16 months for having a "full-blown sexual relationship" with a 15-year-old

Dis86 said:
She'd have been hauled up in front of the court for doing it, yes.

There's a reason you have to be over 18 to star in porn.
Click to expand...

The law divides children into many age categories. Such activity with with anyone under 13 is considered rape. Where as 13-15 while still illegal it depend upon both participants age and circumstances how it is treated, adults tend to be convicted with custodial sentences while children in the same age group don't and children in the 16-17 group may get lesser sentences/cautions, but can still be put on sex offenders register.
16-17 legal as long as the adult is not in a position of trust over the minor.

It's perfectly legal for a 100 year old to have sex with a 16-17 year old as long as they don't have a position of trust over the minor and of course willing for both participants. It may be odd and it probably be just as concerned about he 100 year old as the child. :P

Also dictionaries are just someone option on what a word means, that's why there are many versions of dictionary, words predate dictionaries and definitions are subject to debate. :)

But if you continue to consider any sexual activity between and adult and a child of the ages of 16 - 17 as paedophilia, then maybe as many half the UK population would be peados. :)
 
Sasahara said:
Also dictionaries are just someone option on what a word means, that's why there are many versions of dictionary, words predate dictionaries and definitions are subject to debate.
Click to expand...

Laws are also someone's opinion. This thread also contains people's opinions. What's your point? She banged a child. Simple as.
 
Dis86 said:
It's there in the dictionary. You've quoted it several times. I'm not rely8ng on it. It's in black and white.
Click to expand...
What's in the dictionary? Paedophilia? Yes, it is. You're then leaping to incorporate the legal definition of a child, though not actually the legal definition as per the act in question for this offence.

You can't interchange legal definitions with dictionary ones. Did you know that for some of the tax acts, a motorbike is a car, but a van explicitly isn't? How do you think that would work out in day to day conversation?
 
Vonhelmet said:
What's in the dictionary? Paedophilia? Yes, it is. You're then leaping to a legal definition of a child.

You can't interchange legal definitions with dictionary ones. Did you know that for some of the tax acts, a motorbike is a car, but a van explicitly isn't? How do you think that would work out in day to day conversation?
Click to expand...

Von, honestly - are you a bit special? I'll paste the dictionary definition again for you ok?

"a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority"

I've even underlined and emboldened it again. Or are you, and please be clear in this, saying that the dictionary definition is wrong and you're right?
 
Oh for the love of God... Can't you just agree to disagree? I actually had to double check I wasn't reading the same posts from earlier! :p
 
Dis86 said:
Again - dictionary disagrees with you. So you're welcome to your opinion but a more widely regarded and accepted one doesn't agree.
Click to expand...

If only British dictionary definitions count for you then lets go with that.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/child

1 a) a boy or girl between birth and puberty
Click to expand...

So is that acceptable for you? It's a definitive definition from a British dictionary? And if you accept that definition of a child then paedophilia is sexually attraction and activity with a pre-pubescent person?

Or doesn't that count when it doesn't tick your box?
 
VincentHanna said:
Because child abuse is funny and all Dad's should just let their lads have sex with teachers because they are horny little buggers, dur!

If my 15 year old boy or girl had sex with a teacher, I would be straight on to the police.
Click to expand...

You would go straight to the Police because your son is learning about the birds and the bees ??? Christ my dad (God Bless him) would have taken me for a pint :)
 
Dis86 said:
Von, honestly - are you a bit special? I'll paste the dictionary definition again for you ok?

"a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority"

I've even underlined and emboldened it again. Or are you, and please be clear in this, saying that the dictionary definition is wrong and you're right?
Click to expand...
How many dictionaries did you check before you found that definition? Plenty of dictionaries refer to puberty in their definitions of children...

I imagine the dictionary definition of paedophilia would be worth looking up as well.
 
Kronos said:
So were mine and I can remember a lot of pen dropping to the floor whenever they walked past my desk.

Oh and one other thing I believe the boy is currently being treated for high five related injuries.
Click to expand...

High five related injuries....thats superb :) :)

xl...out
 
Vonhelmet said:
How many dictionaries did you check before you found that definition? Plenty of dictionaries refer to puberty in their definitions of children...

I imagine the dictionary definition of paedophilia would be worth looking up as well.
Click to expand...

I've already quoted that for you...and literally one. Google the word child. See what the definition is.
 
Dis86 said:
Yes, but a child is defined both linguistically and legally! In the case of linguistically it points to it also being a legal definition. I literally quoted the dictionary and you're still squirming. The dictionary is telling us that a child is whatever the law says a child is and in this country that is someone below the age of 16 where sexual activity is concerned.

A paedophile is defined as a person sexually attracted to children. Ergo someone sexually attracted to someone below the age of 16. This boy was 15. The woman was sexually attracted to him. Therefore she is by definition a paedophile.
Click to expand...

So in your world where do the terms Hebephilia and Ephebophilia fit in? Presumably they either don’t exist or are interchangeable with paedophilia?

There is no legal definition of paedophilia. It’s not a legal concept. The law uses defined ages (13,16,18) instead of the sexual maturity of a persons body.

Paedophilia (and Hebephilia and Ephebophilia) are psychological terms with defined meanings. The definition of a child in those instances is someone most definitely pre puberty (I.e. under the age of around 11 depending on sexual maturity.)

Hebephilia is someone interested in early adolescent youths.

If you’re banding these terms around then she’s probably a ephebophile, like the majority of people on this forum (and the outside world). Someone attracted to mid to late teens. (I.e. 15 to 19).

If however you’re using the colloquial form then you’d be “right”, even though you’re literally wrong. ;)

Edit: here you go, a full definition which defines child and paedophilia together

https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia

Pedophilia is considered a paraphilia, a condition in which a person's sexual arousal and gratification depend on fantasizing about and engaging in sexual behavior that is atypical and extreme. Pedophilia is defined as the fantasy or act of sexual activity with children who are generally age 13 years or younger.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
Laws are also someone's opinion. This thread also contains people's opinions. What's your point? She banged a child. Simple as.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

She had sex with a legal minor who is not a child. Two very different things - child and legal minor.

You're equating consensual sex with a biological adult and raping a 5 year old. You're wrong. Those are not the same thing.
 
Angilion said:
No, it isn't.

She had sex with a legal minor who is not a child. Two very different things - child and legal minor.

You're equating consensual sex with a biological adult and raping a 5 year old. You're wrong. Those are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

"England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland each have their own guidance for organisations to keep children safe. They all agree that a child is anyone who is under the age of 18."

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing...efinition-child-rights-law/legal-definitions/


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9

9 Sexual activity with a child

(c)either—

(i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over,


The law is preeeeetty clear on what a child is.


 
The issue being is you don’t understand what the definition of a child is when related to the psychological term you used.

There are multiple definitions of “child”. You can’t use a definition specific to one situation and just transpose it to another, especially if that second situation already has a well defined definition.

If the term paedophile is used there’s a specific definition of child that goes with it - someone prepubescent, not just “under 16”, or “under 18” (so far you’ve used both).
 
Amp34 said:
The issue being is you don’t understand what the definition of a child is when related to the psychological term you used.

There are multiple definitions of “child”. You can’t use a definition specific to one situation and just transpose it to another, especially if that second situation already has a well defined definition.

If the term paedophile is used there’s a specific definition of child that goes with it - someone prepubescent, not just “under 16”, or “under 18” (so far you’ve used both).
Click to expand...

I've repeatedly given the linguistic definition of a child. Do I have to give it again?
 
Dis86 said:
"England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland each have their own guidance for organisations to keep children safe. They all agree that a child is anyone who is under the age of 18."
Click to expand...

Then they're all wrong. It's nonsense to make no distinction between a 5 year old and a 17 year old.

It's also disturbing how eager some people are to infantilise adolescents and even adults, to the extent of blindly denying that adolescence exists! Humans aren't like some kind of magic butterfly that skips the pupa stage and shapeshifts directly from larva to imago. We don't remain static in one form until whatever age the local law decrees and then instantly shift into another form like some kind of Pokemon "evolution". It's nonsense. Why does anyone believe it?

Also, as you well know, if you're using the law for your definitions then you can't use the word "paedophile" at all because that's not a legal term.

Why are you so eager to equate consensual sex with a biologically adult legal minor and sexually abusing a pre-pubescent person? Do you really think they're the same thing? Both wrong, yes. Same thing, very much no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom