|
timmy
|
![](http://forum.iomfats.org/images/custom_avatars/timmy.gif)
![](images/rank-icons/7-star.png) |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
We have, here a huge scandal about the sexual abuse of children by the self styled great and good, by authority figures, by significant authority figures at the highest levels in the police, security services and government. None of this is any particular surprise, nor is the massive cover up that is presumed to have happened. Power corrupts. How tempting it must be to have sufficient power to do whatever you like, secure in the knowledge that you can hush it all up with a phone call.
What keeps upsetting me about this, apart from the fact that any children were abused at all, is that the reports show they were all boys, linking once again the idea in the mind of the public that a child abuser is also homosexual. No, I do not wish they had also abused girls. Yet what I do wish is that they had been equal opportunity abusers. This is an ethical and moral paradox and quandary.
I am, however, reminded that it is safer to abuse boys because you cannot get girls pregnant.
And yet this does not hold true in one of our other (of many) scandals about the grooming of girls by what seem to be communities where women and girls are seen as chattels, property. These have abused girls on an industrial scale, perhaps driven by their scant regard for the rights of women.
Want some background? Google the words UK abuse scandals. We have a lot of kids who were abused, and a large number of heads that may roll because of it.
Now, I have an ethical dilemma for you in this context. A very good friend is proud and happy that he, as a young teenager, in around 1966 here, when homosexuality was not lawful at all, had a mutually happy sexual relationship with his scoutmaster. The law defines this as abuse. He would be horrified to have his lover described as an abuser, and to be described as a victim.
[Updated on: Wed, 18 March 2015 23:40]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
dgt224
|
![](images/rank-icons/2-star.png) |
Toe is in the water |
Location: USA
Registered: May 2011
Messages: 81
|
|
|
I fail to see an ethical dilemma here. He has had nearly fifty years to consider his life and become aware of any negative consequences that might not have been obvious at the time. If he still has no complaints, then he is, beyond any reasonable doubt, the counter-example that proves that the law does not match reality as perfectly as its proponents would have us believe. In some other times and places, as I understand it, the laws have been more humane, in that relationships such as the one you describe would not be prosecuted unless one of the participants (or his/her parents) complained and encouraged prosecution.
Historically, those who prosecute the laws meant to protect youth from sexual predation have been known to jail boys and girls who refused to testify against their "abusers". A mindset similar, I think, to those today who charge youth with sex crimes for sending nude pictures to peers with whom they are romantically involved. To my mind, those who mindlessly enforce laws meant to protect youth, ignoring the harms they cause to the youth they are meant to be protecting, are guilty of the most egregious child abuse. In an ideal world such abuse would get them removed from any position of power. Sadly, I don't know the way to that ideal world.
[Updated on: Wed, 18 March 2015 23:39] by Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
![](http://forum.iomfats.org/images/custom_avatars/timmy.gif)
![](images/rank-icons/7-star.png) |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
"Quote:"dgt224 wrote on Wed, 18 March 2015 22:50I fail to see an ethical dilemma here. He has had nearly fifty years to consider his life and become aware of any negative consequences that might not have been obvious at the time. If he still has no complaints, then he is, beyond any reasonable doubt, the counter-example that proves that the law does not match reality as perfectly as its proponents would have us believe. In some other times and places, as I understand it, the laws have been more humane, in that relationships such as the one you describe would not be prosecuted unless one of the participants (or his/her parents) complained and encouraged prosecution.
Historically, those who prosecute the laws meant to protect youth from sexual predation have been known to jail boys and girls who refused to testify against their "abusers". A mindset similar, I think, to those today who charge youth with sex crimes for sending nude pictures to peers with whom they are romantically involved. To my mind, those who mindlessly enforce laws meant to protect youth, ignoring the harms they cause to the youth they are meant to be protecting, are guilty of the most egregious child abuse. In an ideal world such abuse would get them removed from any position of power. Sadly, I don't know the way to that ideal world.
--
In the current climate here the scoutmaster would be prosecuted and jailed. My wife is in favour of such treatment, citing the fact that a child cannot give informed consent. Our friend, for he is her friend too, enjoyed the relationship immensely.
Against that scenario, I do believe that, even if the child were to be the seducer/sexual aggressor, it is the adult's duty to decline the sexual advances of the child.
[Updated on: Wed, 18 March 2015 23:39]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
![](http://forum.iomfats.org/images/custom_avatars/timmy.gif)
![](images/rank-icons/7-star.png) |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Gawd. Just edited this thread to remove a stray R from Pædophile
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
dgt224
|
![](images/rank-icons/2-star.png) |
Toe is in the water |
Location: USA
Registered: May 2011
Messages: 81
|
|
|
"timmy wrote on Wed, 18 March 2015 19:17"
In the U.S. the climate is much the same, and the scoutmaster would likely be prosecuted and jailed here, too. (Or possibly not, depending on his contacts and how dedicated they are to protecting the organization; the Catholic church certainly managed to avoid jail terms for a lot of priests who belonged behind bars.) Those responsible for enforcing the law seem often to be utterly uninterested in its impact on the younger member of a relationship. If the child is truly desirous of the relationship, what is the likely impact of the older partner being arrested and jailed?
I'm not sure I agree that an adult has a moral duty to decline the sexual advances of a child in general, but given the likely outcome should those activities become known, failing to decline in the current environment is certainly irresponsible. On the other hand, the adult clearly has a legal duty to decline the sexual advances of a child.
I find it interesting that people argue that children cannot give informed consent to sexual activity and fail to recognize the corollary -- the child is also unable to give informed refusal. Adults make decisions for children all the time -- to circumcise or not, to vaccinate or not, to attend church or not. What is it that makes sexual activity such an unalloyed bad for children that no one can give informed consent? (Having said that, I don't know how we would get from where we are today to a world in which an adult could make a responsible decision to accede to such a request.)
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
![](http://forum.iomfats.org/images/custom_avatars/timmy.gif)
![](images/rank-icons/7-star.png) |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Quote:dgt224 wrote on Thu, 19 March 2015 05:59
I find it interesting that people argue that children cannot give informed consent to sexual activity and fail to recognize the corollary -- the child is also unable to give informed refusal. Adults make decisions for children all the time -- to circumcise or not, to vaccinate or not, to attend church or not. What is it that makes sexual activity such an unalloyed bad for children that no one can give informed consent? (Having said that, I don't know how we would get from where we are today to a world in which an adult could make a responsible decision to accede to such a request.)
--
I agree that consent and refusal are two sides of the same pancake, neither of which you can eat without the other.
Part of this comes down to good parenting. I don't mean "Never be alone with weird uncle Bert," I mean teaching the child by example about responsibility, why decisions are taken for them and showing them how, over time, those decisions are devolved to the child. However, telling a seven year old about sex with adults and that it should be avoided is encapsulated in Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose. Indeed, sex is so much fun that a child might conclude that it will risk anything to experience the thrill. Had I known at seven why I felt ridiculously tingly in PE when climbing a rope I would have done anything to experience more and more of that feeling.
Children are most assuredly sexual beings. They are also emotional beings. From my own experience as a sample of one, they do not experience more than a mechanical thrill until puberty kicks in and hormones unleash emotions associated with sexual partnership. Until then, for me, the mechanical thrill was plenty fun enough, and there was no-one else present!
The Age of Consent is a relatively modern and imprecise concept. It arrived to prevent the exploitation of children for sexual purposes, and, I suspect, had less to do with the genuine welfare of the child that the moral outrage that some people were having more fun than the proponents, disguised as reforming zeal. It also happened to protect most children from physical damage. Adult bodies are larger than those of per-pubertal children, and serious damage, even death, may be caused while the owner of the adult penis is having a lot more fun than the child. But it does not cover the case children being children with children, something that has, by degrees, become ever more criminalised.
As for the scoutmaster and the boy, unless some prurient idiot starts digging to find victims, and they will find some who decide they have been victims, this will never come near the law officers, nor should it. Ah, wait. The current climate leads all who have been touched marginally inappropriately by an adult when kids to conclude that they have been victims, such is the power of the herd instinct. Perhaps it will come to court after all.
I can understand the reluctance of those who were abused by our nasty, creepy, and opportunist Jimmy Savile only coming forward now. His reputation meant he was teflon coated and could abuse people pretty much on live TV and flaunt it, let alone get away with it. They were not believed ad were brushed under the carpet.
I can understand the genuine anger that groups of men organised the grooming of children, usually girls, in places like Rotherham, and in children's homes like Haut de la Garenne in the North Wales child abuse scandal. I share that anger. Children are not a commodity, to be used and abused. They are children and deserve as long a childhood as we can give them.
I would not understand chasing down our friend's scoutmaster.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
bisexualguy
|
![](images/rank-icons/2-star.png) |
Toe is in the water |
Location: United States
Registered: November 2012
Messages: 30
|
|
|
"Age of Consent" laws can vary so much between countries, also. In the United States, I know laws can vary widely from state to state. From Wikipedia, here is a map of what ages of cent are in the US state by state, and also Mexico and Canada are included. A few places in Mexico, the age of consent is at puberty! Some of Mexico is at 12, some parts are at 14.
All of Canada appears to be 16, and the US varies from 16 to 18.
In many states in the US, a couple may marry under the age of 16 (sometimes 17 for males) if there is a court order from a certain class of judge or higher. In MOST (but not all) marriage is considered consent to have sex, even if one or both parties are under the age of consent.
In Kansas the Age of Consent is 16, but you can get married at 15 or earlier under some conditions.
In New Hampshire, the Age of Consent is 16, but...
"The law is complicated in New Hampshire. Individuals under the age of 18 may not marry in New Hampshire without parental approval and a judicial waiver. Brides must be at least 13 years of age and grooms must be at least 14 years of age before their parents can apply for a judicial waiver."
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent_-_North_Ame rica.svg
And: http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/teen_marr iage_laws/
People can go crazy with such a patchwork of inconsistency.
Timmy, do you have any information about the Age of Consent in the UK? I was not able to know what is reliable and what is not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bisexualguy
|
![](images/rank-icons/2-star.png) |
Toe is in the water |
Location: United States
Registered: November 2012
Messages: 30
|
|
|
Thank you, Paul.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark
|
![](images/rank-icons/3-star.png) |
Likes it here |
Location: Earth
Registered: April 2013
Messages: 276
|
|
|
Certainly I think this can be a very gray area.
I know that some will say that "age of consent" laws are a necessary evil, and I'm sure we can all think of situations that make it hard to argue with that. People develop at different rates not just physically, but intellectually and emotionally as well; as such, not everyone is going to be ready to consent to having sex at the same age, and statistically the younger the person, the more likely it is that they are not going to be ready.
At the same time, I've done a bit of reading on the subject, and Timmy is quite correct - for the most part, "age of consent" laws are by and large a modern thing. I've seen some criticism aimed at the Mormon Church that some of its early members (particularly some of the leaders) were reportedly married to younger teenagers (14 is an oft-cited age in many reports), but at the same time, if you put things into historical perspective, that was actually normal for the time period in the U.S.; prior to the 20th century, many females were married and had kids well before their 18th birthday in most of the Western world; in fact, in some parts of the world if a female reached her 18th birthday and wasn't at least married, people started to wonder what was wrong with her (I've heard several sources say that if Shakespear's "Romeo and Juliette" were to be performed to full 100% historical accuracy, the titular characters would have been around 13 years of age!). People didn't live as long back then, so they had to start families at a younger age in order to ensure the survival of the species. It's only recently, with the considerably increased lifespans that humanity has gotten to enjoy in the past few decades, that we could afford to allow children more time to grow up (and, by extension, spend more time learning before being thrust out into the world, and thus be in a better position to be able to make a more informed decision when it came time to decide when they were ready to have sex, and with whom).
And it doesn't help that "age of consent" laws aren't really standardized; in the Netherlands, the age of consent was 12 until 2002, when it was upped to 16, and in some places in locations like New Guinea and Africa, age of consent is the onset of puberty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly think that 16 and now lower should be an age that a person can determine what they want as far as sex goes.
Love, well, I believe that come later as the sex urge is there and needs no understanding at all.
To lower the age under 16 I don't think is right. The Abuse that that would open up is.............
|
|
|
|
|
larkin
|
![](images/rank-icons/2-star.png) |
Toe is in the water |
Location: Massachusetts
Registered: June 2015
Messages: 58
|
|
|
The States suffer from the same hysteria that occurs in the UK. The rest of Europe doesn't seem to have the same epidemic of child abuse nor they don't worry about it quite it so much. Perhaps this is political?
I cannot speak to this case particular case in the UK because I refused to follow scandals, but the dictionary definition of pedophile is not the "age of consent", it is a pre-occupation with prepubescent youths.
In the US, a 15 to 17 year old is regularly referred to as a child and an 18 year old school mate can and sometimes goes to jail especially if he is black. The Sex Offender Register is ruinous and it is tantamount to social and economic banishment for the rest of your life for something as simple as getting caught urinating in an alley.
Google the Nuremberg Jewish exclusionary laws of 1933 and compare.
Gay boys should carefully watch for subtle changes in the law that can put our lives in danger.
[Updated on: Wed, 10 June 2015 14:56]
|
|
|
|
|
Mark
|
![](images/rank-icons/3-star.png) |
Likes it here |
Location: Earth
Registered: April 2013
Messages: 276
|
|
|
Quote:larkin wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 08:55The States suffer from the same hysteria that occurs in the UK. The rest of Europe doesn't seem to have the same epidemic of child abuse nor they don't worry about it quite it so much. Perhaps this is political?
--
We do kind of cover this in a more general way in the thread "Sex: When is it sex, when is it abuse?" One of the main complaints I've heard about such laws in the U.S. (especially concerning things like the list of registered sex offenders) is that they tend to treat everyone the same - they often don't differentiate between a 14 year old boy who playfully swats a 13 year old girl's behind once (and who only has the misfortune of doing it in front of her parents or another "adult" figure like a teacher) and a 30 year old man who penetrates a 5 year old and who leaves permanent physical (and often mental and/or emotional) damage. People only look at the fact that someone was convicted of a sex crime, and don't bother to investigate what the "crime" even was.
|
|
|
|
|
Ray
|
![](images/rank-icons/1-star.png) |
Getting started |
Location: Sydney, Australia
Registered: July 2014
Messages: 26
|
|
|
"In the US, a 15 to 17 year old is regularly referred to as a child and an 18 year old school mate can and sometimes goes to jail especially if he is black."
I find it deeply troubling that Americans, after beginning the modern era in race relations about 60 years ago, now seem to be the country where people most strongly emphasize which race they belong to. Much of the rest of the world has overtaken them on this one. Juts think of many news items recently.
Regarding who is a paedophile, I thought the accepted definition for sexual abuse, about which I have had cause to inform myself extensively, is that there should be a 5 year age difference. It is important now, but wasn't in my day, because everything was illegal anyway.
"People only look at the fact that someone was convicted of a sex crime, and don't bother to investigate what the "crime" even was."
Yes, but what was a crime has changed so much with time! The law at the time is what always counts.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark
|
![](images/rank-icons/3-star.png) |
Likes it here |
Location: Earth
Registered: April 2013
Messages: 276
|
|
|
"Ray wrote on Fri, 12 June 2015 04:06""People only look at the fact that someone was convicted of a sex crime, and don't bother to investigate what the "crime" even was."
Yes, but what was a crime has changed so much with time! The law at the time is what always counts.
--
And a lot of people feel that's what the problem is. While we should certainly follow current laws, should someone still be punished if the law no longer even considers the particular act in question a crime? Even if the law is still around, should we, to use my previous example, treat one kid who swats another kid on the behind once exactly the same way as we should treat an adult who regularly (and forcibly) penetrates a young child? Because that (particularly the second example) is what currently happens all two often in the U.S. - it's not so much that we follow the law, it's that we don't make any distinction between degrees of something when perhaps we ought to.
[Updated on: Fri, 12 June 2015 21:17]
|
|
|
|
|
larkin
|
![](images/rank-icons/2-star.png) |
Toe is in the water |
Location: Massachusetts
Registered: June 2015
Messages: 58
|
|
|
"Ray wrote on Fri, 12 June 2015 10:06""In the US, a 15 to 17 year old is regularly referred to as a child and an 18 year old school mate can and sometimes goes to jail especially if he is black."
I find it deeply troubling that Americans, after beginning the modern era in race relations about 60 years ago, now seem to be the country where people most strongly emphasize which race they belong to. Much of the rest of the world has overtaken them on this one. Juts think of many news items recently.
Regarding who is a paedophile, I thought the accepted definition for sexual abuse, about which I have had cause to inform myself extensively, is that there should be a 5 year age difference. It is important now, but wasn't in my day, because everything was illegal anyway.
"People only look at the fact that someone was convicted of a sex crime, and don't bother to investigate what the "crime" even was."
Yes, but what was a crime has changed so much with time! The law at the time is what always counts.
--The sex offender registry is extra-judicial, private company that is now edging towards 800,000. The largest age group on that list are 15 year old boys. They are referred to as child but treated as adults in the eyes of the law. Young, impulsive, legally uninformed find their lives ruined for that day on with no ability to ever get off the list.
In New York where is is difficult to find a place to pee without buying an expensive dinner, Stop and Frisk has gotten thousands for urinating in alleys.
No matter how trivial the original offense or how young, even if the original sentence is suspended, if you don't tell the police each time you move, or live within 300 meters from a church or school, you go to jail. The statistics characterize this as, recidivism which alarms the public and seems to justify the program.
Let's just say that it is disturbing.
[Updated on: Sat, 13 June 2015 02:50]
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisR
|
![](images/rank-icons/3-star.png) |
Likes it here |
Location: Western US
Registered: October 2014
Messages: 136
|
|
|
"larkin wrote on Sat, 13 June 2015 02:47"
No matter how trivial the original offense or how young, even if the original sentence is suspended, if you don't tell the police each time you move, or live within 300 meters from a church or school, you go to jail. The statistics characterize this as, recidivism which alarms the public and seems to justify the program.
Let's just say that it is disturbing.
--
The distance from places where children assemble varies by state and jurisdiction. Some places have extended the distance far beyond 300 meters. But planning standards list distances from 1/4 mi to 3/4 mi for maximum walking distances for elementary school children, up to 1-1/2 mi for junior high, and up to 2 miles for high schools. Toss in parks, ballfields, daycare centers, tutoring centers, etc., it becomes difficult to find living space for anybody on the offender list. So there end up being enclaves where all of them live - and that includes juvenile offenders in some jurisdiction who, as Larkin mentions, might be guilty of the offense of public urination. There is not yet a suitable answer.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|