User Controls
Interesting book
-
2023-09-04 at 4:22 PM UTChttps://www.amazon.pl/London-Underworld-Victorian-Period-First-person/dp/0486440060
It takes interviews from people in vicotrian london or england when the age of consent was still 12 or before the reforms of the late 1800s. -
2023-09-04 at 4:23 PM UTCwhat a fascinating time to have lived in. dont you guys think?
-
2023-09-04 at 4:24 PM UTChow would you even know, there's a 0% chance you've read it
-
2023-09-04 at 4:24 PM UTC
-
2023-09-04 at 4:27 PM UTCi want to read it if its available in digital format. I think star trek would find it interesting and kafka seeing as both of them live in the UK.
-
2023-09-04 at 4:27 PM UTCwhat makes you think I dont ever read books aldra?
-
2023-09-04 at 4:29 PM UTCI wonder if a study was ever conducted or ant results witnessed in accounts comparing london to before and after the age of consent was changed from 12 to 13 and from 13 to 16 (which happened like a few years after the first change). Like all of a sudden they went from literlaly no unishment for sex with 12 year olds and a slight misdemeanor to swex with 10/11 yr olds to like risk of life in a penal colony but did the landscae change? were people more careful then? did less young street walkers start to exist or did it have an impact at all? laws?
-
2023-09-04 at 4:29 PM UTCor did it take social reforms in the form of houses to feed needy hungry etc for the real change to occur and not laws aldra?
-
2023-09-04 at 4:55 PM UTC
-
2023-09-04 at 5:23 PM UTCDid you know that jedis still practise the religious thing of putting little boys penisnin there mouth?
There's a name for it but I can't be bothered to search it.
when islam finally becomes compulsory you'll be able to marry all the nine year olds you want. -
2023-09-04 at 5:25 PM UTC
-
2023-09-04 at 6:20 PM UTChttps://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-legacy-of-1885-girls-and-the-age-of-sexual-consent
"The meaning of sexual consent changed in line with social shifts. Victorian legal changes reflected a number of contemporary – sometimes contradictory – concerns with: child welfare, working-class disorder and sexual immorality. The age of consent was changed for the first time in the nineteenth century in 1875, when the felony clause was raised from 10 to 12 and the misdemeanour clause from 12 to 13. It was in 1885, however, that the most significant change took place in the wake of a newspaper exposé of the so-called ‘White Slave Trade’ in young girls. A public interest in child protection drove the passage of the 1885 Criminal Law Amendment Act, but its finer details were concerned as much with control as protection. The law, which set the felony age at 13 and misdemeanour age at 16, reflected a particular late-Victorian conflict between the promotion of child protection and a perceived need to regulate juvenile sexualities.
In 1885 the focus of lawmakers was firmly on the question of female capacity, in two forms: the capacity to consent and the capacity to control emergent sexualities. Giving consent was thought too much of a responsibility for girls before they had adequate mental maturity, which apparently came later than physical development. Before full maturity – physical and mental – girls were thought to need protection not only from men, but also from their own new and disorderly sexual feelings. This question of ‘capacity’ was a double-edged one: it complemented a child protection agenda, but also supported those who feared that girls (especially working-class girls) would ‘fall’ early and should not be given the opportunity to do so. This balance between protection and control ran throughout much Victorian legislation.
It would be a mistake to assume that our current focus on child protection has always underpinned sexual consent legislation. Indeed, even within the last 50 years policy makers have flitted between advocating the relaxation of sexual consent law to allow healthy sexual relationships between consenting teenagers and tightening it to protect children. While the focus is now primarily on the latter, there are still multiple stances on this issue. There were some campaigns to lower the age of sexual consent in the 1970s, particularly between consenting youths, but revelations about the extent of ‘child sexual abuse’ limited the influence of such discussions.
Sexual consent law has recently focused not only on protection, but on protection from a specific type of offender. ‘Child sexual abuse’ is an umbrella term of the late-twentieth century that has specific connotations, associated with types of abuse such as incest and ‘paedophilia’ that the Victorians did not understand in the same way. At a basic level, changes in the understanding of ‘child sexual abuse’ and ‘paedophilia’ since 1885 mean that the protection side of ‘sexual consent’ law now relates to a different type of threat. New types of sexual offence have been written into law recently, in response to this protection agenda. In 2000 and 2003 respectively UK law recognised ‘abuse of a position of trust’ (with an age of consent at 18) and ‘sexual grooming’ as factors contributing to sexual consent.
While ‘child protection’ has implicitly become an increasing focus of sexual consent laws, concerns about sex between consenting teenagers have relaxed over the last century. In consequence the UK made sexual intercourse between men under the age of 18 and girls under the age of 16 a distinct – and lesser – offence in 2003. The purpose of sexual consent law has shifted away from regulating juvenile sexualities and towards preventing exploitation. It is crucial to have an open and informed debate about whether the age of consent, which remains essentially unchanged despite the addition of new offences around it, remains fit for purpose.
There is also a fundamental difference, between the nineteenth century and the current day, in the perceived implications of the law for those over the age of consent. Sexual consent is now understood by many – although not all – as a marker of when girls (and boys) are ‘allowed’ or likely to have sexual intercourse as much as a signifier of their capacity to consent. For the Victorians, sexual consent was certainly not a recommended or permitted age of sexual activity. The 1885 law on sexual consent meant, to cite the 1908 Royal Commissioners on the Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded, that ‘[t]he power of consenting to unlawful defilement … has been taken from girls under sixteen’. This wording is significant: the right to consent was ‘taken away’ from girls under the age of consent, rather than given to those above it. Few commentators approved of sexual intercourse outside of marriage, which was expected to occur in the mid-20s rather than at the legal age of marriage (14 for boys and 12 for girls) or age of sexual consent." -
2023-09-04 at 6:23 PM UTCthis is sort of true tho no? girls form working class families fall ealry even today no?
-
2023-09-04 at 6:42 PM UTC"Sexual consent law has recently focused not only on protection, but on protection from a specific type of offender. ‘Child sexual abuse’ is an umbrella term of the late-twentieth century that has specific connotations, associated with types of abuse such as incest and ‘paedophilia’ that the Victorians did not understand in the same way. At a basic level, changes in the understanding of ‘child sexual abuse’ and ‘paedophilia’ since 1885 mean that the protection side of ‘sexual consent’ law now relates to a different type of threat. New types of sexual offence have been written into law recently, in response to this protection agenda. In 2000 and 2003 respectively UK law recognised ‘abuse of a position of trust’ (with an age of consent at 18) and ‘sexual grooming’ as factors contributing to sexual consent."
-
2023-09-04 at 6:44 PM UTCagain read the passage it seems msot of you are jsut victims of the time sor the hot topic of the times or media influence or the influence of the lawmakers who have agendas,.
-
2023-09-04 at 6:47 PM UTC"There is also a fundamental difference, between the nineteenth century and the current day, in the perceived implications of the law for those over the age of consent. Sexual consent is now understood by many – although not all – as a marker of when girls (and boys) are ‘allowed’ or likely to have sexual intercourse as much as a signifier of their capacity to consent. For the Victorians, sexual consent was certainly not a recommended or permitted age of sexual activity. The 1885 law on sexual consent meant, to cite the 1908 Royal Commissioners on the Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded, that ‘[t]he power of consenting to unlawful defilement … has been taken from girls under sixteen’. This wording is significant: the right to consent was ‘taken away’ from girls under the age of consent, rather than given to those above it. Few commentators approved of sexual intercourse outside of marriage, which was expected to occur in the mid-20s rather than at the legal age of marriage (14 for boys and 12 for girls) or age of sexual consent."
-
2023-09-04 at 6:54 PM UTC"Do you just google variations of 'Child Sex' all day?" - aldra
-
2023-09-04 at 7:01 PM UTC"Why 13 and 16?
The 1885 law did not protect all children equally. The two-tier system had a long history, but the gap between misdemeanour and felony widened in the late-Victorian period. The law also introduced new clauses that limited the legal protection given to so-called ‘precocious’ girls who reached maturity early. It was a compromise between those who supported and opposed raising the age of consent. Women’s rights campaigners such as Josephine Butler had pushed for a higher age of consent, of 18 or even 21, on the basis that some girls were still ‘children’ in mind before these ages. Those who argued for maintaining the existing sexual consent age of 13, however, argued that many girls of the ‘lower’ classes were not ‘childlike’. They claimed that raising the age of consent would pose blackmail risks to unwitting males, especially if girls looked and acted older than their years.
The Criminal Law Amendment Act limited opportunities for blackmail by ‘precocious’ girls by incorporating a clause that exonerated men of any age who had ‘reasonable cause’ to believe that a girl aged 13-15 was over the age of 16; any girl who looked older than her age was therefore not automatically protected by the law. This decision was based on comments such as those made by Sir Thomas Chambers in 1885, who emphasised that sexual consent law should be grounded in ‘fairness to both sides’ and that ‘it might be that a girl of 13 looked much older than she was; it might be that she was not the seduced but the seducer’. The ‘reasonable belief’ clause was restricted to cases involving first offences by men under the age of 24 in 1922. However, it was broadened again in 2003 after a 2001 case law decision (R v K [2001] 3 W.L.R. 471 HL) found that a 26-year-old defendant could be acquitted of an offence against a 14-year-old girl when he had an ‘honest belief’ she was over the age of 16.
Concerns about precocious behaviour, irrespective of a girl’s appearance, also have a social and cultural legacy that needs to be addressed. Newspapers are full of reports of cases in which the courts present girls as complicit in sexual abuse: in 2013, for example, there was uproar when a Crown Prosecution Service barrister described a 13-year-old girl as ‘predatory’. Such comments are now barely acceptable, but indicate that the idea of ‘precocious’ girls still lingers. Open and honest conversations about the age of sexual consent need to take into consideration not only the need to protect children, but also how to address and remove the enduring mistrust evident within the legal system of girls who appear physically or behaviourally mature. " -
2023-09-04 at 7:15 PM UTCbro you're 40 and live off your mom, I don't think some beautiful young teen wants to shack up with you (In your mom's shack) and be molested by a chubby sex offender from California, I couldn't imagine the horror of getting stupid drunk and going home with this cool older guy and now he wants me to suck off a dog and drink piss and do facial abuse.
Kill yourself.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2023-09-04 at 7:21 PM UTC
Originally posted by Wariat "Why 13 and 16?
The 1885 law did not protect all children equally. The two-tier system had a long history, but the gap between misdemeanour and felony widened in the late-Victorian period. The law also introduced new clauses that limited the legal protection given to so-called ‘precocious’ girls who reached maturity early. It was a compromise between those who supported and opposed raising the age of consent. Women’s rights campaigners such as Josephine Butler had pushed for a higher age of consent, of 18 or even 21, on the basis that some girls were still ‘children’ in mind before these ages. Those who argued for maintaining the existing sexual consent age of 13, however, argued that many girls of the ‘lower’ classes were not ‘childlike’. They claimed that raising the age of consent would pose blackmail risks to unwitting males, especially if girls looked and acted older than their years.
The Criminal Law Amendment Act limited opportunities for blackmail by ‘precocious’ girls by incorporating a clause that exonerated men of any age who had ‘reasonable cause’ to believe that a girl aged 13-15 was over the age of 16; any girl who looked older than her age was therefore not automatically protected by the law. This decision was based on comments such as those made by Sir Thomas Chambers in 1885, who emphasised that sexual consent law should be grounded in ‘fairness to both sides’ and that ‘it might be that a girl of 13 looked much older than she was; it might be that she was not the seduced but the seducer’. The ‘reasonable belief’ clause was restricted to cases involving first offences by men under the age of 24 in 1922. However, it was broadened again in 2003 after a 2001 case law decision (R v K [2001] 3 W.L.R. 471 HL) found that a 26-year-old defendant could be acquitted of an offence against a 14-year-old girl when he had an ‘honest belief’ she was over the age of 16.
Concerns about precocious behaviour, irrespective of a girl’s appearance, also have a social and cultural legacy that needs to be addressed. Newspapers are full of reports of cases in which the courts present girls as complicit in sexual abuse: in 2013, for example, there was uproar when a Crown Prosecution Service barrister described a 13-year-old girl as ‘predatory’. Such comments are now barely acceptable, but indicate that the idea of ‘precocious’ girls still lingers. Open and honest conversations about the age of sexual consent need to take into consideration not only the need to protect children, but also how to address and remove the enduring mistrust evident within the legal system of girls who appear physically or behaviourally mature. "
btw guys this is how they act in poland or girls aorund 16 tchnically legal or over the aoc by even one yr act this way still. i got threatene dnumerous times or they told me im going to cops even on sypatia the polish dating site this fucking 17 yr old who later made a new profile showing herself all off like half nude even just for writing her before.
