I don't think @We need an rvn is saying that, he's merely saying that labelling him a rapist does him a disservice seeing as so many have a different definition of the word. It is more widely used to describe non-consensual sex.
Adam Johnson found guilty of one count of sexual activity with a child | Sentenced to six years
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
- Status
i know, which is why i've really limited my posts in this thread because it's a really awkward topic. i just think labeling someone with that name is wrong when so many see it in a different context from the way the legal way is used.
i get what you're saying, i just hope you understand how i'm seeing that word too.
at the end of the day, we're in agreement he's an ............................
We're all adults here. We're perfectly comfortable with using the correct language without losing context.
thanks in kinda defending someone who hates AJ. it's bloody hard. that word "rape" like i said is not what he did in my eyes. he did a lot of things but he didn't force himself on her of force her to do what she did. he abused his position, but like i said, in many of our minds if you were to say describe that someone with one word, and that was the word, that's not Adam Johnson.
he's many things folks, and majority bad and i've said that all along and agree with every one of them. but not a rapist, not in many people's eyes of what that word means.
The very concept of statutory rape is that someone under the legal age is too young to give consent, making it non-consensual sex.
The very concept of statutory rape is that someone under the legal age is too young to give consent, making it non-consensual sex.
I know that, i meant directly non-consensual. I'm not saying i disagree with the definition.
Under English law, the crime of rape normally boils down to the issue of consent. Section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 states that consent must be agreed by choice by a person who has the capacity and freedom to make that choice. A broad definition. The crime of rape is now much more complex than it was when I was studying law. It's rarely the nutter with the bread knife who rapes these days but rather the trickster who finds himself up on a rape charge. For example, a woman agrees to have sex on the condition that her partner wears a condom. The partner then removes the condom and proceeds to have sex. That vitiates consent and could be rape. This is known in the trade as 'conditional consent'. I could list more examples but I'm sure you get the point.
Johnson was charged under Section 9: sexual activity with a child. This means that the offender A, must be 18 or over, must intentionally touch the complainant, who is under 16, and the touching must be sexual. Moreover, A must not reasonably believe that the complainant is 16 or over. There must be penetration of the anus or vagina with any part of A's body or something else ( a sex toy for example). Digital penetration of the vagina will suffice to complete the offence at law.
As I said, it's quite complicated. Technically. Johnson isn't a rapist in the classic sense of the word. The girl was unable to give her consent to any sexual act and therefore he was charged under Section 9.
What did he say when asked why he continued after finding out she was 15?
perhaps yes. perhaps in my eyes he's not a rapist but he's a lot of bad stuff i'd never like to repeat nor someone i'd trust / want in my life. either way, i don't think any of us are calling him a good guy or defending his actions. perhaps some just have the need, and no idea why, to defend what he's being labeled by others - but then i'm in no way right to say they can't label him a rapist if that's what they think.Oh, maybe that is what you're saying then.
at the end of the day, he's going to jail (most likely) and that's the end of what we'll hear of AJ for a long time.
this last hour has been more tiring than ever before, so good night folks
Given the background you posted upthread somewhere, I think most of us can see how you might react rather strongly to the word “rape” being used here. For what it's worth, your post reminded me of a conversation I had along these lines some years ago – with a good friend of mine, who pointed out that there's an age gap between his parents which – clearly – means that his father was technically guilty of what we call statutory rape at one point. Unless they stayed celibate until his mother became of legal age, that is, as my mate pointed out – but he naturally doubted that, given human nature and so forth. Well, his parents got married as soon as his mother was old enough, and have been married ever since - a common enough story.
But what we're dealing with here is a technical term, for one thing, and secondly a term which very rarely comes into play in circumstances like the one mentioned above: If AJ goes on to marry this girl at some future date, and they stay married for the rest of their lives – then we're all fools for labeling him a creep, I guess. But it ain't likely. As it stands, he's a 28 year man using a minor – a girl he knows is a minor – for sex or at least some form of sexual activity. Whether she was, in one sense or another, using him for the same – is irrelevant. Because she simply isn't of legal age.
If he had been an 18 year old lad, the matter would've been a different one even if the nature of the contact had been the same. And if he had been an 18 year old who actually dated the girl, had some sort of relationship with her, nobody in his right mind would label that creepy. Well, some probably would – but then again some people seemingly find pretty much anything creepy.
So, in short – if this had been a case of labeling my friend's dad a rapist, I would agree with you 100% That would be absurd, and if he were actually convicted of statutory rape, that would've been a travesty in my opinion. But this – well, it is completely different on all sorts of levels. What AJ was up to IS statutory rape, it rings perfectly natural to label it as such, and most people should be aware of the difference between that offence and a violent sexual assault. If they aren't, and thus consider AJ something he strictly speaking is not – well, in the name of fairness it should be pointed out to them, but I can't say I'm terribly sorry for the mislabeled party in this particular case
He's not a rapist. He's a child rapist.
The very concept of statutory rape is that someone under the legal age is too young to give consent, making it non-consensual sex.
There is no such term as statutory rape in English law. It is an Americanism.
I worked in security at concerts about 30 years ago. In my experience it's a minority of males who are able to resist attractive fans who are around 16.
Never thought of any of them as criminals.
Never thought of any of them as criminals.
That doesn't mean they're not, though. A lot of people doing something illegal/immoral doesn't suddenly mean it's okay, or that they're not criminals.
I would have though that would depend on the age of the males in question. When I was 25-30, I didn't find teenagers of 16 attractive in the least. I've always dated women my own age or thereabouts. A lot of my pals are the same way. There was one guy at uni, a mature student of 22, who was going out with a 16 year old and he was seen as a bit odd.
Sort of does mean they're not. Morality and criminality are relative and the age of consent in the UK is 16.
Have you ever been approached by a younger girl who says she is your fan. Having your poster on her wall. Day dreaming about you all day long. Wearing clothes that you wear. Saying that she wants like thirty children from you. Do you really have an idea how 15/16 year old fan girls behave towards the man they adore?
I know that men 10 years older probably don't want a real relationship. I'm just saying that in my experience only a minority can resist sexual encounters with girls who approach them in such a manner. Especially very attractive ones.
Last edited:
No and yes. I have a younger sister who was infatuated with, of all people, Gary Glitter, though she switched allegiances to David Bowie later.
I shared a flat for a while in Islington with a couple of guys who went on to become well-known musicians. It was during the early days of punk. I did a bit of work for them with sound and lights so yes, I've seen what goes on. But their fans weren't 15/16 year old 'teeny boppers' but were generally a bit older. Both these guys could have had a different girl every night of the week but that wasn't what they were into at the time.
Apologies if this has been already posted.
@Dwazza von Moosesteiger has a rather different and interesting definition in our mod forum conversation than a pedophile for Johnson. It's called Ephebophilia.
Here's a link to it's definition.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia
@Dwazza von Moosesteiger has a rather different and interesting definition in our mod forum conversation than a pedophile for Johnson. It's called Ephebophilia.
Here's a link to it's definition.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia
Was going to post this myself. He's not a pedophile, as that refers to prepubescent abuse. Technically the Sun's font page was slanderous, but I imagine he's more concerned with getting a hefty jail sentence.
Maybe we should just stick to Johnson's label being a sex offender against a child as we do not know that he has a primary or exclusive sexual interest to mid to late adolescents.
What we call him just now is irrelevant anyway. Once he's inside he'll be known as a "beast" to his fellow inmates. That'll do for me.
Was genuinely a bit taken aback by the Sun's front page, when I saw it. I know it's the Sun but still...
Even that refers to a primary or exclusive interest. So we have no way of knowing if Johnson is an ephebophile (not that anyone should care). What we do know is he's a predatory sex offender. I think that's rather more relevant.
That's not how these things work!
i heard that 12 years ago, that 15 year old girl was only 3. can people honestly try to defend him for having sexual contact with a 3 year old?
Not sure I get what you mean Brophs
This thread should be in the general forum.
I dunno. There's definitely a discussion to be had about attitudes to sex amongst footballers. Whether we should be educating them better...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35719938
Admittedly, that's not the discussion we're having... but still.
He probably means that truth has no place on the Caf, only speculation and assumption. And interpretations of body language.
You think that's bad? [ANISTON]Here comes the science bit:[/ANISTON] while her dad's jizz was still inside his body and/or willy (his own body and/or willy, not Adam Johnsons, as that'd make the dad a paedo too. The Sun would would love that. "Man paedos up boy who, 23 years later, paedos up mans daughter") she had the potential to becomes a boy or girl. So that makes Johnson a gaybi paedo. Lock him up and throw away the key. In fact, feck it, a key's too good for him. Put him in a cell with no lock and the brick him in. That'll stop him shagging boygirl 3 year olds.
Well, that's what you get for trying to apply logic and reason to a debate. The right way is just to make sweeping assumptions, lazy generalisations and then chuck in some stuff that's probably untrue but might not be, given that he's a superpaedo. BISH BASH BANG.
yeah thinking about it, that all makes sense. it's science after all. i'm keeping my sperms under lock and key in case that uber paedo tries to get at them when my back is turned. i heard he was actually trying to touch her future children rather than just her snizz.
I've seen a Brass Eye rip-off on womb paedos. They're a real thing. Drop some sleeper jizz in there, then in a decade or two...BAM! Consider that foetus violated.
Exactly. Even if it were he wasn't guilty of any form of rape.
Where these relationships persist (interesting point, btw). Is it often in the context of the older person having a simultaneous pregnant partner situation?
Police statement today saying the club had an additional meeting on 2nd March 2015 on the day after he was arrested, preceding the May meeting which they acknowledged in the statement. Huge questions to answer now.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-35721975
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-35721975
- Status