MilitantDogOwner Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Surely the only country whose laws matter are the ones in which the offence was committed. And that point has never been contested. I was talking in a general sense. But clearly people had failed to see that. Right & Wrong are not the same as legal & illegal. Never a truer statement... It might be wrong to sleep with 13 years in some places. But it is not illegal. And at the end of the day its the law that decides if you get put away or not. Maybe if enough people stood up and demanded a change maybe you wouldn't get "paedo tourists" who make a point of travelling to places with a low age of consent so that they can "get away with it". So we've come full circle and I'm left wondering again what point you are making by mention the age of consent in Spain. I have explained this several times. Last time now... 1. I have not any point disputed the fact that Roman Polanski has broken the law. Lets just make that clear. 2. The reason I mentioned Spain and other nations is because hboy said "He's a filthy paedo in anyone's book." I pointed out that he would not be in other countries. He would be tried as a rapist. I was mearly making a comparision. This comparison was to show that different nations believe that child/young adults/teenagers (whatever) are sexually mature at different ages (within the law at least). Trying to have an adult discussion about such a sensitive subject is never going to happen. By offering an alternative angle on this I have invited accusations of being a "paedo lover" and "campaigning for paedo rights". It has become bleeding obvious that anyone who makes any kind of statement which requires a little bit of higher thinking is going to get shouted down by a bunch of pitch fork wielding nutters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 The reason I mentioned Spain and other nations is because hboy said "He's a filthy paedo in anyone's book." I pointed out that he would not be in other countries. He would be tried as a rapist. I was mearly making a comparision. This comparison was to show that different nations believe that child/young adults/teenagers (whatever) are sexually mature at different ages (within the law at least). Yes I saw that explaination, and kind of accepted it, but you say it again - (MilitantDogOwner @ Oct 8 2009, 10:11 PM) (Chinahand @ Oct 8 2009, 09:41 PM) (Sebrof @ Oct 8 2009, 09:33 PM) Drugging women in order to have sex with them is wrong however old or young they are. And a 44 year old having sex with a 13 year old? Depends on the laws of the land as previously stated. (sorry for the bloat coat but it's needed to show the context of MDO's statement. Where you seem to be saying whether it is wrong for a 44 year old to shag a 13 year old depends on what country you are in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oogie boogie Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Just to break up all this fighting among our own. Here's a little picture of a mad jap child dressed as a frog policeman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 That's not what MDO seems to be saying from my point of view, however, MDO seems to be making the mistake of not carefully qualifying his statements in the context of the legal system. And I think there seems to be an odd assumption that whether something or someone termed paedophilic/paedophile or not denotes whether it is wrong or right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 To simplify and clarify. Its wrong...but not illegal, in the countries previously mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 And I think there seems to be an odd assumption that whether something or someone termed paedophilic/paedophile or not denotes whether it is wrong or right. No it seems to the legality of the isssue and the definition of peadophile are not what this issues about but right & wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Yes, you're right. But when people are mentioning the possible impact of the age of consent there seems to this tendency to hover over the labelling of whether the person is a paedophile. And this is on the assumption that by calling him a paedophile we are recognising he has done wrong, rather than just recognise than buggering a kid is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Roo Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 A young girl (14 years)) i used to know had a boyfriend who was 21 years i remember at the time thinking it was not quite right but this is just me and in my mind it seemed wrong but i am curious how you guy's/girls view it??? If you had a daughter of 14 years of age would you be happy for a grown man of 21 years to be in a sexual relationship with her? I for one was (in my mind) very grown up and older than my years at this age but i also had very childlike tendencies like most if not all 14 year olds, after all at this age it is still classed as being a child! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazir Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Should Polinski pay? Having just read this surely the problem is that Polinski did pay? Or have I misunderstoood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
localyokel Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 And I think there seems to be an odd assumption that whether something or someone termed paedophilic/paedophile or not denotes whether it is wrong or right. No it seems to the legality of the isssue and the definition of peadophile are not what this issues about but right & wrong. This thread is great I've only just stumbled across it. I think you are right. Reading Sebrof and Militant Dog Owner crawl over the specific definitions and debate the difference the age of consent means even if its for sex with a thirteen year old, I'm reminded of the sort of arguments I'm sure sex offenders might have when looking for technicalities before a court case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Having read through it, I think there are also a few who are just a little bit too ready to condemn. In fact, I think it may be possible to argue that the whole concept of an 'age of consent' is counter-productive since it's quite obvious that some people mature earlier than others. The idea that a child suddenly becomes a mature adult on a specific day, and that it is the same for everyone, may simplify things for the leagal establishment, but it is not really sustainable. In the Polanski case, however, there seems little room for doubt - simply from the fact that he was 31 years older than the young teen he had sex with. Once again, though, if it had happened 3 years later - when he was 47 and she was 16 - there would have been no legal case to answer even though, for most people I suspect, it would have been equally reprehensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 derailing thread to say to Lonan3 - glad you've returned! Welcome back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Having read through it, I think there are also a few who are just a little bit too ready to condemn.In fact, I think it may be possible to argue that the whole concept of an 'age of consent' is counter-productive since it's quite obvious that some people mature earlier than others. The idea that a child suddenly becomes a mature adult on a specific day, and that it is the same for everyone, may simplify things for the leagal establishment, but it is not really sustainable. In the Polanski case, however, there seems little room for doubt - simply from the fact that he was 31 years older than the young teen he had sex with. Once again, though, if it had happened 3 years later - when he was 47 and she was 16 - there would have been no legal case to answer even though, for most people I suspect, it would have been equally reprehensible. But we can as easily summise that if it occured 3 years earlier--him 41 and her 10 would we be having this discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Not wanting to over complicate this debate, but the age of consent in California is 18. Various countires have a flexible age of consent which is dependent on the age of the sexual partner. IE between 13 and 16 they can only have sex with a partner who is no more than 5 years older than them. No law is ideal, but this is an attempt to acknowledge people do mature earlier, but tries to protect them from exploitation. I tend to think such ideas are sensible. These ideas are irrelevent to the discussion about Polanski, but the discussion is widening out so thought I'd see what people think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Not wanting to over complicate this debate Over complicate? Between Seborf talking through his arse, and MDO posing as Gary Giltters best mate I'm not sure where else this thread can go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.