Generally speaking I would say that yes it is rape. Legally speaking its not usual for a 10 year old to be charged with rape. As I noted children who have been abused (and/or witnessed abuse, I should add) often similarly abuse other children. Most likely the authorities are investigating this possibility and are keeping the children for both questioning and protection.When in the OP I was more thinking of if the those children act should be defined as an act of rape but this is general discussions .. :rofl:
The girl was preteen and I believe the act involved penile penetration.What kind of rape that was and how young the girl was?
"Progress" means improvement: improvement to people's quality of life, improvements to justice, improvements to law and order. In the Medieval Ages, you could be burnt for witchcraft. Now, society is much more informed and witch hunts don't exist in the Western world. I call that progress. In the Medieval Ages, kings had absolute power and rarely respected human rights. Now, the head of state is chosen based on ability and there are checks and balances on his power. I call that progress.What do you mean by "progress?" A change of moral standards overtime does not mean it is superior, in fact, I find there is no logical correlation between them.
Statutory rape is defined as sexual activity with someone under the age of consent (16). Sexual activity with a female under 13 is a more serious charge (aimed at protecting children-- a maximum sentence of life imprisonment can be issued, as opposed to 14 years for statutory rape >16), and one for which there is no defence of consent.EDIT: I noticed in the article it says they are charged with counts of 'attacking a female under the age of 13'; is this what they just call 'statutory rape' in Britain, I don't know..
Morality and objective reality are not in the same league, and should not be judged with the same tools. I think for anyone's morality to be consistent, it has to be universally applied. Moral relativism is the same as no morality.When someone here says that another culture is abhorrent, I think it can be assumed that they mean that it is seen as abhorrent by their own culture. If you say something like "That doesn't mean they're abhorrent, just different." Then the whole concept of morality and related ideas lose all meaning, as there is obviously no a priori, universal morality.
Exactly. I remember these kids used to run my pockets back in middle school and try to beat me up, and a few ultra pc girls would say, "well you shouldn't judge them for that, that's their culture." I would counter saying, "well perhaps it'm my culture to judge them for doing that" and they'd say "that's stupid."Unless you want to adopt some utilitarian scale on which different cultural takes on morality can be graded, the idea of one culture being "better" than another does not even make any sense unless it is done from the viewpoint of a particular culture. If you attack the ability of people to say that a foreign culture is bad because it permits actions that we see as immoral, then you attack the ability of people to make any moral judgements about anything and then this whole area falls apart. A serial killer has a different mini-cultural sphere built up around himself, so he is not subject to my morality, so I cannot judge him?
And if that person refuses to change his behaviour after you told him this, what would you think of him?A slight caveat: Cultural differences are a factor in determining the motivations of people, and ignorance can be a mitigating factor. For example, I worked with a Nigerian immigrant who told me he was going to "stalk" some girl he wanted to marry. I was confused, but I eventually understood that what we call stalking would be considered sincere and honorable courtship in his culture (apparently to prove that his affection was real and not just for a brief sexual encounter). I explained to him that it didn't work that way in America, but clearly, he was not in the same category as a "stalker" in a western culture.
or on their children..Many children who are sexually abused will preform the same sorts of abuse on other children.
The question is what would you think of them ideasrule?And if that person refuses to change his behaviour after you told him this, what would you think of him?
This isn't correct. Moral philosophies do not prescribe values and morals. They only describe a means of perceiving, analyzing, and perhaps constructing moral value systems.Moral relativism is the same as no morality.
So is sexual activity with a male under 13 all right in Britain?Statutory rape is defined as sexual activity with someone under the age of consent (16). Sexual activity with a female under 13 is a more serious charge (aimed at protecting children-- a maximum sentence of life imprisonment can be issued, as opposed to 14 years for statutory rape >16), and one for which there is no defence of consent.
Of course not; it's just irrelevant for the topic in question.So is sexual activity with a male under 13 all right in Britain?
It would be too dependent on the specifics to give a general answer.And if that person refuses to change his behaviour after you told him this, what would you think of him?
Not all of today's kids. I'm 17, male, and have never raped anyone. This is quite the anomaly, though. I'm surprised it could happen at all.My god this is very astonishing just cant take in the news . today s kids have changed a lot i dont know what particular reason behind it. what do they know at this age? really shocking..
Many of us are pretty sheltered from the ugly reality of life. It is not all that uncommon. I've met at least a couple of people who had participated in consensual sexual activity around the age of 10. At least one of them was sexually abused as a child and never told anyone about it (at that time of course).Not all of today's kids. I'm 17, male, and have never raped anyone. This is quite the anomaly, though. I'm surprised it could happen at all.
Yes, well, the anomaly I was talking about was rape at ten, not just sex at ten. Still, you raise a valid point: Many people have (consensual) sex at (what I would consider) a young age. It astonishes me, but I may just be sheltered, as you (I believe) imply.Many of us are pretty sheltered from the ugly reality of life. It is not all that uncommon. I've met at least a couple of people who had participated in consensual sexual activity around the age of 10. At least one of them was sexually abused as a child and never told anyone about it (at that time of course).
I remember I would play "doctor" with girls, and they would tell me I was playing it the wrong way. I thought you actually were suppossed to like, pretend to diagnose someone and write a fake prescription. Years later, I found out it was a euphemism.Yes, well, the anomaly I was talking about was rape at ten, not just sex at ten. Still, you raise a valid point: Many people have (consensual) sex at (what I would consider) a young age. It astonishes me, but I may just be sheltered, as you (I believe) imply.
But don't worry. I'm a self-proclaimed cynic, so I believe that the entire reality of life is irredeemably ugly as it is.
Side note: The Wii that I'm typing on doesn't recognize the word "consensual", yet it does recognize the pseudo-word "wpa2-psk". Just an observation.
I am not saying all the kids are changed but majority of them are changed for sure when compared to older days and currently.Not all of today's kids. I'm 17, male, and have never raped anyone. This is quite the anomaly, though. I'm surprised it could happen at all.