• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mick Jagger the Child Rapist

I'm tired of claims of "child rape" due to this type of reporting.

This was inappropriate but she seems to relish recalling the fling, not like she was traumatized like a prepubescent child who suffered rape would be.

Often the public is going to be far more shocked than the participants. It's a nothingburger as far as I'm concerned.

Jagger isn't Epstein, let alone true child rapists like Peter Scully (not for the queasy).
 
Last edited:
Venom said:
I'm tired of claims of "child rape" due to this type of reporting.

This was inappropriate but she seems to relish recalling the fling, not like she was traumatized like a prepubescent child who suffered rape would be.

Often the public is going to be far more shocked than the participants. It's a nothingburger as far as I'm concerned.

Jagger isn't Epstein, let alone true child rapists like Peter Scully (not for the queasy).
Click to expand...

Uggh! Honestly, anyone reading this who has a weak stomach, please don't Google this scrumbag.
 
Thermal said:
Interesting dilemma, with her insisting she consented and was not a victim. So was she?
Not clear if Jagger knew she was underage
Click to expand...

I don't think what the accuser thinks matters here. It is reasonable to say that 15 is not mature enough for sex, and anybody who has sex with someone that young is a danger to society.
 
I don't think we're confined to statutes of limitations or the letter of the law when we decide whether a given behavior and/or person is sleazy.
 
MicahJava said:
I don't think what the accuser thinks matters here. It is reasonable to say that 15 is not mature enough for sex, and anybody who has sex with someone that young is a danger to society.
Click to expand...

i think it's reasonable to say that in general, 15 is normally not ready.

What I'm seeing is a young woman who appeared to be ready, unlike most of her peers. Should she be treated as an outlier, or made to conform to other peoples arbitrary AOCs?
 
smartcooky said:
If you weren't a teenager in the late 1960s and the 1970s, then you really have no actual idea - Woodstock, flower power, hippies, free love, sexual inhibitions zero.... it was all happenin' man, and yeah, underage girls (and boys for that matter) were gettin' their rocks off, without being "groomed" because that's what they wanted. I'll bet you that among the 400,000 people at Woodstock, there was a truckload of under-age kids "getting it on"!
Click to expand...

No doubt. Were they getting it on with adults more than twice their age?

I think that morally that makes a difference.

Besides, there is a reason why there is an age of consent. It is because people of that age are not considered mature enough to make the decision, just as pubs can't serve children beer on the basis that "they wanted it."
 
angrysoba said:
No doubt. Were they getting it on with adults more than twice their age?

I think that morally that makes a difference.
Click to expand...

Probably does, but it didn't seem to bother her.... then or now.

angrysoba said:
Besides, there is a reason why there is an age of consent. It is because people of that age are not considered mature enough to make the decision, just as pubs can't serve children beer on the basis that "they wanted it."
Click to expand...

MicahJava said:
I don't think what the accuser thinks matters here. It is reasonable to say that 15 is not mature enough for sex, and anybody who has sex with someone that young is a danger to society.
Click to expand...

Bollocks! 16 as an AoC is just an arbitrary number and it varies from country to country.

In Aruba its 15, in Brazil, Paraguay, Peru Ecuador and Bolivia its 14. In Canada its 16 but is can be as low as 12 under certain circumstances due to a “close-in-age” exception; 14- and 15-year-olds can legally consent to a partner less than five years older than them and 12- and 13-year-olds can consent to a partner less than two years older than them.

Even the USA does not have a fixed AoC that applies across the board. It ranges from 16 to 18 depending on the state.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
i think it's reasonable to say that in general, 15 is normally not ready.

What I'm seeing is a young woman who appeared to be ready, unlike most of her peers. Should she be treated as an outlier, or made to conform to other peoples arbitrary AOCs?
Click to expand...

I think she should be treated as an outlier.

Apparently Mick Jagger didn't know her real age. He just met her and all. I mean....I say all the time, same deal with our cavemen ancestors. Unless they are some abnormal pedophile normally they wouldn't pick out children out of a crowd. But a teenager can quite easily blend into a young adult crowd, say a group of 16-25 year olds I think it'd be silly to demand every person show their ID card and birth certificate (the long form) before you decide whether you are sexually attracted to them or not.

Consent laws of course exist to streamline the process but it takes no prisoners and there are many young couples who fall victim to it.
 
Thermal said:
i think it's reasonable to say that in general, 15 is normally not ready.

What I'm seeing is a young woman who appeared to be ready, unlike most of her peers. Should she be treated as an outlier, or made to conform to other peoples arbitrary AOCs?
Click to expand...

What does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have to do with this?
 
Hey, we are talking about Mick Jagger here, not Vaniila Ice. He could bang me at 15, or now should he please. Him and/or Bowie. Well, not Bowie right now. But maybe.
 
angrysoba said:
That's true of all kinds of illegal sex. So what?
Click to expand...

pretty sure its not true of paedophiles or sexual predators who prey on children.

angrysoba said:
So what? Are you saying it is okay for 33 year old men to have sex with 15 year olds?
Click to expand...

Nah, I thought you might try that on - I've been around too long to fall for that game. That's why I was very careful to separate your post into two parts and reply to each part separately.

You said "besides" and in so doing you divorced your next comment from the earlier part of your post about the morality of it. My answer did not address the morality of it at all, it addressed your comment (and MicahJava's) about age of content, and only that.
 
angrysoba said:
So what? Are you saying it is okay for 33 year old men to have sex with 15 year olds?
Click to expand...

No it's not okay imo.

However.....I don't think it's particularly abnormal.
When you cross the line into pedophilia (pre-puberty) then it becomes abnormal and off limits.
 
smartcooky said:
pretty sure its not true of paedophiles or sexual predators who prey on children.



Nah, I thought you might try that on - I've been around too long to fall for that game. That's why I was very careful to separate your post into two parts and reply to each part separately.

You said "besides" and in so doing you divorced your next comment from the earlier part of your post about the morality of it. My answer did not address the morality of it at all, it addressed your comment (and MicahJava's) about age of content, and only that.
Click to expand...

Then cut to the chase, do you think it is okay for 33 year old men to have sex with 15 year olds?

Your "nothing to see here, folks" and "it was the 70s, folks!" apologetics appears to appear to exonerate Jagger.
 
angrysoba said:
Then cut to the chase, do you think it is okay for 33 year old men to have sex with 15 year olds?

Your "nothing to see here, folks" and "it was the 70s, folks!" apologetics appears to appear to exonerate Jagger.
Click to expand...

Oh, how you would love everything to be conveniently black and white eh, so that you can compartmentalise everything everyone says or does into nice, tidy little boxes; this thing is "right" and this thing is "wrong". I think you're trying to put Jagger into your "wrong" box with Jimmy Saville.

Well, I have news for you angrysoba - the real world is nothing like that - you'll be needing lot more boxes and they will need to be marked in many, many shades of grey.

But to directly answer your question, I neither exonerate nor condemn him, I simply recognise reality when I see it. Compartmentalise that!

This sort of thing was happening all the time in the 1970s

- he didn't know how old she was
- she didn't tell him
- I suspect she would have lied if he had asked
- and she didn't have a problem with it then, or now

My position on this case is "no harm, no foul"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom