Do football club give players relationship advice ?

[22A]

2 hours ago, Jack Dawe said:

Matt Busby - a good man - tried in vain to steer George Best along the straight and narrow.

When Ryan Giggs burst on the scene, Man U  sat him down with George Best who explained about hangers on, temptations and how he wrecked his career.

 

[Lord Spandex]

16 minutes ago, 22A said:

When Ryan Giggs burst on the scene, Man U  sat him down with George Best who explained about hangers on, temptations and how he wrecked his career

Hmm that didn't work out too well iirc.

[Maesknoll Red]

Front page of todays Times labels him a Paedophile 

 

[Maesknoll Red]

Also an article, which did come across as if it should have been in a red top, but I have no reason to doubt it has large elements of truth to it.

 

 

[PHILINFRANCE]

10 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Front page of todays Times labels him a Paedophile 

 

Look, this is not the most tasteful of subjects to be discussing, but our 'dispute' is almost certainly due to a question of semantics, and I shall try to explain.

in brief, a paedophile is somebody, male or female, who has a sexual preference for pre-pubescent children.

Somebody who has a similar sexual preference for, say, 15 year-old girls (assuming they have reached puberty) is known as an ephebophile.

There are numerous other terms to describe people who have sexual preferences for babies, elderly people, but this is surely not an appropriate forum to discuss same.

Suffice to say that AJ was/is a vile man and, I am sure, most deserving of whatever sentence he receives.

I am most certainly not defending him, but assuming his 15 year-old victim had reached puberty, and the media reports would suggest this was the case, he was/is an ephebophile and not a paedophile - he may also be a paedophile, but this has not been proven. 

Compare to somebody who punches and kills somebody whilst drunk.

You may consider him a murderer, but the chances are he will be convicted of manslaughter: to call him a murderer would be incorrect.

 

[Maesknoll Red]

I have no idea if he is a paedophile or not, I understand what you are saying, maybe he'll sue the Times.

[cidered abroad]

4 hours ago, reformed_red said:

A common mis-quote. It's actually "the love of money is the route of all evil".

Without getting slated for being pedantic, I think there's quite a difference. Money can do an awful lot of good. 

Mind you, I totally agree he would have the urge regardless of his bank account balance.

The love of money is the root of all evil.

[Furious Custard]

If i remember correctly not too long ago fulham catfished all their players by pretending to be 16 year old girls online. 

[LondonBristolian]

9 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I can only assume you did not look up the definition/meaning of paedophilia or, if you did, you did not understand it.

AJ admitted two of the four charges on the morning of the trial, prior to the trial commencing: he was subsequently found guilty of a third charge and not guilty of the fourth.

I am not defending AJ, on the contrary, but he was not convicted of paedophilia; ergo he should not be described as a paedophile.

'Paedophilia' isn't a precise legal term though.  It's how you choose to interpret the definition of a word and meanings shift over time.  I assume what you are getting at is that 'paedophilia' is more technically used to describe someone who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children but I'd say the more common-use definition in the UK today is more simply somebody who seeks to have sex with children of any age.  In this case the girl was, at the age of 15, a child under UK law and Adam Johnson actively sought to seek and initiate sexual contact with her.  Therefore, under the most common understanding of the definition of the word paedophile, Adam Johnson is a paedophile.  It's true he wasn't convicted of paedophilia.  He was convicted of grooming and exploiting a child.   But it's not actually inaccurate to describe him as a paedophile.  It's just using a common rather than a technical definition of the word.   

[cider-manc]

Back on topic...

I believe real Madrid set up ramos and casillas with their partners in an attempt to make them settle down.

[nathredwood]

One of the biggest things our young football players should be told is that they need to have a life after football and to start thinking about what that could be...

Can't imagine what it's like for a young man to find his career over through injury or just not being good enough when all he knows is training and playing a sport.

I'm certain that while most academies will claim that education is important, that the results amongst young footballers would not hold up against a regular student.

[PHILINFRANCE]

3 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

'Paedophilia' isn't a precise legal term though.  It's how you choose to interpret the definition of a word and meanings shift over time.  I assume what you are getting at is that 'paedophilia' is more technically used to describe someone who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children but I'd say the more common-use definition in the UK today is more simply somebody who seeks to have sex with children of any age.  In this case the girl was, at the age of 15, a child under UK law and Adam Johnson actively sought to seek and initiate sexual contact with her.  Therefore, under the most common understanding of the definition of the word paedophile, Adam Johnson is a paedophile.  It's true he wasn't convicted of paedophilia.  He was convicted of grooming and exploiting a child.   But it's not actually inaccurate to describe him as a paedophile.  It's just using a common rather than a technical definition of the word.   

Of Course, and as I said in a subsequent post, it is probably just a question of semantics.  

Nevertheless, I believe the common perception of a paedophile, and certainly mine, is, generally, of a man who is sexually attracted to 'little girls' and, in my mind's eye, 'little girls' conjures up an image of, if you like, pre-secondary or even primary age school children.

I again stress that I am not seeking to defend AJ for his vile and disgraceful behaviour, but I just think there is a difference between paedophilia, as described above, and the grooming and subsequent sexual activity with an apparently willing 15 year-old schoolgirl who, in her own words, looks older than her age - re. willing, I am well aware of the reasons as to why the age of consent is 16. 

To conclude, I believe that to describe AJ as a paedophile is, perhaps incongruously given the circumstances and nature of his crime, somewhat unfair, - of course, I have no sympathy whatsoever for AJ who should have considered the consequences of his actions, both to him and his family, before setting out on his ill-fated adventure. 

 

[LondonBristolian]

6 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Of Course, and as I said in a subsequent post, it is probably just a question of semantics.  

Nevertheless, I believe the common perception of a paedophile, and certainly mine, is, generally, of a man who is sexually attracted to 'little girls' and, in my mind's eye, 'little girls' conjures up an image of, if you like, pre-secondary or even primary age school children.

I again stress that I am not seeking to defend AJ for his vile and disgraceful behaviour, but I just think there is a difference between paedophilia, as described above, and the grooming and subsequent sexual activity with an apparently willing 15 year-old schoolgirl who, in her own words, looks older than her age - re. willing, I am well aware of the reasons as to why the age of consent is 16. 

To conclude, I believe that to describe AJ as a paedophile is, perhaps incongruously given the circumstances and nature of his crime, somewhat unfair, - of course, I have no sympathy whatsoever for AJ who should have considered the consequences of his actions, both to him and his family, before setting out on his ill-fated adventure. 

 

And this is the crucial point - in legal and emotional terms, a 15 year old girl is a child.  That's not to say there aren't teenagers who, although children, look like adults so I wouldn't automatically assume that someone who had sex with a 15 year old girl who looked older was automatically a paedophile but the key point in the Johnson case is that this wasn't a case of Johnson making an error or even of someone meeting someone in a night club and being misled or mistaken as to how old they were.  He knew at the outset that she was underage - indeed that legally speaking she was a child -  yet he still actively pursued a realtionship her.  And, above not considering the consequences of his actions for his family, the far more serious thing is he didn't consider the consequences of his actions on the vulnerable child herself.

 

Whilst I'd agree that there is a difference between someone sexually attracted to children and someone who meets someone who looks older than their age and inadvertently purses them without realising how young they are, I don't really agree there's a significant difference between someone sexually attracted to a child and someone who uses their power and status to groom and seduce someone who they know full well to be a child.  Johnson knew she was a child and pursued her anyway. The word paedophile therefore seems wholly appropriate. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

20 hours ago, Fiale said:

I am not sure how to really put this as I know it sounds strange, but a lot of football players have a very different childhood to others. I was wondering if the young lads in the academy etc are given lessons on relationships, what to and not to do. So many footballers seem to fall into stupid predicaments, maybe the adoration, money, and attitude you need to be a good player in front of TV and large crowds requires a certain bomb proof attitude. So many done for underage sex, group sex, affairs, caught in compromising situations, caught by gold-diggers... 

The question should be would they listen anyway?, it's not as if with the many high profile cases over the past 10 years or so they haven't had enough warning about what has happened to Johnson or Evans and others but still these morons put themselves into these positions.

Far too much money, far too much spare time, far too much ego, far too much stupidity, far too much lack of respect for themselves and the rest of humanity and far too much belief that their money and celebrity will get them off and it will carry on because of all of these reasons and as for gold diggers if you dig for shallow sex with females who are willing to humiliate themselves at the drop of a £50 note, you are in danger of unearthing of fools gold and in the end morons and gold diggers will find and deserve each other.

PS:- Far too many modern footballers show more appetite for a party than playing and that includes playing for your country.

 

 

[Sir Colby-Tit]

31 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Of Course, and as I said in a subsequent post, it is probably just a question of semantics.  

Nevertheless, I believe the common perception of a paedophile, and certainly mine, is, generally, of a man who is sexually attracted to 'little girls' and, in my mind's eye, 'little girls' conjures up an image of, if you like, pre-secondary or even primary age school children.

I again stress that I am not seeking to defend AJ for his vile and disgraceful behaviour, but I just think there is a difference between paedophilia, as described above, and the grooming and subsequent sexual activity with an apparently willing 15 year-old schoolgirl who, in her own words, looks older than her age - re. willing, I am well aware of the reasons as to why the age of consent is 16. 

To conclude, I believe that to describe AJ as a paedophile is, perhaps incongruously given the circumstances and nature of his crime, somewhat unfair, - of course, I have no sympathy whatsoever for AJ who should have considered the consequences of his actions, both to him and his family, before setting out on his ill-fated adventure. 

 

I think you're right to point out the difference in the terminology. 

Perhaps it would be better to use 'I love you'? (although perhaps a little low brow for The Times) 

[HoldenBall]

Sir Alex Ferguson pretty much begged Dwight Yorke to find a girl friend and get married because he would be out partying all night.

[Super]

2 minutes ago, Iron Man said:

Sir Alex Ferguson pretty much begged Dwight Yorke to find a girl friend and get married because he would be out partying all night.

And he ended up with Katie Price!

[Monkeh]

16 hours ago, reformed_red said:

A common mis-quote. It's actually "the love of money is the route of all evil".

Without getting slated for being pedantic, I think there's quite a difference. Money can do an awful lot of good. 

Mind you, I totally agree he would have the urge regardless of his bank account balance.

Stop being pedantic 

[Major Isewater]

2 hours ago, Super said:

And he ended up with Katie Price!

Probably more tiring than partying all night .

[fishy]

On Thursday, March 03, 2016 at 15:15, Fiale said:

I am not sure how to really put this as I know it sounds strange, but a lot of football players have a very different childhood to others. I was wondering if the young lads in the academy etc are given lessons on relationships, what to and not to do. So many footballers seem to fall into stupid predicaments, maybe the adoration, money, and attitude you need to be a good player in front of TV and large crowds requires a certain bomb proof attitude. So many done for underage sex, group sex, affairs, caught in compromising situations, caught by gold-diggers... 

If they are then it doesn't work very well does it?

[reformed_red]

On 3 March 2016 at 21:29, Porto Red said:

A common mis-quote. It's actually "the love of money is the root of all evil".

Without getting slated for being pedantic, I think there's quite a difference.

 

On 4 March 2016 at 00:00, cidered abroad said:

The love of money is the root of all evil.

No guys, it's actually "auto-correct is the route to, and root of, all evil"

[Leveller]

On 4 March 2016 at 07:32, LondonBristolian said:

'Paedophilia' isn't a precise legal term though.  It's how you choose to interpret the definition of a word and meanings shift over time.  I assume what you are getting at is that 'paedophilia' is more technically used to describe someone who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children but I'd say the more common-use definition in the UK today is more simply somebody who seeks to have sex with children of any age.  In this case the girl was, at the age of 15, a child under UK law and Adam Johnson actively sought to seek and initiate sexual contact with her.  Therefore, under the most common understanding of the definition of the word paedophile, Adam Johnson is a paedophile.  It's true he wasn't convicted of paedophilia.  He was convicted of grooming and exploiting a child.   But it's not actually inaccurate to describe him as a paedophile.  It's just using a common rather than a technical definition of the word.   

That's just wrong. Paedophilia is a medical term and describes an abnormality - being attracted to pre pubescent children. Being attracted to sexually ( not emotionally) mature girls is not abnormal, it is the biological norm; males are attracted to females capable of bearing children.

The key is to realise that the biological norm conflicts with modern social mores and responsibility. What Adam Johnson did was hugely wrong but it was not paedophilia.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

45 minutes ago, Leveller said:

That's just wrong. Paedophilia is a medical term and describes an abnormality - being attracted to pre pubescent children. Being attracted to sexually ( not emotionally) mature girls is not abnormal, it is the biological norm; males are attracted to females capable of bearing children.

The key is to realise that the biological norm conflicts with modern social mores and responsibility. What Adam Johnson did was hugely wrong but it was not paedophilia.

Had he met her say in a night club, where she had deliberately deceived him and the club reference her age I would have sympathy for this view, however the predatory nature of his pursuit of her whilst knowing her true age and knowing that it was illegal, puts it up there IMHO.

[LondonBristolian]

2 hours ago, Leveller said:

That's just wrong. Paedophilia is a medical term and describes an abnormality - being attracted to pre pubescent children. Being attracted to sexually ( not emotionally) mature girls is not abnormal, it is the biological norm; males are attracted to females capable of bearing children.

The key is to realise that the biological norm conflicts with modern social mores and responsibility. What Adam Johnson did was hugely wrong but it was not paedophilia.

I'm not wrong.  We're talking about different things.   Language often has a technical use and a common use and, furthermore, it evolves over time.  If I was having a scientific discussion on paedophilia - which I can't imagine I would be doing for any reason - I'd probably only use paedophila to describe someone with a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children and indeed that'd probably be backed up by DSM-IV.  And indeed that's how it would be defined as a paraphilia - as someone with a sexual attraction to children.

 

However words often have a common use as well as a technical use.  The common usage of the term - and indeed backed up by at least some dictionary definitions -  is someone with a sexual attraction to children and particularly someone who instigates sexual contact with someone they know to be a child.   In this case, Johnson knew the girl had only just turned 15 at the start of his communication with her and continued to pursue her anyway.  We can never know for sure whether Johnson's attraction was despite the fact he knew her to be underage or whether the fact he knew she was underage added to the attraction for him but the fact he knowingly pursued sexual contact with a child means he fits into most common and indeed dictionary understandings of the word paedophile, even if it doesn't actually meet the criteria for the technical definition.

 

Someone who uses the word paedophile to refer only to someone with a sexual attraction to prepubescent children is certainly being more technical and more precise but the simple fact is there's usually no need to be scientific and technical in day to day life - merely to have your meaning understood.  Someone using a paedophile in this context fits into the commonly-understood definition of the word and therefore it's not right to say it's wrong or incorrect - it's just a use of non-technical English.   The best demonstration of this is that newspapers are calling Johnson a padeophile knowing they won't be sued for libel, which they would be if they were using the word incorrectly. 

[Leveller]

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

I'm not wrong.  We're talking about different things.   Language often has a technical use and a common use and, furthermore, it evolves over time.  If I was having a scientific discussion on paedophilia - which I can't imagine I would be doing for any reason - I'd probably only use paedophila to describe someone with a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children and indeed that'd probably be backed up by DSM-IV.  And indeed that's how it would be defined as a paraphilia - as someone with a sexual attraction to children.

 

However words often have a common use as well as a technical use.  The common usage of the term - and indeed backed up by at least some dictionary definitions -  is someone with a sexual attraction to children and particularly someone who instigates sexual contact with someone they know to be a child.   In this case, Johnson knew the girl had only just turned 15 at the start of his communication with her and continued to pursue her anyway.  We can never know for sure whether Johnson's attraction was despite the fact he knew her to be underage or whether the fact he knew she was underage added to the attraction for him but the fact he knowingly pursued sexual contact with a child means he fits into most common and indeed dictionary understandings of the word paedophile, even if it doesn't actually meet the criteria for the technical definition.

 

Someone who uses the word paedophile to refer only to someone with a sexual attraction to prepubescent children is certainly being more technical and more precise but the simple fact is there's usually no need to be scientific and technical in day to day life - merely to have your meaning understood.  Someone using a paedophile in this context fits into the commonly-understood definition of the word and therefore it's not right to say it's wrong or incorrect - it's just a use of non-technical English.   The best demonstration of this is that newspapers are calling Johnson a padeophile knowing they won't be sued for libel, which they would be if they were using the word incorrectly. 

Disagree. There is a need to make a distinction, as I explained before, because paedophilia is abnormal, while a young man being attracted to a 15 year old isn't abnormal, he just needs to rein in his natural impulses and act with common decency.

[PHILINFRANCE]

1 hour ago, Leveller said:

Disagree. There is a need to make a distinction, as I explained before, because paedophilia is abnormal, while a young man being attracted to a 15 year old isn't abnormal, he just needs to rein in his natural impulses and act with common decency.

I understand and agree with much of LB's post, but agree also with your comment about needing to distinguish between the technical definition of paedophilia - an attraction to pre-pubescent children - and what, as you say, is an illegal, but perhaps understandable, physical attraction to a physically mature 15 year-old girl. 

I made and maintain this comment in an earlier post on this thread. 

'Nevertheless, I believe the common perception of a paedophile, and certainly mine, is, generally, of a man who is sexually attracted to 'little girls' and, in my mind's eye, 'little girls' conjures up an image of, if you like, pre-secondary or even primary age school children.'

 

[LondonBristolian]

6 hours ago, Leveller said:

Disagree. There is a need to make a distinction, as I explained before, because paedophilia is abnormal, while a young man being attracted to a 15 year old isn't abnormal, he just needs to rein in his natural impulses and act with common decency.

I'd make two points here.  First of all, Johnson isn't exactly a young man.  He was 27 or 28 at the time of the offence, certainly old enough to know better.  And just about old enough to have fathered the girl he was trying to seduce.  

 

Secondly, what's specific and relevant about this case is that, Johnson knew how old the girl was and continued to pursue her.  I don't think it's at all unreasonable to describe someone who knowingly pursues a sexual relationship with an underage girl as a paedophile. 

 

Thirdly, there's only really a need to make a distinction if we're talking in a medical, technical or scientific forum.  This board is not that and neither is a tabloid newspaper.  In common conversation, there's no particular need to make the distinction.  And, bearing in mind Johnson is looking at a four to ten year stretch in prison after pleading guilty to sexual activity with a child, I don't think the law is making a distinction here either.