The Student Room Group

Two young girls raped by 6 footballers

Scroll to see replies

Original post by missygeorgia
Of course there is- slut isn't a purely descriptive word, it's an insult. It's inherently judgemental.


Yes, judging a 12 year old who initiated sex with someone, and who wasn't even a virgin when she did so. :p:
Reply 261
Original post by Stefan1991
There is no evidence that they were scarred for life. The trial and proceedings they had to go through probably did more damage.


Ask a rape victim about the effect of rape. Then ask her about the effect of raping a child. It's much, much more serious than even murder.
Reply 262
this is crazy. the sluts should get locked up.
Original post by Stefan1991
I don't see how it's disgusting JUST in case a child might be produced? The chances of that happening to someone both using a condom and on the pill is close to nill. You can just as easily become pregnant from having sex with one person and no protection, so the amount of people using your logic is irrelevant.



Most? Some maybe? But not all.



There is no evidence that they were scarred for life. The trial and proceedings they had to go through probably did more damage.


Did I say JUST? No I ****ing didn't. Stop twisting every bloody thing I say. It's not like everyone uses protection you know, especially pills and condoms together. The point is that it would be very difficult to know who the father is, did you not read that part of what I said? Because that was my point.

I suppose you know all about 12 year old girls sexual feelings don't you, you paedo.
Reply 264
Original post by Picaa
Ask a rape victim about the effect of rape. Then ask her about the effect of raping a child. It's much, much more serious than even murder.


:facepalm:
I think it's disgusting that you are trying to compare real violent coerced brutal rape to sex between people who clearly consenting. That's an insult to all rape victims.
Reply 265
Original post by pippa90
Did I say JUST? No I ****ing didn't. Stop twisting every bloody thing I say. It's not like everyone uses protection you know, especially pills and condoms together. The point is that it would be very difficult to know who the father is, did you not read that part of what I said? Because that was my point.

I suppose you know all about 12 year old girls sexual feelings don't you, you paedo.

So you think it's disgusting whether they use contraception or not, because some people sometimes don't use contraception? That's illogical.
Original post by Picaa
Ask a rape victim about the effect of rape. Then ask her about the effect of raping a child. It's much, much more serious than even murder.


It's not like the men forced themselves on the girl. SHE INITIATED IT.
Reply 267
Original post by imperial maniac
It's not like the men forced themselves on the girl. SHE INITIATED IT.


So when this 12 year old flirted and 'led' on the gang of 6 men, at some point she obviously felt it was out of control and asked them to stop. They didn't stop. They, like everyone, are expected to have self-control and 'no' means 'no', especially in the case of a 12 year old kid. By the way I am a man.
Original post by Stefan1991
So you think it's disgusting whether they use contraception or not, because some people sometimes don't use contraception? That's illogical.


Yes I do still think it's disgusting whether they use it or not, and no not because some people sometimes don't use it. The pregnancy and not knowing who the father is thing was just another reason. Genitalia are called 'private parts' for a reason, they aren't for the whole world to see and use! We're meant to be a civilised society, not a bunch of wild animals that **** whoever they like the look of :rolleyes:
Reply 269
It is rape, they were underage, however, they are so disgustingly stupid for doing that, I mean, a twelve year old doesn't normally go around lying about their age for sex...:mad:
I find it really hard to be sorry for the boys. What they did was wrong on so many levels. Even if the girls were 16, taking turns to do what they did in public shows the level of respect they have for women. And the one who have a 12yo sister wasn't thinking that that could of been his sisget did he? they're all as bad as each other, now just imagine what they will do if they made it to the big leagues and start making real money.
Original post by Picaa
So when this 12 year old flirted and 'led' on the gang of 6 men, at some point she obviously felt it was out of control and asked them to stop. They didn't stop. They, like everyone, are expected to have self-control and 'no' means 'no', especially in the case of a 12 year old kid. By the way I am a man.


It doesn't say that in the report, you're just making stuff up now, the girl never asked them to stop.
Reply 272
Original post by pippa90
Yes I do still think it's disgusting whether they use it or not, and no not because some people sometimes don't use it. The pregnancy and not knowing who the father is thing was just another reason.


Ok so if that's not your main reason, what is? You just keep evading the question.

Original post by pippa90

Genitalia are called 'private parts' for a reason, they aren't for the whole world to see and use!


:facepalm:

Nobody except people like you call them 'private parts'. You sound like an immature 8 year old frankly.

You can't tell me what I can and can't do with my own body, you can do whatever you want with yours but it's your opinion if you think your genitalia is something to be ashamed of!

I'm not ashamed of the natural body I was born with and see no reason why I, or anyone else, should be.

Original post by pippa90

We're meant to be a civilised society, not a bunch of wild animals that **** whoever they like the look of :rolleyes:

I think you've fallen into the fallacy of thinking that just because we wear clothes we must be civilised. If anything that is backward thinking. Just because we wear clothes it doesn't make us any different from the animals we are. Clothes are there to keep us warm, nothing else.

What's wrong with someone ****ing anyone they like the look of if they want to aswell? Does that not fit into your antiquated idea of what being "civilised" is? :lol:

Being civilised is having respect and empathy for your common man, not your idea, which is trying to distance ourselves from animals, repressing our sexuality and pretending we aren't something we are as much as possible, that is just denying who we really are.
There's a big physical difference wteen a 12 year old and a 16 year old! There's no way you wouldn't notice.
Reply 274
Original post by imperial maniac
It doesn't say that in the report, you're just making stuff up now, the girl never asked them to stop.


Even if she didn't tell them to stop, she didn't have the mental maturity to consent to sex as she was only 12. It's obviously not normal for a girl to invite a bunch of guys she fancies to run a train on her in a shed or somewhere public like that. Why didn't alarm bells ring in their heads? It's not everyday that a football team will get offered to do such unusual things. Some people are immature or lack the basic common sense to make decisions like that for themselves, e.g. the mentally handicapped and minors. That's when responsible adults need to have the initiative to protect the vulnerable or at desist from taking advantage of their immature proclivities. We have a responsibility as a society to protect the children. If we can't even do that, then we're ****ed.
Original post by Picaa
Even if she didn't tell them to stop, she didn't have the mental maturity to consent to sex as she was only 12. It's obviously not normal for a girl to invite a bunch of guys she fancies to run a train on her in a shed or somewhere public like that. Why didn't alarm bells ring in their heads? It's not everyday that a football team will get offered to do such unusual things. Some people are immature or lack the basic common sense to make decisions like that for themselves, e.g. the mentally handicapped and minors. That's when responsible adults need to have the initiative to protect the vulnerable or at desist from taking advantage of their immature proclivities. We have a responsibility as a society to protect the children. If we can't even do that, then we're ****ed.


There are a lot of teenage slags, a quick internet search will verify this.

If a bunch testosterone fuelled guys are offered sex by someone who they think is legal, they aren't going to turn it down, sorry, but that's the world we live in.
Reply 276
Original post by imperial maniac
There are a lot of teenage slags, a quick internet search will verify this.

If a bunch testosterone fuelled guys are offered sex by someone who they think is legal, they aren't going to turn it down, sorry, but that's the world we live in.


We all have natural urges but sometimes we are expected to put the brakes on. This is one of those scenarios. As they were found guilty, the court ruled in this case that they were either negligent or they knew in their minds that the girl was underaged. If the jury thought they were genuinely innocent in their minds, they would not have been convicted. It's not like a 17 year old buying alcohol from a shop because they look 18, where the shop is guilty of supplying them the alcohol and could lose their licence even if they genuinely thought the person was 18. It's a serious crime and there has to be recklessness or a positive intention to commit it, otherwise the accused is not guilty.
Reply 277
I feel sorry for the guys...

If the girls truly did look 16, truly were ASKING for it with 100% consent, how many people can honestly say they'd ask for proof of age? If they didn't look quite 16 which is more likely, then the guys were probably irresponsible but still, if a girl who looks CLOSE/POSSIBLY 16 was asking for it with full consent, are you really expecting to end up in jail for it? I dislike how the news report likes to call it 'rape' every 10 words - yes, that's what it's classed as, but most readers will just see the word and assume the girls didn't consent, when they clearly did...

I think the parents are the most to blame
Original post by Picaa
We all have natural urges but sometimes we are expected to put the brakes on. This is one of those scenarios. As they were found guilty, the court ruled in this case that they were either negligent or they knew in their minds that the girl was underaged. If the jury thought they were genuinely innocent in their minds, they would not have been convicted. It's not like a 17 year old buying alcohol from a shop because they look 18, where the shop is guilty of supplying them the alcohol and could lose their licence even if they genuinely thought the person was 18. It's a serious crime and there has to be recklessness or a positive intention to commit it, otherwise the accused is not guilty.


The entire point of the thread is to discuss whether the jury was correct.

Saying "the jury were correct as they must be correct because they're the jury so the sentence is justified" is just backward.

It's almost exactly like the alcohol scenario, you seem to think that the girls didn't enjoy themselves at all, girls do crave sex too, a common misconception these days. One of the 12 year olds wasn't a virgin at the time... The girls asked these men for sex directly, the men didn't force themselves upon them.
Reply 279
Original post by Picaa
As they were found guilty, the court ruled in this case that they were either negligent or they knew in their minds that the girl was underaged. If the jury thought they were genuinely innocent in their minds, they would not have been convicted.

That's incorrect. Having sex with a 12 year old is illegal even if you think they are over 16. So yes, they would have been convicted even if the jury thought they genuinely believed the girls to be over the age of consent.

There was a case a few months ago when a 19 year old was convicted for having sex with a 12 year old. All evidence pointed to the fact that he honestly thought she was 16. By the sounds of it the judge was convinced he believed she was 16, but had to follow the law and convict him anyway. The judge actually seemed pretty sympathetic and gave him the minimum sentence.

Quick Reply