You're a victim, you just don't know it.
Moderator: bbmods
-
Wokko
- Posts: 8764
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:04 pm
A Stalker is breaking other laws though, the age of the two is irrelevant. When my girl is 14, if some douche is stalking her then he'd be getting one warning too no matter what the age. Of course if she's pursuing HIM, then as unhappy as I'm sure I'd be, I wouldn't want the guy charged with a crime if anything happened between them.stui magpie wrote:I don't think age of consent laws are ridiculous. I recall my daughter when she was 14 [shudder] She's now 23 and admits she was an utter little bitch. Daddy threatening to snap the neck of the 19 yr old douche who was stalking her didn't overly help the relationship at the time, but time moves on.
My main point above which seems to have been missed, maybe I didn't express it well enough is that this shit happened in a different time, in a different culture. If the young lady wanted to make a complaint now, no different to Rolf harris, but she doesn't. All these years later and she doesn't. Same as Bill and mandy.
-
think positive
- Posts: 40243
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 342 times
- Been liked: 105 times
-
think positive
- Posts: 40243
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 342 times
- Been liked: 105 times
-
Wokko
- Posts: 8764
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:04 pm
They're not ready to make an educated decision about what to eat for breakfast, I don't see that as a reason to jail someone without evidence of force, coercion or diminished capacity of the teenager.think positive wrote: Obviously haven't had much to do with emotional, desperate to fit in, falls in love in 15 sec, 14 year old girls if you think they should be "just left alone". The maturity growth between 14 and 18 is massive, and that 14 year kid is for 99% of the population, whether male or female, is not ready to make an educated decision about sex.
They should be just left alone by the law, a good parent isn't going to just let their kid do something so stupid but why should an equally besotted older guy (or woman) maybe going through a rough time and blinded by the affection be sent to jail for it? Sure the parents should intervene, sure society can judge the person, but jail?
People don't seem to understand or care what a horror it would be to be locked away in a place like that, and the people you want locked up aren't your hardened crim who can look after themselves either.
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54842
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 168 times
I said stalking, I probably should have said grooming. He was chatting her up on social media at the time, pushing all the right buttons and she was receptive to it. She was suddenly getting the kind of attention she'd never had before and as I said above it was pushing every button in the right order. She was totally naive to what was going on but it stuck out like dogs balls. She hated my guts at the time, but sometime later acknowledged that I'd done the right thing.Wokko wrote:A Stalker is breaking other laws though, the age of the two is irrelevant. When my girl is 14, if some douche is stalking her then he'd be getting one warning too no matter what the age. Of course if she's pursuing HIM, then as unhappy as I'm sure I'd be, I wouldn't want the guy charged with a crime if anything happened between them.stui magpie wrote:I don't think age of consent laws are ridiculous. I recall my daughter when she was 14 [shudder] She's now 23 and admits she was an utter little bitch. Daddy threatening to snap the neck of the 19 yr old douche who was stalking her didn't overly help the relationship at the time, but time moves on.
My main point above which seems to have been missed, maybe I didn't express it well enough is that this shit happened in a different time, in a different culture. If the young lady wanted to make a complaint now, no different to Rolf harris, but she doesn't. All these years later and she doesn't. Same as Bill and mandy.
To David's points about power imbalance and the use of the term rape I could not agree more.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
-
think positive
- Posts: 40243
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 342 times
- Been liked: 105 times
Unfortunately not every teenager has good parents. And no they should not be left alone by the law, not if they are grooming a child to take part in a relationship, that's not love, that's taking advantage.Wokko wrote:They're not ready to make an educated decision about what to eat for breakfast, I don't see that as a reason to jail someone without evidence of force, coercion or diminished capacity of the teenager.think positive wrote: Obviously haven't had much to do with emotional, desperate to fit in, falls in love in 15 sec, 14 year old girls if you think they should be "just left alone". The maturity growth between 14 and 18 is massive, and that 14 year kid is for 99% of the population, whether male or female, is not ready to make an educated decision about sex.
They should be just left alone by the law, a good parent isn't going to just let their kid do something so stupid but why should an equally besotted older guy (or woman) maybe going through a rough time and blinded by the affection be sent to jail for it? Sure the parents should intervene, sure society can judge the person, but jail?
People don't seem to understand or care what a horror it would be to be locked away in a place like that, and the people you want locked up aren't your hardened crim who can look after themselves either.
Going through a rough time and blinded by affection! That's looking for love in all the wrong places. Maybe they are too much of a ^&*^*% to look in their own, a a legal, age bracket!
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54842
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 168 times
Having elaborated my point about a situation above, let me now put the counter argument.
About 16 months after that incident, she made friends with a friend of her brother who was 18. She was 15. She came to me and asked if they could "go together", basically be boyfriend and girlfriend. We discussed and I said yes. I also spoke to him and said that once she turned 16 anything was up to her, prior to that I'd break both his legs.
Now they didn't wait til she was 16 but they were together for nearly 3 years.
Should I call the cops? I'm not going to. That was 8 years ago and in the context of a relationship. I watched them together and had no fears about a power imbalance or her being taken advantage of. In this case in my mind her birthday was an arbitrary date, but to the letter of the law................
About 16 months after that incident, she made friends with a friend of her brother who was 18. She was 15. She came to me and asked if they could "go together", basically be boyfriend and girlfriend. We discussed and I said yes. I also spoke to him and said that once she turned 16 anything was up to her, prior to that I'd break both his legs.
Now they didn't wait til she was 16 but they were together for nearly 3 years.
Should I call the cops? I'm not going to. That was 8 years ago and in the context of a relationship. I watched them together and had no fears about a power imbalance or her being taken advantage of. In this case in my mind her birthday was an arbitrary date, but to the letter of the law................
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
-
think positive
- Posts: 40243
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 342 times
- Been liked: 105 times
I'd do the same as you,stui magpie wrote:Having elaborated my point about a situation above, let me now put the counter argument.
About 16 months after that incident, she made friends with a friend of her brother who was 18. She was 15. She came to me and asked if they could "go together", basically be boyfriend and girlfriend. We discussed and I said yes. I also spoke to him and said that once she turned 16 anything was up to her, prior to that I'd break both his legs.
Now they didn't wait til she was 16 but they were together for nearly 3 years.
Should I call the cops? I'm not going to. That was 8 years ago and in the context of a relationship. I watched them together and had no fears about a power imbalance or her being taken advantage of. In this case in my mind her birthday was an arbitrary date, but to the letter of the law................
Wokko used a 40 year old and a 14 year old as example, and that's outrageous
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
-
David
- Posts: 50683
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
- Location: the edge of the deep green sea
- Has liked: 17 times
- Been liked: 83 times
To be fair I think that was actually me.
That's a fair point about your daughter, Stui, and this is perhaps where the law could do with a little more nuance. Perhaps we could at least have a clause where, if a court case is brought in a situation like that, the defendant can claim 'no exploitation' and, if they make a solid case that the relationship/encounter wasn't exploitative, they therefore avoid a guilty finding. That would mean that a great deal of relationships like your daughter's wouldn't result in conviction, whereas the vast majority of cases of a substantially older adult and under-16 year old would (with exceptions, perhaps, where it could somehow be assessed that the relationship was absolutely consensual and caused no harm - a tricky thing to establish in the short-term).
Wokko, I didn't realise we had a different term here - are you sure that's always the case? Either way, the term 'carnal knowledge' is pretty silly as it's more or less an old-fashioned way of saying 'having had sex with someone'. I like my 'sexual exploitation of a minor' term because it a) captures the exact nature of the offence and b) perhaps allows for a defence in cases where it's justified.
TP, one thing to keep in mind is that age of consent is not the same as saying under-16s can't legally have sex at all. They're permitted to so long as it's with someone within their own age group (i.e. <2 years age difference). So it's not so much that they're not judged capable of having sex per se, just that they need to be protected from predatory older teenagers and adults. And that's where I agree with your description of lovestruck teenagers - there's just far too much capacity for manipulation there.
Yes, there are power imbalances in many adult relationships. Maybe, in extreme cases, they should be prosecutable too. But, at the end of the day, a junior high schooler in our society is neither intellectually nor situational equipped to be getting into an adult relationship. They need to be focusing on school and developing connections with people their own age. An adult relationship would rob them of that. And a casual sexual encounter in many cases would be most likely about the adult's sexual and emotional desires more than the junior partner's. That's the moral of Lolita, isn't it? If you don't at least have the capacity to bring the law in in such cases, there's really no recourse for teens who wind up in that situation.
That's a fair point about your daughter, Stui, and this is perhaps where the law could do with a little more nuance. Perhaps we could at least have a clause where, if a court case is brought in a situation like that, the defendant can claim 'no exploitation' and, if they make a solid case that the relationship/encounter wasn't exploitative, they therefore avoid a guilty finding. That would mean that a great deal of relationships like your daughter's wouldn't result in conviction, whereas the vast majority of cases of a substantially older adult and under-16 year old would (with exceptions, perhaps, where it could somehow be assessed that the relationship was absolutely consensual and caused no harm - a tricky thing to establish in the short-term).
Wokko, I didn't realise we had a different term here - are you sure that's always the case? Either way, the term 'carnal knowledge' is pretty silly as it's more or less an old-fashioned way of saying 'having had sex with someone'. I like my 'sexual exploitation of a minor' term because it a) captures the exact nature of the offence and b) perhaps allows for a defence in cases where it's justified.
TP, one thing to keep in mind is that age of consent is not the same as saying under-16s can't legally have sex at all. They're permitted to so long as it's with someone within their own age group (i.e. <2 years age difference). So it's not so much that they're not judged capable of having sex per se, just that they need to be protected from predatory older teenagers and adults. And that's where I agree with your description of lovestruck teenagers - there's just far too much capacity for manipulation there.
Yes, there are power imbalances in many adult relationships. Maybe, in extreme cases, they should be prosecutable too. But, at the end of the day, a junior high schooler in our society is neither intellectually nor situational equipped to be getting into an adult relationship. They need to be focusing on school and developing connections with people their own age. An adult relationship would rob them of that. And a casual sexual encounter in many cases would be most likely about the adult's sexual and emotional desires more than the junior partner's. That's the moral of Lolita, isn't it? If you don't at least have the capacity to bring the law in in such cases, there's really no recourse for teens who wind up in that situation.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54842
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 168 times