Mick Jagger the Child Rapist

pipelineaudio said:
This thread is mindblowing proof of horshoe theory
Click to expand...

Seems to me more like a rejection of moderation. Apparently one must either allow anything or forbid everything; using one's judgment and concluding moderation in all things is somehow unfashionable.
 
Vixen said:
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 responsibility of the parent/s.
Click to expand...

FTFY

A child is never the "legal property" of their parents, at least, not in a civilised society. That parents have a legal responsibility to care for them doesn't mean they own them.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I disagree with your characterization of Americans. I've been an American for all my life, and lived in the place for all but two years of it, and that is not how I perceive the mainstream to be.
Click to expand...

The fact that this kind of thing is even legal is bad enough. Parents should certainly not be allowed to interfere and veto their children's social interactions and personal relationships simply because they object to them. It's one thing to object to relationships and social interactions that are illegal, abusive or otherwise have an objectively demonstrable negative impact on their well-being. But feeling that you somehow have the right to interfere with your daughters personal relationships for no reason other than that you can, or because you are so over-protective that you refuse her personal autonomy? That's the kind of thing that tends to fall under the label of "honor repression".
 
Last edited:
Mick likes 'em young:

https://nypost.com/2009/09/25/mackenzie-papas-pal-jagger-bedded-me/

You can’t always get what you want — but Mick Jagger did. He bedded an 18-year-old Mackenzie Phillips on a steamy New York night in the late 1970s, she claims.

The wild child and “One Day at a Time” actress says she had sex with the Rolling Stones frontman during a raucous, drug-fueled party at the Central Park West home of her dad, folk-rock star John Phillips.

“I’ve been waiting for this since you were 10 years old,” Jagger allegedly told the then-18-year-old Phillips.
 
JoeMorgue said:
No you just let the 15 year old sleep with someone and act more civilized because of it.
Click to expand...

Let them? You speak as if their parents have a choice in the matter! They don't, and that is exactly why immigrants from patriarchal and traditional areas sometimes send their daughters and sons back "home" where it's perfectly legal and socially acceptable to lock them up until they can be married away.
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
The fact that this kind of thing is even legal is bad enough. Parents should certainly not be allowed to interfere and veto their children's social interactions and personal relationships simply because they object to them. It's one thing to object to relationships and social interactions that are illegal, abusive or otherwise have an objectively demonstrable negative impact on their well-being. But feeling that you somehow have the right to interfere with your daughters personal relationships for no reason other than that you can, or because you are so over-protective that you refuse her personal autonomy? That's the kind of thing that tends to fall under the label of "honor repression".
Click to expand...

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?
 
BStrong said:
Mick likes 'em young:

https://nypost.com/2009/09/25/mackenzie-papas-pal-jagger-bedded-me/

You can’t always get what you want — but Mick Jagger did. He bedded an 18-year-old Mackenzie Phillips on a steamy New York night in the late 1970s, she claims.

The wild child and “One Day at a Time” actress says she had sex with the Rolling Stones frontman during a raucous, drug-fueled party at the Central Park West home of her dad, folk-rock star John Phillips.

“I’ve been waiting for this since you were 10 years old,” Jagger allegedly told the then-18-year-old Phillips.
Click to expand...

Was this before, during, or after her alleged incestuous relationship with her father?
 
TragicMonkey said:
Seems to me more like a rejection of moderation. Apparently one must either allow anything or forbid everything; using one's judgment and concluding moderation in all things is somehow unfashionable.
Click to expand...

This is where I'm sure NZ has it right - the legal age is 16, but it's flexible. As long as there isn't a disparity of more than 3-4 years in age, nobody ever gets punished.

When my boy was 16 and his girlfriend was 14, they went to the school counsellor to talk to her.

She gave them five dozen condoms.

They're still an item 15 years later, living together, and both in excellent professional jobs.
 
The Atheist said:
This is where I'm sure NZ has it right - the legal age is 16, but it's flexible. As long as there isn't a disparity of more than 3-4 years in age, nobody ever gets punished.

When my boy was 16 and his girlfriend was 14, they went to the school counsellor to talk to her.

She gave them five dozen condoms.

They're still an item 15 years later, living together, and both in excellent professional jobs.
Click to expand...

Am I the only person on the planet who didn't have underage sex? <g d r>
 
The Atheist said:
This is where I'm sure NZ has it right - the legal age is 16, but it's flexible. As long as there isn't a disparity of more than 3-4 years in age, nobody ever gets punished.

When my boy was 16 and his girlfriend was 14, they went to the school counsellor to talk to her.

She gave them five dozen condoms.

They're still an item 15 years later, living together, and both in excellent professional jobs.
Click to expand...
That's how the vast majority of US states operate too. Almost nobody thinks a 16 year old should go to jail for sleeping with 15 year old. There is however a disturbing number of states with exemptions for married folks and a disturbing number of states which allow fairly young people to get married with parent "permission" or if the child is pregnant. So, yes, basically, a child is allowed to marry her rapist.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
This is where I'm sure NZ has it right - the legal age is 16, but it's flexible. As long as there isn't a disparity of more than 3-4 years in age, nobody ever gets punished.
Click to expand...

I think taking into account the age of the parties relative to each other makes more sense than having an arbitrary age line. A 15 year old and a 16 year old is far less dreadful than a 15 year old and a 33 year old!
 
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...

If the interference is intense enough to deprive their child of the autonomy and independence that someone of their age and development is entitled they are liable to lose custody.

Parents are required by law to take into account the opinions and wishes of their child to an increasing degree as they age and become more mature. In practice, children in their teens are for the most part entitled to choose themselves who they have personal relations with, unless it can be justified by concerns for their welfare and healthy development.

Of course the examples that end up in court are not about individual isolated incidents of overprotective helicopter parents, rather it's about those subjecting their children to general patterns of completely unjustified restrictions on their personal autonomy and independence. Parents tell them how to dress, that they must come home directly from school and that they are not to be friends with or hang out with people of opposite sex.

Edit: any blanket bans on dating, having boyfriends, girlfriends or having sex as well as trying to prevent them from doing any of that would not be allowed.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
That's how the vast majority of US states operate too. Almost nobody thinks a 16 year old should go to jail for sleeping with 15 year old. There is however a disturbing number of states with exemptions for married folks and a disturbing number of states which allow fairly young people to get married with parent "permission" or if the child is pregnant. So, yes, basically, a child is allowed to marry her rapist.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine served some time in the seventies for statutory rape. His girlfriend was 17, he was either still 17 or barely eighteen. Also, daddy had some influence.
 
Arcade22 said:
If the interference is intense enough to deprive their child of the autonomy and independence that someone of their age and development is entitled they are liable to lose custody.

Parents are required by law to take into account the opinions and wishes of their child to an increasing degree as they age and become more mature. In practice, children in their teens are for the most part entitled to choose themselves who they have personal relations with, unless it can be justified by concerns for their welfare and healthy development.

Of course the examples that end up in court are not about individual isolated incidents of overprotective helicopter parents, rather it's about those subjecting their children to general patterns of completely unjustified restrictions on their personal autonomy and independence. Parents tell them how to dress, that they must come home directly from school and that they are not to be friends with or hang out with people of opposite sex.

Edit: any blanket bans on dating, having boyfriends, girlfriends or having sex as well as trying to prevent them from doing any of that would not be allowed.
Click to expand...



Get serious, that cannot be true.
 
Carlotta said:
A friend of mine served some time in the seventies for statutory rape. His girlfriend was 17, he was either still 17 or barely eighteen. Also, daddy had some influence.
Click to expand...


Lemme have a guess

It was Hicktown, USA, somewhere in the South, and Daddy was involved in one or more of the following

Law Enforcement
City Hall
Baptist Church
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom