I accept that sentencing can be influenced by a host of issues , position of trust for example being just one amongst many and reporting many not cover these specific issues. For me its the general response of posters who joke and find humour in child abuse who would absolutely never do nor probably even consider it in many of the other scenarios youve posted.
Re: BiB, that doesn't help. Reporting of these sort of cases tends to lean towards the more emotive "castrate all paedophiles" direction, regardless of the circumstances.
There are obviously some posters here who would make similar comments regardless.
As I say though, I don't think emotion or societies views on something should make a difference in sentencing, but unfortunately I think they do. In the case in the OP, I think someone perhaps would have a case for referring it to the Attorney General for being too lenient.
Oh come off of it, are you really saying that when you were a 14 yr old boy and if a 19 year old female came onto you, you would have wanted her done for child abuse or rape?
If a 19 year old Male sleeps with a 14 year old girl tho' it is different imo, the male is abusing the girl. I can't be the only one who thinks that way? Perhaps I am heh
I just don't think a boy would be as emotionally affected as a girl.
The law is the law. If you want to play that game, go to a country where child brides/husbands and underage abuse is acceptable.
Sexual abuse is sexual abuse. Pedophilia is pedophilia. I truly hope you are never entrusted with the responsibility of guardianship of a minor if that is your attitude. "Go on son, shes a grown woman, get your nuts in, it's your 12th birthday present!" is not an attitude any responsible adult should have towards statutory rape.
It's certainly not "every teenage boy's fantasy". Personally if a 44 year old woman had made a move on me when I was 14 just at the time I was suffering from teenage angst and the usual vulnerabilities I'd have been confused, unhappy and in all likelihood terrified. This is child abuse and should be sentenced exactly in line with other similar cases. Anyone, man or woman, who has sexual contact with a child, whether a boy or girl, should be dealt with in the same way.
Most teenage boys would bang anything if they had the chance. If a reasonably attractive woman came into my bedroom when I was a teenager and proceeded to perform sexual acts on me I'd be thanking the Lord for answering my prayers.
But as a woman choosing to have sex with a minor, it would still be her abusing you as a minor.
There are laws for reasons, to protect, prevent and punish people for crimes. A child under the legal age of consent's opinions are irrelevant to the established law of the land. That's why we don't tend to let children raise one another, parents and responsible adults have a duty of care towards them. If you can't understand that, I have to wonder if your maturity is much greater than it was in your younger years. Sex crimes are crimes, victims are not "lucky", otherwise the sexual abuse of Catholic priests towards young children and pedophile ring participants wouldn't go to prison, would they? No, everyone would be offering up their kids to get fondled and violated happily. But that's not how the civilised world is meant to work, sexual abuse is not to be excused or condoned.
It's certainly not "every teenage boy's fantasy". Personally if a 44 year old woman had made a move on me when I was 14 just at the time I was suffering from teenage angst and the usual vulnerabilities I'd have been confused, unhappy and in all likelihood terrified. This is child abuse and should be sentenced exactly in line with other similar cases. Anyone, man or woman, who has sexual contact with a child, whether a boy or girl, should be dealt with in the same way.
Trouble is these sentences seem to be all over the shop, even for male perpetrators. I've seen plenty of cases where men haven't received any jail time, even with regards to younger children.
Strange country, strange people with very odd views and peculiar anomolies.
A 44 year old woman seduces a 14 year old boy, performs 'sexual acts' along with full intercourse, and she's given a suspended nine month sentence and left to walk free.
A 44 year old man has sex with a 14 year old girl and immediately he's 'a Paedo', sent to prison and put on the Sex Offenders Register.
Pointless even asking where the difference is other than gender.
Strange country, strange people with very odd views and peculiar anomolies.
A 44 year old woman seduces a 14 year old boy, performs 'sexual acts' along with full intercourse, and she's given a suspended nine month sentence and left to walk free.
A 44 year old man has sex with a 14 year old girl and immediately he's 'a Paedo', sent to prison and put on the Sex Offenders Register.
Pointless even asking where the difference is other than gender.
Obviously a female abuser can't penetrate her victim in the same way a male abuser can. In fact, she's the one being penetrated. That's the only difference I can think of. I wonder if the penetration issue affects anything.
Obviously a female abuser can't penetrate her victim in the same way a male abuser can. In fact, she's the one being penetrated. That's the only difference I can think of. I wonder if the penetration issue affects anything.
Neither Rolf Harris nor Stuart Hall were convicted of genitally penetrating their victims. Ergo they should not have been jailed either, right?
I wonder what people would think of a 44 year old man who was penetrated by a 14 year old boy? Does the same logic apply?
Obviously a female abuser can't penetrate her victim in the same way a male abuser can. In fact, she's the one being penetrated. That's the only difference I can think of. I wonder if the penetration issue affects anything.
Penetration does affect it, in some cases, but it works both ways (Sex Offences Act 2003):
9 Sexual activity with a child
(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual, and
(c)either—
(i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
(ii)B is under 13.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the touching involved—
(a)penetration of B’s anus or vagina with a part of A’s body or anything else,
(b)penetration of B’s mouth with A’s penis, (c)penetration of A’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body, or
(d)penetration of A’s mouth with B’s penis,is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
(3)Unless subsection (2) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
Emphasis mine.
It is, of course, in theory possible for a woman to penetrate a man anyway, using things other than her body.
Obviously a female abuser can't penetrate her victim in the same way a male abuser can. In fact, she's the one being penetrated. That's the only difference I can think of. I wonder if the penetration issue affects anything.
An adult having sex with a minor shouldn't be disputed based on if the person can penetrate their victim. By that logic any male pedophile who gives oral sex to a minor is the victim. So, basically nonsense selective application of the law. Adults are meant to behave like adults, that means not having sex with minors whether they are giving or receiving the act.
I did ask earlier but I'll mention it again , those that seem to think this is 'all good' with his age at 14 is there a cut off ? 13, 12 , 11 , 8 ? I'm just puzzled as to where you draw the line
Strange country, strange people with very odd views and peculiar anomolies.
A 44 year old woman seduces a 14 year old boy, performs 'sexual acts' along with full intercourse, and she's given a suspended nine month sentence and left to walk free.
A 44 year old man has sex with a 14 year old girl and immediately he's 'a Paedo', sent to prison and put on the Sex Offenders Register.
Pointless even asking where the difference is other than gender.
It's across the board with all crimes. Women are less likely to receive prison sentences than men, and they receive shorter sentences for the same crimes when they do. There is a very obvious gender bias in the criminal justice system.
And if I allowed her to do it, and thoroughly enjoyed myself, no harm has been done to me.
What if a 14 year old girl allowed a 44 year old bloke to have sex with her, thoroughly enjoyed it and no harm was done to her? Should the bloke be let of jail?
You seem to be coming it this from an angle of females hating sex and males loving it.
What if a 14 year old girl allowed a 44 year old bloke to have sex with her, thoroughly enjoyed it and no harm was done to her? Should the bloke be let of jail?
You seem to be coming it this from an angle of females hating sex and males loving it.
I'm coming from an angle of my own personal opinion about myself and how I would have felt as a teenage boy in that situation.
And if I allowed her to do it, and thoroughly enjoyed myself, no harm has been done to me.
The very nature of grooming involves willing participants. The young person may not feel anything wrong happened to them because they may not realise it's wrong. But the adult does realise it's wrong, and that's what makes it a sexual offence. And sometimes the harm only becomes apparent years down the line when the person abused at a young age suddenly realises it's had a profound impact on them that they did not appreciate.
You can't simply ask the underage person "Did you enjoy it?" and let the adult off if they did.
The very nature of grooming involves willing participants. The young person may not feel anything wrong happened to them because they may not realise it's wrong. But the adult does realise it's wrong, and that's what makes it a sexual offence. And sometimes the harm only becomes apparent years down the line when the person abused at a young age suddenly realises it's had a profound impact on them that they did not appreciate.
You can't simply ask the underage person "Did you enjoy it?" and let the adult off if they did.
I haven't been talking about grooming. At least read my posts before responding please.
Comments
Re: BiB, that doesn't help. Reporting of these sort of cases tends to lean towards the more emotive "castrate all paedophiles" direction, regardless of the circumstances.
There are obviously some posters here who would make similar comments regardless.
As I say though, I don't think emotion or societies views on something should make a difference in sentencing, but unfortunately I think they do. In the case in the OP, I think someone perhaps would have a case for referring it to the Attorney General for being too lenient.
The law is the law. If you want to play that game, go to a country where child brides/husbands and underage abuse is acceptable.
Sexual abuse is sexual abuse. Pedophilia is pedophilia. I truly hope you are never entrusted with the responsibility of guardianship of a minor if that is your attitude. "Go on son, shes a grown woman, get your nuts in, it's your 12th birthday present!" is not an attitude any responsible adult should have towards statutory rape.
But as a woman choosing to have sex with a minor, it would still be her abusing you as a minor.
There are laws for reasons, to protect, prevent and punish people for crimes. A child under the legal age of consent's opinions are irrelevant to the established law of the land. That's why we don't tend to let children raise one another, parents and responsible adults have a duty of care towards them. If you can't understand that, I have to wonder if your maturity is much greater than it was in your younger years. Sex crimes are crimes, victims are not "lucky", otherwise the sexual abuse of Catholic priests towards young children and pedophile ring participants wouldn't go to prison, would they? No, everyone would be offering up their kids to get fondled and violated happily. But that's not how the civilised world is meant to work, sexual abuse is not to be excused or condoned.
Trouble is these sentences seem to be all over the shop, even for male perpetrators. I've seen plenty of cases where men haven't received any jail time, even with regards to younger children.
A 44 year old woman seduces a 14 year old boy, performs 'sexual acts' along with full intercourse, and she's given a suspended nine month sentence and left to walk free.
A 44 year old man has sex with a 14 year old girl and immediately he's 'a Paedo', sent to prison and put on the Sex Offenders Register.
Pointless even asking where the difference is other than gender.
Obviously a female abuser can't penetrate her victim in the same way a male abuser can. In fact, she's the one being penetrated. That's the only difference I can think of. I wonder if the penetration issue affects anything.
Neither Rolf Harris nor Stuart Hall were convicted of genitally penetrating their victims. Ergo they should not have been jailed either, right?
I wonder what people would think of a 44 year old man who was penetrated by a 14 year old boy? Does the same logic apply?
Penetration does affect it, in some cases, but it works both ways (Sex Offences Act 2003):
Emphasis mine.
It is, of course, in theory possible for a woman to penetrate a man anyway, using things other than her body.
An adult having sex with a minor shouldn't be disputed based on if the person can penetrate their victim. By that logic any male pedophile who gives oral sex to a minor is the victim. So, basically nonsense selective application of the law. Adults are meant to behave like adults, that means not having sex with minors whether they are giving or receiving the act.
It's across the board with all crimes. Women are less likely to receive prison sentences than men, and they receive shorter sentences for the same crimes when they do. There is a very obvious gender bias in the criminal justice system.
And if I allowed her to do it, and thoroughly enjoyed myself, no harm has been done to me.
What if a 14 year old girl allowed a 44 year old bloke to have sex with her, thoroughly enjoyed it and no harm was done to her? Should the bloke be let of jail?
You seem to be coming it this from an angle of females hating sex and males loving it.
Would we see a similar thread titled "Dad aged 44 seduced friend's son aged 14.." in slightly different circumstances I wonder?
Apparently males who abuse kids "molest", "rape" or "abuse". Women just "seduce".
I'm coming from an angle of my own personal opinion about myself and how I would have felt as a teenage boy in that situation.
The very nature of grooming involves willing participants. The young person may not feel anything wrong happened to them because they may not realise it's wrong. But the adult does realise it's wrong, and that's what makes it a sexual offence. And sometimes the harm only becomes apparent years down the line when the person abused at a young age suddenly realises it's had a profound impact on them that they did not appreciate.
You can't simply ask the underage person "Did you enjoy it?" and let the adult off if they did.
1) Didn't Rolf Harris & Stuart Hall have pre pubescent victims? Also several, rather than one victim?
2) That's a good question actually. Would it make a difference?
I was merely wondering whether the law differentiates, rather than giving my own opinion btw.
I haven't been talking about grooming. At least read my posts before responding please.
High five....
Was she 15?
Perhaps she has a preference for caring for 14 yr. olds