I Get Mail – Judgy Bitch


Judgy Bitch responded to my post on her “slut shaming victims” of the current paedophilia scandal in the UK and I figured it needed a response within a post.

Very interesting and thought provoking response. Thank you.

I would like to clarify a few things, if I may.

First of all, I used the pictures of the underage girls who look wildly different from their actual ages to illustrate the rationale behind the mistaken age defense that has been enacted by some states in the US.

However the article in question is in regards to the current scandal where  a variety of British celebrities turned out to be paedophiles having abused children often using their ties as presenters of children’s TV to acquire victims. Now you may not consider some of these children as victims but they are.

I don’t believe I ever claimed that any of the British celebrities were confused by the ages of the young women, not because I don’t think that’s possible, but rather because I simply haven’t studied the cases in any kind of detail.

Yet you chose to link a variety of British articles from the Daily Mail to your article. Either you didn’t read the articles you were quoting or you chose to use them knowing the context.

Whatever the reasons for you to support the actions of child molesters the fact remains the individuals whose examples you used were trusted people by an entire nation who abused the trust they had.

You state that when a 14 year old expresses a desire for consensual sex with a powerful man, the answer to that is always no.

Why is it no?

Because 14 year old kids are “fucking stupid” and shouldn’t be allowed control over such decisions because they are 14 and stupid. Now you may think you were pretty smart as a 14 year old but chances are you were stupider than you are now. 14 year old kids don’t have the development to grasp the issues with regards to sex. For the love of god, 14 year old kids treat babies like dolls. Why? Because they are still kids.

I understood surgery aged 15, doesn’t mean I should be given a scalpel.

It’s no for the same reason a 13 year old or a 12 year old or a 11 or a 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 year old cannot give permission for sex. Because they lack the mental capacity.

Because it’s illegal? Well, lowering the age of consent laws with the two provisions for age gap and mistaken age would address that.

Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right.

I mean we can solve drink driving by legalising it but that just lets people get away with drinking and driving.

Because it’s immoral? How so? Do you not believe 14 year olds are capable of agency? Or desire?

Because the desires of a 14 year old are not tempered with common sense. If 18 year olds regularly fuck up hard due to a lack of life experience then a 14 year old is more prone to fucking up. A 14 year old may desire ice cream for lunch however it is a bad parent that gives in to that desire.

And we don’t punish 14 year olds. We punish the adults who take advantage of them. Because 14 year olds are idiots.

Because it’s exploitive? Unnatural? Why is the answer always no?

Yes. Because 14 year olds are not fully matured as human  beings and cannot make decisions with a full understanding of why that decision is good or bad. Hence it is exploitative. If we let 14 year olds buy cars we would see them exploited. They are also appalling decision makers if not for parents.

So the answer is NO.

I was struck particularly by your observation that my arguments could be used to reframe men as natural pedophiles, the definition of which depends on the age of consent, no? Or do you have another definition you are using? That is very troubling, indeed.

Yet it is a correct observation where you assume men in power which is the whole “Alpha Male” bullshit flogged by people… that these men cannot say no to any sex offered to them.

Except they can and do. There are countless celebrities with hundreds of thousands of young fans who don’t fuck them. Even if 14 year olds throw themselves at you the correct thing to do as a responsible adult, decent human being and sensible person is to not say “Well! She started it!”

I am focusing more on the assertion that young woman DO have agency, particularly over their own desires, and that they CAN be held accountable for their actions. Obviously, there is tremendous variation in levels of maturity between individuals, but can you not agree that some very young women are rather mature and perfectly capable of handling sexual desire?

Young girls. No they are not. Statistically speaking most young girls are not mature. The very existence of Beiber Fever and Twilight scuttles your argument.

I’ll point you to Nikki McWatters for an example of that. And she is just one.

Indeed. However if Nikki McWatters was raped I have no doubts that you would be dancing with glee about her slutty ways and how she was trying to “fuck upwards” or acquire some alpha male dick or something equally vile.

I did not grow up in Great Britain, so I am not particularly familiar with the men involved in the scandal, and I have no wish to defend men who sexually exploited children. My question is whether a 15 year old trading favors with a much older celebrity is really a child. Where I live, 15 year olds can drive motor vehicles with another licensed driver in the car. That’s a pretty big responsibility. If they are capable of that, why are they not capable of choosing what sexual activities they will participate in, and under what circumstances?

They still cannot.

Teenage Drivers are one of the most likely groups to be involved in car accidents. They can drive, but they aren’t good at it. I don’t think 15 year olds should drive. I don’t consider most 15 year olds to be “smart” enough to drive and indeed make sensible decisions behind the wheel.

I mean  this is like saying “Well if Children Can Drive, then why can’t they go to war”. The two things are completely different. Now in the USA due to a chronic unwillingness to invest in public transport, people require cars to do pretty much anything. So a car is vital to mobility and independence. Sex for favours is highly exploitative of a child who doesn’t understand the repercussions of their actions and/or considers the repercussions harmless because they have a very naive (some may say child like) view of the world.

Now kids will experiment sexually  a lot and indeed many kids will exploit each  other but the level of exploitation is a lot lot less than some old paedophile with a crate of beer.

Your argument is an excuse for paedophiles.

Comments

  1. Ysanne says

    I’d also like to point out, especially to Judgy Bitch, that age of consent has very little to do with permission to take advantage of a young person.
    Example: Germany. Age of consent 14, but society is aware of and pretty much ok with 13-year-olds having sex. The concerns mostly center around “use a condom and do it correctly” and “don’t let someone pressure you into anything you’re not eager to do”. But there are laws protecting underage people who have sex, which explicitly make it illegal to take advantage of under-18s lack of judgement, e.g. trading sex for favours, exploiting a vulnerability, using one’s authority over a young person, etc. Just like teenagers can hold jobs but get special protection against being exploited by their employer.
    Because it is universally known and recognized that teenagers are mostly rubbish at making decisions about matters that are new to them, are naive and idealistic to no end, and that it is extremely easy for adults to manipulate and take advantage of them.
    Which is exactly what the men in question repeatedly and knowingly did without even the slightest concern about their victims’ wellbeing.

  2. fantysq (a Radical Feminist and a Militant Atheist) says

    It’s kinda odd to read these posts when you live in a country where 14 is the age of consent, hahh.

  3. Pen says

    Yet you chose to link a variety of British articles from the Daily Mail to your article.

    Not a good reference for a start.

    I wouldn’t support anything that would decriminalise what Saville et al were doing. At the very best they’re completely responsible for proposing something that could never benefit the other party in a situation where they wielded considerable power and authority. I think in many cases they were doing much worse than that. On the other hand I would prefer to see the staggered approach to the age of consent you get in many European countries where younger people can have sex with someone who is within a few years of their own age. When you say:

    It’s no for the same reason a 13 year old or a 12 year old or a 11 or a 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 year old cannot give permission for sex. Because they lack the mental capacity.

    You’re absolutely right of course, but that doesn’t take account of the fact that sexual maturity and sexual desire usually appear by the age of 14, often earlier. It’s not the same as driving a car because we don’t have a strong biological urge to do that. Those biological urges often drive young people to make choices far stupider that they would if their early relationships were better supported – like not use contraceptives, hide their relationships leaving them vulnerable if those relationships turn abusive, turn to older adults because those older adults have access to simple things like the privacy and transport that make it possible to hide a relationship.

  4. Charly Montaigne says

    For the Record:

    In Germany you can only have sex with a 14 year old if you are no more than 2 years older.
    And even having sex with 17 year olds is forbidden if the there is a power imbalance (teachers, employers, prostitution etc…)

  5. says

    As far as I can see, even if one changed the age of consent, up or down, you still should have statuatory rape/sexual assault laws protecting adolescents from adults, largely for the reasons Avicenna suggests: adolescents’ cognitive functions are still developing and they are vulnerable to exploitation by adults – especially when adults have social, political, economic, or coercive power.

  6. S Mukherjee says

    I don’t see why JudgyB is soooo concerned about lowering the age of sexual consent only, and not about lowering the age of voting, driving, having a credit card, gambling in casinos, etc.?

  7. says

    Sounds to me like Judgy Bitch is trying to seek permission to do something that is a profoundly bad idea. And most likely quite illegal where this person lives. On the order of “10 to 20 years” illegal.

    Judgy Bitch. Don’t do it. Stop. Seriously. Don’t.

    Why? Because it’s wrong. Morally, ethically, and legally. And if your morals and ethics are too loose to tell you this, then the “10 to 20 years in prison” threat should serve as an effective brake on your bad behavior.

    Is that clear enough?

  8. maudell says

    I can’t wait for Judgy’s big ranty outrage at MRAs who bring up the trivialization of older women having sex with 14 year old boys (“consensual” – statutory rape). While I think this is one of the rare good point from MRAs, I’m sure she’ll make me see the light with her airtight logic. She’ll make me understand why it’s the boy’s fault, and that he should be punished for his action, even though it seems fair to condemn the older woman in a position of power. Oh wait…

  9. Cera says

    On the “fifteen year olds can drive” point.

    It’s remarkably stupid. Yes, young people, with the express permission and participation of an adult, can do something where they are out of their depth.

    What the fuck does that have to do with sex? When they make permission slips for statutory rape it might be relevant. But it’s not right now, and permission slips are a terrible idea.

  10. MJ says

    Everything Judgy says here makes me feel queasy with disgust. Luckily her views on this issue are not widely shared. I got hit on by men in their twenties when I was 14 at parties I really shouldnt have attended at the time if it wasnt for my sister who also attended them and kept an eye on me and Judgy Bitch this is for you:

    I was flattered by these men and they would sometimes be tempted to take up their offers to ‘go for a ride’ and I say this with heavy emphasis. I was not so naive I thought these men wanted to just take me for a ride, I knew they were sexually interested despite full knowledge of my young age. However I was naive enough to think that if things went too fast for me that all I had to do was say no and that would be the end of it. Do you, Judgy Bitch really think that these men as old as 28 would have listened if I had? Do you honestly beleive they wouldnt have pressured me? Used the ‘what did you think I wanted to take you out for? teasing whore!’ argument and similar blackmailing shit? I really, really was that naive and if something had happened and I was pressured in to having sex I didn’t want the law would have protected me by the simple fact I was too young to consent by law.

    What do you think would have happened to me if that law wasn’t there? Well I got into the car didn’t I? I knew they were sexually interested didn’t I? Well then its he said, she said sorry no justice for you naive 14 year old girl. Judgy Bitch I beg you BEG you to reconsider your stance on this. If 14 year olds are ready for sex fine, they can have sex with other 14 year olds. But adults can abuse their position too much to use a few fine line cases as reason to leave the millions of other impressionable teenagers vulnerable to manipulation and abuse with no solid legal protection.

  11. Leni says

    So much creepiness, so little time.

    Even if some exceptionally mature 9-15 year olds were capable of giving informed consent in a meaningful way, and weren’t coerced, groomed, or otherwise exploited “with their consent”, that doesn’t mean it would be the norm. As far as I can tell, as can nearly anyone who has ever met humans (or pretty much any animal, for that matter) of this age range, they are called “juveniles” and “children” for very good reasons.

    What is not the exception are people of that age range who think they know everything. They don’t, but they won’t figure that out until they are older, which is why so many victims never say anything. They blame themselves for it. This is why we have those fucking laws. Because adults understand that kids won’t understand this until it’s too late and someone has abused them. We also know that other, unscrupulous adults know this, which is why the behavior is called “predatory”. Generally we don’t want that to happen and if it does, we want to prevent it from happening again, hence the whole laws and jail thing.

    Difficult concepts, I know.

    So that, JB, is why you are not helping. You are essentially arguing that we take the exceptions and treat them as if they are the norm, and in such a way that just so happens to favor predators and opportunists who have every reason to not only exploit vulnerable children and teens, but now just the very excuses they need to justify their predatory behavior.

    Why would that ever seem like a good idea to you? And why would you think posting disturbingly sexualized pictures of children and young teens was a good argument for your case?

    Example: Some people seem to think they are pro drunk drivers when their blood alcohol is >0.1 % (assuming they really are much better than average at driving while drunk, which is a stupid assumption to make at all and requires believing someone who is probably full of shit. And possibly drunk.), but that doesn’t mean that nearly all of the rest of us aren’t impaired at 0.08% or even lower.

    Guess what? We are. Because most of us are average, not exceptional. It’s a reasonable baseline. It doesn’t have to be 100% applicable in every single case to be reasonable standard. And for the exceptions? Well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Doctored photographs of 13 year old models are not extraordinary evidence.

    And this part is just downright fucking creepy:

    I was struck particularly by your observation that my arguments could be used to reframe men as natural pedophiles, the definition of which depends on the age of consent, no?

    Pedophilic behavior is “defined” by the age of consent? Since fucking when? Pedophiles want to fuck children. Not pre-teens. Not teens. Children.

    Apparently, if we just lower the age of consent to birth, voila! Problem solved! No more predatory behavior, no more persecuted child molesters. Everybody wins!

    What. The. Ever-loving. Fuck o.0

  12. drbunsen, le savant fous says

    And even having sex with 17 year olds is forbidden if the there is a power imbalance (teachers, employers, prostitution etc…)

    It would be fair to describe being the host of a TV show on which the child is appearing (or hopes to appear) as a similar type of power imbalance.

  13. drbunsen, le savant fous says

    The main impression I get from Judgy Bitch’s spiteful ranting is that she sees these 14 year old “whore/gold-digger/groupies” as competition.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>