Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    As others have said, he knew full well that what he was doing was against the law and that he knowingly ruined an otherwise stable relationship, so no excuses.. But i do roll my eyes at the self-righteous hysteria of the twitter mob.. F*******N PAEDO SCUM etc. Who's to say she didn't know exactly what she was getting into? Oh no wait, all girls have an epiphany of wisdom on their 16th birthday of course, so lets lynch him and lump him in the same box with Jimmy Saville. Most of the crimes that will get you a custodial are far worse that this... but come on Adam, you had it coming mate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomclarky)
    As others have said, he knew full well that what he was doing was against the law and that he knowingly ruined an otherwise stable relationship, so no excuses.. But i do roll my eyes at the self-righteous hysteria of the twitter mob.. F*******N PAEDO SCUM etc. Who's to say she didn't know exactly what she was getting into? Oh no wait, all girls have an epiphany of wisdom on their 16th birthday of course, so lets lynch him and lump him in the same box with Jimmy Saville. Most of the crimes that will get you a custodial are far worse that this... but come on Adam, you had it coming mate.
    This basically.


    What he did was illegal and as such he has correctly been punished, but people really do need to grow up given that he could literally have waited a few months and according to the law, it's all ok.


    In my opinion, it's worse that he cheated on his pregnant gf and no criminal charges are brought for such a thing.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    He broke the law, so yes he ought to be punished- I don't contest that.
    However I disagree with the way people are portraying the 15 year old as a child who is completely innocent and was unable to make decisions for herself. I'm sorry but at 15 you should be able to make informed decisions and know what's acceptable or not. The relationship was a two way thing. There were around 800 whatsapp messages said to be passed between the two of them, surely that implies that she was also into him and chose to continue the 'relationship'.
    I'm not saying I feel sorry for him,but I'm annoyed at how people think 15 year old girls are stupid easily manipulated kids who can't think for themselves.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Ffs https://twitter.com/awaydays_/status/705093683465560064 :lol:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    She was a football fan (season ticket holder) asking her idol for a signed football shirt. FFS. The sex talk was initiated by him and him alone. Probably she had a crush on him and that's why she went along with a kiss, but let's not pretend there was not a massive power imbalance here or that any of this was her idea.

    Oh and the picture you saw was probably of his girlfriend (it was at some point circulated as that of his accuser). The victim has anonymity and all that.
    The power imbalance wouldn't have vanished in a puff of smoke on her 16th birtbday.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    The power imbalance wouldn't have vanished in a puff of smoke on her 16th birtbday.
    So what? For what it's worth I think it would have been just as creepy if she had been 16 also. But she wasn't, and he knew it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Not necessarily a sexual deviant. Many sex offenders would not be considered sexually deviant, but they commit their acts for other reasons.
    Do you actually think this post makes sense? Honestly, no jokes or anything, do you really?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nameless Ghoul)
    Do you actually think this post makes sense? Honestly, no jokes or anything, do you really?
    Oh the irony.

    Yes. I clearly do not know what sexual deviancy means having studied sexual offending as part of my psychology degree course.... In order for an individual to be considered sexually deviant, they need to be aroused by the deviant behaviour itself. Still doesn't make sense?

    Let's look at sexual violence, in very broad terms there are two types of sexual violent offenders. One type is actually turned on by sexual violence, if you showed them a depiction of violent sex, they will become aroused. The other type of person who engages in violent sex does not necessarily find the violence itself arousing, but simply uses violence to get what they want, to overcome resistance. The first individual, is a sexual deviant, the second, is a person who has mental issues yes, but is not a sexual deviant because it is not the violence that makes the sex appealing.

    The same applies to child sex abuse. A proportion of child sex abusers are deviants, they hold a strong sexual preference for pre-pubescent children. However another proportion does not necessarily hold such a preference but they choose children over adults for numerous others reasons, for example children are weaker, easier to access, some feel they associate with children more than adults etc.

    Now I'm not saying that the non-deviants are any better, they also have mental problems. But they are not sexual deviants.


    So "do I actually think my post makes sense", yes, yes I do. Do you?
    I'm not really expecting a reply though tbh.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Oh the irony.

    Yes. I clearly do not know what sexual deviancy means having studied sexual offending as part of my psychology degree course.... In order for an individual to be considered sexually deviant, they need to be aroused by the deviant behaviour itself. Still doesn't make sense?

    Let's look at sexual violence, in very broad terms there are two types of sexual violent offenders. One type is actually turned on by sexual violence, if you showed them a depiction of violent sex, they will become aroused. The other type of person who engages in violent sex does not necessarily find the violence itself arousing, but simply uses violence to get what they want, to overcome resistance. The first individual, is a sexual deviant, the second, is a person who has mental issues yes, but is not a sexual deviant because it is not the violence that makes the sex appealing.

    The same applies to child sex abuse. A proportion of child sex abusers are deviants, they hold a strong sexual preference for pre-pubescent children. However another proportion does not necessarily hold such a preference but they choose children over adults for numerous others reasons, for example children are weaker, easier to access, some feel they associate with children more than adults etc.

    Now I'm not saying that the non-deviants are any better, they also have mental problems. But they are not sexual deviants.


    So "do I actually think my post makes sense", yes, yes I do. Do you?
    I'm not really expecting a reply though tbh.
    Firstly, what is your authority for the claim that sexual deviancy must involve arousal associated with deviant acts? Sexual deviancy is not a word oft used in psychology or psychiatry journals, so I do question the legitimacy of your definition here. The closest thing one will find in academia is "paraphilia". Paraphilia is defined by the DSM as, "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors generally involving (1) nonhuman objects, (2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or (3) children or other nonconsenting persons that occur over a period of 6 months". There is no need for sexual arousal.

    Secondly, we have seen the messages of this offender to the child. He talked sexually, expressing his sexual interest in her repeatedly, and intimated that whence they do finally have sex he would not last an inordinate amount of time. That tells us a lot about this offender. It makes him unlikely to be someone who merely gets a power trip out of his sadistic or humiliatory acts. I think you offered your insight unhelpfully to split hairs where hairs need not be split.

    Thirdly, I replied whether or not you expected it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    At 25 you are old enough to know there is no such thing as "true love". At 15, I'm not so sure. (I think the average age to lose your virginity is still 17 for girls, so most just-turned-15-year-olds probably have never even been in a serious relationship.) That's why I feel sorry for his victim but not his GF.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    At 25 you are old enough to know there is no such thing as "true love". At 15, I'm not so sure. (I think the average age to lose your virginity is still 17 for girls, so most just-turned-15-year-olds probably have never even been in a serious relationship.) That's why I feel sorry for his victim but not his GF.

    If the average age for a girl losing your virginity is 17 then I think it's fair to say that at 15 it is likely she has been in a serious relationship.

    Tbh I don't think anyone is arguing that the reason it is wrong is due to a one-year difference. It is wrong simply because he knew what he was doing was breaking the law and did it anyway.

    Arguments about power imbalances and maturity levels are fallacious since there are plenty of normal relationships between individuals with a large disparity in power, age and money. In this case the age difference is 13 years; I can give plenty of examples of famous couples with age differences greater than this.


    Overall, my opinion is that while of course the man committed a crime and should be punished this should be for a maximum not a minimum of 4 years in prison.

    If he actually had sex with her then of course it should be much higher than that, but kissing and touching is a much lesser offence and the sentence he is facing is similar to one for rape or sexual assault.

    To be honest I do feel a bit sorry for him due to his high sentence which will cause many people to think he is a sexual assailant so he will be seen as much worse than what he has done.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    Arguments about power imbalances and maturity levels are fallacious since there are plenty of normal relationships between individuals with a large disparity in power, age and money. In this case the age difference is 13 years; I can give plenty of examples of famous couples with age differences greater than this.
    And I bet they are older. We should be happy we can protect 15-year-olds from this sort of behaviour, not say "oh well, we can't protect 16-year-olds, so let's just make 15-year-olds a free for all too".
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    No, I don't feel sorry for him at all.

    It's not so much because of the girl's age that it annoys me, but more that it was an act of infidelity towards his partner; especially since she was pregnant with his child. Had the girl been 16 rather than 15, he may have escaped totally scot-free for that. So even though it's in a bit of a roundabout way, it's good that he's getting his comeuppance.

    In my opinion it's a little stupid that you can go to prison just for having sex with someone who's 15 years and 364 days old, but infidelity in a marital (or de facto marital) relationship, which can actually destroy families and ruin lives, that's totally fine, affected parties are expected to just bite their lips and live with it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    And I bet they are older. We should be happy we can protect 15-year-olds from this sort of behaviour, not say "oh well, we can't protect 16-year-olds, so let's just make 15-year-olds a free for all too".
    No-one should be a free-for all regardless of age. I think you focus too much on age as an independent factor.

    If the law didn't say 16 was the age of consent then there would be many people saying he's done nothing wrong. In other countries, the majority of people do say this and hence they have much younger ages of consent.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    No, I don't feel sorry for him at all.

    It's not so much because of the girl's age that it annoys me, but more that it was an act of infidelity towards his partner; especially since she was pregnant with his child. Had the girl been 16 rather than 15, he may have escaped totally scot-free for that. So even though it's in a bit of a roundabout way, it's good that he's getting his comeuppance.

    In my opinion it's a little stupid that you can go to prison just for having sex with someone who's 15 years and 364 days old, but infidelity in a marital (or de facto marital) relationship, which can actually destroy families and ruin lives, that's totally fine, affected parties are expected to just bite their lips and live with it.

    Yeah we live in a society where cheating on a partner or spouse is completely legal. So he should not be punished by the law just because he had a gf at the time.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    No-one should be a free-for all regardless of age. I think you focus too much on age as an independent factor.

    If the law didn't say 16 was the age of consent then there would be many people saying he's done nothing wrong. In other countries, the majority of people do say this and hence they have much younger ages of consent.
    I focus on age because I think life experience helps you deal with relationships. Someone who has gone through at least one serious relationship should be less likely to be conned by sweets (or football shirts and range rovers).

    And so what? IMO it would still be wrong. I don't care about the age of consent in other countries. I am happy that we can protect young teenagers in this country. I think that's a very good thing.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    Yeah we live in a society where cheating on a partner or spouse is completely legal. So he should not be punished by the law just because he had a gf at the time.
    Yeah but what I'm saying is, it's not right that it's completely legal. I believe people should be punished for it.

    So even though it's kind of harsh to punish on the basis of the girl being a few months too young in age, I don't feel sorry for him personally, because I don't think he's the kind of character that deserves to just walk away a free man.

    Of course in my view, he'd ideally be getting punished for his infidelity (along with everyone else who is unfaithful) rather than because of the girl's age.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    Yeah we live in a society where cheating on a partner or spouse is completely legal. So he should not be punished by the law just because he had a gf at the time.
    The law doesn't punish adultery. We would have to lock up half the population if it did. :lol:

    I really don't care that he cheated BTW; interestingly that leaves me completely indifferent. I'm also sure his girlfriend knew he was a serial cheat (his girlfriend before that dumped him for it). Most wags are probably in tacitly open relationships.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with Ladymusiclover but just to add also:

    Adam Johnson is 28 years of age and he was soliciting sexual activity from someone who was 15. Even if she was 16, would you honestly still not find that odd? She hasn't even finished growing and developing, mentally or physically.

    Why on God's earth was he remotely interested in some young girl when as a footballer, people would be flocking to him and he had a girlfriend who had just given birth to his daughter? Because she was impressionable and he could exploit her easily and he did.

    I think she herself as a young adult must take some responsibility as she was consenting and provocative but he should have known better. Much better.

    So, no, I wouldn't feel sorry for him at all and I don't know why you do.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    I focus on age because I think life experience helps you deal with relationships. Someone who has gone through at least one serious relationship should be less likely to be conned by sweets (or football shirts and range rovers).

    And so what? IMO it would still be wrong. I don't care about the age of consent in other countries. I am happy that we can protect young teenagers in this country. I think that's a very good thing.
    I think if you looked into it you'd find that age does not have a strong correlation with number of previous relationships as you think it does. There are many older people who have had just one relationship their entire life, and a 20 year old may have never had a relationship yet a 16 year old may have had several.

    'So what' is that your opinion is not the only one that matters in society and many people would not think it would be wrong if there was no law saying so.

    You are purposefully being vague. What's your definition of a 'young teenager'?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.