Former pop star Gary Glitter faces 8 sex charges

[beautifulthailand99]

Then we have a scattering of other child sexual abuse allegations in UK since the 1999s. Yeah, lets victims the predator based in rank speculation as I am sure you have no first hand knowledge of his cases other than what you chose to read on the Net.

The details of his cases have been discussed in quite a lot of detail over the years.

Much less evidence against him than say, Michael Jackson or Bill Wyman. Mandy Smith even wrote a book detailing their sex when she was 14.

Bill is now 76, and police are quoted as being "not interested". So one must ask, why no interest in Bill, but great interest in Gary?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301867/Bill-Wyman-Police-interested-Rolling-Stones-affair-13-year-old-Mandy-Smith-claims-slept-14.html

Same offences, same time period, girls same age, guys same age, one with evidence and a book, no interest, one iffy evidence, great interest.

Because Many Smith does not want to press charges or give evidence I would have thought.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

Then we have a scattering of other child sexual abuse allegations in UK since the 1999s. Yeah, lets victims the predator based in rank speculation as I am sure you have no first hand knowledge of his cases other than what you chose to read on the Net.

The details of his cases have been discussed in quite a lot of detail over the years.

Much less evidence against him than say, Michael Jackson or Bill Wyman. Mandy Smith even wrote a book detailing their sex when she was 14.

Bill is now 76, and police are quoted as being "not interested". So one must ask, why no interest in Bill, but great interest in Gary?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301867/Bill-Wyman-Police-interested-Rolling-Stones-affair-13-year-old-Mandy-Smith-claims-slept-14.html

Same offences, same time period, girls same age, guys same age, one with evidence and a book, no interest, one iffy evidence, great interest.

Because Many Smith does not want to press charges or give evidence I would have thought.

So charges against paedophiles are to be decided on the wishes of their victims?

"Yes, officer, he did shag me a lot when I was 14 and he was 50, but he was always very polite and gave me 1/2 million pounds after, so it's OK."

Somehow, that doesn't seem quite right?

That schoolteacher who ran off to France with a 15 yo was prosecuted, despite her wishes (she loved him, no money exchanged hands).

Edited June 8, 2014 by AnotherOneAmerican

[capcc76]

Then we have a scattering of other child sexual abuse allegations in UK since the 1999s. Yeah, lets victims the predator based in rank speculation as I am sure you have no first hand knowledge of his cases other than what you chose to read on the Net.

The details of his cases have been discussed in quite a lot of detail over the years.

Much less evidence against him than say, Michael Jackson or Bill Wyman. Mandy Smith even wrote a book detailing their sex when she was 14.

Bill is now 76, and police are quoted as being "not interested". So one must ask, why no interest in Bill, but great interest in Gary?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301867/Bill-Wyman-Police-interested-Rolling-Stones-affair-13-year-old-Mandy-Smith-claims-slept-14.html

Same offences, same time period, girls same age, guys same age, one with evidence and a book, no interest, one iffy evidence, great interest.

Seriously. You say a professional interest. If a lawyer you would understand that a prosecutor's decision is driven on the facts on a case by case basis and the public may not be privy to all evidence, some admissible and some inadmissible, in the government's possession.

One also have to love the suggestion that a prosecutor's decision to pursue charges in the UK will be or should be dictated by what happened with Michael Jackson in the US.

Individuals victimized sexually as children rarely come forward due to embarrassment, guilt and not wanting to re live the trauma. There are perhaps many more victims of this scum bag all over the world.

Edited June 8, 2014 by capcc76

[Scott]

A lot of cases are prosecuted by the State whether the victim is willing to testify or not. The difficulty is without a victim's testimony it requires a lot of other evidence. As time goes by that evidence gets much harder to produce.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

Seriously. You say a professional interest. If a lawyer you would understand that a prosecutor's decision is driven on the facts on a case by case basis and the public may not be privy to all evidence, some admissible and some inadmissible, in the government's possession.

Not sure about the UK,

But in the US the prosecutors decision is often based on, chances of winning, professional ambition, and the amount of fame the case can generate and re-election.

Just like a lawyers decision, mainly they don't care about justice, right, or wrong, they care about winning, earning money and their reputation for the next cases.

I would never take a case I thought I might lose unless they were gonna pay me a wagon load over the odds.

Edited June 8, 2014 by AnotherOneAmerican

[beautifulthailand99]

Then we have a scattering of other child sexual abuse allegations in UK since the 1999s. Yeah, lets victims the predator based in rank speculation as I am sure you have no first hand knowledge of his cases other than what you chose to read on the Net.

The details of his cases have been discussed in quite a lot of detail over the years.

Much less evidence against him than say, Michael Jackson or Bill Wyman. Mandy Smith even wrote a book detailing their sex when she was 14.

Bill is now 76, and police are quoted as being "not interested". So one must ask, why no interest in Bill, but great interest in Gary?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301867/Bill-Wyman-Police-interested-Rolling-Stones-affair-13-year-old-Mandy-Smith-claims-slept-14.html

Same offences, same time period, girls same age, guys same age, one with evidence and a book, no interest, one iffy evidence, great interest.

Because Many Smith does not want to press charges or give evidence I would have thought.

So charges against paedophiles are to be decided on the wishes of their victims?

"Yes, officer, he did shag me a lot when I was 14 and he was 50, but he was always very polite and gave me 1/2 million pounds after, so it's OK."

Somehow, that doesn't seem quite right?

That schoolteacher who ran off to France with a 15 yo was prosecuted, despite her wishes (she loved him, no money exchanged hands).

hmm the Michael Jackson / Jordon Chandler case comes to mind - MJ paid over 15 million US$. edit actaully over $23mill when lawyers fees were taken into account. It's the Red Bull case again - the rich get to walk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson

Edited June 8, 2014 by beautifulthailand99

[tubby johnson]

Is it Christmas yet? Let's celebrate in June by hanging Glitter.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Fookhaht]

If they are "dallying" with 13 year old girls, perhaps they have earned a look at their "dirty laundry".--chuckd

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't that the age you take a wife--in what is considered one of the most industrialized , & advanced countries in the world---Japan...... or even South Korea

I am not writing in defense of GG--but I expect to get all the knee jerk reactions anyway. The only thing that amazes me about people like him (who have a lot of money & seem to be partial to younger girls) is that they don't go to country's where its not looked at as illegal. Austria, Germany, Portugal, Italy & Canada its 14---& Spain was 13 until quite recently. Argentina, Mexico & Chile its 12--Most of the world (Population wise) its 14 --China & south America.

Why go & be put in Jail somewhere its not. http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

The other point, (which I am sure will make me even more popular) is the misuse of the word Pedophile- A person who is attracted to pre-pubescent children, I don't think that covers Glitter & because the tabloids use it, doesn't make it so. A few years ago a British Tabloid was sued--Successfully -- by an English Teacher who had been Jailed for having sex with one of his students (15) efebafile is the word for a person attracted to Pubescent young girls, 14-15-16. But its much more sensational for the Tabloids to class them all the same, the fact that in the majority of the world--those girls are deem to be ready for marriage, seems to escape them.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ephebophile

vgood post, lets face it and be honest, any number of civilizations and cultures 'create' their own versions of a pattern of how life should be lived for any number of reasons usually associated with the politics of power , but that got all to do with the reality of being human at a fundamental level, when our bodies change at puberty our genes are saying "right get stuck in and make sure your genes survive to new generations, ages are purely relative, i would say its odd NOT to be attracted to an attractive 14 or 15 year old 'young woman' are guys here trying to seriously say when they were 13,14 or 15 or so they didn't like having a fiddle with the local similarly aged girls, get real for the non-existent dieties sake !

Both of your posts are wrong on just about every single level. I guess you would dress this up as a sensible, subjective view but in reality it is pretty sick.

When young girls grow up they may be able to have babies at a very young age but they are NOT mature enough to make decisions about having a sexual relationship. It may be that other countries have differing age for consent, I personally don't agree with anything under 16. i could not ever imagine sleeping with a girl who is as young as 13, it is just so wrong, she is just a kid at that age.

For these guys though they did have sex with young girls under the age of consent in that country so no discussion required.

try and read the post,

fundamental human sexuality is at it is, arbitrary and abstract theories of morality are just that arbitrary, we are a species of ape

that want to survive, our bodies are telling us its time to have kids when we pass puberty, our chromosomes, genes could not give a damn what age group supplies the material for reproduction, of course its 'illegal' to have sex with a young woman aged 14,15 etc, but that's only because an arbitrary civilization has decided that's how it wants it's society ordered. (curiously always decided by a small group of men !!!)

but 'illegal' is often very different from 'wrong' at a fundamental biological level, at the biological level there is only correct or incorrect, at such a level morality does not exist

Moral existentialism, which is what you are spouting, could destroy any society within one generation if everybody followed it.

While lofty sounding, it's totally impractical.

[capcc76]

Reporting on child sexual abuse (CSA) presents a number of challenges. The victimschildren from birth to 17 years of ageare often traumatized by the experience and afraid to come forward. CSA may cause a wide variety of emotional and behavioral problems that make it difficult even for adult survivors to discuss their victimization because of the trauma, shame, and grief associated with the crime.

http://www.victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse

The child is a victim. The child's involvement with an adult offender should never be considered consensual or consenting.

The power imbalance between the adult abuser and child victim presents a number of complexities in reporting on the crime:

. . .

For victims, the act of coming forward takes great strength and courage. Child welfare experts agree that false accusations of CSA are rare.

http://www.victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse

Edited June 8, 2014 by capcc76

[Scott]

A troll post with a video has been removed.

[cyborgx]

Sometimes I feel that this whole "Pedo" thing has got totally out of proportion. Not that I personally feel sexually attracted to 13 year old girls, but the fact is that most girls start ovulating much earlier, and that's not because of any laws or rules set down by so called civilized man, but my nature herself. In any other species when the females become sexually fertile sex and motherhood are the next natural progressions.

History tells us that the age of consent around the world used to be much lower than it is now, and even now some countries have surprisingly low minimum age for marriage and sex.

The fact is that it is only more recent in man's history that this obsession with the early years of our sex life has arisen. I believe this has come because of a combination of many reasons including but not limited to:-

1) Rather than the more natural but supposedly primitive practices of women deciding on who and how many lovers they want, society practically dictates monogamy and frowns upon teenage sex.

2) The again more primitive, but common amongst tribal humans, practice of caring for offspring as a group rather than only by the blood parents, solves the issue of young pregnancies.

3) In current society it is impossible for very young mothers and fathers to provide for their children at this early age

4) Protective parents expect their female children to keep their virginity until around their 20's or until marriage

Yes we all want children to have a nice time when they are young and not be sexually abused, but I also feel that public opinion and society in general have pushed the argument way too far, to the point where I hear its so scary in the west, that men are scared to even touch a child that is not theirs, and that;s just wrong.

Men (and women) are still physically almost the same as our primitive ancestors of a few thousand year ago, and hence have the same hormonal responses as animals in the wild. We may attempt to curb or hide them, but the basic fact is that they are there and in all of us, whether we like them to be or not. The fact is that in today's society, Adults also look for lots of other things in a partner apart from sex i.e. intelligence, similar experience/customs, companionship, protection, ability to provide food & housing etc...., therefore sexual relationships between Adults and Children do not make sense, but it doesn't change the fact that Nature has made both male and females of our species sexual beings at a very early age.

I suggest rather than dwelling on the age issue, it is the forced and abusive sex, along with (as in this case) the use of drugs on children that need to be dealt with.

I'm sure I'll get a load of flames for this, but I just thought it needed to be said, and people reminded that its Mother Nature and natural selection that got us here over millions of years. So, when its a choice between trusting mother nature, or some old bloke in a white wig banging on a table, or some religious zealot who conveniently forgets the churches history of child abuse and prostitution, I'll put my trust in Mother Nature 9 times out of 10.

Don't get me wrong, in the case of Gary Glitter or any other accused Pedophiles, if they've been covertly using illegal drugs to seduce young girls and/or abusing young boys, they deserve to be in prison.

"Not that I personally feel sexually attracted to 13 year old girls, but the fact is that most girls start ovulating much earlier, and that's not because of any laws or rules set down by so called civilized man, but my nature herself. In any other species when the females become sexually fertile sex and motherhood are the next natural progressions."

Sorry you are wrong in your assumptions right from the first paragraph - average age of menarche (first period) is just under 13 years of age in most countries, however 50% of girls STILL have not ovulated 2 years later. You are confusing menarche with fertility and being physically and mentally mature enough for sex and motherhood. You will also find that very young mothers suffer many more problems in gestation and birthing as their minds and bodies are still not mature enough. IMO you are wrong. As an example - mother nature lets me have sex with my sister and produce children - BUT roughly 50% of them will suffer genetic abnormalities incompatible with life. A reading of Thai history is informative here. Mother nature can be nasty too. I will go with her most times but we are not primitive hunter-gatherers any more. We need laws to keep people (especially the likes of Rolf and GG) in their place; which of course is in the nastiest prison you can find for them.

On top of that average menarche occurred 3 or 4 years later in earlier times - science is not 100% sure of all the reasons although diet and body fat content is a factor - which following your argument would suggest the girls of today are ready years before girls of yesteryear. I believe the opposite. I read somewhere today's average 8 y.o. has absorbed as much information as our grandparents did in a lifetime. Modern society is so much more complex today; full physical maturity is reached by twenty but full psychological maturity is not reached until the mid-twenties. If you're living a simple agrarian life maybe a few years earlier.

ALL convicted pedophiles should be locked up and castrated. No time limits and no exceptions. There is no other cure.

In YOUR opinion I am wrong, but I am NOT "confusing menarche with fertility". One is a sign of the other ans they are very closely related. If you are basing your statements on Wikipedia, then you should have noted that it states "The worldwide average age of menarche is very difficult to estimate accurately". In my opinion the average is earlier than 13, but even if we were to agree on 13, my other statements are still valid.

As far as female maturity is concerned, it is generally accepted that females mature mentally earlier than males, which would perhaps equate a 13 year old girl with a 16 year old boy. My point was that nature has made girls fertile at a very early age, and it is society that has "recently" enforced these higher age limits.

I agree that young pregnancies can have complication, but so can late ones too. Do you then ban late (i.e. elderly) pregnancies based on this criteria? No of course not.

A valid point of yours is that occasionally Nature gets it wrong, that's why I said 9 times out of 10. Perhaps the wild aberations caused by inbreeding is nature's way of trying to make drastic changes to a species before the gene pool runs out and the species becomes extinct..... Just a thought, not something I would argue over one way or the other.

I agree that FULL physical maturity comes later, but that was not my point.

I agree that mental maturity in our current society is important too. The fact that you state today's children have absorbed so much more information at the same age as our more primitive ancestors, goes to show that they are at least as capable of caring for their offspring as their early pregnant predecessors.

My point was and still is that IMHO young pregnacies can be a problem for many reasons, but to make it a serious legal offence is going too far, unless it also involves force, abuse, or improper use of drugs etc.

Finally, it is important to note that at the ages of 12 upwards, we are not talking about Pedophiles. Pedophile generally refers to ages 11 and below, which is below the ages that I am talking about, and IMHO is a very different problem, and in my opinion Pedophilia is definitely a serious offence.

Edited June 9, 2014 by cyborgx

[cyborgx]

GAZZPA...If my post is wrong on every single level, then you just have to point out where those faults (lies) are. You have set an age of 16 for a person to have sex -- many countries in the world would be aghast at that view (USA included) they think its much to young.

If you feel that the majority of the worlds population are "Pretty Sick" so be it, I don't intend to throw insults at you for your opinion.

For these guys though they did have sex with young girls under the age of consent in that country so no discussion required...GAZZPA

Oh OK if you have closed all the discussion GAZZPA ....I guess that's it then.......

This man has a history of raping children so your references to age of consent on this particular topic are in very poor taste and of course will not likely make you popular (which you mention yourself). If I had the same views as you I would keep it to myself,, saying you do not understand why he doesn't go to countries that have a lower age of consent sounds dangerously close to defending/justifying him for what he does to children, you obviously can't see this but to be very clear "he is a child rapist".

And yes, discussion is closed, she wasn't old enough to consent and he raped her.

I think you are giving sanuk711 a hard time and basically telling him to shutup, which as far as I know is against TV forum rules. Now I'm not an expert on GG's cases in UK and elsewhere, but just reading this thread shows that there is some confusion over EXACTLY what he has been accused of and what and where he has been convicted of.

As already stated above, I am totally against Pedophilia (using its generally accepted definition), and I understand that GG's case involved at least 1 kid around 8 years old. Perhaps someone could briefly list his Accusations, in which countries along with e results of each case.

[cyborgx]

Yes, I buy the 277 interpretation, but you were wrong in France and Spain. Spain has an 18 year age requirement for marriage, but raised the minimum age for marriage with parental consent from 14 (not 13) to 16. Legal age for marriage in France is 18 for both male and female, but 15 with both parents' consent.

Curious as to what kinds of old weirdos have to keep up with or know this stuff. I am 47, wife is 32, and God knows I wouldn't want one younger.

Me keeping up with this stuff, professional interest.

Anyway GG appears to have been convicted in the UK for porn on his PC, reviewing his conviction, I'm not sure the chain of possession of evidence was clear enough for him to have been convicted in any country but the UK. It certainly wouldn't have gone anywhere in the US.

His conviction in Vietnam, very iffy, and involving parental consent, did the parents go to jail too, or was it 'extort a foreigner week"

Now we have accusations in the UK form 30-40 years ago, some of those slightly strange too.

One wonders why all the slightly underage perverts haven't just moved to Spain where it's perfectly legal?

This is good, more details on the Vietnam and more recent cases would be good.

[cyborgx]

fundamental human sexuality is at it is, arbitrary and abstract theories of morality are just that arbitrary, we are a species of ape

that want to survive, our bodies are telling us its time to have kids when we pass puberty, our chromosomes, genes could not give a damn what age group supplies the material for reproduction, of course its 'illegal' to have sex with a young woman aged 14,15 etc, but that's only because an arbitrary civilization has decided that's how it wants it's society ordered. (curiously always decided by a small group of men !!!)

but 'illegal' is often very different from 'wrong' at a fundamental biological level, at the biological level there is only correct or incorrect, at such a level morality does not exist

Very well put.

[shadmo63]

w the ages that I am talking about, and IMHO is a very different problem, and in my opinion Pedophilia is definitely a serious offence.[/font][/color][/quot

@Cyborgx you make some valid points, and diplomatically too which I appreciate. Yes I personally have a problem with fully mature males going after young pre-pubescent AND young post-pubescent girls. There is an imbalance there in their stages of maturity. My own poor daughter reached menarche at 9.5 years

[shadmo63]

fundamental human sexuality is at it is, arbitrary and abstract theories of morality are just that arbitrary, we are a species of ape

that want to survive, our bodies are telling us its time to have kids when we pass puberty, our chromosomes, genes could not give a damn what age group supplies the material for reproduction, of course its 'illegal' to have sex with a young woman aged 14,15 etc, but that's only because an arbitrary civilization has decided that's how it wants it's society ordered. (curiously always decided by a small group of men !!!)

but 'illegal' is often very different from 'wrong' at a fundamental biological level, at the biological level there is only correct or incorrect, at such a level morality does not exist

Very well put.

Despite it being 'abstract and arbitrary' it is still absolutely required. The argument here is exactly what age we put it at. I am for later adolescence whereas you guys seem to be for earlier adolescence. Even in late adolescence a persons thinking is still not fully mature. Most late adolescents still only see the world from their own perspective, not from a wider point of view. They can be easily taken advantage of and are prone to make poor decisions.

[cyborgx]

w the ages that I am talking about, and IMHO is a very different problem, and in my opinion Pedophilia is definitely a serious offence.[/font][/color][/quot

@Cyborgx you make some valid points, and diplomatically too which I appreciate. Yes I personally have a problem with fully mature males going after young pre-pubescent AND young post-pubescent girls. There is an imbalance there in their stages of maturity. My own poor daughter reached menarche at 9.5 years

Thank's I try to be sensible and polite, unless I get responses that seem to have not understood/ingnored what I have written.

Your statement is understandable from a father's standpoint, and it is very true that it is hard to justify any kind of relationships with a massive age difference. The discussion then starts to lean towards Prostitution and sexual services for financial rewards, upwards social mobiity etc.. which is going of topic, but which in fact is exactly my point. Ages 12-15 are a bit of a grey area, but they seem to be frequently dealt with and interpreted as being the same as cases of Pedophilia (11 and below). IMHO they are very different, and need to be handled differently too.

[cyborgx]

fundamental human sexuality is at it is, arbitrary and abstract theories of morality are just that arbitrary, we are a species of ape

that want to survive, our bodies are telling us its time to have kids when we pass puberty, our chromosomes, genes could not give a damn what age group supplies the material for reproduction, of course its 'illegal' to have sex with a young woman aged 14,15 etc, but that's only because an arbitrary civilization has decided that's how it wants it's society ordered. (curiously always decided by a small group of men !!!)

but 'illegal' is often very different from 'wrong' at a fundamental biological level, at the biological level there is only correct or incorrect, at such a level morality does not exist

Very well put.

Despite it being 'abstract and arbitrary' it is still absolutely required. The argument here is exactly what age we put it at. I am for later adolescence whereas you guys seem to be for earlier adolescence. Even in late adolescence a persons thinking is still not fully mature. Most late adolescents still only see the world from their own perspective, not from a wider point of view. They can be easily taken advantage of and are prone to make poor decisions.

I agree that lines have to be drawn somewhere, but I also believe that we can make poor decisions at any age. Good education and parenting is part of the solution, and appropriate punishments that fit the crimes another (i.e. not treating the rape of a 6 year old the same as consensual sex of a 14 year old)..

[spectrumisgreen]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I'm not familiar with GG's songs, but it's a bit unfair that, because of his fame, there's so much focus on his private dallyings. I'd bet a lot of T.Visa posters wouldn't want their dirty laundry looked at with a fine tooth comb and magnifying glass.

If they are "dallying" with 13 year old girls, perhaps they have earned a look at their "dirty laundry".

This guy is a filthy pedophile and has been his entire adult life. I'm just surprised anybody would try and defend him.

'A BIT UNFAIR'??? You never heard of either morality OR law? And I'm pretty damn sure you don't need a 'fine tooth comb' or a magnifying glass to find huge rat-sized cockroaches in someones stinking, collapsing closet, where all their once seemingly shiny array of togs are now festering in a heap!!! Not sure if this is Gadd/Glitter's lawyer or someone just retarded in some way but the 'poor', now completely glitterless and fading fast one is not being picked on or 'focused on' because he's guilty of nothing more than a few basically harmless misdeeds in his past, that didn't really hurt others.. he's got a history of paedophilia and has harmed kids, mentally and physically to suit his own patently sick perversions!!.. defend that in any way and think of it only as a bit of 'dirty laundry' then your thinking and all those who are 'liking' such a post are either misguided or disconnected with reality in the extreme, or simply ain't much better than your 'champion', if at all!!.. what's YOUR dirty laundry to feel so protective towards a guy like this, anyway???.. More than this.. enough trying to explain what doesn't need to be explained while people like you defend the undefendable (yes, I said it again!.. I just can hardly believe such dolts exist!!), I hope and pray you all rot in a burning hell together, scumbags!!!!!!! (ps: lock up time, methinks!!!)

Edited June 9, 2014 by spectrumisgreen

[GAZZPA]

If they are "dallying" with 13 year old girls, perhaps they have earned a look at their "dirty laundry".--chuckd

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't that the age you take a wife--in what is considered one of the most industrialized , & advanced countries in the world---Japan...... or even South Korea

I am not writing in defense of GG--but I expect to get all the knee jerk reactions anyway. The only thing that amazes me about people like him (who have a lot of money & seem to be partial to younger girls) is that they don't go to country's where its not looked at as illegal. Austria, Germany, Portugal, Italy & Canada its 14---& Spain was 13 until quite recently. Argentina, Mexico & Chile its 12--Most of the world (Population wise) its 14 --China & south America.

Why go & be put in Jail somewhere its not. http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

The other point, (which I am sure will make me even more popular) is the misuse of the word Pedophile- A person who is attracted to pre-pubescent children, I don't think that covers Glitter & because the tabloids use it, doesn't make it so. A few years ago a British Tabloid was sued--Successfully -- by an English Teacher who had been Jailed for having sex with one of his students (15) efebafile is the word for a person attracted to Pubescent young girls, 14-15-16. But its much more sensational for the Tabloids to class them all the same, the fact that in the majority of the world--those girls are deem to be ready for marriage, seems to escape them.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ephebophile

vgood post, lets face it and be honest, any number of civilizations and cultures 'create' their own versions of a pattern of how life should be lived for any number of reasons usually associated with the politics of power , but that got <deleted> all to do with the reality of being human at a fundamental level, when our bodies change at puberty our genes are saying "right get stuck in and make sure your genes survive to new generations, ages are purely relative, i would say its odd NOT to be attracted to an attractive 14 or 15 year old 'young woman' are guys here trying to seriously say when they were 13,14 or 15 or so they didn't like having a fiddle with the local similarly aged girls, get <deleted> real for the non-existent dieties sake !

Both of your posts are wrong on just about every single level. I guess you would dress this up as a sensible, subjective view but in reality it is pretty sick.

When young girls grow up they may be able to have babies at a very young age but they are NOT mature enough to make decisions about having a sexual relationship. It may be that other countries have differing age for consent, I personally don't agree with anything under 16. i could not ever imagine sleeping with a girl who is as young as 13, it is just so wrong, she is just a kid at that age.

For these guys though they did have sex with young girls under the age of consent in that country so no discussion required.

<deleted> try and read the post,

fundamental human sexuality is at it is, arbitrary and abstract theories of morality are just that arbitrary, we are a species of ape

that want to survive, our bodies are telling us its time to have kids when we pass puberty, our chromosomes, genes could not give a damn what age group supplies the material for reproduction, of course its 'illegal' to have sex with a young woman aged 14,15 etc, but that's only because an arbitrary civilization has decided that's how it wants it's society ordered. (curiously always decided by a small group of men !!!)

but 'illegal' is often very different from 'wrong' at a fundamental biological level, at the biological level there is only correct or incorrect, at such a level morality does not exist

So, basically we are animals and we have urges that are natural. You are not being clever or profound with your views on "man made laws" versus "natural human instinct", everyone knows we are animals.

ALL laws are written by man, and they are written to set a framework in society so we all live in a civilized manner. They are not arbitrary laws based upon unnatural morality, they do not go against the grain of natural human instinct, they are deep seated and clearly accepted by the vast majority of people (unless of course you are a criminal offender) and most people agree with the law protecting children against sexual abuse.

We have laws to protect ourselves, and specifically we have laws against child rape to protect children who are not able to protect themselves against sexual predators. Whether the girl has started menstruating or not is irrelevant, it is not about her physical ability to bear children that the law is written. It is about her being ready to make a decision for herself whether or not to have intercourse.

If you don't agree with the whole law and order thing because you believe that they are "unnatural" I suggest you go and find a quiet corner of the world uninhabited by humans and live by yourself.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

We have laws to protect ourselves, and specifically we have laws against child rape to protect children who are not able to protect themselves against sexual predators. Whether the girl has started menstruating or not is irrelevant, it is not about her physical ability to bear children that the law is written. It is about her being ready to make a decision for herself whether or not to have intercourse.

First time I've ever heard of groupies jumping pop stars as "child rape".

Which is what these accusations from events happening 30-40 years ago essentially are.

Still asking Why Gary and not Bill.

Bill's admitted it, everyone knew about it at the time, she wrote a book about it!

Gary always denied it, shouldn't the police chase an easy prosecution and conviction?

[Ulysses G.]

First time I've ever heard of groupies jumping pop stars as "child rape".

You have a point. Free will has to enter into it somewhere when it comes to sex.

[tw25rw]

First time I've ever heard of groupies jumping pop stars as "child rape".

You have a point. Free will has to enter into it somewhere when it comes to sex.

In the UK it's at age 16.