I was interested to see that the woman who had sex 191 times with a 12 year old boy was only convicted of sexual assault. I'm sure that if she had been a man it would be a case of rape.

Then I began to think about the claim that they'd had sex 191 times (I assume that means intercourse). The first time was when the boy got drunk and she carried him to bed. I assume that he was not drunk on every occasion. It seems that he kept this "relationship" going voluntarily. That in itself does not change the illegality of her actions, but it does put things into perspective. I suggest that, other than the first time when the boy was drunk, she did not so much abuse the boy as abuse the law. The only reason that sex with a 12 year old is abuse is because the law dictates so. If the legal age was 12 then nobody would say it was abuse unless the boy claimed that she forced him into it, and then it would be abuse whatever his age. The boy does not seem to have reported her or made any complaints against her. It sounds like she was caught through her own careless blabbering and writing everything down in her diary.

Please note that I am not defending her actions. She clearly acted outside of the law and must pay a penalty. However, I think there is a difference between actual abuse and legal abuse; also between legal consent and actual consent. The people who are disgusted are probably more concerned about the age difference than the fact that he was under the age of consent. If she had been 17 and beautiful instead of 36 and rather un-beautiful there might not have been such a reaction even though, legally, the offence would be the same.

Interesting that there is now "surprise" that women are capable of "abusing" children. When I was younger I knew of a housekeeper who had sex with the 13 year old son of her employers. Once found out she was sacked but not prosecuted, but it's certainly nothing new. Maybe he'd been watching the movie "Private Lessons".

terrific..you summed it all up in one sentence :

" she did not so much abuse the boy as abuse the law"

Personally..and it's rather rude but I was surprised at how plain and unkempt she was but a 12 year old's rampant member has a mind of it's own.

The number of times-191 would suggest the opposite to abuse, rather that he was an active participant and the non-"rape" angle suggests oral activity.

The big question..will this lad suffer later as he gets older..like terrible guilt that someone went to jail because of him !

Or will the ample compensation cancel that out ?

(and I have a friend whose mother arranged for him to be bedded by a friend of hers when he was 14 and at 55 he is perfectly happy with the whole thing )

In India many kids are married at that age,just to put things into perspective.

The boy could be charged with rape if he had sex with another underage child,but is not considered old enough in law to consent to sex.As per usual the paradox has never been explained.

It's not acceptable to do what she did,but do we really need to treat her in this way? A life ruined for what was probally a mentally deficient woman bringing pleasure to a young kid.She would have been better seing a shrink,& would have saved us all hundereds of thousands of pounds as a result.No force was used,& as mentioned earlier the only abused was the law.

While the police have insufficient resources to deal with real crime all this money has been spent on protecting a boy who probably wishes he was 'still getting it'.

She broke the law...willingly and admits such. She goes to jail not because of the 12 year old but because she actively and knowingly broke the law. To pretend abuse never happens is quite frankly ludicrous.

The Fat Controller wrote:
She broke the law...willingly and admits such. She goes to jail not because of the 12 year old but because she actively and knowingly broke the law. To pretend abuse never happens is quite frankly ludicrous.

you are correct in every legal sense but many of these terms are technical in the law and imply something far more sinsiter than may have happened.. "Abuse"?..a highly emotive term. Is a lad of that age going to end up on the shrinks couch because he had a few months of b/js?.

I think not unless society convinces him he has been 'abused'.And he's probaly missing them now.

. I was 'abusing' some my own age and being abused by others older and recently ran into one and we had a bit of giggle about it all. Today we would be hauled into some sort of tribunal and completely freaked out.

There needs to be far more ability in the law to take into account all sorts of factors.

One should read Germaine Greer's book about youths. She goes into great depths of the erotic modes of different eras....about how women through the centuries have found beautiful young youths highly erotis..at times it was perfectly acceptable..at other time not.

Watched a documentary about present day Afghanistan and the currect mode for young lads to be recruited as erotic 'dancers'..the lads willingly went so they could send back money to their families. There were a whole range of issues..some kids happy to be stars, others not.
The most extraordinary part were murderous warlords of the North who fought over the prettiest boys !

Another wonderful gift we have given them by blowing up the place !