Jump to content
Male HQ

Singapore Local Gay News [LGBT Related News] (Compiled)


GuestWriter
 Share

Recommended Posts

....then u will see the jails filled to the brim with kids cos they fight, they vandalise, they play with each others' private parts etc that all adults also indulged in. The law has always given kids the leeways and the protections becos they are kids and they cannot think so smart like u, Mr. Jazz.

This is a 15 yr old we are talking about, Mr Guest. That is also the reason why we have the Juvenile Court.

It's my personal opinion..... Do not have to do a personal attack by comparing them to me..... saying they are not as smart....

Under Section 377 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224, "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine."

The section reads "whoever".....!!!!!!

The minor can still be charged and since he is under 16, he will not end up in jail.... maybe he may get a probation or juvenile home or subject to counselling.... or whatever....

Cannot be that he is a victim. Victim of what???? :swear:

Doesn't really need a smart person to comprehen this!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article was reported perhaps two days ago in Straits Times but under one of those inconspicuous corner.

Details were minimum - with the name of the man being reported and the sentence terms.

I'm not sure if the chinese press has "added salt added vinegar" to the report but

as someone pointed out, the law is always protecting the minor and regardless if the minor has committed the act or any unlawful act willilngly and knowingly, it is still the responsibility of the adult to know better than to do it with a minor.

Your sentiment is understood and shared but that is the fallacy of the law.

Bottomline as you rightly said, we should always remember "never never never commit any wrong with an underage person"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Public Forum is for discussion purposes. To share information. To share views.

It is also for people to POST their personal views FOR others and not IMPOSE their views ON others.

Whether you agree or disagee, just say so... add your own opinions / views or whatever you have to substantiate your views.

Do not take things personally and do a direct attack on anyone.... (example saying things like, "they not like you so clever, etc...).

So sarcastic.... :swear:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am just sharing with you what I know....

Whatever an offence has occured and a report made, in this case it is quite obviously so, the police cannot on their own decide to charge or not to charge. If it is an arrestable offence, then the minor will be arrested and released on bail. Only after consultation with the Public Prosecutor, will the public prosecutor decide whether to proceed to charge or not.

Only if an offence is committed by a person who is under the age of 7, then would it be considered as no offence. This is provided by the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take it easy Jazz.

I appreciate writing in forum as a space for expression of opinion but I too find sometimes some response could be personal and this is not necessary.

And not to mention, cyberspace communication always create lots of miscommunication problem so try not to read into the tone. :) Sometimes people take our expression as harsh but we could be joking.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're the one who "added salt added vinegar"..I'm saying the Chinese papers. They're well known. Tabloids what..otherwise how can they survive? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take it easy Jazz.

I appreciate writing in forum as a space for expression of opinion but I too find sometimes some response could be personal and this is not necessary.

And not to mention, cyberspace communication always create lots of miscommunication problem so try not to read into the tone. :)   Sometimes people take our expression as harsh but we could be joking.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're the one who "added salt added vinegar"..I'm saying the Chinese papers. They're well known.  Tabloids what..otherwise how can they survive?  :)

No problem... Fully understood your posting.

No offence taken. No worries :thumb:

Personal views is okay, but personal attacks??

Just read the posts of some unregistered guest!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reminded me of an incident when a young boy was witnessed playing SM with a older malay guy in one of the shopping mall toilets in the west... The boy was 'blindfolded' and servicing the man... both totally ignorant that their act was seen by me and several other people... They left when they realised, finally, that they had an audience...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to REMIND everyone that unnatural sex is STILL AN OFFENCE

Unnatural?

Don't mean to be antagonistic but love to take you on that remark.

By law, by religion, by society or by God?

I remembered seeing this old movie by Demi Moore in Scarlet Letter. The movie (for those who have no idea what its about) was about a woman accused of having extra marital affairs etc and was labelled as "Adulterous" etc.. and she said ..

"Who is to say what a sin is in the eyes of God?"

Let us not be too caught up by what people or the law says. I'm not advocating breaking the law but let us learn to see and judge with our own eyes and mind. And even that does not mean we are right.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

d.d, unless I read you wrongly, are you suggesting that the world is a better place with no institutions giving guiding principles like law, religion and the fear of God? So if a man engage in bestiality, would that act be too fuzzy to be deem unatural? The very same institutions in some countries have begun to recognise same sex marriage and homosexuality - are they necessary wrong? What era was Scarlet Letter by the way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Far from what you may have misinterpreted. I am not advocating a world without laws and rules.

What I am encouraging is for everyone not to take everything as it is or at face value.

All laws and rules are set by men - like you and I. No man is a saint and mistakes are bound to be made.

I am not here to judge and nobody should ever judge others using their own yardstick.

And about your interesting remark of "fear of God", personally if one's God is to be feared, that is not God. That is a Tyrant. :D

Live a good life of your own, not by how others view you or how others judge you or how others want you.

Cheers!

PS- Believed the movie "The Scarlet Letter" was made in early 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

The man was prosecuted because he sodomised a MINOR. Not simply because he engaged in sodomy. Whether it was consensual or not does not matter simply because the age of consent in Singapore is 16.

Where sodomy is concerned, from what I have read some time ago, no man in Singapore had ever been specifically charged and convicted of engaging in CONSENSUAL anal sex with another adult male (read adult man, not minor). I would be glad if someone could prove me wrong.

Having said that, I clearly remembered a case about 8 to 10 years ago, when a man was indeed charged specifically with sodomy and was sentenced to only 3 months jail. However, he had anal sex with his girlfriend - not another man. This lady was his spare tyre and he promised to ditch the longtime girlfriend for this one if she would agree to be his anal bottom. Poor lady agreed and he had his dirty ways with her a couple of times and then he ditched her. Poor lady was so enraged but smart enough and she threatened him with the unnatural sex laws and when he still would not go back to her, she went to the police. Funny thing was she was not charged though.

A lawyer friend told me the police and the Attorney General Office are now quite sceptical to bring charges to this kind of cases as potentially, there literally could be thousand of such incidents because of personal vendettas and sour grapes. My guess and my guess only, is that the police may threaten to charge the reporting party involving a unnatural sex incident as well. That's why we never hear of more of such incidents. The law will tend to close one eye if bj or sodomy are committed between two willing consensual adults.

If sodomy occurs in a rape situation or involving a minor, the punishment is usually harsher than when only sexual intercourse is involved. Remember the horny 15 years old girl who went to a chatroom and end up having sex with a couple of adult males. The guys were all sentenced to about 9 months jail even though the girl was a willing party. They were all charged with having sex with a minor rather than rape.

These so called unnatural sex laws are archaic and draconians. To be fair though, the government had not been using these laws to specifically target gay men. They seemed quite content that we are here to stay and are comfortable with this knowledge.

That does not mean they will not use these laws against us. But for the moment, lets just sleep (pun intended) with the fact that unless you are sleeping with a minor, or sleeping with an unwilling party, or sleeping in public, the government does not care who you sleep with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The man was prosecuted because he sodomised a MINOR.  Not simply because he engaged in sodomy.  Whether it was consensual or not does not matter simply because the age of consent in Singapore is 16.

Where sodomy is concerned, from what I have read some time ago, no man in Singapore had ever been specifically charged and convicted of engaging in CONSENSUAL anal sex with another adult male (read adult man, not minor).  I would be glad if someone could prove me wrong.  

Having said that, I clearly remembered a case about 8 to 10 years ago, when a man was indeed charged specifically with sodomy and was sentenced to only 3 months jail.  However, he had anal sex with his girlfriend - not another man.  This lady was his spare tyre and he promised to ditch the longtime girlfriend for this one if she would agree to be his anal bottom.  Poor lady agreed and he had his dirty ways with her a couple of times and then he ditched her.  Poor lady was so enraged but smart enough and she threatened him with the unnatural sex laws and when he still would not go back to her, she went to the police.  Funny thing was she was not charged though.

A lawyer friend told me the police and the Attorney General Office are now quite sceptical to bring charges to this kind of cases as potentially, there literally could be thousand of such incidents because of personal vendettas and sour grapes.   My guess and my guess only, is that the police may threaten to charge the reporting party involving a unnatural sex incident as well. That's why we never hear of more of such incidents. The law will tend to close one eye if bj or sodomy are committed between two willing consensual adults.

If sodomy occurs in a rape situation or involving a minor, the punishment is usually harsher .........

These so called unnatural sex laws are archaic and draconians.  To be fair though, the government had not been using these laws to specifically target gay men.  They seemed quite content that we are here to stay and are comfortable with this knowledge.......

When a consent is not a consent (due to age), it is only in relation to rape cases. Anyway, as defined by Section 375 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224, this is when a consent if given by a female age 14 years and below.

In the case of unnatural offence, under Section 377, it read "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman ..."

The word “man” denotes a male human being of any age. So, there is NO ISSUE of age under this Section. As such, no age issue in the case reported in the papers.

There has been many cases whereby CONSENSUAL sex between 2 ADULT males have been brought before the Courts. Maybe a lawyer friend can advise on this.

"Oral sex is a crime unless it is followed by penile-vaginal sex, Singapore's Court of Appeal ruled Feb. 21 [1997]. "the coitus of the male and female sexual organs" is natural and "unnatural acts" are permitted only as foreplay, the court said."

Interesting articles for reading pleasure...... http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/singapore/singapore.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Smarter than you think

I don't think that 15yo boy is confused with his sexuality. I think he is gay and he need sex, that why he has sex with the men not once but twice. Nowadays kids are smarter. My nephew is only 10yo and he knows what is gay and what gay men do, at my age I was too naive to understand about homosexuality. Can you belive that !

Near my home swimming pool, I ever saw a Indian boy, I think should be only 14yo. After school he will go to the shower room, sat and watch guys showering,few times he will hand around the toliet in his school uniform.

I was totally shocked at such a tender age, he already doing such pervert thing, I wonder what will happen when he grow up.

By the way I only befriend anyone (guys) who are above 21 yo. Boys boys is a no no to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

The bottomline. so what if the boy is a schemer. Hey, he could even be out baiting u guys or setting up an entrapment. SO?? so what if the law says they could be charged and sent to a juvenile home. In the eyes of the todays' judges, he is still a victim until 16. For those yeaning for young flesh and cannot tahan they could get away with it, well eat your heart out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
When a consent is not a consent (due to age), it is only in relation to rape cases. Anyway, as defined by Section 375 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224, this is when a consent if given by a female age 14 years and below.

You are referring to statutory rape. Even if an underage female consent to sex with an adult male, that is statutory rape. If an underage female did not consent to sex with an adult male, then that is simply rape and the punishment is often in excess of 20 years plus caning. Your link includes the case of a policeman who was charged when an UNDERAGE female gives him oral sex.

In this case we are discussing in this thread, similarly an UNDERAGE boy had consented to being sodomised. That's why it is only 5 years imprisonment. If that guy had forceably raped the boy, he will get 20 years or more.

In both cases, charges were brought to the courts for unnatural sex offences because it involves UNDERAGE kids!

The word “man” denotes a male human being of any age. So, there is NO ISSUE of age under this Section. As such, no age issue in the case reported in the papers.

No age issue??? Are you kidding me? Are you suggesting the police will charge two kids for playing "doctor"? Or please! Of course there is age limitations where our laws on sexual offences are concerned. Young people are deemed to be "unaware" when they have sex with an adult.

There has been many cases whereby CONSENSUAL sex between 2 ADULT males have been brought before the Courts. Maybe a lawyer friend can advise on this.

Where did you get this? Do not anyhow ham-tam information when you do not have the facts! Are you not reading the same link you had quoted? Again as proven from the links you yourself provided, the only prosecutions was for molesting police decoys (entrapments), soliciting from a police decoy (entrapments) and for obscene acts. Prosecution for obscene acts usually involve sexual acts between two men in toilets or PUBLIC PLACES. They had never prosecuted gays specifically for committing sodomy.

I quote from one of your links:

In reality, Singapore’s government says it has not charged anyone for homosexual acts in over 40 years. And Singapore is, or was until recently, becoming the place for gays in Southeast Asia.

My contention was and still is "no man in Singapore had ever been specifically charged and convicted of engaging in CONSENSUAL anal sex with another adult male (read adult man, not minor)." Appreciate you stick to this point only please.

Next time please read through all the articles from your own link before you post.

And one last thing, don't provide a link that dispute your own argument. It is like giving your opponent a hard cucumber to stick it up your backside - which actually might be an offence under section 377A of our Penal Code Just my own opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG ... :angry: Please DO NOT mislead others with sweeping statement.

I hope those who are under 16 and are reading this forum, please DO NOT be misled into thinking that you can get away just because you are considered a minor, defined by the law. I bet you, to the last cent, that this is NOT true.

AGAIN, the law doesn't just protect anyone under 16.

Section 82 of the Penal Code reads "Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under 7 years of age". So unless you are under 7 years of age.

If you commit a crime under any of the Sections of the Legal System, you will not be named as a VICTIM. You will only be named as an ACCUSED.

However, because you are under 16, studying, have a bright future, remourseful for your action, good school report, blah blah blah, the police, on consultation with the Public Prosecutor, MAY give a stern warining in lieu of court prosecution.

DO NOT take this as a guarantee, because it is NOT :angry:

Got a warning and if you are arrested a 2nd time, God Bless You.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course there is age limitations where our laws on sexual offences are concerned.  Young people are deemed to be "unaware" when they have sex with an adult.

Which section of our Singapore law says this?????

In your very own words....... "Do not anyhow ham-tam information"

You are simply misleading others....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are referring to statutory rape.  Even if an underage female consent to sex with an adult male, that is statutory rape.  If an underage female did not consent to sex with an adult male, then that is simply rape and the punishment is often in excess of 20 years plus caning.  Your link includes the case of a policeman who was charged when an UNDERAGE female gives him oral sex.             

In this case we are discussing in this thread, similarly an UNDERAGE boy had consented to being sodomised.  That's why it is only 5 years imprisonment.  If that guy had forceably raped the boy, he will get 20 years or more.

In both cases, charges were brought to the courts for unnatural sex offences because it involves UNDERAGE kids!

OMG.... You are apparently rewriting the law and their punishments. Even the Chief Justice does not have such legal powers....!!!!

Section 376(1) of the Penal Code reads "whoever commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning."

However, while dealing with accused committing rape by having sexual intercourse with a woman under 14 years of age WITHOUT HER CONSENT, Section 376(2) will apply.

Section 376(2) reads "... with a woman under 14 years of age without her consent, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 8 years and not more than 20 years and shall also be punished with caning with not less than 12 strokes."

Sex with woman under 14 years = Rape (don't care got consent or no consent)

If got consent, then the man can be charged under Section 376(1).

If got NO consent, then they will charge under Section 376(2).

The difference is there is a minimum term of 8 years. The maximum is still 20 years plus a fine OR canning....

Where got "often in excess of 20 years plus canning"???? :swear:

Please go read up some law books if you do not know.......

Anyway, you CANNOT even charge a person for Rape under Section 376(1) or (2) if the "victim" is a male.... For a Rape charge to stand, the victim must be a WOMAN.

I bet you don't even know that a person charge under Section 377 can be sentence to an Imprisonment for Life. This can potentially be more serious than a Rape charge.

The link was provided for reading pleasure, not to support my points... :yuk:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My contention was and still is "no man in Singapore had ever been specifically charged and convicted of engaging in CONSENSUAL anal sex with another adult male (read adult man, not minor)."  Appreciate you stick to this point only please.

Well, hope you get arrested with a dick up your arse.

Then you will learn the HARD way (pun intended).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Jazz = aspiring private law student

If you graduate and I seriously doubt you will you better stick to property conveyancing only. You do not seemed to have the brain and intelligence to be an advocate.

No one here is asking or even remotely suggesting that a minor should go and commit a crime. You started suggesting it first. Stick to the damn original topic or shut up.

I have listed examples and you yourself have even linked to a website that conclusively stated that no adults had been prosecuted for commiting and you are still yakking away like a broken record. Try presenting hard evidences and facts instead of repeating your two cents knowledge of the penal codes.

Just to quote how fxxking wrong and outdated you are:

I bet you don't even know that a person charge under Section 377 can be sentence to an Imprisonment for Life. This can potentially be more serious than a Rape charge.

From the PLUs website:

Relevant provisions in Singapore's Penal Code

Section 377

"Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Your law books are oudated, throw it away. It is now ten years. The amendment was made in 2004. What other outdated crap have you learnt from your outdated books?

Don't come here and show off your two bit bull knowledge about the Penal Codes. The fact of the matter is, and the government had said it, section 377 and 377A had never been used specifically against consenting gay adult males. If you still insist it had happened, in spite, of what your linked website says, then remember you might potentially be committing libel. I don't have to point to which act of the Penal Codes that is. Remember again, posting in an internet forum is like putting a comment in print. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU WROTE.

The authorities are possibly reading this website. So don't anyhow go and hamtam what they have done or not done in prosecuting consenting adult males under section 377 and 377A when they say they have not.

The Chinese says "if you don't open your mouth, people would not know that you are a fool." The English says "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Combining them both in the way you had presented your case, it just proves you as a dangerous fool. Hell, maybe you can plead insanity when they knock on your door. You should qualify.

And then perhaps god will bless you too. :lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My contention was and still is "no man in Singapore had ever been specifically charged and convicted of engaging in CONSENSUAL anal sex with another adult male (read adult man, not minor)."  Appreciate you stick to this point only please.

Well, hope you get arrested with a dick up your arse.

Then you will learn the HARD way (pun intended).

For those who are interested to read up the exact words of our SG laws :

Singapore Statutes Online

Basically, in Singapore, man having sex with man is still illegal, regardless of age.

They only say that they will USE DISCRETION and not charge under that section, if 2 males are consenting adults.

Take a look at this yawning bread article :

http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2005/imp-192.htm

Look under :

Jaberali 2001 Man Fellatio Accused consented to the man's request for fellatio, but subsequently robbed and hurt the man.

Armstrong Desmond Ronald 2003 Boy (17) Fellatio, anal Boy was youth volunteer under the supervision of the accused, a youth worker.

so, is 17 still "under-aged" for gay sex ? What is the age limit where consent is considered legal ? None, I guess it all depends on the DPP whether like your face or not.

Abdul Malik bin Othman 1993 - Fellatio Consenting partner; in public children's pool.

Lau Kim Soon 1988 - Fellatio and masturbation Consenting partner; public place.

Tan Teck Hua 1988 - Fellatio and masturbation Consenting partner; public place (same incident as Lau Kim Soon)

so, if you are caught in public place, they will still charge, even if consenting adult. Although yes, 1993 is quite long ago, but the fact is, whether you are charged or not, depends on whether they want to use discretion or not.. (read : you are totally at their mercy)..

So what kind of legal system we have ?

Soemthing like "What you do, may be or may not be against the law, depending on whether your partner want to sabo you or not.. and depending on whether the officer believe you, or your partner.. and whether the DPP like your face, or not"...

and in case you guys are wonder, Lesbian sex is perfectly neglected, thus lesbian sex is perfectly legal, even if lesbian sex is with a young girl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and in case you guys are wonder, Lesbian sex is perfectly neglected, thus lesbian sex is perfectly legal, even if lesbian sex is with a young girl....

Hi sotong_sg,

I'm glad you understood what I have been saying and help put things in the right perspective. :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

Just a word of Caution....

For Lesbian sex, the authority may still whack under Section 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public and Nuisance) Act, Chapter 184, which reads:

"Any person who is found guilty of any riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour in any public road or in any public place or place of public amusement or resort, or in the immediate vicinity of, or in, any court, public office, police station or place of worship, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months."

So please make sure you are at a place that does not fall into the description under Section 20. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Sotong, I commend you for the excellent Yawning Bread link that you had provided. Thank you. :clap:

Take a good look at the list indicated, especially the notes. 80% of the prosecuted wee adults who had fellatio or anal sex with minors. Others were those who had used violence, blackmail rob or rape their victims. A handful were convicted when they had sex in public places.

I suspect, based on the information on sodomylaws.org website, those homosexuals males caught with committing fellatio in a public place were charged with committing an obscene act in public.

No consenting adult gays had been charged with unnatural sex without another charge that highlights the unnatural sex offence. That is the point I want to make.

Soemthing like "What you do, may be or may not be against the law, depending on whether your partner want to sabo you or not.. and depending on whether the officer believe you, or your partner.. and whether the DPP like your face, or not"...

That apparently is not the case based on the cases the Yawning Bread link you had provided. I would think the opposite is true. When one have "unnatural sex", don't do it with minors, don't rape, don't use violence, don't blackmail, don't rob and don't it in a public place. It is quite simple and straight forward really.

I would like to think 99.99% of us are already aware of that. If so, I think we are perfectly safe from being prosecuted under the unnatural sex laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your law books are oudated, throw it away. It is now ten years. The amendment was made in 2004. What other outdated crap have you learnt from your outdated books?

The last time any amendments made to the Penal Code was in 1998.

Updated Statutes are available online at http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/

Don't need law books..... So outdated...

Guess you are the 1 who needs updating.. :D

"Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Your law books are oudated, throw it away. It is now ten years.

Nothing is wrong with the Section. the only thing wrong is that your don't know how to read english. Haa....haa.... :lol::lol::lol: Let me explain to you:

"shall be punished with imprisonment for life" OR "with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years", AND "shall also be liable to fine".

Meaning, the judge can sentence in the following 2 ways:

1) Life Imprisonment + Fine, OR

2) Jail Term up to 10 years + Fine

That is why I said "potentially" may be more serious than a Rape Charge... Because Rape Charge maximum only 20 years, which may be less than option 1.

So??? You don't understand which word?

"SHALL BE PUNISHED" ?

"OR" ?

"AND"?

"POTENTIALLY"?

....It is now ten years. The amendment was made in 2004. What other outdated crap have you learnt from your outdated books?

In Jan 2004, Sr Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs said "MHA is currently reviewing the Penal Code in consultation with the Ministry of Law and the Attorney-General's Chambers. The aim of the review is to update the offences and penalties in the Penal Code to stay relevant in today's context"..

Both Sections 377 and 377A are being examined as part of this review. Current societal norms will be taken into account in examining these sections.

I suggest you take a look at the statement by the authority:

http://www2.mha.gov.sg/mha/detailed.jsp?ar...&cat=0&mode=arc

Sorry, forgotten you don't know how to read........

Bottomline, Review does not equal to Amendment.... :yuk:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Hi sotong_sg,

I'm glad you understood what I have been saying and help put things in the right perspective.

You must be dellusional. Every single one of the cases in the Yawning Bread website had an extra original offence that highlights the "unnatural sex" offence.

80% were committed against minors some of which were very young, some uses force, rape, rob or blackmail their victims. A few were charged for doing it in public toilets.

There were not one single example of the government charging consenting adults for having unnatural sex in private.

You said:

There has been many cases whereby CONSENSUAL sex between 2 ADULT males have been brought before the Courts.

Prove it or withdraw your remarks. Your remarks quoted is not an opinion and is potentially libellous. Do not play play with factual remarks involving the actions of our government if you are not sure of what you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't be bothered anymore.....

Seems like his head is thicker than that of the Singapore Statutes.

Moreover, he doesn't seem to understand english too....

Just a reminder to others:

1) Sexual Intercourse between 2 males (consenting or not / child or adult) is an offence punishable under Section 377.

2) Whether the authority decide to charge in court or not (or for that matter, reduces the charge or not) depending SOLELY on the decision & discretion of the DPP. You are at their mercy.

3) It is a serious penal offence.

4) Better be Careful than Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
There has been many cases whereby CONSENSUAL sex between 2 ADULT males have been brought before the Courts.

Give us evidence of one and only one case where consenting adult males were charged for having "unnatural sex" in private. One only. If you can't then shut up.

That had been your original contention and I am calling your bluff. You can take your two bit law education and shove it up your ass if you cannot prove what you stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a consent is not a consent (due to age), it is only in relation to rape cases. Anyway, as defined by Section 375 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224, this is when a consent if given by a female age 14 years and below.

You are referring to statutory rape. Even if an underage female consent to sex with an adult male, that is statutory rape. If an underage female did not consent to sex with an adult male, then that is simply rape and the punishment is often in excess of 20 years plus caning. Your link includes the case of a policeman who was charged when an UNDERAGE female gives him oral sex.

In this case we are discussing in this thread, similarly an UNDERAGE boy had consented to being sodomised. That's why it is only 5 years imprisonment. If that guy had forceably raped the boy, he will get 20 years or more.

In both cases, charges were brought to the courts for unnatural sex offences because it involves UNDERAGE kids!

The word “man” denotes a male human being of any age. So, there is NO ISSUE of age under this Section. As such, no age issue in the case reported in the papers.

No age issue??? Are you kidding me? Are you suggesting the police will charge two kids for playing "doctor"? Or please! Of course there is age limitations where our laws on sexual offences are concerned. Young people are deemed to be "unaware" when they have sex with an adult.

There has been many cases whereby CONSENSUAL sex between 2 ADULT males have been brought before the Courts. Maybe a lawyer friend can advise on this.

Where did you get this? Do not anyhow ham-tam information when you do not have the facts! Are you not reading the same link you had quoted? Again as proven from the links you yourself provided, the only prosecutions was for molesting police decoys (entrapments), soliciting from a police decoy (entrapments) and for obscene acts. Prosecution for obscene acts usually involve sexual acts between two men in toilets or PUBLIC PLACES. They had never prosecuted gays specifically for committing sodomy.

I quote from one of your links:

In reality, Singapore’s government says it has not charged anyone for homosexual acts in over 40 years. And Singapore is, or was until recently, becoming the place for gays in Southeast Asia.

My contention was and still is "no man in Singapore had ever been specifically charged and convicted of engaging in CONSENSUAL anal sex with another adult male (read adult man, not minor)." Appreciate you stick to this point only please.

Next time please read through all the articles from your own link before you post.

And one last thing, don't provide a link that dispute your own argument. It is like giving your opponent a hard cucumber to stick it up your backside - which actually might be an offence under section 377A of our Penal Code Just my own opinion.

First you said just "consenting adults"... then later, you added in "private place"..

Later you want to add more conditions ? I am not sure if that few Guest entries all belong to the same person. If they weren't , then bloody confusing.

So, the problem is, when you have sex with someone , probably stranger, ONS, person you met for 1st or 2nd time.. it may seem consensual to you, but if later he says "NO" ? then how ? You are at his mercy..

You wanna have sex with me and test out ?

:D:D

And another Guest noted that those who were charge with consenting parters in the list provided, it is because it is public space.

So why not charged under miscellaneous act ? Why charged under 377 ? Remember, the original list I quoted, are those who are charged under 377, not the public nuisance act...

I know why, cos 377 got higher penalty than public nuisance act.

So leave it there.. man who have sex with woman in public place will be jailed LESS than man who have sex with consenting man in public place..

So where is the fairness ????

And what about the case I listed witht he 17 yo.. Oh, so 17yo not adult yet ? Then wat is the legal age ? You wanna have sex wtih 18yo ? 19yo ? Wanna risk your neck ?

And this

http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2001/yax-248.htm

They were in PRIVATE ROOM in a Sauna, so it is private ? How about hotel ? How about 99-year leased HDB ?

Yeah, they were LATER amended to be charged under Misc Act (20) , not 377. So lucky them. You want to be the one held in a cell, wondering whether you will be charged under 377, or 20 ?

My contention is not whether there has been a precedence.. but that I do NOT WANT to be a precedent... I do not like to be held hostage by the officer.. They already have a lot of "powers" to abuse, why give them more satisfaction ?

You know how easy is it to just twist some circumstantial evidence into "non-consenual", or make it "public place" ?

Anyway, would you like to be the one kenna "investigated" for many many months under this ?

http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2005/yax-524.htm

Under the same list that I quoted earlier :

Jaberali 2001 Man Fellatio Accused consented to the man's request for fellatio, but subsequently robbed and hurt the man.

What the heck, why not just charge the guy with robbery and causing hurt ? why 377 also ? So becomes, "if you guys later don't commit any crime, gay sex is ok, but if later you commit some OTHER crimes, then gay sex can be charged also"..

Isn't it the same as "oral sex is not illegal if followed by natural sex?" If kenna interrupted halfway then how ? become illegal, cos natural sex didn't follow ?

See the absurdity ?

So why the hard contention on whether any consenting adults had been charged ? Cos I never interviewed those who had been. All read from our govt-controlled newspaper. They said "Well, the other party not that consenting". So it becomes like it is justified.

I cannot be 100% sure that if an officer arrest my partner, found some things (like gay p--n, or some other illegal stuff) and threaten that if he doesn't turn on me and claim he was manipulated, then he will be charged more ?

Can anyone be sure that your ONS partner will not waiver and just say "yeah, I tried to back out.. He was seducing me all the time, and I am just curious, not sure etc... but he continued to perform fellatio on me"..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been many cases whereby CONSENSUAL sex between 2 ADULT males have been brought before the Courts.

Give us evidence of one and only one case where consenting adult males were charged for having "unnatural sex" in private. One only. If you can't then shut up.

That had been your original contention and I am calling your bluff. You can take your two bit law education and shove it up your ass if you cannot prove what you stated.

Hey, like I said in my previous post :

(1) You guys only asked for consenting adults. ONLY AFTER MY POST WITH THE LIST, then the condition of "private place" was added in.

Be fair , can ???

(2) Consenting or not consenting, we never talked to the actual people, we do not know. We only read from papers... The papers may claim, that it is "not consenting".. but what is the actual fact ? I do not know. If you know, good..

Could anyone of their partners just backed out ? 19yo, 20yo even 21yo. Got scared, exposed by parents, then just to pacify their parents, said they were forced ? You mean to tell me these things WILL NEVER HAPPEN ?

Of course, if that happens, I can never prove to you. Only that said person(s) involved will know..

I have no contention, just that when you guys said no-one, I just pulled out some old cases. My contention is not with any of you guys, but with the law itself.

No point us arguing here. Only when one of us is charged, then it will be put to the test. I don't want that to happen !

No need to call my bluff.. I didn't bluff, not did I take any position. All of you just said that there were never "consenting adults"....

So I have given an list of consentign adults, then the public place become another point to argue...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi sotong_sg,

As you can see, people can sometime be unreasonable.

No point arguing with those who argue for the sake of doing so. Moreover, he is doing so under the disguise :ph34r: He can be Guest today, don't know what he will be tomorrow.

Don't waste anymore time on him.... If we ignore him, he will ultimately stop his nonsense for he cannot possibly argue on his own. Let him learn his lessoon the hard way....

As far as you and I are concern, we know what we are talking about. :thumb: We know and understand the seriousness and we share our views with other readers.

Cheers :thumb: :D

Here are some facts for all to read http://www.plu.sg/main/facts_07.htm

This would give an accurate account of Section 377 and 377A. I quote from the article:

In both sections, consent or age or majority is immaterial. Furthermore, the law applies even if the activity takes place in private.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
First you said just "consenting adults"... then later, you added in "private place"..

Sotong, from my earliest post dated June 24th 10.18 am I said:

That does not mean they will not use these laws against us. But for the moment, lets just sleep (pun intended) with the fact that unless you are sleeping with a minor, or sleeping with an unwilling party, or sleeping in public, the government does not care who you sleep with.

Note the part "sleeping" in public which is sartorically meaning having sex in a public place. There was no confusion or additional requirement on my contention. This was stated way up front in the beginning.

My unhappiness with Jazz was his sweeping statement "There has been many cases whereby CONSENSUAL sex between 2 ADULT males have been brought before the Courts."

He had not proven this is factual and thanks to your link, it was shown that all prosecuted "unnatural sex" offences prosecuted had an original offence that includes sex with minors, violence, rape, robbery, or having sex in public etc.

I know why, cos 377 got higher penalty than public nuisance act.

So leave it there.. man who have sex with woman in public place will be jailed LESS than man who have sex with consenting man in public place..

You are probably right about including 377 because it got a higher penalty. However, I disagree with you that a man who commits 377 with a woman in a public place will be jailed less than a man who commits 377 with another man. Your Yawning Bread link clearly show cases that the law did charged a few men who commits 377 with women.

You have brought up two new Yawning Bread links discussing the police raid in saunas, one occurring in 2001 and the other in 2005.

In the 2001 raid, the two guys were charged with the misc act (20) and fine $600 and the four guys in the 2005 raid were eventually let off with a warning. None were charged with section 377/377A although they were threatend with the charges.

I have stated in my original post that these so called unnatural sex laws are archaic and draconian. I don't agree with them. However, these laws have so far not been used against consenting gay adult males in a private premise.

You then ask what is private premise? Public toilet? Gay sauna? Hotel room? HDB bedroom? My view of a private premise is a place where the general public is not expected to be there - which rules out hotel rooms and private dwellings.

Gay saunas had anticipated this interpretation and that's why they require guests to be members and often ask them questions about what they know about the saunas before letting them join. They don't want blur straight men to go in, get molested and later complain.

Public toilets are public places.

I cannot be 100% sure that if an officer arrest my partner, found some things (like gay p--n, or some other illegal stuff) and threaten that if he doesn't turn on me and claim he was manipulated, then he will be charged more ?

Can anyone be sure that your ONS partner will not waiver and just say "yeah, I tried to back out.. He was seducing me all the time, and I am just curious, not sure etc... but he continued to perform fellatio on me"..

I again had stated in my original post from what I heard from my lawyer friend that the police is skeptical to go after such cases because of personal vendettas and sour grapes. If not, there will be hundreds of such cases for them to prosecute. I would be happy if you could provide any incidents that the police had in fact prosecuted such cases.

In fact I will be happy if anyone reading can provide factual cases of anyone being prosecuted for 377/377A after they had been implicated by their sexual partner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
There has been many cases whereby CONSENSUAL sex between 2 ADULT males have been brought before the Courts.

Give us evidence of one and only one case where consenting adult males were charged for having "unnatural sex" in private. One only. If you can't then shut up.

That had been your original contention and I am calling your bluff. You can take your two bit law education and shove it up your ass if you cannot prove what you stated.

Hey, like I said in my previous post :

(1) You guys only asked for consenting adults. ONLY AFTER MY POST WITH THE LIST, then the condition of "private place" was added in.

Be fair , can ???

(2) Consenting or not consenting, we never talked to the actual people, we do not know. We only read from papers... The papers may claim, that it is "not consenting".. but what is the actual fact ? I do not know. If you know, good..

Could anyone of their partners just backed out ? 19yo, 20yo even 21yo. Got scared, exposed by parents, then just to pacify their parents, said they were forced ? You mean to tell me these things WILL NEVER HAPPEN ?

Of course, if that happens, I can never prove to you. Only that said person(s) involved will know..

I have no contention, just that when you guys said no-one, I just pulled out some old cases. My contention is not with any of you guys, but with the law itself.

No point us arguing here. Only when one of us is charged, then it will be put to the test. I don't want that to happen !

No need to call my bluff.. I didn't bluff, not did I take any position. All of you just said that there were never "consenting adults"....

So I have given an list of consentign adults, then the public place become another point to argue...

Sotong, I do not disagree that the charges could in fact be framed by an original consenting party who backed off later.

Similarly, that could happened in any situation. A young man 19 years old, involved jointly in any crime could say the same thing - that he was threatened or co-ersed into participating in the crime act.

Like you I disagree with 377and 377A. I think it belonged to the middle-ages. However, it is still in our statutes and understanding how it is applied could help us lead a more peaceful and stress free life.

Does this unnatural sex laws with its draconian penalties prevent us from having sex? Does the thought of 377/377A stop us from breaking up with a no good two timing partner because we are afraid that he may go to the police with details of our love making? Of course not.

Can a one night stand blackmailed us to go to the police with what happened? Like the money boys in China and Vietnam? Of course they can. Will they succeed? I strongly believed they will not.

Can the police threatened us with with 377/377A if they have evidences that we in fact had unnatural sex? Of course they can. Will they do it? So far the evidences we have in hand indicated they have not done so.

These unjust laws had been here for years. At the same time, the government had stated that they will not use it against gays. Until proven otherwise, lets us just go on with our lives.

Just do not have sex with a minor, or with an unwilling party, or in a public place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
There has been many cases whereby CONSENSUAL sex between 2 ADULT males have been brought before the Courts.

I am still waiting for your proof of the above potentially libellous statement. Prove or shut the fxxk up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm..So many law jargons here and there. Read until I also blur.

Guest, even if I cannot make ppl see my point, I also won't tell ppl to "shut the fxxk up" lor. I only ask them to skip my post. So, dun have to use such words one. Don't take it too personally lah, people can write anything..just relax and answer.

You got ur points, others also got their points. Don't have to see eye to eyes one and don't have to fight until each one got black eyes. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Kindly Clarify
The proceedings of this case is highly questionable.

I do not think that the boy should be named as a victim., but rather more of a co-accused as he had part-take in the sexual activities knowingly.  The judge had also noted this.  :angry:

1 person should never be accountable for another person's act.  It was not mention that the man knew that the boy was confused and that he took advantage of the situation.  :swear:

If you read my post at all, I am not saying that the man should be acquitted just because the minor is a willing party. I am just saying that there is no reason why the minor is not being charged with the same offence.....!!!

Mr Jazz, from your above statements, you are saying the boy should be charged with the same offence. Are you suggesting the boy at that age is fully aware of what he is doing and should therefore be charged too? Please clarify.

So, if the unnatural sex laws are removed, are you saying then that it should ok for a grown up man to have anal sex with a 15 years old boy, since you seemed to be claiming a 15 years old boy is fully aware of what he is doing?

How young do you think a boy should be before he is considered to be unaware of what he is actually doing? Or simply put, if the unnatural sex laws are removed, how old should a boy be before a grown up man can legally screw the boy? You seemed to imply 15 years old is ok. How about 14 or 13 or maybe 12 - the age of a primary six student?

In these kind of scenarios, at what age a boy must be before you consider him unaware of what he had done?

Do you like 15 years old boys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
.......

Do you like 15 years old boys?

hehehe.....good Qs. Must have been a traumatic experience for somebody...cannot prosecute the boy but die die want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest01

Kindly Clarify,frankly,i don't like boi & even irc,i never wan to meet or like to chat with someone that is below 20,well as what most people will say that 15 years old is young,i fully agree,but sorry i totally won't believe that they don't aware what they are doing especially sex etc,we keep saying that now those young kids are getting smater & smarter,they know how to look for sugar daddy,know how to go chat room & look for sex,are you going to say they are innocent?

I juat can say they are too smart & they know that they are fully proteted by laws,they don't need to bear any responsiblity if get caught,just like those gals,cos of money they can sell their bodies,how you want us to pity those people,i will only say serve them right,they so good at playing with the laws.

Actually i really think that some laws no long can be used in this 2006,it has been " expire " long ago,remember,they are not getting rape or they are IQ 30,so don't say they are young & can escape what they doing.

Hoever i too think that those mature guys that like to have fun with those kids if get caught,serve them right & what a shame on them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kindly Clarify,frankly,i don't like boi & even irc,i never wan to meet or like to chat with someone that is below 20,well as what most people will say that 15 years old is young,i fully agree,but sorry i totally won't believe that they don't aware what they are doing especially sex etc,we keep saying that now those young kids are getting smater & smarter,they know how to look for sugar daddy,know how to go chat room & look for sex,are you going to say they are innocent?

I juat can say they are too smart & they know that they are fully proteted by laws,they don't need to bear any responsiblity if get caught,just like those gals,cos of money they can sell their bodies,how you want us to pity those people,i will only say serve them right,they so good at playing with the laws.

Actually i really think that some laws no long can be used in this 2006,it has been " expire " long ago,remember,they are not getting rape or they are IQ 30,so don't say they are young & can escape what they doing.

Hoever i too think that those mature guys that like to have fun with those kids if get caught,serve them right & what a shame on them

hmmm agree with you-> guest01

Nowadays kids are getting more clever and clever... when they dont have money, they just 'sell' their body... so lame.. hmm hope those who look for kids know how to handle them carefully.. haha

gd luck

258yvky.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sotong, from my earliest post dated June 24th 10.18 am I said:
That does not mean they will not use these laws against us. But for the moment, lets just sleep (pun intended) with the fact that unless you are sleeping with a minor, or sleeping with an unwilling party, or sleeping in public, the government does not care who you sleep with.

Note the part "sleeping" in public which is sartorically meaning having sex in a public place. There was no confusion or additional requirement on my contention. This was stated way up front in the beginning.

My unhappiness with Jazz was his sweeping statement "There has been many cases whereby CONSENSUAL sex between 2 ADULT males have been brought before the Courts."

He had not proven this is factual and thanks to your link, it was shown that all prosecuted "unnatural sex" offences prosecuted had an original offence that includes sex with minors, violence, rape, robbery, or having sex in public etc.

Ok. Granted I missed out your statement on the "sleeping" part, but I only see the important parts, to produce the evidence of consenting gay male adults being charged.

If public place, then should just charge under Section 20, instead of 377. I mean, imagine man and sex with consenting woman in public place, will be charged under 377. So why man having sex with consenting adult man must charge under 377 ????? Where is the fairness ?

Like the recent case of the policeman with 15yo girl. If she was underaged, then charged her for underaged (which is stat. rape) section, instead of invocking 377.

Just becos he asked her to perform oral sex. If he had just went ahead and SCREWED her via virginal intercourse, they cannot use 377, but have to use statutory rape liao...... then cannot get life sentance liao..

But one thing to take note, on those cases of "Robbery".. If it is true that they had consensual sex, and then they are robbed... then the guy should just be charged for robbery rite ? Why slap the 377 as well ?

I mean, say guy have sex with woman (read : adult woman), then later steal / rob the woman.. then they can and should only charge the guy for theft / robbery.. Why charge the guy for rape too ? When it wasn't rape ?

Similiar mah.. if it was consenting, and later kenna robbed, charge for robbery.. don't need to charge under 377 when it WAS proven to be consenting.. this , I feel, is just blatanly unfair usage of the laws.

Of course, I have to agree that I never saw in papers anyone being charged for 377 in their own bedrooms having consenting sex...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kindly Clarify,frankly,i don't like boi & even irc,i never wan to meet or like to chat with someone that is below 20,well as what most people will say that 15 years old is young,i fully agree,but sorry i totally won't believe that they don't aware what they are doing especially sex etc,we keep saying that now those young kids are getting smater & smarter,they know how to look for sugar daddy,know how to go chat room & look for sex,are you going to say they are innocent?

I juat can say they are too smart & they know that they are fully proteted by laws,they don't need to bear any responsiblity if get caught,just like those gals,cos of money they can sell their bodies,how you want us to pity those people,i will only say serve them right,they so good at playing with the laws.

Actually i really think that some laws no long can be used in this 2006,it has been " expire " long ago,remember,they are not getting rape or they are IQ 30,so don't say they are young & can escape what they doing.

Hoever i too think that those mature guys that like to have fun with those kids if get caught,serve them right & what a shame on them

Haha.. remember recently, this 15yo girl, told her boyfriend to arrange for sex with his other friends..

Then when in the bedroom, she gave them foreplay until they must be damn high, then tell softly "I am only 15yo"... you think those horny 21-25yo boys can pull handbrake ?

Then later, after that, the girl went to report police.

Then the boyfriend and 3 of his friends all kenna charge for statutory rape..

Last I heard, girl got away scott free and many ppl wrote into ST forum pages demand that the girl be punished too.. But I haven't read any reports that she has been charged with anything..

So, I think girls are damn smart. If the girl was 17yo, she couldn't have succeeded.

So why did the gay who had sex with a 17yo boy kenna charged ?

For boys, there are no "legal" consenting age limit.. 18 ? 21 ? So, anyone can enlightene me ?.. should I only go for 21yo and above, send them to get their IQ tested, before screwing their brains out ? scarly their parents claim he is low IQ and I co-erced him..

:hat: :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sotong_sg,mind i ask are you below 21 years old or you like young kids ? :D

I am > 30 years old.

And yes, many young guys look cute to me. I don't like kids though.

So what has that gotta do with what we are discussing ?

I mean, hey, for str8 guys, it is very obvious, only above 16. For us ?

Oh, one more thing I remembered while I was showering just now :

Man and Woman caught having virginal sex in public. (I remember there was a case at Orchard Towers, not more than 3 years ago.) They are charged under Misc. Act.

Woman giving man blowjob and got caught, I am quite sure the man can (and most probably will) be charged under 377, while the woman, no choice, only under 20.

So for all the str8 guys out there, if you have sex with girl under 16, make sure only virginal... (I am not endorsing it, just pointing out the lower pumishment offense)

And if those str8 guys out there wanna have public sex, make sure only virginal, no others.. else the guy can kenna longer jail term than the gal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
The proceedings of this case is highly questionable.

I do not think that the boy should be named as a victim., but rather more of a co-accused as he had part-take in the sexual activities knowingly.  The judge had also noted this.  :angry:

1 person should never be accountable for another person's act.  It was not mention that the man knew that the boy was confused and that he took advantage of the situation.  :swear:

If you read my post at all, I am not saying that the man should be acquitted just because the minor is a willing party. I am just saying that there is no reason why the minor is not being charged with the same offence.....!!!

Mr Jazz, from your above statements, you are saying the boy should be charged with the same offence. Are you suggesting the boy at that age is fully aware of what he is doing and should therefore be charged too? Please clarify.

So, if the unnatural sex laws are removed, are you saying then that it should ok for a grown up man to have anal sex with a 15 years old boy, since you seemed to be claiming a 15 years old boy is fully aware of what he is doing?

How young do you think a boy should be before he is considered to be unaware of what he is actually doing? Or simply put, if the unnatural sex laws are removed, how old should a boy be before a grown up man can legally screw the boy? You seemed to imply 15 years old is ok. How about 14 or 13 or maybe 12 - the age of a primary six student?

In these kind of scenarios, at what age a boy must be before you consider him unaware of what he had done?

Do you like 15 years old boys?

Well, well, well. The silence from Jazz is defintely deafening.

To be honest, I did not see or at least I did not really notice what Jazz wrote at the beginning of this thread. I was just concentrating on the consensual sex argument.

Now that I had carefully read what Jazz wrote, I am honestly quite shock. Who in the right mind would ask the police to charge a 15 years boy with section 377 who had been sodomised by an adult man, since that man had been charged with 377? Just because he says the boy did it willingly?

Conversely, is he saying since the boy did it willingly and was not charged, then that man should not be charged too?

Why is he insisting that the boy be charged as well? Is he just dumb or did he have some other motives?

what most people will say that 15 years old is young,i fully agree,but sorry i totally won't believe that they don't aware what they are doing especially sex etc,
Nowadays kids are getting more clever and clever... when they dont have money, they just 'sell' their body

I agree that kids are getting smarter and more street wise but they are still kids. From your statements, what age do you think they should be before they are fully aware of what they are doing?

Society cannot have a subjective and variable law that try to take each kiddy/adult sex case and try and determined if the kid had matured to a point where it is ok for the adult to have sex with the kid. NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association, had always use the argument that kids are nowadays mature enough, to try to make excuses for pedophiles to have sex with young boys. Are you guys trying to suggest the same here?

A kid may mature sexually at a young age but that does not mean an adult can take advantage of that. Who is to determine a kid had matured sexually enough to be butt-fxxk by a grown up? In all pedophilia cases, it is always the grown up who claimed the kid is a willing party. In reality, it is ALWAYS the adult who should know better than to fool around with kids.

A 15 years old girl or boy may be on the chatline peddling their sex, but that does not mean a grown up should take advantage of that. I am of the opinion the courts should punish these people to the fullest extent of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
So for all the str8 guys out there, if you have sex with girl under 16, make sure only virginal... (I am not endorsing it, just pointing out the lower pumishment offense)

And if those str8 guys out there wanna have public sex, make sure only virginal, no others.. else the guy can kenna longer jail term than the gal.

Congratulations!! You get the prize for the most callous quote of the year.

Rather than warning readers about the serious consequences of having sex with an underage kid or the risks associated with public sex, you gotta make that ultra stupid remark.

Remarks like that show what a fxxking moron you really are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest01

Guest,mind i ask do you read newspaper often?For most cases,even the " underage kid " admit themself that they willing to do so not by forcing,mostly is the kids that after the fun report to the polica, while i don't know is it the laws help to protect the kids or to make them more brave to do whatever they want.

Can i say that if no supplier then there will be no customer? you can give thousand of excuse to make those kids sound " innocent ", but fact is fact, remember they not get molested or get raped,so actually who taking advantage of who is very obvious,we never say the mature doing the right thing,we even say that those shamless mature guys that sex with kids deserve it if get caught,but what about the kids then?

They learnt from their mistake?Is those kid really that naive & so pure,only heaven know :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest01

frankly,i find no point keep argue about this issue,cos it will be endless,as long we not into kids,then nothing to do with us,what the kids want to do is their business,anything happen to them in future serve them right,we don't even need to pity them & i don't think they need our sympathy too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, well, well. The silence from Jazz is defintely deafening.

The reason being, I totally agree with Guest...................(01)

...i find no point keep argue about this issue, cos it will be endless...

Moreover, why lower ourselves to the standards of the uncouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • G_M changed the title to Man jailed 5 months for molesting male stranger in Causeway Point mall toilet
  • G_M locked this topic
  • G_M locked, locked, locked, locked, locked, locked, locked, locked, locked, locked, locked, locked, unlocked and locked this topic
  • G_M locked and locked this topic
  • G_M unlocked this topic
  • G_M locked, locked, locked, locked, locked, locked, locked, locked, locked, locked and locked this topic
Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...
counter