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?

garrick92

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

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

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

springplease - 26 Nov 2012 18:13:11 ( #8656 of 8661)

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

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: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/deliver-us-from-evil/

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.

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

aka the Schofield Defence.

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

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

I saw it on Net Flix on TV: here's a trailer from You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OCz55k0pdc

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.

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.

#8671

Yes, I thought you meant that.

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

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.

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

Thanks Cavewoman.

Although http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/d
isinterested allows for lack of interest as a meaning

but here

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/disinterested-not-the-same-as-uninterested/ is quite categorical.

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

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

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/disintere
st

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