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.
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.