Mick Jagger the Child Rapist

sphenisc said:
Do you regard a robbery as consensual?
Click to expand...

Sigh. Yet another example of analogy difficulty. No. But one question here is whether someone below the age of consent can consent to sex. Legally they cannot. So from the legal perspective the relationship was not consensual. From a moral perspective argument has been made both ways.
 
sphenisc said:
Do you regard a robbery as consensual?
Click to expand...

If I convince a 15 year old girl to "consensually" (that needs to be a word) give me her college fund so I can buy a Corvette... well yeah maybe depending on context, circumstances, and a billion other factors. We get immediately into the weeds of semantics (i.e. did I rob her or swindle her or whatever) the base concept is there and valid.

Again we have concepts like "A person can't give their actual informed consent in a meaningful sense, even if they technically give consent on a surface level, in some cases because of age, impairment, and so forth" for a legit reason.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
In the USA, there is no fixed minimum age of consent, provided you're married, and there's no lower age on that in some states.
Click to expand...

It's interesting to note that more modern laws treat marriage as something that requires greater maturity (and thus older minimum age) than mere sex, which makes sense in that marriage is notionally supposed to be legally recognized relationship with specific obligations, rights and responsibilities to the couple in question over an indefinite (or life long) period.

By contrast sex and intimate relationships do not have to be of any long-term consequence nor are there any formal obligations to each-other, so it require less maturity. Taking into account the long-term consequences of ones actions is where youth tend to struggle.

Moreover, whereas in the past parental permission could make a otherwise illicit sexual relationship with someone who was underage legal if they married, this is now viewed as putting the underage individual in a position where they are likely to be pressured into marriage against their will simply because their parents want to avoid controversy.

The stigma of unwed mothers was huge, so even if they were raped they would still be liable to get married.
 
Last edited:
Venom said:
True child rapists like Peter Scully (not for the queasy).
Click to expand...

Yeah that's one of the few people on the planet who are so vile I wish there was a Hell for him to go to.

Even with the worst of the worst of humanity I try, I said try I'm human and slip up from time to time, to not let myself go down into dehumanizing language.

But with him? Dude's a goddamn monster.
 
The Atheist said:
Doesn't apply to NZ. 15 here is ready to have her second kid.
Click to expand...
I should point out that, had Jagger been unmarried, she could have married him in NY (parental and in some cases judicial consent required). It was only 2017 when NY finally voted to raise the minimum marriage age from 14 to 17 and the law just went in to affect only a year ago.
 
Last edited:
Yeah everyone we know that in "X jurisdiction 15 years is old enough if you do Y..."

Everyone knows that that scene in that Transformer movie where the guy whips out his personal laminated copy of his state's "Romeo and Juliet Laws" (that he apparently keeps on his person all the time for just this kind of situation) to prove it's "okay" when Mark Walberg's character demands to know why he's sleeping with his daughter is supposed to be creepy right?
 
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...

TragicMonkey said:
Sigh. Yet another example of analogy difficulty. No. But one question here is whether someone below the age of consent can consent to sex. Legally they cannot. So from the legal perspective the relationship was not consensual. From a moral perspective argument has been made both ways.
Click to expand...

You described it as 'consensual sex', clearly you couldn't have been using the legal definition, so you presumably meant it in a moral sense. If you're willing to use the phrase in this context then presumably your moral perspective includes the possibility that a 15 year can engage in consensual sex.
The capacity to engage in consexual sex involves, in my opinion, an ability to appreciate and assess the possible positive and negative consequences of that action.
My conclusion is that if my partner is doing something wrong by having sex with me and I knowingly and willingly continue in the act, then I'm aiding them in wrongdoing and am at least partially culpable for doing so. If I'm not capable of anticipating the consequences then the sex wouldn't be consensual in a moral sense (consent must be informed).
 
Checkmite said:
The 1970's was not a "different era" in any way that matters; underage sex was still illegal then, and people still went to jail for it when they were caught, unless of course they were rich and/or famous.
Click to expand...
You must be too young or were too inebbriated at the time to remember the 70s very well. There were literally multiple pop/rock sounds about dudes screwing underage girls, occasionally with lyrics too the effect of, don't get too attached because you mean nothing to me.

casebro said:
If she was groomed it was by the "Free Love" society if the time.

40 years later, today's society would sure be different if it wasn't for herpes and HIV.
Click to expand...

wasapi said:
But there was a very different atmosphere then, prior to me2 movement. It was also still an era when free love and sex in general were discussed with a more relaxed attitude then it had been in years prior.
Click to expand...

smartcooky said:
Oh, rubbish. When did he have time to groom her... they had just met. As casebro said, she would certainly have been influenced by the times at that age. I don't really think you can call that "grooming".

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...

smartcooky said:
Indeed!

Newsflash: "1970's Rock Star Sleeps with Under Age Girl" pictures at 6!!

(well, maybe not the pictures)
Click to expand...
That is was common doesn't make it right of course, just that it was a different era when pedophilia and hebephilia weren't taken that seriously.
 
sphenisc said:
You described it as 'consensual sex', clearly you couldn't have been using the legal definition, so you presumably meant it in a moral sense. If you're willing to use the phrase in this context then presumably your moral perspective includes the possibility that a 15 year can engage in consensual sex.
The capacity to engage in consexual sex involves, in my opinion, an ability to appreciate and assess the possible positive and negative consequences of that action.
My conclusion is that if my partner is doing something wrong by having sex with me and I knowingly and willingly continue in the act, then I'm aiding them in wrongdoing and am at least partially culpable for doing so. If I'm not capable of anticipating the consequences then the sex wouldn't be consensual in a moral sense (consent must be informed).
Click to expand...

And I disagree. I think in this situation she did nothing wrong (although she did do something foolish), he did do something wrong by having sex with someone too young, and that she shares no portion of the blame for his wrong as "abetting" it. I think attempting to place blame on her for "aiding" his wrongdoing is to make an absurdity of morality.

Her consent to the act, whether it was legal or moral or neither, bears no weight in evaluating his participation in the act, which was wrong.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Yeah everyone we know that in "X jurisdiction 15 years is old enough if you do Y..."

Everyone knows that that scene in that Transformer movie where the guy whips out his personal laminated copy of his state's "Romeo and Juliet Laws" (that he apparently keeps on his person all the time for just this kind of situation) to prove it's "okay" when Mark Walberg's character demands to know why he's sleeping with his daughter is supposed to be creepy right?
Click to expand...

I thought it was an example of how overbearing and overprotective American parents are in denying their children their freedom to establish intimate relationships, what with they thinking it's appropriate to threathen their lovers with shotguns if they dare enter their property.

Like in that Miami cop show i watched a couple of days ago, where the black guy was a real hard ass on his daughter for "staying out" and how she was grounded for the rest of her life. Apparently this is the kind of "good parenting" that's supposed to make manly American men chuckle in approval. Imprisoning your 16 year old daughter because she dares to date someone is good parenting in America and other backwards hell holes where children are considered the property of their parents...

Note that we Swede's actually have educate immigrants from more traditional countries that they are not allowed to do this and that their children are allowed the personal autonomy and freedom which the law permits.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
And I disagree. I think in this situation she did nothing wrong (although she did do something foolish), he did do something wrong by having sex with someone too young, and that she shares no portion of the blame for his wrong as "abetting" it. I think attempting to place blame on her for "aiding" his wrongdoing is to make an absurdity of morality.

Her consent to the act, whether it was legal or moral or neither, bears no weight in evaluating his participation in the act, which was wrong.
Click to expand...

Ah well, if you find my morality absurd then I doubt we'll find any grounds for achieving a common understanding.
 
sphenisc said:
Ah well, if you find my morality absurd then I doubt we'll find any grounds for achieving a common understanding.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But the blame is on you even if I'm deliberately misunderstanding you, because you are abetting my deliberate misunderstanding.
 
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...

You don't know that. Many of these groupies were very young. A large number of 'pop idols' will have encouraged them.
 
Arcade22 said:
Note that we Swede's actually have educate immigrants from more traditional countries that they are not allowed to do this and that their children are allowed the personal autonomy and freedom which the law permits.
Click to expand...

I gotta say man "You see we're enlightened enough to not get angry when someone tries to bang our 15 year old daughter" is certainly the most eyebrow raising version of "You see here in the glorious utopia of Sweden we're better then American because..." I've yet seen.
 
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...

Legal age of consent has nothing to do with 'readiness for sex'.

It is merely a way of drawing the line of when a child/young adult stops being the legal property of the parent/s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom