No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by RankBajin on Oct 29, 2011 2:57:01 PM
Sir Jimmy Savile dies aged 84

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16099015

So:

  • Kiddly fiddler?
  • Corpse toucher?
  • Other? (please specify)
  • All of the above?

nubuck - 26 Nov 2012 13:11:19 (#8641 of 17327)

Extend that notion and there would be no such thing as a whistle blower.

CheBoludo - 26 Nov 2012 13:32:05 (#8642 of 17327)

The people mentioned were gay. They probably had sex with youths under the age of consent (which didn't actually exist at the time for homosexuals) but to call them paedophiles is to misunderstand the term.

The Arthur C Clarke defence.

Brunothecat - 26 Nov 2012 13:37:17 (#8643 of 17327)

Extend that notion and there would be no such thing as a whistle blower.

Eh?

You think the only people who get the whistle blown on them are gold tracksuit sporting celebrities who have Christmas din din with the PM occasionally and have been given access to supposedly top security facilities?

nubuck - 26 Nov 2012 13:40:58 (#8644 of 17327)

Er, actually, no.

Post deleted by NOTtheTalk
DunlaithDunla - 26 Nov 2012 14:39:47 (#8646 of 17327)

The MCAlpine stuff reminds me of the Simpsons spoof. Homer Simpson is accused of molesting the babysitter when he pulls a piece of candy off which had stuck to her bottom. There's a media storm where his guilt is automatically assumed and Homer becomes a hate figure. On national TV a sobbing woman cries "I don't know Homer Simpson, I never met him or had any real contact with him but - I'm sorry I can't go on" and the interviewer says "That's OK, your tears say more than any real evidence ever could."

CheBoludo - 26 Nov 2012 14:46:01 (#8647 of 17327)

FFS, NTT. The dead can't fucking sue. Learn the fucking law you idiots.

NOTtheTalk - 26 Nov 2012 15:56:39 (#8648 of 17327)

CheBoludo - 26 Nov 2012 14:46:01 ( #8647 of 8647)

FFS, NTT. The dead can't fucking sue. Learn the fucking law you idiots.

Harriet Harman is not dead, and could have sued over your interpretation of her position.

CheBoludo - 26 Nov 2012 16:49:23 (#8649 of 17327)

It's hard to sue over something that's true. It's a well documented fact, that's appeared in many MSM outlets.

springplease - 26 Nov 2012 16:52:20 (#8650 of 17327)

The people mentioned were gay. They probably had sex with youths under the age of consent (which didn't actually exist at the time for homosexuals) but to call them paedophiles is to misunderstand the term.



They were sexual abusers. Sexual orientation is irrelevant.

CheBoludo - 26 Nov 2012 16:57:39 (#8651 of 17327)

Too right, spring. It's sickening that people are making this into a gay/straight and political issue. We owe it to the survivors to look beyond such petty issues.

JohnIlly - 26 Nov 2012 17:18:56 (#8652 of 17327)

I repeat: to call them paedophiles is to misunderstand the term.

springplease - 26 Nov 2012 17:44:48 (#8653 of 17327)

We do, Che.

It's not going to be easy because in almost every issue there always seems to be a lot of people who prefer to use the issue to strengthen their ideological or political perspective, with very little actual interest in the victims, the causes, the solutions.

There are also so many old assumptions and false beliefs about sexual abuse that go back a long way. It wasn't that long ago that most people believed the effects of sexual abuse, particularly on very young children, were minimal or didn't cause particular harm, for example. So the crime might have seemed repulsive to them, but in context, not that severe. All the research coming out, including research using brain scans that shows the physical effects on the brain sexual abuse causes, and the direct link it has to serious mental health problems, has disproven that but awareness and laws have not caught up.

The other side of the coin is that there has been much confusion as to the motives of sexual abusers, creating different classes of abusers, many of which minimize the sexual abuser's intent and pathology. I think this goes back to the historical myth that sexual abusers were only dirty old unemployed men who hid in back alleys.

People who sexually abuse children suffer from a pathology, typically related to them once having been victimized themselves. And just as rape has nothing to do with sex, so sexual abuse has nothing to do with sex. It's about power, destroying, overpowering, hurting, degrading a helpless human being.

It will take a while for most people to realize this and to dump all the old assumptions about sexual abusers--many of which have been pushed forward by sexual abusers themselves, attempting to minimize their crime and even appear as the victims themselves.

springplease - 26 Nov 2012 17:47:22 (#8654 of 17327)

repeat: to call them paedophiles is to misunderstand the term.



The term will one day soon be archived in history books.

Gay men or women, straight or bi men and women who sexually abuse children are sexual abusers.

If someone kills, they are a murderer.

If someone rapes, they are a rapist.

If someone sexually abuses, they are a sexual abuser.

Shabbyman - 26 Nov 2012 18:05:16 (#8655 of 17327)

Just to clarify then, when there was no homosexual age of consent, but the age of majority was 21, sex with an under-21 year-old was abuse, yes?

springplease - 26 Nov 2012 18:13:11 (#8656 of 17327)

Sexual abuse of child or teen was sexual abuse, yes, regardless of the law.

Honour killing might have been legal in some countries, but it is still murder.

But the age of majority issue for homosexuals is definitely a good loop hole for gay sexual abusers from the past to avoid conviction.

It doesn't make them not sexual abusers.

JollityFarm - 26 Nov 2012 18:14:42 (#8657 of 17327)

I hadn't heard that Tom Driberg or Robert Boothby had sexually abused anyone. I had heard that Boothby went with anything with human DNA (including Harold MacMillian's wife) and Driberg was arrested for cottaging, probably more than once, and claimed to have hit on/had relations with other big-name politicians. But not your actual abuse.

xbod72 - 26 Nov 2012 18:17:31 (#8658 of 17327)

sexual abuse has nothing to do with sex.



So a paedophile doesn't find children sexually attractive?

The sexual arousal comes from the thoughts/acts associated with domination itself and the feeling of power?

Shabbyman - 26 Nov 2012 18:51:29 (#8659 of 17327)

My example was a bit clunky, but your response suggests that, historically, 20th birthday sex = abuse (on part of older participant); 21st birthday sex = not abuse. Correct?

springplease - 26 Nov 2012 18:54:28 (#8660 of 17327)

The sexual arousal comes from the thoughts/acts associated with domination itself and the feeling of power?



Yes. It is in fact rape on a child.

Check Subscriptions
|
Home » Media