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

I think 'don't shag complete strangers' is a useful rule of thumb for anybody.

I think that it is nonsense to accuse people of being paedophile apologisers if they simply hold a differing view point
It isn't paedophilia to want to have sex with a girl aged over 13 anyway...it's a whole other philia - between ephebophilia or hebephilia.

None of this is right and it's all hair splitting and no one thinks it is right.

I do however think that there were some girls who were groupies and some of those girls were under 16
The numbers..I don't know. I think that simply because these girls (who seemingly on face value, wanted to have sex with popstars etc) existed will be used as some form of a defence
Again I am unsure how many actual groupies will make complaints to the police...

I think that it isn't always possible to tell if a girl is 15, 16 or 17 in many cases.

I don't know if these crimes are rape (control violence) or are opportunistic in their nature. It makes little difference as they are still terrible.

Also it isn't about passing for a woman...it's about passing an arbitrary age barrier of 16
15 and 11/12 looks the same as 16 1/12

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

The thread is about under age teenage girls, not pre-pubescent children - you are confusing the two. And it's not being a paedophile to point out that 13-15yo girls (and boys) can and do initiate consensual sex, that smacks of lynch mob hysteria.

Janey, your thought processes are fucking terrifying

What is fucking terrifying is the huge amount of denial going on, so we get this Kafka-esque situation where we apparently have to believe there is no one willingly having sex under 16, while simultaneously handing out the condoms and pills to these kids (as someone pointed out upthread)

"I think that it isn't always possible to tell if a girl is 15, 16 or 17 in many cases".

But if you just follow my rule of thumb and don't shag people you don't know, this doesn't have to be a problem.

It very strange that none of these men, when confronted with a child who is being sexually advanced, take upon themselves to make sure the child gets protection and support, they choose to have to have sex with them.

Asked if this meant the underage victims were at fault, he said: "If we're talking about girls who just go out and have a good time, then they are to blame

No moral compass what so ever.

and that is all he will ever be remembered for, what a waste of his one and only life.

I've had sex with people I don't know...I'm unsure that a policy of abstention is the answer to literally anything

I also am unsure that asking men (who in their opinion are being offered sex by a legal and willing partner) to check to see how or if they can help the young person is ever ever going to happen.

Unless the age of consent is changed to over 20 I cannot really see how it is possible to protect very young girls who are unsure about what is happening and how a situation is changing

Maybe a "don't be that guy" campaign might work for older men also?
Showing a naff older man or a creepy older man or just an ordinary dad you babysit for perving over a teenager
Legal doesn't mean its acceptable

Oh right, so paedophiles are people who only want to shag pre-pubescent children then?

So what is the name for people who want to shag pubescent children?

13/14/15 year olds also initiate bunking off school, joy riding shoplifting and spraying graffiti and some of them wear really odd clothes, frequent dodgy websites and write questionable poetry. A teenager thinking an activity would be a good idea doesn't make it a good idea.

We all know that it can be difficult to establish somebody's age on sight. That is why people selling alcohol, knives, cigarettes and glue ask for I.d. However, shop assistants only have minutes to establish somebody's age. Really, if you want to have sex with somebody, you should take a little more time. "She/he looked 16" is no excuse what so ever.

Merrymouse- Quite.

There seems to be this almost "fast food" desire for sex without any consequences, particularly amongst men.

Also, while I absolutely support teenagers being taught about their bodies and relationships, I have deep concerns about the "Dish out the contraceptives and let them get on with it" mentality, particularly as a significant numbrr of teenagers may be in relationships that are abusive - see the 2009 NSPCC report on this.

"I've had sex with people I don't know".

You know, condoms don't always work.

Great point about the safety of condoms merrymouse (heavy sarcasm)

could you explain it's relevance here? unless used as some sort of odd scare mongering statement to a grown adult
do you think you have now changed my sexual mores?

asking people to abstain from having sex simply doesn't work
it will continue to happen, very enjoyably for most
threatening the greater public with suggestions of broken condoms is just daft

I also think the proof of age point will only work if the man isn't an abuser

if he is an abuser he will have no interest in the age of the girl. He will simply want to have sex with her

if he isn't an abuser, is just a man who is considering having sex with a young looking girl then he should ask her her age imo

Should he actually have to check her id? -
if the man has any doubts, to the degree that he will not accept her word for her age and yet still wants to have sex with the girl then surely he goes into the abuser category?

My point is having sex with people you don't know is stupid. (No sarcasm). You shouldn't need to ask for ID because the person shouldn't be a stranger (and 14 year olds may look 20, but they certainly don't sound 20 and even if they are 16 and you are no longer at school, really, have some self respect).

Sex with people you don't know implies that either:

A) you couldn't care less about them as an individual and are just looking for a hole (or indeed dick)

And/or

B) you are unable to find somebody willing to have sex if you are in a well lit room and you are both sober and they have met you before.

To be fair, I can imagine that many teenagers find themselves in situation A or B. If you are not a teenager and you are still finding yourself in either situation, really you have a problem.

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.

By law they are children and therefore off limits, LazyJaney. What you are saying is if a man thinks a girl under the age of consent is initiating sex then he can have sex with her and there is some sort of moral grey area if she has 'initiated' to a degree the man decided to go ahead. You are looking at a he thought/she thought situation and giving the benefit of the doubt to the man involved.

The law is there to protect children from the justification by men of deeds that society deems unacceptable, and as a warning to men not to go ahead no matter what they may think is going on, because by definition it is not going on.

And to be clear to Mr Shah, that would be the mature adult having a problem, not the enthusiastic teenager.

I feel that this is many miles off topic sigh

The age of consent is 16. Therefore if someone says she is over 16 and you believe her I think that that is enough. How many cases does this really account for?
If a girl deliberately lies about her age to have sex with someone older then I don't see how this will be brought to the attention of the police...unless a parent is involved.

If you seriously need to question someone's age then she's too young

Speaking personally I know that sometimes sex is about meeting someone at a club, or in a bar, or even online and having sex
Sometimes it's simply about meeting up, purely to have sex.

Choosing how and when you have sex doesn't mean that you have a problem or a lack of self respect
It does not mean that you are unable to form relationships or are conventionally unattractive
It may be a decision that you quite happily make for yourself.

A friend wrote this,

It's ever so simple, Mr shah, and anyone else who may think underage girls are to blame for having sex with adults.

Would you cajole and persuade and coerce a 12-year-old into signing legal documents in your favour? No, of course you wouldn't, because the signature wouldn't be valid, because they are underage, so it doesn't matter how much they willingly sign the paper, it is not valid in law.

Same with sex.

A 12-year-old girl can be as willing as you like, but her consent is not valid because she is underage.

Simple, isn't it?

BasilBabyEater
"So what is the name for people who want to shag pubescent children?"

pedophilia or paedophilia - exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13).

Hebephilia - (dependent upon the onset of puberty) generally aged 11?14

Ephebophilia - generally ages 15 to 19

Mr Shah was found not guilty.....there must have been good enough reason for that decision. It was in front of a jury for deliberation
He was found not guilty on all counts wasn't he?

Am I mistaken in some way? Or is this all accusation being levelled at an innocent man? He holds views that are repellent to many and agreed by others

Also legal documents would be signed by someone over 18 not 16...as discussed earlier weird anomaly that we are old enough to decide to have sex or smoke but are not deemed mature enough to vote etc

People are referring to what he said, (see op) not his court case.

mr shah acknowledges fucking an underage girl in an expensive hotel room with a prostitute.

whatever he has been found 'not guilty' of he's hardly innocent is he?

and how many doctors would operate on a 15yo without contacting the parents? none because they'd fear being struck off and/or sued.

there have to be genuine, visible, clear consequences for people to avoid breaking the law.

I assume there is a Mrs Shah

I think she is on this thread

mrs shah wake up, jump up and get the fuck out of there.

I was unaware that Shah had had sex with the girl

I thought that that was the whole point of his not guilty verdict...that he didn't have sex with her