10 year old girl gave birth !

The male (even if under the age of consent) is deemed the rapist in all cases.

As for the age/value & location puzzlement. I think you've grabbed the wrong end of the stick.

What we really need is a "wrong end of the stick" smiley.

Opethfan is right in what I was trying to say.

 

Which is total bullshit. Unless it's "real" rape then it takes two to tango. They should either charge them both or have the decency to admit that there is no criminal solution to this type problem.

GMILF...

 

Well, it gets worse in the UK. If you have intimate relations with a woman after a night on the tiles and in the morning she regrets her actions and calls the Police, it is down to the male to prove that the sex was consentual and that you asked her BEFORE she became intoxicated. Any act that occurs after is still deemed as a sex crime as the female is not expected to have been able to make a clear judgement, therefore it cannot be classed as "consent", even if in her half-cut state she was up for it.

I'm not sure what you are required to do these days and I am glad I am happily in a relationship. It does seem a little awkward to meet someone in a bar, establish whether they are drunk or not, ask them to take a blood-alcohol test and then sign a waver prior to chatting them up and taking them home. Presumably you'd also need a third party to verify... argh!

I am not making light of the disgusting crime of rape, however I do believe that a clear line needs to be drawn between some filthy little man dragging a young woman into the bushes and raping her and a couple of adults out on the town together who drunkenly stumble into bed. Simply regretting your actions in my opinion shouldn't be allowed to become "rape".

As it stand however, the burden of proof lies very much on the male, but as bullshit as it may appear even a minor can and will be charged with rape under British law. Barc0de should be able to confirm this, but I think it also applies even if the other party involved files no complaint. Simply the evidence of sexual activity between the pair of them would be deemed sufficient to press charges.

What happened in Belgium would not just be a simple underage situation in the UK. It would be classified as a statutory rape. In the UK if the female involved is under 13 years of age then in all instances this is the case, so the male party in all instances would be charged with rape. I think that is called unlawful sexual penetration in the US, as the same law applies, but it might be at an earlier age? Perhaps your surprise at this apparently strange law is redoubled in realising you guys have the same law in the US.

The age of consent for hetrosexual activity in Belgium and the UK is 16. Same sex is 16 in most parts of the UK, however for some reason it remains illegal for males to sleep together until they are 18, but it's okay for females to do so aged 16 in Guernsey & Gibraltar (weird one). In the USA it tends to vary from state to state and that must make things awkward, especiallly as the gay legislation appears to being amended and repealed left, right & centre!

In reality however in a lot of cases the crown prosecution services decide that it's not in the public interest to proceed with cases involving underage parties having sex. There is talk of parents being charged (unsure of with what) for allowing their children to get into that situation, but god alone knows how you can prove negligence in a case where to minors take it upon themselves two sleep together.

The whole thing makes me shudder!

 

Parris, you just forget to mention, that some states thinks it is "A fucking OK" to give people who did the statuary rape on the same sex. Because it wasn´t procreation. A bigger prison sentence than the opposite, if it was an underage male and female who did a dirty one.

Whether it was consentual or not.

so the age of consent here is 15, both genders. And same sex hankypanky.

 

I'll side with Pierre Trudeau here and just quote him: "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."

As far as age differences and statutory rape, that is a very difficult issue, because even at age 12 I was lusting after the opposite sex, older and younger. It's an issue that makes many people uncomfortable. So I'll just advise everyone to watch the movie Harold and Maude and make up your own minds.

 

Don´t get me going, I hit puberty when I was 11. So I am out of words. But again, it must be up to the individual, and not us to judge. But the law is here to protect us, but whether the laws are working or not. But going to the extreme in many cases. Is where I scream profanities, and those profanities aren´t sober. But I was 17 when I had my first girlfriend and she was two years older than me, so I mean. I don´t know that much, other than remembering using condoms, so you won´t get a nasty one. And well, again I am out of words. Even though it doesn´t seem that way.

 

As someone who has gone through all of this personally, I can assure you that the statistics don't lie. Saying something that hasn't been proven either way as "having nothing to do with age" is extremely wrong. That's not to say it only happens in older parents. There's plenty of people with Down Syndrome that were born to young parents.

Yeah... just shows you how fucked up your part of the world is. Not that the rest is any better.

See my shoes comment. I'm a firm believer that the best time to have children is when the parents are goddamn good and ready. Part of that is financial stability.

As for your interpretation of the laws on alcohol-induced consensual sex, I would really like to see that in writing. I don't see how that can be legally possible, and there still be a large population of alcoholics. For example, "Sorry officer... she wasn't intoxicated." Hard to prove she was the next day. Alcohol leaves the body at a rate of 1 drink per hour. She basically has to fuck, and not pass out to pull it off. I've got an English mate in law school. I'll ask him.

 

GaijinPunch: I understand your age point(and you are right). But it hurts me, when I have a thing or two to say in the AS case. Since it is no secret that I have AS.

 

I'm no expert on rape or sex attacks, but I don't think it is "fucked up" to protect children from either prying adults or other children who display inappropriate behaviour. Clearly this is where such laws are brought into play rather successfully. Such as the teenager who serially abused his 2yr old cousin. He was placed on a sex offenders list and rightfully so I feel because his attitude & actions are clearly abusive and need to be curbed. I am sure you'd agree with that?

Where it all gets rather shaky as far as the law is concerned is when the individuals involved agreed to have sex or are roughly the same age. If under 13 then in such circumstances the law is clear on where it stands - statutory rape. Over that age then they have a number of avenues they can take, however parents & courts tend to prefer to protect the youngesters involved rather than immediately inforce tough penalties. The worst case scenario still remains a life sentence believe it or not!

You seem a rather angry individual whenever we have any "discussions". You have an accusatory tone I find rather amusing!

It's like: "You f**king Brit, you live in a sh@th@le with s#it laws, plus the whole place f%cking stinks! So, £*ck you!"

Well, tell me something I didn't know! It rains here almost every day, that's all I gotta say on the matter.

I didn't just make up the information, nor are these words a mere interpretation, they are clearly defined in the legal standards introduced to the British legal system several years ago.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0,,820693,00.html

This is an article relating to it, however I think you have to appreciate that although the law is defined as a standard, it tends to be applied differently in different cases. It is not an absolute. I was merely pointing out that such cases can & do occur!

I also didn't justify the law, I merely explained how it is applied in the UK. Whether I agree with them or not is obviously an entirely different matter and I think what I wrote points directly to what I feel about such laws.

Now, chill! Relax! :thumbsup:

As for "financial stability and children" - my god, anyone who becomes a parent 'when they are ready' will know that they never are! There is no right time, and financial requirements are one of the lowest order priorities in the parental equasion. Your life is turned upside down the second you become a parent and it's a blessing.

Just as GodofHardcore tended to suggest a plan of attack was required in relation to obtain a girlfriend, I equally say that such approaches towards "being prepared for a child" is utterly pointless.

My comment was simply meant to signify that very point. You cannot plan it into your diary as a good investment or style choice. Period!

 

statutory rape only occurs in the UK when a penis penetrates the anus or the vagina.

Hence, the boy would have raped the girl, subject to evidence.

 

That's the fucked up part. You're assuming the one w/ the cock is the one behaving inappropriately. Sorry, it takes to two tango. Women want to bitch and moan about equality... that's part of it. If a 13 year old girl is too stupid to know she shouldn't fuck, isn't a boy?

I'm referring only to statutory rape. Consensual sexual conduct between two people regardless of age.

Nah, it's not me, and it's not you. Well, not really. Your comment about the expensive house in the city seemed extremely... well.. stupid and short-sighted. How do you know anything about those people's lives? Sounds like you're shitting on everyone that doesn't go move out into the suburbs at 32 to reproduce.

But seriously -- did I personally attack anyone? Did I say fuck you, or fuck off? No. I call things as I see them. If I see a big pile of bullshit, I yell it, regardless of whose pile of shit it is. Don't get me going on sodomy laws in the the Red States, or the complete train wreck that is the US immigration system, war on drugs, or the Japanese joke of a corporate world.

I guess it's similar in America, but much less retardedly defined. Both minors -- no crime. There is no gray area though. If one is over the age of consent (regardless of sex) they are the guilty one. I don't know how often it's abused, but I guess if someone' father finds out, you can get in a world of trouble. So you get an 18 year old black kid who gets a consensual blow job from a 17 year old (I think it was his girlfriend even) and what happens? Well, everyone in America hates black people so the poor kid gets 10 years in a state pen. Yes, this is a true story, although quite a few people are up in arms over it. Definitely going to make my son date only older women in high school.

But there are a plethora of wrong times. Had I chosen to start my family by what appears to be the standards of this thread (that is, according to my wife's biological clock) then we would've brought a child into the world when I had my first real job in my profession and worked about 60 hours on an average week, lived in a 1 room (not bedroom...room) flat, still went out until noon every single Saturday, and had absolutely zero money in my savings account. How is waiting until I advance a bit at work and get a bit of my wild hairs out in any way a bad decision?

Well, I live in a nation of people that would sternly disagree. Disagree to the point that they don't care that they won't collect any social security if they don't start reproducing. I don't think money is the most important thing, but if you have 3 kids and you work at McDonald's, you should think twice (three, four times even) before having another. Being a parent means being responsible. Part of that responsibility is providing. If you can't provide, pull and pray, wear a condom, or something. So even if you are never truly ready, there are infinite levels of unreadiness.

Your/their definition is faulty though. It is physically possible for a women to rape a man (with penetration).

 

No.

Any other type of penetration, and the "rape"(by your definition) of any boy/girl of under 16 by a woman is considered Sexual Assault.

"Rape" is the word used , in law, when describing anal or vaginal penetration by a penis.

It's a matter of convention really, since the other acts also carry a heavy sentence

 

Do you ever think in a coversation there comes a time when perhaps the "wrong" end of the stick has been analysed, yet misunderstood for so long that it would become relatively difficult to unravel?

For me the time is now lol

You've completely misunderstood the majority of what I was saying, however the parts you do understand we disagree on. It's as simple as that!

;-)

 

biologically being able to have a kid has nothing to do with social matters.

The law aims to protect not social status (or a parent against poverty) but the well-being of under-aged individuals that (by law) are not deemed to be mature enough (mentally) to understand what sex is trully about.

This is a load of shit in my view however, since i remember desiring to get laid ever since i was like 10.

 

If anyone cares to re-read the comment I posted, I was actually stating that the issue was underage sex in my opinion, however now that they have done the deed there is little point in the state or parents bring the law heavily down on top of them and perhaps putting the baby into care (which does happen) or punishing them needlessly.

They have every possibility of bringing up the child in a responsible manner, given lots of parental support (their own parents), community support (for difficult scenarios such as the 2 children in question maintaining an education as well as their new found social responsibility) and a bit of added care help from health visitors & post-natal services.

My next point, which has been totally misunderstood was that they will probably do a far better job than many would expect.

Although I have serious issues with underage sex, if those children become parents themselves they can go onto become fully responsible & dedicated parents.

I dislike the whinging social climbers and career types who reach the end of their fertility and demand that they should be granted all sorts of services and funds from the health service in order that they can "obtain" a child. You either want to be a parent and take the financial knocks when younger so that you can be a parent, or you run the risk of having fertility issues later on down the line as you sit in the big empty house your career path offered you.

It has nothing to do with the majority of people who perhaps leave it 5 to 10 years or so, I am talking about those who REALLY have left it so long that it just seems to me they were selfishly wanting their own lives and then bring a child into the world for them to be left without parents at an early age. That in my opinion is short-sighted.

It's merely an opinion and I don't know what you thought I was saying, but hey!

I'd have more sympathy if in their quest to become parents they'd consider adoption & foster parenting before costing the earth to right their egg / sperm count.

 

i ve got only one thing to say to that 13-year-old dude:

Way to go, Johny Apple-seed

 

Men still get screwed on a ton of issues. Child custody and support are just one of the examples I can think of off the top of my head. On the issue you brought up though men are partially responsible.

A perfect example has to do with students fucking their teachers. If your son was a teenager and you found out he was banging his hot teach can you honestly say at some point you wouldn't think "Way to go Son"? Would you think the same if your teenage daughter was screwing her handsome male teacher?

It is a classic double standard. We don't necessarily condone it but we don't absolutely condemn it either.

It happens way too often and ruins lives for nothing. All it takes is a pissed off parent or some girl who is angry over a breakup and bam... Some poor bastard who just turned eighteen gets screwed far worse then he ever did to the girl. To top it off he doesn't even get a break after jail since he now has to register as a sex offender. There is no escaping that stigma once placed on you. Why they haven't amended these laws to provide immunity to a certain age range is beyond me.

 

Guys, you're getting it wrong.

Just because it isn't called "rape" when a woman does it , that doesn't mean that it's not Sexual Assualt. Both are criminal acts with similar sentences etc, it's just their label that's different.

 

People, do you know what is fuckedup ?


Sharpton Rallies for Man in Ga. Sex Case

http://www.softvb.com/tmp/media/apTeenSex.wvx

That is when a black 18 year old guy gets
a consentual blowjob from a 16 year old. And he gets a 10 year old sentence for it. And well the other guy I am thinking off, he still needs 15 years or so of his prison sentence. And he was 17 at the time of being, when he gave a 15 year old guy a consentual blowjob. And the only "real" excuse why the 17 year old guy got a 22 years prison sentence, instead of 10. Was because it wasn´t in any way procreative, and second of all it was statuary rape. Thank fucking goodness, that where I live, then rape is rape. But well, sometimes I just get so damn worked up, but that is because I am very emotional about those kinds of stuff.

 

To GaijinPunch:
I'm not saying parents should have kids ASAP. My parents were both in sucessful, pretty high paying jobs as nurses when my brother was born. They had a house, and while my mum stopped working after my brother was born, we had enough to support 5 people on one pay cheque quite comfortably. It's a balance of being in the right situation to have a kid finacially, and not devoting your life to work either.