The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Miserableman wrote:
> Like I said, it's very easy to be the General after the war. From the
> news sources it seems this girl could be pretty slippery and the
> parents don't have much experience with computers. Standing behind
> your child while they're on the internet for 5 hours a day isn't a
> practical option for most parents.
You're ignoring what I'm saying - if they don't anything about computers or the internet, then they certainly should let their children on it AT ALL. They obviously knew of the dangers, because things like this have happened before. To say "We knew nothing about it" is not an excuse that lets them off, but another criticism of them.
They wouldn't have to spend five hours a day behind them - don't let your child go on for that long, don't give them their own username. If you can access your child's username you can tell if they've created an alternate account with another company, you can access their recently deleted emails. And make it known to them that you do so - will they still be likely to try something like this?
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to have some lunch and watch Taxi.
> Like I said, it's very easy to be the General after the war. From the
> news sources it seems this girl could be pretty slippery and the
> parents don't have much experience with computers. Standing behind
> your child while they're on the internet for 5 hours a day isn't a
> practical option for most parents.
You're ignoring what I'm saying - if they don't anything about computers or the internet, then they certainly should let their children on it AT ALL. They obviously knew of the dangers, because things like this have happened before. To say "We knew nothing about it" is not an excuse that lets them off, but another criticism of them.
They wouldn't have to spend five hours a day behind them - don't let your child go on for that long, don't give them their own username. If you can access your child's username you can tell if they've created an alternate account with another company, you can access their recently deleted emails. And make it known to them that you do so - will they still be likely to try something like this?
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to have some lunch and watch Taxi.
Blank wrote:
> Miserableman - I'm not saying it's easy to monitor what your child
> does online. What I AM saying is that it's possible. My Mum did it
> with me and my sister - she didn't give us our own usernames, she
> watched over us online etc etc. It's no good saying "Yeah, you
> can go on the internet, but don't give out our addres" the first
> time she goes on, because it's not enough. You have to drum it into
> her, and more importantly tell her WHY she can't give it out. Make the
> dangers known.
Like I said, it's very easy to be the General after the war. From the news sources it seems this girl could be pretty slippery and the parents don't have much experience with computers. Standing behind your child while they're on the internet for 5 hours a day isn't a practical option for most parents.
If I was in her parents position, I probably would have done the same thing as they did. Any more would have been too strict. You might look at it and say "well, it wasn't strict enough to stop her running away" but it's impossible to know these things are going to happen without hindsight.
> Miserableman - I'm not saying it's easy to monitor what your child
> does online. What I AM saying is that it's possible. My Mum did it
> with me and my sister - she didn't give us our own usernames, she
> watched over us online etc etc. It's no good saying "Yeah, you
> can go on the internet, but don't give out our addres" the first
> time she goes on, because it's not enough. You have to drum it into
> her, and more importantly tell her WHY she can't give it out. Make the
> dangers known.
Like I said, it's very easy to be the General after the war. From the news sources it seems this girl could be pretty slippery and the parents don't have much experience with computers. Standing behind your child while they're on the internet for 5 hours a day isn't a practical option for most parents.
If I was in her parents position, I probably would have done the same thing as they did. Any more would have been too strict. You might look at it and say "well, it wasn't strict enough to stop her running away" but it's impossible to know these things are going to happen without hindsight.
Icarus wrote:
> Maybe we would have all felt more compassion if she was an innocent
> looking, sweet girl eh?
>
> It's nothing to be guilty about - it's how the animal race works,
> isn't it?
I think so. Humans are flawed like the rest of the apes on this planet.
> Maybe we would have all felt more compassion if she was an innocent
> looking, sweet girl eh?
>
> It's nothing to be guilty about - it's how the animal race works,
> isn't it?
I think so. Humans are flawed like the rest of the apes on this planet.
Light wrote:
> But they're by no means the only parents of whom that could be said,
> of that I have little doubt. And that's pretty much the point I'm
> trying to make; if a lot of parents are not paying that much attention
> to their kids (calm down Miserableman; this is still that guesswork
> that I mentioned earlier...), then there will be a lot of undervalued
> kids out there who are easy prey for the small number of predatory
> paedophiles.
Actually I don't dispute this - I've been close enough to the edge insofar as computer usage goes, and I know firsthand how readily it can p*ss away your life. Circumstances helped kurb my computer usage (except now I'm addicted to forums, I finished work 35 minutes ago :O/) but I acknowledge how difficult it might be to quit for young and impressionable people who may have found companionship on the net. It is ridiculously easy to meet people in chatrooms, and the lure of friendship/casual sex/whatever is irresistibly strong for millions of people. I'm thankful I never fell in that trap.
What you do about it is another problem altogether though, and I don't have the answers :O/ It's only going to get worse, too.
Light wrote:
> By the way...."chances are"? Is this where I'm supposed to
> have a go at you for using the same guesswork you ripped into me
> for?
>
> Actually, for the record I should declare my own bias on this matter;
> when I was a solicitor a lot of my criminal clients were paedophiles,
> and so I like to think I have a certain knowledge of how these sad
> inadequate men feel. Hence my belief that they'll know how to flatter
> an inadequate feeling kid.
> Not that I expect to change your mind, but it's only fair that you
> know why I'm saying what I'm saying.
I'll declare a bias of my own. I'm a part-time IT trainer, most of the parental-age generation I meet are asking me why they can't find their file or whatnot at work. I still reckon the average parent is going to have a pretty hard time tracking what their child is doing on the net, and I doubt you disagree.
Light wrote:
> Let me get this right; you've used the Sun as your sole piece of
> evidence, and that totally destroys the other argument?! Come on
> Miserableman; you've got more brain than that. I mean, I take the
> point you're trying to argue, but as you've based most of it on an
> incorrect assumption of what I was saying in the first place...
That was aimed at Goatboys argument, that the parents are at fault for allowing their daughter on the net for 11 hours a day.
> But they're by no means the only parents of whom that could be said,
> of that I have little doubt. And that's pretty much the point I'm
> trying to make; if a lot of parents are not paying that much attention
> to their kids (calm down Miserableman; this is still that guesswork
> that I mentioned earlier...), then there will be a lot of undervalued
> kids out there who are easy prey for the small number of predatory
> paedophiles.
Actually I don't dispute this - I've been close enough to the edge insofar as computer usage goes, and I know firsthand how readily it can p*ss away your life. Circumstances helped kurb my computer usage (except now I'm addicted to forums, I finished work 35 minutes ago :O/) but I acknowledge how difficult it might be to quit for young and impressionable people who may have found companionship on the net. It is ridiculously easy to meet people in chatrooms, and the lure of friendship/casual sex/whatever is irresistibly strong for millions of people. I'm thankful I never fell in that trap.
What you do about it is another problem altogether though, and I don't have the answers :O/ It's only going to get worse, too.
Light wrote:
> By the way...."chances are"? Is this where I'm supposed to
> have a go at you for using the same guesswork you ripped into me
> for?
>
> Actually, for the record I should declare my own bias on this matter;
> when I was a solicitor a lot of my criminal clients were paedophiles,
> and so I like to think I have a certain knowledge of how these sad
> inadequate men feel. Hence my belief that they'll know how to flatter
> an inadequate feeling kid.
> Not that I expect to change your mind, but it's only fair that you
> know why I'm saying what I'm saying.
I'll declare a bias of my own. I'm a part-time IT trainer, most of the parental-age generation I meet are asking me why they can't find their file or whatnot at work. I still reckon the average parent is going to have a pretty hard time tracking what their child is doing on the net, and I doubt you disagree.
Light wrote:
> Let me get this right; you've used the Sun as your sole piece of
> evidence, and that totally destroys the other argument?! Come on
> Miserableman; you've got more brain than that. I mean, I take the
> point you're trying to argue, but as you've based most of it on an
> incorrect assumption of what I was saying in the first place...
That was aimed at Goatboys argument, that the parents are at fault for allowing their daughter on the net for 11 hours a day.
Light wrote:
> But they're by no means the only parents of whom that could be said,
> of that I have little doubt.
I don't dispute that for a minute, but it doesn't make it any more acceptable.
Miserableman - I'm not saying it's easy to monitor what your child does online. What I AM saying is that it's possible. My Mum did it with me and my sister - she didn't give us our own usernames, she watched over us online etc etc. It's no good saying "Yeah, you can go on the internet, but don't give out our addres" the first time she goes on, because it's not enough. You have to drum it into her, and more importantly tell her WHY she can't give it out. Make the dangers known.
Obviously not all blame to the parents, as it's easy to see they know little about the internet (although to me that's another thing the parents should have done before they let their children on). To me, only marginal blame to the child, if it is indeed a case of blame.
> But they're by no means the only parents of whom that could be said,
> of that I have little doubt.
I don't dispute that for a minute, but it doesn't make it any more acceptable.
Miserableman - I'm not saying it's easy to monitor what your child does online. What I AM saying is that it's possible. My Mum did it with me and my sister - she didn't give us our own usernames, she watched over us online etc etc. It's no good saying "Yeah, you can go on the internet, but don't give out our addres" the first time she goes on, because it's not enough. You have to drum it into her, and more importantly tell her WHY she can't give it out. Make the dangers known.
Obviously not all blame to the parents, as it's easy to see they know little about the internet (although to me that's another thing the parents should have done before they let their children on). To me, only marginal blame to the child, if it is indeed a case of blame.
Maybe we would have all felt more compassion if she was an innocent looking, sweet girl eh?
It's nothing to be guilty about - it's how the animal race works, isn't it?
It's nothing to be guilty about - it's how the animal race works, isn't it?
Light wrote:
> Jesus...somebody help me...I think I'm displaying compassion instead
> of non stop biliousness...
Welcome to my world.
> Jesus...somebody help me...I think I'm displaying compassion instead
> of non stop biliousness...
Welcome to my world.
Light wrote:
> Um...maybe I've missed your point, but didn't I make a point of saying
> and repeating that what I was saying was guesswork?! Cos, y'know, your
> response reads like you've scan read what I've said and draw erroneous
> conclusions...
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. 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). 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.
> And finally, my 'lack of understanding of what an internet
> relationship is'? Umm...sorry, but I couldn't give a proverbial about
> internet relationships. I was commenting on the fact that the marine
> in question has preyed upon a young girl. Where am I displaying the
> lack of understanding you mention?
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. If you don't care to acknowledge this factor, then again, I implore you to refrain from commenting about the situation as a whole.
> Um...maybe I've missed your point, but didn't I make a point of saying
> and repeating that what I was saying was guesswork?! Cos, y'know, your
> response reads like you've scan read what I've said and draw erroneous
> conclusions...
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. 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). 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.
> And finally, my 'lack of understanding of what an internet
> relationship is'? Umm...sorry, but I couldn't give a proverbial about
> internet relationships. I was commenting on the fact that the marine
> in question has preyed upon a young girl. Where am I displaying the
> lack of understanding you mention?
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. If you don't care to acknowledge this factor, then again, I implore you to refrain from commenting about the situation as a whole.
Icarus wrote:
> Ouch, you are right (about the moron bit) in a way GB, but she IS a
> human after all right? And they all make mistakes?
Mm, that's how I feel about her in particular as well.
Jesus...somebody help me...I think I'm displaying compassion instead of non stop biliousness...
> Ouch, you are right (about the moron bit) in a way GB, but she IS a
> human after all right? And they all make mistakes?
Mm, that's how I feel about her in particular as well.
Jesus...somebody help me...I think I'm displaying compassion instead of non stop biliousness...
Ouch, you are right (about the moron bit) in a way GB, but she IS a human after all right? And they all make mistakes?
Page: