Discussion
ViperPict said:
I read somewhere not so long ago (trying to find the link, unless it was an actual hard copy of a periodical) that broader research into such issues indicated that as much as 5% of people have paedophilia urges.
Funnily enough it was an article (I think in a newspaper some months ago) on the same thing (a million in the UK) which prompted my current outburst. 5% is more like 3 million. That's a lot isn't it? Do you think if you added together all the deviants of one kind or another that the normal remainder would be in the minority? Of course you do realise that would mean being normal would be abnormal wouldn't it? LOL!! Maybe normalcy should be outlawed. 
Digby said:
I just went looking for a song on youtube and clicked this link..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPZYxVXSOFc&fea...
Couldn't help but wonder what he was thinking..
I had to watch a 15 second Nissan commercial - nice to know they sponsor paedos :-)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPZYxVXSOFc&fea...
Couldn't help but wonder what he was thinking..
Another relevant song, but probably only known to Australians/Kiwis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m6GXEoOhN8
Edited by thehawk on Monday 8th October 01:31
groak said:
We might as well face up to it....the place is crawling with paedos and fiddlers. Priests are at it.Teachers are at it. Cops are at it. Celebs are at it. Ordinary mums and dads are at it. And it's just a matter of time till one of them starts activisming for its acceptance and legalisation. Next thing you know, it's an offence to offend them.
Next (once kiddy fiddling's decriminalised) it's animals. Or is shagging/being shagged by animals already acceptable?
Ho hum. Tiresome troll is tiresome. Next (once kiddy fiddling's decriminalised) it's animals. Or is shagging/being shagged by animals already acceptable?
The magic age of 16 has long been celebrated in pop and rock - especially in the rock and roll era -
"You're 16, You're Beautiful and You're Mine" - Johny Burnette (and Ringo Starr in 1974)
"Sweet Little 16" - Chuck Berry
"Only 16" - Craig Douglas/Sam Cooke
"Happy Birthday Sweet 16" - Neil Sedaka
"16 Candles" - The Crests
"You're 16, You're Beautiful and You're Mine" - Johny Burnette (and Ringo Starr in 1974)
"Sweet Little 16" - Chuck Berry
"Only 16" - Craig Douglas/Sam Cooke
"Happy Birthday Sweet 16" - Neil Sedaka
"16 Candles" - The Crests
Eric Mc said:
The magic age of 16 has long been celebrated in pop and rock - especially in the rock and roll era -
"You're 16, You're Beautiful and You're Mine" - Johny Burnette (and Ringo Starr in 1974)
"Sweet Little 16" - Chuck Berry
"Only 16" - Craig Douglas/Sam Cooke
"Happy Birthday Sweet 16" - Neil Sedaka
"16 Candles" - The Crests
Indeed Eric, but not with some sleeze bag shoving a grubby mit up young girls jumpers. Not sure but talking of 16 is it even lower in some American states, or did they change that?"You're 16, You're Beautiful and You're Mine" - Johny Burnette (and Ringo Starr in 1974)
"Sweet Little 16" - Chuck Berry
"Only 16" - Craig Douglas/Sam Cooke
"Happy Birthday Sweet 16" - Neil Sedaka
"16 Candles" - The Crests
All the above songs were written by American song writers - which, as you say, was slightly odd in that the legal age of consent in some US States was below 16 at the time those songs were written.
If I recall, Jerry Lee Lewis' marriage to his 13 year old cousin was perfectly legal under the law of the state in which the marriage was conducted. It only caused a fuss when he crossed over various state lines and when he wanted to bring her with him to the UK.
In the US there used to be a law called The Mann Act which allowed a US state to prosecute an individual if they crossed a state boundary with someone who was underage in that state. In 1962, Chuck Berry was prosecuted under this act for taking a 14 year old girl across the state lines.
If I recall, Jerry Lee Lewis' marriage to his 13 year old cousin was perfectly legal under the law of the state in which the marriage was conducted. It only caused a fuss when he crossed over various state lines and when he wanted to bring her with him to the UK.
In the US there used to be a law called The Mann Act which allowed a US state to prosecute an individual if they crossed a state boundary with someone who was underage in that state. In 1962, Chuck Berry was prosecuted under this act for taking a 14 year old girl across the state lines.
Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 8th October 08:43
There is a whole culture out there worshiping young adolescent sexuality. Just look at this person's work, for instance (warning this is absolutely disgusting stuff): http://www.daddyshere.com/frey.asp
Someone told me once about staying in the same hotel as Gary Glitter and how there were lots of girls around throwing themselves at him. If someone in the pop industry in those days had any paedo tendencies then there was a lot of temptation around for them.
The press can get Jimmy Saville very easily now he is dead and if Fred Goodwin was stripped of his knighthood then I am sure that JS will be.
More interestingly several of the reports have alluded to other who did similar who are still alive. It will be interesting if the press build up the courage to name names.
Someone told me once about staying in the same hotel as Gary Glitter and how there were lots of girls around throwing themselves at him. If someone in the pop industry in those days had any paedo tendencies then there was a lot of temptation around for them.
The press can get Jimmy Saville very easily now he is dead and if Fred Goodwin was stripped of his knighthood then I am sure that JS will be.
More interestingly several of the reports have alluded to other who did similar who are still alive. It will be interesting if the press build up the courage to name names.
There has been and probably still is a great deal of serious wrongdoing here, but society needs to stand back and decide what its ethos really is. Then it can actually do something about it, rather than conduct a melodramatic witchhunt against a celebrity who is conveniently dead.
It is patently clear that underage sex was rife in the pop music industry from the sixties onwards at least. John Peel has described girls of 13 and 14 throwing themselves at him in the States, where, correct me if I am wrong, the age of consent is 18. He was happy to oblige. It turns out that the Radio 1 roadshow was a hotbed of similar activity. Why do you imagine young blokes want to be pop stars or DJ's anyway? Anyone who used to watch Top of the Pops back in the day could tell you that it oozed sexuality, and anyone who imagined that a great deal of hanky panky was not taking place must be very naive.
The fashion industry is exactly the same.
It is symptomatic of the chronic hypocrisy we suffer from that someone like Esther Rantzen sets herself up as the children's protector and general purpose saint, but chooses to stay silent about Jimmy Savile. I wonder how many people 'abused' her on her way to the top, and why she has so far said nothing about it? And while Gary Glitter, or whatever his real name is, is undoubtedly a convicted pervert, isn't the press and everyone else slavering to tear him to shreds while ignoring what is going on in front of our eyes?
You would think that as a basic minimum, children in care homes whether run by the Church or the State, should be kept safe. What are the homes to do however when they cannot exercise any basic control over what the children they are looking after are allowed to do? Why have we not heard from these girls whom Savile abused before? Are we to believe that under age or otherwise they were not throwing themselves at the DJ like the ones in the US threw themselves at John Peel? So is this about anything other than money?
I think care homes would be a good place to start, and I remain of the view that there is a great deal more to come out on that topic were the press and politicians not very keen to keep a lid on it.
It is patently clear that underage sex was rife in the pop music industry from the sixties onwards at least. John Peel has described girls of 13 and 14 throwing themselves at him in the States, where, correct me if I am wrong, the age of consent is 18. He was happy to oblige. It turns out that the Radio 1 roadshow was a hotbed of similar activity. Why do you imagine young blokes want to be pop stars or DJ's anyway? Anyone who used to watch Top of the Pops back in the day could tell you that it oozed sexuality, and anyone who imagined that a great deal of hanky panky was not taking place must be very naive.
The fashion industry is exactly the same.
It is symptomatic of the chronic hypocrisy we suffer from that someone like Esther Rantzen sets herself up as the children's protector and general purpose saint, but chooses to stay silent about Jimmy Savile. I wonder how many people 'abused' her on her way to the top, and why she has so far said nothing about it? And while Gary Glitter, or whatever his real name is, is undoubtedly a convicted pervert, isn't the press and everyone else slavering to tear him to shreds while ignoring what is going on in front of our eyes?
You would think that as a basic minimum, children in care homes whether run by the Church or the State, should be kept safe. What are the homes to do however when they cannot exercise any basic control over what the children they are looking after are allowed to do? Why have we not heard from these girls whom Savile abused before? Are we to believe that under age or otherwise they were not throwing themselves at the DJ like the ones in the US threw themselves at John Peel? So is this about anything other than money?
I think care homes would be a good place to start, and I remain of the view that there is a great deal more to come out on that topic were the press and politicians not very keen to keep a lid on it.
cardigankid said:
It is patently clear that underage sex was rife in the pop music industry from the sixties onwards at least. John Peel has described girls of 13 and 14 throwing themselves at him in the States, where, correct me if I am wrong, the age of consent is 18. He was happy to oblige.
I hope you have some proof of that, rather than just spouting some vague allegation alluded to by the Daily Mail about someone who is no longer around to defend themselves.Bitofbully said:
cardigankid said:
It is patently clear that underage sex was rife in the pop music industry from the sixties onwards at least. John Peel has described girls of 13 and 14 throwing themselves at him in the States, where, correct me if I am wrong, the age of consent is 18. He was happy to oblige.
I hope you have some proof of that, rather than just spouting some vague allegation alluded to by the Daily Mail about someone who is no longer around to defend themselves.Again, I don't know what the legal age of marriage was in Texas back in the 1960-62 period.
At the end of the day 16 is selected as a balancing act point.
Girls and boys are basically programmed to become "sexual" at 13/14.
When mankind as a society had a shorter lifespan, society and civil units were smaller and life generally more fragile it was accepted that liasons from the start were encouraged.
In our more modern societies, where life now regularly extends to 100 and the average is around 80, the need and social urge to encourage mating to begin at that young age is no longer present. That *doesnt* mean any inbuilt urge is turned off for those that are programmed with it. Its illegal though, so tough luck.
Lets be honest teenagers do a hell of a lot of growing up between 13 and 16 and they/we do it at different rates. The trouble is as adults we all seem to forget this. Is there a difference between a girl the day before her 16th birthday and on her birthday? No, except she is now "legal". But is there a difference between a girl on the day after her 15th bday and the day before her 16th bday? In the eyes of the law no, in every other aspect though...yes, often a country mile difference. The same is true for a boy, but how they have developed during the yr is different to the girl. There is much more emphasis on the masculine logical mentality and physicallity developing than the emotional and its usually the opposite with the girl.
The male emotional development side often does not develop fully until in the 20s.
There is no social need to lower the age of consent. It exists as a restraint against adults using the rapid sexual and emotional development of teenagers as a catch-all. Teenagers playing amongst themselves shouldnt be regarded in the same context, thats entirely natural and frankly needed.
Girls and boys are basically programmed to become "sexual" at 13/14.
When mankind as a society had a shorter lifespan, society and civil units were smaller and life generally more fragile it was accepted that liasons from the start were encouraged.
In our more modern societies, where life now regularly extends to 100 and the average is around 80, the need and social urge to encourage mating to begin at that young age is no longer present. That *doesnt* mean any inbuilt urge is turned off for those that are programmed with it. Its illegal though, so tough luck.
Lets be honest teenagers do a hell of a lot of growing up between 13 and 16 and they/we do it at different rates. The trouble is as adults we all seem to forget this. Is there a difference between a girl the day before her 16th birthday and on her birthday? No, except she is now "legal". But is there a difference between a girl on the day after her 15th bday and the day before her 16th bday? In the eyes of the law no, in every other aspect though...yes, often a country mile difference. The same is true for a boy, but how they have developed during the yr is different to the girl. There is much more emphasis on the masculine logical mentality and physicallity developing than the emotional and its usually the opposite with the girl.
The male emotional development side often does not develop fully until in the 20s.
There is no social need to lower the age of consent. It exists as a restraint against adults using the rapid sexual and emotional development of teenagers as a catch-all. Teenagers playing amongst themselves shouldnt be regarded in the same context, thats entirely natural and frankly needed.
All I say is kids are generally still in education till 16/18 so anyone of adult age should just leave them the f
k alone! There may be some who are capable of 'throwing themselves' at older men but does not mean they are able to deal with the repercussions. They are still naive. Adult men should act honourably and respect this really ( key words respect and honour).
k alone! There may be some who are capable of 'throwing themselves' at older men but does not mean they are able to deal with the repercussions. They are still naive. Adult men should act honourably and respect this really ( key words respect and honour).Has anyone mentioned the Papal Knighthood from the Vatican yet? For services to children?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detail...
By the way that's Papal as in Pope, not Paypal as in purchased off the internet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detail...
By the way that's Papal as in Pope, not Paypal as in purchased off the internet
Eric Mc said:
I would suggest that the age of consent be INCREASED rather than decreased. Whilst physically, young people may be maturing earlier - in my opinion, mentally they are maturing much later. Many youngsters of 18 today behave and act as if they were 12.
What penalty would you impose on a couple of 17-year olds going at it like rabbits? And why?As for idiotic 18s, I suspect this arises in part from our "letter of the law" society. In the days when you could sneak into a pub at 15/16 you knew darned well that if you misbehaved the landlord would sling you out.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff