Not had the pleasure lol of this piece of 'entertainment',but will happily take your word for it.

One look at all the scantily clad kids on my high street tells me what hypocrites parents are,scared stiff of the invented meejah pedo menace,but buying the sort of clothes that until recently was more usually the domain of the street wealking prostitute.

Donny Osmond was 15 when Puppy Love etc were hits and that was almost 40 years ago.
A love for contemporary music usually starts at around 10-12 yrs old and at the beginning it is catchy melodic pop and often coupled with good looking boys/girls a few years older. Like a lot of things the imagery may be a bit more explicit today but at this age range I don't see a big difference to the way its been for some time.

It is society that has changed; regarding a teenage boy as cute is now considered a perversion.

JK2006 wrote:
It is society that has changed; regarding a teenage boy as cute is now considered a perversion.

Time to prosecute the Italians for all those statues ?

This is a ridiculous thread, Justin Bieber is aimed at the teen and pre-teen market. There is absolutely nothing sexual about him whatsoever and he doesn't appear naked or semi-naked. To claim this is paedophilia (He's over 16 anyway, which is the age of consent) is ridiculous. Even if he was under 16, it doesn't mean he can't have a life or even a career.

robbiex wrote:
This is a ridiculous thread

Coming from you that's really something. Perhaps you shouldn't stray from your usual postings about football and claiming the BNP aren't fascist. Do me a favour and never bother replying to any of my threads again because it's clear you don't actually read them properly or understand them at all.

robbiex wrote:
Justin Bieber is aimed at the teen and pre-teen market.

I'm talking about an appearance on the Graham Norton Show, which is "aimed" at adults.

robbiex wrote:
There is absolutely nothing sexual about him whatsoever...

I suggest you tell that to the hysterical - and adult - females outside the studio screaming for him. You might consider telling Graham Norton too, who fawned and flirted effusively. All these people clearly find this adolescent boy very definitely sexy. I must be wrong, though. If an intellect as huge as yours informs me otherwise, then clearly I'll have to revise my opinions and observations.

robbiex wrote:
and he doesn't appear naked or semi-naked.

Where do I claim he does? I claimed he is being marketed as a sex symbol. Do you really think otherwise? I mean, your previous words would suggest you do. But you could be joking. Or - just perhaps - be applying a complete lack of perception in your usual way.

robbiex wrote:
To claim this is paedophilia (He's over 16 anyway, which is the age of consent) is ridiculous.

It would be if that was what I was claiming. I asked "Is the BBC, by happily {indeed enthusiastically} promoting the image of this juvenile Dollar Machine as a sex symbol, encouraging paedophilia?" Most people who read that question would understand the difference. Once again I have to point out to you that you are completely out of your depth. Had a 16 year old girl {who looks like she's 12} been the recipient of that amount of innuendo from a much older interviewer there would have been hell to pay, even without a testosterone-charged mob outside making it clear that they'd like very much to fuck her.

robbiex wrote:
Even if he was under 16, it doesn't mean he can't have a life or even a career.

I'd be the last person to deny anyone a life or a "career" {this time next year he'll probably be in the "where are they now" bin}. But that is largely beside the point. He certainly should have a life and a career. But I'd argue that what I saw on TV last night wasn't about life or career.

You have completely missed the point of my posting. Maybe the fact that my posting relied quite heavily on subtext is what befuddled you.

But, then again, my posting was aimed at people who actually think, so your lack of comprehension holds little surprise for me.

Locked Out wrote:
[color=#004080] And I am in no doubt that the women {yes, women} screaming hysterically outside the studio would be more than happy to see the death penalty for paedos.


So how can you claim with such certainty that these women would be more than happy to see the death penalty for paedos. Thats quite a talent you have, if you can tell the political opnions of someone by hearing them scream in a crowd.

Saucer of milk for LO. He looks 16 to me.

I think Justin Beiber is quite talented but it's obviously Usher who is the brilliant one here.

I think JK is right. Public opinion has been shaped by the hypocritical tabloid media that not so long ago profited from under-age topless teens on Page 3 and now ramps up the outrage on teen sexuality whilst profiting from it.

I still claim that a past Page 3 girl who was under 18 should come forward and sue for historic abuse, perhaps with M.Clifford as her agent !