Why "sex crimes" should be abolished

[Steve R]

It should be noted that the age of consent in Spain and Japan is 13.

The age of consent is 14 in Germany, Austria, Italy, Portugal, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Kosovo and Serbia. It is also 14 in China and in most of South America.

Interestingly, although the age of consent in Cyprus is 17, a boy as young as 13 may have anal intercourse with a woman.

[BGAFD Admin]

Alice In Blunderland wrote:

> A final note to BGAFD Admin, I am glad you have read Mike's
> blueprint & find it does not trivialise rape in any way-
> certainly I am sure many rape victims who did not suffer a
> knife injury or suchlike, would also like Mike & yourself think
> their attacker should get off lighter for showing such
> compassion for their wellbeing while violating her.

If you read Mike's post he clearly states "This does not mean of course that people who commit violence or other illegal means to obtain non consensual sex should be allowed to get away with it but indeed the opposite and that the guilty should be punished severely. "

The problem is far too many people have voiced their opinions on what they think Mike has said or what other people are saying he has said without actually bothering to read what it is he actually has said.

> Far from being a mob, I have to agree with the Huffers who have
> come out in unity against Mike's disgusting views on rape &
> child pornography, in that the lack of response here has been
> worrying-

Yes, many of whom also openly admit they haven't actually read Mike's posts either ...

[BGAFD Admin]

randyandy wrote:

> Not sure how being against someone who wants to shag kids and
> posting replies to comments on the subject turns things into a
> witch hunt but as mentioned I go with the mods decision.
>
> Its is their forum and their rules after all.

I refer you to our previous comments on this.

[eroticartist]

Steve R,

I don't know what sentences are "commensurate" with the usual use of the laws on violence in English Law but because I am suggesting that the law on violence be used in a different way I am sure that a judge would be able to fix a sentence that fitted the crime.

These days, I know politicians try to control the sentences judges can award for political reasons and that is another aspect of contempory law I think should be stopped and sentencing power returned to judges so that judges are free to award an appropriate sentence.

Mike Freeman.

[Steve R]

Hello Mike.

Well, if rape were to be dealt with under the Offences Against The Person Act, a rape in which the victim received, for example, a bruise (Section 47: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm), would, most likely, result in a suspended sentence or fine.

A rape in which the victim received, for example, a cut (Section 20: Inflicting bodily injury, with or without weapon), might result in a sentence of one year, or less.

I cannot believe this would be your intention, would it?

[eroticartist]

Harmonyluvver,

Thank you for your post and I quite agree with your statement: "Our legal system is, rightly or wrongly based upon tradition and precedent we have a long tradition of christianity in this country therefore it is no surprise that many laws are derived from christian dogma." And there you have hit the nail on the head because the underlying problem is religion and its Christian moral values and that is why the law should be changed in a secular society.

I am not saying that "violation is irrelevant"but the opposite and once a person is found guilty of using violence to obtain sex against a person's will this aggravating factor should attract an even more severe sentence than is usual in findings of guilt where violence is used in less abusive ways.

"Sex is not an emotion sex is a physical act." You say but sexual desire is an emotion that is satisfied by a physical act I believe?

You say:"If a 15 yr old boy has sex with a 14 and a half year old girl they need educating not criminalising. You cant bully kids with the law, only hope to educate and set an example and through that change their attitudes." Whereas I think that if a fifteen year old boy has sex with a 14 year old girl that this is perfectly natural and it is the people who try stop them who are perverse and furthermore that it is the authoritarian attitudes of those control freaks in power that need to be altered. The only education that the youth of the UK needs is how to use the free contraception that the state should provide.

Mike Freeman

[Sam Slater]

OK....the admin here think there's nothing in it which would deem it deletable, so I'll give it a go.

(FAO: Admin - If you're referring to me re the one who 'openly admits to not reading MIke's post,' this is indeed true. And if you look back, I have not commented on it because of this fact. I have never stated, either, that his post be removed; infact, I've actually questioned my fellow Huffers on the very point of censorship. The most I've said about Mike was that he 'scared me,' and that his posts and theories were 'worrying' or 'strange' (or words to that affect). Hardly 'torch wielding' stuff (this is if your metaphors were for me, anyway).

My reason for not reading Mike's post, at first, was because the last time I did, he clicked on a link to some sort of blog where men were talking about children in a way that not only worried me, but made me feel like I'd committed a crime in just reading enough to realise I should 'browse away' as soon as possible. You'll probably remember the link as you actually deleted that post, along with the link, pretty fast if I recall correctly.

Anyway, now the record's straight on this, I'll hope my motivations and behaviour is/was understandable.)

------------------------------------------------

Here goes.....

On sexual need and Mike's analogies.

[quote]Sex is neither wrong nor right but a human emotion that has to be satisfied, an analogy being hunger for example.[/quote]

You start off with a little ignorance here, Mike. Sex can be both wrong and right depending on circumstances and cultural etiquette; and hunger cannot be used as a good analogy because sex does not need to be satisfied to keep the individual organism alive. Sex is a means of passing on genes, and to do this an organism would have to reach maturity without dying of disease, starvation or being eaten. Our 'fight or flight' instincts, our disgust of faeces and the smell of rotting flesh, as well as the craving for food are much more important and stronger than the need for sex.


Regarding sexual repression by religious and state authoritarianism.

You seem to have some of your facts correct, but the causations are naively thought out.

Religions, for the most part, love people to have sex! Catholics are unable to use contraception for instance, and when a Muslim woman isn't pregnant she is said to be 'ungrateful for the gift God gave her i.e: the gift of giving birth! (another contradiction from the Old Testament where it seems God gave the 'pain of birth to woman for as a punishment for Eve's manipulating Adam). Homosexuality is frowned upon because it is sex without propagating the species, isn't it? Catholicism and Islam could never grow if all the gays were at it! No, no, no....it's made a sin and the gays must get themselves wives so they can produce more Muslims/Christians/Jews.

Religion, as you state, is all about control, and so to solidify this control, they first need to fight off other, rival religions. This is why Non-Muslims/Catholics (I think Jews as well) have to convert to the religion before marrying a person of that religion, and consequently, bringing up their children in that particular faith. Again, it's about propagation, but propagation of the religion through propagation of the species.

Sexual repression is actually pretty common in all societies and religions, but the shame and repression come mainly from the society and cultures themselves. The religions fall into line with the cultures because if you want to control people, it's about concessions; a totally controlling religion would never survive for long because people need to see it as something worthwhile, or good.

Genetic biologists involved with the theory of natural selection are pretty certain that a lot of cultural pressures and repression regarding sex is a way to ensure male genetic lines are not infiltrated by inferior genes (infidelity by the female leads to fathers wasting valuable effort and recourses bringing up other mens' children) and safe stable environments for children to grow to an age where they can breed themselves (infidelity by the male may mean he abandons families and children starve etc). It's only now, in the western world, where we have an abundance of recourses that sexual repression isn't really needed, but in past times it may have actually been a good way of protecting yourself from death.


On current sex laws and Mike's theories on changing them.

[quote]The reason I feel that the crime of rape, for example, should be removed from English Law and the laws on violence used instead is because such terms such as ?rape? are sexual it can lead to injustice.[/quote]

But all crimes can lead to injustice, Mike. Why are you so concerned about injustice via false rape allegations? There's much more injustice by rapists getting away with it, than non-rapists being charged due to it being a hard crime to judge on; it's a man's word against a woman's as to if she said 'no' or not and your theory about just judging by the amount of force used, by way of assault, I can't see where this would either make it easier to get a conviction or lower the number of false convictions.

If I was in some hotel and heard a woman screaming for help as she was being raped, upon being questioned by the police, my statement wouldn't hold much weight if the victim had no cuts or bruises (remember some women are so traumatised they don't even attempt to fight back and just lay there, wishing for it to be over as quickly as possible, or they think that fighting back may encourage the rapist to injure or kill them). Since I saw no assault, and there's no evidence of assault on the victim, my statement that I heard her screaming is worthless. At least if she got raped under the current law of giving consent, I could at least produce evidence that she didn't! Your theory isn't thought out at all and not only stupid, but a danger to women.

[quote]This does not mean of course that people who commit violence or other illegal means to obtain non consensual sex should be allowed to get away with it but indeed the opposite and that the guilty should be punished severely.[/quote]

I'm glad you said that, but you fail to say in what way? If you're going to bring out such a long-winded, wearisome essay on how the current rape laws should be changed, how come you've skipped over the pitfalls in one measly sentence, that admits there should be punishment to prevent loopholes in your law, but fails to give any detail on how this would be implemented. When you write essays, Mike, you're supposed to think things through, not smoke a load of skunk and hammer away at the keyboard. Certain drugs may give you a more creative mind, Mike, but when dealing with the law, being fucking creative isn't on the agenda. Common sense, logic and reason take precedence I'm afraid.

I'll finish here, as the rest of your post goes on about authoritarianism and murder, which isn't part of the original debate. Your mind seems to wonder a lot, and while you call it an essay about sexual laws, can I put forward a more apt title?

"The digressions of a paranoid."

There, I read it....and what a load of crap it was too.

[BGAFD Admin]

Alice In Blunderland wrote:

> The main problem is people find it hard to read Mikes words due
> to the awful style he uses, both visually & in the amount of
> irrelevant detail he uses, that has nothing to do with the
> current world.

Don't disagree with that. But at the same time we wouldn't expect anyone who hasn't read it to indulge in the levels of abuse we've witnessed. To do so shows an astonishing level of ignorance in this particular mod's opinion.

> I am concerned however that BGAFD Admin who say they wish to
> remain impartial then decry anybody who disagrees with Mike's
> frankly vile views as a mob conducting a witch hunt etc.

Where have we decried anybody who disagrees with Mike? A number of posters on this thread and others have put forward their own balanced views of why they disagree and the reasons, and we welcome that kind of intelligent discussion.

Fact is, we don't expect many people will agree with Mike. That doesn't mean he shouldn't have the right to express his opinions and put forward his views though (as long as those views remain within the bounds of what's legal).

Calls for him to be banned, people threatening to leave the forums unless he is removed, accusations of being a paedophile and other assorted abuse, all made by people who clearly haven't read any of the detail of what he's actually written - that's what we decry and that's where the mob/witch hunt analogy comes from.

[harmonyluvver]

Our laws need a huge overhaul. Problem is that the job is so huge governments are not willing to tackle it and the issues that will inevitably arise when some people want a law and others want it abolished.

So are you saying that the violation would carry a set sentence and then be extended or a separate sentence for the violence ?

If I am hungry and I eat my deisre for food is sated by eating, is hunger therefore an emotion? I think its a desire for sex and as we are all greater than the sum of our parts we are all capable of controlling physical desires and of controlling our emotions rather than them controlling us.

In one respect human beings are animals and animals copulate to reproduce and they do so without age limits. However human beings have the capacity for higher reason which means that we are aware of the physical and mental damage that can be caused by sex at an early age. The 14 year old body is still in the midst of its changes and banging away like a benobo chimp could well cause long term damage, inceasing the risk of cervical cancer and so on.
Yes reproduction is a natural thing in animals. Again though you have to come back to the fact that you cannot simply use animals to rationalise human behaviour. Human beings more often than not do not get together to create a new life, they do it because it's pleasurable, and kids who do it are, in the vast majority of cases, doing it for that reason too. The other reason that kids do it is that more and more often it is the only way they have of expressing what they think is love which to me proves beyond a shadow of a doubt their mental immaturity, thus showing they are not ready for sex.
As I said before the most sinister problem of lowering the age to 14 would be that 14 year old kids would be too open to manipulation by unscrupulous "adults".
I do agree that our government is "too much power in too few hands" and that those hands are too often inept or more interested in appearing to be moral than making good decisions too benefit the population and that our sex education programme is next to useless. I do not believe the answer is lowering the age of consent though.