You're a victim, you just don't know it.

[David]

[stui magpie]

This is why "rape" is such an overused and abused word.

Also, the 70's and 80's were a very different time to now.

She was under the age of consent, it was illegal but no complaint was made so charges were laid. Bill Wyman and Mandy Smith anyone?

I refuse to vote. Fine me.

[David]

It was against the law then, too, so I'm not sure how that's relevant. Was it just ok because 'everyone else' was doing it? Are you implying that someone who did the same thing today would be more guilty?

[HAL]

This is why "rape" is such an overused and abused word.

Also, the 70's and 80's were a very different time to now.

She was under the age of consent, it was illegal but no complaint was made so charges were laid. Bill Wyman and Mandy Smith anyone?

I refuse to vote. Fine me.

There are a lot of people named Bill.

[stui magpie]

It was against the law then, too, so I'm not sure how that's relevant. Was it just ok because 'everyone else' was doing it? Are you implying that someone who did the same thing today would be more guilty?

Are you aware of bill Wyman and mandy Smith? They started a sexual relationship when she was 14 and he was 48. It became public when she was 16, they married when she was 18 and then the separated and his 30 year old son married mandy's mum.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pt-14.html

[David]

I wasn't, but I'm not sure what implications you want me to take from it. It's the same problem really (although I'm not sure it's clear that Smith looks back on these memories as fondly as Mattix does).

[Morrigu]

Question: What is the most overused term in the world currently?


Answer: Victim

[stui magpie]

Lets just say she has mixed feelings.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... e-God.html

My point is, and I've said it before, you can't look at the past through the cultural lens of the present. What was standard parenting technique in the 70's and early 80's would have CSV on your doorstep today.

[Mugwump]

If she was ten and looked back with no regrets, she'd still be a victim. But since she was 15, and pretty conscious of what she was doing, and happy about it, no. The legal age of consent is a device for the law to work. It says nothing about the real capacity of an individual to make good judgements about sex. The age of consent might be 100 if that is the test.

[David]

^ Umm... have you just redefined the age of consent? Is this a distinction that the law recognises (I think it does, but it's worth exploring)?

The whole point of age of consent (and its enforcement, i.e. the category of crime known as 'statutory rape') is that it doesn't matter how happy a 15-year-old is to engage in sexual intercourse at the time; the point is that he or she is considered mentally incapable to offer informed consent, and I'm not sure that their views 3+ years down the track necessarily change that (though it might obviously affect whether charges are pressed).

Fair enough if you think there's a grey area and that it ought to be treated as such, but I think there's a reasonable argument that we need to treat this as a firm line and deal with it accordingly (with discounts for cases like these where there were mitigating factors).

[stui magpie]

And I refer you back to Wyman/ Smith. How exactly are the authorities to deal with it under English law when there is no complainant?

[Mugwump]

^ Umm... have you just redefined the age of consent? Is this a distinction that the law recognises (I think it does, but it's worth exploring)?

The whole point of age of consent (and its enforcement, i.e. the category of crime known as 'statutory rape') is that it doesn't matter how happy a 15-year-old is to engage in sexual intercourse at the time; the point is that he or she is considered mentally incapable to offer informed consent, and I'm not sure that their views 3+ years down the track necessarily change that (though it might obviously affect whether charges are pressed).

Fair enough if you think there's a grey area and that it ought to be treated as such, but I think there's a reasonable argument that we need to treat this as a firm line and deal with it accordingly (with discounts for cases like these where there were mitigating factors).

Sure, there was technically a crime committed under the law. In the legal sense, there was a "victim". Morally, however, in the sense of an injured party, there was apparently none. The law needs an age to work with. I have no problem with 16 being that age, as it feels about right. I could also live with 15 under some conditions. It's an arbitrary number which allows the law to work - but morally (and in sentencing) you have to look at the facts of the case, the maturity of the child, who was the driver of the situation, etc

As I read the post, however, it was about people claiming that she was a victim when she felt uninjured. They were apparently making that claim because of the legal threshold, not because of any injury she seems to have sustained. Bu the legal threshold is not really the issue here as no one is talking about prosecution. Presumably they were pursuing the power that comes from appropriating the rights of a "victim".

[Wokko]

Age of consent laws are ridiculous, they place an arbitrary value on age as a determinant of the ability to make rational decisions. I would suggest that a 25 year old virgin man having sex with a 15 year old experienced girl is far less likely to understand the consequences of his actions than she is and be able to give informed consent, and yet HE would be the one off to jail in that scenario.

Women will always seek out higher status males, and men will always seek out young, attractive, fertile women. I would suggest the 'age of consent' be simply set at 'post pubescent' and anyone engaging in acts with pre pubescents, whether male or female are charged as paedophiles. Anyone else who hasn't broken any normal rape or sexual assault laws should be free to just go about their business.

[Mugwump]

^ Attractive idea, Wokko, but as a the father of a 15 year old girl I don't think she should have been fair game when she hit puberty at 13. A 25 year old man should really find a girl of 16 or go without.

That said, I agree with you in part, and where the girl concerned is (say) 15, I might be prepared to see a non-criminal tribunal review of actual cases in the light of the circumstances, before reference to the courts. That would prevent criminalisation of some men aged eg 18 and inexperienced or immature, who do no real harm when they have relations with an experienced girl of 15.

[stui magpie]

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.