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.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: One of the most asked questions - do I have REMORSE?
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
zooloo |
Isn't it, would I find Simon Cowell having a fling with a 16 year old morally reprehensible.
I'm finding it very difficult to care one way or the other...  . I wouldn't insist on "hands off" until 18.
At 14 or 15, the law says you shouldn't so don't. If somebody did I think I'd consider them more of a fool than as evil.
(Regarding the law says don't so don't, I do except the 21 age limit for males. I see no reason for it to be set differently.) |
|
JK2006 |
Well the answer may be, Zooloo, would you trust Simon Cowell?
Sadly in my case the answer has to be YES as he stood bail for me to the tune of |
|
zooloo |
Thank you JK and Uberman
I see that being that-bloke-off-the-telly isn't a position of trust. |
|
Uberman |
LOL, well let's just grey that up a bit.
The law says that someone in a 'position of trust', which would generally be someone who holds a position of official authority or responsibilty for children/vulnerable adults, should not engage in a sexual relationship, even if it is consensual, with anyone up to the age of 18.
A position of 'status' is a little bit different but let's face it anyone who is rich or famous can dazzle the wide-eyed and innocent and play Comus.
So, effectively, the age of consent is raised for you if you have a certain job of job/responsibility but if you're rich and famous the standard age of consent applies but the responsibility is moral.
This is only recently the case so the question is a product of its time.
Some factors to 'grey' things up basically revolve around the concept of moral relativism, a concept beloved of libertines and libertarians but anathema to the killjoys, houses of religion, tabloids and lawmakers.
Taking a moral relativist view you might consider whether the age of consent is at the right level and if not, indeed, what is acceptable.
Let's face it the law acknowledges this conceptual greyness as if you had sex with someone who is 14/15 then it would most likely be 'unlawful sex' or indecent assualt where if it was someone 13 or under then it would automatically be rape as there is a legally perceived difference on factors such as sexual maturity (both physical and mental) and that an early teen may want to be going at it like a rabbit and played a big part in the situation, but of course if the person has not yet reached sexual maturity that's a different ball game.
Note that the Catholic Church rails against homosexuality but is forgiving of paedophilia because, so i have seen argued, the former is mentioned in the Bible but the latter is not!
Islam which considers itself most moral would also find itself subject to the weaknesses of humans as the aggressively protected veneer of high morality is fully staffed by honour killers, domestic abusers and more. But then our society and culture may criticise that but there's may not - and should we take the age of Mohammed's wife given in the Koran literally?
Whether an Imam or similar counts as a position of reponsibility or status is interesting but there are cases reported of such positions taking advantage of their position for sexual gain.
The point about positions of trust is that you would have ongoing access to someone of an 'impressionable age' and be in a position to work on them or 'groom them'. That is always considered to be for your own sexual gratification rather than being part of a mutually beneficial relationship - which isn't necessarily true.
Let's face it we are also products of our time. Homosexuality has been legal for 40 years only and so much more has changed in that time. One of the criticisms JK had from Ronson was as positioning himself as being 'morally progressive'. That sort of criticism is something you would get from someone or a society that either does not understand or agree with you. The laws in respect of children/vulnerable adults have come out as a result of activities the media has brought to light but by the same token changes in the law generally but specifically on these issues are politically motivated and generally to feed the populist view which, on sexual issues, is driven by a media who would only shag you in one position forever, with the lights out and only after you're married!
In another 40 years time the moral climate will be different again - although Britain could then be an Islamic state and we're all restricted lol.
So the answer kind of depends on what you're perspective is. Your own personal answer may be legal or illegal. That can be fairly black or white.
But you cannot really say that it is moral or not, the best you can say is that a certain view is held by a moral majority (usually positioned and articulated by the media).
But then who is the moral majority? You only have to look through the media every day to find someone who was one day a member of the moral majority and the next day they were outcast into the moral minority.
The only difference is that they got caught!
Hence
I'm only sorry I got caught.....
Remorse has a purpose as showing it can help reduce a sentence.
You only have to look at the media though to see that once 'disgraced' or 'shamed' by getting caught it doesn't matter how much remorse you show, you're never allowed back into decent company again. Well except for Stan Collymore on Radio 5 but as far as sexual peccadilloes go, dogging......come on.
Outside of remorse being something you yourself can use in respect of your sentence for any 'transgressions', remorse is something the media use to either enhance their moral position by your acknowledgement of being morally wrong by their standards or vilifying someone for not having them. Either way, I can't see someone benefitting from kowtowing with remorse for the rest of their lives, genuine or not. |
|
JK2006 |
Good point Zoo except I believe that "admiration" is a different thing from "trust" and "authority".
That-bloke-off-the-telly may create admiration (God knows why) just as he's-a-pop-star did in the 60's and 70's and possibly even today but it's not the moral guidance that being a family member or teacher or priest or foster parent or whatever brings. They are a part of growing up and getting involved may muddle objective decisions.
Likewise those involved in the growing process are a part of life and hard to get away from. Say NO to a teacher and every day at school or university could bring embarrasment at the least.
If someone decides they like association with a pop star or TV person or celebrity but don't want a sexual relationship they can always a) say no or b) remove themselves from the situation.
I cannot tell you how many really good friends started as - hopefully - potential lovers, said no, became friends and remain so. It's no insult to say "I find you hugely attractive" as long as you can accept the reply that says "same here except not physically". |
|
|
|
|
