I smell rats here. The entire argument is based on the definition of “sex offenses”, which in Britain have been reduced to any not just sexual offense, but *gender* offense. Hopelessly politically correct.
Without permission, a young girl hugs a classmate. A sexual offense. A five year old boy tells a five year old girl that she is “cute”, which is clearly “gender harassment”, a sexual offense. Boys don’t invite girls to play ball, a blatant sex offense.
All attributable to pornography, mind you.
The original article, in The Telegraph, is hopelessly nebulous. (emphasis mine)
“The children *may* have seen pornography...”
“...shared a bedroom with teenagers and witnessed inappropriate behaviour, or could have been allowed in a room while parents were watching sex scenes on the television.”
This is crap journalism.
It’s the same thing in the military. They changed the definition of what is considered sexual assaults so all the soldiers look like a bunch of rapists.
Very good point.
I can remember one of the first ‘men’ to go on the new sex offenders register here in Scotland. A 17 yr old boy who had (very willing) sex with a 15 year old girl. The age of consent here is 16. The boy broke the law, but the idea that this lad was/is a ‘dangerous sex offender’ is ridiculous.
Very true. And don’t forget, the British were proposing sex-ed for four and five year olds a while back. I’d imagine if you make every young kid undergo mandatory sex-ed each year starting at four, that is going to get them to stop looking up SpongeBob and Bigbird on the internet, and begin looking up “Lesbian mom love.”
I find it amazing as they drop the age of sex-ed, they then marvel at an increase in sexual behavior by kids who probably wouldn’t have even been aware of sex, were it not taught to them in their school each day.
Only Liberals.