Sexual assault or tender loving care?

This guy hid in public toilets to wait for little boys to enter the toilet alone. When a lonely boy came, he would help the boy to remove his trousers and to pee. He would then fonder the boy and perform oral sex on the boy. Why is he charged for sexual assault? He was being nice to the boy, showing the boy some tender loving care. He didn't beat nor bit the boy. Isn't it unfair to him? He may be sentenced to imprisonment or given 12 strokes of the cane. Where is the inclusiveness? The guy was exercising his right to an alternative lifestyle.


Jaunty Jabber said...


You have delivered a prominent message with a simple story, excellent !

If everybody were to challenge basic rules just to promote choice lifestyle without boundaries, then many crimes can be interpreted to become non-criminal as most human actions could be argued towards issue of human rights.

Your story strike my memory lane, when I was at the age of 18, while hanging out with some friends in a drinking venue, a girl (a stranger) who is in the same pub, of my age group, approached me, she asked me if I can be her friend, as she asked she also stretch out her hand and stroked my cheek and arms, I feel weird and wrong (but can't word out the fault at that very moment). That girl also followed me all the way to the ladies' toilet, she pestered me, she tried to get close, she try to "woo" me like a guy. Shall I thank her for her friendliness? No, my basic instinct tells me that something is wrong and I escape away from her sight.

If the children now are inculcated to believed that homosexual is neutral, natural and is human's rights for choices, would a straight person turns otherwise when met with similar situation which happened during my teens? At that very moment, it just need a little bit of acceptance to agree to become friends, to allow that girl stranger to show more tender loving gesture, a friendship would start and might developed to a more complicated relationship.

redbean said...

unfortunately this is a real case reported in the media today.

Jaunty Jabber said...

Oh dear! A real case, not your story.....gosh, that's a bad thing.

auntielucia said...

Yes, JJ this is a true story... exactly where are all the inclusiveness proponents for this poor sod? In fact, a few days ago, a bunch of Brit retirees were arrested in Thailand for preying on young children (boys)... makes one sick!

redbean said...

maybe they should start a petition for him. when oral sex and anal sex are normal, why should he be punished. today's paper said he was sentenced to 12 years jail and 12 strokes of rotan. now isn't it too much for doing something that is normal?

today at honglim should be a good platform to raise this issue.

Jaunty Jabber said...

Perverts from hell to prey on the little ones. It must be very painful and confusing mixed with sense of unknown guilt for the victims to grow up haunted by the horrible experience.

Anonymous said...

Foreigner will soon come to SIN to seek alternative life-style. SIN red-light district will soon have a sub-breed of gay & lesbian bars to feed this growing of "neutral" sex where foreigners and local boys or girls fulfil this growing market.

Guess who the operators look for to be the "girls" or "boys" to feed into the industry.

Cheers to "neutral" sex where you can seek out partners without going underground. Do it openly. Cheers to repeal of section 377A and thanks you NMP Siew KH.

Anonymous said...

Redbean, your post is so repugnant and full of vile insinuation it doesn't deserve a response. Thankfully many people, unlike you, understand that supporting the rights of adults to choose their adult partners is an entirely separate issue from prosecuting those who prey on children. It is sad that you are obsessed with misinformed anti-gay bigotry, but some people have such sad lives.

redbean said...

hi anonymous, sorry that you found my post repugnant. there are many sides to a story told. i am just pointing out that homosexuality is not normal and can be criminal if not conducted with consent.

but it will be a different matter if homosexuallty is normal. then the guy could claim that he did not hurt the child at all. he was just showing him some affection. how could that be called sexual assault when the boy was not hurt or harm? and the punishment is way too harsh. would you agree?

this case was reported in the media over two days at least. if it is repugnant, then the media should not report it at all. agree?

some may even object to the timing to report such a case when homosexuality is a big issue. very insensitive.

gtuckerkellogg said...

redbean, heterosexual sexual assault on a minor is criminal, even thought heterosexual relations are legal in Singapore. Legalizing homosexual relations would not need to make any difference to the illegality of sexual assault on a minor, regardless of the sex of the child.

You might as well argue that the recently convicted heterosexual paedophelia case (http://tinyurl.com/ovbbk7) means that heterosexual relations should be illegal.

For a guy who complains about red herrings, you sure post a lot of them

Anonymous said...

If whenever anyone claims his/her sexual need is endowed by nature and anyway/anywhere/anyhow they get their needs fulfilled are justified, it could be hell for humanity.

The Chinese has a saying; 'The first and greatest evil is sexual gratification'.


redbean said...

thank you gtuckerkellogg, for spotting all my red herrings. they are meant to be provocative.

in the case of hetero sexual assault, the case is quite plain. between a guy and a boy or a gal and a little girl, the line is very thin. to which point shall one be labelled as sexual assault?

then the punishment. 12 strokes and 12 years, reminds me of justice choor singh.

Matilah_Singapura said...

redbean, your logical fallacy is one of a false premise.

The idea of consensual sex based on mutual agreement of voluntarily acting individuals only applies to adults, not to children.

The guy is guilty as a sexual predator and deserves any painful justice meted out by the courts. In my book, the minimum punishment he should receive is the rotan.

Jaunty Jabber said...

Hi Matilah

I would like to hear your view about consensual sex, you have pointed out to redbean that consensual sex is based on mutual agreement between adults, not children.

I would like to ask you about teenagers, how about teenagers? At which age of teens (12 to 17), at what age you think is appropriate to called their consensual sex a "consensual sex"?

I am quite confused myself, is 12 to 14 years old considered as children or teens? I know it is illegal to have sex below age 16 but AWARE is telling people that many children/teens at age 12 to 13 are already practising consensual sex.

Matilah_Singapura said...

The idea of "age of consent" will always be thorny and emotional.

That being said, in a political system of republicanism — i.e. "the people are the government", which is the system in Singapore, the question of "age of consent" will be a LEGAL MATTER. Of course there are pros and cons to this, but unless another way is "invented" the LEGALITY of the age of consent is the best solution we have.

Ultimately though, one cannot rely on the government all the time. Parents are responsible for what their kids get up to. So if the kid is 13 or 14, having sex and breaking the law, that's one thing. My question to the parents is "What are you going to do about it?"

Also, kids don't mature out from a vacuum — it takes 14 years to become 14 years old :) In that time, throughout the child's growth and maturation, what were the parents doing to inculcate self-responsibility in general and sexual conduct and responsibility in particular?

Sure there might be arguments between parents and children — actually we can count on that. But in my opinion argument is good — it shows that people are discussing ideas, trying to find the boundaries together and challenging each others opinions.

So who then decides at what age is consensual sex OK? There might never be a "right" or "wrong" answer. We know that 11 is far too young and 21 is simply unrealistic. As long as the matter is continually discussed, the idea of "consent" can be protected as is the idea of "child protection from predators" protected as well.

redbean said...

if i were to agree with the liberals in catherine lim's blog, i will go for 13 or 14. their assumptions are that our 13 and 14 kids are sexually active and well informed and should be allowed to do whatever that makes them happy.

i don't think real parents will be so liberal with their children.

as for the guy that was convicted, can he plead that he was born natural to like little boys and what he was doing was only normal?

can fault him when he is born like that. and he wasn't trying to harm the boy.

Matilah_Singapura said...

I have always believed that the death of S'pore will be aided by so-called western progressive liberalism -- welfare state, affirmative action, high taxes, etc

Sure there are some young teens who are sexually active or experimental. That doesn't automatically make it "acceptable" or "harmless".

The argument "I was born that way" is unacceptable in the realm of JUSTICE. That is why we have MINDS and MORALS, also LAWS and acceptable social behaviour.

These are to ensure that we are expected to NOT ACT on our "innate" impulses to violate others right to volunatry choose their associations. Therefore the point that this low-life was HOMOSEXUAL is IRRELEVAANT. He is SEXUALLY ASSAULTING children -- whether the kids are male (same sex) or female (opposite sex) can be slashed off and thrown into the bin of irrelevance using Occam's Razor