Have I read this 'story' right?? Please tell me I haven't.

[stretch]

here

My first ever thread on Feminism, but I have no words...

Excuse my bullet points, but I only have a few minutes to post this...

1. How the girls were dressed is relevant only in as much as it contributed to their pretence of being 16 rather than 12. Nobody is claiming (correct me if I'm wrong) that they "must've been asking for it because they were in short skirts" or any such crap.

2. Some of the men were black, some weren't

3. We don't know whether the girls were black or not

4. In what way are points 2 and 3 relevant? Because I really don't know. Although of course the DM love to show a photograph of a black rapist (the Black Rapist fits in nicely with their world view).

5. I find it quite easy to believe that a boy in his late teens has had little sexual experience. Ditto that a girl of 12 has had quite a lot. Neither point should've be relevant tbh.

6. I'd know I'd failed as a parent if my child had been involved in this in any way - as one of the girls or as one of the boys.

"Sexually experienced at 12" means they have already been raped and abused.

No it doesn't. Although I concede it's likely.

Yes it does Jenai as consent is meaningless under age 13, therefore any sexual experiences they had were Non consensual, therefore rape.

Yes it does Jenai - because sex with anyone under 13 is rape in the eyes of the law.

As for your other bullet points - a few of them you are saying should be irrelevant yet you insist on making them? Why is that?

I really don't like (6)

I think point 6 is unacceptable tbh. I don't think my parents failed me in anyway. Being a victim of crime isn't really something that as a parent you can prevent happening to your child.
Why is it in this type of discussion people take so much time considering what the victim or in this case the family should have done to protect themselves? While the actual fact that grown men performed sexual acts with 12 year olds and then thought they could get away with it using an argument that wouldn't wash if they had been caught selling them cigarettes in the local papershop?

Sorry pressed the wrong button there.
While this fact is hardly commented on? The focus of our conde.nation should be on the perpetrators and the only adults who participated in this.

I am a bit about this and I'm angry with myself for not seeing it in black and white. I don't know if that is a shocking display of how ingrained rape apologists argument is in me or not.

But I think back to when I was 12 and had friends that were incredibly sexually experienced and did look 16 (not older, but 16). I think of the way we behaved in clubs and the way my friends approached men, including being involved with multiple sexual partners at the same time. At that time, I in no way shape or form thought that they were being raped, nor do I think that they viewed themselves as anything but willing participants. My mum got together with my (older) dad when she was 13 and when she tells me about her life at that age, she seemed to have the maturity of an older girl.

Part of me sees this as different to the slut walks but I don't know why. But I think that the sentancing is disgraceful as clearly in the laws eyes there is no distinction to be had and it is black and white. In that case, when the law has indicated that this is clearly a crime, I cannot understand how a judge can give a lesser sentance.

I don't understand the reasoning behind this decision. It seems too way out to process. I've pulled up the Court of Appeal judgments for July so I can read the decision in full but the most recent is the 8th. Grrrrrh, patience isn't my strong point.

I think it is naive to assume that all twelve year old girls are innocent victims.
Let's all agree these men want locked up, that;s a given. The sentancing is an outrage.

BUT, these girls invited the men over for sex. They DID look older than 12 . I have known girls of 12 and 13 who are fully developed and tall and could easily pass for much older. Conversly, my daughter could pass for nine.

I think we need to know far more about their background to know if these girls have been abused or if they have been raised ( as many youngsters are) with inappropriate adult guidance and supervision.

Whichever why you slice it, twelve year old children inviting men for sex is wrong, wrong , wrong. But actually, not as wrong as the men themselves taking them up on it.

What the girls wore IS relevant as it disguised their ages, hugely relevant in this case.

Jointhedotties, I am truly shocked that you think it is naive to assume that all twelve year old girls are innocent victims.

Erm - yes they are! All of them! Because they are TWELVE! Their age cancels out any precocious behaviours. I could curl up and die when I recall my clumsy attempt at 'flirting' with a male teaching assistant - he was the first young male teacher we'd ever seen, all the girls in the class were at it. Flirting's the wrong word, actually, as it suggests a sexual element, but we were all very keen to have his attention, rather than that of our female teachers. We were fascinated by him.

Of course, I look back with adult eyes and see that the poor bloke was MORTIFIED beyond belief at the horde of little girls twirling their ponytails and fabricating requests for help with maths problems so he'd sit next to them. But he probably looks back and laughs in a slightly embarrassed fashion, just as I do - because he didn't do anything about it. He knew our ages, but what you seem to be suggesting is that if he hadn't, and he'd met us outside of class, this teaching assistant would have had a perfect right to have sex with any one of his twelve-year old pupils because we were demonstrating - clumsily and awkwardly, but demonstrating nonetheless - proto-flirting behaviours.

We were probably only doing it because he was a 'safe' male; I can't imagine any of us having the faintest inkling that it would - or could - go any further than ponytail-twirling and pointing our toes. We probably would have been revolted if anyone has even suggested that it could have gone any further.

Also, you specify girls - what if this had been two twelve year old boys in the same situation? I suspect the 'peado' rage would have consumed Mumsnet.

So what is the correct thought process behind twelve year olds texting adult men for sex ?
Are they simply victims? And if so, of what?
And what do you make of the fact that they were sexually experienced?

Do we still assume that this was a perfectly normal , loving , normal family set up?

I don't know - which is why I am asking. I would assume something isn't right.

No, I wouldn't say that is was normal for a twelve year old to be judged more sexually experienced than a young adult man. Either something is wrong with the judge's perception, or that child has suffered abuse. I would assume that there may be problems at home, and that the family needs support.

But it does not follow that sex in a park with SIX ADULT MEN is the logical conclusion of all of the above. Statement B does not follow Statement A. The girls could come from the best home, or the worst home SS have ever seen - it makes no difference, none at all, to what happened in that park. Those men are at fault, and only those men.

Twelve year olds can do whatever they like, to be honest - tha's what I was trying to explain in my last post. I don't expect an adult to take them up on it. Children are sexual, and this increases as they move towards their teenage years. Even in cases where there has been no abuse: children flirt, they masturbate, they explore their emotions and sexual feelings - I don't expect an adult to take that as a request.

We need to get much more black and white about this. You had sex with a girl you thought was older, but she's not? Tough shit. You should have checked. But she was offering sex? Tough shit. It's not your inalienable right to have sex with someone three minutes after you've met them. She wanted it? Tough shit. She's not old enough to want it, in law. Tough shit - you're a rapist and what you have done is rape.

You can be a rapist through violence, intimidation, and fear - we need to hammer it home that you can also be a rapist through plain old selfishness and wilful ignorance. Because our culture will excuse that.

Forgot - as someone said above, and it needs to be put in six-foot high letters on this thread: the excuses used here would not wash if these men had sold these girls cigarettes.

It is mind-boggling.

VG - You had sex with a girl you thought was older, but she's not? Tough shit. You should have checked. But she was offering sex? Tough shit. It's not your inalienable right to have sex with someone three minutes after you've met them. She wanted it? Tough shit. She's not old enough to want it, in law. Tough shit - you're a rapist and what you have done is rape.

Yep. That's all there is to say about it IMO.

Actually what the girls wore have no relevance in this case. It would have if they were 13 but not 12. Section 9(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 says it is an offence to engage in sexual activity with a child unless the accused reasonably believed them to be over 16 (s9(1)(c)(i)) or they are under 13 (s9(1)(c)(i)).

Or to put it in layman's terms, to argue that they were led to believe the girls were older than 16, through words, clothing, location etc is only allowed as a defence if the girls are over 13. If they are under 13 the only relevant fact for conviction is whether sexual activity occured.

Just to answer my part in the above post, I didn't say the parents were definitely at fault (I don't think. anyway), but that the actions of these girls shows that they were obviously abused previously. Like many, I interpret sexually experienced at the age of 12 to be abused. And I think that the girls actions is quite blatently a ear splittingling deafening cry for help. I hope they recieved help, but it doesn't sound like it.

Again, I am not excusing the actions of the men. They deserve sending down. And EVEN if they genuinly were stupid enough to think they were 16 (and obviously the 6:2 is not right at 16) but regardless of that, they should still be sent down if it was 1:1 and was fooled. Why? Because anyone of that age who sleeps with someone so young MUST be sent down to protect any children from undergoing similar things. The world must know that it is totally unacceptable, and maybe men like these will care in the future, even if it is only to avoid a sentance.

Kladdkaka, I think that is because, as we've all agreed, under 13 it is totally unreasonable to argue that they looked older.

Thanks Klad for the legal clarification. What I want to know is what happens next? This surely can't be allowed to stand.

By law, I don't think there's anything anyone can do. You cannot be tried for the same crime twice, and I don't think they can impose a tougher sentance once it has been passed (don't know though - not an expert), but I've never understood why it works the other way. You can appeal against a conviction or sentance, but the victims cannot. It seems wrong somehow.

If these men genuinely believed that these girls were 16 - because they told them as much and because they looked so - then they weren't aware that they were committing rape. As I understand it, ignorance is no defence however so they have to be found guilty.

It doesn't sit right with me to call them rapists though, and certainly not paedophiles, as they were upthread.

I mentioned their ethnicity because that too was mentioned upthread.

On parental blame - if my 12yo was inviting people to have sex with her and going out late at night to do so, then I'd have fucked up somewhere down the line. That's not victim blaming in the way people blame women for walking home alone or being date raped imo. These circumstances are quite different.

And if one of those boys was mine I'd know I'd fucked up for raising someone who thought having group sex with teenage girls (bearing in mind they apparently believed they were teenagers) in a park (or anywhere else for that matter) is a good idea.

The men's families cheering revolted me however. What these men did was wrong and it was idiotic. I can understand being relieved to get them home, but celebrating suggests they feel that the boys were victims, which they most definitely were not.

I would feel more of a failure as a parent if my DDs were walking around thinking that they had to dress a certain way and not go out at night otherwise they would be to blame if they were raped.

The parents don't come in to this. Unless they are investigated and found to be complicite in the former abuse of the girls.

How anyone can say the girls being sexually expereinced is their own fault is beyond me. The whole point is that these boys had unconsentual sex with them... so surely anyone else who previously had sex with them also did so non consentually, ergo they are victims of abuse.

I hope they are getting help too.