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?

Er - what should we say to our men folk?
Why is it a child's responsibility not to be interfered with?

The children come be coming out of school in bikinis thyme, and it would not matter. They would still be a child, and they would still be off limits to adults, especially adults such as teachers who are in a position of trust.

"The children come be coming out of school in bikinis thyme, and it would not matter. They would still be a child, and they would still be off limits to adults, especially adults such as teachers who are in a position of trust."

Shocked and saddened that it needs to be spelled out.

Of course they are off limits. Try telling them that. They don't see the problem Some of them don't want to be off limits.

I've spent most of my life in schools. We spend years trying to minimise risk. How to cross the road, don't flash your mobile in the street. But they can wear what they like, behave how they like?

What would you say to them?

'But you're a child' doesn't go down very well, either.

He is vile and his family are equally vile for trying to excuse his behaviour and blame his wife. They should hang their heads in shame.

It's obvious why the family are making the distinction between paedophile and 'mere' sex offender.

What is obvious is that while people -rightly or wrongly- may see what he did as a grey area, everybody will see that paedophile activity is wrong.

It lumps him in with those who abuse little kids.

Of course they're going to distance themselves from that!

I mean nobody could think that what this guy did is as bad as somebody abusing a toddler, could they? I mean seriously, they do?

Are you his sister Jayne?- What he did was abuse. End off.

LessMissAbs - do people still think that?!

No there is no 'end of' at all.

The reason that he deserves punishment is because there is a good possibility that this girl was manipulated by him and society cannot condone that.

But, judging from the comments here, there very much are 15-year-olds who chase young men -and let's be honest this guy was 30 not 50-just because that doesn't fit in with a PC view, doesn't change the truth.

However, let's be honest, they may end up marrying and having a happy marriage.

But then again they may not and she may feel deeply disturbed by it, thus, it must be made plain that it is wrong-even though they may end up marrying.

But to lump this guy in the same category as those who abuse little kids, I mean FFS

Your Mn history tells all

I do not wish to engage in a bunfight with you, noddyholder.

I have not said that JF's actions were acceptable. I said in my first post that his behaviour was immoral. I've made it clear that I think it is quite right that teachers should be prevented from having relationships with their pupils.

What I have said is that because none of us know much about him, we cannot label him with any of the technical terms. He is a sex offender. He is, in my opinion, immoral and unethical. I would say he is probably manipulative, but then we can all be manipulative from time to time. It's being manipulative and immoral that's the problem.

What we cannot say is that he is a paedophile. 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

We have no evidence at all that he has sexual interest in pre-pubescent children, so we cannot describe him as such.

There is some evidence to suggest he may be an ephebophile. Ephebophilia strictly denotes the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

However, we cannot say with certainty that he is an ephebophile because we don't know enough about him or his relationships. All I know is that he's been in a relationship with his wife, who is slightly older than him, and with his pupil, who is significantly younger than him. I would suggest that these two instances are not sufficient to show a preference - just "the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction." We can speculate that he possibly is, given that he must have been very strongly attracted to his pupil to have taken such obvious risks and crossed such ethical and moral boundaries, but we cannot say with any certainty that his is without further evidence. I could expand on this, but given that simple appeals to the proper definitions of words have had me labelled as making excuses for his behaviour, I do not feel inclined to.

We can say he is immoral, unethical, untrustworthy and a convicted sex offender. I've never said otherwise. We can even say he might be a ephebophile. But we can't be certain he is without more evidence.

Christ Arthur spare me the Wikipeadia presented as a formal source please. We have a conviction as a sex offender, we have a description by the Prosecutor as a paedophile that was not judicially distanced by the judge, so while not obiter dicta, its certainly not disingenous to suggest that the meaning of the term peadophile is beginning to change to include those with the legal status of children.

Jayne - a bit like the Pakistani woman who married her rapist then, because her options were so limited? Do you think the victim marrying a man twice her age with a criminal record and little in the way of employment prospects, with a history of lieing to and cheating on women, and of grooming schoolchildren, is a good outcome?

So many people with an agenda of sexualising children to push, what a sick society we live in. Its not hard to see how sex offenders like Forest are reared.

But most people aren't lumping him in with anybody, they are just calling him a sex offender. Most of us don't have reason to talk about the different gradations of sexual abuse in our day to day conversation.

More important than debating the correct name for his particular psychological problem is the worrying fact that his family don't seem to be able to deal with his clearly deep seated mental difficulties, and they seem to be quite happy to enable the relationship to progress further, presumably because then everybody can pretend that the situation is normal.

It is clear that he is not psychologically healthy and does have problems with appropriate sexual behaviour, to the extent that he really didn't know/didn't care that kissing his 14 year old pupil in her school uniform was wrong.

Of course 15 year olds flirt and try to 'get off' with unsuitable people. They also take drugs and get drunk to the point of ending up in A&E. As a teacher/parent/relative you therefore try to protect them from their immature behaviour. I can also see that many people found Britney Spears quite attractive in that video. Sometimes it is difficult to tell a teenager's age if you don't know them. Teenagers sometimes have sex.

None of this has anything to do with the way that this man behaved.

Someone asked up thread what people's teenage daughters have said.

My DDs are 16 and 14, and they are adamant that JF's behaviour was disgusting. They called him a 'paedo', probably because they arent completely au fait with different definitions, and I havent picked them up on it.

As for so many teenage girls being sexually predative, dressing older than their years, going places they are too young for - that's what your teenage years are for in some ways, we all like to stretch boundaries if we can when we are young and silly. However, the onus is on the ADULTS to establish the facts and therefore not take advantage of them, or even worse - like JF - to actively seek them out.

LessMissAbs

No I don't think it would be a good outcome for her to marry him at all, however, they may marry and be happily married.

Now society does-and should- condemn Forrest as being in the wrong.

If this girl grows up and decides that she was taken advantage of, then she has the knowledge that society condemned it.

If she grows up and decides to marry him, she still has that knowledge but has the option to disagree if she wishes.

Him getting convicted is the right thing to do as she 'wins' all around.

The difference between a 15-year-old and an abused 5-year-old is that a 5-year-old could NEVER reasonably think that what happened to them was ever right. And that there is absolutely no grey area with a little kid.

bunfight?

Is the World Health Organisation a good enough source for you, LessMissAbs? They define a paedophilia as:

"A persistent or a predominant preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children"

I think there is an important distinction to be made between sex offenders such as Jeremy Forrest and sex offenders such as Colin Blanchard and his cohorts. DISTURBING CONTENT - www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/10/colin-blanchard-backstory-crime

What Forrest did was wrong, as I have repeatedly made clear. But his relationship was with someone who was physically capable of it, and in which she believes herself to have been consenting - albeit that he may well have manipulated her.

I think what paedophiles such as Blanchard do/did is worse, and it is of no benefit to anyone to use the same term for both.

I'm not saying what he did was right, good, acceptable or anything like that. I'm saying that paedophilia is a word that describes something worse than what he did.

Jayne3474 - "The difference between a 15-year-old and an abused 5-year-old is that a 5-year-old could NEVER reasonably think that what happened to them was ever right. And that there is absolutely no grey area with a little kid."

Exactly this.

I don't see what the relevance is of a debate over whether JF is technically a paedophile or not. Why does it matter? He's a an abuser and a convicted sex offender and that's that.

In addition, grading some kinds of abuse as worse than others is getting into murky waters. Any form of abuse is wrong and who are we (general we) to say to someone l your abuse wasn't that bad?"

The problem with grooming is that it is used by abusers to make their victims think that what was done was right - whether the victim is 5 or 15.

The grooming started when the victim was 14 (possibly earlier?). That is far close to the magic number which would have definitely have made Forrest's offences more serious.

IMO Forrest knew all about the significance of the different ages. I think he was far closer to even more serious offences. If the stories about him approaching other 13 year olds then that is a suggestion of persistence. Some of those girls were allegedly 13.

Well actually it does matter a great deal in societal terms. A man who has sex with a seemingly willing 15-year-old girl is not going to have the same level of condemnation and repulsion as one who abuses a little kid.

That's why the family are keen not to have him labelled a paedophile.

I'm sorry, it's pretty obvious that one is worse than the other.

Sorry, minimising of any form abuse is wrong and I would repeat that it isn't "our" place to say to a victim of abuse that want they went through wasn't that bad because it doesn't fall into some arbitrary criteria of seriousness that "we" have decided on.