ROHWorld.com Forum

I mean, I have conflicting feelings about how ROH should proceed here, but it cannot be disputed that society is better off with men in general being held to a higher standard than thirty years ago.

maxx_powerz wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 7:25 am I mean, I have conflicting feelings about how ROH should proceed here, but it cannot be disputed that society is better off with men in general being held to a higher standard than thirty years ago.

Well yeah, but it doesn’t mean that all is good because it happened 30 years ago. Either you banged 16 year olds or you didn’t. But to think some of your other famous heroes didn’t do the same is naive.

As someone who is from the UK I can tell you that anyone over the age 18 having any form of sexual relationship would be seen as weird or possibly predatory and that’s an open consensual relationship. Which this was from. If you are 26 years old and in that you act like he did you have something wrong with you.

Regardless of law no sixteen year old should have been supplied drinks all night, left alone with adults that again were drinking and obviously in no way the type of people that should be around said minor. It’s all sorts of gross and there isn’t anyway of condoning it.

indyfan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 6:38 am Im confused by this whole thing. Wasnt the girl of legal age of consent at the time? Not making an excuse here.

Also being 26 years old 14 yearsvago myself, ive dobe a lot of growing up and maturing in that time.

However, i hate his finger break move and was never a huge fan of his ring work.

1. She was drunk
2. She said it wasn't consensual
3. She was 16

Come on.

famicommander wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 9:58 am

indyfan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 6:38 am Im confused by this whole thing. Wasnt the girl of legal age of consent at the time? Not making an excuse here.

Also being 26 years old 14 yearsvago myself, ive dobe a lot of growing up and maturing in that time.

However, i hate his finger break move and was never a huge fan of his ring work.

1. She was drunk
2. She said it wasn't consensual
3. She was 16

Come on.

I heard 16 is the legal age of consent in the uk

BurningHammer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 9:27 am As someone who is from the UK I can tell you that anyone over the age 18 having any form of sexual relationship would be seen as weird or possibly predatory and that’s an open consensual relationship. Which this was from. If you are 26 years old and in that you act like he did you have something wrong with you.

Regardless of law no sixteen year old should have been supplied drinks all night, left alone with adults that again were drinking and obviously in no way the type of people that should be around said minor. It’s all sorts of gross and there isn’t anyway of condoning it.

From a legal standpoint though...hes in the clear but looks like a loser anyway

indyfan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 10:15 am

famicommander wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 9:58 am

indyfan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 6:38 am Im confused by this whole thing. Wasnt the girl of legal age of consent at the time? Not making an excuse here.

Also being 26 years old 14 yearsvago myself, ive dobe a lot of growing up and maturing in that time.

However, i hate his finger break move and was never a huge fan of his ring work.

1. She was drunk
2. She said it wasn't consensual
3. She was 16

Come on.

I heard 16 is the legal age of consent in the uk

BurningHammer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 9:27 am As someone who is from the UK I can tell you that anyone over the age 18 having any form of sexual relationship would be seen as weird or possibly predatory and that’s an open consensual relationship. Which this was from. If you are 26 years old and in that you act like he did you have something wrong with you.

Regardless of law no sixteen year old should have been supplied drinks all night, left alone with adults that again were drinking and obviously in no way the type of people that should be around said minor. It’s all sorts of gross and there isn’t anyway of condoning it.

From a legal standpoint though...hes in the clear but looks like a loser anyway

She may have technically been old enough to consent because UK laws are gross, but:
1. She says she didn't consent
2. She was drunk and therefore not in a position to consent in the first place

famicommander wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 9:58 am

indyfan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 6:38 am Im confused by this whole thing. Wasnt the girl of legal age of consent at the time? Not making an excuse here.

Also being 26 years old 14 yearsvago myself, ive dobe a lot of growing up and maturing in that time.

However, i hate his finger break move and was never a huge fan of his ring work.

1. She was drunk
2. She said it wasn't consensual
3. She was 16

Come on.

1. So? Being drunk doesn’t excuse anyone’s actions
2. He said it was. Unless you were there, you don’t know
3. Legal where the act took place

Come on.

NewROHFan2020 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 10:34 am 2. He said it was. Unless you were there, you don’t know

Exactly.

Like I wrote earlier: maybe ROH can bring him back to booking but keep away from ring for a while.

indyfan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 10:15 am

famicommander wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 9:58 am

indyfan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 6:38 am Im confused by this whole thing. Wasnt the girl of legal age of consent at the time? Not making an excuse here.

Also being 26 years old 14 yearsvago myself, ive dobe a lot of growing up and maturing in that time.

However, i hate his finger break move and was never a huge fan of his ring work.

1. She was drunk
2. She said it wasn't consensual
3. She was 16

Come on.

I heard 16 is the legal age of consent in the uk

BurningHammer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 9:27 am As someone who is from the UK I can tell you that anyone over the age 18 having any form of sexual relationship would be seen as weird or possibly predatory and that’s an open consensual relationship. Which this was from. If you are 26 years old and in that you act like he did you have something wrong with you.

Regardless of law no sixteen year old should have been supplied drinks all night, left alone with adults that again were drinking and obviously in no way the type of people that should be around said minor. It’s all sorts of gross and there isn’t anyway of condoning it.

From a legal standpoint though...hes in the clear but looks like a loser anyway

I believe there actually is law defining that someone 16 and lower if under the influence of a substance can’t actually be classed as consenting. He knew exactly what he was doing, her age, her situation at the time he’s a gross piece of shit that doesn’t need to be celebrated or given any role within ROH if some other company wants him then they should take him.

There is no going back. He did what he did. It's disgusting. Hard no.

NewROHFan2020 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 6:52 am

indyfan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 6:38 am Im confused by this whole thing. Wasnt the girl of legal age of consent at the time? Not making an excuse here.

Yes, that’s accurate. Some people on here take great offense to it though. They live in a fantasy land where they believe wrestlers, rock stars, and actors are checking IDs of “young” fans. I’m sure the Horsemen were doing it! (Sarcasm)

Rob Lowe slept with his 16 year old babysitter 30 years ago or whatever. Didn’t affect his career any.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Good. It's the correct call. Let him go stain somebody else's brand.

famicommander wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 3:37 pm Good. It's the correct call. Let him go stain somebody else's brand.

I don’t know if the next promotion that signs him will be able to survive without the social justice warriors who are anti-Marty!!!!

NewROHFan2020 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 3:52 pm

famicommander wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 3:37 pm Good. It's the correct call. Let him go stain somebody else's brand.

I don’t know if the next promotion that signs him will be able to survive without the social justice warriors who are anti-Marty!!!!

Whether or not the brand survives, it will be stained. WWE continued to book Jimmy Snuka after he murdered his mistress. It didn't kill WWE, but it's still a permanent stain on them. Same with Vince and his rape accusation, and Patterson and his pedophilia/sexual assault of adult employees. Or Ashley Massaro's situation.

There's a difference between being a "social justice warrior" and not wanting your favorite wrestling company associated with a grown man trying to score with drunk teenage girls.

famicommander wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 3:57 pm

NewROHFan2020 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 3:52 pm

famicommander wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 3:37 pm Good. It's the correct call. Let him go stain somebody else's brand.

I don’t know if the next promotion that signs him will be able to survive without the social justice warriors who are anti-Marty!!!!

Whether or not the brand survives, it will be stained. WWE continued to book Jimmy Snuka after he murdered his mistress. It didn't kill WWE, but it's still a permanent stain on them. Same with Vince and his rape accusation, and Patterson and his pedophilia/sexual assault of adult employees. Or Ashley Massaro's situation.

There's a difference between being a "social justice warrior" and not wanting your favorite wrestling company associated with a grown man trying to score with drunk teenage girls.

Dude, nobody cares about that shit. Jimmy Snuka??? They opened up a restaurant in Times Square, launched a football league, and went public with an IPO. That’s some “stain”. They celebrated Chris Beniot’s life and they’re still doing just fine. You’re ridiculous.

NewROHFan2020 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 4:01 pm

famicommander wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 3:57 pm

NewROHFan2020 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 3:52 pm

I don’t know if the next promotion that signs him will be able to survive without the social justice warriors who are anti-Marty!!!!

Whether or not the brand survives, it will be stained. WWE continued to book Jimmy Snuka after he murdered his mistress. It didn't kill WWE, but it's still a permanent stain on them. Same with Vince and his rape accusation, and Patterson and his pedophilia/sexual assault of adult employees. Or Ashley Massaro's situation.

There's a difference between being a "social justice warrior" and not wanting your favorite wrestling company associated with a grown man trying to score with drunk teenage girls.

Dude, nobody cares about that shit. Jimmy Snuka??? They opened up a restaurant in Times Square, launched a football league, and went public with an IPO. That’s some “stain”. They celebrated Chris Beniot’s life and they’re still doing just fine. You’re ridiculous.

Just because you're still making money doesn't mean your legacy isn't permanently damaged. Vince McMahon has spent his entire life trying NOT to be known as a carny scumbag but that's ALL he'll ever be known as, for exactly this reason.

There's no telling what kind of ad rates wrestling would be getting if Vince had conducted himself with the bare minimum standard of basic human decency throughout his career. It's the constant sex, violence, and drug scandals that WWE has been embroiled in since he took over that have held the entire industry back from legitimacy. Right now wrestling shows get roughly 1/10th the ad rates that similarly rated shows get because wrestling and wrestling fans are seen as low class.

I’m not sure ethics are the reason for low ad rates, as the NFL chugged along with Michael Vick, Big Ben, and currently Antonio Brown. They also weathered the storm of domestic violence several years back that implicated Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson. Aroldis Chapman has also continued being an October staple on the diamond, even winning the World Series the year he was suspended.

While he’s also obviously now tainted too due to his behaviors of the past week, Bruce Mitchell’s thesis on society last year seems to apply here. He repeatedly pointed out in disappointment that the pandemic exposed the absurd value we tend to place on our entertainment, no matter the cost. Speaking Out has only further put our society’s broken values on display in the battle of ethics vs. entertainment.

That this thread exists, but one doesn’t for the much less appealing Dan Maff, would seem to only prove Mitchell’s thesis true. Would his thread even be a debate if Scurll wasn’t a playmaker, or would he be tossed away if he was as easily replaceable as Maff has been?

https://twitter.com/voiceswrestling/sta ... 91141?s=21

ROH is owned by a gigantic corporation. I understand why people wanted ROH to fire Marty Scurll months ago and then totally own him online, but ROH is not an indie that can just strip a title and move on. He was a corporate employee. The statement suggests a negotiated settlement

As I said months ago, this was complicated with Scurll being office, and at best it was going to take a lot of time for Sinclair to handle it properly to protect themselves. They immediately put him on ice and have likely been negotiating an working on legal since.