Two jailed for sex with 14-year-old

kitten0707

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0313/internet.html

Is it odd that someone would be jailed for having sex with a consenting person who willingly looked for sex?

djk1000

That person was a child, that person needed to give informed consent, I don't know any 14 year olds that can make informed decisions like that. Your comment condones sex with a minor by two middle aged men that admitted knowing that he was under the age of consent, that's a little worrying!

mikemac

Age 14. Consent doesn't apply and that's the key to this case.

So no, it's not strange at all that this resulted in people being convicted.

rainbow kirby

They knew he was underage. They still went there. They deserve the custodial sentence.

amacachi

The fact that he met them both seperately along with another man suggests to me his mother needs to give the wee bastard a good hiding.

They completely deserve the sentences, if not more.

mukki

thomas rogers

marbar

read about this during the week. absolutely terrible.
it would be one thing if they didn't know, but he told them he was 14

kitten0707

marbar wrote: »

read about this during the week. absolutely terrible.
it would be one thing if they didn't know, but he told them he was 14

And how exactly was it "absolutely terrible"? From what I can see, nobody was hurt here.

Dudess

It can't be proven he told them his real age though - although if they said he did, job done.

djk1000 wrote: »

That person was a child, that person needed to give informed consent, I don't know any 14 year olds that can make informed decisions like that. Your comment condones sex with a minor by two middle aged men that admitted knowing that he was under the age of consent, that's a little worrying!

In fairness, plenty of 14-year-olds know when they want to have sex - we just don't like the idea. You can be a sexual being at 14 - in fact, you ARE one.

marbar

kitten0707 wrote: »

And how exactly was it "absolutely terrible"? From what I can see, nobody was hurt here.

two men had sex with a child. that's absolutely terrible

Dudess

Not really. He's not a child as in a little boy. And he consented.

It's not a brilliant thing to happen but I'd disagree it's "terrible".

dny123456

marbar wrote: »

read about this during the week. absolutely terrible.
it would be one thing if they didn't know, but he told them he was 14

No they didn't. He said he was 19, then later admitted he was 15. or at least that's what I read. At 14 I was definitely capable of deciding I wanted sex... Didn't succeed of course!

marbar

dny123456 wrote: »

No they didn't. He said he was 19, then later admitted he was 15. or at least that's what I read. At 14 I was definitely capable of deciding I wanted sex... Didn't succeed of course!

who did!
and what he wants doens't matter, if they knew they should not have let it happen

the piece that i read said "admitted in court taht he knew the boy was 14"

dny123456

i think it's 17 for a gay male, but I'm not a 100% on that. 16 for a girl I'm pretty sure.

dny123456

If you'd bothered to read the link before posting..

"The two men had separately made contact with the boy through a gay website after he created a profile and said he was 19 years old. Both men, however, admitted they knew he was younger than the age of consent but they still had sex with him."


The kid admitted that he was "15", which is still younger than the age of consent and illegal of course.

marbar

kitten0707 wrote: »

Only in your idiotic, ultra-conservative eyes. If he was 16, it wouldn't be illegal (I may be wrong on that, someone please call me out if I am). Once again, nobody was hurt here.

hahaha!
if they were all kids, then no harm was done.
fact remains they were men with a little boy

The boy had set up a profile on the Gaydar site saying he was 19, but both men later admitted that he told them he was 15 when he met them.

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/two-to-be-sentenced-for-having-sex-with-14yearold-boy-1671781.html

Dudess

He was not "a little boy" - that phrase applies to seven-year-olds, children who will not have their sexual awakening for a good few years.
This guy is a horny teenager who is highly likely to have looked and acted older than his years.

marbar wrote: »

what he wants doens't matter, if they knew they should not have let it happen

the piece that i read said "admitted in court taht he knew the boy was 14"

Yes, but calling it "terrible" implies it wasn't consensual - that the boy was an innocent pre-pubescent child who was violated. None of the above applies. The men still broke the law though - nothing wrong with them being sentenced OP.

marbar

Dudess wrote: »

Yes, but calling it "terrible" implies it wasn't consensual - that the boy was an innocent pre-pubescent child who was violated. None of the above applies. The men still broke the law though - nothing wrong with them being sentenced OP.

i don't see how the word "terrible" applies a lack of consent?
as far as i'm concerned that is a child, and having sex with a child, consensual or not, is terrible

dny123456

Dudess wrote: »

Yes, but calling it "terrible" implies it wasn't consensual - that the boy was an innocent pre-pubescent child who was violated. None of the above applies. The men still broke the law though - nothing wrong with them being sentenced OP.

Sentenced yes, but 2 years is a bit extreme imho. Non custodial 2years or maybe 3 months custodial would have been more appropriate I think. They messed up, but I don't think it was predatory or malicious.

kitten0707

Joe Duffy: "Two men have just been jailed for sex with a 14-year-old"
Old Hag 1: "Ah Jasus, isn't it bleddy terrible Joe?"
Old Hag 2: "De fact remains dey were men with a likle boy"

Dudess

marbar wrote: »

as far as i'm concerned that is a child, and having sex with a child, consensual or not, is terrible

Fine. That's your opinion. You've a narrow view of what a child is though. There was a time when 14-year-old males were men. Society may have changed, but biology hasn't.

marbar

Dudess wrote: »

Fine. That's your opinion. You've a narrow view of what a child is though. There was a time when 14-year-old males were men. Society may have changed, but biology hasn't.

exactly. my opinion is all.
there was also a time when people burned women they believed to be witches. society as a whole made these decisions based on generation after generation of experience.

however, i didn't read the 2 year bit adn that that is a little excessive

kitten0707

Dudess wrote: »

Fine. That's your opinion. You've a narrow view of what a child is though. There was a time when 14-year-old males were men. Society may have changed, but biology hasn't.

Finally, someone with an IQ in the triple digits. Also, I'm pretty sure the age of consent in Japan is 13 for males, and a little older for females.

DeLaTroY

This discussion reads like an argument between those who are defending the right to ride kids and those that do not.

Dudess

Well some people differentiate between "kids" meaning children and "kids" meaning teenagers.
If you think someone saying it's not paedophilic for an adult to have sex with 14-year-olds is the same as saying it's not paedophilic for an adult to have sex with eight-year-olds... then you should consider the difference between yourself at 14 (post-pubescent; sexual thoughts, desires, curiosities) and eight (none of the above/hopefully no idea of it).
I'm not defending the two guys having sex with him either - I did concede they broke the law.

marbar

it doesn't matter what the young lad think/wants/feels, the other lads shouldl have known better. laws are in place to protect young people like that. that's the issue

kitten0707

marbar wrote: »

it doesn't matter what the young lad think/wants/feels, the other lads shouldl have known better. laws are in place to protect young people like that. that's the issue

Laws are quite frequently in place for rather arbitrary reasons, without much rational or ethical justification. stop listening to Liveline and reading The Daily Mail.

marbar

kitten0707 wrote: »

Laws are quite frequently in place for rather arbitrary reasons, without much rational or ethical justification. Grow up and read a book, and stop listening to Liveline and reading The Daily Mail.

brilliant...

DARKIZE

Dudess wrote: »

Not really. He's not a child as in a little boy. And he consented.

It's not a brilliant thing to happen but I'd disagree it's "terrible".

Dudess & Kitten707, I don't understand how you can condone this act in any way . Lets boil this down to what it was; these two guys took advantage of this child's naeivty (and he WAS physically, mentally and legally a child as they damn well knew), and took turns to anally penetrate him. As adults, they knew he had no legal or emotional capacity to "consent" to a sexual encounter, but they used it as an excuse to satisfy their own sexual desire. As a defense, its akin to the paedophilia argument about children "enjoying" the love of an adult.

Out of curiousity, would you have the same ambivalence if we were talking about two middle-aged men knowingly having anal sex with a 14 year old girl ?

L1011

Was this thread moved in here; and if so - why?

Nevyn

Thats the difference between a pedophile and a pederast Dudess.
Pedophiles are attracted to pre adolescent children and pederasts to post adolescent
young adults who are under the law still minors but who are sexual.

kitten0707

You may be interested to note the 14 year old refused to give a victim impact statement - because he wasn't a victim of anything.

acontadino

kitten07 your not some liberal free-thinker....you are in fact a moron

Dudess

DARKIZE wrote: »

Dudess & Kitten707, I don't understand how you can condone this act in any way

I'm not condoning it - well I'm just saying it's not this horrendously heinous thing, maybe that's a form of condoning. But I'm not saying it's a good thing either.

Lets boil this down to what it was; these two guys took advantage of this child's naeivty

I'd beg to differ - he set up an account with the intention of drawing grown men. He pretended to be a young adult. Now that to me indicates there's a likelihood he wasn't THAT naive.

(and he WAS physically, mentally and legally a child as they damn well knew)

Legally yes, but I don't know how you can just conclude he was a child physically and mentally.

and took turns to anally penetrate him.

... which he consented to.

As adults, they knew he had no legal or emotional capacity to "consent" to a sexual encounter, but they used it as an excuse to satisfy their own sexual desire.

How would they know he didn't have the emotional capacity? He was the one who started soliciting men on the internet.

As a defense, its akin to the paedophilia argument about children "enjoying" the love of an adult.

Oh for ****'s sake, of course it isn't. A child victim of sex abuse has no say in it whatsoever, it is not comparable to a teenager consenting.

Out of curiousity, would you have the same ambivalence if we were talking about two middle-aged men knowingly having anal sex with a 14 year old girl ?

If she consented and solicited it in the first place, well I wouldn't consider it brilliant, but I wouldn't consider the men paedophiles. And that's exactly how I feel with regards to this case. Also, why do you have to bring anal sex into the analogy with the teenage girl? It's not as if there was an alternative the equivalent of vaginal penetration for the two men in this case.

livvy

kitten0707 wrote: »

You may be interested to note the 14 year old refused to give a victim impact statement - because he wasn't a victim of anything.

I find your posts quite disturbing - fourteen is a child.

Nevyn

acontadino post reported for abuse.

So the question is can a 14 year old be mature enough mentally and emotionally to
wish to be sexually active and to seek out sex partners of their choice and to
take part in sexual acts with out coercion ?

I would say yes such 14 year olds exist but the law is a one size fits all and is made
to protect those who are not as mature.

The question that I would be interested in is would they have gotten such sentences if
the 14 year old was female as many in this country can not wrap thier heads around
a 14 year old knowing they are homosexual and will view the 14 year old has having been
'corrupted'.

Nevyn

livvy wrote: »

I find your posts quite disturbing - fourteen is a child.

A 100 years ago it wasn't, 13 was the age of consent to be married for over a thousand years before that.

acontadino

strawman argument there. well done. society changes deal with it.

we're not talking about two 14 year olds here, we're talking about two kiddy fiddlers violating a teen. not even human.

livvy

Thaedydal wrote: »

A 100 years ago it wasn't, 13 was the age of consent to be married for over a thousand years before that.

I take on board your comment but it's good to see society has moved on - 13 / 14 is, in my opinion, too young to offer consent to anything. I don't want to sound naive - i know young people are consenting to have sex with each other - but big difference to what this thread is about.

Nevyn

acontadino wrote: »

strawman argument there. well done. society changes deal with it.

Teen sexuality has not changed, we are not dealing with it but sweeping it
under the carpet in this country and not educating young adults about
their bodies, their sexuality and letting them make better and more informed choices.

scorpioishere

marbar wrote: »

two men had sex with a child. that's absolutely terrible

what terrible is that stupid bastard himself

Nevyn

livvy wrote: »

I take on board your comment but it's good to see society has moved on - 13 / 14 is, in my opinion, too young to offer consent to anything. I don't want to sound naive - i know young people are consenting to have sex with each other - but big difference to what this thread is about.

Given that homosexuality was only decriminalised in 1993 a mere 15 years ago
and is very much still frowned upon a 14 year old male young adult would have problems finding and hooking up with a same sex partner then if he was to go looking for a sex partner of the opposite gender.
Hence he went looking online and he choose those he wished to have sex with.

Again I do think if it was a 14 year old girl who had pulled a lolita and did the exact same thing the jail time of those convicted would not have been as long.

Sir Ophiuchus

People are confusing the concepts of "assent" and "consent".

Saying "yes" to something does not mean you understand the ramifications or have the capacity to accept the consequences. Saying "yes" is assenting - you're verbally expressing permission.

"Consenting" requires that you understand and accept the ramifications as a responsible and mature adult.

Under the law a child cannot consent to sex. Their assenting is not a defense.

mike65

A couple of 40+ year olds having sex with a 14 year old is fcuking creepy regardless of notional consent or the genders involved.

Good thinking by the mothers partner btw.

scorpioishere

marbar wrote: »

it doesn't matter what the young lad think/wants/feels, the other lads shouldl have known better. laws are in place to protect young people like that. that's the issue

Laws are in place to protect young people ...well my foot..
This 14 year old guy knows very well its illegal so why he went and looked for it. Lots of teenagers here looked more than their age so he must have lied. In fact he's not going to tell if he told the other two men if he lied about his age or not.

Nevyn

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

People are confusing the concepts of "assent" and "consent".

Saying "yes" to something does not mean you understand the ramifications or have the capacity to accept the consequences. Saying "yes" is assenting - you're verbally expressing permission.

"Consenting" requires that you understand and accept the ramifications as a responsible and mature adult.

Under the law a child cannot consent to sex. Their assenting is not a defense.

Good point.

ixoy

It's interesting the reaction this thread got (admittedly on AH), whereby a fair few posters were thinking "lucky thing" when it was an older woman with a boy (who could have been in or around the same age). Both cases are wrong in the sense that the fourteen year old isn't really capable of understanding the ramifications beyond their immediate hormones, but I do wonder if the reaction would be different.

Dudess

acontadino wrote: »

we're not talking about two 14 year olds here, we're talking about two kiddy fiddlers violating a teen.

... except kiddy fiddler means paedophile - they're not paedophiles.
Violating implies lack of consent - consent was given.

not even human.

Of course they are - don't be silly. Why do I get the feeling you'd consider a 14-year-old boy a "ledge" if he got fu*ked by his 35-year-old female teacher...?

L1011

Thaedydal wrote: »

A 100 years ago it wasn't, 13 was the age of consent to be married for over a thousand years before that.

And 13 or 14 is still the age of consent in much of the EU*; although there are usually close-in-age or other anti abuse protections that might have tripped in when theres 40+ year old partners. Or not, depending on country...

*Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Spain by a quick check on the worlds least reliable encyclopedia.

DeVore

Unregistered wrote: »

What's getting me here is that people don't realise that while a 14 year old has sexual desires, they have not got the life experience to know where to draw the line.

Without going into too much detail, I as a 16 year old did something similar with someone of the opposite sex. At the time I had sought it out, knew it was wrong, knew it was against the law, knew my parents would flip but I did it anyway. Because I was 16 and not mentally an adult! It's left me a bit messed up and I really do regret it. An adult took my innocence. At the time I considered myself to be a victim of nothing. In all liklihood, this boy probably feels the same, but in all likelihood, like myself, he will come to regret it.

Although he may physically be closer to an adult than a child, the boy was mentally a child. Lots of hormones pumping around his system and he doesn't have the life experience to know how to deal with that. The onus is on adults to say "This person can't commit to anything adult with me because they are not an adult. They can't see the rammifications, they can't see past the immidiate primal urges they have so I can't allow them to do this".

Both of these men knew that he was underage at the time they had sex. They both knew that they were robbing someone who was mentally a child of their innocence for their own gain.

Whether or not this boy sought it out, he didn't have the maturity to have intercourse with an adult.

I'd hardly call this an LGBT issue, it's an issue of two adults having sex with a minor.

Thank you for sharing that. I must say, I completely agree with your reasoning and argument.

The onus is on the adults to protect the young man under our current laws. If you disagree with that, fight to change the laws, but dont for a moment condone what the two 40 year olds did.

DeV.

DeVore

kitten0707 wrote: »

And how exactly was it "absolutely terrible"? From what I can see, nobody was hurt here.

Sorry, society judges that someone WAS hurt here. He just may not realise it for several years...

DeV.