Jeremy Forrest's sister's comments.

[Jayne3474]

Sorry mail link (!):

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2347879/My-brother-paedophile-loves-girl-abducted-Jeremy-Forrests-sister-says-family-support-couple-asked-looked-jailed.html

aibu to think she has a point about the paedophile bit?

Don't get me wrong, I think what Forrest did was immoral, and took advantage of a vulnerable young woman.

But surely a paedophile is one interested in pre-pubescent children.

AIBU to be annoyed at this term for truly sick perverts being thrown around so casually?

I think in this specific case, with the sheer lack of regard for the girls welfare (taking her away, not even pleading guilty so she'd have to testify), he is a disgusting man.

frissonpink I'm sure they're very happy together but I don't think Forrest and girl will be the same somehow! In your case though he shouldn't have abused his trust though, he should have waited until she was older even if his feelings were genuine.

well by law he is not a paedophile,he is a sex offender though as she was underage.

The Mail also has a story today about another teacher who regularly had sex with a pupil (aged 16) in a car park over several months. That teacher is a woman though. Do you think she will get the same sentence?

The term ephebophilia means " Ephebophilia strictly denotes the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction" and I think that may be the phrase various posters are looking for.

However, we only have one sample here, so we can't say if he has a preference. I had a fling with an 18 year old when I was 30. I also had a lovely time at a gig with a 14 year old when I was 22. That doesn't make me a ephebophiole though - I just found them attractive (and I thought the latter was 18) I've also had partners older than me (when I was 17 and when I was 31) and both long term partners have been about the same age as me.

The point is that I expect a lot of us can point to individual relationships with people younger than us, but it doesn't mean we have a preference for them. JF may do, but none of us who don't know him can say for certain. What he did was immoral and also illegal, we do know that.

There is definitely no evidence that he is a paedophile though, and like the OP I was annoyed at the prosecution misusing the term.

frisson

They (the family, plus the teacher) keep pushing this "they're in love", "he couldn't help it" bullshit. But this girl was not the only girl he tried it on with. She wasn't the first, and if they hadn't run away and been caught, she probably wouldn't have been the last.

Even if she was the only girl for him and he'd fallen madly in love he shouldn't have had sex with her underage and shouldn't have taken her to another country. He may very well be in love with her now, who the hell knows, but this wasn't a case of mutually falling in love with each other over some text books, he targeted her like he's targeted all the girls before her. She just happened to reciprocate.

Stop apologising for him. She was a child under his care. He abused a position of trust and power. If he really loved her, if it really was some romeo and juliet style romance (which is wasn't because her parents support their relationship) then they would have done the sensible thing - waited until she was at least 16, moved to another school, got divorced from his wife and then started a legitimate relationship (though I would still find it creepy and weird). But he didn't do any of those things. He abused her. She might not even be able to see it now, but that's what happened.

I think it's important not to bandy a word like paedophile about inappropriately.

Words form our thoughts and while Forrest behaved immorally, there's really no way that what he did is on the same level as a man who abuses a little child.

So why use te same word?

What do we tell our 14/15 year olds, especially if they want to go out dressed like 20 yr olds?

Telling them the cool young teacher who's taking a special interest in them is a paedophile isn't going to wash. And what about their friend's mother's boyfriend, or any other older than their own agegroup guy in their lives?

We can bang on all we like about abuse of trust, breaking the law etc.
What can we say that will make them listen and think?

I agree with OP. We need to be precise about this for starters or any conversation we try to have is going to fail at the outset.

The fact is he abused his position as a teacher.

If he genuinely cared about her, and had any integrity, he would have divorced his wife and waited until she had left school.

Well because I suppose there is no other word that easily fits/that sounds right/that flows well.

Also, tabloids love a good paedo story even though the women on page three are a massive two years older than this girl usually

She was under 16, he was her teacher it's black and white for me. His family could stand by him as a person but still disown his behaviour they are disgraceful

I hate this argument that people trot out ' well I know a couple who met in this situation and they are still together 20 years later' so? The dynamic was set from the beginning that the woman would be less mature, less worldly and have less power. That's what these guys are after. And it's so easy for emotionally abused teenagers to leave their abusive partners after 10-20-30 years isn't it? Just have a look on the relationships board and you will see a considerable sprinkling of women who have been with their emotionally abusive partners since their teens and they can't leave them. Longevity does not = healthy relationship.

Black and white that he is a a paedophile, wishfulmakeupping?

There is no evidence of that, though. Here is a definition which may help you:

pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnosis criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13 - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

So difficult to even have a conversation about this on MN as it is so emotive . Especially the poster thread who said STFU, completely unnecessary.

I actually think this is not comparable to anything the like of what Jimmy Savile or Stuart Hall did. He is being made an example of, and when you compare the sentences given it is pretty outrageous.

If it was my daughter? I'd be bloody livid of course. But I just don't think it compares to if the girl was say 10, and before any smart arses ask me what age would be acceptable , let me make it clear I don't think it is acceptable, just not as outrageous as to warrant such vitriol .

I dont know, meanings of words change all the time, and it might be beneficial to society as a whole to use peadophile to include men who have sex with under age girls when they are in a position of trust.

Given that a certain percentage of individuals in society will be sociopaths, and that most criminals are somewhere on the sociopathic scale, their upbringing is vital in whether or not that individual develops into a criminal. In that regard, I find the sister's comments chilling, with their disregard for others affected.

I used to live in the area where Jeremy Forest is from, and there is a tendency for parents there to buy their children very expensive souped up cars which they then go out and crash while driving like boy racers, safe in the expectation that whatever they do, they will walk into a well paid job in the oil industry or fishing. This seems to be considered normal. The local paper is always full of bereaved mothers lamenting the dangerous roads - it is always the road's fault. It has the highest motor accident rate in the country. in general, I found there was an unnaturally high proportion of spoilt young men who behaved badly. The parental control just didn't feature. I know this happens in other parts of the country too.

Scientific terms tend not to change meaning, LessMissAbs

If we use paedophile to mean ephebophile then we lose an important distinction.

I don't think defining one person as a peadophile because they had sex with a 16 year old they taught and one as just a person because although they have a 16 year old partner they didn't teach them is going to work.

Those of you who see it in black and white, how would you react in a country where the age of consent is 15 to a 15 year old having a relationship with a 30 year old they knew from work, for example?

I can't believe some of the apologists on this thread, for what it's worth a relationship between a young teenager and a much older man can never be a relationship of equals, there is a huge power imbalance. I don't care how many anecdotes people trot out about people they know who have been married 30 years, who met when the female was a pupil and the male a teacher in late twenties, it just doesn't wash. He abused his position of trust and power.
His family need to stop minimising his offence and his sentence. Men like this make me sick to my stomach, women who apologise and try and justify the actions of abusers are just as bad.

Black and white that he was wrong to do what he did arthur I accept the definition of the word although I will say it is used as a blanket term by the media for other situations that it is applied to. I stand by my view of his and his family they are wrong to support and try to justify his illegal behaviour.

No mention of the word paedophile in this story of a teacher having sex with a 16 year old pupil, wishful so it's not a blanket term used by the media. This article has a different tone, I think.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2347577/Teacher-Emma-Ager-sex-pupil-16-car-told-legend-friends.html

However scientific terms tend not to be used in common parlance. And it seems that many people ate referring to Jeremy Forest as a paedophile.

Admittedly they are probably thinking of the other aspects of the crime, such as his being in a position of trust, the child abduction and the grooming of other female pupils.

So I will refer to him as a paedophile, because he deserves to tarred with the same brush, and the meaning of the word is changing.

would you really trust this man not to do the same to a 12 or 13 year old, should he find himself to be falling in love yet again?

one of the main reasons the law protects children from under age sex is because it tends to ruin their futures and limit their options in life, while benefitting the perpetrator.

I get the impression that the family are trying to give the impression that its not the crime the courts say it is. That they are some sort of starstruck love's young dream, who just happened to meet while he was her teacher.

its almost as if they partly blame his wife, who is obviously in shock and devastated.

I find their actions chilling. I would have mire respect for him if they condemned his actions and supported his wife, but obviously he can do no wrong in their doting eyes.

If I am brutally honest, I feel that what Forrest did is immoral and he is not a trustworthy person-he did abuse this girl's trust-however, I do not feel sickened to the stomach by it as I would had he abused a little kid.

Immoral? Most definitely. Sickening revulsion? No.

I can't 'tar him with the same brush' as a predator who preys on little kids at all. There's no comparison.

I think the term is hebephile/hemephile something like that but yeah you're right OP.