Mick Jagger the Child Rapist

smartcooky said:
Its Sweden, and yes, its true.

They call this philosophy "lagom" which loosely translates to "not to little, not too much", and they apply it across the board to all aspects of their lifestyle
Click to expand...

Interesting. I noticed when watching Norwegian and Danish television shows they sometimes allude to Sweden as if it were Sodom and Gomorrah, a hotbed of licentiousness and crime.
 
Teenage girls mature faster than teenage boys. If there’s any question why a 15 year old would pursue an adult man, it’s probably because they know how to use deodorant, shower, have a 5 o’clock shadow, and confidence. Teenage boys are not arousing for a young lady.

But men should always ask for age if there’s any question that a woman is under 21. Mick didn’t ask, and maybe he didn’t want to know the answer. But without that information, neither did anything “wrong.”

Re: teenage groupies. This always troubled me, because the age of the women was often known by the men. But again, as a former teenage girl, and one who flirted desperately and hoped to bed an adult man and failed (a disappointment then, but respectable now), it doesn’t surprise me in the least to hear this gal wanted to bed Mick.

If there’s a desire to crucify a man for porking an underage woman, can we please, please please go after Roman Polanski?
 
MoeFaux said:
If there’s a desire to crucify a man for porking an underage woman, can we please, please please go after Roman Polanski?
Click to expand...

Why? His alleged victim doesn't want him prosecuted just like Rae Dawn Chong doesn't want Jagger prosecuted.
 
qayak said:
Why? His alleged victim doesn't want him prosecuted just like Rae Dawn Chong doesn't want Jagger prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Chong and Jagger were engaged in consensual acts. Polanski drugged the girl. She did not consent.
 
ahhell said:
So, am I to understand that in Sweden it would be illegal for a parent of 15 year old to interfere in their childrens' personal lives unless the kid is in some sort of objectively abusive, negative or illegal relationship? 14 year olds, 13 year olds, 12 year olds?
Click to expand...
I think the USA is the outlier in the modern world with its various forms of emmancipation of minors.
 
xjx388 said:
Get serious, that cannot be true.
Click to expand...
Look up "emancipation of minors" in the USA.

In general terms what Arcade22 describes is what happens in the UK. A 5 year trying to refuse medical treatment will have very little sway, a 15 year old can stop medical treatment even if the parents have given consent. Parents and legal guardians do not have rights in regards to "their" children, they are merely legally able to stand in to protect the rights of the kids. When parents themselves start to abuse the rights of children they can face legal challenge. Of course that is only in extreme situations and a parent isn't going to be took to court by their 10 year old because they wont let her play out with her best friend.
 
Darat said:
Look up "emancipation of minors" in the USA.

In general terms what Arcade22 describes is what happens in the UK*. A 5 year trying to refuse medical treatment will have very little sway, a 15 year old can stop medical treatment even if the parents have given consent. Parents and legal guardians do not have rights in regards to "their" children, they are merely legally able to stand in to protect the rights of the kids. When parents themselves start to abuse the rights of children they can face legal challenge. Of course that is only in extreme situations and a parent isn't going to be took to court by their 10 year old because they wont let her play out with her best friend.
Click to expand...

Sorry you have this the wrong way round. A fifteen year old can consent to treatment, they cannot refuse treatment, in that case the parent's consent would override the child's refusal. There have been cases where the child has gone to court, been made a ward of court which overrides the parental rights and the court has agreed with the child's desire not to be treated, but that is the court not the child refusing consent.

The cases around a child's consent to treatment arose from teenagers seeking contraception, they could consent if competent (Gillick competence) and parental consent was not required.

https://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/articles/eng-consent-children-and-young-people

* Of course the UK does not have a unitary legal system I refer to the law in England and Wales, which is what I assume you meant. The law in Scotland is less clear but probably a Gillick competent child can refuse consent, but this would likely be tested in court.
 
Planigale said:
Sorry you have this the wrong way round. A fifteen year old can consent to treatment, they cannot refuse treatment, in that case the parent's consent would override the child's refusal. There have been cases where the child has gone to court, been made a ward of court which overrides the parental rights and the court has agreed with the child's desire not to be treated, but that is the court not the child refusing consent.



The cases around a child's consent to treatment arose from teenagers seeking contraception, they could consent if competent (Gillick competence) and parental consent was not required.



https://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/articles/eng-consent-children-and-young-people



* Of course the UK does not have a unitary legal system I refer to the law in England and Wales, which is what I assume you meant. The law in Scotland is less clear but probably a Gillick competent child can refuse consent, but this would likely be tested in court.
Click to expand...

You are saying the exact same as I was saying... I must have been unclear.

But you are mistaken about one thing, our human rights are at an individual level regardless of age, a child has the exact same rights as an adult.
 
Darat said:
You are saying the exact same as I was saying... I must have been unclear.

But you are mistaken about one thing, our human rights are at an individual level regardless of age, a child has the exact same rights as an adult.
Click to expand...

No, you said a child (<16) has a right to refuse treatment (E&W) that is wrong. They have a positive right to consent that overrides the parent, they do NOT have a negative right to refuse treatment that overrides the parent's consent to treatment.

Human rights and the rights of a child are a different issue from the law around children and consent. Further discussion would be a derail.
 
Planigale said:
No, you said a child (<16) has a right to refuse treatment (E&W) that is wrong. They have a positive right to consent that overrides the parent, they do NOT have a negative right to refuse treatment that overrides the parent's consent to treatment.



Human rights and the rights of a child are a different issue from the law around children and consent. Further discussion would be a derail.
Click to expand...

Nope. A child does have the right to not give consent. Whether that lack of consent can be overridden is based on the capacity of the child and its age.

And this is all about human rights, that is exactly what the age of consent is about. In the UK we do actually have the right to have sex and the government can only override that right in limited ways. The usual mechanism is in regards to age, but it is not age alone as capacity comes into it as well.
 
xjx388 said:
Get serious, that cannot be true.
Click to expand...

From the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare:

The hallmark of honor-related violence
Honor-related violence is characterized by certain components that distinguish it from other violence by relatives.
Honorary thinking means that notions of innocence and chastity are the focus and that girls' and women's actual or
alleged behavior affects the reputation and reputation of the family and the family. Girls 'innocence must be preserved
in order to maintain family honor, and control of girls' and women's sexuality is central. Boys and men are also subjected to this type of violence.
Central to this is that the choice of partner is not the concern of the individual but of the family or a larger collective.
Violence of this type is, among other things, often planned and can be both practiced and sanctioned by several people.
For example, practitioners may be the closest family while relatives outside the immediate circle approve and operate on it.
In the context of honor-related norms, the rights of the individual are subordinate to what is considered best for the collective, that is, the family and the family. The individual's desire is opposed to the damage that this desire could cause to the honor of the family and the family.The honor is linked to the collective, so the family members have a common honor and everyone is interdependent. Rumors are enough for a family to lose their honor.
Click to expand...

In short, the kind of restrictions that are evidently considered perfectly acceptable among Americans (restrictions on dating, sexual relationships and so forth) tend to fall under the label of honor-related oppression and are not acceptable. This doesn't mean that their parents or guardians aren't allowed to be concerned about those things, but they have to accept that their child is a individual with their own opinions and desires especially as they become older.

Unless their concerns are based on reasonable threats to their welfare and well-being, and any restrictions are proportional to this threat, the child's autonomy and independence should be not be infringed. This is especially the case with those who are 15 years old or older, as they are above the age of consent and are free to engage in sexual relationships with others to (almost) the same degree of adults.
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
From the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare:



In short, the kind of restrictions that are evidently considered perfectly acceptable among Americans (restrictions on dating, sexual relationships and so forth) tend to fall under the label of honor-related oppression and are not acceptable. This doesn't mean that their parents or guardians aren't allowed to be concerned about those things, but they have to accept that their child is a individual with their own opinions and desires especially as they become older.

Unless their concerns are based on reasonable threats to their welfare and well-being, and any restrictions are proportional to this threat, the child's autonomy and independence should be not be infringed. This is especially the case with those who are 15 years old or older, as they are above the age of consent and are free to engage in sexual relationships with others to (almost) the same degree of adults.
Click to expand...
I think you have a distorted view of American culture.
 
Based on Arcade22s description, Sweden doesn't really seem to have that big a different opinion on child welfare than most folks I've known, they just codified a slightly more permissive attitude and Arcade depicted it as the most extreme version he could. This has the benefit of supporting a fairly distorted view of American Culture that seems to be derived from the Beverly Hillbillies.
 
Last edited:
If there's a desire to crucify a man for porking an underage woman, can we please, please please go after Roman Polanski?
Click to expand...
Why? His alleged victim doesn't want him prosecuted just like Rae Dawn Chong doesn't want Jagger prosecuted.
Click to expand...
Polanski was prosecuted and plead guilty 42 years ago. He fled the country to avoid prison time, but he was prosecuted regardless of what his victim thought. And obviously what she thinks today doesn't change what happened 42 years ago.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
Based on Arcade22s description, Sweden doesn't really seem to have that big a different opinion on child welfare than most folks I've known, they just codified a slightly more permissive attitude and Arcade depicted it as the most extreme version he could. This has the benefit of supporting a fairly distorted view of American Culture that seems to be derived from the Beverly Hillbillies.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that all American parent(s), or even most of them, act like that.

Yet it's the kind of parenting style that comes up regularly enough in American movies, TV shows and such that it can be dismissed as some fringe phenomenon that only exists out in the boondocks or bayou. Why do you think so many LGBT youth run away from home (or are evicted by their parents, even-though that's illegal)? It's not because their parents respect their sexual orientation, individual autonomy and freedom to choose their personal relationships.
 
Arcade22 said:
I'm not saying that all American parent(s), or even most of them, act like that.

Yet it's the kind of parenting style that comes up regularly enough in American movies, TV shows and such that it can be dismissed as some fringe phenomenon that only exists out in the boondocks or bayou. Why do you think so many LGBT youth run away from home (or are evicted by their parents, even-though that's illegal)? It's not because their parents respect their sexual orientation, individual autonomy and freedom to choose their personal relationships.
Click to expand...

Judging by American TV and movies most of us have an evil twin, have gotten temporary amnesia after a blow to the head, and sip from empty mugs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom