Be Excellent To Each Other

Shame you couldn't make your point either more clearly or more seriously then.



Says who?

15 = minor in eyes of law.

What definition of "child" are you using?



You're right that both are statutory rape, but could you please quote the statute that you think makes it not child abuse with a 15 year old, and what the cut off date is for child abuse under it, as I'm damned sure that it's child abuse at 15 too.

Shame that you read a post in a thread on child abuse, and assumed that it was meant humorously. To pre-empt your post on 'Well, it's the sort of thing you would do' - no it isn't, but please, try and find an example.


The physical/medical definition, as mentioned above.

That was the definition of paedophilia, which is different. Unless you're suggesting that "child"=pre-pubescent.

Given that kids can go through puberty before they're 10 in some circumstances, I'd be interested to see how you figure that.

As a natural law, ergo not a hard and fast, logical law. Are there exceptions to it, such as kids of 10 who are pubescent? Sure.

Ah, so what you mean is "child means what I say it means".

You heard it first: a 17 year old can rape a 10 year old and it's fine.


Ah, no what I mean is that naturality makes it impossible to define it specifically, and why indeed, the Age of Consent is prove enough of this.

Difference between child abuse and statutory rape, of course. As that unfortunate 15 year old boy in Wales discovered when he got done for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.

No, that's impossible, Mr Chris. There's a difference between child abuse and statutory rape? COFF COFF COFF? You must have mistyped.

Here is a handy list of UK legal definitions.

Given that "child abuse" isn't a known crime in the UK, I can make it mean what I want to. Same as you apparently can with "child".

Incidentally, The Children Act 1989 states the legal definition of a child as “a person under the age of 18”. I'll ask a family member who's a doctor what the medical definition of "child" is later this week.

Don't forget Auntie Fannie, as (shock!) paedophiles might not necessarily be men.

The logical next step from this will be to ban parents from seeing or touching their children whilst the child is in a state of undress - such as for bathing, or dressing. That way, children will be even more disconnected from their parents than they already are (watching the Fantasy Channel and playing Condemned 2: The Choppening while Em & Pe drink themselves into oblivion in the next room) and develop into a feral race of subhuman 'ratboy' chavs, much like Ruth's daughter and her friends in Threads.

Next, the actual act of giving birth will be made illegal, because what kind of SICK, TWISTED WOMAN would want to force a helpless, innocent child out of her FOUL VAGINA?

Ah, excellent.




Why can't you put this much effort into all your other posts?

Why can't you?

So's your face.

Etc.

Less bickering and more debating, please.
Remember the motto.

</modhat>

[edit]Posted before I saw the latest reply, obv. Let's move on, shall we?

Yes, that's what I and sinister and Lave said way up there in response to mimi.

I think the correct quotes are:

'I know you are but what am I?'

And 'So's your mum' or simply 'your mum'.

Or "why are you hitting yourself?".

"Fuck off to another forum or we'll make you"? Ho ho ho.


Mr Chris, I had already done so repeatedly before that, so you don't score any points for trying to be all 'Yes, GOD we know, look at ME'. However, since you are persisting in trying to score points, I'll pretend that I never did and you did it first. Especially since I 'started it', supposedly. fuh fuh's seh.

Right, anyway, paedophiles. Where were we - oh, yes, why are there seemingly more about these days than say, 150 years ago? Anyone fancy a bulletpoint list on that?

That's a good motto. I shall adapt that for work.

But noone (or at least, not me) had at any point disagreed with you as to the definition of paedophilia, so your apparent attempt at point scoring by posting the "aha!!!!" definition to which I was responding is still, frankly, a little baffling.

There was a disagreement on the definition of "child", yes, but that's unrelated to the definition of paedophilia. As we both know.

I fail to see what we're arguing about, other than your earlier post which I took to be patronisingly saying "aren't you lot just wittering on for 4 pages, saying nothing meaningful at all, and aren't you glad I'm here". Whcih it may have not been, of course.



There really aren't. Or do you have secret statistics that prove me wrong?

That's because you were (almost) all incorrectly referring to paedophilia, requiring me to point out the correct definition in the first place. Then my on-topic posts were treated as silly jokes, then my irate response to this was treated as a baffling non-sequiter in response to the most lovely and harmless people on the planet. And now, here we are, with me trying to move us back to the thing that I'd originally made a relevant post about. You know - the usual routine. In a bit, someone's going to say they agree with me, despite it being rather cliquey.



Why are there SEEMINGLY? You absolutely cannot argue this. Well, you can, but it'd be pointless.

Attitudes towards childhood have also changed: it was not uncommon, after all, for kids to be working as soon as they could. Look at portraits of children in stately homes or in old photos - they're wearing small versions of grown-up clothing.

Even attitudes to the body were sometimes less squeamish, albeit open to misinterpretation in today's climate.

None of this is to say that no abuse ever happened, but to highlight the differences in what would be considered acceptable.

If by that you mean "why do people think there are more paedophiles" then that's down to the media, which feeds on fear. As there aren't more actual paedophiles (boots on the ground, as it were) to cause this public fear.

@GazChap: That's hilarious. However! I dunno. On the one hand we have Beautiful Baby contests, Playboy-themed knickers for young girls, and so on.

On the other hand, there are far fewer desperate young prozzies offering a quick suck around the back of the alehouse for a ha'penny. Fewer districts and slums. Less orphans hoping for a few pence so that they might buy their dying premature baby some bread. But, there once were all of these things, all across Britain.

@Mr Chris: Well, there could be. We don't know, and probably never will (until PeDetectors are installed in all the airports).

Are you suggesting that paedophiles can be created, then? I'd thought the consensus was that they were, like our geay brethren, just born that way with a different set of wiring.

If there are, you'd have to come up with a mechanism by which we've ended up with more of them. Now, if, as seems to be the consensus, they're born that way, we're, what, breeding them?

Well if this new law passes, I doubt there'll be much longer before thought detectors are implanted in each citizen. We'd know who terrrizsttz are then. [/RARRGH LAST SANE MAN fitting in etc]

For the same reason that people think the roads are more dangerous now. It hadn't been the subject of a panic. Of course it's not all bad, it goes both ways, people never used to wear seatbelts and cars weren't crashworthy so more were killed in crashes, increased awareness of the dangers changed this. Similarly people are more generally aware of the sorts of things that do happen to children and there is more protection, I wouldn't want to go back to a situation where it was never spoken of and victims were left to suffer alone. However it seems that the risk assessment part of some people's brains goes all out of kilter such that this pursuit of safety becomes relentless, only when there are no reported incidents of child abuse or road accidents will people stop campaigning.

I'm not even going to check the NSPCC link, they're a fundamentalist group like any other and would perpetuate the bollocks that started this.



You're right, I also mentioned this on the blog entry I linked earlier.



And to bring up my blog entry again, that was my central point, to liken the woman banging the 15 year old to the rape of a 6 year old devalues the 2nd, and that's NOT acceptable.



Exactly, the same media that perpetuates the panic about youth crime and computer games, which youth crime has actually declined in the last 15 years.

I'm suggesting that we stop wrapping up the sweet candy in such tasty packaging, putting it all over the TV, and then expressing bafflement when someone says 'Can I rub it?'

First stop: ban all adverts where a child's arse is lovingly stroked to demonstrate how Andrex don't leave no shit stuck to it.

But why? Is it because you think we're encouraging people who are already paedophiles? Or are you, as I originally asked, suggesting we can create paedophiles through fashion and television?

Just trying to clarify your point here, for the avoidance of doubt.


Then ban parents from changing their kids' nappies with their eyes open?

*mentions something about cliqueness*

When I was young in the 80's/90's I remember that you would see little babies cocks and vags all the time on tv, and little was thought of it. I'm sure there is some old movie where you see a little boy peeing. Was it 3 men and a baby?

Anyhow nowdays that would cause a riot. Because the paedophiles would get off on it ZOMG!

Also; Dudley's blog post is good.

Yes, once you start looking it's amazing how many things people think could get a paedophile off: all of which have been around for yonks.

I think a radioactive nonce has to bite them first.

I'm suggesting that yes, we are encouraging people to have sex with children. There are many examples of this all throughout popular culture. If one considers only the last 25 years or so of popular culture and fashion, it's a legal paedo goldmine.


I don't care, I just want to see less baby arses on TV.


And yet, fascinatingly, the single biggest turn-on is NOWHERE to be found amongst the streets of Britain, and has in fact been eradicated over the last couple of hundred years. That being, y'know, a prevalence of children willing to have sex, with anyone, for not much money.

So TV and clothing creates paedos who want to have sex with pre-pubescents. I'd be interested to see any psychiactric studies which agree with that suggestion, as it seems to run contrary to the apparent consensus as to what paedophilia is.



That's the single biggest turn on, is it? Again, I'd love to see a study agreeing that child prostitutes are driving up the number of paedos.

Mr Chris, do you want to discuss anything here, or just create straw-men? My suggestion was nothing of the sort, you sorry fool.


Really? Perhaps whilst you're there, and whilst they're trying to remove your face from your buttocks, these medical types would explain to you that the biggest turn-on, for someone who wants to have sex with a child, is typically a child who wants to have sex. Furthermore, congraulations on another terrible straw-man.

Just to go back to the first post and play devil's advocate for a minute: as CGI and such gets better and better, if it's okay for a paedophile to virtually rape a CGI child (as it probably should be), is it still okay if that child is a photo-realistic reproduction of your kid? Would it even be okay for say, me to use that technology to rape a virtual copy of someone I knew? Is it any more/less acceptable if they're famous?

Then you need to construct your sentences more carefully. Of the questions "So are you saying that we're encouraging people who are already paedophiles? Or are you, as I originally asked, suggesting we can create paedophiles through fashion and television?" you appeared to be answering in the affirmative to the latter, as nowhere in your response did you agree that it was only encouraging people who were already paedophiles.

So - a straight answer then for mr thicky here -

Do you think kids clothes and TV is creating more paedophiles? Yes or no?

If not, then it's completely bloody irrelevant.



Then, with the greatest respect, WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU TRYING TO SAY? "kids who will have sex for money" you said. Not "kids who want to have sex". See the distinction I saw there?

I'm really interested in engaging in a discussion here, but it's proving impossible to respond to what you think you've said. Help me out with short sentences and direct answers.

@ DEANO:

For that apply then the virtual self would have to be indistinguishable from the physical 'real' self. If that is the case then you could be charged for murdering a virtual self whilst the real self is still alive. This is nonsense.

I don't see how substituting rape for murder makes this any less nonsensical. However if you were to say broadcast a virtual rape to the public then this would be a different matter. You wouldn't be guilty of rape though.

No. Exacerbating an existing problem? Yes.

However, what exactly that problem is, I don't know. Possibly one of societal change, I suspect. I think the last century or so has kind of fucked us up in various huge ways that we won't grasp, for still some time to come.


Mr. Chris, I said that there used to be lots of child prozzies about. Now there aren't. I asked why it seems that there are more paedos around. You're the one who took that to mean "that child prostitutes are driving up the number of paedos.", which frankly I don't even understand as a statement, given that child prostitution is VASTLY more difficult to 'acquire' in this country compared to 200 years ago. Nevermind as words in my mouth.


Well, I resorted to bulletpoints previously...

I mean what I said before. There were child whores all over this country not so long ago. But not now. However, there seem to be more paedos now. Isn't that fascinating? I thought so, anyway.

Stuff in CGI may be morally wrong, but I don't see how it can be legally wrong.

Ooh that is interesting, what happens if/when technology can recreate the look of a person 100% accurately and make them do anything.

A person of note could be immediately flooded with pictures of them murdering or whatever, because iDVD could do it by default...

Excellent. Thank you.

I'm not sure it is exacerbating anything it though - hence my over the top "bloody irrelevant" comment above, for which I apologise.

A paedophile has a compulsion, and I'm not sure how much encouragement that needs?

Then again, a person trying to quit smoking isn't going to appreciate having packets of fags thrown at them....



Has it? I've got my reservations about the way society has gone, mostly in the commoditisation of life and, indeed, people, but on the flip side that same "negative" has led to a lot more emancipation for, for instance, women.

They have no greater compulsion (to my knowledge) then a straight man who fancies a straight woman - and the straight man is catered for with porn, sexy adverts, inadvertantly sexy adverts and so on.

Also, go back and read my previous post as I edited lots more stuff in after noticing you had after noticing I had... so you should probably go back and find where I've hidden the insult (or something).


I think it has, yes. It also brought lots of awesome stuff. I think you and I would both agree that the 20th century was very, very busy indeed with 'stuff happening'. All kinds of crazy stuff, so damn much of it! I consider how tiny societal changes of the 19th century are still being felt and examined today, and I just worry. Eh.

I would dispute that. Or rather, amend it. The jury's still out, and even they will admit that environmental factors can have a major impact, too - children who are sexually abused, particularly at a young age, can fixate on children sexually when they grow up, when it's conceivable that this would not have happened without the abuse.