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+.

ive been on the other side aswell, had a lad tell me he was 20 when he had just turned 16 i later found out (i was 22!!)

Nice to see this thread changing slightly, seemed to be just me agreeing with the op to begin with.

So you think ID cards for women are the way to go Assassinated ?

I didn't disagree. I just wanted to clarify the details.

I think knowing the person you have sex with is the way to go.

A 12 year old is legally incapable of giving consent and ignorance is not a legal defence.

He's a convicted rapist for a reason and let's not forget he's a convicted rapist.

The law is partially there to protect girls like this who for whatever reason are out there and available to be abused. The responsibility not to abuse them sits with the adult male.

I think the most concerning detail of the BBC story is that it reports the judge as saying he would have had a defence if she had been 13.

......and with the people who put them out there maybe?

No, BarbarianMum. I'd rather that men took responsibility for checking they're not about to commit a sex crime. If they're not happy that the girl/woman they want to have sex with isn't definitely over 16, then they could refrain from having sex.

I think I'd be pleased if they wanted definitive proof of age, as it shows they can think beyond their immediate wants and consider the safety of person they're about to be sexual with.

I would prefer they treat me like an adult that can make my own decisions and doesn't need some bloke I just tapped off with to look out for my safety.

The problem is I wouldn't have to ask for his ID would I but I wouldn't have sex with a man that appeared to even a few years younger than me. Nobody has batted an eyelid that he was 19 and she was 16 but what 19 year old woman who have sex with a 16 year old man/boy? I am sure there are some but it doesn't tend to work the other way.

Basically. Fuck patriarchy.

I have a 12 year old daughter that could easily pass for 16 even without being dressed up. She also converses very grown up too as it happens for all you that don't believe it would be possible. Thankfully she has no interest in boys or going out, nor would I be inclined to let her roam in the middle of the night. I do actually feel for the lad. He's only a young lad himself and she could have passed as one of his peers easily according to all the eye witnesses. (Respectable adults)

But he was happy and with pretty good reason - her looks, her word and the fact she was in the town at 4am!

I reserve my sympathy for the abused 12 year old personally.

The point is that he didn't know for certain, and that apparently just looking older and saying your older is enough of a defence. A man's right to have sex with whoever he chooses is more important than protecting children.

I feel like if you're going to have sex with a randomer you meet in a taxi rank then you have to recognise the chance they could be underage.

But according to the article, it was 4 in the morning when they were at the taxi rank. The last thing you would expect to see at that time of night would be a young child.

Why do we have to take sides though, his or hers?

I really do think that with honest opinion from policemen and taxi drivers we do have to accept that she easily passed for a far older girl than she really was. Yes the young man was obviously culpable but it cannot be said to be 100% his 'fault'.

It is terrible that she was out at 4am not missed and with seemingly no-one looking for her.

It wasn't even his defence, really. It was the judge's defence of him.

So, no expectation of a chat before shagging where discrepancies could occur, just about a female's looks, as per usual.

He's not a poor chap, as the judge thinks, he's a very lucky bloke. A different judge would have held to the fact that this is a strict liability crime.

It's not about taking sides. But as an adult you ought to be 100% certain that the person you're about to have sex with isn't a child. Regardless of the circumstances. Ignorance or irresponsibility shouldn't be a defence. Neither should the victim looking or claiming to be 16+.

But how do you know for sure 100%, that's just not possible is it unless she carried her passport around with her - that would work I guess but only if she wanted him to know her true age which obviously she didn't.

Ok, so let's imagine you were 17/18 yo and your new bloke wanted ID before dtd. How would that have gone?

So don't have sex if you're not 100% certain. That seems to be a completely unacceptable option, compared to the clearly more acceptable option of taking the risk of committing statutory rape or similar.

Emphasise is this new bloke a total stranger that you've just met on the streets and agreed to have sex with?

She was out and pissed at 4 in the morning. He thought she was 16. He took the wrong course of action whatever her perceived age or her real age. He's not a wronged man.

If you want to have sex with someone you meet drunk at a taxi stop at 4am, who claims to be just over the legal age of consent, either risk offending them by asking for ID, or maybe give the sex a miss. Iso that really unreasonable?

So how many of you ask for ID before having sex? How would you feel about producing ID? How would you feel about signing a consent form?

Or do we go back to women shouldn't have casual sex?

None of us know what the girl looked like or acted like so whether or not it was a reasonable assumption so we have to go with the police officers, some of whom will be female. Or is it just some great male conspiracy?