I write this sometime after the teacher Jeremy Forrest was jailed for a barbaric 5.5 years for a completely consensual relationship with a 15 year old girl. The reason I do so is that I am angered. There is a complete lack of anyone publicly discussing how wrong the prosecution was.
Infact, quite the opposite, some people are even using the case as an example of a dangerous predator. For example, Nick Clegg, the illiberal sack of shit, used the example of Jeremy Forrest to highlight how wonderful the european arrest warrant is in the Farage vs Clegg debate on British television.
The fact is the relationship was consensual, the girl has always said it was consensual. Humans need love and Jeremy Forrest made the right decision to offer that to her. Those who deny others the right to have relationships should, quite frankly, not be allowed to have relationships themselves.
I’m now going to refute the main arguments that puritans use to justify their criminal
injustice justice system.
1. The girl was 15. The law says should can’t consent therefore it is rape.
This is nonsensical tautological reasoning in which the argument is rigged to always be true. Using this argument a Nazi can argue that Jews are subhuman because the law says they are subhuman. Homophobes can argue that homosexuals are deviant because the law says they are deviant. The argument also tries to appeal to ‘doublethink’ whereby the use of the word rape makes people see in their minds a girl being subjected to extreme levels of violence including genital injury when in reality they are looking at someone who has not been injured and has strongly indicated her consent.
2. Teachers should not have sexual relationships with pupils because it is a place of learning not a brothel. It may also result in academic favoritism.
This argument can be made for just about any other situation as well. Relationships between university lecturers and their students should be banned as well by this logic. Relationships between workers and their bosses should be banned. Infact any sexual relationship at work should be banned. Indeed this is actually an idea that the radical feminists are trying to do. If this is globally actioned then how exactly is one able to find a relationship at all? Surely people should be allowed to have a relationship with whoever they find they get on with. Furthermore schools, colleges, universities and work places should not be made dreary miserable places just for the sake of it; they should strive to be as enjoyable as possible and integrate with life, which means genuine friendly social interactions with students, teachers, colleagues and bosses. If certain conversations and behaviours are not allowed then it no longer becomes friendly, it becomes a hostile and fake environment.
3. The imbalance of power in the relationship means she is likely to have been coerced.
There is an imbalance of power in any meaningful relationship. A poor person who marries a rich person is in an ‘unbalanced’ relationship. A person who was educated at Oxbridge and marries someone who never went to university is in an ‘unbalanced’ relationship. A person who is big and marries someone who is small is in an ‘unbalanced’ relationship. The fact is we can go on and on and show that all relationships are infact an imbalance of power and thus ‘abusive’. Stating that something IS abusive when you have no reason to believe that other than prejudice is NOT a valid viewpoint. In the Jeremy Forrest case the girl has been quite clear all along, even after he was jailed, that it was consensual. It is ridiculous to assume otherwise and completely contrary to the rule of law to send people to prison based on what they might do rather than what they have done.
4. Relationships between adults and youths are abusive in most cases. The law is there to protect those individuals.
Firstly, abuse is not the same as protection. Prison is abuse. Thus sending a man to prison is not the same as protecting someone. Protecting implies being defensive and thus it sounds honorable but what the State is doing is not defensive but offensive, it is hounding people down and jailing them for acts which may not have caused any harm.
Secondly and more importantly, the Rind  meta-study showed that negative experiences from so-called ‘child sexual abuse’ as defined by law (in other words including both consensual and non-consensual acts) are uncommon. It also demonstrated a correlation between the use of force and negative experiences. This should be obvious to anyone with a brain. Shockingly, under our current sentencing regime consent and the lack of force are no longer taken into account.
The conclusion? Free Jeremy Forrest and the millions of other men worldwide who have been jailed under puritanical sex laws!