Discussion in 'Humour and Debate' started by TempusFugit, Oct 25, 2011.
Is it moral for a man to purchase a sexual aid to a 13 year old child? discuss...
Personally, I don't think a child under the legal age of consent should own, or even think about owning a sexual aid. Either way, this could lead into talk about the "real thing", and for a 13-year-old, I think it's inappropriate. I can't see why a young person of 13 would see the need in having this sexual aid this early in life, shouldn't most children of that age be wanting to ride their bikes, have sleepovers or play with their friends and enjoy the older part of their childhood?
Fair enough, a lot of children (by children I mean those under the age of consent) these days are exposed to that kind of material, whether it be via sexual education, or via the Internet. On one hand, educating children has its benefits, but on the other hand it could provide means of early exposure to it all.
This kind of leads on to the discussion we had about easy access to "racy" images on the Internet, as I reckon most young people discover it on the net. Yes, there is easy access to certain sites, anyone can lie about their age and parents should really be keeping an eye on their kids on the net, as well as on their well-being.
I'm interested Clocky, what made you post about this, was it on the news?
If I've taken it to mean that the girl/boy was given a sexual aid gift or something.. then I would be seriously worried. In fact, so worried, I would report them. I can imagine some young kids going around and buying themselves things and jokingly giving them to each other (in which case, I wouldn't report, but tell them off, for sure!), but a man to do it to a child? Now that is worrying!
I know it probably sounds harsh to people, but that's me, I would report it.
Okay, children get exposed to all sorts on the internet... images, videos, chatting, etc.. but actually giving something... not on. It makes it more real. It opens the mind of the child even more (perhaps into nice thoughts about the man who gave it) And for me, it's sick that a man would do that. Why on earth would a man want to give a 13 year old such a gift?! That's what we've got to ask ourselves. If we can't answer it with a sensible, reasonable reason.. it gives us reason to worry. Ergo, I'd report them. Even if nothing can be done about, I'd still report them.
I think it's good to warn people about something like this and what they've done to help stop future things happening to other children or that same child. And sometimes things like this can probably be an early warning that this man is dangerous. So it's good if it's on the records.
It's not moral at all. It's completely sick in the head. And I do consider it as sexual harassment.
What is there to discuss? The answer is NO!
I'm not reading the answers. But I have noticed MissEngland has replied.
Apart from that, the thought of it is abhorrent.
Moral? No way! What legit reason could he give?
Thank you for your responses thus far. It may interest you to know that *shock, horror* this 'offence' is actually non-chargeable according to English law.
DB... in answer to why I am raising this - my work covers areas such as this and it is abhorrent that in light of other allegations that could not be proven beyond unreasonable doubt, this evidence was not allowed to be brought into a criminal trial. Now, if the jury had been aware of this information, the perpetrator would in more likliehood be found 'guilty'. Sadly, I am now of the opinion that the perpetrator will cover his tracks more closely and be able to target more vulnerable victims.
As a little sideline, the police can list a 'concern' against his name and in the event that he seeks employment that requires a CRB (Criminal Record Bureau) check, this will be made known to the potential employer. Furthermore, Social Services can also intervene again should any suspicion be raised.
It's incredible isn't it. In a time when safeguarding children should be priority (think of poor little Baby P, Victoria Climbie et al) that the purchase of sex aids to under 18's is considered 'concerning' but is non-chargeable.
What a sad, sad justice system we have :cry:
And something else for you to consider... children under the age of 18 are not allowed to enter 'private' stores. You can get prosecuted for purchasing cigarette's or alcohol to minors... but not for this?!
Thank you for enlightening us! After the case is closed, and the accused walks free, we too hear of 'evidence' that wasn't 'allowable' in court and worry about them reoffending. as you say, they will cover their tracks more carefully next times round
I cannot see why something which is directly related to a criminal case is not allowed to be considered as evidence. How does that work? That's a bit like saying a shoplifter cannot be brought to justice because the CCTV proving they did it had other people's events in it which cannot be brought to court. I know it's not quite the same but still. Crazy it is.
Not only cigarettes and alcohol, but the same applies to knives, lottery tickets, fireworks and DVDs, any age restricted product, to which I believe sexual aids bought from an adult store (which has an age 18 restriction) also belong.
Edit: I attended a course about retail law for my work, and I'm sure it says in the Data Protection Act that evidence can be collected on a person if it describes or helps describe an unlawful act. I could be wrong though.
This is exactly what happened to me here in New Zealand. Someone stole two very expensive statues, it was all on CCTV, witnessed also by the business next door, AND the culprit on the video was a) known to the police and b) positively identified by their own grandmother - YET!!! - this video could not be brought to court as evidence. I spent nearly $5000 on that system, only to find it being rendered USELESS for the express purpose it was purchased and put into action!
The thing with the age limit on things, db, is that older people can go make the purchase and then pass the item (whether it be cigarettes, alcohol or sex aids) onto children. Immoral, yes - possible, absolutely!
Sorry to hear SA
horrible but unfortunately possible
Separate names with a comma.