Having sex with with girls under the age of 16
-
Under Singapore's Women's Charter, it is a crime to have sex with a female under the age of 16 even if the girl consents.
Then how come its not a crime if a female has sex with a boy under the age of 16? -
Under the Children and Young Persons Act, the woman could still be charged if there is proof that she had subjected the male child to physical/sexual abuse that is likely to cause him emotional injury, or injury to his health or development.
-
So far, Singapore has not had anybody like Mary-Kay Letorneau yet. The case of Letourneau raised a major storm in the US when it first broke.
-
If, there is proof???Originally posted by Tuatau:if there is proof that she had subjected the male child to physical/sexual abuse that is likely to cause him emotional injury, or injury to his health or development.
So it must be proven that the male child has suffered some form of injury, then only the female can be charged?
Under the current law if a male has sex with a female under the age of 16,will be charged..no need to prove that she has suffered. -
Originally posted by iveco:
Well, Singapore has no lack of hot-blooded boys who can't wait to lose their virginity. Perhaps there is no such similar Letourneau case in Singapore because the older women may have taken either preventive or corrective actions against pregnancy to avoid exposing such scandals to public scrutiny.
So far, Singapore has not had anybody like Mary-Kay Letorneau yet. The case of Letourneau raised a major storm in the US when it first broke. -
Originally posted by plo30360:
The same principle applies to a male victim as well. Even without evidence of injury or trauma, the same charges of child abuse could still stand if the prosecutor could prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the victim has suffered injury to health and development, physically or mentally.
Under the current law if a male has sex with a female under the age of 16,will be charged..no need to prove that she has suffered. -
As far as I know, males (whether below or above 16) find it a daunting uphill task to bring the female attacker to justice especially in asian society.It will take a long time(if ever) for this to change.
-
Originally posted by highway69:
It is rather embarrassing for a male victim (whether below or above 16) to report that he has been sexually abused by female attacker(s) especially in Asian society. With that kind of social stigma, most of them would just prefer to keep it hush-hush and weep secretly in the bathroom.
As far as I know, males (whether below or above 16) find it a daunting uphill task to bring the female attacker to justice especially in asian society.It will take a long time(if ever) for this to change. -
Yes, but the law can lead the way in social change.Originally posted by Tuatau:It is rather embarrassing for a male victim (whether below or above 16) to report that he has been sexually abused by female attacker(s) especially in Asian society. With that kind of social stigma, most of them would just prefer to keep it hush-hush and weep secretly in the bathroom. -
Again why this need to prove. Let me clarify my earlier post, if a male has sex with a female under the age of 16, the male will be punished,all the prosecutor has to prove in this case is that the girl is below 16 and the male had sex with her.Originally posted by Tuatau:if the prosecutor could prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the victim has suffered injury to health and development, physically or mentally.
How come the same does not apply to the male, that he has to prove that he has suffered some form of injury? Can't the female just be punished on the basis that she had sex with a male below 16? -
Originally posted by plo30360:
Statutory rape provisions in both the Penal Code and the Women's Charter apply only to female victims.
How come the same does not apply to the male, that he has to prove that he has suffered some form of injury? Can't the female just be punished on the basis that she had sex with a male below 16?
There is no age of consent for males in Singapore. The case can only stand if tried on charges of child abuse, not rape. -
The Women's Charter if for Women, and it is biased to protect Women only.
Thta's why, in a divorce, regardless of whether you are rich or a broken jobless man sick and have medical treatments to pay for every month, your ex-wife can still demand cuel amounts of money from you as monthly maintenance.
Fairness to men, has no place in Women's Charter.
Dig it; having sex with a minor (16yo), is akin to playing with a bomb. Anyway, in my opinion, it's immoral to do so. -
What about in the case of a woman(above 16) has consesual sex with a guy, then suddenly cries rape?
-
I strongly believe "Women's Chapter" needs to be up to date.
Now male & female are almost on level ground. Not like 30 years back where most women are house makers.
I am sure 99.5% of Singaporean have heard of some story of someone using laws in Women's Chapter to hurt someone else espically husbands. It burns Singaporean Male.
If this was not to change, the push of getting people to marriage is not going to be fruitful. Then this problem been push into another problems, like not enough Singaporean, need foreigners.....
Female now in Singapore are no more seen as weaker sex. They work, earn almost same salary, have big careers, big post .... I really don't see female as a wearker sex that needs specific sets of laws to protect them.
I also believe Rape is Rape. No matter is which sex rape. Male rape Female, Female Rape Female, Female Rape male or male raping male. It's wrong. As for age concers, 16 years seems right to me but should cover both sex not just cover females. -
One word:Originally posted by shade343:What about in the case of a woman(above 16) has consesual sex with a guy, then suddenly cries rape?
Suay....
+1...
-
Woman have grown to be smarter, while men remains as they wereOriginally posted by surfer188:I strongly believe "Women's Chapter" needs to be up to date.
Now male & female are almost on level ground. Not like 30 years back where most women are house makers.
I am sure 99.5% of Singaporean have heard of some story of someone using laws in Women's Chapter to hurt someone else espically husbands. It burns Singaporean Male.
If this was not to change, the push of getting people to marriage is not going to be fruitful. Then this problem been push into another problems, like not enough Singaporean, need foreigners.....
Female now in Singapore are no more seen as weaker sex. They work, earn almost same salary, have big careers, big post .... I really don't see female as a wearker sex that needs specific sets of laws to protect them.
I also believe Rape is Rape. No matter is which sex rape. Male rape Female, Female Rape Female, Female Rape male or male raping male. It's wrong. As for age concers, 16 years seems right to me but should cover both sex not just cover females. -
Originally posted by shade343:
Under the Women's Charter, if a man is accused of rape, the burden of proof usually lies on the accused to prove that he had had consensual sex with the complainant.
What about in the case of a woman(above 16) has consesual sex with a guy, then suddenly cries rape?
There was a similar case in 2003 where an Indian former TV presenter Vidya Shankar Aiyar was charged with outraging the modesty of a female colleague after a housewarming party. His defence was that the female colleague had flirted with him and led him on with kisses and stroking of his thigh during the party. Nevertheless, he was found guilty and sentenced to 16 months of imprisonment and 4 strokes of the cane. -
If Shankar had done what he did in UK, it is likely he would not be on trial. The reason being that the British media is relatively unbridled and can dig out the low-down on his accuser (who may even sell her story to them). The widespread attention given to the case by the public endangers the possibility of Shanker getting a fair trial and the Crown Prosecution Service might decide to throw out the case altogether. It has happened before in late 2003, when several English Premiership football stars were implicated in a rape scandal, but the case was not brought to court.Originally posted by Tuatau:There was a similar case in 2003 where an Indian former TV presenter Vidya Shankar Aiyar was charged with outraging the modesty of a female colleague after a housewarming party. His defence was that the female colleague had flirted with him and led him on with kisses and stroking of his thigh during the party. Nevertheless, he was found guilty and sentenced to 16 months of imprisonment and 4 strokes of the cane. -
At least here's something to cheer about.Originally posted by Pea brain:Woman convicted of raping man
From correspondents in Oslo
April 28, 2005
A NORWEGIAN court has sentenced a woman to nine months in jail for raping a man, the first such conviction in the Scandinavian country that prides itself for its egalitarianism.
The 31-year-old man fell asleep on a sofa at a party in January last year and told the court in the western city of Bergen he woke to find the 23-year-old woman was having oral sex with him.
Under Norwegian law, all sexual acts with someone who is "unconscious or for other reasons unable to oppose the act" are considered rape.
The court sentenced the woman on Wednesday to nine months in jail and ordered her to pay 40,000 Norwegian crowns ($6355) in compensation.
"This is a very harsh sentence," the woman's lawyer, Per Magne Kristiansen, told the Norwegian news agency NTB. The woman argued the man had been awake and consented.
The prosecutor had sought a 10-month sentence and argued the court should not be more lenient with a woman than a man. It was Norway's first conviction of a woman for rape.
Norway has long traditions of equality – 40 percent of the cabinet of Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik, for instance, are women. -
In this society, women are highly endangered species where they are protected by the Woman's Charter...
Man touch them--->guility--->prison and caning---->
---->serve you right
Man touch them--->innocent--->also ashamed by pp around you--->
Woman touch man--->guilty--->pay fine--->forgotten easily--->
Woman touch man--->innocent--->most prob innocent because the law believes more in woman than man's story...
Come on...in news...you only hear women making up stories that they were raped by so and so(actually they had consensus sex) or that so and so molested them... but if that is not the case, the judge only hands out couple of months in jail...that is so unfair to guys because image the amount of shame and stares he had to suffer during hearing ahd even after he has been discharged!
Do you hear man complaining?
Well...i am not against woman..i am just against the legal system in spore where women, impt pp, are protected in one way or another...
-
which also bring us to another interesting question, if a female drunk a man and sleeps with/rape him and becomes pegnant. must the man take responsibility?
-
x2.Originally posted by surfer188:I strongly believe "Women's Chapter" needs to be up to date.
Now male & female are almost on level ground. Not like 30 years back where most women are house makers.
I am sure 99.5% of Singaporean have heard of some story of someone using laws in Women's Chapter to hurt someone else espically husbands. It burns Singaporean Male.
If this was not to change, the push of getting people to marriage is not going to be fruitful. Then this problem been push into another problems, like not enough Singaporean, need foreigners.....
Female now in Singapore are no more seen as weaker sex. They work, earn almost same salary, have big careers, big post .... I really don't see female as a wearker sex that needs specific sets of laws to protect them.
I also believe Rape is Rape. No matter is which sex rape. Male rape Female, Female Rape Female, Female Rape male or male raping male. It's wrong. As for age concers, 16 years seems right to me but should cover both sex not just cover females.
-
I recommend for rape cases:
If within 24hrs or UNDER the "Time Frame of Physical Evidence to be Collected", the women "must" go thru a medical examinations for evidences of rape. Her spoken words will be taken in but should be not consider as evidence because physical evidence is enough for confirm a rape & is within the "Time Frame of Physical Evidence".
If it's already more then 24hrs or OVER the "Time Frame of Physical Evidence to be Collected", the words are considered to be taken in as evidence but with doubt flavourable to the mentioned "Attacker". Basically because one should face a crime done to you rather then hide it for sometime.
I know that if sex is non consensus, there is scratch marks at the gential areas. And these marks are very different from consensus sex or even consensus don't have marks. Also body hurt marks can determine estimate time of crime occur.
Sure most have seen "CSI" (Crime Sence Investigator). Modern science is a super tools to crime. There is no doubt about science used to support laws.
For molest cases: It's more like a Chicken & Egg I feel. Just touches is pretty difficult to be proven. Both complianant & defenant words are in doubt if without evidence & third party proves. Sure there is some space to be "LOOKED INTO".
Or someone can invent a device to prove molest?? Something to suck up all particule on the body for evidnce?? Time to call for "Young Invertors Award" -
Originally posted by surfer188:
If in doubt, just treat as lap dancers: "See, no touch".
Or someone can invent a device to prove molest?? Something to suck up all particule on the body for evidnce?? Time to call for "Young Invertors Award" -
Originally posted by Gordonator:
If your idea of 'responsibility' refers to acknowledgement of the baby and subsequent marriage, then the answer is "no". Rape victims are not compelled by law to accept family responsibilities.
which also bring us to another interesting question, if a female drunk a man and sleeps with/rape him and becomes pegnant. must the man take responsibility?
If your 'responsibility' refers to criminal justice, it must be proven that the act of sexual intercourse was not concensual, and that the man was unaware that he was having sex with his rapist before he could be acquited.