AS: I’ve just posted the actual legal report from the Times. It’s only a teeny-weeny bit confusing until you note the difference between “consent” in the everyday sense of “agreement,” and “[legal] consent” as used in the legal phrase “age of consent.” The girl stated she was a willing partner. The court accepted her statement — it is a matter of fact that she was “fully consenting” in the everyday sense. If you conflate the two meanings of “consent” you get into semantic knots and contradictions. “She consented without consenting!” This requires disambiguation along the lines “She physically consented but being under-age could not legally consent.”

Skb

On 05/09/2008 19:24, "Anthony Stadlen" <STADLEN@AOL.COM> wrote:

In a message dated 05/09/2008 17:57:32 GMT Standard Time, skb@BOOTLE.BIZ writes:

The latter lost his appeal against a jail-sentence in spite of the judges AGREEING that the girl was, as it were, the “prime mover” and fully consenting.
This is a little confusing. If the girl is under the "age of consent", which she clearly was, then she cannot legally "consent", even if she initiates. That's why it is called the age of consent. That's the legal difference between children and adults.

Anthony Stadlen

Search the archive	Contact the Editors	Visit "Nabokov Online Journal"
Visit Zembla	View Nabokv-L Policies	Manage subscription options

All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both co-editors.