"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Bill Watterson

***

Boy initiated acts and was fixated with sex

"COURT proceedings to decide on sentencing for a 37-year-old tutor, convicted of allowing a nine-year-old boy to perform oral sex on him on five occasions, took an unusual turn yesterday.

The focus turned to the boy, as details emerged in court about his fixation with sex and how he had made advances to his tutor.

The tutor's lawyer, Mr Denis Tan, gave a disturbing picture of a child who harboured sexual fantasies, performed lewd acts and exposed himself to others.

Arguing that the case was not a typical one in which a predatory adult victimises a child, Mr Tan fought for his client to be placed on probation.

The prosecution did not dispute that the child had issues with sex.

A government child psychiatrist who saw the boy said he had a 'definitive mindset' about sexual matters and showed 'hyper-sexualised behaviour'.

Dr Cai Yiming from the Child Guidance Clinic found that the boy was not traumatised by the sex acts and, in fact, needed psychiatric help to rid him of his sexual fantasies and desires.

No other details of Dr Cai's report were revealed in court.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Gillian Koh Tan pushed for a deterrent sentence, arguing that the tutor had exploited the child's sexual curiosity and 'gamely acquiesced' to his advances.

'The crux of the case is that an adult had repeatedly engaged in sexual activities with a nine-year-old,' she argued.

'Yes, the nine-year-old may have peculiar characteristics, but does the uniqueness of the situation warrant a significant discount on sentence? The answer is 'no'.'

However, Justice Kan Ting Chiu noted that this was a 'unique' case and it was clear the boy had initiated the sex acts.

At one point, the judge disagreed with the DPP's use of the words 'sexual assault' to describe the offences.

Despite the DPP's objections, the judge made the unusual move of calling for a pre-sentence report on the tutor.

Such reports are typically called to determine whether young offenders are suitable for probation.

Justice Kan added that, assuming probation was unlikely, the report could still help the court in deciding the sentence.

The man started tutoring the boy at his grandparents' home in July 2007. During one session in February last year, the boy started talking to his tutor about sex and male genitalia.

Two months later, the boy followed the tutor when he went to the toilet, pushed the door open, entered and fondled the man. The tutor then allowed him to perform oral sex on him.

Yesterday, Mr Tan described the boy as a problem child who hit his tutor and hurled vulgarities at his grandmother.

The lawyer rattled off a list of the boy's lewd acts to give the court an idea of his obsession with sex.

The lawyer said his client tried to fend off the advances of the boy, including refraining from going to the toilet, but eventually succumbed.

Mr Tan argued that his client, who is not married, had not done anything to his 20 other students and was unlikely to re-offend.

But the DPP argued that the victim was still just a vulnerable child who could not fully understand his own sexual curiosity or the implications of the tutor's 'heinous acts'.

She pointed out that the tutor had failed to tell the boy's parents about his unusual interest in sex.

The DPP noted that there was an escalation in the tutor's conduct - on the last occasion, he had deliberately left the toilet door unlocked.

The punishment for having oral sex with a minor under the age of 14 is a jail term of up to 20 years, and possible caning or a fine."


Somehow, we don't see such testimony when men have sex with underaged girls.

It's a straightforward case of: wham, bam, slam (for the man).