Oz body slam, now house mistress abuses boys in NSW.

[Landlord]

Eric Mc said:

ACTING on those urges CAN be a crime depending on the nature of those actions.

Genuine question - under what circumstances would acting on those urges not be a crime?. Like I say, genuine question with no intended loading.

[Eric Mc]

Landlord said:

Eric Mc said:

ACTING on those urges CAN be a crime depending on the nature of those actions.

Genuine question - under what circumstances would acting on those urges not be a crime?. Like I say, genuine question with no intended loading.

It depends on what form the action takes. There are many permutations - I'm sure.

[Eric Mc]

Godzuki said:

Eric Mc said:

Singlecoil is correct. BEING a paedophile or having a paedophile mentality is NOT a crime. There is no such criminal offence in the statute books.

ACTING on those urges CAN be a crime depending on the nature of those actions.

People find it very difficult to differentiate between thoughts and actions.

George Orwell wasn't wrong.

I never said it was a crime. However this woman DID commit a crime, and molested kids. Now if this was a man, as someone said, they would be shouting it from the rooftops, but why not this woman?

I was referring more to singlecoil's comment rather than yours. The Australian court will decide what crime this woman committed.

[Landlord]

Eric Mc said:

It depends on what form the action takes. There are many permutations - I'm sure.

Yeah - I got that far. I couldn't, however, think of a sexual act involving a child that wouldn't be a crime?

Actually - perhaps "observation" may be... you know, the freaks that hang around school gates etc. "just looking". That, in itself, isn't a crime. Though there are possibly statistics that would suggest that the level of action rarely stops there.

[GingerWizard]

40 years.
and steralisation.

[Eric Mc]

Landlord said:

Eric Mc said:

It depends on what form the action takes. There are many permutations - I'm sure.

Yeah - I got that far. I couldn't, however, think of a sexual act involving a child that wouldn't be a crime?

Actually - perhaps "observation" may be... you know, the freaks that hang around school gates etc. "just looking". That, in itself, isn't a crime. Though there are possibly statistics that would suggest that the level of action rarely stops there.

There was a thread running a few days ago where this debate also cropped up. Any paedophile who actually gets involved physically with a child or children should have the book thrown at him or her.

Those who keep their "interest" to observing, watching media etc are obviously behaving in an aberrant (and abhorent) way but the bature of their crime is an order of magnitude lower than actual molesting or abusing. It is up to the courts to decide how serious the various offences are - or indeed if what the person was doing constuituted an offence at all.

[Bing o]

Eric Mc said:

Those who keep their "interest" to observing, watching media etc are obviously behaving in an aberrant (and abhorent) way but the bature of their crime is an order of magnitude lower than actual molesting or abusing. It is up to the courts to decide how serious the various offences are - or indeed if what the person was doing constuituted an offence at all.

Can I be the first to say "you don't have kids, do you?"

[singlecoil]

Bing o said:

Eric Mc said:

Those who keep their "interest" to observing, watching media etc are obviously behaving in an aberrant (and abhorent) way but the bature of their crime is an order of magnitude lower than actual molesting or abusing. It is up to the courts to decide how serious the various offences are - or indeed if what the person was doing constuituted an offence at all.

Can I be the first to say "you don't have kids, do you?"

Let's hope you are the first and ONLY one to say that.

[joe_90]

singlecoil said:

Seems a very reasonable mitigation to me. It is different to the adult male-pubescent girl scenario.

OK.. I get your point, but lets look at example given (even though she did have full sex). If a man (40) walks into a tent full of girls (11/12) and says who wants oral, and then kind of bullies them until they give is, is the same as what she did? Or because shes female its kind of not as damaging?

Also shes not a pedo.. they are too old for that (in both cases).

[Tiggsy]

Bing o said:

Can I be the first to say "you don't have kids, do you?"

Nonesense, I have 4 and couldnt care less what someone does if it is legal and doesnt harm someone else. What next, you going to arrest the people on here who want to give Kelly Brook a good seeing to, for rape?

[Bing o]

Tiggsy said:

Nonesense, I have 4 and couldnt care less what someone does if it is legal and doesnt harm someone else. What next, you going to arrest the people on here who want to give Kelly Brook a good seeing to, for rape?

I don't have kids either. Just pre-empting the usual "you don't know" parent brigade. There are many female peados, and I have no idea why the title references a case of bullying and a rather smart wrestling move...

[Eric Mc]

Bing o said:

Eric Mc said:

Those who keep their "interest" to observing, watching media etc are obviously behaving in an aberrant (and abhorent) way but the bature of their crime is an order of magnitude lower than actual molesting or abusing. It is up to the courts to decide how serious the various offences are - or indeed if what the person was doing constuituted an offence at all.

Can I be the first to say "you don't have kids, do you?"

Is the human race divided into two clases of people then - those who have had children and those who havent?

Are you imnplying that those who haven't had children are inacapable of appreciating the true awfullness of paedophelia?.

I find that particular assumption downright disgraceful and insulting.

[Godzuki]

joe_90 said:

Also shes not a pedo.. they are too old for that (in both cases).

11 and 12 is not paedo? What, pray tell is the limit for fking children?

[singlecoil]

Godzuki said:

joe_90 said:

Also shes not a pedo.. they are too old for that (in both cases).

11 and 12 is not paedo? What, pray tell is the limit for fking children?

I understood that paedophilia was all about PRE pubescent children. Any boy that is capable of having sex is not PRE pubescent. I trust you don't need a more explicit explanation.

[Godzuki]

singlecoil said:

I understood that paedophilia was all about PRE pubescent children. Any boy that is capable of having sex is not PRE pubescent. I trust you don't need a more explicit explanation.

Fine.. hebephillia it is then...

[Eric Mc]

singlecoil said:

Godzuki said:

joe_90 said:

Also shes not a pedo.. they are too old for that (in both cases).

11 and 12 is not paedo? What, pray tell is the limit for fking children?

I understood that paedophilia was all about PRE pubescent children. Any boy that is capable of having sex is not PRE pubescent. I trust you don't need a more explicit explanation.

Is it not set by the country's legal age of consent (16 in the UK)?

[Tsippy]

Godzuki said:

joe_90 said:

Also shes not a pedo.. they are too old for that (in both cases).

11 and 12 is not paedo? What, pray tell is the limit for fking children?

At that age in my school, there were girls who wanted to fk the male teachers (some succeeded according to the rumour mill) and boys who would be more than up for fking the female teachers (again some may have succeeded)....and those who fancied fudge packing and fanny rubbing the staff.

Still doesn't make what she did right, in fact I think it's disgusting, but I don't think that the 'psychological damage' that people claim actually exists. If any of the kids in my year had achieved their desire of banging the fit teachers at the ages of 11-14 they'd have been getting high fives

[Godzuki]

Well, I don;t want to get explicit, but I don;t think there is an 'age' where you get a boner, is there? Certainly had them before Mr Twinky got a toupe.

[Tsippy]

Nine if I remember correctly

[singlecoil]

Eric Mc said:

singlecoil said:

Godzuki said:

joe_90 said:

Also shes not a pedo.. they are too old for that (in both cases).

11 and 12 is not paedo? What, pray tell is the limit for fking children?

I understood that paedophilia was all about PRE pubescent children. Any boy that is capable of having sex is not PRE pubescent. I trust you don't need a more explicit explanation.

Is it not set by the country's legal age of consent (16 in the UK)?

As a very perceptive poster said earlier in this thread, paedophilia is a state of mind, and not subject to legislation.