 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rocketronnie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Location: Reservoir
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| jack_spain wrote: | | rocketronnie wrote: | | jack_spain wrote: | Sorry I haven't had the time to read all posts, so someone might have mentioned this.
Last week it was reported that in Tassie a woman was given a three-month's suspended sentence for having full sexual intercourse with a 14 year old boy. She wasn't even listed as a sexual offender.
Now the point I raise is this: What if the roles were reversed?
What if a man had sex with a 14 year old girl?
Not only is it a monty he'd have gone to prison and been listed on the sex offenders' register, but people in society might actually have referred to him as a pedophile.
Why the double standards? |
Does Tasmania even have a sexual offenders register? I'm not sure every state does have. I don't see the point of your argument apart that it points towards the strong possibility that your an insecure misogynist who gets his knickers in a knot about every so-called injustice towards men involving women. Then again we don't know the circumstances of the case nor the judge's thinking behind his judgment. Perhaps you should attempt to ascertain this before any argument proceeds further. |
Oh aren't you a happy little camper today. 
My point is very clear. The same offence committed by a man would lead to an immediate jail term. The woman got off scot free. Why?
As far as I'm aware the sex offenders register is a national one, so naturally it would cover Tasmania. |
Its actually not national at all. The laws creating the register and that lead someone to be placed on one as a sentencing provision are state laws, and it is the state police forces who are responsible for enforcing its provisions. Sex offender registers, unlike the notorious Yellow Book are not public documents. Offenders have a responsibility to abide by the conditions they are subject too and police can charge them if they do not. However they are not public documents and only those with access to police IBR's can ascertain who is on it (those present for the sentencing know of course).
The prosecutor makes application for someone to be placed on the register, it is not mandatory and is discretionary on the judge to grant it or not. I believe they are also contestable.
In that Tasmanian case you'd need to know whether it was applied for and if not, why not? Was it contested? Or was this a discretionary act by the judge? You would need to know the answers to these questions and the facts of the case before any conclusions about the case could be drawn. I doubt the reason not placing her on an offenders registers has little to do with "gender inequality" as you propose however. 
_________________
"Only the weak believe that what they do in battle is who they are as men" - Thomas Marshall - "Ironclad". |
|
|
|
 |
OEP 
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
|
|
|
|
jack_spain 
Joined: 03 May 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| rocketronnie wrote: | | jack_spain wrote: | | rocketronnie wrote: | | jack_spain wrote: | Sorry I haven't had the time to read all posts, so someone might have mentioned this.
Last week it was reported that in Tassie a woman was given a three-month's suspended sentence for having full sexual intercourse with a 14 year old boy. She wasn't even listed as a sexual offender.
Now the point I raise is this: What if the roles were reversed?
What if a man had sex with a 14 year old girl?
Not only is it a monty he'd have gone to prison and been listed on the sex offenders' register, but people in society might actually have referred to him as a pedophile.
Why the double standards? |
Does Tasmania even have a sexual offenders register? I'm not sure every state does have. I don't see the point of your argument apart that it points towards the strong possibility that your an insecure misogynist who gets his knickers in a knot about every so-called injustice towards men involving women. Then again we don't know the circumstances of the case nor the judge's thinking behind his judgment. Perhaps you should attempt to ascertain this before any argument proceeds further. |
Oh aren't you a happy little camper today.
My point is very clear. The same offence committed by a man would lead to an immediate jail term. The woman got off scot free. Why?
As far as I'm aware the sex offenders register is a national one, so naturally it would cover Tasmania. |
Its actually not national at all. The laws creating the register and that lead someone to be placed on one as a sentencing provision are state laws, and it is the state police forces who are responsible for enforcing its provisions. Sex offender registers, unlike the notorious Yellow Book are not public documents. Offenders have a responsibility to abide by the conditions they are subject too and police can charge them if they do not. However they are not public documents and only those with access to police IBR's can ascertain who is on it (those present for the sentencing know of course).
The prosecutor makes application for someone to be placed on the register, it is not mandatory and is discretionary on the judge to grant it or not. I believe they are also contestable.
In that Tasmanian case you'd need to know whether it was applied for and if not, why not? Was it contested? Or was this a discretionary act by the judge? You would need to know the answers to these questions and the facts of the case before any conclusions about the case could be drawn. I doubt the reason not placing her on an offenders registers has little to do with "gender inequality" as you propose however. |
Ah, well then. I must bow to your legal acumen.  |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Bumping another old thread.
I saw this article in the paper today and thought of some of David's comments which are on similar lines to this.
Interesting article.
| Quote: | As I write, I worry what you will think of me. Saying anything remotely sympathetic about paedophilia is bound to invite grave suspicions. Even academic interest in the topic is cause for concern; why is he interested in that? The only acceptable attitude to paedophilia seems to be outright condemnation. All you need to know is that it is bad. Very bad.
The Jimmy Savile affair in Britain has sharpened attitudes. It has also shown how insidious and pervasive the sexual abuse of children is, and how brazen it can be. Sexual crimes against children seem to occur everywhere, even in places considered sanctuaries of family values: childrens programmes, Top of the Pops, hospital wards, care homes, churches. It seems no child is safe.
Public reaction is hardly surprising. Perpetrators must be exposed, vilified, punished, removed from society; everything possible must be done to protect children from them. Those who tolerate them or fail to recognise them are also guilty. Heads must roll.
Surely the best way to tackle so serious a scourge like any other public health scare is to commission an expert study of it, so that we can design and implement safeguards based on the best scientific evidence. Yet, as I have said, anyone who takes this approach to paedophilia provokes suspicion. How can they be so objective and neutral and calm? Are they perhaps harbouring perverse tendencies themselves?
Advertisement
The inevitable outcome is that few medical scientists want to be associated with this topic. Those who do work on it keep themselves to themselves. Frequently they are constrained further by issues of doctor-patient confidentiality. As a result, ignorance of paedophilia is almost as widespread as the crime itself. Pitifully, few members of the public (and the journalists who inform them) are capable of answering such simple questions as: What is paedophilia? What causes it? How is it treated? Is it curable?
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/academic-interest-in-taboo-must-move-beyond-immediate-condemnation-20121127-2a4ev.html#ixzz2DPCZmFxC |
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^Good find.
I've noticed David has been unfairly vilified on Nick's by the usual pre-scientific authoritarians on a number of topics lately. Personally, as David knows, I advise him to establish himself technically and financially before taking on these sorts of things, but it's like a red rag to a bull I'm afraid! 
It's very hard to discuss anything unsavoury yet important in the midst of people whose amygdalas too readily overcome them - even assuming a strictly medico-scientific framework.
And you wonder why I worry about a lack of formal education (You're a freak - your balanced worldly upbringing and auto-didactic personality does not generalise!).
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Thanks for the link, Stui. In some ways, the article frustrates me; not because I lack in admiration for the writer or the newspapers (I notice The Age have pilfered it from The Guardian) for publishing it, but because the article, and particularly the opening paragraph, reads like somebody furtively waving a flag above a trench and then ducking for cover. Not that that's Solms' fault, of course it's unlikely that anything more didactic would have been published but merely indicative of the absence of earnest mainstream discussion on this subject. Which, fittingly enough, is exactly the point that he's trying to make.
Perhaps it's testament to my youth or naivete, but I still wish we didn't need all of these apologetic disclaimers. Wouldn't it be better if writers could/did simply take a "Here's the issue at hand, deal with it" approach? I've come to understand that, for better or for worse, the world doesn't work like that (at least, not the world of the mainstream media). Ah well. The debate's got to start somewhere, so good on Mark Solms for raising the topic, and I wish the Loudoun Trust all the best in their research.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^Funny thing is, reading through the thread I'm now turning into Pied Piper by cautioning you against taking these things on LOL. What a difference a couple of years makes!
I just want you to succeed without taking on the burden of the world and then getting kicked in the nuts for your efforts. Resist the lure of the dangerous for a bit and focus on something you enjoy that you can also build a good life around.
[Puts mirror away LOL].
Anyhow, I reckon there's progress afoot from those days all round 
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | ^Good find.
I've noticed David has been unfairly vilified on Nick's by the usual pre-scientific authoritarians on a number of topics lately. Personally, as David knows, I advise him to establish himself technically and financially before taking on these sorts of things, but it's like a red rag to a bull I'm afraid!
It's very hard to discuss anything unsavoury yet important in the midst of people whose amygdalas too readily overcome them - even assuming a strictly medico-scientific framework.
And you wonder why I worry about a lack of formal education (You're a freak - your balanced worldly upbringing and auto-didactic personality does not generalise!). |
This is where my lack of formal education shows out, I have no idea what that bolded bit means.  
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
5150 
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | ^Good find.
I've noticed David has been unfairly vilified on Nick's by the usual pre-scientific authoritarians on a number of topics lately. Personally, as David knows, I advise him to establish himself technically and financially before taking on these sorts of things, but it's like a red rag to a bull I'm afraid!
It's very hard to discuss anything unsavoury yet important in the midst of people whose amygdalas too readily overcome them - even assuming a strictly medico-scientific framework.
And you wonder why I worry about a lack of formal education (You're a freak - your balanced worldly upbringing and auto-didactic personality does not generalise!). |
This is where my lack of formal education shows out, I have no idea what that bolded bit means. |
Im also pretty sure Amy G Dallas was a porn star... |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | ^Funny thing is, reading through the thread I'm now turning into Pied Piper by cautioning you against taking these things on LOL. What a difference a couple of years makes!
I just want you to succeed without taking on the burden of the world and then getting kicked in the nuts for your efforts. Resist the lure of the dangerous for a bit and focus on something you enjoy that you can also build a good life around.
[Puts mirror away LOL].
Anyhow, I reckon there's progress afoot from those days all round |
I'm still a little disappointed by PP's responses in this thread, I think. Of course he was totally entitled to his views and was wise to some extent to suggest a more cautious approach, but I think I missed the critical engagement that he so often offered on other challenging topics.
But yes, I think I've also learned a few hard lessons about sensitivity, which never goes astray!
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Nick - Pie Man
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | ^Good find.
I've noticed David has been unfairly vilified on Nick's by the usual pre-scientific authoritarians on a number of topics lately. Personally, as David knows, I advise him to establish himself technically and financially before taking on these sorts of things, but it's like a red rag to a bull I'm afraid!
It's very hard to discuss anything unsavoury yet important in the midst of people whose amygdalas too readily overcome them - even assuming a strictly medico-scientific framework.
And you wonder why I worry about a lack of formal education (You're a freak - your balanced worldly upbringing and auto-didactic personality does not generalise!). |
This is where my lack of formal education shows out, I have no idea what that bolded bit means. |
It's ok, I've been to university. It means that his personality automatically likes Alan Didak. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Here's a thought-provoking (but much more radical) article on the topic:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light
| Quote: | Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light
Jon Henley
In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament's criminal law revision committee. It caused barely a ripple. "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult," it read, "result in no identifiable damage The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage."
It is difficult today, after the public firestorm unleashed by revelations about Jimmy Savile and the host of child abuse allegations they have triggered, to imagine any mainstream group making anything like such a claim. But if it is shocking to realise how dramatically attitudes to paedophilia have changed in just three decades, it is even more surprising to discover how little agreement there is even now among those who are considered experts on the subject.
A liberal professor of psychology who studied in the late 1970s will see things very differently from someone working in child protection, or with convicted sex offenders. There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.
So what, then, do we know? A paedophile is someone who has a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. Savile appears to have been primarily an ephebophile, defined as someone who has a similar preferential attraction to adolescents, though there have been claims one of his victims was aged eight.
But not all paedophiles are child molesters, and vice versa: by no means every paedophile acts on his impulses, and many people who sexually abuse children are not exclusively or primarily sexually attracted to them. In fact, "true" paedophiles are estimated by some experts to account for only 20% of sexual abusers. Nor are paedophiles necessarily violent: no firm links have so far been established between paedophilia and aggressive or psychotic symptoms. Psychologist Glenn Wilson, co-author of The Child-Lovers: a Study of Paedophiles in Society, argues that "The majority of paedophiles, however socially inappropriate, seem to be gentle and rational."
Legal definitions of paedophilia, needless to say, have no truck with such niceties, focusing on the offence, not the offender. The Sex Offenders Act 1997 defined paedophilia as a sexual relationship between an adult over 18 and a child below 16.
There is much more we don't know, including how many paedophiles there are: 1-2% of men is a widely accepted figure, but Sarah Goode, a senior lecturer at the University of Winchester and author of two major 2009 and 2011 sociological studies on paedophilia in society, says the best current estimate based on possibly flawed science is that "one in five of all adult men are, to some degree, capable of being sexually aroused by children". Even less is known about female paedophiles, thought to be responsible for maybe 5% of abuse against pre-pubescent children in the UK.
Debate still rages, too, about the clinical definition of paedophilia. Down the years, the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders "the psychiatrist's bible" has variously classified it as a sexual deviation, a sociopathic condition and a non-psychotic medical disorder. And few agree about what causes it. Is paedophilia innate or acquired? Research at the sexual behaviours clinic of Canada's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health suggests paedophiles' IQs are, on average, 10% lower than those of sex offenders who had abused adults, and that paedophiles are significantly less likely to be right-handed than the rest of the population, suggesting a link to brain development. MRI scans reveal a possible issue with paedophiles' "white matter": the signals connecting different areas of the brain. Paedophiles may be wired differently.
This is radical stuff. But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia "is a sexual orientation" and therefore "unlikely to change".
Child protection agencies and many who work with sex offenders dislike this. "Broadly speaking, in the world of people who work with sex offenders here, [paedophilia] is learned behaviour," says Donald Findlater, director of research and development at the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, a charity dedicated to preventing child sexual abuse, and, before it closed, manager of leading treatment centre the Wolvercote Clinic. "There may be some vulnerabilities that could be genetic, but normally there are some significant events in a person's life, a sexually abusive event, a bullying environment I believe it is learned, and can be unlearned."
Chris Wilson of Circles UK, which helps released offenders, also rejects the idea that paedophilia is a sexual orientation: "The roots of that desire for sex with a child lie in dysfunctional psychological issues to do with power, control, anger, emotional loneliness, isolation."
If the complexity and divergence of professional opinion may have helped create today's panic around paedophilia, a media obsession with the subject has done more: a sustained hue and cry exemplified by the News of the World's notorious "name and shame" campaign in 2000, which brought mobs on to the streets to demonstrate against the presence of shadowy monsters in their midst. As a result, paranoia about the danger from solitary, predatory deviants far outweighs the infinitely more real menace of abuse within the home or extended circle. "The vast majority of sexual violence is committed by people known to the victim," stresses Kieran Mccartan, senior lecturer in criminology at the University of the West of England. Only very rarely is the danger from the "stranger in the white van", Mccartan says.
The reclassification of paedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls "the sexual liberation discourse", which has existed since the 1970s. "There are a lot of people," she says, "who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we're wrong about paedophilia."
Social perceptions do change. Child brides were once the norm; in the late 16th century the age of consent in England was 10. More recently, campaigning organisations of the 70s and 80s such as the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and Paedophile Action for Liberation were active members of the NCCL when it made its parliamentary submission questioning the lasting damage caused by consensual paedophilic relations.
Even now there is no academic consensus on that fundamental question as Goode found. Some academics do not dispute the view of Tom O'Carroll, a former chairman of PIE and tireless paedophilia advocate with a conviction for distributing indecent photographs of children following a sting operation, that society's outrage at paedophilic relationships is essentially emotional, irrational, and not justified by science. "It is the quality of the relationship that matters," O'Carroll insists. "If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily the evidence shows there need be no harm."
This is not, obviously, a widely held view. Mccartan uses O'Carroll's book Paedophilia: the Radical Case in his teaching as "it shows how sex offenders justify themselves". Findlater says the notion that a seven-year-old can make an informed choice for consensual sex with an adult is "just preposterous. It is adults exploiting children." Goode says simply: "Children are not developmentally ready for adult sexuality," adding that it is "intrusive behaviour that violates the child's emerging self-identity" and can be similar in long-term impact to adults experiencing domestic violence or torture.
But not all experts are sure. A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are "nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes".
Most people find that idea impossible. But writing last year in the peer-reviewed Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Bailey said that while he also found the notion "disturbing", he was forced to recognise that "persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist".
If that assertion does nothing else, it underlines the need for more research on paedophilia something on which everyone in the field at least is agreed. There is, too, broad consensus around the idea that the approach to paedophilia must be about management and prevention: on stopping potential offenders making that contact (or downloading that image).
Initiatives such as Stop It Now!, which Findlater runs, exemplify this: a telephone helpline offering advice to people worried they may be having inappropriate sexual impulses. A similar German programme, Prevention Project Dunkelfeld, has as its slogan: "You are not guilty because of your sexual desire, but you are responsible for your sexual behaviour. There is help."
For convicted abusers, Circles UK aims to prevent reoffending by forming volunteer "circles of support and accountability" around recently released offenders, reducing isolation and emotional loneliness and providing practical help. In Canada, where it originated, it has cut reoffending by 70%, and is yielding excellent results here too. The goal of all treatment, Findlater says, is "people achieving a daily motivation not to cause harm again. Our goal is self-management in the future."
For Goode, though, broader, societal change is needed. "Adult sexual attraction to children is part of the continuum of human sexuality; it's not something we can eliminate," she says. "If we can talk about this rationally acknowledge that yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but no, they don't have to act on it we can maybe avoid the hysteria. We won't label paedophiles monsters; it won't be taboo to see and name what is happening in front of us."
We can help keep children safe, Goode argues, "by allowing paedophiles to be ordinary members of society, with moral standards like everyone else", and by "respecting and valuing those paedophiles who choose self-restraint". Only then will men tempted to abuse children "be able to be honest about their feelings, and perhaps find people around them who could support them and challenge their behaviour before children get harmed". |
(And a piece by the Reader's Editor on the public reaction to it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/13/no-taboo-subjects-serious-newspaper?INTCMP=SRCH)
While I welcome any attempt to challenge conventional wisdom on this issue, I feel Henley did himself a disservice by not at least acknowledging the wide-ranging damage that paedophilia causes. That's a subject that Susan Clancy explores in her controversial book The Trauma Myth. While she falls short of asserting that much of the trauma experienced by victims is caused by cultural factors (e.g. sexual shame, guilt, stigmatisation of offender and victim), she does make a compelling case that trauma is not usually inherent in the act itself (unless it actually constitutes violent rape, a far less commonplace form of child abuse).
It would be a mistake to assume that this reasoning gets paedophiles off the hook. I believe that we as a society can certainly work to minimise the shame and guilt victims experience by discussing the issue more openly and less sensationally, but in the meantime we still have to acknowledge that the harm is significant and the most effective means of stopping it is preventing the child abuse in the first place. My focus, then, would remain on putting energy into identifying potential offenders and finding ways to help them manage their sexual orientation, and a big part of that is permitting more open discussion about the issue and moving on from dehumanising language and mentality. In a roundabout way, Henley has made a positive contribution to that process.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Nick - Pie Man wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | ^Good find.
I've noticed David has been unfairly vilified on Nick's by the usual pre-scientific authoritarians on a number of topics lately. Personally, as David knows, I advise him to establish himself technically and financially before taking on these sorts of things, but it's like a red rag to a bull I'm afraid!
It's very hard to discuss anything unsavoury yet important in the midst of people whose amygdalas too readily overcome them - even assuming a strictly medico-scientific framework.
And you wonder why I worry about a lack of formal education (You're a freak - your balanced worldly upbringing and auto-didactic personality does not generalise!). |
This is where my lack of formal education shows out, I have no idea what that bolded bit means. |
It's ok, I've been to university. It means that his personality automatically likes Alan Didak. |
Haha then it's a good thing!
Your right David a dash of sensitivity will make your posts a lot less squirmy to read ! Cheers
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
From Wiki:
Autodidacticism (also autodidactism) is self-directed learning that is related to but different from informal learning. In a sense, autodidacticism is "learning on your own" or "by yourself", and an autodidact is a self-teacher. Autodidacticism is a contemplative, absorptive procession. Some autodidacts spend a great deal of time reviewing the resources of libraries and educational websites. One may become an autodidact at nearly any point in one's life. While some may have been informed in a conventional manner in a particular field, they may choose to inform themselves in other, often unrelated areas. Many notable contributions have been made by autodidacts......
But I prefer NTPM's definition:
"It means that his personality automatically likes Alan Didak".
Also from Wiki
Amygdala:
The term amygdala may refer to:
in anatomy, the amygdala , any organ consisting of a grid of epithelial tissue and lymph nodes containing follicles
to Amygdala , a DC Comics character
the amygdala , core set of neurons
the amygdala , another name that is known to spinal cerebellar lobe
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Very interesting article. Asks a lot of disconcerting questions. One bit I did pick on is the bit bolded below
| Quote: | Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light
Jon Henley
Social perceptions do change. Child brides were once the norm; in the late 16th century the age of consent in England was 10. . |
Lets remember that at the same time, children as young as 5 were sent down the coal mines to work, women were chattel and only land owners were allowed to vote. Social perceptions have certainly changed, largely for the better IMHO.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
