Check out today's Observer - The Sunday Guardian - lazy, lazy, lazy...

I am not a "convicted paedophile" - a) it is not a crime and b) "someone who is sexually attracted to children" does not apply to someone wrongly convicted of having consensual sex with "young persons" (definition of a child - 1933 Children and Young Persons Act - "a person under 14").

www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/jul...ire-5-live-interview

Can you sue over this?

the way the word 'paedophile' has been subborned as a catch all phrase to describe anyone the media doesn't like is a result of the gutter tabloids perversion of everything in public life and it's a good example of how the Guardian has used also been infected to a degree.

We are witnessing a massive change in the way information is spread and that's evident by how Murdoch has ditched a profitable rag. I give the so-called Sun On Sunday nil chance of survival.

JK2006 wrote:
Check out today's Observer - The Sunday Guardian - lazy, lazy, lazy...

I am not a "convicted paedophile" - a) it is not a crime and b) "someone who is sexually attracted to children" does not apply to someone wrongly convicted of having consensual sex with "young persons" (definition of a child - 1933 Children and Young Persons Act - "a person under 14").

www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/jul...ire-5-live-interview

The clinical definition of a paedophile has always been somebody who has a fixed sexual preference for pre-pubescent children. As far as I know, feminists still haven't officially managed to extend that definition to it's more popular current media usage applying to anybody over 20 who looks at somebody under 20.

Again, why do the media love the phrase 'convicted paedophile' so much? Because the idea is to cast all men as probable, but unconvicted paedophiles.

Blackit wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Check out today's Observer - The Sunday Guardian - lazy, lazy, lazy...

I am not a "convicted paedophile" - a) it is not a crime and b) "someone who is sexually attracted to children" does not apply to someone wrongly convicted of having consensual sex with "young persons" (definition of a child - 1933 Children and Young Persons Act - "a person under 14").

www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/jul...ire-5-live-interview

The clinical definition of a paedophile has always been somebody who has a fixed sexual preference for pre-pubescent children. As far as I know, feminists still haven't officially managed to extend that definition to it's more popular current media usage applying to anybody over 20 who looks at somebody under 20.

Again, why do the media love the phrase 'convicted paedophile' so much? Because the idea is to cast all men as probable, but unconvicted paedophiles.

Aren't all men predatory beasts that prey on sweet innocent females and engage them in violent penetration? What a paradox, little kids can go and watch Rhianna finger herself on stage and yet the age old natural thing of girls wanting to be fucked by beastly older men seems to be practically denied. Just as wanting to fuck fertile, curvacious young nubiles has suddenly become nouveau paedophilia. I'm loving this media meltdown at the moment, but the icing on the cake would surely be Murdochs tabloids getting stung by their "own laws" and prosecuted retrospectively for those young page 3 girls of the 80s & 90s

to use the reckoning of the tabloids including the Graunaid-Rupert Murdoch is an unconvicted peadophile.

After all he published under aged 18 topless photos that today would convict someone of producing kiddie porn.

And basically the entire staff of The Sun pre-the law that forbid such pictures should also be referred to as pedos-they all had a hand in it and profited from it. Not to mention the readers.

As the kiddie protection industry would say...no ifs and no buts..yor guilty as sin !!

so there are millions upon millions of pedos roaming the country !!

Chris Retro wrote:
Blackit wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Check out today's Observer - The Sunday Guardian - lazy, lazy, lazy...

I am not a "convicted paedophile" - a) it is not a crime and b) "someone who is sexually attracted to children" does not apply to someone wrongly convicted of having consensual sex with "young persons" (definition of a child - 1933 Children and Young Persons Act - "a person under 14").

www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/jul...ire-5-live-interview

The clinical definition of a paedophile has always been somebody who has a fixed sexual preference for pre-pubescent children. As far as I know, feminists still haven't officially managed to extend that definition to it's more popular current media usage applying to anybody over 20 who looks at somebody under 20.

Again, why do the media love the phrase 'convicted paedophile' so much? Because the idea is to cast all men as probable, but unconvicted paedophiles.

Aren't all men predatory beasts that prey on sweet innocent females and engage them in violent penetration? What a paradox, little kids can go and watch Rhianna finger herself on stage and yet the age old natural thing of girls wanting to be fucked by beastly older men seems to be practically denied. Just as wanting to fuck fertile, curvacious young nubiles has suddenly become nouveau paedophilia. I'm loving this media meltdown at the moment, but the icing on the cake would surely be Murdochs tabloids getting stung by their "own laws" and prosecuted retrospectively for those young page 3 girls of the 80s & 90s

I think you've articulated it perfectly Chris.

It's the transparent inconsistancy that gets me. Our draconian laws and punishments against 'paedophiles' might be justified if we lived in some shariah law type society in which virginity and female 'innocence' was still valued, but we don't. We live in a 'slut walker' society in which most 11 year olds have watched hardcore online porn, read newspapers bought by their parents that contain little else but gossip on who is shagging who, and which have breasts and ass sandwhiched between the latest 'hang the dirty pedo' stories. What the hell is the point of ruining that Scottish teenage footballer's life for exposing himself online to a highly sexualised girl turning 13 and then forcing her to go through court and tell her repeatedly that she's going to be fucked up for life? Could it be the same murkey swamp pit of very adult selfish motives that leads to newspapers hacking into the phones of murdered kids and their relatives? (BTW, to anyone accusing me of 'cognitive distortions', I think Craig Johnson acted like an idiot, given the laws and (inconsistant) morality we live under, but he doesn't deserve to have his life destroyed).

Both the conservatives and labour would like to turn the clock back and force some kind of sexual innocence upon teenagers. Good luck to them on that. I don't know what the long-term psychological effects on teenagers will be if you try to empty their minds of sex at an age when throughout human evolutionary history they would have been ready to give birth to children themselves. But they don't have a prayer of succeeding anyway.

The free sexual market is here to stay, but we want to impose utterly different rules on under 18's than we do for 'adults'. The situation is a little bit like Europe after the arrival of the printing press. A free market of ideas was suddenly created, something that led inevitably to the Enlightenment and the advancement of civilisation. But there was also a massive backlash from vested powerful interests that the new technology threatened, and a curious regression for a short time back to superstition and hysteria - above all with the witch hunts and the spanish inquisistion. The internet has further massively opened up the free sexual market that was created largely by the pill in the 60's. We're seeing a primitive backlash in the form of paedohysteria, and to a lesser extent with sex trafficking hysteria. We're quickly moving towards Aldous Huxeley's alledged dystopia of sex being completely divorced from reproduction, and there are winners and losers, and male sexuality, particularly through the inflation of the 'paedophile' term, is the current scapegoat.

veritas wrote:
to use the reckoning of the tabloids including the Graunaid-Rupert Murdoch is an unconvicted peadophile.

After all he published under aged 18 topless photos that today would convict someone of producing kiddie porn.

And basically the entire staff of The Sun pre-the law that forbid such pictures should also be referred to as pedos-they all had a hand in it and profited from it. Not to mention the readers.

As the kiddie protection industry would say...no ifs and no buts..yor guilty as sin !!

so there are millions upon millions of pedos roaming the country !!

You're absolutely right that, morally speaking, Murdoch is a child pornographer and an unconvicted paedophile for his use of 16 year old page 3 girls.

But the News of the World even published child porn AFTER the sex offences bill of 2003 which raised the minimum age of 16 to 18.

The weekend of the Hurricane Katrina that wrecked New Orleans, they published a typically salacious and exploitative story about 16 year old British teenagers getting drunk and misbehaving on Greek islands. They included pictures of some of the 16 year old girls topless, which was clearly illegal under the new child pornography laws.

“Child pornography is great,” the man said enthusiastically. “Politicians do not understand file sharing, but they understand child pornography, and they want to filter that to score points with the public. Once we get
them to filter child pornography, we can get them to extend the block to file sharing.”

The Copyright Lobby Absolutely Loves Child Pornography