IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
Topic History of: Children too young to consent rape woman? Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
Author
Message
honey!oh sugar sugar.
hedda wrote: honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote: JK2006 wrote: Either these nasty 12, 13, 14 and 15 year olds are able to consent or they are not. I'd suggest if they are assaulting and raping people that we should take a look at our sex laws.
I think often when children commit a serious crime it is because they are easily influenced, can not easily separate reality from fantasy, and do not have the skills to remove themselves from an uncomfortable situation. The same applies to underage sex and abuse, so in my opinion they need protection from both, and can not make fully responsible decisions. (especially not at ten)
one problem is that we make rules about children to coincide with today's "morality" which is questionable at all times and can , these days, be media driven.
Thus 100 years it was acceptable for 10 year old's to go up chimneys etc while today it is not.
As recently as 10 years ago it was only discovered that children up to a certain age do not have peripheral vision so the mantra to always "look left and right" when crossing the road is very sane advice.
and scientists opine that the teen "recklessness" is possibly a very important aspect of evolution that enables young men when they are their strongest be able to wade into troubling situations with all their strength, ie saving the village from forms of disaster whereas the older we get (not me of course) the more timid we become.
Yes, and of course there is a big difference between a ten and fifteen year old, yet in law it is often the same.
It is a peculiar world where if ten year olds commit murder they are "evil monsters" yet a fifteen year old who chooses to have sex with an eighteen year old is a helpless victim. victim.
and yet are en
hedda
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote: JK2006 wrote: Either these nasty 12, 13, 14 and 15 year olds are able to consent or they are not. I'd suggest if they are assaulting and raping people that we should take a look at our sex laws.
I think often when children commit a serious crime it is because they are easily influenced, can not easily separate reality from fantasy, and do not have the skills to remove themselves from an uncomfortable situation. The same applies to underage sex and abuse, so in my opinion they need protection from both, and can not make fully responsible decisions. (especially not at ten)
one problem is that we make rules about children to coincide with today's "morality" which is questionable at all times and can , these days, be media driven.
Thus 100 years it was acceptable for 10 year old's to go up chimneys etc while today it is not.
As recently as 10 years ago it was only discovered that children up to a certain age do not have peripheral vision so the mantra to always "look left and right" when crossing the road is very sane advice.
and scientists opine that the teen "recklessness" is possibly a very important aspect of evolution that enables young men when they are their strongest be able to wade into troubling situations with all their strength, ie saving the village from forms of disaster whereas the older we get (not me of course) the more timid we become.
honey!oh sugar sugar.
JK2006 wrote: Either these nasty 12, 13, 14 and 15 year olds are able to consent or they are not. I'd suggest if they are assaulting and raping people that we should take a look at our sex laws.
I think often when children commit a serious crime it is because they are easily influenced, can not easily separate reality from fantasy, and do not have the skills to remove themselves from an uncomfortable situation. The same applies to underage sex and abuse, so in my opinion they need protection from both, and can not make fully responsible decisions. (especially not at ten)
ItsOnlySexButWeAllLikeIt
'Sickening Hypocrisy' is the current UK-US rule of law.
Yet surely a way forward, and fine role-model is the intellectually tough and gutsy Peter Tatchell.
“ Curiously, the (UK) age of criminal responsibility is ten. From that age onwards, the law says that a person who commits a crime, such as murder or robbery, can be assumed to know what they were doing and can therefore be held responsible for their behaviour. But it is not until the age of 16 that the law acknowledges young people's ability to give sexual consent. The implication is that a decision to have sex is more complex and grave than a decision to kill or rob. The ten-year-old killers of James Bulger were declared old enough to be responsible for their actions and be convicted of murder. But if they'd had sex with each other and said they had consented, the courts would have ruled that they were too young to understand what is involved in a sexual relationship. This case sums up the legal muddle over the sexual rights of youth. Parliament seeks to safeguard against abuse by setting the age of consent at 16. But by denying the under-16s the right to consent to sex, it reinforces the idea that they have no right to make their own sexual choices. ”
Either these nasty 12, 13, 14 and 15 year olds are able to consent or they are not. I'd suggest if they are assaulting and raping people that we should take a look at our sex laws.
Forums 