getdressedmctavish wrote:Which part of "age of consent" is difficult for you? If she was wasn't old enough to consent it is non-consensual. Non-consensual is rape. It carries a lesser or greater penalty depending on circumstances, age of the parties, whether violence or coercion was used but rape is rape and your defence of grown men sleeping with children is frankly sickening and you would be best advised to keep them to yourself as, if I was the authorities I would be having a good look at you.
Socrates by name only I see. Answer, All of it. Its been ignored ever since it was introduced. Otherwise half the population would be in nick as everyone who has lead half a life knows.Or read any study of sexual activity. I think you will find girls become sexually active before boys and tend to have sexual relations with older boys Read the texts between the couple.The most disturbing thing is the lack of facility with the art of communication. These issues currently produce the sickening moral rectitude in your post which betrays a total lack of awareness of human behaviour and a total inability to focus on principles of natural justice over knee jerk reactions.There are literally millions of paedophiles out there intent on abusing children and babies and we focus on a stupid young man who got involved sexually with a physically mature young woman who was willingly involved. Prat, yes. Immoral yes.Worthy of a fine or suspended sentence? perhaps. But for fuck's sake put it in. perspective. He'll never play pro football again. He may well go to prison for a lengthy period. And he'll be pilloried every where he goes. Is that proportionate in your view, because in mine it is way over the top. Another soft target for the media so we can all be morally indignant.And by the way, I don't know what you mean about "sleeping with children" As far as I can see that is a gross misrepresentation of what went on and/or is a desperately sad euphemism. What you can be sure of is that there will be a sentence to reflect the moral outrage which the court and the media believes exists. You feel moral outrage. Fine. But don't assume as the media and courts appear to do that this is something felt equally by everyone. I believe we as a society should look at each matter on its merits and in my view the main question should be what harm, physical or mental has been done.Let's see what emerges but I can tell you from the many female friends and associates I have known down the years who have given these matters some thought, the idea that a female is necessarily a victim in a sexual relationship is not only often wrong, but demeaning to women. And by the way, because I express these views openly on the assumption we are grown up, don't assume I an in favour of mature men having sex with 15 year olds. I'm not. Nor do I have any desire to do so. But in my view this is not a case to feel outrage, merely to be sad at his stupidity and the fact that the girl will have to go through a trial which will probably cause her more psychological damage than an encounter with a dim footballer might do. But now, lets get on with the stoning and we'll all feel better.
So basically the premise of your shocking post is this: yes, engaging in sexual intercourse with a minor, whether consensual or non-consensual, is morally wrong, but hey, the societal outlook on this practice is too rigid and the implementation of its laws reflects an unrealistic take on modern day trends, because girls mature sexually and often willingly engage in intercourse at an age younger than what the law dictates, "with older boys" and earlier than boys of their own age group, so society and the lawmakers should just lighten up a tad and base its judgement on the "merit" of each occurrence.
I must say that your train of thought is at least, irresponsible, and at most, dangerous, because this is exactly the mode of thinking that motivates the perpetrators of statutory rape, and gives them the self-justification needed to commit these acts.
With reference to your experiences over the years of engaging with several females that it is often the view that the victim mentality is often unfounded and even "demeaning to women", it does not matter how many of these females you have crossed paths with who have these views, and it certainly does not make these acts any less morally or lawfully abject than they are, because these views are overridden by the guidelines as set out by an organised society. Conversely, the same would apply to underage boys engaging in sexual acts with females of a consenting age, as well as with same-sex scenarios, so the above point nullifies the validity of your reference to sexism.
You also seem to be illuminating the concept that because the underage victim is sexually aroused, it renders the unlawful act permissible. If you research case studies of
even violent rape, you will find that it is human nature to feel sexually aroused at some stage of the act, regardless of how willing or unwilling the victim initially was. Whether the fifteen year girl invited or consented to the act, does not in any way lessen the moral depravity or lawlessness of the act.
You need to reconcile yourself with the realism that, in an organised and civilized society, the guidelines set out by either the moral or legal fraternities thereof, or both, are not established as any form of "indignation" as you put it, but rather to protect and preserve the interests of all its people, and therefore it is imperative that any deviation from said guidelines, from a logical perspective, can be neither tolerable nor negotiable.