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...

Gosh VG - me too!

The're still married, too. Almost 25 years later.

I don't think it happens that often though.

It's just that we are talking about how wrong it is for 12 & 20 (OK, also the 6:2 thing), but we're acceptant of the idea of 34 and 14? And 29 and 15? OK, so he was decent enough not to sleep with her until she was 16. But I just can't imagine myself being on equal terms with someone who was 15. It just wouldn't work. She would be a child to me.

Anyway, what I'm saying about this is, do you not think that this age thing in society is a feminist issue? It was, afterall, imposed by "the patriachy" many generations ago so that the men got a chance to sow "wild oats" and the women were nice and pure for marriage.

In some cases, an equal footing relationship may be possible. In most that I have seen, it is not. I knew one such relationship just as per the example VG gave. He did the same. The unfortunate problem was that this girl of 15/16 was not mature enough for a relationship of that nature. He worked as a bouncer, and everytime a girl went near him, she was jealous. He had never been seen cheating or even flirting. She even started a huge arguement just because his ex was in the building, although he hadn't spoken to her at all.

12 is too young, no matter what. That is very pertinent to most of the arguments in this thread: you simply cannot argue your way into the justification of sex with anyone that young. By any definition you care to name, it is rape.

But 15, 16? I don't think anyone should be having sex with anyone that young unless they are also that young. There are exceptions, of course. In my example, the couple were exceptional and met somewhere in the middle with regards to maturity. It is, however, perfectly legal to have sex with a sixteen year old, and that's what he did - he made that decision, not her. Along the way they established a relationship that allowed for their differing ages. He acknowledged his role as the one with more life experience and allowed her to come to her own decisions. I think an age difference under these circumstances is not the exploitative process it can often be.

Is the origin of the age of consent 'wild oats', btw, TAB? As far as I know, the age of consent was raised to current levels in response to female campaigning and the outraged response to WT Stead's sensational 'expose' of child prostitution, 'The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon' in The Pall Mall Gazette in 1885. Who knows how much of it was actually going on, given that Stead faked his purchase (and broke the law doing it) but the age of consent as we know it was definitely brought in as a means of protection. That doesn't mean that it wasn't originally brought in for the reasons that you state.

Oh no, I didn't mean the age of consent. Yes, that was to protect children as far as I know. I mean, the idea of having a much older husband/boyfriend being acceptably normal.

Centuries ago, a young girl as young as 12-14 would be married off to a grown man. The young girl would obviously be a virgin, but quite often the young man had had a chance to sow his "wild oats". Which always puzzled me (women have to stay virgins for marriage, so who are these oats supposed to be sewn by?) until the madonna/whore complex was explained to me.

Anyway, the age differences in the marriage were brought in by the men at the time, so is it another thing that is now a feminist issue? As in, should it be considered a little bit more seriously if we you want marriage to be an equal partnership?

And why I think it links to this is that as I was trying to get at, how far is the difference between 13-17 and 12-19? It sonds like a big difference.

And yes, at 12 it is rape. No about about that. I'm just questioning how the idea of older boyfriends, which is acceptable in our society, leads eventually to this sort of thing and where exactly should the line be drawn? Do we draw it at 13? Do we draw it at 16?

This news report would have seemed just as wrong to me if the girls were 13 or 14. THe only difference would be that the law would allow for the boys to claim they were fooled into thinking the girls were older (which, at 13 or even 14 in 99.99% of girls), is still a little renient in my eyes.

Oops, that bracket didn't make sense . I mean 99.99% of girls still don't look 16 at 13 or 14.

Ah, sorry - I read it as age of consent.

It's usually weird to have a very large age gap. I think it is a feminist issue in that 'older man, younger woman' represents in microcosm the issues of power, wealth, control, etc, etc, that are representative of patriarchy as a whole. And of course, we all know how 'older woman, younger man' is derided and belittled.

But that's just my opinion, even though it does seem to be shared by a large section of society (although the wider public seem to just find it icky rather than a feminist issue). Age is just one more factor in the good/bad relationship lottery. It's up to the individual to decide for themselves what is acceptable, though I would hope that parents, friends, whoever would voice concerns to the individuals concerned if they thought the relationship was exploitative due to age, just as they would if it was down to other behaviours and factors.

And the initial example was a young girl who just wants a boyfriend with a car. The state can't legislate against that! But sex - well, sex can have dangerous and damaging consequences that are loaded towards women. The state should legislate against that.

My issue is more with the 'she looked sixteen!' as a magic bullet used to exculpate damaging sexual situations, as well as rape. Someone who cared would make damn sure that their partner was sixteen. Someone who cared would wait until it had been properly established. This whole 'well I had to have sex right then and there, and she said she was sixteen and she had make-up on, and that's all the evidence I need', is weak, laughable, and ridiculous, and should be slung out of every situation in which is it used as justification.

Why are my posts always so long! Sorry to all.

Just a note about the girl's families...I don't think it's fair too be too harsh on them without a great deal of information. Each girl's parents my well have been told by the girls that they were over at the other girl's house. It's a tricky one trying to balance out freedom/independence/confidence with safety/protection/control.

I do definetely think girls of that age have sexual desires (I remember) and think it's normal and healthy possibly experiment a bit in that area, but hopefully with other CHILDREN of a similar age and to a lesser degree. The men in question are probably still a danger to other young girls and I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking it could never be my own daughter because we are a supportive family. I know that those teenage hormones mixed with a rebellious, adventurous streak can lead to both lots of fun and/or compromising and dangerous situations. Men of twenty OUGHT to be wiser.

It is true. I don't know how these relatinoships would work. I guess that sort of idea doesn't appeal to me at all. I guess if I was single, any more than about 5 years either way would seem a little much. But then, I'm very funny about age for some reason. I admit that.

I agree with the "she looked 16" arguement. I've never been caught out by it, and I don't see why anyone else would under normal circumstances. When I was 16, a 13 yo tried it, but it was just obvious. I politely told her that she was too young, too which she threw a tantrum about being more mature and not being a kid anymore. Obviously .

I have wondered after reading both articles linked, why did they give themselves up and make full confessions? The paper seems to use it as proof that they didn't know.

I have two other explanations.
1: They didn't care at the time and afterwards realised the gravity of their actions. Good to show remoarse, but still not good enough for leniency.
2: They didn't care at the time and didn't think she'd prosecute. But once they realised they knew they were going to get caught and gave themselves up for a lighter sentance.

Any others?

Some countries have a staggered age of consent law to protect youngsters from older predators. For example, the age of consent may be 16 providing the partner is under 21. If the partner is over 21 then the age of consent is 18.

I think that would probably be a bit more reasonable.

Isn't France one of them? I remember as teenagers people used to say the age of consent was 14 there. But I'm pretty sure that's only if you are both under 16 or 18 or something?

I think it was dittany on another thread (shouldn't speak about other threads, I know, but I should credit others if it's not my idea) that suggested that rapists actually know damn well what they've done, but deny all accusations at first, then when confronted with solid undebiable evidence, admit that sex did take place - only then they employ rape myths like crazy in the secure knowledge that society will believe them.

In this case a 'full confession' still isn't a full confession of rape; it's a confession of 'well, we did have sex, but she wanted it and she looked a lot older and she asked me to have sex with her and let's shove in some more rape myths to make me look like a poor confused man who can't possibly expected to NOT HAVE SEX with anyone at any time'.

I am astounded that men allow themselves to be characterised in this way. I can only assume that it's the threat of jail - feminists, after all, aren't allowed to speak about men, ever, because that's 'man-hating'.

I think the staggered thing is a good idea. But it has to be done in tandem with really good sex education, because sex can have bigger consequences for women and girls no matter what their age or the age of their partner.

Maybe they were concerned about the girls?

I think if they were really concerned then this situation would never have happened.

I am still staggering at the thought that some people seem to be in denial about the fact that 6 adults gang-raped a 12 yr old and tried to gang-rape another one, who was crying - therefore in no way enjoying it, leading them on or in an way shape or form wanting to participate. And none of them are taking responsibility for that.

Can you really not see the power dynamics of this situation - and the fact it wasn't in the 12 yrs olds favour?

All this talk of what age gap is acceptable is just distractionary and a bit dangerous.

No, you not allowed to say "all men". I find the whole, "he couldn't control his dick," to be hugely offensive. Probably as offensive as you would find being called "the weaker sex." The idea that if anyone offered I'd have no control and just drop my trouser strait away is just plain stupid. I have conscious control over my actions.

That goes back to the arguements I've heard on here about believing that if men aren't allowed to use porn or given sex as often as they want it, they'd cheat. Or if they are offered the chance, they will definitly take it. Men are not animals. It's just that many are behaving in that way because it has been allowed for so long. If it is not allowed, they will stop doing it.

As teenagers, boys encourage eachother into acting like the most ravenous sex maniac as possible in order to be called strait, which is again something that they have to stop being encouraged to do. FFS, I've been called gay because I refused to turn and stare at someone's bum when she leaned over, or because I refused to go and try to chat someone up just because I'm in a long term relationship . I always hoped people would grow out of it once they'd learn to control they're hormones, but they just don't. And it's so conditioned that I expect someone to reply to this and say, "you mustn't have much of a sex drive then," when I can assure you that you can have a healthy labido without having to attack every female in sight. Sorry, ranting now.

Regarding Ditannies theory, I always thought there were 2 main categories of rape. One is done not for sexual pleasure but as a predatory act to hurt and degrade the victim, the other type is that they just don't care whether anyone wanted it or not they just took it and worried about the damage later. Again, I am NOT being forgiving of this. Neither are in any way acceptable. Just thought Dittany's theory worked applied to the predatory act, the rape myths apply to type to two when they realise that what they've done is wrong.

Hand, it may be going off on a tangent, but I think it is relevent. We've all agreed on serious sentancing and that there is no excuse for this, so no one is arguing that it is OK. I certainly don't think it is.

I'm just wondering why the age differences seem to be acceptable so much of the time, when it is clearly not. If there was once of these men and one girl, it would still be the same crime. And the papers have said that in 2 months it wouldn't have been an issue. I disagree because I think 20 and 13 would be just as shocking and wrong. And I'm wondering where people think that these things become acceptable and when is it not? Would this situation have been OK regardless of the ages?

Oh, that last sentance should have read Would this situation have ever been OK regardless of the ages?

Feminists don't claim that men think with their dicks; feminists think that men are full human beings who have humanity. The 'think with their dicks' seems to be a convenient lie.

Agree completely with Scallop

I don't think it would ever have been OK regardless of ages. 6 men, 2 women. Again the power dynamics aren't in the women's favour. Even if they were adults and entered into that situation willingly there is very little chance they could get out of a situation like that if things started happening that they didn't like/want.

Just to clarify, the clothing is relevant only insomuch as it made the girls appear older. At no point has anyone said it was sexual clothing or revealing - that IS irrelevant.

As another poster said, a Tesco uniform would have been the same.

And TAB I think you are right that 20:13 age gap is still so very wrong even on a 1 man 1 woman basis.

From the linked article:

" Before retiring to consider sentence Judge John said he had been hopeful but was not surprised that the girls' parents had not attended court.
'The girls still out at 2am at the age of 12, no indication, that I'm aware of, of parents making frantic 999 calls to police,' he said critically."

Poor girls, whichever way you look at it it is one fucked up situation.

The only place I'm going with the age difference is that I knew a girl who, at 13, slept with someone who was 22. At the time, she thought it was same as 13:15, then 13:17. But later realised it was not.

The point I am trying to get to (I know I don't explain myself well) is that this societal thing about girl having older boyfriends leads to dangerous places as they contest eachother as teenagers to be prove who is the "most mature".

We've discussed how these girls were failed by the courts and their parents and that the men were totally in the wrong. Dividing blame is not relevent, they take 100% responsibity for their actions. I'm just trying to discuss how society is failing them and others like them, and why they entered into a situation that they shouldn't have been in.