Skip to comments.Paedos blast for Guardian-The Guardian newspaper was under fire yesterday over an article defending
Posted on 01/04/2013 1:11:56 PM PST by Morgana
The left-wing title provoked anger by quoting a convicted paedophiles view that sex between a man and a child can be consensual and not cause harm.
And it repeated controversial research that as many as one in five men is capable of being sexually aroused by children".
The article, by feature writer Jon Henley, also stated that pervert Jimmy Savile was technically NOT a paedophile but an ephebophile someone attracted to adolescents.
Cops believe he may have abused up to 300 victims. Stunned readers blasted the story online.
Henry Evans accused the paper of publishing essentially pro-paedophile propaganda.
Murun Buchstansangur wrote: Guardian must be the only paper dementedly liberal enough to give a platform to a convicted paedophile.
The story quotes Tom OCarroll, former chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange with a conviction for distributing indecent photographs.
He said: If theres no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily... the evidence shows there need be no harm.
(Excerpt) Read more at thesun.co.uk ...
Note that “harm” is a subjective term. One person’s “no harm” is another’s “harm”.
The “harm” may not be immediately present either. It could be harful to future relationships. It could be harmful later in life. It could screw them up to be confused about what gender they want to have sex with. It could push an already confused kid over the edge.
Adult men and adult women are just brazenly doing this more and more, and often from positions of authority over the kids. Kids can’t legally give consent anyway, regardless if they want to participate voluntarily. And the adults that just want it to happen, know this and simply do not care, because THEIR NEEDS come first.
Ultimately this is what it’s all about. The adults’ needs are above anything else. If they weren’t they’d exercise restraint because if they still had a working conscience, and many still do, they know what they are doing is wrong and not good for the kid they are PREYING upon to satisfy their sexual urges. If they just “loved” the kid they can love someone without having to have sex with them.
of what exactly?
The next stop on our slide into hell.
Not all 18 year olds are fit to run their lives. Some 13 year olds are perfectly capable of driving a car. Many 21 year olds should be nowhere near liquor.
Laws are intended for general application. There isn’t any way to legislate for perfect justice in every particular case. We ought to expect age of consent to be arbitrary.
I have no doubt various children are as capable or moreso of deciding when, how, and with whom to have sex as random adults. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have age of consent laws. It also isn’t anything to get all up in arms about.
I want to say you’re right, but then again where did we get these numbers from? For most of human history women were bearing children as soon as they could menstruate. And mist of human history was filled with misery, but I can’t say out of hand that 13 year olds can’t be as healthy and happy mothers as anyone else.
I’m not trying to use a “Hey, it’s all relative, man” argument. But maybe we’re distracted by the numbers 16 or 18 and trick ourselves into thinking they have cosmic significance. But I remember what it was like as a teenager, and, yes, we were morons. But we also weren’t sweet and innocent and delicate. Many of us were like Caligula at an orgy.
Again, not to say that the age if consent isn’t right where it should be. Just to say it is arbitrary, and kids are often disgusting degenerates all on their own, as well as mature and conscientious sometimes.
A year back I made the argument you just did pretty much. you and I both know it’s true. But you are about to get hit with knee jerk reactions that you will not believe. If you don’t I’ll genuinely be surprised.
Folks, remember Lafyette and Alexander the Great before going off on ‘they’re just kids tangents. History did not begin 1n 1900.
Juliet is thirteen years old when the events of Romeo and Juliet take place, and when she says to her mother that marriage is an honor I dream not of, her mother replies younger than you, here in Verona, ladies of esteem are made already mothers: by my count, I was your mother much upon these years that you are now a maid.
There are no real records, but Christian tradition has Mary being somewhere around 12 to 14 when she became pregnant with Christ.
Not familiar with Jimmy's activities, but it should be pointed out that the term "pedophile" is a medical one, not a legal one. It refers to attraction towards and sexual activity with pre-pubescent children.
Ephebophilia, OTOH, refers to attraction to pubescent or adolescent children.
I have no problem with the present age of consent laws prosecution of offenders, but I hope we can all agree that sex with a 15 year old girl is NOT THE SAME THING as sex with a 5 year old girl.
If you want to be shocked, look up historical age of consent in USA. In the 1880s it was generally 10 to 12, and in Delaware it was 7.
Or look up Charles XII of Sweden. Inherited at 15 and was promptly invaded by all of his neighbors, who thought they could partition the punk kid’s territories.
He proceeded to whip Denmark/Norway and Poland/Lithuania. Then launched the first great European invasion of Russia, which worked out about as well as the later ones.
It spins my head that we joke about libs that think anything that happened yesterday doesn’t matter when they want to go 190 today. And yet many oun our side of the fence do the same thing on the issue of age and when a kid is really not a kid anymore.
In the 1900s as we moved west and disease, indian raids and lack of doctors created a lot of single parents and orphaned settlers, ‘kids’ were doing the work of men and women far younger than 18-21. They had kids of their own, built farms and created a country from nothing.
Alexander and Lafyette were some of history’s greatest military minds before 19-21 and conquered, built nations.
And today, Johnny and Joanie can’t go on a sleepover without a GPS and a smartphone if at all.
It’s not that ‘times’ have changed, it’s that ‘parents’ have changed and pussified their bubblewrapped kids. Even today, the average farmboy/girl has more maturity than the average college senior in the city.
And we wonder what happened to America? Here’s one place to start placing blame.
These people have no place in society. They should be removed from society permanently.
There is nothing to discuss on this issue, wrong is wrong.
If they are old enough and mature enough for sex, they are old and mature enough to move out and get their own apartment and get off their parents insurance before 26.
and they will have jobs and productive husbands too??
Are you scoping out the elementary schools?
Is there a point?
Do you think we should return to barbarian and primitive times when women and girls were treated like crap?
“Do you think we should return to barbarian and primitive times when women and girls were treated like crap?”
Watched TV lately? Listened to modern ‘music’?
Sorry GL, 5000 years of history can’t be changed because it’s not socially acceptable. To them, WE would be the barbarians with what we do. And NO NOE is cruising elementary schools. That was a disgusting and unwarranted comment.
Humans should strive to improve and not use past barbarism to justify indecent, oscene behavior.
Age of consent gets into the fact of liability and contract laws. It is still extremely relevant and useful.
In general these are protection laws for minors. Who no matter how mature they are, do not have long life experience to draw upon as an older adult who’s been in the world as an adult.
Further minors that do damage, their parents are liable for such damage done while their kid is under 18. After 18 the child is responsible for damages they do because they are now legally an adult. It provides a legal break in liability between parents and child and recognizes the child is not only responsible for things like damages, but they also are now able to enter into legally binding contrats as an adult.
They cannot just be arbitrary. The laws sets a standard so everyone (EVERYONE) knows what the age is. You can’t know that Johnny at 15 can enter into contracts that Sarah at 16 cannot. That is chaos. People would be breaking the law and have no idea because every kids’ age of consent could be anything. And we’re just supposed to take their word they can or can’t legally do something? Ridiculous.
THe law is there to remove such arbitrary confusion and resulting chaos. Some more mature kids on the high end suffer a little perhaps, but if they really are mature, they know why the law is set that way and their parents probably are less strict with them if they truly are more mature. On the other side there’s probably a bunch of kids that aren’t mature enough after 18 but many don’t run into trouble, and the ones that do, wise up.
No law is perfect for everyone. There’s always odd cases. That’s where case law and specific case-by-case rulings look at a particular incident and clarify the law based on that particular incident.
First, no one supports pedos here. Second, define obscene. You’d be the first. What I;m saying is that This 26 YO ‘children’ nonsense is killing us and we were better by far when ‘kids’ of 15 had and used responsibility.
You really want to try arguing that? You want to argue against the fact that in medical terms menstruation signifies biological ability and readiness for reproduction?
You think that because someone arbitrarily declared the laws of nature are superseded by the laws of man that nature gives a damn?
If the kids are old enough for sex, they must be old enough to take care of a baby and provide for it without grandma and granpa around.
Let us say 18.
And anyone over 18 having sex with a minor should be permanently removed from society. Maturity means patience and good judgement.
The “ability” to procreate doesn’t mean you have to, just like the ABILITY to stab someone doesn’t mean its okay to go out and stab people.
So you jail the 18 yo woman with the 17 yo boyfriend?
Lots of our parents would still be in prison under your idea. Our grandparents would have been hung.
Sure you want to go there?
Look, this is pointless. Believe whatever you like. History, the very history that created/resulted in both our existence does not care what either one of us think.
But if you want 30 yo bubblewrapped children, keep on your present line of thought. Because it’s exactly how we got to 26yo bubble wrapped children. And 21. and 18....
I really think some of the liberturdians do
Of Leftist groupthink.
OK, I’ll give you that one. But no one to the best of my knowledge on this thread is.
Yes. I expect adults to have patience and judgement. When you expect people to act like animals, they will, lets give them an incentive to be better.
What, an adult who is 'mature' can't hold off a few months?
I have noticed they shy away from certain topics since the so-called “purges” during the primaries
Insanity. You apply 2 different standards based solely on time. Why specifically was it OK for granny and not people of our era?
In detail. WHY?
Without why, your whole rationalle crumbles.
You think I have a time machine?
I am talking about getting people to behave better now and in the future. I have no illusions about trying to change the past.
Insanity. You apply 2 different standards based solely on time. Why specifically was it OK for granny and not people of our era?
In detail. WHY?
Without why, your whole rationale crumbles.And while you and I have fought on the same team before, we couldn’t be further apart on jailing 17-18yos. That is batcrap Muslim crazy.
2 standards. Think about it. Why is one ok and one not? Forget time.
I wouldn’t approve if it was now.
OK good. That’s fine. Now tell me what specifically changed. Why was it OK then, 60 years ago, but now it’s wrong.
I never said it was okay 60 years ago
You said you wouldn’t approve of it now. That implied you would then.
OK, you just think you are morally superior than everyone who ever lived on the planet And all of history was wrong. You are entitled to that belief.
Not much point in arguing with God so I’ll stop here.
Nope and nope.
Just trying to provide some historical perspective on the issue. Our present approach to the age of consent, which is as I said fine by me, is cultural and legal, not medical or inherent in the human condition.
This should give us a little humility and help us avoid the arrogance of presentism. But it won’t. As your post eloquently shows.
“I am talking about getting people to behave better now and in the future.”
How ‘bout restricting your activities to your family and close friends and not ask for the 800 pound gorilla - now Fedzilla - to override the decisions of the family and parents?
AgencyPersons can’t make people behave better without exerting enormous amounts of force. That 800 pounder eats a Lot of bananas, and they are also called taxpayer dollars.
MY dollars! Let the parents deal with raising their Lil’ Darlins, ‘cause Gubment can’t do it.
While we are on this subject, Gubment funds wholesale, make that ‘industrial strength’ bastard farming, and we all know how well acculturated those spawn turned out.
so when the government hands your 11 year old daughter consoms, a map to the nearest abortion clinic and tells her to not knock it till she tries it, thats staying out of your family business? those are your tax dollars encouraging kids to do the wrong thing. free abortions, sex seminars for kids
so when the media glorifies sex to kids, thats staying out of it?
No you are not.
You are trying to say that government should encourage the lowest standards and most vile thing, because some cannot handle high standards
“so when the government hands your 11 year old daughter consoms, a map to the nearest abortion clinic and tells her to not knock it till she tries it, thats staying out of your family business? those are your tax dollars encouraging kids to do the wrong thing. free abortions, sex seminars for kids
so when the media glorifies sex to kids, thats staying out of it?”
Hardly! Your examples are just what I meant when I argued that Gubment and Pooklik Skrewl Collective Personnel in particular, must not be allowed to infringe upon the authority of the family.
The problem with career Collectivists is that when they are told “Butt out, Buddy!” they think you are proposing queer sex.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.