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


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

springplease - 26 Nov 2012 18:59:01 (#8661 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?

No. I hardly think a 21 year old in a relationship with an 18 year old is sexual abuse, regardless of sexual orientation.

springplease - 26 Nov 2012 19:03:40 (#8662 of 17327)


If you'd like to debate my "nonsense", I have no problem with that.

Post by deleted user
springplease - 26 Nov 2012 19:05:05 (#8664 of 17327)

And if you lack the knowledge to do so, I totally understand why you won't.

Shabbyman - 26 Nov 2012 19:08:59 (#8665 of 17327)

Shabbyman - 26 Nov 2012 18:05:16 ( #8655 of 8661)

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 8661)

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.

No. I hardly think a 21 year old in a relationship with an 18 year old is sexual abuse, regardless of sexual orientation.

I think you've rather contradicted yourself.

Bobthebuilder - 26 Nov 2012 19:21:14 (#8666 of 17327)

Father O'Grady the catholic priest who abused dozens of children in California and his crimes were covered up by the church, cooperated in the making of the documentary 'Deliver Us From Evil'.

It is a really difficult watch, in which he uses the term 'getting affectionate with' to describe his crimes more often than not. The affects on the families of the victims as well as on the victims themselves are dreadful to watch.

If you have a strong stomach, I recommend this documentary:

nubuck - 26 Nov 2012 19:31:18 (#8667 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.

Then you will be able to provide links to any further mention etc.

JohnIlly - 26 Nov 2012 19:33:34 (#8668 of 17327)

It's a well documented fact, that's been on the internet.

aka the Schofield Defence.

solomongursky - 26 Nov 2012 19:40:29 (#8669 of 17327)

If you have a strong stomach, I recommend this documentary:

Dunno where you saw it, it doesn't work in that link.

Bobthebuilder - 26 Nov 2012 20:13:05 (#8670 of 17327)

I saw it on Net Flix on TV: here's a trailer from You Tube:

springplease - 26 Nov 2012 21:09:04 (#8671 of 17327)

You're right, shabbyman, I did and was careless in my choice of words.

If you consider child development, the younger the children, the greater the differences beween ages in development and abilities. The gaps increasingly close as people reach full adulthood.

GreenFuture - 26 Nov 2012 21:47:17 (#8672 of 17327)

John Illys point about misuse of the term is both relevant and frustratingly irrelevant insofar as too few seem to give a shit anymore.

The UN specifies, IMO correctly, that the dividing line is puberty (how precise and quantifiable is that?). To most it seems to be about age of majority which is less accurate and more problematic.

But common usage can make a mistake 'acceptably true', so that 'crecendo' is now used to describe a climax of volume build up at least as much as to describe the process of build up itself (which it actually is)

And Nike now rhymes with 'bike' or 'spikey', rather than 'peek hay' as it does in the original Greek.

Common usage - of potential deep annoyance to the Union Of Pedants.

Shabbyman - 26 Nov 2012 21:49:42 (#8673 of 17327)


Yes, I thought you meant that.

GreenFuture - 26 Nov 2012 21:50:20 (#8674 of 17327)

^ "age of majority" is less problematic in law, of course, than 'puberty' as a dividing line.

Isolde - 27 Nov 2012 00:12:55 (#8675 of 17327)

I give a shit but am waiting for the outcome of investigations or further developments before I comment, GF. As with the Leveson Inquiry, silence doesn't necessarily mean disinterest.

Cavewoman - 27 Nov 2012 00:20:22 (#8676 of 17327)

I think you might perhaps mean uninterest, or lack of interest. Disinterest is something other.

Isolde - 27 Nov 2012 00:23:35 (#8677 of 17327)

Thanks Cavewoman.

allows for lack of interest as a meaning

but here is quite categorical.

moto748 - 27 Nov 2012 00:31:56 (#8678 of 17327)

I guess if it's used often enough wrongly (strictly), it takes the meaning in common usage, like infer for imply.

Isolde - 27 Nov 2012 00:33:16 (#8679 of 17327)

It's an interesting point - my best friend is a chief sub so I shall ask him tomorrow. :)

Merriam-Webbster aligns with the Oxford dictionary here

Cavewoman - 27 Nov 2012 00:41:00 (#8680 of 17327)

Infer for imply is appalling and misleading. I'm all for the movement of language, but they mean opposite things.

Check Subscriptions
Home » Media