Fairly flimsy attack here

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.

No?

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?

168 thoughts on “Fairly flimsy attack here”

  1. So Much for Subtlety

    Has this fool never heard of the term “jailbait”?

    Whatever he might like, the law recognises the concept of a girl who is interested in sex and yet is underage. This is why we do not jail 15 year olds who have sex with each other. But we do jail 35 year old men who have sex with 15 year old girls. Sometimes we even jail 35 year old women who have sex with 15 year old boys.

    In any normal circumstance (ie before he politicised the situation) he would presumably recognise this basic fact.

  2. There are also different consequences to the age depending on local culture.

    A few decades ago in Britain “unlawful sexual intercourse” with a willing person under age was treated mildly, and only really prosecuted where there was an abuse of trust involved, such as by a teacher. Those involved were not classified in the public mind as “child molesters”, as the phrase was.

    Meanwhile in most US jurisdictions, the same behaviour (at often, but not always, a higher age limit) was and is “statutory rape” and treated very severely.

    Part of the paedo-panic has been to remove distinctions and shove Britain firmly in the American direction. Recent legal changes reinforce this. My impression is that other European countries have not shifted in the same way.

    It is also interesting to compare jurisdictions – basically the Arab world – that don’t allow for sexual consent at all. There all intercourse is either lawful or not and whether your were raped depends on whether violence was used to overcome resistance by someone who wasn’t entitled to. Consent might be real, but one’s not entitled to give it, and the authorities react with horror at such an unacceptable idea.

  3. I left a comment over there, but it vanished so it might have gone into moderation or been lost forever, oh noes.

    Anyway, this thread will give our shining white knight Mr Ironman the chance to point the paedofinger and regale us with more balls of steel, no doubt.

  4. Guy Herbert-

    On this matter, like most of the “progressive” tranche of bollocks, we’re basically adopting American opinions and policies, since neo-progressivism, and particularly the feminist bit, is basically American in origin. Britain like the rest of the Western world has been Americanising on all this stuff- race, gender, “discrimination” and stuff, since the 1960s.

  5. So Much for Subtlety

    Now Worstall’s ignorance of or wanton disregard for how wealth, power and gender status* come together to create the concept of “totty” in the first place need not detain us too long

    That’s telling you Tim. Here I was, thinking that it was blood flow in the male organ that defined the concept of Totty, but it turns out I am wrong. The Social Justice Warrior Collective have decided it is a matter of class, gender and race. Who knew?

    – he revels in his non-PC status and a bit of online trolling of a possible victim of serious sexual abuse is presumably all part of the act

    Possible victim of serious sexual abuse? First of all, serious? What the f**k? If you are going to call a 17 year old girl being paid reasonable amounts of money and flown around the world in exchange for the odd blow job serious sexual abuse, what are you going to call gang rape of a 12 year old girl?

    Get some perspective boyo.

    (we will leave aside here Worstall’s apparent confusion between the age of consent and protection from harm).

    Oh do tell. What is the difference between the age of consent and protection from harm?

    actual research suggests public and legal policy might be better going the other way, and creating protective mechanisms for young people for longer. If we look at brain, as opposed to breast, formation, longitudinal tracking of adolescents and young people’s brains indicates that the parts of the brain associated with judgment, especially in “hot” circumstances, continues well into a young person’s third decade:

    So he wants to raise the age of consent to 25? Good luck with that one laddie. I can see it going down well in Norfolk.

    Thus, adolescent maturity of judgment and its putative biological determinants are difficult to disentangle from socioemotional context.

    And hence the need for some sort of objective measure like, Oh I don’t know, turning 18. However that does not change the fact that some people will mature faster and some slower. Which was pretty much TW’s point I am thinking.

    the similarly-minded on what’s permissible if you’re a rich, white bloke.

    What is mildly annoying about this sh!t is that he has got this precisely backwards. We know that the sexual abuse of 17 year olds is fine if you’re not rich, not White and not a bloke. In fact the less rich, the less White and the less of a bloke, the less chance there is you will be punished. There is an even smaller chance that SJW like this tosser would criticise someone of Jamaican origin for doing so much less a Pakistani from Rotherham.

    But, as someone who remains unapologetically and old-fashionedly PC about the rights of both women and children, I do feel bound to point it out.

    Good luck with that. I am sure that there must be at least one feminist out there who will toss him a pity-f**k.

  6. “I am sure that there must be at least one feminist out there who will toss him a pity-f**k.”

    Getting fucked by the sort of feminist who would do that for writing what he’s written would certainly inspire pity from me.

  7. Oh, well Tim, look on the bright side.

    A few short years ago you’d have been a right-wing racist.

    Progress, left wing style.

  8. I’d note that, as with much cod-feminism, this is harping on the trope that women are essentially incapable of making their own decisions therefore need to be protected indefinitely not just from the evil patriarchy but from the world itself.

    Which, it seems to me, was a very large proportion of what original feminism was complaining against? That women should be, legally and socially, treated as free agents, capable of making their own decisions for good or for bad.

  9. So Much for Subtlety

    This is because most women labour under a false consciousness. They are heterosexual and so take part in their own oppression. If they were really liberated, they would recognise that all heterosexual intercourse, more or less, is rape:

    From Stacey McCain:

    http://theothermccain.com/2015/01/06/feminisms-campaign-of-sexual-terror/

    “The issue in rape has been whether the intercourse was provoked/mutually desired, or whether it was forced: was it sex or violence? . . .
    “[W]omen notice that sexual harassment looks a great deal like ordinary heterosexual initiation under conditions of gender inequality. Few women are in a position to refuse unwanted sexual initiatives. That consent rather than nonmutuality is the line between rape and intercourse further exposes the inequality in normal social expectations. So does the substantial amount of male force allowed in the focus on the woman’s resistance, which tends to be disabled by socialization to passivity. If sex is ordinarily accepted as something men do to women, the better question would be whether consent is a meaningful concept. Penetration (often by a penis) is also substantially more central to both the legal definition of rape and the male definition of sexual intercourse than it is to women’s sexual violation or sexual pleasure. . . . Although most women are raped by men they know, the closer the relation, the less women are allowed to claim it was rape. . . .
    “Sexuality, then, is a form of power. Gender, as socially constructed, embodies it, not the reverse. Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
    — Catharine MacKinnon, “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory” (1982)

    It is odd because McCain is, well, odd. Even by my standards. Yet he is one of the few people talking sense on feminism.

    But nonmutuality? Does CK ever define what she means by that?

  10. While creating the links for my previous post…

    Uh-huh. Honestly love, I was just “creating links for my previous post” and happened to stumble upon a post about underage totty.

  11. We know that the sexual abuse of 17 year olds is fine if you’re not rich, not White and not a bloke.

    Except for those who attend Tory-run kiddy-strangling parties, of course.

  12. So Much for Subtlety

    Tim Newman – “Except for those who attend Tory-run kiddy-strangling parties, of course.”

    The Tories would allow anyone who wasn’t a rich White bloke share their kiddy-strangling parties. They are toffs! Who hate Black people! And da womnz!

    Maybe the odd intergalatic shape-changing lizard. But certainly no one from, say, a country darker than Italy.

  13. SMFS-

    This is pretty much the point I’ve been making, specifically referencing Mackinnon. It is not much hyperbole to say she wrote the book on this (the expanded version of the above essay, “Towards A Feminist Theory Of The State”, is basically the bible of legalist feminism. She is probably the 2nd Wave’s most important figure, since she was the one who took the ideas and turned them into a legal form that could be implemented- exploitation, objectification, sexual harrasment, the power relations etc. She for instance introduced the concept of sexual harrassment itself, and so far as I can tell also is the origin of the objectification discourse (she uses some bizarre wordplay to declare that objectification is the method of objectivity, the legal ideal, deliberately confusing the two quite distinct things- “subject and object” and “subjective and objective”- to get the justifications for the feminist-subjectivist legal system she desired and which we now see being implemented).

    Anyone who wants to understand the current porridge of nonsense has to read Mackinnon. You can’t really understand what is going on simply in the realm of the popular discourse.

  14. Tim once wrote that the one thing you must not do as a blogger is tell lies about people. Well this looks like libel to me.

  15. Speaking legalistically, there is enough hedging in the Flinching Coward post (and Tim’s original post does read to be suggesting that UK aoc @ 16 is around the highest justifiable and that 18 is over the top), that only a defamation lawyer would have low enough morals to see libel in this.

  16. There does seem to be something of a deliberate campaign going on at the moment to link underage sex with right-wing.

    They couldn’t possibly be that cynical, could they?

  17. In the left wing mind, anyone who disagrees with them is “right wing”. The definition of “conservative” is simply the negative space of “progressive”. So anything they consider bad is automatically linked to right wing. It’s the same sort of definition as “heretic”, which is anyone who disagrees with, disputes or is not seen as sufficiently aligned with whatever the orthodox faith is. Progressivism is a religious mode of thought, remember.

  18. Speaking legalistically…morals. I bet you kept a straight face writing that as well.

    I can indeed see the attempt to hedge. I also think I see the failure to hedge sufficiently. Speaking morally this is an attempt to paint Tim Worstall as a paedophile; dirty.

  19. Ironman,

    I agree entirely. All I was disputing was whether it crossed the legal threshold.

    As for the straight face, well, yes. Although that was more to do with the irritatingly political nature of the work I’m dealing with this morning rather than anything I’m commenting here.

  20. Speaking morally this is an attempt to paint Tim Worstall as a paedophile; dirty.

    I find so much irony in this coming from Ironman that my irony meter just asploded.

  21. That was intended merely to be a dig at defamation lawyers (who deserve a poke with a sharp stick whenever practical) but, hey ho, at least it’s brought about a nice morning brûlée of pendantry 🙂

  22. SMFS: “…what are you going to call gang rape of a 12 year old girl?”

    In Rotherham, you call it cultural enrichment. That’s assuming you mention it at all.

  23. “Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of heterosexuality”

    What?

  24. Or is that combination of “right-wing” and “paedo!” just too attractive to pass up?

    It’s why so many articles are prefixed with ‘Aide to Thatcher…’.

  25. Richard, I know that was rhetorical, but for the record what she’s saying thar is that heterosexuality itself is the source of the class oppression of women by men; in Mackinnon’s rhetoric, the Marxist system of the expropriation of surplus value from the proletariat by the bourgeoisie is, in gender terms, the expropriation of sexual value from the female by the male. Heterosexuality is by its intrinsic nature an act of theft.

  26. @IanB: I used to be totally unaware that this kind of thinking even existed. I studied sciences at Uni (and most of my friends were science/engineering students) then went to work in finance in a technical field. I didn’t cross paths with the type who believed this crap.

    Reading articles like this has opened my eyes over the years, and I can now see it making it’s way into business via HR. It’s worrying.

  27. If anyone disputes that men and women are different only in a manner prescribed by society, ask one of each gender to gift wrap a pair of socks and compare the results.

  28. Record,

    > There does seem to be something of a deliberate campaign going on at the moment to link underage sex with right-wing.

    It’s an attempt to divert attention from the PIE stuff, Islington Borough Council, Rotherham, etc.

    It is difficult to keep up with the Left’s obsessions, though, isn’t it? I mean, weren’t they campaigning to have the age of consent lowered a few minutes ago? And don’t they want more and more sex education for younger and younger children?

    And this is just brilliant:

    actual research suggests public and legal policy might be better going the other way, and creating protective mechanisms for young people for longer. If we look at brain, as opposed to breast, formation, longitudinal tracking of adolescents and young people’s brains indicates that the parts of the brain associated with judgment, especially in “hot” circumstances, continues well into a young person’s third decade

    Yes, this is a left-winger arguing that we need to tell young women they’re banned from having sex because their underdeveloped brains can’t handle it. I’m just amazed he doesn’t go the whole hog and call them “dear”.

  29. Tim-

    (Radical, i.e. dominant) feminist theory doesn’t hold that men and women are different only in a manner prescribed by society. As the above Mackinnon quote illustrates, and I’ve illustrated with other quotes from books I read so you don’t have to, it holds that women and men are innately different, which results in different social outcomes. Thus, to generate equality (of outcome), there must be different treatment of men and women as classes.

    They’re not trying to level the playing field. They’re trying to equalise the goals scored by tipping the playing field until the men- who by nature will naturally win the game- are playing so steeply uphill that the scores are equalised. And then tip it some more, so that the women end up scoring more goals (i.e. the actual desired outcome is “equality plus”).

    The basic idea is that women are intrinsically and morally superior, but this puts them at a disadvantage against bestial males who use their force and power to keep the innately better women down.

  30. It’s an attempt to divert attention from the PIE stuff, Islington Borough Council, Rotherham, etc.

    No, it’s nothing to do with that. The feminists have been baking this cake since the 1970s.

  31. Meanwhile, young Floridians can drive at 16 (indeed most of them will see this as a basic human right).

    From a teen perspective, having access to a car will mainly be about increasing your chances with the opposite sex. With this in mind, setting the AoC at 18 seems a pretty good joke.

  32. > The feminists have been baking this cake since the 1970s.

    I think you’re getting confused here between the particular feminist stuff you’re talking about and the current campaign playing across the Left to equate “right-wing” with “paedophile”. The feminists (such as Harman) certainly wouldn’t have tried to tar Conservatives with the paedophile brush in the Seventies, as they didn’t regard what was on the brush as tar.

  33. So Much for Subtlety

    Tim Newman – “If anyone disputes that men and women are different only in a manner prescribed by society, ask one of each gender to gift wrap a pair of socks and compare the results.”

    Is there a Not missing there?

    From a previous thread:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15693771

    Prenatal hormones and postnatal socialization by parents as determinants of male-typical toy play in girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia.
    Pasterski VL1, Geffner ME, Brain C, Hindmarsh P, Brook C, Hines M.
    Author information
    Abstract

    Toy choices of 3- to 10-year-old children with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) and of their unaffected siblings were assessed. Also assessed was parental encouragement of sex-typed toy play. Girls with CAH displayed more male-typical toy choices than did their unaffected sisters, whereas boys with and without CAH did not differ. Mothers and fathers encouraged sex-typical toy play in children with and without CAH. However, girls with CAH received more positive feedback for play with girls’ toys than did unaffected girls. Data show that increased male-typical toy play by girls with CAH cannot be explained by parental encouragement of male-typical toy play. Although parents encourage sex-appropriate behavior, their encouragement appears to be insufficient to override the interest of girls with CAH in cross-sexed toys.

    Bottom line – sexual preference is formed in utero, at the latest, and all the bullying by parents in the world ain’t going to make sex preferences a social construct.

  34. The whole usage of the word paedophile grew out of the choice of it by PIE. But bear in mind that PIE were a gay organisation, so Harman et al didn’t see themselves as exposing young women to danger, merely enabling gays to be themselves.

    2nd Wave Feminism after some internal debate aligned themselves with gay rights on the simple expedient that every gay man is one less rapist of women. Any young males seduced into teh gheyness- underage or not- were thus reducing the risk of teh rape to women. Which is why feminists like Harman were happy to assist PIE at the time.

  35. So Much for Subtlety

    Ian B – “2nd Wave Feminism after some internal debate aligned themselves with gay rights on the simple expedient that every gay man is one less rapist of women. Any young males seduced into teh gheyness- underage or not- were thus reducing the risk of teh rape to women. Which is why feminists like Harman were happy to assist PIE at the time.”

    I don’t think that is fair. It is more that they thought that sex was always a positive good – and the paedophiles annoyed the right people. People like Mary Whitehouse. Their parents. So the enemy of my enemy etc etc.

    I doubt they seriously considered rape a big problem at the time.

  36. None of which changes Stuck Record’s point that there is a current campaign across the Left which wasn’t a thing a couple of years ago. Not just radical feminists; the Left, including the centrist mainstream Left such as The Mirror and half the Labour Party.

  37. SMFS,

    > Bottom line – sexual preference is formed in utero, at the latest, and all the bullying by parents in the world ain’t going to make sex preferences a social construct.

    Sorry, sex preferences or sexual preference? In the former case (playing with toys etc), there are holes to be poked in the conclusions of that research, but I can’t be bothered, so whatever. In the latter case, we know that humans can be conditioned to find anything sexually arousing, including inanimate unnatural objects such as shoes or squirrel costumes. The idea that humans can be conditioned to find shoes attractive but not other humans lacks evidence.

  38. It is more that they thought that sex was always a positive good

    No, the feminists have never thought that. You’re doing the conservative thing of confusing feminists (and other progressives) with the short transient of 60s/70s (social) liberalism. The very thing 2nd wave feminism arose to undo, and has undone with enormous success. The fundamental basis of feminism is that sex is an evil imposed upon helpless women by bestial, violent males.

  39. Yes, there is definitely a move to try to tar the right with a lot of stuff.

    It’s very different from the old days – I had no idea how much the Establishment had closed ranks to protect Jeremy Thorpe.

    I also find the so-called victim rights advocates attacking Lady Butler-Sloss quite appalling. When did being a member of the establishment (and thus proving one’s mettle in public or private service) become a stigma?

  40. “But, as someone who remains unapologetically and old-fashionedly PC about the rights of both women and children, I do feel bound to point it out.”

    Just feel the smug. Choke on it, vast great clouds of steaming smug.

    Let me make a guess – he wasn’t quite so old-fashioned, but very, very PC, in his reaction to Rotheram et all. I expect he was fairly quiet on the rights of women and children there. But as others have said, no rich white males, so Nothing To See Here, moveon.

  41. Google ‘age of consent around the world’ and you see that there’s a range which starts at 12 years of age (although some countries seem to have no fixed age at all).

    I suspect that historically it was all based around the onset of puberty – which when you think about it is evolution at work – but that culturally higher ages have been introduced by those societies that think young people (probably meaning young girls) need protecting. No doubt each society thinks they have it right and other societies that differ are full of prudes or perverts.

    Paedophiles are by strict definition those interested in sex with children who haven’t reached puberty but the media routinely confuse this with underage sex which are two different topics entirely. With the onset of puberty comes the onset of sexual desire so it’s often a consensual (although illegal) act when it’s a 15 year old girl. Hard to imagine the same in a 9 year old.

    All stuff probably worth debating in a rational manner.

    Alternatively – Tim you’re obviously a screaming paedo for mentioning that the age of consent in Portugal is 14.

  42. ken,

    > I also find the so-called victim rights advocates attacking Lady Butler-Sloss quite appalling. When did being a member of the establishment (and thus proving one’s mettle in public or private service) become a stigma?

    Well, to be fair to victims’ rights groups, the establishment decided that Margaret Hodge, the woman who was in charge during Islington Borough Council’s mass abuse of children and responded to the accusations by slandering the victims, was a good choice to be the first Minister for Children — on the grounds that she has, apparently, proven her mettle in public service. After that, if I were a victim, I wouldn’t trust the fuckers either.

  43. Has anyone noticed that the people now arguing the age of consent should be raised because ‘vain development’ ‘judgement’ etc are the same people arguing we should lower the voting age?

  44. Andrew C-

    The age of consent business started in the Anglosphere with the feminists and other Victorian anti-vice campaigners, as part of their anti-prostitution jihad.

  45. This is the guy implying Tim’s a bit rapey:

    http://westlancashirerecord.com/2013/04/13/paul-cotterill-for-the-county-council/

    Paul Cotterill. Councillor/leader of Labour Group, West Lancs Borough Council, 2007-2011

    Trained as a nurse, now an experienced researcher, writer and social entrepreneur with a background in strategic and operational development, project development, appraisal and management and partnership working across the private, public and not-for-profit sectors; A proven, life-long commitment to promotion of social justice and public health in both the UK and in the developing world, and an in-depth understanding of how to harness resources and public opinion to make it happen.

    Dunno about you, but I think Paul Cotterill looks like he could be in one of those “don’t talk to strangers” ads.

  46. @ironman – yes I had noticed that. 16 year olds must be protected from evil old men in the bedroom but not in in the voting booth.

  47. Rob,

    > Let me make a guess – he wasn’t quite so old-fashioned, but very, very PC, in his reaction to Rotheram et all. I expect he was fairly quiet on the rights of women and children there. But as others have said, no rich white males, so Nothing To See Here, moveon.

    Why make a guess? Easy enough to search his blog for “Rotherham”. He picks apart the Jay Report, says it’s flawed but basically good; acknowledges that, in Rotherham and other Northern towns, child sexual exploitation is mainly carried out by Pakistani men, while also giving perfectly good arguments why the reasons for that are not inherently ethnic; advocates completely colour-blind investigation and prosecution; is derisive of the claim that officials refused to tackle the issue for fear of being racist, claiming instead that it was because of “dominant masculine managerialism”; ignores Islam; blames understaffing of social work departments; blames Thatcher (seriously); reckons other towns may turn out to be worse than Rotherham; and even places part of the blame on the import of hip-hop. There’s good and bad in there, but I think that last point disproves your assertion.

    Honestly, when someone talks crap, attack them for the crap they talk. Attacking them for things you imagine they might have said is just stupid.

  48. Incidentally, are we allowed to hate Roman Polanski yet? Or is the premeditated and clearly well practiced drugging and anal rape of a young girl who keeps saying “No” still not “rape rape”?

  49. Trained as a nurse…

    He should have stopped there. The rest is boilerplate, woolly flim-flam to the effect that he’s produced nothing of value whilst sucking on the public teat for his entire “career”. And note “trained” as a nurse, not “worked” as a nurse. Presumably “appraisal and management and partnership working” in the public sector was much less work for more money.

  50. S2,

    No-one blinks an eyelid about Polanski films being shown. I won’t watch them, and have no idea how people can work with him. It’s not like Jodie Foster and Ben Kingsley are so desperate for money that they have to work for child rapists on the lam.

  51. S2

    Yes, I’ll give you that one. Hodge was dodgy and vile in office. (And a total moron as head of the PAC)

  52. Tim Newman – hard to say if he ever actually did any nursing.

    He uses the same phrase “trained as a nurse”, elsewhere, on describing his career as a brown-people-botherer:

    Trained as a nurse, he worked in Bangladesh, India and Tanzania is urban slum health and then rural development programmes, before returning to work in Liverpool, and now Lancashire, in community development and social enterprise.

    He entered higher education in 2004, and is currently completing a PhD in political science with the University of Sheffield, on interpretations of local government within the Labour party.

    He is also a prolific and well-regarded blogger

    But apparently he does run a nursery.

    I run a nursery, so I read Nursery World.

    No comment.

  53. The Savile-style evidence-free circus is heading for the political scum. Elements of the left have seen what is approaching and are trying to steer the shite at the right. Is this a conspiracy by the left in general?. I don’t think so as that would imply more brains and co-ordination than the fuckers have. The femmiscum are running their own agenda have spent 40 years banking up the snow on the mountain ridge so to speak. Then they dropped the initial tiny turd of a few Savile allegations–prob to see what would happen. If the giant avalanche had not started then they would have kept shovelling and kept dropping little turds until an avalanche sooner or later would start. Savile kicked off big for them in a way the satanic panic (in the UK at least) didn’t and Haute Garronne didn’t. Once the initial conditions have been set up an avalanche is inevitable at some point. It doesn’t matter what it is that sets it off. In this way the femmis antics are a conspiracy but not one they can minutely control. Not a conspiracy where every phone is bugged and every lightbulb has a camera in it. It doesn’t matter who is swept up and destroyed by the onrushing hysteria so long as enough are to keep the avalanche going. At the end said avalanche will end up at the lowest point of the valley –very appropriately Westmonster–where the political “power to” is. The femmis wanted it to go there and knew the lay of the land–they don’t then need to be in control of every detail. ZaNu and other leftists have seen the snow front coming and are trying to channel some of it away from them in the hope of surviving.

  54. “But he does look like an old woman”

    You’ll make no friends amongst old women with this gratuitous remark, and I’m not even sure that you’re right.

    If you wanted to be properly insulting, you could have gone for either, “looks like a Real Ale Enthusiast”, or “looks like he uses the word “artisanal”, and often”.

  55. Stigler,

    > No-one blinks an eyelid about Polanski films being shown. I won’t watch them

    Me neither. It’s bizarre. My mother (who is hard Left but can also usually be relied upon not to give a damn about the party line) kept recommending The Ghost to me. Every time I made the simple point about not giving money to support known predatory paedophiles, she started ranting about Jerry Lee Lewis for some reason. Quite apart from all the other layers of what-the-fuck, I don’t own any of his records. When she started going on about the age of consent in the US at the time (a red herring propagated by Polanski anyway, as we all know), I got to say to her “But the age of consent only applies when there is consent. Since the girl kept saying ‘No’ throughout, she could have been thirty and it’d still be rape. Honestly, I can’t believe I’m having to explain this stuff to you. I thought you were a feminist?” WIN.

    But The Ghost is anti-Blair, so who cares, right?

  56. Jack C – please…

    I’m the old woman whisperer. They love me. Ever since I was a young man being bothered by friends’ mums, I knew I was born with a gift. The gift of a rogueish smile that sets mature ladies’ hearts a-flutter. It’s basically the only reason I found decent employment in the private sector, because I wasn’t exactly known as “clever clogs Steve” at school. Thank God for lecherous HR women.

    My boyish charms keep Tena Lady in business. I’m like Daniel O’Donnell, with a penis.

    Anyway, enough about me and how great I am.

    If you wanted to be properly insulting, you could have gone for either, “looks like a Real Ale Enthusiast”, or “looks like he uses the word “artisanal”, and often”.

    God, yes. He looks like the sort of neighbour who’d take a keen interest in whether or not you have planning permission for your shed.

    He looks like a ferret fancier.

    He looks like he holds strong opinions on the comparative merits of Little Chef versus Happy Eater.

  57. > I confess I find Polanski’s films brilliant, and love his work.

    Well, yes — and I’m glad I saw the quite excellent Pirates before I knew anything about him. But then there was nothing wrong with South African apples in the Eighties, was there? Easy to have an embargo against something crap.

  58. “Easy to have an embargo against something crap.”

    True dat. Notice that no-ones raised a peep about Jimmy Page shagging 13 yr olds during the ‘zep days. Not at all uncommon for rockers of the time either. Hell, Bill Wyman was doing the same thing in the early 90s and got away with it.

    But Page is a guitar god and Jimmy Savile was a irritating boil making shit TV shows.

  59. So, either Polanski has a particular fetish for pre-pubescent children, or Squander Two is making shit up. Which?

  60. Dan,

    > Notice that no-ones raised a peep about Jimmy Page shagging 13 yr olds during the ‘zep days.

    See also the long list of companies that “colluded with the Nazis” that inexplicably never includes Volkswagen. Must be an oversight.

  61. What Polanski did was vile and he should have been locked up for it. But my understanding is that his victim was not pre-pubescent.

    Back to the OP: the post Tim links to is entitled “On the concept of totty”. The poster’s objection is not to discussion of the age of consent, but to conducting that discussion while objectivizing girls as “totty”. The choice of language frames the discussion in the viewpoint of the abusers not the abused. (Yes, this is the language of sociology, but sociologists can be right just like anyone else.)

  62. Squander, which part of the testimony or known facts involve Polanski being a paedophile?

    PaulB-

    “Totty” just means somebody sexually attractive. If we accept that it is objectivising, then all human sexual interaction is similarly guilty. Which of course in the feminist theory it is, but not much use to the rest of us who want the human race to continue sexually reproducing, which is only possible if we find members of our target sex attractive.

  63. Ian B,

    Thirteen-year-olds may be getting interested in sex and tend to fancy other thirteen-year-olds. So what? To a grown-up, kids look like kids. You can equivocate all you like about how, techically, the girl’s breasts have started to grow and she’s just started having periods, so, technically, the man who drugs and rapes her is sexually interested in sexually developed women. This is a useful distinction to make when discussing animals whose sexual signalling is 100% biological. We are not those animals. When a man targets girls who are just at the start of puberty, prefers them to have obvious signs of childhood such as dental braces, prefers them to be underdeveloped and/or innocent enough not to have bothered starting to wear tops when swimming yet, cultivates a network whereby he can have them procured by their unscrupulous parents (in a town and an era crawling with willing jailbait, it is notable that Polanski preferred his victims not to be acting by their own agency), and drugs them because he knows they’re going to say no to a man as old as him, I have no qualms about calling him a predatory paedophile. He targetted children, not willing independent young women who just happened to be below the age of consent.

    Sure, kudos for targetting older children instead of toddlers. Maybe someone could give him an award for that or something.

  64. I am going to make a concerted effort now to mention squirrel costumes as often as possible. Shouldn’t be long till Tim writes another post where it’ll be relevant.

  65. That would be an interesting pattern, but all I can find online- even the Daily Mail- is the famous case, and the claim by Charlotte Lewis (who was 16 and IIRC quite a voluptuous figure, if that has any relevance) so I’m not sure what you’re alluding to, Squander.

    As to signalling “not being 100% biological”, what else do you mean? Some kind of magic? Telepathy?

  66. > Some kind of magic? Telepathy?

    Clothing? I know, it’s a real mystery.

    > I’m not sure what you’re alluding to

    Partly Robert Towne’s comments, to which I linked; partly other stuff I found back when it was in the news; partly the trivial observation from the grand jury testimony that there is no way on Earth those were the actions of a man who’d had no practice. It seems to have been well understood in Hollywood that you could get your daughter a potentially life-changing part in a film by pimping her to Polanski (which was what happened in the victim’s case). Or, to be fair, to certain other directors and producers. Lovely place. I vote we should let them lecture the whole world about morality.

  67. The thing about biological being that human sexual attraction is as physical as other animals’. Clothing can play a part in that physical attraction (or mask it to some degree, hence the dungarees beloved of feminists). If an evil wizard transplanted your brain and pysche into Kim Basinger’s body, I’d be attracted to you, at least initially, because of your physical appearance and biological signalling characteristics, by which I mean bewbs.

  68. @Ian B

    If I was magically transplanted into Kim Basinger’s body I’d stay in a lot.

    In front of a big mirror.

    I might occasionally vary things by dressing in a squirrel costume.

  69. @ Steve

    Ah, but the transplantation is being done by a evil wizard.

    If he can do brain transplants I am sure he can do time travel as well.

  70. I think the novel, Lolita, described an old guy obsessing to deceit to gain his prize, underage Lolita, which he accomplished. Lolita took it all nonchalantly and soon abandoned the lech which devastated him, not her. Years ago a friend, at 36, fell hard for a 16yr old who came seeking sympathy from her uncaring & overly strict mother (her story). He did the deed. Was discovered. With police in chase he escaped to a nearby state whose laws allowed marriage & they did. Returning home, the mom wanted charges pressed but the police dropped it as they were now married. In a few years, she left her “old man” and married a younger guy proceeding with her life. The “old man” was devastated – for many years, actually crying.

    Growing up, I observed girls doing the wild thing as early as 12 and more as you go up the ages. I also observed young girls seeking the naughty. I am doubtful there is great harm to young girls “doing it” before whatever time the laws state here & there – of course assuming “old enough” to be 4-square for the deed.

    I certainly understand parents, especially dads, being totally opposed to young daughters giving up the prize. If for no other reason, there must be an extremely strong desire to keep daughters their “baby princesses” longer than possible. I suffer that.

    A real & bigger harm I see is that young people have very poor judgment so a young girl would be more likely to get sexually involved, increasing bond strength, with a worthless, but fun & exciting to teenyboppers, bum-type guy, who could create long term harm: forgoing school, college, having babies, being abandoned, & reducing chances for a good mate when old enough to gain some sense type thing.

    Using logic, suppressing my dad instinct: Just being poked where & how God intended with full ability, consent & enthusiasm? Is that alone ruinous?

  71. Andrew C – Good point.

    Boobs and kidding aside though, being a woman would be bloody terrible.

    PMT, pregnancy, taking 3 hours to get ready, and having emotions would be rubbish.

    Not to mention spending hours and hours traipsing around shops, not being able to open jars, and spending £100 on a haircut.

    Also, women are horrible to each other. Feminists yak about misogyny, but no man hates women as much as other women do.

    No, I’d rather be a squirrel with a fluffy tail. Their lives are simple.

  72. > You seem to have linked to an article by Mark Steyn.

    Jesus, you don’t even have to read the whole thing. Just search for “Towne”. Your browser can do that these days.

    Any porridge you need fed to you while I’m at it?

    > The thing about biological being that human sexual attraction is as physical as other animals’.

    I didn’t say “physical”; I said “biological”. And human sexual attraction is not as biological as other animals’. For instance, giraffes very rarely wear studded latex collars or dress up in squirrel costumes. Or both.

    > Clothing can play a part in that physical attraction (or mask it to some degree

    Well, precisely. There is a difference between a thirteen-year-old out at a nightclub in a short dress and heels and make-up, trying hard to look seventeen, and a thirteen-year-old dressed as a child, whom one meets by picking up from her parents under false pretences. Polanski appears to have a preference for the latter over the former.

    It is worth noting than Polanski’s own description of his victims is “young girls”.

    Looking up details of the case again, I may have been unfair to the victim’s mother. Opinions differ on that matter. The accounts I read back then were a lot harsher on her than some of what I’m seeing now.

  73. @Steve

    It’s the fluffy tail that was the stroke of genious by squirrels. Everyone loves it. Without it, it would just be a rat.

  74. > What if Kim Basinger’s brain was transplanted into a squirrel?

    Then we’d have a particularly stupid squirrel.

    What if a squirrel’s brain were transplanted into Kim Basinger? That’s the real question.

  75. Squander Two – “What if a squirrel’s brain were transplanted into Kim Basinger?”

    Probably gobble your nuts.

  76. You could have just quoted the solitary sentence from Town rather than linking to a Steyn saloon bar borefest, Squander, but then that would’ve revealed that you’d built an entire Cracker style psychological profile on the basis of one barely coherent sentence wouldn’t it, Squander?

    The flat was full of girls? Photos of girls? Diving boards? Braces? What?

  77. On a similar note to the different treatment of Polanski, consider the BBC (and others) coverage of Ched Evans. They cannot mention his name without prefixing it with “convicted rapist”. I even saw someone claiming he should never play football again as there were certain professions where a sexual conviction would disbar you, and professional football was a profession…er…

    Anyway, I don’t recall the BBC prefixing Leslie Grantham’s name with “convicted murderer” every time it appeared on the credits for Eastenders.

  78. 13 year -old-girls: children. Men who don’t accept that or want it not to be true: horrifyingly creepy.

    Thank God Tim Worstall doesn’t actually need our help here.

  79. Gosh there is an awful lot of book learning here.
    Way back in the fourties when we had our ‘gang'( of eight year olds) the most fearsome creature was not a policeman but a ‘big sister’ – and they were big and tough.

  80. Anyway, I don’t recall the BBC prefixing Leslie Grantham’s name with “convicted murderer” every time it appeared on the credits for Eastenders.

    That might be because it wasn’t the issue every time he appeared in the show, whereas every time the BBC reports on the controversy involving whether a convicted rapist should play professional football, it is.

    This is not at all difficult.

  81. bloke (not) in spain

    @Ironman
    “13 year -old-girls: children. Men who don’t accept that or want it not to be true: horrifyingly creepy.”

    Do the female part of the population of Spain get a pass on horrifyingly creepy?

  82. bloke (not) in spain

    @ejh
    To be fair, the BBC didn’t prefix Leslie Grantham’s name with “convicted murderer” every time it appeared on the credits for Eastenders, because the BBC didn’t choose to make an issue of it. No doubt, if they’d had the opportunity to mention it, in another context, they would have taken it. As in “Leslie Grantham, convicted murderer & publican of the Rover’s Return.”

  83. So Much for Subtlety

    tex – “A real & bigger harm I see is that young people have very poor judgment so a young girl would be more likely to get sexually involved, increasing bond strength, with a worthless, but fun & exciting to teenyboppers, bum-type guy, who could create long term harm: forgoing school, college, having babies, being abandoned, & reducing chances for a good mate when old enough to gain some sense type thing.”

    Forgoing college and having babies is not long term harm. It is what is going to make most women happiest in the long run. It is amazing how deep feminism has struck that you can say this. And yes, this is why fathers should stop their daughters having sex – the more sexual partners they have, the harder it is for them to form a strong and lasting long term relationship. To be precise, if you’re on your first you have something like a 70% chance of remaining married. If you are on so much as your second, it is about 50 and it keeps getting worse.

    Having babies does not harm women. Sleeping with bad boys does.

    “Using logic, suppressing my dad instinct: Just being poked where & how God intended with full ability, consent & enthusiasm? Is that alone ruinous?”

    It seems so. Religions are not just random rules you know. Well, most of them. They reflect either natural law, if you swing that way, or the accumulated wisdom of 150,000 years of human evolution, if you swing the other. If they all say girls should get married as virgins, there is probably a good reason.

  84. So Much for Subtlety

    Ian B – “The thing about biological being that human sexual attraction is as physical as other animals’. Clothing can play a part in that physical attraction (or mask it to some degree, hence the dungarees beloved of feminists).”

    But it is all a social construct!

    Actually this is just an excuse to post an article I read the other day:

    http://www.livescience.com/48980-rats-sexual-attraction-lingerie.html

    I tried googling it. Please, whatever you do, do not ever google “rat” and “costume” or “rat” and “lingerie”. Seriously.

    “If an evil wizard transplanted your brain and pysche into Kim Basinger’s body, I’d be attracted to you, at least initially, because of your physical appearance and biological signalling characteristics, by which I mean bewbs.”

    An actress who probably should remain nameless was a long term object of desire on my part. Then I heard her speak – not to me personally, I hasten to add, bot to a group. It is amazing how fast a decade of lust disappears in the face of boiler plate Leftist twaddle.

    But yes, sexual attraction is a biological thing, and no matter how much feminists complain about it, we are not going to find fat 40 something sweat pigs attractive. For virtually all definitions of “we”.

    Because Ironman is here, what do I feel about making a gratuitous reference to the Faith Community of most Feminists? Naah, can’t be bother really. Let’s just say that few of them were born to look like Barbie and that’s got to hurt.

  85. So Much for Subtlety

    Ian B – “No, the feminists have never thought that. You’re doing the conservative thing of confusing feminists (and other progressives) with the short transient of 60s/70s (social) liberalism.”

    Yes they did. Look Ian, I was there. Trust me. Look at books like Erica Jong’s The Fear of Flying. A woman’s quest for, in her words, a zipless f*ck.

    The Anti-Sex League started much later. Either with Dworkin’s protests over Snuff or with something like Marilyn French’s The Women’s Room which included the great line:

    “Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relationships with men, in their relationships with women, all men are rapists, and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.”

    TWR was published in 1977 so the insanity was out of the box by then.

    “The very thing 2nd wave feminism arose to undo, and has undone with enormous success. The fundamental basis of feminism is that sex is an evil imposed upon helpless women by bestial, violent males.”

    The fundamental basis of Victorian feminism perhaps. And of the Dworkin school – even though she clearly liked a bit of the rough and her problems seem to have stemmed from the fact men didn’t want to give her any. But not the bit in the middle.

  86. @So Much for Subtlety:

    The possibility of low harm seems taboo. Exceptional harm requiring major punishment seems assumed & unquestioned.

    My experience & observations are different: “Forgoing college & having babies” too young does appear harmful. Not only have I observed it, but economists find as you go up the family wealth scale more are married with fewer divorces. A girl going to college w/ no children enhances getting on that track. I’ve not seen virginity having anything to do with it. I’ve only seen one study re virginity and that found virgin brides more likely to be unfaithful.

    Based on experience & observation your stats are not obvious among my peers. By college (60’s) sex was easy & common – football week-end dates were for the week-end & we shacked up in groups, 7-couples in our big rented house and road trips. Those college girls generally are of the pool in the upper quintiles getting & staying married & having children in the 20s rather than teens.

    My HS was upper middle class, football team nickname: “Cadillac Cowboys” – a good hood: docs, lawyers, judges, politicians, & professionals. At the annual beach-week the girls had to be chaperoned (pre 1960), but the girls went in groups & found rich heavy drinking mothers (country club set), many owning big beach houses who didn’t enforce curfews. The dads worked & did not attend. No banging in those houses, but plenty on the beach & motels & houses where the boys stayed. Sex was not as easy as college, but by 12th grade not many girls made it out intact. It did seem poorer girls were more concerned with reputations. My society/party girl classmates are among those in the upper classes, marrying & more likely to stay married. I observe no harm.

    Religion & virginity: I’m not alone thinking it may be a remnant from pre-birthcontrol days. Sex is natural, so natural it may not be harmful. Running off with a bum, yes, getting poked, maybe not so much.

  87. SMFS-

    That’s the point. Feminism is, and always has been, the Wimmins Anti Sex League. But there were two waves, as we know, and in between there were some “liberal” women of various types who adopted the term- hence the likes of Erica Jong. Who were then elbowed out of the way as soon as the real thing got going again with the 2nd Wave.

    It is easier to simply not include these “broad” users of the term “feminist” in an understanding of the movement. It just confuses understanding. No identifiable feminist organisation, grouping or cohort has been sexually hedonist or liberal- that some individual women adopted the term for themselves who promoted such ideas simply introduces confusion.

  88. Ian,

    > You could have just quoted the solitary sentence from Town rather than linking to a Steyn saloon bar borefest, Squander, but then that would’ve revealed that you’d built an entire Cracker style psychological profile on the basis of one barely coherent sentence wouldn’t it, Squander?

    Blimey. For the record, I have never in my life posted a link thinking “Ha ha ha, no-one will ever think to click this link, so I can just say what I want while implying I have proof!” What I actually did was write the sentence first and then stick an actual link in as an afterthought so that anyone who wanted to could see some of what I was referring to. As I did say earlier, I read up a lot on Polanski back when he was fighting extradition, and was able to base my conclusions on all that reading. Really, reading the various accounts and evidence, claiming that the man’s a paedophile is hardly controversial (except for luvvies, for some reason). One link to one source is one more than in most comments here — and that’s fair enough, since we are grown-ups and have memories and shouldn’t need to quote what page of an encyclopaedia we get everything we know from. Certainly I don’t demand that from you. And you don’t usually demand it from anyone else either, except, quite consistently, on the one issue of child rape: as mentioned in previous threads, the subject of child rapists never comes up on this site without you defending — or at least attacking anyone who attacks — the child rapist. It’s bizarre.

    I’m with Ironman on this one.

    > 13 year -old-girls: children. Men who don’t accept that or want it not to be true: horrifyingly creepy.

    You want to place yourself so firmly in the “But she’s had at least one period so is a grown woman!” camp, hey, go ahead. Don’t expect everyone else to exclaim “Gosh, how terribly logical and not at all worrying!”

    But I saw what you did there with repeating my name. Very good.

    BNIS,

    > Do the female part of the population of Spain get a pass on horrifyingly creepy?

    Your claim is that forty-year-old men who prefer to have sex with thirteen-year-old girls are not regarded by Spanish women as at all creepy? I know a Spanish woman with two daughters, and I’m pretty sure she’d kill you.

  89. Religions are not just random rules you know. Well, most of them. They reflect either natural law, if you swing that way, or the accumulated wisdom of 150,000 years of human evolution, if you swing the other. If they all say girls should get married as virgins, there is probably a good reason.

    Religions are a product of their time and place; in the case of the ones that interest us, they originated in the Middle East over 2000 years ago, in pastoralist societies in which sexual controls are paramount to maintaining the integrity of the clan that protects the vital flocks of animals. The Lord’s My Shepherd, and all that.

    This only ever had limited relevance in Europe, the land of heavy soils and agriculture and not much goat herding in desserts and thus little or weak clan organisation. And has even less- negligible- relevance over 2000 years later in the world of contraception (and antibiotics) and a complete absence of the clan system.

  90. SMFS,

    > I tried googling it. Please, whatever you do, do not ever google “rat” and “costume” or “rat” and “lingerie”. Seriously.

    I think you just trumped the squirrel thing.

  91. Squander-

    No, I’m actually just kind of annoyed about people using this word “paedophile” for things which are not paedophilia. And in the monumental hysteria over the subject that I’ve been watching, on and off, since the 1980s and the kick off with Satanic Abuse. If you want to opine that Polanski has an unsettling interest in jailbait, I’d probably agree with you. But that’s not “paedophilia”, nor “predatory paedophilia” and the distinction matters.

    As to “child rape” I’ve never defended any such thing. I know I’ve used the term myself to describe that which should not be allowed, evar. The matter of interest here is how we define children. I’ve used this example before, I’ll do it again; there is a phase change between child and adult in sexual matters. I as an eight year old was, in sexual terms, a fundamentally different creature to when I was fourteen. At 8, I found the whole idea unnerving and even love scenes on telly would have me cringing behind the sofa. At 14, the exact opposite; thinking about the sexual act comprised about 90% of any spare mental capacity I had. A fundamental change had occurred. You cannot put me at 8 and me at 14 in the same category.

    So if the law does; if it says that those two me’s are of the same kind and nature, it is missing something important. This really matters a great deal. If you are using the term “child”- in a sexual content- to refer to both of those versions of me, you’ve got your description of reality wrong. The me at 8 was not a sexual being. The me at 14 was (even if a somewhat frustrated one). It does not make sense to apply the same model and rules. Does it?

    And if you’re with Ironman, you’re standing next to the dribbling nutter on the nutty step, but that’s your choice.

  92. So Much for Subtlety

    Ian B – “Feminism is, and always has been, the Wimmins Anti Sex League. But there were two waves, as we know, and in between there were some “liberal” women of various types who adopted the term- hence the likes of Erica Jong. Who were then elbowed out of the way as soon as the real thing got going again with the 2nd Wave.”

    Except it wasn’t. Always that is. And there still is a large contingent of Marxist Feminists who are pro-sex. The Communists came to power promising that sex would be as free as drinking a glass of water. It took them a long time to walk back from that.

    “No identifiable feminist organisation, grouping or cohort has been sexually hedonist or liberal- that some individual women adopted the term for themselves who promoted such ideas simply introduces confusion.”

    Again I disagree. NOW certainly was. Feminists are still in favour of women’s agency in sexual matters. Just not men’s.

    Ian B – “This only ever had limited relevance in Europe, the land of heavy soils and agriculture and not much goat herding in desserts and thus little or weak clan organisation. And has even less- negligible- relevance over 2000 years later in the world of contraception (and antibiotics) and a complete absence of the clan system.”

    Actually that is not true. That pastoral religion, as filtered through Greek and Roman philosophy enforced monogamy. A prerequisite for democracy and pretty much all else the West does. Without that, the West would be another Third World sh!thole. Notice that when Christians come and enforce monogamy, young men get married and the level of violence drops enormously. The Vikings being an excellent example.

    And of course we have weak clan associations because Christians did not like extended families. We used to have them. But the Catholics made us stop.

  93. > Religions are a product of their time and place

    Obviously true. Even if one believes in divine revelation, still true, I think, since the revelation will come to humans whose understanding will be a product of their time and place.

    > in the case of the ones that interest us, they originated in the Middle East over 2000 years ago

    As long as a religion continues to exist, it continues to be a product of its time and place, shaped by humans who are products of their time and place. The Church of England, for instance, is as much a product of 19th-C England as of 5th-C Rome. It is a trivial observation that Christianity has proven to be useful for many more things than just herding goats through puddings.

  94. So Much for Subtlety

    tex – “Not only have I observed it, but economists find as you go up the family wealth scale more are married with fewer divorces.”

    People who go to college also have less sex with fewer partners. So this is not a surprise.

    “I’ve only seen one study re virginity and that found virgin brides more likely to be unfaithful.”

    Got a reference?

    “Based on experience & observation your stats are not obvious among my peers.”

    You know I am going to go direct to anecdote is not data, right?

    “Religion & virginity: I’m not alone thinking it may be a remnant from pre-birthcontrol days. Sex is natural, so natural it may not be harmful. Running off with a bum, yes, getting poked, maybe not so much.”

    You may not be. But that does not mean it is right. It is rather foolish to think that what is natural is not harmful. Rape and murder are natural. However marriage is not. It is a freakish and extremely difficult unnatural state of affairs. We need to do all we can to preserve it. Sleeping around makes women rather unpleasant people. As it may with men. It certainly makes marriage harder for women. So we should not encourage it.

  95. I see that nobody mentioned the King – Elvis – and Priscilla Presley.

    Is that because mentioning the King is taboo?

  96. > The me at 8 was not a sexual being. The me at 14 was (even if a somewhat frustrated one). It does not make sense to apply the same model and rules.

    And no-one does. When a fourteen-year-old has sex with someone about their own age, there’s not usually a whole lot of fuss, and the police are very rarely involved. When a forty-year-old man has sex with a fourteen-year-old, there is and they are. Can you honestly not see any distinction there? Ach, it doesn’t even matter whether you can. The point is that everyone else can, and the law (or our application of it) does, so your persistent claim that absolutely everyone except you is ridiculously treating sex with five-year-olds and sex with fourteen-year-olds as exactly the same thing is obvious bollocks.

  97. So Much for Subtlety

    Squander Two – “Can you honestly not see any distinction there? Ach, it doesn’t even matter whether you can. The point is that everyone else can, and the law (or our application of it) does”

    Actually I am not sure I see any difference – except for the worse. Another 14 year old is likely to be even less likely to manage a relationship competently. That is, two teenagers are likely to cause each other even more pain and emotional damage than a 14 year old and a 24 year old.

    And I am not sure that everyone agrees with you. I suspect a lot of fathers of 14 year olds agree with me – in that they don’t think 14 year olds should be sleeping with anyone. No matter if they are 14 or 34. But our Elders and Betters find paedophilia cute when adults vicariously observe it rather than actually take part in it.

  98. Oh, and claiming that thirteen-year-old girls are children puts one “standing next to the dribbling nutter on the nutty step”? Wow.

    Well no, saying “I’m with Ironman” does. Did you read the thread?

  99. SMFS,

    > Actually I am not sure I see any difference – except for the worse.

    Well, which is it: no difference or a difference?

    > And I am not sure that everyone agrees with you. I suspect a lot of fathers of 14 year olds agree with me – in that they don’t think 14 year olds should be sleeping with anyone.

    Absolutely, yes. But I somehow doubt those same fathers think their offspring should be jailed for ten years and registered as sex offenders for life for their transgressions.

    > But our Elders and Betters find paedophilia cute when adults vicariously observe it rather than actually take part in it.

    Some of them do, yes — I always suspect it comes from envy, wishing they’d managed it at that age. But, as far as the legal response is concerned, it’s not so much a matter of finding it cute as it is a simple case of responding reasonably and proportionately.

  100. > Well no, saying “I’m with Ironman” does. Did you read the thread?

    Did you? I said “I’m with Ironman on this one” and then quoted the bit I agreed with. It wasn’t ambiguous.

  101. No you didn’t, you put “I’m with Ironman on this one” in a paragraph all on its own, then turned to attacking Bloke (Not) In Spain.

    Perhaps you’d like to spell out precisely what you’re “with Ironman” on. I mean, we know. Considering you falsely accused me of defending child rapists and, nudge nudge, ad hominem, and all that. But go on, spit it out man.

    Then spell out what this distinction of yours is.

  102. So Much for Subtlety

    Squander Two – “Absolutely, yes. But I somehow doubt those same fathers think their offspring should be jailed for ten years and registered as sex offenders for life for their transgressions.”

    You ask those Fathers if the 14 year old boys deflowering their daughters ought to be jailed and registered as sex offenders for life and you may get a different response. I am inclined to think they would.

    “Some of them do, yes — I always suspect it comes from envy, wishing they’d managed it at that age. But, as far as the legal response is concerned, it’s not so much a matter of finding it cute as it is a simple case of responding reasonably and proportionately.”

    No it isn’t. It is a matter of encouraging children to have sex as early as possible. That is the policy and the intention. I don’t think it is envy, well partly. Mostly it is trying to create the porn-utopia the Left wants where Christianity is dead and everyone is having as much sex as possible with as many different people as possible. Get to them young before they know what they are doing.

  103. SMFS,

    > Another 14 year old is likely to be even less likely to manage a relationship competently. That is, two teenagers are likely to cause each other even more pain and emotional damage than a 14 year old and a 24 year old.

    A very small proportion of fourteen-year-old couples manage to stay together long-term. A very small proportion of the grown-ups who want to have sex with fourteen-year-olds are looking to build long-lasting stable loving relationships with them. The key difference lies with the larger proportions. In the case of the teenagers, they’re generally trying to build long-term relationships and utterly failing at it. The grown-ups are usually just after sex with people who are naive and easily manipulated.

  104. So Much for Subtlety

    Squander Two – “A very small proportion of fourteen-year-old couples manage to stay together long-term.”

    And so they should not be encouraged to sleep together. Which also means that we ought to be jailing some of those boys and girls to make sure no one else does either.

    “In the case of the teenagers, they’re generally trying to build long-term relationships and utterly failing at it.”

    I bet they are not.

    “The grown-ups are usually just after sex with people who are naive and easily manipulated.”

    I am sure that is true in many cases too. But in the case of Jerry Lee Lewis? No. Elvis Presley? No. We don’t know what the proportions might be if the law was different. We have driven the people who obey the law away from such relationships and so only the seriously psychologically damaged are willing to flout the law and the shame that goes with it.

    As for damage? Hard to say. I take it that the main driver of objections to adults doing this is not damage to the girl. She is going to be screwed, if you will forgive the expression, no matter the age of the male. Rather it is the pleasure it might give an adult male. That is the real objection here. I would think that it is damage to the child that matters and so the age of the male is irrelevant.

  105. > No you didn’t, you put “I’m with Ironman on this one” in a paragraph all on its own, then turned to attacking Bloke (Not) In Spain.

    Oh, for fuck’s sake, not this shit again. You’ve been doing this same thing for years, and it’s very tiresome.

    Look, for the umpteenth time: this isn’t a spoken argument down the pub. It’s all in writing. Everyone can read it. There is no point in denying people wrote what they actually wrote. Grow up.

    On the very very slight chance that it really is a basic reading comprehension problem on your part and not a spectacularly pathetic rhetorical trick, I direct you once again to the search function in your browser. And the scrollbar.

  106. Well, while I’m waiting, I’ll ask Squander why he thinks sex ought to be predicated on “long lasting loving relationships” and why that is a criterion. I think if my memory serves me, at 14 I was just interested in somehow, some way, getting my end away, and that seems like a reasonable goal to me at that age. You’re hardly looking for somebody to marry at 14, are you? Why would you be?

  107. Oh, we got an answer while I was typing my last one. And despite, as you point out, everyone being able to read the thread, your claim that your barb regarding Ironman followed with whatever about me, it actually is followed by you quoting B(N)IS, so you’re talking pants aren’t you?

    Here it is, for the hard of thinking-

    “I’m with Ironman on this one.

    ^^That’s you, that is.

    13 year -old-girls: children. Men who don’t accept that or want it not to be true: horrifyingly creepy.”

    ^^That’s Bloke Not In Spain, that is.

    Now stop dancing round the mulberry bush and give me an answer.

  108. So Much for Subtlety

    Ian B – “I’ll ask Squander why he thinks sex ought to be predicated on “long lasting loving relationships” and why that is a criterion.”

    I am not Squander but I will point out that society depends, utterly, on people forming long lasting pair bonds. We need them for children who are not psychopaths and can read and write. We need them for men who obey the law and mow the lawn on Sunday. We need them for a free and liberal society.

    I would also point out that it is highly correlated with long term happiness for the individual. Especially for women.

    “I think if my memory serves me, at 14 I was just interested in somehow, some way, getting my end away, and that seems like a reasonable goal to me at that age. You’re hardly looking for somebody to marry at 14, are you? Why would you be?”

    Indeed. And that is why we don’t give a flying f**k what 14 year olds think or want. And hence don’t give them the vote, or the right to hold down a job, or even choose not to go to school.

  109. I am not Squander but I will point out that society depends, utterly, on people forming long lasting pair bonds.

    Maybe. But not with the first person you hold hands with or bumb naughties with. We don’t do “no sex before marriage” any more and, as a culture, never really did. This isn’t Baghdad and never was. It’s not much use trying to replace it with this woolly, “no sex before a committed relationship” that the matrons have reformulated it as.

    People have, and will continue to have, recreational sex with people to whom they are not eternally bonded, and nothing is going to change that. This is more true of younger people than older ones. So that we don’t set Squander’s hankie fluttering, or make Ironman rust to pieces, let us consider University age students.

    Nobody seriously thinks that they are, or should, only going to have sex with their betrothed. Any discussion of who should be allowed to have sex with who is going to be about, mostly, recreational sex without pair bonds. So whether or not under 16s should do it (and bear in mind that about 1/3 do, and more would if they could), arguing about whether it is with their permanent pair-bonded partner makes no sense at all. Especially as settling down in marriage is becoming later and later which may or may not be a good thing, but that is how things are.

  110. SMFS,

    > You ask those Fathers if the 14 year old boys deflowering their daughters ought to be jailed and registered as sex offenders for life and you may get a different response. I am inclined to think they would.

    And will they say the same thing about their own daughters? If two fourteen-year-olds have sex with each other, they’ve both broken the same law, so should receive the same punishment.

    > It is a matter of encouraging children to have sex as early as possible. That is the policy and the intention.

    No argument from me, but I think that happens more via education than law enforcement.

    > And so they should not be encouraged to sleep together. Which also means that we ought to be jailing some of those boys and girls to make sure no one else does either.

    The only method of discouragement you can think of is jail? Blimey.

    We did in fact use to lock up women who had children before marriage. Not even on criminal charges, but we’d put them in asylums on the grounds that they were insane — which is great, because criminal charges come with a sentence which expires, but insanity is forever. Many died incarcerated. Some were eventually released under Care In The Community, decades after the event. What a golden era.

  111. Ironman says:

    January 6, 2015 at 9:24 pm

    13 year -old-girls: children. Men who don’t accept that or want it not to be true: horrifyingly creepy.

    Thank God Tim Worstall doesn’t actually need our help here.

  112. Oh okay then, I messed up, since that was quoted in a BNIS post. Fair do’s. I thought you were referencing Ironman’s general deranged ad hominems, rather than that declaration of belief without rational support.

    Now the problem is, you have to actually justify the statement. All I want here is your objective definition of child status. Since your belief is very fervent, that can’t be hard to state. I’ve given mine: puberty. The psychologists who defined padeophilia have given theirs: puberty.

    So what definition are you using?

  113. From long and bitter experience, I know better than to keep arguing with Ian once he’s started down his “You never wrote that!” path. See Bernard Shaw on pig-wrestling.

    On the off-chance that anyone else both is reading and cares, I will just address this:

    > Well, while I’m waiting, I’ll ask Squander why he thinks sex ought to be predicated on “long lasting loving relationships” and why that is a criterion.

    I did not in fact say that it should.

  114. From long and bitter experience, I know better than to keep arguing with Ian once he’s started down his “You never wrote that!” path.

    And then I went and ruined it for you by admitting my error. Shame.

  115. A very small proportion of fourteen-year-old couples manage to stay together long-term. A very small proportion of the grown-ups who want to have sex with fourteen-year-olds are looking to build long-lasting stable loving relationships with them. The key difference lies with the larger proportions. In the case of the teenagers, they’re generally trying to build long-term relationships and utterly failing at it. The grown-ups are usually just after sex with people who are naive and easily manipulated.

    I’m sure you’ll go for the obfuscatory argument as usual Squander and claim I’ve misunderstood you, but that seems to me to be implying that sex should be in a long lasting relationship context, whereas what we’re actually discussing is recreational sex. Still, if you were not implying that, I will also happily admit error and move back to where you and Balls Of Steel are getting your definition from.

  116. > Oh okay then, I messed up, since that was quoted in a BNIS post.

    In which BNIS was explicitly quoting and replying to Ironman. It’s not rocket surgery.

    > And then I went and ruined it for you by admitting my error.

    That is a first.

    > I’m sure you’ll go for the obfuscatory argument as usual Squander and claim I’ve misunderstood you

    Nothing obfuscatory about it: you have. It’s a long thread, admittedly, but I do always quote the thing I’m replying to, ideally so that I don’t then have to spend ages explaining context to people who insist on abandoning it. Which, round these parts, is always you.

    > that seems to me to be implying that sex should be in a long lasting relationship context, whereas what we’re actually discussing is recreational sex.

    That was in fact my point. I was responding to SMFS’s comparison of fourteeen-year-olds having sex with fourteen-year-olds to fourteen-year-olds having sex with twenty-four-year-olds, which compared them purely in terms of ability to build long-term relationships. I was pointing out that that is only material when the people involved are trying to build long-term-relationships, and that, in the case of grown-ups seeking sex with children, they very rarely are.

  117. That is a first.

    You probably don’t remember the time I went to the effort of emailing an authority I’d quoted to check a dispute with Tim Worstall about the volume of international trade in the early 20th century, then having got a reply several weeks later I posted a correction and admission of error in another thread to Tim.

    People in arguments do not admit errors as often as they should. I am sure I’m as guilty of that as everyone else. But when I’m wrong, I say so.

    Meanwhile, in thread after thread on this issue, it boils down to people posting ad hominems and circumlocutory arguments to avoid the basis issue(s) I keep asking about, which is this: if you’re so damned certain of your opinions (and by this “you” I mean, “people posting these opinions in general”) cut the arguments from icky and present a coherent justification of them, please. Just once. It is not much to ask. I am not interested in arguing about myself. I am interested in discussing the basis of the rules we live under.

    Can we please now attend to that?

  118. > You probably don’t remember the time …

    I actually meant it was a first when it came to arguments in which you repeatedly deny that I have written something that I have clearly written. Even when I quote it. Hey, progress.

    > in thread after thread on this issue, it boils down to people posting ad hominems and circumlocutory arguments to avoid the basis issue(s) I keep asking about

    Actually, no. On the last major thread I remember this happening on, you did the same thing again: I wrote my explanation quite clearly, and you then repeatedly claimed that I had never written it, and kept using the word “icky”, claiming that you were the only person Really Addressing The Issue and that everyone else was Refusing To Answer Your Questions. It’s drearily familiar.

    > if you’re so damned certain of your opinions (and by this “you” I mean, “people posting these opinions in general”) cut the arguments from icky and present a coherent justification of them, please. Just once.

    Just once? Well, since you’ve said that you’re referring not only to this thread but to others on the same topic, I’ve already done that. Job done.

    As a result, I know from experience that “icky” is something you appear to define as “anything other than agreeing with me on my terms”. Any explanation other than that you will simply deride as “icky” and you will then claim, again, that no-one has answered your question, no matter how much they actually answer it. Been there, done that.

  119. Ok, I’ll make it as simple as I can and hope that Squander Two isn’t the only person who can comprehend the English language:-

    Only perverts want to have sexual contact with children. 13-year-old girls are children. Men who would like to have sexual contact with 13-year-old girls, or indeed defend the right of other men to have sexual contact with children, are perverts.

    Now, without bollocky equivocation, does anybody not agree with that?

  120. You’re not going to address the question then, Squander. Okay. Par for the course.

    No, quoting Ironman didn’t count as an answer. It counted as a statement of ick, but that’s not what we want here. What we need is the objective measure of childhood you’re using.

    Go on, in the time you’re typing the next statement calling me a whatever, you could actually type the answer to my question. Do that. Go on. I dare you.

  121. Now, without bollocky equivocation, does anybody not agree with that?

    We’re not interested in who agrees with it, Ironman. We’re interested in how you reached those conclusions- in some kind of objective sense rather than your personal feelings. This bit in particular-

    13-year-old girls are children.

    What definition of “child” are you using?

  122. Tim N,
    “Dessert” doesn’t just mean custard; it’s closed minds like yours that created racist sauces like HP.

    Oh, and you’re assuming that the three great monotheisms were created by custard-eating English people. This is only partly true.

  123. Exactly as I thought. You can only equivocate because…

    I have no problem in calling 13 year old children BECAUSE THEY FUCKING ARE. Straight and simple; you can’t respond in kind.

    And “we” as in “we’re not interested. ..”? Who the fuck are you to claim to speak for everyone else.

  124. Ironman

    I am not sure I have any strong view here – simply interested by the discussion – but would a 16 year old man interested in a 13 year old girl (and where the girl to him genuinely might look as old as he does) be regarded as a pervert in your declaration above?

    I’m (honestly) just curious?

    And if not, then what do you define as a man, exactly?

  125. Or vice versa, 13 year old boy, 16 year old woman – I presume women can also be regarded as perverts in that assessment above?

  126. I have no problem in calling 13 year old children BECAUSE THEY FUCKING ARE. Straight and simple; you can’t respond in kind.

    You mean, I can’t pull a declaration of certainty out of my backside and call it an argument? Well, I can do that but I’m not going to, because then I’d sink to your level.

    So I ask again, does anybody have the honesty and courage to say they disagree?

    Well I do, obviously. Because I’ve already defined what a child is. Which you haven’t. Because you can’t. It doesn’t take much courage by the way to describe rudimentary biological realities, but thanks for the complement anyway.

    Come on Ironman, let’s have your definition, and then we can all move on. Once we’ve got that, we can find out where the dividing line is in your philosophy. We don’t know that yet. I don’t think you do either, but I live in hope.

  127. So Much for Subtlety

    Ian B – “Maybe. But not with the first person you hold hands with or bumb naughties with.”

    Statistically speaking, the chances of doing it successfully are much higher if it is the first person you bump nasties with.

    “We don’t do “no sex before marriage” any more and, as a culture, never really did. This isn’t Baghdad and never was.”

    I am not sure that is true. Certainly in 1914 Britain had little on Baghdad.

    “People have, and will continue to have, recreational sex with people to whom they are not eternally bonded, and nothing is going to change that.”

    Well that is either not true or so dishonest that it is much the same thing. People will. We may not be able to get that number down to zero but the lower it goes the better. And we used to get it very very low indeed.

    “Nobody seriously thinks that they are, or should, only going to have sex with their betrothed.”

    Indeed. And thus Britain is slowly sliding into extinction via ever greater dysfunction. We pretend that it is not happening but it is.

    “Especially as settling down in marriage is becoming later and later which may or may not be a good thing, but that is how things are.”

    So we have all these dysfunctional policies, producing dysfunctional results, and you point out, rightly, that the dysfunction that these dysfunctional policies produce is not going to go away. Well it might if we stopped said dysfunctional policies.

    Squander Two – “And will they say the same thing about their own daughters? If two fourteen-year-olds have sex with each other, they’ve both broken the same law, so should receive the same punishment.”

    I am not sure they both have broken the same law. That would depend.

    “No argument from me, but I think that happens more via education than law enforcement.”

    The presence of one, the absence of the other.

    “The only method of discouragement you can think of is jail? Blimey.”

    Not sure anything else works.

    “We did in fact use to lock up women who had children before marriage. Not even on criminal charges, but we’d put them in asylums on the grounds that they were insane …. What a golden era.”

    Produced less cruelty to children, dead victims of child abuse and social dysfunction that the disaster people like you have created in the name of compassion.

  128. I am not sure that is true. Certainly in 1914 Britain had little on Baghdad.

    And then you read through the primary sources from social reformers and social workers of the time and find much the same complaints and worries as today, if at a somewhat lesser magnitude. There was also widespread concern about the corruption of minors in cramped living conditions. The Victorians were deeply concerned about the un-wedlocked couplings of the costermonger class, while the higher orders sent their maids off to the country; and of course there was the thriving trade in discrete baby disposal. The major lesson of the time seems to be that everything was kept behind those heavy Victorian locked doors, but much went on behind them nonetheless.

    I would also mention the teenage prostitutes whose claimed ubiquity led to the raising of the age of consent to 16 (rammed through a very reluctant parliament on the back of one of our earliest tabloid panics) but I fear if I do, the Tin Man might have a coronary.

  129. So Much for Subtlety

    Hallowed Be – “Is it wrong to like menopausal partially-clothed ginger lady squirrels?”

    Harriet Harmon?

    Ian B – “And then you read through the primary sources from social reformers and social workers of the time and find much the same complaints and worries as today, if at a somewhat lesser magnitude.”

    Somewhat lesser magnitude. That is to say, virtually none at all.

    “There was also widespread concern about the corruption of minors in cramped living conditions.”

    As opposed to single mothers agreeing to abuse their children on line for the pleasure of their boyfriends. If this was all we had to worry about I would be delighted.

    “The Victorians were deeply concerned about the un-wedlocked couplings of the costermonger class”

    And yet by 1914 Victoria had been dead for a while.

    “The major lesson of the time seems to be that everything was kept behind those heavy Victorian locked doors, but much went on behind them nonetheless.”

    Well the odd Prime Ministerial rape of the house maid apart, I am not sure that is true. In fact we can measure this in two ways. First Britain’s birth rate had collapsed even though neither abortion or birth control were legal. Second, WW1 left huge numbers of single women. They did not have children and so presumably were not having sex. The country was full of women who were willing and able to have children, and yet they didn’t.

    “I would also mention the teenage prostitutes whose claimed ubiquity led to the raising of the age of consent to 16 (rammed through a very reluctant parliament on the back of one of our earliest tabloid panics) but I fear if I do, the Tin Man might have a coronary.”

    In 1885. A little bit before 1914.

  130. Hallowed Be says:

    “Is it wrong to like menopausal partially-clothed ginger lady squirrels?”

    Only if they want to crunch your nuts (TM: Steve).

  131. SMFS: [feminists] thought that sex was always a positive good
    Ian B: The fundamental basis of feminism is that sex is an evil imposed upon helpless women by bestial, violent males.

    No, you’re both wrong, and in a way that goes to the heart of the OP. Feminism is fundamentally not about whether women should or shouldn’t have sex with you or any other man. It’s not about men at all, except that they provide a reference for how human beings can be valued other than as sexual partners or as breeding stock.

    Similarly, when it comes to the age of consent, there’s a debate to be had about the balance between allowing children to make their own decisions and protecting them from exploitation. What the debate should not be about is just how toothsome Tim W, or Ian B, or anyone else may find children of around the critical age. Which is why references to “underage totty” are so out of place.

    Ian B: “Totty” just means somebody sexually attractive.
    You seem very concerned that we should heed the precise etymology of “paedophile”. So you’ll want to be aware that “totty” is etymologically the same as “tot” – a small child.

  132. PaulB: More sanctimomious shite. Socialism –of which feminism is an especially poisonious part, striving as it does to destroy the relationship of men and women–has murdered vast numbers of children. And ruined the lives of millions more by killing or destroying their loved ones. So don’t come it with your sleazy implications that anyone who uses the word “totty” is a child molester.

    And there is always “debate” in the sewer of socialism about allowing any human being–never mind children–to make their own decisions and “protecting” them from “exploitation” –another POS leftist term. The answer of course is always “protection”. Millions have already been “protected” to death.

  133. PF

    No of course not. I’m speaking about men of Ian B’s age. (And planning a good scrub in a hot shower to wash the filth away)

  134. SMFS – No ref. Long ago & maybe an article, not study – no intention to deceive. I google found studies supporting you: virginity(M&F) yields less divorce “controlling for socioeconomic, family background, attitudinal & value differences.” So, maybe. But maybe opportunity also. The 2 boys & girl I knew virgins & about their marriages were shy & awkward. Marriage may have been best opportunity & all fear being alone.

    I went to a wild HS, 9+ yrs of college, plus more yrs employing many 18-20s single girls processing MICR documents for banks. A randy, flirtatious group, but not obviously more than college girls. Much joy, but married once & still at it.

    Girls scheme for sexual attention: A 16yr old, home alone, ran outside naked from her bath yelling fire to the cute boy outside next door – burnt, smoking toast. Some discover only after a long run to the water their unfastened top did not go with ’em. HS girls giggle about “forgetting” their bra. A 12-13 yr old had ~6 9-10yr boys huddled & straining to see her unbutton her blouse for them. Girls seek attention & arouse themselves doing so.

    SexEd began (~1950) w/ my telling dad a neighbor was a bad girl. He sat me down & briefly: There are no bad girls (sex), don’t add pain, & explained many reasons; sex drive, fun, peer pressure, no dad, bad home, lonely, hurt, war-time, etc. Girls have always been at it, the 20s were wild, etc.

    Anecdotes but valid studies should not conflict, and there must be reasons that make sense.

    A Landers advised: When girls start, they don’t stop. Get birth control. Prof Maslow sez sex is a basic like food & H20. It seems so. I don’t see playful girls being unpleasant. Divorce seems more related to other things. I don’t see natural sex to be the culprit, not obviously so anyway.

  135. Surreptitious Evil

    If two fourteen-year-olds have sex with each other, they’ve both broken the same law, so should receive the same punishment.

    Hmm.

    What offence (E&W) have a pair of bonking 14 year olds committed?

    Honest question.

    The absolute blocker to consent is 13.

    “Child sex offences”, a different charge, can only be committed by 18 year olds and older .

    SOA03 seems to have decriminalised sex between the 13 to 18 year old community. Except under incest or abuse of trust.

    Anyway, boys and girls don’t commit the same offences. Boys commit rape, girls commit sexual assault. Or “assault by penetration” if they are in to toys.

  136. SE: They have both offended under section (13) of SOA03, in respect of its reference to offences under section (9). And section (9) is symmetric between the two parties.

    The CPS notes that “children of the same or similar age are highly unlikely to be prosecuted for engaging in sexual activity, where the activity is mutually agreed and there is no abuse or exploitation.”

  137. Ta, missed that. It’s late and I’ve had a busy day

    I must admit I was surprised when I couldn’t see it, hence asking. Thankfully children committing sex offences hasn’t been a part if my professional experience.

  138. You seem very concerned that we should heed the precise etymology of “paedophile”. So you’ll want to be aware that “totty” is etymologically the same as “tot” – a small child.

    Not etymology. Just the meaning of the word. The etymology of “totty” (if it comes from tot) is irrelevant in the same way as the word “babe” coming from “baby”.

    Ironman, meanwhile, once again falls back to articulating his taboo reaction, while remaining incapable of considering why he feels the way he does. But then that’s how the brain’s taboo system works, of course. The whole purpose of it is to shut down rational thought.

  139. PaulB, SE-

    When the SOA 2003 was brought in, it was widely criticised for being bad law, since the law makes something criminal (underage sex) and then is accompanied by notes saying that this will not be prosecuted- and indeed that private prosecutions (e.g. by angry parents) would be blocked by the State. This is obviously a very bad basis for lawmaking.

  140. Ian B: Not etymology. Just the meaning of the word.
    Quite right, etymology’s got nothing to do with it, words mean what people use them to mean. So why do you keep insisting that “paedophile” has to mean something other than what people use it to mean?

    Ian B: This is obviously a very bad basis for lawmaking.

    Ah, proof by saying “obviously”. What bad effects does it have? None whatever.

    Interestingly, Portugal, cited in the OP as a country with a markedly lower age of consent from the UK’s, has a law (Article 173) against an older person having sex with a 14-16 year-old by “taking advantage of their inexperience”. So the law seems to be similar in effect, but more restrictive with regard to 16-year-olds.

  141. PaulB; it’s bad because the law states one thing but then something else is actually implemented. This was quite widely said at the time, including articles in the press, on the BBC website etc. If the law says “you may not wear a hat on tuesdays” but then guidance says, “anyone wearing a hat on tuesdays will not be prosecuted”, it makes no sense. Laws should be written to mean what is intended.

    Obviously.

    Quite right, etymology’s got nothing to do with it, words mean what people use them to mean. So why do you keep insisting that “paedophile” has to mean something other than what people use it to mean?

    Because if a word once meant (A) but now it means (B) but people keep acting as if it still means (A), you have neither one thing nor the other. If “paedophile” is to be taken to mean sexual interest in anyone under 18, it is no longer appropriate to apply the extreme responses appropriate to sex with a child.

    For what it’s worth, I’ve offered multiple times a reasonable definition for why we should reject paedophilia (meaning (A)) both morally and legally; children do not have a sexual nature. If somebody wants to argue otherwise, fair enough. But I do not believe that they do. I believe that prior to puberty, that section of the brain is simply not active. I believe biology and experience bear this out. This is why childish exploratory fumblings of the “doctors and nurses” variety are not appropriate for legal action, and should not be considered “sex”, any more than a five year old in a toy hard hat is actually a construction worker. It also means that a child cannot by nature consent to sex.

    This changes at puberty. The conversion of a child into an adult (in sexual terms) is precisely what puberty is for; the body alters and the mind alters. It is a metamorphosis. Evolution did this precisely so that non sexual beings- “children”- metamorphose into sexual beings, “adults”.

    So if you keep using the word “child” in a sexual context to refer to beings who are no longer sexually children- havng undergone, both physically and mentally, the metamorphosis- you are not describing reality. Your words are no longer useful. And you cannot make policy if your description of reality is wrong.

    This isn’t about etymology or dictionary definitions, but about words mapping onto the reality they purport to describe. Which the usage of the words “child”, “paedophile” etc, relating to teenagers do not.

    In the papers today we have a description of the latest Ian Watkins case, of a video of (probably) Watkins having sex with a child of around six. To put this into the same category as a sexually active consensual 14 year old is absurd. They are different things. Using the same words for them is simply not describing reality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *