[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by fruit_cake

who are we to judge anyway, they seem happy enough

Are you being serious?

[fruit_cake]

Originally Posted by The Mockinator

Are you being serious?

I'm making a case for them, and why not?

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by fruit_cake

I'm making a case for them, and why not?

Because he has taken her from her family and is a paedophile as she is still underage.

[fruit_cake]

Originally Posted by The Mockinator

Because he has taken her from her family and is a paedophile as she is still underage.

well I'm just going to wait until I know the whole facts of the case before casting judgement there young Mock

and for the second time today, a Paedophile is somebody who's sexual orientation is toward pre-pubescent children, not this girl who clearly is post-pubescent.

look it up people.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by fruit_cake

well I'm just going to wait until I know the whole facts of the case before casting judgement there young Mock

and for the second time today, a Paedophile is somebody who's sexual orientation is toward pre-pubescent children, not this girl who clearly is post-pubescent.

look it up people.

She's still underage though which definitely isn't normal behaviour.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by fruit_cake

well I'm just going to wait until I know the whole facts of the case before casting judgement there young Mock

and for the second time today, a Paedophile is somebody who's sexual orientation is toward pre-pubescent children, not this girl who clearly is post-pubescent.

look it up people.

he was known to be involved with her as far back as February this year...... at which point she could only have been 14 - that's when people started to notice and be aware of what was going on - It could have been going on a lot longer: in which case, she may not have reached puberty therefore the term paedophile may indeed be correct.

Regardless of the terminology people are using: he is a sex offender. Of that there is no dubiety.

[fruit_cake]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

he was known to be involved with her as far back as February this year...... at which point she could only have been 14 - that's when people started to notice and be aware of what was going on - It could have been going on a lot longer: in which case, she may not have reached puberty therefore the term paedophile may indeed be correct.

Regardless of the terminology people are using: he is a sex offender. Of that there is no dubiety.

well with the greatest of respect, I do not know if she is nearly 16 or has only just turned 15, and if anything the length of the affair (since at least as early as Feb) only adds weight to the argument that it could be real relationship and not the 'lust driven' affair others are making it out to be.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by fruit_cake

well with the greatest of respect, I do not know if she is nearly 16 or has only just turned 15, and if anything the length of the affair (since at least as early as Feb) only adds weight to the argument that it could be real relationship and not the 'lust driven' affair others are making it out to be.

Oh don't get me wrong: I understand where you're coming from, 100% and there is no way any of us can say it's not a highly unlikely relationship that may prove us all wrong.

I'm more of the opinion that he will (most likely, imo) be getting his kicks from the fact that she is forbidden fruit, was then, and still is. I get the feeling that soon as she matures (emotionally and in age) that he won't quite get the same thrill and his ardour will dampen pdq.

I could be wrong: but any man in his 30's going into a relationship with a minor - a child - is missing something - she is (and was in Feb) a child - her own mother has said she is still very childlike.

I'm also pretty saddened that there seems to be no mention of the effect this must be having on his wife (not from you - in general). I feel so sorry for her as much as I do the girl's parents.