Woman jailed after sex with 12-year-old 200 times!!!

AnonAccount wrote: »

edit: temp removed comment as I cant get formating to work right.

Now, according to all the posts above, I was sexually abused and suffered a horrendously traumatic childhood that has probably left me emotionally damaged. But I can tell you, those were by far the best years of my life. I felt loved, had something to look forward to, and I thought things couldn't get any better.

Thanks for sharing this with us but there's one flaw here. This is your story. In the news story the boy was groomed and given alcohol by this adult. She is expected to behave properly and professionally not to intoxicate a young boy and take sexual advantage of him and abuse the state she put him in.

So why am I a happy, well adjusted adult despite all this 'abuse'? Because it wasn't abuse. The trauma comes from being forced, or from the shame of being forced. I was neither forced nor ashamed.

Again, you're not treating like with like. This is your experience. The boy in question was forced, intoxicated, groomed and abused. Repeatedly.

lonad wrote: »

Bonito , are you referring to what I have posted or the post by AA. I have a sick feeling in my stomach after reading the views of AA and his attitude to his kids sexual exploration which has IMO been warped by his experience.

I as a parent who actively tries to shield my kids from the excesses of life that is thrown in their direction everyday find his post to be creepy. I am not aware of the autism thread and the consequenses but I will try and find it to get an insight in to your post.

AA's post. They even said themself they seen the amount of bull posts but had to say something. With a post as in depth and graphic as that in a thread that has had a pun or 2 every 3 or 4 posts and ppl taking the piss may not end well. It'll turn in to quite a heated debate from here on in. Considering AA stays to address our posts.

The thread I'm talking about is the Wakefield study being withdrawn.

Pittens wrote: »

All that AA is saying that children and teenagers are more sexual than we admit as a society. The new form of sexual puritanism ( and all human societies have some) is about children. or rather "children" since it includes teenagers.

Lets not get side tracked. The issue is not a boy becoming sexual aware at a young age. The issue is a woman who is multiple times his senior and supposed to be a grown adult took advantage. She gave him alcohol just so she could have her way with him repeatedly. She also kept a diary with a star beside every date she abused him.

Someone from the 16th century, or 19th century would be appalled by our open sexual promiscuousness but also amazed that we consider 16-17 the age of majority, rather than 12-13 when "children" actually and in realisty become sexually aware teenagers. If they weren't sexually aware before. for most of human society that was when people used to be able to marry.

Unfortunately with the times we live in this sort of behaviour is not the norm. You have to look at this particular story. We can't afford to make generalisations or bring in 3rd party opinions because, that is their opinion and experiences.

At least conservatives are consistent on this.

1) No sexual education for teenagers.
2) No cervical cancer vacines for 12 year olds. Lets not encourage them.

Why, because ( they say) children/teenagers shouldnt be having sex, They are children. so why teach children about sex?

There's a difference to teaching children & teens to have sex and appropriately educating them on the subject of sex.

The liberal response seems to be that teenagers are having sex anyway so we should go ahead and teach them about it, unless they have sex with a 36 year old, or a 17 year while 16, or other arbitary dates because that is RAPE!! They are sexualised but half-sexualised. sorta sexualised. Sexual beings but not sexual beings at the same time.

Yes. They're are having sex so lets address it and educate them and protect them rather than try prevent it altogether. Once they start becoming sexual mature they're going to be curious and we're foolish to think we can stop it from happening.

( In fact as far as I understand the law it is rape - for the guy - if both are 16 or younger in Ireland).

Legal age is 17 but I believe there is amendments that if a male is over 22 and the female has not reached 18 it is counted as statutory rape. I'm open to correction but basically I believe it gives more favour to females than males and isn't equal, gender wise, in regards to lawful punishments and sentences.

So which it it, for the love of God.?Are teenagers sexual, or not? Can we have some consistency.

I don't consider an 11 - 12 year old boy a sexual teen, do you?

Dudess wrote: »

I discovered such feelings at an early enough age too - 9 or 10. That did not mean I wanted to have sexual contact with others though, and I didn't.
Sexual development is different for everyone - I was talking to two male friends about this issue last night, both of them said they had their first sexual awakenings (alone) at 15/16 (I could be wrong but it seems a bit later than average).
I agree with you though that it's difficult for society to accept that people can develop sexual urges at a very young age.

As I stated to you before I, personally, would be considered a late starter. I did not begin to masturbate 'til I started having intercourse and still to this day I rarely masturbate. I have found my sexual drive and am comfortable with it. There is no need for me to further it by self satisfaction. I can abstain for as long as I want but I do, like any other red blooded male, get urges of sexual wants and needs of satisfaction.
That's a good point.

That's an over-reaction IMO.

Not necessarily. It's just there opinion on how kids should be protected etc.

Pittens wrote: »

The first quote is a generalisation. The law is a general law. The same law which arrests 36 year olds for se with 12 year olds ( regardless of gender in England) is the same law which arrests a 17 year old boyfriend for sex with his 16 year and three quarters gf. ( Take a year off in England).

How is it a generalisation It's factual. I did not state gender or age so I was not generalising. I merely stated that when an idividual starts to become sexually mature they are, naturally, going to become curious of what does and does not pleasure them.

My point was simple. If people accept the need for teenagers to get sex education then they are saying that teenagers will have sex, and need to be educated about it. Ergo they are sexual beings. Or some are.

Of course they will. I had sex ed at 12 but did not have sexual contact with a member of the opposite sex 'til I was 15. Granted it is earlier or later for some as everyone is different. Which is why parents get the option of letting there child be given sex ed or not. If a parent chose not to allow their child be given sex ed that's all well and good but, that parent can't stop their child talking to his/her friends and finding out what went on anyway in the sex ed classes. This reverts back to the fact that if a child is curious, they will find out.

The law as it stands, as you alluded to, is an ass. If we teach sexual education to teenagers we are accepting that they are seuxally aware, however for a teenager to be sexually active is illegal.

Agreed. The idea that "Lets educate kids from 12 about sex and they'll wait 'til they're 17 before they actually do it" is a but "duhhh duhhh".

I had sex ed at 11. My brother had it at 9. When I was at the age he is now I was having sex. He has not had a GF yet and has only really started talking about the interest he has in the opposite sex in the last couple of months. This adds to the point that everyone is different. He was educated at the same time as me but at an earlier time in his life.

AnonAccount wrote: »

I thought I was clear, but please let me reiterate.

I am not defending what this woman did. All I am saying is that society instantly jumps to the conclusion that the boy was groomed, forced, raped, threatened, bribed etc. It could very well be that this boy was emotionally mature enough for this and enjoyed it immensely. Legally, it is a crime, but the law isn't always right or fair.

Or maybe we actually read the news report :rolleyes:
Sorry but if this is giving consent in your eyes;

bbcnews wrote:

He said: "Alcohol, including spirits, was available and it seems the young children at the party were freely able to consume it.
"During the course of the party the defendant said to the boy, 'Are you daring? Are you a devil? Are you game?'
"She tried to kiss the boy but he pulled away."

Then I don't know what to think.

Newspapers, TV stations etc are naturally biased, so you have to be mindful of that when viewing their stories. All we know for sure is that this woman abused and raped this boy about 200 times, and that at some point, for some reason she bought him some shoes. A bribe that clearly failed.

FYP.

There are so many here willing to hang this woman out to dry without knowing anything about the boys opinion. This woman being arrested could be a relief for him, or it could be the most traumatic event of his life so far. We don't know, so we can't judge this woman fairly.

Again I point this bit to you.

"During the course of the party the defendant said to the boy, 'Are you daring? Are you a devil? Are you game?' "She tried to kiss the boy but he pulled away."

Oh, and anyone who had sex before the legal age-of-consent cannot possibly condemn this woman if her actions were consensual. There is no difference, albeit perhaps in the age of the boy.

This comment is redundant. There was no consent. It was repeated rape and abuse and the only reason the boy did not come forward sooner is this;

The next day the boy had a heavy hangover and Sullivan told him: "I had sex with you and if anyone finds out it's classed as rape and everything."

Note the "I had sex with you". Not "We had sex last night". She got him drunk to a state where she hoped he wouldn't remember the act then in fear of him remembering and telling people she told him he had to keep quiet.