The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
You may or may not be aware of the UK headlines today. Shevaun Pennington, a 12-year-old girl from Wigan, has run off to France with 31-year-old Toby Studebaker, a former US marine. Apparently the two of them met over the Internet, both pretended that they were in their late teens, and at least one of the two met with the other with thoughts of marriage and children on their minds.
Though it's sorely tempting to comment on the fact that, if a US marine can't tell the difference between a 12 year old girl and a 19 year old woman then what chance have they got distinguishing between an Iraqi civilian and an Iraqi guerilla, I'll leave that subject alone for now. I'll also tactfully avoid mentioning just how disappointed the two 'teenagers' must have been upon first seeing each other in the flesh;
"Gee, you look young for 19"
'Yeah, uh...I'm very petite. Um...you look old for your age. In fact, you look as old as my dad'
"Well...you've seen Dawson’s Creek; all teenagers look at least 21, right?"
'Well...I suppose so...fancy going to Paris?'
Instead I'd rather like to spend a bit of time looking at people's reactions to this story. After all, this is a story that has paedophilia at its centre by pretty much anyone's standards. So whilst the papers are, for once, acting with a certain amount of restraint in that the overwhelming tone of the reports is concern for Shevaun's safety, one would expect the general public to be horrified at this soldier for taking advantage of a naive young girl. One may expect the baying for his blood to begin shortly, and in earnest. One would be wrong.
Maybe it's the "If I don't laugh, I'll cry" defence kicking in, but the main reaction as near as I can tell is "Jesus, look at the STATE of her! I mean, Christ, is he so desperate to get laid that he'll take a statutory rape charge in order to have sex with a kid who looks like she would be improved by having a Siamese twin conjoined to her head?!" Maybe that's a trifle harsh (or maybe my friends and I have just got too vivid and unpleasant an imagination...), but nobody seems to be taking this particularly seriously at all. So why not? How come a man can get beaten up in this country for having the same name as a paedophile, but someone who travels over 3000 miles in order to have sex with a 12-year-old girl becomes the subject of bawdy contempt, if not jocular sympathy?
Well, as the full story of what has happened is not known, there's going to be a certain amount of unsubstantiated guesswork going on here, so bear with me. As I've mentioned, the picture of Shevaun that was released to the media is...well, it's less than flattering. The poor girl is not an oil painting, as many have commented on. Well here's a thing; she's only a child, so why the hell SHOULD she have to have model good looks? I rather though that the point here is that she shouldn't have to worry about whether or not she'll be seen as attractive to a 31 year old, yet we're sniggering and making derogatory comments about someone who is a victim in this situation. I don't get it; I mean, when Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were abducted and murdered, no-one was going "Yeah well, a couple of blondes in footy shirts...I mean, any man would, wouldn't they?".
She's just a child, and as such she shouldn't be expected to worry about how sexually attractive she is. Yet here she is, running off with a man whom she doubtless intends to have a sexual relationship with. So whose fault is that? Is it hers, for lying to a man and leading him on? Is it his for taking advantage of someone who is clearly just a kid? Or is it something more? Well, here is where the guesswork comes in; I would say it's about 1% the first explanation, 49% the second, and 50% something else entirely. If this girls photo has caused disbelieving mirth among all and sundry, it's doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to accept that she quite probably got an equal amount of grief at school. After all, we were all schoolkids once and I'm sure we can all recall the abuse heaped upon the ugly girl in our class, and all in the name of ensuring that whomever it was getting picked on, if it wasn't us then who cares? I know I never gave a damn, just so long as my peers weren't laughing at me.
Well, if we can understand that Shevaun was almost certainly on the receiving end of teasing and bullying about, among other things, her looks then why on earth are we so surprised that she's ran off with someone who most likely showered her with compliments and bolstered her ego by telling her how much he liked her? Again I must stress, this is no more than me guessing as to the circumstances, but it doesn't sound so unbelievable does it? Yes, Studebaker is pretty much without doubt a predatory paedophile and as such he richly deserves to have his testes nailed to the inside wall of a Tiger enclosure at the zoo. But what about the fact that she was driven part of the way into his arms? I'm not talking about the specific individuals who teased her, but the fact that (and you all knew this was coming...) society allows it.
Speaking as someone who, if you allow me a moment of uncharacteristic boastfulness, has raised the use of vitriol and bile to something like an art form, it may seems very strange that I'm bemoaning the fact that it was probably teasing that drove Shevaun into this deeply unpleasant situation. And I should clarify, I'm not expecting kids to stop belittling each any time soon; that’s just part of growing up. But I am expecting society as a whole to take a bit more interest in making young people feel valued. There have been enough foaming tabloid rants about what we should do to protect our children from paedophiles. Surely we should start a little closer to home, and try and arm our kids with a greater sense of self worth, so that the honeyed words of a sick b*****d won’t tempt them to throw away their childhood in exchange for underage sex and mental scarring.
Though it's sorely tempting to comment on the fact that, if a US marine can't tell the difference between a 12 year old girl and a 19 year old woman then what chance have they got distinguishing between an Iraqi civilian and an Iraqi guerilla, I'll leave that subject alone for now. I'll also tactfully avoid mentioning just how disappointed the two 'teenagers' must have been upon first seeing each other in the flesh;
"Gee, you look young for 19"
'Yeah, uh...I'm very petite. Um...you look old for your age. In fact, you look as old as my dad'
"Well...you've seen Dawson’s Creek; all teenagers look at least 21, right?"
'Well...I suppose so...fancy going to Paris?'
Instead I'd rather like to spend a bit of time looking at people's reactions to this story. After all, this is a story that has paedophilia at its centre by pretty much anyone's standards. So whilst the papers are, for once, acting with a certain amount of restraint in that the overwhelming tone of the reports is concern for Shevaun's safety, one would expect the general public to be horrified at this soldier for taking advantage of a naive young girl. One may expect the baying for his blood to begin shortly, and in earnest. One would be wrong.
Maybe it's the "If I don't laugh, I'll cry" defence kicking in, but the main reaction as near as I can tell is "Jesus, look at the STATE of her! I mean, Christ, is he so desperate to get laid that he'll take a statutory rape charge in order to have sex with a kid who looks like she would be improved by having a Siamese twin conjoined to her head?!" Maybe that's a trifle harsh (or maybe my friends and I have just got too vivid and unpleasant an imagination...), but nobody seems to be taking this particularly seriously at all. So why not? How come a man can get beaten up in this country for having the same name as a paedophile, but someone who travels over 3000 miles in order to have sex with a 12-year-old girl becomes the subject of bawdy contempt, if not jocular sympathy?
Well, as the full story of what has happened is not known, there's going to be a certain amount of unsubstantiated guesswork going on here, so bear with me. As I've mentioned, the picture of Shevaun that was released to the media is...well, it's less than flattering. The poor girl is not an oil painting, as many have commented on. Well here's a thing; she's only a child, so why the hell SHOULD she have to have model good looks? I rather though that the point here is that she shouldn't have to worry about whether or not she'll be seen as attractive to a 31 year old, yet we're sniggering and making derogatory comments about someone who is a victim in this situation. I don't get it; I mean, when Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were abducted and murdered, no-one was going "Yeah well, a couple of blondes in footy shirts...I mean, any man would, wouldn't they?".
She's just a child, and as such she shouldn't be expected to worry about how sexually attractive she is. Yet here she is, running off with a man whom she doubtless intends to have a sexual relationship with. So whose fault is that? Is it hers, for lying to a man and leading him on? Is it his for taking advantage of someone who is clearly just a kid? Or is it something more? Well, here is where the guesswork comes in; I would say it's about 1% the first explanation, 49% the second, and 50% something else entirely. If this girls photo has caused disbelieving mirth among all and sundry, it's doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to accept that she quite probably got an equal amount of grief at school. After all, we were all schoolkids once and I'm sure we can all recall the abuse heaped upon the ugly girl in our class, and all in the name of ensuring that whomever it was getting picked on, if it wasn't us then who cares? I know I never gave a damn, just so long as my peers weren't laughing at me.
Well, if we can understand that Shevaun was almost certainly on the receiving end of teasing and bullying about, among other things, her looks then why on earth are we so surprised that she's ran off with someone who most likely showered her with compliments and bolstered her ego by telling her how much he liked her? Again I must stress, this is no more than me guessing as to the circumstances, but it doesn't sound so unbelievable does it? Yes, Studebaker is pretty much without doubt a predatory paedophile and as such he richly deserves to have his testes nailed to the inside wall of a Tiger enclosure at the zoo. But what about the fact that she was driven part of the way into his arms? I'm not talking about the specific individuals who teased her, but the fact that (and you all knew this was coming...) society allows it.
Speaking as someone who, if you allow me a moment of uncharacteristic boastfulness, has raised the use of vitriol and bile to something like an art form, it may seems very strange that I'm bemoaning the fact that it was probably teasing that drove Shevaun into this deeply unpleasant situation. And I should clarify, I'm not expecting kids to stop belittling each any time soon; that’s just part of growing up. But I am expecting society as a whole to take a bit more interest in making young people feel valued. There have been enough foaming tabloid rants about what we should do to protect our children from paedophiles. Surely we should start a little closer to home, and try and arm our kids with a greater sense of self worth, so that the honeyed words of a sick b*****d won’t tempt them to throw away their childhood in exchange for underage sex and mental scarring.
Page:
I'm sure I'll be able to forgive you (in time).
Blank wrote:
> Huh? I never said that!
Doh! Sorry...that was for Miserableman.
> Huh? I never said that!
Doh! Sorry...that was for Miserableman.
I like the heirachy tabloids employ when describing women:
Stunning Sarah Smith: she's a very attractive lady
Pretty Rachael Taylor: nice looking; perhaps has a nice body but average face
Busty Leana Malone: average looking girl but has big norks. Could be a plumper.
Plain Jane Grahams: not an ugmonster
Ugmonster Judy Nelson: bottom of the gene pool.
Stunning Sarah Smith: she's a very attractive lady
Pretty Rachael Taylor: nice looking; perhaps has a nice body but average face
Busty Leana Malone: average looking girl but has big norks. Could be a plumper.
Plain Jane Grahams: not an ugmonster
Ugmonster Judy Nelson: bottom of the gene pool.
Is it just me who sees the picture of the marine on the phone and instantly hears:
"Cor, what you wearin', daarlin'?"
In a very growling cockney accent?
"Cor, what you wearin', daarlin'?"
In a very growling cockney accent?
I'll tell you why they've disappeared...
Because he told his mates she was a "stunna", now it's all over the internet and his mates are wetting themselves, he's too ashamed to come back home.
They'll be on a kibbutz somewhere.
Imagine (when you get older) having one of those "Oh I didn't did I?" mornings, only to find your pic and hers all over the national papers...
Because he told his mates she was a "stunna", now it's all over the internet and his mates are wetting themselves, he's too ashamed to come back home.
They'll be on a kibbutz somewhere.
Imagine (when you get older) having one of those "Oh I didn't did I?" mornings, only to find your pic and hers all over the national papers...
Light wrote:
so he's quite probably rather messed up himself.
> But
> then, I've never met a paedophile that wasn't.)
lol. How any paedophiles have you met?
It's scary because I used to use the internet when I was 12-13. I used to go in chatrooms and I would regularly receive messages from men. Some were probably pretending to be 14-15 years old, but others openly said that they were middle aged and liked 'young girls.' I ignored them and I am safe now (thank goodness!)
What we have to remember is that this girl is only a child. Also (bless her) she is not the prettiest girl, and was probably flattered by this older man taking an interest in her. Sure, she is probably not the innocent little child she is being made out to be, but if the bloke had any sense, he would have got back on that plane back to the USA once he saw that she was 12 (if indeed she did deceive him that she was 19- which I don't believe.)
Chances are, they will never turn up now because the man will be too scared of public repercussions and the girl will be scared of getting in trouble with her parents.
so he's quite probably rather messed up himself.
> But
> then, I've never met a paedophile that wasn't.)
lol. How any paedophiles have you met?
It's scary because I used to use the internet when I was 12-13. I used to go in chatrooms and I would regularly receive messages from men. Some were probably pretending to be 14-15 years old, but others openly said that they were middle aged and liked 'young girls.' I ignored them and I am safe now (thank goodness!)
What we have to remember is that this girl is only a child. Also (bless her) she is not the prettiest girl, and was probably flattered by this older man taking an interest in her. Sure, she is probably not the innocent little child she is being made out to be, but if the bloke had any sense, he would have got back on that plane back to the USA once he saw that she was 12 (if indeed she did deceive him that she was 19- which I don't believe.)
Chances are, they will never turn up now because the man will be too scared of public repercussions and the girl will be scared of getting in trouble with her parents.
*scans Light's post*
I'm guessing he meant Miserableman?
Server being weird.
Or you *are* Miserable, and I'm Belldandy.
But who is the masked stranger??
I'm guessing he meant Miserableman?
Server being weird.
Or you *are* Miserable, and I'm Belldandy.
But who is the masked stranger??
Huh? I never said that!
Blank wrote:
> If you're guessing, then please refrain from using ignorant,
> inflammatory phrases and innuendo all throughout whatever the post was
> about. Even the thread title contains significant bias as to what
> actually happened.
Oh for fu...what, so I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the matter? And
the title was put there for no other reason than I found it funny.
Jesus...now who's got the Daily Mail gene? You're committing the same crime
I frequently do; having such a strong opinion on a subject that you become
utterly humourless.
> If you can't guess without jumping to several
> conclusions throughout your post (don't ask me to point them out, I'll
> be here all day).
Um...there's no need to mate; I point out where the assumptions are myself.
In the original post.
Even in this post I'm replying you claim a Marine
> has 'preyed' upon a younger girl - have you considered the girl
> definetly lied about her age, and god-knows what else? You don't know
> the facts, I don't know the facts, the only difference is I don't jump
> up to start accusing people of being internet paedophiles. That is why
> I find your original post so infuriating, whatever the actual point
> you may be making is.
Okay, fair enough; I've read things that infuriate me to the point of not
actually being able to consider what the actual point is, so I can see where
you're coming from.
However, as far as I can tell you're criticising me for holding the opinion
I do. Again, that's not a problem to me. But here's a thing; a 31 year old
man (who, by the way, has been charged with sexual misconduct involving his
niece, then also aged 12, and according to The Times. "He was also
investigated over allegations that he gave a nine-year-old girl a sex lotion
but officers decided that no offence had been committed." In fairness to
you, I didn't mention that in my initial post. In fairness to him, his wife
I died of leukemia so he's quite probably rather messed up himself. But
then, I've never met a paedophile that wasn't.) meets a clearly underage
girl and leaves the country with her. Okay, I'm making assumptions (again
I'll make it clear; I've said from the off that it's not more than
guesswork), but don't you think it's a pretty logical assumption to make?
Ignore the fact that they got into contact via the net; they met in the
flesh and it will have been obvious to all but the most desperately in need
of a shag that she is a kid.
>
>
> You couldn't care, therefore you don't understand - I've seen several
> internet relationships form in my time, I've seen how powerful they
> can be so I'm in a better position than you to grasp exactly why a 31
> year old marine might decide to run off with a girl he's never met in
> person.
Umm...okay, so based purely on their meetings over the internet, I'm with
you all the way. As you say, people can form friendships over the net that
they wouldn't perhaps have formed face to face. But they met in the flesh.
And she's SO obviously nothing more than a child. So...how does that make
his running off with her acceptable?
> If you don't care to acknowledge this factor, then again, I
> implore you to refrain from commenting about the situation as a whole.
Why in the hell not?! You clearly didn't know about the charges of sexual
impropriety levelled against this man, yet you've commented on the situation
as a whole. And I applaud you for doing so; at least you HAVE an opinion
beyond the usual morass of "Yeah, whatever" apathy that seems to be the
defining characteristic of anyone below 40 these days. But you seem to be
saying that I shouldn't express, or even be allowed, to have an opinion on
the matter. Which, frankly, is absolute toss. Look, calm down and read it
again; I'm not, repeat not, condemning the internet, or relationships formed
over the internet. What do I have to say to convince you of that?
I would suggest that it would be more accurate to say that you implore me to
refrain from expressing an opinion that differs so wildly from your own that
it angers you. And again, I don't have a problem with your saying that.
However, if everyone were to censor themselves on that basis...well, there
wouldn't be many web boards around, would there?
> If you're guessing, then please refrain from using ignorant,
> inflammatory phrases and innuendo all throughout whatever the post was
> about. Even the thread title contains significant bias as to what
> actually happened.
Oh for fu...what, so I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the matter? And
the title was put there for no other reason than I found it funny.
Jesus...now who's got the Daily Mail gene? You're committing the same crime
I frequently do; having such a strong opinion on a subject that you become
utterly humourless.
> If you can't guess without jumping to several
> conclusions throughout your post (don't ask me to point them out, I'll
> be here all day).
Um...there's no need to mate; I point out where the assumptions are myself.
In the original post.
Even in this post I'm replying you claim a Marine
> has 'preyed' upon a younger girl - have you considered the girl
> definetly lied about her age, and god-knows what else? You don't know
> the facts, I don't know the facts, the only difference is I don't jump
> up to start accusing people of being internet paedophiles. That is why
> I find your original post so infuriating, whatever the actual point
> you may be making is.
Okay, fair enough; I've read things that infuriate me to the point of not
actually being able to consider what the actual point is, so I can see where
you're coming from.
However, as far as I can tell you're criticising me for holding the opinion
I do. Again, that's not a problem to me. But here's a thing; a 31 year old
man (who, by the way, has been charged with sexual misconduct involving his
niece, then also aged 12, and according to The Times. "He was also
investigated over allegations that he gave a nine-year-old girl a sex lotion
but officers decided that no offence had been committed." In fairness to
you, I didn't mention that in my initial post. In fairness to him, his wife
I died of leukemia so he's quite probably rather messed up himself. But
then, I've never met a paedophile that wasn't.) meets a clearly underage
girl and leaves the country with her. Okay, I'm making assumptions (again
I'll make it clear; I've said from the off that it's not more than
guesswork), but don't you think it's a pretty logical assumption to make?
Ignore the fact that they got into contact via the net; they met in the
flesh and it will have been obvious to all but the most desperately in need
of a shag that she is a kid.
>
>
> You couldn't care, therefore you don't understand - I've seen several
> internet relationships form in my time, I've seen how powerful they
> can be so I'm in a better position than you to grasp exactly why a 31
> year old marine might decide to run off with a girl he's never met in
> person.
Umm...okay, so based purely on their meetings over the internet, I'm with
you all the way. As you say, people can form friendships over the net that
they wouldn't perhaps have formed face to face. But they met in the flesh.
And she's SO obviously nothing more than a child. So...how does that make
his running off with her acceptable?
> If you don't care to acknowledge this factor, then again, I
> implore you to refrain from commenting about the situation as a whole.
Why in the hell not?! You clearly didn't know about the charges of sexual
impropriety levelled against this man, yet you've commented on the situation
as a whole. And I applaud you for doing so; at least you HAVE an opinion
beyond the usual morass of "Yeah, whatever" apathy that seems to be the
defining characteristic of anyone below 40 these days. But you seem to be
saying that I shouldn't express, or even be allowed, to have an opinion on
the matter. Which, frankly, is absolute toss. Look, calm down and read it
again; I'm not, repeat not, condemning the internet, or relationships formed
over the internet. What do I have to say to convince you of that?
I would suggest that it would be more accurate to say that you implore me to
refrain from expressing an opinion that differs so wildly from your own that
it angers you. And again, I don't have a problem with your saying that.
However, if everyone were to censor themselves on that basis...well, there
wouldn't be many web boards around, would there?
I've tried, really tried to be sympathetic here but I just can't.
She's clever enough to keep this charade going for almost a year, plan the trip, get a passport at 12, save money etc so she's aware of the dangers.
And Miserableman, my argument isn't so much that her parents should have controlled her, more that she's a tool and it's no great loss.
Sorry if that sounds harsh and cruel, but I am so that's how it comes out.
She's clever enough to keep this charade going for almost a year, plan the trip, get a passport at 12, save money etc so she's aware of the dangers.
And Miserableman, my argument isn't so much that her parents should have controlled her, more that she's a tool and it's no great loss.
Sorry if that sounds harsh and cruel, but I am so that's how it comes out.
Page: