10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
rxninja
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:16 am UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby rxninja » Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:21 pm UTC

segmentation fault wrote:
Malice wrote:It is if you contract a disease, like this girl did. Which I think is clear evidence of sexual immaturity.

sure you can contract diseases from sex, but you can contract airborne viruses from breathing, that doesnt mean oxygen is poisonous.


That's just...special. If oxygen was infected with airborne viruses at the same ratio as people were infected with STDs, it actually would be poisonous, so you can retract your slippery slope argument right now. If you have any questions, the World Health Organization offers a veritable library of data for your perusing.

You know, that and sex is a voluntary act, where breathing is completely necessary for continued living. It's not like you're comparing apples to oranges or anything.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I miss a lot of people, too. Fortunately, ammo is cheap.

sophyturtle wrote:I think nudity is the solution for everything...

User avatar
Maurog
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Maurog » Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:15 pm UTC

Actually, the example is correct. You contact airborne viruses by breathing near a sick person, not just breathing alone, just like you wouldn't get an STI from masturbation. Oxigen is just a medium, the carriers in both cases are people.

Oh, and relieving sexual stress (usually by sex or masturbation) is less voluntary than you think.
Slay the living! Raise the dead! Paint the sky in crimson red!

stephen
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:00 am UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby stephen » Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:29 pm UTC

Maurog wrote:Actually, the example is correct. You contact airborne viruses by breathing near a sick person, not just breathing alone, just like you wouldn't get an STI from masturbation. Oxigen is just a medium, the carriers in both cases are people.

Oh, and relieving sexual stress (usually by sex or masturbation) is less voluntary than you think.


And how much sexual stress is a ten year old going to have? Because that's what we were talking about here. A fifth grader. A girl who was sexually abused at age 7, moved from that community and then back into it for fears of another "stolen generation", where this rape occurred.

Whether she was consenting or not, the law makes it very clear that a person is not legally mature enough to make the decision to have sex until they are a certain age, which is six years older than what this girl was.

User avatar
rxninja
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:16 am UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby rxninja » Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:59 am UTC

Maurog wrote:Oh, and relieving sexual stress (usually by sex or masturbation) is less voluntary than you think.


Did I say relieving sexual tension was voluntary? No, I said sex was voluntary. If you're gonna be pedantic, at least do it right.

Also, how many hundreds to thousands of people do you breathe around daily without getting sick? How many different people would you need to be raped by, without any form of protection, to contract a long-lasting STD? Do you think those numbers are remotely close to one another or fair to compare?
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I miss a lot of people, too. Fortunately, ammo is cheap.

sophyturtle wrote:I think nudity is the solution for everything...

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Malice » Mon Dec 17, 2007 1:59 am UTC

Maurog wrote:Oh, and relieving sexual stress (usually by sex or masturbation) is less voluntary than you think.


If this girl had extraordinary sexual stress, and had to masturbate 18 times a day, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead, she "chose" to relieve her stress with a gang of guys, some of whom had diseases.

I agree that a straight line judging maturity is not the best situation. I'm willing to give a child the benefit of the doubt if they say that they are mature enough to make their own decisions--unless and until they make an extremely poor decision. Like having unprotected sex with multiple partners at the same time.

If the girl actually exhibited maturity, said, "I'm old enough to have sexual urges," and claimed the right to masturbate all day, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Instead, she says, "I'm old enough to have sexual urges," exhibits immaturity by gratifying those urges in a dangerous way, and tries to claim the right to harm herself.

At that point, it is safe to conclude that she is not mature enough to make those choices for herself.
Image

User avatar
rxninja
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:16 am UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby rxninja » Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:15 am UTC

Malice wrote:stuff


I'm not sure how frequently this occurs, but I agree with everything you just said, Malice.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I miss a lot of people, too. Fortunately, ammo is cheap.

sophyturtle wrote:I think nudity is the solution for everything...

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby segmentation fault » Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:26 pm UTC

stephen wrote:And how much sexual stress is a ten year old going to have?


like i said, puberty can begin as early as age 8.

Malice wrote:Instead, she says, "I'm old enough to have sexual urges," exhibits immaturity by gratifying those urges in a dangerous way, and tries to claim the right to harm herself.

At that point, it is safe to conclude that she is not mature enough to make those choices for herself.


which is what sexual education is supposed to teach kids who are having these urges.
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

Benedict
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:49 am UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Benedict » Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:37 pm UTC

Chocceh, trickster721, and Beyondthewall all said it better than I can. But I'll give it a try, using their words...
Chocceh wrote:As it is in every article like this, we don't know what the girl was thinking. Maybe she was mature enough, maybe she wasn't. Odds favor the latter, but who knows? Certainly not a one-size-fits-all law. If forced to take one option, I'd rather have the law than not, but sensitive cases like these should be decided on an individual basis, if possible.

With the small amount of information these articles give us, I will never assume the extremes - don't get me wrong. All I want to do is raise the possibility that maybe, just maybe, things aren't always so black-and-white.


Someone willing to admit the existence of shades of gray? What is this world coming to?!
trickster721 wrote:Maybe in such a personal and complicated case, we should assume that the people involved know what's going on, rather than sitting on the other side of the world and judging it by our own privileged standards.

I don't need to cluck my tounge over gossip about the unnatural customs of the godless savages. If we're going to get all worked up about kids with no childhood, let's start with the ones that are starving to death and killing each other.

This is prob'ly the one I agree with most. I hope all you "tongue-cluckers" feel damn self righteous about your condemnation of this, because it's probably the most pride you'll ever feel. This is my problem with the religious right, as well. I used to be hard-core christian (presbyterian, before you ask) but since then my beliefs have... changed. One of the biggest impetuses for that change was that most of the people I saw were "christians" not because they truly believed the dogma (though most of them did) but primarily because it made them feel better about themselves. This self-righteousness is something I can't stand. Could someone please, just once, express doubt in what they believe? Question their preconceived notions about how the world works? Those who are the most convicted about their beliefs are capable of the greatest evil. Just look at the Crusades, or any modern cult that kills themselves. Or watch Serenity, which you should do anyway. Evil can always justify itself, and the way it does that is through conviction. So please, climb down from your ivory towers and high horses. Question what you believe. Stop being told what to think. And stop turning this thread into knee-jerk reactions being thrown around, followed by a couple posts of reasoned discourse that (imho) vastly overestimates some of the other post-ers capacity for logic and reason.
I leave you with this (emphasis added by me):
Beyondthewall wrote:Sure, but it did specify aboriginal people, who likely have their own traditions and rules. Their own society. Not knowing the full details of the case you can't say they didn't, at least.

I don't say that a crime wasn't committed, just that the punishment should be decreased. Yes, there should probably have been punishment, given what we know. I'm just wary of making absolute moral judgments, especially with limited knowledge of the situation.
Last edited by Benedict on Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:57 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Minerva wrote:There's no such thing as "renewable energy". That's the second law of thermodynamics.

Benedict
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:49 am UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Benedict » Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:54 pm UTC

So, sorry, I got kinda sidetracked by ranting. My point was supposed to be this:
Adults make stupid decisions all the time. They are usually held accountable for those decisions. The argument that children are not accountable for their decisions is that somehow a child's capacity for decision-making is less than an adult's. This implies that children, compared to adults, are somewhat deficient. I disagree with this point. I think children are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. Saying that a ten year old is not capable of making decisions about their own body is, frankly, demeaning. It's basically a claim that a ten year old is less than a person, a human being, capable of making reasoned choices. I disagree with that claim. I disagree with the whole concept of statutory rape. Yes, if it's non-consensual, there should be harsh penalties. Yes the girl in question had some severe psychological problems. But how much would it suck for the guys who were actually on trial if, after being approached by this hot chick and offered hot, sweaty sex, they were sent to jail simply because the court claims that the girl did not have the capacity to make a decision about her life. As far as I'm concerned this is Big Government (also known as Big Brother or "the man") dictating how it's citizens should live their lives, and using the money they stole from the people to do it. What happened to liberty? What happened to choice? Situations like this are precisely the reason I vote libertarian (and you should to).
Now that I've talked for far longer than anyone wanted to listen, I'll shut up. Discuss.
Minerva wrote:There's no such thing as "renewable energy". That's the second law of thermodynamics.

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Gunfingers » Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:57 pm UTC

This isn't big government telling people what to do, this is virtually every person getting together and agreeing that most people under the age of 18 haven't the maturity or decision making capacity to make significant decisions for themselves. You can disagree all you want (you're not 18 yet, are you?) but you're not going to make it any less true.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Belial » Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:59 pm UTC

I think children are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. Saying that a ten year old is not capable of making decisions about their own body is, frankly, demeaning. It's basically a claim that a ten year old is less than a person, a human being, capable of making reasoned choices. I disagree with that claim.


Okay. I'm a ten year old. I want to have my hand amputated surgically because I think Captain Hook is super cool. Do I get to?

You can call them smart all you want, but children's brains are not fully developed, nor have they yet had enough experience to make educated decisions about things that will affect them in the long term. They don't even have experience with the *concept* of the long term.

We don't let children make decisions that will hurt them for the rest of their lives because we don't believe they should have to suffer the rest of their lives for a decision they made in an impaired state. And being undeveloped both neurologically and psychologically is an impaired state.

Otherwise, we'd just leave them to parent themselves. That would work out.... :roll:
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby GhostWolfe » Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:37 am UTC

Benedict wrote:The argument that children are not accountable for their decisions is that somehow a child's capacity for decision-making is less than an adult's. This implies that children, compared to adults, are somewhat deficient. I disagree with this point. I think children are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. Saying that a ten year old is not capable of making decisions about their own body is, frankly, demeaning.

Do you remember being 10?

I can't speak for all of you, because frankly, I think I was a late bloomer, but it was only in the last few years that I developed an actual awareness of the world beyond my own head. It wasn't until very recently that I realised that when I was ten: I had no idea what grown ups did all day long, I thought the food at McDonalds magically appeared on the trays, when I was ten I didn't even realise there was staff serving the counters.

At the age of ten, I was not in anyway fully capable of making decisions about my own body.

I understand what people have been saying about the so-called arbitrarity of the "age of consent", and you keep presenting these arguments suggesting that some children mature - mentally and/or physically - earlier than the age of consent. No one is going to dispute that some of them do, but the point of age of consent is to protect the majority that didn't mature that quickly.


Benedict wrote:I hope all you "tongue-cluckers" feel damn self righteous about your condemnation of this, because it's probably the most pride you'll ever feel.

I am not horrified or disgusted over this issue because it makes me feel superior. I am horrified and disgusted because I think it's wrong. We're talking about a child - a child that we*, as the adults, should have protected. When it's your ten year old daughter that's been raped, are you going to take the attitude that "she knew what she was getting herself into"?

*use of the royal we not granted by the crown :)

/angell
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
Phentos
"The Phucktard"
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:34 pm UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Phentos » Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:40 am UTC

Gunfingers wrote:This isn't big government telling people what to do, this is virtually every person getting together and agreeing that most people under the age of 18 haven't the maturity or decision making capacity to make significant decisions for themselves. You can disagree all you want (you're not 18 yet, are you?) but you're not going to make it any less true.

Fallacy ad populum.
Image

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Hawknc » Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:09 am UTC

Wow. I just don't get this topic. A girl gets raped at 7 years of age, which completely skews her sexual development, but it's okay that ten guys took advantage of that to have sex with her at age 10, despite no evidence that she was even aware of the potential consequences of sex? I don't even know what the arguments here are trying to achieve.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26766
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:21 am UTC

Phentos wrote:
Gunfingers wrote:This isn't big government telling people what to do, this is virtually every person getting together and agreeing that most people under the age of 18 haven't the maturity or decision making capacity to make significant decisions for themselves. You can disagree all you want (you're not 18 yet, are you?) but you're not going to make it any less true.

Fallacy ad populum.

No, it's not. Understand what you're calling a fallacy before you go ahead and play the fallacy card.

Gunfingers wasn't saying that, because it was the majority, it's the correct moral view. Gunfingers was simply saying that it was the vast majority of the *people* agreeing that 10-year-olds ought to be protected from gang rape, rather than some shadowy "big government" getting all up in our business. That's it. No moral judgment attached at all, apart from you decided to read into it, while playing your little fallacy fallacy game.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
German Sausage
3 of 5
Posts: 2933
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:45 am UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby German Sausage » Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:27 am UTC

all else aside, australian law states that a ten year old is unable to give consent (being 'under the age of consent' and all)
whether or not she verbally offered consent, its not legal to accept that consent.

also, what the fuck, people? a one size-fits all law is in fact what you need to have. that is what makes laws fair and respectable and so forth.
<bakemaster> Only German Sausage can prevent forest fires
<felstaff> Hype is like a giant disappointment ray aimed squarely at the finished article.
<watson> Treat me like a criminal, Holmes!
TMT4L

User avatar
Jc1991
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:04 am UTC
Location: Somewhere in non-euclidean space...

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Jc1991 » Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:13 am UTC

also, what the fuck, people? a one size-fits all law is in fact what you need to have. that is what makes laws fair and respectable and so forth.

Um... no, it isn't. Laws are fair and respectable because they ignore issues that have no relevance to the case (such as race, gender, etc... in most cases) while taking into account issues that have relevance. For instance, a one size fits all law that addressed killing someone would be horribly unjust, because it would regard killing someone in self-defense to be the same thing as killing someone in cold blood, when killing someone in self-defense is justifiable (while I don't pretend to know your position on the issue, I have no qualms about killing someone who is attempting to kill me, provided that there's no action I can take that ends with both of us alive, and see no moral or ethical basis for making such self-defense illegal).

I'm not going to get into the other issue, as my opinion is likely horribly biased. Regardless, I can agree that age is the best method of measuring maturity that we have easy access to, at least in this particular case.
"You did something because it had always been done, and the explanation was "but we've always done it that way". A million dead people can't have been wrong, can they?"
-The Fifth Elephant; Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Phentos
"The Phucktard"
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:34 pm UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Phentos » Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:37 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Phentos wrote:
Gunfingers wrote:You can disagree all you want (you're not 18 yet, are you?) but you're not going to make it any less true.

Fallacy ad populum.

No, it's not. Understand what you're calling a fallacy before you go ahead and play the fallacy card.

Oh good sir, please save your demeaning quibbles for those who they apply to. Having purple text in your name doesn't make you God 8)

Gunfingers wasn't saying that, because it was the majority, it's the correct moral view.

Providing you exclude the part above quoted.


I think it is likely fair to say this is a matter of semantic misinterpretation, and you are taking the polar opposite that I did. So, barring a clarification on Gun's part, we can't conclude either way (logically speaking).
Image

stephen
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:00 am UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby stephen » Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:42 am UTC

What a litmus test for people's attitudes.

I can understand people posting from a devils advocate point of view to promote discussion, but some of the attitudes on here are downright *frightening*. In some cases shades of grey do exist, such as a 16 year old sleeping with a 15 year old. But this is about as clear cut as a case will ever get. If this is acceptable, what ISN'T acceptable?

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Hawknc » Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:46 am UTC

Seriously, if stephen and I can agree on this topic, how much room for debate is there really? :P

User avatar
Phentos
"The Phucktard"
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:34 pm UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Phentos » Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:50 am UTC

I'm withholding my opinion, I was just meddling in his (potential) misuse of logic.
Image

stephen
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:00 am UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby stephen » Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:04 am UTC

Hawknc wrote:Seriously, if stephen and I can agree on this topic, how much room for debate is there really? :P


Haha very true.

Phentos wrote:I'm withholding my opinion, I was just meddling in his (potential) misuse of logic.


Yeah the comment really was not aimed at you. I can accept semantic and even devils advocate debates within a topic. What I cannot understand is that there are actually people who seriously believe that a ten year old is, or should be able to give consent to sex with multiple partners at once. Actually, screw this, let's not call them partners, let's call them what they are - paedophiles.

User avatar
Beyondthewall
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:12 am UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Beyondthewall » Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:49 am UTC

stephen wrote:Actually, screw this, let's not call them partners, let's call them what they are - paedophiles.

Let's not.
Wikipedia wrote:Pedophilia or paedophilia is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent youths.


Again with the "making absolute moral judgments, especially with limited knowledge of the situation" being a bad thing.
I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Hawknc » Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:56 am UTC

It's not a moral judgement, it's a statement of fact. The only thing we don't know for sure there is if they're primarily attracted to prepubescents, or whether they just took advantage of a young girl.

User avatar
Beyondthewall
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:12 am UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Beyondthewall » Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:59 am UTC

Generally speaking (especially given context and tone), the label of "pedophile" carries with it a moral judgement. When it's assigned to a person without being factually true (and there's little reason to believe it is), what remains is the judgement part.
I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated.

User avatar
Phentos
"The Phucktard"
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:34 pm UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Phentos » Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:06 am UTC

One needs also to consider that a number cannot accurately describe a person. Although it is very likely that a 10 year old is undeveloped and immature, the opposite is possible.
Image

User avatar
williamager
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:32 am UTC
Location: Aldeburgh, Suffolk (actually US...)
Contact:

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby williamager » Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:43 am UTC

Hawknc wrote:It's not a moral judgement, it's a statement of fact. The only thing we don't know for sure there is if they're primarily attracted to prepubescents, or whether they just took advantage of a young girl.


There are all sorts of bizarre and convoluted scenarios one could envision that would cause them to fall outside of these two possibilities. Such scenarios just happen to be extremely unlikely.

Hawknc wrote:Wow. I just don't get this topic. A girl gets raped at 7 years of age, which completely skews her sexual development, but it's okay that ten guys took advantage of that to have sex with her at age 10, despite no evidence that she was even aware of the potential consequences of sex? I don't even know what the arguments here are trying to achieve.


I believe that in the typical manner of a group of nerds, we're ignoring the actual case in order to discuss whether the laws and feelings involved are reasonable at all times or whether there are peculiar cases where they would result in unjust decisions. For example, if she were actually a quickly-developing humanoid alien, would age of consent still apply? I think that most in the discussion agree that what happened was quite wrong. The only argument I could see that would apply to the particular situation is that this behaviour might somehow be part of the culture and therefore singling these men out for what is a more general problem might be unfair, but even that is dubious and probably irrelevant anyway.

Belial wrote:We don't let children make decisions that will hurt them for the rest of their lives because we don't believe they should have to suffer the rest of their lives for a decision they made in an impaired state. And being undeveloped both neurologically and psychologically is an impaired state.


Certainly, in many cases, what you say might be true. But you, like society and the law, leave no room for exceptions, and exceptions do exist, though they tend to be extremely rare. It should also be said that you don't go far enough in other statements: in most cases, we hardly let children make any decisions at all, even beneficial ones.

GhostWolfe wrote:Do you remember being 10?

I can't speak for all of you, because frankly, I think I was a late bloomer, but it was only in the last few years that I developed an actual awareness of the world beyond my own head. It wasn't until very recently that I realised that when I was ten: I had no idea what grown ups did all day long, I thought the food at McDonalds magically appeared on the trays, when I was ten I didn't even realise there was staff serving the counters.

At the age of ten, I was not in anyway fully capable of making decisions about my own body.

I understand what people have been saying about the so-called arbitrarity of the "age of consent", and you keep presenting these arguments suggesting that some children mature - mentally and/or physically - earlier than the age of consent. No one is going to dispute that some of them do, but the point of age of consent is to protect the majority that didn't mature that quickly.


I think I had a reasonable understanding of things when I was ten. Perhaps I was more idealistic, and thus thought communism could be workable even though it had failed in the past, and also that, at a children's video competition in Indiana, a video primarily about the socioeconomic factors that affect international borders would be well received, but these don't really mean that I didn't have an actual awareness of the world or capability to make responsible decisions. In fact, I would say that I cared far more about issues in the outside world then than I do now, and probably, in general, made better decisions. Unfortunately, quite a bit of my time was spent trying to fight against the protection you endorse.

As you say the point is to protect the majority, but making statements and laws that are too strict make life much harder than necessary for the small minority. For example, in this case, if the ten year old had organized the defence and come up with the legal arguments used, I might be inclined to raise my opinion of the men, though coming up out of an nearly endless abyss is difficult. I might also think more highly of them if it became clear that she had intentionally and maliciously caused them to perform the acts, perhaps through drugging, in order to ruin their lives for some reason. However, I highly doubt that any such of these took place, and thus it really seems that the light punishment is very unfortunate.
Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse

User avatar
Phentos
"The Phucktard"
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:34 pm UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Phentos » Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:52 am UTC

Unfortunately, quite a bit of my time was spent trying to fight against the protection you endorse.

This is exactly the reason that parenting proponents typically don't form plausible arguments. Laissez-faire parenting hasn't been experimented with, so people make assumptions from the biased perspective of the opposite.



Addendum:

You are worthy.
Image

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26766
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:54 am UTC

Phentos wrote:Having purple text in your name doesn't make you God 8)

No shit. Nor does it have anything to do with my calling you out on what I perceived as somewhat of a fallacy fallacy in your post.

Providing you exclude the part above quoted.

Ah, indeed. I was reading your response as being to the rest of the paragraph, rather than to that one little quip, which I took to be merely sarcastic.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby GhostWolfe » Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:54 am UTC

williamager wrote:As you say the point is to protect the majority, but making statements and laws that are too strict make life much harder than necessary for the small minority.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You can't make all the people happy all the time. It does not make sense to me to sacrifice the majority to make things easier for the minority. What would you suggest as an alternative to the age of consent?

Additionally: in Australia, age of consent is not completely static. Each of the states allow for consensual intercourse between people under the legally stipulated age of consent if either a) you reasonably believed your partner was of the age of consent, or b) you and your partner are within a reasonable age gap in comparison to your partners age.

Link

/angell

(Yes, my state has backwards laws regarding anal intercourse :shock: )
Last edited by GhostWolfe on Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:01 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
Ari
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:09 pm UTC
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Ari » Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:58 am UTC

segmentation fault wrote:which is what sexual education is supposed to teach kids who are having these urges.


No, it's not. That's what has proven in the USA to be a highly ineffective sexual education technique. I personally agree with you that a lot of people having sex are too immature to deal with the relationship issues involved or the risks of infection or pregnancy, but it's very, very difficult to stop them. Especially because many of them are well over the age of consent or even the age of majority ;)

Far more useful is teaching them how to be safe and avoid situations like this for when they do decide to have sex, because that way it educates adults about sex, too! How efficient. ;)

Hawknc wrote:It's not a moral judgement, it's a statement of fact. The only thing we don't know for sure there is if they're primarily attracted to prepubescents, or whether they just took advantage of a young girl.


We know they're primarily attracted to her? I think that's a bit presumptuous. Now, child abusers, that's something that they've proven themselves to be.

Phentos wrote:One needs also to consider that a number cannot accurately describe a person. Although it is very likely that a 10 year old is undeveloped and immature, the opposite is possible.


Thankyou. I hope that can be the end of this part of the discussion, because it's really said all that needs to be said on this topic. It's a matter of protecting the many that aren't at the expense of the few that are. And I'm sure we'll all feel bad for you, but being mature enough to have sex also means being mature enough to deal with those urges without actually having sex, if you have to. Let's remember that before we start implying that gang rape is okay, please?
"Hey %*&^er, offensive communication works fine so long as you do it respectfully." :D
"I am so quoting that out of context at a later date."

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby GhostWolfe » Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:01 am UTC

Ari wrote:Being mature enough to have sex also means being mature enough to deal with those urges without actually having sex, if you have to.

Excellently put.

/angell
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
Phentos
"The Phucktard"
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:34 pm UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Phentos » Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:32 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Phentos wrote:Providing you exclude the part above quoted.

Ah, indeed. I was reading your response as being to the rest of the paragraph, rather than to that one little quip, which I took to be merely sarcastic.

Context is everything, monsieur.
Image

User avatar
williamager
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:32 am UTC
Location: Aldeburgh, Suffolk (actually US...)
Contact:

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby williamager » Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:43 am UTC

GhostWolfe wrote:
williamager wrote:As you say the point is to protect the majority, but making statements and laws that are too strict make life much harder than necessary for the small minority.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You can't make all the people happy all the time. It does not make sense to me to sacrifice the majority to make things easier for the minority. What would you suggest as an alternative to the age of consent?

Additionally: in Australia, age of consent is not completely static. Each of the states allow for consensual intercourse between people under the legally stipulated age of consent if either a) you reasonably believed your partner was of the age of consent, or b) you and your partner are within a reasonable age gap in comparison to your partners age.

Link

/angell

(Yes, my state has backwards laws regarding anal intercourse :shock: )


I'm certainly not saying that age of consent should be sacrificed, or that the majority should be sacrificed in general. I am just noting that making strict statements based on the majority and applying them to the minority without full knowledge of the situation isn't fair. In this case, considering the information available, it does appear that the men involved were hideous and should have been punished, but there were statements made earlier in the thread to the effect of 'they must be paedophiles', or 'Imo, if you have sex with someone who is 10, you should be punished even if the 10 year old begged for it... You just don't have sex with 10 year olds. Simple.'. Such statements are overly strict in their views. It is entirely possible, if unlikely, for example, that a 10 year old with weaponry could forcibly rape an elder, and saying that the elder should be punished because 'You just don't have sex with 10 year olds. Simple.' doesn't seem just in that particular situation. Similarly, there are a number of situations that might be much more plausible, in which the men could not be considered paedophiles, despite being hideous. When dealing with crime, people often seem too quick to leap to conclusions; even if those conclusions would be correct in the majority of situations, it isn't just to do so, and all information should be fully considered before passing judgement on people.

And there are still some questions about this case, primarily because I can't find the ages of the youngest men. If the youngest were 13, or even 10, would this change your opinion of the case? If the point of the law is that the youngest should be presumed to have been pushed into the acts, I would argue that the eldest perpetrators might be guilty of abusing more than one child, while the youngest might not be that guilty at all, if we consider the 10 year old innocent. What if some of the men involved were younger than her, and some much older. Who would be guilty in that situation? Is there a point where she would no longer be innocent?

Of course, my love of minutiae and hypothetical situations doesn't change the fact that the majority of these cases seem obvious.

Ari wrote:Being mature enough to have sex also means being mature enough to deal with those urges without actually having sex, if you have to.


Yes. I'm afraid that, in some sense, my arguments might have been tending toward being off-topic, in considering the matter of age-based laws in general, the possibilities in which an 10 year old having sex with an elder might not necessarily mean that the elder is automatically guilty, and the tendency for people to jump to conclusions and overly extend arguments when dealing with crime and especially crimes involving children.

Let's remember that before we start implying that gang rape is okay, please?


This seems like a good example of overextending a position. Just because one feels that this issue, in general, isn't simple, doesn't mean one implies that gang rape is okay. Or would you agree that those who feel that extraordinary rendition is wrong are implying that terrorism is okay?
Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse

User avatar
Ari
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:09 pm UTC
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Ari » Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:52 am UTC

Yes. I'm afraid that, in some sense, my arguments might have been tending toward being off-topic, in considering the matter of age-based laws in general, the possibilities in which an 10 year old having sex with an elder might not necessarily mean that the elder is automatically guilty, and the tendency for people to jump to conclusions and overly extend arguments when dealing with crime and especially crimes involving children.


I don't think I've ever heard of any situation in which a person of that age legitimately attempted to seduce someone older than the age of consent. Most kids are attracted to other kids, assuming they've grown out of asexuality already.

That aside, even in some cases where it might be considered legal, it can be very easy to manipulate the feelings of someone younger than you so that they think they're in love. This is why there's a stigma about relationships with very large age gaps involved, and they generally need to be conducted with extra respect and care.

I do agree with you that assuming people are abusers in all situations is bad, but I've seen nothing that convinces me that this case wasn't simply systematic discrimination rearing its head again. Aborigines are pretty much legally persecuted in Australia, sad to say.

This seems like a good example of overextending a position. Just because one feels that this issue, in general, isn't simple, doesn't mean one implies that gang rape is okay. Or would you agree that those who feel that extraordinary rendition is wrong are implying that terrorism is okay?


Hah! You sneaked that in an edit, I saw you ;) Hope you don't mind if I return the favour.

It's more a case of misreading the intent of your post. I thought you were implying we should accept that this wasn't a case of gang rape, rather than warning us to be cautious about it. Cautious I can accept- however, I'm still going to place the burden of proof on the Australian courts and government here. They have a pretty poor track record on treating Aborigines with respect.
"Hey %*&^er, offensive communication works fine so long as you do it respectfully." :D
"I am so quoting that out of context at a later date."

User avatar
williamager
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:32 am UTC
Location: Aldeburgh, Suffolk (actually US...)
Contact:

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby williamager » Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:45 pm UTC

I'm quite shocked that you would stoop to mocking me by writing the exact same number of posts! I must retaliate immediately!

Ari wrote:I don't think I've ever heard of any situation in which a person of that age legitimately attempted to seduce someone older than the age of consent. Most kids are attracted to other kids, assuming they've grown out of asexuality already.


I seem to vaguely recall one case, involving a 13 or 14 year old, in the UK, and seem to recall that he was convicted.

That aside, even in some cases where it might be considered legal, it can be very easy to manipulate the feelings of someone younger than you so that they think they're in love. This is why there's a stigma about relationships with very large age gaps involved, and they generally need to be conducted with extra respect and care.


Exactly. That is a major issue in dealing with children in general. There are some who are genuinely more mature, and I've met several who have astonished me in that sense. Yet there are others I've met where it has been obvious that, despite seeming beyond their age, they are actually just being controlled by adults. And other cases have been unfathomable: I knew one teenager who might have been entirely controlled by his mother, might have been independent, or might have entirely controlled his mother. I still don't know which case was the closest to the truth.

I do agree with you that assuming people are abusers in all situations is bad, but I've seen nothing that convinces me that this case wasn't simply systematic discrimination rearing its head again. Aborigines are pretty much legally persecuted in Australia, sad to say.


That rather changes my view of the case. I had thought it seemed bizarre and inexplicable, but that issue could certainly provide a possible reason for the decision.
Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Hawknc » Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:43 pm UTC

Ari wrote:We know they're primarily attracted to her? I think that's a bit presumptuous. Now, child abusers, that's something that they've proven themselves to be.

Actually, I said specifically that that's the only thing we don't know. They may be, or they may just have taken advantage of the situation. I find it hard to believe that a 10 year old seduced ten men into being of unsound mind.

User avatar
williamager
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:32 am UTC
Location: Aldeburgh, Suffolk (actually US...)
Contact:

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby williamager » Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:51 pm UTC

Hawknc wrote:
Ari wrote:We know they're primarily attracted to her? I think that's a bit presumptuous. Now, child abusers, that's something that they've proven themselves to be.

Actually, I said specifically that that's the only thing we don't know. They may be, or they may just have taken advantage of the situation. I find it hard to believe that a 10 year old seduced ten men into being of unsound mind.


Those are only a few of the many possibilities. I would also find it extremely hard to believe that it was her doing, but peer pressure is quite powerful, and it's quite possible that some of the teenagers involved were pushed into it by some of the other men, and as I mentioned earlier, depending on the ages of the teenagers involved, it seems possible that some of the men could be considered to have abused more than one child.
Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse

User avatar
Beyondthewall
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:12 am UTC

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby Beyondthewall » Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:17 pm UTC

Ari wrote:I don't think I've ever heard of any situation in which a person of that age legitimately attempted to seduce someone older than the age of consent. Most kids are attracted to other kids, assuming they've grown out of asexuality already.


Mostly true, but not always. There have been cases where a person that young tried to seduce adult.

Ari wrote:People are abusers in all situations is bad, but I've seen nothing that convinces me that this case wasn't simply systematic discrimination rearing its head again. Aborigines are pretty much legally persecuted in Australia, sad to say.


I'm afraid I don't quite see the discrimination or persecution here. Care to explain?
I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated.

User avatar
PictureSarah
Secretary of Penile Nomenclature
Posts: 4576
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: 10 Year old girl "probably consented" to being pack raped

Postby PictureSarah » Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:26 pm UTC

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/aus ... 253094.ece
From this article:

Like many Aboriginal children, she was born with foetal alcohol syndrome and is, as a consequence, intellectually disabled. A skinny, vulnerable girl, she was abused by a family member before she turned five.

Placed in foster care, she was then returned to Aurukun, where she was raped at age seven by five boys – including, according to her mother, some of the nine who recently escaped jail. She contracted syphilis and received severe genital injuries. The girl was again removed from the community, and placed with a white foster family in Cairns.

But she displayed precocious sexual behaviour and, her foster parents warned the authorities, was offering sex in exchange for cigarettes and alcohol.

Despite that, she was allowed to return to Aurukun for a funeral last year, and to stay on. Within weeks, as well as being gang-raped, she had been raped on at least six other occasions. She went to the community clinic and asked for a pregnancy test and condoms. Tests showed she had gonorrhoea. Child safety officials were alerted, but they did not notify police.


Not only is she 10, but she is "intellectually disabled"...I'm fairly certain that no sane person would argue that she was able or should have been able to consent. That said, she *did* go to the clinic and ask for a pregnancy test and condoms, so she was not completely unaware of the potential consequences of sex. Her level of awareness shouldn't matter, regardless, because she is 10 YEARS OLD. Combined with such an awful history of sexual abuse, I can't imagine what the judge could possibly have been thinking. I doubt she was.
"A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests