MooseBreath Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 I'm defining manipulation as taking advantage of one's superior knowledge and access to resources to persuade someone who, if similarly informed and situated, might not do what it is that you want. Just because a girl gets a period it doesn't mean she is capable of having a baby. Even fully grown women frequently require c-sections because their hips are too narrow. I'd imagine this would be the case in all but the very fattest 13 year old. Also who is supposed to look after the kid? The girl isn't likely to be able to provide for it by selling haribo in the playground so I guess the State would have to step in. Wouldn't have thought you'd be in favour of that? It's no coincidence that the current age of consent is also the age at which you are free to leave full time education. So you're saying sex should only be allowed between people of comparable "knowledge and access to resources"? That's a hell of a tricky one to administer. And age would be but a small issue in that minefield. People would be breaking the law all over the world. Your local ladies man would be jailed immediately, the manipulative swine.Physically, if it's wrong to have sex with a woman of a certain size then that's independent of age and also ridiculous. Again if avoiding unwanted pregnancy is the idea then criminalise the act of making a girl pregnant.
Parafox Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 A tighter twat's more likely to stimulate their decaying penises? Valid point Stupid and immature
Guest BlueBrett Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 So you're saying sex should only be allowed between people of comparable "knowledge and access to resources"? That's a hell of a tricky one to administer. And age would be but a small issue in that minefield. People would be breaking the law all over the world. Your local ladies man would be jailed immediately, the manipulative swine. Physically, if it's wrong to have sex with a woman of a certain size then that's independent of age and also ridiculous. Again if avoiding unwanted pregnancy is the idea then criminalise the act of making a girl pregnant. No that's not what I was saying. I was suggesting that the younger a girl is, the more susceptible she is to this kind of manipulation and the less likely she is to recognise and accept the trade off. There is nothing wrong with the current system from the perspective of everyone but child molesters and weirdos so why mess with it?
Guest Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 is it? or is it unfounded prejudicial nonsense? You should know, tell us.
Guest Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 I'm defining manipulation as taking advantage of one's superior knowledge and access to resources to persuade someone who, if similarly informed and situated, might not do what it is that you want. Well you're not defining anything there are you? Those are all subjective, so who's going to decide on the knowledge and riches of the "predator". Would that mean that rich people could only have sex with rich people? Would it mean that the lesser intelligent shouldn't have sex at all? seem a load of bollocks.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 You should know, tell us. I can confirm that it is indeed unfounded prejudicial nonsense peddled in the main by small minded simpletons who blindly accept the status quo
MooseBreath Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 There is nothing wrong with the current system from the perspective of everyone but child molesters and weirdos so why mess with it? Do we know what impact criminalising sex is having on young people though? Do we know how this shapes their views on sex and how those views manifest in reality? Could it be that by making sex wrong we are forcing young people to hide it and this is increasing the instances of unsafe sex and unwanted pregnancies? Also, what about the 17-year-old boy who gets a criminal record for having sex with a 15-year-old girl? Does that not need to be addressed?
Guest Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 I can confirm that it is indeed unfounded prejudicial nonsense peddled in the main by small minded simpletons who blindly accept the status quo Fair enough, I've never read the UKIP manifesto. You must be the one.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 Well you're not defining anything there are you? Those are all subjective, so who's going to decide on the knowledge and riches of the "predator". Would that mean that rich people could only have sex with rich people? Would it mean that the lesser intelligent shouldn't have sex at all? seem a load of bollocks. Well no, the extent of one's knowledge and their access to resources is not subjective. Both can be measured empirically. I have addressed and dismissed the second of your 'points' in an earlier reply to the Moose.
Guest Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 Do we know what impact criminalising sex is having on young people though? Do we know how this shapes their views on sex and how those views manifest in reality? Could it be that by making sex wrong we are forcing young people to hide it and this is increasing the instances of unsafe sex and unwanted pregnancies? Also, what about the 17-year-old boy who gets a criminal record for having sex with a 15-year-old girl? Does that not need to be addressed? The first paragraph asks a good question, the second is a waste of space since the 17yo knows he's breaking the law and is doing it anyway, but I think that was covered in the other thread. Well no, the extent of one's knowledge and their access to resources is not subjective. Both can be measured empirically. I have addressed and dismissed the second of your 'points' in an earlier reply to the Moose. So are you saying that people need to take a test or show some form of tax return before being allowed to have sexual congress with another adult?
Guest BlueBrett Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 Do we know what impact criminalising sex is having on young people though? Do we know how this shapes their views on sex and how those views manifest in reality? Could it be that by making sex wrong we are forcing young people to hide it and this is increasing the instances of unsafe sex and unwanted pregnancies? Also, what about the 17-year-old boy who gets a criminal record for having sex with a 15-year-old girl? Does that not need to be addressed? No. Why don't you apply for funding and do the research? For what it's worth in my limited experience I have seen little evidence that your theory is correct but who knows? It might require attention if it was indeed a widespread occurrence. I'm not aware that it is and I'm generally not in favour of altering universal laws to address a handful of anomalies. The first paragraph asks a good question, the second is a waste of space since the 17yo knows he's breaking the law and is doing it anyway, but I think that was covered in the other thread. So are you saying that people need to take a test or show some form of tax return before being allowed to have sexual congress with another adult? Again no, clearly not.
Guest Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 Again no, clearly not. You have said: People with more knowledge and wealth shouldn't have sex with those who have less. Knowledge and wealth can be measured. So WTF are you saying the relevance of your statements have to this conversation??
Guest BlueBrett Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 You have said: People with more knowledge and wealth shouldn't have sex with those who have less. Knowledge and wealth can be measured. So WTF are you saying the relevance of your statements have to this conversation?? But I didn't say that first comment. Not even close. Look FIF, it will take a brighter man than you or the Moose to win an argument in favour of ****ing children so I suggest you just give up.
Guest Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 But I didn't say that first comment. Not even close. Look FIF, it will take a brighter man than you or the Moose to win an argument in favour of ****ing children so I suggest you just give up. I'm totally against reducing the age of consent bluebrett. I'm just trying to understand your posts that seem to be equating right to sex - with anyone - and amount of money.
Guest Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 Somebody get round and check that woman's hard-drive And you're the guy who made insinuations about Bayfox too. That's 3 people so far in this thread. I like your higher intellectual argument technique.
Manwell Pablo Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 I'm totally against reducing the age of consent bluebrett. I'm just trying to understand your posts that seem to be equating right to sex - with anyone - and amount of money. I do enjoy a trip to Amsterdam.
Guest Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 I do enjoy a trip to Amsterdam. That makes you too rich and too intelligent to have sex with anyone who doesn't jet-set.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 And you're the guy who made insinuations about Bayfox too. That's 3 people so far in this thread. I like your higher intellectual argument technique. That comment was in reference to the barrister whose comments inspired the OP, not Bayfox (Fairly obviously I would have thought). You have misinterpreted my point about manipulation to a similarly grotesque extent but I haven't got the patience to clarify for you at the moment.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 It's an interesting one. On the one hand sex is perfectly natural and you can argue that the age one is fertile is the natural age of consent. The other argument seems to centre around the idea that having sex at a young age is somehow psychologically damaging. I wonder if that is really the case. There is certainly nothing wrong with it physically like there is for say eating unhealthy food and that makes you fat which can be incredibly damaging psychologically, and yet we don't put an age of consent on burgers. So what is so wrong with a human being who is designed for having sex, having sex? I can imagine a scenario whereby a man uses a young girl for sex and she gets a bit upset, but is that really such a crime? In any case something like that will certainly happen to the girl at some point and it will hurt just as much whether she's 15 or 21. It seems to me that we're projecting traditional, conservative socially acceptable views of relationships onto sex and using that to incriminate people who cross some arbitrary boundary when what we should be doing is saying, sex is fun, it is something to be enjoyed, enjoy it safely, whenever you want
Parafox Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 1...Do we know what impact criminalising sex is having on young people though? Do we know how this shapes their views on sex and how those views manifest in reality? Could it be that by making sex wrong we are forcing young people to hide it and this is increasing the instances of unsafe sex and unwanted pregnancies? 2...Also, what about the 17-year-old boy who gets a criminal record for having sex with a 15-year-old girl? Does that not need to be addressed? Point 1. No-one is criminalising sex at the age of consent. This is established as an age where young people are (supposedly) properly informed and can make reasoned, balanced decisions. There will always be those in society who have sex for the sake of having sex and who are rebellious by nature anyway. We are not making sex per se wrong. But there has to be a benchmark in order to protect the younger and therefore more vulnerable girls (and it is girls who are most at risk here) from what would most likely be males from their own peer group, but potentially predatory men who only hold back for fear of the legal consequences. If we de-criminalise it it will be a free for all. I'm not naive to believe it doesn't happen as I have lived through the tragic fall out of my daughter's situation. But the law keeps a brake on what would likely be a runaway train otherwise. Point 2. If it's consensual there will be no prosecution. If it's rape (non-consensual) there will be. It's obvious. I know this because that's exactly what happened to my daughter. It was considered consensual because they were "in a relationship". To say he is/was a scrote is not a strong enough term. And, at her age then, she was unable to make sound, mature judgments on relationships.
Manwell Pablo Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 Point 1. No-one is criminalising sex at the age of consent. This is established as an age where young people are (supposedly) properly informed and can make reasoned, balanced decisions. There will always be those in society who have sex for the sake of having sex and who are rebellious by nature anyway. We are not making sex per se wrong. But there has to be a benchmark in order to protect the younger and therefore more vulnerable girls (and it is girls who are most at risk here) from what would most likely be males from their own peer group, but potentially predatory men who only hold back for fear of the legal consequences. If we de-criminalise it it will be a free for all. I'm not naive to believe it doesn't happen as I have lived through the tragic fall out of my daughter's situation. But the law keeps a brake on what would likely be a runaway train otherwise. Point 2. If it's consensual there will be no prosecution. If it's rape (non-consensual) there will be. It's obvious. I know this because that's exactly what happened to my daughter. It was considered consensual because they were "in a relationship". To say he is/was a scrote is not a strong enough term. And, at her age then, she was unable to make sound, mature judgments on relationships. I think you'll find there are women in their 40's who cannot make sound, mature judgements when it comes to relationships, that's life. Although they probably lack that tight twat we were talking about earlier. Just out of interest how old was this lad you tried to have prosecuted for having consensual sex? I hope he was older than 16.
Parafox Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 I think you'll find there are women in their 40's who cannot make sound, mature judgements when it comes to relationships, that's life. Although they probably lack that tight twat we were talking about earlier. Just out of interest how old was this lad you tried to have prosecuted for having consensual sex? I hope he was older than 16. 17, my daughter was 15
Manwell Pablo Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 17 Slightly confused by the police saying they can't do anything then as that's statatory rape.........
Parafox Posted 9 May 2013 Posted 9 May 2013 App Slightly confused by the police saying they can't do anything then as that's statatory rape......... I agree, we tried. Apparently the CPS don't pursue it as it fails in court if they are deemed to be in a relationship and are relatively close in age. I was going to say the defence lawyers get the lads off, but that would sound wrong in this context.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.