Feeling horny – have a wank
In a rare move, the Court of Appeal in October 2012 overturned the acquittal, finding the act criminal because the man had “actively encouraged” the boys to masturbate.
This is how it is …
A man accused of turning his garage into a den for child abuse appealed his charges today at the Supreme Court, in a case that will go on to frame the boundaries of child sex offending in New Zealand.
Now, the courts of New Zealand are debating wanking.
The issue raised by this case is consideration of the word “with” and, in particular, whether an “indecent act” can be done by a person who does not commit an indecent act himself but watches another perform it.
Who wants to start the comments on this one?
The Family Court and their cohorts have been mass debating over how they can f**k men over for years. I believe the point of orgasm is fast approaching and am rather hoping that then these wankers will give it a break!
Comment by triassic — Fri 6th December 2013 @ 12:23 am
Gee, lots of people are going to become criminals then. I’m guessing lots of quite sexually healthy couples participate in this particular activity together.
Comment by Rachel — Fri 6th December 2013 @ 6:50 am
We live in a free country ? “yea right” Wankers. Shoot better be care full what I tell my boys and my daughter, of course I guess its okay for them to hear about it and be taught at school.
Comment by Dominic Dilligaf — Fri 6th December 2013 @ 8:28 am
Being a gender neutral application of law the same circumstance would apply to mothers and vibrators?
Comment by Downunder — Fri 6th December 2013 @ 8:45 am
I think you’re all being either facetious, or have otherwise missed the point.
I might be alone in this, but sorry, any intentional sexual activity by an adult or between adults in the direct presence of children; or any sexual activity by or between children facilitated by, or otherwise directly encouraged by an adult, is sexual abuse. full stop.
I can accept an adult saying to children, hey if you’re going to do something, do it in there.
But encouraging it, facilitating it, being present, and so on; that’s just wrong.
Comment by Sarah Haras — Fri 6th December 2013 @ 6:45 pm
No you are not alone Sarah, it seemed pretty dodgy to me.
I don’t have a major problem with him “facilitating” or even “encouraging” the boys, but being present and watching is definitely crossing the line, IMO.
Even if it isn’t technically illegal I think it should be.
Comment by JohnPotter — Fri 6th December 2013 @ 7:44 pm
What I see being said here, is that masturbation is an indecent act.
Because it is not a matter of public decency, the court is being asked to make a moral judgement. This has much wider implications than the set of circumstances that exist here.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 7th December 2013 @ 6:40 am
I disagree.
Masturbation is not in itself an indecent act. Two consenting adults; nor perhaps two consenting children masturbating together is in itself an indecent act.
An adult who in any way encourages a child to masturbate in the adult’s presence (and we’re not simply talking about a child simply touching themselves; this would be full-on masturbation, presumably to a physical conclusion), is committing sexual abuse.
In this article, the adult themselves may not be committing an indecent act (the court may be logically wrong on this); the child is being in-some-way induced or encouraged, or facilitated, to commit an indecent act, presumably for the gratification of the adult. That is still sexual abuse.
Comment by Sarah Haras — Sat 7th December 2013 @ 7:22 am
I am not disagreeing with you Sarah, I am looking at what the words say and what the court was asked to consider.
The key factor appears to be “actively encouraged”.
What happens if a mother lets her daughter use her vibrators and dildos. Is this “actively encouraging” an indecent act?
Comment by Downunder — Sat 7th December 2013 @ 8:55 am
Sarah Haras: The term ‘sexual abuse’ is of course a prejudicial term that begs the question of abusiveness and was designed by feminists for propaganda purposes. The term used to be ‘molestation’. A society will determine rules around various behaviour including sexual behaviour but it doesn’t automatically follow that disallowed behaviour is necessarily harmful or abusive. Different countries have different rules for sexual behaviour. Any sexual behaviour with a 17-year-old in many US states would be illegal and described as ‘sexual abuse’ but not so in NZ. A more accurate term would be ‘sex carrying a risk of harm’, and unfortunately the witchhunt mentality around this topic has meant that little or no research has tried to quantify that risk accurately or contextually.
Until about the 1960’s masturbation of any kind was seen and referred to as ‘self abuse’. Medical experts prior to that often claimed that masturbation caused all manner of terrible afflictions including blindness and insanity. Those beliefs were replaced by the current belief that masturbation is not harmful, based to some extent on research that failed to support the kinds of effects previously attributed to it. No good research subsequently appears to have been done (probably due to ideological constraints) attempting to determine whether any harm can actually be associated with masturbation. It would be surprising if some harm were not correlated with masturbation given social stigma, religious teaching, demeaning name-calling, secrecy, embarassment and guilt that continue to surround it. However, any such harmful correlates if found would be quickly attributed to social stigma or perhaps to excessive indulgence in and/or addiction to masturbation, rather than to any abusiveness necessarily inherent in the practice. The same probably applies to many forms of what is now judged to be ‘sexual abuse’, but no researcher or ethics approval committee would dare to risk the consequences of attempting to clarify exactly what causes some people to experience harm and sometimes very serious harm from, for example, gentle sexual exposure while other people don’t. In contrast, violent assaults cause measurable injury and harm to anyone experiencing them. Any research that tries to understand this discrepancy would involve challenging the black-and-white beliefs reflected in the term ‘sexual abuse’ and one can expect at the very least one’s reputation to be burned at the stake for doing so.
If encouragement and facilitation of sexual behaviour by children is to be seen as abusive then why would this not apply to sex education in schools or even by parents? The issue of ‘self-gratication’ by the adult(s) provides no satisfactory answer because the adults who provide sex education are doing so to meet their own needs one way or the other (e.g. salary, fulfilment of their deisre to impart their own ideological beliefs, fulfilment of their wish to see themselves as ‘helping’ others or as being experts) and anyway how are we to know whether they experience any sexual pleasure from what they are doing? Their motivation may be well-intentioned but the same might be true for the man who encourages children to masturbate in his garage. In fact, many or most sexual offenders are in no way motivated by any wish to harm anyone but believe what they are doing is not harmful.
The issue of this thread is not a simple black-and-white one. The boundaries are not easy to set and we should not rely on self-proclaimed moral judges to do so. Most are so caught up in fashionable witch-hunt fervour that their moral judgement would be untrustworthy even if they claimed to have sound study, qualifications and experience behind their pronouncements. The law is written, revised and interpreted and to some small extent subject to democratic vote. Whether allowing or encouraging children to masturbate in one’s garage is unlawful depends on what the law says and how the Courts interpret that. Behaviour that is disallowed by law is appropriately tried and punished while behaviour that is not disallowed by law is best accepted as a civil right even though each individual may choose for him or herself a personal moral code more restrictive than the law. If lawful behaviour is not accepted as a civil right society descends into religious or ideological tyranny. To a large extent, we are already allowing New Zealand to live under a feminist tyranny.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sat 7th December 2013 @ 10:55 am
I can’t imagine any situation where it is ok for an adult to somehow facilitate, and then stand by and be physically present, whilst a child actively masturbates (in a sexual fulfilment manner, not an infant self-exploration manner).
At the very least, the adult would instruct the child that masturbation behaviour should be done in private (i.e. their bedroom, or bathroom); else the adult would rapidly excuse themselves and leave the child’s immediate presence.
People can play with words; I don’t really care if the term is ‘sexual abuse’; ‘molestation’, or whatever. It is clearly abusive for a adult to so-encourage a child;
Comment by Sarah Haras — Sat 7th December 2013 @ 12:21 pm
Some time in the future when men and women no longer cohabitate but still demand equal rights and employments rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3BNsttZQGQ
Comment by Downunder — Sat 7th December 2013 @ 5:44 pm