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: grooming
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Anon |
robbiex wrote:
Anon wrote:
robbiex wrote:
The clear difference is whether or not you're trying to seduce someone who is not legally allowed to consent to sex because of their age.
Yeah but what if both are underage? What if a really unworldly 16 year old slept with a 15 year old who had been around the block a few times and knew a lot more for the first time?
These things are entirely possible, and happen a lot actually, who is the 'groomer' in those instances?
Both the 15 and 16 year old would be aware that the age of consent is 16 these days, though perhaps not, that for anyone over the age of 16, even kissing someone under the age of 16 is against the law - this was not the case 20 years ago, why does the law keep redefining 'abuse'? Could taking so many of young people's freedoms away not also be viewed as 'abuse' by some?
Are we all compeletly the same?
No we're not all the same, but you have to have a consistent age limit for everyone, otherwise the law would be an administrative nightmare.
I think you'll find that it is extremely rare for someone to be committed of consensual underage sex when there is only a small difference in ages between the two partners.
Even if one is over 16 and one is under? You'd hope so as it would hardly be crime of the century under those circumstances and far from black and white as to who was the leader and who was the follower.
I knew a woman once who kicked off and wanted a boy of 14 done for sleeping with her daughter, who was 14 too, because I think the age of concent was far more in favour of girls back then, and it was her who actually begged him to do it, he'd never done it before, she had (probably a lot), just shows how people's perceptions can be so misplaced sometimes... |
|
robbiex |
Anon wrote:
robbiex wrote:
The clear difference is whether or not you're trying to seduce someone who is not legally allowed to consent to sex because of their age.
Yeah but what if both are underage? What if a really unworldly 16 year old slept with a 15 year old who had been around the block a few times and knew a lot more for the first time?
These things are entirely possible, and happen a lot actually, who is the 'groomer' in those instances?
Both the 15 and 16 year old would be aware that the age of consent is 16 these days, though perhaps not, that for anyone over the age of 16, even kissing someone under the age of 16 is against the law - this was not the case 20 years ago, why does the law keep redefining 'abuse'? Could taking so many of young people's freedoms away not also be viewed as 'abuse' by some?
Are we all compeletly the same?
No we're not all the same, but you have to have a consistent age limit for everyone, otherwise the law would be an administrative nightmare.
I think you'll find that it is extremely rare for someone to be committed of consensual underage sex when there is only a small difference in ages between the two partners. |
|
hedda |
and don't forget...Jimmy Savile groomed the nation.  |
|
Anon |
robbiex wrote:
The clear difference is whether or not you're trying to seduce someone who is not legally allowed to consent to sex because of their age.
Yeah but what if both are underage? What if a really unworldly 16 year old slept with a 15 year old who had been around the block a few times and knew a lot more for the first time?
These things are entirely possible, and happen a lot actually, who is the 'groomer' in those instances?
Both the 15 and 16 year old would be aware that the age of consent is 16 these days, though perhaps not, that for anyone over the age of 16, even kissing someone under the age of 16 is against the law - this was not the case 20 years ago, why does the law keep redefining 'abuse'? Could taking so many of young people's freedoms away not also be viewed as 'abuse' by some?
Are we all compeletly the same? |
|
Pru |
robbiex wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
No Robbie, that's just it. Being nice and kind and decent to someone is now considered "grooming" if the accuser wants to stamp a motive on the person.
Well if thats the case, then that is unacceptable and yet another removal of our human rights.
I don't mean to sound overly pedantic, but our rights can't be removed, only denied. It might sound a quibble but this is quite a widespread inaccuracy and it encourages people to think of rights as some kind of gift. They're not. They're inalienable. |
|
|
|
|
