I think it should be whether or not pedophilia/hebephilia is involved or not because that's what the law is intended to fight and why the punishments are so severe. In this case, I think it has nothing to do with it. In all likelihood, 5 years from now, 16 year olds will be children to him (probably are already) and he won't feel sexually attracted by them. What should be reinforced in this case is that sharing any material without permission should be a no no.
Raúl Asencio | Real Madrid | scandal
- Thread starter Rams
- Start date
I think it should be whether or not pedophilia/hebephilia is involved or not because that's what the law is intended to fight and why the punishments are so severe. In this case, I think it has nothing to do with it. In all likelihood, 5 years from now, 16 year olds will be children to him (probably are already) and he won't feel sexually attracted by them. What should be reinforced in this case is that sharing any material without permission should be a no no.
Some sickos in this thread for sure
Agreed 100%
I think both matters as in each argument it comes down to safeguarding the individual involved. Whether from a consent or underage point of view.
I think you have a point and agree that there should be a more drastic punishment than for instance a 25 year old sharing material of another 25 year old but it should be less drastic than a 50 year old sharing material of a 16 year old, IMO.
Sharing explicit media without consent is a crime in Spain, isn't it? Such a disgusting act and should be in jail for this.
Threads like this, greenwood’s etc always give an insight into people’s morals or lack of them
The trouble is once he's shared it, he's lost control of it and it can easily be shared and shared again ending up anywhere. So though he is very unlikely to be a paedophile himself and most likely didn't mean to share it with people who are, he must be aware of the risk, so as soon as he sends it on, he is effectively whether he wants to or not sharing underage pornography.
Indeed. And both should be heavily punished. But that just feels like a different kind of crime for me - though I don't have legal background and don't pretend to be smarter than the lawmakers.
I understand. I think what's important is that we both agree it's disgusting and they should be punished!
Agreed.
Absolutely, no doubt about that
Right on wrong, 16 is the legal age of consent in Spain.
It doesn't make sense that a 19 year old sleeping with a a 16 year old is fine but if it's filmed, he's all of a sudden a paedo who deserves to be on the same lists as the likes of Gary Glitter.
Stitck him in prison for sharing sexual vids without consent.
Last edited:
While I agree putting such person in the same category with real sexual predators doesn't seem to make sense, the poster above made a good point why filming and distributing is such an issue - you lose control over the video and you end up supplying pedophiles, even if it was not your goal. So to film a minor without their consent and then share this clip is surely despicable and there's not too much doubt on this.
If it was a 19 yo and 16 yo who have sex and record it consensually and then the video gets leaked, it's a bit of another story and more nuanced, but I guess there still has to be a punishment of some sort?
Think you've made a huge jump with the latter part of this post and The Boy sums it up nicely in regards to it.
It's also the age of consent. So the sexual acts were legal and consensual, and afaik nobody involved disputes that. The actual crime, then, is the non-consensual recording and distribution of the video. To tack CP charges onto that is to say that either 1) the presence of a camera determines whether they are children or not (which is obviously moronic), or 2) you can legally have sex with a child (ages 16-18), just please don't record it (which is fecked up). A much more sensible approach would be to make the age of the victim an aggravating factor in the charges and sentencing.
He's not all of a sudden a paedo like Glitter though, that's a hell of a jump.
Gary Glitter was found guilty of attempted rape, indecent assault, having sex with a minor (under 13), making indecent pictures of children under 16, and in Vietnam of molesting a 10 year old and an 11 year old.
Asencio is accused of distributing a sexually explicit video of a minor.
They're are completely different and will end up with completely different sentences if found guilty. Glitter is without a doubt an unrepentant full on paedo. Asencio is probably just a total dick, but that doesn't take away from the fact he allegedly shared the video with no thought for who might see it or where it might end up and if found guilty, should be punished as such.
She is able to consent at 16 in Spain, so not classed as a child.
Yep sharing is just wrong and she wouldn't have consented with the sharing, so all involved in that should face charges.
No dejes caer el jabón
That is my point. Obviously he's nowhere near Glitter but people are talking about him as though he is a paedophile.
Stick him in prison for sharing sex videos without consent.
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Ascensio is a paedophile but there is the fact that they've shared or created material of an underage individual.
If the 16 year old consented to the video being filmed and shared do you (or others) think that's fine?
Welcome to the internet!
But seriously the court will be shown the nuance and if found guilty the judge will take that into consideration at sentencing. X, click bait articles etc won't but that shouldn't diminish the charges against him.
I don't have a strong opinion. But I see the issue is that the 16-year-old cannot consent to the video being filmed or shared. But they can consent to the acts in the video? That seems like a half-assed measure to me. The ages should be the same, be they 16 or 17 or 18 or whatever.
I was going to make some jokes about the scandal but they're not even Raúlmotely funny
It used to be that the old page 3 model types could be 16 and over and do semi nude material for magazines and papers, due to the age of consent. But when hardcore pornography was fully legalised in the late 90s/early-2000s they had to raise that to 18.
Scary to me it was ever that low, with someone who has an 18 year old in the family that worries me in itself
“Imagine if someone PMed me that video, or sent it to me on my WhatsApp on 07722769666. That would be craaaaazy”
Again, by page 3 I mean topless at most. Nothing more than that. But it potentially could create a weird contradiction in the law.Scary to me it was ever that low, with someone who has an 18 year old in the family that worries me in itself
Still, having a topless 16 y.o. in the newspaper sounds completely shocking
It is in most European countries. Regardless of age if you record and share such images of someone without their consent then it should be punished.
One of those papers did some sort of weird dailly countdown to one them turning 16.
reminds of that time this homeless lady approached me in the street. she was at least 65, if she was a day, and had fewer teeth than houses. she offered me an iphone 4 in exchange for rimming her. she hadn’t even washed in weeks. it was a particularly bad deal on any metric. turned out that the phone couldn’t even do capitals.
I think that everyone appears to be in broad agreement, in this particular case.
Oh Jesus lord
Afaik that's what is happening