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

Thank you Nice Tabard. You've said exactly what needs to be said.

Yes Thankyou to Nice Tabard and swallowed a fly. It was what needed to be said.
The fact that no one calls the young boys groupies but say "oh they were just groupies" ....well it says it all.

that was meant to read "Oh they were just groupies" meaning the attitude towards the girls who were abused.

Applauding NiceTabard.

justanuthermanicmumsday I want to take issue with a lot of this:

Also what's so wrong about telling your children to be modest in dress and not flaunt their sexuality to all and sundry down the street? It doesnt mean you are a nun, it doesnt mean youre a religious nutter or a prude kt simply means you are sensible. Our sexuality and bodies should be valued.

Please do not say 'children' when the people you are advising are in fact only your female children.

What do you mean when you say 'sensible'?

I want to know what you are saying to your sons.

What we tell our sons is far more important than anything we say to our daughters.

If you turned the tables and imagined teenage boys going to nightclubs so they could have sex with female celebrities in their 30's/40's/50's, and that these particular female celebrities were stronger physically than the boys, liked to be dominant, and went to these nightclubs to meet young boys for a quick shag (albeit they claimed only those over 16), would anybody really imagine that the boys knew what they were doing, or that the women weren't taking advantage of the immaturity of the boys or that the women had no responsibility towards these children, and that "He looked 16" would be a reasonable defence?

What about men and teenage boys?

This whole 'defence' on the part of Shah rests on the cultural assumption that it is OK for a man of any age to have sex with a 'girl' rather than a 'woman', and he has no responsibility to act like a grown up.

(And I agree with Tabard that the kind of abuse that has come to light with Hall and Saville has nothing to do with groupies).

I do know that most abuse happens within the family and friend group of a child and I worry that the focus on famous perverts and rapists may be somehow fudging that fact

Spot on. Strange dirty older men are outliers, a lurid rarity, but they grab attention and sell media and newspapers.

The majority of abuse is by known people, and even then most is not by not adults but other young people of contemporary age.

I haven't seen anyone accuse the boys who were abused of being groupies who were well up for it and deserve to shoulder the blame. Wonder why that is

Because there are relatively few boy groupies seeking sex.

The inconvenient truth is Shah has a point, and denial wont wash. Conflating groupies with abused children weakens your argument.

the kind of abuse that has come to light with Hall and Saville has nothing to do with groupies

Spot on.

so what is a 'groupie' to you lazy?

i have images of an underage girl overawed by her famous hero begging to be let backstage to be in there and cool and see them and then finding herself way out of her depth, handed alcohol, drugs, etc surrounded by 'cool' grown ups and then finding herself being mauled, not realising that was what she'd signed up for but being way too out of her depth to know how to extricate herself from the situation (not to mention probably a bit pissed and high by this point).

i don't imagine the sex being a mutual loving act or one where her pleasure gets much attention but of being used as a thing to fuck by an adult male who is cool with getting a child who adores them off their face and fucking her before going back to his mates to carry on getting hammered.

is that a groupie? if it happened to your 15yo you'd be cool with it and say well you are a groupie after all?

groupies are what men call girl fans who they use for sex. i doubt it is a category the girl chooses and understands the dynamic of.

if the so called groupies are underage and having their naivety and awe exploited to be used for sex by men then they are abused children. they don't cease to be abused children purely because they like the band the abuser is in.

little girls like their daddies - that doesn't make them daddies groupie when he abuses her.

whether it's the power of family love and authority being used to abuse or the power of fame, seniority, environment etc being used to abuse it's still abuse.

But, given that there is a law about under age sex, and there are obviously risks of STD's and pregnancy, and that clearly (even if just from this thread), there are teenagers whose perception of their own maturity is in advance of their actual maturity, it is not unreasonable to think that a mature adult might be able to decide not to have sex with somebody they had just met in a night club who, although not clearly under 16, clearly wasn't over 25. I mean, it's not exactly a meeting of minds if you haven't sussed that somebody is 14 is it?

I can see that an 18 year old might not have the maturity to do this. However, I think very few 18 year olds are prosecuted for under age sex. I do think that a man in his late 20's or older is able to do this, and the only reason that men don't is that it is culturally acceptable for men to have sex with girls and take no responsibility for their actions. (See also famous men being 'tricked' into having 'love children'.)

we are minxy little witches aren't we? we can trick famous, powerful men who could have sex with pretty much any kind of woman they wanted to into having sex with us 14 and we can trick rich powerful men into having 'love childs' with us.

it must be witchcraft surely?

it's as if in the arena of sex we give men no responsibility and no credit for autonomy. it's as if they want to be seen as walking penis' without brain cells but also to rule the world and be trusted with financial institutions, nuclear bombs, etc. given they so regularly seem to be saying they are brainless penis' with legs it's a wonder they can be trusted with such things.

either men are capable of being adults and acting with responsibility or they aren't and should be seen as minors perhaps and not allowed to vote or hold positions of responsibility?

it's as if in the arena of sex we give men no responsibility and no credit for autonomy

You are busy doing exactly that for girls though, assuming they are total unable to initiate sex. You have created your own straw groupie, based on your own "I imagines" rather than reality.

sorry - i'm a bit heavy on the sarcasm this morning. but the irony of a man who is presiding over a court that gets to decide upon the liberty or incarceration of lives implying a man is not capable of thinking rationally enough to not fuck a child is not lost on me. we should take him at his word and sack him on the basis of his own assertion that men are incapable of rational thought and responsible action.

yes lazyjaney you are correct - i am saying girls re: female children do not have responsibility for sexual encounters with adult men because they are children and adults take responsibility in child/adult encounters.

You are busy doing exactly that for girls though, assuming they are total unable to initiate sex.

Yes, when under the age of 16, they are below the age of consent.

you really don't see a distinction between the responsibility and autonomy of adults versus children then lazy?

Paedophiles argue that children have sexual autonomy and we're all denying them that autonomy when we say that adults shouldn't fuck children.

It's slightly depressing to see posters on mumsnet with the same attitudes and values as paedophiles.

You need to ask yourself why you are lining up with paedophiles against their victims, if you are arguing for the sexual autonomy of children.

Janey, your thought processes are fucking terrifying

I wouldn't be so pessimistic about the recent revelations being seen as limiting to a handful of 'famous' abusers. All child-care orgs. have reported a v sharp increase in the numbers of refers for allegations of abuse. I'd entertained reason to be optimistic that more young people will have a new confidence in speaking up, and the records seem to show this.

So much wild assertion and impotent angst over the last few days. Quite depressing really from a personal standpoint, so I'll apologise for the length of this.
Simply...5-10% of boys and 15-20% of girls report sexual abuse by adults in psychiatric studies. Of all these only around 10% are by strangers (there is no stated proportion of "famous" people). Most attacks reported to police are less numerous and on girls at 80-90% of the total.
The significant under-reporting (officially) of all abuse, but particularly on boys and by females is a critical issue. Much is due to cultural conditioning working against us all (i.e. boys should feel grateful!, women can't be abusers surely? police can't do anything, it's my word against his/hers, even groupies want it anyway), which goes some way to explaining why church abuse took so long to surface.
I can recall a particularly terrifying experience at 13 being chased around a room by a 25 year old cousin of a friend. She had already proudly proclaimed how she'd "had" a boy scout for a £1 - "bit more than a bob" she said. Why should I be grateful for that?!
Listen and you'll hear how many of your family and friends have had similar or worse experiences. Certainly, around a third of my girlfriends, partners and wives have had some form of abusive, sexual contact with men as children, some violent. None have been with strangers.
I will raise my daughters to know not all adults meet the ideals of sexual equality or give a damn about the law or their well-being. I will counsel them on the effect their behaviour could have on some males. I will ensure they are confident in their developing sexuality and they know what to do if they come across sexual aggression or abuse - defend, escape and report.
I only ask that those with sons stem the rise of male sexual aggression noted by police and scientists, after such a long decline.
I will not gnash my teeth and beat my chest declaring it "cannot be so"; it is, repugnant as that may be.
Psychiatrists state that "children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults", and condemn any such action by an adult: "An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#United_States_and_Europe
for a good start...

Breathtakingly stupid debate about someone who is breathtakingly stupid. Shah always was a dickhead, but he's not alone. Our beloved media are just dying for the morally questionable to say something despicable, again.

DownstairsMixUp you're spot on with the shred of doubt point, but us men do not have the intimate familiarity with the female body women have. I have an utterly unobservant friend who has been rescued from an - admittedly good looking if obvious - transexual woman and 14 year old girls in an over 25's club (although the screams of "you some sort of pervert!" got his attention). No excuse - he has three sisters - but it seems if it looks like a woman it must be a woman is his way, but he's no abuser.

but it seems if it looks like a woman it must be a woman is his way, but he's no abuser.

Just a massive knobhead then yeah?