• 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

smartcooky said:
My position on this case is "no harm, no foul"
Click to expand...

Okay, so you do exonerate him, which is fine. That doesn't mean everyone else has to give him a pass as you suggested earlier.

I think what used to be seen as the height of urbanity in the 1970s tends to be considered pretty sleazy by today's standards. Is he as bad as Jimmy Saville, or Gary Glitter, or others in the old Operation Yewtree database? Probably not, but if you have any teenaged daughters, it's probably best to keep them away.
 
angrysoba said:
Okay, so you do exonerate him, which is fine. That doesn't mean everyone else has to give him a pass as you suggested earlier.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not letting you away with that. I said I neither exonerate nor condemn him. Why do you find it necessary to lie about what others have posted when you don't get the answer you wanted.

angrysoba said:
I think what used to be seen as the height of urbanity in the 1970s tends to be considered pretty sleazy by today's standards.
Click to expand...

Well there is your mistake - judging normal (or perhaps more "not unusual") 1970s behaviour by 2020 standards.

angrysoba said:
Is he as bad as Jimmy Saville, or Gary Glitter, or others in the old Operation Yewtree database? Probably not
Click to expand...

Probably not? Really? I'd say definitely not.

angrysoba said:
but if you have any teenaged daughters, it's probably best to keep them away.
Click to expand...

My 17 year old daughter dated a 30 year old guy. At 22, she married him and they have two boys. They are still together, and their 20th wedding anniversary is coming up mid year, so yeah I should have kept them apart :rolleyes:

PS:I suspect she was dating him when she was 16... but I have never challenged her on it, and nor would I. If she wants to tell me, she will.
 
Last edited:
I hear the clip clap of your feet on the stairs

Yeah, guilty.

Too late to do anything though, too bad.
 
smartcooky said:
My 17 year old daughter dated a 30 year old guy. At 22, she married him and they have two boys. They are still together, and their 20th wedding anniversary is coming up mid year, so yeah I should have kept them apart :rolleyes:

PS:I suspect she was dating him when she was 16... but I have never challenged her on it, and nor would I. If she wants to tell me, she will.
Click to expand...

My cousin's daughter started dating a 33 year-old garage band singer at 16 or so I believe. After she just arrived in the states.

They married a year later and though her mom did not approve at first, it was hardly because she thought it was some one-sided predatory deal. She just felt her daughter personally wasn't ready to raise a family.

I feel many Westerners, maybe Americans in particular, are hypersensitive about this. They think the older person is a predator with even a 6-8 year gap, but most young adults have a broad range of attraction and the older teen years fall in that range.
 
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...

Yes to the highlighted.

The first issue is that 15 is not considered too young in many countries and yet considered way too young in others. Ages of consent vary from 12 to 20, some with conditions, some without. Who is to say that our laws placing it at 16, or 17 or 18 is more "right" that theirs?

The second issue is that different children mature at different rates. I am pretty certain that both of my daughters were sexually active when they were 14, yet I knew of some of their friends (and daughters of friends) who were 16 - 17 at the time and in no way mature enough.

This really is not a "one age fits all" issue.
 
Good thing her uncle Floyd didn't know about this back then. He would have played a very long and hard drum solo on Jagger's head.
 
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...

He's the one who acted sleazily, not her. Just because it was the same event doesn't mean both parties get condemned or exonerated equally. It's quite valid to hold that she did nothing wrong (although I wouldn't say she did nothing foolish) but he did.
 
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...

It's just as reasonable to say that 15 is a more than enough mature age for sex and that treating consensual sex with a 15 year old as a crime is unreasonable.
 
I always struggle with this subject. I started to have sex when I was 4 years under the age of consent. Nearly all the people I had sex with could have been prosecuted and jailed for a long time. I categorically state that all the sex I had under the age of consent was consensual so it would be rank hypocrisy if I condem the older partner in this instance as from her account she knew what she was doing and could consent to it.


If the allegation is true what he did was wrong, and yes illegal. Can I condem him from the scant knowledge we have, no. However I would have thought being the famous person he was he would have been much more careful. But from all accounts he is a selfish git so probably never gave a thought to if he could have potentially harmed her in some way.




(This type of issue is why I am very much against using words like child and paedophile when discussing people around the legal age of consent. A paedophile is not interested in a 15 year and 360 day old person.)
 
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...
Seriously, why?

I am sure some people at the age of 15 are quire capable of making a sound judgement regarding having sex, I am also sure there are a lot that aren't. But that is still true if we take the age to 16 or 17 or 18 or even 38.

As a society it will always be a balance between protection and freedom, in regards to sex that has varied tremendously across different times and cultures.
 
angrysoba said:
I think what used to be seen as the height of urbanity in the 1970s tends to be considered pretty sleazy by today's standards. Is he as bad as Jimmy Saville, or Gary Glitter, or others in the old Operation Yewtree database? Probably not, but if you have any teenaged daughters, it's probably best to keep them away.
Click to expand...

Probably not? It's actually pretty ******* insane to compare someone who molested and sexually abused people with someone who had consensual if illicit sex with an underage individual.
 
Arcade22 said:
It's just as reasonable to say that 15 is a more than enough mature age for sex and that treating consensual sex with a 15 year old as a crime is unreasonable.
Click to expand...

And it's even more reasonable to say than when a 15 year old has consensual sex with a 33 year old the 15 year old has done nothing wrong but the 33 year old has. There is no reason that they must both be equally innocent or equally guilty of wrongdoing.
 
TragicMonkey said:
And it's even more reasonable to say than when a 15 year old has consensual sex with a 33 year old the 15 year old has done nothing wrong but the 33 year old has. There is no reason that they must both be equally innocent or equally guilty of wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

Not if it's morally wrong to aid and abet someone in wrongdoing.
 
sphenisc said:
Not if it's morally wrong to aid and abet someone in wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

I don't think that applies here. We don't hold the robbery victim partially culpable for being there with something worth stealing when they get robbed, even though the crime would have been impossible without that participation.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I don't think that applies here. We don't hold the robbery victim partially culpable for being there with something worth stealing when they get robbed, even though the crime would have been impossible without that participation.
Click to expand...

Do you regard a robbery as consensual?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom