Heartland

I hated you ´til I saw this

You hadn't heard of it before then?

In my newspaper they even quoted him as saying "It's okay to have sex with a 12 year old, as as they agree to"

It was his excuse that got me... "I was just teaching them English!"

Pathetic old f**ker.

Obviousman wrote:You hadn't heard of it before then?

In my newspaper they even quoted him as saying "It's okay to have sex with a 12 year old, as as they agree to"

I consider it entirely acceptable to have consensual relations with who/whatever agrees. However, in these circumstances it's damn near impossible to establish rational and reasoned consent on the part of the minor. Purely theoretical, idealistic reasoning says let him go. Common sense says that whatever consent given probably wasn't without duress. If it was in the context of a mutually loving relationship rather than what appears to be a one off event, then he should have been completely exonerated.

There's nothing inherently immoral about sex with children. It's irresponsible to argue purely on the basis that they're children, rather than on the facts that one would tend to assume as a result of them being children.

Consider a naive 6 year old who is being coerced into relations with an adult and a 40 year old adult who's having a consensual relationship. Now swap the ages, but maintain the circumstances. Nothing has changed. It's about the person, not the age.

I appreciate that in this case it's fairly clear that what went on is wrong, but the media and public automatically playing the paedophile card bugs me no end.

to abuse a child being 12 yrs old is under no circumstances whatsoever ok, no matter whether the child didn´t mind - makes me angry

doc P wrote:to abuse a child being 12 yrs old is under no circumstances whatsoever ok, no matter whether the child didn´t mind - makes me angry

Indeed, we have discussed this before, IIRC, and concluded it is near impossible for a kid of that age to entirely understand what it is about. Kids have to be protected...

Well said doc P!!!

I don't care how mature a girl can seem at 12 or 13, they are still young and have their lives ahead of them to have sex. When dirty old men take advantage of that situation, I would like to see them take that dirty penis, cut it into tiny little pieces, one day at a time until he passes out and then burn him!

Only thinking of that hurts

Children are not mere little (wo)men, they're not fully developped, physically as well as mentally speaking. It may not be about age, but it is surely about development, which is inherently linked to age. That's why you can never be sure they have a genuine understanding of the situation at hand. And that's why you have to protect them.

He's a c**t.

End of.

Al wrote:He's a c**t.

End of.

Not quite, he's a bald, c**t.

" get your glitter pants on"

Abusing anyone of any age is of course wrong.

But if you read my post again, I never said anything to the contrary.

As Zeno said, it's near impossible to ascertain whether or not a child is of sound mind to give consent. However, to state absolutely that such things are "wrong" is a fallacy. At 12 years old I was as able to make decisions for myself as I am now and likely ever will be - if anything, the ensuing 5 years made me less able to make suchdecisions. If at 14 I had been arrested for expressing my love (no, not that far) because I was "unable to make that decision", then I would have considered it thoroughly offensive and an insult to my mental development. At 15 I'd have felt the same thing. But suddenly at 16, there was no danger of that. Until of course I ended up with a 15 year old. Go fcuking figure. There is no magic number. I've not been emotionally a child since I hit double figures, but I'm quite sure that my adult self will do some extremely ridiculous things that a minor Mike wouldn't. The law is in place to protect children. However, tabloid journalism has an entirely different agenda, which seems to have succeeded - alienation of those whom they don't understand.

Anyway, we're digressing. I was merely responding to the Glitter quote. This particular case is prostitution and exploitation, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

doc P wrote:I hated you ´til I saw this

What planet have you been living on?
I had to do a double take to see if this was a really old bumped thread but I'm not sure the forums even existed that long!

If he's given the firing squad he should be made to wear his glitter suit and wig one last time.

Motz wrote: I consider it entirely acceptable to have consensual relations with who/whatever agrees.

Sorry Motz, but with all that you've written here you don't seem to be mature enough to even comprehend what you're talking about.

Dan wrote:
If he's given the firing squad he should be made to wear his glitter suit and wig one last time.

Nope. The c**t bribed himself off the charge of child rape that carried the death penalty. For about a thousand quid per kiddie (there were 2).

c**t.

Oh Debs... You're summat else, you are!

Motz wrote:Consider a naive 6 year old who is being coerced into relations with an adult and a 40 year old adult who's having a consensual relationship. Now swap the ages, but maintain the circumstances. Nothing has changed. It's about the person, not the age.

Although I think you've argued your point rather well myself (though for the most part I don't personally agree), there is something rather glaring...

When it comes to matters related to sex, it's not just about mental maturity. Lets get real here, sex is a little more than a "meeting of minds", and even if someone is emotionally very mature for their years, the fact remains that up to a certain point (essentially puberty, not a "magic number", I'll grant you) they are physically still a child.

And of course the hormones and so on that come into play around that time and afterwards affect emotions as well. I'd argue it is pretty impossible to experience the kind of desires that precipitate a genuinely consensual sexual relationship if you ain't got the right stuff flowing through your veins yet .

WRT Motz' points I believe that the law about sex between someone just over the "age of consent" and someone just under that age is looked on (at least in this country) in quite a different light than sex between someone in their 40s (or whatever) and someone who's under 13.

I've done a lot of thinking on this topic and it is a serious headfcuk. When you get down to it, you can just keep asking "why?" to every response until you hit a dead "just because".

I don't believe for a moment that what I've said justifies the majority of adult/child or child/child relationships. It could apply to all, it could apply to none. This is not the issue in hand. The fact is that there can exist safe and mutually beneficial situations in which two such parties could have a romantic and/or sexual relationship. I don't profess to condone any form of abuse, but I will defend to my last breath the right of those who aren't abusive to not be tarred with the same brush. There isn't a doubt in my mind that Mr Glitter exploited these children, as I've said from the start. What I find extremely offensive is the knee-jerk tendency of even the most objective people to make the leap of reasoning from paedophilia to child abuse (The same happens, to a lesser or greater extent, with Muslim to terrorist, immigrant to sponger, etc, all of which annoy me. I'm purely defending the corner of paedophilia because it's the topic under debate) The two are not the same and never will be.

@boudicca, I agree entirely about biological maturity. Sorry for not being clearer, but I meant to imply that such a physical framework would be a prerequisite for someone being mature enough to make an informed decision. When discussing this with my friends (I posted initially from school) they seemed surprised at the age I hit puberty, so I may be taking the physical aspect for granted, since at the ages I mentioned, things were very much flowing.

@mark, I have thought about that. Take the following example: An equally nubile 13 year old and a 25 year old both find themselves in the arms of an older male. Against their better judgement, both consent. The media picks up the story. The former is considered a "poor victim" and the latter a "stupid slut". I'm not saying that everyone holds this belief, but it's frighteningly prevalent.

I think this isn't 'just because'. As said before, it's to protect children.

Some kids are up for it at 20, some at 8 (just to put an extreme figure, don't look too much at them), and as a government, you've got to put a frontier somewhere. It's not because you were ready at a certain age, others will be.

I respect the need for a legal cut-off age, Zeno (I don't think it should be immutable, but that's beside the point). What I don't like is the immediate "He's an adult, she's a minor, he should be cast into the firey pit" which Western society seems to be conditioned into. If it was that clear cut, the age of consent would be the same in every country

Motz wrote:What I find extremely offensive is the knee-jerk tendency of even the most objective people to make the leap of reasoning from paedophilia to child abuse ..

Wikipedia wrote:Pedophilia (Am. English), or paedophilia (Commonwealth English), is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent children. A person characterized by pedophilia is called a pedophile.

are we talking about the same thing, Motz?

I don't think one can surpress his sexual desires a whole lifetime. So at one point the paedophile will approach a child in one way or another. As it was said before, the sexual life of every human starts with puberty. Not before. (In other words, no liquids flow before that.) If the paedophile has sexual intercourse with a prebubescent child I call it child abuse. Fact.

To excuse a child abuse by "mutual consent" is the most perfidious argumentation a paedophile can come up with. Just think about all the children that dont dare to defend themselves, which is then taken as "mutual consent".

Motz, we are not talking about the 15/16 situation here that might be a problem in your little life at the moment. It isnt a problem for the rest of the world, believe me. (except a few hysterical parents of course...) But paedophiles are. Go Figure.

I'm no longer in the 15/16 situation and I appreciate that there are more important issues. The definition that you highlighted shows the problem again. Are 12 and 13 year olds prepubescent? It's probably about half and half. How many such cases will the media slap the "paedophilia" and resulting implications of child abuse on? All of them. Applying absolute numbers and immutable boundaries to human interaction and emotion is offensive and dangerous. Consider a paeophile who is stigmatised in his local community and one whose outlook is respected provided that he doesn't touch anyone's child. The latter has a far greater opportunity to control his urges.

These people exist as human beings. They were damn probably born that way. Protecting the children is of optimum importance, but that can be done without the media circus. Creating a society where admission of such desires carries the assumption that you have acted upon them helps nobody and is highly likely to make a paedophile think "fcuk it, what have I got to lose?".

Gary Glitter is f**king disgusting