'PAEDOPHILE'
It's misuse on an epic scale by the media answer those Paedophile hunters the police and the obvious MWT, why you may ask.
Well for the likes of
Mark Williams-Thomas, it's his favorite word to use as it empowers him you can see when he says the word it fills his lungs it puts him in charge but he uses it mainly to Deschamps Sex Offender mixed up with the 13 to 17 age group but it's wrong. Marks sentence that shows what he feels is his caring empathetic side is "thoughts are with the family" .
The Paedophile hunters again are using the word in their titles but again the misuse is in plain sight as they always film guys trying to meet up with from what I can see mid teens.
Why has no one pointed this out?

OK I'll ask ny usual question which no-one can give an answer to:


If an adult sleeps with a Japanese 13 year old (legal) or a 14 year old Italian (legal) are they still a pedophile?


And if not why not?

hedda wrote:
OK I'll ask ny usual question which no-one can give an answer to:

If an adult sleeps with a Japanese 13 year old (legal) or a 14 year old Italian (legal) are they still a pedophile?

And if not why not?

Stand back folks, I got this one.

Whether they are a paedophile or not is unclear, but they are definitely a criminal in the view of the UK authorities.

S72(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 says

If—
(a)a United Kingdom national does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom, and
(b)the act, if done in England and Wales would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies, the United Kingdom national is guilty in England and Wales of that sexual offence.

So there you have it. A UK citizen can go to the countries Hedda suggested, or any number of other nearby States with a lower age of consent, strike up a relationship with an entirely legal partner, even perhaps getting married, and that's a crime somewhere else, where it didn't happen.

A couple of obvious criticisms from me... This section of the act very arrogantly attempts to undermine or override the sovereignty of other countries with whom we're on friendly terms. It also appears to violate the Article 7 principle of no punishment except in law, because when and where the act was done, there was not a law prohibiting it. Lastly, the UK would no doubt have something to say about a Ugandan or Saudi who engaged in perfectly legal gay sex on holiday in Brighton and then returned home to be prosecuted for something that wasn't illegal where it happened and didn't happen in the jurisdiction which is prosecuting him for it.

To answer the question.
To be called a Paedophile you have to be.
Solely attracted to prepubescent children once the child goes through puberty really you can not be called a Paedophile.
Four ages of a child.
0 to
10
13
16
The ages I can't remember the terms but hopefully someone will explain.

Under UK law no matter where you are in the world you have to conform to our legislation

I note JK has clarification in another post.
Just remember that Sam Fox photos in 'The Sun' when she was 15 in a bikini can now be classed as indecent and of course her famous 'Bangers Out' in The Sun on her 16th birthday actually a 15 year old with her books out as taken the day before or a few before.

Even so in some minds a 15 year old with books out makes you a Paedophile, no it don't but again Mark would claim you are because it empowers him.

'M' wrote:
I note JK has clarification in another post.
Just remember that Sam Fox photos in 'The Sun' when she was 15 in a bikini can now be classed as indecent and of course her famous 'Bangers Out' in The Sun on her 16th birthday actually a 15 year old with her books out as taken the day before or a few before.

Even so in some minds a 15 year old with books out makes you a Paedophile, no it don't but again Mark would claim you are because it empowers him.

Not paedophilia, obviously, but I would class paying a fifteen year old to be photographed semi naked as abusive behaviour. Then and now.

I dont think we can use "The Sun" as a measure of what is acceptable.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
...I would class paying a fifteen year old to be photographed semi naked as abusive behaviour.

Why?

I think paedophile by name definition meant there Honey.
Ie calling someone who looks at a 15 year old cannot be called that name, pervert? Maybe

MWTW wrote:
I think paedophile by name definition meant there Honey.
Ie calling someone who looks at a 15 year old cannot be called that name, pervert? Maybe

I dont think a man being attracted to a womanly body (which most fifteen year olds have) is anything but natural.
Most people can appreciate the beauty without taking advantage, I am sure.

Randall wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
...I would class paying a fifteen year old to be photographed semi naked as abusive behaviour.

Why?

Because at fifteen it is the guardian's decision, not the young person's, and once the contract is signed they cant easily back out if they are uncomfortable.

Circular logic, I'm afraid, Honey. They can't consent because they can't consent. Says who? With what authority to speak for all under 16s?

How do you know that 15 year olds are unable to back out if they wish? And if that is indeed a concern, why would it not equally apply to 18 year olds or 27 year olds? Anyone of any age is free to say stop or walk out at any time during a photo shoot, and anyone could feel the pressure of contractual obligations.

Your argument about the guardian being the party to the contract also classes other types of child modelling like toy and clothing catalogues or acting in films as abuse. Is that in fact your position, or is it really the sexual aspect that you think makes it abusive rather than the contractual arrangements?

Samantha Fox and another example, Linsey Dawn Mackenzie, started glamour careers early and appear to have been quite content. I'm sure there are others too.

So I repeat: why is paying a 15 year old for topless pictures, in a mutually agreed fair exchange, abusive?

Sandra Fox mum signed her paperwork

But that doesn't make sense honey since it seems that no one is ever permitted to back out of your dictates if they are uncomfortable with the age of consent. If they break one of your rules then they get killed or the "liberal" equivalent (i.e. life imprisonment and/or compelled suicide).

With "normal" contracts there's plenty of leeway that courts can have to rule contracts "unreasonable". In many employment cases there's not really much an employer can do if someone decides not to do the agreed work, the employer just doesn't pay them.

Randall wrote:
Circular logic, I'm afraid, Honey. They can't consent because they can't consent. Says who? With what authority to speak for all under 16s?

How do you know that 15 year olds are unable to back out if they wish? And if that is indeed a concern, why would it not equally apply to 18 year olds or 27 year olds? Anyone of any age is free to say stop or walk out at any time during a photo shoot, and anyone could feel the pressure of contractual obligations.

Your argument about the guardian being the party to the contract also classes other types of child modelling like toy and clothing catalogues or acting in films as abuse. Is that in fact your position, or is it really the sexual aspect that you think makes it abusive rather than the contractual arrangements?

Samantha Fox and another example, Linsey Dawn Mackenzie, started glamour careers early and appear to have been quite content. I'm sure there are others too.

So I repeat: why is paying a 15 year old for topless pictures, in a mutually agreed fair exchange, abusive?

Actually, I know quite a few people much older than fifteen who have felt too awkward to back out of topless (and much further) filming and photos, but there is not much we can do about it with adults, I suppose.

I do think "performing" children are often taken advantage of, and from my observations (as a performing child) it seemed to be from the parents more often than the directors & co. (not suggesting any of this happened to Sam Fox)


People do feel awkward backing out of things though, at any age, but probably more so the younger you are.

I remember when I was fifteen
I was modelling for a friend's mother who was launching her hand painted collection of dresses.
One of them was too low cut (I dont know what it is-normal necklines end up indecent on me) but because there was nobody else my size, and because I didnt like to cause a fuss, I just got on with it.
Watching it back was funny though, because my face was pink and I was walking like a robot, afraid of leaning forward.

holocaust21 wrote:
But that doesn't make sense honey since it seems that no one is ever permitted to back out of your dictates if they are uncomfortable with the age of consent. If they break one of your rules then they get killed or the "liberal" equivalent (i.e. life imprisonment and/or compelled suicide).

With "normal" contracts there's plenty of leeway that courts can have to rule contracts "unreasonable". In many employment cases there's not really much an employer can do if someone decides not to do the agreed work, the employer just doesn't pay them.

Its not my "rules", Holo, just my opinion, which I might change as I hear other sides.

Well honey the thing that is odd about your opinion is that just because you or someone might feel "awkward" about speaking up and backing out it seems you want the other person killed for unintentionally making you feel that way.

So, I guess I could ask... Rather than just saying to them that you don't want to do it anymore (which apparently makes you feel uncomfortable) would you feel more comfortable to just pull a gun on them and kill them? Or would that make you feel equally or more uncomfortable and for what reason? Or is the only scenario in which you'd feel genuinely comfortable to have a third party "the police officer" kill the person for you? And if so why is it better to have a third party do the deed, rather than to do it yourself? Perhaps it is because the third party puts you in a massive position of power over the other person, hmm?

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
[/quote]
Actually, I know quite a few people much older than fifteen who have felt too awkward to back out of topless (and much further) filming and photos, but there is not much we can do about it with adults, I suppose.

I do think "performing" children are often taken advantage of, and from my observations (as a performing child) it seemed to be from the parents more often than the directors & co. (not suggesting any of this happened to Sam Fox)

People do feel awkward backing out of things though, at any age, but probably more so the younger you are.

I remember when I was fifteen
I was modelling for a friend's mother who was launching her hand painted collection of dresses.
One of them was too low cut (I dont know what it is-normal necklines end up indecent on me) but because there was nobody else my size, and because I didnt like to cause a fuss, I just got on with it.
Watching it back was funny though, because my face was pink and I was walking like a robot, afraid of leaning forward. [/quote]

So is your argument now that if a 15 year old feels awkward about a modelling gig, that feeling - rather than the nature of the gig itself - makes the gig abusive?

And what about another more easy going and confident 15 year old on the same gig? Is the job then not abusive for him/her? And therefore can the same situation be simultaneously abusive and not abusive?

holocaust21 wrote:
Well honey the thing that is odd about your opinion is that just because you or someone might feel "awkward" about speaking up and backing out it seems you want the other person killed for unintentionally making you feel that way.

So, I guess I could ask... Rather than just saying to them that you don't want to do it anymore (which apparently makes you feel uncomfortable) would you feel more comfortable to just pull a gun on them and kill them? Or would that make you feel equally or more uncomfortable and for what reason? Or is the only scenario in which you'd feel genuinely comfortable to have a third party "the police officer" kill the person for you? And if so why is it better to have a third party do the deed, rather than to do it yourself? Perhaps it is because the third party puts you in a massive position of power over the other person, hmm?

I am sorry, I cant make head nor tails of this. guns to heads? killing people?

Randall wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

Actually, I know quite a few people much older than fifteen who have felt too awkward to back out of topless (and much further) filming and photos, but there is not much we can do about it with adults, I suppose.

I do think "performing" children are often taken advantage of, and from my observations (as a performing child) it seemed to be from the parents more often than the directors & co. (not suggesting any of this happened to Sam Fox)

People do feel awkward backing out of things though, at any age, but probably more so the younger you are.

I remember when I was fifteen
I was modelling for a friend's mother who was launching her hand painted collection of dresses.
One of them was too low cut (I dont know what it is-normal necklines end up indecent on me) but because there was nobody else my size, and because I didnt like to cause a fuss, I just got on with it.
Watching it back was funny though, because my face was pink and I was walking like a robot, afraid of leaning forward. [/quote]

So is your argument now that if a 15 year old feels awkward about a modelling gig, that feeling - rather than the nature of the gig itself - makes the gig abusive?

And what about another more easy going and confident 15 year old on the same gig? Is the job then not abusive for him/her? And therefore can the same situation be simultaneously abusive and not abusive?[/quote]

An older person will have autonomy and will decide their own contract. The younger person will not, and IN MY OPINION is therefore more vulnerable to exploitation.

Incidentally, Sam Fox claims that she was almost seventeen.

I am sorry, I cant make head nor tails of this. guns to heads? killing people?

I'm pointing out that locking someone up for a sex crime is not much different to just killing them. You seem to be advocating locking people up for underage photos. So I'm asking you if you'd be honest about the whole thing and just kill them yourself, or if you'd rather get someone else to do it and why? Or perhaps when I swap locking up for killing does this now make you feel that what you are advocating might be morally wrong? Personally, I think it's a little excessive to kill someone if they unintentionally make you feel "uncomfortable". And I do think that locking up and killing are more or less the same thing in this case, so if you think killing is wrong then you should also think that locking up is wrong.