Things Are Not Always Quite As They Seem

When that boy is 100 the girl will only be 98
eek.gif
 
Brian, when I PM'd I mistakenly thought the guy was 19, hence my view that the ages were pretty much peer group, which now I find they very much weren't.

To put things into another context, I'm sure we'd all agree that most humans, given the chance, experiment sexually when they're young. We don't tend to wait until we're 94 before finding out how things work, so it would be entirely 'natural' for teenagers to experiment, whether that's boy-girl, boy-boy, or girl-girl. It's probably taken for granted (and I'm not debating whether it should be or not) that by the age of 19 or 20, a majority of young people will have experienced some sort of sexual encounter.

The thing is, I don't think any court is going to waste its own time considering the thousands of sexual encounters made during puberty as if they were criminal acts. Girls often initiate the encounters, sometimes with their much younger brothers, to find out how things work. These aren't serious relationships, they're more of the poke 'n' probe variety, along the lines of playing Dcotors and Nurses - and yes, even in my Mother's day, c.1920s, kids were taking off their kit and examining the various interesting bits!

However, to be more than twice the age of a CHILD, to be her or his teacher, and to have engaged - we may be being presumptuous, but it's more than likely - in sexual practices of some sort, is abusing a position of responsibility towards the child. It's, to put it plainly, taking advantage - regardless of whether the child is up for it or not. Wait until she or he is legally consensual, and then see how things go. A man of 34 can't excuse himself on the grounds of it being a bit of 'finding out', and should have had enough self-control to wait until the girl became, legally if no other way, a woman. Otherwise you may as well throw away all the well-meaning legislation about adults not abusing children for their own satisfaction. That they went on to marry happily is, as is said, irrelevant to what actually happened prior to the wedding. What if she'd become pregnant, and deeply UNhappy? What would the take on that be - oh, fooling around with kids is okay, as long as they're happy for some time afterwards?
 
Originally posted by krizon@Jan 17 2006, 07:05 PM
The thing is, I don't think any court is going to waste its own time considering the thousands of sexual encounters made during puberty as if they were criminal acts. 
Click to expand...
That's the whole flaming point I'm making - whether they do or whether no case is brought and a caution is issued the boy is placed on the sexual offenders' list along with Gary Glitter, Jonathan King and all the other kiddy fiddlers!!!
 
At the same time, suppose the girl was only a couple of weeks away from 16. If they waited two weeks he'd be OK with the law but the 17/15 case wouldn't. It's fecking ridiculous.
 
I know of a 16 year old who bought a fake student ID card doctored to make her out to be 18, so that she could get served in a pub, partly because she looked even younger than her years.

Suppose she'd been 15. Suppose she fancied a 19yo guy and wanted to have sex with him. He says she's too young, 'cos she looks it. She whips out her ID card and says, 'Here's proof of my age.'

If they then have sex, he has committed a crime and, if word got to the police, placed on the register.

Should he never be allowed to teach if that were to be his chosen profession?
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Jan 17 2006, 07:11 PM
In some parts of the USA there are people who'd consider executing them
Click to expand...
And others who think they should be married.
 
DO, I was out in Birmingham with a friend and we were checking out a girl who had walked in. We could only see her from behind. She turned round and I saw it was one of my pupils. We left and I informed the bouncers. I am not a killjoy but Friday night in the middle of Birmingham at 15 is simply not safe.

I wonder what that girl was doing there?????
 
here, relations among equal minors (- 18) are not against the law, however - like with you - those across this age limit.
i cannot think of a better rule because it has nothing to do with the fact when to allow sexual relations but only to avoid exploiting an authority position.

its impossible to pardon a teacher such behavior - he must be punished and look for another profession.

marriage means nothing
 
DO - they would have to prove that the boy knew she was under 16

Wassermusik - can't agree with that . It presumes that in every case there is a breach of trust .At my school in 1983 - a teacher aged 23 had a relationship with a 17 year old pupil - he was sacked she was expelled - there was no question of grooming or any other such phrase . She was very grown up and actively pursued him and he was in an unhappy marriage - 23 years later they are still together .

Now he would have been committing a crime in the UK
 
Brian, going back to your whole flaming point - ARE 13 year-old boys being placed on sex offenders' registers, are 17 year-old girls who seduce 15 year-old boys being placed on sex offenders' registers? You're now saying that the ARE - how do you know that?
 
Any person over 16 who has sex with someone under 16 and is found out is placed on the register. They have to be under existing legislation.
 
Back
Top