When it comes to excusing child rape, the United Kingdom never disappoints. Of all the reasons one could think of to not imprison someone, deafness does not make the top of the list. Yet a UK judge felt that two sisters who habitually raped a boy for 14 years should not face jail time because they cannot hear:
Two sisters who sexually abused a boy over a 14-year period have been spared jail because they are both deaf and would experience ‘complete isolation’ in prison.
Julie Fellows, 30, and her sister Jennifer, 32, of Kington, Herefordshire, began molesting the victim when he was just six and then again when he was a teenager. […]
Julie was found guilty following a trial of indecently assaulting a boy aged six to nine between October 2000 and April 2004 and sexual activity with a boy aged between 13 and 17 by between October 2008 and October 2010.
Jennifer admitted gross indecency with a child under 16 between October 2000 and April 2004 and inciting a male child aged between 13 and 17 to engage in non-penetrative sexual activity between October 2008 and October 2010.
That sounds rather serious, however, Judge Robert Juckes did not agree. He decided to spare the sisters any jail time because the sisters’ disabilities would put them in “a state of complete isolation” in prison. Juckes made the decision despite sentencing guidelines recommending one year in jail for Jennifer and six years in prison for Julie.
Juckes explained his decision:
‘This is a depressing and disturbing case.
‘You Jennifer were ten years older than the victim and the abuse was limited to masturbating in front of him and getting him to masturbate in front of you.
‘Later when he got to the age of 14 and you were 24 or 25 you persuaded him further and again to masturbate in front of you and you did that by referring back to what he had been prepared to do at the age of six.
‘You pleaded guilty on the basis that there was no touching of either of you by the other.
‘In your case Julie the abuse began when he was six and you were about 14 but progressed to the point where you fellated him.
‘When he was over the age of 16, probably 15 rather than 15, as a visitor in your house it led to full sexual intercourse on one occasion.
Again, that sounds very serious. It sounds like these two sisters systematically preyed on a boy, grooming him for years, exploiting his trust and love for them in order to use him for sex. It also appears that their attraction includes prepubescent children, suggesting two sisters may fit the description of a pedophile.
The proper response to this type of case should involve prison time considering that these women abused the boy for 14 years. Juckes, however, disagreed:
‘The conclusion I’ve come to is that a custodial sentence in your case would be wholly inappropriate and the reasons are the disability you have, the fact you’re about to give birth and the fact that you have lost a child recently.
So apparently deafness excuses child rape. Pregnancy excuses child rape. Miscarriage excuses child rape.
Never mind that the sisters’ disability did not prevent them from manipulating and abusing the victim for a decade and a half. Never mind that the rape and abuse occurred prior to any pregnancy or miscarriage. The facts of when the abuse happened do not matter. These two suffer from deafness and one will give birth, therefore they should not go to prison.
Juckes continued:
‘I do not in any way overlook the effect of this on the victim.
Nonsense. This completely overlooks the effect of the abuse and the sentencing on the victim. Let us look at they did to him:
The sister began abusing the boy when he was six years old. They would walk him home from school and take him into local gas stations and make him masturbate or make him watch them masturbate. According to the prosecutor, this went on so long the boy thought it was normal and that the sisters loved him. This prolonged abuse created a situation that made it rather easy for Julie to later rape the boy:
Julie later moved in with her fiance Adam and the victim was sitting on the sofa with Julie watching TV while Adam was asleep.
She started a conversation with him about what used to happen and she put his hand down her trousers.
She told him he needed to lose his virginity and said: ‘Who would you rather lose it to?’
She got him to get onto his knees and they had intercourse for a short period of time.
The impact on the victim ruined him. He did not realize anything was wrong until he spoke with some friends. As a result of the abuse, the victim faced emotional trauma and problems in his relationships. He turned to alcohol and drugs to cope.
With all that in mind, Judge Juckes gave these women a pass because:
‘Both of you have led constructive lives.
‘The disability you both have is that you suffer from profound deafness and it’s a degenerative condition that’s getting worse in both of your cases.
‘Neither of you can lip read but you have both developed high skills in sign language and that has been a remarkable thing to witness in court.
‘These are not facilities I presume that are available in prison.
‘For the length of time you would be there your ability to communicate would be extremely limited.
‘You would be living in a state of complete isolation.’
They get a pass because they led “constructive lives” as they abused a child for almost two decades. They get a pass because their condition will get worse over time. They get a pass because they cannot read lips, but can sign . They get a pass because no one in jail or prison may know sign language.
They get to walk out of court after admitting to grooming and sexually abusing a child starting from when he was six years old because they may not be able to talk to other people while imprisoned.
Due to this, Juckes decided to issue a two-year prison sentence for Julie, suspended for two years, and a one-year jail sentence for Jennifer, suspended for one year. He placed them under a 12-month supervision, ordered 30 sessions of sex offender treatment, and placed them under a five-year restraining order preventing contact with the victim. They otherwise face no penalty, including Jennifer maintaining custody of her three-year-old son.
As if that were not bad enough, Juckes previously stated, after granting the sisters bail:
‘This is not a straightforward case.
‘You should expect very significant prison sentences.’
If by “significant” he meant “inexplicable”, that would be an accurate statement.
What baffles me is that these women’s “profound deafness” did not stop them from communicating with or abusing the boy. It is possible the boy is also deaf. I do not recall any article stating his condition, but it would explain how he knew the sisters. It also demonstrate that these women’s condition did not impede their ability to do whatever they wanted. If the boy is not deaf, it would demonstrate that these women are more than capable of communicating with people who may not know sign language.
Either way, their deafness is no excuse to absolve them of child rape. Perhaps the most infuriating element is that they are clearly predatory. They stopped abusing the boy for a period of time, and then started again. Why reward them with no jail time?
Toy Soldiers 
Pingback: The Deaf Excuse: when disability (and femaleness) absolve child rape – Manosphere.org
People who comment on these cases seem to be under the delusion that the teenage boys involved are some kind of delicate little Lord Fauntleroys who would horribly traumatized by sex. Au contraire. I peaked sexually at 14, and I, along with just about every other kid around the same age that I knew had an all consuming desire for sexual intercourse. We were pussy hounds of the first order, searching with passionate frenzy for a Mrs. Robinson. Wish the hell I had known someone like Julie when puberty came on like gangbusters at age 12. Indeed, re so-called “abuse,” a comedian put it best when he said that the real victim was not the kid who had sex, but the next guy in line hoping to get laid, too.
Terry, I am not sure why people think this kind of argument would work with me, particularly in this case. These women began abusing the boy when he was six years old. No six year old is a “pussy hound”. And even if the boy were sex obsessed at 14, two adult women should know not to have sex with him.
This ridiculous excuse that because boys have a sex drive it is okay to rape them is the precise logic that pedophiles use.
I have no patience for it, particularly in this case. You are more than welcome to make excuses for child rape. But do not think I will entertain it as anything more than a pedophilic, masturbatory fantasy.
I suspect the genders of the perpetrators and victim played a part in the sentencing rather than the perpetrators deafness. Compare with this case from last year: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/deaf-paedophile-who-tried-meet-6207438
Thanks for the article, Tamen. It shows the glaring double standard at play. The man in the article received 3 years in prison for trying to abuse a child. These two women actual rape and abuse a child for over a decade and receive suspended sentences.
While this case is egregious, I have noticed a trend to less leniancy extended to women in the last couple of years. That is good. Stuff like this needs to be publicized more.
Isn’t putting them in “a state of complete isolation” the whole point of prison anyway?
Another case of women who need to learn their place. Actually, all females need to learn their place no matter the age or what they do. I am a definite advocate on that.
I’m so glad people are showcasing what females are like.
I could never raise daughters, and I’m glad most on here seem to agree with me.
Hey Terry, I’m sure there are 15 year old chicks who would love to have you as their pimp.
There is a high school in my neighborhood, I be I can scrounge up some numbers and lure them to you.
I think part of the problem here, and granted I usually think this is part of the problem, is that the sex acts they performed and forced the victim to perform were typical of the stuff female perpetrators get off on and therefore mostly don’t count.
Of course in the UK rape laws specifically apply only to men, but even a lot of the sexual assualt laws contain terminology such as:
(a and b describe male-on-female rape)
(c)penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or
(d)penetration of a person’s mouth with B’s penis,
I’m not saying female perpetrators can’t force their victims to penetrate, or that it never happens. I just think a lot of women who choose to rape simply aren’t after that, and laws should recognize that. There were two female rapists here, and in 14 years of continuous abuse, described as weekly at certain points, only one of them wished to be penetrated. And she only wanted that one time. The other only wanted to be orally penetrated one time.
I don’t think this is all that unusual and it shouldn’t really be all that surprising if you think about how men’s and women’s tastes differ when it comes to consensual sex. A female rapist does not care about her victim so she won’t care about his satisfaction from the encounter, she just wants to do the part she likes best. For a lot of women, that’s just foreplay.
Well, lots of interesting replies to my comments on why I, at 14, and most of the other 14 year old boys I knew, would loved to have had sex with an older woman.
I was intrigued with the reply by River, who suggests, in a critical and condemning manner, “what females are like,” and that they therefore need “to learn their place.” River thus comes across as one of these insecure guys with a fragile male ego who considers the proper place of women to be subservient to men. And certainly not sexually aggressive.
And then River’s disordered mind descends from antiquated chauvinism to the bizarre idea that “there are 15 year old chicks” who would love to have me as their pimp. Which is not only completely off topic, but something with which I have no interest at all.
Other comments make some good points, but the main thing I was trying to say is that when I was 14, I, and most of the other teenage boys I knew, would not consider sex with an older woman to be rape, or any kind of abuse at all, but the joyful fulfillment of our masturbatory fantasies. In fact, studies indicate that the best match, re libido, is between a 15 year old boy and a 30 year old woman. So I say let nature take its course. In fact, in some cultures not crippled with sexual repression, teenage boys go through a rite of passage that involves an older woman instructing a young man bursting with testosterone on the proper way to pleasure a female.
Every time I’ve read about one of those cases where a female schoolteacher was arrested for supposedly “raping” one of the teenage boys in her class, I thought, “Lucky bastard!” Even a judge in the USA handling such a case commented (off the record), “Where were these teachers when I was in school?” Indeed, sometimes I feel like I was born in the wrong generation.
We are not talking about most 14 year old boys. We are talking about this particular boy, who according to the evidence presented in court had to be coerced into masturbation and later sex. The boy later turned to drugs to cope with the affects of this manipulation and abuse. Clearly he did not “love” what happened, otherwise he would have responded differently.
The second issue is that 14 year old boys would love to do a host of things, none of which are appropriate for them to do. It would be wrong for an adult to tattoo a 14 year old boy’s face, allow him to fly a jet, to do drugs, or have sex with adults. I live with teenage boys and I was one myself. I understand how teenage libido works. That does not mean, however, that they are not being manipulated or abused. Plenty of sex offenders use teens natural desire for sex as a means of controlling them.
That is true. However, there is a difference between a fantasy and reality. In reality, when women have sex with boys, they tend to emotionally manipulate them, using the sex and their relationship as a means of control, particularly once the novelty of having sex with an adult woman wears off. They groom the boys to ensure that boys are dependent emotionally on them, and will threaten the boy’s social status should he attempt to break off contact. Or sometimes the women will break off the contact and ignore the boy, who still thinks this woman loves him when she had no interest in him at all. Or sometimes the women will guilt trip or use threats of violence to keep the boy from leaving or telling anyone.
Even if it never reaches the point of coercion or violence, reality has another element at play: potential pregnancy. There are cases, like the one I just wrote about today, in which the woman becomes pregnant. Now you have a boy barely in high school having to father a child.
You can have your fantasies, but that does not mean that reality will reflect them. The reality is that these situations tend to go bad, usually because the woman is predatory.
Again, you are welcome to you pedophilic, masturbatory fantasies, but do not think I will entertain them. I live with boys who were raped by women. I am someone who was raped by women. I know first-hand the impact sexual violence committed by women can have, and I do not consider any of the boys “lucky bastards” for being raped.
More importantly, it shows how warped your view is when you read the articles about the boys reporting these cases to the police, hear them talking about the emotional trauma the abuse caused them, and then think “lucky bastard”. This man is drugging and drinking himself into oblivion, and you seem to take as a cue to jerk off.
There is something most disturbing about that.
Terry Lee, this was a SIX YEAR OLD CHILD! A CHILD! What is the logic in comparing a 14 year old, like how you once were, fantasizing about having sex with older women to a venerable, defenseless child who doesn’t know the first thing about the concept of sex and sexual acts groomed and abused over eight years by two adult female predators? Unless you have the gall to insinuate that even six year old boys want to get it on with older women. In this case, it’s apologists like you that add to the difficulty of young male victims coming forward for supports.
And to be honest, Terry, I could care less about your fourteen year old fantasies nor your attempts to paint every boy of the same age with such broad strokes. You had a desire to have sex with older women, fine. But don’t go pushing your fantasies on to other boys whom you’ve never met in your life. Because when fantasy becomes reality, at that age, no boy is prepared to face the consequences. No matter how much you THINK they do.
Terry: “Every time I’ve read about one of those cases where a female schoolteacher was arrested for supposedly “raping” one of the teenage boys in her class, I thought, “Lucky bastard!”
Terry…
On second thought, forget it. Your mind is made up. I just hope that one day you will step back and think about what you’re contributing to this with those two words.
River: “Another case of women who need to learn their place. Actually, all females need to learn their place no matter the age or what they do. I am a definite advocate on that.
I’m so glad people are showcasing what females are like.”
Um, River. You know that just because there are people who care about male victims of all ages and disparage the glaring empathy and sentencing gap doesn’t equal putting every single woman in their place.
River: “I could never raise daughters, and I’m glad most on here seem to agree with me.”
That’s your prerogative. But I’m not going to let women who do bad things detract and distract from raising daughters if I had any. So please, don’t speak for me.
Terry, and Eagle35, women get away with more crime than men do. There is too much freedom in the world for women. They think they can get away with anything. Thats why these two thought they could get away with raping a male child.
If the female species want to be so called “loved” by men that much in society, they need to go back to respecting men like in the old days.
Otherwise there are a lot of men in the world that will have no problem showing these women, and girls, what the deal is. Especially idiotic teenage girls who want to be adults so badly.
Besides girls lie about this stuff all the time. Everyone believes them first. And we’re supposed to teach girls about rape and all that? They are liars. That’s why I’m not sure about having daughters. Because if I had one I would grill her to the T if she claimed some guy did something to her because they like to pretend they are super innocent.
And you all know what I’m talking about.
Your misogynistic comment, “There is too much freedom in the world for women” brings to mind all those men with fragile male egos in the Middle East (and elsewhere) who try to empower their insecure selves by oppressing women.
The message that a lot of people will get from your suggestion that women “need to go back to respecting men like in the old days” will be “women need to be subservient to men like in the old days.” But a truly strong man has no problem interacting with a strong, outspoken woman.
Indeed, I’m always amused the way a lot of so-called tough guys, with all their macho posturing, howl the loudest about women who won’t “stay in their place.” Because behind the blustery theatrics, the posturing and swagger, is a weak man dealing with deep-seated feelings of inadequacy. Which flare up when such a man is confronted with a woman who is stronger than he probably will ever be.
At any rate, your lady issues seem to be causing you to veer off the original topic of this discussion about teenage boys having sex with adult women.
Well, first of all, Eagle35, in your August 23, 2016, 7:35 a.m. posting, you referred to me as having “pedophilic, masturbatory fantasies.” Not true. I think you got yourself so worked up (as often happens in discussions of sexuality) that you twisted the meaning of the word “pedophilic.” Which refers to the nature of a situation in which a prepubescent boy or girl is having sex with an older person. I was (still am) having fantasies of having sex with adult women, and not someone of prepubescent age. When I was 14 and having these fantasies, I was not a pre-puberty, or prepubescent boy. So there was nothing of a prepubescent nature going on at all. You misused the word.
And regarding the misuse of words, at the end of the same posting, you said, “This man is drugging and drinking himself into oblivion, and you seem to take as a cue to jerk off.” And that “there is something most disturbing about that.”
The most disturbing thing I found about those two sentences is that they don’t seem to have any connection with the rest of your posting. Who is “this man” to which you referred? Where did “drugging and drinking into oblivion” enter into this discussion? And most bizarre of all, how is that — or anything else in the post — “a cue to jerk off”? Perhaps as a result of becoming so agitated and working yourself into an accusatory frenzy, you didn’t just misuse a word, but lapsed into nearly incoherent rambling.
In any case, perhaps you could clarify those final two sentences.
I know I need to do something explaining myself. Like how I understand that a six year old having sex can be very damaging and traumatizing. And that I didn’t mean to paint all boys — and particularly the boy in this story — with a broad brush, based on my experiences and fantasies and the thoughts of my boyhood friends.
I heard of some boys — very, very few — who didn’t share the viewpoint of the rambunctious little horn dogs that I ran with.
A rather sensitive kid like that, but of the current generation in the USA, was profiled in the media when he informed on a teacher who was having regular sex with a group of her students. Which, by the way, didn’t involve control, or trauma, etc., but just mutual physical satisfaction. This had been going on for quite some time until the teacher was snitched on by a “lame, goody-goody sissy,” as he was called (among other things).
As a result, the informer was pilloried without mercy, called a faggot, a queer and so forth. In fact, such was the rage against him, he had to leave the school, and his family moved to another town. I even felt compassion for him.
I should explain that when I see the word “rape,” I think of a man forcing a woman or another man to have sex, and not a woman forcing a man or teenage boy to have sex. Yeah, I know, there’s situations where perhaps a vulnerable man or boy doesn’t want to go along with it, isn’t ready and so on. Those seem to be the damaged people you deal with. But I never knew anybody like that.
In any event, what got me going on all this was seeing once more all the fuss people were making about a teenage boy having sex with an older woman. I thought, Oh, here we go again! I think I’ll just put my two cents in on how all the lust-crazed, hormone-charged little gremlins I knew didn’t see this as a problem at all.
That was not Eagle. I made the comment and I stand by it. We can argue about the semantics of the proper use of the word “pedophilic”. My point is that you have fetishized normal teenage fantasies to use them as an excuse for child rape.
The women first targeted the victim in this case when he was six years old. They continued to prey on him for months to the point that he thought it was normal. The abuse then stopped for period of time until the incident when the victim was 14. As I quoted in my post, the woman first coerced the unwilling boy into masturbating and then into sex. He was not sex obsessed, he was not interested in pounding pussy, and he was not living out a teenage fantasy.
He was raped.
Did you read my post? The victim stated that he turned to drugs and alcohol as a result of the abuse. Take the time to read the articles linked in my post.
You appear to find the discussion of a boy being raped to be an invitation to discuss how much you wanted to “pound pussy” at that age. In short, it sounds like you find the boy’s rape arousing.
Yet you did, and when I brought it to your attention you doubled down on that position. Again, I live with teen boys. I know how engrossed they can become with sex. However, their fantasies play out much differently in reality. To use the fantasy of sex with an adult as an excuse for child rape is disturbing and unacceptable.
To further claim that most boys are “little horn dogs” only serves prove my point that this is some masturbatory fantasy of yours. For the third time, I live with teen boys. I volunteer to work with at-risk teens. Most of the boys I encounter are not sex obsessed.
I would suggest that you stop projecting your desires onto other males. I would also suggest that you read men’s accounts of their abuse to better understand what the average male victim experiences.
I think it is more likely that you have met such men and they kept their experiences to themselves because of the views you expressed above.
In other words, you shared your pedophilic, masturbatory fantasy.
River, I do not buy into your logic. While there are instances of women receiving passes for criminal behavior, that has nothing to do with them having too much “freedom”. Women are not slaves and should not be treated as such.
Likewise, they are not a separate species. They are human just like you, and they deserve the same decency and respect you would want to receive.
Found not think that because I criticize women’s bad actions that I will tolerate hatred of women. I do not and will not.
Were you ever touched inappropriately by a woman as a young man? Were you ever accused of touching an idiotic teen who can’t figure out if she wants to be a child or an adult? Do you know anyone who has been through those things? I can answer for those three questions and speak for them.
And my beliefs are what they are. Females want us to believe that for them these are supposed to be enlightened times and demand what they think they deserve. They deserve nothing. First they want to do anything and everything men do only to “prove” they can. Not even because they really want to do it. Mainly to spite us. They lie, and cheat their way out of the system to get what they want. Even when they commit a crime.
And you’ve got me all wrong. I love women. Just not their brains. And I love to enlighten a teenage brat. 😉
My above comment was for Terry.
“I should explain that when I see the word “rape,” I think of a man forcing a woman or another man to have sex, and not a woman forcing a man or teenage boy to have sex. ”
So in other words just a garden variety rape apologist is what you are, Terry Lee. Just own it.
Terry: “I should explain that when I see the word “rape,” I think of a man forcing a woman or another man to have sex, and not a woman forcing a man or teenage boy to have sex. In any event, what got me going on all this was seeing once more all the fuss people were making about a teenage boy having sex with an older woman. I thought, Oh, here we go again! I think I’ll just put my two cents in on how all the lust-crazed, hormone-charged little gremlins I knew didn’t see this as a problem at all.”
River: “And you’ve got me all wrong. I love women. Just not their brains.”
You two deserve each other.
Really Eagle? Really? How exactly so?
I find that comparison insulting especially looking back my life.
This is supposed to be a safe place for men and boys to discuss things and express how they feel especially if its a result of things that have happened to them. So I thought anyway….
You know for Terry, the things he assumes about teenage boys, I could say the same thing he assumes about all teenage boys about the airhead teenage girls…with their annoying curls, and short frilly skirts, and their obsession with their face and nails, taught by older women they are around and see in the media. (At this point, they deserve the so called “uncomfortable” catcalls they all get on the street. They should like it since they want attention so badly). They are taught to compete with each other to impress and fantasize about older boys and men.
Terry has no clue about the world we’re in. The bottom line is girls are taught that they are supposed to be untouchable in every single way, from harm to justice. While men and boys have to “watch it”.
Obviously that is what’s happening more and more and men and boys are bringing it to light.
River, there is a difference between talking about your experiences and stating that half the human population has too much freedom. One is acceptable and the other bigotry. The former has a place here; the latter does not.
I seem to remember some very similar doublethink in an earlier case, where the rapist was in full possession of her faculties.
Nope, it was actually two cases. Lovely.
Toy Soldier,
No disrespect to you, at all. I admire what you do. You are a game changer and it’s going to help a lot of males.
But the things I’ve talked about, a lot of the things about females, even the young ones are very true, and things I have seen and experienced in certain ways.
I pay close attention tof some of these things in many ways. I’m not a bigot, I just believe women should live their lives differently than what is currently going on, and rethink their motives. And I’m not some old man on here, I’m in my early 30’s.
Ginkgo, on August 24, 2016 at 3:40 pm, quoted me (Terry Lee) thusly:
“I should explain that when I see the word “rape,” I think of a man forcing a woman or another man to have sex, and not a woman forcing a man or teenage boy to have sex. ”
In response, Ginkgo replied to me:
“So in other words just a garden variety rape apologist is what you are, Terry Lee. Just own it.”
And in response to Ginkgo I am saying that no, I am not a garden variety or any other variety of rape apologist. I do not condone rape at all, whether the victim is a female or male.
Unfortunately, Ginkgo and many other people use a very broad brush while bandying around the highly inflammatory and accusatory word “rape” without really knowing its legal definition.
In 2012, the Department of Justice in the USA announced a change to the definition of Rape for the Uniform Crime Reporting Program’s Summary Reporting System.
The old definition was “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” Many law enforcement agencies interpreted this definition as excluding a long list of sex offenses that are criminal in most jurisdictions, such as offenses involving oral or anal penetration, penetration with objects, and rapes of males.
The new 2012 Summary definition of Rape is: “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
So according to this more accurate definition, a man can only be raped by a woman if she penetrated his anus with an object. Forcing his erect penis into her vagina is not rape. In fact, all the men and (especially) teenage boys I’ve talked with about this called it “getting lucky.”
But I understand that there are males who can be traumatized by unwanted sex with a female, and I believe that such male victims of non-rape sexual assault should be treated with the same compassion and understanding as female victims who have been truly raped.
Terry, too little too late with your last sentence.
And most females probably don’t even really know if they were raped or not because most females according to statistics knew the men and a lot of these rapes occured during sexual activity between them and they were both drunk. And today’s society allows any chick to cry rape. Especially, the young ones. They were all groomed for this issue.
Men and boys were not. And I don’t believe they would be as quick to falsify rape like women and girls do.
Re your comment on “too little too late,” one lives and one learns, which I did many years ago when forming my awareness of sexual assault and its consequences on both men and women. I apparently did not sufficiently clarify that awareness previously in this discussion.
In any case, re living and learning, it seems you are incapable of learning and correcting your views of women because you speak as if you are not even aware of how twisted and warped (and insecure) you sound. Like when saying women have too much freedom, and that they need to be put in their place, and otherwise remain subservient to men. On and on you go, with one misogynistic (anti-woman) comment after another.
And now you come up with the biggest whopper of all! That is, “most females probably don’t even know if they were raped or not…” Only a person afflicted with appalling ignorance could put forth such an absurd comment.
Indeed, even if a woman was unconscious when raped — and most rape victims are not — when she regains consciousness she knows that she was raped. If you, River, were sodomized while unconscious, I’m sure you could tell, later on, what happened to you.
Terry, it’s like what I said in response to Toy Soldier. I don’t “hate” women I just think the way they live their lives and their thought process should be different. They are groomed to believe they are sugar and spice and automatically should be considered desirable. Therefore, they tend to get away with their dark side.
Men are groomed to believe that a natural dark side exists and not to “let it come out”.
“Indeed, even if a woman was unconscious when raped — and most rape victims are not — when she regains consciousness she knows that she was raped”
Just want to interject a critical fact into this argument: 80% of female campus rape victims were classified as “incapacitated” at the time of rape. Something like 99% of male campus rape victims were incapacitated.
The VAST majority of (adult) rape falls into the category of taking advantage of a passed out drunk person. Every other type of rape is rare.
And where did you get this information?
Thank you Peter. Finally someone on here who understands all what I’m getting at.
Once again, no, Toysoldier, I did not share a pedophilic, masturbatory fantasy. You seem stuck, like a broken record, on this “pedophilic masturbatory fantasy” business which you apparently try to apply to me using very twisted and convoluted thinking. And while seeming not to even know what the world “pedophilic” actually means. There’s no variation in its meaning that would leave room for different interpretations, as you suggested in a later post when saying that you didn’t want to quibble over “semantics.”
When you refer to someone as having pedophilic masturbatory fantasies, you are saying that that person is masturbating while fantasizing about children. And that the person wants to have sex with a child. Furthermore, in the USA, a child is defined in most jurisdictions as a person who has not yet reached puberty.
I have never wanted to have sex with a child, and I have never engaged in masturbatory fantasies about having sex with children, or fantasized about other people having sex with children.
At age 14, when testosterone flooded through my body like Niagara Falls (or Victoria Falls) and puberty came on like a platoon of British Commandos, I began jacking off quite frequently to fantasies of sex with Marilyn Monroe, Sophia Loren, Jayne Mansfield, a local supermarket cashier with big tits, and other women I viewed with blatant sexual objectification during my youth.
That was a very common experience among my peers. Indeed, the American actor, Alec Baldwin, recently talked about trying the drug Viagra. He said its effect was “like when you’re fifteen and jerking off five times a day.” I thought, Jeez, he would have been a hero to the guys on my block because we couldn’t make it past two or three times a day.
At any rate, it appears that some of the more bizarre accusations against me came about because I apparently did not speak my mind as clearly as I should have in some of my previous posts on the original topic. So I want to state quite emphatically that I do not condone an adult having any kind of sexual interaction with a six year old child. And I have compassion for the boys you work with who were traumatized by inappropriate sexual contact. I did not intend to link them with the teenage sexual fantasies I and my peers experienced.
I also want to say that, in the highly agitated and emotional state of mind that sometimes accompanies discussions of sexual abuse (or just sex in general) the word “rape” gets bandied around quite a bit in a very inaccurate manner. Especially by people who seem to just make up their own rather hysteria-based definition of rape without actually knowing the true legal definition.
In 2012, the Department of Justice in the USA announced a change to the definition of Rape for the Uniform Crime Reporting Program’s Summary Reporting System.
The old definition was “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” Many law enforcement agencies interpreted this definition as excluding a long list of sex offenses that are criminal in most jurisdictions, such as offenses involving oral or anal penetration, penetration with objects, and rapes of males.
The new 2012 Summary definition of Rape is: “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
So according to this more accurate definition, a male can only be raped by a woman if she penetrates his anus with an object. Forcing his erect penis into her vagina is not rape (in the USA, nor in the UK, according to legal statutes in both countries). In fact, all the men and especially teenage boys I’ve talked with about this called it “getting lucky.”
But I understand that there are males who can be traumatized by unwanted sex with a female, and I believe that such male victims of non-rape sexual assault should be treated with the same compassion and understanding as female victims who have been truly raped.
Coherency of thought and accurate language can go a long way towards attaining such compassion and understanding.
Terry:
No, what you do is play semantics with the definition. This is what many feminists to get around this accusation. If we take the scenario from this case — in which an adult coerces a child to masturbate for them and to have sex with them — most people would consider this rape.
The only thing that would suddenly make this no longer rape is adding sexes. If the adult is a man and the child is a girl, then it is rape. If the adult is a woman and the child is a boy, it magically becomes not rape, despite no other aspect of the situation changing. The child is still manipulated into performing the act, the child still experiences trauma as a result of the act, and the adult still uses their position of power and trust to use the child for sex.
To argue that it is not rape because of a legal definition, despite the acts being no different than sexes involved, is a fine example of rape apologism. That is not a term I like to bandy around, yet I am inclined to agree with Gingko that this is an accurate description of your position.
It appears that you are excusing rape by arguing that because some teen boys have fantasies about having sex with a hot older woman, this somehow makes it acceptable for women to have sex with children. That is a rape apologist position.
That is not entirely true. The FBI claims that the definition does include “being made to penetrate” or “envelopment” rape in the new definition. As far as I can tell, the FBI has not applied this to any cases they reviewed for their statistics.
You keep coming back to this as if it were a valid argument. It is not. All the people you know are representative of all males. Likewise, it is possible and probable that plenty of those men and boys may think the act is wrong and will not say so because they do not want to be mocked for not wanting to “pound pussy”.
It is also a fallacious argument because even if every male but me thought the act was simply “getting lucky”, that would not change the actual impact the act has on real people. That is the explicit difference between our two arguments. You are basing your argument on a fantasy, on what people would like to do. I am basing my argument on reality, on what people have said as a result of what happened to them.
I write about these cases all the time. You can look at the stories and see dozens of men and boys, most of them very masculine and manly, talk about the damage these acts caused them. Many of them thought they were “lucky” until they looked at the affects the abuse had on their lives.
This is not to say that every person who is a victim of abuse will react this way. I know plenty of gay men who first had sex as young teenagers with older men. Many of them recount this as a positive experience. Yet when you look at their lives or ask them about the “relationship”, it becomes obvious — to others and to them — how much it negatively affected them.
My theory on this is that males are socialized and probably biologically inclined to see themselves as powerful and in control. So no matter what the situation, a man or boy will see themselves as the one running things. Should something bother him, he is more likely to rationalize, minimize, or ignore it than admit he had no control.
This is key to the Mrs. Robinson fantasy you keep mentioning. The boys never see themselves as being out of control, as being pursued and in need of convincing. They always see themselves as in control, the seducer, the one who can start and stop the sex.
That is not always the case. As happens in many of these situations, the women are the ones in power, the ones in control, and the ones manipulating the child.
How is that not rape? I am not asking for your Mrs. Robinson masturbation fantasy. I am asking specifically how it is possible that a woman who uses force to put a man or boy’s penis into her vagina without his consent is not rape?
Yes, they should be treated with compassion as you tell them that what happened to them is not “truly” rape. I believe the “c” word your are searching for is cruelty.
Given that this is essentially your argument about male rape victims, perhaps you would like to rethink this position.
I have lots of compassion for any victim of sexual assault, but I’m just saying get the language right, according to legal definitions. A male can rape a woman but a female cannot rape a man by forcing his erect penis into her vagina. That’s not called rape, but sexual assault, and it can, of course, be just as traumatizing as when a woman is raped.
Both a male victim of non-rape sexual assault and female victim of rape can be equally traumatized, but that does not always mean that both of them were raped. Except in the minds of highly alarmed, even agitated and hysterical people who want to endorse the equal trauma concept by using the word rape incorrectly to describe both types of sexual assaults.
People misuse the word rape all the time. Like when describing environmental destruction as “rape of the land.” Victims of non-rape sexual assault coin terms such as “rape of my soul,” and so forth.
Rape means only one thing. And should continue to be described thusly. Only an act of law can change its meaning, not an act of hysteria.
Correct use of language means using the English language correctly. This is not the position of a rape apologist, but the position of someone who believes in the correct definition of the word rape, according to legal authorities. Your highly emotional definition is just something you made up, with no validation.
Using the word rape correctly does not mean I lack compassion and empathy for victims of sexual assault, both male and female.
Once, just once, I wish I could see or have a productive discussion about the rape of males.
It’s probably gonna be utterly unproductive, but hey, what the hell. Now Terry Lee, listen closely, I’m only gonna say this once:
We don’t let 14 Years old join the military, under the assumption that they don’t understand the full ramifications of that action, that they think they’re gonna play Call of Duty IRL Edition and not die horribly, kill others horribly, or be scarred for life by the horrors of warfare. No matter how much I wanted to go kill the bad guy when I was 14, the army wouldn’t have taken me in it’s ranks.
We don’t let 14 years old play at the casino, under the assumption they don’t understand the risks involved, and that they’re just gonna gamble away all their money and end up in the street. No matter how much I dreamed of hitting it big at the local casino when I was 14, they would have asked for an ID.
We don’t let 14 years old buy alcohol, under the assumption that they’re gonna find a way to hurt themselves either through an alcohol induced coma or by doing something *really* stupid while intoxicated. No matter how much I wanted to drink away my pain when I was 14, they would have asked for an ID.
And you know what? These three assumptions were right.
I would have been scarred for life or dead if I had joined the army, fighting for a cause I didn’t believe in and killing people I never met.
I would have gambled all my money away.
I would have become an alcoholic.
The adults in those situations knew better, but, were it not for the law, I bet they would have welcomed additional cannon fodder, or additional money coming their way.
What makes you think that in that specific regard, sex is any different than “saving the world”, “hitting it big” or “making the pain go away”?
Oh and by the way? Fuck you. It’s thanks to people like you that I don’t speak up about what happened to me.
OES definition of rape: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/rape
“To despoil” is a valid use of the word. So “rape of the land” is a valid use.
Terry, you haven’t said a word about the fact this victim was also assaulted at six. Did he get lucky then?
Terry, if you are going to argue about the legal definition, I think you should know more about it. In the United States, each state carries a different definition. Some states do not even use the word “rape”. In most states, a woman having non-consensual sex with a minor is rape. Even in states that do not use that term it can still count as a first-degree felony.
The FBI definition, however, is not used for prosecution. It is used to categorize data. Relying on that definition makes as much sense as relying on the dictionary definition of feminism.
Likewise, your understanding of the etymology of the word “rape” is lacking.
I understand that you may not consider the act rape. That is fine. No one requires you. However, the attitude you present is precisely the reason so many victims of female abusers do not come forward.
As for accusation of people responding with hysteria, do I strike you as hysterical?
Accusing me of such a thing will not provoke an emotional response. It will only tell me that you are trying to cause such a reaction. You are more than welcome to try, but you will not be successful.
No, Lurker, he did not get lucky at six. I think you know I never suggested that, but you apparently felt compelled to spew out whiny, sarcastic venom anyway.
In any case, I did not link the “get lucky” comment with the victim when he was six or fourteen. Anybody reading my comments on this post can see that I referred instead to OTHER men and teenage boys I talked with.
And while the OES definition of rape does cite the popular “rape of the land” phrase,, the word rape in the context of sexual assault refers to male on female assault, not female on male assault.
In reply to ElisaSky: Well, I’m sorry you had a bad experience. I hope you’re eventually able to recover and heal.
Everybody’s different. I feel a great deal of compassion for those you have been damaged and traumatized. My comments on this post did not focus on or criticize people suffering from sexual assault.
Terry, you haven’t said anything about this case specifically, but you have repeatedly said that you think “Lucky bastard” when you hear about a case involving an adult woman and teenage boy. Why should I think this case is any different to you?
“Everybody’s different.”
But you still feel confident enough to generalize all teenage boys as willing and happy to have sex with an adult woman.
No, I never generalized ALL teenage boys as willing to have sex with an adult woman. Just all the ones I knew. While the topic of this this case reminded me of myself and my peers during our teens — a time when my sexual desire reached its peak — I still have compassion and empathy for other teenage boys who were traumatized as a result of abuse by adult women.
Terry Lee: I wanted to “kill the bad guys” when I was 14. Believe me, that was a very strong desire. Does that mean the army should have taken me in, no questions asked, and send me to a hell hole that does not in any way resembles what I expected?
There’s a difference between fantasy and reality. Is it gonna get through your thick skull that no matter how much you want something, the reality may be much different than what you expect?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeCarefulWhatYouWishFor “Be careful what you wish for” is a trope on TV Tropes for a reason you know? Reality and fantasy are different things.
Yeah, sure, it’s fun to get together and play D&D. Killing kobolds, goblins, orcs, saving the world, getting cool magic items and a lot of riches. But imagine it happening for real. The evil wizard throws a fireball at you. You make your reflex saving throw, and lose only 1/4th of your HP.
Well, that’s what you would look like after that little incident. (warning: graphic image)
That’s the difference between rolling dice and the real world. The difference between fantasy and reality.
Have I made my point clear enough?
No quite, Elisa. For one thing, I have no idea what happened to you, whether you were traumatized because a woman engaged you in unwanted sex when you were a teenager (the topic of this original discussion), or whether something worse happened with “bad guys” you wanted to kill when you were 14.
In any case, I know the difference between rolling dice and the real world. I’m of the generation that never heard of D&D and similar games. And we didn’t sit for hours in front of an LCD screen, poking at buttons or keys while electronic imagines scampered around a make-believe world.
As a teenager I lived in the real world of fist fights, bicycle, motorcycle and car accidents, gang fights, illegal incarceration, attacks from people intent on stabbing me to death and so forth. One time I dumped a motorcycle on a freeway, skidded about a hundred feet down the blacktop, and in the process, peeled off the back of my shirt and a considerable amount of skin underneath. The picture you posted reminded me of that accident.
I agree with your earlier comments about 14 year olds being too young to join the military, but I was reminded me of the case of Calvin Graham, who was just 12 years old when he enlisted in the Navy right after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Calvin was a very brave kid, mature beyond his years. He served with distinction for several months in 1942 and 1943, was wounded and earned medals while involved in all kinds of violent, bloody conflicts..
Other young men in their mid-teens fought bravely in America’s wars. This experience served as a crucible in which many of them were forged into even stronger people. Others, including grown men, could not handle the horrors of war.
Like I said in an earlier post, everybody’s different. And once again, I’m sorry to hear that you’re still haunted by whatever happened to you. I hope you’ll eventually be able to let it go…
Elisasky, see what Terry doesn’t understand is that we live in a world among angry women. Have you noticed how angry women are in today’s world?
Even in dating women think it’s okay to be rude, and mean and even violent sometimes. And they should get away with their behavior because they are women. No respect. But they are supposed to be able to get away with it. They are not soft sweet creatures anymore, they put on this “I can be masculine if I want” fiasco and think they can do whatever they want.
Especially those damn feminists who think a man looking at them is rape. But yet they constantly dress like ladies of the evening and get ticked off when guys say things to them on the street. They deserve that degradation because they ask for that attention. And those teen girls.
And because of all that, they don’t think they can get into trouble for sexually violating boys because they use that innocent bs they’ve been taught to use. They think they are fulfilling some poor boy’s fantasy. They are just manipulating patronizing creatures.
In all honesty most boys don’t go about enhancing physical features through obessing overcommercial products to get attention. Girls do. And it’s pathetic, it adds to their trickery. Hot and cold.
Wow! I’m wondering, River, how you ever developed all this animosity towards women. Indeed, you’ve got some BIG TIME issues. (Not only with the ladies, but with just expressing yourself in a coherent manner.)
As I said before, you come across as a weak man with deep-seated feelings of inadequacy who is hopelessly intimidated by — and even jealous of — a sexy, confident, and successful woman. Because, I suspect, that your insecure little mind has been hopelessly brainwashed with the idea that women should be subservient to men.
But most of the ladies of the 21st century ain’t buying that bullshit anymore. And when they refuse to cater anymore to fragile male egos, these magnificent women are not trying to be “masculine.” They’re just strong, assertive ladies living more fulfilled lives than the oppressed women of previous generations.
I applaud the strong ladies of today. Just like any truly strong, secure man would.
Terry: “Really Eagle? Really? How exactly so?
I find that comparison insulting especially looking back my life.”
SImple.
You thought any teenage boy who is sexually abused by a woman is “Lucky”.
River thinks all women have too much freedom.
Two opposite extremes that have one thing in common: They don’t help male victims of sexual abuse one bit.
Terry: “This is supposed to be a safe place for men and boys to discuss things and express how they feel especially if its a result of things that have happened to them. So I thought anyway…”
Part of maintaining that sense of safety is fighting toxic narratives.
You express a toxic narrative that contributes to boys not coming forward. River toxic narrative that assumes all women are one and the same is also a toxic narrative that, while not necessarily related to male victims, is something that’s counterproductive. This is what Toysoldier’s space is about as well.
Reply from Terry to Eagle35: Apparently you didn’t read my comments carefully enough. I never said ANY teenage boy who is sexually abused by a woman is “lucky.” I said that the original topic of this post reminded of how I, and all the teenage boys I knew from my youth, would loved to have had sex with a woman. We would have considered ourselves lucky if a woman pursued us aggressively.
I also said that I understand there are teenage boys who are not ready for this, cannot handle it and would thus be traumatized by the experience.
I’ll state my thoughts on this quite clearly: I feel empathy for boys who believe they have been sexually abused by anyone. I believe that such boys should be treated with understanding and compassion, and given encouragement to seek help from a professional therapist who could help them overcome trauma and heal.
Terry:
That is not what you originally stated. You originally stated:
People who comment on these cases seem to be under the delusion that the teenage boys involved are some kind of delicate little Lord Fauntleroys who would horribly traumatized by sex. Au contraire. I peaked sexually at 14, and I, along with just about every other kid around the same age that I knew had an all consuming desire for sexual intercourse. We were pussy hounds of the first order, searching with passionate frenzy for a Mrs. Robinson. Wish the hell I had known someone like Julie when puberty came on like gangbusters at age 12. Indeed, re so-called “abuse,” a comedian put it best when he said that the real victim was not the kid who had sex, but the next guy in line hoping to get laid, too.
That sounds very much like any teenage boy who is raped by a woman is “lucky”. Why you would feel the need to make such a comment is irrelevant. Why you would feel the need to make that comment in regards to this case is more troubling. It could not be clearer that these two women groomed this boy over years and had a great deal of control over him. It also could not be clearer that other teenagers found the acts a problem as it was they boy’s teen friends who encouraged him to report the women. Your entire argument is contradicted by the facts of this case, yet you still made the argument.
That is not what you wrote. You presented an example in which a “rather sensitive kid” who reported on a teacher who was sexually assaulting her students. You then recounted how the other boys mocked him to the point that “I even felt compassion for him.”
It is not a question of whether teen boys are ready for sex. They are not. Their bodies may want to have sex and they may think about it constantly, but at 14 years old few of them are prepared for sex, let alone an adult relationship. We see time and time again how boys and girls who willing engage in such acts end up being used and exploited by the adults. This is particularly true for boys because of the attitudes you expressed. They think they are in control and can handle it. When the reality of the situation actually hits them, that tends to fall apart. They realize the mess they are in and often cannot get out of it because the adult has the mental and social wherewithal to manipulate them.
I will be blunt: I do not believe you. I think you say that because you walked yourself into a bad argument and you cannot walk out of it.
However, if that is how you think, that should have been the response you wrote, not the above nonsense about being a “pussy hound”.
Eagle, you clearly don’t understand what I’m trying to say. I’m trying to make a point that women’s actions of today allow for mistreatment of males. That’s how what I’m saying relates.
Does that make everyone happy? I’m on your side. Actually OUR side.
Women and girls are being exposed more and more as liars. They lie about being raped. And they commit rape. And it’s a good thing they are being exposed for their actions.
I still don’t see how there is a correlation between myself and Terry.
Terry is in defense of women. I’m not. I can’t be at this point in my life. I can’t defend women when I have a hard time believing their stories and lies.
Pingback: What Mrs. Robinson actually looks like | Toy Soldiers
River: “Eagle, you clearly don’t understand what I’m trying to say.”
No, I understand exactly what you BOTH are trying to say.
You: “Another case of women who need to learn their place. Actually, all females need to learn their place no matter the age or what they do. I am a definite advocate on that.
I’m so glad people are showcasing what females are like.”
Terry: “People who comment on these cases seem to be under the delusion that the teenage boys involved are some kind of delicate little Lord Fauntleroys who would horribly traumatized by sex. Au contraire. I peaked sexually at 14, and I, along with just about every other kid around the same age that I knew had an all consuming desire for sexual intercourse. We were pussy hounds of the first order, searching with passionate frenzy for a Mrs. Robinson. Wish the hell I had known someone like Julie when puberty came on like gangbusters at age 12. Indeed, re so-called “abuse,” a comedian put it best when he said that the real victim was not the kid who had sex, but the next guy in line hoping to get laid, too.”
And I don’t endorse either opinion one iota.
Pingback: Sorry, but no one is justifying men who rape | Toy Soldiers
Pingback: Dear feminists: men are sick of you “reassuring” us you don’t hate men, too | Toy Soldiers
HOWEVER – Are you angry towards the 2 Deaf females who have not received Jail time Or are you more angry with the fact that the Judge himself said There are no adjustments made in a Prison for Deaf prisoners, they would be isolated, there would be no communication and therefore he chose to not issue a jail term.
In Fact we should be incredibly frustrated and angry that there is no equality with in the Prison system. If you are disabled they will give you an adapted cell, with a wider door for your wheelchair, with an accessible toilet etc. So why can’t a Prison make reasonable adjustments for a Deaf Person (Which is in the Equality Act 2010).
I am not saying these 2 should have gone unpunished, I’m saying lets be angry at the fact that the Prisons won’t bring in simple things which would lead to no isolation or communication difficulties for a Deaf prisoner.
A deaf prisoner will be handed a handbook stating there is a Disability Officer they can speak to it they need to – Oh but they can’t sign so there is no point in having this Disability Officer with no deaf awareness or basic sign language. They are given a number to call the Samaritans if they wish… Oh they can’t use the normal phones.
A prison will not issue a Minicom (Text phone) so they can call relatives, they are expected to use the 1 letter a week postal system. In what day and age does someone write a letter, post it, and wait a few days for a response when there is technology there to enable a Deaf prisoner to make a call straight away just like their hearing inmates.
Subtitles are not available on the TV’s within the Prison, There are no flashing lights to show the Deaf prisoners when it’s time to return to the cell, or return back inside from time outside. They will miss vital cues that could lead to being sent to isolation. They don’t have flashing/vibrating alarm clocks so don’t wake up on time and therefore miss the work they attend within the Prison.
For a Deaf person to sit in isolation, alone in a cell with no basic communication – this will 100% lead to mental health issues.
I don’t agree prisoners should have TV’s to begin with, they are being punished HOWEVER Equality means whatever a hearing Prisoner can access, should also be made available for a Deaf prisoner.
Prisoners can get out of jail on good behavior and if they attend rehab courses whilst in jail, A deaf prisoner can’t attend the courses as there will be no Sign language interpreter provided – Therefore they will never be able to shorten their jail sentence.
Inequality before they have even set foot into the prison.
Don’t blame the 2 women in the article above, Don’t blame the Judge who knows there is no adjustments – blame the Prison budgets, finance, governors for not making the adjustments so that anyone no matter of disability can all be punished the same!
I am angry that two people who groomed and sexually abused a child got away with it because of their disability and one of them miscarrying. It is ridiculous that someone can use a disability that did not hinder their ability to abuse as an excuse to be held responsible for their actions?
That is a separate issue. I would agree it is unfortunate that those who disabilities may face difficulties in jail, however, those difficulties should not give a pass, particularly when it involves the sexual abuse of children.
I agree. As I stated above, we can find them someone to talk to. Yet we must keep in mind that the vast majority of inmates are not deaf. We cannot build our prisons around people’s disabilities. We will need to accommodate those with disabilities to a reasonable degree. However, that is still not an excuse for suspending their sentences.
Yes, I will blame the two women because they sexually abused a child for over a decade. They are responsible for their actions, and their disability is not an excuse.