Father says his raped "sex mad" 11 year old was "fully up for the experience"

How can a 20 year old woman be attracted to an ELEVEN year old boy and not be branded a paedophile. She's sick.

People can say niiiiiiicccccccce on his behalf all they want, when I was a young teenager I fancied random adult Popstars well older than me, so I get why he may have been caught up in it all but for her to want to have sex with an immature little boy...jeez

orubiru wrote: »

To be honest, when I was a young lad I think I would have been, to some degree, thinking I was a legend if I had managed to have any remotely sexual encounter with a woman.

I don't think too many lads beyond their late teens would be gladly telling their new partner about that time they had sex with your dad's ex when they were 11. I don't think too many of your future partners would be high fiving you when they hear the story.

Ultimately, I think it becomes a traumatic experience because when you grow up you come to realize that what happened to you when you were 11 was actually really wrong. When all the other folks are talking about their "first time" or whatever you're gonna come to the realization that you were used and abused by people who were responsible for your protection.

It's not good.

This gets passed around a fair bit, but it's often relevant. It is a monologue performed by an actor, but it was written by him because he actually experienced it. It's incredibly sad; really shows how it might effect a young fella from the very start and how he couldn't really let on otherwise.

Damn, he got fcked by his Dad too. I feel bad for the kid.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Yeah, we all know how suspended sentences work, the point is that when someone gets a non-custodial sentence for such a serious crime, a suspended sentence is in essence 'getting away with it'. Your just nit-picking for the sake of it as you know damn well the point that is being made when someone says that in this context. It's an idiom, not to be taken literally, but sure come back and tell us that she got a suspended sentence again if you want.

All I can do is assure you that I'm not just nit-picking for the sake of it. It drives me barmy when tabloid rags like the DM claim in their headlines that someone "walked free" or whatever, and buried in the small print in the article is the fact that they received a suspended sentence. It's even worse when a poster suggests in their opening post that the person commits a crime and gets away with it, because it's just not true, and I'd rather see the fact that they got a suspended sentence acknowledged, and criticised for the leniency of the actual sentence.


EDIT: The point I'm making is that I have no interest in the 'if the genders were reversed' bollocksology - a child was the victim of a rape or sexual assault, and the perpetrator only received a suspended sentence. That for me, is the most important thing that should be focused on, rather than 'ohh if the genders were reversed, this would happen', etc.

Do you ever admit when you're wrong? You said:


You're trying to tell me there is no contradiction in that statement? And you tell others not to play stupid!

I'm not sure what's causing you difficulty there, I asked for similar cases, not cases where only one or two similarities can be drawn but the overall circumstances are completely different.

As I said, I can pull up numerous cases where the perpetrator was an adult male who received a suspended sentence upon conviction, so this idea that it's as simple as if the genders were reversed, the certainty that an adult male would have done time for the same crime in the same circumstances, is nonsense.

I don't think you'll find too many cases either where a father claimed his 11 year old daughter was well up for being raped by a 20 year old male.

I guess there are a few different issues at play here, and sometimes its hard to disentangle how much focus should go on each.

Most obviously we have a judge who is frankly an embarrassment. Usually I try to avoid joining the pitchfork mob wrt sentencing on the basis that you may not know all the facts that weighed into that sentence. Fortunately the judge here provided a lot of this in his summation, and on the back of that should hand in his wig with his head hung in shame

There's of course the question of severity of sentencing for sex crimes generally. While averages would seem to indicate that light sentencing isn't the norm there are some pretty appealing outliers nonetheless, and a fair question would be if there should be minimum tariffs applied to such crimes

There's also a question of how society views female sex offenders. Outcomes like this serve to trivialise the issue, for example in any official sentencing statistics this will be aggregated into a category far less serious than what actually happened, and inevitably this will serve to downplay the severity associated. It would also seem to tally with a lot of research around severity of sentences by gender.

And finally there's also the father in this case, and a pretty significant question as to how fit for purpose a creature who downplays the abuse of his child in court actually is....

tritium wrote: »

I guess there are a few different issues at play here, and sometimes its hard to disentangle how much focus should go on each.

Most obviously we have a judge who is frankly an embarrassment. Usually I try to avoid joining the pitchfork mob wrt sentencing on the basis that you may not know all the facts that weighed into that sentence. Fortunately the judge here provided a lot of this in his summation, and on the back of that should hand in his wig with his head hung in shame

There's of course the question of severity of sentencing for sex crimes generally. While averages would seem to indicate that light sentencing isn't the norm there are some pretty appealing outliers nonetheless, and a fair question would be if there should be minimum tariffs applied to such crimes

There's also a question of how society views female sex offenders. Outcomes like this serve to trivialise the issue, for example in any official sentencing statistics this will be aggregated into a category far less serious than what actually happened, and inevitably this will serve to downplay the severity associated. It would also seem to tally with a lot of research around severity of sentences by gender.

And finally there's also the father in this case, and a pretty significant question as to how fit for purpose a creature who downplays the abuse of his child in court actually is....

Brilliantly worded tritium tbh, and just on that last bit regarding the father in this case - I'm reminded of the thread we had recently where the mother was charged with failing to protect her children from her abusive ex-boyfriend, and even frustrated the prosecution case to the point where they had to make a deal with her ex-boyfriend. She was sentenced to 30 years, and I think there's something to be said for a sentence like that, that could be applied here.

I'd have said the same regardless of the gender of the parent or guardian in any case where they failed or actually neglected to protect their children from abuse of any kind.

NachoBusiness wrote:

Even if it were true, what has that got to do with the case? And coming from the father. I honestly can't imagine an 11 year old girl being described like that after being raped by a man. Especially from a parent. There'd be murder if it happened. Loose Women would have a special. Yet it seems to have pretty much gone unreported when it's said of a boy, barring a few of the usual articles which will soone disappear. Nothing in the nature of the reaction to Chrissie Hynde's recent comments anyway.

This is exactly why the prevailing "Men are all inherently sexual beasts" and "Women are locks, not keys" crap that's coming out of the States is so damaging, to both genders.

It puts men (or boys, in this case) in the role of perpetual horndogs who will take sex in any circumstances and an 11-year-old child who is sexually abused by an older woman should somehow feel thankful for it.

Likewise, all women are automatically placed in positions of not really knowing any better, to the point where an adult woman can rape a male child and it not really be seen as a big deal.

This is where third/fourth wave feminism and ultra-macho thought processes have brought us. It's grossly unfair to both genders and the saddest part is that both extremes of the divide will learn absolutely nothing from it.

kylith wrote: »

Was a custodial sentence imposed? Did she walk out of the court? If she walked out of the court and went home because a custodial sentence was not imposed then she did walk free. 'Don't rape any more children for six months' is not a punishment; it's barely a slap on the wrist.

No, she didn't walk free -

A six-month jail term suspended for two years with supervision was imposed and Hatt was told she must register as a sex offender for seven years. Mousley also imposed a sexual harm prevention order banning her from having unsupervised contact with young boys for two years.

Source: The Guardian


She received a ridiculously lenient sentence, and that's the fact which should be acknowledged and criticised. The sentence itself is a farce for the crime committed, and it was even worse that the judge took the account by the father into consideration in determining sentencing.

It wasn't simply because of the fact she is a woman that she received such a lenient sentence, there were other factors involved also.

That's why the 'reverse the genders' crap is nothing more than simplistic bullshìt whataboutery that takes the focus off the fact that a child was abused and the perpetrator was given a lenient sentence when the sentencing for adults who commit sex crimes against children should be much tougher, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator or the victim.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Eh, no, it's not.

No point in addressing the rest of it, I'll just clarify this bit. Yes that is bollocksology. At least that much we can agree on.