British barrister Barbara Hewson caused a bit of a stir last week when she called for the age of consent in Britain to be lowered to 13 so as to end the alleged “persecution of old men” like those arrested in the wake of the recent Jimmy Savile scandal, which revealed a widespread culture of sexual exploitation of underage girls (and some boys) at the BBC in the 1970s.
Now one female Men’s Rights Activist connected to hate site A Voice for Men has done Hewson one better, arguing that the real culprits in these scandals weren’t the predatory adult men but the girls they victimized.
Janet Bloomfield, a fairly regular contributor to terrorist-manifesto-posting AVFM who is better known as JudgyBitch, writes on her blog that:
[B]asically, the girls were groupies. They wanted all the benefits of hanging out with a big star and they understood it came with a price and they paid it, perhaps reluctantly, but with full knowledge that the trips to London and the fags and the sweet weren’t free. …
And now they are claiming the MEN abused THEM? Looks to me like it was the other way around.
Yes, Bloomfield apparently feels that these poor little rich men were robbed of cigarettes and candy and trips to London by predatory teenage girls. She continues:
It’s a story as old as bloody time. Young women with nothing to offer but their youth and sexuality chase after powerful men in exchange for favors. If we are going to arrest every powerful man who has ever availed himself of willing women, we are gonna need to build a whole lot of jails.
Uh, Judgy, in case you missed the point of the whole debate here, we’re not talking about women. We’re talking about girls. In the case of BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall, one of the victims that he has admitted to assaulting was nine years old at the time. Nine. Savile’s youngest alleged victim was an eight-year-old boy, and dozens of his alleged assaults were upon children in hospitals.
In the end, Bloomfield kind of, sort of, admits that the men may have behaved badly in these cases. But she still wants them to face zero legal repercussions.
Powerful men always have and always will delight in young women hunting them. Young women always have and always will hunt for powerful men. Both sides are equally culpable. Both sides are engaging in abuse. Both sides are behaving shamefully. Both side are being idiots.
But only one side is being held criminally responsible? Bullshit. If the girls are not going to be strung up on charges of solicitation and prostitution, and I absolutely do NOT think they should be, then fairness and equality under the law dictates the men get a pass, too.
Again, you may notice, Bloomfield cannot seem to decide whether or not these girls are in fact girls or “young women,” and in the two consecutive paragraphs right above you’ll notice she slides effortlessly between the two. Perhaps her desire to tag these girls “women” is an admission that, at least on some unconscious level, she knows what she’s arguing is beyond the moral pale.
Elsewhere in her post, she puts up pictures of underage girls whom she seems to think would be impossible to distinguish from adults. Here’s one, of a twelve-year-old model. (She also includes a creepily sexualized picture of the same model at age ten.)
Anyone unable to tell that this is a picture of a child, not an adult, shouldn’t be having sex with anyone.
And anyone as morally deficient as JudgyBitch shouldn’t be judging anyone.
Be fair, you guys. It could be that Yasmine’s entire group of friends has been diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder and she just hasn’t mentioned that yet. Or it could be that she’s what you get when an MRA tries to imagine what it would be like to be a teenage girl. OMG the power! The temptation to abuse it! For no particular reason, just because you can!
The evolving nature of the story doesn’t exactly say “sincere” either.
Did you even read the link about how only 3 percent of rapists see jail time?
what makes you think the stats would be any different for the situation you’re describing?
Yasmine: I think someone has misread what I said. I never threatened anybody into bed. That wouldn’t work.
Then you are stupid. This is what you said I was prepared to threaten the guys with a lifetime on the sex offender register if they didn’t give me what I wanted.
So if you never did it, and you thought it wouldn’t work, why tell us (now, when there is nothing to gain from it) that you were prepared to do it?
Could it be you were trying to set up the idea that “predatory” young women could use that threat to “gain power” over the rich/famous men they wanted to have sex with?
Nah, that would have been dishonest. Oh!, Wait!, now the story changes.
if they ever tried to make me do something I didn’t want to, I was perfectly prepared to threaten them with legal action.
So it was to prevent yourself from being abused that you were prepared to threaten them. Let’s rewind the tape, shall we:
You knew what you were doing. You were prepared to threaten them to, “get what you wanted”, and you were the abuser.
As with your previous definition of “gentleman” I see a strange use of words in your writing.
I’m not saying abuse doesn’t happen, No, you are saying the victims are the abusers.
I’ve had friends who refused to date guys their own age because then they wouldn’t have as much legal leverage as with older men.
Cool story.
1 – Underage sex does not necessarily equal abuse.
1a: Show us where we said it did? (if you do what I did, you can surely find it… I used the “older comments” button and looked at what you said. Then I used the cut/paste function. To make it more obvious, I also used the html commands for blockquoting).
. Presumption of innocence applies to old men just as much as to anybody else, accusations should no be enough to condemn anybody.
Good thing I’m not on a jury, eh? But even so, I got to look at the evidence. One of the pieces of evidence is just how many young people (not all of them female) are saying they were abused. Looking at the habits of abusers (can you say grooming I knew you could).
So yes, I can say I think they did it. What I can’t do is throw them in prison. What I won’t do is pretend I have to say, “Oh well, I don’t have “proof” so I’ll just ignore it.”.
And I sure as hell won’t blame the victims, even if I weren’t willing to condemn the apparent perpetrators.
You don’t seem to have that scruple. You aren’t saying it didn’t happen, you are saying the victims are lying about the details.
You are saying they wanted the sex/attention/something then, and now they want the “fame/attention”.
And you are being dishonest about that, now that you are being called on what you said to set up the, “lying bitches” narrative you wanted to be able to spin.
Random, but “over age” is the weirdest way to say “adult” I’ve ever heard. It makes it sound like there’s an official age past which people aren’t allowed to have sex, and the men in question are in that category.
Given that she seems to think that Saville is going to suffer as a result of all this, perhaps that really is what over age means! Since most countries do tend to frown on folks of any age having sex with people who’re dead.
Yeah… Yasmine backpedaled so fast from her opening posts that she left a skidmark. And now, whenever I hear the term skidmark, I shall think of Yasmine.
I don’t even get the point of Yasmine’s post. At best we’re all going to agree that she’s a dickhead hanging with a bunch of dickheads that have no bearing on the rest of society.
Also:
is a fuckin traumedy of errors. Making accusations when there is no CRIME is fucking spiteful. Making an accusation when you don’t have evidence is only spiteful if you don’t know that the person committed the crime (with certain exceptions obviously, but Yasmine apparently needs Montessori moral lessons). That you would argue the above position speaks to your disingenuity, and all around stupidity, and it looks about as good on you as the rest of your, supposedly relevant, character defects.
The depth of your empathy is only matched by your understanding of biology.
So in Justsaying’s world, boys are adults the moment they can get an erection. And,what the hell, votes for menstruating 9 year olds, open the bars for them, only test required proof of puberty. After all, they’re adults now. Justsaying says so.
Right, that’s why the right to vote is decided by the onset of puberty.
…
Which it’s not. And never was. And the idea that we should measure that way is the dumbest thing ever. The emptiness of thinking involved in actually putting that sentence out there makes my brain hurt.
And yet, it is nature that decided that her cognitive development would not be anywhere near matured at the age of 13. So I think nature’s pretty down with age of consent laws.
OMG, I was an adult at 9? Why did nobody inform me of this so that I could demand that my parents treat me like one? I could have voted and had a drivers license and everything before my age hit double digits!
Trolling score – .5/10.
Wow.
Just saying: As a man, I’ve ordered a drink to see if she passed the “carding” of the establishment, only to find out after an evening of fun that she had a fake ID and was actually a lot younger…
Cool story bro.
So 13 is probably a very reasonable age of consent
And you are a morally deficient asshole.
I’m just sayin’.
But if menarche = adult, you have no problem with them being allowed to vote, right. Adult is adult, right?
If you can’t tell that this girl is too young for an adult’s sexual attentions, there is something terribly wrong with you.
So you admit to intentionally having sex with girls you thought could be underage, but passing the buck to the establishment you were drinking in. Great. Here’s another alternative: If you’re not sure she isn’t a child, don’t have sex with her. I know it would give you sad pants feelings, but it wouldn’t be the end of the world! (Although frankly, your whole story reeks of being your sad, unrealized fantasy…)
BLOCKQUOTE MONSTER HAS EATEN ME, I DIE.
Yeah, I’m going to have to go ahead and ask you to never have children, you horrifying little shit.
Yay, another rape apologist who has no understanding of consent. And this time it’s a cissexist one, too!
Fuck off to the ends of the earth.
I just want to clarify here, in case I’ve misunderstood. When I was 11 years old:
– I was not old enough to babysit other children.
– I was permitted to walk alone to school, but not to be out after dark without adult supervision.
– I could not drive or learn to drive. I could have a bicycle so long as I wore a helmet.
– I could not hold a part-time job.
– Technically I didn’t own anything. All of my belongings were legally the property of my parents.
– my dad had to sign a letter stating it was alright for me to travel outside of the country.
– it would have been alright for adult men, as in men in their 20s and 30s and 40s and 50s, to have sex with me.
Please fuck off forever.
9 years old! That’s when I started menstruating. I had breasts too. Clearly nature intended me to be hit on by creepy older men. It’s science.
Every time we have one of these threads if makes me so mad because somehow in my head I expect even MRAs to be opposed to child sexual abuse. Like, sure, I know they hate adult women, but how could anyone be so sickeningly comfortable with the sexual exploitation of children? How could anyone learn about this stuff and just shrug like it’s no bid deal?
Viscaria: it’s because they don’t really see other people as human. They seem to have some significant failure of some aspect of transition out of the “pre-operational phase of cognitive development.
MRAs are always FOR as much child abuse as possible Viscaria. All of them, every time.
I have been a teenage girl, and a sexually active one at that, but never have I ever encountered such a sociopath as “Yasmine” who so conveniently supported so many MRA tropes about sleeping with underage girls. I agree with the conclusion that “she” is an MRA sockpuppet. If this is in fact true, random observation/question: anyone else get the feeling they got the idea for the name from the BC pill Yaz? I do, and I find it highly amusing. A play on feminist stuff, MRA giggle-snort.
Nature doesn’t “decide” shit. “Nature” is just a word that human beings use to refer to things outside of ourselves. Nature is not an entity with thought processes, plans or rules. Only idiots anthropomorphize it.