[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Clearly in this case the boy consented otherwise it would of been rape

The boy is under the age of 16, and thus he does not have the legal capacity to consent to sex. Nonconsensual sex = rape, and the failure of the court to classify it as such does not change that.

Would you be so quick to downplay the rapist's actions if the genders were reversed?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Clearly in this case the boy consented otherwise it would of been rape

I don't understand your reasoning, so if a 14 year old girl went willingly to a man 13 years her senior and had sex, would that not be rape? she can't consent she is underage

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Clearly in this case the boy consented otherwise it would of been rape

He can't consent, just like all children can't. Do you think a senile old woman can consent to signing all her money to some gold digger? It's (sort of) the same thing.

Tbh i think the age of consent should be eighteen.

[Nicky91]

gross


what sort of mother would do that

[arista]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

gross


what sort of mother would do that

Paedophile Mother

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by arista

Paedophile Mother

well this woman needs some serious mental help, she's really sick in her head (as we dutch call it)


those 3 children are better off in a foster home, with better parents than with this idiot of a paedo woman

[arista]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

well this woman needs some serious mental help, she's really sick in her head (as we dutch call it)


those 3 children are better off in a foster home, with better parents than with this idiot of a paedo woman

This why its sad case
for those 3 kids


Maybe the Husband can help?

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by arista

This why its sad case
for those 3 kids


Maybe the Husband can help?

where is he in all this anyway?

how did he not know, was he busy working when she did this

[Niamh.]

14 year olds can't legally consent

[user104658]

I think perhaps the MOST messed up part of the definition is that it specifies "with a penis". I could almost understand if it was simply that the definition of "rape" was "forced penetration" and there were other words with the same severity for other types of sexual crimes, but the UK law on rape specifies "forced penetration with penis". So essentially, if someone is forcibly sexually assaulted including being forcibly penetrated, but it's with an object other than a penis, that is NOT classed as rape. Men CAN be victims of rape - but only by a male perpetrator. It causes a lot of confusion when it comes to considering the severity of the crime and I think it really should be redefined to include all forms of non-consensual sex. At the absolute minimum, it should include penetrative sex with non-consenting males.

[Oliver_W]

As Charles Dickens once wrote: the law is an ass, and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience.

[UserSince2005]

14 is too young to be ****ing. I speak from experience