all i can say is WOW - did you REALLY just write that?
The poster is making a valid point.
It may not be one you like, but he has a point.
There are clear and obvious victims of men and women who sexually abuse and rape children and teenagers, but the poster was and is referring to teenagers (usually girls) who since the days of the Beatles, have happily slept with rock and pop stars, TV stars. Hence the word 'groupie'. And groupies have always been young, female, and around 14-21. Hence the word jailbait.
You are correct that the men should simply ignore these girls, as they are underage. Absolutely correct.
But you are being nieve if you think a teenager having sex with an older partner is automatically an abused or raped or coerced child. Common sense tells you that there is a difference between a little child being sexually abused, a teenager being abused and raped, and a teenager who is a willing partner in sexual intercourse with an older partner. The latter may still be wrong, but it isnt rape or abuse. And in fact it cheapens real abuse and rape to call it that.
You call the poster sick. I worry about the hysteria and lack of common sense I see in replies like yours.
With Savile and April Jones, it is not a good time to be living in Britain. Because we are quickly sliding back into the 'peado panic' of 10-12 years ago. And thats not healthy.
Thanks for your comments. I want to make a numkber of points:
Firstly, I have been a member of a jury where an older man was standing trial for the rape of a 13 yrear old girl, with an alternative charge of 'unlawful sexual intercourse'. I therefore received excellent instructions and guidance from a high court judge regarding the legalities of the situation. One of the things he emphasised was that we should consider whether there was 'no consent' given or 'reckless regard as to whether consent was given'. The 'Reckless regard' consideration meant that the accused had to be certain the girl was consenting fully and that she was not somewhat uncertain or UNABLE To GIVE CONSENT because of her age and vulnerability.
Secondly, my job requires me to have child protection training and to update that training every three years. The training now includes 'vulnerable adults' awareness, where a person may be over the age of consent but 'vulnerable' for a variety of reasons.
Therefore, I think I am qualified to comment on these matters.
I agree with you that the law should recognise that young people will enter into consensual sexual behaviour when they are aged under 16 and that sometimes they may be in a relationship and no useful purpose is served by punishing them for that behaviour.
I also recognise and acknowledge that young people will give consent to sexual behaviour with a much older adult and that this is different from the adult molesting a young person with disregard to consent. HOWEVER, an adult is an adult and a person under 16 is a child. In the cases we have been discussing, that of 'groupies', where very young girls (and I suppose boys) have consented to sex with much older adults and sex or sexual behaviour has taken place, that adult, in my opinion, has had 'reckless regard to consent' and should have declined any sexual contact at all with the young person or people. And before someone jumps in with the point that 'she looked 16/17/18 and told me she was 16/17/18 - I didn't realise she was 14/15 - the law states that this is no defence.
Additionally, getting back to Jimmy Savile, his alleged offending dates back to that late 50s, with most of it being carried out in the 60s/70s. Savile was, at this time, over 40 years of age. Does anyone think a man of this age should be slobbering over teenage girls, even if they threw themselves naked at his feet? Does anyone think it is normal for men in their 20s/30s/40s or older to enjoy sex with teenagers?
Finally, yes, I did refer to 'gimme-what-ever-his-name' as making me sick (I didn't call 'him' sick, I said he made ME sick). This is because he tried to suggest that groupies offering themselves to rock stars etc, resulted in rock stars molesting young people who did not consent. He wrote "BUT, some of these kids weren't groupies and just wanted an autograph or a momento, and that's where the problems started." Now, to ME that means he thinks that adults are not responsible for their own behaviour, that they can be influenced by the sexual advances of 'non innocents' resulting in the molestation of 'innocents'.
That is dangerous thinking.
