Man walks free from court after statutory rape

[AssassinatedBeauty]

Saw this news case today, and am not sure what I think:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39305042

I feel that it gives the message that it's ok for men not to worry about the age of girls/women they have sex with if they have reasonable grounds to believe they're 16+.

But it's certainly possible NOT to be 100% sure in which case you bloody abstain! You err on the side of NOT having sex with a CHILD.

jeanhatchet.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/a-childhood-defined-by-appearance.html?m=1 This says it all so well, and makes the point that a 12 year old girl's body is not the same as a 16 year old's. Her naked body would betray her youth to the 19 year old who raped her. Her 12 year old sex would not appear mature, her conversation would have seems immature if he said much to her. She as a child standing in a taxi rank. Behind all the make up and clothes was a child. I work with girls this age- its very clear to see how young they really are for anyone with eyes to see.

Especially in these days of too many young people being informed by porn, the effect of sex on teenage girls (whether casual or not, tbh) can be pretty appalling.

I'm not sure to what extent this sort of drink and casual sex scenario really is the norm among teens nowadays. Many don't see it as in the least desirable - 'generation sensible'. It's really not a weird fuddy-duddy notion that alcohol can be consumed sensibly (if at all) and sex might be part of a relationship of trust and affection rather than just 'fun'.

When the alternative is that children who cannot consent are raped then yes I think adults should be 100% who they are choosing to have sex with. Methods adults could employ include only having sex with people they already know to be adults through having a proper job (not a paper round) or being at university or having an acquaintance to each other through family, friends or geography that means they know they are not at school. Adults could all decide amongst ourselves that is inappropriate and unnecessary for 18+ adults to be having sex with anyone who presents as 16. We could frown on this behaviour as it risks the younger party not actually being 16. We can accept that if you're choosing to have ons with people you don't know who look 16ish that they might not be and if they are found to be younger you are properly sentenced for your crime. Maybe as a society we have to accept you can't just have sex as and when you feel like it with no consideration to the risks this poses to yourself or your partner.

Do you think that this 12 year old child will feel the same way about what happened when she is 19?

A twelve year old in make up looks like a child in her mum's make up. Her face is a child's face.

Some 12 year olds have mature bodies

I am in no way saying that these children are in the majority or that it makes it ok...at all

But whether she looked like a woman or not shouldnt matter

Why should it matter how she looked like.

If she looked younger he would be classed as abhorrent. Because she looked older she was classed as being of consent age.

It's a skewered way of thinking. Just because you look younger or older doesn't protect you against rape.

I'm saying that if you really look- if the rapist had taken the time to really look- he would have seen her youth. He didn't take the time to check anything did he? He should have been sentenced.

The 12 year old wondered if she would be pregnant and confided in a family member, which is how the case came to court in the first place.

He probably assumed he'd fuck her and never see or hear of her again.

So it's obvious that men and the establishment get to decide if a child is old enough looking to have sex with.

This is the 21st century isn't it?

Sorry but this is nonsense. It's very common for people to hook up in the street. I've seen it happening. Young people pour out of the local bars/clubs in the small hours, hang around at bus stops etc waiting for their transport to arrive, get chatting to others waiting at the same stop and often pair off and go home together, or invite each other to an after party at a mate's house. If you think that's unusual you need to get out more.

Don't try to patronise me I grew up in London, clubbing from the age of 14 onwards, I know exactly what teens get up to. A friend of mine started going out with a 21 year when she was 12. In fact, she chatted him up at a tube station.

You meet people on your night out. You might meet people on the way home, but that doesn't mean they have sex with them immediately. As I said that's not that normal even in the world of casual teen sex, particularly not when you're 12.

Precisely how many cases have you personally seen of young teenagers meeting at a bus stop/tax rank in the small hours and going to fuck immediately? And how would you know what they do if you're not with them?

The 12yos who look older, the ones with the big boobs and lots of slap, and who are so poorly-parented that they are drinking vodka in nightclubs at midnight who are most in need of protection from the law.

There's a powerful class-based cognitive dissonance at work here, which seems to be works to excuse the responsibility of the men in these scenarios.

No doubt at midnight the judge's and the barristers' 12yo girls are safely tucked up in bed having done their music practice and had their homework diary signed. They will be dressed appropriately and prevented from wearing truckloads of makeup and going out late unsupervised.

Yes, the 12yo in this case had clearly been failed by her parents and by other statutory services who might have ensured her safety. But she is just as much in need of protection as the nice 12yo who is on track for straight A* and grade 8 violin.The job of the law is to provide an absolute bargain-basement safety net for girls like these who are being failed in every other way, by emphasising to society at large that it is not okay to regard them as sexual partners, no matter how they look or how they behave. And in this case the law has failed in even that very entry-level responsibility.

Absolutely the onus should be on blokes to ensure that any female they are considering having sex with is well over the age of consent. And if they're in any doubt at all, they should keep their dick in their bloody trousers. How hard is that to comprehend?

Anyone who wants to indulge in high risk sexual exploits should at the very least be capable of knowing and understanding the implications of the risks involved, accepting any one of those outcomes is a possibility. The ' but she looked older' excuse is wearing a bit thin IMO.

But it's certainly possible NOT to be 100% sure in which case you bloody abstain! You err on the side of NOT having sex with a CHILD.

Quite.

Yes Effzeh great post!

Fair enough, Handbag. That would involve a massive cultural shift in what is considered acceptable sexual behaviour and a big move back towards unliberalising (if that's a word) what consenting adults are allowed to do with each other. I don't know if I agree or disagree but I doubt that approach would ever get majority support. Even if it did and such a cultural shift took place, it would still be unjust to apply those standards retroactively to this case where the defendant was behaving within the current norms.

As a society, we do accept the risks of some tragic cases of collateral damage in exchange for personal liberty. Take driving, for example. Even driving reasonably safely at 30 mph fatal accidents can happen. To completely prevent that you'd have to reduce the speed limit to something like 10 mph - and forget about motorways etc. Would it be the worst thing if we all had to drive much more slowly and leave the house earlier to get places? No, it would just be an inconvenience. And yet we have left the speed limit at a level that only provides reasonable safety, not total safety, because that's considered a fair balance between protection and freedom/convenience. Even though the price for that convenience is sometimes, tragically, a person's life.

As for the old "casual sex has risks, deal with it" - yes, of course it does. Of course a stranger you hook up with could be an axe murderer or something. That doesn't mean I'd think someone who went home with a stranger and got murdered had it coming. Ffs.

So a 12 year old wondered if she was pregnant and confided to a family member. Which shows clearly that she didn't think of the consequences, which you wouldn't if you were 12. Dressing up is what this child did. No more than an 11 year old going to a fancy dress party as a pirate.

Certainly we wouldn't be suggesting to our 12 year olds to dress up as a tart to go to a tar and vicars ball. Remember them?

At 19 years old, almost 20 I would have expected this now young woman to have taken on board, contraception, safe sex, risky sex. As I would expect from a male peer of her age.

Plus, I'm also wondering about the social class of the male as opposed to the female in this case.

Shall we guess?

She is wealthy and he comes from a disadvantaged background.

Precisely how many cases have you personally seen of young teenagers meeting at a bus stop/tax rank in the small hours and going to fuck immediately?

Plenty. I've done exactly that on a couple of occasions. So did many of my school friends. Ffs there have been cases of people doing it at the bus stop, or on a bench nearby. You either had an unusually sheltered London clubbing experience or you are indulging in conveniently selective memory.

Is it really that massive a shift? A cultural shift back towards the idea that sex is something you do with another person - you know, someone with a character, a personality and a brain you know a bit about - rather than just a fun physical thing with another body, seems like quite a good idea (and in reality, I'm pretty sure this is what most people want most of the time). Not so great if you just see other people as sex objects I suppose. I'm not overly bothered by giving precedence to that mindset over safeguarding children.

But she is just as much in need of protection as the nice 12yo who is on track for straight A and grade 8 violin.

I agree with Effzehs post to an extent. But for those posters who think that this was all about parenting etc, who think the decision of the judge was ok, I think it's a mistake to think this is not about your DC or their friends. (Of course I hope it isn't).

I went to what would be considered a really good school where parents were predominantly wealthy/professionals - but a school with a terribly unhealthy culture. Girls were absolutely having sex too young. Even straight A students. 15 year old girls at school were fair game for the 18 year old rugby playing sixth formers. Our school was next to a university and the girls known for their short skirts and attracting older student attention. Our parents did not have a clue what we were doing half the time.

Off course it would be good if we cared about ALL children, but I really do think that when you make judgements about this being exceptional or understandable confusion or whatever, it is absolutely relevant to consider how you want your own children to be protected.

I'm willing to bet if how rape cases were conducted:

DIDN'T assume mens right to sex

DIDN'T mention anything about how the victim looked or was dressed

DIDN'T allow the victims intoxication through drink/drugs to be allowed as defence mitigation but instead was used by prosecutors to show that rapists were using that to their advantage.

DIDN'T allow EVER the victims previous sexual history to be mentioned

DID allow rapists previous sexual conduct to be used as evidence (I can't actually think of a case I've EVER read about where that's happened)

DID result in decent sentencing (serial rapists - full life sentence, very violent rapists - full life sentence, and graduate DOWN from there rather than UP from suspended sentence/non custodial sentences)

Maybe THEN we'd start getting our society seeing rapists as the criminals they are rather than 'unlucky' men that were 'tricked' by 'manipulative' women.

Slightly off topic but I've never seen what someone's 'previous good character' has to do with ANYTHING. At best it means they've only just become a criminal at worst it means they simply haven't been caught before and doesn't mean the crime has any less impact on victim/s!

Don't even get me started on the 'pillar of the community' shite!

There was a case in this town, where there has been one murder reported in 20 years, where young 14 year olds were at the train station, a meeting place if ever there was one (also for Pokemon training gym now, so it's very much a place where lots of people go of all ages).

Those 14 year olds were chatted up by men who induced them by showing them pictures of their young children. Needless to say the girls were not impressed and the men were caught and sentenced. The men were 20 and 22.

Based on how many people do it and enjoy it, I do think would be a pretty big shift to say people are no longer legally allowed to indulge in casual hook ups. That doesn't mean it's something absolutely everyone would want to do. I don't know what the percentages would be. But even if only 30% would like the freedom to do that you're talking about a significant restriction on millions of people. Maybe it would be a good cultural shift. I don't know. I wouldn't want my entire sex life to have been ONSs and I wouldn't trade the intimacy of loving sex with DH. But the casual variety was very enjoyable too and you can often feel much more uninhibited with someone you don't know. It doesn't mean you just see the other person as a "sex object". You can see them as another person with whom you're engaging in a mutually enjoyable activity without the pressures that come with an emotional attachment.

I lived in Zone 2 in London for 8 years, five of which were when I was when I was socialising and out late. I never encountered sex in a bus stop. Plenty of young ones out. But most of it was young people meeting and usually shouting at each other with a police presence looking on. (It was West Hampstead and Kilburn.)

The worst was St Albans at the weekends. Despite a heavy police presence.