Wednesday, 27 November 2013

Teaching children rape - the South African way

Small post for today.

Dept defends matric rape question

"The Department of Basic Education has stood by its decision to ask drama students to describe how they would stage the rape of a baby. 
The matric exam question has seen teachers, students and parents express outrage over the question, which asks the students to stage the rape of a baby using a loaf of bread and a broomstick as props. 
The question was part of the compulsory section of the dramatic arts exam written earlier this week by government schools. 
The question included an extract from playwright Lara Foot’s play Tshepang, which was reportedly inspired by the 2011 rape of a nine-month-old baby in the Free State. "Baby Tshepang" was raped by her mother's boyfriend. 
Students were asked to describe how they would portray the extract to "maximise the horror of the rape". 
Department of Basic Education spokesperson Elijah Mhlanga said in The Mercury that the subject matter was nothing new to the students 
"By the time pupils are in matric, they have begun to be faced with the realities of adulthood, often beyond the security of their homes and the school system," he said in the report. 
"They will, through media and cinema, have been exposed to many horrific images and reports," said Mhlanga."
Couldn't make it up!
This comes at the same time as the unfolding depravity of Lost Prophets Ian Watkins.
Unbelievable. What is there to say? Words fail...
For a look at the most recent, and frankly quite shocking rape statistics in South Africa, please click here and here.

If I get a reply to my e-mail to S.A Dept of Education, I'll post it here.

Friday, 22 November 2013

The Never-ending Debate on the Age of Consent - a Countdown.

John Ashton
"He claims that lowering the age would make it easier for 15 year-olds to seek contraception and sexual health advice from the NHS and would "draw a line in the sand" against sex at 14 and younger. "My own view is there is an argument for reducing it to 15 but you cannot do it without the public supporting the idea and we need to get a sense of public opinion about this," he said in the interview."
Peter Tatchell
"The existing consent at 16 law was introduced over 100 years ago in a puritanical Victorian era. Since then, society has moved on to more informed and enlightened attitudes about sex. Most importantly, the average age of puberty and sexual arousal has fallen dramatically to around ten to 11. In the light of new evidence, the issue should be revisited and re-examined."
"Any review of the consent laws should be premised on five aims. First, ending the criminalisation of consenting relationships between teens of similar ages. Second, protecting young people against sex abuse. Third, empowering them to make responsible sexual and emotional choices. Fourth, removing the legal obstacles to earlier, more effective sex and relationship education. Fifth, ensuring better contraception and condom provision to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions and to cut the spread of sexual infections like HIV."

Luke Bozier

"Lower the Age of Consent to 13, which is the current average age of puberty onset + 2 years. This standard should be tested every ten years, with the Department of Health being required to produce a standard definition of the average age of puberty each decade."
Barbara Hewson
"As for law reform, now regrettably necessary, my recommendations are: remove complainant anonymity; introduce a strict statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil actions; and reduce the age of consent to 13."
The past few months have seen quite a few news articles concerning the existing age of consent in the UK, and calls for it to be lowered. Firstly by Barbara Hewson back in May, then in the past couple of weeks by John Ashton and Peter Tatchell. In amongst these three, the gem of a blog by Luke Bozier in which he discusses legalising prostitution for anyone over the age of consent (ie 13 in his ideal world), redefining "child pornography" (his words not mine), and legalising necrophilia (with prior consent of both parties prior to death) - not going into this though, you'll have to read his blog if you want to find out more.
Now, regarding the ever present AoC debate, why is it continually being brought up on a regular basis? What is the problem with leaving it as it is - ie 16?
In all the above articles, the underlying reasons for this call to lower the age of consent seems to be the fact that teenagers are having their first sexual experience when they are under 16. In my opinion, just because teenagers are experimenting prior to the age of consent is not a good reason for lowering it.
So, questions -
  • Using this methodology then, shouldn't we be reducing the age of consent for alcohol and tobacco to maybe 13 or 14 as well? After all, a lot of teenagers are drinking and smoking as well. What's the difference? Just because teenagers are experimenting prior to the age of consent is not a reason for lowering it. Thoughts anyone?
  • Peter Tatchell implies in his article that teenagers are "being criminalised" and are ending up on the Sexual Offenders register and getting criminal records for this - "being lumped together with paedophiles and rapists". Over the past decade in the UK, exactly how many teenagers have been criminalised in this way? Rather than generalising in this manner & (deliberately?) scaremongering, perhaps Mr Tatchell could provide accurate figures for this as I don't know of any that I have seen.
  • Three out of the four people above have purely called for the age of consent to be lowered. No indication of whether plans would be put in place to protect 13-16 year olds from child abusers and paedophiles. Only Mr Tatchell has indicated putting measures in place to protect this age group by having a two tiered system similar to other countries. The other three have basically opened to door to exploitation and abuse - and therefore cannot and should not be taken seriously in any way.
  • Regarding the above statement, and although he has indicated a two tiered system, I disagree with Mr Tatchells argument as although it seemingly closes the door to the potential exploitation by older predators, it opens the door to the pressure of having sex at an earlier age. I would imagine that there are plenty of teenagers of 14 or 15 who use the age of consent as a valid argument - a reason for them not to be pressured into having sex by slightly older peers until they are 16. I would also imagine that this reason does work in a lot of cases. By lowering the AoC to 14, this removes this protective barrier and will result in more pressure for youngsters.
  • Professor Ashton indicates in his article that "lowering the age would make it easier for 15 year-olds to seek contraception and sexual health advice from the NHS and would "draw a line in the sand" against sex at 14 and younger". Has professor Ashton never heard of Brook here and here? I am sure there are other equally good organisations that offer the same advice as Brook does. Poor argument in my opinion.
  • The other underlying justification in the articles is that teenagers are reaching puberty at an earlier age. Is this a good enough reason? What about emotional and mental readiness - are younger teenagers developing earlier mentally and emotionally as well as physically?
  • Lastly are there any other reasons such as more peer pressure, the greater accessibility of pornography and the sexualisation of youngsters, drinking etc that are contributing to teenagers having sexual experiences at an earlier age than they might have been years or decades ago? If there are, is this a good enough reason to just lower the AoC on this basis?
So here is the simple solution. Leave it at 16. Why the need to change it? Personally I think that we have it about right here in the UK.

Wednesday, 20 November 2013

The Promotion of Paedophilia Chinese Style - Part Two - AliExpress

"Each Member further represents, warrants and agrees that the User Content that you submit, post or display shall:    
c) not contain information that is defamatory, libelous, threatening or harassing, obscene, objectionable, offensive, sexually explicit or harmful to minors; "
So it states in the Terms and Conditions of Alibaba and AliExpress.
So, again, we have another company - another Chinese company - that has goods for sale that promote paedophilia. Sexually explicit certainly, and 100% definitely "harmful to minors"
So, again, we have another company - another Chinese company - that has what appears to be child sex dolls for sale.
In this case however, there seems to be no contact details for AliExpress anywhere on their website where these items are openly being sold. Their Twitter account is very rarely used, their Facebook page is non-existent, and there are no e-mail contacts. Just Google "Contact AliExpress" and you will see.
One example
One example is above - there are others though. A couple of the ones are here and here - sorry ... there's no way you can say that these are adult ones, these are child ones.
As described in a facebook message in Dining for Dignity - "Ali Express has young girl sex dolls. One is 4 ft. tall with underdeveloped body. Another looks like a tween with a teddy bear. Both have great sexual description"
Nice - not.
Now, after a bit of digging, I have managed to find 3 different e-mail contacts for people at Alibaba including AliExpress (this very elusive company), and include them here:
And as per my previous posting would be extremely grateful for your two minutes in e-mailing them to try to get these products removed. There is no reason whatsoever for such blatant promoting of paedophilia in this way, and although this is probably a miniscule drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things, every little helps. 

Saturday, 16 November 2013

Normalising Paedophilia - the Chinese Way

"Sex dolls look a bit creepy at the best of times, but this is just plain wrong.
A Chinese website is under fire for selling disturbingly life-like child-size, sex dolls.
The disturbing advert, spotted by an advocacy group on Facebook, called Dining for Dignity shows the model of a girl, who does not look much older than 9 or 10.
Described as a “beautiful young girl sex doll for men,” the item costs $178 and is available to ship worldwide.
Worryingly 57 of them have been sold so far to customers in the US, UK, Japan, Germany, and more, the advert shows.
The product listing boasts that it is highly flexible, and that "all three holes can be used."

"Wrong" is the biggest understatement I can think of at this monstrosity. What the hell is anyone anywhere doing openly promoting and selling items like this on their site? The ONLY reason that such a disgusting thing is on their site, can only be to attract paedophile buyers for them to use them and imagine themselves having sex with a real child in any way, disgusting as this sounds. That is of course, until the novelty wears off and they go the next step.....

Surely this cannot be legal?

Surely it cannot be legal to have these shipped anywhere in the world, including the UK? Are there not laws that prevent this type of product/material being sent here?

Personally I have never heard of DHGate before reading the story in the Huffington Post, linked above. Now that I have, I would urge all readers to do two things.

1) Share either the link, or this post, and ask everyone to BOYCOTT DHGate if they use it, or if they come across this site and are tempted to use it. DHGate cannot be allowed to sell items aimed at normalising paedophilia in this blatant way. They cannot be allowed to do this. This is morally and ethically WRONG.

2) Contact DHGate on this link - Message DHGate and make your feelings known. Tell them you will be boycotting their site, and that you will be recommending to everyone you know that they too boycott it. Word will get around - 'The more the merrier' as the well known saying goes. (Unfortunately, unless you have an account with DHGate, you cannot directly message the seller, and I am not doing that).

With the ever increasing global fight against child sexual exploitation and child abuse, it makes no sense whatsoever that with a couple of clicks, paedophiles can be buying themselves a sex doll that appears to be of a pre-pubescent child. We should be standing up against child sexual abuse, not normalising and encouraging it in this disgusting way.

Monday, 11 November 2013

Soft Judges and short sentences equals more reoffending - Who'd have thunk that?

"SEX attackers and violent criminals given short sentences offend again at a rate of more than 50 a week within a year of being released."
"According to figures revealed by the Ministry of Justice, there were 356 sex offences or serious violent crimes together with 2,482 robberies carried out by convicts who had served for less than a year."
"During the course of a decade the Ministry of Justice figures show 35,835 offenders jailed for short- term sentences went on to reoffend, including 3,914 committing violent or sexual crimes. The proposed new Bill aims to drive down Britain’s high reoffending rates, which currently account for 600,000 crimes committed every year."
Blimey! No shit, Sherlock! Talk about stating the blindingly obvious. Someone commits a serious crime, gets a suspended sentence or a pathetically small sentence of a few months, then reoffends when they are released. Who would have guessed that? Of course giving offenders sentences like this, will end up with a greater chance of re-offending - it doesn't take a genius to figure that out!!
Lets have a quick look at the five purposes of sentencing in brief, used supposedly by judges when determining an appropriate sentence for a crime:
1) The punishment of offenders This shows society’s unhappiness with the offence committed. Punishment can include loss of, or restrictions to, a person’s liberty or the payment of a fine.
2) The reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence)
This includes individual deterrence (aimed at preventing the individual offender from committing another crime) and general deterrence (using the sentence imposed on an offender as an example to deter others from committing a similar offence).
3) The reform and rehabilitation of offenders This is aimed at reforming the offender and changing their behaviour. It also links to the purpose of reducing crime. An example of reform and rehabilitation includes a drug and/or alcohol treatment requirement.    
4) The protection of the public. This can include protecting the public from the offender and from the risk of further crimes being committed. This may be achieved, for example, by removing an offender from society (putting them in prison), restrictions on their activities or supervision by probation. the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences
5) The making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences This requires the offender to make amends to those who have been affected by their criminal behaviour. This may be achieved, for example, by the payment of compensation or through restorative justice.  
Mr Grayling, 2 questions:

1) Using these guidelines, how on earth can someone who has committed a violent or a sexual offense NOT get a sentence that runs into years? What goes through judges minds when they pass, for example, a suspended sentence for offenders who Abducted a thirteen year old child , Downloaded eighteen thousand IIOC, Abused boys during the 70s, 80s, and 90s etc?
2)  With the above crimes, (paedophile crimes), there is no excuse whatsoever for dishing out any sort of soft sentences if this crimes is to be taken seriously. Taking Jailed: Paedophile Who Claimed Appalling Abuse Was 'Benefit' To His Victims as a prime example, shows that paedophilia is a different type of crime to the norm. You can "treat" paedophiles, but there is no cure, it isn't a disease - it is a long standing fetish/sexual attraction to children & the only proper way to protect the public from offenders who commit these crimes is a proper, long custodial sentence. Not suspended sentences. Not sentences that are a matter of a few months. Proper ones that reflect the above guidelines, "Protection of the public", "Punishment of Offenders", "Reduction of Crime". When will you take this crime seriously? When will you realise that "once a paedophile, always a paedophile", and put in place proper sentencing guidelines and a proper deterrence that will reduce this crime, and make paedophiles who claim "they can't help themselves" think twice before committing these offences?
This is your second "promise" in just over a month, remember Tough justice for those who watch IIOC: Grayling announces perverts will no longer escape with 'slap on the wrist' in crackdown on soft punishments from September this year? So Mr Grayling, will we see anything from either of these "promises", or are these both the usual empty ones? Words are one thing, but taking action is another? We will be watching.

Saturday, 2 November 2013

Whopping Pedophilia 'Sexual Orientation' Error Sparks Common Sense Freakout

So, further to my previous posting, it looks like (unfortunately to all the paedophiles and their supporters - unlucky!!), LGBT is to stay as LGTB and not with the added "P" in it.

"In a text discussion of changes it made to the way it refers to sexually deviant behaviours in its updated Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM, for short), the APA accidentally called paedophilia a "sexual orientation." Conservative media outlets and pundits pounced on the statement and disseminated it on blogs and social networks.
The APA issued a statement to the press on Thursday, saying it had acted in "error," and clarifying that the only difference in how paedophilia is referred to from the last DSM is that "the disorder name was changed from 'paedophilia' to 'paedophilic disorder'" in order to "maintain consistency with the chapter’s other disorder listings.""

So common sense prevails, this makes complete sense - orientation being "an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender" (Wiki). Thus meaning you can (quite obviously I would have thought) have paedophiles of any orientation - whether they be LGB or T.

So, if it doesn't sit as an orientation, where does it sit within the DSM / APA? Quite rightly now in DSM-5 it is listed in their "Paraphilic Disorders Fact Sheet". For those who are not sure what exactly this means, according to the Free Online Dictionary, paraphilia  is described as a group of psychosexual disorders characterized by sexual fantasies, feelings, or activities involving a nonhuman object, a nonconsenting partner such as a child, or pain or humiliation of oneself or one's partner

One of the key words here being "nonconsenting". Nonconsenting in layman's language being rape. And rape being illegal. Thus no longer being "normalised", no longer being legitimised by DSM-5 or APA. The way it should be now, and the way it should always be going forward. Instead of over-analysing the cause of paedophilia and trying to find excuses for those who sexually abuse children, we should be accepting that some people are sexually inclined this way, and be concentrating more on both catching offenders who actively practise it, getting sentencing and future deterrence correct, and be providing proper, non-prejudicial justice and support for it's victims.