Shah - underage girls are 'out to have a good time'

[poachedeggs]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/10/eddy-shah-operation-yewtree-sexual-abuse

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/10/eddy-shah-operation-yewtree-sexual-abuse

Well, we all know the difference between rape and 'rape' rape surely

Where do these ideas come from? I mean, it's no surprise that this vile predator has these opinions given the charges he was found not guilty of... But he is a voice in a crowd of men and women who think like this... It's just so depressing.

People keep talking about rape as if it is a legitimate act against a person, and the default is that the victim invited it, if not by clothing then by geography or attitude... In a week where the people in charge of representing justice in our country are calling abused children sexual predators and the 'wisest' minds are having to be trained to understand the complexities of sexual abuse and rape cases.

I hate the thought of having to teach my child that she should moderate her clothing or sexuality to appease men who have no respect for women (or men)

So his logic is that if young girls go out wanting to enjoy themselves, men are forced to rape them? Men have no choice in the matter, they just can't stop themselves raping girls who are dressed up, flirting and out for a good time?

I'm guessing that's because he deep down believes that all men are rapists and they just need the switch which turns them into rapists, to be activated. In Mr Shah's case, he believes that it gets activated by young girls having the fucking cheek to go out and enjoy themselves and explore the world and its possibilities. In other rape apologists case, they believe the switch is flicked by something else - mini skirts, or flirting, or whatever excuse they can come up with next for blaming rape victims for rape instead of rapists for rape.

When men talk like this about rape, we need to analyse what it is that they are telling us about themselves.

It's like he see being found not guilty as validation of those views :(

poachedeggs - it is a validation of those views.

Our society constantly validates rapists.

Every time someone blames victims for rape, they are validating rapists.

What must have happened to a girl in the first twelve years of her life to turn her into a "sexual predator" at that age? It doesn't bear thinking about.

And then, these men use the fact that they are sexually experienced to excuse themselves from having raped them.

Just because a 13 yo girl "throws herself" at a man, doesn't mean he has to have sex with her.

I find it sickening

It's bizarre logic.

That would be like me saying it was fine to let my toddler use the oven because she wants to, or to let my 6 year old drive. He just wants to have a good time

This man is a lunatic.

Having been found not guilty, the sensible thing would be to slink away quietly.

But no. Here he is, telling the world why young girls deserve rapists to tape them.

The mind boggles.

Of course the underage girls are to blame. Otherwise Mr Shah and his like would be forced to consider what perversion of their own minds had taken place that allows a grown man to be turned on by young girls and to act on it.

They might just have to consider that there is something seriously wrong with their own behaviour, because to be attracted to a young girl suggests that they are only interested in a young perfect virginal body. In other words, they have no interest in the mind of a young girl, because what could they possibly have in common.

Heaven forbid that they consider a woman desirable with all her body flaws, mature mind, knowledge of her own desires and needs. Anyone would wonder whether these sad pathetic men are intimidated by women.

Rambling now but I am sick of this attitude that not only do they consider that they have a right of access to women's bodies but also those of young girls. Fuck off you inadequate specimens. The clue is in the phrase "underage". They are not a temptation or a challenge or a reward for your male virility - they are children.

Shocking views, just shocking and what's worse is that this excuse of a man isn't ashamed to admit his perverted thinking. How can a child ever be responsible for his or her own abuse, but a grown man is not responsible for abusing them.

I would have said let him try arguing that one with the judge. But the problem is some of our judges (and increasingly famous barristers) are in agreement with him! I'm not so sure that the judges and barristers are also also sick and inadequate (opportunist in some cases but not sick). I suspect that there is also something wrong with our law enforcement and our judicial system. What we need is an enforcement attitude (as now with drink driving and carrying a knife) which simply says if you're guilty of having sex with an underage person you go to prison for five years, period. And then enforce it rigorously no exceptions no excuses.

I think he is trying to say...that there is a difference between being called a rapist when
a
someone knowing a person is underage and having sex with them
someone coercing of forcing someone to have sex
someone grooming someone to have sex with them
or
b
a popstar or medja person having sex with a seemingly willing backstage groupie back in the day (I'm sure all backstage people are age checked now) who is revealed 20yrs later to have been underage

He's trying to say that not everyone in the B situation was a predatory rapist or child molester

If you're having sex with young girls that you don't have a vague clue who they are or where they come from then you are a child molester. If you throw ricin or anthrax into a shopping centre just because you don't know who it comes into contact with that doesn't mean you're not responsible for your actions. The whole point about responsibility (and in this case criminal responsibility) is that you can choose not to do something. (And can also be punished for what you do.)

Ronald, perhaps a responsible and caring person in category B in your scenario would think, "When in doubt say no", and not "Well, she's throwing herself at me, what's a guy to do?"

Mr Shah may have been acquitted, but with views like this, he is still a risk to young girls around him, IMO.

Ordinary and caring is a whole other rodeo

I don't think the person in category b needs to be caring. They just need to know that if they go ahead and have sex with someone who turns out to be underage, they will be prosecuted. Responsibility lies with the adult not the child.

The throwing herself is a red herring.

Both the ricin and the underage sex involve letting loose an object in a confined space and both have consequences. The only intellectual point which is valid is the point about responsibility. In the case of the young girls it is the legal responsibility of the owner of the penis to correctly verify the legal status of the person he is entering it into. To fail to do this correctly, in the case of the underage person, is a crime.

Where the law and its officers make the situation worse is that several different categories of underage sex offences exist and defences (with differing degrees of success) exist for attempting to get men off the hook for committing crimes.

To straighten this mess out I would get rid of the categories and have one offence underage sex. And I would have one sentence five years in jail.

it sounds shocking, but i think hes mainly saying that theres a difference between having what they thought was consensual sex, which then turns out the consent was legally invalid because of their age, rather than rape which was about someone really not consenting by any stretch of the imagination.

That logic would mean that it's OK to burn people to death in a barn because you believed that it was empty.

that's not all he's saying though - he's saying in a situation where a grown adult male and a female child have sex it is the female child who should take the blame. he was asked, and answered quite clearly.

Bran, a person under 16 cannot legally consent. So there's no such thing as 'rape' rape.

A man should verify that he has consent. In this case by determining the age of the girl in question as well as that she gives consent.

I also think he is trying to point out a difference in what was thought to be consensual sex and forced rape.

I would hope that men now would accept more responsibility for knowing the age of a partner than they appear to have done in the past but when DH was invited to a 'do' with work colleagues which ended up at a pole dance bar, he said he felt very uncomfortable with men his age (late 40s) going "phwoar" at girls about the age of our daughter and her friends. It is sad men don't seem to learn.

sex cant really likened to being burned in a barn poached egss, can it??

Its sex, it isnt mutilation or killing someone.

I know a person under 16 cannot legally consent, but they CAN give a jolly good show of consenting, but obviously their legal consent is invalid.

Hes talking about the obvious, 14 and 15 year olds who wanted to do it, although unable to legally consent - but these people are not people who would be pressing charges now, are they, so maybe thats where hes confused