No, Mr Chris. My "Oh so funny little list" was a list of serious points. A shame that you can't see that.

A 15 year old is not a child.

Sex with a 15 year old is statutory rape, as Plissken mentioned above.
Sex with a 5 year old, is statutory rape and child abuse.

Shame you couldn't make your point either more clearly or more seriously then.

What definition of "child" are you using?

The physical/medical definition, as mentioned above.

Given that kids can go through puberty before they're 10 in some circumstances, I'd be interested to see how you figure that.

As a natural law, ergo not a hard and fast, logical law.

Child abuse is the term used when an adult harms a child or a young person under the age of 18.

Ah, so what you mean is "child means what I say it means".

You heard it first: a 17 year old can rape a 10 year old and it's fine.

Difference between child abuse and statutory rape, of course. As that unfortunate 15 year old boy in Wales discovered when he got done for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.

No, that's impossible, Mr Chris. There's a difference between child abuse and statutory rape? COFF COFF COFF? You must have mistyped.

let Uncle Roger come... despite their child's misgivings.

Here is a handy list of UK legal definitions.

Paedophilia: the condition of adolescent or adult males or females whose primary sexual attraction is towards prepubescent children (usually aged 13 years or younger).

This is different to sexual attraction to post-pubescent adolescents, known as ephebophilia. Pederasty refers to attraction toward male adolescents.

However, it should be noted that in the U.K., paedophilia is often used (particularly in the media) far more broadly than this definition.

It is not illegal to be a paedophile, or to suffer from paedophilia, but if a paedophile chooses to act on their attraction, that is a different matter entirely.

Incidentally, The Children Act 1989 states the legal definition of a child as “a person under the age of 18”. I'll ask a family member who's a doctor what the medical definition of "child" is later this week.

Why can't you put this much effort into all your other posts?

Ah, excellent.

Why can't you?

So's your face.

Etc.

Less bickering and more debating, please.
Remember the motto.

es, that's what I and sinister and Lave said way up there in response to mimi.

Mr Chris, I had already done so repeatedly before that, so you don't score any points for trying to be all 'Yes, GOD we know, look at ME'. However, since you are persisting in trying to score points, I'll pretend that I never did and you did it first.

Right, anyway, paedophiles. Where were we - oh, yes, why are there seemingly more about these days than say, 150 years ago?

But noone was disagreeing with you as to the definition of paedophilia, so your apparent attempt at point scoring by posting an "aha!!!!" definition to which I was responding is still, frankly, a little baffling.

There aren't.

Where were we - oh, yes, why are there seemingly more about these days than say, 150 years ago? Anyone fancy a bulletpoint list on that?

Where were we - oh, yes, why are there seemingly more about these days than say, 150 years ago?

Why are there SEEMINGLY? You absolutely cannot argue this. Well, you can, but it'd be pointless.

@GazChap: That's hilarious. However! I dunno. On the one hand we have Beautiful Baby contests, Playboy-themed knickers for young girls, and so on.

@Mr Chris: Well, there could be. We don't know, and probably never will (until PeDetectors are installed in all the airports).

@Mr Chris: Well, there could be. We don't know, and probably never will (until PeDetectors are installed in all the airports).

Right, anyway, paedophiles. Where were we - oh, yes, why are there seemingly more about these days than say, 150 years ago? Anyone fancy a bulletpoint list on that?

I'm sure I remember reading a news story about an American airline that had introduced a policy of not allowing kids to sit next to men travelling alone on their flights.

The "Fifteen year old boy bangs smoking teacher - WOW look at the hot pictures we have of her in the courtroom" stories you get in The Sun are both extremely different to the reception the stories would get if you switched the sexes around. I'm not defending these events, but they are both clearly very different to sex with a 6 year old and should be treated as such.

I'm not sure of the definitions under law, but putting them all under the banner of paedophilla isn't helpful in my opinion.

If by that you mean "why do people think there are more paedophiles" then that's down to the media, which feeds on fear. As there aren't more actual paedophiles (boots on the ground, as it were) to cause this public fear.

Are you suggesting that paedophiles can be created, then? I'd thought the consensus was that they were, like our geay brethren, just born that way with a different set of wiring.

I'm suggesting that we stop wrapping up the sweet candy in such tasty packaging, putting it all over the TV, and then expressing bafflement when someone says 'Can I rub it?'

First stop: ban all adverts where a child's arse is loving stroked to demonstrate how Andrex don't leave no shit stuck to it.

I'm suggesting that we stop wrapping up the sweet candy in such tasty packaging, putting it all over the TV, and then expressing bafflement when someone says 'Can I rub it?'

First stop: ban all adverts where a child's arse is lovingly stroked to demonstrate how Andrex don't leave no shit stuck to it.

I'm suggesting that we stop wrapping up the sweet candy in such tasty packaging, putting it all over the TV, and then expressing bafflement when someone says 'Can I rub it?'

First stop: ban all adverts where a child's arse is loving stroked to demonstrate how Andrex don't leave no shit stuck to it.

When I was young in the 80's/90's I remember that you would see little babies cocks and vags all the time on tv, and little was thought of it. I'm sure there is some old movie where you see a little boy peeing. Was it 3 men and a baby?

Anyhow nowdays that would cause a riot. Because the paedophiles would get off on it ZOMG!

So are you saying that we're encouraging people who are already paedophiles? Or are you, as I originally asked, suggesting we can create paedophiles through fashion and television?

Then ban parents from changing their kids' nappies with their eyes open?

Yes, once you start looking it's amazing how many things people think could get a paedophile off: all of which have been around for yonks.

I'm suggesting that yes, we are encouraging people to have sex with children. There are many examples of this all throughout popular culture. If one considers only the last 25 years or so of popular culture and fashion, it's a legal paedo goldmine.

And yet, fascinatingly, the single biggest turn-on is NOWHERE to be found amongst the streets of Britain, and has in fact been eradicated over the last couple of hundred years. That being, y'know, a prevalence of children willing to have sex, with anyone, for not much money.

So TV and clothing creates paedos who want to have sex with pre-pubescents. I'd be interested to see any psychiactric studies which agree with that suggestion, as it seems to run contrary to the apparent consensus as to what paedophilia is.

That's the single biggest turn on, is it? Again, I'd love to see a study agreeing that child prostitutes are driving up the number of paedos.

Mr Chris, do you want to discuss anything here, or just create straw-men? My suggestion was nothing of the sort, you sorry fool.

Really? Perhaps whilst you're there, and whilst they're trying to remove your face from your buttocks, these medical types would explain to you that the biggest turn-on, for someone who wants to have sex with a child, is typically a child who wants to have sex. Furthermore, congraulations on another terrible straw-man.

Do you think kids clothes and TV is creating more paedophiles?

Then, with the greatest respect, WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU TRYING TO SAY? "kids who will have sex for money" you said. Not "kids who want to have sex". See the distinction there?

Are you really this incapable of setting your thoughts into writing or understanding what it is you've written?

Help me out with short sentences and direct answers.

No. Exacerbating an existing problem? Yes.

However, what exactly that problem is, I don't know. Possibly one of societal change, I suspect. I think the last century or so has kind of fucked us up in various huge ways that we won't grasp, for still some time to come.

I'm not sure it is exacerbating anything it though - hence my over the top "bloody irrelevant" comment above, for which I apologise.

A paedophile has a compulsion, and I'm not sure how much encouragement that needs?

Has it? I've got my reservations about the way society has gone, mostly in the commoditisation of life and, indeed, people, but on the flip side that same "negative" has led to a lot more emancipation for, for instance, women.

Are you suggesting that paedophiles can be created, then? I'd thought the consensus was that they were, like our geay brethren, just born that way with a different set of wiring.