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

Man hating frenzy ?

Because I despise and abhor those men who assault and rape women, and in particular, those who do it to young girls who are even less likely to fight back ?

Because I lay the blame where I believe it belongs ?

I'm not a statistician but I would guess wildly that the average age gap is probably with the male up to half a dozen years older. The last OECD report I read gives average age of first sex in UK at 17.

Taking that wildly unscientific analysis it would suggest that the average male does not have sex with 16yos at all (but the OECD survey suggests that to begin with.) So, that answer to the first part of Ronald McDonald's question would be no. It is not normal.

Look we've had people complaining about the over-sexualisation of girls and women for decades - Victorians complained about the shocking habit of bustles, the flappers were scandalous because of their shortened skirts and hair and I do not for one moment believe that girls in the seventies wore less make up than they do now - false eyelashes etc were all part and parcel of the seventies dolly-bird look. That was 40 years ago.

Nothing's really changed with regards to getting girls to fill their heads with nothing but make up, music and fashion - but this doesn't cause men to rape them.

What is a man-hating frenzy?

Oh please.
Going into a frenzy and stating the bleeding obvious helps no one.
It's like those ridiculous FB posts where you have to 'like' if you believe beheading kittens is evil.

There is a systemic need also to demonstrate clearly to young women that self worth is linked to more than the size of your bum or the cut of your top/

Unfortunately not all young women are equal. Many young women and girls already know a lot about self worth and are likely to get lessons in it daily from their environment. Many others come from worse environments and are likely to be taught worthlessness on a daily basis. Of course that's part of what makes them vulnerable and the rapists know that perfectly well. These men don't come from the moon. They're down here making the same calculations we are.

I think it's not very polite or constructive to describe someone disagreeing with you as a man-hating frenzy tbh.

I don't see any frenzy here, I see hyperbole from you Moondog.

No-one sensible would disagree that children need to to be taught that self-esteem doesn't come from showing your belly. But equally, showing your belly doesn't = lack of self-esteem - it's just a fashion, like ra-ra skirts or bustles.

And lack of self-esteem doesn't cause rape and actually, it does require stating the bleeding obvious when people make posts implying that it does.

I happen to think that beheading kittens is evil.

Am I allowed to say that this rather calls into question his non guilty verdict?

Column, it may explain it but to accept it as the status quo merely perpetuates the sorry situation where women are seen as helpless victims.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Refusing to accept the fact that girls in unfortunate circumstances are given lessons in worthlessness on a regular basis would involve stepping in to the role of parents or guardians and raising their self esteem. In fact in the severest of cases this is what Social Services tries to do. But SS doesn't try to do it in all cases, only the most severe where they believe the child is at risk. I don't think our society is anything like ready to step in on behalf of all the other unfortunate girls and until it is ready to do that we are by default accepting the status quo.

I agree clothing (or lack of) does not invite rape. So why am I entirely convinced that when I have a teenage girl I will be forever saying, 'you're not going out in that'. Do any of you ban your girls from looking a certain way? If so, why?

A lot of these commentators who are coming out with this stuff are for some reason overlooking that fact that huge amounts of the accusations are from people who at the time did not consent / were coerced & have never forgotten it and that is why they are reporting it.

The statutory rape thing is a total red herring. In the UK the age below which a child cannot consent is 13. Over 13 it is stated that law law is not intended to criminalise teenagers in equal consensual relationships. The law is there to enable prosecution if there is a power / age imbalance, coercion etc.

The overlooking of the fact that many of these accusations are about non consensual activity is what a lot of these people are doing. To prompt a debate such as the one here where some say well if it's a 15.5 yo and they're up for it well so what.

BUT that's not what happened. There was a huge age range and many of the acts were non consensual.

The whole thing also draws on a big rape myth that people accuse people of sex crimes maliciously and for no apparent reason. If the argument is that it was cheerful, up for it older teens who were having sex with informed consent then they wouldn't be reporting the men as why would they - it was fine. The idea that they would suddenly decide to maliciously report something that they enjoyed and had no issue with, against a person who presumably they thought was great - this idea is straight out of the "women lie about rape all the time" box of tricks and it makes me feel a bit ill that it's being bandied around so much in this context.

The FACT is that the people accusing these people are doing so now as they think they will be listened to, and the reason they are accusing them is because they were not happy about what was done to them.

It's not a man hating frenzy to say that men who are grown up should be abe to make sure they do not have sex with underage girls. that is the very minimum of standards we should be asking for here.
Both men and women ask for this standard. Because it is the sane and civilised thing to do.
The 16 year age limit is the age that is agreed upon legally. Clearly people develop and mature at different rate, however the age is set to protect young people.
I don't see what is difficult about this?
Even if a girl throws herself at the innocent unsuspecting male (and like someone asked upthread, what does that actually look like?) it is not too much to ask that he sends her home in a taxi, or call Children's services.

The age of consent is 16. The age below which no form of consent can be given is 13. So you effectively have a three year gap in which barristers can argue. The simplest way to resolve that problem is to remove the lower age provision and criminalise sex below 16 for everybody. As well intentioned (albeit stupid) as the lower age limit has been it has simply created a haven for lawyers, rapists and various other immoral opportunists.

It maybe a 'simple' problem-solver in one respect, columngollum but would create far more problems in other regards. The current legislation and how it is applied allows for the uneveness of the rate at which individual young people develop and create attachments, some of which become sexually expressed. Your 'solution' would criminalise a whole host of young people, both boys and girls, which would blight the rest of their lives.

The way I would bring such a law in as is common nowadays anyway is to announce that it would be brought in after a parliament yest to come. So young people, teachers, carers, guardians and law officers would have plenty of warning. Schools would teach that it will become illegal to have sex below 16, in all cases, in preparation for the introduction of the new law.

Abiding by various laws may be inconvenient for some people but it's an inconvenience that we all have to learn to live with.

I maybe wrong, but you don't sound as if you spend much time around young people, 12-17yrs old? Rules, boundaries, mores are there to be challenged and broken, usually in a way for the good. I'd think your solution is not thought out and fairly damaging.

My children, step children, nieces and nephews are mostly within that age range (or thereabouts) and none of them are habitual rule breakers. There are also degrees of rules. Breaking the rule that says you mustn't climb out of your bedroom window, play music too loud, smoke or play football near the greenhouse isn't the same as breaking the rule which says that you mustn't hit old ladies over the head and steal their purses. I have known children who would break the trivial set on occasions. But the ones who would break laws that I have known did all spend time in juvenile offenders institutions. Children aren't stupid. They can tell what's important and what isn't. Their views on what is important often depend on their circumstances.

The age of concent rule should be changed to make it illegal for older men to have sex with 16 and 17 year old girls. It should be +/- 2 years for 16-17 year olds. In fact it could possibly be lowered to 14 but with the same conditions for under 18s.

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

I think there are as many now as there ever were, probably more as puberty is much earlier now and our culture is far more sexualised than the 70's

I think Shah was an idiot for saying it, especially given where he has just come from.

But IMO like with "bongobongoland" there is a real underlying issue.

It is time for a grown up discussion about the increasing mismatch between consent law and behavioural reality.

IMO a law making it illegal to have sex below 16 would work about as well as a law prohibiting alcohol.

columngollum I have to agree with Pan, changing the law to a strict anyone having sex under 16 and it's illegal full stop and then presumably prosecution leading to.. what? Presumably you want the full force of the law brought against older men who groom and coerce children and if you make no differentiation then presumably you will be eg putting two 15 year olds away in prison for having consensual sex with each other in the context of a relationship? Or were you thinking of running it another way?

Will all sex acts be included because theoretically any sexual contact can be prosecuted under the law if there is reason eg if a 50 year old man tries to snog a 14 yo girl or boy then that might be prosecuted under the current rules, or if an old man feels up a young teen, if the CPS thinks it is in the public interest but surely you wouldn't want to see teens being prosecuted for this type of activity in a consensual manner with each other?

Personally I think the law as it stands is fine, what needs to happen is for society to take crimes against children and young adults seriously (I believe you), investigate properly, pool intelligence so as to catch serial offenders (which many are) and prosecute to the full force of the law. Work in society to get rid of rape myths. That sort of stuff.

I don't think we need to relax the laws to enable older men to fuck kids without being prosecuted for it, Lazeyjaney.

It would be much better to work on the majority of men so that men do this less often and then lock up the minority of ones who do.

I know it's only sex and that they are adult but something feels wrong about it

And that's partly why we have the problem i.e. because it is "only sex". Divorcing sex from other emotions such as affection, love, even liking FFS. It becomes insignificant and no big deal, especially to turds like Shah. Something you do without thinking twice, without caring, without any sense of moral responsibility for the other person and without any modicum of human feeling.