Woman lusts over "legal" Brooklyn Beckham

MakeEmLaugh

Annabel Rivkin, a 36 year old journalist in Tatler magazine, has written a questionable article about Brooklyn Beckham.

In the article, Rivkin writes

He's 16. So he's suddenly legal. Which means there are options that three months ago there would not have been. So that's diverting. Hot. Ready. Legal.

https://twitter.com/thei100/status/659287912559824897

Seriously, what the fuck?

The Randy Riverbeast

He's 16? I'm getting old.

Cookie_Monster

he's definitely got that generic one direction eque look about him, is that 'hot' now?

Royal Irish

If the genders of both was the opposite way around the fuzz would be calling to the journalists door to check their hard drives.

J. Marston

He'll be getting the "All grown up" treatment from the Daily Mail any day now.

Nodin

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

he's definitely got that generic one direction eque look about him, is that 'hot' now?

The gormless look seems popular amongst many of the young ones allright.

strelok

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/05/27/article-1281827-09461E1C000005DC-978_634x570.jpg

i'm sure he'd be all over that

kneemos

Is he old enough to change his name?

It's a constant reminder of what his ma and da were at in New York.

Uuuggghhhh!!

bigpink

Not ugly but not hot either

Anesthetize

This reminds me of all these gay guys waiting for midnight for Justin Bieber to turn legal.

Valentina

I stopped reading at:

Question: Who would you rather have at your birthday party?
a) The Prince of   Wales

b) Kate Moss

c) Brooklyn Beckham

Unless you answer c), we can never be friends because you just don't get it.

Actually, I don't think the author 'gets it.' She sounds predatory and creepy. If the genders were reversed there would be uproar such a piece was allowed go to print.

Apart from 'lusting' over a child what was the point of the article?

strelok

Valentina wrote: »

Apart from 'lusting' over a child what was the point of the article?

this sort of vicious slut shaming is exactly why we still need feminism

thee glitz

strelok wrote: »

this sort of vicious slut shaming is exactly why we still need feminism

You have my sympathy if you really think that.
As above, what do you think the reaction would be if the sexes were the opposite?

Azalea

Anesthetize wrote: »

This reminds me of all these gay guys waiting for midnight for Justin Bieber to turn legal.

And heterosexual guys counting down to when the Olsen twins turned legal.

Article seems like parody (I'm fervently hoping anyway).

He's very like his father.

Valentina

Valentina wrote: »

I stopped reading at:

Actually, I don't think the author 'gets it.' She sounds predatory and creepy. If the genders were reversed there would be uproar such a piece was allowed go to print.

Apart from 'lusting' over a child what was the point of the article?

Have they not done it, Charlie Brooker criticised a "countdown to legal" by some tabloid drooling over Emma Watson but can't remember any uproar or computers being searched over it?

kneemos

thee glitz wrote: »

You have my sympathy if you really think that.
As above, what do you think the reaction would be if the sexes were the opposite?

Thought the sexes were equal?

Mother Brain

I doubt there would be a mass outcry if the genders were reversed.

There are whole websites/ magazines devoted to the "barely legal" niche in pornography and have been for years.

Also, from a purely biological perspective, I would argue that this is totally explainable by virtue of the fact that there is an almost linear decrease in fertility amongst females from puberty onwards. As a purely animal instinct, barely legal represents the best possible mating strategy for a male to pursue, in the sense that if you get a mate at peak fertility you not only have a good chance of impregnating her, but that you would also have many more chances over the years before she becomes infertile.

Not sure about the corresponding rationale for female / male attraction though. In all honesty she's probably just having a tongue in cheek poke at the trope common in men. No harm done.

Ugh.. I hate my brain sometimes...

Tarzana2

Royal Irish wrote: »

If the genders of both was the opposite way around the fuzz would be calling to the journalists door to check their hard drives.

Fourth post. A new record! If the journalist was talking about a sixteen year old girl then no, the police wouldn't be calling. Public opinion might be unfavourable though, much like the OP's reaction to this article.

_Kaiser_

Shoe Repairs wrote: »

What? How is that "slut shaming"?

It's not, because like most of these nonsense terms, it doesn't actually exist beyond the realm of social media.

Article is more an example of this vacuous "celeb" worship than anything else. The author should be more embarrassed at how her writing / journalism career has turned out than "shamed"

Tarzana2

bigpink wrote: »

Not ugly but not hot either

Pretty much.

Tarzana2

Deleted User wrote: »

Have they not done it, Charlie Brooker criticised a "countdown to legal" by some tabloid drooling over Emma Watson but can't remember any uproar or computers being searched over it?

Yup, when people trip over themselves to trot out the "If x was y, there would be uproar" posts (always uproar), do they ever think whether it's true first?

And considering the younger the better when it comes to modelling, people here have probably lusted of under 18 year old models before, they just don't realise they have.

Victor

Azalea wrote: »

And heterosexual guys counting down to when the Olsen twins turned legal.

You mean when they turned 18, not 16, as in this case?

Mother Brain

Victor wrote: »

You mean when they turned 18, not 16, as in this case?

The age of consent is 16 in the UK.

Legal is legal! :pac:

One eyed Jack

The world hasn't collapsed because some hack tried to do a bit of a "gender role reversal" of her own. Quite frankly, it's so obvious, I'm embarrassed for her, and I'm even more embarrassed by the thought of anyone who claims to be a grown adult, not seeing this for what it is.

*adjusts monocle, goes back to flicking past the latest pap snaps of 17 year old Kylie Jenner's arse hole*



Something about gender reversal and uproar did someone say?

smash

Still not as creepy as Twilight Moms

thee glitz

kneemos wrote: »

Thought the sexes were equal?

People are people. Some need feminism and gender quotas and the like, but most don't.

cowboyBuilder

Mother Brain wrote: »

I doubt there would be a mass outcry if the genders were reversed.

There are whole websites/ magazines devoted to the "barely legal" niche in pornography and have been for years.

Also, from a purely biological perspective, I would argue that this is totally explainable by virtue of the fact that there is an almost linear decrease in fertility amongst females from puberty onwards. As a purely animal instinct, barely legal represents the best possible mating strategy for a male to pursue, in the sense that if you get a mate at peak fertility you not only have a good chance of impregnating her, but that you would also have many more chances over the years before she becomes infertile.

Not sure about the corresponding rationale for female / male attraction though. In all honesty she's probably just having a tongue in cheek poke at the trope common in men. No harm done.

Ugh.. I hate my brain sometimes...

From an animal instinct it makes sense as soon as she reaches puberty ..
but society doesn't like to admit this.

One eyed Jack

Azalea wrote: »

The bit you quote looks blatantly like a joke, in my opinion.

Tbh, the whole article reads like she's trying really, really hard, to wedge in all the stereotype leering about young female celebrities in the media. It really is a bizarre read, but not at all for the fact that she's talking about 'any' 16 year old, this one is a celebrity, like Prince William when he was 16, etc, it's the actual effort she goes to -

http://www.tatler.com/news/articles/october-2015/the-posh-girls-pin-up-brooklyn-Beckham

All a bit too 'try hard' really, and coming off incredibly obvious - intended to cause outrage, causes outrage, profit??

Tarzana2

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

From an animal instinct it makes sense as soon as she reaches puberty ..
but society doesn't like to admit this.

No, the optimum age would be the late teenage years, as the child-bearing hips have developed. A girl might hit puberty much younger her body isn't really ready to bear a child physically.

sonny.knowles

Valentina wrote: »

I stopped reading at:



Actually, I don't think the author 'gets it.' She sounds predatory and creepy. If the genders were reversed there would be uproar such a piece was allowed go to print.

Apart from 'lusting' over a child what was the point of the article?

You mean you actually clicked the link?

LDN_Irish

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Have they not done it, Charlie Brooker criticised a "countdown to legal" by some tabloid drooling over Emma Watson but can't remember any uproar or computers being searched over it?

Aside from the fact that the writer is trolling which a few of the posters noticed, this I've quoted above has made a complete mockery of all of the "if the genders were reversed there'd be a knock at the door" type posts. It's like some of you have had your heads in the sand for decades. Leering over underage girls in the media has been common place for a long time. Emma Watson like Conor says, Charlotte Church was another. As a previous poster said "barely legal" and "teen" are extremely common categories on porn sites. I've really no idea why anyone would think that this doesn't happen to young girls/women particularly when that entire article was written to parody that phenomenon.

osarusan

Some people think it is parody - I think it might be (although it's not obvious at all to me what it is supposed to be about, or what point it is supposed to make).

Mostly, I think it's probably the worst single article I've ever read anywhere.

Tarzana2

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Aside from the fact that the writer is trolling which a few of the posters noticed, this I've quoted above has made a complete mockery of all of the "if the genders were reversed there'd be a knock at the door" type posts. It's like some of you have had your heads in the sand for decades. Leering over underage girls in the media has been common place for a long time. Emma Watson like Conor says, Charlotte Church was another. As a previous poster said "barely legal" and "teen" are extremely common categories on porn sites. I've really no idea why anyone would think that this doesn't happen to young girls/women particularly when that entire article was written to parody that phenomenon.

There is a small but quite determined element on boards.ie that is hypersensitive to double-standards against men, so much so that they imagine double standards where there are none. Or where the double standard actually runs contrary to what they claim.

kylith

Tarzana2 wrote: »

No, the optimum age would be the late teenage years, as the child-bearing hips have developed. A girl might hit puberty much younger her body isn't really ready to bear a child physically.

Yep. Girls hit puberty younger now than they used to.

biko

Celeb gossip ****e.

smash

This is one of those articles where you'll never really know what the author meant. A backlash and she'll say "I was trolling... It was a parody piece... Didn't you realise that?" but if praised and anyone objects she'll say "He's legal, what's the problem?"

Medusa22

I couldn't find anything remotely attractive about him, he looks like a baby to me, I'm definitely getting old.

smash

Medusa22 wrote: »

I couldn't find anything remotely attractive about him, he looks like a baby to me, I'm definitely getting old.

He's the definition of 'generic'. You'd find dozens of guys that look exactly like him at any teenage disco.

kneemos

smash wrote: »

He's the definition of 'generic'. You'd find dozens of guys that look exactly like him at any teenage disco.

Do say.

Aurum

Mother Brain wrote: »

Also, from a purely biological perspective, I would argue that this is totally explainable by virtue of the fact that there is an almost linear decrease in fertility amongst females from puberty onwards. As a purely animal instinct, barely legal represents the best possible mating strategy for a male to pursue, in the sense that if you get a mate at peak fertility you not only have a good chance of impregnating her, but that you would also have many more chances over the years before she becomes infertile.

That's definitely not the case. A woman's peak fertility age is early to mid twenties. I always find it disturbing when people suggest that "Well of course men fancy 13/14/15 year olds, they're the most fertile". No, they aren't. It's potentially very damaging for a girl who is still physically growing to go through pregnancy, it puts a huge strain on a woman's body. Also, puberty starts for the majority of girls when they're still in primary school, are you really suggesting that they're "at peak fertility"?

_Kaiser_

osarusan wrote: »

Some people think it is parody - I think it might be (although it's not obvious at all to me what it is supposed to be about, or what point it is supposed to make).

Mostly, I think it's probably the worst single article I've ever read anywhere.

I don't think it's a parady myself - if it is, it's unintentional.

What it is is a teenager being obsessed over by someone who hasn't passed that developmental stage (mentally) herself. As I said above, it's the hallmark of celeb worship and indeed social media as a whole.

The nonsense that passes for content on Facebook, celeb magazines and the likes used to be bearable when it was confined to just those outlets but when you have formerly legitimate news outlets posting such shyte as headline/breaking news there's now no escaping it. With the decline of print media (which had a physical limit to the amount of column inches that could be devoted to such waffle) in favour of unlimited page space on websites, the amount of this "news" has increased expotentially.

Modern Western society has become a dumbed-down, validation-seeking farce in a lot of ways with grown adults more obsessed with the latest status updates from their "friends" on Facebook or Twitter than what's actually happening in the real world around them. That's bad enough, but when this then progresses into the whole thing of opinions that don't conform to the consensus being shouted down, or allowing this ill-informed group-think to influence policy (such as the current "refugee" crisis in Europe) then it actually becomes dangerous.

cowboyBuilder

Aurum wrote: »

That's definitely not the case. A woman's peak fertility age is early to mid twenties. I always find it disturbing when people suggest that "Well of course men fancy 13/14/15 year olds, they're the most fertile". No, they aren't. It's potentially very damaging for a girl who is still physically growing to go through pregnancy, it puts a huge strain on a woman's body. Also, puberty starts for the majority of girls when they're still in primary school, are you really suggesting that they're "at peak fertility"?

I allready regret posting now, I knew people would get the wrong idea.

Tarzana2

Medusa22 wrote: »

I couldn't find anything remotely attractive about him, he looks like a baby to me, I'm definitely getting old.

He's an ordinary looking guy who is very, very lucky!

Tarzana2

Aurum wrote: »

Also, puberty starts for the majority of girls when they're still in primary school, are you really suggesting that they're "at peak fertility"?

The creepy "If there's grass on the pitch, play ball" -erm, I had grass on the pitch when I was eleven! :eek:

Tarzana2

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

I allready regret posting now, I knew people would get the wrong idea.

You said:

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

From an animal instinct it makes sense as soon as she reaches puberty ..
but society doesn't like to admit this.

Puberty starts long before a woman's body is optimally ready to carry a baby. A body that is optimally ready to carry a child is also the one that will be most attractive to men.

Azalea

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I don't think it's a parady myself - if it is, it's unintentional.

What it is is a teenager being obsessed over by someone who hasn't passed that developmental stage (mentally) herself. As I said above, it's the hallmark of celeb worship and indeed social media as a whole.

The nonsense that passes for content on Facebook, celeb magazines and the likes used to be bearable when it was confined to just those outlets but when you have formerly legitimate news outlets posting such shyte as headline/breaking news there's now no escaping it. With the decline of print media (which had a physical limit to the amount of column inches that could be devoted to such waffle) in favour of unlimited page space on websites, the amount of this "news" has increased expotentially.

Modern Western society has become a dumbed-down, validation-seeking farce in a lot of ways with grown adults more obsessed with the latest status updates from their "friends" on Facebook or Twitter than what's actually happening in the real world around them. That's bad enough, but when this then progresses into the whole thing of opinions that don't conform to the consensus being shouted down, or allowing this ill-informed group-think to influence policy (such as the current "refugee" crisis in Europe) then it actually becomes dangerous.

You can't see anything at all parody-esque about it? Even the multiple choice birthday party question?

I think it's not only a parody of the reverse gender scenario - the "Hot. Ready. Legal." bit especially - but also poking fun at teenage girls.

He's a nice looking lad in my opinion - not "hot", because he's a young boy. But he would be hot to girls his age.

I don't think not finding him hot means you're getting old, it just means he's too young.

Mother Brain

Aurum wrote: »

That's definitely not the case. A woman's peak fertility age is early to mid twenties. I always find it disturbing when people suggest that "Well of course men fancy 13/14/15 year olds, they're the most fertile". No, they aren't. It's potentially very damaging for a girl who is still physically growing to go through pregnancy, it puts a huge strain on a woman's body. Also, puberty starts for the majority of girls when they're still in primary school, are you really suggesting that they're "at peak fertility"?

Fair point.

cowboyBuilder

OK before this thread gets out of hand.

Can I just say that I DON'T subscribe to this, my original post fair enough I take back
perhaps it's not the most fertile time in a females life.
My point is men from a physical point of view will find girls attractive from 13-14 (depending on when they are most developed).

Its not like

She's 14 0% attractive
She's 15 0% attractive
She's 16 0% attractive
She's 17 0% attractive
She's 17 + 364 days 0% attractive
She's 18 - 100% she's FAIR GAME!!!

Before people start saying I'm some creepy oulfella lusting after teens - I'm not, I think ACTING on these urges is completely wrong - in fact I'd have serious reservations on say a 30 year old making advances on an 18-20 year old, but there ya go - this seems perfectly acceptable in our society.

Yet a 20 year old man who is with a 17 year old girl is labelled a peadophile.

Conall Cernach

The legal age of consent here in Ireland is 17 so if there are any Irish women (I presume the writer of the article is British) out there that fancy Brooklyn Beckham then they are on dodgy ground. I certainly wouldn't go around announcing it to all and sundry in a magazine article.

osarusan

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

My point is men from a physical point of view will find girls attractive from 13-14 (depending on when they are most developed).

Speak for yourself there pal.

eviltwin

Young mothers are at increased risk of problems in pregnancy, premature birth, birth complications etc. Anyone who thinks that young teens are physically ready to have kids is mistaken. And that's before you consider the social and psychological implications.