Our attitudes toward paedophiles.

fatiain · 19 Nov 2006 at 07:59

dirtydog said:
Exactly, which is something I hope nobody in their right mind would support.

Me too, there's things in my head that's turning my hair white!!

Burnsy2023 · 19 Nov 2006 at 10:47

Well this is an interesting development to the thread: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6162724.stm

Burnsy

dirtydog · 19 Nov 2006 at 11:01

I don't think anyone can really argue with what he is saying.

Saberu · 19 Nov 2006 at 11:03

burnsy2023 said:
Well this is an interesting development to the thread: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6162724.stm

Burnsy

I think this article highlights an important point. I always considered pedophillia as an attraction to pre-pubescent children so the constable is right that post-pubescent consentual sex should not be considered as pedophillia.

The reason 13 is a cited age is because by this age most girls have developed so it's reasonable to say that being attracted to girls over 13 is not pedophillia.

I find 14-16 year old girls attractive (not that i'd want to have sex with them) but that doesn't make me a pedophile.

You could use this argument to say that the age of consent should be lowered to 14 but I'd counter that by saying that if girls are already having sex from aged 14 then maybe it's best the age of consent is higher than it should be because if it was at 14 then they might be having sex even younger.

dirtydog · 19 Nov 2006 at 11:54

burnsy2023 said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6162724.stm

fatiain, thoughts?

fatiain · 19 Nov 2006 at 12:00

dirtydog said:
fatiain, thoughts?

Maybe he has a point about grey areas but unfortunately the law can't deal in grey.

I'm with Mrs Kidscape on this one.

Meridian · 19 Nov 2006 at 12:22

From a technical and medical standpoint, Grange is correct (in the BBC link): paedophilia specifically involved pre-pubescent children. Being sexually attracted to adolescents is ephibophilia. The law links them together (mostly) because it is easy, and people link them together because it saves having to do any thinking. But are we really suggesting that all these are an equivalent offense:

1) A man/boy of sixteen has sex with a girl of fifteen years and 364 days.

2) A man/boy of sixteen has sex with a girl aged fourteen, who is fully sexually mature physically.

3) A man of thirty has sex with said fouteen-year old.

4) A man of any age has sex with a nine-year old?

(I'm assuming consent for 1-3)

M

Psyk · 19 Nov 2006 at 13:17

fatiain said:
Maybe he has a point about grey areas but unfortunately the law can't deal in grey.

I'm with Mrs Kidscape on this one.

The law can't but the courts can. The law only says whether an offense has been committed or not. The court can decide how serious that offense was and whether it deserves punishment. The law recognises that a 16 year old having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend has done something illegal, but if it went to court it would be obvious that anything more than a slap on the wrist is much more punishment than is deserved.

Brizzles · 19 Nov 2006 at 13:50

Meridian said:
From a technical and medical standpoint, Grange is correct (in the BBC link): paedophilia specifically involved pre-pubescent children. Being sexually attracted to adolescents is ephibophilia. The law links them together (mostly) because it is easy, and people link them together because it saves having to do any thinking. But are we really suggesting that all these are an equivalent offense:

1) A man/boy of sixteen has sex with a girl of fifteen years and 364 days.

2) A man/boy of sixteen has sex with a girl aged fourteen, who is fully sexually mature physically.

3) A man of thirty has sex with said fouteen-year old.

4) A man of any age has sex with a nine-year old?

(I'm assuming consent for 1-3)

M

1 and 2 - Acceptable ( when i was 16 ( ancient history

) i fell into this bracket with my 15 year old girlfriend - Does this make me a sexual criminal ? )

3 and 4 - Deplorable , and quite justifiable illegal, not to mention sick.

ElRazur · 19 Nov 2006 at 13:57

W00t! I just put the tv on bbc and it appears some judge is said some of the stuff i have going on about in here......

See i had a point all along....

Im not even reading the link but here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6162724.stm

Saberu · 19 Nov 2006 at 14:11

mrdbristol said:
Does this make me a sexual criminal ? )

Yes, and I'm pretty sure that under current legislation you would be placed on a sex offenders list. And I think thats the same list which they are going to make public not sure.

Psyk · 19 Nov 2006 at 14:43

Saberu said:
Yes, and I'm pretty sure that under current legislation you would be placed on a sex offenders list. And I think thats the same list which they are going to make public not sure.

I very much doubt anyone would get put on the sex offenders register for that! Even though it is technically illegal.

Brizzles · 19 Nov 2006 at 14:47

Saberu said:
Yes, and I'm pretty sure that under current legislation you would be placed on a sex offenders list. And I think thats the same list which they are going to make public not sure.

My question was posted with irony.

I don't ( and my girlfriend didn't ) believe any crime was committed , despite being illegal ( this is where the grey area exists ).

tenchi-fan · 20 Nov 2006 at 00:44

Meridian said:
are we really suggesting that all these are an equivalent offense:

1) A man/boy of sixteen has sex with a girl of fifteen years and 364 days.

2) A man/boy of sixteen has sex with a girl aged fourteen, who is fully sexually mature physically.

3) A man of thirty has sex with said fouteen-year old.

4) A man of any age has sex with a nine-year old?

In all these cases, I think it's important to distinguish between statutory rape and paedophilia. No one can accuse a 16 year old having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend as being a paedophile. The ages are too similar. However, the law's the law and it's there to stop people making decisions that will harm some one else - and it just so happens that the law regarding the "age of consent" also rules out paedophilia.

I'm 24 and I have to say it would be weird for me to even think about being attracted to some one who was 16 even if I don't consider 16 year olds to be children (as it happens, in Ireland the age of consent is 17!).

But some men are simply attracted to people who are pre-pubescent. Maybe they like other grown-ups too. Maybe they're bi-sexual too. But like it or not, whether it's a condition or an illness the person is a danger to that child.

I'm very surprised that the "what if she's 15.999" argument is still being discussed in this thread because it really has no bearing on people's attitudes toward paedophiles, or how we should treat paedophiles. Then again, this thread is posted in GD so it's bound to have gone off-topic sooner or later.

Meridian · 20 Nov 2006 at 07:31

tenchi-fan said:
I'm very surprised that the "what if she's 15.999" argument is still being discussed in this thread because it really has no bearing on people's attitudes toward paedophiles, or how we should treat paedophiles. Then again, this thread is posted in GD so it's bound to have gone off-topic sooner or later.

Er - this is actually where the thread started: the question as to whether the definition of paedophilia was being abused by being applied to any case of a person having sex with someone under sixteen. I was merely pointing out that definition that broad was absurd, and why.

And there is no such offence in England adna Wales at least of "Statutory Rape" - you've been watching too many US cops hows. The offence for girls below 13 is simple "rape". Above that age it (AFAIK) "unlawful sexual intercourse" that the man/boy is charged with.

M

tenchi-fan · 20 Nov 2006 at 22:30

Meridian said:
And there is no such offence in England adna Wales at least of "Statutory Rape" - you've been watching too many US cops hows. T

Oh yea, that must be it, I was watching too many cop shows.
Either that or the term "statutory rape", while not used in legislation, is the term commonly used for unlawful sexual contact with a person aged under 16 years.

titaniumx3 · 20 Nov 2006 at 23:58

I think the 16yr limit is there to act as buffer. Yeah sure, many younger than that are fully capable and responsible, but the fact is some are not and thats what matters here.

^TANK^ · 21 Nov 2006 at 00:27

I would never make an advance on an 16 year old because in my opinion they still think and act like a child!

vincent1989 · 21 Nov 2006 at 08:31

^TANK^ said:
I would never make an advance on an 16 year old because in my opinion they still think and act like a child!

they do, and just to re-affirm my sentiment on the situation: they should DIE!

Von Smallhausen · 21 Nov 2006 at 10:02

Are paedophiles dangerous? To answer my own question, No i dont think they are dangerous than a Hetero man having sex with an under-age person or a homo man having sex with a underage person (assuming all the under age parties consented to it) If anything, various research will suggest that they have preference for underage person but it dosent necesarrily make them dangerous....(not sure if you get my point there).

I would disagree with you there El. Paedophiles' are dangerous, very dangerous. In the main, they are very calculating and can spend months, even years befriending families, more so single parents', to groom a child to commit acts that will turn the stomach of even the most hardened detective.

Also, what do you mean by consent? I am not sure you mean it in the context of the homosexual example you give. If the target of the paedophile is a young child, then consent is out of the window by means of common sense, morality and the rule of law.

There are problems in society though if a paedotrician has his house attacked when the local populace get wind of him, not realing that he is a medical practitioner, there to help alleviate the suffering of children. That is where ignorance and mob mentality cause real problems.