While creating the links for my previous post, I came upon this quite unpleasant post from right-wing blogger Tim Worstall, in which he introduces the concept of “underage totty”.
Underage totty in Worstall’s world is, as far as I can establish, a female who is a child in law and therefore with a right to legal protection from sexual predators, but who by dint of some pro-active display of her sexuality, can be seen not to be in need of that protection. Or something. From what he goes on to say about how 14, 15 and 16 year olds should be treated under law, Worstall seems to be suggesting that a physical capacity to act or appear in a sexual or sexualised manner should be the main indicator of when a young person should be regarded as an adult in law, when it comes to sexual consent.
No, the point is and was that various jurisdictions have different definitions of what underage totty is.
14, where I live in Portugal (and no, I do not live here for that reason), 16 in the UK, 18 in Florida which is the age under discussion in this particular case of alleged abuse. Given that difference in ages that various laws apply to those who need the protection of the law it is indeed reasonable to ponder what should be the age at which the protection of the law is extended.
Or is it just good enough to be able to associate “right-wing” and “paedo!” for some vague political purpose?
And underage totty is just that. “Totty”, attractive, toothsome, young woman, “underage”, one who is afforded the protections of the law from those who would partake of that attractiveness, toothsomeness.
Finally, yes, it is an interesting point for debate that someone in Florida at age 17 years and 364 days is deemed to require the protection of the law against my or your advances while one in Portugal, even the same person in Portugal, is deemed to have been entirely at liberty to decide for themselves for the previous 3 years and 364 days.
I’ve no idea who has it right (although I do, as I said, tend to think that 18 is probably a bit on the high side, as UK law also states) but it is an interesting point to note isn’t it?
Or is that combination of “right-wing” and “paedo!” just too attractive to pass up?