Bill Thompson wrote a rather histrionic article over on the BBC1 site about the recent incident in which a former US Marine went off on a, ehem, ill advised magical mystery tour with a 12 year old English girl. The bit I just loved in Thompson’s article was:
Shevaun’s disappearance was the net’s fault and we have to accept this. She would not have had any contact with her 31-year old ex-Marine if it had not been for the easy access to e-mail and chat that today’s children seem to demand as a right, and we should not pretend otherwise or blame inadequate supervision.
…that is like saying if the child had being dragged into a car and kidnapped:
Shevaun’s disappearance was the M25’s 2 fault and we have to accept this
Make our communities safe for children…ban roads and sidewalks I say! Ban them all!
So if ‘The Internet’ kidnapped this girl, then why is Toby Studabaker the one on trial for it and not this wicked fellah called The Internet?
Ok, Thompson says that this girl got into trouble (or at least everyone else feels she got into trouble, she never did seem to show much sign of thinking so herself from what I read), and she did this because she had access to a computer, which her parent have provided and thoughtfully equipped with a modem, over a phone line which they pay for, but somehow we must not blame inadequate supervision by the parents.
Goodness no! I mean, if we did that, next thing you know people might be saying it was a bad idea for parents to leave their loaded shotguns around their teenager’s room. Instead we must impose sweeping bans on who can use chatrooms! And why is that, pray tell, Bill? Ah… I understand… you write for the BBC of course! Never suggest a sensible private solution at the family level if an excuse can be found for some wonderful collective state intervention! Silly me. For one blinding and foolish moment I actually thought parents might be responsible for their children’s welfare!
1 = Link via our favourite statist technogeeks at iSociety
2 = The M25 is London’s orbital motorway (freeway)
For one blinding and foolish moment I actually thought parents might be responsible for their children’s welfare!
The Thompson article my be ill-considered, but it’s unclear to me why this situation warrants Perry’s over-the-top sarcasm. (If, in a different context, the Pennington family had kept computer and modem in a locked room, one suspects Perry would be griping about assaults on “freedom”.)
It’s not easy raising teenagers; I’ve raised two, imperfectly. This Studebaker person may have committed a crime. If so, I hope he pays. I’m delighted that the girl is safe. Others, in similar circumstances, haven’t been so fortunate.
Perry is right to be scathing
The presence of malevolent individuals on the net makes it a potentially dangerous place. However, rapists and murderers walk the streets and stalk parks.
Should we ban those as well?
When I was 11 I was told by my parents not to walk home alone from boy scouts because a boy had been attacked locally. This was the best response to that attack. Protect your child by arming him or her with knowledge, and don’t wrap him or her in cotton wool.
Eamon
The reports back just after this happened said that she was spending 5 hours a day on the web in chat rooms. Now, I’m not an excellent example on this, but I currently am actively doing stuff on the web much less than that, and I’m a very heavy user for the UK. I don’t post as much as I’d like on my blog, but I do read lots, etc.
Back when I was writing a thesis, with free always on connection, I was technically connected 12 hours a day, but wouldn’t (probably) have spent 5 hours on the web on any day, including ones where chatting lions rugby on message boards. This is a very high level of use, and one that should have been of concern.
But… other people’s families and lack of knowledge of what’s going on…
Ok, color me wierd here, but frankly I can’t see the problem if a “child” elopes with their lover. If I recall the story here, she wasn’t snatched, she willingly met him. What’s wrong with that? I don’t hold with the idea that a child is property of the parents.
I think its because the kind of people who (alledgedly) pick up 12 year old girls in chatrooms tend to be, for want of a better word, perverts. And any 12 year old who wants to meet the 31 year old US marine she met in a chat room is quite likely not mature enough to make that decision.
Of course, in this case I think the girl’s parents need a good slap. Letting kids use the net unsupervised is like letting them roam your local red light district: even if they don’t get approached for sex they’ll probably see/hear things you wouldn’t want them too.
Julian, what’s up – have your parents forbidden you to play with your “friend”?
No – You are not being weird – you are being incredibly NAIVE, IMMATURE and outright STUPID.
A child shouldn’t have a “lover” because that is the whole point of being a child: Being a child means NOT having to ACT fully adult; not having to fully take on the responsibilities of adulthood – in other words CHILDHOOD means NOT HAVING TO EXPERIENCE ADULTHOOD until you are fully grown and matured enough to comprehend the consequenses of adult behaviour and all that it entails.
Though – You are right about the child not being the property of the parents: A Child is so much much more than the “property” of the parents. Maybe someday when you grow up you will have the pleasure of finding this out 🙂
A little perspective, please.
This girl’s parents perhaps were not as wise (in this matter) as they might have been. But let’s be serious: an adult male decamped with this child. It is he, not the parents, who should answer to society for his conduct.
As to the parents, one hopes they are now more aware of their responsibilities than they were, say, last month.
And as for commenter Julian, you are indeed “wierd” [sic], or worse. Young Pennington isn’t a “child,” she is a child. To speak of her acting “willingly” is bizarre. She, like every child, is in need and deserving of society’s protection.
I’m not sure if this is the case, but hypothetically, who would be to blame if she falsely presented herself as someone much older, say…19 or 20. If Studebaker then met her in a foreign country (they met in France, right?) would he still be a villain? Would she be the villain? Would the parents be villains? (Jokingly…) Would France be the villain???
George Peery writes:
“This girl’s parents perhaps were not as wise (in this matter) as they might have been. But let’s be serious: an adult male decamped with this child. It is he, not the parents, who should answer to society for his conduct. ”
Tell me I missed the irony in this, please?
These imbecile parents allowed their daughter to sit tapping her way through chatrooms for hour upon hour upon hour, day upon day, utterly unsupervised.
And, as a consequence of their unwillingness of bear the proper responsibility for their own offspring, we are supposed to have our freedoms curtailed? And that most certainly is the direction in which anti-Net agitators are heading.
I wouldn’t dream of speaking for the position in the USA, but here in Gt. Britain, we are in the middle of an epidemic of parental irresponsibility. Children are abducted, raped, murdered, commit acts of almost unbelievable vandalism and cruelty (even resorting to murder themselves, on occasion) and along the way we are invariably treated to the spectacle of some hollow-eyed moron appearing on TV to make a tearful ‘appeal’ on behalf of the child whose plight only came about because of their wanton carelesness.
I don’t agree with licensing cars, televisions, guns, dogs or most things – but I do sometimes wonder whether people shouldn’t have to have a licence before they are allowed to breed. Especially when they expect the rest of society to clean-up after them.
It’s easy to blame criminal acts on the people who choose to commit them.
The solution is obvious.
The government must immediately ban the internet, computers, cars, roads, rail travel, planes, sex, men with mullets, houses, stupidity, parents, the use of lungs to support life, telephones, food, eyesight, London, non-restrictive undergarments, dustbins, sheep, things that go bump in the night, desks, free-range chickens, petrol, WW2 memorabilia, assumptions, post-it notes, jumble sales, any reference to the word ‘rum’, street lighting, pancreatic diseases, soup, roll-on roll-off ferries, lumpy women, blitzkriegs, dinner jackets, unusual facial twitches, diodes, exordia, radios and winter colds.
That’ll stop it.
Julian – Spoken like a true pedophile. 12 year old children are not of an appropriate age to speak of as having “lovers.”
This 12 year old girl was not properly supervised, nor I suspect even properly communicated with. Parents should be aware of how (and with whom) their children spend their time, much less large blocks (5 hours a day) of time. I keep up on all of my 14 year old daughter’s time and friends both on and off line. It is not only my responsibility and my duty as a parent, but also my pleasure. Why have kids if your not going to enjoy them as people???
Having said that. Mr. Studabaker is the one who took Shevaun from her home. And while he may (or may not) have believed while communicating with her on line that she was older than 12, the minute he saw her, he had to know she was not. Taking her from her parent’s home, and to another country was a criminal act.
It is not only “easy to blame criminal acts on the people who choose to commit them” it is correct to do so.
P.Toynbee- ” It’s easy to blame criminal acts on the people who choose to commit them.”
But it pays better if the blame is transfered to any handy organization/business/department that can be sued for compensation.
I don’t hold with the idea that a child is property of the parents.
Do you hold with the idea that the parents are the property of the child? Did the child pay for room and board and for the computer? Should the parents be required to take her back to support her? If not then where does she go when jarhead is through with her?
Do you want her?
P.Toynbee is right! This whole affair is just another squalid by-product of right-wing American militarism and the failure of Tony Blair to build the foundations of a lasting social democracy!
Three cheers for the voice of sweet reason.
I agree mostly with the spirit of Julian Morrison’s point – his use of “child” in quotes is valid. Childhood is something that people continue to define as though it has some sort of globally applicable datestamp – when a person hits age X, they magically transform from a delicate child deserving of protection into a Real Live Adult capable of looking after themselves, etcetera.
This is of course bullshit, and as it was bullshit when the ages were first defined, it is even more bullshit now given the sheer force-feeding of experience and situation that a person growing up in todays’ world will experience.
Everyone evolves differently depending on their intelligence. A person of 12 with a high intelligence may be well above their peers and a lot more capable of dealing with people older than them than a typical child. They will of course not have the experience and shall we say, ‘character’ that seems to come through making mistakes and learning from them, but to define them as a hopeless child who’s wishes must be ignored on certain issues is very unpleasant. Children evolve at differnet paces depending on all sorts of factors.
Joe writes… well:
OH DEAR! Where does one start…
Okay, so when you’re a child (presumably under 14, 16, or 18 depending on where you live – odd how American humans mature more slowly than British humans who mature more slowly than Spanish humans – guess it’s genetic!) you are obliged not to act fully adultly? Or are you just not expected to act fully adultly?
Joe has stated ‘not having to’ – which is fine, no-one forced this young lady to ‘have’ to experience adulthood – I believe she did travel to meet this rather unfortunate marine, and I further believe she represented herself as 18 or 19 in the chatroom. This clearly is not good enough for Our Blessed Fuhrer Joe, as he seems to be suggesting that we forcefully prevent children from ‘premature aging’ by holding them back from individual responsiblity and then dumping it all upon them at some magical age. That works so well!
George Peery is quite clearly in need an introduction to the real world:
MOVE ALONG, NOTHING MORE TO SEE HERE.
Here’s a clue: statements that contain the word ‘every’ or ‘implicit’ or ‘innate’ are wrong when referring to humans are just wrong.
Cinders:
And when they have sex with each other behind the bike sheds at school, (which they do, frequently, get the statistics) that’s just not happening in your world, is it?
Cinders however manages to avoid ranting and makes an interesting point:
Now, that’s an interesting one. 12 year old girls who are, shall we say, ‘bodily mature’ have this habit of being able to put on a bit of makeup and a erm… ‘less slutty’ dress and look very much like a mature young lady. I can quite believe one would pass for 18.
Oh, and the original article?
I have written to Mr Thompson about this matter.
It also occurs to me that if we start a severe enough write-in, we should be able to get him investigated for blatant political posturing on a non-political (hahahah yeah whatever, I know) media source that is obliged not to be biased!
Well, it’s worth a try.
All the best now!
By the way beware of writing about the BBC – my blogs been hacked and – have a look for yourselves.
Shevaun’s disappearance was the M25’s fault and we have to accept this
What is the M25? The internet connection or the provider?
For the benefit of our cousins; the M25 is a major motorway (freeway) in the uk.
Rather alarmed by the rational skepticism failure in this thread.
With the noble exception of Harvey–Julian’s dismissal is a little too airy–there’s an unusual collusion with the moral panic that I wouldn’t expect, say, if someone were arrested for carrying, not using, a gun. Even the initial post in making a good point about the internet being merely an instrument, tends to reinforce the idea that this was an “abduction” by other means.
We aren’t in a position to know the real circumstances, but it seems likely to me that the young man concerned will be made an example of as a way of reifying the danger of the internet, regardless of whether he has harmed the girl at all. (And there’s no sign of that so far.) It is too, too convenient at a time when the UK government is pushing through a elaborate new set of sexual offences regulation including the virtual offence of “internet grooming”.
On the emotional maturity point, one would have to have ones doubts about a marine. Forces don’t only brutalise their soldiers, they infantilise them: do whatever you are told, believe whatever you are told.
The saddest thing is that Bill is actually fairly computer literate.
The funniest thing is that he has trouble getting his articles voted up on Kuro5hin. Collaborative media with higher standards than the BBC for op-ed? Say it ain’t so…
Its a difficult one. I mean, Bill is cleary wrong on this. It isn’t the Internet’s fault. But the internet was a contributing factor, and it would be in all of our interests to find ways of mitigating that contributing factor without actually ruining the medium for the rest of us.
The balance between protection of the rights of children, and protection of the rights of internet users, remains tricky. It would be socially unnaceptable for a car manufacturer to leave the fitting of seat belts to owners. (I admit that there is a libertarian case that they should, but stick with me on this). The same is true of child protection online. Individual and parental responsibility only goes so far in a society which fetishises the innocence of children, and a media which can shift paper through scaring.
So I think the question isn’t whether we should try to protect children online, but how, by what mechanisms, and with what consequence. For instance, one could introduce a voluntary system in which parents could chose to require permission if their kids want to talk to people whose e-mail addresses weren’t in their address books already. This could work for, say, those under 12, giving more lee-way to “young adults”. This would be a voluntary, market mechanism which would cede power to responsible individuals (parents and carers) to protect those whom they have resposibility for (children).
The problem for people like Samizdata on this is that it isn’t going to go away. We all want to convince people to use the net, because its great and valuable. But there is a danger that people who aren’t as clever or tech-savvy as you all will be put off by paedo stories. And protecting children remains a legitimate concern, and shouldn’t be rubbished as anti-libertarian.
There are solutions out there which will balance these problems i think. Its just that Bill’s clearly isn’t it.
James Crabtree
Statist Techno-Geek
From the rather sketchy news reports the girl passed herself off as 19.
When the ex-Marine actually came in contact with her he was angry he was dupped and left her.
Now leaving a 12 year old alone in a strange country might not have been the best decision but she got there on her own. The man’s behavior showed he was not interested in 12 year olds.
Now if my reading is correct then the Internet is responsible for bringing together a stupid 12 year old and a semi-responsible 31 year old.
Let us not start off blaming the Internet or the ex-Marine for something that didn’t happen.
I am rather inclined to agree with M. Simon… hence my rather equivocal phraseology in the original article. It seems to me Mr. Studebaker is mostly guilty of breathtakingly poor judgement. The term ‘dumb schmuck’ comes to mind. Clearly he did not really ‘kidnap’ the girl in the sense the word is customarily used but I am content to leave that to a court to figure out.
Mr Crabtree makes an interesting point but it is one which is surprisingly ignorant of the way things really work on the internet.
There is no way that one could regulate the use of chat services apart from by charging for them – and that only works because one has to have a credit card number to pay the bill.
The internet is at heart a peer-to-peer network, and it probably won’t be very long before someone comes up with a peer-to-peer chat network that requires no central authentication/addressbook server. (I am excluding the file-sharing program Kazaa uses no central server and allows chat between users, because its chat system is dire.)
Trust me on this – it’s not doable technologically. It’s just not.
People seem to think that the internet is like a bunch of roads, all aligned, and all ‘chat’ goes down one road and all ’email’ goes down another – it’s not like that at all.
You can’t centrally control chat unless you have one central chat system, and that’s not going to happen in the near future. Even if you did have one central system, how would users authenticate to it?
I’m not going to explain why not in detail here – anyone that knows vaguely how TCP/IP networking and the internet works will know exactly what I mean. I don’t do essays (unless requested. Nicely.)
Parents are going to have to supervise their damn kids. Parents are going to have to pay attention.
The real issue here is a much simpler one: how the hell did this girl get to the AIRPORT by herself without anyone from her family noticing for god sakes? She’s 12! Why is anyone under the age of 10 wandering around on the streets alone? Don’t people realise quite how stupid your average human is at that age?
Rounding things off with something that’s bound to stoke the fires of anger: I personally believe the young lady in question is rather smart, quite an ‘early bloomer’ so to speak and knew exactly what she wanted from our dumb jarhead friend. We’ll never find out of course, but do keep that in mind!
Harvey writes – “Joe writes… well” – I’ll take that as a compliment 😛
But then goes on to say…
“OH DEAR! Where does one start…” Usually at the beginning Harvey – thats a very good place to start!
But Harvey in this next bit?…
“Okay, so when you’re a child (presumably under 14, 16, or 18 depending on where you live – odd how American humans mature more slowly than British humans who mature more slowly than Spanish humans – guess it’s genetic!) you are obliged not to act fully adultly? Or are you just not expected to act fully adultly?”
I made no mention of the differentiation of age… but the differentiation of maturity for good reason. The age for sexual maturity has for want of better descriptions been laid out in law in the mainland Great Britain as the age of 16. The point of which gives legal rights to children not to have to ACT “adultly” until they reach 16. Its there to protect them from pressures that make them THINK they need to, WANT to, or HAVE to do this.
Its there to protect them from THEMSELVES as much as from others!!!
I like your next bit though – Harvey-
” I believe she did travel to meet this rather unfortunate marine, and I further believe she represented herself as 18 or 19 in the chatroom. This clearly is not good enough for Our Blessed Fuhrer Joe, as he seems to be suggesting that we forcefully prevent children from ‘premature aging’ by holding them back from individual responsiblity and then dumping it all upon them at some magical age. That works so well!”
Hey I always wanted to be FUHRER – so now that you’ve made me one you’d better listen up Harvey or I’ll invade Poland… The girl we are talking about is 12 years old. Not even a teenager… yet her parents have stupidly given her the freedom to act as an adult. SO yes THE BLESSED FUHRER JOE does DEMAND that you forcefully prevent CHILDREN from “premature aging” because that is what PARENTS are there to do: LOOK AFTER THE CHILDREN. You have a legal responsibility to your children – but more importantly you have a PARENTAL responsibility to your children to look after them – regardless of – PEER PRESSURE, political idiocy and regardless of WHAT THE CHILDREN THEMSELVES WANT.
Harvey if you can’t do that because you dont know how… or if you won’t do that because you dont think its COOL … or wont do it because your political ideals teach that children are nothing more than mini adults …then not only will you be an unmitigated arsehole but more importantly you will FAILING YOUR CHILDREN.
BAD HARVEY – BAD BAD HARVEY – now go be a good Harvey and take J.W.Rowlings new tombe in hand, grip it tightly and beat some sense into yourself.
Ok I see you have berated the parents in your last post… so you can put the book down now…but dont forget that regardless of how old the child may act or pretend she is – she is still a child.
CHILDREN AREN’T ADULTS- no matter how much they try to be. Parents are there to protect them from that – these girls parents were hopeless specimens… the child is just lucky that Studabaker was such a dimwit.
With regard to chatrooms – of course there are ways to regulate chatrooms… it shouldn’t be necessary – if you teach the children how to regulate themselves instead of leaving it to their peers etc to show them how to DO it.
OK I’ve FUHRERED enough for the moment – so I’ll hop off now and leave you to be a good little bunny
=:3=
Oh sorry Harvey – I forgot to mention how I defined MATURITY…
You determine a child’s maturity not by how many sexual positions they know, or by how curvy their bodies are or by how smart they answer you back… etc etc…
A childs maturity is determined by how well they can judge the reality of a situation and then choose the best course of action to follow regardless of wants, needs or peer pressure etc.
They may make loads of mistakes – but thy are allowed to do this because they are children. Adults aren’t allowed to make mistakes to the same degree… which is another damned good reason for keeping children as children… it allows them leeway to learn.
There was an excellent programme on Channel 4 last night… CUTTING EDGE – about a child that was about to be given to social services by her parents who couldn’t control her. If you saw that programme you would realise how much parental influence can cause to make the diffference in a childs behaviour and maturity. The hyper mad crazy child we saw at the start of the programme had turned into a “normal” lovable wee girl by the end of the programme.
The only thing necessary to bring about the change was teaching the parents not to get angry with her or be rude or allow her to be rude… and to use a small sanction of taking away pennies from her pocket money….warning her that she would have one penny docked from her pocket money when she was bad and then docking it if she didn’t comply – rather than shout and scream in rage at her as they had used to do.
The change was remarkable
It was enlightening.
Joe:
No. Not globally, not across all chat systems/networks/programs/organizations, of which there are at least 10 major ones and thousands upon thousands of others.
With regard to other points: If Mr Studabaker had been intending to, say, rape and murder the lady he was meeting, it wouldn’t have mattered how old she was.
Again stoking the controversy, I don’t actually have a problem with a girl of her age having all the ‘cybersex’ (vile word!) in the world with people of Mr Studabaker’s age – as long as the chap doesn’t actually turn up and fuck her! The mere act of ‘her talking to him (about sex)’ and ‘him talking to her (about sex)’ seems to be attracting attention far beyond its nature.
I really don’t think it’s advisable and if I were a parent, I’d (try) not to have my daughter do such a thing – but talking is talking. There’s far too much ‘it leads to other things’ which sounds remarkably like ‘we should criminalise talking about [an illegal act] because it leads to [the act being carried out].’
There’s crime, and then there’s thoughtcrime.
Harvey – sorry but you are contradicting yourself… To say that… “I don’t actually have a problem with a girl of her age having all the ‘cybersex’ “ … and then to say… “I really don’t think it’s advisable and if I were a parent, I’d (try) not to have my daughter do such a thing” … there is a contradiction there… because you obviously do have at least a small problem with it otherwise you wouldn’t think it inadvisable.
With regard to “thoughtcrime” and the inference that I would criminalise something someone was thinking about… NO that has nothing to do with this. If Mr Studabaker was conned by an underage girl then fair enough… he should not be convicted of any crime. If however he was complicit in crime with an underage girl that is another matter. The problem here is determining which was the case… and if there is no hard evidence then I would be lenient towards Mr Studabaker in this instance.
With regard to chatrooms – I can think of several ways of regulating them… but I am not going to promote them in any form online.
The problem in this case was entirely parental control – which was non existant with regard to the internet.
By the way, don’t forget that Bill Thompson is also the genius who wants a separate European Internet to save Europe from the evil pernicious American influence, and also has hemmed and hawed about the unaccountable, influencial political blogs that threaten to ruin the world.
Why aren’t parents talking to their children about the peculiar character and dangers of the internet, just as they would about the peculiar character and dangers of crossing the road and riding their bike and walking to school and all the legal and illegal drugs available and having sex early in life and about autonomy respecting relationships and so on?
I suppose if parents are not talking to their children about those things- are, rather, issuing edicts and setting boundaries without discussion- then the prospect of setting more artificial obstacles to attempt to control behavior (note: not help to learn about) is par for the course.
I don’t see where this helps children learn to think critically about such issues, so that they can come to know how to make decisions to protect their own selves. While parents have the responsibility to help their children to learn and grow safely, that does not include keeping them in the dark about important aspects of life and how to negotiate the world as it is and will be.
“Being a child means NOT having to ACT fully adult; not having to fully take on the responsibilities of adulthood – in other words CHILDHOOD means NOT HAVING TO EXPERIENCE ADULTHOOD until you are fully grown and matured enough to comprehend the consequenses of adult behaviour and all that it entails.”
Not “having” to experience adulthood? You make it sound like adulthood is a terrible burden and childhood is a relief. Childhood is in fact a necessary evil that we endure because we have no choice; we aren’t relieved of a “burden”, we are in fact forbidden something that is highly desirable. For our own good of course.
The problem, of course, is that our educational system leaves our children ignorant and economically useless far longer than necessary, lenghening their sentences by several years and leaving them prone to do stupid things that they would think twice about if (a) they had as much to lose by irresponsible behavior, and as much to gain by responsible behavior, as their elders do and (b) they had actually been taught to exercise adult behavior and judgement in a timely fashion.
Lowering the age of majority would mitigate these problems by (a) encouraging parents and school systems to stop stalling and teach the kids useful skills and adult behavior instead of “protecting their innocence” and leaving them helpless and (b) allowing the kids the opportunity to free themselves through diligent study and cultivating good work habits and responsible behavior, thus giving them the incentive to apply themselves to the best of their ability rather than coasting and marking time until their sentence is up.
If anyone’s interested, here’s an informative paper on 19th-century age-of-consent reform in the U.S.:
How Did Gender and Class Shape the Age of Consent Campaign Within the Social Purity Movement, 1886-1914?
Before this reform movement, age of consent in the U.S. was generally 10 to 12.
Giggle:
Harvey writes “Cinders however manages to avoid ranting …”
Regretably, I cannot say the same for you! And I just can’t let some of your comments go without response, so here goes a rant of my own:
First you dismiss my assertion that 12 year olds should not have lovers by saying:
“And when they have sex with each other behind the bike sheds at school, (which they do, frequently, get the statistics) that’s just not happening in your world, is it?”
Silly, of course it happens – behind sheds, in cars, mom and dad’s bed, coat closets, wherever – in my world as well as yours. (And I would suggest that rarely do these relationships rise to the emotional or physical satisfaction that lovers do.) However, comparing teen on teen sexual exploration to adult on (young) teen sex is not exactly apples to apples, is it? Or maybe in YOUR world it is. Ick.
Now about physically mature 12 year olds being able to pass for 18, of course, some can and do – but have you seen THIS girl? I have, (or at least 4 or 5 photos of her) and she is clearly not one of those young women. She looks 12. Not a sexually attractive, made up, come and get me 12, but a school girlish (and not in the Tatu way) 12. Again – ICK!
Ken,
“Not “having” to experience adulthood? You make it sound like adulthood is a terrible burden and childhood is a relief.”
Yes – childhood is a relief structure that spares the child from having to deal with the complexities and responsibilities of adulthood. Children are not mini-adults. They have neither the knowledge nor experience to cope fully with the adult world. If they are dropped into the adultworld without training and without the relief of being allowed to make errors in the way children do- then the experience they gain is destructive not instructive.
Ken – Children have very different priorities to adults- priorities that in this complex and rapidly changing world are difficult to teach because it so often appears that wrong is right and that their wants should be instantly gratified.
Yes the education system is a bollocks, but that does not mean that reducing the age of majority would help… it most definitely would not. The skills that the children require to negotiate their way easily through adulthood take time to assimilate. Years of time. Children think that once they have heard or seen something that it is learnt- but hearing and seeing is totally different from experiencing… and experience takes time. During the time that the children are experiencing the world around them and learning the necessary skills to get by in the world – they need to be allowed to make mistakes. It is from making mistakes that they gain experience and learn how to do things right. This period of childhood errors is extremely important… It prevents two very dangerous things from happening… When used correctly it is the best method we have for preventing them from screwing up the rest of their lives and also from screwing up any other peoples lives in the process.
Ken you talk about teaching them useful skills and adult behaviour instead of “protecting their innocence”…. Understand this is what Childhood is all about… the learning of skills for adulthood… its not about “protecting innocence” its about protecting their future lives and giving them the best opportunity to use those skills when they have reached adulthood. What use is it to teach children sexual acts and positions when the use of these sexual acts and positions at a young age dramatically increases the chance that they may not later be able to have children themselves because they have caught sexually transmitted diseases or been damaged by unscrupulous adults or by their idiotic peers. The mistakes of sexual intercourse are large and life threatening.
Likewise with Voting… children have no understanding of the underlying factors of complex issues… Children are herd animals that go with what is “fashionable”… and who tells them what is fashionable??? Unscrupulous people who want the power those childrens money and votes would bring them.
Childhood protects children from their inexperience and from the unscrupulousness of others. … its not there to “protect innocence”… its an aid to help foster understanding through experience.
I think we have different understandings of the word “innocence”… innocence is not a lack of knowledge… that is IGNORANCE… innocence is the ability to exist unaffected within a system of distorting parameters. An ignorant child will likely do something stupid and pay with heavily for it…. whereas an innocent child can grow up knowing everything and if they are wise -not let it bad things adversely affect them and therefore they can and will retain that innocence right through adulthood… though very few do.
Childhood is not “a necessary evil” – its a necessary learning system. Its the time of preparation… you have to remember that children aren’t mini adults. They need time to be children and in recent years that is being eroded and look at the results… more and more increasingly unhappy immature and damaged adults.
Our ex-marine may indeed have believed his intended was nineteen – but, if so, that’s a little old for him.
Cases dropped for lack of evidence.
Not meaning to sound inflammatory here, but surely “cases dropped for lack of evidence” would mean “there was not enough evidence to say this man was guilty of these things”?
Not meaning to sound inflammatory here, but surely “cases dropped for lack of evidence” would mean “there was not enough evidence to say this man was guilty of these things”?
There’s a world of difference between not enough evidence to take to court and get a conviction, and not enough evidence to mention. Particularly in light of recent events.
There was another article by a prosecutor who regretted not persuing those cases, but I couldn’t find that headline. It was on Drudge last week.