Wednesday, August 07, 2013
It's anything but "inappropriate" to point out a girl's sexual experience and predatory nature
The idiotic furore over the comments here in the UK by a judge and a barrister leading to a merely suspended sentence of a man who had sex with a thirteen-year-old point up the nasty absurdity of the current PC-fascist ideological line on sex and the persecution of men this causes.
It could not be more material to the case that the girl at issue was "predatory" and "sexually experienced", and "looked older than her age". These are not "inappropriate", as the CPS falsely claims, but highly pertinent comments. It is a risible tautology to claim, as have malicious political organisations masquerading as children's charities, that sexual activity is not something that individuals can bring on themselves. It is said that children – arbitrarily defined as someone under 18, when scientifically it is someone under eleven or ten (the current average age of puberty) – cannot be complicit in their own abuse; but this is to hold from the outset that abuse has been committed. Abuse self-evidently is not perpetrated when the initiator is the individual supposedly abused. Sexual activity per se self-evidently cannot be harmful to an individual who is well accustomed to it and enjoys it to the extent of going out of her way to initiate it. The establishment is upset in the present case because it points up the draconian and here indeed inappropriate application of what is an insane law.
Of course this thirteen-year-old girl looked older than her age: thirteen-year-old girls are three years post-puberty. They are young women, not children. Age thirteen used to be the age-of-consent in the UK until one of the periodic bouts of hysteria about sex took hold. This was the bogus 'white slave trade' notion in the late nineteenth century. Recently (two decades back) we've had the 100% bogus 'satanic ritual abuse' craziness, and we're now going through the just as empty Savile witch-hunt (see my previous posts). When the age-of-consent was thirteen, the average age of female puberty was seventeen. Seventeen. If we were to revert to the status quo ante, then the age-of-consent would be about six.
The attitudes currently prevailing are a serious blot on our scientifically, historically and culturally illiterate culture, that is going to look medieval in years to come when PC-fascist ideology has imploded under the weight of its own fraudulent internal inconsistency and oppressiveness.
Of course this thirteen-year-old girl looked older than her age: thirteen-year-old girls are three years post-puberty. They are young women, not children. Age thirteen used to be the age-of-consent in the UK until one of the periodic bouts of hysteria about sex took hold. This was the bogus 'white slave trade' notion in the late nineteenth century. Recently (two decades back) we've had the 100% bogus 'satanic ritual abuse' craziness, and we're now going through the just as empty Savile witch-hunt (see my previous posts). When the age-of-consent was thirteen, the average age of female puberty was seventeen. Seventeen. If we were to revert to the status quo ante, then the age-of-consent would be about six.
The attitudes currently prevailing are a serious blot on our scientifically, historically and culturally illiterate culture, that is going to look medieval in years to come when PC-fascist ideology has imploded under the weight of its own fraudulent internal inconsistency and oppressiveness.
# posted by Steve Moxon @ 7:28 am 
