Under-age Sex in The UK (Looking for open discussion).

[Terminal Blue]

I think you messed up the rest of the quotes. And no, he definitely wasn't convicted of rape.

Actually.. looking it up..

A guy was convicted in 2006 on these grounds, but won in the court of appeal. Therefore, you're right.. lying about your HIV status is not rape (and I'm pretty sure this means the NHS lied to me, but never mind).

I think the argument was based on the idea that such a law would reward people for not getting tested, which seems kind of dumb, but I can accept it.

Also, yeah I quoted you wrongly. Hence, new post.

A number of countries have removed the sexism from their sexual assault laws.

No, they've simply removed the word "rape" and replaced it with a tiered system of sexual assault, and will still usually factor penetration into the boundaries between each tier. The ambiguity of this system also does cause problems.. If those problems can be solved, I suspect that idea will emerge as a serious alternative. But right now, it's still little more than an experiment.

Your claim that the act can't be defined is also disprove by your own statements that those other acts ARE defined in other legislation.

Yes, because the things which define the terms are specific.

"Sexual intercourse" is utterly non-specific. When does "sexual intercourse" begin or end? What acts does "sexual intercourse" entail? The answers to these questions will vary enormously depending on the individual person and their case. It's just completely ambiguous.

As for different people having different definitions, that doesn't matter, the government can codify it however they want and that's what matters in that country.

If this is true, then why can't the government codify rape however they want?

Why is it insulting to define rape in terms of the quantifiable and physical act of penetration, yet it wouldn't be insulting to define rape in terms of any act which fit an arbitrary definition of "sexual intercourse" and which would inevitably exclude some people from the definition.

Your argument reminds me of the church ruling a couple centuries ago that determined two nuns who were caught having sex weren't having sex because neither had a penis and thus no sex was possible.

..which is actually much closer to your argument, since you're arguing that we can randomly define what is and is not "sexual intercourse" by restricting it to particular acts.

Incidentally, I'm almost certain that a legal definition of "sexual intercourse", were such a thing to exist, would deliberately exclude lesbian acts, because otherwise we would have to define any non-consensual act of touching as rape and that would be utterly impractical. Do you see the fucking problem yet?

I'm saying that any ideas about "sexual intercourse" have no bearing on the crime of rape at all, a crime which is based on a specific, concrete act which can be easily defined and which is applicable to everyone. If you can't imagine why that is in place, if you genuinely see penetrating someone else and being penetrated yourself as the same thing because they both fit your arbitrary definition of "sexual intercourse", then I'm fucking glad you aren't in charge of making the law.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I don't really like most age of consent rules. It should be done something like this based on sexual acts, 9 and under instant jail/fines.

10+ it depends on a few factors. First and foremost if its brought to the attention of law, law must bring the issue before court unless both are minors and there was no assault involed.

Before a judge they look at a few factors, how young they look, being roughed up,ect means more jailtime or fines.

Taken into consideration is what both sides say, parents,ect the judge talks to the defendant in a neutral setting alone.

Prior counts of rape are 40% or so negative to the plaintiff.

Some cases would come out no fault, some will coem off a warning, some will come out a misdemeanor with fines, some jail time and fines and some ALOT MORE jail time and fine.

 

[BRex21]

UPDATE: At least 47,000 adult women are raped every year in the UK. Though, there are not many reports (at least in large enough numbers to create a proper percentage) of females raping males.

The UK however also does not consider a woman forcing a man into "vanilla sex" as rape. Simply put most documents will either break up the male numbers to pick and choose what constitutes a male victim and more often than not use a definition that requires the offender to penetrate.

I'm aware this is a discussion about the UK, and i am providing US documentation, but i have no reason to believe its drastically different throughout the west. In the USA's Intimate partner violence and sexual violence survey "Forced to envelop" and "Forced to penetrate" showed near per capita parity.
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf check pages 18 and 19 respectively.

As for "Evilthecats" anti-penetration antics, Forced envelopment is serious and needs to be treated as such. There are many documented cases of men being damaged by women in nonconsentual sex including soft tissue tears vascular damage and damage to the testicles, often times with permanent and painful results. Sex involves hundreds of tiny angular adjustments, many of which happen subconsciously, to prevent damage. If sex is nonconsentual from either gender it has a far higher chance of damage. Besides, penetration is not inherently painful and is in fact something that a large chunk of the population enjoys.

 

[Iyon]

Though this is assuming that, if I've understood you correctly, these laws only apply to a male having sex with a younger female and don't exist for a female having sex with a younger male.

That is correct (practically). Though, it seems like a rather sexist judgement, or am I wrong? (Quote?)

I don't know, for some reason I don't want to call it "sexist". I think these laws were created based on the belief that there are more occurrences of males taking advantage of females, which isn't really sexist if it's true. I do think it's wrong though since I believe the punishment should be based on the crime itself rather than the overall frequency of the crime.

I don't really like that argument tbh. It'll be like saying "black people should have worse punishments for crime because black people steal more!" (I don't believe that they do, it's just an example). It doesn't matter if a certain group does bad things more, all that should matter is that a person did a bad thing and should be punished equally. If a person over the age of 16 has sex with a person under that age then they should have the equal punishment no matter if they are a man or woman.

I guess I wasn't very clear because I completely agree with you. What I was trying to say was that I think these laws were created to give harsher punishment to the people who are more likely to commit the crime, but I think that's completely unfair. Though I don't think it's necessarily sexist just... wrong.

Like I said in my earlier post, I believe the punishment should be based on the act itself. When a person commits a crime they should be treated as a person who has committed a crime. Not as a man who has committed a crime, not as a woman who has committed a crime. As a person. Gender just doesn't come in to play in my mind.

 

[Darkmantle]

It should be gender neutral, that is insane.

Furthermore, there should be exceptions for people within a certain age limit (IE a 17 year old male having sex with a 16 year old girl should not be counted as rape, and vice versa).

I think that is the fairest way to handle these laws and situations.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I don't know where the OP got these "facts" but they aren't true. The legal of consent in the UK (possibly excepting NI) is 16 years old. This isn't an arbitrary number, before those who like using that word chime in. It was considered, it was debated, it was adjusted and it was decided on. It is as far from arbitrary as it is possible to be. That said...

The legal age of sexual consent in the UK is 16. If one partner is above that age, and the other below, it is statutory rape (if it was willing) or plain rape (if it was not willing). It doesn't matter whether the over-age partner is male or female, the end result is the same. If both parties are over 16, there is no issue. It doesn't matter if one is 50 and the other is 16...it may be immoral, deplorable, questionable or undesirable, but it isn't illegal.

If both partners are under 16 (and willing), it gets messy. Neither can legally give consent so generally neither partner is punished. For example, there's the story of a boy who became a father at 13 [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4611350/No-prosecution-in-13-year-old-father-case.html]. Both were underage and willing and neither could be prosecuted.

Ultimately, the law is simply there to separate children (who ought not to be having sex) from adults (who can), from each other. An adult who knows better and has sex with a child who does not is the main aim of the law. None of the craziness like the US where 15 year old boys are placed on the sex register for the rest of their lives.

 

[Draxz]

This thread will go well.

I would go over the likely milestones that this thread may achieve but come on people, we know the song and dance already.

OT: I concur that the rules should be the same across all genders and sexualities. Exactly why they are different for homosexuals at all is beyond me.

The age for homosexual sex and heterosexual sex is the same.

Not in the UK... it is 16 for heterosexual couples and 18 for homosexual couples...

I am also confused why NI is different to the rest of the UK! :S

No, it's 16 for both. It's been changed for almost 2 years now.
Also, Northern Ireland is a bit like Scotland with 'independence'. See, NI follow the Irish law not the British but they're practically almost the same.

 

[Draxz]

I don't know where the OP got these "facts" but they aren't true. The legal of consent in the UK (possibly excepting NI) is 16 years old. This isn't an arbitrary number, before those who like using that word chime in. It was considered, it was debated, it was adjusted and it was decided on. It is as far from arbitrary as it is possible to be. That said...

The legal age of sexual consent in the UK is 16. If one partner is above that age, and the other below, it is statutory rape (if it was willing) or plain rape (if it was not willing). It doesn't matter whether the over-age partner is male or female, the end result is the same. If both parties are over 16, there is no issue. It doesn't matter if one is 50 and the other is 16...it may be immoral, deplorable, questionable or undesirable, but it isn't illegal.

If both partners are under 16 (and willing), it gets messy. Neither can legally give consent so generally neither partner is punished. For example, there's the story of a boy who became a father at 13 [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4611350/No-prosecution-in-13-year-old-father-case.html]. Both were underage and willing and neither could be prosecuted.

Ultimately, the law is simply there to separate children (who ought not to be having sex) from adults (who can), from each other. An adult who knows better and has sex with a child who does not is the main aim of the law. None of the craziness like the US where 15 year old boys are placed on the sex register for the rest of their lives.

I think you misunderstood what I've been saying.

But I have taken what you've said into account.

Also, my 'facts' are correct.

 

[Draxz]

I always get a creepy vibe from these threads. I'm forced to remember that some people want to have sex with children and topics that relate to age and sex entice them out of the woodwork.

Hello, Boudica

And, I weirdly feel like people have gone off-topic with the whole 'adults having sex with underage-teenagers'.

I'm simply and only talking about 16/17 year olds having sex with people who are slightly under. My point originally was, why are the charges LESS for women than for men.

 

[Draxz]

Why did DirtyJunkieScum get banninated?

Not sure... He's been banned from a few forums but I never knew why.

 

[Darkmantle]

I don't know where the OP got these "facts" but they aren't true. The legal of consent in the UK (possibly excepting NI) is 16 years old. This isn't an arbitrary number, before those who like using that word chime in. It was considered, it was debated, it was adjusted and it was decided on. It is as far from arbitrary as it is possible to be. That said...

The legal age of sexual consent in the UK is 16. If one partner is above that age, and the other below, it is statutory rape (if it was willing) or plain rape (if it was not willing). It doesn't matter whether the over-age partner is male or female, the end result is the same. If both parties are over 16, there is no issue. It doesn't matter if one is 50 and the other is 16...it may be immoral, deplorable, questionable or undesirable, but it isn't illegal.

If both partners are under 16 (and willing), it gets messy. Neither can legally give consent so generally neither partner is punished. For example, there's the story of a boy who became a father at 13 [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4611350/No-prosecution-in-13-year-old-father-case.html]. Both were underage and willing and neither could be prosecuted.

Ultimately, the law is simply there to separate children (who ought not to be having sex) from adults (who can), from each other. An adult who knows better and has sex with a child who does not is the main aim of the law. None of the craziness like the US where 15 year old boys are placed on the sex register for the rest of their lives.

But it still sounds like a 16 year old would be charged for having sex with a 15 year old, even if they are only months apart. Unless I missed something of course.

 

[Draxz]

Something tells me we have slightly gone off topic... I am not talking about pedophiles or people over the age of 16/17 having sex with underage teenagers. I am simply talking about females raping males. Or rather, asking who believes that the charges should be the same for females. And why the underage males who was raped (statutorily) by females aren't put at such a high charge.

And please may people stop complaining about my 'facts' and etc. This is a discussion, my facts are what UK pages tell me, which are very reliable.

Homosexual and Heterosexual legal age for said in the UK is 16 (with the except of NI). Which isn't what I'm completely asking. I don't care for ages and facts on that aspect, what I'm asking for, is more discussion on opinions.

Now, I have taken into account most of what people have said and I've noted all this as research. I've also noted the new topic of 'Child Pornography'. Which, personally, sites such as 'MyYearBook/MeetMe' (Teenage/ Youth 'Dating' site) are practically promoting. I don't mind this, at least in someway it's fresh but still related in a "consent" way.

Also, please don't complain about what I've said, I don't mind the topics deviating from one to another but these are the simple and basic facts. I will admit that there have been cases where 13 year-old boys have become fathers and nothing has been done about it, but I'm not really looking for that kind of information, unless it has some kind of analogy to it, that is related to this topic. The story was based around two people underage... (I believe, unless I didn't read properly because I believe I've read a similar story)... Not two people of: One being age of consent, the other not. It's not fully-related.

I also know about the US Laws but are there are unfair trails against the ages of consent and statutory rape?


NOTE: If you believe I'm wrong for saying this, please do quote me with 'Dito' or the exact paragraph and explain why. I haven't given any real opinion to this, just evidence and basic facts and some secondary research. Also, I would appreciate it if you would stop telling me about Gay-sex-laws.

I'm sorry for being harsh or a dick but if it makes you feel better, you can refer to me as 'DoucheFag.'

 

[Draxz]

Dito

But it still sounds like a 16 year old would be charged for having sex with a 15 year old, even if they are only months apart. Unless I missed something of course.

And yes, that is what it actually is like... Also, I read the article and there have been other stories like that, and it's been the other way around, where the female usually gets off charge and the males is still prosecuted. Though, those are more or less just back-article stories that nobody reads because the press doesn't like anything that's not a miracle.

I'll do some research tomorrow or later and I'll find an article where the same circumstances, if not better in one I read, and the male or female (or both) were prosecuted. I find it stupid, to be perfectly honest, that there's even a law against sex at such a hormonal age. It just means people are going to get into shit because 3 years or so earlier than what they would've, they get labeled a ****-of-the-planet.
Though, I am very tired... I'll quote you tomorrow

 

[Terminal Blue]

No, you are wrong. Using Canada as an example...

..and the "civilizing mission" begins..

Look, I'm not going to lecture you about your own sexual assault law. I'm not Canadian, and I don't know the specific system there well enough to give a detailed comparison of effectiveness.

Of course, I've heard Canadians complain about the system, so I don't think it would be too presumptuous to point out the things people consider weaknesses, namely that the Canadian system results in an enormous difference in the treatment of "violent" sexual assault and sexual assault by coercion or imposition (in which the "harm" is often expressed in terms a court cannot consider), that it makes crime statistics impossible to interpret, which in turn allows the authorities to fudge their own progress metrics, that it's not gender-neutral so much as gender-blind in failing to acknowledge the way in which gender does affect the experiential quality and likely consequences of rape and that it reduces the crimes it is describing to purely abstract sequences of acts without any regard for wider social context.

Now, I'm not going to claim the UK system is perfect. But it works fairly well. It has its own logic, which is a different logic from the Canadian system. It has undergone enormous reform, but not in the same way as the Canadian system. It is not focused on appeasing abstract principles so much as it is an attempt to reflect the social reality of the people it is intended to work for, and I personally admire that.

Because, at the end of the day, if, as you seem to be suggesting, Canadian law isn't capable of considering the difference between sticking an object into someone's body and enveloping a part of their body with your own, then I would argue that it completely disconnected from reality. Not just social reality, but the basic physical mechanics of what these two acts represent and the likely consequences of each, and because I'm not an uncharitable person I am going to assume that Canadian law does consider the difference between these two things, it just does so outside of the statute.

I wouldn't define it as intercourse at all. It's the same fallacy. Sexual assault, its straight forward, and you can make it as specific or general as you want.

Why stop there? Why not simply define all crimes as "crime" and have done with it?

The only problem I see is that you still think "intercourse" is the only way to attack someone sexually.

As evidenced where?

Was it when I repeatedly pointed out that the whole concept of sexual intercourse is irrelevant to any discussion of this topic? I mean, gee, that doesn't seem very likely, but maybe I have some mental disorder where I employ sarcasm without even realizing that I'm doing so.

 

[Carrots_macduff]

what the fuck does banned by request mean?
can i request to have people banned?

not cool mods.... very not cool