Singapore Policeman Jailed for Oral Sex

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-11-09 12:00am

Vertigo1 wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Your country has lost the lead in the anal sex race.
Don't think so!

*glances at abundant supply of rubbers*

Alright ladies, who's up for supporting your country?

We must not lose in the anal sex race! We must research it, launch sattelites into it, and hopefully, put a man on it!

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2003-11-09 12:18am

Note To ALL:

1.This law, was part of the Victorian Penal Code we inherited, from the British. In other words, its the British fault. And since no one had actually bothered reforming the penal code, we're stuck with laws from the 18th century.

2. You glossed over the fact that in the actual trial, the girl testified that she was "pressured" to commit the act.

3. The girl in question, was trying to get back at the policeman in question. This is similar to the frivilous lawsuits in the US, where a waiter sued a sheikh, for using vulgar langunage to his face and "causing emotional distress".

4.The problem raised here is that under the Penal code, it doesn't matter whether or not it was consensual or not. changes to the law are already being made that sexual acts commited in private and in consenus does not fall under the purview of the law( although they then made it clear that being nude in your own home is still a form of public outage of modesty.grrrrr)

5. Unnatural sex laws have never been enforced unless such acts were committed in public, or in the case of rape. There was an incident once where a man forced women to have oral sex on him through the use of force. Rape required sexual intercourse to have occured. So, they slapped the unnatural sex law on him instead, and then gave him jail, tacked on caning for the use of force in assault and battery.

This is the first time where such a trial is being done, and this was all because the girl reported that she was pressured to commit the sexual act.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-11-09 01:22am

Still, any country in which it is illegal to own porn is waaay too fucking draconian.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-11-09 01:43am

Painrack:

Article that I saw mentions nothing of the trial or the underlying circumstances. So I guess I should thank you for the details.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-11-09 07:42am

SAMAS wrote:Because it must be said:

This really sucks.

I think it blows.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2003-11-09 12:32pm

Silly Canadians! With our vastly larger population and unparalleled American perversity, we will turn the tide! We will come together in one grand unified thrust, to take back our title!

*starts pasting up posters of Rosie the Riveter with a dick in her ass*

We can do it!

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2003-11-12 10:18am

HemlockGrey wrote:Still, any country in which it is illegal to own porn is waaay too fucking draconian.

Okay, this was done under the aegis of PAP rule, so this is a legitimate argument of "oppression".

However, my counter argument is this. The ready sale of smut material, with its easy access to young children is not desirable morally.

Yes, sex is sex and as Woody Allen said, sex is dirty. However, I would rather that sex education for children aged 13 be more about moral responsibility, maturity and emotional relationships, rather than learning about exotic sexual positions.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2003-11-12 10:27am

Also, I would like to add the following infomation about oral sex.

Oral sex, anal sex, and mutual masturbation are all classified as unnatural sex and if any of the above acts are committed, is an offence, unless they are committed as part of foreplay.

In other words, if you go down on your partner, please make sure to do the finishing act.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-11-12 12:57pm

PainRack wrote:Oral sex, anal sex, and mutual masturbation are all classified as unnatural sex and if any of the above acts are committed, is an offence, unless they are committed as part of foreplay.

In other words, if you go down on your partner, please make sure to do the finishing act.

So, in Sinapore, it's only illegal to cum in someone's mouth, ass or hand?

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2003-11-14 09:16am

Lagmonster wrote:
PainRack wrote:Oral sex, anal sex, and mutual masturbation are all classified as unnatural sex and if any of the above acts are committed, is an offence, unless they are committed as part of foreplay.

In other words, if you go down on your partner, please make sure to do the finishing act.
So, in Sinapore, it's only illegal to cum in someone's mouth, ass or hand?

No no no, whether you cum in the mouth, ass or hand, its still illegal, in order to make it not illegal, you have to cum in the vagina.

Don't ask me why. Go ask a limey.

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2003-11-14 04:52pm

Painrack, don't forget the old adage we have here. Do anything you want, but don't get caught.

The Wobbly Guy

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2003-11-15 06:10pm

The_Nice_Guy wrote:Painrack, don't forget the old adage we have here. Do anything you want, but don't get caught.

The Wobbly Guy

No no no, that's the SAF Eight Core Value(10th for the Airforce).

Anyway, its interesting. Apparently, the Ministry of Home Affairs has released a Forum letter, stating that the reason why the police man was charged in this case, was due to the fact that the girl was aged 15 at the time of the incident, meaning that she was underage. This would make the case similar to child sex cases in Britain and the US and should defuse the incident here, although I do hope it doesn't undermine the case for reform that has been gathering momentum for the last few years.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-11-15 06:55pm

However, my counter argument is this. The ready sale of smut material, with its easy access to young children is not desirable morally.

So just make it available to people 18 years and up. Naturally, this doesn't remove the possibility that people under that age will view it, but its better than making it blanket-illegal.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2003-11-20 07:38am

Just for laughs.

Courtesy of http http://www.talkingcock.com/html/article ... ad&order=0

Americans might not want to read the article.