Skip to main content

View Diary: Judge calls a 13-year-old "predatory" after she was raped by a 41 year-old. (278 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They found child porn materials at the guys house. (10+ / 0-)

    Perhaps that was posted after you wrote this, but I don't think it's a murky as you're asserting it is.

    "There is no expedient to which man will not resort to avoid the true labor of thinking." -Sir Joshua Reynolds

    by New Jersey Boy on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 08:10:47 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not asserting anything (0+ / 0-)

      I am making no statement that I actually understand anything about this case other than what is published in the press.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 08:13:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I see. 41 yo with child porn materials MIGHT have (12+ / 0-)

        been seduced by 13 yo rather than initiating it.

        Okay.

        "There is no expedient to which man will not resort to avoid the true labor of thinking." -Sir Joshua Reynolds

        by New Jersey Boy on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 08:18:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re (0+ / 0-)
          The police were alerted to the actions of Wilson, who now lives in York, after his victim told a friend. Images of child sex abuse were also found on Wilson's computer.

          Wilson later admitted two counts of making extreme pornographic images and one count of sexual activity with a child.

          The subtext here is that the images are of his encounter with this child (I doubt the paper would print this detail, but it is sort of implied). There is no evidence that I can see that he had unrelated materials on his computer.

          Again, I have no particular desire to defend this man, who obviously at minimum has severe impulse control and judgment problems. But this diary is trying to tie this incident into a generalized framework that asserts that because the guy was given a lenient sentence, then it means that society thinks violence against women is acceptable.

          The facts of the case are complicated, not published or well-understood, and may not bear out the case that the diarist is trying to make.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 08:34:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are just really proficient (9+ / 0-)

            at excuse making.  It makes me wonder why (aside from being a contrarian, which can inform a discussion).  In this case, you are really having to do cartwheels and back flips to put distance between this court case and, as you frame it:

            a generalized framework that asserts that because the guy was given a lenient sentence, then it means that society thinks violence against women is acceptable.
            You forgot to add, in your above frame, that this case includes the subtext that violence against women is a little less unacceptable if they are in any way provocative.  Oh, oops. You actually did assert that.  Quoted from your previous comment:
            Given the judge's leniency and the subtext of the case here, it is possible that the girl "seduced" the older man, not by just being young or dressing provocatively or whatever, but by taking affirmative and deliberate steps to get him to have sex with her.

            Now, that's still a crime, don't get me wrong. And it's still child rape, very serious, etc. But in the real world, it's just a different thing than the adult setting out to have sex with an otherwise completely innocent child and manipulating her in the sense that a word like "child predator" would imply.

            Back flip extraordinaire.
            •  Re (0+ / 0-)

              It is perfectly obvious to people who can read what I wrote and why.

              You forgot to add, in your above frame, that this case includes the subtext that violence against women is a little less unacceptable if they are in any way provocative.
              What "violence" are you talking about exactly? This was (possibly) a consensual statutory affair. Like I said, wrong, illegal, etc. But not violent.

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 11:25:07 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  There you go again, making excuses. (5+ / 0-)

                Consensual? Really? Between a 13-year-old girl and a 41-year-old man, who in addition to raping her, made explicit child porn with her?  So, in your learned opinion, if sex between a 13-year-old and a 41-year-old is consensual, where do you draw the line at an age of consent?  Eight, ten, twelve?  The Brits have drawn it at sixteen.  Oh, that's right.  You said previously that she mitigated this as rape because, maybe just maybe, she gave him the come-on.

                •  Can you read (0+ / 0-)

                  (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                  Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                  by Sparhawk on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 12:04:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

                  There is confusion about the "age of consent."  Generally, in the US anyway, the age of consent is the age at which a victim is deemed to be unable to give consent.  In England, that age is 12.

                  Thus, sex with a 13 year-old is not rape if the victim consents.  Instead, the crime is sexual activity with a child.

                  According to the Mail,

                  The girl, who was dressed in her school uniform, asked if she could change out of it and Wilson left the room. When he returned she had undressed and was sat wearing a T-shirt.

                  Wilson claims he asked her to put her clothes on, but she started kissing him before touching his genitals. He said he pushed her away and told her he did not want to see her any more. At no point did they have sex.

                  Legally, it isn't rape because she was 13 and consenting;  in addition, it isn't rape because there wasn't penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth.

                  Also, the Mail article does not say that the defendant took pictures of her.  The pictures were described as "surreptitiously taken photographs of children in play areas or other safe environments showing either underwear or varying degrees of nakedness."

                  So, he's a very creepy sexual offender but not actually a rapist under English law (or at least not a convicted one).

                  "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                  by Old Left Good Left on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 05:32:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Statutory means the victim (the girl, in case (0+ / 0-)

                you're still confused) is legally incapable of "consent"...

                We don't know the facts of the case
                An underage girl had sex with a grown man... That's statutory rape.  How many other facts do you need?
                Now, that's still a crime, don't get me wrong. And it's still child rape, very serious, etc. But in the real world, it's just a different thing than the adult setting out to have sex with an otherwise completely innocent child and manipulating her in the sense that a word like "child predator" would imply.
                then it means that society thinks violence against women is acceptable.
                Society DOES think violence against women is acceptable, because the laws and rules continue to be written and reinforced by men.  Witness your continued thinly-veiled apologies for the man's behavior and related obfuscatory comments.

                "There's always room for cello." Yo Yo Ma

                by ceebee7 on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 01:02:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Laws are different in the UK (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sparhawk

                  Sex with any individual without consent is rape.  "Statutory rape" is a sex act with an underage person who is deemed to not be able to consent.  In the UK, that age is 12 and under.  Thus, although the "age of consent" is 16, that is not the cut-off for "statutory rape"
                   (which is not a term used in English law.

                  Instead, sex with a 13 to 15 year-old is rape only if it is non-consensual. If it is consensual, the crime is sexual activity with a child, which is not considered rape under English law.

                  A defense to a charge of sexual activity with a child is that the child reasonably appeared to be 16.  That is part of the reason the court focussed on the appearance of the child--i.e., establishing that she did not look 16 forestalled that defense.

                  Sentencing guidelines for sexual activity with a child can be found here

                  http://www.cps.gov.uk/...

                  The offender in this case was subsequently sentenced to two years, which seems in line (and perhaps even a bit harsher) than sentences in similar cases.

                  "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                  by Old Left Good Left on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 02:12:12 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Why so dubious? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sparhawk, gramofsam1, Subterranean, NYFM

          If the girl was already sexually active there is every possibility that she is the one who initiated the situation. I remember a few very sexually active and somewhat aggressive girls in my school when I was that age.

          To be very clear, in no way does the possibility that she was sexually experienced or aggressive excuse the behavior of the 41 year old man and he should be punished for the crimes he committed. But to suggest that there is no chance whatsoever that the 13 year old girl was the one who initiated the situation is being intentionally naive. Not every young teen is a sexual saint but in the end it doesn't really matter and shouldn't matter because she's still protected by law.

          •  You may want to look up (8+ / 0-)

            "Cathy S. Widom & Joseph B. Kuhns, Childhood Victimization and Subsequent Risk for Promiscuity, Prostitution, and Teenage Pregnancy: A Prospective Study, 86 American Journal of Public Health 1607 - 1612 (1996)."

            Early promiscuity is a warning sign that a child has been subject to sexual abuse. This scumbag most likely re-victimized a victim of childhood sexual abuse, and is using the indicator of her past victimization to excuse himself from having to behave as a rational, responsible adult.

            Those aggressive children you knew in school had probably learned that there was only one allowable way for them to gain acceptance/approval.

            •  It's always absolutes, isn't it. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sparhawk, NYFM

              Instead of saying "early promiscuity is a warning sign that a child may have been subject to sexual abuse" it's always a definitive result of abuse. There's never the possibility that some kids discover early that they like having sex because it feels good. Apparently teens and preteens aren't allowed to become sexually aware and discover their likes and dislikes about sex until reaching some magical age dependent on the state or country in which they reside. And if they do explore and act on their budding sexual desires then it's always because they suffered abuse.

              You'd rather find someone to place blame for a young girl's natural exploration of her sex drive instead of allowing that it may be her own nature to enjoy and want sex. It's disgusting that you automatically assume that girls I knew in school were so incapable of exploring their sexuality on their own terms that the only acceptable explanation is that they were taught that it was the only allowable way to gain acceptance or approval.

              •  I think the main difference between this case and (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                radical simplicity

                the examples you gave were in no way comparable.

                  Usually when a young girl is exploring her sexuality on her own terms, she usually starts out with masturbation, etc. Then later on she usually goes with boys around HER AGE who are going though the same exploration phrase.

                  The boys she has sex with is basically on the same level as her--utterly inexperienced, and is just finding out that they enjoy sex. But the most important thing is that it was all on her terms, with no outside influences who might had promoted her into doing it. They usually don't go for adult men that old out of their own free will, unless the adult men were deliberately exploiting some vulnerability or ego that they had.

                  With adult sex offenders, many often groom their victims into thinking that they WANT it, and so the victims may even start engaging the predators themselves. I remember reading this particularly revolting account by an pedophile on how he would trick 6-year-old girls into saying "yes" and even initiating the sexual encounters themselves. Basically, he would leave porn of all kinds just laying around and playing on repeat or walk around the house naked while the other adults were away. He did this in order to make those girls curious enough so that they would ask him sexual questions, etc. He would then make it seem like a fun game that adults did together, and often he would ask them if they felt grown-up enough to do it.
                 He was exploiting a young girl's desire to be seen as being mature enough, adult enough even though they had no true idea what any of that really meant.
                 So those girls was blindly saying how they wanted to play that fun adult game, and even aggressively going after the man on camera in a very sexual way.
                 The worst part was that the pedophile was totally justifying his actions by saying that all those 6-year-olds totally wanted it, despite the fact that he had deliberately set up the whole thing to seem appealing to a 6-year-old even though they had no idea what was going to happen then.

                 Now, a 6-year-old and a 13-year-old girl is obviously different in terms of mental maturity. surely by that age most 13 year olds know of bad touch, and many sexual terms. But there's just no way to tell if a 13-year-old was actually tricked into thinking she really wanted it or if she was actually sexually pursing the guy.
                 considering the fact that most sexual predators go after girls that young and that they certainly don't give a crap about her well-being other than what they can get from her...
                  I think it's safe to assume that all older men who have sex with 13 year olds are just evil perverts who tried to claim that SHE was the "predator" when it was really the way around.

              •  It's not "natural exploration" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aurora Moon

                When it happens between a young child and a middle aged man.

                Also, it is statistically more likely that girls 13 and under who are "aggressive" (your word) sexually are not simply exploring their sexuality. Exploring tends to start mildly with hesitancy and curiosity, and change as the teen becomes older, more emotionally mature, and empowered as they reach adulthood.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site