Sex with a minor in Italy? As long as they're not virgins.

non-virgin = http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/eu...use.afp.gi.jpg

So.. let me get this straight. You can go to italy, rape a child, and then point out that she's not a virgin (because you just raped her) and they will accept that, and you're free to keep doing it?

Crazy Italians. Minor = Minor

previously had sex with someone else i think is the point

you should see a doc, whats sex gotta do with rape ?
where is rape legal at all ?

This is true. However, this law sounds sick.

The ruling says basically that if you rape a girl that had sex before you get less prison time than if you rape a girl that did not have sex before.

The guy is a sick fucker,the court decision is ridiculous

None of their wives, daughters, granddaughters have had to suffer that tragedy or they would not have voted this way.

Anyhow, just to clarify - they are not saying you can rape a child if the child had had sexual relations in the past. They ruled that the sentence could be lighter 'if' the girl had already been sexually active prior to the 'act' and it can be proven in the eyes of the court. So if you're the one having sex with her for her first time, it neither makes you 'scott free' nor give you a lighter sentence.

Makes sence to me.

Italy has an ultra conservative view of sex when it comes to the courts... the supreme court threw out a rap case a few years ago because the victims were wearing jeans.... and apparently jeans mean the woman is asking to be raped and are much easier to get off that skirts. what great italian logic

Since when did rape become less of a crime if the victium isnt a virgin? I agree with JFK, the guy is sick and the court is smoking something, too. Disgusting.

thats a weird type of thinking from my brother italians

I never thought Italy was this silly with it's law about this thing.

a rape is a rape is a rape is a rape is a rape!!!!
a minor is a minor is a minor is a minor is a minor!!!


these sick fucks just don't get it!!!

why the double standard between a virgin minor and a non-virgon one? that's the most stupid thing ive heard!

that law is crazy shit. if that really is true i guess that won't be a good tourist spot.

unbelievable! can this really happen in modern world???

Proving once again...the inmates are in charge of the asylum.

What you can expect from a country run by a crook

It's rape no matter which way you look at it. He forced her to have oral sex against her will. It doesn't matter that she's had sex with other people before.

More guys need to get raped to solve the problem. If the judge had some beefy guy give him a dryrun up the pooper he'd probably hold a different opinion of rape.

They don't seem to appreciate the severity of the act because they don't associate the pain involved in the act, physically and mentally.

It's ironic that Italy should be placing such a high value on virginity these days when a mere 500 years ago their ancestors thought it good etiquette for a bridegroom not to have to teach his new wife "the ways of love". To avoid that, before a girl's wedding she would sleep with her brother (or father if she did not have any brothers) to be educated in how to please a man. I doubt it went unnoticed that this was also a convenient way to stop the groom knowing whether or not he was marrying a virgin...

Although it might not be a bad thing in threads which are superficially about morality, if we kept a better distinction between morality and enlightenment. For example, it is hard to imagine that anyone except those permitted to indulge in it (droit de seigneur) ever thought that rape was ever a good thing. As we became more enlightened (in this instance another way of saying that the ruling classes were stripped of some of their more objectionable rights) rape was made universally illegal as well as morally wrong.

Come to that, is the question of sex with minors really one of morality or of enlightenment? And in this case very dubious enlightenment, since we nowadays try to keep our offspring children well into their teens, basically because long-dead politicians seeking to reduce unemployment statistics found it useful to extend the school leaving age. The concept of school pupils being adults seemed ludicrous, so moms and dads began thinking of their children as "children" long after the passage of puberty: the marker of adulthood which nature has stubbornly kept at 12-14 years old and that had served our species perfectly well for thousands of years.

I guess I'm meandering ever further off topic, but such thoughts could raise the question of whether morality exists as a valid way to distinguish between right and wrong, or is it just a convenient label for what is socially acceptable at a given moment in time? Even the Ten Commandments make wrong, albeit very soundly from the point of view of maintaining public order, much of what was fine during the former days of rule by strength.

So perhaps there really is only law and ethics. And of course, if we could dispense with morality, there could be no more of the moral outrage which so often puts on display many of man's less attractive characteristics...

poor country

They do things different over there