McAz wrote:There is no point in having a law protecting children from sexual abuse if it can be circumvented simply because someone asserts that the victim enjoyed it. She got banged up entirely justifiably for her crime.
In the eyes of the law thats correct but it does beg the question that if someone 'enjoys' something how is that going to hurt them mentally?
I tell you what is more likely to hurt him mentally, being groomed, badgered and brow beaten by interested parties telling him that what happened was disgusting and filthy and against the law and if he doesn't give her up, he is likely to spend the rest of his life in and out of nuthouses because of the trauma of thinking he liked it when he was told he couldn't possibly have and it's all in his mind.
In ten years time he could very well top himself over the guilt of enjoying something that put someome in prison for 5 years and ruined their lives.
There is a reason for the blanket coverage of laws which clearly need to have 'degrees' of seriousness attached to them and it's all about keeping the figures up for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
No-one in their right mind would equate say a 21 year old woman and a 15 year old boy having some hanky panky to say someone raping a 5 year old kid, yet they are covered by law in exactly the same way and that is ludicrous.