Post: #1

Adam Johnson is a 27 year-old footballer for Sunderland here in the UK who was jailed this week for six years for "grooming" and sexual activity with a child. If the comment sections are anything to go by, and the opinion of people I've talked with about this, there is much disgust at the justice system and the sensationalist manner this has been handled. One of our most controversial columnists here in the UK - the women Donald Trump recently praised - Katie Hopkins, has also expressed disgust at the witch-hunt, and the mainstream media's ridiculous assertion that he's a "paedophile". She also made the point that Jihadis receive lesser sentences for worse crimes.

The general consensus in the court of public opinion is that 15 year old girls in the UK tend to have a maturity that hasn't been considered in this case.

Some of the text exchanges were revealed in court.



They met twice in his jeep, and on the second occasion they kissed and engaged in some sexual activity. It was revealed that before they had met he had been Googling age of consent law, so he was fully aware what he was doing was illegal. They didn't have full sex, but just engaged in some foreplay. The girl secretly recorded part of the encounter on her phone, so she could prove to he friends the encounter happened since there is no higher status male in the UK than a professional footballer.

He was caught when the young girl blabbed to all of her friends, and the news reached her parents. She then became the archetypal quivering victim, and in the aftermath of the case the judge said he had caused her "severe psychological trauma." It's worth nothing this would have been perfectly legal in many countries in Europe where the age of consent is 14 or 15.

Adam Johnson was a fool who risked his entire career and family. His girlfriend (who stuck by him all the way through the case like all intelligent hypergamous women would do) was pregnant at the time. I think it speaks to the lack of intelligence of many high profile footballers, and their level of entitlement. But it's difficult not to have a level of entitlement when you're paid £200 000 per week, with women throwing themselves at you every time you leave the house.

Juxtapose the harsh sentence of Adam Johnson (who never even had sex with his victim) with this case where a 30 year-old female teacher in the UK repeatedly raped a 15 year-old pupil. Adam Johnson received six years. She received community service and a £100 fine.

Post: #2

The guy was stupid, but the laws are stupid as well. The perfect strom.

Post: #3

He will probably do half the time.

Post: #4

Any football player in Europe should be able to find plenty of decent girls over the age of 16. He knew she was underage, he's an idiot, and he deserves his punishment. In our culture we have prohibited the sexual grooming of girls under 16 for a long time and for a good reason - only imported cultures would be unable to understand this.

Post: #5

(03-26-2016 07:06 AM)griffinmill Wrote:  I think it speaks to the lack of intelligence of many high profile footballers, and their level of entitlement.

My bull shit meter soard at this, apparently your own observation. One guy gets busted messing with a younger girl. Questionable case, for that matter. All of the sudden this one incident speaks for every man who happens to share the same or similar career? There is no logic to this statement whatsoever. It sounds like something a chick would correlate.

Post: #6

The years are heavy but this guy is a moron. There have got to be tons of girls he could hook up with and he decides a 15 year old and he even knows she's illegal.

His wife is a WB 8, maybe 9 in the right eyes, who was pregnant. I don't feel sorry at all. Have fun in prison buddy.

Post: #7

He should have told her "text me when you're 16." End of discussion.

Post: #8

(03-26-2016 07:06 AM)griffinmill Wrote:  It's worth nothing this would have been perfectly legal in many countries in Europe where the age of consent is 14 or 15.

That's a dangerous way to think.
Laws apply locally.
There are problems in Europe where Muslims live with several women, because it's allowed in their home countries.
Do you think it would be right to accept that foreign laws could legitimate illegal behaviour in Europe?
In the UK, British laws, and British laws only, apply.
Same everywhere.

LaPD

Post: #9

(03-26-2016 08:18 AM)La Palta Divina Wrote:  That's a dangerous way to think.
Laws apply locally.
There are problems in Europe where Muslims live with several women, because it's allowed in their home countries.
Do you think it would be right to accept that foreign laws could legitimate illegal behaviour in Europe?
In the UK, British laws, and British laws only, apply.
Same everywhere.

LaPD

It's a point some media and legal commentators have made about the case with reference to his classification as a "paedophile" considering the age of consent is arbitrary and a technicality from one jurisdiction to the next.

But I take your point that the law is the law.

Post: #10

Being italian that lived in the uk for more than 3 years i can certainly say that almost everything about that country is a comedy to my eyes.

Post: #11

(03-26-2016 08:39 AM)thecrazy Wrote:  Being italian that lived in the uk for more than 3 years i can certainly say that almost everything about that country is a comedy to my eyes. Said that adam johnson is an idiot, not a criminal, anyway he can get 6 or even 10 or 20 years, it's up to the british law. The thing that is both funny and really annoying is that the uk is a country where kissing a 15 years old girl gives you 6 years and real criminals are protected by the law.

Post: #12

Yes he was stupid, but the larger problem I feel is with the laws. As Glaucon said, the mixture of dumb/inconsistent laws and a dumb person.

Things like age of consent or drunk driving I feel should be a much more gradual sliding scale of punishment to reflect the gradual sliding scale of the crimes. Practically, there is no difference between someone a day below or above the AOC, or similarly someone 0.001 below/above the drunk driving limit. Yet the punishments basically go from 0 for the former, to federal crime, bans from driving, registry on sex offender list, basically life ruined for the latter. Now, clearly you have to draw a line somewhere, but unlike say murder which is a 1 or a 0, basically these crimes are on a scale of gray, someone a few months shy of proper who engaged in consensual activity, then bragged about it is wildly different than a 12 yo who was highly coerced. Not saying he shouldn't be punished, but seems a bit much.

That said though, I guess just another example of inconsistent laws to not fuck around with, studies show texting while driving to be as bad or worse than legally drunk, but the consequence is basically just a fine.

Post: #13

The guy was always going to be made an example of.

His crime certainly doesn't warrant so long in gaol; but that's how it is though for the rich and famous...they either get off with things completely that others wouldn't or get sent to the stocks of public opinion for harsher punishment.

He's an idiot.

Post: #14

If this had been across the pond in Netherlands or Scandinavia, instead of going to prison for 6 years, he'd be legal.

Age of consent laws are arbitrary.

Post: #15

(03-26-2016 08:22 AM)griffinmill Wrote:  But I take your point that the law is the law.

But some law breakers are more equal than others it seems. This is the crux of the injustice here:

(03-26-2016 07:06 AM)griffinmill Wrote:  Juxtapose the harsh sentence of Adam Johnson (who never even had sex with his victim) with this case where a 30 year-old female teacher in the UK repeatedly raped a 15 year-old pupil. Adam Johnson received six years. She received community service and a £100 fine.

What the fuck is that? That's some 'common law'. Bare-faced declarations that women are 1st class citizens in the UK, and men are 2nd class. In seems that in the UK, criminals sit on the other side of the bench.

Imprisoning someone for 6 years for this, is an act of criminal violence and racial, sexual, and class discrimination. He would not have been attacked by the state so forcefully or eagerly for this, were he a woman (above case) or muslim (Rotherdam). His main crime was being an English male. May the elastic band of the evil and persecution perpetrated upon that group by the state snap sooner rather than later.

Post: #16

Post: #17

(03-26-2016 09:00 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  If this had been across the pond in Netherlands or Scandinavia, instead of going to prison for 6 years, he'd be legal.

Age of consent laws are arbitrary.

They were arbitrary a million years ago when they were written into law.

They are now well established as part of our cultural identities. One man's 16 is another's 15 is another's 14. Pretty soon you've got guys doing moral equivalence dances around their desire to fuck the kids in the McDonalds playground.

Some of the above posts are correct. The stupidity here is that worse offences get lesser sentences. That doesn't make this dickhead less culpable. It makes the rest of the assholes out there more so.

Post: #18

After searching age of consent laws, he should have immediately said "hell no" and cut off all contact. A brief review of the potentially life ending punishments (sex offender registry) should be enough to scare the shit out of anyone. It seems apparent that the sexually mature female wasn't emotionally damaged (she was bragging about the encounter), but this helps perpetuate the image of heterosexual men as evil predators.

Narrative: Men (evil predators who want to rape women) are effortless oppressing these poor, helpless women (who are equally strong and can do anything equally as well as men! We don't need men!)

The media who label him a Paedophile are deliberately misusing the word. It is defined as someone with a sexual preference for pre pubescent individuals (perhaps 10 and under). In reality it is a phenomena that is extremely rare, as there is no biological explanation for that preference. The root word (like Pediatrician) means child, which throughout much of history clearly meant a prepubescent child. There are dramatic differences between various stages of development, of which words have been specifically created to explain. Words such as adolescent explain an individual who is further along in their development towards reaching adulthood.

Menarche, or a woman's first menstrual cycle signifies that a woman has reached sexual maturity and may be capable of conceiving a child. Further signs of sexual development are the growth of breasts, and an increased ratio between the size of the waist and hips. This can vary based on their diet (if they are malnourished) and life history (those with absent fathers tend to reach menarche faster). Increased environmental exposure to (estrogenic) hormones may have sped up sexual development further.

In many if not most cultures in history, reaching menarche allowed a woman to enter into marriage. The age at which this occurred varied between women, but may have been reached by 12 years, and almost certainly by 15 years. If you are European and you look back in your genealogical record, I am almost certain you have female relatives that married at 15. In monogamous societies, the fertile window of the female partner limited the size of the family. Men wishing to build larger families would gain an advantage by finding a partner that was sexually mature and had a larger fertile window. Dangerous, physically burdensome tasks were often reserved for men, as women were physically weaker. The duties of women of ages past were much less physically burdensome compared to men. As such, the physical requirements to perform their expected duties as wives and mothers could be achieved shortly after reaching physical maturity.

From the biological reality explained above, it isn't unreasonable to speculate that there may be an inherent attraction, or at the very least a curiosity in sexually mature women that aren't yet legal adults common in most people. This would explain the phenomena of ephebophiles and hebephiles. If the media wanted to be accurate, Adam should be labeled an ephebophile who did some consensual (by her admission and actions, not legally) foreplay with a sexually mature adolescent.

But it is intentionally not labeled as such. That is why the words chosen are meant to elicit the strongest emotional response depending on the desired conclusion they want you to reach. With Adam's case, he will be labeled a pedophile who raped a child (when the most accurate description would be an ephebophile who touched a sexually mature adolescent) to perpetuate the image of men as evil rapist predators. Tellingly, women who engage in similar behavior with sexually mature adolescent men (who reach puberty later than women, often much later due to modern environmental estrogen exposure) are labeled as "having an affair (which is legally impossible, sexual intercourse with a minor is legally classified as rape) with their daughter's boyfriend" or some similar headline.

Historically normal male heterosexuality is being conflated with emotionally disturbing sexual deviancy. I have even seen men who date women that are legal adults but much younger than them being labeled as pedophiles, an absolutely laughable absurdity. A well established and recurring pattern across men of all ages is a peak attraction for women that are 20 years old.



This pattern will continue and only get worse as time progresses. Male heterosexuality will increasingly be shamed (i.e. fat acceptance), controlled, and legally sanctioned. Women desiring to enter into monogamous relationships will be forced to wait longer and longer for legal and economic reasons. They will be encouraged to ride the carousel and required to extend their education (cultural indoctrination) to survive in modern society.

Men will be discouraged from entering partnerships with women as they grow increasingly fat, crass, and emotionally detached. The state will prevent men and women from entering legally enforceable families:

Woman: "I know this arrangement is best for my long term happiness and the emotional well being of my future children. I know I can be emotionally volatile and make irrational decisions that I often regret later. I know I may act irrationally under certain conditions. I make this oath to stand by this man for the good of my and my children's well being in order to overcome my emotional volatility."

State: 'Impossible. We will tear any agreement asunder and make it legally unenforceable. The only option we allow is our option: any agreement is null and void, any partnership may be unilaterally destroyed.'

Social atomization will increase. The bonds between people will grow weaker, and the reliance on the state will grow.

Post: #19

Lots of folks here don't get it.
People can be stupid.
They are all the time.
Laws are not stupid.
They can not be.
Laws are what they are are.
Laws.
What kills people ? Guns or people shooting guns ?
Whining about laws being this or that won't change shit, and certainly not laws themselves.
Unless you're a member of your country's parliament, what you say or how you feel about laws doesn't matter.

"The system is biased against masculine heterosexual men."
"We're discriminated against. "
"We receive harsher sentences for lesser crimes "

Big news.

Aren't we all aware of it already?
Isn't it why we're all here ?
We've acknowledged the situation – pussy pass, witch hunt and all that.
It is pointless, and childish even, to keep complaining about it.

Who here still complains about the fact that fire burns ?

Does anyone want to say something about life being so unfair against us, masculine heterosexual men ?
Or maybe about its being unfair in general ?
Again, why are we here, using handles and avatars ?
There are people out there who live to hunt us down.

The problem isn't laws.
The problem isn't either that that Johnson guy is a young, rich and famous white heterosexual English man.
As long as any of us stays clear of the red line (i.e. doesn't do anything illegal), he can not be touched.

Men need to realize that, stop complaining and fucking get smart.

That is the problem – and the solution.

(03-26-2016 10:31 AM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  [...]

Social atomization will increase. The bonds between people will grow weaker, and the reliance on the state will grow.

That last post was particularly low energy.
Such a sociocultural disaster can only happen if you let it happen.
Have we given up yet ?

LaPD

Post: #20

This law is simply wrong, but he is an idiot. He pays a very heavy price for it, 6 years in jail + his career, which should be worth at least 10 000 000€.

Post: #21

He deserved to be convicted and do maybe like 6 months, 6 years is insane

Post: #22

(03-26-2016 01:31 PM)La Palta Divina Wrote:  Lots of folks here don't get it.
People can be stupid.
They are all the time.
Laws are not stupid.
They can not be.
Laws are what they are are.
Laws.

...

The problem isn't laws.
The problem isn't either that that Johnson guy is a young, rich and famous white heterosexual English man.
As long as any of us stays clear of the red line (i.e. doesn't do anything illegal), he can not be touched.

Men need to realize that, stop complaining and fucking get smart.

That is the problem – and the solution.

Such a sociocultural disaster can only happen if you let it happen.
Have we given up yet ?

LaPD

LaPD, I think you fundamentally misunderstand the discussion taking place around you. First you say that we must blindly accept unjust laws, then end with the notion that an unjust situation can only arise if we allow it. Which is it?

You go on to gaslight those attempting to have a discussion on the legal system in the west by saying it's just empty whining and complaining. What you said about following the law is already obvious to everyone. It adds zero value or insight to the discussion. No one here was suggesting that it's alright to break the law because it's unfair. On the contrary, everyone has been pointing out how stupid the man's actions were.

If anyone here is whining and complaining, it is you. If you don't wish to join in the discussion or you don't like it, no one is forcing you to stay here.

Getting back to the discussion, here is what it boils down to.

A law is a restriction on your freedom.

The ability to enforce a law and the severity of punishment for breaking a law varies considerably. We may not be able to control the laws, but we can control our actions based on the legal system surrounding us. Someone who understands the body of laws they're subject to can better understand the consequences of their actions and make decisions that greatly affect their lives as a result of them.

Discussing the injustice of the family law system is not complaining if it helps one man avoid the destruction of their by divorce and theft. Discussing the negative qualities of most Western women can be good if it helps one man set off for destinations where women are refreshingly warm and feminine.

From the time we are children, we are indoctrinated with concepts and imagery that is meant to guide our decisions in life. Our perception of risk is often vastly inaccurate, and it can be manipulated. This manipulation can cause men to be deathly afraid of irrational things (travel), and to give them a false sense of security on others (the fulfillment and stability of modern marriage). It can take men years, maybe decades, to break away from a lifetime of conditioning. Some never will.

In order to have control over our lives, we must understand the world around us and how we operate within it. A man who fails to understand the significance of his environment will fail to see the forest from the trees, and will navigate poorly in life. To blindly accept every injustice against as normal, as right and just is to accept the fate of a slave. A prisoner should begrudgingly serve his sentence, but he must not let the walls and bars entrap him grow comfortable. It is to accept defeat.

Quote:Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.

There are some things as men we must accept, and some that should stir a man to action. If it weren't for the men here reminding me of the shackles of the modern western environment and the death of our masculinity, I would have lived a much duller life, suffering in silent desperation like the rest of the masses.

I would have never gotten on that plane to explore a better world or gain a true appreciation of my own nature as a man. I would have never experienced the rush of wild sex with exotic beauties or the fulfilling warmth of a feminine woman. I would have never seen a surreal sunset on a remote island in the south Pacific, explored hidden lagoons, or sought adventure at every opportunity. I would have never pushed myself to learn and interact with other cultures, or experience the deep intellectual satisfaction of geopolitical discussion with men from all over the world. That is a gift I would never forsake.

Post: #23

He is stupid, but 6 years for this is particularly hypocritical when contrasted with the total lack of action concerning Rotherham.

Post: #24

I can feel sorry for this guy nor blame "arbitrary" laws.

He googled it, he knew it was illegal, yet he proceeded to break the law.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Plain and simple.

Post: #25

Quote:I can feel sorry for this guy nor blame "arbitrary" laws. He googled it, he knew it was illegal, yet he proceeded to break the law. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Plain and simple.

This is the same point I and others have made in this thread. The argument isn't "he should have been allowed to get away with it". The law is the law, and he was fully aware he was breaking it

The issue I have is with the sentencing when looking at other more serious cases like Rotherham - or female teachers raping their pupils and getting much more lenient sentences.

Also, it is an issue worth examining whether what he did constituted "grooming" a shrinking violet, or if he is legitimately a "paedophile", and it raises questions about the state being perhaps a little gung-ho in this prosecution when he never actually had sex with this girl.

To repeat, the debate is not about him being allowed to break the law.