Rita Ora - 'It wasn't abuse because I wanted it'

[GloriaSmellens]

Daily Mail link warning

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3288177/I-abused-14-says-Rita-Ora.html#comments-3288177

So Rita Ora has said that when she was 14, she had a relationship with a 26 year old man. But that it wasn't abuse because she 'wanted it' and that if anything it gave her more confidence I think this was something she said a while.ago, but has been dug up and been put into a new biography?

If she is just going to minimise this, then what is the point of putting it out there in the public, surely it serves to do absolutely nothing than giving totally the wrong message to her target audience? What kind of 26 year old bloke wants to go out with a 14 year old.anyway? Between this and her admiration for Chris Brown she is going down in my estimations at a rapid rate!

It does exist, to some extent there is a Romeo and Juliet clause style application to the law. A 17 year old in year 12 isn't going to be prosecuted for sleeping with his 15 year old girlfreind in year 10/11 however if he was sleeping with a girl in year 8 who was 12/13 then he would probably face some form of prosecution but again depending on circumstances.

An 18 year old with a 15 year old would probably avoid prosecution where as a 20 + year old wouldn't.

I think it can be wanted by the apparent victim, but that doesn't change the fact that the adult is exploiting a child.

You can't really blame a 14 y/o for being flattered, and some of the experience may be incredibly pleasurable, but i.m.o. this does not make it okay for the perpetrator to seek a relationship with a child. Of course said adult has the advantage over suitors of appropriate age because they will be in control of their own finances, relatively free-roaming and physically mature - things which are understandably deeply wish-fulfilling for a teenager.

While I personally wouldn't allow people to interpret my thinking fondly of time with an abuser as permission to reproduce the situation themselves, I don't think we can really censor a woman's legitimate feelings.

Agree that an adult man having sex with a 14 year old is unacceptable. But yab v v u to start having a go at the victim in the situation for not adopting the right attitude. The woman had done nthing wrong and is under no obligation to rewrite her own history for the sake of others.

Has there ever been a case of two 15 year olds being put in jail because they had sex?

That's not how the laws of consent are meant to be applied so probably not.

Whether she felt she wanted it or nt it was statutory rape.

Gives me the creeps when people say it's OK because "14 year olds are very mature these days".

They are still kids. And not really that mature.

Theycall. I think being in the public eye does give you some obligations; a responsible person should see that. I'm not saying RO should be embracing victim hood, but I think she should be acknowledging that she was groomed and exploited and that a man who behaves in this was is a nasty worthless loser.

I was seeing a 24 years old when I was 15, I told him I was 18. He saw me in my school uniform by accident and immediately broke up with me. He didn't groom me. I met him in a night club, got him to buy me a drink and we went from there. I'd hate anyone yo think he was an abuser!

At 14 i had a 24 year old "boy friend" looking back it seems creepy and weird. I wouldn't call my self a victim.
I wouldn't be responsible for my actions if a 24year old man came near my dd though.

Fanjo, as previous posters pointed out, 'statutory rape' doesn't exist as a crime in any UK jurisdiction, and it is only considered rape in law if the child is under 13. If they are 13-15, it is 'sexual activity with a child'.

Oh well "sexual activity with a child" is much more acceptable then semantics

Except it wasn't, technically, as that does not exist in the UK.

It was a child sex offence, see parts 9 and 10
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1

And it isn't semantics. It is more about not monster shouting as it undermines the main message.

Accusing someone of a crime that does not exist does undermine the message, distract from what should be being discussed, as the last few posts have shown, my last 2 included.

So, sexual activity between 2 children (under 18) is fine.
It only becomes rape if one person is under 13, or if the other person is over 20/a different age?
Is that right?

Who said it was more acceptable?

By 'acting older', I mean sucking cock/smoking/drinking/having sex/using sexual language. If you look 18, too, how is that not acting older?

Blanche, great post.

Well obviously it isn't, badtime.

So why the nitpicking over semantics?

Ourblanche I will "monster shout" about a man having sex with a child, sorry. Whatever its called.

Its not rape unless the person is under 13 or it is forced is what I can gather, the charge for a 24 year old sleeping with a 14 year old would be sex with someone under the age of 16. In fact the sex offences act 2003 would make it graphic enough to be "allowing your penis to enter the vagina of someone you knew to be under 16. " or something along those lines.

All this minimizing of it is a bit grim IMO.

And I am not the kind to shout paedo at the slightest thing.

Yes he wasn't a paedophile, before someone bleats about that.

I think it's grim that a 12 or 14 year-old even knows how to suck cock. I feel sick

That term is used as a blanket term now though Fanjo, for anyone who sleeps with a child, technically no they are not using the etymology of the word, but in the current idiom yes they would be considered to be a paedophile.

I find it a bit odd you keep using that term sucking cock when you are taking about children

It's the third time you have used it

Then you will continue to be read in a sightly hysterical tone, fanjo!

I doubt that is your intention, but the last few posts illustrate the point.

No one thinks that the man who did this was innocent, no one would expect him not to be charged, if named. But you are the only poster who has suggested that some others are minimising this, that by using the correct terminology, rejecting an Americanism, there is some apologising, excusercising going on.

There isn't. But many posters, myself included, would prefer a less hysterical, less American shaped discussion. That's all!

It was graphically described as thus in LEM's post, disturbed; I'm stuck with the image now - and the phrase - and it's frightful.

In the eyes of the law the man is a sex offender but RO has the right to keep her view of the relationship without being patronised with cries of grooming.

I had a 26yo boyfriend at 15. I met him out at a pub and flirted with him and I set my sights on him.

People seem to think the Lolita is rare and unusual but it is really not. All young girls begin to practice the techniques of flirting at a very young age (firstly in the safety of their father and male relatives). The cutsey smiles, the hair twiddles, the eyelash flutters all practice and once they get good and get more adult desires they move on to other men.

To build on loveandhate's comment on holiday this year my balcony was above the youth club 11-14yo girls were offering peepshows or (cleverly) suggesting the possibility of blowjobs for the boys who could score them a rainbow coloured cocktail.

Young women are perfectly aware of their sexuality and as scary as it is for parents the sooner they grasp this the more in control they will be.