It's Paedogeddon!

Cochise

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
4,882
Likes
4,399
Points
159
The age of consent in Louisiana is 17, I believe.
Ah. Didn't know that. Thanks. It does vary - some countries I believe its as low as 12.

edit: From the article

In a recent letter to parents, Respess (seen above) stated that her goal was to provide students with a “nurturing and organized environment to prevent distraction and promote learning.” :rollingw:
 
Last edited:

escargot

Beloved of Ra
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
24,849
Likes
19,544
Points
309
t should be. However , maybe 'no harm no foul' applies. Or perhaps we need to accept that in some areas male and female just act differently. Of course if there was force or the like involved, or the boy was under the age of consent, that would be different, but he was 16?
Teachers are in authority over pupils though, it's not an equal relationship. A female teacher having sex with a male student is exploiting him in exactly the same way as a male teacher would be who had sex with a female pupil.

Same-sex teacher/pupil relationships are of course also exploitative.
 

Cochise

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
4,882
Likes
4,399
Points
159
Teachers are in authority over pupils though, it's not an equal relationship. A female teacher having sex with a male student is exploiting him in exactly the same way as a male teacher would be who had sex with a female pupil.

Same-sex teacher/pupil relationships are of course also exploitative.
It's a fair point, although my schools were different. I never really accepted anyone had authority over me except my parents and grandparents. Most of my year were the same. We rebelled and wore jeans, for example. I think the teachers pretty much gave up on us and concentrated on keeping us as much away from the other years as possible !

I guess now with less authority in the home the balance has changed - although my mate who went to a Catholic school would beg to differ.

Thing is, that argument would rule out any relationships pretty much that started at work as well. Real life just doesn't reflect that. I mean where are you going to meet people? School, work, or through hobbies, and they all have some kind of structure that relationships are likely to cut across. The exception of course is the pub, but even then - did I take advantage because I played in a band?

People are almost never in a position of social equality. And surely it's better that relationships do cross such lines?

I am of course assuming all parties freely consent and are of an age to do so.
 

Cochise

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
4,882
Likes
4,399
Points
159
That's the point, consent. Adults who are in authority over children or teenagers, or over other adults, sometimes take advantage.
Sure - not arguing with that, just suggesting it might be difficult to tell in some cases whether there was undue influence. So it's difficult to see how it could be a hard and fast rule without it blocking genuine relationships.
 

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
24,410
Likes
28,621
Points
284
That's the point, consent. Adults who are in authority over children or teenagers, or over other adults, sometimes take advantage.
Our P.E. teacher at school ended up marrying one of the 6th form girls (Sally) not long after she left school .. there were rumours that something more was going on before she was 16 but who knows ? ..
 

escargot

Beloved of Ra
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
24,849
Likes
19,544
Points
309
Sure - not arguing with that, just suggesting it might be difficult to tell in some cases whether there was undue influence. So it's difficult to see how it could be a hard and fast rule without it blocking genuine relationships.
Where an adult has authority over a child, or is in a position of care and trust in relation to a child, then a sexual/romantic 'relationship' is abusive. That's the legal position. It also applies between carers and vulnerable adults.
 

Cochise

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
4,882
Likes
4,399
Points
159
Where an adult has authority over a child, or is in a position of care and trust in relation to a child, then a sexual/romantic 'relationship' is abusive. That's the legal position. It also applies between carers and vulnerable adults.
But we were not talking about children in these last few posts - so I suppose we had got off topic, but we were talking about relationships between older people and younger people over the age of consent. A 17 year old isn't a child.
 

CarlosTheDJ

Antediluvian
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
5,659
Likes
4,944
Points
244
Location
Sussex
But we were not talking about children in these last few posts - so I suppose we had got off topic, but we were talking about relationships between older people and younger people over the age of consent. A 17 year old isn't a child.
Quote:

The law also gives extra protection to young people who are 16 to 17 years old. It is illegal to:
  • take, show or distribute indecent photographs
  • pay for or arrange sexual services
  • for a person in a position of trust (for example, teachers, care workers) to engage in sexual activity with anyone under the age of 18.
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing...efinition-child-rights-law/legal-definitions/
 

Cochise

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
4,882
Likes
4,399
Points
159
Poor old Heathcote, then. He obviously didn't realise he was being abused. Wonder if they are still married? Or alive even. I guess he'd be about 68 now.

We sexualise children from primary school onwards and then try to control there sex life up to 18 - surely some mismatch? At 16 you can get married, join the army, be shot at and shoot people - but you can't have sex with another consenting adult? Absurd.

The problem comes about because the government (I think any government) refuses to have a proper category for teenagers, which are neither children nor fully adult. They'd be able to make more consistent law if they did.

In any case this topic is supposed to be about paedophilia, which is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, so we are way off base.
 

Dr_Baltar

Left Foot of God
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,668
Likes
1,040
Points
169
At 16 you can get married, join the army, be shot at and shoot people - but you can't have sex with another consenting adult? Absurd.
You can have sex with another consenting adult, with certain exclusions. And under-18s in the army don't do frontline service.
 

Krepostnoi

really ought to be translating.
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
2,581
Likes
4,500
Points
159
At 16 you can get married, join the army, be shot at and shoot people - but you can't have sex with another consenting adult? Absurd.
I think the point is that your 16 year old recruit can consent to sex. Just not with any of their instructors, because there will be obvious questions raised about how genuine that consent is: will they feel able to say no to the drill sergeant who can make or break their military career before it really starts? And if the training staff don't understand this and act accordingly, they've got no business being anywhere near the trainees. Same is true for teachers outside the armed forces, for that matter. I suppose that's why it's called a position of trust.

To be honest, even once both the people involved are way beyond the 18 year cut-off point dictated by the law referred to above, I can think of plenty of relationships in which one of the people involved should know better than to initiate or reciprocate a sexual advance. I'm thinking particularly about therapists and counsellors on the one hand, and their clients on the other, but there will be plenty of other examples. I do hope that's not a controversial opinion.
 
Last edited:

Cochise

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
4,882
Likes
4,399
Points
159
I'm not sure this is a debate we should continue under this topic, but I'll try to summarize my views.

A child is pre-pubescent , or as that is not a fixed time, under 13. Anyone messing with such a child is scum. Regardless of whether they are in charge of the child or not.

A teenager is 13-whatever the full age of majority is in a specific country . Different countries have all sorts of different ideas on what age one is old enough to start taking adult decisions, typically in the range 14-21. In the UK, as far as I know , the range is 16-18. Although this is not fixed, and younger teenagers have been treated like adults in certain situations - this is more common in the US, however. People in this age range are quite likely to have sex, whatever the actual age at which they can consent is. In my opinion, if the ages of the participants are close (say no-one over 19, in the UK, to give some slight leeway, while this is highly ill-advised, it should not be treated as criminal, and as far as I know usually isn't.

Over the age of consent, in the UK, hey, you can consent. The only issue is has undue influence been brought to bear. That can certainly happen, but it has to be based on circumstances, not hard and fast rules. This is where, if it comes to a criminal case, one expects judges to use their discretion (if they have any left).

I can't be precise about Hector Heathcote (which is what we used to call him, probably not his real name but I can't recall the details at this distance., in any case I was only a humble second year and he was Upper 6th) However, he most certainly seduced the maths teacher , not the other way round, He may even have been older than her, because I have a dim memory that he had stayed on an extra year to try and get an Oxbridge scholarship. That would seem to me to be a case in which discretion should be used - but not if the maths teacher had been 55.

I hope that makes my position clear. I have no time whatever for paedophiles, and have strong personal reasons for that, but once our teenager has had the sexual longings kick in, probably well before the common sense genes have fired up, then a certain amount of considering the circumstances is called for. People must be allowed to enter into stupid or ill-advised relationships - we probably all do at some point - but that is not the same as deliberately setting out to use someone for sexual gratification.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
25,189
Likes
24,337
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
Could we now leave this topic, please?

It's one of the very short list that we are not supposed to encourage. Whatever nuance and caveats are carefully introduced, you can be sure that somebody will disregard or misread them.
 

Dr_Baltar

Left Foot of God
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,668
Likes
1,040
Points
169
Could we now leave this topic, please?

It's one of the very short list that we are not supposed to encourage. Whatever nuance and caveats are carefully introduced, you can be sure that somebody will disregard or misread them.
This is an unsuitable topic in a thread called "It's Paedogeddon!"? ;)
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
25,189
Likes
24,337
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
This is an unsuitable topic in a thread called "It's Paedogeddon!"? ;)
a) Don't shoot the messenger.

b) It's a narrow prohibition: against specifically debating the age of consent--not the wider issue of the title. We have had some borderline contributions in the past (history, relatively speaking) that if repeated could possibly land us in trouble with the publisher or worse.

Hope you see my point.
 

Dr_Baltar

Left Foot of God
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,668
Likes
1,040
Points
169
a) Don't shoot the messenger.

b) It's a narrow prohibition: against specifically debating the age of consent--not the wider issue of the title. We have had some borderline contributions in the past (history, relatively speaking) that if repeated could possibly land us in trouble with the publisher or worse.

Hope you see my point.
Indeed. Point well-made and taken.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
47,855
Likes
19,160
Points
284
Location
Eblana
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
47,855
Likes
19,160
Points
284
Location
Eblana
Not beyond the realms of possibility, but as a rule if I am presented with a case where a man has been stabbed I find it more probable that he didn't want it to happen.

But, yes, possible.
How serious was the wound? Corey was able to Tweet in CAPITALS and at length immediately after the "attack".
 

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
24,410
Likes
28,621
Points
284
He's been trying to expose a Hollywood paedophile ring for a while now .. let the speculation begin until the stabber is arrested.
 

hunck

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
3,897
Likes
4,362
Points
159
Location
Hobbs End
Corey Feldman has been stabbed in L.A.

His bodyguard was distracted by three men while a man jumped out of a nearby car, stabbed him and drove off.

That's not at all strange. Must be a group of crazed fans...

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/8264848/corey-feldman-hospitalized-stabbed-in-stomach-tweets

Or has he?..


Feldman, 46, was behind the wheel of a car stopped at a red light at Reseda and Ventura boulevards about 10:45 p.m. when he said "an unknown subject opened the driver door and made a stabbing motion with an unknown object," according to Los Angeles Police Officer Drake Madison.

Feldman drove himself to the hospital after the incident, Madison said. "He claims he was stabbed," Madison said of Feldman. "There is no laceration or stabbing to his stomach."
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
26,830
Likes
11,288
Points
284
Yes... Corey Feldman is not a well man. Whatever legitimacy his cause has or doesn't have, his behaviour undermines it at every turn.
 
Top