Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Alchemist
#101 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 3:38 PM
In the UK, if anyone over 12 (but under 16) has sex, it is legal only if there is a three year or under difference. So better put, any girl/boy who is aged 12-16 can legally (if both parties consent) have sex with another boy/girl who is aged up to 18/19, depending obviously on the age gap between the two. Still, it's probably more of a problem in society as opposed to the law.
Advertisement
Alchemist
#102 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 4:21 PM
i laughed, until i realized that she was serious.

In an article in the respected Child and Family Law Quarterly, Miss Reece suggested* that reoffending rates were not high among sex criminals, adding: “despite growing public concern over paedophilia, the numbers of child sex murders are very low.”

...might you have a record by any chance, miss reece?

and: didnt you just suggest that violating a child is okay as long as they arent also murdered?
what part of "sex offenders dont give a flying fck about personal boundaries, why do you think theyre sex offenders" does she not understand...?
darwin, deliver us from madwomen such as these.

*so she suggested it? she has no actual research to back this claim up? why is anything out of her mouth being taken seriously without the element of fact-checking..?

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Mad Poster
#103 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 4:59 PM
I thought the Arizona law was no more than five years difference between the ages of 15 and 19, but when I looked again, it turns out that its not considered statutory rape if a teen between 15 and 19 has consensual sex with someone not older than 19 and it is no more than a 2 year difference. Anything more than that than it is statutory rape and they get the book thrown at them.

Teens under 14 shouldn't be having sex anyway, and even teens older than that is a gray area because of lack of maturity and full understanding.
Field Researcher
#104 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 6:04 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Orilon
and even teens older than [14] is a gray area because of lack of maturity and full understanding.

I do see where you are coming from, but this blanket statement irks me. Of course maturity levels differ from person to person (and one should always make sure one's potential sexual partner is in a position where they are able to consent!), but there is a point where you just have to say that people are old enough to make their own mistakes. I have come across plenty of immature people well over the age of 20, and even more people who can't reflect enough to see their own clown nose.
We can't go drawing age limits and making readiness tests for everything. If you're spectacularly immature, you're probably going to get some hits from it at some point in life. Instead, why not work to make people more aware of others? "Should I be doing this guy who is clearly not mature enough for this sort of thing?" and so on.

Please don't tell me what to do with my orifices; it is none of your business.

One S, two As.
Test Subject
#105 Old 28th Nov 2011 at 7:11 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
i laughed, until i realized that she was serious.

In an article in the respected Child and Family Law Quarterly, Miss Reece suggested* that reoffending rates were not high among sex criminals, adding: “despite growing public concern over paedophilia, the numbers of child sex murders are very low.”

...might you have a record by any chance, miss reece?

and: didnt you just suggest that violating a child is okay as long as they arent also murdered?
what part of "sex offenders dont give a flying fck about personal boundaries, why do you think theyre sex offenders" does she not understand...?
darwin, deliver us from madwomen such as these.

*so she suggested it? she has no actual research to back this claim up? why is anything out of her mouth being taken seriously without the element of fact-checking..?



I find it disturbing that she only talks about child sexual abuse when linked with murder, I think the numbers are a lot higher and less suitable for her little campaign when you take murder out of the equation so she just omitted them, at least I hope so because otherwise like you say she doesn't see sexual abuse without murder as something to be concerned about. At any rate I always though child sex murders were rare anyway, I don't think it's any less than it's always been. I'm pretty sure the worry for parents isn't that a paedophile 'might' kill their child it's more that a paedophile is someone that wants to have sex with children in general.

I think most people would agree paedophilia is a terrible form of mental illness, in that case we shouldn't be wiping the slate clean when a person with it is released because we don't know how to cure it so it's totally irresponsible and not fair on children and also believe it or not, not fair on the person because we'd be putting temptation in their way and not helping them to stop by limiting their exposure to children. I would have very serious doubts and questions as to why a paedophile would want to live or work with children, they know they have a problem and should want to steer clear to protect themselves unless they're so ill that they don't see it as such, in that case they shouldn't be near children ever.
Alchemist
#106 Old 30th Nov 2011 at 1:28 AM Last edited by SuicidiaParasidia : 30th Nov 2011 at 1:46 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by yilesse
I find it disturbing that she only talks about child sexual abuse when linked with murder, I think the numbers are a lot higher and less suitable for her little campaign when you take murder out of the equation so she just omitted them, at least I hope so because otherwise like you say she doesn't see sexual abuse without murder as something to be concerned about. At any rate I always though child sex murders were rare anyway, I don't think it's any less than it's always been. I'm pretty sure the worry for parents isn't that a paedophile 'might' kill their child it's more that a paedophile is someone that wants to have sex with children in general.

I think most people would agree paedophilia is a terrible form of mental illness, in that case we shouldn't be wiping the slate clean when a person with it is released because we don't know how to cure it so it's totally irresponsible and not fair on children and also believe it or not, not fair on the person because we'd be putting temptation in their way and not helping them to stop by limiting their exposure to children. I would have very serious doubts and questions as to why a paedophile would want to live or work with children, they know they have a problem and should want to steer clear to protect themselves unless they're so ill that they don't see it as such, in that case they shouldn't be near children ever.


im pretty sure that on the note of more or less permanently hindering a persons' personal growth, sexual abuse (hell, its traumatic for adults, and kids havent had that much time to learn any coping mechanisms like adults usually do) and murder are pretty on-par with each other already. psychological assassination is just as traumatic and disabling as putting a knife in somebody's head. some adult women who endure sexual abuse never leave their home afterward... and a child is supposed to be less phased?

completely agree with the bold part in your first paragraph, though.

as for temptation...people who are tempted will be tempted. you can tempt yourself with a thought, and last i checked, you dont need somebody elses' direct influence to have a thought.
i dont personally have much pity for a person who would lay lands on a smaller, weaker, innocent person of any age, much less pedophiles or rapists, so i'll leave it there.

Quote: Originally posted by wickedblue
That's a really broad brush you're painting with there.

Not all convicted felons are hopeless causes. Some of us make a mistake when we are young that gets us a felony conviction that we have to carry around for life but have since become exemplary citizens and even good people (and GASP! parents too). So no, I don't think we should just automatically assume that all convicted felons are not going to be fit parents.

As far as convicted sexual offenders though? Absolutely not. Though, I agree there is a distinction to be made from someone who is on the sexual offender registration because at 18 they had sex with their 17 year old girlfriend, or someone who peed in public (yes, seriously, that will get you on the list) and those who commit rape or child molestation. The whole sexual offender registration thing needs to be overhauled to not even include the first two or other minor offenses while keeping those with the more serious crimes on it. As it is, that list ruins the lives of people who are not sexual predators.


...since when has anyone ever "accidentally" committed a felony? "whoops, my penis slipped into this 9 year old by accident"? "oh dear, i wasnt looking at what i was doing and knifed my ex, silly me"?? "that's COCAINE? i thought it was bubble gum!" or maybe "i found this credit card on the floor, i know its not MINE, but hell, i could use some new clothes...from Louis Voitton!" "...aw, crap, i think i just chloroformed and kidnapped someone. my bad." i dont care if youre 13, 16, 20 or 90, you know better than to commit a felony, and doing so anyway is far from a "mistake".
thats a little too much leniency, there.
but hey, peachy people pull crap like that all the time, right? shucks.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Test Subject
#107 Old 30th Nov 2011 at 2:29 AM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
im pretty sure that on the note of more or less permanently hindering a persons' personal growth, sexual abuse (hell, its traumatic for adults, and kids havent had that much time to learn any coping mechanisms like adults usually do) and murder are pretty on-par with each other already. psychological assassination is just as traumatic and disabling as putting a knife in somebody's head. some adult women who endure sexual abuse never leave their home afterward... and a child is supposed to be less phased?

completely agree with the bold part in your first paragraph, though.

as for temptation...people who are tempted will be tempted. you can tempt yourself with a thought, and last i checked, you dont need somebody elses' direct influence to have a thought.
i dont personally have much pity for a person who would lay lands on a smaller, weaker, innocent person of any age, much less pedophiles or rapists, so i'll leave it there.



That's what I'm getting at, she seemed to think only sexual abuse linked to murder was the problem, whereas most abuse doesn't end that way and the victim and their family are left in pieces, that's probably the first thing parents think about when they think paedophile, murder is probably a close second but as she herself admits it's not that likely to happen but she did it in a very disingenuous way because I'm sure she's seen the statistics for abuse without murder which aree much higher.

What I was getting at with the don't put temptation in their way was that as a society we have to be responsible and it's up to us to limit contact between people with serious problems, their triggers and those they might hurt. If we don't stop paedophiles from having regular contact with children I'm guessing they're more likely to reoffend and also have an easier oppotunity. A lot of paedophiles were abused themselves as children and hate themselves for what they've become but their disorder is a product of what was done to them, they deserve understanding, not sympathy and letting off responsibility because they still have choices and control over themselves but they were victims once and it's that that turned them into what they are. I was thinking that stopping them having contact with children is a) most importantly for the children's safety and sake and b) for their own good.
Page 5 of 5
Back to top