4 years each is not enough for Rape esp. with early release

[Mandy]

[web]https://society.guardian.co.uk/children/ ... 54,00.html[/web]

4 years each is not enough for Rape ..

Keith Fenn was a pre-meditated attack on a girl (irrespective of her age) in a park, whilst Simon Foster was statutory rape with the consent of the girl who said she was 15, and he claims he thought she was 16.

If Simon Foster deserved 4 years, then Keith Fenn deserves 8+ years

[web]https://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headline ... k_here.php[/web]

p.s. The government is sending mixed messages to teenagers .. they seem to say it is OK to have sex & get pregnant or take contraceptives -- as long as the partner is around your age .. but then when some teenagers pair up with an older person, then the book is thrown at them. FYI, I am v. much against pre-marital sexual relations. Children are bombarded with adverts and TV with sexual connotations -- so much that if they don't have a steady boyfriend and a "perfect" figure, they start having mental problems.

[Skylace]

While my views on pre-marital sex are different from yours (I quite enjoyed all of mine) I do have a problem with young teen having sex. There may only be a three year difference between a 14 year old and a 17 year old but developmentally (social, emotional and physical) there is a vast difference. When one is 20 and 23 the playing field it is a much more level playing field.
They media can help create problems, yes, but if the parents aren't stepping in as well to explain things and setting good examples there's an issue. I, for one, had parents that screened what I watched and also explained a lot of different things to me about sex and reality.
Furthermore, all of my personal issues related to my body and self are not in any way tied to TV but instead to the bastards in school who gave me hell for four years.
The US has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the West. And I blame this on abstinence only programs. I believe this firmly because the town I came from in New Mexico had the highest teen pregnancy rate in the NATION and is still in the top 10 and they refuse to teach an abstinence plus program.
If you don't arm the teens with all the facts and what they can do to prefect pregnancy and disease, they aren't going to be as educated in the heat of the moment.

As for rape. I think the way our court systems handle most rape cases is disgusting.

[Mandy]

There may only be a three year difference between a 14 year old and a 17 year old but developmentally (social, emotional and physical) there is a vast difference.

Girls at 14 are probably 2 to 3 years more advanced development wise than boys .. so a 14 year old girl & a 17 year old boy might be developmentally at the same level ..

[Skylace]

There may only be a three year difference between a 14 year old and a 17 year old but developmentally (social, emotional and physical) there is a vast difference.

Girls at 14 are probably 2 to 3 years more advanced development wise than boys .. so a 14 year old girl & a 17 year old boy might be developmentally at the same level ..

No. That is a common misconception. Girls develop faster than boys in their own age level. A 17 year old male may emotionally be able to relate to a 14 year old girl because three years but he is still going to have much more social development than she has.

[Mandy]

I agree that the extra years will enhance social development, but physically, I will quote from
https://www.sparknotes.com/psychology/ps ... ion4.rhtml
"The adolescent growth spurt actually begins during pubescence, at about age eleven in girls and about age thirteen in boys. At this time, children get taller and heavier and develop secondary sex characteristics."

That's the 2 years gap I was referring to.

[Skylace]

There may only be a three year difference between a 14 year old and a 17 year old but developmentally (social, emotional and physical) there is a vast difference.

Girls at 14 are probably 2 to 3 years more advanced development wise than boys .. so a 14 year old girl & a 17 year old boy might be developmentally at the same level ..

No. That is a common misconception. Girls develop faster than boys in their own age level. A 17 year old male may emotionally be able to relate to a 14 year old girl because three years but he is still going to have much more social development than she has.

I agree that the extra years will enhance social development, but physically, I will quote from
https://www.sparknotes.com/psychology/ps ... ion4.rhtml
"The adolescent growth spurt actually begins during pubescence, at about age eleven in girls and about age thirteen in boys. At this time, children get taller and heavier and develop secondary sex characteristics."

That's the 2 years gap I was referring to.

Yes but that is physical growth. Not social and emotional. There is a vast difference.
At 12 years old a female may be able to become pregnant and carry a child to term, but socially and emotionally she is a 12 year old still.
Social and emotional development do not mirror physical development. That is why a 14 year and 17 year old are vastly different with the 3 year difference.
Studies are being done into the development in the teenage/adolescent brain and it is showing that the brains of teens/adolescents are actually rewiring during puberty. This would mean that a 14 year old and 17 year old actually process information differently.
But the biggest fact is still the social and emotional development are on totally different levels at these ages. When we reach adulthood this discrepancy evens out and the age difference doesn't matter.

[Mandy]

Skylace, I am not disagreeing on what you are saying. What I am saying is that I believe that physical development is the driving force at those ages, and younger girls tend to go out with older boys. I think studies have shown that a 2 - 4 year gap in age at marriage time is optimal for maximising the number of children a couple have, so there is possibly a "rational" (from an evolutionary perspective) for girls to go out with older boys.

[Skylace]

Skylace, I am not disagreeing on what you are saying. What I am saying is that I believe that physical development is the driving force at those ages, and younger girls tend to go out with older boys. I think studies have shown that a 2 - 4 year gap in age at marriage time is optimal for maximising the number of children a couple have, so there is possibly a "rational" (from an evolutionary perspective) for girls to go out with older boys.

From the studies I have read, that is not the case. Physical development is a factor, but brain development is as well. A 17 year old male that dates a 14 year old female is usually doing it because she is easily persuaded because she does not have the life experience. Not saying that all 17 year old males are driven that way, but there is a vast difference there. Much more than the 20 year old and 23 year old.
I understand what you are saying. But you have to understand I am coming from a stand point where I have taken child/adolescent/adult development classes and had to work with children/adolescents/adults for around 15 years. I am just not seeing what you are. But once again, that is where I am coming from. My masters is in Psych and I specialized in children and teens.
I have read no studies that say the 2-4 year age gap maximizes the number of children a couple have.
However, I do agree you are allowed to your hypothesis. Psychology is far from exact. I can only speak from what I have learned, continue to learn and have seen in my work.

[Mandy]

We are all learning ... fyi, the study is :

[web]https://rss.xinhuanet.com/newsc/english/ ... 623173.htm[/web]

I found it via https://www.spiderednews.com/Pregnancy.htm

[Skylace]

Interesting. But it seems to me there would be other factors to take into consideration. Not just biological. Like the fact that a male that is four-six years older than a female is more than likely to have a bit of, if not already, stable career and be making some money which gives the female the comfort that she and her young would be taken care of. Which when most parents are interviewed, they say is a contributing factor to how many children they have.

[nekokate]

FYI, I am v. much against pre-marital sexual relations.

In what way are you against it? Just your own personal philosophy or do you actively advocate a ban?

I'm always irked when people say things like that - perhaps because I run a fetish website and I love shagging - but it does seem like people are trying to impose their own values on me when talking about opposition to pre-marital sex. Especially considering that some people (me included) don't even want to get married in my life. Are you saying I should never have sex unless I've got my finger in a ring? (pun probably intended...)

Are you maybe just talking about pre-marital sex between teenagers, or do you oppose it even between 20-somethings?

[Mandy]

Just my personal philosophy. But i am not judgmental, in the same vein in that I would recommend someone not to smoke, if they do, it is their choice. Indeed, I campaign against any discrimination against any one for their sexuality between consenting adults.

Of-course I don't advocate a ban. It is way too fascists .. but don't put it past Bush & his extreme religious following.

[Marcella-FL]

I think studies have shown that a 2 - 4 year gap in age at marriage time is optimal for maximising the number of children a couple have, so there is possibly a "rational" (from an evolutionary perspective) for girls to go out with older boys.

Then there is hubby and I throwing all the studies out the window ... he is 18 months younger than I and we have 4 kids which we started having when I was 29.

I think the young girl dating older boy thing is societal not psychological. We have created the opinion that it is ok for girls to date beyond their years ... it wasn't that long ago when 16 year old girls were the ideal and an acceptable choice for adult males. (think of all the songs from the 50's) and not in a kiddie porn sort of way. Thinking back to when I was a young girl I KNOW I wasn't as ready for what I was into as I thought I was. I have no regrets but I hope my daughter waits a few years longer than I did.

[Skylace]

I think studies have shown that a 2 - 4 year gap in age at marriage time is optimal for maximising the number of children a couple have, so there is possibly a "rational" (from an evolutionary perspective) for girls to go out with older boys.

Then there is hubby and I throwing all the studies out the window ... he is 18 months younger than I and we have 4 kids which we started having when I was 29.

I think the young girl dating older boy thing is societal not psychological. We have created the opinion that it is ok for girls to date beyond their years ... it wasn't that long ago when 16 year old girls were the ideal and an acceptable choice for adult males. (think of all the songs from the 50's) and not in a kiddie porn sort of way. Thinking back to when I was a young girl I KNOW I wasn't as ready for what I was into as I thought I was. I have no regrets but I hope my daughter waits a few years longer than I did.

Exactly. And you show an excellent example.
I also agree with the time perspective. You mentioned the 50s, I'll mention even further back to just a hundred years ago when girls were married off at 14, 15, 16 and expected to start having children. Our society has lengthened childhood considerable since the 1930s and 40s.
If we had still be single in our late teens and early 20s our parents would have been sweating it.
Or look at other cultures. My friend from India is 31 and unmarried. When she was 21 and unmarried her parents were about ready to die!
I tend to believe it leans more towards society. And when a 14 year old girl sees a 17 year old boy, she isn't driven to start a family (most of the time) instead she has bragging rights to her friends and feels more "grown up"

[luke]

I run a fetish website

before anyone else searches, its not called nekokates fetish site, i know, i looked the last time she mentioned it