Inexperienced people are inexperienced

Large numbers of young people experience sexual problems such as pain or anxiety during sex, the inability to climax and finding intercourse difficult, a study has found.

A third (33.8%) of sexually active teenagers and young men aged 16-21 and 44.4% of sexually active young women the same age experienced at least one problem, which lasted for at least three months, with their ability to enjoy sex in the past year, according to the research.

Why, it’s almost as if we oldies should sign up to teach the young ‘uns the detailed mechanics of it all. Middle aged men with 30, 40 years experience of the subject could offer to run intensive courses of lessons for the 16 year old girls perhaps.

Possibly create an entire paid profession of people willing to tutor the inexpert.

17 thoughts on “Inexperienced people are inexperienced”

  1. Rolf Harris?

    He didn’t have any problems shagging a 17 year old – its just she changed her mid when she hit 40 that caused him a problem…

  2. Now that you’ve raised Rolf Harris again, what was he actually sent down for?
    From what I read none of the charges were proven. Don’t you actually have to do that to gaol someone?

  3. Call me odd, but I’m 44 and cannot imagine finding a 16 year old, no matter how gamine or coquettish, sexually attractive. A 30 yo with the body of a 16 yo, maybe. But it’s woman I want, not girl. OTOH, is that because I do not want the hassle of teaching a girl the ropes?

  4. Bloke in Wiltshire


    Well, proven in court with a jury.

    The problem was just how flaky each case was. I’m sure that if each case had been tried individually he would be a free man.

    I don’t believe he’s guilty. If you can’t get the right year of a crime, or the right park in a city, you’re not exactly convincing.

  5. BiWiltshire

    Well, proven in court with a jury.

    If hearsay is now the standard for beyond reasonable doubt, then I suppose it was well proven.

  6. A boy should be able to ask his dad — or mum — for practical sex advice but somehow this is taboo. Bearing in mind that, as Paul Reiser once famously said (as Paul Buchman in Mad About You) that mutually satisfactory sex is all up to the man. All she needs to do is to rock up.

  7. That was my question – do crimes still need to be proven in court be a jury can deliberate or is hearsay good enough?

    I think the court and the jury saw a sevety year old man accused of sexual relations with a just legal girl.
    They didn’t take into account that he was forty at the time of the alleged offence.

    I was wondering if it was just me missing something but his guilt does not seem to have been proven, he seems to have been convicted on the opinions of a jury only.

    Taste in women means nothing – you pass the legal age and you can involve yourself with everybody else who is above legal age. I don’t fancy trying snails but they’re still going to be on sale next week.

    British justice was supposed to be the gold standard other systems were judged by (I thought). You could classify other systems as being 50%, 70%, 90% there, I thought.
    Are they just as broken as our law enforcement system where murdering policemen are covered for by their colleagues instead of being seen as a disgrace to the uniform?

    I mention this because I was looking at Ian Tomlinson videos last night. If I worked with the murderer then I don’t care if I went to school with you and we’ve always been best mates, I just wouldn’t have you on my team

  8. Gareth Too, hearsay is admissible in English courts.

    What is is proven is a matter for the jury which heard all the evidence.

    These are both statements of the law, not necessarily endorsenents of it.

  9. Thanks Ed,
    no worries, I have a policy of not shooting messengers, I did think (until now) that proof had to be achieved before a jury could deliberate.
    That is scary though, any defendant can be sent down because half a dozen women don’t like the idea of you shagging a younger woman.
    Surely hell hath no fury..

  10. Gareth, you should distinguish between evidence and proof. In a criminal court, proof is a matter for the jury. The question of proof does not arise until the jury deliberates*.

    Evidence, OTOH, is information which may, in the eyes of the jury, give rise to proof.

    * there are circumstances in which a judge, initially in the absence of the jury, can pre-empt the jury’s monopoly on proof, by concluding that the Crown’s case is in some way sufficiently flawed that the jury should not be, ahem, troubled by it.

    FWIW, I am convinced juries reach evidentially perverse conclusions all the time. But mostly in order to acquit.

  11. Yes Ed, I wasn’t terribly cautious with technical terms.
    Problem arises where I somehow got the idea that if the prosecution had offered inadequate evidence that the judge would instruct the jury that they must acquit.

    The reason I think this is important is that I’ve had short conversations with a few (older) women about Harris. The overwhelming response is that you can tell he’s guilty by looking at him!
    Now I can believe that the womens’ vote is determined by who has the best hair.

  12. Gareth, my mother will routinely say, joking like, that she would convict if the Defendant’s eyes are too close together. I suspect she’s indulging abstract vengefulness and that taking the jury oath would encourage her to take it more seriously.

    Yes the judge can direct the jury to acquit – that’s what my * comment referenced. But you really need to hear all the evidence to even begin to be able to make that assessment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *