The Moral Maze - Age of Consent

[KentVillan]

34 minutes ago, Genie said:

How do we know that? If it’s true that £35k was handed over I would assume it was partly hush money. 

I think the onlyfans comment was just a hypothetical, I don’t think this lad was selling pictures on onlyfans.

Sextortion is a major problem now, and it doesn't always imply the person being sextorted is guilty of anything illegal or immoral. Often it's just raw embarrassment.

The OnlyFans thing has come from loosely ITK sources, not a hypothetical, but not 100% sure if true.

Edited July 11, 2023 by KentVillan

[foreveryoung]

Apparently parliament are legally allowed to discuss behind closed doors,  so it will be out in the open in a couple of days no worries. 

[AlwaysAVFC]

14 minutes ago, Chindie said:

If a wealthy individual wants to pay an 18yo for dirty pics and the 18yo is alright with it its nobody's business but theirs.

 

Absolutely correct, however I can't fathom why anyone remotely famous would do it, without anonymity at least. The thrill of being caught? There seems so much to lose in terms of reputation, a risk of blackmail and damaging relationships even if you takeaway any moral/legal issues. 

[bickster]

Just now, foreveryoung said:

Apparently parliament are legally allowed to discuss behind closed doors,  so it will be out in the open in a couple of days no worries. 

An MP could name him in the chamber if they wanted to and be protected by parliamentary privilege

I think they'd expect to be vilified for it so expect Lee Anderson or someone to step up to the plate any time soon. 

[Davkaus]

Just now, bickster said:

An MP could name him in the chamber if they wanted to and be protected by parliamentary privilege

I think they'd expect to be vilified for it so expect Lee Anderson or someone to step up to the plate any time soon. 

I think there'd be an increasing need for reform for parliamentary privilege if someone abuses it in the same way, tbh. The intent of parliamentary privilege is to remove obstacles to the genuine work of the legislature body, not for them to be able to defame people with impunity just to make a point.

[Genie]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

An MP could name him in the chamber if they wanted to and be protected by parliamentary privilege

I think they'd expect to be vilified for it so expect Lee Anderson or someone to step up to the plate any time soon. 

Someone named Ryan Giggs in Parliament when there was a similar “whodunnit” going on in the media. At least it gets it all out in the open without threats of legal repercussions, and attacks on people not involved. 

[StefanAVFC]

So any salary paid to any individual working for any government agency or anything government funded should not be used for anything remotely seedy? 
 

clearings in the woods 

[KentVillan]

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

So any salary paid to any individual working for any government agency or anything government funded should not be used for anything remotely seedy? 
 

clearings in the woods 

The level of idiocy involved in making that remark. Breathtaking.

It's not our money once it's in his bank account you tit.

[StefanAVFC]

6 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

The level of idiocy involved in making that remark. Breathtaking.

It's not our money once it's in his bank account you tit.

A nurse's salary is actually our money, durrr

[foreveryoung]

9 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

So any salary paid to any individual working for any government agency or anything government funded should not be used for anything remotely seedy? 
 

clearings in the woods 

I guess Nicola McLean has got some experience in this subject. 

[Mark Albrighton]

1 hour ago, bobzy said:

OK.

The person involved is 18, and the BBC employee is Piers Morgan instead. He’s not getting backlash on here?

For what it’s worth, Piers Morgan is an antagonistic individual. That’s his stock in trade. 

So if it was he was involved in something like this, of course it would be a different reaction. There would be a sense of “Now it’s your turn in the pillory, Piers…” A taste of their own medicine as it were.

In this case, the person who it’s rumoured to be - I’m not sure anyone has had any opinion on their personal life before. As far as I’m aware they’re not an attention seeking gobshite like Morgan so there is less schadenfreude to be had. 

The bigger prick you are, the more people are going to enjoy a fall from grace, essentially.

On the subject of difference in ages - and assuming the youngest party is 18 - I don’t have a set stance on it. 

Is it acceptable for a 35 year old to date an 18 year old? What about a 25 year old dating an 18 year old? Where is the line?

Or what about a 60 year old dating a 35 year old? It’s a bigger age gap but the younger party has had a bit of life experience so they’re probably less naive.

And is it only older men dating younger women that’s morally questionable? Barbara Windsor was 26 years older than her husband. But I’m betting that people found that inherently less creepy than than if the roles had been reversed. They might comment on the age gap between Windsor and her fella, make jokes, but I bet there was less of a predator style rhetoric surrounding it.

Some age differences seem worse than others to me, but because there’s a grey area there’s not a catch all answer.

[bobzy]

2 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

On the subject of difference in ages - and assuming the youngest party is 18 - I don’t have a set stance on it. 

Is it acceptable for a 35 year old to date an 18 year old? What about a 25 year old dating an 18 year old? Where is the line?

Or what about a 60 year old dating a 35 year old? It’s a bigger age gap but the younger party has had a bit of life experience so they’re probably less naive.

And is it only older men dating younger women that’s morally questionable? Barbara Windsor was 26 years older than her husband. But I’m betting that people found that inherently less creepy than than if the roles had been reversed. They might comment on the age gap between Windsor and her fella, make jokes, but I bet there was less of a predator style rhetoric surrounding it.

Some age differences seem worse than others to me, but because there’s a grey area there’s not a catch all answer.

Oh, the scale absolutely moves up as one gets older. There’s probably a point where someone is just an adult and it wouldn’t seem that odd (to me), but there’s not a defined range in my head. Even before adulthood it varies. A 16 year old dating an 11 year old would be **** up, but it’s a relatively small pure age gap. So yeah, it absolutely shifts as the parties get older themselves (in my eyes).

As I mentioned, as a 36 year old, 18 year olds look/act/essentially are like children. I wouldn’t have held the same view as a, say, 22 year old.

So, as you asked, is it “acceptable” for a 35 year old to be dating an 18 year old? In my eyes, no. I’d be questioning what the **** that 35 year old is all about. 60 vs 35? Yes, probably “acceptable” to me - bit weird, but very much two adults who would (presumably) look like they were adults too…

…and yeah, I think men dating younger is both a) much more prevalent and b) more morally questionable because of the… I suppose possible predatory nature that a man could possess versus a role reversal. The power (non-mental) a man can hold over a woman is greater than vice versa.

[GarethRDR]

18 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

Where is the line?

Half your age plus 7.

[KentVillan]

Has there been any suggestion at all that they dated / had a relationship, beyond sharing some photos with each other online?

I think people are projecting the grooming thing on to this when it doesn't look like anything of the sort has happened. The age gap becomes much less relevant when it's effectively just adult entertainment (IMO).

Not saying it isn't seedy, just not sure you can draw the line here easily without criminalising or scandalising a lot of fairly innocent, consensual interactions.

We're in similar territory here to a 50-year-old man visiting a strip club or looking at PornHub?

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Whose morals are you judging this by?

The "morally wrong" argument is usually used by people who don't like something that somebody else has done but know they've done nothing legally wrong

Are we back on the Bairstow stumping merry go round again?

[StefanAVFC]

What about a 30+ year old paying for an 18 year old escort in a country where it's legal?

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

It most definitely isn't an observation in my opinion.

 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Demitri_C

[bobzy]

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

What about a 30+ year old paying for an 18 year old escort in a country where it's legal?

I’d be questioning what the **** the 30+ year old is doing, and would consider it “wrong” in my eyes if nothing illegal.

But then, I don’t get why anyone 30+ want to be with someone who, essentially, is as young as possible. It’s weird. 

Edited July 11, 2023 by bobzy

[KentVillan]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

What about a 30+ year old paying for an 18 year old escort in a country where it's legal?

A bit grim, and I'd worry about the potential harm the 18 year old escort might come to mentally and physically. Depends on the vulnerability of the escort, although I'd tend to assume that any 18 year old doing something like this is almost certainly vulnerable.

I think it's a level above selling a few photos.

But society has to draw a line somewhere, and I guess when you're 18 you're an adult and entitled to make your own decisions about what you do for a living.

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I’d be questioning what the **** the 30+ year old is doing, and would consider it “wrong” in my eyes if nothing illegal.

But then, I don’t get why anyone 30+ want to be with someone who, essentially, is as young as possible. It’s weird. 

 

1 minute ago, KentVillan said:

A bit grim, and I'd worry about the potential harm the 18 year old escort might come to mentally and physically. Depends on the vulnerability of the escort, although I'd tend to assume that any 18 year old doing something like this is almost certainly vulnerable.

I think it's a level above selling a few photos.

But society has to draw a line somewhere, and I guess when you're 18 you're an adult and entitled to make your own decisions about what you do for a living.

Not from a personal moral perspective, but from a 'destroying life' perspective?