[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I don't see what that has to do with anything, all they're doing in the video is duct taping her arms and legs as a joke, I don't really see what the big deal is with this tbh

I don't see a problem with it either, I agree, they're just mucking about. I was just correcting MTVN who said it wouldn't be rape if Alex had consented to sex.

[Marmalite]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

I don't see a problem with it either, I agree, they're just mucking about. I was just correcting MTVN who said it wouldn't be rape if Alex had consented to sex.

At 14???

[Visage]

Originally Posted by Marmalite

At 14???

Not 100% sure, but I think it's 12 years and younger when it's classed as that.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Visage

Not 100% sure, but I think it's 12 years and younger when it's classed as that.

I'm fairly sure it's 16, which is why 16 is referred to as the age of consent - up to that age you're deemed incapable of giving consent, so any sexual act would be rape. This site confirms it too:

http://www.avert.org/teens-sex-law.htm

What is 'statutory rape'?
If you are under the age of consent and you choose to have sex with someone who is over the age of consent, then they can be charged with the crime of 'statutory rape'. Some countries have different names for this crime, and some states in the US call it 'unlawful sexual penetration' or just 'rape'.

[Visage]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

I'm fairly sure it's 16, which is why 16 is referred to as the age of consent - up to that age you're deemed incapable of giving consent, so any sexual act would be rape. This site confirms it too:

http://www.avert.org/teens-sex-law.htm

Right, and that seems obvious TBF

I've picked up somewhere where the law states that having sex with someone under the age of 13 it's automatically statutory rape. Whereas sex between two people over 13 and under 16 could be seen as not rape.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced a new series of laws to protect children under 16 from sexual abuse. However, the law is not intended to prosecute mutually agreed teenage sexual activity between two young people of a similar age, unless it involves abuse or exploitation.

Specific laws protect children under 13, who cannot legally give their consent to any form of sexual activity. There is a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for rape, assault by penetration, and causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. There is no defence of mistaken belief about the age of the child, as there is in cases involving 13–15 year olds.

http://www.fpa.org.uk/professionals/factsheets/lawonsex

[Jamsey]

Originally Posted by Visage

Right, and that seems obvious TBF

I've picked up somewhere where the law states that having sex with someone under the age of 13 it's automatically statutory rape. Whereas sex between two people over 13 and under 16 could be seen as not rape.





http://www.fpa.org.uk/professionals/factsheets/lawonsex

It all hindges on whether those she had sex with were over 16 or not.

[G1dds]

Originally Posted by Jamsey

It all hindges on whether those she had sex with were over 16 or not.

By what I read .......and yes, sadly I read the lot, they were 18

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Jamsey

It all hindges on whether those she had sex with were over 16 or not.

I don't think so, they can still be charged with statutory rape even if they're under 16, though the ages are taken into consideration with sentencing.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Visage

Right, and that seems obvious TBF

I've picked up somewhere where the law states that having sex with someone under the age of 13 it's automatically statutory rape. Whereas sex between two people over 13 and under 16 could be seen as not rape.

http://www.fpa.org.uk/professionals/factsheets/lawonsex

It doesn't matter what the ages of the person are if the girl's under 16, it's still statutory rape, it just means that in cases of girls aged 13-16 a defense can be entered stating that they thought they were over 16.

"There is no defence of mistaken belief about the age of the child, as there is in cases involving 13–15 year olds. "

[In the Drunk Tank]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

I don't see a problem with it either, I agree, they're just mucking about. I was just correcting MTVN who said it wouldn't be rape if Alex had consented to sex.

I didn't say that though, I was just responding to the person who said "Isn't that rape" saying that we can't call it that when we have no idea if they even had sex with her or not

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I didn't say that though, I was just responding to the person who said "Isn't that rape" saying that we can't call it that when we have no idea if they even had sex with her or not

My apologies then, I interpreted your post saying "Think it would only be rape if they, well, actually raped her" as implying that it wouldn't be if she'd consented. Perhaps you should have said "had sex" and not "rape" in your original post. That would have made it clearer and less open for misinterpretation.