Canucklehead wrote:Dean wrote:The ‘Paedo’ tag is a funny one. I might be wrong but a paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to young children. A woman having sex with a 15 year old isn’t really a paedo. He isn’t a child, she isn’t attracted to him because he’s a child. It’s still wrong of course, but she isn’t a paedo.
The footballer Adam Johnson is doing 6 years for his crimes. He groomed a 15 year old and got caught. I’m in no way justifying what he done, but he was attracted to her as a woman, not a young child. It’s hard to make a point on this subject and not upset someone...
I suppose what I’m trying to say is someone attracted to young children is not the same as someone who has dealings with a 15 year old... me personally having teenage children, i see them still as kids, but I can see the difference...
I would agree that paedo isn’t the right word, but we do need to have a cut-off somewhere and then cases can be assessed individually. Otherwise it becomes a free for all. Some 15 year olds are mentally mature and others are not, many of them would be very susceptible to grooming techniques and feel flattered that an older person was interested. This doesn’t mean I’m hysterical and want to lock up all the kids til their 18th birthday, but I am glad there are laws that protect them.
I understand where you are coming from and of course there has to be a cut-off point. Cases though will never be assessed individually because that will be perceived as 'making excuses' for the 'perpetrator' - this blanket description suits the interested parties just fine.
Add this case and another ten just like it to every single case of what most of us would understand as child abuse and you have 'recorded statistics' of widespread 'child abuse' sweeping the country and calls for even more surveillance and prying into our private lives by the state.
English isn't my first language.