England footballer 'arrested over underage sex allegations"

[WCZ]

the sentence was deffo more than most get for similar offenses
there's no doubt he's an idiot but it is weird how the sun and the daily mail are obsessed with him when no one actually cares - if you read the comments on the articles the readers are all saying 'leave him alone ffs' and such

[Oakey]

Never understand these weirdos who argue semantics about paedophile / ephebophile. Are ephebophile's worried it'll portray them in a bad light or something?

The guy was a grown adult in his late 20s who knowingly had sex with an underage girl. As a rich and famous footballer he would have no problem pulling any legal aged woman he wanted, but no, he opted for the underage girl.

[otolith]

Oakey said:

Never understand these weirdos who argue semantics about paedophile / ephebophile. Are ephebophile's worried it'll portray them in a bad light or something?

They're both unscrupulous scumbags, but one is more sexually deviant than the other, I guess.

[HTP99]

WCZ said:

the sentence was deffo more than most get for similar offenses
there's no doubt he's an idiot but it is weird how the sun and the daily mail are obsessed with him when no one actually cares - if you read the comments on the articles the readers are all saying 'leave him alone ffs' and such

I love that the Daily Fail are focussing on him "flaunting his £100k watch", I even think he was criticised for his £100 joggers, FFS how is he supposed to dress; clothes from Primark and a £10 Casio, would that make things better!

It really is unbelievable.

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

otolith said:

Oakey said:

Never understand these weirdos who argue semantics about paedophile / ephebophile. Are ephebophile's worried it'll portray them in a bad light or something?

They're both unscrupulous scumbags, but one is more sexually deviant than the other, I guess.

I agree. They are both unsavoury, but there is a big difference. In AJ's case he was a prat, but she was seemingly a completely willing participant (or even instigator) physically matured, and on the way to becoming a young woman.

I'd say that someone who engages in sexual activity/assault/rape with a undeveloped child, one who hasn't lost their innocence, who hasn't even figured out their sexuality is a far more vile person TBH.

Both are wrong-uns, but the victim of the latter is likely to be far more damaged than the former.

[JagLover]

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

I agree. They are both unsavoury, but there is a big difference. In AJ's case he was a prat, but she was seemingly a completely willing participant (or even instigator) physically matured, and on the way to becoming a young woman.

I'd say that someone who engages in sexual activity/assault/rape with a undeveloped child, one who hasn't lost their innocence, who hasn't even figured out their sexuality is a far more vile person TBH.

Both are wrong-uns, but the victim of the latter is likely to be far more damaged than the former.

Added to which it is a bit silly dragging out the P word when many countries have ages of consent below 16. There are about two dozen countries where it is 15

A listing for anyone interested
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countri...

[Escy]

I don't really see the outrage against him. My understanding is she instigated it and it wasn't her first time at the rodeo, I saw a picture of her on twitter and she could pass as 25 so it's not like he's sexually attracted to children. The problem I've got with it is he knew it was against the law and did it anyway. He's served his time and should be allowed to move on. If he can, he should play in Italy, Spain, France or Portugal. What he got sent to prison for isn't a crime in those country's so I think he'd not get such a tough time off the fans.

I've got more of a problem when you see some fella going out with a 16 year old that looks young and underdeveloped.

[Oakey]

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

I agree. They are both unsavoury, but there is a big difference. In AJ's case he was a prat, but she was seemingly a completely willing participant (or even instigator) physically matured, and on the way to becoming a young woman.

I'd say that someone who engages in sexual activity/assault/rape with a undeveloped child, one who hasn't lost their innocence, who hasn't even figured out their sexuality is a far more vile person TBH.

Both are wrong-uns, but the victim of the latter is likely to be far more damaged than the former.

So out of interest, what's your cut off point between being 'a prat' and a 'vile person'? 14? 13? 12? 11?

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

Oakey said:

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

I agree. They are both unsavoury, but there is a big difference. In AJ's case he was a prat, but she was seemingly a completely willing participant (or even instigator) physically matured, and on the way to becoming a young woman.

I'd say that someone who engages in sexual activity/assault/rape with a undeveloped child, one who hasn't lost their innocence, who hasn't even figured out their sexuality is a far more vile person TBH.

Both are wrong-uns, but the victim of the latter is likely to be far more damaged than the former.

So out of interest, what's your cut off point between being 'a prat' and a 'vile person'? 14? 13? 12? 11?

The distinction is physically mature, has a sexuality/sex drive, versus an undeveloped, unsexualised child.

That said, there is a cut off point, in UK law it is 16. He went with someone below that, which is why he was in trouble.

Edited by Fermit and Sexy Sarah on Tuesday 2nd April 15:59

[SpeckledJim]

Oakey said:

Never understand these weirdos who argue semantics about paedophile / ephebophile. Are ephebophile's worried it'll portray them in a bad light or something?

The guy was a grown adult in his late 20s who knowingly had sex with an underage girl. As a rich and famous footballer he would have no problem pulling any legal aged woman he wanted, but no, he opted for the underage girl.

Because if you're going to label someone with pretty much the worst charge anyone can be levelled with, don't you think you're kind of honour-bound to be sure it's true?

[George Smiley]

SpeckledJim said:

Oakey said:

Never understand these weirdos who argue semantics about paedophile / ephebophile. Are ephebophile's worried it'll portray them in a bad light or something?

The guy was a grown adult in his late 20s who knowingly had sex with an underage girl. As a rich and famous footballer he would have no problem pulling any legal aged woman he wanted, but no, he opted for the underage girl.

Because if you're going to label someone with pretty much the worst charge anyone can be levelled with, don't you think you're kind of honour-bound to be sure it's true?

I guess you could liken him to a good nazi.

[andy_s]

George Smiley said:

SpeckledJim said:

Oakey said:

Never understand these weirdos who argue semantics about paedophile / ephebophile. Are ephebophile's worried it'll portray them in a bad light or something?

The guy was a grown adult in his late 20s who knowingly had sex with an underage girl. As a rich and famous footballer he would have no problem pulling any legal aged woman he wanted, but no, he opted for the underage girl.

Because if you're going to label someone with pretty much the worst charge anyone can be levelled with, don't you think you're kind of honour-bound to be sure it's true?

I guess you could liken him to a good nazi.

Or you could be accurate rather than hyperbolic.

[Peter911]

The 'law' is 1/2 your age plus 7.

So if I was 40, 27 is as young as I could go. Conversly, nothing older than 66 (works both ways)

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

Peter911 said:

The 'law' is 1/2 your age plus 7.

So if I was 40, 27 is as young as I could go. Conversly, nothing older than 66 (works both ways)

When 31 I was seeing a 19 year old lass. According to the above posts that makes me an ephebophile

[Wacky Racer]

Peter911 said:

The 'law' is 1/2 your age plus 7.

So if I was 40, 27 is as young as I could go. Conversly, nothing older than 66 (works both ways)

Utter tosh

What "law"?

[Dr Murdoch]

Cradle snatcher!

[WCZ]

Peter911 said:

The 'law' is 1/2 your age plus 7.

So if I was 40, 27 is as young as I could go. Conversly, nothing older than 66 (works both ways)

That doesn’t make sense, my girlfriend is 23 and I’m 32 which is the exact limit of that theory

But in 10 years time the limit will be 28 and she’ll be 33 so at some point it will magically become inappropriate and I should leave her ?

[scenario8]

WCZ said:

Peter911 said:

The 'law' is 1/2 your age plus 7.

So if I was 40, 27 is as young as I could go. Conversly, nothing older than 66 (works both ways)

That doesn’t make sense, my girlfriend is 23 and I’m 32 which is the exact limit of that theory

But in 10 years time the limit will be 28 and she’ll be 33 so at some point it will magically become inappropriate and I should leave her ?

When exactly?

(Not defending the silly little “rule”, just curious as to when you think you’ll hit the cross over point).

[Wacky Racer]

When I was 21 I had a four year relationship with a 44 year old woman. (unmarried)

My wife is eight years younger than me, and we have been married 38 years.

As long as you are fully within the law, age is no barrier to a successful relationship. (Within reason, I mean an 82 year old man dating a 22 year old is a bit over the top)

[saaby93]

Wacky Racer said:

When I was 21 I had a four year relationship with a 44 year old woman. (unmarried)

My wife is eight years younger than me, and we have been married 38 years.

As long as you are fully within the law, age is no barrier to a successful relationship. (Within reason, I mean an 82 year old man dating a 22 year old is a bit over the top)

Why would a 22 yr old date a 88 yr old?
or doesnt age come into it?