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 thinking about it if someone out that time of day and drunk that they where 16 i would think it was a bit sus im not sure why maybe as id expect them to be 18 but maybe thats because i was a goody two shoes as a teenager who didnt drink or go out to pubs/clubs before then.

clear that ignorance is no mitigation.

I don't think it was tbh. It wasn't his "but I didn't know how how old she was your honour"(and he pleaded guilty anyways) that swayed the judge,it was the statement from the police,taxi driver and CCTV that did it.

So if we want to protect vulnerable children why do we not hear of parents being prosecuted for neglect in cases like these? If children are so frequently in this position that it's reasonable to assume that the girl next to you in the club/pub/street late at night may be not just under age but under 13, then wtf aren't more parents/guardians facing criminal charges?

If you have sex with someone you don't know well you take the risk that the person might not be who you think they are and they might just be underage.

Girls often look much older than they are, especially these days with their make-up skills and going through puberty earlier. Men should be aware of that and act accordingly. It is not men's god giving right to have sex with strangers so if they want to risk it they should face the full consequences of their actions if they get it wrong.

If he spent some proper time with this girl I'm sure he would have realised she was a child. He just wanted sex and didn't bother to spend enough time with her to realise she was a child. Thinking someone is older is not an excuse.

He pleaded (pled?) guilty. It's the judge that decided there were mitigating circumstances

There is confidentiality around families in crisis because children could be identified.

But does that mean that they are tried in a different court or that the cases are not reported on? Or are they not prosecutef at all? I can see why they're not named in court but I don't remember ever hearing "a man and woman in their 30s were today found guilty of neglect of a 12 year old" or similar. Only cases of the physical or sexual abuse of very young children. Is it even a crime to parent your child so badly?

It is not men's god giving right to have sex with strangers so if they want to risk it they should face the full consequences of their actions if they get it wrong

It is a right of men and women to have consensual sex with strangers if they want to.

It is a right of men and women to have consensual sex with strangers if they want to.

Way to miss my actual point

It is a right of men and women to have consensual sex with strangers if they want to

Of course. But they have to accept the increased risks too e.g STDs/underage/married/mad axe murderer etc

What is your actual point?

It is a right of men and women to have consensual sex with strangers if they want to.

As long as they make sure it is consensual.

Part of it being consensual is being sure that the other person is capable of consent.

Aged 13 I spent many a weekend at a friends house. Her mum worked nights. We were smoking on the seafront, or in the pub. My parents assumed I was safe. If any thing had happened to me, and by the grace of god nothing did, who would be to blame? I have a 13 yo myself now and cringe at my behaviour and the risks I opened myself up to. At the time of course, I knew it all.

So other than asking the person their age, which he did, and judging that they looked old enough to be of age, which he did, posters out for this man's blood have yet to explain what else he should have done.

The upshot is that sex with a 12 year old is perfectly ok if a bunch of blokes agree she looks older.

So other than asking the person their age, which he did, and judging that they looked old enough to be of age, which he did, posters out for this man's blood have yet to explain what else he should have done.

Accept that because he didn't get to know her he took a risk, which in this case made him a rapist.

How about not having sex with her? Or is that just too absurd a suggestion?

What is your actual point?

Please keep up.

Women should definately need to go to the police and register their readiness to have sex. Get a wee card saying "Ready to Fuck" or some such. Just another step in controlling the sexuality of women but heyho.

Why should he not have had sex with her, believing that she was of age and she being perfectly willing?

How about not having sex with her? Or is that just too absurd a suggestion?

Apparently.

One night stands are all fun and games until you end up sleeping with someone who can't actually consent. Take the risk all you want, he did just that and got burnt. It's how it goes sometimes.

Man questions woman
Woman answers
Man either respects woman and accepts answer or doesn't and demands additional evidence beyond the evidence that men are expected to provide. Which, in every other circumstance we complain about.

Part of it being consensual is being sure that the other person is capable of consent.

I do think her assent makes a difference.

Though I must say, if he thought she was 16, that would still make him 3 years older, why the hell did he not use a condom?

Oh I dunno, maybe because even if she had been 16 having sex with a teenager you don't know is fairly grim thing to do?