Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Chair Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> 2) The dictionary definition of "paedophile" is

> simply "a person sexually attracted to children"


Ah, but what is a child? My understanding that "paedophile" is technically a word pertaining to pre-teens. Of course, the English language is changing continually and that definition is probably changing to "anyone below the age of consent". Though, of course, there are two - well, three - ages of consent in the UK - 16 for most cases, through to 18 for homosexuals and anyone who has a position of trust with the individual involved. I believe there is no age of consent for lesbians.


And that leads to the question of "age of consent where?" Spain, for instance, still has an age of consent at 12. Wikipedia has a useful map showing ages of consent ranging from 20 down to 12 - and even a country or two down at 9, which is frankly unbelievable and rather sickening.

I think Loz's point (and earlier Daizie's) is a good one.


A 13 year old girl is not the same as a 3 year old girl, although it's not remotely clear cut and I don't quite know how I would even begin to draw the line.


At 14 I was clubbing regularly and doubtless snogged a few guys who were over 18. At 15, a friend of mine was picked up by a famous singer in a club and went home with and slept with him (graciously he paid for her cab home in the morning). Were these guys paedophiles? I don't think so - they didn't know how old we were. Had they known, I still don't think they would have qualified as paedophiles - they weren't attracted to us because we were children, but because we were lithe young women.


What Polanski did was despicable, but I"m unconvinced it makes him a paedophile.

  • 2 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • You literally just edited your earlier reply to remove the point you made about it being “politicians”.  Then you call me pathetic.    I’m  not trying to say you approve any of the ugly right wing nonsense.  But I AM Saying your earlier post suggesting  violent rhetoric being “left wing” was one-sided and incorrect 
    • I never said that. Saying I don’t like some of the rhetoric coming from the left doesn’t mean I approve of Farage et al saying that Afghans being brought here to protect their lives and thank them for their service means there is an incalculable threat to women.    Anything to score a cheap point. It’s pretty pathetic. 
    • To be fair we are as hosed as the majority of other countries post-Covid. The problem is Labour promised way too much and leant in on the we need change and we will deliver it and it was clear to anyone with a modicum of sense that no change was going to happen quickly and actually taking the reigns may have been a massive poison- chalice. As Labour are finding to their cost - there are no easy answers.  A wealth tax seems straightforward but look how Labour have U-turned on elements of non-dom - why? Because the super rich started leaving the country in their droves and whilst we all may want them to pay more tax they already pay a big chunk already and the government saw there was a problem.
    • You don’t think there are right-wing politicians fanning this with rhetoric? Really? 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...