sufficiently educated that they can mentally defend themselves.
Progress is dependent on what you see as good and what you see as bad, and given that kind of morality changes with time it's pretty futile to equate.
(,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 15:18,
archived)
Progress is dependent on what you see as good and what you see as bad, and given that kind of morality changes with time it's pretty futile to equate.
Wait, we're talking about fantasies and drawings here?I thought we were talking about actually banging kids.
If we're talking about banging kids and just having paedophiles in society and saying "she probably wanted it" then yes, I guess my concept of right or wrong would mean that I don't view that as progress.
It all comes down to whether or not it's a victimless activity. There's a big potential for there to be a victim.
(If we're talking about banging kids and just having paedophiles in society and saying "she probably wanted it" then yes, I guess my concept of right or wrong would mean that I don't view that as progress.
It all comes down to whether or not it's a victimless activity. There's a big potential for there to be a victim.
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 15:26,
archived)
That's the way you view it, but look at somewhere like ancient greece, there was quite implicit and well known boy love.That wasn't just a case of banging kids and saying 'they probably wanted it'.
(,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 15:32,
archived)
and you think little boys actually enjoy cocks up their arses?just because those boys grew up to do the same thing doesn't mean it didn't cause suffering.
( gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 15:34,
archived)
If it was a society, and it was, where that was seen a higher form of love then it wouldn't have been suffering.Also I'm talking about like 12-14 here maybe, not like really young kids.
(,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 15:39,
archived)
I'm talking about the physical/emotional act of having a cock in your arsenot some societal attitude. I'm sure more than a few kids were manipulated or intimidated into doing it. Just because their society turned the other cheek doesn't mean that kids didn't suffer unneccesarily.
( gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 15:48,
archived)
You realise it wasn't forced upon them, it wasn't like they were owned or anything.And I'm sure there are more than a few women and men beyond consent who are manipulated or intimidated or pressured into doing sexual things these days, I fail to see what that has to do with anything. In fact in ancient greece the man-boy relationship was pretty much an act of moral and spiritual education, to the extent that abuse wasn't even vaguely tolerated.
It may seem strange to you, but that's because social positions and meaning changes ALOT. I suggest you read into it, if alone because it's interesting reading.
(,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 15:56,
archived)
It may seem strange to you, but that's because social positions and meaning changes ALOT. I suggest you read into it, if alone because it's interesting reading.
saying that something happened in the past is no argument for something being justified in the future.There were times where eccentric ladies were burned as witches. Suffering occurred.
There were times when it was acceptable to have slaves. Suffering occurred.
We haven't regressed by taking these things out of society.
Anyway I'm really hoping you're just playing devil's advocate here and you don't genuinely believe that sex with minors is cool.
(There were times when it was acceptable to have slaves. Suffering occurred.
We haven't regressed by taking these things out of society.
Anyway I'm really hoping you're just playing devil's advocate here and you don't genuinely believe that sex with minors is cool.
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 16:02,
archived)
Saying that because something isn't tolerated now is no argument for saying it was reprehensible.And as I said, you should read about it more before you make emotive reactions. And frankly it just seems incredibly ignorant and kneejerky to equate your modern perception of paedophilia to something you clearly don't know a huge amount about, for a start the maturation and education of children used to be much faster in those days. Boys were essentially expected to be educated in mathematics and spirituality and ready to be men much much younger.
Devil's advocate or not, we have to do something about it because you can't just have a large portion of people who aren't able to function or interact with society.
(,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 16:16,
archived)
Devil's advocate or not, we have to do something about it because you can't just have a large portion of people who aren't able to function or interact with society.
Reading up on ancient greek boy love won't justify modern day paedophilia.I haven't been especially emotive here, I've just pointed out that there is a large potential for people to suffer, and as such it should not be seen as a good thing.
You're clearly not going to accept that, which is unfortunate. Paedophilia isn't good. Sorry if that's the way you swing, but if it is then you should be denied access to potential victims.
(You're clearly not going to accept that, which is unfortunate. Paedophilia isn't good. Sorry if that's the way you swing, but if it is then you should be denied access to potential victims.
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 16:22,
archived)
I hope you mean 'you' as in 'one', otherwise that's pretty lame debating implying I'm a paedophile.There's a large potential for people to suffer in anything, condoning or making something illegal will rarely change whether anyone's going to suffer. The people who do things at the expense of others will still continuing doing it, it's just that others would be able to act without others suffering.
And as I said, it's the view of modern day paedophilia and children in society, that's not going to stay the same, nothing ever does, not because of a push to be more permissive but just because society and moral views always change. They just do. It's ridiculous to assume that just because something was acceptable in the past and now isn't, it will stay unacceptable. And frankly it doesn't matter if you feel it hurts people or it's wrong, you can't just say something "isn't good", you might as well just say it's immoral if you want to provide absolutely no meaningful analysis or insight.
You're suggesting that because someone has already suffered they're not allowed to seek justice?The only reason I have to suggest that you have some sort of vested interest in this discussion is that you're ignoring the viewpoint of the victim.
( gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 16:39,
archived)