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

As a young teacher, I once worked on a case in which a 13 year old had been raped by a much older man. There was a lot of evidence in which she had literally been asking him to do it (emails and text messages). Whilst Nobody commented on this all of the professionals I worked with made 'odd' comments, along the lines of 'see you in a year', or, 'this isn't over'. The man was convicted regardless ( as you'd absolutely hope!).........but almost a year later, it emerged that she had also suffered long term sexual abuse from her father.

Not one of the professionals said, 'I told you so', but they had all expected to see her back.

I am unsure how often the type of case that Shah speaks about occurs.

I can honestly see how it might be very very distressing to find out, well after the fact, that a person whom you believed to have been appropriately aged and a willing partner was in fact under age and that you are now being prosecuted as a rapist.
If you thought you were simply having consensual sex and are many years later charged with rape I can see how it would be devastating.

The groupie thing is just as bad as the other. It's a man saying I'm rich and powerful enough to have anything I want - drugs, flash cars, flash house, even another person.

It's the same attitude as the rapist who overpowers a woman walking home in the dark, it's just wrapped up in different paper.

if you are taking teenage girls to expensive hotels to fuck i think you know you are on dicey ground.

poachedeggs, I think that's easier said than done. In order to verify the age of young girls men would have to forgo instant sex with youthful-looking girls for a reasonable amount of time until they got to know their circumstances. That would require a culture change. Putting the men in prison would not require a culture change. It would simply work on fear. Do I dare to have sex with this youthful looking girl? Because if it subsequently turns out that she's not at least sixteen I'm off to prison no questions asked.

I think a lot more zippers would get done up sharpish.

You know, Ronald if you buy a car and the person selling it to you does not have good title, that it can be confiscated, even years later. It is stollen goods. It doesn't matter that you didn't realise you were doing something wrong years before.

That's why it's up to you to ensure that the person selling the car to you does have good title to it.

Okay, it's distressing, but it never would have happened if you'd taken the necessary precautions in the first place.

And, frankly, whether it's legal or not is all a bit of a red herring, isn't it?

Is it moral for an older, richer, more powerful man to take advantage of a young vulnerable person? Whether that person is 12 or 16? It's not really.

Now, the law draws the line at 16. But it doesn't mean the man doesn't have a rapist's attitude of being in power over the other person.

sanityclause, the necessary precautions don't really exist. The man needs to know the girl's age (and if she lies to him about it it makes it harder for him.) In reality he actually needs to know the girl, her family, her college or her job if she's over sixteen. In a culture of instant pants off, like the one we live in, that doesn't happen any more.

I agree that it's cultural. A culture that prizes young girls as sexual trophies.

I had sex before I was 16. It was consensual in all but the legal sense. I regret it, but many in my situation won't feel that way and that's fine.

But we have to have a line drawn somewhere, and I think it's currently in the right place and I will defend that line fiercely. We also need to educate young people about relationships instead of just about sex. And we need society to attach much more stigma to opinions such as those held by this jerk.

Most "stars" and certtainly the genuinely big stars don't get into situation "b".

Why? Because they know it's wrong and use their entourage to ensure they don't make "mistakes" like that.

A probably still pubescent and definitely underage girl is making a complete ass of herself in the throes of a crush when she meets an idol is not informed consent.

sanity

I understand the law surrounding the issue. (and stolen cars)

My own view of the line is that it's a damn mess. The age of consent is clear. But how responsible people are for disregarding it is a matter of legal debate and to me that's asking for the trouble we're in.

Educating young people about relationships and sex is a massive, massive step forward. But I think some young people and some older men are going to act irresponsibly regardless of the amount of education they have because both think they're gaining something. I'm pretty sure no amount of education can do anything about that. But judges and magistrates can.

another analogy I heard today on the radio was that if the teenage girl had asked to drive Eddie Shah's car would he have let them without first checking their age - no I think not!

Because he would know it is illegal to let an under 17 year old drive his car.

Nowadays..most big stars don't get into this situation simply because the record companies etc don't want bad press. I believe that this is the only reason why their entourage would screen groupies for their actual age.
I would doubt but I would love to think that it has anything to do with the protection of children

column, the necessary precautions do exist; he just chose not to take them, before he pulled his pants off.

Why isn't he in prison? He may have been found not guilty of rape, but he's admitting to having sex with an underage girl. In any sane world that's wrong and vile.

sanity, I'm not following you. What are the necessary precautions? The man would have to ask for a copy of the girl's birth certificate and if it was a forgery he would still be guilty.

having sex, for both men, women, boys and girls, is generally a much more instinctive and compelling urge than driving a car isnt it.

Youre not comparing like for like.

When youre talking about two people that REALLY want to have sex with each other, this is a situation that you can outlaw till the cows come home, but you wont stop it entirely.

And that doesnt make it OK, but i think people are using terrible analogies

I agree with branleuse. You won't stop it entirely but you can lock the men up.

the law is there to protect children from being exploited. He knew he was exploiting a young woman even if he thought it was legal. He should be deeply ashamed of having threesome sex with a child and a prostitute and say nothing more than that.

I think the man is a dinosaur and his attitude should absolutely be vilified. However, I'm not sure it makes him a risk. Thank God we've moved on somewhat (though not far enough) from the situation where pop stars didn't think twice about sleeping with vulnerable young girls just because it was on offer and this is seen as the nastiness it is. However, I think it probably is a different thing to coercing, grooming or forcing a young girl to have sex. Nasty, yes.. but I'm not sure you can divorce it from its context in the 70's. I think there probably were young girls who 'threw themselves' at famous men, probably expecting love and fame and fortune but perhaps just wanting attention and company. I think there probably still are albeit slightly older. Of course it's sickening a grown man would view this as a jackpot but the vileness of it doesn't actually make it rape in that cultural context. I think sometimes the water is muddied when what's morally repugnant is confused with what's sexual violence.

reverse the sexes - who thinks an adult woman having sex with an enthusiastic 13 yr old boy is acceptable?

has someone said its acceptable?