Why Jeremy Forrest was right to fall in love with an underage girl

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 [1] 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!

[1] – The Rind Study  ‘A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Articles, Men's Rights, Paedohysteria, Youth Rights. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Why Jeremy Forrest was right to fall in love with an underage girl

  1. Pingback: MHRA clueless about sex laws: AvoiceForMen victimizes boys | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception

  2. mr p says:

    Hi we have spoke before under a different pseudonym,I’m with you on abolishing the age of consent,but like anything changes have to be taken in small steps,what about 10,12,or 13,even barbra hewson mentioned 13,at least that’s going in the right direction,but that wont happen yet,things will get worse before they get better,but as TOC said in his intro,raging infernos eventually burn themselves out.
    I saw the cleg and farage interview,I remember him saying it’s beggars belief that anybody in the 21st century would appose gay marriage
    when two people are in love,and then went on to call forest a “monster”now that was truly shocking.

    Remember forests “victim”is of legal age now,what does she make of it all now i wonder?

  3. holocaust21 says:

    Well I just get so pissed off with all the stupidity that I prefer to say it like it really is. Barbara Hewson has done a great job of bringing some sort of public debate back regarding the age of consent. But if we just go along these lines of ‘lowering it’ then that means there is always an argument for raising it. We need to start thinking about the issue differently. Perhaps leading onto an even bigger rethink of the entire legal and social framework.

    For instance, perhaps the solution is to get away from this mindset that states:
    If there’s an argument that X implies Y and Y is bad then both X and Y should be banned (or as is more commonly the case, X is banned even more than Y). So to give an example the argument goes that sex with a child implies violence and violence is bad thus both sex with a child and violence should be banned. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it leads to injustice as in the Jeremy Forrest case. And that’s probably always a likely risk unless X => Y is shown mathematically (as opposed to via fake evidence, obscure arguments, rhetoric and prejudice). Thus we should really only be banning Y and if a prosecutor believes that they can show X happened and X implies Y then they better put the X implies Y argument before a jury and give the defense a chance to respond and show it to be crap.

    One of the reasons some people don’t like to use the abolish age of consent argument is they get scared that they will get the sex-with-a-baby-is-obviously-always-rape-argument. Even many self proclaimed ‘pro-paedophile’ activists believe this. However, the trouble is that a cunning prosecutor can easily turn harmless nappy changing into sexual assault as the two can be kind of indistinguishable except for the thought crime part. Restricting the law to violent acts only solves all of this problem.

    Of course we can also then get onto the philosophy over why laws are necessary (if at all) and for what purpose they exist. Do they exist to protect ‘innocent’ (is anyone innocent?) people? Or do they exist to protect the powerful? Or is it both? Or is it neither? What is an appropriate punishment? And so on…

    Oh dear now you got me writing an essay… 🙂

    Anyway, back to the point. Yes Clegg is a horrible doublethink hypocrite. Orwell warned of people like him!

    As for what the school girl thinks now:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2555585/Schoolgirl-16-fled-France-jailed-teacher-Jeremy-Forrest-sent-three-love-notes-saying-wants-freed.html

    She still isn’t quite of legal age because social workers, who as you can see elsewhere on my site are responsible for acts of violence against children, have stopped her from seeing him until she is 18.

    In any case, for every accusation that they can throw at me I can throw one back. Their laws are now so sick even feminists will struggle to justify them such as, for example, ‘Sexual Risk Orders’ which effectively abolish trials.

  4. Anonymous age 72 says:

    I am a retired North American living in the mountains of the Central Highlands of Mexico. The village is where my wife was born and raised, so her family treats me like family.

    Her first cousin told me a story that around 37 years ago a 12 year old girl in my neighborhood became pregnant with a 25 year old man.

    Let me review the law in Mexico. Some time ago, a female moron reporter for the NYT wrote that age of consent in Mexico is 12, which is pure garbage, albeit what one would expect of the NYT.

    Actually, before age 12 it is a police issue, with up to 40 years in prison, though one assumes the larger sentence would be more toward rape of babies.

    After age 12, it is up to the girl or her parents. The prosecutor cannot touch the case unless the girl or her parents/guardians file a complaint. The issue is not the sex, but a thing called estupro, which I believe basically means dirty tricks of some sort.

    From age 12 until age 14, if a complaint is filed, the only possible defense is the sex never happened, because in that age bracket, estupro is the legal presumption and there is no defense against it

    After the 14th birthday, estupro must be proven, and a defense is possible. My interpretation is no one would ever go to jail for sex with a 14-18 year old who says openly it was consensual

    Of course, in Mexico, in that age bracket, the fear would be affluent parents who pay the judge to over-look the testimony of the girl. Or, an angry dad with a machete…

    So, what led the moron NYT reporter astray was the fact that after age 12, it is no longer the business of the prosecutors or police. It becomes what could be called a family matter. The family evaluates the circumstances and is allowed to make the decision based on what is best for the girl; the baby; the man; and the family who would be tasked with caring for her and her other babies if he goes to prison.

    In the case of my neighbor woman, it was an issue of who was going to support that girl and her impending baby. They discussed it with her and the man, and they both agreed they would happily be man and wife. So, let the guy who knocked her up go to work every day and take care of their financial needs. Sure sounds optimal to me.

    So, they have been together all these years, and successfully raised not one, but three kids to be responsible citizens, At no expense to the tax payers or her parents.

    The only fly in the ointment was, she was definitely a hot-blooded little wench and over the years has had her way with nearly all the neighbor men. Heh, heh. The cousin who told me this declines to identify her…

    Compare that to our superior system, [sarcasm] in which he would have gone to prison for a lot of years; her parents and the taxpayers would be stuck with the costs for her and however many other kids she had by how many hundreds of men.

    Yet, the U.S. views its silly, stupid system as highly superior.

    One of the arguments is that she needs to finish her education. This makes sense, I guess. A girl who is sexually active at 15 if allowed to be an unwed mother will just naturally become a Rhodes Scholar and probably discover the cure for cancer.

    • holocaust21 says:

      Interesting insight into Mexico. Mexico seems to have been remarkably resillient to feminism (I wonder why?). Though unfortunately the way things are going I imagine it is only a matter of time until the brutal reality of feminism reaches there too. Look what they did in Spain recently when they raised the age of consent from 13 to 16. And it had already been previously raised from 12 to 13 in 1999.

      • Anonymous age 72 says:

        I can only report my personal observations and opinions. For feminism to take over a society, women need options. The welfare check in the USA constitutes a substitute husband.

        Women get as independent as a ‘hog on ice’ if they know someone or something will take care of them, if they dump their husband. No matter how badly an AW acts, that welfare check is like money in the bank, and they all know it.

        A friend, a mature, intelligent woman, says they have DV laws in Mexico. (In fact, they have almost all the standard feminist laws; DV; marital rape; sex abuse; no-fault divorce only in Mexico City; on demand abortion but only for the first three months and also only in Mexico City) And, once in a while, a man slaps his wife around, USUALLY WHEN HE IS DRINKING AND SHE FORGETS TO KEEP HER MOUTH SHUT!

        If she complains, the police will indeed come and trot him off to jail.

        About three days later, the food supply runs low, and she realizes, “Oh, crud. No one is working! We are going to die of hunger.”

        And, runs back to the police and asks them to let him loose to go to work. Then, since she knows his first order of business when he gets out, she runs home and hides under the bed.

        Which does her no good at all. And, she does not run back to the cops again, ever. And all her friends get the message.

        Without the substitute husband, women with children do not take the absence of a husband as a good thing.

        And, since other women counsel common sense survival, there is simply no mechanism to fully activate a woman’s inner bitch as there is in the USA.

        And, Mexico simply does not have, and is never expected to have enough money for the substitute husand programs.

        Ditto for the Central American countries.

        I do not, however, recommend marrying women from those places and taking them back to the US. A former illegal woman told me it takes about 2 or 3 years for foreign women to become as messed up as AW.

  5. Pingback: "Police did not want to appear racist", thus let 1400 children be abused over 15 years | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception

  6. mean says:

    Afriad to post ny comments you worthless pedo scum? Fucking weak coward. If me or any other men I know saw trying to mess with our daughers, we would kick your ass. You need to be killed in prison for your crimes against children. It is clear by your blog you rape little girls, watch cp and have no remorse.

    • holocaust21 says:

      Your post is a perfect example of why I do NOT approve your comments. Your criminal death threats and libel against me means you will not find a platform here for your vile views.

  7. Alan Vaughn says:

    @mean
    You’re not fooling anyone here. You are a blatant ‘PAEDO’ yourself. What you’re trying to do with your vile death threats and slander against the host of this blog, is one of the oldest tricks going, used by all kinds of sexual deviants such as yourself. (Of course you’re really BIG & TOUGH when you can hide behind a screen and keyboard).
    😀
    Here’s how the trick and your tiny, stupid, paedo mind is supposed to work: You publicly point your accusing finger at other men, while LOUDLY calling them ‘paedophiles’, ‘perverts’, ‘deviants’ etc., in a PATHETIC, childlike attempt to divert other people’s attention away from your OWN sexual interest in (real) children – i.e. pre-pubescent.
    Much like the old ‘gay bashers’ of a couple of decades ago, (when gays were the persecuted witches, now it’s ‘paedos’). Almost all of those gay bashers were found to be homosexuals themselves, but obviously didn’t want ‘normal’ people to know they were, so pretended to hate gays. Thus, just as you’re doing now: they pointed their accusing fingers at them and also like you: threatened to kill them and often did and of course, hunted them down and beat them senseless. And just like what you’re trying to prove here with your hate mail above: their behaviour didn’t fool very many… Most people, in fact knew they were beating gays in an effort to hide their own homosexual desires. They were proving only that they hated the TRUTH about THEMSELVES. In the same way YOU hate the truth about YOURSELF Mr ‘mean’.

    If you really do have a young daughter (or daughters), it must be quite hard difficult for you to contain your lustful thoughts towards her / them… I feel sorry for you.

    Nobody here (except you), has any interest in pre-pubescent kids, which is what the real definition of paedophilia is all about, but of course you already know about that you stupid, feminist fearing, ignorant paedocrite

    Oh yes, nearly forgot: not only are you obviously a paedophile, you’re also retarded with an IQ under 90, so I’ll try to explain, in the simplest way I can, what that word means:
    The term Paedocrite refers to a man like yourself, who is a paedophile, but is also a hypocrite because he accuses other men of being paedophiles in a childish effort to make the rest of the world think he is NOT one.
    No go away and fap-off to some manga porn (depicting 6 or 7 y/o fornicating Elves and Pixies) – your threats don’t worry us.
    YOU are obviously the frightened one here, as YOU have a lot of dark secrets to hide. In contrast, Holocaust 21 has NOTHING to hide, which is one of many reasons why this blog exists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s