Paedophiles, dirty old men and the age of consent

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Many people (and I mean psychologists) view paedophilia as a sexuality. In the same way that hetero's are attracted to people of the opposite sex, and homo's are attracted to people of the same sex, paedo's are attracted to pre-pubescent children. In this respect we should condemn people for being paedophiles. However like Dannyboy, said, we should condemn them for acting out in it. I wouldn't condemn a man for being a homosexual, but I would condemn him for raping another man to fulfil his sexual desires. Obviously a gay man can have consensual sex, this isn't the case for paedophiles.

 

Unless we start pimping out Janette Krankie.

 

I assume you meant to negate this sentence. And that's exactly my point: Paedophilia is simply attraction to children, which is in itself hardly wrong in any way. The problem is that paedophiles really have no practical way of fulfilling their desires in a morally defensible way - perhaps with the exception of artificially created child porn, e.g. drawings, fiction etc., but even that is outlawed in many places, something which only proves to me that people are incapable of properly judging exactly what makes paedophilia a problem: It's not the attraction in itself, it's the consequences that inevitably arise from acting upon it. Hence why I believe we should help paedophiles either get rid of that attraction (if that even possible - not to mention ethical) or learn how to live a decent, morally just life with it.

[heroicjanitor]

It's one of those things people aren't really open to discuss because they feel they will be labelled as some sort of pedophilia sympathiser, or even a pedophile. But I think anything which is a significant problem should be up for debate not shied away from. It's like how people hate the idea of necrophilia even though it's a victimless crime.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I definitely agree. Though, with necrophilia there's the whole "respect for the dead" thing, plus the person really can't give consent (and I highly doubt the family would), so the practice is still morally in the grey area. Though like with paedophilia, there's nothing wrong with simply having that particular attraction.

[bob]

I've always thought the same thing about paedophiles, but never brought it up for fear that it would be too controversial, but i agree with you. For most of them, it isn't really their fault that that is what they are attracted to, and as long as they don't act on it (or support people who do; child porn etc) then i don't see how you can arrest them/ label them as terrifying beasts.

[Agent Gibbs]

Well i'm up-to$-date with the Savile inquiry and i can safely say my position has changed significantly especially given his family removing his head stone, and with one of his nephews stating savile took him to sex parties and used him to "acquire" willing teens

 

The only thing i have to take issue with now is HOW has this been kept quiet for 40 years? with around 30-40 victims (known) and with bbc celebrities/workers and other coming forward saying they knew of it i find it staggering that it has managed to stay secret so long.

I certainly think several key witnesses such as Estha Ransen should be brought to task on their silence and in her case hipocrosisy! i mean she set up child line for gods sake and apparently knew all this

 

I actually don't like the idea of dismantling his grave but i understand it, but also think they should consider moving him in general before some unscrupulous metal thieves go after his gold coffin! because they will dump the body and i can have visions of him being posthumously lynched of his body abused in other ways.

 

 

I do (to continue debate) put forward a question or two.

Is his charitable work his way of seeking recompense?

and

Does it go in anyway toward absolving him of some of his sins?

 

Personally i do think it was his attempt to absolve himself and seek retribution with god, and that it certainly goes some way to absolving him of sin, not all the way mind you, but people cannot ignore the lives his charitable work has saved and certainly should not dismiss it in anyway! he may have ruined 40 peoples lives (although i do go back to the few "victims" who stayed as his entourage and wonder were they the same "level" of victim given their complicity) but he also has gone leaps and bounds to save vastly more than that number

 

Its just a sad case all round really and really does make you wonder what was actually seen as acceptable in the 60s/70s?

[MoogleViper]

I do (to continue debate) put forward a question or two.

Is his charitable work his way of seeking recompense?

and

Does it go in anyway toward absolving him of some of his sins?

 

Personally i do think it was his attempt to absolve himself and seek retribution with god, and that it certainly goes some way to absolving him of sin, not all the way mind you, but people cannot ignore the lives his charitable work has saved and certainly should not dismiss it in anyway! he may have ruined 40 peoples lives (although i do go back to the few "victims" who stayed as his entourage and wonder were they the same "level" of victim given their complicity) but he also has gone leaps and bounds to save vastly more than that number

 

Its just a sad case all round really and really does make you wonder what was actually seen as acceptable in the 60s/70s?

 

 

Why do you necessarily see him as doing it to repent? Do you not find it possible that he could have good aspects to his person? Or do you only believe that a paedophile would do some good work to counteract the bad that they've done?

 

I think he probably did charity work for the same reason anybody else does it, to do some good and make a difference (or if you're a cynic, for the same reason any celebrity does it, to receive good press). I don't think his charity work and his ephebophilia are related. He may not have even thought of his actions as wrong. People always have this view of paedophiles as seedy old men who like to torture children, akin to serial killers. That may be the case for a few (such as Ian Huntley), but the vast majority love the children.

[Frank]

I know that in my school a significantly older teacher (like 50s or 60s) had this secret / not-so-secret affair with a 15year old girl pupil. It was basically the elephant in the room which no-one would discuss. Even though the entire affair was mutual, the teacher was fired & put in jail. They seemed to be madly in love though.

 

Everyone classed him as a paedophile...creep...blah blah. I just think it's unfair. Sex is a part of nature and we are sexual creatures. Sensitivity is needed for those who are just finding their sexuality but I don't see anything wrong having sex if they're "ready". Whatever that is

[MoogleViper]

Another issue for the sexism thread. If the situation that @Frank described had been reversed, i.e. old woman and 15 year old boy/man, it wouldn't have been illegal. She would most likely have lost her job, but wouldn't have gone to prison. how exactly is that ok?

 

Can somebody confirm or deny this, but I believe the law only applies to males.

Edited October 9, 2012 by MoogleViper

[Beast]

I think the whole Exposure program was disgusting. They're acting like he's already been convicted. It hasn't even gone to court, there hasn't been a police enquiry, yet people are already judging him as guilty. Great society we live in.

 

Also why is it that somebody accuses another person as a rapist/paedophile, the accused is publicly named, yet the accuser is given anonymity? The accused could be found innocent yet their reputation and life is still ruined, while the accuser walks away with nobody the wiser. Both should be given anonymity until the final verdict is revealed.

 

I think the whole Jimmy Saville case is disgusting. I absolutely hate how all of these 'victims' are coming out saying that he touched them up and he can't defend himself because he's dead. People counter me and say "Yeah but they wouldn't listen back then, it would be hushed up" and I reply "What was wrong with 2010 or 2009?" and they can't say anything back but "He was a much-loved icon, nobody would listen!" and I said "So was Michael Jackson and look what happened...at least he was alive to defend himself".

 

I had a conversation with a colleague today about this, it roughly went like this:

 

Dude: So what do you think of the Saville case?

Me: I think it's disgusting

Dude: Yeah, the dirty paedo!

Me: Nah, I think it's disgusting how all of these girls are coming out saying this happened when he's dead instead of earlier

Dude: But more girls have come out and said he is, it must be true

Me: How does that even work? It's like me getting a bunch of people to call you racist. It must be true because a load of us said so

Dude: That's not true though

Me: At least you're alive to defend it though

Dude: He still touched those girls though!

Me: Michael Jackson molested me as a kid

Dude: WHAT?! NO HE DIDN'T!

Me: How do you know? He's dead so he can't argue with me...

Dude: Ah, I see. I suppose it's true everybody's being hasty

Me: Now it's happening with Freddie Starr but he's alive to defend it

etc etc...

 

In the end, he can see the flaw. Why wasn't this done in 2009 or 2010? He can't defend himself now he's dead so it's easy to point the finger and I think it's outright daft how people are just following the herd and scrawling 'paedophile' all over his gravestone and such. As far as I know, these girls were 15-18? When I were 15, I knew all about sex as did the other kids. When he asked these 15-18 year old girls to go backstage, did they think he was going to give them a puppy and a bag of sweets and be on their way?!

 

I'm not saying that this didn't happen but it is strange.

[MoogleViper]

When I was 15 I was trying my hardest to have sex. Took me a year.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Hell, once you hit 15 in Denmark, it's free game. There are probably some laws regarding teacher-student relationships, but I'm not up to speed on them.

 

It was also an interesting point raised earlier: A lot of these people probably genuinely care for the target of their affection. Whether MJ actually did abuse any children or not, I think it's safe to say he genuinely loved them. It's no wonder he was drawn to them with the absolute shitfest of a horrible childhood he had. Poor man.

[Agent Gibbs]

Why do you necessarily see him as doing it to repent? Do you not find it possible that he could have good aspects to his person? Or do you only believe that a paedophile would do some good work to counteract the bad that they've done?

 

I think he probably did charity work for the same reason anybody else does it, to do some good and make a difference (or if you're a cynic, for the same reason any celebrity does it, to receive good press). I don't think his charity work and his ephebophilia are related. He may not have even thought of his actions as wrong. People always have this view of paedophiles as seedy old men who like to torture children, akin to serial killers. That may be the case for a few (such as Ian Huntley), but the vast majority love the children.

 

That is a very good point, i suppose preconceived notions are clouding my judgement

 

The whole story has certainly tested a lot of my preconceptions and generally my morality

 

"evidence" certainly seems to be mounting against him, but yet the same happened with Michael Jackson and he was vindicated although some information to further vindicate him did come out after his death

 

In reality the more i think about this case the more i am conflicted about, it certainly seems he's guilty of what the general public consider morally wrong, but this is just one side of the story which is heavily biased and littered with anti pedophilia sentiment that people are using to automatically assign guilt.

 

The only thin out of all this i can actually be certain in my own mind of is what Animal brought up, why now? the whole why not 2009/2010 argument, its certainly oddly timed for "40" claims to come out

 

Interesting point about at the age of 15 being a horny teenage, i'd say that could certainly be an element......but does it or rather will/would it matter to the public at large and any investigation? these things are far from rational look at the megan stammers case, she willing went with this man, yet that is widely and blatantly ignored and he is vilified, as much as it should matter i seriously cannot see anybody taking it into account.

 

I think the sad truth is that the vast majority of people have made up their mind just like they did with Michael Jackson, to this day i know people who are adamant he was a pedophile, despite the court cases, despite evidence that followed his death giving further weight to his innocence.

 

I need to keep an open mind with all this and remind myself to not buy into the media "hype"

[jayseven]

Regarding MJ: I don't believe he did anything wrong. He was cleared of something like 14 counts of varying degrees of molestation/intent to molest. The witnesses against him had previously tried to sue him for large sums of money for an unrelated matter. The kid who accused him previously (and was bought off) revealed after MJ's death that it wasn't true. That kid's father shot himself.

 

Sure, MJ had a weird childhood/adolescence, but that didn't make him a paedophile.

 

Sex is a part of nature and we are sexual creatures. Sensitivity is needed for those who are just finding their sexuality but I don't see anything wrong having sex if they're "ready". Whatever that is

 

It may seem hard to qualify when someone is ready for sex, which is allthemore reason to recognise the adult's role in these kinds of relationships, and why the law has to even step in and we can't just let people do what they like. The adult will know when the child is not ready, but the adult is in a position of knowledge that the child is not, and there's a legitimate worry that the adult could manipulate and take advantage of.

[Beast]

I don't think Michael Jackson did it either but I was just making a point to my colleague that I could easily say something against him and he couldn't do anything about it because he's dead. If these girls were under 15, I would say 'fair enough' but the women I have seen so far were either 15 or above (someone mistake me if I'm wrong), if anything this would just make him a dirty old man but I'd laugh if those women sat there and said "I didn't think he wanted sex after inviting me backstage"...I knew about sex when I was about 10 but I wasn't properly aware of it until I was 14 and, as Moogle said, at that age, you're such a randy teenager and what better way to be popular than to say you shagged a celebrity?

 

If this case was presented before Saville died, I'd have said fair enough but this happens two years after he died and all of a sudden, 40-50 women come forward and say that he touched them too? They just want to sell a story whether it's true or not. Why suddenly do this out of nowhere? Literally, it makes no sense to me. I just wished the people who judged him so quickly after that show and the people who scrawled 'paedophile' and 'rapist' on his gravestones and plaque would have just sat there for one moment and given it some thought.