posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 09:32 AM
Originally posted by justyc
welsh chief constable terry grange thinks its ok for men to have sex with girls (funny he doesnt mention boys there also) over the age of 13 and not
be labelled pedophiles for doing so.
I'm going to play a game of semantics -- I do not think that Justyc is misinterpretting the constable.
Technically, a 'man' (by US standards) is 18. If he, an 18 year old man, has sex with a 16 year old girl.. then justyc's statement is correct --
the constable doesn't think that that's pedophilic behavior, and in some ways is justifying it as behaviors that are 'happening anyhow'.
I might be wrong -- feel free, as always, to correct me. But, I think it's a line in the sand when the tide's coming in that this constable is
trying to defend..
"Girls, nine, 10 and 11 are now post-pubescent. They're wearing bras, they're having their periods. They are no longer children in his
To judge by a girl's body is incorrect -- girls seem to be physically maturing faster and faster. That does not mean that they are ready for
I might very well be alone here, but boys still had cooties until I was 17...
There's a reason that the standards are where they are... and while people may mentally mature faster than others, I do not see this as a reasonable
excuse for engaging in pre-adult sex.
Official government guidance on prosecuting suggests that teenagers who have sex when one of them is below 16 should not necessary be prosecuted.
Just because kids are 'doing it anyhow' -- does that make it necessarily right? Should the standards and our definitions change? And on what
(The title may have been 'more correct' if it read "sex with 13-16 year old girls is ok with me", or better yet, "should not be illegal" -- as
that is what causes prosecution. But I do not think that justyc was necessarily misinterpretting the constable's words.)