Off Topic SUNDERLAND SACK JOHNSON

no it's due to society being patriachial in nature

edit - i am referring to those below but not that far off our legal age of consent before anyone gets carried away

 

Well obviously

But it is more of a risk for females than males.

 

Don't agree with that, what difference does it make about being termed a *****phile or a child sex offender??? Both are equally abhorrent imo.

We've had all this talk about the significance of a girl being 15 or 16, well where do you draw the line at *****philia?? A guy enters into a sexual relationaship with a girl at 11 who has entered puberty isn't a *****phille, but a guy who enters into a sexual relationaship with a 13 year old who hasn't entered into puberty is a *****phile??? How does that work?

Personally, I think it depends on how many of us have daughters or close relatives or professional relationships with young people including pre-pubescent and adolescent girls. I can't help feeling there's a lot of detachment in real terms, from how vulnerable young children really are.

 

He should be lined up and the Newcastle fans should stone him to death


His Mrs keeps showing up at the court case? #moneyslut

 

Funny enough she missed out on the one day the young girl had to describe how he put his hand on her head repeatedly until she gave him oral sex.....strange eh? Must have been nails day.

And she has a daughter too....another generation of girl brought up by a woman teaching her that her body is nothing more than a commodity to sell to some rich or famous guy for a house and fake fur coat....

 

Yes, but there has to be a cutoff somewhere.

 

Ignoring the law I said....

The cut off is merely the legal definition, which also provides society with a huge moral arbiter it seems

The basic premise of the comparison I gave is just weird when you rationalise it.

 

Yes and no.

Yes, I think a lot of that is social hypocracy but there are biological reasons too.

1) A boy can't get pregnant.
2) There is a stronger correlation between infertility in women and age of first sexual encounter than there is with men.
3) Most STDs are more easily transmitted male to female rather than the other way around.
4) The gulf in physical strength is larger between a man and girl- indicating physical intimidation is a possibility.


So yes, I agree that society views the difference in gender predation mostly from a social construct; however, there is a biological justification too.

 

Yes, but if you base it on how "developed" they are as opposed to their age then you bring in subjective factors that make policing more difficult.

Unfortunately it has to be "on/off". One day she's illegal, next day is her birthday and she's legal. Just like cigarettes, fireworks, alcohol, and conscription.

That said there is a huge difference between abusing a 15 y/o and a 5 y/o. The crime for screwing a 15 year old should be less than that for a pre 12 y/o.

 

A small child is going to be more traumatised, possibly for life than a 15 year old (who possibly egged on her suitor) would be.

No doubt in my mind that (whereas both are wrong) the *****phile is a much worse individual than the ephebophile.

 

I think that bit in bold only highlights the naive views on this. There seems to be this misconception that a stupid 15 year old is in any way culpible of the actions of an adult who takes advantage of her, and therefore her trauma would be any less and the offence mitigated.

Those definitions don't really address your argument though. Yours is an ad-hoc approach bcos you can't draw the line between a *****phile and a child sex offender. Following your line of argument, the offender of an 11 year old who's entered puberty is not a *****phile and therefore isnt considered as bad as an offender of a 13 year old who is pre-pubescent that would be classed as a *****phile.

The only technicality is that one has entered puberty, the other hasn't but both are as bad as each other regardless of the label.

 

I agree with this. I said she was 'no babe in the woods', but she was 15 and he knew it. No matter how slutty/trampy/tarty or whatever way the defence paints her, she legally is protected from her actions. It's sometimes bloody difficult being a male, and women, in general don't always appreciate that with their allround victimhood, but keeping your zip up when you need to is part of it.

Nah, it keeps coming down to the fact that he knew her age, so he deserves what he gets. Not sure whether he deserves to be classified as a ***** or a kiddy-fiddler, but if he didn't want that he shouldn't be getting his kicks with girls that he knows are on the cusp, so to speak.

 

Ignoring the law I said...

Of course we have to set a limit, that's a given. Detach yourself from the conditioning that brings with it and then attempt to rationalise my example.

The first one's a pervert and the second a jammy sod - which is plain weird

 

Hopefully Dad Law would kick in either way lol....

 

Problem is you need to have a cut off somewhere and a specific age.
Same with drinking does it really make any difference to drink the day before turning 18 compared to the day you turn 18. There always need to be a specific point

 

A 15 year old is more capable of understanding the consequences of her actions than a 12 year old is and much more capable of understanding her actions than a 5 year old.

Obviously the man is at fault and a 15 year old can't legally consent but there is a huge difference.

 

How many 15 year olds with their heads fully together do you lot know ?! ****ing hell

 

Only in a very general way. Obviously easier to see the difference between 5 and 15.... but 11, 12, 13 and 15? Then there can be a huge variety between emotional intelligence and knowledge.

I remember when my sister was 13 she had varied friends..from the bible school kid who's life experience was probably more like the average ten year old...to the truly frightening kid that I avoided being in a room with (I was 16) because she was very sexually agressive in talk and behaviour more so than most of the girls my age....but....there was enough there to see she was still a child underneath, decision making wise..it was still essentially childish behaviour if that makes sense?

So two 13 year old girls one would probably not get in trouble because she would be overwhelmed by the situation. The other would end up "fronting up" talking the talk but the very fact she wasn't really grown up would go too far in the situation.

Funny enough the real girl in question got pregnant at 16 (just) by a 19 year old who convinced her condoms weren't for grown up relationships...guy was around for about ten minutes after...

Pretty much highlights the need for the line.

 

What a ****

 

The fact is, the law is the law. You can't 'ignore it' or reason or argue it away... 16 is the legal age of consent in the UK. All debate aside Johnson has broken the law so will be punished. The law rules, literally.