Off Topic SUNDERLAND SACK JOHNSON
- Thread starter Garlic Klopp
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I'm guessing 16, as until then there is still someone else responsible for your welfare. Guess that's why the age of consent for sex is 16 as allegedly you should be able to make your own decisions by then
S
Super G Ted'inho
Guest
S
Super G Ted'inho
Guest
Pretty much. Anyone can act how they like, it's not illegal to act in a certain way. Actual actions are illegal.
Fair enough - It was more a question of morals rather than the law.
i hope the parents have taught her a lesson.
S
Super G Ted'inho
Guest
Oh, the parents need to address it imo. The problem is, youngsters know they can get away with all manner of things nowadays. They are almost untouchable (if you pardon the unfortunately pun)
The salient point is, that as a supposedly mature adult Johnson had no place luring a 15 year old into his car with the intention of getting her to blow him off.
Her 'morals' as a teenage girl aren't relevant.
The law is there to protect minors from the sexual advances of adults.
Whether she was experienced or otherwise doesn't make a jot of difference.
Indeed.
Parents should do there bit in raising self confident girls (and boys) who do not value themselves based on who is attracted to them sexually.
They should also be raised to not see fame itself as a positive aspiration.
Having said that the law is in place because as a society we have decided two things:
It's not a perfect world and we accept that not all children will be lucky enough to be brought up this way.
As a child who no matter what adult actions they may be physically capable of we have decided that before 16 they are not mentally or emotionally prepared for them.
This case proves this.
Either the girl was actively seeking a sexual relationship with a much older stranger based on his fame...which indicates a lack of maturity.
Or she believed or was gullible enough to be manipulated into believing that she "owed" Johnson sexual favours for signing a couple of shirts.
Reading the evidence given so far it seems to be a mixture of both. But....Johnson clearly, knowingly engineered a situation where he would meet a child alone and suggested that physical contact should take place.
In all aspects of this particular case he as the adult had the power and element of control over what took place.
While she may have grown into the type of 18 year old wag type throwing herself at footballers until she hit 16, Johnson, the Police and CPS have a duty of care to protect her...even from herself.
Once she is an adult...the consequences of her actions are hers alone as long as any relationship is consensual.
Parents should do there bit in raising self confident girls (and boys) who do not value themselves based on who is attracted to them sexually.
They should also be raised to not see fame itself as a positive aspiration.
Having said that the law is in place because as a society we have decided two things:
It's not a perfect world and we accept that not all children will be lucky enough to be brought up this way.
As a child who no matter what adult actions they may be physically capable of we have decided that before 16 they are not mentally or emotionally prepared for them.
This case proves this.
Either the girl was actively seeking a sexual relationship with a much older stranger based on his fame...which indicates a lack of maturity.
Or she believed or was gullible enough to be manipulated into believing that she "owed" Johnson sexual favours for signing a couple of shirts.
Reading the evidence given so far it seems to be a mixture of both. But....Johnson clearly, knowingly engineered a situation where he would meet a child alone and suggested that physical contact should take place.
In all aspects of this particular case he as the adult had the power and element of control over what took place.
While she may have grown into the type of 18 year old wag type throwing herself at footballers until she hit 16, Johnson, the Police and CPS have a duty of care to protect her...even from herself.
Once she is an adult...the consequences of her actions are hers alone as long as any relationship is consensual.
Wonder why he didn't wait till she was 16 ??
That either suggests he was turned on by the idea of a borderline teen (perverted) or that he thought the opportunity might pass by if he waited till she was legal (predatory and perverted) ... he could have held off with the meet-up and signing till she was legal as it's not like a 15 year old who idolises you as her fave footballer is going to drop contact if you put her off for a bit, she's got the attention of a PL mega-star
Both situations are deplorable anyway
That either suggests he was turned on by the idea of a borderline teen (perverted) or that he thought the opportunity might pass by if he waited till she was legal (predatory and perverted) ... he could have held off with the meet-up and signing till she was legal as it's not like a 15 year old who idolises you as her fave footballer is going to drop contact if you put her off for a bit, she's got the attention of a PL mega-star
Both situations are deplorable anyway
Have to agree with this 100%.
There needs to be a cut off point for consent.
I wish to stress, yet again, that I am not saying AJ hasn't committed a crime. He certainly has, he took advantage of a young girl for sexual favours.
He broke the law and he should go to jail.
Just not comfortable with the "*****" tag, which is both legally and medically incorrect, despite what some inbred, deranged, hypocrite criminals may think.
"I set fire to a house and burnt an entire family in their Sleep, what about you?"
"Oh I slept with a 15 year old....."
"WHAT? *Shank Shank*"
She'd only just turned 15 mate.
He might have been a perv, or he might have initially thought she was older, but he was set straight on that one, as she told him how old she was, he then googled the age of consent, so he knew the griff.
Agree. It is morally inexcusable what he did but *****philia (boinking prepubescent) is orders of magnitude worse than what he did. His age makes a difference too.
A 20 something having sexual contact with a 15 year old is much worse than a 16 year old with the same girl.
He should have jail time. His act should be vilified. This isn't the same (or AS bad as) *****philia though and that should be recognised.
Just as an aside to this, anyone else think our societies view on this kind of thing is somewhat skewed?
I mean I know the law is the law and all that, and forgetting the specifics of this case, but think about these 2 scenarios;
1. A 20 year old male has sex with a girl just short of her 16th birthday - sex offenders register and probable jail term - ***** him la......
2. A 45 year old bloke has sex with a girl just past her 16th birthday - crack on son, 'lucky sod', what's your secret big lad?
Weird when you think about it eh?
I mean I know the law is the law and all that, and forgetting the specifics of this case, but think about these 2 scenarios;
1. A 20 year old male has sex with a girl just short of her 16th birthday - sex offenders register and probable jail term - ***** him la......
2. A 45 year old bloke has sex with a girl just past her 16th birthday - crack on son, 'lucky sod', what's your secret big lad?
Weird when you think about it eh?
Like all of these age things it is arbitrary...voting, smoking, drinking, driving etc.
It is mainly a judgement call. There are always exceptions to the rule regarding maturity, intelligence etc.
On the sex one though I think a lot of it is based on physical safety. Between the possibility of abuse but also infant and woman mortality figures that increase the younger women/girls get pregnant...
There is a definite link between age of pregnancy and mortality rates.
Of course health care access has a lot to do with it too...
I can only go on what I've seen in the papers so far, and that is often sensationalist crap. But with her admitted talk of 'riding him' and so forth, it's obvious she is no babe in the woods. But, and bearing in mind Tobes' point, the difference I can see is that she told him her age. And that's that, as far as I can see, in that there has to be cut off point somewhere.
Sympathy for some blokes in some situations when they're lied to (didn't John Peel's 15 year-old girlfriend admit that she showed him a fake bith certificate to show she was 17? Still a bit pervy though, given he was 30 at the time), but 15 is under age. And that's the law.
That said, my last long term girlfriend was in her late 20's when I was 40. Can't remember one person, least of all her family and friends, who batted an eyelid. And one of my older sisters, who we compared to Rose out of Keep Up Appearances, was 15 years older than her husband (yeah, I know the sexist hypocrisy). Then again, look at the comparative sentences to middle-aged female teachers who seduce young boys compared to male teacher/female pupil cases.
Sympathy for some blokes in some situations when they're lied to (didn't John Peel's 15 year-old girlfriend admit that she showed him a fake bith certificate to show she was 17? Still a bit pervy though, given he was 30 at the time), but 15 is under age. And that's the law.
That said, my last long term girlfriend was in her late 20's when I was 40. Can't remember one person, least of all her family and friends, who batted an eyelid. And one of my older sisters, who we compared to Rose out of Keep Up Appearances, was 15 years older than her husband (yeah, I know the sexist hypocrisy). Then again, look at the comparative sentences to middle-aged female teachers who seduce young boys compared to male teacher/female pupil cases.
there is this interesting hypocrisy that if the person under age is female the tone often is "He is a perv/peado " other way round , interestingly particularly with teachers, the response is "jammy sod"
and the ones saying these things are almost always men
I don't agree with that type of outlook either it is hypocritical: the laws the law after all etc but there is a definte equation with the biological vs social consequence that has historically been very different between the sexes.
As third world countries still show the consequences for young girls who get pregnant due to early sexual activity are always much more severe than for boys.
Lack of education, lack of economic independence, lack of political independence and due to all of the above increased risk to health.
All of these things still occur here to a much lesser extent but the over protection we've put in place over the last century help to address the imbalance that the biological difference creates.
The boy having sexual relations with his teacher even today still is at much less risk in terms of the future than the girl.
The fact that there is still that "go on my son" attitude around suggests the extra protection is still needed for girls.
S
Super G Ted'inho
Guest
Obviously, the law is the law and anyone knowingly breaking that law deserve the consequences.
But, in answer to your point about human views on these things...
Doesn't that come down to bodily growth? Sex at a young age can damage female genitalia but not males
the highlighted section is interesting as the girl (unless very young or forced) will in a minority of minds be branded as "easy" "asking for it" where as a boy wouldn't be.
the sexualization of society is almost all encompassing these days and is showing in our young people