So are all the criminal cases fairy tales akin to little red ridding hood and the big bad wolf?
I'm not an expert in lots of real life criminal cases. But Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf brilliantly sums up the media's reportage of these issues and as such the public's overly simplistic, reactionary dumbed down beliefs.
Is there no such thing as vulnerable teenager falling prey to manipulation of predatory adult?
Sometimes. We can fall prey to predatory, manipulative people at any age. I've fallen prey to manipulative girls. You hear of women falling prey to con men who tell absurd lies. We can be too trusting and get hurt by other people no matter what age we are. It does not fall that because there is an age difference it automatically means the older one "groomed" the younger one.
As long as the victim said yes at the time, do they only have themselves to blame?
Well that's a loaded question because the word "victim" is already in the question. If both parties are of a post pubescent age I don't think there is any blame to be made.
What about the teachers who have been convicted of having sex with multiple underage girl pupils?
I honestly didn't know there were any. (Teachers who've been convicted of having sex with multiple pupils) What I do know is that teachers who've been found out to be sleeping with a pupil are sometimes female teachers. It isn't always males. Although men are far more likely to go to prison for the same crime. And if it's a man it's far more likely to be publicised.
What about the gangs who groomed vulnerable girls into being their girlfriends, had sex with them and had them give themselves to other gangs members?
As far as I know this happens to girls who have ran away from home. They are doing it for a roof over their heads. And money. And possibly drugs if the gangs have got them addicted. The need for shelter, money and a next fix is very different from willingly being with someone. There are adults this happens to too. It sounds like you’re talking about gangs pimping out child and teenage prostitutes. This is a world away from two consenting people wanting to be with each other.
Do you think sex with someone below the age of consent even if the victim is willing should be a crime?
Again, this is a loaded question as it contains the word "victim". If the person has reached puberty and wants to have sex then no, I don't think that should be a crime. Obviously, if the person is of prepubescent age then that should be a crime. If there is going to be man made law regarding sex, then it should enforce natures laws regarding sex.
Or do you think all these criminals should be released from prison as long as their victims said yes at the time?
If their victim was of a prepubescent age then they are a child molester and should be in prison. If the person they were with was a consenting person who had been through puberty, then there wasn't a victim and so they shouldn't be in prison.
Thanks for all those questions Dave. I hope my answers satisfied you.
A different plausible explanation maybe that he knew the CPS were going to fight the decision of the French court in a further court hearing, to enable them to prosecution him for the sexual conduct offenses. That appears to have been the position of the Sussex police and CPS, that they intended to do this, despite possible assurances given to the judge at the French Extradition Hearing by the Sussex police that they would not.
Yes, that also sounds possible. But since the French courts had already refused their request once, I would've thought Forrest's lawyers might have fancied their chances of keeping him exempt. The only reason for them to waive the immunity would surely be that they thought they had no chance in such a fight, which seems at odds with the position of the French courts.
Then again, I don't fully understand why the French courts would refuse to add the sexual offences just because that wouldn't be a crime in France, when they agreed to extradite him for the abduction, which also wouldn't be a crime in France... Hmm, maybe it's something to do with the technicalities of the European Arrest Warrant system - will have to read up on it when I have a moment.
I'm not an expert in lots of real life criminal cases. But Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf brilliantly sums up the media's reportage of these issues and as such the public's overly simplistic, reactionary dumbed down beliefs
I agree with you that almost all of the time the media and the public (or at least many of the public who post on the internet etc) are very reactionary, and do fail to grasp legal matters and the wider context. And in this case that is precisely what has happened - the Sun and the Fail particularly, and many of the posters on here are persuaded by the whole 'what the girl wanted' simplistic perspective. The true and prosaic position is the one that such people are failing to appreciate, and thats because its a more dry, serious matter that needs more careful understanding and consideration. .
Sometimes. We can fall prey to predatory, manipulative people at any age. I've fallen prey to manipulative girls. You hear of women falling prey to con men who tell absurd lies. We can be too trusting and get hurt by other people no matter what age we are. It does not fall that because there is an age difference it automatically means the older one "groomed" the younger one
Don't you think that although we can't protect all us adults from our own folly, we ought to at least protect our children from theirs, and more particularly, from that of others.
Well that's a loaded question because the word "victim" is already in the question. If both parties are of a post pubescent age I don't think there is any blame to be made
Simplistic much? I'm sure you don't really mean that the way it sounds.
Again, this is a loaded question as it contains the word "victim". If the person has reached puberty and wants to have sex then no, I don't think that should be a crime. Obviously, if the person is of prepubescent age then that should be a crime. If there is going to be man made law regarding sex, then it should enforce natures laws regarding sex
Man made law? Nature? If you wanted to give up your computer, and indeed all electrical power, vehicles, and all the other aspects of civilisation, and return to wandering about naked and living off wildlife, then it might make sense to let 'nature take its course'. As it is though, our children have a long and complicated adulthood to be prepared for, and can do without being shagged every which way by one of our fellow adults.
If their victim was of a prepubescent age then they are a child molester and should be in prison. If the person they were with was a consenting person who had been through puberty, then there wasn't a victim and so they shouldn't be in prison.
Thanks for all those questions Dave. I hope my answers satisfied you.
From another D'@ve, the answer is probably 'no'. No time to rip them all apart right now so I'll choose just the one quoted above, which seems to be the cornerstone of your arguments.
To quote Wikipedia (which has references if you wish to verify them):
So to have "been through" puberty, on average, children will be 15 to 17. Which may just be why the age of consent is set at 16, don't you think? Except that emotional maturity is (and should be) a factor in setting an age, too, and that's what the law tries to take account of.
Finally, how the hell are adults supposed to determine whether or not a child has "been though puberty" when deciding whether or not to try and persuade him or her to indulge in sexual touching or more? HOW? And how is a "puberty consent law" supposed to deal with precocious puberty (age 6 upwards) or delayed puberty (18 upwards)? HOW?
Your "been through puberty consent" suggestion is completely impracticable and quite simply nonsensical. Not to mention putting many more young but 'consenting' children at risk of sexual abuse, as if there aren't enough of them already at risk.
In short I don’t believe a teenager can be groomed. Not in this day and age.
To believe so is to have an unbelievably naive view of teens.
And also an overestimation of men's ability to manipulate.
Try manipulating someone in to falling in love with you. See how far you get.
Is there no such thing as vulnerable teenager falling prey to manipulation of predatory adult?
It does not fall that because there is an age difference it automatically means the older one "groomed" the younger one.
A 14 year old girl unhappy at home, troubled at school, with a eating disorder and history of self harm. To me that looks like they are vulnerable.
A 30 year old teacher who befriends and makes advances on young girl pupils. To me that looks like they are predatory.
The teacher actively befriending the girl doing all they can to encourage the girl to develope feeling for him and then all he can to encourage those feelings to grow, ensuring they spend time alone together, texting, phoning each other, etc.
The teacher actively advancing the relationship to sex, and arranging it so that days after she turns 15 he gets to spend as much time as possible having sex with her.
The teacher lying to and manipulating her and no evidence he genuinely cares for her,
Would your impression of the relationship be that it is two consenting equals who fell in love or that it is predatory adult taking advantage of a vulnerable girl?
Well that's a loaded question because the word "victim" is already in the question. If both parties are of a post pubescent age I don't think there is any blame to be made.
So as long as the victim says yes at the time, that in your view makes it a non-crime. Not abuse.
I honestly didn't know there were any. (Teachers who've been convicted of having sex with multiple pupils) What I do know is that teachers who've been found out to be sleeping with a pupil are sometimes female teachers. It isn't always males. Although men are far more likely to go to prison for the same crime. And if it's a man it's far more likely to be publicised.
So you do not view teachers who groom and have sex with multiple young pupils as doing anything wrong. As long as their victims say yes at the time.
As far as I know this happens to girls who have ran away from home. They are doing it for a roof over their heads. And money. And possibly drugs if the gangs have got them addicted. The need for shelter, money and a next fix is very different from willingly being with someone. There are adults this happens to too. It sounds like you’re talking about gangs pimping out child and teenage prostitutes. This is a world away from two consenting people wanting to be with each other.
Gang street grooming is child sexual exploitation by grooming at least at first.
It does not just happen to girls who have run away from home. Typically vulnerable children are targetted and made to feel valued, liked, loved. They are given gifts and treats. They often identify one of their abusers as their boyfriend and are under the misapprehension that they are involved in a loving realtionship. They may regard sexual abuse by multiple offenders as normal. It may only become apparant to them overtime that they are victims of abuse, that they are just being used for sex and there is no genuine love for them.
Again, this is a loaded question as it contains the word "victim". If the person has reached puberty and wants to have sex then no, I don't think that should be a crime.
Reached puberty?
Most girls will begin puberty at 8-14 years of age, with the average age being 11.
Most boys begin puberty at 9-14 years of age, with the average age being 12.
Obviously, if the person is of prepubescent age then that should be a crime. If there is going to be man made law regarding sex, then it should enforce natures laws regarding sex.
The natural law being what as soon as they are physically capable of making a baby they should be viewed as fair game, with anyone seeking to have sex with them just needing them to say yes at the time?
... The natural law being what as soon as they are physically capable of making a baby they should be viewed as fair game, with anyone seeking to have sex with them just needing them to say yes at the time?
Having sex with young, post-pubesent females was useful when the human race needed more offspring to increase it's numbers.
The need to reproduce is not so critical anymore and, for the most part, sex seems to have become a pleasurable form of entertainment (for want of a better word) instead.
I honestly didn't know there were any. (Teachers who've been convicted of having sex with multiple pupils) What I do know is that teachers who've been found out to be sleeping with a pupil are sometimes female teachers. It isn't always males. Although men are far more likely to go to prison for the same crime. And if it's a man it's far more likely to be publicised.
You stated that as long as the victim was not prepubescent and said yes at the time then there was no crime, and that in all such cases these criminals should be released.
If both parties are of a post pubescent age I don't think there is any blame to be made.
...
If the person has reached puberty and wants to have sex then no, I don't think that should be a crime.
do you think all these criminals should be released from prison as long as their victims said yes at the time?
If the person they were with was a consenting person who had been through puberty, then there wasn't a victim and so they shouldn't be in prison.
Secondly you insist on filling your questions with loaded words, so that conclusions are already reached in your questions.
It is not loaded to refer to someone who under current law is the victim of a crime as the victim and the perpetrator of the crime as the criminal. That is what they are at the moment. That you for some reason do not perceive it as a crime and would seek to make it a non-crime does not mean everyone else's terms of reference should shift to not referring to victims and criminals.
Likewise sexual grooming of children is currently a crime that you do not believe in sexual grooming of children does not mean everyone else should cease referring to it as such.
No, I didn’t change my mind. And I didn’t misspeak. I said that a teenager couldn’t be “groomed” in this day and age. Because the word “groomed” implies some wide eyed innocent virgin being “groomed” by the big bad wolf. It implies that any older adult can “groom” any child or teenager they please. The word “groomed” suggests a guy giving someone sweets and pretending to like their favourite music or something. I’ve read stuff like that in this very thread! I mean please, as if teenagers today aren’t more savvy than that. The word “groomed” is also used by people who instantly assume that the older one in a relationship must have “groomed” the younger one. I’m saying to jump to that conclusion is nonsense.
I then said sometimes people can be manipulated. Manipulation, as with love, takes countless different things all falling in to place at once. A perfect storm. Much of it is luck and chance. There isn’t a guaranteed scientific method to make someone fall in love with you. I’m sure if there was, it would be the biggest selling book ever.
There isn’t a guaranteed scientific method to make someone fall in love with you. I’m sure if there was, it would be the biggest selling book ever.
Well there is not a guaranteed method to make someone fall in love with you that is your equal.
Children and teenagers are not equal to adults, that's exactly why grooming someone underage to become your lover is against the law. And actually sex offenders groom their victims more or less in the same way, i'm sure a lot of them would love to write a book that would be effective.
The problem with young teenagers, and their downfall is exactly because they mental development is not at all au pair with their physical development. Teenagers see themselves as adults, and they firmly believe their decisions are not clouded by immaturity, when they are. An adult if so inclined can easily take advantage of it. Plus this offenders do not choose at random, they target their victims, they choose youngsters they believe are more easily manipulated and receptive.
Perhaps what should be done is to legislate the AOC to be school leaving age + 2 years this would give the average person some real life skills in the workplace so basically if you can buy a beer you can have a shag and its going to be easier on the law...age of consent/marriage and the age of which you can view naked flesh are the same
Add in my shooting of anyone doing anything with someone under age...and if 2 15 year olds get at it then shoot them both...no escapes
But seriously some of the law needs to be sorted out properly....theres too many ways to getg away from such things at the moment
Perhaps what should be done is to legislate the AOC to be school leaving age + 2 years this would give the average person some real life skills in the workplace
The coalition is raising the school leaving age to 18 so that would make it 20 which seems a tad high.
The coalition is raising the school leaving age to 18 so that would make it 20 which seems a tad high.
That would be too high and pretty much ignored in real life....but the problem is that no matter what age is presented as a number there will always be people on both sides of it who will feel (rightly or wrongly) that making such a simple choice will be wrong....21...25..35..there will always be someone who really shouldn't be allowed near another naked person
Forrest gets 4.5 years, this female teacher gets 8 months suspended.
Will she be labelled a paedophile, groomer, pervert? I wonder.
She didn't take him out the country and he was over the age of consent. Doesn't make it right of course but its a different situation.
I have haven't seen many people calling him a peadophile anyway. He isn't. He did take advantage of an under age girl, I don't understand how some people think that is ok.
She didn't take him out the country and he was over the age of consent. Doesn't make it right of course but its a different situation.
True about taking him out of the country, but JF got 1 year for the abduction charge so that's still 4.5 years just for the sexual offences vs suspended sentence for this teacher.
The main difference I can see is that this relationship does actually sound a bit...er...well, texting him "please let me tie you up" is just a bit creepy for me. (No offense to anyone who's into that stuff, which is fine as long as both parties are equally enthusiastic!)
And pretending to be pregnant when he wanted to end the relationship is definitely manipulative, not to mention faking a miscarriage on top of it :eek:
She didn't take him out the country and he was over the age of consent. Doesn't make it right of course but its a different situation.
I have haven't seen many people calling him a peadophile anyway. He isn't. He did take advantage of an under age girl, I don't understand how some people think that is ok.
Forrest gets 4.5 years, this female teacher gets 8 months suspended.
Will she be labelled a paedophile, groomer, pervert? I wonder.
There is definitely an inconsistency in how males and females are dealt with by the courts in these situations. However, this is down to the obvious fact it's not the same. Any 16 year old lad who nailed his teacher, in her early 20s, would walk away with a spring in his step, a legend, and mentally unscathed, if not given a massive boost to his confidence. I know myself and every mate I've ever known would concur. Young girls however are impressionable and very susceptible to being manipulated by older men, and it's naive to pretend it's the same type of crime.
There is definitely an inconsistency in how males and females are dealt with by the courts in these situations. However, this is down to the obvious fact it's not the same. Any 16 year old lad who nailed his teacher, in her early 20s, would walk away with a spring in his step, a legend, and mentally unscathed, if not given a massive boost to his confidence. I know myself and every mate I've ever known would concur. Young girls however are impressionable and very susceptible to being manipulated by older men, and it's naive to pretend it's the same type of crime.
Is there any evidence about that? Like actual studies?
Comments
I'm not an expert in lots of real life criminal cases. But Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf brilliantly sums up the media's reportage of these issues and as such the public's overly simplistic, reactionary dumbed down beliefs.
Sometimes. We can fall prey to predatory, manipulative people at any age. I've fallen prey to manipulative girls. You hear of women falling prey to con men who tell absurd lies. We can be too trusting and get hurt by other people no matter what age we are. It does not fall that because there is an age difference it automatically means the older one "groomed" the younger one.
Well that's a loaded question because the word "victim" is already in the question. If both parties are of a post pubescent age I don't think there is any blame to be made.
I honestly didn't know there were any. (Teachers who've been convicted of having sex with multiple pupils) What I do know is that teachers who've been found out to be sleeping with a pupil are sometimes female teachers. It isn't always males. Although men are far more likely to go to prison for the same crime. And if it's a man it's far more likely to be publicised.
As far as I know this happens to girls who have ran away from home. They are doing it for a roof over their heads. And money. And possibly drugs if the gangs have got them addicted. The need for shelter, money and a next fix is very different from willingly being with someone. There are adults this happens to too. It sounds like you’re talking about gangs pimping out child and teenage prostitutes. This is a world away from two consenting people wanting to be with each other.
Again, this is a loaded question as it contains the word "victim". If the person has reached puberty and wants to have sex then no, I don't think that should be a crime. Obviously, if the person is of prepubescent age then that should be a crime. If there is going to be man made law regarding sex, then it should enforce natures laws regarding sex.
If their victim was of a prepubescent age then they are a child molester and should be in prison. If the person they were with was a consenting person who had been through puberty, then there wasn't a victim and so they shouldn't be in prison.
Thanks for all those questions Dave. I hope my answers satisfied you.
Yes, that also sounds possible. But since the French courts had already refused their request once, I would've thought Forrest's lawyers might have fancied their chances of keeping him exempt. The only reason for them to waive the immunity would surely be that they thought they had no chance in such a fight, which seems at odds with the position of the French courts.
Then again, I don't fully understand why the French courts would refuse to add the sexual offences just because that wouldn't be a crime in France, when they agreed to extradite him for the abduction, which also wouldn't be a crime in France... Hmm, maybe it's something to do with the technicalities of the European Arrest Warrant system - will have to read up on it when I have a moment.
I agree with you that almost all of the time the media and the public (or at least many of the public who post on the internet etc) are very reactionary, and do fail to grasp legal matters and the wider context. And in this case that is precisely what has happened - the Sun and the Fail particularly, and many of the posters on here are persuaded by the whole 'what the girl wanted' simplistic perspective. The true and prosaic position is the one that such people are failing to appreciate, and thats because its a more dry, serious matter that needs more careful understanding and consideration. .
Don't you think that although we can't protect all us adults from our own folly, we ought to at least protect our children from theirs, and more particularly, from that of others.
Simplistic much? I'm sure you don't really mean that the way it sounds.
Man made law? Nature? If you wanted to give up your computer, and indeed all electrical power, vehicles, and all the other aspects of civilisation, and return to wandering about naked and living off wildlife, then it might make sense to let 'nature take its course'. As it is though, our children have a long and complicated adulthood to be prepared for, and can do without being shagged every which way by one of our fellow adults.
From another D'@ve, the answer is probably 'no'. No time to rip them all apart right now so I'll choose just the one quoted above, which seems to be the cornerstone of your arguments.
To quote Wikipedia (which has references if you wish to verify them):
On average, girls begin puberty at ages 10–11; boys at ages 11–12.[1][2][3] Girls usually complete puberty by ages 15–17,[3][4][5] while boys usually complete puberty by ages 16–17.
So to have "been through" puberty, on average, children will be 15 to 17. Which may just be why the age of consent is set at 16, don't you think? Except that emotional maturity is (and should be) a factor in setting an age, too, and that's what the law tries to take account of.
Finally, how the hell are adults supposed to determine whether or not a child has "been though puberty" when deciding whether or not to try and persuade him or her to indulge in sexual touching or more? HOW? And how is a "puberty consent law" supposed to deal with precocious puberty (age 6 upwards) or delayed puberty (18 upwards)? HOW?
Your "been through puberty consent" suggestion is completely impracticable and quite simply nonsensical. Not to mention putting many more young but 'consenting' children at risk of sexual abuse, as if there aren't enough of them already at risk.
A 30 year old teacher who befriends and makes advances on young girl pupils. To me that looks like they are predatory.
The teacher actively befriending the girl doing all they can to encourage the girl to develope feeling for him and then all he can to encourage those feelings to grow, ensuring they spend time alone together, texting, phoning each other, etc.
The teacher actively advancing the relationship to sex, and arranging it so that days after she turns 15 he gets to spend as much time as possible having sex with her.
The teacher lying to and manipulating her and no evidence he genuinely cares for her,
Would your impression of the relationship be that it is two consenting equals who fell in love or that it is predatory adult taking advantage of a vulnerable girl?
So as long as the victim says yes at the time, that in your view makes it a non-crime. Not abuse.
So you do not view teachers who groom and have sex with multiple young pupils as doing anything wrong. As long as their victims say yes at the time.
Gang street grooming is child sexual exploitation by grooming at least at first.
It does not just happen to girls who have run away from home. Typically vulnerable children are targetted and made to feel valued, liked, loved. They are given gifts and treats. They often identify one of their abusers as their boyfriend and are under the misapprehension that they are involved in a loving realtionship. They may regard sexual abuse by multiple offenders as normal. It may only become apparant to them overtime that they are victims of abuse, that they are just being used for sex and there is no genuine love for them.
Reached puberty?
Most girls will begin puberty at 8-14 years of age, with the average age being 11.
Most boys begin puberty at 9-14 years of age, with the average age being 12.
The natural law being what as soon as they are physically capable of making a baby they should be viewed as fair game, with anyone seeking to have sex with them just needing them to say yes at the time?
Having sex with young, post-pubesent females was useful when the human race needed more offspring to increase it's numbers.
The need to reproduce is not so critical anymore and, for the most part, sex seems to have become a pleasurable form of entertainment (for want of a better word) instead.
maybe it's just the first part of a trilogy :eek: :eek::eek::eek::eek:
I didn't say anything of the sort.
You haven't so much put words in my post as dumped a whole game of Scrabble in there!
My above post you replied to doesn't come close to saying anything like what you have said.
Secondly you insist on filling your questions with loaded words, so that conclusions are already reached in your questions.
Likewise sexual grooming of children is currently a crime that you do not believe in sexual grooming of children does not mean everyone else should cease referring to it as such.
It’s annoying when people say that. It makes you sound a bit simple yourself.
No, I didn’t change my mind. And I didn’t misspeak. I said that a teenager couldn’t be “groomed” in this day and age. Because the word “groomed” implies some wide eyed innocent virgin being “groomed” by the big bad wolf. It implies that any older adult can “groom” any child or teenager they please. The word “groomed” suggests a guy giving someone sweets and pretending to like their favourite music or something. I’ve read stuff like that in this very thread! I mean please, as if teenagers today aren’t more savvy than that. The word “groomed” is also used by people who instantly assume that the older one in a relationship must have “groomed” the younger one. I’m saying to jump to that conclusion is nonsense.
I then said sometimes people can be manipulated. Manipulation, as with love, takes countless different things all falling in to place at once. A perfect storm. Much of it is luck and chance. There isn’t a guaranteed scientific method to make someone fall in love with you. I’m sure if there was, it would be the biggest selling book ever.
Well there is not a guaranteed method to make someone fall in love with you that is your equal.
Children and teenagers are not equal to adults, that's exactly why grooming someone underage to become your lover is against the law. And actually sex offenders groom their victims more or less in the same way, i'm sure a lot of them would love to write a book that would be effective.
The problem with young teenagers, and their downfall is exactly because they mental development is not at all au pair with their physical development. Teenagers see themselves as adults, and they firmly believe their decisions are not clouded by immaturity, when they are. An adult if so inclined can easily take advantage of it. Plus this offenders do not choose at random, they target their victims, they choose youngsters they believe are more easily manipulated and receptive.
What good causes are there ?
I'm sure it's better in their pocket and they deserve it.
Add in my shooting of anyone doing anything with someone under age...and if 2 15 year olds get at it then shoot them both...no escapes
But seriously some of the law needs to be sorted out properly....theres too many ways to getg away from such things at the moment
That would be too high and pretty much ignored in real life....but the problem is that no matter what age is presented as a number there will always be people on both sides of it who will feel (rightly or wrongly) that making such a simple choice will be wrong....21...25..35..there will always be someone who really shouldn't be allowed near another naked person
I'll just leave that here. Already an interesting debate in the comments.
Forrest gets 4.5 years, this female teacher gets 8 months suspended.
Will she be labelled a paedophile, groomer, pervert? I wonder.
She didn't take him out the country and he was over the age of consent. Doesn't make it right of course but its a different situation.
I have haven't seen many people calling him a peadophile anyway. He isn't. He did take advantage of an under age girl, I don't understand how some people think that is ok.
True about taking him out of the country, but JF got 1 year for the abduction charge so that's still 4.5 years just for the sexual offences vs suspended sentence for this teacher.
The main difference I can see is that this relationship does actually sound a bit...er...well, texting him "please let me tie you up" is just a bit creepy for me. (No offense to anyone who's into that stuff, which is fine as long as both parties are equally enthusiastic!)
And pretending to be pregnant when he wanted to end the relationship is definitely manipulative, not to mention faking a miscarriage on top of it :eek:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359404/Revealed-The-dirty-text-messages-sent-teacher-24-pupil-16-week-affair-tattooed-body.html
She had previously admitted two offences of sexual activity with a male aged 13 to 17 while in a position of trust.
There is definitely an inconsistency in how males and females are dealt with by the courts in these situations. However, this is down to the obvious fact it's not the same. Any 16 year old lad who nailed his teacher, in her early 20s, would walk away with a spring in his step, a legend, and mentally unscathed, if not given a massive boost to his confidence. I know myself and every mate I've ever known would concur. Young girls however are impressionable and very susceptible to being manipulated by older men, and it's naive to pretend it's the same type of crime.
Is there any evidence about that? Like actual studies?
You don't need studies, it's a blatant fact of life, as any red blooded male will happily tell you.