Tuesday, 18 December 2012

Don't You Know That It's Different For Girls?

A man who had a six-month fling with a teenage girl has been spared jail.
Cue hired mouthpiece!
Robert Duval, defending, said "Mr Friendship's life had been wrecked by his actions and now he could not even get employment as a cleaner as a result."
He told the judge: "He has never been in trouble in any way, shape or form in his life before these events.
"It is to his credit that he has been as frank as he has to the sexual relationship that has taken place.
"Had he not done so it is probable, although not certain, that he would not have been prosecuted and this matter would have made no news and he would not have appeared in the dock of a crown court in this country. He was not obliged to do that and he has been courageous for doing that.
"This was a genuine case of infatuation. This was not a case of exploitation and there is no evidence of coercion or sophistication or manipulation." Mr Duval added:
"The effects of this case upon him are irretrievable – they are permanent, they are punitive and they are humiliating and distressing."
Wow!

Note: one or two details might have got a bit mixed up...

One to ponder on when you read the next tawdry 'revelations' in the Savile case, eh?

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

No details in that article about how old the teenager was. 13? 15? 18? I can understand why the 'poor wee mite' did not assist the Police in any way. He must have thought it was Christmas Day and his birthday all rolled into one whenever she took her knickers off. Here he had a knowledgeable woman who could show him how to please a female sexual partner instead of learning the hard way, with the usual fumbling and groping of normal teenagers (we've all been there, so you know what I'm talking about). Most male teenagers are led around by their balls anyway and for someone to willingly show him where to put them can only be a bonus, both for him and any future sexual relationships he has. Before anyone gets on the "what if it was the other way around" bandwagon, it wasn't the other way around. Men are said to be naturally, and genetically, polygamous in seeking partners with whom they can deposit their seed while women are monogamous in receiving that seed and raising any fruits of that liaison. Men can have sex without romance, while woman require romance (or strong drink if they live in Newcastle) to have sex. There is a great deal of difference in men grooming young women for sex, usually with other men, and a mature woman having a sexual laison with a young man who she finds attractive. I bet that once the lad's name becomes known, females of all ages will br flocking round him like bees to honey.

Tatty said...

Doesn't matter which way round it is it's still wrong. You can save the appearance of a high-falutin' discussion on sexuality and stay the fuck away from my kids until they're legal.

What kids get up between themselves is an entirely different subject and THIS all boils down to the fact that it's illegal, she knew it and must take responsibility..

Y'know, as the adult.

Jim said...

All that might very well be true Anon, but for decades now the feminists have been preaching 'equality' and so it shouldn't be a defence in cases like this that 'It doesn't have the same effects on boys'.

What this woman did was statutory rape (assuming the lad was under 16, or under her responsibility if older). A man doing the same would do actual time, not get a suspended sentence. Remember Graham Rix? The Chelsea assistant manager? He did 6 months for having sex with a 15 yo he picked up in a nightclub. He had no idea she was underage. Yet he did time for it.

If 'Its different for boys' is a legit argument for cases like this, I expect it to be used similarly in other areas of society. How about equal pay? Lets say you have male and female employees, and the male ones produce more than the female ones at the same job (not unusual if the job is physical labour). Can we pay them more because 'Its different for boys'?

Able said...

Anon

I'm afraid you are confusing social/cultural norms/mores (and purely 'western' ones at that) with genetics.

A little basic anthropological research and you would see that monogamy of both males and females has nothing whatsoever to do with genetics (both monogamy and polygamy have genetic advantages/disadvantages for both genders as well as social/cultural).

As to 'sex and romance', yet again you seem to be making cultural assumptions. The assumption that women 'need flowers and a candle-lit dinner to be able to have sex' shows more of your own social/cultural 'baggage' (and in my personal opinion, not in a bad way). The difference is 'only' that you assume a boy would be happy/brag about such an occurrence whilst a girl would feel ashamed/unhappy, a fallacious assumption based on cultural expectations and not in reality (some girls have always and will always target, yes females initiate sex/relationships too, the act with 'older' men for whatever personal/social/economic/cultural reasons).

The fact remains, as Tatty said, the act is culturally and legally forbidden. That a woman is treated differently when found guilty of the act is based on the view that men are predators and women victims (a fact that the feminists should, but never, challenge since it gives them exactly what they want - special treatment/status for women) and in this case patently wrong.

Just Sayin'

Twenty_Rothmans said...

Robert Duval, defending, said
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning - oh, sorry, Mrs Friendship's life had been wrecked by her actions and now she could not even get employment as a cleaner as a result."


She looks like a scrubber to me.

@ Anonymous
Yes, we'd have all been lining up for it. But women want equality, right?

I do not mind if they change the laws to allow underage boys to be plied with alcohol (in her case, a fair whack, although she doesn't look like a BBW at least) and screwed until their knobs resemble HB pencils.

The cynic in me thinks that our homosexual friends would also be very happy at such an arrangement.

Oh Jim and Able, I see you got here before me, and did a better job.

JuliaM said...

" I can understand why the 'poor wee mite' did not assist the Police in any way. He must have thought it was Christmas Day and his birthday all rolled into one whenever she took her knickers off."

Well, I guess at that age, you don't look at the mantelpiece when you are stoking the fire...

"Y'know, as the adult. "

A modern adult. So many of whom seem to think and behave like teenagers.

"...for decades now the feminists have been preaching 'equality' and so it shouldn't be a defence in cases like this that 'It doesn't have the same effects on boys'."

Spot on!