Mick Jagger the Child Rapist

Belz... said:
For pete's sake, I thought you were talking about reality.
Click to expand...

So it does not happen then? Parents can't keep their children from having perfectly legal sexual relationships because they think that sex before marriage is immoral?

As i recall American parents have been until very recently and probably still can in many states, force their kids to have "gay cure" therapies because they are not heterosexual.
 
Arcade22 said:
So it does not happen then? Parents can't keep their children from having perfectly legal sexual relationships because they think that sex before marriage is immoral?

As i recall American parents have been until very recently and probably still can in many states, force their kids to have "gay cure" therapies because they are not heterosexual.
Click to expand...
Parents are allowed to handle their kids legally. Gay therapy is rapidly becoming illegal so no longer allowed. You earlier were suggesting kids could be essentially imprisoned at home, or that death or threats of death could be issued. Those too are illegal and therefore not allowed.
 
MoeFaux said:
So...lock up your daughters: it's still a big thing. At least with Joe Biden, who seems to be obsessed with them. He's no Mick Jagger, though, so he hasn't got a chance.
Click to expand...

He probably still expects people to ask their lovers parents for permission to take their hand in marriage... sick bastard.
 
At what age in Sweden can a child tell their parents to sod off, they want to screw someone and stay out late?
 
Arcade22 said:
So it does not happen then? Parents can't keep their children from having perfectly legal sexual relationships because they think that sex before marriage is immoral?



As i recall American parents have been until very recently and probably still can in many states, force their kids to have "gay cure" therapies because they are not heterosexual.
Click to expand...



As an American father myself, I can tell you that I did not allow my daughter to go on unsupervised dates until she was 17. I didn’t threaten anyone, nor did I imprison her in her home. I just didn’t give my permission to do so and if she did it anyway, there would have been consequences such as loss of privileges.


Ok, wait. I did threaten someone. When she was 15, she was taking our dog to dog training classes at the local PetSmart. The teacher was a 29 year old dude who flirted with her and she gave him her cell number. He texted her to meet up and I saw the text. I went with her to this meet up and told him that if he ever texted/met up with my daughter again, I would not hesitate to go to his employer and/or the police.

Would I have been in trouble in Sweden?
 
Arcade22 said:
It feels like every single American movie or TV show depicting teenage relationships always show their parents objecting to it, because they know just how dangerous teenage love and sex is. At some point they become angry when their child (especially if they are female) comes home after they have been with their lover, which tends to imply that they need their parents permission to be in a relationship or even just be with someone (It's almost as if their parents have a say in who they can be partners with). So of course they impose a curfew upon them, because again their child can be kept at home at their parents leisure.

Oh and their parents are so concerned about their children's welfare that they absolutely demand that their lover have dinner with them. Just to make sure whether they consent to the relationship apparently. No doubt every teen is thrilled to be forced to have their boy/girlfriend judged and evaluated by their parents (as is their right).
Click to expand...

There have been quite a few good films around this topic. Clearly a life-changing traumatic event that Hollywood has had to tackle it as a tension filled crisis, on a par with Godzilla thundering down the boulevards towards New York skyscrapers.

So we have had 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?' (right winger parents) and 'Get Out!' (liberals desperately bending over backwards to be 'woke').

Result: a box office smash and Oscar nominations.

This is because we the audience empathise. We know boyfriend's mum is scrutinising one in great detail, committing to memory every pore, hair and a piece of clothing, all the while emphasising just how terribly nice they are. Dad is jovial and jokey, his face rosy as he takes in your figure, nodding approvingly. Boyfriend tries to sing your praises without making it too obvious that he itrying to ingratiate you with Mum and Dad.

Toe-curling. There should be a law against this practice.

ETA: 'Meet the Fokkers' stretched to three or four follow ups.
 
Last edited:
Max_mang said:
It's so cliched and baked in to the culture it's used in commercials. This one is from last year:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H45-5Rga1B8

Back on topic, my personal feeling is this: Mick shouldn't have done it. Even if he was a caring, loving, generous, all-around great guy and she was mature for her age and completely capable of handling it (in other words the most ideal conditions imaginable), he shouldn't have done it.

He should have been the adult and decided there's still some variables that can't be known at the time. He also could've thought "You know, maybe other people will hear about this and see how easy it is to have sex with underage girls when you're in showbiz. This could lead to real perverts and predators getting in to showbiz just for that reason and make it so bad there has to be a giant #metoo movement someday to fight against it." (that last one's a stretch, I know)
Click to expand...

But don't you see: he became a pop star because of the thought of all that sex with adoring groupies.
 
I don't understand the debate here?

I've known a LOT of people -my own father and uncles included- who absolutely believed that boys should date early and often, but girls should "save themselves" for marriage.

Just a few weeks ago I was talking (online) to a person who had installed security cameras to make certain her 18-year-old son didn't "play house" with his 18-year-old girlfriend when she stayed over at his (their) house.

A while back we had a thread here about a man who shot to death a teenage boy he found in his daughter's room. His (successful, iirc) defense was that he didn't know the girl invited the boy, but I honestly don't think it would've made any difference.

It's not unusual for American women to have to justify their choice of men even decades after marriage -house paid for, kids grown, and parents still saying "you should've married that nice boy we liked".

I don't know how many references or resources one might be able to dig up, as it's not politically correct and one of the many unwritten/unspoken threads through our society, but it is there, and it's not showing any real signs of unraveling for at least another generation.
 
Arcade22, I am an American father of three adult girls, and I'd like to take this time to opine that you have no idea what you are talking about.

My kids were raised to have self respect and be smart. They have literally never had a curfew, or had their dates meet with supervision or pre-approval, because we trust them and they have never significantly betrayed that trust.

All their mother and I ever required is a quick text regarding where they physically were so that the cavalry could come if needed. They also had a text code, an 'x', meaning they needed a no questions asked extraction immediately. Kind of a standing get out of jail free card. None ever needed it, yet they all knew it would be honored.

They all stayed out all night on their proms and stuff, and our extra beds were offered to any friends unfit to drive (providing we could contact the parents). The States are not the oppressive Puritanical nightmare you assume them to be
 
Last edited:
DragonLady said:
I don't understand the debate here?

I've known a LOT of people -my own father and uncles included- who absolutely believed that boys should date early and often, but girls should "save themselves" for marriage.

Just a few weeks ago I was talking (online) to a person who had installed security cameras to make certain her 18-year-old son didn't "play house" with his 18-year-old girlfriend when she stayed over at his (their) house.

A while back we had a thread here about a man who shot to death a teenage boy he found in his daughter's room. His (successful, iirc) defense was that he didn't know the girl invited the boy, but I honestly don't think it would've made any difference.

It's not unusual for American women to have to justify their choice of men even decades after marriage -house paid for, kids grown, and parents still saying "you should've married that nice boy we liked".

I don't know how many references or resources one might be able to dig up, as it's not politically correct and one of the many unwritten/unspoken threads through our society, but it is there, and it's not showing any real signs of unraveling for at least another generation.
Click to expand...
That bolded bit is just silly. As thought there's never been an American man who has never married a women his parents didn't like and never stopped hearing about it. Or a Swedish women that hadn't heard the same.

Aside from that, it has largely unraveled over the last generation or two, to the point that I've never heard the notion of a shotgun wedding or over protective fathers of girls being anything other than a joke.

Vixen said:
It's normal is Sweden for people to leave home and live alone at sixteen.
Click to expand...
This makes it seem like it's just a disagreement over when to consider someone and adult, a 16 year old living on their own would be quite uncommon in the US. And frankly, the "if you are living under my roof, your living under my rules!" attitude seems pretty reasonable to me.
 
Last edited:
The reason why "parental consent", together with the notion of "parental rights", is so problematic lies in the simple fact that what the parents want for their child is not necessarily what's in the child's best interest. There's no shortage of examples demonstrating that parents can be, and often are, more concerned with their own wishes rather than those of their child, or their objective well-being.

If it's illegal to have sex with a 15 year old because legislators have, in their infinite wisdom, decided to enact a general age limit that is higher than that, based on the reasoning that those under said age are too immature to consent to sex, it's fairly straight forward to dismiss any objections from the underage individual because they are legally assumed to lack the maturity decide for themselves about this at all.

But what if the parents consent? Right now in Turkey legislators of the ruling party are trying to enact the type of law that allows the person who had sex with an underage individual to avoid prison, if they marry their victim. With the parents consent, of course. The impetus for this law is the large influx of Syrian refugees, who are not only more conservative than the Turks, they also live in rather desperate material and social conditions. Because of this, they place far less importance on the well-being of their individual children than their family as a whole. Yet this law basically assumes that the parents would serve as a kind of safe-guard against abusive relationships, even when no one really has any illusions about the fact that they can't serve that role.

If a 15 year old is too young to have sex because the law says so, then that should be the case no matter what they think about it. More importantly, their parents should not be able to overrule the legality of their ability to legally have sex. The same applies to marriage and plenty of other things where the law has often allowed parents a say in things where really the welfare of the child ought to be the only significant factor.
 
Last edited:
Aside from that, it has largely unraveled over the last generation or two, to the point that I've never heard the notion of a shotgun wedding or over protective fathers of girls being anything other than a joke.
Click to expand...

You're not alone. I know lots of people who see the whole subject as nothing but a joke and don't understand that for many, many other people it's a very real way of life.

More importantly, their parents should not be able to overrule the legality of their ability to legally have sex.
Click to expand...

That does happen here, too. A family will allow a person to move into the house & have a sexual relationship with an underage person with their full knowledge and consent. It's not common, but it happens.

Arranged marriage is still a thing, too. Polygamist families make the news the most often, but other groups practice it as tradition, and sometimes the people involved -whatever their ages- have no real power to refuse.

ETA: That was easy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X1MNvuRpdg
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
The reason why "parental consent", together with the notion of "parental rights", is so problematic lies in the simple fact that what the parents want for their child is not necessarily what's in the child's best interest. There's no shortage of examples demonstrating that parents can be, and often are, more concerned with their own wishes rather than those of their child, or their objective well-being.

If it's illegal to have sex with a 15 year old because legislators have, in their infinite wisdom, decided to enact a general age limit that is higher than that, based on the reasoning that those under said age are too immature to consent to sex, it's fairly straight forward to dismiss any objections from the underage individual because they are legally assumed to lack the maturity decide for themselves about this at all.

But what if the parents consent? Right now in Turkey legislators of the ruling party are trying to enact the type of law that allows the person who had sex with an underage individual to avoid prison, if they marry their victim. With the parents consent, of course. The impetus for this law is the large influx of Syrian refugees, who are not only more conservative than the Turks, they also live in rather desperate material and social conditions. Because of this, they place far less importance on the well-being of their individual children than their family as a whole. Yet this law basically assumes that the parents would serve as a kind of safe-guard against abusive relationships, even when no one really has any illusions about the fact that they can't serve that role.

If a 15 year old is too young to have sex because the law says so, then that should be the case no matter what they think about it. More importantly, their parents should not be able to overrule the legality of their ability to legally have sex. The same applies to marriage and plenty of other things where the law has often allowed parents a say in things where really the welfare of the child ought to be the only significant factor.
Click to expand...

They can exercise their rights to have all the sex they like once I’m no longer responsible for supporting them. When my daughter turned 17 (the legal age of consent in Texas), she was still in High School and we were still responsible for her and the rules applied: she could date as long as we knew who she was dating and what time she was going to be home; no sex. Our concern wasn’t religious notions of chastity but ensuring she would be free to finish school and start her adult life (if that’s what she wanted) unburdened by teenage relationship drama and kids like her mom and I were. Would such a rule have gotten me in trouble if we lived in Sweden?
 
Thermal said:
Arcade22, I am an American father of three adult girls, and I'd like to take this time to opine that you have no idea what you are talking about.

My kids were raised to have self respect and be smart. They have literally never had a curfew, or had their dates meet with supervision or pre-approval, because we trust them and they have never significantly betrayed that trust.

All their mother and I ever required is a quick text regarding where they physically were so that the cavalry could come if needed. They also had a text code, an 'x', meaning they needed a no questions asked extraction immediately. Kind of a standing get out of jail free card. None ever needed it, yet they all knew it would be honored.

They all stayed out all night on their proms and stuff, and our extra beds were offered to any friends unfit to drive (providing we could contact the parents). The States are not the oppressive Puritanical nightmare you assume them to be
Click to expand...

Very similar to our attitude with our now 18 yo daughter. Teenagers are going to have sex whether their parents know about it or not. Might as well be open and realistic and make sure they are properly prepared. My wife (with her partners at the time) and I (with my partners) were screwing like bunnies when we were 16, 17, 18. It didn’t do us any harm and it will not harm most teens.
 
Steve said:
Very similar to our attitude with our now 18 yo daughter. Teenagers are going to have sex whether their parents know about it or not. Might as well be open and realistic and make sure they are properly prepared. My wife (with her partners at the time) and I (with my partners) were screwing like bunnies when we were 16, 17, 18. It didn’t do us any harm and it will not harm most teens.
Click to expand...



I mean, yeah...this is true. My wife and I definitely were among the bunnies. Even though she got pregnant, it didn’t “harm” us. I fully admit I was irrational in raising my daughter...but don’t I have the right to be irrational?

My problem is with the idea that if I forbid my kids from having sex while they live under my roof (I know, I know...fat lot of good that will do) that I would get a visit from Swedish Child Protectorate would come over and punish me somehow. I can’t believe that’s true.
 
xjx388 said:
As an American father myself, I can tell you that I did not allow my daughter to go on unsupervised dates until she was 17. I didn’t threaten anyone, nor did I imprison her in her home. I just didn’t give my permission to do so and if she did it anyway, there would have been consequences such as loss of privileges.


Ok, wait. I did threaten someone. When she was 15, she was taking our dog to dog training classes at the local PetSmart. The teacher was a 29 year old dude who flirted with her and she gave him her cell number. He texted her to meet up and I saw the text. I went with her to this meet up and told him that if he ever texted/met up with my daughter again, I would not hesitate to go to his employer and/or the police.

Would I have been in trouble in Sweden?
Click to expand...

Wow :eek:
 
xjx388 said:
I mean, yeah...this is true. My wife and I definitely were among the bunnies. Even though she got pregnant, it didn’t “harm” us. I fully admit I was irrational in raising my daughter...but don’t I have the right to be irrational?

My problem is with the idea that if I forbid my kids from having sex while they live under my roof (I know, I know...fat lot of good that will do) that I would get a visit from Swedish Child Protectorate would come over and punish me somehow. I can’t believe that’s true.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how or why you decided my post was a personal criticism of you. It is merely a description of the method we have applied to raising our daughter. A method that is every bit a valid as yours. The only difference is that we know what our daughter is doing and are able to provide any necessary guidance in a timely manner.

Tell you what, if you think you are being irrational raising your kids so they cannot be open with you then you carry right on doing that.

And by the way, I have never got any woman pregnant unintentionally, and my wife has never been pregnant unintentionally. Knowledge can be useful.
 
Defending questionable (or lousy) parenting practices with "it's my right as a parent" is always sad and pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom