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

Billy86 · 07-10-2015 2:01am

Jayop wrote: »

Controversial opinion and all that, but putting this specific case to one side for a moment, I don't think it's as bad for an older female to have sex with an underage lad as it is for an older man to have sex with an underage girl. 11 is obviously ridiculous and disgusting, but I know loads of lads who I grew up with who actively chased older woman when they were 14/15 and on many occasions either got their hole with them or at least got a shift. Sometimes the gap could be 10/15 years.

So what you are saying is, growing up you knew a lot of child rapists and child molesters (at least by proxy). There is absolutely no way that it should be viewed differently for women and boys than it should for men and girls - if anything, females mature faster both mentally and physically.

kowloon · 07-10-2015 3:49am

For anyone not getting the 'Niiiice' comments, it's from an episode of South Park which satirizes this exact situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR-EU_l_pKA

Billy86 · 07-10-2015 3:58am

kowloon wrote: »

For anyone not getting the 'Niiiice' comments, it's from an episode of South Park which satirizes this exact situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR-EU_l_pKA

Only it's been run into the ground for a solid decade over and over and over and over and over and over and over again by people who don't seem to have noticed that it was criticising the double standard to begin with.

_Whimsical_ · 07-10-2015 4:11am

Billy86 wrote: »

So what you are saying is, growing up you knew a lot of child rapists and child molesters (at least by proxy). There is absolutely no way that it should be viewed differently for women and boys than it should for men and girls - if anything, females mature faster both mentally and physically.

11 year old girls are not any more mature than 11 year old boys, physical maturity definitely is not a sign of emotional maturity and should never be seen as such. The fact that the boy in question looked older went against him too. The judge deemed his physical maturity and her emotional immaturity to cancel each other out and negate the age difference, a completely preposterous conclusion to have drawn.

This case is utterly appalling. This little boy really has been failed by the woman, the courts and most importantly his father. It's his job to protect and fight for his child, he's clearly not fit to be a parent, you'd really have to fear for his welfare.

Overheal · 07-10-2015 5:16am

The Irish judicial system really does set the most perplexing legal precedents at times.

tritium · 07-10-2015 6:48am

Overheal wrote: »

The Irish judicial system really does set the most perplexing legal precedents at times.

Um, calm down and read the thread. Its a UK story. Plenty if cases and reasons to kick the Irish legal system with but this isn't one of them....

Annasopra · 07-10-2015 8:43am

Fleawuss wrote: »

Posters with more than a casual knowledge of case law here obviously. I'm sure that given the obvious training and access to record they have they could quantify and compare sentences in cases of illegal sexual relations between opposite sexes involving those victims legally classed as children on the basis of gender of the convicted over, say, a 20 year period. Should settle the matter.

That would take considerable research

Duckjob · 07-10-2015 9:06am

What a pathetic excuse for a father that poor lad has. If it was his 11yr old daughter being ridden by a 20yr old bloke you can be sure he wouldn't consider it a "notch on her belt".

People with his mental age shouldn't have kids in the first place.

The Corinthian · 07-10-2015 9:06am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Thing is, it probably wouldn't. The evidence is not difficult to come by and some has been already presented, and dismissed out of hand, by you.

Problem with your point is that you claim it's bollocksology, then when given evidence of the opposite, you either change your argument, or apply pedantry to defend yourself; such as claiming that if one can find an example of a man who's received a lenient sentence, ergo there is no discrimination - which, logically speaking, is bollocksology.

Thing is, you don't even believe that there's no discrimination:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course there's a gender discrepancy between genders with regard to the sentencing handed down for rape and sexual abuse of children in the UK, but what's actually more important as far as I'm concerned, is not the gender of the perpetrator, or the victim, but the leniency of the sentencing handed down. That's actually what needs to be addressed more urgently IMO.

Instead you simply seem to have an aversion to anyone pointing this out and even when it becomes blatantly obvious that your position is patently false, you'll change the goalposts or dismiss others with remarkable immaturity:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, it [that the existence of gender based judgments is 'bollocksology'] is.

And it's not the first time you've done this, neither is it the first time you've responded ad nauseam with ever more surreal dismissals, strawmen and denials, until the thread it dragged so OT that a moderator shuts down the discussion.

Why are you so intent on denying or dismissing these things exist? TBH, after a while it all starts sounding like the gender rights equivalent of David Irving.

One eyed Jack · 07-10-2015 9:43am

The Corinthian wrote: »

Thing is, it probably wouldn't. The evidence is not difficult to come by and some has been already presented, and dismissed out of hand, by you.

Problem with your point is that you claim it's bollocksology, then when given evidence of the opposite, you either change your argument, or apply pedantry to defend yourself; such as claiming that if one can find an example of a man who's received a lenient sentence, ergo there is no discrimination - which, logically speaking, is bollocksology.

The overall circumstances of that case were completely different. The intrinsic difference wasn't simply the gender of the perpetrator at all.

Thing is, you don't even believe that there's no discrimination:

Instead you simply seem to have an aversion to anyone pointing this out and even when it becomes blatantly obvious that your position is patently false, you'll change the goalposts or dismiss others with remarkable immaturity:

No, I never agreed there was discrimination, I said there were discrepancies. For instance a woman cannot be charged with rape, she can be charged with sexual assault. I haven't changed the goalposts or dismissed anyone. In fact I've been more than accommodating with people who have refused to actually read my posts, and instead attempted to try and say I say one thing but I really mean something else.

And it's not the first time you've done this, neither is it the first time you've responded ad nauseam with ever more surreal dismissals, strawmen and denials, until the thread it dragged so OT that a moderator shuts down the discussion.

You know what to do if you have a problem with a post rather than attack the poster.

Why are you so intent on denying or dismissing these things exist? TBH, after a while it all starts sounding like the gender rights equivalent of David Irving.

I don't deny discrepancies exist. I just don't care for some people's hard-on for gender wars when I think they're missing the more important point. All things aren't equal, no two cases are exactly the same, and instead of being focused on the gender of the perpetrator, I think the focus should be on the leniency of the sentencing handed down in these cases where children are the victims of sexual crimes perpetrated by adults.

That's hardly so difficult to understand, is it?

The Corinthian · 07-10-2015 10:02am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The overall circumstances of that case were completely different. The intrinsic difference wasn't simply the gender of the perpetrator at all.

What was it then, because you've not made a convincing argument of one to date?

No, I never agreed there was discrimination, I said there were discrepancies. For instance a woman cannot be charged with rape, she can be charged with sexual assault. I haven't changed the goalposts or dismissed anyone. In fact I've been more than accommodating with people who have refused to actually read my posts, and instead attempted to try and say I say one thing but I really mean something else.

A woman cannot be charged with rape because the legal definition of rape requires a penis. Only men have penises. Ergo only men, on the basis of solely their gender, can be charged with the more serious charge of rape.

And this does not constitute discrimination based on gender? Are you serious?

You know what to do if you have a problem with a post rather than attack the poster.

Actually I am attacking your posts, their content.

I don't deny discrepancies exist. I just don't care for some people's hard-on for gender wars when I think they're missing the more important point. All things aren't equal, no two cases are exactly the same, and instead of being focused on the gender of the perpetrator, I think the focus should be on the leniency of the sentencing handed down in these cases where children are the victims of sexual crimes perpetrated by adults.

Yet, we can see that gender is very much a core factor in the leniency of the sentencing handed down. You're not going to get very far focusing on the leniency of the sentencing handed down if you ignore the principle factor in that 'discrepancy', are you?

So, why the denial? Why actively ignore the elephant in the middle?

zeffabelli · 07-10-2015 10:55am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You know what to do if you have a problem with a post rather than attack the poster.

I don't deny discrepancies exist. I just don't care for some people's hard-on for gender wars when I think they're missing the more important point. All things aren't equal, no two cases are exactly the same, and instead of being focused on the gender of the perpetrator, I think the focus should be on the leniency of the sentencing handed down in these cases where children are the victims of sexual crimes perpetrated by adults.

That's hardly so difficult to understand, is it?

I agree with this because it shifts the focus from the child being the victim, to an entire population of an adult gender being the victim.

The child is the victim here. Not men at large.

I do think school teachers, men or women, should get extra tough sentencing. Special place in hell for them.

zeffabelli · 07-10-2015 11:02am

The Corinthian wrote: »

A woman cannot be charged with rape because the legal definition of rape requires a penis. Only men have penises. Ergo only men, on the basis of solely their gender, can be charged with the more serious charge of rape.

Let's not kid ourselves, it's pretty hard to get a rape charge for a man too.

Where you have penetration you also have risks of pregnancy, possible actually pregnancy {for which NO law exists at all...if you get a woman pregnant though a rape there is no extra charge put on that...]

Unless you have a penis you can't actually increase those risks.

ANd maybe just maybe if men stopped peer pressuring each other, their friends, and their own sons, into the conviction that they love sex all the time, indiscriminately, then maybe the culture and the judiciary might start believing it too.

So men, peers, fathers and brothers have to do their part too to change the perceptions.

Maguined · 07-10-2015 11:16am

zeffabelli wrote: »

Let's not kid ourselves, it's pretty hard to get a rape charge for a man too.

Where you have penetration you also have risks of pregnancy, possible actually pregnancy {for which NO law exists at all...if you get a woman pregnant though a rape there is no extra charge put on that...]

Unless you have a penis you can't actually increase those risks.

So men shouldn't be convicted of rape against another man as there is no risk of pregnancy? It should just be sexual assault by your reasoning.

zeffabelli wrote: »

ANd maybe just maybe if men stopped peer pressuring each other, their friends, and their own sons, into the conviction that they love sex all the time, indiscriminately, then maybe the culture and the judiciary might start believing it too.

So men, peers, fathers and brothers have to do their part too to change the perceptions.

Is this not victim blaming? Blaming the attitudes of men rather than the fact the 21 year old adult woman raped an 11 year old boy similar to how a rapist might say a woman was asking for it due to her dress or behaviour?

Still not asking for it.

zeffabelli · 07-10-2015 11:20am

Maguined wrote: »

So men shouldn't be convicted of rape against another man as there is no risk of pregnancy? It should just be sexual assault by your reasoning.

No of course not. But a male rape victim still has no risk of pregnancy or all that follows that risk, creating even more risk. Abortion...birth...raising a child....And there is NO law that covers those risks.

Maguined wrote: »

Is this not victim blaming? Blaming the attitudes of men rather than the fact the 21 year old adult woman raped an 11 year old boy similar to how a rapist might say a woman was asking for it due to her dress or behaviour?

Still not asking for it.

No it's not.

What I am saying is that the peer pressure that men put on each other colludes with a perception that there is no circumstance under which a man will not want sex. That they will **** anything any time. What this then feeds into is the sense of an impossibility of rape.... because there is no such thing as not wanting it....

Now how this translates to an 11 year old is beyond my scope of imagining....

jungleman · 07-10-2015 11:41am

Jesus can we not have one of these threads without people resorting to saying "victim blaming"?

It's stupid. It's just such a lazy phrase. It really gets on my tits. It encompasses a wide range of events and emotions and compresses them into a singular stupid phrase.

One eyed Jack · 07-10-2015 11:52am

The Corinthian wrote: »

What was it then, because you've not made a convincing argument of one to date?

When I say the intrinsic difference wasn't simply the gender of the perpetrator, that is to say that there were many differences between this case, and the case that Nacho presented. The perpetrator wasn't an adult for starters.

A woman cannot be charged with rape because the legal definition of rape requires a penis. Only men have penises. Ergo only men, on the basis of solely their gender, can be charged with the more serious charge of rape.

And this does not constitute discrimination based on gender? Are you serious?

No, it doesn't constitute discrimination based on gender, it constitutes a discrepancy based on gender. It's similar to the way in which abortion laws exist with regard to women, but they do not exist with regard to men. This doesn't constitute discrimination based on gender, it constitutes a discrepancy based on gender.

Actually I am attacking your posts, their content.

You're not actually, as you seem more interested in ascribing motivations to me that simply don't exist. If you were attacking the content of my posts, you would first have to acknowledge what I have posted, rather than trying to imply motivations based on your reinterpretation of my posts.

Yet, we can see that gender is very much a core factor in the leniency of the sentencing handed down. You're not going to get very far focusing on the leniency of the sentencing handed down if you ignore the principle factor in that 'discrepancy', are you?

No, we can't see that at all. What I do see however, is that a male victim's opinion was not considered in sentencing, because their male parent gave an account that was favourable towards the perpetrator, and this was taken into account by a male judge in determining sentencing for the perpetrator's crime.

Apparently I'm supposed to see all this as the perpetrator's responsibility because of the the fact that they are a woman?

You're not going to see what I see though if you're solely focused on the gender of the perpetrator in this case solely because she is a woman. Instead you perceive gender bias in the legal system as the principle factor that should be focused on, rather than the fact that an adult received a lenient sentence for abusing a child.

The fact that excuses were made for the perpetrator (a woman) by the parent (a man), and the judge (a man) who were in a position to prevent the abuse, and in a position to punish the abuser, seems to have been ignored by yourself, and a few other posters, who seem to ignore the fact that the victim (a male child) can recognise, and has said, that what was done to him, was wrong.

So, why the denial? Why actively ignore the elephant in the middle?

I could ask you the same questions tbh.

Maguined · 07-10-2015 11:57am

zeffabelli wrote: »

No of course not. But a male rape victim still has no risk of pregnancy or all that follows that risk, creating even more risk. Abortion...birth...raising a child....And there is NO law that covers those risks.

But why are you even bringing risk of pregnancy into the debate then? Corinthian mentioned the fact alone that only a man can be charged with rape is discriminiation inherently within the law. Do you agree or disagree with that point? You seemed to be arguing against it by mentioning pregnancy risks as justifying why only men can be charged with the more serious offense.

zeffabelli wrote: »

No it's not.

What I am saying is that the peer pressure that men put on each other colludes with a perception that there is no circumstance under which a man will not want sex. That they will **** anything any time. What this then feeds into is the sense of an impossibility of rape.... because there is no such thing as not wanting it....

Now how this translates to an 11 year old is beyond my scope of imagining....

It is the exact same reasoning as the victim blaming concept we see many slutwalk protests about. Only the perpetrator of sexual assault is to blame and any factor outside that is labelled as victim blaming. Not necessarily my beliefe but just questioning yours?

zeffabelli · 07-10-2015 12:06pm

Maguined wrote: »

But why are you even bringing risk of pregnancy into the debate then? Corinthian mentioned the fact alone that only a man can be charged with rape is discriminiation inherently within the law. Do you agree or disagree with that point? You seemed to be arguing against it by mentioning pregnancy risks as justifying why only men can be charged with the more serious offense.

It is the exact same reasoning as the victim blaming concept we see many slutwalk protests about. Only the perpetrator of sexual assault is to blame and any factor outside that is labelled as victim blaming. Not necessarily my beliefe but just questioning yours?

A woman can't be charged with rape because she doesn't have a penis. I think we can all agree, as a general rule, that women do not have penises. Is this some discriminatory politically incprrect fact? It may be politically incorrect, but it is biologically correct. I don't really see what the problem is here.

I don't really know what the slutwalk stuff is about because I pay no heed to activist street theatre.

Yes the old victim blaming card. Yes in some contexts it's fair call, but in many many it is just a way to sustain the status that comes with being a victim. Check your privaledge maybe? Maybe look for your own collusions? No no, we can't have that....

It may be hard to translate culturally.....but I'll try....if you look at all this rape culture talk...and you look at fraternities in the US on campuses with high sports profiles, ritualised hazing, and massive peer pressure on men to be sexually active and they use sports and war metaphor like score, nailed her... etc... of course this is going to produce more pressuure to rape a woman because if you are not scoring then you are a fag... and you are emasculated by your peers.

When you have this culture that has this kind of pressure on men...that they **** anything...whenever....even Allah turns his head on a Thrusday...then that will filter into perceptions of the judiciary...men or women...that a man not wanting sex is a near impossibility or at best a mental disorder.

You know when some monster lets loose with a gun and we all label him a monster....I don't agree with that...well I do a little...he maybe a monster but we all helped to create him.

Wibbs · 07-10-2015 12:06pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

ANd maybe just maybe if men stopped peer pressuring each other, their friends, and their own sons, into the conviction that they love sex all the time, indiscriminately, then maybe the culture and the judiciary might start believing it too.

What in holy hell did I just read? Oh wait… of course, it's always men's, all men's fault. Sorry I forgot.

zeffabelli · 07-10-2015 12:09pm

Wibbs wrote: »

What in holy hell did I just read? Oh wait… of course, it's always men's, all men's fault. Sorry I forgot.

See my paragraph above.

No need to get so defensive. If that's what you read, then you weren't reading or you need new glasses.

jungleman · 07-10-2015 12:17pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

See my paragraph above.

No need to get so defensive. If that's what you read, then you weren't reading or you need new glasses.

Yeah you're basically saying that men feel pressurised into going around raping people. We're all a big bunch of rapists, trying to be cool.

"All the guys are doing it, c'mon man, let's go for a rape. You wanna be cool, don't you?" is pretty much how I translated your post.

Nonsense.

Maguined · 07-10-2015 12:20pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

A woman can't be charged with rape because she doesn't have a penis. I think we can all agree, as a general rule, that women do not have penises. Is this some discriminatory politically incprrect fact? It may be politically incorrect, but it is biologically correct. I don't really see what the problem is here.

The problem is the current legal definition is outdated and does not reflect the suffering of some victims. Do you think a boy child suffers any less than a girl child simply because of the sex of their pepertrator and the biologly involved? It's not as bad a crime or a violation simply because of the genitalia involved in the crime? Simply their suffering is not as significant or important as the other?

Cuban Pete · 07-10-2015 12:27pm

Wibbs wrote: »

What in holy hell did I just read? Oh wait… of course, it's always men's, all men's fault. Sorry I forgot.

Okay, what's the alternative? Do men not say "nice"? Do they not say they wish it'd happened to them? Do you not think that might have at least some part to play?

It's primarily men dismissing this. As long as that continues society will mirror those beliefs.

One eyed Jack · 07-10-2015 12:41pm

jungleman wrote: »

Yeah you're basically saying that men feel pressurised into going around raping people. We're all a big bunch of rapists, trying to be cool.

"All the guys are doing it, c'mon man, let's go for a rape. You wanna be cool, don't you?" is pretty much how I translated your post.

Nonsense.

What's actually nonsense, is how you chose to interpret that post. That wasn't anything at all like what they said. They're not saying at all that men are encouraged to rape women, what they are saying is that men put pressure upon other men to pursue sex as though their worth is measured among men by their sexual experiences or their sexuality.

I don't like the implication myself that I played a part in contributing to that mindset among men, but I understand that the poster means it's a perception created and fostered by men among men in wider society, and in this case, the father's attitude towards his son being sexually assaulted by a woman, is evidence of that fact.

The father doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that what was done to his son was wrong, and he doesn't seem to want to acknowledge this fact because the perpetrator is a woman, so he makes all sorts of rationalisations and ignores the fact that his own son recognises that what was done to him was wrong.

Even the judge is complicit in mitigating the severity of the crime because of the fact that the perpetrator is a woman and the victim is a male child. That's not the fault of the legal system, and the judge could easily have imposed a much more appropriate sentence for the crime, but chose not to, because of the ideas perpetuated among men that sexual abuse against a male child committed by a woman, isn't perceived as sexual abuse that the abuser should be punished for, but rather is something that the victim deserves credit for!

The Southpark clip, much as I loathe the 'humour', satirises this perception to great effect - men empathise with the male victim at first upon the assumption that the perpetrator was male, and it makes them feel awkward, but upon realising that the perpetrator was female, that's where the "niiiiice" nonsense comes from, and the victim isn't perceived as a victim, but a victor among men.

One eyed Jack · 07-10-2015 12:53pm

Maguined wrote: »

The problem is the current legal definition is outdated and does not reflect the suffering of some victims. Do you think a boy child suffers any less than a girl child simply because of the sex of their pepertrator and the biologly involved? It's not as bad a crime or a violation simply because of the genitalia involved in the crime? Simply their suffering is not as significant or important as the other?

I don't think it's that the current legal definition of rape is outdated. That's simply the terminology, and the maximum sentence for sexual assault is the same as that for rape. The problem is in sentencing, and the sentencing being handed down for sex crimes is simply far too lenient. The idea of a six month custodial sentence, suspended for two years, is ludicrous, and it would be just as ludicrous were the genders reversed.

It's the sentencing that doesn't appropriately reflect the suffering of some victims (as was seen in this case where the effect on the child doesn't appear to have even been considered by the judge). The wrangling over legal definitions or gender biases is at best a distraction from the real issue which is the leniency of sentencing for sex crimes.

The Corinthian · 07-10-2015 12:58pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

I agree with this because it shifts the focus from the child being the victim, to an entire population of an adult gender being the victim.

Only in your mind. Most of us can concieve that many social problems can be more complex than "four legs good, two legs bad".

Or should we ignore any social problems that may end up endangering some agreed monopoly on victim-hood?

zeffabelli wrote: »

Where you have penetration you also have risks of pregnancy, possible actually pregnancy {for which NO law exists at all...if you get a woman pregnant though a rape there is no extra charge put on that...]

So you feel pedophile rapists should get less severe sentences? After all, they're not going to get their victims pregnant...

...or maybe what you're saying is a bit silly?

zeffabelli · 07-10-2015 1:05pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Only in your mind. Most of us can concieve that many social problems can be more complex than "four legs good, two legs bad".

Or should we ignore any social problems that may end up endangering some agreed monopoly on victim-hood?

So you feel pedophile rapists should get less severe sentences? After all, they're not going to get their victims pregnant...

...or maybe what you're saying is a bit silly?

The sentencing of sex offenders is complex and case by case, unlike your gender activists. And yes there are children, girls who can get pregnant.

You don't think there should be some consequence for this or are you going to start complaining now about child support for unwanted children?

The Corinthian · 07-10-2015 1:05pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When I say the intrinsic difference wasn't simply the gender of the perpetrator, that is to say that there were many differences between this case, and the case that Nacho presented. The perpetrator wasn't an adult for starters.

For starters? You'll have to do better than that. Still waiting.

No, it doesn't constitute discrimination based on gender, it constitutes a discrepancy based on gender. It's similar to the way in which abortion laws exist with regard to women, but they do not exist with regard to men. This doesn't constitute discrimination based on gender, it constitutes a discrepancy based on gender.

Bollocksology. So a woman can 'peg' a boy with a strapon, but because the strap-on she uses is not a real penis, it's not rape. And the law should not compensate for such biological discrepancies, apparantly; grand let's abolish all laws that protect the rights of women on the basis of their biology then - if a woman gets let go when she falls pregnant, it's not discrimination, it's a 'discrepancy' now.

You're really grasping at straws where it comes to avoiding the notion that such discrimination exists.

You're not actually, as you seem more interested in ascribing motivations to me that simply don't exist. If you were attacking the content of my posts, you would first have to acknowledge what I have posted, rather than trying to imply motivations based on your reinterpretation of my posts.

Actually I have repeatedly done so; quoted and responded to your arguments, point by point. Please do not be so disingenuous.

No, we can't see that at all.

You. It's pretty clear given the responses, it's pretty much just you.

I could ask you the same questions tbh.

Meaningless response. I'm the one presenting the elephant in the room, you're the one who's trying to tell us it's a gerbil.

The Corinthian · 07-10-2015 1:07pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

The sentencing of sex offenders is complex and case by case, unlike your gender activists. And yes there are children, girls who can get pregnant.

Not if they're prepubescent. So by your logic, if there is no threat of pregnancy, it's not as severe a crime. Your logic, not mine.

You don't think there should be some consequence for this or are you going to start complaining now about child support for unwanted children?

What's this nonsense? Shall we talk about the weather too if we want to go off topic?

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

Comments