Forum - View topic

NEWS: UK Anime Club Leader Jailed For Teen Sex Abuse

First off the Independant is a broadsheet not a tabloid and what that article quotes was statistics, likely direct from The Crown Prosecution service.

GracieLizzy wrote:

First off the Independant is a broadsheet not a tabloid and what that article quotes was statistics, likely direct from The Crown Prosecution service.

I wasn't talking about The Independant, I was talking about whoever it was said something to the effect that if someone got sent down only for the lesser charges, he must be getting away with the other charges as well, meaning that we should ignore the judgement of court trials, when we don't even know the exact charges yet.

The point that I was making is that people leave opinions like that as comments when they visit tabloid newspaper websites, not when they're trying to understand something properly.

]My own Eigo skills are too good for that.

faintsmile1992 wrote:

]My own Eigo skills are too good for that.

Shame you forgot how to spell "the".

...with kinda-consensual sex happening...

Girls under the age of consent are legally unable to consent in the first place.

[Kinda-consensual sex] doesn't exist. It's either consensual or its not. [...] Girls and women who are drunk are also unable to consent.

There is no "kinda" and to suggest there is, is dangerous and irresponsible.

There's a huge world of difference between flat-out rape and taking advantage of the cognitively impaired

There's a huge world of difference between flat-out rape and taking advantage of the cognitively impaired. Yes, the latter is sleazy as all-get-out and I'm not going to defend it, but the former is simply on another level(I am, of course, assuming that the intoxication was perfectly willful - otherwise we veer towards flat-out territory).

Polycell wrote:

There's a huge world of difference between flat-out rape and taking advantage of the cognitively impaired. Yes, the latter is sleazy as all-get-out and I'm not going to defend it, but the former is simply on another level(I am, of course, assuming that the intoxication was perfectly willful - otherwise we veer towards flat-out territory).

I wasn't planning on commenting on this topic, but every fiber of my being has commanded me to call you out regarding this bulls#%t comment sprinkled with victim-shaming undertones. PEOPLE WHO ARE INTOXICATED, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILLFULLY CHOSE TO BECOME INTOXICATED, CAN'T GIVE TRUE CONSENT FOR SEX....PERIOD. With that in mind, taking advantage of someone, female or male, while they are inebriated is just as bad, unlawful, and reprehensible as forcing someone into a dark alley and raping them or pulling them into a van and assaulting them while they are sober. The fact that you are of the opinion that intoxication makes the situation different and absolves the person initiating the act of responsibility is both disturbing, frightening, and akin to absolving an attacker of culpability because the victim was wearing suggestive clothing. Ultimately, your comment, as well as others regarding this topic have reconfirmed my opinion that society by in large still has a long way to go with regards to the subject of Rape and sexual assault (they also make it painfully clear to me that there are too many individuals in society who don't know what consent, with concerns to sex, truly is).

And it's another a still serious but not quite as evil thing for a guy to talk up an underage girl (maybe at a party or club or social gathering) who is drunk and then take advantage of that.

It is true that minors cannot give legal consent, but is every man supposed to demand to see a driver's license or other I.D. before he has sex with a female? If she looks legal age and he doesn't know her, then how is he supposed to know? A teenage male accidentally having sex with a girl just under legal age frequently happens and no-one can reasonably claim that it is on the same level as a man who rapes his stepdaughter or grabs a girl off the street.

Regarding drunkenness, if it is clear that if the female is completely intoxicated and she cannot even stand, then no man can reasonably claim that he had her consent because she was obviously too drunk to give it. But what if she was lucid at the time and the man thought he had her consent? She wakes up in his bed with no memory of having given consent (or she does remember but doesn't believe she was in her right mind at the time); then what? No-one is a mind reader. Under English law, it isn't considered rape if the man had reasonable cause to believe that he had consent at the time.