The Roman Catholic Church: Cross in One Hand, Gelding Knife in the Other


by David Webb

Occasionally you read something that makes clear to you that there is no going back to the old culture, which had undesirable elements to it, otherwise the current cultural revolution would not have been embarked on in the first place. Was our old culture rotten? Not entirely, and in fact in many respects the modern culture with the seizure of children for no reason and prosecution for Twitter comments is just as rotten in its own right.

But I was repulsed by the report that the Dutch Roman Catholic Church had castrated 10 boys in the 1950s. Apparently, boys who did not like being sexually abused by the “priests” (I can only put that word in inverted commas for people who use their position in such a fashion) and reported it to the police were sent to mental homes and “persuaded” to be castrated.

Castration has a number of definitions, including chemical etc, but in this case it was complete surgical removal of the testicles as a “cure” for homosexuality and, in effect, a punishment for those who spoke out against being abused. The Dutch state sent along inspectors to witness the castrations…

It is difficult to deny that the old Christian culture ran its course and is unrecoverable. Jesus said that “by their fruits” you would know the true church – by that standard, the RC church has no connection with the church founded at Pentecost. I wonder if such castrations were done by the English RC church.

If so, I would like to see the RC church closed down in the UK and its assets handed over to the CofE. The CofE is lot of things, but without the celibate ministry, probably less likely to be a paedophile sex racket under the guise of a “church”.

Unfortunately, the church existed in society in order to promote goodness and human values, but has often done the opposite. It is difficult to deny that some reforms and some changes were required in the old culture, although not necessarily ones that have led to the demise of the social fabric as we have seen today. Such news reports are very dispiriting for conservatives.

About these ads

38 responses to “The Roman Catholic Church: Cross in One Hand, Gelding Knife in the Other

  1. Careful David.

    People do very strange things in the midst of hysteria, and the hysteria about homosexuality that lasted for nigh a century before the 1960s reversal was very hysterical; though not generally as extreme as the current reinvigoration as padeohysteria. The parallel there is quite useful. The hated “homo” has become the hated “paedo” and castrations of a chemical variety are currently being performed, I understand. And it’s certianly the case that many people today would be in favour of cutting their bollocks off.

    So I don’t know that this has much to say about the Catholic Church. It has a lot to say about the terrible things done during witch panics.

    It’s also worth mentioning that the vast majority of Catholic priests were not engaged in pederasty. It’s simply that the Church, like all institutions, offered opportunity (e.g. childrens homes, boarding schools, etc).

  2. yes but whereas sexual abuse has never been the church’s official policy – the priests who did it have always had to conceal it – the castrations were not a furtive act, but an acknowledged thing done with the consent of and in the presence of government inspectors! This was probably an acknowledged “cure” for homosexuality back then – and the aspect that it was actually a punishment for boys/young men who complained about being sexually abused was probably concealed.

    I am in favour of strong punishments for genuine paedophilia – although not castration – which is simply barbaric. See http://www.corkirish.com/wordpress/archives/1826 for my other comments on this.

  3. Many years ago, I spent an afternoon in a television studio with Michelle Elliott (she of Kidscape) and a coven of female child abuse survivors. One of the other guests was a former scoutmaster, who’d done time for fellating a 14-year-old boy. He was by now a sad, snivelling creature, and didn’t seem even to notice how all the cameramen and the rest of the production crew kept coming forward to spit on him as we were being fitted with our microphones. As the programme got under way, a tall young man with muscles and clenched fists stood beside one of the cameras mouthing obscenities.

    This was a live programme, and I did think of telling the viewers what was going on. But I really suspected this would get me a good kicking from the tall young man. So I carried on as if nothing odd were happening.

    It did me little good. I eventually pointed out to one of Mrs Elliott’s associates that, though bad and meriting some punishment, being touched up wasn’t the worst thing that could happen to a child. When I was asked what could be worse than that, I let my mouth fall open. By the time, I could come out with a recital of the obvious, the presenter was on her feet and hyperventilating that the Libertarian Alliance didn’t think there should be laws against paedophilia. The ladies of the coven were making some odd screeching sounds. When order was restored, I found the time for some cruel sneering. I even called the presenter stupid. But I was glad to hurry out of that whole building into the sunlight.

    That was in 1996. I see no reason to believe that people have become any less barking mad over the issue since.

  4. Sean,

    Even more barking mad if anything. The tall young man part of that is particularly disturbing.

    As I said above, all that seems to have happened is that all the emotions formerly reserved for homosexuals have been transferred to the replacement paedophile. That most of the offences labelled as such, as with the one described above, aren’t paedophilia at all, is not worth trying to mention in the face of the fury. The young man who, a few decades ago, went out gay bashing now goes out paedo-bashing, with, as before, the nod and the wink of the State and all its organs. So far as one can tell, even the old Pretty Police just scrubbed out “poofters” on their job description and wrote “kiddie fiddlers” over it in crayon.

    I’ve been arguing for some time now that in my view it is this manipulation of hysteria that has driven the growth of the State and loss of liberty far more in Anglo countries than marxism. I don’t know what the answer is. But we really need one. I wonder how long it’ll be before we’re looking back on the excesses of this current era with the same “never again” feeling that we look now at stories like the one referenced by David.

  5. Most paedophilia is actually consensual sex with older teenagers (14 and 15 year olds), who are not biologically prepubescent. Of course priests and scoutmasters who exploit the vulnerability of such teenagers who are not yet streetwise, and ought to have their first sexual experiences with people of their own age, are taking advantage, but it is not classic paedophilia. The number of so-called paedophiles who jump out of pushes to kidnap 5 year olds and force them into sex is a tiny proportion of the whole, and we don’t draw this distinction for some reason. These are even countries eg Iceland I think, where the age of consent is 14 – so a scoutmaster fellating a 14yo with apparent consent is just not paedophilia, whatever sort of exploitation it is. The fact that sex offenders number in the six figures in the UK shows that the whole thing has spiralled out of all connection with the real likelihood of suffering a serious sexual attack by an anonymous attacker – which is what people really fear, and what they understand rapists and paedophiles to do. Rapists – often are just friends engaged in casual sex who find the woman regrets the experience the next day (date rape) – not what I would call a classic rapist. Paedophiles – older men who have consensual sex with postpubescent teenagers. These categories are clearly not the real hardcore few that the vice squad should be concentrating on – although I have said that taking advantage of an older teen should probably be an offence of some kind (although not paedophilia if the teen is postpubescent). The definition of sex offender has become so broad that a football fan who streaked at an Aston Villa match is now on the sex offenders register (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118221/Football-fan-streaked-Premier-League-match-100-bet-placed-sex-offenders-register.html), but taking off one’s clothes in public, while distasteful to many, is not a sexual attack…

  6. Well, the simple answer in my view that this has spiralled out of control is the Feminist Movement. It’s that simple. They grabbed hold of a moral panic that began (as usual) in America, with the Satanic Ritual Abuse/Day Care panic, and ran with it and, because the Feminists have enormous ideological power (due to the Victorian emplacement of ruling class women as our “ulama”) they have had enormous success.

  7. I just want to add that despite as usual going off at a bit of a tangent in the comments, I share David’s horror at what these lads suffered.

  8. The problem with child molesters is that they should not be molesting children in the first place, with or without consent. The adults in an adult world have to take some responsibility for their actions rather than blame it on the children, the feminists, the gays, the blacks, the Jews, the Christians or the Pope etc.. If a bloke can’t keep his pecker under control then maybe he needs help to do so.

    The age of ‘consent’ is of course a sliding scale situation. But that is the word, consent, and added to that word should be the word ‘conception’, as in knowing the concept of what consenting to sexual activity actually means.
    A five year old boy or girl can have no conception of being penetrated or made to or have fellatio acted out upon them or by them. The adult has every conception as to what is going on. Consensual agreement is a moot point when it is applied to children. Mostly they, children, before a certain age, do not really know what sexual activity, in relation to penile penetration and fellatio, is all about. They might have read the books and been told “all about it”. But then that is not the same as knowing, comprehending and understating “all about it”. That is where an adult has to keep his mouth shut and his pecker zipped in his pants. Find a grown up person to play with and let little children live out their childhood as children, not mini-men or women.

  9. efgd, you have completely missed the discussion we have had. No one is talking about 5 year old children – and it is very rare for “paedophiles” to target such young children. We are talking about people 15 years of age, who do regularly engage in sex in our society – they get sex advice and condoms from school at that age – and it is probably even a large majority of 15 year olds who are sexually active. They are not “children” biologically, and even socially the fact that they are mostly sexually active indicates that age of consent laws drawn up decades/centuries ago are out of any connection with reality. Nearly all paedophilia relates to sexual activity between adults and older teenagers many years past puberty. The whole thing has little to do with 5 year olds – I don’t think anyone disagrees that 5 year olds are incapable of giving consent to sex – but that is not the point here.

    • No I have not missed the point. A child is a child until such time society deems him or her her to be an adult; in Spain I believe it is 13 and some 200 plus years ago in the USA it was 8 to 10. In the UK, the age of sexual consent for women has been set at 16 since 1885, when campaigners fought to raise it from 13 to prevent child prostitution. As for, “Nearly all paedophilia relates to sexual activity between adults and older teenagers many years past puberty.” This is not true as most paedophiles go for a child generally 13 years of younger children not teenagers of 15 plus.

      The law is clear on the age of consent which is 16. It does not matter what one wants to do, in law sexual intercourse is applicable for 16 years olds upwards. Now I would agree that sexual maturity is paramount in any sexual activity. Some 13 to 15 year olds are sexually mature as are some 10 year olds, so are we going to say whatever-one wants, as long as it is consensual? I think a prepubescent child is incapable of knowing the ramifications of early sexual activity, from STDs to damage of the membranes of the bottom or vagina, and the likely hood of cancer of the ovaries or womb, and of course pregnancy as some girls start their menstrual periods at the age of 10 to 11, which is what I was pointing out in my last comment. I knew there would be more disgust at the mention of the age of 5 and less at the mention of a older prepubescent age – reminding oneself that paedophiles do not wholly or normally target 15 plus year olds.

      I agree that demonising all men because of the few, hopefully, unashamed or sick men, and women, who try to be sexually active with a pre-teen is wrong, the National Paedophile Register should only consist of individuals who have been convicted of child sex offences. The word child here in the UK refers to an under 16 year old. I think the age is about right for the danger and the mentality of sexual activity – adult men with pre-teen or early-teen. But of course in years to come it could go as low as 12. As stated it is 13 in Spain.

      As for running around naked, that should just be accepted as a lewd behaviour in public not a sexual behaviour.

      To answer Mr Ecks, ” The real issue is the way the actions of a very few people have been conflated by the rotten abuse industry (led by feminist harpys) into an attack on all men everywhere. Even now that same abuse crew are trying to demonise all heterosexual men who are attracted to young (18+) attractive women as paedos.” Why would people want to demonise men who want to have sexual activity with 18 year old women, or men for that matter? There was not the same outburst when it was 21 then 18 and now 16. Who are the feminist harpys you refer to? I do believe maybe you are referring to men of an age of 30 plus who try to hook up with 18 year olds, but as my family 18 year old would say “gross”, not because it is a male but because of the age. Very ageist I know.

      Thank you for both for commenting on my comment.

  10. Efgd: The fact that there are a few real child molesters and that they are very wrong to do such acts is accepted by all on the thread. The real issue is the way the actions of a very few people have been conflated by the rotten abuse industry (led by feminist harpys) into an attack on all men everywhere. Even now that same abuse crew are trying to demonise all heterosexual men who are attracted to young (18+) attractive women as paedos.

  11. Ian B, what do you think of a football streaker being placed on the sex offenders’ register? Is nudity in and of itself sexual now?

  12. DJWebb:

    I think the terrible thing about all this is everything is sexualised. Streakers used to be seen as a bit of shocking fun, and nothing to do with sex as such. The point of streaking was shock value.To put a streaker on the Sex Offenders Register is beyond assinine. But then, we’re a society that declares unwise Tweeters to be terrorists and runs witch hunts against mouthy women on trams, so nothing surprises me any more.

    Efgd:

    A child is a child until such time society deems him or her her to be an adult

    Well there is the problem, because you’ve got two different definitions of what a child is. One is legal, the other is biological. Hypothetically, if in some near future the law defined everyone as a minor until they left university, that wouldn’t mean 22 year olds would turn into children.

    The point is, we all agree with what the law is. The issue is whether the law is an ass. A child is not a child until the law says otherwise. A child is legally a minor until the law says otherwise, and that is a different thing.

  13. Also-

    Why would people want to demonise men who want to have sexual activity with 18 year old women, or men for that matter?

    The cynical answer to that one is, “jealousy”. There is a not unreasonable hypothesis that the driving force behind all this is older and less attractive women trying to knock younger, more attractive competitors out of the marketplace.

    I do believe maybe you are referring to men of an age of 30 plus who try to hook up with 18 year olds, but as my family 18 year old would say “gross”, not because it is a male but because of the age. Very ageist I know.

    I think this is an interesting indicator of how far attitudes have already skewed in a remarkably short time. That’s an age gap of 12 years. My brother in law is 11 years older than my sister, his wife. I think she was 20 or so when they met. Is their marriage “gross”?

  14. efgd, it is hard to have a conversation with you. Your long post plunges right into “sex with preteens” as if you have not understood anything said earlier in the discussion. How many times do I need to repeat that we are not talking about sex with preteens?

    I think you will find that ‘many’ of the people prosecuted for paedophilia are engaged in sex with people very near the legal age of consent. The full breakdown is hard to find, so I will admit that I don’t know the proportion. My knowledge of society, merely by living in society, tells me that the number of people attracted to little children is close to zero – I would expect a hard core of 100 people in the country as a whole who attack preteen children unknown to them, all monitored regularly by the police. But in fact, there have been many reports that show 3% or less of attacks on young children are by persons unknown to them: it is normally family members who are doing it. And then 40% of attacks on young children are by juveniles – eg a 14 year old attacking a 5 year old (figures from http://yellodyno.com/Statistics/statistics_child_molester.html) . So the moral panic based on child abuse is quite out of connection with the real stastistical details. Your definition implies that sex between someone a week over 16 and someone a week under 16 is paedophilia, but such cases of legal “paedophilia” would often see the charges dropped by the police.

    Logically, there is a difference between a 5 year old and a 15 year old. Attraction to a 5 year old is paedophilia. It is unnatural. It is a perversion. Such people are probably ill in some sense (but that does not mean I oppose punishment, as I am not one of those who seek to medicalise crime). Attraction to a 15 year old is not paedophilia and is not unnatural – no one who is attracted to a 16 year old could claim that he would not be attracted to someone who was one day short of 16 – I would challenge any police chief constable in England to deny that he is attracted to many 15 year old girls. Attraction to a 15 year old has its own term: ephebophilia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia .

    Being a child is not just something defined by the law. It is a biological reality – and the legal definition sometimes takes into account social realities too – but the social reality is that nearly all 15 year olds are sexually active, and encouraged to be so today. So we have three definitions: biological reality (many are biologically capable at 12); legal reality (defined by the law as minor until 16); and social reality (many not streetwise at 16, and don’t have much money at that age, and so are easily attracted by flashy lifestyles and cars, but all the same they are engaging in sex at that age).

  15. Hi
    “I think you will find that ‘many’ of the people prosecuted for paedophilia are engaged in sex with people very near the legal age of consent.”
    No I won’t, as this is not the case. Most paedophiles go for pre-teens. It is the pursuit of such children that paedophiles are known for.

    I did say that society decides who is a child by age definition and by quoting the ages from various countries, which points to the difficulty societies have with protecting young people from predators.

    Your last paragraph is applicable but I did cover that. Just because young people have reached puberty does not mean they are as mentally capable of understanding the fallout from sex and the consequences this has. Usually, puberty starts between ages 8 and 13 in girls and ages 10 and 15 in boys. Do we continue to protect them from men, and women, who are out for sex or do we say whatever because they have reached the age of puberty?

    I understand consensual sex. But do the young know what they are consenting to? Yes flashy cars and money win the day for most men, but just because they want to cop a feel of a young person or have sex with a young person does not put both people into the true understanding of consensual sex. I used the five year old age as a point in case of a child loving the attention but does not can not see the danger. The same sadly can be said of a teenager. Of course a day won’t make a difference, one day 15 next day 16, but the difference between an eight year old and a sixteen tear old is in mental capacity to comprehend adult behaviour – to some degree. I know we are not talking about preteens, but puberty comes into the equation when it comes to sex.

    @Ian B
    No I do not think your sister and her husband are gross because of the eleven years difference – but how about a 13 year old with a 24 year old or 40 year old? Are you all saying on this matter that sex between the 13 and these men okay if it is consensual because the 13 is in her or his puberty?

  16. >>>“I think you will find that ‘many’ of the people prosecuted for paedophilia are engaged in sex with people very near the legal age of consent.”
    No I won’t, as this is not the case. Most paedophiles go for pre-teens. It is the pursuit of such children that paedophiles are known for.

    Efgd, you are clearly not a member of Mensa! Paedophiles are known for pursuit of preteens. But not everyone arrested under the laws relating to sex with children (=including anyone up to 16) is therefore a paedophile. You proceed from the dictionary definition of paedophile, but fail to see that the legal definition is broader.

    >>>>Do we continue to protect them from men, and women, who are out for sex or do we say whatever because they have reached the age of puberty?

    I am pointing out that most/all 15 year olds are sexually active, and it is a totally different circumstance today from when most 15 year olds were genuinely innocent. By allowing 15 year olds – nay, encouraging them – to engage in sex, “society has decided” that they are not children.

    >>>Of course a day won’t make a difference, one day 15 next day 16, but the difference between an eight year old and a sixteen tear old is in mental capacity to comprehend adult behaviour – to some degree. I know we are not talking about preteens, but puberty comes into the equation when it comes to sex.

    Yes, of course 8 years makes a difference, but one day does not. But then that is my point, not yours. You say “puberty comes into the equation”, forgetting that is my point, not yours. Cancel the Mensa application!

    • Hi there – again. No I am not a member of MENSA, but clearly I am in good company with your good self. If I err in my conclusion as to what I preceive to read then so be it. You obviously cannot grasp the complextisity of biological readyness for sex and the cognitive understanding of undertaking sexual activity and its outcomes. Just because some one is biologically able to have sex and babies does not mean they have to or that men through their alpha role, pleeze, do you really believe they have ever lost that, have the gratious right to have sex and inpregnate without responsibility. I know it takes two to procreate, but some 13 year olds do not have a reality lbased clue, boys and girls, not just boys. I am sorry that you find it hard to accept that I do not agree with your views; so I must be dumb of course. You have not convinced me that you have the knowledge of the real paedophile world and its coherts. Perhaps you never will.

  17. efgd-

    No I do not think your sister and her husband are gross because of the eleven years difference – but how about a 13 year old with a 24 year old or 40 year old?

    You specifically stated “a 30 year old and an 18 year old” is “gross”; in so doing blurring “paedophilia” to any age gap, even consenting adults. I pointed out that my sister and her husband were not far removed from that, something like 20 and 31. We were not discussing in that part of the discussion 13 year olds.

    You see this is the whole problem; something very specific has been increasinly blurred out to mean all kinds of things that are qualitatively different. 15 year olds, as 18 year olds and 20 year olds, are qualitatively different to 8 year olds. You might be right that it is wise to try to protect 15 year olds from making certain choices; but that does not make sex with them “paedophilia”. Because it isn’t.

    DJWebb has addressed your other points; but I think one thing that often comes up in these discussions is important. If it is in some way biologically wrong for teenagers to have sex, why did evolution put puberty at the age of 12? It is often argued that science shows that the brain is not fully developed until 18 or 20 or 25 (take your pick)- but if so we are left with the conundrum that evolution deliberately placed sexual maturity well before the completion of brain development; and add into that mix that virtually every human society in history has used puberty as the age when a girl can marry (and thus begin sexual activity). So either evolution is stupid, or else the human species is intended to have sex before the brain’s development has completed.

    Which actually makes sense. While the brain is still plastic, new experiences can be more easily accomodated within its structure. In other words, it may well be that the reason that sexual activity begins before the brain is “complete” is so that sex can be mentally accomodated into its function. Might, then, unnaturally delaying sexual activity lead to psychological sexual dysfunction? I don’t know, but it’s worth a thought. Something must have been making all those well brought up Victorian ladies so neurotic and hysterical, after all…

  18. Ian B, it is simply that 16 is defined as the age of consent in law because that is when “children” leave school – and can then earn their own money and make their own way in the world. But I don’t see why “children” have to stay on until 16 – as most of them stopped learning anything years earlier. If they’re not academically minded, and can read, write and do ‘rithmetic, I would launch them onto the job market, eg at 14. Because that is what happened to my grandparents, so I don’t see why they can’t now. There is nothing innately immature about 14 year olds – I am not taking about physical development, but mental development and streetwise nous: many 14 year olds are in fact rather streetwise. It is simply that 14 year olds don’t earn their own money, and so are easily impressed by those who have it – that is the only conclusion I can reach. Let me add this: any girl who gets pregnant at 12, 13 or 14 – should be immediately told her school days are over. She has clearly wasted her life – but as a mother, she is no longer a schoolchild. Fullstop. Isn’t it ridiculous that young mothers take their babies in to school?

    As efgd says,, “society” (whoever that is) decides that people of a certain age are children – but clearly the social realities are conflicting with the obligation to attend school and the prohibition on full-time work when 14 year olds are becoming parents. Compulsory education is a nonsense anyway – I don’t see why any children should be compelled to go to school – they could be homeschooled or taught basket-weaving on the job at home…

  19. DJ,

    I’m inclined to agree. But then I’ve posted over at Counting Cats at length about my opposition to institutional schooling. My father left school at 14. 16 is a pretty recent innovation, and the last government effectively pushed it up to 18. A central theme of Progressivism is infantilisation. It seems they’d like everyone to be a “child” until they leave University.

    I take the view that the artifical extension of “childhood” is the source of many social problems; the grey area of “teenage” leads young adults to be forced to stay as children; hence they start emulating “adult” behaviours in inappropriate ways. They can’t go to the pub with the grown-ups so they sit in the park throwing their beer cans at old ladies. They’re not supposed to have sex, but the drive is there, so they do, with negative consequences.

    I take the view that at puberty the human mind changes. It adopts adult concerns. Young males in particular start attempting to gain alpha status. Denied access to the proper adult world, they construct gangs which mimic it in negative ways. And so on. I think infantilisation is a central error of Progressivism.

  20. >>>. No I am not a member of MENSA, but clearly I am in good company with your good self

    What are you talking about? I am a member of MENSA.

  21. Efgd-

    You obviously cannot grasp the complextisity of biological readyness for sex and the cognitive understanding of undertaking sexual activity and its outcomes.

    Possibly because neither your nor it seems anyone else can qualitatively or quantitatively describe this complexity of biological readiness in any sort of objective manner, and instead lapse into a simplistic matter of what amounts to no more than personal taste. One thing we can say is that across history and culture- excluding the recent Anglosphere- the relationships you seem to consider beyond the pale have been considered normal, so it really is up to you to provide some compelling evidence for why they are actually abnormal and (apparently) morally repellent.

    You are of course entirely entitled to your views. The issue is whether they are worthy of imposition on all, with severe legal penalties for non compliance. It is like, anyone is (or should be) free to disapprove of relationships between different races. If however they want a universal law against them, they would need to find some very good evidence to support that view beyond their own moral disapproval.

    Additionally, you seem to be taking the view that you have a deep understanding of “the paedophile world” but don’t seem to be displaying that here; you seem to be just repeating the widespread current, confused view, that conflates fancying a 14 year old with fancying a 4 year old and, indeed introducing age gap relationships between legal adutls as, at least, tinged with paedophilia (e.g. your 30 year old and 18 year old example). This doesn’t inspire confidence in either your breadth of knowledge or objectivity.

  22. And today, by coincidence, we see the absurdity of this current paradigm-

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9167261/Pupil-arrested-over-child-porn-offences-at-Charterhouse-school.html

    I can think of lots of things wrong with one 16 year old filiming others in the school showers, and lots of ways to describe it, but “child pornography” isn’t among them.

  23. My HUMBLE apologies djwebb2012. So you are a MENSA member. Cool. Good for you. Since I am obviously not in the same intellectual bracket as your good-self I should bow down to your refutations of my comments. But of course as a free thinking person I do not. You want the definition of paedophile to be altered so that it does not include post-puberty youngsters or persons up to the age of 16. Have I got that right?

  24. Pingback: Paedophilia, Age of Consent, Post-Puberty Concerns | THINKING: Middle of the road Libertarian? Maybe…

  25. Efgd,

    The clinical definition already doesn’t include those things. Paedophilia is specifically a specific attraction to the pre-pubescent. The word is being used however in the media, and so on, arbitrarily; as indeed you are doing.

    It is much the same as the Progressives’ prototype for this a century ago, in which they expanded the specific “sodomy” to the general “gross indecency” which meant anything they thought might be a bit effeminate.

    Anyway, why aren’t you addressing any of the issues raised by myself and DJWebb?

    • Okay I will try again to get the gist of your point.
      # Men having sex with a post-puberty person should not be classed as a paedophile by the media, because, as you say, the popular and known clinical definition of a paedophile is someone who wants to have sexual activity with a pre-puberty person.
      # Such a man also should not be put on the Sex Offenders Register.
      # djwebb2012 states that, “I think you will find that ‘many’ of the people prosecuted for paedophilia are engaged in sex with people very near the legal age of consent.” Thus saying they should not be prosecuted for paedophilia. I countered this with the fact that most are prosecuted for having sex with younger people who are not near the legal age of consent. Taking up some figures:
      * Sixty-seven percent of all victims of sexual assault reported to law enforcementagencies were juveniles (under the age of 18) 34% of all victims were under age 12.
      * One of every seven victims of sexual assault reported to law enforcement were under age 6.
      * Nearly 4 in 10 imprisoned violent sex offenders–said their victims were aged 12 or younger.
      * Children younger than 18 were the victims in almost 20% of the violent crimes committed by State Prisoners. 50% were 12 years old or younger.(U.S. Department of Justice.)

      Now I if we look at the age of 18 above and demote it to 16 we can see that the notion of a paedophile has been used to describe someone who not only has sex with a post-puberty person but also someone who has sex with someone as deemed by the law of the land not to adult enough to consent to sexual activity.

      To me, which ever way you look at it most paedophiles are those convicted under the clinical definition of paedophilia. The others are classed as paedophiles, not by the courts, as those prosecuted are defined as sex offenders, but by society because people, arbitrarily or not, define the age of children – in parts of the States it is 18, in the UK it is 16, in Spain it is 13. Society gives a myriad of reasons for this, one of which is we in the west do not need to ensure the survival of our family by having children from the start of puberty. The other is the understanding of the cognitive development of children and young people. Another is through the above two propositions we should help and protect young people so that they have the opportunity to form aspirations and potential outcomes not based on pure animalism instinct or biological capacity to procreate.

      Adults are able, most at least, to make conjecture of what an outcome might be regarding their actions. A younger person, normally, cannot. Most younger people are either cajoled to an action that is beyond their scope of comprehension or are forced to undertake such actions because of need or fear – money, beatings, guilt. Note the word most.

      I agree that certain actions, such as streaking, should not be sexualised.
      I agree that if a post-puberty person understands the notion of what they are doing and has the backing of their family as a support group then one should be able to help them to make decisions not based on animalism biological needs but human understanding of the outcomes of the nature of their actions. But since most do not the law has an age of consent to help them and their families. Of course they will still have sex if they want to, the same as a paedophile will still go for a post-puberty child. The law does not stop such actions. It tries to empower adult responsible people to protect those who in truth are vulnerable and will be exploited.

      Now as obtuse as you think I am, please clarify where I have misunderstood you. Thank you. I do enjoy debating and do want to learn from my ‘mistakes’.

  26. Yes – I agree with Ian’s comments.
    Efgd – I am not supporting lechering over 15 year olds – if I had a 15 year old child, I would be very much up in arms over a 50 year old man trying to move in on him/her – but that is besides the point – there is nothing unnatural or perverted about being attracted to a 15 year old – and I would argue that all men (including all police chief constables and people working in the vice squad) are. Attraction to 5 year olds – this is genuinely a mental illness of some type (as I said – I am not medicalising crime – I would support the highest penalties for interfering with a child, but such unnatural attraction is a mental/psychiatric thing of some kind).

  27. Efgd, we don’t have a full breakdown of the paedophile figures in the UK. Saying 67% of victims of sexual assault were under 18 does not tell us anything. Do I need to repeat, like a record stuck in a groove, again and again and again, until Efgd finally understands – that 18 is not the cut-off point for proper paedophilia. I don’t know the percentage of people prosecuted as “sex offenders” against people under 16 who are in fact engaged in sex with post-pubescent teenagers. I don’t think the figures exist, but I am prepared to believe that the law is usually used against people who have sex with actual children, but that it is also used for those who “interfere with” 15 and 16 year olds. There is no offence in law of “paedophilia” as such. It comes under other headings, such as statutory rape, sexual assault and the like.

    • Thank you for your time. If you do not know or believe percentages of things relating to a debate then all debate is purely sunjective. So as a final thing as you are bored and tired. If you are “prepared to believe that the law is usually used against people who have sex with actual children, but that it is also used for those who “interfere with” 15 and 16 year olds. There is no offence in law of “paedophilia” as such. It comes under other headings, such as statutory rape, sexual assault and the like.”
      What do you want changed?

  28. Well, efgd, consensual sex with a 15 year old should not be statutory rape or sexual assault or anything like that. It could be abuse of position (eg, where a school teacher is involved), leading to some kind of penalty.

    I think the age of consent should be reduced to around 14, with marriage at 14 also permitted – as was always the case in the Middle Ages – and compulsory education up to 16 wrapped up too.

    Some of these “child abuse” cases, eg of altar boys and priests, also relate to older teenage boys, with little in the way of proof required. I have read how the police call on the all the young men who knew a priest to ask them to sign a piece of paper claiming to have been abused and thereby support his prosecution – and in the worst cases, they have been told they won’t have to give evidence in court, but will get automatic compensation. Drumming up evidence with no actual evidence required – don’t forget there used to be a 7 year limit for such cases – is just creating hysteria.

    I believe that Catholic priests do often abuse boys, but I also believe a considerable percentage is hysteria with false accusations encouraged by the police. This is part of the “rape” hysteria, where, once again, evidence is not always required. He said, she said – leading to a guilty verdict. The femininist lobby has helped to create this atmosphere where calls for evidence – as it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than one innocent man to be convicted – are condemned as supporting rape!

    • Hi DJWEBB2010

      The word consensual is important here, and of course to consent to anything one should know exactly what one is consenting to and the repercussions of such a consent. Sadly most of us consent to things without ‘reading the small print’. The cognitive capacity of a child to understand such a concept is what the debate is all about. I agree that there should be a descriptor and an applicable penalty introduced as you stated.

      As always those who are fighting for justice tend to get the pendulum to swing too far the other way. Then we all lose out. The greatest sham is that those in position of trust and or authority abuse their position, get away with it, in the case of Catholic priests, which is why there is the hysteria in the first place. If the Vatican had ‘defrocked’ such men instead of shunting them off to another area to continue their ways, and had prosecuted them for either statutory rape of abuse of position, then people would not be so concerned about the covertness of it all.

      As far as I am concerned consensual is a loaded term in many cases regarding such people and the other person involved. The Catholic priest who has consensual sex with a 15 year old may well have, in more cases than not I contend, coerced, however covertly, that person to consent. That is why an age of consent has to be considered. The adult has to take most of the responsibility for the act carried out.

      The contemporary view seems to be to try to allow and encourage children to have as long a childhood as necessary for both their physical, educational and physiological capacities to develop.

      In the Middles Ages there were a whole host of other societal applications that allowed for young age marriage, though the ages tended to be 14 for girls and 18 for boys to marry, for the very reason that most married for procreation in order to survive, as they lived in a less secure, and of course a feudal environment, than now.

      Marriage has to be about consent and understanding and the ability to care and provide for each other. 14 year olds are not capable of doing that in a modern society, the pressure would be upon the parents and or society.

      I guess this debate will run and run. The sad thing is that lives will, in the meantime, be effected if not ruined.

  29. A paedophile? A 17 year old who engaged in consensual oral sex with a 15 year old and was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in America? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-17yearold-jailed-for-having-sex-with-a-15yearold-6262600.html

    • Having read the link provided, ye gods, is it not time for society to move into the 21C? This was not about rape was it but the girl retracting her statement, for whatever reason, and the jurors not knowing enough about the sentences that can be prescribed for so called ‘offenses’. I have no doubt that the jurors might well have changed their verdict had they known.

  30. This is madness. All else said, it’s bringing the idea of punishment for real child sex offences into disrepute. It really is like making laws against bank robbery that involve hanging shoplifters.