This post was originally part of Yasir Shah allegations thread]
==
I know that this is a cricket thread, not a Time Pass one, but there have been a few comments related to the alleged victim which I think need to be placed in their historical context.
In terms of advanced countries in the English-speaking world, it was only when the US rock star Jerry Lee Lewis was caught in London with a 13 year old wife (who was also his cousin) in 1958 that the general public started to almost universally consider that even if a religion condones it, an adult man being intimate with a person under 16 years of age is paedophilia, and an act of serious sexual deviancy. Interestingly, the precipitous decline in respect for religion in the UK can also be directly traced back to the revelation in May 1958 that the man and the child had been married in Church.
Secondly, there are a number of comments about the victim and her family in this thread which require rebuttal.
In the UK, celebrity paedophiles like Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris got away with their crimes for decades because of the concept that "nice girls don't (have sex outside marriage) and bad girls do".
People looked the other way when confronted with evidence of these paedophiles with their victims, as if those girls were choosing to cheapen themselves. Only now is it recognised that many of those girls had been victims of abuse within their own families, and were effectively being revictimised.
It may well be in this Yasir Shah case that the alleged victim has been let down by her own aunt or other family members.
But that doesn't diminish the severity of the crimes of whatever men took advantage of her, or whatever men enabled that abuse by threatening the victim.
An adult man who has sex with a 14 year old girl is automatically a paedophile and a rapist. His crime is in no way reduced if someone else has raped her before, or if she is so damaged that she went along with the activity. A 14 year old girl cannot consent to sex with an adult, so it is automatically rape and it is automatically paedophilia.
I don't care whether this girl had been victimised before. I don't care whether she did or did not resist sex. I don't care whether she or her relatives engaged in extortion or blackmail.
None of those things would change the fact that any sex an adult male has with a child is both paedophilia and rape.
Either it happened or it didn't.
Lastly, and I must pick my words carefully here, I have provided care for an underage person who found herself in a similar situation with celebrity sports people. And there were similar issues relating to the victim and her family. All I will say is that those other extraneous issues do not reduce the damage done to a child who is exploited by an adult.
==
I know that this is a cricket thread, not a Time Pass one, but there have been a few comments related to the alleged victim which I think need to be placed in their historical context.
In terms of advanced countries in the English-speaking world, it was only when the US rock star Jerry Lee Lewis was caught in London with a 13 year old wife (who was also his cousin) in 1958 that the general public started to almost universally consider that even if a religion condones it, an adult man being intimate with a person under 16 years of age is paedophilia, and an act of serious sexual deviancy. Interestingly, the precipitous decline in respect for religion in the UK can also be directly traced back to the revelation in May 1958 that the man and the child had been married in Church.
Secondly, there are a number of comments about the victim and her family in this thread which require rebuttal.
In the UK, celebrity paedophiles like Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris got away with their crimes for decades because of the concept that "nice girls don't (have sex outside marriage) and bad girls do".
People looked the other way when confronted with evidence of these paedophiles with their victims, as if those girls were choosing to cheapen themselves. Only now is it recognised that many of those girls had been victims of abuse within their own families, and were effectively being revictimised.
It may well be in this Yasir Shah case that the alleged victim has been let down by her own aunt or other family members.
But that doesn't diminish the severity of the crimes of whatever men took advantage of her, or whatever men enabled that abuse by threatening the victim.
An adult man who has sex with a 14 year old girl is automatically a paedophile and a rapist. His crime is in no way reduced if someone else has raped her before, or if she is so damaged that she went along with the activity. A 14 year old girl cannot consent to sex with an adult, so it is automatically rape and it is automatically paedophilia.
I don't care whether this girl had been victimised before. I don't care whether she did or did not resist sex. I don't care whether she or her relatives engaged in extortion or blackmail.
None of those things would change the fact that any sex an adult male has with a child is both paedophilia and rape.
Either it happened or it didn't.
Lastly, and I must pick my words carefully here, I have provided care for an underage person who found herself in a similar situation with celebrity sports people. And there were similar issues relating to the victim and her family. All I will say is that those other extraneous issues do not reduce the damage done to a child who is exploited by an adult.
Last edited by a moderator:
